Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

verse 21. "And saviours, shall come upon mount Zion to judge the mounts of Esau and the kingdom shall be Jehovah's." To justify the application to Jesus of the noun "Saviours" though found in the plural form, he thus argues "should he (the author of the appeals) reply that as the plural number "Saviour" is used, this cannot refer to Christ, we ask him whether he has not (page 98) affirmed that "the plural form is often used in a singular sense as of his masters, meaning his master has given him a wife " The Editor as a diligent student of the Scriptures should have known that the noun in question Saviours" being accompanied with the plural verb "they shall come up," is by no means an analogous case to that of the term "Masters" as found in Exodus XXI. 4. which is connected with the verb singular whereas in Neh. IX. 27. the term "Saviours" is associated with the verb in the plural form and the past tense, as well as with the pronoun plural.

I must therefore maintain the correctness of reading "Saviours" in Obadiah as required in the former alternative of the question put by the Editor, (page 541, L. 34.); finding myself unable to " acknowledge the triune God as proposed by him in the latter alternative: for

having relinquished the notion of the triune, quadrune and decimune gods which I once professed, when immersed in the grosser polytheism prevailing among modern Hindoos; 1 cannot reconcile it to my understanding to find plausibility in one case, while the same notion is of acknowledged absurdity in another. The Editor admits (page 536) the application of the term Saviour to human individuals as pointed out by me, (Second Appeal page 145) yet he is anxious to prove the doctrine of the atonement by the application of that very term to Jesus.

The Editor says (page 542.) that "Micah in Ch. IV. describes Christ's kingdom nearly in the same terms with Isaiah, and in Ch. V. he repeats the place of his birth "thou Bethlehem Ephratah, out of thee shall he come forth unto me-whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting." The testimony to the eternal, deity of Christ given in connection with his birth as man, it is wrong to overlook." Any testimony relating to the birth of Jesus having nothing to do with his atonement, is not in place here, but I will examine the verse here cited in the subsequent part of this discussion, when we come to the subject of the Trinity.

He quotes again Nahum I. 15. for the pur pose of proving Christ's kingdom, which is a subject totaly foreign to that of the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus. "Habakkuk" (says the Editor pare 542)" was evidently no stranger to the doctrine founded on the atonement;" and he then quotes the passage "the just shall live by his faith" as corroborated by Paul Rom. I. and Gal. III. 2; and "the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah" &c. But what faith in, and knowledge of God, as well as faith in the perfection of his attributes, and in the prophets sent by him, has to do with the atone. ment I am at a loss to discover. Does the bare mention of faith by Habakkuk or other prophets prove his or their familiarity with the sacrificial death of Jesus?

He quotes the passage of Haggai II. "thus saith Jehovah; the desire of all nations shall come and will fill this house with glory-the glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former, saith Jehovah of hosts" which the Editor thinks affords decided proof respect. ing both the atonement and the deity of Christ. It is however too deep for my shallow understanding to discover from this passage an allusion to either of these doctrines, much less that it is a decided proof of them. Were we to un

derstand by the word "temple" in both instances in the verse a material one, which is evident from it's context in the prophecy was alone in the contemplation of Haggai, we must be persuaded to believe that the latter temple was more magnificently built by Zerubbabel and Joshua in the reign of Darius than the former built by Solomon. Should the spi ritual temple be understood by the latter term in the above, it would be regarded naturally superior to a material one without the necessity of Jehovah's coming into it cloathed in our nature."

He quotes Zechariah III. 8 and 9. and VI. 12 and 13. wherein there is not the slightest mention of the atonement. As to his attempt to prove the deity of Jesus from these passages I will notice it in a subsequent chapter. The phrase found in the verse (" I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day") does not attribute the removal of the iniquities of the land of Israel to the sacrificial death of Jesus, so as to justify the Editor in quoting it as a proof of the doctrine of the atonement. Besides the verse can by no means be applied to the death of Jesus whether vicarious or accidental, since after the day of his crucifixion the Israelites so far from being freed

from sins, continued more vehemently than ever to pursue sinful conduct in their violent persecution of Christians. So the Jews have been punished to this day, as Christians believe, on account of their outrages upon the body of Jesus and their disobedience to him. The remaining passage of Zechariah (page 543548.) and verse 1st of Ch. III. of Malachi, (page 548.) quoted by the Editor in support of the deity of Jesus, I will notice afterwards.

I am sorry I cannot agree with the Editor in his assertion (page 549) that had our Lord himself made no direct declaration respecting the design of his death, his referring his disciples to those predictions already named would have been sufficient, particularly in their circumstances," for it would be strange to suppose that Jesus should have omitted to inculcate so important a doctrine and so fundamental for salvation, (according to the Editor) both before and after his resurrection, while he was constantly enjoining love to God, to neighbours, and to each other, and also repentance in case of failure in obedience. How is it possible to think, unless biassed by early prejudices, that a teacher, a truly divine teacher, who by declaring himself publicly the son of God* and the king of the Jews, as predicted, brought death upon

[ocr errors]

* John XIX. 7 and 12.

« AnteriorContinuar »