« PreviousContinue »
PERSON before whose face, according to the prophets, the messenger was to be sent, to prepare his way; and whether the various designations and names by which that person was prophetically distinguished, and JEHOVAH among the rest, do not fairly and evidently belong to him, I leave the reader to judge. The figurative nature of the language used by some of the prophets, on which Mr. Yates enlarges, in pages 194—196, has nothing whatever to do with the argument.
The next passage is Heb. i. 10. “ And, thou, LORD, “ in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; " and the heavens are the works of thine hands."
With regard to this passage, Mr. Yates makes the following important admissions :-" I shall grant to Mr. Ward“ law, that the word LORD ought here to be considered 6 as equivalent to JEHOVAH; nor am I disposed to con
sider this passage as a sudden apostrophe to God, because, " although this interprétation is very suitable to the idiom “ of our language, I know of nothing parallel to it in the « Scriptures. The only question, therefore, is, whether this
quotation was intended by the writer as an address to Christ." (P. 196.)
I am satisfied that the question should stand as thus stated. The sole reason assigned by Mr. Yates for not understanding the words as, in the application of them by the apostle, an address to the Son, is what I have already noticed, page 176, with regard to the meaning of the prepo sition IPO: in verse 8. Taking my observations on that criticism of Mr. Yates along with him, let the reader now remark:
1. The former quotation, as was then noticed, in whatever way you render TIPOs, is an address to the Son, and can
be nothing else. It is admitted to be so by Mr. Yates, who translates it, “ Thy throne, O God,"--calls it an.“ invo"cation," and contends that in this invocation of the Son, God is used in its inferior sense. Such is the ground he takes as to the first address.
Now, the second quotation is an address too. Is « LORD,” then, to be also taken in its inferior sense? No. Mr. Yates admits that it means JEHOVAH. He says, the words are an “ address to Jehovah, referring to the government of “ Christ."-(P. 217.) Mr. Yates shows us in this, how well he can at times satisfy himself with a remote deduction."
The words in the quotation, under the form of an address to Jehovah, contain no more then a simple declaration of his power in the creation of heaven and earth, of his immutability, and his eternal existence. To the government of Christ there is, in the words themselves, no sort of reference, direct or remote.-Socinian ingenuity has framed à reference, by connecting the power, and immutability, and eternity of Jehovah with the perpetuity of the reign of Christ; and this they think quite natural and easy. But it is bringing out of the passage what is not in it. The reference is entirely gratuitous. It is truly a "remote de“ duction.” But besides, such an interpretation deprives the passage of all peculiarity of application to the apostle's purpose.--His purpose is, to show the superiority of Christ to angels.-But, unless the words quoted are considered as addressed to Christ, what are they to this purpose ? How is a declaration that JEHOVAH created the heavens and the earth, that he is immutable, and everlasting, to be made to bear upon this point ? For my own part, I can see nothing in the words, on this interpretation, to prevent them being prefaced with concerning the angels he saith,"
with just as much propriety as “ concerning the Son he « saith.”
Mr. Yates adopts the ordinary Unitarian method of setting aside that most plain and convincing proof of JESUS being Jehovah, derived from comparing Isa. vi. 1-5. with John xii. 37–41. He may, if he please, call it a "remote de6 duction" by which this proof is obtained. I still deny, as before, that it is a deduction at all. It is as plain and pointed a declaration as the Evangelist could have made, that the GLORY OF JEHOVAH, seen by the prophet, on the occasion referred to, was the GLORY OF CHRIST. “ He saw “ his glory,” says the Evangelist, “and spake of him." Let the reader look at Isa. vi. and he will find in it a description of the GLORY which, on the occasion referred to, the prophet saw. But, according to Mr. Yates and his brethren, the glory which the Evangelist says Isaiah saw, was not at all the glory which Isaiah describes as having been seen by him, but something entirely different ;--and something too, it is remarkable, of which there is no mention whatever made in the whole of the vision there recorded. “ He contemplated,” says Mr. Yates, “the future glory of “ Christ displayed in the performance of miracles." This, it seems, was the glory which he “sar,"_i. e. which he “fore“ saw." Yet of this glory no notice is taken by the prophet in the passage :-not a word is said about it.
Can any thing, then, be more arbitrary than this ? Isaiah tells us of the glory which he saw,—viz. the glory of JEHOVAH; and the Evangelist says, “These things said Esaias 6 when he saw his glory." Yet we must not suppose the glory mentioned in the two passages to be the same; but the glory mentioned by John to be something entirely different ; and glory too which the prophet does not in
the passage represent himself as having seen at all!-Yet these are the interpreters of Scripturę, who reprimand 'us for our remote deductions ;” who represent us as “contriving 66 to deduce an argument” for the divinity of Jesus from “a “ mysterious and far-fetched interpretation" of the Evangelist's words.—1 pity the man who, on weighing the comparative claims of the two interpretations, can satisfy himself with pronouncing ours a "patched-up argument," and giving it the go-by with a constrained admission that cers 6 tainly the coincidences' are a little remarkable, but that 66 they afford not the shadow of a proof that Jesus is JE“ HOVAH.”—I repeat, with increased confidence, that “there " is no evading the inference which the comparison of 6 these passages forces upon our minds."
Mr. Yates's translation of Jer. xxiï. 666 This is the $6 name whereby he shall be called, JEHOVAH IS OUR PROS“ PERITY," seems a very unaccountable one. That “right66 cousness" is the usual, and the proper, rendering of the word which he translates « prosperity," is beyond question. Indeed, I know not of any instance in which it has the signification he annexes to it.-Blayney translates the verse - And this is the name by which JEHOVAH shall call him, 6 OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS ;”—and he apologizes, on the ground of his obligation to faithfulness as a critic, for the offence which might be taken by some, at being deprived of this proof of the divinity of Christ. There is more plausibility in this version. Yet there does not appear to be any
sufficient ground for departing from the ordinary transla- tion." JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS," is an appellation which precisely corresponds with the phraseology of other passages—such as, for example, Isa. xlv. 24, 25, “ Surely “ shall one say, IN JEHOVAH have I RIGHTEOUSNESS :-In
« JEHOVAH shall all the seed of Israel BE JUSTIFIED, and 6 shall glory:" ---And the established version of the text seems to be quite as consistent as the other with the syntax and idiom of the Hebrew language. . With respect to the parallel passage in chap. xxxiii. 16. 6. This is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord so our Righteousness,” the mere English reader will observe that the words “is the name" are supplementary. The verse is translated by Blayney, in consistency with his view of chap. xxiii. 6. “ And this is he whom JEHOVAH shall s6 call ouR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” He says, the pronominal affix, (rendered she in our version) is not the feminine affix, but the masculine in the Chaldee form. Assuming this as correct, the words might be rendered, and, as the same person is spoken of in both passages, under the same titles, it seems reasonable to harmonize them, when it can be done so simply)—" This is he whom they shall call (or who 66 shall be called) Jehovah our Righteousness." -Others, however, considering the pronominal affix as feminine, would render the words. This person who shall call her, is 6 Jehovah our Righteousness.” : “ It is generally agreed," says Dr. Guyse, s that this” (viz. the ordinary version) “ is “ a very odd translation of that text, which ought to be “ rendered, · He who shall call her, is Jehovah our Right“eousness. And so the Lord, or Jehovah, our Right« eousness, is descriptive of Christ by that name, which it 66 was said in the xxiiid chapter he should be called by."* If, however, after all, the common version shall by any be retained, the meaning will be, on comparing it with chap. xxiij. 6,-that the grand characteristic distinction of
Sermons on the Divinity of Christ; Sermon III. near the end,