« AnteriorContinuar »
every knee shall bow through Christ before whose judgment-seat we shall stand “because the father has committed the office of final judyment to him," as being founded upon the best authority that man can appeal to.
Upon the interpretation of the above mentioned passage of Isaiah, to wit, “it is Jesus that swears here by himself," Tobserved in my Second Appeal, “how cau they escape the context which expressly informs us ihat Jehovah God and not Jesus sware in this man. ner.” To this the Editor replies that the son was Jehovah before he was Jesus' &c. Is not this mierely a begging of the question, inasmuch as one may equally assert that Moses or Joshua was Jehovah before he was Moses or Joshua ?
He further says that “ Jesus is so preeminently saviour that there is salvation in no other.” I agree with the Editor so far as to de. clare Jesus to be, under God, the only saviour mentioned in the records of the Christian dispensation, but previous to his birth there were many saviours raised by God to save his sere vants, as noticed already in page 64 and 72.
The Editor adds that in v. 24. righteousness is used in such a sense as is principally applie
čable to the son. I therefore transcribe the verse that the reader may judge whether or not his position has any foundation. 24. “ Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength, even to him shall men come, and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.”
Respecting the attempt to prove the deity of Jesus from the circumstance of his being fi:uratively represented as the husband or the supporter of his church, John III. 29. Ephe. V. 23. and also God's being called the husband of his creatures, Isaiah LIV. 5. I requested in my Second Appeal (page 148.) that my rea. ders would 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 therefore an inequality of authority evidently ascribed to God and to Jesus. Moreover Christ himself shows the relation that existed between him and his church, and himself and God, in John XV. 1.“ I am the true vine and my father is the husbandman” 5. "I am the vine, ye are the branches." &c. Would it not be highly unreasonable to set at defiance the distinction drawn by Jesus be.
tween God, hiaself, and his church? The Editor has not taken the least notice of this last argument; he only glances over the for. mer, saying (page 579.) “ had our author exą. mined the context with sufficient care, he would have found that those to whom God declares himself the husband are so far from being all his creatures, that they are only one branch of his church, the Gentiles, the children of the desolate, in opposition to the Jews, the children of the married wife." I wonder how the choice of the designation “ thy maker” in Isaiah LIV, 5. in preference to others, and its true force could escape the notice of the Edie tor; as the phrase "thy maker is thy husband” implies in a general sense that whoso. ever is the maker is also the preserver, and consequently God is the husband or the pre. server of all his creatures, including the Jews more especially as his chosen people. I however wish to know how the Editor justifies himself in concluding real unity between God and Jesus from the application of the term husband to them, while Jesus declares the re. lation between God, himself, and his church to be such as that existing between the husbandman, the vine, and its branches.
Some orthodox divines having attempted to establish the deity of Jesus by comparing Je.
remiah XXIII. 5. 6. (" I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper--and this is his name whereby he shall be called THE LORD OUR · RIGHTEOUSNESS'') with 1st. Cor. I. 30 ( Christ Jesus who of God is made unto iis wisdom, and righteousness &c.") I replied in my Second Appeal (page 142 ) that“ I only refer my readers again to the passage in Jeremiah XXXIII. 16. in which Jerusalem also is called “ THE LORD our RIGATEOUSNESS” and to the phrase " IS Made unto uş of God” found in the passage in question and expressing the inferiority of Je. sus to God; and also to 2 Cor. V. 21. “that we might be made the righteousness of God in hinr;" where St. Paul says that all Christians may “be made the righteousness of God;" to : which the Revd. Editor thus replies-(page 480.) “ this does not at all affect the question in hand, which is simply whether this righteous branch of David, this king who shall reign and prosper be Jesus Christ or not; and to prove this we need only call in the testimo. ny of the angel to Mary; Luke 1. 32. 33. “ the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever.” The Eviitor here 0. verlooks again the force of the phrase “ God shall give unto him (Jesus) the throne of his
father David,” implying that the throne and exaltation which Jesus was possessed of was but the fiee gijt of God.
To lessen the force of such phrases as “ bring made of God,” “ God shall give unto him” &c. the Editor adds that “ relative to his “ being made of God righteousness to us,"— this can of course make no alteration in the son's eternal nature.” I therefore beg to ask the Editor, if one's being made by another any thing whatsoever that he was not before does not tend to prove his mutable nature, what nature then can be called mutable in this transitory world? The Editor again advances that Jesus “ was Jehovah before he became incarnate &c.” This is a bare assertion which I must maintain to be without any ground, unJess he means to advance the doctrine that souls are emanations of God and proceed from the deity.
As to Jerusalem being called “ Jehovah our righteousness" the Editor says “ we may observe that it is the church of Christ, the holy Jerusalem who bears this name to the honor of her gloriously head and husband who is indeed Jehovah her righteousness” (page 581.) Let us reflect on this answer of