« PreviousContinue »
ner as Moses was, all the days of his life. And to think otherwise, of to imagine that Jesus is meant here, is in every respect, inconsistent and absurd : he being the most unlike the person promised; as is evident from all the circumstances of his life. [To be Continued.
We feel under obligation to Isachar for his gentlemanly communication; and would certainly give it a place in the Jew, if it could be curtailed. But as we dare take no such liberty, with the production of a correspondent, and its great length will not allow of its insertion, (as of itself it would fill a number) and we dare not administer the poisionous medicament without its antidote, we are withheld from inserting it. Therefore we have chosen the one part of his proposal, viz, “ to answer it if we can!” For in truth we can; as we see no difficulty in the way. We feel fattered, that our correspondent has according to our repeated intimation, confined himself to one text; and has not ranged through the whole maze of scripture, we shall in consequence confine, to the same subject, except where proof is necessary. The argument of Isachar runs thus. "The essence of the Deity is plural; for it is often spoken of, joined with verbs and adjectives, in the plural numbers," and as we have so repeatedly requested, or intimated our desire, that opponents in argument on scripture should confine themselves to one passage, he only, for the present, adduces in proof of his possition, the 9th verse, of the first chapter of Malachi; were the word dit Adonoem LORDS, a plural noun, is applied to God by himself. And this he exultingly says is such a proof of the possition of the plurality of the Deity, or in other words of the plurality of unity, which I dare not evade, and may answer if I can! We threfore proceed to answer, not to evade this difficult position.
MALACHI, CHAP. I. 1. “ The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel, by Malachi."The BURDEN, the weighty, heavy word of the Lord. "The Prophet informs us, that the subject treated of in this prophecy is peculiarly momentous, it is therefore called sun MASA, the burden &c. To ISRAEL, this prophecy is given; and addressed to the nation of Israel : the reasoning is for their guidance, the argument is with them ; for their use, if not otherwise expressed. By Malachi, by the prophet Malachi.
2--3. “I have loved you, saith the Lord; yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother ? saith the Lord : yet I loved Jacob. And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains, and his heritage waste, for the dragons of the wilderness.”—In these verses a distinction is made between Esau and Jacob, merely showing that Jacob was chosen, but no reason is assigned for the difference made between the brothers. I must also here beg leave to correct the translation, D'vxi and I will make, in the future, not as the Bible has it, in the past, I did make: it is a denunciation against the land of Esau; that it will become a desolate wilderness.
4. “Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, the border of wickedness, and the people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever.”-Here again, 70% is second person future: when Edom,
or, if Edom shall say and not, as the English Bible has it in the present tense, “Whereas Edom saith.” In consequence, the prophet informs that the country of Esau will become waste; and that Edom will plead that on account of their poverty, is destruction happened to their country, that in the natural course of events, their cities have come to destruction, but that in time they will return and build their wasted cities : that those things were not a punishment of God but a mere fortuitous course of events. This they will often say; but says the Lord, they may build, but I will throw down. All the world will call them the border of wickedness, and the people against whom the Lord is indignant for ever. And here we may perceive, that Esau, in the 2d and 3d verses cannot be the same as the Edom spoken of in the 4th verse; because if the country is become waste, there can be no hopes for them that the cities thereof will ever be rebuilt. Of Esau, the threat only is, that his country will become a desolate wilderness; but of Edom that their cities will be thrown down, and themselves be considered and called a people, against whom, God is ever indignant.
5. “And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, the Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel."--Here we have proof that the whole is future : your eyes will see it, &c. And which I explain, your eyes will always see this, you will always have a right insight and understanding of this prophecy: not so, those who are without, and as such, ye will say, “ The Lord shall be magnified from the borders of Zion.” When the redemption of the Lord is come to Zion, when we Jews are restored, then the Lord will be magnified, then will be seen his indignation against his enemies. The question yet remains, what is the terrible wickedness of these people, called Edom, and who are they ? In order to discover this we will proceed with the chapter, perhaps we may discover a clue to guide us.
6. “A son honoureth his father, and a servant bis master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour ? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts, unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, wherein have we dispised thy name?"And here, as you justly remark, the translation ought to be, and if Lords in the plural ; but the translators of the Bible, did not understand the prophet; the burden was too heavy for them; as such, they took the unwarrantable liberty of putting master, instead of Lords. The translation should stand thus :- A son honoureth the father, and a slave, (or servant,) his Lord ; if I am the Father, where is my honour ? and if Lords wherd is my fear? And here, friend Isachar, please to notice the intention of the prophet, or spirit of prophecy, is to answer the question that must occur to us on reading the forepart of the chapter, that we may have a right understanding of who Edom is, and why God is said to have perpetual indignation against them; and he reasons thus : You say, I am plural, thnt I consist of three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. What are you, sons or servants ? say you are sons, and I the Father, where is my honour ? You give my honour and glory to another: and I have said, “ And my glory will I not give to another ; 1 the Father, must be worshiped, glorified, and honoured alone:" in answer to this, you say the Godhead is plural; allow it says the prophet, for the sake of argument: and if Lords, then ye are servants, in that
case, where is iny fear? It is written, “ The Lord your God ye shall fear, and him shall ye serve, and cleave to him.” You friend Isachar, will perhaps tell me, the argument of the prophet is not convincing, no matter, it is sufficient to show us, who the people are, of whom he reasons, and whom he, at all events, places in the wrong; and to put this beyond doubt, the prophet proceeds, “ Unto ye, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, wherein have we despised thy name ?” You not only teach eroneous doctrines concerning me, but even argue, wherein are we wrong.
7. “ Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, the table of the Lord is contemptible.”—Polluted, the word is said and indeed means polluted, it has also another meaning, to wit, Redeemer; and may be taken in either, or both senses ; it particularly points out the Eu...... “Ye offer the bread of the Redeemer, or, the bread of pollution. And here I must notice, that in the original, it is pointed by the accents to read thus : “By your saying it is the Lord's table. It is corruption ! or despicable Meaning it is not the Lord's table, it is the table of pollution! Not having sufficient room in this number, for explaining the whole chapter, let a correct translation of the rest suffice for the present.
8. “And if you shonld offer a blind creature for sacrifice; would it not be wrong according to the law ? Or if ye should offer the lame, or the sick, would it not be wrong? Offer it to your Pope, would he be pleased with thee, or bear with thy presence, saith the Lord of hosts!"
9. “And now offering this pollution, you say let us pray, or seek the presence of God, and he will be gracious to us! And this is by your means, ye priests. Shall then, the presence of any one of you, be borne with, saith the Lord of hosts.”
10. Who is there, even among you, that will shut too the doors, (stop teaching ?) Neither shall your having light the fire of mine altar, be for nothing; ye shall receive your punishment. I have no delight in you, saith the Lord of hosts : neither will I accept any offering by your means."
11. “For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down thereof, my name shall be exalted among the Gentiles ; and in every place, incense shall be gathered to my name, and a clean offering : for my name, will be exalted among the Gentiles.”
12. “But ye have profaned him, [the Lord,] by saying it is the Lord's table, it is the Redeemer.”
13. “And whereas ye say, behold what a weariness is the law! and ye snuffed at it, saith the Lord of hosts : and in its stead, ye brought as an offering what is accounted as stolen, lame, and blind! shall I accept it from your hands saith the Lord of hosts.
14. “But accursed be as the perverter, who has in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth a corrupt thing to the Lord; for I am a great king."
Thus friend Isachar, I have shown the correctness of your translating d'178 Lords in the plural ; and still it does not prove as you expected, that the essence of the Deity is several. As to the other parts of your communication, being withheld from inserting it in the Jew, you can have by calling at the office.
BEING A DEFENCE OF JUDAISM AGAINST ALL ADVERSA-
11th month, SHIVAT, JANỤARY, 5585.
Continued from page 427. The 53d chapter of Isaiah, is famous among ...... ian expositors; the whole is applied and explained of Jesus. They tell us that he is therein described, and represented, as a person despised and rejected; as a man of sorrow, and acquainted with grief; as one on whom the sins of the whole world were to be laid; as one who should offer himself to an ignominious death, and be chastened for our transgressions and iniquities; thereby, redeeming lost mankind, and working their reconciliation with an infinite, and offended God; atoning with his life, and suffering for original and actual sins; the whole human race, (as they pretend,) being slaves of the Devil, and under God's wrath and damnation, as partakers of Adam's sin; God requiring infinite satisfaction, which not being in the power of any finite creature to make, could only be done by Jesus, as being both God and man. It is really surprising, to what lengths they stretch these doctrines : asserting that no person can be saved by his own merits ; making salvation attainable only by the merits of Jesus, that is, declaring we are only to be saved by proxy; and they will have all good, or beneficent works, to be sinful, without faith in Jesus; holding all accursed, who believe they shall be saved by the law, or sect which they follow ; thus one absurdity gives rise to another : they banish that charity which, on many occasions, they pretend to be the distinguishing characteristic of their religion, but with what little foundation, I appeal to their creeds, as these doctrines and inventions are the foundation of the present system of ..... ianity; and are the consequence of, and have their foundation on, original sin, from whence they draw a pretence for Jesus's sufferings, and ignominious death: and the necessity of infinite satisfaction, that is, the necessity of one God dying to satisfy another, or the same God.
It will be necessary to sift this matter and shew its absurdity, and prove that there is no manner of foundation, either in reason or scripture, for such inventions. For, as is judiciously observed, “One of God's revelations cannot contradict another, because he gave us the first to judge all others by.” (1) It will be, therefore, vain to pretend that these doctrines are above reason, if they contradict reason and common sense ; that being the criterion by which all doctrines must be judged. It is very plain and evident that Adam, and the rest concerned in original sin, had sentence pronounced on them by God himself, which sentence was inflicted on the offenders, we have it in the following words, “ And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field, upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat, all the days of thy life; and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree which I commanded thee, saying thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all thy life." (2) This was God's own difinitive sentence, which being executed on the different, or several offenders, will any one say that God required either a greater, or a different satisfaction than that which he, himself, imposed? Can any one say that he was not satisfied with his own judgment ? Can there be a greater absurdity and contradiction, than to pretend that God, himself, must suffer, that he may pardon? How inconsistent, not to say impious, are such doctrines : how unacquainted must those, who propogate and inculcate such notions, be of God, and his attributes! Is it to be imagined that the sin of our first parents, after judgment and sentence has been executed, should again be revived after some thousands of years ? What tribunal, or court of justice would allow this? Or who could be the appealants ? Was it Adam that appealed against his maker? or did the Almighty appeal against himself, or his sentence ? Is not such a proceeding in fact, inflicting punishment on the Deity, as if he were the aggressor, for giving a merciful sentence against Adam? Can any thing be more ridiculous ? And shall we believe people, nay, learned people, are serious, when they pretend to impose such absurdities for doctrines?
(1) Warburton, D. Leg. Vol I. pa. 83. (2) Gen. ii. 3—4—14.