"(Matt.
xxi. 33-46; xxii. 1-7.
Mark xii. 1-12.
Luke xiii. 1-9; xx. 9-20; xxi. 5-13.)
The general agreement
of the description with the event, viz. with the ruin of the Jewish
nation, and the capture of Jerusalem under Vespasian, thirty-six years
after Christ’s death, is most evident; and the accordancy in various
articles of detail and circumstances has been shown by many learned
writers. This part of the case is perfectly free from doubt."
CHAPTER I. PROPHECY.
Isaiah iii. 13;
liii. “Behold, my servant shall deal prudently; he shall be
exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonished at thee;
his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the
sons of men: so shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut
their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they
see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. Who hath
believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? For he
shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry
ground: 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, 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, and carried our sorrows: yet we did
esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded
for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the
chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are
healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to
his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He
was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is
brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers
is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from
judgment; and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out
of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he
stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in
his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in
his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to
grief. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see
his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall
prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall
be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;
for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a
portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he hath poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered with
the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession
for the transgressors.”
These words are extant in a book
purporting to contain the predictions of a writer who lived seven
centuries before the Christian era.
That material part of every argument from
prophecy, namely, that the words alleged were actually spoken or written
before the fact to which they are applied took place, or could by any
natural means be foreseen, is, in the present instance, incontestable.
The record comes out of the custody of adversaries. The Jews, as an
ancient father well observed, are our librarians. The passage is in
their copies as well as in ours. With many attempts to explain it away,
none has ever been made by them to discredit its authenticity.
And what adds to the force of the
quotation is, that it is taken from a writing declaredly prophetic; a
writing professing to describe such future transactions and changes in
the world as were connected with the fate and interests of the Jewish
nation. It is not a passage in an historical or devotional composition,
which, because it turns out to be applicable to some future events, or
to some future situation of affairs, is presumed to have been oracular.
The words of Isaiah were delivered by him in a prophetic character, with
the solemnity belonging to that character: and what he so delivered was
all along understood by the Jewish reader to refer to something that was
to take place after the time of the author. The public sentiments of the
Jews concerning the design of Isaiah’s writings are set forth in the
book of Ecclesiasticus:
“He saw by an excellent spirit what should come to pass at the last, and
he comforted them that mourned in Sion. He showed what should come to
pass for ever, and secret things or ever they came.”
It is also an advantage which this
prophecy possesses, that it is intermixed with no other subject. It is
entire, separate, and uninterruptedly directed to one scene of things.
The application of the prophecy to the
evangelic history is plain and appropriate. Here is no double sense; no
figurative language but what is sufficiently intelligible to every
reader of every country. The obscurities (by which I mean the
expressions that require a knowledge of local diction, and of local
allusion) are few, and not of great importance. Nor have I found that
varieties of reading, or a different construing of the original, produce
any material alteration in the sense of the prophecy. Compare the common
translation with that of Bishop Lowth, and the difference is not
considerable. So far as they do differ, Bishop Lowth’s corrections,
which are the faithful result of an accurate examination, bring the
description nearer to the New Testament history than it was before. In
the fourth verse of the fifty-third chapter, what our bible renders
“stricken” he translates “judicially stricken:” and in the eighth verse,
the clause “he was taken from prison and from judgment,” the bishop
gives “by an oppressive judgment he was taken off.” The next words to
these, “who shall declare his generation?” are much cleared up in their
meaning by the bishop’s version; “his manner of life who would declare?”
i. e. who would stand forth in his defence? The former part of the ninth
verse, “and he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his
death,” which inverts the circumstances of Christ’s passion, the bishop
brings out in an order perfectly agreeable to the event; “and his grave
was appointed with the wicked, but with the rich man was his tomb.” The
words in the eleventh verse, “by his knowledge shall my righteous
servant justify many,” are, in the bishop’s version, “by the knowledge
of him shall my righteous servant justify many.”
It is natural to inquire what turn the
Jews themselves give to this prophecy.
There is good proof that the ancient Rabbins explained it of their
expected Messiah:
but their modern expositors concur, I think, in representing it as a
description of the calamitous state, and intended restoration, of the
Jewish people, who are here, as they say, exhibited under the character
of a single person. I have not discovered that their exposition rests
upon any critical arguments, or upon these in any other than in a very
minute degree.
The clause in the ninth verse, which we
render “for the transgression of my people was he stricken,” and in the
margin, “was the stroke upon him,” the Jews read “for the transgression
of my people was the stroke upon them.” And what they allege in support
of the alteration amounts only to this, that the Hebrew pronoun is
capable of a plural as well as of a singular signification; that is to
say, is capable of their construction as well as ours.
And this is all the variation contended for; the rest of the prophecy
they read as we do. The probability, therefore, of their exposition is a
subject of which we are as capable of judging as themselves. This
judgment is open indeed to the good sense of every attentive reader. The
application which the Jews contend for appears to me to labour under
insuperable difficulties; in particular, it may be demanded of them to
explain in whose name or person, if the Jewish people he the sufferer,
does the prophet speak, when he says, “He hath borne our griefs, and
carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and
afflicted; but he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for
our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his
stripes we are healed.” Again, the description in the seventh verse, “he
was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is
brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers
is dumb, so he opened not his mouth,” quadrates with no part of the
Jewish history with which we are acquainted. The mention of the “grave”
and the “tomb,” in the ninth verse, is not very applicable to the
fortunes of a nation; and still less so is the conclusion of the
prophecy in the twelfth verse, which expressly represents the sufferings
as voluntary, and the sufferer as interceding for the offenders;
“because he hath poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered
with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many, and made
intercession for the transgressors.”
There are other prophecies of the Old
Testament, interpreted by Christians to relate to the Gospel history,
which are deserving both of great regard and of a very attentive
consideration: but I content myself with stating the above, as well
because I think it the clearest and the strongest of all, as because
most of the rest, in order that their value might be represented with
any tolerable degree of fidelity, require a discussion unsuitable to the
limits and nature of this work. The reader will find them disposed in
order, and distinctly explained, in Bishop Chandler’s treatise on the
subject; and he will bear in mind, what has been often, and, I think,
truly, urged by the advocates of Christianity, that there is no other
eminent person to the history of whose life so many circumstances can be
made to apply. They who object that much has been done by the power of
chance, the ingenuity of accommodation, and the industry of research,
ought to try whether the same, or anything like it, could be done, if
Mahomet, or any other person, were proposed as the subject of Jewish
prophecy.
II. A second head of argument from
prophecy is founded upon our Lord’s predictions concerning the
destruction of Jerusalem, recorded by three out of the four evangelists.
Luke xxi. 5-25. “And as some spake of the temple, how it was
adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which
ye behold, the days will come in which there shall not be left one stone
upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And they asked him, saying,
Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when
these things shall come to pass? And he said, 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. But when ye shall
hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must
first come to pass; but the end is not by-and-by. Then said he unto
them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and
great earth-quakes shall be in divers places, and famines and
pestilences; and fearful sights, and great signs shall there be from
heaven. But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and
persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons,
being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake. And it shall
turn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts not to
meditate before what ye shall answer: for I will give you a mouth and
wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor
resist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and
kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to
death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake. But there
shall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye your
souls. 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 may be
fulfilled. But woe 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 by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be
fulfilled.”
In terms nearly similar, this discourse
is related in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew and the thirteenth of
Mark. The prospect of the same evils drew from our Saviour, on another
occasion, the following affecting expressions of concern, which are
preserved by St. Luke (xix.
41-44): “And when he was come near, he beheld the city and
wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this
thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid
from thine eyes. For the day shall come upon thee, that thine enemies
shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round and keep thee in
on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children
within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another;
because thou knowest not the time of thy visitation” — These passages
are direct and explicit predictions. References to the same event, some
plain, some parabolical, or otherwise figurative, are found in divers
other discourses of our Lord. (Matt.
xxi. 33-46; xxii. 1-7.
Mark xii. 1-12.
Luke xiii. 1-9; xx. 9-20; xxi. 5-13.)
The general agreement of the description
with the event, viz. with the ruin of the Jewish nation, and the capture
of Jerusalem under Vespasian, thirty-six years after Christ’s death, is
most evident; and the accordancy in various articles of detail and
circumstances has been shown by many learned writers. It is also an
advantage to the inquiry, and to the argument built upon it, that we
have received a copious account of the transaction from Josephus, a
Jewish and contemporary historian. This part of the case is perfectly
free from doubt. The only question which, in my opinion, can be raised
upon the subject is, whether the prophecy was really delivered before
the event? I shall apply, therefore, my observations to this point
solely.
1. The judgment of antiquity, though
varying in the precise year of the publication of the three Gospels,
concurs in assigning them a date prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.
(Lardner, vol. xiii.)
2. This judgment is confirmed by a
strong probability arising from the course of human life. The
destruction of Jerusalem took place in the seventieth year after the
birth of Christ. The three evangelists, one of whom was his immediate
companion, and the other two associated with his companions, were, it is
probable, not much younger than he was. They must, consequently, have
been far advanced in life when Jerusalem was taken; and no reason has
been given why they should defer writing their histories so long.
3. (Le Clerc, Diss. III. de Quat. Evang.
num. vii. p. 541.) If the evangelists, at the time of writing the
Gospels, had known of the destruction of Jerusalem, by which catastrophe
the prophecies were plainly fulfilled, it is most probable that, in
recording the predictions, they would have dropped some word or other
about the completion; in like manner as Luke, after relating the
denunciation of a dearth by Agabus, adds, “which came to pass in the
days of Claudius Caesar;” (Acts
xi. 28.) whereas the prophecies are given distinctly in one
chapter of each of the first three Gospels, and referred to in several
different passages of each, and in none of all these places does there
appear the smallest intimation that the things spoken of had come to
pass. I do admit that it would have been the part of an impostor, who
wished his readers to believe that this book was written before the
event, when in truth it was written after it, to have suppressed any
such intimation carefully. But this was not the character of the authors
of the Gospel. Cunning was no quality of theirs. Of all writers in the
world, they thought the least of providing against objections. Moreover,
there is no clause in any one of them that makes a profession of their
having written prior to the Jewish wars, which a fraudulent purpose
would have led them to pretend. They have done neither one thing nor the
other; they have neither inserted any words which might signify to the
reader that their accounts were written before the destruction of
Jerusalem, which a sophist would have done; nor have they dropped a hint
of the completion of the prophecies recorded by them, which an
undesigning writer, writing after the event, could hardly, on some or
other of the many occasions that presented themselves, have missed of
doing.
4. The admonitions
which Christ is represented to have given to his followers to save
themselves by flight are not easily accounted for on the supposition of
the prophecy being fabricated after the event. Either the Christians,
when the siege approached, did make their escape from Jerusalem, or they
did not: if they did, they must have had the prophecy amongst them: if
they did not know of any such prediction at the time of the siege, if
they did not take notice of any such warning, it was an improbable
fiction, in a writer publishing his work near to that time (which, on
any, even the lowest and most disadvantageous supposition, was the case
with the gospels now in our hands), and addressing his work to Jews and
to Jewish converts (which Matthew certainly did), to state that the
followers of Christ had received admonition of which they made no use
when the occasion arrived, and of which experience then recent proved
that those who were most concerned to know and regard them were ignorant
or negligent. Even if the prophecies came to the hands of the
evangelists through no better vehicle than tradition, it must have been
by a tradition which subsisted prior to the event. And to suppose that
without any authority whatever, without so much as even any tradition to
guide them, they had forged these passages, is to impute to them a
degree of fraud and imposture from every appearance of which their
compositions are as far removed as possible.
5. I think that, if the prophecies had
been composed after the event, there would have been more specification.
The names or descriptions of the enemy, the general, the emperor, would
have been found in them. The designation of the time would have been
more determinate. And I am fortified in this opinion by observing that
the counterfeited prophecies of the Sibylline oracles, of the twelve
patriarchs, and, I am inclined to believe, most others of the kind, are
mere transcripts of the history, moulded into a prophetic form.
It is objected that the prophecy of the
destruction of Jerusalem is mixed or connected with expressions which
relate to the final judgment of the world; and so connected as to lead
an ordinary reader to expect that these two events would not be far
distant from each other. To which I answer, that the objection does not
concern our present argument. If our Saviour actually foretold the
destruction of Jerusalem, it is sufficient; even although we should
allow that the narration of the prophecy had combined what had been said
by him on kindred subjects, without accurately preserving the order, or
always noticing the transition of the discourse.
On
Zecharias
"IV.
Matt. xxiii. 34. “Wherefore, behold I send unto you prophets,
and wise men, and scribes, and some of them ye shall kill and crucify;
and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them
from city to city; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed
upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of
Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the
altar.”
There is a Zacharias whose death is
related in the second book of Chronicles,
in a manner which perfectly supports our Saviour’s allusion. But this
Zacharias was the son of Jehoiada.
There is also Zacharias the prophet;
who was the son of Barachiah, and is so described in the superscription
of his prophecy, but of whose death we have no account.
I have little doubt but that the first
Zacharias was the person spoken of by our Saviour; and that the name of
the father has been since added or changed, by some one who took it from
the title of the prophecy, which happened to be better known to him than
the history in the Chronicles.
There is likewise a Zacharias, the son
of Baruch, related by Josephus to have been slain in the temple a few
years before the destruction of Jerusalem. It has been insinuated that
the words put into our Saviour’s mouth contain a reference to this
transaction, and were composed by some writer who either confounded the
time of the transaction with our Saviour’s age, or inadvertently
overlooked the anachronism.
Now, suppose it to have been so;
suppose these words to have been suggested by the transaction related in
Josephus, and to have been falsely ascribed to Christ; and observe what
extraordinary coincidences (accidentally as it must in that case have
been) attend the forger’s mistake.
First, that we have a Zacharias in the
book of Chronicles, whose death, and the manner of it, corresponds with
the allusion.
Secondly, that although the name of
this person’s father be erroneously put down in the Gospel, yet we have
a way of accounting for the error by showing another Zacharias in the
Jewish Scriptures much better known than the former, whose patronymic
was actually that which appears in the text.
Every one who thinks upon the subject
will find these to be circumstances which could not have met together in
a mistake which did not proceed from the circumstances themselves.
What do YOU think ?
Send an email with your comments to
todd @ preteristarchive.com
Be sure to include the article name.
They will be posted shortly
upon receipt
