Page images
PDF
EPUB

E.

Appendix. Agabus and his company, no one could have been expected to act on its authority. The event, when it came to pass, would have proved, then, indeed, that he who foretold it was inspired; but before the event, no assurance of this sort belonged to the prophecy itself; it required to be authorized by an accredited servant of God.

Use of
Prophecy.

On the other hand, when the use and intent of a prophecy is evidence, then its use begins only with its fulfilment; and that fulfilment is its credential. For instance, the fulfilment of our Lord's prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, became a miraculous evidence of the truth of his pretensions, as strong as any miracle could be, which he wrought during his abode on earth; but its use in this respect did not at all depend on its being recorded, preached, and applied, by persons divinely accredited. All that was requisite was, that it should be known certainly to have been delivered by Jesus. A fulfilled prophecy carries with it its own credentials. Nay more; considered as evidence, it would have its character destroyed, by supposing it to be otherwise circumstanced. This will be very clear if we consider the question, "In what way is a prophecy miraculous evidence? In what respect does it correspond to a testimonial miracle?" Is it not that prophecy is an appeal to the senses in proof of miraculous knowledge in the author, just as a sensible miracle is an appeal to the senses in proof of an exercise of miraculous power in the agent? Knowing that no human being can raise the dead to life, he who should witness a dead man so raised, would have the evidence of his senses, that miraculous power must have done it. So, too, one who has witnessed the destruction of the Jewish polity and the dispersion of the Jews, being quite sure that there were no human means of foreseeing these events, sees in that destruction and dispersion, a sensible evidence of the miraculous knowledge of him who foretold the events. But if he cannot of himself recognise the fulfilment of the words of Jesus in those events, the events are no more evidence to him, than the raising of the dead man would have been, if he had not seen that he was raised. He might indeed, in the case of the raising of the dead, have been assured by another who did see it; but the evidence would be no longer the original evidence of a sensible miracle. And so, too, he might give credence to one deserving of it, who should inform him that the destruction of Jerusalem was the fulfilment of certain words of our Lord; but if he could not recognise the fulfilment, the event would not be itself miraculous evidence. Whatever purpose therefore the information might serve, it could not make the prophecy evidence. Its whole character as such-its whole correspondence to a sensible miracle-depends on the clear recognition by the ordinary human faculties of the complete connexion between the prophecy and the event.

It is generally acknowledged, that the main purpose of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ was that of evidence. If

E.

Use of

some of them were made to serve another purpose also, yet to the Appendix. Christian this is apparently the sole purpose. As information, they were useful to those to whom they were delivered; but as evidence only, to us for whom they are fulfilled. But, then, in order to be Prophecy. evidence on which Christ's identity with the promised Messiah is proved, their fulfilment in Christ must be left to be recognised by our natural faculties. Otherwise, the appeal to the prophecies as evidence would be idle. For their fulfilment, instead of being considered as proofs, must be considered as a matter to be proved. They thus become a dead weight in the evidence of Christianity, instead of one of the supports.

In short, if the New Testament Scriptures had comprehended amongst its uses the application of prophecy, we should have believed its fulfilment on the evidence of the New Testament writers, and not, as was designed, believed in Christianity on the evidence of that fulfilment.

This principle seems to be what St. Peter intends, in his Second Epistle, (chap. i. 20,) where he remarks, that "no Scripture is of private interpretation." The Greek is ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως, which is not literally rendered by "private interpretation," the term idías naturally implying something peculiar or proper to that of which the writer is speaking, and that is προφητεία γραφῆς.

The apostle had been reminding those to whom he was writing, that their faith rested not on philosophical fables, but on the evidence of eye-witnesses, who saw Christ and his miracles, and heard the voice that declared him to be the beloved Son of God. He then adds, καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες, ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ, ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάση, καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλη ἂν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν· τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες, ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς, ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται, οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπων ἠνέχθη ποτὲ προφητεία, ἀλλ ̓ ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου Φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν οἱ ἅγιοι Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι. Now by the expression ἔχομεν Beßatóregov, &c. it is clear, as Wetstein observes on the passage, that the apostle cannot mean to call prophecy a more certain evidence than the sensible manifestations which he had been before mentioning: but that the construction is ἔχομεν τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον BEBAιÓTEGO. We (in opposition to former ages) possess the prophecies, rendered more sure evidence; converted by their fulfilment into grounds of belief corresponding to the manifestations and miracles before mentioned. This is the old interpretation put on the passage (see Wetstein as above referred to; who cites likewise a passage, Josephus, B. III. C. 5, where the word ßeßatóregos is used somewhat similarly). We then possess prophecy, according to St. Peter, converted into sure evidence; and to this evidence he bids us attend, bearing uppermost in our minds that circumstance, on which the

ō Nov. Test. in loco.

Appendix.

E.

Use of
Prophecy.

character of prophecy as evidence depends, viz. its development by the event: oix idias úσews means, that it is not its own interpreter, but is unfolded and established by the event. And this is so, he adds lastly, the prophet not being the author, but God, the sole controller of the event which is to interpret it. "God gave such predictions," observes Sir Isaac Newton, "not to gratify men's curiosity, by enabling them to foreknow things; but that after they were fulfilled, they might be interpreted by the event; and his own providence, not that of the interpreter, be then manifested to the world." (Sir Isaac Newton on Daniel and the Apocalypse, 4to. p. 225.)

But, then, it may be urged, do not the New Testament writers quote the prophecies, and point to their fulfilment? Unquestionably they do. All I mean to suggest is, that the application of the prophecies makes no part of revelation; and that to suppose that it does, destroys the character of the prophecies as evidence. But if the application of the prophecies makes no part of revelation, then the subject falls under the head of those, on which every writer, inspired and uninspired alike, must be supposed to exercise his natural judgment grant the truth of this, and we should no more expect a Divine interposition to correct the scriptural writer, if on any occasion he was incorrect in quoting and applying a prophecy, than if his quotation had been made from an uninspired author, and merely used as an illustration of his meaning.

66

It may be added, that we can on no other principle account for the inspired writers not being corrected in the equivocal use of an expression, which could not fail to mislead. It has been asserted by reference to the Rabbinical writers, that the phrase that it might be fulfilled," and the like, was the customary form of quotation with the Jews, when no miraculous fulfilment was intended. Now it seems probable, if this be the case, that many of the quotations which are so introduced by the New Testament writers, are accordingly mere accommodations, and were not considered by the writers themselves as prophecies. The vague meaning of the word prophet may perhaps have made Christians in after times less willing to take this view of it; because it might seem, that what was said to be written by a prophet, must be meant for a prophecy. But the term prophet included teacher, as well as predicter, and prophecy, teaching, as well as foretelling. If then we substitute the word teacher for predicter, we shall perhaps be better reconciled with the suggestion that assigns many of the quotations of prophecy to the class of illustrations. The Jews had no literature but their Bible, and would of course use it for all purposes of literature. But still granting all this to be true, (which I really think it may be,) is it not certain that the sacred writers, if the application of prophecy were part of their inspired work, would not have left us in doubt, when they meant to point out a prophecy, and when to quote by

1

way of illustration. If the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit Appendix. extended to this point, could the writers have been allowed to use E. the same expression in both cases, so as to leave us doubtful in Use of every case?

Of course, if this view of the application of prophecy be correct, the same reasoning will to a certain extent hold good with respect to the application of the types of the Old Testament. To a certain extent, because, like verbal prophecies, the types had other uses besides that of being convertible into evidence by their fulfilment. As verbal prophecy often furnished previous information, so types, or symbolical and histrionic prophecy, moulded the people who employed them to habits of mind, which rendered the truths typified more congenial and more intelligible than they otherwise would have been. This at least was the proper effect of them. But, then, considered as prophecies fulfilled, the principle which applies to verbal prophecy, will of course apply here also.

Another scruple which may be felt in admitting this view is this: Are not the prophecies and types used by the inspired writers as grounds for doctrine? and of course they must then at least be considered as infallible in their application. Supposing this granted, it would not affect the character of their quotations in any other case; but even this I should hardly admit. The assertions, indeed, which the apostles maintain, if involving matter of faith or morals, must be held infallible; else there is no rule of faith and conduct in Scripture: but it is no necessary adjunct, that all the means which they adopt to prove the assertion are likewise inspired means. They were assisted indeed in the knowledge and interpretation of prophecy; but so they were in the gift of eloquence and of languages; and yet it did not follow that their eloquence was therefore faultless, or their knowledge of a language always correct. These were aids given them, not resembling the endowments of one possessed by a spirit, but like the improvement of the natural faculties of men who remained still free agents, and still responsible, and therefore fallible beings.

The inspired teacher might plead feebly, or he might reason weakly; for what God provided was the point to be proved, and the materials of proof, not the use of them. He might use prophecy or miracle amiss; for it was the prophecy or miracle that God gave; in the use of these instruments He only assisted them; and surely no more was needed. As long as the attested record of the miracles remains, as long as those very prophecies are in our hands, we are judges of the application of them, and it is intended that we should See Inquiry into the Proofs, Nature, and Extent of Inspiration." Fellowes, 1831.

be so.

6%

Prophecy.

Appendix.

F.

John the
Baptist's
Embassy to
Jesus.

[ocr errors]

NOTE [F.] PAGE 131.

Several conjectures have been offered by commentators on the real object of John Baptist's sending his disciples to Christ with so strange a question as, Art thou He that should come, or look we for another?" Some have ventured to attribute it to a temporary feeling of despondency and discontent in the Baptist, because that he, the Christ's forerunner, was left to pine in prison without any Divine interposition; and they interpret the question, as if it were an expostulation with Jesus. The view most commonly acquiesced in is, that the embassy was contrived for the satisfaction of John's disciples, and not of John himself; but if so, would he have answered them, "Go and tell John what things you have heard and seen, &c. ?-if so, would John have sent only two of his disciples? Some, again, have had recourse to critical niceties and refinements, such as, that John had seen the Spirit descend on Jesus, agreeably to the Divine communication made to him, but did not know whether it abode on him, which was likewise in the description divinely communicated; and that for his satisfaction in this latter particular it was, the disciples were sent. Mr. Benson, in his Hulsean Lectures, has revived the old interpretation given in the questions and answers which are placed among the works of Justin Martyr, and supposes that the Baptist's object was to ascertain whether the person of whose miracles he heard so much, were the same with Him of whose Messiahship he had formerly received such undoubted proof, and to whom he had borne testimony."

6

I will not pretend to decide certainly against any one of their conflicting views; only, I cannot but observe that they all proceed on one common principle, itself by no means unquestionable-that John Baptist's faith could not have failed him. He had, it is true, been intrusted with the office of proclaiming the Christ's coming; had received evidence that Jesus was He; and had publicly avowed his being satisfied with that evidence. But how many misgivings marked the course of the apostles themselves, after they had confessed Him? Not to mention the repeated instances to be found in their earlier intercourse with Him, on his apprehension they all forsook Him and fled. On the day of His promised return to them, they scrupled not to avow to a supposed stranger the disappointment of their trust," that it was He who should have redeemed Israel;" and one refused to credit the resurrection on any evidence, ever so strong, except the evidence of his own senses; declaring, that he must first handle Him with his hands,' as well as see Him and hear his voice. And yet, his apostles were always with Him, and the impression of miraculous evidence was in their case continually renewed. John Baptist had not this advantage; why should he

[ocr errors]

6 See Sermons by the Rev. Henry Owen, Serm. VII.
7 Hulsean Lectures for 1810, Lect. III.

« PreviousContinue »