Page images
PDF
EPUB

(4.) Mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts. -Isaiah vi. 5.

These things said Esaias,

when he saw his glory, and spake of him.-John xii. 41.

The Apostle appears to refer to the prophecies in Isaiah respecting the Messiah. The glory of Christ as seen by the prophet was the coming of God in Christ to establish that kingdom of righteousness which would fill the earth with His glory. Dr. S. Clarke says, "When Isaiah saw the glory of God the Father revealing to him the coming of Christ, he then saw the glory of him who was to come in the glory of his Father (Matt. xvi. 27). Isaiah, in beholding the glory of God, and receiving from Him a revelation of the coming of Christ, saw, i.e., foresaw, the glory of Christ, just as Abraham, (John viii. 56,) saw, i.e., foresaw his day and was glad."

pierced smitten shepherd: as God he is Jehovah's fellow," Zech. xiii. 7. As to the latter expression I would simply quote a note from Archbishop Newcome on this passage. "The man who is near unto me.' This passage has been usually understood to predict the sufferings and death of Christ. I have no conception that it has the most distant relation thereto. Yet some have gone so far as to find in the word ny a proof of the divinity of Christ's person, Cocceii Lex in verbum. But all that can be made of y is, that it may signify a neighbor, one that is near or next to another, or that bears some kind of correspondency or resemblance to him, but exclusive of the idea of parity. is no doubt often used for a man simply, but its proper sense is, one superior to others in strength, power, or authority. I conceive, therefore,

might properly be rendered Him that is next unto me in power and authority;' which exactly corresponds with 'My shepherd,' in the parallel line, one that rules his flock, or people, under me, or by virtue of my commission.-See Calv. in locum." Archbishop Newcome on the Minor Prophets, p. 336.

(5.) I (Jehovah) have sworn by myself.... that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.-Isaiah xlv. 23.

We shall all stand at the judgment seat of Christ, for it is written, As I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue

shall confess to God.-Rom. xiv. 11.*

This language is explained by two other passages, in one of which it is said that God shall judge the world by that man whom He hath ordained (Acts xvii. 31); and in the other, that every knee shall bow at the name of Jesus, and every tongue confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. ii. 10, 11).

But, looking at the question in a general point of view, surely those prophecies in Isaiah, which are applied to Christ, represent him as a being distinct from God. Let the reader turn to chap. liii., and ask himself whether the despised and rejected One, spoken of (lii. 13) as a servant, can be regarded as identical with Jehovah Himself?

Before passing on, let me say a few words on the title Jehovah. It is, as Gesenius expresses it, "the proper name of the Deity among the ancient Hebrews." The Trinitarian, it seems to me, might represent it as the name of "God in the undivided

* Rom. xiv. 10, 11, should not be quoted without the reader being informed that Griesbach gives very considerable authority for the reading, "We shall all stand before the judgment seat of God," instead of "of Christ." Griesbach thinks the balance of evidence in favor of the common reading, but he adds coû in the margin with the sign which, "significat, lectionem marginis non sperñendam quidem et ulteriore examine dignam, at receptæ tamen inferiorem esse." And Lachmann, in his edition of the Greek Testament adopts the reading τοῦ Θεοῦ.

[ocr errors]

oneness of His being, without reference to persons,' or as the peculiar epithet of the Father; but I do not think a proper name could be consistently regarded as applied sometimes to the whole Trinity, and sometimes to each of the Persons alone, any more than the name Jesus Christ, or Holy Spirit could be so employed.

Mr. Bickersteth introduces some remarks concerning the word Lord (Kúpios). He does not deny that the term is often used by classical, and sometimes by sacred writers as a human appellation; but contends that it is used so much more frequently with regard to Christ in the New Testament, that the instances in which it is applied to men do not invalidate the proof to be derived from the multitude of instances in which it is applied to him. But where is the proof? The argument is that Christ is the Supreme God because a title is frequently given to him, which though also employed with respect to God, is confessedly used with reference to human beings, and implies ownership, authority. Mr. Bickersteth says, "The servant of a nobleman who addresses him as ' my lord,' does not confound his duty to his master, and to God." But this is a petitio principii, for the reason why the servant distinguishes between his master and his God, is that in other ways, and not by means of the name only, he knows the distinction between them. That the word Lord should be used very frequently in reference to Christ is not wonderful, considering that he is the author and finisher of our faith, and his work of redeeming love is the great subject of the New Testament.

Mr. Bickersteth's calculation as to the number of times the word Kúpios occurs, does not, I think, give quite a correct representation of the facts. In the instances that have reference to human beings, such general statements as the following are omitted, "The servant is not above his lord " (Matt. x. 24); and the Parables are regarded as exceptions, because they typify either the Father, or Christ. Now in Matt. xviii. 25-31, a king and his servants are spoken of; but surely the king is addressed as "Lord" because he is a king, and not on account of the typical meaning of the parable. So in the parable of the Unjust Steward the rich man is addressed as "Lord" because he is a rich man, an owner, a master, and not on account of the ultimate lesson to be taught. Other examples will suggest themselves. Nor can I admit that the word Lord is "indiscriminately applied to the Father and Christ, so that in many places the difficulty is very great in knowing which is intended." After what I have said with regard to the relation between Christ and the Father, and between Christ and the Christian, it will, I trust, be believed that the title "Lord" is given by us to the Saviour in a sense second only to that in which it is applied to the Eternal Father Himself.*

But there is another reason for believing that the term Lord is not applied to Christ in the sense in which it is applied to the Supreme Being. If Lord, as used in reference to Christ, mean that he is God, and be used indiscriminately with regard to

* The word Lord represents the Greek Kúpios; which, indeed, is used in much the same sense as Lord. It is from kupos, authority,

the Father and Christ, we might suppose the term God itself would be used in the same way, and thus we should find Christ called God as often as he is called Lord, in proportion to the number of times these epithets are applied to the Father; but, “allowing every one of the Trinitarian interpretations to be correct, the word God is used in the New Testament about ten times of Christ, and of some other object upwards of thirteen hundred times. Whence and signifies master or possessor. In the Septuagint, this, like Lord in our version, is invariably used for "Jehovah "and 66 Adonai ;" while eòs, like God in our translation, is generally reserved to represent the Hebrew “Elohim.” Kúpios in the original of the Greek Testament, and Lord in our version of it, are used much in the same manner as in the Septuagint; and so also is the corresponding title, Dominus, in the Latin versions. As the Hebrew name Jehovah is one never used with reference to any but the Almighty, it is to be regretted that the Septuagint, imitated by our own and other versions, has represented it by a word which is also used for the Hebrew "Adonai," which is applied not only to God, but, like our "Lord," to creatures also, as to angels (Gen. xix. 2; Dan. x. 16, 17), to men in authority (Gen. xlii. 30, 33), and to proprietors, owners, and masters (Gen. xlv. 8). In the New Testament Kúpios representing “Adonai,” and both represented by Lord, the last, or human application of the term, is frequent. In fact, the leading idea of the Hebrew, the Greek, and the English words is that of an owner or proprietor, whether God or man; and it occurs in the inferior application with great frequency in the New Testament. This application is either literal or complimentary: literal, when the party is really an owner or master, as in Matt. x. 24; xx. 8; xxi. 40; Acts xvi. 16, 19; Gal. iv. 1, etc.: or when he is so as having absolute authority over another (Matt. ix. 38; Luke x. 2); or as being a supreme Lord or Sovereign (Acts xxv. 26); and complimentary when used as a title of address, especially to superiors, like the English Master, Sir; the French Sieur, Monsieur; the German Herr, etc., as in Matt. xiii. 27; xxi. 20; Mark vii. 8; Luke ix. 54.-Kitto's Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature. "LORD."

« PreviousContinue »