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 Daniel?s 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 G.o.d. would visit all the nations, and punish them for their sins, as may be observed from the following words:--?Thus saith the Lord G.o.d 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 pa.s.s in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years.? Isaiah xxiii. 15, the same of Babylon: ?And it shall come to pa.s.s, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 angel?s 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.signed, 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.s 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 t.i.tus 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. t.i.tus, ?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 circ.u.mstance 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 ?Levi?s Letters, to Priestly;? and those who are desirous of seeing an account of the various, contradictory, perplexed and mult.i.tudinous 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.
CHAPTER VIII.
STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS WHICH PROVE THAT JESUS WAS NOT THE MESSIAH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Most of our readers have, no doubt, heard from the pulpit, many exclamations and declamations against the ?blindness of the Jews,?
in not recognizing their Messiah in Jesus of Nazareth. The reasons of this ?blindness? are made, I think, by this time pretty intelligible.
Nevertheless, for the further satisfaction of the reader, I will here set down the princ.i.p.al reasons given by Rabbi Isaac, in his ?Munimen Fidei,? which cause the Jews to deny the Messiahship of Jesus.
?At a certain time, (says he,) a certain learned man of the wise men of the Christians said unto me:--?Wherefore are you Jews unwilling to believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah, when yet your veritable prophets testified of him, whose words you profess to have faith in.?
?I gave him this answer. ?How, I require, could we believe him to be the Messiah, when you can produce no genuine proof from the prophets in his favour, since all those things adduced by the evangelists from them, to prove Jesus the Messiah, are nothing to the purpose? And we have many and evident reasons to prove that he was not the Messiah. And of these, I will bring forward a few, arising, 1, From his genealogy. 2. From his works. 3. From the time of his appearing. 4. From the prophecies of the things to take place in the time of the Messiah not having seen fulfilled in his age. And in these things are contained the genuine marks characteristic of our Messiah.?
?1. As to what concerns his genealogy; it does not prove this necessary thing, that Jesus was the son of David, because he was not begotten by Joseph, as the Gospel of Matthew testifies; for in the first chapter of it, it is written, that Jesus was born of Mary when she was yet a virgin, and had not been known by Joseph; which things being so, the genealogy of Joseph has nothing to do with Jesus. The descent and origin of Mary, is still less known, but it seems from Luke?s calling Elizabeth, who was of Levi, her cousin, that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, and not of Judah, and, consequently, not of David; and, if she were, still Jesus is not the more the son of David; descents being reckoned from the males only. Neither is the genealogy of Joseph rightly deduced from David, but labours under great difficulties. Matthew, and Luke also, not only disagree, but irreconcilably and flatly contradict each other, in their genealogies of Joseph. Now, it cannot be that the testimony of two witnesses, who directly contradict each other in the matter to be proved by them, can be received as true. But the prophets have directed us to expect no Messiah but one born of the seed of David.
?2. As to the works of Jesus, we object to what he said concerning himself:--?Do not consider me as come to establish peace on earth, for I have come to send a sword, and to separate the son from the father, and the daughter from her mother, and the daughter-in-law from her mother-in-law,? which words are written in Mat. ch. x. But we find the prophecies concerning the Messiah to attribute to him very different works from these; nay, the very opposite. For, whereas Jesus testifies concerning himself, that he did not come to establish peace in the earth, but ?division,? ?fire?
and ?sword,? Zechariah says, concerning the expected Messiah, ch.
ix.:--?He shall speak peace to the nations.? Jesus says he came to send ?fire and sword? upon the earth, but Micah says, ch. ii., that in the times of the true Messiah they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.?
Jesus says that he came ?to put division between the father and the son,? &c. But in the time of the true Messiah, Elias, the prophet, shall come, of whom Malachi prophecied ?that he shall convert the heart of the fathers unto the children, and the heart of the children to the fathers.? Jesus says ?that he came to serve others, not to be served by them? ? Mat. xx. 29. But of the true Messiah it is said, Psalm lxxii.:--?All kings shall bow themselves before him, all nations shall serve him.? The same also is said by Zechariah, ch. ix.:-- ?His dominion shall be, from one sea to the other, and from the river unto the ends of the earth;? and so Dan., ch. vii.:--?All dominions shall serve and obey him.?
?3. As to the time, we object to the Christians, that Jesus did not come at the time designated by the prophets; for the prophets testify, that the coming of the Messiah should be ?in the end of days? or, in the latter days, (which, surely, have not yet arrived) as it is in Isaiah ch. ii.:--?It shall come to pa.s.s in the latter days, that the mountain of the Lord?s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and all nations shall flow unto it;? and it immediately follows, concerning the king Messiah, ?that he shall judge among the nations, and rebuke many peoples, and they shall beat their words into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.? See also Hosea, ch. iii, and also Dan., ch. ii., where it is written:--?G.o.d hath made known unto king Nebuchadnezzar what shall come to pa.s.s in the latter days,? (or, in the end of days.) And this pertains to what follows, viz., to this:--?In the days of those kings, (i. e., of the kingdoms that arose out of the ruins of the Roman Empire) the G.o.d of heaven will raise up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed.? Thus you see, that the prophets predicted, that the kingdom of the Messiah should be after the destruction of the Roman Empire, not while it was in its vigour; when Jesus came; in ?the latter days,? and not before.*
?4. Besides all these difficulties, neither were the promises made to us by the prophets, concerning the things to come to pa.s.s at the coming of the Messiah, fulfilled in the time of Jesus. For examples, take the following:--?1. In the time of the king Messiah, there was to be one kingdom only, and one only king upon earth, viz., the king Messiah--see Daniel, ch. ii.; but behold, we see with our eyes, many independent kingdoms, distinct, and distinguished by different laws and customs, religious and political, which things being so, it follows, that the Messiah is not yet come.
?2. In the time of the king Messiah, there was to be only one religion and one law throughout the world; for, it is written in Isaiah, ch. lii. and lxvi., that all nations shall come at stated times to worship the Eternal at Jerusalem. See also Zechariah, ch. xiv.
and ch. viii., and indeed throughout the writings of the prophets.
?3. In the time of the king Messiah, idols were to be cut off, and utterly to perish from the earth; as it is said in Zechariah, ch. xiii., and so in Isaiah, ch. ii., it is written, ?And the glory of idols shall utterly pa.s.s away;? and so in Zephaniah, ch. ii., ?The Lord shall be terrible among them, when he shall make lean (i. e., bring to nothing) all the G.o.ds of the earth; and all the countries of the nations shall bow themselves to Him, each out of his place.?
?4. In the times of the Messiah, there shall obtain no more sins and crimes in the earth, especially among the children of Israel, as is affirmed in Deut. x.x.x., Zephaniah, ch. iii and in Jeremiah, ch. iii.
And l., and so in Ezekiel, ch. x.x.xvi. and x.x.xvii.
?5. In the times of the Messiah, there shall be peace between man and beast, and between the tiger and the tame beast; and the little child shall stroke, with impunity, the variegated skin of the serpent, and,--as one of our own poets has beautifully said,--?and with his forked tongue shall innocently play.? See in Isaiah, ch. xi. and lxv., the original from whence he derived his beautiful poem.
?6. In the time of the king Messiah, there are to be no calamities, no afflictions, no lamentations throughout the world. But the inhabitants thereof are to lead joyful lives in grat.i.tude to the good G.o.d, and in the enjoyment of his bounties. See Isaiah lxv.
?Lastly. In the time of the king Messiah, the glory of G.o.d was again to return to Israel, and the spirit of the most High G.o.d was to be liberally poured out upon them, and they were to be endowed with the spirit of prophecy, and with wisdom, and knowledge, and understanding, and virtue; and G.o.d will no more hide his face from them; but will bless them, and give them a ready heart and a willing mind to obey his laws, and enjoy the felicities consequent thereupon. And the Shechinah shall inhabit the temple for ever, and the glory of G.o.d shall never depart from Israel; but they shall walk amid the splendours of the glory of the Eternal, and all the earth shall resound with his praise, as is written in Ezekiel, ch.
x.x.xvii., and x.x.xix., and xliii.; and in Joel, ch. ii., and in Zech., ch.
ii., and Isaiah, ch. xi., and throughout the latter part of his prophecies, and in Jer. x.x.xi.?
And now, reader, let me ask you this question, has any one of the foregoing prophecies been yet fulfilled, either in the days of Jesus, or ever since? Thou canst not say it! Now, then, hear the conclusion, which, in sincerity, and with the hand upon the heart, I am compelled to draw from these precedents. ?Since these distinctive characteristics predicted by the Hebrew prophets, as to be found in their Messiah, were certainly, and evidently, never found in Jesus; and since these conditions and circ.u.mstances, and many others beside, which, to avoid prolixity, have been omitted, most a.s.suredly did not take place in the time of Jesus, nor ever since, and since they were according to those prophets, certainly to be expected in the time of their Messiah; therefore, from all this, it seems to be demonstrable (allowing the prophets to be true,) that Jesus of Nazareth was not this true Messiah.? And I would ask the candid Christian, in which link of this chain of proofs he can find a flaw? And I would ask him, too, as a moral and honest man, whether any Jew, in his right mind, could, without setting at nought what he conceived to be the word of G.o.d, receive him as the Messiah? The honest and upright answer, I believe, will be, that he could net. And, accordingly, it is very well known, that the Jewish nation have never done so. And this their obstinacy, as it is called, will not by this time, I think, appear unreasonable to any sensible man; and he will now be able to appreciate the justice of that idle cant about ?the carnal Jews,? and their ?worldly-minded?
expectation of a temporal prince, as their Messiah. Certainly, the Jews had very good reason, from their prophecies, to expect no Messiah but a Messiah who should sit on the throne of David, and confer liberty and happiness upon them, and spread peace and happiness throughout the earth, and communicate the knowledge of G.o.d, and virtue, and the love of their fellow-men to every people. Whether this (carnal or not,) would have been better than a spiritual kingdom, and a throne in heaven; together with the ample list of councils, dogmas, excommunications, proscriptions, theological quarrels, and frauds, and an endless detail of blood and murder, I leave to the judgment of those capable of deciding for themselves.
Neither, in fact, is it true, that the Jews were so ?carnally minded?
as to refuse Jesus as their Messiah, because he was poor and in a low estate. On the contrary, did they not ask him not to evade, but to speak plainly? ?How long (said they) dost thou mean to keep us in suspense? If thou be the Messiah, tell us plainly.? These very men were willing to hazard, in his favour, their fortunes, their families, and their lives, in his cause, against the whole power of the Roman empire. Nay, so urgent were they, that they were going to make him their king by force, and he concealed himself from the honour. The evasions he used to avoid their pressing questions upon the subject, are known to all who have read the evangelists; and so timed was he in acknowledging himself as the Messiah, that he did not do so, till Simon Peter told him that he was. And can any candid man, after all this, wonder at, or condemn, ?the blindness,? as it is called, of the Jews? or can he refrain from smiling at the frothy declamations in which divines load that nation with so much unmerited reproach? These Jews had just reason, we think, to doubt his Messiahship; and they had a right to satisfactory and unambiguous proof of his being so: even the proofs laid down, by their prophets. And this, it must be now acknowledged, they wanted; and, certainly, the wise and learned of the Jewish nation, might be allowed to have understood their sacred books upon the subject, as well, at least, if not better, than the illiterate apostles, who manifestly put new interpretations upon them, and those, confessedly, not agreeable to the obvious and literal meaning of those books; but contrary to the sense of the Jewish nation. And for this scepticism they might plead the example of the apostles themselves, who, at first, like other unbelieving Jews, expected a temporal prince; and did disbelieve Jesus to be the Messiah on account of his death, notwithstanding his miracles. And they continued in these thoughts, till it seems they come to understand the spiritual sense of the scriptures; which spiritual sense, it is said, they obtained by ?the traditionary rules of interpretation in use among the Jews.? Yet, it is rather inconsistent and singular, that they should place so much dependence upon these traditionary rules, and yet pay so little regard to the traditionary explication of the scriptures, with respect to the temporal kingdom of the Messiah--inconsistent and singular is it, that they should "cry aloud" for that which would support their peculiar views, but reject it when militating against these views.*
CHAPTER IX.
ON THE CHARACTER Of JESUS OF NAZARETH AND THE WEIGHT TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ARGUMENT Of MARTYRDOM AS A TEST OF TRUTH IN THIS QUESTION.
I am now about to consider a subject, to which, notwithstanding the harsh ness of my language in some of the preceding chapters, I approach with feelings of great respect. Far be it from me to reproach the meek, the compa.s.sionate, the amiable Jesus; or to attribute to him, the mischiefs occasioned by his followers*. No, I look upon his character with the respect which every man should pay to purity of morals: though mingled with something like the sentiments which we naturally feel for the mistaken enthusiast.
Jesus of Nazareth appears to have been a man of irreproachable purity, of great piety, and of great mildness of disposition. Though the world has never beheld a character exactly parallel with his, yet it has seen many, greatly similar. Contemplative, and melancholy, it is said of him by his followers, ?he was often seen to weep, but never to laugh.? He retired to solitary places, and there prayed: he went into the wilderness to sustain and to vanquish the a.s.saults of the devil: In a word, he appears by such means to have persuaded himself, as hundreds have done since, that he was the chosen servant of G.o.d, raised up to preach righteousness to the hypocrites, and sinners of his day. It is remarkable, that he never claimed to be the Messiah, till encouraged to a.s.sume that character by Peter?s declaration. And it is observable, that in a.s.suming that name, he could not a.s.sume the characteristics of the august personage to whom it belongs; but infused into the character all that softness, meekness, humility, and pa.s.sive fort.i.tude, which were so eminently his own. The natural disposition, and character of Jesus, could not permit him to attempt the character of a princely Messiah, a mighty monarch, the saviour of an oppressed people, and the benefactor of the human race. He could not do this, but he could act as much of the character as was consistent with his own.
He could not indeed bring himself to attempt to be the saviour of his countrymen from the Romans, their fleshly foes; but he undertook to save them from the tyranny of their spiritual enemies.
He could not undertake to set up his kingdom upon earth; but he told them that he had a kingdom in another world. He could not pretend to give unto his followers the splendid rewards of an earthly monarch: but he promised them instead thereof, forgiveness of sins, and spiritual remuneration.