EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE OLD
TESTAMENT ADDUCED IN THE NEW, TO PROVE THAT
JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THE MESSIAH.
But since one would esteem it almost incredible, that the apostles
could persuade men to believe Jesus to be this Messiah, unless they
had at least some proof to offer to their conviction, let us next
consider, and examine, the proofs adduced by the apostles and
their followers, from the Old Testament for that purpose.
Of the strength or weakness of the proofs for Christianity out of the
Old Testament, we are well qualified to judge, as we have the Old
and New Testament in our hands; the first containing what are
offered as proofs of Christianity, and the latter the application of
those proofs, and we should seem to have nothing more to do, but
to compare the Old and New Testament together.
But these proofs taken out of the Old Testament, and urged in the
New, being sometimes not to be found in the Old, nor urged in the
New, according to the literal and obvious sense, which they appear
to bear in their supposed places in the Old, and, therefore, not
proofs according to the rules of interpretation established by
reason, and acted upon in interpreting every other ancient book--
almost all Christian commentators on the Bible, and advocates for
the religion of the New Testament, both ancient and modern, have
judged them to be applied in a secondary, or typical, or mystical,
or allegorical, or enigmatical sense; that is, in a sense different
from the obvious and literal sense which they bear in the Old
Testament.
Thus, for example, Matthew, after having given an account of the
conception of Mary, and the birth of Jesus, says (ch. i.,) All this
was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel. But the words
as they stand in Isaiah ch. vii. 14, from whence they are taken, do,
in their obvious and literal sense, relate to a young woman in the
days of Ahaz, King of Judah, as will appear, considering the
context.
When Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, King of Israel, were
confederates in arms together, against Ahaz, King of Judah, Isaiah
the prophet was sent by God, first to comfort Ahaz and the nation,
and then to assure them by a sign, that his enemies should in a little
time be confounded.--But Ahaz refusing a sign at the prophets
hand, the prophet said (see the chapter,) The Lord shall give you
a sign. Behold a virgin, or young woman (for the Hebrew word
means both as was truly and justly asserted by the Jews in the
primitive ages against the Christians, and is now acknowledged,
and established beyond dispute by the best Hebrew scholars of
this age,) 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 which thou
abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. And this sign is
accordingly given Ahaz by the prophet, who, ch. viii. v. 2, 18, took
two witnesses and went to the said young woman, who in due time
conceived, and bare a son, after whose birth the projects of Rezin
and Pekah were, it appears, soon confounded, according to the
prophecy and sign given by the prophet.
And the prophet himself, puts it beyond dispute, that this is the
proper interpretation of the prophecy, by express words, as well as
by his whole narration; for he says, Behold I, and the children
whom the Lord hath given me, are for signs, and for wonders in
Israel from the Lord of Hosts, that dwelleth in mount Zion. Isaiah
viii. 19.
This is the plain drift and design of the prophet, literally,
obviously, and primarily understood; and thus he is understood by
one of the most judicious of interpreters, the great Grotius. Indeed,
to understand the prophet as having the conception of Mary, and
the birth of her son Jesus from a virgin mother literally, and
primarily in view, is a very great absurdity, and contrary to the
very intent and design of the sign given by the prophet.
For the sign being given by Isaiah to convince Ahaz that he
brought a message from God to him, to assure him that the two
kings should not succeed in their attempt against him, how could a
virgins conception, and bearing a son seven hundred years
afterwards, be a sign to Ahaz, that the prophet came to him, with
the said message from God? And how useless was it to Ahaz, as
well as absurd in itself for the prophet, to say, Before the child,
born seven hundred years hence, shall distinguish between good
and evil, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both
her kings, which would be a banter, instead of a sign.
But a prophecy of the certain birth of a male child, by a particular
female within a short time, seems a proper sign, as being not only
what could not with certainty, be foretold, except by a person
inspired, but considered as soon coming to pass, it, consequently,
evidences itself to be a divine sign, and answers all the purposes of
a sign. And such a sign is agreeable to Gods conduct on like
occasions; witness his conduct to Gideon and Hezekiah. Jud. vi.; 2
Kings xx.
This prophecy, therefore, not being fulfilled in Jesus, according to
the literal and obvious sense of the words as they stand in Isaiah, it
is supposed that this, like the other prophecies cited in the New
Testament, is fulfilled in a secondary, or typical, or mystical sense;
that is, the said prophecy, which was literally fulfilled by the birth
of the son foretold by the prophet, was again fulfilled by the birth
of Jesus, as being an event of the same kind, and intended to be
secretly and mystically signified either by the prophet or by God,
who directed the prophets speech. If the reader desires further
satisfaction that the literal and obvious sense of this prophecy
relates to a son to be born in Isaiah's time, and not to Jesus, he is
referred to the commentator Grotius, and to Huetius Demonstrat.
Evang. in loc., to the ancient fathers, and to the most respectable of
the modern Christian. commentators, who all allow and show, that
the words of Isaiah are not applicable to the birth of Jesus in their
literal sense, but only in a mystical, or figurative, or allegorical
sense.
Again, Matthew gives us another prophecy, which he says was
fulfilled. He tells us, that Jesus was carried into Egypt; from
whence he returned after the death of Herod, (Mat. ii.) that it
might be fulfilled, which was of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
out of Egypt have I called my son. Which, being word for word
in Hosea, (ch. xi. 1) and no where else to be found in the Old
Testament, are supposed to be taken from thence; where according
to their obvious sense they are no prophecy at all! but relate and
refer to a past action, viz., to the calling of the children of Israel
out of Egypt, which will, I think, be denied by few. This passage,
therefore, or as it is styled, prophecy, of Hosea, is said by learned
men among Christians to be mystically, or allegorically, applied,
in order to render Matthews application of it, just; and they say all
other methods of some learned men to solve the difficulty arising
from Matthew's citation of this passage, have proved unsuccessful.
Again, Matthew says, (ch. ii.) Jesus came, and dwelt at Nazareth,
that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
he shall be called a Nazarene; but as this passage does not
occur in the Old Testament at all, we are precluded from
ascertaining whether it be literal, mystical, or allegorical.
Jesus says of John the Baptist, (Mat. xi. 14) This is Elias that was
for to come, wherein he is supposed to refer to these words of
Malachi, (ch. iv. 4) Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet,
before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord, which,
according to their literal, and obvious sense, are a prophecy, that
Elijah or Elias was to come in person (which we know from the
New Testament, as well as elsewhere, was the constant expectation
of the Jews.) Besides, this Elijah was to come before the great and
terrible day of the Lord, which has not yet arrived; and, therefore,
this prophecy of Malachi, referred to by the evangelist, was
certainly not literally, but only mystically, fulfilled in John the
Baptist.
Again, Jesus (Mat. xiii.) cites the prophecy of Isaiah (Is. vi. 9,) By
hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and he assures us,
that it was fulfilled in his time in those to whom he spake in
parables, (which, by the way, he did, it is said, in order to fulfil a
passage of the Psalms) though it is manifest that the prophecy of
Isaiah quoted, according to its literal sense, undoubtedly relates to
the obstinate Jews who lived in the time of Isaiah.
In fine, these, and the many other passages cited as prophecies
from the Old Testament by the authors of the New, do so plainly
relate, in their obvious and primary sense to other matters than
those which they are adduced to prove, that it is allowed by the
most learned defenders of Christianity, that to pretend that they
prove in a literal sense what they are adduced to prove, is to give
up with both hands the cause of Christianity to the enemies thereof,
who can so easily show in so many undoubted instances, the Old
and New Testament to have no manner of connection in that
respect, but to be in an irreconcilable state.
These proofs from the prophets being so different from what we
should expect, it behoves us to enquire what could induce Jesus
and his apostles to quote the Old Testament in such a manner?
The Jews shortly answer this question, by saying, that they did so,
because they did not understand the meaning of the books they
quoted. But it has been answered by some learned Christians, that
Jesus and the apostles did not quote in the manner they did through
caprice or ignorance bat according to certain methods of
interpretation, which were in their times of established authority
among the Jews.
The rules of interpretation, which were supposed to be
irrecoverably lost afterwards recovered to the world by the learned
Surenhusius, professor of the Hebrew language in the illustrious
school of Amsterdam. He made an ample discovery to the world of
the rules by which the apostles cited the Old Testament, and
argued from thence, wherein the whole mystery of the apostles
applying scripture in a secondary, or typical, or allegorical sense,
seems to be unfolded. I shall, therefore, state this matter from
Surenhusius.
He (Surenhusius) says, that when he considered the various
opinions Of the learned about the passages of the Old Testament
quoted in the New, He was filled with grief, not knowing where to
set his foot; and was much concerned, that what had been done
with good success upon profane authors, could not be so happily
performed upon the sacred.
He tells us, that having had frequent occasions to converse with
the Jews (on account of his application to Hebrew literature from
his youth) who insolently reflected upon the New Testament,
affirming it to be plainly corrupted, because it seldom or never
agreed with the Old Testament, some of whom were so confident
in this opinion, as to say, they would profess the Christian religion,
if any one could reconcile the New Testament with the Old. I was
the more grieved, because, (says this honest and well meaning
man) I knew not how to apply a remedy to this evil. But the
matter being of great importance, he discoursed with several
learned men about it, and read the books of others, being
persuaded that the authors of the books of the New Testament had
written nothing but what was suited to the time wherein they lived,
and that Christ and his apostles had constantly followed the
method of their ancestors. After he had long revolved this
hypothesis in his mind, at last he met with a Rabbi well skilled in
the Talmud, the Cabbala, and the allegorical books of the Jews.
This Rabbi had once embraced the Christian religion, but was
again relapsed to Judaism on account of the idolatry of the Papists,
yet not perfectly disbelieving the integrity of the New Testament.
Surenhusius asked him, what he thought of the passages of the Old
Testament quoted in the New, whether they were rightly quoted or
not, and whether the Jews had any just reason to cavil at them, and
at the same time proposed to him two or three passages, which had
very much exercised the most learned Christian commentators.
The Rabbi having admirably explained those passages, to the great
surprise of Surenhusius, and confirming his explications by
several places of the Talmud, and other writings of the Jewish
commentators, and allegorical writers, Surenhusius asked him
what would be the best method to write a treatise in order to
vindicate the passages of the Old Testament quoted in the New?
The Rabbi answered, that he thought the best way of succeeding
in such an undertaking would be to peruse a great part of the
Talmud, and the allegorical and literal commentators; to observe
their several ways of quoting and interpreting scripture, and to
collect as many materials of that kind, as would be sufficient for
that purpose.
Surenhusius took the hint immediately: he read such books as were
recommended, observed every thing that might be subservient to
his design, and made a book upon the subject. And in the third part
of that book he gives us the rules so long sought after, viz., the ten
ways# used, he says, by the Jewish doctors in citing scripture. And
here they are:--
1. The first rule is--reading the words of the Hebrew bible, not
according to the points placed under them, but according to other
points substituted in their stead, as is done by Peter, Acts iii. 3; by
Stephen, Acts vii. 43, and by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 54; 2 Cor. viii. 16,
and Heb. iii. 10; ix. 21; xii. 6.
2. The second rule is--changing the letters, whether those letters
be of the same organ (as the Hebrew grammarians speak,) or not,
as is done by Paul, Rom. ix. 33; 1 Cor. xi. 9; Heb. viii. 9, and x. 6;
and by Stephen, Acts vii. 43.
3. The third is--changing both letters and points, as is done by
Paul, Acts xiii. 41, and 2 Cor. viii. 15.
4. The fourth is--adding some letters, and taking away others.
5. The fifth is--transposing words and letters.
6. The sixth is--dividing one word into two.
7. The seventh is--adding other words to those in the text, in
order to make the sense more clear, and to accommodate it to the
subject they we upon.
8. The eighth is--changing the order of words.
9. The ninth is--changing the order of words, and adding other
words.
10. The tenth is--changing the order of words, adding words,
and retrenching words, which, (says he) is a method often used
by Paul. Of the application of all these rules, he gives examples
taken from the New Testament.
It is not necessary to make many observations upon these rules,
they speak for themselves most significantly; for what is there that
cannot be proved from the Old Testament, or any other book, yea,
from Euclids Elements! or even an old almanac! by the help of
altering words and sentences; adding; retrenching; and
transposing, and cutting words in two, as is stated above by a
learned and good man, and sincere Christian who found out, and
brought forward, these rules, as the best means of getting the
authors of the New Testament out of a difficulty, which had long
shocked and grieved their best friends.