Let us, however, follow Mr. Everett in the consideration of those
prophecies, which he says p. 83, "are really to be regarded as
proofs of the (Christian) religion."
It is not necessary for me to say any thing further, in defence of
the interpretation of the prophecy in Deut. xviii. 15, contained in
my first publication, where I consider it as referring to a
succession of inspired messengers from God to the Israelites;
because Mr. Everett allows, that "in granting that this interpretation
is correct, we should only follow the example of the most learned
and judicious Christian interpreters," p. 84.
I will pass therefore to the passage in the Psalm xvi. 10. "Thou wilt
not leave my soul in hell, (i. e. the place of the departed,) nor
suffer thy Saints (or thy pious ones[fn25]) to see destruction," as I
have translated it. Mr. Everett maintains that the word translated
by me in this place "destruction," sometimes means "corruption."
Granted, but Mr. Everett will not deny that the original word
sometimes signifies "destruction," and assuredly therefore I have
as good a right to translate it my way, as he has to interpret it to
signify "corruption."[fn26] I maintain, moreover, that I have a better
right in this place to translate it "destruction," than he has to render
it "corruption;" if the whole psalm manifestly relates to David, as is
I think evident from the context, whose body underwent the
natural decomposition occasioned by death; which therefore
necessitates the translation I have given if the psalm relates to
David which I think is evident.
"I have set the Lord always before me, because he is at my right
hand I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my
glory rejoiceth, my flesh shall also rest in hope: for thou wilt not
leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy saints (or thy pious one) to see
destruction. Thou wilt show me the path of life, in thy presence is
fulness of joy, and at thy right hand there are pleasures for ever
more." Since therefore the psalm evidently relates to David, I do
not see how it is a prophecy of Jesus' rising from the dead on the
third day after his crucifixion, as it is said to have been applied to
prove, by Peter in the book of Acts ch. ii.
I would observe also, that the modern German Theological
scholars, who as Mr. Everett says (p. 247. of his work.) "are
supposed to excell in Critical learning," do allow and maintain, by
the confession of Mr. Everett himself p. 247 of his work, that this
passage in the psalms is not a prophecy of Jesus, no more than
any of the others adduced in the New Testament from the Old, but
that it is quoted merely by way of accommodation or allusion.
I presume therefore that Mr. Everett will cease to regard this
passage as one of "the prophecies," which are really to be
regarded as proofs of the Christian religion.
The next passage of the Old Testament, which Mr. Everett relies
on as a prophetical proof of the Christian religion, is the 2nd.
psalm; "why did the nations (according to the Heb.) rage, and the
peoples (ac. to the Heb.) imagine a vain thing. The kings of the
earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against
Jehovah, and against his Messiah saving, let us break their bands
asunder, and cast away their cords from us," &c. To the
application of this prophecy to Jesus, I objected in my first
publication, on account of these reasons, 1st. That "the nations,"
as it is in the original, did not assemble to crucify Jesus, as this
was done by a few soldiers. To this Mr. Everett replies, p. 90. of
his work, that "the Apostle (Peter in Acts ch. iv. 45,[fn27]) does not
say, they assembled to "crucify him," their joint opposition was not
limited to this single act, they were gathered together against him.
And it is certainly true, that Jesus was an object of the united
persecution of the nation of the Jews, by means of their bigotted
priests and furious multitudes, and of the Romans, by means of
their tributary sovereign, Herod, and their Proconsul Pilate." In
reply to this I would observe, that the words "nations," and
"peoples," in the original of the passage never signified the Jewish
nation, but are used in the Hebrew Bible to signify all other nations
but the Jews, or what is expressed by the word "Gentiles."
Now it is said in the psalm, that "the nations and peoples,"
(exclusive of the Jews for the reason above-mentioned) should
rage and that "the kings of the earth should stand up, and the
rulers (of the earth,) take counsel against Jehovah, and against
his Messiah." I do not see, therefore, how this passage could have
been fulfilled by the Romans, who were but one nation, by means
of their Proconsul Pilate and his soldiers: who (the Romans) were
so far too from being enraged against Jesus, that it is certain, that
all the Romans out of Jerusalem, did not even know what was
doing against him, and Pilate himself was so far from being
"enraged," and "taking counsel," against Jesus, that he befriended
him as far as he dared, and made great exertions to save his life.
Moreover, in the psalm, these "nations and peoples, and kings
and rulers," are represented as saving "let us break their bands in
sunder, and cast away their cords from us." This passage refers to
the Messiah and the Jewish nation taken together, whom the Old
Testament represents as to have "dominion over all peoples,
nations and languages," and that "the nation and people that will
not serve them shall perish, yea those nations shall be utterly
wasted." Is. lx. [fn28]
Therefore, these refractory nations and kings could not, and
actually never have said this of Jesus, who was but an individual,
to whom the expression "their bands and their cords," cannot
apply; and finally, since Mr. Everett maintains that Jesus was
"merely a spiritual saviour of the souls of men," I do not see how
he can consider him as a character pretending to impose "bands
and cords," upon any body.
2. I had also objected to the application of this prophecy to Jesus,
because "God has not set Jesus as his king upon the holy hill of
Sion, (as the psalm imports) nor given him the nations for his
inheritance, nor the uttermost parts of the earth for his
possession." To this Mr. Everett, p. 91, replies in the usual way,
i.e. after interpreting as much of the psalm, as he thinks he can
make accord with the history of Jesus, in a literal sense, he
interprets this passage of the Messiah's being enthroned on
Mount Sion, which he cannot make accord with it, in a figurative
one. The reader must judge whether this be fair or reasonable.
The latter part of the psalm, Mr. Everett contends, was fulfilled by
the rapid spread of Christianity, and he quotes, in proof of this,
some passages of the Fathers. To this I would reply, that those
passages of the Fathers are notorious exaggerations, and
convicted of falsehood by Middleton in his Free Inquiry.
And lastly, I would observe, that even those nations who have
embraced Christianity, can by no means be called the inheritance
or subjects of Jesus, since they have since the days of
Constantine and the Counsel of Nice renounced his doctrines, and
perverted his religion into "a fabulous, irrational and blasphemous
superstition,"[fn29] for as much as all of them, except a handful of
Unitarian Christians, are worshippers of three Divine Beings
united by an ineffable union; and by far the greater part of them
are adorers of idols, images, and pictures.[fn30] And if I may,
without offence, be allowed to express the sincere opinion of my
heart upon this subject, I would say, that it is my serious belief,
that if Jesus the son of Mary could return into the world, and learn,
that his professed followers had placed him between the
Cherubim, at the right hand of the Almighty, worshipping him as
"God equal to the Father," as, "God of God, very God of every
God:" and that by far the greater part had also placed Mary his
mother on the other side of the Deity, worshipping her as "the
mother of God!"[fn31] he would in my opinion renounce and
denounce them as impious heathens, and possibly believe that
they were possessed with devils.
The next passage which Mr. Everett quotes as a prophecy of
Jesus, is the 2d verse of the 5th chapter of Micah, "and thou
Bethlehem Ephratah, it is little to be among the thousands of
Judah; out of thee shall come forth unto me, him who is to be ruler
in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from the days of
ancient years:" [according to the Hebrew.] This I interpreted to
signify, not that the birth of the Messiah should be in Bethlehem,
but the descent of the Messiah should be derived from Bethlehem,
i.e. from Jesse the father of David; (and that therefore a future
Messiah who should be derived from this family, would fulfill the
prophecy;) and this interpretation, I represent as being known and
acknowledged by Hebrew scholars. "But the truth is, says Mr.
Everett p. 94, that the original word, [translated by me "shall come
forth,"] is familiarly used of the birth of a man, as "Mizraim begat
Pathrusim, and Casluhim out of whom came Philistim,"" Gen. x.
13, 14. This is a very awkward quotation on the part of Mr.
Everett, as it says nothing in favour of his views, but directly
favours mine: for Philistim is a word in the plural number, and is
used in the Hebrew Bible, to express "the Philistines;" and the
word translated "come"[fn33] is also in the plural number, see
Simon's Hebrew Bible. The passage therefore in Genesis x. 13.
14. imports that the Philistines were derived or descended from
Mizraim. "Who the Hebrew scholars are, says Mr. Everett, who
acknowledge this turn of the passage [in Micah] know not," p. 94
of Mr. Everett's work. If I were writing in Europe or America, I
think that I could point them out; but if my memory does not
deceive me, Grotius interprets the passage of the derivation of the
Messiah from Bethlehem: and Mr. Everett will not deny that the
modern Christian Hebrew scholars of Germany, disallow that this
passage has any reference to Jesus, and affirm that it is quoted in
the New Testament, Matthew ii. 5., only by way of allusion or
accommodation.
I had however, in order to show that this prophecy could not be
insisted on by the Christians, said by way of argument, that
allowing "that Bethlehem was to be the birth place of the Messiah,
what then? will a man's being born in Bethlehem, be sufficient to
make him the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets!"
This Mr. Everett seizes hold on in the following Way, p. 95. "Now
if we were willing to be consistent, and cling to our principles
wherever they carry us, it would almost seem that this concession
might decide the controversy. The Messiah is to be of Bethlehem.
This reduces to a little span, the number of those among whom he
can be found. Moreover, Bethlehem is now in ruins, to all moral
purposes its identity is gone.[fn34] It is the habitation of Turks, of
Arabs, of Christians, and if there be any Jews there, none will
pretend that the divisions of the tribes are preserved among them,
so that the tribe of David, from whom the Messiah is to arise, is
known in Bethlehem, from the rest. Neither can it be argued that
hereafter when the Jews are restored, Bethlehem will be
repeopled with Jews, the family of David be discriminated, and the
prophecy admit of fulfillment, because Mr. English himself allows it
to be the sense of prophecy, that the Messiah shall be born before
the restoration. It only remains therefore to look back, and to see,
of all that have appeared in Bethlehem, which has the greatest
claim to this character."
On this reasoning I would observe, 1st, that my concession on
which it is founded is merely gratuitous; as the words "shall come
forth" signify merely derivation; 2nd, that Mr. Everett is mistaken in
supposing that Bethlehem is now in ruins. It is at present probably
nearly as large and populous as it ever was. 3d, Mr. Everett is
mistaken, in supposing that the family of David cannot be traced
among the Jews. There are at this moment in the world, many
families allowed by their bretheren to be descended from David.
Should any of the Jews go to Bethlehem at any time to come, and
have a male child born to him in that place, for aught that can be
known beforehand, that child may be the Messiah and the
prophecy be fulfilled in Mr. Everett's sense of it; which I repeat
cannot be insisted on, as "come forth" certainly may signify, and in
the case unluckily quoted by Mr. Everett, (Gen. x, 13. 14.)
certainly does import, derivation.[fn35]
The next passage, adduced by Mr. Everett, is the 10th v. of the ix.
ch of Zechariah, "Rejoice greatly O! daughter of Zion, shout O!
daughter of Jerusalem: behold thy king cometh unto thee: he is
just and saved, lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the
foal of an ass."
Mr. Everett, after allowing that the Hebrew reads "saved" or
"preserved" instead of "having salvation," as in the English
version, observes, that many ancient versions read as in the
English Bible. Whether the true reading be mine or his, is not of
any consequence to the question to which this book relates. I
maintain that a man's riding upon an ass into Jerusalem, is not
sufficient to prove him the Messiah.
I also repeat that the event predicted, is spoken of by the prophet
as contemporaneous with the restoration of the division, [fn37]
and of course could not have been fulfilled eighteen hundred
years ago.
"Mr. Everett tries to shove out this objection, by taking for granted,
p. 98 of his work, that the chapter of Zechariah in which this
prophecy is found, is a series of chronological predictions. But I
must remind Mr. Everett that this pretention is inadmissible. None
of the predictions of the prophets, except some in Daniel, are
arranged in chronological order; they were delivered by parcels,
and at intervals, frequently of some years; and these parcels
generally have no connexion with each other. Mr.. Everett's
reasoning upon the assumption here contradicted, is therefore
inadmissible.
Finally, the German Biblical Scholars so frequently mentioned,
deny that this was a prediction of Jesus, and affirm that it is
quoted by the Evangelists merely by way of accommodation.
The next passage adduced is Zechariah xii. 10., "And I will pour
upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the spirit of grace and supplications, and they shall look upon [or
towards] me[fn38] whom they have blasphemed, [or pierced,] and
they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son."
The meaning of this prophecy is obscure. The word translated
"pierced" in the English version, may also in the opinion of Grotius,
and I add of Rosenmuller too, as quoted by Mr. Everett in the 104.
p. of his book, be best rendered "blasphemed or reproached." It
may refer to the time when, according to the Old Testament, the
hearts of the house of Israel shall be cleansed from sin, and they
shall turn to God "with their whole heart and with all their souls,"
as predicted by Moses.
I conclude with observing, that this passage, quoted in the New
Testament; John ch. xix. has long since ceased to be considered
as a prophecy of Jesus by the German Critics, and is believed by
them, to have been adduced in the gospel merely by way of
allusion. (See Rosenmuller's observations in his notes on the
passage.)
I am afraid that the reader has found these discussions rather
tedious, and am therefore happy to be at liberty to proceed to the
consideration of the three famous prophecies of Jacob, Isaiah,
and Daniel.
"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a Law-giver from
between his feet for ever; for Shilo shall come, and to him shall
the obedience of the peoples be ." Gen. xlix. 10. So I maintain the
passage should be translated.
On this prediction I observed, (Grounds of Christianity Examined
p.40. as quoted by Mr. Everett.) "That though this prophecy is
allowed by the Jews to refer to their Messiah, yet it does not
define, nor limit the time of his coming. For that it is perfectly
evident to all who will look at the place in the Hebrew Bible, that it
is pointed to read, not "the sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
nor a Lawgiver from between his feet until Shilo come;" but "the
sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between
his feet for ever; for Shilo shall come, and to him shall the
gathering of the peoples be." So that the prophecy does not
intimate that the Messiah should come before the sceptre be
departed from Judah: but that it should not depart for ever, but
shall be restored when Shilo comes."
On this Mr. Everett remarks, "now the points, commonly so called,
have nothing to do with the division of a sentence into its
members, or with what we call punctuation; but Mr. English
intended to intimate, that according to the accents, the verse
should be divided as he proposes." (p. 110, of Mr. Everett's work.)
In return for this friendly attempt to set me right, I would beg of Mr.
Everett to peruse the following extract from the celebrated Alting's
Treatise on Hebrew punctuation, which he will probably look over
with blushing cheeks. "Punctorum appellatione venit, quicquid in
Hebraea Scriptura occurrit praeter literas. Sunt vero punctorum
genera tria; unum eorum quae sonum moderantur; alterum
illorum, quae tonum regunt, tertium mere criticorum est quae ad
crisin masoretharum solummodo pertinent."' p, 9. edit. Septima.
I do not think it necessary, to enter with Mr. Everett into the
intricate dispute about the Hebrew accents, since he represents
that they are of no authority in deciding the question between him
and me, and because I think he will therefore not deny, that
disregarding their authority, the passage will bear the rendering I
have given it.
I shall therefore proceed to establish the interpretation I have
given of the passage in Genesis, 1st. by endeavouring to show,
that Mr. Everett's interpretation would convict the prophecy, of
falsehood; and 2dly. by showing that the interpretation I have
given, is confirmed by the express declaration of God himself.
This prophecy was delivered by Jacob before there was any king
in Judah. The sceptre did depart from Judah, and with a
vengeance too, at the dethronement and captivity of Zedekiah,
and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans: consequently,
if the sceptre was not to depart from Judah till Shilo came, the
Messiah ought to have appeared before the dethronement of
Zedekiah; as he certainly did not appear before that event, the
prophecy, according to Mr. Everett's sensible interpretation, would
be falsified.
2. The sceptre never has been restored to Judah since the
dethronement of Zedekiah; because the tribe of Judah, since that
period, have been in subjection to the Babylonians, the Persians,
the Syrians, the Romans, and all the world. Mr. Everett maintains
that the sceptre of Judah was in the hands of that tribe during the
time that it was held by the Romans[fn42] who were of the tribe of
Levi and the Herods who were Idumaeans. This idea appears to
me absurd, but I shall not give myself the trouble to oppose it by
argument, as it can be set aside by the express declaration of
God, as reported by Ezekiel, ch. xxi. 26. Speaking of Zedekiah
and his dethronement, the prophet represented the Deity, as
saying, "thus saith the Lord God, remove the diadem, take off the
crown; this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase
him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, (i. e. the
crown or sceptre of Judah,) and it shall be no more until he comes
whose right it is, and I will give it him."
Here the Deity expressly declares, that from the dethronement of
Zedekiah; the crown of Judah should be no more till the coming of
the Messiah to whom he would give it. The Asmonaeans and the
Herods cannot therefore be considered as having held it, as Mr.
Everett supposes.[fn41]
But this is not all, the original Hebrew of this emphatic declaration
has a singular force, the idea it expresses is as follows, "I will
make it (or "place it," the crown of Judah, i. e. the Messiahship) an
occasion of perversion, of perversion, of perversion, and it shall
be-no more till he come whose right it is, and I will give it him."
Viewed in this light, who will deny that this declaration has been
most strangely fulfilled? The Christians reproach the Jews with
"perverse and mad delusion" in having successively believed a
hundred: different impostors to have been the Messiah, while the
Jews in their turn say that the Christians have been as mad as
themselves, in believing that Jesus of Nazareth was this
personage.
I suppose therefore that Mr. Everett, after coolly viewing what I
have stated with regard to this prophecy of the Shilo, will be
sensible that he may as well discharge the unfortunate Rabbies
he has seized upon and lugged into court as reluctant witnesses
of the truth of Christianity, as their further attendance can be no
longer necessary: and I would leave him to consider whether the
liberal appellation of "dogmatical blunderer," which he has
bestowed upon me, p. 114 of his work, relative to my arguments
upon this prophecy, may not better apply to another than
myself.[fn43]
Let us now proceed to the consideration of the famous prophecy
of Isaiah, which Mr. Everett styles, p. 144, the "carinficina
Rabbinorum."[fn44]
In order to be enabled to give a fair interpretation of it, it is first of
all necessary to give a fair translation of it from the original
Hebrew, which is what has not been done in the English version;
forasmuch as there are therein not less than thirteen
mistranslations.
The following, I believe, will be considered as a just representation
of the original as it stands in the Hebrew Bible.
"Behold my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted, and
extolled, and be very high. As many as were astonished at thee;
his visage was so marred more than any other man, and his form
more than the sons of man, (or Adam,) 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.[fn45]
"Who hath believed what we heard? (or what was reported to us)
and to whom was the arm of Jehovah revealed? For he grew up
before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground. He
had no form nor comeliness; and when we saw him there was no
beauty that we should desire him, He was despised and the
outcast of men; a man of sorrows and familiar with grief;[fn46] and
we hid as it were our faces from him, (or, as one that hid his face
from us,) he was despised and esteemed not. Surely he hath
borne our griefs and carried (away) our sorrows.[fn47] Yet did we
esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But he was
wounded through our transgression, he was bruised through our
iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and
with[fn48] his stripes we are healed. ("healing is to us," Hebr.) All
we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his
own way; and Jehovah hath caused to light (or "meet") upon him
the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet
he would not open his mouth; he was brought as a lamb to the
slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he
would not open his mouth. He was taken from prison and from
judgment, and who would meditate [or consider sufficiently] his
generation? [or who shall declare his generation;] For he was cut
off out of the land of the living: through the transgression of my
people was he smitten: ["smiting was to him," Hebr.] and he
appointed his grave with the wicked, and with the rich[fn49] in his
deaths.[fn50] Although he hath done no violence, neither was any
deceit in his mouth, yet it pleased Jehovah 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,[fn51] and the
pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. He shall see [the
fruit] of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his
knowledge shall my righteous servant make many righteous, for
he shall bear [away] their iniquities.[fn52] Therefore will I divide
him a portion with the great: and he shall divide the spoil with the
strong, because he hath made naked his life unto death; and he
was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of
many, and made intercession for the transgressors." Is. from the
13th. v. of the 52d. ch. to the end of the 53d.
It is an acknowledged principle of sound criticism, that the same
expressions in the same author, are to be-understood always, in
the same sense, unless the context makes it plainly evident that
another sense is intended. Let us, therefore, first of all, examine
the chapters of Isaiah preceding the extract, in order to
understand who he means by "God's servant."
In the 49th. of Isaiah, v 3. it is said, "Thou art my servant, O Israel,
in whom I will be glorified." In ch. xlviii. 20. "The Lord hath
redeemed his servant Jacob." In ch. xlv. 4. "For Jacob my
servant's sake, and Israel mine elect." In ch. xliv, 1. "Yet hear now,
O Jacob my servant, and Israel whom I have chosen: fear not O
Jacob, my servant." v. 2. "Remember these O Jacob and Israel,
for thou art my servant. I have formed thee, thou art my servant O
Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me." v. 21.
"Ye are my witnesses saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have
chosen." ch. xliii. 10. See also the whole of ch. xlii. "Thou Israel art
my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my
friend." ch. xli. 8.
There can be no doubt therefore, that by "my servant," mentioned
in the first part of the prophecy quoted from Isaiah, and by "my
righteous servant," in the latter part of it, that "God's servant
Israel" must be understood to be meant, provided there be nothing
in the context to make it necessary to resort to some other
interpretation. Mr. Everett says that there is something in the
context, which forbids the application of this prophecy to "God's
servant Israel." Let us then examine the reasons on which this
assertion is founded.
He says 1st, p. 136 of his work, that the subject of this prophecy is
spoken of as "passive and unresisting," and he exclaims, "The
Jews passive and unresisting! They are the most obstinate and
unyielding of the tribes of the earth, and have resisted the arm of
power, and the lapse of time, which have crushed all other nations
into oblivion."
The prophecy speaks of their non-resistance to oppression, and
Mr. Everett tells us, to contradict this, that "they have resisted the
arm of power, and the lapse of time, which have crushed all other
nations into oblivion." This seems to me to be irrelevant.
"They afflicted and complained not! their complaints have been
fiercer than their sufferings have been cruel." Is this true? Does
Mr. Everett really believe it to be true? Does not all the world know
it to be false?[fn53]
"They have done no iniquity? When no iniquity? Not in the days of
Isaiah their own prophet, who cries, "Ah! sinful nation, people
laden with iniquity, seed of evil doers." Not in the days of
Josephus their own historian, who sets forth scenes of depravity
which turn common wickedness into virtue, and declares "that the
earth would have swallowed them, if the Romans had not swept
them from its face?" No iniquity in the ages since; throughout the
cities of the dispersion, where they are proverbially dishonest, and
professedly unfaithful." &c.. &c.
Now all this eloquent invective can be set aside so far as it affects
my application of this prophecy by this simple remark; that this
prophecy neither relates to the wicked Jews of the time of Isaiah,
nor of Josephus, nor the ages since, but refers to "God's servant
Israel" i. e., not to the rebellious and reprobate of the Jewish
nation, but to those of the house of Jacob, who have, who do, and
who shall adhere to God's law, and obey his commandments; for
no others of them will God acknowledge as "his servants."[fn54]
I would also observe, that the stress which Mr. Everett lays upon
the phrase "no iniquity," shows either great carelessness, or great
ignorance of the idiom of the Hebrew Scriptures; because every
man, familiar with those writings, knows that this expression is one
of those called Hebreisms, which must be understood in a
restrained sense. In proof of which, and a decisive one too, I
would refer him to the prophecy of Balaam, recorded, Num. ch.
xxii. 21. where Balaam exclaims in his prophetic enthusiasm, "He
[i.e. God] hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen
perverseness in Israel."
Now I suppose that the 53rd. of Isaiah, is a representation of what
may be the reflections of the nations, who have despised and
persecuted "God's servant Israel," through the influence of the
prejudices of their mistaken religion, but who had become
sensible of their error by seeing the tremendous interference of
God himself in their behalf, predicted over and over again by the
prophets as to happen. The natural consequence of this
conviction in the minds of those nations, would be a revulsion of
the feelings to the opposite extreme. They would exaggerate the
merits, and extenuate the demerits of "God's servant." They would
reflect with astonishment and commiseration on their past
sufferings. "We considered them," they might exclaim, "as a God-
abandoned race, and devoted to wretchedness by him for having
crucified their king. But instead of being the victims of God's wrath,
they were wounded through our cruelty, they were bruised through
our iniquitous treatment. It is we who have sinned more than they.
We having gone astray in our ignorance, being without the
knowledge of God and his law. How passive and unresisting were
they! They were oppressed, they were afflicted, and complained
not: when through false accusations and mistaken cruelty, they
were plundered and condemned to die, they went like a lamb to
the slaughter, and as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so they
opened not their mouth. They were taken from the dungeon to be
slain; they were wantonly massacred, and every man was their
foe; and the cause of the sufferers who condescended to
examine? They had done no iniquity to merit this: for their
adherence to their faith, which we charged upon them as a crime,
we now see to be approved of by their God, as an acceptable
instance of unexampled perseverance in the cause of truth."[fn55]
Mr. Everett proceeds, p. 145, "If any thing needs be added, the
following observation is important, viz. that there is one passage
so clearly inapplicable to the Jewish nation, and so totally
incongruous with the rest of the interpretation, that Mr. English
passes it over without even the attempt of an explanation. It is
this: in a part of the prophecy which he puts into the mouth of the
Gentiles we read, "for [the Hebrew I must remind Mr. Everett
reads "by or through,"] the transgressions of MY PEOPLE was he
stricken," This Mr. English paraphrases "for [it should have been
"by or through"] the thoughtless crimes of my people he suffered.
But what the Gentiles could mean by "MY PEOPLE" he does not
say, and this difficulty is fatal to the whole interpretation.""
I will presently show Mr. Everett, that this formidable objection, so
emphatically announced, is after all a mere man in buckram; and I
am almost sorry that in doing this, I shall be obliged to expose one
more proof of Mr. Everett's having neglected the study of "the
beggarly elements," in order to devote himself, without distraction,
to the understanding of the delectable types and allegories of the
New Testament. Mr. Everett certainly is a scholar and a man of
talents, but he does not perfectly know, nor will [fn56] understand,
the contents of the Old Testament; and the above objection is a
proof of it.
He maintains, that the expression "my people," could not be used
by a Gentile, and that therefore my whole interpretation of the
prophecy in Isaiah, is fatally affected by his objection. I request
Mr. Everett to have the goodness to turn to the book of Ruth ch i.
16., where he will find this Gentile, "this Moabitish damsel" saying
to her mother in-law "thy people shall be my people." Will Mr.
Everett look a little farther to the 1 Sam. ch. v. 10. in the Hebrew,
(not in a translation,) where he will find the Gentile Philistines
saying, "They have brought about the ark of the God of Israel to
slay me and my people?" (ac. to the Hebr.) again, v. 11. "Send
away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go to his own place,
that it slay me not and my people." (ac. to the Hebr.)[fn57]
Mr. Everett, therefore, may understand from these examples, why
I passed over this phrase "without even the attempt of an
explanation;" because, truly, I never dreamed, that this formidable
objection, would have been made: or that any man would write,
upon the Jewish controversy, who did not first inform himself of
the contents and phraseology of the Hebrew Bible.
Having, as I believe, shewn that the 53d. chapter of Isiah can be
understood of "God's servant Israel," I will now attempt to shew
the reasons why I think that it cannot relate to Jesus of Nazareth.
1st. Of the subject of this prophecy it is said v. 9. "and he
appointed his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his
deaths," in the plural. Now of Jesus we read in the gospels the
direct contrary: for the gospels represent that his death was with
the wicked, and his grave with the rich.[fn58]
2. The use of the word deaths, in the plural, appears to me to
necessitate the application of the prophecy to a people, not to an
individual. The same is evident distinctly from the Hebrew of v. 8.
at the end of the verse, in the word "lamoo."
3. The subject of this prophecy is said to have been "oppressed",
i. e. by pecuniary exactions: for that is the radical idea of the
Hebrew word, as is shown and asserted in the lexicons of the
Hebrew language.[fn59] This is peculiarly true of the Jewish
nation, but was not true at all with regard to Jesus.
And to conclude, this prophecy is quoted repeatedly in the New
Testament. Now, that none of the quotations in the New
Testament from the Old can be maintained as prophecies fulfilled
by Jesus, is the opinion of the learned Christians Michaelis,
Eichorn; Semler, Eckerman, Lessing, &c. as is allowed by Mr.
Everett: of course the 53d ch. of Isaiah in their opinions cannot be
adduced as a prophetic proof of Christianity: and Mr. Everett, in
maintaining the contrary, has to struggle not only against
argument, but the strongest Christian authority that can be
produced on any question of Biblical Criticism.
Mr. Everett, in several passages of his book, has thought proper
to charge me with errors; but in the course of his discussion of my
interpretation of the 53d. of Isaiah, has directly accused me of
falsehood and of fraud, p. 148. of his work.
With regard to many of these errors, the situation and
circumstances I am in at present, put it out of my power to defend
myself, because I cannot get the books he refers to in order to test
his statements;[fn60] but of the latter imputations, the work of Mr.
Everett itself not only enables me to justify myself, but to fix those
charges upon him.
He says in the 148 page of his work, remarking upon my assertion
in "The Grounds of Christianity Examined."--"In a word the literal
application of this prophecy [the 53d. of Isaiah] to Jesus is now
given up by the most learned Hebrew scholars, who allow that the
literal sense of the original can never be understood of him,"-
"Why does not Mr. English name these Hebrew scholars? Simply
because his assertion is not true." Indeed! Does not Mr. Everett
himself say in the 247 p. of his work, that Eichorn in a view of a
work of Dr. Ekerman says, that "the principle of accommodation,
which the better interpreters had already applied to many
violations [fn62] in the New Testament, is by this author extended
to all." "Though this opinion of Dr. Ekerman," says Mr. Everett,
must be allowed to savour a little of the extravagance of theory,
Eichorn adopts it. As the work alluded to, the "Theological
Contributions" has become a classical book with one class of the
German divines, who are thought to excel in critical learning, there
is no doubt that this doctrine is generally received among them.
MICHAELIS we all know admits it; and Marsh is the only famous
critic of the present day who does not embrace it.
Now the 53d. ch. of Isaiah is quoted in the New Testament,[fn63]
of course, therefore, according to Mr. Everett's own
representations of the opinions of these learned critics, they must
deny that the prophecy of Isaiah has any reference to Jesus, and
hold that it is quoted merely by way of accommodation. And if so
how has Mr. Everett dared to accuse me of falsehood in
representing, that "the literal application of this prophecy to Jesus
is now given up by the most learned Hebrew scholars, who allow
that the literal sense of the original can never be understood of
him"?! There is undoubtedly a falsehood told in this affair, and a
conscious suppression of truth, but it is not I who tell the first, or
conceal the latter.
Mr. Everett then proceeds. "Priestley and Grotius are all he
claims, [the reader may see by the above that I might have
claimed more,] Priestley was a learned man, but he has no
pretentions as a Hebrew scholar, and though Mr. English quotes
Grotius, he does it incorrectly." He declares that "Grotius has
applied it to Jeremiah, and says, that Jesus Christ has nothing to
do with it except in a secondary sense, but that the whole of it
from beginning to end refers to Jeremiah." "There are but few to
whom I need say" continues Mr. Everett, "that the words of Grotius
in his commentary are, "These marks have their first fulfillment in
Jeremiah, but a more especial, sublime, and often indeed more
literal fulfillment in Christ." Mr. Everett's work p. 148. I do not see
how this passage of Grotius contradicts my representation of his
opinion. The passage from Grotius quoted by Mr. Everett
declares, "that these marks [i. e. the 53d. of Isaiah] have their first
fulfillment in Jeremiah;" of course they could not be fulfilled by any
other except in a secondary sense, as I have asserted. As for the
"more especial, sublime, and often indeed more literal fulfillment in
Christ," I have always supposed that this and similar expressions
in other parts of Grotius' Commentary, were understood, by all
who were acquainted with Grotius' history and the times in which
he wrote, to be intended for a mere salvo, as a tub thrown out to
that great whale the vulgar; to contradict directly whose opinions
with regard to the prophecies, was in the time of Grotius very
dangerous, as he himself, notwithstanding all his precaution and
truckling, seriously experienced.[fn64]
"Also, [Mr. Everett goes on to say,] in adducing the authority of
Priestley for his interpretation without reference or qualification,
Mr. English gives cause to think, that he did not know, or knowing
forbore to state, that Priestley pronounces it impossible, in one of
his works, to explain this prophecy of any but Jesus Christ. What
Hebrew scholars are to be named with Lowth and MICHAELIS,
who both assert the literal application to Christ, Mr. English may
one day learn, that asseverations like these whatever immediate
effect they produce, will finally stand in the way of his character for
veracity." p.149.
This has been to me the most irritating passage in Mr. Everett's
book, because it is a tissue of impudent ignorance or impudent
fraud, and as such I will prove it.[fn65]
I have always supposed, that in quoting the opinion of an author
as authority, it is the fairest way to quote his last avowed opinions.
Now the work of Priestley's which I refer to as applying the
prophecy of Isaiah to the Jewish nation, as I do, is entitled
"Priestley's Notes on Scripture," and was published after arrival in
America, several years AFTER the work to which Mr. Everett.
refers, wherein Priestley, maintained that it was impossible to
explain this prophecy of any but Jesus Christ." Therefore this fact
"gives cause to think, that Mr. Everett did not know, or knowing
forbore to state (which I believe in my conscience is the truth) this
circumstance" which completely acquits me at least of a
suppressio veri.[fn66]
"What Hebrew scholars are to be named with Lowth and
Michaelis!" Several--among whom Eichorn stands pre-eminent.
Moreover, how has it happened that "the keen detector of
dissonances" has contradicted himself in quoting Michaelis? Here,
because he chooses to cling to the 53d. of Isaiah as favouring his
cause, he quotes the name of MICHAELIS as asserting "its literal
application to Christ." In another place, (p. 247.) where it is
necessary to defend the New Testament from the charge of false
application of the prophecies of the Old Testament to Jesus, he
quotes again the great name of MICHAELIS as the patron of the
system of accommodation, which system maintains that the 53d.
of Isaiah has no application to Christ at all! but is quoted by the
writers of the New Testament merely by way of allusion. Mr.
Everett himself may live to learn, that such double dealing
attempts to slander his opponent, and impose upon his readers,
"whatever immediate effect they may produce, will finally stand in
the way of his character for veracity," or at least for fairness and
candour.
These are not the only instances in which Mr. Everett has
calumniated me, and abused the good nature of his readers. For
example--
I had maintained in my first work, that the gospel called of
Matthew was a forgery, and not a translation from the ancient
Hebrew gospel of Matthew, and had supported my opinion by
saying, that learned Christians allowed that "it had not the air of a
translation." This Mr. Everett contradicts as follows: "But Mr.
English is aware that MICHAELIS, the highest authority on these
subjects, pronounces that it is a translation, and maintains his
proposition not less from the unanimous testimony of the ancients
than from internal evidence." p. 472, of Mr. Everett's work.
I beg the reader after reading this to attend carefully to what is
said by Mr. Everett in p. 464. "Semler's opinion of the origin and
composition of the three first gospels, was the same as that of Le
Clerc, MICHAELIS, Lessing, and Eichorn, and which has been
illustrated and maintained by professor" Marsh. This opinion is
that they were compiled from documents [not one document or
gospel, but several] of our Lord's preaching and life, which had
been committed to writing during his life, or immediately after, and
which became after different additions, revisions and translations,
the BASIS of our present gospels." Here the reader sees that
when it is necessary to oppose my statements, in one place Mr.
Everett avers that Michaelis maintained that the Greek gospel
according to Matthew, was a translation of Matthew's Hebrew; in
another place, where it is also necessary to oppose me, he avers
that Michaelis believed that the gospel according to Matthew,
Mark, and Luke were compiled compositions, and of course none
of them were translations from any one work. "I would, says Mr.
Everett, answer Mr. English fairly, or not at all." If this and the
other instances quoted be specimens of Mr. Everett's fairness,
what would be his conduct upon the very impossible supposition
that he could be guilty of duplicity?
2. Mr. Everett tells his readers, that the Jewish Rabbies "are the
most contemptible critics that have appeared;" that "they are so
silly that he is almost ashamed to quote them;" that they were in
short idiots. If so, of what value can their opinions be on
controverted points, which must after all be settled by reason and
scripture, and not by any bare human authority.[fn67]
Nevertheless Mr. Everett is continually calling upon his reader to
believe his arguments and statements upon the authority of these
said Rabbies. If I were one of his Christian readers, I should
consider myself insulted by such a procedure. It is almost
tantamount to saying, "'it is true, my arguments are built upon the
authority of fools, but yet they may serve to convince you."
3. I had accused the writers of the New Testament in my first
publication, of having blundered in applying passages of the Old
Testament as prophecies of Jesus Christ. Mr. Everett justifies
them by maintaining in the 5th. chapter of his work, that it is true
that these quotations cannot be supported as prophecies, but that
they are excusable for the following reasons. The writers of the.
New Testament were Jews; the Jews of their times believed that
every text of Scripture had seventy-two faces, and that each one
regarded the Messiah, and that the resurrection of the dead was
also taught in every chapter of Scripture, though we might not be
able to perceive it, and that the writers of the New Testament had
been brought up in these silly prejudices, and therefore argued on
these principles, i. e. that, notwithstanding their being inspired
men and full of the spirit of the Almighty, they continued in this
respect as silly as ever.
Now if there be a pious and sincere Christian in the world, and
should have this hypothesis laid before him for his acceptance as
the best means of defending the writers of the New Testament,
from the charge of fraud or blundering in their application of the
prophecies, I venture to say that that pious and sincere Christian
would, without hesitation, believe the proposer of such an
hypothesis to be ruining the cause he professed to defend. "What!
he might say, are the quotations in the New Testament from the
Old, indeed founded on folly, and alledged through stupidity?
Have the writers of the New Testament, who are allowed to have
been inspired by the Most High God with a perfect knowledge and
understanding of the Christian religion, who are representing
continually that Jesus Christ was foretold by the prophets, and
that their own minds were opened by the Holy Ghost to
understand the Scriptures, have they indeed though continually
quoting the Old Testament, after all never quoted for us even one
of the predictions on which they say their religion is founded? and
have they spent all the time they devoted to writing for the
salvation of the souls of men, in fooling with the Old Testament in
the manner you aver? 'Tis false! 'Tis monstrous! Either your
hypothesis is a fable, or Christianity, itself is like the dreams of the
Rabbies."[fn68]
When I see such principles, and other like principles avowed in
Mr. Everett's work, I feel myself authorized to propose to him the
following questions, by which I hope he will not consider himself
as put to the torture.
What, Mr. Everett, were your motives for quitting, so abruptly and
unexpectedly, the most respectable society who had done you the
honour to elect you their pastor, believing you to be the only man
worthy to succeed the learned, eloquent and lamented
Buckminster? This abandonment of your station took place after
you had engaged yourself in the examination of the question
between me, Mr. Cary, and Mr. Channing. If you felt doubts of the
validity of the Christian religion, and were therefore scrupulous
about going into your pulpit every Sunday to preach Christianity in
the name of the God of Truth, and therefore resigned your post,
your conduct thus far does you honour and not shame. But if, after
this, you have allowed yourself to be overcome by the solicitations
of interested friends (who might have been anxious that you
should publish something, that would allay the suspicions and
silence the rumours your conduct had occasioned) to give to the
world your very singular book, you have acted a part unjust
towards me, and injurious to yourself, for you now see the
consequence. You are taken in the snare you had laid for me, and
your violent dealing has come down on your own head.
I come now to the examination of the celebrated prophecy of the
seventy weeks. This prophecy has always run [fn69] the crux
Criticorum. It is unquestionably a very ambiguous one, since Mr.
Everett himself informs us in a note, p. 167 of his work, that
"Calovius whose day has passed a century ago, in a dissertation
upon the mysteries of the seventy weeks, numbers twenty-five
different Christian hypotheses," to which may be added at least
two more, those of Michaelis and Blayney.
If so, I would ask what stress a reasonable man can lay upon a
simple [fn70] prophecy which is allowedly so ambiguous, as to
have led Christians, sincerely disposed to make a prophecy of
Jesus Christ out of this passage, to interpret it at least twenty-
seven different ways?
There appears to me to be a mistranslation at the root of the
prophecy, which vitiates and confounds all the systems of
interpretation; applied to it that I know of. I conceive that the
prophecy should be translated thus.
"Seventy times seven [fn71] are determined upon thy people, and
upon thy holy city, to finish transgression and to make an end of
sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in
everlasting righteoussness, and to seal [up] the vision and
prophecy, and to anoint the most holy things."
"Know therefore, and understand that from the going forth of the
commandment to restore, and to build Jerusalem, unto the
anointed Prince, shall be seven weeks; and [in] [fn72] threescore
and two weeks the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in
troublous times." [fn73]
"And after threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut
off, and have no successor; and the people of the Prince that shall
come, shall destroy the city, and the sanctuary: and the end
thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end desolations are
determined."
"And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week, and in
the midst of the [or, a] week he shall cause the sacrifice and the
oblation to cease; and for the overspreading of abominations he
shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that
determined be poured upon the desolate." Dan., ch. ix. 24, 27.
Whatever may be the true sigification of this prophecy, it is not, I
conceive, favourable to the purpose to which Mr. Everett applies
it, for the following reasons. 1. That in supposing what is
commonly translated "seventy week's," to signify four hundred and
ninety years, the prophecy would be falsified; for certainly the
expiration of this period did not "finish transgression," nor "make
an end of sins," nor "make reconciliation for iniquity," nor "bring in
everlasting righteous," nor "anoint the most holy things," i.e. as I
understand it, the new and eternal temple and its altar, predicted
by Ezekiel in the last chapters of his prophecies. On the contrary,
the Jews became more wicked than ever, and the temple then
standing was destroyed to its foundations.
2. It follows from what is allowed by Mr. Everett himself, p. 159 of
his work, that from the going forth of the word to restore and build
Jerusalem, to the birth of Jesus Christ, was not seven weeks and
sixty and two weeks, i. e. sixty-nine weeks, but EIGHTY-FOUR
weeks, for he says there, that the duration of the second temple
was "NINETY-FOUR weeks," i. e. six hundred and fifty-nine years.
Now if my memory does not deceive me, Jerusalem was taken
and the temple destroyed by Titus about the year seventy after the
birth of Christ, which is equal to the prophetic weeks; therefore
take ten weeks from the ninety-four weeks, (the time Mr. Everett
states to have elapsed from the building of the second temple, to
its destruction) and there remains EIGHTY-FOUR weeks, and not
SIXTY-NINE. Which circumstance, appears to me to vitiate
entirely the interpretation of Mr. Everett, who supposes the
annointed one," spoken of as to be cut off after the sixty-nine
weeks, to be Jesus Christ.
As to who the "annointed ones" were, the first I think entirely refers
to Cyrus, and the last who was to be "cut off" and have no
successor, may either mean the pious and good Onias mentioned
in the book of Maccabees, who was the last I think of the
legitimate Jewish High Priests, [for after his time History testifies
that several, who had not the right of primogeniture as
descendants of Aaron, obtained the priesthood by force, by
intrigue, and by bribery;] or the last Jewish High Priest, Joshua
[fn74] who perished during the siege of Jerusalem, according to
Josephus. At any rate the anointed one who was to be cut off,
cannot mean Jesus of Nazareth; because this anointed one was
to be cut off in that same week of seven years, in which the city
was destroyed, whereas Jesus was crucified forty years before
that event; a circumstance I insist which excludes any application
of this prophecy to Jesus.
The claims set up for Jesus of Nazareth are moreover evidently
rejected by Daniel's prophecy, even according to Mr. Everett's
interpretation, forasmuch as he did not appear at the expiration of
sixty-nine weeks, but of EIGHTY-FOUR.
And to conclude this discussion, I would observe that Daniel, ch.
iii, in his account of the image [seen in a vision by
Nebuchadnezzar] whose head was of gold, breast and arms of
silver, belly of brass, legs of iron, and feet and toes of iron and
clay, is predicting the empires which have most influenced the fate
of the Hebrew nation; i. e. the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and
Roman, the last represented by "the iron legs," which did indeed
bestride the world; these "iron legs" are represented as
terminating in feet and toes part of iron and part of clay, which
have no natural coherence; i. e. the Roman empire shall be
divided into several kingdoms, partly strong and partly weak: a
prophecy remarkably fulfilled in the history and condition of the
kingdoms of Europe. The prophet goes on to say in ch. ii, that in
the latter days of those kings or kingdoms, [which are yet
subsisting] "the God of Heaven, would set up a kingdom which
should never be destroyed," that of the Messiah. Of course the
kingdom of the Messiah was not to be--not only not till after the
destruction of the Roman empire--but not till the latter days of the
kingdoms which grew up out of the ruins; whereas Jesus Christ
was born in the time of Augustus, i. e. when the Roman empire
itself was in the height of its splendour and vigour. Mr. Everett in
p. 201, endeavours to escape the strong gripe of the prophet
Daniel, by maintaining that these strong and weak parts, into
which the Roman empire was to be divided, meant that it should
be divided into "strong and weak institutions." Now to turn this
sensible interpretation head over heels, [fn75] it appears to me to
be only necessary to observe, that these strong and weak parts
into which the Roman empire was to be divided, were, according
to the prophet, ch. ii. 4.3. of Daniel, to "mingle themselves with the
seed of men," i. e. make intermarriages; which, it appears to me to
be a thing that "strong and weak institutions" cannot do. This,
however has remarkably, been the case among the royal families
of Europe, who intermarry too with the avowed design of
cementing union and promoting peace and harmony.
Nevertheless, agreeable to the prophet's prediction, they have not
"cleaved together, but on the contrary have been almost
constantly at war with each other.