« PreviousContinue »
** for proving the divinity of our Saviour s6 from the Old TESTAMENT; but I cannot
help it. I have done it with no ill design, s but purely because I think, and am mo
rally sure, that the text, as it stands, will “ not properly admit of any other construcs tion: the Septuagint have so translated $6 before me; in an age where there could * not possibly be any bias or prejudice, either
for or against the before-mentioned doc“ trine: a doctrine, which draws its decisive
proofs from the New TESTAMENT only."
And surely every Orthodox Churchman must be “ offended” at an attempt to invalidate this most illustrious attestation to the divinity and sovereignty of Christ, and to rob them of the “ decisive" proofs thereof, furnished by the OLD TESTAMENT, and only recognized, explained, or illustrated, by THE NEw : and every sacred critic must be disgusted at such miserable mis-translation, both of the Hebrew text and Septuagint version ; doing justice to neither, but incongruously jumbling both together: for
1. The present Hebrew text will admit of no other construction than either that which ,יקראו ,is given
, ', they shall invoke," or “ call,” (meaning the faithful remnant of Judah and Israel,) “ in his days,” or second coming, “ in power and great glory," to establish the kingdom of God, or (the kingdom of the saints upon earth, Dan. vii. 27, Matt. xxiv. 30, 31, Rev. xx. 4)-or else 171899!, “ they shall call him," as read and rendered by all the ancient versions, except the Septuagint; both which are equivalent
our public translation, “ he shall be is called.”
2. The Septuagint version is, xa 78T0 TO ονομα αυτό, ο καλεσει αυτον Κυριος, ΙΩ- ΣΕΔΕΚ. And this is his name, which the LORD shall call him, THE LORD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. For 10 is evidently here the abridgment of 1A1 or IAHOH, as we saw before; and the title thus absolutely expressed, corresponds to MEAXI-LEAEK, “ KING OF + RIGHTEOUSNESS,
attributed also to CHRIST, Ps. cx. 4, Heb. vii. 2. But the concurrence of the Arabic version (that close copier of the Septuagint) with the other ancient versions, and Jerom, in rendering relatively, “ the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUS
NESS,” makes it almost morally “ certain," that the Hebrew copy, followed by the Septuagint, originally corresponded with the
3. In the first clause, this Christian professor adopts the Septuagint rendering, “and " this is the name which the Lord shall call “ him,” which has been repeatedly reprobated as incorrect by the ablest of the Jewish commentators and editors, according to De Rossi : “ Notat etiam Norzius, ex accentua“ tionis lege, 710' connecti non posse cum
1877, (ut Sensus sit, - DOMINUM vocatu“ rum MESSIAM, 13775, 'JUSTITIA NOS
TRA') --quemadmodum inepte connectit
quidam Agaon ; quem Aben Ezra confu“ tat; et ex recentioribus R. Menasseh ben
Israel, in Conciliador, t. iii. p. 50. Confer “ Weimar, Usus Accent. Bibl.
134." Not recognizing, perhaps, the Hebrew title, 12-EEAEK, in the disguise of a Grecian dress,-" TI E LORD OP RIGHTEOUS
NESS," (which sufficiently accords with the foregoing part of the Septuagint rendering) he unskilfully substitutes, from the Hebrew text,• “ QUE RIGHTEOUSNESS;": which indecorously seems to include TNE SUPREME Lord himself, under the pronoun “our,” along with Judah and Israel ! for which, therefore, the pronoun “ your,” if any, ought to have been substituted.
VI. 1978, or '978. Kupios, LORD, or RECENT: Δεσποτης, MASTER : Μεσιτης, MEDIATOR, or ARBITER.-The term 977% is promiscuously applied to God and Man: It denotes master; as Gen. xxxix. 20,“ Joseph's “ Master (1978) took him and put him into
prison.”—Or superintendant of a house ; or regent of a kingdom, as Gen. xli. 40, “ Pharaoh appointed Joseph over (Sy) his
house, and over (58) the land of Egypt;". which corresponds to Gen. xlv. 8. “God
appointed me for a father (385) to Pha“ raoh, and for a superintendant (17785) to “ all his house, and (1785) for a regent to “ all Egypt.” And in this sepse it appears to be applied to the Son of God, Ps. cx. 1. * The LORD (1717") said unto THE RECENT
(2785), sit thou at my right hand, until I “ make thine enemies a stool for thy feet.”
Here the Septuagint renders τω κυριω με, “ unto my Lord," and is followed, not only 요
by all the ancient versions, but also by the three Evangelists, in their citations of this unequivocal attestation to the delegated dominion of Jesus CHRIST, Matt. xxii. 44, Mark xii. 36, Luke xx. 42, Acts ii. 34. But that this rendering is incorrect notwithstanding, though so powerfully supported, may appear from the following remarks:
1. That the final Jod is not the affix of the first person, we may collect from the context, in which no speaker is introduced but IAHOH, THE LORD SUPREME. And our Saviour, in his citation of this passage, convicted the Jewish doctors of not understanding the spirit of their own Scriptures, when attesting the divine character of the MESSIAH; “ How then doth David, when
inspired, call him Lord?” (Kup.or); and this, in a case where David himself was not the speaker, but the relater; thus establishing the propriety of the appellation, by our Lord's application.
2. Neither is the final Jod significant of the plural, in regimen; for the plural is never used in the absolute form to denote a single. person, except once, Mal. i. 6.