|
(Continued from p. 306.)
By the Rev. Dr. W. Schlessinger
Equally striking and truthful is the citation of
three other Bible passages, which are said to have
seen their fulfilment in the time of Jesus. In
Matthew ii. 15. reference is made to Hosea xi. 1.
“When Israel was a lad, I loved him, and from Egypt
I called my son.” Whoever drags verses which can be
understood so readily by such violence into a
discussion, have evidently a bad cause to defend.
Either must such a defender be himself sunk into the
deepest ignorance, or he must be able to rely on the
ignorance of his public. But at the present age of
the world, every child must know that Israel is
called in the Bible the son, or even the first born
son of God, and the first part of the verse of
Hosea, cited by Matthew, leaves no doubt that in the
second also, Israel alone can be meant.
[consequently there could have no fulfilment of the
prophecy by Joseph, Mary, and their infant flying
into Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod.
The whole story of the slaughter of children at
Bethlehem, is considered by many intelligent
Christians even as fabulous: that it is not to be
expected that any Jew will give it the least
credence. Much less are we able to discover in this
narrative the fulfilment of the prophecy of
Jeremiah, as the apostle falsely attempts to do in
17, 18. Let one merely take the trouble to refer to
the verses of the Holy Scriptures, which
are employed by the apostles to answer their ends,
and to read them in connexion with what precedes and
follows, and it will then be seen what an abuse the
founders of Christianity were guilty of, in
their quoting the Bible, and to what legerdemain and
deceptive tricks they had recourse.
Jeremiah, in representing Rachel (xxxi. 15, as
weeping on account of the loss of her children, also
<<349>>shows us clearly from the comforting words,
“Thy children shall come back again from the land of
the enemy,” that the complaints of Rachel must have
been on account of her descendants who had been
carried away captive, but by no means could have any
reference to children which were to be murdered at
Bethlehem. The apostle ought, independently of this,
not have forgotten that Leah, the mother of Judah,
and not Rachel, ought to have wept for the slaughter
of the innocents at Bethlehem, which belonged to the
tribe of Judah: but this cautious proceeding would
be asking too much from the author or authors of the
book of Matthew.
But the crown of learning is due after all to the
apostle for telling us at the conclusion of his
second chapter, that Jesus had gone to live in the
little town of Nazareth, in order that it might be
fulfilled what the prophet had said, “He shall be
called a Nazarene.” But so it happens that up to
this day no man has ever been able to find this
verse in Scripture. The hypothesis of some learned
Christians is not, however, without probability,
that the apostle may have been thinking on Jeremiah
xxxi. 6, which says, “There shall yet be a day, when
the watchers shall call on the mount of Ephraim,”
which reads in the Hebrew text,
קראי נצרים
Kahre-oo Notz’rim the notzrim or
watchers shall call on the mount of Ephraim. Rise,
and let us go up to Zion, unto the Lord our God,”
which expression may, perhaps, have been understood
by the totally or half ignorant to mean, they shall
be called Notzrim, or Nazarenes.” Similar
misconceptions are, by the way, not very rare in the
New Testament.
The Unity of God.
Mr. Miller is perfectly right in saying, “Many Jews
appear to think that it would be culpable in them to
entertain the slightest doubt that they hold the
whole and precise truth in the important point of
the Unity of God. It is with reluctance and because
the importunity of Christians force them, that they
enter upon the investigation of this doctrine as it
is held by Christians; <<350>>and then every step in
the investigation is accompanied with the unpleasant
impression that there is not a single attraction of
either reason or interest in the whole subject.”
Whoever is, in the true sense of the word, a
professor of Judaism, cannot hold the idea at all
possible, even for a moment, that there can be a
second person in the Deity, and as little that there
can be imagined an interpretation of the Scriptures
which supports this idea.
It
is a settled and indisputable fact that many of our
laws have for their object to oppose polytheism, of
which the doctrine of the Trinity is a remnant, say
what you will. All the laws calculated to separate
Israel from other nations, are intended to guard us
against all heathenish elements. Judaism knows of no
greater sin than to pay divine homage to any other
being, excepting the invisible God alone. We cannot
help this; the word of God revealed to us in Holy
Writ so commands us; in the eyes of the Lord the
belief in different persons in the Deity is as great
a sin as incest and murder. Israelites believe that
God has revealed his holy will through Moses;
nevertheless they would consider all those as
sinners who would dare to identify Moses with God.
As now Moses must without any comparison stand
infinitely higher, and be more valued than Jesus,
with every Israelite: no one will blame him, if he
takes the liberty to condemn the belief in the
divinity of Christ, from the bottom of his heart, as
a grievous sin.
It
can, indeed, be proved from innumerable writings of
orthodox Rabbins, that the Christians among whom we
live at present, must on no account be regarded as
pagans, and that the rules of conduct towards the
heathens, laid down by the Rabbins, should by no
means be employed against Christians, but that we
are, on the contrary, bound to love them equally
with our Israelitish brethren; I myself regard
Christianity as an important progress compared with
Paganism; and I declared already, elsewhere, (in a
“Rabbi’s Reply,”) that I hold Protestantism again as
an important progress; but all this does not prevent
us to discover a refined idolatry in the divine
homage paid to Christ, and to regard our Christian
brothers as men who are ensnared in error respecting
the most important reli<< 351>>gious questions.
The writer of this, and perhaps many, very many Jews
are willing to acknowledge that God has deemed Jesus
worthy of becoming a personage famous and important
in the history of the world; but we are very far
removed from regarding the belief in his divinity as
a necessary condition for the attainment of
salvation, on the contrary we are inclined to assume
that this belief is very injurious to the attainment
of this all-desirable end. The kingdom of God also
cannot prevail on earth until the doctrine of the
Trinity has yielded up the dominion to the pure
monotheistic idea which is the basis of Judaism.
Christ said indeed, “My kingdom is not of this
world;” but this held only true in the first three
centuries after his birth, when Christianity
maintained itself painfully against persecution and
oppression. But how is it since it has obtained
power and dominion? Has not his kingdom been since
then of this world?
The two verses of the 31st chapter of Deuteronomy
(17 and 18), which Mr. Miller so impressively urges
us to reflect on, are not in sober truth even
remotely calculated to make Christian ideas
palatable to us. If we even are not so captivated by
self-deception as to regard ourselves, acting in
the manner we do now, as an exemplary people; if we
must confess, that though our lot is still to be
scattered among the nations, we have merited this
fate through the multitude of our sins and
transgressions: we are nevertheless not foolish and
simple enough to regard the power and flourishing
condition of the Christian states as the consequence
of their virtue and piety.
If
the argument of Mr. Miller could make the least
impression on us; could we so far stray from truth
and forget the teachings of our prophets to the
extent to look for a true acknowledgment of God
there only where outward splendour, earthly
prosperity, and military power have attained their
highest elevation: then would we be compelled to
turn our view to the Greek church, which is
professed by the mightiest kingdom on the earth—the
Russian empire; for, in that case, the autocrat of
so many millions of Russians would possess a much
greater power o attraction than the small handful of
Presbyterians. The followers of Moses, however, who
did not bend the knee either to the Babylonian or
<<352>>the Greek, or the Roman idols, possess yet at
this day—notwithstanding all their faults, such a
steady trust and faithfulness towards God, that they
run no longer any risk, either to worship strange
gods or a so-called god-man who was born in their
own midst.
If
even millions of non-Israelites feel deep
obligations towards that mediator who rendered them
susceptible for the moral laws of Moses and the
prophets, so that they regard this instrument as the
second person in the deity: still for us Israelites
remains this alternative that either Jesus has never
deemed himself a God, and the whole Trinity is a
later invention, a consequence perhaps of the
circumstance that he frequently answered those who
inquired after his fathers name, which he could not
mention out of a feeling of honour “I am a son of
God,” with the same right which every other man has
to the same appellation; or the conception of Mary
without the approach of a man is a product of his
own invention; and he declared himself as one with
the Father, claiming at the same time honours due to
God alone; in which case it will be well for him if
his death on the cross has been received on High as
his atonement and punishment for this daring
blasphemy of the holy Name. In either case, however,
must the thousands of millions who, for more than
eighteen hundred years, have expected, and still
expect, a forgiveness for their sins through this
death on the cross be most pitiable in our
estimation.
I
am ready to acknowledge that the mere expression
with the lips alone of our belief in the unity of
God Goes not insure a man’s salvation; in order to
be a Jew it is necessary also that, one should
believe that God watches over the acts of every
individual man; farther that He revealed to us his
will through his servant Moses in a manner so solemn
and impressive, as it has not been witnessed since
that memorable time. We do not deem it in the least
disagreeable that Mahomedans and Unitarians believe
with us in the unity of God; it is also in the
highest degree probable that the number of those is
not inconsiderable, who outwardly, indeed, profess
to believe in Christianity, whilst they nevertheless
reject the Trinity at the bottom of their heart.
As
once Moses spoke to his servant Joshua, “Would that
all the <<353>>people of the Lord were prophets”
(Numb. xi. 29), so do we also exclaim, “Would that
all mankind were to acknowledge the Lord, and,
filled with the divine spirit, might understand that
when the prophets predicted, ‘On that day the Lord
shall be one and his name ONE,’ they meant as clear
as sunlight that neither the name of Jesus, nor that
of any other being, can then be identical with the
glorious name of the Eternal.”
We
cannot repeat it often enough, and not enforce it
energetically enough, that Jesus and his disciples
may have been available teachers for the Pagans; but
that Israelites who study with zeal Moses and the
prophets do not stand in need of them, can learn
nothing of them which can refresh the soul, but on
the contrary they run the danger, through the study
of the gospels, unless they have strength of mind
and are firm in their faith, of being precipitated
into an ocean of dark and confused ideas, and of
doubting at length whether their reason be sound or
not.
If
we look at the subject with the best at our command,
it must be conceded that a denial and suppression of
reason belong to the characteristics of
Christianity; and to regard as true what is
incredible and opposed to reason was considered,
according to the narrative of the gospels in the
estimation of Christ, and latterly also in that of
Christians in general, as in the highest degree
meritorious. This proceeding will also be found
quite natural if one reflects that Jesus himself
commences his Sermon on the Mount, which has been
entirely over-estimated by his followers, with
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven.”
What praise is here bestowed on the spirit? But as
it is well-known that the poor in spirit have always
been far more numerous than those who possess much
of it, this surprising and agreeable message must
necessarily have been highly welcome to the large
masses. Whether Jesus counted himself among the
poor in spirit we do not pretend to know, and cannot
therefore determine whether he obtained the kingdom
of heaven according to his own doctrine. But in
truth one must renounce either reason or truth, when
one reads the following passage from the Sermon on
the Mount with attention, and nevertheless alleges
to be a follower of Christ without practically
fulfilling the Mosaic precept.
“Think not that I am come <<354>>to destroy the law
or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whoever,
therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be
called the least in the kingdom of heaven,” &c.
(Matt. v. 17-19.)
If
there is not pronounced here in clear and decisive
words a judgment of condemnation over all those who,
after Christ’s death, permitted themselves to
intermeddle with the law of Moses: then must we give
it up as a hopeless task ever to give our views, or
form a judgment on any given subject. And may the
Lord, before whom no falsehood can stand, and who
loves truth and sincerity more than all other things
besides, place very speedily a simplicity of ideas
and love for truth in all mankind, the children of
his creation, so that sophistry and pretended wisdom
may appear in their nakedness and natural deformity,
in order that no art of deception and perversion
shall avail any longer to demonstrate from a
proposition the opposite to what it ostensibly
means.
The strict doctrine of Jesus concerning the
institution of marriage in the same sermon, that
whoever separates from his wife, from any other
motive than incest causes her to commit adultery,
and that he who marries a divorced woman commits
that same crime, appears to Christians themselves so
little of divine origin and practicable, that they
never pay any attention to it.
The same holds good with respect to his doctrine
concerning oaths; that also when one is smitten on
one cheek, that he is to offer the other also to the
smiter; and the admonition to give away the coat
when the cloak is taken. We cannot possibly believe
that any essential service has been rendered to
mankind by the imparting of such exaggerated and
impracticable doctrines, especially by one who
pretends to be a god. The prettiest of all, however,
and one entirely worthy of the deity of Christ, is
the remark which may be found in Matthew, v. 43, “Ye
have heard that it hath been said, thou shalt love
thy neighbour and hate thine enemy,” but such a
sentence is neither to be found in the Bible nor in
the Talmud; on the contrary the Scriptures enjoin,
“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Levit.
xix. 18.)
(To be continued.) |
