EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS ALLEGED FROM
THE HEBREW PROPHETS, TO PBOVE THAT JESUS WAS
THE MESSIAH.
But it may be asked, how it was possible, that wise and good men
could have been led to embrace the religion of the New Testament,
if there were not in the Old Testament some prophecies which
might be conceived by them to supply, at least, plausible
arguments to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah? Are
there no other passages in the prophets besides those quoted in the
New Testament, and are there not a few passages quoted in the
New Testament, which appear more to the purpose than those we
have been considering? To this I candidly answer that there are,
and this chapter will be devoted to the consideration of them.
Two of these prophecies, one from Genesis, and the other from
Daniel, are thought by the advocates of Christianity, (because they
conceive them to point out and to limit the time of the coming of
the Messiah,) to be stronger in their favour than any of those
quoted in die New Testament. If so, it is a very singular
circumstance, that the inspired authors of the New Testament did
not make use of them, instead of others not so much to the purpose.
This circumstance of itself should teach us to examine the
prophecies in question with caution, and also with candour, since
many worthy and religious men have thought them sufficient to
prove that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. These prophecies I shall
reserve last for consideration, and shall now begin with the others
usually adduced, taking them up pretty much in the order in which
they stand in the Old Testament.
The first passage is taken from Deut. xviii. 15, The Lord thy God
will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like unto
me, unto him ye shall hearken. According to all that thou desiredst
of the Lord thy God in Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying.
Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me
see his great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto
me, they have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will
raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee,
and I will put my words into his mouth, and he shall speak unto
them all that I command him. And it shall come to pass, that
whosoever will not hearken unto my, words which he shall speak
in my name, I will require it of him.
This passage is pertinaciously and solely applied to Jesus, by many
Christian writers, because it is so applied by Peter in the 2 chap. of
Acts, in his sermon to the Jews, just after he had received the full
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and of course must be considered as
infallible. Nevertheless, these words of Moses are supposed by
many learned men, both Jews and Christians, to be spoken of
Joshua, whom Moses himself afterwards, at the command and
appointment of God, declared to be his successor, and who was
endowed with the spirit which was upon Moses, (see Deut. xxxi.
33, xxxiv. 17,) and to whom the Jews then promised to hearken,
and pay obedience to, as they had done before to Moses. But others
understand them to be a promise of a succession of prophets, to
whom the Jews might upon all occasions have recourse; and one or
the other of these seems to be the certain meaning of the place.
From this consideration, that from the context it appears Moses
was giving the Jews directions of immediate use; and, therefore, in
promising a prophet to them, to whom they should hearken, he
seems to intend an immediate prophet who might be of use to the
Jews, and answer their common exigencies, and not a prophet two
thousand years to come.
But I take the words to promise a succession of prophets, and for
that sense wherein Grotius and Le Clerc, and most of the Jews,
take them. I shall give my reasons, for this, and show that they do
not necessarily refer to Jesus Christ.
Moses, in the verses preceding this prophecy in the same chapter,
(Deut. xviii. 9--14) tells the Israelites from God, that when they
came into Canaan, they should not learn to do after, the
abominations of the people thereof; and, particularly, that there
should not be found among them any one that useth divination, or
an observer of times, &c., or a consulter with familiar spirits, &c.
For all, says he, that do these things are an abomination to the
Lord; and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth
drive these people out from before thee. For these nations which
thou shalt possess hearkened unto observers of times, and unto
diviners. But as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee to
do so. Then follow the words about the prophet, The Lord thy
God will raise unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee of thy
brethren like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken. All which is as
much as to say, When you come into Canaan, do not hearten to a
diviner, &c., as the Canaanites do, for the Lord will give you a
prophet of your own brethren inspired like me, to guide any
instruct you, to whom ye shall hearken. Or rather, Do not
hearken to diviners, &c., but to prophets, who shall be raised up
among you.
Now that the words cited must relate to a succession of prophets to
begin upon the Israelites taking possession of the land of Canaan,
is manifest; because, the raising up of a prophet, to whom they
were to hearken, is the reason given why they should not hearken
to a diviner, &c., when they came to that land; which reason could
have no force unless they were to have, 1st,--an immediate
prophet in Canaan; for what sense is there, or would there be, in
saying, Dont hearken to such diviners as are in Canaan, when
you come there, for you shall have a prophet of your own, to
whom ye shall hearken two thousand years after you come there!
Secondly,--As the context shows that the prophet to be raised up,
was an immediate prophet, so it also shows, that the singular
number here stands for the plural, according to the frequent
custom of the Hebrew language, as is shown by Le Clerc and
Stillingfleet, in loco; for one single prophet to be raised up
immediately, who might soon die, could not be a reason why Jews
of succeeding generations should not harken to diviners in Canaan.
Finally,--The words of God by Moses, which follow the promise
of a prophet, evidently show that by that promise prophets were
intended, in laying-down a rule for the test or trial of the prophets
before mentioned, in such a manner as implies, that that rule was to
be applied to all prophets pretending to come from him. See the
words in Deut. xviii., 19--22.
I shall conclude this explication, by adducing, in confirmation of it,
the paraphrase of the words given in the Targum of Jonathan. The
nations you are about to possess, (says the Jewish paraphrast)
hearken to jugglers and diviners; but you shall not be like them;
for your priests shall enquire by Urim and Thummim, and the Lord
your God shall give you a true prophet. And this explication is
the one adopted by Origen,--[Contra Celsum, p. 28.]
As to the difficulty that is raised against this explication from the
words at the end of Deuteronomy--that there arose not a prophet
since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face.
In all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do, &c.--
it is nothing at all. For every one perceives, that the word like
may be, and frequently is, used in scripture, and in common
language, to signify, similarity in some, though not in every,
particular; and every prophet, who speaks by Gods direction, is a
prophet like unto Moses, who did the same, though he be not
like, or equal to, him in doing signs and wonders, which is all
that is affirmed in the last chapter of Deuteronomy.
And, finally, there is nothing to limit this prophecy to Jesus of
Nazareth, if we allowed (what we reject) the Christian
interpretation; since God might to-morrow, if such were his will,
raise up a prophet like unto Moses in every respect, which Jesus
certainly was not; therefore, it cannot be applied and restrained to
the purpose for which it is quoted by Peter.
There is in the same sermon, in the 2 chap. of Acts, another
passage quoted by Peter from the Psalms, and applied by him to
prove the resurrection of Jesus, and on which he lays very great
stress, which after all seems to be nothing to the purpose. Peter
says, Him (i. e., Jesus) God hath raised up, having loosed the
pains [or bands] of death, because it was not possible that he
should be holden of it. And why? For [because] David speaketh
concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for
he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did
my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh
shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,
[the place of departed Spirits] nor suffer thy holy one to see
corruption, thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou
shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and
brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that
he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this
day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins according to the
flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne. He, seeing
this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was
not left in Hades, neither did his flesh see corruption.
How imposing is this argument! How plausible it appears! And yet
it is irrelevant, as Dr. Priestly frankly confesses, who tries to save
the credit of the apostle by the convenient principle of
accommodation! The whole force of Peters reasoning depends
upon the word corruption. David did see corruption; therefore,
he could not mean himself, but being a prophet, &c., he meant
Jesus Christ. Now, the whole of Peters argument is grounded
upon two mistakes; for, 1st, the Hebrew word translated
corruption, here signifies destruction, perdition; and in the
next place, instead of being thy holy One, in the singular, it is in
the Hebrew thy saints, in general. The passage is quoted from
the 16th Psalm; and I will give a literal translation of it from the
original, which will make the propriety or impropriety of Peters
quotation perfectly obvious. The contents and import of the Psalm,
according to the English version, are as follow; David, in distrust
of his merits, and hatred of idolatry, fleeth to God for preservation,
He showeth the hope of his calling, of the resurrection, and of life
everlasting. And the passage in question, according to the
original, reads thus:--I have set the Lord always before me:
Because he is on my right hand, I shall not be moved: Therefore
my heart is glad, and my glory [i. e., tongue] rejoiceth: My flesh
also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,
neither wilt thou suffer thy saints to see destruction. Thou wilt
show me the path of life: In thy presence is fullness of joy, and at
thy right hand are pleasures for evermore. That is--Because I
have ever trusted in thee, and experienced thy constant protection,
therefore I will not fear death; because thou wilt not for over leave
my soul in the place of departed spirits, nor suffer thy saints to
perish from existence. Thou wilt raise me from the dead, and make
me happy for ever in thy presence.#
In the 4th chap. of the Acts, the apostles are represented as praying
to God, and referring in their prayer to the 2d Psalm why did the
heathen rage," &c., as being a prophecy of the opposition of the
Jews to Jesus; with how much justice may be seen from these
circumstances.
1. That the nations, as it is in the original, did not assemble
together to crucify Jesus, as this was done by a few soldiers. 2. The
kings of the earth had no hand in it, for they knew nothing
about it. And 3rdly, Those who were concerned did by no means
form vain designs, since they effected their cruel purposes. And
lastly, From that time to the present, 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 a possession.
The next prophecy usually adduced to prove that Jesus is the
Messiah, is The passage quoted from Micah v. 2, in the 2d chapter
of Mat.--But from Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little
among the chiefs of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto
me, that is, to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from
old, from the days of hidden ages. This passage probably refers to
the Messiah, but by no means signifies that this Messiah was to be
born in Bethlehem, as asserted by Matthew; but only, that he was
to be derived from Bethlehem, the city of Jesse, the father of David
of famous memory, whose family was venerable for its antiquity,
being of the days of hidden ages. And this interpretation is
known, and acknowledged, by Hebrew scholars. But in order to cut
short the dispute, w will permit the passage to be interpreted as
signifying that Bethlehem was to be the birth place of the Messiah.
What then? Will a mans being born in Bethlehem be sufficient to
make him to be the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets?
Surely it has been made plain in the beginning of this work, that
many more characteristic marks than this must meet in one person
in order to constitute him the Messiah described by them!
In Zechariah ix. 9, it is written, Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of
Sion, Shout, O Daughter of Jerusalem! Behold thy king cometh
unto thee, the righteous one, and saved, or preserved [according to
the Hebrew] lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the
foal of an ass. This has been applied by the evangelists to Jesus,
who rode upon an ass into Jerusalem.
But in the first place, it is to be observed, that there seems to have
been a blunder in this transaction; for according to the Hebrew
idiom of the passage quoted above, the personage there spoken of,
was to ride upon an ass colt; whereas, the apostles, in order to
be sure of fulfilling the prophecy, represent Jesus as riding upon an
ass, and the colt, too! "They spread their garments upon them,
and set him upon them."[See the evangelists in loc.] In the next
place, a man may ride into Jerusalem upon an ass, without being
thus necessarily demonstrated to be the Messiah. And unless, as
said before, every tittle of the marks given by the prophets to
designate their Messiah, be found in Jesus, and in any other
claiming to be that Messiah his being born in Bethlehem, and
riding upon an ass into Jerusalem, will by no means prove him to
be so. Besides, those who will take the trouble to look at the
context in Zechariah, will find, that the event spoken of in the
quotation, is spoken of as contemporaneous with the restoration
Israel, and the establishment of peace and happiness, which seems
to cut up by the roots the interpretation of the evangelists. And to
conclude the argument,--Jesus being born in Bethlehem, and
riding into Jerusalem, allowing it to be true, would not, we think,
frustrate these prophecies of a future fulfillment--for no one can
disprove, that if so be the will of God, such a person as
the Messiah is described to be, might be born in Bethlehem
to-morrow, and ride in triumph into Jerusalem, twenty years
afterwards.
The next passage which has been offered, as a prophecy of Jesus,
is to be found in the 12th chap. of Zech. v. 10, and part of it has
been misquoted by John. 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 on me whom they have
pierced. So it stands in the English version; but, before I state
what it ought to be, I would observe, that before the evangelist,
(who in his account of the crucifixion applies this passage as
referring to Jesus being pierced with a spear) could make this
passage fit his purpose, he had to substitute the word him for
me, as it is in the Hebrew; confirmed by, I believe, all the
versions, ancient and modern, without exception. Yet, with this
change, it will by no means answer his purpose; for the Hebrew
word here translated pierced, in this place signifies
blasphemed, or insulted, as it is understood by Grotius, who
confirms this rendering from the Hebrew of Levit. xxiv. 11, where
in this passage the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name
of the Lord. The Hebrew word translated blasphemed is from
the same root with the Hebrew word translated pierced in the
passage in Zechariah quoted above. So that the passage ought to be
translated thus:--I will pour upon the house of David, and upon
the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications,
and they shall look towards me whom they have blasphemed.
[To look towards God is a phrase frequently met with, and well
understood.] Now, to enable us to understand more perfectly this
passage, let us consider the context, where we shall find that it
states, that there was to be a war in Judea, and a siege of
Jerusalem, and then a deliverance of the Jews, by the destruction of
all the nations, that should come up at that time, against Jerusalem.
Immediately after which matters, follows the prophecy under
consideration--I will pour upon the house of David, &c. Now,
from these things thus laid together, I crave leave to argue in the
words of Dr. Sykes [Essay, &c., p. 268]--Did any one
circumstance of all this happen to the Jews about the time of the
death of Jesus? Or rather, was not every thing the reverse of what
Zechariah says; and instead of all nations being destroyed that
came about Jerusalem, Jerusalem itself was destroyed: instead of a
spirit of grace and supplications, the Jews have had their hearts
hardened against the Christ; instead of mourning for him whom
they have pierced, they condemn him and his followers even until
this day.
But it is tiresome thus to waste time in proving that parts and ends
of verses, disjointed from their connexion, and even the words
quoted, some of them changed and some transposed, (though even
done according to the rules given by the venerable Surenhusius)
prove nothing. We must, therefore, devote the remainder of this
long chapter to the consideration of the three famous prophecies,
on which Christians have not hesitated, with triumphing
confidence, to rest the issue of their cause. These are the prophecy
of Shiloh, Gen. 49; the 53d ch. of Isaiah; and Daniels prophecy of
the seventy weeks. I will consider them in order, and thus wind
up the chapter.
I have some where read in a catechism, the following question and
answer:--Q. How can you confound the Jews, and prove, from
prophecy, that the Messiah is already come? A. From these two
prophecies--The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, &c.--Gen.
xlix.; and this--Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people,
&c.--Dan. ix. 24.
But, notwithstanding these overwhelming proofs, the stubborn
Jews refuse to be confounded! on the contrary, they in fact laugh at
Christians for being so easily imposed upon.
The prophecy concerning Shiloh, the Jews acknowledge, refers to
their Messiah. But they do not allow that it defines or limits the
time of his coming.
And that it in fact does not, will be perfectly, evident to all who
will look at the place in the Hebrew bible, which they will find
pointed to read not--The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
and a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come, &c.; but
thus--The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver
from between his feet, for ever; for Shiloh shall come, and to him
shall the gathering of the people 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 Shiloh comes. This is the plain and obvious
sense of the prophecy; and, moreover, is the only one that is
consistent with historical fact. For, in truth, the sceptre had
departed from Judah several hundred years before Jesus of
Nazareth was born. For from the time of the Babylonish captivity
Judah has never been free, but in subjection to the Persians, the
Syrians, the Romans, and all the world.
If my readers desire further satisfaction with regard to this
interpretation of this famous prophecy, I refer them to the dispute
upon this subject between the celebrated Rittangelius, and a
learned Jew, (preserved in Wagenseils Tela Ignea,) where he
will find Rittangelius first amicably inviting the Hebrew to discuss
the point, who does so most ably and respectfully toward his
Christian antagonist, and unanswerably establishes the
interpretation above stated, by the laws of the Hebrew language, by
the ancient interpretation of the Targum, by venerable tradition,
and by appealing to history. Rittangelius begins his defence by
shuffling, an ends by getting into a passion, and calling names;
which his opponent, who is cool, because confident of being able
to establish his argument, answers by notifying to Rittangelius his
compassion and contempt.
The next prophecy proposed to be considered, is the celebrated
prophecy of Isaiah, consisting of part of the 52nd, and the whole of
the 53rd, chapter. It is the only prophecy which Paley thinks worth
bringing forward in his elaborate defence; and it must be
confessed, that if this prophecy relates to the Messiah, it is by far
the most plausible of any that are brought forward in favour of
Jesus Christ. It merits, therefore, a thorough discussion, and I shall
endeavour that it shall be a candid one. This prophecy is quoted by
Jesus himself in Luke xxii. 39, and by Philip, when he converted
the Eunuch, (Acts 8,) for beginning at this prophecy, he preached
unto him Jesus.
It will not be necessary to cite the passage at length, it being one
perfectly familiar to every Christian. I will, then, before I consider
it, first premise, that since it has been heretofore abundantly made
evident, that the Messiah of the Old Testament was not to suffer,
and die, but to live and reign, it is according to the rules of sound
criticism, and I think sound theology too, to interpret this solitary
passage, so that it may not contradict very many others of a
directly contrary import. Now, if this passage can relate only to the
Messiah, it will throw into utter confusion the whole scheme of the
prophetical scriptures. But if it can be made to appear, that it does
not necessarily relate to him; if it can, consistently with the
context, be otherwise applied, the whole difficulty vanishes. Now,
the authors of the New Testament have applied this prophecy to
the Messiah, and to Jesus as the Messiah; and for doing so, they
have been accused of misapplication of it-from the earliest times;
since we know from Origen, that the Jews of his time derided the
Christians for relying upon this prophecy; alleging that it related to
their own nation, and was a prophecy of their suffering and
persecuted state, and of their ultimate emancipation and happiness.
And this interpretation of the prophecy the learned Vitringa, in his
commentary upon Is. in loc., allows to be the most respectable he
had met with among the Jews, and, according to him, to be by no
means dispised.
In order that the fitness or unfitness of this application of the
prophecy may be made apparent, and evident, we will new lay
before the reader this famous prophecy, part by part, each part
accompanied by the Jewish interpretation.
Isaiah lii. 13, Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be
exalted, and extolled, and be very high. Interpretation--My
servant Israel, though he be in great affliction for a time, yet
hereafter shall be released from captivity, and be honoured and
raised to elevation very high among the nations of the earth. [That
the Jewish nation is spoken of, in the singular number and under
the title of Gods servant frequently in the Old Testament, is well
known, and will be here made certain by a few examples. Isaiah
xli. (the chapter preceding the prophecy,) But thou Israel my
servant, thou, Jacob, whom I have chosen, presently afterwards,
saying to thee, thou art my servant. Again, chapter xliv.--
Now, therefore, hear Jacob my servant, and so frequently in the
same chapter. See also ch. xlv., and Jer. ch. xxx., and Ps. cxxxvi.,
and Isaiah throughout, for similar examples.]
And many were astonished at thee (his visage was so marred
more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.)
That is--And many were astonished at thee, on account of thy
abject state, and miserable condition, being squalid with misery,
and suffering more than any 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.
Interpretation--As the Gentiles wondered at their abject state, so
as to make them a proverb of reproach, so shall they admire at their
wonderful change of circumstances, from the depth of degradation
to the height of prosperity and honour. So that they shall lay their
hands upon their mouths, which had beforetime reproached them,
when they shall see their felicity to be so far beyond what had been
told them, and they shall attentively consider it, and they shall say
to each other--
Who hath believed our report, and the arm of the Lord to whom
was it revealed? For he grew up [Hebrew, not he shall grow up,
as in the English version] before him as a tender plant, and as a
root out of a dry soil; he had no form nor comeliness; and when
we saw him, there was no beauty that we should desire him.
The sense is--The Gentiles shall say to each other in wonder,
Who believed what we heard concerning them? And to whom
was the interest the Lord took in them made known? For it was a
dispised people, feeble, and wretched, like a tender plant springing
up out of a thirsty soil. Their appearance was abject, and there was
nothing attractive in their manners.
He was 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.
That is--They were despised, and held in abhorrence: they were
men of sorrow, and familiar with suffering. We looked upon them
with dislike: we hid our faces from them, and esteemed them not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.
Interpretation--Surely their sufferings are as great as if they had
borne the sins of the whole world; or, they are, nevertheless, the
means appointed to remove the sufferings of an afflicted world, for
God hath connected universal happiness with their prosperity; and
the end of their sufferings, is the beginning of our joys.
Yet did we esteem him smitten of God, and afflicted.
Interpretation--Nevertheless, we considered them as a God-
abandoned race, and devoted to wretchedness by him, for having
crucified their king.
But he was wounded for [or by] our transgressions, he was
bruised [for or by] our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was
upon him; and through his stripes we are healed.
That is--But, instead of being the victims of Gods wrath, they
were wounded through our cruelty, they were bruised by our
iniquitous treatment, we being suffered to do so, to chastise them
for their sins, and to prove their obedience; and this chastisement is
that by which our peace is to be effected; for their chastisement
and probation being finished. God will by them impart and diffuse
peace and happiness.
All we like sheep have gone astray, we, have turned every one to
his own way, and the Lord hath caused to meet upon him the
iniquity of us all.
But it is we who have sinned more than they: we have all gone
astray in our ignorance, being without the knowledge of God, or of
his law. Yet the Lord hath permitted us to make them the subjects
of our oppressive iniquity.
He was oppressed, [or exposed to pecuniary exactions] and he
was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he was 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, [into his manner
of life, who stoopeth to look? according to the Hebrew] for he
was cut off out of the land of the living; for, [or by] the
transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave
with the wicked; but with the rich were his deaths, [or tomb]
because he had done no violence, neither was deceit in his mouth.
Interpretation--How passive and unresisting were they, when
oppressed!--They were afflicted, and they complained not; when
through false accusations, and mistaken cruelty they were
plundered, and condemned to die, they went like a Iamb to the
slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers 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; for
by the thoughtless crimes of my people, they suffered. Yet
notwithstanding their graves were appointed with the wicked; yet
they were rich in their deaths. This did God grant them, because
they had not done iniquity.
Rabbi Isaac, author of the famous Munimen Fidei#, renders the
original--on account of impieties was he given to his sepulchre,
and on account of his riches was his death, because he did no
violence, neither was deceit in his mouth--which he interprets
thus:--We (the former speakers) raised against them false
accusations of impiety, on account of their religion, and refusing to
worship our idols; but their riches was the real cause why we put
them to death. Nevertheless, they used no violence in opposition
to our oppressions, neither would they forsake their religion, and
deceitfully assent to ours in hypocrisy.*
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him: he hath put him to grief.
When thou shalt make his soul a propitiation for sin, he shall see
his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord
shall prosper in his hands. [This proves that this prophecy cannot
refer to any individual, but may refer to the Jewish nation, because
one individual cannot be put to death, and yet see his seed, and
prolong his days.] After [or on account of] the travail of his
soul, seeing he shall be satisfied, by his knowledge shall
my righteous servant make many righteous [or show them
righteousness,] and he shall bear the burden of their iniquities.
That is--After and for their sufferings, they shall be abundantly
rewarded; by their superior knowledge of religious truth, shall they
make many wise, for many nations shall go, and say, come ye,
and let us ascend to the mount of the Lord, and to the house of the
God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways--Mic. iv. ch.
Wherefore, I will give him a portion with the great, and with the
mighty shall he divide the spoil, because he poured out his life
unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, and himself
bear the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.
Interpretation--Therefore, their reward shall be exceeding great,
because for the sake of their duty, they willingly exposed
themselves to death, and were accounted as transgressors, and bore
the cruel afflictions inflicted by many, and made intercession for
them who afflicted them.
Such is the explication given by the Jews of this prophecy. I have
made no important alterations of the common English translation;
except, that in some passages, I have made it more conformable to
the original by substituting a verb in the past tense, instead of
leaving it in the future, as in the English version. Those translators
have taken certain liberties in this respect to make this prophecy
(and several others) more accordant to their own views, which are
not supported by the Hebrew: many of these expressions, however,
we have left unaltered, as they are quite harmless. But if any of our
readers desire further information with regard to the propriety of
this interpretation of this prophecy of Isaiah, we refer him to the
Munimen Fidei, contained in Wagenseil's Tela Ignea, where
he will find it amply illustrated, and defended. Here, in this work,
we shall content ourselves with proving, that this prophecy can by
no means relate to Jesus, from these circumstances:--1. Jesus
certainly was not exalted and magnified, and made very great upon
earth, which, as has been shown, was to be the scene of the
exaltation of the Old Testament Messiah; but was put to a cruel
and disgraceful death. 2. He was not oppressed by pecuniary
exactions, as is said of the subject of this prophecy. 3. He was
never taken from prison to die, for he was never in one. 4. He did
not see his seed, nor prolong his days, since he died childless;
and we will not permit the word seed to be spiritualized on this
occasion, for the word seed in the Old Testament, means
nothing else, than literally children, which it is not pretended he
ever had; and how could he prolong his days, when he was cut
off in his 33d year. 5. Besides, who were the strong and mighty,
with whom he divided the spoil? Were they the twelve fishermen
of Galilee? and what was the spoil divided? In a word, 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. [See Priestleys notes on
the scriptures, in loco; and the context before and after.]
We have now come to the last subject proposed to be considered in
this chapter, viz., Daniels prophecy of the seventy weeks, the
instar omnium of the prophetical proofs of Christianity, and
which was for ages held up to the view of the unbelieving race,
as cutting off beyond doubt their hope of Israel from ever
appearing, since the time so distinctly foretold had elapsed. But
such is the instability of human opinions, that it was at length
suspected, and at last ascertained-by the learned, that the stubborn
Israelites had some reason for denying that prophecy, any voice in
the affair.
During many years, one learned man after another, had amused
himself with destroying the system of his predecessor, and
replacing it with his own, not a whit better, but tending to the same
end, viz., to make the prophecy of the seventy weeks tally and fit
with the event of the crucifixion. At length Marsham, a learned
Englishman, declared, and demonstrated, that his predecessors, in
this enquiry, had been grossly mistaken, for that the prophecy in
all its parts was totally irrelevant and irreconcileable with the time
of the crucifixion. The appearance of his book put all the
theologians of that age in an uproar! But many learned Christians
in the last, and present, century, now freely acknowledge, that
Daniel is not on their side, but as much a Jew as his brethren.
This celebrated prophecy, literally translated from the original, is
as follows:--Dan. ix. 24, &c.--Seventy weeks are determined
upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,
and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and
prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy, [i. e., the sanctum
sanctorum, or Holy of Holies.] Know, therefore, and understand,
that from the going forth of the word to restore and build
Jerusalem, unto the anointed prince, shall be seven weeks; and (in)
threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the
wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks
shall the anointed (one) be cut off, and be without a successor;
(Heb. and not, or none to him) and the city and the sanctuary
shall be destroyed# by the people of the prince that shall come;
and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the
war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant
with many for one week, and half the week (i. e., in the midst of
the 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 (is) determined, be poured
upon the desolate?
This is the prophecy on which such stress has been laid, as
pointing out the precise time of the coming of the Messiah; and I
shall fully demonstrate that it hath not the most distant reference to
that event. And for the better explanation of the prophecy, it is
proper that we attend a little to the context.
*In the preceding chapter of Daniel it is said, that when Daniel was
informed of the vision of the two thousand and three hundred days,
he sought for the meaning; but not rightly understanding it, he
judged, that that great number was a contradiction to the word of
God as delivered by Jeremiah, concerning the redemption at the
end of seventy years; (Jer. xxv. 11, 12, and ch. xxix. 10) and from
thence he concluded that the captivity was prolonged on account of
the sins of the nation. This doubt arose from his not understanding
the prophecy, and, therefore, the angel said unto him,--I am now
come forth to give thee skill and understanding. And he proceeds
to inform him, that as soon as he began to pray, and God saw, his
perplexity, the royal command went forth from him, that he should
come to Daniel to make him understand the truth of those matters,
that were to come to pass in future time. And as the angel Gabriel
had explained to him the vision from whence his doubt arose, it
was incumbent on him to perfect the explanation; and that is what
is meant by the expression to show, i. e., as I began the
explanation, the commandment was, that I should finish it.
Before I proceed to give the Jewish explanation of the prophecy, it
is proper to show in what manner the answer of the angel in it,
agreed to Daniels question, and also the reason of his using the
term weeks, and not years, or times, as in the other visions.
It appears, that Daniel, from the words of Jeremiah, perceived that
God. would visit all the nations, and punish them for their sins, as
may be observed from the following words:--Thus saith the
Lord God of Israel unto me, Take the wine cup of this fury at my
hand, and cause all the nations to whom I send thee, to drink it--
Jer, xxv. 15. He then mentions first Jerusalem, afterwards the king
of Egypt, Tyre, Sidon, and all the Isles beyond the sea, and many
others; and at last the king of Sheshak, or Babylon.
He also further perceived, that the visitation of each nation would
be at the end of seventy years, as Isaiah observes of Tyre: And it
shall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy
years. Isaiah xxiii. 15, the same of Babylon: And it shall come to
pass, when seventy years are accomplished, I will punish the King
of Babylon. Jer. xxv. 12, And as it is observed in the next verse:
All that is written in this book which Jeremiah hath prophecied,
against all the nations. From whence it appears, that as the
visitation of Babylon was to be seventy years, so was that of the
other nations to be; for so had the wisdom of God decreed to wait
according to this number. For which reason, and because the
prophets say that the restoration of Israel is to be contemporaneous
with the destruction of their enemies, Daniel appears to have.
judged, that the sins of his nation would be done away by the
seventy years of the captivity of Babylon; and, therefore, the angel
informed him of his error, by telling him, that this was not to be the
case with his nation, for that their wickedness was come up before
God, and their sin was very grievous; and that, therefore, their sins
would not be atoned for by seventy years, as in the case of the rest
of the nations, to whom he allowed seventy years to see if they
would repent; and, if not, then he would punish them. But as for
Israel, he would not only wait seventy years, but seven times
seventy years; (for thus it is literally, in the Hebrew, the words
translated seventy weeks, are, literally, seventy sevens) after
which, if they had not repented and reformed, their kingdom
should be cut off, and they return into captivity, to finish an
atonement for their transgressions. Hence the cause of Daniel's
question is evident; and the propriety of the angels answer to the
question, is manifest; as also the expression of weeks or sevens.
These seventy weeks are, without doubt, four hundred and ninety
years, the time elapsed from the destruction of the first temple, till
the destruction of the second.
This, it seems, was the more necessary for the angel to inform him
of; because Daniel judged, that after their return from Babylon, by
means of that visitation only, all their sins would be done away.
For which reason the angel showed him that it would not be so,
[for the return from Babylon was not a perfect redemption,
because there was not a general collection of all that were in
captivity, even all the tribes, save only a few of Judah and
Benjamin, and those not the most respectable. And after their
return, they were not free, but were under the dominion of the
Persians, Greeks and Romans. And although they, at one time,
threw off their yoke, and had kings of the Asmonean and Herodean
families, yet was there no king among them of the seed of David,
neither had they the Shechinah, nor the Urim and Thummim, all
which is a manifestation that it was not a perfect redemption, but
only a visitation, with which God was pleased to visit them; so that
they were allowed to build a temple to the Lord, by the permission
of Cyrus, and according to the measure given by him. This was
that they might be the better enabled to do the works of repentance
during the time allowed, and thus make atonement, and thus
finish the transgression, and make an end of sins, and make
reconciliation for iniquity; and thus, at the end of the time
assigned, even seventy weeks, they would bring in everlasting
righteousness, i.e., universal virtue and felicity, throughout the
world, when the Eternal should be known, worshipped, and obeyed
by all mankind. But if they did not repent, and amend, if they did
evil, as their fathers, then their kingdom was to be cut off at the
expiration of the seventy weeks; which, in fact, took place.]
After the angel had thus expressed himself in general terms, he
descended to particulars; and laid down three propositions (if I
may be allowed the term,) or periods.
First. Know, therefore, and understand, (that) from the going
forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the anointed
prince, (shall be) seven weeks.
That is, it shall be seven weeks or forty nine years from the
destruction of the first temple, to Cyrus, the anointed prince,
who shall give leave to build the second. [With regard to the
import of the phrase the going forth of the word, I refer the
reader to Levi's Letters to Priestley, and shall here only concern
myself with settling the meaning of the expression of the
anointed prince.] Many Christians have objected to the term
Messiah, or anointed, being applied, as in our interpretation to
Cyrus a heathen prince; and they apply it themselves to Jesus of
Nazareth. But that the term, or appellation, Messiah, can be applied
to Cyrus, is evident; since we find it so applied by God himself in
the xlv. ch. of Isaiah. Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to
Cyrus. 2. It is a singular fact, that the appellation Messiah is
never applied to the expected deliverer of the Israelites in the
whole bible, except, perhaps, in ii. Psalm. It is an appellation
indifferently applied to kings, and priests, and prophets; to all who
were anointed, as an induction into their office, and has nothing in
it peculiar and exclusive; but the application of it to the expected
deliverer of Israel, originated in and from the Targums. 3. In order
to make this prophecy, and this phrase, Messiah the prince, or
the anointed prince, apply to Jesus of Nazareth, Christians
connect, and join together, this first member of the prophecy with
the second, in open defiance of the original Hebrew; and after all,
they can reap no benefit from this manoeuvre; for the term
Messiah Nagid, or the anointed prince, can never apply to
Jesus, in this place, at any rate; because he certainly was no prince
or Nagid, a word which in the Hebrew bible always, without
exception, denotes a prince, or ruler, one invested with temporal
authority, or supreme command. Now, as it is allowed on all
hands, that Jesus had no such temporal power, as a prince, or ruler;
it, consequently, follows, that he can by no means be the
anointed prince mentioned in the prophecy.
Second Period. And (in) threescore and two weeks, the street
shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times,
Here the angel gave him to understand, that after the seven weeks
before mentioned, there would come a time in which the building
would be hindered, (and which was on account of the letter written
by Rheum and Shimshai to Artaxerxes, who, in consequence
thereof, made the building to cease-See Ezra and Nehemiah) till
the second year of Darius, who gave leave to finish the building:
which continued till the destruction by the Romans, sixty-two
weeks, beside the last week, at the beginning of which, the Romans
came, and warred against them, and at length entirely destroyed the
cities of Judah, Jerusalem, and the temple. For, from the time that
Cyrus first gave leave to build the temple, till its completion, was
twenty-one years; and its duration, four hundred and twenty; in the
whole, sixty-three weeks, or four hundred and forty one years. But
the angel made his division at sixty-two weeks, as he afterwards
described what was to come to pass in the last week (and with
reason, for the horrible Jewish war lasted seven years!) And by the
words, in troublous times, he informed Daniel, that during the
building of the temple, they would have continual trouble and
alarms from their enemies, as is mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah,
where we find, that while some worked, the others held the shield
and spear. And even after finishing it, they were almost continually
in trouble, and persecuted, as is evident from the books of
Maccabees, and from Josephus.
Third Period. And after threescore and two weeks shall the
anointed be cut off, and have no successor--[Heb. and not, or,
none, to him]--and the city and the sanctuary shall be destroyed
by the people of the prince that shall come; and the end thereof
shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are
determined.
That is, and after that period, shall the High Priest (or the
anointed one) be cut off--[The High Priest is called Messiah,
witness Lev. iv. 3--If the Messiah Priest, (or anointed priest)
doth sin, &c.]--and have no successor; and the city and the
temple shall be destroyed by Titus and the Romans, and until the
end of the war, your country shall be swept with the besom of
destruction.
The angel finishes the prophecy with these words:--And he (the
prince that shall come) shall strengthen the covenant with many,
for one week. And in the midst of the week (i. e., the seventieth
and last week,) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to
cease.
This prediction was fully accomplished; for 1. Titus, the prince
that should come, was continually offering peace to the Jews, and
tried to strengthen the covenant--i. e., their old treaties made
with the Romans, and in fact did bring over many. 2. On account
of the distress of the siege, the daily sacrifice did in fact cease to be
offered in the temple some time before its destruction; and the
angel further observes, that all this was to come upon them for
their sins, for the overspreading of abominations, it should be
made desolate.
This is what appears to be a plain and fair explication of this
prophecy; but since Christians, seeing mention made in it of a
Messiah to be cut off, have eagerly endeavoured to press it into
their service, it remains for me to show, that it is impossible to
make this prophecy refer to the cutting off of Jesus.
The difficulty that learned Christians have met with, in their
attempts to do this, will be easily conceived by any person, when
he knows, that more than a dozen different hypotheses have been
framed by them for that purpose; but that they have lost their
labour, will be obvious from this single observation, that the
anointed one, or Messiah, who, the prophet says, was to be cut
off, was to be cut off AFTER the threescore and two weeks, i.
e., at the destruction of Jerusalem, or within the seven years
preceding that event! Now, we know from the Evangelists, and;
from profane history, that Jesus was crucified more than forty
years before the destruction of Jerusalem. In addition to this,
nothing need be said, for this circumstance lays flat their
interpretation at one stroke.
Those who desire to see a more elaborate discussion of this
prophecy, and an ample defence of this interpretation, are referred
to Levis Letters, to Priestly; and those who are desirous of
seeing an account of the various, contradictory, perplexed and
multitudinous contrivances, by which it has been endeavoured to
apply this prophecy to Jesus, are referred to Prideaux, Michaelis,
and Blayney.
We have now gone through an examination of the evidence
adduced from the prophets of the Old Testament, to prove that
Jesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament; and those of our readers
who love truth, are, we trust, now made sensible that the religion
of the New Testament, if built upon such proofs as these, is,
evidently, founded on--a mistake.