DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9552#0505
to the christian public. l6l
establish the deity of Jesus, by comparing Jer. xxiii. 5, 6t
(" I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king
shall reign and prosper—and this is his name whereby he
shall be called, the lord our righteousness,") with 1
Cor. i. 3», (" Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto
us wisdom and righteousness," &c.) I replied, in my
Second Appeal, that " I only refer my readers
again to the passage in Jer. xxxiii. 16, in which
Jerusalem also is called 'the lord our righteousness',
and to the phrase, ' is made unto us of God,' found in the
passage in question, and expressing the inferiority of
Jesus to God ; and also to Cor. v. 21, 'that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him where St.
Paul says, that all Christians may 'be made the righteous-
ness of God ;' " to which the Reverend Editor thus replies
page (480); " This does not at all affect the question in
hand, which is simply, whether this righteous branch
of David, this king, who shall reign and prosper, be
Jesus Christ or not : and to prove this, we need only
call in the testimony of the angel to Mary, Luke i.
32, 33, ' The Lord God shall give unto him the throne
of his father David : And he shall reign over the
house of Jacob for ever.' " The Editor here overlooks
; again the force of the phrase, " God shall give unto him
).. (Jesus) the throne of his father David," implying, that
i the throne and exaltation which Jesus was possessed of,
r was but the/;r<? gift of God.
To lessen the force of such phrases as, " being
x made of God," " God shall give unto him," &c, the
[ Editor adds, that, "relative to his 'being made of God
t righteousness to us,' this can of course make no altera-
i tion in the Son's eternal nature." I therefore beg to
• 11
establish the deity of Jesus, by comparing Jer. xxiii. 5, 6t
(" I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king
shall reign and prosper—and this is his name whereby he
shall be called, the lord our righteousness,") with 1
Cor. i. 3», (" Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto
us wisdom and righteousness," &c.) I replied, in my
Second Appeal, that " I only refer my readers
again to the passage in Jer. xxxiii. 16, in which
Jerusalem also is called 'the lord our righteousness',
and to the phrase, ' is made unto us of God,' found in the
passage in question, and expressing the inferiority of
Jesus to God ; and also to Cor. v. 21, 'that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him where St.
Paul says, that all Christians may 'be made the righteous-
ness of God ;' " to which the Reverend Editor thus replies
page (480); " This does not at all affect the question in
hand, which is simply, whether this righteous branch
of David, this king, who shall reign and prosper, be
Jesus Christ or not : and to prove this, we need only
call in the testimony of the angel to Mary, Luke i.
32, 33, ' The Lord God shall give unto him the throne
of his father David : And he shall reign over the
house of Jacob for ever.' " The Editor here overlooks
; again the force of the phrase, " God shall give unto him
).. (Jesus) the throne of his father David," implying, that
i the throne and exaltation which Jesus was possessed of,
r was but the/;r<? gift of God.
To lessen the force of such phrases as, " being
x made of God," " God shall give unto him," &c, the
[ Editor adds, that, "relative to his 'being made of God
t righteousness to us,' this can of course make no altera-
i tion in the Son's eternal nature." I therefore beg to
• 11