« ZurückWeiter »
Christ in a notion far surpassing all other lords, which are rather to be looked upon as servants unto him: it will be worth our inquiry next, whether as it is the translation of the name Jehovah it belong to Christ; or whether though he be Lord of all other lords, as subjected under his authority, yet he be so inferior unto him whose name alone is Jehovah, as that in that propriety and eminency in which it belongs unto the supreme God it may not be attributed unto Christ.
This doubt will easily be satisfied, if we can shew the name Jehovah itself to be given unto our Saviour; it being against all reason to acknowledge the original name, and to deny the interpretation in the sense and full importance of that original. Wherefore if Christ be the Jehovah, as so called by the Spirit of God; then is he so the Lord, in the same propriety and eminency in which Jehovah is. Now whatsoever did belong to the Messias, that may and must be attributed unto Jesus, as being the true and only Christ. But the Jews themselves acknowledge that Jehovah shall be knowo clearly in the days of the Messias, and not only so, but that it is the name which properly belongeth to him, And if they cannot but confess so much who only read the prophecies, as the eunuch did, without an interpreter; how can we be ignorant of so plain and necessary a truth, whose eyes have seen the full completion, and read the infallible interpretation of them? If they could see“ Jehovah the Lord of hosts” to be the name of the Messias, who was to them" for a stone of stumbling and rock of offence,” (Isa. viii. 13, 14.) how can we possibly be ignorant of it, who are taught by St. Paul, that in Christ this prophecy was fulfilled, " As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone, and rock of offence, and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” (Rom. ix. 33.) It was no other than Jehovah who spake these words, “ I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord (Jehovah) their God, and will not save them by bow nor sword.” (Hos. i. 7.)+ Where not only he who is described as the original and principal cause, that is, the Father who gave his Son, but also he who is the immediate efficient of our salvation, and that in opposition to all other means or instrumental causes, is called Jehovah ; who can be no other than our Jesus, becauses there is no other name under heaven same who is called Iah. For that it Being then there were
so many ought so to be read, appeareth by the among the Greeks, which did in all former words of Origen: Olovrai tòv ages express the Hebrew name, it διελθόντα τον Ιαλδαβαώθ και φθάσαντα can be no way probable that the &Trì Tòv 'là deiv Aéyelv, Eù dě KpvīTO- LXX. should avoid it as inexpresμένων μυστηρίων υιού και πατρός άρχων sible in their language. . VukTopavàs. Deútepe 'Lau. Ibid. §. 31. * As Midrasch Tillim on Psal. xxi. In the printed copy indeed it is iadeiv, Echa Rabati Lam. i. 6. and in the Latin ladin, but without + Where it is farther observable sense: whereas dividing the words, that the Chaldee paraphrase 'hath
, word of the former emendation apparent. of Jehovah, for Jehovah.
by the bord ביהוה for במימרא דיי the sense is manifest
given unto men whereby we must be saved.” (Acts iv. 12.) As in another place he speaketh, “I will strengthen them in the Lord (Jehovah), and they shall walk up and down in his name saith the Lord (Jehovah);" (Zech. x. 12.) where he which strengtheneth is one, and he by whom he strengtheneth is another, clearly distinguished from him by the personal pronoun, and yet each of them is Jehovah, and “ Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (Deut. vi. 4.) Whatsoever. objections*
• Two adversaries we have to the pretended, there is not so great a siexposition of this place, the Jew and militude as to enforce the same interthe Socinian; only with this diffe- pretation. For whereas in Jerem. rence, that we find the less opposition xxiii. 6. it is expressly said, ipv 1717 from the Jew, from whom indeed we this is the name, in the xxxiii. 16. it have so ample a concession as will is only 1719 without any mention of a destroy the other's contradiction. name; and surely that place cannot First, Socinus answers, the name be- prove Jehovah to be the name of longeth not to Christ, but unto Israel: Israel, which speaks not one word of and that it so appears by a parallel the name of Jerusalem for where place in the same prophet, Jer. xxxiii. we read in Crellius, hoc scilicet 15, 16. Socin. refut. Jac, Wieki, cap. nomen est,' all but hoc is not in Scrip6. Catech. Racov. de Pers. Christi, c. ture, but the gloss of Crellius, and hoc 1. Crellius de Deo et Attrib. 1. i. c. itself cannot be warranted for the inll. To this we first oppose the con- terpretation of yi nor quo for VX; stant interpretation of the Jews, who the simplest interpretation of those Messias from this one particular text. iste qui vocabit eam, he which calleth
, As in the Sepber Ikkarim. 1. ii.c. 8: Jerusalem, is the Lord our righteousorigen Juan Qu aiņa 872" ness, that is, Christ. And thus the 13873 The Scripture calleth the name first answer of Socinus is invalid: of the Messias Jehovah our righte- which he easily..foreseeing, bath ousness.” And in Misdrasch Tillim joined with the Jewish Rabbins in the on Psal . xxi. TIDT 7223 xhipi second answer, admitting that “ Je
, , Jehovah. by his own name, and his name is Je purpose they assert these words, “Jehovah; as it is said (Exod. xv. 3.) vered by way of proposition, not of
hovah our righteousness," to be deli“The Lord is a man of war, Jehovah apposition: and this they endeavour is his name.” And it is written of the to prove by such places of Scripture Messias, (Jer. xxiii. 6.) “ And this is
as seem to infer as much. As Moses the name wbich they shall call him, built an altar, and called the name Jehovah our righteousness, Thus of it " Jehovah Nissi,” Exod. xvii. Echa Rabati, Lam. i. 6. Swimu ya 15. Gideon built an altar unto the 171 "Jw vow 1777 XIX "58 TWO Lord, and called it “ Jehovah Sba13773 7717 27P YUN You What lom," Judg. vi. 24. And the name is the name of the Messias? R. Abba of the city in the last words of Ezekiel said, Jehovah is his name ; as it is said is.“ Jehovah Shammah.” In all (Jer. xxiii. 6.) “ And this is the name which places it is most certain, that which they shall call him, Jehovah the Jehovah is not predicated of that our righteousness." The same he of whose name it is a part; but is the reports of Rabbi Levi. The Rabbins subject of a proposition, given by way then, though enemies to the truth of nomination, whose verb substanwhich we deduce from thence, con- tive or copula is understood. But strained by the literal importance of from thence to conclude, that “ the the text, did acknowledge that the Lord our righteousness” can be no name Jehovah did belong to the Mes- otherwise understood of Christ than sias. And as for the collection of as a proposition, and that we by callthe contrary from the parallel place ing him so, according to the prophet's
hovah our righteousness " is the name בשמו ומהו שמו יהוה שנ" יהוה
of the Messias , but withal_denying איש מלחמה יהוה שמו ובמלך
that Christ is that Jehoval . To which המשיח כתיב וָה שמו אשר יקראו
God calleth the Messias יהוה צדקנו
may be framed against us, we know Christ is the “ righteous branch raised unto David, the King that shall reign and prosper, in whose days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely;” (Jer. xxiii. 5, 6.) we are assured that “this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousness:” (Ibid.) " the Lord,” that is, Jehovah, the expression of his supremacy; and the addition of“ our righteousness” can be no diminution to his majesty. If those words in the prophet,“ Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Sion; for lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord (Jehovah)," (Zech. ii. 10.) did not sufficiently of themselves denote our Saviour who dwelt amongst us, as they certainly do; yet the words which follow would evince as much;." And many pations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people; and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me upto thee:” (Ibid. 11.) for what other Lord can we conceive dwelling in the midst of us, and sent unto us by the Lord of hosts, but Christ?
And as the original Jehovah was spoken of Christ by the holy prophets; so the title of Lord, as the usual interpretation
prediction, can understand no more teousness :" for the apostle bath exihereby, than that God the Father of pressly taught us, that he “is made Christ doth justify us, is niost irra. unto us righteousness,” i Cor. i. 30. tional. For first, It is therefore ne- And, if it inay be in itself, there can cessary to interpret those names by be no repugnancy in its predication way of a proposition of themselves, by way of apposition. Thirdly, that because Jehovah cannot be the pre- addition of our righteousness doth dicate of that which is named; it not only truly belong to Christ, but being most apparent, that an altar or in some manner properly and pecua city built cannot be God : and Jiarly so, as in that notion it can be whatsoever is not Jehovah without long to no other person called Jehovah, addition, cannot be Jehovah with ad- but to that Christ alone. For he dition. But there is no incongruity alone is the end of the law for righin attributing of that name to Christ, teousness to every one that believeth," to whom we have already proved it Rom, x: 4. And when he is said to actually given: and 'our adversaries, be “made unto us righteousness, who teach that the name Jehovah is 1 Cor. i. 30. he is thereby distinguishisometimes given to the angels repre- ed from God the Father. Being then senting God, must acknowledge that Christ is thus peculiarly called our it may be given unto Christ, whom righteousness in the Gospel, being the they confess to be above all angels, aud place of the prophet forementioned far more fully and exactly to represent speaketh of this as a name to be used the Father. Secondly, I'hat which is under the Gospel, being no other perthe addition in those names cannot son called Jekovah is ever expressly be truly predicated of that"
, thing called our righteousness in the Gospel; wbich bears the name. Moses could it followeth, not only that Christ may not say that altar was his exaltation, be so called, but that the prophecy nor. Gideon that it was his peace. cannot otherwise be fulfilled, than by And if it could not so be predicated acknowledging that Christ is “the by itself, it could neither be by ap- Lord our righteousness:” and, .conposition, and, consequently, even in sequently, that is his name, not by this respect, it was necessary to make 'way of proposition, but of apposithe naine a proposition. But our tion and appropriation; so that being righteousness inay undoubtedly be both Jehovah and our righteousness; predicated of him, who is bere called he is as truly Jehovah as our righteby the name of the Lord our right ousness.
of that name, was attributed unto him by the apostles. In that signal prediction of the first age of the Gospel, God promised by Joel, that " whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (Jehovah) shall be delivered :” (Joel ii. 32.) and St. Paul hath assured us that Christ is that Lord, by proving from thence, that “ whosoever · believeth on him shall not be ashamed;" and inferring from that, “ if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus, we shall be saved." (Rom. x. 9. 11.) For it it be a certain truth, that whosoever is confesseth the Lord Jesus shall be saved;" and the certainty of this truth de. pend upon that foundation, that “whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed;" and the certainty of that in relation to Christ depend upon that other promise, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved:” (Ibid. 13.) then must the Lord in the thirteenth verse of the tenth chapter to the Romans be the same with the Lord Jesus in the ninth verse; or else St. Paul's argument must be invalid and fallacious, as containing that in the conclusion which was not comprehended in the premises. But the Lord in the ninth verse is no other than Jehovah, as appeareth by the prophet Joel from whom that scripture is taken. Therefore our Saviour in the New Testament is called Lord, as that name or title is the interpretation of Jehovah.
If we consider the office of John the Baptist peculiar unto him, we know it was “he of whom it is written (in the prophet Malachi, iii. 1.) I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:" (Matt. xi. 10.) we are sure he which spake those words was (Jehovah) “ the Lord of hosts;" and we are sure that Christ is that Lord before whose face John the Baptist prepared the way. “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, (saith Isaiah, xl. 3.) Prepare ye the way of the Lord (Jehovah):” and “this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah,” saith St. Matthew (iii. 3.) this is he of whom his father Zechariah' did divinely presage, “ Thou, child, shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest, for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his way.” (Luke i. 76.) Where Christ is certainly the Lord, and the Lord undeniably Jehovah.*
I say therefore undeniably, be- times by the wbole Catholic Church, cause it is not only the undoubted must be examined, censured, and contranslation of the name to in the demned, by ó, ý, róSocinus first prophet (which of itself were suffi- makes use of this observation against cient); but also is delivered in that Wiekus; and after him Crellius hath manner which is (though unreason- laid it as. a grave and serious foundaably) required to signify the proper tion, and spread it out into its several name of God, ipotopeúor ydp 7pd corners, to uphold the fabric of bis suTYPOGOTOV Kupiou, not ros Kupiov; that perstructions. First: "Vox Jehovah is, withont, not with, an article. For magis quam cætera Dei nomina pronow our Saviour's Deity must be tried priorum naturam sequitur; ideo etby a kind of school divinity, and the iam Græca Kúplos, cum pro illa ponimost fundamental doctrine, maintain- tur, propriorum indolem, qua licet, ed as such ever since the apostles' æmulatur.' Lib. de Deo, c. 14. Se
Nor is this the only notation of the name or title Lord taken in a sense divine, above the expression of all mere human condly: 'Propriis nominibus articulus 7. 2 Cor. v. 11. Eph. v. 17. 19. Col. libentius subtrahitur, licet eum etiam iii. 16. 20. 23. 2 Thess. iii. 3. 2 Tim.i. sæpe concinnitatis potius quam ne- 16. Heb. viii. 2. 11. xii. 14. Jam. iv. cessitatis causa admittant. Idem fit 10. 15. 1 Pet. * 3. FC the Son, in voce Kúplog cum pro Jehovah poni- Matt. iii. 3. xxii. 43. 45. Mark i. 3. tur.' Ibid.' Thirdly: 'Hæc est causa Luke i. 76. ii. 11. iii. 4. xx. 44. John cur in Novo Testamento, maxime i. 23. Acts ii. 36. x. 36. xi. 16. 21. apud Lucam et Paulum, vox Kúpios, xv. 11. Rom. i. 7. X. 9. 12. xiv. 6. cum Deum summum designat, articu- 8. 14. xvi. 2. 8. 11–13. 22. 1 Cor. i. lo libentius careat; at cum de Christo 3. iv. 17. vii, 22. 25. 39. ix. 1, 2. X. subjective usurpatur, raro articulus 21. xi. 11. xii. 3. xiv. 37. xv. 58. xvi. omittitur.' Ibid. What strange uncer- 10. 19. 2 Cor. i. 2. ii. 12. iv. 5. X. 17. tainties are these, to build the denial of xi. 17. xii. 1. Gal. i. 3. v. 10. Eph. i. so important an article as Christ's Di- 2. ii. 21. iv. 1.5. 17. v. 8. vi. 1. 4. 10. vinity upon? He does not say abso- 21. 23. Phil. i. 2. 14. ii. 11. 19. 24. lutely Jehovah is the proper name of 29. iii, 1, 20. iv. I, 2. 10. Col, i, 2. God, but only that it doth more follow iii. 17, 18. 24. iv. 7. 17. 1 Thess. i. 1. the nature of proper names than the ii. 8. iv. 1. 15. 17. v. 2. 12. 2 Thess. other names of God. And indeed it i. 1, 2. ii. 13. iii. 4. I Tim. i. 1. 2 is certain that sometimes it hath the Tim. ii. 24. Tit. i. 4. Philem. 3. 16. nature of an appellative, as Deut. vi. 20. Jam. i. 1. 2 Pet. iii. 8. 10. 2 John 4. TON 1797 1768 Tip “the 3. Jude 14. Rev. xiv. 13. xix. 16.) Lord our God is one Lord;" and yet I say, they are thus so often used, if it be not always and absolutely a that though they equal not the numproper name, though all the rest were ber of their contrary acceptions, yet granted to be true, the argument they come so near, as to yield no must be of no validity. Again, he ground for any such observation, as cannot say an article is never affixed if the Holy Ghost intended any such to a proper name, but only that liben- article-distinction.' Nay, it is most tius subtrahitur, it is rather omitted evident that the sacred penmen inthan affixed: which yet is far from a tended no such distinction, because -certain or a true rule, especially in in the same place speaking of the the language of the New Testament. same person, they usually observe For no man can deny Jesus to be the the indifferency of adding or omitting proper name of Christ, given bim ac- the article. As Jam. v. 11. Trijze cording to the law at his circumcision, υπομονήν Ιώβ ηκούσατε, και το τέλος και εκλήθη το όνομα αυτού Ιησούς, Κυρίου είδετε, ότι πολύσπλαγχνός έστιν Luke ii. 21. and yet whosoever shall • Kúplos xai oiçtiquwv; 2 Tim. i. 18. read the Gospel of St. Matthew, will Δώη αυτώ ο Κύριος ευρεϊν έλεος παρά find it ten times o 'Ingoûs with an ar- Kupiov lv ékeivy rõ vuépq. 1 Cor. vii. ticle, for once 'Ingolls without it. And 17. "EKAOTOV ÓS KÉKANKEV • Kúplos, ourW in the Acts of the Apostles, written mepitrateLTW, Ver, 22. Q yap év Kupigs , in a more Attic style, St. Paul is kanoeis doūdos, átley@epos Kupiov toti. oftener styled ó llaülog than simply See Rom. xiv. 6–8. Wherefore Παύλος. So Balaam, Gallio, &c. being Jehovah is not affirmed absoSome persons we find in the New, lutely to be a proper name; being if Testament, whom, if we should stay, it were, yet it appears that it is not till we found them without an article, the custom of the New Testament to we should never call by their names use every proper name oftener withat all; as Apelles, Balak, &c. Third- out an article than with one; being ly, ó Kúpiog is so often used for that: • Kúplos is so often take for him ; God who is the Father with an article, whom they acknowledge God, and and Kúpos for the Son without an Kúpids for bim whom they cannot article, (for the Father, Matt. i. 22. deny to be the Cbrist: it followeth ii. 15. v. 33. xxii. 44. Mark xii. 36. that Christ, acknowledged to be the Luke i. 6. 9. 15. 25. 46. ii. 15. 22, Lord, cannot by any virtue of an 23. X. 2. Acts ji. 25. 34. jjj. 19. xvii. article be denied to be the true Je27. Rom. xv. il. 1 Cor. x. 26. xvi. hovah. We must not then think to.