If it be assumed that the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments were written by those whose names they bear, and that they have been handed down intact, prophecies uttered from Moses to Malachi, b.c. 1500 to B.C. 400, fulfilled in the person of Jesus in so complete a manner as to show that they could refer in their entirety to no one else, would be not only a most trustworthy credential to Jesus himself, but also a conclusive proof of the divine inspiration of those who uttered them, the power of foretelling the remote future—all the more of foretelling the supernatural—being clearly an attribute of an Almighty alone. Peter refers to the "more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well to take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place," and he states that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." If, on the other hand, the prophecies arrogated to Jesus are properly applicable to events altogether unconnected with his life and alleged mission, and if there are strained and untenable appropriations of Old Testament passages by the writers of the New Testament, the claim of the New Testament to be a development and fulfilment of the Old will be altogether destroyed, and the candour of its writers discredited. This portion of the inquiry, therefore, is of very great importance.
In the writings of the Christian clergy, almost every incident recorded in the Old Testament is explained by some method, more or less ingenious, as typical of the Messiah as represented by Jesus. But the present inquiry, with two or three exceptions, will be confined to the instances claimed by the writers of the New Testament as fulfilments of Jewish prophecy. It is clear that if these cannot' be maintained, neither can any subsequent interpretations.
(a.)Prophecies claimed for John the Baptist
First.—Malachi iii. 1; Luke vii. 27.
In the passage in Malachi there are three designations:—
1. "My messenger," i.e., the angel of the Lord.
2. "The Lord whom ye seek."
3. "The messenger (angel) of the covenant whom ye de-light in."
And the words "He shall come" indicate that all these titles are meant for the same person.
Now, in Exodus there are various allusions to the angel of the Lord preceding his people Israel. Chap. xiv. 19,—"And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them." Chap, xxiii. 20,—"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him... for my name is in him." Similar passages are Exodus xxxii. 34; xxxiii. 2-14; Numbers xx. 16.
The manifestation, therefore, expected by Malachi was of the dread angel of the covenant so revered in the Mosaic writings. Most Christians believe that this angel was Jesus the Messiah himself. But Luke, altering the quotation from "me" to "thee," affirms that Jesus himself applied it to John the Baptist. If the quotation in Luke is not from Malachi, but part of Exodus xxiii. 20 just referred to, "thee" is correct, but it still implies that John the Baptist and the angel of the Exodus were one. Who has made the mistake? Jesus in ascribing this quotation to John, or Luke in making Jesus so ascribe it?
Second.—Malachi iv. 5; Luke i. 16, 17; Matthew xi. 14; xvii. 11-13; Mark ix. 11-13.
The Elijah of Malachi was to come "to you" (Israel), (1.) Before the great and terrible day of the Lord; (2.) to turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; (3.) lest I (the Lord) come and smite the earth with a curse.
Luke's authoritative angel predicted that John was, (1.) To go before him (Jesus) in the spirit and power of Elias; (2.) to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; (3.) to make ready a people prepared-for the Lord.
Jesus states of John, (1.) If ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come; (2.) "Elias truly shall first come and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed," Mark adds, "as it is written of him."
It is certainly nowhere written (in the Old Testament) that the people Elijah is to be sent among are to doto himwhatsoevertheylist. The Elijah of Malachi isto turn them, and this, by the account of the New Testament writers, John the Baptist did not accomplish.
Third.—Isa.mh. xl. 3; Matt. iii. 3; Mark i. 2, 3; Luke iii. 4-6; John i. 23.
If Isaiah's doctrine implies that before the majesty of the eternal, the infinite, universe, the distinctions of brief-lived mortals disappear, and that its glory and its operations are open to all flesh alike to behold and to investigate; that though we shall perish, it, in one or other of its various forms, will evermore endure,—then the "voice of one crying in the wilderness" may still refresh and cheer the human heart, whether it be the voice of Isaiah, John the Baptist, or any other seer or man. What it proclaims is the heritage of all.
(b.)Claim of Jesus to be the seed of the woman who bruised the serpent's head.
Genesis iii. 15; Matt. iii. 17; xiii. 38; xxiii. 33; John viii. 44; 1 John iii. 8; Heb. ii. 14, 15; Kev. xii. 9; xx. 2. By believers that Jesus is the Christ the passage in Genesis is held to be a prophecy that received its fulfilment in him. He was the seed of the woman who bruised the head of the serpent, by restoring that portion of the human race who believe in him to the divine favour lost through the wiles of the serpent. The serpent is Satan, his seed mankind in their natural state; they bruised the heel (not a deadly part) of the seed of the woman by crucifying Christ. Jesus, who merely laid down his life that he might take it again, and thus expiated the sins of his people, in turn bruised the head (a deadly part) of the serpent. Such is the meaning of Genesis iii. 15, indicated by the writers of the New Testament four thousand years after the words are said to have been uttered by God.
Will the passage then bear any such interpretation?
The serpent tempted Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; she induced her husband to do the same. For this the three were sentenced thus:—
1. __The man, that he should eat bread by the sweat of his brow through culture of the ground, cursed for his sake, until his return to the dust from whence he came.
This is perfectly clear: it admits of no double interpretation.
2.The woman, that she should bring forth in pain, and be in subjection to her husband.
This is also quite plain, and in accordance with natural fact, whether the cause be the eating of the forbidden fruit or not.
3.The serpent, that he should go upon his belly, that he should eat dust, that he should hate mankind, that mankind should hate him, that men should bruise his head, that he should bruise men's heel.
Is there anything here beyond natural fact more than in the case of the man or woman? Men trample on serpents, serpents bite men from heel to knee; they cannot as a rule strike higher.
What else, then, can be said of all these passages, than that they are exact descriptions of the lot on earth of men, women, and serpents, whether or not caused by eating the forbidden fruit?
What is certain, however, is that this lot has not been reversed, or even alleviated by the coming of Jesus. Men live on the fruits of the ground brought forth by culture, until they decay and die; women bear children in pain; serpents crawl along the ground as before. If these are the works of the devil, why has Jesus not destroyed them? Why since his advent do they exist as before? He has expiated guilt, he has ascended into heaven, all power is his in heaven and in earth. Why then does the devil still triumph on earth? Why do the so-called curses, which the serpent's temptation of Eve brought, continue.
Jesus, it is said, is to destroy the works of the devil, but only in those who believe in him, and even in their case not in this world. When he comes again in glory he is to raise their bodies, he is to give them a new heaven and a new earth, those now existing being destroyed. The bodies of those who do not believe are also to be raised, but are to be given over to everlasting fire.
The devil, then, so far as death, toil, and suffering are concerned, is to triumph on earth over all mankind till the end of time; and to all eternity he is to triumph over the greater part, or a very great part of the human race, who through his means are to suffer the anguish of the bottomless pit. How then can it be said that Christ was manifested that he might destroy the works of the eternally triumphant devil. How has the seed of the woman bruised the head of the serpent, if Jesus was the seed and the devil the serpent? It is clear, if Christian doctrine be true, that the devil, by the curses he has brought on men—death, toil, child-bearing pangs—is to reign victorious on earth over the whole human race, and is also in eternity to reign victorious over a great part of the human race doomed to everlasting anguish. So the dominion of the evil One is to be eternal, Jesus and what he has done notwithstanding.
It may here, perhaps, without impropriety, be pointed out that probably there is no more striking illustration of what has been regarded as the perfection of the art of fiction-framing than the Mosaic account of the fall of man. Aristotle (Poet, chap, xiv.) ascribes this art to Homer in the highest degree,—that he taught others howto feign in a proper manner, by making a true consequent follow a false antecedent; so that the mind, knowing the consequent to be true, is led to believe that the antecedent is true as well. In the present case, see how the natural facts of decay and death, necessary labour, child-bearing pain, and serpent-crawling and venomousness, are made to follow as results of the forbidden fruit, the serpent's vindictiveness, and Eve and Adam's surrender; so that men, knowing the natural facts to be true, have been captivated into believing that the assigned causes are also true.
(c.)Claim of Jesus to be the seed of Abraham, in whom all nations should be blessed(Genesis xii. 3; xviii. 18; xxii. 18; Acts iii. 25; Galatians iii. 8).
The promise said to have been made by God to Abraham, that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed, is claimed for Jesus and for those who believe in him. His redeemed are to come out of every nation, kindred, people, and tongue, and through his mercy and merits they are to inherit the mansions of bliss evermore. He is thus the seed in whom all nations (i.e., the believing portion of all nations) of the earth (i.e., not on the earth but in heaven) shall be blessed.
"By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore, and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice."
These lofty phrases were the expression of the high aspiration and fond belief of the Jewish people, either under the sway of their lawgiver Moses (always on the assumption that he was the writer of Genesis), leading them triumphantly on to the conquest of Canaan, the home of their traditional ancestor, or when they were settled as a nation in Palestine. "In thy seed all nations of the earth shall be blessed" is, further, an expectation of the coming subjection of the human race to the law and revelation of Moses. The Gibeons presented themselves thus: "From a very far country thy servants are come because of the name of the Lord thy God;" and the following passage is brimful of the same hope: "And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be established above the hills, and all nations shall flow into it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."
The expectation that Palestine will again be restored to the Jews, that their temple service at Jerusalem will be re-established in all its glory, and that the other nations of the earth will flock thither for enlightenment, and be guided by the precepts of the Jewish lawgivers, has certainly so far not been realised on earth. The Jewish race, to the present day, live in hope of its fulfilment. Christians explain its fulfilment figuratively by the power and attributes they ascribe to Jesus. But sober fact shows that it is a fond and, as it has proved, futile patriotic aspiration.
Are the qualities of the Jewish race such as to warrant their high claim to be leaders of men—the nation which, first in divine favour and knowledge, should stand, as it were, between the Almighty and the other nations of the earth? The utmost tenacity of purpose, unfailing faith in their destiny, triumphant endurance of reverses, skill and aptitude, not only for ordinary worldly intercourse and dealing, but for the arts which charm the soul and elevate life; exalted conception of the omnipotence of the deity, in so far as to view with intense abhorrence that he should be likened to any visible creature, and, although tainted by giving a mind to the Almighty like their own (for the deity of the Pentateuch, in many respects, is but an almighty Israelite, bloodthirsty and unsparing to aliens in race and creed), still an exalted conception as compared to the gods of other nations,—all these qualities are theirs. Wherein do they fail? What is their defect? The defect of the coward—want of moral courage. Deceit and stratagem rather than open conduct are their characteristics. Abraham, for fear of his life (Genesis x. 12-20), lied and risked his wife's dishonour. Isaac (xxvi. 6-11) did the same. Jacob by vile deceit obtained his father's blessing (xxvii. 1-29), and supplanted his brother. Jacob's sons (xxxvii. 18-26), to rid themselves of their brother Joseph, of whom they were jealous, sold him as a slave, and by a stratagem led their father to think that he was killed by a wild beast. Joseph xliv. 1-13 detained his brothers by a trick. In the Exodus xi 1-3; xii. 35, 36 the Israelites, by directionof the Lord to Moses, under pretence of borrowing,spoiledthe Egyptians of their jewels of gold and silver. The warrior Joab (2 Sam. iii. 27) treacherously slew the valiant Abner. David (2 Sam. xi. 2-17) directed that Uriah the Hittite, a self-denying soldier, should be placed in the forefront of the battle, where death was certain, in order that, the husband being removed, the king might marry the wife he had already seduced. David too, on his deathbed (1 Kings ii. 1-10), charged his son Solomon to violate the oath he himself had sworn by the Lord to spare Shimei the Benjamite; and also charged him not to let the hoar head of his own general, Joab, go down to the grave in peace; and Solomon, finding specious pretexts, sent his butcher, Benaiah (1 Kings ii. 12-46), to fall on these two old men, and on his own brother Adonijah. The subsequent history of the Jews, whether as a nation or as a dispersed people, exhibits the same striking qualities, with the same fatal defect. Far be it from the nations of the earth ever to submit to such leadership. May not this remarkable people rather serve as a warning of what the highest qualities, unaccompanied with courage and open conduct, produce.
(d.)Claim of Jesus to be the "Shiloh" of Genesis(Genesis xlix. 10).
"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be."
This prophecy, put by Moses into the mouth of the dying Jacob in the year b.c. 1689, is not claimed for Jesus by the writers of the New Testament, but is usually referred to by Christians of the present day, as one of the most conclusive instances of the fulfilment of prophecy by the advent of Jesus. Jacob's vaticination is,—
1. That neither the sceptre nor a lawgiver shall depart from Judah.
This implies that at the time of the prophecy Judah had a sceptre and a lawgiver, which was not the case. But it will be affirmed that Jacob's assertion was prophetical, that he foresaw the time when Judah would have the kingly power among his brethren, which did not occur till the time of David.
2. Until Shiloh (he whose it is) come.
3. And unto him shall the gathering of the people be, i.e., at the coming of Shiloh, the kingship, and lawgiving, and the people's allegiance shall be transferred from Judah to him.
Jereboam, under whom all Israel, excepting Judah and Benjamin, revolted from the house of David, has probably the best claim to be the "Shiloh" of Genesis; but the consideration of this point, involving, as it does, inquiry into the actual date of the augury and the purpose for which it was promulgated, is quite outside the present purpose.
Christians, in maintaining that Jesus is the "Shiloh," explain that the tribe of Judah did not lose self-government until Archelaus was banished by Augustus in a.d. 6, and Judea then annexed to the province of Syria. The sceptre and the lawgiver then departed from Judah: it was transferred to the wondrous child, and "the people gathered unto him" refers not to the Jewish nation, but to believers in Jesus throughout the world.
Let, then, the assertion that the sceptre and a lawgiver did not depart from Judah until the time of Jesus be compared with the utterances of the prophet Jeremiah on the Babylonish captivity (Lam. i. 6; il 9; v. 11-16)—"Her king and her princes are among the Gentiles: the law is no more" is the burden of these passages. It must surely be admitted that Jeremiah was a more competent authority for determining when the sceptre and a lawgiver departed from Judah, than Christians of the present day. Clearly, then, the Shiloh of Jacob (whomever or whatever Shiloh may refer to) must have come before the Babylonish captivity, or Jacob's prophecy has been falsified.
As Genesis xlix. 10, however, is not claimed by the New Testament writers for Jesus, the discrepancy in this instance between Jeremiah's views and those of modern Christians does not affect their position.
(e.)Claim of Jesus to be the successor of Moses(Deut. xviii. 15-22; Acts iii. 22, 23).
"I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee," &c.
Moses in this passage so clearly refers to Joshua (see Joshua i. 1-9), who was to take his place as leader of the Israelites, that any other construction is entirely shut out. The assertion that Jesus of Nazareth, despised by his countrymen, homeless, and poor (even if he had been the son of the Eternal in disguise), in any way resembled Moses the successful warrior and lawgiver, was well put into the mouth of the rash-spoken Peter.
(f1.)Claim of Jesus to be the "Son of David"To establish the descent of Jesus from David, two different detailed genealogies are given by Matthew and Luke.
1. Matthew (i. 1-17) traces the descent of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, from Abraham, through David and Solomon, down to Salathiel and Zorobabel, and from them to Joseph, and states that there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, the same number from David to the captivity, and the same number from the captivity to Jesus. The fourteen names given, from Abraham to David inclusive, agree with the Hebrew Chronicles; but to reduce to fourteen the names from Solomon to Jechonias, king of the first captivity, inclusive, no fewer than four persons, to wit, Ahaziah; Joash, and Amaziah, the sixth, seventh, and eighth from Solomon, and Jehoiakim, the father of Jechonias, are omitted, (1 Chron. iii.) See, for the utterly puerile fancy of breaking up Christ's descent into three equal periods of fourteen generations, how the compiler scruples not to mutilate a genealogy, the whole of which must have been before him; for it cannot be supposed that he was unacquainted with the books of Kings and Chronicles in the Old Testament! The fourteen names from Jechonias to Jesus there is no means of ascertaining from whom Matthew received. Joseph, being of the house and lineage of David, may have had a record of his descent, and Matthew may have received it either from Joseph or from one of the brothers of Jesus, or the mutilator of the second set of fourteen may readily have found the third.
2. The genealogy given by Luke (iii. 23-38) contains so striking a divergence from that of Matthew, that many professed believers in the plenary inspiration and word-infallibility of the New Testament scriptures have endeavoured to explain it away by various considerations, none of which, however, to any truth-loving mind would appear satisfactory. Luke traces the descent from Joseph backwards to Zorobabel and Salathiel througheighteenpersons, not one of whose names agrees with any of theninein Matthew who cover the same period, unless it be that of the grandfather of Joseph, who is called in the one list Matthan and in the other Matthat. It has been suggested that the one list contains Joseph's own ancestors, the other his ancestors in right of his wife—i.e., Mary's ancestors. But this explanation fails in view of the further divergence of tracing Salathiel's descent back, not to Solomon through the kingly line, as Matthew does, but to Nathan, another son of David. Luke or Luke's, informant is here also at variance with the Old Testament Chronicles, which trace Salathiel's descent to Solomon, and the names he inserts between Salathiel and Nathan are not found in any other record.
On the question of Jesus' genealogy there remains this further consideration: If Joseph was not his real father, Joseph's descent would not make Jesus of "the seed of David according to the flesh." Whence then sprung his mother Mary? The gospels are silent Cousin Elizabeth was of the daughters of Aaron, but was Mary of the daughters of Aaron or of the daughters of David?
(f2.)Claim of Jesus to be the Son of David(Psalm ex. 1; Matt. xxii. 41-46).
"The Lord said unto my lord," &c. Jesus asked the Pharisees. If then David in spirit called Christ Lord, how is he his son? "And no man was able to answer him a word," &c.
The Pharisees must have been very ignorant of their own scriptures, if they were unable to answer the question of Jesus. "My lord," in the Old Testament, is frequently applied to superiors. Hannah called the high priest Eli "my lord." The same designation was given by David to Saul, by Abigail to David, by Abner to David. Sarah, the wife of Abraham, is specially commended in the New Testament for the respect she showed to her husband in calling him "lord." Joseph applied the same title to himself, "God hath made me lord of all Egypt." And Potiphar is called Joseph's "master," the same word translated elsewhere "lord." Psalm ex. is thus a flattering effusion to David, whom the singer designates "my lord," describing his favour withtheLord (Jehovah), his ruling in the midst of his enemies, his similarity to the priest-king Melchisedek, and his success in war.
(g.)Claim of Jesus to be "Immanuel"(Isaiah vii. 10-16; viii. 1-8; Matt. i. 21-23).
The prophecy in Isaiah refers to a sign to be given to Ahaz, King of Judea, to encourage him under the invasion, or threatened invasion, of his country by the kings of Syria and Israel. The sign was to be,—1. The conception by a virgin of a son; 2. that she should call his name "Immanuel," translated "God with us;" 3. the removal of the kings of Syria and Israel before the child emerged from infancy.
Following on this, and in continuation of the same subject, Isaiah narrates,—1. That he went unto the prophetess, the result being that she bore a son; 2. that the Lord told him to call his name "Maber-shalal-hash-baz," translated "making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey;" 3. the removal by the superior force of the Assyrian monarch of the riches of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, before the child could cry "father" or "mother."
The plain meaning, then, of all this is that the sign was to be given to Ahaz,—if realised, it must necessarily have been realised in his lifetime; also that the overthrow of Syria and Israel was to take place during the infancy of the child. To affirm, as Matthew does, that it is a prophecyfulfilledby a birth that occurred seven centuries after the events it refers to, surely requires an unbounded credulity.
Does the prophet refer to two children, "Immanuel" and "Maher-shalal-hash-baz"? Or was the prophetess "the virgin," and these two names bestowed on her child? The condition applying equally to both names, that Syria and Israel were to be overrun during the infancy of the child, is almost conclusive in favour of the latter construction. Isaiah had thus taken immediate steps to ensure the fulfilment of his prophecy. The word translated "virgin" is not the same as is used in such passages as Gen. xxiv. 16, Lev.xxi. 3, and may have been applicable to any modest and chaste married woman.
The mother in calling the child Immanual, followed the common Hebrew custom of forming names by combining an appropriate phrase with the word "El," God. Thus Hagar was directed by the angel in the wilderness to call her son "Ishmael," "God who hears." Hannah too named the son she had longed and prayed for "Samuel," "asked of God". The sign to Ahaz was thus, in the extremity he was relieved from, most appropriately named "Immanuel," "God with us," or "God on our side;" and the same name in the next chapter (Isaiah viii. 8) is applied to the deity himself, "the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel," i.e., "God on our side."
In any reading of Isaiah's prophecy it cannot be inferred that the conception of the virgin was to be by supernatural power. Nor from one end of the Jewish scriptures to the other is there the slightest support to such a notion as the deity begetting a mortal child by a mortal woman.
(h.)Claim of Jesus to be the "Great Light" seen by the dwellers in Zebidon and Naphtali, and the "Wonderful," the "Counsellor," the "Establisher of the throne of David" &c.(Isaiah ix. 1-7; Matt. iv. 12-16; Luke i. 32, 33; Psalm xvi. 10; Acts ii. 29-31; xiii. 35-37.)
Zebulon and Naphtali were the two most northerly tribes of Israel. Their territories extended from the borders of the kingdom of Syria southwards, on the west of Jordan, to rather below the point where that river issues from the Lake of Galilee. In warlike expeditions they were generally associated: "Zebulon and Naphtali were a people that jeoparded their lives unto the death in the high places of the field" (Judges v. 18). Thus situated, their country was always the first to be overrun in an invasion from the north. Isaiah ix. 1 refers to two such invasions, the second more severe than the first. Then (ix. 2-5) he glorifies Jehovah ("thou" will be held to apply to Jehovah) for a deliverance from an oppression of Judah in some degree similar, though not so severe as the second affliction of Zebulon and Naphtali. This deliverance refers either to the retreat of the kings of Syria and Israel from before Jerusalem (Isaiah vii. 1), or more probably relief from the overflowing of the king of Assyria (Isaiah viii. 7, 8). The entire prophecy of Isaiah, it must be kept in view, had reference to Judah and Jerusalem (Isaiah i. 1). It will be noticed that Isaiah in all this is referring to past events.
Then (chap. ix. 7, 8) he refers to the birth of a child which had already taken place, who is to be called "Wonderful," "Counsellor," "the Mighty God," "the Everlasting Father," "the Prince of Peace," &c. In two of these expressions he follows the Hebrew custom already mentioned, of forming names by combining an adjective or other phrase with the designation of the Almighty.
He goes on to affirm that this child shall rule in Judah on the throne of David; that there shall be no end of his government and peace; that he will order and establish the kingdom with judgment and justice for evermore.
What child is the prophet referring to?—"Immanuel" of the seventh chapter, or "Maher-shalal-hash-baz" of the eighth chapter? Clearly not; for if they are two names of the same child, he was the son of Isaiah and the prophetess, whereas the child of the ninth chapter is to sit on the throne of David.
Was the reference then to Hezekiah, written in his youth, when indications of the zeal for the law and ritual of Moses, which distinguished his reign, may have appeared? Most likely; but whether or not, it is clear that the "child" referred towas bornwhen Isaiah wrote, and had not yet begun to reign.
The phrases "no end" and "henceforth even for ever," may be compared with Psalm lxxxix. 3, 4,—"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." These lofty anticipations have not been realised. Where is the throne of David?
The two first verses of the ninth chapter of Isaiah are claimed for Jesus by Matthew. In quoting them he leaves out the portion referring to the invasion of Zebulon and Naphtali. Galilee of the nations, or populous Galilee, is called Galilee of the Gentiles, and is referred to as the same as Zebulon and Naphtali; whereas Isaiah makes a distinction, Galilee in his view probably being the southern part of Zebulon westward to the sea, including Asher.
Matthew, however, boldly affirms that the visit of Jesus to Capernaum was the fulfilment of Isaiah ix. 1, 2,—the fulfilment, that is, of what Isaiah, when he wrote, considered already past. But if the citizens of Capernaum in Jesus' time were the "people that walked in darkness," and Jesus was the "great light" which they saw shining upon them "in the land of the shadow of death" (the contrast between the passage in Isaiah and this puerile so-called fulfilment of it is too absurd to be discussed seriously), they nowise appreciated their good fortune. Shortly Jesus denounced the city thus,—"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained unto this day." Certainly there had been no deliverance for Capernaum.
The passage in Luke i. 32, 33, implies, and it is held by Christians generally, that the promises of Jehovah by the mouth of his prophets to David, with reference to the stability of his kingdom, were fulfilled in Jesus. These promises occur in the Old Testament in many forms, thus:—
1. That after David's death his seed should succeed to his throne, generation after generation, without end (2 Sam. vii. 12-16; Psalm lxxxix. 20-37). He was God's holy one, who should not see corruption; his soul would not be left in hell (the grave). To David's line would be applicable evermore what is said of the king of our own country, "who never dies," "The king is dead: long live the king."
2. That if his descendants should break the divine laws, they would be chastened, but not "put away from" the kingdom, as in the case of Saul (2 Sam. vii. 14, 45; Psalm lxxxix. 30-37).
Now, as undoubted matter of fact, the Babylonish captivity was the falsification of all such vaticinations, more particularly of that which affirmed that the descendants of David should not be treated as Saul was. If they sinned they were to be chastened, not deposed. In the return from Babylon, Zerubbabel is the only descendant of David mentioned as in authority, and after him there is nothing to show that even one of the royal line, far less any succession of the royal line, exercised sway over the Jews. The government passed to the "high priests." Jehovah hadnot"sworn in truth unto David."
But leaping over the indubitable falsification of the prediction by the overthrow of the "throne of David" in Nebuchadnezzar's invasion, and the fact that from the time of Zerubbabel the "line" of David had sunk into obscurity, it is claimed for Jesus that he was the "real" son of David referred to, that he has risen from the dead and has ascended into heaven. He saw no corruption; he reigns now in the hearts of his people. He will be their king for evermore, when he returns to earth "to take to him his great power and reign."
Is this grand hope of the Christian, then, to prove as misleading as the Jewish anticipation of the everlasting throne of David? or has Jesus actually risen from the dead? The consideration of the evidence of the resurrection will form Chap. V. of this inquiry.
(i.)Prophecies claimed in connection with the birth of Jesus, 1. Micah v. 2; Matt. ii. 4-6. Compare Micah with Psalm cxxxii., where David vows, "I will not give sleep to my eyes, or slumber to my eyelids, until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob. Lo, we heard of it at Ephratah, we found it in the fields of the wood.... Arise, O Lord, into thy rest, thou, and the ark of thy strength." "The mighty God of Jacob" corresponds to the ruler of Israel, "whose goings forth have been of old from everlasting." Micah may be referring to the deity in some connection, not now at all clear, with his habitation heard of at Ephratah, whence his laws, or other manifestations of his power, were to proceed.
The passage in Matthew is in connection with the incredible story of the wise men of the East; and it represents the Jewish priests assuring Herod that the Ruler of Israel, whose goings forth were of old from everlasting, wasto be bornin Bethlehem, not, as the prophecy states, that he was to come forth from there to be ruler. The twisting of the passage is very disingenuous.
2. Hosea ii. 15; xi. 1; Matt. ii. 14. Hosea clearly refers to the exodus under Moses: his expressions are in the past tense. Matthew's application of them to Jesus requires no comment.
3. Jeremiah xxxi. 15; Matt. ii. 17, 18. Ramah was in the country of Benjamin, whose descendants are called the children of Rachel, his mother. Jeremiah's prophecy clearly refers to their captivity in Babylon and their expected return. What can be said of Matthew's application of it to an alleged massacre at Bethlehem in the country of Judah, six centuries after the captivity? In no sense were the descendants of Judah the children of Rachel. Rachel died, and was buried at or near Bethlehem; but surely no one, not even the most credulous Christian, will assert that this makes her the mother of the line of Judah, afterwards settled there. Moreover, Jeremiah's reference is to Ramah, and cannot apply to Bethlehem.
4. Matt. ii. 23. Because Jesus was taken as a child to Nazareth, and brought up there, it is asserted that he fulfilled what was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene." Nowhere in the Old Testament can this be found. If a Nazarite is meant—one unshaven, and an abstainer from wine and strong drink—the character does not apply to Jesus, who "came eating and drinking." But a Nazarite was the designation of an order, not a name for the dweller in any particular locality. Nazarene was the earlier designation of the disciples of Jesus. They were called Christians first at Antioch (Acts xi. 26).
(j.)The temple-purging(Psalm lxix. 9; John ii. 17).
The circumstance referred to in the passage from John is that Jesus at passover-time, before the Baptist's imprisonment, went up to Jerusalem, entered into the temple, and let loose his indignation by driving out the money-changers, the cattle-dealers, and dove-sellers with a scourge of small cords, upsetting their tables, and pouring out their money. "Take these things hence," he said, "make not my Father's house a house of merchandise."
Matthew xxi. 12, 13; Mark xi. 15-17; and Luke xix. 45, 46, differ from John, in so far that they place this temple-purging at the time of Jesus' final entry into Jerusalem. Could such an extraordinary breach of the peace have occurred in any country under a Roman governor, without summary justice on the offender? Upsetting money-dealers' tables, pouring out their money, overturning the seats of the sellers of doves, and driving them from their stands, for which most probably they paid custom, if not to the state, to the temple-priests, and the disturber allowed to go away scot-free in any orderly community! Utterly incredible. And such conduct ascribed to one for whom the power and attributes of the Almighty are claimed!
(k.)The entrance into Jerusalem on the back of an ass(Zech. ix. 9; Matt. xxi. 4-6). The meekness of Jesus on this occasion is scarcely borne out by the scene referred to in last paragraph (j.) which, according to Matthew, followed immediately on his entrance into the city.
The prophecy of Zechariah was during the building of the second temple, and most probably referred to the lowly appearance made by Zerubbabel, the prince of Judah, as compared to that of his royal ancestors.
(1.)The scene in the synagogue of Nazareth(Isaiah lxi; 1; Luke iv. 16-21). Isaiah's high-sounding prophecy is said to have been fulfilled thus—
1. Jesus went to Nazareth, where he had been brought tip, and as his custom was he entered the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read. The book of the prophet Esaias being delivered to him, he read part of this passage. Then he closed the book, gave it again to the minister, and sat down.
2. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began to declare, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Wondering at these gracious words, they inquired, "Is not this Joseph's son?"
3. He retorted that no prophet is accepted in his own country, and cited cases from the Old Testament where, in times of extremity, no more than one favoured individual was relieved by the timely arrival of a prophet sent from God. (Contrast this with the prophecy, "to comfort all that mourn.")
4. Roused to wrath by this intimation, they sought to cast him headlong from the rock on which their city was built; "but he passing through the midst of them, went his way."
Words have no meaning, if such a scene as this can be called the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy.
(m.)The bruised reed and the smoking flax(Isaiah xlii. 1; Matt. xii. 14-21). How could the "servant upheld by Jehovah" fulfil the prophecy by shrinking from the Pharisees in the way Jesus is reported by Matthew to have done?
(n.) "Eyes to see, and see not; ears to hear, and hear not" (Isa. vi. 9-12; xxix. 10; Jer. v. 21; Ezek. xii. 2; Matt. xiii. 10-17; John xii. 39-41; Acts xxviii. 24-28; Rom. xi. 8-10). The prophets prophesied to a heedless people. Jesus and his followers are reported to have done the same. So have many others at various times. The appropriation to Jesus of the language in which the Jewish prophets expressed their disappointment is no proof that that language was meant to apply to him rather than to themselves.
Hab. i. 5, 6; Acts xiii. 40, 41. Habakkuk and the bitter and hasty Chaldeans contrast strangely with Paul and his warning to the Jews not to disbelieve his assertions with reference to Jesus.
(o.) "I will open my mouth in parables" (Psalm lxxviii. 2; Matt. xiii. 34, 35). This is a very flagrant instance of misquotation and misapplication. The Psalmist says that he will utter dark sayings of old, "which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us." Jesus is described by Matthew as fulfilling a prophecy to the effect that he would utter things "which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."
(p.) "The stone rejected by the builders" (Psalm cxviii.;22; Matt. xxi. 42, 43; Mark xii. 10; Luke xx. 17; Acts iv. 11). Psalm cxviii. is written by one who was praising the Lord for some triumph he had obtained over danger and difficulty; who had secured his end against his enemies, who had attained the head of the corner, though rejected by the builders. The application in Matthew is that Jesus, rejected by the Jews, should be accepted by the Gentiles, or by another nation than the Jews. This has come to pass. His own countrymen, even his own brethren, who were in a position to judge of the truth of his supernatural claims, rejected him. The nations of Europe, who were not in a position so to judge, have, under various forms, called themselves by his name, and adored him as their God. But this in no way shows that Psalm cxviii. was written with reference to any other than the person who composed it.
(q.)The betrayal by Judas Iscariot(Zech. xi. 11-13; Psalm lxix. 25; cix. 8; Matt, xxvii. 9, 10; Acts i. 16-20). Peter thus narrates the fate of Judas: "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity (the thirty pieces of silver), and falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known to all the dwellers in Jerusalem, insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood."
Compare this with Matthew, who states that Judas, repenting of his conduct, took back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests; said he had betrayed innocent blood; they answered, "What is that to us? see thou to that." On this he cast down the money in the temple, and went and hanged himself. The chief priests would not put the money in the treasury, because it was the price of blood, but laid it out in purchasing the potter's field to bury strangers in.
Matthew and Peter are thus quite irreconcilable. Both were companions of Jesus and Judas; both were present at and cognisant of the whole circumstances of the betrayal; Matthew was present during Peter's speech recorded in the Acts; and yet the discrepancy between them is such as entirely to discredit both their statements.
The circumstances alluded to in Zechariah are unknown. The passages from the Psalms are applicable to Saul, or some other of David's enemies; indeed, they may be used by any one against a traitor or enemy.
(r.)The passion(Zech. xiii. 7; Matt. xxvi. 31). Zechariah is writing during the troubled times, when Jerusalem was rebuilt. The particular event he alluded to is unknown. No construction of the passage can make it applicable to the desertion of the disciples when Jesus was arrested.
Deut. xxi. 23; Gal. iii. 13. Hanging on a tree is not crucifixion, which was a Roman, not a Jewish practice.
Exodus xii. 46; Psalms xxxiv. 20; John xix. 36. The passage in Exodus certainly refers to the Paschal lamb; the passage in the Psalms to the care the Almighty is said to take of the righteous, so that "preserving his bones whole" is equivalent to the other expression, "There shall no evil befall thee." The incident recorded by John is not confirmed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who make no mention of the disciples at the crucifixion, and say that the women beheld afar off. John, on the contrary, says that he, along with the women, was by the cross, so near that Jesus spoke to himself and Mary. This incident, so pointedly given as an eye-witnessed fact, seems to have been devised to give the crucifixion some resemblance to the lamb of the Passover. But the modes of death surely were very different. If any such resemblance was necessary, should it not have been complete?
Zech. xii. 9; John xix. 37. The spirit of grace and supplication poured out on the inhabitants of Jerusalem during the crucifixion of Jesus, when they cried, "Not this man, but the robber Barabbas," is a wondrous contradiction.
Psalm xxij. 18; Matt, xxvii. 35; Mark xv. 24; Luke xxiii. 34; John xix. 23. The practice of casting lots for the clothes of the crucified may have been a common one among the Roman soldiers at the time, and it corresponds admirably to one of David's expressions when he was in adversity and trouble.
(s.)Daniel's seventy weeks(Daniel ix. 21-27). The only allusion in the New Testament to this prophecy is in Matt. xxiv. 14, 15; Mark xv. 13, 14, where Jesus directs his disciples to flee to the mountains when they see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand on the holy place. Between Nebuchadnezzar and Titus, however, there were two, if not more, "abominations of desolation," equally answering to Daniel's description.
So far as it relates to the Messiah, the Prince, or the Anointed Prince, it is not claimed for Jesus by any of the New Testament writers. But by modern Christians it is held to be a prophecy of the exact time that elapsed between the edict to restore Jerusalem and the death of Christ. Each week is said to be a week of years: thus seventy weeks are 490 years, and from the letter of Artaxerxes granted to Ezra (Ezra vii.), b.c. 457, to the death of Jesus, a.d. 33, there are exactly 490 years. What is this but a mere reckoning back of 490 years from a.d. 33, so that the chronology has been fixed by the prophecy, not the truth of the prophecy proved by the chronology?
But the letter of Artaxerxes to Ezra was not a commandment to rebuild Jerusalem: it was given to him to further him on his way from Babylon to Jerusalem,already rebuilt. The commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem was that of the first of Cyrus alone (ordinary Christian chronology, b.c. 536); the prophecy asserts that it went forth at the beginning of Daniel's supplication, and the subsequent decrees were only confirmations of the original one, (Ezra vi.)
The statement of Gabriel is in answer to Daniel's supplication for mercy and favour to be shown to Jerusalem, and, commencing with a commandment to rebuild, ends in doleful desolation. But as the Messiah, the anointed one referred to, is not asserted by New Testament writers to be Jesus, it is sufficient here to point out the untenable ground on which modern Christians make this claim on his behalf.
(t.)The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. This chapter may most fairly be interpreted as having reference to Hezekiah in the various troubles of his reign and life, described 2 Kings xix. and xx.; 2 Chron. xxx. and xxxii., and Isaiah xxxvi., xxxvii., and xxxviii. Isaiah was the seer of the time. Hezekiah "cut off out of the land of the living" refers to the sentence of death, afterwards postponed, against him for his people's backsliding, though he himself wrought that which was "good, and right, and truth before the Lord his God." His "pouring out his soul unto death" agrees with the expression, "In those days Hezekiah was sick unto death." "And he was numbered with the transgressors, and bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors," also agree with, "And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people;" and with, "Notwithstanding Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the Lord came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah." If the exact circumstances in which Isaiah liii. was written were fully known, all the seer's allusions would be very intelligible; as it is, their application to Hezekiah and his times—always assuming that Isaiah was the writer—is the most probable.
The portions of this chapter claimed for Jesus in the New Testament are the following:—
Matthew viii. 16, 17. Here "his bearing our griefs" is applied by Matthew to Jesus' disease-curing wonders. But this differs from the view of modern Christians. They hold that it applies to his death on the cross as an expiation for sin.
John xii. 37, 38. "Who hath believed our report" may be used by any one whose pretensions are treated with incredulity. What reason is there for imagining that Esaias meant any other than his own report?
Mark xv. 27, 28; Luke xxii. 37. The "numbering among the transgressors" is equally true of any one who suffers penally for his belief, or who, innocent or little to blame himself, shares the fate of an offending community. The applicability of the passage to Hezekiah in the latter sense has just been noticed.
(u.)The gospel message(Luke xxiv. 44-48). Here a statement, utterly untrue, is put by Luke into the mouth of the risen Jesus. Nowhere in Moses, the prophets, or the Psalms is it written that the anointed one is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day.
(v.)The gift of tongues(Joel ii. 28-30; Acts ii. 1-4). Joel's prophecy is said to have been fulfilled on the day of Pentecost following the resurrection, when the apostles were all "with one accord in one place."
1. A sound came from heaven as of a mighty rushing wind, and filled the house where they were sitting.
2. Cloven tongues, like tongues of fire, sat on each of them.
3. They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Joel, the son of Pethuel, would probably be surprised at Peter's appropriation of his prophecy. No doubt it is applicable to any general religious awakening or excitement in any land or at any time. But Joel is referring to some invasion, or threatened invasion, of Judea, and to a deliverance accompanied with a religious revival and thanksgiving. The exact circumstances in which he wrote, if known, would make his obscure allusions clear. The incidents, however, of the mighty rushing wind and the cloven fiery tongues receive no support from his prophecy.
(w.)The calling of the Gentiles(Amos ix. 11, 12; Acts xv. 13-16). Amos' prophecy has been falsified by the event. The Jews, who were no more to be pulled out of the land the Lord had given them, were pulled out of it eighteen centuries ago, and so remain. The disingenuous way in which James applies to the conversion of the Gentiles what is clearly a reference to a return from captivity is very striking.