On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
shalt be to him ( a » nV » V ) for * as or instead of Elohim " " The sense is palpably limited to his acting , on the occasion , as the immediate messenger and representative of the Most High / ' and in like manner Ex . vii . 1 . It certainly seems to us , on the contrary , that the only admissible sense is , " thou shalt be to him as a superior being delivering directions , which it shall be his business to obey ; " that it is not being the organ of Jehovah ,
but exercising that kind of superiority and authority which the name Elohim implies , which is intended , and , therefore , that the word could not have been used had it been of the nature of a proper name , or had its plural form been considered as conneqted with any mystery . Again , in the passage adduced by Mr . Belsham from 1 Sam . xxviii . 13 , "I see Elohim olim literally , Gods ascending , but supposed by Mr . B . to mean only the figure of Samuel * " Dr . S . affirms , that
" Whatever the impostress saw or pretended to see , her words undeniably affirm a plurality of objects . The figure of Sainuel could , therefore , have been only one form out of several ; so that to regard Elohim as an appellation given to Samuel , is both begging the question , and a violation of the plain grammar of the passage . " Now this is pretty strong assertion , but it cannot alter the facts of the case . When the woman said to Saul , " I saw Gods ascending out of the earth , he said unto her , What form is he of ? " ( Plainly shewing that Saul
understood her to speak of one figure . ) " She said , An old man cometh up and is covered with a mantle , and Saul perceived that it was Samuel . " The connexion seems to us to prove , beyond all question , that only one figure is at all said to have appeared , and that this being considered as something supernatural , was called a God ( Elohim ) by the ignorant or artful woman . As to the grammar , the construction is precisely the same with Elohim Shofetim ,
( both plural , ) " a God that judgeth , " Ps . lviii . 12 . Elohim haiim , ( both plural , ) the living God , &c . Mr . B . ' s example , then , is a very clear and important one of this plural in a singular sense being used of one being recognized as distinct from and inferior to God , and consequently implying no mystery of the Divine nature . But , according to our author , Elohim not being limited like Jehovah to express the Supreme Being alone ,
" For that very reason it became the more necessary to guard against possible and probable abuse . As the word was in ordinary use to designate the numerous false deities of the nations , it was the more likely , and even unavoidable that the Hebrews would understand its perpetual occurrence in the plural form as the designation of their own God to be an express intimation that plurality in some sense belonged to him . "—( Script . Test . p . 517 ) We cannot , we confess , understand the logic of this passage . Because the word Elobim , a plural form , was in ordinary use to designate any one of the false deities of the nations , each one of which was known to be , and always
considered to be singular , therefore the Hebrews would understand it to have a plural sense when applied to a Being , " of whose essential unity , ( to use Dr . S . ' s words , ) from other infallible testimonies , they were certain . " We surely only do justice to them in supposing that had any doubt been suggested they would have drawn the contrary conclusion , and knowing the tvnity of the object denoted by the plural term in the case of the idol , would have concluded the unity also , independentl y of any declaration of it , of that Being , concerning whose nature they could not have direct knowledge . We have enlarged upon this subject , not because we think the argument from the pluralisms likely to have much weight with any inquirer , rejected as it
Untitled Article
338 Dr . •/ . P . Smith * s Scripture Testimony to the Messiah .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 2, 1831, page 338, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2597/page/50/
-