[Page 408]
THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM
By GORGE N. H. PETERS*
[*VOLUME 4 (pp. 408-426).]
PROPOSITION 193. This
doctrine of the Kingdom meets, and consistently removes, the
objections brought against Christianity by the Jews.
This is a wide field, and we can only
briefly point out how, from our standpoint, a consistent answer can be given to the objections urged by Jewish unbelief
against the reception of Jesus Christ.
OBSERVATION 1. The student, if observant, must have noticed a remarkable
feature in the history of this nation, viz., that immediately and some time
after the First Advent many Jews were converted to
Christianity, forming even churches composed almost entirely of them. The
history of the first and second centuries shows that it was nothing unusual for Jews to embrace
Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah. But gradually such conversions became
rarer, until they either entirely ceased or formed exceptionable cases. If we
inquire into the causes of this change, it will be found
that it resulted almost entirely in the departure of the large body of the Church from the Millenarian
ground occupied by the early Church. The Origenistic, Augustinian, and succeeding theology
discarded what was pronounced to be “the Jewish” element, and engrafted another, the Gentile, into its
place. The result was seen in its contracting Jewish
conversions and in its confirming Jewish unbelief. On the other hand, a return
to the theology of the early Church invites the conversion of the Jews seeing
that it materially aids in removing the principal objections
which hold them in unbelief.
The Jews, as the Messianic
idea of the Kingdom was lost sight of and the
prophecies were spiritualised, became less and less accessible. They
were then met rather with invectives than arguments.
This is illustrated even by the titles of treatises, as e.g. Agobard’s De Insolentia Judaeorum, De Judaic Syperstitionibus, or Martini’s
Capistrum Judarorum,
or the Halter
or Muzzle of the Jews,
etc. How much injury the self-conceit and pride of Gentileism has inflicted it is
impossible to calculate. The position of the Jew was beyond description painful
and trying; on the one hand under the cloud of God’s withdrawal and
displeasure, and suffering the prophetic announcements of punishment, and then,
on the other hand, having a Messianic Kingdom urged
upon them by those in power contradictory to covenant and prophecy.
Need we wonder that at times they almost despaired, and that some should yield
up faith and hope? Need we be surprised that a Jew, should he regarded by many
as the Father of Rationalistic Theology, when, brooding under the persecution
of centuries and the rejection of the [divine] promises made to his nation by
professed Christianity, he
should endeavour to remove, as much as possible, the Supernatural from the Old
Testament? The wonder
is that so many Jews still hold to the Messianic idea and to God’s covenanted
promises. It is a sad commentary on human nature that prominent men in the Church (as e.g. Cyril,
see Gibbon’s His., vol. 4, p. 501) persecuted the
Jews instead of striving to win them by kindness and truth. It is
gratifying that a strong reaction has set in, and that not merely toleration is accorded, but a deep interest is felt in their welfare, evidenced
by special societies organized in their behalf.
Owing to our Pre-Millenarian
views, the Jews are more accessible, as evidenced by the conversions of Jews,
and the numerous Jewish Pre-Millenarian [Page 409] writers in
Some doubt the Jewish conversions
reported. So e.g. Dr. Spring reports
(art. “General
Assembly” in Princeton Review, July, 1853, p. 466) very few converted through the
instrumentality of “the Jews’ Society of London.”
But Dr. Baird, on the other hand,
testified to such conversions, and to “great success,”
being himself personally acquainted with the missionaries and many converts.
The Luth. Observer (Aug. 2d, 1878) states, that “in 1809, when the London
Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews was founded, it is said that
the most diligent search would only discover thirty-five Christian Hebrews in
the whole of
OBSERVATION 2. The principle of interpretation adopted by us, especially in
reference to the prophecies, at once commends itself to the Jew. We do not dare not, divide the prophecies,
which describe one connected series of events by the introduction of a new and most
arbitrary mode of interpretation, which is not indicated in the text. Thus e.
g. take the predictions relating to the Jewish nation, and interpret the one
part referring to its tribulation, desolation, etc., literally, and then, when
the prophecies go on without any sign of a change to speak of the same nation,
proceed to spiritualise the rest and apply it to us Gentiles, we do a violence
to the text and manifest injustice to the nation of whom the things are
specially predicted. And yet, rejecting the interpretation of the early Church,
which logically held these prophecies to be continuous in their relation to the
same people, this has been the very posture of the
Church, with here and there an honourable exception, for many long, long
centuries. To such an extent has this been carried that it is almost a proverb that
curses belong to the Jews and blessings to the Gentiles. It is needless to say
how such an interpretation would necessarily affect a Jew; for
he, with the Old Testament in his hands, however much he may overlook the
predictions of a suffering Messiah, still clings to the triumphant Messianic
predictions with which, if there is any meaning in language, his
nation is connected. The Orthodox Jews confess the
sovereignty of God, admit that through sinfulness (not that, however, of
rejecting Jesus) they have been cast out, etc., and, realizing in their past
history the sad truthfulness and reality of prophetic announcements, still fondly anticipate a further
fulfilment of the same Word - now finding its mate in their condition - in the
removal of the curse and the bestowment of blessing. The Reformed or Rationalistic class, having given up the hope of a
Messiah as predicted (in fact discarding almost everything but a belief in God
and His unity), are also utterly unprepared, owing to the spiritualising way of the
predictions pertaining to their nation, to give credit to the system of
Christianity. Eagerly availing themselves of the criticisms of Strauss, Bauer, Renan, etc., they
triumphantly point to the prophecies, to the early Church doctrine, and then to
the immensely transformed view now so generally entertained by the [apostates,
(i.e. by those who know and fully understand unfulfilled prophetic truths, but
refuse to disclose the same to others) in God’s] Church, and claim, justly too, that if the fulfilment
attributed to those prophecies exhaust them in the way believed, then there is a gross
violation of language, etc. Both Orthodox and Rationalistic deem the principle
of interpretation thus upheld irrelevant and untrustworthy, making the Old Testament to predict on
its plain surface what shall never be realized in the form announced. The Jew, however, cannot object to our
system of interpretation, charging it with inconsistency, seeing that we
apply the prophecies pertaining to their nation continuously; not only
receiving the temporary rejection,
the punishment inflicted, but also fully admitting the importance of the nation, its near (Theocratic) relation
to God, and its ultimate restoration and its triumph just as the grammatical sense predicts.
The Press (quoted Proph. Times, June, 1877) remarks: “Rabbi Marks, of London, a sermon, says the Jews reject Jesus Christ as
the Messiah, because ‘of the three distinctive facts which the inspired seer of
Judah inseparably connects with
the Advent of the Messiah, viz., the cessation of war and the uninterrupted
reign of peace, the prevalence of a perfect concord of opinion on all matters
bearing upon the worship of the one and [Page 411] only God, and the gathering
of the remnant of Judah and of the tribes of Israel’ - not one of these
prophecies has yet been fulfilled.” Now our system of interpretation cordially receives these
three characteristics as plainly taught and connected with the Advent of the Messiah. We just as fully as
the Jew believe that they will yet be realized just as predicted. And
this confirms us the more in the Messiahship of the crucified Jesus, because (1) all these “distinctive
facts” are attributed to His Second Advent; (2) the reasons why they were not realised
at the First Advent are fully given in the non-repentance of the nation, its
rejection of the Christ, as shown in both the Old and the New Testaments; (3) the First Advent with its results,
confirmed by a continuous fulfilment of prediction and promise down to the
present, confirms the ability of this Jesus to fulfil the covenants and
prophecies at the specified Advent; (4)
but we do not confine ourselves to these “three
distinctive facts,” but compare and receive all the prophecies
relating to the Messiah. Doing this, we find one class referring to the
humiliation, rejection, suffering, and death of the Messiah verified in Jesus,
and this only immeasurably confirms our faith in Him and that ultimately, as
promised, all the Scriptures will be realised in and through Him. Thus
that which forms an objection to the Jewish mind by only receiving a
part of God’s Word, becomes to us, when believing the whole Word, a tower
of strength.
OBSERVATION
2. The doctrine of
election, as held by us, removes Jewish prejudice. The Jew finds in the Old
Testament a clear announcement of the elect condition of the Jewish nation, and its election practically confirmed by the Theocratic and
Theocratic-Davidic arrangement. He reads, that, however much the nation may be
punished for its sinfulness, and however individuals
of the nation may forfeit blessings coming through this election,
yet God will never utterly
forsake it; but
will, when the time has arrived, show His own faithfulness to Covenanted, promises, His respect to His own election, and reinstate
them in a position by which the election is fully vindicated. He even points to the oath of God as confirmatory of all this, and,
resting in the most solemnly
pledged Word of God rejects the anti-scriptural views largely incorporated with
professing Christianity, and with them, wrongfully supposing them to
be part of it, Christianity itself. The notion that the nation has forfeited
its election, which is now simply conferred on individuals, chiefly Gentiles
who remain such, is a stumbling-block in the way of the Jew. Our doctrine
entirely meets his objections, seeing that we cordially acknowledge this Jewish election; that we insist upon it that notwithstanding their temporary
cast-off condition and their blindness, yet “as concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sakes,” Rom. 11: 28; that we distinctly prove, that, owing to this very election, the Gentiles, in order to participate in the promises covenanted to the Jews,
must be grafted in, adopted as part of the elect
nation, virtually
becoming the seed of Abraham and thus - [if ‘accounted worthy’
at Messiah’s judgement-seat, and before the ‘First Resurrection’ - see (Luke 20: 35; Phil. 3: 11; cf. Heb.
9: 27; Rev. 20: 4-6, etc.),
will] - inherit the promises with Abraham;
and that, when this incorporation of Gentiles (produced by Jewish defection)
has been sufficiently carried out to raise up a seed unto Abraham (for
Theocratic purposes) then will the elect Jewish nation, be restored
to its covenanted Theocratic Davidic relation, thus vindicating and establishing its election before all nations.
(Compare e.g. Propositions 24, 57, 61, 63, 111, 112, etc.
It is sad to find Jews deliberately receiving
the Rationalistic interpretations of the Old Testament and incorporating them in a regular commentary.
Thus Kalisch in his historical and Critical
Commentary on the Old Testament rejects the Messianic predictions or
promises of Genesis etc. (making the
Messianic conception to originate with the prophets) and thus vitiates the
noble covenanted election and unity, which is, correctly appreciated, the
glory of the Jewish nation. From this elect position of the nation, it
is impossible to separate the Messianic idea. Alas! how true it is to-day of
many a Jew, that‑as Dorner remarked
of Philo - the Messianic idea has become in him a burnt-out cinder, of which
only the ashes are left. Will such only consider how the New Testament retains
the idea of [Page 412] the nation’s continued election and its ultimate glorious result, and in
view of this special honouring of the nation ask, with unprejudiced minds, why
this retention and its inseparable connection with a pure Theocratic, Messianic
conception?
The Reformed Jews (art. “Messiah”in McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia) in 1840, at Frankfort, declared that “a Messiah who is lead back to Palestine is neither
expected nor desired by the associated, and that they acknowledge that
alone to be their country to which they belong by birth or civil relation.”
In 1869 at a meeting held in
OBSERVATION 3. Our doctrine has no sympathy with the destructive criticism,
which even believers in their apologies present - that, on the ground of
“Jewish prejudices,” “Jewish ideas,” etc. - rejects some portions of the
Gospels or Epistles or Apocalypse. This has an unhappy influence upon the Jews,
as is evinced by their adopting it so largely and asking the question proposed
by Levi (Letters
to Dr.
Priestly, p. 82), “How are we sure
that the remainder is authentic?” While it is
a matter of surprise that Jews should accept of the results of a criticism
based on prejudice against
their ancestors (i.e. their views), yet they avail themselves of it as a
retaliation against the system of Christianity which generally indorses the
same prejudice. The doctrine defended by us has no need of such mutilation
of the Word to accommodate it to modern notions of the fitness of things, and certainly not when derived from antipathy to Jewish
views. It does not cast contempt upon
the faith of ancient and pious Jews who were satisfied with the literal,
grammatical sense; it does not denounce
such as in error or in holding to a “materialistic
husk” utterly unworthy of modern reception; it does not reflect on the intelligence of prophet
and people, who believed in covenants and promises just as they were given; it
does not set itself up in direct antagonism to
“Jewish conceptions,” and denounce them as so “carnal” as to be unfit for our enlightened age; but
it receives the Word just as prophet and people did, as Jews who are
represented as specially favoured by God did, as Jews who were preachers of the
promises did, and finds no necessity existing to decry, in order to establish
itself, God’s ancient people, making them to live in darkness and entertaining
a vain faith and hope. Surely the manner in which our
doctrine manifests such high [Page 413] respect for the intelligent piety of
these ancient worthies, indicates the wisdom and logical accurateness of their
expectations, preserves and elevates
the character of their faith and hope, and does this all on a true scriptural basis - this ought, in the nature of the case, to find more favour with the Jew than those theories
which degrade his forefathers, while under direct
teaching from heaven, into believers of fables. Admitting the idle tradition
existing in the nation obtained by adding largely to the Word, yet so far as
the Covenants, both Abrahamic and Davidic are concerned there was an undoubted
correct apprehension entertained concerning them by the nation at huge and
especially by he Jews mentioned in the Scriptures. This is seen by the general belief on the subject, and which was
perpetuated in the first Christian churches, uncontradicted by its
founders. Thus, instead of mutilating Scripture under he plea of their being “too Jewish,” we find this very element a most powerful
and indispensable argument in favour of
their inspiration. Hence this feature should commend itself to every Jew, who
feels that his national connection is worthy of defence, that his ancestors
were not a set of blind, deluded believers; and, instead of arraying himself
(as many now do) on the side of those who are engaged in the work of lowering
and degrading his noble and eminent forefathers, he should rather he inclined
to those who show forth the praises due to an expectant, believing people is
found ill the Scriptures, even if it does include the testimony of the New
Testament in its entirety.
Let prejudice, so unfavourable to
investigation and truth, be laid aside, and allow the just claims of Judaism
and of Christianity to be presented. Having
given under various Propositions certain doctrines of Judaism
retained by Christianity, and for which Christianity is preparing a perfect
realisation, let us under this one urge the claims that may be introduced. (1) It certainly is eminently worthy of
the candid Jew to notice how largely the Jewish nation is indebted to Jesus for
the large and increasing respect which the nation has attained. Benj. Disraeli (Lord Beaconsfield) in his Life of Lord Bentick,
refers to this feature, of which we only give the opening sentences, as
follows: “Perhaps, too, in this enlightened age, as
his mind expands and he takes a comprehensive view of this period of progress,
the pupil of Moses may ask himself whether all the princes of the house of
David have done so much for the Jews as that Prince who was crucified on Calvary. Had it not been for Him the Jews would
have been comparatively unknown, or known only, as a high Oriental caste which
had lost its country. Has not He made their history the most famous history in
the world?’ etc. The hate and mutual animosities of the past centuries
have given place to a better feeling and understanding, and Jesus of Nazareth
and His teachings have inspired a regard for the nation that ought to be
recognised and, may we add, reciprocated. (2)
The Jews with their intense devotion to the prophecies, and their earnest
desire for deliverance under persecution, were frequently imposed on by false
Messiahs (see articles on, in various Bible dictionaries and cyclopaedias which
give lists of them as they appeared in the various centuries), producing great
misery to individuals and the nation. Now not one of these came in the way
designated by the prophecies, and this imposition might all have been avoided
if the spiritual representations of the manner of the Messiah’s Coming had been
observed. The First Advent of Jesus is so remarkable that it should urge the
Jew to compare it with the Old Testament in order to see for himself whether
the manner of events connected therewith are in correspondence with
prediction. Without such a comparison carefully instituted the Jew is inexcusable; with it, we have no fears of the
result, as evidenced in the past history of eminent and learned men among them.
Simpson (Plea for Religion) makes the
prophecies of the Old Testament to be fulfilled in Christ, literally in one
hundred and nine instances; Horne (Introd.,
vol. 1. pp. 126 and 451), and many others, produce a wonderful array of literal
fulfilment as to (1) descent, (2) time of Coming and forerunner, (3) place of
birth, (4) particulars of birth, (5) life and qualifications, (6) miracles, (7)
special events, (8) rejection and sufferings, (9) death, (10) burial, (11)
resurrection and exaltation. These embrace an astounding array of minute
particulars, so that we can readily [Page 414] see, how (Acts 18: 28) “the Apostles
mightily convinced the Jews shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ”
in a reference to them, confirmed as they were by their personal witnessing of
them. The Jews certainly, in view of the high interests involved, should
dispassionately consider an array of testimony which has so largely influenced
the most cultivated of intellects of the Gentile world to accept of the Jew
Jesus as the very Messiah predicted by their own Jewish Scriptures. No impostor
could possibly have thus far fulfilled the Old Testament, seeing that in the
predictions and fulfilments there are involved things beyond the power of
mortal man to verify. Only one being has thus far appeared, in whom the
Messianic prophecies have a determined and noble fulfilment, and that one is
Jesus in whom so many Gentiles hopefully and lovingly trust. This very fact
should lead the Jew to a renewed and impartial examination. (3) The Jews in order to reconcile the statements of the prophets respecting the
Messiah, resort (see articles “Messiah,” “Jews,” etc.
in our encyclopaedias, etc.) to a twofold Messiah, one in a state of poverty
and suffering, the other in a state of splendour and glory. They thus make two
persons and two Messiahs, whereas the Old Testament speaks only of one Messiah,
as covenanted and predicted, viz. that glorious David’s Son who shall restore
the Theocracy. How are these scriptures to be reconciled? By arbitrarily and
violently making two Messiahs, or by making two Advents, the one in
humiliation, etc., and the other in triumph and glory? Let the Jew consider the
reasonableness and consistency of Christianity in bringing forth this twofold
prediction and fully reconcile it by applying it to the same person (as the
prophets do) under two Advents - the one literally fulfilled in a hundred particulars, the other remaining
postponed, and this postponement being confirmed by the prophecies
and predictions of the Messiah. This position occupied by the believer in Jesus is worthy of special
attention, seeing that he thus accepts of the one Messiah covenanted and
promised, in whom all that the prophets have spoken admirably finds its mate,
making, the suffering Messiah, as God’s Word does, the ultimate triumphant one who fulfils covenant and prophecy.
(4) We earnestly request, as a
preparatory act, the unbelieving Jew to consider that the Old Testament
predicts the rejection of the Messiah by the nation as evidenced by the
predictions (as e.g. Psa.
118: 22),
“the stone which the builders refused,” etc.), and by the subsequent repentance of
the nation (as e.g. Zech. 12: 9-14, etc.) which is based on a previous rejection.
That the Messiah should become “a stone of stumbling
and a rock of offence” has been sadly verified by a most painful
experience; that the repentance and
subsequent exaltation will likewise be experienced the same prophets declare.
Will the Jew honestly ponder the reasons assigned for such a stumbling, and
then in this connection reflect upon the calling of the Gentiles and their
adoption as believers when their own people should suffer, for a time appointed, the withdrawal of God’s special favour, which
even Moses predicted (Dent. 32: 21). The
wonderful fulfilment thus far and the astonishing reception of the Messiah
spurned by the nation, should awaken deep attention. (5) Again will the Jew
accept of the statements of his own Scriptures that the Messiah was to come
while the temple was still standing within the weeks designated by Daniel (9: 24- 27); if so, who but Jesus of Nazareth came within
the stipulated time and place? Surely the variety and converging testimony
should awaken the Jewish mind and heart to dispassionately consider the claims
of that Jesus, who, in the most remarkable manner, possesses all the requisite
marks of it true Messiah. It will not answer to make out, its many Jews do,
that “Daniel was no prophet” (so e.g. Dr. Wise, editor of Amer. Israelite,
May 30th, 1879), because we have too much evidence how Daniel was
estimated and understood previous to the Advent of Jesus, which is confirmed by
the statements of the Gospels (e.g. in quoting from him and the manner in which
it was received by the High-priest), A fair reading of works on Daniel, as Hengestenberg’s,
Havernick,
Delitszch,
Auberlen, Klieforth, etc., as well as an
unbiased consideration of the historical fulfilment thus far of his
predictions, clearly and unmistakably show that, while “not a prophet by virtue of his office, yet, like David and Solomon, he
possessed the gift of prophecy” (so Delitszch, etc.). (6) Will the Jew honestly consider that
to avoid the Christian application of suffering and humiliation to Jesus, as
predicted, many - rejecting the older applications - withdraw such a Messiah
entirely from the Messianic prediction, declaring that all such passages (as
e.g. the celebrated Isa.
53) relate to some other person, or to the
nation itself. Why this contradiction to earlier expositions and to later ones
(see art. “Messiah” in Herzog’s Cyclop.)
unless it be simply to repel
Christian argument? Auberlen (Div. Rev.
p. 83) remarks that Jews, when Isa.
53 was read to them by missionaries,
passionately asserted that it could not be in the Old Testament, but was
interpolated by Christians, so strikingly and convincingly was the impression
made by its mere reading. The variations and shifts (see art. “Prophet” in McClintock
and Strong’s Cyclop.)
to which men give play [Page 415] when endeavouring to make Isa. 53 (and
similar predictions, as Ps. 22: 16; Psalms 42, 43, 69, 72, 110; Zech. 12: 10, etc.) un-Messianic are largely the result of
prejudice and hostility. (7) Can a Jew be induced to cut himself
loose front the most powerful leverage constructed by Jewish ingenuity against
the reception of Jesus as the Messiah, viz. the Talmudical system? About the
third century the Mishna or Second Law was compiled from legendary tradition,
to which afterwards were, added the Gamara of Jerusalem and the Gemara of
Babylon, and these being appended to the laws of Moses so prejudiced the Jews
against Jesus and His recognition that it was scarcely possible to induce them
to consider the subject. (Comp, arts.,
on these in Cyclops., etc.) We allow a Jew to speak on this point. Felix Alder
in an art. on “Reformed Judiasm”
(North Amer.
Review, Sept. - Oct., 1877) says: “The
Talmud itself, that corner-stone of orthodoxy, was a stupendous innovation on
the simplicity of the Bible religion,” and adds in it note: “The theory of a Oral Law, delivered to Moses on Sinai and
handed down from generation to generation, until it was finally embodied in the
ordinances of the Talmudical academies, is a palpable fiction invented by the
Talmudists in order to lend to their own decisions the sanction of divine
authority.” A good sign among the Jews at present is the questioning of
such authority with its entailed fetters. (8)
Can a Jew be brought to consider dispassionately the Christian and critical
verbal (as e.g. Psa.
22: 16,
etc.) and prophetical (as e.g. Daniel’s, etc.) examinations and expositions, then, provided a
diligent comparison is instituted in the Old Testament, there is hope. If we
influence a Jew to read such works as Hengstenberg’s
Christology,
John Pye
Smith’s Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, McCaul’s Messiahship of Jesus, Browne’s Messiah as foretold and Expected, Reibur’s Messianic Prophecy, and
numerous other works of a similar
character, a sufficiency will be found, impressive by its weight of authority and
unity and Jewish concessions. to induce an independent and conscientious search
of the Scriptures. If such it posture is once assumed, we have no fears
respecting the final result.
OBSERVATION
4. The main leading
objection against Jesus Christ, is met in a more satisfactory manner through
our doctrines. The Jew is especially hostile to the divinity of Jesus; and the
present Rationalistic attacks, notwithstanding their lowering of Jewish
character and doctrine, are hailed and accepted on this account with delight by
multitudes of them. Now aside from the usual proofs assigned for the divinity
of Jesus, our interpretation of Scripture furnishes others which must, if duly
considered, have considerable weight. For we plainly prove from the Scriptures,
that the restored Theocracy, as
predicted, demands a God-man, a
divine-human person to sit on David’s throne and rule over his kingdom. He must
be One, as Covenant and prophets declare, who reigns forever, who has unlimited power, who is both David’s Lord,
who can perform mighty wonders and exert Supernatural power in restoring all things. We show that the perfection, highest
consistency, and beauty of a Theocracy
is thus manifested in the very form so desirable and necessary for Redemptive purposes. If a Theocracy,
such as the Old Testament portrays would be erected under a David’s Son lacking
the divine attributes ascribed to Him, then there would be a failure, in so far, of God’s own Word. This is fully admitted by the concessions of
ancient rabbis, who understood the prophecies on this point just as we present it. That the prophecies
plainly teach the divinity of Jesus, especially as associated with the
Theocracy, is apparent from this faith of the Jews, * so
that Lederer
(himself a Jew, in the Israelite Indeed, Aug. 1866. p.
37) says: “there are many passages in ancient Hebrew
writings which plainly show that the great men of Israel believed in the
Sonship of the Messiah, not in the sense in which modern rabbis would make us
believe, viz., in that sense in which Israel is sometimes called ‘my first-born
son,’ but in the real, Divine Sonship, the incarnation of the God-head in the
flesh of David’s Son. We will quote but one passage: Rabbi
* The nature of the Theocracy as
predicted by the prophets assured the union of the divine in David’s Son. Of
this the Jews at the First Advent were fully persuaded as we see e.g. in Peter
m expression: “Thou art Christ (or Messiah), the Son of the
living God.” The general expectation, founded on the Scriptures
(as Ps. 2;
Isa. 9: 6, 7, etc.), is well stated in the High Priest’s
question: “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Messiah, the Son of God.” The charge of “blasphemy” against Jesus when He assumed the
same, indicates fully and clearly in what light this Sonship was regarded; for
otherwise the conduct of the Council is contradictory and absurd. In the
promised reign of the Messiah, the Jews expected the fulfilment of the
Millennial predictions, and hence they were able to say what he prophet
declares in Isa. 25: 9, “So, for Him,
we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation.”
Gibbon (Decl. and Fall,
vol. 4, p. 489) may indeed sneer at the notion of “a
human and temporal King” entertained by some Jews, but this is merely
one-sided, leaving, out of the question the mass of testimony which introduces
higher estimates of the Messiah among the Jews, so that Milman (in footnote) correctly
remarks: “Most of the modern writers who have closely
examined this subject, and who will not he suspected of a Theological bias, Rosenmuller on Isa. 9: 5-7, and on Ps. 45: 7, and Bertholdt, Christologia Judaeorum,
c. 20, rightly ascribe much higher notions of the Messiah to the Jews.”
If it be said that the Jews object to the Trinity, charging us with Polytheism,
we leave a Jewess (Leila Ada, p. 207) to
answer: “ A
literal Jew would be willing to excuse us from this charge (Polytheism),
because he could be no atonement.” But to this we add, that this
necessity arises from the scriptural plan of a pure Theocracy in an
incorporated Divine line, so that whoever sees this Theocratic ruler in the
glorified Son of David also beholds the Father - i.e. God ruling in and through
Him. Comp. e.g. McCaul’s
Messiahship of Jesus; Black’s Messiah and Anti-Messiahs; Brown’s Messiah
as Foretold and Expected; Higgenson’s Hebrew
Messianic Hope and Christian Reality, etc.
**We append a few more references for
the accommodation of those who may not have access to them. The title of Jesus,
“I am He who Am, and Was, and Will be” is used
in the Targum of Palestine, which in itself embraces the divine. Dr. Etheridge
in his Trans. of
the Targams (vol,
2. p. 686) says that the old Jewish theologians gave the name of “the King of the kings of kings” to God and also the
one “the King of Peace, or the King, with whom there
is Peace,” which were also attributed to the Messiah, among (the first
one) reproduced in the Apocalypse is one reason why the destructive critics
pronounce it “Jewish.” In Israelite
Indeed, a periodical under the editorship of a converted Jew, Lederer are
found numerous admissions of the divine Supernatural nature in
connection with the human attributed by the Jews to the Messiah, among these
are quotations from the Targum of Onkelos, Aben Ezra, Yarchi,
Rashi, Aberbanell, Berchiah,
Hoona, Kimchi, etc. In the writings of Lightfoot, in
Commentaries, in various Sys. Of Div. are also found an abundance of quotations
which confirm the fact that many of the identical Scriptures quoted (as e.g. Ps. 2; Jer. 23: 5, 6, etc.) by Christians as Messianic, are regarded
such by Jewish Rabbis and that a divine origin and nature is also ascribed to
Him. Our space forbids a repetition of them, however interesting.
*** Rev. Isaac Leeser gives in the “History of the Jews and their Religion” (see Rupp’s Orig. His. of Relig.
Denominations), the belief that Moses “was the greatest of all the prophets and wise men who have lived before
him or will come after him,” and “the belief in
the Coming of the King Messiah, who is to accomplish for the world and Israel
all that the prophets have foretold concerning Him,” and then (p. 365)
he explains: “The Messiah, whom we expect, is not to
be a god, nor a part of a godhead, nor a Son of Godin
any sense of the word; but simply a man eminently endowed like Moses and the
prophets in the days of the Bible, to work out the will of God on earth in all
that the [Page 417] prophets have
predicted of Him.” But he fails to tell
us how a mere man can fulfil the requirements of the prophets, in the
restitution of all things and the realisation of Millennial descriptions. He
overlooks the simple fact that this Messiah is to be, immeasurably superior to
Moses in every respect, and that in numerous predictions what is ascribed to this Messiah is fully ascribed to
God Himself. He conveniently passes by the ancient
belief of the Jews and engrafts another faith, as e.g. see Proposition 159, Observation 2
(comp. Propositions
199, 200)
where it is shown that the Jews believed that this Messiah would be “the eternal King,” and His Kingdom “the eternal [Gk. ‘aionios’] Kingdom of David,”
etc., which cannot possibly be asserted of it mere mortal, seeing that such
perpetuity necessarily embraces the divine. The study of the
nature, design, etc., of the Theocracy, as it is to be
restored, will inevitably lead to the firm belief that God Himself in the
Person of David’s Son is the Theocratic King. How this wonderfully exalts the
King and the nation, need not be pointed out, and yet, is it not strange that
the very feature needed to crown the Theocratic ordering with its highest, most desirable excellence
should be objected to so strenuously by the Jew? Indeed
it is for this reason that the nation has brought upon itself so many centuries
the dread punishment of God. For let it be considered
that nowhere is it asserted in direct terms that the nation shall be driven
from the land and scattered among the nations for the rejection of the Messiah,
but this is directly predicted as a result of their rejection of God as
their Ruler, etc. Now we ask the Jew how his nation thus rejected God and
incurred the fearful destruction of the temple, of
Let writers among the Jews have, as is
notorious, contradicted older writers in the applications of Scripture, in
order to weaken, if possible, the interpretations and appeals of Christians in
favour of the Messiahship of Jesus. This is frankly acknowledged by David
Kimchi on 2d. Ps. We give an
illustration: Ps. 2,
as Fairbairn Typology, vol. 1. p. 97, etc.) has shown, is fairly
applicable to “the Christ,” as maintained even
by the old Jewish doctors (as Solomon Larchi agreed “it should be
expounded of King Messiah,” but added: “In
accordance with the literal sense and that it may be used against heretics”
(i.e., against Christians) “it is proper to explain it
its relating to David himself.”) Fairbairn
justly observes that the Rationalistic interpretation which
would apply is not sustained by the acts here ascribed to the One,
specified (as e.g. David was opposed in establishing his throne by heathen
nations, and when established he did not seek dominion over the kings and
rulers of the earth, etc.). This is so plain that “some even of those who formerly espoused it (i.e. the
Davidic application) - such as Rosenmuller
- have at length owned that It cannot well be understood its applying either to
David or to Solomon, much less to any of the later Hebrew kings, and that the
judgment of the more ancient Hebrews is to be followed, who considered it as a
celebration of the mighty King that they expected under the name of the Messiah.”
The same is true of Ps. 132; Ps. 110; Ps. 89, and others; and what binds those Psalms into
an irresistible Messianic prediction, is the simple, uncontrovertible fact that
the Messiah of the covenant and the Messiah of the Psalms is still the same
Messiah predicted by the prophets after David’s and Solomon’s reign. The
expectation of the Jews at the First Advent, and their utter inability (as e.g.
evidenced Matt. 22:
42-45) to
withstand the Messianic application, as well as the abundant concessions of
later rabbis, teach us how to receive them. But if so then their application to
One who is far more than a mere man inevitably follows, and with it, that the
birth, life, works, etc., of Jesus alone fully
meet all the conditions imposed by the predictions. Micah 5: 2, 3, 4 alone - if
pondered in the light given by Jesus - should be sufficient to convince the Jew
that the high and glorious nature we Christians ascribe to the Messiah is essential to the fulfilment of God’s own Word.
Modern Jews (Leila
Ada, p, 180) may make Isa. 53
“an allegorical representation of their own sufferings,”
but this cannot be its meaning without undue violence to the the passage, and without contradicting the large number who
have applied it to a suffering Messiah. Barnes
(Com. on Hebrews,
ch. 1: 6) informs
us: “The two Jewish rabbis of distinction - Raschi and Kimchi - affirm that all the Psalms from 93 to 101 are to be regarded as referring to the Messiah. Such was,
and is, the opinion of the (orthodox) “Jews.”
Let the reader pass over these Psalms, and he will find that the Messiah therein
described can be none other than the Mighty God, seeing that the dominion,
power, exaltation, glory, etc., ascribed to Him cannot be applied to mere man.
The student who desires to investigate the Scripture passages of a Messianic
nature and their [Page 418] application to Jesus, will find these
in works specially devoted to the subject, and, more or less, in the
commentaries on the Bible. The abundance of material in this direction is vast
and satisfactory. Thus, e.g. Fairbairn (Typoligy, vol. 1, p, 332) remarks
respecting Isa. chs. 61, 62, 49, 53, that “it is a matter of certainty that, in the judgment of the
ancient Jewish Church, the person spoken of in all these passages was the
Messiah” - and refers to “Lightfoot, Hor, Heb. on
Matt. 12: 20 and John 5: 19: Schotten
de Messia, pp. 113, 192; Hengstenberg’s Chrislology, on Isa.
42:1-9 and chs. 49 and 53: 2. Also Alexander on the same passages and ch. 6l.”
The student may compare what Gladstone (Studies on Homer, vol. 2,
pp. 48-51, and Juventus Mundi, p.
205-6) says of the Jewish traditions respecting the divinity of the Messiah,
being “the glory of God,” having two natures, being the Logos, Word, or Wisdom,
“the Lord of Hosts,” the Light, the Mediator, having abundant Supernatural power
and divine attributes, conquering the evil one, delivering from the dead, etc.
(comp. Schottgen’s Horae Hebraicae.)
It is self-evident
that the ascension of the Messiah to the right hand of God (Ps. 110) -
fulfilled in the history of Jesus - shows that He is exalted far above mere
man: that the righteous Branch of David (Jer. 23:
5, 6),
when designated “Jehovah, our
Righteousness,” must
be divine that the ancient Jewish applications of Messianic predictions (such
e.g. as Ps. 2;
Isa. 11; Ps. 80: 14 (15); Mic.
5 : 1; Hag. 2: 7-9; Mal. 3: 1, etc.), exalt this Messiah immeasurably above
mortal man, and hence, the New Testament standpoint, which ascribes so much of
the divine to Jesus, is the correct one in the portrayal of a true Messiah. Philo
of Alexandria (between A.D. 40 and 50), a Jewish theologian, advanced views of
a Logos so striking in its counterpart to John’s Gospel that it has excited con siderable discussion. One party (as Semisch, etc.) think that Philo’s Logos
was a personal hypostasis; another (as Dorner,
etc.) deem it merely a personification of wisdom or it divine attribute; and
others (as Schaff,
etc.) that Philo “vibrates between the two views.”
Now whatever position we may assume, one thing is conclusive, viz., that Philo
had no idea of a mere man being the Messiah to fulfil the promises, but that he
attributed deliverance and the fulfilment of Millennial predictions to
something that was superhuman. This is
precisely the position assigned to the Logos in the New Testament, only that
the covenanted union with David’s Son is distinctively asserted in connection,
thus in the Person of Jesus uniting the two, and preserving the unity of
covenant and prophecy. We add: the time is coming when
all objections to Jesus as the Messiah shall be forever removed. And that is, when the Jews shall say (Isa. 25:
9), “Lo, this is’our God;” for as Fausset (Own. loci)
has well remarked: “The Jews have a special share in
the words, ‘This is our God.’” Repentant
and believing they shall yet exult in the Crucified One.
OBSERVATION 5. The doctrine meets the more modern Jewish objection urged
against the resurrection of Jesus. For it points
significantly to the prophets (as e.g. Isa. 9: 6,
7; Ps. 72: 7, 17; Ps. 89: 35-37; Ps. 104: 4,
etc.). which teach, that David’s Son is
immortal in that His reign endures forever, and that with Him are associated
the pious dead, etc. Then it refers to the expectations of pious Jews before the Advent, who held
(John 12: 34), to
such an immortal Messiah, and such a
resurrection of dead ones, and shows how, as the apostles explain by the
resurrection from the dead, Jesus now never dies again and how,
also, through that
resurrection [of their
Messiah] a pledge is given that the prophets
will be fulfilled in the resurrection of
others. The [‘First’ Rev. 20:
5, R.V.)] resurrection is proven to be a necessary and indispensable preparation for, and adjunct of, the Theocracy. How else can
David’s Son reign [with His saints] as the prophets describe unless immortal? And
how can man born of a woman become immortal
unless he, in some way, triumph over death? And what
greater triumph is required than that ascribed to Jesus? Hence, when the resurrection
is regarded as a part of the
Divine Plan, in its prerequisite
relationship to
the Theocracy, it is the very thing which ought to be manifested in order to
fulfil the prophets an give us undoubted faith in such
fulfilment (comp. Propositions 46-50, 125).
How far the
Scriptures were fulfilled in the First Advent of Christ has been shown by many
writers, such as Horne,
Look at this Jesus in the light of all
these particulars, and then, if Jews will believe their own Scriptures, they
see how it constitutes Him one who can be “the Judge of
Israel.” How can this Judgeship be better
proven than by Paul in Arts 17: 31?
How can “th e tree of life (which)
was not created in vain, but the men of the resurrection shall eat thereof and
live forever” (so e.g, R. Elins ben Mosis, and R.
Menahem, in Answorth on Gen.
2), be restored unless it be through a Second Adam like Jesus
(Rev. 2: 7 and 22: 14)? How can the covenanted promises made to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to inherit the land and personally be realised
without resurrection, and who so able to perform this as a Messiah
that has vindicated His power over the grave, like Jesus? How can the ransomed of
the Lord return to
OBSERVATION 6. It brings in with greater force and pertinency the necessity
of the Messiah making a sacrifice
of Himself for sin. Aside from the usual arguments
presented, and the appeals made to the predictions of a suffering Saviour by
the prophets, and fulfilled in Jesus, it specially directs attention to the necessity
of His death in order that the Abrahamic Covenant itself may (as Paul argues)
be sealed or confirmed. By the efficacy of
this death, abundant provision is made for the ample realisation of the covenant: an immortal King is provided who is able to
save - through Him all that believe, can and will be saved as predicted, for He
now has power to forgive sin, to save from the results of sin, to raise up the dead, etc. The entire spirit of the Old Testament
evinces that the Covenant can never be fulfilled without
such a sacrifice, for it contemplates a restoration, ample and complete, to
forfeited blessings. To make the Covenant available, provision must first be made to meet the sinfulness and results of sin
even in believers, which the typical sacrifices
could not effect. This is strikingly
and effectively done in Him who is to be the Head of the Theocracy. Our
argument does not simply ascribe salvation through Christ, but salvation through
Him and for this Theocratic elevation. He is indeed the born King of the
nation, being the promised seed, and who so worthy (being sinless as the prophets predict) to
make atonement, to effect reconciliation, to stand as mediator as this King. For, if the Jew will but consider what
this Theocracy demands, if ever
realized as prophecy represents it, such as moral purity, the triumph over the
grave, the presence of God, the return
to an Edenic state, the removal of the curse, etc, he
must see that such an important transformation can never take place unless He, through and
in whom God again condescends to act in the capacity of an earthly ruler, is both
sinless Himself, and has power to act as Mediator and Redeemer of sinful
man. It is through the King that the blessings of Redemption
enjoyed under a restored Theocratic rule are to be realised, so all the
prophets with one voice testify - and Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament,
meets in every respect the requirements of prophecy,
in person, in character, in work
already performed, in station, in promise, etc., preparative to the ultimate end.
If in the history of Jesus, coming as Messiah, there was no
provision for sin, no purchase of immorality, no triumph over death, no
recognition and exaltation by the Father, an important, yea deadly, flaw
would exist, and the Jew would then be justified
in turning away from him, saying that the Messiah really promised by the
prophets would exhibit His ability to deliver in person and work; but now since
these are abundantly evidenced in Jesus,
is
he justified in turning away from Him? Indeed,
if he reflects how shortly after the rejection of Jesus, who manifested in
person and work His perfect adaptedness to the Theocratic Kingship, the nation
guilty of rejecting Him was so terribly smitten and scattered, he finds that
his own reason alleged for the overthrow of the nation, viz. on account of
sinfulness against or rejection of Jehovah,
is fully verified in Jesus; because
unless Jehovah be regarded as identified with the person of Jesus, it would,
owing to their belief in and worship of Jehovah in God the Father, be improper
to say that Jehovah was rejected by them, excepting it be through Christ.
In considering the claims of Jesus, it certainly ought to be of weight, that the
rejection of Him and of His sacrifice was followed by
a terrible overthrow of the nation and a continued subjection, as He and the prophets
predicted, under Gentile domination, down to the present day. It confirms [Page 421] the validity of His Theocratic Kingship, and the preciousness of His
sacrifice.
Indeed, if Jesus had been an impostor,
then the Father, instead of bringing such terrible calamities upon the nation
as predicted, ought rather to have blessed
the nation for its zeal, etc. But taking Moses and the
Prophets, what was done against the Messiah Jesus was done, as Jesus claimed,
against God, the Father, Himself. If the Jew is candid in examining the New
Testament, he must be deeply affected by two things: (1) that a Messiah should predict His
own death and the continued depression of a nation that is His own inheritance.
Imposture is incapable of such a procedure; it would inevitably bring forth the
exact reverse. Now, in view of the singularity of this teaching, to say nothing
of its astounding nature, should not the Jew be influenced
to dispassionately consider the reasons assigned for such a mode of procedure? (2) The predictions of the accurately
fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the scattering of the
nation, the treading down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, the continued Gentile domination
- should have a mournful interest to the
Jew, seeing the realisation of the same
in Jewish history. And, may we add, should not
this very fulfilment have a tendency to cause him to feel that the One that
could thus predict must, indeed, have been the Messiah. These predictions based
on the sinfulness of the nation, and certainly the Jew censure us for repeating
this statement, when their own prayer-books, accounting for dispersion, captivity,
and suffering, fully and frankly, in general terms, admit the past sinfulness of the nation - an admission
forcibly urged by the prophets. How Jewish writers inadvertently fasten upon
themselves the sin of crucifying the Messiah is forcibly
shown by Leila Ada (a converted Jewess), p.
121, in her appeal to her father, saying that in a Jewish work called Yoma the question is asked: “Why was the second temple destroyed?” And one of the principal causes, given is this one: “On account of the hatred without cause.” She then
adds “I refer them to Ps. 69, one which is admitted by Aben Ezra to be prophetical of the Messiah. ‘They hated me without a cause,’
is charged by our Saviour upon His enemies.” Lelia Ada, p. 59 asks what terrible sin her
ancestors had committed which called for eighteen centuries of removal from the
Land, when her fathers, guilty of idolatry - the greatest sin against God - had
only seventy years of captivity enforced. etc. She (p.
122) remarks: “Nor is it possible that the Jews can be
altogether blind to the curse, which
has rested upon our nation through the eighteen hundred years which have
elapsed since the crucifixion of Jesus. ‘What adequate cause can be assigned for
our long protracted chastisement?’ is one of their solemn questions. ‘What can
that crime be, which was committed by our ancestors, and of which to this day we have not
repented? Whatever it is, it must be some act or deed of the most atrocious
character, an act or deed in the approval of which we have steadfastly persisted,
and the guilt of which we have obstinately refused to acknowledge.’ And if they will seriously reflect, they cannot avoid the
conclusion that there is no one deed, to
which in all ages they have given their adhesion, except the crucifixion of Jesus.
With that event, too (and they cannot avoid observing it), commences the era of
their sufferings and distresses. Here, what is related
of Rabbi Solomon Marochan
occurs to me: while reflecting upon the iniquities of the Jews, he said, ‘The
prophet Amos mentions a fourth crime
for which we have been in our captivity - of selling the Just One for silver. It
manifestly appears to me that for selling the Just One we are
justly punished. It is now one thousand years and more, and during all
this time we have made no good hand of it among the
Gentiles, nor is there any likelihood of our ever any more turning to good. O my God! I am afraid lest the Jews, whom the Christians worship,
be the Just One whom we sold for silver!’” Can a Christian read this
without being profoundly moved in sympathy, or can a Jew reflect upon it
without deeply feeling the force of its appeal? Can a Jew
ponder the statements of prophets that the Messiah would be rejected by the
nation, that Gentiles would be
called during time of rejection, that the nation would endure dispersion and
suffering as a result, that at some future time they would acknowledge their
sin and repent, etc., without the conviction being forced on him that in and
through Jesus this has been most wonderfully
exemplified? Isaac da Costa (see art. “Messiah”
in McClintock’s
and Strong’s Cyclop.)
was converted by reflecting on the long-continued
dispersion of the Jewish nation for its sins - the acceptance of Jesus as the
Messiah resolving all enigmas. The same is true of others;
and all such have realized that in addition to the argumentation appealing to reason,
there was combined, on the acceptance of Jesus, the most satisfactory of all
proof, viz., that derived from personal experience, enforcing a well-grounded
consciousness that Jesus was indeed an all-sufficient Saviour and “the Christ” as illustrated e.g. in the life of Leila
Ada, Wolfe, and others.
OBSERVATION 7. The Kingdom as explained by the prevailing theories stumbling-block
to the Jew. With the Old Testament delineation of the Kingdom,
its Theocratic and covenant relationship to their nation, its overthrow and promised
restoration under the Messiah, etc., it is impossible to move them to receive a
Kingdom which is widely different from the covenanted one, and of which
professed believers are so uncertain that it is the subject of many and
contradictory meanings and interpretations. The Kingdom
that the Old Testament plainly predicts for him, is one that what when established
is so openly visible and associated with the rebuilt throne and Kingdom of
David, that he rejects as utterly untrustworthy the interpretation which
declares that the ruined tabernacle of David shall
never be restored in the sense contained grammatically by the
language of the prophets. This [demonic] spiritualizing of the [divine] covenant promises and prophecies pertaining
to the Kingdom, and thus making them to mean what the fancy of the interpreter
can apply to the present dispensation or Church, has had a powerful influence
upon the Jewish mind, and has materially aided in confirming unbelief. For, when he looks it the Church, or at this [evil] age, he finds no surh
a Messianic Kingdom as his prophets promised, no
such a glorious restoration of his nation under Davidic rule as
the [Holy] Spirit predicted, and
hence, influenced by the usurped claim of the Christian Church, and warped by
the apparent antagonism, he turns away from Christianity itself. Our
doctrine, on the other hand, gives a simple unfettered, consistent statement of
the promised [Messianic and Millennial] Kingdom, receiving it just as once established, just as incorporated with
David’s line and people, without changing the language into something else; and
thus by its unity of purpose confirms the truthfulness of the grammatical sense
believed in by the Jews. Hence it is better adapted as
evidenced by the history of the primitive Church, to meet and obviate the
objections of the Jews.
Making the Christian Church, which is
only preparative, to be the covenanted Messianic Kingdom, forms a fruitful
source of difficulty to the Jew. Thus e.g. a Jew (art.
“Messiah,” McClintock
and Strong’s Cyclopedia)
objects: “We dissent from the proposition that Jesus
of Nazareth is the Messiah announced by the prophets, because the Church which
He founded, and which His successors developed, has offered, during a succession
of centuries, a most singular contrast to what is described in the Hebrew Scriptures
as the immediate consequence of Messiah’s Advent, and of His glorious Kingdom. The prophet Isaiah
declares that when the Messiah
appears, peace, love, and union will be permanently
established; and every candid man must admit that the world has not yet
realised the accomplishment of this prophecy. Again, in the
days of the Messiah, all men, as Scripture saith, ‘are to serve God with one
accord,’ and yet it is very certain that since the appearance of Him whom our
Christian brethren believe to be the Messiah, mankind has been split into more
hostile divisions on the grounds of religious belief, and more antagonistic sects
have sprung up than in any historic age before Christianity was preached.” This, and far more in the same
direction, could be alleged as true; and the representation of the Church as
the predicted Messianic Kingdom (and not as it is, a preparatory stage for the
same) is only increasing the difficulties of a Jew’s acceptance of Jesus as the
Messiah. It likewise is disgraceful to professed Christians
to take up the stale falsehoods that are fastened upon Jewish views of the
Messianic Kingdom, viz., that they regarded it as something similar to earthly
kingdoms, like the Roman, etc, Now, while it is true that some Jews had a low and gross view of the Kingdom, yet many
and leading minds had a correct idea that it would be different from mere earthly
kingdoms, because it would he
essentially Theocratic, a restoration of the Theocracy, to be revived
and manifested in the Person of the Messiah. They are
unjustly ridiculed and censured because of the expectation of universal
dominion under the Messiah’s rule. But is it
not predicted in the plainest possible language that their Messiah should be a Ruler
over their own nation, and also over all other nations? Did they believe in the
ultimate downfall of all other kingdoms, and which has called forth thousands
of sarcasms? This, too, is clearly predicted. That
which, probably, has caused more unjust [Page 423] accusations and witless ridicule is
the notion entertained respecting Jewish supremacy.But
if there is any truth distinctively taught in the Scriptures, then that of
Jewish supremacy is one (see e.g. Proposition 114), destined to prove tin
inestimable blessing to all other nations.
OBSERVATION 8. How poorly in effectiveness
the arguments of the Jew have been met by later Christian
apologists, is self-evident if we glance over the history of apologetics. The
line of reply adopted by Origen in his answer to Celsus, has been
substantially readopted and repeated down to the present day. Thus e. g. to illustrate: when Celsus from a Jewish standpoint
(b. 2, ch. 29) urges the objection that “the prophets
declare the Coming One to be a mighty Potentate, Lord of all nations and armies
“and deduces from the failure of such a manifestation of Jesus that He is not
the One predicted, Origen answers correctly when he shows that there are two
Advents, a first and a second, separated by an interval of time, and that the
Coming of Jesus as such a Potentate is to be referred to the Second Advent, but
he does not really break the force of the objection when he portrays the
results of such a Second Coming to be the winding up of all
sublunary affairs etc., while the prophets describe a very
different state of affairs, viz. a great and glorious reign over the restored
Jewish nation, and the nations here on the earth - to follow such an Advent.
The main point of the objection, that the reign of the Messiah as predicted, is not answered by this mode of reasoning and cannot be met by it. On
the other hand, our doctrine satisfactorily meets it, showing how this reign, as
earthly Potentate is
postponed until the Second Advent when the covenants and the prophets
will be fulfilled in the manner delineated by the Word. The Jewish expectations, drawn legitimately from the prophecies, are by the
Apostles linked with the Second Advent, and the very phraseology growing out of
these expectations, are thus adopted by them without the least intimation that
they are to be understood differently from common usage. Hence
our view, instead of those legitimate Jewish deductions from the prophets,
confirms them as indispensable to the fulfilment of the Word.
The difficulty with many is this: they
insist upon one Advent of the
Messiah. Thus e.g. they thus apply Isa. 11:
1-10. Accepting of the Messianic interpretation of Kimchi, Adrabanel,
and other Jewish commentators, they (as e.g. Rev. Prof. Marks in Jewish Messenger, Jan. 1872) say that with the
appearing of the Messiah are a series of synchronous events, such as the final
restoration of the Jewish nation, universal peace and harmony, the overthrow of
all enemies, etc., and that the Messiah is known by the accomplishment of these
predicted events. Consequently they argue that
taking one Advent taught, such events not taking place at and after the Advent
of Jesus, but the reverse occurring, He cannot, therefore, be the Messiah. All
hinges on the one Advent theory. But we have shown in the
body of the work (e.g. Proposition 34) why the two Advents are not
more distinguished the one from the other, and why two become necessary in
order to fulfil all that is predicted. Besides this, it alone reconciles the
two states of humiliation and of exaltation attributed to the Messiah. We thus retain the one Messiah. The invention of two Messiahs (see art. “Messiah” in Herzog’s
Cyclop.) was utterly unknown to the earlier Targums and the earlier Gemara
of Jerusalem, which have but one Messiah, the Son of David. The Gemara of
Babylon (about the sixth century, so Horne’s
Introd.) has a second Messiah, the Son of
Joseph; and the Targum of the Song of Songs (Tar. Megil.)
4, 5; 7, 3, says: “Your Redeemers are two, who will
redeem you, the Messiah the Son of David, and the Messiah, the Son of Ephraim,
like unto Moses and Aaron.” (This Targum is noted - Horne’s Introd., Vol. 1, p. 263 - for its “dull
glosses and fabulous additions;” with which comp. arts. “Antichrist” and “Messiah” in Smith’s
Bible Dictionary
and McClintock and Strong’s (Cyclop.)
More modern writers to avoid making two, apply the
predictions of humiliation to some prophet, or king, or to the Jewish nation itself,
thus violating the earlier applications. Our distinctive view of the [Page 424] two Advents is of such a nature that it consistently reconciles the prophecies as fulfilled
in one Messiah, David’s Son and Lord.
Certainly the Jew’s should not accuse us of
folly in still looking for the Messiah, and in regarding His Coming as imminent.
This has been the posture, of a multitude of Jews in the past. Aside from the
general opinion (e.g. art. “Messiah”
in McClintock and Strong’s Cyclop.)
on the subject at the Advent of Jesus of Nazareth, the
imposition of false Messiahs (see arts. on, in above and others), the
calculations of Rabbi Saadia, Abraham Ibu, Chija, Nachman, Gersoni, Abrabanel and
others, the repeated failures of estimates causing an interdict to repress
calculations of time, the intense yearnings and hopes inspired in periods of persecution
and depression, the numerous utterances of writers, all evince that in calling
into question and decrying our position, they would be deriding the pious and
learned of their own nation.
OBSERVATION 9. But as our object is briefly to indicate how our doctrine
meets and removes Jewish objections, it is
not necessary to enter into additional details. The attentive reader will
not fail to notice, that in many points it is well adapted for this purpose.
The spirit of it calls upon the Gentiles not to be “high-minded,” to consider that their call (as predicted even by Moses) is
the result of Jewish unbelief, but which unbelief shall finally give place to a
cordial reception of Jesus Christ, when the times of the Gentiles have run
their allotted course. It is disposed to allow and defend the distinctive position
of the Jewish nation, the necessity of identification by engrafting with it to
secure the blessings of Redemption covenanted to it, and
even the supremacy of that nation after the restoration, in virtue of its
Theocratic position. It sympathizes most cordially with the down-trodden
The great trouble, however, in reaching the Jews, is their own
lack of candour, for the modern Jews especially will not allow passages that
the ancient Jews applied to the Messiah to have any such reference, lest
Christians should be enabled to take advantage of the
same in behalf of Jesus. This is illustrated e.g. by, McCaul (Aids of faith,
Essay 3, p. 100), who refers to Ps. 2, as referred to the Messiah by ancient Jews, saying:
“This is confessed even by Rashi in the eleventh century, who remarks, ‘Our Rabbis interpret
this Psalm of the Messiah,’ to which was added in the older copies of his commentary,
‘but in order to answer the heretics it is better to interpret it of David,’
words still found in the commentary on the 21st
Psalm.” They are especially unfair to the divinity of Jesus,
denying e.g. that He is “the Son of God,” when
as Lederer
(Israelite
Indeed, March 1867, etc.) proves that some of their writers declare
that Jesus assumed the title belonging to the real Messiah. They object to Jesus
being called the “the Word,”
and with lack of frankness conceal what their own past literature ascribes to “the Messiah,” (comp. Barnes, Com. on John, ch. 1, where e.g. the Targum on Deut. 26: 17, 18, says: “Ye have appointed the Word of God a King over you this
day, that He may be your God”).
The plainest statements applied to the
Messiah, as Dent. 18: 18, 19) (comp. Kurtz, His Old
Covenant, vol. 3, p. 475), or Micah 2:
13 (comp. Pearson On the Creed,
p. 413, foot-note) must be
lowered to avoid the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, and the sayings of their Targums
(comp. (e.g, Dr.
Etheridge’s Translation
of the Taggum of Onkelos, pp. 6, 16, 17,
for divinity of Messiah) must be concealed
from the mass of their people - [which is similar to what is happening today throughout
the Churches of God, by all Anti-millennialiast
teachers!]
- lest it be found favourable to the crucified one. Such language, as
the following - highly indicative of the Theocratic ordering, and that instead
of our making more gods than one we make God’s
rule in the Person of David’s Son is- [see Luke
1: 32, 33;
cf.
2 Pet. 3:
8; Rev. 2: 27; 3: 21; 20: 4-6, R.V.] - totally
ignored. Dr. Hales
(quoted, Horne’s Introd., vol. 2, p. 275) cites a remark from the ancient
Rabbinical book of Ikkarim, illustrating Jer. 23: 5, 6, “The Scripture calls the name of the Messiah Jaoh, Our Righteousness, to intimate that He will be a mediatorial
God, by whose hand we shall
obtain justification from the Name; wherefore it calls Him by
the name of THE NAME (that is, the ineffable
[Page
425] name Joah, here put for
God Himself”). Especially do we find modem
writers unfair to Isa.
53, for in their efforts to make it
non-Messianic, they give the most varied interpretations, applying it to Jeremiah or the Israelitish people, or
to the godly portion of the nation, or to the prophetical body, or to Uzziah, or to Hezekiah, or to the house of David, or to an interpolation.
They carefully ignore past Jewish concessions (comp. Hengstenberg’s Christology, Pye Smith’s Scripture Testimony, art. “Prophet,” in McClintock
and Strong’s Cyclop.
etc., on the passage). So in the
interpretation of the seventy weeks of Daniel
(comp. art. “Messiah,” McClintook and Strong’s Cyclop.,
Lange’s Com. Daniel, p. 206, etc.), they
carefully exclude from notice - to avoid the Christian application - the
concessions of Kimchi, Jarcbi, Rabbi Saadias, and other learned Jews.
So likewise the Coming of the Messiah to the temple, His being pierced, sold,
etc. (Lange’s Com. Zech., pp. 71, 96, etc.), all
must be so interpreted - over against Jewish concessions and the strongest
evidence - as to forbid an application to Jesus. The entire spirit of such a course
simply manifests prejudice, and an unwillingness to approach the subject with
that candour which it eminently deserves. We cannot censure
them more than we do a class pf professed Christians (as e.g. Williams in Essays and Reviews) who endeavour,
in their destructive efforts, to make out that the Messianic predictions of Isaiah have no reference whatever to Christ, a
position which is fully answered by the declaration of Jesus Himself (Luke 24: 25-27, 44-47) and the quotations from Isaiah (Matt. 8: 17, and 12: 18-21, and 15: 8, 9; Acts 8: 32, 33, and 13: 34, 47, etc.).
OBSERVATION 10. Our doctrine brings forth with prominency the idea that the Messiah is a temporal
Deliverer. With all the inestimable spiritual blessings, the deliverance from
sin and the results of sin, we have added as inseparably connected a remarkable
temporal deliverance. This is so identified with the restoration
of the Jewish nation and the re-establishment of the Theocracy by the Messiah,
that it is folly to deny the expectations and hopes of the pious Jews and
primitive Christians in this point. If language has any definite meaning, and
if God will ever fulfil His covenants and promises as written, then glorious temporal deliverance must, in the nature of the case,
be incorporated. In the “Agenda” a meeting of
Jewish Rabbis in the year 1650, held in the plain of that name, about ninety
miles from Buda, the question was discussed whether the Messiah had come and
was decided in the negative. The reasons given for this conclusion - and which
have the greatest weight still with the Jewish mind - were based
on the fact that the prophet linked the restoration and prosperity of
the Jewish nation, the restoration and exaltation of the Davidic throne and
Kingdom with the Coming of the Messiah. As these events had not
ye transpired, as the nation has not yet
met with temporal deliverance, etc., it was assumed that the Messiah had not yet come, thus overlooking that the
same prophets predict a previous rejection
of the same Messiah, a consequent continued fall of the nation, a call of the
Gentiles, and after a long endurance of punishment the
return of the Messiah for promised deliverance. They,
unfortunately, only allow a portion or Scripture its due weight, and ignore, although
sustained by historical fact, the remainder. They also refuse to examine the
claims of Jesus to this title, and how this very temporal
deliverance, so long and ardently prayed for, is postponed to the Second
Advent. We can readily see, however, what decided influence the prevailing Christian
theology which denies all this, although plainly covenanted and
predicted, must
have had in deciding these Jews to reject Jesus
as “the Messiah.” For if, as many Christians declare, this
Jesus is not to restore the Jewish nation and elevate it in honour and power;
if He is not to re-establish the Davidic throne and Kingdom, exalting it in
dominion and glory over the earth, then it necessarily and inevitably follows
that Jesus is not the Messiah covenanted to David and predicted by the [Page
426] prophets. But if, on the other hand, it can be shown and
proven (as our Propositions
logically and scripturally do) that this Jesus is to return and perform this
work, then it also legitimately
follows that the Jew has no excuse in rejecting Him as the Christ. This Jesus
will yet come as promised, and then the full parallel between Him and Moses (Acts 7: 35-37; Deut. 18: 15-18) will be brought out a Deliverer of the nation
and the instrument through whom a Theocracy is established. Our view, therefore,
urges the Jew to cleave to the most precious oath-bound promises relating to
his nation and the Messiah; it confirms the faith of the nation in its ultimate
deliverance and glory through the power of this returning Jesus.
The Jew may again ask why did not
Jesus perform this work at His First Advent? Again we
remind him that this was all tendered to the nation on condition of repentance,
for certainly, God could not condescend to re-establish a Theocracy and rule as
King over a nation so corrupt as that nation was at the First Advent. This wickedness has been so faithfully described by a converted
Jewess (Leila Ada,
p. 109) in her interesting letter (revealing her conversion to Christianity to
her father) that we quote it. After alluding to the Jewish hope of
temporal deliverance, and how it was expressed by Zacharias, the father of John
the Baptist, she adds: “And those who rejected,
blasphemed, insulted, and crucified the Messiah, could it be expected that He
would grant such heinous sinners temporal deliverance? That at about the period
of the Coming of Jesus, the Jews were a most iniquitous nation, is proved by
the testimony of Josephus; so wicked
that he observes, ‘If God had not sent the Romans as His executioners, the
earth would have opened and swallowed us up.’ What a dreadful place! And, doubtless, the most crying evil of these people, was
their rejection and treatment Jesus Christ, the Son of God. How
could such sinners expect deliverance?” etc.
Let any unbiased mind read e.g. the trial, condemnation, and death of this
Jesus as presented in all its simplicity in the Gospels, and
see the conduct of the representative men of the nation, and is not the
direct testimony of this Jesus concerning the corruption extant most forcibly
and fearfully vindicated? Is it not reasonable that the Jew
should allow the Mew Testament to assign
its reasons why Jesus did not bring the promised deliverance; why
the nation did not repent; why the Kingdom was postponed: why
the Messianic prophecies were held in abeyance on account of the sins of the
nation, etc., thus bringing, without destroying the brightest of Jewish hopes,
the New Testament into cordial sympathy and agreement with the Old Testament.
To
be continued, D.V.