DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9552#0504
l60 final appeal
declared to be the husband, or the head of his folloivcrs :
there is, therefore, an inequaitty of authority evidently
ascribed to God and to Jesus. Moreover, Christ :
himself shows the relation that existed between him
and his church, and himself and God, ' in John i
xv. i : ' I am the true vine, and my father is the husband-
man.' Ver. 5 : 'I am the vine, ye are the branches,' '
&c. Would it not be highly unreasonable to set at :
defiance the distinction drawn by Jesus between God 1
himself, and his church ? The Editor has not
taken the least notice of this last argument ; he only 1
glances over the former, saying, (page 579) " Had our •
author examind the context with sufficient care, he :
would have found that those to whom God declares <.
himself the husband, are so far from being all his ;
•creatures, that they are only one branch of his church, f
the Gentiles, the children of the desolate, in opposition 1
to the Jews, the children of the married wife." I ]
wonder how the choice of the designation " thy Maker," '
in Isaiah liv. 5, in preference to others, and its true force, ,
could escape the notice of the Editor, as the phrase ;
" thy Maker is thy husband " implies in a general sense :
that whosoever is the maker is also the preserver, and J
consequently, God is the husband, or the preserver, of "1
all his creatures, including the Jews more especially as c
his chosen people. I, however, wish to know how the i
Editor justifies himself in concluding real unity between j
God and Jesus from the application of the term husband .
to them, while Jesus declares the relation between God, ,
himself, and his church, to be such as that existing \
between the husbandman, the vine, and its branches.
Some orthodox divines having attempted to (
declared to be the husband, or the head of his folloivcrs :
there is, therefore, an inequaitty of authority evidently
ascribed to God and to Jesus. Moreover, Christ :
himself shows the relation that existed between him
and his church, and himself and God, ' in John i
xv. i : ' I am the true vine, and my father is the husband-
man.' Ver. 5 : 'I am the vine, ye are the branches,' '
&c. Would it not be highly unreasonable to set at :
defiance the distinction drawn by Jesus between God 1
himself, and his church ? The Editor has not
taken the least notice of this last argument ; he only 1
glances over the former, saying, (page 579) " Had our •
author examind the context with sufficient care, he :
would have found that those to whom God declares <.
himself the husband, are so far from being all his ;
•creatures, that they are only one branch of his church, f
the Gentiles, the children of the desolate, in opposition 1
to the Jews, the children of the married wife." I ]
wonder how the choice of the designation " thy Maker," '
in Isaiah liv. 5, in preference to others, and its true force, ,
could escape the notice of the Editor, as the phrase ;
" thy Maker is thy husband " implies in a general sense :
that whosoever is the maker is also the preserver, and J
consequently, God is the husband, or the preserver, of "1
all his creatures, including the Jews more especially as c
his chosen people. I, however, wish to know how the i
Editor justifies himself in concluding real unity between j
God and Jesus from the application of the term husband .
to them, while Jesus declares the relation between God, ,
himself, and his church, to be such as that existing \
between the husbandman, the vine, and its branches.
Some orthodox divines having attempted to (