« AnteriorContinuar »
is a right sceptre. Thon lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness : therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of glad. ness above thy fellows. Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir. Hearken, 0 daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house; So shall the King greatly desire thy beauty; for he is thy Lord, and worship thou him. Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou myest make princes in all the earth.” If the application of the word “God” in an accommodated sense entitle Jesus to deity, how much more properly should the direct application of the same word “God” to Solomon, according to the Editor, exalt him to a participation in the divine nature.
The Editor afterwards quotes, in defence of the deity of Jesus, Psalm CII. 25-27. referred to by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 1.10–12: “ Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the works of thy hand, they shall perish but thou remainest, and they all shall wax old as doth a garment and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” The construction here ad. mits of two interpretations ; one is that verses 10, 11, and 12, are in continuation of verses 8, and 9th, addressed to the son by God as supposed by the Editor : the other is that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews invokes his divine majesty by quoting Psalm CII. 25-27. after he has, in the preceding verse introduced the vame of God as anointing the son above his fellows, to shew the continual duration of he honour bestowed on the son as flowing from the unchangeable and preserving power of the bestower of that honor. To ascertain which of these two interpretations the Apostle had in view let us now refer to the context. One's exal. tation above his fellows by another on account of his merit as stated in the preceding verse (9.) is quite inconsistent with the immutable character men ioned in verses 10–12. and therefore these two opposite qualities can by no means be ascribed to the same being. Again in the following verse, (13.) the apostle to prove thie superiority of the son over angels asks “ to which of the angels said he at any time, sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.”? Here common sense dictates that if such expressions as "thou
Lord in the begining hast laid the foundation of the earth &c. a vesture shalt thou fold them up;” and “thou art the same and thy years shall not fail” had been meant by the apostle as applicable to Jesus, he would not in setting forth the digvity of the son, have added the words “ Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool," which imply a much inferior nature to that attributed in the preceding passage, and which indeed may be parallelled by other expressions found in scripture applied to mere human beings. Deut. XXXII. 10. “ fle (Jehovah) kept him as the apple of his eye” Isajab XLIX. 16. “ Behold I have graven thee upon the palms of my · hands” Psalm XLVII. 3. “ He (Jehovah) shall subdue the people under us and the nations une der our feet" In describing the superior courage and strength of a man who is reporte i to have overpowered a lion and also a dog, no one endued with common sense would after stating the former fact, adduce the latter as an additional proof of couraye and strength, as it is evident that to kill a dog is a feat by no meaus of so wonderful a nature as that of overcoming a lion. My reader may recollect Matthew XXII. 45. “If David then call him (the Messiah) Lord, how is he his sou?” which telis is that Jesus disproves the assertion of the Mes
siah beiog the son of David on the ground that no father could consistently call his son “ Lord” much less could be apply to his son the term “ my Lord.” Were we to admit the first interpretation upheld by the Editor and to consider the passage 6thou Lord in the beginning &c." as a part of the address of Jehovah to Jesus, we must, in conformity to the argument used by Jesus himself in Matthew XXII. 45. relinquish the commonly received doctrine that Jesus is the son of God, and actually admit his superiority to the father of the universe, who, according to the Editor, addresses him as “Lord” in Hebrews v. 10. Either therefore the Editor most abandon the opinion that God the father addresses Jesus as Lord, in the passage referred to, or he must cease to consider him as the “son of God.”
The Editor again uses the word Jehovah in verse 10, and reads " Thou Jehovah in the beginning &c." instead of “ Thou Lord in the begining &c.” without assigning any reason for his deviating from the English version, as well as the Hebrew and Greek originals. For in the original Hebrew here is no " Jehovah' mentioned in Psalm CII. 25. and consequently in the Greek passare Hebrews I. 10. which is a quotation of the same verse of the above Psalm the term xugie caunot be supposed to be intended as a translation of the word Jehovah. So in the English version the verse stands thus “thou Lord in the begining” &c. I shall however feel obliged to the Reyd. Editor, if he cau point out to me any authority for his substitution of the word “i Jehovah”. for Lord in the verse in question.'
With a view to weaken the strength of the evidence found in 1 Corinthians XV. 24. as to the changeable nature of Christ, the Editor says (page 562.) “ His original throne as Jehovah God is for ever and ever; his mediatorial throne remains for a season and then ceases.”. I have already noticed in page 27 and 133 of the Second Appeal and in the foregoing chapter of this work that the terın for ever or similar terms when used for a creature or a begotten son signify in scriptural idiom long duration of tiine. My reader therefore by referring to those instances will be convinced that neither Solomon to whom Psalm CII. 25. is directly applied, nor Jesus to whom the apostle applies the said verse in the above psalm in an accommodated sense, can be supposed to be endued with a throne or kingdom that never will cease; a question which St. Paul decides in the most plain and