« AnteriorContinuar »
We now revert to the fifteenth chapter of Saint Matthew, verses 10—11. &c.
"And he called the multitude, and paid unto them, hear and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth this defileth the man. Then came his disciples and said unto him, knowest thou that the Pharasees were offended after they heard this saying: but he answered and said, every plant, which my heavenly father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Then answered Peter, and said unto him, declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things Which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, false witness, blasphemies; These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands defileth not a man."
Matthew introduces Jesus teaching the multitude, against the tradition of the elders, against which he appears to be very inveterate; but so little knowledge has he what is tradition, and what is law, or in other words, what is oral law, and what is written law, that he confounds them. We may perceive that Matthew was no Jew, or he would have known that eating forbidden meats was not tradition of the elders, but forbidden by the law of God, given by God, through Moses, to the Jews, which law he here teaches, may be broken, and will not defile a man, that is to say, will not make sinful: and the reason is; because it is cast out by the draught: and so fell mother Eve into what they call original sin, she was led to believe there was no harm in eating the forbidden fruit, because it went into the mouth, and was cast out into the draught; but see the consequence! she, by eating, transgressed God's command, and so did Adam, were they not defiled, that is, made sinfnl ? and was not death, (or as you will readily grant, eternal death,) the consequence of their eating? although it went in at the mouth, and came out by the draught? God gave Adam and Eve a command, they ought to have kept it, and not have eaten of the tree of knowledge, although he permitted them to be tempted; God also gave the Jews a command not to eat of certain meats, and they I trust will keep it, although they may be tempted : for the Lord their God proveth them, to see whether they love the Lord their God with all their hearts, and whether they will walk in his way or not, and therefore he permits them to be tempted, so that all this fine reasoning is nothing at all, and at last eating against God's express command, will defile the Jews, as much as it did Adam and Eve. .;
The editor having undertaken to publish the form of Daily Prayers in Hebrew and English, was obliged to get a supply of Hebrew type for the purpose; not finding any printer, who would, or indeed could, at any fair price undertake the work, was necessitated to undertake it himself. And having been sometime dissatisfied with the execution of "The Jew," resolved to print both works under his own inspection, but could not affect it in as short a time as was expected, in consequence No 6. has been delayed two months. It will be seen the appearance and execution of the work is altered—we trust, improved. It is hoped, in future the work will be issued early in every monthsay on the first day of each Hebrew month.
No. 7. will examine the 43d verse of the xxii. chapter of Matthew, and show that Jesus of Nazareth was neither God, King, Messiah, nor Priest; and will give the true and literal explanation of the 110th Psalm.
"ISRAEL'S ADVOCATE," has changed publishers, and is again about changing Editors. The present Editor, it is reported, is to be sent on a mission to Europe, with a salary of 2000 dollars per annum, out fits, &c. Is not this meliorating the condition of the Jews!!' We hope the future editor will be willing to exchange, so that we may see the" IAN KNOWLEDGE" it may contain.
THE JEW is published monthly, and delivered to subscribers in New-York, at their dwellings, and to distant subscribers, at the Post-Office in New-York, or to any other conveyance ordered, for one dollar and fifty cents, per annum, payable semi-annually in advance.
THE JEW will be conducted with candour, temper, and moderation; the language to be always such as should not offend. Derision on subjects held sacre-t will never be admitted.
Communications, &c. must come free of expense, and be directed to S. HJackson, printer, No. 91 Mercer street, New-York.
BEING A DEFENCE OF JUDAISM AGAINST ALL ADVERSARIES, AND PARTICULARLY AGAINST THE INSIDIOUS ATTACKS OF
i i ——————■>—■■»■———■«
VOL. II. Bth month, MARCHESHl ON, OCTOBER, 5585. NO. 7.
Thou hast trodden down all those who err from thy statutes: for their dissimulation is falsehood. Thou hast caused all the wicked of the earth to evaporate like dross; I therefore love thy testimonies. Ptalnu cxiz. 118.
EXAMINATION OF ST. MATTHEW,
Continued from p«ge 380.
CHAP. XXII. Verse, 43.—"How then doth David in spirit call Irm Lord, say* ing: The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till 1 make thino enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his ton?"
Is it possible, Matthew will have he is not his son? for follow up the reasoning: David calls him Lord, if he is David's Lord he is not David's son. And truly, as Matthew has given us the genealogy of Jesus, he was not any man'* son, for he will have, chapter i. 16. Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary; but he tells us, before they came together she was found with child: consequently, the child Jesus was not the son of Joseph the son of Jacob, and consequently, not the son of David, but the son of the Holy Ghost. Give me leave to ask, if he was not David's son how then is he the Messiah? if he is not descended from David, or David's father Jesse, Isaiah xi. 1. "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and » branch shall grow up out of his roots." If Jesus of Nazareth was the son of the Holy Ghost, and not David's son, he then is not the rod out of the stem of Jesse, he is not grown out of his root: then how can he be the Messiah? Jeremiah xxiii. 5. "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper." If Jesus of Nazareth was not the son of Djvid how could he be the righteous branch. According (o your account of him, and his genealogy, he is a spurious branch, no matter who his father was; how then is he the Messiah? The Messiah, according to Jeremiah, must be a righteous branch from David, again, xxxiii. 15. "In those days, and in that time will I cause the branch of sighteousness to grow up unto David," again, 17. "For thus saith the Lord, David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel." If Jesus of Nazareth is not the son of David, how can he be the branch of righteousness ? for if he should always sit on the throne of Israel, and is anothers son, David will always want a man to sit on the throne of Israel; for Jesus is not a son of David, but of the Holy Ghost. It is true, Luke does call him a son of David, at least he calls David his father ; he however, calls Jesus the son of the Highest, and calls David his father: then, according to Luke, David is the Highest. "He shall be called the son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Still he gives us the genealogy of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was not descended; consequently, he could not be the Messiah. But of Luke by and by, he shall have his turn please God. 1 know some one, either Bishop Newton, or Bishop Watson, has said Mary was of the family and lineage of David, but whence he got it from I can not divine, for neither Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John, give us any account of Mary's genealogy. As to the supposition, that Joseph being of the lineage of David, Mary also must have been, because the Jews did not marry out of their tribe; the premises are not true, the Jews h:id no such law, no such custom; the Priests only, were obliged by law, to take a virgin of their own people, or the widow of a priest: but as to any of the rest of the tribes, married in the nation, who they pleased, except those forbidden: if indeed the males of a family were extinct, and the patrimony fell among the daughters, according to ancient law, as in the case of the daughters of Zelophead, the daughters were obliged in such case, to marry one of their father's tribe. But was Mary in that situation? it appears to the contrary, for Joseph was a carpenter, according to the account of him, he does Dot appear to have had any laud, but if it should have been so, she then mi^ht have been a Jewess of the tribe of Judali; but a thousand to one, not of the least of the thousands of Judah an Ephrathitess, she rather appears to have been of the tribe of Levi, for she was cousin to Elizabeth, wife of the priest Zacharias, which Elizabeth was a daughter of Levi; sec Luke, ch. i. as such it is to be supposed, if she was at at all, she was a Levitess, a daughter of Levi, and not a Jewess. But however it was with her, it makes no difference in the present case, for the genealogy is never reckoned according to the mother.
Bat to return to our text, as it is called, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord." Does he Matthew, does David call any man Lord? You must be a wonderful learned man; for I cannot find it so, it does not appear so to the modern Jews, as they are called; and I assure you, they ought at least to know something of the idiom and phraseology of their own language, and it is as certain, that the ancient Jews would not accept of the idea, that the Messiah must be God, or part of the Godhead. For although, it is allowed that the whole profanity is from the prophets of Jerusalem, as foretold by Jeremiah xxiii. 15. "From the prophets ot Jerusalem, is profaneness gone forth, into all the land." Still none but the very pagans, or very light Jews, (men without any information in the sacred writings,) would accept of the profanation! of the perversion! You allude to the ex. Psalm, and which is by you, called a psalm of David, meaning, a psalm composed by David, is it so? is it a psalm composed by David? or rather, is it not a psalm treating of, and concerning David?
TiOtO TVT? A psalm for David: are you a Jew? then you must know that the 7 Lamud, prefixed, means to, of, for, or concerning. Think TV27&v "TiDfO a psalm for Solomon, here the *} LaMud is prefixed to Solomon, and is rightly translated, a psalm for Solomon, or TXCHIZr) FnTpDTl TC a song of degrees for Solomon, here the *J Lamod is prefixed to, T\u?$ Solomon, and is rightly translated for,
so here TlOtO "TTT7 a psalm for David. The psalm for Solomon is a psalm concerning Solomon. The song of degrees for Solomon, is a song made about, or concerning Solomon; so here the psalm for David is a psalm composed, and which treats of and concerning David. So far is David from being the composer, that the psalm treats of him in the third person; it does not treat of the Messiah, emphatically so called, but of king David the son of Jesse, and father of king Solomon, and was sung in his praise, by his servants, and
subjects. The idea among ians is, that the whole book of
Psalm?, are composed by David, they call them the psalms of David, as if he wrote and collected them; the very reverse of which is the truth. The book of Psalms, is a collection of psalms of several hands, some are certainly of David's composing, others again are composed by Assaph, Nathan, Moses, and a great many others; thin