After this he wilfully sets aside, I know not why, the strongest
evidence in confirmation of the claims of Jesus, viz. that His coming
was predicted by the Jewish prophets—Moses, and those who succeeded as
well as preceded that legislator—from inability, as I think, to meet the
argument that neither the Jews nor any other heretical sect refuse to
believe that Christ was the subject of prophecy. But perhaps he was
unacquainted with the prophecies relating to Christ. For no one who was
acquainted with the statements of the Christians, that many prophets
foretold the advent of the Saviour, would have ascribed to a Jew
sentiments which it would have better befitted a Samaritan or a Sadducee
to utter; nor would the Jew in the dialogue have expressed himself in
language like the following: “But my prophet once declared in Jerusalem,
that the Son of God will come as the Judge of the righteous and the
Punisher of the wicked.” Now it is not one of the prophets merely who
predicted the advent of Christ. But although the Samaritans and
Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say that there
were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet certainly not
in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of Moses, was the
prophecy uttered. It were indeed to be desired, that all the accusers of
Christianity were equally ignorant with Celsus, not only of the facts,
but of the bare letter of Scripture, and would so direct their assaults
against it, that their arguments might not have the least available
influence in shaking, I do not say the faith, but the little faith of
unstable and temporary believers. A Jew, however, would not admit that
any prophet used the expression, “The ‘Son of God’ will come;” for the
term which they employ is, “The ‘Christ of God’ will come.” And many a
time indeed do they directly interrogate us about the “Son of God,”
saying that no such being exists, or was made the subject of prophecy.
We do not of course assert that the “Son of God” is not the subject of
prophecy; but we assert that he most inappropriately attributes to the
Jewish disputant, who would not allow that He was, such language as, “My
prophet once declared in Jerusalem that the ‘Son of God’ will come.”