REMARKS ON Several very important PROPHECIES.
IN FIVE PARTS.
REMARKS ON Several very important PROPHECIES.
IN FIVE PARTS.
I. Remarks on the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Verses of the SEVENTH Chapter of Isaiah, in Answer to Dr. W—MS'S Critical Dissertation on the same, as approved and republished by the Authors of the Critical Review.
II. A Dissertation on the Nature and Style of Prophetical Writings, shewing that abrupt Transitions from one Subject to another are frequently found therein. The same being intended to illustrate the foregoing Remarks.
III. A Dissertation on Isaiah vii. 8.
IV. A Dissertation on Genesis xlix. 10.
V. An Answer to some of the principal Arguments used by Dr. W—MS in Defence of his Critical Dissertation on Isaiah vii. 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. in which the opinions of the late Dr. Sykes and Dr. G. Benson, concerning Accommodations of Scripture-Prophecy, are briefly considered.
BY GRANVILLE SHARP.
LONDON: PRINTED BY W. RICHARDSON AND S. CLARK; AND SOLD BY B. WHITE (No 63.) IN FLEET-STREET; R. HORSFIELD (No 22.) IN LUDGATE-STREET; AND J. ALLIX, IN GLANVILLE-STREET, RATHBONE PLACE.
M DCC LXVIII.
REMARKS ON THE Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Verses OF THE SEVENTH CHAPTER of ISAIAH: IN ANSWER TO Dr. W—MS'S Critical Dissertation on the same, As approved and
republished
by THE AUTHORS OF THE CRITICAL REVIEW.
REMARKS ON THE Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Verses of the Seventh Chapter of ISAIAH, &c.
Hear ye now, O house of David, is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
THIS text has in all ages of Christianity been esteemed a clear and certain prediction of the miraculous birth of Christ; and therefore these remarks upon it would have been superfluous, had not a learned and ingenious gentleman lately attempted to prove a contrary doctrine
See Critical Dissertation on Isaiah vii. 13, 14, 15, 16.
; viz.
That the prophet
(in this text)
had no reference to the Messiah
Page 44.
.
That
the words of Isaiah prove only that a young woman should conceive and bring forth a son, without intimating any thing miraculous in her conception,
&c.
P. 21.
That
from the most careful and impartial examination, the word
(here translated a virgin)
doth not appear to signify strictly a virgin;
but that
it seems to mean a young woman in general, without specifying particularly, whether she is a virgin or not
P. 23.
.
This writer is not singular in his notions, for the authors of the Critical Review have publicly professed themselves of the same opinion concerning this prophecy (see No 136, fo. 349.)—
The most obvious and natural explication
(say they)
is this which Dr. W—ms
The author of a Concordance to the Greek Testament.
has adopted,
&c.
I do not find that they have objected to a single part of the Doctor's work; and therefore this public declaration certainly makes them parties to the whole: nay, perhaps I may say with justice, that they are more concerned in publishing these notions to the world, even than the
anonymous author
himself; for instead of giving a short extracted account of the work as usual, they seem to have copied the whole, almost at length, scarcely omitting a single circumstance.
Now I must acknowledge, in justice to Dr. W—ms, that I think he has set forth his hypothesis to all the advantage that it is capable of; nevertheless, he does not make it appear that the word
in any other place of the Old Testament where it occurs, must
necessarily
signify a young woman that was
not
a virgin; without which proof the common acceptation of the sign promised by Isaiah cannot with justice be rejected; especially as a virgin did afterwards conceive, and bear a son; a miracle which never happened before or since the birth of Christ! therefore it was certainly a sign worthy of that great and wonderful event; and, from that time to this, has by all Christians (except the author of the Critical Dissertation and the authors of the Critical Review
Dr. W—ms has since informed me of
one other writer
of the same opinion concerning this passage; (viz. the author of
"The Assembly's Confession of Faith examined,"
printed in 1651.) but at the same time he acknowledges that this authority was not known, even to himself, until
"several months after the Dissertation was published:"
and he declares concerning his own sentiments of the passage, that he apprehended them
"altogether new,"
when he wrote,
for
(says he)
I did not then know that any Christian writer had so explained it.
) been esteemed the completion of the said prophecy.
Dr. W—ms observes that the word
occurs only seven times in all; and therefore, I hope, it will not take up too much of my readers time, if I attempt to examine the context of these several places, in order to ascertain the true sense of the word.
The text wherein the signification of this word is esteemed the most doubtful, is in Prov. xxx. 19. where Solomon mentions four things that were too hard for him; in which number (according to the English translation) he includes
the way of a man with a maid.
The sense of this passage is very different according to the Syriac version, wherein
is rendered
in his youth,
viz. the way of a man
"in his youth,"
and not
"with a maid,"
as in the English version. Likewise the Latin vulgate, as well as the old Latin version of St. Jerome, conform in some degree to the Syriac, though not intirely; for they construe it
in adolescentia
(not in adolescentia
ejus
) which is sufficiently clear without having recourse to Dr. Kennicott's
See his sermon preached before the university of Oxford in 1765.—Note 8, page 46.
expedient of supposing a corruption in the present Heb. text to enable him to read
in his youth;
as if it had been wrote originally
.
Nevertheless, it appears to me that the common English translation of this passage is to be preferred, and that the word must here necessarily signify a
maid
or
virgin:
for the writer seems to allude to the secret artifices and allurements used by a man in order to seduce a virgin; such
artifices
as are hinted at in Exodus xxii. 16. (—
And if a man
entice
a
maid,
(
) &c.) therefore a word signifying merely a young woman, or one that was not esteemed a virgin, would not have been so suitable to the context of either of these passages. The
way
of a harlot was too well-known in former days, (as well as the present) to be esteemed a mystery; and much less a mystery to Solomon, who had
threescore queens,
fourscore concubines,
and virgins without number.
(See Canticles vi. 8.) But it is not at all unnatural to suppose that this eastern monarch, with all his wisdom, might sometimes be perplexed with doubts and jealousies concerning the virtue and private conduct of some of those females (as well virgins as others) with respect to other men: this, it seems, was by him esteemed as difficult to be traced as the way of a ship in the sea, an eagle in the air, &c. By the sin of the adulterous woman (to which the preceding similies allude as being equally uninvestigable
Such
is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness. Prov. xxx. 20.
) Solomon represents the great difficulty of detecting the inconstancy of any particular persons in the two former classes; I mean his queens and concubines; and he would not find it less difficult (for some time at least) to trace out the
way
(or behaviour) of private admirers towards the third class of his women, that were esteemed
virgins
in the eyes of the world.
In confirmation of this I must observe, that the strictness of the law of Moses rendered the observance of secrecy absolutely necessary to offenders in this way: for, if a man was found guilty of
seducing a virgin
(see Exodus xxii. 16.) he was obliged not only to pay a heavy fine to the young woman's father, and to take her for his wife, but was likewise deprived of an indulgence, which, of all others, seemed most agreeable to the libidinous disposition of the Jews at that time; and was allowed them by Moses only on account
of the hardness of their hearts;
(see Matthew xix. 8.) I mean
the giving a bill of divorce;
for, in this case (when a man was obliged to marry one whom he had seduced) he might
not put her away all his days.
(See Deut. xxii. 28.)—A punishment of greater mortification to the Jews than any other, which the learned Philo (though himself a Jew) candidly acknowledges
. Fol. 789. Paris Edition, 1640.
.
This certainly was a sufficient cause for secrecy on the man's part; so that, whether
his way
(or behaviour)
with a maid
was really criminal, or only imprudent (for either of them may be implied in the text) he would, as much as possible, conceal it from the world, and render it as
uninvestigable
as the other things mentioned in the text to be too wonderful for Solomon; at least his best endeavours would not be wanting to make it so.
Neither can we suppose that the same earnest endeavours would be wanting on the young woman's part to conceal her disgrace from her friends as long as she could. But the reasons for secrecy are far more obvious in the case of espoused virgins; for, according to the law of Moses (Deut. xxii. 23, 24.) if a man was base enough to seduce one of these, an ignominious death was to be the immediate and dreadful consequence of a discovery; when both parties must share the same wretched fate
Deut. xxii. 23, 24.
.
Now if all that I have said shall not be thought sufficient to prove that
in this passage must necessarily signify a maid or virgin, I have nevertheless the satisfaction of observing that the author of the objections, in page 20, allows it to be
a very obscure passage;
and professes to
lay no stress upon it;
and therefore, I think, I may safely conclude, at least, that it is incapable of proving any thing against the true sense of the word in the other passages.
The same author observes in page 19, that "other
four places are absolutely uncertain;
" but they appear in a very different light to me.
In the first of these places (Genesis xxiv. 43.) the word is applied to Rebekah before her marriage, who in the same chapter is said expresly to be a
virgin
(
)
neither had any man known her.
(See 16th verse.)
In the second place (Exodus ii. 8.) it is applied to Moses's sister, who watched her infant brother during the time of his being exposed in the little ark of bulrushes.
Now it does not appear that Moses had any other sister besides Miriam the prophetess; (see Numb. xxvi. 59. and Exodus xv. 20.) and why her chastity should be called in question (especially so early in life) I know not!
In the third place (Psalm lxviii. 25.) this word with the context expresses the damsels playing with timbrels in the solemn processions of the sanctuary; who, had they been damsels suspected of having
"wrought folly in Israel,"
(Deut. xxii. 21.
—
that she die: because she
hath wrought folly in Israel,
to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
) they, surely, would not have been permitted to join in this divine service.
The last of these four places, which the Doctor thinks
"absolutely uncertain,"
is Canticles i. 3. where the same word is applied to the virgins that waited on Solomon's spouse. But this uncertainty is easily removed by the other passage in Canticles (chap. vi. ver. 8.) where the same word is happily applied to the same persons; who must be understood to be virgins, because (as Dr. W—ms himself acknowledges in page 29
—
I shall here add further, that
occurs only seven times in all; one of which has the appearance of
being decisive in the case,
namely, Canticles vi. 8. where virgins
are distinguished from queens and concubines.
But this distinction is no proof at all, because, the same; indeed, a stronger distinction is made, Ezek. xliv. 22. in favour of
.
) they
are distinguished from queens and concubines.
This one would suppose to be an insurmountable obstacle to the Doctor's argument; but he passes very slightly over the difficulty, and contents himself with informing us, that
this distinction
is no proof at all, because, the same; indeed, a stronger distinction is made, Ezek.
xliv. 22.
in favour of
.
Now I hope the Doctor will excuse my want of discernment in not being able to discover
the weight of this reason
against so strong a proof, as the distinction in question; because, if
is proved, ever so clearly, to signify strictly
a virgin
(and indeed I know no reason why any person should doubt of it) yet it is no argument why the other may not
likewise signify the same thing;
for the word
maid,
by having this signification in English, does not oblige us to give a different signification to the English word
virgin:
therefore I think I may safely conclude in the Doctor's own words, that this last text
has the appearance of being decisive in the case;
(see page 29.) and that the word
cannot signify a young woman that is not a virgin, because, by the same word in the plural number (according to the author's own observation)
virgins
The ingenious author of the new translation of Solomon's Song observes in his annotations, p. 69, that
the Jewish maidens before marriage were under such strict confinement, and so rarely suffered to appear in public, that the very name for a virgin in Hebrew is
hidden.
This word is well explained by the learned Stockins, p. 820.
"(1.)
Generatim
&
vi originis
notat
latentem.
"
(2.)
Speciatim (a) proprie
notat
virginem,
quae domi latitat & continetur, nec adhuc cum quoquam rem habuit. Ita dicitur de Rebecca, nondum propalam nuptam educta, Gen. xxiv. de Mirjam, quae nondum rem cum quoquam habuerat, Ex. ii. 8. de puella incorrupta & illibata, cui vir insidiatur, ut ea potiatur, Prov. xxx. 19. de matre Immanuelis illibata & concubitus ignara, Jes. vii. 14.
(β)
Metaphorice virginum
nomine veniunt
pii saluandi,
ad indicandum eorum animi integritatem & puritatem, tam in doctrina & cultu divino, quam in vita & moribus, Cant. i. 3. vi. 8,
&c. Christiani Stockii Clavis Linguae sanctae Veteris Testamenti vocabulorum significationes tum
generales
tum
speciales
ordine concinno exhibens, &c.
are distinguished from queens and concubines.
I propose now to examine whether we may safely acquiesce with the author of the Critical Dissertation, fo. 44. and the authors of the Critical Review (No 136, fo. 359.) in their opinion, that Isaiah in his prophecy concerning Immanuel, in the seventh chapter, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th verses,
had no reference to the Messiah.
Dr. W—ms objects (in page 9.) that the 16th verse of the seventh chapter of Isaiah
cannot, in any sense, be applied to the Messiah.
The words of this text, according to the English translation, are as follows:
For before
the child shall
know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
This verse seems to be the principal cause of his objections against the common interpretation of the two preceding verses.
Now, though I do not think with him that these three verses
must, of necessity, relate
to the same person; yet I apprehend there is a great probability that
they may;
and that the 16th verse may reasonably be accounted for, even when applied to the Messiah. Dr. W—ms approves of the meaning given to the word
in the 16th verse by Mr. Mann (viz. that it may signify
"vexest"
instead of
abhorrest
)
the land which thou (Ahaz)
vexest
with thy idolatry.
(See fo. 34.) Thus far he favours the explication which I propose to give of this passage; but then he supposes that
the land which Ahaz vexed
signifies the land of Judah
only.
The prophet meant
to say, according to this author (says the Doctor) that the land
of Judah,
which Ahaz by his idolatry and wickedness had brought into trouble and difficulty, should be delivered from
both these kings:
(fo. 35.) by which the Doctor refers to
Resin
king of Syria, and
Pekah
the son of Remaliah king of Israel, who at that time were confederate against
Judah,
and
went up towards Jerusalem to war against it.
See the first part of the same chapter.—The Doctor repeats the same thing in page 37—viz.—the land
(of Judah)
which thou (Ahaz) vexest, &c. This throws great difficulty upon the text, which informs us, that the land which Ahaz vexed should
be forsaken of both
her kings.
The construction of the word rendered
"her kings"
requires us to understand that both the kings there spoken of should be kings of that land which Ahaz vexed:
"both her kings."
Now
Pekah king of Israel
cannot be understood to be one of these, if the land, which Ahaz vexed, signified the land of Judah alone; for in what sense could he be called one of the kings of the
land of Judah,
who was not a conqueror (for the true king still maintained his royal seat and title) but a declared enemy and disturber, and
king only of Israel?
Neither could Resin king of Syria be properly said to be either king of Judah or Israel; for he was only an invader of Judah, acting as an ally to the king of Israel.
Though indeed he had rather more right to be accounted one of
the kings of Judah,
than the king of Israel had, because about that time he had taken possession of
Elath, a city of Judah:
but this could not really intitle him to be called a king of that land, because, from the time that the city was taken, it ceased to be a part of
Judah,
and was accounted a part of the
kingdom of Syria;
for it is expresly said in 2 Kings xvi. 6. that
Resin king of Syria
recovered Elath
to Syria,
and
drave the Jews from
Elath: and the
Syrians
came to Elath, and
dwelt there unto this day.
Dr. W—ms observes in a note (page 37.) that
Resin and Pekah are, perhaps, here called the kings of Judah, because they were then in possession of all the country, Jerusalem excepted;
but the Doctor surely did not consider, that Isaiah was sent to confirm Ahaz, that he should not fear
the two tails of these smoking firebrands
(viz. Resin and the son of Remaliah) and to assure him, that their evil council of
setting up a king in Judah should "not stand"
— nor—
"come to pass."
It is not likely therefore, that the prophet should call either or both of these kings
kings of Judah,
because it would have been absolutely a contradiction to his message, which was to encourage and establish
the then reigning king of Judah,
descended from the house of David. Even the Doctor himself seems so sensible of the insufficiency of his interpretation, that he afterwards, in the same note, proposes another expedient (though a dangerous
Thus it happens with these sacred books as with prophane authors, that when the
medica manus criticorum
is to perform an operation upon the text, it is often dislocated and maimed, and rendered almost incurable by improper applications. But whatever may be done with the historical books, we have no right to indulge any conjectural emendations in the prophecies: it looks too much like tampering with evidence. If they are faulty, they must even remain so; and we must take the evidence as it comes to us.
Dr. Gregory Sharpe's 2d Argument in Defence of Christianity, p. 265.
one) in hopes of solving the difficulty; for the text not being capable of serving his purpose as it stands at present, the prophet himself must be corrected.
This is esteemed a much easier thing, now-a-days, than for a critic to give up a favorite opinion, that happens to be contradictory to the Holy Scripture.
Suppose (says the Doctor) that we should read
for
her kings? shall be forsaken of both kings
—this, indeed, is cutting the knot, but it will not enable the Doctor to come off conqueror, like the Grecian hero. If the omission of the word
in the Septuagint translation should even be allowed to afford sufficient grounds for such a supposition; yet
Dr. Kennicott's truly important work
is not likely to furnish various readings from MSS. equal in authority and antiquity with those from which Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion were taken. These were, manifestly, according to the present Heb. text in this passage; for it is rendered by all these translators
, of
her
two kings, or of both
her
kings.
The ancient Syriac version, likewise, confirms the text;
both her kings.
It would have been time enough to have quoted Dr. Kennicott's various reading, when it was known that any such subsisted—for it is not fair dealing to wound the credit of the holy text with a mere
"perhaps,"
Dr. Kennicott's truly important work may,
perhaps,
hereafter
strengthen this conjecture.
In a note, fo. 37.
and for no other purpose (if I may use the Dr's own words) than to
"strengthen
a
conjecture."
In short, I would advise the Doctor to let the text remain as he found it, for this unjustifiable method of solving difficulties is a broken reed, which seldom fails to wound the hands of those who use it.
Now the difficulty ceases, if it be admitted that the
land which Ahaz vexed
signified the land or inheritance of the twelve tribes of Israel, including Judah; which construction the circumstances of those times will enable it to bear.
Ahaz had interrupted the sacrifices of atonement usually offered up for
all Israel
in the temple at Jerusalem, which was common to Jews and Israelites; and therefore might truly be said to
vex
the land of Israel, as well as Judah: for he not only
"sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus"
(2 Chron. xxviii. 23.) but he
cut in pieces the vessels of the house of God, and
shut up the doors of the house of the Lord
(24th verse). King Hezekiah
See 2 Chron. xxix.
(who opened again the doors of the house of the Lord, and caused the priests and Levites to cleanse all the house from the abominations of Ahaz) was conscious that his father, by the interruption of divine service before-mentioned, had
vexed Israel
as well as Judah; and therefore made all the amends that lay in his power. He caused
"an atonement"
to be made
"for all Israel:"
for the king
commanded, that the burnt offering and the sin offering should be
made for all Israel.
2 Chron. xxix. 24.
He likewise
sent to
all Israel
and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the passover unto the Lord God
of Israel.
2 Chron. xxx. 1. And we read in the 11th verse of the same chapter, that
divers of Asher and Manasseh, and of Zebulun, humbled themselves (accordingly) and came to Jerusalem;
and
"did eat the passover."
(See 18th verse.) Now as it appears that the
land of all the other tribes,
as well as the
land of Judah,
was really vexed by the apostasy of Ahaz, there is reason to suppose that
the land of Immanuel,
mentioned by Isaiah (viii. 8.) might signify (not only
the land of Judah,
but) the land of
both the houses
of
Israel,
, mentioned in the 14th verse of the same chapter; and that the
two kings
of the land, mentioned in the seventh chapter, may mean the kings, or
separate regal powers,
of these two houses of Israel, which were
both to cease before the child
(Immanuel)
should know to refuse the evil and choose the good.
The word
or king, in a figurative way of speaking, may very well be understood in some passages (not to mean merely the person of one particular king, but in a more general sense) to signify
a succession of kings,
or rather
the regal constitution of a state;
and the failure of such royalty in some cases serves as a distinguishing mark of conquest or subjection to a foreign power.
The king shall perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon shall not be inhabited,
says the prophet Zechariah, (ix. 5.) by which is plainly understood (not the destruction of a single king, but) the ceasing of the regal government of the city of Gaza. It is a synonimous term with the
departing of the sceptre:
The pride of Assyria shall be brought down, and
the sceptre of Egypt
shall depart away,
says the same prophet in the 11th verse of the succeeding chapter. The prophet Hosea, likewise, uses the word
in the same general sense (xi. 5.)
—"the Assyrian (or Assur) shall be his king:"
one Assyrian king only
cannot here be meant; but the succession of kings reigning in Assyria during the captivity of Israel. Therefore, I presume, there is some ground for my supposition, that Isaiah's expression in the seventh chapter,
, may signify
the two separate regal governments
of Judah and Israel (called, in the twenty-third chapter of Ezechiel, Aholah and Aholibah) and not merely two single kings.
When I first wrote this opinion, and communicated the MS. to Dr. W—ms, I apprehended that the thought was intirely new;—so little am I acquainted with the republic of letters, for want of leisure and opportunity to read! I must therefore acknowledge myself obliged to Dr. W—ms for his information, that the learned Mr. Mann, in his dissertation De anno natali Christi,
appears to be of the same opinion.
I had likewise the satisfaction, afterwards, to be informed by another gentleman (a worthy friend of mine) that the same interpretation is recommended in the Universal Hist. vol. IV. of the Octavo, p. 154, with the note K.
Now, that the opinion of the learned author may more clearly be understood, I will set down at length the whole that he wrote upon the text in question.
Having mentioned the subject of Isaiah's message to Ahaz, he adds—
Here the king, whether out of respect or despondency and unbelief, —refusing to ask the promised sign, the prophet assured him from the Lord, that—before
that time
came, a virgin should conceive and bear a son, and call his name Himmanuel, or God with us; and so on.
(K).
Upon this opinion he further explains himself in the following note:
(K) This we take to be a much more natural sense of that prophecy than to suppose, as some have done, that such a miraculous child was really born in Ahaz's time, to assure him of the promised deliverance; for as there is not the least mention of such an extraordinary birth, so neither do we see that there was any necessity for it, in order to convince the desponding king, who could not be ignorant of that prophecy of Jacob, that the sceptre should not depart from Judah, till Shiloh was come, much less, that he was to spring of the lineage of David. But what staggered Ahaz's faith, and made him fear that the regal power was going to depart from his family, was, that his two enemies had combined to set a stranger on his throne. All, therefore, that was wanting to dispel his present fears about it, was for the prophet to assure him from God, that this Shiloh, promised to Judah and David, who was to fore-run the total excision of the Jewish polity, was to be born in a miraculous manner and with a divine character, and other remarkable circumstances, such as, he might be easily satisfied, had not as yet happened in his kingdom.
As for that part of the prophecy which is commonly urged on the other side, namely,
Before this wonderful child shall know good from evil, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings:
We think, that if it be rightly understood, it will rather confirm our sense of the prophecy, and that the words ought to be thus rendered. For (or rather, as the particle
chi
seems to import here, nay) before this child can know good from evil, this land, which thou (not abhorrest, as our version renders it, but) art so solicitous about, or givest up for lost, shall be bereaved of both her kings; by which, we think, ought to be understood, not the kings of Syria and Israel, for the former could not be called her (Canaan's) king; and the latter had but a share in it at best;
but the kings of Israel
and
Judah,
as it really was before the coming of the Messiah.
In order to confirm this opinion, I have annexed to these remarks two distinct dissertations: one on the prophecy of Isaiah vii. 8. (—
and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken that it be not a people
); and the other on the famous prophecy of Jacob, concerning the sceptre of Judah.
In the former I shew, that the
regal government
of the
house of Israel,
as a separate state from Judah, was put an end to not a great many years after Isaiah's prophecy.
In the latter (I hope) I have proved that the regal government of the house of Judah (I mean only the temporal or worldly kingdom of Judah) ceased precisely at the time limited by Isaiah in the prophecy now before us. So that, I flatter myself, it will appear upon the whole, that the land of Israel, including Judah (being the land which Ahaz
vexed
) was forsaken of
"both her kings,"
or regal governments, before the child Immanuel could
"know to refuse the evil and choose the good."
For Herod the Great, on a careful examination (I believe) will be found to have been the last king of
the whole land
of
Israel and Judah,
which Ahaz
vexed;
and it is remarkable, that Christ, the true Immanuel,
was a young child in the arms of his mother
at the time of this monarch's death; soon after which, Joseph, the husband of the blessed virgin, was warned by an angel of the Lord in Egypt, saying,
Arise, and take THE YOUNG CHILD and his mother, and go into the
land of Israel
(not the land of
Judah
only)
for they are
dead
which sought the
young child
's life.
Matth. ii. 20.
But Dr. W—ms in a note (page 32.) observes, that the child Immanuel
could not be Christ,
because
he is never called the king of Judah.
And he thinks that Nathaniel, when he called him
the king of Israel,
laboured
under the same mistake with all his countrymen, who expected a temporal Messiah.
The Doctor observes in the same note, that
"Christ is king of the whole earth;"
which he seems to assign as a reason, why
he is never called the king of Judah.
And indeed it does not appear that the Doctor had any other foundation for his censure of Nathaniel; though this argument is so far from being conclusive in favour of the Doctor's opinion, that it rather proves the contrary; for he that is king of
the whole earth
must necessarily, in a general sense, be king of Israel and Judah; these titles being most certainly included in the former, even supposing the peculiar sceptre of each kingdom to be departed.
Nevertheless the argument (such as it is) is admitted and approved by the Critical Reviewers! for they quote the Doctor's words at length (see No 136, fo. 356.) without offering any thing to justify Nathaniel from the charge of
labouring under a mistake.
It shall therefore be my business to prove, that the mistake does
not rest with Nathaniel.
Christ is in a peculiar manner eternal king of Judah and Israel, as well as king of the whole earth, and
heir of all things.
(Heb. i. 2.) The angel Gabriel testified that Christ should
reign over the house of Jacob (which is Israel)
for ever. See St. Luke i. 32. And the wise men of the East
went to Jerusalem
and inquired,
Where is he that
is born king of the Jews?
for we have seen his star in the East, and come
(that is, to Jerusalem, the capital of his kingdom)
"to worship him."
See Matth. ii. 1, 2. Therefore the Doctor's objection that the child Immanuel could not be Christ,
because he is never called the king of Judah,
seems to be intirely groundless; for the dominion of the land of Immanuel (mentioned in the eighth chapter of Isaiah) may most certainly be attributed with more propriety to the Messiah, who
was king
and
shepherd of Israel
(see Ezek. xxxvii. 24. also xxxiv. 23, 24.) than to any son of Isaiah whatever.
Dr. W—ms may, perhaps, suppose, that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah could not belong to Christ, because he refused to accept of any temporal government, and withdrew himself when he perceived that the people would come, and take him by force to
make him a king;
(see John vi. 15.) and further, because he even declared that his kingdom was not of this world. See chap. xviii. 36. But all this seems to relate only to the manner of his government, which, in general, was merely spiritual. He was nevertheless
king of Israel,
being sent in a particular manner to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; (see Matth. xv. 24.) and, for a time, Jerusalem was
the seat of his kingdom,
when he went up to the feast; and a very great multitude spread their garments in the way (a greater mark of submission than is ever paid to temporal princes) and others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way (see Matth. xxi. 8.) and cried,
Hosanna, Blessed is the
KING OF ISRAEL that cometh in the name of the Lord. John xii. 13.
Christ did not tell the multitude that they
laboured
under a mistake
in calling him KING OF ISRAEL; on the contrary it appears, that he approved of the voice of the people; which could not have been the case, had he not been really
king of Israel:
for when the pharisees said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples, he answered and said unto them,
I tell you, that if these should
hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
Luke xix. 38, 39, 40. Thus was the Messiah not only
"called," but proclaimed king of Israel;
and as such he received the homage of his people; yet in such a manner, as best suited the sacred character of him, who had
rejected a worldly kingdom:
for, instead of royal apparel and a triumphal car, he was
"cloathed with humility,"
and sitting on an ass, that the prophecy of Zechariah might be literally fulfilled.
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold THY KING cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation,
lowly,
and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
(Zech. ix. 9.) But though Christ professed that his kingdom was not of this world, yet there was no worldly man hardy enough to resist or oppose his will, when he was pleased to exert his divine authority over them; for
he cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; and
would not suffer
that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
Mark xi. 15, 16.
And St. John informs us (chap. ii. 15.) that he made a scourge of small cords, and drove them all (all such as are above-mentioned) out of the temple.
Of all the extraordinary things which Christ did, St. Jerome thought this to be the most wonderful, as Mr. Bragge remarks in his Practical Observations upon the Miracles. This personal authority and dominion of Christ
in Israel
was expresly foretold by the prophet Micah (chap. v. 2.)
But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is, to be RULER IN ISRAEL; whose goings forth have been from of old
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
John i. 1.
from everlasting.
I never read any passage of Scripture which was capable of affording the least countenance or support to the contrary doctrine, that
Christ was not the king of Israel.
Indeed, the enemies and persecutors of our Lord at the time of his crucifixion expressed their disbelief of his being king of Israel
If he be
the king of Israel
(said they) let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
Matth. xxvii. 42.
, because they did not think him to be the true anointed or Messiah. Nevertheless, when the several extraordinary and miraculous circumstances relating to the birth, life, death, and persecution of that most holy person (Jesus of Nazareth) are candidly examined and carefully compared with the prophetical declarations concerning the promised Messiah, it manifestly appears, that there were very sufficient reasons for acknowledging that person to be both
Lord and Christ
"Therefore let all the HOUSE
of Israel
know assuredly, that God hath made
that same Jesus whom ye have crucified
both
Lord and Christ."
Acts ii. 36.
"And the angel said unto them (the shepherds) Fear not: for behold I bring unto you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day,
in the city of David,
a saviour,
which is Christ the Lord.
" Luke ii. 10, 11.
"The Word which God sent unto the
children of Israel,
preaching peace by Jesus
Christ (he is Lord
of all)." Acts x. 36.
"—But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery (even) the hidden (wisdom) which God ordained before the world unto our glory. Which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known (it) they would not have crucified the
Lord of glory.
" 1 Corinth. ii. 7, 8.
"—That every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ
is
Lord,
to the glory of God the father." Philip. ii. 11.
; and consequently
"king
of
Israel,"
in the strictest sense, not only during his bodily residence on earth, but to all eternity. Wherefore, we ought most certainly to acquit Nathaniel, and other faithful Israelites, of the
mistake
which they have lately been supposed to
"labour under,"
when they declared our Lord Jesus Christ to be
"the king of Israel."
(John i. 49. xii. 13.)
Thus far I have ventured to suggest, in answer to Dr. W—ms's declaration in page 9,—that "the 16th verse" (of the seventh chap. of Isaiah)
"cannot, in any sense, be applied to the Messiah:"
I hope I have proved that it may; nevertheless I must observe, that even the common interpretation of this passage is not so unreasonable as Dr. W—ms seems to imagine; though, indeed, the interpretation before given appears to be much less liable to exception.
The Doctor animadverts severely on the opinion of those who say, that the passage contains two distinct prophecies;—viz. that the verses 14 and 15 relate to Christ, but the 16th to Isaiah's son.
Is not this
(says he)
very unnatural? and, if I am not mistaken, very unusual?
But the authors of the old commentary on the Bible, commonly called Assemblies Annotations, were of a very different opinion.
They observe on this very text, that
it is an usual thing
in Scripture, with our prophet Isaiah especially, by way of allusion, to apply the same words and phrases unto divers subjects, where occasion is to speak of them together:
and therefore they were of opinion, that the child mentioned in the 16th verse was
no other, in all likelihood, than Shearjashub, the prophet's child, whom, to this purpose, God hath commanded him to take along with him.
How far this was an usual thing with Isaiah, may be seen even in prophecies which were delivered on the same occasion as the text in question.
For the further illustration of this point, I have added to my book a short dissertation on the nature and style of prophetical writings, shewing, that abrupt transitions from one subject to another are frequently found therein; and that the Holy Scriptures afford many examples of prophecies, which are blended and interwoven with other subjects that are intirely different, both as to the matter and the time of accomplishment.
We must not expect to find all prophecies unattended with difficulties: nevertheless, there are no difficulties in the seventh chapter of Isaiah so great as those, that are occasioned by Dr. W—ms's interpretation of it.
This prophecy (says he) as I take it, relates to
one person only,
and that
was the son of a young woman then present;
which son was afterwards to be born.
See page 4.
Now I may ask with Origen
.
(contra Celsum, pag. 28, Cambridge Edition, 1677.)—
Who was born in the time of Ahaz, of whose birth this is said,—Emanuel?
that is,
GOD WITH US? For if no one is found, it is manifest that what was said to Ahaz, was addressed to
the house of
DAVID, according to that which was written;—viz.—of the
seed of David a saviour is born according to the flesh.
Indeed we read, in the eighth chapter, of a son, which the prophetess conceived and bare unto Isaiah; and likewise, that Isaiah was careful to take unto him FAITHFUL WITNESSES TO RECORD concerning him;
for (said he) before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father and my mother (which must be within two years) the RICHES of DAMASCUS, and the SPOIL of SAMARIA, shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.
Therefore this child was certainly the TEMPORARY SIGN of the promised deliverance from the
two powers
of DAMASCUS and SAMARIA; but, unfortunately for Dr. W—ms's hypothesis, the said child was NOT CALLED IMMANUEL, but MAHERSHALAL-HASH-BAZ,
properly signifying and prefiguring the
near approach of the spoiling of Damascus and Samaria.
Now, we do not read of any other child, born at that time, as a sign; and therefore Dr. W—ms's opinion, concerning Immanuel, is not only a
mere supposition,
but a very improbable one; since it is not at all likely, that TWO CHILDREN were then born, one
Maher-shalal-hash-baz,
and the other
Immanuel,
and both of them intended as MERE TEMPORARY SIGNS OF THE SAME THING.
The Doctor will find, on a further examination of the text, that the birth of Isaiah's son is only an
allusion
or
imperfect imitation
of the former REMOTE SIGN mentioned in the seventh chapter (viz. of Immanuel's birth) in the same manner as the
brazen serpent
And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the
serpent of brass
he lived.
Numb. xxi. 8, 9.—
And as Moses lifted up THE SERPENT in the wilderness, even so must THE SON of MAN BE LIFTED UP: that whosoever believeth in him SHOULD NOT PERISH, but have eternal life.
John iii. 14, 15.—See Mr. Cruden's excellent remarks on these texts, under the word SERPENT in his Concordance.
lifted up
in the wilderness was an imperfect imitation or type of Christ crucified; and that the TEMPORARY DELIVERANCE from the
two kings
(of which the birth of Isaiah's son was the TEMPORARY SIGN) cannot rightly be considered as the accomplishment of the prophecy, but rather as
a confirmation
and
sure pledge
of the said REMOTE SIGN, as I have before observed.
"But when the
FULNESS OF TIME
was come,"
the angel Gabriel was sent from God to Nazareth with a FURTHER REVELATION of the then approaching SIGN of the redemption promised by Isaiah.
The
blessed virgin
answered (Luke i. 34.)
How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man?
That
"a woman should compass a man"
(viz. conceive and bear a son without the knowledge of man), this was an event scarcely to be expected or comprehended by man; it being the
new thing
which God had created in the earth, spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah xxxi. 22.
"How long wilt thou go about, O thou back-sliding daughter? (the virgin of Israel) for the Lord hath created A NEW THING in the EARTH, a WOMAN shall COMPASS A MAN." Jerem. xxxi. 22.
So that it was plainly the
seed of the woman
which bruised the serpent's head, as promised in Genesis iii. 15.
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and HER SEED: IT SHALL BRUISE THY HEAD, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen. iii. 15.
The occasion of Isaiah's prophecy, concerning the miraculous birth of Immanuel, is mentioned in the beginning of the seventh chapter—
Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil council against thee, (Ahaz) saying, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it; and let us make a breach therein for us, and
set
A KING IN THE MIDST OF IT, even the son of Tabeal.
But
thus saith the Lord God,
It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
Now, this was a confirmation of the promise made by God to David, and delivered by Nathan the prophet (2 Sam. vii. 16.) viz.
Thine house
and
thy kingdom
shall be established for ever before thee: THY THRONE shall be established for EVER.
Therefore, as Justin Martyr observes
. Justini Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo, pag. 293, Paris Edition, 1636.
, if the prophecy,
"Behold a virgin shall conceive,"
had not been spoken to the house of David, but to any other house of the twelve tribes, the affair might have been doubtful: but the sign was really given to the HOUSE OF DAVID (see 13th verse—
Hear ye now, O house of David
); and as no man was
ever born of a virgin,
except the MESSIAH, who, on account of this birth, was called the SON OF DAVID; therefore it was surely the properest sign that could be given, to assure them that the
house
and the KINGDOM of DAVID
should be established for ever,
and that the evil council of Syria and Ephraim should not stand. The house and the kingdom of David cannot be established FOR EVER, in the person of any of David's descendants, except the Messiah himself; for (with respect to the present times) the worldly kingdom of David ceased very many ages ago, and his people the children of Israel being most deservedly ejected (on account of their wickedness and unbelief) from their old inheritance the land of Canaan, have never since obtained any other as a possession; but for near seventeen hundred years have been dispersed throughout the whole world: and yet, by the manifest providence
See Bishop Newton's Dissertation on the Prophecies, 1st vol. p. 215 to 238, where that learned author treats very fully and pathetically concerning the remarkable providence of God in the preservation of the Jews.
of God, they remain to this day, in the
midst of all nations, a distinct
and
peculiar people;
so that their present state is an authentic and undeniable voucher of the truth of the Holy Scriptures
What is occasionally said by Moses and other prophets, concerning the future state of God's people, the Jews, is alone sufficient to establish the divine authority of the holy writings. The promises made to them are literally fulfilled, the vengeance denounced against them is literally inflicted. Captives they were frequently made; wanderers they became, and such they continue to be at this day, sojourning in the midst of all nations, united with none; peculiars every where, and by no human means to be again consolidated;
which is altogether as wonderful as if the waters of any one particular river should remain in distinct globules, though scattered through the whole ocean.
Dr. Gregory Sharpe's 2d Argument in Defence of Christianity, &c. page 4 & 5.
; and themselves, a living testimony of God's just judgment,
which they still lie under, until they shall repent.
But Christ's
spiritual kingdom of Israel,
into which we are adopted, is everlasting; and the prophet Isaiah gave Ahaz, and his cotemporaries of
the house of David,
the strongest assurances that it should be so.—
Of the increase of his government and peace
(says he in the ninth chapter, which I have already shewn to have been delivered nearly at the same time with the seventh chapter)
there shall be
NO END,
upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice
from henceforth even for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
In page 37, Dr. W—ms says,
The last objection which I know that can be made to my sense of the passage is, that it is utterly inconsistent with the words of St. Matthew, chap. i. 22, 23.
Here I must intirely agree with the Doctor, though I am not the better satisfied with his hypothesis.
Now, that we may thoroughly understand the text in question, it will be necessary to consider St. Matthew's application of it.
He informs us, that
the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with
child of the Holy Ghost.
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the
angel of the Lord
appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, THOU SON OF DAVID, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for
that which is conceived in her,
IS OF THE HOLY GHOST. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus (
): for he shall
save his people
from their sins. NOW ALL THIS
was done, that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, A VIRGIN shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is,
God with us.
Now Dr. W—ms hopes to excuse himself and his hypothesis by alledging (see page 40.) that this is only
an accommodation
(by
way of illustration,
not proof) of a passage to a particular sense to which it
originally had no reference.
But should we not seem to pay very little regard to Gospel testimony (I now speak as to Christians) if we were to suppose, that the prophecy
originally had no reference
to this event, when an apostle
expresly affirms
that it had?
Might not Dr. Doddridge's observation (quoted in page 38 of the Crit. Dissert.) be then, with more justice, urged against us? viz.
This way of proceeding will make the Scriptures the most uncertain writings in the world.
But now let us see how this notion of
an accommodation
will suit with the rest of the Doctor's hypothesis.
He says (page 44.)
I think that the prophet had
no reference to the Messiah,
and that the evangelist only alludes to this passage in Isaiah, because it was
remarkably suitable
to the matter which he was relating.
Now the Doctor seems to have forgot his former opinion in page 23; viz.
that the word
doth not appear to
signify strictly a virgin.
For if this were true, that
doth not signify a virgin, in what sense could the text be esteemed
remarkably suitable
to the miraculous conception of a VIRGIN by the HOLY GHOST? and in what manner could the
accommodation of it
to that
singular event
assist the sacred historian
BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION?
(See page 40.)
Nay, the Doctor has even taken great pains to render the text REMARKABLY UNSUITABLE! for he would have us understand that
the YOUNG WOMAN (as he construes it) spoken of in the text, was so
far from being a
VIRGIN, that she was with child ("IS CONCEIVING and BEARING a SON," says he in page 37.) even at the time when she was pointed at (as he supposes in page 31.) by the prophet. These words (viz.
IS CONCEIVING and BEARING a SON)
are a part of what he has given us in page 37, as a
literal translation
of the original;
but it is so far from being so, that the true sense of
the letter,
or text, seems to be exchanged for that of the interlineary version of the London Polyglot, which renders it
praegnans & pariens.
But the words
are not participles active, but are in the perfect tense; yet there needs no apology for the Septuagint and other translations in rendering them as if they were of the
future
tense, because the sentence, to which they belong, is plainly the prediction of a
future
event
—
It is a well-known observation of the Christian and Jewish doctors, that the prophet seeing in his mind's eye the events he foretels, often speaks of them as already past.
Dr. Sharpe's 2d Argument in Defence of Christianity, p. 309—in a note.
; for in prophetical writings the perfect is frequently used for the
future
tense.
Apud prophetas autem creberrime (praeteritum) pro futuro usurpatur, quo res certò futûra significetur, perinde ac si jam evenisset: ut puer
natus est nobis, pro nascetur.
BYTHNER. Institutio Linguae sanctae, p. 10. Dr. W—ms's
literal translation
(as he calls it) of the
perfect
tense into the
participle
active cannot (I believe) be so easily vindicated.
Would it not be very unnatural to suppose, that the prophets have been intirely silent concerning this most remarkable sign of the Messiah (viz. his being BORN OF A VIRGIN) insomuch that an evangelist should be obliged to ACCOMMODATE to this
singular circumstance
a passage, which originally had
"no reference to
THE MESSIAH?" And that he should attempt to pass such a MERE ACCOMMODATION upon the world for the genuine sense of the prophet, by signifying in the strongest terms, that this text was
fulfilled
by the circumstances which he there relates?
The evangelist thus expresses himself:
Now ALL THIS WAS DONE, that it
might be fulfilled
which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet,
&c.
, &c. which implies, that, if ALL THIS had not come to pass, the
word of the Lord by the prophet
would not have
been fulfilled;
therefore this case is by no means similar to the instances of ACCOMMODATION drawn from the GRECIAN POETS
The learned author whom Dr. W—ms has quoted in page 41, has made a very necessary reserve on this head, which the Doctor has omitted in his quotation; viz.
But indeed to an attentive mind the difference will appear very great between the citations from prophane authors and the prophets.
in page 41.
But why should any one attempt, now-a-days, to explain away the genuine meaning of a prophecy,
so literally fulfilled
by the miraculous birth of Christ, when even
the Jewish interpreters,
near 300 years (i. e. according to the Chronicon of Eusebius 279 years) before that wonderful event, had construed the same prophecy in such a manner, that it could not possibly be applied to any person whatsoever, except the promised Messiah, who ALONE WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN?
This testimony of the Septuagint was taken notice of by Origen contra Celsum
, &c. Quod si Judaeus vocabula excutiens, neget scriptum,
Ecce virginem,
fed
Ecce adolescentula;
dicêmus ibi legi vocem ALMA, quam Septuaginta interpretes verterunt virginem, &c. Cambridge Edition, 1677, p. 27.
(p. 27.) and is certainly of much greater authority in favour of the true sense of the word
(rendered by them
,
a virgin
) than any thing that Dr. W—ms has offered against it.
It is remarkable, that all the ancient MSS. of the Septuagint, in different parts of the world, testify the truth of this reading; of which four in particular are of considerable authority on account of their very great antiquity; viz. the Vatican, Alexandrian, Complutensian, and Venetian MSS. And though many copies of the Septuagint must have been in the hands of Jews, as well as others, both before and after the birth of Christ, yet I never heard that any person ever produced a copy which contradicted this original reading; for as the Septuagint was the common translation used in the synagogues throughout all Asia, Greece, and Egypt (see Bp. Walton's Prolegomena ix. p. 60. No 15.) any alteration in so remarkable a text as this would very soon have been discovered.
And it must also be remembered, that the several Greek translations, wherein the word
is rendered
, a
young woman
(viz. that of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus) were all made
after the birth of Christ,
when the unbelieving Jews were desirous of perverting the true meaning of the prophecy.
The ancient Syriac version expresses
by the very word (viz.
from
) which the Doctor sets up in opposition to it; and which he justly observes) must signify strictly a VIRGIN
The Rabbins always by
mean a
virgin:
that they well understand their own language cannot be denied, &c. p. 20.—See also p. 25, where, speaking of the Septuagint translation of Esther ii. 2. he adds,
whence it must undeniably appear, that they understood
to mean
A VIRGIN
in the strictest sense of the word.
. And lastly, St. Matthew, whether he quoted the Original or Septuagint, was certainly convinced that the true sense of the word was
, a VIRGIN, and he hath accordingly left us his testimony of it; which proves that the Doctor's application of this word to
the mother of Isaiah's son
must be very erroneous.
The child,
Immanuel,
could not be Isaiah's son, because it appears from so many undeniable testimonies, that his
mother
was to be really
a virgin;
and because
the event itself
(by which the prophecy is best understood) has proved this truth beyond all contradiction.
Wherefore, I think, I may now safely conclude in Dr. W—ms's own words, before quoted, that his opinion concerning this text
IS UTTERLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE WORDS OF ST. MATTHEW,
and of course, that the Doctor is
indispensably bound
to yield up his hypothesis to the
superior authority of the evangelist.
The
END
of
PART I.
A DISSERTATION ON THE NATURE and STYLE OF PROPHETICAL WRITINGS, SHEWING That abrupt Transitions from one Subject to another are frequently found therein. The same being intended to illustrate the foregoing Remarks on the Critical Dissertation, &c.
A DISSERTATION ON THE NATURE and STYLE OF Prophetical Writings, &c.
THE prophecies contained in the seventh, eighth, and ninth chapters of Isaiah seem to have been delivered during the general consternation of the house of David, occasioned by the invasion of Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel; because several circumstances relating to the said kings, and their respective nations, are mentioned in each of these chapters
Septimum, octavum, et nonum Isaiae caput in eodem fere versantur argumento, &c.
P. D. Huetii Demonstratio Evangelica,
p. 291.
; notwithstanding that the same chapters contain prophecies of very distant events, which are so blended with the transactions of the (then) present times, that it would not be easy to distinguish the real difference in point of chronology, if the apparent accomplishment of these several prophecies did not remove the difficulty. Rezin and Pekah are both particularly mentioned in the 7th chapter, wherein the extraordinary birth of the
child Immanuel
is given as a sign. The spoiling of their respective cities is promised in the 8th chapter
"For before the child
(Maher-shalal-hash-baz)
shall have knowledge to cry, My father and my mother, the
riches of Damascus,
and the
spoil of Samaria,
shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." viii. 4. "Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in
Rezin,
and
Remaliah
's
son:
Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of
Assyria,
" &c.—"And the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land,
O Immanuel.
" viii. 6, 7, 8.
, wherein the birth of the child Mahershalalhashbaz the son of Isaiah is foretold, as the temporary sign of the same; and notwithstanding that the greatest part of the said chapter relates to those times, yet the prophet introduces in the very midst of it a plain reference to the times of the Messiah, see 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th verses, which shall be hereafter considered. In the 9th chapter, the
presumption of Ephraim
and the inhabitants of Samaria
"And all the people shall know, even
Ephraim
and the inhabitants of
Samaria,
that say in the pride and stoutness of heart, The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewen stones," &c. ix. 9, 10. "Therefore the Lord shall set up the adversaries of
Rezin
against him," &c. ix. 11. These three verses, 9th, 10th, and 11th, and also the 21st, plainly allude to the subject of the 7th chapter; viz. the evil council and confederacy of
Syria
and
Ephraim,
and God's promise that the same should not stand.
is reproved, and God's judgments are once more expresly denounced
against Rezin;
as if these things were to happen after the birth of the
child
that was to
be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace,
of the increase of
whose government and peace
there should be
no end,
upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom,
&c. for the birth of this divine person is foretold in the former part of the same chapter; and yet I never heard of an attempt to apply this prophecy to a son of Isaiah, or to any other child born about that time.
In the beginning of this 9th chapter the prophet alludes likewise to some other historical circumstances, besides what are already mentioned concerning Syria and Ephraim; and these had either then lately happened, or were very shortly to come to pass, notwithstanding that the allusion is blended with a very distant prophecy concerning the preaching of Christ.
The circumstances, which I speak of, are the Assyrian conquest and captivity of
Zebulun
and
Napthali,
which happened in the days of Pekah king of Israel
"In the days of Pekah king of Israel, came Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and
Galilee,
all the land of Napthali, and carried them captive to Assyria." 2
Kings
xv. 29.
. This was the affliction
"Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of
Zebulun,
and the land of
Napthali,
and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan in
Galilee
of the nations.
Isaiah
ix. 1. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light," &c. ix. 2.
by the
way of the sea, beyond Jordan in Galilee
of the nations,
mentioned by Isaiah ix. 1. by which he expresly points out the very spot,
Galilee,
where
Immanuel
was chiefly to be manifested by his mighty deeds and miracles: for the prophet immediately proceeds, verse 2.
The people (says he)
that walked in darkness
This corresponds with the prejudice which the Jews conceived against their brethren the Galilaeans. The chief Priests and Pharisees answered Nicodemus, saying, "Search and look: for out of
Galilee
ariseth
no Prophet." John
vii. 52. In like manner answered Nathaniel, when Philip told him, "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law and the Prophets did write,
Jesus
of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." And Nathanael said unto him,
Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?
John i. 45, 46.
have seen a great light:
they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon
them hath the light shined.
And afterwards in the 6th verse he renews the same promises given in the 7th chapter, concerning the
birth of a divine child;
whose attributes and dignity are here so fully expressed by the prophet, that they can by no means agree with the character
of any other child,
but that which was truly
Immanuel,
or
God with us.
Therefore it is plain that the prophecies of the 8th and 9th chapters were delivered nearly at the same time with those of the 7th chapter, which are further explained and confirmed thereby; so that if Dr. W—ms will carefully examine all these three chapters, he will find, that it is
not unusual
See Dr. W—ms's comment on the opinion of those who say, that the 14th, 15th, and 16th verses of the viith chap. of
Isaiah
contain two distinct prophecies. "Is not this (says he)
very unnatural?
and, if I am not greatly mistaken,
very unusual?
" p. 9.
But an experienced writer, who, on many occasions, has given ample proofs of great learning and scripture-knowledge, informs us, that
It is
very natural
and
very usual
with the Prophets to make
a transition from one great deliverance to another, as also from one great destruction to another
—and he afterwards gives several remarkable instances of it. See Dr.
Gregory Sharpe's
2d
Argument in Defence of Christianity, p.
255.
in prophetick writings to make quick and abrupt transitions from one subject to another,
nor unnatural
that a very distant prophecy should be blended with others that were soon to be accomplished; because it
is the nature of prophecy
to be delivered in this mysterious manner. For (says Isaiah xxviii. 10)
precept must be (or hath been) upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line,
here a little
and
there a little.
For with stammering lips, and another tongue, will he speak (or he hath spoken) to this people.
And again in the 13th verse,
here a little and there a little;
that they might go and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
The nature and reason of typical writings are strongly expressed in St. Mark's Gospel
"And when he (Jesus) was alone, they that were about him with the twelve, asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but
unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
that seeing they may see, and
not perceive,
and hearing they may hear,
and not understand;
lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. And he said unto them, know ye not this parable? and how then will you know all parables? The sower soweth, &c." Mark iv. 10—13.
, iv. 11, 12, 13. wherefore it is our duty to ask God's assistance when we read the scriptures, that we may understand them to our comfort; lest they should be a stumbling block to us, as they were to the unbelieving Jews. But not only the scriptures, even Christ himself became a stone of stumbling to the Jews. For, about the time of his coming, they universally expected a glorious and triumphant Messiah to rule over them; insomuch that Herod the Great was exceedingly alarmed with the apprehension of so powerful a competitor
for the throne of David.
But when
"the desire of all nations"
(see Haggai ii. 7.) was really come, his humble appearance, meekness, and disinterested,
though interesting,
doctrine, did not in the least correspond with their worldly imaginations; so that
he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
John i. 10, 11. For the Jews did not then consider (any more than they do at present) that the humility of the Messiah was as expresly foretold by the prophets as his glory.
"Who hath believed our report?"
says Isaiah in chap. liii. when he is about to describe the humility, afflictions, and death of the Messiah.
He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
He is despised and rejected of men,
&c. See the whole chapter
Who can read this oracle, and not allow Isaiah to have been, what he is sometimes called, the Evangelical Prophet? Is not this prophecy in every part as applicable to Jesus, as is the account given of him by the holy Evangelists? Could it have been expressed in stronger or clearer terms, if written after the event? And yet it was delivered above 700 years before the birth of Jesus.
Dr.
Gregory Sharpe's 2d Argument in Defence of Christianity, pag.
232.
.
The Jews could not reconcile this unexpected
humility
with that glorious character which they so long looked for and desired, viz.
a king that should reign and prosper;
whom
"the Lord"
(Jehovah) promised by Jeremiah
Behold the days come, saith the Lord (
Jehovah
) that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and
a king shall reign and prosper,
and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days
Judah
shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called,
The Lord (Jehovah
)
our righteousness.
—Jeremiah xxiii. 5, 6. See also xxxiii. 16.—where the same title (
) is given to the Branch of righteousness mentioned in the preceding verse.—Compare with these chap. xxx. 9.—
And they shall serve the
Lord their God
(
) and
David their king
(
)
whom I will raise up unto them.
—The comparing of these texts together has occasioned the following remark, which I find wrote with a pencil in the margin of my Hebrew Bible, I suppose by some former owner of it.
Messias vocabitur David secundum carnem,
Jova
secundum divinitatem
—i.e.
Christ shall be called
David
with respect to his human nature, and
Jehovah
with respect to his divinity.
—The divinity of the Messiah may be clearly proved by a multitude of other passages even in the Old Testament. Therefore it behoves
the authors of the Critical Review
seriously to consider how those men can be justified, who refuse the Son of God the honour due unto his name; since
the Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father.
John v. 22, 23.
A doctrine very opposite to this is approved and commended in the 10th article of the
Critical Review for May
1760; whereby it appears, that the author or authors of that recommendatory criticism were not sufficiently armed against the dangerous and pernicious doctrines of the book which they undertook to recommend, viz.
The Trinitarian Controversy reviewed; or a Defence of the Appeal to the common Sense of all Christian People.
to
raise up unto
David,
and who is likewise called (as a name the most suitable to the only begotten Son of God)
"the Lord,"
(Jehovah)
"our righteousness."
This unfortunate misapprehension was plainly foretold by Isaiah, when he warned the people to
"sanctify the "Lord of hosts himself
(
) and (says he)
let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
Now, what person could the prophet mean by this glorious title (
Jehovah Sabaoth
) if not the Messiah? for he immediately adds,
and he shall be for a sanctuary,
but
(or rather
and
) for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a
gin,
and for a
snare
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall
stumble and fall,
and
be broken,
and
be snared,
and
be taken.
Bind up the
testimony,
seal the law
among my disciples.
Isaiah viii. 13—16.
We have the testimony of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (ix. 33.)
—
for they
stumbled
at that
stumbling stone;
as it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a
stumbling stone,
and
rock of offence:
and whosoever believeth on
him, shall not be ashamed.
Rom. ix. 32, 33.
that this text
relates to Christ;
for he has there blended a part of it with another quotation from Isaiah xxviii. 16.
Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a
stone,
a
tried stone,
a precious
corner stone,
a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not
make haste,
(
) that is, he shall not be subject to that kind
of haste,
which is commonly the effect
of fear.
Therefore the Syriac version has rendered it
shall not be afraid;
which is very expressive of the Prophet's meaning. The LXX have rendered it
; and St. Paul,
, that is,
shall not be ashamed;
which is still more expressive of a man's being free from that
haste
or confusion caused by fear.
Not to be ashamed
is frequently put for
not to fear.
They shall
not be ashamed
in the
evil time,
says the Psalmist, xxxvii. 19. and again—they shall
not be ashamed,
but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. Psalm cxxvii. 5.
This I hope is sufficient to reconcile the seeming disagreement between the original and St. Paul's quotation.
St. Peter likewise quotes it in his 1st Epistle ii. 8.
And a
stone of stumbling and a rock of offence
even to them which
stumble
at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed.
and applies it to Christ. And indeed it can mean no other than
"Christ crucified,"
who (as St. Paul informs us) was
to the Jews
a stumbling block,
and unto the Greeks foolishness,
1 Cor. i. 23. But notwithstanding these plain testimonies, Dr. W—ms is of a very different opinion.
Isaiah does not seem,
(says the Dr. in a note, p. 32)
to speak of the Messiah till the ixth chapter.
But though the Dr. here allows that the ixth chapter contains a prophecy concerning the Messiah; yet perhaps he is not aware, that if his reasons against the common interpretation of the viith chapter (on account of
"the present order, and abrupt transition"
which he complains of in p. 10.)
were at all conclusive,
the same would hold good likewise against the common interpretation of this ixth chapter; wherein the
transitions
from one subject to another are equally
abrupt,
and the remote events concerning the
birth
and
preaching
of the Messiah are foretold, even before other events
which were immediately, or very shortly to happen.
(See p. 9.)
The Dr. may be right enough in his observation that there are no instances
of
remote signs
to prove the accomplishment of an event near at hand.
(See pages 9 and 10.) But it is plainly his own mistake which causes the difficulty that he speaks of; for the sign given by Isaiah of the birth of
Immanuel,
(viz. behold a virgin shall conceive, &c.) was not a remote sign of
an event near at hand
(as the Dr. supposes) but a
remote sign
of
a remote event,
and therefore not liable to his censure.
The holy scriptures afford a great many other examples of prophecies, which are blended and interwoven with very different subjects; different, I say, both with respect to the matter, and the time of accomplishment.
There are also many instances of passages which bear a double construction, being partly applicable to some particular person expresly mentioned, though they ultimately and chiefly relate to another very different person.
The prophecy of Nathan concerning Solomon is of this kind.
He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
2 Sam. vii. 13, 14. King David himself explained this more particularly to his son Solomon, and applied it to him, 1 Chron. xxii. 9. saying, "for his name shall be
Solomon
(see the margin
"peaceable"
agreeable to Christ's title mentioned in the ixth chap. of Isaiah, viz.
prince of
peace
)
and I will give
peace
and
quietness
unto Israel in his days. He shall build an house for my name, and he shall be
my son,
and I will be
his father,
and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel
for ever.
But where has the throne of Solomon been established for near 1800 years last past, if not in
Jesus Christ
the spiritual
Solomon,
and
prince of peace?
For though this prophecy plainly related to Solomon, yet it referred to a further acomplishment in the Messiah; by whom alone it could be perfectly fulfilled; and therefore a part of it is applied immediately to Christ by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews i. 5.
I will be to him a
father,
and he shall be to me a
son.
Of the same kind is the lxxiid psalm, dedicated to
Solomon.
They shall fear
thee
as long as
the sun and moon endure throughout all generations.
This is indeed applied to
Solomon;
but as the reign of that monarch was merely
temporal,
the prophecy cannot be said to be fulfilled in any other person besides the Messiah himself, the true
(Solomon) who
reigns,
according to the Psalmist's expression
"throughout all generations."
The prophet Haggai, chap. ii. promises
Zerubbabel governor of Judah,
and
Joshua the high priest,
in the name of
the Lord of hosts,
that
the desire of all nations shall come,
and that he (the Lord of hosts)
will fill this house
(that is, the house which they were ordered to build) with glory.
v. 7. And he adds in the 9th verse,
The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give
peace
(
) saith the Lord of hosts.
Nevertheless, in the former part of the same chapter, the prophet appeals to those who had seen the
house in her first glory: and how (says he) do you see it now? Is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?
v. 3. Thus it is plain that the glory of the second house did not consist either in the grandeur of the building laid out by Zerubbabel and Joshua, or in the presence of those great and holy men; notwithstanding that the prophecy is addressed to them both, and that Zerubbabel is spoken to by God in a very remarkable manner at the conclusion of the same chapter, viz.
I will take thee,
O Zerubbabel my servant,
the son of Shealtiel, saith the Lord, and will make
thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee,
saith the Lord of hosts.
But the glory was, manifestly, to consist in the "
future coming,
&c.
of the desire of all nations.
" For as the promise was made to Zerubbabel and Joshua themselves, the prophecy must necessarily be understood to have a more distant accomplishment; which indeed the beginning of the sentence sufficiently proves, viz.
Yet once, it is a little while,
and
I will shake the heavens,
&c. Haggai ii. 6, 7.
The prophet Zachariah likewise promises great things to Zerubbabel and Joshua; which he applies personally to them as builders of the temple; though the same relate ultimately to Christ. See chap. iv. 6—10.
See also chap. vi. 11, 12, 13. wherein Joshua by his name (
which the LXX render
Jesus,
signifying a Saviour) as well as by his office and dignity of high priest, was plainly set forth as a type of the future Messiah.
The prophet orders him to be crowned, and saluted with the prophetical title of Christ, viz.
the branch,
of whom he foretold, that he should
grow up out of his place,
and
build the temple of the Lord.
Joshua might, indeed, be said to build the temple, as well as Zerubbabel, but he could only be a type of the branch there promised, because the real branch was yet to grow up out of his place
"And speak unto him
(Joshua)
saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is the
branch,
and
he shall grow up out of his place,
and he shall build the temple of the Lord, &c." Zech. vi. 12.
.
The crowns were given
for a memorial in the temple of the Lord,
(not of the accomplishment of this prophecy in the person of Joshua, but
for a memorial
) of what
should afterwards
come to pass
if the people would diligently obey the voice of the Lord their God
"And the crowns shall be to Helem and to Tobijah, &c.—
for a memorial
in the temple of the Lord. And they that are far off, shall come and build in the temple of the Lord, and ye shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you. And this
shall come to pass
(
)
if ye will diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God.
" Zech. vi. 14, 15.
. Thus we find that
Solomon, Zerubbabel,
and
Joshua,
as builders of the temple, were types of the Messiah, the
true builder
of the
everlasting
TEMPLE OF GOD; I mean, the HOLY CATHOLICK CHURCH,
properly
The church of Rome is very
improperly
called the
Catholick Church,
because she causes a contradiction in terms, by usurping that
general
title to herself alone; when at the same time she scarcely seems intitled to be esteemed a part of it. For notwithstanding that many worthy members of Christ's Catholick Church may have submitted to her communion for want of better information, serving God by the sincerity of their intentions; yet,
what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?
(2 Corinth. vi. 10.) Wherefore
"come out of her"
(ye people of God)
that ye be not partakers
of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev. xviii. 4. She hath perverted the
law of God
(like the Scribes and Pharisees of old) by her
traditions
—
forbidding to
marry,
and
commanding to abstain from meats,
which God hath created to be received
with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth
—which St. Paul (1 Tim. iv. 1.) expresly called
doctrines of devils.
She hath defiled the
Catholick Temple
of God, by building upon the true foundation,
"wood, hay, stubble;"
viz. infallibility, purgatory, ostentatious penance, mercenary pardons and indulgencies, invocation of saints, exorcisms (
"exorcismus aquae;"
—
exorcismum salis.
—
"Exorcizo te, creatura salis"— "aquae," &c. See the Missale published by the joint authority of the Popes Pius Quintus, Clement the
8th,
and Urban the
8th) of holy water and salt; benedictions of candles, table-cloths, towels, &c. baptism of bells, and such other spiritual
witchcraft
— praying and bowing before images and shrines, reverencing dead mens bones, and other such
abominable things,
&c. &c. These are no part of
the foundation
(mentioned above) of the
Apostles and Prophets,
whose writings warrant no such
idolatry, exorcisms,
or
enchantments:
and therefore even the
Holy Scriptures themselves
are prohibited in the Popish
Index Expurgatorius.
This last is indeed a precaution necessary to the existence of such doctrines; for if the poor deluded people were permitted to read the Scriptures, they would soon be informed that there is but
One Mediator
between God and man, the
Man Christ Jesus;
(1 Tim. ii. 5.) and that
there is
none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.
Acts iv. 12. O that those men who invoke the
mediation of all saints and angels
(notwithstanding the plain doctrine of St.
Peter
quoted above) would consider what a gross affront by
this execrable service
they offer to Christ, who alone is the
way,
and the
truth,
and the
life!
for their daily prayers witness against them that they do not esteem the
mediation of Christ
sufficient for them, otherwise they would not, like the idolatrous Israelites of old, invoke
"all the host of heaven."
2 Kings xvii. 16. The
Church of Rome
has endeavoured to cloak this abominable worship with the subtle distinctions of
Latria
and
Dulia;
but the necessity of such sophistical arguments proves the reality of that church's backsliding to idolatry.
Heathen Rome
was not more guilty of this crime, nor hath shed more innocent
blood
in defence of
such abominations
under the old Pagan Emperors, than the present Church of Rome has done, since her
Bishops
have assumed
their seat;
that is, have possessed themselves of
the temporal,
as well as ecclesiastical jurisdiction of that ancient city.— So that the Church of Rome, may, indeed, be said to have mounted the
scarlet coloured beast full of names of blasphemy,
(Rev. xvii. 3.) and is, accordingly, most truly described by St. John as a
woman drunken with the blood of the saints,
and
with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.
Archbishop Cranmer, the Bishops Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, and a great multitude of other worthy
Englishmen
have suffered under her diabolical tyranny.
Indeed the histories of all other European kingdoms are fraught with woful examples of it. In Sully's Memoirs (chap. v. p. 9.) we read that a Popish prayer-book (
livra de grosses heures
) served as a
passport
among the bloody messengers of Popish vengeance at the
massacre
of the Huguenots at Paris.
Tuë, Tuë, ô Huguenot, ô Huguenot,
was the devilish watch-word!
O that the living members of
that Church
may discern, and
repent
of their
enormous errors
before it be too late!
so called,
built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets; JESUS CHRIST
himself
being the chief corner stone. In whom all the building fitly framed together, groweth unto an
Holy Temple
in the Lord:
in whom
you (Ephesians) also are builded together for an habitation of God through the spirit.
Ephes. ii. 20, 21, 22.
Compare the above mentioned texts with 1 Cor. iii. 11. John ii. 18—22. Luke xx. 17.18. Acts iv. 11. Psalm cxviii. 22. Isaiah xxviii. 16.
It would make a large volume if I were to collect all the prophecies which absolutely relate to two different and distinct subjects in the type and antitype. Nevertheless, I am particularly obliged to take notice of two more of this kind, because Dr. W—ms has quoted them in favour of his hypothesis, notwithstanding that upon examination they will be found to make much against it. He says (in p. 38.)
it is
not possible indeed
to
reconcile Matthew
ii. 15.23. and perhaps some other passages in his gospel, with
any particular prophecy now extant
in the Old Testament.
As to the 15th verse, wherein St. Matthew quotes the Prophet Hosea xi. 1.
(out of Egypt have I called my son)
the Dr. observes that
the passage in Hosea where these words are found,
is not a prophecy of a future event,
but a declaration of an event long past, and therefore
could not be fulfilled
when the child JESUS came out of Egypt.
Now, in one respect, the Dr. is right, viz. that the passage, with regard to the people of Israel,
is a declaration of an event long past:
nevertheless he has not assigned any reason why the same passage may not,
likewise,
contain a prophecy
of a future event,
by being intended, like many other prophecies, to bear a double application.
Erasmus has assigned a reason for the error of Julian the apostate concerning this text; viz.
that he has too much followed the septuagint edition;
nimirum secutus editionem septuaginta
(says he)
qui locum hunc transtulerunt in hunc modum, quia
parvulus
Israel, et ego dilexi
eum,
et ex Aegypta vocavi
filics ejus.
(Annot. in Matthaeum, p. 250.)
A misunderstanding of this text is very excuseable, likewise, in the authors of that Greek version, who could not easily comprehend
before the event,
that the Messiah should be called out of Egypt, as the children of Israel had been before him; and therefore they rendered the passage in such a manner as they thought would best point out the application of it to the people of Israel
only;
.
and out of Egypt have I called
his children.
But if the
prophet himself
had intended the same thing,
and that only,
he would, most likely, have made use of terms more expressive of
a nation,
or
people,
than of
a single person;
(from Egypt have I called my son,
—) and then the Greek interpreters would not have been obliged to leave the literal sense of the original in order to adopt it with propriety to
the people of Israel;
which proves, that some
single person
is more particularly pointed at by the prophet, than
the people
of Israel.
There are, indeed, many passages of Scripture, wherein nations are represented by single persons; Ezekiel warned the
two houses
of
Israel
under the figure of two adulterous women, Aholah and Aholibah, &c. But the text in question is very different from many others of that kind; for the
people
of Israel are not only represented therein under the figure of a
single person,
but some eminent single person is likewise plainly represented, at the same time, under the
name
and
figure
of the
people of Israel,
of which the particularity of the stile affords evident testimony
when Israel was
a little child,
and I loved
him,
and out of Egypt have I
called my Son.
But the following part of the text, wherein Israel could not be a type of the Messiah (I mean their forsaking God's commandments, and sacrificing to Baal) is immediately expressed in
the plural number,
as being applicable to the children of Israel
only,
and not to Christ
as
they
called
them, so they
went
from them: they
sacrificed unto Baalim, and burnt incense to graven images.
Hosea xi. 2. Thus it is plain that the text is applicable, in the first place, to
the children of Israel,
who were brought by God out of Egypt, when
they first began
to be esteemed a nation, and therefore might, as a type of Christ, be likened to
a little child,
being
young and weak,
in comparison of
their future state and power.
And 2dly, It is undoubtedly very applicable to the
single person
of the Messiah, who was,
also, called by God out of Egypt;
when he was
really a little child
Before he could know to refuse the evil, and chuse the good;
the land being then forsaken of
both her kings,
according to Isaiah's prophecy, vii. 16. For the angel's message (or call of Christ out of Egypt) was delivered to Joseph upon the death of king Herod the Great, at which time,
precisely,
the last of
the two monarchies
was dissolved.
, according to the plain literal meaning of the passage referred to by St. Matthew, who quoted the
sense of the Hebrew text,
and not that of the Septuagint version.
The
child
mentioned by Hosea as
having been called
The prophecy was, indeed, delivered in the
perfect tense,
as a thing already past; but this did not prevent the application of it to the
future Messiah,
because the
perfect tense
is, almost, as frequently used by the prophets in declaring
futurity,
even as the
future
itself.
out of Egypt, is indeed expresly named
Israel;
but this is so far from setting aside the application to Christ, that, on the contrary, it affords the strongest confirmation of it: for this name was necessarily given in the prophecy, that the application might be double; viz. first to the people of Israel, and lastly to the Messiah.
The Messiah is expresly called
Israel
by Isaiah (xlix. 3.) in a prophecy which cannot,
at all, be
applied to the
people of Israel,
like the former; but must relate
entirely
to Christ. viz.
Thou art my servant, O Israel,
in whom I will be glorified.
(xlix. 3.)
Indeed the true sense and application of this passage does not appear without the context: nevertheless, I am not sorry for the necessity of a long quotation from this chapter, because it will convey a very clear and distinct idea of the birth and office of the Messiah, at the same time that it proves the point in question.
"Listen, O isles, unto me, and hearken, ye people from far, the Lord hath called me
from the womb
—
the angel of the Lord appeared unto him (Joseph) in a dream, saying, Joseph,
thou son of David,
fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name
Jesus:
(
a Saviour
)
for he
shall save his
people from their sins.
Matt. i. 20, 21.
, from the
bowels of my mother
hath he made mention of
my name
—
and behold (said the angel) thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call his name
Jesus.
(Luke i. 31.)
. And he hath made my
mouth like a sharp sword
—
he shall smite the earth with the
rod of his mouth,
and with the breath of
his lips
he shall
stay
the wicked.
Isaiah xi. 4. See the context also.
, in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a
polished shaft;
in his quiver hath he hid me, and said unto
me, Thou art
my servant,
O Israel,
in whom I will be
glorified.
Then I
said, I
have laboured in vain,
I
have spent
my
strength for nought, and in vain, yet surely
my
judgment is with the Lord, and
my
work with
my
God. And now, saith the Lord that formed
me
from the womb to be his
servant,
to bring
Jacob
again to him, though
Israel
be
not gathered
" (here is a plain prophecy that
blindness in part should happen to Israel
) "yet shall
I
be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and
my
God shall be my strength. And
he
said, it is a
light thing
that
thou
shouldest be
my servant
to raise up
the tribes of Jacob,
and to restore the preserved
of Israel:
I will also give
thee
for a
light to the Gentiles
I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee and give thee for a
covenant of the people,
for a
light of the Gentiles;
to open
the blind eyes,
&c. Isaiah xlii. 6, 7.
A light
to lighten the Gentiles,
and the glory of thy people Israel.
Luke ii. 32.
, that thou mayest be
my salvation
unto the end of the earth." "Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, and
his Holy One,
to him whom
man despiseth
He is
despised
and
rejected of men,
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was
despised,
and we esteemed him
not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs,
&c. Isaiah liii. 3, 4.
, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers," &c.—Thus far may perhaps be sufficient to shew the nature and design of the prophecy. Isaiah has introduced the important subject as the narrative of a dialogue between two distinct persons, who are both mentioned in this last (the 7th) verse; viz. "the Lord (
) the Redeemer of Israel," and
his
Holy One,
(
) whom man
despiseth,
and who is also called
Israel
in the former part of this chapter. Now it is remarkable, that the people of
Israel,
or tribes of
Jacob,
are likewise distinctly mentioned in the same prophecy; so that the person, to whom the Lord said,
"Thou art my servant, O Israel,"
(see 3d verse) cannot mean any other person besides the Messiah himself; he alone being the true
light to lighten the Gentiles,
and
the glory of his people
ISRAEL.
For though the
Jewish Religion
was for many ages the only true religion, yet the
Gentiles
were not induced, universally, to acknowledge the truth of the Holy Scriptures by becoming proselytes to
Judaism,
but by being
converts to Christ,
by whom alone they have been
enlightened
according to the Scriptures. If all these things be considered, they will (I doubt not) afford sufficient proof, that the text quoted by St. Matthew from Hosea xi. 1. (though introduced in a context absolutely relating to the
people of Israel
) was, nevertheless, prophetically intended to be applied likewise to some
single person,
and that the same was eminently fulfilled in the person of
Jesus Christ,
the only begotten
Son
of God, whom the Father
called out of Egypt
by his angel. Jacob, and the children of
Israel,
may indeed be called the
Sons of
God, but it must be in a very different sense from the former; for they are only
types
of the true
Israel
(
) the
Prince
of God, who gave this name to Jacob, when he wrestled with him, that he might render him more conspicuously a type of himself; viz. as one that had
power with God, and with men, and had prevailed.
Jacob was sensible of the
Divine presence,
and therefore called the name of the place
Peniel,
(
) or (as it is expressed in the margin)
the face of God;
for (said he)
I have
seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Gen. xxxii. 28, 29, 30.
I have already said so much concerning the nature of prophecy in general, and have quoted so many examples of two different subjects being referred to by one and the same prophetical expression, that (I hope) I need not any longer urge the reasonableness of a double application, likewise, of the text quoted by St. Matthew from the Prophet Hosea; especially as Dr. W—ms has not assigned any one reason why it ought to be otherwise; nor any authority whatsoever for his assertion in page 39, that the passage
"could not be fulfilled when the child Jesus came out of Egypt;"
except, indeed, the authority of his own bare word: which, nevertheless, seems to have had sufficient weight with the Critical Reviewers, though it is opposed to the
express testimony
even of
an Evangelist.
The other quotation of St. Matthew, which Dr. W—ms has called in question, is given in the 2d chapter 23d verse. viz.
He shall be called a Nazarene.
This is one of the texts concerning which the Dr. affirms in page 38, that
"it is not possible to reconcile"
(it)
with any particular prophecy now extant in the Old Testament.
But he is greatly mistaken in this; for the text may certainly be reconciled, not only with one prophecy, but with many very
particular prophecies
now
extant in the Old Testament;
and therefore St. Matthew appeals with
great propriety in this case,
not to one prophet alone, but to the
sense of all the prophets in general.
viz.
, that "which was
spoken by the prophets.
"
For though the prophets do not say expresly that
"he shall be called a Nazarene;"
yet many of them do plainly allude to this appellation. Our Lord was called a
Nazarene,
notwithstanding that he was born at Bethlehem, the city of David, according to the Scriptures
But thou Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is,
to be ruler in Israel:
whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Micah v. 2. Compare this with Matt. ii. 5. and John vii. 42.
. He was sometimes called
Mark x. 47. Luke xviii. 37. xxiv. 19. John xviii. 5. xix. 19. and seven times in Acts
, and sometimes
Mark i. 24. xiv. 67. xvi. 6. and Luke iv. 34.
; synonymous terms for a
Nazarene
or inhabitant of
Nazareth;
which (as Dr. Hammond expounds it) signifies
The City of the Branch,
or where the Messiah
(the Branch)
should be brought up; an
accordingly (says the Dr.) this becomes Christ's vulgar title
—"
," &c.
Now the Messiah is called
the Branch
by Isaiah iv. 2. Jeremiah xxiii. 5. and Zechariah iii. 8.
A plant or branch is the usual scripture-emblem for a child.—
Thy children,
like
olive branches,
round about thy table,
says the Psalmist in the cxxviiith Psalm, 3d verse: and in Psalm cxliv. 12. we read—
that
our sons
may
grow up
as the
young plants.
Therefore the prophets very fitly expressed the
childhood
and
growth
of the Messiah by the word
before-mentioned; for it properly signifies not only a
Branch,
but
Germen,
a
bud,
or young twig, which Isaiah further explains in the liiid chap. 2d verse, by the word
a
tender plant,
or
sucker;
which is not only a fit emblem of the once
infant state
of the Messiah, but also of his
gradual increase
in strength and wisdom: for
he shall
grow up
before him (says the prophet) as a
tender plant,
and as a
root
out of a dry ground;
by which he assigns the true reason of Christ's being called the
Branch.
Indeed this whole chapter contains so perfect a description of Christ's human state upon earth, that no miracle or demonstration whatsoever can be more capable of affording conviction; and, consequently, those who have read it, and still disbelieve, are inexcuseable. The prophet Zechariah (vi. 12.) speaks of the
growth
of Christ,
the Branch,
in the same kind of terms,
"He shall
grow up
out of his place;"
or, as it is properly rendered in the margin, —
he shall
branch up
from under him.
Moreover, this prophet foretold in the same verse, that he should be named the
Branch.
—
"Behold the man
Zechariah commanded that this prophecy should be spoken to Joshua (or Jesus) the high-priest, in the time of Zerubbabel; but I have already shewn, that he was therein only a type of our Lord Jesus the true
branch.
, whose
name
is the
Branch;
" plainly alluding by the sense (though not the sound) of this appellation to Christ's being surnamed
— secessit (Joseph) in partes Galilaeae,—ibique habitavit in urbe
Nazareth,
unde et Christus
Nazareni cognomentum
accepit, (Matt. ii. 22, 23.) et
Nazarenorum
Christiani. (Acts xxiv. 5.)
J. Usserii Annalium Pars posterior, p.
536.
the
Nazarene
from
Nazareth,
the city
of the Branch.
But Isaiah, in the xith chap. 1st verse, not only alludes to the sense and meaning of this surname, but to the very sound of it; for he intitles him
Netser,
a
Branch.
Now Christ was really called in the common Syriac dialect—
Netseria,
a
Netserian
or
Nazarene,
from
Netsereth
(called from the Greek
Nazareth
) where he had been brought up (Luke iv. 16.) and where (according to the true meaning of the appellation
Netserian
or
Nazarene,
when interpreted) he
grew up
as
a plant
or
branch;
for St. Luke informs us (ii. 40.) that
they
(viz. Joseph and Mary, with the
young child) returned
into Galilee, to their own city
Nazareth,
and the
child grew,
and
waxed strong
in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him.
And again in the 52d verse.—
Jesus increased
in wisdom and
stature,
and in favour with God and man.
This exactly corresponds with Jeremiah's prophecy (xxxiii. 15.) viz.
In those days, and at that time (
) will I cause the
Branch
of righteousness to
grow up
unto David.
If all this be considered, I think, the fitness of St. Matthew's appeal to the prophets, concerning the word
, cannot be called in question, unless, like the
Critical Reviewers
(fol. 357.) we should believe from Dr. W—ms's
bare word,
that
signifies a
Nazorite,
which interpretation would, indeed, render it impossible
to reconcile Matthew
ii. 23.
with any particular prophecy
now extant in the Old Testament,
according to the Doctor's assertion in page 38.
For the Dr. informs us in the following page (39) that
"the word is not
,
a Nazarene, but
,
a Nazorite:"
nevertheless it is certain, that both these words signify the
same thing,
viz.
a Nazarene
(or inhabitant of
Nazareth
); and likewise, that neither of them can signify a
Nazarite,
or (as he spells it)
Nazorite.
For the Hebrew word
separatus,
from whence these last (
Nazarite
or
Nazorite
) are derived, is no where in Scripture rendered
or
, but is distinguished from them by an
iota
in the second syllable, viz.
,
a Nazarite,
Judges xiii. 5. and
,
Nazarites,
Lamentations iv. 7. Besides, it is very plain throughout the whole New Testament, that Christ was not called
, as being a
Nazarite
(for he could not properly be called so according to the law of Moses, though John the Baptist was really such) but on account of his having been brought up at the city of Nazareth, which in the Syriac tongue was called
(not with
or
as
Nezereth,
but with
or
)
Netsereth:
for the word is plainly derived from
a branch,
the name which the prophet Isaiah has given to the Messiah himself, (as is before observed) and therefore St. Matthew's appeal to the prophets in this case is very easily
reconciled
with the prophecies
"now extant in the Old Testament,"
though the Dr. has declared that the same
"is not possible."
Even Christ himself condescended sometimes to prophesy in the same kind of style that had before been used by his servants the prophets.
Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall
not taste of death,
till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matth. xvi. 28. And again,
If I will that he (John)
tarry till I come,
what is that to thee?
John xxi. 22. Here our Lord makes use of
the same words and phrases
with which he was wont to express his
second coming to judge
the world; so that his disciples understood, that John should not die; whereas the event plainly shewed, that he
meant of his
coming
(so often mentioned in the New Testament)
in judgment upon the Jews at the final overthrow of Jerusalem, which St. John outlived many years.
See Dr.
Cave on the Life of that Disciple,
Antiquitates Apostolicae, p. 158.
Our Lord, likewise,
used the same words and phrases
unto these
two different subjects,
viz. his
coming
in judgment upon Jerusalem, and his last
coming
to judge the world,
when occasion was to speak of them together,
according to the observation before quoted from Assemblies Annotations; insomuch that the
day of judgment,
and the
end of the world
were expected to follow immediately after the accomplishment of Christ's prophecies in the xxivth chap. of Matthew, xiiith of Mark, and xxist of Luke concerning
God's judgment in the destruction
of
Jerusalem.
The latter, however, may indeed be considered as a sign, or type, of the
great and last day;
and the accomplishment of the prophecies concerning it is undoubtedly a sure pledge of
God's future
judgment: just in the same manner as the
temporary deliverance
from Rezin and Pekah, promised to Ahaz and the house of David by Isaiah, was properly the confirmation and pledge of the future distant deliverance promised in the person of
Immanuel.
Therefore if Dr. W—ms supposes (as he hints in the words of Mr. Collins in page 7.) that this sign stood in need of other signs to manifest that God would perform it in time, let him consider the context once more, and he will find, that the sign was not without such a manifestation as Mr. Collins and himself have required. Perhaps it may be said, that I have troubled my readers with a great many more examples of
"types, figures, and secondary senses,"
than were necessary for the point in question; but I was induced thereto by the too hasty censure passed on these sort of writings by the authors of the
Critical Review
in page 349, where they seem to condemn all
types,
&c. whatsoever indiscriminately, without deigning to distinguish the difference between
proper types
and
imaginary
ones.
The
END
of
PART II.
A DISSERTATION ON ISAIAH vii. 8.
A DISSERTATION ON ISAIAH vii. 8.
—
Within threescore and five years
shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.
THE accomplishment of Isaiah's prophecy (in confirmation of which he required Ahaz to ask a sign) was not
an event near at hand,
as Dr. W—ms supposes; for no less a term than sixty-five years was allowed for the accomplishment of one of the circumstances contained in it; viz.—
within threescore and five years
shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.
Isaiah vii. 8.
Nevertheless the king, or regal government of Ephraim (or Israel, for Ephraim in this text seems to be put for the ten tribes of Israel, as separated from Judah) lasted no longer than about twenty-one years after the prophecy was delivered; for
"in the ninth year of Hoshea"
(the sixth of Hezekiah)
the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria,
(2 Kings xvii. 6.) therefore commentators have generally found it very difficult to account for the number of
sixty-five years
mentioned in this prophecy.
A very learned and justly esteemed author
Bishop Newton on the Prophecies.
, in order to solve the difficulty, has applied several texts in the second book of Kings to an imaginary captivity or carrying away by Esarhaddon, which, if the context be carefully considered, will be found to relate, undoubtedly, to the
real
captivity under Salmanasser. We understand, indeed, from Ezra iv. 2. that the adversaries of Benjamin and Judah (the Samaritans) dated the time of their settlement in the cities of Samaria from
the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur, which
(as they said)
brought us up hither.
But there is no necessity to suppose, that Esarhaddon carried any people away into captivity from thence, nor any evidence to support such a supposition. Was it not possible for Esarhaddon to plant fresh colonies in the land of Israel, where it was too thinly inhabited by the former colonies, without having carried away any of the inhabitants into captivity? Surely it was not only possible, but most probable, that this was really the case; notwithstanding that several other learned men, besides Bp. Newton, have thought otherwise; and particularly Fr. Junius, quoted by Dr. Simson in his Chronicon Catholicum (pars 3tia, p. 69.) But the Doctor himself sufficiently accounts for the passages in Ezra (ch. iv. 2 and 10.); so that there is no necessity to suppose another captivity under Esarhaddon:—
Quanquam enim Salmanasar illam coloniam primus deduxerit, tamen cum plurimi incolarum à feris, & fortè pestilentiâ (sic enim ait Josephus libro nono) extincti essent, postea plures ab Asarhaddone illuc missos fuisse
verisimile est.
And he likewise quotes Nicholaus Brabantinus to the same purpose:—
Leones enim vastaverunt magnam partem populi quem Salmanassar miserat: propter quod iste Asarhaddon misit alios loco ipsorum, & cum iis unum de sacerdotibus captivis, qui doceret eos colere Dominum.
The prophet does not say, that
Ephraim shall be broken from a kingdom in sixty-five years,
but that within such a time he shall be
broken from a people;
therefore it is plain that the prophecy could not be accomplished by the captivity of Ephraim, and the destruction of the
regal government
of Samaria by Salmanassar; because Ephraim, or the children of Israel, might be still called
a people,
or nation, even after their removal into a strange country, for they could not be said to
"be broken from a people,"
until the judgments denounced against them by the prophet Amos (ix. 4.) should be fulfilled, viz.
Though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them.
It appears from the history of Tobit, that this really came to pass; for he speaks of the frequent slaughter made of
the people
of
his nation
by Sennacherib, chap. i. 17, 18,
for in his wrath he slew many.
And even in the reign of Esarhaddon, about
sixty-five years
after Isaiah's prophecy, notwithstanding that Achiarcharus, Tobit's nephew, was appointed over all the king's affairs (21st verse) we find an instance recorded of the continuation of this persecution.
For when Tobit was told (chap. ii. 3.) that one of his nation was strangled, and cast out in the market-place, he remembered (6th verse)
that prophecy of Amos,
as he said (see Amos viii. 10.) Your feasts shall be turned into mourning, and all your mirth into lamentation:
for it was then the
feast of pentecost,
or seven weeks, and Tobit had sent out to invite such of his poor brethren as feared the Lord, that they
might partake of the "good dinner
which was
prepared;
" but, in the mean time, he received this melancholy account; (see 1st, 2d, and 3d verses) which proves the propriety of his quotation from Amos. The same chapter of Amos contains a passage very suitable to my purpose (viii. 2, 3.)
The end is come upon my people of Israel;
I will not again pass by them any more. And the songs of the temple shall be howlings in that day,
(see 10th verse, quoted by Tobit—
and all your songs into lamentation)
saith the Lord God, there
shall be many dead bodies
in every place,
they shall cast them forth with silence.
I am sensible that the apocryphal book of Tobit ought not to be considered of sufficient authority for the proof of any thing; yet I hope that the remarkable correspondence it bears to the subject in question, will excuse my quotation.
Moses also prophesied that the captives of Israel should be persecuted;—
I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you.
Levit. xxvi. 33.
So we need not doubt but that, by this and other such heavy judgments of God, the captives of the ten tribes of Israel would be so much reduced in number within the
term of threescore and five years
mentioned by Isaiah, that Ephraim might well be said to
be broken from a people;
for we read in Deut. xxviii. 61, 62.
Also every sickness and every plague which is not written in the book of this law, them will the Lord bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed. And ye shall
be left few in number
(which agrees well with the expression of Isaiah concerning Ephraim's being
broken, that it be not a people,
viz. being now left
few in number
)
whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude.
The completion of Isaiah's prophecy concerning Ephraim is very apparent, even in another way; for though some of Ephraim, and of all the other tribes, were afterwards settled in Judaea and other places; though we read of
a remnant of Israel
(see 2 Chron. xxxiv. 9.) that contributed to the repairing of the temple in the reign of Josiah king of Judah, long after the completion of
the sixty-five years
limited by Isaiah; and though Manasseh and Ephraim are expresly mentioned on the same occasion; nevertheless, this remnant of Ephraim, or Israel, could have no pretensions, as before, to be esteemed a separate people or nation from Judah, because they were once more become subject to the laws and regal government of
the tribe of Judah,
of which the authority exercised among them by Josiah is a sufficient proof; and therefore, notwithstanding that on some particular occasions they were distinguished by their tribes, yet, as a body or nation, they were generally afterwards esteemed a
part of the tribe of Judah;
which accounts for the expression of the historian (2 Kings xvii. 18.)
"There was none left but the tribe of Judah only;"
that is, there was none left but part of the tribes of Levi, Benjamin, and such individuals of the other tribes as lived in (or might have escaped into) the inheritance of Judah, and consequently were all considered as the proper subjects of
the kingdom of Judah,
and have ever since borne
the name of that tribe,
viz.
Jews.
Thus the title of
Jews
became general about this time to all the other tribes, as well as Judah; for the kingdom
of Israel
was never afterwards restored in a separate state from Judah; and therefore after the captivity by Salmanassar,
the land which Ahaz vexed
might be said to
"be forsaken of"
one of
"her kings,"
"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of BOTH HER KINGS." Isaiah vii. 16.
or regal governments.
But the succession of the kings of Judah continued regularly until the Babylonish captivity; and on account of this interruption (or of others afterwards) the land could not be said to be
forsaken of both her kings,
if the regal government was to be afterwards restored for any considerable length of time: and we find
that many kings reigned in Judah
after that period. I have already observed, that, when
Ephraim
was
broken from a people,
the national name of
Jews
became general to all the other tribes, as well as Judah; but it is likewise remarkable, that about the same time the whole Jewish nation (including Judah and Benjamin) as descendants of Jacob, began once more to be called
Israel,
as they had formerly been before the revolt of the ten tribes. In the second book of Chron. xxxv. 3.
—"And said unto the Levites that taught
all Israel,
which were holy unto the Lord, Put the holy ark in the house, &c.—serve now the Lord your God and
his people Israel.
" 2 Chron. xxxv. 3.
the Levites, that taught
all Israel,
are exhorted to serve the Lord their God, and
his people Israel;
meaning the whole nation. Isaiah in the fortieth chapter (27th verse
"Why sayest thou,
O Jacob,
and speakest,
O Israel,
my way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God?" Isaiah xl. 27.—"But
thou, Israel,
art my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend." Chap. xli. 8.—"Fear not, thou
worm Jacob,
and ye
men of Israel.
" Verse 14. See also chap. xliii.
) and several succeeding chapters, speaks of the whole Jewish nation under the title of
Jacob
and
Israel:
for tho' he might write these chapters before the change that I speak of, yet it must be considered, that he is addressing himself to the people in the spirit of prophecy, and plainly refers to the latter times. Ezekiel (iii. 4.
"Son of man, go, get thee unto
the house of Israel,
" &c. Ezek. iii. 4.
) was sent unto the
house of Israel,
meaning the Jews that were carried into captivity with Jehoiakim:
Get thee to them of the captivity,
&c. (see 11th verse.) Many of the other prophets expressed themselves in the same manner. See Zech. xii. 1.
"The burden of the word of the Lord for
Israel,
" &c. Zech. xii. 1.
Malachi i. 1.
"The burden of the word of the Lord to
Israel
by Malachi," i. 1.
Ezra iv. 3, &c.
"But Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the
fathers of Israel,
" &c. Ezra iv. 3.
So that the national names of
Israel
and
Jews
were now considered as synonymous terms; for
Ephraim,
the chief of the ten tribes, was now
broken from a people,
and therefore the name of
Israel
did not generally distinguish them as a separate
nation or people,
as before; though, indeed, both
Ephraim
and the
two houses of Israel
(the house of Judah and the house of Israel) were sometimes afterwards, on particular occasions, distinctly mentioned; as in the thirty-first
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with
the house of Israel,
and with the house
of Judah.
" Jerem. xxxi. 31.
and fiftieth
—"In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord,
the children of Israel
shall come, they and
the children of Judah
together, going and weeping: they shall go, and seek the Lord their God." Jer. l. 4.—This was plainly fulfilled after the Babylonish captivity, as the following verses testify—"Remove
out of the midst of Babylon,
" &c. Verses 8, 9, 10.
chapters of Jeremiah, and eighth of Zechariah.
Nevertheless,
all the nation
were
the children of Israel! all were Jews!
and in length of time the
remnant of Israel
was so blended with
Judah,
that many intirely lost the distinction of their tribes (Ezra ii. 62.
"These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found." Ezra ii. 62.
) and more especially after the Babylonish captivity, when the prophecy of Ezechiel seems plainly to be fulfilled.
Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph,
which is in the hand of Ephraim,
and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them
with him, even with the stick of Judah,
and make them ONE STICK, and they shall be ONE in mine hand.
Chap. xxxvii. 19. And in the 22d verse,
I will make them
one nation
in the land upon the mountains of Israel, and
one king
shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more
two nations,
neither shall they be divided into
two kingdoms
any more at all.
Agreeably to this prophecy, the children of Israel were
one nation,
and under
one king
(that is, a succession of kings reigning one by one) during the reigns of all the Asmonean princes, as well as that of Herod the Great, until Shiloh (the prince of peace) was come, according to the prophecy of the patriarch Jacob, recorded in Genesis xlix. 10. viz.
The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
nor a lawgiver from between his feet,
until Shiloh come,
and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
The
END
of
PART III.
A DISSERTATION ON GENESIS xlix. 10.
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
A DISSERTATION ON GENESIS xlix. 10.
IN the preceding Dissertation concerning Ephraim, I have observed that the sceptre was continued in the inheritance of Judah during the reigns of all the Asmonaean princes.
And I believe the Jews themselves will not deny, that the said reigns include a part of the continuation of the sceptre in Judah, as promised by the patriarch Jacob: therefore, I presume, it will not be necessary for me to examine the Jewish histories further back, than the time when the sceptre was translated into the family of Antipater; so that I propose to begin this Dissertation where I left off in the last; viz. with the reign of Herod the Great.
Herod had as much right to be esteemed a Jew, or of the tribe of Judah
The ingenious Mr. Mann, in the first section of his 6th chapter de anno natali Christi, endeavours to prove that Herod was really a Jew. There are likewise several other parts of that learned book, which would both illustrate and confirm many of the points which I have advanced; nevertheless, as I cannot entirely agree with him in all his opinions, and as I had finished my remarks (except a short addition at the end of this Dissertation) before I had the satisfaction of reading his work, I shall therefore content myself with referring my readers to the book itself.
, as the Asmonaean princes of the tribe of Levi: for not only the descendants of the twelve tribes were called Jews after the Babylonish captivity (as I have before observed) but even the
proselytes of the
Jews, though they were by birth
Gentiles
of any other nation whatsoever.
This is strongly expressed by Josephus, in his account of king Izates, the great Adiabenian proselyte. See Jewish Antiquities, (20th book
The Orleans edition of Josephus, printed in 1611 (fol. 685.) which is referred to as often us Josephus is quoted in these remarks.
)
. Which is thus rendered by Gelenius,
cumque existimaret se non esse
perfectum Judaeum,
nisi circumcideretur paratus erat, et hoc facere.
And again—
.—
neque ullo pacto laturos
Judaeum
in regio solio.
The Idumaeans (or Edomites
Thou shalt not abhor an
Edomite, for he is thy brother.
Deut. xxiii. 7.—i. e.—The patriarch Edom (which is Esau, see Gen. xxv. 30.) was Jacob's brother.
) from whom Herod was descended, were not only proselytes to the Jewish religion, but were still more nearly connected with the Jews, by having been governed by the same princes and laws, from the time that they were conquered by John Hyrcanus, the nephew of Judas Maccabaeus;
so that from that time they were accounted Jews,
as Josephus testifies. Antiq. 13th book, 17th chap. fol. 450.
. And they were afterwards as zealous for the rights and liberties of Jerusalem (which they esteemed
their metropolitan city
) as the native Jews themselves. See Jewish War, book iv. chap. 16. page 887.—
. Thus it appears that the Idumaeans, as a nation, had certainly a right to be esteemed
Jews.
But king Herod's claim of relationship did not depend upon this single circumstance of his being descended from the Idumaeans. His connections with the Jews were far greater than any other Idumaean could ever boast of! His father Antipater, though an Idumaean, was a person of such trust and esteem among the Jews, that he held the greatest offices under their kings.
He served under their king Alexander
as governor of Idumaea,
(Antiq. book xiv. chap. 2. p. 469.) —under their king and high-priest Hyrcanus as
governor of Judaea itself, and commander in chief of the Jewish army.
And afterwards he served under Caesar also, as
procurator of Judae
.
See the xivth and xvth chapters of the same book.
Therefore, not only as an Idumaean, but also by these continual connections, as well as residence among the Jews, Antipater seemed to be entirely naturalized to this people; insomuch that he esteemed their interest as his own; their country as though it had been
his native land!
His assiduity and diligence in repairing the walls of Jerusalem (
, book xiv. chap. 18.) when he had obtained leave of Caesar to do so, is a proof of this, as well as Josephus's manner of expressing that circumstance.
Jewish War,
book i. chap. 8. viz.
.—Thus rendered by Rufinus—
et praeter hoc (Antipater) impetravit, ut subversa
patriae
moenia renovare sibi liceret.
And again,
. Antipater vero, ubi de Syria Caesarem prosecutus est, in
Judaeam
reversus,
ante omnia
PATRIAE
muros
a Pompëio dirutos reparabat.
If all these circumstances are considered, it will not be easy to prove, that the
son
of such a person ought to be accounted a foreigner to the Jews. Herod was born a subject of the kingdom of the Jews, and publickly professed their religion, laws, and customs, notwithstanding that he frequently offended against them all: and if he did not think himself, in reality, intitled to be esteemed one of that nation, he nevertheless omitted no proper opportunity of claiming relationship. A remarkable instance of this we have in his speech to the Jews, when he proposed to enlarge and beautify their temple.
For (said he)
our fathers
built this temple to Almighty God after the return from Babylon,
&c.
. Jewish Antiq. book xv. chap. 14. p. 543.
There are many other instances in Josephus of Herod's expressing himself in this manner: and indeed the singular circumstances of this monarch's connections with the Jews rendered his claim of relationship so just, that it could not be disputed, although he was not descended of any of the twelve tribes. Josephus, who called Herod's father (Antipater)
an Idumaean,
does not deny that he was a Jew, but only that he
was not descended from the chief Jews, who came into Judaea from Babylon,
which had been asserted by Nicholas of Damascus. Antiq. book xiv. chap. 2. p. 469. On the contrary, Josephus informs us, that, when the Jews of Caesarea contended with the Syrians for the right of superiority in that city, they alledged that the founder,
Herod their king, was a Jew by birth;
. Antiq. Book xx. chap. 6. p. 695. And the justice of this plea, so far as it related to Herod,
was allowed by the Syrians.
, &c. See also Jewish War, book ii. chap. 12. p. 797.
, &c.
If all these things be considered, I think, they must justify my expression, that Herod had as much right to be esteemed
a Jew,
as the
Asmonaean princes of the tribe of Levi:
and though neither the latter, nor Herod (notwithstanding that
they were Jews
) were really descended of the tribe of Judah; yet the completion of Jacob's prophecy, concerning the sceptre of Judah, is not at all affected by this circumstance.
For the said prophecy does not (I apprehend) so much relate to the descent or genealogy of the individuals that were to rule in Judah, as to the particular pre-eminence of that whole tribe, from which the sceptre (the sign of its being a distinct kingdom) should not depart till Shiloh was come. Therefore it is not so very material to my present purpose, whether Herod was a Jew or not, since it must be acknowledged (be his parentage what it will) that he was nevertheless
"king of Judaea,"
as Luke stiles him chap. i. verse 5. viz. king of the
tribe and inheritance of Judah
(as well as of the other tribes incorporated therein) and that he kept his royal residence in
the capital city of that ruling tribe,
as did all the preceding kings of
Judah,
howsoever descended.
An objection has been made to the common interpretation of the word
or
sceptre
in Jacob's prophecy; viz. that
it could not with any sort of propriety be said, that
the scepter should not depart from Judah,
when Judah had no scepter, nor was to have any for many generations afterwards
See Bishop Newton on the Prophecies. Vol. i. p. 95.
.
But the learned author of this objection has not considered that the sceptre or regal government in Judah is plainly
implied and foretold in the former part of the same prophecy,
which entirely removes the force of his argument in favour of a different interpretation of that word.
Judah
(said the patriarch) thou art he whom
thy brethren shall praise
(alluding to the meaning of his name)
thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies:
thy father's children shall bow down before thee.
Gen. xlix. 8.
Now, notwithstanding the precedency of the tribe of Judah in the encampments and marching of the Israelites in the wilderness, yet this part of the prophecy
thy father's children shall bow down before thee,
cannot be said to be fulfilled, until all the other tribes became subject to the monarchy of the tribe of Judah under David and Solomon; which is observed likewise by the authors of the Commentary on the Bible, called Assemblies Annotations. "This" (say they)
was literally most verified in David and Solomon, who were of this tribe; and spiritually in Christ, the
lion of the tribe of Judah,
Rev. v. 5. to whom all knees shall bow.
Phil. ii. 10.—And they observe further, that
the courage of Judah is compared to a lion's whelp; such was the tribe of Judah in the first essays of war in the time of Joshua; afterwards it increased to the vigour of a lion at full age, and old, in comparison of a whelp; such it was in David's time, and by age and experience subtle, as well as strong; for David of that tribe was so wise, that Saul was afraid of his wisdom, (1 Sam. xviii. 5.14, 15.) and very couragious (see 1 Sam. xvii. from ver. 32 to 51.) as the lion above other beasts, who, by his courage and strength,
is a king over them.
Num. xxiii. 24. Prov. xxviii. 1. and xxx. 30. Amos iii. 8. Mic. v. 8.
If all this be considered, it will appear that
in this text must be translated
a sceptre;
which is the opinion likewise of Mons. Martin—
Quoique le mot Hebreu signifie aussi une verge, & qu'il soit employé quelque fois, dans un sens metaphorique pour la verge des afflictions,
la liaison de ce verset avec le precedent, & toute la matiere contenue dans ce texte,
ne permettent pas d'expliquer ici ce mot autrement que par celui
de sceptre;
de même que dans ce passage de Zacharie, chap. x. 11. où se trouvent en Hebreu les mêmes termes qu'ici: le sceptre se departira d'Egypte.
Thus it is plain that the
regal sceptre
was not
to depart from the tribe of Judah
till Shiloh was come.
Now the Messiah was not born until towards the close of
king Herod's
reign, therefore the
sceptre of Judah
could not be said to depart, or begin to depart (
"be departing,"
as some commentators have fancied) before that period. Neither could the
the land which Ahaz vexed
be said to
be forsaken of both her kings,
or monarchies, whilst Herod continued to reign in Jerusalem. But
immediately after his death,
the form of government was entirely altered. There was no longer
a sceptre
in the tribe or inheritance of Judah! The Jews had now no other
worldly king but Caesar;
for
the peculiar sceptre of Judah
was departed. They were indeed subject
to a sceptre,
but it was the
Roman sceptre;
which could not on this account be called the
Sceptre of Judah;
and therefore it is plain that at this time the sceptre departed from Judah. A solemn legation of fifty ambassadors from Jerusalem (who were backed by eight thousand Jews at Rome) sollicited Caesar that their regal government might be changed, and that they might be added to the province of Syria, and become subject to the Roman commanders that should be sent there.—
. See Antiq. p. 611, 612. See also p. 781, 782. where the same thing is strongly expressed.
Nevertheless Caesar did not at that time entirely comply with their request; for as Archelaus was named by his father Herod to be his successor in the kingdom, Caesar was pleased to grant him the half of Herod's dominions, but
not as a kingdom;
for he allowed him the title only of Ethnarch; and as such Archelaus had no more rigth to the
ensign of royalty
spoken of by the patriarch Jacob in the 49th chapter of Genesis, than he had to the
title and dignity of a king,
which were
never conferred
on him, though promised conditionally.
. Antiq. book xvii. chap. 13. p. 611. —From this it appears, that an ethnarch did not differ from a king
in title only.
"The dignity of a kingdom"
was then merely promised; which is a proof that the ethnarchy, at that time established, was entirely without
such dignity:
and Archelaus was so far from obtaining the
promised kingdom,
that about nine years afterwards he
was banished even from his ethnarchy.
See Jewish War, book ii. chap. 6. p. 784
, &c.
.
In the mean time Herod Antipas, another son of Herod the Great, was tetrarch of Galilee. It was this Herod who beheaded John the Baptist in his territory of Galilee, and whose crafty, base, and self-interested disposition was characterized by the Messiah himself under the simile of
a fox:
for in detestation of such
pernicious principles
he even named him from that wily animal.
Go and tell
that fox,
&c. To this man was Christ sent by Pontius Pilate; not because Herod Antipas had any judicial authority in Jerusalem, but because Christ was accounted
a Galilean,
and therefore Pilate sent him, as being one that belonged unto
Herod's jurisdiction.
See St. Luke xxiii 6, 7
—
when Pilate heard of
Galilee,
he asked whether the man (Jesus) were
a Galilean.
And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto
Herod's jurisdiction,
he
sent him to Herod,
who himself was also at Jerusalem at that time.
.
Judaea was, indeed,
spiritually the kingdom of the Messiah,
of which many incontestable proofs are inserted throughout this work, and compared with the predictions of the prophets; but with respect to its temporal or civil government, it was so far from
being a kingdom
at this time, that it was only considered as a part of the province of Syria; and for above thirty years together was governed by a regular succession of Roman procurators
Josephus informs us, that Valerius Gratus, successor to Annius Rufus, was the fifth governor of the Jews; and that he was succeeded by Pontius Pilate—"
."—
. Antiq. book xviii. chap. 3. p. 619.
, until Herod Agrippa obtained Judaea and Samaria (in addition to his former dominions) of the emperor Claudius, who likewise confirmed his
title of king.
This, at first sight, seems a weighty objection to the explanation, which I have offered, concerning the completion of Jacob's prophecy: but if we consider all the circumstances of this reign, perhaps it will appear otherwise. Though Agrippa enjoyed the title, pomp, and appearance of a king, he was nevertheless subjected in no small degree (as well as his predecessors the Roman procurators) to the controul of the Roman president of Syria
Antiq. book xviii. chap. 15. p. 615.
, &c.
.—For when he had undertaken thoroughly to repair and compleat the fortifications of Jerusalem, Marsus the president of Syria had a watchful eye over him, and signified his distrust to Caesar, who caused him to desist. Antiq. book xix. chap. 7. p. 677.— And afterwards Marsus exerted his authority as president in a very remarkable manner, even
in the dominions of Agrippa, when the king himself was resident therein;
for being jealous of the friendship and unity between Agrippa and several of the neighbouring potentates, who were come to visit him at Tiberias,
he sent and commanded them all to depart to their respective governments, which was a matter of the greatest mortification to Agrippa.
—
. Antiq. book xix. chap. 7. p. 678.
These are proofs that Agrippa's power as a king was very much circumscribed in comparison with that of Herod the Great. Herod was so far from being subject to the controul of the presidents of Syria, that he himself was made president of
all Syria
by Caesar; (
) who directed the several governors to do nothing without his counsel and advice.
. Jewish War, book i. chap. xv. p. 746. See also Antiq. book xv. chap. 13. p. 541.
On the other hand, likewise, the reign of Agrippa was so very short in comparison of the time that the sceptre had been departed from Judah, that, I think, it can scarcely be considered as an exception either to the prophecy of Jacob, or to this of Isaiah, concerning
the two kings;
especially as Agrippa was cut off from his kingdom by a very remarkable interposition of Divine Providence: for after he had slain St. James (the brother of St. John) imprisoned St. Peter, and otherwise grievously persecuted the Christians, he fulfilled the measure of his iniquity by accepting the idolatrous flattery of the people at Caesarea;
and immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten up of worms, and gave up the ghost;
(Acts xii. 23.) having reigned over Judah only
three years
according to Josephus, who, in the 19th book of his Antiquities, chap. 7. p. 679, confirms the account given by St. Luke, though in some particulars his relation is different.
, &c. Jewish War, book ii. chap. 19. p. 793.
Immediately after
his death (his son, Agrippa the younger, being only an infant) the kingdom was reduced again into a province
(Cypros)
, &c. Jewish War, book ii. chap. 19. p. 793.
, and never was any more restored; for
the government of the Roman procurators
(which had been
only interrupted
by this
shadow of a reign,
after eight or nine persons had been invested with that dignity) was once more established and continued during a regular succession of seven other procurators, until the time of the the general revolt of the Jews, when the just and dreadful vengeance of God was ready to overtake them for their wickedness and unbelief, according to the express prediction of Christ recorded in the Gospels. Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi.
Agrippa the younger afterwards obtained the kingdom of Chalcis
Antiq. book xx. chap. 3. p. 690. Jewish War, book ii. chap. 20. p. 794. chap. 22. p. 796.
, and some other dominions; but he never had any authority at Jerusalem, except that ecclesiastical authority over the temple and priests, which his uncle and predecessor Herod king of Chalcis had enjoyed before him; for all Judaea (except two
Abila and Julias.
cities in Peraea, and two
Tarichaea and Tiberias.
in Galilee, given to Agrippa) were governed by Felix, the Roman procurator. "
." Jewish War, book ii. chap. 22. p. 796. Thus it appears,
that Jerusalem
had ceased to be the seat of
regal government,
from the time of Herod's death to the total destruction of that city; except indeed during the three years reign of Herod Agrippa. But it is remarkable, that before this short reign the Jews had not only sollicited Caesar by a solemn legation of fifty ambassadors (as I have before observed in page 32.) that their nation might no longer be governed by kings, but their chief priests had likewise publickly abrogated all pretensions that their nation could have
to any peculiar sceptre of
their own: for when Pilate brought forth Jesus in the presence of the main body of the people, who were assembled at Jerusalem on account of the passover, and said,
Behold your king;
and again,
Shall I crucify your king?
they answered,—We have
no other king but Caesar.
St. John xix. 14, 15.
This publick acknowledgment of the Jews, that the
peculiar sceptre of Judah was then no more;
the
limited jurisdiction
as well as
brevity
Josephus, in some parts of his history, expresses a very particular respect (if it may not be called a partiality) in favour of the character of Agrippa on account of his zealous attachment to Judaism. Nevertheless, the
limited jurisdiction and brevity of his reign
was such, that even Josephus himself did not consider it as a
continuation of the regal government of Judah:
for in the 8th chapter of his 20th book of Antiquities, where he gives a summary account of the government at Jerusalem, under which the office of high priest subsisted from the time of Herod the Great to the destruction of Jerusalem, he observes, that
after the death of Herod and Archelaus, the government (or police) was an aristocracy;
and he entirely omits any mention of Agrippa's reign in this place; so that, 'tis plain, he did not think it properly an exception to his observation.
. Antiq. book xx. chap. 8. p. 702.
of Herod Agrippa's reign; and the want of
regal succession
for a long time before it, and
for ever
after it, are reasons, which, I hope, will justify my suggestion, that the said reign is not to be considered as a continuation of the sceptre in Judah: and therefore it is most natural to conclude, that the same really departed at
the death of Herod the Great;
which period corresponds more exactly to the time pointed out by Jacob's prophecy than any other. Shiloh,
the Prince of Peace,
was then come; and Herod (convinced by
"the wise men from the east,"
that a child
was born king of the Jews
) had attempted in vain to cut him off at Bethlehem
The general consent of the chief priests and scribes of the Jews, concerning the place of the Messiah's birth, is very remarkable; for when Herod gathered them together,
he demanded of them where Christ should be born? and they said unto him, in Bethlehem of Judaea:
for thus it is written by the prophet;
And thou Bethlehem in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a governor that shall rule my people Israel.
Mat. ii. 4—6. Now, though the Jews still deny, that our Lord Jesus was the Christ, yet they must confess,
with their ancestors,
that the true Messiah, according to the prophet Micah (v. 2) ought to be born at Bethlehem. It is, therefore, a matter of the highest importance to them, to consider what expectations they can reasonably have, now-a-days, of the birth of a Messiah
of the seed of David
at Bethlehem, since that place for so many ages has ceased
to be the city of David?
For instead of the family and kindred of David, it is now inhabited by
Turks, Moors, Arabians, and some poor Christians.
See
Bohun's Geographical Dictionary
printed in 1695.—And further, if any person hereafter born at Bethlehem should pretend to be
the son of David
(or of the seed of David) the Jews ought to consider, whether it is now possible to trace that
royal line
down to the present time in so satisfactory a manner, that they might
safely
and
reasonably
give credit to such pretensions?
But what is Bethlehem now? Where are the thousands of Judah, of which this was one? What is Jerusalem now? Are the tribes preserved? Has
Judah
still the sceptre and the lawgiver? Where is its ensign displayed? And
who can now prove their descent from David?
All the signs
(
Gem. Sanhedrin. c. ii. § 31.) of the coming of the Messiah "are past," &c. Dr.
Gregory Sharpe's
2d
Argument in Defence of Christianity,
p. 146. O that the
house of Israel
may consider these things before it is too late!
. for, like the generality of the Jews, Herod expected a temporal prince; and therefore concluded, that his own sceptre and authority was in danger, as it really was, it being
then about to depart.
For very soon afterwards Joseph, the husband of the blessed Virgin, was warned by an angel of the Lord in Egypt, saying,
Arise, and take the
young child
and his mother, and go into
the land of Israel
(not the land of Judah only):
for
they are dead which sought the young child's life.
Matth. ii. 20.
Perhaps some critic may object, that, as Christ was undoubtedly
king of Israel and Judah,
the sceptre of Judah cannot be said to depart at the death of Herod according to the interpretation just now given of the patriarch Jacob's prophecy: therefore it is necessary for me to observe, that the
sceptre
spoken of in this prophecy, and the ceasing of the two kings or regal governments, spoken of by Isaiah, can only be understood to mean the departure of the
worldly sceptre,
and
temporal regal authority
from Judah and Israel, as necessarily to be distinguished from the
spiritual authority, and heavenly kingdom
of Christ; for as Christ was
born king of the Jews,
so the sceptre of Judah with respect to him is not departed, but is everlasting, according to the prophecy of the Royal Psalmist concerning Christ's kingdom.
Thy throne,
O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre
of thy kingdom is
a right sceptre.
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Psalm xlv. 6, 7.
The other part of Jacob's prophecy concerning Judah (viz.
"nor a lawgiver from between his feet"
) does not relate (I apprehend) to the sceptre or regal government of Judah; for the particle
(rendered
"nor"
in the common English version, which divides these words from the former part of the sentence) seems to point out, that two distinct things are here spoken of, as Mons. Martin has observed.
Car cette particule
et
marque que c'etoient deux choses different
le sceptre
et le legislateur.
But as the accomplishment of prophecies is always the best interpreter, I have been chiefly confirmed in this opinion of Mons. Martin, by observing, that the departure of the lawgiver from Judah was not less remarkable in the accomplishment, than that of the sceptre; for the prophecies concerning both seem plainly to have been accomplished in two different persons.
The word
must be understood in a very inferior sense from the usual acceptation, if the Jewish Sanhedrin, or the Scribes and Pharisees are to be esteemed lawgivers, as some have imagined.
The Lord himself is called by Isaiah
"our lawgiver;"
xxxiii. 22. And, as it pleased Almighty God to declare his will to his people Israel by Moses and the Prophets, they also are intitled to the name of
lawgivers,
as being the immediate instruments of God's revelation. Judah might likewise be properly called
a lawgiver
(Psalms lx. 7. cviii. 8.) because
the Messiah
was to be born of that tribe. But the Scribes and Pharisees, or the Sanhedrin, were not sent by God with any further revelation, than what had before been given by Moses and the Prophets; and therefore, though they sat in Moses' seat (Matt. xxiii. 2.) yet they could not properly be called lawgivers; being only
lawyers or expounders
of the law of Moses: and, if no person among the Jews for above seventeen hundred years has had a better claim to the title of lawgiver than these, it must plainly appear that the lawgiver (as well as the sceptre) is departed from Judah; and consequently, that the Messiah came before that time. Malachi is the last person whom the Jews acknowledge as a prophet in their canon of the Scriptures; and it is remarkable that Almighty God was pleased to comfort them by this holy
messenger
(
) with the promise of another
messenger
or prophet.
Behold, I will send you
Elijah the prophet
before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
Mal. iv. 5. This dreadful visitation of their nation was certainly accomplished
in the destruction of Jerusalem;
for if we examine the histories of former times ever so minutely, we shall not be able to find any
national afflictions or miseries
whatsoever to be compared with those which the Jews suffered at that time. This ought to be a sufficient proof to the Jews of the truth of Christ's prophecy concerning themselves recorded in Matthew xxiv. 15.21
When ye therefore shall see
the abomination of desolation
spoken of by Daniel the Prophet (ix. 27. and xii. 11.) stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand) then let them which be in Judaea, flee unto the mountains.
—
For then shall be
great tribulation,
such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened.
. Luke xxi. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea, flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it, depart out; and let not them that are in the countries, enter thereinto For these be the
days of vengeance,
that all things which are written (Dan. ix. 26, 27. Zech. xi. 1. &c. &c.) may be fulfilled. But wo unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days: for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon
this people.
And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles,
until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
Luke xxi. 20—24.
For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation, which God created, unto this time, neither shall be.
Mark xiii. 19.
. and Mark xiii. 19. so that as one part of the prophecy was so punctually accomplished, they may safely assure themselves, that such great tribulation will never befall them again, according to Christ's promise in the same prophecy.
Compare the said prophecy with that of Daniel ix. 26, 27.
But though this great and dreadful day of the Lord is certainly past, yet the Jews do not allow that the promised Elijah is yet come. Nevertheless they sent Priests and Levites from Jerusalem to enquire of John the Baptist—
Who art thou? —Art thou Elias?
and he saith, I am not. Art "thou that prophet?" (meaning most likely that prophet promised by Moses in Deut. xviii. 15 and 18 verses, who was afterwards acknowledged by about five thousand Jews at one time; for so many were joint witnesses of one of his miracles, being convinced by all their senses of
seeing, hearing,
and
tasting
) and he answered
no.
But notwithstanding that John was a different person from Elijah the prophet, according to his own confession, yet he was most certainly the prophet promised by
Malachi
under the prophetical appellation of
Elijah,
which denoted the excellency of his spiritual mission; for the angel Gabriel told his father Zacharias in the temple, that John should go before the Lord in the
"spirit and power of Elias."
See St. Luke i. 17. And afterwards Christ himself bore witness of him—
if ye will receive it,
this is Elias
See also Matthew xvii. 10—13.
which was for to come;
(Matt. xi. 14.) and in the same chapter he calls him
a prophet, yea, and more than a prophet;
he being the Lord's messenger promised by Malachi iii. 1. to prepare his way before him.
John was likewise a lawgiver (
) as well as a prophet and messenger; for
there went out to him
Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round
about Jordan.
Matth. iii. 5. And when he warned them to flee from the wrath to come,
the people asked him, saying, what shall we do then?
(Luke iii. 10.) and we find by the succeeding verses that he instructed them accordingly, not only with general doctrine, but even with particular advice suitable to the different classes of men. These testimonies of the Evangelists in favour of John are confirmed in no small degree even by the
Jewish historian
Josephus, who calls him
, a good man
—for indeed his life and conversation was so exemplary and unblameable, that many of the Jews (as Josephus informs us) believed the destruction of Herod's army to be a just judgment of God for the murder of that
good man
Of whom Josephus, in the place above quoted, gives us the following character: that his whole crime was his exhorting the Jews to the love and practice of virtue; and, first of all, to piety, justice, and regeneration, or newness of life; not by the bare abstinence from this or that particular sin, but by an habitual purity of mind and body.
"Now" (continues he)
so great was the credit and authority of this holy man, as appears by the multitude of his disciples, and the veneration they had for his doctrine (for he could do what he would with them) that Herod, not knowing how far the reputation of a man of his spirit might influence the people toward a revolt, resolved at length to take him off before it was too late,
&c. He adds,
that Herod was very unsuccessful in his war with the Arabian king; all which the Jews looked upon as a just judgment of God upon him for that impious murder.
Univ. Hist. vol.
x.
p.
538.
. See Jewish Antiq. book xviii. c. 7.
John was not, indeed, of the tribe of Judah, yet it cannot be denied, but that he was
a Jew,
according to what has been before observed concerning the Asmonaean princes, and
Herod the king of Judea
(Luke i. 5.): and he might very well be accounted a
lawgiver from between the feet of Judah,
for he was born in the
hill country of Judea
(Luke i. 65.) in a
city of Juda
(Luke i. 39. at a time
when that tribe was in full possession of its inheritance.
But the circumstance which more particularly points out the accomplishment of Jacob's prophecy in this holy Nazarite
John was a
Nazarite
unto God from his mother's womb,
as Sampson, one of the
judges
of Israel, had been before him. (Compare Judges xvi. 17. with St. Luke i. 15.) But Christ could not properly be called a Nazarite (as Dr. W—ms supposes him to be) without a contradiction to the usual sense of that title in the Jewish law.
is, that John was the very last of the
Jewish lawgivers or prophets.
For though, on extraordinary occasions, some prophetical sentences may have been uttered by men adhering to Judaism, after the coming of Christ (such as the remarkable prophecy of Caiaphas the high-priest concerning Christ—
that it was expedient that one man should die for the people,
&c. (John xi. 50.)
See what a manifest (though unwilling) testimony, even
the unbelieving Jews
bare of Christ's heavenly mission. —
Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said,
What do we?
for
this man doeth many miracles.
If we thus let him alone,
all men will believe on him;
and the Romans
shall come and take away both our place and nation.
And one of them named Caiaphas, being
the high-priest
that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us,
that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself: but being high-priest that year,
he prophesied
that Jesus should die for that nation,
&c. John xi. 47—51.
yet the Jews cannot prove that a single prophet (professedly as such) has been sent to them from God ever since the time of John; that is, for above 1700 years; except they will condescend to allow to St. Paul, Agabus, and others of the primitive Christians, the title of prophets: but these were under the dispensation of the New Testament, after the ceremonial and typical law was annulled, and therefore cannot be reckoned among the
Jewish
lawgivers or prophets.
This was confirmed by Christ himself (Luke xvi. 16.) "the
law
and the
prophets
were
until John.
" —And again (Matth. xi. 12, 13.)
for
all the prophets
and
the law prophesied until John.
These are sufficient authorities, I hope, to justify my supposition, that the
prophet
and
lawgiver departed from Judah
at the death of John the Baptist; or rather, was gradually departing for some time before his death: because as
Christ increased, John decreased,
according to his own prophecy recorded by John the Evangelist, (iii. 30.)
Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said,
I am not the Christ,
but that I am sent before him. He that hath
the bride
(that is,
the church
or congregation; for John had just before been told that Christ
baptizeth,
and
all men come to him,
26th verse)
is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy is therefore fulfilled. He
must increase,
but I
must decrease
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized
more disciples
than John (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples) he left Judea, and departed again into Galilee.
John iv. 1, 2, 3.
. He that cometh from above, is above all: he that is of the earth, is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven, is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. He that hath received his testimony, hath set to his seal, that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure
(unto him).
The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Thus far the Evangelist seems to be relating the testimony of John, the second Elias.
In the 5th chapter (31st verse) of the same Evangelist we read, that this remarkable testimony was afterwards referred to by Christ himself.
If I bear witness of myself (said Christ) my witness is not true. There
is another
that beareth witness of me, and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me, is true.
Ye sent unto John,
and he bare witness unto the truth. But I receive
not testimony from man:
— nevertheless our Lord condescended to give the Jews an opportunity of being convinced by
the testimony of man,
a man, whom they almost universally esteemed on account of the purity of his life, which I have already shewn from the authority even of the
Jewish
historian Josephus.
The mercy of God, therefore, is apparent in this condescension; and though our Lord himself declared, that he received not
"testimony from man;"
yet he added—
"but these things"
(relating to John's testimony)
"I say, that ye might be saved."
He then gives a most lively and comprehensive (though short) description of the holy character of this his harbinger.
"He was"
(says our Lord)
"a burning, and a shining light;"
—and he reminds the Jews, that they formerly testified a very particular approbation of this holy person:
and ye were willing
(says he)
for a season
to rejoice in his light.
But I have greater witness than that of
John:
for
the works
which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do,
bear witness
of me, that the Father hath sent me.
And the Father himself,
which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not
his word
abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Search the Scriptures,
for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.
Thus Christ pointed out to the Jews three incontestible indications of the truth of his holy doctrine.
1st. The testimony of John the Baptist, with which he
indulged
them, though the same might be esteemed unnecessary for the cause of him, who "
receives not testimony
from man."
2dly. His own
mighty works,
daily wrought among them, which, as he said,
bear witness
of me, that the Father hath sent me.
And 3dly. The
witness of the Father himself,
though (as Christ expressed himself to the Jews)
Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape;
but he seems plainly to direct them to that
witness of God,
which has in all ages been apparent in the accomplishment of the
word of the Lord by his prophets.
Even the unbelieving Jews themselves pretended to believe
the Scriptures,
and acknowledged them to be
the word of God;
and therefore Christ referred them to the Scriptures, as being
the witness
of the Father himself.
"Search the Scriptures,"
&c. But they wilfully neglected to make a right use of such ample testimony; and were, therefore, inexcusable. "Do not think" (said Christ)
that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you,
even Moses in whom ye trust.
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not
his writings,
how shall ye believe my words?
In the very next chapter (vi. 1, 2.) the Evangelist relates the accomplishment of one of the circumstances of Jacob's prophecy, as recorded by Moses; viz.—
and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
"After these things" (says St. John)
Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias, and A GREAT MULTITUDE FOLLOWED HIM,
because they saw his miracles,
&c. And again (14th and 15th verses) "then those men" (the five thousand persons, who were fed by Christ with five barley loaves and two small fishes)
when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet
that should come into
the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and
take him by force, to make him a king
(for they could not possibly give him a greater proof of their sincerity in
gathering to him
as the true Shiloh)
he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
The people of Israel (as Mr. Mann observes in his learned treatise de Anno Natali Christi, p. 4.) were not the only people that were to be
gathered
unto Shiloh; not one nation only is pointed at in the prophecy,
but many nations.
The patriarch's words were not
the gathering
of this people,
or nation, but in the plural number
the gathering
of the nations;
which has been apparently fulfilled: for the nations have at different times almost universally submitted to the faith of our Lord Jesus, the true Shiloh; notwithstanding that many have since fallen back into gross ignorance, superstition, and unbelief
We have a dreadful example of this in the present state of the once enlightened Grecian empire, of the greatest part of Asia, and of almost the whole vast continent of Africa. Nay, the greatest part even of Europe itself hath long since resumed the veil of its former darkness, and the shadow of death: for the superstitious vanities of Rome bear too great a resemblance to the old Heathen idolatries; and the multitude of Atheists, Deists, and of those who neglect Christ's holy sacraments, is an alarming indication of a
falling off
even among ourselves.
. The
gathering of the people
to impostors does not at all affect the certainty of the sign given by the patriarch Jacob in
the gathering of the people
to Shiloh.
Many false Christs have indeed appeared according to our Lord's prediction in Matthew xxiv. 24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets; and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch that (if it were possible) they shall deceive the very elect.
Behold, I have told you before,
&c.
. Luke xxi. 8
Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
. and to such the Jews have zealously
gathered
themselves: for
they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God sent them
strong delusion
(as foretold by St. Paul)
that they should believe a lie.
2 Thess. ii. 11.
The same people, who rejected the
truth
through
hardness of heart,
and
want of faith,
very soon afterwards, by a
contrary
infatuation, rendered themselves despicable by the most
absurd credulity.
Even the
Jewish
historian Josephus gives ample testimony of the proneness of his countrymen to error and false doctrine, and that they were easily led away by impostors and deceivers. He relates a very remarkable instance of it, in their being led out by an Egyptian to the mount of Olives; from whence he had undertaken to shew them a wonderful spectacle, viz. that the walls of Jerusalem should fall at his command
Antiq. book xx. chap. 6. p. 695.
.
The same spiritual blindness continued even after
the abomination of desolation,
notwithstanding the apparent judgment of God upon them, in the destruction of their great (and once holy) city: for they have (as readily since that time, as before) acknowledged the incredible pretensions of several impostors, who have at different times set themselves up for the true Messiah. For instance, the infamous Barchocheba (
or,
Son of a Star
) in the reign of the emperor Adrian, was gladly received, and zealously supported among the Jews, until an immense slaughter of his miserable adherents plainly demonstrated that he was more properly intitled Barchozba (
)
Son of a Lie.
The Jews were also notably deceived by Sabbatei Sevi, who wickedly took upon himself the character of the Messiah. But it is remarkable, that it was the Jews alone, and not
all the other nations of the world,
that were gathered to these counterfeits; which ought to demonstrate to the
present house of Israel
the apparent difference between the true Messiah, and the miserable deceivers above-mentioned.
Thus, I hope, I have shewn, that the sceptre did not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet,
until Shiloh was come;
and that
the gathering of the people
(not of one nation only, but
of the universe
at different times) has been unto Christ himself, according to the Scriptures.
Bring forth the blind people that
have eyes,
and the
deaf
that
have ears.
Let
all the nations
be
gathered together,
and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? Let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let
them hear,
and
say,
"It is
Truth.
"
Isaiah xliii. 8, 9.
Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will towards men.
The
END
of
PART IV.
AN ANSWER TO SOME OF THE Principal Arguments used by Dr. W—MS IN DEFENCE OF HIS CRITICAL DISSERTATION ON ISAIAH vii. 13, 14, 15, 16, &c. IN WHICH The opinions of the late Dr. SYKES, and Dr. GEORGE BENSON, concerning
Accommodations
of Scripture Prophecy,
are briefly
considered.
AN ANSWER TO Some of the principal Arguments used by Dr. W—MS in Defence of his Critical Dissertation on ISAIAH vii. 13, 14, 15, 16, &c.
I HAVE pointed out to Dr. W—ms several mistakes in his Critical Dissertation on Isaiah vii. 13, 14, 15, 16; yet he hath not thought proper to acknowledge one of them, though he has laboured to disprove several. Some of the principal arguments which the Doctor has advanced in favour of his hypothesis are considered in the following pages.
But before I proceed to a defence of my remarks, it may be necessary for me to examine a very important question concerning the interpretation of Scripture prophecies, notwithstanding that Dr. W—ms apprehends the same to be
sufficiently
and even
conclusively decided already;
viz. Whether any "allegorical meanings, and double senses of "Scripture prophecies are to be allowed?
It is impossible (says the Dr.) to determine when any prophecy is fulfilled, if it has more than one single sense. If it has two (says he) it may have two hundred, and all of them equally just.
For the confirmation of this sentiment, he refers me to Dr. George Benson's preface to the first volume of his paraphrase and notes on St. Paul's Epistles, and to Dr. Sykes's Connexion of natural and revealed Religion, page 217, &c.
These I have examined with as much care, I believe, as is necessary, and find, that the third objection to Dr. George Benson's hypothesis, quoted even in his own Introduction, p. xxxiv. obliges him to make such large concessions concerning types and figures, that—notwithstanding his great zeal against double fenses, his denying of them seems a mere disagreement in terms, and not in effect, from the general received opinion.
In his answer to the said objection, he allows, p. xxxv.
That, wherever the
law
or the
Prophets
have declared, that the rites and ceremonies of
the Mosaic constitution
were intended to point out a moral obligation, or to prefigure the
Messiah,
or something in the Christian dispensation, there that moral intention, or prophetic prefiguration, is the one, true sense of the text, &c.
See the Doctor's answer at length in p. xxxv.
Here he plainly allows of a direct application, in some cases, to the antitype; which he calls
the one true sense of the text.
—But how (as a reasonable man) he can possibly avoid acknowledging the necessary consequence of this his concession, I leave all candid readers to judge: for if there is an allegorical sense alluding to the antitype (which he calls "a
moral intention
or
prophetic prefiguration
") there must certainly be, likewise, a
literal sense
applicable
to the type itself.
Indeed the Doctor has in that place refined his argument to so small a thread, that it becomes almost imperceptible.
The next objection quoted by Dr. Benson, is as follows. — Object. IV.
Are not many passages in the New Testament taken from the Old Testament, and used in a quite different sense from what they have, as they stand in the original writer? and must not these be called double senses of the words of sacred Scripture?
To this the Doctor answers, —
It is acknowledged, that our Lord, and his Apostles and Evangelists, have taken several passages from the Old Testament; and used them in a very different sense from what they have, as connected with the place from whence they were taken.
But that will not prove a double sense of the words. I may quote a passage from
Homer
or
Virgil, Herodotus
or
Livy,
to express my present meaning, and in quite another sense from what it has in those antient authors. But that will not prove that those antient authors intended their words should be understood in two senses. In the original intention they had only one meaning. In
my accommodation of them,
they have only one meaning. And though the same words may have different ideas affixed to them; and be used, by successive speakers, or writers, in various senses; yet that does not prove that, in the original intention, they had more than one signification.
Now I readily allow, that Dr. Benson's idea of
an accommodation
is certainly true in such cases as he has supposed, viz. in quotations from
Homer or Virgil, &c.
To express a present meaning in quite another sense from what it has in those antient authors.
And I as readily assent to a part of Dr. W—ms quotation in page 41 of his Critical Dissertation from a very learned author,
Dr. GREGORY SHARPE.—See his second argument in Defence of Christianity taken from the ancient prophecies, page 349.
The sentence which immediately follows the above extract, ought by no means to be omitted when the author's sentiments on this head are quoted, viz.
But indeed to an attentive mind the difference will appear very great between the citations from prophane authors and the prophets.
viz. that when
passages in the Grecian poets are cited, or alluded to, in the writings of the New,
or Old "Testament," the same
are not to be considered as prophecies.
For indeed they cannot otherwise be esteemed than as
a mere accommodation of phrases.
But when the
word of the Lord by his prophets,
or (as St. Matthew warily expresses himself)
that which was
spoken of the Lord
by
the prophet,
is cited by an evangelist, and declared
to be fulfilled;
the idea of "a
mere accommodation
" becomes highly improper, not only in a grammatical, but also in a religious sense.
Therefore, in answer to all that has been said in favour of
accommodations,
I must observe, that the
fulfilling
of proverbs and phrases, or of quotations from poets and historians, by
a similarity of circumstances,
is so widely different from
the fulfilling of a prophecy,
that the true meaning of the word
fulfill,
when applied to the latter, cannot justly be ascertained by such a comparison.
The word of
a prophet
(especially the word of the LORD by a PROPHET) implies a
foretelling
or promise of future things, which must in due time be
fulfilled;
as
all things must
be fulfilled
(said our Lord) which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me.
Luke xxiv. 44.
Therefore when we are told, that
"the word which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet" is fulfilled,
we cannot, either with grammatical, or religious propriety (as I have before observed) understand any other
fulfilling or accomplishment
than that which was originally intended by the holy spirit to be prefigured.
Because we cannot allow, that a scripture prophecy is
accommodated
to a particular sense, to which it originally had no reference
See page 40. Crit. Dissert.
,
unless we allow likewise that such
an accommodation
is absolutely a
perversion
of the
primary
sense of the prophet: for readers would not only be thereby perplexed and misled with respect to the true accomplishment originally and singly intended by the words of the prophet so cited, but would also be naturally led to conceive, that the matters, related by the evangelist, were intentionally prefigured or foretold thereby, which would be a deception of no small discredit to the evangelist, if his comparison had really no other relation to the prophecy than that
of a
similiarity of circumstances.
So that such a misapplication of scripture prophecy cannot otherwise be considered than as a deception leading to a
double misconstruction
as above; which would be as little suitable to the testimony of an evangelist
"by way of illustration,"
as to the original sense of the prophet, whatever Dr. Benson may think of it, or Dr. W—ms either. See his Remarks, p. 40.
If all this be duly considered, I think no one can reasonably suppose that an evangelist would attempt to
mislead
his readers by declaring a prophecy to be accomplished
or fulfilled
in
a particular sense to which it
originally had no reference.
See Critical Dissert. p. 40.
Dr. Benson in page xxii. of his introduction informs us, that
if the iid and xvith Psalms can be shown quite throughout to agree to king David, then they ought to be interpreted of him. But if (as some judicious persons have thought) there be in them some expressions, which are not applicable to king David, then they should be interpreted wholly concerning the Messiah; to whom they do, in every part, very well agree.
Now I am of the same opinion with Dr. Benson that these two Psalms are undoubtedly to be interpreted of the Messiah, and I do not at all contend for the application of them to David.
I only object, therefore, to the Doctor's rule of interpretation, which he has applied to the said Psalms; because I think it will be liable, in a great variety of applications, to mislead and perplex those persons, who may happen to adopt it.
For instance; the lxxiid Psalm, of which he speaks in the same page, is undoubtedly a prophecy of Christ's kingdom, as Dr. Benson interprets it; yet his rule seems to lead him into a real difficulty concerning it; because he is thereby obliged to deny the least reference to king Solomon; when it plainly appears by the title of the Psalm (
"To Solomon"
) that the psalmist absolutely addressed himself
to Solomon,
who in the beginning of his reign was manifestly a type of the spiritual Solomon or Shiloh (
or
) the prince
of "peace
Isaiah ix.
."
Indeed the Doctor's rule can by no means be admitted, if we consider the nature and general style of prophetical writings, and the abrupt transitions frequently found therein; of which I have given ample and undeniable proofs from the viith, viiith, and ixth chapters of Isaiah. See the second part of my remarks on the Critical Dissertation.
These passages, and many others of the same kind, very much confirm what I have wrote (Part II. p. 23) concerning the passage quoted by St. Matthew from Hosea; (viz.
out of Egypt have I called my son
) and, I think, must prove to all considerate people, that Dr. Sykes (the other champion for accommodations to whom Dr. W—ms has referred me) has been much too precipitate in declaring (pages 230 and 231 of his Connexion of natural and revealed Religion)
that the prophet (in this text) is not speaking of
any future event:
and that the term
fulfilled, cannot imply a prophecy of our Saviour's going into Egypt, or coming from thence:
&c.—The same observation may with justice be made concerning Dr. W—ms, who boldly asks (page 40.)—"How can it be said, that any thing is fulfilled "which was not spoken to be fulfilled? as in chap. ii. 15. (Matthew)
or not spoken by a prophet, in the sense in which it is cited by an evangelist?
Also the Doctor declares in page 39— concerning this passage, that it
could not be fulfilled
when the
child Jesus
came out of
Egypt.
In answer to these assertions I must observe in the first place, that they cannot by any means be proved. And secondly, that it is most reasonable to believe this text of Hosea to be a prophecy of Christ; because the style and construction of the sentence itself is so peculiarly adapted to the
single person
of the Messiah, that the Seventy have thought themselves obliged to leave the
literal sense
of the original, in order to render it more suitable in their translation to
the people
of Israel: all which I have before particularly noted.
But there are still other reasons to be given in favour of it.
Though the people of Israel are here spoken of in such a manner, that Dr. W—ms thinks he has sufficient reason to intitle it
a declaration of an event long past;
yet St. Matthew expresly quotes it as a prophecy, viz. as
that which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet;
which expression could not with any propriety be used, if the words of the prophet were merely an
historical relation;
for they could not, in that case, be said to be
spoken of the Lord.
Thus it plainly appears, that there is not the least room to suppose
an accommodation.
So that, notwithstanding all that has been said by Dr. Sykes, Dr. G. Benson, and Dr. W—ms, against double senses, it must unavoidably be allowed, that the
declaration (in this place)
of an event long past,
prefigured
an event to come;
and consequently that
this single text
affords an indisputable proof of the subsistance of double senses in the Scriptures.
Though some Christians have run into errors by turning every thing into allegory, double senses, parables and types, whether they were really so or not; yet this is no just argument why we should indiscriminately reject all constructions of this kind.
And though I contend for double senses in some cases, yet I am as averse to an unnecessary multiplication of them as Dr. W—ms can be; and therefore reject and protest against the Doctor's proposition (in page of his MS reply to my remarks) that if a prophecy
has two
(senses)
it may have two hundred; and all of them equally just.
The
fulfilling of a prophecy
(as I have before observed) must mean the
only true accomplishment, or completion of it;
so that it cannot justly be extended, or applied to any further circumstances, than those particularly and originally intended; therefore, when an evangelist has declared a prophecy
to be fulfilled,
though he may have convinced us that the prophet's words referred to are capable of bearing
a double sense
(viz. one literal, and one allegorical or prefigurative, which he himself points out) yet, at the same time, he manifestly excludes the other 198 senses, notwithstanding that Dr. W—ms thinks
"all of them equally just."
For after a declaration is made
(of indisputable authority)
that a prophecy
is fulfilled,
it would be, not only impertinent, but presumptuous, to look for
a further accomplishment.
It is necessary, however, for me to observe, that the
fulfilling of some particular prophecies
includes a considerable length of time, as well as a variety of circumstances and places.
Of this, I propose to give one remarkable instance, which will afford me, at the same time, a proper opportunity of speaking more particularly to Dr. Sykes.
The Doctor, in his Connexion of natural and revealed Religion, chap. x. p. 229, affirms,
that our Saviour, and his apostles, applied the term
to fulfill,
when there was only a similitude of circumstances: and (that) they cited the words of the Old Testament, and made use of that term, upon the application of them, where they did not design to express the
accomplishment
of a
prophecy.
You have (says the Doctor)
an instance very clear
in Matthew xiii. 14, 15. where our Saviour gives the reason why he spoke to the people in parables:
because,
says he,
they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And in them is
fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, by hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand, and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive. For this peoples heart is
waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed: lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their hearts, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Our Saviour (says the Doctor) applies these words to the Jews in Judea, and St. Paul, many years afterwards, applies the very same prophecy to the Jews at Rome.
This shews (continues he) that, though the term
fulfill,
when applied to an
event foretold, does
signify the accomplishment of
a real prophecy;
yet it was used in cases where there was no accomplishment of a prediction, but only a
similitude of circumstances;
and consequently, the application of the words of a prophet to a certain particular event, by w
i
h they are said to
be fulfilled,
does not
a double sense of prophecy, or that such a
particular event
was foretold:
But the real meaning of the word must be determined by other circumstances; such as, whether the prophet is speaking of a future event or not, or, in short, by those means by which one knows whether the words are prophetic or not.
But before all this reasoning of Dr. Sykes be admitted, we ought carefully to examine the foundation or proof on which it is built.
This he calls
"an instance very clear;"
but I hope to convince my readers, that it is
no instance at all of this matter,
and consequently that the Doctor's conclusion thereupon is unjust.
Were not the Jews one people, and descended from the same stock, whether they lived at Jerusalem or Rome?
If this be granted (and I think the most zealous advocates for Dr. Sykes will not deny it) it must necessarily be allowed likewise, that this remarkable prophecy of Esaias concerning them, (viz.
by hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand,
&c. Isaiah vi. 10.) was
manifestly fulfilled
when the Jews rejected the doctrine of Christ, whether preached by himself at one time, or by his apostles at other different times.
So I think I may safely conclude that the two
different applications
quoted by Dr. Sykes of this same prophecy, were not occasioned, as he supposes, by a mere
"similitude of circumstances,"
but by a
direct accomplishment
of
the prediction
in
both cases.
Now as this example cannot any longer serve the cause in favour of which it was quoted by Dr. Sykes; I hope it will not be esteemed an improper example of a very
different argument,
and therefore I shall beg leave to claim it on my side of the question, as
"an instance very clear"
of the truth of the observation which I made above, viz. that the
fulfilling
of some particular prophecies includes a considerable length of time, as well as a variety of circumstances and places.
However, I must not leave this text without coming to a further explanation with Dr. W—ms concerning it, because he has brought a very heavy accusation against me concerning the parallel account given by St. Mark, chap. iv. 11, 12.
He charges me with
reflecting
severely on the character of the blessed Jesus,
by saying,
that he taught in parables, lest they should understand and be saved.
"Our Saviour" (says the Doctor)
gave a very different reason for his conduct; and Mr. S— should have rendered the passage Mark iv. 12. agreeable to the evangelist's words in the 33d verse of the same chapter:
should be there translated
if peradventure,
as it is in 2d. Timothy ii. 25.
— However, I am not at all conscious (I thank God) of having in the least respect offended against the character of our blessed Lord.
Neither do I know of any
severe reflection
in this case, except the Doctor's
own charge
against myself.
Whatever sense the word
may bear in other places, yet in the parallel places of St. Matthew and Mark above-mentioned, it must necessarily be construed
"lest"
—or to that effect: for, as the sense of the context must confirm the true meaning of any particular word, it will be found, upon examination, that the Doctor's sense of these passages cannot possibly be admitted.
The words of Christ, according to the testimony of both these evangelists, point out the material distinction, which he then made between those that were true believers, and the reprobate Jews, whom our Lord called, "them that are without" (see Mark iv. 11.) to the former it was
given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God,
Matthew xiii. 11. Mark iv. 11. But to the latter, says St. Matthew,
"it is not given."
Now this necessary distinction is entirely lost by Dr. W—ms's interpretation, because there is no such distinction made in the 33d verse of the fourth chapter of St. Mark, the sense of which the Doctor proposes to adopt; for the evangelist is there speaking of Christ's preaching in general to the whole multitude, including those to whom
it was given to know,
as well as those to whom it was "not given;" and this is certain, because in the very next verse (the 34th) we read, that afterwards,
when they were alone,
he expounded all things to his disciples.
Now it might very well be said of Christ's preaching to the whole multitude of good and bad together, that
with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they
were able to hear it;
because Christ observed this same method, even when he taught his disciples alone; and at last declared to them, soon before his passion,
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye
cannot bear them now.
John xvi. 12.
But when the
reprobate
Jews are spoken of
separately and distinctly
from those to
whom it
was
"given to know,"
it cannot be understood that the word was spoken
unto them as they
were able to hear it.
Because, it is apparent, that they
were never able to hear it, or bear it
—according to the true sense of these phrases; which imply such a comprehension of the doctrine, as may produce an assent or belief; otherwise the prophecy of Isaiah, which Christ then referred to, could not have been fulfilled.
Because
seeing, they see not
(said our Lord) and hearing,
they hear not,
neither do
they understand.
(Which is very different from being spoken to, as Dr. W—ms would have it,
as they
were able to
hear.
)
And in them (continued our Lord) is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, by hearing ye shall hear, and
shall not understand,
and seeing, ye shall see, and
shall not perceive.
(Therefore it is plain that St. Mark's expression, chap. iv. 33. cannot be applied to these, when distinctly spoken of from the rest of the congregation.) "For this people's heart" (said Isaiah)
is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes
they have closed, lest
at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them
(said our Lord). The closing of their eyes was their own act and deed,
their eyes
THEY
have closed,
LEST
they should see,
&c.
So that there was no partiality
For
the reason why these mysteries are no more plainly delivered unto them (the Jews) is for their foregoing obstinacy.
See ASSEMBLY'S ANNOT. on the said text.
Dr. Hammond paraphrases the 15th verse to the same effect, viz. that
this is a just judgment of God's upon them, for their obduration and obstinacy,
&c.
Mons. Martin likewise explains this to the same purpose.
Cest a dire que Dieu se cache a ceux qui l'ayant pu trouver ne se sont pas mis en etat de le chercher, & qu'il livre a leurs prejuges & a leur tenebres ceux qui ont ferme les yeux a la verité.
in their condemnation, they having rendered themselves unworthy of a clearer revelation by their unwillingness to be converted. They rejected such evidence as Christ was pleased to give them, which would have been amply sufficient, had they not
not wilfully shut their eyes against it;
for St. John says, chap. iii. 19.
this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their works are evil.
Therefore they were
justly esteemed unworthy
to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.
For, "whosoever hath" (said our Lord)
to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever
hath not,
from him
shall be taken away,
even
that he hath.
THEREFORE,
, speak I to them in parables, because they seeing, see not,
&c.
The words
, "THEREFORE," plainly refer to the foregoing sentence, viz.
but whosoever
hath not —
from him
shall be taken away,
&c.
So that the scope and tenor of the argument would be entirely destroyed if Dr. W—ms's sense of the parallel passage in St. Mark were to be admitted.— For Christ plainly intended to shew, that the unbelieving Jews would lose even what little knowledge they had; so far would they be from understanding or receiving his parables. And the event plainly proved this; for they fell from bad to worse, untill the total destruction of Jerusalem, when
the abomination of desolation
(spoken of by Daniel) was accomplished.
St. Mark does not, indeed, express the very words of the prophet Isaiah, nor mention the quotation made of them by Christ, but he plainly delivers the
full sense of them,
as they were really
fulfilled
in the unbelieving Jews, viz.
"Unto you" (said Christ to his disciples)
it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God, but unto
them that are without,
all these things are done in parables: THAT seeing they may see,
and not perceive,
and hearing they may hear, and
not understand,
LEST at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
The particle
("THAT") followed by verbs in the subjunctive mood (
, &c.) cannot possibly be made sense of, if the word
("LEST") is translated,—
"if peradventure";
because the negative
(viz.
, and
, "may
not see,
and
may not understand
") absolutely leads to a different sense from that proposed by Dr. W—ms.
So that it is most reasonable to conclude with Dr. Hammond, that these words
that seeing,
&c.
note the obduration of the Israelites, which fell on them from God's desertion; as a punishment of their not making use of the talents, which he had given them, and so this verse is answerable, and parallel to Matthew xiii. 15, or the end of that place in Isaiah recited, and set down at large in St. Matthew; but here —(and so also in Luke viii. 10. and John xii. 40.)
epitomized and summed up,
, lest they should see,
&c.
The word
, therefore, cannot in either of these places be construed
"if peradventure,"
without destroying the propriety of our Lord's quotation from Isaiah, delivered at length by St. Matthew, and
epitomized by St. Mark
as above; for the word
, in the original prophecy, is properly rendered
in the Syriac, and LEST in the English translations, and cannot possibly bear any other sense agreeable to the context; because the prophet plainly foretold, that the Jews would
wilfully shut their eyes
(
)
LEST they should see with their eyes.
Now, men do not usually
shut their eyes
in order
to see therewith,
or (according to Dr. W—ms's interpretation of
)
"if peradventure"
they may see with their eyes; but rather, that they may
not see,
or, according to the propriety of the English translation of
,
LEST
they should see
with their eyes,
&c.
The closing of the eyes, in this place, is indeed a mere figurative expression for the insensibility and wicked obstinacy of the Jews; yet the same reasoning holds good, notwithstanding this consideration, and sufficiently proves, that the word
must be construed
negatively,
and not, as Dr. W—ms proposes, "if
peradventure.
"
By this example we learn that some parables were not only difficult to those reprobate unbelievers, whom St. Mark calls
"them that are without,"
but also, even to the true disciples themselves; who, by misunderstanding the parable of the sower, and by desiring an explanation of it (see 10th verse) occasioned this remarkable answer of our Lord, the purport of which is recorded in the two texts considered above.
Nevertheless, there were very many cases, wherein the teaching by parables and types was (not only the safest and most prudent, but also) the shortest and clearest method of conveying a true idea of the proposed doctrine, as being very suitable to the genius and customs of the Eastern nations in general, and of the Jews in particular; and also because the types and figures themselves would make a very deep impression on the memory, and by their well known characters clearly illustrate the allegorical meaning.
I propose now to reconsider the principal subject of my remarks, viz. the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the birth of Immanuel.
Dr. W—ms has asserted (page 44.)
that the evangelist only alludes to the passage in Isaiah, because it was
remarkably suitable
to the matter which he was relating.
This occasioned my question to the Doctor, viz.
If
does not signify a virgin, in what sense can the text be esteemed
remarkably suitable
to the miraculous conception
of a virgin
by the Holy Ghost? And in what manner could the
accommodation of it
to that singular event assist the sacred historian (as he supposes)
by way of illustration?
See Part I. page 39.
I afterwards observe, that the Doctor
has taken great pains to make the text
remarkably unsuitable,
by insinuating that
the YOUNG WOMAN (as he construes it) spoken of in the text, was so far from being a
virgin,
that she was
with child,
even at the time when she was pointed at (as he devises in p. 31.) by the prophet.
To which the Doctor replies,
had St. Matthew alluded to the birth of this child, it would have been
very unsuitable.
Now this concession is sufficient for my purpose, because the Doctor's insinuation, that the evangelist alluded only
"to the name Immanuel,"
and not to the other circumstances related by the prophet, must appear entirely groundless, when we consider the words of St. Matthew.
For though the evangelist interpreted the name
Immanuel,
yet this does not prove, that he referred merely to
this name,
but rather, that no other person but the Messiah himself could properly be intitled,
"God with us;"
and consequently that he esteemed the words of Isaiah to be really a prophecy, and such a one as could not be
fulfilled,
except in Christ alone, who was truly
"God with us."
But farther—The evangelist's manner of introducing the quotation very clearly shews, that
this name
was not the only thing he intended to allude to.
For he says—
NOW ALL THIS WAS DONE— (
) that it might
be fulfilled
which was spoken
of the Lord by the prophet,
behold A VIRGIN
shall be with child,
and shall
bring forth a son,
&c.
The words "ALL THIS WAS DONE" must refer to the relation before given, concerning the miraculous conception of
the virgin Mary
by the Holy Ghost, and therefore the prophecy of Isaiah, that A VIRGIN should
conceive,
and
bear a son, was suitable,
not in
the name only
(as Doctor W—ms has insinuated)
but
in
the whole quotation.
Another objection is made,
that the birth of a child from a virgin is a fact of such a nature, as not to admit of proof.
"It is a fact" (says the Doctor)
which in the
very nature of it cannot be a sign to
any
person
but the mother.
Nevertheless the Scriptures inform us that
this sign
was clearly proved (i. e. the wonderful event that
a virgin had conceived,
was known with absolute certainty) even
before
the birth of the Messiah; and this, not merely by the testimony
of the mother,
but by other very sufficient authorities; which rendered the sign as apparent and indubitable, as any other sign that was ever given, even the most self-evident.
For after the angel Gabriel had revealed to the virgin Mary, that she (although a virgin) should "conceive and bring forth a son;" St. Luke i. 31.) the same thing was confirmed to her by her cousin Elizabeth in the hill country of Judea.
"Blessed is she that believed" (said Elizabeth filled with the Holy Ghost)
for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
Luke i. 45.
See the whole salutation, and the testimony of John the Baptist, though himself at that time only a babe in the womb; which clearly proves that the absolute knowledge of the fact was not confined to the
virgin mother alone.
Afterwards an angel was sent from God to prevent Joseph from putting away his espoused wife on account of her being with child; and the angel informed him before the time, that she should
bring forth a son;
and, that he might the more effectually convince him of his wife's purity and virtue, he assured him, saying,
that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
(Matt. i. 20.)
Therefore, though
the birth of a child from a virgin
is by Dr. W—ms esteemed
a fact of such a nature as not to admit of proof;
yet nothing is impossible with God, who was pleased to give these indubitable proofs of the long promised sign, even whilst the child Jesus was in the womb, which must entirely obviate the Doctor's objection, that
"this cannot be a sign to any person but the mother."
In the fulness of time the sign was manifested in the most extraordinary manner.
An angel, accompanied with a multitude of the heavenly host, proclaimed the wonderful birth to the shepherds in the field; and a star pointed out to the eastern strangers the place where the young child lay.
Undoubtedly this wonderful circumstance, that A VIRGIN HAD BROUGHT FORTH A SON, would, in a little time, be as well known to
the house of David,
as these miraculous manifestations and confirmations of the said supernatural birth; especially as the family of Joseph, the blessed virgin's husband, was
the chief branch of that royal stock,
lineally descended from Zorobabel, and so from the son of Jesse.
There is still another difficulty with Dr. W—ms.
I cannot perceive (says he)
what event
the birth of Immanuel could be a sign of, unless it
could be a sign of itself?
But is it really possible, that Dr. W—ms
cannot perceive,
that the miraculous birth of the true Immanuel was a sign of something more than that event itself?
Was it not a sign to all those, who then waited for
"the consolation and redemption of Israel,"
(Luke ii. 25.) that the
kingdom of God
was
nigh at hand?
(Matthew xii. 2
.
"But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then
the kingdom
of
God is come
unto you."
Luke x. 9.11.
"And say unto them, the kingdom of God
is come
nigh unto you.—Notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you."
.)
Was it not a sign to
Joseph, and others of the house of David,
that a child, so born, must be the long promised Messiah of the
seed of David,
to whom
the kingdom was to be restored,
and in whom (according to Isaiah's promise to his cotemporaries of
the house of David
) it was to be established for ever? See Isaiah ix. 6, 7. 2 Sam. vii. 16.
But, I find, it is in vain that I urge to Dr. W—ms the accomplishment of the several prophecies concerning the establishment of the
kingdom of David
in Christ; for the Doctor still seems to persist in his former notion that Nathaniel
laboured under a mistake
in calling Christ
king of Israel.
He hopes to evade the point by alledging, that
not only Nathaniel and the disciples, but the whole Jewish nation did actually labour under a great mistake about
the nature
of the Messiah's kingdom.
Thus he would lead me to a very different question; but I am aware, that though the disciples did, for some time,
"labour under a mistake,"
as the Doctor observes, concerning
the nature of the Messiah's kingdom;
yet there was
not the least mistake,
in those who truly believed, concerning the main point in question, viz. whether or not the Messiah
was really a king?
Notwithstanding that our Lord rejected all the temporal authority of a worldly king, and declared, that his kingdom was not of this world, he was nevertheless really a king,
"king of Israel"
(as Nathaniel called him) and king of Judah, or (which is the same thing)
"king of the Jews;"
for even Pilate himself seemed convinced of Christ's just right to the title of
king,
though, like a thorough-paced time server, he preferred his own temporal interest to all other considerations, and delivered up THE KING OF KINGS (Rev. xvii. 14.) to be slain, knowing him to be A KING; for his answer to the chief priests, concerning the title intended to be affixed to the cross, plainly shews, that he was conscious of this.
Dr. W—ms charges me with having
brought a vast number of texts to prove, not (my) assertion, that Jesus was ever called the king of Judah, but the truth of (his) assertion,
&c. concerning the mistake of Nathaniel. And he says,
this will be evident to every one who consults the passages cited by me.
But if the Doctor will please once more to consult the passages himself, he will find, that several among them are prophecies which were absolutely fulfilled in our Lord Jesus.
Therefore, I hope, he will not venture to assert, that the prophets likewise
"laboured under a mistake,"
when they proclaimed these titles of the glorious Messiah; or that the disciples, and all other Christians even to this day still "labour
under a mistake
" in applying them to Christ, in whom alone they were, or could be fulfilled.
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout O daughter of Jerusalem: behold THY KING
cometh unto thee:
the prophet then proceeds to describe
this coming of
THE KING
of Zion and Jerusalem,
so as exactly to correspond with the evangelist's account (Luke xix. 37, 38.) of Christ's publick entry into Jerusalem, when
the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice, for all the
mighty works
that they had seen: saying,
blessed be
THE KING
that cometh
in the
name of the Lord,
&c. For he was certainly
a king
even when he rode upon the ass, which is proved by the continuation of Zechariah's prophecy (ix. 9.) whereby he points out the character and appearance of
the king of Zion and Jerusalem
mentioned in the beginning of the same verse; "he is just" (said the prophet)
and having salvation, lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
So the prophet Micah declared, that out of
Bethlehem Ephratah
should
he come forth that is to be
ruler in Israel,
whose goings forth have been from of old from everlasting.
(chap. v. 2.)
The event proved the truth of the prophet's words, as well as of the evangelist's citation (Matt. ii. 5 and 6.) for the holy one that was born at
Bethlehem
was afterwards undoubtedly
"ruler in Israel,"
before the dissolution of that people from an united nation: of which (besides the power of his teaching and his mighty works) his publick entry into Jerusalem, and the authority shewn by him in clearing the temple, are remarkable proofs.
That Christ was "a
ruler in Israel
" is implied in the preceding words of the same prophet (Micah v. 1.)
they shall
smite the judge of Israel
with a rod upon the cheek.
A
ruler
and a
judge
are synonymous terms; and it is certain that Christ pronounced
judgment
against
Israel
for their impenitence and want of faith—condemning them (with respect to their
temporal estate
) to a horrid destruction and desolation
St. Matthew, chap. xxiv.
: and as all this was most punctually fulfilled
See Josephus's account of the Jewish War.
upon them, it is certain likewise, that the same
"judge of Israel"
whom they smote upon the cheek, will
one day judge them,
also, in their
eternal state,
as well as all their unhappy descendants who persist in the same unbelief.
If these prophecies were really
fulfilled
in Jesus, they most certainly prove, that the Messiah was (as he ever will be) A KING, and consequently that his disciples were not mistaken in calling him so, howsoever they might misunderstand the
nature
of his kingdom.
Therefore the Doctor's reply upon this point cannot well be esteemed a proof of any thing more than of his own great unwillingness to acknowledge, that he himself (instead of Nathaniel)
labours under a mistake.
Another remarkable excuse, which the Doctor has offered in behalf of his hypothesis, deserves particular notice.
In answer to my remarks on Canticles vi. 8. (concerning the particular distinction there made of virgins from queens and concubines) the Doctor replies, that
Hebrew poetry is not so well understood
as to enable (me) to determine that
in Canticles vi. 8. is not used in stead of
for the sake of metre.
This unexpected turn of thought may, perhaps, be esteemed ingenious, but it is far from satisfactory; for if criticks were allowed to substitute the sense of one word for another, whenever their arguments are reduced to that necessity, it would be but a vain task to dispute with them; and a confusion of language, like that of the builders of Babel, must necessarily succeed their perversion of words.
In English poetry the Doctor may produce as many instances of such substitutions as he pleases, and he may rest assured, that I shall never think it worth my while to attempt a confutation of them.
But when such refined criticisms are applied to any part of Holy Scripture, I think, they ought not by any means to be admitted, unless the authors of them shall be able to prove, that it is more justifiable to adapt the Scriptures to our own private opinions, than our opinions to the Scriptures.
The
END
of
PART V.
INDEX OF Texts referred to in the foregoing Work.
INDEX.
GENESIS.
Chap.
Ver.
Part.
Pages.
iii.
15.
I.
34.
xxiv.
16.43.
I.
10.12 n.
xxv.
30.
IV.
5 n.
xxxii.
28 to 30.
II.
28.
xlix.
8.
IV.
9.
 
10.
III.
12.
 
 
IV.
3.22.36.
EXODUS.
ii.
8.
I.
10.12 n.
xv.
20.
I.
10.
xxii.
16.
I.
7, 8.
LEVITICUS.
xxvi.
33.
III.
7.
NUMBERS.
xxi.
8, 9.
I.
33.
xxiii.
24.
IV.
10.
xxvi.
59.
I.
10.
DEUTERONOMY.
xviii.
15 & 18.
IV.
25.
xxii.
21.
I.
10.
 
23 & 24.
I.
9.
 
28.
I.
8.
xxiii.
7.
IV.
5 n.
xxviii.
61 & 62.
III.
7.
JUDGES.
xiii.
5.
II.
33.
xvi.
17.
IV.
28.
1 SAMUEL.
xvii.
32 to 51.
IV.
10.
xviii.
5.14, 15.
IV.
10.
2 SAMUEL.
vii.
13 & 14.
II.
14.
 
16.
I.
35.
 
 
V.
28.
2 KINGS.
xvi.
6.
I.
15.
xvii.
6.
III.
4.
 
16.
II.
19 n.
 
18.
III.
8.
1 CHRONICLES.
xxii.
9.
II.
14.
2 CHRONICLES.
xxviii.
23 & 24.
I.
18.
xxix.
 
I.
18 n.
xxix.
24.
I.
19.
xxx.
1.11.18.
I.
19.
xxxiv.
9.
III.
8.
xxxv.
3.
III.
10.
EZRA.
ii.
62.
III.
12.
iv.
2.
III.
4.
 
3.
III.
11.
 
2.10.
III.
5.
PSALMS.
ii.
 
V.
9.
xvi.
 
V.
9.
xxxvii.
19.
II.
12 n.
xlv.
6, 7.
IV.
22.
lx.
7.
IV.
23.
lxv.
6, 7,
 
 
lxviii.
25.
I.
10.
lxxii.
 
II.
15.
 
 
V.
9.
cviii.
8.
IV.
23.
cxviii.
22.
II.
21.
cxxvii.
5.
II.
12 n.
cxxviii.
3.
II.
30.
cxliv.
12.
II.
30.
PROVERBS.
xxviii.
1.
IV.
10.
xxx.
19.
I.
6.9.
 
 
 
13 n.
 
20.
I.
7.
 
30.
IV.
10.
CANTICLES.
i.
3.
I.
11.13 n.
vi.
8.
I.
7.11.
 
 
 
13 n.
 
 
V.
32.
ISAIAH.
iv.
2.
II.
30.
vi.
10.
V.
15.
 
9, 10.
V.
19.
vii.
 
II.
3, 4.7.
 
 
V.
10.
vii.
5, 6.
I.
34.
 
4.7.
I.
16.
 
8.
I.
23.
 
 
III.
3, 4, 5.
 
 
 
7, 8, 11.
 
13.
I.
35.
 
13 to 16.
I.
1.13.
 
 
V.
3.23.
 
14.
I.
13 n. 21.
 
 
II.
7.
 
14 to 16.
I.
30.
 
 
II.
7 n.
 
16.
I.
13 to 30.
 
 
II.
24 n.
ISAIAH.
vii.
 
III.
9 n.
viii.
 
II.
3, 4, 7.
 
 
V.
10.
 
4.
I.
32.
 
3, 4.
I.
32.
 
4. 6, 7, 8.
II.
4 n.
 
8.
I.
19.
 
14.
I.
19.
 
13 to 16.
II.
4.11, 12.
ix.
 
II.
3, 4.7.13.
 
 
V.
10.
 
1, 2.
II.
6.
 
6.
II.
7.14.
 
7.
I.
37.
 
6, 7.
V.
28.
 
6, 7.9.
II.
5.
 
10. 11. 21.
II.
5.
xi.
1.
II.
31.
 
4.
II.
25 n.
xxviii.
10.13.
II.
8.
 
16.
II.
12.21.
xxxiii.
22.
IV.
23.
xl.
27.
III.
10.
xli.
8.14.
III.
10 n.
xlii.
6, 7.
II.
26 n.
xliii.
 
III.
10 n.
 
8, 9.
IV.
36.
xlix.
1 to 4.
II.
25 to 27.
 
3.
II.
24.
 
4 to 7.
II.
26, 27.
liii.
 
II.
9, 10.
 
2.
II.
30.
 
3, 4.
II.
26 n.
JEREMIAH.
xxiii.
5.
II.
30.
 
5, 6.
II.
10.
xxx.
9.
II.
10 n.
xxxi.
22.
I.
34.
 
31.
III.
11.
xxxiii.
15.
II.
32.
 
16.
II.
10 n.
l.
4.8.9.
III.
11.
LAMENTATIONS.
iv.
7.
II.
33.
EZEKIEL.
iii.
4.11.
III.
10.
xxiii.
 
I.
20.
 
4.11.
II.
23.
xxxiv.
23, 24.
I.
26.
xxxvii.
19, 22.
III.
12.
 
24.
I.
26.
xliv.
22.
I.
11.
DANIEL.
ix.
26, 27.
IV.
24, 25.
xii.
11.
IV.
24 n.
HOSEA.
xi.
1.
II.
21 to 28.
 
 
V.
10, 11.
 
2.
II.
23.
 
5.
I.
20.
AMOS.
iii.
8.
IV.
10.
viii.
2, 3.
III.
6.
 
10.
III.
6, 7.
ix.
4.
III.
6.
MICAH.
v.
1.
V.
31.
 
2.
I.
28.
 
 
II.
29 n.
 
 
IV.
20 n.
 
 
V.
31.
v.
8.
IV.
10.
HAGGAI.
 
3.
II.
16.
 
6, 7.
II.
16.
 
7.
II.
9, 15.
 
9.
II.
15.
 
23.
II.
16.
ZECHARIAH.
iii.
8.
II.
30.
iv.
6 to 10.
II.
17.
vi.
11 to 15.
II.
17, 18.
 
12.
II.
31.
viii.
 
III.
11.
ix.
5.
I.
20.
 
9.
I.
27.
 
 
V.
30.
x.
11.
I.
20.
 
 
IV.
11.
xi.
1.
IV.
24 n.
xii.
1.
III.
10.
MALACHI.
i.
1.
III.
11.
iii.
1.
IV.
26.
iv.
5.
IV.
24.
TOBIT.
i.
17.18.21.
III.
6.
ii.
1, 2, 3.6.
III.
6.
MATTHEW.
i.
18 to 23.
I.
38.
 
20.
V.
26.
 
20, 21.
II.
25 n.
 
22.
I.
41.
 
22, 23.
I.
37.
 
 
V.
24, 25.
 
22.
V.
7.
ii.
1, 2.
I.
25.
 
2.
IV.
20.22.
 
4 to 6.
IV.
20.
 
5.
II.
29 n.
 
5, 6.
V.
31.
 
15.
V.
11.
 
 
II.
23, 24.28.
 
15, 23.
II.
21.
 
20.
I.
24.
 
 
IV.
21.
 
22, 23.
II.
31 n.
 
23.
II.
29.32.
iii.
5.
IV.
26.
xi.
12, 13.
IV.
29.
 
14.
IV.
26.
xii.
28.
V.
28.
xiii.
11.
V.
17.
 
11, 12, 13.
V.
20.
 
13.15.
V.
19 n.
 
14, 15.
V.
14.20.
 
15.
V.
19 n. 22.
xv.
24.
I.
26.
xvi.
28.
II.
34.
xvii.
10 to 13.
IV.
26 n.
xix.
8.
I.
8.
xxi.
8.
I.
26.
xxiii.
2.
IV.
23.