"They as a people, together with their
city, were destroyed: they were no more to live in one
place; they were to be dispersed, and scattered over the
face of the whole earth; they were to shew themselves a
standing miracle of God's mercy and judgment to produce and
bear witness to the oracles of God, which they confirm by
their own appearance under the circumstances they now are,
trustees and guardians, as it were, of those divine records
for the use of Christians.—What would have still preserved
and kept them together in one place, the city and the
Temple, were taken from them ; they have now no home; and
yet are as distinct: from all other men, with whom they live
in great numbers over all the earth, as when they inhabited
Jerusalem in its ancient splendor.
They could have no Temple, nor any sacrifice, but in
Jerusalem; and when that was destroyed, they were dispersed.
Circumcision, the mark of the covenant, or token of the
promise, could be of no peculiar use, when the covenant of
promise was fulfilled, and the promised seed had evidently
appeared in the person of Jesus. All that was peculiar to
the Jews; all that obstructed the general union of mankind
under one God and Savior of us all, the calling of the
Gentiles, who by adoption are made heirs of the promise; all
that was local and temporary became obsolete, and of no use
or significancy ; for by the accomplishment of the
propheccies, and the appearance of the Son of God, all these
things were abolished: sacrifices had their end; the carnal
ordinances, the Temple, the Jewish polity, sacred and civil,
as connected with the city of Jerusalem ; all were deftroyed
in one general ruin, and the distinction of the tribes is
entirely lost.
This great event is foretold by almost all the prophets. The
destruction of Jerusalem is expressed by The GREAT DAY OF
THE LORD * The day of the Lord is a day of sacrifice and
vengeance upon his enemies. The destruction of Babylon
described in such awful terms, as if all nature suffered by
the mock, is represented as a day of the Lord, Isai. xiii.
6. So is the destruction of Bozrah and Idumasa, isAi.xxxiv.
8. of Pharaoh's army at the Euphrates, Jer. xlvi, 10. of
Egypt, Ezek. xxx. 3. of the heathen, Joel iii. 14. Obad.
15-.- Zephan. ii. 2, 3. But the Great Day Of The Lord always
means the destruction of Jerusalem.
WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID
Joseph
Eyre (1771)
Futurist / Christian Zionist View
"APPENDIX
TO Observations on the Prophecies relating to the
Restoration of the Jews, BEING AN ANSWER TO THE
OBJECTIONS of a late AUTHOR (PDF)
"The
day of the Lord cannot here signify the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, or the Romans,
because the description of the northern army which shall
come against it, by no means agrees with either of those
people, as I have mown in Art. IV. of the preceding work.
The invasion of the 'Turks and Saracens
answers indeed to this prophetic description, as I have made
appear in the aforementioned place "
WHILST I was
writing the preceding observations, there came to my
hands at pamphlet, intituled, The
Rise and
Fall of
the Holy City and Temple of Jerusalem, &c. by
Gregory Sharpe,
LL.D. in which the restoration of the
Jews, which I have here been endeavouring to
prove, is absolutely denied.
The character
which this learned and ingenious divine very
deservedly bears in the literary world, would render
me inexcusable, if I was wholly to overlook the
objections which he has brought against the opinion
I have endeavoured to establish ; I shall
therefore, with all due deference to one, whose
learned and excellent defences of Christianity are
so justly admired, point out the passages in the
above mentioned work, in
which I apprehend this learned and ingenious Doctor
to have been mistaken ; adding, at the same time,
the scripture grounds and reasons, which oblige me
to differ from him.
The first thirty pages of his second
edition contain nothing that I mail object to, but, on the
contrary, many curious and entertaining observations. But p.
33. he expresses himself in the following manner:
They (the Jews) as a people, together witlv ' their city, were destroyed
: they were no more ' to live in one place; they
were to be dis persed, and scattered over the face of the whole earth ; they
were to show themselves a standing miracle of God's mercy and judgment, to
produce and bear witness to the ora-' cles of God, which they confirm by their
own appearance under the circumstances they now are, trustees and guardians, as
it were, of those divine records for the use of Christians. What would have
still preserved and kept them together in one place, the city and the temple,
were taken from them » they have now no home - and yet are as
distinct from all other men, with whom they live in great numbers over all the
earth, as when they inhabited Jerusalem in its ancient splendor. They
could have no temple, nor any facrifice, but in Jerusalem, and when that
was destroyed, they were dispersed. Cir' cumcifion, the mark of the covenant, or
token of the promise, could be of no peculiar use
when the covenant of promise was fulfilled, and * the promised seed had
evidently appeared in the person of Jesus. All that was peculiar td the
Jews; all that obstructed the general union of mankind under one God and
Saviour of us all, the calling of the Gentiles, who by adoption are made heirs
of the promise ; all that was local and temporary became obsolete, and of no use
or signisicancy ; for by the accomplishment of the prophecies, and the
appearance of the Son of God, all these things were abolished, facrifices had
their end ; the carnal ordinances, the temple, the Jewish polity, sacred
and civil, as connected with the city of Jerusalem, all were destroyed in
one general ruin, and the distinction of the tribes is entirely lost.' the
promised seed had appeared, by no means follows, for if we look into the 17th
chapter of Genesis, we shall find the covenant,' of which circumcision
was to be a token between God and
Abraham, was this mentioned in the 8th verse: '
And I will give unto
thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the
land of Canaan, far an Everlasting
possession, and I zvill be their
God. Now if
Abraham, who,
as St. Stephen observes, Acts vii. 5. had no inheritance in Canaan, no
not so much as to set his foot on, is still to have this promise made good
to him, and his feed have not yet entered upon the everlasting possession
of it here mentioned, it is evident that the token may be yet of peculiar use to
them, as it assures them of the certainty of God's fulfilling it to them
hereafter. Circumcision therefore was not a token of the promised
seed, or that in Abraham's seed sjwuld all the nations of the earth be
blessed; for tho' this had been also promised him, yet God makes no mention
of it when he repeats to Abraham the contents of the covenant of which
circumcision was to be the token, Gen. xvii. 6, 7, 8. Neither do the
rites peculiar to the Jews, seem to me to have any way obstructed the
general union of mankind under one God
and Saviour of us all, or the calling of the Gentiles, they being in fact
called while these things subsisted, All that was local must indeed cease at the
dispersion of the Jews; but that by the accomplishment of the prophecies,
and the appearance of the Son of God,
all these things were 1 abolished
That the
Jews were to be dispersed and scattered ever the
face of the whole earth, that they now shew
themselves a standing miracle of God'a judgment, and
will hereafter of his mercy, I allow ; and also that
they bear witness to the oracles of God, which they
confirm by their own appearance under the
circumstances they now are j but it does riot
from hence follow^ that they are ho more to live in
one place, for though what Would have still
preserved and kept them together, the city
and the temple, were taken from them, it
cannot from hence be concluded that these shall
never be restored to them again. That circumcision,
the mark of the covenant, or token of the promise,
could be of no peculiar use when abolished, and that
the temple, the Jewish polity, facred and
civil, as connected with the city of "Jerusalem,
were so destroyed as never to be again restored,
is more than we are warranted by the scripture to
asfirm.
Again, in a
note, p. 45. our Author reasons in the following
manner: ' The facrifices appointed ' by the law of
Moses, and the whole Levitical
1 Jaw, were
appropriated to the tabernacle and temple, and the
destruction of the latter was ' the end of all ;
this obliged the Jews to in'
vent a third temple, and to apply the prophe' cies
that had been accomplished by the second temple to a
future temple; and to assert, that the plan laid
down by Ezekiel was not followed ' by
Zerubbabel, but is to be executed in some '
future age. The Christians have suffered them'
selves to be imposed upon by the Jews, and
the apocryphal writers, who were. Montanists*
' and many of the Fathers, have almost made the '
imposition facred. But how wild and ground less the
conceit! Are we to suppose then that a ' plan was
given for a third temple to be built ' at the end of
the world, and no notice taken
' of that which was
to be built in about forty years ? Are not the times
particularly connected with the captivity by the
Prophet, and the peo4
pie called upon now to put away their
idolatry ?
Ezek.
xi. 1.—xliii. 7—12. Are we to expect ' priests
of the offspring of Zadock ? Ezek. xliii. '
19. Are burnt-offerings, with all other Mosaic
rites and ceremonies, to be restored ? And its
sacrifices, sacrifices are
to be revived, what use or purpose, ciyil, moral, or
religious, are they in that age to serve ? What are
they then as types to prefigure ? May ve be
permitted to call them antetypes, or imagine them to
be prefigurative emblems of services in the heavenly
Jerusalem ? Is this the method of converting
the Jews ? Is this the new covenant made with
the house of Israel and Judah ? And
are we to see the old covenant, which St. Paul
declared, even in his days, to be decayed, waxen
old, and ready tq vanish away, restored again ?
Heb. viii. 13. Are the able ministers of the new
covenant to be obliged to exchange the ministration
of the fpi? rit of
righteousness, of life, and of glory, for the
ministration of condemnation and death ? No sprely ;
the letter which killeth, should never be preferred
to the spirit which giveth life, 2 Cor. 'in.
6—11. Is this the word which God sent unto the
children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus
Christ ? Æs x. 36. The disference between the
second temple and that described by Ezekiel,
is rather made than proved by modern Jews,
who can have no good authority for their assertions
in a matter of such remote antiquity ; nor will the
figurative use and application of prophetic language
by St. John in the Revelations,
support the Montanisl in his absurd
concessions.'
That the
sacrifices appointed by the law of Moses, tho'
not the whole Levitical laws, were
appropriated to the tabernacle and the temple, is
allowed, but it does not
follow from hence that the destruction of the latter
was the end of all, if by this expression cur author
means, as he had before asserted, that the Jewish
-polity, sacred and civil, as connected with the
city of Jerusalem, all were destroyed in one general
ruin, so as never to be again restored. That the
sacrifices cannot be restored, consistently with the
law of Moses, whilst the temple continues
desolate, is true; but that the temple itself must
always continue so, by no means follows.
That a third
temple is an invention of the Jews, does not
appear from any arguments that our Author has made
use of, but the future existence of such a temple
may be fairly inferred from several prophecies in
the Old Testament; neither have these prophecies
been accomplished by the erecting of the second
temple: That the plan laid down by Ezekiel
was followed by Zerubbabel does by no means
appear, nor can the prophecies relating to
EzekieFs temple be applied to Zerubbabel's,
upon account of the different circumstances
which they foretel shall happen at the time of its
establishment: For first, the Shecinah, or
Divine Presence, was to return, as appears from
Ezek. xliii. 2. And the glory of the Lord came
into the house by the way os the gate, whofe
profpect was toward the east: So the Spirit took me
up and brought me into the inner court, and behold
the glory of the Lord filled the house; and 1 heard
him speaking unto me out of the house, and the man
stood by me: And he said unto me, Sen of man, the
place of my throne, K 4 and
and the place of the
soles cf my feet, where I wilt dwell in the midst of
the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name
shall the house of Israel no more de. file, neither
they nor their kings, &c. Now this great honour
and advantage that attended the temple of
Solomon, is allowed by all authors to have been
wanting in the second temple; and therefore the
femple of Zerubbabel cannot be the temple
intended by Ezckiel.
2dly, The
extent and form of the city then to be
rebuilt, was to be very different from that of the
city rebuilt by Zerubbabel, or enlarged by
any of his successors, even to the time of its
destruction; for, as it appears by Ezek.
xlviii. 30. &seq. each side of the city was
to be four thousand and five hundred measures;
and the gates of the city were to be after the names
of the tribes of Israel; three gates northward, one
gate of Reuben, one gate of Judah, one gate of Levi;
three gates eastward, of Jofeph, Benjamin, and Dan ;
three at the south side, cf Simeon, Ijsachar, and
Zebulon ; and three at the west side, one of Gad,
one of Asicr, and one of Naphtali: It was round
about eighteen thousand measures: And the pame of
the city from' that day fhall be—The
Lord IS THERE.
Now, neither
the dimensions and form of the city, nor the names
and number of the gates, rebuilt after the
BabylonijJi captivity, do at all agree with this
description of Ezekiel. From all which, I
think it demonstrable, that the temple prophecied of
by Ezekiel, could not be the temple built by
Zerubbabel, and afterward rebuilt by
Herod,.
But
' But, (says our Author,) are we to suppose
then that a plan was
given for a third temple to be built at the
end of the world, and no no' tice taken of that
which was to be built in about forty years ? Are not
the times particularly connected with the captivity
by the Prophets* ' and the people called upon Now
to put away their idolatry ?' Ezek. xi. i.
xliii. 7—12. To which I answer, that the return of
the -Jews, and the rebuilding of
Jerusalem, and of the second temple, was taken
notice of by the Prophets, and foretold, though a
particular plan for the building of it was not given
; and the reason might be, that as this temple was
greatly to fall short
of that built by Solomon, so that those who
had seen the former should weep aloud at the fight
of this, and was likewise to be totally destroyed
again in a few centuries, it might not upon these
accounts be thought so worthy of a divine pattern or
direction, as that of Solomon's, or the
future one of Ezekiel; and more especially as
it was not to be honoured by the Shecinah or
Divine Presence.
As to the times being particularly connected with
the captivity by the Prophet, &c. the first
text, Ezek. xi. 1. speaks plainly of the
temple of Solomon then standing at the time
of the vision, Jaazaniah and Pelatiah
there mentioned being then in Jerusalem,
about six years before the destruction of it by
Nebuchadnezzar; so that this prophecy has no
relation to the second temple. The other text,
Ezek. xliii. 7—12. is indeed connected with the
captivity; but it is plainly the last captivity that
is here spoken of, and the final restoration of the
temple that is to follow it, as appears from the
very words of the Prophet. And he said unto me,
Son of Man, the place of my throne, and the place of
the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the
midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my
holy name shall the house of Israel no more defile,
&c. which passage relates to the return of the
Shecinah, when the angel of the Lord, who (as
our Author justly observed, p. 38. did frequently
appear amongst them in former times) shall again
take up his residence in their city; upon which
account the city shall be called (Jehovah Shammah)
The Lord is there. The now in the ninth
verse refers to the time here spoken of, when the
Lord should dwell amongst them ; then it is that
they are to put away their whoredoms, &c. But
to proceed to our Author's next questions.
Are we to
expect priests of the offspring of Zadock ? Ezek.
xlviii. 19. Are burnt-offerings, and peace
offerings, with all other Mosaic rites and
ceremonies, to be restored ? And-if sacrifices ' are
to be revived, what use or purpose, civil, moral, or
religious, are they in that age to serve V
&V. To the first of these objections I reply,
that to expect priests of the offspring of Zadock
implies no such improbability as our Author
seems to suppose ; for it is highly probable that
some of the offspring of Zadock remain to
this day ; and that it is now impossible to
distinguish who these are, is very far from being so
clear a point as some may
imagine. Many of the Jews who live amongst
us, are indeed unable to make out their pedigree, or
tell what tribe they belong to ; but it cannot from
hence be concluded that there are no Jews in
any part of the world, that have preserved authentic
records, or uninterrupted traditions of their family
or tribe: that she distinction of tribes is entirely
lost is therefore very far from being certain : but
if we were even to allow this, it would not follow
that the offspring of Zadock shall not be
discovered by the Divine Power, which will certainly
interpose at the restoration we are now speaking of
As to the second part of the question, I own it is
attended with some difficulties. Sacrifices and
offerings are indeed mentioned by Æzekiel to
be offered by the Israelites upon the
rebuilding the temple he has described; and not only
He, but many of the other Prophets, speak of
offerings to be made by the people of Israel
upon their final restoration, and also of
offerings to be brought up to Jerusalem by
the neighbouring nations. This is the literal fense
of the prophecies. But whether we are to take them
in this literal sense, or to consider them as
figurative expressions, I shall not take upon me to
determine. The Mosaic laws and ordinances
are, in several places, faid to be ordinances for
ever. Even our Lord himself says, Matt. v. 17.
Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or
the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfil. For verily I fay unto you, till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass
pass from the law. Accordingly it docs not any
where in scripture appear, that the Mosaic
law was ever abolished. Our Lord himself conformed
to it, and so did his Apostles; nay even St.
Paul, from whom the arguments of those who
contend for its abolishment are generally brought,
did so,. and took and circumcised Timothy,
tho' his father was a Greek. The decree also
of the council of the Apostles, Acls xv.
which met on purpose to consider this matter,
after much disputing determined that the
gentile converts only mould not be obliged to
keep the law of Moses, but did not absolve
any of the Jews from their obligation to
observe it. It has been indeed replied to this, that
the laws of Moses were to be in force till
the destruction of Jerusalem, and no longer.
But they who assert this, bring no proof of it from
scripture ; the
passages in St. Paul's epistles generally
brought for this purpose, being designed to convince
the gentile converts, and also the Jews, that
salvation was not to be obtained by the works of the
Mosaic law alone, but by faith in, and
obedience to Christ. If it be argued that the
destruction of Jerusalem did of course put an
end to the observance of the Mosaic law, I
answer, that this is not true in fact, for the
Jews to this day observe the greatest part
thereof. Their temple service, sacrifices, 13c.
did indeed cease; but if the want of a temple
only is the reason of this cessation, no reason can
be given why the restoration of it should not revive
the fame services. The most common objection
therefore to a renewal of these services, is
the insignificancy or inutility of them \ and
this is the subject of our Author's next question :
* What use or purpose, civil, moral, or
religious, are facrifices in that age to serve ?* To
which it is a sufficient answer, that supposing we
are not now able to assign the true uses and
purposes which they may then answer, this is no
argument against the revival of an institution,
which the people to whom it was given have never yet
been absolved from their obligation to observe
All this may be alledged in favour of the literal
sense -, but supposing that the passages in
Ezekiel's vision concerning the facrifices,
offerings, and other rites and ceremonies there
mentioned, are to be considered as figurative
expressions, it will not thence follow, that the
temple and city of Jerusalem will never be
restored, since these figurative expressions may be
used to signify the Christian worship, made use of
by the converted Jews in their rebuilt
temple. The Eucharist, or Lord's Supper, was
considered by many of the primitive Fathers as an
oblation or offering; but whether this be
the offering which is figuratively described by
Ezekiel, I shall not take upon me to determine.
I shall only observe, that, upon this supposition,
our Author's arguments will have no weight at all
against the restoration of the city and temple of
Jerusalem; since they are all founded upon the
supposed inutility and absurdity of the revival of
facrifices, and all other Mosaic rites and
ceremonies. There are some indeed who are
of opinion, that the restoration of the Jews
shall be prior to their conversion •, and if so,
facrifices may be again revived, tho' they shall
afterwards cease upon the new covenant being made
with the house of Israel and Judah,
which it were easy to show from the prophecies, is
not to take place till after their restoration. But
whichever of these opinions be the true one, to
prove that the Jews will never be restored to
Jerusalem, it is not sufficient to produce
objections from our not being able to assign the
uses or purposes of such a restoration, supposing
this to be the case; but it is necessary to shew
that every one of the numerous prophecies which
foretell it, can and ought to be otherwise
interpreted;
Another point
which I apprehend our ingenious Author to have
mistaken is this i That the great day of
the Lord always means the destruction of
Jerusalem. ' The destruction of Jerusalem
(says he) is expressed by the great day of the Lord
;. the first destruction by the Chaldeans
under Nebuehadnezzar, the last by the
Romans under Fes' ' pafian * :
and, in a note in the same page, he adds, the day of
the Lord is a day of facrifice and vengeance upon
his enemies, &c. -bue the great day of
the Lord always means the destruction of
Jerusalem. Amos, Jeremiah, Joel, Zephaniah,
Malachi, all use this language when they speak
of the destruction of Jerusalem. In Joel
the trumpet sounds an alarms—-the day of the
Lord cometh ; the day of the Lord is very great, and
who can abide it ?' Joel ii.
The day of the
Lord cannot here signify the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, or the
Romans, because the description of the northern
army which shall come against it, by no means agrees
with either of those people, as I have mown in Art.
IV. of the preceding work. The invasion of the
'Turks and Saracens answers indeed to
this prophetic description, as I have made appear in
the aforementioned place ; but tho' the Turks
be most probably the people spoken of in this
chapter, yet by the great day of the Lord is
not meant any destruction which they, or any other
people, shall bring upon the Jews or
Israelites, but, as our Author rightly observes,
a day of sacrifice and vengeance against his
(the Lord's) enemies. It was to succeed the
prayers and supplications of his people, and is
described, ver. 18. Then will the Lord be jealous
for his land, and pity his people. Behold, I will
send corn and oil, and ye shall be satisfied
therewith; and I will no more make you a reproach
among the Heathen ; but I will remove' far off from
you the northern army, &c. This is the great day
of the Lord, when he shall take vengeance upon the
northern army, his, and his people's
enemies, the Gog of Ezekiel, who,
in the latter days, shall come into the land which
is brought back from the sword. Our Author
indeed understands by the northern army that of the
Chaldeans, as appears from p. 48, ' In
Joel (says he) the
* the trumpet sounds again, a new proclamation
is made, the people return, they are gathered
together, the congregation is fanctified, the nor
them army is removed far off, the ears that the '
locust hath eaten, the canker worm, and other '
instruments of destruction in the hand'of Pro'
vidence, are to be restored, they were to eat in
plenty, and be fatisfied: and after this, it shall
come to pass, that I will pour out my fpi4
rit (which happened upon the day of Pentecost) upon
all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall
prophecy : And also upon the servants and upon the
handmaids, in those days will I pour out my spirit:
This was to precede the other great day of the
Lord, the final destruction of Jerusalem;
when, as it immediately follows, I will shew wonders
in the heaven, and in the earth, blood and fire, and
pil' lars of fmoak; the sun shall be turned into
darkness, and the moon into blood :——»the
' natural effects of
a fiege so dreadful as that of ' Jerusalem,
when the light of the sun and moon ' was obscured by
the fire and smoak, and ruins,' '' in that great
and terrible day of the Lord.'
I have (I think) given sufficient reason above *,
why by the northern army cannot be here meant the
army of the Chaldeans ; I shall only add
here, that the Chaldeans, or people of
Babylon, were an eastern, and not a
northern people, with respect to Jerusalem.
The locust, the canker-worm, the
caterpillar, and the palmer-worm,
mentioned hrre, and in the 4th verse of chap. i.
are, by some commentators, thought to signify the
four monarchies which successively. oppressed the
Jewish nation ; and if so, the deliverance here
promised, must be posterior to their oppression by
the last of these monarchies: but I am more inclined
to think, that by the locusts are here meant
the Saracens or Turks, who are
represented by that similitude in the Revelations to
St. John, chap. ix. according to the opinion
of the best interpreters. As to the pouring out of
the Spirit here spoken of, it is to be after that
they fliall know that the Lord was in the midst of
Israel, and that he was their Lord and God, and none
else; and after which, his people shall never
be ashamed, ver. 27. A portion of the Spirit was
indeed poured out upon the day of Pentecost, but it
cannot be with propriety faid, to be upon "all
flesh, as is here prophecied -, so that it is
reasonable to expect a.more plentiful effusion of it
hereafter, at the time here spoken of. The wonders
in heaven and earth, ver. 30, &c. therefore are not
signs of any destruction of Jerusalem, as our
Author supposes, but of a deliverance in Mount
Zion and in Jerusalem, as appears from
ver. 32, and the two following verses, which declare
that it shall be in those days, and in that time,
when the Lord shall bring again the captivity of
Judah and Jerusalem, L and
and when he will father
all nations, and will bring them down into the
valley of Jehofaphat, and will plead with them there
for his people, and for his hefit age Israel, whom
they have scattered, and parted his land.
This great
day of the Lord is therefore not a day of
destruction to his people Israel, but a day
of vengeance upon their enemies, to be executed upon
them hereafter, when the Lord shall bring again
the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem.
The great
day of the Lord, mentioned by Zeph. i.
14. that was near and hasted greatly, seems indeed
to be the destruction of Jerusalem by the
Chaldeans, which happened about 150 years after
this prophecy ; for I do not assert, that the
day of the Lord never signifies the
destruction of Jerujalem, but that it often
points at that great day when the Lord shall
restore his people ljrael, and take vengeance
upon their enemies and oppressors.
The Prophet
Amos, as our Author observes, speaks of a day
which was to be darkness, 13c. and fays,
the virgin of Israel is fallen ; site shall n» more
rise,
she is forsaken upon her land, there is none to
raije her up ; Amos v. 2. which is a prophecy of
the captivity of the ten tribes. It is indeed here
faid, that, the virgin of Israel shall no
more rise,
but this must not be so understood as to
contradict the very remarkable words with which this
Prophet concludes his prophecy : And I will
bring again the captivity
of my people Israel, and they shall
build the waste cities- and I will plant them upon
their land, and they fliall
No More
be pulled up out of their land which 1
have given them, faith the Lord thy God.
In Malachi, the last of the Prophets (fays
1 our Author) is a
most evident and clear prediction of the coming of a
messenger to pre pare the way of the Lord who was
suddenly to come to his people Behold he shall come,
faith the Lord of Hosts.- After this, the day that
was fatal to Jerusalem cometh ; the ' day
that shall'burn like an oven, when all the ' proud,
and all that do wickedly, shall be as ' stubble; and
the day that cometh shall burn them up,
faith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave
them neither root nor branch.- Behold I will send
you Elijah the Prophet before the coming
e of the great and
dreadful day of the Lord.- .Hence it follows,
that by the great and dreadful
' day of the Lord,
is to be understood the destruction of
Jerusalem; and that before the last destruction
of that ancient and glorious city, in ' which God,
on account of his people and his
1 temple, was
faid to dwell, the Messiah or Christ, and his herald
John, in the character of Elijah j '
were to appear.'
As to the coming of a messenger, Malachi iii.
i. our Saviour himself, as I above observed -f,
has applied this passage to John the
Baptist, and affirmed that he was the Elias
which was to come ; but as he, at the same time,
also affirms that Elias shall truly
first come, I am of opinion, that the preparing
of the way of the Lord, mentioned by Malachi,
was not that then executed by John at his
coming, but relates to the time of a future
Elias, or rather to a future coming of the same
Elias, as Mr. Mede thinks, which is to
precede the second coming of our Lord ; because it
is added, Malachi'ii. 4. Then shall the
offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the
Lord, as in the days of eld, and as in former years;
and, ver. 11. I will rebuke the devour er for
your sakes, and heshall not destroy the fruits of
your ground. And all nations shall call you blessed;
for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the Lord
of Hosts. All which was so far from happening
after the first coming of this Messenger, that the
direct contrary events then took place. The day
therefore that shall burn like an oven, &c.
tho' it shall really follow. the coming of the
Messenger, was rot the destruction of Jerusalem ;
which, tho' it burnt up a great number of the
Jews who did wickedly, yet has not left that
nation without root or branch, as is evident to the
whole world ; but the day here spoken of, is a day
when the Israelites shall tread down the wicked,
and they shall be ashes under the soles of their
feet, at their return, spoken of in the very
verse preceding the mention of that day. Then
shall ye return and
discern between 'the righteous and the wicked,
between him that serveth God, and him that serveth
him not. For behold the day cometh that shall burn
like an oven, &c. Mai. iii. 18.—iv. 3.
Before the coming of this great and. dreadful day
of the herd, when his people shall return, and
their enemies be destroyed; it is, that he will
send Elijah the Prophet, and he shall turn the heart
of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the
children to the fathers, least the Lord come and
smite the earth with a curse. Mai. v. 6. which
things, by way of preparing the way of the Lord,
seem not to have been done at the first: coming of
John the Baptist.
There is one
prophecy quoted by our Author, which, at first
sight, may indeed be thought to favour his opinion.
It is foretold by Balaam, Numb. j^xiv. 24.
that ships from the coast of Chittim shall afflitl
Astiur(the Assyrian.) and Eber,so that
He
also Jhould perish for ever. If by
He we
are here to understand Eber, how contrary is
this to Jer. xxxi. 36. where the Lord says,
If these ordinances (the fun and moon,
&c.) shall depart from before me then the seed of
Israel also sJiall cease from being a nation before
me for ever / The word
He
can relate but to one of the two nations mentioned :
Jshur has perished, after being
afflicted by the ships of Chittim, and has
ceased from being a nation, but Eber has not;
unless the being kept a distinct and separate
people, ready to return to L 3 iheir
their own land, and in expectation of it, can witH.
any propriety be called perishing for ever; and
therefore the word Eber, being the last
antecedent, is not sufficient reason to explain the
text, not only in direct contradiction to other
Prophecies, but also to the events themselves. The
authors of the Univerfal History, vol. I. p. 266.
speaking of this text, have the following note,
which perhaps may set this passage in a yet clearer
light. * The common opinion is, that by Eber.,
in this place, is to be understood the
Hebrews or Jews; but a learned author has
offered reasons which seem to prove the contrary. He
observes, that " to take it in that sense, is
repugnant to the design of the passage, and makes
Balaam bless and curse the children of Israel
in the same breath, by prophecying of their
destruction; (vide Hyde de rel. vet. Pers.)
and therefore he will have it, Heber has not
respect to persons, but to place, and signifies
beyond 1 the river;
in which sense that word is often ' used . in
scripture. Upon this occasion the fame author
proposes to amend oyr translation of the above text,
by reading it thus : " And
1 they shall go forth
from the coast of Chittim, and ' stall
afflitt Jshur, and stall efflitt the other side of
*' the river; that is, the countries
beyond the *' Euphrates f."
Now whether by
this king of fierce countenance be meant
Antiochus Epipbanes, as some L 4 think
think, or the Roman empire according to
others^ yet the holy people must here signify
the Jews, who were greatly destroyed by both
these. Again, in chap. xii. 7. it is faid, When
He shall have accomplished to scatter the power of
the Holy
People, all these things shall be
finished; i. e. when the time of the scattering
or dispersion of the Jews shall be ended, all
the predictions mentioned before shall be fulfilled.
But supposing Daniel had not in any other
place applied the title of Saints of the Most High,
it follows not, that he has not here applied it to
them, since it was a title very frequently applied
to them by the other Prophets.
As to our
Saviour declaring, that they (the Jews)
shall see him no more till they shall say, Blessed
is he that cemeth in the name of the Lord, which
our Author seems to think an argument against the
restoration of their temple, p. 59, I cannot
fee where the force of it lies; the meaning of this
passage being, that they should not see him again
till his second coming, to resettle them in their
own land, and destroy their enemies, when they shall
make use of that form of blessing.
What our Author
says, p. 62, of the light of the fun and moon's
beirig obscured, &c. being circumstances not
descriptive of the last day of judgment, but of the
destruction of Jerusalem^ and of Joel's
signs of that day, has been already answered, in
my remarks upon the Prophecy of Joel; and as
to the close of our Saviour's predictions, Matt.
xxiv. 34. I refer the reader to Article LV. of
the preceding work, where the true meaning of that
text is laid before him.
Page 66,
our Author, in a note, presents us with a quotation
from Bishop Warburton's Divine Legation,
dedicated to the Jews, page 19, vol. iii.
edit. 4. which, upon account of the singular
reputation of its learned Author, I cannot pass by
unnoticed.
The Jews,
from the ancient Prophecies, vain ly flatter
themselves with expectations of a recovery of their
civil policy, a revival of the temple service,
and a repossession of the land of Judea.
But the genius ef Christianity, and the tenor of the
Prophecies, as interpreted by
? Christ and his
Apostles, declare such a restoration to the land of
Judea, and a revival of the t temple
service, to. be manifestly absurd, and
1 altogether
inconsistent with the nature of the whole of God's
religious dispensation; for by this it appears, that
the Mosaic law or religion, (as distinguished
from its foundation, natural religion, on which it
was erected) was only pre' paratory,
and typical of the gospel; consequently, ' on
the establishment of Christianity, the political
part of your institution became abolished, f and the
ritual part entirely ceased; just as a scaffold
' scaffold is taken down when the building is
rested, or a shadow is cast behind when the
4 substance is
brought forward into day. Nor .' were you, after
this promised conversion, to ex' pect any other
civil policy, or religious ritual, ' peculiar to
yourselves, or separate from those in use amongst
men, who profess the name of ' Christ; because the
gospel, of which you are ' now supposed to be
professors, disclaims all ' concern with political
or civil matters ; and because
All
its professors compose but
One religious
body, under one head, which is ' Christ.'
This author's
argument (if I rightly apprehend it) is this; that
because the gospel disclaims all concern with
political matters (excepting perhaps by way of
alliance), and because
All
its professors compose but
One
religious body, under one head, which is Christ;
therefore the Jews are not to expect any
other civil policy, &c. peculiar to
themselves, or separate from those in use among men,
who profess the name of Christ. But how does it
follow, that because the gospel disclaims all
concern with political or civil matters, that
therefore the Jews are not to expect a
recovery of any civil policy peculiar to themselves,
or fe-? parate from those in use amongst others ? or
that, because all the professors of the gospel
compose but one religious body, that
therefore the Je.ws%
now supposed to be professors pf it, cannot, by
a restoration to the land of Judea, become.
a-separate civil body or nation ? Or how does it
follow, that because the Mosaical law or
religion, &c. was only preparatory and
typical of the gospel, (if this be allowed),
that therefore the genius of Christianity, and the
tenor of the Prophecies, OJV. declare, that the
Jews' recovery of their civil policy, and their
repossession of thejand of Judea, is
manifestly absurd, and altogether inconsistent with
the natyre of the whqle of God's religious
dispensation? For what if we were to allow that the
Mofaic law was only preparatory and
typical of the gospel, (whjch cannot perhaps be
proved, as many other designs of Providence may have
been intended to be answered by it) will this prove
a restoration of the Jews to the land of .
Judea, and their recovery of a civil policy, to
be manifestly absurd, and altogether inconsistent
with she whole of God's religious dispensation ? The
tenor of the Prophecies, even as interpreted by
Christ and his Apostles, declares such a restoration
to be certain; of which I have (I think)
produced abundant proofs in the foregoing work.
God's
word and promise are engaged to render the
Israelites a praise in the earth, to take away their
reproach among the nations, and to restore them to
their own land, never to be plucked up out of it
Any More,
but to inhabit it for ever, or to the end of
the world. Without the accomplishment of these
Prophecies, how shall we be able to account for
those those repeated
promises of blessings and happiness superior to all
other nations, which we so frequently meet with in
the Prophecies ? If it be replied, that the
MessiahVbeing born of the seed of Abraham,
and of the feed of Israel, fulfilled all
these 'predictions, I answer, that tho' this must be
allowed to be the highest honour to the Jewish
nation, yet it has been so far from promoting
the happiness of that people in particular, that, on
the contrary, they, of all people, have
hitherto had the least share, in either the temporal
or spiritual blessings or benefits that have
hitherto accrued to the world from that event: nay,
so far from receiving any benefit, that they have
experienced little ^elsc but calamities since that
period. Can the great prosperity in
The LatTer
Times, so often promised to the children of
Israel, be fulfilled by the birth of a
Messiah among them, if they are ever after to
continue in a state of dispersion and adversity ?
No. Let us therefore conclude, agreeable to the
scripture, that this people, tho', (as St. Paul
says, Rom. xi.) they are, as
concerning the gofpel, enemies for our fakes, yet,
as concerning the election, beloved for the fathers'
fakes, will, in due time, find the effects of
that love, not only by partaking of the common
benefits of Christianity, but also of those great
and national blessings, which were first promised to
their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
and the promise afterwards repeated and
confirmed to them by the rest of the Prophets.
The enemies of
our holy religion, and (what I am sorry to add) many
of its friends too, look upon this particular regard
to the children of Abraham^ as a partiality
not to be ascribed to
God
-, but these persons seem not to have duly
considered the case: God's providence and justice
are in nothing more conspicuous, than in the fates
of kingdoms and empires: He it is, that' setteth up
one, and deprefleth another; the wise politician,
the skilful general, or the brave soldier, being
nothing more than instruments in his hand ; tho'
they perhaps may consider themselves as the sole
cause of such revolutions as happen in the world.
The several monarchies of the world have had their
rife and fall by
divine direction, and it has pleased Providence to
punish one by the means of another, whenever its
measure of iniquity was filled up. Thus too it was
God's pleasure to treat his chosen people, when
their sins had rendered them fit objects of his
judgments. That the Jews were absolutely more
profligate and wicked, than all those nations whom
it has pleased God wholly to destroy, cannot (I
think) be asserted, without impeaching the _divine
justice, and also contradicting many parts of well
attested history. That their wickedness, at the time
of the destruction of their city, was very great,
must be allowed; but then, have they not
suffered a more grievous punifhent than any
other people who have not undergone a total
excision, whether we regard the great
severity, or the long continuance of it ? If
God therefore, after the severe vengeance
which he has poured out upon them, shall,
upon their repentance, not only restore them
again to their own land, but also to a much
higher degree of national prosperity and
power, than any they ever yet enjoyed, where
will be the partiality of such proceeding ?
They may then be as sit objects of divine
favour upon account of their righteousness,
as they have been of judgment because of
their iniquities. And indeed this is what
the same Prophecies also foretel.
The words ALL ISRAEL
therefore, when they occur in many places of
the New Testament, must, of necessity, be
taken in a limited sense, and signify those
only that then remained of them in the land
of Judea ; tho' in some of the texts
quoted by our Author, they may well mean the
whole of them i As when twelve goats
were offered for a sin-offering for all
Israel, this surely might be done for
those who were absent, as well as for those
present; or the1
law of Moses having ordained that
twelve goats should be offered for a
sin-offering for -all Israel, they
might not think themselves at liberty to
omit any of that number, tho' not one of the
ten tribes had re turned or been present. As
to our Lord's ordering his disciples to go
to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,
the house of Israel is not here
opposed to the house of Judah ; but
the Jews, who were lost sheep of the
house of Israel as much as any other
tribes, are here mentioned in opposition to
the Gentiles by our Lord, as appears from
the preceding verse : Go not into the way
of the Gentiles, and into any city of the
Samaritans enter ye not, iutgo rather to-the
lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matt.
x. 5, 6. So also, Matt., xxvi.
24. it was to a woman of Canaan that
our, Lord said, I am M mt not sent
but to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel. And by John's preaching
the baptism of repentance to all the people
of Israel, can only be meant that he
preached to the Jews, and those few
of the ten tribes that might be still
remaining among them, they being all
the people of Israel that were to be
found within the compass of John'&
preaching -, but when St. Paul, in
the presence of Agrippa, speaking of
the hope of the promise, fays, " unto
which promise our twelve tribes "
hope to come" he here speaks of the
tribes in general. What the promise was,
which they hoped to come to, we are told in
the verse before,. viz. the promise mc.de
of Cod unto the Fathers; not that of
sending the Mffiah into the world,
for this was already past, and therefore not
then a subject of hope, but that of a
resurreclion, and enjoying the
promised land; for the connection
between which, see the learned and fagacious
Mr. Mede's observations on Matt.
xxii. 31. Art. I. of the preceding work,
p. 4. in the note: For the hopes of which
promise, St. Paul adds, that he
thenstoA. and was judged. When the
same Apostle also declares, that
All
Israel jliatt be saved, he
undoubtedly means the whole nation,
consisting of all the tribes. But this
saving of Israel is yet future,
asappears from the preceding words;
blindness in part has happened to Israel,
until the fulness of the Gentiles he come
in, and so all Israel shall be saved. It
appears also to be future, from the words
that immediately follow, as it is
written, there shall mne out of Sion the
deliverer, and shell turn away ungodliness
from Jacob. For this is my covenant unto
them, when 1 shall take away their sns.
Now this coming of the deliverer out of
Sion, cannot mean our Lord's first
coming ; for ungodliness was so far from
being taken away from Jacob in thole
days, that they had then mere of it perhaps
than at any other time whatsoever, but of
his second coming, when he shall turn
away ungodliness from Jacob, by
taking away their fins; that is, by
remitting the punishment of them, and
redeeming them from that captivity they have
so long suffered upon account of them.*-—The
new covenant with the house of
Israel and the house of Judah,
mentioned here, and J er. xxxi. 31.
is likewise plainly future; for it follows,
ver. 34..of Jeremiah, that when this
covenant shall be made, they shall all
know the Lord, from the least of them
unto the greatest of them ; which is
very far from having come to pass as yet.
Add -to this, what the Lord saith in the two
next verses, that the seed of Israel
stall not cease from being a nation before
him for ever; and what follows, that
the city siall be built unto the Lord from
the lower of Hananeel unto the gate of the
corner and that it shall not be
plucked up, nor thrown down, any more for
ever. These circumstances, which are to
at.tend the new covenant here spoken of,
prove to a demonstration, that this covenant
is not yet made with the houses cf Israel
and Judah. This language
therefore might be used properly enough,
though the greatest part, or even all the
ten tribes, were carried away to return no
more, till some future coming of the
Messiah. But, (fays our Author), ' if these
tribes are yet lost, the gospel is not yet
preached unto them, the new covenant not
made with them, and therefore their Messiah
or Christ is not yet come: a circumstance
def structive of Christianity !'
That
the gospel is not yet preached to them is
very true, nor the new covenant made with
them; but it does not follow from hence,
that their Messiah or Christ is not yet
come. They do not know him to be come
indeed, nor have as yet received those
advantages from his coming which we have,
and they themselves shall hereafter. And
this is also the case of many other nations
in the world. But neither of these
circumstances infer any consequences
destructive of Christianity. The truth of
our and their Messiah's being already come,
does not depend upon their, or any other
nation's knowing, or npt knowing of it; if
it did, the consequences might indeed be
destructive of Christianity ; but, thanks be
to
God, that event is too well
established to us, to be rendered precarious
by any people's ignorance thereof.
As to the tribes never yet returning, but
remaining in some part of the earth, being a
fiction of the Jews, supported only
by apocryphal writings,
writings, and a most extravagant assertion
of Josephus, &c. there is no reason
for this opinion, the apocryphal writings
being supported and countenanced by other
accounts in history, not to mention the
reasons given by some learned and judicious
writers for the genuineness and authenticity
of those books, for which see Art. LIII. of
the preceding work ; and the extravagant
assertion of Josephus, tho' he makes
use of an hyperbole, is nevertheless an
argument of there being great numbers of the
ten tribes in those parts in his time. That
' a new covenant is to be made
when Christ ftiall come with the
house of Israels when all
Israel, all the tribes\ the ten .
tribes of Israel, the house of Israel, as
well as the house of Judah, will be saved'
I allow, and contend for; but I am
convinced by the scripture reasons before
mentioned, that this will be at the
second coming of Christ ; and therefore
the denying any new covenant to have been
made with all the house of Israel at
his sirst appearance, is by no means denying
the Messiah to have appeared, nor is it any
ways "destructive of Christianity.
Thus
have I carefully and (I hope) impartially
considered those parts of the Doctor's
discourse, which oppose the opinions laid
down in the foregoing work. Many other
passages of his discourse I allow to be very
curious, learned and ingenious", and to
contain some excellent arguments in defence
fence of Christianity. If any thing I have
here advanced shall be proved to have a
contrary tendency, I shall be very ready to
retract it, and render my sincere thanks to
him who shall make me sensible of it; my
chief design in writing these observations
being to prove the truth of the revelations
delivered to us in the Bible, from the
Prophecies relating to the Jews
therein contained, and to endeavour to lead
us into a right understanding of diem.
May the
God of Truth lead us all into the knowledge
of ir, and give us that disposition of mind
that shall be ever ready to embrace it,
without regard to our own, or other's
prejudices and opinions." (Beginning on Page
129)
The Critical review, or, Annals of literature, Volume
19 (1765)
IV. The Rise and
Fall of the Holy City and Temple of
Jerufalem : An Argument in Desend of Christianity. Being the Substance of
a Discourse preached at the Temple Church the 1 itb of November 1764.
By Gregory Sharpe, LL.D. Master of the
Temple, Chaplain in Ordenary to his Majesty , and Fellow of the Royal and
Antiquarian Societies. Publijhed at the Request of the Masters of the Bench.
8v0. Pr. 1 s. Hawkins.
IN the perufal of this
discourse, the intelligent reader will receive more
entertainment and instruction, than generally arise from
productions of this nature.
The learned and
judicious author traces the history of Jerusalem (including
that of the temple) from its origin in the patriarchal ages,
to its destruction in the reign of Vespasian.
In the course of his enquiry, he illustrates the designs of
Providence in a series of remarkable events, casts a light
on many pasfages of Scripture, rectifies several erroneous
opinions, and places a multitude of important topics in a
just and conspicuous point of view. He particularly shews
that Jerufalem was the ancient Salem ; and mentions some of
the chief opinions concerning Melchisedeck, (leaving that
controversy, as every reasonable writer would choose to
leave a subject which is involved in the depths of antiquity
;) he observes that the city was afterwards possessed by the
Jebusites, and called Jebus ; that the place where David
raised an altar, to atone for his transgression in numbering
the people, and where Solomon built the temple, was Mount
Moriah, on wkich Abraham presented and dedicated his son to
God : he ascertains the meaning of the words Moriah
and Jerusalem, and points out their allusion to
particular facts ; he considers the subsequent revolutions
of the Jewish state, and the predictions relating to these
events; he observes that the prophetic writers call the
destruction of Jerufalem the
great day os the Lord,
and assert that the Messiah, and his herald John, in
the character of Elijah, were to appear before the
final devastation of that city.
The remarks which the author
occasionally introduces are judicious and important.
The following passage exhibits a clear and
comprehensive view of God's providential
dispenfations relating to the Jews.
* The
holy city of Jerufalem had been preserved through so
many ages by the particular providence of Almighty
God, to be the residence of his people, so long as
they continued faithsul and obedient ; but when they
despised and rejected him who was appointed to rule
over them ; when they crucified the Lord of lise,
and denied him to be the promised seed, or Messiah,
the Christ, their prince, the prince of
Salem
or Peace,
whom all the prophets had taught them to
expect, they themselves were justly abandoned. When
all the signs for his coming were accomplished, and
they disowned and rejected him, they were rejected,
because they knew not
The Time Of
Their, Visita* Tiow ; by which is meant, not
the destruction of Jerufalem, which soon followed,
but the time in which " God remembered his holy
covenant, the oath which he sware unto Abraham, and
Visited
and
Redeemed his people.''
* They as a people, together with their city, were
destroyed: they were no more to live in one place;
they were to be dispersed, and scattered over the
face of the whole earth; they were to shew
themselves a standing miracle of God's mercy and
judgment, to produce and bear witness to the oracles
of God, which they consirm by their own appearance
under the circumstances they now are, trustees and
guardians, as it were, of those divine records for
the use of Christians.—What would have still
preserved and kept them together in one place, the
city and the Temple, were taken from them ; they
have now no home; and yet are as distinct from all
other men, with whom they live in great numbers over
all the earth, as when they inhabited Jerufalem in
its ancient splendor.
* They could have no temple, nor any facrifice, but
in Jerufalem ; and when that was destroyed, they
were dispersed. Circumcifion the mark of the
covenant, or token of the promise, could be of no
peculiar use, when the covenant of promise was
sulfilled, and the promised seed had evidently
appeared in the person of Jesus. AU that was
peculiar to the Jews; all that obstructed the
general union of mankind under one God and Saviour
of us all, the calling of the Gentiles, who by
adoption are made heirs of the promise; all that was
local and temporary became obsolete, and of no use
or significancy ; for by the accomplishment of the
prophecies, and the appear ance of the Son of God,
all these things were abolished : fa» crifices had
their end ; the carnal ordinances, the Temple, the
Jewish polity, facred and civil, as connected with
the city of Jerufalem; all were destroyed in one
general ruin, and the distinction of the tribes is
intirely lost.'
The Jews have a
notion that in some suture period they shall return
in triumph to their holy city, and erect a temple
upon the plan which was drawn by the prophet
Ezekiel. Our author judiciously explodes this
vifionary expectation.
' Christians, fays he, have susfered themselves to
be imposed upon by the Jews and the apocryphal
writers who were Montanists, and many of the fathers
have almost made the imposition facred. But how wild
and groundless the conceit! Are we to suppose then
that a plan was given for a third temple to be built
at the end of the world,, and no notice taken of
that which was to be built in about forty years ?
Are not the times particularly connected with the
captivity by the prophet, and the people called upon
Now
to put away their idolatry ?
Ezes.
xl. i. xliii, 7—iz. Are we to expect priests of the
osfspring of Zadok ?
Ezek.
xliii. 19; Are burnt-osserings and peace-offerings,
with all other Mofaic rites and ceremonies, to be
restored ? And if sici ifices are to be revived,
what use or purpose, civil, moral, or religious are
they in that age to serve ? What are they then as
types to presigure? May we be permitted to call them
antitypes, or imagine them to be presigurative
emblems of services in the heavenly Jerufalem ?
' Is
this the method of converting the Jews ? is this the
new covenant made with the house of Israel and Judah
? And are we to see the old covenant, which St. Paul
declared, even in Iiis days, to be decayed, waxen
old, and ready to vanish away, restored again ?
Heb.
viii. 13. Are the able ministers of the new covenant
to be obliged to exchange the ministration of the
Spirit of righteousness, of lise, and of glory, for
the ministration of condemnation and death? No
surely ; the letter which killeth, should never be
preserred to the Spirit which giveth .lise. z. Con.
iii. 6—11. Is this the word which God sent unto the
children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ
? Acts
x. 36.
' The difference between the second Temple and that
descri- ' bed by Ezekiel is rather made than proved
by modern Jews, who can have no good authority for
their assertions in a matter of luch remote
antiquity: nor will the figurative use and
application of prophetic language by St. John in the
Revelations support the Montanist in his absurd
concessions.'
In order to prove that Christ was not the Messiah,
the Jews Jn the second or third century advanced a
fabulous hypotheses concerning the ten tribes; which
our author essectually exposes in the following note
:
' It is evident that no intire tribes were lost in
the captivity. The numbers of those who came back
were registered in the' books of
Ezra
and
Nehemiah.—" All Israel returned, and twelve
goats were offered for a sin-offering for all
Israel, according to the number of the tribes of
Israel."—Throughout the scriptures, old and new, the
expression is
All Israel,
or the house of Israel and Judah. When our
Lord came, he ordered his disciples to " go first to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Mat. X.
6. xv. z4. St. Paul declares in the synagogue
at Antioch that John had first preached the baptism
of repentance to all the people of Israel."
Acts
xiii. z4. And again in the presence of Agrippa,
speaking of the hope of the promise, he fays, " Unto
which promise our twelve tribes instantly serving
God day and nighr, hope to come." xxvi. 7. St. Peter
says, " God sent the word unto the children of
Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ." x. 36.—St.
Paul declares that all Israel shall be faved:—" When
the Deliverer shall come out of Sion, and shall turn
away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is my covenant
unto them, when I shall take away their fins,
Rom.
xi. z6. I will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel and the house of Judah."
Jer.
xxxi. 31.
Heb. viii. 8. This language could never have
been used of all Israel in both scriptures, if the
ten tribes, if all Israel had been lost in their
captivity, having been carried away into Assyria to
return no more till some suture coming of the
Messiah.—If these tribes are yet lost, the gospel is
not yet preached unto them, the new covenant not
made with them, and therefore their Messiah or
Christ is not yet come !—A consequence destructive
of Christianity, but which cannot be inserred from
any paffage in the whole canon of scripture: the
contrary may be proved from every place in which
mention is made of Israel, the house of Israel, and
all Israel, after they were " gathered out of the
lands, from the East and from the West, from the
North and from the South."
Psalm
evii. z, 3.—The perpetual loss of the ten tribes,
never yet returning, but remaining in some part of
the earth, still preserving the distinction of their
tribes, and observing their rites and ceremonies is
a fiction, and a mere pretence of the Jews,
supported only by apocryphal writings, and a most
extravagant assertion of Josephus, who asserts that
numeration is incapable of expressing the insinite
myriads of the ten tribes that were in his time
beyond the Euphrates— An argument
fallaciously urged to set aside the evidence for
Christianity, by denying any covenant to have been
made made with the house of
Israel, and therefore denying the Messiah or Christ
to have appeared ; for when he shall come, a new
covenant is to be made with the house of Israel;
when all Israel, all the tribes, the ten tribes of
Israel, the house of Israel, as well as the house of
Judah, will be faved. Many of both houses, no doubt,
were lost in the captivity l some revolted from the
Lord, and mingled with idolaters; others, from their
connexions by marriage, interest, and other motives,
might remain behind:—but that ten intire tribes
remained, and still remain, no body knows where or
how, in distinct tribes, diligent observers of their
law, and waiting for the coming of the Lord, is by
no means to be admitted.—Let us therefore leave it
to the Jews to find out the place where the ten
tribes now are, whether beyond a fabbatical river,
that never rests but on the fabbath, or whether they
are in Tartary or China.—Let us leave it to the Jews
to shew that Israel never yet returned ; that the
gospel was never preached to the house of Israel ;
that the new covenant has not yet been offered unto
Israel ; and, consequently, that the Messiah or
Christ has not yet appeared in the world.'
The great use
of this history of the rise
and fall of
the temple of God, and the holy city of Jerufalem,
is, in the words of our author, ' to shew the
good providence of God in ths care of his people,
and the preservation, of religion, the certainty of
revelation, and in particular of the redemption of
the world by our Lord Jesus the Christ, the glory of
the second temple, the delight and expectation of
the Jews in the days of the prophets, and the
Saviour of the world, who came to folsil the law and
the prophets, to complete revelation, and put an end
to the city and temple of Jerufalem.
* Such amazing scenes of providence, through so many
ages, all expresly foretold so long before the
events that corresponded with and consirmed them,
afford an evidence for religion, for the Christian
religion that is irresistible: and if the history of
the Jews, and the oracles delivered by the prophets,
the holy and inspired scriptures, were read with
that attention which they deserve, it would be
almost impossible not to believe in God and his
Christ.'
The author
concludes his discourse with some observations on
the spiritual constitution of the Christian church,
and the sacrisices which we are commanded to offer,
by which he appears to be persectly acquainted with
the genius of our holy religion, and the language of
the facred writers." (pp. 176-180)
|