« AnteriorContinuar »
kiah, whose uume, whereby he was generally called: Hezekiab contains all these, and is much greater ; it is nothing less than in' pm The Lord my fortress, or rather the Eternal Existence my fortress ; and this is nothing else than the ineffable name ; the last letter is omitted that it should not be spoken; but every Hebraist will tell you it is the same, and has the meaning I have above given it.
As to Isa. xi. 10. is allowed to speak of the Messiah, who will come in that day, spoken of verse 9. that is, when all the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the water covers the depth of the sea. Then in that day, there shall be root to Jesse. Not that the Messiah i« the root of his progenitor, but that the tree which has been cut do^vn, shall from the old root Jesse produce the sprout, the Messiah: agreeably to verse 1. "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his root." Messiah is not the root, Jesse is the root, stem or stump from which this sucker, theMessiah, will sprout up, for an ensign to all nations. . "Has not the Rod and branch refference to the Messiah, who is not only the root
but the offspring of David;-not only David's son, but David's Lord:-not only a Rod of the stem of Jesse, but the Branch, the branch of righteousness out of the roots of Jesse; —Is not the root of Jesse the Jehovah, the ensign of the people, whom Gentilei ,. *seek? His rest or sabbath is to be glorious; which will be when Daniel's king
■ dom, the Stone, now so little among a very few ians, (perhaps as one to a
hundred or a thousand, though one of ten professing ians may be saved,) shall
become a great and general dominion or mountain, covering the whole earth."
From what is above shown, you must perceive, that your question, Is not the root of Jesse the Je. &c, will not apply; for although God may be said to be the root of all creation, it does not say, Messiah is the root.
You follow the erroneous translation of the writer of Paul's Epistles, and I do not blame you, for you make no pretence of being "an Hebrew," a disciple of Gamliel, I therefore, shallTnerely point out your mistake. You translate his rest, his sabbath! Now sabbath, does truly mean rest from labour, from toil; but the word in Isa. xi. 10. is not sabbath, but, Minuchathote, and if translated rest, it means rest from worrying, from trouble, bis peace, his quietness: the glory of the Messiah will be^Jiis introducing peace and quietness in the world: or the peace mi^'quictness of his reign, will be glorious.
The kingdom of the stone, you tell us, is at present little, "perhaps
as one to a hundred or a thousand, though one often professing
jans may be saved," This itself, is bad! bad enough, in all conscience!, one out of ten thousand, but even this is noHhe worst, for this word LITTLE, which is to s;irc; this one out of tcm (housaod. is no where to be found in Daniel! he merely says " n stone," and not "little stone," Dan. ii. 34 and 55. As soon as the stone is cut out, it smites the image and becomes a great mountain. See it explained in No. I, Vol. 1.
You next ask, "And what is this mountain or kingdom, but God himself—who is a s spirit?"
Nebuchadnezzar sat up the image, in the plain of Dura, our anestors refused to worship it; neither will we their decendents worship the stone, set up by you in the United States : be assured, that Jews will worship neither stock, nor stone.
"And wo to them that cover themselves with a covering (or atonement,) but not an atonement of my spirit, saith the Lord."
I have neither leisure, nor inclination for recrimination; besides, the question in controversy, requires that the feelings of affection, be between us. Thus much I may say, your translation of Isa. xxx. 1. is altogether erroneous.
"Jeremiah and Zechariah speak of this Branch, Jer. xxiii. 5. xxxiii. 15. Zech. iii. 8. Jeremiah calls this Branch the Eternal's righteousness, (The Lord our righteousness, says our translation: ) and the branch of righteousness. The rod of Jesse's stem, evidently must refer to a seed of David according to the flesh: but the Branch of righteousness, or root of Jesse, must as evidently refer to Jehovah himself, who is David's Lord. God manifest in the flesh of the Messiah, well explains how David's son, according to the flesh, is David's Lord, according to the Holy Spirv it, whom David saw and acknowledged.
Let us take the above mentioned three verses, on which this strange this pretended reasoning is built, before us.
Jer. xxiii. 6. "In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
xxxiii. 15.—16. "In those days, and in that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David ; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and JERUSALEM be dwelt safely ; and this is the name wherewith SHE shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
By these two texts it appears, that Jerusalem and Messiah, are to be called by the name of God, granted; but it is not therefore pretended that Jerusalem is god ; neither is Messiah god: although called by his name.
Zech. iii. 8 "Behold I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH."
Again we will grant the above is a promise of the Messiah, under
the title of a sprout, or as the bible has it, the branch; can it hence,
or even from the combination of the passages appear that the Messiah
is God! we might as well say, that Jerusalem is God! that Jerusalem
is the branch of David, and his Lord! because it is to be called by the same name with the Messiah, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS: and thus we have a fourth person in the God-head, a fourth sense, for adoration. And if this is untenable, neither, for the same reason, is it tenable, that Messiah is in any sense God: no matter what name he
will be called.
"All this explains what seemed to the Jews a dilemma, or contradiction, for the branch of righteousness is an unseparated portion of God united to Messiah. .And this branch is the ensign, this, the standard; this is God within, who enlightens the hearts of men ; this the covenant written; and the light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of his people Israel, it is called the new covenant, by Jeremiah xxxi. 31. it is called in Isainh 42, God's elect, or gift for a covenant of the people; and for a light of the Gentiles. Thus, according to Isaiah liv. the barren Gentiles that bid not bear nor travail, shall produce more children in God, than Israel of the old covenant; once the married wife of the Lord."
Has it indeed explained the dilemma? have you not rather fallen into a worse dilemma? Have you not in truth given up the doctrine of the Trinity of persons.? and in its stead broached that of a trinity
of senses ? will not your ian brethren call it the Nicholatian heresy
revived ? is this the -strait you are driven to, my brother ? ;and what want I more?
"This is called the new covenant."' Has it not been shown by Dea in No. 3. of vol. 2. of the Jew, what the new covenant is? and does it not appear it is not this ? you assert, my brother, and we look for argument.
Is this called in Isa. xlii. God's elect ? then Isaiah takes great lisence. "Behold my servant" (a sense, an idea) "whom" (which) "I uphold; mine elect," (a sense) "in whom" (in which sense) "my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit upon him ;" (upon this sense this idea,) "he" (if, this sense, this idea) "shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles."
I feel, I need not enlarge, for it never will be received as correct.
"The barren Gentiles that did not bear nor travail," appears (by your account, my brother,) to remain steril, One, out often thousand! I hope better things of them; and that you, my brother, will be delighted in the discovery of the mistake. But is it not apparent that Isaiah liiii. in its obvious sense, treats of the literal city Jerusalem? the Jews of the dispersion, are called the children of the desolate, the Jews of Jerusalem before the dispersion, the children of the married wife ; the Gentiles are no farther mentioned, than as an inheritance for the children of the desolate.
"Though the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were to be innumerable as the stars: yet that seed (not seeds)in whom, or in whose spirit, all the nations of the earth(i e the Gentiles) were to be blessed; is God, who will not give his glory to another ; or rather is that indivisible portion of himself, manifested in the Messiah, the rod n offspring of David and Jesse, and the Branch of righteousness or Root of both Jesse and David.
"Seed not seeds" (again Pan] speaks.) As sheep, fish, brick, and people, so is seed, a noun of multitude, and signifies many, or one, according to its application, and context: In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, is tantamount to, in thy decsendents shall all the nations of the earth be blessed: the same as, and thy seed, (or descendents) shall possess the gates of their enemies. Seed, in both places is a noun of multitude, and signifies, the literal descendents or children. But you will perhaps ask me, how all nations can be blessed by, or in the Jews! I answer: The Jews being blessed, will be a blessing to all the world: the history of thy descendents, will be well known to all the world, for they will be dispersed among all nations, the world will during all this time be without the knowledge of true religion, in continual broil, turmoil, and war, a very unhappy and Milblessed situation: thy seed, thy descendents will finally receive the reward of all their sufferings, and all things having eventuated exactly according to the literal sense of the prophets, as they will have held; the world, will by their agency be convinced of the truth: and on their receiving the dominion of, and over all the earth, they will cause the entire and utter cessation of war: and consequently be a blessing to all nations. Here you will say, carnal minded, but I say, scriptural minded: show me out of the scripture, that 1 am incorrect. In despite of the error of Paul, I say SEED is plural, and means, descendents.
The incontrovertably true, and obvious meaning of the text, is this. By myself have I sworn saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son. that 1 will assuredly bless thee, and assuredly multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies. And through the means of thy seed, shall all the nations of the earth be blessed."
All the world shall be blessed through the means of thy seed, who shall be multiplied and have possession of the gates of their enemies. This is the promise made to Abraham, his oath to Isaac, and made steadfast or certain to Jacob, for ::n everlasting covenant; saying, to thy seed will I give the land of Canaan, the line of their inheritance. But Jesus was not in possession of the land of Canaan, nor auy other individnal; therefore neither Jesus, nor any indivdiual can be intended as the SEED: for by the text, it must be a multiplied seed, who are in possession of the gates of their enemies. And as the Jews; the literal seed of Abraham, have an assured promise of the repossession of the land of Canaan, and are indeed multiplied; therefore they are the SEED, in whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed. O thou who ever didst, does, and ever will exist! thou God of Abraham and his seed, hasten the event of thy promise by oath to Abraham.
Hence my dear, and well intending brother, you will perceive, SEED docs not intend God, as you propose.
What you can mean by, "unseparated portion;" I cannot say: it appears to me an engastromuthism, a sound without meaning: a portion is a part, can you mean a part of the indivisible Deity? can a whole be divisible into portions, parts, or lots, and the portions not be separable from the whole? If is a portion of the Deity, then is the
Deity divisible! O God? forgive us! See my brother, to what straits you are driven.
"This root in the man or seed of the woman, bruises the head of the serpent, and the sar;»ent can hurt nothing but the flesh, which may be called the heel."
What a pity the beneficent, the merciful God! did not say flesh, instead of heel; or rather, what a pity the Romans, Jews, or Serpent, (for 1 will willingly join you, in laying the blame of the crucifixion, on the common enemy, or any body, or thing, even on an idea, or sense) did not pierce his heel, instead of his bands and feet: a little higher, and you might have cried out, A literal fulfillment of the promise. But as it is, that only the hands, feet, and side, are said to have been bruised : taking heel not to intend, literally the heel, but something else; you might as well suppose, hair was intended, or soul, as flesh. I see no reason why we shall depart from the literal meaning of the word: did the Omnicient want a proper word to express his meaning plainly? Or did he use a wrong word in a mistake? Or did he intend to deceive us? I see no force, no necessity, for departing from the literal meaning of the word, as is shown in Dea's letter, in this number. [To be concluded in our next.]
Subscribers in arrears, to "The Jew," are respectfully requested to forward the amount of their subscription.
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 lo 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 sacred will never be admitted.
Communications, &c. must come free of expense, and be directed to S. H. Jackson, printer, No. 91 Mercer street, New-York.