II. Apparent contradictions between prophecies and their accomplishment sometimes proceed from the figurative language of the prophets; which is taken, partly from the analogy between the world natural and an empire or kingdom considered as a world politic, and partly from sacred topics.1 Hence it is that the prophets so frequently express what relates to the Christian dispensation and worship in terms borrowed from the Mosaic religion; of which instances may be seen in Isa. ii. 2, 3. xix. 19. and lvi. 7. Jer. iii. 17. Zech. viii. 22. and Mal. i. 11. For, the religion of Moses being introductory to that of Jesus, and there being consequently a mutual dependency between the two religions, "it is reasonabe to suppose that, previous to such an important change of the economy, some intimations would be given of its approach. And yet, to have done this in a way, that would have led the Jews to look with irreverence on a system under which not only themselves but their posterity were to live, would not have harmonised with our notions of the divine wisdom. A method was therefore to be invented; which, while it kept the people sincerely attached to the law, would dispose them, when the time was come, for the reception of a better covenant that was to be established on better promises. Now the spirit of prophecy, together with the language in which that prophecy was conveyed, fully accomplished both these purposes. By a contrivance only to be suggested by divine prescience, the same expressions, which in their primary and literal meaning were used to denote the fortunes and deliverances of the Jews, for the present consolation of that people, were so ordered, as in a secondary and figurative sense to adumbrate the sufferings and victories of the Messiah, for the future instruction of the church of Christ. Had no expedient of this sort been employed, we should have wanted one proof of the connection between the Mosaic and Christian religions: and, on the other hand, had the nature of the Messiah's kingdom been plainly described, the design of the national separation would have been defeated. But, when spiritual blessings were promised under the veil of temporal blessings, and in terms familiar to the carnal expectations of the Jews, a proper degree of respect for the old system was preserved, at the same time that matters were gradually ripening for the introduction of the new: and the shadow of good things held forth obscurely in the law, prepared them to look forward to that happier day, when the very image itself should be presented in full splendour, and distinctly defined by the Gospel."2 ment" III. Apparent contradictions between prophecies and their accomplishmay be occasioned by a prediction relating only to one part of a complex character or event, and on that account seeming to be inconsistent with other parts of it; and the appearance will be removed by taking in such predictions as relate to these other parts, and considering them all in connection."3 Such seeming differences occur in the predictions relative to the exaltation and glory of the Messiah, compared with the prophecies concerning his previous sufferings. On this subject the reader may compare Vol. II. Chap. IX. Sect. I. II. III. In No. IV. of the Appendix to the present volume, we have given a table of the chief predictions relative to the Messiah. IV. Seeming differences in the interpretation of prophecies also proceed partly from the difficulty of fixing the precise time of their fulfilment, and partly from the variety of opinions adopted by expositors; who, being dissatisfied with the views taken by their predecessors, are each solicitous to bring forward some new interpretation of his own. These differences however are no more an objection against prophecy, than they are against the truth of all history and we may with equal propriety conclude that things never came to pass, because historians differ about the time when they were done, as that they were never predicted, because learned men vary in their modes of explaining the accomplishment of such predictions. Expositors may differ in the niceties of the chronological part, but in general 1 Newton on Daniel, p. 16. edit. 1733. 2 Bishop Hallifax's Sermons on the Prophecies, Serm. i. circumstances they are agreed; hence, whoever will consult them may be greatly confirmed in the truth of the prophecies, upon this very consideration -that there is less difference in the explanation of the principal prophecies than there is in the comments upon most antient profane histories; and that those who differ in other matters, must have the greater evidence for that in which they agree. Although there may be a difficulty in calculating the precise time when some predictions were fulfilled, because it is disputed when the computation is to begin, or how some other circumstance is to be understood, yet all interpreters and expositors are agreed, concerning these very prophecies, that they are fulfilled. For instance, in Gen. xlix. 10. it is certain that the sceptre is departed from Judah, whether that prophesy is to be understood of the tribe of Judah, or of the Jewish nation who were denominated from that tribe. Although the later Jewish writers deny its applicaton to the times of the Messiah, yet the elder writers invariably refer it to him; and it is certain that the city and sanctuary are destroyed, and that the sacrifice and oblation are entirely done away, though interpreters do not agree about the precise time and manner of the accomplishment of every particular. In a similar manner, the prophecy of Daniel respecting the seventy weeks is equally plain, and its accomplishment in the destruction of Jerusalem is certain ; notwithstanding the differences of opinion in assigning the precise epocha of time. Plain matter of fact shows that these memorable predictions are fulfilled; and the only difference is concerning a single circumstance. doubt, therefore, (as some of our modern self-styled philosophers do) of the fulfilment of prophecies, merely because we do not certainly know the exact time when each particular was accomplished, though we certainly know that they must have long since been fulfilled, is as unreasonable, as if a man should question the truth of history on account of the uncertainties which are to be found in chronology. The existence of Homer is not denied, because it is uncertain when he lived; nor is the reality of the Trojan war the less certain because the time of the capture of Troy has been variously determined. History, it has been well remarked, relates what has happened, and prophecy foretells what shall come to pass; and an uncertainty in point of time no more affects the one than the other, We may be uncertain of the time foretold by the prophet, and as uncertain of the time mentioned by the historian; but, when all other circumstances agree, there is no reason why our uncertainty, as to the single circumstance of time, should be alleged against the credibility of either of them.! To V. Some of the prophetic declarations are not predictions concerning things future, but simply commands relative to things which were to be performed, or they are conditional promises, and threatenings, not absolute predictions; so that, if it subsequently appear that these were not executed, such nonperformance cannot create any difficulty or repugnancy between the supposed prophecy and its fulfilment. We may illustrate this remark by reference to the fast observed by the Jews on the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar: these fasts the prophet Zechariah (viii. 19.) in the name of Jehovah declares, are to be abolished, and converted into a joyous festival; but, notwithstanding this declaration, we know that they continued afterwards to be observed. Another instance may be seen in 2 Kings viii. 10. Elisha's answer to Hazael; to which we may add the seeming assertion, that the last day was near, in Rom. xiii. 11, 12. 1 Cor. x. 11. 1 Thess. iv. 15. Heb. ix. 26. James v. 7, 8. 2 Pet. iii. 12, 13. and 1 John ii. 18. VI. Some of the prophetic promises appear to have been made to individuals, which however were not fulfilled in them. But between such prophecies and their fulfilment there is no real discordance because they were accomplished in the posterity of the person to whom the promise was made. Thus, in Isaac's prophetic blessing of Jacob, it was announced (Gen. xxvii. 29.) that he should be Lord over his brethren. Now we know from the sacred writings that this never took effect in the person of Jacob; but it was fully verified in his posterity. 1 Jenkin on the Reasonableness of the Christian Religion, vol. ii. pp. 178, 179. SECTION IV. APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN DOCTRINE. THESE HESE arise from various causes; as contradictions from a mode of speaking which, to our apprehensions, is not sufficiently clear,-from the same term being used in different senses in different texts,-from the same word being used in apparently contradictory senses,-from the different designs of the sacred writers,-from the different ages in which the various sacred writers lived, and from the different degrees of their knowledge respecting the coming of the Messiah, and the religion to be instituted by him. • § 1. Seeming contradictions from a mode of speaking which, to our APPREHENSIONS, is not sufficiently clear. It has been the practice of some writers to assert that the apostles, Saint Paul in particular, have argued both illogically and inconclusively: this assertion, however falls to the ground of itself, when we consider the violent dislocations, to which writers of the school alluded to have resorted, in order to disprove what is self-evident from the Bible-the divinity and atonement of the Messiah. At the same time it is not to be concealed, that apparent contradictions do sometimes arise from a mode of speaking which, to our apprehensions, does not seem sufficiently clear. For instance, salvation is in one passage ascribed to grace through faith, which we are assured is not of ourselves, but is the gift of God;—not of works, lest any man should boast (Eph. ii. 8—10.); and in another Abraham is said to be justified by faith without works (Rom. iv. 2—6.); while in a third passage he is said to have been justified by works. (James ii. 21.) The apparent difference in these points of doctrine is occasioned by the fruits and effects being put for the cause. A little attention to the argument of the apostle removes all difficulty. Saint Paul's object in the epistle to the Romans was, to shew, in opposition to the objections of the Jews, that how much soever Abraham excelled other men in righteousness during the course of his life, he had no cause for glorying before God; who justified, accepted, and covenanted with him, not for obedience, but for faith in the divine promise. Abraham believed God's word, and God accepted his faith, dealt with him as righteous, and became his God: in like manner as he now conducts himself towards all who truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his Gospel. Saint James, on the contrary, having encouraged the christian converts to bear with patience the trials they should meet with, and improve them to the purposes of religion, presses upon them meekness and gentleness towards each other, as the test of their sincerity; and shews that faith without love is of no avail. Thus the doctrine asserted by each apostle is proved to be consistent, and the seeming repugnancy disappears. For the removal of difficulties arising from expressions not appearing sufficiently clear, the following observations will be found useful. I. A passage which is ambiguous, or which contains any unusual expression, must be interpreted agreeably to what is revealed more clearly and accurately in other parts of the Scriptures. Numerous instances might be adduced in illustration of this remark, in which bodily parts and passions are ascribed to God; which unusual modes of expression are to be explained in conformity with such other passages as remove the appearance of contradiction. Another example we have in Luke xiv. 13, 14. When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee; for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. From this passage, some have inferred that the resurrection of the just only is intended, and consequently that the wicked shall certainly perish. There is, it is true, something unusual in this expression: but the doctrine of the resurrection of all mankind from the dead, which is so explicitly revealed in other parts of Scripture, being laid down and acknowledged, we readily perceive that our Saviour was speaking, in the passage under consideration, of acts of kindness done purely for the love of God, and on the recompense which He would bestow on them. But of the universal resurrection no notice is taken, nor is it denied that the wicked will receive their reward. II. A passage, in which a doctrine is slightly treated, must be explained by one where the subject is more largely discussed: and one single passage is not to be explained in contradiction to many others, but consistently with them. For instance, Jesus Christ in one place says, that he judges no man: in another, that he will judge all men: in one passage, that he is not come to judge the world; in another, that he is come for judgment. These seeming inconsistencies occur in the Gospel of St. John; it becomes necessary, therefore, to find out some other passage that will reconcile them. Thus in John xii. 47. he says, I came not to judge the world; and in ch. ix. 39. he says, For judgment I am come into this world. In the latter passage he adds the cause of his thus coming,-namely, that they whose blindness proceeded from mere ignorance should be taught to see: while they who saw only through pride and prejudice should be left in their wilful blindness. Hence it appears, that our Lord was not speaking of the last judgment, from which we call God the judge of the living and of the dead; but that the tenor of his discourse was, to enable his hearers themselves to determine whether they were ignorant or not; for in the same chapter, (verse 26.) it is said that Jesus spoke these words to the Pharisees, who would not perceive their own ignorance, nor judge themselves. In the other passage (John xii. 47.) we read I came not to judge (rather to condemn) the world, but to save the world,-not to make its inhabitants wretched, but to make them happy for time and for eternity, if they will be so wise as to listen to the proposals which I offer. Here the word save is plainly opposed to condemn : and that this is the proper meaning of the passage is evident from comparing chapter iii. verses 15—19. The latter part of this rule the following passage will exemplify. In Gen. xvii. 10-14. the observance of circumcision is commanded; in Acts xv. the observance of that rite is affirmed not to be necessary. These propositions are apparently contradictory; Jesus Christ himself has determined them, Matt. xi. 13. All the prophets, and the law, until John, prophecied; intimating, as the context implies, that the observances of the law would thereafter cease. III. Between a general assertion in one text, and a restriction of it, or an exception to it, in another text, there is an appearance of contradiction which is sometimes removed by explaining the former with the proper limitations.J Several general expressions, in all languages, not only admit of, but also require a limitation; without which the true sense and meaning of many passages will not be understood. And, as the eastern nations indulged themselves most freely in the use of strong and figurative expressions, the Scriptures require more limitations perhaps than any other book: as it respects the New Testament, St. Paul mentions principles on which we may build our limitations: I speak after the manner of men. (Rom. vi. 19.) " It is manifest that he is excepted." (1 Cor. xv. 27.) Thus, in Mark x. 11, 12. and in Luke xvi. 18. divorce is absolutely forbidden: but, in Matt. v. 32. and xix. 9. it is allowed for adultery only. Yet, in 1 Cor. vii. 15. it seems to be allowed, though the apostle does not authorise a second marriage. 1 Gerard's Institutes, p. 436 The precept, Except we become as little children, we shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xviii. 3.), cannot mean that we are not to speak distinctly, or to walk steadily: but obviously refers to the docility, and freedom from ambition and worldly thoughts, which characterise children. The observations offered in Vol. II. Part II. Ch. V. Sect. VII. on the figures of speech, termed synechdoche, and hyperbole, may be applied in illustration of the preceding remark. § 2. Apparent Contradictions from the same Terms being used in different and even contradictory Senses. I. Sometimes an apparent contradiction, in points of doctrine, arises from the same words being used in different senses in different texts. In this case the seeming repugnancy is to be removed by restricting the term properly in each text. Thus, in some passages of the New Testament, we read that the kingdom of Christ is eternal: but in 1 Cor. xv. 24. it is said to have an end in the latter passage, the kingdom of Christ means his mediatorial kingdom, which includes all the displays of his grace in saving sinners, and all his spiritual influence in governing the church visible on earth. By the eternal kingdom of Christ is intended the future state of eternal blessedness, which is so beautifully described as an inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven, &c. (1 Pet. i. 4, 5.) In like manner, It is appointed unto men once to die, (Heb. ix. 27.), that is, a temporal death: yet if any man keep Christ's sayings he shall never see death, (John viii. 51.) that is, eternal death. Hatred of others is very sinful and odious, (Tit. iii. 3.) and yet to hate our nearest relations, that is, to love them less than we love Christ, is a duty. (Luke xiv. 26. compared with Matt. x. 37.) John the Baptist was not Elias, (John i. 21.) that is, not the prophet who lived under Ahab; but he was the Elias predicted by Malachi, (Mal. iv. 5, 6.) that is, one in the spirit and power of the antient Elijah. (Matt. xi. 11, 12. 14. Mark ix. 11-13. Luke i. 17.) So, we cannot stand before God in the righteousness of our own persons, (Psal. cxliii. 2.) but we may appeal to him for the righteousness of our cause, in matters of difference between ourselves and others. (Psal. xviii. 20. xxxv. 27. Heb.) II. Apparent contradictions, in points of doctrine, sometimes arise from the same word being used not only in different but also in contradictory senses. Thus, in Joshua, xxiii. 5. the same Hebrew verb (YaRaSH,) which usually signifies to inherit or possess, also means to dispossess or disinherit: He shall expel them (from their inheritance) from before you, and ye shall possess their land, succeed to their inheritance. In like manner, the word sin also denotes a sin-offering in Gen. iv. 4. 2 Cor. v. 21. and in many other passages of ScripThe Hebrew verb 772, (BαRαK,) to bless, has been supposed also to mean curse; and, contrary to the authority of antient version, the lexicons (as the late eminently learned Mr. Parkhurst has proved) have given it the sense of cursing in the six following passages; 1 Kings xxi. 10. 13. Job i. 5. 11. and especially Job ii. 5. 9. The rendering of which last passage, he observes, should be thus; ture. Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou yet retain thine integrity, Blessing the Aleim (God) and dying, or even unto death ?1 The Greek language presents numerous similar examples of the same words having different senses. Thus Edwλov, in its primitive acceptation, 1 Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, p. 84. 5th edition. Dr. Mason Good, in his accurate and elegant version of the book of Job, has adopted Mr. P.'s rendering, and confirmed its propriety by various examples; see particularly his notes, pp. 5--9. VOL. I. 70 |