Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

to the birth of Seth

[ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1056 Noah horn

to the Flood

600

3522 The Captivity

to the proclamation of Cyrus 70

V.

V.

3. "Adam lived 130 years and begat a son,
name Seth."

[ocr errors]

and called his

6. "Seth lived 105 years, and begat Enos."
9. "Enos lived 90 years, and begat Cainan.'
v. 12. "Cainan lived 70 years, and begat Mahalaleel."
v. 15. “Mahalaleel lived 65 years, and begat Jared."
v. 18. "Jared lived 162 years, and begat Enoch.'
v. 21. "Enoch lived 65 years, and begat Methuselah.'
v. 25. “Methuselah lived 187 years, and begat Lamech."
v. 28, 29. "Lamech lived 182 years, and begat a son, and he called his
name Noah.'

"

[ocr errors]

"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

On the other hand, if we adopt the Hebrew numeral in 1 Kings vi. 1, St. Paul's 450 years will have to be explained either, as Whitby prefers, by reference to the then current Septuagint chronology; or possibly, aз Archbishop Usher, by supposing it the measure of the time from Abraham to the division of the lands, not from the division of the lands to Samuel.' Then, of course, the world's chronology will be near 100 years less advanced than on Clinton's hypothesis; and we have yet to wait near that time (not very different from the 75 years of Daniel's time of the end) for the end of the world's sixth millennary, according to the Hebrew Scriptural data, and beginning of the world's sabbatism.2

On the fly-leaf is appended a Tabular Scheme of this Scripture Chronology, with the Scriptural authorities in brief; drawn up by the Rev. C. Bowen, Rector of St. Thomas, Winchester.

So too Calmet, quoted to that effect by Dr. A. Clarke.-In order to this construction of the passage, from near the beginning of verse 17 to the end of verse 19, in Acts xiii. must be construed parenthetically thus:-

Ο Θεος του λαου τουτου Ισραηλ εξελέξατο τους πατέρας ήμων. (Και τον λαον ύψωσεν εν τη παροικια εν γῃ Αιγύπτῳ, και μετα βραχίονος ύψηλου εξηγαγεν αυτους εξ' αυτής. Και ὡς τεσσαρακονταετη χρονον ετροποφορησεν αυτούς εν τη ερήμῳ. Και, καθελων εθνη ἑπτα εν γη Χανααν, κατεκληρονόμησεν αυτοίς την γην αυτων.) Και μετα ταυτα, ώς ετεσι τετρακοσίοις και πεντήκοντα, εδωκε κριτας έως Σαμουηλ του προφήτου.

In order to make out the 450 years on this view, the chronological epoch of God's choosing the fathers of the Jewish people, referred to in verse 17, is fixed at the birth of Isaac; from which to the division of the land by lot is by some chronologists (not by Mr. Clinton) made 452 years. No doubt with many the necessity of dating from Isaac's birth, instead of Abraham's call, in order on any chronological system to make out the time from the "choosing of the fathers" to the division of Canaan not more than 450 years, constitutes a primary objection to this solution of the passage. Besides that the μɛтa Tavтa, “after these things," in the plural, seems to make it most natural that we should date the 450 years from the end of the succession of events that the apostle had just been particularizing, not from the one event of the choice of the fathers first mentioned.-Thus the case is one in which we have to make a choice of difficulties.

In the Jewish Calendar, as lately edited by Mr. Lindo, (a publication replete with Jewish learning, and sanctioned by the Chief Rabbi in London, Solomon Hirschell,) there appear several most material variations from the above Chronological Table; involving a difference from Mr. Clinton's in the Era of the World altogether of 340 years. The following are the points of variation.

1. Agreeing with Mr. C. in dating the Deluge, A.M. 1656, it makes the birth, and consequently the call too, of Abraham sixty years earlier. This arises from the supposition of Abraham's being the eldest of Terah's three sons, born when Terah was seventy years old, Gen. xi. 26 :-a supposition quite unnecessary: as Abraham's first mention among the three sons no more implies his primogeniture than Solomon's last mention among Bathsheba's four sons, 1 Chron. iii. 5, his being the youngest; or Shem's first mention, Gen. x. 1, among Noah's three sons, his being eldest; (for Japhet is in Gen. x. 21 expressly declared eldest;) and which is directly contradicted by the statement, Gen. xii. 4, that Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran; compared with Acts vii. 4, which says that it was at Terah's death that Abraham left that country, and with Gen. xi. 32, which says that Terah died in Haran at the age of 205 years.-2. There is in it the further difference of 100 years less between

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER II.

PROPHETIC GROUNDS FOR EXPECTING MESSIAH'S SECOND COMING AT NO GREAT DISTANCE OF TIME FROM THE PRESENT, COMPARED WITH THE PROPHETIC GROUNDS THAT EXISTED FOR EXPECTING MESSIAH'S FIRST PROMISED COMING AND MANIFESTATION IN HUMAN FLESH ABOUT THE TIME OF JESUS OF NAZARETH'S BIRTH AND LIFE, IN THE REIGNS OF THE ROMAN EMPERORS AUGUSTUS AND TIBERIUS.!

THE question often and often recurs to my mind; Is there really reason for supposing, as many do, that the Lord's second coming is not probably very far off:-that coming at the brightness of which, according to the concurrent prophecies of Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John,' the Man of Sin, or Antichrist, is to be destroyed and Christ's own glorious kingdom to supervene ?

And, in answer to this question, when I retrace the prophetic evidence on which such expectations have been grounded, it appears to me certainly very strong and consistent. Yet, notwithstanding, I must confess to experiencing the greatest difficulty when I try to realize the fact. In part this may arise from the evident want of sympathy in the feeling on the part of men in general, and even of Christian men: in part to the great differences of opinion among prophetic students, respecting much of that prophetic evidence which to my own judgment appears the strongest of all to the point in this event and Solomon's completion of the Temple; a difference grounded mainly on the circumstance of the Jews calculating by the chronological statement in 1 Kings vi. 1, noted by me in the text.-3. The Jewish Calendar shortens the interval between Solomon and Zedekiah's captivity 15 years:-and, 4thly, that between Zedekiah and the Christian Æra yet 165 years. By the latter most gross and extraordinary falsification of a period as well ascertained as that between our Richard the First and the time now present, the Jewish Rabbis make the interval between the first destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, and second by the Romans, just about 490 years.

Let me add that the early Reformers noticed, and were struck with, the last mentioned strange error in the Jewish chronology: and referred it to the Jews' identification of Darius Hystaspis (father to Xerxes) with the later Darius conquered by Alexander; and the obliteration from their calendar of all the Persian Kings intervening. So Melancthon on Dan. ix., and Osiander, De Ult. Temp. ch. i.

But why this abbreviation? I have nowhere seen a reason stated. Since however by it the interval between the first destruction of the temple and the second is reduced to about 490 years, the equivalent of the period of Daniel's 70 hebdomads, in the prophecy which speaks of the Jewish temple's desolation, it may have been the abbreviator's object to make those two periods correspond; and in fact, as I have been told by a Jew, the interval is spoken of by Jews as one of 70 hebdomads, by a kind of memoria technica. This Paper was drawn up originally, and delivered in the Hanover Square Rooms as a Lecture, at the request of a London Prophetic Association.

2 Dan. vii. 11-13, 2 Thess. ii. 8, Rev. xix. 11–20.

question, and most convincing. But, doubtless, yet more the surpassingly great and wonderful nature of the event to be expected, excites and strengthens my instinctive scepticism on the matter. "Can it really be the fact," I say again and again to myself, "that that glorious consummation is probably near at hand, for which the whole creation has been groaning and travailing ever since the fall ?” So that the present generation, or the next following, may see it?

But is scepticism reasonable on these accounts? May I not so fall under somewhat of the same condemnation for unbelief with them of whom St. Peter tells us, asking in the latter day, "Where is the promise of his coming? for, since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were since the beginning of the creation? "1 It becomes me, surely, well to take heed against this. And, in order to satisfy my mind as to the truth on this great question, and to direct and confirm my faith, as well as that of others who find themselves stumbling at similar doubts and difficulties, I know not what I can do better than what the present Essay proposes :-viz. to turn their thoughts, and my own, to that æra and event in the world's past history, which beyond all others offers the nearest parallel to that which we look for in the coming future,-I mean the æra and event of Christ's first coming: and to compare the prophetic evidence which in those earlier times led the Jews very correctly, as well as generally, to suppose it near at hand, with that which leads not a few in our own day to look for Christ's second coming as now not very far distant; consideration being had of the objections and difficulties, as well as of the evidence, in the one case and in the other. A fairer standard of comparison cannot, I think, be imagined; nor one better fitted to guide the judgment aright, amidst the conflicting opinions of these latter times.

§ 1. PREMONITORY INDICATIONS ABOUT THE TIMES OF AUGUSTUS AND TIBERIUS OF THE NEAR APPROACH OF MESSIAH'S FIRST COMING.

It is to be remembered, then, as a fact notorious in history, and one moreover very remarkable, that expectations of Messiah's speedy coming and manifestation were wide spread among the Jews, both in Palestine and elsewhere, near about those times when Jesus of Nazareth lived and died, in the reigns of the Roman Emperors Augustus and Tiberius.

1 2 Peter iii. 4.

Evidence of this abounds in the contemporary Gospel narratives of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and we must well take heed that our familiarity with it do not cause us to overlook, or to forget, the very remarkable nature of the fact.

Thus about the time of Jesus Christ's birth, in the 27th year of the sole reign of Augustus,1 we read of Simeon, that "he was a just man and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel; "2 the last a well-known Hebraic phrase among the Jews for the Messiah;3 and of Anna the prophetess, that she spoke of the child Jesus in the temple, "to all those that were looking for redemption in Jerusalem." Nor as regards the angelic revelation made to Zachariah about a son to be born to him in his old age, who was to be Messiah's immediate forerunner, or that which was made to the Virgin Mary about Messiah's own birth into this world, do we find any wonderment expressed in reference to the declared imminence of his coming; whatever wonderment, and in Zachariah's case unbelief, there might have been respecting other points in the statements of the revealing Angel. The same, pretty much, as regards the shepherds at Bethlehem, when it was told them by the leader of the angelic choir, "Unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Messiah the Lord." And, when the wise men came to Jerusalem shortly after, under some supernatural guidance, to make inquiry after one just born, who was in fact, they affirmed, no other than the great predicted King of the Jews, Messiah, we read that all Jerusalem, both priests and people, was stirred from its depths at the news and the inquiry: not, clearly, as if they considered it a suggestion absurd or incredible; but rather, as may be inferred from the priest's answer to Herod about the destined place of Messiah's birth, (and mark hence that it was an actual incarnation of Messiah in true human flesh which they then expected,) because it was one on which the general expectation was intensely alive and excited. Such was at that time the general state of expectancy, as depicted in the Gospel narratives.

And, passing on with them from this epoch to one some 30 years later, corresponding with the 15th year of the reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius," when in the land of Judæa John the Baptist

2 Luke ii. 25. 4 Luke ii. 38. association in the Em

1 Dated from the defeat of Antony at Actium, see Note 3 below.
So, says Whitby ad loc., the Targum on Isaiah iv. 3.
Luke iii. 1. He seems in this to have dated from Tiberius'

« FöregåendeFortsätt »