__**

m§ #

uc-:m:

MBw99 68o£

188£=^

OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY.

OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY
ITS WITNESS AS A RECORD OF DIVINE
FOREKNO WLEDGE
Wat Wxxbrxdm %tdxaa fax 1876 — 1880

WITH NOTES ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE BOOK OF
DANIEL AND THE PROPHECY OF THE
SEVENTY WEEKS

EV THE
REV. STANLEY LEATHES, D.D.
¦ RECTOR OF CLIFFE-AT-HOO,
PREBENDARY OF ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL,
PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, KING'S COLLEGEj LONDON.

'gsmhsm :
HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27, PATERNOSTER ROW.
MDCCCLXXX.

AND I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY GHOST,
THE LORD AND GIVER OF LIFE,
WHO PROCEEDETH FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON,
WHO WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON TOGETHER IS WORSHIPPED AND
GLORIFIED,
WHO SPAKE BY THE PROPHETS.

Mtws>e>

t

PREFACE.

rjlHE Lectures which form the bulk of the present
-*- volume were delivered in the chapel at Lincoln's
Inn upon the foundation of Bishop Warburton, whose
will directs that the lecturers endeavour " to prove
i " the truth of revealed religion in general, and of the
" Christian in particular, from the completion of those
" prophecies in the Old and New Testaments which
"relate to the Christian Church, especially to the
" apostasy of Papal Eome." Strictly speaking, how
ever, I have confined myself to the confirmation of
the Christian faith arising from the fulfilment of Old
Testament prophecy in the person of Christ and the
foundation of His Church, and have altogether left
untouched the subjects of New Testament prophecy
and the apostasy of Papal Eome, not because of any
lesser interest seeming to attach to them, but because
my own argument admitted of fuller and more com
plete development independently of and without
them. The present Lectures, therefore, deal with the

vi Preface.
evidential value of certain typical portions of Old
Testament prophecy as shown by their fulfilment in
Christ and His Gospel ; a sufficiently important sub
ject, it will be allowed, in the existing condition of
religious thought. My object, however, has not been
so much to -treat of the entire mass of Old Testament
prophecy as to illustrate the special relation of a
few salient and typical samples of it to Christian
evidence. If their value can be established, it would
seem that a solid ground is discovered for our estimate
of prophecy as a whole ; or at all events we cannot
set it aside as a whole if parts of it are characterised
by features so remarkable. For that these are the
only parts so characterised is not for a moment
to be supposed. They are merely treated as speci
mens of the rest.
Objections are raised against the Christian reve
lation mainly upon two grounds, the critical and the
physical. Doubtless the real difficulty rests upon
the physical ground. Indeed as a rule the critical
objections to the Divine authority of Holy Scripture
resolve themselves into the historical improbability
and psychological impossibility • of a supernatural
communication that can be trusted by any one besides
the immediate subjects of it, which is, strictly speak
ing, a physical objection.
Now there can be no question that the New Testa-

Preface. vii
ment is written in apparent ignorance and in entire
disregard of any such theoretical difficulty as this.
There can be no question that the several writers
of the New Testament advance and maintain the
position that Old Testament prophecy generally is
and was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. As, however, the
tone of our own thought is vastly changed from theirs,
the problem arises how to reconcile the statements of
the New Testament writers with our more advanced
knowledge of psychological facts and the laws of
nature ; and if this cannot be done, then their state
ments must simply be set aside, and the supposed
prophecies of the Old Testament be explained away,
or explained in any way they can.
Undoubtedly the most elaborate and considerable
attempt that has been made in this direction by any
modern writer is that of Professor Kuenen, in his
" Prophets and Prophecy in Israel,"* and it would ill
become any one to handle the subject of Prophecy
who had not patiently and conscientiously weighed
his theory. To those who are acquainted with his
writings it is superfluous to say that he is a strong
and determined anti-supernaturalist. There are
doubtless many things that we all have to learn from
* The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel. An Historical and Critical
Inquiry, by Dr. A. Kuenen, Professor of Theology in the University
of Leyden. Translated from the Dutch by the Rev. Adam Milroy,
M.A., with an Introduction by J. Muir, Esq., D.C.L. London:
Longmans, 1877.

viii Preface.
Professor Kuenen; and he has, we are willing to
admit, thrown much light upon some of the more
forgotten features of prophecy ; but his writings are
the more valuable because he leaves us no vestige of
' supernaturalism ' to deal with. According to him,
Old Testament prophecy is a purely natural and
psychological phenomenon, unique and historical
indeed, but simply natural as the accidental form in
which one of the ' principal religions ' of the world
developed and expressed itself. It has no claim to
be regarded as a direct and supernatural message
from God. All its manifestations can be explained
on psychological principles, and must historically be
so explained ; so that we have, according to Professor
Kuenen, no longer any ground to look upon prophecy,
and if not prophecy the Old Testament itself, as in
any special sense the word of God.*
It is a mistake, therefore, to suppose that there is
anything in the elder volume of Scripture of the
nature of real prediction, or that prediction is in any
* " Thus then the crown which a later generation had placed upon
" the brows of the Israelitish prophets, is, in our time, removed ; but
" stripped of that supernatural halo with which they glittered, they
" reveal all the more clearly their own personal greatness. But — we
"have then no longer in their prophecies the word of God himself,
" which we, in common with the Christian Church of all ages, thought
" that we possessed in them ? Do not lament that ! Each of their
" words that finds an echo in your heart and your conscience — and
"their number is great — is to you a word of God." — P. 593. "What
then, may we be allowed to ask, if it finds no echo ?

Preface. ix
sense an evidence of prophecy or of the supernatural.
Prediction was a form that prophecy assumed, but
merely an accidental form. It varied with various
prophets; sometimes in the writings of the same
prophet ; was in many cases notoriously falsified by
subsequent events ; and even where not, was always to
be referred to the prudential foresight of the prophets
if, as was not seldom the case, owing to the credulity
of the actors, it was not itself an efficient and effectual
means of working out its own fulfilment.* Now the
beauty of this theory is its thoroughness. There is
no mistake about it. We see and know exactly where
it lands us. The Professor is determined to deliver
us from subjection to the authority of the prophets.
They have no longer any claim to our allegiance
as the messengers of God. We may respect their
earnestness, we may gratefully acknowledge the
result they have bequeathed to us in ' ethical mono
theism';! but as for looking up to them as depo
sitaries of a superhuman and Divine truth, that
is impossible and absurd. They were essentially
human, and nothing more than human. \
* Pages 298, 308, etc. + Page 589, etc.
J " It [Hebrew prophecy] does not disown its human origin ; that
" is borne witness to, both by its gradual ripening and by many imper-
"fections which cleave to it. Every attempt to derive it directly and
" immediately from God must therefore fail. But yet if we view it as
" one of the many revelations of man's spiritual life — and surely that
" life, as a whole, points back to God and testifies of Him — then we
"cannot estimate it highly enough, and we are right in calling it
" unique."— Kuenen, p. 591.

x Preface.
It is manifestly impossible, nor have I attempted,
to traverse the whole of Kuenen' s long argument in
these Lectures. I have only dealt with that argu
ment in detail in places where it contravened my own,
— and I venture to hope, especially with regard to
his treatment of Daniel, not without success. It
is far more important to find, if possible, a solvent
for his principles. These are either true or false : if
true, then there is an end to Hebrew prophecy as
a Divine gift, and to so much of the Gospel as is
involved in the Divine authority of that gift ; if false,
then the sooner it is directly" met and effectually
disposed of the better. The writings of Kuenen have
essayed to do for the Old Testament what the author
of ' Supernatural Eeligion ' has endeavoured to do for
the New. But in both cases the true answer lies in
a nutshell. It is not a matter of detail, but a matter
of principle. The Bishop of Durham has conclusively
disposed of the detail so far as relates to the early
Christian literature: others have more directly
assailed the principle. With regard, however, to
the Old Testament, the case is somewhat different.
There is not the same evidence within our reach,
and the answer must be to a certain extent depen
dent upon the results of the inquiry with regard to
the New. If we have here sufficient evidence to
warrant us in accepting the presence of the super
natural, then, so far as the superaatural in the New
Testament involves the existence of the supernatural

Preface. xi
in the Old, the presence of it in the one carries with
it the presence of it also in the other. For example,
is it or is it not a fact that Christ literally rose from
the dead? If it is a fact that He did, then it is
simply playing with words to represent that act as a
natural and not a supernatural act. Again, is there
or is there not evidence that Christ led His disciples
to believe that He would rise again from the dead ?
If He did, then is Christ a supernatural person, not
only unique in all history, but separated from every
other character that can be named by an impassable
barrier. And if this is so, then do what we will
there is in the Christian religion a core and kernel
of the supernatural which we cannot destroy without
destroying that religion. But then, also, not only is
it one of the ' principal religions ' of the world, but
it also has a just claim to be regarded as the c prin
cipal religion,' the only religion that comes to us
with Divine commendation and authority, with the
sanction of the ' supernatural.' It is this that we
believe the Christian religion to be.
But then, further, if there is this indestructible
element of ' supernaturalism ' in the origin of the
Christian religion, then it becomes only a matter ol
degree where that element is to be found. If Christ
is really a supernatural person, there is nothing
improbable in His doing supernatural acts. If He
really promised that He would rise again, then it

xii Preface.
becomes impossible to deny to Him the gift of pre
diction ; then it becomes more probable that He may
have exercised that gift on other occasions also, and
in other ways ; then it is not even improbable that
He may have bestowed that gift likewise upon others;
and then, finally, if we can trust our records of His
words and actions, which is a matter of probable
evidence, it is certain that if He appealed to the
witness of prophecy in the Old Testament, He did so
as to the testimony of a supernatural witness. And
thus the existence of a supernatural element in the
predictive prophecy of the Old Testament is assured
to us on the authority of Christ. There may be
other considerations tending to confirm this con
clusion ; but the conclusion is one not depending
entirely upon the evidence inherent in the Old Testa
ment, but partly dependent also upon our previous
estimate of Christ.
I am quite aware that this reasoning, however
logical and sound, is eminently ' unscientific,' and
on that ground will at once by many be rejected,
but I believe that after all the first question we have
to decide is that proposed by our Master Himself,
WJiat think ye of Christ? and therefore I decline
to make my answer to this question depend upon
my critical investigation of the scriptures of the Old
Testament, and the conclusion to which the conclu
sions of others may lead me.

Preface. xiii
For not only are those conclusions self-contra
dictory, and therefore self-destructive, but I cannot
disguise from myself the fact that if my method is
vitiated by a foregone conclusion of belief in Christ,
the method of the critics is no less vitiated by the
arbitrariness of their principles. I am not able to
discern any standard of judgment to which they are
willing to submit their own judgment, but their prin
ciples appear to me to be so arbitrary that I cannot
but suspect a certain vitiation in the argument also
on their side if only it should arise from the pious
and wholesome dread of ' supernaturalism.'
But surely it is not more natural to suppose that
the phenomenon of Hebrew prophecy sprung, as it
were, full-blown into existence in such men as Joel,
Amos, and Hosea, out of the soil and environment of
Canaanitish idolatrous soothsaying,* and this at the
commencement of the eighth century before Christ,
for the determination of which epoch there seems
nothing to guide us but the alleged inaccurate and
untrustworthy post-captivity records of Kings and
Chronicles, than it is to assign to it the kind of
genesis that the Scriptures themselves imply. Given
a truly Divine and providential creation of the
Israelitish nation by the discipline of the Exodus and
the authoritative giving of the Law, — given, in short,
the theocracy as an actual fact existing till the time
* Kuenen, pp. 552-3, 573.

xiv Preface.
of Samuel, — and it is at least consistent and in some
sense natural that prophecy should thrive under his
auspices, and eventually produce the kind of fruits
we perceive in the canonical prophets. But under
stand by the giving of the Law itself only a mythical
exaggeration of some attempts of Moses at imposing
a legal code upon the people without any extraneous
and higher sanction, and one is at a loss to conceive
how naturally — for supernaturally is out of the ques
tion — it was probable or possible that a class of men
like the earliest of the prophets should have sprung
into existence as by a kind of reaction against the
soothsaying habits and tendencies of the surrounding
Canaanites. Is this, we may well ask, in itself and
per se a more natural process than the other would
be, admitting only provisionally the presence and
operation of ' supernatural' elements ? If we assign
the origin of Hebrew prophecy entirely and alone to
the subjective conviction of the prophets,* can we
conceive of the result being an Isaiah or a Micah, a
Joel or an Amos ? And if so, does that subjective
conviction itself present no problems difficult of solu
tion when every support or impulse of a supernatural
kind is wholly withdrawn ?
Nor let it be said that in thus using the word
' supernatural ' we are dealing with a vague termi
nology that requires definition. I apprehend that it
* Kuenen, p. 363.

Preface. xv
is as clear as daylight what Professor Kuenen means
when he attacks what he calls ' supernaturalism.'
He denies that we have any veritable communication
from God that we can absolutely trust ; and certainly
this is not to be found in prophecy. It is, of course,
obvious that our contention is the exact opposite.
But which is right? It seems to us also far more
important that we should beheve that God has
actually spoken than that we should be able to deter
mine with minute and hteral accuracy what He has
said. And it is certain that the testimony of the
Bible is that God has spoken in very deed and in
truth, but at the same time the Bible would have us
believe in the Speaker rather than in the thing He
has spoken. This is surely a legitimate inference
from the duplicate version of the law, and from
numerous other instances that might be named.
And it is only by our believing in the Speaker that
we can enter into life.* The Utter lilleth, but the
spirit giveth life.\ Now the ' scientific exegesis ' of
which Kuenen is the exponent deals only with the
thing spoken, not at all with the Speaker, except so
far as in denying the connection between the two.
It aims at showing that we cannot trust the words
because they are inconsistent, contradictory, erro
neous, and the like, and argues that therefore they
cannot be the words of God. Nor are they the
words of God in such sense as that they have in and
* John v. 40, 24. t 2 Cor. iii. 6.

xvi Preface.
by themselves the promise of eternal Hfe. The entrance
of Thy word giveth light and understanding unto the
simple* but only because it is Thy word, for it is Thou,
and Thou only, who hast the words of eternal life.\
The question I have throughout maintained is that
the evidence of prophecy is such that we can
absolutely trust the authority by which the prophets
spake. There may be much doubt in many ways
attaching to their words; there may be room for
very much more as to their meaning and the Hke ;
but if they were what they pretended to be, and
what we beheve they were, then is their mission a
mission from God, and their message one which, if
received as it is intended to be received, will lead
us home to God. Nor will it be possible for any
one who has so received it to be led astray by the
most destructive of the operations of ' scientific
exegesis,' for he will believe, not in prophecy, but
in the Author of prophecy ; not in the prophets,
but in Him who sent them. This wiU seem, no
doubt, very transcendental and very mystical to the
anti-supernaturalists, but it may to a certain extent
define the position of those who accept prophecy
as one of the ' supernatural ' agencies by which
it has pleased God to work for the education of
mankind, and in the process of making known His
will to man. I may illustrate my meaning in this
endeavour to defend ' supernaturalism ' by showing
* Psalm cxix. 130. f John vi. 68.

Preface. xvii
why it seems to me to be indispensable How can
the Church at large, for instance, or how can any
individual Christian believe in the forgiveness of sins
unless there has been an actual communication to
that effect from the Most High Himself ? It is not
enough for Christ to have proclaimed the doctrine,
for if Christ was not a supernatural person He may
not — nay, cannot — have been in any special commu
nion with His Father, and therefore in trusting His
word we trust to something which is unauthorised
unless He had authority to speak it. But if He had
authority to speak it, then we can trust it to the end,
and trust it infinitely ; and the administration and
application of it becomes merely a matter of degree,
of time and place and circumstance. We have a
Divine basis, a ' supernatural ' foundation underlying
aU, and on that we can rest ; but take away this,
and even the forgiveness of sins itself becomes
nothing more than a vague, shadowy, and unreliable
hope, or mere hallucination. This is only an illus
tration to show that unless ultimately we have
access to the ' supernatural,' we have not access
to God; and what is thus true of the Gospel itself
is in its degree true likewise of prophecy, which
was the preparation for the Gospel.
It is, of course, obvious that in thus pointing out
the need for ' supernaturalism ' we do not prove the
existence of any ground for beHeving in it. That

xviii Preface.
must, after all, be a matter of evidence. Kuenen
and others deny that this evidence exists : they
should say rather that what is evidence to others is
no evidence to them. The real question is whether
the defect Hes in themselves or in the evidence. But
here it may opportunely be remarked that if the
theory admitted of absolute demonstration, it would
offer no scope for the exercise of faith, for it would
be impossible to doubt; whereas the ultimate pro
cesses of the spirit depend solely on the exercise of
faith, for he that cometh to God must believe that He
is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently
seek Him;* and neither of these points selected by
the apostle admits of demonstrative proof. The
evidence of both is, after all, no more than the
balance of probability, and this becomes stronger
and stronger in proportion to the faith that appre
hends it.
According to Kuenen, the ' moral earnestness
of the prophets and their intense conviction f was
the sole basis of their communications. There was
nothing in fact and object answering to it. And
who is to prove that there was ? But ' moral
earnestness ' is not a thing that can generate itself.
It must have an origin. A man may have an intense
conviction and yet be hopelessly in error. The
strength of his conviction is no proof of its correct-
* Heb. xi. 6. t Pages 354, 363, 584, etc.

Preface.

xix

ness. But is there reason to suppose that the
conviction of Hebrew prophecy was an error ? Did
the ' moral earnestness ' of the prophets, instead of
bringing them nearer to the truth, only lead them
still further astray ; and do their writings when
regarded as a whole warrant us in the conclusion
that as regards the authority with which they spake
it was in no sense Divine ? Kuenen thinks that he
shows this by discrediting their predictions. I will
take another course, and ask whether such passages
as Isaiah xxxv. and lxi., for example, setting aside
their predictive element altogether, do or do not
contain evidence of a principle at work in them
which is not of man, neither by man, which is not
of the earth earthy, but is more than human, and is,
strictly speaking and in fact, Divine. Unquestion
ably these passages are valueless unless they are
true. We cannot know them to be true unless we can
trust them as Divine ; but in whatever sense they
are really Divine, they must have been miracu
lously, ' supernaturaUy ' given to the prophet, so that
they rest not on his authority, but on the authority
with which he uttered them. If he had any such
authority, it is conceivable that that authority
may have given him likewise predictions to utter
such as I cannot but recognise in the promise of
the unlimited expansion of the Jewish Church by the
admission of the Gentiles, and in the portrait of
the mysterious sufferer ofthe fifty-third chapter; and
h

xx Preface.
in proportion as his words really were Divine, it is
conceivable that they would be felt ages afterwards
to have a fulness of meaning which there is no
reason to beheve that he himself could fathom.
Now this, which is the settled conviction of the
whole Christian Church, it is impossible to disprove
or shake by the carping criticism of a ' scientific
exegesis ' which would limit the meaning of isolated
passages to some narrow and transient occasion by
the application of the ' historical method ' : —
Vex not thou the poet's mind
"With thy shallow wit :
Vex not thou the poet's mind :
Thou canst not fathom it,
is no less applicable to prophetical than it is to
poetical critics.
To take one instance of the appHcation of this
' scientific exegesis ' which is of a crucial nature,
because it is advanced with triumphant confidence.*
St. Matthew applies to our Lord the words of Hosea,
out of Egypt have I called my Son.-f Now it is
admitted freely and at once that Hosea was speaking
of the historic Exodus, and of that only. But is that
any proof whatever that when the evangelist appro
priates his words he* does not thereby legitimately
give them a fulness of meaning which till he so used
them they neither had nor could have had ? ' < Unless'
* Kuenen, pp. 452, 475. + Hosea xi. 1.

Preface. xxi
" typology," says Kuenen, "is to degenerate into mere
" caprice, the requirement must be rigorously main-
" tained that an actual agreement between type and
" anti-type be shown, and that everything which is
" accidental and unessential be excluded. This con-
" dition is not here fulfiUed. As regards Israel, Egypt
" is the land of servitude ; as regards the child Jesus,
"it was a temporary refuge ; the calling out of Egypt
"is thus also an entirely different thing with the
" evangelist from what it was with Hosea." Then be
it so. But what if the ' servitude ' on which the
critic fastens was itself an ' unessential accident '
which, so far as it represented bondage under sin,
was exactly that feature which the Eedeemer, in
whom was no sin, could not exemplify ? Whereas it
surely was highly significant that He, in common
with all His people, should have so much contact and
acquaintance and personal connection with the land
of bondage, as in His own history to illustrate that
act which characterises aU those who are His, and
condescend in this degree and in this sense to comply
with the Father's ' call,' and, like Israel of old, to
come up out of ' Egypt ' ? And what if the evangehst
trusted to the intelligence of his readers to trace out
the points of likeness and unlikeness in the case of
Israel and of Christ, and to apply the words of the
prophet only as they would apply ? Surely if exegesis
is thus to put shackles and fetters on the ' hands and
feet ' of the living word, we had better cease to be

xxii Preface.
exegetes, for we shall assuredly cut ourselves off from
the school of the apostles, if not from the school of
Him who said, Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray
to my Father, and He shall presently give me more
than twelve legions of angels ? But how then shall the
scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be ? *
It would require a large volume to foUow up the
criticisms of a Hke nature which this writer so freely
gives; but as in one place he has made mention of
another work of mine, I must be pardoned if I offer
a word in reply. In page 449, n. 1, referring to the
Bampton Lectures for 1874, he says, '" Those who
" know the real state of the question do not need to be
" informed expressly that the lecturer, while declaring
" that he leaves undetermined the traditional ideas
" about the age and meaning of the documents, yet
" takes these for granted throughout, so that no single
" adherent of the historico-critical interpretation can
" assent to his argument." Now here I must observe
that I take these traditional ideas for granted no
more than nor even so much as Professor Kuenen
takes his ideas for granted, as he does throughout his
book ; but, on the contrary, I have framed my argu
ment from first to last in entire independence of these
ideas, which however I personaUy thoroughly beheve
* Matt. xxvi. 53, 54. The principle which, according to Kuenen
(p. 448), " is assented to by all the writers (of the New Testament)
"without distinction," is obviously one for which 'the Master'
Himself is responsible, if we can trust our authorities.

Preface. xxiii
to be in the main sound. I no more than Kuenen
renounce my own belief in the matter, but whereas
his argument falls to pieces if his premises are not
granted, — for example, as to the age of Daniel and
the latter portion of Isaiah, — mine, on the contrary,
is constructed in absolute independence of these
questions, with what result I leave to others to
determine. If I have not given greater scope to
the interpretation of passages, it is solely because
I believe my conclusions are in the main un
touched by any of the proposed modifications of
meaning. Till it can be shown, for example, that
the twenty-second Psalm says no syUable more than
is likely to have been historically true of David,*
I shall not cease to believe that it applies with
greater accuracy to Christ than.it does to David,
and that therefore it was intended — not perhaps by
David, but by the Holy Ghost — to do so.
The controversy is a long one, and we are not
likely to see the end of it in our own days. The only
consolation is that there is an historical fact which
must for ever give the He to the conclusions at which
Kuenen arrives. If the whole truth is as he would
have us believe, then the foundation of the Christian
Church rests upon a misapprehension — nay, more,
that Church itself is a mistake. There is, strictly
speaking, no Christ ; there never was, and never
* The position generally of Kuenen, see p. 492, and others.

xxiv Preface.
could have been. The idea was a misconception
from the first, and not only the Church ought histori
cally never to have existed, but exegetically the New
Testament ought never to have been written.* But
it is surely too late in the day to argue thus, for
not only is the Church of Christ a fact, but the
marveUous way in which she has adopted and
entered into the treasures of the Jewish Church, —
as, for example, by the constant and universal use
of the Psalter, which on critical principles is wholly
indefensible, — is itself a standing witness to a power
of spiritual insight which testifies to its own Divine
origin, and shows that the anticipations of the
prophets have been something more than fulfiUed,
and that prophecy may well claim to be regarded
as a record of Divine foreknowledge, an indication
of the Divine purpose. And as for anything further,
the Church may rest secure in her belief of the
promise, Behold, I have created the smith that
bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth
forth an instrument for his work ; and I have created
the waster to destroy. No weapon that is formed
against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that
shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt con
demn. This is the heritage of the servants of the
Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the
Lord.] * See e.g. Kuenen, pp. 469, 473, 487, etc.
t Isaiah liv. 16, 17.

CONTENTS,

I. Introductory - i
H. The Promise to Abraham- 17
III. The Ineluence of the Promise- 37
IV. The Tabernacle of David 55
V. The Sure Mercies of David 79
VI. The Heir of David's Throne 97
VII. The Threatened Captivity 121
VIII. The Approaching Doom 143
IX. The Promised Eeturn 163
X. The Fulfilment of the Time 187
XI. The Seventy "Weeks - 211
XII. The Spirit of Prophecy - 233

Note A. The Genuineness of the Book of Daniel 257
„ B. Prof. Kuenen on the Seventy "Weeks of Daniel - 275
„ C. The Function of Prophecy in the Divine Records - 292
„ D. The Credentials of Eevelation - 306

INTRODUCTORY.

Aces x. 43. — To Him give all ihe prophets ivitness, that through His
name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.

LECTURE I.
INTRODUCTORY.
T I ".HEBE is no reasonable doubt that words such
-*- as these formed part of the address dehvered
by Peter when Cornelius the centurion was received
into fellowship with the Christian Church. They
are found in the earliest and the only historical
document which professes to record the events of
the time, and they are sufficiently confirmed by
many similar statements in the two epistles ascribed
to Peter.* It is indeed true that the Acts of the
Apostles has not escaped unchaUenged as an au
thentic history, nor either of the epistles of St. Peter
as a genuine work of that apostle. But if the
challenge in any case has been from time to time
thrown down, there have never been wanting many
who were eager to take it up, and have been able
to defend with something more than success the
several points attacked. And even if it could be
proved to demonstration, which it manifestly cannot,
that no such position was assumed by St. Peter on
* See, e.g., 1 Peter i. 2, 9, 10, 11, 19, 21 ; ii. 6, 7, 10, 24, 25;
2 Peter i. 1, 2, 19,; ii. 20 ; iii. 18, etc.

4 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. i.
the occasion referred to, it would still remain none
the less certain that this was the position assumed
and maintained habituaUy by the earhest teachers
and propagators of that body of doctrine and belief
which we commonly term and understand by Chris
tianity. The writers of the several books of the New
Testament, whether of those whose genuineness has
never been called in question, or of those whose
claim to it has indeed been disputed, though with
out adequate or at all events conclusive reasons,
are alike unanimous in their appeal to prophecy as
that which had received a new and unexpected light
in the recent and notorious events which they pro
claimed, and as something which vouched for the
importance of those events. It is a phenomenon
in these writings which has yet to be explained,
how it was that the prophetic language of the Old
Testament lent itself with such marked facUity to
the purposes of their authors, and how they of all
men were the only persons to avail themselves of
it, if, as it might be alleged, that language was
inherently devoid of any significance, and did not
become unexpectedly significant and luminous when
applied by them.
This is unquestionably the problem to the solution
of which those should address themselves who would
disparage and depreciate the value of prophecy as
a substantive element in the evidences of the Chris
tian faith, and a known factor in the historic foun
dations of Christianity.

Lect. i.] Introductory. 5
The apostles and first Christian preachers may
have been right or wrong in their use and application
of prophecy, but that it was an engine which they
used, and that it became in their hands an engine
of unexampled and enormous power, is one of the
facts of literature and of history which criticism and
investigation will never be able to disprove. We
must not only show, for example, that the words
cited were not used by Peter at the baptism of
CorneUus, that the baptism of Cornelius was itself
a mythical incident of no historic value ; but also,
that the Gentiles were not gathered into the Church
of Christ, in no small degree because they saw in
Him the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, and
that those who were most conspicuously instrumental
in their conversion had uniformly and consistently
taught them that the Scriptures were fulfiUed in
Jesus. And before we can make good this position, we
must not only disprove the genuineness of the
various books of the New Testament, but must also
deny to it the right to be, as it obviously is, an accu
rate transcript of the thought, belief, and sentiment
of the first two or three generations of Christian
disciples. But that it is this there cannot be a
shadow of doubt.
If, however, the fulfilment of prophecy was a power
ful engine in the original founding of the Christian
Church, and the first promulgation of Christianity,
we may not unreasonably ask whether its evidential
functions are ever likely to cease altogether, or its

6 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. i.
evidential value to fail. If it ever was true that all
the prophets gave testimony unto Jesus, can this
ever cease to be a truth ? And in whatever sense it
was at any time true, will it not rather in that sense
be true at all times ? If there is any witness to
Jesus in prophecy, is not that a witness which must
be intrinsically permanent and unchanging? Our
method of apprehending this testimony may indeed
change as we change ourselves, but if the testimony
is true, it can never lose its value. The particular
value of this or that part may vary in relation to our
special circumstances, but that circumstances wiU
arise to bring out more or less this or that particular
aspect of the truth, if truth it be, we cannot doubt.
The testimony can only cease to be of value upon
its being found to be untrue.* We may not assume
it to be untrue in order that we may deny its value,
any more than we may assume it to be true in order
to affirm or enhance its value. That value must
entirely and alone depend upon the evidence of its
truth. It is remarkable, however, that the early preachers
* It is of course perfectly obvious that prophecy will assume a
totally different aspect according as we regard it from the standpoint
of history or the standpoint of fulfilment, (see Kuenen, p. 12, who
quotes Kueper,) but the phenomenon which has to be explained is
that what was enacted on so large a scale on the platform of history,
became, ages afterwards, when collusion and adaptation were out of
the question, capable of being regarded from the standpoint of fulfil
ment. It is not Homer, and not iEschylus, that is susceptible of
anything like the same treatment that Joel and Isaiah, for example
are ; and are we not, therefore, entitled to ask whence this intrinsic
difference which is a fact ?

Lect. i.] Introductory. 7
of Christianity seem generaUy to have contented
themselves with affirming the existence of the pro
phetic testimony, rather than furnishing a demon
stration of its truth. When Philip preached Jesus
to the Ethiopian eunuch * as the fulfilment of Isaiah's
prophecy, he took no pains to defend himself against
the multiplicity of previous questions which might
then have been raised, and which have actually since
been raised by modern criticism. When St. Paul,
in his letter to Corinth, reaffirmed the gospel he
had already preached there, that Jesus Christ was
raised from the dead the third day, according to the
Scriptures,^ he was at no pains to record the process
by which he proved this, nor the particular scriptures
upon which he relied in support of his assertion.
His silence on this head has bequeathed no little
vexation and difficulty to us, when we attempt to
fiU up the outline he has so faintly and yet so con
fidently sketched. When St. Peter opened the gates
of the kingdom to the first Gentile converts, and
declared unhesitatingly that the ancient prophets
were unanimous in the witness they bore to Jesus,
he does not seem to have been careful to make good
that statement by any method of citation or illus
tration that we can appreciate ; or, however this may
have been, the historian to whom we are indebted for
the narrative has not thought it worth while to record
the instances adduced, or the incidents appealed
to, for our benefit, though most undoubtedly we
should have highly valued any such record. What
* Acts viii. 35. f 1 Cor. xv. 1—3.

8 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. i.
are the natural inferences from these facts ? Are we
to suppose that the apostles and evangelists were
unconscious of or indifferent to the various questions
which are of such deep interest to ourselves ? Are
we to suppose that they who received their testi
mony were, as we should judge, incompetent to
estimate the value of it, and incapable of doing so ?
Are we to imagine that the privUege of doubt is one
which belongs exclusively to ourselves, or that the
tendency to question is not characteristic of other
minds besides our own ? Or may we not rather infer
that the agency which was adequate to producing
results which we know to have been so mighty and
so general, was itself not only effectual, but efficient :
that it was foUowed by the results recorded, and
evidenced in a variety of ways, because it was actuaUy
capable of producing them ?
That the element of doubt was not lacking in the
early Church is evident from the case of those at
Corinth who questioned the resurrection. That
which must ever remain an insuperable difficulty to
the natural reason had aroused in them the spirit
of unbehef. And yet it was to people such as these
that St. Paul did not scruple to declare that Christ
was raised from the dead the third day, according
to the Scriptures. Those therefore who could be
critical on the subject-matter of his teaching were
surely so far competent to test the arguments which
he advanced to support so much of that teaching as
they seem themselves to have accepted. For that
it was not the personal resurrection of the Lord

Lbct- I.] Introductory. g
Jesus, but rather the general resurrection of the
dead that they denied, is clear.
True as it is, however, that we do not know in
detail the nature of St. Paul's appeal to Scripture,
we know perfectly well what it must have been, for
we have in our hands the very Scriptures to which
it was made. We have, therefore, before us the
entire area that the discussion occupied. There
were certain Hmits within which it must have
ranged, and what they were we know ; and, strange
to say, so far as we can at all trust our records, we
know that the resurrection of Christ the third day
was part, not only of St. Paul's teaching, but of
His own. The first three evangelists are unani
mous upon this point.* Somehow, therefore, it was
supposed that the conditions of Scripture demanded
a resurrection the third day. And yet, to the
critical judgment of our own time, how very uncer
tain and insecure such reasoning must seem ! This
is one of the points in which the argument from
Scripture or from prophecy wiU vary in its strength
according to circumstances. And it would assuredly
be very unwise in us to place such an argument very
prominently before those to whom we desired to
commend the doctrine of the resurrection. But it
is no less evident that it had its place in the earliest
Christian teaching, and was not without its logical
weight upon the minds of men.
The conclusion, then, at which we arrive from
* Matt. xvi. 21, xx. 19; Mark viii. 31, ix. 31, x. 34; Luke ix. 22,
xviii. 33, xxiv. 6 — 8.

10 Old Testammt Prophecy. [Lect. I
these considerations, is that there is no question but
that we have the highest possible authority for
finding in the Scriptures of the Old Testament the
essential foundations of the Christian Church, and
the intrinsic and inherent principles of Christian
teaching, — that is to say, we have indicated in the
original and earhest documents of the New Testa
ment the existence of a vast and practically in
exhaustible field in the scriptures and prophecies of
the Old Testament which may again and again be
worked to almost any extent, and may yield results
in confirmation of the truth of Christ. The lines of
the arguments originally used are drawn in the barest
possible way, and many of them may be such as
appear to us nowadays anything but conclusive ; but
if it is in any sense true that the Holy Ghost spake
by the prophets, we cannot but believe that prophecy
itself is one of those treasuries out of which He, as
a faithful and wise steward, will never faU to bring
forth things new and old.
It must, however, not be forgotten that the office
of prophecy is not to convert, but to convince ; not to
lay the foundation, but to confirm those in whom it
has already been laid ; for we are told on sufficiently
high authority that prophecy serveth not for them that
believe not, but for them which believe.* Let us not
seek, therefore, to make prophecy, or the study of
prophecy, do a work for which perhaps it was not
designed. Let us not endeavour to make it sustain
or support the whole superstructure of the Christian,
* 1 Cor. xiv. 22.

Lect. I.] Introductory. \ \
fabric. That it is one of the converging evidences
of the Christian faith we are only too thankful to
remember. Let it not be supposed that it is the
only one, and let us not reason as if it were. Chris
tianity is an historic religion, and its central weight
reposes upon a smaU group of facts, — those, for in
stance, which are gathered together in the Apostles'
Creed. If the main facts of the Christian creed are
not accepted, it is utterly useless to appeal to pro
phecy. If we do not accept the verdict of history,
we shall certainly reject the testimony of that which
claims to have anticipated * history. When Peter
preached to Cornelius, he began with the notorious
facts of the life of Jesus : That word ye know
which was published throughout all Judcearf —
these, therefore, were already, at all events to a
certain extent, accepted, — they were at least not
put aside as impossible, improbable, or untrue: it
was when they had been fully recounted that the
apostle continued with his declaration, to Him give
all the prophets witness. This was his goal, and not
* In applying this term to prophecy and the prophets, it may be
as well to say that there are two ways in which it may be used. The
prophets may have anticipated history by foreseeing and foretelling
that which was to happen ; we are not anxious in every case to show
they did this, though we believe in many it is impossible to deny it :
and prophecy may have anticipated history by containing in germ
that which afterwards was developed an full, even as the seed con
tains the plant, and the bud the flower. It was part of the revelation
of Christianity to make manifest and expand the latent meaning of
prophecy. We sin equally against fact when we forget or deny that
the meaning was latent.
t Acts x. 17.

12 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. I.
his starting-point, — his conclusion, and not his pre
mises. And so when Paul could point the unbelievers
at Corinth to the living testimony of the more than
two hundred and fifty brethren * who had seen the
Lord Jesus after His resurrection, it would appear
that there was little more that needed to be said
to establish the fact of His resurrection, which in
deed they may be presumed to have accepted by
consenting to be baptised into Christ. But if he
had so far won his way with the Corinthian converts
as to get them to acknowledge and accept this super
human, supernatural fact, the steps would be com
paratively easy by which he would be able to bring
them to beheve that it was in accordance with the
Scriptures that Christ was raised from the dead the
third day. Conviction is a very complex operation.
It may often be very difficult to say exactly by what
process it is wrought in our minds, or what was the
exact order of time in which this or that of .the
several independent lines effectually reached us. It
is the combined effect of aU which eventually brings
about conviction. That the mere acceptance of
certain facts is insufficient of itself to produce Chris
tian conviction, however indispensable it may be as
a preliminary element, is clear from St. Paul's own
history. There is no evidence that he denied at any
time the facts of our Lord's life and death. Indeed,
they must have been too notorious for that to have
been possible. But such an acceptance of the facts
was perfectly consistent in his case with determined
* 1 Cor. xv. 6.

Lect. I.] Introductory.

13

<y

anti- Christian zeal. Another element was wantin
and that with him was to see how these facts bore
upon his own life and being. And this could only be
shown by a direct spiritual agency, which, in the
language of the New Testament, is ascribed to the
Holy Spirit of God.
And we are taught to beheve that none of these
elements are wanting now. If the facts of Christ's
life, death, and resurrection ever were facts, they are
facts still. Christ, in the language of St. Paul, not
only was, but hath been raised from the dead. No
interval of time can ever destroy the importance of
these facts, or weaken the power of their moral
influence. No transmission of historic testimony can
ever invalidate it, if it was once valid. - That it was
once valid there is every reason to believe from the
tokens of the effects produced by it which survive to
this day, and are still in our own hands. But if so,
it is not one whit less vahd now than it was then
because a long line of centuries has separated us
from those who first accepted it : any more than if
it is vahd now it will in the slightest degree be less
vahd for those to whom it shall be submitted after a
thousand years to come. For the ivord of the Lord
endureth for ever ; and this is the word which by the
Gospel is preached unto us*
And, lastly, there is yet another consideration to
be borne in mind, and that is the moral condition
of • heart which the apostohc appeal to prophecy
assumes, and the nature of the testimony it is
* 1 Peter i. 25. to prjfia.

14 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. i.
declared to give. It professes to reveal Christ as the
one antidote for sin, that ^through His name, who
soever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.
There is a moral purpose, therefore, in prophecy.
It is not that we are to expect to find in the pro
phetic page certain points and passages marked put
and delineated as in the map of a country in which
we are about to travel ; but much rather certain
principles and truths in germ, certain apparent
indications of a conceived design awaiting accom
plishment, which shaU prepare us for the fuller
enunciation of those truths, and shall themselves
receive an accession of light as the progress of
events rolls on. It may be that walking in twilight
or early dawn through an unfamiliar region, while
the mist was yet in the valley and the mountain-
tops lay hidden, we could form but a poor idea of
the road or the country traversed ; but when the
mists had cleared away before the risen sun, and
we had scaled some one of the heights before con
cealed, we could trace out the various windings of
our path and understand the bearing of the several
places we had touched in relation to each other
and the landscape around ; and so, when standing in
the full sunshine of the Gospel Hght on the high
vantage-ground attained for us by Christ, we can see,
as His revelation streams back upon the past, that
many a fact and incident before dark has become
golden and glorious, and many a promise and pro
phecy before narrow or uninteUigible has become
vested with marvellous significance, and received

Lect. i.] Introductory. 1 5
a capacity for almost infinite expansion. But more
especially wUl this be so if His offiee is recognised
as that of the one Mediator, and He Himself ac
cepted as the one remedy for sin. Then, and then
only, can we see His glory ; then, and then only, can
we know His worth, or rightly apprehend His place
in history. For those who have no sense of the
burden of sin will naturaUy care nothing for its
remedy"; those who on metaphysical or philo
sophical grounds deny its existence will obviously
find no room in their system for the advent of One
whose very object in coming was to make an end
to sin, nor will they be ready to believe in His
claim to having done so.* But those who know
* Many efforts, honest and well-meant, are made in the present
day to commend a belief in Christ to the minds of men otherwise
indifferent or prejudiced, and to that end concessions are granted
which will dispense with miracles, prophecy, and the supernatural
generally ; but in so doing it seems to be not seldom forgotten that
Christ Himself unquestionably asserted the impossibility of His truth
being accepted by any mere movement or resolution of the unaided
human will. He taught even His apostles, and if it applied to
them, it must all the more forcibly apply to others, Except ye be con
verted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom
of heaven (St. Matt, xviii. 3) ; and said, No man knoweth the Son but the
Father, neither knoweth any man ihe Father save ihe Son, and he to
whomsotvtr the Son will reveal Him (xi. 27) ; while Nicodemus, who no
doubt thought that he was very candid and generous in his admissions
in favour of Christ, was met with the answer, Except a man be born
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (St. John iii. 3) ; and the dis
putatious and murmuring disciples were expressly warned, No man
can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him (vi. 44).
This is an aspect of the truth that we can by no means afford to
disregard, and it may serve to modify much of our modern apolo
getics and advocacy of Christian truth.

1 6 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. i.
fuU well the plague of their own hearts, and have
found by constant and bitter experience their per
sonal inability to cope with indwelhng sin, and yet
more to efface the stained memories of the past,
will, at all events, be so far prepared to welcome
the apostolic declaration concerning Christ, To Him
give all the prophets witness, that through His name
whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of
sins.

THE PROMISE TO ABRAHAM.

Acts iii. 25, 26. — Ye are the children of ihe prophets, and of ihe
covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham,
And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto
you first God, having raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him to bless
you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

LECTUEE II.
THE PROMISE TO ABRAHAM.
TT will be my object and endeavour in these
-*- Lectures to show the reality of Old Testament
prophecy as an abiding witness to the Divine fore
knowledge ; to examine the records that contain it,
so far and in such a way as to discover its essential
characteristics, and to determine the points in which
it differs from other phenomena of a similar kind,
enshrined in the literature of other nations, with a
view to ascertaining what ground there is for dwelling
on the completion of Old Testament prophecy as one
of the evidences that Christianity is a revealed
religion. It has already been shown that a large portion of
what is historically known to have been the founda
tion of the Christian Church was laid in Jewish
prophecy. Seeing, therefore, that there is a definite
historic result which is directly traceable to this
cause, it would seem as though it were somewhat too
late in the day to maintain that the result was one
which ought never to have been produced, — that
because there was a flaw in the premises, the con
clusion must necessarily be wrong ; because the

20 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ii.
conclusions of history are not matters of argument,
but matters of fact, and therefore cannot be wrong.
Our methods of dealing with the facts may indeed be
liable to serious error, but the facts themselves, so far
as they are facts, are beyond the reach of any such
possibihty, and may therefore be safely trusted.
Now it is a matter of demonstrable fact that the
supposed fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy was
one of the principal engines, or agencies, in the first
conversion of mankind to Christianity, and one of
which the influence has lasted to the present time.
Unless, therefore, it can be shown that the historic
facts themselves in relation to Christ were distorted
in order that they might be made to correspond with
the aUeged prophecies, or unless it can be shown that
the alleged prophecies were not written tiU after the
occurrence of the presumed events, it is useless to
deny the very great importance of this known historic
fact, to which the mere existence of the New Testa
ment, as a whole, bears unanimous and incontro
vertible testimony.
And it will be apparent that this ground is not
only, as we believe, substantially unassailable, but that
it is also virtually unassailed. For the position that is
commonly assumed by the impugners of prophecy is
this, that 'to regard the New Testament explanation'
of Hebrew prophecies 'as binding,' involves a dog
matic assumption ' at variance with' the true critical
method;* that the true way of studying prophecy
* Kuenen, " The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel." English
edition. Introduction by Dr. Muir, p. xi.

Lect. ii.] The Promise to Abraham, 2 1
is to ascertain what the prophets meant ; and that if
it can be shown, as it obviously very soon can be,
that the New Testament meaning was one which
never entered into their minds, then it must forthwith
be rejected. Whereas to reason in this way is only
to cast dust in men's eyes, because it is no part of the
argument from prophecy to assert that New Testa
ment historical events entered into the area of the
Old Testament prophets' vision, nor is that the.
.teaching of the Nicene Creed, which declares that the
Holy Ghost ' spake by the prophets.' What we
affirm is that the broad, general, and patent corre
spondence between Hebrew prophecy and New Testa
ment history being such as was manifestly not brought
about by the apostles and evangelists of the New
Testament, on the one hand, and such as the prophets
themselves were clearly altogether unconscious of
producing, on the other, is nevertheless a phenomenon
which points us no less distinctly to the operation of a
will rather than to the forces of blind chance than
do the manifold and undeniable tokens of design in
nature. There are those, one is aware, who stead
fastly refuse to acknowledge any evidence of design
in nature, but it may fairly be presumed that the
verdict of the great majority of mankind wUl always
and ultimately be opposed to theirs ; and so we may
also conclude that when the phenomena of prophecy
are fairly and fuUy considered, and duly weighed, the
tongue of the balance will unmistakably point to
the acknowledgment of an all-wise and foreseeing
Providence as the original and ultimate cause of

22 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ii.
correspondences so minute, so consistent, and so
wonderful. And if this, which is really the point of greatest
moment on the other side that we have to consider,
does not vitally touch the heart of our own position,
still less does another which has frequently been
advanced of late, and that is the comparative date
of the aUeged prophecies, and of the compositions in
which they are found.
The critical study of the volume of revelation,
both old and new, has of recent years received an
enormous impetus, and it is one we may be sure in
which the cause of truth has everything to gain and
nothing whatever to lose. Nor only so, but it is also
one without which we cannot reasonably hope to
arrive at anything that can claim to be true. By all
means treat the Bible exactly like any other book ;
let it have a fair field and no favour ; let us only be
careful that we show it no disfavour; let us guard
our hearts against any the most secret wish to find
it false ; let us be rightly and wisely jealous of any
lurking prejudice against as well as for it ; and then
we may be quite sure that our decision, like that of
the Psalmist, will eventually be, Thy word is tried to
the uttermost, and Thy servant loveth it.*
But then it must not be overlooked that a very
large portion of that which has successfully usurped
the name of criticism is, after all, and notoriously,
most uncritical ; and that this is peculiarly the case,
and must of necessity be so, in such matters as the
* Psalm cxix. 140.

Lect. ii.] The Promise to Abraham. 23
date of ancient literary compositions. When critics
do not agree among themselves within many cen
turies with reference to the date of certain pro
ductions, what are we to think of the confidence with
which, on one side or the other, such productions
are assigned to any definite period? What are we
to think of the reasonable prospect of certainty held
out by a science in which the conclusions of its ablest
professors are so contradictory and so vacUlating? Are
we to wait patiently tiU some agreement is arrived
at, and to hold our judgment in suspense till such
time as the critics are at one ? But time presses,
and what are we to do meanwhfle ? It may be
that certain issues are involved which are of vital
import, — at all events, if we are really in earnest
about the decision of questions which depend on
them. But, in point of fact, two considerations meet us
here. There is not even a remote prospect of agree
ment, because the essential principles of such criticism
are entirely, subjective, and because of the great
dearth of objective fact which unfortunately exists,
by which alone it might be corrected. But, on the
other hand, the determination of any such questions
is not an essential pre-requisite in our case. The
validity of our position is virtually and entirely
independent of it. For, place the date of the Old
Testament, as a whole, as late as you please, it cannot
be placed late enough not to be long anterior to the
New. Of the existence of prophecy, therefore, as a
substantive fact, for ages before Christ came, there

24 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ii.
not only is no reasonable doubt, but, as far as I am
aware, no man in his senses and possessed of com
petent knowledge has ever denied it. The question,
therefore, of the genuineness and integrity of the
book of Daniel, for example, of the existence of one
or two or three Zechariahs, or the deeply interesting
and eagerly debated question of the existence of a
second Isaiah, is not one, in any case, upon which
the claims of prophecy to our careful attention must
stand or faU. For however these and the like
questions are ultimately decided, if they ever are
decided, which we may well venture to doubt, they
in no degree affect the validity of our position, which
is that under all circumstances the compositions in
question existed long before the appeal to them was
made by the writers of the New Testament. Indeed,
the very fact that they were so appealed to must
be aUowed to go not a little way with unbiassed
minds towards the decision of such critical questions,
because, in a consolidated and highly conservative
condition of society like that of the ancient Jews,
it must be somethmg more than doubtful whether
writings Hke those of the received prophets could
have won their way to the position they manifestly
held under many generations ; and consequently their
universal acceptance in the time of Christ is itself a
piece of positive and external evidence in their favour
which can only be set aside by strong and distinct
internal evidence to the contrary.
To vaunt, therefore, the uncertainty attaching to
individual prophecies in respect of authorship and

Lect. ii.] The Promise to Abraham. 25
date, as though it were an item calculated to depre
ciate the value of prophecy generally, is not less
unwise than it is disingenuous, inasmuch as any such
uncertainty in no way affects the real point at issue,
which is whether or not the prophecies aUeged were
in existence for ages before they were appealed to,
and whether or not there is any evidence that they
were uttered after the events occurred which were
claimed to have fulfilled them.
Let it not, however, be supposed that, in maintain
ing the essential independence of such questions of
date and authorship as we have mentioned, and the
real point at issue in the argument from prophecy,
it is therefore a matter of indifference how such
questions are decided ; for the light in which we
regard the volume of Scripture wUl be largely
affected by their decision, just as it wiU undoubtedly
in no sHght degree influence our judgment in de
ciding them. If Isaiah is destined to be again torn
limb from limb and sawn asunder in the school of
modern criticism, the operation is one which no true
friend of the prophet can be expected to regard with
equanimity, even though the ultimate interests of
truth may survive the effects of it. We may there
fore be rightly jealous of the Hcense rather than
Hberty which men aUow themselves in their treat
ment of these matters, even though we may feel
ever so strongly that our own central position is
secure against their conclusions, however adverse.
But let me proceed to illustrate specifically these
general observations. There is this characteristic

26 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ii.
of Old Testament prophecy, that it is by no means
exclusively contained in the writings of the pro
phets. The book of Genesis is one of the most
remarkable records of the Old Testament, not to say
the world at large and of universal ancient literature.
It is hopeless to advance any opinion as to its date
which will not at once be disputed in some quarter
or another. It is more than probable that the tra
dition which assigns its composition to the fifteenth
century before Christ will never be generaUy aban
doned, however scornfully some may reject the
idea.* But let us suppose, for the sake of argu
ment, that it is many centuries later. Even then,
the narrative portion of that book is not only replete
with prophecies, but the history of it is itself a pro
phecy. We have, then, in that book the record of
a promise purporting to be given to the patriarchs,
and many times repeated. It is utterly futile to
inquire how this promise was given. It is sufficient
to observe that it was recorded, and the record of it
is the phenomenon for which we have to account.
The promise was virtually twofold : relating to the
* I may say, in passing, that to my mind Joel ii. 3 alone is con
clusive evidence of the existence at that time of Gen. ii. 8, 9, —
that is to say, in the ninth century before Christ, Genesis was in
existence. A few natural inferences will soon show us that it must
have existed long before. If received in the divided kingdom, it
must have been in existence previous to the division ; and as all the
history subsequent to it implies its existence, we can find no natural
resting-place till we come near to the one which tradition has pro
vided. There may not be much science or criticism in such reasoning,
but there seems at all events to be common sense. Cf. Isa. li. 3; and
cf. also Joel ii. 13, with Exod. xxxiv. 6.

Lect. ii.] The Promise to Abraham. 27
possession of Canaan, and to the prospect of being
made the centre of universal blessing. Unto thy
seed will I give this land; .... and in thee and
in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be
blessed* Here then, in this book, which upon
the very lowest computation must be assigned to
many centuries before Christ, we have hazarded on
the part of the writer, no matter who he was, a
definite and distinct twofold promise or prophecy,
many times repeated, and renewed on three several
occasions to three successive generations. The pro
blem, therefore, that we have to solve is the existence
of this promise or prophecy as a literary fact. It
does not matter now when it was given ; it is no
concern of ours how it was given ; for our present
purpose it is even a matter of subordinate interest
whether it was ever given at all. The only point for
which we have inevitably to account is that for some
indefinite period before Christ — shall we say a thou
sand years ? — there existed, and was highly prized in
the Jewish nation, the record of this promise. And
be it observed it is no such easy matter to account
for this phenomenon, whenever it first appeared,
because the historic condition of the whole Jewish
nation, and the character of the whole Jewish litera
ture, is bound up with it. If we turn to the national
poetry, it is full of it. If we examine the historical
writings, they imply the existence of it. If we
inquire of the prophets, they abound with allusions
to it. There is no analogous instance in all human
* Gen. xii. 7, 3, xxii. 18, xxvi. 4, xxviii. 14.

Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.

ii.

literature of a national history and a national litera
ture being thus permeated, transfused, and inspired
with one idea. The influence of the original promise
supposed to have been given to Abraham upon the
history and literature of Israel may be illustrated,
but very faintly, by the influence of the Norman
conquest upon our own national history and litera
ture. Eight centuries have elapsed since that event,
and our language, our literature, our history, our
laws, our social Hfe, still bear witness to its abiding
influence. But take the Hebrew history at any one
point you please, and it wiU be impossible to account
for the phenomena presented on the supposition that
this promise, or something answering to it, was then
unknown, or had no existence. If we begin with the
century before Christ, — though the interval was then
more than twice that which has elapsed since the
occupation of this country by the Normans, — we find
the effect of the supposed promise distinct and deep ;
and if we go back in succession to the era of the
Maccabees,* to the return from Babylon, to the
* It is important to trace the unbroken chain of evidence pointing
continuously to the existence and knowledge of the history : see,
e.g., to begin with the latest, 1 Mace. ii. 52, Mai. i. 2, 3, ii. 4, 5,
(Num. xxv. 12, Deut. xxxiii. 8, 9,) Haggai ii. 11 — 13, (Lev. x.
10, 11, Deut. xxxiii. 10,) Nehem. ix. 7, seq., Isaiah xli. 8, etc.,
1 Sam. xiv. 3, xv. 2, (Exod. xvii. 8 — -14, Num. xxiv. 20, Deut.
xxv. 17 — 19,) etc., Euth iv. 11, 12, Judges xi. 16, etc., Exod-
xii. 40, iii. 15, etc. It is impossible to suppose that this continuous
chain of evidence is the result of design on the part of one writer or
of many. Take the history at any one period, and there is a witness
in it to the history of an earlier period. For example, it is impossible
to imagine that the promise to Abraham was invented to account for

Lect. ii.] The Promise to Abraham. 29
divided monarchy, to the undivided monarchy, to
the period of the judges, to the exodus from the
thraldom in Egypt, we shall find it equally difficult
to account for the phenomena which confront us
on the hypothesis that the supposed promise to
Abraham was unknown to the nation before the time
of Moses, or was the invention of Moses, or was the
self-originated idea springing up in the minds of the
people — how, we cannot tell.
Nor is it otherwise when we examine the lite
rature. The sense of being the chosen people of the
Lord, in virtue of a promise or covenant made with
their fathers, is implied or expressed everywhere.
Abraham teas one, and he inherited the land, writes
Ezekiel.* Look unto Abraham your father : for I
called him alone and blessed him, and increased him,
says Isaiah. f He remembered His holy promise, and
Abraham His servant, sings the Psalmist ;\ and so on
perpetually, in one form or another, throughout the
entire literature. We have, therefore, distinct and
independent evidence, at all events in the eighth
century before Christ, to go no further, that this
ancient promise was a kind of pole-star in the national
Hfe : the nation's existence, and their thoughts,
revolved round it. So that to do away with the
belief in that promise would be to do away with the
separate and known existence of Israel as a nation.
the exodus and the conquest of Canaan ; and that being so, as the
conquest witnesses to the exodus, so does the exodus witness to the
antecedent history connected with the promise.
* Ezekiel xxxiii. 24. t Isaiah li. 2, xxix. 22. j Psalm cv. 42.

3o Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ii.
Here, then, we have something like solid ground
to stand upon, a concrete and substantial fact to deal
with, which criticism may strive in vain to dissolve
or to dislodge : that for centuries before Christ there
was in existence the record of this promise to
Abraham ; and that, for aught we know, or are ever
likely to discover, the oldest form of it is that which
is found still in our existing book of Genesis. It
matters nothing, comparatively speaking, from whom
we derive the record, or what was its original
authority : it is enough for us that this promise is
fastened like a nail in the fabric of the world's litera
ture and history, and that the national history and
literature of Israel, and the national existence of the
Jews, depends on it. Take away that one fact, and
we are met at every step by historic incidents and
by literary productions for which we can find no
rational solution or satisfactory explanation.
But perhaps not the least remarkable circumstance
is yet behind. It was observed that the promise to
the patriarchs was twofold, one part of it referring
to the possession of Canaan, and the other to the
prospect of becoming the centre of universal blessing.*
It is a very significant fact that, common as are the
aUusions in the Old Testament to the former part of
this promise, there is no distinct allusion to the
terms of the second, from one end of it to the other.
It is not tiU we come to the New Testament that we
find Peter appealing as he does to the promise given
to Abraham, and applying it to Christ, and Paul, in
* See Note at the end of this Lecture.

Lect. II.] The Promise to Abraham. 3 1
the Epistle to the Galatians, saying, and to thy
seed, which is Christ. Here, then, the question of
the original date of the promise is of no concern
whatever. At all events, it had been in the Hebrew
rolls of Genesis for ages before Peter and Paul ap
pealed to it. Neither is it a matter of the smallest
concern what was the personal intention of the author
in recording it. We freely admit that there is no
evidence whatever to show that he, whoever he was,
anticipated the purpose to which his words would
afterwards be applied. There is ample evidence to
show that the Jewish nation, as a whole, were more
occupied and engrossed with the former part of the
promise than the latter. They cared more for the
land flowing with milk and honey than for the pros
pect of being the centres of blessing to the world.
But there is also unimpeachable evidence to show
that after the death and aUeged resurrection of Jesus
of Nazareth, when the fulness of the times was come,
Peter and Paul, who were both Jews, and were deeply
attached to the hope of the promise made of old unto
the fathers, not only saw in Jesus one who invested
the ancient promise with a meaning it had never had
before, but were also mainly instrumental in laying
the foundations of a society, on the belief of this fulfil
ment of the promise, which has lasted for well-nigh
as many centuries after Christ as the hope enshrined
in the words of the promise had survived before
Him. Manifestly, it is open to us now, as it has been in
all ages, to say that there is no relation between the

3 2 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ii.
promise and its aUeged fulfilment ; but at least we
cannot say that the promise was a prophecy after the
event, nor can we deny that in the providence of
God materials had been provided in the earliest
Hebrew Hterature which in process of time, and long
after their value was thought to have ceased, were
found to be capable of being worked up into the very ,
foundation of the goodly edifice of the Christian creed
and the Christian Church. Nor if we believe that
God, having raised up His Son Jesus, hath sent Him
to bless us in turning away every one of us from his
iniquities, shall we be very likely to stumble at the
declaration of Peter to the men of his own time and
race, Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the
covenant God made with our fathers, saying unto
Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of
the earth be blessed.

Lect. ii.] The Promise to Abraham. 33

NOTE TO LECTUEE H.
Kuenen's remarks on this promise are as follows : —
" There is one promise which interpreters usually separate by
a very sharp line of demarcation from those made by God in regard
to Israel's settlement in Canaan." [Does he really suppose, we must
venture to ask, that any promise was made by God in regard to
Israel's settlement in Canaan ? If so, then more than half the
difficulty vanishes ; but if not, it is surely mere word jugglery to
mislead the reader by suggesting that there is a special difficulty
existing in the case of the second promise which is not found in the
first. "We believe that Canaan was promised to Abraham, as well
as that he saw the day of Christ (John viii. 56) ; but if neither
was the case, why speak as though it were harmless to believe that
Canaan was promised to Abraham, so long as we acknowledge the
critical error of interpreting the second promise of Christ? The
promise that Abraham should be a standard of blessing was intrinsi
cally and per se as supernatural as the assurance that mankind should
be blessed in his seed in the traditional sense.] " It is a promise
¦which is from time to time repeated, and which, according to the
usual translations of Genesis, and a well-known citation in the New
Testament, purports that all the families of the earth (or all the
nations of the world) shall be blessed in the patriarch, to whom
Jahveh speaks, or in his seed, or also in him and in his seed. In
these words theologians find the idea that the blessings bestowed on
Abraham and his posterity should at some time be extended to the
other families and nations : in other words, that they should obtain a
share in the spiritual blessings which originally were enjoyed by the
chosen of Jahveh alone. But the independent expositor is utterly
unable to grant that such is the meaning of the passages in Genesis
which have been referred to. If the author had wished to say ' the
nations of the earth shall be blessed,' he would have used a different
form of the verb. (The pual form which is altogether unequivocal,
and is far from being uncommon in the Old Testament : Judges v.
24, 2 Sam., vii. 29, Psalm cxii. 2, cxxviii. 4, Prov. xx. 21, xxii. 9 ; and
3

34 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ii.
in the participle, Num. xxii. 6, Deut. xxxiii. 13, 1 Chron. xvii. 27, Job
i. 21, Psalm xxxvii. 22, cxiii. 2.) The words must be translated ' the
families of the earth (or the nations of the earth) shall bless themselves
(or one another) wit h Abraham'— that is, shall wish for themselves,
or for one another, the blessing which Jahveh bestowed upon him ;
(in this way the Niphal and Hithpael forms receive their proper
power : compare, for the latter, Deut. xxix. 18, Isa. Ixv. 16, Jer. iv. 2,
Psalm lxxii. 17 ; and also the usual meaning of the phrase is retained,
of which meaning Gen. xlviii. 20 gives unequivocal evidence. ' To
bless in ' or ' with any one ' signifies to wish for oneself or for others
the blessing which the person in question enjoys.) He shall be so
prosperous, his posterity shall be so numerous and fortunate, that
nothing better or higher can be imagined than the enjoyment of what
he or his race possesses. (For this reason Abraham is called, Gen.xii.2,
a blessing, i.e., a person whose name serves as a formula of blessing.
Compare the use of 'curse' in Numb. v. 21, 27, Jer. xxiv. 9,
xxv. 18, xiii. 18.) This is undoubtedly a comprehensive promise. It
stands, according to the writer himself, in close connection with
Abraham's fidelity to Jahveh, which, as it became more conspicuous,
had also a claim to larger recompense. (Compare Gen. xviii. 19,
xxii. 16, xxvi. 5.) But it is not of another kind than the promises
regarding the descendants of the patriarchs, and their settlement in
Canaan, with which we first became acquainted. Whoever finds in
it, not something more, but something of an altogether different
nature, forces upon the writer of Genesis ideas which are in truth
foreign to him," pp. 378—380.
Now, as already said, everything turns upon whether or not a
promise was really given, and given by God : if so, then it is abso
lutely certain that the words are grammatically capable of the-
New Testament meaning, whether or not that meaning was the
one primarily intended. If no promise was given by God, then of
course it matters not what meaning we give to the words, though ¦
as to the possibility of the New Testament meaning we still have
no doubt. There is no reason to distinguish between the meaning
of the niphal and pual, as is here done. The pual is manifestly
the passive of the piel, and the piel is used in an ' unequivocal ' '
sense in Gen. xlviii. 20; but if so, then the pual ought unques
tionably to bear the meaning which Kuenen assigns exclusively
to the niphal, whereas it is undoubtedly used in the other sense
as well. And it is no less certain that if the pual had been used in

Lect. ii.] The Promise to Abraham. 35
the passages of Genesis, it would, according to analogy, have borne
the meaning that Kuenen now assigns to the niphal and hithpael.
It is futile therefore to attempt to discover in the language and
grammar of the places in Genesis grounds of objection to the New
Testament meaning. The niphal is naturally the passive of the kal ,
and the common meaning of the passive participle of the kal is
unambiguous : analogy, therefore, would make the meaning of the
niphal equally clear. It is moreover well known that the meaning
of the hithpael is oftentimes a simple passive (see, e.g., Prov. xxxi. 30,
Lam. ii. 12, iv. 1, Mic. vi. 16, Ezek. xix. 12, etc.) On the other
hand, suppose the whole narrative a fiction, and that, no promise was
made ; yet even then the fact remains that in this very early fictitious
story about Abraham, words were found, and language was used,
and thoughts were expressed, which ages afterwards were seen and
felt to be susceptible of a meaning which was exemplified and realised
in Christ to a degree which had never before been expected. "Was
this a matter of chance, or was it not rather an indication of the
Divine will ? Let it not, however, be thought that we regard the
historic truth of the narrative as an open question.
And later Kuenen observes : " The promise to Abraham : ' "With
thee (making use of thy name) shall all the peoples of the earth
bless themselves* (or each other), is understood differently by the
Greek translator, who renders it thus : ' In thee shall all the
peoples of the earth be blessed.' The apostle Paul adopted this
interpretation from him, and thus naturalised it in the Christian
world," p. 456.
At all events, the Greek translator was not biassed in favour of
Christianity, nor is it certain that he did not rightly understand
the Hebrew.
Lastly, after treating of this and other passages, his conclusion is
expressed as follows, p. 496 : " "When it has become evident to us
that the New Testament citations cannot be maintained before the
tribunal of scientific exegesis, our final verdict upon the common
view need no longer be delayed. That view is altogether unten
able. The real expectation regarding Israel's future glory lies
before us in the Old Testament : no one, therefore, thinks of
denying it ; we are able to follow its origin 'and history in all its
details ; the one prophecy supports and explains the other. The
traditional Messianic prophecy is undoubtedly a beautiful whole.
As an expression of the belief of Christendom in the unity and

2,6 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lbct.ii.
regular development of God's plan of redemption, it preserves its
value for us also, and for all subsequent ages. But it forms no part
of the historical reality. One stone after another must be removed
from it and placed elsewhere. "When, finally, the support which the
earliest Christian literature seemed to offer has fallen away, the
whole edifice collapses."
Messianic prophecy has surely no "value for us," unless it not
only represents Christian belief about " God's plan of redemption,"
but the actual method of that plan. If it does this, then the
more we study "the historical reality" of the prophecies, the
better we shall understand them and the plan which, they discover ;
and we shall learn to correct our own mistakes and misappre
hensions, and to believe that truth is independent of, and will
survive, both. As it is, prophecy is a fact; and Christian truth,
which rests not on prophecy, but on " historical reality,'' is a fact
likewise ; and it was the reality of Christian fact which enabled the
disciples to make the use of prophecy they did, and not their use of
prophecy which made the reality of the facts. And therefore as no
error or omission in their use of prophecy can invalidate the facts,
so neither can it render the prophecies less capable of application to
the facts, or account for the marvel that they are so. The Christian
edifice reposes in its grandeur and stability, not on the apostolic
interpretation of prophecy, but upon the reality of its own facts, and
upon the realities of ancient prophecies viewed in relation to them.
It is one thing to study the prophecies historically, and another to
reject them as prophecies if it cannot be shown that the prophets
saw the history as we see it, which no one surely can suppose
they did.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE PROMISE.

Acts hi. 24 — Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that
follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of
these days.

LECTUEE III.
THE INFLUENCE OF THE PROMISE.
rTlHEEE is no question that the first proclamation
-*- of the Gospel was based on the supposition that
Jesus Christ was the person who had been spoken of
in the writings of the Old Testament as about to
come. There is, and can be, no question that the
entire bulk of these writings was in existence suffi
ciently early for them to have derived no sort of
modification or colouring from the use which was
thus made of them. The schism between the Jewish
and the Christian Churches which followed almost
immediately upon the foundation of the latter, had
at all events this effect, that the more jealous watch
was kept by the Jews on the text of their national
writings, lest it should be corrupted or distorted by
the Christians to their own purposes. Indeed, it is
only in one or two very unimportant instances that
even the insinuation of such a charge can be made.
There is but one Hebrew Bible, and that is the com
mon property of the Christian and the Jew. Every
one, therefore, is capable of judging whether, and to
what extent, the main position of the early Chris
tians is capable of being established in relation to

40 Old Testament Prophecy : [Lect. hi.
the Jews. And the experience of eighteen centuries
has shown us that it can only be affected by the
adoption of arguments that are equally fatal to both.
Once admit the Divine authority of the Old Testa
ment scriptures, and it can hardly be questioned
that those of the New Testament - are Divine too.
In the present day it is rather the Divine authority
of either and of both that requires to be shown.
We have seen that it is very difficult to eliminate
the original promise to Abraham, so far as it con
cerned the possession of Canaan, from its actual
place in the literature, because of certain effects
which may be traced throughout the history that
can only be assigned to it. We cannot imagine,
for instance, such passages as that of the 105th
Psalm, no matter when it was written, The covenant
that He made with Abraham, and the oath that He
sware unto Isaac ; and confirmed the same unto
Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting
testimony : saying, Unto thee will I give the land of
Canaan, the lot of your inheritance,* were earlier than
the corresponding passage in Genesis, and did not
rather refer to it. Indeed, we may even question
whether it is possible to account for the history of
the occupation of Canaan as we have it, except on
the supposition that the record of the promise to
Abraham was in existence when that was written.
But probably no one would think of asserting that
the history of the occupation was written designedly
with the view of illustrating the record of that pro-
* Psalm cv. 9 — 11.

Lect. hi.] The Influence of the Promise. 41
mise, any more than the record of the promise was
written subsequently to that of the occupation for
the purpose of explaining or accounting for it.
Treat the history how we will, as exaggerated
or fictitious, we must yet deal with the features of
the Hterature as they present themselves, and it is
impossible not to see that the record of the promise
to Abraham was the foundation of a large portion of
the recorded history just as it enters into every part
of the existing literature. The antiquity, therefore,
of the promise to Abraham is a fact that we may
fairly consider established, while the relation in
which it stands to the subsequent history is signi
ficant and remarkable.
But we have now to consider the second part of
that promise which relates, not to the possession of
Canaan, but to the blessing which was to come upon
the world in Abraham and his seed. It is this which
has no immediate relation to the other, and yet
cannot be separated from it. And the early existence
of this part of the promise as one of the substantive
features of the literature is the fact to be carefully
noted, for it is this part of the promise of which the
early Christian writers so freely avaUed themselves.
What, then, is the evidence to be adduced in sup
port of the existence of this promise, and what are
the traces; of its influence on the nation and the
literature ? — because it is this which will throw hght
upon the application the apostles made of it, and
wUl show the extent to which they were justified
in so applying it.

42 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. hi.
Looking at the book of Genesis merely as a
Hterary production, we may perhaps fairly question
whether the reader was not intended to discern some
connection between the words spoken to Eve in
Paradise about the seed of the woman bruising the
serpent's head,* and the promise to Abraham that in
* " The punishment pronounced on the serpent is executed upon
the real serpents, which, in fact, 'go upon their belly and eat the
dust of the earth all the days of their life.' Finally, the conflict
which is so picturesquely represented to us in the curse on the
serpent is nothing else than the perpetual battle between man and
his dangerous creeping enemy, which is, indeed, fought in such a
way that man aims his attack at the head of the serpent, while it
tries to strike the man in the heel. Gen. iii. 15, when thus inter
preted, has no connection with our subject, and must lose the name
of ' Protevangelium,' or ' Paradise-promise,' which it owes to the
traditional but positively incorrect view." — Kuenen, p. 377.
It must be borne in mind that this promise is given in direct con
nection with the expulsion of man from the garden of delight. To
say, therefore, that it is no more than a " picturesque representation
of the perpetual battle between man and his dangerous creeping
enemy," is surely to make the historian responsible for profound
bathos. There seem to be two allusions to this passage in the Old
Testament, one in Isaiah Ixv. 25, " And dust shall be the serpent's
meat," and the other in Micah vii. 17, " They shall lick the dust like
the serpent," and the first of these is evidence to the " traditional
but positively incorrect view" of, Kuenen will allow, the sixth
century before Christ, — I should say the eighth. The word shitf,
which is rendered in the authorised version bruise, but which Kuenen
renders lie in wait for, or seek lo strike, occurs but three times in the
Old Testament, — here, and Job ix. 17, " He breaketh me with a tem
pest," and in Psalm cxxxix. 11, " The darkness shall cover me." In
neither of these passages is Kuenen's rendering applicable. St. Paul,
in the Epistle to the Eomans, xvi. 20, hands on the ' traditional '
view, and applies the ' Paradise-promise ' with reference to Satan ;
and St. John, in the Eevelation, xx. 2, is the latest witness to it.
These writers are, of course, no authorities as 'critics,' but they
are historically witnesses to it as a fact; and we must of course

Lect hi ] The Influence of the Promise. 43
his seed should all the famUies of the earth be
blessed. Setting aside altogether the historic value
of either narrative, it may be questioned, I say,
whether the reader was not intended to discover
this connection in the record. And if so, we must
then look at the promise to Abraham, not only in
the Hght of all that followed after it, but also in that
of something, likewise, which went before it. And
then the difficulty is increased of accounting for
those various phenomena as so many designed and
intentional features in a merely fictitious narrative.
It is admitted on aU hands that the Jewish litera
ture, from first to last, was the work, not of one
writer, but of many ; and it is surely too much to
affirm that the dehcate and yet strong and tenacious
Hnes of interconnection to be traced throughout were
the result of the deliberate plan consistently and con
tinuously wrought out by various writers of various
ages, under ever-varying circumstances and condi
tions. There would be no less difficulty in accounting
for such a result naturally than there would be in
hypothecating the operation of the supernatural.
decide whether, under the circumstances, we are at liberty to brand
their 'view' as 'incorrect.' That it is as old as Isaiah, and has
the support of St. Paul and St. John, seems pretty clear ; and after
all due allowance has been made for erroneous and traditional mis
conceptions, it may perhaps be doubted by some whether Professor
Kuenen has gone to the bottom of the promise given in Paradise, to
which he is desirous of assigning a mere bathos of meaning. That
promise was manifestly one which could only be understood as ages
had revealed its meaning; but when they have done so, it seems
somewhat presumptuous and perverse to insist only upon the barest
possible literal meaning, which, after all, is no meaning at all.

44 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. iii.
And the more obvious will this appear when we
note carefully the way in which the promise of the
seed developed itself in successive ages, and compare
therewith the definite shape which the supposed
fulfilment of it finally assumed under the teaching of
the apostles and evangehsts. Two remarkable pro
phecies occur in the other books of Moses, however
they are to be explained. One is the prophecy of
Balaam that a Star should arise out of Jacob, and a
Sceptre out of Israel;* and the other that of the law
giver himself, that a prophet should arise like unto
him.f It is of course impossible to say what was
in the mind of either speaker when the words were
uttered; it is very easy to affirm that that which
was in his mind cannot have been the person of the
historic Jesus. \ Strictly speaking, however, such an
assertion admits no more of demonstrative proof than
the contrary. But aU that we wish to insist upon is
the actual existence of these prophecies as they stand
in the ancient literature of Israel, and the way in
which, altogether apart from any wUl or intention in
the mind of the writer, they furnished a possible
basis for the subsequent estabhshment of Messianic
hopes upon them.
It is not improbable that the promise of Moses
that a prophet should arise in Israel may have been
the natural cause of the prophetic order having
* Numbers xxiv. 17.
„ t Deuteronomy xviii. 18.
X "David is suggested to us because Balaam knows that Israel
shall be ruled by a king," etc. — Kuenen, p. 367.

lect. in.] The Influence of ihe Promise. 45
arisen.* It may have stimulated the latent energies
of the people, and tended to produce that of which it
held out the hope. In that case, however, we are
compelled to regard it as a promise put on record
before the birth of Samuel, the first of the order of
prophets. If otherwise, then we must take the pro
phetic order as we find it, and account for its having
arisen independently of any influence to be ascribed
to this promise of Moses, which can then only be
regarded as a subsequent device intended to cast a
halo of romance around an existing body of men
whose words and deeds had become historic and
illustrious. On either supposition, however, it may
strike us as rather strange that nowhere in the
prophetic writings is there the slightest indication
that any existing prophet regarded himself, or was
regarded, as at aU answering to the promise in
Deuteronomy. Whether the document in which it
is found was early or late, genuine or fictitious, there
is no trace afterwards of its having been supposed to
have been fulfiUed in the history of the nation. On
the contrary, there is distinct evidence that it was
regarded as unfulfilled, for the very last words of the
latest prophet ran thus : Behold, I will send you
Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and
dreadful day of the Lord : and he shall turn the heart
of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the
children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the
earth with a curse.f It is manifest here that the
* This will, of course, depend upon the date assigned to Deuteronomy.
t Malachi iv. 5, 6.

46 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. hi.
prophet looks back upon Elijah as the greatest of all
his order, and yet his very last words give the distinct
promise of one to arise who shall be as great as or
greater than he. It is absolutely certain that the
prophet Malachi was acquainted with the writings of
Moses, as we have them now, and that he was fami
liar with this very book of Deuteronomy in which the
promise of the rise of the great prophet occurs, for he
says only just before, Bemember ye the law of Moses
my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb
for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments,* these
last words being the famihar phrase of Deuteronomy, t
It is absolutely certain, therefore, that he must have
known of this promise, and by no means improbable
that he referred to it when he spoke of sending
Elijah the prophet. At all events, we who are able
to survey the literature as a completed whole have
full liberty to draw our own inferences from its mani
fest features, so long as those inferences are sound.
And it is a legitimate inference to draw from these
features that in the days of the latest prophet there
had arisen no one who was regarded as having filled the
* Malachi iv. 4.
t The exact phrase, D»DB_f»l W>pn, occurs only in Malachi iii. 22, and
Deuteronomy iv. 5, 8, 14, where it is of the nature of a title to the
book ; but the same phrase slightly modified, e.g., with the article or
possessive pronoun, is almost peculiar to Deuteronomy, where it occurs
some sixteen times, being found elsewhere only in Lev. xxvi. 46
1 Kings viii. 58, ix. 4, 2 Kings xvii. 37, 1 Chron. xxii. 13,
2 Chron. vii. 17, xix. 10, xxxiii. 8, Neh. i. 7, Psalm cxlvii. 19,—
all of which places, except the first, must presuppose Deuteronomy
on any theory of its composition. It is morally certain, therefore,
that Malachi by using this phrase intends to imply Deuteronomy.

Lect. iii.] The Influence of the Promise. 47'
place of the great prophet hke unto Moses spoken of
by him ages before. If we do not point to the Gospel
of St. John as manifestly containing further evidence
on this head, it is only because we are not willing
now to assume the historic value of that gospel, but
desire to frame our argument independently of it.
The books of Samuel are historicaUy the most
important, after those of the Pentateuch, in the
literature of Israel. Leaving it an entirely open
question when they were written, (though it was
probably in, or at all events not long after, the age
of David,) they bear clear witness to certain literary
facts, of which the most significant is this, that they
alone of the historical books make use of the term
Messiah, which in its regal acceptation they seem
to have originated.* It is a literary fact that the
first instance of this use is found in the prayer of
Hannah : He shall give strength unto his king, and
* The term MashiaJi, Messiah, is applied to the high priest in
Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16, and vi. 15 (Heb.) 22 (Eng.) It occurs ten times
in the Psalms, e.g., ii. 2, xviii. 50, xx. 6, xxviii. 8, Ixxxiv. 9, lxxxix .
38, 51, cv. 15 (pi.), cxxxii. 10, 17, — the second, third, fourth, and last
of these being ascribed to David, the first being probably his, the fifth
being attributed to the sons of Korah, the sixth to Ethan the Ezrahite,
and the seventh being anonymous. Elsewhere it is only used in
Isa. xiv. 1 (of Cyrus), Lam. iv. 20 (apparently of Zedekiah, as
David's representative), Hab. iii. 13, and Dan. ix. 25, 26. This
usage alone is highly significant, as it relates mainly to the person
and time of David ; indeed, he and Saul are the only kings to whom
the term is applied ; afterwards, it seems always to have been felt
that the true Messiah was an ideal who awaited reality.
The above facts show conclusively that Kuenen's assertion, ' the
anointed of Jahveh,' was ' the common honorary appellation of the
Israelitish king ' (p. 511) is historically false.

48 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. iii.
exalt the horn of his anointed.* Consistently with
the spirit of modern criticism, this prayer has, of
course, been denied to Hannah, and declared to be
a war-song, but that in no way affects the circum
stance that this term Messiah is found eighteen times.
in the books of Samuel, and is not found in any other
historical production. t As, however, it is found in
certain psalms ascribed to David, we may reasonably
infer that it originated in his time, even if it was not
first used at the birth of Samuel. It is not a little
remarkable, however, that the earliest recorded use
of this phrase is one in which it cannot weU have any
merely human signification. The adversaries of the
Lord shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall
He thunder upon them : the Lord shall judge the ends
of the earth ; He shall give strength unto His king,
and exalt the horn of His anointed, if spoken before
there was any king in Israel cannot be understood
of either Saul or David. And the very same chapter
supplies another instance of a simUar use in the
words which the man of God addressed to EH ;
I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do
according to that which is in my heart and in my
mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he
shall walk before mine anointed for ever. This as
it appears, can only be understood of an ideal
anointed whose existence, on the evidence of the
literature, was thus declared several years before the
* 1 Sam. ii. 10.
t The only exceptions, which, as they contain the duplicate history
are not really exceptions, being 1 Chron. xvi. 22, 2 Chron. vi. 42.

Lect. hi.] The Influence of the Promise. 49
nation had begun to place their hopes upon any
earthly anointed king. Nor is anything gained by
the gratuitous assertion that all this second chapter
of the first book of Samuel must have been written
long after Saul and David had severaUy been called
the anointed of the Lord, because, place the com
position of it when we will, we are still confronted
by these two facts : first, that with a very few ex
ceptions — only some five or six throughout the Old
Testament — this use of the term is peculiar to the
books of Samuel and the Psalms ; and, secondly, that
it affords in itself conclusive evidence that the
nation at the time had learned to look beyond the
earthly anointed king to an ideal anointed whom the
natural eye could not see. And when we bear in
mind that we have documentary evidence that this
was so ages before the Gospel was first preached, we
can but conclude that there are certain significant
features on the surface of the Old Testament litera
ture which criticism may do its best to manipulate
and juggle with, but cannot destroy ; and that these
features, being what they are, do furnish a substantial
basis for the actual Messianic hopes which arose out
of them, and for the alleged fulfilment of those hopes
which the evangelists afterwards proclaimed.
The promise, then, of blessing in and through tlie
seed of Abraham does not stand alone. As we have
seen, the subsequent literature contains promises
or makes mention of a ruler, a prophet, a priest, a
king, and an anointed. In fact, the age of these
various productions is a point immaterial to the
4

5o Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.iii.
argument.* It is undeniable that they were in
existence ages before the Christian era, and in their
present form; but it is also undeniable that this
same hterature faUs to satisfy the promises it has so
lavishly made. If we take, for instance, the promise
of the priest made to Eli, there is no one in the
whole course of the subsequent history to whom we
can point with the slightest probability of his having
been the person whom the writer had in mind.
Indeed, after Aaron and Phinehas, there is, in fact,
no high priest whose character has been even faintly
sketched in the whole of the Old Testament. And
yet the words remain, I will raise me up a faithful
priest ; and they will for ever remain unexplained and
unverified except upon the hypothesis which more
than fulfils and justifies them.
It is not, however, till we pass to the Prophets and
the Psalms that we see the kind of commentary that
was written by history on the promise of blessing
through the seed of Abraham. There is an unmis
takable echo of that promise in the language of the
twenty-second Psalm : All the ends of the world shall
remember themselves, and be turned unto the Lord :
and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship
* This is strictly true in as much as the features remain, whatever
the age of the several compositions may be ; and if these were all late,
then the only inference could be that these features and characteristics
were imparted to them with an intentional design — namely, that so
they might be available for the purposes of such an argument as this ;
which is simply absurd. It is the impossibility of any such inference
that renders it more probable that we may with justice and safety
trust the several compositions as genuine ; and then, in that case, the
argument from these characteristics is simply conclusive.

Lect. hi.] The Influence of the Promise. 5 1
before thee ; for the kingdom is the Lord's, and He is
the Governor among the nations* It is confirmed by
the words of the sixty-eighth : Princes shall come out
of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands
unto God. Sing unto God, 0 ye kingdoms of the earth ;
0 sing praises unto the Lord;~f and by those of the
seventy-second : He shall have dominion also from
sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the
earth. They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow
before Him; and His enemies shall lick the dust. The
kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents :
the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea,
all kings shall fall down before Him: all nations shall
serve Him.\ We can hardly imagine the extravagant
hyperbole of even Eastern flattery supposing that
the significance of such words was exhausted in
David or in Solomon ; but if not, we can only accept
them as a spontaneous and involuntary indication of
consciousness on the part of Israel that its mission
was to be a blessing to the world. And yet no one
can imagine that such words were uttered, on the one
hand, as an intentional commentary on the promise
to Abraham; or, on the other, that the history of that
promise was invented as an incident which should
express in a condensed and pregnant historic form the
idea that was embodied in this and similar language
of the Psalms. But if not, the only course is to look
the actual features of the literature fairly in the face,
and to estimate them accordingly.
* Psalm xxii. 27, 28. '
t Psalm lxviii. 31, 32.

52 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. hi.
When we turn to the great prophet of the later
monarchy, the witness is even more distinct. The
consciousness of the nation has developed and grown
deeper, or else what is the meaning of Behold, these
shall come from far : and, lo, these from the north
and from the west ; and these from the land, of Sinim.
Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up my
hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard, to the
people* . . . For thou shalt break forth on the right
hand and on the left ; and thy seed shall inherit the
Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.]
And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings
to the brightness of thy rising ; . . . because the abund
ance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces
of the Gentiles shall come unto thee. Therefore thy
gates shall be open continually ; they shall not be shut
day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the
forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be
brought. I Ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles,
and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.^ And
the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings
thy glory; and thou shalt be called by a new name,
which the motdh of the Lord shall name. \\ , . . And
I will set a sign among them, and I will send those
that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul
and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan,
to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame,
neither have seen my glory ; and they shall declare
* Isaiah xlix. 12, 22. § is^ ]xi. 6_
t Isaiah liv. 3. jj Isaiah lxiL 2.
t Isaiah Ix. 3, 5, 11.

lect. in.] The Influence of the Promise. 53
my glory among the Gentiles* It is impossible to
assign any inteUigible meaning to language such as
this, if it is not the expression of a deep national
consciousness that it was the destiny of Israel to be
the channel to the world of unimagined and illimit
able blessing ; and it is inexplicable if it is not the
witness in the later ages of their literature to the
truth of that which was spoken to the first father of
the race, In thee shall all families of the earth be
blessed.^ But who can venture to say that even on
the part of the prophet such language was his own
intentional and designed expansion of that original
promise ! Manifestly it could not have been if
Genesis was a late composition ; and even if it was,
then the words of the prophet become no less diffi
cult to account for than the original promise itself.
WhUe, however, we cannot admit that the prophet
thus deliberately expanded the promise, we can
readily understand that in proportion as the promise
was true, and the record of it a fact, it would tend to
bring forth this particular result, and consequently
we may accept the result itself as evidence con
firmatory of the existence of the promise.
It is needless to pursue this matter further through
the rest of the prophetic writings. We have proof
conclusive that in the time of the first preachers of
the Gospel there was a mass of prophetic hterature
in the Old Testament which plainly showed what
had been the hope and expectation of the people for
ages ; and though from its very nature that prophetic
* Isaiah lxvi. 19. + Genesis xii. 3.

54 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. hi.
literature was incapable of suggesting the manner in
which it would eventually be fulfilled, and although
for this very reason it is impossible that the Gospel
record should have been the natural product of the
various anticipations embodied in prophecy, the
outgrowth of the disciples' fervid imaginations in
brooding over them, because of the only too apparent
and obvious unlikeness between the Christ of history
and the popidar conceptions of the Messiah derived
from prophecy, — yet we cannot but see that it was not
without a definite and sure ground, in Scripture and
in fact, that Peter, in view of the recent marveUous
events that had taken place before his own eyes and
those of his fellow-countrymen, could say, and say
with justice, Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel
and those that follow after, as many as have spoken,
have likewise foretold of these days.

THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID.

Acts xv. 13-18. — And after they had held their peace, James answered,
saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me : Simeon hath declared
how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a
people for His name. And to this agree the words of the prophets ;
as it is written, After this will I return, and will build again
the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again
ihe ruins thereof, and I will set it up : that the residue of men
might seek after ihe Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name
is called, saith ihe Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto
God are all His works from the beginning of ihe world.

LECTUEE IV.
THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID.
fTTHIS is reported as being substantially the speech
-*- of James, the first president of the Christian
Church at Jerusalem, in the council, or conference,
which was held there on the matter of circumcision.
We may, at all events, accept the words as expressing
with sufficient accuracy the tone of thought which
prevailed among many Christians at that time. We
have, indeed, no reason to believe that the writer
of the Acts of the Apostles in any material degree
altered or coloured the sentiments expressed by
St. James at that important meeting, and we may
be quite sure that they were shared by the large
majority of the Christians of his day. I mention
this merely as a matter of fact, and not as though
the opinions in themselves had any force or authority
that was binding upon us. But taking them simply
in this way, there are certain inferences which we
are fairly warranted in deducing from them.
For example, the Septuagint version of the pro
phet Amos, in the hands of the Jews and Christians
of the first century, contained a passage virtually
identical with this, notwithstanding several verbal
differences. Secondly, whatever differences were

58 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. iv.
apparent between the Greek version and the Hebrew
original, as represented in our own authorised version
of Amos, they were not of such a character as to
awaken jealousy in the minds of the Judaising part
of the apostle's audience. He would naturally have
been careful not to offend needlessly the prejudices
of those whom he desired to win. Again, there was
nothing remarkable in appealing to the authority of
the prophets, or in supposing that recent events
attending the establishment and growth of the Chris
tian Church had actually fulfilled their words. More
over, the speaker evidently believed that the prophet
had been used by God as an agent for making known
His will, and declaring purposes which had been
formed long before, though but lately matured in act.
Clearly, therefore, St. James, and all who heard
him, believed that the people of God possessed in
the writings of the prophets documents which had
not before been rightly understood, but which were
replete with information concerning the future which
could not have been derived from ordinary human
sources, and were instinct with the energies of a wUl
which was graduaUy unfolding itseH. On aU these
points there is no possible room for doubt. If,
therefore, the traditional views of Scripture and of
prophecy which we have received from the teaching
of the Christian Church correspond, more or less
accurately, with these, it is clearly not so much our
selves and the Church that are responsible for them,
as the first behevers and apostles of the Lord, and
the long tradition which they themselves inherited.

Lect. iv.] The Tabernacle of David.

59

People sometimes talk, in the present day, as if
the popular views of the inspiration and authority of
Scripture were things of recent growth, which the
progress of modern discovery and investigation had
shown to need correction, whereas nothing is more
certain than that the writers of the New Testament
regarded the Scriptures of the old dispensation very
much as we have been accustomed to regard the
Bible at large ; * that they received them as the
oracles of God, and as the expression of a Divine
will and purpose towards man to be found nowhere
else, and communicated in a remarkable and super
human, supernatural way. They may have been
wrong, but we cannot suppose they were so without
supposing that Peter, James, John, and Paul were
wrong in this respect, and were not only wrong
themselves, but also that the teaching of Jesus
Christ, which they manifestly represented, was
wrong too. This is a conclusion ' which at least
* See, for instance, among other passages, Heb. xiii. 5, 9, where the
writer accepts the Living Lord as the actual speaker, and takes a
promise given to Joshua as a reasonable and valid ground of personal
hope in God. This is Faith, or the principle of absolute trust in a
spoken word of God, and not a mere assent to the truth or beauty
of the sentiment apart from any direct personal reliance of this
kind. See also 2 Tim. iii. 15, and compare 1 Thess. ii. 13, Gal.
iii. 22, Bom. xv. 4, Acts xvii. 11, Matt. xxvi. 54, John xx. 9,
Luke xxiv. 26, 44. It should always be borne in mind, as Lord
Hatherley says, that these last words were spoken by our Lord
after His resurrection, when no longer subject to the limitations
of mortality. All this shows us that the apostles regarded the
words of God, like Luther, as living creatures with hands and feet,
— a way, it is to be feared, rapidly passing into discredit in the
present day.

60 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.iv.
requires deliberate thought before we commit our
selves to the acceptance of it.
But let us examine the particular scripture to
which the apostle James referred. This was taken
from the writings of the prophet Amos. Now, it
so happens that Amos is acknowledged to belong to
the oldest group of the Jewish prophets whose
writings have come down to us. He is allowed to
have flourished towards the earher part of the eighth
century before Christ. Consequently, when St.
James made this allusion to his works, the book of
Amos that we now have must have been in exist
ence for some eight hundred years at least. This
is a matter that will not be called in question.
Moreover, the epoch at which Amos flourished was
that of the greatest joint prosperity of the thrones
of Israel and Judah. Jeroboam II. was stUl on the
throne of Israel, and in his long reign of forty-one
years he raised his kingdom to the highest position
of glory that it ever attained. Under Uzziah the
kingdom of Judah was probably more prosperous
than it ever had been since the death of Solomon,
and his long reign of fifty-two years tended naturally
to consolidate it. Amos prophesied during the
fifteen or twenty years that the two kings were
contemporary,— that is, during the latter part of
Jeroboam's reign and the early part of Uzziah's.
The time is more precisely identified as being two
years before the earthquake which took place in the
reign of the latter king, of which, however, we know
nothing more than the mere fact of its occurrence,

Lect. iv.] The Tabernacle of David. 6 1
and that the recollection of it survived more than
two centuries and a half afterwards, in the time of
Zechariah.* Probably, therefore, at no one period
in the joint history of the two kingdoms was there
a season of greater prosperity. This will be seen
to be important as we proceed.
It is to be observed, then, that twice over this
ancient prophet makes allusion to David, who pro
bably flourished some two hundred and fifty years
before his time : once (vi. 5) where he rebukes them
that are at ease in Zion, that chant to the sound
of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of
music, like david, where he refers to a point in the
history of that king which is chiefly known to us
from the writer of the first book of Chronicles ; f and,
secondly, in the passage here cited by St. James :
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle op david
that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof ; and
I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the
days of old.% It is clear, therefore, that in the time
of Amos, 800 years b c, two points were distinctly
remembered with regard to David, one being his
inventive musical genius, and the other some typical
glory attaching to his throne. It is important to bear
this in mind, because we are asked by a certain
school of critics to believe that our records of David's
reign are some three centuries later than the time of
Amos. It appears, however, that the memory of his
personal character was distinctly retained, as indeed
it well might be, under the circumstances in which
* Zech. xiv. 5. t xxiii. 5. % ix. 11.

62 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. iv.
the prophet lived, for the space of two centuries and
a haK. But what is more particularly to be observed
is the prophet's allusion to what he calls the tabernacle,
or booth, of David, which he describes as fallen or
falling, while he promises in the name of the Lord to
raise up his ruins, and to build his booth, or tabernacle,
as in the days of old. Such language must, one
would think, have had some meaning when the pro
phet wrote, though under the prosperous reigns of
Jeroboam II. and of Uzziah it is not easy to see
how it applied. More intelligible appears to be the
allusion to the division of the kingdom of David
which is probably implied in the promise to close up
the breaches thereof. But how, when the throne of
Judah was flourishing under Uzziah, and that of
Israel under Jeroboam, could the prophet speak with
any propriety of raising up the ruins of David ? It
is also worthy of note that the house of David is
spoken of as a booth, or tent, and that this tent is to
be built as in the days of old. However all these
singular features of the language chosen are to be
explained, one point is, at all events, very clear —
namely, that somewhat more than two centuries
after the death of David his throne was regarded in
a very marked manner by a prophet of the northern
kingdom,* as though some special history attached
* Tekoa belonged indeed to Judah, but the sphere of the prophet's
mission was mainly Israel and the northern kingdom : i. 1, iii. 1, iv. L,
v. 1, vii. 10, etc. ; it would seem, therefore, that any individual pre
ference Amos may have shown for the house of David was not such
as to injure the prospect of his sucsess with Israel, which he would
have been careful to avoid.

Lect. iv.] The Tabernacle of David. 63
to it ; that it was likewise spoken of as being in ruins,
or about to fall into ruins, and about also to be raised
out of its ruins and rebuilt as in the days of old.
The time, moreover, that is assigned by the pro
phet to the accomplishment of this promise is that
mysterious day of which it is said, Lo, I will com
mand, and I will sift the house of Israel among all
nations, like as com is sifted in a sieve, yet shall
not the least grain fall upon the earth.* Obviously,
therefore, a time future is spoken of, and the terms
of the prophet's language cannot be limited in their
application to the area of his own age.
In the following verse, moreover, aUusion is also
made to the conquests of David over Edom, as
though the extent of the dominion promised him
was to rival that which it had attained of old. The
tabernacle is to be rebuilt in order that they may
possess the remnant of Edom, and all the heathen,
which are called by my name, saith the Lord that
doeth this.] It is clear, therefore, that the language
of Amos holds out hope of future domination over
Edom and the heathen nations ; and yet, notwith
standing theh* heathen condition, the reproach of
their uncircumcision is to be roUed away, for the
name of the Lord is called upon them. And, lastly,
the work, whatever it is, which is thus spoken of, is
called the Lord's work ; and He appears to challenge
it to Himself as though it were beyond the power of
human agency to bring it about.
Such, then, are the remarkable features of this
* ix. 9. t ix. 12.

64 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. iv.
fragment of the prophet Amos which we find apparent
on the surface of it. Into their interpretation we do
not now enter ; we only draw attention to the mani
fest facts of language. No interpretation or criticism
can be satisfactory which does not fully recognise
them in detail.
But apart altogether from the interpretation of the
language, certain conclusions are fairly warranted
from its ostensible features. Eor instance, eight
hundred years before Christ, whether the books of
Samuel were in existence or not, the history of David
must have been weU known very much as we have it
now. At all events, Uzziah, the reigning monarch,
was his lineal descendant. He must have known,
and his people must have known, by what right he
held his throne. If the breaches of David's house
could be spoken of, it must have been known that for
some reason or other the house of Jeroboam was an
alien and a rival house. The insinuation appears to
be dropped that the throne of Israel de jure belonged
to David ; and this admission is the more significant
as coming from a prophet of Israel, or from one whose
mission was addressed to Israel. Incidentally, then,
the prophet's language is confirmatory of the history
as we have it, whether or not the record of that
history was then preserved,— as I, for one, cannot
doubt it was. But when it is said that the tabernacle
of David shall be built as in the days of old, we seem
to have even a verbal reminiscence of David's own
words (2 Sam. vii. 27) : For Thou, 0 Lord of hosts,
God of Israel, hast revealed to Thy servant, saying, I

Lect. IV.] The Tabernacle of David. 65
will build thee an house : therefore hath Thy servant
found in his heart to pray this prayer unto Thee. Nor
is it unlikely that in the choice of the pecuhar and
uncommon word booth, or tabernacle, an aUusion may
be designed to the original shepherd- calling of David.
And if so, this ancient prophet, Amos, furnishes us
with incidental reference to the musical skiU of
David, to his conquests over Edom, to some special
characteristic attaching to his house, to some
disaster which had befallen it, and possibly to the
original employment of David as keeper of his
father's sheep. Of course, I do not for one moment
suggest that, supposing the authentic history of his
times to have been irrecoverably lost, it would be
possible for us to reconstruct it out of such slender
materials as these ; but I do venture to affirm that
there is nothing in the language of the prophet
inconsistent with the history as we have it, but
much, on the contrary, that does serve to Ulustrate
and confirm it.*
The point, however, most important to note is the
choice of David's name at all in this connection.
Certainly if we might assume the history to have
been in existence, nothing could be more intelligible
or natural ; but it is just this that we are not
allowed to assume. We are asked to believe that the
history was written long afterwards, possibly after an
* It is, of course, preposterous to imagine that the history either in
Samuel or Chronicles was constructed out of the allusions in Amos,
or with any reference to them. So far, then, both our sources of
information are independent.

66 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. it.
interval as long as that which already separated the
prophet Amos from David ; and then, on this sup
position, I ask why in this case any special mention
of David at all, or at all events why this particular
aUusion to his house, its ruin and its restoration?
I claim this prophecy, then, in its verbal phenomena
as an independent witness of certain particular cha
racteristics attending David's house. If we turn to
the history, it wUl at once become clear what these
were. Permanence and stability were, for some reason
or other, supposed to be characteristic of David's
throne. The history tells us why this was. A pro
mise had been made to him. The Lord in that same
chapter of the second book of Samuel had declared
that he would establish his house and his throne for ever.
Had there been any record of such a promise in the
days of Amos, we can easily conceive that the stubborn
facts connected with the history of Israel, and the
unexampled prosperity of Jeroboam's throne, would
greatly stagger him. We can even imagine that a
considerable impetus would be given thereby to the
natural tendency of his aspirations to long for the
prosperity of David. If the memory of any such
promise existed, we can understand all this ; and
according to our records, such a promise was not
only remembered, but preserved : but take away the
promise and the record of it, and the language of
the prophet becomes more enigmatical than ever;
in fact, it seems hopeless, not only to extract any
sense out of it, but stUl more to account naturaUy
for its utterances. It must not however be forgotten

Lect. iv.] The Tabernacle of David. 67
that the age of the prophet's writing is not a matter
under dispute. The most reckless critics have in
their benevolence left us this; so that in the first
quarter of the eighth century before Christ we have
an original utterance of a prophet of Israel which
is quite inteUigible with the aid of the history, but
hopelessly obscure and perplexing without it.*
But then no one can for a moment suppose that
whenever the history was written, the writer of it
had the slightest intention of explaining, by way
of historical comment, such a passage, for example,
as this. Whatever his motives in writing, no such
notion as this can have formed part of them. While
obviously on the supposition of the prophet preceding
the historian, he cannot be held to have prepared
the way designedly for the history that would after
wards be written. Whatever coincidence or corre
spondence, then, exists between the two is beyond all
dispute or question undesigned. And so we are left
to contemplate the progress of this prophetic utter
ance down the stream of time for eight centuries
without being able to assign to it any meaning, or
to conceive of any which it can have had when
spoken in the glorious era of Jeroboam II. and
Uzziah. One thing, however, becomes clear, — that
as the course of events rolled on, the language of
the prophet became unexpectedly more and more
intelligible. Before three centuries had passed by,
the house of David had been proved to be little
better than a shepherd's tent or booth. The
* See Note at the end of Lecture IV.

68 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. iv.
breaches of his house, far from being healed, rapidly
went from worse to worse : ten of the original twelve
tribes were carried captive to Assyria, the miserable
attempt at setting up a rival throne had ended, after
repeated efforts, in ignominious failure ; even the
direct line of David's house through Solomon seems
to have faUed ; the representatives of his family were
carried in disgraceful bondage to Babylon ; and what
is known to have been uttered two centuries and
a half before about the ruins of his house, received
a complete and starthng fulfilment, and we who
now survey the entire prospect of the ages past can
see that for many centuries the tabernacle of David
continued in a condition of apparently hopeless ruin.
But still during all this time the promise remained
recorded, 1 will raise up the tabernacle of David
that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof, and
I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in
the days of old. Of course in the face of aU this
evidence it is perfectly open to us to deny the
existence of any prophecy or promise here, nor should
I willingly venture to be so rash as to attempt to
prove it. But one thing is absolutely certain, — that
stopping at the seventh century after Amos, and
setting aside all the subsequent history as of no
bearing on the matter, it does look very much as
if the prophet's language, either rightly or wrongly,
had spoken in the palmy days of his nation's life
of ruin that should overtake the royal house, whUe
yet a hope was embedded in his words that out of
ruin it should again emerge in its pristine glory. And

Lect. iv.] The Tabernacle of David. 69
most unquestionably no Jew who believed that Amos
had a Divine mission would have been to blame if
he had cherished such a hope.
Nor is it possible for us to evade the conclusion
now suggested on the ground of critical uncertainties
or ambiguities attaching to the language. This is
an objection that has long been anticipated in the
providence of God by the very conspicuous variations
we perceive in the version of the prophet quoted by
St. James.* However much the Hebrew and the
* On these variations, Kuenen observes, p. 243, " The reading of
the Greek translator cannot bear comparison with the Masoretic or
common text of the Old Testament. He has made a mistake with
regard to one letter, and, in consequence of that, has put ' seek after '
instead of ' inherit ; ' and further, by incorrect vocalisation, he has
changed ' Edom ' into ' men.' The erroneousness of his reading is
plain at once from this, that ' the nations over whom Jahveh's name
is proclaimed,' necessarily form a part of ' the residue of men,' and
therefore could not be mentioned separately."
That the Greek reading is intrinsically superior to the Hebrew,
we are not at all concerned to maintain, but that the Greek translator
has made a series of blunders, and that St. James has turned those
blunders to his own account, is a rough-and-ready but possibly also
an unworthy and inadequate solution of the difficulty ; and again,
p. 457 : " Every reader of the Bible must be struck with the great
difference between an utterance of Amos at the end of his prophetical
book, and the citation of the passage in the speech which, according
to the Acts of the Apostles, was spoken by James at the synod of
Jerusalem. The cause of the variation has already been shown : the
Greek translator, from whom the quotation in the Acts is borrowed,
has, by supplying the wrong vowels, read one word Edom as adam
(man), and consequently rendered ' the residue of men,' instead of
'the residue of Edom;' he has further read a letter incorrectly in
the Hebrew verb which signifies ' to inherit,' so that he thought he
recognised in it the verb meaning 'to seek.' This double mistake
readily explains the whole difference. Its importance is at once
apparent to every one who reads the discourse of James as a whole '

7o Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. iv.
Greek texts may differ as represented in the
authorised version of the Old and New Testa
ments, the substantial meaning of the two is alike ;
or at all events, if there is room for so much Hteral
divergence, there is room for as much as any
criticism is Hkely to demand. The version of the
Septuagint quoted by St. James spoke at least
no less clearly than that of the Masorites of the
tent or tabernacle of David, of its falling down, of
its being in ruins, of its restoration. And at the
time when the prophet wrote, both these conditions
were as yet unfulfilled, nor was there any human
likehhood of their fulfilment.
he wishes to show that the prophets had already announced what had
now actually taken place : God has looked upon the heathen, and
chosen from among them a people for Himself. According to the
Greek version, Amos does really reveal the prospect of such a future ;
but the original cannot be understood in this sense. It speaks
merely of the restoration of the Davidic dynasty, and of the extension
of its rule over the surrounding peoples, first of all over Edom, and
then over the nations over which the name of Jahveh — as that of
their conqueror — is proclaimed. All attempts to explain away this
difference must, from their very nature, prove a failure. The opinion
that the Septuagint may have reproduced a purer text than the
Masoretic is not worthy of a serious refutation."
The one fact with which the apostle was concerned was the
significant fact that the Greek text, which he did not make, but find,
lent itself, even more forcibly than the Hebrew, to the peculiar
circumstances of the time. He saw in this an indication of the
Divine will, a token of the Divine foreknowledge ; and if he really
was speaking under the guidance of the Holy Ghost (ver. 28), who
shall say he was wrong in doing so ? That he was not speaking
critically we are willing to admit, but are we sure that he was bound to
do so ? At all events, our criticism will best display itself in judging
his words according to his standard, and not according to one which
it is plain he did not follow.

Lect. iv.] The Tabernacle of David. 7 1
Surely, therefore, I am warranted in pointing, as
I would point you now, to these prominent and
remarkable words, as containing in themselves and
on their surface evidence of their really prophetic
character. They are manifestly only taken as one
example out of many. But if we can adduce even
one example from any given prophet of language
which could not arise naturally out of the circum
stances of his time, which cannot by any means be
interpreted of those circumstances, which centuries
after he wrote is known at all events in one par
ticular — that of the ruin which befell the house of
David — to have been verified by history, we are so
far justified in taking our stand on this example, and
insisting upon it as possibly furnishing an instance
of actual prophecy, and resolving that we will not
surrender it for any easily alleged reasons of the
a priori impossibUity of such prophecy.
But beyond aU question we can go further than
this. When the apostle James stood up in the
council of Jerusalem, his nation had for five cen
turies watched over and mourned the desolation of
the house of David. No tampering with the words
of Amos could obscure that fact ; but as yet the possi-
bUity of apphcation inherent in the rest of his words
had not revealed itself to Israel. Indeed, the pro
gress of events had but recently made such possibihty
a fact, and for aught we know the apostle himself
was the first to discern it. It was, however, a matter
of discernment, not of invention. The apostle had
no desire to rewrite the language of the prophet. He

72 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. iv.
merely avaUed himself of a version which had been
for many generations in esteemed and famihar use.
And it so happened, — for this also was a matter of fact,
or shaU we not rather say of Divine providence, — that
the version of the Alexandrine Jews had given a
breadth and capacity to the language of the prophet
that originaUy his words did not possess. " The
remnant of Edom and of all the heathen ' ' had been
rendered as though by a slight change in the vowels
the words had run "the remnant of Adam — the residue
of men — and all the heathen." And instead of the
family of David possessing the remnant of Edom and
the heathen, it was rather the nations of the heathen
that were to enter into the possession of the sure
mercies of David and the promises that were made
to him ; and thus in the truest and fullest sense they
were to become his possession by participating in the
blessings that were promised to his throne. The
promise and hope of the prophet, then, had been in
the highest sense fulfilled by being expanded far
beyond their original limits. But can we caU this
a failure of the original promise ? Is it not much
rather its most complete justification ? Is a man to
be held guUty of violating his word who does for his
fellow-man more than he could either ask or think ?
And shaU we say that the word of prophecy has
failed when it is discovered to be instinct and replete
with a meaning that certainly we cannot understand
the mind of the prophet as a human agent to have
entertained, but which, if he was indeed the minister
and spokesman of the Most High, is altogether and

Lect. iv.] The Tabernacle of David. 73
for that very reason most in accordance with the
theory that the omniscient Spirit of the living God,
who worketh all things after the counsel of His oion
will, actually and in very deed " spake by the pro
phets." This, as I have already observed, is in no
case a matter for demonstrative proof. If we could
prove it to demonstration, where would be the room
for the exercise of that moral faculty which we call
faith ? No man believes in the truth of a mathe
matical theorem, though none the less he cannot
doubt it, because he knows it is true. But if a man
acts in a particular way towards me, and does so by
a long chain of habitual conduct which I, perhaps,
do not discover till I have had to mourn his irre
parable loss, I then learn by faith to interpret the
significance of innumerable actions which I never
can have the opportunity of testing categorically, but
must be content to accept upon the weight and
reasonableness of probable evidence. Nor is it
otherwise with the dealing of God in Scripture, and
more especially in prophecy. The life and death of
Jesus Cbrist, if they mean anything at all, have
given a meaning to the Old Testament revelation
which it never had before : they have shown more
than ever that it was in the truest and highest sense
a revelation, the more so because all its significance
and wealth of meaning was not discoverable by those
to whom it was at first entrusted, nor for many ages
after they had passed away. But surely this supple
mental significance, if I may so call it, is not on that
ground to be rejected. On the contrary, we accept

74 Old Testament' Prophecy. [Lect. iv.
it the more readily, because, had it not been for the
life and death of Jesus, and the revelation of God
in Him, we should never have known it. But the
degree of our faith in the one revelation will be
measured by the reality of our acceptance of the
other. If we believe that God so loved us in our
sin as to give His Son to die for us, we shall not find
it hard to believe that His dealings with David and
with Abraham may have been preparatory for that
great event ; nor that the oracles of the prophets may
have been instinct with truth of which they were
but partly conscious, but which our own freedom
through the knowledge of His truth may lead us
more abundantly to perceive, and more thankfully to
accept. That at least will assuredly be our con
clusion if we believe with St. James that known unto
God are all His works from the beginning of the world,
and that in the process of making them known to
man He has made use of the ministry of patriarchs,
apostles, and prophets.

Lect. iv.] The Tabernacle of David. 75

PEOFESSOE KUENEN ON AMOS.
It may be as well that the reader should have the advantage of
Professor Kuenen's observations on the prophet Amos, which are as
follows : —
" It was in the reign of Jeroboam II., about the year 800 B.C.,
that Amos, an inhabitant of Tekoa, in Judaea, appeared as a prophet
in the kingdom of the ten tribes. By the successful wars and
vigorous government of that king, Israel had attained to a high
degree of prosperity and wealth ; but judged from a moral and
religious point of view, the state of the kingdom left much to be
desired. The poor were oppressed, and the victims of extortion. The
sensual worship of the nature-gods numbered many adherents. There
was no lack of noisy festivals and loud songs in honour of Jahveh,
but the people did not trouble themselves about his commands, and
imposed silence on those who ventured to urge them to obedience to
his will.* Is it surprising that Amos, called to be a prophet in these
circumstances, raises his voice in severe reproaches, and predicts to
the people a mournful future ? He directs his attention only in
passing to his native country, the kingdom of Judah. He is not
blind to the sins which are committed there also, (ch. ii. 4 : comp. vi. 1,
and the mention of Beersheba, v. 5, viii. 14,) and announces that
Jahveh will cast a fire upon Judah which shall devour the palaces of
Jerusalem (ii. 5) ; but he seems to expect that such a severe chas
tisement will be sufficient to bring the inhabitants of the southern
kingdom to repentance, and that the extinction of Judah's national
existence will not be required for that purpose. In his prophecy of
Israel's restoration, he mentions the ' falling tabernacle of David,'
' of which the breaches shall be closed up and the ruins raised
when it is built as in the days of old' (ix. 11), which implies that the
dynasty of David, in however sunken a condition, shall continue to
exist at the time when the better days dawn. The prospects which
the prophet descries for the kingdom of the ten tribes are much more
* These statements can be deduced from the following utterances of Amos,
quoted in the order of the chapters : ch. ii. 6—8, 11, 12, iii. 10, iv. 1, v. 7, 10
11, 12, 21—23, vi. 4—6, Vfc, viii. 4—6, 10.

76 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. iv.
unfavourable. If we were asked, What are the judgments against
that kingdom which he expects ? we might answer, What are the
judgments that he does not expect ? For as, before he came forward
as a prophet, calamities of all kinds had already smitten ' the house
of Joseph,' without, however, effecting the change for which they
were sent (iv. 6 — 11), so also, in the future, the apostate nation
shall not be spared one single description of suffering.* But again
and again Amos reverts to the sorest punishment which could be
imagined, the people's being carried away captive to a foreign country.
' Israel shall surely go into captivity, forth of his land ' (ch. vii. 17 ;
compare ch. v. 5, where the same thing is said of Gilgal). In
another passage he says, 'I (Jahveh) will cause you to go into
captivity beyond Damascus' (v. 27); and once more, 'I will shake the
house of Israel to and fro among all nations, like as corn is shaken
to and fro in a sieve ' (ix. 9). The promise that Jahveh ' shall
bring back the captivity of his people Israel' (ix. 14) is founded, of
course, on the same conception of the nation's future. The higher
classes, who now indulge in revelry and excess, shall first be smitten
by this judgment (vi. 7). If, however, the question is asked whether
the prophet had formed to himself a clear conception of the realisation
of this threatening which agreed with the subsequent reality, we
must return an answer in the negative. It was, as may be remem
bered, the Assyrians who, about eighty years after the appearance of
Amos, conquered Samaria, and carried into captivity the flower of
the citizens of the kingdom of Ephraim. Now with regard to the
Assyrians, Amos nowhere names them, but yet alludes to them on one
occasion when he mentions a nation that Jahveh shall raise up, and
which shall afflict Israel from 'Hamath to the brook of the wilderness'
(from the northern to the southern boundary — vi. 14). But it is not
said here that this people is destined by Jahveh to deprive Israel of
its national existence ; it is rather mentioned as one of the many
means which he shall employ in order to punish the apostates ;
and as regards the time when his threatenings should be realised,
nothing is plainer than that Amos imagined it to be close at hand.
He announces in the same breath that 'the high places of Israel
shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste,'
and that Jahveh ' shall rise against the house of Jeroboam with the
* Besides the passages quoted in the notes immediately following, see ch. ii.
13—16, iii. 11—16, iv. 2, 3, v. 1—3, 16, 17, vi. 8—11, vii. 1—6, viii. 3, 9—14,
ix. 5. /

Lect. iv.] The Tabernacle of David. 77
sword' (vii. 9). There may have been a misunderstanding, or even a
malevolent perversion of his words, when it was told to the king
that the prophet had dared to predict that Jeroboam would die a
violent death (vii. 11), still it is plain that in the opinion of Amos
the overthrow of the kingdom coincides with the overthrow of the
reigning dynasty. This follows, also, from his answer to Amaziah,
the priest of the royal sanctuary at Bethel, who had forbidden him
to prophesy on his territory. 'Thou shalt,' so Amos says to him,
' thou shalt die in an unclean land ; ' to which he immediately adds,
and Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land ' (vii. 17).
This deportation must happen in the time of the generation then
living, if Amaziah is to be one of the victims. For another reason,
also, we cannot ascribe to Amos any foreknowledge of the future.
He has not yet given up all hope that Israel shall be brought to
repentance, either in consequence of Jahveh's reiterated threaten-
ings, or by suffering the first of the judgments to be executed
upon them. 'Seek the good, and not the evil, that ye may live;
and so Jahveh, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye say. Hate
the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate : it
may be that Jahveh, the God of hosts, will be gracious unto the
remnant of Joseph.'* If the prophet is in earnest in what he says
here — and how can we have any doubt of his sincerity ? — then he can
have had no certainty with regard to the future course of Israel's
fortunes, though it be true that, for the most part, he does not
venture to hope, and scarcely doubts any longer that the extreme
inflictions which he from time to time anew depicts are indispen
sable."— pp. 150—153.
First we ask, how is . the call of Amos to be a prophet to be
accounted for under the " circumstances " ? Is there nothing un
natural or " surprising " in it ? Why did he utter his voice at all,
and from whom did the impulse to do so come ? In all these cases,
just as with the call of Abraham, it is the first impulse that has to be
explained. Granting the subsequent steps, the process is clear, but
it is just these that we cannot grant till the original impulse is ex
plained. If there was no Divine law in existence, as Kuenen would
have us believe — nothing but " the ten words '' — how was Amos,
or any other prophet, to feel himself called to be a prophet of the
* Ch. v. 14, 15 ; compare also viii. 11, 12, although the hunger and thirst for
the word of Jahveh described there can scarcely be regarded as the beginning
of repentance, on account of verses 13, 14.

78 Old Testament Prophecy.
Lord in the midst of surrounding ignorance and idolatry ? Again,
as there had yet been no deportation, how was the prophet again
and again to revert to it as " the sorest punishment which could be
imagined," and why did that punishment ever overtake the nation ?
To determine whether he had or had not formed to himself a clear
conception of how this was to be is unnecessary. We may say, in
Kuenen's own words upon another matter (p. 435), "What right have
we to prescribe to him how he is to conceive and execute his task ? "
or to insist that his foreknowledge shall coincide precisely with our
after-knowledge? Here Amos is taken to task because he does not
name the Assyrians, which is supposed to indicate a flaw in his
prophecy; but afterwards, in the case of Micah, it is equally a charge
of complaint against him that he does name Babylon (p. 164). Who,
then, was right, Amos or Micah? or were they both alike justified
by wisdom as the children of wisdom, and therefore right ; and is it
Kuenen who is wrong in his method of dealing with them ?
It is entirely gratuitous to affirm that Amos imagined the woes he
threatened to be close at hand. The sequence of the climax in vii. 17
is entirely against that supposition, and the analogy of prophecy is
equally fatal to it : viii. 9, 11, cf. Jer. xxiii. 5—8, xxx. 8, xxxvi. 37,
Zech. xiii. 1, Mai. iv. 1, etc., etc.

THE SURE MERCIES OF DAVID.

Acts xiii. 34. — And as concerning that he raised him up from ihe dead,
now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I vjill
give you the sure mercies of David.

LECTUEE Y.
THE SURE MERCIES OF DAVID.
J~N reading these familiar words, most persons pro-
-*- bably have been struck with the singular apparent
want of correspondence between the passage referred
to and the incident in which it is declared to have
been fulfilled. What have the sure mercies of David,
whatever they may be, got to do with the alleged
resurrection of Jesus Christ ? It is evident, however,
that to the mind of Paul, the man of Jewish edu
cation, who had been brought up at the feet of
Gamaliel, and to the Jews who heard his address
in the synagogue at Antioch, in Pisidia, on the
Sabbath day, this want of correspondence cannot
have been so patent ; for otherwise the fact he was
desirous to establish would not have been confirmed
or iUustrated in this way. But there is no reason
to believe that he did not thus appeal to the passage
in question, or that those who heard him would be
disposed to demur to its appropriateness. We may
therefore examine the grounds upon which it rested.
I endeavoured to show in my last Lecture the
evidence that is deducible from the writings of
Amos, one of the oldest of the prophets, to certain
6

82 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. v.
characteristics of the life of David, which are thus
estabhshed to us independently of any record of them
preserved in the books of Samuel, whenever those
books may have been written. With a view to
estimating the actual character of David's history,
in order to understand the cycle of prophecies con
nected with him, I shall now briefly examine the
testimony that is supplied by the writings of Isaiah.
He flourished probably some thirty or forty years
after Amos, and therefore his testimony is only one
degree less valuable than that of Amos, while it can
hardly be supposed that anything that was known
of David in the time of Amos can have been for
gotten in the time of Isaiah.
It is not, indeed, much that we are able to glean
from the writings of Isaiah ; but what there is can
only be regarded as so far confirmatory of results
akeady obtained. From first to last the name of
David is mentioned some ten times by the prophet ;
and all the instances, with the exception of the last,
which is the passage here quoted by St. Paul, occur
in the earlier portion of his writings. Although,
therefore, we cannot consent to the violent dismem
berment of his book that some critics insist upon,
aU must aUow that the antiquity of the great bulk
of the aUusions, occurring as they do in the earher
portion of it, is unquestionable. The first mention
of the name of David occurs in the seventh chapter,
ver. 2, where we read that it was told the house of
David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim,
in the reign of Ahaz ; and afterwards at ver. 13, that

Lect. v.] The Sure Mercies of David. 83
Isaiah said in addressing the royal family, Hear
ye now, 0 house of David. This is not otherwise
remarkable than as showing that the title by which
Ahaz was then recognised as ruling was his descent
from David ; and further, that his family was the
house of David, in contrast to that of the king who
was then reigning in Israel.
We pass on to the great prophecy in the ninth
chapter, about the child of mystic names, and find
it thus written : Of the increase of his government
and peace there shall be no end upon the throne of
David, and upon his kingdom to order it, and to
establish it with judgment and ivith justice from
henceforth, even for ever. Now, waiving altogether
the interpretation of this passage, it affords, at least,
clear proof that the throne of David was then re
garded as the special subject of expectation, and as
intimately connected with the brilliant destiny pre
dicted for this child. And this fact points us, not so
much to something yet to come, as to something
already past, which caused the throne of David to
be then so regarded. Whatever this may have been,
it was obviously well known in the eighth century
before Christ, when the words were spoken.
The next passage is in xvi. 5, in a prophecy concern
ing Moab, which runs, And in mercy shall the throne
be established : and he shall sit upon it in truth in the
tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment,
and hasting righteousness. As this was no doubt
subsequent to the prophecy of Amos, about "the
tabernacle of David that is fallen," which we last

84 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. v.
considered, though the actual words used are not
the same, it is more than probable that there is an
allusion in it to that prophecy. It again shows that
whatever was promised to Moab was promised in
connection with one who should sit upon the throne
of David. The throne of David, then, was the centre
of hope and the basis of prophecy.
In chap. xxii. 9, which is narrative, and not pre
dictive, there is another possible but less probable
allusion to the same verse of Amos, and again the
words used are different : Ye have seen also the
breaches of the city of David, that they are many.
Here it is not the house or family or throne of
David that is spoken of, but the city of David ; and
this, it wiU not be denied, is the stronghold of Zion,
which was originally taken and fortified by David.
In the twenty-second verse of the same chapter it
is said of Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, that the Lord
wiU lay upon his shoulder the key of the house of
David ; that he shall open, and none shall shut ; that
he shall shut, and none shall open. He was to
exercise the office of treasurer over the house of the
reigning heir of David.
The twenty-ninth chapter opens with the words,
Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt !
with a probable allusion to the lion's whelp, which
was the emblem of David's tribe.* This is confirma
tory of the words in the history (2 Sam. v. 9), So
David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of
* Ariel meaning most probably the " Lion of God," A._W Oeov, Aquila
and Symmachus.

Lect. v.] The Sure Mercies of David. 85
David. But it is preposterous to suppose that either
passage was written with the view of corroborating
or Ulustrating the other.
The next two passages occur in the famous his
torical chapters, which are with more probabUity to
be assigned to Isaiah than to any one else. The
first is in chap, xxxvn. 35, in the Lord's message to
Hezekiah, in reply to Sennacherib : J will defend this
city, to save it for mine oion sake, and for my servant
David's sake. As there is no reasonable cause to
doubt that these were the very terms of the message
sent, it is important to observe that there is some
mysterious relation implied in them between the
memory of David and the promised protection of
the Lord. And even if criticism were disposed to
assert that the message was written after the de
hverance was wrought, and so contained no promise
or prophecy, still the words contain unquestionable
evidence of the way in which the memory of David
was regarded in the age of Hezekiah. And this is
yet further illustrated by the next message of the
following chapter, on the occasion of Hezekiah' s
sickness : Go and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the
Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy
prayer, I have seen thy tears : behold, I tvill add unto
thy days fifteen years. This may well be accepted
as sufficient proof that Hezekiah was regarded as
the Hneal descendant of David, and that David was
supposed to stand in some special relation to the
Lord, who is thus called the God of David, as He
is called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

86 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. v.
It must be borne in mind that this, which at the
risk of weariness has now been laid before you, is
documentary evidence of the eighth century before
Christ, showing the national estimate then formed
of the historic position of David after an interval of
some three hundred years, or a period about equal to
that which separates us from the time of Elizabeth.
We pass on now to an examination of the passage
quoted by St. Paul in the text. And for our present
purpose it matters not in the slightest degree when
it was written, because the antiquity of the passages
already referred to wUl not be doubted. Could it
therefore be proved to be of a later age, which it
cannot, it would still receive elucidation from those
passages, and not they from it. In chap. Iv. 3, 4,
the prophet says, Incline your ear, and come unto me :
hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an
everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies
of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to
the people, a leader and commander to the people.
Now, whatever may be meant by the sure mercies of
David, it is impossible not to take the expression in
connection with the passages already mentioned.
There must be involved in them, in accordance with
all principles of sound criticism, an allusion to the
throne and family of David, the relation in which he
was beheved to stand to God, and to some future
destiny arising from some past promise which was
supposed to have been made to him. This is inhe
rent in the very terms used ; for the sure mercies
of David are in the parallelism set over against the

Lect. v.] The Sure Mercies of David. 87
everlasting covenant which is to be made with those
who incline the ear and come. David, therefore, was
regarded as the heir of some everlasting covenant.
His very name is used as symbolic of such a cove
nant. Surely there can be no stronger proof of a
nation's sentiments than a nation's proverbs, and
here the national estimate of, or opinion concerning,
David has passed into a proverb. That therefore
is documentary evidence as to the prevalent opinion
of the time ; and the convictions on which it rested
were as old as the time of Ahaz and Hezekiah. No
sooner, however, has the prophet mentioned David,
than he says, in aUusion to his known history, Behold,
I have given him, or I gave him, for a witness to the
people, or to peoples, a leader and commander to the
people, or to peoples. I ask you, then, to observe here
that if the prophet is speaking only of something
past, his words afford independent confirmation of
what we know of David's history from other sources,
for this is very much what the historic David really
was ; but then it is not a Httle remarkable that
neither the prophet nor those whom he addressed
could for a moment suppose that he, personally, had
borne any part in the direction of David's career.
It certainly was not Isaiah who appointed David to
be a leader or commander of tribes or peoples .* If,
* It is especially to be observed that Isaiah, in calling David a leader,
makes use of the very word in reference to him which was so con
spicuous in the books of Samuel, where he is spoken of as the "PJ3.
Now this is a word first found in these books. Saul is to be anointed
as the nagid over Israel (ix. 16, x. 1, xiii. 14) ; afterwards David is
recognised as the person who is to take his place (1 Sam. xxv. 30,

88 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. v.
therefore, we refer his words only to the past, they
contain this remarkable feature, that they altogether
identify him with the God who had raised up and
chosen David. So that the prophet here is speaking
as the very mouthpiece and in the person of God.
That is a consideration which must be borne in mind,
even if we limit the application of his language only
to the past. And it serves to show us something of
the special character assumed on the one hand by
the prophets, and apparently conceded by those who
heard them on the other. For this reason, however,
it is far more probable, notwithstanding the "per
versity " with which Ewald * is pleased to stigmatise
2 Sam. v. 2, vi. 21, vii. 8). The word is also applied to Solomon
(1 Kings i. 35), to Jeroboam (xiv. 7), to Baasha (xvi. 2), and to Hezekiah
(2 Kings xx. 5). Its use here by Isaiah, as applied to David, may
well-nigh serve as actual proof that he was acquainted with the
history as recorded in Samuel.
* " This Prophet (Isa. Iv. 3 — 5) intentionally chooses the word
*W, rare in antiquity, in the meaning of a prophetic ruler, i.e., one
who announces God's will (cf . the Alterth, p. 142), as the cjrfer: becomes
the old Persian °y What perversity it is to refer the words (ver. 4)
to the Messiah of the future, ought by this time to be self-evident."
(Hist, of Israel, vol. iii., p. 202, n. 3.— E. V.)
Does he suppose, we may ask, there is any connection, philo
sophical, analogical, or otherwise, between the Sanskrit kavi and the
old Persian kai and the Hebrew ged, or that the last can mean a
prophetic ruler ? It is really time that many of the wild vagaries of
this wildest of men were exploded.
This rarity being autocratically asserted, it may be as well to
say that the word ~l$ occurs in the Pentateuch and book of Joshua
alone some thirty times, almost as frequently as in all the other books
together, and that among the prophets it is only used seven times by
Isaiah, five by Jeremiah, once by Micah, and once by Malachi. How,
then, can he assert that it is " rare in antiquity" ? and what would that
mean if it were, which it is not ?

Lect. v.] The Sure Mercies of David. 89
such a view, that we are right in attributing a future
reference to the prophecy. The David spoken of is
not the David of past history, but a David still to
come, for whom sure mercies were reserved, with
whom an everlasting covenant was to be made, and
who should be a leader and commander of the people.
But, if this is really so, and I think we must, upon
consideration, allow that it cannot be otherwise,
then surely the light in which it sets the person
and the character of David is greatly changed. For
not only is he seen to be the founder of the reigning
family of Judah, the builder of the stronghold of
Zion for whose sake the Lord had promised to
defend the city of Jerusalem, and the king who stood
in a peculiar relation to God in which none of his
successors stood ; but he becomes yet more the
starting-point for fresh promises, the foundation of
forward-looking hopes, the symbol of perpetual do
minion, and the possessor of a throne that should
know no end.
I want you specially to note that for the present
I lay no stress whatever upon these supposed pro
phecies or promises. There may be no value in
them whatever. They may be meaningless, baseless,
and empty. But this, at all events, the prophet's
language shows, that in the age of Isaiah, between
two and three hundred years after the death of
David, certain facts in his history were perfectly
well remembered, and it was commonly believed that
the house founded by him was destined to greater
glory than it had ever yet attained, and that some

go Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.v.
special and mysterious privilege centred in and
attached to his name and person. And we have
seen that at all events to a certain extent the same
conviction had been shared by the prophet Amos in
the generation before Isaiah, and was familiar to the
northern kingdom.
This, then, is the evidence that is producible from
that period. Whatever else was believed concerning
David three or four centuries later, cannot thus far
throw discredit upon this, which was clearly in ex
istence then.
Nor, on the other hand, is it reasonable to suppose
that the estimate of David in the time of Amos
and Isaiah was in any degree tinged with mythical
colouring. There is nothing about it of the nature
of myth. At an age when the recorder of public
events was a high officer of state, as was the case in
the reigns of both David and Hezekiah, and the reign
ing king was publicly acknowledged as the lineal de
scendant of David, there is not room for the exercise
of myth at a distance only of some twelve genera
tions, any more than there is room in our own history
for myth to gather round or obscure the existence
of Queen Elizabeth or the principal events of her
time. It is clear then, from written evidence, that in the
age of Amos and Isaiah there was some unknown
and mysterious property and privilege connected with
the name and family of David, which, if we had no
other sources of information, would seem to be of the
nature of a ^covenant or promise made with him. It

Lect. v.] The Sure Mercies of David. 91
is altogether a separate and distinct question whether
or how such a promise was made ; it is a matter of
fact that we are confronted with certain indications
in the national hterature, which can only be under
stood as pointing to the conclusion that it was then
commonly and confessedly believed to have been
made. The belief was older than the time of Isaiah,
because there are traces of it in the time of Amos.
The question, then, inevitably arises — What was
the origin of this belief? From the writings of the
prophets alone it is not possible to answer this ques
tion. They only afford contemporary witness to the
existence of the behef. It cannot, however, for a
moment be alleged that they were the authors of
the belief. Their aUusions to it are too vague and
shadowy for that. We are consequently thrown back
upon such historical records as are at our command,
and these are mainly the books of Samuel and Kings,
confirmed and supplemented as they are by the books
of Chronicles. We are in profound ignorance as to
when these books were written or who wrote them.
With regard, however, to the books of Chronicles,
confessedly the latest of aU, this point is worthy of
remark, that the compUer, whoever he was, is most
careful to give his authorities. He makes reference
to no less than fourteen distinct treatises or works
which he cites by name. It is true that these, for
the most part, exist no longer ; but it is obvious that
they existed in the time of the writer, and that he
was not afraid of appeahng to, and therefore of being
judged by, their authority. It must also be clear

g2 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. v.
that this appeal, though we can no longer apply the
test, considerably enhances his authority. His value
as a writer, being of a later date, is obviously much
higher than it would have been had he given no
authorities. The books of Chronicles cover the period
embraced by the combined records of Samuel and
Kings. As they differ in various details, it is plain
that their testimony, not being identical, where it
agrees or is not inconsistent notwithstanding dis
agreement, must be regarded as independent. But
strange to say, throughout the books of Samuel?
Kings, and Chronicles, which are the sole records at
our disposal, there is no divergence whatever as to
the position assigned to David. From first to last
it is his throne and his family which is regarded as
dominant and unique. It is represented as ruling
by a kind of Divine necessity, or the obligation of
a Divine promise. And as the books of Chronicles
are supposed to date from a time subsequent to the
captivity, when the throne of David had ceased to
exist, and there was no prospect of its being restored,
this is the more remarkable, because it is witness to a
past condition of things, and witness that was appa
rently falsified by the actualities and contradictions
of the present. And yet the books of Chronicles, no
less than those of Samuel, record an alleged Divine
promise given to David : I will raise up thy seed
after thee, which shall be of thy sons, and I will
establish his kingdom . . . and his throne for ever*
It is not too much to say that the consciousness of
* 1 Chron. xvii. 11, 12.

Lect. v.] The Sure Mercies of David. 93
this promise pervades the whole of the subsequent
history. Somehow or other the whole of the history,
if fabricated, was buUt upon this as a groundwork
and foundation. But, in point of fact, it is absolutely
impossible to regard the history as a fabrication, nor
is it commonly proposed so to regard it. Accepting
the history, therefore, as real, we cannot shut our
eyes to this remarkable characteristic of it — the
universal prevalence of the behef that perpetuity had
been promised to David's throne, a behef which
evidently survived the existence of the throne
itself. But it cannot be denied that a conviction such as
that which pervades the historical books completely
accounts for and explains the allusions gathered from
Amos and Isaiah. It is exactly such a conviction as
they embody to which these prophets testify. And
we may surely ask whether there is any other ima
ginable cause which wiU account for these allusions.
The historians, however, cannot have been in coUu-
sion with the prophets in thus representing the facts
concerning David, because the materials thus sup
phed by their writings were too slender for them
to work upon ; * but both must be regarded as
independent witnesses to the existence of a belief
* These remarks hold good, even if, as Kuenen (pp. 408 ff. and
429 ff.) and others suppose, the histories were the work of the pro
phets and the priests; for the writings of the canonical prophets were
too obscure in their allusions to be the groundwork of the histories,
and the histories, being, on that supposition, of far later date than
the great majority of the canonical prophets, cannot have supplied the
source from which these allusions were drawn.

94 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. v.
which was common to the nation at large, and cannot
have been absent from their history at any period
from the time of David onwards.
The phenomenon, then, which meets us is the
national behef concerning David, which is witnessed
to by such writers as Amos and Isaiah, and the
problem is how to account for it. If it is affirmed
that the existing historical records were of later date,
then it is evident that they cannot account for it in
the sense of having created it. But it is no less
certain that these records cannot have grown out
of the meagre allusions in the prophets. The only
conceivable hypothesis is that both must have been
derived from some common source. Of this, how
ever, we can form no idea, for we have no evidence
as to its existence even. And so far as we can
postulate the existence of any such common source,
it would seem not improbably to be included among
the authorities appealed to by the writer of the books
of Chronicles. If, therefore, we would attempt to
account for the national convictions concerning
David, we cannot dispense with the information
supplied by the existing records. Now we learn
from them that David originally had no right to the
throne of Judah; that the original king and his
family were set aside for, and supplanted by, David ;
and that, as a matter of fact, for twenty generations
his descendants ruled over the house of Judah. The
evidence of events, therefore, at least for that period,
seems to have justified an impression that we can
trace in the prophets to about the middle of the third

Leot. v.] The Sure Mercies of David. 95
century after his death. There is even older and in
fact contemporary evidence afforded by the Psalms.
but this must not detain us now. We can only dwell
upon the fact that the sure mercies of David, and the
other aUusions to his name in Isaiah, point us con
clusively to a yet earlier promise or pledge supposed
to have been given to him, the nature of which we
can only infer for the present from the existing
records which relate to it. We cannot be wrong,
however, in supposing that it in some way concerned
the permanence of his throne. Nor was the validity
of this promise supposed to have failed even after the
captivity. The hope of it certainly still lingered in
Israel, and had penetrated far beyond the confines of
Israel at the commencement of our era. Nor is it
possible to deny that, as a matter of fact, a large
portion of the actual foundations of the historic
Christian Church were laid in this hope. The hope
itself, therefore, was a reality ; it may have been a
delusion and a dream, but there can be no question
as to its vigour and strength, for it was possessed
of inextinguishable vitahty. What, then, was the
origin of this hope ? Is there any natural cause, or
combination of natural causes, that can adequately
account for it ; or does not the vast body of evidence,
when fairly considered as a whole, rather point us
to something for which no natural cause or causes
can be discovered to account ? The answer to
these questions must be the subject of future in
quiry. For the present we must bear in mind that
the existence of the hope in aU its features is a

g6 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. v.
unique phenomenon in history. There is nothing
like it anywhere else. There can be no mistake as
to the ultimate form it assumed, whatever mistakes
we may make as to its growth and origin. The one
is a matter of obvious fact attested by many wit
nesses, the other of theory and speculation. We
may go astray in theory ; we can only wilfully mis
interpret facts. And it is a fact, account for it how
we may, that the promises supposed to have centred
in David's throne were the hope of a despised and
oppressed nation for a thousand years ; and that at
the end of that time, so far from their intrinsic
vitality being exhausted, they supplied the material
for the foundation of a new religion which has
already lasted for eighteen centuries, which has
taken deep root downward in the soil of alien
peoples, and has borne fruit upward in moulding
their national character, their historical constitution,
their arts and sciences, which has pervaded their
literature, and developed their civUisation, and
stimulated their progress, and of which two of the
prophetic corner-stones, interpreted not after the
flesh, but after the spirit, were these : The Lord
God shall give unto Him the throne of His father
David, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob
for ever, and of His kingdom there shall be no
end. And as concerning that He raised Him up
from the dead, now no more to return to corrup
tion, He said on this ivise, I will give you the sure
mercies of David.

THE HEIR OF DAVIDS THRONE.

Acts n. 29 — 31. — Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you
of ihe patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his
sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and
knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit
of his loins, according to the fiesh, He would raise up Christ to sit
on his throne ; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of
Christ, that His soul was not left in hell, neither did His fiesh see
corruption.

LECTUBE VI.
THE HEIR OF DAVID'S THRONE.
~| TITHEBTQ we have seen, from an examination
-* — *- of certain passages in Amos and Isaiah, that
there is clear evidence of the eighth century before
Christ that the throne of David was regarded in a
special manner as the centre of national hope and
the subject of Divine promises. It remains for us
now to investigate any further evidence that can be
discovered, and to ascertain, if possible, the precise
value of the evidence we may find, and the actual
bearing of the facts relating to it. There are ob
viously many passages in the Psalms which speak
of the promises that were supposed to centre in the
house of David. The only question is the date which
may be assigned to them severally, and the particular
weight attaching to them in view of the uncertainty
hanging over their date. The first of these passages
is found, however, at the close of the eighteenth
Psalm; and as that has been preserved to us in
two versions — one in the second - book of Samuel,
and one in the first book of Psalms, and in both
cases is ascribed to David, there seems to be strong
prima facie reason for accepting it as his. There

100 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. vi.
are, indeed, those who will question it ; for in
matters of this kind it is not possible to get beyond
the limit of debatable ground; but we may safely
say that the reasons for believing it to be David's
are stronger than those for rejecting it. We find,
then, the last words of this Psalm running thus :
Great prosperity giveth He unto His king, and showeth
mercy unto David His anointed, and unto his seed for
evermore. If, then, it is allowable to accept this
as a Psalm of David, it is proof that he regarded
himseU as the Lord's anointed king, and that he
expected his kingdom to descend to his seed for
evermore. If it is not David's Psalm, or if this
verse is a later addition, it becomes more difficult
to depide about it, although even then we must
acknowledge it as affording confirmatory proof of
the national belief about him— of a doubtful age,
indeed, but probably older than the time of Amos
or Isaiah.
In the same sense we can alone understand words
from the twenty-first and the sixty-first Psalms, both
of which are ascribed to David : He asked life of
Thee, and Thou gavest it him, even length of days for
ever and ever. Thou wilt prolong the king's life : and
his years as many generations. He shall abide before
God for ever. This must surely mean that the life
which could not in the course of nature be his should
be prolonged in -his posterity. It may be taken as
contemporary evidence expressive of the prerogative
of prosperity attaching to David.
The same may be said of the language of the

Lect. vi.] The Heir of David'' 's Throne. 101
seventy-second Psalm, which, if not the work of
David, is probably that of Solomon. Here the
expectation expressed exceeds all natural bounds.
It is said of the Prince of peace, who is to sit
on David's throne, that His name shall endure for
ever; His name shall be continued as long as the
sun, and men shall be blessed in Him; all nations
shall call Him blessed. This is probably not later
than the commencement of the tenth or the close
of the eleventh century before Christ. At that early
time these extraordinary hopes had begun to cluster
around the throne of David.
In the grand historical seventy- eighth Psalm,
which is ascribed to Asaph, the contemporary of
David, we have what may so far be regarded as
independent evidence of the special right in virtue
of which David was believed to reign : He chose
David also His servant, and took him from the sheep-
folds . . . to feed Jacob His people, and Israel His
inheritance. The two most remarkable Psalms, however, which
bear most directly upon the supposed Davidic pro
mise, are the eighty-ninth, ascribed to Ethan the
Ezrahite, the contemporary of Asaph and Hemah,
and the hundred and thirty-second, which bears only
the inscription, 'A song of degrees.' Each of these
speaks in unmistakable terms of the oath that had
been sworn unto David, from which the Lord would
not shrink. Various dates have been assigned to
these Psalms, from' the age of David till after the
return from captivity ; and though in our judgment

102 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. vi.
the former is far more probable, they at least show,
on the other supposition, that at the latter date the
national feeling with regard to David's house and
throne was fuUy developed and mature. We have
then a series of compositions extending from the age
of David tiU possibly the return from captivity, or
else from the age of David till the time of Isaiah,
which must at all events be assigned to various
writers who are unanimous as to the existence of
some special honour or prerogative centred in David.
It appears that he shared this belief himself, and it
certainly can be traced to his age. In order, how
ever, fully to understand the nature of the allusions
made to him, it is necessary to refer to the history
which is preserved to us in 2 Sam. vii. and 1 Chron.
xvii. These narratives have this in common, that
they are not at all likely to have grown out of either
the eighty-ninth or the hundred and thirty-second
Psalm. It is conceivable that either of these Psalms
might have been a poetic version of the history;
but that would necessitate the history being then
in existence, which is perhaps more than would be
granted, even though it may not be too much to
assume. But, at aU events, we are unable to explain
the allusions in the Psalm, except by reference to
the history, and there is no vestige of any history
except that preserved to us in 2 Samuel and
1 Chronicles. But it is impossible to accept that
history without admitting the operation of the
supernatural to a degree that modern criticism
cannot tolerate. What, then, is to be done? We

Lect. vi.] The Heir of David"1 s Throne. 103
must reduce, if possible, both history and Psalm
alike to the Hmits of the merely natural. We
must ascertain what it is in natural and modern
language that is implied in Psalm and history. The
attempt to reconstruct the history upon the basis
of modern ideas has been undertaken by no feeble
hand,* and with aU the resources of an unlimited
freedom of conjecture and hypothesis ; but with what
success ? In no less than some eighty or ninety
incidents we find our modern reconstructor drawing
upon the existing records for his Hfe of David
without scruple, whUe he no less unscrupulously
sets aside the entire principle upon which those
records are framed. With marvellous ingenuity he
applies the microscope of his self-consciousness and
subjectivity to discover what the original writer does
not express, in order that he may with the greater
audacity ignore and overlook what he distinctly
states. It must surely be by a misnomer that such
a method of rewriting history is dignified and deco
rated by the epithet critical. If we are at liberty to
make use of the records to such an extent as trust
worthy, they surely deserve some credit when they
vouch as they do for the operation of principles which
the modern historian is at such pains to disregard.
It is doubtless possible in like manner to decline
to perceive the operation of a Divine hand in the
ordinary events of national or individual history.
But this is exactly that which we aU want to perceive
* Ewald's History of Israel, vol. iii., pp. 54 — 203, Eng. ed. See
Note at the end of this Lecture.

104 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. vi.
if we can do so with truth and accuracy. Surely
there is no one of us who would not gladly and
thankfully know, if it were possible to ascertain, the
particular way in which the Divine hand has guided
us in the past, is guiding us in the present, where
it has interposed for our welfare, when we knew it
not, and where it has not less directly taught us
by leaving us to our own choice, in order that by
a late and too often bitter experience we might
learn the inevitable lesson. Could we but arrive at
authoritative knowledge upon such matters, it were
surely a boon to be desired. Now it seems to me
that the teacher who would eliminate from a pro
fessedly Divine history all the special elements of
the Divine, is acting like one who would eliminate
from ordinary human experience all the presumable
teaching and discipline of Divine providence. But
as a matter of fact, all the records of the Jewish
monarchy, without exception, and that not once, but
by continual iteration, represent the throne of David
as the inalienable heritage of him and his sons for
ever. And when we examine the entirely independent
evidence of the Psalms and prophets, we find the
expression of a like conviction, which seems to have
possessed the nation at large from a period coeval
with the rise of David's house. As it is clear that
nothing of the same kind is found to characterise
the house of Saul, but that, so to say, one effort
after monarchy seems to have satisfied the national
ambition, to the ideal of which in after times they
could never do more than recur, and could never

Lect. VI.] The Heir of David'' 's Throne. 105
originate a fresh ideal; and as in no other history
is there anything hke the kind of feeling to be dis
covered that is found to centre in the throne of
David, this is unquestionably an historical pheno
menon that demands an explanation. Even if we
say that for some reason or other a profound con
viction seized upon the national mind in relation
to David, and that this conviction expressed itself
in various ways, as we see it did in the national
literature and the national history, then there must
be some assignable reasons for the origin of this
conviction, there must be some discoverable cause
for its remarkable tenacity and depth. The history
and the literary monuments alike declare that the
reason for both was in the actual and express pro
mise of God. The necessities of argument forbid us
to interpret such language literaUy; but certainly
if we reject the reason uniformly and consistently
assigned, then we are bound to suggest some other
which shall no less successfully account for aU the
conditions imphed. And beyond all doubt this has
not as yet been done, nor do we believe that it
ever wUl be done ; but, on the contrary, we believe
that successive generations of men may point with
confidence to the known and obvious effects, literary
and historical, of the alleged promise to David, as
affording no shght evidence and confirmation of
some unknown and inexplicable reahty underlying
and implied by that alleged promise. It is perfectly
true that we can have no merely natural proof of
the supernatural if we refuse to postulate something

106 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. vi.
beyond nature ; but unquestionably the literary re
cords of the Old Testament, both with regard to
Abraham and to David, point us to the operation of
unknown causes which defy all explanation if we
decline to accept the possible operation of a Divine
and superhuman, supernatural agency.
Hitherto we have been endeavouring to reason
independently of any assumptions with regard to the
documents of the Old Testament to which the most
destructive criticism could demur. But if otherwise,
the same conclusions are not really invalidated if we
go yet further. Let us assume, for the sake of argu
ment, that all the historical documents of the Old
Testament are utterly untrustworthy, that none of
the literary monuments can with certainty be referred
to the writers whose names they bear. Then how
do we stand with regard to a position so extreme,
and we may add so monstrous ? We stand thus.
It admits of no shadow of doubt that the entire bulk
of the Old Testament existed substantially and iden
tically as we have it now, four hundred years before
Christ. At that period, all, or at aU events very
nearly aU the Scriptures that we now possess were
not only written, but had assumed their existing form.
The books of Moses were received as the veritable
law given by him in the fifteenth century before
Christ. The history existed as we have it now, in
the same divisions, with the same names to the
various books, with identically the same general
features that we now discern. The Psalms were aU
collected and arranged as they are now, or at least

Lect. vi.] The Heir of David' s Throne. 107
with a few small and unimportant differences whether
of text or of numeration ; and the writings of the
prophets, if we grant, perhaps provisionally, the
possible exception of certain parts of Daniel, were
not only named and arranged as we have them now,
but presented the same well-known and character
istic features. These facts are mainly assured to us
by the existence of the Alexandrine version within
the first or the second century following, by certain
inferences suggested by the preface to Ecclesiasticus,
and more than aU by the change of language which
in all probabiUty took place in Palestine shortly after
the return from the captivity, when, therefore, it
would have been impossible for any man or for any
body of men in that company to have produced our
existing books. It follows, therefore, that in the
year 400 b.c, there was in existence a Hebrew Bible,
to all intents and purposes the same as that which
we now possess. Then in that Bible there were on
record — let us even suppose that they were a fabrica
tion — certain promises to Abraham, standing exactly
as they stand now, and worded as they are now.
There were all the Psalms rightly or wrongly attributed
to David, to Asaph, to Ethan, to the sons of Korah,
and the like ; there was the second Psalm verbally the
same as it is now, the sixteenth Psalm containing
the words quoted by Peter and by Paul on the day
of Pentecost, and in the synagogue at Antioch.
There was the same history of David, (if you please
an entire fabrication from beginning to end but for
all that) with identically the same features that we

i08 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.vi.
have been now examining, the same professed selec
tion of him in preference to Saul, the same declared
promise of perpetuity given to his house and throne,
the same extraordinary apparent revocation of it in
the case of his own grandson, for which, however,
verbal provision had been made in the terms of its
original grant.* There was the same yet more re
markable and apparently utter failure of the promise
in the time of his latest royal descendant ; there was,
nevertheless, the same distinct belief in the validity
of the original promise manifest in the people after
the captivity, which had characterised them before.
There were in the writings of the prophets the same
remarkable denunciations of future woe, which,
though indeed they might have been partly dictated
by the national experience as early as the fifth
century before our era, were nevertheless destined
to a far more striking and momentous fulfilment
hundreds and even thousands of years afterwards.
There were expressed in these writings the same deep
and ineradicable convictions that the God of Israel
was de jure, and would eventually become de facto,
the God of all the nations of the earth by the ac
knowledgment of adoration and submission ; and
there were scattered up and down those writings
disjointed fragments, apparently the work of many
ages and of many minds, glimpses of an ideal por-
* 2 Sam. vii. 14, 15 : "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to
me a son, whom, if he commit iniquity, I will chasten with the rod
of men, and with the stripes of the children of men : but my mercy
shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I took
away from before thee."

Lect. VI.] The Heir of David' 's Throne. 109
traiture or character to which there was nothing that
answered in the national history, and which yet was
the absolutely unique and by far the most remarkable
feature of the whole literature. I say there were all
these elements patent and undeniable in the Jewish
Scriptures of 400 b.c What, then, on the suppo
sition that the entire literature was fabricated, and
fabricated as it must have been before that date, are
we required to believe ? Nothing less than this,
that some unknown man, or since the broad diverg
ence of "style renders that hypothesis inconceivable,
that a large body of unknown men agreed together
to fabricate these remarkable documents, and to
inspire them — I use the word designedly — to inspire
and impress them with the particular features and
characteristics, the particular elements and princi
ples of spiritual truth, the apparent and mysterious
insinuations and innuendos in which more is meant
than meets the ear, to which I have referred, and
which we cannot deny, are only too conspicuous in
them. We have to believe that this was done with
some undiscoverable and recondite motive, for under
the circumstances there must have been a motive
for the production of the result that as a matter of
fact is produced ; or, if there really was no motive,
that theh this was the chance and undesigned result
of their purposeless lucubrations, a result which again,
as a matter of fact, was not produced by the whole
of the Greek and Eoman literature combined, by the
whole of the Hindoo literature combined, or by the
whole of the Scandinavian literature combined. Is

no Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. VI.
this a conclusion which we can reasonably adopt as
on the whole more credible, more natural, more con
sonant with the laws of probability than the other
conclusion which after all has distinctly such evi
dence as exists, documentary and historic, in its
favour, namely, that the writings of the Old Testa
ment, being as they are for the most part, speaking
generally, the genuine and authentic productions
they profess to be, were in some sense the natural,
though in another sense the no less supernatural,
productions of a most remarkable people ; that they
are, to say the least, instinct with " startling origi
nality," and that there are features characterising
them which defy our utmost ingenuity fully to ac
count for, unless we postulate the operation of
another agency to which they professedly lay claim,
and to which unquestionably their distinctive phe
nomena seem to point ?
This fact then appears to be sufficiently plain,
that even if the Old Testament were a fabrication
it must have been in existence four hundred years
before Christ, and in all material points in existence
as we have it now ; and being so, its most peculiar
phenomena would be no more easy to account for
than on the supposition of its genuineness ; clearly
therefore we gain nothing in this respect by shifting
its composition to the latest conceivable period. It
would in fact be more difficult to understand the
origin of these records as a fabrication, than to
suppose them to have been the gradual growth
of ages, and the work of their traditional authors.

Lect. vi.] The Heir of David' s Throne. in
Under aU circumstances there would be evidence
that David's family and throne had been spoken of
in a very special and peculiar manner, which the
course of events had seemed to contradict rather
than to warrant. There would still remain all the
features of an apparent prophecy, aU the foundation
ready at hand, upon which the superstructure of
an alleged apparent fulfilment might afterwards be
raised; and yet, from the circumstances of the case,
it is impossible that this could have been the pur
pose or object with which these writings were pro
duced. StiU the fact remains that they were produced,*
and therefore the only reasonable theory concerning
their production is that it was the gradual growth
of successive ages, from the fifteenth century to the
fifth century before Christ. During this period of a
thousand years there came into existence a national
literature, which cannot be assigned to less than
* If we suppose that the entire bulk of the history was the post-
captivity work of prophetical and priestly men, and the writings of
the canonical prophets the work of an earlier class of prophets from
the eighth century onwards, there still remain the distinguishing and
characteristic features of all those writings to be accounted for, and
the possible correspondence between them and the facts of the New
Testament, the acknowledgment of which correspondence, however,
is a matter of faith and converting grace, for no man can say that
Jesus is the Lord [Christ], but by the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. xii. 3).
The question is whether the theory of Kuenen is sufficient to account
for all the facts and phenomena of the Old Testament, and if, sup
posing it to be so, those of the New Testament can in like manner
be disposed of ; if not, then the actual relation of the Old Testament
and the New, being what it is, is a fact that points us to the opera
tion of the Divine will and the manifestation of the Divine purpose
in Jesus Christ.

1 1 2 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. vi.
some five-and-twenty or thirty different writers of
various ages, who wrote manifestly without collusion
or concert ; and the effects of their combined work
are what we see them now to be. We find in the
earliest book a distinct promise made to Abraham.
We find in the Psalms, the Prophets, and the histori
cal books, indications of another promise made to
David. It is impossible to eradicate the tokens of
this latter promise from the existing monuments.
It is continually confronting us. There is no theory
that can adequately account for the indications of
this promise. We may not of course assume that
it was given, but we can most distinctly say that
had it been given, it would completely account for
all the indications that confront and perplex us,
as nothing else can account for them. Are we to
decide then that prophecy is a fact or a fiction?
As long as we stop at any period short of the
Christian era, it is only possible to decide that pro
phecy was believed to have been a fact ; that there
was all the appearance in the records of very distinct
and definite promises ; that these promises had been
persistently cherished, tenaciously clung to at various
periods, and for many ages ; and that, though they
had never been abandoned, they had nevertheless
certainly not been fulfiUed. This is as far as we
can go in the direction of proving the existence of
prophecy as a fact, in the cases we are now con
sidering, at a period prior to the commencement
of the Christian era. But is it possible to have any
stronger proof short of absolute demonstration ? We

Lect. VI.] The Heir of David' 's Throne. 113
have the existence of prophecy as a universal and
persistent national belief; we have the appearance
of it continually recurring in the several parts of
a national literature ; we have a variety of inde
pendent and necessarily undesigned coincidences
and indications tending to establish and confirm
the reality of that appearance ; and we have the
utter faUure and complete inability of any theory
to account sufficiently for the several phenomena
as they exist, whatever may have been the actual
circumstances under which the -literature was pro
duced. It becomes a question, therefore, whether
we wUl accept the idea of Divine prophecy as the
only adequate solution of the problem, or be content
to leave it unsolved.
It remains, however, that we turn now to glance
at another series of known facts. About thirty years
after the birth of Christ, and after the national
consciousness had acknowledged the cessation of
prophecy for more than four hundred years, and
after aU the literary phenomena we possess had long
been completed, there arose a man in the spirit and
power of Elias, who declared that the mysterious
kingdom of God, of which David and the psalmists
had sung, and the prophets had spoken, was about
to be revealed. He produced a profound impression
on his age, the more remarkable because it was not
himself to whom he directed the national attention,
but another, in whom he declared the ancient pro
phecies found their meaning and were fulfilled. His
ministry, as a matter of fact, was foUowed by another
8

114 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. vi.
yet more remarkable, the ministry of One who not
only took up the words of John, but announced
Himself as the person of whom he spake, and as being
at once the subject and the object of all ancient
prophecy. This Person is admitted on all hands to
have been the greatest moral teacher and the most
perfect human character that the world has ever
seen or literature ever invented. It is certain, how
ever, that His recorded testimony concerning Himself
in no degree falls short even of this high estimate,
and it is equally certain that His death was mainly
accelerated, if it was not entirely caused, by the
persistency with which He maintained that He was
the Christ of prophecy. It is certain, however, that
whUe He persistently encouraged His disciples in
their traditional belief in the ancient prophecies,
He altogether revolutionised and reconstructed their
conceptions of them. Nor can it be referred to any
other cause than the influence of His teaching that
we find His disciples after His supposed resurrection
appealing to the ancient prophecies in an altogether
enlarged and sublimated sense, by which they became
enhanced in beauty, and even truer than before.
Then it became manifest that the promise to David,
if it had ever been a Divine promise at all, and
exactly in proportion as the promise was God-given
and from God, was not of any earthly and temporal,
but of a heavenly and eternal kingdom — not of a
changing and corruptible throne, but of one that
was unchanging and incorruptible. The sure mercies
of David, therefore, were mercies that could never

Lect. vi.] The Heir of David' s Throne. 115
perish or pass away; not such as could be handed
on from sire to son, but such as would abide for
ever in the person of that son who he believed had
been promised to him, and for whom so many gene
rations and ages waited. The contrast involved
throughout was one between corruption and incor
ruption. There were wonderful words spoken by
David and by others, which, interpreted literaUy, went
to show that he and they had apprehended something
of that incorruptible and eternal spirit ; and in what
ever degree they had done so, they were the prophets
of the Most High; and in whatever degree their
prophecies had lent themselves to that interpretation,
they were not the offspring of their own minds, but
were prompted and inspired by the Holy Ghost.
This was their contention : the high argument and
contention of the apostles of Christ. Nor was it
either weak or vain. As no coUusion had of old
produced the writings of the prophets, so no coUu
sion or juggling on the part of the first disciples
had corrupted those writings, or had given them a
meaning which they would not bear. The words
to which they appealed had been there for ages ;
they were known to have been there. If they ever
had been true at all, they were truer now than ever,
for their truth was revealed in Christ. If Christ
was indeed risen from the dead, if His own claims
concerning Himself were true, then He had demon
strated the truth of prophecy; He had estabhshed
and confirmed its reality as an historic fact. It is
only as we refuse to acknowledge the Divine element

1 16 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. VI.
in prophecy that we reduce it to an inexpHcable
phenomenon, which is neither of heaven nor yet of
earth, and are unable to account for it as it is. On
the other hand, it is only as we admit that element
that the actual phenomenon becomes intelligible, and
the way is prepared for the stupendous results that
were produced by prophecy, centuries after it had
ceased, and for the gigantic edifice of the Christian
Church, which was reared upon the sand, if it was
not based upon the solid rock of an actual and
antecedent Divine revelation. Undoubtedly the idea
of any such preparation compels us to postulate the
exercise and operation of the Divine foreknowledge.
But if prophecy is a fact, it is the communication
and expression of that foreknowledge, while assuredly
the communication would seem to have been all the
more authentic because the lapse of ages had declared
that the promises had been fulfilled in a way far
higher and more glorious than those who received
them had anticipated. But if the appearance of man
upon the earth was not till after long cycles of un
recorded time had fitted and prepared it for his
habitation, although no eye was present to watch
the process, and no voice existed to record it, how
much more may we believe that the birth of the true
Man, the crown and summit of human nature as
man himself is of the works of God, could not take
place, did not take place, till His coming had been
prepared for by the long succession of promise,
psalm, and prophecy which the Scriptures of the
Old Testament present. We may, indeed, deny the

Lect. vi.] The Heir of David' s Throne. 1 1 7
force of the teleological argument in the one case ;
it is yet more patent in the other ; and though the
earth, as the dweUing-place of man, bears witness
of long-continued preparation, we may say it was
not for man that it was prepared ; but in view of the
preparation that is apparent in history, psalm, and
prophecy, we can only conclude that it was for the
advent of the Son of man that men's minds required
to be discipHned and taught, as they were subjected
to the education of long-continued and often baffled
hope and expectation ; and that He who chose this
method of teaching and preparing them for the
advent of the Saviour of the world, the King of men
and the Prince of peace, was none other than the
Holy Spirit of God, who spake by the prophets.

TI8 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lbct.vi.

NOTE TO LECTURE VI.
To take, for instance, one passage as a sample of many : —
" If we understand by this narrative (1 Sam. xv. 35 — xvi. 13) that
David was openly anointed king, with his own knowledge and that
of his kinsfolk, it is difficult to conceive how either he or they could
all remain so totally unconcerned, and how he could visit Saul's court
with a clear conscience. [!] But, according to the true significance of
the narrative, although Samuel anoints him with his spirit, and
knows what this means in the sight of God (the result, moreover,
showing itself at once in the influence of the Holy Spirit), yet, as
far as outward appearances go, he simply chooses him as his closest
companion and friend in the sacrifice (comp. 1 Sam. ix. 22) without
publishing aloud that the anointing has any further significance;
but if, as the history developes itself, the truth is divined by one or
two, such as Jonathan (xx. 13, xxiii. 17) and Abigail (1 Sam. xxv. 30),
that is all the better. The advent of higher life which prefaces the
whole history is thus at the beginning loosely attached to what
follows ; for the sequel, though developing itself quite in accordance
with the introduction, yet implies that neither the young hero
himself nor any one else knew all from the beginning, so as to be
compromised by it. The development of the subsequent history
advances, accordingly, even if we set aside this previous revelation
of the Divine destiny of the great hero, quite intelligibly in itself.
It seems undeniable, even from a more strictly historical point of
view, that Samuel had a most powerful influence over David (as the
extant records of an early narrator know of at least one visit of
David to Samuel at the time of .his flight from Saul, 1 Sam. xix. 18 —
xx. 1), and also, that long before he was king over all Israel, David
received prophetic intimations of his future greatness (compare
2 Sam. iii. 18, v. 2 ; prophets such as Gad were with him from
an early period, 1 Sam. xxii. 5) ; but it is quite as clear that the
narrative of the anointing of David by Samuel simply forms a lofty
introduction to the whole history, and can be rightly estimated only
in the light of the pure Divine truth which it embodies, and the

Lect. vi.] The Heir of David' s Throne. 119
lesson involved in it, which is drawn out clearly by the whole
history" (History of Israel, vol. iii., Eng. Tr., pp. 66, 67).
Now on this we have to remark, (1.) that from history it is evident
that neither Jonathan nor Abigail could have divined that David
should be king, unless there had been something external in his
history and circumstances pointing to this fact, besides his mere
natural fitness and personal qualifications; and if they both were
conscious of this something, it is the more likely to have been a
reality; and that if there was this consciousness in David of his
f uture destiny, it did not, as a matter of fact, hinder him from
visiting Saul's court with a clear conscience, nor would it have done
so if he saw in it the work of God's election, and not merely his own
advantage, as he is always represented as seeing. (2.) There is no
evidence whatever that the anointing in David's case meant nothing
more than Samuel's choosing him as his closest companion and friend
in the sacrifice, or even that the sacrifice was completed (xvi. 5 — 13).
At all events, in Saul's case, the anointing was subsequent to the
sacrifice, if such it was (1 Sam. ix. 22, x. 1), and in neither his case
nor David's could have been confounded with it. By all means
let us evolve the latent lessons of the narrative, but let us not
ignore those on the surface, nor set them aside in favour of others we
fancy we can read. One would imagine from the way in which
Ewald writes, that no one had ever understood the narrative before.
(3.) David was by no means compromised by what he knew, but was
exposed to all the greater trial of faith in consequence of it, even
as the Son of David was not compromised by His knowledge that He
was the Son of God, but under the higher obligation to act as the
Son of man. (4.) There is an impenetrable haze connected with
Ewald's use of the words — God, divine, prophetic, and the like. Is
there anything real in these words, or are they only forms of speech,
jugglers' counters ? The history is written, and so we read it, on the
supposition that these words represent realities, and if they do, no
critical manipulation, like that of Ewald's, will ever satisfy all the
conditions of the problem involved.
In like manner, Kuenen tells us (p. 437) : — " This anointing of
David by the prophet cannot be regarded as an actual occurrence.
... his position at the court of Saul becomes false and unbearable,
if from the very beginning he had to regard himself as a pretender (!)
to the crown. ... In the narrative with which we are engaged
we neither see, nor may see, anything else than the palpable expres-

120 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. vi.
sion of the prophetical view of the manner in which Jahveh directs
the fortunes of his people. It is no testimony regarding Samuel
the prophet, but the garb in which a prophetical conviction is
arrayed " (p. 438).
This theory still leaves unsolved the question What was the par
ticular nucleus of fact which gave birth to Psalms like the 89th
and 132nd, and Whence the allusions in Amos and Isaiah which
imply a fact ; and this is a question that inevitably suggests itself, but
one also that it is by no means easy to answer adequately and satis
factorily.

THE THREATENED CAPTIVITY.

Amos v. 25 — 27. — Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in
the ivildemess forty years, 0 house of Israel ? But ye have borne
the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of
your god, ivhich ye made to yourselves. Therefore will 1 cause
you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the Lord, whose
name is The God of Hosts.

LECTUEE VII.
THE THREATENED CAPTIVITY.
HITHEETO I have endeavoured to show that
there are sundry features in the writings of
the Old Testament which are of such a character that,
when they are viewed in relation to events which
happened long afterwards, it is impossible to deny
that they receive an amount of unexpected iUus-
tration which is at once novel, striking, and unique.
The notion that these features were previously
moulded by the several writers with a view to any
such coUocation is whoUy precluded by the date of
the various writings, which, however uncertain, is
known to be far too early for this. The notion also
that the events themselves were in any way directed
by natural or human agency so as to produce this
correspondence, or the record of them modified so as
to exhibit it, is inconceivable, because on the one
hand it is beyond the compass of merely human
power so to order events, and on the other because
those who recorded them in this case were not the
persons likely to adopt or invent such a method of
modification, nor were the means resorted to likely

124 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. vii.
to bring about the end desired. We are therefore
constrained either to deny the alleged correspondence,
which is not possible, or the significance of it, which
is hardly less reasonable ; or else to admit that the
special features of it are not to be explained or ac
counted for on merely natural principles.
This is, of course, the broad and general statement
of a very complex argument, the several parts of
which may admit of considerable discussion, and the
conclusion of which can only be aUowed on one con
dition — namely, that we become believers. But that
is the very point for which I contend, and I am the
more wiUing to aUow the utmost liberty of discussion
because I feel sure that the issue of this argument
thus broadly stated can be but one. It is precisely
in this way that God has set landmarks for all time
in the demesnes of literature and history, that may
testify to His having wrought in them so as to lead
us to the conclusion of faith, This is the Lord's doing;
and it is marvellous in our eyes* We are well aware
of the infinite variety of subterfuges by which the
human mind will seek to avoid this conclusion, but
for aU that it may be, and we believe is, the only
conclusion consistent. aHke with reason, justice, and
the promise of life.
In pursuance of the method thus indicated, I have
dwelt at large on the two instances of the words
alleged to have been spoken to Abraham, and of the
promise made to David. In the former case I showed
that however we regard the narrative, it alone ac-
* Psalm cxviii.. 23.

Lect. vii.] The Threatened Captivity. 125
counts * for the known history of Israel, and therefore
supplies an indestructible foundation for the conclu
sions afterwards to be based upon it ; and in the
latter we found so many traces in the hterature and
history pointing to the influence of that promise as
to make it virtually impossible to doubt its existence.
But if so, then we not only have an instance of some
thing that afterwards was turned to a prophetic
purpose and use, but strong evidence likewise in the
national literature of the exercise and operation of
a faculty in the nation which has the appearance of
prophetic and even of predictive power. It is to be
observed that the reahty of this latter function is
entirely distinct from that of any other office of sub
sequently testifying to such a person as the Messiah.
It is conceivable that the royal Hne of David may
have been the recipients of Divine promises which
began and ended in themselves, and had no further
reference. Such promises might stUl have been real,
or on the other hand promises so given might con
ceivably have had a meaning that the lapse of many
ages would alone reveal. In either case we might
acknowledge the operation of a more than human — of
* If we suppose with Kuenen that the history is merely the reflex
and expression of the national conviction of Israel, then that hypo
thesis leaves unsolved the very large question of the causes and
origin of that conviction which, when regarded in its nature and conse
quences, is still a unique phenomenon in history demanding a sufficient
explanation. Can any explanation be given more appropriate than
the one of old, He sheiveih his word unto Jacob, his statutes and ordi
nances unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation : and as for
his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord. —
Pgalm cxlvii. 19, 20.

126 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. vii.
a Divine power, and there is reason to believe that
with respect to David and the promise made to him,
we have cause to acknowledge this twofold function ;
but at aU events the endeavour to establish the
existence of prophecy as a fact must receive material
aid in proportion as we can show traces of the exist
ence and operation of such a power being felt and
acknowledged among the people at the time, and
impressing itself indelibly on the monuments of their
Hterature. And such traces there seem to be in the
various phenomena of the promise made to David
and its effects.
With a view to the further illustration of this
matter I proceed now to the consideration of another
series of prophecies, in which one only of the two
functions above mentioned is displayed— those, namely,
which have reference to that marked feature in the
national history of Israel which is known as the
captivity. Supposing such prophecies to have been
really uttered, and supposing that there is sufficient
evidence to show that they existed and were on
record prior to the event, I am not aware that it is
possible or desirable to invest them with any ulterior
Messianic significance. This is rather a case in which
the prophecies, if they really existed, began and
ended, so to say, in themselves and their immediate
reference. The question is, What is the evidence that
they really existed, and what are the consequences
which flow from that evidence ? The determination
of this question will affect the main argument in this
way : the establishment of the existence of prophecy

Lect. vii.] The Threatened Captivity. 127
as a fact wUl be more conclusive if we can adduce
contemporary evidence of its operation. If there is
proof of a supernatural predictive power at work in
the age of its supposed operation, we shall then
know that we are the less likely to be wrong in attri
buting to that power in certain cases the utterance
of words whose full and mature significance was not
revealed till many ages after they were uttered. Our
understanding of the nature of prophecy is often
clouded by a misconception of its necessary condi
tions. It is by no means necessary to suppose that
the prophet had a full and complete cognizance of
the circumstances under which his own words would
receive their ultimate fulfilment.* On the other
hand, we may almost affirm in many cases that it is
obviously impossible that he can have known them.
It is, perhaps, more than probable that David looked
no further than himself and his son Solomon for the
* Kuenen is continually seeking to disprove what he calls " the
foreknowledge of the prophets " (see e.g. 305, etc.), but this in truth
is not the point, but rather whether they were commissioned as special
agents of the Most High to make known His will, and whether their
words are not stamped with an impress which distinguishes their
utterances as a record of the Divine foreknowledge. And this, as it
seems to us, is undeniable in a multitude of cases. That it may not
be so in absolutely all cases is conceivable for various reasons, and by
no means invalidates the soundness of our position.
It is not, however, to be forgotten by those who acknowledge the
authority of Holv Scripture, that St. Peter expressly attributes " fore
knowledge " to David, and that in a case in which " critics " would
unquestionably deny it. Acts ii. 30 ; cf . also ver. 23, where the same
speaker traces the existence and operation of God's " foreknowledge "
acting concurrently with the blindness and perversity of man's self-
will.

128 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.vii.
reahsation of many of the hopes that the Divine pro
mise had awakened in him. But it is precisely here
that we detect the working of the Divine mind and
the pre-arrangement and scheme of a Divine plan, —
the evidence that prophecy was not a human device
or delusion, but a Divine endowment, ih that often
times no human intelligence could have anticipated
the result which nevertheless, more nearly than any
other, seems to have given the meaning that was
intended to the words of the wise and their dark
sayings* Prophecy is not to be regarded as a string
of isolated and detached sentences, each of which
had one definite meaning and no other, but much
rather as a consistent and composite whole, which
must be dealt with as a whole and interpreted as a
whole, t When we so deal with it our difficulty is
not to discover here and there marks of something
unusual and more than human, but to shut our eyes to
the broad, patent and innumerable indications which
* Proverbs i. 6.
t To admit the organic unity of prophecy is of course to go a very
long way towards acknowledging its Divine origin, for only by a
process of Divine superintendence and Divine supervision could the
works of various writers in various ages form an organic whole, and
therefore it is perhaps too much to assume this as a matter of course.
And yet surely it must be self-evident that there is a unity in the
canonical prophets which is totally distinct from anything of the kind
to be found in the literature of Greece or Borne. And this unity
consists in their common hope for the future, which becomes brighter
and fuller and clearer ; wider and yet more distinct and definite, as
the stream of prophecy rolls on. Compare, for example, the pro
gression from Hosea, Joel, and Amos, to Micah, Zechariah, and
Malachi ; and Why was this progression such as would allow of the
Christian application made of it and to correspond therewith ?

lect.vii.] The Threatetied Captivity. 129
confront us everywhere of one vast design never lost
sight of, never forgotten, but continually unfolding
itself, continually expanding, and yet also continually
contracting and converging, till it centres in one object,
which gathers in itself all the many-coloured rays to
reflect them again in multitudinous directions and a
variety of forms. In fact, it is this feature and
characteristic of the prophetic writings which is the
most permanent and indestructible. After every
individual prophecy has been dealt with separately,
with an exhaustive and inexhaustible array of minute
and ruthless criticism far more than sufficient to
demolish it utterly were it not for an inherent prin
ciple of deathless vitality common to all, one has
only to open the writings of the prophets to feel that
they have been endowed with gifts of immortality
and truth of which no criticism can deprive them.
It is not what has been or can be said about them
which is their strength, but much rather what they
say for thennelves and have been saying for five-and-
twenty centuries. The danger is lest amid the din
of discussion and the strife of tongues we should fail
to hear what they say themselves, but if we hearken
to it we need have no apprehension as to the result.
Take, for example, the prophecy of Amos, in the
fifth chapter, I will cause you to go into captivity
beyond Damascus, saith the Lord, whose name is
the God of hosts* It is allowed to have been written
soon after the commencement of the eighth century
before our era, while Jeroboam the son of Joash was
* v. 27. 9

130 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.vii.
on the throne of Israel — during the period, that is, of
its greatest magnificence and prosperity, some fifty
years perhaps before the doom pronounced was
executed. But it is not on the clear and unmis
takable character of the prediction as a mere
prediction that I would lay stress. Let it be granted
that a thoughtful and far-seeing eye could detect
under the outward splendour of the Israelitish throne
the sure signs of approaching decay, could discern
in the vast empire, rapidly growing on the shores
of the Tigris and Euphrates, the destined conqueror
and captivator of his nation.* This accounts only
for one-half of the prophet's character, and that the
most natural and human part. It has still to be
explained how, being, as he was, the chUd of agri-
* Of course it is possible to see in the history of Israel no trace
of a Divine hand — to maintain that when Israel went into captivity,
it was a mere accident or incident in the natural development of
human history. We should claim for it something more than that.
But who shall prove such a view to be the true one ? If, however,
there was special Divine dealing in this episode of Israelitish history,
would not that be consistent with the manifestation of the Divine
will in prophecy, and will not our estimate of the one vary precisely
with our estimate of the other ?
It is prophecy only which enables us to understand the history.
If we insist on our own interpretation of the history, how is it
possible we should accept God's interpretation in prophecy ? They
stand or fall together.
" Our inquiry is in fact concerned with the very question, whether
the asserted immediate intervention of Jahveh in the guidance of
Israel's fortunes can be considered as historical or not."— Kuenen, p. 400 .
The theory we maintain is that the record of God's dealings with
Israel is so authoritative as to make it a sufficient standard for man
kind, and prophecy is at once the key to its interpretation and the
proof of its authority.

Lect. vii.] The Threatened Captivity. 1 3 1
cultural labour, he should have found himself the
subject of a mission to the king and the nation ;
how all his denunciations and threatenings took the
form, as they did, of moral rebuke and remonstrance;
how even the prospect of royal displeasure and per
secution should have failed to shake his resolve,
though it is hard even to surmise any ulterior motive
of personal advantage that could have swayed him ;
and how, finally, from first to last, he should have
felt himself empowered and authorised to adopt a
form of words so tremendously solemn as Thus saith
the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts* It is
* According to Kuenen, the prophets were not deceivers, but were
self -deceived — the victims of their own moral earnestness and religious
conviction (see p. 363).
The holiness of God and His hallowing of Israel were their
foundation principles, and His righteousness as manifested in the
dispensing of national and material blessings and calamities their
perpetual theme. Their habit of prediction also is to be traced to
the same source, and regarded " as a result of the religious conviction
of the prophets" (Ibid).
But " while paying homage to the earnestness of the prophet's
conception of the righteousness of Jahveh, we must positively deny
its truth. We do so on the ground of experience ; for experience,
in the most unequivocal manner, contradicts the assertion that the
outward fortune, either of a nation or of the individual, is determined
by the moral condition of the one or the other. It teaches that God
causes His sun to rise on the good and the bad, and sends rain on
the just and the unjust. That the sword, the famine, the noisome
beast, or the pestilence, should spare the pious and strike the godless
— of such a condition of things experience knows nothing — absolutely
nothing" (p. 354).
Strange that a progressive and partial revelation must perforce
be regarded as no revelation at all, and that the uniformity of God's
natural government is to disprove the reality of His moral and
providential government ! (Cf. Matt. v. .5 and vii. 11, etc.)

132 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.vii.
this combination of features, which is more or less
common to him with aU the prophets, which gives
the special significance to their mission, raising them
altogether out of the category of ordinary self-styled
prophets, and investing them with characteristics
that are special and unique, and that require some
other explanation than the facile and ready one
which would include them in the terms of a classifi
cation to which they present the only exception,
and which fairly and utterly fails when applied to
them. What are the best and most striking instances
of answers given by the Delphic oracle compared
with the recorded prophecies of the sixteen Hebrew
prophets ? What is all the pomp and circumstance
of Eoman augury compared with the severe sim
plicity of these patriot champions of truth ? Any
method of induction which demands to sweep them
all into one general heap and then base its conclu
sions on the heterogeneous mass, must stand self-
condemned for the rashness and un discriminating
ignorance of the course pursued, and because it
involves a radical error which must inevitably vitiate
all its results.
If it were not for the inexorable requirements of
the task imposed upon ourselves, which forbids us
making assumptions as to the date of books which
may not be universally granted, we might show that
not improbably the prediction of Amos found its origin
and prototype in the law of Moses, in the fierce
denunciations poured out upon the people in Leviticus
and Deuteronomy, if they should not fear the glorious

Lect.vii.] The Threatened Captivity. 133
and terrible name of the Lord their God.* In that
case the prophet would be but carrying out a far-
reaching plan which had its commencement in the
Law ; but however this may be, no one will deny to
Amos the clear assertion of a captivity hanging over
Israel in the future. And there is no cause to doubt
that this prophecy was uttered in the reign of
Jeroboam the Second, even as that cognate one
which was spoken apparently a little later, Israel
shall surely go into captivity forth of his lancl,\ and
was addressed to the king himself; and a point
which does not seem to have been considered with
the full importance due to it is assuredly to be
discerned in the fact, which no one disputes, that
these prophecies were put on record.]; It is even
conceivable that they might have been spoken, and
then have passed away, like so many other winged
words of which no trace remains ; but in this case
it . was otherwise. They were, for some reason or
other, committed to writing in the eighth century §
* Deut. xxviii. 58. t Amos vii. 17.
% This is the more remarkable when we bear in mind the great
number of persons who exercised the prophetic office whose existence
only is implied, while no trace of their work remains. What was
the relation of the canonical prophets to those others ? Why is it
these alone whose writings remain to us, and why are they canonical ?
We find no answer to these questions in Kuenen. Is canonicity the
mere arbitrary verdict of the Jewish Church, or is it not rather itself
the necessary consequence of a fact ?
§ This is not, indeed, denied (see Kuenen, p. 150); but at the
same time I am at a loss to know how it is to be proved, if all our
records are of post-captivity date (see Kuenen, p. 416) ; or why it
is assumed, if the records themselves in other respects are not to be
trusted.

134 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.vii.
before Christ, most probably by Amos himself, or
with his authority, for they are accepted as genuine ;
and having been so preserved, their message and
meaning is imperishable. It is, however, not only
imperishable, but likewise unmistakable. Here we
have a deliberate assertion in the name of God, made
by one who was plainly recognised as holding a
certain office (for Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, called
him seer), uttered, moreover, in the presence of the
king and in defiance of his power, and affecting the
very existence of their common nation. This pre
diction was preserved, and after king and prophet
both had passed away it was found to vindicate
itself, and we now are witnesses to its truth. A
few more kings of brief duration sat on the throne
of Israel, and then came the hosts of Shalmaneser
and carried off the nation of Israel into final and
hopeless captivity. As to the mere matter of cor
respondence between the words recorded and the
subsequent issue of events in this case, there is and
can be no dispute.* It is too notorious and patent
* Kuenen's representation of the matter is as follows : " If, how
ever, the question is asked whether the prophet had formed to himself
a clear conception of the realisation of this threatening which agreed
with the subsequent reality, we must return an answer in the nega
tive" (p. 152). Mainly because he nowhere names the Assyrians
who conquered Samaria about eighty years afterwards, whereas he
imagined the time to be close at hand (vii. 17) ; and because he has
not abandoned the hope that Israel may be brought to repentance
(v. 14, 15). " If the prophet is in earnest in what he says here —
and how can we have any doubt of his sincerity ? — then he can have
had no certainty with regard to the future course of Israel's fortunes,
though it be true that, for the most part, he does not venture to

Lect. vii.] The Threatened Captivity. 135
to be called in question. All we can do is to deny
that it affords us any clear case of fulfilment. The
correspondence may be accidental. It is perhaps
possible to find some parallel cases* hardly less
striking, but better calculated to direct our judgment
in the matter for the simple reason that they have
never been suspected of being charged with any
supernatural meaning. Or more likely still, it will
be quite possible to show that the prophet uttered
other predictions with no less assurance, but of whose
fulfilment no record has been preserved. Take, for
instance, this very denunciation addressed to the king.
It was accompanied with the threat of personal
chastisements no less tremendous, of which, how
ever, we know no more than that they expired for
the time on the prophet's tongue : Thus saith the
Lord, Thy loife shall be an harlot in the city, and
thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword,
and thy land shall be divided by line, and thou
hope, and scarcely doubts any longer, that the extreme inflictions which
he from time to time anew depicts are indispensable." We are not
concerned to maintain that Amos had formed to himself a clear
conception of what he threatened, but that he had an unclouded
conviction of the authority with which he spake, and that this
conviction was based in fact, — which is what Kuenen will not allow.
According to him the prophet's commission began and ended with
himself. This is not strictly speaking, and ultimately, the subject of
proof. In either case there must be a substratum of faith. Kuenen
believes it did ; I believe it did not. The question is whose belief is
most consistent with all the facts before and afterwards.
* See, for example, those suggested by the Dean of Westminster,
in his Lectures on the Jewish Church, vol. i., p. 468, which, however,
have been adequately disposed of by Dr. Pusey, Daniel ihe Prophet,
p. 637 sq.

136 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.vii.
shalt die in a polluted land* Are we to argue
from the accidental silence of history here, and to
say that as we do not know that these particulars
came true they were not improbably unfulfilled, and
that therefore, as the prophet's predictions were un
verified in the one case, their apparent fulfilment
must be held to go for nothing in the other ? This
would, indeed, be a method of criticism that would
be most uncritical. It would surely be more reason
able to infer that, because the denunciations were
recorded and preserved, the jealous watchfulness of
contemporary observation could discover no dis
crepancy between the record and the history of
events. At aU events, the same possibUity of sus
picion does not attach to the case in point. We
have, then, to deal with a distinct assertion that
Israel should go into captivity. This was not only
declared, but the declaration was committed to
writing. It was made publicly before the nation and
in the face of the royal family. The effect produced
by it at the time was correspondent with its intrinsic
importance, for the prophet was accused of high
treason, and the land, it was said, was not able to
bear his words. It is plain, therefore, that the
circumstances of the prophet's mission were such
as to lend weight to the prophet's words. They
were at aU events not treated with contempt. It
was felt that there was in them a force and solemnity
not derived from him or his antecedents. This was
an evidence that they woke a response in the con-
* Amos vii. 17.

Lect. vii.] The Threatened Captivity. 137
science of the people. And the reason was not far
to seek. For the whole basis of the prophet's
denunciations was laid in the charge of national
idolatry : Ye have borne the tabernacle of your
Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your
God, which ye made to yourselves. Therefore I will
cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith
the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.* It was
because they had broken the Divine covenant, because
having been the recipients of a Divine revelation
they had nevertheless chosen to make gods for
themselves after their own devices, that judgment
was to go forth against them. The national punish
ment was to be on account of the national sin. But
there was no national sin in this respect if there
had not been any Divine covenant with the nation —
if there had not been, that is, any Divine revelation
vouchsafed and entrusted to the nation. If the
supposed relation of the people to their God, as
attested by the earlier literature, was only the fiction
of their own imagination, where was the enormity
aUeged in violating it ? There was no departure
from the truth involved in so doing, but only the
exchange of one delusion for another. And yet as
a matter of fact, steeped as the people were in
idolatry and its brutalising effects, they nevertheless
shrank before the threat of national punishment that
was to overtake the national sin. The national con
science pleaded guilty to the sin when confronted
with the shadow of the punishment. In other words,
* Amos v. 26, 27.

I38 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.vii.
the foundation of the prophet's message was laid in
the moral sense of the people. In spite of themselves
they were witnesses to the truth of it. The remorse
less and irresistible current of events soon testified
to the actual truth of the prophetic denunciations,
and that in a way which will last for ever ; but the
question is to what was that truth owing? Is it
merely to be regarded as an instance of natural
illumination, or has it any claim to be reckoned as
supernatural? That is to say, was the prophet
informed by special communication from the Divine
mind of the special intentions of the Divine will ?
or did he merely guess and guess rightly what they
were ? He may have done so, but then I conceive
there is an end to any claim that can be preferred
for a really Divine mission entrusted to him. On
the contrary, there was falsehood mingled with the
very foundation of his assumed mission. The solemn
asseveration saith the Lord whose name is the God
of hosts becomes not only unmeaning, but blas
phemous. WhUe he was invoking the name of the
Lord his God to attest the reality of what he
threatened, he was violating one of the first prin
ciples of the Divine Law. He was taking the name
of the Lord his God in vain even whUe rebuking
the nation for their idolatry. He was charging them
with the breach of the first two commandments while
he himself was breaking the third. This is the
dUemma in which we find ourselves, if we refuse
to recognise the inherent features of the supernatural
in the various circumstances of the prophet's mission.

Lect.vii.] The Threatened Captivity. 139
It may of course be asked, and not without some
show of success, How are we to conceive of any
Divine communication being actually imparted to
the prophet's mind? But it may perhaps be accepted
as a sufficient answer to reply : It is not more
difficult to understand or conceive of iUumination
on the subject of a future historic event like that
of the national captivity being conveyed super-
naturally to the prophet's mind than it is to accept
the reality of any Divine covenant subsisting between
God and the nation of which the knowledge, distinct,
definite, and unmistakable, was imparted to the
nation. And yet we find this same prophet declaring,
You only have I known of all the families of the
earth : therefore I will punish you for all your
iniquities* And it may be presumed that there
was a certain response in the national conscience
to the truth of this indictment. At all events,
the very form of it warrants us in implying no
less. But how was it that Israel believed that the relation
between God and His people was a unique relation
among aU the families in the earth ? The context of
the same passage supphes the answer. Because He
had brought up the whole family of Israel out of
the land of Egypt. \ The witness of the national
history was notorious and unimpeachable. God had
espoused His people to Himself in that memorable
episode. The reception of the Law as the token and
memorial of those espousals could not fade from the
* Amos iii. 2. t Amos iii. 1.

i4o Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.vii.
national recollection. There had been a channel of
intercourse established between the Most High and-
His people; their knowledge of the moral Law as
His Law was the proof of it. That very law itself
was based on the revelation of Him : I am the Lord
thy God, which brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, and out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt
have none other gods but me* Unless the Person
thus speaking had revealed Himself, there was no
meaning in any covenant with Him. Nor could
the covenant be known unless He had spoken.
How it is possible for Him to speak is not for
us to decide. But the decision of that abstract
question involves other considerations than those
which are immediately concerned with the endeavour
rightly to weigh the evidence on which it is to be
decided. The denial of the fact that God has spoken
involves also virtually the denial of those faculties
to man which would enable him to hear His voice
if He were to speak. If we have no spiritual faculties
capable of holding intercourse with our Maker who
is a Spirit, then it is of course useless debating the
question whether or not there is sufficient evidence
of His having spoken. But it is this evidence, and
this alone, with which we have to deal. Not only
Scripture as a whole, but pre-eminently the writings
of the prophets, come to us at once as a proof of
the existence of such faculties in man, and also as
vouchers for the reality and genuineness of the
message with which these documents are fraught.
* Exodus xx. 2, 3.

Lect.vii.] The Threatened Captivity. 141
Our immediate concern, therefore, is with the just
estimate of this evidence, and not with the pre
liminary questions whether and how it is possible
for it to exist. Suffice it, therefore, to say that we
believe the origin of the words now under con
sideration is revealed and witnessed by the words
themselves. The ultimate proof of the revelation
is in the thing revealed.* At all events, we can
have no moral relations to a person who has
not made known himself nor told us what those
relations are. And in order that God may thus
make known Himself, and establish moral relations
with us on a solid and secure basis, He must speak
to us, He must reveal Himself, whatever difficulties
that may involve for which we are not now prepared
to account. But if He does this at all, there is
surely no way in which He can do it more worthy
of Him than by the revelation of a moral law of
which the very foundation principle must be alle
giance to Himself. But no sooner is this done than
a covenant is/established, which has its root in the
unseen and the supernatural, and for the breach
of that covenant those who are admitted to it must
be responsible. This, according to the ancient
* The further consideration and discussion of the question here
touched upon, inevitable and important as it is in relation to the
whole argument, is too wide and extensive in its bearings to be ade
quately disposed of in this place, by the way. Por a more complete
and thorough investigation of the entire subject, which really lies at
the foundation of the theory not only of prophecy but also of revela
tion at large, the reader is referred to Note D, at the end of this
volume, on " The Credentials of Eevelation."

142 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. vii.
prophets, was the position of Israel, and this was
the ground of their denunciations, and this was the
source of their moral and predictive knowledge ; but
the streams were co-ordinate, and the source of both
identical.

THE APPROACHING DOOM.

Micah hi. 12. — Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a
field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the
house as ihe high places of the forest.

i'l:v\

LECTUEE VIII.
THE APPROACHING DOOM;
TT is not doubted that this is a genuine utter-
-*- ance of the prophet Micah, who is stated to
have prophesied in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and
Hezekiah. Like the prophecy we last considered, it
in no way relates to the Messiah, but concerns the
future of the nation. It admits, therefore, of being
tested by subsequent history, and may serve also, in
some degree, to show how the declarations of the
prophets were regarded in their own day. For
though in the writings of Micah himself we have no
such indication, yet there is this remarkable feature
about this prophecy, that it is expressly alluded to in
a later book. About a hundred years afterwards, in
the reign of Jehoiakim, the prophet Jeremiah had
expaserated the people by declaring that the Temple
should be like Shiloh, and the city should be desolate
without an inhabitant; whereupon the priests and the
prophets and all the people took him, sctying, Thou
shalt surely die* Howbeit, certain of the elders of
jfche land rescued him by quoting the example of
* Jer. xxvi. 8. IO

1 46 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.viii.
Micah the Morasthite, who prophesied in the days of
Hezekiah the words of the present text, and the
conduct of the king, who did not put him to death,
but on the contrary feared the Lord, and besought the
Lord, so that the Lord repented Him of the evil
which He had pronounced against * the nation. We
have, then, the very remarkable fact that the age and
genuineness of a particular prophecy are established
incidentaUy beyond all possibility of doubt from its
being referred to by way of precedent a century after
wards. At that time, also, it is plain that it was
recognised as a Divine communication and appealed
to as a Divine oracle. f It is of these words that
Professor Kuenen observes that "they were quoted
by the elders of Judah exactly in the same sense in
which they had been recorded by Micah. The elders
of Judah also judged correctly on this point," he
continues, " that Micah speaks of a judgment which
should befaU Jerusalem in the reign of Hezekiah."
And further, that " the reproach addressed to the
chief men of Jerusalem that the city would be
changed into a ruinous heap for their sake makes
us hesitate to ascribe to Micah the idea that this
destiny would not overtake Jerusalem tiU a con
siderable time, about a hundred and fifty years
afterwards." Now, here it is to be observed that
Micah is silent about the times and the seasons. He
says nothing as to the when or the how : aU that he
says, however, is perfectly exphcit as to the fact. It
* Verse 19.
t The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, p. 163, Eng. edit.

lect. viii.] The Approaching Doom. 147
is entirely gratuitous,* to imply that he expected his
words to be fulfilled in the reign of Hezekiah. Of
this we know nothing. It is, indeed, only natural
to suppose that in proportion as he was believed to
be really speaking in the name and by the authority
of the Lord the men of his own time would be appre
hensive that the judgments threatened would over
take them shortly, but we are not at liberty to import
their apprehensions into the literal meaning of the
prophet's words. f All we have to do as critics is
to take their words as we find them, and to examine
what they say and to inquire what the sequel of them
was. We entirely reject the notion that the personal
intelligence of the prophets is in every case the suffi-
* Equally groundless and unreasonable is the remark : " It is
evident that Micah's threatening had made a deep impression and
had not been forgotten above a century afterwards in the capital of
Judah, which certainly would not have been the case if other prophets
had announced the same judgment before him or along with
him "(p. 162).
And yet seventy or eighty years before Amos had said, ii. 5, " I will
send a fire upon Judah and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem,"
and he only echoed the words of Hosea, viii. 14, " Judah hath
multiplied fenced cities ; but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it
shall devour the palaces thereof," — if indeed, as seems probable, this
was the original and earlier prophecy. Kuenen places Hosea later
(p. 153).
t Neither may we infer with Kuenen that "the narrative of
Jeremiah shows us that his contemporaries applied the prediction of
Micah — not to events which were then, in Jehoiakim's reign (608 —
597 B.C.) still future; but to disasters which would have befallen
Jerusalem at a much earlier period if the threatening had not been
recalled at the prayer of Hezekiah" (p. 162, see also p. 334); for
they may have misapprehended the true nature and Divine intention
of the prophecy no less than many of our modern critics, -

l48 Old Testament Prophecy. [LECT.vm.
cient measure of the significance of their own words.
If that could in every case be clearly ascertained,
which it cannot, it would still be found incomplete
and inadequate. The prophets have left on record
certain writings which on certain points, as those for
instance of the captivity and the return, are definite
and distinct. If in the known course of subsequent
history a broad and general correspondence is dis
cerned between their writings and the events, the fact
would even be more remarkable if we could be sure
that this correspondence differed in some respects
from the personal expectation of the prophets.
Indeed, we can hardly imagine a more significant
proof than this, that they spoke under an authority
not their own and an influence they could not
absolutely control. And again, to suppose that in
the words "for your sake" we are justified in dis
covering any indication of time is surely most
uncritical.* Is it not obvious to the most casual
* No less gratuitous and unwarrantable is Kuenen's assertion that
in the words of Micah iv. 10, and go to Babylon, the prophet " must have
intended " Assyria and not Babylon, or at all events only " Babylon
as the capital of one of the provinces of the Assyrian kingdom, and
not the Chaldean monarchy, of which he knows nothing" (p. 164).
Nor is it surprising to find him clutching at the straw that the words
may have been interpolated : " The conjecture, therefore, is not
unnatural that one of the later readers of the prophet should have
added the verse in which Babylon is named, or at least the second
half of it. Perhaps we do not require even to go to this length (!).
Just as, two verses before, the words ' out of Bab}rlon ' are interpolated,
in the Greek translation (iv. 85), so the tenth verse may have
been completed by the one clause, 'And thou shalt go to Babylon.'
There would, in that case, remain for the^prophet himself the expecta
tion that Jerusalem should fall into the hands of the enemy (Assyria),

Lect. viii.] The Approaching Doom. 149
reader, as well as consistent with the constant tenor
of Scripture, that the punishment denounced upon a
people "for their sake" (that is, because of their sins)
oftentimes overtakes them in their posterity and not
as soon as it is denounced ? Once, indeed, it was
declared, but it was by the Prophet of Prophets, and
is for the most part unusual in the language of pro
phecy, All these things shall come upon this genera
tion* — This generation shall not pass till all these
things be fulfilled. \ But otherwise, for the most
part, as regards the times and the seasons, the
Father hath reserved them under His own authority.
We pass on, then, to examine this prophecy of
Micah, and the application that was made of it in
the time of Jehoiakim. And first it is absolutely
certain that it was regarded in his own days, and
a hundred years afterwards, as not only spoken by
him in the name of the Lord, but as reaUy having
the Divine sanction and authority. It may be said
that this was merely in accordance with the opinions
of the time and the people. But that is the very
point I am anxious to enforce. There is and can
be no ambiguity as to the way in which the prophets
of Israel were regarded by the people of Israel them-
and the citizens, expelled from the city, should dwell in the open
fields, where Jahveh should intervene on their behalf, and deliver
them out of the power of the enemy," etc. — Jbid.
And yet we are asked to accept this as the certain result of scientific
criticism. Alas for the science, if not the criticism ! It is too
often forgotten that science means knowledge and not conjecture.
* Matt, xxiii. 36.
t Matt. xxiv. 34.

150 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. viii.
selves. It may have been altogether a delusion on
both sides ; but at all events, the high estimate in
which they were held was not the creation of after-
times, when a halo of glory had gathered round their
memory and the vagueness of distance had made
them great. In their own day they were acknow
ledged as the mouthpieces of the Most High, as
specially and wonderfully commissioned by Him to
make known His will ; and not seldom the faithful
ness with which they did this exposed them, as in
the case of Jeremiah, to persecution and the risk
of death. What were the means by which they thus
became the channels of the Divine communication,
it is useless to inquire. It is sufficient to remark
that the unique character of the writings they have
left, as a whole, bears permanent and conclusive
evidence that their mission was unique. If this is
denied, argument becomes impossible, because a de
ficiency is evidenced which can only be compared
to that of a sense or a faculty. It is impossible to
discourse on music to one who lacks the perception
of harmony, or to speak intelligibly of colours to the
colour-blind. And so, if any one is disposed to main
tain that the volume of prophecy is not essentially
distinct from others of analogous character, and is
not raised above them by intrinsic and unalterable
features of difference, it is hopeless to reason with
him. To us it appears simply obvious that the
characteristic features of this volume are such as
have no true parallel elsewhere, and are sufficient to
mark it out from all others in kind as well as in

Lect. vin.] The Approaching Doom. 151
degree, and therefore to warrant us in dealing with
it — nay, rather to compel us to deal with it, as a
special and exceptional book. It is certain, more
over, that the writers of the New Testament regarded
the volume of prophecy as a collection of Divine
oracles, to the accomplishment of which the honour
and faithfulness of the Divine Being stood pledged.
If, therefore, we are asked to deal with these
writings as though they were not entitled to any such
claim, we must not shut our eyes to the fact that this
is to ask us to concede the very point that has to
be proved. To admit that we have no prophecies
in our possession is to prejudge the case at issue
by suggesting an hypothesis at variance with the
facts. By much the fairer and more equal course
is to take them as they were universally accepted,
and as we ourselves have received them, and to
inquire patiently, impartially, and honestly, whether
there is ground for the estimation in which they
have ever been held. And therefore I would ask
boldly whether it is in the power of any one to affirm,
on reading the words of Micah for example, now
under consideration, that they were ultimately falsi
fied by the event. It matters not whether that event
took place in the age of Hezekiah; or a century after
wards, in the time of Zedekiah ; or even six centuries
later still, under the emperor Titus. What I ask,
and what I am warranted in asking, since it is
ostensibly a prophecy that I have before me, is —
Did the ultimate issue, or did it not, correspond
in substance with the words of the prophecy ? And

152 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. viii.
to this question there is and can be but one answer,
The only subsequent question, therefore, that can
be asked, is — How far are we warranted in pointing
to this correspondence in vindication of the claim
advanced on behalf of the prophecy ? How far does
the known course of events show it to have been a
prophecy ? Is it possible that it can have been only
a successful guess ? And with regard to this matter,
it may be observed that in the time of Jeremiah the
immediate danger which threatened in Micah's days
was thought to have passed away. Consequently, as
a mere guess, the wisdom and supposed foresight
of the prediction notoriously faUed. Micah had to
endure the trial which fell so often to the lot of
the true prophets — the apparent proof, namely, that
his prophecy had miscarried, that he had uttered
lies in the name of the Lord. It is to be observed,
however, that though in the time of Jehoiakim
Micah's prophecy was supposed to have failed in
this respect, it was nevertheless regarded as valid
and genuine ; it was not for a moment thought that
Micah's claim to the gift of prophecy was unsound,
but that the Lord had repented of the evil ivhich He
had pronounced against the people.* And on the
* The following is Kuenen-'s statement of the matter: "The
contemporaries of Jeremiah see in Micah the organ of Jahveh • his
prophecy is Jahveh's word. They cannot, therefore, form any other
opinion than that Jahveh retracted his threatening, and think this
the more reasonable as they know— or at least are persuaded— that
Hezekiah prayed that the judgment might be averted. This view
of theirs is neither supported nor contradicted by the prophecies of
Micah. These prophecies teach us that he encountered much oppo-

Lect. vin.]] The Approaching Doom. 11,3
supposition of a reaUy Divine scheme for the edu
cation of Israel conducted by the agency of prophets,
there is surely nothing inconsistent or inconceivable
in the punishment thus being threatened and then
withheld, and then again threatened, till at last it
fell upon the impenitent nation. Bather, on the
contrary, the conditional suspension of a threatened
calamity might weU be taken as confirming the
reality of the threat ; and certainly it would be
beyond the power of merely human wisdom so to
frame a prediction of punishment as to allow of such
conditional suspension, and yet to be in strict ac
cordance with the subsequent issue of events. But
this was manifestly the case with the prediction of
Micah. There are, however, certain special features
characteristic not only of this prophecy, but of
Hebrew prophecy in general, which serve to take it
altogether out of the category of successful guesses.
In the first place it does not stand alone. It is
one of a long series of prophecies and part of a
sition among the people, while other prophets, who flattered the
passions of the masses, were listened to with applause. But the
possibility remains that the popular disposition altered at a later
period. The denunciation itself is, moreover, very positive. It
purports not that Jerusalem may, indeed, be some time laid waste,
but that it shall be laid waste. Then the elders of Judah do not
assert that the prediction of Micah was conditional, but that ' Jahveh
repented him of the evil which he had pronounced' " (p. 165).
The evidence of prophecy lies in the interpretation of phenomena.
Where there is a determination not to acknowledge that evidence, the
phenomena will be interpreted in one way ; where the moral weight of
the evidence predominates, they will be interpreted in another. But
to appreciate moral evidence a certain condition of mind is requisite,
just as sight is requisite to see the sun.

154 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. viii.
vast whole. Amos, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, seve
rally and together, bore witness to the coming doom.
It has to be explained how these independent writers
were all animated by the common spirit of anti-
national foreboding. There is no evidence that one
was under the influence of another, or intentionally
adopted his tone ; but the effect produced by all is
the union of harmony, the mingling of many voices
in concert ; the concert and harmony, however, not
being simultaneous, but spread over a considerable
period of time, and maintained notwithstanding the
influence of very diverse circumstances. In Hke
manner the phenomenon of prophecy generally is
the supernatural counterpart of an exceptional and
supernatural history. No one can survey as a whole
the long stream of Hebrew history, even when its
main features are stripped of all supernatural ad
juncts, and not be constrained to allow that the
undoubted framework of historical fact that still
remains is akin to the supernatural. That a nation
of feeble and oppressed bondmen should be rescued
from the thraldom of Egypt, and after a series of
vicissitudes and adversities should be securely esta
blished in Canaan, a land to which they had no
natural right ; that they should be able to maintain
their hold on it for many centuries in the midst
of nations vastly more powerful than themselves ;
that they should, in consequence of their very
position, be alternately exposed to the assaults of
the Assyrians on the north and the Egyptians on
the south, and yet once and again should survive

Lect. viii.] The Approaching Doom. 155
both ; that they should eventually be carried captive
to Babylon, and yet, contrary to all likelihood and
historical precedent, be again restored to national
independence, or at least to national existence, — is
a series of undeniable facts so remarkable that they
may well serve for the natural and appropriate frame
work of incidents possibly supernatural. But the
idea of the events thus sketched in outline having
been fictitiously invented, or even substantially
altered in their broad features, is preposterous and
absurd. Now, it is as the fitting concomitant of a
history such as this that the complex and remarkable
phenomenon of prophecy confronts us. The main
features of the history are what they are, and the
marvellous works and words of the prophets are now
before us. It is sufficiently evident that the writers
themselves, like most other writers, had compara
tively little influence in moulding the history of
their time. Judah and Israel were both transported
beyond Damascus* notwithstanding that their pro
phets declared they would be. The stream of pro
phecy flowed on side by side with the stream of
history, but the current of each was independent
of the other. The prophets did not make the history,
though the history produced the prophets; both alike
were the work of an unseen Master-mind, but the
completeness of His design and the relation of its
several parts could not be seen till the scaffolding
* This was one of the cases in which the national action, or, rather,
the national destiny, was not "compromised" (as Ewald would say)
by the nation's knowledge of the Divine purpose.

I56 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.viii.
of contemporary events had been taken down and
the proportions of the completed structure stood out
on the background of the past. To deny that there
is this relation between the history and the pro
phecy, or between the various independent prophecies,
or that each and both alike are parts of one vast
whole, is to shut our eyes to facts. And to deal
with the several writings of the prophets as though
each were an independent entity and responsible for
the life of the whole is assuredly unphilosophical,
if it is hot uncritical. The question is not whether
our very scanty knowledge of contemporaneous his
tory does or does not enable us to substantiate and
verify every utterance of the prophets ; but whether
the phenomena of prophecy, regarded as a whole,
are so remarkable as to justify the assertion that
they are unique ; * and whether being so they can
be explained merely by the application of principles
that govern other historical and literary phenomena ;
or whether they do not rather suggest very forcibly
* " Ves, truly, the Israelitish prophet is a unique phenomenon in
history. It does not disown its human origin ; that is borne witness
to both by its gradual ripening and by many imperfections which
cleave to it. Every attempt to derive it directly and immediately
from God must therefore fail." (Kuenen, p. 591.) The italics are
his. Without venturing to maintain that every prediction of the pro
phets can be shown to have been fulfilled, and without offering to
affirm that all the sentiments uttered by them were equally Divine,
we yet are willing to declare that the existing phenomena of prophecy,
as a whole, are such as to stamp it as a divinely appointed agency in
the education of mankind, and attest it as a record of Divine fore
knowledge ; and this is a position which Kuenen does not touch, and
seems quite incapable of comprehending.

Lect. vin.] The Approaching Doom. 1 57
the operation of a higher principle working in a
special and exceptional manner, this principle being
the will of God declaring itself in an express and
intentional way in which it has not declared itself in
any other history and literature. The thesis is one
which perhaps does not admit of actual demonstra
tion ; but there can surely be little doubt in which
direction the logic of facts points us. We must
either forcibly distort them in order to reduce them
to the measure of the' insignificant and the ordinary;
or we must accept the witness of their extraordinary
character which points us to the conclusion of faith
— of faith, that is, in the ministry of prophecy as a
select and authorised Divine agency for making
known the Divine will for a special and ordained
purpose, which, though faintly grasped by believing
minds at the time, could only be perceived in its
completeness when the purpose was fulfiUed.
And this brings us to the second indication that
this prophecy like others was not a successful guess.
For it is not possible for any reverent or attentive
mind, carefully noting the features of prophecy, to
faU to discover the marks and tokens of a progressive
scheme. One has only to mention the Prophets in
order — Amos, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel — to
see at once that their writings have a corporate unity,
and that there is a progression and a development
running through them. The first note of the coming
doom of captivity was sounded by Amos; and the
message of Ezekiel was delivered in exile, far from
his native land, whUe the abominations perpetrated

158 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. viii.
therein were revealed to him in vision. And what
ever difficulty there may be in setting one prediction
over against another as its natural complement arises
from the fact that each prophet wrote in entire inde
pendence of the rest, so that the effect of unity is
produced notwithstanding all the freedom of indi
viduality. If Amos speaks of a fire being sent upon
Judah which shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem*
Micah declares that Zion shall be plowed as a field,
and Jerusalem become heaps, and the mountain of, the
Lord's house as the high places of the forest ; f and
Isaiah teUs Hezekiah that all that is in his house
which his fathers have laid up in store shall be carried
to Babylon, and his children be eunuchs in the palace
of the king ; I and Jeremiah goes so far as to say, I
will make this house like Shiloh, and will make this
city a curse to all the nations of the earth. § Shall we
say that there is here nothing more than the cuckoo
cry of imitation ? Or shall we not rather confess, bear
ing in mind the circumstances under which each
menace was pronounced in different ages and to
different persons, that they resemble rather the
reiterated thunder- claps of one gathering storm,
which become louder and more awful as the crisis
approaches. It is hard indeed to demonstrate such
a matter to the reason, but we may safely leave it to
* Amos ii. 5.
t Micah iii. 12.
t Isaiah xxxix. 6, 7. Kuenen has no hesitation in referring this
narrative to " about 150 years later than the events which it records "
(p. 287.)
§ Jer. xxvi. 6.

Lect. vin.] The Approaching Doom. 159
the judgment of the unbiassed. As a matter of fact,
the tremendous calamities which befell the Jewish
nation at the close of its monarchy had been for
generations before not obscurely predicted by many
independent prophets, whose writings of unquestioned
authenticity and genuineness still remain to us ; and
the question is whether these were only so many
successful guesses. The traces of unity and growth
which they present, notwithstanding their individual
originality, the tokens of a progressive scheme
gradually and successively working itself out, is dis
tinctly against such a notion. Besides, if the
menaces of Jeremiah were the outcome of those of
Amos, to what shall we refer the denunciations of
the herdman of Tekoah which were uttered a century
and a half before, in the palmy days of Israel and
Judah ? Was he nothing more than a rash enthusiast,
and was his tone gratuitously adopted by subsequent
prophets whose instinct and penetration foresaw the
calamities that were coming on their nation and who
determined to establish their own reputation for pro
phetic wisdom by buUding upon his ? Such a theory
has not the advantage of being more in accordance
with probabUity than the facts with which it must
deal and which it would endeavour to explain.
It is contended that there are no supernatural or
divine features in the phenomena of prophecy ; that
there is no evidence that the prophets spoke with any
other skill than that of a natural prevision ; that their
predictions were partly fulfilled and partly falsified,
so that the effect of any apparent fulfilment is

1 60 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. viii.
vitiated and neutralised by actual falsification ; and
that the writings which contain them, when critically
examined, serve to show that they are simply human
productions of no higher authority or value than any
others. There can be no doubt that a great deal of
the foresight with which the prophets are credited is
owing to the completeness with which toe see that their
predictions were fulfilled. The retrospect of the past
and the clear knowledge of it leads us to think that it
must have been equally clear before tlie event. But
was this so, or can we reasonably think that it could
have been ? Take, for instance, any one ofthe leading
countries of Europe, at the present time, and let any
man attempt to declare, in language as clear and intel
ligible as this of Micah's, what shall be its particular
position or crisis in ten years' time. Is there any one
who would venture to predict the particular phase of cir
cumstances through which our own country will then
be passing ? And when we look forward yet further,
for fifty or a hundred years, how utterly inconceivable
does it become ! But are we prepared to say that in
the time of Hezekiah it was any more within the
limit of Micah's unaided capacity to put on record
words which should be found to be literally true a
century or a century and a half afterwards ? It matters
not the least how he understood the words, whether
or not we have any evidence on this point, because
the moment they were written down with the
authority of a recognised prophecy, they appealed
with the significance of a deliberate challenge to
the issues of time and to the judgment of posterity.

Lect. viii.] The Approaching Doom. 161
And if a Divine prophecy they really were, it is
more than probable they would transcend the widest
imaginings of their human author. The calamities
in store for the Jewish nation were by no means
exhausted by the captivity, and though the first
instalment of verification may have been dealt out
then, there was yet more to follow, for prophecy is
to be regarded as embodying and enforcing principle,
and principle which is not omitted or lost sight of
even here, in the already noted and notable words
for your sake. If the human utterance of the prophet
was the declaration of the Divine will, there must
have been a purpose and a plan in it, and this pur
pose is not obscurely indicated. God is not dealing
with His people in an arbitrary manner : He is about
to chasten them for their sins and for their good ;
for both these meanings seem to be included in the
words for your sake. Now, it is simply impossible
to deny that prophecy as a whole presents to us this
double aspect. The prophets, as a class, were the
reprovers of national vice. They were the natural, or
if you will the supernatural, regulating power which
tended to redress the variations of the social and
ecclesiastical machine. They ever recaUed the nation
to the imperative demands of a higher standard than
they were willing to accept, and which they were
prone to neglect or to deny. This was one of their
obvious functions, which they to a man discharged,
and it must not be lost sight of in estimating the
moral value of their claim to be prophets in the
name of the Lord. But they had another function too.
n

1 62 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. viii.
And this was a function as little to be questioned
as the other. They were ministers to the nation's
highest good. And they aimed at being this by
elevating its aspirations and inspiring it with the
highest hopes. More than one prophet expressed
his idea of this function in well-known language :
How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of
him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace.*
To estimate the effect and influence of their dis
charge of this function we need only to imagine one
contingency — namely, that it had happened to the
entire volume of Old Testament prophecy as Jeremiah
was bidden to do with his denunciations against
Babylon. What would be the aspect of human lite
rature, and what the condition and prospects of
mankind, if all the writings of the prophets and the
record of their alleged fulfilment were drowned in
the depths of the sea ?
* Isaiah Hi. 7, Nahum i. 15.

THE PROMISED RETURN.

Jeeemiah xxix. 10 — 14. — For thus saith ihe Lord, That ctfter seventy
years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my
good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. For
I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord,
thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and
I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when
ye shall search for me with all your heart. And I will be found of
you, saith ihe Lord ; and I will turn away your captivity, and I
will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither
I have driven you, saith the Lord ; and I will bring you again into
the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.

LECTUEE IX.
THE PROMISED RETURN.
"TTTE have already seen that there is sufficient
* * evidence to show that the destruction of the
city and the temple had been not obscurely foretold
in the writings of the prophets many years before
those events had taken place. And indications are
not wanting that the correspondence between the
written predictions and the subsequent history is not
to be explained by the supposition that the former
were merely successful guesses.
I purpose now to consider another class of predic
tions referring to the national history, of which the
passage just read may be taken as a typical instance.
Not only have we reason to affirm that the cap
tivity in Babylon had been the subject of prophetic
announcement generations before it occurred, but
the yet more improbable event of restoration from
that captivity had been simUarly declared. I proceed
now to examine the evidence of this.
It is a matter of undeniable fact that the writings
of Jeremiah contain no less than three distinct asser
tions of such a restoration. The first occurs in the
twenty-fifth chapter, to which the date is assigned of

1 66 Old Testament Prophecy. [[Lect. ix.
the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the first of
Nebuchadnezzar. This has reference to the duration
of the power of Babylon rather than to the return of
Israel, which is only imphed ; but taken in connection
with the other prophecies it may fairly be said to
imply it. And it shall come to pass, says the prophet,
when seventy years are accomplished, that I will
punish the king of Babylon and that nation, saith the
Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chal
deans, and will make it perpetual desolations* The
second is the last verse of the twenty-seventh chapter,
which has reference to the vessels of the house of
the Lord and the house of the king, of which the pro
phet says, They shall be carried to Babylon, and there
shall they be until the day that I visit them, saith the
Lord ; then will I bring {hem up and restore them to
this place. \ This was apparently in the reign of
Zedekiah. The third is the present text, which must
also be referred to the reign of Zedekiah. Two,
therefore, of these passages distinctly assign the period
of seventy years to the dominion of Babylon, and
two of them connect the restoration with the end of
that dominion.
Needless difficulty has been raised with regard to
the period of seventy years, which is mentioned in the
two passages that must be assigned to different dates,
as though the terminus a quo must be shifted accord-
* Jeremiah xxv. 12.
t n LXX., ch. xxxiv. 19, 20, 22 : Sti oStos c?x_ IWpios. ical raV
&riAo_Ww mew, <_v ouk .Aa/?. /Jacobs Baj£U_Ws, 5re dmWe t_h/
'UXoviav i$ 'lepovo-aXruj., «s Ba/_V_6.ra dtreX.etirerai, Aeye. Kvptos.

Lect. ix.] The Promised Return. 167
ingly. But as the date of the latter passage, which
is that of our text, is not precisely defined, though it
must clearly be referred to the reign of Zedekiah,*
and as the date of the former passage is distinctly
assigned to the fourth year of Jehoiakim, f it seems
reasonable to accept that date and to suppose that
when the prophecy was virtuaUy repeated somewhat
later the seventy years intended were the seventy
years before mentioned, as the prophecy manifestly
affords us no means of fixing them more accurately.
It is at all events gratuitous to assume that as time
went on the prophet dehberately removed his terminus
a quo in order to give his prediction the additional
chance of fulfilment; and whatever difficulty there
may be in adjusting this date and bringing it into
* See chs. xxviii. 1, xxix. 2. Kuenen refers it to the fourth year
of Zedekiah, p. 309.
t " This repetition is regarded as proving that Jeremiah foresaw,
not merely a long continued captivity in general, but a slavery of
exactly seventy years. But such a view is unjust. If Jeremiah had
wished to state the definite duration of the Chaldean rule, he would
not have named in his letter the very same number that he had given
in his prophecy eleven years before. He could repeat his previous
announcement without alteration only if it was his sole object to
express the idea that a long time, more than a generation, must
elapse before Israel could be restored." — Kuenen, 310.
We are not told, however, what authority he had or could have for
declaring that Israel should be restored. Nor is it anything to the
point to say (p. 316) that " by its moral influence his prophecy of
Israel's restoration effected, or at least very powerfully promoted, that
restoration itself," for that surely under the circumstances would be a
very remarkable influence for it to have.
Was it, moreover, easier on natural principles for Jeremiah to pre
dict that the captivity would last for a long time than that it would
last for seventy years ? I fail to apprehend the difference.

1 68 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ix.
correspondence with other systems of chronology,*
there is not the slightest reason for rejecting it as the
actual date of the dehverance of the prophecy. It is
to be observed also that the period of seventy years
is probably intended to be taken as more or less of a
round number \ equivalent generaUy to the length of
two generations, or the standard limit of human life
according to the ninetieth Psalm. If this is the case,
we are relieved from the necessity of making the actual
period of captivity at Babylon tally to the month
and the day with the exact period of seventy years,
whatever means we may have of determining this.
At aU events, the language of the prophet in this
place may serve to show that he was speaking not
only to the men of his own time but to posterity like
wise, inasmuch as the majority of those addressed
could not expect to be among the number of the
remnant who should return from the land of their
captivity. This also may serve to illustrate the sense,
different from that of Professor Kuenen, which is to be
put upon the words for your sake in the prophecy of
Micah that we last considered. But the point which
* Cf., e.g., Dan. i. 1.
t " The number seventy is simply a round number." (Davidson, ii.
460.) See also the previous note.
" Dr. Eowland Williams is inclined to assign the whole prediction
to the later readers of the prophecies of Jeremiah (" The Hebrew
Prophets," ii. 183, 239 f.) But if that were the case, how are we
to account for the number seventy ? Instead of that round number,
an interpolator would rather have given accurately the true duration
of the captivity. Besides, there is nothing whatever in chap. xxix. to
justify the supposition of interpolation." (Kuenen, p. 311.)

Lect. ix.] The Promised Return. 169
I wish now to insist upon is the clear evidence we
have that Jeremiah, as early as the commencement
of Jehoiakim's reign, distinctly assigned the limit of
seventy years to the Babylonian captivity already
commencing, and promised the people a restoration
out of it. Nor does this evidence stand alone. It is
confirmed to us from other sources. At the end of
the second book of Chronicles we are told that the
Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia,
that the word of the Lord spoken by the mouth of
Jeremiah might be accomplished. It is true that we do
not know when the books of Chronicles were written,*
but as this statement is identical with that at the
beginning of the book of Ezra, we are probably
warranted in referring it to his time, or about the
middle of the fifth century before Christ, or Httle
short of a hundred years after the decree of Cyrus.
At that time, then, the prophecies of Jeremiah con
tained these predictions about the seventy years'
captivity, because otherwise Ezra would not have
referred to them, neither could he possibly have
alluded to them as promises of the Lord to be ful
filled unless they were known and recognised as such,
not only by his contemporaries, but at the time to
which his words referred — that, namely, of the pro
clamation of the edict of Cyrus. \ Again, in the ninth
* Kuenen refer? them to the middle of the third century b.c.
(p. 388.)
t It is all very well of Kuenen (p. 319) to speak disparagingly of
Josephus and the testimony he so clearly gives (Ant. XI., i, 1, 2),
and to say, " In his days criticism had not yet been born, and exegesis
was in its infancy. But what was permissible to him is now no

r 70 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ix.
chapter of the book of Daniel, we find that prophet
saying, In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasu-
erus, I Daniel understood by books the number of the
years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah
the prophet, that He would accomplish seventy years
in the desolations of Jerusalem. Although for the
present we may not assume for the book of Daniel
an earher date than the second century before Christ,
yet even on that hypothesis this passage is evidence
that the writer of the book believed, and knew that
others believed, the prophecy of Jeremiah referred to
was in existence at the time assigned to Daniel.*
As a matter of fact, however, it is not commonly
disputed that the passage in question is a genuine
utterance of the prophet Jeremiah, nor that it is
rightly assigned to the early part of Jehoiakim's
reign. Indeed, to imagine that the prophecy was
longer allowed. We must examine more keenly and discriminate more
accurately." By all means : but let us not shut our eyes to evidence :
and the testimony of Josephus, as far as it goes, is of the nature of
valid external evidence, not to any opinion of his own, but to the
tradition of his time, which tradition has to be accounted for histori
cally, and not simply set aside as an obsolete opinion which we have
learnt to despise. Similar evidence in the case of any other docu
ments would have its due weight acknowledged at once. The catena
of Ezra, Zechariah (i. 12), Daniel (admitting its latest date), and
Josephus, is one of considerable strength. If external evidence is thus
lightly to be set aside, verily we need tremble for no hypothesis.
* Hitzig and Graf suppose the number seventy to have been
inserted by Jeremiah in ch. xxix., but that some one else introduced
it in ch. xxv. Kuenen thinks the repetition " exceedingly doubtful "
(p. 312) ; but see his remarks in the last note. None but subjective
reasons can be assigned for these conjectures. Davidson, following
Hitzig, " pronounces " Jeremiah xxv. 12 " suppositious." (iii. 98.)

Lect. ix.] The Promised Return. 171
first of all fictitiously ascribed to Jeremiah, and then,
in order to make the fiction current, that it was
quoted as authoritative by the writers of Ezra and
Daniel, with aU the assumed appearance of reaHty,
would be to allow such an amount of license to criti
cism as would fairly deprive it of all title to the
name. Besides, how is it that these writers, being
themselves, on this hypothesis, untrustworthy in
' matters of fact, were nevertheless able to vouch for
and estabhsh the trustworthiness of another writer
whose position in the canon was higher than their
own? A thing such as this would be far more impro
bable than the simple fact that a genuine prophecy
of Jeremiah was fondly cherished by the nation
throughout the dreary period of its exile, and more
than once appealed to by subsequent and independent
writers Hke the authors of Ezra and Daniel. Unless
we suppose the writings of Jeremiah to have been
most unwarrantably tampered with (and the fact
that the version of the Seventy, differing as it does
from the Masoretic text very largely, nevertheless
contains these three prophecies with a variation in
that only which refers to the vessels of the Lord's
house, which it says shall be taken to Babylon,* is
distinctly against any such supposition), we must face
the fact that a prediction such as this we are now
dealing with was recorded in the writings of Jeremiah
and tenaciously preserved by the Jews in Egypt. If
not, we can only imagine that it was interpolated
after the return from Babylon and dehberately in-
* See note on p. 166.

172 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ix.
serted in order to show well, and to look like a pro
phecy; and that, being so inserted, the writers of
Ezra and Daniel no less deliberately acquiesced in
the barefaced forgery, and helped it on by their
quotation of it as genuine — a supposition which no
one laying claim to the judicial faculty of criticism
would venture to make. If, on the other hand, we
suppose these writers to have been themselves de
ceived by the interpolation, it must furthermore not
be forgotten that whoever is responsible for the
addition of the last chapter of Jeremiah was specially
careful to warn his readers against supposing it to be
the prophet's own by adding to the former chapter
the statement, Thus far are the words of Jeremiah,
thereby suggesting the unavoidable inference that
aU the rest was his. The evidence, however, of
Zechariah, reaching back as it does to within sixteen
years of the edict of Cyrus, may be said to be con
clusive on this point ; for to what else can he refer
if not to this prophecy of Jeremiah when he says,
Then the angel of the Lord answered and said, 0
Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on
Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which
Thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten
years ? *
If, therefore, we are constrained to accept these
prophecies as integral portions of the book of Jere
miah, belonging to the times of Jehoiakim and
* Zech. i. 12. Cf. Hag. i. 2, which not improbably refers to some
uncertainty about the period at which the seventy years began and
therefore ended.

Lect. ix.] The Promised Return. 1 73
Zedekiah, as the great preponderance of evidence and
probabiUty clearly determines, what is the inference
to be drawn from them ? First, that it is altogether
gratuitous to assume that distinct and definite pre
diction was not an actual and legitimate branch of
the functions of prophecy. On no naturalistic prin
ciples can it be explained that a statement such as
this was made at the time supposed, so long before
the occurrence of any event answering to it. To all
human intelligence and skUl the thing was an abso
lute impossibility. It may perhaps be characteristic
of some of our modern and popular notions on the
matter, that we are at times prone to confound the
two functions, in themselves distinct, of prophecy
and prediction. But the point for which I contend
is this : that the books of the Old Testament, and
notably the writings of the prophets, do contain most
unmistakable instances of the prediction of events
yet future at the time when they were written ; that
these instances of prediction, specimens of which
have been dwelt upon at length, cannot by any fair
or reasonable process be explained away or accounted
for as the result of natural foresight ; that they were
uttered as predictions communicated by the fore
knowledge of God and universally received as such ;
and that being what they profess to be, they do serve
in their degree to make good the claim on behaU of
the Old Testament to be the channel of a Divine
message, and of the prophets to have spoken under
the influence of the Holy Spirit as men without that
influence could not have spoken.

1 74 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ix.
The position thus maintained is by no means an
extreme one. We admit that there are prophecies
of whose fulfilment we have no record; that there are
others which as far as our present knowledge extends
may even seem to have been falsified by the event ;
but neither fact, so far as it is established, will suffice
to counterbalance the yet more distinctly undeniable
fact that there are those characteristic features about
the Hebrew prophecy as a whole which mark it out
as among the means specially chosen by God for
making known His will to man, and for shoeing to
all ages that He had so made it known, and thereby
sealing the record in which it was enshrined as the
depository of a special revelation of His mind and
wiU. We do not, therefore, bring any theory of in
spiration to bias the discussion of this matter, but
maintain that the honest contemplation of all the
phenomena presented tends distinctly to the esta
blishment of inspiration as a fact.
Nor can there be any doubt that the unwillingness
which many persons manifest to recognise the truly
predictive element in prophecy arises mainly because
of its obviously demanding the exercise of a super
natural agency. But not the less is the exercise of
such an agency demanded if we duly note the exist
ence of other features which are more commonly
recognised. I said at the conclusion of my last
lecture that one function discharged by the prophets
was that of being ministers to the nation's highest
good by seeking to raise its aspirations and holding
out the promise of future hope. Conspicuously is that

Lect. ix.] The Promised Return. 175
the case with the words before us — I know the thoughts
that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of
peace and not of evil, to give you an expected end, or
more literally, an hereafter and a hope. Now, there
is no one probably, whatever his views about the
supernatural in prophecy or elsewhere may be, who
wiU not at once acknowledge the extreme beauty of
the sentiment here expressed. But I would venture
to ask in what does its beauty consist ? Is it merely
in the coUocation of harmonious words and the asso
ciation of pleasing images ? Or does it not consist in a
far higher degree, if not simply and solely, in its truth ?
I may even say that to my mind there is compara
tively speaking no beauty in it if it is not true or
was not true. If the prophet was merely uttering
from out of the resources of his own imagination that
which he believed he might reasonably state with
respect to the intentions of the Most High towards
His people, then I maintain we have no guarantee
that he may not have been deceived. Nay, can we
have any sufficient assurance that he was justified in
saying what he did ? He was speaking as one who
was privy to the secret thoughts of the Most High.
We may think that what he says sounds very well,
and may ourselves agree with it, but how can we be
sure that it expresses the truth — and this is my
point — unless the prophet was really authorised to
say what he did? But if this was the case, there
was a more than ordinary, a superhuman and a super
natural means of communication, instituted between
the Divine mind and the prophet's mind. That is

176 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ix,
to say, he was, as a prophet, not one who laid claim
merely to supernatural communications from God,
but one who was selected, chosen, and ordained by
God to declare His wiU to His people. If so, I can
clearly understand that the juxtaposition of a pro
phecy, like that of the seventy years as the Hmit of
Babylonian power, with the sentiment here expressed,
would tend wonderfully to confirm its reality and
truth; and I cannot understand how it could be more
effectuaUy confirmed otherwise, if indeed it could
otherwise to us be confirmed at all. For the record
of a physical miracle would to us have less force
than this prophecy, inasmuch as the record of a
miracle would itself require confirmation, whereas the
record of a prophecy possesses it. Given the fact
that the record of this prediction is genuine, as it
most unquestionably is, and we ourselves are judges
as to whether or not it was substantially fulfilled in
fact ; and what is more, there never will come the
time when this, the moral weight of the prophecy,
will be less than it is at present. It wiU appeal with
equal force to the conscience and the judgment of
generations yet unborn as to our own. In this
respect prophecy has an evidential advantage not
possessed by miracles, inasmuch as we accept the
miracles because of the authenticity of the narrative
relating them, but an established prophecy is a wit
ness for aU time from its very nature.
I take it, then, that if we are reaUy and authori
tatively to know that the thoughts of the Almighty
towards His people are verily thoughts of peace and

Lect. ix.] The Promised Return. 177
not of evil, as here stated, it can only be by our having
valid reason to believe that He has Himself told us so :
but when or how has He done this if not by revela
tion — if not by prophecy? Prophecy, however, implies
a prophet, and the proof of prophecy is prediction ;
but if prophecy is truly prophecy, that is the authori
tative declaration of the Divine will, it involves the
operation of the supernatural no less than prediction
does. The prophet who makes known the Divine
wiU, whether by prediction or otherwise, can only do
so by the exercise of a faculty not given to man as
man, but to man in virtue of his being the chosen
agent of the Most High to make known His wUl. It
foUows, consequently, that those benevolent thinkers
who would smooth over the difficulties felt by some
minds in accepting the Scriptures as documents to
which the very greatest respect is due by eliminating
therefrom the traces of any supernatural predictive
element can only do so — and this ought to be clearly
and distinctly understood — by removing at the same
time therefrom the traces of any authoritative decla
ration of the Divine wiU. All that we are supposed
to know about this from Scripture is nothing more
than so much human speculation, which may be right
or may be wrong. The Bible, as a matter of fact,
not only is not the word of God, but it does not in
any true sense contain that word if the message
which it gives us about God, and as from God, is not
actuaUy from Him but only from some misguided
enthusiasts who thought they spoke with His autho
rity. I am quite aware, brethren, that I am treading
12

178 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lbct.ix.
on very delicate ground and dealing with a matter of
profound difficulty; but it is one on which I have not
myself the shghtest hesitation, because on it I am
prepared to base my own prospects for weal or woe for
all eternity. Either we have an actual communica
tion from God by His chosen agents, or we have
not ; if we have not, then reason, or phUosophy,
or experience, or what you will, it matters little
what, must be our guide : but if we have, and that
communication is the message of Hfe, then we may
assuredly, confidently, and implicitly trust it, and
live by it as we can live by nothing else. God has
actually spoken to us, we have heard His words, and
the entrance of His words giveth light, it giveth under
standing unto the simple*
But this is the supernatural claim of the Scriptures
as the word of God, and more particularly now of the
prophets as the heralds of that word. And I faU
to perceive wherein the difference lies, if we reaUy
believe that word, between allowing that the moral
sentiments of the prophets were not only very beau
tiful but likewise Divine, and allowing that there is
evidence in their writings that the Lord was pleased
by their agency to make known events or ever they
came to pass which no human foresight could have
enabled them to foreteU. It is a very simple, a very
definite, and an all-important issue, but I do not see
how sooner or later it is to be avoided, nor do I
believe that there is any solution of the issue but
one. The Jewish nation went into captivity knowing
* Psalm cxix. 130.

Lect. ix.] The Promised Return. 179
as clearly as prophetic language could tell them —
whether or not they understood it in all its bearings
— that the limit of that captivity would be seventy
years : as a matter of fact the interval of time from
the first year of Nebuchadnezzar to the promulgation
of the edict of Cyrus was seventy years. But there
are several ways in which the same period of time
may be computed.* It is not upon a detail of this
* It is at least curious and interesting to observe that from 606 b.c,
the approximate date of the delivery of Jeremiah's prophecy, to
536 B.C., the approximate date of the edict of Cyrus, the first termina
tion of the captivity, was a period of seventy years.
Again, from 598 B.C., the approximate date of Jehoiachin's captivity
(2 Kings xxiv. 12), to 528 B.C., the approximate date of the close of
the first period of amnesty and of the counter efforts against the decree
of Cyrus (Ezra iv. 6), which were virtually a renewal of the captivity,
was a period of seventy years. Thus the captivity was eight years in
progress, as was also the return. Also from 588 B.C., the approximate
date of the completion of the captivity by the destruction of the city
and temple (2 Kings xxv. 8), to 518 B.C., the approximate date of the
decree of Darius (Ezra vi. 1), which was a second termination of the
captivity, was a period of seventy years. Also from 527 B.C., the
approximate date of the second renewal of the captivity (Ezra iv. 6),
to the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 B.C., which was the close of the
captivity, was a period of seventy years.
It is undoubtedly hard to prove or disprove the exactitude of
these several periods within a year or so, but for those who insist that
the seventy years are a round number it is plainly needless to do so ;
while, at all events, the recurrence of the number seventy in connec
tion with the history of the captivity and the return of the Jews is,
to say the least, striking.
We have contemporary evidence from Zech. i. 12 that the Jews of
that age were themselves in doubt as to when the seventy years ended,
because they did not clearly know from when to date their com
mencement. It is reserved for us, in looking back over all the history,
to see that the very uncertainty attaching to the determination of
the seventy years is itself a confirmation of the reality and genuine-

180 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ix.
kind that we base the reality of the prophecy, but
upon the undoubted and indubitable broad historical
fact, that, contrary to aU precedent, a remnant of
the nation, according to prophecy, did return from
Babylon and again take root in the land of their
fathers. So it had been foretold, and so it came to
pass. The course of the captivity was turned like
that of the rivers in the south.
Nor is there wanting evidence that through the
long dark night of exUe the promise given by Jere
miah was remembered and watched with eager eyes
hke a beacon shining from afar, because the appen
dix to his book, which was probably not added tiU
long after his death, and perhaps by Baruch, men
tions the circumstance of Jeremiah's release from
prison in the seven-and-thirtieth year of his captivity,
which was, roughly speaking, about midway in the
period of the seventy years. Now, the occurrence
of this fact must have served as a reminder that the
Lord had not forgotten His people, but was mindful of
His promise, even if this was not the very purpose
for which it was mentioned. And unless the state
ment in Daniel is a gratuitous forgery, it is evident
ness of the prophecy concerning them, inasmuch as not in one way
only but in several it may be shown to have fulfilled itself, and there
fore may be justly regarded as a record of Divine foreknowledge, an
expression of God's intention with regard to His people ; while for
those who choose to affirm that there is nothing in it, there is, of
course, abundant opportunity for doing so. Here, as in so many
other cases, we cannot arrive at anything absolute, but must be con
tent with the balance of probability, which will vary in accordance
with our own appreciation of facts.

Lect. ix.] The Promised Return. 1 8 1
that as the term drew on he was eagerly watching
for the fulfilment of the promise.
It is clear, therefore, that we may not exclude
the predictive element from the legitimate functions
of prophecy, because in so doing we equally destroy
the foundations of any certain expression of the
Divine wUl. It requires a supernatural agency to
convey to us the knowledge of any Divine purpose
like that of goodwill no less than it does to impart
to us a knowledge of the future. One is, humanly
speaking, impossible, but so also is the other. And
this serves to show the legitimate place of prediction
in what purports to be a revelation from God. If
all our knowledge of the Divine will is not to be
merely tentative and conjectural, it is reasonable
to suppose that the manifestation of it would be
accompanied by special instances of prediction. And
as a matter of fact, the prophets not only laid claim
to this faculty, but pointed to it in confirmation of
their claim to be prophets : Let them bring forth
and show us what shall happen : let them, shoio the
former things what they be, that we may consider
them and know the latter end of them, or declare
us things for to come. Show the things that are to
come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods*
Can any chaUenge be more exphcit than that, or at
the same time more reasonable and conclusive ?
* Isaiah xli. 22, 23. " Proceeding," says Kuenen, " on the twofold
supposition that the Israelitish prophets were the interpreters of
Jahveh, and that Jahveh, the only true God, governed the world
with a view to and in the interest of ' Israel His servant and Jacob

1 82 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ix.
But though prediction is thus important and in
dispensable, if we are to have any prophetic message
from God that we can reaUy trust, it is nevertheless
subordinate and subsidiary to a higher function.
Prophecy regarded as prediction is not an end in
itself, but a means to an end. The end is the direct
and immediate recognition of the wiU and voice and
word of God. God's purpose is to lead us to Him
seU, to reveal to us Himself. It was more for Judah
of old to know and to beheve that His thoughts
towards them were thoughts of peace and not of evil*
whom He had chosen,' he must have written exactly as he does
write, about Cyrus and his victories, the destiny which Babylon had
to expect, and the future of Israel." (p. 317.)
Our position is exactly the reverse of this. — namely, that God
governed Israel with a view to and in the interest of the world,
and that the history of Israel and the ministry of the prophets is
the record of this government. " It is self-evident that if Isaiah the
son of Amos foretold not only the Babylonish captivity, but also the
liberation of the Jews by Cyrus, he possessed a foreknowledge more
than human ; and in the contest on behalf of Jahveh and against the
idols he could with the fullest right appeal to this prediction, as som
as it was confirmed by the issue. Before that time he could not of
course do so. What man proves his gift of prediction by an appeal
to the supposed fulfilment of his anticipations ? How could Isaiah,
about 700 b.c, triumphantly maintain the omniscience of Jahveh on
the ground of facts which were to take place 150 or 160 years after
wards?" (Kuenen, 318.)
According to this author, no man has, or ever had, any " gift of
prediction" he would care to "prove." And certainly there would
be no "omniscience" to "maintain triumphantly" in the case of
vaticinia confessed^ written post eventum. To satisfy the require
ments of this hypothesis, the writer must have been deliberately
perpetrating pseudo-prophecies, which were as deliberately accepted
as real ones by the nation at large. Is this probable ?
* Jer. xxix. 11.

lect. ix.] The Promised Return. 183
than it was to be quite sure that the captivity would
last for seventy years. But how could there be a
greater proof of the real nature of the Divine
thoughts towards His people than the national future
He had yet in store for them, notwithstanding their
national sins ? And how could there be any certain
knowledge of such a future being in store for them
unless He was pleased to make it known? And if
known, as it manifestly was, how could it have been
made known except by Him ? It is all very well to
attempt to base the evidence of the Divine word upon
the nature of that word itself; but a time will come
when our own estimate of that nature wiU itself vary,
and there wUl always be those whose estimate of it
wiU differ intrinsically from ours, nor shall we ever
succeed in persuading them that our estimate is
more just than theirs. And though possibly in such
cases the evidence of predictive prophecy wiU not be
of any more avaU than the self-evidencing nature
of the Divine word itself, yet the effect of it upon
hearts aHeady disposed to beheve, or upon our own
wavering hearts, will surely be to confirm and re
establish them.
But however this may be, if there is reasonable
evidence, as there undoubtedly is, that prediction
is one of the agencies selected and employed by
God, and to all appearance for the express purpose
of confirming our belief in Him, it wiU not be for
us to reject or to disparage such an agency, but
rather to use it as He designed it to be used — not,
indeed, as the sole or even the principal foundation

1 84 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ix.
of His truth, but as one of those aids He has Himself
vouchsafed, and to which He has assigned its proper
place and function. Great harm is done when we
insist at all hazards on the supernatural element in
prophecy being recognised as the ground on which
its moral and spiritual message is to be received;
but not less harm is likely to accrue, if, out of
professed deference for the spiritual message which
we affect to regard as its own evidence, we surrender
altogether the solid groundwork of confirmation and
proof which may verUy be found in the contempla
tion of actual phenomena which cannot satisfactorily
be explained upon any principles of merely natural
interpretation or as instances of merely casual
coincidence. And such instances, I venture to think,
are to be found among many more besides in the
specimens of predictive prophecy which have been
adduced. Not one of them can be adequately ex
plained on the assumption that there is nothing in
it of a more than ordinary natural or human cha
racter. Of no other nation under similar circum
stances was it ever declared many years before the
event that it should be carried into captivity by a
definite power ; and of no other nation was it ever
declared on the very eve of such a captivity that
after seventy years were accomphshed the captivity
should have an end and the nation be restored to
the home of its ancestors— a promise, be it observed,
which was never given to the ten tribes. But we
have incontrovertible evidence that this was the case
with Judah, and we have incontrovertible evidence

Lect. ix.] The Promised Rehirn. 185
that in process of time the events predicted were
brought about. Now the prophecies containing these
predictions are numerous, independent, systematic.
They are universally accepted as the genuine works
of a race of men who professed to be the bearers
of a message, however communicated, from the Most
High. We may go so far as to say that they were
nothing at all if they were not this. It is the
prominent and predominant feature of their character
by which they must be judged. If they were true
men, they were charged with a superhuman and a
supernatural message from God. If they were not
so charged, they were wilful deceivers and arrant
impostors.* It would be no slight test of their
character in this respect if it were made to turn
upon the broad and patent verification of their pre
dictions thus indicated. Were these predictions a
substantive part of their prophecies, or were they
not? Did they themselves challenge the verdict of
* This supposition is indeed indignantly denied (see note on
Lecture VIL, p. 131), by those who reject the Divine authority of the
prophets. But the real question is whether we can find a satisfactory
and solid standing-ground in the intermediate position that the faith
of the prophets created their facts. This is the question with which
the religious thought of our age has to grapple. It is a very wide
question ; and as regards the Hebrew prophets, is only one part of a
much larger whole. We cannot logically stop with the prophets, but
shall have to ask and answer the question, Is the Christian faith
self- originated, or is it fact-begotten — that is, originated by the fact
that Christ rose from the dead ? If this was a fact, and not a
Christian fancy, then there is no reason why the fancies of the
Hebrew prophets should not have been facts, but every reason why
they should. But if facts, then they were also " supernatural" facts,
and the prophets themselves charged with a "supernatural" message.

186 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. ix.
posterity upon the fulfilment of them, or did they
not ? Is there reason to beheve they were fulfilled,
or is there not ? If there is, does not the sublime,
moral, and sphitual character of their writings lend
its weight to the authority of their predictions, and
do not their predictions irresistibly tend to show
that the moral and spiritual character of their
writings was indeed stamped with the authority of
Him in whose name they were recorded, and that,
in fact, it was none other than He "who spake by
the prophets " ?

THE FULFILMENT OF THE TIME.

St. Maek i. 15. — The time is fulfilled, and ihe kingdom of God is at
hand : repent ye, and believe the Gospel.

LECTUEE X.
THE FULFILMENT OF THE TIME.
TN endeavouring to show that Old Testament pro-
-*- phecy is a record of Divine foreknowledge, I
have dwelt at present mainly upon two features of it
— namely, its apparent witness to a Person to come,
who may with more reason be supposed to be our
Lord Jesus Christ than any one else, since His
coming lends to it a significance of meaning which
it otherwise lacks, though stiU seeming to demand it;
and, secondly, its apparent reference to two great
national events, the captivity and the return, which
no fair treatment of it can refuse to recognise. If
the one of these features may be regarded as in the
highest sense prophetic, it seems, I confess, almost
impossible not to regard the other as predictive.
At all events, we may safely say that those who are
prepared to acknowledge the presence of Divine
characteristics in Scripture which cannot be ade
quately represented as merely human and merely
natural will have no difficulty in admitting the
evidence of prediction here, Of course, U we are
determined that the Bible shall be reduced to a
merely natural Hterary phenomenon, we must at any

I go Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. x.
cost get rid of, or refuse to acknowledge, whatever
tokens of prediction it may contain ; but this will be
a very different thing from establishing satisfactorily
the non-existence of any such tokens. That there
have always been those who believed them to exist,
and that from the very first, it is impossible to deny.
I propose, in my remaining Lectures, to consider
at least one other famous prophecy which there
seems good reason to believe is not only prophetic
but predictive, and which combines in itself the
features I have named of reference to a Person to
come, and also to some great national crisis which
was future when it was written : I mean Daniel's
prophecy of the seventy weeks.
We have to bear in mind that the book of Daniel
has been the subject of the most vehement assaults —
that it has been, and is, stoutly denied to be genuine
— that it is distinctly declared to have been written
in the year 165 b.c,* and the like. Our task, there
fore, wiU be no easy one, for we must argue upon and
not against these assumptions. If we could assume
that we had in the book of Daniel a genuine produc
tion of the sixth century before Christ, it would then,
I conceive, be absolutely impossible to deny to pro
phecy its predictive element. But this we must not
assume. All we can hope to do is to show that on
the assumption of those who deny its genuineness
there is less appearance of probability that their
theory is correct than there is in favour of the tradi-
* Kuenen is quite certain about this, though he confesses to
" assuming " it. (pp. 145, 266, 268.)

Lect. x.] The Fulfilment of the Time. 191
tional view that the book is genuine, and that there
fore this balance of probability is itself in favour of
the predictive character of prophecy.
I start, then, with the distinct statement of St.
Mark that our Lord began His ministry in Galilee
with the emphatic words, The time is fulfilled, which
he as distinctly states occurred after that John was
delivered up* and not, as our version erroneously has
it, was put in prison. St. Mark is the only evangelist
that records these words. St. Matthew, however, is
equally precise in marking the reference to the same
event in the career of John f in connection with the
commencement of our Lord's ministry. And in St.
John's gospel we have continual reference by that
evangehst, and also by our Lord HimseU, to His
hour not being come, or the reverse. In the seventh
chapter we are told, J Then they sought to take Him,
but no man laid hands on Him because His hour was
not yet come; and again in the next chapter, as He
* According to St. John ii. 1, 12, 13, 17, Jesus had disciples with
Him at Cana, at Capernaum, and at the feast in Jerusalem, and for
some months was baptising in Judaea, before John "was cast into
prison" (John iii. 24). Whereas, according to St. Matthew and St.
Mark, John was " delivered up" before Jesus went to reside at Caper
naum, before He preached at all in Galilee, and before Peter and
Andrew and James and John had received a commission to " follow"
Him — that is, soon after the temptation. I infer, therefore, that
this delivering up must have reference, not to John's imprisonment
by Herod, but to some previous examination or inquiry, by the
Sanhedrim possibly, to which John had been " delivered up," being
afterwards acquitted. — See Pound's " Story of the Gospels," ii. 137. ,
t St. Matt. iv. 12.
X St. John vii. 30.

1 92 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. x.
taught in the treasuiy, No man laid hands on Him,
for His hour was not yet come.* In the twelfth
chapter Jesus answered Phihp and Andrew, who told
Him of certain Greeks that they desired to see Him,
The hour is come that the Son of man should be
glorified. . . . Now is my soul troubled; and what
shall I say ? Father, save me from this hour : but for
this cause came I unto this hour, t The next chapter
opens : Now before the feast of the Passover, when
Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should
depart out of this world to the Father; \ and our Lord's
last prayer continues, Father, the hour is come. Glorify
Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee.% In
St. Matthew also we have Him saying, just after His
agony, The hour is at hand, and the Son of man is
betrayed into the hands of sinners. \\ As also similarly
in St. Mark's corresponding narrative. It is true
that we are accustomed, perhaps, to understand
these passages in a somewhat lower and more ordi
nary sense than the strict and emphatic one which
they will undoubtedly bear; but if we remember
who spoke them, and the solemn event to which
they referred, I think it wiU be hard to deny that
they are such as to lend countenance to the idea
that our Lord regarded His end as an hour which
could neither be hastened nor deferred, or at least
that the Gospel writers have represented Him as so
regarding it.
Nor is the idea one which is in any way peculiar
* viii. 20. + xiii. 1. § xvii. 1.
t xii. 23, 27. || xxvi. 45 ; St. Mark xiv. 41.

Lect. x.] The Fulfilment of the Time. 193
to them. St. Paul tells us distinctly in his epistle
to the Galatians that it was when the fulness of the
time was come, and therefore not tUl then, that God
sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the
law, to redeem them that were under the law* In the
epistle to the Ephesians he speaks of the dispensation
of the fulness of the times, f In the epistle to the
Eomans he speaks of the mystery which was kept
secret since the world began, but now is made manifest
and by the scriptures of the prophets made known.% In
writing to Timothy he calls the ransom of Jesus Christ
the testimony in its own times; and to Titus he says
that the God who cannot lie promised eternal life before
eternal ages, but had manifested and so fulfilled His
word in its oion times. § In like manner, we find St.
Peter representing the prophets as eagerly searching
what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ
ivhich was in them did signify when it testified before
hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that
should follow ;'\\ and, lastly, the writer of the epistle
to the Hebrews says that once for all in the end of
the world, or upon the consummation of the ages,
itrl a-vvreXela rav alwvtov, Christ hath been manifested
to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 11 Now,
from all these passages it would seem that we are
warranted in saying that the writers of these several
epistles regarded the manifestation of Christ as
appointed for a particular time (xpovos as well as
Kaipos is used in them), that this time was either
* Gal. iv. 4, 5. X Rom. xvi. 25, 26. || 1 Peter i. 11.
t Eph. i. 10. § 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; Titus i. 3. If Heb. ix. 26.
13

1 94 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. x.
hidden deep in the counsels of God, or that it was
obscurely intimated by the prophets, and that St.
Peter, apparently referring to the conduct of Daniel
in the ninth chapter, regarded the prophets as eager
to know what manner of time the Spirit of Christ
that was in them did signify. The question is not
now as to the amount of authority we are to assign
to their opinion thus expressed ; but that this was the
opinion they expressed there can be no question. And
when, in consideration of all these facts, we find
our Lord beginning His ministry with the statement
the time is fulfilled, we naturaUy ask, what time did
He refer to, and have we any means of ascertaining
what that time was ?
It seems, then, that we must either consent to
eviscerate His words of their natural meaning, or
we must suppose that He had a definite time in
view, and that He spoke to the impressions of those
who heard Him, who believed, as we know from
other sources, that that time was then at hand.
It seems, I say, that we cannot duly estimate the
burden and force of John the Baptist's and our
Lord's early proclamation, the kingdom of heaven
is at hand, without supposing that both speakers
and hearers alike had in their minds and memories
the kingdom which Daniel declared the God of
heaven should set up; which should be given to
the Son of man, and to the people of the saints of
the Most High, which should be an everlasting
kingdom, and should ne'ver be destroyed.* If any
* Dan. ii. 44, vii. 14, 27.

lect. x.] The Fulfilment of the Time. 195
one is prepared to maintain that there was no
association perceived or intended between the state
ments of the prophet on the one hand, and those
of John the Baptist, our Lord, and His apostles,
on the other, it is simply hopeless to discover any
common ground upon which we can reason. At
all events, while the several statements are what
they are — no matter how they came to be what
they are — it is certain that till the end of time
there will be those who wUl not fail to perceive
this association, and who wiU, rightly or wrongly,
deduce certain inferences from it.
Our first contention, therefore, is that Jesus Christ,
when He began His ministry with the words the
time is fulfilled, referred not merely to what He
knew of the counsels of the Most High, for which
none who at first heard Him could be expected at
once to give Him credit, but to a definite and
well-known period, which for some reason or other
was commonly understood to be then at hand. Now
if this be so, (and whether it is or not I must leave
for you, brethren, to determine ; for myself I cannot
conceive it is open to question,) but if it be so,
there is only one passage in the whole compass of
Scripture which had any bearing on the matter, and
this passage is Daniel's prophecy of the seventy
weeks. If our Lord and His hearers had any one
definite time in view, it can only have been the
time which within certain Hmits had been in mys
terious prophetic language defined by Daniel. The
book of Daniel was known to contain the statement.

196 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.x.
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and
upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to
make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for
iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint
the Most Holy* I leave out for the present all
verbal emendation or criticism, and merely take the
passage as it stands in the authorised version, which
is sufficient for my purpose. These seventy weeks,
according to a principle t commonly recognised and
laid down in the prophets, are all but universaUy
acknowledged to indicate seventy weeks of years, or
* The first intimation of this principle is given in Numb. xiv. 34 ;
cf. also Ezek. iv. 5, 6, where it is expressly laid down. But as Dr.
Pusey says, " There could not be any ambiguity in the people's mind.
The period could not be ' seventy weeks of days,' i.e. a year and about
four months. The events are too full for it." (Daniel the Prophet,
p. 167.) But in point of fact interpreters are all but unanimous
on this point (see ibid., p. 197). It is strange, however, that there
should be this unanimity, since the acknowledgment of the principle
involved implies the recognition of a certain unity in Scripture.
Why, for instance, should the writer of Daniel make use, without
explanation, of a method defined in Ezekiel ? With reference to the
same subject, compare also Lev. xxvi. 34, and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21,
where the principle of reckoning by Sabbath-years seems to be implied.
It has been pointed out that from the period of first asking for a
king (cir. B.C. 1096) to the commencement of the captivity (cir.
b.c. 606) was seventy hebdomads, or 490 years, while from the time
of the first plundering of the temple by Shishak (cir. b.c. 970) to
B.C. 606 was a period of fifty-two hebdomads, corresponding to the
fifty-two years from B.C. 588 to B.C. 536, the period that the land lay
desolate. Thus in the history of Israel there were two marked periods
of 490 years — one measuring the duration of the temporal kingdom,
and the other that between Daniel's fervent prayer and the mani
festation of the True King. Is this fancy or is it chance ?
t Dan. ix. 24.

Lect. x.] The Fulfilment of the Time. 197
'seventy times seven years ; if for no other reason,
yet for this, that here at least they can have no
other meaning if the passage has any sense at all ;
and only on this principle can it for a moment be
supposed that the national anticipations of the
coming of the Christ were in any degree influenced
by this prophecy, or can they be understood as
culminating at that time, as they manUestly did.
Now it must distinctly be borne in mind that when
ever the book of Daniel was actuaUy written, it is
perfectly obvious to what age it professed to refer.
The date of this ninth chapter is patent and explicit :
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus,
of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over
the realm of the Chaldeans; In the first year of
his reign I Daniel understood by books — that is to
say, the books of Scripture, which as far as they
then existed were the sacred books to Daniel as
they are to us — the number of the years whereof
the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet
that He would accomplish seventy years in the deso
lations of Jerusalem. Then follows the statement
that the prophet set his face unto the Lord God
to seek by prayer and supplications with fasting
and sackcloth and ashes; and then his prayer is
given in full. That is to say, the prophet represents
himself, or is represented, — for my present purpose
it matters not which, — as knowing from his study of
the prophecies of Jeremiah that the seventy years
of which he had spoken were nearly accomplished.
He did not know how nearly, for to him as to us

Ig8 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. x.
there was the same difficulty, which to him before
events had unfolded themselves must have been even
greater, about fixing the exact time when the seventy
years began. But at aU events he knew, or was
supposed to know, that he had himself been nearly
the prescribed time in captivity.* Poring then
anxiously over prophecies which he beUeved to be
Divine, he knew that the allotted time was almost
run out, and he longed eagerly for its accomplish
ment. He prayed that the Lord would hearken and
do, and defer not, for His oivn sake, and for the sake
of the city and people that were called by His name.
Daniel, believing that the time was at hand, is repre
sented as praying most earnestly that it might fully
come. Upon this we are told that while he was
praying and confessing his sin, and the sin of his
people Israel, the man Gabriel, whom he had before
seen in vision, being caused to fly swiftly, touched
him about the time of the evening oblation, and spake
unto him in answer to his prayer. And this passage
about the seventy weeks is part of the man Gabriel's
* From about 607 b.c, apparently the year before Jeremiah's
prophecy, to 538, the first year of Darius. It has been rightly
observed that the mention of this date, 607, the third year of
Jehoiakim, Dan. i. 1, which perplexes all the commentators, is no
slight indication of the genuineness of the book, because what writer
of a fictitious narrative which was intended to pass for a true one
would venture to deviate from the known authorities in such a point
as this, and to deviate so slightly? while on the supposition of
genuineness the discrepance is capable of explanation in various
ways — as, e.g., either by the use of another method of computation,
or by the possible occurrence of an incursion of the Babylonians not
otherwise recorded in the recognised authorities.

Lect. x.] The Fulfilment of the Time. 199
communication. It cannot, therefore, be doubted
that what is thus given is given as the result of an
angelic communication under the most solemn cir
cumstances, and in special answer to a very solemn
prayer. Of course, U it is a matter of no importance
whether or not we are grossly deceived and imposed
upon in things relating to God, it is a matter of
entire indifference when and under what circumstances
this narrative was written. It may be true or false,
and matter not. Only, and this is my point, if it
was written in the second century before Christ, then
of course it cannot possibly be true ; it was to all
intents and purposes a romance and nothing more.
It may have been a tale with a high and elevating
moral, written with the best intentions, but a tale
it was and could be nothing else. But then we are
surely warranted in asking ourselves whether it is
likely that being such a tale, a merely edifying story
referring to a person of whom nothing whatever was
known except the mere mention of his name in a few
places in Ezekiel,* and who must have lived, if he
lived at all, nearly four centuries before, — whether
it is Hkely, I say, or even possible, that such a pure
romance should have sprung suddenly into note, should
have been commonly received, made more generally
available by means of translation by the Seventy,
have become associated with other books of which we
know from the history ofthe Maccabees, \ and from
* Ezek. xiv. 14, 20 ; xxviii. 3.
t 1 Mace. i. 57; Jos. c. Apion. i. 8 ; cf. Philo in Euseb. Pr.er. Ev.
viii. 6, p. 357 : Pusey, p. 295.

200 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. x.
Josephus, that for them many were prepared to die
rather than give them up ; and what is more, in the
short space of a century and a half should have pro
duced such a marveUous effect as to be the main if
not the only known cause of the general expectation
of the coming of the Messiah at the time of our Lord's
manifestation ; that expectation upon the hypothesis
having been altogether in abeyance, if it had not
practically died out,* at the time when this narrative
is supposed to have been produced.
For we must not forget that but for the book of
Daniel we ourselves should know nothing of Daniel,
and it is entirely gratuitous to suppose that in the
year 166 b.c any one knew or had ever heard
any more than we should have known apart from
this book. It is difficult in these matters to rest
on one hypothesis only, and not unconsciously to
borrow something from the counter hypothesis. Of
course if in the second century before Christ the
tradition about Daniel was in substance such as we
have it now in the book of Daniel, then it is con
ceivable that a book Hke the book of Daniel might
then have been written. But this is a pure presump
tion for which there is no evidence whatever ; that is
to say, in order to give the present book of Daniel its
existence, we are obliged to postulate a condition of
things which but for that book had, and for the most
part could have had, no existence. We are obliged
to postulate a tradition, which tradition is itself
the product of this book. In our minds the idea of
* Cf. Psalm Ixxxix. 49—51.

Lect. x.j The Fulfilment of the Time. 201
Daniel is clear and vivid, but how about the men
who lived in the second century before Christ ? They
knew no more of Daniel than Ezekiel had told them,
that he was a wise man, and for some reason or other
might be ranked with Job and Noah. But when he
lived was as uncertain as when they lived.
And yet it is from such a shadowy, nebulous,
impalpable germ as this that our present book is sup
posed to have sprung. Certainly to propound such a
theory is to anticipate by many centuries the age of
the historic romance. Shakespear and Walter Scott
are known to have made use of materials ready to
hand, and to have worked them up into their magni
ficent ideal creations ; but where were the materials
ready to hand out of which a Daniel might have been
created? They were hewn from a quarry which is
to be found only in the book of Daniel itself. This
is not making bricks without straw, but making the
straw too for the bricks to be made with ; or, as
Dean Milman felicitously puts it, making them
entirely of straw.* The hypothesis, then, of the late
origin of the book of Daniel is not to be maintained
without the further hypothesis of the existence of
traditions which we have no reason whatever to
believe existed. Thus it is clear that M Daniel is
a late production, it is and can be nothing more
than a pure romance, ahke untrustworthy in all its
details. But then, adopting this hypothesis, what was the
object with which the book was written? It was
* " History of the Jews," vol. i., p. xxv.

202 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. X.
written "in the year 165, to encourage and sustain
the Jews under the severe persecutions of Antiochus
Epiphanes.* We are told that the writer thought
" Jeremiah could not have spoken of seventy years,
for " that, " if he had, his prediction would have been
fulfiUed." "The opinion that seventy Sabbath-years
or year-weeks had been meant forced itseU upon
him, and in connection with this the behef that that
period was now drawing to a close." f By way, there
fore, of gaining the time, Hke the Chaldean magicians
of whom he had spoken, he takes the prophecy of
Jeremiah and expands his years into weeks of years.
The former prophet had made a mistake, as the event
had proved : he wiU hazard another prophetic con
jecture by way of correcting it. But then, surely, if
he was not writing prophecy, but only history that
should look like prophecy, he would make the pro
phecy agree with the history. But the difficulty is
to do this.
If, however, it is granted that seventy weeks of
years are meant, that gives us the definite number
of 490 years to deal with ; and as the angel Gabriel,
in the vision of Daniel, is clearly speaking in the
first year of Darius the Mede, the most natural
idea would be that those 490 years would be counted
from that first year of Darius the Mede, or else, pos
sibly, on the supposition that he was modifying the
prophecy of Jeremiah, from the date of that prophecy.
* See " Essays and Eeviews," p. 76, quoted by Dr. Pusey, Daniel
ihe Prophet, p. 224.
t Kuenen, p. 273.

Lect. X.] The Fulfilment op the Time. 203
But the date of Jeremiah's prophecy was the fourth
year of Jehoiakim, or about b.c 606. One would
suppose, therefore, that if the writer had intended to
sustain the men of his time with the hope of pros
perity and dehverance soon to come, he would have
chosen a date near at hand. But 490 years from
b.c 606 brings us to the year b.c 116, an altogether
fruitless result, and manifestly one of no bearing at
all on the national calamities of his own day, b.c 165.
What present relief would be given by the thought
that in some fifty years to come the trials of that
time would have passed away ? No fictitious or
apparent prophecy was wanted to tell them that
which they all knew, nor would this have been a
sufficiently worthy object for the writer of an histo
rical romance to aim at.
But if we count, as it seems more natural to do,
the 490 years from the supposed time of the vision,
that wiU bring us to the year 48 b.c, or thereabouts.
And here, as before, the result is entirely nugatory,
and even more inappropriate as regards the supposed
temporary purpose with which the narrative was
written ; whUe it certainly does, strange to say, bring
us within one generation of that particular generation
in which our Lord was born.
If, therefore, the book of Daniel was written in the
year b.c 165, or thereabouts, it seems at all events
reasonable to assume that this remarkable declara
tion about the seventy weeks, which is given with all
the solemnity of a prophecy, would have some dis
coverable apphcation to the time at which it was

204 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. x.
given, and to the generation for whose benefit it was
announced. But no such application can be found.
Like the arrows of Jonathan, this apparent prophecy
has altogether missed the mark. On the hypothesis,
it surely ought to have agreed with the history : as
as a matter of fact, it altogether disagrees with it ;
and one cannot understand why it does. And is it
not natural that the manifest failure of an assumed
prophecy like this in corresponding with current
events would utterly damage the character of the
document in which it was found, when its only claim
to attention would be the tokens it presented of fore
knowledge ? We are asked to believe that a book is
produced at a certain period, by an unknown author,
gathering together and consohdating certain supposed
floating traditions about Daniel, embellishing and
adding to those traditions, making a connected story
of the whole, and venturing certain statements under
the form of prophecy which were to seem to predict
the striking ¦ events of the writer's own time. We
are asked to beheve that this book acquired great
notoriety, and produced an enormous effect in con
sequence of its being at once supposed to be nearly
four centuries older than it was, though there was
no evidence of its continuous existence, and more
especially because it was thought to contain wonder
ful prophecies which the course of current events
was day by day fulfilling. One of these prophecies
declared that within 490 years from a certain time
the transgression and sin of the nation would be
finished and iniquity atoned for, that everlasting

Lect. x.] The Fulfilment of the Time. 205
righteousness would be brought in, and vision and
prophecy concluded, and a holy of holies anointed.
Whatever these mysterious phrases may mean, they
would serve to point to a great crisis which should
be unique, which could be confounded with nothing
else; and this crisis was to occur at a definite period,
and that period was the writer's own time. Surely
the men of that generation and of the following
generation must have known how far events had
justified these prognostications, and surely they
would have judged of them and the book containing
them accordingly.
It seems perfectly inconceivable that a book should
have been put forth in the midst of events then going'
on, of which it could be said that it was "not pro
phecy, but history, which in consequence of the
drapery is represented as prediction," * and yet that
one of the most prominent of its apparent prophecies
should be not only hopelessly at variance with the
history, but apparently no less incapable of applica
tion or adaptation to it by any process of manipula
tion. The notion of the writer holding out the hope
that within fifty or a hundred years the golden age
of Israel should arrive, and that this was the hope
which was fraught with special elements of strength
and consolation for the men of that day, then smart
ing under the persecution of Antiochus IV., and
that it was owing to the felt appropriateness of the
comfort thus administered that the book became so
popular as to be confounded with the traditionally
* Kuenen, p. 147.

206 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. x.
sacred books, and to be thought Divine, is, when we
fairly reahse aU that it involves, a notion that on
the face of it is absurd. Whatever may have been
the actual fortunes of the book of Daniel, this at all
events cannot be a fair representation of what they
actually were.
And if we are disposed to think that it was not
the verisimUitude of prophecy in the book, but the
mere assumption of the guise it wore that was the
secret of its fascination, — that it was not because it
seemed to be prophecy, but because it pretended to be
so, that men were attracted and deceived by it, — that
is indeed a notion very easy to be conceived, but we
may question whether on the whole it is one so likely
to have been realised in fact. If the prophecy of the
seventy weeks had any fitness for the time when it is
aUeged to have been written, one can understand its
producing a certain effect and gaining a certain influ
ence, but if it was neither prophecy nor history, one is
at a loss to comprehend the secret of its strength. If
it did not suit the history, where was the evidence of
its being prophecy, or why was it Hkely to pass as
such, or to be confounded with it ?
And yet it is at once obvious that no possible
manipulation of the 490 years will make them fit the
requirements of the last years of Antiochus. Here,
then, was a crucial test to which a person writing at
the time supposed would surely have taken care not
to expose himseU, being as it was, moreover, one which
he might so very easily have avoided. Why not
choose a number which would suit the exigencies of

Lect. x.] The Fulfilment of the Time. 207
his case, and not one which would seem to court
failure from its manifest incongruity ?
But it is said that the writer had no definite system
of chronology. " We are not sure that he foUows the
same chronology as that which has now been fixed
for us by the scientific study of history. He may
have thought that some periods were of shorter or
longer duration than they were in reahty. Nay, there
is no probability in the expectation that his reckoning
should exactly coincide with ours. How could he
determine accurately what space of time separated
him, for example, from the Babylonish captivity? "*
To which I reply, this is surely to credit him most
gratuitously with an unnecessary and improbable
amount of ignorance, in order to save our own hypo
theses. That his reckoning and Ours may not have
coincided to the year is conceivable ; but if he was
altogether at fault, why should he hazard so definite
a number as 490 years, and what right have we to
assume that his calculation should need correcting by
centuries and haU-centuries ? Surely before assuming
his ignorance, of which there is not the slightest
proof, seeing that, on the contrary, recent investiga
tion and discovery have combined to estabhsh the
accuracy of his information in other respects,")" it
would be as well to question our own honesty, or at
least the wisdom of our hypotheses, which cannot any
how be made to tally even with his supposed mistakes.
* Kuenen, p. 265.
t This is admitted by the Dean of Westminster, " Jewish Church,"
vol. iii., p. 73.

208 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. x.
Furthermore, the writer of the first book of Macca
bees three times over refers to the extinction of
prophecy in his own day as a fact ; * and, strange to
say, the first of these is in connection with that very
year when it is confidently asserted that the book of
Daniel appeared; but twice afterwards, during a period
of five-and-twenty years, he speaks of the want being
stUl felt. May we not fairly ask whether this lan
guage would have been possible if in the interval a
book had appeared which had been utterly unknown
before, but was then at once and so suddenly popular
* The first of these is with reference to the altar of burnt-offerings
which had been profaned by Antiochus Epiphanes, of which the
writer says : " They thought it best to pull it down, lest it should be
a reproach to them because the heathen had defiled it: wherefore
they pulled it down, and laid up the stones in the mountain of the
temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to show
what should be clone with them" (1 Mace. iv. 45, 46). This was
obviously in the very year b.c. 165, in which various modern critics
are agreed that the book of Daniel sprang into existence.
Again, after the death of Judas, "there was great affliction in
Israel, the like whereof was not since ihe time that a prophet was not
seen among them" (ch. ix. 27).
And once more of Simon, after the Eomans had entertained his
ambassadors honourably : " The Jews and priests were well pleased
that Simon should be their governor and high priest for ever, until
there should arise a faithful prophet" (ch. xiv. 41).
It is perfectly clear from these passages that the writer of the first
book of Maccabees was acquainted with no prophet of his own date.
It is also plain that he supposed it impossible that the people of the
time of which he wrote should be acquainted with any contemporary
with themselves. This, of course, might be the case even if the book
of Daniel had been produced in the year 165 b.c. But had that
book then appeared and taken the place in the national literature"'*
which it must have taken to become canonical, then it is. impossible
that the writer, living perhaps some fifty or sixty years afterwards,

Lect. x.] The Fulfilment of the Time. 209
as to be mistaken for the work of Daniel ? That the
writer of it was not accepted in his own name is abso
lutely certain, for it has utterly perished. Is it the
least likely, or is it reasonably probable, that his own
individuality could have been lost in his identification
with the great prophet of Babylon, who but for him
seU and his book was manifestly otherwise unknown ?
I have purposely abstained from treating the pro
phecy of the seventy weeks in greater detail because I
was anxious to deal with broad and general principles.
I have also confined myself at present to trying to show
that that prophecy by itseU presents very serious and
as I believe absolutely fatal obstacles to the theory of
the late origin of Daniel. Into its actual meaning I
have no time now to enter. Suffice it for the present
to say that I beheve when our Lord began His ministry
He had this prophecy in view, for there is no other
He could have had; and that it was to the mysterious
promise of the angel Gabriel that there should be an
interval of 490 years between His own advent and
should have spoken as he did, because there was then a patent and
notorious instance of one who, if not reckoned among the old pro
phets, had yet "eclipsed them by the fame and importance of his
predictions bearing upon times still recent.
In connection with this matter it should also be borne in mind
that ages before the time of the Maccabees the history and literature
of the Jews had borne witness not indeed to the cessation of pro
phecy, whatever traces there may be of that, but to the failure of
other gifts of a kindred nature which had once been the glory of
Israel. See, e.g., the statement made (Ezra ii. 63) and repeated
(Neh. vii. 65) : " The Tirshatha said unto " the priests whose
genealogy was incomplete, " that they should not eat of the most
holy things till there stood up a priest with ITrim and Thummim." 14

2 1 o Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. x.
some period we have as yet not determined, and which
was designedly left obscure, that He referred when
He began to preach : The time is fulfilled, and the
kingdom of God is at hand. Repent ye, and believe the
Gospel. And may we not fairly question whether we
can in any true sense believe that Gospel if we are
not prepared to accept it as given by God, and not
merely invented and proposed by man ; and, if given
by God, as not impossibly or improbably prepared
for and even promised by Him in the sure word of
prophecy ?

THE SEVENTY WEEKS.

Dahtel ix. 24. — Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and
upon thy holy city, to finish ihe transgression, and to make an end
of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in
everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
and to anoint the Most Holy.

LECTUEE XI.
THE SEVENTY WEEKS.
r I ".HE theory of the late origin of Daniel is, as a
-L theory, beset with certain difficulties, from
which the opposite theory of the genuineness of that
book is undoubtedly free. For instance, not only is it
impossible on the former hypothesis for one moment
to regard the narrative as in any sense true, but con
sidering the entire absence of information respecting
Daniel, which on this hypothesis there obviously
was in the second century before Christ, the interest
attaching to his name, no less than the details of his
history and character, would have had to be created
by the writer ; whereas U the book was genuine we
are delivered from any difficulty as to its origin,
because it was the natural and spontaneous record of
very remarkable events. In this latter case all the
difficulty centres, and I desire by no means to dis
guise its magnitude, in the acceptance of the events
recorded. After we have surmounted the difficulty
of the book being genuine, there arises the yet greater
difficulty of its authenticity. If it is the work of a
writer in the sixth century before Christ, is it after
all an authentic record of historic fact ? This, no

214 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xi.
doubt, is a very momentous question. But it is to be
observed that whereas in the former case we have to
account for certain facts, — for example, the existence
and influence of the book under known conditions of
probabiUty, — in the other we have not to account for
the facts, but only to accept them, it being previously
allowed that they violate all the known conditions
of probabiUty. They are recorded as in the highest
degree exceptional, and they are accepted or rejected
as such. Given the supposition that they occurred,
there is no further difficulty attaching to the record
of them. In the one case, on a natural basis, there
is a great natural difficulty ; in the other, on a basis
admittedly above and beyond nature, there is no
further difficulty at all. The difficulty, therefore, lies
in limine.
It is at once manifest that this difficulty is so great
that it is likely to overshadow and conceal the other,
and in either case very seriously to affect our judg
ment. We should, however, be especiaUy careful to
guard against its doing so as long as we desire to
regard the question as a purely literary one, to be
decided by the rules of literary evidence. If we start
with a prepossession against anything transcending
the experience of our own ordinary daily hfe, and
make that the test of genuineness, then there is not
one of the books of the Bible that can stand. The
questions of genuineness and authenticity must be
kept perfectly distinct. It is easy to see how readily
they may become confused. Daniel is not authentic
because it is not genuine, and as we have seen in that

Lect. xi.] The Seventy Weeks. 215
case it cannot be ; that is a perfectly valid inference :
but, Daniel can hardly be genuine because it is so
replete with the marveUous ; that is an inference no
less easy and natural, but by no means valid.
At the present time, then, we are not at all con
cerned with the question of the authenticity of Daniel,
but merely with that of its genuineness. We must
be specially careful that the free discussion of its
genuineness is not in any way affected or influenced
by our prepossessions as to its authenticity.
We have already seen that if this book was written
in 165 b.c, there are certain grave difficulties to be
disposed of which may otherwise prove fatal to the
theory. Nor is it easy to dispose of them. As long
as we confine ourselves to a priori considerations
apart from the contents of the book, it is undoubtedly
more easy to explain its existence if genuine than
the reverse ; and taking the prophecy of the seventy
weeks as a crucial instance, it is absolutely impossible
to assign any meaning to that prophecy which will
make it appHcable to the time supposed. It remains,
therefore, to inquire whether it has any meaning at
all, and what that meaning is.
And first it must be remembered that there is no
question as to the date of Daniel, if it is not a late pro
duction. It was either written in the second century
before Christ, or it was written in the sixth. No one
proposes any other alternative.* If, therefore, the
* See Pusey, "Daniel the Prophet," p. 43. Edition 1869. If
Daniel was not written cir. 165 b.c, no object is gained by the hypo
thesis of any other date after cir. 530 B.C., for place it where we will

216 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. XL
theory of a late origin leaves this particular prophecy
unexplained, is the opposite theory more promising
in this respect ? I shall endeavour to discuss this
question as far as possible on broad principles, and
independently of minute verbal details.
I assume, then, that in the first year of Darius, or
about 538 b.c, Daniel was told that seventy weeks
were determined upon his people and his holy city
for a particular purpose afterwards explained in the
remainder of the verse ; and I make this further
assumption, which wUl hardly be denied me, that the
seventy weeks so determined are afterwards split up
into seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks and
one week ; but I do so merely because, if this is the
case, then it becomes no longer a matter of doubt as
to when the seventy weeks began, or at least only
so far as it depends upon the going forth of the com
mandment to restore and to build Jerusalem. That
is to say, we are apparently intended to count them,
not from the time when the angel was speaking, as
we might have thought most natural, but from the
time of which he subsequently spoke. The first sub
division of seven weeks manifestly began from the
going forth of the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem— if, that is, the seven weeks, and three
score and two weeks and one week, are identical (as,
being equivalent to them, none can doubt they are)
with the seventy weeks. It is entirely gratuitous to
during the interval it contains statements as to the future manifestly
inexplicable on any human principles. As a matter of fact, how
ever, no intermediate theory has been formulated.

Lect. XL] The Seventy Weeks. 2 1 7
suppose that these seventy weeks are to be counted
from the year of Jeremiah's prophecy; and though we
might at first suppose the present moment was the
one referred to, yet when a definite terminus a quo is
afterwards given for an equivalent period to commence
from, it is at least reasonable to suppose that that is
the terminus meant in both cases.*
But now arises a much greater difficulty. What
was the commandment which went forth to restore
and to buUd Jerusalem ? and when did it go forth ?
We must not forget that the angel was speaking
before the issue of the edict of Cyrus. If, therefore,
the narrative is authentic, everything was as yet
unknown and unaccomphshed. Daniel himself was
perplexed and anxious as to the termination of that
captivity, which he beUeved was Hmited to seventy
years. He thought the end of those years could not
be far off. He is told that there is still a future in
store for his people and city of seventy weeks of
years — supposing, that is, that by the weeks were
meant years. He is not told anything as to the
termination of the captivity, which was his chief
subject of anxiety. But we know that he lived to
see the cause for that anxiety removed. Its removal
came in the natural course of events. And this being
' * If otherwise, however, it must not be forgotten that then the
computation, however made, leads us -to no satisfactory result. This
is the point : on one hypothesis a consistent and intelligible result is
obtained ; on any other, none. The difficulty is that the first hypo
thesis points us inevitably to prediction : any other holds out the
hope of escape from that conclusion ; but in every case the hope is
delusive.

2 1 8 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xi.
so, the spirit of prophecy did not concern itself with
that immediate source of anxiety, but reached on
into the far distant future, and spoke of the ultimate
destiny of the people and city, which was after aU at
the bottom of the prophet's thoughts, aspirations, and
anxieties, however legitimately they were interested
likewise in the immediate fortunes of his nation.
And here we may pause for a moment to notice a
mark of reality in the narrative on the supposition
of its genuineness and authenticity. The last date
given in Daniel is the third year of Cyrus.* We
know that he was alive then : he could not have lived
long afterwards. As, therefore, he witnessed the
promulgation of the edict of Cyrus, he witnessed at
aU events an issue and answer to his prayer which
received no elucidation from the communication of
the angel, however much it may have served to
elucidate the prophecy of Jeremiah, and yet the
record of that communication remained. It was far
too precious to be cancelled. Events had made it
even more obscure ; but it was the message of an
angel, and therefore of inestimable value. The pre
sent distress and problem of the national fortunes
had been reHeved and solved by the development of
circumstances ; but a pledge of vast, magnitude and
importance had been given to the future, which
embraced five centuries to come. This is at all
events consistent with the ordinary dealings of Provi
dence, which leaves our perplexities to be solved by
the process of events, however much it may be fraught
* Dan. x. 1.

lect. XL] The Seventy Weeks. 2 1 9
with principles of far wider import concerning even
the distant future. What was uppermost in Daniel's
mind was virtually passed over by the angel, but a
communication was made to him which involved not
only the solution of the immediate present, but bore
the promise also of centuries to come. Our prayers
are not answered as we expect or wish them to be,
but in a manner at once inscrutable and far more
abundant. The angel, however, spoke of a decree to restore and
to build Jerusalem. But it is to be observed that the
edict of Cyrus, gladly as Daniel must have hailed it,
in no degree fulfilled the conditions of this decree as
here given. The terms of that edict, as it is preserved
to us in Chronicles and Ezra,* have reference only to
the house of God at Jerusalem. It was in no sense
a decree to restore and to build Jerusalem. And the
same likewise applies to the decree of Darius, which
confirmed in similar terms the suspended decree of
Cyrus. The only decree which was capable of any
wider application than the temple merely, and the
text of which is preserved to us in the historic records
of Scripture, is the edict which was given to Ezra in
the seventh year of Artaxerxes, t or b.c 457. This
decree in its express terms provided not only for the
embeUishment of the temple, which had been com
pleted since the sixth year of Darius, J but also for
the poHtical organisation and government of the
* 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23, Ezra i. 1 — 4, v. 13 seq., vi. 1 — 12.
t Ezra vii. 7, 11—26.
t Ezra vi. 15.

220 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xi.
nation. It was by far the most important act of
recognition performed by any foreign monarch in
relation to the Jews, and the most complete and
comprehensive in its nature of which we have any
record in Scripture ; and to it are to be referred not
only all the reconstructive operations of Ezra, but
those also of Nehemiah,* who was furnished with
subsequent authority by the same king in the spirit
of his former decree. As far, therefore, as the sacred
history of the Jews enables us to determine when
the commandment went forth to restore and to build
Jerusalem, there seems little doubt that we must
refer it to the decree ofthe seventh year of Artaxerxes,
of which the original Aramaic text is preserved to us
in the book of Ezra. It is unquestionably a fuller
and wider decree than that either of Darius or of
Cyrus, important as those decrees, and more especially
the former of them, undoubtedly were.
Of course it is obviously impossible that Daniel
could have lived to see this decree, or have known
anything about it. We are supposing now that his
narrative is authentic, and consequently there is
nothing inconsistent in supposing also that the Spirit
of God made known by Gabriel that which Daniel
himseU could neither have known nor understood.
If, therefore, the going forth of the commandment to
restore and to build Jerusalem may fairly be referred
to the decree of Artaxerxes, then it is plain that
that decree becomes the starting-point of the seventy
weeks, or 490 years. * Neh. ii. 1—8.

Lect. XL] The Seventy Weeks. 221
What, then, is it to be the work of these 490 years
to accomplish ? This is stated in a very full and
complete manner under several heads. First, it is
to finish, or to restrain, or shut up the transgression,
and to make an end to or to seal up sins. There is a
twofold uncertainty here as to the exact reading,* the
verb in each case at aU events suggesting the alter
native signification ; an uncertainty which seems to
bear silent testimony at once to the felt importance
and obscurity of the prophecy which is inconceivable
on the supposition of its origin in the time of Antio
chus Epiphanes, but not at all unnatural on the other
supposition. The mention also of the transgression,
apart from the indefinite word sins which follows it,
might suggest at first thought some possible reference
to the cruelty of the Chaldean oppression f under
which the nation was still suffering, though the con
text would almost immediately show this to be impos
sible. Transgression and sin, then, it would seem,
were to undergo some special restraint or limitation
as the first result of these seventy weeks of years.
A second result was the atonement or reconcilia
tion that was to be made for iniquity. As sins were
to be made an end of, so iniquity in general terms was
to be atoned for, to be ceremoniaUy cleansed, covered
over, and put away. Broad and universal in its bear
ing as the language is, it nevertheless does not seem
* The reading dubitates between _<^3 and a suggested ;y?3, and
between nnn and onn. In favour of the second, Davidson, " Hebrew
Text, etc.," says, " Cdd. mult. Nachmanides. all vss.," and of the
fourth, which is the. Keri, " Cdd. mult. LXX. Aq. Sym. Syr. Vg."
t Cf. Hab. ii. 5, sq.

222 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xi.
to be altogether and absolutely incapable of a possible
and primary reference to the immediate circumstances
of the time, and to the approaching emancipation,
though that is indeed a reference which would at
once be felt to be merely transitory and wholly in
adequate. And in this connection it is barely con
ceivable that even the seventy weeks may themselves
have had HteraUy an immediate and passing reference
to the promulgation of the edict of Cyrus in the year
but one foUowing the message of the angel, in the
same way that the loftiest and farthest-reaching of
the prophecies had their natural genesis in the human
emergencies of the time, though their very unfitness
to the mere limitations of those emergencies was the
proof of their truly prophetic character and heavenly
origin. It is the lapse of time alone which brings
the true solution of the prophecies, while it shows at
once the way in which they transcend all primary
apphcation, and reach forth in the plenitude and
natural expansiveness of their language to some
ultimate and possible verification and fulfilment
even yet far distant. WhUe, therefore, we insist
mainly upon the far-off meaning of this great pro
phecy, it seems right nevertheless not wholly to lose
sight of the transient reflexion of meaning which
may have been cast on the all but immediate present,
or of the way in which it thus displayed its generic
albeit faint resemblance to the rest of prophecy as a
whole. But we pass on. The next result of the seventy
weeks is to bring in everlasting righteousness. Here

Lect. XL] The Seventy Weeks. 223
it is at once plain that, however this may have been
anticipated as a consequence of the return from
captivity, it was an expectation that would speedily
be disabused. The times of Zerubbabel, Ezra, and
Nehemiah were no times of everlasting righteousness,
neither were they personally exponents of it equal to
many whom the nation had akeady known. Nor, on
the other hand, would the times of the Maccabees
answer more accurately to this description. And yet
to bring in everlasting righteousness was a promise
— unless the writer was singularly ignorant of or
singularly reckless in the use of words — fraught with
very solemn and tremendous issues. Moreover,
Jeremiah, who on any theory preceded this writer, had
spoken of the Lord our righteousness, and of a righteous
branch being raised unto David ; * and Isaiah also, to
whom the same remark applies, had spoken of the
Lord as bringing near His righteousness.^ Surely,
then, to bring in the righteousness of ages, or ever
lasting righteousness like everlasting strength, \ was
an expression of unfathomable significance, even if it
was not intended to bear a correspondently profound
meaning. To talk of bringing in everlasting righteous
ness as a thing imminent 165 years before our era,
when the hope was forthwith to be falsified, and he
who gave it stultified by the event, was surely not
the way to commend a forged production to the notice
and acceptance of his own generation, stfll less of the
generations following. We have heard, of prophecies
lying dormant for many years tUl events have
* Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. t Isaiah xlvi. 13. % Isaiah xxvi. 4.

224 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xi.
suddenly brought them into note, but here there is
no analogy discernible in the process, for we can
trace the immediate influence and effect, permanent
and widespread, of this prophecy, although for many
generations no fulfilment of it was alleged. Here
we find an attitude of suspense and expectation
created by the prophecy, and not a borrowed glory
of accidental renown attaching to the prophecy in
consequence ofthe unexpected development of events.
To bring in everlasting righteousness was verily a
hope worthy of a nation caUing itself the holy nation,
and which alone of aU the nations of antiquity has
left us memorials attesting the justice of the claim,
and estabhshing the imperishable and unalterable
standard of an ideal righteousness which must at
once dwarf and condemn every other standard that
would compare with it. But this was the hope that
the prophet Daniel held out to his people, and, what
was more, within certain hmits he fixed the advent
of its dawn.
Nor was this all. The seventy weeks were also to
seal up vision and prophet. The language is obviously
figurative, but we can hardly err in interpreting the
figure. It must either mean to close up and so con
clude or put an end to, or, which seems even more
vivid and therefore more probable, to put the seal to
and attest : in this latter sense the former one also
would be virtually included ; and indeed in an age
which was, as the few surviving fragments of its litera
ture conspicuously proclaim,* especially conscious of
* See, e.g., 1 Mace. iv. 46, ix. 27, xiv. 41.

Lect. xi.] The Seventy Weeks. 225
and sensitive to the cessation of prophecy as a fact,
it seems strange that a promise should have been
given, and as we must suppose eagerly grasped at and
mistaken for prophecy, that a period of 490 years
should infallibly witness the cessation of vision and
prophet. On the other hand, therefore, I infer, as
seems more probable, that the special meaning of the
figure was that the entire dispensation and pheno
menon — for as manifested in Israel it was a unique
phenomenon — of prophecy should receive a special
completion and verification in that which should
finaUy and conclusively set the seal to aU that the pro
phets had spoken, should once and for all show that
they as a race were not impostors or enthusiasts, but
men who had the fear of God before their eyes and the
message of God as hidden fire shut up in their hearts
and strugghng to be dehvered, as weU as the pro
fessed words of God on their hallowed Hps. And if
this was the promise of Daniel, he assigned the
Hmits within which it should be fulfiUed.
But that promise is not exhausted yet. The time
specified was determined concerning the people and the
holy city, not only to seal up vision and prophet, but
also to anoint a Holy of Holies, or a Most Holy. We
allow all possible latitude to the meaning here, whether
it is personal or local,* about which authorities are
divided, and which is unquestionably obscure. We
try simply to understand the words as they seem
to be by any means capable of being understood.
If the meaning was local, and referred to the Holy
* See Pusey, p.- 181 ; Tregelles on Daniel, p. 98, etc.
*5

226 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xi.
of Holies in the Temple, then on the supposition
that the writer himself witnessed the reconsecration
of the Temple after its defilement by Antiochus,
and was writing, not some seventy natural weeks
before, but apparently in the very year that it was
thus reconsecrated,* where was the special ap
propriateness of such a promise as this, that within
a definite and given time the anointing of a Holy of
Holies should take place ? Surely the known events
of the year 165 b.c do not provide us with a natural
historic basis broad enough or strong enough or
real enough for the possible foundation of this pro
phecy ; nor is any supposed correspondence between
its language and the circumstances of those events
likely to have furnished the reason why this book,
being spurious, should at once have been accepted as
rendering specially opportune and Divine consolation,
and because of the help so rendered have been at
once, or very shortly afterwards, as it must have
been, assigned to the time and authorship of Daniel
four centuries before. Truly an hypothesis such as
this, in the strength of its desire to avoid the mira
culous, has summoned the miraculous to its aid,
and while professing to deal only with natural causes,
has postulated the operation of causes absolutely
unnatural and wholly improbable.
If the book of Daniel was the product of the times
of Daniel, then we know what we have to accept ;
but if it was, as we are asked to believe, the spurious
and parasitical growth of the age of Antiochus
* 1 Mace. v. 25 ; and Pusey, p. 220.

Lect. xi.] The Seventy Weeks. 227
Epiphanes, then verUy not even the unlimited fertility
in hypothesis of the unrestrained and irresponsible
critical faculty seems capable of imagining circum
stances that could naturally have produced it, or at
least of giving such consistency to those circum
stances as shall be consistent with one of the most
conspicuous and crucial utterances of the book.
If, on the other hand, Daniel wrote it, and if this
was really the heaven-sent communication of the
angel which he recorded, then the last work of the
seventy weeks, or 490 years, was to anoint the Holy
of Holies, or a most Holy one. We know that Haggai,
writing after Daniel, declared plainly that the latter
glory of the house he witnessed should exceed all the
glory it had known before,* and therefore it is not
inconceivable that some special and peculiar sanctifi
cation of the material Temple may have been intended,
or at all events understood, by the words, more
especially when we consider how prominent a place
the Temple held in the national thoughts and affec
tions. But there is reason to beheve that this local
sense does certainly not exhaust their meaning,
which is capable of a personal reference ; and they
may therefore be interpreted as corresponding with
the everlasting righteousness before mentioned. The
anointing of one who is a holy of holies, or all holy,
is the complement of bringing in everlasting right
eousness ; and the subsequent prophecy of Malachi,
that the Lord should suddenly come to His Temple, t
seems, if not written in view of this promise to Daniel,
* Haggai ii. 9. f Malachi iii. 1.

228 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xi.
at all events to combine the personal and local
sense of this particular phrase, and to suggest that
the coming of the Lord our righteousness might prove
a consecration of the Holy of Holies never before
experienced. Once regard the narrative as genuine
and authentic, and the suggestiveness and possible
significance of the language here becomes simply
inexhaustible ; whereas, relegate it to the second
century before Christ, and it is absolutely hopeless
to assign to it any meaning that shall fit in with
current events, or that shall seem likely to have
gained for this prophecy its known popularity and
distinction in consequence of its supposed corre
spondence with those events.
Whereas, if it is really a Divine communication
that we have here to deal with concerning events
beyond the reach of Daniel's natural faculties to
discern or to comprehend, then we have to face the
fact that he was told, obscurely indeed for him, but
with sufficient clearness for all subsequent genera
tions of men when the limits assigned had been
reached, that from the going forth of a certain decree
as yet undetermined, a period of 490 years should
witness the accomplishment of transgression and the
filling up of sin, the reconciliation of iniquity, and
the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, should
set the seal to vision and prophet, and anoint a Holy
of Holies. If the words were in any sense true, a
most remarkable charge was entrusted to the un
known future, to the tender care and ultimate
accomplishment of five centuries to come.

Lect. XL] The Seventy Weeks. 229
And how was it executed? Let history declare.
If we compute the 490 years from any conceivable
date from the first year of Darius the Mede to the
twentieth of Artaxerxes, the two extreme limits pos
sible, we are brought to within fifty years of the birth
of Christ, whether before or after it. The knowledge
that in the last half-century before Christ the seventy
weeks of Daniel must nearly have run out, was surely
to those who believed the prophets sufficient to
generate an eager expectation of a crisis at hand, and
of a person soon to come, — an expectation of which
it may be said that the aggregate of human history
presents us with no paraUel to it, — an expectation
which arose, indeed, in the midst of an insignificant
and despised people, but which spread from them
throughout the civilised globe. And the more we
contemplate this expectation, the more unable shall
we be to account for it, if we leave out of our calcu
lation the influence of prophecy, rightly or wrongly
interpreted, and in particular the influence of this
prophecy, which alone of all others gave the note of
time, but which, had it first been published in the
second century before Christ, would have carried with
it the promise of its sure detection, because of its
obvious discrepance with current events.
As we have seen, however, the only edict in
Scripture not exclusively limited to the Temple is
that in the seventh year of Artaxerxes,* or 457 b.c,
from which the computation of 490 years brings us
* The reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus was from b.c. 464 to
b.c. 425.

230 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xi.
to the year of our Lord 33. After this date, in the
reign of Artaxerxes we read of no edict, but only of
certain letters given by that sovereign to Nehemiah.
Consequently, as a matter of fact, on the supposition
of the genuineness of Daniel, we are confronted with
the remarkable circumstance that 490 years after
that edict of the Persian monarch, in virtue of which
Jerusalem was restored and built again after the
captivity, a person had been born and died whose
influence on mankind has been unique in the world's
history, and events had happened which not only
have changed the face of the earth, but to the range
of whose possible influence we ourselves cannot even
now set the limit.
If these events are of the nature of which those
most conversant with and influenced by them declare
them to be, then it is undoubtedly true that trans
gression and sin were ended by the death of Him
whose death, although the crowning sin of all, yet
took away the sin of the world ; then reconciliation
for iniquity was made by Him who prayed in His
last moments for His murderers, Father, forgive
them, for they know not what they do ; * then ever
lasting righteousness was brought into this sin-
stained world, never more in the brightness of its
example and the power of its influence to leave it
by the life and character of Him in whom the Father
was well pleased,\ and who abideth a priest for ever
after the order of Melchizedek ; J then the ministry
of seer and prophet was once for all vindicated and
* Luke xxiii. 34. f Matt. iii. 17. X Heb. vi. 20, vii. 24.

Lect. xi.] The Seventy Weeks. 231
verified by the career and office of Him who was
Himself greater than the greatest of the prophets ;
then was the sanctuary of the Most High sanctified
by the presence and teaching of Him who spake as
never man spake ; * and then was a Holy of Holies,
or one Most Holy, anointed among the sons of men
in the person of Him to whom the Spirit without
measure was given.]
Of course it is open to us to deny that these
events had this significance, whUe it is not open
to us to prove to demonstration that they had; it
is open to us to say that there was no Divine
message of forgiveness in the death of Christ, no
assured promise of pardon sealed in His blood ; that
the marvels of His lffe and the mystery of His death
stood alone in their isolation without any bearing
on the history of the Old Testament or on the lofty
utterances of the ancient prophets ; that the promise
of the Spirit whom He undertook to send was but the
naturally explicable phenomenon of a merely physical
sensation, — while it is not open to us to prove con
clusively the opposite ; but at least it is not possible
for any man to deny that these were the only
events in the history of the world to which this
significance was ever assigned, or that they them
selves were inherently unworthy of it; nor is it
possible for us, do what we wiU with it, to shut
our eyes to the singular correspondence in point
of time between the seventy prophetic weeks of
Daniel who spoke of some such events as these,
* John vii. 46. t John iii. 34.

22,2 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xi.
and fixed the date for them, and the age in the
world's history at which our Lord appeared as the
promised One " Who came to break oppression,
And set the captive free ;
To take away transgression,
And rule in equity."

THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY.

Eev. xix. 10. — The testimony of Jesus is ihe spirit of prophecy.

LECTUEE XII.
THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY.
T~N deahng with Daniel's prophecy of the seventy
-r- weeks, I was concerned to show that it had
no possible bearing on the events of the second
century before Christ, when it is assumed to have
arisen ; but that, if it was a really Divine com
munication, it had, notwithstanding much inherent
uncertainty, a very remarkable correspondence in
point of time with the known historic rise of the
Christian Church and with the advent of the Son
of man. I did not care to follow this correspondence
into minute particulars, not only because of the
natural dryness of the subject as a matter of dis
course, but because of the many points that upon
any such treatment of it must ever remain open to
question, and also because of the great difficulty in
bringing home conviction to the mind by such a
method, which is my first and only object. If I fail
in other respects, it is a matter of no importance ;
if I fail here, I shall have spoken and wrought in
vain. I tried, then, to show that if our religion is what
it professes to be, and if Christ had really a Divine

236 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.xii.
mission, then the language of Daniel, whUe it could
apply to nothing else, would accurately and exhaus
tively apply to Him; that what the angel Gabriel
declared to Daniel should happen at a certain time,
did actuaUy happen when Christ came; that the
interval between the edict of Artaxerxes and the birth
of the Christian Church, leaving out minor details
into which we cannot here enter, was as nearly as
possible seventy weeks of years, — neither one week
more nor one week less.
I am myself by no means insensible to the mar
vellous correspondence which may be traced yet
further when we closely examine the prophetic
language,* but I prefer to deal broadly with the
* I regard it as absolutely certain that the seventy weeks of Daniel
ix. 24 are split up in the next verse into seven weeks and threescore
and two weeks and one week, which, being commensurate, are
intended to be identical with them, and that by " after the threescore
and two weeks " of ver. 26 we are intended to understand, after the
second of these periods so divided ; while ver. 27 gives us the events
of the last week, and of the period concisely alluded to in the former
verse. In this way, the death of Christ took place in the middle of
the last year-week, after His ministry of three years and a half ;
while the remainder of that week was occupied with the events
succeeding His death till the closing of the covenant with Israel
and the admission of the Gentiles to the Christian Church. It is true
that our chronology fails us in this last particular from the want of
details, but there is no reason to think that if it were complete it would
not correspond. That the death of Christ happened in the middle of
the last of the seventy weeks from 457 B.C., I think may be regarded
as virtually proved. (See Pusey, ch. iv.) And the time that elapsed
from the crucifixion to the vision of Peter and the baptism of Cornelius,
or the death of Stephen and the conversion of Saul, may very pro
bably have been between three and four years. (See Pusey, p. 178.) I
may add that since the seventy weeks can only be regarded as identical

Lect. xn.] The Spirit of Prophecy. 237
seventy weeks themselves, which, though sufficiently
definite, yet, from the very fact of their being weeks,
seem to suggest a certain latitude of computation
which may serve to render us practically independent
of more minute calculations, which, however accurate,
seem to challenge our adherence on the ground of
their accuracy which must therefore be withheld if
that faUs.
WhUe, then, it ii admitted that the theory of the
late origin of Daniel cannot explain the prophecy of
the seventy weeks, we find it impossible to deny
the fact that the life and death of Christ, and the rise
with the 7 + 62 + 1, and the work of ver. 24 was that which Messiah
was to accomplish when He came, unless His coming was an empty
dream, it is a matter of comparative indifference where we place the
principal stop in ver. 25. Dr. Pusey does not scruple to say that the
Jews must have placed it dishonestly after seven weeks. But seeing that
the events of ver. 24 were only to be accomplished with the accom
plishment of the seventy weeks, it matters not whether " the building
of street and wall in troublous times " is assigned to the seven
weeks or to the threescore and two weeks, though unquestionably the
history would favour the former. This is a point entirely independent
of the work of the seventy weeks so fully described in ver. 24. And
as on no theory of the origin of this prophecy can it be shown that
after the first seven year-weeks any person arose to whom the term
Messiah could be justly applied, we conclude that not only the
seven but the threescore and two weeks also were to precede the
coming of Messiah, and that the last week was to be occupied with
His career and its immediate consequences, in accordance with verses
24 and 27. The statement, therefore, of ver. 24 seems to us to decide
the punctuation of ver. 25 to be that which the English authorised
version and the Seventy (virtually) have followed. It is, moreover,
simply preposterous to attempt to distinguish between the Messiah
of ver. 24 and ver. 26. This being the only passage in the Old Testa
ment where this peculiar use of the word is found, it is surely
obvious that it must apply to the same person in both.

238 Old Testament Prophecy v [Lect. xii.
of the Christian Church, present a remarkable corre
spondence in time with the words of the angel:
Seventy weeks are determined upon Thy people, and
upon Thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and
make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for
iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint a holy
of holies.
It may be there is no meaning at all in this lan
guage, only then we have to account for the history
of its influence on the world ; but if it has any
meaning, then Christ has done more than any one to
reveal this meaning. And the time at which He did
it corresponds with remarkable nearness to the time
assigned. It is even possible that it may correspond
with minute accuracy ; but at aU events the corre
spondence is so near that, faiHng any other possible
meaning, the question arises naturally whether this
may not be its meaning. We cannot answer this
question in the affirmative without beheving in
Christ. But if we believe that He really did all
that the angel spake of to Daniel, is it then absolutely
incredible, we may ask, that an angel should have
been sent to speak of it ? If, however, this is the
case, then we have here a clear instance of prediction
in prophecy, and then is the record of this prediction
a record of the Divine foreknowledge.
It has been my endeavour throughout these
Lectures to show that Old Testament prophecy is
such a record ; that from the times of Abraham and
David to those of the captivity there are features in

Lect. xii.] The Spirit of Prophecy. 239
it which cannot adequately be explained as the subse
quent development of history certainly has explained
them ; that while the outlines of the features were
undoubtedly there before, the course of events has
invested them with colouring and expression; that
these prophecies seem to point to a person to come
in whom they converge, but far from being, as in this
case they might be, merely vague and general, they
also had reference to great national events yet future,
such as the captivity and the return, so that justice
would not be done to them if they were not allowed
to be, strictly speaking, predictive, and that in one
especial instance they not only had the prophetic
characteristic of referring to this Person, but had
also predicted and defined the proximate time of His
appearance, It will at once be obvious that it is impossible to
prove all this to demonstration, but it is as weU to
observe what it is we can prove. We can prove a suffi
cient antiquity for aU the prophecies — that they were
certainly not written after the events aUeged to have
fulfilled them — that is, after the Christian era. We
can prove that they were neither altered nor modified
to make them more apphcable to those events. We
can also prove that the events as a whole were not
historically moulded by those who recorded them so
as to correspond more closely with the prophetic
writings. We can also prove that both in their origin,
their nature, and their influence, those events stand
alone without any paraUel in history. We can also
prove that if those events were intrinsically what

240 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xii.
the New Testament represents them as being, then
the obvious correspondence between them and the
prophecies is so great as to justify their claim to have
fulfilled them. We can also see that there is nothing
inherently more difficult of belief in the supposition
that the true meaning and intent of the prophecies was
revealed in those events than there is in the nature of
the events themselves : in fact, that on this hypothesis
both events and prophecies become in some respects
more simply natural, inasmuch as the events in that
case do not stand in utter sohtude, but are anticipated
by exceptional phenomena leading up to them, while
the phenomena of prophecy have at once a sufficient
and adequate object to account for and demand their
occurrence. Every step here is perfectly legitimate and sound.
The conclusion arrived at or suggested is undeniable
on two conditions, — first, that we postulate the exist
ence of a God like the God of the Bible, and aUow
that He has spoken in a special and exceptional
manner for a special and exceptional purpose — ¦
namely, to make man acquainted with His wiU as the
mere investigation of nature will not reveal it ; and,
secondly, that we acknowledge the wiU so revealed,
and bend ourselves to comply with it. If either of
these conditions is unfulfilled, it is useless and hope- ,
less to argue about prophecy, for that we are told
serveth not for them that believe not, but for them
which believe.*
The question for us to determine is whether or not
* 1 Cor. xiv. 22.

Lect. xii.] The Spirit of Prophecy. 241
there is evidence to show that God has made use of
prophecy to declare His will, or whether all the special
and peculiar features of it can be explained away and
got rid of so as to reduce it to a mere record of human
error and extravagance, of exaggeration, seU-delusion,
or imposture. If this is the case, then is our religion
verUy a thing of the earth earthy : it is merely one
more of the futile, erring, and abortive efforts of man's
natural sense of religion towards self-development ;
efforts which are necessarUy destined to failure, inas
much as they are directed towards that which may
not be — namely, recognised intercourse with the
Infinite. Such is the counter theory which is dehberately
advanced and elaborately maintained in the present
day. In permanent and irreconcUable opposition to it
there are two conceptions which underlie the whole
of Scripture, and pre-eminently prophecy : one is the
idea of the spoken Word of God, and the other is the
idea of that Faith in the heart of man to which it
appeals. Where the latter does not exist, the former
may be never so distinct and authoritative, but it will
speak in vain.
Now we may say that prophecy, which imphes this
spoken Word of God, is witnessed mainly in two
ways : partly by the self-illuminating nature of its
communications, as when the prophets " boldly
rebuked vice and patiently suffered for the truth's
sake," — they were to a man the preachers of the
highest and purest morality, not only of their own
but of any times, and they were for the most part
16

242 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xii.
tried in the furnace of affliction, — and partly by pre
diction. The declaration of events yet future is a faculty
not given to man. Whenever there is clear evidence
of its existence we are compeUed either to resort to
the hypothesis of a lucky chance or to postulate
Divine foreknowledge. The predictions of the
Hebrew prophets cannot be ascribed to chance.
Where they exist, they are only to be ascribed to
Divine foreknowledge.
We must beware, however, that we do not ascribe
that foreknowledge to the prophets themselves.
The predictions of the prophets were frequently
verified in a way far different from that which they
themselves expected. The written record of their
sayings is the witness to their prophetic power, and
not their anticipations as to its fulfilment, which may
have been partial or even false. It is Divine and
not human foreknowledge of which prophecy is the
record. And we affirm that there are those broad
features in the Hebrew prophecy which warrant us
in regarding it as a record of Divine foreknowledge,
and that a wide and general survey of all the circum
stances forbids, and emphatically forbids, us other
wise regarding it.
Who can read the fifty-third of Isaiah in the light
of the cross of Christ and not feel that the Divine
Spirit intended the prophet to speak of Him, and has
declared to us His intention by the utter hopelessness
of discovering any one else to whom his words are
haU so applicable? But this appropriateness is no

Lect. xii.] The Spirit of Prophecy. 243
less miraculous than if the prophet had been trans
ported mentally into the distant future, and had
depicted what he saw. This may have been so or it
may not. We cannot teU, and it is useless to inquire.
AU we know is, here is a prophecy of the eighth
century before Christ, and when we stand beneath
His cross we can only see in it a prediction of His
heahng and atoning death. That His death has
given it a meaning that it never could have had before
is our warrant for claiming it as a record of Divine
foreknowledge. But we can only recognise the
accuracy of the record when we are content to see in
the cross of Christ the only adequate expression of
the Divine love. Nevertheless, at aU events, the
accuracy of the correspondence between the record
and the great event is a fact that to a large extent
is independent of our acknowledgment either of the
foreknowledge or the love.
Such a prophecy as this, however, only becomes
predictive when we acknowledge it as prophecy. I
have endeavoured to point out that there are other
prophecies which are shown to be prophecies because
they are predictions. Indeed, if we deny to prophecy
its power to assume the character of prediction, we
lower it to a mere shadowy and sentimental function.
Evidentially there can be no direct proof of prophecy
but prediction. If the volume of prophecy contained
no predictions, then its sentiment and morality might
be never so high, but it would stUl lack something
that should show it to be more than human.
It is indeed true that we may bow down in blind

244 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xii.
acknowledgment or contend in dogged assertion of
the existence of this power, and yet be unelevated
by the morahty and untouched by the sentiment of
the prophets, and remain, in fact, unpenetrated and
unquickened by their spirit ; — that is not the point ;
the question is whether we can truly acknowledge
the Divine authority of prophecy, and yet deny its
predictive power.
To acknowledge, however, the predictive character
of prophecy is not an end in itself, but only a means
to an end, the end being to accept the message of
prophecy, whether conveyed with or without predic
tion, as the message of God. If there are real
predictions in prophecy, then they must be the work
of the Spirit of God. We may be sure that if that
is the case, He desires us to acknowledge His work,
but only that we may adore Him. If we lose our
selves in stolid wonderment at His work, or in the
excitement of contending for it, instead of giving
our hearts to Him and conforming our wills to His
will, we shall miss the true end of prophecy; but
none the less may we miss that end if we are content
with vague generaHties as to the glory, the beauty,
the dignity, the grandeur of prophecy, and the Hke,
and after aU refuse to acknowledge the patent and
conspicuous evidence it bears of being the special
and distinct utterance of the mind of God conveyed
in a highly exceptional and superhuman way, and
bearing superhuman credentials.
In short, the object and design of aU prophecy is
that we should imbibe its spirit ; and the evangelist

Lect. xn.] The Spirit of Prophecy. 245
apostle has told us that the testimony of Jesus is
the spirit of prophecy, — that the spirit which ani
mates the faculty is the spirit that bears witness to
Jesus and about Jesus.
Nor can there be a more exhaustive or distinguish
ing mark of the character and functions of prophecy
than this. It at once explains and accounts for the
several features we have been considering. If Jesus
was indeed the Christ the Son of God, then, if He
was to spring from the seed of Abraham, there is
nothing unreasonable in its being declared to
Abraham that in his seed should aU the families
of the earth be blessed; nor is it unintelligible
that in the sacred narrative of that promise there
should be put on record that which should afterwards
show it to be more adequately than anything else
a record of the Divine foreknowledge. Then there
is nothing inconceivable in a promise being given to
David that his throne should be established for ever ;
and if the record of that promise, whenever it was
written, was manUestly at variance with the known
history of David's throne, and its only too con
spicuous overthrow, then it becomes all the more
evident that if there was any warrant for the promise
at all, and if the record of it was in any sense a
record of fact, then it could only be regarded as,
humanly speaking, an undesigned record of Divine
foreknowledge. Then also it becomes conceivable
that the nation of Israel, being the elect and holy
nation in consequence of the promise which it bore
of producing the Holy Seed, should be the nurse

246 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xii.
also of a race of prophets who should not only
indicate from time to time the characteristics of the
coming Messiah, but should also forewarn the nation
of its own destiny, and predict the more important
and typical crises of its history — such as the captivity
and return, significant and prophetic as those events
not improbably were of a yet greater captivity under
which the nation stiU suffers, and of a yet greater
return that may stUl await it ; and then, lastly, it
becomes conceivable that after the hope of a great
deliverer had been implanted deeply in the nation,
and its destiny to bring him forth not obscurely
revealed, the message should be conveyed to the
man greatly beloved, which should prescribe within
certain limits the actual time when He should be
given to the world, who was consciously or uncon
sciously the desire of aU nations, and in whom aU
nations should be blessed ; and then most conspicu
ously the record of that message, if authentic, would
be a standing witness to the Divine foreknowledge,
while the utter impossibUity of explaining it other
wise would constitute no unwarrantable or slight
presumption of its authenticity.
We are deahng here, indeed, as we must deal,
with presumptions. The being and providence of
God are presumptions ; the future life and immor
tality of man are presumptions; the correct inter
pretation of history is a presumption ; the recognition
of the voice of God is a presumption ; but the question
is whether we have caught aright the utterance of
the voice of God in our interpretation of this history,

Lect. xii.j The Spirit of Prophecy. 247
and whether the marvellous promises enshrined in
its records and Hterary remains are or are not
prophecies, and whether the great and exceptional
events connected with the Hfe of Christ did or did
not fulfil them. If they did, then is prophecy a
record of Divine foreknowledge, and then are we
warranted in saying that the spirit of prophecy is
the testimony of Jesus, for the testimony of Jesus
is an adequate object, and the person of Jesus is a.
sufficient goal.
But more than this ; for it is not only the function
of prophecy to lead up and on to Jesus, but the
testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. It is
not only that the spirit of prophecy bears witness
to Jesus, but that the testimony of Jesus and con
cerning Jesus expresses itself in and by the spirit
of prophecy, that it chooses and has chosen that
particular manUestation, and enables us to enter into
and to sympathise with, and in our degree to partake
of, the spirit of prophecy.
And it is this thought which will lead us to the
profitable gathering up of aU the lessons that have
been inculcated, and will point the moral of the whole.
If we would be in sympathy with prophecy, we
must be in sympathy with Jesus. There is no more
important or essential truth in relation to this matter.
The age boasts of being a critical age, and forgets
that it will itself become the subject of criticism. It
is not only our privUege and right, but far more as
honest men it is our bounden duty, to judge as critics
of the records and foundations of our faith, whether

248 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xii.
they are to be discerned in the writings of the prophets
or in the records of the Hfe of Christ and the works
of His apostles. By aU means let the writings of the
prophets be weighed and tried to the uttermost : by
all means let the sacred records of the Christian
Church be weighed and tried to the uttermost. It
is when the Lord's word is tried to the uttermost that
His servant loveth it* As that love will breathe no
syUable to make the trial less, so neither will that
trial countervail to deaden or chiU the love, if only
we be the Lord's servants. If any man willeth to do
His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it
be of God or whether I speak of my self. \ But as the
testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, so is the
spirit of Jesus aU-essential and indispensable if we
would apprehend, and stiU more appreciate, the spirit
of prophecy.
And there are certain characteristics of Jesus
which are characteristic also of prophecy. He hath
no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see Him
there is no beauty that we should desire Him, is no
less true of the prophets as a class than it is of Him
who was at once their cynosure and their anointed
Head. We may criticise the life and character of
Jesus Christ as long as we please, but if we would
be Christians we must unreservedly give in our alle
giance to Him first or last. For he that is not with
me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me
scattereth. \
* Ps. cxix. 140. t St. John vii. 17.
X St. Matt. xii. 30 ; St. Luke xi. 23.

Lect. xii.] The Spirit of Prophecy. 249
And it is the same with prophecy. We may criti
cise it as long as we Hke, but if we believe in Jesus
we shaU find little difficulty in behoving that the
prophets spake of Him. The one phenomenon no
more transcends the condition of the human and the
natural than the other, for both are alike unique, and
after criticising without Hmit or restraint, we must
sooner or later determine whether or not there is
any testimony to Christ in prophecy. And if there
is any testimony at aU, we must sooner or later
determine whether it is human or Divine, whether
it is of man or of God. If it is of man, I hesitate
not to say that it is altogether an unparaUeled and
solitary, and, that being the case, an unaccountable
exhibition of human foresight ; but if we decide that
it cannot be of man, then we must sooner or later
acknowledge that its testimony, being as it is a
written and ancient testimony, is the record of Divine
foreknowledge. And then our decision wiU make it
for us a matter only of degree whether or not we
recognise prediction in this or that form as part of
the substantive essence of prophecy, as one of those
veritable and emphatic characteristics by which
God has stamped it, once for all, as a real thing,
and not merely as a vague and impalpable floating
sentiment. And then we can hardly faU to see that if we are
prepared to admit the production, in the sixth century
before Christ, of such a passage, for instance, as the
fifty-third of Isaiah, and to aUow that the writer,
whoever he may have been, was enabled and vir-

250 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect.xii.
tually overruled to speak, not of himself, but of some
other man, who was even Jesus, then there is not
really in this a less marvellous exhibition of the
Divine will, a less remarkable putting forth of the
Divine power, than there would be if, in the eighth
century before Christ, the prophet Isaiah was enabled
to write as he did in the spirit of prophecy, for in
both cases the testimony of Jesus would confessedly
be the spirit of the prophecy. And then, as this spirit
was truly apprehended, we should be the less Hkely
to see in the exceptional features of the confessedly
prophetic and Divine record, a reason for imagining,
in opposition to aU evidence, that the record was
falsely attributed to Isaiah. For at all events it
would be a question merely whether we should make
the record one degree more human or one degree
more superhuman, seeing that in either case we
accepted it as intrinsically Divine.
And in like manner with the book of Daniel, stu
pendous undoubtedly as many of its features are,
if we reaUy beUeved that the innermost spirit of that
book was one of unfaltering trust in the living God,
and of assured conviction that He had historic glories
in store for His people, and would set up in the end
of the days a kingdom that should never pass away,
and that the only sure foundation of such a kingdom
was Jesus the eternal King and eternal Priest, and
were also prepared to admit that this belief and
the knowledge of these facts was not and could not
be of men, neither by man, it would surely be to us a
matter of comparative indifference whether, acknow-

lect. xii.] The Spirit of Prophecy. 2 5 1
ledging all this, we were wiUing to go one step
further, and confess, on the strength of the external
evidence, and the reasonableness and consistency of
the internal claim, that it was possible for one who
had spoken by the spirit of prophecy to testify also of
His Son, and to determine the times before appointed,
even in such a marvellous prediction as that of the
seventy weeks, so that when His ministry began He
could preach saying : The time is fulfilled : repent ye,
and believe the Gospel.
Yes, verily the age is too far advanced for us to
stand debating whether we wiU have one degree more
or less of what is caUed the supernatural. The
question is eagerly asked nowadays whether we will
or must or can have any of it. Those who would
make a compromise, and retain prophecy by giving up
its predictive element, wUl find the attempt a mistake
and a faUure. It will satisfy no one. Least of all
will it satisfy the exigencies of the case. Either
prophecy is a record of the Divine foreknowledge,
distinct, permanent, and unalterable, or it is nothing.
If it is a record of the Divine foreknowledge, it is
impossible to deny to it a predictive element ; for
only as we acknowledge that predictive element wUl
it lead us to Christ.
The first evangehst has told us of certain magi,
wise men from the east, — who or what they were we
know not, and whence they came we know not, — who,
moved unquestionably by the fame and influence of
the ancient prophecies, prophecies which we have in
our hands now, journeyed from their distant home to

252 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xii.
seek the infant Saviour in His cradle at Bethlehem,
and when they had found Him they worshipped Him,
and presented unto Him their treasures of gold and
frankincense and myrrh. If it was a Divine King
they had found, it was surely a Divine guide that had
led them thither. That guide was the spirit of Pro
phecy. It had testified of Jesus, it had led them to
Him. It could not have led them to Him if it had
not foretold His coming. But the prophecies that
foretold His coming, whichever they were, the pro
phecies which guided them, were a record of the
Divine foreknowledge ; and U we would be led as
they were, the prophecies must be no less to us. To
breathe their spirit is to be prepared for the spirit of
Christ, for they testify of Jesus.
But we must not forget that it is after all a spirit,
and that the spirit in this case indicates a moral
elevation and a moral bent. We cannot be in
sympathy with that spirit unless we have imbibed
its influence, have been raised to its elevation, and
been directed by its bent. If any man have not the
spirit of Christ, he is none of His, and still less can
we be His if we have not the true spirit of the pro
phets which testifies of Him. That spirit is the
spirit of righteousness, of truth, of justice, of indig
nation against the oppressor, of unswerving faith, of
undying hope, of inextinguishable love. It is un
doubtedly far more to be animated by that spirit
than it is to hold some dry and barren theory about
the predictive endowments of the prophets, and yet
be strangers to their spirit. Eather let us be per-

Lect. xii.] The Spirit of Prophecy. 253
meated by their spirit, knowing that it is not theirs,
but God's, in order that, confessing that they spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, we may also
believe that, being so moved, they were chosen by
Him to put on record words that should evermore
bear witness to His foreknowledge, and that,
" As little children lisp and tell of heaven,
So thoughts beyond their thought to those high bards were given."
If, however, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of
prophecy, we may be sure that no acknowledgment
even of the witness of Divine foreknowledge which
is stamped upon it, no recognition of the truly pre
dictive elements pervading it, will avaU as a substi
tute for the possession of that spirit which is not
only the spirit of prophecy but also the spirit of Jesus.
If we cannot see Jesus in prophecy, it is not because
His spirit is not there, but because we have not
looked upon Him, nor seen Him as He is, nor imbibed
His spirit. It was when He sent back the messengers
,to John with the story of the mighty works that they
had witnessed, works that must steadfastly and for
ever refuse to be explained away as other than super
human or supernatural, and works that were crowned
with and culminated in the preaching of the Gospel to
the poor, that He said, Blessed is he whosoever shall
not be offended in me. The context there suggests
that the offence may come in one of three ways. It
can hardly come in any other. It may come in
reluctance to bear the discipHne of trial which alle
giance to Christ may bring with it, as perhaps in the

254 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xii.
case of John it was then threatening to do. It may
come in repugnance to the terms of that Gospel
which is addressed only to the poor, whether they be
the poor in spirit or in estate; or it may come in
unwillingness to receive the manifold converging
evidence that silently but emphatically points us to
the conclusion that from time to time in the world's
history God has made choice of agencies other than
merely human, natural, or ordinary, to convey the
message of His will and to authenticate it to man,
and that one of those agencies is prophecy, which
cannot be calmly and completely surveyed in its
moral and spiritual characteristics, its gradual
development and growing distinctness, its combining
testimony and converging effect, without being
acknowledged as a record not of human but of super
human, of Divine foreknowledge and significance.
At aU events, as Christ has presented His own
message to us, He has not obscurely intimated that
such an acknowledgment is part of the historic
foundation of His Gospel, and is inseparably mingled
with its substance ; and that, as we cannot have the
spirit without the form, the hfe without the being
it animates, so neither can we have prophecy without
prediction, for that Abraham rejoiced to see His day,
that he saw it and was glad* that Moses wrote of
Him, and U we believe not the writings ofthe Lawgiver
we cannot beheve the words of the Saviour, t that all
things which were written in the law of Moses and in
the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning Him could
* John viii. 56. John v. 47.

Lect. xii.] The Spirit of Prophecy. 255
not but be fulfilled,* and that it behoved Him to suffer
and to rise from the dead the third day because it
was so written in the scriptures of the Prophets, and
because their testimony to Him was the very spirit of
their prophecies.
At least it is an undeniable fact that as far as we
can form any idea of what the teaching of Christ
Himself was, He took His stand upon the declara
tions of the prophets, and taught His disciples that
they were fulfiUed in Him and were intended to be
fulfiUed in Him ; and most assuredly this is a fair
and legitimate inference from the works of His first
disciples. It is in the abstract conceivable that this
position is one which may require to be modified,
but hardly so unless the position which He claimed
for HimseU and which they claimed for Him requires
modification Hkewise ; hardly so unless the verdict
of the Christian Church must be reversed, and the
Church herself be compeUed to forego the name of
Christian, and to deny to Him who will then cease to
be her Lord and Master His right to the name of
Christ. But more than this, it would seem that we cannot
do justice to the words and language no less than to
the voices of the prophets, not only as Christ and His
apostles interpret them, but even as they themselves
imperatively demand to be interpreted, without
admitting that their prophetic endowment carried
prediction with it ; that prophecy, as the Old Testa-
* Luke xxiv. 44, 26. Cf. Matt. xvi. 21, xxvi. 54 ; Mark xiv. 49,
etc., etc.

256 Old Testament Prophecy. [Lect. xii.
ment enshrines it, is a reality and a fact in its two
fold character, as a declaration of the Divine will and
its revelation of the unborn future ; and that the pro
phets have left behind them written records which
are for aU ages a witness to the Divine foreknow
ledge, because it is the testimony to Jesus that is the
spirit of Prophecy.

NOTE A.
THE GENUINENESS OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL.
" TTis no longer denied," says Dr. Davidson, ("Introduction to Old
J- Testament," vol. iii., p. 162,) " that the book" of Daniel " was
" written by one person." Eichhorn supposed two, Bertholdt and
Augusti as many as nine different authors. Their views are now
abandoned. " The two leading divisions" of the book " are so related
" that the one implies the existence of the other. Both have the same
" characteristic of style, spirit, ideas, and manner. Thus i. 17 refers
" to ii. 16, etc. ; i. 19, 20 and ii. 49 refer to iii. 12, etc. ; i. 2 is meant
" to prepare the way for v. 2. Comp. iii. 12 with ii. 49, v. 11, and
" ii. 48 ; v. 21 and iv. 22 ; vi. 1 and v. 30 ; viii. 1 and vii. 2 ; ix. 21
" and viii. 16 ; xii. 7 and vii. 25. Not only do the constituents of
" the two parts hang together among themselves, presenting similar
" features, but they also refer to one another. Hence ii. 4 — vi. and
" vii. — xii., with i., ii. 3, cannot be assigned to two authors, the
" second prior to the first, and having the latter as an introduction
"to it. They have the strongest similarity in language and tenour,
" pointing unmistakably to one and the same author."
As this entirely coincides with our own view, we gladly quote it.
The Dean .of Westminster still seems to think the book may be
assigned to different authors. " Jewish Church," iii. : note on the date
of the book of Daniel, pp. 69 — 74. Bleek agrees with Davidson, Eng.
ed. by Venables, ii. 200. If, however, the book is one, as, notwith
standing its bilingual character, it bears very strong evidence of being,
our path is much simplified for dealing with it. The eleventh chapter
has undoubtedly certain features that might dispose us on a priori
grounds to regard it as a later production, but we are delivered from
any such temptation if there are no critical reasons for severing it
from the rest, as there manifestly are not. If the book is one, it must
be dealt with as a whole. 17

258 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note a.
With regard to the external evidence for the genuineness of Daniel,
Dr. Westcott has expressed himself thus : " Externally the book is as
" well attested as any book of Scripture, and there is nothing to show
" that Porphyry urged any historical objections against it ; but it brings
' ' the belief in miracle and prediction, in the Divine power and fore-
" knowledge as active among men, to a startling test, and according
"to the character of this belief in the individual must be his judgment
" upon the book" ("[Diet, ofthe Bible," art. Daniel). This is most
true; indeed, it is almost impossible to keep the exercise of our critical
faculty free from the influence which the subject-matter of the book is
so liable to exert upon it, and yet nothing can be more needful. We
will first notice the points which are assumed to be of force against
the genuineness of the book, and endeavour fairly to estimate them.
1. Its position in the Hebrew Canon. " It is not among the
" prophets, but in the Hagiographa, and there too as one of the last
"books," says Davidson. An insinuation is made here which is
hardly fair. The third volume of the Jewish Scriptures comprised
those books which did not belong, on the one hand, to the law
of Moses, or, on the other, to the works of those who were by
calling and office prophets. Thus Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings
were called The former Prophets, being supposed to be the works of
prophets. The division, however, was somewhat arbitrary, and the
ultimate principles which guided the selection are a matter of con
jecture ; for instance, Kuth is probably as much entitled to its place
among The former Prophets as Judges or Samuel, certainly as regards
the period to which it refers ; but it is relegated to the Hagiographa.
Lamentations, acknowledged to be the work of Jeremiah, is never
theless not found with his writings among the later prophets, but
among the Hagiographa. On the other hand, David, though acknow
ledged as a prophet, does not find his place among the prophets, but
among The Psalms as the first book in the Hagiographa. What may
have been the actual reason for placing Daniel where he is, it is
impossible for us now to say ; but, at all events, it is a rash inference
not borne out by analogy to conclude that the reason was that the
second volume of the Canon was closed when Daniel was written, but
the third still open for the reception of later and less-esteemed books,
and that as such his book was there inserted when it appeared. This
is a purely imaginary reason, and by no means the only probable
or even imaginable one.
If we are to conclude that because Daniel is in the Hagiographa

note a.] The Genuineness of the Book of Daniel. 259
therefore the book is late, it would be equally fair to conclude that
we have no Psalms of or before the time of David, and no Proverbs
rightly ascribed to Solomon. It is manifest that considerations of
date did not determine the position of the books, because there are
certainly Psalms older than any of the Prophets so called.
But what is the place of Daniel in the Kethuvim or Sacred Writings?
He is placed first after the five megilloth, or Kolls— i.e., Canticles,
Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. These five "Rolls" were
regarded as a sub-class by themselves of great value, and therefore were
placed in juxtaposition immediately after the three great books, Psalms,
Proverbs, and Job. But this being so, Daniel takes the lead of all
the remaining books, and is placed before Ezra and Nehemiah. Now
if, as is evident, Nehemiah was placed after Ezra because belonging
to a period later than Ezra, is it an unwarrantable inference to assume
that Ezra was placed after Daniel for a like reason ? If we are at
liberty to infer anything with regard to the age of a book from its
place in the Canon, surely, could we once disabuse our minds of the
impression that Daniel if genuine ought to find his place among the
prophets, we might infer from the actual position of Daniel that he
was placed before Ezra because he was believed to be older than
Ezra. On the supposition that the book was written b.c. 165, it
surely is a very grave difficulty to account for its present position
before Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Ezra, which must have been in
existence previously.
We do not lay stress on the possible traces that exist of another
arrangement in Josephus, who calls Daniel " one of the greatest of
" the prophets," and the Septuagint, where Daniel comes after
Ezekiel ; because it seems that the above considerations fully explain
the existing arrangement so far as it affects the age of Daniel.
2. The silence of Jesus the son of Sirach in Ecclesiasticus xlix.
This is no doubt remarkable, but it may be questioned whether the
rough-and-ready supposition that Daniel was unknown to Jesus the
son of Sirach is the true explanation of the fact. We rather are
disposed to concur with Dr. Westcott, who says, " If the book of
" Daniel was already placed among the Hagiographa at the time
" when fie Wisdom of Sirach was written, the omission of the name of
" Daniel is most natural." — " D. B.," s.v. Daniel. After the writer has
expended much time on the earlier worthies ofthe nation, he hastens
somewJiat rapidly over the later ones, mentioning only Zerubbabel,
Joshui the son of Josedech, and Nehemiah, with the exception that

260 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note a.
he bestows a long panegyric upon Simon the son of Onias, whom he
no doubt regarded with special reverence and affection as nearer to
his own times. After the utmost has been made of the significance
of this omission, it does not seem to be very important, unless it can
be shown that the list was intended to be and ought to have been
a complete one, which it clearly is not. Why should Nehemiah be
specified rather than Ezra ? And if the book of Daniel preceded
Ezra and Nehemiah, as it now does in the Canon, why is the mention
of Nehemiah, the latest book, any indication that the writer was
unacquainted with Daniel, whose deeds were recorded in a previous
book ? It is too much to assume that Nehemiah was added to the
Canon after the time of the son of Sirach ; , but if he was not, we may
naturally assume that his place then was his place now, and therefore
the allusion which implies the existence of the book of Nehemiah
may be held to imply also that of the book of Daniel, which was
placed before it.
3. Davidson says that "the Messianic idea of 'one like to the Son of
" man coming in the clouds of heaven ' appears to have been unknown
" to Zechariah." But we can draw no inference of this kind from the
fact that one writer does not seem to be acquainted with the works
of another, any more than we can from the fact of his not mentioning
him. Where does Zechariah mention Haggai, or show any acquaint
ance with his great prophecy about the desire of all nations? It has,
however, been often shown that the influence of the book of Daniel
is probably to be discerned in the opening visions of Zechariah.
See, for example, Pusey on Daniel, p. 359. It is, at all events, more
probable that the influence of Daniel is to be traced in Zechariah
than that the visions in Daniel are in any way the expansion of those
in Zechariah. If the angelology of Daniel has not influenced Zechariah,
still less can it be conceived of as in any degree developed out of
his writings, as a late origin of the book might lead us to suppose
would be the case.
4. No valid argument can be drawn from the definiteness of the
prophecies, as so often is done, because that is to grant the assumption
that all definite prophecies are late, whereas we have firs:1, to prove
what is the date of these prophecies, and then to determine how that
affects our theories. It was this assumed principle that vifa ated the
judgment of Dr. Arnold, and caused him to lend the great weight of
his influence to the opinion that Daniel was not genuine. He said
in reference to his sermons on Prophecy, " The points in paiticular

Note A.] The Genuine?uss of the Book of Daniel. 261
" on which I did not wish to enter, if I could help it, but which very
¦"likely I shall be found to touch on, relate to the latter chapters of
"Daniel, which, if genuine, would be a clear exception to my canon of
" interpretation, as there can be no reasonable spiritual meaning made
" out of the kings of the North and South" — quoted by Tregelles on
Daniel, p. 261, n. If those works only are genuine out of which we
can make a reasonable spiritual meaning, we sanction a new critical
canon which may give rise to unsuspected and wonderful results.
Our verdict on the books of Scripture must depend solely upon the
evidence. If our verdict on Daniel depends on this, there can be no
doubt as to what it will be. Theories of interpretation must follow
facts, and not facts our theories of interpretation. It is asked (David
son, iii. 173), " If the alleged predictions of remote events" in Daniel
" be really such, why are details discontinued at the death of
"Antiochus?" If it is admitted, as it must be, that the death of
Antiochus marked a crisis in the history of the Jews, may we not ask
what further events the critic would wish or expect to have specified ?
That the end of Antiochus did not correspond with the prophecy of
Daniel xi. is itself one of the strongest proofs that that prophecy
was not intended to refer to him, as it must have been if it was really
written in his time. It is likewise entirely unjustifiable to assume
that, as the events in ch. xii. had no intelligible meaning in the times
after Antiochus, so they have no meaning still. This depends entirely
on our faith in the document, which ought to depend entirely on the
evidence. That evidence is nearly as strong as it can be.
5. " The analogy of prophecy would lead us to expect that a seer
"living in the Babylonian captivity and writing about the future of
" his country, would first glance at the deliverance from oppression to
" be soon realised, to which a greater deliverance in the Messianic age
"might be appended. . . . Deliverance from Babylon is not predicted."
(Davidson, iii. 173.) Deliverance from Babylon is not predicted in
the chapter referring, it is said, to Antiochus, because that chapter is
assigned to the third year of Cyrus, or two years after his edict. So
far the Return was a fact of the past. Instead, therefore, of expect
ing, as we are told by Davidson, Bleek, and others that we should
have done, that the prophet would have concerned himself with
directing " his prophetic glance to the liberation of his people from
"the then existing Babylonian slavery," this is precisely that which
lie would not and could not do if he really had the revelation, as he
says, in the third year of Cyrus. He was no longer concerned with

262 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note a.
that deliverance,Hbut with another of which he says the time appointed
was long (x. 1). We are continually told that the prophets' starting-
point is in their own time, and this assumption is made a canon
of the conditions of prophecy from which the prophets can by no
means escape. It is on this ground that the latter chapters of
Isaiah are denied to be his, and it is accepted as a universal principle.
But a little investigation of the conditions of prophecy will show that
it is untenable as a theory of universal application. When God said to
Abram, " Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land
that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them
four hundred years," and as yet he had no child, where was the
starting-point in the immediate present ? But if this narrative is true,
it prepares us for the subsequent phenomena of prophecy. When Jacob
said, " The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from
beween his feet, until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering
of the people be," where was the starting-point in the immediate
present, when as yet Judah had no lawgiver ? Was this prophecy, or
was it not ? At all events, our decision respecting prophecy must
be an induction of the existing facts. When the dying Moses said,
" A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your
brethren like unto me," where was there any immediate prospect
of fulfilment to start from, seeing that several centuries elapsed
before even "Samuel the prophet"? It is preposterous to refer
this promise to the race of prophets, because no one of them all
claimed to be, or was regarded as being, like unto Moses, and
also because the prophet spoken of is manifestly one. "He shall
speak unto them all that I shall command him ; and it shall come
to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he
shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." When the
promise afterwards expands, as it does, to include the whole race of
prophets, it only serves to show that it here contemplates one as
pre- eminent among the race who would contrast favourably with the
race in speaking all that was commanded him, and in not speaking
presumptuously. See John xvii. 8, and 1 Kings xxii. 11 — 25 ; Jer.
xxviii. 1 — 17, etc.
When Balaam said, '' I shall see him, but not now : I shall behold
him, but not nigh : there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre
shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and
destroy all the children of Sheth," where was the assumed starting-
point in the present ? Is not such a starting-point expressly dis-

Note a.] The Genuineness of the Book of Daniel. 263
claimed by the terms of the prophecy ? And this fact is independent
of our interpretation of the prophecy.
When Hosea said, " They shall be wanderers among the nations,"
and when Amos said, " For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the
house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet
shall not the least grain fall upon the earth," where was the starting-
point in the immediate present that made it more possible for the
unassisted human foresight to discover what five-and-twenty centuries
have conspired only to show to be more true ?
When Micah wrote, probably in the days of Hezekiah, " They shall
smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek ; but thou,
Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be
ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth have been from of old, from ever
lasting," where was the starting-point in the immediate present that
made this promise more intelligible, or intelligible in any degree ? And
when he ended his prophecies with the words, " Thou wilt perform the
truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which Thou hast sworn unto
our fathers from the days of old," may we not rather say that he took
his stand upon the past than upon the present, and looked forward to
the indefinite and unlimited future? Lastly, when Malachi wrote,
" Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way
before me : and the Lord whom , ye seek shall suddenly come to his
temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in :
behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts ; " and when he said,
" Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the
great and dreadful day of the Lord," where was the starting-point in
the immediate present that served to explain his words or to make it
even probable what he meant ? In short, in framing for ourselves this
canon of the operation of the prophetic energy, we invent a precon
ception which is contradicted and falsified by existing facts, and is
therefore shown to be a canon which will stand us in no stead for the
interpretation of prophecy, but rather mislead us, because at variance
with manifest phenomena. The theory is not commensurate with all the
conditions ofthe problem, as these few instances may serve to show.
6. The visionary and apocalyptic character of the book is alleged as
a proof of its late origin. But as visions are common to many of the
prophets (e.g., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and Zechariah), their
greater abundance in Daniel, seeing it is a fact, does not seem to be
more appropriate to the era of the Maccabees than to that of the

264 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note A.
captivity ; or indeed so much so, inasmuch as the former was a period
of excitement and activity, the latter one of enforced repose. Surely
the visions of Ezekiel, who was a captive like Daniel, make it ante
cedently probable that visions might be found in the genuine writings
of Daniel. And further, it must not be forgotten that Daniel's visions
are more or less connected with, if they do not spring out of, the
unfolding of the future which was revealed to Nebuchadnezzar, and
not to Daniel, in a dream. This is an objection which is simply futile.
The cases of Ezekiel and Zechariah afford conclusive proof that visions
were not otherwise than characteristic of the age of the captivity ;
whereas prophecy, in any of its manifestations, — and surely that of
visions was one of them, — was a thing confessedly unknown in the
age of the Maccabees (see 1 Mace. iv. 44 — 46, ix. 27, xiv. 41). We
shall search in vain for any vision like those in Ezekiel, Daniel, or
Zechariah, in the apocryphal books of Scripture, if even we need
except 2 Esdras, which is confessedly later, and partly also in
debted to Daniel ; and therefore we have no ground to assume that
a work of the period of the Maccabees would be apocalyptic in its
character, while we have ample evidence that the writings of the
period of the captivity were so characterised.
Those who indulge in conjecture as to the possible authorship of
Daniel in the time of Antiochus, are too apt not to consider all that their
hypothesis involves. For instance, Bleek thinks it " very natural that
"the pious should await with especial longing for the appearance of
" the salvation promised to their fathers by the mouth of the prophets;
" and it may easily be imagined that they would give way to the hope
" that their heavy oppression would soon come to an end, and that then
" the Messianic salvation would immediately appear " (ii. 208). But is
it not plain that if this book derived any of its authority from the way
in which it ministered to this hope, it would at once lose that authority
as soon as the experience of fact made it clear that the fall even of
Antiochus Epiphanes was not the prelude to the advent of the Messiah ?
The failure of the supposed prophecies in this respect would be the
strongest possible reason for their not being regarded as authentic,
just as the obvious failure of many of Dr. Cumming's interpretations
of prophecy in our own times is also entirely fatal to the supposition
that they were correct interpretations.
It is even more inconceivable that we should imagine with the same
writer (p. 211) that " in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, when
" Jehovah's people again fell into such grievous distress, their attention

note a.] The Genuineness of the Book of Daniel. 265
" would be directed both to the predictions of other prophets, and also
" to Jeremiah's utterances as to the seventy years ; and they would
" inquire whether they would not allow of an interpretation by which a
" correct, speedy, and complete fulfilment of the Divine promises con-
" tained in them might be hoped for. It is such an explanation as this
" which is here placed in the mouth of the angel in the communication
" to Daniel, that the seventy years were at the point of expiring just
" at that very time— viz., the time of Antiochus Epiphanes." For is it
not open to demonstration that no arrangement or manipulation of the
seventy years can bring their termination anywhere at all near the
time at which it is assumed that this new interpretation of Jeremiah's
prophecy was propounded,— and propounded, moreover, for the purpose
of consoling the persecuted by the near prospect of deliverance at the
time promised ? It is so very much more easy to fabricate and devise
conjectures than it is to make them correspond with all the require
ments of the case, even if we give ourselves the trouble of testing
them to see if they will correspond. Here a moment's consideration
will serve to show that the hypothesis cannot be made to fit into the
exigencies of the problem it is made to solve. It is proposed as a
rough-and-ready solution, which deludes by the facility and readiness
with which it is proposed ; but it is really no solution at all. It is no
sooner tested by application to the indispensable requirements of the
case in point, than it breaks down, absolutely and irretrievably.
" The arguments for the late composition of the book " of Daniel,
says the Dean of Westminster, "Jewish Church," iii., p. 71, " (i.e.,
"b.c. 168 — 164), are partly external and partly internal.
"1. The external arguments are as follows : —
" (a) It is not arranged in the Hebrew Canon with the ' Prophets,'
" but with the miscellaneous 'Hagiographa' (the Psalms, Proverbs,
" Job, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles), i.e.,
"the part avowedly of later date and lesser authority, and constantly
"receiving fresh additions."
As I have already shown, the contents of the Hagiographa are
(some of them, at all events) older than any of the writings of the
prophets ; and they certainly were so in the belief of those who
arranged the Canon, for otherwise the supposed works of David and
Solomon would not have been placed among them. The inference, there
fore, " of later date " falls to the ground. That of " lesser authority "
also is invalid, because though of relatively " lesser authority," their

266 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note A.
absolute authority was determined by their place in the Canon. Had
the authority of Daniel been doubtful, the book would not have been
in the Canon. Had it first appeared b.c. 165, no critic will venture
to say that its " authority " would not have been doubtful.
" (b) Daniel is not mentioned by Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah,
" Haggai, nor in the catalogue of authors by the son of Sirach (Ecclus.
" xlix. 8 — 10), which is the more remarkable from his mention of all
" the other prophets. The only counterpoise to the argument for this
" omission is that in Ecclus. xlix. 13 Ezra is left out."
But this is sufficient to show that, strange as the omission is, we
cannot base a positive argument upon it, because silence is uncertain,
and moreover the actual place of Daniel in the Canon is before both
Ezra, and Nehemiah who is mentioned. This objection has already
been answered.
"(c) The Greek translation of the book is involved in obscurity. In
" the place of that of the Seventy was substituted, for some unknown
" reason (' hoc cur acciderit nescio,' says Jerome), a translation by
"Thoodotion; and both are inextricably mixed up with Greek addi-
" tions, which, though part of the Canon of the Eastern and of the Latin
" Churches, have been rejected by the Protestant Churches, and one of
" which (the History of Susannah) is apparently of Greek origin, as may
" be inferred from the play on two Greek words (Susanna 55, 59)."
It is certain, however, that the first book of Maccabees contains
evidence of an acquaintance with the Greek translation of Daniel, for
the striking phrase " abomination of desolation '' (Dan. ix. 27, /3S_A.uy/xa
tu)v iprjfjLuaewv) appears in 1 Mace. i. 54 as /3Si\.vyfx,d epij/xcocrea)?, and
Tretrovvrai rpa.vjxaTLai TtoWoL of Dan. xi. 27 becomes artcrov TpavfAaTiai
71-oAA.ot in 1 Mace. ix. 40. Moreover, the phraseology of Dan. xii. 1 is bor
rowed, with a modification, in 1 Mace. ix. 27. As the origin of 1 Mace.
must be assigned to within seventy years of the late date assigned to
Daniel, the latter book must not only have been in repute, but have
become sufficiently famous to have been translated at that time, and
known in its translation. And if the first book of Maccabees was
written, as some think, in Hebrew, this is not the less remarkable if
Daniel was only a recent production. It is certain that the writer of
1 Mace, was acquainted with Daniel (see 1 Mace. ii. 59, 60). No
one can for a moment suppose that Daniel was first written in Greek,
whatever may have been the "origin" of " Susanna " ; but had the book
of Daniel first appeared in Hebrew in 165 b.c, is it at all likely that
it would soon have been translated into Greek as one of the books of the

note a.] The Genuineness of the Book of Daniel. 267
sacred Canon ? The displacement of the Septuagint version certainly
has the effect of throwing the probable date of Daniel further back.
Whatever is the date of 1 Mace, it is to be noted that Ecclesiasticus,
which is earlier still, and probably prior to 165 b.c, is hardly to be
explained in xvii. 17 without reference to Daniel. That the Greek
translation, therefore, of the book is involved in obscurity is no
ground, of suspicion for the early existence of the Hebrew and
Aramaic original.
" 2. The internal arguments are as follows : —
" (a) The use of Greek words, Kiddpa and <rap,(ivK-q, av/jupmvia and
" xlraX-nqpiov, in the Hebrew of iii. 5, 7, 10. In the case of Kiddpa the
" argument is strengthened by the fact that in Ezek. xxvii. 13 and
" Psalm exxxvi. 2 [exxxvii. 2 ?] (unquestionably of the epoch of the
" Captivity) the word for harp is still hinnur [kinnor ?]."
The use of Greek words in Daniel has been well nigh abandoned
as a proof of its late origin, and assuredly the use of kinnor in
Ezekiel and Psalms is no evidence either that the word was not
known to Daniel, or that KiOdpa may not have been also known to
Ezekiel and the captives in Babylon who hung their harps upon the
trees there. It is moreover highly probable that the specific instru
ments used by the Jews in captivity would differ from those at
Nebuchadnezzar's dedication festival, and the names vary accordingly.
" (6) The difficulty of reconciling much of the story as it now
" stands with Ezekiel's mention of Daniel as on a level with Noah
"and Job, and as an oracle of wisdom (xiv. 14, xxviii. 3), when,
" according to Dan. i. 1, he must. have been a mere youth."
The date of Ezekiel xiv. is certainly not earlier than the sixth month
of the sixth year of Jehoiachin's captivity (see viii. 1 and xx. 1), or
about b.c. 594 — that is to say, about twelve years after Daniel had
come to Babylon. As Ezekiel himself was an exile in the land of
the captivity, it is perfectly obvious that the history of his distinguished
and powerful countryman would be well known to him ; while Dr.
Pusey has shown the extreme naturalness of the collocation of Daniel
with Noah and Job, and also the tacit reference to the deliverance of
the wise men of Babylon effected by Daniel, in the words " they shall
deliver neither sons nor daughters" (" Daniel the Prophet," p. 108,
third ed.) The other reference to Daniel in Ezekiel (xxviii. 3; cf.
xxvi. 1) is some five years later, apparently when Daniel's reputation
for wisdom must have been fully established (see Dan. i. 4). As a
matter of fact, therefore, the casual allusions in Ezekiel correspond

268 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note A.
accurately with the narrative in Daniel, but yet in a way thoroughly
artless and undesigned. According to Dan. i. 1, he was when Ezekiel
made mention of him certainly not a "mere youth," but probably about
thirty years old, the age of Joseph when he stood before Pharaoh, and
of our Lord when He entered on His ministry.
" (c) The matter-of-fact descriptions ofthe leagues and conflicts be-
" tween the Grasco-Syrian and Graaco-Egyptian kings, and of the reign
" of Antiochus IV., in Dan. xi. 1 — 45, which, if written three hundred
" years before that time, would be without parallel or likeness in
" Hebrew prophecy. These descriptions are minute, with the minute-
" ness of a contemporary chronicler, and many of their details lack any
"particle of moral and spiritual interest such as might account for so
" signal a violation, if so be, of the style of Biblical prophecy. This,
" accordingly, is the chief argument for fixing the date of the book at
" the time when these conflicts occurred — an argument which, in the
" case of any other book (as, for example, the ' Sibylline Oracles ' or
" the Book of Enoch) would be conclusive."
Most unquestionably; because neither of these books is attested with
a particle of the external evidence which is so strong in the case of
Daniel. It will probably be admitted that if Daniel is genuine, it is
also authentic ; but if the matters of fact related in Daniel were
matters of history, there is undeniably nothing more wonderful in
these predictions than there is in those events. The question really
is, whether there is evidence for the unity of the book of Daniel, and
whether there is evidence for the book being genuine. There is no
reason to suppose that ch. xi. is not an integral portion of the book,
and there is abundant evidence to show that the book is genuine.
This being so, therefore, the character of ch. xi. must determine our
notions of Biblical prophecy, and not our notions of Biblical prophecy
decide, in the face of the evidence, that Daniel xi. is not genuine.
There may, however, be much more moral and spiritual interest even
in these dry details than we at first suppose, if they really are an
indication and evidence of God's tender and presiding care for His
people. "On the side of the earlier date (i.e. b.c. 570 — 536), the external
" arguments are as follows : —
[N.B. The latest date in Daniel is 534, and therefore the book, as
a whole, cannot be earlier than that.]
" (a) The assertion of Josephus (Ant. xi. 8) that Jaddua showed
" to Alexander the predictions of his conquests in the Book of Daniel.

Note A.] The Genuineness of the Book of Daniel. 269
" But the doubt which rests over the story generally, and the acknow
ledged incorrectness of some of its details (see Dr. Westcott in
" Dictionary of the Bible,—' Alexander ', and Lecture xlvii.) deprive
" this allusion of serious weight ; and it is difficult not to suspect
"something of an apologetic tone in Josephus, Ant. x. 11. 7.
"'Methinks the historian doth protest too much.'"
It is remarkable that in the article of Westcott here referred to, he
says, " But admitting the incorrectness of the details ofthe tradition
" as given by Josephus, there are several points which confirm the truth
" of the main fact .... above all the privileges which Alexander is
"said to have conferred upon the Jews, including the remission of
" tribute every sabbatical year, existed in later times, and imply some
" such relation between the Jews and the great conqueror as Josephus
" describes. Internal evidence is decidedly in favour of the story,
" even in its picturesque fulness."
It must not be forgotten, moreover, that Josephus was in no way
concerned to maintain the genuineness of Daniel, seeing that Porphyry
had not yet denied it. He is therefore, so far, a purely independent
witness ; does not "protest " at all, but only testify without design,
to the undoubted esteem in which the book was held by his own
nation and in his own time. In this respect there cannot well be
higher testimony of that age ; and it is inconceivable that a book which
first started into existence b.c. 165 should have acquired the renown
which led Josephus to say of it, "We believe that Daniel conversed
" with God ; for he did not only prophesy of future events, as did the
" other prophets, but he also determined the time of their accomplish-
" ment; and while the prophets used to foretell misfortunes, and on that
" account were disagreeable both to kings and to the multitude, Daniel
" was to them a prophet of good things, and this to such a degree that,
" by the agreeable nature of his predictions, he procured the goodwill
" of all men ; and by the accomplishment of them he procured the
" belief of their truth, and the opinion of a sort of divinity for himself
" among the multitude." Is it likely that the whole nation could have
been so deceived by an unknown writer who palmed off upon them
his previously unknown production under the name of a man otherwise
almost unknown in b.c. 165 ?
" (b) The allusion to the furnace and the lions' den in the dying
" speech of Mattathias, a.d.' [b.c. ?] 167 (1 Mace. ii. 59, 60). But this
" (granting the exact accuracy of the report of the speech of Mattathias),
" in a book written as late as b.c. 107 — therefore certainly after the

270 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note a.
" publication of the book of Daniel on any hypothesis — does not testify
" to more than the previous existence of the traditions of these events,
" of which there need be no question."
Dr. Pusey has thoroughly disposed of the points involved here (see
" Daniel the Prophet," p. 370). It is of course useless to debate the
question whether the speech of Mattathias is or is not accurate, as we
have and can have no evidence on the matter ; but the point for us to
determine is whether a person writing less than sixty years after the
alleged publication of Daniel would deliberately represent a man who
died two years before the publication of that book as alluding to cir
cumstances of which the book itself was the only record. It is calmly
assumed that all the events of Daniel's life were embodied in floating
traditions before the book was written, whereas, apart from the book
of Daniel and this mention in 1 Mace, there is no vestige of any such
tradition, except those in Ezekiel. Now, had there been only the
assumed floating traditions in existence b.c. 167, it is, we may say,
certain that they would not have been alluded to, as they are in the
speech of Mattathias by him, in the midst of events acknowledged to
have been recorded in writing, and that in canonical scriptures. The
only question, therefore, that remains is, Would he have been repre
sented within sixty years afterwards as thus alluding to them ? Only
by making assumptions altogether unwarrantable can we answer Yes.
The balance of probability as arising from the evidence is distinctly
the other way.
" (c) The reference in the Received Text of two of the Gospels to
"the Book of ' Daniel the Prophet.' But the force of this reference
" is weakened by the omission of the name in the Syriac version of
" Matt. xxiv. 15, and by its entire absence from the best MSS. of Mark
"xiii. 14, and in all the MSS. of Luke xxi. 24. And under any cir-
" cumstances it would only prove, what is not doubted, that at the time
" of the Christian era the book had been received into the Canon — in
"Palestine, without the Greek additions; at Alexandria, with them."
The reference to St. Luke is unintelligible, because no text reads it
there. The phrase is found in the Syriac version of Matt. xxiv. 15
in Walton's Polyglot and in Dr. Lee's edition, so that this statement
is unintelligible ; * and if the words were actually spoken by our Lord
they would be significant in a high degree, because technically and
officially Daniel was not a prophet. If, therefore, our Lord called
him so, it could only have been because He set the stamp of His
* I find it is omitted in the second edition.

Note a.] The Genuineness of the Book of Daniel. 271
approval and recognition to the subject-matter of his prophecies. But
whether this was so or not, there is the evidence of St. Mark as well
as St. Matthew that our Lord quoted from the book of Daniel with
the emphatic parenthesis, Whoso readeth, let him understand. There
is, therefore, and can be, no question but that He set His seal to the
prophecies of Daniel and taught men to watch for their fulfilment, as
the sure word of prophecy noted in the scripture of truth. Critically
we may, perhaps, question the exact amount of additional authority
that this would give to a purely critical decision ; but that our Lord
appealed to the book as to sacred scripture, and commended it to the
study of His disciples, is surely incompatible with the supposed origin
of it as a fictitious story, embodying only traditional narratives and
imaginary predictions of an unknown writer and a pseudo-prophet.
It is only too obvious that men disparage the genuineness of Daniel
because of the startling and stupendous narratives it contains. If the
book can be reasonably supposed to be of doubtful authority, then it
is a simple matter dealing with the marvels recorded, because then
they become doubtful too. Miracle and prophecy are alike relegated
to the haze of the impalpable obscure, and we are left in the suspense
of indecision and the uncertainty of pious sentiment. Whereas, if
Daniel is genuine and authentic, then the whole question of the super
natural in prophecy and miracle is determined once for all in a startling
and conclusive manner — a consummation by no means to be desired,
or, if probable, to be endured.
" The internal arguments in favour of the earlier date rest on the
" exactness of the references to Chaldean usages, and of coincidence
"with the monumental inscriptions .... Of the coincidences with
" the Babylonian monuments, the most striking is the name of Bil-shar-
" uzur as an equivalent to Belshazzar, which, before the recent dis-
" covery of this word at Babylon, was not known except from Daniel.
" On the other hand, Darius the Mede is still an unsolved enigma ....
« The result is, therefore, that the arguments incline largely to the side
« of the later date ; and this result is strengthened by the consideration
«(1) that though something may be said to attenuate the force of
" each argument singly, yet each derives additional weight from the
" collective weight of all ; and (2) that the objections raised to some
«of them pass over almost or altogether the most conclusive, no
"parallel instance having been adduced from the Hebrew Scriptures
"to the details of the eleventh chapter, nor any explanation of such
« an exception from the general style of Biblical Prophecy."

272 Old Testament Propheey. [Note A.
I cannot but think — indeed, I am convinced — that the impartial
reader who takes the trouble to read what has now been said on both
sides will come to the conclusion that the arguments, so far as they
rest on evidence, incline largely to the side of the earlier date.
It may be as well to quote the opinions expressed on this matter by
one of the highest critical authorities in this country or elsewhere, the
Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, Dr. Westcott. He says,
in his article on the Book of Daniel, in the " Dictionary of the Bible,"
" The use of Greek technical terms marks a period when commerce
" had already united Persia and Greece ; and the occurrence of pecu-
" liar words which admit of an explanation by reference to Aryan and
" not to Semitic roots is almost inexplicable on the supposition that
" the prophecies are a Palestinian forgery of the Maccabsean age."
With regard to the value of the testimony of Josephus, he says :—
"Whatever credit may be given to the details of his narrative, it at
"least shows the unquestioning belief in the prophetic worth ofthe
" book which existed among the Jews in his time."
"The testimony of the Synagogue and the Church gave a clear
" expression to the judgment implied by the early and authoritative
"use ofthe book, and pronounced it to contain authentic prophecies
" of Daniel without contradiction, with one exception (i.e. Porphyry),
" till modern times."
" It is admitted that the contents of the book are exceptional and
" surprising ; but revelation is itself a miracle, however it be given,
" and essentially as inconceivable as any miracle."
" Generally it may be said that while the book presents in many
"respects a startling and exceptional character, yet it is far more
" difficult to explain its composition in the Maccabasan period than to
" connect the peculiarities which it exhibits with the exigencies of
" the Return."
These opinions were expressed some years ago, but we have no
reason to suppose they have been changed.
It cannot be denied that externally there is no evidence whatever of
a positive kind against the genuineness of Daniel. What indications
there are — for they cannot be called evidence — are of a negative and
wholly subjective kind. For instance, the omission of the name of
Daniel in Ecclesiasticus, though strange, can be otherwise accounted
for than by supposing the book not then known ; and if xvii. 17
implies a knowledge of Daniel, as it certainly may do, it of course
effectually disposes of the argument from, and counterbalances this

note a.] The Genuineness of the Book of Daniel. 273
omission. The book of Baruch, which is probably as old as, if no
older than, the late date assigned to Daniel, bears evidence of acquaint
ance with that book. (See Pusey, p. 361.) On the other hand, the
positive evidence of Josephus being of a purely spontaneous character,
as it clearly is — for he could have had no motive in saying what he
said, since he held no brief for Daniel more than any other book of
Scripture— is very strong as evidence of what was and had been the
current opinion of the nation. How could he or any one have
supposed that the conquests of Alexander the Great had been pre
dicted in Daniel if the book was of the time of the Maccabees ?
and even if his story about Jaddua is fabricated, what would it
have had to rest on if not this general belief ? — he could not have
fabricated that.
It will be seen, therefore, that the " arguments " above spoken of,
when examined, are virtually insubstantial ; and this being so, their
" collective weight " cannot be of any consideration in itself, and still
less can it lend additional weight to " each argument singly." We can
only conclude that the evidence against the Maccabsean origin of Daniel
is of an objective character, while the presumptions for it are wholly
subjective. With regard to the other point, that no parallel instance of detailed
prophecy can be adduced from Scripture, this must depend wholly
upon our previous verdict on the date of Scripture. If we adopt
revolutionary notions about the books, we shall then be careful to
make facts bend accordingly ; but it must be allowed without now
going into these questions, that, taking them as they appear prima
facie, we find the time of sojourn in Egypt -was foretold to Abraham,
and that this fact was known and remembered at the time of the
exodus, and was appealed to notwithstanding the patent discrepance
on the surface of the narrative ;* that the destruction of the builder of
Jericho was foretold, f and likewise the desolation of Jeroboam's altar
with the name of the king who should accomplish the overthrow of his
unauthorised worship ; X that the name of Cyrus as the king who was
to lay the foundation of the temple was twice foretold by Isaiah ; § and
that many of the latter prophecies of Zechariah are hardly less definite
than those of Daniel. At all events, in these instances we have
examples of the kind of prophecy that astonishes us in Daniel,
although there can be no doubt that in him it reaches its climax. To
* Gen. xv. 13; Ex. -xii. 40, 41. t x KinSs xiii- 2-
t Josh vi. 26 ; 1 Kings xvi. 34. § Isa. xliv. 28; xiv. 2.
' ' 18

274 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note a.
me it seems absolutely certain that there are specimens of prophecy
in its predictive aspect in Daniel that no special pleading can set aside
or explain ; and this being so, it is merely a matter of degree whether
we acknowledge more or less.
It is clear, however, when we take into consideration the several
instances named above, we must either admit the force of the cumu
lative evidence for prophecy, or must suppose that the several books
in which these predictions occur were so arranged and modified for the
express purpose of presenting that appearance of prophecy which as a
matter of fact they do present. Is this consistent, we may ask, not
with some particular theory of inspiration, but with the acknowledg
ment of any such authentication of the Scripture record as would show
it to be the medium of a veritable revelation given and not invented ?
As Dr. Westcott says, " ' Revelation,' however communicated, is itself
a miracle, and essentially as inconceivable as any miracle." Is there
any evidence that such a revelation has been given and preserved, or
is the idea essentially erroneous, and as such to be discarded ? To
me it seems that the Bible as a fact is the permanent obstacle to so
discarding it. " The general style of Biblical prophecy " is, per se, as
little to be accounted for, if it means what it says, as any actual pre
diction would be. Before we can implicitly trust any single declaration
of Scripture as an authorised, and therefore reliable assertion, —such,
for example, as God is Love, — we must admit the possibility of such
knowledge being so communicated as to be thereby authorised ; but no
sooner is this done than it becomes logically conceivable that the method
of communication selected for conveying revelation might embrace the
agencies of miracle and prophecy ; and whether or not this has been
the case must be determined by evidence ; but if we do not shut our
eyes to the evidence for the genuineness of Daniel, which is not fairly
to be set aside, we must admit the operation of prophecy in its predic
tive aspect there.

275

NOTE B.
PROFESSOR KUENEN ON THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF
DANIEL.
The weight of Professor Kuenen's charge against the prophets of
Israel depends nearly as much upon what they do not say, and what
he would have expected them to say, as upon what they have actually
said. His object appears to be to show that the prophets had no more
knowledge than other men of the events of the future ; that they did
not see it mapped out before them as we do in looking back over it
after it has become history. But it is no part of the defence of pro
phecy to traverse this notion with a direct negative. In the circum
stances of actual life it would be impossible to obtain the same view
of the same landscape from two opposite points. A district we have
ourselves travelled over assumes a very different appearance on look
ing back upon it from that which it had before we set out ; at all
events, it is the same reversed. In prophecy, therefore, it is absurd
to expect that the prophet's vision of the future, and still more his
view of the vision, should correspond with our view of the past. It
is not to be supposed that the prophet knew distinctly what form the
events he spoke of would take ; and nothing, therefore, is gained
when it is shown, as of course it can easily be shown, that he was
ignorant of this precise form. Nothing, moreover, is gained when
in the same way it is shown that later prophets were not always
consistent with earlier ones. If prophecy was a living and growing
thing, it was not to be expected that they would be. But this, instead
of disproving the reality of prophecy, tends rather to show its reality '
as well as to modify om- misconceptions as to its true nature. Our
position is, that there is evidence in the writings of the prophets of a
meaning and continuous scheme running through their prophecies,
gradually unfolding and expanding itself in a way that the prophets
themselves could not have directed, but in such a manner and to such

276 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note b.
an extent as to warrant us in regarding their writings as a veritable
record of divine foreknowledge ; and this conclusion is established and
confirmed to us when we see traces, as we plainly may, even of actual
prediction from time to time, which cannot be ascribed to natural
foresight, and yet which in a remarkable manner was found afterwards
fulfilling itself in fact. It is obvious that the maintenance of this
position must depend in a great degree on the date assigned to the
various books, and therefore involves a very lengthened argument ;
but our purpose has been to take a few crucial instances and to show
how strong they are ; while in the same manner it may be shown that
the antagonistic argument is marked with very serious flaws. If the
cases selected can be made out, they are in themselves sufficient to
neutralise the effect of the opposite theory, but are after all only select
instances of a crucial kind to which others may be added — samples of
many more ; and if in like manner one definite flaw can be detected
in the antagonistic argument, it may serve to waken in us distrust of
the rest. Professor Kuenen's avowed purpose is to overthrow what
he calls " supernaturalism." His treatment of his subject is a powerful
effort in that direction, but it is only so because he has overlooked or
shut his eyes to certain facts, and argued on a particular basis with
regard to others. We have no wish to deny many of his statements
with regard to prophecy ; but for our purpose it is not necessary that
they should be denied : our own position is independent of them, as
also it is of his conclusions, because in many cases we are persuaded
that they are erroneous.
We examine, for example, his treatment of the book of Daniel in
his work on Prophecy, i. 301—320 (English edition, 260—275).
" It now clearly appears," says he, " in a manner which is indispu-
" table, that we were justified in ranging the prophecies regarding the
" future of Israel under ' the unfulfilled predictions.' The reality has
" contradicted the expectation with regard to every particular which
" is advanced in their prophecies. The return of the^captives formed
" a sharp contrast to the brilliant anticipations of the prophets; the
" reunion of Judah and Ephraim never took place at all ; the restora-
" tion ofthe Davidic monarchy was not once attempted; neither in the
" material nor spiritual domain did the condition of those who returned
" correspond to the lofty expectation; and no one can pretend to say
"that the sovereignty of Israel over the nations, or the accession of
" the Gentiles to Jahvism, are events which have ever been realised.''
This is a very fair sample of Professor Kuenen's position ; and on

Noteb.] The Seventy Weeks of Daniel. 277
his standing-ground his assertion is not wholly untrue. But were we
intended to treat prophecy in this bald and matter-of-fact manner?
Are we not asking of prophecy that which it never professed to give
us ? May not the mistake lie in our misconception quite as much
as in the anticipation of the prophets ? What if " the brilliant
anticipations " of the prophets, while they formed a sort of preliminary
instalment of completion in events which Kuenen does not deny, were
not intended, not by the prophets, but by the Divine Spirit who spoke
by them, to exhaust themselves completely in those events ? At least,
when I read the fortieth chapter of Isaiah, I cannot but feel that it
was written for me as well as for Zerubbabel and those who went up
from Babylon with him. Nor can a whole college of professors make
it clear to me that I am wrong in feeling that it applies to me, any
more than I should say that Zerubbabel was wrong in feeling that it
applied to him. And it is this manifoldness and profundity of
meaning in the prophecy which shows it to be prophecy, just as
much as it would be shown by an established case of fulfilled predic
tion. But he who denies the one is consistent also in denying the
the other. It is the object of this writer to show me what I do not
need to be shoWn, that my use of the prophet's words did not enter
into the prophet's mind. I never supposed it did, any more than I
supposed that I did ; but that is no proof that his words were not
intended to have the effect they have, or that he was not a special
agent and instrument of God when he was empowered and authorised
to write them. It is this that Kuenen labours hard to show, but I
do not find that he has shown it, even by assuming and asserting,
contrary, as I believe, to all evidence, that they were written by the
mysterious and impalpable second Isaiah at the time of the Return.
In like manner " the reunion of Judah and Ephraim " never took
place as the prophets may have expected it, though it is certain that
after the captivity, under whatever conditions, the nation was never
more two, but one ; but that is no evidence either that a spiritual
union was not effected when the congregation of Israel was merged
in the Christian Church, or that in the counsels of the Most High
there may not yet be some further reunion in store. If prophecy is
a divine thing, a supernatural thing, it may well be so ; if not, the
course of history is thus far what it is, and we are at liberty to bring
from prophecy what light we can to bear upon it. The nature of that
light will vary with the eye that sees it ; it will be darkness only to
the blind. In like manner " the restoration of the Davidic monarchy

278 Old Testament Prophecy. [NoteB.
'•' was not once attempted," it is quite true; but the prophecies remained
what they were, equally distinct and definite ; and ages afterwards we
are told of one of whom it was said, " The Lord God shall give unto
Him the throne of His father David, and He shall rule over the house
of Jacob for ever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end." I
believe this was what, not the prophets, possibly, but the Divine Spirit
meant, and therefore that the actual fulfilment was better, because
more in accordance with His mind, than the anticipated fulfilment ;
and if the words of the angel Gabriel were in any sense true of Jesus,
I am still at liberty to claim His dominion as the fulfilment of pro
mises which were undeniably spoken by prophets, and which, in
proportion as they were prophetic promises, were not improbably, but
most likely, spoken in a sense in which they were not understood. I
cannot agree, therefore, with the Professor when he says, " We see
"here facts against which all arguments are shattered." Rather to my
mind it seems that the argument from prophecy remains exactly where
it was before Kuenen touched it.
" The oracle," says Kuenen, in the ninth chapter of Daniel, " sub-
" stitutes for the seventy years seventy jeax-weeks (i.e. four hundred
" and ninety years). Is the writer, then, of opinion that the pre-
" diction of Jeremiah would not be (or had not been) fulfilled after
" seventy common years ? Undoubtedly he is. And this judgment
" does not surprise us, if it be the case that he knew what happened
" at the end of the captivity in and after the year 536 b.c."
This is an instance of the impossibility of keeping our verdict in
these matters clear of our previous conceptions. Certainly if Daniel
is not genuine, the writer did know all this ; but we, on our side,
must not forget that the writer does not profess to know this, but on
the contrary to be receiving a communication not in the first year of
Cyrus, or 536 B.C., but in the first year of Darius the Mede, which
must have been at least a year or two before — according to our Bibles
538 B.C. The writer represents himself as being sure that the seventy
years must nearly have expired. His doubt arises from the fact that
he did not know precisely when they began. It was of a piece with
the dealings of God in Providence to leave the prophecy, while
definite in the duration of seventy years, uncertain as to the compu
tation of those years, because otherwise there would have been no
room for the exercise of human faith or human patience. Had it
been possible to determine exactly when the seventy years began
and therefore when they would end, Daniel would have had no occasion

Notebj The Seventy Weeks of Daniel. 279
to fast and pray that they might be speedily accomplished. It was in
this uncertainty that his trial lay, just as in matters of conflicting or
uncertain duty it is that the trial of our faith lies ; but here also was
his sustentation, because he knew that he had a sure word of God to
which to trust. Precisely in the same spirit it is that Kuenen says,
p. 261, " The time is now past for speaking of a postponed realisation
"of the promises. Whoever, at the present time, still expects the
"restoration of the Israelitish nation, as the prophets have described
" it, expects another thing altogether than that which they announced.
" They predicted the termination, the glorious termination, not of the
" present, but of the former captivity of the Israelites. The existing
" state of things, of which we all are witnesses, is in irreconcileable
" opposition to their expectations."
To which I reply, let any one read Deut. iv. 27, Amos ix. 9, Lev.
xxvi. 33, Deut. xxviii. 62 — 64, etc., and say whether there is not a
correspondence between these menaces and the existing state of Israel,
and whether there is any other nation in the world of whom the like
was said and can now be said. It is of course easy to deny that the
prophets meant this ; it is impossible to deny that they said it. It is
impossible to suppose that the words can mean this, unless we believe
in a veritable Divine revelation ; but if we do, it is impossible to deny
that here we may find sufficient ground for the belief. Kuenen does
not believe in a Divine revelation, and therefore he denies the proof
of it. There are those who not only believe in it, but will continue
to believe in it because they believe in the proof of it that the facts
supply. It is impossible that the two can ever agree, but .he fault
lies not in the alleged insufficiency of the proof, but in the deficiency
of the mental faculty that is not able to grasp, and does not wish to
be held by the conclusion to which the otherwise inexplicable facts
point. The unique position of Israel in the world's history points to a
cause which is unique — the exceptional dealings of God with them.
The exceptional in God's dealings renders probable an exceptional
element in their literature, renders probable the exceptional operation
of prophecy. But if the energy was an imparted and Divine energy,
its activity and exercise would be manifested independently of the
human instruments in whom it was manifested, and by whom it was
put forth. To say, therefore, that to expect the restoration of Israel
is to expect another thing altogether than that which the prophets
announced, is to say nothing at all that any one cares to dispute. Of

280 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note b.
course it is another thing ; but it by no means follows that it is not
the thing that the God of Israel intended, and no one can prove that
it is not, unless as a previous condition he assumes the non-existence
of any faith in the present operation of the living God of Israel. If
we grant this, then all the rest follows ; but it by no means follows
as a necessary and natural inference from the arguments alleged to
prove it.
In like manner, to insist on verbal points of difference between the
above passages and the existing condition of Israel is beside the mark,
because the captivity and dispersion of Israel were conditions that
were to be realised under various circumstances and at various epochs
of their history, and if the existing phase of it does not fulfil all the
conditions of the prophecies, the whole course of history undeniably
does in a way that is truly marvellous. Any one who surveys the
present political aspect of things in the east of Europe must surely
allow that more remarkable and apparently improbable things have
happened than even a general return of all the Jews to their own
land, though this is by no means the only conceivable way in which
the prophecies might be fulfilled, nor, were it to happen, would it be
anything else than another thing altogether from that which the prophets
expected, however strangely it might correspond with that which they
announced. " Jeremiah had announced," says Kuenen, p. 264, " the restoration
" of Jerusalem after seventy years. It is thus a priori probable that,
" according to the author of Daniel, the golden age of Israel would
" dawn after the lapse ofthe seventy year-weeks, or 490 years, which
"he substitutes for the seventy years. This is actually expressed in
" an unambiguous manner in verse 24: in the seventy year-weeks the
" unrighteousness (of the enemies of Israel) shall reach its climax.
" (Comp. Daniel viii. 23.) At the end of that period, ' eternal right-
"eousness' shall be 'brought in,' and the prophecy (of Israel's
" felicity) be confirmed (by the issue)."
To us it seems entirely gratuitous to imagine that it is a priori
probable that in expanding the seventy years of Jeremiah into seventy
year-weeks, we are intended to count them both from the same point
of departure. That there is such an expansion no one who studies
prophecy would wish to deny ; but if the same point of departure is
intended, why, then, is the actual date given of the interview with
the angel ? Surely the most natural inference a priori would be that
the years were to be counted from the date given. We, it is granted,

Note b. The Seventy Weeks of Daniel. 281
do not so count them ; but surely, of the two suppositions, it is more
natural to count the weeks from the present time assigned than from
the past time of Jeremiah's prophecy.
But then we must bear in mind that on the hypothesis the author
is writing in b.c 165. Granting, therefore, that he did refer to that
prophecy of Jeremiah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, what is the
relation of 606 b.c. to 165 b.c. ? and how is that relation affected by
the 490 years ? The difference is 441, and not 490. Now it seems
very odd that a man writing in 165 b.c. to encourage the co-religion
ists of his own time should adopt this means of doing it, and tell
them that their troubles would end in fifty years' time, and that for
this singularly accurate and appropriate prediction this writer should
have been forthwith recognised, as according to Josephus (he was, as
one of the greatest of the prophets. We know that sixty years after
wards, when the whole 490 years on this theory had more than run
out, his book must have attained to the dignity of canonical Scripture,
because of the reference to it and the use made of it by the writer of
1 Mace, b.c 107. It seems to us, then, that the seventy weeks alone,
on any interpretation of them, are sufficient to disprove the theory.
" But what is the point of departure ? When do the seventy year-
" weeks begin ? The writer answers (ver. 25), ' from the going forth
" of a word to restore and to build Jerusalem.' It is not said from
" whom that word goes forth ; and just because of that it most readily
" occurs to the mind to think of Jahveh (compare in ver. 23, ' at the
"beginning of thy prayer a word [or commandment] went forth,'
"namely, from Jahveh) ; but also specifically of that word of Jahveh
" to which the whole prediction is attached — that is, ofthe prophecy of
" Jeremiah relating to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. In this way, more-
" over, the beginning of Daniel's seventy year- weeks coincides with the
" commencement of Jeremiah's seventy years— which certainly is most
" natural, not to say absolutely necessary. It may be said to be very
" singular that the defenders of the genuineness of the book understand
"by°'the going forth of a word' the later promulgation of a royal
" decree, either that of Cyrus (536 b.c), or of Artaxerxes Longimanus
"(457 B.C.); because it would thence follow that Daniel had been
" enlightened by God as regards the duration and course of a certain
" interval, but had been left in uncertainty with respect to the begin
ning of' that period. Was not the whole revelation in that way
« rendered illusory ?" Undoubtedly it was if the purpose and method
of the revelation were to be that which Kuenen assumes they were.

282 Old Testament Prophecy. [NoteB.
But how was it in the analogous case of Jeremiah himself? The
first time he utters his prophecy of seventy years is in ch. xxv. 11, 12,
or the fourth year of Jehoiakim, but he repeats the same prophecy
in ch. xxix. 10, apparently about seven years afterwards. We are
therefore left in doubt when the seventy years are to begin, and
consequently when they are to end. And if this difficulty attaches to
our study of the prophecy and its accomplishment, as it does, how
much more must it have been so in the prophet's own time ! But
was then "the whole revelation in that way rendered illusory?"
Evidently Daniel did not so regard it, or, if we may not cite him,
Zechariah did not so regard it (i. 12, vii. 5), nor did the writers of
Ezra and Chronicles so regard it. " Let it not be forgotten," says
Bp. Moorhouse, " in connection with this point, that to have made
"prophecy so explicit that not even unbelief could mistake it, would
"have been to defeat the great ends of our moral probation. If God
" had written history before it happened, not only in its great principles,
" but also in its minute details, what room had been left for the possible
" rebellion of the evil, or for the trust and expectation ofthe faithful! "
— " The Expectation of the Christ," p. 20, n. The office of prophecy
to stimulate inquiry and expectation, but not to satisfy curiosity or to
interfere with the free action and development of human history, is a
point entirely overlooked by the critics, who say that, had such and
such a prophecy been intended to refer to this or that event, it would
have been more explicit and less open to ambiguity. Had Daniel known
exactly when the seventy years began, he would have known exactly
when they would end, and then we should have had no prayer like
that in ch. ix., nor any ofthe profound lessons with which it is fraught.
With regard to " the going forth of the word " (ver. 25), it is
manifestly gratuitous to make it identical with the "word" that
" came forth " in the 23rd verse, just as it would be to make the
first "word" (commandment) in ver. 23 identical with the second
"word" (matter) in the same verse. The meaning of the "word"
in ver. 25 is conditioned and determined by the complement of the
phrase " to restore and to build Jerusalem ;" and this must surely be
something yet to come, and not something then already past. We
are thus directed not to the original prophecy of Jeremiah, nor to the
date of the present vision, but to one of such words or commandments
then still to come, the first of which was in 536 b.c. and the last
in 457 b.c. That this "word" can by no manner of means be
referred to the original prophecy of Jeremiah, apart from the verbal

Noteb.] The Seventy Weeks of Daniel. 283
difficulties of so referring it, I take to be absolutely certain from its
failure to satisfy the conditions of the prophecy, supposing it to be
written in 165 b.c. I have met with no satisfactory attempt on the
part of those who hold this date to explain the meaning of the pro
phecy no their hypothesis— which stands therefore self-condemned.
" Let us inquire, then," says Kuenen, "whether the facts which are
" presented in the oracle afford us the certainty which we seek. The
" last year-week seems to be the least doubtful. ' The middle of that
"week shall cause sacrifice and oblation to cease' (ver. 27). This
" evidently refers to the suspension of the public worship in the temple
" of Jerusalem, in the month Chisleu (December) of the year 167 b.c,
" which is also mentioned elsewhere in the book of Daniel (vii. 25,
"viii. 11, 12; xi. 31), and a thing which especially deserves our
" attention; then also the space of three-and-a-half years(=the half of
" a year-week) precedes the time of the end (vii. 25 ; xii. 7), as here
"it precedes the close of the seventieth or last year-week. This
" combination is confirmed by the further fact that in Dan. ix. 27, as in
" other places also, the ' astounding abomination ' — i.e. the little altar
" intended for the offerings to Jupiter Capitolinus, which was placed
" on the altar of burnt-offerings by command of Antiochus Epiphanes
"- — is brought into immediate connection with the suspension of
"public worship (compare ch. viii. 13; xi. 31; xii. 11). Further,
" everything that is told us in verses 26, 27, of the last year-week
" coincides with the supposition that the middle of this last year- week
"falls in December 167 b.c, and therefore its beginning in June 170
" b.c At the beginning of these seven years ' an anointed one is
" cut off, and there is none (anointed one) for him:' the high priest
" Onias III. is murdered at Antioch in 170 B.C."
Even admitting that the desecration of the Temple was the event
referred to by the words " shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation
to cease," Kuenen is certainly not right in his computation. For
this event happened, according to him, in December 167 b.c, and
therefore the beginning of the last year- week in June 170 b.c But
Antiochus Epiphanes came to the throne in 175 b.c; and it was not
less than three years afterwards, according to 2 Mace iv. 23, that
Onias was slain, which would bring it to 172, or possibly 171
b.c ; but there is no authority whatever for saying that Onias was
murdered at Antioch in June 170 B.C., and yet unless this can be
made out the application of the "oracle" fails. With regard to the
other half year-week it is plain that there is no greater correspondence

284 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note b.
with the history, inasmuch as the desecration of the Temple lasted for
three years exactly, and not for three years and a half (see 2 Mace
x. 5). To imagine, therefore, that the origin of this prophecy is to
be sought in the events of June 170 — June 163 b.c, is altogether
" illusory," for there is no correspondence. Equally unsatisfactory is
Kuenen's method of dealing with the words " He shall confirm the
covenant with many for one week," which he interprets of "the
covenant between Jahveh and His people;" and adds, "Elsewhere
"also the author expresses the conviction that the hostile measures
" of Antiochus had, contrary to his intention, the effect of confirming
" the worship of Jahveh " (ch. xi. 32, 33), p. 267, for this was not
a distinctive characteristic of any seven years of his reign. As Dr.
Pusey says, "Antiochus did not confirm any covenant for seven
" years, nor did he make sacrifice to cease for half of those seven
"years, nor was any Messias, or any one alleged to be a Messias, cut
" off during those seven years; nor was the Temple destroyed; nor
" were there any seven years, in the period selected, of one uniform
"marked character" (p. 224). And yet nothing can be more clear
than that if this prophecy was written at the time supposed, and
was to pass as a prophecy ' given,' as Josephus says, ' 408 years
before to Daniel ' (Ant. xii. 7. 6), and succeeded in doing so, it could
only be because of its minute agreement with the events and inci
dents of the time. There was no such agreement, therefore this was
not the cause of the fame of the prophecy, still less was it the cause
of its existence, therefore there is no reason to believe that the pro
phecy was other than genuine.
Dr. Kuenen, however, is witness to himself that the apparent pro
phecy which was written, according to him, with reference to the
events of Antiochus IV., does not correspond, as we should expect
it would, even with these events. " The description," he says
(p. 267), " of the seventieth year-week corresponds in all its various
"features with the history of the years 170 to 163 b.c. There is
" only one point of difference. After the last week has elapsed — not
" earlier, but also not later — the author expects the destruction of the
"'astounding abomination' (ver. 276), and contemporaneously with
"that the dawning of Israel's golden age (ver. 24). In reality, the
" temple at Jerusalem was purified not three-and-a-half, but three
"years after the suspension of the public worship (compare 1 Mace
" iv. 52 with i. 54, 59) ; but neither at that time, nor half a year
"later, did that great revolution in favour of the Jews, which is

Noteb.] The Seventy Weeks of Daniel. 285
"here announced, take place. This relation of the prediction to the
" reality finds its satisfactory explanation exclusively in the suppo
sition that it had been written after the cessation of the daily
" sacrifice (December 167), and before its restoration (December 164).
" Other passages allow us to determine still more exactly the time at
" which the book was composed, and to assign it to the year 165 b.c"
So then, though this is a feigned prophecy having reference to
current events, it yet did not correspond with those events, but was
nevertheless received with so much avidity as a genuine prophecy that
its author was reckoned as one of the greatest of the prophets, though
he is admitted to have been in the dark with regard to the events of
his own time. But then to be sure how could he be expected to know
them before they came to pass !
It is to be observed, moreover, that Kuenen here assumes that the
last of the seventy weeks = 170 to 163 b.c ; but 163 + 490 = 653,
(which would bring us to the reign of Manasseh and not Jehoiakim),
and not 606, the year from which he says the seventy years are to be
counted. Whatever difficulty there may be in this prophecy, and it
certainly is difficult, it is clearly not removed by the suggestions
here made and proposed, as though they were sufficient to explain it.
" The traditional interpretation of Dan. ix. 26, 27," says Kuenen,
" is, on the other hand, irreconcilably opposed on all points to the
" words of the writer. It sees in the ' anointed one,' (ver. 26,) Jesus,
"and finds here the announcement both of His atoning death, and
" of the capture and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in the year
" 70 a.d. But every one sees that the text does not permit such an
" explanation. In verse 26th the cutting off of an anointed one, and
" the profanation (or destruction) of city and temple are mentioned in
"immediate juxtaposition, and both these events are placed after
" the sixty-two weeks, which come after the first seven, that is, in the
"beginning of the seventieth week, the middle of which is men-
" tioned in verse 27th. According to the Messianic interpretation,
"verse 26th refers to the death of Jesus, which happens in the
" middle of the last year-week ; and to the destruction of Jerusalem,
« which took place thirty -five years after the last year-week /"
It is to be borne in mind that verse 24 has fixed the limit of
seventy weeks to accomplish certain results ; these seventy weeks
are afterwards divided into 7 + 62+1. It cannot but be, therefore,
that the last three verses of the chapter must recount in detail the
results of verse 24 ; but as it expands them, so also may it add to

286 Old Testament Prophecy. [NoteB.
them. As therefore nothing is said in verse 24 about the abomi
nation of desolation in verse 27, it is gratuitous and contrary to
analysis to assume that because [the cutting off of the anointed one
and the destruction of city and temple are mentioned in immediate
juxtaposition (they are however separated by the Ethnach, and a
new clause is begun), therefore they are to follow one another in
immediate sequence. That our Lord regarded the sequence as very
close is shown by His own words, " This generation shall not pass
away till all these things be fulfilled." There is no evidence what
ever to show that the destruction of Jerusalem, if that is what is
meant, was to occur within the seventy weeks, still less in the
seventieth week. The middle of the seventieth week (ver. 27), not
the beginning of it, as is arbitrarily asserted, was to witness the
cutting off of the anointed one ; after that all is foreshortened, and
the time might he, as far as the language allows, thirty-five years, or
even more. Of course it is' impossible to make this good to any one
who sees nothing supernatural in the death of Jesus, or who denies
the supernatural in propheey ; but at least there is nothing in the
language of this prophecy to render it impossible that the Divine
Spirit chose this method of predicting the death of the only-begotten
and the well-beloved, or to prevent those who believe that Jesus was
the Christ accepting this as the meaning of it. To say that because
the morning and evening sacrifices " were not abolished in the middle
" of the seventieth year- week, but were regularly offered until the year
"70 a.d.," and that "if the author had meant that those sacrifices
"would have had no more virtue, he would undoubtedly have said
" so, and not have asserted that the middle of the week ' would make
" them cease,' " is only saying that had Professor Kuenen written
this prophecy, and meant this, he would have said so ; but surely the
Epistle to the Hebrews has done more than anything else to abolish
sacrifice and offering, while it has only done so by dwelling on the
absolute and permanent value of the great sacrifice which was offered
in the middle of the seventieth year-week. A man or a system may
receive a death-blow, and yet linger for some time afterwards.
It is not surprising that Kuenen follows the accents in verse 25,
which according to Dr. Pusey the Jews altered dishonestly (p. 173 :
what is his evidence for this assertion ?), and makes the restoration
and building up of Jerusalem occupy the whole period of 434 years,
which he says "the author characterises as a troublous or straitened
" time with a view to the future which, according to his conviction,

Noteb.] The Sevtnty Weeks of Datiiel. 287
" awaits the city. The lot of Jerusalem had in truth been much sub
ject to vicissitudes, still years of repose and comparative prosperity
" had not been wanting. But the most flourishing state to which she
"had attained might, when compared with her destination, be left
" out of account ; for had not one slavery ceased only to make room
"for another ?"
But if this is allowed, though the interpretation seems highly
improbable, is it not strange to say that " from the oracle of Jeremiah
"till Cyrus, forty-nine years elapse," and that "the seven year-weeks
"which here precede (is it his appearance as king of the Persians?
" or the promulgation of his edict in favour of the Jews ?) agree very
" well with the actual chronology " ? For Kuenen himself says, " The
"prophecy of Jeremiah dates from the fourth year of Jehoiakim
" 604 b.c" (p. 272). Now forty-nine years from this date brings us to
555 b.c, but the victory of Cyrus over Astyages was 559 b.c, which
overthrows the chronology ; and his edict in favour of the Jews was
twenty-three years later, which is yet more fatal to it. Besides,
though the latter event might have caused the Jews to regard him
as a Messiah, it is very improbable that the writer of Daniel would
choose a point in his history more than twenty years before, and an
incident in no way affecting the Jews, from which to count the
oracle of Jeremiah. Certainly the amended interpretation offers us'
no improvement. The present punctuation of verse 25 is undoubtedly
a difficulty in the way of the Messianic interpretation of it ; but there
is very strong reason, from the evidence of the entire context, to
doubt whether that punctuation can be right, contrary as it is also
to the Greek (see note to Lecture XH., p. 236). Is it probable, on
the face of it, that in two consecutive verses the writer should use a
phrase not elsewhere found in this peculiar way, in two different
senses, as referring to two different persons ? And though the absence
of the article, on which Kuenen insists, is so far in favour of his view,
it is surely altogether accounted for if the term is used, as it appears
to be, as an appellative. And even admitting that by the first
Messiah Cyrus may be meant, as in Isaiah xiv. 1, yet then what conso
lation could the men of the Maccabasan age receive from a prophecy
which held out to them the promise of troublous times still to run till
the 434 years were fulfiUed ? If the Messianic interpretation of this
mysterious prophecy is rejected, it is absolutely certain that no satis
factory meaning can be offered by the theory which would imagine
it to have been a mere invention of the year b.c 165. Any one

288 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note b.
writing what was to pass for a prophecy of his own times would
surely be more careful to make it correspond with them. In short,
just as the seventy weeks of verse 24 cannot by any possibility be made
to square with the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, so is the subsequent
analysis of them absolutely inappropriate and unmeaning when applied
to that era. So that the reasons for the genuineness of Daniel are
substantially and materially strengthened by the inapplicability of this
prophecy to the Maccabaean times, when it is gratuitously supposed
to have arisen. To be sure, the other interpretation involves the
conclusion that it is not only prophetic but predictive, and that
involves belief in the supernatural, which is not to be endured ; but
as far as mere evidence goes, the preponderance of proof is all in
favour of it.
On the other hand, no real difficulty is presented even if we allow
the force of Kuenen's remark : " It is self-evident that the restoration
" of Jerusalem in the troublous times must extend over the 7 + 62
" weeks, and not merely over the seven weeks," only there arises this
fatal objection — that the words are not more explicable by reference
to the history, if we suppose them written in 165 b.c, than they
would be on the traditional hypothesis. On the whole, therefore, it
seems more in accordance with the history to refer the first seven
year-weeks to the troubled times of Ezra and Nehemiah, which are
known to have been nearly, and may have been exactly, forty-nine
years (see Pusey, p. 175).
There is no force whatever in Knenen's remark, "It is asserted,
"indeed, that 'anointed' (mashiach, Messiah) was the universally
" received appellation of the approaching king of David's family ; but
" this assertion is untrue : no one trace of any such use of this word
"can be pointed out anywhere in the Old Testament" (p. 270).
Clearly not : that is the very point. It is undeniable that in the time
of Christ the term had received its well-known application. Whence
had it received it ? Does any one suppose that the use was invented
by the writers of the New Testament ? But, if not, they had received
it from their fathers ; and if this was not the principal passage which
suggested it, then was it in 165 b.c. a standing memorial of the pre
valent use of the phrase at that time ; for to suppose that then for
the first time this application of the phrase was invented and forth
with adopted is on the face of it manifestly impossible, and contrary
to all reason. The mere occurrence of the word in the New Testament
is the witness to a hope, the hope is the witness to a belief, the belief

Noteb,] The Seventy Weeks of Daniel. 289
requires to be accounted for : it is accounted for, if the literature
that enshrined and fostered it is divinely authenticated; it is not
otherwise to be accounted for, therefore we must either leave it unex
plained, or accept what the explanation of it involves.
Kuenen asks, " What man ever expresses himself thus : ' Till A. B.
" are 7 + 62 weeks,' and immediately thereafter, ' After 7+62 weeks
" A. B. is cut off' ? why is it not said at once that A. B. will be cut off
"after 7 + 62 weeks?" (p. 271.) To which it may be replied that, for
some reason or other, the seven weeks and the sixty-and-two weeks are
separated the one from the other, either by the coming of a Messiah
or by the rebuilding of the city and wall, and that there is a difference
between the coming of a Messiah and the cutting off of a Messiah,
and that there seems to be nothing unreasonable in saying that a
certain period shall elapse before such an one arises, or is acknow
ledged, or what not, but that after that period he shall be cut off.
It shall be so long till so-and-so, but after that period is come he
shall be cut off. If the end of his coming was that he might be cut
off, if he was born in order that he might die, there is surely nothing
unreasonable in such language. Deny the validity of the cause, and
the effect is unexplained ; not, however, because there is no expla
nation, but only because this explanation is rejected. But the other
interpretation is certainly not more intelligible, nor more in accordance
with any known facts of history.
The construction of this prophecy is well worth observing. In
ver. 24 the seventy weeks are surveyed as a whole. In ver. 25 the
seven weeks and sixty-two weeks are particularly characterised. In
ver. 26 an undefined period subsequent to the sixty-and-nine weeks
is described, and in ver. 27 the seventieth week as the commencement
of that undefined period is specially dealt with, and special attention
is directed to the middle of the week. Thus the prophecy seems to
go on circling with a narrower and yet more narrow circle, till it is
concentrated upon the particular event of the last week, which is the
most prominent and important of all. How this seventieth week,
which upon Kuenen's supposition must have fallen 121—114 b.c,
can be made to answer to any events in or about the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes, seems perfectly unintelligible. Well may he say, (p. 272,)
"We on our side readily grant that our interpretation of Dan. ix.
" 24—27 does not agree fully with the chronology any more than it
" rests upon it. But this signifies, in other words, that the writer of
" the book of Daniel had formed another conception of the duration

2 go Old Testament Prophecy. [NoteB.
" of the different periods than we hold at the present day. The pro-
" phecy of Jeremiah dates from the fourth year of Jehoiakim, 604 b.c
" The writer places Cyrus seven year-weeks after that, — i.e. in 555 B.C.
" This is tolerably accurate. [! ! !] If it be assumed that he was thinking
" of a later oracle of Jeremiah (ch. xxix., xxx., or xxxi.), then the seven
" year-weeks bring us to the year 544 or 537 B.C., that is, still nearer
" to the issuing of the edict in favour of the Jews, 536 b.c. Up to this
" point therefore there is no difficulty. [?] But now the interval between
" Cyrus and the death of Onias IH., comprising in fact 385 years (that
" is, if we reckon from 555 to 170 b.c : if we count from 544 or 537
" b.c, the interval is 374 or 367 years), is estimated by the writer as
" being sixty-two year-weeks, that is, 434 years. We cannot reconcile
" this difference. [The italics here are ours. J It is true, indeed, that
"the difficulty is at once removed, and the chronology brought into
"perfect order, by the supposition that the 'seven year-weeks do not
" precede the sixty-two, but run parallel with them; (from 604 to 170
"b.c there are 434 years [not 490] — that is, sixty-two year-weeks;
" while between 586 and 527 b.c there intervene precisely forty-nine
"years — that is, seven year-weeks); but that supposition, although
" approved of by eminent expositors, seems to be irreconcilable with
" the words of the author, and cannot therefore be admitted."
These, it will be allowed, are considerable admissions for any one
to make who professes to interpret Daniel, and to show from his
interpretation that he is no prophet. The reader will be able to
judge for himself whether the proposed interpretation has such con
spicuous advantages over the Messianic application as to involve the
rejection of the latter, and with it the genuineness of Daniel which
is established by the patent superiority of the former. As far as we
are able to arrive at an impartial critical decision, this is certainly not
the case ; but, on the contrary, the manifest fitness of all the more
prominent features of the prophecy of the seventy weeks to the advent
of Christ, to His three years and a half ministry, to the approximate
interval between His death and the opening of the door of faith to
the Gentiles, is so remarkable, and undeniably so much greater and
more accurate than any that has been proposed, that we are after all
constrained to accept it as the true one, and to find in that an addi
tional indication that the prophet spoke by a power not his own, and
that, as he tells us, this wonderful announcement was made to him
distinctly in answer to earnest prayer by a messenger sent from God.
This may seem very childish, and very old-fashioned, and very impro-

NoteB.] The Seventy Weeks of Daniel. 291
bable, but we nevertheless believe it to be after all the conclusion
that is most reasonable and most in accordance with fact ; at all events
not less reasonable than Professor Kuenen's, while on his own showing
it certainly is not less in accordance with the history.
But let us examine his account of the genesis of this oracle. He
tells us that the writer having determined that by Jeremiah's seventy
years were meant year-weeks, " all the rest followed now as a matter
" of course. The interval between the death of Onias III. and the
"desecration of the temple at Jerusalem comprises three-and-a-half
" years : thus the beginning and the middle of the last year-week were
" both pointed out, and at the same time it was certain that the joyful
" future of Israel would begin three-and-a-half years after the profa-
" nation of the temple. But then also in the year that Onias died
" (170 b.c) sixty-nine year- weeks must have elapsed since the prediction
" of Jeremiah, and these were again divided into seven, and sixty-two
" year- weeks, in the way already known to us. How natural is it that
" this chronology should not fully correspond to the reality! " (p. 273.)
This is manifestly a loose way of dealing with an " oracle" which
was on the hypothesis written with reference to contemporary events,
and which, because of the wonderful manner in which it reflected
those events, was forthwith supposed to have been the work of Daniel
three centuries and a half before. This is the crux of the modern
hypothesis — that it fails to supply us with any idea of the actual
circumstances under which it can be conceived as at all credible or
possible that the "oracle" arose, and, having arisen, attained the
celebrity it undeniably did for the reasons proposed. This would
assuredly be a phenomenon unparalleled in the annals of literature.
But let us look a little closer at Kuenen's dates. He says that
Onias died 170 b.c. (The margin in the A. V. of 2 Mace iv. 32—38
gives the date as 171, which is adopted by Dr. Westcott in the Bible
Diet., s. v. Onias. Dr. Pusey, p. 223, gives it as 172, but the date com
monly accepted is 171.) Accepting this date of 170, how can Kuenen
say that there were three years and a half from that time till the
desecration of the temple, which was in 168 ? Moreover sixty-nine
year-weeks (=483 years) from 170 b.c. will bring us to 653 b.c, or
nearly fifty years before the "oracle" of Jeremiah. It is, indeed,
"natural that this chronology should not fully correspond to the
" reality." But is not this also a very inadequate "genesis " for the
whole " oracle " ?

292

NOTE C.
THE FUNCTION OF PROPHECY IN THE DIVINE RECORDS.
SUPPOSING the existence of prophecy to be established as a fact,
what purpose does it serve in the economy of Divine revelation ?
Has it any special function peculiar to itself ? What do we gain by
its presence, and should we lose anything by its absence ? Can we
willingly consent to the disparagement of prophecy without impover
ishing our inheritance in the riches of the Divine grace bestowed upon
us in Revelation ? These are questions which seem to deserve an
answer. Let us try to find one.
The literature of the Old Testament is not more remarkable in its
poetical books than it is in its purely historical portions. Most of the
historical books have records or fragments of prophecies embodied in
them, even if we may not rightly question whether much of the history
itself is not prophetic. We cannot turn the first pages of Genesis
without meeting with what professes to be a Divine promise, and is
therefore of the nature of a prophecy ; and as we proceed, we find a
promise made to Cain, to Noah, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob,
while the last chapter but one appears to shadow forth the destiny of
the sons of Israel for many generations.
But then it may be questioned whether the history of Abraham
and of Joseph, for example, are not themselves prophetic, and do not
themselves indicate the fortunes of the chosen people in the present
and the future, as well as in the past. Abraham, wandering among
the cities of Canaan, but having no possession there, is not unlike
his descendants even now. Joseph, going down into Egypt and
becoming its saviour, is an historical prophecy or a prophetic history
of the mission of Israel in the world. And many other significant
parallels might be pointed out, which are so striking and instructive

Note c.] Function of Prophecy in the Divine Records. 293
as to make it something more than probable that their significance
was designed. But if this is the case, we see at once that prophecy
is but a higher manifestation of an energy which is latent in Scripture
as a whole. No other book can be named in which the like features
can be discovered of the individuals of a nation, or of the nation
itself, foreshadowing in their history the fortunes and destiny of the
nation for many ages to come. This is conspicuously the case with
that nation whose history is contained in the Bible. The oppression
and bondage of Israel in Egypt and its deliverance therefrom may be
said to have foreshadowed the captivity in Babylon and the return, as
the captivity foreshadowed a yet greater exile after the destruction of
Jerusalem, to be followed it may be by a yet greater return. The
forty years' wandering in the wilderness also foreshadowed a much
longer wandering in the wilderness of the nations, which may likewise
not improbably be the prelude to a literal or typical entry into the
promised land.
And, yet further, the fortunes of Israel from the very first have
been singularly illustrative and anticipatory of the fortunes of the
Christian Church from the beginning until now, when many features
of the parallel still hold good. And as this is a matter of fact, and
not merely of the interpretation of facts, it serves to show that there
is in the history even of Scripture such a prophetic element as may
suffice to prepare us for the possible existence of other manifestations
of prophecy. If the book seems to show as in a glass the character
of a large and important chapter of human history for many ages to
come, it would seem to be antecedently not improbable that these
documents may contain even more marked instances of the exercise
of the prophetic activity. At all events, professed examples of it
would be in keeping with the documents, and the documents with
them ; and even if we were to abolish every professed prophecy from
the book, we should still not get rid of the prophetic aspect of the
history which it has preserved.
And it is manifest that this character of the history is not one
which has been artificially and by design communicated to it. The
history of Abraham was not written because subsequent events in
a long course of ages had illustrated it ; because on any theory of the
composition of Genesis it must have been prior to those events. The
history of the captivity was not invented because of its supposed
analogy to any other subsequent events ; and yet during the captivity
itself it had been declared by the prophet Ezekiel, I will bring you

294 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note a.
into the wilderness of the people,* — whatover that expression may
mean. If then this is the framework in which prophecy is set, what is
the function of the prophecies ? This can only bo ascertained by an
investigation or analysis of their chief features. There can bo no
question but that tho prophots claimed to bo tho enuncialors of the
will of Cod. Their phraseology, The word of the Lord came unto me;
Thus saith the Lord, not only has not boon adoptod by any one else,
but wero it to be adopted by any ono it would at once bo felt to bo
incongruous, unbecoming, and blasphemous. However, therefore, we
may account for tho verbal phenomena, there can bo no doubt that
tho prophets claimed to be tho spokesmen of tho Divine Spirit, and
that not soldom in opposition to their own will and to their personal
interest. It is moreovor sufficiently clear that the prophets did lay claim
at times to the prediction of events yet future. Not only do thoir
writings contain instances of their so doing, but the latter chapters of
Isaiah expressly challonge to any one but the Lord this power of
foretelling tho unknown events of tho future. Wo have only to open
tho prophets anywhero casually to soe at once that they do profess to
dcclaro things that shall happen or ever they come to pass. It is
useless, therefore, to deny to them the claim, even if it is impossible to
make it good. But is this after all so difficult as some would have us
believe ? Take for instance Amos, one of the earliest of the prophots,
who is acknowledged to havo written nearly 800 years n.c, in the
contemporary reigns of Uzziah and.Icroboam II. What do we read in
his last chapter ? llehold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the itinfid
kingdom, rind, I will de/Aroy it from off the face of Ihr: north ; naciiir/ that
[ irill, not utterly deatroy the house of Jacob, Hrnt.lt, the Lord. For, l/i,
I 7i://7, command,, anil I will, sift the house of Israel, a/noio/ all nations,
tike oh corn in sifted in a sieve, yet, shall not the leant, groin fall, vpon
the earth. Now, this claims to be spoken as a Divine message, and in
the name ofthe Lord. It was spoken at a time when the kingdom
of Israel was in its highest prosperity, before tho first incursions of
Assyria, while a long line of distinguished monarch s had still to reign
in Judah, and with reference to secular history probably several
years before the first Olympiad. At this time, then, Amos declared
that the sinful kingdom, apparently Israel, should be destroyed, but
that the house of Jacob should not utterly be destroyed, that the
* Ezekiel xx. _•_.

Note c.] Function of Prophecy in the Divine Records. 295
house of Israel should be sifted among all nations, but that the least grain
should not fall upon the earth. We look back now upon the words of
the prophet from a distance of five-and-twenty centuries. Have these
four statements been ratified by history, or have they not ? Was any
endowment of human foresight and intelligence, any amount of human
wisdom, able at the time when Amos wrote to promise or to foresee
that it would be as he said after that lapse of time ? There can be but
one answer. Which of us would venture to say how it shall be with
any national or public institution five-and-twenty years to come ?
It is not necessary to maintain that Amos saw mentally when he
wrote the present condition of Israel ; it is not possible to deny that
what he wrote has been verified. Is that any evidence of the truth of
his claim to be a messenger of God, or is it not ? Again, where is
there any instance in the history of any other nation of its destinies
in the far future being thus foretold ? Can Greece point to it ? Can
Rome point to it ? Can we ourselves point to it ? But if not, may
we not say with Kuenen, " The Israelitish prophet is a unique
" phenomenon in history " ? (p. 591.) But may we not also say, as
he does not say, that there are tokens here of a wisdom that is not
merely natural, of a knowledge that is more than liuman ? Are not
the prophet's words the human index of a will that five-and-twenty
centuries ago intended to fulfil itself in history, and has done so ?
Take another instance of about the same time from another prophet
 Hosea. The children of Israel shall abide many days without a
king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an
image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim : afterward shall
the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God and David
their king ; and shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days.
Here again we ourselves are witnesses to the graphic accuracy of the
former statement; whereas none can say that the foreknowledge of the
prophet's words may not embrace an area of time as far distant from
the present as we ourselves are from him. Can this be explained
naturally, or can it not ? If it cannot, why should we hesitate to
ascribe to his words, if not to him, the evidence of a foreknowledge
which is more than human, and which therefore is in favour of the
mission to which he laid claim being a real one ?
To take one more instance, from a prophecy to which we can
assign the actual date of 520 b.c At the close of what we may call
the first great act of the drama of Israel's national life, after the
monarchy had passed away, and the prophets' calling was about

296 Old Testament Prophecy. [NoteC.
to cease, Haggai declared of the newly built temple — The latter
glory of this house shall be greater than the former, saith the Lord
of hosts : and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord ¦ of
hosts. Here was a distinct promise uttered in the most solemn
way in the name of the Lord. There was at the time no appa
rent prospect of its fulfilment, for the promise itself was given
because of the manifest inferiority of the restored temple. Nor
is it at all likely that the temple of Zerubbabel ever equalled in
splendour the temple of Solomon ; and even if the temple of Herod
approached it in magnificence, yet then the lapse of five centuries was
required before the prophet's words could be made good ; but it is
evident that he was not speaking of its comparative material splendour,
but of another and a greater glory altogether, for he added, In this
place I loill give peace, saith the Lord of hosts. But if his words were
true at all, there is only one way in which they were proved true, and
that was by the advent of the Prince of Peace. In no other single
point could the restored temple venture to compare with Solomon's
temple, but in this respect it was utterly incomparable to it. We
dare not say that this was the fulfilment of the prophet's words, and
we cannot point, as in the former cases, to something of which we
ourselves are witnesses ; but we can say, as before, that the course of
history has brought an unexpected flood of light to bear upon his
words, and if we admit the possibility of his being an agent of the
Divine Being, it is hard to deny that in the greater glory that visited
the temple in the latter days the seal of God was set to his audacious
and repeated claim to have spoken in the name of the Lord of hosts.
We might multiply instances without number, but these are sufficient
as illustrations that the prophets did make themselves responsible for
statements which no discretion or foresight would have enabled them
to make, which the circumstances of their times could not explain, as
in the instances just given, and which the lapse of many centuries has
only shown to be more and more true. And while the attempt is
made to account for prophecy as a merely natural phenomenon, it
seems to be well to direct attention to a few crucial passages, and to
challenge the verdict upon them as to whether or not they can be
adequately explained but as the deliberate utterances of men who
were authorised to make them in virtue of the commission which they
held as the prophets of the Most High. Can their words be justly
regarded but as a record of the Divine foreknowledge ?
While, however, the supernatural element in prophecy is denied, an

NoteC] Function of Prophecy in the Divine Records. 297
unwonted function is attributed to the prophets. They are advanced
as the authors, directly or indirectly, of the Mosaic law. Whereas in the
New Testament the phrase is consistently* the Law and the Prophets,
we are told to substitute for it the Prophets and the Law, for the astound
ing reason that " the final redaction of the present Pentateuch was
" preceded chronologically by the entire series ofthe canonical Pro-
" phets." t It may be very much easier to make an assertion like this
than it is to disprove it ; and yet not because it is true for all that.
It is an old slander that all religion is the invention of priests, but it
is a new discovery that the Mosaic Law was the invention of the
prophets. In that case one hardly understands how the priests allowed
themselves to be superseded in their legitimate function of deceiving
mankind. The prophet and the priest did not always act in harmony,
but, as so often happens, their mutual jealousy was productive of
some beneficial results. It would naturally act as a mutual check.
The priests would hardly venture to fabricate a law with the prophets
looking on, and the prophets, who were comparatively a late order of
men, would have some natural difficulty in gaining the assent of a
class who boasted their descent .from Aaron to an ethical and ritual
code of their own invention. We are not told how the natural
obstacles in this arrangement were surmounted; we are only told of the
supernatural difficulties of the law and prophecy. But it is scarcely
open to question that Malachi, the last of the prophets, was acquainted
with the law as we have it, and with no other form of it. He refers
to it in its present form, including Deuteronomy, as entrusted to
Moses by God in Horeb. Whether he was right or wrong, that was
the belief of his day. He clearly was unconscious of any change in
the law which he had from what it had been in the time of Moses.
If he had been, he would not have spoken as he did. He also
recognised the function of the priest as a teacher of the law,— evidently
this same law, for he says, The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and
they should seek the law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord
of hosts.X There is no evidence of the existence of any other law ;
there is no reason to believe that this was not tho law he was to
teach ; there is every reason to believe it was. About contemporary
with Malachi we have the testimony of Nehemiah, whose ninth
* This is commonly so : the reverse order, however, is found in Matt. xi. 13 ;
but see Luke xv. 16, 29, 31, and compare Matt. v. 17, vii. 12, xxii. 40 ; Acts
xiii. 15, xxviii. 23 ; Rom. iii. 21 ; John viii. 62, 53.
f Kuenen, Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, p. 561.
t ii. 7.

298 Old Testament Prophecy. [NoteC.
chapter is studded with the phraseology of the Pentateuch, and with
references to the national records. It is clear that Nehemiah knew
the law, which apparently was then so old that to some present its
language had become obsolete and needed an interpreter •* it was then
believed to be the Law of Moses which the Lord God of Israel had
given him, and in which Ezra was a ready scribe. He had evidently
brought it with him from Babylon. Had he found it there ? If so,
is it possible that he could have believed it to be the work of Moses,
or that the nation generally could have done so ? At all events, in
the previous century, two generations before Ezra, we find Haggai
making reference to this same law, of which he regards the priests as
the natural guardians. His references can be verified in our existing
law. He then must have known it in Babylon, and reverenced and
prized it there ; not, however, because it originated in Babylon, but
because it belonged to the beloved fatherland, and had been brought
with his fathers into captivity from their ancestral home. It is
evident that the law was regarded as a common standard both by
priest and prophet, by which both were alike bound. Had the priests
tampered with the law, the prophets would have been the first to
charge them with it. Had the prophets forged the law, they would
not have made the priests the keepers of it, nor would they have been
willing to keep it. Moreover, as the priesthood was hereditary, and
could be traced up to Aaron, and as they were the recognised teachers
of the law, its origin would naturally be coeval and co-ordinate with
their own, for the function spoken of by Malachi was that prescribed
by the law itself : That ye may teach the children of Israel all the
statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses ;t and
consequently before the priests could teach the law, there must have
been a law for them to teach. It is admitted that this is not demon
strative evidence, for that we can seldom obtain : it is, however,
evidence with an a priori probability. Nor does it avail to insist
upon the recorded breaches of the law, as in the case of Josiah's pass-
over or Nehemiah's feast of tabernacles ; for if that were a legitimate
inference from the statement of the historian, and he had been inter
ested in conveying an opposite impression, what would have been easier
than for him to be silent on the matter ? Had the law been observed
either in letter or in spirit, where would have been the function of
the prophet ? The non-observance of the law is no proof of its non
existence. A law may be in abeyance or in desuetude, or its violation
* Neh. viii. 8. f Lev. x. 11.

NoteC] Function of Prophecy in the Divine Records. 299
may be connived at. It is absurd, moreover, to expect detailed
reference to the law in the writings of the prophets. That there is
much verbal reference is undeniable. It is enough to remember that,
as far as it is possible to trace the history, the law was ever regarded
by the Jews as a sacred whole. It was manifestly so in the time of the
Maccabees and in the time of Malachi. We have no reason to believe
it ever was otherwise regarded ; we have every reason to believe
it was always regarded as a sacred whole. As far, therefore, as
this is the case, one clear reference to a part is a reference to the
whole. Now, there is one part of the law referred to and insisted upon alike
by Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah, not to mention other prophets; and
this is the law of the Sabbath. The institution of the Sabbath, like
the institution of the passover, was derived from the law, and known
only from the law. The observance of every Sabbath and of every
passover, whether perfect or incomplete, was a standing witness to
the deliverance from Egypt and to the thunders of Sinai, no less than
every breaking of bread and pouring out of wine in the Christian
Church is a standing witness to the events of the last supper in the
upper chamber. You cannot account for the one but on the supposi
tion of the other, It is certain, therefore, that Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Ezekiel knew so much of the law as is implied by their knowledge of
the Sabbath, but this brings us back to a time when the kingdom was
divided. And Amos likewise, in prophesying to the northern kingdom,
charges them with their profanation of the Sabbath. So much,
therefore, of the law as this implies was known to and recognised
by the northern kingdom. But it is morally impossible that a law
that was recognised in the divided kingdom even to this extent
could have originated after the division of the kingdom. It must
have been older than the national schism. This brings us to the time
of Solomon — a period long before the era of the canonical prophets.
Where, then, is the probability or the possibility that the canonical
prophets invented the law ? It is a theory, we need not hesitate to say,
in flat contradiction of all the evidence. The New Testament phrase,
" the law and the prophets," is strictly accurate, is amply supported
by the fullest evidence, and cannot be with any semblance of justice
impeached. The prophets virtually, if not formally, took their stand
upon the law, could have had no existence but for the law, and to a
man would have echoed the words of Isaiah, To the law and to the
testimony, if they speak not according to this word it is because there is

300 Old Testament Prophecy. [NoteC.
no light in them.* It would be easy to show that the writings of the
oldest prophets, Hosea, Joel, and Amos, were full of traces which
betoken a knowledge of the law, so that if they were not the natural
product of such knowledge, then a yet more wonderful alternative
must be taken, and we must suppose that the law was fabricated by
a number of unknown men in such a way as to exhibit all these
minute points of contact with the prophets, and that for the sake and
with the intent of leading us off upon the false issue that the law was
older than the prophets, when in reality it was compiled out of their
writings. But no one in his right mind could for a moment suppose
that. It follows, therefore, that we may confidently accept the
writings of the prophets as bearing tacit and unintentional evidence
to a knowledge of the law which was substantially the same as we
have it now, for aught that appears to the contrary, and that a know
ledge also which was shared by those to whom they ministered. One
function, therefore, of prophecy in the sacred Scriptures which it
does fulfil, whether or not it was intended to do so, is that of a
witness to an older revelation. The prophets stand midway between
the two branches of the Israelitish literature, which are the law and
the other writings represented by the Psalms. This is their technical
position, and it is one that is based on their natural characteristics,
and is in strict accordance with their acknowledged mission. Nor can
it for a moment be doubted that in the case of any other literature — :
whether Greek, Roman, Hindoo, or what not — if any book were
attested as the law is attested by the prophets, it would at once be
held to be conclusive evidence of its priority. When Thucydides or
Plato quotes Homer, we accept it as undeniable evidence that Homer
was known to them and in their day, not that the Homeric poems
were written in order to substantiate or illustrate their quotations.
But if this is a legitimate inference in their case, how should it be
otherwise in the case of a prophet like Hosea, for example, whose
brief writings and sententious and abrupt style make the occurrence
of passages having clear reference to the law to be all the more
remarkable? When, for example, Hosea manifests, as he does, inti
mate knowledge of the history of Jacob, is it more reasonable to
assume that in the eighth century before Christ the unwritten tradi
tions of a thousand years before were so numerous that prophet and
people were alike familiar with them, or that since a writing does
exist which has singular correspondence with the prophet's language,
* Isaiah viii. 20.

note c.] Function of Prophecy in the Divine Records. 301
and is the only one ever known to have existed, this writing was
known also to the prophet and familiar to the people, seeing that it
is preposterous to suppose that the history of Jacob in Genesis was
compiled from the suggestions in Hosea rather than that these sugges
tions were borrowed from the history. There may have been other
poems besides Homer's, containing the quotations of Plato and Thu
cydides, but at all events we have Homer's, and as they do contain
them, the only reasonable inference is that it was these poems to
which they referred, and not any others which may have existed, but
in all probability did not; least of all is it likely that these passages
were subsequently inserted in the poems of Homer because these
writers had made use of them. But the analogy is not one whit less
applicable to the writings of the prophets, but even more so ; nor
would it be possible to resist the force of it, were it not for the
unlimited reserve of conjecture upon which rash speculators think
it right to draw. The only consolation is that the common sense of
the multitude is oftentimes wiser than the far-fetched wisdom of
critics and savants.
This function of the prophets, however, though very important, is
nevertheless subordinate to a higher one. The era of canonical pro
phecy extended over about four centuries. There is no dispute as
to this period, which is about equivalent to that from Chaucer to
Wordsworth, or a little less. Like other things mundane, it was
marked by epochs of growth, maturity, and decay. But all the
prophets, — fifteen in number (not including Daniel), — were alike in
their claim to a Divine mission, and in the integrity and sublimity with
which they discharged it. Now it is not alleged that there is any
similar phenomenon in all literature. The canonical prophets stand
alone in the whole cycle of the world's written monuments. Is their
consistent position and character, then, in confirmation of their claim,
or is it not ? Does that claim become more or less significant when
viewed in relation to their personal greatness ? Is the sublimity and
magnificence of Isaiah an additional reason for regarding him as the
subject of " pious illusions " ? or is it altogether in favour of his
calling being as far higher than that of any other bard as his poetry
transcends theirs ? What are the highest flights of Homer compared
with the forty-ninth or the sixtieth of Isaiah? Read the two in any
translation, and let the hearer judge. If one is the voice of man, the
other is most assuredly the voice of God. But this is what it claims
to be, and therefore its accents are worthy of the claim. And we

302 Old Testament Prophecy. [NoteC.
may take these two chapters as fair samples of the rest, and as repre
sentations so far of the function of the prophet. Nor is there any
question as to their meaning; it is clear and obvious, so that he who
runs may read it, and he who reads may understand it. A vast
increase is promised to the ideal Israel, as the chosen worshippers of
the Lord. We are asked to believe that this was written at the time
of the return ; — then be it so. But turn from these sublime flights to
the undoubted works of that and the subsequent period, — namely,
those of Haggai, Ezra, Nehemiah. Does the history of the latter,
and the hints suggested by it, supply in any degree the basis for the
prophet's anticipations ? Does it not rather present the most deplo
rable and futile contrast that can be conceived ? Can the feeble
realities of the time have been the actual source of the prophet's inspi
ration ? It is impossible. Nor is any other historical feature in the
next four hundred years in the least degree more hopeful. The
notion, therefore, that the prophet winged his flight from the historic
circumstances of the return is altogether incongruous and absurd.
There was nothing in what we know of those times to lend him
inspiration. To be sure, there may have been, but that is merely
conjectural. As far as we know from the indubitable records that
remain to us, there was an absolute dearth of everything of the kind.
As, therefore, probability is entirely against the idea of these pro
phecies being produced then, so is there nothing in the history of
Israel, from Hezekiah to our Lord, which can at all account for them.
And yet then the prophet's language is as a witness to all time :
Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing
mothers .... and all flesh shall know that I the Lord am thy Saviour
and thy Redeemer, the mighty one of Jacob.* That, however, which the
prophet whenever he wrote was never destined to see with his own
eyes has been witnessed often in the past, and we ourselves can
witness it to-day. Is it, or is it not, a fulfilment of that language ?
Does it confirm or falsify the prophet's claim ? Most unquestionably
we cannot suppose that Isaiah had the same clear mental intelligence
of what we behold as we have who witness it. But what of that ?
All the more evident is it that his language surpassed his own con
ceptions, and therefore all the more evident is it that his claim to be
a prophet of the Lord was valid. And it is this remarkable fact that
prophecy did distinctly foreshadow the rejection of Israel and the
ingathering of the Gentiles that stamps it as a more than human
* Isaiah xlix. 23, 26.

Notec.] Function of Prophecy in the Divine Records. 303
agency ; for what human foresight could have discerned this in the
future ? And yet the present condition of Israel and of the world
corresponds therewith.
A remarkable parallel has been drawn by those who take delight
in the comparison of religions,* between the fortunes of Brah-
minism and Buddhism, and those of Judaism and Christianity.
Brahminism gave birth to Buddhism, as Judaism gave birth to Chris
tianity ; but Buddhism took root chiefly in non-Aryan races, just
as Christianity took root chiefly in non-Semitic races. It is very
interesting and very remarkable, but here the parallel ceases ; and
those who dwell on the comparison should carry it still further,
then not the comparison but the contrast will be striking,— for
nowhere in the Vedas is there anything that can be regarded as an
anticipation of this fact. The development, if such it was, pursued
its course naturally, and was not predicted ; but with Judaism it was
altogether different. There we meet in the prophetic writings with
the most distinct anticipations of the event, and the history of five-
and-twenty centuries is sketched in outline so far as it relates to the
rejection of Israel and the admission of the Gentiles. And, before we
determine that there is nothing which is not natural in prophecy, we
must decide how these very remarkable features are to be explained.
I do not hesitate to say that they baffle explanation on any merely
natural basis. The Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the
brightness of thy rising . . . The sons also of them that afflicted thee
shall come bending unto thee, and all they that despised thee shall bow
themselves down at the soles of thy feet, and they shall call thee the city
of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel.f
Of course it is possible to say that this is nothing more than a
highly poetical expression of the prophet's hopes for his nation, but
the significant fact is that the poetry became verified by history, and
so verified that the hand of man could have had no part in it. As
therefore we point to the finger of God in the history, so also do we
lay claim to hear the voice of God in the poetry. It is because God
and not man has authenticated this poetry, as He has authenticated
no other, that we accept the poetry as not merely man's, hut God's.
And we affirm that it was one function of the prophets to give
utterance to such poetry, to become the spokesmen to the nation of
hopes, aspirations and prophecies, which were as far above the
general level of their age as their language was beyond any circum-
* See Max Mailer's " Science of Eeligion," p. 103, sq. f Isaiah ^ 3; 14-

304 Old Testament Prophecy. [NoteC
stances of the time which could have suggested it. There is reason,
then, to believe that there is evidence in prophecy of a Divine spirit
breathing through its records, which was the endowment and not the
product of those who wrote them. So far as this is true, — and I
believe the more we consider it the truer we shall find it, — there is
to be discovered here the basis and framework of truly supernatural
features which may very possibly confront us. The supernatural
is not to be expected except where it can be seen to be consistent and
congruous with the environment. It is demonstrable that in the
Hebrew literature there is a combination of circumstances that renders
it conceivable that we might find the presence of the supernatural.
There, if anywhere, it would fit in with consistency and congruity.
Given a history more remarkable in its undoubted features than any
other — a literature in character and most essential features absolutely
unparalleled, and in style unsurpassed by any — and where, if at all,
is the presence of the supernatural to be appropriately met with, if not
here ? And if there is intrinsic evidence of it here, do not these
circumstances make it a priori probable ? Prophecy is exactly that
development which, antecedently, we might expect. Given an earlier
revelation by the hand of Moses, and that revelation a veritable and
real one, and the subsequent development of prophecy becomes
naturally conceivable. The law becomes the basis of prophecy, and
prophecy the confirmation of the law. But to suppose that prophecy
was the natural offshoot of Canaanitish soothsaying, and that from
such an environment Isaiah was produced, with all the goodly fellow
ship of the prophets, and that by them or from their writings the
law was compiled and fabricated, is to build a pyramid upon its
apex, and ascribe an effect to a cause incapable of producing it.
The remaining function of prophecy, which is that of prediction,
must be briefly touched upon. Of course those who regard prophecy
as a merely natural endowment deny that it possesses any elements
of prediction. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to prove or disprove
this. But the question really is whether the statements of the pro
phets are literally susceptible of a meaning which can be limited to
their own terms. And if this is so, how is it that they are still
endowed with an imperishable vitality which is continually adjusting
itself to new conditions and circumstances ? How is it that the
character of Christ more nearly answers to the delineations of pro
phecy than any other ? How is it that the broad history of the
Christian Church corresponds with the declarations of prophecy so

Notec.] Function of Prophecy in the Divine Records. 305
nearly as it does ? And how is it that the present condition of the
Jewish nation is that which Moses' and the prophets declared it should
be ? We may deny that these are instances of prediction, but it may
be replied, What would be so if these are not ? while, on the other
hand, we have but to postulate the possible existence of prediction to
find that the writings of the prophets are thickly strewn with the
tokens of it. Supposing that it does exist, the evidences of it meet
us on every hand. What, then, is the function of predictive pro
phecy ? It is apparently designed to confer that amount of permanent
and abiding testimony to the prophet's mission and language which
nothing else could give. Here it is that they are seen to be the
bearers of a Divine message, not merely by the strength of their
convictions, the elevation of their moral sentiment, the exaltation of
their character, but by the evidence which they bring with them of
having spoken words which could not be their own, of having made
promises that it was not possible for man to make or to fulfil, and of
having laid the foundations of a character and a constitution, of an
ideal kingdom of righteousness, and of a world-wide polity which the
experience of eighteen centuries has only combined to show to be still
ideal, although ever approximating more and more nearly to the real,
the actual, and the possible. The prophets were so conspicuously
before their age, are still so conspicuously before our age, that that
fact alone is sufficient to establish for them the claim to be the special
messengers of God, and to show not that they were so much the
conscious utterers of predictions, as that by their ministry and in
their language God gave to His people predictive prophecy which
the perpetual lapse of ages will only show to be more and more
Divine because more and more true.

3o6

NOTE D.
THE CREDENTIALS OF REVELATION.
IN the present state of religious thought it is important that we
should endeavour to understand what are the credentials of reve
lation. If it is possible for us to have a revelation — that is to say, a
body of Divine truth — committed to us, which has not been dis
covered and could not be discovered, what are the conditions under
which such a body of truth could be received, and how would those
conditions affect the mass of mankind in relation to it ? A clear
apprehension on these points would be of essential service in many
of the religious discussions of our time.
In the first place, then, we must take for granted the possibility of
a revelation being given by God and received by man. It would be
waste of time to prove this, and it is unlikely that any one who denied
it would be influenced by anything that could be said. It may not,
however, be superfluous to point out the absolute need there is for
such a revelation as we have mentioned, under the circumstances in
which we are placed.
It may be admitted, perhaps, that the being of a supreme God,
though amounting as it does to a very high degree of probability, is not
a matter of demonstration. No one has ever succeeded in showing
God to the intellectual eye, any more than he has discovered Him to
the bodily organ. But yet, in a very large number of cases, the
being of God is as much a fact to the spiritual apprehension as a
mathematical demonstration would be to the intellectual faculty.
How, then, are we to regard the consciousness of this apprehension ?
It is admitted to be not a demonstration, but yet it is declared to be
a moral conviction or certainty of no less force. The intellect, how
ever, properly speaking, is not, at all events, directly concerned in
it ; not that the intellect is altogether otiose in the matter, for it

Noted.] The Credentials of Revelation. 307
acquiesces or co-operates, but is subordinate. It is another faculty
that is immediately concerned, whether we call this faculty the spirit
or the soul, or faith ; but with regard to the being of God, this faculty
is what the eye is to the body, what perception is to the mind. Nor
is there any reason to believe that this faculty does not vary in its
nature and quality in different persons, even as the mental perception
varies, and the faculty of natural sight varies.
If this is so, and it were commonly recognised as a fact, there
would be an obvious method of escape from many of the perplexities
of religion. We should at all events give up the task of seeking to
make all men see alike spiritually, as we do not try to make them all
appreciate the same mental operations, or see alike with their bodily
eyes. But here those who are endowed with the faculty would be
acknowledged as the standards to test it, just as the acute and
educated are recognised as the standards in matters involving the
exercise of the mind, and as the seeing and not the blind can alone
measure the accuracy with which objects of sense are apprehended.
And, certainly, as the negative testimony of those who lacked either
of these faculties would not be accepted in "opposition to the positive
testimony of the others in their several spheres, so neither should the
negative testimony of those who are unable to discover God avail to
set aside the positive testimony of those who know Him.
We thus arrive at the position that since the being of God is
undemonstrable it is nevertheless capable of apprehension spiritually,
but is to be regarded as being so in varying degrees according to the
endowments of various persons. In some the power of apprehension
is undoubtedly quicker than it is in others. All we have to insist
upon at present is the fact that there is this difference, and that it is
to be recognised as a fact, and not to be set aside as the result of a
freak or idiosyncracy unworthy of the attention of enlightened men.
But now we come to another point. Given the fact that there is
a God, and given the fact that some men have the power of appre
hending Him, which others have not, how are we to regard the
operation of this conceded faculty ? On the hypothesis, it is not to
be affirmed for a moment that these men create the God whom they
apprehend, for His possible existence is admitted. But what about
the operation of that faculty whereby they apprehend Him ? Is it
more justly to be regarded as a discovery on their part, or as a
revelation on His ? Of course to them it will have all the charac
teristics of a discovery. There will be the suddenness of it, the

308 Old Testament Prophecy. [Noted.
unexpectedness of it, and the joy resulting from it. They will feel
as at the discovery of hidden treasure. But there will be this diffe
rence : that whereas in the case of hidden treasure there could be
nothing but a dull and dead discovery, however joyous, in the other
case, seeing it was the life that was discovered, there would be the
element of life in the discovery which would make it a revelation.
Everything would turn, therefore, upon the life ofthe object discovered.
The hidden treasure was there before the eye fell upon it and dis
covered it ; the God was there before — the eye was opened, and it
beheld Him.
Now it seems that, admitting the accuracy of this statement, the
question would be one of living personality. In the case of the
lifeless treasure there could be no operation of will ; in the case of
the discovery of God there could not be anything else. If God had
been willing that He should not be discovered, He would have remained
hidden. That He did not remain hidden was because He was willing
to reveal Himself. And certainly the degree of personal and spon
taneous activity that we attribute to this operation will depend entirely
upon the degree and nature of the vitality and conscious activity that
we ascribe to God. If personal, active, conscious life is not the
attribute of God, then, so far as we acknowledge the facts of this
discovery at all, it will be nothing more than a discovery the credit
of which we may take entirely to ourselves. And then, admitting these
facts, we shall have to adjust them as we best may to the conditions
and requirements of the particular system that we espouse.
But so far as we accept the idea of a living God, so far we shall
be prepared to admit that every discovery of Divine truth on the part
of man is a true indication of an actual revelation on the part of God.
Strictly speaking, therefore, there may be much revelation within the
limits of natural, or at all events of ordinary operation. There may
be no suspension of or interference with any natural laws, and yet a
true revelation may be imparted.
And yet all the time it is to be borne in mind that this revelation
under these circumstances is itself not natural. It is not a revelation
of the powers of nature, it is not a revelation of anything that nature 
understanding by that term the physical and material universe — has to
reveal. The physical and material universe has no moral virtues to
reveal, has no righteousness to reveal, has no purity to reveal, has no
moral truth to reveal, has no love to reveal. I do not say that the
physical universe belies these things ; I only say that it is silent about

Note d.] The Credentials of Revelation. 309
them, or stops short of them, or only speaks of them after they have
from other sources been spoken about. The revelation of God, even
when within the limits ofthe natural, is a revelation independent of,
external to, and apart from nature ; it is a revelation about other
things. The apprehension by the individual heart of the Father in
heaven is a revelation within the limits of the natural ; but it is not
a revelation that nature can bestow, for it is not a revelation that
many of her students and votaries acknowledge, or at all events there
are many who do not acknowledge it. In this sense, therefore, even
the most ordinary revelation of the Father to the individual heart is
a supernatural revelation— a revelation which, with nature alone for
our guide, we should never have had, a revelation of which there is
no evidence in all the literature of Greece and Rome, a revelation
which is dimly and obscurely intimated in the Old Testament, a
revelation which is confined to the New in its fulness and reality.
But forasmuch as even this revelation to the individual heart is in its
very nature a supersensuous and supernatural revelation, though within
the limits of the natural, the possibility seems to be thereby suggested
that under special circumstances this revelation might carry in its
train, or be associated with, incidents and accidents that should be
beyond the limits of the natural.
And here, of course, we should enter the world of history, and our
decision would be nothing more than a matter of evidence and a
matter of testimony. But since the doctrine of the Fatherhood of
God is one of the special revelations of the New Testament, and there
is no reason to believe that we should ever have known any more
about it than the ancients knew had it not been for the New Testament,
let us see how the doctrine is there inculcated. The Person who first
taught it was Jesus Christ, and He claimed to he the Son of God.
Was it therefore a discovery on His part, or was it a revelation in
Him ? It is useless to ask whether it was a revelation to Him, for
that carries us no farther than we have arrived already ; but was it
a revelation in Him ? That is to say, was the doctrine based upon
a fact and the result of a fact ? Was He Himself the proof and
evidence of the doctrine which He taught ? Was He the demonstration
of the Fatherhood of God by being Himself the Son of God ? If so, it
is undeniable that so far the doctrine would be made a matter of
demonstration. To accept the Son would be to accept the Father ;
to acknowledge the Son would be to acknowledge the Father also.
But then to do this would be to travel quite beyond the limits of the

310 Old Testament Prophecy. [Noted.
natural for the demonstration, for Christ could not he the Son of God
in any sense that would make our position more certain than before
without being so in a sense in which no one else ever was, or can be,
the Son of God. Now the whole of the New Testament is the proof
or evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. We cannot investigate
that evidence here, for it would lead us too far afield ; but it is
needful to show that if the witness of the New Testament is accepted,
then the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God rests on a basis of super
natural fact, for it rests on the personal claims of the historic man
Christ Jesus. We, of course, have to decide upon these claims ; but
if we admit the claims, then we have unquestionably a basis of super
natural fact on which the Fatherhood of God rests. And then the
ultimate revelation becomes a matter of history and a matter of fact-
The truth of God's Fatherhood can never be borne in upon any
individual mind without a revelation, as we saw, but that is a reve
lation within the limits of the natural. No law of nature is displaced
or set aside ; but the fact on which the truth of that revelation itself
depends is the reality of certain facts which, so far as they are really
facts, do most undoubtedly interfere with the course of nature, and
displace natural law.
For no one can for a moment maintain that the incarnation of the
Lord of life can, under any view of it, be regarded as a natural fact.
If we accept that fact, we accept the supernatural pure and simple,
and the after operation of it is a matter only of evidence and degree,
for it unquestionably is in operation here to the highest possible extent.
If, therefore, we want to know the value of the doctrine or conception
of God's Fatherhood, we cannot find it in nature or within the limits
of the natural, but must travel beyond those limits to the person of
Christ. If, however, Christ was only a natural man, we can have no
evidence that God is our Father, for He becomes our Father only in
such sense as that nature is our mother. And we know the kind of
comfort we derive from the fact of nature being our mother. What
we want to know is how the living God feels towards us who live in
His natural world, and this we cannot know unless He has revealed
it to us as we believe He has revealed it to us in Christ. If, however,
He has revealed it to us in Him, He has only revealed it to us by
stepping out of the area of what is physically and materially possible,
and giving us a sign which we may know to be from Him because it
can only come from one who is Lord over nature.
We have seen, then, that for such a doctrine as the Fatherhood of

Noted.] The Credentials of Revelation. 311
God it is absolutely necessary, if it is to be anything more than an
uncertain idea or vague notion, that it should have its root in a
supernatural fact. The authority of Christ is no higher than the
authority of Plato if He does not stand on a higher basis than Plato.
We may personally concede to Him any amount of deference or reve
rence, but that will not alter the state of the case if He is not equal
to His claims. It is not what we are pleased to give to Him, but
what He demands of us. He has no right to demand this of us if
He is not what He said He was ; but if He has no right to demand
it of us, then we carr no longer be sure that God is our Father ; nay,
we may be sure that He is not, or at least that He has not, as a
living God, given us any token that He is. Yea, we may go further,
and say that on the natural theory it is not possible either for God
to give or for us to receive any such token of His regard, for in doing
so He would cease to be what He is — the God of nature, or the
natural God.
And we are led to the same conclusion when we push our inquiries
in any other direction. Let us suppose that we want to know whether
mercy and righteousness are attributes of God or not. We may say
that the question is an absurd one. But this will depend simply upon
our concept of God. If we choose to assume that God is merciful and
righteous, then we may legitimately be called upon to make good our
assumption, which will be no light task. But we want to know
whether God is in His own nature merciful and righteous, and
whether He prefers mercy and righteousness in men and wishes men
to be merciful and righteous. Now I maintain that we cannot know
this unless He tells us so. We may surmise it, we may determine it
upon mature consideration as upon the whole most probable, but we
cannot know it unless He reveals it to us in such a way as that after
the revelation doubt becomes impossible. Now if He speaks to us to
that effect then we do so know it. Only it has to be observed- that He
cannot so speak within the limits of the natural. He must draw aside
the curtain of nature and show us that which nature cannot show us :
He must reveal to us His truth. If His personal will moves in the
direction of preference for mercy and righteousness and we are to
know that it does, then He must tell us so, and He must tell us so in
such a way as that the memorial of it may become authoritative. We
cannot expect that we are to be the persons whom He is thus to tell,
but we have a right to expect, seeing the obvious necessity for this
knowledge, that He will give it to some persons with whom it may

312 Old Testament Prophecy. [Noted.
abide so that the record of it may be authoritative. Now the theory
of Divine revelation implies that this has been the case. It is clear
that the obvious necessity or desirableness of this knowledge is no
evidence that it has been imparted, but if it had been imparted then
the need would have been anticipated and the desire granted. And
Divine revelation comes to us with this claim that it has considered
our obvious need and met our wishes by anticipation. What then is
the evidence that this has been so ?
In the first place we have the bona-fide statement that the desired
revelation has been given, and secondly we have the revelation itself
in substance in the record of it. God has declared Himself a merciful
and righteous God. Is this a statement that is credible in itself ?
Certainly those who would say that the unaided religious instincts of
man could and would infallibly have attained unto it have no right to
say that it is otherwise, seeing that they would probably assent to it.
But at all events there is that in our own inmost nature that seems to
acknowledge its truth. We have no temptation, therefore, it may be
presumed, to reject the revelation on its own merits. It is consonant
with that which antecedently we might have expected the revelation
would have been, whether or not we ourselves could independently
have arrived at it. The only question, therefore, that we need consider
is the statement that it was revealed.
But then we have before seen that whenever an abstract truth like
this, which the mind at once recognises as a truth, is apprehended for
the first time, it has all the characteristics of a revelation, and may
be more properly regarded as a revelation than as a discovery, even
though it be made within the limits of the natural. If, however, it
be made beyond those limits, it is hardly likely that it can be other
wise regarded.
We seem to have got, therefore, in the knowledge of this truth,
supposing it to be a truth, to all intents and purposes an intrinsic
revelation. What then about the way in which it was communicated ?
This is a matter of historic evidence, and to be so treated. What then
are the facts ? The possession of this knowledge at a very early
period of the world's history — at a time when mankind generally had
no perception of any truth of the kind.
There is evidence reaching back, on the very lowest computation,
to a thousand years before Christ — for example, in the Psalms of
David — of the knowledge of this truth, at a time when Greek literature
was as yet unborn, and centuries had to elapse before the foundations

Noted.] The Credentials of Revelation. 313
of Rome were laid. And even if it be alleged that some passages in
the Veda seem to show that the ancient inhabitants of India were
not altogether strangers to such thoughts, yet surely no one but an
enthusiast or a specialist would for a moment place the revelation of
the Vaidik hymns on a level with the revelation of the Psalmists of
Israel. To do so would be to manifest a singular want of aptitude
for the comparison which has thus to be made. One is like the action
of a man groping timidly in the dark, the other like that of one in
the confidence and security of noontide light. We gladly hail the
efforts of the Hindoo hard in his search after truth ; but we are
constrained to 'admit, in spite of ourselves, that the Hebrew Psalmist
has found it. And now, Lord, what is my hope? truly my hope is
even in Thee.* In God is my salvation and my glory ; the rock of my
strength and my refuge is in God. Trust in Him at all times, ye
people ; pour out your heart before Him ; God is a refuge for «s."f
Now this difference is a difference of fact, and not simply a matter
of opinion. How then is it to be accounted for ? The Hebrew poet or
prophet believed that God Himself had awakened this sense of truth
in him, had created and sent forth the light that shone in his heart.
The Hindoo poet had no thought of the kind. Was the Hebrew
Psalmist right or wrong ? As there is and can be no question about
the comparative value of his light, was it light from the fountain of
Light, or was it self-created ? Was he wrong when he said, With
Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see light ? X Surely, if
at a thousand years before Christ so insignificant a person as a
Hebrew shepherd rejoiced in this light alone among the inhabitants
of the earth, is not the very fact of his possession of the light an
indication that he was not wrong as to the source from which it was
derived, since, as we have seen, a truth of this kind, when borne in
upon the mind, is more justly to be regarded as a revelation than as
a discovery ? There is everything in the historic circumstances of
David, and his position in the world and the world's history, to
confirm the supposition that in his case it was a true revelation.
We arrive, then, at an axiom before enunciated, that the thing
revealed is itself the ultimate proof of revelation. If that proof is
rejected, no other will suffice to convince. But there arises the
further question, Supposing it in the abstract possible to confirm the
reality of such a revelation as indeed coming from God, how is this
to be done ? It does not seem to be in any way conceivable except
* Ps. xxxix. 7. t Ps. lxii. 7, 8. % Ps. xxxvi. 9.

314 Old Testament Prophecy. [Noted.
the living God were to give some evidence of His life and personal
interest in the truth revealed, and were to speak in such a way as to
make it no longer possible for those to whom He spoke to doubt that
He had spoken. According to our records this is exactly what He
did. But then it must never be forgotten that, supposing this to have
been actually done, the area within which the revelation so given
would be conclusive and indubitable would be necessarily limited to
those to whom it was vouchsafed, and to all others only who were
willing to accept their testimony. Revelation, therefore, at second
hand is from the very nature of the case dependent upon faith.
Even supposing the testimony never so valid and trustworthy, it could
only be conclusive where it was believed.
It is absolutely certain, therefore, that revelation in the abstract
must be dependent, at all events at second hand, upon faith, and that
the faith of testimony. If A has a revelation, unless B believes A
it will not be a revelation to him. But is it not also certain that,
supposing a revelation given, it must also at first hand be dependent
upon faith ? Unless A believes he has a revelation, he does not
receive one, even though a true revelation should be granted.
Revelation, therefore, even in the very first instance, presupposes
faith in the recipient. The point, therefore, that we have most
jealously to guard is this, — that the revelation creates and calls forth
the faith, and that the faith does not create, invent, imagine or
exaggerate the revelation. It is impossible to overestimate the
importance of the latter precaution, just as it is impossible to over
look the necessity of the former provision and the truth that it
enunciates. The position of the anti-supernaturalists is that it is
subjective faith alone that gives birth to supposed revelation — that the
idea of supernatural divine revelation is nothing more than fancy-bred.
This, however, is a position that is essentially more fatal to faith
than it is subversive of revelation ; for it is evident from what has
been said that the very idea of revelation, supposing it conceivable,
implies the existence of faith : the absence of faith would frustrate a
revelation even if given, would render it nugatory and impotent. To say,
therefore, that there can be no revelation deprives faith of any object
on which to rest, and baulks it. This, however, is something very
different from proving the non-existence of revelation, which is con
ceivable as a fact independently of our proofs and disproofs, and
which as a fact would be unaffected by them except as regards its

Noted.] The Credentials of Revelation. 315
effect upon ourselves. From the very nature of the case, revelation
can reach only those who believe. To represent revelation, therefore,
as the product or effect of faith is an inversion of the process, just as
if we were to say that light is a creation of the eye that receives it.
The eye, it is true, may become disordered and see distortedly ; but
that is no reason why we should discredit or distrust the function of
sight generally. If thine eye is single thy whole body is full of light;
if thine eye is evil thy whole body is full of darkness. Take heed that the
light that is in thee'be not darkness*
As, therefore, revelation is conceivable as a fact without our
recognition of it ; as also it can only be received where there is faith
to receive it ; as moreover it quickens and elicits faith, but is not
created by it, what are the credentials which mark it when given ?
There can be but two : the substantive nature of the revelation itself,
the appreciation of which must necessarily vary as the receptive
power of the recipient varies ; and confirming signs within or without
the sphere of natural law, which tend to bear witness to the living
operation of a living God, who takes interest in the progress and
success of His word, which He has declared shall not return unto
Him void. These signs, of whatever kind they are, must be dependent
upon sensible experience in the first case, and upon accurate testimony
in the second. Those who tasted the water that was made wine at
Cana of Galilee, or who witnessed the feeding of many thousands
with a few loaves and fishes, had sensible experience of the power
of the Presence that was with them ; and if these acts were really
done, there could be no difference of opinion as to their meaning.
Being once done, moreover, they were done for ever ; nor would
their effect, which depended solely upon their being facts, ever pass
away through lapse of time. They had no need to be repeated, were
that possible, for this obvious reason.
But then the question of their being facts must depend, secondly,
upon the accuracy and trustworthiness of the testimony by which
they were recorded. Here, again, it is conceivable that the testimony
might he in its character unimpeachable, and yet it is clear that that
testimony would be dependent for its effect upon the faith of the
person receiving it. We may reject that testimony, and it will cease
to influence us, and yet all the time the testimony may be valid, and
that which it records a fact. Here then, again, the connection
between revelation and faith is at once apparent. The revelation, if
* Luke xi. 34, 35.

3 1 6 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note d.
made, elicits faith and acts accordingly, or it fails to do so ; but the
faith in no sense creates the revelation. And in this particular case
it could not do so without impeaching the testimony of alleged eye
witnesses and the sensible experience of vast multitudes of men who
could not possibly be deceived.
These instances are drawn from the New Testament, but the
remarks apply equally to the Old. The multitudes who saw the
waters of the Red Sea divide as they came forth out of Egypt could
have no doubt of the mission of their leader or of the power of Him
in whose name he led them ; and the memory of this stupendous
event was stamped upon the whole of the nation's subsequent literature
and history, while the perpetual memorial of the Passover was the
standing witness to the event recorded. No historic incident is better
authenticated ; but the revelation with which it was fraught was only
for those who witnessed it in the first place, and afterwards for those
only who accepted the record of their experience. But this acceptance
is impossible without faith. The history may be never so certain,
the revelation implied in it never so clear, but both will be ineffectual
where there is not faith. The revelation may fail to elicit faith, but
most assuredly the faith will not create the revelation ; and that it
did not do so in the first instance is, as far as we can tell, a matter
of simple fact, dependent on the ordinary laws of human evidence,
which are unquestionably satisfied here.
It may he said, however, that the Exodus is a far-off event, the date
even of which is not certain, and that we have no more to do with this
event than we have with the battle of Marathon. But let us pause
awhile. The proof of the battle of Marathon is in the check that it
gave to the tide of Persian conquest, and the effects of that check
which yet remain. We are perhaps not wholly independent of or unin
fluenced by even these. But what is the net result of the Exodus
which survives also to the present day ? It is simply this : I am the
Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. That
which records the fact vouches also for the statement ; the two are
inseparably bound up together : shall we say that they stand or fall
together ? The fact is declared to have been wrought in attestation
of the truth. The fact was intended as the revelation of a person who
claimed to have wrought the fact. It is possible that those who were
witnesses to the fact were impervious to the revelation. They could
not enter in because of unbelief. Certainly in this case faith did not
create the revelation ; but certainly also, now as then, the revelation

Noted.] The Credentials of Revelation. 317
cannot be independent of our faith. Nor is it likely that we shall in
any true sense receive the revelation and yet withhold our faith from
the fact with which it is associated. Indeed, the very words, lam
the Lord thy God, as the personal statement of a very sublime truth,
involve the operation of the supernatural no less than the facts of the
Exodus itself ; for they involve a recognition of the momentous fact
that God has spoken, and therefore has revealed Himself.
But what are the credentials of this revelation. ? Are they not the
Exodus itself, and a long series of marvellous providences and inter
positions in behalf of a selected people ? Are they not a unique
literature among the monuments of human genius ? Are they not
the mission and name of Jesus Christ Himself, and the history of the
Christian Church from the day of Pentecost until now ? But are these
credentials independent of our faith in any single instance ? Or can we
receive the truth — I am the Lord thy God — without receiving them ?
Or, on the other hand, is it even apparently probable that our faith, or
the faith of others, has invented these credentials, or created the reve
lation that they attest ? It is no more probable that our faith has done
this, than it is that when we open our hearts to the revelation — I
am ihe Lord thy God-— our faith creates the God who is so revealed,
or creates the revelation by which He so reveals Himself. But as we
cannot have even this inward and personal revelation without the
operation of the supernatural within the limits of nature, so neither
can we have the original and historic revelation which it but repeats
without the operation of the supernatural in history, beyond the limits
of nature, in the inscrutable voice with which God first spoke, and in
the great historic events with which he confirmed the words spoken,
and established the revelation of Himself.
What has been said applies of course equally to that subject which
we have been more especially considering — namely, prophecy. The
question of questions for us to determine in this matter is, Did the
faith of the prophets create the revelation which they heralded, or was
there a real and veritable revelation of the Divine will, which their
faith indeed enabled them to receive, but which it did not create ?
Upon the answer which we give to this question it will depend
whether or not they were self- deceived, the victims and self-deluded
dupes of their own " moral earnestness." They spoke, forsooth, in
the name of God, but God did not speak by them ; they came as the
messengers of God, but it was not God who sent them with any
message. This is verily a most tremendous issue, and it is one

318 Old Testament Prophecy. [Note d.
which we must decide ; the age demands it of us ; the thought and
condition of our time imperatively urge it upon us. According to
modern teachers,* that in the prophets which is self-evidently true is
a word of God to us. But what is there beyond the field of mathe
matical science that is thus self-evidently or demonstrably true ?
What is there in morals that is self-evidently true ? Is the law of
property self-evidently true ? Are not the ancient landmarks even
here being visibly threatened now ? Is the law that respects human
life self-evidently true ? Who is to determine upon what conditions
it may be set aside ? Is the iniquity or the justice of certain recent
wars self-evidently clear ? Is it impossible, as a matter of fact, for
two opinions to be held about them ? Is the law involved in the
seventh commandment self-evidently true ? This is a question which
those who reject Christianity will find it very hard to answer. If,
therefore, only that in prophecy which finds an echo in our own heart
is a word of God, there may be very little, or there may be nothing,
that will stand the test. But if the mission of the prophets was the
actual result of a valid commission, then is it one which, as it could
not have been discharged without faith, so is it one which we also
cannot appreciate or rightly gauge without corresponding faith. But
God leaves Himself not without witness. He spoke by the prophets,
and the witness He gave of Himself by them was sufficient for their
own day. And ages afterwards, when the echo of their words had long
died away, He revived His witness of Himself by the marvellous
application of which their words were found to be capable, and by the
confirmation with which they were established in the life and death
and resurrection of His Son. And now to us, if our hearts are opened
by Him to receive their words, He will again renew His witness of
Himself by working in them the conviction that the scriptures of the
prophets are an abiding record of the Divine foreknowledge.
* " Bach of their words that finds an echo in your heart and your conscience
— and their number is great — is to you a word of God." — Kuenen, p. 593.

Haz-ll, Watson, and Viney, Printers, London and Aylesbury.

08844 8122

i~i- • <7 r-^ir c '¦'/"

K* .. Urns
\1__pl

l^t

^5____B^___l»___l

^jBrmTllffiffi!^*' '¦

•^.p

JbW* *

¦,'f

r-d

¦r