INTERPRETATIONS In consistency with the Divine Unity. (1) It is a common practice of the Hebrew Language, to put in the plural form, words that express dominion, dignity, and majesty and, farther, when a plural noun is used to denote a single object, the verb is regularly put in the singular, though it is sometimes put in the plural, owing merely to the termination of the noun.-These indisputable facts, at once solve the grammatical difficulty, and it is nothing more. If the doctrine which it is supposed to favour, had any solid foundation in the Scriptures, this Hebrew idiom could afford it no support.-When Jehovah says to Moses, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh,' the original word is Elohim or Aleim. The plural form is employed in reference to the one Golden Calf, Exod. xxxii. 4, 8, 31; to Dagon, Judges xvi. 23; to the Sidonian deities Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom, each separately, 1 Kings xi. 33, &c. &c. In like manner, Abraham, Pharaoh, Joseph, &c. are called Adonim, Lords. The argument has been rejected by many of the most learned Trinitarians. Even Calvin denies that the plural termination is any evidence of a plurality of Persons in the Godhead. (2) The Supreme Being is in these passages represented as using the language of dignity, according to the practice of earthly sovereigns. Examples of this practice occur in the Scriptures; e. g. 1 Kings xii. 9; Ezra iv. 18. The only wonder is, that it is found in so small a number of instances. In the Koran, God is continually represented as speaking in the plural number, We did—We gave-We commanded; yet the Mahometans are strict believers in the Divine Unity. The Jews themselves inferred nothing from this phraseology respecting a plurality of Persons in the One God. In fact, if it taught plurality at all, it would teach that there are more Gods than one, which in words at least, all Christians deny. (3) If the Trinitarian interpretation were the true one, the Lord God must be supposed to say it to another Lord God, and it would teach a plurality of Gods.-There is no reason Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. This passage is supposed to declare plainly, that the Child who was to be born, SHOULD REALLY be the Mighty God; and therefore that Jesus Christ was truly and properly God. Most Trinitarian critics depart from the translation Everlasting Father, preferring, Father of the Everlasting Age, or, of the Future Age, &c. Disproving the common Interpretation. in Gen. iii. 5: Then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as Gods, (Elohim,) knowing good and evil; where Elohim denotes the Angels. (4) Isa. xlii. 1. Behold MY SERVANT, whom I uphold. These are the words of Jehovah himself, in reference to this dignified person. So again, Isa. lii. 13. Behold, MY SERVANT shall deal prudently. Isa. xlv. 5. I am Jehovah and there is NONE ELSE, there is No God besides ME. Isa. xlvi. 9. I am God, and there is NONE ELSE; I am God, and there is NONE LIKE ME. Isa. xliv. 6. 8. I am the First and I am the Last, and BESIDES ME there is No God. -Is there a God besides me? I know not any. Isa. xlv. 21. Who hath declared this from ancient time; who hath told it from that time? Have not I JEHOVAH ? and there is NO GOD ELSE BESIDES ME: a just God and a Saviour; there is none BE SIDES ME. (5) Ps. lxxxiii. 18. That men may know, that thou WHOSE NAME ALONE IS JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth. See also various passages in the preceding numbers. If the reader is desirous of understanding the exclusive force of the word, JEHOVAH, Ver.33.16. 15 to more than one Person. "Besides me there is no God" 4450.6. Is there any God bene des me ? Jen there " is no God ! I know not any " 445sa. O . "Jeven d'am he, and there is no God with me" 32. Deut. 39. Sam the Lord, and there is none like me " Isa. 46. 9 . Interpretations in consistency with the Divine Unity. why the Supreme Being should not be considered as speaking to his attendant Angels. The resemblance is merely in that quality which superior Intelligences must possess the knowledge of good and evil. (4) Since the words of Jehovah must be true, Christ His Servant, upon whom He put His spirit, whom he anointed to preach good tidings, could not himself be truly and properly God, as Jehovah is God. If the prophetic titles be rendered Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, then this last must denote that the Messiah, the Servant of Jehovah, would be eminently distinguished by divine gifts of knowledge and power, and commissioned and inspired to declare to mankind the will of Jehovah. They have been translated by Trinitarians, Wonderful, Counsellor, Powerful, Mighty, &c. They may be literally rendered, Wonderful, Counsellor of God, (or Illustrious Counsellor,) Father of the future Age, Prince of Peace: denoting that the objects of his mission, and the means of their accomplishment, would be wonderful; that he would be fully acquainted with the gracious purposes of the Most High; that he would be the end of the Gospel Dispensation, &c. If this rendering and interpretation (which, it is believed, will bear a close examination) are rejected, three things deserve to be considered by the Scripturalist; (1) These titles were applied to one who was to be born; (2) The Jews were accustomed to use the sacred appellation God, much more loosely than we can do; (see No. 10;) and (3) The Jews certainly did not expect their Messiah to be God, in the sense in which Jehovah is God. (5) In Jer. xxxiii. 16, the same appellation," Jehovah our Righteousness" is given to Jerusalem. What can prove more decidedly, that it has nothing to do with the nature and deity of Christ-Blayney (an eminent Trinitarian critic) translates the passage in question; "And this is the name by which Jehovah shall call him, Our Righteousness:" but there is no necessity for this translation, to shew the consistency of the passage with the great principles of Unitarianism. It was usual among the Hebrews to give their children names, which were in reality short sentences, expressive of some circum A 3 |