Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

the passage represent himself as having seen at all!-Yet these are the interpreters of Scripture, who reprimand 'us for our "remote deductions;" who represent us as "contriving "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 "cer"tainly the coincidences are a little remarkable, but that "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 "these passages forces upon our minds."

Mr. Yates's translation of Jer. xxiii. 6, "This is the "name whereby he shall be called, JEHOVAH IS OUR PROS"PERITY," seems a very unaccountable one. That "right"eousness" 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, “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 translation.“ 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

t

B b

"JEHOVAH shall all the seed of Israel BE JUSTIFIED, and "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. "This is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord 66 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 "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 "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 "Jehovah our Righteousness." "It is generally agreed," says Dr. Guyse, "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

66

eousness, is descriptive of Christ by that name, which it "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. xxiii. 6,-that the grand characteristic distinction of

• Sermons on the Divinity of Christ; Sermon III. near the end,

the church of God is, that all its constituent members trust and glory in HIM who is there named "JEHOVAH THEIR "RIGHTEOUSNESS;"-that the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Jehovah in the human nature, is a fundamental article in its constitution, in the charter of its privileges and hopes;-that " JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUS"NESS" is the song and the boast of all the followers of the Captain of Salvation, the motto on the banners of the church militant;-banners which shall at length be suspended in the temple above, retaining their appropriate inscription, when the warfare of the church shall terminate in everlasting peace.

[ocr errors]

སྐ

With regard to Zech. xiii. 7. " Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against THE MAN THAT IS MY FELLOW, "saith JEHOVAH OF HOSTS:" I am fully convinced myself, notwithstanding the authorities produced by Newcome to the contrary, that the passage refers to the sufferings of Christ, and to their consequences as to the nation of the Jews, and the true Israel:-and that the proper sense of the appellation "MY FELLOW" is, "the companion, equal, 66 compeer, of the Lord of hosts; the Son of the Father; "the Word that was with God, and was God;"" "SHEPHERD" who is called "THE LORD GOD,” in Isa. xl. 9-11.-But as the word translated "Fellow," is one which does not of itself necessarily imply equality, it might be difficult, on grounds merely critical, derived from the phraseology of the text itself, to establish the justice of this interpretation to the satisfaction of those who are not previously convinced of the great and blessed truth for which I am contending. Mr. Yates says, that, "to produce this passage as one in which the

[ocr errors]

* Scott's Commentary on the text.

the same

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

❝ther, exclusive of the Son, who said, 'I sware by myself,' "or as I live,' every knee shall bow to me,' &c. this ❝ would have been so far from proving, as the apostle in"tends and argues, that we shall all stand before the judg❝ment-seat of Christ,' that it would have proved just the con"trary; because Christ is not that God that there sware by "himself, and consequently not that God, whom by that oath "we are obliged to stand before, and bow the knee, and con“fess to. But if Christ is that God who there'sware that every "knee should bow, and every tongue confess to him,' then "the proof is cogent and unanswerable, that we all shall stand "before his judgment-seat." *

On 1 Cor. i. 30, 31. compared with Isa. xlv. 25. Mr. Yates simply says, "That the title LORD is here equivalent to JEHO"VAH, is evident from the passage of Isaiah alluded to by the "apostle, Isa. xlv. 25. The meaning evidently is, that

166

men should glory in God, by whom Christ has been made unto "them wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and re"demption." Page 201. But this is not by any means so very clear. Christ is, in the 30th verse, designated as our "righte

66

ousness," (which, as distinguished from sanctification, means "our justification:")-The passage in Isaiah says, " IN THE LORD (JEHOVAH) shall all the seed of Israel BE JUSTIFIED.” CHRIST, then, is " JEHOVAH, in whom all the seed of Israel “ARE JUSTIFIED, and in whom they glory."

The application of the title "MY LORD," in Psal. cx. 1. to CHRIST, made by Christ himself, and particularly noticed by me, in closing this branch of the subject, Mr. Yates passes over sub silentio. He must either have felt it too much for him, or thought it too little. The Pharisees of old were in the former predicament.

* Sermons on the Deity of Christ, Sermon III.

CHAPTER VI.

IN Chapter VI. Mr. Yates examines "THE PASSAGES IN "WHICH THE PECULIAR ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY ARE SUPPOSED 66 TO BE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST."

1. Eternal existence.

His remarks on the passages adduced under this particular, · strikingly shew the imbecility of his cause.

[ocr errors]

John viii. 58. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abra"ham was, I am."-No attempt is made to invalidate my reasoning on this text. "Mr. Wardlaw remarks," says Mr. Yates, "concerning this passage, 'Our Lord expressly affirms, "that he existed before Abraham.' The truth of his observa❝tion will be admitted probably by all Unitarians who believe "in the pre-existence of Christ." Page 202.-Is Mr. Yates himself, then, one of these? He does not say. The words of Jesus must mean something. What then does he understand to be their meaning? He does not tell us. And such is his way. When he thinks he can make any text to comport with the simple manhood of Christ, he tries it. When he feels himself pinched by any text on this hypothesis, he takes refuge behind that of his pre-existence, as the first of creatures. We are left thus to conclude, that Mr. Yates considers it as a matter of little or no consequence, whether Jesus was the first and most exalted of creatures, or a mere man, the offspring of Joseph and Mary; and the Scriptures as leaving this point quite unsettled. No matter what he be, it should seem, provided it can be shown that he is not God.

"After sounding his shrill clarion," Mr. Yates continues, "through three pages, over the Socinian expositors, he ob

« PreviousContinue »