The old paths, or the Talmud tested by Scripture: Being a comparison of the principles and doctrines of modern Judaism with the religion of Moses and the prophets — John Shaqi
The old paths, or the Talmud tested by Scripture: Being a comparison of the principles and doctrines of modern Judaism with the religion of Moses and the prophetsMcCaul, Alexander
Religion
The old paths, or the Talmud tested by Scripture: Being a comparison of the principles and doctrines of modern Judaism with the religion of Moses and the prophets
McCaul, Alexander
Judaism -- Works to 1900
surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and
upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto
you to speak all these words in your ears.” We infer, therefore, that it
was possible for the priests, assembled in solemn deliberation in the
house of the Lord, to err in judgment, and to pronounce on unrighteous
sentence. We infer, further, that it was possible for the priests so far
to err, as to condemn to death a true prophet of the Lord. We infer,
further, that in such a case the people was not bound by this mistaken
judgment; but that it was their duty to decline from it, both to the
right hand and to the left. We infer, lastly, that as the priests might
mistake, and unjustly condemn to death a true prophet, their sentence
against Jesus of Nazareth forms no more argument against the Messiahship
of Jesus, than the similar sentence just considered did against the true
prophetic character of Jeremiah; and that it affords just as little
warrant for Jewish unbelief as the former sentence did for putting
Jeremiah to death.
But it may be asked, if the judgment of the priests was not infallible,
and if men were sometimes justifiable in refusing it, what use was there
in the above commandment to apply to them in cases of difficulty, and to
abide by their sentence? The answer to this is very simple. The priest
that stood to minister before the Lord had it in his power, before the
destruction of the first Temple, to inquire of the Lord and to receive a
miraculous answer from God himself, which answer was, of course,
infallible, and universally obligatory, without the possibility of
exception. We find in the Old Testament many instances in which the
Israelites availed themselves of this power, as in Judges xx. 27, “And
the children of Israel inquired of the Lord (for the ark of the covenant
of God was there in those days: and Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the
son of Aaron, stood before it in those days), saving, Shall I yet again
go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I
cease? And the Lord said, Go up; for to morrow I will deliver them into
thine hand.” And in the history of David’s life, there are several
instances of his employment of this miraculous power, as 1 Sam. xxiii.
4, “Then David inquired of the Lord yet again. And the Lord answered him
and said, Arise, go down to Keilah; for I will deliver the Philistines
into thine hand.” In all such cases where the priest first inquired of
the Lord, his sentence was, of course, infallible, and the Israelites
were bound to abide by it. But where they did not inquire of the Lord,
their sentence was only that of fallible men, and, therefore, not
binding upon the consciences of the people. Of this sort was their
sentence upon Jeremiah. Being wicked men, they did not choose to ask
counsel of the Lord, but pronounced sentence according to the devices of
their own hearts. In the case of the Lord Jesus Christ the priests could
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account