DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9552#0480
136
FINAL APPEAL
Prince of Peace," human beings, and even inanimate
objects, were designated by the same terms, or similar
epithets, as noticed in pages.240, 242, 243, 275 and 276
of my Second Appeal, without being held up as the
most high Jehovah.
Moreover, the difference between " to be" and " to
be called " is worth observing, as I noticed in the note at
page 275, Second Appeal, to which I beg to refer my
readers. As to the phrases "no end," and " for ever,''
or "everlasting," found in Isaiah ix. 6, 7, these, when
applied to creatures, are always to be taken in a limited
sense, the former signifying plenteousness, the latter
long duration, as I observed in note, page 234 of the
Second Appeal. Vide Gen. xlix. 26 ; Heb. iii. 6.
St. Matthew, in an accommodated sense, applies
Isaiah ix. 1, 2, to Jesus, whose spiritual reign delivered
also the inhabitants of Zebulun, and the land of
Naphtalim and Galilee, from the darkness of sin, in the
same way as in Hezekiah's reign their inhabitants were
saved from the darkness of foreign invasion.
As the Editor and many orthodox Christians lay
much stress on the application of the term Immanuel to
Jesus, I offer the following observations. The sum total
of their argument is derived fro m the following verse,
Matt. i. 23 : " And they shall call his name Immanuel,
which, being interpreted, is God, with us." This name
is composed of three Hebrew words, " Emma " iSjJ with ;
"noo," p us ; "el," God ; that is, with us God ; hence
the advocates for the Trinity conclude that Jesus is here
called God, and that he must therefore be God. But let
us ascertain whether other beings are not, in common
with Jesus, called by designations compounded with clY
FINAL APPEAL
Prince of Peace," human beings, and even inanimate
objects, were designated by the same terms, or similar
epithets, as noticed in pages.240, 242, 243, 275 and 276
of my Second Appeal, without being held up as the
most high Jehovah.
Moreover, the difference between " to be" and " to
be called " is worth observing, as I noticed in the note at
page 275, Second Appeal, to which I beg to refer my
readers. As to the phrases "no end," and " for ever,''
or "everlasting," found in Isaiah ix. 6, 7, these, when
applied to creatures, are always to be taken in a limited
sense, the former signifying plenteousness, the latter
long duration, as I observed in note, page 234 of the
Second Appeal. Vide Gen. xlix. 26 ; Heb. iii. 6.
St. Matthew, in an accommodated sense, applies
Isaiah ix. 1, 2, to Jesus, whose spiritual reign delivered
also the inhabitants of Zebulun, and the land of
Naphtalim and Galilee, from the darkness of sin, in the
same way as in Hezekiah's reign their inhabitants were
saved from the darkness of foreign invasion.
As the Editor and many orthodox Christians lay
much stress on the application of the term Immanuel to
Jesus, I offer the following observations. The sum total
of their argument is derived fro m the following verse,
Matt. i. 23 : " And they shall call his name Immanuel,
which, being interpreted, is God, with us." This name
is composed of three Hebrew words, " Emma " iSjJ with ;
"noo," p us ; "el," God ; that is, with us God ; hence
the advocates for the Trinity conclude that Jesus is here
called God, and that he must therefore be God. But let
us ascertain whether other beings are not, in common
with Jesus, called by designations compounded with clY