Page images
PDF
EPUB

DR. J. P. SMITH'S SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY TO THE MESSIAH.

(Continued from p. 18.)

THE Introduction to Dr. Smith's second book is chiefly occupied with an attack on Mr. Belsham for not having gone over all the same ground with the author, and for having dismissed the few passages he has noticed from the Old Testament, with an expression respecting their application in this controversy, nearly approaching to contempt.

It must be recollected that the object of Mr. B.'s work is not to collect every thing in Scripture relating to the Messiah, but to examine the principal arguments which have been adduced in support of the notions of his superhuman or divine nature. When we consider, therefore, not only how precarious are the grounds for applying to the Messiah at all many of the passages brought forward by Dr. S., but how small a proportion of them, granting the interpretation put upon them, supply any substantial argument respecting his nature, and that of those which are made to appear most important, many have not been insisted upon by the best writers in defence of reputed orthodoxy, previous to our learned and ingenious author, we cannot be much surprised that Mr. B. did not feel himself called upon to devote any distinct portion of his work to the Old Testament As to his manner of expression, every writer feels himself authorized to express his opinion on the comparative force of the arguments which pass under his consideration: it is agreed, on all hands, that learned and able men have often been "imposed upon by miserable sophisms," and the statement of our belief that this has happened in a particular case, the whole matter being submitted to the judgment of the reader, cannot be considered as going beyond what is allowable in controversy. When, indeed, we attribute what we regard as the errors of our opponents to pride or other evil passions, or represent them as wilfully perverting the truth, and misrepresenting the Sacred Records, we are chargeable with passing the bounds of fair discussion, and contending for victory with unlawful weapons. Of any such charge as this, we think the "Calm Inquirer" must be acquitted even by his enemies. Dr. Smith, as appears from what we have already brought forward, by no means comes before the tribunal of the public with so good a case. most sincerely give him credit for much amiable and truly Christian feeling, but a man who talks so much of candour as he does, can hardly be excused in so often forgetting its dictates.

The enumeration of passages is prefaced by the following statement :

We

"In this enumeration it is proposed to bring forwards, not every text which has been adduced by biblical interpreters as referring to the Messiah, but only those which, according to the criteria above (in the preceding chapter) laid down, carry certain, or, at least, probable evidence of having been so designed. The degrees of that evidence will of course be various: but if the passages which appear to be of the least convincing kind, be struck out of the following list, still it is apprehended that enough will remain to furnish a satisfactory conclusion. The number might be greatly reduced without at all diminishing the weight of the argument."

In reviewing this enumeration, our narrow limits will oblige us to pass by without notice all such passages, however interesting in themselves, as have no direct bearing on the questions concerning the person of the Messiah, and the nature or mode of the deliverance he effected for mankind. Interpretations, however doubtful, or even in our estimation decidedly false, which might be received by a Unitarian consistently with his general views of Christian truth, we do not undertake now to examine, but we shall endeavour to neglect no passage among thirty-two (exclusive of the sections on the "angel of Jehovah," and on the plural names) which Dr. Smith produces, in which we could not, as Unitarians, receive his interpretation, without our characteristic opinions being in any degree affected We may safely presume that Dr. Smith has not omitted any thing of much importance. We shall endeavour to assist the intelligent and candid reader in estimating the value of what he has produced.

any

Sect. ii. Gen. iv. 1: "I have obtained a man JEHOVAH." "From the special record of this exclamation of Eve on the birth of her first son, and from the very marked importance which is given to it," [it is preserved merely as an explanation of the name Cain, acquisition, and the signs of very peculiar importance being attached to it are not obvious,] "it may reasonably be considered as the expression of her eager and pious, though mistaken, expectation that the promise, (ch. iii. 15.) which could not but have created the strongest feelings of interest and hope," [it is a matter, nevertheless, of very great doubt whether the words referred to imply any promise at all,] "was now beginning to be accomplished. The primary, proper, and usual force of the particle )את( placed here before JEHOVAH, is to designate an object in the most demonstrative and emphatical manner." "It is true, that in subsequent periods of the language, this particle came to be used as a preposition, to denote with or by the instumentality of; but this was but a secondary idiom, and many of its supposed instances, on a closer consideration, fall into the ordinary construction. There seems, therefore, no option to an interpreter who is resolved to follow faithfully the fair and strict grammatical signification of the words before him, but to translate the passage as it is given above." --Scrip. Test. Vol. I. p. 235.

What can Dr. S. mean by saying that the primary and proper sense of the particle ]את[ is to designate an object " in the most demonstrative and emphatical manner"? For this purpose it is most usually employed: but it has, without doubt, originally been a noun independently significant, and all its uses as a particle, whether as the sign of a case, or mere emphatic accompaniment of a noun, or as a preposition, are but certain applications of the original and proper sense, of which, though one may have become much more common, we have no right on that account merely to say that it is either older or better established. It appears to be sufficiently proved, that את, in at least two passages besides the one under consideration, bears the sense of from, and in several others by means of, either of which would remove all difficulty from this passage-in one of these ways too it has been understood by most of the ancient translators. Yet, because the particle is of much more frequent occurrence as an emphatic ascompaniment of nouns, (an argument which, if consistently followed up, would never allow us to give to any word more than one sense,) we are called upon to admit a translation which, understood literally, is in the highest degree revolting and absurd, and from which no rational and probable meaning can be extracted. That the applications of the particle as a preposition are secondary and of a later age, is a mere arbitrary assumption; and, after all, how is it to be proved to us that the documents employed by Moses had not their expression in any degree altered by him, or even, as their antiquity must have been so extraordinary, that they had not previously to his time existed only in hieroglyphics? It is enough for us, however, that there is not the slightest foundation for Dr. S.'s assertion as to the necessity of the extraordinary translation he has adopted. Eve said, "I have acquired a man from (or through) Jehovah," she therefore called his name CAIN (acquisition). It was quite natural for her thus to express her joy at receiving what she could not but regard as a great comfort and blessing, and there is no reason for seeking any mystery in the words, or for supposing that whatever hopes they may be thought to imply related to the approaching fulfilment of any divine promises.

We pass to Sect. viii. 2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7. The passage contains what is believed to be the latest written of the poems of David. It apparently relates to his confidence in the fulfilment of God's promises respecting the future glory of his family, but is thought by many to be prophetic of the reign of the Messiah, in which view it is brought forward by our author. Its interpretation is attended with great difficulty, owing probably to the corrupt state of the text, and we cannot but think the sense at present too uncertain for it to be appealed to as of any importance in the support of a controverted doctrine. As, however, Dr. Smith finds in it the direct application of the name Jehovah to the Messiah, we shall just lay before our readers the true state of the fact. 2 Sam. xxiii. 4, the Authorized Version gives, " And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain." Dr. Smith, inserting the word JEHOVAH on the authority of a single Hebrew MS., (a valuable one certainly, yet ouly one,) doubtfully supported by the ancient Greek Version, translates thus:

Ver. 3, "Ruling over man is a Righteous one
Ruling in the fear of God:

Ver. 4. Even as the light of the morning shall he arise,

Jehovah the sun,

A morning without clouds for brightness,

(As) after rain the herbage from the earth."

Dr. Kennicott, who first brought to light the various reading, thus renders the words:

Ver. 3. "The Just one ruleth ameng men,

He ruleth by the fear of God!

Ver. 4. 'As the light of the morning ariseth JEHOVAH
A sun, without clouds, for brightness;
And as the grass from the earth after rain.

Ver. 5. Verily thus is my house with God," &c.

Though no considerate man would build inuch on a passage so doubtful, we allow that the authority for inserting the word Jehovah is important, and we think that Dr. K.'s version (which we much prefer to our author's) gives a much clearer sense than we have seen derived from the common text; but admitting this version, and admitting what is more doubtful, though we would not pretend positively to deny it, that the words are prophetic of the kingdom of the Messiah, the obvious and natural interpretation would be, not to regard JEHOVAH as a name given to the Messiah, but to consider the great events contemplated as the bright and glorious manifestation of his presence, the proofs of his fidelity to his covenant with David. It is found, then, that the passage is altogether very obscure; that its application to the subject of the Messiah is not a little doubtful; that its whole point in the controversy respecting the person of Christ, depends on an uncertain emendation of the text; and that, admitting this, (which, as it is plausible, and seems to clear the sense, we are willing to do, though without placing much reliance upon it,) still the words are naturally explained of God's display of his power and glory in the gospel; and the construction which makes "the just one" identical with JEHOVAH, is both needless and harsh-it is, indeed, absolutely inconsistent with the preceding and following clauses: "He ruleth by the fear of God"-" Thus is my house with God."

Sect. ix. Job xix. 23-27.

Dr. S.'s translation of this passage is very peculiar :

Ver. 25. "I surely do know my REDEEMER, the LIVING ONE:

And HE the LAST, will arise over the dust.
Ver. 26. And after the disease has cut down my skin,
Even from my flesh I shall see God."

It is represented as "a prophecy of the second coming of the only Redeemer and Judge of mankind," and as "unequivocally designating Him by the highest titles and attributes of Deity."

It may be sufficient for us to remark, that this passage is one of the most difficult in the Bible; that of the immense number of critics who have applied themselves particularly to the book of Job, scarcely any two agree respecting its sense, or at least respecting the mode of deriving the sense from the words; and that a large proportion, equal to any in learning and judgment, and many of them even in what is called orthodoxy of sentiment, have denied all reference of the words to a future state of existence; whilst amongst those who have contended for their application to this subject, our author stands almost alone in maintaining their direct application to the Messiah, interpreted so as to apply to him the titles and attributes of Deity. Unless, then, his version be so peculiarly clear and satisfactory, and established by such irresistible force of evidence, as to justify its decided preference to those of all his predecessors, no person of common sense will give the passage much weight in a controversy respecting the personal nature of one who appeared in the world so many ages after it was written.

Now, Dr. S. himself will hardly venture to deny that the words of the original may, with strict propriety, be rendered,

"For I know that my deliverer (or avenger) liveth,

And that hereafter he will rise up over the dust," &c.:

where the epithets to which he attaches so much importance entirely disappear, and even if his version were admitted, the application to the Messiah would not, considering the connexion, be even probable. We should still agree with nearly all translators and commentators in supposing God himself to be referred to. We ourselves embrace with great confidence the opinion of those who maintain that Job here speaks only of a temporal deliverance, and that both the general object of the book and several remarkable passages in it, prove the author to have been ignorant of the doctrine of a future state: but whatever the reader may think on this point, we have made it evident that the application Dr. S. has made of the passage is utterly unfounded and indefensible.

Sect. x. Psalm ii.

"The last clause of the Psalm" (says Dr. Smith) " merits particular attention as demanding that TRUST and CONFIDENCE in the Messiah, which the general tenor of Scripture and many particular passages direct to be reposed only in the Almighty and Everlasting God. It is religious reliance that is required. If this powerful and victorious King were but a creature, such confidence would be trusting in an arm of flesh,' and would mark 'a heart departing from the Lord. But the reason upon which this confidence is called for is equally inapplicable to the idea of a mere creature. It is his right to the most absolute homage; it is his ability to bless; it is his power as shewn in the dreadful consequence of provoking his justice and incurring 'even but a little of his righteous displeasure." - Scrip. Test., second edition, Vol. I. p. 307.

The last two verses of the Psalm are thus rendered by Dr. Smith:

11. "Serve Jehovah with reverence,

12.

And rejoice with trembling.

Do homage to the Son, lest he be angry

And ye perish on the road;

When his wrath is even for a moment kindled !
Blessed are all who trust in HIM!"

Did it never occur to our author, that since "the general tenor of Scripture, and many particular passages direct (religious) trust and confidence to be reposed only in the Almighty and Everlasting God," it would be but reasonable to understand this passage in consistency with them, which may be done by a very obvious and altogether unobjectionable construction ?

"Do homage to the Son, lest He (Jehovah, referring to the preceding verse) be angry,

And ye perish on the road (rather ' in your way');
When His (Jehovah's) wrath is even for a moment kindled.
Blessed are all who trust in Him (Jehovah)."

But, though all difficulty is even thus removed, we must not omit to observe that the original word, rendered by Dr. S. and most other translators, Son, and which truly has that meaning in the Chaldee dialect, cannot be proved to have it in pure Hebrew, but does signify pure, sincere, whence the words have been, with much probability of truth, translated, "Reverence sincerely," or, "offer sincere homage," ,"" lest He be angry," &c., which makes the whole passage relate to God alone.

Another remark of Dr. S., that "the Messiah is clearly and plainly represented as an existing and acting person, at the time when the Psalm was written," is answered by observing, that there can be little doubt of the Psalm having had an immediate application to David himself, whatever secondary and prophetic reference to the reign of the Messiah may be found in it, and that, therefore, it must necessarily speak of the anointed king as living and acting, though not intending by that language to convey any extraordinary doctrine respecting the nature of a greater Messiah afterwards to be raised up, but already appointed in the Divine counsels.

Sect. xiii. Psa, xl. 6-10.

6. "Sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight in:
Then a body thou hast prepared for me.
Burnt-offering and sin-offering thou desirest not:
7. Then I said, Behold, I come!

In the roll of the book it is written concerning me,
8. To execute thy pleasure, O God, I do delight," &c.

"The terms of the passage," e," says Dr. S., appear to require absolutely the sense of the abrogation of animal sacrifices by a person who declares that the very book which described those sacrifices had its superior reference to him, and that he himself would present the only sacrifice that should be worthy of Deity to accept. I must despair of ever acquiring consistent know

« PreviousContinue »