DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9552#0440
q6
FINAL APPEAL
As some orthodox divines had attempted to prove
the deity of Jesus from the circumstance of the term
i' shepherd " being applied to God, in Psalm xxiii. i, anc
to Jesus, in John x. 16, I pointed out (p. 349 of the
Second Appeal), that the same term "shepherd" is usee
for Moses, (in Isaiah lxiii. 11. " With the shepherd of hi
flock,") and for the leaders of Israel, (Jer. xxiii. 4, "I wil
set up shepherds over them,") yet that none of those
persons is supposed to have been united with God.
The Reverend Editor, although he acknowledge
the accuracy of my above assertion, yet tries to draw from
it an* argument against me by means of one or two
strange questions. One is, (page 562,) " But did he " (the
author) "never read of a chief shepherd, who, when he
shall appear, will give the under shepherds a crown o
glory ?" The other is, " But was our author ignorant
that David was also one of Chirt's fold, and Moses, anc
Abraham ?" In answer to which, I must confess that f
am ignorant of David,, Moses, and Abraham, having been
of Christ's fold : and although Jesus is styled " a chiel
shepherd," yet such avowal of his superiority above other
messengers of the Deity neither places him on a level with
Jehovah, nor does it prove his unity with the Most High
God. Can a chief among the generals of a king be ever
supposed equal to, or identified with, the king, his
employer ? With respect to the argument founded on
referring to Jesus Christ, Ezek. xxxiv. 23, " I will set one
shepherd, even my servant David," I observed in my
Second Appeal, (p. 249,) that even in this case, " they
must still attribute his shepherdship over his flock to
divine commission, and must relinquish the idea of unity
between God the employer, and the Messiah his servant,5
FINAL APPEAL
As some orthodox divines had attempted to prove
the deity of Jesus from the circumstance of the term
i' shepherd " being applied to God, in Psalm xxiii. i, anc
to Jesus, in John x. 16, I pointed out (p. 349 of the
Second Appeal), that the same term "shepherd" is usee
for Moses, (in Isaiah lxiii. 11. " With the shepherd of hi
flock,") and for the leaders of Israel, (Jer. xxiii. 4, "I wil
set up shepherds over them,") yet that none of those
persons is supposed to have been united with God.
The Reverend Editor, although he acknowledge
the accuracy of my above assertion, yet tries to draw from
it an* argument against me by means of one or two
strange questions. One is, (page 562,) " But did he " (the
author) "never read of a chief shepherd, who, when he
shall appear, will give the under shepherds a crown o
glory ?" The other is, " But was our author ignorant
that David was also one of Chirt's fold, and Moses, anc
Abraham ?" In answer to which, I must confess that f
am ignorant of David,, Moses, and Abraham, having been
of Christ's fold : and although Jesus is styled " a chiel
shepherd," yet such avowal of his superiority above other
messengers of the Deity neither places him on a level with
Jehovah, nor does it prove his unity with the Most High
God. Can a chief among the generals of a king be ever
supposed equal to, or identified with, the king, his
employer ? With respect to the argument founded on
referring to Jesus Christ, Ezek. xxxiv. 23, " I will set one
shepherd, even my servant David," I observed in my
Second Appeal, (p. 249,) that even in this case, " they
must still attribute his shepherdship over his flock to
divine commission, and must relinquish the idea of unity
between God the employer, and the Messiah his servant,5