"Scholia in Novum Testamentum" 1801-1808. 5 vols. 8vo

Commentaries and annotations on the Holy Scriptures
 (1816 ; Five Volumes By John Hewlett)
 

"Our Lord, whose second coming was the destruction of Jerusalem"

"28. Coming in his kingdom.]—Raphelius would have the verse thus translated: ' Shall not taste of death, till they shall see the Son of man going into his kingdom.' For he understands it of the disciples beholding Christ's ascension into heaven, 'where he took possession of his mediatorial kingdom, and which, without doubt, was a very proper proof of his coming again to judge the world. That the word signifies to ' go,' as well as to' come,' Raphelius proves from Acts xxviii 14; and Luke ii. 44. See note on chap. xvi. 5. Schleusner, also, has shewn that the verb admits of this double sense in the best Greek classics. The use may be supported by John v. 4; and Luke xxiii. 4'2. Nevertheless, the common translation is more natural and just, as appears from the parallel texts. Some understand this passage as relating to the transfiguration ; (see note on ch. xvii. 2.) and others apply it to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.— Dr. Macknight. Compare John xxi. 22. See, also, James v. viii. Gilpin paraphrases the verse; 'And though the Messiah's kingdom, added he, which throws so strong a light on the next world, may appear now at a distance; yet you may be assured, that it shall speedily be established, and in a great degree in the lifetime of some of you, who stand round me.'"  (Very interesting Modern Preterist book!  Fresh translations of Le Clerc, Grotius, Rosenmuller, Wetstein, Calmet, etc.)

 

 

"In this passage reference is had to the propagation of the gospel through the whole world, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish state, as we learn from ver. 28." ( Scholia in ver. 21.)

(On Matthew 21:33)
"The kingdom of God, in this place, signifies the rights and privileges of those who are under his government. The Jews had hitherto enjoyed much greater benefits and privileges than other nations ; they were a people beloved of the Lord. Jesus declared that these rights should be taken from them. The sense, therefore, is this : the Jewish nation should no longer be the people of God, but another nation, more worthy the name, should be taken for his people. Nation, in this place, signifies, not only the Gentiles, but the whole number of those who were collected from among the Jews and the Gentiles — all sincere professors of the Christian doctrine." (Scholia in loc)

(On Matthew 25:1)
"It may be inquired whether this is spoken concerning the coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem, or that at the last judgment. In my opinion, all which is said from chap. xxiv. 42, to chap. xxv. 30, may be referred to either of these periods." (Scholia in loc.)

(On Luke 13:3)
"This was fulfilled at the last pass-over, a most fatal day to the Jews. See Josephus, Bell. Jud. Lib. vi. chap. 5, § 6. In these words are contained both a prophecy and an admonition. It shall come to pass, says Jesus, that ye shall perish in the same manner ; yet, by a thorough reformation, ye may escape such a fate." (Scholia in loc.)

(On Acts 13:46)
"Paul could very properly use these words, because the calamities which the Jews endured, after the days of Habakkuk, were similar to those now threatened them by the Romans — which, indeed, should chiefly affect those living and rebelling in Palestine, but, in some degree, all the Jews in their dispersion." (Scholia in loc.)

(On Revelation 20)
"This signifies that the church, for a season, should be delivered from the disturbers of her tranquility, and from those pernicious errors which corrupted the innocence of Christians. What the first resurrection is, appears with sufficient plainness from what is said thus far; namely, a tranquil and happy state of the church is indicated." (Scholia in loc.)

Having thus gone through with the particulars of this prophecy, a few additional considerations will close its interpretation and confirm the views already presented. To this prophecy, if to any in the book of Daniel, does our Savior refer, Matt. 24: 15. Mark 13: 14. Luke 21: 20,—" When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth let him understand :) then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains." In Mark it reads—" standing where it ought not," the phrase " holy place " given by Matthew having been probably uttered by our Savior in connection with "standing where it ought not." In Luke it reads, " And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which be in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto." The words given by Luke do not seem so much explanatory of the phrase " abomination of desolation " as an accession to the meaning, and were probably uttered by our Lord before that phrase, the entire observation being as follows—" When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, and the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place, where it ought not, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh; then let them which be in Judea flee to the mountains." As we have seen, there the idol-standards of eagles stood in the holy place, where they ought not, and it was not one but many abominations, literally answering to the plural form of the word as found in v. 27. When these things should be seen, then let none look for safety anywhere in Judea, anywhere in the vicinity of Jerusalem, but flee to the distant mountains. And history records the fact that the disciples fled beyond Jordan out of Judea to Pella, when Jerusalem was besieged and destroyed. Now do these words of our Savior admit of any explanation on the principle of accommodation 1 Is it not a direct reference to a veritable prophecy of the final destruction of Jerusalem ? How can it consistently be construed otherwise ? And then just after his reference to the prophecy there is his language Luke 21: 22—24, " For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled .... and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"—until what was appointed to be poured upon her by the hands of the Gentiles should be all fulfilled in

the set time allotted for their destructive work. Now if the context in Daniel absolutely forbade the application to Jerusalem ; if such an application could be made only by violating the usage of the Scriptures, we should indeed be compelled to regard our Savior as arguing on some erroneous interpretation of the Jews, or as using the words of the prophecy with such an application as he himself chose to make at the time; but such an alternative would seem to be at the expense of our being entirely set adrift as to any firm persuasion of the reality of such a thing as prophecy. No such alternative however are we compelled to adopt. Usage sanctions and the prophecy demands the general interpretation we have given, and the application which is made of it by our Lord 'himself.

The same application which our Savior made of it, is also made by Josephus after the destruction of Jerusalem, and confirmed as it is by our Savior, may well be relied on—"In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them," Antiq. B. x. ch. 11. sec. 7 ; and (as Rosen- miiller justly remarks, p. 314) to that desolation no other prediction in the book of Daniel refers except in these two last verses of chap. ix. There is also another passage in his History of the Wars of the Jews, B. iv. ch. 6. sec. 3, (which, as Resenmiiller acknowledges, shows that this application was made by the Jews of Josephus' time, and he also says the Jews of the present day retain it as the true one,)—" They [the Zealots] occasioned the fulfilling of those very prophecies belonging to their own country ; for there was a certain ancient oracle of those men [the prophets] that the city should then be taken and the sanctuary burnt, by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews, and their own hand pollute the temple of God. Now while these Zealots did not disbelieve these predictions, they made themselves the instruments of their accomplishment."

The main argument insisted on by Rosenmiiller against the application of this prophecy to Christ and to the final destruction of Jerusalem, is certainly as valid against himself. It has already been alluded to in the remark quoted from him that " it is altogether incredible that Alexander, who is mentioned in the other prophecies, (2: 40. 7: 6. 8: 5, 6, and 11: 3,) should be omitted here in chapter ninth." So may it be urged that it is incredible the kingdom of the Messiah which is mentioned in all the other prophecies, chap. viii. excepted, (for we shall see that it is mentioned, and Rosenmuller admits it, in chap. xii,) should be omitted here in chap. ix. Rosenmiiller's argument at length (Commentary, p. 318) is, " that the prophetic part of Daniel embracing the six last chapters contains four visions, three of which, the first, second and fourth [in chaps. vii, viii, and xi,] denote the same things but in different ways; that in those visions the revolutions of the reigns of Eastern Asia are predicted from the Chaldean reign down to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, regard being had particularly to the affairs of the Jews ; that the argument of those three visions is the same, and they shed mutual light on each other; that what things are briefly explained in the first, are next explained more clearly and explicitly, and the fourth is as it were the epexegesis [the interpretation added by the writer] of the preceding; that therefore we must conclude that this vision in chap. ix, the third of the four, pertains to the same events with the remaining three." But surely the argument is as valid, that since the kingdom of the Messiah is mentioned in two of these four visions, viz. in chaps. vii. and xii, and is also mentioned chap. ii; and since especially in the 7th chap. one is seen in the vision " like the Son of Man," to whom the kingdom is given, then most naturally does chap. ix, which speaks of the " anointed prince," refer to him; and there is no other one in all the prophecies of Daniel that answers adequately to this appellation but he who in that first vision receives the kingdom

from the Most High. Moreover, we have seen that on a comparison of chap. viii. with chap. xi, both those chapters, in the description of the desecration of the temple, refer to the act of one and the same individual. But the description iu chap. ix. is not parallel to those two, for one destroys, the other confirms the covenant; in chaps. viii. and xi, the people of God are the chief object of indignation ; in chap. ix. it is the city; in chap. viii. and xi, the abomination of desolation (singular) is put where the daily sacrifice had been offered ; in chap. ix, the abominations of desolation (plural) are put on or against the wing of the temple. And our Savior, as if to teach his disciples to discriminate between them, as well as make them feel the necessity of the closest attention in order rightly to understand the prophecy, says, " Whoso readeth let him understand !" But even were these predictions of desolation given in exactly the same language, it is the context which must decide to what events they apply, and the context may demand two diverse applications. There is no such law as makes the same words and sentences always mean the same thing wherever they are found. Here in chap. ix. the context does not allow the application to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes without assuming again and again things for which there is no support in the Scriptures, .and without introducing such confusion and disproportion in reckoning the 70 weeks as must destroy all respect for the good sense, not to insist on the inspiration of the writer.

The true view would seem to be not that chap. ix. is given to run parallel with the other three visions as far as Antiochus Epiphanes, while two of those three visions look beyond that period, but that it. is A Supplement To Chap. viii. Chap. vii. predicts the reign of the Messiah; chap. ii. (which is as truly a vision of Daniel as the other four in the mode in which the dream of the king of Babylon was communicated to him) predicts the same reign; chap. xii, which is a continuation of chap. xi, predicts the same reign, but chap. viii. omits it.
Why may not this then most naturally be the supplement to chap. viii, and thus be parallel with the others, only more explicit to a wonderful degree ?

It is possible that some may not feel entire certainty in respect to the interpretation that has been given of the 70, weeks, or the 69 weeks as extending precisely down to the baptism of Jesus, and his first setting forth on his great work —an event which answers to the prediction in Daniel, and which is moreover described so remarkably by an apostle— " How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power," Acts 10: 38. That there were 490 years, as exactly as duration is generally spoken of in the Scriptures, though not necessarily to the precise day, or hour, there has been presented, it is hoped, sufficient ground for believing. But even if at this remote day, and in the confusion and discrepancy of all data given by chronologists, we cannot come with absolute certainty to the exact year of the completion of the 69 or 70 weeks of years, there is as much certainty, nevertheless, for that date, as for any date up to the death of Christ. And we need not the assurance of absolute demonstration, but only grounds for believing that at or near the expiration of the 69 weeks of years, the Prince of Peace was anointed for his great work; that at or near the expiration of 490 years, calculated as men reckon time, the gospel was established, and the most holy reign of the kingdom of heaven through Christ Jesus set up and spread far and wide, and shortly after was Jerusalem made desolate.

WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID