.*;§ř，w.
! №， º ‘’，
haec:.** ~ ！, ºsje’e， ºrºs
***********¿¿.
~º : (）* # ： *.… S-------~
-■■■■, '... . . . . .· · · · · · · ·：-
* gm， … --º-º****
șº）， º.… … ***". . .， …· *5- ） www-ſ ººººº ！*** ** * * （ ）ſae sºsiae*#**********ſ
∞º ->، ، ،º.- ^" ...）º. ſ.
：■ ***
∞ 2. ***ºſº， º
i №ºº，,，，,
*&*...***, \,4. "
<！?-* * *
•ą ſy ſy ºº º،ſ ， & ***
, w rºſſº ***
„E º* …» （i№
, -， º：
*№ ： » №º.►!
': *（^&^****-&ſºº::::∞∞∞
&& ！!!-∞ºſ
&=&ºsae… ***
…**<<<
… ► ► ►►
●-.- ** * * * * * · * *
| 1 - ....….- * * · · · · · · · ·... …………. • • • • •∞ √° ſ√≠√∞ √° √≠ ≈ ~~~~~№wºsº,
º
G.I.9 Ull Il (I

#
É
a
f
i
-
º
||||
=
~!
E. :
ãº
&ºº ſº. ººl º ºs ºjº º sº tº a ſº º ſº dº
| #º º:
º Tº ſº
|
intº
UN
(S)}:
3:TE 37 ſº
#
ºve STAs ſº
ITY OF MICIIIſ,
Mºnº
VTUP
§ſſ
of the
* <3
3
[.
||||Will imº
rººmmºn
Tºrºn
º
|| || | | TF
QºS *
º
fºſſil
ITHºlīſ
[]
ſº
º
C
[]
[.
C
[...]
}º
º
: º}~
ſº-ſº ſºlº
Þjºjº jºi
t rt--~~ -
fºſſ-- " - Tſº-
lili ilii!!, i.e.,
|E
IIITIE
H















NATIONAL RESTORATION AND CONVERSION
of THE
TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL; .
OR, er
NOTES ON SOME PROPHECIES
BELIEVED TO RELATE TO THOSE TWO GREAT EVENTS; AND INTENDED TO SHOW
THAT THE CONVERSION WILL TAKE PLACE AFTER THE RESTORATION:
AND THAT THE OCCASION OF IT HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY PREDICTED.
COLLATED WITH THE HEBREW, AND THE WORKS OF MOST EMINENT
COMMENTATORS ; AND CONTAINING SOME REMARKS
TJPON THE THEORY OF PROFESSOR: IEE.
“THou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion: for the time to favour her, yea, the set time,
is come. For thy servants take pleasure in her stones, and favour the dust thereof. So the
heathen shall fear the name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth thy glory. When the
Lord shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory.”—PsALM cr1. ''.
BY WALTER CHAMBERLAIN, M.A.,
PERPETUAL CURATE of THE NEW PARISH of ST. JoHN, IITTLE BOLTON, LANCASHIRE.
LONDON: - s
WERTHEIM AND MACINTOSH, 24, PATERNOSTER ROW.
M.DCCC.LIV.
W E R TH EI M AN D MAC IN TO SH,
24, PATERNosTER-Row, LONDON.
i
-


|
i
TO THE
RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD,
JAMES PRINCE LEE, D.D.,
LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER.
.." My LoRD,
A CHARACTERISTIC kindness has permitted me to
inscribe this volume with your Lordship's name, and I
cheerfully embrace the conclusion that, in giving this
permission, your Lordship is actuated by a desire to
promote an interest in God's people Israel (by whomso-
ever their cause be advocated), rather than by any confi-
dence either in the abilities or the attainments of the writer.
The object of the work is to show that every sound
principle of scriptural interpretation, and of the interpre-
tation of the prophets especially, demand from the Christian
Church the confident expectation of an approaching resto-
ration and conversion of the twelve tribes of Israel; that
such restoration will be a process antecedent to the con-
version; and that such conversion will be essentially
277.123

iv. DEDICATION,
national, i.e., wrought miraculously upon the unconverted
national restoration of both houses at Jerusalem.
That no argument unsoundly advanced, no failure
unwisely provoked, and (which will be of most importance
in your Lordship's opinion) no sentiment unscripturally
expressed, may incur your disapprobation, is the earnest
hope of -
YoUR LORDSHIP's
Obedient, humble Servant,
WALTER CHAMBERLAIN.
OCTOBER 1, 1854.

PREFACE.
THESE chapters are designed to investigate the great question of a
future national restoration and conversion of Israel. The treatment
of this subject has sometimes been connected with an effort to
determine the times and the seasons of its accomplishment, as well
as to follow out its consequences into what is technically termed
the millennium. -
It is not to be denied that Holy Scripture contains certain
chronological prophecies, which it-seems reasonable to suppose are
chronological only that believers may study the times which they
indicate; it is also undeniably true that certain results of a purely
spiritual character are predicted as immediately produced by the
conversion of Israel; but I imagine that the investigation of these
times, and such results, are two subjects perfectly distinct from the
previous question—Is any national restoration and conversion of
Israel foretold at all ? -
Similarly, it seems far from doubtful that great events of a
mundane character, affecting most intimately the Church of Christ,
are antecedently associated with the future destiny of the Hebrews;
and it is open to any student of prophecy to consider the predictions
of such events when directing his attention to the prospects of that
people; but whetherit be really necessary to do so may be questioned.
Mr. Faber, who is high authority on the subject, has indeed
asserted that “the restoration of Israel and the overthrow of Anti-
christ are so closely connected together that it will be found impos-

vi PREFACE.
sible to treat of the one without likewise treating of the other ”
(“Restoration of Israel,” p. 3); and accordingly his dissertation
upon the first of these subjects is made but a supplement to his
treatise on the other. This seems hard; for surely the interest
which Christians may feel in the future history of Israel is in
danger of depression if, before we can intelligently receive the
prophecies relating to it, we must needs digest a certain number of
octavos about “the 1260 years.” -
The mode of investigation to be adopted may well be determined
by Holy Scripture itself; and, if so, since prophecies can be found
asserting the coming restoration and conversion of Israel, but not
of necessity involving an investigation of the events which lead to
it, we are justified in treating the subject irrespectively of such
events; although it may be perfectly true that, were certain other
prophecies selected, we could not with propriety do so. We may
select one class of prophecies, and leave alone the other. This plan
it is proposed to pursue on the present occasion; for belief in a
coming revival of the Jewish nation is yet in its infancy; that is
eagerly anticipated for Greece which Christian hearts deny to
Palestine ! The great body of the Christian Church, not excepting
some who are very eminent in piety, either denies or disregards it.
Able commentators, by reason of a false and pernicious scheme of
exposition, have overlooked it, and have also overlooked the damage
they have done thereby, in some minds, to the Word of God. We
have yet to convince; and it seems an unlikely and unreasonable
way of attempting this, when we embarrass the inquiry with specu-
lations about mysterious dates, and contradictory disquisitions upon
the Book of Revelation.
In our first efforts to produce conviction, the subject should be
placed before the mind in the simplest manner possible; stripped to
the utmost of its adjuncts, however seductive they may be. Is, or
is not, a future national restoration and conversion of Israel foretold?
Is, or is not, such conversion (if foretold) to take place after the
restoration ? Is, or is not, the direct occasion of such conversion
PREFACE. vii
predicted These are three questions which suggest themselves at
once to an inquiring mind, and the affirmative of each is advocated
in these pages, in which they are examined with reference to the
Hebrew Scriptures.
No one, it is believed, will object to the position that, upon a
question concerning the Hebrewpeople in the first degree, we properly
look for arguments and information to the Hebrew Scriptures; and,”
in point of fact, it is found that the great mass of predictions
which foretel the redemption of the sons of Jacob, and the recon-
stitution of their nation, is contained in the writings of their own
prophets. Accordingly, our argument is confined to certain selec-
tions from those prophets, and the New Testament of Christians is
alluded to but occasionally, as being, to the hearts of Christians,
an inspired expositor of various passages in the Old. But, in a
concluding chapter, care has been taken to exhibit two facts, SO
often forgotten, viz., 1. That the New Testament does contain
several passages not uncertainly predictive of the national restoration
and conversion of all Israel; and, 2. That the spiritual interpreta-
tion, which the New Testament so frequently puts upon the Old,
does by no means invalidate, or justify our disputing, that literal
interpretation which is claimed by, and undoubtedly belongs to,
the Jew. -
Professor Lee, in a work to be more particularly alluded to,
suggests certain elements, or principles, of criticism, by which he
had himself been guided in his inquiry, which seem of a character
to command immediate compliance: they are—1. A strict regard
to the character of the Sacred Volume, and to the modes of thinking
and acting, under which those who committed it to writing lived
and died. 2. The grammar and rhetoric of the Hebrew language,
for which he used respectively his own Grammar and the “Philo-
’ of Glassius. 3. A careful observance of the usages
logia Sacra’
of Scripture. 4. To make Holy Scripture its own interpreter, as
to which he thought he perceived that the parallel places were
applicable to a much greater extent than usually supposed. 5. The

viii PREFACE.
citations made in the New from the Old Testament. (Lee’s “ Inquiry
into Prophecy,” Introd., pp. 88–92; and p. 1.) All of which
appear to be good and just conditions, with which, in this volume,
a very humble attempt has been made to comply. But, such
conditions accepted, especially as regards the language, there are,
probably, many learned Hebrews who will be astonished to hear
that he who propounded them has maintained that all prophecy,
extending to Israel as a nation, has already been fulfilled.
Of the above principles of criticism I know not which is the
most important, but all of them bear a close relation to the
assumption upon which the present investigation is founded, viz.,
that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God; and that, there-
fore, so far as He intended man to understand it, whatever is
necessary for its doctrinal elucidation may be found within itself;
or, as it has been well expressed, “When the Maker of the world
becomes an author, his word must be as perfect as his work.”
(Jones’ “Fig. Language,” p. 1.) Thus, just as we search into
material creation alone for explanations of the phenomena of nature,
so we dig deep into the Word of God alone for discoveries in the
wonders of revelation.
In pursuing this inquiry, great respect has been cherished for
the opinions of others, and if in any particular it is presumed to
differ, an effort has been made to assign sound reasons for doing so.
Of those writers who advocate the cause of Israel, I have consulted
only the works of Mr. G. S. Faber, and of Mr. Bickersteth, but
not until my own, opinions had been formed. The manner in
which Mr. Bickersteth has touched upon the leading features of
the question is at times exceedingly happy; but his work was not
intended to be of a demonstrative character: on the contrary, it
consists of pulpit discourses delivered in different places at various
intervals; and sometimes, therefore, assumes with all its excellence
those positions which had yet to be established. They contain, of
course, his own views of various Scriptures, delivered in an admi-
rable spirit, with the object of present practical good before him,
BRIEFACE. ix
but afford him scarcely opportunity of developing the arguments by
which those views, however sound, were supported. His work, too,
enters frequently upon the subject of millennian glory. -
A similar observation applies in some degree to Mr. Faber’s.
For whoever looks into his “View of the Prophecies relative to the
Conversion, Restoration, &c., of Judah and Israel,” will perceive
that to follow him satisfactorily it is necessary first to have read
his “Dissertations upon the 1,260 Years,” subsequently replaced by
his “Sacred Calendar of Prophecy.” The book consists of cita-
tion at length of several prophecies, with very concise comments
upon them, which comments are referred to opinions he had
already advanced in that distinct work upon the duration, history,
and fall of Antichrist. It is, perhaps, owing to this fact, in
accordance with the distinction between the prophecies foretelling
Israel’s restoration already noticed, that certain prophecies upon
which Mr. Faber has advanced the least are those of which the
fullest use has been made in the present investigation, e.g., Isaiah
xxix.-xxxiii.; Ezek. xvi. and xx. ; Zech. ix. and x., &c., but with
what advantage to the cause the reader alone can judge. There
are also two particulars, in which, if I have ventured to offer
conclusions different from those of Mr. Faber, it has not been
altogether without reason nor unsupported by authority. They
are, First. The opinion he has advanced upon Ezek. xxxviii. and
xxxix., that they predict events which may be expected after the
millennium, and are, in fact, predictive of the same events as
Rev. xx. 8. I have been at some pains, not only by investigating
the terms of the prophecy itself, but also by analyzing Mr. Faber’s
argument, and by harmonising this prophecy with Isaiah xxix.-
xxxiii., Zech. ix. and x., and xii.-xiv., and with the Book of Joel,
to show that Ezekiel in such chapters most accurately describes
the very events which are to terminate in the conversion of the
restored people, and that, therefore, such events are to be antici-
pated before the millennium, and are not the same as those
foretold at Rev. xx, which succeed it. Second. Mr. Faber,
X PREFACE.
following Bishop Horsley, maintains that part of Judah, or the
two tribes, and all of Israel, or the ten tribes, will be restored in a
converted state; the rest of Judah unconverted. This is partly
true in a sense, but in such a sense only as to confuse the subject.
Inasmuch as the national conversion of Israel will be signalized
within the Holy Land by the overthrow of his confederated
enemies, through a personal epiphany of Messiah; and inasmuch
as the report of this wonderful occurrence heralded throughout the
world, will be the signal, the accredited signal, for the flocking of
sons of Jacob, both of Judah and Israel, to their proper land, they
will clearly in one sense reach that land believing—that is,
believing the report that Messiah is come, and that the kingdom is
restored to Israel. But whether that is a belief with the import of
the word “conversion” may, I submit, be questioned.
I have endeavoured to exhibit the inconclusiveness of the
argument advanced by Bishop Horsley, and adopted by Mr. Faber,
to show that any part of that conversion which is the peculiar
subject of prophecy will take place before the restoration, as also to
point out the particular oversight which led the way to this mis-
apprehension. And throughout this volume it will be seen that
the predicted conversion is essentially a national conversion,--that
is, a conversion nationally signalized of a partial but competent
and national restoration of all Israel, united as a people within the
Holy Land. This national representation of the people assailed by
a multitudinous and confederated foe is delivered by Messiah at
Jerusalem; and receiving then the outpoured Spirit of grace and
supplications, becomes thus, in the truest sense of the word,
converted unto Christ. This is the occurrence of that conversion
which is the peculiar subject of the Divine predictions; this is that
national conversion, commanding the assent of all the world, which
the Word of God invites us everywhere to believe in ; this is the
event from which dates the fuller and complete ingathering of
Israel, which the prophets are unanimous in foretelling; but this
ingathering of scattered members of all the tribes towards the
PREFACE. - xi
glorious ensign on Mount Zion is the addition of individual
members of those tribes, and must be regarded as individual
conversions, even upon the assumption that they are, when they
reach the land, in a converted state strictly speaking. For to
hurry towards Zion expectant is one thing, to flow thither in
enjoyment of grace which has already convinced, another. The
conversion peculiarly foretold in Holy Scripture is a national
conversion; but a national conversion implies the aggregation of
individuals into one body at one place, which place, for this
purpose, is the Holy Land, and the precise scene is Jerusalem; all
subsequent conversions or additions of converted people should be
regarded as individual, and cannot be held to constitute the
peculiar conversion of Israel foretold by the prophets. It will indeed
probably prove true, that, whenever Messiah shall be revealed,
there will be many scattered individuals or families of the Hebrew
nation already believing on Him; or the minds of that people in
general may have been so prepared by previous events as instantly
to acquiesce in the rumour of Messiah’s presence. Observes
Bishop Horsley: for “Are not the Jews in their present state
a nation ‘expecting, expecting, and trampled underfoot ?’ still
without end expecting their Messiah, who came so many ages
since, and everywhere trampled underfoot, held in subjection, and
treated with contempt? And is not this likely to be their character
and condition till their conversion takes place?” (Isaiah xviii. 2,
on "p ºp.) But this conversion of scattered people or addition of
dispersed believers cannot properly be confounded with that great
event which, according to prophecy, Messiah himself will inaugurate
at Jerusalem; nor would it be strictly accurate to say that, because
such scattered believing families, or such addition of dispersed
expectants returned to Judea after Messiah's coming, that, there-
fore, a part of the national conversion took place before He came,
and before the restoration. Israel’s conversion is Messiah’s own
work; it is a national work, and it begins not nationally before He
comes, nor elsewhere than whither He comes. He comes to
xii PREFACE.
Jerusalem,--to his people struggling with an armed host there;
there He commences the work, and there He cuts it short in
righteousness. No previous conversion of individuals, nor sub-
sequent arrival of any at Jerusalem must be confounded with this.
Whatever conversions take place, and wherever, as the result of
Messiah’s appearance to certain of the people restored, cannot
correctly be considered conversions before the restoration in the
usual import of that passage, inasmuch as Messiah’s appearing as
the King of Israel in his glory is to a national embodiment of
people already restored, and representing all Israel at Jerusalem.
I hope, however, that if in these or any other particulars, con-
clusions at variance with those of other and more able students of
this subject have been expressed, it is not in a spirit opposed to
theirs; but, on the contrary, that these pages, under Divine
blessing, may be permitted to promote the good object they had in
view, and to increase the interest which the Christian Church has
already begun to feel in the future prospects of the Jew in conse-
quence of their labours. I desire humbly to write in unity of spirit
with those excellent men, and shall esteem the labour amply
rewarded if only it be successful in arousing the attention of
Christian brethren in my own sphere to the sacred cause which
they so ably advocated, and of promoting the reception of any
opinions they entertained rightly deducible from Holy Scripture.
It will also be observed, that commentators of high repute have
been carefully consulted. Among these I shall mention only
M. Henry, Lowth, and Scott. Henry—because he did not believe
in a coming national restoration and conversion of Israel; because
he is one of the ablest and sweetest advocates of the spiritual mode
of interpretation; and because he is dear to the hearts of large bodies
of Christian people, whose characters, as believers in Christ the King,
would not be injured by stronger convictions as to the future national
elevation of the sons of Israel. Lowth–because he did believe
in a future national restoration and conversion of Israel; because
he is one of the most learned of commentators, especially as a
PREFACE. xiii
Hebraist; and because, being of high authority in the Church of
England, so motoriously competent by his peculiar attainments,
and thus believing in a future glorious kingdom of Israel, he
is calculated to intimate to some of us that it may not be quite
uncanonical to entertain similar convictions ourselves. Scott—
because, being the latest of widely-reputed commentators, and
possessing a certain aptness and discrimination, he frequently
extracts the honey from his predecessors, sometimes adjusts their
differences, and generally adds some judicious observation of his
own. The cause of Israel is not injured when such a commentator
as Scott, deliberately reflecting on the opinions of his predecessors,
is constrained to adopt the sentiments of Lowth in reference to the
restoration and conversion of Israel.
Now, as regards the formal and, I fear, tedious manner in which
arguments dependent on Hebrew criticism have been sustained,
by references to authorities and by citation of numerous examples,
I hope it will be some apology to state, that I felt deeply conscious
no mere ipse divit on such a subject could be permitted to any
writer, far less to me. But when such men as Noldius, Glassius,
Gesenius, Lee, and Henderson are found supporting certain points
of critical construction without reference to the future of Israel,
but only as matters of Hebrew interpretation, it becomes peculiarly
important to observe that such points are precisely corroborative
of certain deductions of great moment to those who believe in
the future restoration and conversion of Israel. Instances of this
kind will be found in various passages where Noldius has marked
the force of 1, and in others where it was necessary to note the
force of the verbal noun with 3, as well as in the interpretation of
one or two separable particles. It was also peculiarly desirable
sometimes to combat Lee with the authority of other Hebraists
scarcely his inferiors, and to show that, if a Professor of Hebrew in
one University denied the soundness of Israel’s future expectations,
some confidence in that future was not inconsistent with Hebrew
learning, as exhibited by others of equal repute: not inconsistent
xiv PREFACE.
either with his own opinions when recorded peculiarly as a Hebraist.
Besides which, it is no slight advantage to the cause to show that
men so eminent in learning as Lowth, Horsley, and Henderson
maintain it. My endeavour has been, on this part of the subject,
to set out the authorities, and to cite examples, in such a manner
that any one might be able to prosecute the argument.
Let me add, before committing these Notes to the public, that
the chapter, “Thy sons, O Greece l’ and the explanation (in the
chapter “Many People with thee”) of the nations comprised
in the confederacy predicted by Ezekiel, were written long before
the commencement of the present European crisis; and that,
therefore, it would be unjust to suppose that the opinions con-
tained in them were formed in the contemplation of existing
facts. I may be singular in those opinions; but the fact remains
the same. The chapters were written before present European
events suggested their probability, and in consequence of impres-
sions derived from Paxton’s “Sacred Geography” some nine years
ago. But lest a natural prejudice on this part of the subject
should retard the chief design I have in view, let me observe,
these two chapters may be unsound, or for any other reason
rejected, and yet the great conclusions sought to be established
remain altogether unimpaired. Let any who dislike them reject
those chapters, correct though they be; the great subject before
us cannot justly be prejudiced by their doing so. My object is
not to depict a gloomy future for these or those nationalities,
but to draw a glowing, truthful picture of a triumphant Israel.
Let me now solicit the Christian reader's patient attention, in
hopes that, if not entirely successful in my object, somewhat may,
nevertheless, be contributed to the desirable result of awakening
in the minds of fellow-Christians an intelligent expectation of the
approaching great events. If such be really to occur, all passing
scenes appear to indicate their occurrence as close at hand. The
eyes of Europe have long been anxiously directed towards the East.
The Turkish Empire lies helpless at the feet of European powers;
PREFACE. XV
and if they have not yet actively undertaken its dismemberment, it
seems to be only because they cannot agree among themselves.
But the land of Israel is an important part of that empire—
important, necessarily, by its position, if not at this time for its
riches and productions. In any question that contemplates the
displacement of the Turkish power, a disposition of that country
must be determined on ; and who shall say to what great result,
fulfilling prophecy, the settlement of such a question may lead?
Holy Scripture seems to justify the belief that Palestine will yet
be the scene of warfare between sons of Israel and a combination
of Heathen nations; but if so, a previous restoration of that people
is implied; and what powers will form such confederacy against
them, is a question which Christians may consider, even if they
presume not to decide. At least, daily events seem to say that the
time is not badly chosen for a systematic review of Scriptures upon
the subject. Whether any such events are foretold, or not ? In
what degree such predictions (if there be any) admit of elucidation ?
With what clearness the course of their fulfilment appears to be
defined? In what manner they are likely to affect the condition
and prospects of Christianity? Will that religion derive increased
authority from their accomplishment Does a mightier develop-
ment of her system and doctrines, full of richest blessings to the
sons of men, depend upon them?
These are questions resulting from the subject, and respectfully
committed to the consideration of the reader.
BOLTON-LE-MooRS, JULY 14, 1854.
zºº

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.
THE Ten not included in the Babylonian restoration, according to Ezra, Nehemiah,
Haggai, Zechariah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Isaiah, and Hosea; also according to
Josephus, 2; but this question not of the first importance to the subject, 8.
—The fulfilment of prophecy always literal, 9.—Professor Lee's “Inquiry into
Prophecy,” 12.-Calvin's views, as the spiritual mode of exposition, 17.-
Principles of prophetical exposition followed in this work, 20–The mystical
allegory, 24.—Conclusion.
º CHAPTER II.
Ezek. xxxvi, includes all the tribes, and is still unfulfilled, 28.—Restoration, and
subsequent conversion of all the tribes predicted, 33; this prophecy neither
figurative nor conditional, 37–Ezek. xi. peculiarly opposed to the theory of
multitude and remnant, 39.-Ezek. xvi. : All the tribes included, prophecy
unfulfilled, 41.—Restoration and subsequent conversion to Christianity pre-
dicted, 43.-Several territorial possessions promised to the tribes, 51.-Sodom
and her daughters, 51; this prophecy neither conditional nor figurative, 53.
—Ezek. xx, applies to all the tribes, 57; is unfulfilled, 58.—Restoration and i
conversion foretold, 59; and conversion after restoration, 62.-No figurative |
nor conditional interpretation can be sustained, 69.—Conclusion, 72.
CHAPTER III.
Zech. iii.; Joshua and his fellows typical men, 79.—Restoration foretold, and
subsequent conversion, 81–Zech. vi. 9—15: Identity with Zech. iii., 84; - i
essentially national, and therefore unfulfilled, 86; and restoration and conver-
sion foretold, 89–91.-Principle of interpretation; no figurative nor con-
ditional exposition sustainable, 91.—Jerem. xxiii. 5–8 includes all Israel; and
predicts restoration and subsequent conversion, 95.—Jerem. xxxiii. : Specifica-
tions of all Israel, prophecy unfulfilled, 97; unconditional, and literal
character of the prophecy, 103.-Contradistinction by families, 106–Resto-
* - b

xviii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
ration and subsequent conversion, 108.-Isa. xi. unfulfilled, prophetical
meaning of “remnant,” 111; argument from Isaiah that the ten were not
included in the Babylonian restoration, 113; ten tribes to come from the
direction of their first captivity, 114; the Gentiles assisting, 117–Isa. iv.,
119.—Conclusion.
CHAPTER IV.
Hosea's distinction between Judah, Israel, &c., &c., and general predictions of
restoration, 126.-Hosea i.—iii. an unfulfilled prophecy, predicting the resto-
ration and conversion of Israel, 129.-Argument from Hosea that the ten
tribes were not included in the Babylonian restoration, 132–Ten tribes not
merged among idolaters, nor up to this time converted, 136.-Conversion after
the restoration, 140 ; prophecy literal and unconditional, 145.-Jerem.
xxx., xxxi, includes all the tribes, and predicts, with many particulars, their
restoration in the times of Christianity, 147; identity of prophecy with
Hosea i...—iii., 160; conversion after the restoration, 162; literal and uncon-
ditional, 165.—Ezekiel xxxiv.: Prophecy of Christ, as Prince, 166; all tribes
included; restoration, and subsequent conversion, by the breaking of
“strangers' yoke,” predicted, 167; also, chap. xxxvii. includes all tribes, and
predicts thejunction of Judah and Ephraim into one kingdom in Messiah's
time, 171; conversion foretold after the restoration, 177.-The vision of the
dry bones; foretels the restoration and subsequent conversion, 179; this
prophecy neither figurative nor conditional, 183.−Conclusion.
CHAPTER W.
Professor Lee's interpretation of “the latter days,” and “the end,” 191; Mr.
Faber's, 194.—Necessity of attending to the Septuagintal form, 196.-
Passages in the New Testament, 198.-Septuagintal forms, 202; meaning of
the phrase, from Gen. xlix. 1, and Numb. xxiv. 14, 204—209; in Deut.
iv. 30, and xxxi. 29, 209; in Isa. ii. 2, Micah iv. 1, Jerem. xxiii. 20, and
xxx. 22, and Hosea iii. 5, 220–Important application of the parallelism
between prophecies of Branch and King, 225.-Noldius' opinion, 227.
CHAPTER VI.
ſ Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix.-Military Combination of Northern Powers foretold, 228.-
} They seize all the land of Israel, but to be there miraculously destroyed, 230.
i —Chiefly east of Tiberias, 232–Certain Gentile Powers excepted from the
Confederacy, 234.—Other Prophecies of the same events, 238.—This Prophecy
unfulfilled, 241,–Comprises all Israel, and predicts Restoration and subse-
quent Conversion, 243.−The Gift of Canaan perpetual : Professor Lee's
Opinion considered, 261–The Perpetuity proved: from the limitation of it
to seed, generation, &c., 266–From David, in Ps. cy., 269.-From the
- jº.

TABLE OF CONTENTS. xix
Repetitions of the Gift to Isaac and Jacob, 271,–From the blessing which
accompanied it, 273.—Conclusion.
CHAPTER VII.
Zech. ix., x-A Prophecy unfulfilled, 282; includes all the Tribes, and foretels
their Restoration, 297; with precedence of Judah, 301; also their contention
in war against Greece, and their Victory, 302.-Prophecy not fulfilled in
Maccabean Times, 305.-The meaning of Javan fired, 317.-Identity of
Zechariah's Prophecy with Ezek. xxxviii. and xxxix., 319.-Israel's Conversion
foretold, 321; and after the Restoration, 325.-No Figurative or Conditional
Interpretation possible, 334.—Conclusion.
CHAPTER VIII.
Investigation of Names employed by Ezekiel to describe Gog's Confederacy:
meaning of the phrase, “Isles of the Gentiles,” 341.—Magog, Meshech, and
Tubal, 343.−Gomer, 350–Togarmah, 354.—Persia, Ethiopia, and Lybia,
355.-Sheba and Dedan, 360,-Tarshish, 364.—Conclusion.
CHAPTER IX.
Bishop Horsley's Reasons for expecting Conversion before Restoration, 386;
Replied to, 387.-Parallelism between Isa. xviii., Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., and
Zeph. iii., 396.—Mr. Faber's Reasons, 399; Replied to, 401,–Other Scrip-
tures supposed to favour Anterior Conversion referred to : Professor Lee on
Bom. xi. 23, and 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16, 415.-Lev. xxvi. 40–45, &c., &c.; do not
justify our expecting Conversion before Restoration, 416.-The Books of Moses
suggest some reasons to the contrary, 422,-Conclusion.
CHAPTER X.
The Book of Joel an unfulfilled Prophecy, 429; does not refer in chief either to
the Assyrians or the Babylonians, 431; nor to the Romans, 433.−Uncon-
ditional Character of the Prophecy, 436.-Judah’s Repentance at Jerusalem
foretold, 438.—Argument from chap. ii. 21–32, 441.-The Connexion
between chaps. ii. and iii., 447; Peculiar Predictions in chap. iii. 4–8, 452;
Main Facts deducible from chap. iii., 454; also from chaps. ii. and iii., taken
as correlative, 459.-Prophecy parallel with Ezekiel's Gog and Magog an
Zechariah’s “Sons of Greece.”—Conclusion. *.
CHAPTER XI.
Isaiah's chaps. xxix.-xxxiii. one Prophecy, 465.—Explanation of chap. xxx. 33,
467—The literal Assyrian not intended, 471.-Identity of Predictions in

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
chap. xxix. 1–8, xxx. 27–33, and xxxi. 4—9, 481–Explanation of the
Name Ariel, applied to Jerusalem, 484.—Mode of Destruction predicted
shows that the literal Assyrian was not intended, 487,-Religious Blessings
to Judah flow as a consequence from the overthrow predicted, 491–Such
Religious Blessings denote Judah’s Conversion, for they are from the Lord,
the King, Jesus Christ, 496.-Parallelism of Isa. xxix-xxxiii. and Joel's
Book, 504.—Conclusion. -
CHAPTER XII.
Zech. xii. a Prediction of Blessing to Israel, 507; unfulfilled, 508; the Day or
pi* of chaps. xii., xiii., one unbroken and consecutive, 509; Consequences
which follow, 512–Identity of Predictions: Zech., chaps. ix., x, and
xii.-xiv.; and Conversion similarly foretold, 518–The several predictions in
these prophecies of Judah’s deliverance from idolatry compared, 524.—The
Day of chap. xiv. the same as that of chap. xii., 526.-Zech. xiv. marks the
manner in which Israel's Conversion is identified with Jesus of Nazareth, 529–
Affirms a personal epiphany of Christ, 531.-Coincidences of Zech. xii.-xiv.
with Isa. xxix.-xxxiii., 535.-Collation of Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix. ; Zech.
ix., x. ; the Book of Joel ; Isa. xxix.-xxxiii.; and Zech. xii.—xiv., 539.-
Conclusion.
The
&
CONCLUDING CHAPTER.
fathers and other ancient writers, and best biblical critics, encourage the
belief in a coming national restoration and conversion of Israel, 547; as does
also the New Testament, 551.—Remarks on the mode of quotation in the
New Testament from the Old, 559.—The device that “Canaan” in prophecy
spiritually means “the world,” with reference to Rom. iv. 13, considered, 563.
—Prophecy carefully distinguishes Christian Israel from Christian Gentiles,
565.-Some passages imagined to deny the future restoration of Israel, 566.
—Matters not essential to the subject, which ought to be carefully separated
from those which are, 568.-Conclusion.
NOTES ON THE
\
RESTORATION AND CONVERSION
OF THE JEWS.
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.
“WRITE THE VISION, AND MAKE IT PLAIN UPON TABLES.”—
(HAB. II. 2.)
To form an opinion upon the question of a future national restoration
and conversion of Israel, it is necessary we should be familiar with
the circumstances of Judah's return from Babylon, and with his history
between the time of that restoration and the ascendancy of Herod the
Idumean. For that predictions exist of some recovery of captive
Israelites is certain ; but that all such predictions refer to the deliver-
ance from Babylon is disputed. On the contrary, it is confidently
maintained that many of such prophecies foretel a restoration of all
Israel in such terms as can by no means find their accomplishment in
the various arrivals of Israelites in Judea, which occurred under the
decrees of the Persian monarchs. For instance, it is maintained that
several prophecies foretel the settlement in Palestine of all the tribes;
but that from Babylon came not more than two. It is asserted that
some prophecies inseparably connect a change of religion with the re-
possession of the Holy Land; but that (as admitted) no such change of
religion did or could occur at the Babylonian restoration. And it is
evident that, if there be really prophecies which sustain these asser-
tions, we have in such two facts, when proved, unanswerable reasons
for believing in a re-gathering of all the tribes yet to be accomplished.
Besides the work of Josephus (whose use upon this subject is
manifest), Holy Scripture itself contains four books especially calcu-
lated to impart correct information respecting the recovery of the
tribes from Babylon. Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah were
B
2 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
personally engaged in offices of the first importance during that event.
Is it not reasonable to expect that the historical and prophetical books
of these inspired men would so coincide with the works of the prophets
who preceded them, that, whenever predictions most momentous in the
history of Israel were being fulfilled, they would take peculiar care
to record their accomplishment P At least, such appears in the New
Testament to have been the conduct of later contributors to Holy
Writ. And was the recovery of the ten tribes, who had been so much
longer in captivity than Judah, a fulfilment of prophecy so little
singular or important that not one of these good inspired men judged
it desirable specifically to announce the fact 2 Such are questions
which may be well considered by those who assume that the ten
formed part of the Babylonian restoration. And particularly as to the
prophecy of Zechariah. If we find in it predictions of a restoration
then yet to be accomplished after Zechariah's time, we are sure those
predictions must refer to events even now future; for no other return
of any part of Israel has taken place down to the present time since
that in which Zechariah was himself engaged. It is true that about
sixty-eight years after Zerubbabel's arrival in Judea, a small body of
Israelites reached Jerusalem under Ezra; it is also true that a certain
prediction contained in Zech. x, is by some supposed to have been
fulfilled by a liberation of Jews in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus;
but in the proper place I shall show that Zechariah's predictions are of
far too august a character to be interpreted of the first of these events,
and that as to the other, it is referred to in support of an hypothesis
not justified by facts. -
[1..] It has been intimated that certain prophecies foretel undeniably
a return from captivity of all the tribes; but, admitting this, some main-
tain that portions of all the tribes did return from Babylon, and that,
therefore (so far as this type goes), those prophecies may be considered
as fulfilled. To this it is replied, that no competent representation of
the ten which once constituted the kingdom of Israel returned, but
only a few private and detached individuals; so that the restoration
from Babylon must be limited to the two, Judah and Benjamin, while
the real tribal body of the ten remained captives in Media. This is
an important point; for if there be prophecies promising a restoration
either of all the tribes or of the ten alone, but only two came back
from Babylon, it is clear such prophecies have yet to be fulfilled,
AND conversion of THE JEws. 3
* The Christian Church has ever appreciated the authority of
Josephus, who, speaking of the supplementary return under Ezra,
observes, “So Ezra read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that
were there ; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all
those of his own nation that are in Media ; and when these Jews had
understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he
had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took
their effects with them and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going
to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people Israel remained
in that country (Media); wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia
and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond
Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be
estimated by numbers.” (B. 11, c. 5, s. 2, Antiq.) Thus, even
allowing for his national pride, Josephus’ testimony is decisive as to
the fact that the great body, the tribal mass, of the ten did not return
to Judea with the two. And it should be particularly noticed that,
while he admits many of the ten joined the two at Jerusalem, he
denies they were so many as could be justly considered an adequate
representation of the several tribes to which they belonged, but, on
the contrary, expressly declares that those ten remained in Media.
Christians, however, may differ in the degree of credit they attach
to Josephus. Let us examine the books of Scripture, and we shall
find them singularly decisive to show that the ten have never returned
from captivity. For, first, if we refer to the accounts of Ezra and
Nehemiah, both these writers employ the names Judah and Benjamin
in such a manner as to imply that they considered the restoration
from Babylon was limited to those tribes. “Then rose up the chief of
the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites.”
(Ezra i. 5.) “Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin
heard.” (Chap. iv. 1.) “And Judah said, The strength of the
bearers of burdens is decayed.” (Nehem. iv. 10.) “And the rulers
were behind all the house of Judah.” (Ibid. ver. 16) “Moreover, in
those days the nobles of Judah sent many letters.” (Chap. vi. 17.) It
is, however, undeniable that Ezra and Nehemiah often employ the
words Israel, children of Israel, as though more than the representa-
tives of two tribes were present; but admitting (as every one does)
that some persons from other tribes were with the two, an examination
of such passages will soon convince us that the titles Israel, all Israel,
children of Israel, were given by Ezra and Nehemiah to the people of
B 2
4. - NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Judah and Benjamin, thus restored from captivity, as being at that
time the only ostensible representatives of their nation, of which the
majority, viz., the ten tribes, were captives still. Thus, when
enumerating the people who returned with Zerubbabel, the son of
Shealtiel, Ezra says, “The number of the men of the people of Israel.”
(chap. ii. 2), and then proceeds to reckon those who, it is clear,
belonged to the two, Judah and Benjamin, with their Levites; for he
had already said, at ver. 1, they “came again unto Jerusalem and
Judah, every one to his city.” Again, when the temple is being con-
secrated, he says, “And the children of Israel, the priests, and the
Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the
dedication of this house of God with joy.” (Chapter vi. 16.) Again,
“And the children of Israel which were come again out of the
captivity.” (Ibid. ver. 21.) The events to which these passages refer
took place before the return of some of the ten under Ezra himself,
as is evident from the commencement of the seventh chapter—“Now
after these things;” so that it is plain that Ezra, recording events
which took place at Jerusalem before he arrived there himself with
the Israelites who accompanied him, calls those people of Israel and
children of Israel whom he had elsewhere (e.g., chap. i. 5, and iv. 1)
mentioned under the tribal names Judah and Benjamin alone. But
further, after Ezra had reached Jerusalem, accompanied by certain
members of the ten, “a very great congregation out of Israel” was
held for the purpose recorded in his last chapter. Yet, although we
know he had himself brought Israelites out of Media, Ezra calls that
very congregation all the men of Judah and Benjamin. “Then all
the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto
Jerusalem within three days.” (Chap. x. 9.) Here it is plain that,
even after the addition of Israelites under his own leadership to the
restoration, Ezra considered such restoration ought to be regarded a
restoration only of the two; for when a very great congregation of
Israel was held, it was still, in his opinion, writing by inspiration,
only a gathering together of Judah and Benjamin. Similar arguments
may be drawn from various passages in Nehemiah, e.g., chap. vii.
7, 73; also xi. 3, 20; and xii. 47; and from them it becomes evident
that both Ezra and Nehemiah imply that the restoration from Babylon
was limited tribally to Judah and Benjamin, who so became for a time
once more the ostensible representatives of their whole nation; and
are, therefore, frequently called by both those writers Israel, the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 5
children of Israel, or the people of Israel; although certain members
of the ten were among them : titles which, as the New Testament
continually shows, they still had in our Saviour's days.
Bochart, indeed, inferred the return of the ten from Ezra vi. 17,
and viii. 35, in both which passages offerings are mentioned for all
Israel, viz., twelve he-goats, and twelve bullocks, &c., “according to
the number of the tribes of Israel; ” but it may reasonably be
questioned whether any such inference can be justified from those
verses, for what could be more becoming, or what more likely from
the nature of the case, than that Judah and Benjamin, with their com-
panion Israelites, thus delivered from captivity, should offer up
burnt offerings not only for themselves, but for their less pious
brethren who chose still to remain in bondage, and who, therefore,
were not in a place to do so for themselves. Professor Lee, upon Ezra
vi. 17 (but without acknowledging Bochart), observes, “It must be
evident, therefore, that some of every tribe were present, it being
contrary to the law to offer by proxy. The chief of each tribe must
have been present, and have laid his hands upon the head of his
victim respectively.” (“Inquiry,” p. 74.) To which the reply is
sufficient, that it is admitted some of every tribe were present, and
therefore they did not offer by proxy, even granting the assertion that
in no case it was lawful to do so, which might be questioned. But as
to every chief being present, that is a very rapid assumption indeed,
as well as the inference suggested from it; for it was necessary to
show, first, that the presence of the chief constitutes or necessitates
the presence of his tribe; second, that the chief persons among the
members of the ten severally present might not act as chief for the
time being; and third, that it was positively incompetent for the high
priest and his fellows, legitimately constituted, to offer up intercessory
sacrifices for absent brethren when such peculiar circumstances had
put it out of their power to comply with Lev. iv. 15—the passage to
which I imagine Professor Lee refers, for he mentions none. Contrary
to his assumption, I submit the inference that, since Ezra specifically
mentions certain “chief of the fathers,” and since these chief of the
fathers so mentioned are those only of Judah and Benjamin (Ezra
i. 5), that, therefore, no other chiefs of tribes, save those of Judah and
Benjamin, were with the restoration from Babylon. But surely this
reasoning upon the sacrifices offered up for all involves a question of
ceremonial observance which may well be decided by Jews themselves;
6 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
and if so, the reasoning is unsound; for the Jews are agreed that the
ten did not return with the two from Babylon, but that their
descendants yet remain in the neighbourhood of their original
captivity.
To the above remarks upon the books of Ezra and Nehemiah it may
be added generally, that the recovery of the ten from a captivity so
much longer than that of the two would have been an event too
momentous to be passed over without some specific reeord; yet both
Ezra and Nehemiah, who so carefully mention Judah and Benjamin
tribally, are alike silent concerning any one or more of the ten. To
many this would be a sufficient reason for concluding that those
inspired historians intended carefully to limit the Babylonian restora-
tion to Judah and Benjamin.
The authorities of Jeremiah and Daniel are equally to the purpose.
For the seventy years' captivity was predicted only of the two (Jerem.
xxv. 11, and xxix. 10); it was completed therefore only of the two,
the ten having been made captives long before ; but this is that very
captivity of which Daniel understood and prayed for the termination
(Dan. ix. 2, 3); they, therefore, who extend the termination of the
seventy years' captivity to more tribes than the two, perceive more
than the Holy Ghost foretold through Jeremiah, and more than
Daniel, “a man greatly beloved,” was permitted to understand
in vision. This was that very captivity, and this alone, which
Zechariah came back with under Zerubbabel, and as to which “the
angel of the Lord answered and said, O Lord of hosts how long wilt
thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against
which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years.”
(Zech. i. 12.) True, the Persian decree extended to all the tribes,
but Almighty prescience had foreseen they would not avail themselves
of it, and had indeed predicted that they should not. For it will be
seen, when we treat of Isaiah xi. and Hosea i...—iii., that the very
terms of those prophecies require the admission that the ten tribes did
not return with the two from Babylon; so that not only is it matter
of inference from other prophets that they did not, but with Isaiah and
Hosea the subject of positive prediction that they should not.
Lastly, the nature of the case suggests a reason, which Ezekiel
corroborates, for believing that the ten have never returned. For
just as long after Shalmanezer's and Sennacherib's captivities many
people of the ten became resident among the two, but still altogether
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 7
constituted, and were considered only two tribes; so after Cyrus's
restoration many members of the ten became again residents among
the two, but yet constituted, and ought to be considered, not twelve
tribes, but two. Accordingly, Holy Scripture sanctions, through
Ezekiel, this distinction between the children of Israel, Judah’s
companions, and all the house of Israel, Ephraim's companions. (See
Ezek. xxxvii. 6.)
Whoever carefully weighs these reasons will, I think, conclude that
the opinion that the ten tribes never returned is not to be wisely
treated in the following off-hand manner : “A remnant of all did
therefore return, and, consequently, the notion that ten of those tribes
have been lost is a mere figment.” (Lee’s “Inquiry,” p. 75.)
And yet there seems reason for thinking that the expression lost
tribes has been unhappily adopted; for the same scenic prophecy by
which Hosea tells us they did not return from Media with Zerubbabel
and the two, tells us also that they should never become merged
among the Gentiles, so as not to be recognised as God's people Israel.
And the cause has suffered in the hands of those well-meaning men
who have solemnly investigated the question whether the ten tribes
are to be looked for among the Red Indians, and other equally
remarkable people and their countries. (See Faber’s “Restoration of
Israel,” vol. i., p. 42.) Wiser far, because in accordance with
Scripture, is the assurance of our Jewish brethren, that the ten are yet
known and recognised as the sons of Jacob, even yet resident, for the
more part, in the immediate neighbourhood of their original captivity,
from which very places Holy Scripture more than once asserts their
restoration shall be effected. -
Upon the whole we conclude, not only from the authority of
Josephus and from the nature of the case, but more confidently from
the inspired books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and Hosea, that the restoration from Babylon was limited
tribally to the two; and that the ten remained in Media. It is not
denied that members of the ten were among Judah and Benjamin
when they came out of Babylon, but so there were when those two
tribes were carried captive. It is not to be doubted that many devout
Israelites had incorporated themselves from time to time with their
brethren of Judah and Benjamin, taking refuge from the idolatry of
Samaria in the yet remaining purer worship of Jerusalem; for we
have the authority of Scripture to this effect (2 Chron. xi. 16, and
8 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
xxxi. 6); and Kimchi, speaking of the descendants of some who were
left in the land by Shalmanezer, says expressly, “These went into
captivity with the tribe of Judah and Benjamin to Babylon, and
returned with them when they returned.” But these few Israelites
thus among Judah and Benjamin were not considered a real, a fair,
i.e., a tribal, representation of the ten, to which they belonged; these
yet remained in Media. The decision of Prideaux is given to the
same effect precisely in his “Connection of the Old and New Testa-
ments.” (See Part i., Books 1 and 3.)
But if only two tribes have yet been restored, and there are
prophecies which distinctly predict the restoration of twelve, then
such prophecies have yet to be fulfilled, i.e., another restoration to
Palestine, comprising all Israel, has yet to be expected.
[2.] The question whether the ten tribes were or were not adequately
contained in the restoration from Babylon is, however, not of the first
importance to the subject. It is true that if it be admitted they were
not included in such restoration, the cause of Israel gains great
advantage, for we have then one valuable type, a characteristic of
unfulfilled prophecies relating to that chosen people ; but this is all.
And there may be any number of other types of such unfulfilled
prophecies equally or more entirely and sufficiently conclusive. Thus,
if we prove there are prophecies which predict a restoration to be
followed by tribal distinctions of all the house of Israel, here is one
type certainly unfulfilled; for even if the ten were included in the
Babylonian restoration, it is matter of history they were not tribally
contradistinguished. Judah and Benjamin were so, but no others;
their names are never mentioned. Again, if we show that a restora-
tion is foretold under which Israel will be governed by a king, or
during which the entire land of promise will be possessed by them, or
which will be accompanied by a change of their religion, all these are
types or characteristics of prophecies which certainly had no fulfilment
in the return under Darius, and are equally decisive, although it be
supposed or granted that the ten were sufficiently comprised among
that restoration of the Jews. In other words, if, by making such an
admission, we lose one valuable type of prophecy unfulfilled, we have
many others equally valuable remaining, by which we are able to prove
a coming restoration of Israel. Besides, those who maintain (incor-
rectly, as we think) that the ten were included in the former restora-
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 9
tion, must, of course, admit that the descendants of the ten are merged
in and included among the people now scattered throughout the world,
and known as the remnant of the two. Hence, if it can be proved that
any prophecies predict a future restoration of these, those prophecies
must of necessity include the twelve tribes; because, upon the supposed
admission, the descendants of the ten are incorporated with the
descendants of the two. And this is true if we find any prophecies
unfulfilled which are directed to all Israel, Israel, or even Judah
alone. In fact, it will be seen that they who will have it that the ten
have already been restored, do by no means dispose of the whole case
we are prepared with for proving a coming restoration of all twelve
tribes. Christians have injured the cause by a bad habit of speaking
about the ten tribes, as if they must needs be kept distinct. Whereas,
firmly believing that chief bodies of them may be found here or there
living isolated from their brethren, still, reason seems to suggest that
other parts would naturally, in the lapse of ages, become fused among
the two. There is nothing in the requirements of the subject opposed
to this idea of fusion; but, on the contrary, it rather seems to throw
light upon one or two prophecies, if indeed it be not necessary to their
consistent interpretation with the whole.
[3] There are those who decline to expect the literal fulfilment of
any prophecy, but they surely forget that the will of the Almighty
in this particular has already been made manifest. Historical research
shows that the accomplishment of prophecy hitherto has been literal
to a wonderful degree, and that in this fact is reposed one of the
clearest testimonies to the divine authenticity of revelation. In
mercy to unbelievers, and to an extent scarcely demanded by the
cause of truth, the minutest predictions are recorded in the pages of
Holy Writ, and have been quite as minutely fulfilled. To establish
this, we need only refer to the well-known works of Newton and of
Keith, and add in his own words the Bishop's testimony when
discoursing upon some predictions contained in the book of Daniel:
“It may be proper to stop here and reflect a little how particular and
circumstantial this prophecy is concerning the kingdoms of Egypt and
Syria, from the death of Alexander to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.
There is not so complete and regular a series of their kings—there is
not so comprehensive and concise an account of their affairs—to
be found in any author of those times. The prophecy is really more
perfect than any history. No one historian has related so many
|
10 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
t
circumstances and in such exact order of time as the prophet hath
foretold them, so that it was necessary to have recourse to several
authors, Greek and Roman, Jewish and Christian, and to collect here
something from one, and there something from another, for the better
explaining and illustrating the great variety of particulars contained
in this prophecy.” (Prophecies Dissert. 16.) But for proof that the
fulfilment of prophecy was designed to be literal, we need not depend
upon the testimony of man. Holy Scripture, an unanswerable
witness, speaks to the same purpose in its record of the birth, life;
and sufferings of the Redeemer; and on this occasion we claim, in an
enlarged sense, to comply with one of Professor Lee's canons of criti-
cism, and take the New Testament to assist us in the interpretation
of the Old. If, then, history and Holy Scripture unite in showing
that prophecies hitherto accomplished were delivered with the closest
regard to literal particularity, why should it be thought difficult of
belief that the same will be the case with any which yet remain to be
fulfilled ? The things concerning Egypt and Edom, Moab and
Babylon, Gaza and Ashkelon, Jerusalem and Tyre, have happened to
the letter ; why should a less comprehensive development be antici-
pated for those prophecies which predict a coming restoration and
conversion of Israel?
That there are many such prophecies will appear, we think, plainly
in the course of these chapters; why should Christians yield to a (so-
called) spiritual interpretation of them when profane history and
inspired revelation assure us that the correct interpretation of others
was the most literal? Generally, it appears that in times gone by,
whenever a devout Jew would study the pages of his prophets, the
most literal interpretation he could put upon them would be nearest
the correct; when the Ethiopian eunuch was trying to understand
that chapter of Isaiah, we know the more literally he took the words
the closer he would approximate to the truth ; may not the same prove
to be the case in these days when Christians read the pages of Ezekiel?
Indeed, it is worthy of remark that some of those who are slowest to
acknowledge the destiny of God's ancient people, and who explain away
their Scriptures to other purposes, are, notwithstanding, the very people
who most stoutly object to spiritualizing upon other subjects. We, too,
equally with themselves, condemn the wresting of Scripture to support
eccentric doctrines; but then let this excellent principle be acted on
consistently, and Scripture, even for Jews, be spared the torture
of figurative expositions, unless there be somewhat in the context to
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 11
demonstrate that a literal interpretation could never have been designed.
Truly, few are so plundered as the Israelites. We have received from
them the oracles of God, yet persist in viciously explaining away
whatever peculiar interest they may claim in them.
There are considerations of a very reasonable character, and peculiar
to Christians, which, apart from all testimony to that effect, lead us
to expect that the import of prophetic language must be far nearer
the grasp of uncultivated minds than a highly-wrought and figurative
exposition would permit it to be ; or that, at least, whenever the
grandeur of subject impels the sacred writer to such an elevation of
language, there would be something in Scripture itself prepared for
the rescue of untutored disciples, and that the difficulties of Scripture
style would be found to a great extent self-interpreting. It is a
conviction dear to every Protestant heart that the Holy Bible is
written with equal adaptation to the most cultivated and most
ignorant. This belief is entertained by us as to all truth necessary to
salvation, and should scarcely be disputed as to those future purposes
of the Deity (if there be such), the intelligent perception of which
may be reckoned among the privileges which God showeth to his
chosen. But if the glorious things which are spoken of Zion, city of
our God, be intended of that literal Jerusalem where David dwelt, it
scarcely needed the express assurance of inspiration, and certainly
requires no argument here, to convince us that every Christian is
deeply concerned in attaining some rational comprehension of their
nature, and to live in earnest expectation of their fulfilment. There
is blessing in such knowledge, both to the learned and the ignorant.
“I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never
hold their peace day nor night; ye that are the Lord's remembrancers
keep not silence, and give Him no rest till He establish, and till He
make Jerusalem a praise in the earth.” (Isaiah lxii. 6.) That the pro-
phetical books of the Old Testament abound in certain great and
precious promises directed, either literally or by figure of speech, to
Jerusalem, to Mount Zion, to the mountains of Israel, the house of
Israel, the houses of Israel and Judah, the whole house of Israel, &c.,
&c., any one may instantly perceive by a cursory inspection of those
books. If these promises be addressed figuratively to the Christian
Church, every Christian is interested in that fact, and the conclusion
is natural that Scripture would furnish some means of conclusively
establishing it; but if it be spoken literally to the sons of Jacob and
their land, it is at least a Christian's duty, by a clear apprehension of
12 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
the case, to avoid the danger of erroneously applying whole chapters
of God's Word which belong not, in their first and proper sense, to
him or his brother Gentiles. The question arising is not (nor can it
be) whether such prophetic promises exist, but whether or not they
can be properly applied to the sons of Jacob, and to that very city
Jerusalem, and that country which they once possessed by immediate
gift of God, but which has now for ages been trodden underfoot of
the Gentiles.
Our object is to show that those promises do belong of right to the
descendants of Israel, and to no others; and that they are made
literally with reference to that Holy Land in which those Israelites
long resided, and that same spot of ground within it from which King
David expelled the Jebusites: that they now await a marvellous
fulfilment, in which the power of the Most High will be peculiarly
displayed for the deliverance of his ancient people, and the condign
punishment of their Gentile foes. To this application of such promises
the Church at large appears either opposed or indifferent. How rarely
indeed do we meet with any who can or will converse about a possible
restoration of the Jew And not only so, but a large, perhaps the
greatest part of serious believers, are not convinced of its correctness,
because several methods of misappropriating the Word of God have
been ingeniously invented for them.
[4.] In 1849 the late Professor Lee published his “Inquiry into the
Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy,”—a work which one might
more easily describe if any name less eminent adorned the title-page.
The object of this work is to show that “the period for the fulfilment
of all prophecy has long ago passed away” (p. 59); and the termina-
tion of this period he makes to be the seventieth week of Daniel,
within which “both the city and its sanctuary should fall, and the
power of the desolator should terminate with it.” (P. 143.) In this
he finds “the fall and complete end of the theocracy, of heathen
domination, and of all prophecy; and of this he would give abundant
proof in the sequel.” (P. 144.) This work is divided into three
books, the first of which, “On the Covenants,” includes the question
whether any return of the Jews to Canaan is to be expected; and it
is with this alone we are concerned. This question he decides in the
negative ; and it will be felt by all, that if Professor Lee addresses
himself to the subject in his peculiar character of a great Hebrew
scholar, his condemnation of such opinions is very formidable indeed.
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 13
But in the 136 pages of which his book consists, and wherein he treats
of this subject, there are, I believe, only fourteen specific Tiebrew
criticisms, and every one of these a friend of Israel may receive with
that deference which is due to the Professor's great name and memory,
and yet retain his opinions of the future prospects of that people
unimpaired. It is not as the great Hebrew Professor that Dr. Lee
speaks upon the subject.
Yet a prejudice will naturally affect some minds when informed
that such a man has so recently condemned the sentiments we advo-
cate; and to pass over the book unnoticed was impossible, especially
when we are told it propounds a system the outline of which was
conceived and published nineteen years ago. Such a fact is startling
indeed; and it is only with a desire to combat the prejudice it must
needs excite, that, before entering into the merits of the book, I ask
permission to direct attention to the singular looseness with which it
is composed, as is plain from the following erroneous asser-
tions:—
First, Professor Lee entirely misconceives the nature of the subject.
(See Introd., pp. 10, 29, 44, 93, 110, as follows:—“The consequence
of this again necessarily is, that something better than we now have
is expected to take place, and hence that Christianity, as we have it,
is not the glorious system foretold by the prophets; in other words,
the apostles taught a mere make-shift Christianity, and such is that
we now possess;” . . . . “in other words, Christianity was given only
as a sort of make-shift, until some second advent, a mere figment of the
imagination, should be followed by a millennium,” &c., &c.) These are
sentiments imputed to those who expect a fuller development of
Christianity when Israel shall have been restored and converted. But
who does not see the fallacy P Did the Jew condemn his system as a
mere make-shift when he expected a fuller development of it at the
coming of Messiah? Was the patriarchal dispensation, such as Job
lived under, a mere make-shift because, for the preservation of the
Church, the way of reconciliation was to be afterwards defined in a
different mode by the Mosaic Is not the Christian religion under
one aspect a further development of the Levitical? Has not the
Almighty hitherto taught men by a gradual unfolding of his ways and
purposes? And are we to be charged with disparaging the present
state of Christianity because we expect it to be proved more glorious
still, because we believe it possesses an intrinsic energy which its
14 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
author will yet marvellously sanctify to the complete redemption of
the world? -
Second, I extract the following from the “Inquiry” as seemingly
very inconclusive statements indeed —“Moderns have laboured in
vain to show that Daniel's seventy weeks might be chronologically
determined, without even considering that if this period was chrono-
logical in any sense, then must the positive declarations of our Lord,
viz., that none but the Father could know the period of Jerusalem's
fall, be false.” (Introd., p. 104.) Surely this is unsound, for the
period might be chronological in some sense; but what sense be
mysteriously enveiled from man. Again, speaking of the fathers,
“For if these fathers actually held that the Antichrist was at hand,
and the time short—whatever might have been their mistakes in
applying this—they must have been in possession of the true and
scriptural view of the subject.” (P. 111.) This, again, by no means
follows, although we might be content to answer, True; yet every-
thing here depends upon what is to be considered shortness of time; a
thousand years might be as a day. Again, “If they return at all, it
must be to Christ, and then they will cease to be Jews | " (Book i.,
pp. 6, 41.) Did St. Paul cease to be a Jew after he had become a
Christian 2 (See Acts xxi. 20–26.) And in the same page 6,
“Besides, as a nation they are unknown to Holy Writ” I l—which
needs no answer. Lastly, “Nor do the Gentiles hold Jerusalem in
bondage; it is Satan who does so ; and this bondage is sin.” (P. 42.)
This is indeed a gem of its kind; for if Satan holds Jerusalem in
bondage, it must at least be admitted that Gentiles are his instruments.
I have also noted several extraordinary misinterpretations of Scrip-
ture, of which, however, I shall only mention one : “And yet
St. Paul says, Even so have these (i.e., the Jews) also now not
believed, that through your mercy (i.e., in preaching the Gospel to them)
they also may obtain mercy (i.e., just as the believers had by the
preaching of the Gospel to them).” (Introd., p. 37.) The mercy
mentioned is God's mercy, as he admits in the second use of the word;
and the phrase your mercy implies “the mercy which God has
extended to you.” Yet Professor Lee makes it the Gentiles' mercy
—the mercy of the Romans in preaching the Gospel to the Jews |
Such are some errors, not less than actual blunders, which may be
skimmed off the surface of Lee's “Inquiry;” and many others may be
found which enter more into the merits of the subject. My motive for
AND CONVERSION QF THE JEWS. 15
selecting them will not be misinterpreted. It is merely to remove
from the reader's mind the prejudice which might naturally be excited
against the cause of Israel when it is understood that Professor Lee
opposed it. But surely, when it is discovered that he addresses himself
to the subject not as the great Hebrew Professor, and that errors so
glaring as the above can be picked up as we please, these are good
reasons for not being discouraged by his opposition, as well as for
examining the book a little more closely. This will be done in several
details as we proceed with the subject; meanwhile, we endeavour to
specify the principles upon which the “Inquiry” is founded. It is
somewhat difficult to individualize them satisfactorily, but, unless I
am mistaken, the following five positions honestly contain them all.
First, the distinction between the Mosaical and Christian covenants,
from the purely spiritual character of which second covenant he infers
that all which is peculiar to the Jew has ceased, and that henceforward
when believers, they must be merged into the Christian Church at
large. (See pp. 1–15.) “The true scriptural Jew is now the Jew
who is one inwardly.” (P. 7.) Admitting all that is said about the
distinction between the covenants, it is unfortunate for this first prin-
ciple of the “Inquiry,” that one of the earliest prophecies we have to
consider includes both Judah and Israel nationally under a covenant,
specifically not the Mosaical, and, therefore, by necessity, the Christian.
This first principle will be fully answered by making it clear that, in
the prophecies of a restoration yet to come, the sons of Israel are
always addressed nationally, and that the conversion predicted is
national also, That conversion, which is the peculiar subject of
prophecy, being the conversion of an assembled and united body of
people, and not merely a conversion, as sometimes supposed, of
scattered individuals. Second, closely allied to the above first
principle of the “Inquiry” is the next, which he finds in the termi-
nation of the theocracy, only that it is less to the purpose ; for nobody
denies that the Jewish theocracy is determined, and no advocate of
Israel is compelled to believe that it will ever be re-established. If
the Professor could have shown this, it would then have been of some
use to prove that it was terminated for ever, which everybody knows,
and upon which Mr. Faber, one of the ablest pleaders for Israel, has
written an able dissertation. (Faber’s “Eight Dissert,” No. 3.)
Third, it is maintained in the “Inquiry” that the gift of Canaan to
Abraham and his seed was not a perpetual gift, but limited to the
16 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
times of the Mosaical dispensation; and that, therefore, there is
no reason from such gift to expect that the children of Israel will ever
receive it again. (See pp. 90–99.) This will be answered in
its proper place, where we shall prove that the gift of Canaan was
perpetual in this particular sense, that as long as seed survives
to Abraham (which God has promised to preserve as long as time
lasts) so long the land of Canaan is rightfully theirs by promise of the
Most High. Fourth, which enters into the whole work, the time of
the end, the last days, &c., &c., he makes to be the limitation of all
prophecy, and to mean the time when the Jewish theocracy was
determined, and heathen domination put an end to. (See pp. 106–144.)
This also will be considered in the chapter headed “The Latter Days.”
Fifth, the last principle of the work is the distinction constantly
drawn in Scripture between the multitude and the elect. (See pp.
31, 33, 49, &c.) Without dwelling upon the peculiar tendency of this
distinction between multitude and elect as insisted on by the Professor,
if carried out in its integrity, I would only observe, that no one cares
to dispute the distinction; for Scripture itself assures us that
of Israel only “a remnant will be saved.” (Rom. ix. 27, 28.)
The whole question is, in what sense the word remnant is to
be taken 2 We shall show that Dr. Lee's sense is wrong, by
adducing prophecies in which the promises of restoration and
conversion are assured to the multitude in contradistinction to the
few. Besides which, this principle, like the rest, will be fully met by
showing that the predictions of restoration and conversion are
peculiarly national. They who maintain that the conversion will be
prior to the restoration, i.e., a conversion of scattered individuals,
seem hardly to perceive how much they damage the whole cause by
asserting that opinion.
Such, it will be found, are the five principles upon which Lee's
“Inquiry” is based; but the plain matter of fact is, that the mode of
interpretation he has adopted is only the old form in a new dress, the
old spiritualizing system, which has a proper existence of its own,
perfectly apart from the question of a future revival of the Jewish
nation, and by no means necessarily antagonistic to it—the old system,
not so clearly set out as by Calvin, nor nearly so harmoniously as by
Henry. That this is really the Professor's meaning will be evident
from the following passage:—“In like manner too, the Jerusalem
and Zion of old established, defended, supported, made to triumph by
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 17
the immediate power of God during its times, seems to assure us as
evidence that none but the Almighty could have been its founder and
king, while the glories and consummate grace of the universal and
never-ending empire of the new Jerusalem and Zion, under the Son of
man, was intended to be the great object put forth, the unspeakably
glorious consummation under which Jew and Gentile, Barbarian,
Scythian, bond and free, should be made the sons and daughters of the
Almighty.” (P. 15, a passage to which several similar are in his book.)
[5.] Professor Lee's views are in effect the following, which are
collated by the Vicar of Thrussington as those of Calvin, in the Preface
to his translation of “The Minor Prophets.” (Calv. Trans. Soc.,
1846.) First, the history and institutions of the people Israel are
regarded as typical of things under the Gospel. Their temporal
blessings and their temporal adversities were intended to set forth the
spiritual experience of the Christian Church. Thus the people's
captivity in Babylon and restoration to their own land were symbolical
(i.e., typical) of things connected with the Church. Second, promises
made to the Israelites had sometimes a twofold meaning, and had
reference to two things, the one temporal, but the other spiritual, e.g.,
the restoration from Babylon was a prelude of the restoration, or re-
demption by Christ; not only typical, but a kind of initiative process,
which was to be completed in a sublimer sense by the Saviour of man.
Third, it is admitted there are promises which, literally understood,
evidently show there will be a second restoration; but, it is argued,
that this literal sense cannot be taken, as that would be inconsistent
with the general character of prophecy; for many prophecies which
relate to the Church of the New Testament were conveyed in
language suitable to that of the Old, and consistently with the notions
then prevailing as to religion and Divine worship. Hence Mount
Zion, the temple, offerings, priests, &c., &c., as well as the restoration
of the people and their perpetual establishment in their own land, are
often mentioned in promises which incontestably refer to the Gospel
dispensation. Fourth, promises made by the prophets as to the future
prosperity of the people Israel and the perpetuity of their institutions
and privileges are considered in some instances conditional, even when
no condition is expressed. Such instances, it is asserted, are to be
found in the writings of Moses and the earlier prophets. Promises
of perpetuity are made (e.g., of the priesthood), often unaccompanied by
C
|
18 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
any conditions, and yet they were conditional, as the event proved, in
accordance with the first covenant. - -
These four propositions concisely express the principles upon which
the spiritualizing mode of exposition is based. They are given with
approbation by the translator of Calvin’s “Minor Prophets,” and,
appear to be a fair statement of the views which guida, such interpre-
ters generally. And I would observe that the first three admirably
express in effect the opinions of Lee's “Inquiry,” which, therefore, as
opinions, are not new, though certainly endeavoured to be sustained
in a novel and ingenious way. But the fourth is founded upon error,
and this none knew better than the Professor, who, accordingly,
delivers no sentiment approaching to it; but, on the contrary, reminds
us that prophecy, properly so called, knows, no conditions. The
language thus used is essentially unconditional. But it is to prophecy,
properly so called, that we shall refer for the restoration and
conversion of Israel ; hence the fourth proposition falls entirely.
useless; but still, for the sake of the general reader, we shall on
every prophecy quoted exhibit its unconditional character, irrespective
of that important argument. which depends alone upon the nature of
the prophetical language. And again, I would add upon those four
propositions, that they naturally resolve themselves into two. For the
first three do, in fact, assert a figurative exposition of Scripture, which
implied figure, it should be noticed, is referred in each case to the
Christian Church; but the fourth and last a conditional; hence, if
under each prophecy we show the impossibility, 1. Of a conditional,
and 2, of a figurative interpretation, the four propositions upon which
the spiritual mode is based are under each prophecy replied to ; and, if
successfully replied to, they fall to the ground.
I imagine it will not be disputed that the view of Professor Lee
above given, and these collated, with approbation, from so eminent an
expositor as, Calvin, may reasonably be taken as a fair and sufficient
exponent of the principles of spiritual, exposition, so far as it affects
the inquiry concerning a future restoration and conversion of Israel.
To these, therefore, we shall continually seek to reply in various
details; meanwhile, as to these four propositions, the following brief
answers are suggested :—
First, we admit that the history and institutions of Israel were typical
of things under the Gospel, as shown chiefly in the Epistle to the
Hebrews; but is it not manifest that the restoration of Israel to their
AND conversIon of THE JEws. 19
land is necessary to the completeness of the type 2 Perhaps it is not
needful that a type should be applicable in all its parts for exhibiting
the thing typified; but surely it should be so in its chief and conclusive
features. Now, in the history of the natural Israel, as in that of the
spiritual, its end or consummation is the grandest division of all, and
to trace a parallel between the history of Israel and that of the
Christian Church, and yet to find nothing in the first to symbolize the
certain glorious victory of the second, seems not to exhibit a type, but
to mutilate it. Second, admitting for the present that promises made
to Israel carried a twofold interpretation, then we maintain that both
interpretations belonged to the Jew, to whom such promises were
made, unless there be anything in the context plainly to the contrary.
Be there no dispute about the type nor the typified, the real question
is, Who were to enjoy the things typified? This, we maintain, must
be settled from further considerations, for to exclude the Jew is to
assume the point required to be proved; and they who exclude
him have no more reason for doing so than we who include him
nationally; nor, indeed, so much; for no one can deny that the
language employed was addressed directly to that nation, of which he
was a subject. Third, grant that many prophecies relating to the
Christian Church were delivered in language suitable to the Jewish,
is this a reason for excluding Israel nationally from that Christian
Church? Surely not. The Christian dispensation might well be
foretold in language suitable to the institutions of the Jews when the
restoration and conversion of that people is an essential part, perhaps
the chiefest part, of that Christian dispensation. It is so foretold
advisedly enough when the success and extension, the very triumph
of that dispensation, is synonymous and synchronical with the
restoration and conversion of Israel. This is a grand particular in
which the most literal interpretation of prophecy may eventually
prove to be the most spiritual. Fourth, as to the fourth and conditional
principle of this mode of interpretation it is based, as we have already
said, upon misconception. But, however, it is a vague and dangerous
manner of treating Scripture, to say that a certain characteristic
may be attached to any part of it, when the words or style of speech
necessary to impart that characteristic are absent. The Holy Bible is
an inspired volume, and the meaning of any part of it can be properly
determined only by considering the language in which that part has
been delivered. However, the position is positively overturned if we
G 2
20 NotEs on THE RESTORATION
show that certain promises of restoration and conversion are made to
Israel with especial guarantees of unconditional fulfilment. This we
shall do. - -
I shall only add that this fourth principle is virtually opposed to
the other three, for it asserts a literal but conditional interpretation of
Scripture, while those maintain a figurative. How are we to know
which Scriptures to assign to either? For they who suggest this
mode of treating Scripture supply us with no means of doing so. On
the contrary, it is asserted that, in the conditional promises, the
language employed does not always contain a condition.
[6.] Let me now submit some general principles of prophetical
exposition, the first three of which are adopted from Professor Lee.
First, “prophecy, properly so called, must be precise; it must mean
some one event or thing on which its reader can seize, and of which it
must be in his power to obtain assurance that he is not mistaken.
Isaiah, for example, foretells the fall of Babylon, and so does Jere-
miah. Believers living at that time must, I say, have seen and felt
that the event so foretold would at some future time come to pass.”
(Lee's “Inquiry,” p. 18, where it will also be seen, line 26, that he
does not by this principle intend to deny a mystical re-accomplishment
of the same prophecies, although, at p. 90, 91 of the Introduction, he
in effect contradicts himself. See lines 22, 19 of those pages re-
spectively.) The principle, however, is sound; when a prophet pre-
dicted a fall of Babylon, his hearers identified that Babylon which was
to fall. Similarly, when he foretold an Israel to rise, they identified that
Israel which was to be raised. Second, prophecy, properly so called, is to
be carefully distinguished from prophecy doctrinally delivered. One
has reference to future events absolutely, the other to religious senti-
ments associated with such predictions or events. (“Inquiry,” p. 37.)
“It is incumbent on us carefully to bear this in mind, otherwise we
shall be apt to substitute prophecy for doctrine, and doctrine for
prophecy.” (See pp. 18, 19.) Third, “Prophecy cannot in the
nature of things be opposed to prophecy, or, to use a familiar
expression, prophecy cannot blow hot and cold out of the same
mouth.” (“Inquiry,” pp. 26 and 47.) Thus when, after close
investigation, we are convinced that certain prophecies cannot be
interpreted consistently with reason, otherwise than of a future
restoration and conversion of Israel, we may be assured that other
AND conversion of THE JEws. 21
correct interpretations of these prophecies or correct interpretations of
others are not opposed to, but do harmonize with, those we have been
considering. The mistake of the Professor and those who hold his
sentiments lies here, that they are not careful to remember that the
spiritual eaſposition of certain prophecies for the edification of the
Church is perfectly permissible, and harmonises with the literal interpre-
‘tation of the same for the benefit of Israel. Fourth, the literal meaning
of scriptural language is always to be accepted when it does not involve
absurdity to do so; but this literal meaning must be sought for con-
sistently with the original language and according to the grammatical
and critical principles of that language. This is that grand principle of
exposition without which the Holy Bible is no longer a book for the
general reader. It is that principle which no member of a reformed
Church can safely refuse to acknowledge; and it is particularly useful
in determining the occurrence of figures of speech. Thus such
expressions as the following: “Israel is an empty vine,” “the moon
shall be turned into blood,” “they build up Zion with blood,” “the
hills melt,” “the stone shall cry out of the wall,” “her judges are
evening wolves,” “filled the bow with Ephraim,” “all that do wickedly
shall be stubble,” to interpret any one of these literally involves an
absurdity opposed to the nature of things, of which Protestants know
how to make a very important use. But “the Mount of Olives shall
cleave in the midst thereof,” interpreted literally, involves no absurdity,
since an earthquake like one of those of which common history records
a multitude may fulfil the conditions. Fifth, prophecy must be
interpreted consistently, each in its several parts. Thus if we set
out with a spiritual meaning, we must carry it through the whole
prophecy; or similarly of a literal. But to commence with either a
literal or spiritual, and suddenly to interpose its contrary, is not
permissible. Neglect of this rule is the great mistake of spiritual
commentators, though, indeed, they have fallen into it naturally
enough, for there are many prophecies throughout which it is not
possible to persevere in an exposition entirely spiritual. Take, for
instance Matthew Henry. We are being beautifully edified with
“improvements” of historical or prophetical declarations concerning
Jerusalem and the Jews, when suddenly, down go these, like Korah
and all his company, and we are being equally edified about the
Church 1 Upon examination you will generally find that the com-
mentator has come to some assurances of blessing; these he dots down
22 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
complacently to the credit of the Christian Church; the curses he
leaves submissively to the Jews. But these two lines of exposition
are perfectly agreeable and perfectly distinct. Just as to Jewish
history there appertains a literal meaning for their nation, a spiritual
for us, so to Jewish prophecy, which is only prospective history, there
belongs a spiritual meaning for us, a literal for them. Sixth, which
is clearly allied to Professor Lee's first. The attributes of Deity.
require that the exposition of prophecy must be literal to a great
extent, and especially so in regard to specific designations or names
employed. Under one aspect the whole question of a future restoration
and conversion of Israel may be said to be a question of correct inter-
pretation of names; for it cannot be denied that certain prophecies
which seem to foretel a future restoration and conversion of the nation
Israel were addressed to them, sometimes in answer to specific
inquiries, as in Ezek xx, sometimes when the prophet professed to be
engaged in a public capacity for them exclusively, as in Zech. iii. and vi.
On these occasions the words, or specific designations, Judah, Israel,
Ephraim, Jerusalem, &c., &c., were employed, and the Jews could
not possibly doubt but that they and their cities, &c., were alluded to.
They understood such to be the intention of the prophet when he spake,
and this impression the prophet, inspired by the Holy Ghost, knew he
had produced and sought to produce. Did the Holy Ghost teach the
prophet to produce a false impression ? If not, then the names or
designations were used in their literal sense as understood by the
hearers, and such prophecies, even though yet unfulfilled, belong to
Israel, Jerusalem, &c., &c., literally. The reader will observe that this
is very different from saying that the hearers always understood the
prophecy delivered. The very contrary is affirmed. “Ah, Lord
God! they say unto me, Doth he not speak in parables P” (Ezek.
xx. 49.) Seventh, another principle of prophetic interpretation is
that usually described as the primary and secondary application
(sometimes unhappily termed the double sense), where either, 1, pre-
dictions delivered with reference to one and an earlier order of events
are afterwards proved applicable in a more extensive and closer sense
to another and later; or, again, 2, where judgments foretold against a
literal city or state are found symbolical of those to be in later days
inflicted upon a spiritual state, which it typified. Thus prophecies of
the literal David and his kingdom had eventual reference to the times
and kingdom of Messiah ; and thus prophecies against the literal
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 23
Babylon or Edom had in fact a further application to the Anti-
christian Edom or Babylon of which they were types. Professor Lee
denies and admits this principle in the same breath. “No double,
triple, &c., interpretation of the Divine word, in the usual acceptation
of those terms, has anywhere been adopted; nothing beyond the appli-
cation of a spiritual sense to things enounced under the Old Testa-
ment, and as done by the writers of the New, and taught by the best
writers on its grammar and rhetoric, has been had recourse to.”
(“Inquiry,” Preface, p. 90.) This admitted spiritual sense of
prophecy becomes, in other words, its secondary application. Lee
and Horsley may be quoted as defining this in both its branches.
Says Professor Lee, “In all such instances the case so put, or the
event, person, place, or circumstance so stated, prophetically or other-
wise, may be considered as the theme or substratum of such discourse,
and as introduced, not indeed to claim our principal or main attention,
but rather to direct us to some other thing so intended to be taught
and urged. . . . . The same may be said of the fall of Egypt, Assyria,
Moab, Ammon, Idumea, and other places. The main thing intended
was the Divine Institution of the Christian Church, and of this the
actual and literal fall of those powers and places was given as a
voucher.” (“Inquiry,” p. 14.) In other words, the fall of literal
Edom, &c., vouched for the fall of the enemies of the Christian
Church, viz., the typical Edom. And Horsley, speaking of the
prophecies foretelling our blessed Saviour's first and second advent,
says, “Few comparatively relate to the first advent by itself without
reference to the second. And of those that have been supposed to be ac-
complished in the first, many had in that only an inchoate accomplish-
ment, and have yet to receive their full completion.” (Letter on
18 Isa., p. 3.) Bickersteth asserts it at p. 107, Introd. “Restoration of
the Jews,” and aptly quotes Jude 14, as showing that Enoch
prophesied of the flood in language applicable to the future coming of
the Son of man. Under this principle will come the prophecies of
Branch and King, treated of below, and, perhaps (but I doubt this) also,
those of Isaiah xxix. and Zech. ix. and x. And to the explanations of
this principle, above extracted from Lee and Horsley, I would venture
to add this suggestion—that the real ground of it is shown to us by
our Lord in Matt, xxiv., where he delivers a mixed prophecy of the fall
of Jerusalem, and of events to occur at his second coming which that
fall typified. I would take the New Testament in this respect also to
explain the Old, and consider the mode or form of our Saviour's
24 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
prophecy in Matt. xxiv. to be the model of the forms of many pro-
phecies in the Old Testament. Such prophecies are, in fact, mixed
prophecies, containing predictions applicable to an early order of
events long ago fulfilled, and certain other predictions, often found in
lonely verses, carrying clear evidence of prophecy unaccomplished,
and arousing the expectation of greater events yet to come, anti-
typical to those which have already taken place. Eighth, I ask per-
mission to add one more. The genius and construction of the Hebrew
language makes its criticism a criticism peculiarly of words and
phrases, and this character of the language concurs with the method
of Divine revelation itself; so that, if we require to ascertain the real
force of a word or phrase in a later writer, it may sometimes be
necessary to trace it back to the times of Moses. The criticism of
that language must be peculiarly verbal where many words of various
shades of meaning are derived from a common root by the prefix or
suffix of solitary letters. This feature in the Hebrew Language, it has
sometimes occurred to me, may be made powerful use of to show that
the inspiration of that part of holy Scripture at least is not less than
verbal. That this is the inspiration claimed by the sacred writers of
the Old Testament I believe; and therefore add, as the last principle
of prophetic exposition, that the inspiration assumed for the prophets
in this book is verbal. The use of parallel places alluded to by Lee
may come (if I mistake not) under this head, for parallel places are
but the resumption of words or phrases which have already been
rivetted in force by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
[7.] The form of figurative exposition adopted by Lee, Calvin, and
others, and comprised in the three propositions given at p. 17 suprā,
appears to be that method of interpreting the prophets styled by
Lowth “The Mystical Allegory,” and of which he says, “In the
sacred rites of the Hebrews, things, places, times, offices, and such
like, sustain, as it were, a double character; the one proper or literal;
the other allegorical.” (Heb. Poet, Lect. xi.) Now, if there be any
soundness in the objections urged against belief in a future restoration
of Israel, and based upon this mode of exposition, it does seem
remarkable that the great Hebrew critic and commentator, who was
to Oxford what Lee afterwards became to Cambridge, who defines and
illustrates this mode of interpretation, and actually invents a name
for it, it does seem remarkable that he himself should have been a
strenuous believer in, and most able advocate for, a future restoration
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 25
and conversion of Israel. I infer, therefore, upon the authority of
that great Hebrew scholar, Lowth, that there is no soundness in the
objections based upon that method of interpreting the Hebrew Scrip-
tures. And, upon the same authority, I add generally as to the poetic
and metaphorical character of the prophetic books, that we ought to
remember the object of metaphor, which was not to obscure, but to
enlighten, the pages of those who used them, and that such object can
never have been attained if those who read those prophetic books are
positively unable to determine the real purpose of the figures used, or
to attach to them any consistent or rational ideas. The difficulties
arising from the metaphorical character of some parts of prophecy were
not, in Lowth's opinion, of such a kind as to prevent our perceiving
satisfactorily that a future restoration and conversion of Israel was
foretold.
[8.] But if the times and circumstances we expect be certainly fore-
told, it is not therefore necessary that we be able to trace the course
and method of Israel's redemption in its minutest process. It may be
sufficient for the Divine purposes that believers are able to conclude
with certainty that the eventual fact will be such and such ; as for
instance, that every one of the twelve tribes will be gathered into
their own land; that Jerusalem shall be re-occupied as their chief
city, and by consequence be rebuilt; that the nation Israel shall out-
live and overcome all animosity, and continue in that land, never to be
removed again; and that they shall be converted to Christianity.
These and similar grand results being graciously revealed, no wonder
if their exact era, or the many intricacies of their accomplishment be
gracefully veiled in the sublimity of language adopted by men who
never spake on this subject otherwise than as moved by the Holy
Ghost. Not that the case is entirely so, but that it might have been
so to a much greater extent, and still a revelation sufficient for
conviction be made of the only part in which we have an immediate
concern, viz., the eventual fact. “For some degree of obscurity is the
necessary attendant upon prophecy; not that indeed which confuses
the diction and darkens the style, but that which results from the
necessity of expressing a part of the future, and from the impropriety
of making a complete revelation of every circumstance connected with
the prediction. The event itself, therefore, is often clearly indicated,
but the manner and the circumstances are generally involved in
26 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
obscurity.” (Heb. Poet, Lect. 9.) The fact concerns the believer ;
the method of its accomplishment Him alone whose truth is pledged
for it. And to this we perceive a parallel in other subjects of
revelation. The doctrines that “in Adam all died,” that “God was
in Christ,” that we “must be born again,” that “there shall be a
resurrection of the dead,” and “after that the judgment,” all these are
revealed plainly in the fact, but kept shrouded in deep mystery as to
process. So may it be as to the restoration of Israel, and yet the fact
of such restoration be convincingly foretold. Who shall say what
amount of infidelity the Almighty reckons the denying it 2 Indeed,
if the certainty of Scripture doctrine depended upon the extent of its
repetition, not one of the vital doctrines above mentioned is so often
repeated with such explicitness, and in so many varieties of form, as
the doctrine of a coming restoration and conversion of God's people
Israel. But the Christian needs not to be reminded that a doctrine
or prophetic promise once distinctly announced in his Word gains
no intrinsic strength by iteration. If only once proclaimed it stands
recorded for ever, no matter how concisely, still in the majesty of
eternal truth, “Yea, and amen in Christ Jesus.”
Let me conclude this introduction by explaining the manner in
which I propose to treat the subject. With such a mass of Scripture
distinctly to the purpose, it is difficult to arrange it so that conviction
may neither be oppressed nor retarded by the confusion which arises
from multiplicity and diversity of evidence. A lover of art is
conscious of distraction as he moves amid the brilliant productions of
its masters. Such confusion overspreads the soul when we contem-
plate the crowd of prophecies which proclaim the coming redemption
of Israel. Large sections of whole books, detached chapters, isolated
paragraphs abruptly introduced, and solitary verses cast loosely like
gems upon the leaves of inspiration, all these unite in asserting the
will of a faithful Creator towards his first-chosen and still provi-
dentially-protected people. We shall, therefore, take the prophecies
in clusters, but each dependent upon some connecting stem will be
separately considered. Thus simplicity of arrangement and perspicuity
will be secured. Still, let it be remembered, we are exhibiting not
the word of man, “but as it is in truth, the word of the living God,”
and that, therefore, what in one sense is but part, remains notwith-
standing a whole truth in reality, and demands to be considered perfect
in itself. So that, selecting, as we do, certain whole prophecies and
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 27
analyzing the contents of each, the reader can refuse us nothing less
than belief of every part made clear to his understanding; for to what-
ever extent any prophecy proceeds, it requires to be treated as
an unity in itself, and as an unanswerable deponent to whatever
purposes it affirms. For illustration, if belief in the restoration and
conversion of the twelve tribes of Jacob depended upon the establish-
ment of twelve positions, and we could adduce only twelve prophecies,
each distinctly answering to each of these predictions, then the whole
case of that restoration and conversion would be proved. The weak-
ness of human faith might crave for more, but the demonstration of
the subject would be complete.
28 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
CHAPTER II.
* BUT NOT BY THY COVENANT.”—EZEK. xvi. 61.
LET us first endeavour, by selecting four detached prophecies from
Ezekiel, to lay a foundation for the subject, and to set forth some of
the principal topics to the establishment of which our efforts will be
directed.
I. Ezekiel was carried from Jerusalem with Jehoiachin's captivity,
and that event is the era by which he reckons his prophecies, accept-
ing Prideaux's opinion. (Connect. An. 598 B.C.) His thirty-sixth
chapter contains a beautiful and complete prophecy addressed to the
mountains of Israel. It appears to be one of a series commencing
with chap. xxxii., the whole of which was delivered in the twelfth year
of his captivity. (Chap. xxxii. 1.) Mr. Faber, indeed, considered
chaps. xxxiv. —xxxix. inclusive as one continued prophecy, but
assigns no reason for doing so; he only asks, “Where are we to
draw the line P” which seems easily answered, for in chap. xxxiv.
the shepherds are addressed; in xxxv., Mount Zion; in xxxvi., the
mountains of Israel; while xxxvii. is a peculiar and distinct vision.
These alone seem sufficient divisions, although, in fact, the question
of division is not important. Taking the series of prophecies, of
which chap. xxxvi. forms part, to commence at chap. xxxii., then
chap. xxxvi. was delivered one year after Jerusalem was finally
devastated by Nebuzaradan. (2 Kings xxv. 8.) One year, then,
after the complete overthrow of the Jewish capital, he utters this pre-
diction : “And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to
walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them.
And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye
shall be my people, and I will be your God.” (Vers. 27, 28.)
Selecting this as indicative of the character of the whole, the questions
to be asked are, To what people does the prophecy belong 2 and, Has
it yet been fulfilled or not?
[1..] It is directed “to the mountains, and to the hills, and to the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 29
rivers, and to the valleys, to the desolate wastes, and to the cities that
are forsaken, which became a prey and derision to the residue of the
heathen that are round about. Ye mountains of Israel, hear the word
of the Lord; thus saith the Lord God, Because the enemy hath
said against you, Ahal even the ancient high places are ours in
possession.” (Vers. 1–4.) What mountains, and hills, and valleys
are these which, in Ezekiel's time, had thus become desolate and
waste 2 What cities were thus forsaken and become a prey to the
heathen 2 What were the ancient high places, ancient in those days,
and known to the heathen in those days, of which they were then
glorying in having recovered the possession ? Is the whole land
included in this description or only part of it 2 the territory of Judah
alone, or that of Israel, peculiarly so called, also: Because to the
same territory, whatever that be, it is promised at ver. 8: “Ye, O
mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your
fruit to my people Israel.” Thus, of whatever extent of country the
prophet speaks, that country is to be again possessed by the people
Israel. But at the time Ezekiel spake, the whole land in all its
length and breadth, the land not of the two only, but of the twelve,
was devastated, its cities destroyed, and all of it in possession of the
heathen; and there is not a word in the chapter limiting the descrip-
tion. Judah and Israel alike were now entirely in captivity, and
their whole country possessed by the enemy. Of this whole country,
therefore, in one and the same condition, Ezekiel gives one and the
same description, and then delivers in contrast one and the same
promise, which has never yet been fulfilled, viz., that it shall yield its
fruit to God's people Israel. That whole country they have never
yet possessed; but Samaritans and mixed people of Galilee held large
divisions of it from the times of the first captivities to those of its
entire subjugation by the Romans. Observe, too, that in a prophecy
which, as we shall most fully show, is yet unfulfilled, and, therefore, has
reference to times yet to come, the Holy Ghost terms them “my people
Israel,”—God's people Israel. Even now, then, notwithstanding all
their impenitence, the tribes are God's own people, contrary to Pro-
fessor Lee's assertion that “Divine authority has also affirmed that
they have ceased to be a people.” (“Inquiry,” p. 16.) Observe, that
they are a people, and that this prophecy, like all the others, is
addressed to them in a corporate capacity. -
30 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
[2.] For the description of the people is as comprehensive and
general as that of the land: “Son of man, when the house of Israel
dwelt in their own land they defiled it by their own ways, and by
their doings . . . . . . wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the
blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith
they had polluted it. And Iscattered them among the heathen, and they
were dispersed through the countries;” and the corresponding promise
is, “I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of
all the countries; and bring you into your own land.” This descrip-
tion is as comprehensive as it can be of all the people Israel; the
whole land appertained to all; they all dwelt in it; they all defiled it;
they were all carried captive; therefore the corresponding promise is,
they shall all be restored,—that is, not all individuals, but all tribes,
the national body. To this entire people the promise is made, “I will
bring you into your own land.” Professor Lee, however, informs us
that this, promise, means only “the true seed or holy remnant,”
forgetting that if so, then vers. 21—23 must refer to the same
“true seed or holy remnant,” and that, therefore, it was “the true
seed or holy remnant" which, long before Ezekiel's time, viz., in the
days of Moses, “profaned. God's name among the heathen whither
they went; ” and upon whom he had already “had pity.” Far from
being addressed to a remnant or election, in this sense, it is addressed
to the house of Israel in a national sense: the nation it was upon
whom God had pity; it was the nation that profaned God's name ;
it is the nation He promises to restore.
The above are two just reasons for concluding that Ezekiel speaks
of all the land of Israel and of all the twelve tribes; and the inference
immediately follows, this prophecy is unfulfilled, for, 1. The whole
land has never been repossessed; and, 2. The twelve tribes have never
been restored.
[3.]. If there be yet any doubt of the prophecy’s extending to all
the tribes, the tenth verse should dispel it : “I will multiply upon you
all the house of Israel, even all of it; and the cities shall be inhabited,
and the wastes shall be builded;” where the emphatic repetition of
rib- all of it, can be understood in no other way than as an extension
of the predictions not to all individuals, but certainly to all tribes. A
similar emphatic mode of speech we have at Jerem. xlviii. 31:
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 31.
“Therefore will I howl for Moab, and will cry out for all Moab;
mine heart shall mourn for the men of Kir-heres.” But just as
extended as the prophecy may be to the people, so extended it must be
to the land; so that, if all the people, all of them, be prophesied for,
all the land, all of it, is prophesied to. The phrase house of Israel
occurs six times in this chapter, and in each place requires to be
similarly interpreted. But at vers. 17, 21, 32, it clearly means the
twelve tribes, for their national sins are in those verses alluded to;
therefore the promises in vers. 10, 22, 37, belong nationally to the
same twelve tribes. But if the application of the prophecy to
all Israel be not yet clear, let us note the characteristic description of
the land. A land that “devoured and bereaved its nations,”—such a
Scene of famine, pestilence, and sword, that its inhabitants were sure
to be destroyed. This had even become proverbial among the neigh-
bouring nations: “Because they say unto you, Thou, land, devourest.
up men and bereavest thy nations.” (Ver, 13.) As M. Henry says,
“Canaan was got into a bad name. It had of old spued out the
inhabitants (Lev. xviii. 28), the natives, the aborigines, which was.
turned to its reproach by those that should have put another construc-
tion upon it. (Num. xiii. 32.) It had of late devoured the Israelites.
and spued them out too.” But now the promise is, “Thou shalt
devour men no more, neither bereave thy nations any more, saith the
Lord God.” (Ver, 14.) “Yea, I will cause men to walk over you,
even my people Israel; and they shall possess thee, and thou shalt be
their inheritance, and thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them of
men.” (Ver. 12.) Not only should the land never more bereave its
nations, whoever they might be, but especially it should not bereave
the people of Israel any more. Has this in either sense ever been
fulfilled 2 The pages of Josephus make us familiar with the history
of the land of Israel from the Babylonian restoration to the overthrow
of Jerusalem by the Romans; the works of later writers with its
history from that time to the present; has there ever been a period.
since Ezekiel spake, when the land of Israel did not devour its:
inhabitants, whether Jews or Gentiles? Let the wars of the Maccabees,
the contentions between the Egyptian and Syrian kings, let their own
intestine discords, let their wars with the Romans, let the ruinous
irruptions of infidels and of Christians, let all these reply. Since the
prophet spake the time has never yet been when “the desolate land
has been tilled, whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed
32 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
by ; ” when Gentile travellers said, “This land that was desolate is
become like the garden of Eden, and the waste, and desolate, and
ruined cities are become fenced and inhabited.” (Vers. 34, 35.)
Such promises of the land's future peacefulness and security yield
another argument that this prophecy is yet unfulfilled.
[4.] But supposing we admit that all the tribes were included in
the restoration from Babylon (which, however, was not the case), the
prophet uses a remarkable expression to show that this prophecy had
no fulfilment then : “I will multiply upon you man and beast; and
they shall increase and bring fruit; and I will settle you after your
old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings; and
ye shall know that I am the Lord.” (Wer. 11.) Of course the people
intended to experience this were those who already had had “the
beginnings; ” but their latter end was to be better than their
beginning ;-it must mean the twelve tribes of Israel. However, that
expression, after your old estates, is peculiar, and serves plainly in the
English version to particularize the territorial settlement and condition
of the Israelites, and the promised territorial condition is to be the
same in kind as of old, but better in enjoyment and degree. This
force of the expression old estates is justified by the Hebrew
tºnio EP, of which Lee in his Lexicon gives the meaning former
condition ; and Noldius, in his “Concordance of Hebrew Particles"
(quoting the parallel passage, Ezek. xvi. 55), status pristinus ; both
Hebraists being agreed. If, then, this be the meaning of the word,
Ezekiel foretels a time when all the house of Israel, even all of it,
will dwell under their pristine condition of estate, and flourish more
than they did when Joshua first arranged them. This in-
terpretation is also confirmed by the use of the word settle :
"Fatim I will cause you to dwell, which implies territorial settle-
ment, and is precisely the word used at ver. 33: “I will also cause
you to dwell in the cities.” Such expressions not only foretel
restoration, but territorial restoration, which, according to the old
estates and beginnings, will be in divisions of tribes. Nothing of this
kind took place upon the return from Babylon, and the people were
far from thriving then more than they had before. It remains to be
fulfilled.
Thus the proof that this prophecy has never been fulfilled is a
threefold cord. First, all the house of Israel, all of it, is included in
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 33
its blessings and promises, as also in its rebukes and reminiscences;
but all Israel has not been so blessed since Tiglath Pileser's invasion.
(2 Kings xv. 29.) Second, all the land is described as repossessed in
security; but the restoration from Babylon was not followed by the
repossession of all the land, and what was acquired was never held
in peace. Third, all the tribes are described as settled according to
their ancient territorial condition, and more prosperous than ever;
and all the land as beautiful and fertile as of old, which has never been
the case from the days of the Assyrians to our own. *
[5.] It is manifest enough that the prophecy was not accomplished
at the restoration from Babylon; but there is one expression which
might mislead the unreflecting. It is said in ver. 8, “For they
(Israel) are at hand to come.” Let Lowth reply to it: “This may
have an immediate aspect upon the Jews' return from Babylon, when
they were restored to the possession of their own country. If we
suppose the words to relate to the general restoration of the nation,
the longest distance of time that the things of this world can extend
to is but as a moment in respect of eternity.” In St. Peter's words,
“Beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with
the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
(2 Pet. iii. 8.) Professor Lee condescends to consider formally four
prophecies supposed to relate to the restoration and conversion of
Israel, and this is one of them; but, it is an important fact, he never
attempts to explain it of the restoration from Babylon. On the
contrary, even as regards his own mode of exposition he admits, “It
must be confessed the context of these (Ezek. xxxvi., xxxvii.), is by no
means so precise and clear as those which we have been considering; ”
and he allows that it belongs exclusively to the Christian dispensation.
There is but one way of explaining the chapter which makes its
context precise and clear.
[6.] We have concluded that this prophecy is unfulfilled, and that
restoration of all the tribes is foretold; and we now proceed to show
that the conversion of the restored people to Christianity is predicted.
And I beg at once to call attention to the fact, that since, all through
the prophecy, the house or body of people is addressed, so restoration
is foretold for the people as a body, and the conversion also foretold
in the same sense as the restoration, viz., of Israel as a separate
D
34 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
people. And this conversion after the restoration. For it may be
advanced upon all these prophecies when proved to be yet unfulfilled,
and, therefore, pertaining to the age of Christianity, that whenever
Israelis described as brought under repentance and reconciled to God,
their conversion to Christ is necessarily foretold. For Christ being
“the way, the truth, and the life,” no man nor people cometh unto the
Father unless professing faith in Him. That the present chapter of
Ezekiel does contain such predictions of repentance and reconciliation
to God is clear from the context. (Vers. 25–28.) A new heart and
a new spirit is to be given them; the stony heart is to be taken away;
all filthiness removed; He is once more to become their God, and they
again to be his people; and (two peculiar predictions which character-
ize most of these prophecies) all idols to be removed, and God's own
spirit to be given them. Upon the first of which peculiar predictions
we observe that idolatry is not unmentioned even in the New Testa-
ment as significant of the state of those who fail to worship God
acceptably by not receiving Christ Jesus as revealed: “Little
children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John v. 21); and upon the
second, that the promise of the Holy Spirit in Messiah's days must
always be equivalent to a prediction of conversion to Christ. If, then,
it is proved, as we believe, that this whole prophecy is yet unfulfilled,
the citation of such promises is sufficient to show that their con-
version to Christianity is also predicted.
[7.] But further, this conversion is foretold as subsequent to the
restoration. It may be noticed that all the promises of the chapter
are comprised in vers. 31–38, and that these are divided into two
paragraphs in the English Bible, which begin at vers. 21 and 25
respectively. But the arrangement of the Hebrew Bible is better.
There the first of these paragraphs begins at ver. 22, but another not
until ver. 33. The reason seems obvious, for the whole context
(vers. 22–32) is a continuous promise connected, verse after verse, by
the particle \, whose essence is conjunctive; but at ver. 32 the
English version itself commences no paragraph at all, the whole
remaining context being manifestly connected. In the course of these
verses our translators have twice rendered , so as to place the conver-
sion of Israel after their restoration; for, after promises of restoration,
they have translated it then : “I will take you from among the heathen
and gather you out of the countries, and will bring you into your own
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 35
land: then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,” &c., &c. Again,
“I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field,
that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen:
then shall ye remember your own evil ways and your doings,” &c.,
&c. (Vers. 30, 31.) This, according to our English Bible, places the
repentance and conversion of Israel after the return to the Holy Land,
and after the recovery of its fruitfulness. I perceive that Mr. Bicker-
steth notices, and makes use of, this fact (“Rest. of Israel,” p. 208);
but it was first necessary to show that the Hebrew conjunction, as here
used, meant then. The correctness of the Authorized Version is
(thanks be to God) not wisely to be disputed; and it is true that
often has the force of marking a result in the order of time as an effect
following its cause; but upon the present occasion the argument
derived from this fact shall not be insisted on, because the high
authority of Noldius does not specify this verse among those in which
* may be so translated. Although, therefore, not doubting the correct-
ness of the English version in this place, we will for the present admit
that, between vers. 21–32 Ezekiel gives us no means of concluding
which of the two events is antecedent, the restoration or conversion.
But at ver. 33 the case is altered. “Thus saith the Lord God, In
the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will
also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded.”
Here time is distinctly the subject of specification; and taking the
words of the English Bible in their literal import, Ezekiel declares
that when Israel shall again reside in his own land, he will have been
cleansed from his old iniquities. This no one denies. The question
is, Will this cleansing commence in the land or out of it 2 The
Hebrew is clear enough, "Tº Biº in the day of my cleansing (Lee
refers to this passage, and so renders it), that is, “in the day when I
do cleanse you from all your iniquities I will also cause you to dwell,”
&c., &c., where the firm settlement of Israel in his cities is made
synchronical with the cleansing and conversion of Israel. This, it
will be seen, is in complete accordance with prophecies yet to be con-
sidered, and with the rendering of the Authorized Version elsewhere.
Of one truth, therefore, we are already assured—the national restora-
tion and conversion of Israel will be close together. But an immediate
effect is close to its cause, and in this sense synchronical with it; yet,
being an effect, it must needs be subsequent to it. This may be the
relation between the restoration and conversion of Israel, yet Ezekiel
D 2
36 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
be not less correct in describing them synchronically. Now I shall
show, by collating the expression "Tº Diº with kindred expressions
elsewhere, that the construction of the verbal noun exhibited in them
has the force of designating a time that is present to the events being
recorded or foretold by the writer, and also of indicating the cause
by which a result referred to is produced. This I shall sustain by
abundant examples in another place; at present I quote one example
from the chapter before us, “And the heathen shall know that I am
the Lord when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.” (Ver.
23.) •ºlºrſ: at and by my being sanctified in you before their eyes,
where, being predictive, it has necessarily the force of a future, and is
so rendered in the English Bible. And two examples from Moses:
“And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord when I stretch
forth my hand upon Egypt” (Exod. vii. 5); "Tº at and by my
stretching out my hand upon Egypt; and Exod. xiv.: “And the
Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord when I have gotten me honour
upon Pharaoh ; ” "Tºſſ; at and by my getting honour to myself.
The Egyptian judgments are described as the causes of certain effects.
So Ezekiel says (ver. 23), a certain effect shall be produced upon the
heathen by God's dealings with Israel at the time he fulfils that pre-
diction. Now as designations of time, "Tº Fiº and "Tº may
be considered equivalent, as may be seen by comparing Ezekiel
xxxiii. 12 and 18; and by collating many examples I shall show that,
although in ver. 33 before us, taken strictly, the restoration and con-
version are made merely synchronical, yet that the force of the
mode of speech adopted in kindred passages to be cited, is to make the
conversion synchronical indeed, but in this sense, that it follows
immediately upon the restoration, and is, therefore, not prior, but
subsequent, to that event. Ezekiel maintains that at and by God's
converting Israel, their abiding settlement as a people will be effected
in that land, to which a competent representation of them will already
have been restored.
Another argument to show that the conversion will be after the
restoration, which also we have to develope more fully, is derived from
ver, 11 : “I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better
unto you than at your beginnings, and ye shall know that I am the
Lord; ” where the force of , translated and, is so, or thus, and marks
a consequence or effect. By God's doing so, viz., settling them
after their old estates, Israel shall “know that he is the Lord ;” "
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 37
which phrase, used of Israel in reference to Christian times, and
connected with such promises as those of a new heart and new spirit,
and the gift of the Holy Ghost (ver. 27), must necessarily mean con-
version to Christianity. I shall only add that both the restoration and
conversion are foretold in terms which lead us to expect they will be
effected by peculiar interposition of the Most High. “I am for you
—I will turn unto you—I will multiply you—I will settle you—
I, the Lord, have spoken it—I will do it,” &c., &c.
[8] This prophecy is delivered in terms peculiarly unconditional,
irrespectively of the fact that it is prophecy, in the peculiar sense of
that word, and, therefore, knows no conditions. “Therefore thus
saith the Lord God, I have lifted up my hand, surely Sº-ES.”
(Ver, 7.) God swears by himself. His unalterable truth is pledged
for the fulfilment of these predictions, unless a subsequent revision
can be shown in Holy Scripture. And this oath is made with express
disregard of the merits, present or future, of the people : “Thus saith
the Lord, I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for my
holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen whither
ye went.” (Ver. 22.) “Not for your sakes do I do this, saith the
Lord, be it known unto you; be ashamed and confounded, for your
own ways, O house of Israel.” (Ver. 32.) Thus in full recognition
of Israel's unworthiness, God swears he will do these things for the
glory of his name. Are those terms conditional 2
This, as already observed, is one of four prophecies which Professor
Lee condescends to consider as having some appearance of foretelling
a future restoration and conversion of Israel. Of course he soon
dismisses it ; and in proceeding to show the impossibility of any
Jigurative exposition to the exclusion of the literal Israel, we shall
explain to the reader how.
He applies most unfortunately the theory of “multitude and rem-
nant; ” the promises are made to “the true seed, the holy remnant,”
“the spiritual Zion,” “true Israelites,” &c., &c. (“Inquiry,” pp.
68–73.) But “the whole house of Israel, all of it,” is addressed :
those who, when they dwelt in their own land, “did defile it by their
own way and by their doings; ” who did profane God's holy name
among the heathen “whither they went ;” were these “the true seed,
the holy remnant?” Are we to understand that “whole house of Israel,
all of it,” means a remnant as a part? The promises are made to those
38 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
who are to be taken “from among the heathen,” and gathered “out
of all the countries,” and to be brought back “into their own land ;”
are we to understand that this means they are, as believers, to be
merged among the Gentiles, and to remain in those countries 2
Did Israel, who heard Ezekiel speak, understand him so 2 Would
Glassius understand him so 2 “Sin verö homines ab aliis
intelligi volunt necessarium est, ut eandem verbis vim tribu-
ant, quae consuetudine et usu recepta est, et cuique voci unam
tantüm significationem adjungant.” (“Philolog. Sacra Hermeneut...”
p. 15.) In fact, it is manifest that by prophesying to Israel of events not
to happen for these many hundreds of years, as though they to whom the
prophets spake were the same persons who had lived and acted many
hundreds of years before, it is manifest that Israel is addressed on
such occasions nationally, and in no other sense. Further, as regards
the national character of the prophecy, and the hopelessness of this
theory of multitude and remnant, I would observe that the title Israel
is peculiarly national. In his first thirty-nine chapters Ezekiel uses
this title one hundred and forty-nine times in various combinations:
—God of Israel, land of Israel, house of Israel, children of Israel,
mountains of Israel, people of Israel, shepherds of Israel; sometimes,
but seldom, he uses it of the ten as distinct from the two, generally,
as the phrases show, in such a manner as to include all the tribes.
Now such phrases are peculiarly national, and are singularly unfortunate
for the theory of “multitude and remnant ;” for it can never be
denied that those to whom the mountains, and land, and hills, and
valleys peculiarly belonged, and by whom they were enjoyed, were the
many in contradistinction to the few. The multitude in the widest,
worse sense ; the remnant in no sense at all. But then I would
observe that, although Professor Lee's scheme cannot be sustained, we
must be carefully consistent ourselves; and that, therefore, both as to
restoration and conversion, we must interpret the word Israel
collectively. So that, just as we recognise no restoration until the
part or divisions of it are brought together into Palestine, so
we can scripturally recognise no conversion until the parts or divisions
of it are similarly united. The restoration of prophecy is a collected
body of people representing their ancient nation ; the conversion of
prophecy is the same, and it recognises no other.
Let it also be observed as a general rule, that whenever commenta-
tors apply any prophecy to the restoration from Babylon, although
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 39
they may err in doing so, they forego the claim of a merely figurative
interpretation—that is, so far as it would exclude a literal—because
they have already endeavoured to establish a literal themselves. It
should be acknowledged that Dr. Lee makes no attempt to apply this
prophecy to that restoration; he applies it exclusively to Christian
times, but knew not that Israel restored was to become an essential,
integral, and distinguished addition to the Christian Church.
III.] Ezek. xi, contains a prophecy of which the above was probably
a repetition. I shall not detain the reader long upon it, but, having
referred him to vers. 14–21, remind him that this is precisely one of
those passages in which the doctrine of parallel places, considered so
important by Lee, peculiarly applies. No wonder, then, that in
Glassius' list of parallels, Ezek. xi. 18–20 and Ezek. xxxvi. 25–28
are paired (“Philolog. Crit. Sac.,” p. 438); and accepting the canon
of Glassius (“Hermeneut,” p. 165), the clearer and fuller chapter,
viz., the thirty-sixth, must be taken to explain and illustrate the
shorter and more obscure. It is seen in a moment that they are
parallel prophecies of the new heart and new spirit, the heart of flesh,
the converted heart, to be given to the people Israel. What we have
advanced on chap. xxxvi. may be adduced in explanation of the
present prophecy. They both predict a restoration and religious
reformation of the people Israel in the days of Christianity. Nor is
the prediction of the new heart and new spirit the only parallelism
they contain. The phrase “all the house of Israel, wholly,” though
varied in the English, is precisely the same in the Hebrew, and in
the eleventh chapter is used with singular effect. The inhabitants of
Jerusalem are placed in contrast with “all the house of Israel,
wholly ” (ver. 15); hence this phrase meant, in Ezekiel's sense, at
that time, all who were not inhabitants of Jerusalem. Now, this
prophecy was delivered in the sixth year of Jehoiachin's captivity, to
which Ezekiel belonged, and Jerusalem had not been yet depopu-
lated by Nebuzaradan. All the best of the people had been carried
away,+but a wretched few were left behind. The multitude of all the
people was in captivity, a remnant left at Jerusalem. But to the
multitude in captivity, contrasted with the inhabitants of Jerusalem
by Ezekiel, he addresses this promise of a new heart and new
spirit as to be fully explained, upon the principles of parallelism, by
40 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
chap. xxxvi. They were national promises addressed to those in
captivity as the nation; or, in other words, “all the house of Israel,
wholly.” All these promises of restoration and conversion belonged
to the multitude or mass; the wretched remnant left behind was not
included. The promise in Ezek. xi., like this, Ezek. xxxvi., are
national promises, to be fulfilled in the recovery of the nation. I
merely instance this little prophecy as peculiarly irreconcilable with
the theory of multitude and remnant adopted by Professor Lee, who
informs us (“Inquiry,” p. 48) that “all the house of Israel wholly”
is “opposed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem generally; which latter
must necessarily designate the reprobate part of the Jews, the former
the elect.” This was after the captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, although
before the overthrow of Jerusalem by Nebuzaradan : so the twelve
tribes in captivity become the elect ; the miserable remnant left by
Nebuchadnezzar at Jerusalem, by consequence, the multitude.
Usually, Professor Lee's principle makes the multitude reprobate, the
few elect; here fair reasoning reverses it; the few are reprobate, the
multitude elect, Let it be noticed, I say, that those whom Professor
Lee here makes, the elect are the captivity, whom in subsequent
prophecies Ezekiel always addressed, and whom Professor Lee else-
where always considers the multitude : and yet the prophecies (chaps.
xxxvi. and xi.) are parallel ! That the phrase, “all the house of
Israel wholly,” means the twelve tribes is evident not only from the
arguments upon the parallel place in chap. xxxvi., but also from the
fact that the gross number carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar and his
lieutenant Nebuzaradan would not amount to more than thirty thou-
sand (Prideaux, Connec., B.C. 598–584), who were of Judah and
Benjamin. Are we then to suppose that the phrase “all the house of
Israel wholly,” importing, as it did, the captivity as opposed to
the inhabitants of Jerusalem, included only those thirty thousand,
when ten tribes more lay captive at their side 2 This would not be
reasonable. The phrase includes the twelve tribes, as was clearly
proved in the parallel prophecy, chap. xxxvi. Lowth and Scott agree
in considering this prophecy unfulfilled, and as foretelling a restora-
tion and conversion of Israel.
[III.] “Nevertheless, I will remember my covenant with thee in the
days of thy youth, and I will establish with thee an everlasting cove-
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 41
-- --- . , - - ... + rzºw---------------------------, - . … --> -- ~ ; – ----. - - - - -s ºr -º-º----------, -- ~y. -- ~ : - - - - - -º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-
nant. Then thou shalt remember thy ways and be ashamed, when
thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger, and I will
give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant.” (Ezek.
xvi. 60, 61.) The chapter from which these verses are taken, con-
tains a very remarkable prophecy of the greatest importance to our
subject, for its conclusiveness in many particulars seems indis-
putable. If any doubts remain (which we should hardly think) that
the two previous prophecies had reference to all the tribes, the
chapter we are now engaged on permits no ambiguity at all. It is
clear and decisive as to including both the kingdom of Judah and also
that of Israel ; and even more, some other national combination is
represented under the description of “Sodom and her daughters.”
Our object is, of course, first to identify the people spoken of, and
then to show that the prophecy is yet unfulfilled ; and further, that it
predicts literally and unconditionally of Judah and Israel, i.e., of all
the tribes, their gathering into the Holy Land, and subsequent
conversion to Christianity.
[1] That Judah and Benjamin, the two, are addressed is clear, for
they are included by personification in the name of their capital city.
“Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations.” (Ver. 2.)
“Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem.” (Ver. 3.) Jerusalem
is spoken of as a virgin espoused in her youth : “Yea, I sware unto
thee, and entered into covenant with thee, and thou becamest mine,
saith the Lord God.” (Ver, 8.) Then follows a description of the
graciousness of God towards the kingdom of Judah, by allusion to the
splendour of Levitical institutions figured in the appariture and
maintenance of an Eastern lady (vers. 10–14); and this is followed by
a lengthened account of her various infidelities towards God, under the
character of spiritual adultery (vers. 15–34); and, as a punishment
for these, her then approaching desolation is predicted. (Vers. 35—
43.) Thus we know certainly that the kingdom of Judah, viz., the
two tribes, is specifically addressed. If there could be any doubt
of this or of that other fact, viz., that the ten are also included in the
promises of this chapter, it would certainly be removed by ver. 45:
“Thou art the sister of thy sisters, which loathed their husbands and
their children . . . . . thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her
daughters that dwell at thy left hand; and thy younger sister, that
dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters.” (Ver. 46.)
“When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom.
42 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION .
and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters,
then the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them.” (Ver. 53.)
It is plain that three distinct divisions of people or nationalities are
mentioned by the prophet—Jerusalem, Samaria, and Sodom. Jeru-
salem representing, as chief city, the kingdom of the two ; Samaria,
similarly, that of the ten ; and Sodom being the chief of the cities of
the plain. Whatever, then, be meant by Sodom (which, strictly
speaking, is no part of our subject), the prophet manifestly compre-
hends in this prediction all the twelve tribes of Jacob, which was the
first thing we had to prove. Samaria, the elder, is placed on the left
hand, or north ; and Sodom, the younger, on the right hand, or
south ; because the Hebrews determined the cardinal points looking
towards the east, and not to the north, like the Gentiles. And the
expression, “her daughters,” means the smaller cities and villages
under the dominion of the capital cities mentioned. This scriptural
usage may be established by reference to Num. xxi. 25–32, Josh.
xv. 45–47, and Judg. xi. 26, where nila daughters, is used meta-
phorically for smaller cities as derived from larger. “Jerusalem and
her daughters” means, therefore, Jerusalem and the smaller cities of
the kingdom of Judah; “Samaria and her daughters,” Samaria and
the smaller cities of the kingdom of Israel.
[2] Let us now show that this prophecy is unfulfilled. The resto-
ration is thus foretold :—“When I shall bring again their captivity,
the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria
and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives
in the midst of them.” (Ver. 53.) Plainly the restoration of the ten
is here promised with that of the two ; this did not take place at the
Babylonian restoration. But if any suppose it did, observe, that the
recovery of “Sodom and her daughters” is promised at the same time.
This is quite a new and distinct type. Give up, then, the question of
the ten, and make use of “Sodom and her daughters.” Either this
phrase is literal or figurative : if literal, Sodom's recovery imports the
restitution of the site of the cities of the plain ; if figurative, it
imports in some sense the restoration of Gentiles (of which interpre-
tations we shall speak presently); meanwhile, we observe that, in
neither sense was the promise of this restoration of Sodom and her
daughters fulfilled at the Babylonian restoration, neither was the site
of Sodom recovered, nor Gentiles in any sense associated in that
restoration. Thus, if the type “Samaria and her daughters” be
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 43
disputed, that of “Sodom and her daughters” cannot be ; the pro-
phecy is, therefore, unfulfilled. Take another type: “When thou
(Jerusalem) shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger, I
will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant.”
(Wer. 61.) It appears that when the captivities of Samaria and
Sodom are recovered to Jerusalem, they are to be given to Jerusalem
as daughters or subservient cities, but by a different covenant than
Judah's. But Judah’s covenant is the Mosaical ; hence they are to
be given to Judah by a covenant not Mosaical. There is to be
a change of covenant or religion ; but at the Babylonian restoration
no change of covenant took place ; therefore, again, this prophecy is
unfulfilled. These are unanswerable proofs that the prophecy is not
yet accomplished; but if not, then a restoration of Judah and
Samaria, viz., all the tribes, is yet to be expected. A restoration of
the two houses to the land of their several occupations, the proof of
which lies in the personification of Jerusalem and Samaria, their
respective chief cities.
[3] The conversion to Christianity is also foretold, and that after
the restoration. For general terms of repentance and reconciliation to
God are employed, and these must needs imply their conversion ;
because, as we have proved, the prophecy is awaiting fulfilment
during the times of Christianity. “That thou mayest be confounded
in all that thou hast done ; ” “I will remember my covenant with
thee in the days of thy youth ; ” “Thou shalt remember thy ways,
and be ashamed; ” “I will establish my covenant with thee, and thou
shalt know that I am the Lord . . . . when I am pacified towards
thee.” Again, the change of covenant is not only mentioned, but the
new covenant defined. For in ver, 60, God promises he will remember
a certain covenant made with Jerusalem in, her youth, but which she
had despised. The covenant here intended is not to be mistaken; it was
the Levitical covenant, the Mosaical laws and ordinances. But with
that covenant another is contrasted: “I will establish unto thee an
everlasting covenant.” (Wer. 60.) And well we know what that
covenant is. The Almighty has never made but two covenants of
reconciliation, the Mosaical and the Christian : he has never made
but one covenant since the Levitical, and that is the everlasting
covenant referred to. “Incline your ear, and come unto me; hear,
and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant
44 NOTES ON THE . RESTORATION
with you, even the sure mercies of David,” i.e., Jesus Messiah.
(Isaiah ly. 3.) Ezekiel contrasts the Christian or Messianic covenant
with the Levitical, and predicts it shall be established with all Israel.
“He taketh away the first that he may establish the second.” (Heb.
x. 9.) Thus the conversion is distinctly foretold, not only of the
two, but also of the ten; for ver. 61 expressly says, “I will give
them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant.” One use of
the word daughters has been already explained ; it means subordinate
cities. But is that its meaning here? If so, then the prophecy
declares that Samaria and the other cities of the ten shall be subordi-
nate to Jerusalem, and thus all Israel form one state, of which
Jerusalem shall be the capital, and this under a covenant, not the
Mosaical, but the Christian. So that Ezekiel predicts the reconstruc-
tion of the twelve tribes into one Christian kingdom, and thus fore-
tels the conversion of all. Again, I call attention to the fact that
the whole force and implication of this prophecy is national.
National in restoration, as against all who maintain that Israel is not
to be recognised as a separate nation under the Christian covenant ;
national in conversion, as against any who would embarrass the
subject by looking aside to discover disconnected parts or separate
divisions. But, further, retaining the meaning of nin;, as suburban
or municipal daughters, there seems reason also for including that of
covenantial daughters. The ten are to be in their cities daughters in
the faith to Judah. The conversion of the two will, in some sense,
precede and lead to that of the ten, although that of both, with
Sodom or the Gentiles, will in another sense be so synchronical, that
the captivity of Jerusalem is represented as coming “in the midst"
of the captivities of Samaria and Sodom. Lowth and Scott agree in
thinking that Jerusalem is here described as spiritual mother of the
Churches. Where two meanings of a word, as here of niż, seem
equally admissible, the fulness of scriptural inspiration demands them
both—an observation which I shall presently justify. This idea of
covenantial daughters, or daughters in the faith, seems further
justified by the expressions, “I will give them unto thee" (ver.
61); “when thou shalt receive " (ver. 61); “in that thou art
a comfort unto them" (ver. 54); each of which implies precedence
on the part of Judah, as will be more clearly seen.
Moreover, this conversion is particularly placed after the restora-
tion, as appears from several considerations, not adverse either to the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 45
Authorized Version. “I will bring again the captivity of thy
captives in the midst of them, that thou mayest bear thy shame, and
mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a
comfort unto them.” (Vers. 53, 54.) “And I will establish my
Covenant with thee, and thou shalt know that I am the Lord, that thou
mayest remember and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any
more, because of thy shame when I am pacified toward thee for all
that thou hast done, saith the Lord God.” (Vers. 62, 63.) He who
acknowledges the verbal inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures will
not be startled when informed that my first argument depends entirely
upon the conjunction that jyp'; . But, reasoning first from the
English conjunction, it is seen that the second of these quotations
makes Judah's confusion and shame at the past, i.e., his sincere
repentance, the effect of the Lord's establishing the new covenant with
him; but the first makes the confusion of Judah and his shame at the
past, i.e., his sincere repentance, the effect of the Lord's bringing back
his captivity. From which we may infer two things: 1. That the
Lord's bringing back Judah’s captivity and the Lord's establishing
the new covenant with Judah, producing precisely the same effect, are
parts of the same cause; and that, therefore, the restoration of Judah
and the establishment of the new covenant with him, i.e., his
conversion, will take place very near each other. 2. That since an
effect must be subsequent to its cause, the sincere repentance of
Judah is subsequent to the Lord's bringing back his captivity, i.e., his
restoration. But Judah’s sincere repentance is also subsequent, as an
effect, to the Lord's establishing the new covenant with him. Now
we can conceive no interval between the Lord's establishing the new
covenant with Judah and his repenting ; they are, in fact, convertible
terms for conversion : hence Judah’s conversion will be after his
restoration—in some sense, an effect of it. The national conversion
—no other is recognised—the prophecy all through treats the people na-
tionally. The conversion will be effected by the establishment of the new
covenant through an overt act, with restored Judah in the Holy Land.
The reasoning is based upon the English version, and depends
upon the conjunction that, which appears to me of peculiar force in
the Hebrew, jyp'; . As this is of importance, I shall take some pains
to prove it, though probably at the risk of being tedious.
Noldius, in his Concordance, p. 442, refers to the two passages
46 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
before us, under the head of this particle, rendering it by ut; and,
among other examples, gives Amos ii. 7, Isaiah xli. 20, Deut. iv. 1,
Exod. iv. 5, and Gen. xxvii. 25. Glassius, (“Philolog. Sacra,”
p. 538,) defines it thus: “Causalis conjunctio; iva, ut, et aequepol-
lentes; non semper notant causam rei finalem; sed saepius eventum ;”
and among other illustrations gives Amos ii. 7. Lee, in his Lexicon,
gives it two classes of meaning—retrospectively and prospectively;
where the first seems to include its power to denote the “causam rei
finalem ; ” the second, the “eventum ” of Glassius. The second is
our meaning, in order that, because that, or the like ; and he refers to
the same places as Noldius. Gesenius (“Thesaurus,” p. 1051) puts its
meaning also into two classes: 1. De causã, quá quis movetur; the
final cause of Glassius, the retrospective force of Lee ; under this
come all the expressions, for thy name's sake, for thy mercies' sake, for
Zion's sake; where for the sake of is the force of Typh . 2. “De
concilio, et fine, quem quis spectat.”
This second meaning is that which the particle has in the passages
(Ezek. xvi. 54 and 63) under consideration; and I maintain, agreeably
to the authorities here quoted, that in all such passages the essential
force of the particle is to mark the eventus (the effect not always
designed, nor always produced; but still an effect either designed, or
produced, or both); and it may be well rendered, to the end that.
I add a few examples, selected to illustrate my argument, where
I so render it.
Isaiah : “I will set in the desert the fir tree, the pine, and the box
tree—to the end that—they may see, and know, and consider.”
(xli. 20.) “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant
whom I have chosen—to the end that—ye may know and believe me,
and understand that I am he.” (xliii. 10.) Jeremiah : “For they
prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far from the land, and—to the
end that—I should drive you out, and ye should perish.” . . . . “They
prophesy a lie in my name—to the end that—I may drive you out"
(xxvii. 10 and 15): where the effect is mentioned that would follow,
though undesigned. Ezekiel: “They brought him into holes—to the
end that—his voice should no more be heard.” (xix. 9.) “I have
set the point of the sword against all their gates—to the end that—
their heart may faint.” (xxi. 15.) “Then set it upon the coals
thereof—to the end that—the brass of it may be hot.” (xxiv. 11.)
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 47.
From the English version the last example: “All the beasts of the field
shall be upon her branches—to the end that—none of all the trees by
the waters should exalt themselves.” (xxxi. 14.)
Thus our rendering is justified by the English version ; and I
maintain that, in these examples, which may be multiplied to any
extent, the clause following the second hyphen marks the effect of
that which precedes the first. Let Ezek. xvi. 53 be brought to the
same test : “I will bring again the captivity of thy captives in the
midst of them—to the end that—thou mayest bear thine own shame,
and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done.” Judah's
repentance is the effect of his captivity's being brought back: there-
fore his conversion is after the restoration.
But further, I maintain, both meanings given by the Hebraists to
jº are reducible to the same idea ; so that in effect this particle
has but one meaning, and that invariable ; for take Gesenius'
examples: “But do unto me, O God the Lord, for thy name's sake.”
(Ps. cix. 21.) “Quicken me, O Lord, for thy name's sake; for thy
righteousness' sake bring my soul out of trouble.” (Ps. cxliii. 11.)
Or Noldius: “For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for
Jerusalem's sake will I not rest.” (Isaiah lxii. 1.) “And cause thy
face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate for the Lord's sake.”
(Dan. ix. 17.) In all these passages our particle receives its first
meaning, but in all such passages the idea is the same as under the
second, viz., to the end that “thy name" may be glorified, or “thy
righteousness” magnified, or “Zion” delivered. In each passage an
effect contemplated is denoted. And this, I would add, is the force of
the particle as indicated by its root. It is derived from Tº to
answer, and formed of jyº an answer, and the prefix h ; its literal
force, therefore, is for an answer to anything ; for a corresponding
effect, i.e., an answer to anything ; for a corresponding effect, i.e., an
answer to anything previously denoted. Take the following from
primary and most proper meaning of the word Tºy I take to be to
ºreact, when B reacts upon A in consequence of a prior action of A upon
B. But more largely it predicates reciprocal, correspondent, or corre-
lative action.” A force exactly according to its root I would give
7???. And this its compound character is very important to the
argument. Fürst gives, I see, one hundred and sixty examples of the
use of this word, an examination of each of which will, I believe,
48 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
justify the observations above made. I select two more examples.
“And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that
(lyrº) every one of the Mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter.”
(Obad. 9.) And, perhaps, the most curious instance of the use of
this particle contained in the Scriptures: “Therefore (lyrºº for the
sake of this, to this end) was he hired, that (Typº to the end that) I
should be afraid, and do so, and sin, and they might have for an evil
report, that (Tºpº to the end that) they might reproach me.” (Nehem.
vi. 13.) -
If I have been tedious, I trust the reader will pardon me. But the
point is important, and, I submit, is demonstrated. Here is a particle
which in the Hebrew Bible has an uniform force, in the meaning of
which four illustrious Hebraists are agreed. We have no idea of its
force except from the Hebrew Bible, the verbal inspiration of which
we profess to believe. That force is to denote an effect, sometimes
designed and produced, sometimes not so ; that force it has, as in
other passages uniformly, so in Ezek. xvi. 54 and 63, where it marks
the repentance of Judah, i.e., his conversion, as the effect of the Lord's
bringing back his captivity. Judah’s conversion is, therefore, after
his restoration.
But ver, 61 yields another proof that the conversion of Judah will
be subsequent to his restoration. “Then shalt thou remember thy
ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder
and thy younger; and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but
not by thy covenant.” Hence it is plain that Judah's repentance or
conversion is said to take place when he receives again the captivity
of Samaria ; in other words, when Israel, or the ten, is united to
Judah, the two. But it would be absurd and against the plain
meaning of the context to suppose that this junction of Israel with
Judah, this giving of Israel for a daughter to Judah, can take place
anywhere but in the Holy Land, where the daughter cities are ; for
the personifications of Jerusalem and Samaria fix the scene of the
event. If, then, the conversion takes place with the junction, it takes
place in the Holy Land, i.e., after the restoration. This is according
to the English Version, which is strictly justified by the Hebrew.
Literally translated, the passage runs thus:– “And thou shalt
remember thy ways, and be ashamed, at thy receiving (Tºſſº, when
thou dost receive) thy sisters.” But being spoken of a future event,
the English version is better. It is the use mentioned at p. 36 suprā of
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 49
the verbal noun, which has yet to be more fully explained. Thus
both Hebrew and English describe Judah’s conversion as synchroni-
cal with his receiving the tribal masses of the ten in the Holy Land.
Scott, who closely follows Lowth (and, like him, places the conver-
sion before the restoration), has the following curious remark on vers.
60–63:—“All these events would concur in humbling the Jews for
their sins, and they would then remember all their shameful behaviour
to their merciful God, which would cover them with confusion,” &c.,
&c. If Judah’s remembrance of his way and repentance imply his
conversion (as they must), this language goes far to admit that the
circumstances of the restoration are what concur to the conversion.
The consequence of such an admission is plain.
But there is another argument to show that the conversion is after
the restoration. To the end that “thou mayest bear thine own shame,
and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done in that thou art
a comfort unto them.” (Ver. 54.) The argument is precisely similar
to that at ver. 61. The verbal noun is employed Tºſº, by thy being
a comfort unto them, i.e., by the fact, and, therefore, at the time, that
thou art a comfort unto them, at the time of which the prophet is
speaking. More accurately rendered of a future, at the time that thou
shalt be. This time is that when the captivity of Samaria and her
daughters is recovered to Jerusalem and her daughters. Ezekiel is
delivering a prophecy in the strict sense of the term, and describing
(as before carefully explained) the end or effect of God's bringing
back the captivities. And this verbal noun must be translated with a
present force, as to the time of which Ezekiel is prophesying :
Tºrza “in that thou art a comfort unto them,” at the time of which
I speak. But the time is future; therefore it is in effect, “in that
thou shalt be a comfort unto them " at the time of which I speak.
Which force is fully given by the more literal translation, “in thy
being a comfort unto them ’’ at the time which I am foretelling. All
these passages involving the use of the verbal noun will be collated
and examined in the next prophecy at p. 63. Meanwhile, let it be
noted, Jerusalem at that time will be a comfort to Samaria and her
daughters, and, even in that fact, will find additional cause of con-
fusion and repentance. Thus Judah’s conversion is fixed for a time
when he is to be a comfort to his brethren in the Holy Land, and,
therefore, after the restoration. The strict meaning of the phrase
“comfort unto them * is not essential to the validity of this argument.
E
50 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
- --- - - - - - - - - ***---------------sº-we-a----- ... - ...— . - . . ; . ... -. 3- *a---- 3 - -3-3---, 3- - - -
Still we may observe that there is no reason for rejecting the conclusion
that the comfort intended is a spiritual comfort, wherein Judah’s re-
pentance and conversion contributes to, and confirms Israel's. I take
the meaning of the word CTP in the sense in which Isaiah employs it
(chap. xli. 1): “Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people, saith your God;
speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare
is accomplished, her iniquity is pardoned; for she hath received of the
Lord's hand double for all her sins.” Judah heralding this precious
truth to Israel is the “comfort unto them " which Ezekiel predicts.
A prediction which, combined with the others, “I will give them
unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant” (ver. 61); and
“when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger,”
tends to convince us that precedence in conversion as in restoration,
will be in some sense and degree the privilege of Judah.
It is, however, but right to admit that this interpretation is not
justified by Lowth nor Scott. Lowth says, speaking of Samaria and
Sodom, “In the meantime, thou, Jerusalem, shalt bear the shame and
punishment due to thy sins, and shalt be some sort of comfort to thy
neighbours in being a companion with them in punishment as thou
hast been in iniquity.” Scott says, speaking of the same, “As they
had kept the inhabitants of Sodom and Samaria in countenance by
their crimes, and thus been a comfort unto them, so Jerusalem should
never be reinstated in her former glory, nor the Jews be wholly
restored from their captivity, until Sodom and Samaria are restored
likewise.” Without presuming to contradict the commentators, I shall
merely observe that it seems difficult to understand how Jerusalem's
backslidings and punishments could be a comfort to Sodom, or keep
her in countenance, when she was at the bottom of the Dead Sea.
Surely this is one of those occasions when commentators need the
services of a “figure of speech.” Besides which, Ezekiel is prophe-
sying, and the expression iſºſº is not to be taken present to the time
at which he speaks, but of which he is speaking. And if Sodom be
understood figuratively to represent Gentiles, the comfort they are
described as receiving is not from Judah's sins and penalties, but
from his recovery and conversion, at the time when they, too, are
being recovered and converted.
[4] Such are the arguments with which this prophecy supplies us
to justify a belief that the conversion of Israel will take place after
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 51
the restoration. But there remains yet to be considered one verse of
a very important character, as descriptive of some features in that
restoration. “When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall
return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall
return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return
to thy former estate.” (Wer. 55.) This, of course, places the recovery
and settlement in Palestine of all the tribes at about the same time—
a prediction very important on that account ; but now I wish to mark
particularly the expression nº TE former estate. It has been used
before, and briefly commented on (p. 32), but it is not unworthy of
further attention. In the passage chap. xxxvi., it was used in a most .
general sense: “And I will settle you after your old estates” (Ezek.
xxxvi. 11); but here its application is several. Jerusalem and her
daughters are to return to their former estate, status pristinus,
Noldius, p. 585, city with city; and Samaria and her daughters to
their former estate also, city with city. This seems so minute and
several a description of territorial possession, that we can hardly
escape the inference that the twelve tribes will not only be restored to
their own land, but also to distinct and peculiar lots in it. “Set
thee up way-marks, make thee high heaps ; set thine heart toward
the highway, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin
of Israel, turn again to these thy cities” (Jerem. xxxi. 21), said
especially of the ten. But the expression Tºp implies even more;
their status pristinus will import not only their territorial possession,
but the social conditions under which they lived—those cities with
their political and social institutions; in short, the Mosaical polity
directed for their national reconstitution; perhaps even—but I
forbear. I would rather establish the fact of the restoration than
arouse customary prejudices by enlarging upon its details. Only let
us observe, the restoration of a nation involves a national constitution,
and also that this verse 55 yields another type for proving this
prophecy yet unfulfilled.
[5.] “Sodom and her daughters” have been mentioned; and,
irrespective of any specific interpretation of the phrase (which,
perhaps, is not, strictly speaking, a part of our subject), there are other
reasons why it should not be passed over unnoticed. If I mistake not,
a turn has been given to the use of this expression by commentators,
ancient and modern, as though the recovery of Sodom and her
E 2
52 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
daughters here denoted an impossibility. “Sooner shall the Sodomites
arise out of the salt sea,” &c., &c. (M. Henry ; see also “Critici
Sacri.”) But this is an error. The prophet is foretelling affirma-
tively events which certainly shall take place. It is prophecy in the
peculiar meaning of the word, and this is made evident at ver. 61 :
“Nevertheless I will remember . . . . I will establish unto thee . . . . .
thou shalt remember . . . . I will give them unto thee.”. . . . What-
ever, therefore, may be the precise meaning of “Sodom and her
daughters,” we are at least convinced of this, that when Ezekiel
predicts “bringing back the captivity of Sodom and her daughters,”
he foretells affirmatively something which will certainly take
place.
What is that something? What is meant by “Sodom and her
daughters?” Now it is clear that as the captivity of “Jerusalem and
her daughters,” and “Samaria and her daughters,” necessarily imply
people, and not territory alone ; so the captivity of “Sodom and her
daughters” must mean people also. But when Ezekiel spake, the
original literal people of Sodom were extinct; they had no descendants;
hence the people of the literal Sodom could not be meant, and that
Ezekiel's hearers knew. Some other nationalities are therefore meant
by “Sodom and her daughters.” What nationalities? Now the
Sodomites were Gentiles; the Sodomites were Gentiles of the patri-
archal age, and, therefore, in the covenant of God; for from Adam to
Abraham circumcised, that is, throughout the antediluvian and patri-
archal ages, the covenant of God was with the Gentiles. The
Sodomites were Gentiles in covenant with God, but backslidden, or
apostatized. The Sodomites were the worst of backslidden or
apostatized Gentiles. From these considerations it follows, that
“Sodom and her daughters,” as used by Ezekiel to represent people,
must mean the worst of backslidden or apostatized Gentiles included
in the covenant of God. This in a prophecy not yet fulfilled, i.e., at a
time when the only covenant is the Christian. When backslidden
or apostate Christian Churches shall be restored to their former
estate, then Jerusalem and Samaria, the two and the ten, shall
be restored to their former estate. The recovery of the twelve tribes
of Jacob, and the overthrow of all apostasy from Christ are synchro-
nized by Ezekiel. “Under the name of ‘Sodom and her daughters’
the whole body of the Gentiles is mystically designated. Their
conversion to the faith of Christ is here foretold ; and this conversion,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 53
agreeably to various other prophecies, is immediately connected with
the conversion and restoration both of Israel and Judah.” (Faber's
“Rest. of Israel,” Vol. ii., p. 7.) This is not quite accurate, but
nearly so. Not Gentiles at large, but backslidden, apostate Churches
of Gentiles actually embraced in the covenant of Christ are here
intended, whose recovery to their former pure estate, as well as the
conversion of heathen Gentiles, is immediately connected with the
restoration and conversion of Israel. And Samaria is called the elder
sister because she was elder than Judah in apostasy ; and the Gentile
fallen Churches, or Sodom, the younger, because they are younger
than Judah in apostasy. º
But it may be said, this interpretation of “Sodom and her
daughters” makes that captivity spiritual; therefore the captivities
of Jerusalem and Samaria are only spiritual, and are only to be
spiritually brought back. Not so: the prediction concerning “Sodom
and her daughters,” as intending people, was one which Ezekiel's
hearers might not indeed correctly understand, but certainly could not
(people being intended) mis-understand; and therein lies an important
distinction. “Sodom and her daughters,” intending people, might be
dark to them ; what people were meant they might not know ; but
that the people of literal Sodom could not be meant they did know—
for they were extinct. Otherwise, however, of Jerusalem and Samaria.
It was impossible for Ezekiel's hearers to give a literal meaning to
“Sodom and her daughters” as intending people, and equally
impossible for them to give a figurative meaning to Jerusalem and
Samaria as intending people. Ezekiel's prediction amounted to this:
“When the captivities of your literal Jerusalem and Samaria shall be
brought back, then the captivity of that represented by Sodom shall
be brought back too.” -
Not that I care to exclude even a literal territorial meaning (the only
literal meaning possible) for “Sodom and her daughters,” the recovery
of the site of the cities of the plain, accepting Mr. Bickersteth's opinion :
“Just as the law not to muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn was
a real law of the Jewish jurisprudence, though emblematically intended
to instruct men in the maintenance of ministers. Thus there is a
reality and truth in the promises to Israel, and let us yield our minds
to this first without reserve, and without attempting to set aside
express and plain predictions by hard, and uncertain, and difficult
solutions. God's wisdom is indeed very deep and beyond all our
thoughts; but the foolishness of God is wiser than man. He is more
54 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
spiritual in that which they may deem carnal than they are in greatest
fancied spirituality.” (“Rest. of Jews,” p. 103, Introd.)
[6] In disproving attempts to explain away this prophecy, we
shall give the first place to Professor Lee ; not that he notices this
particular chapter, but that it replies absolutely to that principle of
his theory which we have placed first (Introd, ch., p. 15 suprā), viz.,
that which is based upon the distinction between the covenants. He
maintains in his first book that, under the Christian dispensation, the
Jew has no longer a national or distinctive character, but is merged
into the Gentile Church as a member of it when converted. “Canaan
also is the whole world when it shall have become the spiritual
heritage of Abraham's seed.” (P. 11.) Jerusalem is the Church.
The Jew is the spiritual-minded, converted man, &c., &c. But in the
prophecy before us, nationalities are the precise and specific object of
prediction, and this is conducted with peculiar power by the prosopo-
peia of chief cities; Jerusalem, Samaria, and Sodom must be signifi-
cant of peoples, of embodied people, of people distinct in nationali-
ties from each other; whatever, therefore, each imports, it imports it
politically, using such word in a strict sense. Collected peoples of
cities or states are intended. But if so, Jerusalem must mean the two,
according to its national sense; and Samaria the ten, similarly. To
say the Church is meant is absurd, for here are three: which of those
three is the Church 2 That they mean the same thing is impossible ;
but if they mean two or more things, which of those two or more
things is the Church 2 for they cannot all and each besides be the
Church. The fact is, each represents part of the Church—parts
contradistinguished; Jerusalem and Samaria, the two and the ten, the
twelve tribes, embodied into the Church; and Sodom, the Church
embodied of the Gentiles. But if so, then Israel is addressed as
distinct from the Gentiles—addressed in his two grand national
divisions; and this on that occasion when in prophecy, properly so
called, Samaria is added to Jerusalem, not by the former covenant,
but another, confessedly the Christian. It is therefore directly
contrary to Scripture to assert that under the Christian covenant,
Israel is not in Holy Scripture nationally distinguished from the
Gentiles. The very reverse is the case. Ezekiel carefully predicts
that in Christian times, recovered Israel shall be nationally dis-
tinguished, within the Christian Church from that part of the same
Church which will consist of Gentiles.
AND CON VERSION OF THE JEWS, 55
These observations not only refute the erroneous principle of Pro-
fessor Lee as to the real position of a literal Israel, according to Scrip-
ture, under the new covenant, but also avail to show the impossibility
of excluding the literal interpretation of this prophecy by a figurative.
For the figurative mode of interpretation, as already shown, refers
itself entirely to the Church ; but here are three distinct bodies of
people, each of them prophetically placed under the same conditions
of reconciliation to the Almighty. To say that each of them is the
Church would be absurd ; but if each of them be a part of the
Church, then they must be three different parts; and no reason can
be shown for denying to Jerusalem and Samaria the individual
characteristics belonging to them in Scripture, viz., as the two
divisions of the Hebrew people. This reason is further confirmed by
the fact that Sodom seems especially intended to designate the part of
the Church which is composed of the Gentiles. For an argument
which tells with peculiar force upon the present occasion to establish
the literal meaning of the prophecy, is that which is based upon the
consistent interpretation of the chapter. What Jerusalem means, or
is taken to represent, at the commencement of the chapter, it must
be held to mean or represent throughout. But it is indisputable
that the first fifty verses (the whole chapter contains but sixty-three)
do describe conduct, narrate facts, and contain threats which were
perfectly true and applicable in regard to the literal Jerusalem and
her people, but were not, could not, and cannot have been predicted of
the Church among the Gentiles. But the remaining thirteen verses
correspond as exactly with these fifty as punishment can accord
with transgression, repentance with a consciousness of guilt, and
recovered mercy contrast with spiritual desertion ; are we, then,
abruptly to turn away and give these, the repentance and mercy, to
others by figure when the iniquity and punishment, it is admitted,
belonged literally to the Jew P A method of interpretation so perverse
cannot rationally be sustained.
Neither can a conditional interpretation be adopted ; for, besides
the important fact so particularly noted by Lee, that prophecy,
properly so called (to which Ezek. xvi. belongs), knows no condition,
that which is palpable in the English version is also justified by the
Hebrew, viz., that the language all through the chapter is of the most
affirmative kind. Facts of offence notoriously real are asserted,
punishments as real foretold, and when we arrive at promises of future
favour, no change can be detected in Ezekiel's style. The just con-

56 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
clusion is, that those promises are as certainly affirmative as the
narrative of facts and predictions of punishment. This affirmative
character of the prophecy is marked by our translation in two cases,
where, although the rendering is not literally accurate, the affirmative
character of the prophecy is singularly maintained. “In that thou
art a comfort unto them " (ver 54), “when I am pacified towards
thee.” (Ver. 63.) Where, I say, although the predictive force of the
verbal noun is not accurately expressed, its certain and affirmative
character is. At the time that thou shalt be a comfort—At the time
that I will be pacified. Again, the prophecy is not conditional—
which means dependant upon the good conduct of the Jews them-
selves—because one blessing promised is repentance itself; and this re-
pentance is represented as the final result of the Almighty's voluntary
favour in bringing back their captivity and establishing his new
covenant with them, so that they will be restored and drawn into
especial covenant in a state of impenitence ; and the promises are,
therefore, unconditional. Further, this unconditional character is
distinctly expressed in the English version, and accurately so at
ver. 60: “Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee; ”
where the force of is manifestly to contrast the blessings of ver.
60–63 with the serious predictions of chastisement at ver. 59: “For
thus saith the Lord God, I will even deal with thee as thou hast done,
which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant. Nevertheless
(] but, still, or yet, the wickedness thou hast done notwithstanding) I
will remember thee,” &c., &c. Let M. Henry's gloss be taken :
“Nevertheless, though they have been so provoking, and God has
been so provoked to that degree that one would think they could
never be reconciled again, yet ‘I will remember my covenant,’ &c., and
will revive it again.” Thus the promises are clearly made, notwith-
standing the sins of Israel, and are, therefore, necessarily uncon-
ditional.
[IV.] . The next prophecy I shall consider is contained in Ezek.
xx., and it is not inferior to either of the foregoing in perspicuity or
importance ; it is, morever, connected with them by the phrases it
employs. It should be noticed that, according to the division of the
Hebrew Bible, a fresh chapter commences at ver. 45—not that the
fact is important; the parable of the forest of the south field be-
AND conversIon of THE JEWS. 57
ginning with that verse, being evidently unconnected with the rest of
the chapter.
[1] The first question is, To whom does this prophecy apply?
We are told at ver. 1 that certain “elders of Israel came to inquire
of the Lord, and sat before Ezekiel.” The prophet is commanded to
speak unto them and cause them to know the abominations “of their
fathers.” (Ver. 4.) He immediately proceeds to recount the re-
bellious history of the twelve tribes from the day that God chose
them. The natural conclusion seems that these elders of Israel
represented the twelve tribes, erant ea deportatis (Poole), and that the
answer given concerned all the tribes, as well as the inquiry submitted
to the prophet. “In the day when I chose Israel, and lifted up mine
hand unto the seed of the house of Jacob, and made myself known
unto them in the land of Egypt, when Ilifted up mine hand unto them
saying, I am the Lord your God.” (Ver. 5.) “Wherefore I caused
them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the
wilderness, and gave them my statutes.” (Ver. 10; see also vers. 13,
27, 31, &c.) Such verses contain statements of historical facts
pervading the chapter from vers. 5–22, which clearly apply, and
were intended by the prophet to apply, to all the twelve tribes
of Jacob ; and, therefore, it follows that the words Israel, house of
Jacob, house of Israel, include all the tribes, and such expressions
must be uniformly interpreted throughout the chapter. It is clear that
thé elders inquiring represented, and inquired for, all the house of
Israel; for Ezekiel, speaking in the Most High Name, says, “Shall I
be inquired of by you, O house of Israel?” To them, therefore, who
thus inquired, viz., to the house of Israel collectively, to all the twelve
tribes, the prophecy now to be considered was delivered. No doubt
this conclusion is manifest from the expression employed ver. 40:
“All the house of Israel, all of them.” But on this occasion the
application of the prophecy to all the tribes is so indisputable, that I
would make another use of this phrase. It is the same precisely as
we had before (chaps. xi. 15, and xxxvi. 10); in the English version
slightly modified in each case, but in the Hebrew the same exactly.
If, then, it be manifest, as it is, that in the present chapter this phrase
ribº bsip, nº includes the twelve tribes, it cannot be reason-
ably denied that the same phrase employed elsewhere carries entirely
the same meaning; and thus it not only serves the purpose of con-
58 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
necting these prophecies together, but also of showing that the
promises in each of them belong to the twelve tribes as a body
or nation; and that, therefore, Lee's theory of multitude and remnant
is inapplicable to them.
[2.] It is clear the prophecy belongs to all the tribes; but has it
been fulfilled? Apparently not ; for it will be seen (vers. 33–38)
that the prophet draws a picture of their future history and deliver-
ance by alluding to that from Egypt, and says, “As I live, saith the
Lord, Surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with
fury poured out, will I rule over you; and I will bring you out from
the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are
scattered with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with
fury poured out.” But we know that when Ezekiel delivered this
prediction, all the ten tribes, and the heads and chiefest part of the
other two were captives in Media and Babylonia, and their residence
in captivity (excepting Haman's brief persecution) was peaceful and
prosperous ; so much so, that a large, perhaps the larger, part even of
the two had no desire to return to Judea (Prid. Con., B.C. 536); and
they who did return came there by permission with peace and honour.
This being so, these verses are plainly unfulfilled. Whether we
suppose the fury and judgments here predicted to be poured out upon
Israel, or (which preserves the parallel with the deliverance from
Egypt more closely) upon the heathen who enslaved them, or both,
the prediction is not fulfilled. So, too, whether we conceive the time
of such judgments to be during the captivity, or at its termination, in
each case the prediction still remains unfulfilled ; for no such judg-
ments, but the contrary, were inflicted during, or at the termination
of, the Babylonian captivity, either upon Israel or the heathen who
accelerated their return. Another argument that the prophecy is
unfulfilled is derived from vers. 38–40: “I will purge out from
among you the rebels and them that transgress against me ; I will
bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall
not enter into the land of Israel.” Certain rebels to be purged out
from the Israelites themselves, brought out from the country where
they sojourn, but not permitted to enter into the land of Israel. This
is so remarkable a prediction that we cannot doubt Ezra or Nehemiah
would have recorded its fulfilment, had that taken place at the Baby-
lonian restoration. On the contrary, the safe arrival of the respective
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. * 59
bodies is carefully narrated; and their accounts show that, upon the
whole, all was order, readiness, and submission on the part of the
people. Scott observes on this passage, “These events are accommo-
dated to the history of Israel's being brought out of Egypt and purified
in the wilderness before they entered Canaan, though we do not find
anything in history which seems literally to answer the prediction.”
Thus he admits the prediction applies to all Israel, and has never been
fulfilled. It is clear enough from the above observations that this
prophecy has never been accomplished; but we need not on that
account omit to note that other argument which results from the
context of the chapter, viz., that all the tribes are included, and all the
land promised to be repossessed; but that from Babylon two tribes
alone returned, who never so re-acquired the entire country of their
people; for this argument by itself is to many perfectly convincing.
[3.] The restoration of all the tribes is promised with some remark-
able particulars. “I will bring you out from the peoples, and will gather
you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand,
and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out.” In this
passage (vers. 33–38) the prophet draws a parallel between the
deliverance from Egypt and that restoration yet to be accomplished ;
God will bring Israel “into the wilderness of the peoples.” But, if
so, then strictly the fury here predicted should be understood of
judgments upon the Gentiles—those Gentiles opposing Israel's return;
just as at Exod. vi. 6 we have, “Wherefore say unto the children of
Israel, I am the Lord ; and I will bring you out from under the
burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage,
and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great
judgments.” As at the deliverance from Egypt, so from their present
Wanderings in the wilderness of nations the manifest judgments of the
Almighty will be poured out upon Gentiles, who will endeavour to
withstand their restoration. This other prophecies abundantly confirm.
But not only so ; some Israelites themselves will also be included in
those judgments: “I will purge out from among you the rebels, and
them that transgress against me ; and I will bring them forth out of
into the land of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the Lord.”
(Wer. 38.) It is remarkable that, whereas the prophet uses plural
nouns before peoples, countries, here, when predicting that Israelites
60 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
themselves will have to be purged out from their brethren as rebels,
he adopts the singular. Will some particular Gentile country produce
these rebels and opponents of their people's restoration? Let me
not be suspected of refining; for Scripture does draw these small
distinctions between singulars and plurals, on occasions of eternal
moment to the soul. “He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but
as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” (Gal. iii. 16.) The
reference is to Gen. xii. 7, and xvii. 7, where the distinction between
singular and plural may be minutely noticed; in the Hebrew, as in
the English, not a distinction, be it observed (for the benefit of those
who question the verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture), not a distinc-
tion of verses or of words, but of mere letters, and that in a prophecy
relating to Christ himself. The inspired apostle draws this distinction ;
and shall we be thought to trifle when we suggest that the inspired
prophet, thus changing from lands to land, or countries to country, may
intimate to us that some one particular country will produce these
Israelitish rebels against the restoration? Lowth notices the change
of number, and, by noticing it, marks its singularity; but adds, “The
word country, in the singular number, may be equivalent to countries
in the plural:” it may be equivalent, and so might seed have been
equivalent to seeds in Genesis, for aught that appears on the face of
history; but then we are sure, from inspiration itself, that it was not
so, and, therefore, are not ashamed to conclude that a similar distinc-
tion may be drawn by Ezekiel here. The inference I wish to suggest
is, that, when the time of Israel’s restoration arrives, certain of them
residing in some one country, i.e., under some one government, will
be, either from Infidel or political motives, or both, opposed to the
restoration of their people, and will assist in the opposition exerted
against it by the people under whose political institutions they dwell.
And there is another remarkable prediction which ought not to be
passed over in silence: “And I will cause you to pass under the rod,
and will bring you into the bond of the covenant.” (Ver. 37.) The
word nºbº bond, derived from TPS, but Lowth properly informs us
that "ps to bend, and Tp to chasten, are cognate; and, therefore, he
would translate the expression, “And I will bring you into the
discipline of the covenant; ” in which case, he observes, the sense
would be, “I will avenge upon you the quarrel of my covenant; ”
(which refers to Levit. xxvi. 25), “and assert my authority over you
by bringing you under chastisement, in order to your correction.”
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 61
This interpretation I have no wish to dispute, only that it makes the
word covenant to mean Levitical covenant: “I will avenge upon you
the quarrel of my Levitical covenant, which ye have broken.” And I
cannot but observe that the passage before us and Levit. xxvi. 25 are
by no means of a kindred character. Lowth's suggestion may be
good; but another interpretation, supported by high authority, be
given to show that the covenant intended is the Christian covenant,
and that, consequently, the passage foretells the conversion of the
whole people Israel.
First, “I will bring you into the wilderness of the people,” says
the prophet. (Wer. 35.) As your fathers wandered about from Shur
to Kadesh-barnea, so shall ye wander many years among the nations.
Second, “Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of
the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you” (ver. 36); As your
fathers felt my wrath in the Arabian deserts, so shall ye experience it
among the peoples. Third. “I will cause you to pass under the rod,
and bring you into the bond of the covenant” (ver. 37); I will
nevertheless prevent your perishing; I will number you like sheep, as
a shepherd the flock with his rod, and shut you within the fold of the
last—my everlasting—covenant ; where covenant means Christian
covenant. This involves no interpretation of bond repugnant to
Lowth's, but it suggests that the discipline of the covenant alluded to
is that of the Christian covenant. Then the whole context amounts
to this: “I will lead you through the wilderness of the peoples; I
will plead with you among them by continual judgments; I will
lead you, ages through, onward to the land which I gave unto your
fathers; and as ye are escaping for ever from the bondage of the
nations, as your restoration is in very progress, I will announce to you,
even amidst chastisement, the everlasting covenant ; I will bring you
into its privileges, and subject you to its bonds and penalties; and all
the rebels among you who oppose this new dispensation for their
people I will purge out from you, and they shall not enter into
the land of Israel.” The covenant meant is the Christian covenant ;
and to this Kimchi's explanation agrees, Fürst approving : “ nºbº
adstrictio, vinculum ; hinc nºiſ nº pºp. Bené Kimchi
Elish rººp ºn sº nº, a covenant from which they shall
never depart.” (Fürst's Concordance, p. 112.) Thus, therefore, my
interpretation is not fanciful, but in accordance with the authority of
62 NoTES ON THE RESTORATION
Kimchi, and approved by Fürst. The everlasting covenant is meant,
and, by consequence, the conversion is predicted.
Two observations may be added. 1. Such a prediction is peculi-
arly national ; it reaches and takes in the body of the people ; it
addresses them in a collective capacity entirely, and utterly shuts out
the theory of multitude and remnant, as Lee propounds it ; the few
are to be purged out as rebels, the mass restored. And, 2. Such a
prediction makes the conversion synchronical, in some sense, with the
restoration, which we shall see quite accords with other prophecies.
The conversion taking place after a partial but national restoration of
the two houses, not of Judah alone ; and this national conversion,
marvellously signalized at Jerusalem, being the attracting cause by
which the restoration is completed.
[4] For, of course, if it has been proved that the prophecy is
unfulfilled, the conversion of all the tribes (to whom the prophecy
belongs) is implied in the following expressions:—“There will I
accept them . . . . I will accept you with your sweet savour . . . . Ye
shall loathe yourselves in your own sight . . . . . Ye shall know that I
am the Lord.” In the age of Christianity, to which the prophecy if
unfulfilled must be referred, all such expressions as these must imply
conversion to Christianity. But this argument need not be further
insisted on. Let us rather inquire whether this conversiqn is here
foretold with any fresh particulars regarding its time or circumstances.
The time of this conversion is distinctly fixed as subsequent to the
restoration ; for “In mine holy mountain . . . . there shall all the
house of Israel, all of them, in the land serve me; there will I accept
them, and there will I require your offerings.” (Ver. 40.) And
again (ver. 43), “There shall ye remember your ways, and all your
doings, and loathe yourselves,” &c., &c. This repetition of the
word there, as emphatic in the Hebrew as in the English, not
only clearly defines the place of acceptance, and thereby asserts
the restoration, but also fixes the time of acceptance as being
subsequent to the restoration; for surely it would make the
prophet speak in an extremely unmeaning and jejune manner to
say that this prediction would be true although the conversion
should take place before the restoration. Of course it would be true,
but not equally so; it would then be a truth stated with unnecessary
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 63
!
emphasis. But not so if the prophet be understood to say, “There,
and there only, shall ye for the first time in the era when this
prophecy is fulfilled remember your ways, i.e., repent; there, and
there only, shall ye find for the first time acceptance with the
Almighty in the days of your Messiah ; there, and there only, shall
your national conversion commence; there, and there only shall it be
consummated.” The emphasis thus thrown upon the word tº there,
belongs to what Glassius terms temporary emphasis, and concerning
which he gives the following Canon :-‘Egregiè Ernesti praecepit;
Emphases temporariae ab affectu loquentis, autaliá causā, agnoscuntur
hâc notá—si ordinaria verbi significatio est longè inferior manifestá
affectus magnitudine, autre ipsä. Nam itä sine emphasi frigida foret
oratio, quod est a scriptoribus divinis alienissimum.” (Hermeneut.
Sacr., p. 240.) Now in the passage before us, to give tº there, only
its ordinary force, repeated, as it is, four times; and occupying the
leading and most important place (“Lee’s Grammar,” p. 274) in the
sentence it precedes, would, indeed, be to make Ezekiel frigid
in the extreme, and to interpret him—one of the most vivid, ener-
getic, and dramatic of the sacred writers—in a manner most foreign
and repugnant to them all. I should conclude, even from vers.
40–43, in consequence of this emphatic repetition of there, that
Israel's, all Israel's, repentance and acceptance with the Almighty,
i.e., his conversion, is affirmed to commence and to be completed within
the Holy Land, and, therefore, after the restoration. We have a
similar use of Eg; at Deut. xii. 13, 14; “Take heed to thyself that
thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest, but
in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy tribes, there
thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that
I command thee,” i.e., there, to the exclusion of any other place. But
I have yet a stronger argument, which brings me to that investigation
of the use of the verbal noun already promised at p. 36 supra. “I will
accept you when I bring you out ("Sºiſſ at and by my bringing you
out) from the people, and I will gather you out of the countries.”
(Wer. 41.) “Ye shall know that I am the Lord when I shall bring
you ("S">Tºp at and by my causing you to enter) into the land of
Israel.” (Ver. 42.) “Ye shall know that I am the Lord when I have
wrought ("nibya at and by my working) with you for my name's
sake.” (Ver. 44.) Here are three cases in which the verbal noun is
similarly used in one passage, making the acceptance of Israel synchro-
64 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
{}
nical with their being rescued from the Gentiles and being brought
into the land of Israel; and declaring that by that incident they shall
recognise the Lord ; thus making it synchronical as a consequence,
i.e., immediately after. The conversion of Israel takes place after the
restoration.
May I crave the reader's patience while I prove this 2 This use of
the verbal noun with the prefix - is very common in Holy Scripture,
and equally uniform in force. I have selected one hundred and four
examples from the first thirty-nine chapters of the book of Ezekiel
alone, and fifty-four from the Psalms. To be as little tedious as
possible, I will elucidate my argument by some of these examples,
showing that the force of this mode of expression is, 1. To express
time present to the facts which the sacred writer mentions, whether
historically or prophetically. 2. To express the instrument or cause
by which a given effect is produced. 3. To unite these two meanings
together.
First. In the following passages the verbal noun and prefix *
mark—time present; “Save, Lord! let the king hear when we call.”
(Ps. xx. 9.) “When they were sick my clothing was sackcloth.”
(Ps. xxxv. 13.) “When the wicked are cut off thou shalt see it.”
(Ps. xxxvii. 34.) “As the voice of the Almighty when he speaketh.”
(Ezek. x. 5.) “When they went . . . . . they went ; they turned not
as they went.” (Chap. i. 9, 12, 18, &c.) In all these examples, the
verbal noun with 3 might have been well translated at the time of the
action indicated by the verb : “At the time of our calling . . . . at the
time of their being sick . . . . at the time the Almighty speaks . . . .
at the time of their going.” But it will be clear that when the writer
is narrating past events, the expression will have the force of a
perfect; to speak quaintly, its force will be present to the past. Or,
again, when he is referring to the future, i.e., prophesying, it will
have the force of a future; or, so to speak, its force will be present to
a future. This observation accounts to some extent for the varieties
of rendering the form in the English translation. Second, the
following are instances where the verbal noun and prefix - imply the
instrument or cause alone: “In that thou buildest thine eminent
place.” (Ezek. xvi. 31.) “Neither shall Pharaoh make for him ...
by casting up mounts and building forts.” (Chap. xvii. 17.) “Your
fathers have blasphemed, in that they have committed a trespass.”
(Chap. xx, 27.) “Because ye have made your iniquity to be
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 65.
!
.---- ------ºr-----—a
remembered, in that your transgressions are discovered.” (Chap.
xxi. 24.) “Edom hath greatly offended by taking vengeance.”
(Chap. xxv. 12.) In all these examples the form of speech might
have been well translated by the fact that the action indicated by the
verb has been committed. “By the fact that thou buildest . . . . that
Pharaoh builds forts . . . . that your fathers have committed ... that
your transgressions are discovered . . . . . that Edom hath taken
vengeance.” Third. The Psalmist and prophets alike express these
two forces together, implying both time present and instrument or
cause. Indeed, it should be remarked, that to specify an instrument
or cause necessarily involves the time of its operation. “Men will
praise thee when thou doest well to thyself.” (Ps. xlix. 18.) “O
God 1 when thou wentest . . . . when thou didst march . . . . the earth
shook,” &c. (Ps. lxviii. 7, 8.) “The earth feared, and was still,
when God arose to judgment.” (Ps. lxxvi. 89.) “Thou shalt know
that I am the Lord when I shall” (Ezek. xii. 15)—a mode of
speaking constantly used by Ezekiel. “When the righteous turneth
he shall even die thereby.” (Chap. xxxiii. 18, 19.) “When this
cometh to pass . . . . then shall they know that a prophet.” (Chap.
xxxiii. 33.) In all which examples both time and cause are the
subjects of specification; and this (as it seems to me) is the force of
this form of speech singularly observable in Ezekiel—the prophet
with whom we are at present especially concerned. In each example
it might have been rendered at the time and by the fact of the action
indicated by the verb. Thus—At the time and by the fact that thou
doest well to thyself. . . . at the time and by the fact that God arose
to judgment . . . . at the time and by the fact that I do such and
such things, ye shall know that I am the Lord . . . . at the time and
by the fact that the righteous man turneth from his righteousness he
shall die. The specification of an instrument or cause involves also
time. I take the force of time to be inherent in the verbal noun, that
of instrumentality in the prefix 2. (See also Gesenius’ “Thesaurus,”
p. 174, c. 19 and 22.)
Now under this third head I would put the conversion of Israel, as
foretold in the following passages from the prophecies treated of in
this chapter:-" That thou mayest be confounded in that thou art a
comfort unto them.” (Chap. xvi. 54.) “Thou shalt remember thy
ways when thou shalt receive thy sisters.” (Chap. xvi. 61.) “That
thou mayest remember, and be confounded, when I am pacified
F

66 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
towards thee.” (Chap. xvi. 63.) “I will accept you when I shall
bring you out from the people, and gather you.” (Chap. xx. 41.)
“Ye shall know that I am the Lord when I bring you into the land
of Israel.” (Ver. 42.) “Ye shall know that I am the Lord when I
have wrought with you.” (Wer. 44.) In these several cases the last
rendering is to be taken: be confounded at the time and by the fact
of thy being a comfort unto them—remember thy ways, and be
confounded at the time and by the fact of my being pacified towards
thee—I will accept you at the time and by the fact that I gather you
—know that I am the Lord at the time and by the fact of my
bringing you into the land. I have shown that the conversion of
Israel is implied in these passages, and now I show that such
conversion is, by force of the form of speech employed, subsequent as
an effect to the restoration as a cause, yet in so continuous an order
as to be in a sense synchronical. Other prophecies will explain this.
Noldius justifies these observations (“Concord. Heb. Part,” pp.
139, 153): “P hic interdum cum infinitivis gerundiascit . . . . .
significatdue actum, negotium, vel statum, in quo aliudguid geritur
aut contingit ; ” again, under the head - quum, and instancing one of
our places Ezek. xvi. 63, (and the six are all alike), he says in his
note to the first example, “Notat tempus, vel actum, vel statum, in
quo aliquid contingit; ” and he refers them to his Note q., and
p. 151, upon reference to which we find that :, in this use with the
verbal noun carries the force of “postguam, after that.” Thus
Noldius, quoting one of our passages as an example, tells us that the
verbal noun with 3 marks the time, act, event, or condition, at which,
by which, or under which anything alluded to takes place, or (we
may say) anything predicted shall happen. This being so, we have
six examples, Ezek. xvi. 54, 61, 63, also Ezek. xx. 41, 42, 44, of
which the fourth and fifth make the gathering of Israel from the
peoples and his returning to Palestine (clearly two modes of describing
the restoration), the time, or act, or condition, at, by, or under which
his conversion takes place; the first and second make Judah’s recep-
tion of the ten, and his being a spiritual comfort to them (an event
which must take place within the Holy Land) the time, or act,
&c., &c., of his conversion; the third and sixth, God's working
with Israel and his gracious interpositions for their deliverance
the time or act, &c, &c., of his repentance or conversion. From
all which I conclude that the restoration of Judah, the interpositions
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 67
of the Almighty, and the reception of Israel unto Judah are closely
consecutive events, so close, as to be in a sense, synchronical ; and
that the repentance and conversion of all, viz., of Judah and Israel,
follows, as the immediate consequence or result of this restoration,
such interpositions, that reunion, and, therefore, takes place within the
Holy Land, i.e., after the restoration. Thus the conversion of all Israel
is after the restoration, the national conversion; for that which is
foretold is national, and peculiarly in this chap. xx. It is “all the
house of Israel, wholly,” that there, and there, and there will repent
and find acceptance, and serve the Lord. To say that some detached
families or individuals will be converted before may not or may be
true (probably it will); but it is outside the matter as regards that
conversion which constitutes the peculiar subject of prophecy.
It will be acceptable to those who love to note the accuracy of our
Authorized Version, to observe that the various shades of meaning
which this construction of the verbal noun with 3 carries can easily
be traced in it, even in the few passages before us. Thus its force to
denote time present, which I would term its essential force: “In that
thou art a comfort unto them; ” “when I am pacified towards thee:”
its force as a future when used in predictions: “When I shall bring
again their captivity;” “when thou shalt receive thy sisters;” both
these forces, in one paragraph in chap. xx, present, “When I bring
you out from the people; ” future, “When I shall bring you into the
land of Israel:” its force : carrying the sense, postguam, after that,
to place a given event after the action indicated by the verbal noun:
“When I have wrought with you for my name's sake,” “In the day
when I shall have cleansed you.” In short, the Authorized Version
does virtually sustain the argument advanced upon this use of the
verbal noun. Here I cannot abstain from noticing an inconsistency
of Lowth, which very inconsistency supports our case. Usually, as
at vers. 38 and 43 in this chapter, he places the conversion of Israel
before the restoration, but also, at vers. 41, 42, he in effect contradicts
himself: ver, 41, “When I bring you out from the people; or, as it
may be better translated, when I have brought you out from the
people ; ” . . . . ver, 42, “Ye shall know that I am the Lord when I
shall bring you; or, shall have brought you into the country ; ” thus,
accepting his own translation, the acceptance of Israel and their
knowing the Lord are placed after their being “brought out from the
peoples,” and “brought into the country,” i.e., restored. t

F 2
68 , NOTES ON THE RESTORATION:
At p. 36 I said that the phrase "Tº Fiº, in the day of my
cleansing, was precisely equivalent to "Tº at my cleansing, and
that, therefore, the same force ought to be given to each. This
observation I now justify by a clear example (Ezek. xxxiii. 12):
“He shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth, i-hº Riº in the
day of his turning, from his wickedness.” Now compare ver. 19: “But
if the wicked turn from his wickedness,” vºn sº but at the turning
of the wicked, i.e., in the day of his turning ; “and do that which is
lawful and right, he shall live thereby.” Thus, then, "Tºp Piº and
"Tº may be considered equivalentexpressions, as designations of time,
and, therefore, Ezek. xxxvi. 33 may be placed under the same class as
the examples Ezek. xvi. 54, 61, 63, and Ezek. xx. 41,42, 44, and “In
the day when I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will
also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded,”
may be quoted to show that the firm settlement of all Israel in their
own land is synchronical with, and following immediately upon their
conversion. At the time of the conversion, as we shall show, all will
be trouble, dismay, and well nigh destruction at Jerusalem ; but then,
“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and
they also which pierced him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail
because of him” (Rev. i. 7), and after that he will cause Israel to
dwell safely and for ever in the land of their fathers. For I translate
"FPºint I will cause you to dwell, in a sense precisely similar to that
expressed at Ezek. xxviii. 25, 26, “Thus saith the Lord God, When
I shall have gathered (ºp; at the time that I do gather) the house
of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be
sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in
their land that I have given to my servant Jacob. And they shall
dwell safely riº therein, and shall build houses and plant vineyards;
yea, they shall dwell with confidence riº, when I have executed
("nibya at the time, and by the fact, that I do execute) judgments
upon all those that despise them round about, and they shall know
that I am the Lord their God.” A passage containing two more clear
examples of the use of the verbal noun with F. Scripture with
Scripture; how amazing is the corroborative character of the holy
volume, how clear the internal proof we find in this fact of its Divine
authority. Thus in chap. xxviii. we are told that when Israel is
gathered into his own land, and God has been sanctified in them
before the Gentiles, that then they shall dwell safely and with
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 69
confidence there, that confidence being produced by certain judgments
which He executes upon the Gentiles round about, who despise them.
So Ezekiel subsequently, in chap. xxxvi. : “In the day that Ishall have
cleansed you I will also cause you to dwell in the cities;” but to imply
the kind of dwelling he meant he adds, “And the wastes shall be
builded and the desolate land tilled; ” the very promise that in
chap. xxviii. he had coupled with the dwelling in confidence by the
emphatic repetition of rtº after their enemies were destroyed:
“They shall dwell safely, and shall build houses, and plant
vineyards.” I shall show from several prophecies that the cleansing
of Israel is produced immediately by the judgments here foretold;
that the conversion follows the judgments, and the confidence follows
the conversion. t
I would only add as to this conversion thus predicted in vers.
40, 41, that it is conceived in language which peculiarly directs
attention to the public worship of Israel under the Levitical covenant:
“offerings, first fruits of your oblations, holy things, sweet savour; ”
, but that the especial character of this worship was national; whence
I conclude that, even if we take this language to indicate Christian
worship by the completest spiritual interpretation, still the worship
predicted is national public worship, and, by consequence from the
rest of the prophecy, national public worship of Israel, all Israel,
before the world in the Holy Land. But this worship indicates their
conversion, and with it is associated their repentance: “There shall
ye remember your ways . . . . . and ye shall loathe yourselves in your
own sight; ” there for the first time, and there only for the first time
shall ye repent and loathe your sins; there for the first time shall
your nation disavow and loathe its past, and anticipate a glorious
future in its Redeemer. Now repentance is the very commencement
of conversion,-national repentance and national confession of national
conversion; and hence we conclude not only that Israel's conversion
will be, in a peculiar manner, signalized nationally ; but that such
conversion will commence with repentance in the Holy Land, and,
therefore, after their restoration. This conclusion I shall abundantly
substantiate.
[5.] That no figurative interpretation of this prophecy can be
sustained so as to exclude the literal, I hold to be clear from the
circumstances under which it was delivered. Elders representing all
70 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
the tribes of Israel came to inquire of Ezekiel upon the business of
their nation, and particularly (ver. 32) “whether now that they were
captives in Babylon, at a distance from their own country, where they
had not only no temple, but no synagogue for the worship of God, it
was lawful for them, that they might ingratiate themselves with their
lords and masters, to join with them in their worship, and do as the
families of those countries do that serve wood and stone.” (M.
Henry.) The whole inquiry of the elders was concerning the present
state and future prospects of their people. “Consulebant de rebus,
non privatis, sed publicis, quid futurum esset ipsis et patribus in
Judea relictis; et quid faciendum ute praesenti miserià liberarentur.”
(Poole's “Synop.”) I argue that the answer corresponded, and that
when Ezekiel said Israel, he meant that Israel whose elders saf
before him ; when he mentioned the holy mountain, he meant that
holy mountain which those elders knew and God loved ; and that
when he said the people should go back to that land and there
be accepted, he meant that people about whose prospects the elders
were inquiring, viz., all the tribes, and that, therefore, the answer
must be interpreted, as undoubtedly the elders received it, literally
for the twelve tribes of Jacob. Otherwise the prophet, inspired by
the Holy Ghost, produced a false impression upon their minds, knew
that he had done so, and suffered it to remain. The elders might be
conscious of inability to comprehend all the prophet's meaning, but
they could not doubt that their nation was spoken of literally, their
land intended, and their future history as a nation alluded to. This
prophecy is fatal to two of Professor Lee's principles ; for, First, it
speaks of all Israel as a nation, i.e., in the mass, of the multitude,
and distinguishes not the remnant ; and second, it speaks of them as
a nation in a prophecy not yet fulfilled, and thus proves that Holy
Scripture recognises Israel as a nation even in Christian days.
Further, no conditional interpretation can endure a moment's trial, for
the próphecy is a promise confirmed with an oath, notwithstanding the
unworthiness of Israel: “As I live, saith the Lord God, I will not
be inquired of by you ; and that which cometh into your mind shall
not be at all that ye say, We will be as the heathen, as the families of
the countries, to serve wood and stone.” “As I live, saith the
Lord God, surely,” &c., &c. I swear that ye shall never be a lost
nation, any tribes of you, though ye will if ye can, “for my name's
sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 71.
corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord God.” It occurs
to me that this oath of the Almighty must have a perpetual force,
must be eternal as the speaker; and that, therefore, it utterly
prostrates two opinions held by very different persons, viz., 1. It
forbids the idea that the ten tribes are merged indistinguishably
among the heathen, or lost, as it is called; also, 2. It denies any
reason for refusing to anticipate a national and tribal contradistinction
of these people. The same oath is recorded for the house of Jacob in
Isaiah xlviii. 9 : “For my name's sake will I defer mine anger, and
for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off. Behold,
I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the
furnace of affliction. For mine own sake, even for mine own sake,
will I do it; for how should my name be polluted P and I will not give
my glory unto another.” .
Here I ask pardon for guarding against an error of Mr. Bicker-
steth, who says (“Rest. of Jews,” p. 147), “Another part are
restored in a state like the Sadducees, renouncing their hopes, and
falling into Gentile liberalism and infidelity.” Then he quotes Ezek.
xx. 32, and adds, “The number of such Jews is even now increasing and
spreading.” But an inspection of the passage will, I think, show that
M. Henry is right, who understands the prophet to be here describing
the conduct of Israel in his own days; Pºps Pºs ye are the
saying ones, ye are they who do say now. The description has
reference to Israel when represented by the elders before Ezekiel, and
not to Israel in the day of his restoration. Such or such Jews may,
or may not, now be or then exist ; but to fasten the idea upon this
passage is not likely to advance the cause. However, let M. Henry
again be quoted to dispose of any conditional interpretation : “Now
when God is angry with them, though they may think that they shall
be lost in the crowd of the heathen among whom they are scattered,
they shall be disappointed.” (Ver. 43.) “He will do all for his
name's sake, notwithstanding their un-deservings and ill-deservings.”
(Ver. 44.) “He has wrought with them, wrought for them, wrought
in concurrence with them, they doing their endeavour, he has wrought
with them purely for his name's sake. His reasons were all fetched
from himself,” &c., &c. Also Poole (vers. 33 and 37): “Velitis
nolitis mei semper eritis, et vos recensebo, atque sub meå ditione
afferam.” Recensebo, I will count you over, as a shepherd does his
flock. (See Lowth's note on ver. 37; and p. 61, suprá.)
72 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
[V.] A summary of the four prophecies here considered is the
following:— -
They are found, while manifestly relating to the same subject,
united also by several links; thus, chap. xi. is joined to chaps. xxx. and
xxxvi. by the peculiar phrase, “All the house of Israel, all of them;”
from which we cannot fail to learn that all the twelve tribes are
included. Chap. xi. is connected with chap. xxxvi. by the prediction,
“I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a
heart of flesh;” while chap. xx. unites with chap. xxxvi. in the promise.
“Then (chap. xxxvi.)and there(chap.xx.) shallye remember yourways,
and all your doings wherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall loathe
yourselves in your own sight for all your evils that ye have committed.”
And, lastly, chap. xxxvi., thus closely united with chaps. xi, and xx., is
also as closely joined with chap. xvi. by the especial promise, “I will
settle you after your old estates” (chap. xxxvi.); and “thou and thy
daughters shall return to your former estate” (chap. xvi.). The four
prophecies, though certainly distinct, and delivered at different times,
are manifestly connected by peculiar predictions common to two, or
more of them, together. Such chapters furnish us with an excellent
opportunity of applying the rule, “No prophecy of the Scripture is
of any private interpretation” (2 Pet. i. 20); i.e., of its own inter-
pretation: no prophecy should be interpreted apart by itself, but in
connexion with such others as it bears evident relation to, as one of
a series, in whatever part of holy Scripture the others may be found.
(Faber's 8 Disser, No. 5, ch. 1.) So that these four prophecies, and
others similarly connected; indeed, all which relate to the restoration
and conversion of the Jews, may be considered as one series, one
prophecy; and be rightly applied, prophecy to prophecy, to strengthen
the reasoning employed on each, in which process they will be found,
not to contradict or embarrass, but to strengthen each other, and fill
out that series of distinct events depicted by the numberless predic-
tions which foretel those grand results usually denominated the
restoration and conversion of Israel.
From the present prophecies, therefore, we determine—That all
the tribes are addressed in various ways; described as all the house of
Israel, all of it; included by the personification of their chief cities,
Jerusalem and Samaria, capitals of their former kingdoms ; compre-
bended in the elders of Israel, who came to make national inquiries of
the prophet; embraced in the cities, mountains, and plains, hills,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 73
valleys, and desolate places of the whole land; and that, therefore,
the promises (whatever they may be) must be extended to all the
tribes, and, reaching thus to all the tribes, cannot have been fulfilled
at the restoration from Babylon, when all the tribes did not return.
It appears, also, that there was, and still is, peculiar significance in
such modes of prediction; they are necessarily collective, not indi-
vidual; their effect is to embrace Israel as a nation, and thus to show
that, in prophecies yet unfulfilled, Scripture persists in recognising
that people nationally, and justifies not the distinction, urged by
some, between multitude and elect, the force of the prosopopeia
employed being to include the multitude especially. Jerusalem stands
for the two, Samaria for the ten, elders of Israel, and mountains,
hills, land, &c., &c., of Israel, for all. Scripture, in these places,
knows Israel as a mass, and, be it noted, an impenitent and wicked
mass, and promises them, in mass, restoration. Such mode of pre-
diction is also peculiarly adverse to the spiritual, or figurative scheme
of exposition, for that scheme always seeks its object in the Church,
and, by the way, acknowledges, when so doing, the comprehensive,
or mass-like, character of the prophecies. But when Jerusalem is
distinguished from Samaria, the elders, the people, the land, &c., &c.,
of Israel separately and specifically addressed, it seems impossible
rationally and consistently to apply such predictions, in any sense, to
the Church of Christ; it seems impossible, when specific historical
facts, and offences, are mentioned of the people Israel, and blessings
addressed apparently to the same people, promised in contrast with
their offences, it seems impossible to doubt that the blessings thus
promised belong to the same people whose previous history, and
national misconduct, are recounted. Accordingly, it is perceivable
upon examination, and I fear not to mention Calvin and M. Henry as
examples, that commentators who assert the spiritual mode of expo-
sition, to the exclusion of the literal, involve themselves in numerous
inconsistencies and contradictions; the general effect of which may be
said to seize all the promises for the Church, and assign the curses to
the Jews.
Moreover, we find that these four prophecies are peculiarly uncon-
ditional; made in the full recognition of Israel's demerits. So much
So, that when, in chap. xvi., the Almighty threatens to deal with Israel
according to their deeds, He immediately adds, “Nevertheless, I will
remember my covenant ;” thus reassuring them of mercy at the very
74 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
moment He menaces them with judgment. He assures them (chap.
xx.) that He will frustrate their own intention, then entertained, of
being merged among the heathen, and swears by Himself that, even
in Christian times, He will preserve them still a people, still a nation,
for Himself, never to be merged, or lost, among the heathen in such
a sense as to invalidate the national distinctiveness of all, and all of
them to be brought back, in the same national sense, to Palestine.
(Chap. xxxvi.)
This restoration is foretold with very minute particulars. It is to be
a restoration to all the land, which Israel, far less a recovered Israel,
never yet possessed; never yet, certainly, since the Babylonian
restoration, when all Israel was not restored, but only two tribes.
The cities are to be rebuilt, waste places inhabited, desolate places to
become fruitful, mountains, and hills, valleys, and river-sides, to
teem with flocks and joyful people ; and that land, which has been
for ages a byword and proverb among the nations, as surely and
singularly destructive of its people, is to become a wonder and delight
for its populousness, fertility, and beauty. This of that same land,
and no other, which, in Ezekiel's days, had already begun to wither
under the curse of God, and remains in that condition unto this day.
This restoration is to be with the recovery of ancient conditions of
separated territory, and local and social institutions; after the former,
the old estates, and that in greater and happier perfection than at first.
It will take place under judgments upon its adversaries, whether Jews
or Gentiles; his arm will be mighty, his fury poured out, as in ancient
days. That will be the time of which Isaiah prophesied—“Awake,
awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord l Awake as in the
ancient days, the generations of old.” (Isa. li. 9.) This restoration,
in which Samaria is distinguished from Jerusalem, and known to be
so to themselves, is a restoration of each to its former estate, yet of
each united; this restoration of all to all the land, with recovered con-
ditions of territory and social institutions, will, by inference, be
tribal; be tribal, yet with unity; separate in families, yet united as
a nation; united, yet with supremacy in one part, and subordination
in another; coincident, yet with priority on one part, subsequence on
the other. For whereas it is said (chap. xvi. 55) that when Samaria,
or the ten, shall return to her former estate, then Jerusalem, or the
two, shall return to her former estate; it is added, ver, 61, that
Jerusalem shall receive Samaria, and that she is given unto Jerusalem
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 75
for a daughter; so that priority in restoration belongs to Judah;
so that Jerusalem and Judea will, in some sense or degree, be
recovered and repeopled by the restoration of Judah, or the two,
before the restoration of Israel, or the ten; although it may also be
true that the restoration, though national, ‘is still in process, i.e.,
capable of receiving, and destined to receive, a vast accession in
numbers. The subordination of the ten to the two is also implied
when Jerusalem is indicated as the mother, and they are termed the
daughter.
This restoration is also to be accompanied, and succeeded by, the
conversion; the restoration of all by the conversion of all; in which
conversion, as in restoration, some kind of precedence is given to
Judah. For not only is such restoration predicted for the days of
Christianity accompanied with marks of God's favour which, in
such days, necessarily imply conversion, but that conversion is also
described in specific predictions:—“I will give them one heart, and I
will put a new spirit within you”—“I will take away the stony heart
out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh, and I will put
my Spirit within you"—where it may be remarked that all such
promises, associated with the promise of the Holy Spirit, in Christian
days must denote conversion to Christianity. And it is also foretold
in terms which, by reference to their use under the Levitical Covenant,
necessarily imply a national faith, and public, and national, or
established profession of it, because predicted through the medium of
language describing the ordinances of Israel's national, and estab-
lished, state religion. Further, Ezekiel adopts various modes of
speech to impress upon the minds of his hearers that this conversion
will occur after the restoration. With peculiar emphasis he repeats
the assertion that, in the Holy Land, there, and there, and there only,
shall Israel remember his ways, be confounded, and loathe himself in
penitence, and, after that, be accepted of the Most High. And he
also adopts two peculiar forms of speech, from which we are compelled
to conclude that the conversion, though close after, is yet none the less
certainly after, the restoration. For he describes their gathering, and
return, which are clearly two ways of expressing the same thing, as
producing the result of penitence, which penitence, associated with
the Holy Spirit's influence, must, in Christian days, mean conversion.
This he does by employing a compound word, whose derivation and
composition imply that it is used to indicate an effect in what follows
76 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
correspondent, or answering to certain causes which have been
previously referred to. And we find in the Hebrew Bible, the only
authoritative or classical book of that language, that this conjunction,
according to the testimony of four most eminent Hebraists of modern
times, has but two meanings, which two may, however, be reduced
to one and the same idea; and these meanings are precisely those
which the derivation of the word itself indicates, viz., to mark an effect
either designed, or produced, or both. (See p. 47, suprā.) Accordingly,
we find that frequently the two forces of this conjunction, reducible to
one idea, are translated by the same word or words; and we also find
that this its causal force is carefully sustained in the Authorized Version
of the Scriptures. When, therefore, we read that the Almighty's
gathering Israel, and bringing him to his own land, is asserted to be
done, 79?? to the answer that; to the end that; or, for the sake of
that; something else should follow, we maintain that such something
else is a consequence; and this something else being repentance, under
the Spirit's influence, in Christian days, i.e., conversion, we maintain
that Israel's conversion is the consequence of his being gathered, and
brºught back; i.e., the restoration: but, being the consequence, it is
subsequent; and therefore Israel's conversion will be after the restor-
ation. But we also perceive that the prophet adopts another mode, or
phrase, of speech even more significant, because not dependant upon
the criticism of a single word, though that word be used by inspira-
tion, but upon a certain idiom, or mode of construction, of general
use in the Hebrew Bible, and employed with singular frequency, and
force, by Ezekiel; which force we find verified by the authority of
Noldius, and our own collation of numerous examples, as well as by the
Authorized Version. It appears the verbalnoun, orinfinitive, constructed
with 2, has the twofold force of fixing the action of the verb as
present to the events which the writer is describing; so that, in speaking
of past events, it is equivalent to a past; in foretelling future events,
it is equal to a future; and also of denoting the means, or instrument,
or condition, by or under which something is effected. We also recited
examples in which these two forces are combined; and observed, that
the specification of an instrument involved, of necessity, the time of
its operation. Now it appears, p. 65, suprā, from this form of speech,
that, first, Jerusalem is to be confounded and remember her ways, at
and by the fact that she receives her sister Samaria, and is a spiritual
comfort to her. Second, that Israel will remember his ways, and be
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 77
confounded, and be accepted, and know that the Lord is God, at and
by the facts that God is pacified toward him, that God brings him out
from the people into the land of Israel, and works for him. Hence
two conclusions are manifest, viz., 1. That Israel, all Israel, is led
to conversion by, and in consequence of, God's mercy in restoration ;
and, 2. That Judah’s repentance, i.e., conversion, is in actual pro-
gress at, and is facilitated by the addition, or junction, to him
of his brethren ; and that He promotes their conversion. So
that the conversion of all is after the restoration; but the two
have, in some sense, priority both in restoration and conversion,
and are the spiritual parent of the ten. Moreover, it must be added
that, both restoration and conversion being alike predicted for the
collective body, consistency of interpretation demands that we take
not cognizance of parts divided. The restoration predicted in Scrip-
ture is the body collected within the Holy Land, by the adhesion of
parts once divided. The conversion, foretold in Scripture, is of this
restored body; and it recognises not parts previously scattered, even
though converted in such dispersion. It is no more open to us to
speak of parts in the conversion, than for those who differ from us
altogether to speak of the multitude as perished, the elect as saved,
and merged indistinctively into the Christian Gentile Church. Israel,
all through Scripture, both in restoration and conversion, is a nation.
It should also be noticed that the two, having priority in restora-
tion and conversion, and being converted after restoration, the
prosopopeia, or personification, of Jerusalem fixes the scene of this
conversion.
The last result I shall briefly notice is, that the apostate Gentile
Churches, or Sodom and her daughters (all of them), will return to
their Saviour King at the time of the return of Judah and Israel.
By what events Ezekiel says not here; but these backslidden, apostate
Churches, all Sodom's daughters, will be brought back to Jesus, with
Judah, and with Israel; and the three, then forming one Christian
Church, be alike reconciled to Messiah. By what events, I repeat,
Ezekiel says not here; but the whole tenor of the prophecies is to
shew that this work will be the Lord's alone.
Let this chapter suffice merely as an index to the chief points of our
subject, -
78 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
CHAPTER III.
“THE ABUNDANCE OF PEACE AND TRUTH.”—JEREMIAH xxxIII. 6.
ZECHARIAH was one of the captivity from Babylon, and with Haggai
prophesied at Jerusalem during the building of the second temple.
(Ezra vi. 14.) After a short introduction, his prophecy begins by
vision at chap. i. 7, and continues to the end of chap. vi. In this first
division of his whole book are contained two visions well known as
“The Prophecies of the Branch.” These are the subjects of our
present investigation. It will be evident upon reference that, in his
first six chapters, Zechariah delivers eight prophecies in as many
visions, and that chap. iii. is one of these, isolated and distinct, yet
not so separated from the preceding, but that a prediction closing the
second chapter prepares a reader for the nature of the third : “Sing
and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for lo, I come, and I will dwell in
the midst of thee, saith the Lord. And many nations shall be joined
to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people; and I will dwell in
the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath
sent me unto thee. And the Lord shall inherit Judah his portion in the
Holy Land, and shall choose Jerusalem again. Be silent, O all flesh,
before the Lord, for he is raised up out of his holy habitation.” (Zech.
ii. 10–13.) A day was coming (although Jerusalem was restored
when Zechariah spake) when God would dwell in the midst of her;
He who should so dwell being, moreover, sent by the Lord of hosts,
when many nations should be joined to the Lord, and when the Lord
should inherit Judah, his portion in the Holy Land, and should choose
Jerusalem again. Tº the repetition or continuance of an action
(Lee’s “Lex.”)—repetition being clearly its force here, because the
day is the subject of a prediction. Thus, concludes chap. ii., although
Judah was already restored, Jerusalem repossessed, and the temple
there being prosperously built. The day was come when the Lord
had chosen Jerusalem, and yet another was coming when He would
choose her again in a more sublime and exalted sense. Such a
4.
AND ConVERSION OF THE JEWs. 79
sºrºr--------ar.
xxxzxz-e-------wºr=---------…. -- - - -
prediction prepares us for the unfulfilled prophecy we are now about
to consider.
[I.] For in chap. iii. Zechariah, in vision, perceives Joshua the
high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing
at his right hand to resist Joshua's pleading for his own people. The
Lord rebukes Satan, and declares Joshua, as the representative of that
people, “a brand plucked out of the fire.” Joshua was at that time clad
in filthy garments, the garments of mourning, repentance, and humilia-
tion; but in a moment, at God's command, these clothes are stripped
off him, to imply that “iniquity is passed from him,” and he is clad
with change of raiment, “to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion,
to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the
garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness” (Isaiah lxi. 3), and the
“fair mitre’ of an accepted priesthood is placed upon his head. The
angel of the Lord then assures him, “If thou wilt walk in my ways,
and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house,
and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk
among them that stand by.” This is the vision and the immediate
purpose of it for Joshua the son of Josedec, and the people he
represented. The mourning, humiliation, and repentance of Judah
from Babylon is typified, and their pardon and acceptance with God;
and a promise made personally to Joshua as high priest, “ thou shalt
also judge my house,” of certain blessings subject to the condition of
his future fidelity. Which conditional promise is limited to Joshua,
the son of Josedec, but can have no relation to the rest of the
prophecy, in which Joshua typifies that Great High Priest to whom
no conditions can apply. For Zechariah, having discharged his first
duty, at once exclaims with an abruptness intended to secure especial
attention, “Hear now, O Joshua, there is a further application of the
vision; therefore, hear now, O Joshua, thou and thy fellows, for ye are
men typical of others; but an antitype shall come; God will bring forth
his servant the Branch, whom thou, O Joshua, representest.”
[1..] The expression nºb "gºs"? is translated for ye are men
wondered at ; but the margin has marked the correct meaning, men
of wonder, or sign; for nºn is used to signify a portent, a sign of
something amazing to come to pass. Now to say that Joshua and his
fellows in their own persons or characters were, in the presence of
80 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
their countrymen, men exciting awe and wonder in a sense beyond
the ordinary condition of human nature would be absurd ; the
meaning is, that they were indices or types of others that would be
so, and especially that Joshua, the son of Josedec, was a type of one
such. “Signa, et typi, rerum futurarum. Portenta Israelis, factis
et oraculis admirabiles et portentosi, portendentes Christum, ejusque
sacerdotium, vitam, doctrinam, passionem, et alia mysteria.” (Poole.)
For which last two words we have peculiar use. So, too, speaks
Lowth: “The angel directs his speech to Joshua and his assessors or
assistants in council, of whom Zerubbabel, without question, was
one . . . . . They are men wondered at . . . . They are intended for
signs and tokens . . . . . they are typical men . . . . they, with Joshua
the high priest at the head of them, are a figure of the restoration of
the Church and the government of Messiah.” It should be especially
noticed, that not only was Joshua a type, but certain men with him
were types also ; when the antitypical event shall happen there will
be, besides the antitype of Joshua, certain other men antitypes
of his fellows. But see Dr. Henderson's note, “That only one
person,” &c., &c. (“Minor Proph,” p. 382), which seems to me
erroneous. However, Joshua was a type of one whose existence and
office would be far beyond the ordinary or natural order of Jewish
priesthood; for he was a portent of one great and awful; of one who
would be justly the subject of amazement and veneration ; whose
proper name would be “Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the
Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah ix. 6.) This
declaration, at such a time, was peculiarly significant, because
Joshua, the type thus exhibited, was high priest—at Jerusalem—
after a restoration—at a time of Judah’s reconciliation to God; and,
therefore, in strictness, the antitype should be expected as–a high
priest of the Jews—a high priest, Joshua, of the Jews—a high
priest, Joshua, of the Jews in the Holy Land after a restoration—at
a time of reconciliation to God. This is he of whom Zechariah
declares, “I will bring forth my servant the Branch.” Mysterious as
he will be, he shall nevertheless be my servant, "Tºy , my servant in
manhood, as truly as the son of Josedec himself; and he shall be
named (he has already been named by Isaiah and Jeremiah) the
Branch. “It is a light thing thou shouldest be my servant to raise
up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will
also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my
*re-re-resºrºr
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 81.
salvation unto the ends of the earth.” (Isaiah xlix. 6.) Where the
Gentiles under Christ, the servant, are contradistinguished from the
literal, national Israel under the same Christ. Under Christ Israel
converted is still a distinct people, not to be merged among their
Gentile brethren. “A light to lighten the Gentiles; but the glory of
(to glorify) thy people Israel.” (Luke ii. 32.) This is the servant,
the Branch, of whom Zechariah speaks, and whom Joshua typified.
If then, Christians know who the Branch is, they know the age
during which this prophecy was intended to be fulfilled; in other
words, Zechariah predicts the coming of Messiah, the true Joshua or
Jesus, and implies that, like Jesus the son of Josedech, another
Joshua should be high priest over Judah as a people, in the Holy
Land, after a restoration, at a time of reconciliation to God.
[2] Thus not only is their restoration foretold in the days of
Christ, but their recognition of Him as such in that land, and, there-
fore, their conversion after the restoration. But this is more carefully
explained in the following verses; the same Messiah being foretold as
the chief corner stone, prepared and set of the Most High himself.
Zechariah like Isaiah, “Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation stone, a
stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he
that believeth shall not be confounded.” (Isaiah xxviii. 18, and
1 Pet. ii. 6.) This is the stone of which Zechariah says that God
“will engrave the graving thereof,” and of which he prophesies again
(chap. iv. 7), “He shall bring forth the head-stone thereof with
shouting, Grace, grace unto it ; ” i.e., says Professor Lee, “very
precious is it. In which it is a strict parallel to Isaiah xxviii. 16, and
1 Pet. ii. 6, and Rev. xxi. 19, &c., which see, and Job xxxviii. 7,
with my note. “Who laid the corner-stone thereof, when the
morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for
joy?’ The Flº T-S with hy"Tº of Job seems sufficiently to
identify itself with Tºšni Tຠand nisºn of Zechariah; and
to show that to this place in Job allusion is made, intimating
that the rejoicing at the new creation shall not be unlike that
at the completion of the old.” Lea, sub voce iſ] . A beautiful
criticism, notwithstanding Dr. Henderson's note on the passage; for no
one denies that some stone of the temple is alluded to ; only it is
believed that such stone was emblematical of Christ—the foundation
stone probably. (Ephes. ii.20; Henderson’s “Minor Proph,” p. 382.)
G
*-
i

82 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
|
|
i
f
When the work of new Christian creation shall be completed in the
setting up of Messiah before his own, and the Sabbath of an universal
Church be ushered in, then again the morning stars in heaven shall
sing together, and the sons of God on earth shall shout for joy; and
Zechariah foretels their shouting “Grace, grace to it.” “And Iheard,
as it were, the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many
waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia, for
the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and
give honour to him, for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his
wife hath made herself ready.” (Rev. xix. 1–7.) The occasions
contemplated by Zechariah and St. John are the same, for the
manifestation of Branch is the inauguration of king, the time
of Messiah’s union to his spouse, as other prophecies will abundantly
show. But Zechariah adds, that when this stone shall be thus set up for
the adoration of Israel, the Lord of Hosts will “remove the iniquity
of that land in one day;” in that most eminent and extraordinary
day, in that day when this mysterious portent is fulfilled, in the day of
that man Wonderful, whom thou, O Joshua, typifiest, in the day of my
servant the Branch, in that marvellous age, I will remove finally and
for ever the iniquity of the land of Judah. “Sºrſº YTST is
specifically the land of Palestine.” (Henderson’s “Minor Proph,”
p. 383.)
It is manifest enough that the iniquity of the land is to be removed
in that day when the Lord graves the graving of this precious stone ;
in other words, manifests unto Judah Messiah in that mysterious
character graved upon Him by suffering as the real atoning sacrifice
for sins. “Caelavi, etc., non humana ulla manus, sed mea potentia,
efficit utisti oculi septem in isto globulo Subitó appareant. Hoc est
portentum illud qué respiciunt verba supra 8.” (Poole.) But to
remove the iniquity of a land means to remove the consequences of
iniquity committed upon it, to take away God's curse from it,
to restore it to fruitfulness. And thus it is foretold that, in the days
of Branch, the land of Israel shall be restored to its pristine condition
of beauty and fertility. A prediction which manifestly has never yet
been accomplished. That the land of Judah is meant is clear, and yet it
would perhaps have been better to have rendered S^T this: “I will
remove the iniquity of this land in one day;” Zechariah being within
the land of Judah when he delivered this prophecy. For examples of
this rendering of the pronoun see Lee's Lex. Shri (2); nyºn this

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 83
is Zoar. (Gen. xiv. 2.) The iniquity of Judah's land is to be
removed in Messiah's days “in one day,” i.e., in a day one by
eminence or alone in distinction, or (as some prefer) suddenly ;
“subitó appareant,” those mysterious properties of this precious stone,
suddenly unto Judah, recognised of Judah, but not known yet to
Judah. It matters not which rendering of Tºº we take, for each is
correct. It is another case when one word bears two meanings
perfectly reconcilable to, and consistent with, the context, and where
the fulness of Scripture inspiration probably demands that both be
taken. (See p. 44 suprā.) The day of Christ's manifestation to Judah
will be indeed one day alone in eminence, for such a portent will
then burst over the land of his appearing as eye hath not seen nor ear
heard ; it will be, moreover, suddenly, as other Scriptures show.
(See Isaiah xxx. 27); or Zechariah in his parallel prophecy (chap.
xiv. 6), “And it shall come to pass in that day that the light shall
not be clear nor dark, but it shall be one day which shall be known to
the Lord, not day nor night; but it shall come to pass that at evening
time it shall be light.” But what we have now to mark is the fact,
that when the Lord God of hosts lays in Zion this precious stone,—
when he opens to Judah's sight those seven eyes, when he explains to
them this portent which Joshua exemplified,—when he graves before
them for their reading the graving of Christ Jesus in his infinite
perfections, then, and not before, the land's iniquity will be removed,
i.e., Judah’s iniquity will be pardoned. This manifestation of Messiah
will be Judah’s conversion, for it is the recognition of Christ's Divine
perfection, the acknowledgment of his Godhead. This one day, this
Tº Fº, I would suggest that it carries, perhaps, the explanation of
Rev. xviii. 8: “Her plagues shall come in one day,” which Mr. Faber
identifies with the time of the end, and labours to fix to the natural
year of 365 days. (“Sac. Cal. Proph,” vol. i., p. 160.)
But if God's curse is to be removed, there is implied of necessity
the pardon of those for whose misconduct it was inflicted; and this
again further implies their enjoyment of the recovered fruitfulness
of the land, i.e., their restoration. And, therefore, the prophet adds,
“In that day (of my removing the iniquity of the land) ye, O Jews,
shall call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig
tree.” The well-known phrase for contentment, prosperity, and
peace in their land and possessions. So Micah, prophesying of the
same times, “But they shall sit every man under his vine, and under
G 2
84 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid : for the mouth of the
Lord of hosts hath spoken it.” (Chap. iv. 4.)
[3] The first prophecy of the Branch amounts to this: that after
the Babylonish restoration and reconciliation, at that time, of Judah to
God (during which Zechariah prophesied), there was a day to come,
an era of time, an extraordinary day and sudden, when a man in his
own person and office, far beyond the ordinary course or expectation
of nature, but typified by Joshua the high priest, would intercede as
high priest for the Jews; that in his days the garments of humiliation
would be laid aside and Judah put on the vesture of deliverance; that
in his day (so certain and unconditional was the promise) even Satan
himself should not prevent the rescue of the Jewish nation as a brand
from the burning, but that Jehovah would be reconciled, pardon its
sins, and, as a proof of such pardon, restore their fatherland to its
ancient fertility and beauty, and they as a people should dwell
upon it in security and peace. That this was to take place in the
days of the Branch—whom Christians know to be Messiah Jesus—
and that, therefore, this restoration and reconciliation to God (which
means their conversion) has yet to come; and lastly, that the whole
force, and tenor, and scene of the type employed require that this
manifestation of Messiah and recognition by Judah of the mysterious
character which God has graved upon him, should take place in the
Holy Land, and at Jerusalem: but this recognition of Messiah’s true
character must mean conversion; therefore Israel's conversion will take
place in the Holy Land, i.e., after his restoration, and also at Jerusalem.
The common exposition of this prophecy as if it were already fulfilled
admits, in fact, these deductions, but fails to acknowledge that the
prophecy belongs first of all and peculiarly to the literal Judah.
[II.] But this prophecy of the Branch was twice repeated in one
night, and the second time with more particulars than at first ; the
principle, therefore, of parallel places requires that we consider both
one, and take the more extended to elucidate the less. Doubtless the
affairs of the Jews at this time supplied some important reason for this
repetition, and in that reason the behaviour of “Joshua and his
fellows” was probably concerned; perhaps the real office and position
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 85
of this Joshua required to be defined, for Isaiah and Jeremiah had
already delivered prophecies of the Branch, each of them, like
Zechariah, two (Isaiah iv. and xi., Jerem. xxiii. and xxxiii.); and at
such a time of restoration to their own land and God's favour it was
probably necessary to assure them that the restoration from Babylon,
and that reconciliation to God, were not the restoration and the
reconciliation which Isaiah and Jeremiah had fixed for Branch's days,
inasmuch as he, the Branch, was not yet revealed. Zerubbabel and
Joshua might both have needed a fresh memento of the time when, as
regarded themselves and those who should afterwards sustain their
offices, “Alter alteri non invidebit, nec dissentient sententiis.
(Poole.) For it is plain that the Jews could never suppose
Zechariah's descriptions of the Branch referred either to Joshua the
high priest or to Zerubbabel the governor, for this Branch was to be
in his own person both priest and king : “He shall sit and rule upon
his throne, and He shall be a priest upon his throne.” (Zech.
vi. 12, 13.) But Joshua, though priest, was not king, and, legally,
never could be such ; and Zerubbabel was neither priest nor king. The
Jews must have felt convinced that the words “Behold the man,
Branch his name,” addressed by Zechariah to the son of Josedec, as
he stood before them, meant some other man, of whom this Jesus the
son of Josedec was a type—a type most accurate indeed, but still a
type. Let us consider this prophecy, Zech. vi. 9–15.
[1..] The prophet is enjoined to select four witnesses, Heldai,
Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Josiah, and perform a certain ceremony in the
house of one of them, Josiah. Where, when Zechariah and his
companions arrive, he takes two crowns, one of gold, the other of
silver (some consider they were both of gold, but this is of no conse-
quence; the interpretation remains the same), and puts them upon
the head of Joshua the high priest. The silver crown represented
the splendid purity of the priesthood ; the golden, the gorgeous
splendour of royalty; and, being upon the head of one man whose
name was Joshua, implied there should be really a Joshua who would
wear them, and be to Judah both priest and king. The witnesses
knew that this could not be intended for Joshua the son of Josedec;
high priest, indeed, he was, and by rightful descent, but king he
never could be, for Joshua and the selected witnesses knew well that
a king of the Jews must be of the tribe of Judah and house of David;
while he and all high priests were of the tribe of Levi and house of
86 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Aaron. Since, then, it could not be that Joshua was to wear both
crowns, they would naturally inquire what mysterious person was to
do so. This extraordinary event, contrary to the law, and polity,
and all precedent of the Jews—what man was to fulfil in his own
person this wonderful, this amazing destiny of which Jesus the son
of Josedec, then before them, was “a man of wonder 7” (Chap.
iii. 8.) The answer was distinct—distinct as a prophecy; an
announcement of something yet to be, but not now accomplished :
“Behold the man, whose name is Branch, He shall branch up out of
his place, He shall build the temple of the Lord, even He shall build
the temple of the Lord; and He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and
rule upon his throne; and He shall be a priest upon his throne, and
the counsel of peace shall be between them both,” (vers. 12, 13,)
the language excluding the idea that more than one person could
sustain so inconceivable a dignity. Here is the extraordinary event
of which, on the same night, Zechariah had been assured that Joshua
was a portent. (Chap. iii. 8.) The time is predicted when the
Hebrew polity would be marvellously changed, and ordinances
appointed by the Most High himself revoked. So that, whereas
before their kings and priests must needs have been of two different
tribes at that time, that extraordinary time, that day alone by way of
eminence, that Tº Biº, one man should sustain both offices, and,
therefore, by consequence, either the king would be of the tribe of
Levi, or the high priest of the tribe of Judah. This was the utterly
inconceivable event which Zechariah foretold, and used Joshua or
Jesus, the son of Josedec, to typify. This was that wonderful and
blessed time when both crowns, royal and priestly, should be
harmonized in peace, “the counsel of peace between them both,” and
no more disputes, such as then probably threatened the prosperity of
the restoration from Babylon, should occur between the representatives
of the families and offices of Aaron and of David. “See in the person
of Joshua the high priest the type or representation of the man, whose
name is ‘The Christ that shall be revealed, as the Targum paraphrases
the text.” (Lowth on chap. vi. 12, and Henderson, pp. 382, 395.)
[2.] No one can rationally deny that Zechariah's two visions of the
Branch relate to one and the same subject, and belong to one and the
same era of fulfilment. Let us blend the two together: “Hear now,
O Joshua the high priest, thou and thy fellows, for ye are men that
portend a wonder; for behold, I will bring forth my servant, a man
- - - - sº -- ~~zºº
AND CONVERSION QF THE JEWS. 87
like thee, O Joshua, whose name shall be the Branch, of whom thou
art a type; and in thee, as a type, let the Jews behold their own high
priest, the Branch; He shall grow up out of his place among them;
He shall build the temple of the Lord for them, He shall bear the
glory for them, and shall sit and rule upon his throne over them, and
He shall be a priest upon his throne for them ; no more internal
discords shall divide their rulers, but the counsel of peace shall be
between both offices of priest and king in one man; in that extra-
ordinary day I will suddenly remove the iniquity of the land, their
land, for them; in that day, that glorious day, ye, O sons of Judah,
shall call every man his neighbour under his own vine, and under his
own fig tree, in the land of Israel as of old.” For I maintain that
when Zechariah selects these witnesses (whom the Jews assert were
the heads of the captivity), and performs this singular ceremony upon
a public officer before their eyes, and especially when he orders the
instruments of the ceremony to be laid up in the public archives (as
Aaron's rod that budded, and the pot of manna had been laid up
before), I maintain that the act thus performed was intended to teach
certain lessons of a public, national, or (as we should phrase it)
political significance to the Jews themselves; that, in fact, we are
carried into the very midst of a political national transaction of the
Hebrew people, and should be prepared to expect that, as the actions
performed upon Joshua, so the future events indicated by them
belonged exclusively to the Jews. In other words, that the interpre-
tation of Zechariah's two prophecies of the Branch in all their fulness
is the property of the Jews; that the high priest and king, and,
therefore, kingdom, foretold is for them; that the iniquity pardoned is
to them; that the land absolved is for them; that the prosperity and
peace foretold is for them ; and that, all this being distinctly limited
to the time of the Branch, Christ Jesus, these prophecies are yet
wnfulfilled, it being manifest that to the Jews they have never been
fulfilled. The thought immediately suggests itself, All this is
figurative; the priesthood and temple, the kingship and kingdom are
spiritual; this was fulfilled in the establishment of Christianity. But
not so. Let it be granted these are figurative expressions, and the
kingship and priesthood spiritual, then, therefore, the prophecy has
never been fulfilled; for, we repeat it, Zechariah carries us into the
midst of a public, national, political transaction of the Jews. His
office was peculiarly national and political. He was appointed to
revivify the drooping energies of the people. He calls national

88 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
witnesses, performs a public ceremony, and lays up a national
memorial in a public national archive—of what? Reason replies, of
some national event, involving (for it was prophecy) the national
future of that people. Let it be granted, then, that the expressions
are of spiritual import; the Jewish nation are, nevertheless, included
in that spiritual import, and they believed they were when Zechariah
spake. St. Paul has shown (Heb. vii. 8) that Christ's priesthood is
spiritual. True ; but Zechariah says that part of that spiritual
priesthood is over Jews in the Holy Land; and this is not inconsistent
with the apostle's explanation. So of the kingship, a spiritual king-
dom, we do not object, but over the Hebrew nation in the Holy
Land. A spiritual temple, good; but built up by Jesus Christ of
converted Jews in the Holy Land. In this sense the prophecy has
never been fulfilled, and it is perfectly consistent with this interpre-
tation to extend the prophecy to the Gentiles also.
[3.] But if no one can rationally deny that the prophecies of the
Branch, delivered by Zechariah, are in purpose and application
identical, indeed, form one prophecy, then a proof of unfulfilment,
already referred to in the first, applies with equal strength to the
second. In the first it is contained (chap. iii. 9, 10) that when
fulfilled, viz., when Christ the chief corner stone is laid for the
spiritual temple, the iniquity of the land of Israel shall be removed,
and Jews themselves enjoy its produce in security and peace. Now
the two prophecies being in purpose and application one, the predic-
tion of the recovered possession and fertility of the land must be
equally referred to each, and each, therefore, remains unfulfilled.
For it is clear that at the first manifestation of Messiah, “to die unto
sin once,” the iniquity of that land was not removed, nor the Jews
permitted to enjoy it in peace; on the contrary, the crucifixion of the
Saviour was the consummation of that iniquity, when the Almighty's
curse settled on them more fearfully than ever, and a signal was
given for the dispersion of the people and a devastation of the land
designed to endure for ages as a punishment for that iniquity. There
remains, then, yet a time when the iniquity of that land shall be
purged away, and Judah again possess it in tranquillity; and that
time is the time of Messiah's being manifested before assembled
Judah at Jerusalem; manhood mysteriously arrayed in the infinite
perfections of the Deity; high priest and king commanding there the
submissive adoration of that people. The only sense in which it can
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 89
be maintained these prophecies are fulfilled is by referring them
generally to the Christian Church, and to declare that, when the Lord
Jesus came and died and rose again, then he entered upon the
spiritual priesthood and kingship, and then commenced the spiritual
temple here foretold. This is the truth, but not all the truth, and
such an interpretation is, in effect, to limit these prophecies to the
Gentiles. This seems strange, inasmuch as there is not the slightest
allusion to the Gentiles in either, but both were delivered to the Jews
in the most national manner conceivable. A possible supposition
would be that the two prophecies belonged to the Jews alone, and
that Gentiles were excluded; but certainly not the reverse of this. But
if those who maintain these prophecies were fulfilled by the institu-
tion of the Christian Church deny that they exclude the Jews, we
wish to know in what sense they include them; for history has shown
for eighteen hundred years that up to this time the Christian Church
has been composed of the Gentiles. Do they mean to tell us that the
first accession of Israelites in apostolical days, when the utter
dispersion of the nation was impending, and the sceptre already
departed from Judah (for He had come whose it was), do they mean to
tell us that this accession, which was destined to leave no Christian
descendants, and the conversion here and there of an individual or
solitary family since,—do they mean to tell us that this comes up to
the grandeur of these prophecies, so far as the sons of Judah are
concerned? This seems incredible; but if so, no other conclusion
remains than that the prophecies have yet to be fulfilled for Judah in
a more exalted sense. They are national prophecies, and demand a
national accomplishment.
But if they be unfulfilled, the restoration and conversion of the two
tribes is foretold—only of the two; for Zechariah is prophesying to
them alone, and makes no reference to the ten. The restoration is
foretold in the short verse, “In that day ye shall call every man his
neighbour under his vine and under his fig tree;” but it is also
implied throughout both prophecies. And the conversion is predicted
by the very nature of them both, unless the application of them to the
Jewish people be unsound. Does Zechariah enable us to determine
which of these events is antecedent? We can only reply, that the whole
force of both prophecies is to place the conversion after the restora-
tion. The time and scene of the type, should, one would think,
indicate those of the antitype. The conversion is here set forth
symbolically as the recognition of Jesus their great high priest and
90 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
king : and the son of Josedec beheld by assembled Judah at Jerusa-
lem, after a restoration, doubly crowned, should indicate Jesus the
great high priest and king, known and acknowledged first by
assembled Judah at Jerusalem after a restoration. Moreover, with a
competent representation of the two in the son of Josedec's days,
there were (as all admit) various people of the ten, though not
a competent tribal representation of them, nor a competent repre-
sentation of them as the house of Ephraim; for this return was by
Jeremiah and Daniel prophetically limited to the two; but I believe
it will be proved that other Scriptures justify the expectation that
when first the real Joshua shall be manifested to the restoration at
Jerusalem, there will be in that city and in various parts of the Holy
Land, under the subjugation of their last oppressors, divers members
of the ten, forming at that time a fair representation of the house of
Ephraim ; and thus, with the two, a national representation of both
houses of Judah and Ephraim, to whom the coming restoration is
with special care prophetically extended; and the conversion will
commence at Jerusalem before all these, who will subsequently be
joined by large accessions from their tribes. The distinction here
noted between the typical prophecy and the antitypical fulfilment
should be carefully observed. For the just inference would have been
that, as at the time of the typical prophecy, the two only were
restored, and certain members of the ten among them constituted not
then a fair representation of the house of Ephraim, so at the anti-
typical accomplishment the two only will have been restored, and
certain members of the ten among them will not constitute then a fair
representation of the house of Ephraim. This, I say, would have been
the just inference. But eapress predictions must be held to overrule
inferences. And I shall show that, whereas at the Babylonian restora-
tion the express prediction was (as we know from Jeremiah and Daniel)
that that restoration should be limited to the two, so the restoration
which shall have taken place before Messiah’s coming manifestation at
Jerusalem is by eagress prediction extended to a competent repre-
sentation of the house of Ephraim with the two. This makes all the
difference. Some of all Israel, constituting a representation of the
two houses, the national restoration, will have been brought back
when the conversion first commences.
Consistency of interpretation seems to demand another conclusion,
viz., that the priesthood of Messiah being spiritual, so will also his
kingship be, and that while the prophecies imply, and the first of
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 91
them expressly declares, that at the time predicted the Jews will be
gathered together as a people, yet the Messiah's kingship does not
import his personal continuance to reign among them, but his
spiritual; although there may be a personal epiphany of the man
Jesus, as crucified and as ascended, designed for the purpose of
producing effectually Israel's conviction and conversion. A spiritual.
presence and dominion; but by such epiphany, sufficiently identified
with his incarnation to compel the restored people to recognise in
Him that son of David in whom all their prophecies were fulfilled,
and in whom, it will be notorious to them, Gentiles have believed as
the Lord God for ages. Some such epiphany of the real Joshua will
be vouchsafed as shall compel the restored people to recognise and fall
down before the Nazarene, and hail Him as their real Messiah, their
only king : for “then the Lord of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion,
and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.” (Isaiah
xxiv. 23.) What ancients? Tºp; the elders or chiefs of his people
Israel—the constant import of the word. I doubt much whether we
have any right to give it other than a literal interpretation here.
I doubt whether there is a single place besides where the word has
any pretensions to a figurative usage. But if we do, “part of this
heavenly company are called by the name elders or ancients (Rev.
iv. 4, and elsewhere, particularly Rev. xix. 4, 6), where there is a
plain allusion to this place.” (Lowth.) “And the four-and-twenty
elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat
upon the throne, saying, Amen, Alleluia. . . . . . Alleluia, for the Lord
God omnipotent reigneth ;” which refers to the same event as both
Isaiah, in chap. xxiv. 23, and Zechariah, in the places before us, are
predicting. Further yet, the Jews, being thus gathered together,
some sort of government is of necessity implied, and the character or
status of the governor seems to be indicated in that of Zerubbabel, who,
though governor, was never king. So when Judah hails Messiah as
his king, governors of subordinate grades acknowledging his supre-
macy will rule over the restored people. This we shall support from
other prophecies.
[4] This exposition of Zechariah's prophecies is based entirely upon
the sixth principle of interpretation laid down p. 22 supra, viz., that
when Judah or Israel were officially addressed, and their names and
names of their cities employed, and the inspired prophet intentionally
produced upon their minds the belief that they were so addressed as a
92 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
people, that the Almighty's attribute of perfect, eternal, unchanging
truth demands that, at Some time, prophecies so delivered be so
fulfilled. The hearers may not have entirely understood the predic-
tions; we know they did not always; but in the fact that the prophet
intended to address them nationally they could not be mistaken, they
could not avoid receiving that impression; and certainly any inspired
prophet seeking to produce and producing that impression did not
produce an impression which was false. Here, then, are two pro-
phecies delivered by the prophet sustaining at that time a character
peculiarly national; those prophecies in all their words and incidents
are peculiarly national ; the hearers believed them to be national ;
the prophet knew they so understood them; therefore, as God is true,
they are national. But they are, as Christians know, prophecies of
Messiah, Jesus Christ ; therefore these prophecies of Messiah Jesus
Christ were addressed nationally to Judah. But they have never
been fulfilled nationally to Judah; therefore they remain to be
fulfilled to Judah, nationally to Judah. What becomes of Professor
Lee's theory of “multitude and remnant,” or of “the distinction
between the covenants,” which says that, in Messiah’s days, Holy
Scripture recognises not Judah as a people 2 This argument strikes
at the root of a mere figurative interpretation, just as that advanced
above in Ezek. xx. The whole incident was Jewish, designed for the
edification of Jews then present; the witnesses and actors here may
be compared to Ezekiel and the elders there ; the occasion which
rendered the twofold vision of the Branch necessary may be paralleled
in Zechariah's case with the cause of the elders' inquiry in Ezekiel's;
the whole occasion was Jewish and national; the answer or prediction
national and Jewish. The effect Zechariah intended to produce must
have been a godly and true effect; that effect was not concerning
Gentiles under Messiah, but concerning Jews under Messiah. Thus
the Jews, who heard and witnessed, understood the prophet. So that,
admitting, as all do, the spiritual character of the prophecies, and that
they belong to that class of prophecies in which Gentiles were intended
to be included, that spiritual character, and all the blessings it implies,
belong none the less to the Jewish people. Further, it will be
remembered that one of Lee's principles is that the land of Canaan
belongs not to Israel under the Christian dispensation, but figuratively
imports the world as the land of God's entire people, the Church.
The perpetuity of the gift of Canaan will be considered in its proper
place; meanwhile observe, that whenever a predicted restoration is
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS, 93
proved from other data, the question of the gift of Canaan is virtually
decided in Israel's favour. So the present prophecy: “And I will
remove the iniquity of that land in one day;” where no other land
than Israel's can be meant, because no other land than Israel's
Canaan was suffering, in the prophet's mind, the penalties of sin.
Now, as against any conditional interpretation, it should be noted,
that the admitted spiritual purpose of the prophecies involves the
essential office of Messiah, so that the unconditional fulfilment of the
prophecies, in some sense or other, was as certain as the coming of
Messiah himself. Since then the prophecies, being peculiarly of the
advent, and work of Messiah, were certain to be fulfilled; the only
question remaining is, “Are the Jews necessarily, and nationally,
included in them P” This we have answered. But what is the meaning
of this—“And this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey the
voice of the Lord your God” 2 (Chap. vi. 15.) For, of course, the two
visions being one prophecy, this conditional promise may affect them
both. Is the reader disposed to apply it to the whole contents of the
prophecies 2 If so, he makes the coming of Messiah conditional
upon the good behaviour of the Jews. This would be absurd. This
condition affects only the promise—“And they that are far off shall
come, and build in the temple of the Lord ;” the rest of the prophecy
is as unconditional, as the coming of Christ was certain. In other
words, “If ye diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God this
restoration from Babylon shall be increased and prosper.” Forty-two
years after this, Ezra, and his companions, added not only to the
number, but especially to the religious learning, influence, and piety
of the restored tribes; and, thirteen years subsequently to Ezra, a
further addition of power, courage, and governing energy was brought
to the timid Jews at Jerusalem by the arrival of Nehemiah. The
bad conduct of the Jews might affect the progress of the restoration
then commenced, but could not impair the unconditional promise of
Messiah’s coming. “Nequè enim horum Judaeorum infidelitas potuit
opus Divinae gratiae in utrislibet impedire. At Templi aedificationem
impedire hoc potuit, aut tardare, ut jam diil fecerat.” (Poole.) Lowth
has this remark on “they that are far off:”—“The Gentiles shall be
added to the Church (Isa. lvii. 19), and shall make a considerable
increase of the spiritual building.” I shall only observe that, if I
understand this rightly, it makes the calling of the Gentiles conditional
upon the good behaviour of the Jews; for it is immediately added,
94. NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
“This shall come to pass if,” &c. “The far off ones” meant Israelites
in captivity; and I believe a close consideration of the passage
will shew that the condition expressed applies only to that promise ;
certainly it cannot extend to the whole prophecy of Messiah's manifes-
tation. But Henderson reads it as an abrupt and unfinished predic-
tion: “And it shall come to pass if ye will diligently obey the voice
of the Lord your God.” . . . . He terms it “a solemn warning to the
Jews in which, the sentence being left unfinished, their rejection in
consequence of unbelief is forcibly implied.” (“Minor Proph,” p. 897.)
Upon the whole we conclude that Zechariah's two visions of the
Branch, making one prophecy, are neither conditional nor figurative, but
necessarily inclusive of Judah as a nation, and as certain as was the
coming of Messiah when the prophet spake, and that the sub-
stance of them is this—A day of wonder is coming, when Messiah,
Christ Jesus, the true Joshua of Israel, will be manifested to assembled
Judah, in the Holy Land, at Jerusalem; so manifested that they must
and will recognise his manhood at the very time they are constrained
to acknowledge his Divinity, his spiritual priesthood, and kingship.
“Behold the Man " twice already said, by Zechariah and by Pontius
Pilate (John xix. 5), to be said only once again. This manifestation
will identify Israel's Messiah with the Christ of the Gentiles; and
Zechariah, thus prophesying to the two tribes at Jerusalem, implies
their restoration to Palestine and Jerusalem, and their subsequent
conversion to Christianity.
[III.] Zechariah's visions of the Branch were but allusions, under
peculiar circumstances, to other prophecies, more minute, previously
delivered upon the same subject. These we have yet to consider, and
to remark that all of them are limited to a time of Israel's return from
captivity. This fact probably aroused curiosity respecting them at
the time of the Babylonian restoration, and rendered it desirable that
Zechariah's re-edition of them should assure the Jews that Isaiah's
and Jeremiah's prophecies of the Branch were not being fulfilled at
that restoration; and that, therefore (since they were limited to some
restoration), another than the Babylonian was to be expected.
The first of them is Jeremiah xxiii. 5–8, manifestly another
prophecy of the Branch, and it may be treated as an isolated prophecy.
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 95
At least, since its connexion with the rest of the chapter is not
important to our subject, there is no occasion to enlarge upon it ; if it
have any bearing upon our subject, it is that it foretels for restored
Israelites faithful pastors, either governors or teachers, in the days of
the Branch. Mr. Faber “takes these to be not spiritual, but political
pastors, shepherds of the people.” (“Rest. of Jews,” vol. i., p. 305.)
We shall take the prophecy by itself, without reference to the pastors.
When Zechariah prophesied of the Branch, it was only for the two
tribes, and he, therefore, speaks not to Israelites, or members of the ten.
But Jeremiah does otherwise; he prophesies of the Branch for the
twelve—“In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell
safely” (ver. 6); where the two houses into which all twelve tribes
were divided in Rehoboam's time, are carefully distinguished. And,
as if this mode of speech were not sufficiently emphatic, the prophet
immediately adopts another, to the same purpose. Like Ezekiel, he
draws a parallel between the deliverance from Egypt and that other
deliverance which he was foretelling. Just as men once said, “The
Lord liveth, who brought up the children of Israel (viz., all the tribes)
out of the land of Egypt,” so men shall say, “The Lord liveth who
brought up, and who led, the seed of the house of Israel (viz., all the
tribes) out of the north,” &c., &c. The seed of the house of Israel
in one clause clearly answering to children of Israel in the other.
Thus Jeremiah's use of the phrase house of Israel illustrates Ezekiel's;
the prophecy predicts the restoration of all the tribes, and is known
at once to be unfulfilled. But if any question this, the same result is
derived from the fact that the restoration foretold is plainly limited to
Branch's days. “In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall
dwell safely;” and afterwards (ver. 8), “they shall dwell in their own
land:” the restoration foretold is of all the tribes, in the days of the
Branch. Clearly the prophecy is unfulfilled. Professor Lee, alluding
to Jeremiah's prophecies of the Branch, observes—“It should also be
especially noticed that generally when the Messiah is promised, the
promise also is that Israel, i.e., as limited above, should be restored.”
(“Enquiry,” p. 88.) Explaining Israel here as he had, explained all
the house of Israel wholly in Ezekiel. The incorrectness of that
interpretation of Ezekiel's phrase we have shown ; and here it is plain
that Judah and Israel are not used for the collective purpose only, but
also for the purpose of contradistinction, to denote the two as distinct
from the ten ; and this contradistinction cannot be sustained otherwise
than by reference to the literal Israelites; no mere spiritual exposition
96 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
can meet the separateness of the Hebrew names. Not Israel collect-
ively, in a spiritual sense, can be meant, but the twelve tribes
collectively, as formed of the two and the ten, formerly two separate
kingdoms. This will be seen more clearly when we come to the other
prophecy in chap. xxxiii. Yet his observation is valuable, as admitting
generally that, with all prophecies of the Messiah, prophecies of a
restoration are associated; for it reduces the whole subject, so far as
Professor Lee's objections are concerned, to the bare question whether
the restoration predicted is literal. Precisely parallel to Jeremiah
xxiii. 7, 8, is the prophecy at Jeremiah xvi. 14–16, where it is said
—“Behold I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and they
shall fish them ; and after will I send for many hunters, and they
shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of
the holes of the rocks.” This is the way in which their restoration is
to be brought to pass I Surely it looks both literal and unconditional
enough. The place is parallel with Jeremiah xxiii., now before us,
and deserves to be examined.
Jeremiah predicts (chap. xxiii. 5) that the Branch, as a king, shall
reign, and prosper, and execute judgment and justice in the earth ;
where I observe that the word Yºğ, translated earth, ought to have
been rendered land, as it is at the parallel place, chap. xxxiii. 15,
meaning the land of Israel. Now, the kingdom being one, Judah and
Israel united, it follows that, in the day when this prophecy is fulfilled,
Israel, or the ten, will be known and distinguished from Judah, or
the two ; and this goes far to show that, in that kingdom yet “to be
restored unto Israel,” the twelve will be tribally contradistinguished.
Again, the kingdom being one, Judah and Israel united, the natural
inference is that it will be first set up in the Holy Land ; for the
setting up of the kingdom can scarcely take place before the junction
of these two great divisions of its subjects, and that junction must be
looked for within the Holy Land. If this be a fair inference, then
the acknowledgment of Messiah as king is by Jeremiah placed after
the restoration. But who will deny that the recognition of Jesus as
king, and confession of faith in Him as Saviour, are, in fact, one
and the same event 2 If so, then the recognition of Messiah as king,
and confession of faith in Him as Saviour (i.e., conversion) of Israel,
will take place after the restoration. This conversion is predicted by
Jeremiah, at ver. 6:-“And this is his name whereby He shall be
called (viz., called by Israel and Judah), the Lord our Righteousness”
—justification. Accordingly we find that other prophecies distinctly
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 97
sº-rrºr-tº-r-z-z-z-z-zºw- rºw---r-z--~ :- --rºr - - -
describe these same events as the setting up of the kingdom, without
specific allusion to the Branch. In short, all the prophecies of Branch
and King are parallels.
However, as chap. xxiii. was not Jeremiah's chief prophecy of the
Branch, we do not enlarge upon it ; but, having sufficiently noted its
principal features, proceed at once to the second, which was delivered
only nine years later; and, the two so closely corresponding, no one
will doubt that they refer to the same series of events; and that, in
short, as Zechariah's two visions of the Branch constitute only one
prophecy, so Jeremiah's two prophecies of the same Branch may be
also correctly considered only one. This is an important light in
which to regard them ; for it will be found that, in this chap. xxxiii.,
Jeremiah is far more minute than before, and, if the prophecies be
really one, then all the light and certainty of chap. xxxiii. may be
fairly brought to elucidate chap. xxiii., upon the principle of parallel
places laid down by Glassius, and strongly advocated by Lee. The
prophet's intention seems to be an explanation, and enforcement, now,
of what he had predicted less minutely before; and he appears to
allude to his own, and perhaps also to Isaiah's prophecies, for he says,
“Behold the days come that I will perform the good thing that I have
promised.” (Wer. 14.)
[1..] But there are two verbal discrepancies in these prophecies
(chaps. xxiii. and xxxiii.), which should be at once disposed of. The
first is in the word Yº, rendered in the earth, at chap. xxiii., but
translated (as it should be) in the land, at chap. xxxiii. “He shall
execute judgment and righteousness in the land.” (Wer. 15.) Thus
the one corrects the other, and shows that the prophet foretells in
both judgment and righteousness in the land of Israel ; a prediction,
in each prophecy, comprehending peculiarly both the restoration and
conversion of Israel. The second is of a more important character,
but yet not essentially connected with our subject. In the first
prophecy, Jeremiah plainly says, the Branch's name shall be The Lord
our Righteousness:–“And this is his name whereby He shall be
called, The Lord our Righteousness” (ver. 6); but in the second
prophecy that name is not given so distinctly to the Branch, as to
Jerusalem:—“Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this [is the name]
whereby she shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.” (Ver. 16.)
The variation is of no great consequence, for, as Lowth observes,
H

98 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
“Nor is there any greater impropriety in giving the name of Jehovah
to a city, than in calling an altar Jehovah-nissi (Exod. xvii. 15), and
Jehovah-Shalom (Jud. vi. 24), in token that the Lord was author of
those mercies, of which the said altars were designed to be monu-
ments.” Still, in the first prophecy, the title, “Lord our Righteous-
ness,” is distinctly given to Messiah; in the second it is not. There
is, then, satisfaction in knowing that the ellipsis supplied in our
translation by the words in brackets [is the name], ought rather to
have been [is his name], which alteration again applies the title
distinctively to Messiah. For thus applying the ellipsis by intº , his
name, we have the authority of five MSS., and the Septuagint,
Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, and Vulgate versions, the best authority; and
the prediction (Jeremiah xxxiii. 16) now reads, “Jerusalem shall
dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The
Lord our righteousness”—DET; TinT. Jerusalem shall be called by
Messiah's name; and Messiah's name is that of the most high God,
by which He especially reveals himself to the covenanted tribes.
(Exod. vi. 3.) Precisely as we have, in the last verse of Ezekiel,
referring to the same Jerusalem, at the same coming times—“The
name of the city from that day shall be, The Lord is There”—
Tº Tim. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel giving Jerusalem's
name after the fulfilment of the glorious things which they
predict concerning her. We conclude that, in each prophecy,
Messiah's name is given, “Jehovah our Righteousness,” an ascription
undoubtedly of true divinity, seeing that the title is given to a sentient
being, and not to an inanimate object, as an altar or city. And even
unbelieving Jews have not doubted this; for De Rossi observes :-
“Plerique Judaeorum auctores antichristiani, quorum multi, sive
manuscripti, sive editi, apud me extant in ºf Tº Tú" (dominus
justitia nostra) Messiae nomen agnoscere non dubitant. Quod nam est
nomen Messiaº 2 R. Abba, filius Caana, dicit Jovah est nomen ejus;
quod dictum est, et hoc nomen quo vocabit eum, wel vocabitur is,
Dominus justitia nostra.” (Boothroyd's Hebrew Bible.) So Poole:—
“Non Hierosolymae, sed Messiae, hoc nomen hic tribui, multis indiciis
constat.” The name is Messiah's, an ascription of Deity, with which
He is to be triumphantly hailed by Israel in the Holy Land, at a time
get to come. “The Lord our Righteousness,” exclaimed by Israel.
[2] It is remarkable with what progressive minuteness and emphasis
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 99
Jeremiah declares that the restoration he foretold was other than that
from Babylon. He adopts no fewer than seven different forms of
speech, in as many distinct places, to express this. 1. “I will reveal
unto them the abundance of peace and truth ;” 2. “I will cause the
captivity of Judah, and the captivity of Israel, to return ;” 3. “I
will cause to return the captivity of the land as at the first ;” 4. “I
will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of
Israel, and to the house of Judah ;” 5. “David shall never want a
man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel ;” 6. “The two
families which the Lord hath chosen;” 7. “The seed of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, I will cause their captivity to return, and have
mercy upon them ’’ (that they may be a nation again). It will be
observed that these seven expressions comprehend the following pre-
dictions:—2.4.6. All the tribes are included ; 3. They are to re-
possess the land as at the first ; 7. All being united, they are to form
one nation ; 5. One nation, under the kingship, or throne, of Messiah ;
1. Enjoying the abundance of temporal and spiritual peace in a true
religion. Once for all upon the present prophecy, and therefore upon
that of chap. xxiii., which it re-delivers and explains, we may remark,
that such carefulness, on the prophet's part, entirely precludes Pro-
fessor Lee's interpretation (“Inquiry,” p. 88–102), and shows that
no figurative exposition is tenable. For it is manifest that Jeremiah
uses phrases not only inclusive, but contradistinctive; that, un-
doubtedly, all Israel is comprehended in the prophecy, but that it
embraces also Judah and Israel, the two and the ten, the two captivi-
ties, the two houses, the two families, and that such contradistinc-
tion cannot be explained by any mere spiritual reference to the
Christian Church ; literal Israel alone can meet such predictions.
Similarly, whoever will examine verses 9–14 will be satisfied that
their very minuteness, and variety, as to incidents, places, and
persons, forbid the possibility of any figurative exposition, which
would deny the literal. The allusions are so precise, that any such
exposition is impossible. They alone are to be pardoned whose well
known sins Jeremiah referred to : places shall be rebuilt, which they
all knew were desolate; certain mountains and plains, desolate when
Jeremiah spake, are again to become “habitations of shepherds,
causing flocks to lie down.” Nothing answering to such predictions
can be sanely conceived of, or discovered, in the history of the

H 2
100 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Gentile Church, in which (be it remembered) we showed, all figura-
tive interpretations seek, but do not find, their justification.
Jeremiah adopts two plans of including all the tribes: distributively,
as two captivities, two houses, two families ; collectively, the captivity
of the land, the house of Israel, the seed of Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob, which last title I do not remember to be anywhere used in a
figurative sense. Children of Abraham faithful Gentiles are, seed of
Israel the true Israel are ; but children of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, children of the natural genealogy, of the lineal pedigree ;
that honour, I conceive, is never yielded to any but the literal Israel.
Such particularity of diction permits no ambiguity; we can scarcely
fail to notice two results—1. All Israel are included; 2. They are
prophesied of as combined into one body. But we have already shewn
that the Jews themselves never supposed their brethren, the ten,
were adequately represented at the return from Babylon; and, not
only so, but that also those inspired men, Ezra, Nehemiah, Jeremiah,
Daniel, Hosea, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, do in effect limit that return
tribally to Judah and Benjamin ; so that all prophecies which, like
the present, foretel a restoration of the twelve, cannot refer to the
Babylonian restoration, but remain yet to be accomplished. “Israel and
Judah having been carried away by two distinct captivities, into
different parts of the world, several prophecies of the Old Testament
not only foretel the restoration of each of them, but likewise their
reunion after their restoration. Now, though it be granted that some
of every tribe did return to their own country under Cyrus and
Artaxerxes, and are therefore called by the name of all Israel
(Ezra ii. 73, vi. 17, vii. 13, x. 5; Nehem. xii. 47), yet the far
greatest part of these were of Judah and Benjamin, together with
the Levites. (Ezra i. 5.) So that it is a great question what is
become of the main body of the ten tribes, which Shalmanezer carried
away into Assyria and the neighbouring countries; from all which we
may infer that this (Jeremiah xxx. 3) and the like prophecies of the
Old Testament refer to a farther restoration of the Jews, that is yet
to come.” This observation of Lowth may be used to meet M. Henry,
and such commentators, on the present prophecy, who confound the
fact of some Israelites being with the two from Babylon with a com-
petent representation of the ten. Some Israelites there were, but not
a tribal representation of the ten. Moreover, Jeremiah asserts that
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 101
the restoration he now predicts shall constitute a kingdom. The
twelve tribes, according to this prophecy, are to be reunited into one
kingdom, arranged in their land throughout its whole extent, as at
the first ; as at the times, not of Rehoboam, but of David, not at
Hebron over two, but at Jerusalem over twelve :—“ David shall never
want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel” (ver. 17);
Israel, as one undivided house. But, since the first captivity by
Tiglath-Pilezer, the whole land has never been possessed, nor Israel
arranged in it, as of old. Which Jeremiah and Ezekiel equally predict
shall yet be the case. From Isaiah's time to Matthew’s, and from
Matthew's to our own, Galilee has ever been “Galilee of the nations,”
or Gentiles. (Isa. ix. 4; Matt. iv. 15. See also “Whitby's Geo-
graphical Table under Galilee " M. Henry, on Hosea i. 11; and
Lowth, on Isa. ix.) The most important places on the coast of Pales-
tine were always the possessions of the heathen ; and Samaria, from
Shalmanezer's days, continued to be held by enemies of Israel. But
not only did the restoration from Babylon never recover the land,
neither had they ever a kingly government which could pretend to
meet this prophecy. Since Zedekiah was carried captive, David's
sons have never held the throne of Israel. Zerubbabel, though of
the tribe of Judah, and family of David, was not a king. And no
attempt to set up a kingly form of government was made, until that
of the last and worst of the Maccabees, who, despising the high
priesthood, did indeed affect the sovereignty, more than four hundred
and eighty years after the Babylonian restoration. In this attempt
they miserably failed, and the chief power fell into the hands of an
Idumean. It is manifest that, since the destruction of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar, and much earlier, unto this day, the twelve tribes,
even if they have been gathered together (which they never have),
have never repossessed their land, nor had a king of the house and
lineage of David. So that Jeremiah's prophecy is yet unfulfilled,
and the days are coming when the twelve tribes will be gathered into
one nation, in their own land, under one king, the son of David. If
it be said, this kingdom is spiritual; true, but a spiritual kingdom are
the sons of Jacob in the Holy Land. For Jeremiah expressly says,
that the restoration of which he speaks is to take place in the days of
the Branch :-“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of
Israel, and house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, will I
102 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David, and he
shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days
shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely ; and this is
his name, whereby she shall be called, the Lord our Righteousness.”
(Vers. 14, 16.) What can be more precise ? The time when, and
not before, God will cause his promise of restoration to unity, and a
kingdom, to be fulfilled to Israel, will be when the Branch is mani-
fested as king, and acknowledged as such. As the sons of Jacob know
this Branch to be their Messiah, so Christians know Him to be their
Christ, and consequently are constrained to confess that, in the days
of Jesus Christ, God will restore again the kingdom unto Israel,
under the recognised dominion of the Son of David. If there were
a passage in all the prophecy which could be spirited away, by taking
it for the Christian Church generally, this would be it. But the
attempt is rendered futile by the specification of Judah and Israel
separately—“house of Israel and house of Judah.” Sometimes the
interpretations of the expressions, Israel, seed of Israel, seed of
Abraham, in a sense purely spiritual, have the authority of Scripture,
as in Gal. vi. 16, &c.; but, when Israel and Judah are specifically
contradistinguished, as here, and again specifically contradistinguished
as houses, families, captivities, and by lineal pedigree, that mode of
exposition is precluded; the words can mean no other than the two
houses, two families, of the literal sons of Jacob, whom the Almighty
called from the first, and destined to form for ever one separate
people. But if Israel and Judah here be the literal Israel and Judah,
as they are, then in the same clause Jerusalem must surely mean the
literal Jerusalem, and not be put by figure of speech for the Church
of Christ ; and therefore, it is added, literally the same Judah,
already mentioned, and Jerusalem, his city, shall in Branch's days
dwell safely, and be called by Branch's name, “The Lord our
Righteousness;” where the word our, used by a Hebrew prophet unto
Hebrews, alludes to Hebrews; and Branch's name upon Jerusalem
will be, “The Lord the Righteousness of the Hebrews.” In the days
of Jesus, the twelve tribes will be gathered together, and be formed
into one kingly nation at Jerusalem, under Christ, the Son of David,
as spiritual king. Clearly this prophecy has had no fulfilment. And
here it may be added, that Professor Lee's odd notion (it cannot be
called a principle) that Canaan in prophecy denotes the land of all
believing Gentiles, and, therefore, the dwelling of the true Abrahamic
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 103
seed, the Church, has no place in Scripture. Canaan is, in Holy
Scripture, a type of the heavenly inheritance, but never of an
earthly Church ; Jerusalem, not Canaan, is used for that purpose.
[3] The manner in which Jeremiah foretels this restoration (at
ver. 24) is particularly worthy of notice. It appears that some of the
Jews were accustomed tauntingly to remind their more faithful
brethren that the two families, which the Lord had chosen, He had
even cut off, so that they eould no longer be regarded as a nation.
In answer to this taunt, Jeremiah declares, “Thus saith the Lord ;
If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed
the ordinances of heaven and earth, then will I cast away the seed of
Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed
to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; for I will
cause their captivity to return, and have mercy upon them.” (Vers.
25, 26.) This, being in reply to the taunt that the two families
could no longer be regarded as a nation, carries necessarily the force
that these two families should again become a nation ; and the two
families intended being the two houses of Israel and Judah, the reply
must import that the two houses of Judah and Israel shall again.
become one nation : and thus not only is the restoration of all the
tribes predicted for the days of Christ, but a national restoration,
restoration in union, as an organized people, in the days of Christ ;
contrary directly to Lee's assertion that Holy Scripture recognises not
Israel, as a nation, in the days of Christianity. Lowth at first
explained the two families to mean Judah and Levi ; but, in his third
edition, added, “This expression may more probably denote the two
kingdoms of Israel and Judah. (Ver, 26; Ezek. xxxvii. 16.) The
word family is equivalent to kingdom (note upon i. 15); so it is used,
Micah ii. 3.” The allusion to God's covenant with day and night
enables us briefly, but conclusively, to mark the unconditional
character of this prophecy; for the promise amounts to this—“My
covenant with Jacob, and my covenant with David, to cause this
captivity to return, are as certain and immutable, as is my covenant
with Noah.” So that certainly as “while the earth remaineth seed-
time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and
day and night, shall not cease” (Gen. viii.22), no matter how wicked
the sons of Noah be, so certainly “He will cause the captivity of
Israel to return, and will have mercy upon them,” no matter how
104. NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
wicked the sons of Jacob may be. “These terms,” says Lee, “will, of
necessity, admit of no limitation short of that of the existence of the
present state of things ; they imply the continuance of a state then to
be set up, and to continue.” (“Inquiry,” p. 40.) He saw their
force, but not their application. This strongly unconditional character
of the predictions of restoration bears hard against those who expect
the conversion before the restoration. There will be in Israel no
fitness for restoration; the promises depend upon the truth of God
alone, and are executed for his name's sake, in full perception of
Israel's abiding unfitness. The same Father in heaven who, keeping
covenant with Noah, “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the
good, and sendeth rain upon the just and the unjust,” will fulfil his
promises to Israel, without regard to any demerits of their own ; and
thus keep covenant also with Jacob and David. Besides which, all
the predictions of the Branch belong to prophecy, properly so called.
This same passage (vers. 25, 26) is very valuable for another
purpose. It will be noticed that the whole paragraph (vers. 17–26)
must be referred to the times of the Branch ; it is in fact a description
of the state of Israel to be realized in Branch's time. But one promise
is that God will take of David's seed to be “rulers over the seed of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ;” where the word Bººn , a very
different word from Tºp , king, is used ; and being, moreover, in the
plural number, implies either a succession of rulers, or else two or
more colleagues in the same government. Now, the Branch Christ is
to be king and priest upon his throne, a throne which none can share
with Him ; but here rulers of the seed of David are mentioned by
Jeremiah as governing the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in
the days of Christ the King. What we were disposed to infer from
Zechariah, that, in Branch's days, when He should sit and rule upon
his throne, there would be subordinate governors, typified by Zerub-
babel, is here plainly declared by Jeremiah, and these subordinate
governors are to be of the seed of David. Joshua, “his fellows,” viz.,
Zerubbabel and others, were equally typical men with himself: not
only will there be, in the days succeeding the restoration, one great
high-priest, as symbolized by Joshua, who will also be king, but
rulers, or subordinate governors, not kings, as typified by Zerubbabel.
True, a king is a ruler, though a ruler is not necessarily a king ; there-
fore the Saviour is sometimes styled %tºn th ough his especial title
is Tºp (see the next chapter); but here these Eººp foretold are not
-------rrºr- ºr r=x<xº
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 105
ºn . This prediction of subordinate governors from David's seed
over Israel seems to me to go far to dissipate any notion of a personal,
bodily, earthly presence of the Saviour to reign after the inaugura-
tion of his kingdom. His kingdom will be heavenly and spiritual;
terrestrial government He relinquishes to men, even though there
should be granted some mysterious indication of his presence. (Ezek.
xliii. 1–6.) However, the justice of this interpretation will be felt
by reflecting, that the time when these rulers are to be provided is the
time “when their captivity returns ;” but we have shown that the
captivity here meant is the captivity of the two families, viz., of all
the tribes, and not the captivity which came from Babylon, and
therefore the rulers predicted are not the rulers over the captivity
from Babylon; besides, these rulers are over the genealogical children
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; therefore they are to be provided at
a restoration, yet to come, of all the literal Israel. And this again
strikes away any merely spiritual interpretation, for they who so
spiritualize, refer the whole paragraph (vers. 17–26) to the times of
Christ ; hence the word rulers must be referred to the times of Christ.
But the use of this word increases their difficulty, for that Christ is
meant by “the seed of David upon his throne” (ver. 21), is well
enough and scriptural ; but who are these rulers also “of David's
seed P’” (Wer. 26.) David, in the first case, must be literal; there-
fore so, by consistency, in the second. Christ came of the literal son
of Jesse ; therefore these rulers will come of the literal son of Jesse.
They who spiritualize this prediction will not easily find any spiritual
meaning for “rulers from the seed of David my servant,” where the
David meant is clearly that son of Jesse with whom the covenant of
kingship was made (ver. 21); and the times referred to are not those
of the Babylonian restoration. Referred to the time between the
Maccabees and the Romans the prophecy cannot be, for Judah’s rulers
then were not of Judah’s house, nor of David's, but of Levi's.
[4.] Jeremiah is singularly minute in predicting the restoration,
and enables us definitely to establish several positions of importance.
He, like Ezekiel, includes the whole land; but being a prophet
especially to the two, minutely describes the recovery of the territories
of Judah and Benjamin, and particularly foretels the rebuilding and
possession of Jerusalem, besides enabling us to deduce the fact that
the restoration will be tribal. The whole land is necessarily implied
in predictions that the whole of Israel shall be gathered, and that He
106 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
“will build them as at the first" (ver. 7); that is, that He will build
their cities and villages, and they shall inhabit them as “at the first;”
a prediction equivalent to those of Ezek. xvi. 55, and xxxvi. 11, and
certainly never yet fulfilled. The whole land is also specified at
ver. 15: “He shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.”
But while thus including all the land, he specifies particularly the
tribal possessions of Judah and Benjamin, and even descends to the
streets of Jerusalem: “In the land of Benjamin, and in the places
about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah” (ver, 13); and “Thus
saith the Lord . . . . again there shall be heard . . . . in the cities of
Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of joy and the voice
of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride,
the voice of them that say, Praise the Lord of hosts, for the Lord is
good, for his mercy endureth for ever.” (Ver. 10.) A hymn of
praise which, already once chanted (Ezra iii. 11) upon the return
from Babylon, so shall often be sung again by restored Israel in the
days of the Branch at Jerusalem. Jeremiah specifically foretels
the repossession and rebuilding of Jerusalem. The inference is
unavoidable—there will be the seat of government, thence proceed
all national acts, thence the national acknowledgment of Messiah.
And another important consequence results from the prophet's manner
of foretelling the repeopling of the lands of Judah and Benjamin and
the establishment of David's seed as rulers at Jerusalem. If these
lands be thus specifically assigned to their proper tribal owners, it
follows that at the coming restoration the tribe of Benjamin will be
capable of distinction from that of Judah; so we should reason at ver.
xiv., where Israel is distinguished from Judah, the ten will be
identified, as the house of Ephraim, from the two ; but if the tribes of
the two are to be separately identified, and the ten from the two, why
not the tribes of the ten separately from each other ? And if tribes be
thus known separately from each other, for what other purpose than
tribal allocation ? (Compare Ezek. xlvii. 21, and xlviii. All which
is undoubtedly prophecy unfulfilled.) Since also in one tribe thus to
be distinguished, one family, viz., David's, is to be selected with
precision, and various rulers to be chosen from it, the mind of a
believer is prepared to anticipate that the recovery of Israel may be
far more minute than might have been otherwise supposed. But
Jeremiah increases the force of his predictions by specifying also
another tribe, and that specification, in consequence of their peculiar
character, necessarily by families. “David shall never want a man to
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 107
sit upon the throne of Israel, neither shall the priests the Levites
want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat
offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.” (Vers. 17, 18.) Let it be
granted, if desired, that the sacrifices and offerings here mentioned are
spiritual services, conceived in language adapted to Levitical institu-
tions: but then the persons predicted as officers must be literal seed
of Levi. For at ver. 21 the covenant of kingship with literal David
is braced with the covenant of priesthood with literal Levi ; and at
ver. 22 the seed of both is promised to be multiplied as the sand of
the sea, that neither covenant might be broken ; therefore, the
progenitors mentioned being literal, the seed foretold must be literal
also. And the progenitors alluded to are plainly literal, for with
literal David and literal Levi alone were those covenants made. Let,
then, no falsification, misnamed spiritual, be attempted of this pre-
diction. If the names Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Benjamin,
David be used in this chapter to signify those men whose literal
names they were, then at ver. 22 “seed of David” means men
literally descended from the son of Jesse ; and “Levites that minister
unto me” means literally descendants from Levi, Jacob's third son by
Leah. But mark, that whereas priests are specified at ver, 18, but
Levites generally at ver. 22, it results that Levi's tribe will not only
be known at the coming restoration, but known so as to separate the
sons of Aaron from their brethren, known so as to discharge the
different branches of Levitical duty, known by families, the sons of
Gershon, Kohath, and Merari apart. (Numb. iii. 17.) But if Levi
by families, why not Judah and Benjamin by families 2 If these by
families, why not the rest of all the people 2 These questions we shall
find hereafter justified, and even answered, by Zechariah. We have
granted, for argument's sake, that the offerings mentioned here may be
understood spiritually, though the context absolutely forbids our
interpreting the offerers similarly ; but surely if it should be that the
future restoration of Israel takes place before the conversion (as we
maintain), there is nothing absurd in the idea that the restored people
will re-establish the sacrificial ceremonies of their law, and institute
Levitical observances ; which idea, I believe, Joel teaches us to
entertain ; nor can we find in the New Testament any declaration to
the contrary. For Heb. x. 4–14 is not; nor is it so certain there is
any absurdity in the idea, nor anything unchristian, that even con-
verted Israel may offer up sacrifices to typify Christ, who has come,
108 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
as faithful ones of old celebrated the same sacrifices to prefigure
Christ who was to come. M. Henry tells us, “The Jews say;” and
Lowth informs us, “R. Kimchi observes,” upon this passage (Jer.
xxxiii. 11), “that in the days of Messiah no sacrifices shall be in
use but those which are Eucharistical.” This may be the precise
purpose for which,-in addition to the office of Gospel messengers,
“I will also take of them to be priests and Levites, saith the Lord”
(Isaiah lxvi. 15),=for which the sons of Levi may be tribally preserved
and discovered in their families. “And if any contend that animal
sacrifices are to be revived under the new covenant, it is in the idea
that they can only be so, like the Lord's Supper now, as memorials of
the completed sacrifice of Christ, He being all and in all.” (Bicker-
steth’s “Rest. of Jews,” p. 51, Introd.) Lowth makes a very curious
and interesting observation upon ver. 24. Alluding to the taunt,
“The two families,” &c., &c., he observes, “The words are spoken to
those who thought the Jews would never be restored to their former
condition or again enjoy their ancient constitution in Church and
State.” Thus he intimates his opinion that fulfilment of this
prophecy implies that they shall. That fulfilment is yet to come.
Compare Ezek. xliii. 18, &c., and xlv. 18. Ezek. xl. to end never
having been fulfilled after the return from Babylon.
[5.] However, the main argument of the prophecy remains the
same, whatever view we take of the sacrifices here mentioned or of the
priests who offer them, or of Ezek. xl. to the end. Jeremiah foretels
the restoration of all the twelve tribes of Israel to all the Holy Land,
and especially the rebuilding of Jerusalem in the days of Christianity,
and, therefore, in days yet to come. In those very days he predicts
the national reorganization or embodiment of the Israelitish people in
their distinct tribal possessions, governed by the house of David
subordinately, but acknowledging the supremacy of the Branch,
Jesus Christ. This acknowledgment necessarily implies their con-
version, which conversion is also foretold distinctly by itself. The
mention of priests and Levites, even if their service be understood
spiritually, will in Branch's days import the people's conversion to the
religion of Branch; so also the promise for the same days, “I will
reveal unto them the abundance of peace and truth” (ver. 6), which
they never had at or after the restoration from Babylon. Reveal,
i.e., display it as something kept previously carefully concealed, nº tº
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS, 109
The word is the same as that used so frequently in Levit. xviii., and
translated uncover. For “even unto this day when Moses is read,
the vail is upon their heart; nevertheless when it shall turn to the
Lord, the vail shall be taken away” (2 Cor. iii. 15); of that turning
to the Lord and that uncovering of the heart Jeremiah prophesies
here. That which up to the time of Branch's manifestation to Israel,
which he foretels, shall have remained hidden from them nationally,
shall then, and not before, be revealed; “but now they are hid from
thine eyes.” (Luke xix. 42.) “Surely the Lord God will do nothing,
but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos
iii. 7), where the same word is employed. This abundance of peace
is similarly foretold by David in that beautiful Psalm where he
predicts Messiah's kingdom through the type of Solomon's: “In his
days shall the righteous flourish, and abundance of, peace as long as
the moon endureth.” (Psalm lxxii. 7.) M. Henry's observations
upon the expression are very beautiful: “Peace abounds here for all
good ; peace and truth are peace according to the promise and in
pursuance of that ; or peace and truth are peace and true religion;
peace and the true worship of God in opposition to the many false-
hoods and deceits by which they had been led away from God.”
What could be better if he had but noted that this promise belongs to
Israel in Branch's days? Lastly, the conversion is thus distinctly
foretold: “I will cleanse them from all their iniquity whereby they
have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.” This
in the days of Jesus Christ indicates pardon through faith in Him.
But which is prior, restoration or conversion? Restoration; for
this prophecy is essentially national; it predicts the junction of all
the tribes, which junction it would be absurd to expect elsewhere
than in their proper land; besides which the prophet distinctly places
it there, and specifies Jerusalem as its centre. But this junction of
all the tribes is what Jeremiah in another verse describes as forming
them into one nation, one kingdom, of which the Branch is to
be king. But this manifestation of Branch as king is to be upon the
throne of David, viz., at Jerusalem, over all the tribes in the Holy
Land. In any other sense Branch may possess his throne, but it
would not be David's throne, yet it is David's throne which is
promised. Messiah's assumption of kingship over Israel is of David's
kingship, i.e., an assumption of kingship over all Israel within their
Holy Land. And this assumption of kingship is synonymous with
110 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Branch's executing judgment and righteousness in the land, and
implies all Israel's recognition of Him, as all Israel willingly recog-
nised the son of Jesse. (2 Sam. v. 1.) But this recognition of
Messiah's kingship by all Israel, and his executing judgment and
righteousness over them, necessarily implies belief in Jesus Christ,
i.e., conversion. The setting up of his kingship over them and their
conversion are, in fact, one and the same event; hence the conversion
takes place in the Holy Land, and is, therefore, after the restoration.
This argument will be confirmed when we treat of the prophecies of
the king.
I shall only briefly notice, before quitting this prophecy, that the
gracious effect of these events upon the Gentiles is mentioned at
ver. 9, “And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise, and an honour
before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I
do unto them; and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and
all the prosperity that I procure unto it.” But those who can ascribe
joy, and praise, and honour to the Most High for his work in Christ
Jesus for Israel must first love his appearing for themselves; these
Gentiles, then, will in the event become converted. Similarly
Zephaniah, speaking of the same times: “Behold, at that time I will
undo all that afflict thee, and I will save her that halteth, and gather
her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in
every land where they have been put to shame. At that time will I
bring you again, even in the time that I gather you; for I will make
you a name and a praise among all the people of the earth when I
turn back your captivity before your eyes, saith the Lord.” (Zeph.
iii. 19, 20.)
If any merely spiritual exposition of this prophecy could have
succeeded, M. Henry's would; but whoever will examine him upon
vers. 9–12, and then consult Josephus, will find that in order
to sustain his exposition he is driven into statements concerning the
position and circumstances of Judah and the Holy Land, after the
restoration from Babylon, at direct variance with recorded historical
facts.
[III.] Like Zechariah and Jeremiah, Isaiah also delivered two
prophecies of the Branch, of which the second is contained in his
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 111
eleventh chapter. In reckoning this among prophecies of the Branch,
it may be well to notice that the Authorized Version is followed, the
same word Branch being put in that version for a different word so
translated in the prophecies already considered. This fact, though
properly mentioned, is of little importance, for the great design and
chief characteristics of these prophecies are manifestly the same.
Christians all agree that Isaiah's prophecy relates to the Lord Jesus
Christ and his times. We proceed to consider that part of it contained
in vers. 10–16.
[1..] The prophecy is, beyond dispute, applicable only to the times
of our blessed Saviour, for it is distinctly said, “In that day,” viz., the
day “of the rod of the stem of Jesse ; ” and the day of his kingdom
previously described (ver. 3–9), “In that day there shall be a root
of Jesse,” &c. (Wer. 10.) The prophecy belongs only to the times of
the Saviour. Self-evident as this may appear, it is not insisted on
formally without a cause. M. Henry has applied it to the times of
Hezekiah, king of Judah. To which Lowth replies, “This prophecy
cannot with any probability be understood of Hezekiah, as some
would explain it, because Hezekiah was born before Ahaz began to
reign, within which time it is certain this prophecy was uttered,”
&c., &c. But if the prophecy belong only to the times of the
Christian dispensation, and a restoration of Israel, or any part of
Israel, be foretold, then the prophecy is unfulfilled, for no such resto-
ration, either partial or entire, has yet taken place in the days of
Jesus Christ. Besides which, it is clear also from ver. 11 that the
recovery of the people here foretold is not that which took place from
Babylon; for it is said, “And in that day (viz., Branch's day) the
Lord shall set his hand the second time to recover the remnant of his
people which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from
Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from
Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.” Here is a simultaneous
gathering foretold from places widely distant, “as far as the east is
from the west,” and Shinar, which is Babylon, is carefully dis-
tinguished from Assyria; the place of the captivity of the two, from that
of the ten. Not only so, but the gathering of the people is distinctly
described as from east and west; for while Assyria, Elam, and
Shinar or Babylon, comprise the captivity of the east, the term
“islands of the sea” indicates the gathering of the dispersion of the
112 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
west. This phrase will be fully explained elsewhere ; meanwhile,
Lowth shall assure us that “the islands in the prophetic style seem
particularly to denote the western parts of the world, or the European
nations—the west being often called the sea in Scripture language.”
Again, therefore, we say, the prophecy describes not the return
from Babylon or the east, but one far more general yet to happen,
from west and east, from Asia and Europe, from “the four corners
of the earth.” (Wer. 12.) This in Messiah’s time; so that the
prophecy is unfulfilled.
[2.] That “the remnant of his people which shall be left” includes
all the tribes is clear, for, in ver. 12, “the outcasts of Israel” are
carefully distinct from “the dispersed of Judah ;” and, in ver, 13,
the prophet further explains his meaning by saying, “Ephraim (i.e.,
the ten of which Ephraim was chief) shall not envy Judah, and
Judah (i.e., the two of which Judah was chief) shall not vex
Ephraim.” So that it is plain the two kingdoms, or families, are
included in Isaiah's prophecy, as just now in Jeremiah’s (chap.
xxxiii.); and these two kingdoms, or families, when restored, are
“the remnant of his people which shall be left.” Now, then, we have
Holy Scripture's explanation of “the remnant,” and not Dr. Lee's.
It appears “the remnant” means not the few believing, and left
believing, among the Gentiles, but the national remaining representa-
tion of all the tribes gathered together into one nation, from east
and west, north and south, out from among the Gentiles, to the glory
of Messiah's kingdom. Just as Amos says—“For lo! I will com-
mand, 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.” (Chap. ix. 9.) This is what Isaiah meant, when he said, “A
remnant shall be saved.” (Isa. x. 20–23 ; Rom. ix. 27.) “When
the ten tribes made a separation from Judah, Ephraim was looked
upon as the principal tribe, and is often put for Israel, as that was a
distinct kingdom from Judah. Thus the verse is taken, and the verse
imports, that the quarrels and dissensions that used to be between
those two rival kingdoms shall be quite at an end, and they shall both
be governed by one king, Messias.” (Lowth, on ver. 13.) Micah
tells us what is meant by remnant in prophecies foretelling Israel's
restoration :-‘‘I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will
surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 113
---------------------, --~~~~~~<: * *****
--~~~~~~~~. . .” - - - - -
sheep of Bozrah, as the flock in the midst of their fold; they shall
make great noise by reason of the multitude of men.” “Tºº"Tº
they (i.e., the flock, with which the comparison is here made) shall be
tumultuous, from the great number of individuals, ETº ;” says Dr.
Lee. (Lex., p. 151.) What becomes of the theory, “multitude and
remnant 2" Micah tells us that remnant means all of thee, viz., the
whole national body surviving the dispersion and their various perse-
cutions ; Jacob gathered together like a folded flock, in such numbers
as to be tumultuous, according to Professor Lee ; in such numbers as
to make great noise by reason of the multitude of men, according to
our Authorized Version. Compare also Micah v. 8, and Zephaniah
iii. 13, for a correct idea of “the remnant of his people which shall be
left.” Observe, Israel shall be folded, gathered together in one body.
This also is that prophecy of Isaiah, which furnishes us with a
distinct proof that the ten were not included in the restoration from
Babylon. For it says that, whenever it is accomplished, “The Lord
will set his hand the second time to recover,” &c, &c.; where nºt
the second time, is constructed with it. Tº set his hand, and belongs
to the action of the verb, irrespective of the places afterwards men-
tioned, out of which the people are to be gathered, indicating to us
that the recovery of the people here predicted will be but the second
recovery which God will have effected of such people. Now it is
undeniable that this prediction reaches to all the tribes, and belongs
to the days of Jesus Christ ; but, if the ten were brought back with
the two, then, whenever Isaiah's prophecy shall be accomplished, it
will be the third time the Lord brings back all Israel, and not the
second, as he calls it. From Egypt all the tribes, once; from Babylon
all the tribes, twice; the restoration yet to come, all the tribes, thrice.
But this contradicts Isaiah, who says that the restoration yet to come,
all the tribes, will be the second time. The prediction reads thus in
the Hebrew Bible, carefully preserving the principal pointing —
“And it shall come to pass in that day the Lord shall set his hand
the second time; for recovering the remnant of his people : which
shall be left from Assyria and from Egypt and from Pathros and from
Cush ; and from Elam and from Shinar and from Hamath ; and from
the islands of the sea.” The recovery for a second time is asserted
first ; and then the lands are mentioned from which that recovery
shall be effected. If Babylon was this second time, then the captivity
of Babylon came also from Egypt, and from the isles of the sea,
I
114 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
which we know it did not. If from Babylon was not the second time,
then the restoration yet to come is the second time ; but the restoration.
foretold is clearly to include all the tribes ; and that from Egypt
included all the tribes; so that, since the restoration of all the tribes
yet to come is only the second time all the tribes have been restored,
it follows that from Babylon could not have included all the tribes.
An endeavour has been made to evade the force of this passage by
throwing emphasis upon remnant. This, however, is rendered futile
by the Scriptural explanation of remnant, proved from this prophecy and
from those above quoted from Micah, &c. However, Ishall add a part of
Mr. Bickersteth's note:–“Some think that the prophet by the second
timerefers first to the deliverance from Babylon, and thento an enlarged
deliverance a second time from their present dispersion, dwelling on
the words, the remnant recovered. It appears to me rather to refer,
as above stated, first to the deliverance from Egypt, and then to the
remnant which should be still preserved after being scattered in so
many different countries.” (“Rest. Jews,” Introd., p. 25.) The whole
argument turns upon this fact, that remnant as here used includes all
the tribes as left after their various dispersions.
[3.] Such are arguments upon Isa. xi., to prove a coming restora-
tion of the twelve tribes of Jacob ; and the chapter has, moreover,
the peculiar feature of justifying an expectation that the ten will be
restored from the neighbourhood of the very country to which they
were first carried captive. The “dispersed of Judah” are known to
be mainly towards the west, among “the islands of the sea,” viz., the
islands and coasts of the Mediterranean, and thence into Europe ; but
it is plain a large gathering is promised by Isaiah from the East ; and
the name Assyria appears to be used here, and elsewhere, with peculiar
force. So that, inasmuch as the prophet is not speaking of the
Babylonian restoration, and also inasmuch as the captivity in Babylonia
was distinct from that in Assyria, and as Babylon, or Shinar, is
distinguished from Assyria here, it seems not unfair to conclude that
Isaiah predicts the recovery of the ten tribes from the neighbourhood
of their primary captivity, and that the assurances of Jews themselves
in the countries of Khiva, and Bokhara, in Independent Tartary (and
a little north-east of ancient Media), that they are direct descendants
of the ten tribes, may not be without solid foundation. (Woolf’s
Journals.) The same fact is asserted at Isa. xxvii. 12, 13; Hos. xi.
------~~~º-º-º-º:
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 115
8–11 ; and Zechar. x. 6—11 ; and is indeed at length become to
many an admitted truth. (See Faber's Sac. Cal., vol. iii., p. 362.) It
is this which makes me regret that the term “lost tribes” was ever
adopted to designate the ten ; for indeed they could never be lost,
when Holy Scripture said distinctly whence they should be recovered.
Unsought they were, for ages, until lately; but for centuries it has been
open to any devout reader of the Inspired Volume to say in what
direction they might be looked for with certainty. I would also
remark that the term “remnant that shall be left,” though doubtless
used of the whole restoration, seems to be applied to the ten especially,
for of them alone it is repeated at ver. 16, “Remnant of his people
which shall be left from Assyria;” from which we may infer that, at
the coming restoration, the descendants of the ten will be a remnant
indeed, and few, compared with the children of the two. For them,
however, especially, there shall be a “highway from Assyria ;” which
highway, in connexion with Israel's return, is also mentioned, in a
parallel and singular passage, by Isaiah (chap. lxii. 10):—“Go
through, go through the gates; prepare the way of the people ; cast
up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up a standard
for the people. Behold, the Lord hath proclaimed unto the end of
the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold thy salvation
cometh ; behold His reward is with Him, and his work before Him.
And they shall call them the holy people, the redeemed of the Lord;
and thou shalt be called Sought out, a city not forsaken.” The
prophecies are the same. This highway cast up ; this rººpſ, , this
cleared and levelled way, made by embankment (Lee's Lex. bºº 3.
p. 440), seems to indicate peculiar facilities, yet to be effected, for
Israel's return out of Assyria, in the days when this prophecy shall
be fulfilled: and the standard, or ensign, mentioned by Isaiah in both
places is the same, Jesus Christ lifted up manifestly on Mount Olives,
and at Zion, for the people. It is represented in the present prophecy
as lifted up at Jerusalem, so that the flocking of the people is thither-
ward to it. In that day, Messiah's day, “there shall be a root of
Jesse which shall stand for an ensign to the people.” (Ver. 10.)
“And He shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble
the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah,
from the four corners of the earth.” (Ver. 12.) So, chap. lxii. 10 —
“Lift up a standard for the people.” This standard is Messiah, Jesus
Christ, lifted up visibly at Jerusalem, and all the people, from all
I 2
116 TNOTES ON THE RESTORATION
quarters, not least the ten, shall flock unto it. (“Bick. Rest.”
pp. 90–92.) But we have seen, in Ezek. xvi. 61, that Judah is
represented as receiving her sister Samaria, as though, in some degree,
priority in restoration belongs to Judah ; and, moreover, this lifting
wp of the standard I take to be simply equivalent to bringing forth
the Branch, as priest and king ; which, when treating of the parallel
prophecies in Zechariah and Jeremiah, we showed would take place
at Jerusalem before a restoration of the two, with people of the ten
interspersed, and necessarily effect the conversion to Christianity of
all who witness it ; so that, putting these conclusions together, it
seems that the synchronical gathering together of the outcasts of
Israel, and dispersed of Judah, foretold here by Isaiah, is the attrac-
tion of large bodies, both of Judah and Israel, to the glorious ensign
on Mount Zion, after a representation of the people, sufficient to be
termed before the world a national restoration, has already arrived,
and been settled, in the Holy Land, and become possessors of Jeru-
salem. A partial, but sufficient restoration, having taken place, that
restoration which Mr. Bickersteth (“Rest. of Jews,” pp. 146, 188,
204) rightly terms “political,” and places in gradual process before
any conversion, Jesus Messiah the Branch, the King and Priest upon
his throne, is marvellously epiphanied at Jerusalem, under circum-
stances which other prophets explain ; and, the standard being thus
lifted up, the mass of people hasten towards it from all quarters, a
willing return of people whose minds had long been prepared, led of
the Almighty with “weeping and supplication.” (Jeremiah xxxi. 9.)
But mark, the national conversion, the great event predicted by the
prophets, was first effected by the manifestation of Messiah over the
national restoration at Jerusalem, which city from that day becomes
“Sought out, a city not forsaken.” “Thou shalt no more be termed
forsaken, neither shall thy land any more be termed desolate ; but thou
shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah; for the Lord delighteth
in thee, and thy land shall be married.” (Isa. lxii. 4.) For which Beulah,
married, we shall again have use, when we come to Hosea. This con-
clusion, it will be noticed, quite accords with the argument, already
advanced, which placed Judah’s conversion present to her receiving her
sister Samaria ; for, in fact, that conversion is caused at Jerusalem by
this manifestation of Messiah, or lifting up of the standard ; and that
lifting up of the standard, or epiphany of Messiah, is the signal for,
and the effective cause of, the return of the main body of the ten,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 117
some members of whom, constituting, according to other prophecies,
a just representation of their house, will have been previously restored,
mingled with the two. Further, it also agrees with the argument
which placed the reception of Sodom and her daughters, viz., back-
slidden, apostate, Gentile Churches, synchronical with the same con-
version of Judah ; for this epiphany of Messiah, which effects that
conversion, and signals for Israel's return, is the very event (as I shall
show) which prostrates the armies of apostasy, at Jerusalem and other
parts of the Holy Land, and calls in its nations henceforth to pure
Christianity and fidelity. Therefore Isaiah says the standard shall be
lifted up “to the peoples, to it shall the Gentiles seek.” This idea of
an epiphany of Christ, or at least one similar, seems to have occurred
to Mr. Faber:-" Whether by this ensign we are to understand the
manifestation of the Shechinah immediately before the destruction of
Antichrist, to which distant nations will humbly repair, bringing
along with them the dispersion of Israel, or the metaphorical unfolding
of the banner of the Cross, may perhaps admit of a doubt. The last
idea, however, viz., that of a general diffusion of Christianity, is
necessarily involved in the former.” (“Rest. Israel,” vol. i., p. 117.)
The idea suggested by the prophets is not the glorious symbol of God's
abiding presence known to us as the Shechinah, but rather an epiphany
of Messiah in manhood, identified with the God of Christians,
before Judah at Jerusalem, a coming in like manner as He went
(Acts i. 11), calculated to meet the prophecies of the Branch, incarnate
Christ, as high-priest and king, standing upon the Mount of Olives.
(Zech. xiv. 14.)
[4] The allusions to the Gentiles, at vers. 14, 15, deserve particular
attention. Much has been said upon the prediction, “They shall fly
upon the shoulders of the Philistines towards the west :" but all are
agreed upon this, the prediction denotes that those termed Philistinesshall
be subservient, and made use of, in the return of Israel from the East(as
before noted), and therefore “towards the west” (as here stated). But
the people commonly called Philistines dwelt on the very shores of
Palestine, the western edge of Judah’s land. It seems very clear that
Philistines, commonly so called in Scripture, cannot beintended by Isaiah.
Now, Faber has shown (“Origin of Pagan Idolatry,” and 8 Dissert.
Append, Nos. 2 and 3) that, “at some indefinite time after the breaking
up of the confederacy of Babel, the Palli, or Pelasgi, or Palistim, or
118 NoTEs on THE RESTORATION
Philistim (or Philistines), (for by these slightly varied cognate appel-
lations, all equally denoting shepherds, the unmixed Cuths, or Scuths,
or Goths, or Cushim, or Cushas, were, on account of their addiction
to the roaming, or military life of nomade independence, early dis-
tinguished), moved westward in two different, or nearly parallel,
directions.” The Philistim were, in short, the subjects of Nimrod,
who first inhabited the plains of Shinar, were broken up at Babel,
and dispersed in various directions, a chief division to the shores of
the Persian Gulf, along the banks, and at the inlet, of Tigris and
Euphrates. (Elam, Cush, and Shinar. “Paxton's Sacred Geog,”
pp. 53–80.) And Isaiah intimates either that very descendants of
such eastern Philistim, in the adjacency of Tigris and Euphrates, or
else the people who, when the prophecy should be fulfilled, should
inhabit that country, which, when Isaiah spake, was even yet held by
real Philistim, should be compelled, humbly and actively, to assist
the restoration of the ten from Assyria. In fact, I take the two
predictions, “They shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines
towards the west,” and “They shall spoil them of the east together,”
to indicate the same event, viz., that the people of the east shall be
made subserviently to facilitate the return of Israel, from Elam, Cush,
and Shinar, and other places of their captivity in that quarter of the
world. The Scuths, or Scythians, in the widest sense, have more
concern in the restoration of the Jews than is commonly supposed. In
accordance with this prediction of return from the east, Edom, Moab, and
Ammon, the countries first reached east and south-east of Palestine,
are immediately represented as subdued, and obedient to this return.
Or (it matters not to the grand design) Lowth's exposition may be
taken :—“These people were all borderers upon Palestine, and took
occasion to shew their spite and ill-will against the Jews. Upon
which account, in the prophetical dialect, they are often used, in a
general sense, for the enemies of God's truth and people. To the
same sense the names of Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon are used in
other places. The meaning, therefore, of the place is, that God's
people should have a complete victory over their enemies, whether
they be associates of Antichrist, or of whatsoever other denomination.”
The same idea is carried on, ver, 15, where the destruction of “the
tongue of the Egyptian sea,” and the smiting of the river, viz.,
Euphrates, into seven streams, mean the complete overthrow of
Israel's enemies identified with Egypt, and Euphrates, when the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 119
prophecy shall be fulfilled. In short, the prophecy is parallel with
Zech. x. 11, and Rev. xvi. 12, and predicts the overthrow of the
Ottoman Empire, that the way of the ten, the kings of the east, may
be prepared ; although the final destruction of the Mahometan
apostasy, the peculiar light in which Holy Scripture regards that
empire, will not be effected except by that great event which results
in the conversion of Israel, and destruction of Antichrist of all
sorts. (Compare also Isaiah xxvii. 12, 13.) The reader can
refer to Faber’s “Sac. Calend. of Prophecy,” vol. iii., p. 289.
More to my purpose will it be to dwell upon the prediction,
“His rest shall be glorious.” His rest, in Tº the word has two
meanings, viz., the condition of rest, or a place of rest ; but its
primary meaning is the first of these, the state, or condition, of rest ;
the second is by metonymy. (See Lee's Lex., and Fürst's “Con-
cordance,” sub voce ſº ; “quies, requies, de animi acquiescentiá,”
&c., &c.) I take the word in its primary meaning, though the second
need not be excluded. Messiah, at his approaching epiphany, will,
at one and the same time, overthrow the Antichristian confederates,
convert the restored of Israel, lift up a standard towards which the
remainder of the people shall resort, and call in the Gentiles, whether
apostates or not ; this is the time when his work is done ; now He
enters into the state of “ glorious rest” predicted by Isaiah, and the
scene or place of it is Jerusalem. The glorious rest is Messiah's
kingdom, over an universal Church of Jews and Gentiles, to be first
inaugurated at Jerusalem by the conversion of the Jews. I take it to
be precisely the occasion, and the description of Messiah, given at
Zeph. iii. 17:—“The Lord thy God in the midst of thee is mighty;
He will save, He will rejoice over thee with joy; He will rest in his
love, He willjoy over thee with singing.” The meaning of rest here
being equivalent, though a different word is used. The rest of Christ
is the triumph of Christ in the sight of restored Israel ; and accord-
ingly this prophecy has attached to it a national song of praise, to be
sung by rescued, converted Israel in that day; it is Isaiah xii., and
ends—“Sing unto the Lord, for He hath done excellent things ; this
is known in all the earth. Cry aloud, and shout, thou inhabitant of
Zion, for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee.”
[IV.] Isaiah's first prophecy of the Branch fully supplies that

120 - NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
which the second, just considered, only implies, for it contains a
description of Israel's religious condition after their restoration and
conversion. That description occupies the whole of the fourth
chapter, and is, in fact, the conclusion of a prophecy which com-
mences with the second, and with which Micah iv. is parallel. My
purpose is very briefly to point out its real connexion with our subject,
for which I select the following verses:—“In that day shall the
Branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the
earth be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.
. . . . And the Lord will create upon every dwelling of Mount Zion,
and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining
of a flaming fire by night; for upon all the glory shall be a defence.
And there shall be a tabernacle for shadow in the daytime from the
heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from
rain.” Every one at all familiar with the account of Israel's journey
through the wilderness will recognise in this language allusion to the
miraculous symbols of God's presence and favour which accompanied
them ; and it seems probable that several important inferences may be
drawn from it. For, I. Such an allusion implies the regathering of
all Israel, and their union into one political and ecclesiastical body ;
2. The reconciliation of God to them as such ; 3. The establishment
of their national public worship ; 4. A visible token, and, on the
people's part, a recognised and acknowledged token, or symbol, of
his abiding presence and favour ; 5. All this is described as being at
Jerusalem. Thus Isaiah's prediction includes the two grand announce-
ments of national restoration and conversion. A restoration of all the
tribes; and, since it speaks of Branch's days, a restoration yet to
come. And this, accompanied with signs of God's favour in Branch's
days, indicates their conversion also. Let me merely add, that what
seemed but implied in Isaiah's second prophecy of Branch (chap. xi.)
had already been specifically foretold in this chap. iv.
IV.] In summing up these six prophecies of the Branch, I would
observe that it seemed unnecessary to enlarge upon the literal and
unconditional character of Isaiah's, for similar arguments, on this
head, are applicable to all. The prophecies of Messiah’s coming
must needs be unconditional. The only question is, Are the literal
Israel included ? This question seemed clearly enough answered in

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 121
the prophecies of Jeremiah and Zechariah, and may be similarly
replied to in Isaiah's. Indeed, in his case, the effects of Messiah's
manifestation are carefully extended to three distinct bodies of people,
as in Ezek. xvi., Ephraim, Judah, and the Gentiles. Is it possible
not to believe that the literal Israel are thus contradistinguished from
that part of the spiritual, composed only of Gentiles 2 Besides it
should be remembered that all the prophecies of the Branch, whether
Isaiah's, Jeremiah's, or Zechariah's, may be, and ought to be, con-
sidered one, being parallel prophecies of one great and mighty Saviour
and his work, and that, accordingly, the literal and unconditional
import of either of them, if proved, attaches to them all, and the
proofs of this literal and certain meaning, drawn from each, may
fairly be combined together, applied to each, and thus become perfectly
indisputable. t
However, the above are six prophecies of the Branch. It appears they
are commenced by Isaiah, one of the earliest prophets, and finished by
Zechariah, all but the last; and that each prophet delivered two at differ-
ent times, and each possesses peculiar features of its own. Isaiah, be-
ginning his second chapter with a prediction of the Christian Church in
the last days, follows it up with a declaration of the then future destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, both predictions conceived in language applicable,
in all probability, to events yet to come ; and he closes the whole with a
description of gathered and reconciled Israel, under conditions to be
justly illustrated by nothing less than the visible and undoubted
presence of Jehovah with his people in the wilderness, and afterwards
in Canaan. That cloudy pillar, and that flaming fire, which gave
place to the Shechinah at Shiloh and Jerusalem, that same glorious
evidence of the abiding presence and favour of the Most High among
his people Israel, typifies at least, perhaps literally denotes, some
future symbol of his abiding presence and favour among them when
gathered together and restored to Palestine in these last days. We
may anticipate some certain, and perhaps some visible and abiding
proof of his presence at Jerusalem among the restored and converted
tribes of Jacob, after the incarnate epiphany of the Son of man, by
which that conversion will be produced. But Isaiah was not permitted
to quit his prediction of the Branch in this way. Another and more
definite prophecy was to be recorded by him, for the first time notifying
this grand fact, that the times of Israel's regathering would be signalized
by the accession of the Gentiles to the Church—“To it shall the
122 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Gentiles seek;” and this great truth being formally announced, then
the reformation politically and religiously of the Israelites is minutely
detailed. They should come from all quarters of the world; “the
isles of the sea,” as well as Assyria, and Shinar, should yield their
portions; Europe, and all the regions of the west and north ; Assyria,
Babylon, Persia, and all the east, with Arabia on the south, all
should contribute their proper shares in the return of all Israel to
Palestine. Nor should this return be equivocal as to the persons
constituting it. Ephraim and Judah distinctly recognised, should be
again united, and established into one people ; though Isaiah does not
clearly state the political conditions under which this shall be effected.
But effected he assures us it certainly shall be, and so that surrounding
Gentiles shall either willingly assist in it, or against their wills be
compelled to comply. Thus the same prophet who had already fore-
told for Israel a religious reformation in Branch's days, did afterwards
predict especially a reconstitution essentially political.
Valuable, however, as Isaiah's prophecies are, it was willed by the
Almighty to declare the same events more minutely still. Jeremiah
is far more precise. For, after having predicted generally, in
chap. xxiii., a restoration for all Israel in Branch's days, compared to
which that from Egypt would be forgotten, he resumes the theme in
chap. xxxiii., declares explicitly that this restoration would recover
and repeople all the land, and that the land thus peopled would be
held dividedly as to tribes; Judah, and Benjamin, and Levi being
distinguished from each other, and Ephraim, or the ten, distinguished
from these ; and thus, by fair inference, the whole land by whole
tribes severally “as at the first " but that especially Jerusalem, as
the metropolis of all, should again be rebuilt, and streets once desolate
become again the loved resort of a joyful people. “The north and the
south, Tabor and Hermon, should rejoice in his name.” (Ps. lxxxix.
12.) God will “bring Israel again to his habitation, and he shall
feed on Carmel and Bashan, and his soul shall be satisfied from Mount
Ephraim and Gilead.” (Jerem. l. 19.) And Jeremiah expressly
predicts that the repeopling of the Holy Land shall happen in the
days of Branch, to whom he gives (which Isaiah did not) the
mysterious name, “The Lord our Righteousness,” a name which, given
to an intelligent being, amounts to an ascription of divinity. Thus
he declares that Messiah was to be the only true God, the God of the
fathers of Israel, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; and that this
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 123
great God would then become, at the time of that manifestation
whereof Jeremiah speaks, Israel's righteousness. But Jeremiah
also declares (which Isaiah did before) that this Jehovah, Israel's
Righteousness, would, nevertheless, be a man, descended from the
stock of David ; and that this man-Jehovah, thus descended from
David, would reign in Palestine upon David's throne at Jerusalem,
and therefore over all the tribes of Israel there, but that, subordinate
to Him in his spiritual kingdom, would also be governors in the flesh,
taken also from the literal seed of David. But this kingdom being
predicted of Jesus Christ (as all Christians admit), must needs imply
the regathering and reunion of the twelve tribes of Jacob, into the
Holy Land, into one kingdom, in the days of Christianity, and con-
verted to Christianity ; a Christian nation, acknowledged by other
powers, under the immediate dominion of Messiah. And Jeremiah
declaring that, in that day, Israel shall hail Messiah as the Lord our
Righteousness (for he spake as a Jew to Jews), gives us reason to
expect that he foretels plainly such a manifestation of Messiah at
Jerusalem as shall especially lead to their confession of Him as God
incarnate, which means their conversion to Christianity ; , and, if so,
this conversion must needs be after the restoration. This idea
Zechariah confirms and adds to. *
For an occasion was to arise when it would be necessary to add
yet more particulars to the prophecies of the Branch. A restoration
of Judah was to take place after the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah other
than that which those prophets had predicted for Branch's time ;
a restoration was to take place, but not of all Israel, nor to all the
land; and it became necessary to assure that restoration that they
were not the restoration foretold by Isaiah and Jeremiah, for that the
Branch was not then come. This Zechariah was commissioned to
explain; accordingly he repeats the prophecies of the Branch, with
important additions, and a particular national Jewish application; for
whereas hitherto Branch had been foretold only as Son of David, and,
therefore, by inference, as king, he now declares that this same Branch
shall be priest, high priest, as well as king: “He shall be a priest upon
his throne.” This was entirely new, for beyond any prediction of Branch
previously delivered, though having a tendency to consolidate all the
prophecies before delivered, not only by Isaiah and Jeremiah, but by
others, respecting Branch and king separately, and it was directly
opposed to all former history and precedents of the Jewish polity. It
124 NOTES ON THE RESTORATIGN
involved indeed the complete subversion of that polity, since, accord-
ing to that, it was not permissible, it was not possible for one man to
unite in his sole person the two high offices of priest and king, which
Divine appointment had expressly divided between selected families
of two distinct tribes. It was not possible under their former polity,
and yet Zechariah pointedly declared this his Branch, like Isaiah's and
Jeremiah's, would be a man : “Behold the man, Branch his name.”
It was clear either that the predicted kingship would not be confined
to a family of Judah, or the predicted priesthood would not be
confined to a family of Levi. But the Branch, this king, had been
specifically described by Jeremiah as a righteous Branch of David, a
king that should reign and prosper, and Isaiah had prevented any
misapplication of David's name, for he had called the Branch “a rod
from the stem of Jesse; ” hence it was certain the literal David must
be understood, and nothing remained but that the priesthood foretold
by Zechariah could not be the priesthood of a son of Levi. Zechariah
predicted a particular fact. Joshua's high priesthood, son of Josedec,
was to be absorbed in a priesthood, and, therefore, a superior priest-
hood, held by a man of the tribe of Judah, by a son of David, by a
king. Aaron's priesthood was effulged by Melchisedec's. On this
account “Joshua and his fellows” were men wondered at. And his
fellows—for while Joshua symbolized the Great High Priest and
King, the Branch, Zerubbabel and the others typified subordinate
governors to Branch. A respect in which Zechariah's prophecy
singularly accorded with Jeremiah's, who, predicting governors, as of
more than one, from the seed of literal David, had shown that any
merely figurative exposition of his prophecy was impossible.
Now that Israel’s conversion to Christianity is implied seems clear,
equally so upon reflection that this conversion will be subsequent to
the restoration. For it is a fact not to be denied, that with each
prophecy of the Branch distinct predictions of a restoration are
connected—a national restoration of all the tribes ; and this at once
gives a national character to these prophecies. But if so, this
national character of these prophecies must in consistency pervade the
whole of each. Hence, in some way and at some time, the manifesta-
tion of Branch must be national for all Israel. But at his first
coming this manifestation was not national to all Israel, nor attended
with the effects predicted, as the event has shown ; so that another
manifestation of Branch, peculiarly national, is to be expected. In
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 125
few words, these prophecies not having been fulfilled as to the
restoration, this non-fulfilment pervades the whole, and especially
non-fulfilment as to belief, national belief, in Branch ; for it is the
subject of unqualified prediction in these prophecies that Israel shall
so believe nationally. This reasoning is justified entirely by Zecha-
riah's symbolical method of prophesying. The consistency of his
scenic prediction requires that Branch shall be a high priest named
Joshua or Jesus, proclaimed as priest and king before the tribes
restored with mingled people of others in the Holy Land, but par-
ticularly at Jerusalem. Hence we conclude that the prophecies of the
Branch justify our expecting an exhibition and proclamation of
Messiah as high priest and king before a restored people at Jerusa-
lem, and that this extraordinary event will be sudden, and the final
and effective cause of their conversion; and that Zechariah intended
this when he exclaimed, “And I will remove the iniquity of that land
in one day.” The same truth I understand to be intimated by Isaiah
and Jeremiah. Zechariah's exhibition of the Branch, Joshua, before
restored Judah is Isaiah's lifting up the ensign to all the people, and
Jeremiah's proclamation of the king for all Israel. The open inaugu-
ration of that kingdom is the signal for, and the cause of, Israel's
conversion, and its religious character is unveiled in the title given
to Messiah. That conversion is acknowledgment of Christ's Deity, -.
and will be consummated at Jerusalem, when, in the midst of
thunderings, and earthquakes, and Antichristian armies hurled pros-
trate, the rescued people take up with one mighty voice that blessed
yet terrific cry, “The Lord our Righteousness.”
126 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
CHAPTER IV.
“SHOWERS OF BLESSING.”—EZEKIEL xxIV. 26.
WE have seen how necessary it is to observe the distinction con-
tinually made by the prophets between Israel, as the kingdom of the
ten, and Judah, as the kingdom of the two. This distinction is,
doubtless, well known and acknowledged by every one acquainted
with the language of holy writ; but as it is important to be fully
convinced of it, I shall now establish it by collating several passages
in the prophet Hosea. He was one of the first of those inspired
men peculiarly styled the prophets, and contemporary with Isaiah,
Amos, and Micah. While Isaiah and Micah were prophesying to
Judah, Amos and Hosea were similarly engaged for Israel. Now,
although it may be desirable, in attempting to determine the import of
the names Israel and Judah in any given prophecy, to consider them
by close examination with the context, yet it will surely be of great
service in such examination to know, in what sense the same titles are
employed by prophets who were elder than, or contemporary with,
him we are examining. Hosea being one of the very first prophets,
we quote the following passages from his Book to prove his use of the
titles Israel and Judah, before we prosecute our inquiry from one
remarkable prophecy which that Book contains.
Observe, then, first, Israel and Judah contradistinguished:
“Though Israel play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend; ” and,
“For Israel hath forgotten his maker, and buildeth temples; and
Judah multiplieth fenced cities.” (Chap. iv. 15, and xviii. 14.) .
Second, Ephraim used synonymously for Israel: “For Israel slideth
back as a backsliding heifer . . . . Ephraim is joined to idols;” and
“How shall I give thee up, Ephraim 2 how shall I deliver thee,
Israel?” (Chap. vi. 10, and xi. 8.) Third, Samaria used synony-
mously for Israel or Ephraim P “When I would have healed Israel,
then the iniquity of Ephraim was discovered, and the wickedness of
Samaria; ” and “Ephraim shall receive shame, and Israel shall be
ashamed for her own counsel. As for Samaria, her king is cut off as
the foam upon the water.” (Chap. vii. 1, and x. 6.) Fourth,.
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 127
Ephraim, as Israel, contradistinguished from Judah: “Therefore will
I be unto Ephraim as a moth, and to the house of Israel as rotten-
ness; ” “When Ephraim saw his sickness and Judah his wound; ”
“For I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a raging lion to the house
of Judah; ” “O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah,
what shall I do unto thee ? for your goodness is as a morning cloud,
and as the early dew it goeth away.” (Chap. v. 12–15, and vi. 4.)
But none of these extracts are from Hosea's first three chapters,
because those we have to consider at large. They are, however,
quite sufficient to prove that Hosea (who was contemporary with
Isaiah, and antecedent by many years to Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and
Zechariah) uses the titles Israel, Ephraim, and Samaria to denote
synonymously the house or kingdom of the ten tribes, and as contra-
distinguished from Judah, the house or kingdom of the two. Many
more examples could have been selected, but these are sufficient, and
the usage may be considered established for the whole books of the
above-named prophets, unless there be anything in the immediate
conteats to the contrary. And we may note this general argument
upon Hosea's Book in reference to the coming restoration and con-
version of Israel or the ten, that being especially a prophet to
them, and using the above titles in the sense there explained, such
passages as the following predict the recovery of those ten and their
reconciliation to the Almighty; and such reconciliation and recovery
never having yet taken place, remain to be fulfilled. “I will ransom
them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death.
O death ! I will be thy plagues. O grave! I will be thy destruction.”
(Chap. xiii. 14.) The recovery of Israel is frequently foretold as a
resurrection; Mr. Bickersteth, in a note on Ezek. xxxvii. : “I
would by no means exclude a literal resurrection as also intended in
this remarkable prophecy, though the chief purpose be to point out
the restoration of Israel to their own land by the admitted fact of the
resurrection. (See Tertullian and Jerome.) We know certainly
from Dan. xii. 1, 2, that a resurrection from the dead is immediately
connected with the deliverance of Israel. It is also customary with
the prophets thus to join together a figurative and a literal
resurrection. Hosea vi. 2 seems to refer, in the words “After two
days will He revive us, in the third day he will raise us up, and we
shall live in his sight,’ first, to the restoration of Israel in the third
of those thousand years (2 Pet. iii. 8) which have elapsed since their
captivity in 721 B.C., and also to the resurrection of our Lord on the
128 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
third day, which is nowhere else expressly predicted. (1 Cor. xv. 4.)
In the resurrection of the Saints we have the whole of the spiritual
Israel raised. In the restoration of the ten, as well as of the two
tribes, we have the whole of the national Israel restored, and so “all
Israel shall be saved.” Our Lord uses similar terms to describe the
resurrection. (John v. 28.) The early fathers applied this passage
in Ezekiel to a literal resurrection. (See Irenaeus, lib. v., ch. 15, 16;
also Martyr's ‘Commonplaces,’ part 3, ch. xv. 41–46.”) (Also Faber's
“Restor. Israel,” vol. ii., p. 151.) Or from Hosea, this passage ;
“I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely; I will be as
the dew unto Israel; he shall grow as the lily, and strike forth his
roots like Lebanon.” (Chap. xiv. 4.) Such passages predict generally
the restoration and conversion of the ten—on which head I would
notice a solitary verse in this prophet, of so singular a character, but
bearing (as I think) so closely upon the subject, that it ought not to
be passed over in silence: “Also, O Judah, He hath set a harvest
for thee when I returned the captivity of my people.” (Chap. vi. 11.)
">ht; at the time of my returning, or bringing back; and by the fact
that I do bring back the captivity of my people, viz., the ten,
Ephraim, mentioned in the verse preceding ; utterly cast off until
Judah's final restoration, and, therefore, not included in the Baby-
lonian restoration. Hence it will be seen that when the Lord brings
back those ten tribes, Judah will be like a husbandman reaping a
harvest and gathering it home. Whether we understand this politi-
cally, or religiously, or (which is probably more correct) in both
senses, it gives Judah priority; so that the ten will be gathered to
Judah both in restoration and conversion. This, it will be remem-
bered, agrees exactly with Isaiah xi. and Ezek. xvi., as already
shown ; but the interpretation of the verse is, I am bound to admit,
not noticed by some commentators, whose explanation of it, and how
feebly supported, may be seen. It is, however, sanctioned by Horsley
in his Hosea, p. 21 : “Harvest work is cut out for Judah at the
season of bringing back the captivity. The tribe of Judah is in some
extraordinary way to be an instrument of the general restoration of
the Jewish people.” Dr. Henderson objects, because nº is nowhere
used by the prophets in a good sense, viz., of the ingathering of God's
people. But the word often occurs in the prophets in its literal force
of harvest, though I believe not elsewhere than at Isaiah xviii. 5, and
this Hosea vi. 11, as applied to the reaping of restored Israel. The
truth is, a good sense is not necessary for the application of this word
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 129
to Judah’s return and his receiving Israel; for the prophets assure us
that then will also be a time of Jacob's trouble (see Jerem. xxx. 7),
and also of the chastisement of Judah's foes. (See Ezek. xxxviii. and
xxxix. ; Joel iii.; Zech. ix., x., and xiv.) In fact, the same word is
used of the same times in reference to the pruning of the backslidden
Christian Churches at Isaiah xviii. 5, and Joel iii. 13. Particularly
at Isaiah xviii. 5, the pruning (which means the purgation of the
Church) is said to take place “afore the harvest.” Tºp, whence
it should seem that the harvest must be the gathering in of
God's people in a good sense. (Refer to Hend. “Minor Proph.,”
p. 37.)
[I.] We are now about to pursue our main subject by examining
the predictions contained in Hosea's first three chapters, which have
undenied reference to the times of “David the King,” or Messiah
Jesus. (Chap. iii. 5.) To do this better we rid ourselves at once of
all further need to exhibit the literal and unfigurative character of the
prophecy by observing, that the incessant repetition of such words
as Ephraim, Samaria, Israel, &c., constant allusions to national crime
and its punishment, the worship of calves, Baalim, &c., minute
references to cities and other places in the land of Israel, all these are
marks irresistible, scattered throughout the Book of Hosea, and not
least in the first three chapters, to prove that he addressed himself to
literal Israelites, descendants of ten of the sons of Jacob, and also that
the personification of the titles above mentioned is necessarily inclusive,
embracing all the ten tribes as such ; whence we see that Hosea's
predictions are national, and, therefore, if he do indeed predict the
gathering of those tribes, he predicts a national regathering, involving
their recognition as tribes, as the ten tribes, and not merely their
recovery as a confused populace comprised under any general appella-
tion, such, for instance, as Jews.
[1..] Our business is with the first three chapters, the last of which
ends as follows: “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 we have at once a fresh type of
prophecy unfulfilled. “The latter days,” a phrase which always means
the days of Christianity. This we now assume, in the next chapter we
shall prove it. But, at least, Hosea's meaning in this prophecy, so far
K

*** ~~. -
130 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
as time is concerned, is clear; for, prophesying after the son of
Jesse was dead, he makes the latter days to signify the days of David
the king, whom Christians acknowledge with one voice to be that
righteous Branch, that root of David (Rev. xxii. 16) who was to reign
with righteousness and “execute judgment and justice on the land.”
In his days, Hosea predicts, the children of Israel “shall return and
seek the Lord their God,” i.e., be reconciled again to God, and,
therefore, be converted to Christianity. And by “children of
Israel” he means the ten tribes, whom Christians have commonly,
but erroneously, called lost. This is clear, because, as we showed, all
through his Book, Israel means the ten as contradistinguished from
the two, to which ten, as Lowth observes, “he chiefly directs his
prophecy;” and it is also clear from parts of the first chapter, which
with the second and third forms but one prophecy, thus, “I will no
more have mercy upon the house of Israel, but I will utterly take
them away. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will
save them by the Lord their God.” (Chap. i. 6.) A prediction
having reference to Israel's first banishment, which was also final,
while Judah's was not so; but he was to return from it, and undergo
a second. A prediction misapplied by Professor Lee (Inquiry, p. 96),
as though it implied Israel was never again to be a nation; whereas
the word Tiv , here translated no more, is of limitable meaning, as his
Lexicon clearly shows. Again, “Then shall the children of Judah
and children of Israel be gathered together.” (Ver. 11.) Altogether
the title Israel, as applied to people, is used eight times in the first
and third chapters, and in four of these instances specifically of the
kingdom of the ten; but the context furnishes no reason whatever for
considering that the prophet intends to vary the import of the term in
any part of the three chapters of which this prophecy consists. The
things said of the children of Israel may or may not embrace the two;
but certainly they must include the ten. “These are called the
children of Israel, which was the ten tribes; and, therefore, it is more
probable that of them this parable, as well as that before, is to be
understood.” (M. Henry on chap. iii. 1–5.) And Bickersteth,
“This particularly with reference to the ten tribes. (Hosea iii. 4.)
For,” &c., &c. (Introd., p. 30, 39.) Hosea, therefore, predicts in his
third chapter that the ten tribes will be converted, as such ten tribes,
to Christianity. And this prediction remains the same, whether we
hold the opinion that the ten yet remain lost (as commonly phrased)
3- - - - \ ſº ---- . . . . *-** * * :: ***** ------~~~rs wz-rº-ºrr-, --~~~~~~ *-rr ºr----- . ~~. --, . . . . . . . - - - --~~~~~~-- ~~~~r-----… . ...+------ ~...s.. . . . ~~~~~r -----ºr-
* -3.3-
t


AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 131
somewhere in the East, or the other opinion, that they are contained
among the Jews scattered throughout, and well known among, the
nations of Europe and the West ; or even that other wild and
unscriptural notion, that they are merged among idolaters. Let this
fact be carefully noted, because, if we think the ten are contained
among the two, and thereby assume that they were competently
represented at the Babylonian restoration, Hosea meets the case, and
especially predicts that such tribes will seek David their king, viz.,
Christ, and be converted therefore to Christianity; which prediction,
under such assumption, necessarily involves the conversion of the
whole nation. So that, if any prophecies which include the ten can
be fairly supposed to have been fulfilled at the restoration from
Babylon, Hosea's and such as his cannot be placed among them.
Predictions of a restoration alone may or may not have been
accomplished for the ten at that time, but those which involve
restoration and a change of religion, i.e., conversion to Christianity,
like the present, still await accomplishment. As this point of the
restoration of the ten tribes in Hosea's prophecy lies at the root of our
subject, and has not, as it seems to me, been made sufficient use of, it
is valuable to notice that it is sanctioned by the high learning and cri-
tical authority of Bishop Horsley. He not only admits that Hosea's
prophecy refers “much more to the events of the kingdom of Israel
than those of Judah” (Hosea, Preface, p. 25), not only that Lo-ammi
“typifies the whole nation of the children of Israel reduced in its
external form by the captivity of the ten tribes to that single king-
dom” (p. 21), but also (and this admission justifies our whole inter-
pretation) that “the incontinent wife, by the declaration of the Holy
Spirit, and by the general analogy of the prophetic imagery, was an
emblem of the Jewish nation polluted with spiritual fornication,
i.e., with idolatry, but of the nation generally in both its branches, for
in both its branches it was equally polluted.” (P. 9.) “Both its
branches”—the two and the ten—are included in the figure of the
incontinent wife. But in the right interpretation of that figure lies
the right interpretation of the whole prophecy, as clearly shown by
Mr. Faber (“Eight Dissers,” No. 5); and though, I warn the reader,
I have ventured from this imagery to draw inferences affecting the
ten especially, which they have not drawn, I yet submit that these
inferences are not opposed to the expositions of these two eminent
, writers, but, on the contrary, are supported by them.
~ K 2
132 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
[2] The twelve, but especially the ten, are included in Hosea's
prophecy, and their national conversion to Christianity foretold,
accompanied by the institution of public national worship. For he
places ver, 5 of chap. iii. antithetically to ver, 4; the seeking of
“David their king” implies the complete reversion of their condition
when “without a king, without a prince, without a sacrifice, without
an image, without an ephod, and without teraphim.” But the words
sacrifice, ephod, teraphim imply public, priestly, national worship,
with the appointed insignia, not only of men, but of place ; or, as
according to Lowth, the later Jews give the sense of the exiles in the
Song of the three Children: “Neither is there at this time, prince, or
prophet, or leader, or burnt offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or
incense, or place to sacrifice before thee and find mercy.” Lowth
admits the prophecy involves the accidents of material and place for
Divine worship. Similarly M. Henry, and very beautifully: “They
shall want the blessing, first, of civil government; secondly, of public
worship . . . . The meaning is, that in their captivity they should not
only have no face of a nation upon them, but no face of a Church;
they should not have (as a learned expositor speaks) liberty of any
public profession or exercise of religion, either true or false, according
to their choice. They should have no sacrifice or altar (so the Seventy),
and, therefore, no sacrifice, because no altar. They shall have no
ephod or teraphim, no legal priesthood, no means of knowing God's
word, no oracle to consult in doubtful cases, but shall be all in the
dark.” This interpretation of ver. 4, as involving the accidents of
material and place for public national worship, is not affected by
diversity of the interpretation of teraphim, whereof Bishop Horsley
takes one view (Hosea, p. 10), and Mr. Faber another (“Eight
Dissers.,” No. 5, ch. 7); Mr. Faber taking the teraphim as accompani-
ments of worship not necessarily idolatrous; the Bishop the contrary ;
but then he adds, “The sum of this fourth verse is this, that for
many ages the Jews would not be their own masters; would be
deprived of the exercise of their own religion in its most essential
parts; not embracing the Christian, they would have no share in the
true service, and yet would be restrained from idolatry, to which their
forefathers had been so prone.” Which does not oppose, but agrees
with, our statement, that Hosea's terms involve a description of
public, national worship, and that, therefore, the contrast between
vers. 4 and 5 implies that they shall re-acquire such in the days of
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 133
“David their king.” Hosea's manner of predicting the restoration
and conversion of Israel is very remarkable. Among the Hebrews a
damsel betrothed and waiting for her husband was accounted as already
a wife;—a captive chosen for a wife underwent certain ceremonies,
and abided certain days waiting for her husband; and so Hosea
represents the ten tribes as set apart, betrothed, and abiding many
days for Jehovah preparatory to being received into a closer spiritual
relationship. The just inference is, that somewhere the ten tribes are
graciously preserved by the providence of God, and being prepared
for national reunion to Christ. For it is plain that while chap.
iii. 3, 4 describe the betrothal and state of separation, ver. 5 describes
the reunion or marriage; so that the time of reunion is the latter days,
the days of David the king, to whom Israel is to be united as a
spouse, as one spouse, as a nation, in a mass. Now the terms of
reunion to Jehovah being also (upon the assumption, according to
Horsley, that the prophecy includes all the tribes) the time of
junction also of Israel and Judah, for they are married as one people,
the next just inference is, that the ten were to be kept apart from the
two until this marriage of all to Messiah Jesus; but if so, then the
ten, who went captive long before the two, were not included in the
Babylonian restoration; for had they been so, a union between the
two houses would have taken place before the times of Messiah, to
which Hosea limits it. This conclusion will be plainer as we proceed,
and is especially clear to those who agree with Bickersteth and others
that Hosea's prophecy relates especially to the ten. On this place he
says, “In Hosea the Lord thus speaks concerning Israel; observe
again the clear note of time as to the prolonged delay in fulfilment;
they are to abide separately and as outcasts for a lengthened period,
but are not wholly or finally cast off.” (P. 206.) *
Hosea's first three chapters, it cannot be denied, should be taken
together, being, in fact, one prophecy. They are connected by
similarity of emblem as well as by identity of result. “Go yet
(i.e., again), love a woman,” &c., &c.; he had already said (chap.
i. 2), “Take unto thee a wife of whoredoms; ” the emblem is the
same; the people signified the same ; and we conclude the three
chapters relate to one subject. In the first fourteen verses of chap. ii.
the infidelity of the children of Israel and the judgments the Lord
would consequently inflict upon them are portrayed through the
woman thus taken to wife; but at ver, 14 commence assurances
under the figure of betrothal, which enable us to continue the observa-

134 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
tions just made upon chap. iii., “I will betroth thee unto me for ever ;
yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment,
and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto
me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord.” (Vers. 19, 20.)
For the word tº betroth, means to espouse a wife by entering into a
contract, the conditions of which are not finally discharged until the
nuptials take place. The word is used in the following passages
only:—Exod. xx. 15; Deut. xx. 7; xxii. 23–28; 2 Sam. iii. 14;
and the prophecy before us. These passages as given by Fürst will
suffice to explain its meaning, “uxorem sibi desponsare.” Thus the
tribes are a wife espoused, but not yet taken. They await to be
united to Jehovah by a spiritual union in the days of Jesus, or David
their king. Now the unfaithful wife is the mother of the people
symbolized under two distinct children, -Lo-ruhamah, the ten;
Lo-ammi, the two. Two distinct children, whose names imply
rejection by the Most High. Hence, I argue, that this distinctness as
two children, lasts exactly as long as the rejection by the Most High ;
for when the children become Ammi and Ruhamah (chap. ii. 23),
then, and not before, they are married as one people to Messiah in the
person of their mother; i.e., not rejected by, but reconciled to, God.
But if this distinctness as two children lasts until reconcilement, and
this reconcilement takes place, as Hosea says, in the times of David
their king, then Lo-ruhamah and Lo-ammi become one people in the
times of David their king, but not before ; and, therefore, the ten
tribes were not included in the Babylonian restoration; for if all were
included in that restoration, then all were a reconciled people before
the times of Messiah, contrary to the express prediction of Hosea.
This argument is, moreover, indirectly supported by Horsley : “This
daughter Lo-ruhamah typifies the people of the ten tribes . . . .
condemned by the just sentence of God to utter excision as a distinct
kingdom, without hope of restoration ; for so the type is explained by
the Holy Spirit himself” (Pref., p. 20); and, “After the excision
of the kingdom of the ten tribes, Judah, though occasionally visited
with severe judgments, continued however to be cherished with
God's love till they rejected our Lord. Then Judah became Lo-
ammi.” (Note, p. 3.) Israel became Lo-ruhamah at Sennacherib's
captivity; Judah Lo-ammi at that of the Romans; and continues
Lo-ammi until the spiritual marriage predicted by Hosea; then
Judah becomes Ammi, and Israel Ruhamah. In perfect consistency
with this interpretation, Bishop Horsley was one who thought that
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 135
“to interpret the prophecy in this manner (viz., of the Babylonian
restoration, as though Israel were then incorporated with Judah) is to
make it little better than a paltry quibble, more worthy of the Delphic
tripod than of the Scripture of truth.” (P. 59.)
Further, at ver. 14, the prophet describes the scene or place of this
betrothal: “Therefore, behold I will allure her, and bring her into
the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her.” What wilderness?
We have seen Ezekiel after Hosea's time explaining this expression :
“I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there will I
plead with you face to face.” (Ezek. xx. 35.) So that the scene of
Israel's betrothment and abiding for her God is among the peoples
whither they were carried. “The state of the Jews' captivity is
elsewhere (Ezek. xx. 35) expressed by a wilderness state. It
probably means here the dispersion of the ten tribes ever since their
first captivity by Shalmanesar.” (Lowth on Hosea ii. 14.) Hence,
again, it follows, that since the betrothal (particularly of the ten)
coincides with their dispersion, but the spiritual marriage was not to
take place until the days of Messiah, they could not have been
included with the two from Babylon; for the betrothal and consequent
separation must last from its commencement at the dispersion until
the marriage in the days of Messiah. But the ten were broken up
and dispersed a very long while before Judah’s captivity in Babylon;
then their separation, previous to spiritual espousal, commenced, and,
according to Hosea, must last until the marriage-day with Christ or
David their king; and the ten, therefore, could not have been among
the Babylonian restoration. This is in exact accordance with
chap. iii. : “Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play
the harlot; and thou shalt not be for another man; so will I be for
thee: for the children of Israel shall abide; ” thus describing pro-
phetically betrothal and preparatory separation from uncleanness;
and “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;” thus describing the reunion or marriage
to Jehovah in the person of Messiah, where the expression, “children
of Israel,” may (and does) include all the tribes, but must include the
ten; where the figure of betrothal is still sustained, and the ten are
represented as kept apart uncontaminated for their God-Messiah.
Thus we see that, when Hosea predicts the betrothal of the Israelites
and their waiting in separation for God until the times of Messiah, he
justifies our interpretation of Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah,

136 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
- -- - -------------r-ze wa-r
Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, to the effect that at the Babylonian
restoration the ten were not compotently nor tribally represented; so
that every prophecy foretelling that Israel or the ten shall be restored
has yet to be fulfilled. (For the application of this prophecy strictly to
the ten, see also Whitby's Preface to “St. James's Epistle,” under the
head fourthly.)
But betrothal implies that the intended wife knows and eaſpects her
Lord, and according to the figure, the ten (as well as the two) where-
ever they are, must know themselves as such, and be free from idolatry,
and retaining their expectation of Messiah; for the betrothed is
waiting free from all impurity; “Thou shalt not be for another
man” (chap. iii. 3); or again (chap. ii. 17), “I will take away the
names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be
remembered by their name.” All are kept uncontaminated from
idolatry, waiting in separateness for their Lord. All being included,
all are under the same conditions of espousal; therefore, as the Jews,
so the ten are kept undefiled with idolatry waiting for Messiah. If so,
no hypothesis that the ten are lost or absorbed among heathen nations
can be sustained. There may indeed be some, or even many, people
of the ten thus absorbed among idolaters, but the tribal representation
of the body, wherever it be, must, according to Hosea, be living free
from idolatry, separated for, and expecting, Messiah. This is strong,
even upon the assumption that Hosea's prophecy includes all the
tribes; but stronger still if we agree with those who maintain it
belongs peculiarly to the ten. It may and does include them all, but
it must include the ten. Thus Calvin on chap. iii. 4: “The meaning
is that God would take away from the people all civil order, and then
all sacred rites and ceremonies, that they might abide as a widow, and
at the same time know that they were not wholly rejected by God,
without hope of reconciliation.” And M. Henry (chap. iii. 3):
“Thou shalt not be for man—thou shalt not play the harlot, shalt
not worship idols in the land of thy captivity, while thou art there
set apart for thy uncleanness.” So Lowth: “The word another is
not in the Hebrew, so the sentence may be thus translated more
agreeably to the original, ‘Thou shalt not have a husband, neither
will I have thee (to my wife), that is, thou shalt continue some time
in a state of widowhood.” I would remind the reader again, that
though this prophecy may and does include all the tribes, yet it must
include the ten, and that eminent commentators believe it belongs
especially to them ; and, therefore, I argue those commentators thus
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 137
agreeing in the character of the widowhood, justify the exposition that
during the times of Israel's betrothal, viz., during her captivity in the
wilderness of the peoples, Israel is to be kept apart, uncontaminated
with idols, waiting for and expecting her husband, God-Messiah;
and that, therefore, no hypothesis that the ten are, or ever were since
their dispersion lapsed into idolatry, or in any sense absorbed among
heathen nations, can be supported. This is precisely in accordance
with what I suggested upon Ezek. xx. 32: “And that which cometh
into your mind shall not be at all, that ye say, We will be as the heathen,
as the families of the countries, to serve wood and stone.” I intimated
that this averment must be, like the truth of God which was pledged
to it, eternal and unchangeable; and, therefore, that the ten, as
a people, never could from that day lapse into idolatry. Let me now
add that that assurance was addressed to all the tribes, therefore to all
the ten ; it was addressed to them among the heathen, and, therefore,
must hold true as long as they are among the heathen, i.e., ever since
Ezekiel's days, who spake, until (according to Hosea) they are
recovered to Christ Jesus.
This is further supported at chap. ii. 15: “I will give her her vine-
yards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope, and
they shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day
when she came up out of the land of Egypt.” The days of Jesus or
Joshua, the son of Nun, witnessed but one occasion of God's judg-
ments upon the Israelites when that chosen servant was leading them
to the conquest of the Holy Land. It was the valley of Achor.
Achan, the son of Carmi, had defiled the people by the possession of
that thing ever accursed,—wealth obtained by violation of God's law,
—and for this all Israel stoned him and his family with stones, and
burnt them and all their posterity with fire; “And they raised over
him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the Lord turned from
the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was
called the Valley of Achor unto this day.” (Joshua vii. 26.) This
valley of Achor was the only scene of God's wrath upon Israel in the
days of their Joshua or Jesus, before they entered the Holy Land;
so the place of Israel's banishment now is the only scene of his wrath
upon them in the times of our Jesus, or Joshua, or rather their
Jesus—for both these Joshuas are theirs—before they re-enter the
Holy Land. The scene of their banishment in the east is that valley
of Achor which Hosea means, and it is to prove to them the very
door or entry into hope: there they are “prisoners of hope.”
138 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
(Zech. ix. 12.) There the fierceness of his wrath will be turned
away from them, there their minds will be moulded into prepa-
ration for their final victories, and there they will again anticipate
the recovery of the Holy Land under Jesus. In that very valley
of Achor, gloomy scene of God's judgment, shadowed with the evil
memories of the past, there Israel shall sing as in the days of her
youth, espoused but not married; sing in the consciousness that God
is their God, and in confident expectation of Messiah, who shall yet
lead them back to Canaan. If so, the ten, wherever their valley of
Achor be, are free from idolatry, believing in and expecting deliver-
ance from their God. That deliverance is promised them (chap.
ii. 23): “I will sow her unto me in the earth, and I will have mercy
upon her that had not obtained mercy (Lo-ruhamah, chap. i. 6), and
I will say to them which were not my people (Lo-ammi, chap. i. 9),
Thou art my people, and they shall say, Thou art my God.” Again
I note that at one and the same time, Lo-ruhamah becomes Ruhamah ;
and Lo-ammi becomes Ammi ; but Lo-ammi, or the two, does not
become Ammi until converted to Christ; therefore Lo-ruhamah, or
the ten, does not become Ruhamah until converted to Christ. But
Lo-ruhamah became such at her captivity by Sennacherib, Lo-ammi
became such at his dispersion by the Romans; therefore Lo-ruhamah,
or the ten, was not restored from Babylon with the two; for had she
been so, that restoration would have been a proof of reconcilement to
God, and she would at once have become Ruhamah. For Lo-ruhamah
has two meanings, unbeloved and unpitied. Unpitied takes Peter (1 Pet.
ii. 10); unbeloved takes St. Paul (Rom. ix. 25). Upon which Horsley
observes, but perhaps not soundly, “St. Paul's rendering in this
instance is to be preferred to St. Peter's, because St. Paul expressly
cites; St. Peter only alludes.” (Hosea, Pref., p. 20.) But where the
Holy Ghost inspires there can be no room for preference. Each render-
ing is accurate. Let it be permitted to use this as a proof that both
meanings are to be taken, and that it suggests under inspiration this
canon for scriptural interpretation, viz., “That in the Hebrew Bible,
when a word admits of two or more meanings perfectly reconcileable
with its context, that word is to be understood in its fullest sense as
comprehending all.” Thus, “And I will remove the iniquity of that
land in one day.” Tº Pi' suddenly and wondrously, both. And
again, “His rest shall be glorious.” Tº condition of rest, or place
of rest, both. Messiah his victories achieved, at Jerusalem.
Similarly, in all probability, as to Ezek. xvi. 53, 55, both the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 139
figurative and literal Sodom will be recovered to Jerusalem in that
day. (See pp. 51–53, suprā. Or upon the present passage as to the
force of Ruhamah, Dr. Pocock cited by Horsley.) Its diversity of
meaning “makes no difference in the matter, inasmuch as God's
mercy and love go inseparably together.”
But I observe further, that Lo-ruhamah, or the ten, is not to
become Ruhamah until she is married to Messiah ; nor until Lo-ammi,
or the two, becomes Ammi similarly. Hence reconciliation to God,
or marriage to Messiah, or conversion to Christ, both of the two and
the ten, is (in some sense) synchronical ; both events take place close
together, priority being rather, as we showed, the privilege of the
two. Hence again I conclude that Lo-ammi becoming Ammi, and
Lo-ruhamah becoming Ruhamah, or the adulterous wife of Messiah
being received as an unity into confidence and favour again, the con-
version of both Lo-ammi and Lo-ruhamah is peculiarly of both in a
mass, as a national body ; and again the state of separateness con-
tinuing until the very consummation of marriage, i.e., until actual
conversion, the doctrine is unscriptural which teaches that Holy
Scripture recognises any partial conversion of Israel or of Judah ;
the doctrine is unsound, and opposed to the prophetical imagery,
which teaches that any parts fairly to be considered national, or tribal,
are to be converted of either, any length of time before the other.
The conversion of Israel, all Israel, is of a mass, sufficiently coincident
as to be in the sacred writings described synchronically, although
some sort of preference is assigned to Judah. Therefore, although
it may be true that the American missionary, Dr. Grant, has discovered
in certain Nestorian Christians parts of the ten tribes ; or again,
although it may be true that the other missionary, Mr. Samuel, has
discovered in Daghestan other part of the ten tribes ; yet each of
these is but a part, and not the tribal, national representation of the
house of Ephraim ; and it is not correct, because contrary to Hosea,
to say that, because those Nestorian Christians may be (and probably
are) of the ten, that therefore the ten tribes are found converted to
Christianity. Those ten tribes, we have gathered from Isaiah and
others, are yet in the neighbourhoods of their primary captivity,
where Dr. Grant and Mr. Samuel have discovered parts of them ;
but we also learn from Hosea that (wherever they be) they are not
only free from idolatry, but also living as Jews, not yet married to
Christ, i.e., converted. (Grant’s “Lost Tribes,” and Faber’s “Sac.
Calend,” vol. ii., p. 370.) That marriage will be one grand event,
14() NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
notoriously celebrated in the sight of the world ; Ammi and Ruhamah
synchronically, Ammi beckoning to Ruhamah, synchronically in their
national bodies, of which Holy Scripture notices not any fractions.
Now, too, we see the meaning of Isaiah’s “Beulah :”—“Thou shalt
be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah; for the Lord delighteth in
thee, and thy land shall be married.” (Isa. lxii. 4.) nºwn married;
thy land married. Amazing fulness of the Holy Volume ! Hosea
tells us the whole nation of all the tribes shall be married to Messiah.
Isaiah tells us the land shall be married ; bécause this marriage takes
place in the land. Hosea names the wife ; Isaiah the scene of the
consummation. Therefore, I maintain the conversion, or marriage,
foretold in Scripture, takes place after the restoration ; and I ask
permission to differ from Bishop Horsley (and from Mr. Faber, who
follows him), when he says, “When converts of the house of Judah
shall have obtained a re-settlement in the Holy Land, then a general
conversion shall take place of the race of Judah, and the race of the
ten tribes” (on Hos. i. 11); and to agree with Mr. Bickersteth, who
says, “Many predictions lead us to expect the Jewish nation will be
restored, in part at least, in a self-righteous and unconverted state.”
(“Rest. of Jews,” p. 119.) That precise word, nºva, is used in
two places in the Hebrew Bible ; the other is Isa. liv. 1 : —“More are
the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife,
saith the Lord.” Yet how beautifully Bishop Horsley notes the price
of the espousals:—“I will betroth thee unto me for ever ; yea, I will
betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-
kindness, and in mercies.” (Chap. ii. 19.) “A noun substantive
after the verb bºs, with a prefixed, denotes the dowry, or that
which the man gives to obtain his spouse of her parents. Christ
gave for the espousal of the Church, his bride, F.T. his own justice,
tºp his perfect obedience to the law, Tºſſ exuberant kindness,
Fºl tender love, Tºbº faithfulness, steady adherence to his part
in the covenant between the holy three.” (P. 63.) The holy three,
Judah, Ephraim, and the Gentiles. (Isa. xi.) Just as Isaiah says
(chap. i. 27), “Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her con-
verts with righteousness.” topºp and TET. Hosea's espousal price
is Isaiah's redemption price. Only that one specifies the redemption
of the place, the other of the people ; the conversion of Israel signal-
ized within the Holy Land.
[3.] Which is clearer now we come to chap. i. 10, 11 ; for the predic-
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 141
tion here delivered seems to make Hosea's prophecy complete for our
purpose. He speaks, as already noticed, of all the tribes, but
especially for the ten. He describes their divorcement, their subse-
quent betrothal, their waiting in separation, but in hope; their
national, and synchronical marriage to Jehovah Messiah in the latter
days ; but in chaps. ii. and iii. there was no direct and appellative
distinction of Judah from Israel, unless, indeed, at ver. 23, where
the titles Lo-ruhamah and Lo-ammi are used, but not in the English
version. But now we perceive that, although the prophet's business
may have been peculiarly with the ten, yet at the very commencement
he informs them that the two would be associated with themselves,
when recovered to God's favour, in the days of Messiah —“Then
shall the children of Judah and children of Israel be gathered
together, and appoint themselves one head.” Nor is Bishop Horsley's
rendering opposed to this, although some may doubt whether it be
strictly accurate. He says, on chap. i. 11, “This is only an honour-
able mention of Judah as the principal tribe, not as a distinct king-
dom. And the true exposition of the expression is, the children of
Judah, and all the rest of the children of Israel,” having previously
said in the same note, “Children of Israel is a general appellation for
the whole race of the Israelites, comprehending both kingdoms.”
Thus Hosea foretels the gathering to each other of all the tribes, and
their restoration ; for he says, “in the place where,” that is, in the
very place where he himself was commissioned to declare to Israel
that God rejected them from being his people, viz., the land of Israel;
there, in that very place, they shall be called the sons of the living
God. For the marginal reading “instead of that ” cannot be critically
supported ; it is against the Septuagint, Chaldaic, Syriac, and
Vulgate versions, and, more than all, against the Holy Ghost himself,
through St. Paul. (Rom. ix. 26. But see Horsley's note G., “Hosea,”
p. 57.) So that, as at Ezek. xx. 40 :—“ There shall all, &c., there
will I accept them, there will I require,” &c.; so here, to say that,
when the place is so emphatically specified, a prophet means merely
that, at some time or other, being converted, they shall worship God
in their own land, seems to me too tame and weak for the prophetical
energy, and I should gather from such an expression, apart from
other arguments, that Hosea meant to say, there, in that very place,
there, for the first time, they should be hailed as the people of the
living God. If so, the conversion will be after the restoration. For
let us give closer attention to the language:—“Then shall the children
142 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
of Judah, and children of Israel, be gathered together, and appoint
themselves one head, and come up out of the land; for great shall be
the day of Jezreel.” According to the Masoretic pointing (attention
to which may be considered a settled point among Hebrew scholars;
Lee’s “Grammar,” pp. 2, 26), as marked in the extract here given,
we are supplied with three distinct propositions:–1. They shall be
gathered together ; 2. They shall appoint themselves one head, and
come up out of the land ; and, 3. It shall be a great day for Jezreel.
Hence “the appointing themselves one head,” and “ coming up out of
the land,” being comprehended in one separate proposition, may fairly
be considered only two parts of one and the same prediction, which,
we shall see, is an important fact. But we need not rely entirely
upon the pointing, for the same result is obtained by considering the
passage, whether in Hebrew or English, according to its grammatical
construction. It is said, “ they shall appoint themselves one head,
-IIs ºn Eriº *cºl; where they must evidently mean the children
of Judah and children of Israel gathered together. It is plain that
people of all the tribes will be gathered together to each other, before
they perform the act here termed “appoint themselves, one head.”
But it is maintained from Holy Scripture, and from the very nature of
things, that this gathering to each other of tribes of Israel can take
place nowhere but in Palestine ; and therefore it follows that people
of all the tribes will have been gathered together in the Holy Land,
i.e., restored, before they appoint themselves one head. This being
so, the coming up “out of the land” must mean out of the land of
Israel, viz., a congregation of people of all the tribes to one particular
place, from all parts of the land of Israel ; just as it is said of the city
Jerusalem (Ps. cii. 4):—“Whither the tribes go up, the tribes of the
Lord, unto the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the
Lord,” where the same word rhy is used. Thither they will come up
to appoint themselves onehead. For I imagine the Hebrew would jus-
tify the rendering, “They shall come up out of the land, and appoint
themselves one head.” Every tyro knowing, as Dr. Lee observes
(“Inquiry,” p. 25, Introd.), that predictions do not always stand in
the order of their fulfilment. Accordingly Calvin says, “Ascend
together from the land shall the children of Israel, and children of
Judah, and they shall assemble together, and appoint for themselves
one head;” putting the ascent from the land, and assembling
together, before the appointment of the head; but of course not un-
derstanding land as we do. So M. Henry :—“And in their own
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 143
land, where God had, by his prophets, discarded and rejected them
as none of his, He would, by his prophets, own them, and appear
for them as his children, and from all parts of the country they should
come up to the temple to worship.” Not, therefore, does the prophet
mean what Horsley thinks, “from all parts of the earth to Jerusalem;”
but people of all the tribes, being gathered together unto each other,
will come up from all parts of their own land to one place, Jerusalem;
and, having come up, will appoint themselves one head. So Grotius,
“Crit. Sacr. :”—“Et ascendent de terrá–Ibunt ex Galilaea, et aliis
locis ad Templum.” But Head, tºn, here is interpreted of Messiah.
(“Glass. Philo. Sacr.,” p. 49, and “Crit. Sacr.,” generally.) Christ
is the one Head here mentioned ; and I would observe that the idea
of unity, or loneship, or eminence, was already contained in tºsh;
so that the addition of Tºſs is remarkable. Oh it is one great, one
marvellous Head Î In that Tſº Biº there shall be nº tº Sn. In
that great, and wonderful, and sudden day ; that one day, when the
iniquity of Israel's land shall be removed (Zech. iii. 9); then shall
there be one great, one marvellous Head–Messiah-Jesus—suddenly
epiphanied ; “One Lord, and his name One,” as the same Zechariah
says, chap. xiv. 9, speaking of the same day. Drusius has this
important remark, “Ascendent é terrá. Terram captivitatis intelligit.
Et rectè ascendent, nempè Ierosolymam versiis, quae Ecclesiam
figurat. Sunt qui referunt, postguam ascenderint. Nam Christus,
inquiunt, non erit caput ipsorum, nisi prius Ierosolymam pervenerint.”
(“Critici Sacri.”) People of all the tribes being already gathered
into the Holy Land, i.e., restored, will assemble at Jerusalem to
appoint themselves one head, whom the event will prove to be,
though not contemplated by them, Jesus Christ. But recognition of
Messiah’s headship is conversion : “We now learn that when we
believe the Gospel we choose Christ for our king, as it were by a
voluntary consent” (Calvin); or, conversely, when we acknowledge
Christ as king we believe the Gospel : therefore the conversion will
be after the restoration. “For great will be the day of Jezreel;”
“Great and happy shall be the day when the holy seed of both
branches of the natural Israel shall be publicly acknowledged of their
God, united under one Head, their King Messiah, and restored to the
possession of the promised land, and to a situation of high pre-eminence
among the kingdoms of the earth.” (Hors., “Hosea,” p. 4.) “The
day of Jezreel,” the same as Zechariah's one day; the day of the
manifestation of Branch, the day of Israel's lifting up of the ensign;
144 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
that same day is this Hosea's exaltation of Messiah into recognised
kingship over all Israel restored. Then, and not before, in the land,
and not out of it, will “the children of Israel return, and seek the
Lord their God, even David their king ;” for the characteristic
feature of the event is to recognise and acknowledge Messiah's
divinity: Israel will then say, “The Lord, Jehovah, our Righteous-
ness.”
Now, were it permissible to speculate, I would argue that a people
newly restored must require a government, and desire to constitute
some head. I would intimate that this special organization of national
authority is peculiar assumption of political power, national identity,
national independence. Will this assumption of independent govern-
ment provoke the wrath of those who love not Israel, nor God's holy
will, and lead to the invasion by antichristian powers, whose destruc-
tion at Jerusalem will be effected by the lighting down of Messiah P
Israel's purpose to appoint a head, theirs to prevent the institution of
independent government, but neither of them anticipating the miracu-
lous manner in which Israel's purpose will be accomplished ; but
Israel, when perceiving it, hailing Him with joy ; “And it shall be
said in that day, Lo I this is our God ; we have waited for Him, and
He will save us ; this is the Lord, we have waited for Him, we will
be glad, and rejoice in his salvation.” (Isa. xxv. 9.)
[4] At the commencement we showed the impossibility of sus-
taining a merely figurative interpretation of this prophecy; and,
indeed, it is clear that, although it may be extended also to Gentiles,
in a spiritual sense, as presently to be noted from St. Paul, no branch
of the Gentile Church can fulfil the conditions involved in the scenic
children, Lo-ammi and Lo-ruhamah ; none but the literal seed are the
children of the adulterous mother. All through the Scriptures, and,
not least, the New Testament, the proper position of the Gentiles is
that of a branch “grafted in * (Rom. xi. 19); the proper, the natural
branches are that Ammi and Ruhamah, whom God has promised to
graff in nationally again. (Ibid. ver. 23.) Now, as to the uncon-
ditional character of this prophecy, whoever carefully peruses it will
observe that the whole context is liable to the same grammatical con-
struction. For example, if the verse, “I will also cause her mirth to
cease, her feast-days, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her
solemn feasts,” if this be unconditional, then the following, “I will
sow her unto me in the earth, and I will have mercy upon her,”
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 145
&c., &c., must be unconditional also. But we know that the judg-
ments threatened were certain, for they have been awfully fulfilled ;
therefore (the same grammatical construction being sustained) the
mercies promised are certain also. Bickersteth has well expressed
this:—“As the threatening has been real and literal, and amply
fulfilled, so the promise of their restoration is real and literal, and
must be amply fulfilled.” (P. 256.) The same unconditional character
of the prophecy may also be perceived at chap. ii. 7:—“And she
shall follow after her lovers, but shall not overtake them ; and she
shall seek them, but shall not find them ; then shall she say, I will go
and return to my first husband, for then it was better with me
than now.” This prediction is much the same as Ezek. xx. 32:—
“And that which cometh into your mind shall not be at all : that ye
say, We will be as the heathen,” &c. This same unconditional character
pervades also the whole promises of chap. ii., beginning with ver. 14;
therefore, lº , which Lowth prefers to have translated nevertheless;
for, says he, “here is a plain alteration of the style from threatenings
to promises.” This is a translation the same in spirit, as in word, with
that of , before noticed, Ezek. xvi. 60 —“Nevertheless I will
remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth,” &c. So
Jerem. ii. 2:—“I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the
love of thine espousals.” The three prophets are one in spirit. God's
promises are contrasted with Israel's stubborn rebellions, and made in
full remembrance of, and notwithstanding, Israel’s infidelity. The
same unconditionality is clear from the nature of the emblem employed.
In the one case, the woman is described as a prostitute, in the other, as
an adultress, and the marriage is consummated in the full knowledge
of her impurities. Now, that marriage represents the spiritual union
of God to Israel, through Messiah ; hence the reunion of Israel to
God, through Messiah, i.e., their conversion, is foretold uncondition-
ally, and notwithstanding, and in the full knowledge of, Israel's
spiritual adulteries. This unconditional character of the prophecy is
acknowledged by Calvin and Henry; and I shall merely apply Professor
Lee's canon, “Prophecy, properly so called, knows no condition,” and
assert, that to prophecy, properly so called, Hosea's whole book, and
not least these first three chapters, belong. And I cannot help
observing that Hosea's imagery bears equally against Lee's theory, that
Holy Scripture knows not Israel, as a nation, in Messiah's days, and
against Horsley and Faber, who maintain that some part of Israel will
L
146 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
be converted before the restoration, if, indeed, we are to understand
them to mean that any such previous conversion can lay claim to
nationality in any sense. For Hosea's emblem is peculiarly national;
of all the people, embodied in the adulterous wife ; and all the people,
as represented by her two children, are to be recovered synchronically
in their separate bodies. Lo-ammi cannot become Ammi, nor Lo-
ruhamah become Ruhamah, at one and the same time, i.e., their
mother be wedded as an unity, if we admit that any part of either,
deserving to be considered the national body of either, has already
become abstracted by Christianity. If this be granted, I would add
that no other conversion is the subject of prophecy but that of the
nation corporately.
[5.] St. Paul alludes, Rom. ix. 25, 26, to Osee's, chap. ii. 23, for
the purpose of applying the prophecy to “the Gentiles also ;” and
Professor Lee snatches at the fact for his peculiar theory (“Inquiry,”
pp. 32 and 96), but with no good reason; for Bishop Horsley had
already noted the spirit and effect of St. Paul's quotation, “The
words Ammi and Ruhamah, and their opposites Lo-ammi and Lo-
ruhamah, are capable of the same extension ; the two former to com-
prehend the converted, the two latter the unconverted Gentiles. In
this extent they seem to be used in chap. ii. 23, which I take to be a
prophecy of the call of the Gentiles, with manifest allusion to the
restoration of the Jews. Accordingly we find these prophecies of
Hosea cited by St. Paul to prove, not the call of the Gentiles solely,
but the indiscriminate call to salvation both of Gentiles and Jews.
He affirms that God has called us (i.e., us Christians) vessels of mercy
afore prepared unto glory, not of the Jews only, but moreover of the
Gentiles too. Ahd it is in proof of this proposition that he cites the
prophecies of Hosea. And the manner of his citation is thus. First,
he alleges two clauses, but in an inverted order, from the 23d ver.
of chap. ii., which seem to relate more immediately to the call of the
Gentiles —“I will call them my people, &c., and her beloved,” &c.
And to these he subjoins, as relating solely to the restoration of the
Jews, that part of this prophecy of the first chapter which affirms that
“in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people,
there they shall be called The Children of the Living God.” From
these detached passages, thus connected, he derives the confirmation
of his proposition, concerning the joint call of Jew and Gentile to the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 14.7
mercy of the Gospel.” (Hos., p. 58.) Horsley, then, had already fully
explained the place, as being perfectly consistent with the national
restoration and conversion of Israel. Now, if Professor Lee had
replied to this, it would have been to the purpose, but this he makes
no attempt to do. If he had but given us a critical exposition of the
passage, “In the place where, &c., there it, &c., &c.,” how grateful
we should have been I especially as the Septuagint, Chaldaic, Syriac,
and Vulgate editions, all confirm this reading, and justify our under-
standing it of the land of Israel. But he meddles not with that,
although the whole question, both of restoration and conversion, may
be hung with confidence upon those words. Yet Professor Lee,
judging from his treatment of Gesenius in his Lexicon, of Ewald in
his Grammar, and of Blomfield in his “Inquiry,” was not a man to
pass over error in a critical work, like Horsley's, when he believed he
possessed the means and opportunity of exposing it. Horsley's
criticism remains unanswered, and the Professor's theory suffers in
proportion. St. Paul's object was to include the Gentiles, but without
nationally excluding Israel.
I will only add that after carefully examining Dr. Henderson's notes
on Hosea, chaps. i. to iii., Isee no reason to alter the above exposition.
[II.] The next prophecy is from Jeremiah, contained in his thirtieth
and thirty-first chapters. We may observe upon these, as upon
chap. xxxiii., that the various ways in which he notifies the persons
to whom his prophecy is addressed, leave no room to doubt to what
people they must be specifically applied. From chap. xxx. :—“I will
bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah” (ver. 3);
“These are the words that the Lord spake concerning Israel and
concerning Judah” (ver. 4); “Therefore fear not, O my servant
Jacob, neither be dismayed, O Israel” (ver. 10); “I will bring again
the captivity of Jacob's tents” (ver. 18); “This is Zion, whom no
man seeketh after" (ver. 17). From chap. xxxi. :-" All the families
of Israel” (ver. 1); “Behold, the days come that I will sow the
house of Israel, and the house of Judah, with the seed of man and
with the seed of beast” (ver. 27); “For I am a father to Israel, and
Ephraim is my firstborn. I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning
himself thus. Is Ephraim, my dear son, is he a pleasant child 7"
1, 2
148 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
$
(vers. 9, 18, 20); “Ephraim shall say, Arise ye, and let us go up to
Zion, unto the Lord our God. They shall come, and sing in the
height of Zion. Again, I will build thee, and thou shalt be built,
O virgin daughter of Israel ; thou shalt yet plant vines upon the
mountains of Samaria” (vers. 4, 6, 12). From all which quotations
it is plain that certain people are spoken of distributively and collect-
ively, as Israel and Judah, as house of Israel, and house of Judah,
as Ephraim, as Israel, as virgin daughter of Israel, as Jacob, as the
captivity of Jacob's tents. How can such appellations be severally,
and particularly, applied to the Christian Church, the only spiritual
mode of exposition attempted ? Their individuality, and distinctness,
demonstrates that literal Israel must be understood. Each and all of
Jacob's sons are included, though Jeremiah's feelings of tenderness
seem divinely drawn out towards Ephraim, or the ten, the reason
whereof will probably appear. All Jacob's sons are included collect-
ively as a people, distributively in their parts, Israel as a nation, and
Israel in his tribes; and, more than that, that part of Israel termed
Ephraim, or Israel peculiarly so called, distinct, as a body of people,
from Judah. Hence, if this prophecy belong to the times of Christi-
anity, and if it foretel restoration and conversion, that restoration
and conversion will be of all the tribes, and with tribal distinction,
and the part of the nation called Ephraim, viz., the ten, distinct as a
people from Judah, or the two.
[1..] But the time, or era, for the fulfilment of this prophecy is
plainly fixed. At chap. xxx. 3 the prophet first specifies time:–
“Behold, the days come.” He announces a proposition to which, all
through his prediction, he refers time, whenever again alluded to :—
“Alas! for that day is great” . . . . “It shall come to pass in that
day” (vers. 7, 8; and at chap. xxxi. 1, thus connecting the time of
the two chapters):—“At the same time, saith the Lord ;” . . . and
so, down to the 26th ver, the prophet uninterruptedly sustains the
Same time. “Chap. xxxi. 1 :—‘At the same time.” “In the latter
days’ (chap. xxx. 24),” says Lowth ; thus marking the identity of
the time, and the unity of the prophecy, in the two chapters. But,
besides, of this time he gives indisputable characteristics. “For it
shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I will
break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and
strangers shall no more serve themselves of him ; but they shall serve
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 149
the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto
them.” (Chap. xxx. 8, 9.) Now this same time, or day, or era, is
carefully sustained as far as chap. xxxi. 26, and is plainly the day, or
time, or era, the PT of David the king, Jesus Christ ; but then the
prophet says, “Upon this I awaked, and beheld ; and my sleep was
sweet unto me.” Thus far he had been taught in vision ; that vision
he records; and the rest of the chap. xxxi. is an affirmation of it, as
recorded, but carefully explained of the same time. Wer. 31 shows
this:–“Behold, the days come that I will make a new covenant with
the house of Israel, and house of Judah, not according to the covenant
which I made with their fathers,” &c., &c. This prediction of a new
covenant St. Paul (Heb. viii. 8), by quoting Jeremiah, enables us to
explain with certainty of the Christian covenant ; so that, whereas
before (ver. 26) Jeremiah had marked the time, or era, as that of
David the king, he now marks it as that of the new, or Christian
covenant. In each division of the prophecy, therefore, viz., the
narrated vision, and the affirmation of it, the same time is carefully
sustained, and it is the time of the Christian dispensation. Thus far
we see that, to Israel and Judah, viz., to all the tribes of Jacob,
collectively and distributively, as regards the two houses, and to their
whole land, certain blessings are promised, to be experienced during
the times of Christianity. Let us see what they are.
[2.] Restoration of all the tribes to the Holy Land. “I will bring
again the captivity of my people Israel, and Judah, saith the Lord ;
and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers,
and they shall possess it.” (Chap. xxx. 3.) “Lo I will save them
from far, and thy seed from the land of their captivity, and Jacob
shall return and be at rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him
afraid.” (Wer. 10. See also ver. 19, and chaps. xxxi., xii., and
xxiii.) Such passages predict a restoration, peculiarly national, to that
very same land which God gave in perpetuity to Abraham ; and the
following foretel a conversion equally national :—“They shall serve
the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up
unto them.” (Chap. xxx. 9.) “They shall all know me from the
least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord ; for I will
forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.”
(Chap. xxxi. 34. See also chaps. xxx. 20, xxxi. 9—19, and xxxiii.)
But there are certain specialities in Jeremiah's predictions to which

150 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
attention should be called, for the purpose of seeing what new features
in the coming events are delineated for us; and there are several.
First. We are now informed, with a distinctness unknown to any
prophecy yet considered, that the time of restoration will be one of
great trial to the people restored :-" Alas! for that day is great, so
that there is none like it : it is even the time of Jacob's trouble ; but
he shall be saved out of it.” (Wer. 7.) By which we know a
restoration other than that of the Babylonian is spoken of, when
Jacob underwent no trouble. The language seems not ambiguous ;
but, were it so, the following verses show that this time of Jacob's
trouble is that of their deliverance from dispersion, and of their con-
version to Christianity. It is defined by vers. 8 and 9 to be that day
when the yoke of strangers shall be broken off Israel's neck, and they
shall serve David their king. At that day the power of strangers
over Israel will be broken for ever ; and from that day, but not
before, Israel will believe in Christ, David their King. So long,
therefore, as Gentile strangers hold the yoke over Israel and his land,
as at this day, so long Israel will remain unconverted. Israel's con-
version dates from the day when Jacob is saved out of his trouble for
ever ; this trouble is ended by the breaking of all Gentile strangers’
yoke ; and wherever that yoke is nationally broken, there Israel's
conversion begins, and by whatever the yoke is broken, by that the
conversion is commenced. The place will be Jerusalem ; the act,
Christ's breaking off strangers' yoke in Antichrist. Scott says upon
this restoration and conversion, at vers. 5–9 :—“Perhaps it will be
introduced by terrible judgments on Israel and the adjacent nations,
destroying obstinate rebels and opponents, and making way for the
conversion of the rest ; and the miseries of the nation since the
coming of Christ are predicted.” Scott's perhaps, in the first clause,
will be supported by other scriptures. (See also Lowth, on vers.
23, 24, the time of which is the same. Compare also Dan. xii. 1.)
This prediction of Jacob's trouble, at the time of restoration and
conversion, seems to bear out the interpretation which some have put
upon Hos. i. 11 :-“For great shall be the day of Jezreel,” i.e., say
they, “Great in trial shall be the day of Jezreel.” But that TITS Piº
will be great in all senses ; great in trial, great in blessing, great in
result, great in wonder. That day of Jezreel is the day of the One
Great Head, appointed with Israel's confidence and joy over Israel and
Judah at Jerusalem. That appointment of the One Great Head is
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 151
the manifestation of Branch, is the enthronement of King Messiah, is
the overthrow of Antichristian foes, is the breaking of the strangers'
yoke, is the ending of Jacob's trouble, is the †. the final and
effective cause of his conversion, is the great day of Jezreel, and is
celebrated at Jerusalem.” (See also Horsley’s “Hosea,” p. 4.) How-
ever, Jeremiah is explicit; the time of Jacob's trouble is the Pi",
day, or order, or series, of events resulting in his conversion ; and
because it is said Jacob's trouble, therefore we conclude that some of
all Jacob's sons, viz., some persons of all the tribes, are included in it.
And I distinguish it from the visitation mentioned at Ezek. xx. 38:—
“I will purge out from among you the rebels,” &c., for that will fall
upon certain isolated rebels, out of some one country, who are not
permitted to enter the Holy Land; but this upon Jacob collectively,
viz., upon persons of all the tribes within that land, but particularly
at Jerusalem. Hence, after a partial restoration, shared in by people
of all the tribes, and constituting a just representation of both houses,
this fearful trouble will be sent upon them, but will result in the over-
throw of its agents, their own conversion, and the completed restora-
tion of their people. God will save Jacob out of it, and cause him
afterward to dwell safely in the land. (Ezek. xxxvi. 33.) It will
hardly be doubted that the title Jacob includes all the tribes, the
national representation, though there is one passage which affords a
singular exception to this —“For the transgression of Jacob is all
this, and for the sins of the house of Israel. What is the transgres-
sion of Jacob P. Is it not Samaria 3 And what are the high places
of Judah 2 Are they not Jerusalem P” (Mic. i. 5.)
Second. We have already had reason to infer that Jerusalem is to
be rebuilt, and that upon her ancient foundations ; but Jeremiah puts
this beyond contradiction :-‘‘Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will
bring again the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have mercy upon his
dwelling-places; and the city shall be builded upon her own heap,
and the palace shall remain after the manner thereof.” (Chap. xxx. 18.)
This, following the declaration, “This is Zion, whom no man seeketh
after,” leaves no room for misapprehension. Jerusalem shall be rebuilt
in Messiah’s days upon her proper ancient site, her own heaps, and
particularly the urbs superior, the royal quarter, the city of David,
which is not now included within that city—“Beautiful for situation,
the joy of the whole earth, Mount Zion, the sides of the north, the
city of the great king.” (Ps. xlviii. 2.) This quarter is here specified
as containing also the palace Tib S, the royal citadel; which also

152 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Jeremiah declares shall be builded after the manner thereof. But for
whom ? Surely this earthly residence will be required for an earthly
governor alone ; and thus, by a singular prediction, Jeremiah justifies
the previous inference, that, although the kingdom, at the time this
prophecy becomes fulfilled, will be Messiah's, a spiritual kingdom,
yet the royal residence will be required for a governor in the flesh,
foretold by Jeremiah subsequently, at chap. xxxiii. 26, to be of the
seed of literal David, ruling with acknowledged subordination to
Messiah. The Jewish state, reconstructed with an independent
government, under the special kingship of Messiah, but having also
a royal governor of David's line, as typified formerly by Zerubbabel.
(Zech. iii. 8.) Lowth says this word Tib S may mean here either the
temple, or the king's house. But this is an error. Lee makes the
word mean palace alone, and never temple. So Gesenius, alluding
at the same time to one place, where the word was thought by ancient
interpreters to mean the temple, and the context seemed to favour
them ; but Fürst, in his “Concordance,” gives no such passage;
interprets the word domus augusta, alta, palatium ; nor can I find
that, in all the thirty-one references he gives, the word is ever used
of the temple. The fullest use of it is found in Amos; and I conclude
that Lowth is incorrect ; though, it should be added, Grotius says:–
& 6 lipºs, palatium ; quod intelligi potest de domo Principis. Sed
Chaldaeus et Graeci templum intellexerunt,” which was probably
Lowth's authority, “Crit. Sacr.” In noting this prediction of the
rebuilding of Jerusalem and her palace, the reader ought especially to
observe that it cannot be applied to the Babylonian restoration without
direct violation to the context ; for, 1. The whole prophecy is limited
to the times of David the King, Messiah : 2. The very verse, in
which this prediction respecting Jerusalem and her palace occurs,
describes the captivity returned as that of Jacob's tents, viz., all
Israel; which, as we have abundantly shown from Hosea, &c., &c.,
could not have been the case at the Babylonian restoration: and, 3.
The paragraph, which is continuous, contains (as I shall shew), at
ver. 21, a special prediction of Messiah in connexion with their
governor, limiting that paragraph, and every prediction in it, to his
times. And I would notice here, with the greatest deference, a
curious self-contradiction of Professor Lee (“Inquiry,” p. 60) —
“And the city shall be builded upon her own heap (hill). Some have
understood this of a prediction of the rebuilding of the national
Jerusalem, and therefore to be literally interpreted. But this cannot
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 153
be true, for Jerusalem was not generally built upon a hill.” The
whole force of this observation lies in making °F) mean a hill, and
objecting to the word heap. But the same Professor Lee tells us,
“Lexicon,” p. 623, “ *F a heap, peculiarly of ruins; ” and refers to
this very passage, Jeremiah xxx. 18, to prove it. We value Lee's
Lexicon too highly not to follow it, and his “Inquiry into Prophecy”
too little to follow that. Besides which, the fact is, his own meaning
of ºn, in his Lexicon, is precisely like Gesenius' (“Thesaurus,”
p. 1505):—“Collis. max. acervus ruderum.” “Rudus Vetus ;
rubble, rubbish, of old ruinous houses fallen to the ground.”
(Ainsworth.) Upon the ruinous old houses of old Jerusalem, fallen
into a heap upon the ground, the new Jerusalem will literally be built
in Messiah's days, this blunder of the Professor notwithstanding.
Third. The prophet distinctly describes the going up of people from
the ten tribes, who were not included in the Babylonian restoration,
to worship at Jerusalem. “There shall be a day the watchmen upon
Mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise yel and let us go up to Zion, unto
the Lord our God.” (Chap. xxxi. 6.) Again : “Therefore they
shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to
the goodness of the Lord.” (Ver, 12.) If any one be tempted to
think that Zion may be here interpreted of the Church, let him
bethink him again what interpretation to put upon the expression,
“watchmen upon Mount Ephraim ;” watchmen he might spiritualize
(as it is called), but what object of specification can the words Mount
Ephraim be conceived to have in reference to the Christian Church 1
Clearly Jeremiah predicts the gathering, together of the people of
literal Ephraim to Jerusalem, the city of their solemn assemblies.
There the Lord will be known to dwell; thither they will go up to
serve Him as in times of old. So before, in Ezek. xx. 40 :—“For
in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, saith
the Lord, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them, in the land,
serve me ; there will I accept them, and there will I require your
offerings.” So too, on Hosea iii. 4, 5. After the children of Israel
have abided many days without either government, or Church, of
their own, the accidents either of material, or place, to worship, then,
in Messiah’s days, their national condition in these respects shall be
exactly reversed, and they shall recover all. “They shall fear the
Lord and his goodness in the latter days,” said Hosea (chap. iii. 5);
they “shall flow together unto the goodness of the Lord,” says Jere-
154 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
miah (chap. xxxi. 12), using the same mode of speech. The passage
foretels the re-establishment of national, public, state, scriptural
worship at Jerusalem, and describes the flowing together of all Israel
to the Holy City for that purpose. Religious rites and ceremonies, of
some sort consistent with Christianity, are predicted; but of their
exact character, how far Levitical or otherwise, Jeremiah suggests
nothing. M. Henry on this place says:—“Now this implies that the
service of God shall be again set up in Zion; that there shall be a
general resort to it, with much affection and with mutual excitement,
as in David's time ;” and “They shall flock in great numbers, and
with great forwardness, and cheerfulness, as streams of water, to the
temple, where He causes his goodness to pass before the people. They
shall come together in solemn assemblies,” &c., &c. He fully justifies
our view of the force of the passage, but failed to see that it was
limited, as it is, to the times of David the King, Messiah Jesus.
Not so beautifully, but more particularly, Lowth, on chap. xxxi. 6 :
—“The prophet here saith that the time shall come when there shall
be a general summons throughout all the ten tribes (Ephraim being
often put for the whole kingdom of Israel,) to repair to the temple at
Jerusalem, and join themselves to the Church, from which they had
made so long a separation *—all the ten tribes; therefore not fulfilled
after the Babylonian restoration, for the watchmen are upon Mount
Ephraim. So Isa. lii. 7:—“How beautiful upon the mountains are
the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace;
that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation ; that
saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth ! Thy watchmen shall lift up the
voice ; with the voice together shall they sing; for they shall see eye
to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion”—a prediction referring
to the same times.
This peculiar description of the ten's resorting to worship at Jeru-
salem tends to suggest once more that the coming restoration, and its
safe settlement in Palestine, will be in tribal divisions. And in the
present chapters the same idea is otherwise, and more distinctly,
inculcated ; for, at chap. xxxi. 1, the prophet says, God will be “the
God of all the families of Israel.” This word Tºº family, has
four several meanings, viz., family or household, family or clan,
family or tribe, family or nation, each of the last three being clearly
only an extension of the word's primary meaning, the first. The
following passages will illustrate this statement:-1. Clan, or family
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 155
descended from a common head; “And of Kohath was the family of
the Amramites, and the family of the Izeharites, and the family of
the Hebronites, and the family of the Uzzielites; these are the family
of the Kohathites.” (Num. iii. 27). 2. Family, in the sense of tribe :
—“Manoah, a man of the family of the Danites.” (Judges xiii. 2.)
3. Family, in the sense of nation :-‘Against the whole family,
which I brought up from the land of Egypt.” (Amos iii. 1.) “In
thee shall all the families (written nations, Gen. xxii. 18) of the earth
be blessed.” (Gen. xii. 3.) And, I would add, it is used to signify
the two nations, or houses, or kingdoms, of Israel and Judah, dis-
tinctively. “The two families which the Lord hath chosen.” (Jerem.
xxxiii. 24.) Now it is clear that, in Jerem. xxxi. 1, the last meaning,
nations, cannot be taken, for it would be simply absurd to speak of
Jacob's descendants as “all the nations of Israel,” they forming but
one people. And of the other three meanings, either will suit our
purpose ; for, whoever admits that Jeremiah prophesies for house-
holds, or clans, cannot and will not be disposed to deny, that his
prediction may be extended also to tribes. This, then, viz., tribes, is
the force of rtrººp here. Jeremiah predicts, God will be the God
of all the tribes of Israel, and they shall be his people. Take a
parallel passage :-‘‘ Hear the word of the Lord, ye house of Jacob,
and all the families (i.e., tribes) of the house of Israel.” (Jerem. ii. 4.)
Thus, then, the prophecy specifies the restoration and conversion of
Israel, by all his tribes; to what purpose unless, at that day, those
tribes can be known apart 2 But, if apart, then tribal arrangement
in the land, and tribal institutions, social and municipal, seem to
follow as matters of course. So Isaiah, by inspiration, utters a
prophetic prayer, which contemplates the recovery of Israel :—“Oh
Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways 2 and hardened
our hearts from thy fear 2 Return, for thy servants' sake, the tribes
of thine inheritance 1” (Isa. lxiii. 17.) Now let Professor Lee's
criticism on Pitt turn, or return, be admitted to the fullest, that it
does not always mean “a bringing back from one country to another.”
(“Inquiry,” p. 84.) Here, in Isaiah lxiii. 17, it must mean that ;
for Isaiah explains himself —“The people of thy holiness have
possessed it but a little while ; our adversaries have trodden down thy
sanctuary.” (Ver. 17.) Mark that, then, all ye lovers of Israel !
The Holy Ghost has prayed for the literal restoration of Israel to
Palestine; therefore, that prayer must, and will, be granted And
156 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Isaiah uses a proper word for tribes, bag. This prophetic prayer,
whispered to Isaiah by the Holy Spirit, is therefore sure to be com-
plied with. God will cause to return to Palestine, and to truth, the
tribes of his inheritance ; tribes twelve, with their Levites, separate
and contradistinguished of the sons of Jacob. M. Henry on the
passage:—“I will be the God of all the families; not of the two
tribes only, but of all the tribes.” We shall see presently that
Ezekiel particularly supports these arguments. And the conclusion is
that the tribes, being thus specified in prophecy, will be distinctly
and separately allocated in their land. This idea we saw advanced by
Ezekiel (chaps. xvi. 55, and xxxvi. 11), and a similar expression is
employed by Jeremiah here:—“Their children also shall be as afore-
time, and their congregation shall be established before me, and I will
punish all that oppress them.” (Chap. xxx. 20.) Let the force of this
passage be noted : children, in one clause, is precisely equivalent to
congregation in the other ; and shall be as aforetime precisely answers
to be established before me; hence the children will become an ITTY ,
a congregation of witness, and be established, viz., become as afore-
time PIE: ; as formerly, according to their “former estate.” (Ezek.
xvi. 55.) Hence I conclude that the restored people will not be
divided into tribes until after their restoration, their rescue from the
strangers' yoke, and their conversion. For, not until so discriminated,
do they become once more that national congregation, witnessing
before the world, as accepted worshippers, to the truth of God. This
cannot be until they are resettled in the land, nor before they are
converted. For in the word Ty we recognise peculiar force, as the
word employed by Moses to indicate the congregation of all the tribes
of Israel, recognised of God as his people, and drawing near to Him
in the appointed ordinances of public, national, established, state
religion. The book of Numbers fixes the force of the word. Its
meaning is, “testimonium, monumentum, etiam de legibus divinitiis
revelatis; or Concio, Coetus, examen, ecclesia, a verbo TV, signifi-
catione congregandi, quae à primariä firmandi exiit.” (Fürst's “Con-
cor.” p. 796. Also Lee’s “Lexicon,” pp. 450, 452.) A congregation
of witness before the world Israel was, and is yet to be. As that
Church, or congregation, of old was established as a witness of God's
truth before the world, so shall it be again, as a witness, to the
outmost parts of the earth of the fulfilment of these prophecies. The
prophet foretels that all the tribes of Israel, as one reunited, holy
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 157
congregation, shall be again settled, as of old, in their land, a national,
public, recognised, world's witness to the truth of God, and his
revealed word. In tribal settlements as of old, with public assemblies
as of old ; not a confused, indiscriminate mass of people, mixed up
with strangers, and spurious people, as after the Babylonian return,
when Israel possessed not Samaria, or Mount Ephraim, but the sepa-
rate and peculiar people of God, by families and tribes, in their estates
and inheritances, discharging functions not possible to other nations ;
as an embodied, congregational, national, rescued evidence of the love,
and power, and truth of the Almighty. So Scott, on chap. xxxi.
3—7:—“Some of the Israelites who at different periods returned with
the Jews from captivity, doubtless got possession of their ancient
inheritances, but this evidently refers to events yet future. . . . . The
Jews, and Ephraim, or the ten tribes, are here represented as already
in possession of their own land, and all their former jealousies and
divisions are ceased ; so that the watchmen, the teachers, or prophets
of Ephraim, excite the people to resort to Mount Zion to worship.”
This did not those who held Ephraim after the Babylonian captivity.
“Our fathers worshipped in this mountain ; and ye say that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship,” &c., &c.
(John iv. 20.)
Fourth. The Authorized Version contains this remarkable passage,
“And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governors shall
proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to draw near,
and he shall approach unto me; for who is this that engaged his
heart to approach unto me? saith the Lord.” (Chap. xxx. 21.)
Taking even this reading, the passage is of great importance, for it
contains in effect a prediction that, within the Holy Land, in the
days of Jesus Christ, all Israel shall be ruled over by nobles of their
own race, and have a chief governor, born of their own nation ; and
this may really be a subject of prophecy; but the place before us is
more important still. For the word translated nobles is of the
singular number, and speaks of one, as well as governor. There is
no reason for the difference which appears in the English; besides
which, there is reason to believe it has a far higher import in this
place than the word nobles can convey. For it is mºſs continually
applied to God himself. “The Lord on high (``TS Titº) is mightier
than the voice of many waters.” (Ps. xciii. 4.) “But there the
glorious Lord (TTS T.) will be unto us a place of broad rivers and
158 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
streams.” (Isaiah xxxiii. 2.) A beautiful prediction which, in fact,
belongs to the same tº or series of events as Jeremiah xxx. 21, and
is almost parallel with it. The word Tºſs, then, here rendered
nobles, is in truth a word of eminence frequently applied as a title to
the Most High himself, while that rendered governor is merely the
participle bºjo , as already used for rulers by Jeremiah at chap.
xxxiii. 26: “Of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham; ”
so that preference of dignity belongs rather to the first than to the
second; and the passage admits of two renderings, “And their Noble
One shall be of themselves, even their ruler shall proceed from the
midst of them; ” or, “And their Noble One shall be of themselves, and
their ruler,” &c., &c. In the first this Noble One and the ruler are the
same ; in the second they may be two. The first declares that God
the Lord, the Mighty One, shall himself be ruler: “He shall sit and
rule upon his throne;” the second that, besides the Mighty One, there
shall be a subordinate governor, “a ruler of the seed of David,”
under Messiah. We have already seen that both ideas are sustained
by prophecies. In either case mºſt noble one, means Messiah. There
is a cognate word, "PS mighty one, which Isaiah uses in the same
sense in the following passages: “The Lord of Hosts, the Mighty
One of Israel” (chap. i. 24); “Thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of
Jacob” (chap. lx. 16): these last two references being also to
prophecies which belong to the same era as that of which Jeremiah is
speaking. But there is another important consideration which justifies
our application of this passage to Christ. We recognise accepted
worship or mediation on the part of the Noble One from the midst of
Israel on Israel's behalf. “I will cause Him to draw near, and he
shall approach unto me ;” to draw near and approach to God
implying acts of worship, and being especially used of priests (Lev.
x. 3, and xxi. 17); but this is such a priest that Jeremiah expresses
wonder or admiration that He, even such as He, should thus draw
near for Israel. This priest is a “man wondered at.” (Zech. iii. 8.)
IT"Shri "b "2 for who is this, this very one, who pleased his heart to
approach unto me ! Such peculiar language confirms the view that
Messiah is intended, and that Jeremiah here represents Him, not
only as the Mighty One and Governor of restored Israel, but also as
their intercessor and advocate before the Almighty Father. A
prediction exactly corresponding to Zechariah's : “He shall sit and
rule upon his throne, and He shall be a priest upon his throne.”
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 159
“Ex consensu interpretum Graecorum, Latinorum, sed et Hebræ-
orum, qui hinc hauserunt nomen Messiae in Tsut est in Talmude...
Vocabo eum in Sacerdotium. Sic accipiendum esse docetur (Ps.
cx, 4 ; Jerem. xxxiii.) Sub finem . . . . Quis alius, praeter Christum,
erit quem volo regem genti dare? Quis alius, praeter Christum,
audet se filium meum vocare 2 Naturâ Scilicet, non adoptione. Quis
angelorum, vel hominum, mihi aded conjunctus est per amorem,
fiduciam, et obedientiam.” (Poole.) “This,” says M. Henry, “has
reference to Christ our governor, David our king. . . . . It has refer-
ence to Christ, to Him as the Mediator, as the High Priest of our
profession.” And Lowth : “‘Who is this,’ &c., &c. The words have
an emphasis in the original that cannot be expressed in another
language, and are spoken by way of admiration. The very same
phrase is used Ps. lxxiv. 10, where the altering of the phrase from
that which was used in the eighth verse is designed to denote some
extraordinary person, and is generally expounded of Messiah.” And
Scott: “Yet the Jews after their captivity were seldom, if ever, free
from dependance on strangers, and were frequently oppressed by
them, and many of their rulers were far from meriting the character
here given. . . . . Zerubbabel was neither priest nor king, though ruler
of the Jews under the kings of Persia; and to approach God on behalf
of sinners requires far more than mere devotedness to God.” We
seem, then, to have the assent of the commentators in considering
Jerem. xxx. 21 a prophecy of Messiah. Under the same head I
would place Lee's reference to Isaiah x. 21 : “The remnant, even the
remnant of Jacob, shall return to the mighty God.” And Isaiah
ix. 6: “He shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God,
the Father of a Dispensation, the Prince of Peace” (“Inquiry,”
p. 31), “Everlasting Father, Ty">8 Originator of an Age or
Dispensation.” (Lee’s “Lex,” p. 2.) But the remnant spoken of
by Isaiah which returns to the Mighty God, is that multitudinous
remnant of all the tribes gathered together in Palestine like a flock
overflowing its fold, from all quarters of the world, as explained on
Isaiah xi. 11, and Micah ii. 12, at p. 113, suprā. And again, “Lift
up your heads, O ye gates! and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors;
and the King of glory shall come in Who is this King of glory?
(tiºn Tºp T; Shri º) The Lord of Hosts, He is the King of
glory.” (Ps. xxiv. 10.) Where we have the same expression as at
Jerem. xxx. 21 in a psalm, which I take to be a prophecy of the same
160 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Noble One, the Mighty Ruler, and High Priest, and King of Israel.
Upon the whole, taking the paragraph (chap. xxxi. 18–24) it seems
not reasonable to evade the conviction that the return of “the
captivity of Jacob's tents,” the rebuilding of Jerusalem upon “her
own heap,” the establishment of “their congregation before me” as
aforetime, and the national reconciliation to God which this implies, are
here in a manner of peculiar force, from its singularity, carefully and
distinctly limited to that time when Israel shall welcome Messiah our
Lord Jesus as their own High Priest and King, and this (vers. 23, 24)
in the presence of great and fearful judgment upon their enemies.
Fifth. It should be borne in mind that Jeremiah prophesied some
time after Hosea, for he seems on this occasion to have Hosea's
prophecy, already considered, upon his mind. When speaking of the
first covenant (chap. xxxi. 32), Jeremiah says, “Which my covenant
they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord.”
vºya. The occurrence of this figure of husbandship seems
remarkable in this place ; for remembering that Hosea had already
delivered a prophecy relating to the times of David the King, and
foretelling Israel’s restoration and conversion through the illustration
of husband and adulterous wife, and that this prophecy, like Jere-
miah's, alluded to one covenant brokén and another to be entered
into, it seems likely that Jeremiah's hearers would at once refer to
Hosea's previous declaration: “At that time thou shalt call me Ishi,
and shalt no more call me Baali" Sºy: . (Chap. ii. 16.) This
probable connexion of Jeremiah's present prophecy with Hosea's
seems confirmed upon further inspection. “I will allure her (says
Hosea), and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably
unto her.” (Chap. ii. 14.) But Jeremiah says, “The people that were
left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I
went to cause him to rest.” (Chap. xxxi. 2.) Hosea says (chap.
iii. 3), “Thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for
another man ; ” and “I will betroth thee unto me for ever;
yea, I will betroth thee unto me,” &c., &c. (chap. ii. 19, 20);
Jeremiah, “I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin
daughter of Israel” (chap. xxxi. 4): and, “Turn again, O virgin of
Israel, turn again to these thy cities” (ver. 21); where the word
nºn- , “virgo, eague illibata, ita dicta utpote à virorum consertio
separata et seclusa,” (Gesenius), is the strongest that could be used to
indicate freedom from uncleanness. The purification of the “back-
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 161
sliding daughter” (ver. 22) during the time of her separation, her
“abiding many days" (Hosea iii. 3) being so complete as to be
illustrated only by a recovering of first virginity. Hosea and
Jeremiah seem alike, though not equally, to employ the figures
of separation, betrothal, and marriage to represent the reunion of all
Israel to God-Messiah. And each of them includes all the tribes
with peculiar comprehension of the ten. As before observed on
Hosea, all may be, and are, included, but the ten must be. So
Jeremiah particularly personifies Ephraim, although he also, speaking
of all, says, “I was a husband unto them,” wrapping all within the
figure. “Is Ephraim, my dear son, is he a pleasant child 2*
(Chap. xxxi. 20.) This more especial allusion to the ten seems to me
carried on also at ver. 21, and that there Jeremiah, as Isaiah did
before, teaches us to expect the ten from the vicinity of their first
captivity: “Set thee up way marks; make thee high heaps; set thine
heart towards the high way, even the way which thou wentest; turn
again, O marriageable virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities.”
Now this designation of the way by which Jeremiah knew the people
went seems to me hard, to be applied to the Roman dispersion,
of which Jeremiah knew nothing ; and, besides, the paragraph (vers.
18–21) referring peculiarly to Ephraim, we know it was not
fulfilled at the Babylonian restoration; the way must mean the way
the ten went, who will come back (as Isaiah had before intimated) by
the same way; “the virgin of Israel” will mean peculiarly the
people who return that way; and I conclude that Hosea's and
Jeremiah's illustration of the purification of the adulterous wife and
backsliding daughter, and her return to early purity, describe
peculiarly the preparation of the ten, and their return to Messiah. So
that our conclusions drawn from Hosea are justified by Jeremiah. All
may be included, but the ten must be. If any one should be disposed
to think that this prophecy was fulfilled by the return from Babylon,
I entreat him to remember that the ten did never return under
Zerubbabel, and that, therefore, Jeremiah’s “virgin of Israel” was
not then brought back; besides, the time of her betrothal, as shown by
Hosea, eannot expire until Messiah's days; and, moreover, the
husband to whom she is to be united is Messiah himself, so that the
whole prophecy must be limited to Messiah's times, and therefore,
remains to be fulfilled. In days yet to come, Israel, the ten, will
return free from idolatry, as a virgin from corruption, to Palestine,
M
162 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
along that same way by which she went into captivity. So Isaiah
lxii. 10, “Go through, go through the gates; prepare ye the way of
the people, cast up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones; lift
up a standard for the people. Behold, the Lord hath proclaimed unto
the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy
salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with Him, and his work before
Him. And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the
Lord; and thou shalt be called, Sought out,. A city not forsaken.”
Upon which I would observe, that the proclamation to the people, the
preparation of their way, and their redemption unto holiness, and the
recovery of Jerusalem to honour, are made synchronical with the
coming of Messiah; in other words, the restoration and conversion of
the people is Messiah’s work at Jerusalem.
[3] That the conversion is foretold needs not be insisted on. But
that conversion is foretold as subsequent to the restoration. For
unless I mistake, this must be the effect of Jeremiah's assertion:
“After those days” (ver. 33) PIT Bºn TS; the expression is
specific. But after what days? The whole verse is as follows:—
“But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel. After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God,
and they shall be my people. And they shall no more teach,” &c., &c.
Now we know certainly, because St. Paul quotes it in Heb. viii. 8,
that this whole passage (vers. 31–34) relates to the new covenant in
Christ Jesus, and that, consequently, all who are brought into it
are converted to Christianity: the whole question is, what mean the
words, “After those days 2" In quoting the passage I have followed
the pointing of the English Bible; but that of the Hebrew is
different: “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house
of Israel after those days, saith the Lord ; I will put my law,” &c., &c.
The two ways come to the same effect, viz., the experience of the
covenant by Israel is placed after certain days; but the Hebrew
pointing is the more precise, putting the actual striking, or making, of
the covenant after the days alluded to ; which pointing also is followed
in the New Testament at Heb. viii. 8. “After those days,” then,
God will strike a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the
house of Judah. What days are those ? Throughout the two
chapters of which this prophecy consists there are but four notations
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 163
of time which can pretend to be independent, and to these in all other
verses where time is mentioned, it is referred by the relative forms,
“that day,” “same time,” “those days.” (Chap. xxx. 7, 8;
xxxi. 1, 29.) In each of those four places the same mode of noting
the time independently is employed; PS; Bºb: Tºm Behold the
days are coming, and these four passages are as follows:–1. “For lo
the days come, saith the Lord, that I will bring again the captivity of
my people Israel and Judah, saith the Lord ; and I will cause them to
return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess
it.” (Chap. xxx. 3.) 2. “Behold the days come, saith the Lord,
that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the
seed of man, and with the seed of beast; and it shall come to pass
that, like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break
down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict, so will
I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the Lord.” (Chap.
xxxi. 27.) 3. “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel and house of Judah.”
(Wer. 31.) 4. “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the city
shall be built to the Lord, from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of
the corner,” &c., &c. (Wer. 38.) The first two extracts denoting
restoration and settlement in the land; the fourth, the rebuilding of
Jerusalem (admitted even by Dr. Lee, “Inquiry,” p. 67, not to have
been fulfilled at the return from Babylon); the third, the making of
the new covenant or conversion. After which comes our passage,
“This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel after those days, saith the Lord.” (Ver. 33.) But this is
precisely the same as the third extract; it is the same prediction
nº nº, the Lord strikes a covenant, vers. 31 and 33 are coinci-
dents, the one illustrating the other, referring to, or speaking of,
precisely the same matter, viz., the new covenant ; one of these,
therefore, cannot be subsequent to the other, i.e., the word after, in
ver. 33, cannot refer merely to the days coming in ver, 31; but “the
days coming” in ver. 31 must be held identical with “the days
coming” at chap. xxx. 3, and xxxi. 27 and 38; and the effect of the
whole then becomes that ver, 31 makes the striking of the new
covenant to belong to the same order of events as the restoration and
settlement in the Holy Land, and rebuilding of Jerusalem ; or
(chap. xxx. 3, and xxxi. 27, 38), and in that sense, therefore,
synchronical with them; but ver, 33 declares that in this order of
M 2
164 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
events, synchronical as a series, the striking of the new covenant
shall, nevertheless, be that part of the series which follows on to, and
does not precede, the remainder. “After those days” of restoration,
God strikes the new covenant with Israel and Judah, but not before.
It is worthy of remark that each of the passages (chap. xxx. 3, and
xxxi. 27, 31) specifically and separately mentions Israel and Judah,
and, therefore, each contains a mark of non-fulfilment at the restora-
tion from Babylon, as well as a mark of identity of time. If I have
failed to make this argument as clear as I could wish, let me the more
earnestly commend it to the reader's own reflection, which, I fear not,
will confirm the conclusion sought to be established. “After those
days.” Yes, that striking of the new covenant will be signalized by
an overt act, reaching to the world, the lifting up of the standard, the
overthrow of Antichristian armies, the manifestation of Branch, the
enthronement of the king, Israel’s repentance,—these are the visible
solemnities of the compact : after the days of restoration.
As regards chap. xxxi. 9, “They shall come with weeping, and
with supplications will I lead them,” which has been thought to
favour conversion before restoration, I shall merely observe for the
present that it describes the returning of the body of the ten after the
great event which effects the conversion of the restored national
representation of all at Jerusalem. I reserve the passage for chap. ix.
infră, in which the subject is more immediately considered.
[4] Last, the prophecy can be neither figurative, nor conditional,
nor have chief reference (if any) to the times of the Babylonian
restoration. First, it is not conditional, because the language
employed throughout is particularly emphatic, but (not to dwell
on that) because also vers. 35–37 distinctly tell us it is especially
unconditional, and, as at chap. xxxiii. 22, 25, as certain of absolute
fulfilment, irrespective of the merits of the people referred to, as the
ordinances of heaven and earth are of being sustained in their proper
courses. “If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord,
the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for
ever,” but not otherwise. Jerem. xxxi. 35–37; and xxxiii.
19–26 are parallel passages. Second, the prophecy cannot be
figurative, or spirited away by a mere application to the Christian
Church, because the variety of terms and methods through which the
people are addressed, both collectively and distributively, as houses, as
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 165
captivities, as a nation; by personification of cities, as Zion and
Samaria ; by distinctive titles, as Judah, Israel, Ephraim, as well as
through allusion to spiritual adulteries, &c., &c., all these terms and
methods show that literal Israel is intended, for such particulars
cannot be rationally applied to or paralleled in the history of the
spiritual Israel, viz., the Christian Church. Because also, as to chap.
xxxi. 38–40, which Dr. Lee applies to the heavenly Jerusalem,
because that spiritual Jerusalem will surely know nothing half so
earthly as a “valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes,” &c., &c.,
which were thrown into Kedron, or as “the horse gate,” or “tower of
Hananeel,” &c., therein mentioned. Third, the prophecy cannot be
referred for its completion to the Babylonian restoration, for there are
sia distinct proofs that it belongs to later times:—1. Its times are
those of David the king. 2. They are termed “the latter days.”
3. They are the times of the new covenant. 4. It is the era when
Rachel mourned “for her children, and refused to be comforted,
because they were not.” (Chap. xxxi. 15–17 ; Matt. ii. 17.)
5. Both houses of Israel and Judah are distinctively included. 6. The
restoration predicted is a time of “Jacob's trouble” (chap. xxx. 7),
which the Babylonian was not. These are six distinct proofs that the
prophecy was not fulfilled at, and did not relate to, the Babylonian
restoration. Accordingly, Professor Lee freely and handsomely
admits (“Inquiry,” pp. 53,62, 65, 66) that the two chapters form one
prophecy, include all the tribes, do not refer to the Babylonian
restoration, but do refer to the times of Christianity. For the rest,
he follows entirely the spiritual mode, as may be seen ; and there is
nothing new in his interpretation, but only in his way of supporting
it; yet it was a subject worthy of even Professor Lee's ingenuity to
tell us what the heavenly Jerusalem has to do with a “horse-gate.”
(Chap. xxxi, 40.)
[III.] The next prophecies are Ezekiel's—important to our
subject as containing clear proof that the conversion of Israel–I
mean of all Israel—will be subsequent to the restoration. The first of
them will deserve none the less attention because it is one of those
from which the late venerated Mr. Faber ventured to conclude that
the restoration of Israel will be subsequent to their conversion, and
166 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
that “Ezekiel leads us to conclude that the goats will war upon the
rams, and, not content with acquiring a settlement themselves, will do
all in their power to prevent their (viz., the rams') return.” (“Rest.
of Israel,” vol. ii., p. 98.) In other words, that the restoration of the
rams, the converted, will be thwarted and opposed by the goats or
unconverted, who themselves will have already acquired a settlement,
as Mr. Faber admits, which seems to me much the same thing as
being restored. So that he does undesignedly admit the restoration of
some before conversion. In its proper place I shall undertake to
show the unsatisfactory character of Mr. Faber's exposition of the
“goats and rams” of Ezek. xxxiv.
[1..] In his thirty-fourth chapter, Ezekiel is prophesying against
the shepherds of Israel, and foretels (ver. 23) that God “will set up
one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant
David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd: and I the
Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them ;
I the Lord have spoken it.” The expression of the prophecy is
peculiar. Hosea, Jeremiah, and (as we shall show) Isaiah, had already
foretold the coming of Messiah as King, but here Ezekiel describes
Him by a word, the various force of which our translators have
sufficiently marked by rendering it prince, and not king, the word
being sº. The meaning which seems to meet the term is, that
Messiah would be a governor, raised up out of a lowly condition of life
from among the people; their Noble One would be of themselves.
(Jerem. xxx. 21.) In short, it seems to be another mode of announcing
the incarnation. The word means peculiarly one elevated to rank from
the midst of the people. Thus David was truly a sº. It does not,
I imagine, imply here any inferiority to kingship, but rather kingship
attained, like David's, from a condition comparatively mean and
despised. That Messiah, who was “despised and rejected of men,” and
peculiarly so by Israel, that same Messiah Jesus Christ shall be here-
after elevated in their hearts to the highest place in praise and glory,
and be acknowledged their real David, their chosen king, raised in
his manhood from the lowliest condition, their sº. A branch out of
the roots, hidden and all but forgotten, of David's family, “a root out
of a dry ground.” The word was originally applied to the chief of a
tribe, or even part of a tribe, and evidently in this sense one selected
from his equal brethren for a superiority not necessarily acknow-
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 167
ledged in him. Afterwards it came to mean the prince or sovereign
of a people, such prince or sovereign among Israel being at first
selected from the mass without any antecedent claims to such superi-
ority. Saul was such a king, David was such a king, and by such
instances the force of king undoubtedly belongs to the word, although
the humble origin of the king is implied. It was afterwards used to
signify king in general. Thus, when Ezekiel prophesies of Christ as
Prince, as sip, he is not to be understood as differing from former
prophets who had styled Him, by the use of another word, King,
but as intimating in a way peculiarly forcible both his kingship and
its despised origin. Gesenius (“Thesaurus,” p. 917) fully explains
the force of the word, and Fürst (“Concordance,” p. 734) similarly
says, “Quicquid elatum, evictum, excelsum est; hinc, 1. Princeps,
dignitate super populum elatus, de rege, de principe tribus, gentis,
ecclesiae, populi; 2. Vapores, a terra in aerem elevati et in nubes
congregati; ” which second meaning seems to me very significant.
I take Ezekiel's prediction of Christ as sº to be precisely equivalent
to the Psalmist's in Psalm lxxxix. 19: “I have laid help upon one
that is mighty, I have ea alted one chosen out of the people. I have
found David my servant;” where David is undeniably a type of
Christ, and we have the force of Isaiah's "28 and Ezekiel's Sº in
One Vefse.
[2.] It is sufficiently clear that in this prophecy Ezekiel speaks for
all Israel, the twelve tribes; for it will be observed that he complains
of the shepherds of Israel, without limitation or distinction : “Son of
man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel.” (Ver. 2.) Again,
“Thus shall they know that I the Lord their God am with them, and
that they, even the house of Israel, are my people, saith the Lord
God.” (Ver. 30.) And, indeed, all through the chapter the flock of
Israel, the high mountains of Israel, the land of Israel, are named col-
lectively, which use of the word Israel is so peculiarly characteristic
of Ezekiel's book, that I doubt whether in the whole of it six places
could be found upon which the question could reasonably be raised,
whether the word Israel does or does not mean all the tribes. I
conclude that, as in chaps. xi., xvi., xx, so here, “All the house of
Israel, wholly, even all of it,” is intended. And this is a fitting place
to mention that which would alone determine Ezekiel's intention in
this respect, were anything more required to do so. The necessary
168 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
and essential import of all the prophecies speaking of Israel's recog-
nising Messiah as a son of David and King of Israel, is, that all the
tribes must be included; for David at Jerusalem, to whom the
covenant of kingship was made, ruled over Israel entire ; and David
at Jerusalem is the chosen, specific type of Messiah the King, who
was to be immediately descended from him; hence, whenever
Messiah is foretold as a son of David and King of Israel, we may infer
from the very force of the expression, that all the twelve tribes with
their Levites are included ; to suppose less would be to detract from
the dignity of Messiah. Ezekiel addresses all Israel.
[3.] Such being the case, it is foretold by Ezekiel that all the tribes
of Israel shall yet be restored to their own land; for in the days of
Messiah Jesus Christ, to which the prophecy refers, God says,
“They shall be safe in their land” (ver. 27), and “They shall dwell
safely, and none shall make them afraid.” (Ver. 28.) And further, of the
same entire Israel he foretels their conversion to Christianity; for in
the same days of Messiah he says, “I will make with them a covenant
of peace” (ver. 25); that same covenant which Jeremiah so particu-
larly described at chap. xxxi. 33, and St. Paul explains at Heb.
viii. 8, whose characteristic was, “Peace on earth, and good will
toward men,” “the abundance of peace and truth.” (Jerem. xxxiii. 6.)
Or again (including both restoration and conversion), Ezekiel says,
“I will make them and the places round about my hill a blessing,
and I will cause the shower to come down in his season ; there shall
be showers of blessing.” (Ver. 26.) And the prophet places the
conversion after the restoration in two conclusive ways.
He does this, first, by the use of the verbal noun with 3, as
explained in the second chapter, p. 63, suprā, “And the tree of the
field shall yield her fruit, and the earth shall yield her increase, and
they shall be safe in their land, and shall know that I am the Lord,
when I have broken the bands of their yoke and delivered them out of
the hand of those that served themselves of him.” (Wer. 27.) When
I have broken with at and by my breaking ; at the time and by the
fact that I do break. Israel shall be safe in their land, and shall know
the Lord (i.e., taken in connexion with vers. 23–25, be converted)
at the time and by the fact that God breaks the yoke from off their
neck; which yoke is the yoke of “those that served themselves of
him " (ver. 27); it is precisely the yoke which Jeremiah predicts
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 169
shall be broken in the day of Jacob's trouble: “Alas! for that day is
great; so that none is like it; it is even the time of Jacob's trouble;
but he shall be saved out of it. For it shall come to pass in that day,
saith the Lord of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck,
and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him, but they shall serve
the Lord their God and David their King, whom I will raise up unto
them.” Chap. xxx. 7 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 27; and Jerem. xxxviii., are
almost parallel places; the two prophets foretel precisely the same
event, viz., the breaking the yoke of Gentile strangers off Israel's
neck by the destruction of their Antichristian confederacy in the Holy
Land; by that fact or event; and, therefore, at that time Israel will
be converted to the Lord ; and, therefore, the conversion will be after
the restoration. The actual presence of Israel in the land at the time
this yoke of strangers is broken appears to me sufficiently clear from
vers. 27–29 : “They shall be safe in their land, and shall know that
I am the Lord, at and by my breaking,” &c., &c.; but if any think
otherwise, I would only add that this is a point we shall be able
abundantly to verify. Our translation marks the subsequence of the
conversion to the restoration with considerable perspicuity in the
manner just noticed; but it does so peculiarly and in a different
manner at ver, 30 ; for, second, the particle 1 is there translated thus,
suggesting the inference that ver. 30 expresses the consequence or
effect of what has preceded. “And I will raise up for them a plant
of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the
land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more. Thus shall
they know that I the Lord their God am with them,” &c., &c.
(Vers. 29, 30.) Where the word thus, commencing ver. 30, does really
mark the effect or consequence of the whole paragraph, vers. 23–29,
every verse of which is carefully continuous of the preceding. This
knowledge of the Lord is represented by our translation as the conse-
quence of the national deliverance previously foretold, and it is correct.
This is that argument, founded upon a particular use of , alluded to at
p. 36, suprā, º exhibited in Ezek. xx. 38, 42, and 44, where Israel's
knowing the Lord is represented as the consequence of God's bringing
them into the land of Israel, and working with them for his name's sake.
Also Ezek. xxxvi. 11, &c., &c. And this important rendering of 1,
which gives a conclusive argument to our subject, is thus explained by
Noldius (“Concord. Heb. Part,” p. 203): “I. Sicità: Qualitatis, seu
modi; pro, in hane modum; atque itä; Thus Sarah was reproved (Gen.
xx. 16); Thus shall mine anger be accomplished (Ezek. v. 13); Thus
170 NoTEs on THE RESTORATION
the Lord saved Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxxii. 22).” In all these passages
the particle 1 is used and translated by the English thus. Now, if
they be examined, it will appear that in each case the word thus
marks the consequence or effect of a course of action previously
described; and so Ezekiel in the verse before us (chap. xxxiv. 30)
makes the conversion of Israel the effect or consequence of their
deliverance previously described. In accordance with the result
invariably set forth in this volume, the overthrow of the confederacy
against Israel in the Holy Land, or “breaking of the strangers' yoke *
in the Holy Land, and, therefore, after the restoration, is the final and
effective cause of that conversion, that national conversion, which
alone is the subject of prophecy. The above passages were selected
because the very word thus is employed in them ; but it is plain that
similar passages, where, in the English version, the word so is
employed, may be classed under the same head; and there is a
multitude of such passages referred to by Noldius, marking the force
of ) to denote a consequence or effect. A reference to Cruden’s
“Concordance” will show that the phrase, “Know that I am the
Lord,” is almost peculiar to Ezekiel; and I believe if the passages
there given be examined it may be found that the expression, “And
(they or ye) shall know that I am the Lord,” invariably denotes a
result or consequence of some course of action previously described ;
generally judgments upon Israel or some other nation. The following
are a few passages where the English version reads, “And they shall
know that I am the Lord; ” but Noldius would translate it, Thus or so
“they shall know that I am the Lord.” He cites from Ezekiel
chap. vi. 10, 14; vii. 27; xii. 15; xxiv. 27; xxv. 11, 17; xxvi. 6;
xxx. 8, 26; xxxii. 15; xxxiii. 29; xxxiv. 27; xxxv. 15; and
xxxviii. 23. We repeat it, that in all these passages the phrase
denotes certain impressions or convictions, the consequence of, and,
, therefore, subsequent to, previous judgments or dealings at the hands
of the Almighty; and the reader will not fail to observe that one of
them, viz., chap. xxxiv. 27, is from the very prophesy now under
consideration, and implies the conversion of all Israel to Christianity
by the breaking of the strangers' yoke; “The tree of the field shall
yield her fruit, and the earth shall yield her increase, and they shall
be safe in their land. Thus shall they know that I am the Lord, by
my breaking the bands of their yoke,” &c. This is justification
undesigned, upon the highest Hebrew authority, of our previous
interpretation of the phrase, and proves conclusively that Israel's
AND conversion of THE JEws. 171
conversion will be subsequent to his restoration. The authority
cited tells the more strongly because, when the Hebraist marked
the force of this particle in such passages, he did so abstract-
edly, as a point of Hebrew criticism, without reference to the
subjects of which such passages were treating. No wonder that, with
such arguments, and with others so varied yet so coincident as this
work endeavours to set out, “we are in danger of fancying, as some
actually have fancied, that the general conversion of the whole house
of Judah (I would alter the word to ‘Israel’) would succeed their
restoration.” (Faber, “Rest, of Israel,” p. 100.) But I shall address
myself particularly, and with the greatest reverence for his memory,
to Mr. Faber when we come to chaps. iv. and viii.
s" [IV.] Meanwhile, I pass to Ezekiel's kindred prophecy in chap.
xxxvii., leaving the question of any conditional or figurative interpre-
tation of either to the last. This thirty-seventh chapter enables us to
confirm the argument advanced in chap. xxxiv., that when, at ver, 24,
Ezekiel terms Messiah David the Prince, he is not to be considered as
differing from Hosea, or Jeremiah, or Isaiah, who had already
predicted Him as King; but rather ought to be regarded as confirming
and explaining the predictions of those prophets by intimating the
fact that Messiah would not only be a King, but also a King like
David, in this peculiar respect, that he would spring from a lowly
condition among the people. Accordingly, in chap. xxxvii., Ezekiel
foretels Messiah by both appellations, and connects, by the third title
“Shepherd,” that chapter with chap. xxxiv. : “And David my
servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd;.
they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes and do
them . . . . and my servant David shall be their prince for ever”
(chap. xxxvii. 24, 25); where we cannot but see that Ezekiel
describes Messiah under the two titles, Shepherd and Prince, S^{P; ;
and thus shows that the same subject is yet upon his mind.
But he adds the further and more specific title of king, #ºn 3.
as previously used by Jeremy and Hosea. He uses the title Prince
as in no way abating the dignity of Messiah's office; but having
asserted his actual kingship, he adds in effect, “And he will be
such a King as I have elsewhere intimated, viz., a King from the
172 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
|
midst of the people, raised from a comparatively mean and disregarded
condition, like his type, David the son of Jesse.”
The passage which contains the prediction is so specific and
minute as to a future restoration of all Israel to the Holy Land, and
their subsequent conversion to Christianity, that it seems surprising
how any believer in the inspiration of Holy Scripture can be induced
to dispute its application. My purpose is, God permitting, to exhibit
its plainness, and then briefly to point out the utter impossibility
of any merely spiritualized or any conditional interpretation of this or
of the preceding and kindred prophecy in chap. xxxiv.
º
(1.) As regards the time or era of the prophecy's accomplishment,
it can hardly be disputed either by Jew or Christian ; it is the age of
Messiah. The chapter contains a confirmation of many previous
prophecies which had been delivered concerning Messiah as “King of
the Jews.” Ezekiel in captivity himself repeats, and confirms former
assurances of his own and older prophets, that Messiah would be King
over all Israel in the Holy Land, notwithstanding their then, as now,
apparently hopeless separation and dispersion. In the chapter now
under consideration he repeats this specific prediction, and in those
which succeed it he describes events which will befall the nation Israel
in the Holy Land after their approaching restoration. That by “David
my servant” and “David their Prince’ Messiah is intended, neither
Jews nor Christians deny ; but Christians should remember that
they go farther, and maintain that this Messiah David, Shepherd,
Prince, and King is Jesus Christ the Son of God. However, the
prophet distinctly predicts that Messiah shall be recognised by
all Israel as their own Shepherd, Prince, and King. He does this in
a manner so remarkable that any but a literal interpretation seems
necessarily precluded. He is told to take two pieces of wood, one
“for Judah and the children of Israel, his companions,” another “for
Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and all the house of Israel, his
companions.” A passage remarkable for two reasons: 1. We see
that Holy Scripture justifies the reason we deduced from the nature
of the case for maintaining that children of the ten, mingled with the
two, did not and could not, at the return from Babylon, tribally and
compotently represent the ten tribes to which they belonged, which
ten tribes have, consequently, never yet returned : and, 2. We
perceive that the phrase, “All the house of Israel,” if it have any
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 173
limitation at all, is to be limited to the ten, and not to the two ; and
that, therefore, the previous prophecies (Ezek. xi. 15; xx. 40; and
xxxvi. 10), where the phrases, “House of Israel,” “All the house of
Israel wholly,” are employed, cannot be applied to the Babylonian
restoration consistently with Ezekiel's interpretation of his own
phrase, because that phrase must include the ten, which were never
carried to Babylon, nor ever returned from Media. These two sticks
the prophet is directed to join together into one, and is told, “They
shall become one in thine hand; ” where, as on many occasions, I
suspect that Ezekiel, whose namº is “He whom God strengthens.”
(Ezek. iii. 8), and who is called among all the prophets, “Son of
man,” was a type of Christ, the true Son of man, “the wisdom of God,
and the power of God” (1 Cor. i. 24), who himself bare our iniquities
(Ezek. iv. 4); and that in Christ's hands alone the two houses will
become one. (Compare Isaiah l. 5, 7, with Ezek, ii. 8, and iii. 9.)
In other words, the act of establishing the united houses of Israel and
Judah as one kingdom is the act of Christ, and the moment of his
acting that of their conversion. And Ezekiel is to do this in the
sight of the people, and explain it to them, if required, as something
in which they, as a people, were immediately concerned. The sym-
bolical prophecy was for them, and for no other people. Accordingly,
the prophet leaves us in no ambiguity as to the sense in which their
becoming one,was to be understood. It is a political junction, which
could be realized of Israel, but not of any other people. The Spirit
informs him they shall become “one nation,” united into one visible
and political body, and not only so, but also that that political body
would be constituted into “a kingdom,” and that kingdom upon
their old and only proper land. “I will make them one nation in the
land upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king over
them all, and they shall no more be two nations, neither shall they be
divided into two kingdoms any more at all.” (Ver. 22.) Such a
prediction could apply to no people but Israel, and, we know, has never
been fulfilled ; for since the days of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, the
twelve tribes have never been reunited under any form of govern-
ment; and especially since Nebuchadnezzar Judah has never had a
king of the house of David. “It is plain that the times subsequent to
the coming of Messiah are here specifically intended; for it was
promised that both Jews and Israelites should be gathered into their
own land, and become one nation under one king, and that that king
should be David; but they were never governed as one nation by any
174 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION:
king to whom the name of David could properly be given from the
time of the captivity to the coming of Christ, who is several times
called David.” (Scott.) º
The prophet becomes even more distinct, leaving his readers no
room for misapprehension. “Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord
God: Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand
of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with
him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and
they shall be one stick in thine hand” (ver. 19), which is explained
at vers. 21, 22 of the gathering tºgether of the people on every side
into one nation and kingdom. Now the language is peculiarly
significant. The house of Ephraim, or the ten, is mentioned by its
tribes; but the house of Judah, into which Benjamin is immerged,
merely as one body or stick. Nor is there any ambiguity, like that
which some might have fancied, attached to Jerem. xxxi. 1. Ezekiel
employs one of the words peculiarly used for tribes, ºff, as Isaiah did
at chap. lxiii. 17; and this prediction consequently supports the infer-
ence, drawn elsewhere more than once, that at the time here spoken of,
when Judah and his companions return to the Holy Land,then the ten,
as tribes, with Ephraim their acknowledged chief, shall also return, and
join themselves with the two, into one body, one nation, one kingdom,
with Judah and his companions, under Messiah. The ten, I say, are
specifically mentioned as tribes, and one of them, Ephraim, individually
distinguished. If then, among these, Ephraim be known as the head
of that return, where is the unreasonableness of thinking that each
of the other nine, who follow him, will also be known 2 Again, the
Almighty especially says of the ten, “I will put them with ” the
stick of Judah ; Ephraim will lead the house of Joseph truly (ver. 16);
ñpi", being added to the others. Judah having been recovered,
accompanied (as ever since Jeroboam's days) with mingled members
of the ten, the main body, or tribes, of those ten will be added to him,
in the Holy Land. This is precisely in accordance with Ezekiel's
previous predictions (chap. xvi. 61)—“When thou shalt receive thy
sisters.” Again—“I will give them unto thee for daughters.” Or
Hosea, chap. vi. 11 :-‘‘Also, O Judah, He hath set a harvest for
thee.” Priority in restoration, and conversion, belongs to Judah. To
them shall Branch be manifested at Jerusalem, before them the king
be enthroned, over them the ensign be lifted up,-to them the Christ,
God-Man-Messiah, be epiphanied on Olivet, and then the remainder
of the ten, and the rest of Judah, shall flow, like a river, towards
AND conversion of THE JEws. 175
Mount Zion. But as the rest of Judah flowing towards the ensign
forbids not a previous tribal representation of the two, so the
remainder of the ten thronging thitherward forbids not a previous
tribal representation of the ten. We shall yet show, that prophecy
distinctly asseſſs that, before this great event, which converts the
people at Jerusalem, that people will have been nationally restored,
Supposing it were true (which it is not) that any great number of
the ten took part in the Babylonian restoration ; supposing it
were true, which it is not, that the ten were tribally represented
at that time, that restoration meets none of the requirements
of this prediction ; for, 1. The return here foretold is to be the
movement of two distinct bodies, separate as Ezekiel's two sticks;
2. One body is distinguished tribally, under the acknowledged leader-
ship of one tribe, Ephraim ; and the other under another's, Judah ;
3. Their union into one people takes place in the land, and every part
of it; 4. They are to be constituted into one kingdom. Not one of
which four particulars was verified at the Babylonian restoration.
“They (Judah and Ephraim—the two kingdoms—the twelve tribes)
shall be one in his hand; for his glory shall be the centre of their
unity, and his grace the cement of it.” Prophetic words of M. Henry,
if by “his glory” we understand Messiah’s glory bursting forth before
the nations at Jerusalem ; and by “his grace,” the outpouring of the
spirit of grace and supplications promised for that day. See also
Bickersteth’s “Rest. Israel,” p. 206 :—“But already many genuine
parts of the ten tribes are beginning to show themselves through the
East; it is becoming more and more clear that remnants still exist in
Persia, Koordistan, and on the Caspian. They will, in due time, be
brought forth, even as from their graves, as Ezekiel predicts, and at
their restoration be united again with Judah, and made one nation, in
the land upon the mountains of Israel.”
But, more than this, the whole context, from ver, 20 to the end of
the chapter, contains, and conveys, one unbroken and consecutive
series of predictions, forming essentially a prophetical detail of one
grand event. I count about twenty-five separate places, in these nine
verses, where the particle \ is used in its peculiarly conjunctive force.
Thus, beginning at the command, in ver. 20, “Say unto them, Thus
saith the Lord God,” I find the connexion of the subsequent clauses
is sustained by the peculiar use of this particle alone ; so that the
words neither, nor, but, so, moreover, as they appear in the Author-
ized Version, are all of them, in the Hebrew, this same particle l;
176 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
and, I argue, thus Ezekiel carefully sustains the unity of his prophecy,
marks the close consecutiveness of its separate propositions, and gives
us, as it was expressed before, an historical detail of one series of
events, indissolubly and necessarily connected. If this be so, the
junction of the two sticks, the gathering of the people?the restoration
foretold, must be limited to the times of David, the Shepherd, the
Prince, the King, Messiah ; and therefore, upon no admission, no
supposition whatever, could have had fulfilment at the Babylonian
restoration. This argument depends entirely upon the peculiarly
conjunctive character of , a character it essentially retains, whatever
shade of meaning its context may demand. This is fully explained by
Noldius, “Concord.,” p. 282, ver. 5, from which I select the follow-
ing, his concluding observation :-‘‘Id unicum monemus, omnes illos
significatus, in quibus nulla conjunctionis idea elucet, prorsus esse
repudiandos.” But it may be said, “This is not denied ; only Ezekiel
means the junction of Jews and Israelites together in the Christian
Church, and no more.” Not so ; that the kingship is spiritual, and
union with the Christian Church intended, cannot be denied ; for
what else is conversion to Christianity but union with the Christian
Church 2 But the national, peculiarly national, character of Ezekiel's
prophecy, and mode of delivering it, must not be lost sight of, for it
is really one of the chief objects he had before him. Nothing less
than the national acceptance of Christianity, before all the world, by
the sons of Jacob, formed into one political body, in the land, the
very land of their fathers, will satisfy this prediction. For Ezekiel's
prophetical symbol represents, not a mere fusion, or silent inter-
mingling of people, by mute acquiescence in a certain faith, but the
visible junction, by an overt process, of two separate bodies of people,
knowing themselves to have been, up to such a time, divided ; and
to this effect they are described, ver. 21, as taken “from among the
heathen,” and “gathered out of the countries,” and brought thus
from all quarters to one particular locality, termed “their own land,”
and this land so minutely described that no other than a literal meaning
can be assigned to that description—“In the land upon the mountains
of Israel” (ver. 22); “They shall dwell in the land that I have given
unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt.” (Wer.
25.) While, therefore, it is admitted that the acknowledgment of a
spiritual king is intended, and the addition of the Israelites to the
Christian Church implied, it is also maintained, and cannot be with
reason denied, that this acknowledgment of the King, and union with
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 177
Christianity, will be made nationally by all Israel in the Holy Land,
and that therefore a literal restoration of all the tribes will take place.
Says Hosea, “Thou art my people ; and they shall say, Thou art my
God.” (Chap. ii. 23.) Says Ezekiel, “Yea, I will be their God, and
they shall be my people.” It is precisely Lo-ammi becoming Ammi,
and Lo-ruhamah becoming Ruhamah, under King Messiah, in the
Holy Land, in “the latter days.” And Ezekiel's hearers, and observers,
understood him to speak of them nationally as one people, to be reunited
under one king. Our sixth canon of interpretation (see chap. i., p. 22)
applies here ; as it did on Ezek. xx., and Zechariah's prophecies of the
Branch :-* The sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand
before their eyes” (ver. 20); “and say unto them,” &c., &c. The
truth of God is pledged for a literal, national fulfilment to all Israel.
The Holy Ghost, through Ezekiel, produced upon their minds the
impression, that they were witnessing the exhibition of a national
symbol, conveying a national prophecy, and implying their union as
one nation, under Messiah. That impression must have been true ;
and, therefore, a national fulfilment of the prophecy has yet to be
expected. In this respect, Ezek. xx., Zech. iii. and vi., and Ezek.
xxxvii., may be regarded in one light.
[2] That their conversion to Christianity is foretold is manifest ;
for, besides the fact that the prophecy is limited for fulfilment to the
times of Christianity, it is especially declared, at ver. 26, “I will
make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting cove-
nant with them.” Of which expressions no lengthened explanation is
necessary. It is the same covenant mentioned by Jerem., chap.
xxxi. 31, and explained by St. Paul, Heb. viii. 8 ; a covenant to be
stricken with them, by one grand, signal event, after the days of
their restoration. In that covenant, Ezekiel predicts all the tokens of
national acceptance granted them again from the Heavenly Father, a
national acceptance, especially signified in recognised, public, religious
services:–“I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for ever-
more. My tabernacle also shall be with them ; yea, I will be their
God, and they shall be my people.” (Ver. xxvi. 27.) Upon which
Lowth, who was hardly likely to be hurried away by mere enthusiasm
upon a favourite subject, nor to forget the force of the Hebrew ; upon
which the learned, and cautious, Lowth observes—“And here He
promises new, and more valuable, tokens of his presence among them
N
178 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
by the graces of the Holy Spirit, and the efficacy of his word and
sacraments (compare 2 Cor. vi. 16), and perhaps will vouchsafe them
some extraordinary appearance of the Divine Majesty.” See, he adds,
Ezek. xliii. 4–7, and Zech. ii. 5, to which I would add also Isa. iv.
5, 6. But at least the prophecy must mean the bestowal of God's
favour through the public institutions, or established worship, of a
national religion. Which, in times of Messiah, of course imports
conversion to Christianity, but also the establishment of national,
public worship in accordance with it. And I cannot help adding, that
the peculiarly national mode and character of Ezekiel's prophecy
ought, in consistency, to be brought to bear upon the conversion, as
well as upon the restoration. The prophet regards Israel as a whole,
consisting at most of only two great parts ; he announces nationally
their restoration, and, equally as a nation, their conversion. So that
as we recognise in prophecy no restoration but the national, we find
there no conversion but the national. When either of these events
takes place it will be in mass; meanwhile the force of prophecy
requires that we remain uncognizant of parts. And the spirit of
Ezekiel's entire prophecy places this conversion after the restoration.
The basis of his prophecy is the junction of the two kingdoms,
Israel and Judah, as two bodies of people into one, in the Holy Land.
This having been laid down, vers. 15–19, the prophet subjoins
explanations, and sustains an uninterrupted series of predictions, as
following the fulfilment of the first, viz., that Ephraim and Judah
should become again one kingdom. And although it be true that
predictions are not always delivered in the order of their accomplish-
ment, yet to say that they are never so would be wanton and absurd ;
and, without laying too much stress upon it, I cannot help seeing that
there is a wonderful consecutiveness in the verses, or Masoretic
divisions, of Ezekiel's prophecy. But we need not dwell upon this; for,
as observed on former prophecies, “acknowledgment of Messiah's king-
ship” and “conversion to Christianity” are convertible terms ; so
that, if it be no more than reasonable to place the acknowledgment of
kingship, after the regathering of the nation, it is also no more than
reasonable to place the conversion to Christianity after the restoration.
One cannot perceive how a national acknowledgment of Christ as king
can be made before the nation is formed again in Palestine ; and such
acknowledgment of Christ as king being, in fact, their conversion to
Christianity, it is difficult to see how the conversion can take place

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 179
before the restoration. Accordingly Ezekiel's manner of speaking
seems to justify the conclusion that it will not :—“And I will make
them one nation; in the land, upon the mountains of Israel.” So it
is pointed ; the first clause announcing the formation of the nation,
the second the scene of it:-‘‘And I will make them one nation; in
the land, upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king
over them all.” (Ver. 22.)
[3] These observations are strengthened by a consideration of the
rest of the chapter, the whole of which is, in fact, upon the same
subject, consisting of two parts, in each of which the same grand
predictions are symbolically delivered. In the first by “The Vision
of Dry Bones,” in the second by the “Junction of the Two Sticks.”
The second seems to be an enlargement upon, and explanation given
to the people, who witnessed it, of the first, upon which we now enter.
The prophet is carried by the Spirit to a valley of dry bones, very
dry, and he is made to see them, by gradual process, formed into the
bodies of men, and standing upon their feet, an exceeding great army;
but (and it should be carefully noted) bone came to bone, and the
bodies were fully formed, an exceeding great army, before there was
any breath, or life, in them. (Ezek. xxxvii. 7, 8.) Those bones,
when scattered about, unformed into bodies, represented the then, and
still, present scattered and prostrated condition of the whole house of
Israel ; and the prophet assures us that, as they were by gradual
process restored into the forms of men, and united into compact bodies
forming one army, so the Almighty, by his amazing power, would
restore the whole house of Israel, in its several parts, by gradual
process, to nationality, although they thought “their bones were dry,
and their hope was lost,” to compact, and organized, nationality, part
to part. The manner in which the vision is conducted is exceedingly
remarkable:–“So I prophesied as I was commanded ; and as I
prophesied there was a noise, and behold a shaking ! the bones came
together, bone to his bone ; and, when I beheld, lo l the sinews and
the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them from above ;
but there was no breath in them.” Here we have the first act in the
drama, separate and distinct in itself; and, in looking for its fulfil-
ment, we may expect correspondent incidents in the regeneration of
Israel, before any breath, or spiritual life, is in them. But immedi-
ately the prophet adds, “Then said He unto me, Prophesy unto the

N 2
180 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
wind; prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the
Lord God, Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon
these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as He commanded
me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up
upon their feet, an exceeding great army.” (Vers. 9, 10.) These
bones, we are assured, represent the whole house of Israel, politically,
, and spiritually, broken, scattered, and decayed; and, it is submitted,
from the above minute and gradually expanding prophecy, as a fair
inference, that in some sense or other the reconstruction of “the
whole house of Israel” will take place before they are endowed with
spiritual life and power of action ; that this reconstructing, and the
re-energizing of the nation, will be two different and distinct events,
one brought about very gradually, and previous to the other, viz., the
reconstruction, by preparatory process among the people ; preparation
of their status among Gentile nations ; preparation of their substance
and worldly condition ; preparation of their minds as to their convic-
tions, and anticipations, and even their misgivings of present religious
principles; preparation of numbers in various localities, bone to his
bone, viz., by family, or tribal, connexion, or associations of nativity
in various places or kingdoms; and, this reconstruction being com-
pleted by settlement in Canaan, then, and subsequently to that
reconstruction, the other commences, viz., the re-energizing of the
restored people, effected by wonderful and instantaneous agency, by
impulsive inspiration of God. Some, however, may fancy that this
is a mere refinement upon Scripture, to suit peculiar views ; but (if I
mistake not) the prophet himself points this out, as the correct
interpretation of his vision. Mark the following:—“Thus saith the
Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause
you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of
Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened
your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
and shall put my Spirit within you, and ye shall live, and I shall place
you within your own land : then shall ye know that I the Lord have
spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord.” (Vers. 12–14.) In
which passage the prophet marks two distinct stages in the recovery
of the Israelitish people to the power of God. The first is, coming
up out of their graves, which he interprets to mean being brought
into the land of Israel. The second is, the gift of God's Holy Spirit,
by which He declares they shall live. The first answers to the recon-
AND conversIon of THE JEws. 181
struction of the bodies (vers. 7, 8), the second to the blowing of the
wind upon, and consequent re-energizing of such bodies, after their
reconstruction (vers. 9, 10). The first means—The restoration of all
Israel to the Holy Land ; the second, their conversion ; therefore,
their subsequent conversion to Christianity, and assumption, as a
Christian people, of active and effective nationality. A closer inspec-
tion of the Hebrew justifies the argument. The passage to be noticed
is (vers. 12–14), “Behold, O my people, I will open your graves,
and cause you to come up out of your graves, and I will bring you into
the land of Israel.” (Wer. 12.) But the next verse announces the
consequence of verse 12, with which its connection, and unity, is
sustained by the adoption of the infinitives, or verbal nouns, of the
verbs used in verse 12 for open and cause to come up :-‘And ye
shall know that I am the Lord by my opening ("ſºlº) your graves;
and by my causing you to come up (nibyº) from your graves, O
my people.” Here Ezekiel's first declaration ends, and the verse 13
is closed up Silluk, the fullest Hebrew stop, although the English
Version has but a comma; ver. 12 containing a prediction of the
restoration of all Israel to Palestine ; ver. 13 announcing, as the
consequence of that, their conversion. Israel shall know the Lord,
at and by, or by, and therefore at, God's opening their graves, and
bringing them up out of those graves; where we notice two results,
viz., 1. That God's opening the graves, and bringing them up out of the
graves, producing one and the same effect, must be the same, or parts of
the same, cause, i.e., the two together describe the restoration; and,
2. That we have here two striking examples in one passage of that
power of the verbal noun, explained in chap. ii., p. 63, suprā, whence
we drew an important argument, showing, as we do here, that Israel's
conversion will be after his restoration. But, at ver, 14, the prophet
adds what I take to be a distinct prediction, explanatory of the .
preceding verse, but not to be referred to that in construction :-‘‘And
I have given (i.e., I will give at that time) my Spirit upon you, and
ye have lived (i.e., shall live at that time); and I have placed you
(i.e., will place you at that time) in your own land; then (following
the English Version), or thus (following Noldius, who gives this
example, p. 303), shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and
performed it, saith the Lord ;” the perfect tenses expressing the
certainty of the event predicted ; and Noldius, and the English
Version, not being at variance, as I shall show in another place. So

182 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
that Ezekiel declares that Israel shall know the Lord, by the Lord's
effecting his restoration ; and, in order that we may not conceive too
slightly of this knowing the Lord, he adds a prediction of the out-
pouring of God's Holy Spirit, which, directed to Messiah's times as
the prophecy is, proves that to know the Lord means here to be
converted to Christ. On Ezek. xxxvi. 25, at p. 34, I observed how
two kinds of predictions characterize all these prophecies, viz., deliver-
ance from idols, and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and I shall
take occasion to notice this again. •
The vision of dry bones amounts to this, that God will reconstruct
the people Israel upon the Holy Land, in their dead condition, by a
progressive, and preparatory, series of events, and afterwards, when
there so reconstructed as a people, He will call them by sudden
influence, swift and violent as the four opposing winds of heaven,
into the life and energy of Christianity ; from which time, but not
before, they will exercise an active and efficient nationality among
the people of the earth. M. Henry (if I read him rightly) justifies
the distinction we have drawn between these two events; first, the
reconstruction of the bodies; second, their being endowed with life.
And Lowth makes, on ver. 12, the following remark:—“I will unite
you into one body, or nation, who now lie scattered, and dispersed,
as the bones of a charnel-house. In their state of dispersion, and
captivity, they are called ‘the dead Israelites’ (in ‘Baruch, iii. 4),
and their restoration is described as a resurrection by Isa. xxvi. 19,
at which time their bones are said to flourish, or to be restored to
their former strength, or vigour, by the same prophet (chap. lxvi. 14).
In like manner St. Paul expresses their conversion, and the general
restoration which shall accompany it, by ‘life from the dead.” (Rom.
xi. 15.) And Mr. Bickersteth :—‘We have shown, in the following
discourses, that they will, in all probability, be in part restored in an
unconverted state. The bones must come together, bone to his bone,
the sinews and the flesh come upon them, and the skin cover them,
before the breath of life is given them.’” (“Introd,” p. 71.)
[4] Professor Lee's views of Ezek. xxxvii. may be seen at pp.
73–78 of his “Inquiry.” He admits entirely that “it is certain, in
the first instance, that this was addressed to all the literal house of
Israel;” and it is upon this occasion he observes that the notion of the
ten tribes being lost is “a mere figment, which ought to be cast to the

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 183
winds.” Accordingly, he maintains that this prophecy was fulfilled
at the Babylonian restoration, when, in his opinion, remnants of all
the tribes did return, and the whole of them might have returned if
they would. Whatever, therefore, has already been advanced to
show that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, and whatever has been
in this or other chapters of this book alleged to prove that the ten
were not competently, and tribally, represented at the Babylonian
restoration (of which truth this very Ezek. xxxvii. contains a
proof at vers. 16—19), all that may be considered a reply to Professor
Lee's exposition. But there is another, and conclusive argument
which he supplies against himself. It is one of his great principles
that “parallel places” must be explained in consistency with, and
elucidation of, each other, according to Glassius ; and he thought he
saw they might be made a more powerful use of than was common.
Now Jerem. xxx. 31, and Ezek. xxxi., are both prophecies of Messiah
the King ; “parallel places” in the highest and most comprehensive
sense of the term. Jerem. xxx. 31, Professor Lee says, (“Inquiry,”
p. 53, lines 5–8,) certainly does not refer to the Babylonian restora-
tion ; but Ezek. xxxvii., the parallel place, he says (“Inquiry,” p. 73),
as certainly does | Which are we to take as his real opinion ? The
fact is, all the prophecies of Branch and King are parallel places, and
all refer to the Christian dispensation; and in each, as we have
clearly seen, a restoration is foretold, to be limited to the time of that
dispensation. Again, ver. 25 is manifestly a great difficulty in the
way; Israel is to dwell in the land “wherein your fathers have
dwelt ;” “they, and their children, and their children's children, for
ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.” Professor
Lee appears to have felt this difficulty, and accordingly makes this
extraordinary observation :-‘‘By land of Israel, therefore, must be
meant, that land given by covenant to the true spiritual Israel, to be
possessed and enjoyed by them under the rule of David, their spiritual
king. And this land, again, must include the land of Canaan.”
(“Inquiry,” p. 77.) Which last remark shows that Dr. Lee meant
land in a literal sense. But what land was ever given by covenant to
the spiritual seed, Jews and Gentiles 2 Gentiles, converted or uncon-
verted, have no peculium. The wide world, with one small exception,
was to be inhabited indiscriminately by them. The covenant of
Abraham, as regards Gentiles, was the gift of the people, not of
their land ; “a father of many nations,” moving, intermingling,

184 NotES ON THE RESTORATION
changing races, having no land, no clime peculiar to themselves, yet
given to Abraham for sons through faith in Christ. The Gentile lands
cannot, even by figure, be brought into this covenant, until all the
peoples are converted, and no Gentile land remains occupied by
unbelievers ; then, indeed, the land may be said, in a figure, to go
with its universal people, and is given, not to Abraham, but to Christ,
by covenant :-‘Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for
thine inheritance, the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.”
(Ps. ii. 8.) This fiction of the gift of the Gentile lands to Abraham,
and the spiritualizing the land of Canaan, land of Israel, &c., &c., to
mean the converted Gentile world, is one of the sandy foundations
upon which Lee's theory is built. But one would have thought
Ezekiel's meaning was plain enough, and conveyed a very clear and
precise meaning to Hebrew ears—the land “wherein your fathers
have dwelt ;” to Hebrew listeners it could mean no other than the
Holy Land, and most important consequences follow that fact, for the
fathers who dwelt there were literal fathers of literal Israel; therefore
the promise is to literal Israel, therefore literal Israel will dwell in
that land again, and David, the spiritual king, be King over literal
Israel, in that land, the literal land. No wonder Professor Lee
struggles to get rid of it. He makes also, at p. 76, this singular
admission ;-“And once more an everlasting covenant was now to be
made with the united houses of Israel and Judah, i.e., not like the
covenant, made with their fathers, when they came out of Egypt,
every particular of which was to be in force during their generations
only, and not to extend to that which should follow, but an everlasting
covenant, which should abide even as the ordinances of heaven before
the Lord, and should extend, great in its authority and power, unto the
ends of the earth.” Now, if it be once admitted, as in this extract,
that the everlasting covenant will be made with the united houses of
Israel and Judah, our whole application of the prophecy must follow.
For such an admission accepts Israel and Judah in a literal sense ;
and, if this be done once, then the whole prophecy becomes applicable
to them literally. If once, then always, in the chapter, Israel and
Judah are literal, literally united into one literal kingdom, literally in
the land of Israel. If any one could have established a merely
spiritual interpretation of this prophecy, we may well suppose Professor
Lee would have done it ; but the closer, and more elaborate the
attempt to do so, the clearer become its inconsistency and impossibility.
AND CON VERSION OF THE JEWS. 185
As to any conditional interpretation, he does not hint at such a thing,
knowing, as none could know better, it was utterly impossible. The
whole is prophecy in the peculiar sense of that term ; and, predicting,
as it does, the spiritual kingdom of Messiah, must needs, like the
prophecies of the Branch, be as unconditional as that kingdom and
priesthood were certain. The only question that could be raised upon
them is, Is Israel included, literally and nationally 2
Similar remarks apply to Ezek. xxxiv.
[V.] These four prophecies of David the king, or prince, are
rightly considered parallel places in the widest sense, and ought there-
fore to be adduced in support and elucidation of each other; ought, in
short, to be grouped together, as constituting virtually one prophecy, of
which no part can claim merely its own isolated, and independent
explanation. They enable us to determine various points of great
importance to the subject. We know from Hosea that, although it is
true some members of each of the ten returned with the two from the
captivity of Babylon ; although it may be true, and probably is, that
many may have since become incorporated with the two, in their
various settlements in Asia Minor, and the East, or in their dispersion
through the kingdoms of the West ; although it is true that many
persons of the twelve tribes scattered abroad were converted to
Christianity in times apostolical ; although it may even be true that
some of all, or even particularly some of the ten, have become merged
among idolatrous nations ; yet that the terms of this prophecy abso-
lutely require that, at some time during Messiah’s days, the whole
tribal representation of all the people should be gathered together into
one body, under one spiritual kingship ; that this gathering together
of all the tribes into one body is, by the specific terms of Hosea's
prophecy, limited entirely to Messiah's days, was not to take place
before that era, and is treated as the spiritual marriage of the people
to Messiah; and that, therefore, the ten could not have been united
to the two at the Babylonian restoration ; in other words, were not
tribally, and competently, or as two houses, represented at that return ;
which idea we find also confirmed by Jeremiah, who illustrates the
return of the ten tribes as that of one, in virgin purity, to her
186 - NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
husband, that husband being God-Messiah ; and also by Ezekiel, who
teaches us to distinguish carefully between children of Israel, Judah’s
companions, and all the house of Israel, Ephraim's companions. We
find also that the terms of the prophecies, and particularly those of
Hosea and Ezekiel, require that this recovery of all the tribes should
be in a sense synchronical, as one body, individualized in one adulterous
mother ; Ammi and Ruhamah together, as one accepted people, and
yet no otherwise synchronical than that the stick, or body, of the one,
Ephraim or Ruhamah, should be added to the stick, or body, of the
other, Judah, or Ammi ; so that, although they are synchronical, and
the ten can therefore never yet have become Ruhamah, because the
two are clearly yet Lo-ammi, yet that, in some degree, priority in
restoration and conversion does belong to the two. And, we also
observe, that the very force of Hosea's language forbids the suppo-
sition that the ten can be converted before they are thus joined to the
two ; forbids the idea that they are already converted, as it also renders
untenable the supposition that any considerable number of them is
merged among idolaters. They must yet be waiting, purely as
Israelites, hoping in Achor, expecting their Lord Messiah, conscious
of betrothal.
And, as regards the restoration, there are several reasons in the
prophecies of the King for expecting it will be tribal; not, perhaps,
tribal at its commencement, but made so before its completion ; for
the contradistinction so carefully preserved by Hosea between the two
houses is fully sustained by the subsequent prophets, Jeremiah and
Ezekiel. Jeremiah specifically mentions the watchmen on Mount
Ephraim inciting their brethren to go up to Jerusalem to worship, and
assures us that, at that time, God will be the God of all the families
of Israel, a word whose meaning, in the sense of tribes, is carefully
sanctioned by Ezekiel, who mentions “the tribes of Israel,” employing
a word which designates tribes in the peculiar sense. And, what is
worthy of notice, these “tribes,” thus designated by Ezekiel, are the
tribes Ephraim's companions, viz., the ten ; so that we are assured
the ten will be thus contradistinguished, and no difficulty is suggested.
to the mind regarding the two. But, if the twelve tribes are to be
thus separately known, reason supplies the conviction that they
will be separately settled, in tribal localities. “So shall ye divide
this land unto you according to the tribes of Israel.” (Ezek. xlvii. 21.)
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS, 187
And this interpretation, conformable to reason, is borne out by the
prediction of Jeremiah, that they will be settled in their congregation
before the Lord as formerly ; where we perceive that he agrees
precisely with Ezekiel, who elsewhere declares that God will settle
the tribes after their “old estate.” The same idea of several distribu-
tion is supported by Hosea and Jeremiah, Jeremiah particularly
asserting that Jerusalem shall be built again upon her own heap of
ruins, her ancient site ; and giving her limits also in such terms
(chap. xxx. 38–40) as never were realized at the Babylonian restora-
tion, nor ever have been since ; and Hosea representing the children
of Judah, and children of Israel, as coming together from all parts of
the land of Israel to some one place, for the purpose of appointing
themselves one head, which place we naturally infer to mean the same
Jerusalem. Hosea and Jeremiah thus agreeing in depicting Jerusalem
as the centre of political government and religious worship. This,
again, is remarkably asserted by Jeremiah, who foretels that the royal
palace shall again be built at Jerusalem; necessarily, therefore, for a
human governor. Professor Lee, indeed, is driven (“Inquiry,” p. 67)
to say that the prediction of rebuilt Jerusalem (chap. xxx. 38–40)
had better be understood of the heavenly Jerusalem ; though what
that is likely to know of any “tower of Hananeel,” or any “valley of
the dead bodies,” or any “horse gate towards the east,” he has not
undertaken to inform us.
But these prophets not only declare that all Israel will be restored
to their own land, and united into one people, under one form of
accepted public worship, they also declare that Israel so restored will
have a single form of national government, viz., a kingdom, and that
the accepted public worship will be according to the institutions of
Christianity. Of the three, Ezekiel seems, if possible, the more
precise, for he describes symbolically the two ancient kingdoms, Israel
and Judah formed indivisibly into one, becoming one in God's hand.
He says precisely, “I will make them one nation in the land upon the
mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all ; and
they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into
two kingdoms any more at all.” But Jeremiah is sufficiently distinct,
declaring that the seed of Israel should never cease from being a
nation before God, under David, their king, for ever. Hosea also
prophetically describes the children of Israel and children of Judah as
coming together from all parts of the land to Jerusalem, for the
188 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
purpose of appointing themselves one head. The three prophets agree
in foretelling that all Israel will not only be restored, but also formed
into one whole and undivided kingdom in Messiah's days.
And their established religious worship will be that of Christianity.
It will be national, established, religious worship, with its chief
institutions at Jerusalem. Because Hosea contrasts the state of Israel,
yet to be realized, with what it was when they abided many days
without the accidents of place, and material, for the celebration of
the rites of their national religion; he intimates that their national
condition, when restored, will be the reverse of this. It will be
national, established, religious worship, with the accident of place
and material for Israel as a nation. It will be national, established,
religious worship, because Jeremiah describes restored Israel as a
national congregation of witness for the power, and truth, and love,
of God Almighty; because he depicts the tribes as flocking together
to Mount Zion to celebrate it. It will be the national, established
worship of Christianity, because the fulfilment of these prophecies is
limited to the times of David the King, Messiah-Jesus ; because
Jeremiah describes that Noble One as engaging his heart to draw near
in accepted mediation for the people Israel ; because Hosea and Jere-
miah have written it that restored Israel shall yet seek and serve the
Lord their God, and David their King, i.e., Christ Jesus ; because
Ezekiel has foretold that David, God's servant, shall be king over
them, and they shall all have one shepherd, Messiah ; because God
will make a covenant of peace with them, an everlasting covenant,
and his servant, David, shall be king and prince over them for ever ;
because Christians know that this David of the prophecies is Messiah-
Jesus—“Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a prince
and Saviour for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.”
(Acts v. 31.) Where the word Israel is undoubtedly used by Peter
in its ordinary national sense. And this conversion of Israel will be
after the restoration ; for both Ezekiel and Jeremiah mark this subse-
quence of Israel's conversion by that use of the verbal noun previously
explained at p. 63; in addition to which, Ezekiel is found to use, in a
connexion almost peculiar to himself, the conjunctive particle pre-
ceding the phrase, “And they shall know I am the Lord,” in such a
sense as to denote by this phrase the consequence of events described
as having previously occurred. By the Lord's opening their graves,
and by his causing them to come up out of their graves, and by his
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 189
bringing them into the land of Israel, they shall know that He is the
Lord. Such predictions, coupled with the outpourings of the Holy
Spirit (Ezek. xxxvii. 14), and limited to the times of Messiah, not
only predict conversion to Christianity, but specify that conversion as
the consequence of God's dealings described in such places, which
dealings are here, and in kindred passages, their restoration. See
also Ezek. xxxiv. 30. This peculiar force of in such phrase we find
not only to be sustained by the English Version in the words thus, so,
then, but also to be supported by the highest Hebrew authority, in a
long list of passages, which Noldius gives, so marking its effect.
However, more than this, Jeremiah asserting that the conversion will
be after the restoration, uses aspecific designation of time, and says that
such making of the new covenant will be after certain days; and upon
referring to his context to see what days have been already specified,
after which this something else is to occur, we find in his chaps. xxx,
xxxi., only four places containing any independent notation of times,
in each of which the same phrase, “Behold the days come,” is
uniformly employed ; the phrase in three of these places introduces,
we find upon inspection, a description of the restoration, and, in the
fourth, a description of the conversion, the consequence of which is,
since the conversion cannot be placed after itself, as described in the
fourth instance, no other conclusion remains than that the subsequence
denoted by “after those days,” applied to the conversion, means after
the independent notations of time which introduce the predictions of
restoration. And it should be particularly noticed that neither of
those predictions of restoration, including as they do both houses, can
be referred to that which took place from Babylon. And, yet further,
the whole scope and design of these prophecies of the King is to place
Israel's conversion after his restoration ; for not only does Ezekiel, the
latest of them, describe the restoration of Israel, bone to his bone,
by gradual process, before life is in them, but in this life, so subse-
quently bestowed, indicates the spiritual reconstruction of the people,
as the reformation of their bodies implied their political. Besides
which, all these prophecies have for their climax the acknowledgment
of Messiah's kingship over all Israel united in the Holy Land, and
this acknowledgment of his kingship, as observed upon the prophecies
of the Branch, will be synchronical with the acknowledgment of his
priesthood —“He shall be a king and priest upon his throne ;” this
necessarily implies conversion, and in reason must be understood as
190 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
made by that united people which is represented as acknowledging
Him as King and Priest, i.e., after they have become so united, i.e.,
after their restoration, a restoration not completed, but sufficiently so
to be considered national, because described in Holy Scripture in
national terms.
And lastly, Jeremiah foretels that this restoration and conversion
of Israel, though ending in complete triumph and in times of uninter-
rupted peace, will be accompanied by scenes of woe in which both
houses will be involved ; for it is a “time of Jacob's trouble ;” so
that, we are assured, after members of both houses are gathered into
the Holy Land, national distress and danger will befal them, out of
which the Lord will certainly save them. This, the Lord's deliverance
of the restored people, we have reason to expect from other prophecies,
will be the final cause of their conversion. It will be the manifesta-
tion of Branch, the lifting up of the ensign, the enthronement of the
King, the epiphany of the God-man, the very moment of Israel's
recognising Christ's divinity, which means conversion.
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 191
CHAPTER, W.
“HIs GooDNESS IN THE LATTER DAYS.”—HOSEA III. 5.
THERE is a principle lying at the very foundation of Professor Lee's
work, of which, if we can prove the hollowness, the whole theory
falls in together. It is his explanation of the phrase tº n*Tºº,
variously interpreted in the English Bible as latter days, last days,
&c., &c. The Professor takes this to mean the period commencing
with our Saviour's resurrection, and ending with the overthrow of
Jerusalem, or the establishment of the Christian Empire under
Constantine, or the overthrow of the Roman Empire itself; for,
indeed, it is not easy to discover with precision what he does mean.
This phrase, however, really indicates the times of Messiah generally,
viz., the times between Messiah's first and second advents. But Mr.
Faber's view, as well as Dr. Lee's, has to be considered; and since it
is desirable that these should not be misstated, I shall first endeavour
to express them as clearly as possible by extracts from their own
works.
[I.] Let us at once observe that two distinct and separate facts
have to be discovered:—1. What these writers understand by “the
latter days,” taking that at present as the translation of the above two
Hebrew words; and, 2. What they understand by “the end" (YE),
or “time of the end,” of these.
[1..] First, Professor Lee's meaning for “the latter days.” “The latter
days can refer to none but the times in which the Christian Church
was to be universally established, i.e., “when the dominion under the
whole heavens should be given to the Son of man.” (“Inquiry,” p. 56.)
“These comprehend the period assigned to the establishment (de
facto) of the new covenant.” (P. 61.) “The latter days can be no
other than the period commencing with the resurrection of our
blessed Lord and ending with the universal establishment of his
192 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Church.” (P. 62.) Here, then, Professor Lee's view of the com-
mencement of the latter days is clearly defined; it is “the resurrection
of our blessed Lord ;” and if we can only discover what he means by
“the universal establishment of the Church,” we shall know exactly
the whole period he assigns to “the latter days.” The above are
detached extracts from his work, but he devotes a whole section
(pp. 99–132) to this subject; and to that therefore we look particu-
larly for his definition of “the latter days” and “the end.”
First and second, The latter days and the end together. “When
we come to Ezekiel we find this period styled ‘the end’ (Heb. YE, the
term used also in Dan. vii. 17, 19; ix. 26; xi. 27, &c.). . . . That this
‘end’ presents us with the period styled also “the last days’ is
sufficiently evident from the nature of the denunciations made.”
(P. 103.) I request the reader to note this extract, for I shall show
that the last days is nothing more than a second translation of
Eºſ nº ſº, and is precisely equivalent in the English Bible to .
the latter days, meaning the Christian dispensation antecedent to the
second appearing of our Lord. If, then, Dr. Lee be right, and the
end means the last days, it would appear that the end must mean
the whole Christian dispensation before Messiah’s second coming,
which seems strange. Again (p. 104), “In this context, moreover, the
whole period is termed the day, and must, as it should seem, be that part
of it in which these judgments should take place, viz., the morning.
(Let not the strange mistake be overlooked; “the whole period is
termed the day, and must be that part of it called the morning.”)
The evening, as already remarked, is the beginning of the day in the
East; the morning must be here, therefore, the commencement of its
second half.” “The end,” therefore, or YE, is the morning or latter
half of the whole period, the latter days, commencing with the judg-
ments, viz., on Jerusalem. So that the whole latter days is the
period between our Saviour's resurrection and the universal establish-
ment of the Church (see above); and the first part or evening of these
days is the period between our Saviour's resurrection and the judg-
ments on, or destruction of, Jerusalem ; and, therefore, the second
part of these days, or morning, or end, or YE, is the period between
the destruction of Jerusalem and the universal establishment of the
Church, whatever that may mean. So p. 109: “Our Lord places
the beginning of the things which were to lead to it within the life-
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 193
• *-* *- : *-ºr-------z-z-z-z-z-z-sºrrºr--ºr-wr-r----------------------------rev-ra-z-z-z-z-z-- - - - -
time of those then present, and to the investing of Jerusalem by the
Roman army as predicted by Daniel. Its end He then assigns to
some other point of time, which should occur after the Gospel had
been preached in all the world.” Another index, p. 115 : “The
latter times, moreover, as now mentioned, cannot but refer to the
period which should precede the end, i.e., the close of Daniel's
seventieth week.” If, then, we can ascertain what he takes to be
Daniel's seventieth week, his meaning becomes clear. Refer to
p. 143: “Within the last or seventieth week both the city and its
sanctuary should fall, and the power of the Desolator should now
terminate with it.” The Desolator is, of course, the Roman power.
Hence Professor Lee tells us that Yº the End, means the seventieth
week of Daniel, which commenced with the fall of Jerusalem, and
terminated with the fall of the Roman Empire, the Desolator. But
he had before told us (p. 104) that it meant the Morning compre-
hended between the fall of Jerusalem and the universal establishment
of the Church. Does he mean to say that “the universal establish-
ment of the Church” and “the fall of the Roman Empire” were
synchronical? Not so; for at p. 129 he explains the universal
establishment of the Church to be its de facto establishment by
Constantine; “according to all ecclesiastical history it was received
in all nations before the times of Constantine.” So that he gives
us two definitions of the End, viz., 1. The morning, or latter half of
the latter days, between the fall of Jerusalem and Constantine's
establishment of Christianity: and, 2. The morning, comprised
between the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Roman
Empire. Now, taking for argument's sake dates commonly assigned :
Constantine established Christianity A.D. 330; the western Roman
Empire fell A.D. 476; but the Eastern not until A.D. 1458. How-
ever, supposing Dr. Lee to mean by the termination of the Desolator's
power, the destruction of the Western Empire, then there is an
inaccuracy of 136 years between his two definitions of the End. But
the fact is, that Professor Lee elsewhere says (and he says the same
in his “Lexicon”) that Yº means the end of the Jewish theocracy—
“the full and complete end and consummation of the theocracy of
heathen domination and of all prophecy.” (P. 144.) It is indeed
difficult to mark his interpretation with precision, but for the present
purpose let us conclude that Professor Lee understands by “the latter
days” that whole period of time comprised between the resurrection of
O

194 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
our Lord and the establishment of the Christian Church under Con-
stantine; and also that by “the End” he understands the latter
portion, or morning of this time, comprised between the fall of Jerusa-
lem and Constantine's establishment of the Church.
If, then, we show that the phrase Pººl h"Tºº must denote a
period of time commencing before our blessed Lord's resurrection and
extending beyond the times of Constantine, and even beyond our own
times, the Professor's view of “the latter days” is proved to be
incorrect, and the whole theory of his “Inquiry,” based as it is upon
that view, is overturned. I shall only add for the present, that there
were but thirty-seven years between our Lord's resurrection and the
fall of Jerusalem, to make up the evening or first half of the period in
question; but 260 years between the fall of Jerusalem and Constan-
tine's Christian Empire, to make up the morning, or second half,
rather an unequal and (I submit) an unscriptural illustration of the
force of that passage, “the evening and the morning were the first
day” (Gen. i. 5), from which this idea of evening and morning is very
justly drawn.
[2] We now consult a very different writer indeed. Mr. Faber
may not have been a great Hebrew scholar, but he was a clear and
consistent writer; there is no danger of mistaking his meaning. He
informs us (“Sac. Cal. of Proph.,” vol. i., p. 141–160) that there
are three minor periods “severally denominated the latter times, and
the last time, or the last days, and the time of the end;” that the latter
times mean 1260 years commencing with A.D. 604; and that the last
times “mean the concluding portion of these 1260 years,” not defined
by any precise chronical date, but by certain impious characteristics,
which the nature of his subject leads him particularly to trace and
describe, but with which ours has no concern; and that the time of the
end means a very short space, but commencing with precision at the
end of the 1260 years, viz., immediately after what he calls the last
times, and lasting, as he ventures to surmise, probably just one
calendar year. With that peculiar subject of which Mr. Faber was
treating we have nothing to do ; his views may be wrong, or they
may be right, or nearly right, as probably they are ; but all we are
engaged with is the correct, i.e., the scriptural force of Pººl h"Tºº,
translated variously, the latter times, &c., &c.; and we shall show that
Mr. Faber is mistaken in this respect, that there is no ground for the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 195
distinction he draws between the latter days and the last days, so far
as this Hebrew phrase is concerned, though there may be ground for
such distinction when certain other parts of Scripture and certain
“impious characteristics” defined in them are considered. Again, it
should be remarked, that, strictly speaking, we need give ourselves no
farther concern about the time of the end. Both parties admit it means
“the end of the latter days ; ” the difference between them is this:—
one, viz. Dr. Lee, makes the latter days, and end, and all, to be
entirely concluded before the other, viz. Mr. Faber, acknowledges
them to have commenced. Our only business is with Fºr nºnrº,
which expression alone is used in any of the prophecies we are
investigating.
Still, let us do Mr. Faber justice as regards “the End,” for so far as
the force of the word Y12 is involved, the truth of the matter is with him.
We have seen Dr. Lee vaguely wandering for “the end * between the
destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Roman Empire—
a period of at least 406 years, being the morning of the day as
against the first portion or evening, thirty-seven years, which inter-
vene between our blessed Lord's crucifixion and the taking of Jerusa-
lem. But Mr. Faber says truly (p. 154), “The word employed by
Daniel to express the end, or the time of the end, is incapable of any
loose and indefinite signification; it is derived from a verb which
denotes to cut off; whence Buxtorf with much propriety observes
that its import is strictly the end or termination of a thing, because the
end of any matter is the exact point where that matter is cut off; ”
and in a note, “Buxtorf expresses himself as follows:—Tº finis,
extremum, extremitas; ubi enim res praeciditur, ibi ejus finis est.” To
Buxtorf I would add, on Mr. Faber's behalf, Fürst, p. 1004, “Pars, in
quà res praecisa est, finis, terminus, et localitèret temporalitèr; . . . .
spec. finis regni, S. populi; h.e. excidium, interitus, finis vaticinii,
h.e. impletio; ” all which has truly a precision quite opposed to Lee's
vagueness. If, again, we consult Gesenius, we shall find him even
more decisive on this point than Fürst (see p. 1227 under Tºp, and
p. 1229, under Yº). I shall quote but the following as regards the
three phrases under examination : “Tempus extremum, de tempore
calamitoso, diem Jovae et Messiae adventum proximè praecedenti;
v. Bertholdi Christologia Judaeorum (Ed. 1811), p. 38.” Thus we
have the authority of Bertholdt, Gesenius, Fürst, and Buxtorf in
support of Mr. Faber's view of the precision of time intended by the

O 2
196 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
... -----------------...- :-
End, and against Dr. Lee's definition of that phrase in his “Inquiry.”
Such authorities scarcely permit our rambling over 406 years to find
out the End.
But, then, it should also be added from Fürst, as against Mr.
Faber, concerning the phrases Yº ng the time of the end, Y2 Tyip the
appointed time of the end, and tº YE the end of days—“N.T., ;)
éoxãrm ñuépa, to oxarov rôv xpóvov (rów juspóv), Kapòs toxaros,” which
I shall show to be precisely the same as the Septuagint translation of
P"º h"Tº ; so that, so far as the words used in these
places go, there is no ground for Mr. Faber's distinction between
“latter times” and “last times,” though there may be for it
in certain “impious characteristics” which he believes he has dis-
covered. - -
[3.] Having advanced these general observations upon the view
which Dr. Lee and Mr. Faber have respectively given of the latter
days, I now proceed to investigate the scriptural force of the phrase
Pºſt nºnſ; from various passages in which that phrase occurs;
for we must remember it is this phrase, and no other, which is used
in those prophecies relating to the restoration and conversion of
Israel, upon which we are engaged.
But in tracing up allusions to this phrase in the New Testament,
which, of course, it is necessary to do, there is but one proper method
to be pursued which it seems to me did not occur to Mr. Faber. If
the phrase be used at all in the New Testament it is in its Grecian
form, and this form had been, when the apostles wrote, already faced
for the Jew in a translation of considerable authority; so that, if we
find St. Peter, St. John, or St. Paul speaking of the latter times, last
time, &c., &c., and using certain words by which the LXX. had
already translated Fºr nºn-ISP, the inference is irresistible that
they intended to allude to the same period as the prophets who
adopted that phrase. Accordingly Professor Lee observes (Introd.,
p. 113), “And as the Septuagint Greek translation had applied
certain Greek terms in translating the prophets, &c., they (the
evangelists and apostles) could do no less than adopt them, and these
are among those so adopted.” If the phrase tº n*Tºº is to be
found in the New Testament, it must be in its Septuagintal Grecian
form; other words, paraphrastically designating the same time may
or may not be there also ; but when we meet the Septuagintal form of
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 197
:
tº n*TS3, we may be certain that very same prophetical term is
intended.
And in entering upon this investigation I must once again refer to
Mr. Faber, for the purpose of entering a respectful protest against the
following observation, when drawing his distinction between latter
times and last times (vol. i., p. 142) —“Such phraseology as this,
relating, as it does, to that term of seven times which constitutes the
Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, can only be expected to be used in
prophetic writings. As for those writings which are not prophetic,
a more loose mode of speech (!) will be found to prevail in them, or,
rather, a mode of speech founded upon a totally different principle.
Thus both St. John, St. Peter, and St. Paul speak of themselves as
actually living in the last season, or in the last times, or in the last
days, or, in other words, they describe themselves as living in a
period when (we may be positively sure) the latter moiety of the
seven prophetic times had not commenced.” God be praised I this
looser mode is Mr. Faber's, not the Holy Bible's. If the Holy Ghost
directed the tongues and pens of these apostles, they used their words
with unerring precision, though we may fail sometimes in our
attempts to verify it; and if they used varied words in reference to
the same season, viz., that in which they themselves were living, we
may be sure that they spake of that same time, though they might
present it under different aspects. Mr. Faber saw the dilemma into
which this apostolic usage had placed his division of latter times and
last times (so far as these phrases were concerned), and, therefore,
adds (Ibid., p. 142), “In writings, therefore, which are not prophetic,
and which, consequently, have no relation to the seven times employed
as the sacred calendar of prophecy, “the last season,’ or ‘the last
times,” or ‘the last days,’ plainly enough denote the period of the
Christian dispensation, which dispensation is last in point of time
when contradistinguished from the two preceding dispensations,
patriarchal and Levitical.” But nothing is more certain than that
these phrases are used in writings which are prophetic, viz., in
apostolical predictions; and if so, then in prophetic writings, last
days, &c., &c., mean the whole Christian dispensation by Mr. Faber's
own admission : and further (which the reader will note), if we show
that these several phrases are used synonymously with the apostolical
use of the Septuagintal translation of our Bºſ nº ſº, then we
are certain, and have Mr. Faber's concurrence, that such Hebrew
|

198 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
phrase means the Christian as the last of all dispensations. That is
precisely what we have to show.
I enter, then, upon the examination of various passages, where all
these different phrases, Hebrew, Greek, and English, are employed,
and shall refer, as occasion may require, both to Mr. Faber and to
Dr. Lee.
[II.] The different phrases to which we are calling attention, as
being in various parts of the Old and New Testaments used synony-
mously for the Christian dispensation, but particularly for a part of it
not yet arrived, and to which certain promises of restoration and
conversion for Israel are, in some sense or other, specifically limited,
even according to Dr. Lee's own admission at “Inquiry,” p. 103,
l. 11, 12, are in the English version, the latter day, the latter days,
the last days, the latter years, the latter times, the last time, the last
times ; and I proceed at once to establish the assertion that all these
are used indiscriminately and synonymously to denote—1. The
Christian dispensation, which Professor Lee admits; and, 2. A part
of that dispensation not yet come, which he denies.
[1..] The meaning of the following passages can hardly be disputed:
—“Little children, it is the last time (éoxárm &pa), and as ye have
heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Anti-
christs, by which we know it is the last time.” (1 John ii. 18.)
“Who (Christ) verily was foreordained before the foundation of the
world, but was manifest in these last times (ét éoxárov Tów Xpóvov) for
you.” (1 Pet. i. 20.) “How that they told you there should be
mockers in the last time (év čoxáriº xpóvº) who should walk after their
own ungodly lusts.” (Jude 18.) It is manifest that St. John
speaks of a time at which he wrote, viz., at the earliest, A.D. 68: it
is manifest that St. Jude speaks of certain abominations already
existing in the Church in his own day, viz., at the earliest, A.D. 65;
and thus it is sufficiently clear that St. John's éoxárm &pa and St.
Jude's éoxáros xpóvos mean one and the same time. But St. Peter
calls the time of Christ's manifestation, which must be held to date
from his birth, the last times,—using the very same expression as St.
Jude, and both under inspiration; so that it becomes clear that the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS, 199
time of our Saviour's birth, and a time when He had long departed,
including between them a space of at least sixty-five, and, probably,
of ninety years, are described by St. John, St. Jude, and St. Paul
synonymously.
[2.] St. Paul says, “God, who at sundry times and in divers
manners, spake unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last
days (ét éoxárov táv juépôv) spoken unto us by his Son.” (Heb.
i. 1.) And St. Peter, “Knowing this first, that there shall come in
the last days (ét éoxárov rôv juspóv) scoffers, walking after their own
lusts” (2 Pet. iii. 3); whence it appears that St. Paul describes the
times when our Saviour had already spoken by the very same words
which St. Peter employs to foretel times yet to come when he was
writing, viz., at the earliest, A.D. 64. But (as Mr. Faber observes,
and any one may see upon inspection), “St. Jude speaks still to the
same purpose, and, indeed, the whole of his prophecy respecting the
last time bears so striking a resemblance to that of St. Peter, that the
one seems almost a duplicate of the other.” (“Sac. Cal.,” vol. i.,
p. 151.) But St. Jude says, éoxáros xpóvos, last time; St. Peter,
ër €oxárov táv juspöv, last days; both prophesying of the same times,
—duplicate prophecies; therefore the Holy Ghost in prophecy
teaches us that the last time and last days are synonymous, and that
St. John's éoxárm &pa, St. Jude's toxáros xpévos, and St. Paul's and
St. Peter's ét éoxárov táv juépôv, are to be interpreted synonymously.
But St. Peter describes the time of Christ's manifestation as
éoxáros Xpóvos, using the same words as St. Jude ; and the time when
Christ lived must be the time that he spoke, described by St. Paul in
the very words St. Peter employed to denote a time yet coming after
the date of that epistle, which time St. Jude, in a duplicate prophecy,
calls éoxáros xpóvos; hence the time when Christ lived and spake, and
the time when St. John and St. Jude wrote, and a time foretold to
come indefinitely after by St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude (writing
prophetically)—these several different and distant times are described
in words used indifferently of either; and those words must, there-
fore, be considered as synonymously employed with reference to the
whole period comprised within the various times thus severally
alluded to. That period begins with our Lord's birth, and extends
indefinitely to the times of which the apostles were prophesy-
Ing.

errºr-r-----------~~~~~
200 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
[3.] St. Paul, prophesying to Timothy, says, “This know, that in
the last days (év čoxárats àuépals) perilous times shall come.” (2 Tim.
iii. 1.) And St. Peter, quoting Joel at the day of Pentecost, says,
“But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; and it
shall come to pass in the last days (év čoxárats juépals), Baith God.”
(Acts ii. 16.) Hence St. Peter describes the day of Pentecost
immediately after our blessed Lord's ascension; and St. Paul a time
yet to come indefinitely after he wrote, viz., indefinitely after A.D. 65
at the earliest, in precisely the same words, the last days. It seems to
me, nothing can be clearer than the conclusion that the phrases
translated “last time,” “last times,” “last days,” are to be considered
synonymous, all describing times comprised in the Christian dis-
pensation, commencing with the birth (not the resurrection, as Lee
says) of Jesus, and extending to a period indefinite, so far as these
contexts go, but dependant upon the interpretations given to the
prophecies of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude. Those who are of
opinion (as I believe most Christians are) that these prophecies are
yet being fulfilled by the apostasies, and various other forms of
religious error or practical ungodliness, now existing, will of necessity
feel convinced, contrary to Professor Lee, that we are even yet within
the last times. It should also be distinctly noticed that, of the passages
already quoted, St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude supply some which
are distinctly and professedly prophetical ; the apostles at such times
are prophets; hence Mr. Faber's statement, “As for those writings
which are not prophetic, a more loose mode of speech will be found
to prevail in them, or, rather, a mode of speech founded upon a
totally different principle “ (“Sac. Cal.,” vol. i., p. 142), is smitten
helplessly to pieces; for the very writings in which he thinks he has
discerned this perilous distinction of a “looser mode,” are in several
places where these very phrases are used distinctly and professedly
prophetic. The apostles as prophets so employed them.
[4] Again, St. Paul says (1 Tim. iv. 1), “Now the Spirit
speaketh expressly, that in the latter times (év ša répots kaupoſs) some
shall depart from the faith.” This again is prophecy, written at the
earliest, A.D. 52; so that times yet to come after St. Paul wrote to
Timothy were termed by him latter times when inspired, who had
already termed the days when Christ spake, last days. He also
prophecies of certain perilous times as the last days, using the very
~~~~sº
*
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 201
words by which St. Peter described the day of Pentecost ; Jude, too,
had prophesied of the last time; St. Peter of the same time as last
days, using St. Paul's own words, when he spake of Christ's life and
ministry; and St. John says he lived in the last time: it is clear,
then, that the time of our Saviour's manifestation, and life, and
death, and ascension, and times of apostles' living and writing, and
prophesying, are called last times: while one of them foretelling
certain days even then yet to come, A.D. 52, calls those latter times.
Are we, then, to conclude that such latter times are after the last
times? Not so, but this, that the phrases “latter times,” “last
times,” “latter days,” “last days,” are not used relatively with respect
to each other, as Mr. Faber imagined, but relatively with regard to
some other days or times. And relatively to some other antecedent
period they may be used synonymously of the whole Christian dispen-
sation; for that dispensation may undoubtedly be the latter times or
days with respect to some other dispensation; and the last days or
times with respect to all dispensations. So that I conclude that there
is no ground, so far as these phrases go, in the New Testament for
the distinction which Mr. Faber attempts to draw between latter
days and last days, latter times and last times; but that he had stated
the whole truth when he said, “The last season, or the last times, or
the last days, plainly enough denote the period of the Christian
dispensation, which dispensation is last in point of time when
contradistinguished from the two preceding dispensations, patri-
archal and Levitical.” (“Sac. Cal.,” vol. i., p. 142.) The
Christian dispensation is latter with respect to the Levitical, last
with respect to the four–Christian, Levitical, [Abrahamic, ] and
Patriarchal.
[5.] It appears, then, that Peter, Paul, Jude, and John mean the
same age by the expressions the latter times, the last times, the last time,
the last days, and that the age they intend is that of Christianity. And
it is manifest that if last time and last times are synonymously used, as
they are, then the latter day and latter days may be considered
synonymous also. Hence the six phrases, latter day, latter days, latter
times, last’ time, last times, latter days, all mean, in the New Testa-
ment, the same period of time, viz., the Christian dispensation.
There remains but one of the seven phrases which occur to be
accounted for, viz., the latter years, which is peculiar to the Old
202 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Testament. But the word days is clearly used both in the Old and
New Testaments as equivalent to years, and that use is derived from
the peculiar force of Pi", used by the Hebrew writers, which not
only means a day as a period of a certain number of hours, but also a
long succession of time extending even to many years, but inclosed, I
venture to think, between certain fixed limits, and not vaguely and
indistinctly of any desultory portions of time. It comprehends a
whole order or attached series of events, which may extend through
a great length of time. The prophetical meaning of days is, in fact,
years, as fully proved from the Holy Bible by Mr. Faber (“Sac.
Cal,” vol. i., pp. 30–38), but briefly sneered at, without proof, by
Dr. Lee (Introd. “Inq.,” p. 30), who terms the application of this
inspired mode of speech, “a sort of ecclesiastical hocus-pocus.” The
latter days and the latter years are (according to Hebrew idiom)
synonymous expressions; and thus all the seven phrases under
investigation have been proved to be synonymous.
[III.] But did the Apostles, by the use of those phrases in the
New Testament, mean the same period of time as is intended by
similar phrases in the English Version of the Old 2 To which the
answer seems fair, They wrote as Jews; and by inspiration ; if,
then, they used in the New Testament the same phrases as were
understood by Jews to be interpretations of a certain phrase used by
their own prophets in the Old, the just inference is, they employed
those phrases as recognised translations of that phrase which had
been originally and uniformly employed by the prophets; and did
therefore interpret the prophets to mean by that phrase the times
of Christianity, to which they, the Apostles, applied its recognised
translations.—We proceed, however, more carefully to show that the
apostles did use the various expressions by which the Jews understood
the time expressed in their prophets by Pººl nº.
[1..] The whole question is concerning the right interpretation of
this phrase, which occurs fifteen times—fourteen in its Hebrew form,
once in its Chaldaic. (Dan. ii. 28.) In the English Version it is
rendered twelve times by the latter days, three times by the last days;
but, for anything that appears to the contrary, might always have
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 203
been rendered in one or the other of these forms. Our question is,
Did the apostles, when they spake of last days, &c., intend the same
time as that implied in the Hebrew Fºr nº. 2 The apostles
use the following expressions —éir €oxárov rôv xpóvov, oxárm Öpa,
év čoxáro xpóvo, in éoxárov táv juépôv, évéoxárats uépals; all of which
we proved are used synonymously. But the Septuagint translates
tº n*Tº seven times ét éoxárov rôv juspöv, four times étr
&oxárov táv pepôv ; once év taſs éoxétats juépais, ét éoxáro róvºluépôv,
and éoxárov táv juspöv, respectively. It is sufficiently plain that the
apostles employed the Septuagint mode of expressing the well-known
Hebrew phrase, and applied it to the Christian dispensation ; for, in all
the passages which were quoted from the apostles, and proved to be
synonymous, ét éoxáróv táv juspów, it oxárov rôv pepôv, and év rais
£oxárats uépals, are Septuagintal phrases, comprising twelve out of
the fifteen places where the Hebrew mode of expression is em-
ployed; for, I conceive, that any fair reasoner will acknowledge
that éir oxárov rôv xpóvov is exactly equivalent to éir €oxárov táv
juépôv. -
[2] The identity in meaning of these different modes by which
the LXX. expresses tº h"Tº becomes also manifest by
comparing among themselves the various passages in which it occurs.
Thus Isa. ii. 2 and Micah iv. l are parallel prophecies, delivered
almost in the same words ; but for last days in Isaiah we have
&v Taſs éoxárats juépats, and in Micah ét éoxáróv táv juspóv. Again,
Jer. xxiii. 20 and xxx. 23 are parallel predictions, conveyed almost
in the same words ; but for latter days in chap. xxiii. we have
ër oxárov Tów juspów, and in chap. xxx. €r éoxãrov táv juspóv.
Thus, again, Jacob, in Gen. xlix, and Balaam, in Numb. xxiv., are
alike prophesying of Him to whom the sceptre of Israel rightfully
pertained ; in short, these also are parallel prophecies; but for last
days (Gen. xlix. 1) we have ém éoxárov táv juépôv (the same as
Jeremiah's latter days, chap. xx, and Micah's last days, chap. iv.);
but for latter days (Numb. xxiv. 14), ár toxárov rôv juspöv, the
other phrase used for latter days (Jer. xxiii. 30). Such comparisons
prove clearly that the Septuagint translators fully intended identity of
meanings in their different renderings of tº n*Tº .
Thus the identity of the Septuagint readings and the identity
of the apostolical usages are clearly established, and that all the
204, NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Greek phrases, as well as that one in the Hebrew, rendered variously
last days, last times, latter days, &c., in the English Version, are
synonymous.
[IV.] But what limit is to be set to this Hebrew phrase,
tº n*Th; ? Is Dr. Lee right in denying it extends beyond
the establishment, de facto, of the Christian Church under Con-
stantine —assuming that to be his real meaning—although the truth
is, he limits it thus in one place, and carries it on to the destruction of
the Roman Empire in another. To answer this question fairly and
fully involves the discussion of all those prophecies in the Old Testa-
ment wherein this phrase occurs, and all those passages in the New
where the corresponding Greek phrases are employed. Now, all
such passages, in which the usage of the phrase embraces the merits
of the present inquiry, may be classified as follows:—First,-Dan.
ii. 28, and x. 14; 1 Tim. iv. 1, and 2 Tim. iii. 1; 2 Pet. iii. 3, and
Jude 18 : Second,-Gen. xlix. 1, and Numb. xxiv. 14: Third,—
Deut. iv. 30, and xxxi. 39 : Fourth, Isa. ii. 2; Micah iv. 1; Jer.
xxiii. 20, and xxx. 23 ; and Hosea iii. 5: Fifth,-Jer. xlviii. 46, and
xlix. 36: Sixth, Ezek. xxxviii. 8, 16. There are also two places
in the English Version where the phrases latter days and last days
are employed to render a different usage in the Hebrew—viz., Job
xix. 25 and Acts ii. 17, of which the last is important to our whole
subject, and will be left until we come to Joel, from whose prophecy
it is a quotation. Meanwhile it may be observed, that in the Septua-
gint as well as in the Hebrew the renderings of these two passages are
altogether different, and are therefore not involved in the present
inquiry. Now, of the above six divisions of places in which this
phrase, or translations of it, occurs, we are saved all trouble of
treating upon the first, in order to disprove Professor Lee's theory
that the latter days are the time comprehended between our Saviour's
resurrection and the establishment of the Christian Church, de facto,
under Constantine, because it is precisely upon the interpretation of
these we have the fullest treatises in Faber’s “Sacred Calendar,” vol.
ii., chaps. 1 and 4, and vol. i., chap. 8, and Birks's “Four Prophetic
Empires;” while Dr. Lee's views are expressed at “Inquiry,” book ii.
The other divisions—viz., second to fifth—we propose going through
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 205
as briefly as possible ; the sixth belonging necessarily to the next
chapter.
[1..] Second.—Gen. xlix. 1 and Numb. xxiv. 14. These are the
two prophecies of the sceptre, and Dr. Lee commences his investigation
with them, pp. 99, 100. He admits that they both refer to Messiah’s
days, and that Numb. xxiv. “may be considered as a continuation of
the prophecy of Jacob” (Gen. xlix.), and as the first announcement of
those in Isaiah and Micah (which admission the reader will notice);
but the only argument he brings to show that these prophecies belong
to the period he is so good as to limit them to—viz., that time ante-
cedent to Constantine—is, that in chap. xxiv., speaking of the ships
of Chittim, means the ships of the Romans, as he would show from
Dan. ii. 30. Doubtless that is the usual, and probably the correct,
interpretation ; but, admitting it fully, what then The predictions
concerning Amalek, and the Kenite, and the ships of Chittim (Numb.
xxiv. 20–25), are quite distinct from that concerning Edom, Moab,
and the children of Seth (Ibid., 15–19), to which immediately the
prophecy of the sceptre is attached. And again, admitting that part
of the predictions delivered on this occasion by Balaam have already
been fulfilled in the day of Christianity, there is nothing in the
context itself, nor in the phrase tº n*TSE, to prove that all
were ; on the contrary, Mr. Faber has given us good reason for
believing they were not. (See “Eight Dissertations,” vol. i., p. 200.)
“These latter days must therefore be those of Christ,” is the whole of
Dr. Lee's conclusion, which no one in the world denies; but that does
not show by any means what part or period of those days was intended.
But, singularly enough, there was a remarkable argument deducible
from the previous parallel prophecy in Gen. xlix., to show that the day
fulfilling these prophecies of the sceptre has not yet arrived, which argu-
ment Professor Lee entirely overlooks. He admits these prophecies are
parallel places—one being continuous of the other. It is one of his
acknowledged fundamental principles, as laid down also in Glassius,
that parallel places should be adduced to support and corroborate each
other ; and therefore, if the time of one prophecy of the sceptre be
clearly not yet accomplished, that of the other is not ; if Eºſ, n'TS;
in one stretches to the end of the Christian dispensation, it does so
also in the other.
Let us take Professor Lee's own statement of this prophecy. “The
first occasion on which the term the last days occurs is that of Jacob's
206 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
blessing his children. (Gen. xlix.) “Gather yourselves together,’
says the patriarch, “that I may tell you that which shall befall you in
the last days.” (Heb. Evºn nºrish, Gr. LXX. Šar’ éoxárov Tów
juepôv.) A little lower down (ver. 10) it is foretold, as an event to
occur at this period, “that the sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
nor a lawgiver from between his feet (that is, from among his sons),
until Shiloh come, and (it is added) unto Him shall the gathering of
the people (nations) be.” In this case we clearly have the period of
our Lord's manifestation in the flesh designated as the last days.”
(“Inquiry,” p. 99.) True; but we are not told when these last days
end. We have already shown that the last days do mean the Christian
dispensation, beginning with our Lord's manifestation, or birth, as
here, and not with his resurrection, as Dr. Lee says elsewhere ; and
those last days include every part of the Christian dispensation. As
soon as the blessed Saviour came, the last days commenced ; and they
will not be over until He comes again. However, before we show
this from the prophecy (Gen. xlix.), another most valuable criticism
of Professor Lee (also suggested by Faber, “Eight Dissertations,”
vol. i., p. 206) must be given in his own language. “It is plainly an
error, as shown in my Hebrew Lexicon under the word H' Yº, to take
this Shiloh as a proper name. I take it so here merely in compliance
with general usage. An exact interpretation of this word, and of the
sense of the place, is given in Ezek. xxi. 27, in the terms, “until He
comes whose right (i.e., the crown is (v. 26), implying the rule). In
Gen. xlix. 10, ſº should be read Hºg, and is perfectly equivalent
to the 5% ºffs of Ezekiel here—i.e., whose it is—viz., the sceptre.”
Thus, then, the proper rendering of Gen. xlix. 10, as suggested by
Faber, is corroborated by Lee : “The sceptre shall not depart from
Judah, nor a lawgiver from among her sons, until He come whose the
sceptre is ; and unto Him shall the gathering of the nations be.”
How conclusive becomes the argument that we are even now in the
last days; to which, as Lee admits, this prophecy is limited. For the
sceptre mentioned is, in some sense or another, the sceptre over the
natural, literal Judah, gathered up as a people into one body politic ;
therefore, to Christ belongs, in some sense or other, the sceptre
or rule over the natural, literal Judah, gathered up as a people
into one body politic ; – I say, whether the sceptre indicate
a spiritual or literal rule, that rule must be over natural,
literal Judah, gathered together into one body politic as a
people. But Christ never held the sceptre in any sense, spiri-
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 207
tual or literal, over natural, literal Judah, gathered together
into one body as a people, and therefore this prophecy is yet un-
fulfilled. But it is limited to the last days ; therefore, being yet
unfulfilled, the last days are not yet over, and Professor Lee's
limitation of Fºr nº to the times of Constantine is proved by
this single argument to be contrary to Scripture. I maintain there is
but one way of eluding this argument, and that is by the subterfuge
that, although the sceptre is declared to be Christ's, in some sense,
over literal Judah so gathered together, it is not said He will ever
wield it in potency. This is the dilemma to which we are reduced;
and I cordially leave it to the judgments of all those who have learned
to read God's Word with serious minds. No one can deny that the
phrase, “sceptre from Judah,” means literal Judah in the Holy Land;
and this same sceptre over literal, natural Judah, gathered together in
the Holy Land, is prophetically declared to be Christ's; ibly whose it
ās; for no less purpose than to assure Judah, and all believers of
God's Word, that the day will come when Christ shall wield that
sceptre in efficiency over literal Judah in the Holy Land. It is one
of the earliest prophecies we have of a future restoration and conver-
sion of the Jews. Of conversion, also, because when Jesus reigns He
converts. The assumption of Messiah's sceptre over Judah in the
Holy Land is the moment of conversion—their national conversion.
Here it may not be irrelevant to observe that, after all that has been
written upon Jacob's prophecy of the Sceptre, difficulties may be
permitted in it to Jews, but scarcely so to Christians. The nature of
the sceptre intended, and the time of its departing, which two heads
involve the meaning of the whole prophecy, are hardly obscure. The
Sceptre is Christ's, and its character, which must be immutable as its
owner, is defined by Zechariah. Christ ever was, and ever will be,
a King and Priest upon his throne. Hence his sceptre is ever kingly
and sacerdotal, political and religious, like Melchizedec's. And the
sceptre departed from Judah when Christ, “God manifest in the
flesh,” laid down his life upon that cross, whereon. He was proclaimed
to all the world, Jew and Gentile, in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin,
“King of the Jews ; ” then He entered into the holiest to assume his
priestly office (Heb. vi. 20, and viii. 1), and sat down on the right hand
of the Majesty on high, a King and Priest, as predicted by Zechariah,
rendering utterly void, and abolishing from that moment, the religious
system of Judaism, as its political had virtually been abolished before.
#
}
208 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
There are yet a few observations to be made upon this (Gen. xlix.)
with advantage to our subject. First, whatever may be the difficulties
of the chapter, it is admitted that the Israelites never attained com-
pletely the national and territorial blessings it promises to them. Few,
however, reflect that the verity of Holy Scripture, in other words,
the truth of Christianity, is involved in their so acquiring them. The
covenant with Abraham, whether considered terrestrially or spiritually,
for the natural seed, or the mystical, has never yet been fulfilled.
Israel has never yet possessed its Holy Land, nor completely enjoyed
the territorial blessings covenanted to them. They were nearest to it
in the times of David and Solomon (the first being the most specific of
all the types of Messiah); but, even in the days of these monarchs,
those great and precious promises in Gen. xlix. were not fulfilled.
Jacob's blessing is a verbal delineation of the promises of the Most
High, yet to be realised by Israel within the borders of their own
land. The Holy Spirit, speaking in the patriarch, announces tribally
the blessings, the national blessings, previously covenanted to Abra-
ham, Isaac, and Jacob, but not to be realised until the days of Him
whose the sceptre is. Second, Jacob's is the first recorded use of the
phrase Fºr nºmiſsiº (the expression in Job xix. 25 is not the same,
although translated latter days), a fact which cannot be otherwise than
important. For, remembering the inspired character of the Holy
Volume, we are almost constrained to expect that a certain phrase,
destined from the first to be employed throughout it, in Genesis,
Numbers, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel,
Micah, and the Apostles, would carry one constant, and specific,
meaning, originally attached to it, through Moses, by Jacob himself.
Every student of Hebrew knows how important it is to fix the
Pentateuch upon his mind, and what a valuable light the knowledge
of pentateuchal usage throws upon the rest of Hebrew Scripture.
This is a principle commentators have agreed to recognise ; the same
would we apply to the phrase now being investigated. We are
prepared to believe that Jacob's use of the phrase would justify that
of prophets subsequently, for Jacob, too, uses it in prophecy. And
we argue thus:–If Jacob, who first uses it, clearly meant by
Dº nºr's; the age of Christianity, then subsequent writers
intended, where they used that phrase, the same age. If Jacob
meant clearly a part of the Christian age not yet come (as he does),
then subsequent writers intend, by the same phrase, a part of the
- -, -ºxº~nºwirrºr-rºarrºr:
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 209
same age not yet come. It may be said, it has been said, that this
phrase, in Daniel ii. 28, must mean a time previous to the commence-
ment of the Christian era, for that a part of Nebuchadnezzar's dream,
viz., that immediately affecting his own empire, soon began to be
realised; and this is truth, but not the whole truth; the phrase must
be taken in its integrity, reaching through the whole vision, which
runs on to the time when “the stone that smote the image became a
great mountain, and filled the whole earth” (ver. 35)—the completed
age of the Christian Church. This is the climax of the vision; and
accordingly, in Daniel's interpretation of it, a respondent expression,
T}T ºrº, is used at ver. 45, and is applied immediately and specift-
cally to the very times of that stone, viz., the Christian Church—
“The great God hath made known to the King what shall come to
pass hereafter.” I believe it will be found that, in all the fifteen
places where the phrase Pººl h"Tºº is used, it always reaches
into the last days of the Christian dispensation ; and, what is more,
and following as an important consequence, that, whenever we meet
with it, we may be sure we are reading prophecy. The value of this
last remark will now be seen; for,
[2] Third, the next division was the use of the phrase in Deut.
iv. 30, and xxxi. 29. Let Dr. Lee again speak :—“Deut. iv. 30, et
seq., is the next place in which this usage is found, viz., “When thou
art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the
latter days (Heb., Pº, nºſº; ; Gr. lxx., áir oxáro rów juspów),
if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his
voice . . . . . He will not forsake thee;’ where, as already remarked,
we have no prophecy that they should return, but only the condition
laid down, viz., If they shall return, then will the Lord their God
not forsake them. That this context refers to the same period is evident
from what occurs at ver. 26:—‘I call heaven and earth to witness
. . . . . . that ye shall utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go
over Jordan to possess it . . . . . ye . . . . . shall utterly be destroyed,
and (it is added) the Lord shall scatter you among the nations,’
&c., &c., which is positive prophecy, all of which actually took place
during the period so termed.” (“Inquiry,” p. 100.) I solicit
impartial attention, while venturing to doubt that this is a just repre-
sentation of the meaning of the context, or that it is so certain this is
not a prophetical, but conditional, passage of Scripture. And, as
P
*

210 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
the place is of great importance, I shall take pains to explain my
reasons for doing so, and for suggesting that it may be quite consistent
with the Hebrew here employed, if not actually required by it, to
think that Moses' language is a positive prediction to the effect that,
in the latter days, Israel should return and seek the Lord. Meanwhile
let me suggest a reason for suspecting, in limine, that this passage
(Deut. iv. 25, 31) is prophecy, properly so called, viz., that, if this
be no prophecy, then Deut. iv. 30 is the only place out of all the
fifteen in the Hebrew Bible where the phrase Fºr nº is used
otherwise than prophetically. I repeat what was observed before, that,
wherever we meet with this phrase we may rely upon it we are
reading prophecy. Now the whole passage, apparently conditional,
and not prophetic, is as follows:—“But if from thence thou shalt
seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him, if thou seek Him with
all thy heart and with all thy soul. When thou art in tribulation,
and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if
thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice ;
(for the Lord thy God is a merciful God;) He will not forsake thee,
neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which He
sware unto them.” (Vers. 29–31.) I have carefully pointed this
extract as the English Version points it, which pointing, I shall
show, utterly violates the Hebrew construction, is entirely opposed to
the Masoretic pointing, and completely changes the force of the
passage. Is it not an extraordinary fact that Professor Lee, who
maintains that the greatest deference should be paid to the Masoretic
pointing, and asserts (“Gram.,” Lec. i., p. 2)—“After all that has
been said by the advocates of the unpointed system, it will be
extremely difficult to point out one writer of that school who has in
any degree advanced Hebrew learning ;” is it not an extraordinary
fact that, on this occasion, he entirely neglects the pointing, and
whereas the English Version here utterly violates it, quotes from that
version as if its reading were correct 2 However, -
First, The idea which at once suggests itself to the reader is
probably that the whole passage quoted from the English Version
above is even more conditional apparently than the part of it given by
Professor Lee ; that, in fact, the conditional expressions commence at
ver. 29, “But if,” &c., while his quotation commences with ver. 30,
“When thou art; ” and, no doubt, if these conditional expressions
were sure translations of the Hebrew, the force of the whole passage
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 211
to that effect must remain undisputed ; and, in such case, we may be
certain Professor Lee would not have failed to quote ver. 29. But
the truth is, those conditional words, But if, and if, in ver, 29, and
if, in ver. 30, are not to be found. The passage is another of those
whose meaning depends entirely upon the right translation of 1.
“But if ye shall seek,” tº ; and there are certain places in
which has been supposed to carry the force of But if, or if, which
possible use of l will be found mentioned by Noldius (“Concord,”
p. 302), though certainly this passage, in Deut. iv., is not among his
examples, or references; by Glassius, Canon 7, “De Conjunctione,”
vol. i., p. 523 ; and Lee, “Gram,” Lect. 17, Art. 233, p. 346; and,
I believe, whoever refers to these high authorities will see that such
use of , is by no means clear and ‘well-defined ; while, if I read
Professor Lee rightly, he says, he has come to the conclusion, after a
careful examination of the matter, that no such doubtful mode as our
subjunctive, or conditional mode, is to be discovered in Oriental usage
here. His words are, translating the passage in brackets from
Kimchi, “The words of D. Kimchi on this subject are to be found in
the “Mikhlol,” fol. Tº verso, and are as follows:–[And there is
another use of in the place of D8, and this indicates the reply of a
conditional sentence ; as, in the examples, Putting the case that the
iron is blunt, the corresponding member is, then must one increase the
force. (Eccles. x. 9.) If ye—or putting the case that ye—walk in
my statutes, the corresponding member is, then surely I will give
your showers in their season. (Lev. xxvi. 3, 4.)] This is precisely
the doctrine of the Arabian grammarians, as far as it goes. (See
Jami's Com. on Ibn Ulhajib.) They investigate the matter, however,
much more scientifically and profoundly. The result of a careful
examination of this matter with me is, that although the subsequent
members may often be translated by our subjunctive, or conditional,
mode, yet, as positive comparisons are always instituted in their
languages, no such doubtful mode actually easists with them.” That is,
the corresponding member, though seemingly conditional to us, is not
actually so to Orientals—to Hebrews—in Professor Lee's opinion.
Take then a passage, Deut. iv. 30 —“And thou turn, ºtºl; putting
the case, that thou turn to the Lord thy God, the corresponding
member is, then He will not forsake thee.” But Professor Lee is of
opinion, after a careful examination of the subject, that though to us
the subsequent member may be rendered by a conditional mode, there
P 2
212 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
. . . . ---., - - --~~~~w-ºxºm
is nothing really conditional in the Oriental usage. We now begin to
see why Professor Lee did not quote the whole passage in his
“Inquiry,” although, in fact, to an English reader, the strongest
Conditional terms appear to be contained in ver. 29. When to this I
add that the expression, “thou shalt find Him” is also preceded by 1,
of which no notice is taken in the English Version; ºth and thou
shalt find Him ; and also that the if—“If thou shalt seek Him with
all thy heart,” is "3, and might just as well, or better, have been
translated when ; this very passage being referred to by Noldius both
for if and when, at pp. 373, 374, “Concord.;” then, I think, the
reader will be of opinion that the conditional character of ver. 29 is
sufficiently doubtful to have supplied Professor Lee with the best
reasons for not quoting it with ver. 30, and that this doubtful feature
of the passage may possibly infect ver, 30 also. There is no possible
doubt that positive prophecy commences at ver. 26, “I call heaven
and earth to witness,” and it is continued uninterruptedly until, by
the English Version, it is abruptly arrested at ver, 29 by the question-
able, very questionable, insertion of “But if.” The prophetical
context had been steadily sustained by the translation of , and, at the
commencement of vers. 27, 28, and ought to have been so at wer. 29.
“And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and
stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. And from
thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, and thou shalt find Him,
when thou seekest Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.”
The whole seeming conditionality of this, and similar passages,
depends upon the rendering of "3 and l ; and for authoritative illus-
trations of the use of these particles, sometimes with, and sometimes
without Ps, I would refer, of all books, to that of Leviticus, e.g.,
Lev., chaps. i. 5; xii. 13; xv. 19–23; xx. 13–21; xxv. 18–25; and
xxvii. And I would hazard this observation, that the Hebrew Scrip-
tures, and particularly the Books of Moses, being the earliest impress
of Oriental idiom, may perhaps assist in justifying the conclusion at
which Professor Lee arrived, that these usages involved no conditional
mode in the Eastern style. For it is certain that the injunctions of
Levitical Law implied no conditionality, or uncertainty, or contin-
gency; the crimes, for instance, there forbidden, were certain as to
their actual commission, though necessarily expressed contingently, as
to those who would commit them. It would have been opposed to the
Divine perfection to conceive cases which might or might not occur ;
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 213.
each case supposed, whether of crime, or punishment, or affliction, or
ritual observance, was certain, and not contingent, or conditional, as
to its occurrence. The anticipative injunctions of Levitical Law may
be called, in one sense, prophecies of offences which the Divine
Lawgiver noted as sure to happen. For instance (Lev. xiii. 13):—
“Then the priest shall consider, and behold, if the leprosy have
covered all his flesh, (Tº Tຠand behold it hath covered, i.e.,
putting the case, it hath covered) all his flesh, he shall pronounce
(Tº then he shall pronounce) him clean that hath the plague; it is
all turned white ; he is clean.” This is an example illustrating the
use of the l, in which the Divine mind conceives the case as certain,
and not contingent, nor conditional. The priest shall look, and
behold the plague is over all the flesh, turned white; the man is clean.
The reader will find in Levit. xiii. many examples; the word if being
carefully put in italics by the English translators, to imply its absence
from the original. So Deut. iv. 30:—“But if from thence thou shalt
seek the Lord thy God, then thou shalt find Him,” &c.; the incident
being conceived of as certain, and not contingent, in the Divine mind.
Take another example to illustrate the use of "3 –“ When, or if,
thou seek Him with all thy heart,” &c. (Deut. iv. 30.) “If thy
brother be waxen poor (ºb." P when he is waxen poor), and hath
sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to
redeem it (SP) and there cometh, i.e., putting the case there cometh),
then he shall redeem that which his brother sold.” (Lev. xxv. 25.)
Here is no conditionality, or contingency ; the whole is certain; the
occurrence of the case certain, the redemption a positive legal injunc-
tion. I say, it seems to me that these usages of "3 and l in the
Levitical Law, to which certainty must needs attach, may be referred
to in illustration of such passages as Deut. iv. 29, 30, where their
usage might otherwise be thought conditional.
Again, for example's sake, and in illustration of Deut. iv. 29, 30;
so also Lev. xxvi. 40, “If then they shall confess their iniquity and
the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed
against me, &c., &c., then will I remember,” &c., &c., a passage
involving the use of , seemingly conditional in the very midst of those
Levitical injunctions, seemingly conditional, but undoubtedly certain.
Why should we suspend this Levitical force of , in chap. xxvi,
containing promises of Israel's restoration and conversion, when we
are constrained to admit it in the rest of that book 2
214 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Second, But the certainly prophetical character of Deut. iv. 25–31
becomes more evident at ver. 30, quoted by Dr. Lee: “When thou
art in tribulation (#) Tºº), and all these things are come upon thee,
even in the latter days, if thou turn (ºn then thou shalt turn) to
the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice.” Now, as
this is the verse upon which Dr. Lee especially places his conditional
interpretation I hesitate to attempt any reply myself, but shall meet
him with Dr. Gesenius. (See “Thesaurus,” p. 396.) “Copula
incipit apodosin, maximè ubi ha-c paulö disertilis notanda widetur ;
. . . . . Itä praecedente . . . . . ; cum infinitivo. (Gen. iii. 5; Ezek.
xxxiii. 18.) l—pºº Bº, when the righteous turneth . . . . . then.
Copulam etiam in his exemplis propriè esse particula temporis, et
orationem continuantis, vel exeo apparet, quod in eandem sententiam,
sed paulē fortius etiam, tº particula (p. 58, inf.) ut latin. tunc.”
Crebro, et non sine vi, ponitur etiam post verba, et sententias, absolute
positas; maximè tempus designantes.” (Exod. xvi. 6; Levit. vii. 16;
Prov. xxiv. 27; Gen. xl. 9.)
Here, then, we have the construction explained for the very case
under consideration. “The copula , begins the apodosis among other
cases also when P with the infinitive goes before.” When thou art in
tribulation, 7% ºx at the time of tribulation being on thee: In
such case is to be taken as a particle of time, equivalent to $, as
the Latin tune. Also, “Frequently h is put after words and
sentences placed absolutely, especially such as denote time.” Here
we have it exactly. “At the time of tribulation being on thee, and all
these things have overtaken thee; in the latter days (time put
absolutely) path then (tune, temporis)—then thou shalt turn to the
Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient to his voice.” And I maintain
the certainty of the case foreseen extends also to the result conceived.
Accordingly Clarius (“Critici Sacri,” p. 1166), “Novissimo autem
tempore reverteris–Cum enim plenitudo Gentium introierit, tune
omnis Israel salvus erit,” treating the place as positive prophecy.
(Concurrently also with Lowth on Ezek. xxxviii. 8.)
I ask, with the greatest deference, is Dr. Lee justified in dismissing
this passage, important as it is, so summarily as being conditional P
Is it clear, Gesenius and Lowth being judges, that Hebrew idiom
forbids its being considered a positive prophecy?
: Third. But now let us look to the pointing. The English pointing
having been noted, I submit the following translation of the whole

ANP) CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 215
passage, carefully preserving the Masoretic, as in Wanderhooght's
Bible, by d'Allemand, 1839, and Bomberg's Bible, 1549:-
29. And ye shall seek from thence the Lord thy God, and thou shalt
find Him: -
When thou seekest Him; with all thy heart, and with all thy
Soul. -
30. When thou art in tribulation; and all these things are come upon
thee : -
In the latter days; then thou shalt turn unto the Lord thy God;
- and shalt be obedient to his voice.
31. For a merciful God is the Lord thy God; He will not forsake
thee, neither destroy thee:
Nor forget the covenant of thy fathers; which He sware unto
them.
I would briefly observe here that the Hebrew Silluk is represented
by the English full-stop ; Athnack by the colon ; and Zakeph by the
semicolon; and refer for their powers to Lee's “Gram.,” p. 386.
Now the effect of this alteration in pointing in the English version is
manifest. Introducing the parenthesis incorrectly at ver. 31, the
English version throws the conditional form, “if thou shalt turn,” &c.,
on to “He will not forsake thee,” at ver. 31, without which it could
have no life whatever. But this parenthesis exists not in the
Hebrew ; verse 30 is stopped up by Silluk. So that we are
reduced to the dilemma of reading verse 30 thus: “In the latter
days if thou shalt turn unto the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient
unto his voice.” And there is no promise whatever to answer to the
condition; the verse is absolutely closed. But now, taking the
Masoretic pointing (which Professor Lee maintains no student of
Hebrew can safely disregard), it is all as clear as possible. “When
thou art in tribulation ; and all these things are come upon thee;
viz., in the latter days; then thou shalt turn to the Lord thy God, and
shalt be obedient unto his voice.” Here the prophetical promise is
shut up by Silluk: but Moses immediately strengthens the promise
by the gracious assurance, “For a merciful God is the Lord thy God;
He will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee: nor forget the
covenant of thy fathers, which He sware unto them.” As though he
would say, “Utterly undeserving as ye will continue to be ; God will
not forsake thee, nor destroy thee, for these reasons; 1. He is in his
216 .NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
:
-,-----------~~~~~~
essence merciful. 2. He cannot break his promise to your fathers.'
3. That promise, moreover, He confirmed with an oath; and the proof
of his love will be, that in the latter days thou shalt turn to the Lord
thy God, and be obedient to his voice.” -
Let me only add, that in this whole passage (Deut. iv. 29–31) the
translation of the LXX., so carefully referred to on many occasions by
Dr. Lee, is utterly opposed to him, and agreeable with the exposition
which I have ventured to offer; and if in doing so I have appeared
presumptuous, I trust the reader will remember that I have merely
asked, with profoundest respect for the memory of Professor Lee, two
questions: 1. Is he justified in dismissing Deut. iv. 30 so summarily
as certainly conditional 2 and, 2. Is it clearly contrary to Hebrew
idiom to take that verse as positively prophetical ? I do not hesitate
to admit that I regard the whole passage (Deut. iv. 25–31) as an
unconditional prophecy, certainly foretelling the scattering, but also
the restoration and conversion of Israel; and that this, as well as the
other fourteen places in which the phrase tº nº occurs, is
prophetical ; that, in short, wherever we find this phrase, it is a sign
of the presence of prophecy. I believe that when Moses said
Triºs Tºntº Dºn Eº and ye shall seek from thence the
Lord thy God, and Tribs Tintº Ty ºn and thou shalt turn unto
the Lord thy God, he gave us the first record of the prophecy after-
wards repeated by Hosea (chap. iii. 5), bsºp; * Antº; ºris
ETºº Tirtºns ºn afterward shall the children of Israel
return, and seek the Lord their God—Hosea also adding, in the latter
days.
Lastly, let this argument be added ; that, even granting to Dr. Lee
the conditional character of ver. 30, it does not enable us to limit the
period intended by the latter days as he wishes; he proves it to mean
some part of the Christian dispensation, but does not, and cannot, show
where that part terminates. On the contrary, the force of the passage
is against his theory ; for we should reason thus:—As long as this
tribulation is upon Israel, so long as they are left few in number
among the heathen (nations, Gentiles), so long they are in the latter
days, of which these are characteristics; and if so, then the present,
much more all the days which have elapsed since Constantine's time,
are the latter days.
[3] Deut. xxxi. 9 was the next place referred to for the phrase.
Let Professor Lee's words be again quoted: “Again, chap. xxxi. 29
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 217
(which, however, more properly belongs to the next chapter, it is
said, ‘Evil will befall you in the latter days (Heb., Pººl nºr S# ;
Gr. LXX., oxdrov táv juspóv) because ye will do evil in the sight of
the Lord to provoke him to anger,’ &c., which must also refer to this
period; and it distinctly marks the end de facto of the Jewish polity.”
He continues, “The next intimation we have of this period is Deut.
xxxii. 29, where it is said, “Oh that they were wise, that they would
consider their latter end.” (Heb., Bºſſº, Gr. LXX., row ºrtovra
Xpóvov.) It should be observed, that in this context the overthrow of
the Jewish polity is particularly and positively predicted (ver. 20,
seq.), “I will see what their latter end shall be.” (Heb.,
Ennº Tºp Tººls, where the LXX. Gr. have read Tºns, I will
show, &c., 8etéo ti čotal airrots it toxárov. And so the Arabic of
Saadaas Haggaon, as in the London Polyglott, and so that of
Erpenius.) We also have here (ver. 22, seq.) the destruction of the
earth, i.e., of the land, by fire, &c.; ver. 26, their scattering abroad
into corners; and ver. 43, the calling in of the Gentiles and the
rejoicing of these with his people, i.e., with the holy remnant of them.
(Compare chap. xxxiii. 19, 26–29, where the same period is
evidently had in view.)” (“Inquiry,” p. 101.)
It is a pity that Lee's “Inquiry” is not always equally attentive to
the Septuagint. However, upon the above we accept his own
admissions:—1. The time referred to is that of the Christian dis-
pensation. 2. Their latter end means the end of the Jewish polity
(though prº-ES is very different from Fºr nº Ts). 3. Chap.
xxxi. 29 properly belongs to chap. xxxii. 4. Chap. xxxiii. 26—29
evidently alludes to the same period as chap. xxxii. 29; and proceed
to show that these very admissions are fatal to Professor Lee's theory,
because, in fact, he is chargeable with a gross petitio principii, the places
he alludes to being really unfulfilled prophecies of the most gorgeous
character; if, then, they refer, as he says, and we believe, to the same
period, viz., the latter days, it is clear enough that this period did
not end with Constantine, and has not even yet passed away. And
yet I do not know that it ought to be called positively a begging the
question, for upon minute examination it may be discovered that at
“Inquiry,” p. 24, we are favoured with precisely fifty-eight lines of
octavo as a full, true, and complete explanation of that same sublime
chapter, Deut. xxxii, and this is the conclusion drawn from it:—
“We have before us, therefore, the line distinctly and strongly
e.
218 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
drawn, even from the very first, between the true and the false Jews,
and the promises directly and exclusively given to the former, while
threats and judgments fearful in the extreme are dealt out against the
latter; and this, as we shall find, is constantly and consistently done
by all the sacred writers.” Now to enter upon a discussion of that
whole chapter is not my present purpose, but rather to select one or
two passages in it, and to show briefly how utterly irreconcilable
they are to Dr. Lee's theory—that, in fact, they overturn it; and then
I shall refer to ancient authorities to the same effect. *
First. Professor Lee draws from the whole this conclusion—that a
distinction is drawn in this chapter between true Jews and false
Jews; in other words, faithful Jews, and unbelieving Jews—a
principle of false distinction which runs through his whole work.
Now I take it that nothing is clearer than that Israel is addressed
nationally in this chapter, without distinction of parties of any sort or
kind. This ought never to be lost sight of, either by those who
believe in a future for Israel, or who do not. The Holy Scriptures
always speak of the people Israel as a nation, and never otherwise.
The prophets were public national officers, their prophecies national
subjects. Precisely so of this Deut. xxxii. : “Gather unto me all the
elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words
in their ears.” Deut. xxxi.28: “And Moses spake in the ear of all
the congregation of Israel the words of this song.” Wer. 30: “And
Moses came and spake all the words of this song in the ears of the
people, he and Hoshea the son of Nun.” (Chap. xxxii. 44.)
Nothing can be plainer than that this song is avowedly and in a very
peculiar sense a national song. And its style throughout corresponds:
“Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked;” “I will hide my face from them, I
will see what their end shall be ; ” “They have moved me to
jealousy;” “I will heap mischiefs upon them ; ” “ they are a
nation void of counsel; ” “The Lord shall judge his people; ”
“Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people; ” “He will be merciful
unto his land and to his people ; " all these expressions are
collective, and necessarily include Israel as a people, a nation, and
they denote fairly the tenor of the whole chapter. The people is
spoken of, whether under curse or blessing, as a nation. But an
inspection of the chapter will better satisfy the reader. It is scarcely
possible by mere extracts to convey this with due force. .
`. Second. The same people who are chastised with curses are also
--~~~~~~~-rrºr-
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 219
represented as being crowned in their end with blessing. If, then,
the cursed are the false Jews (as Dr. Lee admits), the blessed are the
false Jews, but under altered circumstances. “For the Lord shall
judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when He seeth
that their power is gone, and there is none shut up or left. And He
shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted?
which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their
drink-offerings 2 Let them rise up and help you, and be your
protection.” Here the Lord is represented as repenting Him for his
people, at a time when He perceives their power is gone; and they
are the same people who had worshipped, and sacrificed to, and
trusted in false gods—an infidelity prophetically described, of which
they are prophetically reminded. They, whom Moses predicts will
forsake God; they, whose power he predicts will wane and perish;
these same people, he foretels, God will view with commiseration;
these are they for whom He promises to arise and execute judgment ;
of whom it is said, “He will avenge the blood of his servants, and will
render vengeance to his adversaries.” The reader will remember,
Professor Lee admits that all this belongs to the Christian dispensa-
tion, as undoubtedly it does ; the people once cursed, whose power is
gone, are represented during the Christian dispensation as blessed ;
that people is the Jewish nation, which has never yet been blessed
during the Christian dispensation; and, therefore, this whole prophecy
is unfulfilled. But it is especially a prophecy for tº n*lſº
the latter days (chap. xxxi. 29), as again Professor Lee admits; and,
not having been fulfilled, these latter days are not yet passed away.
Third. Is it not astonishing that Professor Lee passed over the
following passage entirely unnoticed ? “I said, I would scatter them
into corners; I would make the remembrance of them to cease from
among men: were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest
their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, and lest they
should say, Our hand is high, and the Lord hath not done all this.”
(Chap. xxxii. 26, 27.) Here is a distinct assurance (similar to that so
often repeated subsequently. See Ps, cvi. 8, 23, 44, and Ezek.
xx. 9, 14, 22) that, lest the Gentiles should triumph in their own
fancied might, and despise the God of the Hebrews, He would not
suffer that people to be utterly cast away. And, which is of the very
first importance, this assurance is given directly after a prophetical
description of the judgments which should befal them as a nation in
the destruction of their polity; Pl.]"Tº their latter end, as admitted
*
220 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
by Dr. Lee. (Read vers. 21–25.) We know we are in the Christian
dispensation here, for St. Paul quotes ver, 21, at Rom. x. 19, of their
condition then under the calling of the Gentiles, and Professor Lee is
perfectly right in holding that vers. 22–25 describe their overthrow
by the Romans, the destruction of their polity (“Inquiry,” p. 101): and
to the same era belongs the gracious promise, “I said that I would,”
&c., “were it not that"—and therefore (the conclusion is irresistible)
—therefore I will not do it; and then come all the promises included
in vers. 36–43, exactly parallel by chap. xxxiii. 26–29. I wish I
had space to enlarge upon these sublime and precious passages of the
Holy Volume, or only upon that unequalled place, chap. xxxiii. 26–29.
But as they are only collaterally introduced to meet Dr. Lee's un-
scriptural limitation of tº nº ſº, I will not. Only let me
observe—these promises are national,—these promises belong to the
Christian dispensation,-these promises are made in direct recognition
of the overthrow of the Jewish polity by the Romans, and all the
provocation of the Jews, these promises have never yet been ful-
filled; therefore P'º h"Tºº, in the latter days, denotes a period
which has never yet passed away, as singularly imagined by Professor
Lee. To this I will add, that I believe these observations are justified
by the early interpreters. (See on chap. xxxii. 36 and 42, and chap.
xxxiii. 26–29, Munster, Watablus, Castalio, and Clarius.)
Such are briefly reasons for maintaining—1, with Professor Lee,
that, in Deut. xxxi. 29, Fºº n*TITS; denotes the Christian
dispensation ; and 2, contrary to Professor Lee, that the period of
time so denoted has not yet passed away, because the promises given
to rebellious Israel, to be fulfilled after the destruction of their polity
by the Romans, have not yet been accomplished.
[4] The fourth section of the places in which this Hebrew phrase
is used is so remarkable—bears so fully upon the whole subject—so
combines to overthrow Professor Lee's theory, and to establish the
views of those who believe in a future restoration and conversion of
Israel, that we crave particular attention while treating on it. The
places are—Isa. ii. 2; Micah iv. 1; Jer. xxiii. 20, and xxx. 22 ;
and Hosea iii. 5, all of them prophecies of Branch or King, singularly
linked together by this little phrase, and mutually supporting the
interpretation we have ventured to put upon each of them. Professor
Lee shall speak first :—
“We now pass on to Isa. ii., where it is said, ‘It shall come to
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 221
pass in the last days (Heb. Pºº h"Tº: , LXX, tv ráis toxárats
%uépais) that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established,’
&c.; which, from the nature of the context, can refer to none but
those in which the nations should receive the Gospel. In ver. 12
here, this period is termed, ‘the day of the Lord.” Let this be borne
in mind.” . . . . “Jer. xxiii. presents us with the same things,
and these to take place within the same period. In ver. 3, the
remnant is to be gathered ; ver. 5, the Righteous Branch is to be
raised up to David. In his days Judah is to be saved (i.e., the holy
remnant noticed above), and his name is to be called, The Lord our
Righteousness, &c., to the end of ver, 8. The theme then taken up
is on the fall of the unbelieving Jews. Then follows (ver. 19, seq.)
—‘Behold, a whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth in fury: . . . . it
shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked : . . . . in the
latter days (Heb. as before) ye shall consider it perfectly.' . . . .
We have, too, a parallel to this place in chap. xxx. 23, 24. And in
vers. 17–23 are given the consolation of the outcasts—i.e., of the
true Zion—with the fall of their oppressors. In the next chapter
(xxxi. 1, seq.) it is said, “At the same time will I be the God of all
the families of Israel,” that is, as already noticed, of those who are
truly so called—viz., the outcasts, or remnants. (See chap. xxx. 17,
and also chap. xxxi. 7, seq., as already shown, and Ezek. xi. 15, seq.)
. . . . But this context (chap. xxx. 7, seq.) carries on the events
so foretold to the times of our Lord, and here these are those of
Israel's restoration. We have here, therefore, these latter days made
to synchronise with those of all Israel's restoration. (See also chap.
xxxi. 31, seq., with the parallels.) And this is the case everywhere,
as already remarked. . . . . The next place we shall notice, as
applying the term the last days to this period, is Micah iv. 1, 2, &c.,
in words identically the same with those of Isaiah, quoted above.
That this refers to the apostolic period must be evident, from what
was shown on this place of Isaiah.” (“Inquiry,” pp. 102–105.)
It is desirable to observe that, in the above extracts, Professor Lee
admits—l. That Isa, ii., Micah iv., Jer. xxiii., and Jer. xxx., all
refer to the same period of the Christian dispensation, by the use of
the phrase in question: if so, the right interpretation of these prophe-
cies involves the right interpretation of the phrase; or the whole
question of the meaning of Pºrt nº is brought to this—is
Professor Lee's view of these prophecies correct, or that advanced by
222 . NOTES ON - THE RESTORATION
others, and supported in these chapters ? In other words, whatever
has been advanced in the two preceding chapters, to show that the
prophecies of Branch and King are not fulfilled, goes to show,
according to Dr. Lee's own admission, that the latter days are not
yet over ; for, as we showed, all the prophecies of Branch and King
are inseparably connected. 2. He admits that the time of all Israel's
restoration (in whatever sense) is everywhere made to synchronise .
with the latter days—an admission in which we are perfectly agreed;
only there remains the question, In what sense “all Israel's restora-
tion” is to be understood f 3. That this term in Jer. xxiii. belongs
to one prophecy of the Branch.
But Professor Lee does not notice that Isa. ii. is also part of one
prophecy of Branch. He notices the singular parallel passage in
Jer. xxiii. 19, 20, and xxx. 23, 24, but he does not notice that
Jer. xxx. is a prophecy of the King ; and singularly he takes no
notice at all of Hosea iii. 5—the strongest place in the Holy Bible
against his theory, where the phrase tº nº occurs, and being
also another prophecy of the King. Thus, the phrase as used by the
prophets, peculiarly so called, enables us to link together all the
prophecies of Branch and King, and to prove that they all belong to
one and the same time, and treat of one and the same subject ; so
that, as just remarked, all that has been said on these prophecies, to
prove that they are yet unfulfilled, tells entirely against Dr. Lee's
explanation of the phrase, the latter days. But more than this—all
the prophecies of the Branch are, as such, connected with each other;
and all the prophecies of the King, as such, so connected also ; and
this phrase tº n*Tºº is used in each set of prophecies, so that
by it all the prophecies of Branch and King are connected together,
and become virtually one set of prophecies. And still further—of all
the other prophecies considered in this volume (those in the second
chapter from Ezekiel alone excepted), Ezek. xxxviii. 39, and the
Book of Joel, are limited to the last or latter days; Isa. xxix. 32 is
a prophecy of the King ; and Zech. xii., xiv., we shall show to be so
identified with Ezekiel's and Joel's, that no doubt shall remain but
they all belong to one and the same subject; so that, far from allowing
Professor Lee's destruction and cutting off of these last days, we claim
this very Hebrew phrase as a chief index to the most direct and
specific prophecies foretelling a future restoration and conversion of
Israel. As he says (though in a different sense), all Israel's restora-
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 223:
tion always synchronises with tº n*Tºº, which is, therefore,
never employed but in prophecy, although Dr. Lee would have had
us believe that Deut. iv. 30 was no prophecy at all. -
Before I proceed to apply these important facts, let me again ask—
Is it not extraordinary that the Professor, when undertaking to
examine all the places where this Hebrew phrase occurs, takes no
notice of Hosea iii. 5* There is the Hebrew Bible, which any one
may examine, and find this precise phrase at Hosea iii. 5; and there
also is Lee's “Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy”
(Seeleys, 1849), which any one may examine, between pp. 99–132,
and find that he alludes, not to this phrase in Hosea—although he
had, for another purpose, alluded to the prophecy only at p. 96 before,
but not to this phrase in it. It is certainly singular that Dr. Lee
should overlook the passage, and quite as singular—or more so—that
it is the strongest of all the passages against himself, and, I maintain,
absolutely fatal to his whole theory, and the above work which advo-
cates it. For observe, the passage is as follows:—“Afterward (TTS)
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 (Bºſ nº IISE).” Now, Dr. Lee told us that the
latter days were that space of time between our blessed Saviour's
resurrection and the establishment of the Christian Church, de facto,
under Constantine ; that the first part or evening of this day was the
space of time between our Saviour's resurrection and the destruction
of the Jewish polity by the Romans; that the second part or morning
of this day, its end, or YZ, was the space of time commencing with
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (which elsewhere, and
in his Lexicon, he specifically calls the end, or YR), and ending with
the establishment, de facto, of the Christian Church, or empire, under
Constantine. But it is certain that the children of Israel were not
“without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and
without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim,”—
in other words, their polity was not broken up until Titus overturned
Jerusalem,--that is, until the end (according to Lee) actually com-
menced. And in this state Hosea says they shall abide many days—
i.e., after the end. In this state we know they have continued ever
since the destruction of their city. But Hosea says, that after having
so abided many days, they—the same children of Israel—shall return,
in some sense or other, spiritual or literal, and, by consequence, be in
224 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
r . . - –––– ~~~~graz-i-º-º-rºw-it-ºr- ºr---
the same condition no longer; and this is to be in the latter days.
But they are in the same condition, both spiritually and literally,
and have been so ever since ; therefore the time meant by Hosea is
not come—the latter days are not over—and Professor Lee's theory
is laid prostrate, like Jerusalem. Here is the Y2, or end of it.
To make the matter still more hopeless for the “Inquiry,” it is
certain that, at no time since the destruction of Jerusalem, have the
children of Israel, even in a spiritual sense, sought the Lord their
God, and David their King; for the great body of conversions to
Christianity from among the tribes of Israel, as well as at Jerusalem,
took place (as Dr. Lee's book admits, passim) long before “the time
of the end,” according to his view, commenced by the destruction of
their city; and accordingly those who at that time left Jerusalem, and
fled to the mountains, are everywhere called by him the escaped, the
remnant, &c.
I must maintain that, if there were nowhere else in this volume one
word of sound argument or one line of correct criticism—if there were
no reason whatever to believe in a future restoration and conversion
of Israel,-I must maintain that still this argument upon Hosea iii. 5,
as regards tº ITTºº, would be absolutely fatal to Professor
Lee's work, the very object of which is to show the fulfilment of all
prophecy was complete, at the expiration of the latter days, by the
establishment, de facto, of the Christian Church under Constantine.
However, to proceed with our remarks upon the fourth division of
the places in which this phrase is found, which was Isa. ii.; Micah iv.;
Jerem. xxiii., xxx. ; and Hos. iii. Professor Lee has admitted that
the restoration of all Israel, in some sense, is always made to synchro-
nise with the latter days. The interpretation of this phrase becomes,
therefore, a mere question, in what sense is “the restoration of all
Israel” to be understood 2 and every word we have said in chaps. iii.
and iv., to show that the prophecies of Branch and King are still unful-
filled, and that a literal restoration of lineal Israel is yet to be expected,
goes also to shew, as before remarked, that pºſſ nº ISP denotes
a period not yet passed away ; because all these prophecies are essen-
tially connected in their two divisions of Branch and King, and these
two divisions are tied together by this peculiar Hebrew phrase. It is
used in Isa. ii. and Jeremiah xxiii., two prophecies of the Branch ; it
is used also in Hos. iii., one prophecy of the King ; it is used in two
places, word for word parallel, in Jerem. xxiii. and xxx., viz., vers,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 225
19, 20 of the first, and vers. 23, 24 of the second of these ; but
Jerem. xxx. is also another prophecy of the King, besides that Jerem.
xxxiii. is a prophecy both of Branch and King together, as is manifest
from vers. 15–18 ; hence there can remain no doubt but that all the
prophecies of Branch and King are connected, and may be consulted
for expounding the force of Pºl nº lºſs; the latter days. If these
prophecies are entirely fulfilled, then these days are passed away, but
not otherwise. These prophecies are, Isa., chaps. ii., iii., iv., xi., xii.;
Jerem, chaps. Xxiii., xxx., xxxi., xxxiii.; Ezek, chaps. xxxiv.,
xxxvii.; Hosea, chaps. i., ii., iii.; Micah, chap. iv.; and Zech., chaps.
iii., vi. I say that all these chapters are indissolubly bound together
as prophecies of Branch and King ; that no one is of its own, or
private, interpretation ; that they are parallel places in the most
important sense of that phrase ; and, according to one of Professor
Lee's acknowledged principles, must be taken together mutually to
support and elucidate each other ; and that in the correct and full
exposition of these is found an unanswerable proof that the period
denoted by PrºTT nº. Tº , or latter days, is not yet passed away;
and that, consequently, Professor Lee's whole theory is deprived of
its foundation. Our attempted exposition of these chapters has been
given, and I will only add that I shall be able to show that all the
prophecies yet to be considered in this book belong also to the same
latter days, and that I claim this Hebrew phrase as a peculiar link or
tie of the prophecies selected, as conveying the most positive and
abstract predictions of a future restoration and conversion of Israel.
Not, therefore, to detain the reader any longer upon this point, I
proceed to make a use of this identity of the prophecies of Branch
and King, which, I fear, has been usually overlooked. We often
observe those who believe in a future glorious revival of the Hebrew
nation expressing themselves to the effect that such an event will be
the real assertion of Messiah's kingship ; in short, it is termed peculi-
arly “The Kingdom of the Son of Man,” and there is Scriptural
authority for doing so. But few reflect that (the prophecies of the
Branch and the King being one) consistency of interpretation demands
that they be referred to one time, or day, or Fi', or series of events,
and that there must be a “bringing forth,” or manifestation of Branch
to correspond exactly to the inauguration, or enthronement, of the
King, and that as we confidently believe the enthronement of Christ
will be really over literal Israel, in the Holy Land, so there must be
Q
226 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
a corresponding manifestation of Branch over Israel in the Holy Land.
Now the use made of this fact in chap. iii. might not, at the moment,
have appeared so convincing as I think it must, now that the identity
of all the prophecies of Branch and King is so clearly established. I
maintained there must be yet a bringing forth of “Joshua, the
Branch,” within the borders of the Holy Land, over a competent
representation there of at least Judah and Benjamin, accompanied by
some members of all the tribes, after a restoration, and that such
manifestation of the true “Joshua, the Branch,” would be a peculiar
manifestation of Him in his character of High Priest ; in short, in
his atoning capacity; in short, as the Well-beloved Word; in short,
in his eternal power and Godhead; that that manifestation of Branch
would be the signal for conversion, for it would be an epiphany of
God-man-Messiah, it would be the moment of recognition of Messiah's
High Priesthood, which means conversion ; and that, therefore, that
conversion which Scripture foretels, as the conversion properly so
called, will take place then, and not before, and in the Holy Land,
i.e., after the restoration. This very same idea is contained, and
imparted, in the predictions that, when David's Branch shall appear,
Israel shall hail Him as “The Lord our Righteousness.” (Jerem.
xxiii. 6.) He should be a “Shepherd and King” (Ezek. xxxvii.);
He should be “a Priest upon his throne” (Zech. vi. 13); and that
the children of Israel should “appoint themselves one Head” (Hosea
i. 11). One, extraordinary in his priesthood, and kingship, and
divinity; and that Israel, when serving the Lord their God, should,
by that very act, be serving also David their King (Jerem. xxx. 9;
Hos. iii. 5), who should then, and not before, be “raised up unto
them;” because sº. (Ezek. xxxiv. 24, xxxvii. 25.) All of which
means the same thing as returning and seeking “the Lord their God,
and David their King,” and fearing “the Lord and his goodness in
the latter days.” (Hos. iii. 5.)
[5] This division of places, comprising Jerem. xlviii. 47, xlix.
39, does not involve the merits of the question. Some would say the
captivities of Moab and Elam were brought back in the early conver-
sions to Christianity; we deny it ; but all admit the passages are to
be taken of a spiritual Moab and Elam, in which very spiritual
meaning of Moab and Elam lies the impossibility of fixing these
prophecies to any particular part of the latter days. I shall therefore
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 227
only addto this long chapter on P°^*rj n^^TS? the following definition
of the period so denoted, given by one of Professor Lee's most
approved authorities. Noldius says, when rendering the phrase at
Isa. ii. 2 by ultimis temporibus—“ Ità interpretes quotquot vidimus
omnes, excepto Grotio, qui vertit posthàc. Sed præterquam quòd
faederum periodi sic fiant dubiæ, et confundantur eorum distincta
tempora ; confluxus hic gentium ad mentem ecclesiæ (tempus novi
fœderis) appellatur disertè àaxára, ju£pav (Acts ii. 17 ; 2 Tim. iii. 1 ;
Heb. i. 1) ; ίστέροι κάιροι (1 Tim. iv. 1); τέλη τὸν αἰόνων (1 Cor.
x. 11); ἐσχάτοι χρόνοι (1 Pet. i. 20); quin έσχάτη άρα (1 John ii. 18).
Quæ his verbis prophetæ congruunt. At quare ; quum tempus sit
multorum seculorum ? Dicent qui aliam causam sciunt, quàm quòd
inter hæc fœdera illud ultimum sit, quod Christum exhibet in corpore,
non per umbras ; et post quod proximè erit mundi consummatio. Ità
n^^IJ8 complectitur illud totum tempus, quod est inter adventum
Christi primum et secundum.” (“ Concord. Annot. et Vind.,” 813.)
The italics belong to Noldius. * So n°7T$ embraces that whole time,
which is between the first and second advent of Christ.”
This extract forms at once an excellent summary to the chapter,
entirely confirms the explanation of the latter days advanced in it,
and overturns Professor Lee's theory by arraying one extraordinary
Hebraist, Noldius, against himself, another. • -

Q 2
228 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
CHAPTER WI.
“FROM THAT DAY AND FORWARD.”—EZEK. xxxDK. 22.
THE prophecy we are next about to consider is contained in Ezek.,
chaps. xxxviii. and xxxix., of which it may be observed, that although
the predictions they contain are wonderful indeed, it can scarcely be
said they are not distinctly delivered. All they require is patient and
unprejudiced examination. We shall venture upon no speculations ;
but whatever part of these two chapters seems comprehensible, by
fair investigation, and comparison of Scripture with Scripture, we
shall endeavour to set out plainly, in humble dependance upon the
blessing and acceptance of the Almighty. We shall also, at chap. ix.,
infră, make this prophecy the basis of our proof that the opinion
adopted by Bishop Horsley, and followed by Mr. Faber, that some
conversion of Israel previous to restoration is the subject of certain
scriptural predictions, is erroneous. In undertaking which I venture
to say that Mr. Faber’s misapprehension of these chapters, Ezek.
xxxviii. and xxxix., shall become manifest to all.
[1..] It is plain that these two chapters contain a minute and
progressive account of one and the same astonishing series of events,
for, in each, Ezekiel is addressed similarly :—“Son of man, set thy
face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech
and Tubal, and prophesy against him.” (Chap. xxxviii. 1.) And,
“Thou, Son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, Thus saith the
Lord God, Behold I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of
Meshech and Tubal.” (Chap. xxxix. 1.) Each chapter is distinctly
prophetic against the same person, nation, or power, styled “The
chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.” A perusal of the chapters at
length will shew that the second is a continuation of the preceding.
On the present occasion we have nothing to do with determining the
particular person, nation, or power against whom these predictions
are recorded ; we carefully avoid that question for the present, and
intend treating it in a chapter by itself, in order that the rest of the

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 229
subject may not be prejudiced by considerations affecting one part of
it, which some people might consider speculative. All we have to do
now is to mark the fact, that some person or power is prophesied
against as at war with Israel in the Holy Land, and to set out the
character and results of such predictions.
[2] For, whoever may be intended by the names Ezekiel employs,
it is plain he foretels a combination of people for purposes of war
against God's people Israel:—“I will turn thee back, and put my
hook in thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thy army,
horses, and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour,
even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling
swords.” (Chap. xxxviii. 4.) From this extract, and others which
the reader can select, it is manifest that the prophet describes a
combination of peoples for purposes of war, under the chief leader-
ship of one whom he personally addresses. And, from the following,
that this combination of people is for purposes of war against the
sons of Jacob in their own land:—“Thou shalt come from thy place
out of the north parts, thou and many people with thee, all of them
riding upon horses, a great company and a mighty army; and thou
shalt come against my people Israel as a cloud to cover the land; it
shall be in the latter days; and I will bring thee against my land, that
the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog,
before their eyes.” (Chap. xxxviii. 15.) The warlike confederacy
here described, in language peculiarly adapted to the time at which
Ezekiel spake, is clearly a confederacy of people against Israel, come
up into the land, or “upon the mountains of Israel” (chap. xxxix. 2),
described as perishing there under judgments from the Most High, in
the latter days. And an important additional fact is announced : this
combination of people is out of countries north of Babylonia, where
Ezekiel was prophesying:—“Thou shalt come from thy place out of
the north parts.” Elsewhere in Scripture the Babylonian invasion is
described from the north, because they entered the Holy Land by the
north; but here Ezekiel prophesying in Babylonia describes the place,
or country, where the confederates against Israel resided, to be “of
the north parts.”
From [1] and [2] it is undeniable that, whoever the people may be,
or whenever such events are to happen, the prophet, by influence of
the Holy Ghost, did foretel that, in times subsequent to his own, a
230 NotES ON THE RESTORATION
combination of many people for purposes of war against Israel should
be entered into ; that it should also be under the leadership of one,
whom he individualises as Gog, and should actually go against the
people Israel, within the land of Israel, and there be destroyed. But
Ezekiel prophesied during the Babylonian captivity, and we, therefore,
inquire naturally when, since that captivity, and subsequent restora-
tion, have any such events as these taken place within the land of
Israel ? If never, then, as God is true, these events have yet to
happen. But let us not anticipate our subject.
[3.] Again, without undertaking at present to determine either the
persons, or the times, here prophesied of, it is none the less evident
that the destruction of this military combination of many people will
be miraculous, for the language employed will bear no meaner inter-
pretation :-‘‘I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood,
and I will rain upon him and upon his bands, and upon the many
people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones,
fire and brimstone.” (Chap. xxxviii. 22.) “Seven months shall the
house of Israel be burying them, that they may cleanse the land. Yea,
all the people of the land shall bury them, and it shall be to them a
renown the day that I shall be glorified, saith the Lord God.” (Chap.
xxxix. 13, xvii. 21.) Surely without the least risk of refining upon
Scripture, it is plain from these quotations that, although the operation
of second causes is admitted, the slaughter here referred to of those
armies will be so extensive and prodigious, so simultaneous and imme-
diate, that the direct interposition of Providence will be seen and
acknowledged —“I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the
heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand
that I have laid upon them.” (Ver. 21.) Thus far we see that
Ezekiel foretels, at some time or other, a combination of some military
people or other, under some chief leadership or other, against the
people Israel, to be miraculously, and utterly, overthrown in the land
of Israel. So Scott —“The language here used seems to imply that
the army of Gog will be cut off by miracle, as that of Sennacherib
had been ; for the people are described as going forth, not to fight
and conquer, but merely to gather the spoil” (and, we may add, to
bury). On chap. xxxix. 9, 10. •
[4.] But the prophet supplies further particulars. He declares that

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS, 231
this amazing destruction of a mighty army, composed of various
people, shall take place simultaneously, all through the land, and
along the coasts ; while, also, one particular locality, in the very
centre of the land, shall be distinguished from all the rest by the
extent and completeness of that destruction, of which it is to be the
scene. He says, the destruction shall be through all the land, and
that by very extraordinary means; for, “I will call for a sword
against him throughout all my mountains—"Tº–saith the Lord
God; every man's sword shall be against his brother.” (Chap. xxxviii.
21.) From which allusion to former incidents in Jewish history
(1 Sam. xiv. 20; 2 Chron. xx. 23) it would seem that dissensions, or
mistakes, in the confederate armies will lead to a mutual destruction,
which, united with storm and pestilence, already mentioned as directly
from the Lord, will make the slaughter general throughout all the land
of Israel. But this destruction being throughout all the land, it is
necessarily implied that this great invading confederacy will succeed
so far as actually to secure entire possession of the country denomi- .
nated the Holy Land ; contrary to Mr. Faber's assertion, to be else-
where noticed more particularly, that Ezekiel's Gog and Magog do
not succeed at all. He says also this destruction will be along the
coasts; for “I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell
carelessly in the isles—º-and they shall know that I am the
Lord.” (Chap. xxxix. 6.) The word translated carelessly means
here the state of those either unexpectant of danger, or confident in
their own strength ; and that rendered isles is well known to have
been used by the Hebrews, not so much to signify islands, in the
strict English sense of that word, but rather the coasts as bordered
by the sea, and particularly the coasts of the Mediterranean, and
sometimes even the banks of rivers. This will be carefully explained
in chap. viii., infră. Ezekiel, therefore, says that, whereas the
destruction of Gog and his army will take place all through the land,
and they will fall “upon the open fields” (chap. xxxix. 5); they,
also, of the same confederacy, who are at that time dwelling either
unexpectant of danger, or reposing trustfully in their own strength,
upon the coasts of Palestine, will also be involved in a simultaneous
destruction. But while he describes others as falling upon the
mountains, “every man's sword against his brother,” he particularizes
those along the coast as perishing by fire; which, taken figuratively,
means, peculiar Providential interposition, but does admit of a

232 NoTEs on THE RESTORATION
very literal explanation :-‘‘I will send a fire upon Magog, and upon
them that dwell carelessly on the coasts.” Nothing can be more
natural ; a mighty host, invading Palestine from the north, leaves
some of the confederacy to occupy the strongholds of the sea-coast,
while the rest advance to the interior to realize the occupation of the
country, and its material advantages, for they have come “to take a
spoil and to take a prey,” against a people that “ have gotten cattle
and goods,” that “ dwell in the midst of the land.” (Chap. xxxviii. 12.)
Ezekiel says, moreover, that not only through all the land, and
along the coasts, will this ungodly confederacy against Israel be
smitten, but also that one particular locality will be the scene of so
astounding a destruction of the invaders, that, in subsequent times,
it shall be called “The Valley of the Multitude of Gog”—aia libū
8’4–and that a city shall be built there, to be called Hamonah.
This place is carefully defined :—“And it shall come to pass in that
day that I will give unto Gog a place of graves in Israel, the valley
of the passengers on the east of the sea; and it shall stop the noses of
the passengers ; and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude ;
and they shall call it the valley of Hamon-Gog.” (Chap. xxxix. 11.)
“And also the name of the city shall be Hamonah” (ver. 16). Says
Drusius—“Pººl hºp & dyaroxºs rjs 6a Adororms, ab Oriente maris.
Hieron. Juxtà Ebraicum, vallem viatorum ad orientem maris. (Gen.
ii. 8.) PTE'. LXX. kar’ &varox&s ad Orientem.” (“Critici Sacri.”)
It appears that the chief destruction of Gog's army will take place in
a valley on the east side of some sea, through which valley there will
be at that time a road for travellers through Palestine ; at that time a
road, because passengers are represented as suffering from the stench
caused by the immense destruction predicted. Now, the expression,
“valley of the passengers on the east of the sea,” implies that the
same sea is passable on the west, so that the sea spoken of is an inland
sea or lake, of which seas there are but two in the Holy Land, viz.,
the Dead Sea and the Lake of Gennesareth, or Tiberias; and Gog
and his multitude being already described as coming from the north of
Babylonia, it seems a reasonable inference that the inland sea referred
to by Ezekiel is the more northern of these two, which lies on the way
to Jerusalem out of Syria, the lake of Tiberias, or sea of Galilee.
Accordingly Grotius:–“Ad orientem lacús Gennesareth, ut bené
interpretatur Chaldaeus.” (“Crit. Sac.”) “Either the salt sea, or
sea of Tiberias, a valley through which there was great passing and

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 233
repassing of travellers between Egypt and Chaldaea.” (M. Henry.)
And Lowth :—“The sea of Gennesareth (i.e., Tiberias), as the
Chaldee paraphrast explains it. In the Hebrew language all lakes
are called by the name of seas. The same is called the Eastern Sea
(Gen. xlvii. 18), to distinguish it from the Mediterranean, called The
Great Sea Westward. (Josh. xxiii. 4.) The valley near the sea, or
lake, is called ‘the valley of the passengers,” because there was a
great road by which the merchants and traders, from Syria and other
eastern countries, went into Egypt.” It is to be noticed that neither
of these commentators remarks the fact that, not only there was, in
Ezekiel's time, but also will be, when the prophecy is fulfilled, this
road for passengers on the east of the sea, for passengers are described
as suffering from the stench of Gog's destruction.
Whether modern travel points to any, such passage eastward of
Lake Tiberias, or not, the inference from Ezekiel remains the same ;
still it may be interesting to add that Burckhardt, unthinking of
Ezekiel, distinctly describes such a road. He is tracing the route
from Damascus, on the north, through the Haouran—7T"T, Hauran
(Ezek. xlvii. 18)—to Tiberias:–“There being a constant passage
through Feik from the Haouran to Tabaria (Tiberias) and Akka
(Acre).” (“Travels in Syria,” p. 280) “Feik is a village situated
on a ridge of mountains which border the east side of the lake of
Tiberias, or sea of Galilee ; and, through it, the common route passes
along the eastern shore of the sea into the valley of Jordan ; this
valley, or El Ghor, commencing, in fact, at the southern border of
the sea of Galilee, and continuing to the Dead Sea. The upper part
of this valley from the sea of Galilee, as far as Bysan or Scythopolis,
is called the valley of Tabaria, or Tiberias, and is that valley into
which the common route through Feik debouches.” (Ibid.) There
will be a Scythopolis there yet again; the Scythians have yet again to
find their way there to perish. Of course the argument from Ezekiel
must be considered quite irrespective of any testimony as to the
existence of such a road on the east of Tiberias, or the contrary ; but
it seemed interesting to quote this from so accurate and able a traveller
as Burkhardt is known to have been, as being probably a description
of the very route foretold by Ezekiel, to become offensive to its
passengers in consequence of the destruction there of a main body of
Gog's army ; as being, in fact, the very spot where one great division
(only one) of Gog's confederacy will be overthrown. This is, in fact,
234 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
a grand central position, commanding the Holy Land in all directions
with equal facility. However, in a valley eastward of Lake Tiberias,
known as a passenger's highway, the prophet assures us that one chief
division of an army, which has so far successfully invaded the land of
Israel from the north, obtained possession of all Palestine, and seized
its coasts; in that valley, he says, such chief division of such army
will be marvellously destroyed. That valley will afterwards be called
Hamon Gog, and a city be built there, or else Tiberias be, called
Hamonah. (Some take this as another name for Jerusalem, but it
matters not.) This destruction at Tiberias, it should be noted, is
merely one part of the whole destruction; another (as we have to
show) will take place in the immediate eastern suburb of Jerusalem,
and a third, probably, to the west of that city at Megiddo, or
Armageddon. This threefold amazing destruction of Gog's army,
we shall elsewhere prove to be coincident with, and caused by, a
certain epiphany of Messiah-Jesus, which we have otherwise termed
the manifestation of the Branch, or the inauguration of the King ;
and, in connexion with that at Tiberias, it is curious to note that the
most generally received opinion of the Jews is (from the Talmud) that
Messiah is to appear from the lake of Tiberias. (Burckhardt.)
[5.] There are two other peculiar predictions to be noticed before
we proceed to show how distinctly Ezekiel teaches us to expect these
events in times yet to come, and with what particularity he defines
their effect in the conversion of Israel to Christianity. *
First, Certain powers disapprove of, and condemn, Gog's confeder-
acy. “Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all
the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a
spoil P hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey 2 to carry away
silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil 2"
(Chap. xxxviii. 13.) Where the interrogation conveys the force of
indignant disapproval; and Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish (whatever
people be meant by those names), are represented by Ezekiel as dis-
countenancing the confederacy of Gog against Israel; though, per-
haps, it is not apparent from this passage that active opposition to
Gog, or intervention on Israel's behalf, is implied. My argument is
based upon the affirmative style of the questions asked—“Art thou
come up 2° “Hast thou gathered?” The answerimplied is, “Not with
our consent.” Had the questions been put negatively—Art thou not
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 235
come up 2 Hast thou not gathered ? the answer implied would have
been consentive—“Yes, and we approve.” It is singular that Mr.
Faber, who did perceive that Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish are care-
fully excepted from Gog's confederacy, did not at the same time see
that Ezekiel is speaking of events precisely coincident with those
which, from other prophecies, he has concluded will take place within
the Holy Land at the termination of The Seven Times, or at The
Time of The End, in connexion with the conversion of Israel, which,
like Bishop Horsley, he places before the restoration. I am bound,
however, to acknowledge that Lowth, and other interpreters, have
usually understood this passage to imply that Sheba, Dedan, and
Tarshish are people consenting to, and forming part of, Gog's con-
federacy. It is this of which we undertake to prove the erroneousness;
and, as the point is of some importance, the reader is earnestly
requested to give an unprejudiced and impartial attention to the reasons
assigned.
We have to shew that the affirmative questions put by Sheba,
Dedan, and Tarshish, “Art thou come up 2 * “Hast thou gathered ?”
imply the opposition of these powers (whoever they may be) to Gog's
confederacy. • .
Thus Glassius, in his “Philologia Sacra,” vol. i., p. 560, says:–
“Observatur et hoc, quðd T interrogativum in interrogationibus
affirmativis neget, in negativis affirmet. 1. In affirmativis:–2 Sam.
vii. 5, Tºſ, Shalt thou build me a house ? pro quo 1 Chron. xvii.
habetur Tºls §2 , Thou shalt not build me a house. Ezek. xvii. 23:-
Yêrº věrîr, Do I will the death of a sinner 2 pro quo ibid. v. ult.
wbris sº I will not the death of him that dieth. Zech. i. 5 –Your
fathers, where are they 2 and the prophets Eºisºn do they live for
ever ? Targum :— sº sº they do not live for ever. 2. In
negativis:–1 Chron. xxxi. 17 :-sºn is it not I that commanded the
people to be numbered ? pro quo habetur 2 Sam. xxiv. 17 Taſſ
behold I have sinned, &c. Sic Obad. ver. 5:—“If the grape-
gatherers come to thee, would they not leave some grapes 2" Answer
—they would. It will be observed that the rule here laid down
embraces distinctly Ezek. xxxviii. 13:—“Sheba, Dedan, and the
merchants of Tarshish’” shall say unto Gog, “Art thou come up 2"
affirmatively. The answer implied being negatively, “Thou art not
come up ; ” by which answer, since the prophet is predicting events
sure to happen, Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish must be understood to
236 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
mean, “not with our concurrence.” They are here represented as
disapproving of, and expressing indignation at, Gog's confederacy
against Israel. Had they asked, “Art thou not come up,” the case
would have been reversed.
Also, so Noldius in his “Concord. Part,” under TT interrogativum,
observes, “Negativum, pré an, utrum ? exponendis negative.” And
in his “Annot. et Wind,” 1059, he adds, “Quando praeter interroga-
tionem connotatur affectus indignantis, eaſprobrantis, vel admirantis,
dicitur T, TTººlſ, vel Tºrºñº admirationis. Elucent hac praecipué
ex Gen. iv. 9, and xvii. 17; Num. xxxi. 15; Deut. iv. 33; Judg. xi. 25;
Joel i. 2; 2 Chron. xxxii. 13,” &c. The reader can refer to these
examples. I select Num. xxxi. 15: “And Moses said unto them,
Have ye saved all the women alive?” Where Moses inquires
affirmatively of a fact, and by that very mode of speech expresses his
indignation at their having done so. So Ezek. xxxviii. 13 : Sheba,
Dedan, and Tarshish are prophesied of as inquiring affirmatively of a
fact accomplished, viz., of Gog's invasion of Palestine, “Are ye come
up 2" and by that mode of speech are made by Ezekiel to express
their indignation that he has done so. (See also Gesenius’ “The-
saurus,” p. 362.) It is a singular fact that Noldius, in the great
number of references he gives of the various usages of IT interroga-
tive, gives hardly one to the Book of Ezekiel, whose usage of this particle
is, however, remarkably decisive. I count no fewer than thirty-eight
examples in the first thirty-nine chapters, from which I select the
following —Ezek. xiii. 7: “Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have
ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The Lord saith it ;
albeit I have not spoken 2° Ezek. xviii. 25, 29 : “Hear now,
O house of Israel, is not my way equal 2 Are not your ways
unequal?” In which negative questions the answers implied are
undoubtedly affirmative. Again, Ezek. xx. 3, 4, “Are ye come to
inquire of me? As I live, saith the Lord God, I will not be inquired
of by you. Wilt thou judge them, son of man, wilt thou judge
them 2 Cause them to know the abominations of their fathers.”
Also, ver. 30, “Are ye polluted after the manner of your fathers?
And commit ye whoredoms after their abominations f * Also, chap.
xxii. 2, “Wilt thou judge, wilt thou judge the bloody city ? yea, thou
shalt show her her abominations.” Also, chap. xxiii. 36, “Son of
man, wilt thou judge Aholah, and Aholibah 2 yea, declare unto them
their abominations.” In which examples, illustrating Ezekiel's own
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 237
usage, an inquiry is made affirmatively of undoubted facts, and the
answer implied is that of strong reproof and indignation, precisely as
explained by Noldius. (“Annot. et Wind,” 1059.) So the same
Ezekiel, “Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish, with all the young lions
thereof, shall say, Art thou come up 2" &c, &c., where no doubt is
suggested of the fact that Gog is come up ; but stern reproof and
indignation is implied on the part of those powers that he has so
come. Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish (whoever they may be) are no
part of Gog's confederacy, but condemn it.
And, besides these critical reasons, there are others deducible from
the context for the same conclusion. For it is manifest that Ezekiel
commences chap. xxxviii. with a careful description (we might
almost call it a “muster-roll”) of Gog's confederates. “Gog, the
land of Magog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal . . . . . Persia,
Ethiopia, and Lybia with thee . . . . . . Gomer and all his bands ; the
house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands, and many
people with thee: ” where there can be no doubt that the powers
represented by Meshech, Tubal, Persia, Ethiopia, Lybia, Gomer, and
Togarmah are confederates with one another ; and surely, if Sheba,
Dedan, and Tarshish were of the same confederacy, it seems strange
that Ezekiel does not include them in the list with the others, and
say, “Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish with thee.” Again, it is evident
from ver. 13, that Ezekiel represents Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish as
expressing their concern at Gog's assault upon Israel after it has been
committed, and not before. “Art thou come up 2 Hast thou
gathered?” Which mode of speech implies either ignorance or
discredit of Gog's intention before he came up, and is entirely incon-
sistent with the idea that Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish actually form
part of the confederacy, or even approve of it. Lastly, it is remark-
able that the prophet makes no allusion to Sheba, Dedan, and
Tarshish until, having recounted the intentions of Gog, he is just
about to foretel the fearful result of his impious expedition, viz., his
overthrow by especial interposition of the Almighty. It seems as if
the reference to Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish was of a kind likely to
suggest ideas in affinity with such predictions of God's judgments
upon Gog which the prophet was about immediately to deliver. It
seems as if the sentiments of Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish, foreseen by
the prophetic mind, were in unison with the predictions of Divine
wrath which Ezekiel was about to record, and, perhaps, were calcu-
238 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
lated to convey this impression,-"There shall be even among the
Gentile powers some who will condemn, and be prepared to oppose,
Gog's confederacy against God's people, the sons of Jacob, although
their opposition shall not be needed, for the Lord himself will
overturn it.” - ;
Such are the reasons why, contrary to the usual interpretation, I
have ventured to conclude that Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish are
powers carefully excepted by Ezekiel from Gog's confederacy—
powers which will, in fact, condemn it and be prepared to oppose,
although Ezekiel does not distinctly state that they will do so, but
rather intimates that Gog's destruction will be so entirely by
Almighty interposition, that man's assistance will not be made use of.
It is gratifying to be supported in this conclusion by Mr. Faber, who
observes (“Rest. of Israel,” vol. ii., p. 65), “I know not who can be
meant here except the great maritime nations of faithful worshippers
which had so vigorously opposed the tyranny of Antichrist, and which
had been so instrumental in bringing back the converted division of
Judah. It is pleasing to behold them at the end of the millennium,
still preserving their ancient character, and refusing to cast in their
lot with Gog and Magog, as they had heretofore refused to do with
Edom.” This is sufficient to show that Mr. Faber quite supports us in
believing that Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish are excepted from Gog's
confederacy, and condemn it; and we shall show in another chapter
that he is right in the interpretation he gives to “merchants of
Tarshish,” but also that he is entirely wrong in placing the fulfilment
of this, Ezekiel's prophecy, after the millennium. It would, indeed,
be very singular if the same persons were found occupying precisely
the same position, religiously speaking, with respect to the same
people Israel, both at the commencement and also at the expiration of
the same one thousand years l and it is strange that this curious
coincidence did not excite misgivings in Mr. Faber's mind as to the
correctness of his application of this prophecy.
Second. The second remarkable prediction to be noticed under the
present head, before entering upon the main subject of the prophecy is,
that Ezekiel, one of the latest, asserts that other prophets had already
foretold Gog's confederacy against Israel: “Thus saith the Lord
God, Art thou he of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants
the prophets, which prophesied in those days many years, that I
would bring thee against them 7" (Ezek. xxxviii. 17), which affirma-
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 239
tive question is instantly followed by the denunciations of wrath
against him. Now it is evident to every attentive reader of Scripture
that this armed confederacy against Israel is not foretold anywhere
but in Ezekiel's chapters before us, in direct connexion with the
name of Gog and the powers here mentioned as united with him; so
that we are prepared to find, in belief of Ezekiel's assurance, that
passages in other prophets his predecessors, though not specifically
associated with Gog's name, do nevertheless refer to the same times,
persons, and events, as these, so clearly predicted by Ezekiel. Such
passages are Deut. xxxii. 41–43; xxxiii. 26–29; Isaiah xxix.-
xxxiii.; xxxiv., xxxv., and lxiii.; the Book of Joel; Micah iv.
11–13; v. 8–15; and vii. 8—20; and Zeph. iii. 8—20. These
are all prophecies, properly so called, delivered before Ezekiel's time
upon the same subject, not to mention many places in the Book of
Psalms, where there is reason to believe the same events are alluded
to. Yet Mr. Faber, having unfortunately misapplied the prophecy,
and taken the Gog and Magog of Ezekiel to be the same as St. John's
in Rev. xx. 8, is driven to the following remark: “On the whole,
since we undoubtedly find nothing in our present Hebrew Scriptures
that at all resembles the remarkable prophecy of Ezekiel respecting
Gog and Magog (whence Eichorn naturally observed, that as far as
we can discern, this great piece is entirely new and peculiarly his
own); on the whole, I say, Archbishop Newcome's opinion seems to
be the most probable, that the prophets of Israel, alluded to by
Ezekiel, are those whose predictions on this subject were never
committed to writing, or are now lost.” I cannot help thinking that
the Holy Bible is armed with this peculiar internal evidence of truth,
viz., that it is capable to the fullest extent of self-verification ; and
that the opinion, if not demonstratively unsound, is at least extremely
doubtful and hazardous, that any prophecies of one prophet which the
Holy Ghost saw fit to refer to through another, as concerning the
history of the Church, have been permitted to be lost; or that any such
would be so referred to, which, not having been written, the Divine
Spirit knew could not be referred to for the purpose of the verification
implied. For Ezekiel in this passage (chap. xxxviii. 17) gives us no
quotation from another author, which so quoting he stamps with
Divine authority as a prophecy, but alludes merely to prophets whose
writings (the supposition is) are lost, or whose predictions were never
written. The truth is, Mr. Faber has himself written volumes upon
240 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
parts of this very subject from other prophets, but not perceiving
that Ezekiel's Gog and Magog formed part, in a peculiar light and
under a fresh aspect, of what he so ably treats of, viz., “the great
Antichristian confederacy,” at the end of the 1260 years, he was
driven to that hazardous opinion quoted from Archbishop Newcome
—not the only occasion upon which Archbishop Newcome may be
suspected of having advanced unsound critical opinions, as may be
seen by reference to Bishop Horsley’s “Hosea,” (Preface, p. 40,)
where the learned Bishop gives a list of fifty-one so-called emendations
by Archbishop Newcome upon Hosea's prophecy, which he rejects, as
being no emendations at all. I shall solicit the reader's patience
presently when I proceed to show how certainly Mr. Faber was
mistaken in his application to this prophecy. Meanwhile, I would
support the opinion advanced against the idea borrowed from New-
come: 1. By Lowth—“The prophet is speaking here of some terrible
enemy to God's people who shall be subdued by the immediate hand
of heaven, which victory should make way for glorious times of peace
and prosperity. This enemy is said to be foretold ‘of old by the
prophets,’ and is, therefore, probably described under the names of
such nations as were the chief enemies to the Jews in the particular
times of each prophet. Such we may suppose the Assyrian to be,
spoken of by Isaiah (chap. xiv. 24, 25), and by Micah (chap. v. 5).
The same enemy may probably be intended under the figure of Tyre
(see the note on chap. xxviii. 24), of Egypt (see note upon chap.
xxix. 21, and compare Isaiah xi. 15 with Zech. x. 11), of Moab (see
Isaiah xxv. 10), of Edom (see Isaiah xxxiv. 6; lxiii. 1; Joel iii. 20;
Obad., vers. 18, 19), and under the name of Leviathan (Isaiah
xxvii. 1). To these we may add those prophecies which speak of some
great and general destruction of God's enemies before the day of
judgment, a consummation of all things. Such are Ps. cx. 5, 6;
--~~~~----------,
Isaiah xxvi. 20, 21; xxxiv. 1, &c.; lxvi. 16; Jerem. xxx. 7, 10;
Joel iii. 9, 14; Obad., ver. 15, &c.; Zech. xii. 1; and xiv. 1, &c.”
Many of which prophecies referred to are either treated of or quoted
in this volume, and some of them touched upon by Mr. Faber. It
would not be incorrect, perhaps, to say that Mr. Faber's whole error,
as regards the conversion of Israel, arose from this very fact, that he
did not perceive the parallelism of Ezekiel's Gog and Magog with
many of the prophecies here referred to. 2. By Bickersteth—The
envy and rapacity of the Gentile nations is brought before us as the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 241
cause of the last troubles of the Jewish people. Thus the 38th and
39th chapters of Ezekiel contain an account of this at large, and the
latter chapters of Joel, Isaiah, and Zechariah bring the same facts to
our knowledge, and show us a confederacy of the nations of the earth
waging war against restored Jerusalem in unprovoked hostility (Isaiah
xxxiii. 1; Ezek. xxxviii. 11, 12), and bringing the Jews into their
last troubles. . . . . This is that last trouble of Israel which is so often
predicted. (Jerem. xxx. 7; Dan. xii. 1; Matt. xxiv. 21.)” (“Rest.
of Jews,” p. 258.)
[6] We now enter upon the more important parts of the subject.
Thus far it is plain that Ezekiel foretels that, at some time after his
own, certain powers of the north would confederate in war against
the sons of Jacob within their own land; that they would succeed so
far as to obtain complete possession of it, its open country, and its
coasts, that certain other people would disapprove and condemn (perhaps
be willing to oppose) this oppression of a people represented by the
prophet as exposed and helpless in their unwalled villages, though the
prophet does not say that they will actually interfere; that after such
entire possession of the Holy Land and consequent subjugation of the
people, this armed confederacy would be visited with a simultaneous
and complete destruction all through the land of Israel and its coasts;
and that one particular neighbourhood, viz., the valley along the east
side of Lake Tiberias, would be distinguished as one chief scene of
that destruction; that such valley would afterwards be called Hamon
Gog, and either a new city be built there, called Hamonah, because the
masses slain of Gog's army will be buried there (which I understand
by it), or else Tiberias, on the opposite of the lake, or Jerusalem
will receive that name; that this destruction of the northern army
will be effected by the employment of secondary causes, as storm,
pestilence, and internal discord, but so simultaneously in various and
distant parts, and so entirely, that those causes secondary will
be undoubtingly referred to the immediate intervention of the
Almighty (chap. xxxviii. 18–20); and that, moreover, other prophets
had already foretold the same events.
Accordingly we inquire, Is this part of the Bible to be treated as
fabulous 2 for if not, we shall search for in some past, or anticipate at
some future time, the fulfilment of these predictions. They are of
too extraordinary a character to have been lost, if really fulfilled, in
R
{.

242 NotEs on THE RESTORATION
the mere rubbish of history, even had no gracious Providence
jealously preserved the archives of the past in attestation of his
Word revealed. If fulfilled, the records of such events can surely be
discovered. When, then, have they taken place 2 The history of
Palestine and the Israelites, since Jerusalem was destroyed, is familiar
to us all ; there has been no confederacy of armed nations against
Israel' within their own land since that time, for they have never
since repossessed it ; Ezekiel's predictions cannot apply to the times
which have hitherto elapsed, since the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.
But Ezekiel prophesied during the Babylonian captivity; and Israel's
history since the restoration from that captivity, until Jerusalem was
overthrown, is almost as generally known as that of the subsequent
period. There was no confederacy of Northern Powers against
Israel, marching triumphantly into their land, but being miraculously
destroyed in it, between the times of Zerubbabel and Vespasian.
Whether it be with reference to the Persians, the Macedonians,
or their successors, Josephus shows clearly that Ezekiel's predictions
never had a shadow of fulfilment during those times. The Holy
Land has never been the scene of such a terrific, general, and
miraculous destruction of Gentile armies as here predicted,—Israel
has never yet been so restored as to be thus confederated against,-
Hamonah has never yet been built, nor any city called by that name,
so that there remains to a believer in the inspiration of Ezekiel's book
only one conclusion, viz., that these predictions have yet to be fulfilled.
M. Henry has, indeed, referred these predictions to the times of
Antiochus Epiphanes, and the but-little-successful wars of the Macca-
bees; and so did some ancient interpreters. (Wide “Critici Sacri.”)
But a glance at Josephus (b. xii., &c.) will show how utterly such
events fail to meet the requirements of the prophecy, and how justified
the Jews are in maintaining it has never been fulfilled. These wars
of the Maccabees, as imagined fulfilments of certain prophecies, shall
receive all the attention they deserve in the next chapter. Meanwhile,
as to the present prophecy, the answers of Lowth and Scott to such
attempted interpretation are more than sufficient. Lowth says, on
Ezek. xxxix. 9:-“The burning of the weapons of war must be the
consequent of a complete victory, so that the seven years here
mentioned cannot be meant (as some would understand them) of
the terrible conflicts which the Jews had with Antiochus Epiphanes,
from the hundred and forty-third to the hundred and forty-fifth year
-—-a -- - -—ºw-r-za
AND ConVERSION of THE JEws. 243
of the era Seleucidarum (according to the different computations of
the beginning of that persecution; see 1 Mac. i. 20–29) to the
hundred and fifty-first year of the same era, when Nicanor was
slain. (1 Mac. vii. 1–43.) Nor is that true which this supposition
implies—viz., that Nicanor's death put an end to the troubles of the
Jews; for “after that there was great affliction in Israel, the like
whereof had not been seen since the time that a prophet was among
them,’ as the same writer informs us. (1 Mac. ix. 27.) So that this
passage of Ezekiel's prophecy must necessarily be expounded of some
other event.” Thus Lowth. And whether we refer to the Books of
Maccabees, or to the equally uninspired history of Josephus, who
follows them so closely, the same fact is manifest. To the same
effect Scott says:—“Nothing occurred in the wars waged by the
Syro-Grecian Kings against the Jews after the captivity, nor in their
conflicts with Antiochus Epiphanes, that answers to this (in chap.
xxxviii. 2, 3); and it is foretold that these events will be fulfilled in
the latter days.” In short, Ezekiel is perfectly clear upon the subject;
he tells us distinctly that the fulfilment of this prophecy belongs to
the times of Christianity, and that such fulfilment shall be the
immediate means of Israel's conversion, to which application of the
prophecy I now invite especial attention.
[7.] Without enlarging upon it, the old argument for showing
that the prophecy is unfulfilled meets us here again. The prophet
especially comprises all Israel. “Therefore, thus saith the Lord,
Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon
the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name *
(chap. xxxix. 35); where we observe that Jacob is used equiva-
lently with the “whole house of Israel,” the name of the progenitor
comprehending all the descendants—an observation applicable to
more prophecies than the present (see p. 151, suprā); and that, as
before observed, “all the house of Israel, wholly,” and its corre-
sponding phrases, is here and elsewhere (chaps. xvi., xx., xxxvi.)
intended by Ezekiel to be inclusive of all the tribes. Such argument
must always be conclusive to show that a prophecy of Israel's
restoration is yet unfulfilled ; for, since the days of “Jeroboam
the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin,” the ten tribes have never
known the mercy of reconciliation with their God—have never been
reunited to the two. That happy event is limited by Hosea to
R 2
244 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
the day of their spiritual marriage to Messiah, when Lo-Ammi
and Lo-Ruhamah, until that day two houses unreconciled to God,
become Ammi and Ruhamah, united into one by the bond of Christian
conversion at Jerusalem. Since the days of Hoshea the son of Elam,
the ten tribes have never recovered the lands of their inheritance,
and Ezra, Nehemiah, Hosea, Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah, Isaiah, and
Ezekiel are inspired authorities for this conclusion, with which the
uninspired testimony of Josephus, and of the sons of Israel at large,
entirely agrees. God has never yet, since the division and dispersion,
had mercy upon the whole house of Israel. But not to dwell more
particularly upon this, Ezekiel supplies in this chapter another
argument to show his prophecy yet remains to be accomplished.
He distinctly limits it to a time which was proved, in the last
chapter, to mean some part of the age of Christianity—a proof in
which we were encouraged by the authorities of Noldius, Professor
Lee, and Mr. Faber; for all agreed that some part of the Christian
era must be understood by the phrase Pººl n'Tºº, although
they differed in their computation of that part. Noldius, indeed,
told us that the whole Christian dispensation—viz., the period between
the first and second advent of Christ—must be understood by this
phrase, a conclusion we adopted for reasons there fully assigned.
“After many days thou (Gog) shalt be visited ; in the latter years—
tº nº-thou shalt come into the land that is brought back
from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the
mountains of Israel, which have been always—Tºl—waste : but it
is brought back out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of
them.” (Chap. xxxviii. 8.) “And thou shalt come up against my
people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter
days—bºn n^T}-and I will bring thee against my land, that
the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog,
before their eyes.” (Ver. 16.).
In this quotation we have good examples of two modes adopted
in chap. ii., p. 46 and 48, suprā, to show that the conversion of Israel
will be in consequence of, and therefore subsequent to, their restoration.
I mean the invariable force of Pº, and also of the verbal noun
with 3–4. That the heathen may know * DYian nyl Typº —for
the sake of, the knowledge of the nations—i.e., to the end that the
nations may know—“when I shall be sanctified in thee"—tº HT3–
at and by my being sanctified in thee; clearly the means, or cause,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 245
employed is God's judgment upon the heathen ; the consequence, or
subsequent effect produced, is their recognition, or knowledge, of the
Lord. Where it should be observed the word Eia does not necessarily
imply heathen in the common sense, or idolaters, but Gentile nations,
as contradistinguished to Jews, in whose former days, as a people,
all Gentiles were heathen in the ordinary sense. This passage of
Ezekiel predicts, that by God's judgments upon certain Gentile
nations, whom we have the best of reasons for thinking will not
be heathen in the common sense, but backslidden, apostate Christians
—Sodom and her daughters (Ezek. xvi. 53–55)—by God's judgments
upon them the Gentile nations, not heathen merely, but professing
Christians also, will be brought to the true knowledge and pure
worship of the Lord. So, in various passages already referred to,
and in others yet to be produced, Israel will be converted to Christi-
anity, at and by their restoration and its subsequent events; but if at
and by, then after them ; although in a sense synchronical, i.e.,
present and immediate, as a consequence or result.
And Ezekiel says—“Mountains of Israel which have been always
waste,” using a word which implies a measured continuousness too
enduring and protracted to be explained of Palestine's condition,
except during the age of Christianity. It could hardly be said of
the land during the seventy years' captivity in Babylon, and especially
because at that period some of the best parts of it remained under
cultivation by a numerous mixed people of Samaria and Galilee,
neither could such a description apply to it after the return of the
two from that captivity ; but since the destruction of Jerusalem and
their complete dispersion until the present time, the desolation of
Palestine has been continual, and continually increasing ; and the
prophet's description continues true, and increasingly true, to this
day.
But our chief use for these verses is to observe how accurately
Ezekiel fixes the times of his predictions. The confederacy against
Israel is to take place in the latter years, or latter days, which two
expressions, applied in the same chapter to one great event, are
manifestly synonymous—the latter days implying, as intimated in
the last chapter, a consecution of years, or an era: always the era of
Christianity. So that Ezekiel undoubtedly predicts that the con-
federacy of heathen powers, under the chieftainship of Gog, against
the people and land of Israel, will take place during the age of
246 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Christianity. “This judgment shall be inflicted by God upon them,
after a succession of many generations. In the latter years, or days,
as it follows here, and ver. 16—i.e., towards the end of the world
(Dan. viii. 26)—particularly the expression latter days or years is
used to denote the times of the general restoration of the Jewish
nation. (Deut. iv. 30; Jer., xxx. 24; Hosea iii. 5.)” (Lowth on
chap. xxxviii. 8.) Lowth's reference to Deut. iv. 30, already
mentioned at 214, suprā, should be again particularly noticed, for
it is clear he considered that passage, which is sometimes treated
as a conditional promise, as one possessing prophetical certainty, and
therefore to be classed with Jer. xxx. 24 and Hosea iii. 5, of whose
unconditional prophetical character there is not a shadow of doubt ;
and thus Lowth's opinion, supporting Deut. iv. 3, goes with all the
prophecies of Branch and King, whose cohesion and unity we proved
in the last chapter. Now, the history of Israel, during Christian
times, is before us, and we are well assured that the only Northern
Power, in any sense, which has during that age entered the land
of Israel to war against its people is the Roman : that was un-
doubtedly a Northern Power brought by the Lord against (not Israel,
but) the two, to destroy their national polity, and scatter their people
—brought by the Lord, not to perish at Hamonah, but to be successful
entirely ; a dreadful implement of his wrath; not, like Gog's con-
federacy, to be destroyed and broken up miraculously in the land, and
buried there. The Roman armies cannot be meant by Ezekiel, but
no other army has, since their time, entered the Holy Land to war
against any part of the nation Israel ; it remains, therefore, that the
prophecy has yet to be fulfilled in these last days.
\
[8] But if the confederacy of Northern Powers, which has yet to
take place, be against the people Israel, in the land of Israel, it is
manifest that their national restoration is here predicted. And that
it is thus against Israel, in the land of Israel, is plain from the
passages, chap. xxxviii. 8, 9, 12, 14–16, and chap. xxxix. 1–5,
11, and 12. And further, not only is Israel spoken of, in general
terms, as restored to the land, but also in such terms as to imply that
this restoration before Gog's confederacy will be of a fair representa-
tion of both houses, of the two, and of the ten : of people belonging
to Ephraim as a house, as well as to Judah as a house. “I will call
for a sword against him throughout all my mountains.” “Thou

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 24,7
* * * ****- : * ~ *-*- : *-******-- ~~~~~-,-,-- ***--...--rear-, --—— . .
shalt come against my people of Israel.” “So will I make my holy
name known in the midst of my people Israel.” “Seven months
shall the house of Israel be burying them.” (Chap. xxxviii. 14, 21 ;
and chap. xxxix. 7 and 12.) The occupation of the land is throughout
the whole of it, and the destruction of Gog's army proportionate, and
the restoration of the people occupying the land, against whom Gog
leads his host, proportionate likewise. Parts of all the house of
Jacob are within the land when Gog invades it, i.e., what shall then
be justly considered a fair national representation, comprising
members of both houses. And in this conclusion, it will be seen,
when we come to chap. ix., we have Mr. Faber's entire concurrence,
only he puts Ezek. xxxviii. and xxxix. after the millennium. This
conclusion, that a fair representation of all are in the land before the
conversion, corresponds with those already drawn from other prophe-
cies—e.g., Hosea i. 11 : “Then shall the children of Judah and
children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one
head, and they shall come up out of the land; for great shall be the
day of Israel.” Upon which we observed, that the land, out of which
these two bodies are represented as gathering themselves together, is
the land of Israel—the place they come up to, Jerusalem—whither
the tribes will go up ; and the head thus appointed over them,
Messiah—the Bridegroom King of a purified, though once adulterous,
spouse—the real David—Jesus Christ. That One Day of One Head
—that Great Day of Israel—is the day of marriage—the day when
Lo-Ammi becomes Ammi, and Lo-Ruhamah, Ruhamah ; and Ammi
and Ruhamah together one people, one kingdom, one Christian
kingdom, converted, constituted, established for ever, at Jerusalem,
under Branch, under King, under God-man-Messiah, Christ Jesus
marvellously epiphanied on Olivet. Nor does this conclusion
militate in any way with the belief enjoined by other prophecies
—e.g., Isa. xi. 12—that after this partial national restoration of both
houses, which will witness, amid the overthrow of Gog, the appoint-
ment of the head, the lifting up of the ensign, the manifestation of
Branch; then, and in consequence of this great event, by which Gog
is overthrown and Israel converted, a mighty accession will be made
to the numbers of the restored, flowing towards the Holy Land from
all quarters of the world; “upon the shoulders of the Philistines
towards the west ;” in “the ships of Tarshish” from the west to
Palestine; “an offering—TTºº-unto the Lord out of all nations,

248 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon
swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the
children of Israel bring the mincha in a clean vessel into the house
of the Lord.” (Isa. lxvi. 20.) An offering brought from pure and
holy motives, although the thing offered—viz., the sons of Israel–
may yet have, like the dedicated mincha (Lev. ii.), much preparation
and purgation, even unto fire, to undergo before they are spiritually
accepted,—still this addition to the restoration, before which the
conversion was wrought at Jerusalem, will be but an accession of
numbers, other numbers still remaining unrestored, though believing,
among their Gentile brethren. The NATIONALITY of a restoration
depends not upon numbers; for if it did, who shall fix the numbers
necessary to constitute the nationality which the Holy Bible has not
fixed 2 It depends not upon numbers; for if it did, then the restora-
tion from Babylon was not the housely representation of the two, the
greatest part of whom preferred remaining in Babylonia. Nationality
must be sought for elsewhere than in numbers; and this the prophets
—particularly Zechariah—enable us to do. Nationality depends not
upon numbers; and this accession of numbers after the crisis of
conversion adds not to the nationality of the restoration, before which
that crisis was determined, any more than the lingering and con-
tinuance of other numbers, probably greater, diminishes it. The
nationality of the restoration is fixed by the prophets in the reposses-
sion of Jerusalem and the land as its acknowledged owners, in the
constitution of independent government, in the possession of a rightful
governor, and a legal priesthood. When these accidents are combined
again for Israel at Jerusalem, as they will be, then their national
restoration is a fact accomplished, after which Messiah enrobes them
bodily in conversion.
It is not an argument, but an observation, now added, that the
possibility of this partial restoration of mixed people of all the tribes
is before us ; for if it be admitted, as I believe it must be, that many
people of the ten are already among the dispersion of the west—if it
be admitted that for many centuries, but particularly during the
present, facilities of intercommunication have been providentially
discovered between the outcasts of the east and the exiles of the west,
then it can hardly be denied with reason, that whenever restoration
takes place at all, it will at first be of a mixed people of both houses, who
may, nevertheless, become subsequently tribally contradistinguished;
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 249
such tribal allocation may, and, I believe, will, succeed Gog's over-
throw and Israel's conversion. This is the force to "Erſari in Ezek.
xxxvii. 14: “And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I
shall place you in your own land ; ” to which I shall have an
opportunity in the next chapter of referring again.
However, the restoration of all Israel is clearly predicted, and their
helpless and unprepared condition, rendering them an easy prey to
their enemies after their restoration, is carefully described; and,
perhaps, the more so to impress upon our minds the conviction that
their deliverance shall not possibly be ascribed to any prowess of their
own, nor to any human instrumentality, but immediately and entirely
to the Lord. They are described as inhabiting “unwalled villages,”
as being “at rest,” dwelling “without walls,” in cities having
“neither bars nor gates,” and yet as having so dwelt for some period
of time, not utterly inconsiderable; for “ the desolate places” are
“now inhabited,” and the people are “gathered out of the nations,”
and “have gotten cattle and goods.” (Chap. xxxviii. 11–14.)
From all which I should infer that the coming restoration of Israel
will at first be gradual and pacific; a restoration permitted, if not
assisted and encouraged, or protected. They will return to occupy
the whole land, both cities and villages; they will be settled there in
peace, become prosperous and increasing in wealth, before this great
confederacy of northern people will be formed against them; and when
it is formed, and comes like a cloud to cover the land, Israel restored
will be utterly unprepared for war and unequal to the emergency,
being under conditions scarcely admitting of self-defence. Ye who will
take part in that confederacy, remember; and ye, too, who will avoid it,
that it has already been written, in reference to these events, “Behold,
they will surely gather together, but not by me; whosoever shall gather
together against thee shall fall for thy sake. 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 condemn.
This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteous-
ness is of me, saith the Lord.” (Isaiah liv. 15.) This, I say, is
written of those events, and for her of whom it is previously said,
“For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies
will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a
250 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
moment, but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee,
saith the Lord thy Redeemer.” (Ver. 7.) That jºb, Va., little
moment! There will be another little moment for Israel wº-byn in
that day. “Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut
thy doors about thee; hide thyself as it were, for a little moment,
until the indignation be overpast” (Isaiah xxvi. 20); which chapter,
particularly vers. 12–21, refers to the same events. “Something
will prepare the way for their quiet, gradual, and safe return to their
country and their protracted residence there.” (Bick., Introd., p. 81.)
But then will come “the time of Jacob's trouble, but he will be saved
out of it” (Jerem. xxx. 7); the armies of Gog will assail him when
unable actively to oppose; those armies will be victorious, and take an
easy prey; but then, in the moment of their triumph over Israel, and,
indeed, at Jerusalem, as we learn from other prophets, the hand of
the Lord, of their God-Messiah, will be raised for their deliverance,
in such a manner, and so clearly and visibly identified with the God
of Christians, that their conversion to Christianity will be the conse-
quence. “Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful
captive delivered? But thus saith the Lord, Even the captives of the
mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be
delivered, for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and
I will save thy children. And I will feed them that oppress thee with
their own flesh, and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as
with sweet wine; and all flesh shall know that I the Lord am thy
Saviour and Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob,” =py, nºs : so
Jerem. xxx. 21, in Tº his noble one, i.e., the Noble One of Jacob.
(See p. 158, suprā; Isai. xlix. 27, of which compare the context.)
This is the manifestation of Branch, the enthronement of King, the
lifting up of the ensign, the marriage of Jehovah to the Church of
Israel, at present set apart for purification, the very moment of con-
version, which means the recognition of the kingship, priesthood, and
divinity of Messiah, the consummation of that spiritual marriage.
Thus Bickersteth : “Notwithstanding all that God will have done for
and to them—notwithstanding their being scattered for 1800 years—
notwithstanding the clear and full evidence that Jesus is their
Messiah—notwithstanding their restoration to their own land—and
notwithstanding God raises up among them a contrite and believing
people, they will still, when again in peace, and dwelling safely in
unwalled villages (Ezek. xxxviii. 11), continue to reject the Lord
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 251
Jesus, to boast of their own righteousness, to do evil before God, and
choose that in which He delighteth not.” (Isaiah lxvi. 4.) (“Restor.
of Jews,” p. 152.)
[9.] I proceed, therefore, to show that the national conversion of
Israel will take place after the restoration, and that Ezekiel explicitly
declares this fact, and that Gog's overthrow is the cause of it. The
argument for this will be drawn from chap. xxxix. 7, 22, 27–29.
First. Ezekiel commences that chapter by minutely depicting the
judgment upon Gog ; his description occupies six verses, and the
seventh notes the consequence or effect of this judgment upon “my
people Israel.” “So will I make my holy name known in the midst
of my people Israel, and I will not let them pollute my name any
more; and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, the Holy One
of Israel.” The same argument applies to ver. 22. At the 17th
verse another predictive description of Gog's destruction is com-
menced, which occupies vers. 17–21; but at ver. 22 the prophet
adds, “So the house of Israel shall know that I am the Lord their
God.” Now it is evident that in the times of Christianity, to which
this prophecy belongs, such expressions as, “I will not let them (my
people Israel) pollute my holy name any more,” and “the house of
Israel shall know that I am the Lord,” coupled together with the out-
pouring of the Holy Spirit (Ezek. xxxix. 19), must denote conversion
to Christianity. Such a phrase, used as Ezekiel frequently does use
it, with reference to heathen nations, and sometimes not in reference
to Christian days, may mean, indeed, in a general sense, to be made
to acknowledge, like Nebuchadnezzar or Darius (Dan. iii. 29; iv. 37;
and vi. 26), the deity and power of the Most High as contrasted with
the useless worship of those who are no gods; used, too, of Israel in
reference to times antecedent to Christianity, has undoubtedly a more
limited meaning; used, too, of Israel in relation to events during the
times of Christianity, has sometimes a less meaning defined by the
context, e.g., “And they shall know that I am the Lord, and that
I have not said in vain that I would do this evil unto them" (Ezek.
vi. 10); or, again, “And ye shall know that I am the Lord that
smiteth" (chap. vii. 9); but used of Israel as to times of Christianity
and in connea ion with the promise of the Holy Ghost, as in these
chapters, must mean much more. For Israel in such times has
always known and worshipped the One Great Supreme, the only
252 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
God, free from image worship ; and in that first and elementary sense
knows the Lord as well as any Christians, and, alas ! better than some.
But Ezekiel's prediction implies an increase or accession of knowledge
to be followed by entire freedom from spiritual pollution ; the same
knowledge with new adjuncts, and completed; it is in times of
Christianity to “know the Lord" as only He can be acceptably
known in those times; to “know the Lord ” as taught by the Holy
Ghost, viz., to know God in Christ; and this imports conversion to
Christianity. Such passages, when allowed their full force, do, in
fact, teach the divinity of Christ; and just as the phrase, “know the
Lord,” applied to Israel in times of Christianity, indicates conversion,
so the opposite phrase, “pollute my holy name no more,” describes
the unconverted state in which Israel is restored, and the present
condition of all that people. In what other manner has Israel, free
(be it remembered) from all image worship ever since the restoration
from Babylon—in what other way has Israel, as a nation, polluted
God's holy name during Christian times, except by denying God in
Christ, i.e., by unbelief in Messiah 2 -
However, the argument depends upon the construction of the
particle 1, as marking frequently a result or consequence following
somewhat previously described, and is the same precisely as that
explained at p. 169, suprā. Nor is such an argument to be disdained.
It is certain that the particle does acquire its varieties of meaning
from the position it occupies in a context ; it is certain that of these
varieties of meaning that of So, sic, in hanc modum, is one of the most
frequent and most important upon the highest Hebrew authority, e.g.,
Noldius, at p. 303 of his “Concord. Part,” who gives a host of examples;
it is certain that our translators have sanctioned this frequent and
important rendering in the passages (Ezek. xxxix.) before us, and in
a multitude of others; it is certain that the phrase, “shall know that
I am the Lord,” used in such manner is peculiarly Ezekelian ; that it
occurs in the following passages: Ezek. vi. 10; vii. 4, 27; xii. 20;
xiii. 14; xiv. 8; xxv. 11; xxx. 19, 26, precisely as in the two
under consideration ; and upon examination I think it will become
certain that in each passage the phrase is employed to denote the
consequence or result of certain judgments by the Almighty, to which
each context particularly refers. The Almighty having done such
and such things, they who experience shall know by his having done
such things, therefore as the result of his having done them, that He
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 253
is the Lord. So Ezek. xxxix. 7: the Lord by destroying Gog's army
will make his “holy name known "in the midst of his people Israel, and
will not permit them to pollute his “holy name any more,” and by that
same distinction, “the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, the
Holy One in Israel.” So also ver, 22: By the Lord's destroying
Gog ; “So the house of Israel shall know that He is the Lord their
God.” If, then, such expressions taken together and with their
contexts, and coupled with the outpouring of God's Holy Spirit, as
these, must be held in times of Christianity to denote the reception
of that only true religion, as they must, then Israel's conversion
is the consequence of Gog's overthrow, and, being the conse-
quence of Gog's overthrow, when levying war against the restored
people in the Holy Land, such conversion must needs be after the
restoration.
Second. The next argument to show that Israel's national con-
version will be after the national restoration is grounded on vers.
27–29: “When I have brought ("FPº at and by my bringing)
them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies'
lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations ; then
(l) shall they know that I am the Lord their God, which caused
them to be led into captivity among the heathen : but I have gathered
them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there.
Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured
out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God” (and
have left none of them any more there --nis-Sºl, and I will not
cause to remain); God's hand holding them in dispersion is graciously
withdrawn, and they are free to go back. The argument is of a
twofold character,-]. Involving the force of the verbal noun with 3,
as before explained, chap. ii., p. 64, suprā; 2. The force of , as
marking the consequence of events predicted, and in that sense its
coincident force as a particle of time. This use of the verbal noun is
peculiarly important. Our translators have rendered it here, as usual,
by the past time—when I have, or shall have—and this gives its force
entirely to our purpose. When that has been done, then something
else will follow. When Israel has been restored, then (but not before)
he will be converted to Christianity; for when in Christian times
God pours out his Spirit upon Israel, as here predicted, they must
needs become converted. For the sake of enforcing the arguments I
have based upon this use of the verbal noun with 3, not only here,
254 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
but at p. 63–68, suprā, as well as for exhibiting the force of in
this construction, I refer to the following passages:—
“And they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall scatter—
at and by my scattering—them among the nations” (Ezek. xii. 15):
“And when this cometh—at and by the coming of this—ye shall
know that I am the Lord” (chap. xxiv. 24): “And they shall know
that I am the Lord, when I shall lay—at and by my laying—my
vengeance upon them” (chap. xxv. 17): “They shall know that I
am the Lord, when I shall have executed—at and by my eacecuting
—judgments in her” (chap. xxviii. 22.) Similarly also at vers.
25, 26: “When I shall smite—at and by my smiting—all them that
well therein, then shall they know that I am the Lord ” (chap.
kxxii. 15): “Then shall they know that I am the Lord, when I have
laid—at and by my laying—the land most desolate.” (Chap. xxxiii.29.)
These examples appear to me unanswerable for the purposes of
showing, 1. The idiomatic force of the phrase, “And they, or ye,
shall know that I am the Lord,” as always used by Ezekiel to denote
a consequence or effect in the manner above explained. 2. Of showing
the power of the verbal noun with 3, as indicated by the italics in
each of the above passages which employ it—a power at once signifi-
cant of time and instrumentality; the mention of the instrument
involving the time of its action. And, 3. Of showing the force of \,
rendered in these passages sometimes and, sometimes then. It is a
curious fact that of the seven places referred to, Noldius renders the l
in five of them by Sic, so, and thus enables us to illustrate and
confirm our former argument by the present. “So ye shall know that
I am the Lord,” &c., &c. I prefer, however, rendering it as a particle
of time, “When I shall do so—then ye shall know,” &c. In either
case the argument is clear, that the verbal noun with 2 marks the
instrument or cause, the particle 1 introduces the effect. “When I
have brought them again from the people . . . . then (and not before)
they shall know that I am the Lord their God.” (Ezek. xxxix. 27, 29.)
The conversion the effect of the restoration, and the deliverance of the
restored from Gog. The reader will observe that this argument is
precisely in accordance with Gesenius as quoted in the last chapter
(p. 214), when we were speaking upon Deut. iv. 30, who remarks in
“Thesaurus,” p. 396, “Copulam etiam in his exemplis proprié est
particulam temporis, et orationem continuantis,” &c., &c.; and that in
rendering as a particle of time with the force of then, I merely on
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 255
- -------re—--—-----------------------------—- - - -
this particular occasion follow Gesenius in preference to Noldius. If,
however, we take Noldius' rendering, and translate so, the argument
is not impaired. In fact, the two renderings are perfectly recon-
cilable, as stated at p. 181, suprā, and either will serve our purpose ; -
and in this manner both Noldius and Gesenius may be cited in
support of the argument for showing that Israel's conversion will be
after his restoration.
Third. But the following seems to me undeniably convincing. If
a future restoration of Israel be admitted, it is by many who never-
theless place the conversion to Christianity before that great event.
Perhaps it would be correct to say that Bickersteth is the only writer
on the subject, of any note, who has ventured to suggest the contrary;
on the other side are certainly arrayed Horsley and Faber, with,
perhaps (for they are not always consistent in this respect) Lowth and
Scott. I confess it is to my mind impossible to explain away the
following argument, which shows that the conversion will succeed the
restoration, and that, in short, Ezekiel specifically says so.
He observes at chap. xxxix. 22, “So the house of Israel shall know
that I am the Lord their God, from that day and forward”
rtsºn] Shrir FºrTºº. We have already noticed the effect of the
l, here translated so, as marking the consequence of Gog's overthrow,
the day of which overthrow is clearly that day mentioned by Ezekiel,
“from which,” in some sense or other, Israel will know the Lord. I
argue that Ezekiel's language is precise: “From that day of Gog's
destruction, but not before; and forward, i.e., afterwards, Israel shall
know the Lord their God. 4
For the particle risºn here rendered forward is an adverb both of
time and place, and is frequently used in the Hebrew Scriptures. I
subjoin several examples of its use as a particle of time, taken from
Noldius, p. 265 —“And from the eighth day, and forward, it shall
be accepted.” (Lev. xxii. 27.) “From the day that the Lord com-
manded Moses, and forward.” (Numb. xv. 23.) “And Saul eyed
David from that day, and forward.” (1 Sam. xviii. 9.) “It shall be
upon the eighth day, and forward, the priest shall.” (Ezek. xliii. 27.)
These examples of the proper use of nsºr , as a particle of time,
are given by Noldius; and the reader will observe that, in each case,
it imports a time subsequent to a certain other fived time. Take
Ex. 1:—From the eighth day, but not before, it shall be accepted,
and continue to be accepted. Or, Ex. 3:-From that day, but not
256. NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
before, Saul watched David, and continued to do so. These are clear;
and a similar use, parallel exactly to Ex. 1, is fixed for the days of
Ezekiel by Ex. 4 ; let us ask, then, why should not our verse, Ezek.
xxxix. 22, be translated similarly 2 “From that day, but not before,
the house of Israel shall know that I am the Lord their God, and
shall continue to do so afterwards.” The above four examples, taken
from Noldius, are clear, and not to be reasonably contradicted; why
should not ours, Ezek. xxxix. 22, be the fifth 2 The fact is, it is the
fifth given by Noldius himself. He cites five examples of this clear
use of risºn , of which four are those written above, and the
fifth is Ezek. xxxix. 22 ; so that our argument is supported, so far as
the phrase “from that day, and forward,” is concerned, by the high
authority of Noldius himself. Now, as already argued, this phrase,
“know the Lord,” taken with the context of Ezek. xxxix., belonging,
as the whole prophecy does, to the latter days, or Christian dispensation,
this phrase, “know that I am the Lord their God,” must import con-
version to Christianity. In any other and less sense, Israel does
know that “He is the Lord their God,” and has known and acknow-
ledged this with jealous fidelity throughout their long dispersion ; their
jealous, but limited, and, therefore, deficient knowledge of Him, the
Lord their God, is the very cause of their antipathy to Christians;
when, therefore, a prophet declares that, in times yet to come, Israel
shall know that He is the Lord their God, under the teaching of the
Holy Ghost (Ezek. xxxix. 29), Christians (and I am writing for
Qhristians especially)—Christians can put no less construction upon
the phrase than that it means “to know the Lord their God in Christ ;”
but, if so, then from the day of Gog's destruction, but not before,
Israel will believe in Christ, and continue to do so afterwards. There-
fore the conversion will be after the restoration; for Gog's overthrow
is of a confederacy against Israel, within the "Holy Land, after their
restoration. Israel will be restored unbelieving in Christ, but Gog's
overthrow will be the immediate cause of their conversion, and that
conversion is peculiarly, and by distinction, national; an entire, and
not a fractional, conversion.
Horsley observes (“Letter on xviii. Isaiah," p. 55) –“But with
respect to the phrase nsºr, Shri Tb, I agree with Vitringa that it will
best suit the context if it be understood not of place, but of time
* e º e s a But the time present in prophetic vision is not the time of the
delivery, but the time of the fulfilment of the prophecy.” I wish the
→ •---------—rº-3--~~~~~
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEws. 257
words in italics to be especially noticed, for they contain an observa-
tion of very great, and general importance in the study of prophecy,
and particularly so with reference to Ezekiel's phrase, “from that day
and forward.” And I trust it will not be considered presumptuous in
me to add the following observation to Horsley's note on this seventh
verse of Isa. xviii. :-"In that time shall the present be brought unto
the Lord of Hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people
terrible from their beginning hitherto.” I submit that the correctness
of this rendering of risºn Shri jº, from their beginning hitherto,
is much to be doubted. It means, not from their beginning hitherto,
but “from that (day) and forward.” There is an ellipsis of Riº to be
supplied ; and the verse then reads thus:—“At that time shall a
present be brought unto the Lord of Hosts of a people scattered, and
peeled; yea, from a people terrible from that day and forward.”
Isaiah's nsºr, Nhn Jº is precisely equivalent to Ezekiel's nsºrſ,
Sºn Fiºr, Th, and they are referring to the very same time; for
Isaiah declares that, after the cutting off, and pruning, which the vine
or Church undergoes (ver. 5), then, at that time, a people scattered and
peeled, viz., Israel, shall be brought as a present to the Lord, out of
a people terrible, and to remain terrible, from that day and forward,
a source of fear to the Gentile nations, who will remember how He
delivered them by the overthrow of Gog's confederacy ; the overthrow
of this Antichristian confederacy being, in Ezekiel, the pruning of
the Church in Isaiah; “according to time” (nº-not this in the
Hebrew), at the time the prophecy is fulfilled; according to time,
“For at its propertime, it shall be said of Jacob, and of Israel, What
hath God wrought ! Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion,
and lift up himself as a young lion; he shall not lie down until he eat
of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain.” (Num. xxiii. 23.)
Isaiah predicts the mighty ingathering of Israel after the great event
of Antichrist's destruction within the Holy Land, and says that Israel
will be “terrible from that day and forward.” Ezekiel prophesying
specifically of the overthrow of Antichrist, under the character of
Gog and his confederates, says that Israel will know the Lord their
God, “from that day and forward.” From that day and forward, then,
their establishment as a Christian people, their power among the
Gentile nations, and particularly the fear, or veneration, of them, as
God's own delivered, commences, and will continue. w
But I shall have to allude to Isa. xviii. again; meanwhile I refer
S
258 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
to Horsley’s “Letter,” p. 52, for the various criticisms on this passage,
and again express the hope that I shall be pardoned for adding the
above observations to them. And I would extract the following from
Horsley to show that his authority supports us in applying the passage
to Israel:—“But the people of the Jews have been, from their very
beginning, are at this day, and will be to the end of time, a people
venerable in a religious sense, awfully remarkable (in which sense
rather than in that of terrible, as I have observed, I would take sºil
here), on account of the special providence visibly attending them.”
I will only add that the rendering I have suggested depends upon the
construction of Rºſſ with the separable particle ſº from that—what ?
answer, day; and that I have the authority of Noldius for this:—
“Componitur cum particulis separabilibus . . . . . In Rºſſ"Tº ea; hoc
(tempore) Isa. xviii. 7.” (“Concord,” p. 227–8.) Nor is there, I
believe, any other place in the Hebrew Bible where Shri is rendered
beginning, or equivalently to it ; while, as everybody knows, the
language does contain a word whose essential force, and that of its
compounds, is beginning in the peculiar sense implied here. (See
Ezek. xxxvi. 11.) Professor Lee's rendering of Isa. xviii. 7, “Shall
be brought to Jehovah of hosts a people scattered (i.e., far and wide,
as seed sown) and peeled even out of a people terrible,” &c., &c., is
by no means opposed to us, but the contrary, and I use his criticism of
this verse for the purpose of presenting to the reader another phase of
Israel's restoration. I imagine that, in contemplating that future
restoration of Israel, we should be incorrect in expecting that the
eleven, or thirteen, millions of Israelites are to be all, and every one,
restored to little Palestine, but rather that, God's withholding hand
being removed from them (p. 253, suprā), and the nation being there
accordingly reconstituted an independent, recognised, Christian people,
protected of the Most High, the metropolis of the religion of the
world, many thousands, even millions, may still remain the loved and
honoured subjects of the various Gentile nations of their adoption.
So that the restoration will be literally, as Professor Lee renders it,
“out of a people terrible,” &c. (“Inquiry,” p. 57.)
Upon Ezekiel's expression, “from that day and forward,” Scott has
an amazing observation. He says, “This implies that these events
will take place not long after the conversion and restoration of Israel.”
This is very astonishing. Ezekiel says that Israel shall know the
Lord from that day and forward; and Scott says, Therefore they will
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 259
bave known Him a little before. But these inconsistencies are forced
upon those who will cling to the idea that Israel must be converted
before restored; and they cannot avoid them. Lowth, and Scott,
and Faber, even Horsley, are alike impelled to them.
Such are the arguments upon which we place the conclusion that
Ezekiel, in this chap. xxxix., distinctly foretels that the conversion of
Israel will take place after the restoration, and immediately in conse-
quence of Gog's overthrow by miraculous interposition from heaven.
It will be noticed that this prophet suggests no index by which this
overthrow shall be convincingly connected with Christianity, i.e., with
Christ, in the minds of the people Israel; but it seems a necessary
inference that, in some way or other, it must be so connected, and
the mind is prepared to believe that elsewhere Holy Scripture will
associate this work with the hand of Messiah-Jesus himself. We shall
show, in a future chapter, that this was specifically the business of
Zechariah. The prophecies of Branch and King have virtually all of
them this force ; but Zechariah, in his chaps. xii., xiv., and Isaiah,
in his chaps. xxix.-xxxii., especially explain in what manner the
presence of Messiah-Jesus, in the overthrow of Israel's last foes, will
be carried with irresistible conviction to their minds. That conviction
is, in other words, their conversion, which dates from that hour. And
Ezekiel, in a verse almost parallel with one in Zech. xii., explains
their conversion in an extraordinary manner —“For (or because "tºº
quðd) I have poured out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the
Lord God.” (Ver. 29.) This is the same outpouring of the Holy Ghost
predicted by Zechariah, chap. xii. 10; by Joel (let not the reader doubt
it), chap. ii. 28; and Isa., chap. xxxii. 15. And Ezekiel's prediction of
it seems also to justify the interpretation of the Vision of Dry Bones
already advanced ; and there seems little doubt but that Ezek., chaps.
xxxvii., xxxix., may be considered together as connected, descriptive
accounts of different acts in the same terrific drama; not that they
are therefore consecutive (as supposed by Mr. Faber), but parallel
prophecies, relating to one order, or series of events. However, it
may be remembered that, when treating of the Vision of Dry Bones
in Ezek. xxxvii., and especially upon vers. 12–14, as part of it, we
observed that the restoration and conversion of Israel seemed to be
described by process; that the coming together of bones, and lifeless
bodies, their coming up out of their graves, and being brought into the
land, all this seemed to imply a restoration in a lifeless state, religiously

S 2
260 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
speaking, and that the blowing of the wind upon them to give them
life, seemed a separate and distinct incident, intended to be predicted
as such by the prophet, and to represent the gift of the Holy Spirit ;
a processional interpretation of the prophecy in which we were
supported by Henry and Bickersteth, one of whom did not, but the
other did, believe in a future restoration of Israel. That same
breathing of the winds upon them, at chap. xxxvii. 9, answers to the
promise, “shall put my Spirit in you,” at ver, 14; and both of them
correspond with the promise at chap. xxxix. 29, “For I have poured
out my Spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God.” The
Hebrew perfect tense being here pregnant with the certainty of the
prophetical future —“Effudiº. Praet. Heb. pro Fut. Promittit
enim Spiritum S. Prophetae ferè semper praeteritis prê futurisutuntur
cum volunt ostendere rem tam certam esse si jam peracta esset.”
(Vatablus, “Crit. Sacr.” See also Lee’s “Gram.,” Lect. 17, Art.
236.) The same predictions we shall find Zechariah subsequently
sustaining, when he says, “I will pour out upon them the spirit of
grace and supplication.” Israel is restored, members of both houses,
Ephraim and Judah, as says Zechariah, in an unbelieving, lifeless
state; Gog's confederacy against them is, for a time, entirely successful;
Jacob, having returned gradually, and pacifically, to the unwalled
villages of Palestine, is once more in trouble, as the prophets of the
sacred canon had foretold he would be ; Messiah-Jesus interposes,
Gog is overthrown, Israel is saved by a present, visible Christ, at
which time the Spirit is poured out upon them from on high ; they
recognise, and acknowledge, their deliverer, i.e., believe at once in
Christ, i.e., become converted ; which conversion of the national
restoration at Jerusalem is the signal for a great accession to its
numbers (p. 247, supra), in which they are assisted by the Gentiles,
but pre-eminently by Tarshish. -
Lowth has a remarkable note upon this passage (chap. xxxix. 29):
—“There will be a new effusion of God's Spirit upon the Jews, in
order to their conversion.” But it is clear from the context that this
effusion is to take place within the land of Israel. If then it be in
order to their conversion, it follows that the conversion will take place
after the restoration. Yet Lowth is one who generally, but not
always, places the conversion before the restoration. As just now
observed on Scott, this inconsistency is forced upon those who enter-
tain such views. -

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 261
' [II.] I consider this prophecy so decisive as to Israel's national
restoration before conversion, and also as to the immediate cause of
that conversion, that I select this as a proper place for considering
another of Professor Lee's untenable positions—another which, like
that regarding Pººrſ nº Tº, lies at the very basis of his theory,
and, being unsound, causes it to fall. I mean his denial of the
perpetuity of the gift of Canaan to Abraham and his seed.
[1..] Professor Lee maintains (“Inquiry,” pp. 90–99) that two
covenants were made with Abraham—one purely religious, and of an
universal and permanent character, at Gen. xii. 2; the other, “at a
time, and in a place, far distant from those of the first, and on a
subject of a totally different description. Its very terms limit its
operation as to space, which extends no farther than the land
mentioned.” And he adds,-" Let us now see whether any limit
is given as to the time of its duration.” This is his chapter “on
the duration of the theocracy, and the time of its close; ” and the
point and purpose of it is to show “that the grant of the land
of Canaan to the Jews for their generations, with all the peculiarities
of the law of Moses, formed no part whatever of that everlasting
covenant which was primarily made with Abram in Chaldaea, and
under which all nations were to be blessed. It was of a mere temporary
character, shadowing out, perhaps, that wider and better inheritance,
and given, as in other instances, as a voucher for this. It has
accordingly long ago passed away, together with everything else
of a temporary nature.” (P. 96.) It is difficult to select a passage
conveying clearly Dr. Lee's sentiments on this subject ; but I have
taken the above as, upon the whole, the best, and would at once
observe upon it, that the root of his error lies in this fact, that
he mixes up two things perfectly distinct—viz., the Abrahamic
covenant and the Levitical,—the second of which is taken away,
as St. Paul fully explains in his Epistle to the Hebrews, but the
first of which was perpetual. This error will become more apparent
as we proceed. Now, there are three grounds upon which he
attempts to justify his opinion that the gift of Canaan to Abraham
was merely of a temporary character:-1. The limitable meaning of
the word Bhiwº , translated for ever, for everlasting, in passages to
be quoted. 2. The meaning, also limitable, of the phrase, “for your
generations,” as applied to the Israelites. And 3. The consequently

262 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
limited character, as he maintains, of the rite of circumcision and the
Levitical institutions ; I do not say other Levitical institutions,
because circumcision was not, properly speaking, a Levitical, but
an Abrahamic, institution ; it was, in fact, the seal, not of the
Levitical covenant, but of the Abrahamic. (Rom. iv. 11.)
[2.] The passages in which the land of Canaan is given to Abraham
are—Gen. xii. 1–9; xiii. 14, 18; xv. 5–8, and 18–21; xvii. 1–14.
In which passages the promises are made—“Unto thy seed will I give
this land; ” “To thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever; ”
“I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein
thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting
possession.” Also these :—“I will bless them that bless thee, and
curse him that curseth thee; ” “Thou shalt keep my covenant
therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This
is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy
seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circum-
cised.” Each of which divisions of the promises, each made
to Abraham himself, will be seen to enter into the merits of the
question. For,
First. The land, is given to Abraham's seed for ever, where the
word Bhish is used. The covenant made with Abraham is described
as an everlasting covenant—the land given for an everlasting posses-
sion ; in both which phrases the same word thigh is used for
everlasting. “But,” says Professor Lee, “this word (see my Hebrew
Lexicon under it) signifies nothing more than any continuous indefinite
period, to be limited of necessity by the context.” And the following
is the definition from his Lexicon —“Duration, past or future, the
extent of which is either unknown, unlimited, or indefinite, being
limited by the necessity of the case. (a.) Antiquity. (b.) Eternity.
(c.) The duration of the earth, moon, &c. (d.) The whole life.
(e.) Future duration, indefinite, but not endless ; being limited
(a.) by decay, (8) by the extinction of a family. Applied—(1.) To
the sanctions of the law, which was binding on every generation, till
abrogated by the Lawgiver. (2.) To the time for which Canaan was
promised to Abraham's posterity. (3.) To the time that the Israelites
should be God's people. (4.) To the time that David's posterity
should reign. (f) Unlimited future time. Phr. (g) Fºix nº
Perpetual covenant—that with Noah, that with Abraham ; that of
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 263
circumcision—that with Isaac, that with Jacob, and that with David.
(h.) Bºy Ty Fºº From generation to generation.” Then follow
examples. Now, I wish the reader carefully to mark the head—
“Phr. (g.) Eºis n"Tº Perpetual covenant,” because it is clear from
that, even according to Professor Lee's own admission, that Noah's
covenant, and that with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that of
circumcision, and David's, are described by the same phrase; and
that, therefore, so far as that phrase goes, the covenant with
Abraham, &c. may be as perpetual as the covenant with Noah,
viz., last as long as time lasts, which I shall show is the scriptural
statement of the case. As long as there shall be an earth for the
Most High to bless, so long there shall be sons of Israel—so long the
covenant with Abraham and his seed endures—so long circumcision,
its seal, is also to endure for them. And the gift of Canaan to
them was part of this Abrahamic covenant. But not to dwell on
this, I ask the reader again to observe that the Professor (whose
authority as a Hebraist is absolute) states that the meaning of
Fºx is to be limited in two ways:–1. By the necessity of the
case; 2. Of necessity by the context. (“Inquiry,” above quoted.)
Whence, if it should be capable of proof, that in the passage of
Genesis referred to the extent of Eliy is limited, and can only be
limited, by these words of the context, thy seed and their generations;
then, as long as there remain any sons of Abraham alive—any gene-
rations of Israelites, so long the word Eºis extends its force, and the
covenant limited by it, and the gift of Canaan limited by it, extend
their duration also—i.e., both the gift of Canaan and the Abrahamic
(not the Levitical) covenant last as long as the generations of
Abraham's seed last. While there remains an Israelite, the land of
Canaan is his, and the covenant with Abraham his also.
Second. In a note to his p. 91, Professor Lee observes, in precise
accordance with the extract (g.) above taken from his Lexicon,
“There are some places occurring in Ps. lxxxix. admirably calculated
to mark the duration of the first covenant made with Abraham ; in
ver. 4 it is said to be for ever . . . . to all generations; in ver. 29
“His’—i.e., the spiritual David's—‘seed also will I make to endure
for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.’ Where the term for
ever necessarily implies all time, so long as the world shall exist;
ver. 34—“My covenant will I not break; ' . . . . 36—‘His seed shall
endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me ; ' . . . . . .
264 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
----- ~~~~~~~~~~
37—‘For ever as the moon and as (the-not a-the article being
most frequently omitted in composition of this sort) faithful witness in
heaven,”—i.e., the rainbow, as mentioned (Gen. ix. 12, seq.), where it is
declared to be a ‘token of the covenant,' . . . . ‘for perpetual genera-
tions; ' . . . . “I do set my bow in the cloud,’ &c. Now, these
perpetual generations must include a very different period from that
meant by your generations, as used in the law. This was, indeed, no
temporary covenant, while that establishing the theocracy was. This
token accordingly remains; so also do the sun and moon; so also does
Christianity; because an everlasting covenant, in the full sense of
these terms, has decreed that it should.” But the very same illustra-
tions are used by the Prophet Jeremiah to describe the perpetuity of
Abraham's literal seed : “Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun
for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a
light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar:
The Lord of Hosts is his name: if those ordinances depart from before
me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel shall cease from being
a nation before me for ever.” (Jer. xxxi. 35.) Again,_*Thus
saith the Lord : If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I
have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; then will
I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will
not take of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob ; for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy
upon them.” (Jer. xxxiii. 25, 26.) Where it is clear, by examining
the context, that literal Israel is meant—the seed, not of “faithful
Abraham” alone, but the lineal seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
which Gentiles are not, and are not called in Scripture. Where
David's seed is identified with Jacob's, and rulers, as of many, and
not ruler, as of one—Christ—are predicted to reign over that seed;
so that it becomes clear the literal David's literal seed is prolonged
with Jacob's literal seed, where the captivity spoken of is clearly the
literal captivity of literal Israel, in a prophecy not referring to the
Babylonian restoration. But see p. 105, suprä. But, if so, then the
“ordinances of heaven” are used as symbols of the covenant with
Abraham's literal seed, as well as with David's, and, according to
Y’rofessor Lee's own admissions in the note extracted above, can
mean nothing less than that such covenant is perpetual—viz., will
last—or, in his own words, “necessarily implies all time, so long as
the world shall exist.” If those symbols import so much in one set
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 265.
- . .-----------—r- ºr r== 2- ºr--> --- ~~~~~. --~~~~. . ."
of promises, they must import as much in another; and we perceive
in consequence that the seed of Abraham and their generations,
during which the covenant of circumcision lasts, and the gift of
Canaan remains in force, are as enduring as the ordinances of heaven,
i.e., as the terrestrial globe itself, relatively to which alone the sun
and moon and stars constitute the ordinances of heaven, so far as the
subjects of this revelation are concerned.
Third. Again, Dr. Lee says, quoting the covenant of circumcision
(p. 93), “That circumcision had in every case particular reference
to religion, and was intended to have, ultimately, a spiritual applica-
tion, there can be no doubt; still, from its applicable extent—i.e.,
generally to the descendants of Abraham, and within Canaan only,
for no further does this covenant extend—it could not be universal as
to place ; and from the limiting terms, ‘your generations,’ during
which only its observance is here commanded, it is evident that it
was not intended to be perpetual. And hence the term “everlasting,'
used above, must be limited likewise to the same extent.” So we are
informed that the rite of circumcision is to be considered limited to
the times of the Levitical dispensation and to the land of Canaan I
to which terms also we are to confine the words, “your generations,”
and “everlasting,” before alluded to. This limitation of circumcision
to the land of Canaan must sound very oddly to those who remember
how many thousands of the sons of Israel lived beyond the borders of
their proper land long before Christianity was heard of. But surely
no part of these, Professor Lee's, limitations is consistent with Acts
xvi. 1–3, where Christian Paul took Christian Timothy (whose
mother merely was an Israelite), and circumcised him at Lystra, far
away from Canaan, after the Levitical covenant was abolished—where
Paul, taught of the Holy Ghost, did that which Luke, taught also of
the Holy Ghost, thought right to record, viz., held himself bound,
that he might not incur the just censure of “the Jews in those
Quarters,” to show that he considered circumcision binding upon a
convert to Christianity; if he would claim the privileges of Jewish
descent, after the Levitical covenant was done away, and far beyond
the borders of the Holy Land. For, surely, we are not to suppose
that inspired Paul performed an unnecessary religious rite merely to
indulge the Jews in a misconception, which (according to Dr. Lee)
could not but prove very pernicious, and which of course Paul, by so
doing, would perpetuate.
266 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Also, at p. 93,-‘Again (chap. xvi. 32), speaking of the manna,
it is said, “Fill an omer of it, to be kept for your generations, that
they may see,’ &c. And here the fact of the case must attest to both
Jew and Gentile, that, as beyond the times of the theocracy, no such
vessel of manna was kept, or could be seen, no perpetual use of this
observance was intended.” But, in truth, the fact of the case here
proves nothing at all ; for if we are to limit the phrase, “your gene-
rations," to the time when “no such vessel of manna was kept or
could be seen,” it is certain “your generations” of Israel terminated
long before the theocracy ; for St. Paul tells us that in the ark were
“the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and
the tables of the covenant" (Heb. ix.4); and Jews themselves agree;
since then, with the ark of the covenant, was lost the pot of manna;
and since, with the pot of manna, was lost (according to Lee) “your
generations” of the Jews, his argument, if it prove anything at
all, proves this—that “your generations” of the Jews; in the sense
of the books of Moses, ended before the building of the second temple ;
for it is certain that the ark of the covenant was never in that second
temple. (See Prideaux, vol. i., p. 203.) g
By such attempts at argument does Professor Lee endeavour to
prop up this part of his helpless theory, and concludes—“It appears,
then, that by the terms “ your generations,’ and the like, is meant
the period of the Theocracy, or Mosaic dispensation only.” (P. 94.)
[3.] But, having ventured to expose the unsound character of
these attempted arguments, I now proceed to show affirmatively that
the gift of Canaan to Abraham was perpetual, equal in perpetuity to
the duration of this habitable world ; and then I propose to show the
consequences that result from it.
First. Now, as regards the passages in which the gift of the land
is made, there is nothing to lead us to doubt the perpetuity of that
gift. For, while it is doubtless true, as explained by Lee, and justified
by abundant references to the Hebrew Bible (see Fürst), that Eºis
is a word of variable meaning, whose force in any given place must
be determined either by the nature of the case, or by the context,
there is nothing in these passages of Genesis before us to define and
limit the meaning of that word, unless it be the word's expression of
the seed of Abraham, or generations of Israel. The fallacy in Lee's
argument is this, that he takes the ambiguous word nºis to define
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 267
the unambiguous words seed and generations, instead of using them
to define Eºis . The parts of the verses under dispute are as follow :
—“Unto thee will I give this land.” (Gen. xii. 7.) “For all the
land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed, for
ever, =high .” (Gen. xiii. 15.) “In the same day the Lord made a
covenant with Abraham, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this
land.” (Gen. xv. 18.) “And I will establish my covenant between
me and thee, and thy Seed after thee, in their generations, for an
everlasting covenant (Eºiv nº), to be a God unto thee, and to
thy seed after thee; and I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after
thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for
an everlasting possession (this nłºſtº); and I will be their God.”
(Gen. xvii. 7, 8.) Now, let the reader observe that in two of these
passages, viz., Gen. xii. 7, xv. 18, the ambiguous word Eºis is not
employed, but the gift of Canaan stands absolute, and unqualified:—
“ Unto thy seed will I give this land”—“In the same day the Lord
made a covenant with Abraham, saying, Unto thy seed have I given
this land ;” and, if these passages be taken alone, the only just con-
clusion from them is that the gift of Canaan is absolute and unlimited;
so that, as long as Abraham has seed, so long the land of Canaan is.
theirs by Divine right. But the other passages, viz., Gen. xiii. 15,
xvii. 7, 8, are, in fact, the same as, and have reference to, the other
two, the first referring to the gift of the land, the second both to the
establishment of the covenant and the gift of the land; the only
difference is that Eºis is added, “thy seed for ever,” and “for an
everlasting covenant,” “an everlasting possession.” But this word,
as admitted by Lee, can establish nothing by itself; it is a word of
variable meaning, to be defined either by the necessity of the case or
by the context. But the limitation of Eºis by the necessity of the
case is out of the question here, for we can show no necessity why the
land of Canaan could not have been given to Abraham's seed for ever,
in the ordinary sense of that term : it can be, therefore, limited only
by the context in these places, and these contexts are plain and
unmistakeable.
If “For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to
thy seed”—“And I will establish my covenant between me and thee,
and thy seed after thee, in their generations; I will give unto thee,
and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger”—
had, I say, Gen. xiii. 15, and xvii. 7, 8, stood simply so, the force
268 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
of them had been incontrovertible, viz., that the land of Canaan was
given to Abraham's children, as long as any remained alive, and
willing to claim it, and that God's covenant was with them to that
end ; and the introduction of Eliy , a variable word, needing itself
to be defined, cannot be held “ logically ” to alter the force of such
passages: that word seeks, and requires definition and limitation from
a context, but cannot impart it ; we refer not to it for the meaning of
the context, but to the conteat for the meaning of it; and that meaning
is that “for ever,” in Gen. xiii. 15, and “everlasting,” in Gen. xvii.
7, 8, mean as long as any sons are born to Abraham. “For all the
land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed, for ever,”
i.e., as long as thou hast seed. (Gen. xiii. 15.) “And I will
establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee,
in their generations, for an everlasting covenant (i.e., a covenant to
last as long as thy generation of sons lasts), to be a God unto thee,
and to thy seed after thee (i.e., as long as thou hast seed); and I will
give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art
a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession (i.e.,
a possession to be rightfully theirs as long as thy sons last); and I will
be their God.” (Gen. xvii. 7.) Accordingly we find, in the places
of Jeremiah just now quoted (chaps. xxxi. 36, xxxiii. 25), that the
word of the Most High is pledged unconditionally for the preservation
of Abraham's seed, for the very purpose that they should “be a
nation before God for ever " nºn-b; all the days; passages of
Jeremiah where, without laying any peculiar stress upon Eºn-by,
any more than upon Eºis , there can be no rational doubt that literal
Israel is intended, because “all that they have done" iniquitously is
referred to ; and they are termed “the despised people,” and the
promise is, “their captivity shall return :” there can be no doubt but
literal Israel is intended, Israel by pedigree, “The seed of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob " (ver. 26); so that not only has the Most High
given the land, and made the covenant for ever (Eºiyº), but He has
defined his own terms, and promised unconditionally to preserve “the
seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” for the express purpose that
they should be a nation before Him, enduring as the ordinances of
heaven. (Jerem. xxxi. 36.) The lustre of that nation may be
eclipsed, but only to burst forth again more brilliant in reality and by
contrast, “one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel.”
(Ezek. xxxvii. 22.) But as for that Eliy, it is similarly used at
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 269
2 Kings v. 27:—“The leprosy, therefore, of Naaman shall cleave
unto thee, and to thy seed for ever” (Eºivº) ; that is, to Gehazi's seed,
as long as he had any. -
Besides, Professor Lee's argument, in fact, destroys itself; for
“your generations” must certainly include the sons of all the tribes.
If then “your generations” ended with the Theocracy (as he says),
still the promise was not kept, if his interpretation be sound, for it is
certain, as already abundantly proved, that ten tribes out of twelve
perished from off the land more than 700 years before the Theocracy
was terminated, and that they have never been reunited to their
brethren, to form a nation, since. - -
Second. The Psalmist assures us that the gift of Canaan was
perpetual, in language which, to short-lived humanity, is illimitable,
and which he adopts in eaplanation of that same ambiguous word
Eºis , much to Dr. Lee's embarrassment. (See “Inquiry,” p. 91.)
“O ye seed of Abraham, his servant, ye children of Jacob, his
chosen He is the Lord our God ; his judgments are in all the
earth; He hath remembered his covenant for ever (Eliyº), the word
which He commanded to a thousand generations (nii ñºs?), which
He made with Abraham, and his oath with Isaac, and confirmed the
same (IJ it), unto Jacob for a law; and to Israel for an everlasting
COWenant (Bºy n°73), saying, Unto thy seed will I give the land of
Canaan, the lot of your inheritance, when they were but few men in
number, yea, very few, and strangers in it.” (Ps. cw. 6—12.) Now
any one who will consult the Hebrew may see that the Psalmist uses
here, for covenant for ever, and everlasting covenant, the same words
as Moses in the places of Genesis already referred to ; and it is plain
that he explains “his covenant for ever’’ as “the word He commanded
to a thousand generations.” The expressions are in apposition, one
of the two great ruling principles of Hebrew Syntax, according to
Lee's “Gram,” p. 289, Art. 217, 3. The expression Eºish applied,
as by Moses, to his covenant with Abraham, is explained in David by
the phrase it ñºs? for a thousand generations, applied to the same
covenant, a method of speaking which, in ordinary human computa-
tion, is perpetual indeed. And, that there may be no misconception,
the Psalmist calls this the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
and explains it, at ver. 11, as the Gift of the Land of Canaan.
Professor Lee felt this dilemma, and here is his note upon it :—
“Here, be it carefully observed, a covenant for a thousand generations
270 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
is made with Abraham, &c.; and this is confirmed by another, giving
them the land of Canaan for their generations, which clearly gives
one covenant, which is everlasting in the true sense of that term ; and
this must necessarily be the first in the order, with regard to that
which confirmed it, while the last is, as before, in every point of view
a temporary one.” (“Inquiry,” p. 97.)
This is a most unhappy observation. He says David mentions two
covenants, one, for a thousand generations, everlasting in the true
sense of that word, the other giving them the land of Canaan for
their generations. It should be remembered that he had already
imparted a peculiar force of his own to the phrase “for your genera-
tions,” so that it becomes important to remark that the Psalmist does
not use the phrase, nor any like it, in the passage alluded to by Dr.
Lee. Besides which David does not mention two covenants, but only
one, “confirmed the same (J it), and then he quotes the confirmation
from Gen. xxxv. 10–12:—“Confirmed the same unto Jacob for a
law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, saying, Unto thee will
I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance, when they
were but a few men in number,” &c.—nº "nº “I few in
number”—Tºpp "nº "28–Jacob had said (Gen. xxxiv. 30), in conse-
quence of Dinah's affliction ; and, having left the neighbourhood, at
God's command, and come again to his best place of blessing, Beth-el:
—“God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padan-
aram, and blessed him. And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob ;
thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy
name ; and He called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am
God Almighty; be fruitful and multiply; a nation, and a company of
nations, shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins ; and
the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee will I give it, and
to thy seed after thee will I give the land.” (Gen. xxxv. 9–12.)
This is the passage to which David refers, quoting ºpp ºn, to
“Israel for an everlasting covenant;” and that which he quotes in
confirmation is not another, but the same as He made with Abraham
and Isaac. (See Gen. xvii. 1–8, but particularly ver. 6, which
contains the promise of nations and kings, repeated to Jacob, and
ver, 19; also chap. xxvi. 2–5, confirming it to Isaac.)
The covenant with Abraham and Isaac referred to by David was
the gift of Canaan ; the confirmation to Israel was the gift of
Canaan; they were not two, as Professor Lee says, but one, one and
AND conversion of THE JEws. 271
the same. And this one covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, was a covenant for a thousand generations, a phrase “everlasting
in the true sense of that word,” as Lee observes, and this everlasting
phrase is given by David as an explanation of Eºivº , the ambiguous
term used by Moses, in reference to that one and same covenant with
Abraham and his seed. Such arguments are conclusive ; but further,
I take David’s “ thousand generations” to be equivalent to Moses'
“all generations,” which he also uses in Exod. iii. 15 to define º :
—“Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord God
of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God
of Jacob, hath sent me unto you ; this is my name for ever, Ebi, 2
and this is my memorial unto all generations, Tº -ºš ,” i.e., as long
as generations last, as long as procreating man lasts, as long as time
lasts. As long as sons of Israel beget sons of Israel, so long He
remains God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to be “memorialised"
by Israel in times of trouble acceptably by that name, so long God's
covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob remains, perennial as the
seed; which He has promised, in Jerem. xxxi., shall be preserved for
€Ver.
[4.] The covenant whose nature we have to inquire into for the
purpose of judging whether it was intended to be perpetual or other-
wise, is not only that made with Abraham, but repeated and confirmed
with Isaac and with Jacob ; so that it is wrong to confine the
attention to those places where the covenant with Abraham merely is
specifically narrated; we have also to examine its several confirma-
tions with Isaac and with Jacob, as afterwards recorded. If these be
found limited in duration or application, well; but if not, then the
covenant with Abraham, of which they were merely repetitions, must
be held to be, like themselves, unlimited also. To Isaac it was
specifically confirmed at Gen. xxvi. 2–5: “Go not down into
Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of ; sojourn in this
land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and
unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the
oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; and I will make thy
seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all
these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed; because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my
charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws; ” and to Jacob
272 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
at Gen. xxviii. 13: “I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and
the God of Isaac : the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it,
and to thy seed; and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and
thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the
north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the
families of the earth be blessed.” It should be observed that in these
confirmations of the covenant, made respectively to Isaac and to
Jacob, the covenant professed to be confirmed is that one covenant
made with Abraham their father, that in these confirmations two
articles are carefully included, viz., 1. The gift of Canaan. 2. The
spiritual promise in Christ; “in thy seed shall all families of the
earth be blessed ; ” so that Professor Lee's statement, that we have
two covenants made with Abraham—one (Gen. xii. 2) “purely
religious, and of an universal and permanent character ; ” the other
(Gen. xii. 7) “made at a time and place far distant from those of the
first, and on a subject of a totally different description,” (“Inquiry,”
p. 90,) is unscriptural and erroneous. There was but one covenant
made with Abraham, but it contained two articles, viz., the gift of
Canaan, and the promise of the Redeemer of the world; and when
this covenant was confirmed, whether to Isaac or to Jacob, each of
these articles was carefully included; and the truth is, the two
articles were and are inseparable, the full possession of Canaan being
covenanted only for the times of the Redeemer or Messiah; and the
permanent character which is necessarily attributed to the one
promise (I mean that of the Redeemer), attaches itself to the other,
viz., that of the land. As the promise, “In thee and in thy seed
shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,” was certain and
immutable; so the promise, “Unto thy seed will I give this land,”
was immutable and certain also. And let it also be observed, that
when the promise of Canaan was confirmed to Isaac and to Jacob, no
ambiguous or qualifying word like this is used, but it stañºls in
either case simply thus, “Unto thy seed will I give all these
countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham
thy father ” (Gen. xxvi. 3); and “the land whereon thou liest, to
thee will I give it, and to thy seed.” (Gen. xxviii. 13.) The gift of
Canaan is absolute and permanent, lasting as long as the seed may
last.
[5.] Besides, the perpetuity of the gift of Canaan may also be
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 273
argued from the fact that this gift of the land involved a blessing,
which blessing, if unconditional and unlimited, supplies us with
another reason for believing that the gift of Canaan was unlimited
and unconditional also. “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse
him that curseth thee.” (Gen. xii. 3.) This was the blessing
associated with the gift of Canaan and the promise of Messiah ; and
accordingly Isaac, who knew he should transmit it to the inheritor of
the promises, when thinking he was blessing his eldest son, exclaims,
“Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee; be lord over
thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee; cursed be
every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.”
(Gen. xxvii. 29.) But when he knew that Jacob, and not Esau, was
God's chosen, he confirms this blessing to him upon his departure to
IPadan-aram ; that which he had already done by error he now repeats
wittingly: “God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and
multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people, and give
thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee and to thy seed with thee, that
thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God
gave to Abraham.” (Gen. xxviii. 3, 4.) (TFº unto thine
inheriting—so that thou mayest inherit); the blessing and the land go
together inseparably: if the blessing be unlimited as to time, the gift
of the land is unlimited as to time also. This promise of blessing made
to the patriarchs personally was afterwards confirmed to the nation
itself; and that the blessing involving, as we see, the right to the
land, was intended to be perpetual, the language of Balaam shows.
Those three predictions (Numbers xxiii. 8–10; 19–24; and xxiv.
4–9) should be considered connectedly, and the end or climax of them
is at chap. xxiv. 9, where Balaam, having prophetically foreseen the
future glorious destiny of Israel, even unto the very days of Messiah,
concludes by pronouncing the well-known blessing given unto
Abraham, “Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that
curseth thee.” This blessing Balaam connects with Israel's victories
over their enemies, and those victories with the coming of Messiah
(chap. xxiii. 21–24; and xxiv. 7–9); and the whole is explained
and referred to the latter days in chap. xiv. 14–19. For I take;
1. Chap. xxiii. 21, xxiv. 7, and xxiv. 17, to be each of them a
prophecy of the same King-Messiah —2. Chap. xxiii. 22, and
xxiv. 8, to be parallel allusions to the deliverance from Egypt as an
earnest of:—3. Chap. xxiii. 23, 24, xxiv. 8, 9, and xxiv. 17, 18, the
T
274, NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
fulfilment of these parallel predictions of victory yet to be obtained
on the mystical Edom, Moab, &c., in these latter days. (Chap.
xxiv. 14.) For the primary reference of these great predictions,
whether to Saul, or David, or Solomon (for all these are mentioned
by commentators) will not enable us to establish their fulfilment, nor to
meet the manifest reference to Messiah which they (particularly chap.
xxiii. 21, and xxiv. 17) contain. See Faber’s “Eight Dissers,”
vol. i., p. 309, on Seth ; and compare chap. xxiii. 24, and xxiv. 8, 9,
with the context of the following from Micah:—“And the remnant of
Jacob shall be among the Gentiles in the midst of many people as a
lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks
of sheep, who, if he go through, both treadeth down and teareth in
pieces, and none can deliver. Thine hand shall be lifted up upon
thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.” Chap.
v. 8, 9.) See also Patrick's note on chap. xxiv. 9, “Who shall set
him up?” which of itself might suggest the non-fulfilment of the
prophecy. I attach to Balaam’s recital of the promise, “Blessed is
he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee,” a prophetical
force similar to that which belongs to the rest of the context, and
maintain that as this held true in David's days, when the type came,
so it still holds true in Messiah's days, and shall still hold true when He
the great Antitype shall come again, when the mystical Edom, and Moab,
and every Seth, i.e., every system of Gentile idolatry, shall be destroyed.
The blessing in Balaam’s mouth is unqualified, and perpetual even
during the days of Messiah, of which he prophesied; and consequent
upon the blessing is, as we have shown, the inheritance—the
perpetual inheritance of the land. (Gen. xxviii. 3, 4.)
[6] From all these considerations I conclude that the gift of the
land to Abraham and his seed was unqualified and perpetual—as
unqualified and perpetual as the national blessing through Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob—as unqualified and perpetual as the promise of
Messiah. That, in short, as we before mentioned two, so here we note
three articles constituting the immutable covenant which God con-
firmed with an oath to Abraham: 1. “To thee and to thy seed will I
give this land.” 2. “Blessed is he that blesseth thee.” 3. “In thee
shall all the nations of the earth be blessed”—these three, I say, are the
articles given by Moses of the Abrahamic covenant, which covenant
is perpetual as the world. But if so, nothing is more certain than that
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 275
those promises have never yet been fulfilled. “Indeed, the whole time
that the Jews have possessed the land, from their entrance into it to
the first captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, was, according to the ordinary
chronology, 867 years: and if Mr. Clinton's number of the interval of
the Judges be adopted, 1000 years. About 600 more years will take
in the period from the restoration from Babylon to the Roman
captivity. View this in connexion with the promises of the continued,
peaceful, uninterrupted, and everlasting possession foretold in the
prophecies, and see the force of the prayer God himself puts into the
lips of his people: “Return for thy servant's sake, the tribes of thine
inheritance. The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little
while. Our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary.’” (Isaiah
lxiii. 17, 18.) And, with reference to Josh. xxi. 43, “Large as these
words are, it is clear that several parts of the promises to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob were not then fulfilled. The promise, for instance,
“In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,’ remained
then unfulfilled, and in the very next book of Judges we have details of
conflicts with unsubdued inhabitants of the land. But the triumphant
and undisputed possession of the land at that time was indeed literally
and exactly fulfilled. A similar mode of expression, ‘There hath
not failed one word of all his good promise which He promised by the
hand of Moses his servant,' occurs (1 Kings viii. 56) on Solomon's
dedication of the temple. This was another step onwards towards
the complete accomplishment of God's purposes of love to Israel.
Thus God's promises of grace have a growing accomplishment,
and are said to be fulfilled at each stage of their accomplishment,
which, in reality, becomes an earnest and pledge of their final
completion.” (Bick., “Rest. of Jews,” Introd., p. 16.) Mr. Bicker-
steth's explanation is no doubt correct, and Holy Scripture and
historical fact enable us to confirm it. It is certain that Israel has
never yet entirely, peacefully, nor for any prolonged period possessed
“the land which God sware unto their fathers; ” and even as regards
the times of Joshua, Mr. Bickersteth's acknowledgment that “the
triumphant and undisputed possession of the land at that time was
indeed literally and exactly fulfilled,” must be taken with a qualifi-
cation; which qualification is justified by Judges xviii. 1, “In those
days the tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance to dwell in,
for unto that day inheritance had not fallen unto them among the
tribes of Israel; ” the words “all their,” which I have omitted, are
T 2
276 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
not in the original. But see Josh. xix. 47. The fact would seem to
be that Joshua must be understood as speaking with reference to the
Book of Moses: the expulsion of the Canaanites, Israel had been told,
was to be a gradual process, in mercy to Israel, occupying much
time. (Deut. vii. 22.) This Joshua knew, and that the promise of
the Most High was certain; he expresses, therefore, the full
accomplishment of the promises according to the terms in which they
had been delivered, sufficiently, fully sufficiently, for Israel's national
purposes up to that time, but not the less to be more fully
accomplished if they were obedient, as the nation multiplied and
developed its exigencies more fully.
To this part of the subject I shall add but one observation more,
taken also from Mr. Bickersteth: “We must take care not to
confound the covenant with Abraham and the covenant at Sinai.
The Abrahamic covenant had both the land of Canaan and the
posterity of Abraham, as well as Christ our Lord for its promises;
and the apostle expressly assures us that ‘the covenant which was
confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was 430 years after,
cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none effect.’”.
“The Abrahamic covenant is confirmed again and again, notwithstand-
ing all the sins of Israel (Micah vii. 18, 20; Luke i. 70, 75), and can
never be disannulled.” Heb. vi. 13–19. (“Rest. of Jews,”Introd., p. 52,
an admirable observation, to which I shall revert in another chapter.)
The gift of Palestine to Israel, therefore, was perpetual and immu-
table ; from Lebanon to the wilderness, from Euphrates to the
Mediterranean that land belongs to the sons of Israel; if so, then—
1. They have yet to be nationally restored, for they have never yet
experienced the fulfilment of this promise, which, as God and the
Holy Bible are true, remains to be accomplished even at this day.
The truth of Christianity is involved in this restoration of the Jews;
that restoration and its consequences will be the grand consummation
of the evidences of our faith.
2. In any disposition to be made at a coming time of that Holy
Land, it never can be assigned rightfully to any but the sons of
Jacob ; the nation that shall presume to lay its hand on Palestine will
tempt the curse of Almighty God, and in that presumption will find
the signal for its ruin. In this prophecy of Ezekiel xxxviii. 39 before
us, the prophet terms it, even gazing into the latter days, “the land
of God:” “I will bring thee against my land” (chap. xxxviii. 16);

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 277
and the corresponding judgment is, “I will call for a sword against
him throughout all my mountains.” (Ver. 21.) May my beloved
country in that day be the asserter of the rights of Israel; may she dis-
countenance and condemn; if necessary in God's will, may she actively
oppose any attempt to alienate that land; may she sound the first
signal trumpet for the recal of Israel; and when that last of Jacob's
troubles shall arrive, may she be found (as I believe she will) Israel's
firm friend, and the uncompromising, irreconcileable adversary of the
two-fold Antichrist.
[III.] I would preface the conclusion of this chapter by observing
that it seems hardly necessary to insist upon what is so manifest, viz.,
the unconditional and literal import of the prophecy contained in
Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix. Its unconditional character may be perceived
from this fact, in addition to its strictly prophetical nature, that it
might be described rather as a prophecy of judgment against certain
Gentiles, than as one of blessing upon Jews. The advantages
depicted result to Israel merely as a consequence of certain chastise-
ments, which the prophet assures us will, in the day of Christianity,
be inflicted upon those Gentiles, whom he describes merely by reciting
the names of their first progenitors. Whoever these Gentiles are (and
we have as yet made no attempt to identify them), the judgments de-
tailed are most affirmatively predicted, and the blessings resulting to
Israel, as the consequence, must needs be considered as affirmative and
unconditional as the judgments upon their foes from which they are
derived. As to the fact that Ezekiel's meaning in this prophecy is
undoubtedly literal, and not figurative, it may be perceived sufficiently
from the specification of “The Valley of the Passengers on the East
of the Sea,” such a description can have no meaning as applied to the
Christian Church ; and yet, upon all that Ezekiel connects with that
single prediction, the whole prophecy may be said to depend, for
in that very spot is placed the great destruction of Gog's army, which
constitutes the catastrophe of this whole piece, and the whole becomes
immediately as literal as the scene fixed for the accomplishment of its
principal part. Without, then, dwelling more upon the literal and
absolute character of the prophecy, I briefly collect for reconsideration
its more prominent predictions.

278 * NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
[1..] Ezekiel foretels that, at some period not particularly specified,
but during “the latter days,” which we know, from other parts of
Scripture, to mean the Christian dispensation, that during the
Christian dispensation certain powers, or nations, whom he describes
by the names Magog, Meshech, Tubal, Gomer, Persia, &c., and
puts under the chieftainship of Gog, shall come up into, and shall
successfully occupy, the entire land of Israel. This combination of
people he individualises, and, by so doing, conveys to his readers the
conviction that they constitute a confederacy of people united in one
common cause, in an undertaking which the prophet sufficiently
portrays to mark its warlike character. At the time this military
confederacy of people, whom Ezekiel says generally come from parts
of the north; generally, because, at the time he spake, he was not in
Palestine ; at the time it comes into the land of Israel, the people of
that land, whom he terms the house of Israel, will be residing in it
under conditions implying that they will be perhaps unexpecting, but
certainly unprepared for, the emergencies of war. These people, so
inhabiting the land of Israel at the time of Gog's invasion, we are
sure must be literal sons of Jacob, for the word “Israel” must be
interpreted consistently all through the chapters; so that, if “house
of Israel” means not literal Israel, then “land of Israel,” “mountains
of Israel,” &c., &c., as used in these chapters, mean not any parts of
the literal land, but must be taken figuratively, and the whole
prophecy become, in consequence, figurative also, a character which
we find it cannot rationally sustain. But if so, the converse is true ;
if the land be literal, then the people mentioned is literal ; and Ezekiel
is found to predict, by implication, the restoration of the whole house
of Israel to Palestine at some time yet to come, for we are sure that
no part of this prophecy has ever been fulfilled, particularly during
the Christian dispensation, to which it is limited ; a restoration to
take place before Gog's invasion of the land.
[2] This prediction by implication of Israel's restoration is from
that, its very nature, peculiarly strong ; the indirect character of it,
in fact, constitutes its force. It is a quiet assumption, on the prophet's
part, that Israel's restoration, in the latter days, is in known accord-
ance with the mind of his Creator, as already revealed by his servants
the prophets, is in complete unison and accord with other prophecies
already delivered by Ezekiel himself, with a chain of prophecies given

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 279
by him, of which chaps, xxxviii. and xxxix. are, in reality, the
conclusion. Accordingly we find, upon examination, that the perpe-
tuity of the gift of Canaan to Abraham and his seed, absolute in the
terms of its first assignment, equally unconditional and unlimited in
those of its repetition and confirmation, to Isaac and to Jacob, per-
petual as the covenant of Noah, and inseparably allied to promises as
unconditional, and unchangeable, as the prediction of Messiah, and
described as such specifically by David ; we find that this perpetuity
of the gift of Canaan is calculated to assure us that Ezekiel's assump-
tion in these chapters of Israel's restoration in the latter days was not
only in accordance with his own previous prophecies, and those of
other prophets whom he refers to, but also with a known and recog-
nised position, or relationship, of the Israelites as the covenanted
people of the Most High, to whom the possession of that land rightly
and perpetually appertains ; a right which, as shall be shown in its
proper place, the penalties of the broken Levitical covenant could not
contravene ; a position of the people Israel acknowledged of the
Almighty as to that land, when He terms it, through the prophet,
“my mountains,” “my land,” in the latter days. -
Ezekiel having thus implied a restoration of the whole house of
Israel, and having clearly foretold the confederacy of northern powers
against him so restored, tells us further that this confederacy,
successful in its entire occupation of the land, successful also in the
incapacity of Israel to resist it at large, shall nevertheless be soon and
completely overthrown. Along the coasts, upon the hills, and in the
plains, particularly in that highway valley east of Tiberias, this
multitudinous force will be suddenly, and simultaneously, destroyed;
so suddenly and simultaneously, that the hand of the Lord shall be
felt and acknowledged by Jew and Gentile foeman alike, although the
operation of second causes is not excluded. Storm, and pestilence,
and intestine divisions, with perhaps the embarrassment of hostilities
from other nations, these will aid in that work of fearful destruction,
which still, from its suddenness and extent, will be felt to be miracu-
lous; from conviction of which truth results, though in a manner
which Ezekiel was not commissioned specifically to describe, the
conversion of Israel to Christianity.
[3] That this conversion is predicted becomes clear, from the con-
sideration that the prophecy appertains to the Christian dispensation,
280 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
and that, as the result of Gog's overthrow, Israel is said not only “to
know the Lord,” but also to know Him under the influence of the
outpoured Spirit of Grace : now “to know the Lord,” as taught of
the Holy Ghost, in times of Christianity, is to know God in Christ,
i.e., to be converted to Christianity; and this being the result of Gog's
overthrow in the land of Israel, in sight of the people Israel therein
restored, it is manifest the conversion is predicted by Ezekiel to take
place after the restoration. This subsequence of the conversion to
the restoration is expressed in three different ways, one of which is
so precise as to admit of no questioning, nor charge of ambiguity,
though each of them is sufficiently strong for the purpose ; for, besides
the peculiar force of the verbal noun constructed with 3, which was
explained in the second chapter of this work, and of which we have here
given additional and clear examples, there was a peculiar force of , ,
in arguing upon which we were sustained by the great authorities of
Noldius and Gesenius, who, writing merely as Hebrew critics, and
without reference to Israel, or his restoration, mark, the first of them,
these very passages as examples of that peculiar use of from which
our argument is adduced, and the other of them, that peculiar con-
struction of , preceded by the verbal noun with 3, which gives it
here that by which it justifies our conclusion, viz., the force of a
particle of time. Whether we say, “ Thus Israel shall know the
Dord,” according to Noldius, or “Then Israel shall know the Lord,”
according to Gesenius, viz., by, or at the time, of Gog's destruction,
matters not, for, in each case, the knowing the Lord is made the
consequence of, and therefore subsequent to, that destruction. But, as
shewn, to know the Lord, taught by the Holy Spirit, as the phrase
is here used by Ezekiel, must mean, in the latter days, conversion to
Christianity; and, since Gog's destruction takes place in the eyes of
Israel, within the Holy Land, this conversion must be after the
restoration.
But, clear as this argument is, Ezekiel has not left us to it alone.
He positively and definitely states that Israel's knowledge of the Lord,
taught by the Holy Ghost, i.e., conversion, shall date from that time,
and, therefore, shall not commence before. This we showed by a
collation of examples, at p. 256, from Noldius, was the literal force of
the Hebrew phrase nsºrſ, Sºmºſ EMT'º from that day and forward,
and that Noldius, collating passages in elucidation of the phrase,
merely as a Hebrew scholar, adduces our very passage in Ezekiel
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 281.
as a proof of its force. This statement is precise, and the argument
that Israel's conversion will be after the restoration unanswerable,
provided that our explanation of the prediction, “They shall know
that I am the Lord,” taken in connexion with the other, “For I have
(i.e., I certainly will at that time) poured out my Spirit upon the house
of Israel,” in the latter days—that it means, and must mean, conver-
sion to Christianity, be a sound explanation, as I believe it is. Nor
is this the whole argument, for, -
Not only does Ezekiel enable us to see that the conversion of Israel
will be after the restoration, but also that it will be a national conver-
sion after a national restoration, because, all through the chapters, he
describes the people who hold the land, when Gog invades it, by national
terms—house of Israel, people of Israel, &c., &c.; and consistency of
interpretation with other parts of Scripture, and of this chapter with
itself, requires that we understand this of a competent representation
of both houses; though to what extent, and under what precedence,
or priority, or government, other Scriptures may, but Ezekiel's do
not, explain. A competent representation of all the people, at least
of the two houses, if not of all the tribes, will be in the Holy Land
when Gog invades it. But if so, then the conversion, which results
from Gog's overthrow, is national, and dates from that time and
forward, i.e., not before; and their theory is directly opposite to
Ezekiel's prediction who state that Israel, or any national representa-
tion of it, will be restored to the Holy Land, in a state of conversion
to Christianity. Accordingly, when, in chap. ix., infra, we come to
Mr. Faber on this prophecy, we shall find him fully admitting that
Israel as a nation is repossessed of the Holy Land before Gog
invades it. -
I intreat the reader to throw off all prejudice before he proceeds to
read the next two chapters, in which, with God's blessing, I shall
endeavour gradually to unveil the nations of Gog's confederacy, as
well as to identify the Tarshish, which opposes them.
282 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
CHAPTER VII.
“THY SONS, o GREECE.”—ZECH. Ix. 13.
THE prophecy to which our attention is now about to be directed extends
through the ninth and tenth chapters of Zechariah. The eleventh may
also (upon Lowth's authority) be regarded as a continuation of it ;
but, as all those parts of the prophecy which peculiarly demand
consideration, in connexion with our present subject, are contained
in the ninth and tenth chapters, we shall confine our observations to
them. There seems no good reason for doubting that the six concluding
chapters of Zechariah belong really to the book of that prophet ; but,
however, as Archbishop Newcome, who inclined to the contrary
opinion, observes, “whoever wrote them, their divine authority is
established by the two quotations from them in the New Testament,
chaps. ix. 9, and xi. 12, 13.” See Matt. xxi. 5, and xxvii. 9–16,
and refer to Henderson’s “Minor Prophets,” where the question of
authorship is discussed, pp. 362—365, and decided in favour of
Zechariah.
[I.] Our purpose is not only to show that chaps. ix. and x. un-
doubtedly predict the future restoration and conversion of the twelve
tribes of Jacob, but also (and this is our especial object) that they
supply us with a remarkable index to Israel's great adversary in the
confederated armies, as predicted in Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., by assuring
us that identified with that confederacy will be found, either in a
national or a mystical sense, or both, a power denominated by
Zechariah Javan, which means, and, in Holy Scripture, always did
mean, the country still denominated by Europeans Greece. Greece,
in a territorial, or mystical sense, or both, Zechariah informs us will
be joined with the unholy confederacy of northern powers, against the
land and peace of restored Israel in these latter days. I shall com-
mence the investigation by endeavouring to give a synopsis of these
two chapters.
Chap. ix. 1–6. The prophet commences by foretelling God's judg-
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 283
ments upon Syria, through Damascus, and Hamath (Antioch), its
chief cities, and also upon the coasts of Palestine, through Tyre and
Sidon, and the cities of the Philistines, the inhabitants of all which
places, both Syrians and Philistines, were well-known enemies of the
Jews. He foretels these judgments in language which carries their
fulfilment into the times of Christianity, a fact which certainly has
been overlooked by some annotators, who, nevertheless, have very
decidedly settled the application, as they think, of these prophecies,
vers. 7, 8. In contrast with these judgments, he foretels God's
mercies towards the house of Israel, and that the strongholds of
Philistia should be recovered by Israel as completely as King David
expelled the Jebusite from the stronghold of Zion. A parallel seems
to be drawn between the exploits of the literal David (2 Sam. viii.),
and those yet to be accomplished by Messiah. These predictions, also,
are delivered in language which extend their completion to the times
of Christianity (vers. 9–11). The prophet, having thus predicted
the destruction of Israel's enemies, and the future safety and exalta-
tion of that people, in language which, though distantly, yet certainly,
describes the times of Messiah, immediately delivers, by a natural
sequence, another prediction, which, to Christians, notoriously
identifies the times of his predictions as those of Jesus Christ :—
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion ; shout, O daughter of Jerusa-
lem ; behold, thy King cometh unto thee; He is just, and having
salvation, lowly, and riding upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.”
(Matt. xxi. 5.) It will be seen that this prediction also embraces the
entire era of Christianity; so that, although the first part of it
(ver. 9) has been fulfilled, as we know, the rest (vers. 10, 11) yet
remains to be accomplished (vers. 12–17). The prophet, in these
verses, particularly describes the incidents of Israel's final deliverance,
the contest being described as one between Greece and Zion, in which
Zion, comparatively helpless as to natural resources, is delivered by a
supernatural manifestation of the power of God. As this extraordi-
nary part of the prophecy has customarily received another interpre-
tation, to it especially our attention must be directed ; and it will be
shown, I believe, that the prophecy has been previously misapplied.
Chap. x. may be considered a reiteration, and enlargement, of the
preceding. The victory of Israel over his enemies, the victory of a
representation of both houses, their progressing restoration, their
284 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
peaceful establishment in the Holy Land, and their conversion to
Christianity, are, in various ways, severally foretold.
[1..] It is plain that our first great object, in endeavouring to
understand this prophecy, should be, if possible, to satisfy ourselves
that the times of its accomplishment actually belong to the Christian
dispensation. For this purpose it will be necessary carefully to reflect
upon the various descriptions of these times, by which, as we think,
Zechariah authorizes us to apply the prophecy to them, and to con-
sider it, on that account, hitherto unfulfilled.
As regards the predictions of judgment upon Damascus and Hamath,
Tyre, Sidon, and the cities of the Philistines (chap. ix. 1–15), the
first idea which occurs to the mind is that they were fully accomplished
before the times of Christianity; that, for example, the punishment
of Tyre was inflicted through Alexander the Great, and that of the
cities of Philistia wrought, under God, by the Maccabees, to whose
times the commentators generally refer the prophecy. But (not at
present to dwell upon ver, 1—"When the eyes of man, as of all the
tribes of Israel, shall be towards the Lord”) the fact is not so ; for,
in times far later than those of the Maccabees, the cities of Philistia
yet remained cities of considerable pretensions, as Antioch and
Damascus yet remain in ours. For the character of the judgments
predicted should be carefully noticed. It is not simply that the power
of such cities should be reduced, or destroyed ; nor merely that they
should pass under the lordship, or dominion, of others ; nor yet that
they should be possessed or inhabited by a different people than
Syrians, or Philistines, whether such new possessors be Jews or
Gentiles; such was not the character of these predictions ; but that,
at least as regards some of these cities, they should be utterly devas-
tated, and one of them is specified in a peculiar manner :—“Ashkelon
shall not be inhabited.” (Ver, 5.) Let it, therefore, be readily
admitted that these judgments began to be accomplished in times
antecedent to Christianity, even by Alexander, or by the Maccabees;
still, if we can show that, only in one instance, they had not yet been
fully accomplished in times lying within the Christian dispensation,
that one instance will be sufficient to prove that the prophetic mind
travelled on into that ara of the world to which we are arguing these
predictions must be referred.
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 285
Thus Dr. Keith, speaking of Ashkelon, and referring to the passage
before us, observes (“Evidences from Prophecy,” pp. 367–369):—
“Each of these cities, Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod, was the See of
a Bishop, from the days of Constantine to the invasion of the Saracens.
And, as a decisive proof of their existence as cities long subsequent
to the delivery of the predictions, it may be further remarked that
different coins of each of these very cities are extant, and are copied
and described in several accounts of ancient coins.” For authority he
refers to Reland's “Palestine.” And, continuing to speak of Ashkelon
particularly, he says, “Set down by name, tenantless as it is, it was
long otherwise with Ashkelon than with many of the unarmed cities
of the land of Israel, of which we never read that they withstood a
foe after the Romans besieged the Jews in all their gates. A reiterated
account need not be here given of the beauty, as well as the strength
of that celebrated fortress, or of the most famous of its sieges, when
it long resisted and repelled the power of the combined host of the
Crusaders, by sea and land, and yielded at last “on honourable terms,”
when the consuming flames—of which the fuel was laid by the
besieged for the destruction of a fort laid against it—made a breach in
the wall which proved the death-bed of the assailing Templars. Dis-
mantled, and renewed, again and again, in the days of Saladin of
Egypt, and Richard of England, its fortifications were at length
utterly destroyed by Sultan Bibars, in the year 1270.”
Thus, therefore, it is clear that, so late even as the year A.D. 1270,
a part of Zechariah's prophecy before us had not been fulfilled ; and
that, therefore, Zechariah, by these very predictions of judgment
upon the coast of Philistia, carries us down into the Christian era;
no matter what other parts of the prophecy be supposed to have been
previously fulfilled. This is what we are engaged in proving ; and
some suspicion of the kind appears to have occurred to Archbishop
Newcome, though for a different purpose:–“For where do we find
Damascus destroyed from Zachary's to our Saviour's time 2 For to
come under the hands of new masters, or suffer some description of
pillaging, doth not seem to satisfy the intent of the prophecy. And,
for the Philistines, though it be true that Alexander destroyed Gaza
(because it held out long against him, and he was wounded there), yet
it appears not that any such desolation befel Ashkelon, whereby it
should not be inhabited, or Ashdod.” (“Minor Prophets,” p. 195.)
286 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
[2.] But this prophecy of judgment upon Israel's enemies extends
through the first eight verses of chap. ix., and, in the course of it,
the prophet employs two particular modes of description, by which he
shows that times even yet to come are predicted.
First, is the following:—“When the eyes of man, as well as of
all the tribes of Israel, shall be towards the Lord.” (Chap. ix. 1.)
The Hebrew is bsiº "tºº %) Bº Ty nin': º, of which
the translation from the English Version is given above, and is, we
believe, correct. However, it is attempted to say the Hebrew may
be thus translated :—“For the eyes of the Lord are upon man as
well as upon all the tribes of Israel.” An interpretation, of which
Lowth and Henry admit the possibility, but reject it ; while Scott
appears to consider it unworthy of notice: and, indeed, may it not be
questioned whether such a rendering be permissible 2 The highest
modern authority that can be cited for it is Gesenius. He alludes to
the place at p. 1,018 of his “Thesaurus,” and interprets it thus:—
“Iovae est oculus in homines, et omnes tribus Israelis "-The Lord's
eye is upon man, and all the tribes of Israel—and directly explains his
interpretation thus:—“Oculus ejus defixus est in Israelitas et reliquos
populos; illis benè cupit, his malê "—His eye is fixed upon the
Israelites, and other people; upon those (the Israelites) for favour,
upon these (the Gentiles) for chastisement. We see at once that,
supposing this rendering to be perfectly correct, then Gesenius's
authority at once supports the conclusion we are seeking, for he
interprets the passage, “The Lord's eye is favourably directed upon
all the tribes of Israel;” and therefore we say the prophecy is unful-
filled, for, since Zechariah's days, all the tribes of Israel have never
experienced the favour of God.
But whoever refers to Gesenius will find that his manner of alluding
to this passage is by no means clear or satisfactory. He is explaining
Tº under the head oculus, when it is used in mediate construction ;
bs by, or 5, following in such expressions as by Ty Fir he turned
the eye upon—any object. Hence in the whole clause “ oculus e.” the
use of one of these particles to mark the direction of TY is implied;
it is the very use of the word Gesenius is dealing with. He then
abruptly introduces Zech. ix. 1, in which no such particle is used to
indicate any direction of 77.9 eye towards PTS man, the direction
which the proposed translation implies; and he does so for the purpose
f
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 287
of showing that the ideas “benevolentiae et malevolentiae” are included
in the same use of TV in this particular passage. But the passage is
utterly wanting (according to Gesenius's own interpretation “ in
homines,” &c.) in the very characteristic which alone would justify its
being placed among such examples, viz., the insertion of one of the
particles above mentioned to mark the direction of 7% towards BTS;
and Gesenius gives no reason, either by supposing an ellipsis of the
particle, or otherwise, for his nevertheless placing the passage among
them ; neither does he produce any similar example. On this account,
I doubt whether this place, in his “Thesaurus,” can carry entire
conviction to the mind.
Newcome, indeed, informs us, in his “Minor Prophets,” p. 195,
that “Houbigant supplies by before PTS;” and he himself suggests
3, adding that “thus the sense is agreeable to the ancient versions,
and Chaldee, where we find ‘For the Lord seeth men,’ &c., “For
the sons of man are manifest to the Lord,' &c.” But I reject both
Houbigant's suggestion and his own, because I shall show that the
passage has a particle marking the direction of 7” the eye towards
Tijri. The Lord, consistently with Biblical usage; PTS and lºg stand
together in what is termed by Lee definite construction, proving that
the Tº here mentioned is the property of ETS. (See Lee's “Gram.,”
p. 290.)
Of the use of these particles ‘’s 2 by, and 3, as marking the
direction of the eye towards its object, there are, of course, abundant
examples; for instance, ”s , in Ps. xxxiv. 15, czzi. 1, czli. 8 ; Isa.
xvii.7; Ezek. xviii. 6; &c, &c.; by, Ezra v. 5; Ps. Xxxiii. 18;
Jerem. xvi. 17 : Zech. xii. 4, &c., &c.; and 2, Ruth ii. 9; Job
vii. 8 ; Mic. iv. 11 ; Amos ix. 8, &c., &c. But there is another
particle also so used, and carefully used, by Zechariah, in chap. ix. 1,
for this very purpose ; that particle is h, and the following are clear
examples:– “O Lord, are not thine eyes upon the truth P”—
rººps. (Jerem. v. 3); and, “Mine enemy sharpeneth his eye
wpon me * * . What need to suppose the ellipsis of a particle 2
what need to wrest 7% from PTS, and the subsequent clause, to
which it naturally belongs 2 when Zechariah has, by a Biblical use of
the particle º, marked the direction he intended for 72.9 :—“For
towards the Lord is the eye of man and of all the tribes of Israel.”
Take more examples. Noldius, p. 396, “Concord. Part.:”—“Hearken
unto the voice of my cry, my King and my God.” (Ps. v. 2.)
288 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
“Behold the eye of the Lord is upon (bs) them that fear Him ; upon
(?) them that hope in his mercy.” (Ps. xxxiii. 18.) Where * and 78
are used similarly. “I will cry unto God most high, unto God that
performeth all things for me.” (Ps. lvii. 2.) “Look well to thy
herds ; ” º Tຠnº set thine heart to (Prov. xxvii. 23); “To the
law and to the testimony, if they speak not,” &c. (Isa. viii. 20);
“Yea, in the way of thy judgments, O Lord, have we waited for
thee; the desire of our souls is to thy name, and to the remembrance
of thee.” (Isa. xxvi. 8.) Thus, by examining Noldius, we find that
in Biblical usage the direction of the eye, the ear, the voice, the
affections, &c., &c., to their object, are denoted by the prefix * before
it ; and he specifically mentions our example, Zech. ix. 1, among
them —FTS Ty Tintº “To, or towards, the Lord the eye of man.”
For such reasons I venture to reject the proposed reading, “For the
eyes of the Lord are upon man,” &c., and to follow Lowth and Noldius
in adopting the Authorized Version, “When the eyes of man, as well
as of all the tribes of Israel, are towards the Lord.” So, too,
Henderson:—“But it is more natural to regard 7"y in construction
with "ah b'is. The reference will then be to the effect produced
upon the minds of others, as well as of the Israelites, by the success
and progress of the army of Alexander. Apprehensive of danger,
they should be compelled to look to Jehovah alone for deliverance.”
(“Minor Prophets,” p. 407.) And Munster —“Futurum quoquë
dicit Propheta ut illo tempore oculi omnium hominum, et non tantüm
Israelitarum, respiciant ad Dominum, et abjiciant cuncta idola.”
(“Crit. Sacr.”) And similarly Watablus. Surely the rendering is
sufficiently supported ; and it follows that, since Zechariah describes
the era of his prophecy’s fulfilment as one when all the tribes of
Israel, and mankind at large (PTS, as at Isa. ii. 22), will look unto
God in accepted faith, therefore the prophecy is not yet fulfilled ; for
since Zechariah's days, all the tribes of Israel have not looked unto
the Lord in the manner implied. We may take Henderson's idea, if
we please, “Look to Jehovah alone for deliverance ;” it is the direc-
tion of the eye to Jehovah, in faithful expectation and prayer.
[3] There is another slight variation between the renderings of
this passage, which should be noticed. Some translate it, “The eyes
of man, even of all the tribes of Israel, are towards the Lord,” thus
making man to be only equivalent to all the tribes. Henry and Lowth
. AND conversion of THE JEws. 289
-z –. . . —- r = 1 -º-º:-- . 1 --- •. -- . ;---- ~~~~~rrº-rºscºw-rºw ºx-- ~ : -- ºver-gº-º-ºwr-a-gº-rº T.
take it thus ; but Gesenius, as we have seen, renders it “reliquos
populos,” taking man to indicate people other than the Israelites; to
which Henderson agrees. Gesenius seems to understand by it the
enemies of Israel, but that was almost a consequence of the error in
his interpretation just explained. The word PTS seems to be used
here in its sense of mankind:—“Collective de genere humano”
(Fürst); of which many examples may be found:—“When the eye
of all mankind, as well as of all the tribes of Israel, shall be towards
the Lord.” A similar use of PTS is at Isa. ii. 22, just referred to:—
“Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils; for wherein is
he to be accounted of?” -
This is an observation of importance, for it describes the time when
Zechariah's prophecy will be fulfilled, as then, when the eyes of the
Gentiles, and of all Israel also, will be toward the Lord. But the eyes
of the Gentiles are towards the Lord in Christ, and never are, or can
be, scripturally otherwise ; into the Church of Christ, and not until
after his exaltation, were the Gentiles called ; then only they began
to look to the Lord; hence the verse is at once an assertion of Christ's
divinity (for the word used is Tim), and also amounts to a prediction
of the conversion of all Israel; hence also, again, the prophecy
remains yet unfulfilled; for all the tribes are to look to the Lord, as
the Gentiles look, viz., towards God in Christ, “which may denote
that the troubles would continue until the coming of Christ, when the
eyes of men in general, as of all the tribes of Israel, would be fixed
upon the true God.” Thus Scott perceived that the language carries
us into the Christian dispensation, and, therefore, that the prophecy
cannot be limited, as commentators have limited it, to the times of
Alexander, the Maccabees, and such folk.
[4] Again, we know that the prophecy is unfulfilled from chap.
x. 4: “Out of him (i.e., Judah) shall come forth the corner, out of
him the nail, out of him the battle bow, out of him every oppressor
- together.” “Out of him shall come forth,” so also by Lowth. It is
clearly a prediction of some kind of blessing to Israel. Lowth admits
this, but (like others) interprets “out of him " to mean “out of God,”
or owing to God's favour, the Jews are furnished with the corner, the
nail, the battle bow, the oppressor; for he clearly admits that those
several titles must be referred to one class of gifts beneficial to Israel.
This necessarily involved a change of the word “oppressor,” which
U
290 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
could indicate no blessing at all. Accordingly he informs us that,
“As the Greek word Túpavvos was at first equivalent in signification
to a king, but afterwards degenerated into a worse denomination,” So
the Hebrew tº usually signifies an “oppressor,” but is sometimes
taken in a general sense for prince or governor. But unfortunately
the cases of ripavvos and tº are not by any means parallel. For
tº never “ degenerated into a worse denomination,” nor could it, for
it was “at first equivalent” simply to oppressor, and that in a sense
most hateful to the Israelites. It is ever used thus in the Pentateuch,
“task-masters,” &c., &c. (Exod. iii. 7; v. 6, 10, 13, 14.) Nor is it
ever used elsewhere for governors or princes in a good sense ; but
governors, and princes, and generals may become oppressors; and
therefore the word may sometimes stand for them in a bad sense.
The word occurs in various forms altogether twenty-two times in the
Hebrew, and always in a bad sense. (See Fürst, “Concord,” p. 680.)
I therefore reject the emendation of Lowth, Newcome, and Hender-
son; each of whom would render it simply “ruler ; ” or, if more than
that, ruler in a good sense. Take a few examples:—Job, the most
ancient user of the term, says of the wild ass, “He scorneth the
multitude of the city, neither regardeth he the crying of the driver.”
(Chap. ix. 7.) Again, “There the wicked cease from troubling, and
the weary are at rest; there the prisoners rest together, they hear not
the voice of the oppressor.” The instances in Exodus are familiarly
known. Again (2 Kings xxiii. 35), “He taxed the land to give the
money according to the commandment of Pharaoh ; he eacacted the
silver and the gold of the people of the land.” So I Sam. xiii. 6, and
xiv. 24, “The people were distressed” by the Philistines, and hid
themselves in caves, &c., &c.; “the men of Israel were distressed that
day, for Saul had adjured the people, saying, Cursed,” &c. And
again (Isaiah liii. 7), “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he
opened not his mouth.” Similarly Isaiah ix. 4; Dan. xi. 20, a “raiser
of taxes,” which Gesenius quotes, and places Zech. ix. 8 beside it,
(See “Thesaurus,” p. 851,) taking the two similarly. The references
given by Gesenius are Isaiah iii. 12; xiv. 2.; lx. 17; and our Zech.
x. 4, rendered in the first two cases oppressors, in the third exactors,
i.e., these three in a bad sense, as the context requires; and the fourth
(Zech. x. 4) is understood similarly. So Drusius, “Exactor, qui
fructus praediorum, nomina et pecuniam, vel qui tributum exigat,
q.d. Liberabitur a jugo Gentium. Wel exactor, i.e., oppressor; nam
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 291
2.5 etiãm opprimere significat, wn'; .” (“Crit. Sacr.”) Fürst's
Mefinition should also be referred to. The passage quoted by Lowth
and by Newcome, viz., Isaiah lx. 17, as though the word were there
used merely for ruler, is evidently misapprehended by them: “make
their ea'actors righteousness,” they would understand the word here
as meaning princes or governors generally; whereas the force of the
passage is, make even bad princes, even wicked governors, who would
oppress even like Egyptian taskmasters, make even them righteous-
ness. This view is not opposed to the Chaldee, which, alluded to by
Lowth, here renders the word Tºi by Titº thy princes.
If, then, as Lowth admits, and we believe, the verse predicts
blessing to Israel, and if, as is undoubtedly the case, tº is here
correctly rendered oppressor, it follows that “out of him.” cannot
mean “out of God,” but “out of Judah ; ” “out of Judah shall come
forth the fortress, the commander, the implement of war, out of him
every oppressor and means of oppression together.” The truth is,
Zechariah uses the word twice in the course of this prophecy, viz.,
chap. ix. 8, and x. 4, and in each verse to a similar purpose: “I will
encamp about my house because of the army, because of him that
passeth by, and because of him that returneth ; and no oppressor shall
pass through them any more.” Lowth perceiving it to be a prediction
of blessing, refers it to Judas Maccabeus and such men, adding, that
the word translated corner, means sometimes prince or leader; and
that translated nail signifies any person on whom others have a
dependance, as also the public settlement of a state ; and then (that
the passage may square) he alters oppressor to mean commander in
a good sense. Thus he admits the four words, corner, nail, battle-
bow, and oppressor refer to the same class of blessings for Israel, but,
as we have shown, misinterprets and improperly alters oppressor.
Oppressor is used in a bad sense, therefore nail, corner, battle-bow are
in a bad sense; and the blessing promised is that these curses shall
be made to come out, to quit, Judah for ever. The fact that oppressor
must be taken in the bad sense assigned to it by our Authorized
Version will also serve to point out a strange inaccuracy of Scott's.
He refers corner and nail to the Lord Jesus Christ : “This may be
applied to Christ, the corner-stone and the uniting nail of his Church.”
But this is impossible, for the promise is of blessing, viz., that every
oppressor shall come out of Judah and be got rid of; and if this be
so, then in whatever sense the oppressor comes out, in that same

U 2
292 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Christ comes out of Judah, i.e., to be got rid of, which is impossible.
M. Henry is best upon the passage, but he loses sight of the character
of the verse as a prediction of blessing, and treats it merely as an
assertion of a fact. .
In the various renderings with which we meet of the words
translated corner and nail there is no material difference. All agree
in effect that they mean here the chief supports, military or civil,
of a state. “A community is often expressed by an edifice or
building, and the corresponding parts expressed by the same name.
Hence as the largest stones or timbers are used in the angles to bind
together and strengthen the sides of the building which meet them as
a common centre, so the angle or corner metaphorically denotes the
chief personage in a community on whom its strength and security
chiefly depend. Accordingly we find niñº, properly corners,
rendered chief in our English version (Judg. xx. 2; 1 Sam. xiv. 38),
and in Isaiah xix. 13, they that are the stay; in the margin, governors;
and Bishop Lowth, chief pillars. Therefore by Tຠhere may be
understood the commander-in-chief.” (Blayney in loco, quoted by
Faber, “Rest. of Jews,” vol. ii., p. 270.) The application of the
passage seems to depend upon the interpretation of oppressor as
governor, whether it be in a good or bad sense. If it be in a bad
sense (and I really believe there is no room to doubt it), then in no
way can such a governor come out of the Lord to bring blessing to
Judah ; and, therefore, “out of him " means not out of God, but out
of Judah himself: and the passage runs thus, “Out of Judah shall
come forth the leaders of his enemies, out of him the implements of
war, out of him every oppressor together ; ” and I take Zech. x. 4,
and Zech. ix. 10 (where the same npriºr nºr bow of battle is
mentioned), and Zech. ix. 8 (where the same tº oppressor, is
mentioned), to be predictions referring to the same times, and not
either of them to be spirited away, as Dr. Henderson would dispose of
chap. ix. 10, in his “Minor Prophets,” p. 411. Out of Ephraim and
out of Judah, out of the whole land of Israel is to be utterly removed
every oppression and means of oppression in the times to which the
prophet alludes. These times cannot be those of the Maccabees, or
any which have yet elapsed. Ever since Zechariah's time oppressors
and oppression have been the characteristic curses of Israel and his
land—the days of the Maccabees and Maccabeans themselves not
excepted. Palestine has ever been, and will be, until this prophecy is
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 293
fulfilled, the land of strongholds, and battlements, and munitions of
war and oppressors. But Zechariah predicts a time yet to come when
all these will come out of Judah together.
[5.] It is also to be noticed that in the deliverance thus predicted,
he associates Judah and Ephraim together: “And I will cut off the
chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle-
bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen : and
his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river even to the
ends of the earth.” (Chap. ix. 10.) “When I have bent Judah for
me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion,
against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty
man.” (Wer. 13.) “And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and
Save the house of Joseph; and I will bring them again to place them;
for I have mercy upon them; and they shall be as though I had not
cut them off: for I am the Lord their God, and will hear them. And
they of Ephraim shall be,” &c., &c. (Chap. x. 6.) Zechariah uses
the name Ephraim only in this prophecy, but that three times, and
synonymously with house of Joseph at chap. x. 6. He also dis-
tinguishes between Israel and Judah, as the kingdom of the ten and
the kingdom of the two, at chap. i. 19 ; viii. 13; and xi. 14; so that
we cannot doubt but his meaning for Ephraim is sufficiently defined,
and that he expresses by it the house or kingdom of the ten tribes.
But at Zechariah's time, and since Zechariah's time, these ten tribes
have never been restored nor reunited to Judah. At the times of the
Maccabees they were not so, and a careful inspection of the history of
these Maccabees will show that during these times not only the
people of Ephraim is not referred to, but that the land of Ephraim is
singularly undistinguished, or, rather, that it was discreditably
distinguished; yet to the Maccabean times it has been the evil fashion
to refer this prophecy
But I maintain it is clear that, whenever this prophecy shall be
fulfilled, a restoration of Ephraim and Judah, i.e., a competent repre-
sentation of both houses will have taken place, and that there will then
be battlements, and implements of war, and leaders, and oppressors
against them in their own land, but to be driven out of it once and
for ever. This is that very thing which is continually insisted on all
through the prophecy; and this is that in which Greece is involved,
and from which the Lord himself delivers his people. Hence another
294, NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
proof that Zechariah is foretelling times yet to come, is found in these
predictions combining Ephraim and Judah, but particularly at chap.
ix. 12–17, where he describes the time as one when “I have bent
Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons,
O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece;" and that day “when the Lord
shall save them as the flock of his people ; ” the one united flock of
his whole people. My object is at present to determine the time or
era for this prophecy's accomplishment, without yet dwelling particu-
larly either upon the nature of the predictions or the persons against
whom they may have been uttered. Whatever, then, may be the
accurate interpretation of this prophecy, it seems plain that, whenever
it shall be fulfilled, a fair representation of both houses, viz., of Israel
and Judah, embodied into one people, will be stirred up to war against
certain other people constituting a power under the title or denomina-
tion, Greece. For the prophet first of all specifies Judah and
Ephraim, the two and the ten, severally and apart, and he then
intimates their union in action as a people by the comprehensive
terms, “flock of his people,” and “thy sons, O Zion,” where Zion is
an unity opposed to Greece similarly used. But up to the present
time the history of Israel affords us no fulfilment of this prophecy.
Since Zechariah's time, Ephraim has never been restored; Judah
and Ephraim have never been joined together, neither have the Jews
nor any section of them waged war with the power known as Graecia
in the Holy Bible. Greece means, biblically, the power identified
with that same territory which Xerxes once invaded and Alexander
ruled; with such a power never did the Jews, or the Israelites, nor
any nation of them wage war, much less conquer them ; and the
contentions with the Syrians, so disastrous to the Jews, do not fulfil
the conditions of success here predicted to united Israel by Zechariah.
The power of the Syrian kings was not identified with Biblical
Greece, but with a territory perfectly distinct from it. Since
Zechariah's time, no successes in battle have attended the Jews at all
except the brief successes of the Maccabees, which are matters of
history easily accessible, and will be shown to have been unduly
referred to by commentators; those successes, however, were not
gained against Graecia, nor by Judah and Ephraim together. And
hence, again, I conclude this prophecy is not yet fulfilled.
[6] The prediction at chap. x. 6 deserves particular attention :
~~~~~~~-war--- - - -----------, - ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- - -
* -- - - , * ~~~~... = ~~~...~~~~. . .
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. - 295
“And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the
house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them ;
for I have mercy upon them ; and they shall be as though
I had not cast them off: for I am the Lord their God, and
will hear them.” I will bring them again to place them, or rather,
I will cause them to dwell. There is some difficulty about the word
Friºn as “a mixed form, supposed by Kimchi, Abarbanel, and
some others to have been artificially compounded of Fºnºtºrſ, the
Hiphil of Bht to return, and B-Figin , the Hiphil of atp: to sit, or
dwell, in order to express in one word both verbs as used by Jeremiah
—nº Rºngjin, nºn Ripºn's Bºnhºrn (chap. xxxii. 37):
but it is far more probable that the word is a corruption of FFPºiri,
introduced through inadvertence by some transcriber.” (Henderson's
“Minor. Proph,” p. 416.) Newcome having before informed us that
the Targum, Syriac, and Vulgate support the present reading, while
several MSS., with four printed editions, use Bºrigin, which, as
Henderson observes, the LXX. supports by Katouceſ). With M.
Henry on a former occasion we may say, “It comes all to one,” for
they who are to be thus restored will assuredly be settled; be restored
to continue restored in peace ; but I have preferred the latter render-
ing, and would translate the word cause them to dwell, i.e., peacefully
and continuously in the land. I take Zechariah's promise here to be
precisely equivalent to that at Ezek, xxxvi. 11 (see p. 32, suprā):
“I will settle you after your old estates,” where the word used is
really ºpini, as supported for this passage by the Septuagint. So
Calvin upon the passage, “Those who minutely consider the rules of
grammar say that the word is a compound, and means that God would
not only restore the ten tribes, but also make them to dwell, i.e., give
them a fixed habitation in their country.”
I regard these predictions (Ezek. xvi. 11; Zech. x. 6; and Ezek.
xxxvii. 14), “And I shall place you in your own land,” as exactly
correspondent to each other. "Frºſſ) and I will place you, i.e., cause
you to rest ; lay up as an offering before me—place acceptably before
me like the Mincha—an illustration to which I hope to refer again ;
and I anticipate the complete fulfilment of these predictions in the
tribal allocation of all Israel, according to Ezek. xlviii., not until the
complete and final overthrow of his last foe in Palestine. As regards
Ezek. xxxvii. 14, the word there translated “place them,” is used in
various forms and combinations in the Hebrew Scriptures, and its
invariable force is to place in a given state and leave so, to lay up the
296 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
priest's garments, the king, and set down an offering, &c., &c.; but I
shall quote one prediction from a prophecy in which Old Babylon and
her fate are types of another Babel of irreligion, with its legion of
errors and black lies, in which the word employed there by Ezekiel
is used with precisely similar force by Isaiah : “For the Lord will
have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in
their own land ; and the strangers shall be joined unto them, and they
shall cleave to the house of Jacob. And the people shall take them,
and bring them to their place ; and the house of Israel shall possess
them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids; and they
shall take them captives whose captives they were ; and they shall
rule over their oppressors. And it shall come to pass in the day that
the Lord shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and
from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve.” (Chap.
xiv. 1–3.) A prediction wherein both forms of the same word are
used for “set them,” and “give thee rest; ” and where, I doubt not,
Isaiah predicts deliverance from the same oppressors (Etº) àS
Zechariah in the prophecy before us, as well as that by “In the land
of the Lord,” Isaiah meant the same land, at the same time, as Ezekiel
by “my land,” in chap. xxxviii. 16, already treated of.
However, “it comes all to one ; ” we have here, in Zech. x. 6, the
well-known type of an unfulfilled prediction of blessing to all Israel.
Whatever be the precise interpretation of the word above referred to,
the fact is that the two houses, Judah and Joseph, the two and the
ten, are distinctly included in this prediction, and to both it is foretold
they shall again be restored and dwell together in their own land ;
that they shall fight together against their common enemies in their
own land, and “tread them down as the mire of the streets in the
battle.” We know well that this has never yet been fulfilled. For,
as proved from other data, the two houses have never been restored ;
neither the two houses, nor one of them, has ever been restored in a
restoration to which successful warfare against their enemies was
necessary; nor has either of them been restored to remain in Pales-
tine “as though God had never cast them off.” As for Dr. Hender-
son's statement (“Min. Proph,” p. 416, on Zech. x. 6), “It is clear
from the reference thus made, that part, if not most, of all the tribes
returned and took possession of their patrimonial lands after the
captivity.” It is a mere assumption of a question that must be
proved, if at all, from other premises ; it assumes that this prophecy
fias been fulfilled, which we entirely deny ; but, moreover, such an
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 297
observation is valuable for this, that it admits all the tribes are
included in the prophecy, and also that the force of the language
implies several and patrimonial allocation.
III.] We submit that the arguments contained in the above six
divisions are conclusive to show that these chapters of Zechariah
contain a prophecy relating to all the tribes of Israel, which has yet to
be fulfilled ; and having determined this, proceed to notice the nature
of the predictions delivered. To this end it may be remarked that
passages already quoted for the purpose of establishing the era during
which the prophecy will be fulfilled, may also be justly employed
to distinguish the character of the events predicted, and that our
business now is to extract from the whole of these two chapters all the
information we can concerning the great events which Zechariah has
assured us yet remain to be accomplished. We observe, there-
fore, -
[1..] Zechariah states as explicitly as possible, that the predicted
blessings are to be upon all the sons of Jacob. For which purpose
he adopts, like other prophets, various expressions calculated to
describe the tribes severally as formerly divided into two great
bodies, and also collectively as forming properly one people or nation.
The very first description he gives of the times referred to is, “When
the eyes of man, as of all the tribes of Israel, shall be toward the
Lord.” Some, as noticed at p. 288, would read, “even of all,” but this
makes no difference in the present argument; all agree that all the
tribes are included. Tribes peculiarly, for Zechariah, like Ezekiel, at
chap. xxxvii. 19, uses the word bat?, whose proper force is that
division or clan of the people Israel under the guiding rod of one
chieftain, which in our version is called a tribe. And he also
describes the restored people as once more distinguishable in their
two former great divisions: “When I have bent Judah for me, filled
the bow with Ephraim.” “I will strengthen the house of Judah, and
will save the house of Joseph.” “And they of Ephraim shall be like
a mighty man; ” from which three it follows that he predicts the
restoration of all the tribes as formerly constituting two separate
kingdoms; for we know from the Book of Hosea (see p. 126 suprā)
298 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
that by the terms Joseph and Ephraim, as here used, the prophets
intended those ten tribes which revolted from Rehoboam under the
son of Nebat (1 Kings xii.), and Zechariah's usage has been shown at
p.293, to correspond with Hosea's in this respect. This distinction of
the twelve tribes into two great divisions as of old, seems to imply a
correspondent division or allotment of territory, just as noticed on
other prophecies, e.g., Jerem. xxx. and xxxi., and thus prepares us to
reason that, if the two grand divisions be admitted, the twelve minor
(that is, tribal) divisions follow as a matter of course, to be bound up
into one compact body, like the twelve minor prophets,<-a witness, but
also a living witness, of the truth and power of God in the marvellous
fulfilment of his ancient prophecies. Calvin is a commentator we
avoid quoting much, but I cannot help observing here how the truth
concerning Israel occasionally dawned upon him, notwithstanding his
strong repugnance to believe in a national future for them, e.g., on
chap. x. 7, 8, “He speaks of Ephraim alone, not because he deserved
to be honoured, but because the return of the ten tribes was an event
more incredible.” The reader will not fail to notice this admission on
Calvin's part that the ten did not return with Zechariah and Ze-
rubbabel. Again, “The prophet at the same time intimates that
Christ would be the head of the Church, and would gather from all
parts of the earth the Jews who had been before scattered ; and thus
the promised restoration is to be extended to all the tribes.” (“Com-
ment on Zechar,” Cal. Trans. Soc. Ed., vol. v., p. 295.) And yet
Calvin did not believe in the future glorious destiny of Israel !
But though Zechariah distinguishes, like other prophets, the two
anciently hostile houses, he also, like them, intimates that when his
prophecy shall be fulfilled, they will “no more be two nations, neither
shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.” (Ezek.
xxxvii. 22.) He describes them as united into one, and co-operating
in successful warfare against their enemies. So Newcome on chap.
ix. 13, “a strong and sublime manner of expressing that God would
use Judah and Ephraim as his instruments of destruction.” “And
raised up thy Sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece ; ” where it is
impossible not to see that Israel's power, as Zion's, is marshalled
against another termed Greece; and that thus the sons of Zion
compose one power against Greece; Judah and Ephraim, the two and
the ten, members of both houses, forming an unity, comprehended
under one direction or government. And in the same verse this idea
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. . 299
of unity of action is carried out by the phrase, “make thee the sword
of the mighty man.” Such considerations are sufficient to show us
that the restoration of Israel foretold by Zechariah, which is, more-
over, before the conversion, embraces both houses of Israel, as forming
one united political power or people.
[2] And in those extraordinary events yet to come, Jerusalem,
the very city itself, shall as of old play a prominent part. As
Jeremiah foretold (chap. xxx. 18), “And the city shall be builded
upon her own heap,” so Zechariah predicts that the site of that city
shall be the scene of some of the most important events he describes.
“I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusa-
lem.” (Chap. ix. 10.) “As for thee also, by the blood of thy
covenant” (ver. 11), where he addresses Jerusalem, and alludes to the
covenant made with the daughter of Zion and ratified with the blood
of victims ; and similar allusion to Jerusalem lies in the expression,
“Thy sons, O Zion.” We shall presently take occasion to show that
the allusion to Jerusalem is, in fact, of a most extraordinary character;
meanwhile, we merely notice that, in addition to the divisional
restoration previously described, Zechariah individualizes also the
chief city Jerusalem itself.
And Zechariah otherwise specifies the territorial possessions of
restored Israel, and in a manner which again assures us his prophecy
has never been accomplished. For we have already noticed at p. 285
that historical facts convince us that even the judgments predicted
(chap. ix. 1–8) upon Syria and the coasts of Palestine reached far
into the years of the Christian dispensation—indeed, close upon the
end of the middle ages; and hence there is nothing unreasonable nor
unscriptural in the supposition that, besides any judgments which
have already been inflicted upon them during that age, Syria, through
Damascus, and Antioch, and Philistia, and Tyre, and Zidon, as
indicative of the coasts of Palestine, may even again, when this
prophecy shall be completely fulfilled, be involved in judgments of a
similar character from the hand of God. That the isles or coasts of
Palestine will be the scene of terrible judgments during Gog's
confederacy we have shown, p. 231, suprā:—“I will send a fire on
Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles” (Ezek.
xxxix. 6); and even yet the burden of the Lord's wrath may lie
heavily also upon the chief cities of Syria, such as Damascus and
300 NoTES ON THE RESTORATION
Antioch, or Hamath (carefully preserved cities of Eastern importance)
even in these latter days, to which I have shown Zechariah's prophecy
belongs; like Ezekiel's Gog and Magog, with which I shall show it
coincides. The possession, at least, of the coasts of Philistia is
carefully promised to Israel at chap. ix. 7: “He that remaineth, even
he shall be for God, and he shall be as a familiar friend (*s) in
Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite.” As at Ps. lv. 14: “But it was
thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance.”
"yº Bºs my familiar and known (friend). And Micah vii. 5;
“Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide; keep the
doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom.” Trust not in a
familiar ñºs? . (See Lee’s “Lex.,” p. 33.) The correct interpretation
of which seems to be that, as David the son of Jesse took the strong-
hold of the Jebusites and conquered the Philistines (2 Sam. iv.), so in
the days of Messiah the real David, of which days Zechariah is
speaking, the coasts of Philistia shall be entirely possessed by the sons
of restored Israel, and they who once held them in subjection united
with Israel in bonds of the most holy friendship. We have seen in
Isaiah xi. 14, at p. 118, how curiously there is reason to think even
Philistines may be concerned in the restoration of Israel.
[3.] Zechariah, although he foretells the restoration of all the
tribes to their fatherland, and possession of it in completeness, declares
with equal distinctness that within that land, and after such restora-
tion, war awaits them, in which they will be personally and nationally
engaged—war, nevertheless, from which they will eventually be
victoriously delivered by special interposition of the Most High. “I
will encamp about mine house, because of the army, because of him
that passeth by, and because of him that returneth, and no oppressor
shall pass through them any more ; for now have I seen with mine
eyes.” (Chap. ix. 8.) Where the prophet plainly depicts the presence
in Palestine of a hostile army, in active operation, passing and
repassing—“military commotions,” as Lowth describes it, against
which the Lord declares He will encamp about his house—viz.,
Jerusalem, or even, perhaps, the place of his temple within it—for
the purpose of protection, and that the consequence of his interposition
will be, these oppressors of Israel, and all others, shall then be swept
away, once and for ever. And in this contention against the common
enemy, he styles Judah God's bow, and Ephraim the arrow.
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 301
“When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim,
and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and
made thee as the sword of a mighty man” (ver. 13), language
which, if its full force be admitted, not only compels us to include in
the contest against Greece, here described, sons of Judah and sons of
Ephraim—people of both houses, but also to regard Judah's as the
directing power in the contest, and Ephraim as merely the agent—i.e.,
that as the bow impels the arrow, so, in the contest with Greece, the
sons of Judah will fight, but also direct the fighting, or command,
while those of Ephraim will fight merely in subordination to Judah’s
authority. In other words, during the contest yet to take place
between Israel and her foes, the commanding or governing power
will be with the sons of Judah, while Ephraim, acknowledging this
authority cheerfully, fights under it, the Lord himself sustaining all,
and interposing to give the victory. It will be noticed that this is in
accordance with other prophecies already considered, upon which we
observed that precedence and priority in restoration belonged, in some
sense, to Judah—a conclusion which we shall yet be able to verify.
Obadiah has a prophecy precisely corresponding to these various
declarations of Zechariah : “But upon Mount Zion shall be deliver-
ance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess
their possessions. And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the
house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they
shall kindle in them, and devour them ; and there shall not be any
remaining of the house of Esau ; for the Lord hath spoken it. And
they of the south shall possess the mount of Esau ; and they of the
plain, the Philistines; and they shall possess the fields of Ephraim,
and the fields of Samaria : and Benjamin shall possess Gilead. And
the captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of
the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath ; and the captivity of Jerusalem,
which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south. And
saviours shall come up on Mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau ;
and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s.” (Obad., vers. 17–21.)
And compare the context. One would have thought that this
concluding sentence, “the kingdom shall be the Lord's,” would
have prevented commentators from handing poor Obadiah over to
the Maccabees; which, however, has been done : indeed, it is sur-
prising how useful the Maccabees have been to commentators. But
see Lowth's exposition. “Wer. 18: The Jews, when they are
302 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
restored to their own land, shall devour all their enemies that shall
give them any disturbance there. (See Isa. xi. 14; xxxi. 9; Joel
iii. 19 ; Micah v. 8 ; Zech. xii. 6; Ezek. xxxviii. 14—23.)” Thus
Lowth ; and so on to the end. Obadiah and Zechariah predict the
same events, and alike make the names of Philistines vehicles of
denunciations against Israel's enemies, to be fulfilled in the latter
days; and so Dr. Henderson. (Preface to Obad, 17–21.) “The
remaining portion foretells the restoration of the Jews, their peaceful
settlement in their own land, and the establishment of the kingdom of
Messiah.”
But although the sons of Israel will literally fight and conquer at
Jerusalem, the prophet continually insists upon it that their victory
will be so marvellous as undeniably to manifest the hand of the Most
High in their favour. This idea is continually repeated through the
chapters. For instance,—“And the Lord shall be seen over them,
and his arrow shall go forth like lightning ; and the Lord God shall
blow the trumpet, and go with whirlwinds of the south.” (Chap.
ix. 14.) Such a passage, however metaphorical, does, by the very
force of its metaphors, imply a wonderful interposition of Almighty
power on Israel's behalf. Again,-‘‘The Lord of Hosts shall defend
them; and they shall devour and subdue sling-stones” yºpºlis hººl
—viz., their enemies: who, under God's interposition on behalf of Israel,
shall be as contemptible and powerless to wound as sling-stones,
comparatively speaking, are. As David struck down the champion of
Philistia, and prevailed against him “with a sling and with a stone”
(1 Sam. xvii. 50), and by that very fact showed that the Lord was he
who fought for Israel, so the True David, in these days, when the
multitudinous host of the mystical Philistines is to be destroyed, will
enable his people to prevail against them, and evade and prostrate all
their warlike preparations, as though the real might of war was on
Israel's side, the weakness of preparation for defence on theirs. Dr.
Henderson, from Watablus, Clarius, and Drusius, very beautifully
points out that Israel's enemies as wºp-ºns sling-stones, coarse and
valueless, are contrasted with the sons of Israel as Tº"2PS gorgeous
crown-stones; crown-stones of sacred dedication at ver. 15 ; and
Gesenius, and Lee agree in explaining the expression, “subdue
sling-stones,” in one verse, to mean that their enemies shall be easily
turned aside or frustrated, being launched against them as uselessly
as sling-stones against the crocodile. “The arrow cannot make him
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 303
flee; sling-stones are turned with him into stubble.” (Job xli. 28.)
(See their Lexicons sub voce tºº?.) Again (ver. 16):—“The Lord
God shall save them in that day ;” or, “The Lord of Hosts hath
visited his flock, the house of Judah, and made them his goodly horse
in the battle” (chap. x. 3), i.e., The Lord himself hath fought in
them, and by their instrumentality. “They shall fight, because the
Lord is with them ;” i.e., but for that, their attempt at fighting would
be hopeless ; from all which it seems clear, that although the men of
Judah and Israel will yet fight again at Jerusalem, and conquer, yet
that their victory will be so wonderful, and so little to be anticipated,
as to constrain themselves and their enemies to acknowledge they are
delivered by a special interposition of the Almighty. All which agrees
with Ezekiel's description of Israel's helpless and unwarlike condition
at this time; and Gog shall say, “I will go up to the land of unwalled
villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of
them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates.”
(Ezek. xxxviii. 11.)
The nature of Israel's victory is described at chap. ix. 16:—“And
the Lord their God shall save them in that day, as the flock of his
people ; for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an
ensign upon the land,” nippianº raising themselves like a standard;
where the prophet represents Israel after victory elevated, and
willingly elevated, like a gorgeous crown of triumph, over their own
land, the land of God, and by that their victorious deliverance made
an ensign to attract their scattered brethren, from all quarters of the
world, to their proper land, now at last rescued, once and for ever,
from the persecution and power of all their foes. “The Lord God
has blown his trumpet” (ver. 14), and seized the ensign of his glorious
battle, even rescued Israel, against the armies of apostasy in the
Holy Land. Just so Isaiah —“All ye inhabitants of the world, and
dwellers on the earth, see ye when He lifteth up an ensign on the
mountains; and when He bloweth a trumpet, hear ye” (chap. xviii. 3);
using identical emblems of the same times; and there is no contradic-
tion between this idea, which places rescued, converted Israel, as a
standard to the nations, in the hand of Christ, and Isaiah's, which
makes Christ himself “an ensign.” (See Isa. xi. 10, and p. 117
supré.) Christ holding in salvation converted Israel is the twofold
ensign of the prophets. The victory over “Greece.” will be the last
Israel, as a nation, will ever require to obtain ; from that day and
304 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
forward they will be a people viewed with awe and admiration (see
p.258, suprā), for the nature of their exaltation at that day is declared.
It is as a crown of separation and dedication to Almighty God ; they
are exalted as gorgeous gems in a crown of royal priesthood ; they
are the resplendent jewels of the diadem of Christ, from that day a
King and Priest over Israel upon his throne—º";8. This
encircling Messiah in the glory of rescued Israel, of such an Israel,
overcome by truth and everlasting love, will be the ensign raised up
for the complete ingathering of the tribes, according to Isaiah's
promise:—“Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the
Lord, a diadem of beauty in the hand of thy God.” (Chap. lxii. 3.)
“The chief crown of glory of the Jewish nation, their future diadem
of beauty is the Lord Jesus Christ, the more precious from having
been so long unknown and despised, the more beloved from having
been so long in their sinful ignorance, and unbelieving blindness,
reviled by them, scorned, hated, and rejected by them.” (Bick. “Rest.
of Jews,” p. 75.) This sentiment is beautiful ; but the declaration of
the prophet is this, that the Jewish nation shall be the crown of
beauty, the royal diadem; God, in his condescending love, represents
Messiah as crowned by them, and not they by Him. (Compare the
context, Isa. lxii. 1–4.) Who shall say but Zechariah's double crown,
and the counsel of peace between them both, rightly indicates also that
glorious time when Messiah shall be crowned at Jerusalem, with Jew
and Gentile in one united Church, and He prove indeed “our peace,
who hath made both one, and broken down the middle wall of
partition between us” for ever (Zech. vi. 11—13 ; Ephes. ii. 14–18);
Jerusalem and her daughters, Samaria and her daughters, Sodom and
her daughters, restored to their former estate 2 (Ezek. xvi. 55.)
And yet such warfare, and such victory, has been referred to the
times of the Maccabees | Even Lowth says, on chap. x. 5, &c. :—
“This may be understood either of the Maccabees, or of the victories
which the Jews should obtain over their enemies in the latter times
(see chap. xii. 6), to which the following part of the chapter seems to
relate.” But Scott :—“These verses are in some things similar to
those considered in the former chapter, yet there are expressions
which can scarcely be applied to either of the events there mentioned.
Under Judas Maccabeus the Jews became indeed very formidable,
and trode down the forces of Antiochus as the mire in the streets ;
and, because the Lord was with them, his cavalry could not stand
AND conversIon of THE JEws. 305.
against them . . . . . . but what follows leads me to conclude that the
recovery of the Jews, and the whole house of Israel, from their
present dispersions, and future events for which that nation is reserved,
were predicted, and that it can only be accommodated to any of the
past affairs of Israel or of the Church.”
If the reader will have patience with me, I hope to make these
accommodations very inconvenient for commentators. Meanwhile, to
this part of the subject I shall only add Glassius's note on chap.
ix. 17:—“For how great is his goodness 1 and how great is his
beauty 1 corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the
maids”—Rºº make them eloquent —“Facundas faciet; nimirum
ad celebrandum nomen Domini, illudgue confessione serić propagandum
—ut Chald. vertit.” (“Philol. Sacr.,” p. 1,106.)
[III.] But now against whom do they fight 2 The answer is but
one for the whole prophecy—“AGAINST THY SONS, O GREECE.”
All the fighting of Israel here foretold is against an enemy denominated,
in some sense, Greece; the victory obtained is over Greece; the
interposition of the Almighty on Israel's behalf is against Greece.
What people, then, can be intended by Greece 2 Here we commence
the chief inquiry which Zechariah's prophecy suggests, and shall
endeavour to show that there can be no doubt as to one application of
the word Greece here employed ; and that, in fact, Zechariah foretels
an important element in that confederacy, of which Ezekiel had
prophesied before, and concerning whose component nations we shall
treat in the chapter following. But first I shall show that the prophecy
does not refer, as commonly supposed, to the victories of Maccabees
over the Syrians. -
[1..] Throughout the prophecy God's marvellous interposition on
Israel’s behalf is plainly described as accompanying the personal
efforts, or fighting, of themselves. Fighting Israel is delivered at
Jerusalem, because when he is fighting, the Lord marvellously
interferes. (See chaps. ix. 8, x. 13–16, and x. 5.) Two conditions
are therefore necessary to Israel's deliverance, as predicted by Zecha-
riah, viz., the fighting of Israel at Jerusalem, and also Almighty
X
306 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
interposition when he is so fighting, of which the immediate result is
final and effective victory for Israel. But under the Maccabees the
fighting, extraordinary as it was, never did deliver them, nor, though we
do not rely upon this, was that fighting at Jerusalem. That era of the
Maccabees, which alone deserves attention, is that of Judas, Jonathan,
Simon, and John Hyrcanus, extending only over sixty-two years,
viz., eleven for Judas, twelve for Jonathan, eight for Simon, and
thirty-one for John Hyrcanus, with which good man (according to
some) ended the holy Theocracy, or Divine government, of the
Jewish nation. (See “Jos. Antiq.,” B. 12, chap. xi.; B. 13, chap. vi.,
S. 5 ; chap. vii., S. 4; and chap. x., s. 6.) After John Hyrcanus
followed the profane Jewish monarchy, first of the Asmoneans, or
Maccabees, and then of Herod the Idumean, commonly called The
Great; and the whole period of sixty-four years between Hyrcanus's
death and Herod the Great (that is, a little more than half the whole
Maccabean era) was a constant succession of internal warfare, fightings,
and murders, chequered by the irruptions and oppressions of Arabians
and Parthians, but especially of the Romans under Pompey and
others, ending with Mark Antony. (Joseph., B. 13, chap. x., S. 7;
B. 14, chap. ii-iv., &c, &c.) The whole period, consequently, during
which we can pretend to seek for the fulfilment of Zechariah's prophecy
in Maccabean times is sixty-two years, divided into the four lives of
Judas, Jonathan, Simon, and John Hyrcanus.
Now, of Judas it may at once be said that he gained some extra-
ordinary victories, altogether sia. Make any admission required of
these victories, say they were perfectly miraculous (which, however,
would not be true)—what then P He did not succeed. The result
shews he was beaten; for the citadel of Jerusalem was all his time in
possession of the enemy ; and at last, when besieged in the city of
Jérusalem, he was obliged to come to terms, which he “gladly
received,” and Jerusalem was decimated by the enemy. A pseudo
high-priest, not of the high priestly family, was put over the nation,
and at last Judas himself not able to get together more than one
thousand men (two hundred of whom desert), was slain in battle with
Bacchides. (See Joseph. B. 12, chap. vii., s. 1–5; chap. viii., S. 5;
chap. ix., S. 4–7 ; chap. x., S. 2–5 ; chap. xi., s. 1.)
Judas Maccabeus was the first to seek, contrary to all principles of
Jewish law and piety, the unholy alliance of heathen, viz., of the
AND conversion of THE Jews. 307
tº.
Roman. Oh l if “the Lord had been seen over them." (Zech. ix. 14),
would this, could this have been done 2
As to Jonathan, he and Simon “flee into the wilderness,” the
troubles of the Jews being, according to Josephus, greater than any
they had experienced since they came from Babylon. But Jonathan
gained three victories, with what result P. The citadel of Jerusalem
was always in his time held by the enemy, and their garrisons were
in all the strongest cities of the land, till the Syrian dispersions
recalled them all but two, viz., the garrisons of Jerusalem and
Bethsura ; and then, says Josephus, “when this good fortune had
befallen Jonathan, by the concession of Demetrius,” he went and
resided in Jerusalem. . But another Demetrius takes the kingdom of
Syria, marches against Jonathan ; and, for a tribute of three hundred
talents, permits him to hold the chief government of the Holy Land,
declining, however, to withdraw the garrison from Jerusalem. But,
shortly after, “the child Antiochus” is set up for King by Trypho,
and Jonathan levying war is taken prisoner, and slain in Gilead.
Alas! are the sons of Zion yet “made as the sword of a mighty man?”
(Chap. ix. 13.) -
But Jonathan improved on Judas; he courted also the alliance of
the Romans—and Spartans. Was this being saved by “the Lord
their God P’’ (Chap. ix. 16.) But Jonathan did more, he conde-
scended to accept the high-priesthood, first, from Alexander Bala,
second, from Demetrius Nicator, third, from “the child Antiochus,”
neither of whom had any right to give it, nor Jonathan to acknowledge
their power to give it, had he and his people “walked up and down”
in the name of the Lord. (Chap. x. 12.) But it was all one to
Jonathan ; he held the high-priesthood; yet he had no show of real
authority for more than four years, during all which Jerusalem was
held by a garrison of “Macedonians and apostate Jews /* Jonathan
paying a tribute of three hundred talents. (Joseph., B. 13, chap. i.,
S. 1–6 ; chap. ii., S. 1–3; chap. iv., S. 4–6, and S. 9; chap. v.,
S. 4–7 ; chap. vi., S. 1–5.)
Simon represented the Maccabees eight years, and began with
preparations to defend Jerusalem against Trypho, but that city was
not attacked. Taking advantage of the Syrian dissensions, he refused
to pay any more tribute ; but was not reduced to the necessity of
Jighting for that purpose. He also took the citadel of Jerusalem, but
l
X 2
308 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
under no circumstances suggesting a fulfilment of Zechariah's prophecy.
He assisted with “money and provisions” the next competitor for the
Syrian crown, who, forgetting Simon's good offices, afterwards sent an
army to ravage Judaea, and seize him, but Simon was assassinated by
the treachery of his son-in-law, at a feast ! Surely the government
and people of Israel is not yet lifted up as the gorgeous stones of a
crown of dedication, nor as “an ensign upon the land.” (Chap. ix.
16.) Simon, too, condescended to be “made high priest by the
multitude,” but the whole time of his rule was but eight years.
(Joseph., B. 13, c. vi., S. 3–7, and also chap. vii., S. 1–4.)
Now, last, for John Hyrcanus. He was high-priest exactly as long
as the other three put together. But mark these facts, fatal to the
application of Zechariah's prophecy to his time:–1. In his very first
year, Antiochus invaded and devastated Judea, made Hyrcanus submit
to tribute, and broke down the fortifications of Jerusalem. This was
seven years after Simon refused to pay any, i.e., just as soon as their
Syrian masters had time to spare for Jewish affairs. 2. Hyrcanus
burst open David's tomb, and with the money hired “foreign troops.”
3. He introduced the ungodly practice of compulsory proselytism.
4. He made a treaty with the Romans. 5. He joined the sect of the
Sadducees, and the Jews rebelled against him.—I ask any unpreju-
diced inquirer into prophecy to consider whether the times of John
Hyrcanus are as described by Zechariah —“I will strengthen them
in the Lord, and they shall walk up and down in his name, saith the
Lord.” (Chap. x. 12. Jos., B. 13, c. viii., S. 1–4; chap. ix, s. 1–3;
chap. x., s. 1–6.)
Here, then, we have the whole history of Maccabean glory ! which,
with John Hyrcanus, gave place to the complete subjugation and
apostasy of the nation. We may depend upon it Josephus gives the
best account he can of his unhappy people ; had there been but a ray
of glory, Josephus would have displayed its brilliancy to the full.
Are we to look to such times for the fulfilment of Zechariah's prophecy;
times when the Jews paid tribute, and Jerusalem was dismantled ;
when foreigners, hired with the plunder of good King David's tomb,
protected the people of Almighty God l times when high-priests were
made to-day by the multitude, to-morrow by Syrian kings, or “the
child Antiochus;” and when the last of these types of Christ was
not ashamed to join the Sadducees, who say there is “no resurrection,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 309
neither angel nor spirit” (Acts xxiii. 8) ; are these the times when
Zechariah's prophecy was fulfilled 2 If so—but take the next reason
for denying this.
[2.] Zechariah represents Israel, viz., Judah and Ephraim, con-
tending as one united people against their enemies, Judah’s being the
commanding power. (See chaps. ix. 13–16, and x. 5–7.) For,
whatever some may think to be the peculiar import of Ephraim, it
cannot be denied that sons of Israel, whether of the two, or more
tribes, are represented by the prophet as striving unanimously against
their enemies ; Ephraim heartily co-operating with Judah ; “Thy
sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece;” Judah the bow, Ephraim
the arrow. But in Maccabean times this was not so ; the directing
power was of Levi, the Maccabees being priests ; and Judah, not
Ephraim, was the arrow. But not only so, the majority of the
people was against the Maccabees. Were it not that Mattathias's
revolt was provoked by unheard-of oppression, and that they fought
in a holy cause, viz., the defence of their country, we might say that
the Maccabean party was a faction; and certainly we can shew that
the majority of the people, the nation, was against them.
This appears in passages from which the following ideas are taken :
“runagate and wicked Jews” form part of the armies of Apollonius
and Lysias; the garrison which the Syrians kept in Jerusalem was
partly formed of “apostate Jews; ” Alcimus, a man not of high-
priestly stock, having been by Syrians raised to that dignity, with
certain “wicked Jewish runagates,” accuse Judas and his brethren to
Demetrius; “The wicked Jews and deserters from Judas” joining
Alcimus, Judas perceives he is “already become great; ” Judas can
at last get together no more than one thousand men ; “The Jews
opposed to the Maccabean party” immediately spring up again ; and
Bacchides, gathering the apostate Jews together, “committed the
care of the country to them,” who seize the principal supporters of
the Maccabeans, and deliver them to Bacchides, who puts them to
death ; in short, there is no appearance of unanimity on the part of
the Jews, until we are told that Simon was made high-priest “by the
multitude,” no holier a source of the high-priesthood, I imagine, than
his brethren's, who accepted it from Alexander, or Demetrius, or
even from “the child Antiochus.” (Joseph., B. 12, c. vii., S. 1–3;
chap. ix., s. 3–7 ; chap. x., S. 2–5 ; chap. xi., S. 1 ; B. 13, chap. i.,
S. 1–5; chap. v., S. 5.)
310 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Now, we may sympathize entirely with Josephus's feelings, as a
Jew, in the opprobrious epithets he applies to “the Jews opposed to
the Maccabean party” (a phrase of his own), we may call them
“wicked runagates,” and so on ; but are not three things clear:-
1. That the directing power in the Maccabean wars was of the house
of Levi ? 2. That the Jews were not unanimous 2 and, 3. That the
Maccabean party was small, especially when the war was being
carried on ? But Zechariah's prophecy (chaps. ix., x.) requires—
1. That the directing power, or bow, shall be Judah’s ; 2. That the
people should be as one people, unanimous ; and, 3. That the fighting
party should embrace all, Ephraim and Judah, as a mass. Hence,
again, the prophecy cannot apply to the Maccabees.
[3.] In Maccabean times, the Jews did not contend against the sons
of Greece; the Syrian army was not Grecian. te
Now, it may be admitted at once that, on several occasions, Josephus
mentions “Macedonians;” thus many of the Jews deserted their
country, and “went to the Macedonians; ” again the garrison of
Jerusalem was composed of “Macedonians and apostate Jews; ”
again Simon refuses tribute to “the Macedonians.” (Joseph., B. 13,
chap. i., S. 1 ; chap. iv., s. 9; chap. vi., s. 7.) The Book of
Maccabees, also (which Josephus closely follows) says that Antiochus
Epiphanes reigned in the year 137 “ of the kingdom of the Greeks.”
(1 Maccab. i. 10.) But all these expressions may be perfectly accurate,
and yet it is true that the “sons of Zion” did not, in Maccabean times,
fight against “thy sons, O Greece.” No doubt the ruling dynasty
in Asia, as in Egypt and elsewhere, during Maccabean times, was
Macedonian or Grecian. But this no more justifies our considering
their armies Grecian, than our saying that English armies were
Dutch when William, Prince of Orange, of blessed memory, ruled
this kingdom. It may also be true that the garrison of Jerusalem was
literally Macedonian; nothing is more likely than that picked soldiers
would be appointed to hold the chief city of a conquered people ; but
this is no reason for our considering the whole armies of the Syrian
kings Macedonian or Grecian, consisting, as they did, of many
thousands of horse and foot.
Indeed, both Josephus, and the Books of Maccabees, tell us dis-
tinctly that those armies were not Grecian. Thus Lysias's army of
40,000 foot and 7,000 horse, was composed of “Syrians, mercenaries
from the (Grecian) islands, and runagate Jews,” and his second army
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 311
lists “ foreigners into the service ;” so that, if Lysias's people were
Grecians, the foreigners listed were not Grecians ; but, if these
were Grecians, then his own people were not so. In either case, the
army was composed of other than Grecians. Thus Bacchides' army
was partly composed of Jewish auxiliaries, on that very occasion when
Simon Sallied out, and burned the engines which “the Macedonians”
used. (Joseph., B. 12, chap. vii., S. 3–5 ; B. 13, chap. i., s. 5.)
The Book of Maccabees tells us (1 Macc. vi.), speaking of Lysias's
army:—“There came also unto him from other kingdoms, and from
the isles of the sea, bands of hired soldiers; so that the number of
his army was 100,000 footmen, and 20,000 horsemen, and 32 elephants
exercised in battle.” Yet, some perhaps will say, the armies might
be termed Grecian, inasmuch as the best soldiers among them were
Grecian, the chief commanders probably Grecian, and they who
levied them, and for whom they fought, Grecian; just as in India we
might call that “the English army,” which is still, for the most part,
composed of natives of that peninsula. In this sense, it may be
supposed, “the sons of Zion” were reared up against “thy sons, O
Greece.” But this is by no means Zechariah's sense. Even if all the
Syrian army had been Grecian mercenaries, no mercenaries could
have fulfilled the conditions of the prophet's language. Whoever will
carefully consider the expression, “raised up thy sons, O Zion,
against thy sons, O Greece " (chap. ix. 13), can hardly fail to perceive
its antithetical character. The sons of Zion, as an unity contending
jor Zion, are opposed to the sons of Greece, as an unity, contending
jor Greece ; contending, I say, for Greece in some sense or another.
As the Jews fight for Zion, so their opponents, by the force of
Zechariah's language, for Greece, literal or mystical. But neither the
Grecian mercenaries nor denizens of Syria, originally Greeks, fought,
in any sense, for Greece ; they fought for no principle, nor any
power, identified with that country; the motives for their contentions
against the Maccabees (even supposing these fought for Zion) sustain
no antithesis to the motives of their adversaries. They fought for a
Grecian dynasty of Syrian kings, but they fought not, in any sense,
for Greece, nor for any common principle identified with that country.
They fought for the supremacy of the Kings of Asia, well known to
have been kings distinct from the Kings of Greece ; they fought to
perpetuate the subjugation of Palestine, to the subjugation of which the
kings and people of Greece were indifferent : for, at this particular
time, they had serious difficulties of their own to attend to.
312 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
For during the Maccabean era, Greece was warred against 3S 8,
separate power from that whose kings thus fought against Judea.
Accordingly, Josephus carefully calls these kings, who fought the Mac-
cabees, kings of Asia, or kings of Syria, and distinguishes their terri-
tory from Greece. Thus, after Alexander's death, Antigonus obtains
“Asia,” Seleucus “Babylon,” and Cassander “Macedonia.” Thus
the Jews obtain honour from “the kings of Asia,” thus Seleucus
Soter “reigned over Asia,” thus Judas Maccabeus heard that the
Romans “had subdued Greece,” thus Jonathan was required to pay
the same tribute as had been paid “to the first kings of Syria,” thus
Demetrius takes “the kingdom of Syria,” and is put to death by
“the Syrians,” thus Antiochus Grypus becomes “King of Syria,”
when Josephus says John Hyrcanus revolted “against the Mace-
donians.” (Joseph., B. 12, chap. i., S. 1; chap. iii., S. 1–3; chap. iv.
s. 10; B. 13, chap. ix., s. 3; chap. x., s. 1.) From all which it
appears that, while Josephus recognises, during the Maccabean times,
the dynasty of the Macedonians, he carefully guards against so gross
an error as calling their kingdom Greece. He knew that, all this
time, Greece had a separate existence under another line of kings;
and that with the Grecians, as sons of Greece, fighting, in any sense,
for Greece, the Maccabees never came into collision ; but that their
adversaries were Kings of Syria, and their armies Syrian. It would
have been as reasonable, in days gone by, to have termed a French
army Scotch, or Irish, because separate corps of such people were
employed in it, as to call the Syrian army Grecian, because part of it
was composed of Grecian hirelings. Or, again, it would have been
as reasonable to say that these separate corps subsidied by France
fought for England, as to say that the “foreign troops” subsidied by
Syria fought for Greece. To say that the sons of Zion fought against
the sons of Greece, during Maccabean times, when they fought
against Grecian hirelings, contending for Syria, and when Greece, as
a nation, had a separate existence, seems to me to run the risk of
attributing to prophetical language a looseness, and inaccuracy, quite
intolerable, and certainly opposed to all the great body of evidence we
have that prophetical language is accurate in the eatreme.
As to Dr. Henderson's quotation from Grotius, “That at the time
here referred to the Jews were accustomed to call the kings both of
Syria and Egypt Tºp kings of Greece, because they were of
Grecian extraction,” it is less than nothing to the purpose ; for surely
it will never do to quote a popular or vulgar mode of speech in
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 313
: ~ : six-r-, -, - ºr -
elucidation of a prophecy, no matter upon whose authority. The
question is not, What did the Jews vulgarly style the kings of
Egypt and Syria; but, What was the title of those kings and their
subjects according to correct historical fact? Were they, or were
they not, kings and subjects of Greece in the sense in which, according
to Holy Scripture, Zechariah employs that word? We have abun-
dantly shown that they were not.
[4] It is curious to observe how delicately inconsistent commen-
tators are on this particular point, viz., whether Syrians were
Grecians or not. It was the fashion to accommodate Zechariah's
prophecy to Maccabean times, but to do so involved much difficulty,
and they felt it. The Maccabees never fought in any sense against
Greece, and they knew it; still the prophecy always had been set
down to these events; and it is amusing to see what curious twists
their language suffers in well-intentioned endeavours to perpetuate
the error. Thus Lowth says the prophecy “foretels the conquests of
the Jews (particularly the Maccabees) over the princes of the
Grecian monarchy.” What this means is hard to say. No Jews,
but Maccabees, and their armies ever contended with any princes of
Grecian extraction, and the Maccabees never effected conquests.
Passing victories, with defeat in the grand result, are not surely
“conquests.” “Against thy sons, O Greece,—enabled the Jews, under
the conduct of the Maccabees, to destroy the forces of the Syrian
kings, Antiochus Epiphanes, and others, who were the successors of
Alexander, the founder of the Grecian monarchy.” We have seen
that the forces of the Syrian kings were not destroyed, but that so
late as John Hyrcanus, the last famous Maccabee, Antiochus dis-
mantled Jerusalem, brought the Jews under tribute, and only did not
put in a garrison of Syrians, because John paid 500 talents of silver
instead, and, among other hostages, gave up a son. Lowth is con-
strained to call them Syrian kings. However, he presently (at chap.
x. 5) understands it of the victories of Jews in the latter times.
Scott has this extraordinary remark on chap. ix. 8: “Antiochus
Epiphanes was permitted to profane the temple and to persecute the
Jews, but this was only for a short time, and not like the desolation
of the Chaldeans, and it ended in the honour of the Jews and the
disgrace and ruin of their persecutors.” Now of Antiochus Epiphanes
personally, and of the temple itself, this is in measure true; but the
314, NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Syrian wars lasted against the Jews all the time of the Maccabees,
except Simon's eight years, when they were otherwise engaged, viz.,
over a period of thirty years, at the end of which another Antiochus
broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and inflicted other disgrace on
them, as just now mentioned, in the first of John Hyrcanus; and
these wars ended not in the honour of the Jews, but in the disgraceful
setting up of a base and spurious kingdom, whose monarchs (Macca-
bees themselves) were a scourge and dishonour to the Jewish people;
and as “to the ruin and disgrace of their persecutors,” when the
Syrians were so ruined, the Jews were no gainers ; for they became
the prey of Arabians, Parthians, and Romans until they denied
Messiah, and were finally dispersed. How can any one apply
Zechariah's prophecy to such times | Again, says Scott, on chap. ix.
13–16, “When Judas Maccabeus and his followers, the sons of
Zion, should be raised up against Antiochus Epiphanes and his armies,
who were of Grecian eastraction.” In which Scott recognises the
antithetical character of the prediction, and that sons of Greece
should be exactly opposed to sons of Zion, but fails to notice that, as
sons of Zion fight for Zion, so sons of Greece must fight for
Greece before this prophecy can be fulfilled, which the enemies of the
Magcabees never did. Neither does Scott venture to say that the
armies opposed to the Maccabees were Greeks, but merely “of
Grecian extraction; ” which, by the way, was not exactly the case, for
many of them were of “foreign nations; ” and, therefore, to Greeks,
barbarians. Many of them, also, were apostate Jews.
M. Henry recognises the fact that “the two potent kingdoms of
Syria and Egypt” were equally branches of the Grecian monarchy ;
and he adds, “This promise had its primary accomplishment in the
times of the Maccabees, when the Jews made head against their
enemies, kept their head above water, and, after many struggles and
difficulties, came to be head over them.” Of which three heads of
M. Henry the last two are assuredly unsound. The Jews did not
keep their heads above water, nor ever became head over their
enemies; but the Romans came to be head over all, both Jews and
Syrians, and that at a time when Maccabeans themselves had defiled
the Jewish state more than ever it had been before, and Arabians and
Parthians were making prey of it.
He also adds upon “thy sons, O Greece,” “This was fulfilled when
against Antiochus, one of the kings of the Grecian monarchy, the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 315
people that knew their God were strong, and did exploits.” (Dan.
xi. 32.) Upon which we observe, that this is not a fact, and that
reference to Dan. xi. 32 supplies us with another and last argument
to show that these “sons of Greece” are not the soldiers of the Syrian
kings. It is this-—
[5] That Holy Scripture itself assigns their proper titles to the
kings of Egypt and kings of Syria—those two of Alexander's
successors with whom the Jews were destined to contend. Dan. xi.
1–21 refers to these events; Scripture has signalized them suffi-
ciently in her own language, the kings of Egypt—the Ptolemies—
being kings of the south (vers. 5, 11, 25, &c.); and the kings of
Syria—Antiochus and others—kings of the north (vers. 6, 7, 13, &c.);
and in all this prophecy, whose primary application at least is
undoubtedly to the times of the contentions between Egypt and
Syria, and, therefore, of necessity, in part to the times of the
Maccabees, we find no intimation that either the kings of Egypt or
kings of Syria, either Ptolemy or Antiochus, were kings of the son
of Greece. •
Surely commentators are, as we said, delicately inconsistent when
they apply this prophecy to the Maccabees, and fail to explain it with
that closeness and energy which the language of Zechariah demands.
They could not but fail in an attempt which finds no justification in
history. However, the truth dawns through Archbishop Newcome :
“It is true that Judas Maccabeus gained some advantages over the
Syrians. But the language of this prophecy seems too strong for
these events, and may remain to be fulfilled against the present
possessors of the countries called Javan, which were Greece, Mace-
donia, and part of Asia Minor.” (“Minor Proph,” p. 198.)
[6.] Such are my reasons for concluding that “sons of Greece.”
mean not the armies of Antiochus, nor any other Syrian king, and I
briefly recount them as follow :—1. Those armies were only partly
composed of Grecians, but chiefly of Syrians, foreigners, and some
Jews. 2. The Grecians in them were but mercenaries, and mere
mercenaries cannot meet the force of Zechariah's expression. 3. Those
armies never fought for Greece. 4. Greece and her sons all this
time had a separate existence under another line of kings. 5. Though
the historian marks the dynasty as Macedonian, and, perhaps,
316 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
intimates that the garrison of Jerusalem were literally Macedonians,
yet he carefully styles the kings with whom the Maccabees contended,
“kings of Asia, and kings of Syria.” 6. Scripture (in Dan. xi.
1—21) prophesies of these Egyptian and Syrian contentions, and
gives us no reason to term their armies “sons of Greece,” but the
contrary. 7. Commentators themselves fail in the attempt to explain
Zechariah's prophecy by the events of Maccabean times. 8. The
Jewish people were not unanimously with the Maccabees. 9. No
ultimate success was gained by the Maccabean victories, extraordinary
as some of them, viz., Judas', were. 10. The Maccabees themselves,
after John Hyrcanus, were great afflictors of the Jewish people,
setting up an unscriptural and impious monarchy. 11. Judas,
Jonathan, and John Hyrcanus courted an unholy alliance with
heathen, and thereby also showed their conscious weakness.
12. Jonathan and Simon accepted the high priesthood from a corrupt
and unscriptural source, viz., the Syrian kings and the multitude—
another indication of weakness. 13. Simon, in effect the most
successful Maccabee, ruled for a less time than any, viz., only eight
years; John Hyrcanus, who ruled as long as the other three put
together, desecrated David's tomb, levied foreign troops for pro-
tection, and joined the sect of the Sadducees. 14. The Jewish people
were never actually and entirely free from foreign control under
the Maccabees; the whole period, peculiarly one of military troubles,
and the speedy termination of it in subjugation to the Romans and
in apostasy, proves that Zechariah's triumphant predictions were not
then fulfilled.
I submit to every unprejudiced reader these reasons for denying
that Zech. ix. and x, refer to the Maccabean times, and shall only
add, that the argument might be considerably enforced by proving
from Josephus that no such temporal prosperity as that implied at
chap. x. 8–10, nor any such spiritual, as that predicted all through
these chapters, attended Judah during Maccabean times; but I am
disinclined to protract these remarks; let me rather refer to Joseph.,
B. 12, ch. v., S. 3; ch. vii., S. l ; ch. viii., s. 1–6; B. 13, ch. iv.,
s. 4; ch. v., s. 5, 10; ch. vi., S. 3—7; ch. vii., S. 4; ch. viii., S. 3;
ch. ix, s. 1; ch. x., s. 5; and to his history of these times generally.
Even the specific prediction contained in chap. x. 10, as to their being
brought again “out of the land of Egypt” (for the supposed fulfilment
of which Grotius has been quoted—Calvin’s “Zechar,” p. 98 ;
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 317
Editor's note, Calv. Tras. Soc. Ed.), was not fulfilled. “Grotius
says that 120,000 were restored from Egypt (a larger number than
what was restored from Babylon) by Ptolemy Philadelphus, and that
many were restored from Assyria by Alexander, the son of Antiochus
Epiphanes (viz., Alexander Bala) and Demetrius; and he refers to
Joseph. “Wars of the Jews,” xiii., 4, 5, 7, 8. I cannot verify this
reference to “Wars of the Jews,” which seems erroneous; indeed,
Grotius’ reference is simply “Josephus xiii. 4, 5, 7, 8,”—See “Crit.
Sac.;” but refer to Antiq., B.xii, c. 2, &c., &c., in which it will be found
that although the Jews in Egypt and Asia were liberated by Ptolemy
and Demetrius, and had great privileges granted them in those
countries, there is no reason to believe they returned to the Holy
Land again, but the contrary. The very grant of such privileges was
calculated to retain them in these countries, and doubtless was
designed to do so.
[IV.] But if Zechariah's prediction of successful warfare by “sons
of Zion” against “thy sons, O Greece,” was not fulfilled in Macca-
bean times, it is certain that it was never fulfilled at all; and none
pretend to assert that it was. No part of Jewish history, save the
Maccabean, carries any semblance of successful warfare against Sons of
Greece. We have shown generally, at p. 284—296, that the prophecy is
not fulfilled; and at p. 305–316, particularly that it was not fulfilled
in Maccabean times; there is, therefore, a time yet to come when the
“sons of Zion” will fight and conquer “thy sons, O Greece.” Who
are these sons of Greece P What is Greece 3
[1..] “Against thy sons, O Javan.” So stands it in the Hebrew—
7]: ; and there can be no doubt what country Holy Scripture alludes
to under this name. “The ram which thou sawest having two horns
are the kings of Media and Persia, and the rough goat is the king of
Greece (7.); and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first
king.” (Dan. viii. 20.) “Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I
come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the Prince of
Persia, and when I am gone forth, lo, the Prince of Greece (7].) shall
come.” (Chap. x. 20.) “And now will I shew thee the truth;
Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings of Persia, and the fourth
318 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
shall be richer than they all ; and by his strength, through his riches,
he shall stir up all the realm of Greece—7].” (Chap. xi. 2.) These
passages from Daniel show beyond dispute that the country or power
denominated Javan in the Holy Bible is that country or power which
in modern times, as in ancient, is known by the name of Greece.
And the last passage (Dan. xi. 2) is peculiarly valuable; because,
while the others speak of Greece during the Macedonian ascendancy,
this alludes to it when divided into its various petty and independent
states, but forming that invincible confederacy which successfully
resisted the immense hosts led against it from Persia by Xerxes.
Hence, Javan, in Scripture, means Greece at large, and not Greece
wnder any particular ascendancy. It stands not only for the Mace-
donian Empire of Daniel, but also for Greece, irrespective of Mace-
donian or any other ascendancy. It means that very country which
we still denominate Greece, and also that country as once comprising
the northern provinces Macedonia and Thrace, now Albania, Mace-
donia, and Roumelia—parts of the empire of Turkey in Europe.
Against this country, i.e., the sons of this country in some sense,
Zechariah says the sons of Zion will yet be stirred up to battle within
the borders of the Holy Land, indeed, at Jerusalem itself.
The Biblical meaning of Greece is, I maintain, fixed; it must
ever be identified with that country invaded by Xerxes, and ruled by
Alexander, to which the prophet Daniel alludes. So Professor Lee :
—“The name of one of the sons of Japhet (Greek, "Iov, son of
Xythos), Gen. x. 2, and hence of the country possessed by his
posterity. (See “Bochart. Phaleg,” lib. 3, c. iii., p. 174.) And,
from the context in which it is afterwards found, Greece generally.
(Isa. lxvi. 19 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 13 ; Zech. ix. 13 ; Dan. viii. 21.) In
Ezek. xxvii. 19, Gesenius takes it to designate a place in Arabia
Felix ; but as it occurs there with the same accompanying term as it
does elsewhere, there can be no reason for supposing it to imply a
different place.” (“Lex,” sub voce 7]...)
Thus the Biblical meaning of Greece is fixed, and when Zechariah
predicts that, in days yet to come, the sons of Zion shall fight against
“thy sons, O Greece,” the fulfilment of the prediction requires that,
in some manner or other, the people fought against by sons of Zion be
identified with, be sons of, that very country known to Europeans by
the name of Greece. This interpretation of Javan I shall support in
the next chapter, when investigating the titles of people forming
+-------------------
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS, 319
• *...******* * *-* -= -- - - - - • *--- - - - ---------...- ... -- * ~ *-------~ :-------- 2: --- ~
Gog's confederacy, to which I shall presently show Zechariah's
prophecy refers ; and it is remarkable that that confederacy, as given
by Ezekiel, chap. xxxviii. 2–6, and connected with Zechariah here,
comprehends all the sons of Japheth, and asserts they will combine
against the Jews after their restoration, Tarshish alone excepted, i.e.,
the power, or powers, indicated by that name. For the sons of
Japheth were, “Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and
Jubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.” (Gen. x. 2.) Of which Ezekiel
mentions by name Gomer, Magog, Tubal, and Meshech ; and Madai
is the father of the Medes, included by Ezekiel in the name of Persia;
and now Zechariah fills up the confederacy by adding Javan, Ezekiel
having previously excepted from that confederacy some power repre-
sented under the name of Tarshish, a son of Javan. I do not suppose
that the later prophet contradicts the other, but the very contrary,
viz., Zechariah, the later, explains, and adds to, the account of
Ezekiel, the former, and now assures us that, although Ezekiel
excepted Tarshish from Gog's confederacy, yet Javan and his country
are nevertheless involved in it, and that therefore Tarshish did not
mean, in Ezekiel, Tarshish the son of Javan, but some other power
or powers indicated by his name. However, we shall see these matters
more clearly in the next chapter ; meanwhile we may note that
Tiras, or the Thracian, may be considered as included in the territory
of Javan.
[2.] I shall now assign reasons for believing that the warfare of the
sons of Zion against “thy sons, O Greece,” describes only in another
way Gog's military confederacy against Israel, after his coming
restoration, as previously predicted by Ezekiel. It will be remembered
that,
First, The time of Gog's confederacy being fixed by Ezekiel for
“the latter days,” it was distinctly proved, in chap. v., that, in Holy
Scripture, the phrase “latter days,” “last days,” and others similar,
invariably denotes the days of Messiah, viz., the Christian era, and
that, therefore, Gog's confederacy, never having yet taken place in
those days, remains still to be accomplished. Second, It was proved
in chap. vi. that, this confederacy taking place against Israel within
the Holy Land, in times yet to come, a future restoration of that
people must of necessity previously take place, for that Ezekiel
distinctly describes the people as having overspread the land, and
being, at the time of Gog's invasion, in peaceful occupation alike of
320 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
“unwalled villages” and towns, having “gotten cattle and much
goods;” and that this restoration implied by Ezekiel embraced all the
house of Israel, i.e., a fair representation of all the people, of both
houses. Third, That the deliverancé of Israel from this mighty
coalition of their enemies was to be of so extraordinary a character
that, although second causes, such as pestilence, and internal discord
among the confederates, were brought into operation, still the hand
of Almighty Power, marvellously interposed for Israel's deliverance,
would be recognised beyond the possibility of contradiction ; that, in
fact, the overthrow of the combined army would be so sudden, simul-
taneous, general, and complete, all through the Holy Land, that all,
both Jews and Gentile assailants, will be constrained to acknowledge
that the Lord's hand alone effected it. Fourth, It was also shown that
Ezekiel states Gog's overthrow will be the immediate cause of Israel's
conversion to Christianity, for that he distinctly says, “The house of
Israel shall know that He is the Lord their God, from that day and
forward,” an expression which was proved, like all other similar
expressions, when applied to Christian times, and connected with the
teaching of the Holy Spirit, to mean of necessity conversion to
Christianity; while we also proved that “from that day and forward”
was a Biblical phrase, of whose meaning other passages, then con-
sidered, left us no room to doubt.
Here, then, are four tests by which we can assay the identity of
Zechariah's prophecy with Ezekiel's. The fourth I shall presently deal
with, the other three have been established, for, *
First, We proved distinctly that Zechariah's prophecy looks for
fulfilment to these latter days of Christianity ; when the eyes of man- .
kind at large, viz., the Gentile nations, shall be, as they can be only,
towards God in Christ; when the land of Philistia has become utterly
desolate, and Ashkelon, like its other cities, completely uninhabited,
which was not the case (as we showed) until the year 1270 of the
Christian era ; when Israel should contend triumphantly against his
enemies, which he has never yet done; when the land of Israel should
be purged of all oppressors, and means of oppression, which has
never yet been the case, nor will be until Gog's fatal overthrow ; when
Ephraim and Judah shall be united into one body, as they never have
been yet; when the governing power should be Judah's, which it was
not in Maccabean times; by all these, and other types bearing more
peculiarly against the Maccabees, we proved that Zechariah's prophecy
belongs to the latter days of Christianity, and, like Ezekiel's, has yet
AND conversion of THE JEws. 321
wº-º-º-ºrrºrs---------ºr------------ ~~~~rrºw-----> *w-----ºr-º--~~~~~~~-------------- - . . --- - -- ~~~~~~.--> -- ,----------
to be fulfilled. Second, We also showed that, according to Zechariah,
as well as Ezekiel, actual warfare was as characteristic of this prophecy,
to take place against Israel, in the Holy Land; that in such warfare
both Judah and Ephraim, viz., people of both houses, would be
engaged ; and that, therefore, as with respect to Ezekiel's, so with
Zechariah's prophecy, a partial, but real restoration of both houses
will have taken place, before it can possibly be fulfilled. Third, We
also proved that, according to Zechariah, as before by Ezekiel, the
deliverance of Israel from this warfare, in which they are yet to be
engaged, would be of so extraordinary a kind that all men would be
compelled to acknowledge it the especial work of God. We showed
that this was insisted on all through the chapters —“The Lord shall
be seen over them ; ” “They shall fight, because the Lord is with
them ; ” “The Lord will deliver his people ; ” “The Lord shall
devour and subdue the sling-stones; ” from all which we concluded it
was manifest that Israel's deliverance is, in Zechariah, as well as
Ezekiel, declared to arise from immediate interposition of the
Almighty.
Thus three of the four characteristics of Ezekiel's prophecy are
exactly paralleled by corresponding predictions in Zechariah's, viz.,
1. The time, as that of Christianity; 2. The previous partial restora-
tion of people of both houses; 3. Warfare in the Holy Land, after
such restoration, successful only through interposition of God. We
are consequently compelled to believe that the two prophecies are
different accounts of the same Riº, or series of events; or, otherwise,
that similar extraordinary occurrences have yet to happen in the Holy
Land, against restored Israel, more than once in these last days, a
supposition which appears sufficiently gratuitous, or something worse;
but which supposition, I shall now proceed to show, is entirely
excluded by Zechariah, who distinctly declares that the routing of
“thy sons, O Greece,” shall be, like Gog's overthrow, the immediate
cause of Israel's conversion to Christianity. So that, according to
Ezekiel and Zechariah, the overthrow of Gog, and the discomfiture
of Greece, are to produce exactly the same effect upon restored Israel.
The conclusion is unavoidable—they are parts of the same cause, for,
[3.] Israel's conversion to Christianity follows immediately upon
the overthrow of the sons of Greece, and, therefore, that conversion
is subsequent to, and not before, the restoration.
Y
322 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
That Zechariah foretels the conversion of all the tribes is clear
from chap. ix. 1, where the time he intends is thus described:—
“When the eyes of man, and () as well as) of all the tribes of Israel,
shall be toward the Lord ; ” the word PTS being here used for
mankind, perishable man, man as made out of the ground, i.e., all
men, all Gentile nations; and Zechariah characterizes the time of
which he speaks as that when the eyes of all the tribes of Israel, and
the eye of man indiscriminately, shall be “toward the Lord,” in the
same sense and manner. But the eyes of Gentile nations have not
been “towards Jehovah” since Zechariah's days, except in the person
of Jesus Christ. . He is Jehovah, “the brightness of (the Father's)
glory, and the express image of his person" (Heb. i. 3); and hence
it follows that the prophet's prediction is equivalent to a declaration
that all the tribes of Israel shall be converted to the Gentiles' faith,
viz., to Christianity, whenever this prophecy shall be fulfilled.
And the same is manifest from ver. 11 :—“As for thee, also, by
the blood of the covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the
pit wherein is no water,” where thee refers to Zion or Jerusalem, and
the prisoners alluded to are explained in the following verses:–
“Turn ye to the stronghold, ye prisoners of hope ; even to-day do I
declare that I will render double unto thee ; when I have bent Judah
for me,” &c., &c. It is clear that, in both verses, the same persons
are spoken of as prisoners, and, from ver, 13, that these prisoners are
the Israelites, viz., Ephraim and the “sons of Zion.” So that ver.
11 amounts to this:—“As for thee, also, O Israel, by the blood of
thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is
no water.” Of course it has been customary to spiritualise Zion here
to mean “Ecclesia,” the Church. But to address the Church of
Christ in this way would be a contradiction in terms; for, before
either Jew or Gentile can constitute “the Church,” they must have
been already brought out by the word of the covenant, and be no
longer in a spiritual sense prisoners. Zechariah addresses prophetically
those who are prisoners, and yet remain in the pit wherein is no water,
and who have not yet found deliverance by the blood of the covenant.
To spiritualise Zion of the Church, therefore, is impossible. It must
mean the undelivered, unconverted people, whether Jew or Gentile.
But the whole context shows it means the literal Israelites, Ephraim
and Judah (ver. 13); and the very attempt to apply the prophecy to
Maccabean times manifests a conviction that literal Israel is intended.
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 323
Such is indeed the case. Zechariah describes Israel as “prisoners of
hope,” eapectant prisoners, prisoners anticipating deliverance ; the
same Israel, at the same time, in reference to which Hosea had said,
I will give them “the valley of Achor for a door of hope.” (Hos.
ii. 15, and p. 137, suprā.) These prisoners he exhorts to turn to
their stronghold, viz., to their God, to their God as revealed and
known in the days of which he is prophesying, viz., our own :-
“Tºpºlº exspectationis: Vos qui obnoxii estis peccatis, speratis
tamèn vos per Christum salvos fieri. Alii exponunt, “O Wos qui
summo desiderio exspectatis Christum !’” (Vatablus.) “Appellat
ergö vinctos spei, conclusos in eam spem quae revelanda erat.”
(Clarius; and compare Gal. iii. 23.) The state to which God's
judgments have reduced Israel is likened to a pit wherein is no water,
“deep, dry pits,” says Capellus, “being frequently used for prisons
in the East’” (Newcome, p. 198; or see Jerem. xxxviii. 6), an
extremity of suffering is depicted, from which it is predicted Israel
shall be delivered by the blood of his covenant. Now, had a mere
promise been made of deliverance from judgment, a deliverance of a
religious character might not have followed of necessity, but when
the deliverance is described as instrumentally associated with the blood
of a covenant, a religious element is introduced into the prediction,
and we naturally inquire, what covenant is meant 2
The whole tenor of the prophecy forbids our limiting this prediction
to the restoration of two tribes during Zechariah's time, or any times
which intervened between Zechariah and the Romans, for the time
when these promises are to be fulfilled is a time of warfare with the
sons of Greece, which such times were not ; a time when Judah and
Ephraim are united as “a mighty man,” as in such times they were
not ; a time when Gentile nations at large look towards the true God,
which in such times they did not. And Zechariah's language is
prediction in the strongest Hebrew sense:—“I have sent forth thy
prisoners,” the perfect, or past tense, to convey the idea of certainty,
as in Ezek. xxxix. 29 :—“For I have poured out,” &c., as though the
promise had already been fulfilled; I have, i.e., beyond all possibility
of doubt, notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary, and not-
withstanding all provocations to the contrary, I will; beyond all
power of prevention, I will—send forth thy prisoners, O Israel, by
the blood of thy covenant. But what covenant 2 If it be replied
that “thy covenant,” applied to Israel, must mean the Levitical
i
*".
Y 2
324 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
covenant, I do not object, for Ezekiel, prophesying of the same times,
has already said, “Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with
thee in the days of thy youth” (Ezek. xvi. 60); and in this very
verse gives us two characteristics of the times of Israel's national
redemption : first, “I will remember thy covenant with thee in the
days of thy youth,” i.e., the Levitical, which God will never forget ;
second, “I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant,” i.e., the
Christian ; and, I maintain, that when a prophet declares, referring
to days of Christianity, that God will deliver Israel by the blood of
the Levitical covenant, the conversion is implied, for it means, and
can mean nothing less than, that God will rescue Israel to his love,
and his salvation, through the recognition of Messiah. Says Drusius
—“In sanguine foederis tui–Sunt qui agnum Paschalem intelligunt,
qui est Christum.” Let us never forget that God has not forgotten,
but specifically promised to remember, his covenant, his Levitical
covenant, made with Israel in the days of youth, to remember it even
in the last days—Messiah's days. “For the Lord hath called thee as
a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when
thou wast refused, saith thy God.” (Isa. liv. 6.) Remember Israel
is still betrothed, and betrothed under the Levitical covenant. (Hos.
ii. 14–23.)
But I imagine also that it is an incontrovertible, scriptural truth,
that the covenant in Christ is the property of Israel. If Christ be
not Israel's Messiah, whose Messiah is He What I does Holy
Scripture, holy Hebrew Scripture, overflow with sweetest promises of
Tºjº, and yet are we told that this Messiah is not Israel's 2 That
this Messiah was not predicted for Israel ? But if He was predicted
for Israel, and Messiah was to be King of Israel, then I aver that
such prophecies are in their very essence affirmative, and must be
fulfilled. But fulfilled they never have been, they never can be, until
Israel, as a nation, believes in that Messiah. I imagine, I say, that
it is an incontrovertible, scriptural truth that the covenant in Christ
belongs to Israel—“Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be
a Prince and a Saviour for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness
of sins.” (Acts v. 31.) And accordingly, in prophecy, the Christian
covenant is described as Israel's, and predicted of as made with Israel,
of which abundant proofs have already been given in these chapters.
By the blood of thy covenant, i.e., the Christian covenant, and
accordingly ancient interpreters, Munster, Vatablus, Castalio, and
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 325
Clarius, agree in explaining the passage of the Christian covenant,
an interpretation which Drusius does not reject. I quote only
Munster :—“Et putant Hebraei hic deficere verbum salvata es, ut sit
sensus Meschias salvatus est in justitid sud; Ecclesia autem salvata
est in sanguine testamenti sui; ubi ipsi errantes accipiunt sanguinem
testamenti pro circumcisione. Nos verö scimus prophetam locutum de
alio Sanguine, de quo Christus dicit, Hic est sanguis Novi Testamenti,
qui pro vobis et pro multis effunditur,” &c. The passage, as just now
noticed, cannot be spiritualised of the Church without causing a gross
contradiction in terms; but, however, this is decisive to show Mun-
ster's opinion that “the blood of the covenant" here mentioned is
the blood of the Christian covenant, an opinion in which the others
agree.
Israel is to be delivered by the blood of the Christian covenant, i.e.,
converted; and corresponding predictions of conversion must be held
to be contained in all those passages in the prophecy which predict
extraordinary religious privileges, e.g., chap. x. 12:—“And I will
strengthen them in the Lord; and they shall walk up and down in his
name, saith the Lord,” for the time is that of Christianity, and “the
phrase Bºž Hºrnn to walk in the name of a Deity, is a Hebrew
mode of speech, descriptive of a course of action pursued in accord-
ance with his character and will. Compare Micah iv. 5.” (Hender-
son’s “Min. Proph.,” p. 418.) -
[3.] But the above arguments do not enable us to determine any
thing as to the time of this conversion ; that, however, which follows
does so, showing two things, viz., 1. That this conversion is subse-
quent to the restoration; and, 2. That the discomfiture of the “sons
of Greece” is the cause of it. The prophet continues, at ver, 12–
“Turn ye to the stronghold, ye prisoners of hope; even to-day do I
declare that I will render double unto thee; when (": when, for,
&c., &c.) I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim,
and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece ; and
made thee as the sword of a mighty man ;” which, I repeat it, the
“prisoners of hope” are Judah and Ephraim, and their reconciliation
to God is clearly foretold in the expression, “I will render double
unto thee,” and also the time of this reconciliation as that of Israel's
successful warfare against the sons of Greece, “when I have bent,”
&c., &c.; and it may once more be observed, in passing, that at
326 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Maccabean times Judah was not a “prisoner of hope,” but had
already been restored and reconciled to God.
The phrase, “I will render double unto thee,” has two meanings,
one of which implies punishment, the other, forgiveness and recon-
ciliation. “And first I will recompense their sin and their iniquity
double, because they have defiled my land, they have filled mine
inheritance with the carcases of their detestable and abominable
things.” (Jerem. xvi. 18.) Here it is plain “the double” is spoken
of punishment. But Isaiah lxi. 7: “For your shame ye shall have
double, and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion ; there-
fore in their land they shall possess the double ; everlasting joy shall
be unto them.” Here “the double” is as plainly spoken of recon-
ciliation and love. Isaiah’s promise is, in fact, the very same, and
alludes to the very same time as Zechariah's, which we are consider-
ing. He foretels Israel's complete restoration to the Holy Land and
their possessing the double, viz., everlasting joy, “in their land.”
The whole tenor of Zechariah's prophecy is blessing for Israel, and it
is clear he uses the phrase, “I will render double unto thee,” in its
best and most gracious meaning, corresponding to other passages:
“I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water:”
“The Lord shall be seen over them: ” “The Lord of hosts shall
defend them : ” “They shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of
the altar:” “They shall be as mighty men: ” “They shall be as
though I had not cast them off: ” “Their heart shall rejoice in the
Lord ; they shall increase as they have increased :” “Place shall not
be found for them :” “They shall walk up and down in his name,
saith the Lord : ” all these are similar and well-sorted pearls of
promise, various in lustre, diverse in size, but strung together by the
same truthful love of the Spirit of Almighty God. “I will render
double unto them " means in Zechariah double blessing, happiness
far exceeding, and enabling you to forget, the misery that preceded.
So Calvin on this passage, “double happiness.” But reconciliation to
God for Israel in times of Christianity (of which times we have
abundantly proved Zechariah is speaking) necessarily implies their
conversion to Christianity; and hence ver. 12 is equivalent to a
repetition of the promise in vers. 1 and 11, that all Israel shall be
converted to Christianity.
[4.] But in addition to this, ver, 13 enables us to determine the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS, 327
time of this conversion in two respects; First, That it will be subse-
quent to the restoration: Second, That the overthrow of Greece will
be the immediate cause of it, and is, therefore, by that very fact
identified with the overthrow of Gog.
The force of the English translation is seen at once : “I will
render double unto thee when I have bent Judah,” &c., &c., where the
bending of Judah as a bow, and putting Ephraim with him as the
arrow, and all the successful warfare that follows, are distinctly
referred to the time of God's rendering double blessing to Israel
according to the promise which Zechariah that day records, “Even
to-day do I declare unto thee.” This is sufficient to mark the
opinion of our translators to the effect that they believed ver, 13
contained a description of events in the occurrence of which Israel
would receive “the double” promised him. They have translated
": when, and doubtless they are right; but at the same time it ought
to be observed that the use of this particular word when is not
essential to the argument. All that we require is that "º be taken as
a conjunctive particle, for that is its force upon which the argument
depends; and many other conjunctive particles would have suited the
passage as well as when, e.g., for, inasmuch as, since, because, where-
fore, after that ; all which meanings "2 will carry, and any one of
which would answer well enough the purpose of showing that ver, 13
may be referred to ver. 12, and that rendering double in ver, 12 is
particularly and circumstantially delineated in the description of
events which commences at ver, 13. That the force of "P here is
really conjunctive any reader may prove for himself by the test
of substituting any of its disjunctive meanings in the place of when,
and it will soon be perceived that the substitution of any such
meaning divests the passage of all point and energy. Accordingly,
Henderson, “Even to-day I declare I will render to thee double, for
I have bent Judah for myself” (“Minor Proph,” p. 412), preserving
its conjunctive meaning. The force of the predictions in vers.
13, 14, is well sustained in the following translation, taken from
Calvin’s “Zechar.,” Calv. Trans. Soc. 1849, Editor's note, p. 269 –
“When I shall have bent Judah for myself
And the bow filled with Ephraim,
And raised up thy Sons, O Zion,
Against thy sons, O Javan,

328 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION A
And made thee as the sword of a mighty man;
Then Jehovah shall be seen (a leader) over them,
And go forth, like lightning, shall his arrow ;
Yea, the Lord Jehovah with a trumpet shall blow
And march in (or, accompanied with) the whirlwinds of the south.”
These attempts to improve upon the authorized reading, to versify
certain parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, and to transpose the English
words, are rarely admirable or successful; and the only advantage
which this translation appears to have over the received English text
is that of rendering , commencing ver. 14, then instead of and, thus
better sustaining the connexion by imparting more vigour to the
language in which the promises are conveyed. But it is useful for our
purpose, as admitting the translation of "3 when, upon the authority
of Junius and Tremellius, in a work which favours not belief in a
future restoration and conversion of Israel. The force of "2 is, by
admission, of all conjunctive; the promises are carefully sustained in
the succeeding verses, and the issue of these promises is recorded at
ver. 16: “And the Lord their God shall save them in that day as the
flock of his people.” Thus, in that day when these promises are
fulfilled, the Lord will save the flock of his people; but the fulfilment
of these promises is the rendering “double” promised unto Israel;
and, therefore, the being saved that day in warfare against “thy Sons,
O Greece,” and rendering “double,” are one and the same event. In
short, it being admitted, as it must be, that "3 is here used con-
junctively, and that, therefore, ver, 13 is a continuation of the senti-
ments announced at ver. 12, it follows that the time or period in
Israel's history when God “will render double” unto him, is when he
will raise up the sons of Zion to victory “against thy sons, O Greece.”
In other words, the time of Israel's reconciliation to God will be the
time of their victory over Greece. But this victory takes place in the
Holy Land (a fact admitted, of course, by those who apply the
prophecy to Maccabean times), and probably in the very streets of
Jerusalem; hence Israel's reconciliation to God, which means their
conversion to Christianity, will be subsequent to their restoration.
And the victory over “thy sons, O Greece,” will be the immediate
cause of that conversion. For, it will be observed, that Israel's
reconciliation to God, here foretold by Zechariah, is entirely the
result of an act of reconciliation on the Lord's part; not a word does
AND conversion of THE JEws. 329.
the prophet say of repentance, or humiliation, or prayer on that of the
Israelites; but the deliverance of these “prisoners of hope,” and the
rendering their “double * is effected by a sudden, and appalling, and
freely given intervention of the hand of God. This act of Almighty
love is an amazing interposition on Israel's behalf to deliver him when
in the utmost trouble, from his adversaries, “thy sons, O Greece;”
and whenever that act shall be by the Lord performed, then Israel
receives “double,” i.e., has, at the least, token of reconciliation, i.e., is
brought into a state fit for reconciliation, i.e., is made to recognise
Messiah, i.e., is converted to Christianity. :
Accordingly, in both chapters the scene of recovered peace and
happiness, and temporal as well as spiritual prosperity (indications all
of them of God's recovered love), such as never, never followed
Maccabean times, is drawn as immediately succeeding, and as the
consequence of this, victory over “thy sons, O Greece.” Thus chap.
ix. 16, “And the Lord their God shall save them in that day as the
flock of his people; for they shall be as stones of a crown (Tī-ºs,
where the crown betokens separation, dedication, or consecration to
God), lifted up as an ensign upon his land. For how great is his
goodness, and how great his beauty I Corn shall make the young men
cheerful, and new wine the maids.” Cheerful, eloquent in the con-
fession and propagation of true religion. (See p. 305, suprā.) “An
ensign or standard is lifted up on the mountains, a trumpet is blown
on the hills—the standard of the cross of Christ—the trumpet of the
Gospel. A pruning of the vine shall take place after long suspension
of visible interpositions of Providence just before the season of
gathering the fruits.” (Horsley on Isaiah xviii., p. 79, which refers
to the same events.) Or put together the following admissions from
Drusius:—
1. They shall be Tº"2-8 lifting up themselves as a standard:
Scholia Ebraica, “Lapides coronae,” interpretantur Judaeos. Nam ut
supra Graecos dixit “Lapides fundae,” qui vulgares sunt et obvii
passim ; ità hic Judam et Benjamin vocat “Lapides coronae,” qui
rari sunt et maximi pretii. .
2. As an ensign upon his land: “Vult dicere, in terrå Israel, quae
terra Dei et terra sancta nuncupatur. Pronomen enim referri debit
ad Deum.”
3. Corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the
maids: “Duo hoc versa praedicit ; copiam boni quae futura est
330 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
temporibus Messiae, et latitiam quam perceptari sunt homines ex eñ
abundantiá.”
I believe the correctness of Drusius in these three articles cannot be
denied ; but if not, then in the land of Israel, in the day of Messiah,
Judah and Benjamin will raise themselves as a standard over and
against the sons of Greece, like a gorgeous crown of separation marked
with “Holiness to the Lord.” All we have to do is to recollect that
Ephraim is included specifically; and we see that in Messiah's days,
as the consequence of the victory of the sons of Greece, Judah and
Ephraim, viz., all the tribes of Israel, will be lifted up a separated
people to the glory of the Lord.
Or, again, take chap. x. 5, 6: “And they shall be as mighty men
treading down their enemies in the mire of the streets in the battle:
and they shall fight because the Lord is with them, and the riders on
horses shall be confounded. And I will strengthen the house of
Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them
again to place them; for I have mercy upon them : and they shall be
as though I had not cast them off: for I am the Lord their God, and
will hear them.” In each chapter the scene of a re-settled, increasing,
prosperous, rejoicing people, in the full light of God's favour is
presented after this warfare with the sons of Greece, as the result
of God's assisting them in it, because the Lord is with them. But
the bestowal of these blessings implies the Lord's returning and
reconciliation to them, at an age when reconciled they cannot be
eacept through Jesus Christ. Hence after deliverance from “sons of
Greece.” they are reconciled, and that act of deliverance immediately
precedes and is the cause of it. Wer. 6 marks the result of ver, 5.
Their recognition of Messiah, i.e., their conversion, takes place when
the Lord delivers them from the sons of Greece, and is produced by
it. So Munster on ver. 6: “I will bring them again to place them :
Faciam habitare eos: In regno spirituali.” Or the following extra-
ordinary remark from Drusius on ver. 6: “I will strengthen the
house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph : ” “Restitutos
in integrum collocabo in pristinis sedibus unde ejecti fuerunt. Porró
constat 10 tribus nunquam restitutas fuisse. Ergö locus iste intelligi
debit de restitutione spirituali et de temporibus Messiae : ” I will place
together the restored into one body, in the ancient seats whence they
were ejected. But it is settled, the ten tribes never have been restored.
Therefore that place should be understood of the spiritual restitution,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 331
and of the times of Messiah. We may thank Drusius for the observa-
tion ; and, constat: the ten tribes have never been restored, and the
place is to be understood of the times of Messiah; only we would say
that a literal restitution of Israel in integrum is predicted to be
followed by their conversion as the result of the overthrow of “sons
of Greece.” -
I maintain it is clear throughout the prophecies that the spiritual
blessings pronounced, which are the peculiar manifestations of God's
power and favour towards Judah and Ephraim, follow immediately
upon, are the close result of, the Lord's interference to deliver them
from the sons of Javan ; but so Ezekiel said of the destruction of
Gog, whose prophecy, referring to the latter days, was proved, like
the present, to be yet unfulfilled: “They shall know that I am the
Lord their God from that day forward,” said Ezek. (Chap. xxxix. 22.)
Hence Judah and Ephraim's victory over the sons of Greece in the Holy
Land, and the house of Israel’s destruction of Gog's confederacy in the
Holy Land, both belonging to these latter days, produce, according to
Zechariah and Ezekiel respectively, precisely the same effect. I
infer, therefore, that they are the same, or parts of the same, cause ;
and that, therefore, the sons of Greece are, in some sense or other,
a part of God's confederacy, and that while these are providentially
and miraculously destroyed all through the land, especially by Lake
Tiberias (see p. 233, suprā), those, viz., the sons of Greece, are also
providentially and miraculously repelled by the Lord through the
weak instrumentality of Judah and Ephraim at Jerusalem, where
actual fighting will take place. This identity of Zechariah's prophecy
with Ezekiel's appears to have occurred also to Grotius, who
applies both to Antiochus Epiphanes, in whom or whose time they
certainly were not fulfilled. “Et humiliabitur superbia Assur;
i.e., Antiochi Epiphanis, qui inter catera Assyriam tenebat ; nam ad
Armeniam usqué regnasse Seleucidas, ex Appiano, Josepho aliisque
discimus. Pari modo idem hic Antiochus Gog, i.e., Gygaeus, dicitur
Ezechieli, quià Lydiam tenebat, ut ibi diximus.” (“Crit. Sacr.”)
Dr. Henderson, too, tells us that “the prophecy is parallel with that
of Daniel xi. 32,” referring immediately to Grotius (“Minor Proph,”
p. 413); and Grotius tells us in Ezek. xxxviii. 2, that that prophecy
against Gog, “Nunquam factum est magis quam Sub Antiocho
Illustri, de quo et Daniel tam multa praedixit ; ” so that it should
332 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
seem that indirectly Henderson acknowledges the identity of Zecha-
riah and Ezekiel's predictions.
However, we have verified four distinct particulars in which
Zechariah's prophecy is coincident with Ezekiel's concerning Gog,
viz., 1. Each prophecy is proved to belong to the days of Christi-
anity, and to be unfulfilled. 2. Each predicts actual warfare in the
Holy Land against Israel when it is fulfilled. 3. Each predicts that
the Lord himself will miraculously deliver Israel in that warfare.
4. Each declares that Israel's spiritual deliverance (which in Christian
times must mean conversion) will be synchronical with the temporal;
and for these reasons I venture to conclude that each prophecy
foretels the same Riº, or series of events. Neither can I help
indulging the notion that when two prophets deliver predictions upon
the same subject, the later in order of time is explanatory of the
former. Thus I should expect that Zechariah being later than
Ezekiel, but prophesying (as we have shewn) upon the same subject,
his prediction would be explanatory of, and an important addition to,
Ezekiel's ; so that, while Ezekiel foretold generally the confederacy
of Gog against Israel, the latter prophet, Zechariah, adds the
prediction about “thy sons, O Greece,” to show that, in some sense
or other, the “sons of Greece" are the most important part of that
confederacy, perhaps the very cause, the life and soul of it. And yet
if the sons of Greece were a part, and, perhaps, the chief part of
Gog's confederacy in a national sense, it seems strange that Ezekiel
was not permitted to mention them when he was enumerating the
nations that would form that confederacy, and especially when
allusion to one son of Javan or Greece, viz., Tarshish, was calculated
to suggest the recollection of them all. I infer, therefore, from the
fact that Ezekiel omits, but Zechariah adds, the sons of Javan, the
only sons of Japheth not accounted for in the confederacy of Gog by
Ezekiel, I infer, I say, that while “thy sons, O Greece,” may be
mentioned nationally by Zechariah, they are rather mentioned in a
different sense. But “Greece.” can have but two meanings, viz.,
either a literal and national, or a mystical; I infer, therefore, that
“Greece" may be used in a literal national sense; but since it was
not included among the nations by Ezekiel, rather in another, viz., a
mystical, or both. And that the national and mystical “sons of
Greece.” are the very life and soul of Gog's confederacy.
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 333
The biblical meaning of il. Javan, or Greece, is fixed, whether
taken nationally or mystically, it must mean a power identified with
the same territory which from the earliest days to our own, has
always been denominated Greece. Yet it may be mentioned as a
curious circumstance, that Javan, ill, Yvan, or Ivan (for so the word
may be written) are the letters—I do not say is the name—are the
Hebrew and Roman letters which may write the name of the founder
of the Muscovite monarchy, commonly termed the Russian Empire.
I shall show that Ezekiel specifies the Muscovité as the chief
element of Gog's confederacy. Meanwhile, let these facts be noted:
Ivan, surnamed Kalita, consolidated the power of the Grand Princes
of Moscow over the Russian Empire with the consent of the then
dominant Tartars. Ivan Kalita established the local succession with
the consent of the Tartars and by the aid of the Greek priesthood:
to the Greek primates Ivan's successors owed the retention of their
power, which the Greek priests concerted and effected with the aid of
the Muscovite brigands; or, as Sègur says, “It is, then, in the spirit
of the history of the Russian Church that we must seek for a final
cause of the elevation of the Grand Princes of Moscow.” (“Hist. of
Russia,” p. 111.) “In 1328 the Grand Princedom is secured by the
princes of Moscow, in the person of Ivan I, surnamed Kalita. This
prince is worthy of note, because with him recommenced,—firstly,
the reuniting of the appanages with the grand princedom of Moscow,
which was become the capital: secondly, the rallying round the
Great Prince of these princes who held appanages: thirdly, the
re-establishment of succession in the direct line : and, lastly, a system
of concentration of power by which the Russian Empire was one day
to be again raised up and transformed into that terrific mass which
we now behold.” (Ségur's “Hist. of Russia,” p. 9.) “Against thy
sons, O Ivan.” But see Ségur, pp. 83, 93, 96–99, and 110–118.
“The first union of the Russians under Ivan I, denominated Kalita,
constitutes an epoch.” (P. 91.) How important in the history of
the Christian Church and of Israel who shall say ?
Not forgetting the interregnum of fifteen years, which began with
Baris, the dynasty of the branch of Moscow which commenced with
Ivan Kalita, A.D. 1328, and lasted 270 years, was succeeded by the
Romanoff, A.D. 1613, the present ruling family of Russia, whose
founder was the Primate of the Greek Church in that Empire;
334 NotEs on THE RESTORATION
so that in the Romanoffs it may be said the Muscovite people and the
Greek Church of that Empire became visibly united ; the power,
temporal and spiritual, of Muscovy identified with the territory of
Greece. (But see Ségur, passim, especially B. vi., ch. 5.)
[VI.] Our next duty is to remind the reader of the impossibility
of putting with justice either a figurative or conditional interpretation
upon this prophecy. As one reads the paragraph (chap. ix. 1–8) he
perceives the same mode of speech sustained throughout it ; there is
nothing to suggest the necessity of attaching conditional or figurative
interpretations to one part more than to another, and on this account
we argue that the whole is conditional or figurative, if any part of it
be so; and the contrary. But that the judgments upon Tyre and
Sidon, and the cities of the Philistines were certain and literal we
know, because they have been literally fulfilled: hence we infer that
the promises given to the Israelites in the same paragraph will be as
certainly and as literally fulfilled ; and that, therefore, vers. 7, 8, are
not conditional, but absolute promises of deliverance for Israel yet to
come. We may argue similarly as to vers. 9–11. The prophecy
contained in ver, 9 we know was certain and has been fulfilled
literally to a surprising and curious degree (Matt. xxi. 4, 5); and we
are, therefore, justified in inferring that vers. 10 and 11 are also
certain, and will be as literally fulfilled, there being nothing in the
prophet's language to suggest the contrary. Indeed an argument of
a peculiar character, and similar to that advanced on the prophecies of
“the Branch,” becomes applicable for the unconditional character of
these predictions; for it is admitted by those who believe not in any
future national restoration and conversion of Israel, as well as by
ourselves, who do, that ver. 10 is a prophetical description of
Messiah's kingdom : “He shall speak peace to the heathen, and his
dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends
of the earth.” Nothing can be more certain than vers. 9 and 10.
How, then, can we be asked to separate ver. 11, and to suppose that
conditional because it refers to the Israelites ?
But if the promise at ver. 11 to the “prisoners out of the pit”
be literal and unconditional, then the repeated promise to the same
AND conversion of THE Jews. 335
prisoners as “prisoners of hope,” at ver. 12, is unconditional and
literal also, and the whole context (vers. 12–17), which is necessarily
connected, is literal and unconditional too. In this way the whole
ninth" chapter is reached, and its literal and unconditional character
demonstrated. But if so, no one will care to assert any other inter-
pretation for chap. x. ; for, as is evident, the two chapters are
singularly correspondent, and the tenth contains nothing which a
Christian reader need be indisposed to receive literally and uncon-
ditionally when such a character has been established for chap. ix.
Besides, as to any such conditional or figurative interpretation, I
would observe that, if the commentators are found labouring to fix
the times when this prophecy was literally and certainly fulfilled in
the history of the Jews, they abandon all right to assert a mere
figurative or conditional exposition afterwards ; and the question
becomes simply, “Has this prophecy been yet fulfilled in the history
of literal Israel? for if not, it remains to be so.” Now we do find the
commentators so belabouring these chapters; and the times to which
they try to refer them are those of the Maccabees, during the
alternate dominance of the Syrian and Egyptian kingdoms—especially
of the Syrians, a mere fifth section of the Grecian. That the
prophecy does not refer to those times is manifest, and we have proved
it; but since commentators generally agree in making an effort to
discover its literal fulfilment in the history of the Jews at such times,
its literal and certain fulfilment is admitted by them.
[VII.] The substance of the foregoing chapter is, that during the
times of Christianity, when the desolations of the coasts and cities of
Palestine shall have been fulfilled, the tribes of Israel will be restored
again to their own land; that this restoration having been partially
accomplished, members of some of both houses, Judah and Ephraim,
having become resident in the land, these united people of the two
ancient kingdoms shall be engaged in active, hopeless, yet successful
warfare against a people or power, termed in some sense (probably
national and mystical also), the “sons of Greece,” by which name,
Greece, we are sure that the same country, now as ever, and always
in the pages of the Holy Bible, denominated Ivan, is intended; and
336 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
that, therefore, whatever people or power be intended by Zechariah,
it must be identified either literally, or mystically, or both, with that
particular country which Xerxes invaded and Alexander subse-
quently led to victory: that the sons of Zion will yet contend with
those who are sons literally, or mystically, or both, of that same
Greece, and who, for their parts, will be contending against the sons
of Zion for, and on behalf of, that same Greece either nationally or
mystically understood ; that we are sure this prophecy was not
fulfilled in the Maccabean times, to which it is commonly referred,
because no such deliverance, as it predicts, was effected for Israel by
the wars of the Maccabees; because not Israel, but Judah only, was
engaged in them; because the directing power in that warfare was
not Judah's, as the prophecy requires, but Levi's ; because Judah
then fought, not with sons of Greece, but with Syrians and mixed
people and apostate Jews; because the Syrians fought not for Greece
in any sense ; because that country was a separate country and
kingdom from that for which they contended; because in that warfare
Jews themselves were not unanimously faithful; because the Macca-
bean victories, even the greatest, were not attended with the success
predicted for the battle alluded to by Zechariah ; because Maccabean
times were never signalized by any such temporal or spiritual
advantages as Zechariah describes ; because Maccabeans themselves
were great oppressors of the Jewish people, and their brief pre-emi-
nence issued in the establishment of a base and impious kingdom, and
at last terminated in the entire subjugation and ruin of the people.
But that, since it is certain we cannot pretend to look for its
accomplishment to any other past period of Jewish history but that
of the Maccabees, in whose time this prophecy was not fulfilled, no
other conclusion remains but that it yet remains to be accomplished;
that, consequently, successful warfare against certain “sons of Ivan’
awaits restored Israel in the land of their fathers ; and that this
success in warfare, unlikely, so far as human probabilities are con-
cerned, will be so extraordinary, and attended with such marvellous
incidents, that the immediate hand of the Almighty in it will be
acknowledged both by Israel and his assailants. That this deliverance
of Zion's sons will be at Jerusalem itself, and in some manner, not
described by Zechariah, identified with Messiah, Christ Jesus; and
the result of this deliverance by the hand of the Almighty in
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 337
successful warfare will be reconciliation to the Lord, and, therefore,
conversion to Christianity ; that all through the prophecy the moment
of deliverance is described as one of peculiar spiritual favour to the
prisoners of hope; it is the bringing out of the horrible pit of God's
wrath and judgment those who were not in that pit at Maccabean
times; and that, all through the prophecy, from that moment of deliver-
ance dates the season of Israel’s, and Israel's land's recovered peculiar
prosperity and joy; the moment of temporal triumph over Greece is
the moment of spiritual victory also ; henceforwards they are
“strengthened in the Lord, and walk up and down in the name of the
Lord;” and that, accordingly, we find the commentators, including
the ancient interpreters, while referring the fighting and the victories
to the times of the Maccabees, referring also the rich spiritual
promises which these chapters contain to the time of Christ; whereas
nothing is plainer than that the spiritual promises are immediately
connected, as consequences resulting, with the victory over Greece.
That such spiritual blessing, resulting from and following immediately
the victory over the sons of Ivan, denotes conversion; and that,
therefore, the conversion of Israel, Judah and Ephraim together, takes
place after victory over Greece in the Holy Land, and, therefore,
after their restoration.
That this conversion having been effected by Messiah’s deliverance
of a partial though national restoration, comprising people of both
houses, they, in the public profession of Christianity, and as a people
so delivered, will willingly place themselves in Messiah’s hands and
be lifted up as a glorious ensign, a resplendent crown of triumph to
their Redeemer, to distant brethren of all the tribes in all quarters of
the world, who, all flocking to their land, so that place shall not be
found for them, will there embrace, as one united people, the faith of
their hated, crucified Nazarene; to be there established as though
the Lord had never cast them off. That this victory over the sons of
Greece being foretold by Zechariah as taking place under the same
circumstances and followed by the same results as the overthrow of
Gog, previously described by Ezekiel, it is suggested they are parts
of the same cause, and that sons of Greece form a part, and, perhaps,
the chiefest part, of that military combination against the restored
people Israel. But that this difference is observable between
Zechariah and Ezekiel—according to Zechariah, with sons of Greece
at Jerusalem restored Israel does fight, and conquers them; but in
Z -
338 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Ezekiel's account, with the army of Gog destroyed on the coasts of
Palestine and at Tiberias Israel does not fight; so that it seems highly
probable that while in one sense the chief parts of Gog's confederacy
may be termed “sons of Greece,” the assault on Israel at Jerusalem,
where Israel is engaged in actual fighting, will be undertaken by
those who are sons of Greece in some eminent and peculiar degree.
Thus Greece is the leading and most important part of Gog's con-
federacy, which, I shall show in the next chapter, will be under the
leadership of the Prince of Muscovy; and recollecting that prophecy
awaiting fulfilment during the Christian dispensation, regards the
names and history of nations peculiarly in a spiritual light, these
chapters thus specifying Greece as the conquered enemy of Israel
suggest a conclusion which we shall justify, viz., that Greece, as part
of Gog's confederacy, represents the Eastern of those two great
apostasies by which the Church of Christ since the seventh century
has been mutilated and defiled.
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 339
CHAPTER VIII.
“MANY PEOPLE WITH THEE.”—EZEK. xxxviii. 9.
THE object of this chapter is to show how far Holy Scripture, illus-
trated by the researches of learned men, enables us to determine the
people, or nations, comprised in the confederacy led by Gog against
the land, and restored people of Israel, in the latter days, to which
Ezekiel carefully limits his predictions. In doing this, let me observe,
at once, that since the time of the prophecy’s accomplishment is
clearly fixed for some part of the times of Christianity yet to come,
our proper business is to identify, if possible, the descendants of the
national tribes, which Ezekiel mentions, down to our own times, and
not merely to discover the nations spoken of, as they were existing in
Ezekiel's own times. . This may seem a very trite remark, but,
nevertheless, it asserts a fact which, having been overlooked by
commentators, the interpretation of the prophecy has been thereby
needlessly obscured. And, let me further observe, that a reader should
endeavour to divest his mind of all those prejudices whicſ, so frequently
arise when prophecy is the subject of consideration. Let him consider
himself in the position of an antiquarian, a philologist, an historian,
engaged (without reference to prophecy) in examining the application
of the titles Gog, Magog, Meshech, &c., &c., by the light of such
unprophetical authorities as Pliny, Josephus, Suetonius, Ptolemy,
Bochart, &c., &c., which are the authorities to be presently quoted.
It becomes at once a mere investigation of names, and the proper
question for a reader to submit to his candid reflection is this: Have
these authorities supplied me with sufficient reason for believing that
the identity of the people descended from the men, whose names these
are, has been satisfactorily established 2 because, if so, it becomes
my duty, as an unprejudiced and philosophical inquirer, to conclude
that such and such are really their descendants, although it should
afterwards appear that a book so little beloved of some philosophers, as
the Holy Bible, has marked down these people by name, as the
subjects of certain fearful judgments in these latter days, and although
Z 2
340 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
it should even further appear that, out of these judgments, the
national conversion of God's despised people is prophetically pronounced
to arise. If this fair course be taken, the reader will scarcely quit
this chapter unconvinced that Ezekiel has enabled us, or, rather, the
overruling providence of the Most High, adjusting the advances and
results of literature to the requirements of his revealed will, has
enabled us to determine, generally indeed, but accurately enough,
what nations of the world, in these latter days, are intended by the
various titles which Ezekiel predictively employs. .
No doubt we have already shocked some prejudices, probably
excited some derision, by the allusions we dared to make to the title
Javan, Greece, 7}, Yvan, or Ivan, in the last chapter ; so that,
to conciliate any which may now arouse themselves against the
present investigation, I would respectfully observe that, for the main
facts, deductions, and references of part of this chapter, e.g., those
regarding Meshech, Tubal, and Gomer, which are the most important
(though not for its arrangement, nor application, nor for the definition
of Tarshish), the reader will be indebted to Dr. Paxton, in his
“Sacred Geography: Settlements of Japheth,” who wrote it without
any reference to the fulfilment of prophecy, or any allusion to the
future of Israel. Why should that which any judicious and pains-
taking writer like Paxton considered to be quite satisfactory, and
convincing, for purposes geographical, be entirely discarded and
disbelieved, or superciliously sneered at, when the inquiry is pro-
phetical? The authors to be quoted recorded their conclusions as
scholars and historians, heathen, Jew, and Christian, irrespective
either of the weal or woe of the people Israel ; why should we call
their conclusions in question only when they chance to favour the
future prospects of that unhappy people, or to threaten somewhat
severely the nations to which, as Gentiles, we may be partially
inclined 2
[1..] The proper names, used by Ezekiel, are Gog, Magog,
Meshech, Tubal, Persia, Ethiopia, Libya, Gomer, Togarmah, Sheba,
Dedan, and Tarshish. (Chap. xxxviii. 3, 5, 6, 13.) These names,
referred to the Hebrew, as they should be, are, Gog, Magog, Meshech,
Tubal, Paras, Cush, Phut, Gomer, Togarmah, Sheba, Dedan, and
Tarshish.
It may be at once observed that there are two ways of reading
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 341.
verse 2,-either according to the English Version, “ Chief Prince
of Meshech and Tubal,” or “Prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal.”
Thus the word ºn, rendered in the Authorized Version chief, is
added to the others as a proper name. The Hebrew, ºn Tºº
tº in Sºp; ; the Septuagint, ôpxovta Pös Megèx kai Oo3&A ; Targum,
bºn) Tº tº PT : Vulgate, principem capitis Mosoch et Thubal;
so Aquila and Jerome ; but Symmachus and Theodotion, “Principem
Rosh, Mosoch, and Thubal.” So that, upon the whole, authority is
against the English Version here ; and the reading favoured by such
authorities, and adopted as correct by eminent Christian expositors
(Faber’s “Eight Dissert,” p. 170, note, and Bochart, infră) might prove
of value in our endeavour to understand what nations are indicated in
Ezekiel's predictions. But we shall not avail ourselves of it, inasmuch
as there seems to be no other place in the Hebrew Scripture where the
word toin, Rosh, is used as a proper name. Says Jerome, “Et
re verä nec in Genesi, nec in alio Scripturae loco, nec in Josepho
quidèm, qui omnia Ebraicarum gentium in primo Antiquitatum libro
exponit nomina, hanc gentem potuimus invenire.” We, therefore,
allow the passage to remain as in the Authorized Version, “The
chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.”
Next, we are able speedily to dispose of the name of Gog. It
occurs nowhere but in the present places of Ezekiel, and at 1 Chron.
v. 4, where it is the name of a certain Reubenite, and has no con-
nexion with the prediction before us. Gog is the name given to the
leader of the confederacy, but the people engaged must be determined,
if at all, by the names of the tribes, Meshech, Tubal, &c., &c., which
he is represented as leading. Gog is chief prince of Meshech and
Tubal.
[2] If we refer to the genealogies given by Moses in Gen. x., we
have the following passage at vers. 2–5 :-“The sons of Japheth,
Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. And
the sons of Gomer, Ashkenaz, Rephat, and Togarmah. And the
sons of Javan, Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. By
these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands, every one
after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.” Thus it
appears that the sons, and certain grandsons, of Japheth, are men-
tioned here as founders of various nations among the isles of the
Gentiles ; and that of the names now under investigation the following
º
342 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
indicate sons of Japheth:—Gomer, Magog, Tubal, Meshech, To-
garmah (as a son of Gomer), and Tarshish (as a son of Javan); in
fact, the chief names ; and for these we are to look among the
Gentiles in what are termed the isles. We read immediately after, at
vers. 6, 7:—“And the sons of Ham ; Cush, Misraim, and Phut, and
Canaan ; and the sons of Cush, Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and
Sabtechah ; and the sons of Raamah ; Sheba, and Dedan.” So that,
of the other names to be investigated, we find Cush and Phut among
the sons of Ham ; and Sheba and Dedan (as sons of Raamah) among
his grandsons. Only one name is wanting, Paras, which we shall be
able to explain more easily than any other from Holy Scriptures yet
to be quoted.
It appears, then, that Gomer, Magog, Tubal, and Meshech are the
heads of Gentile families descended from Japheth, and that “Togarmah
of the north quarters,” being a son of Gomer, might be considered as
included in the name of his father ; though, probably, Ezekiel
mentions him thus separately, as having founded a nation by some
characteristic distinguished from other descendants of Gomer. For
all these we are to look among the isles of the Gentiles. Now it was
observed, at p. 231, suprā, that the word tº isles, as used by Moses
and the prophets, means not merely islands, in the English sense of
that word, but also and peculiarly the coasts of the sea, and even the
banks of rivers, and sometimes also continents. A consideration of
some, out of the many places where the word occurs, will show this
more clearly. --
“And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the
world were discovered at the rebuking of the Lord, at the blast of
the breath of his nostrils.” (2 Sam. xxii. 16.) Where it is plain
that our word, here translated channels, must mean the land along
which, and upon which, the sea was wont to flow, viz., the sea-
coasts. Again, Isaiah, chap. xx, delivers a prophecy against Egypt,
and concludes thus:—“And the inhabitants of the isle (viz., Palestine)
shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation, whither we
flee for help to be delivered from the King of Assyria; and how shall
we escape 2" where the Holy Land is called an isle, as being upon
the coast of the Mediterranean sea. Also Isa. xlii. 15:—“I will
make waste mountains and hills, and dry up their herbs; and I will
make the rivers islands, and I will dry up the pools,” i.e., the drought
shall be such that pools shall disappear, and even rivers be so
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 343
diminished that what were once their beds shall become their banks.
Further, we have the same word used by Jeremiah, apparently in the
same sense (chap. 1. 39), where he speaks of desolated Babylon —
“Therefore the wild beasts of the desert, and the wild beasts of the
islands shall dwell there,” viz. (when we recollect the inland, and
superfluvial position of Babylon), wild beasts which, in parched
countries, haunt the borders of rivers and pools. But he also employs
it of Tyre (Jerem. xxv.22) :-‘And all the kings of Tyrus, and all
the kings of Sidon, and the Kings of the isles which are beyond the
sea.” Ezekiel, too (chap. xxvi. 15–18):-"Thus saith the Lord
God to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall,
when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of
thee ? . . . . . . Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea,
the isles that are on the sea shall be troubled at thy departure.” From
which it is clear that cities, situated like Tyre and Zidon, viz., on the
coasts of the sea, are represented as alarmed at, and sympathizing
with, the fall of Tyre; and are called isles, or isles that are on the
sea. (See also the denunciations against Tyre in Isa. xxiii.) -
From all these passages it is manifest that the word Pºs, trans-
lated islands, isles, and channels, and referring to the “isles of the
Gentiles,” meant, in Hebrew mouths, the coasts of the sea, and the
banks of rivers; and that, therefore, in looking for the sons of
Japheth in the isles of the Gentiles, we look for them along the sea-
coasts and banks of rivers. But the coasts of the sea with which
peculiarly, from the earliest ages, the Jews were familiar, were the
coasts of the Mediterranean, bordered by their own land, and Egypt,
and the shores of Asia Minor, and so westerly, to the more distant
shores of Africa, and the coasts of Europe, especially of Greece and
Italy. Hence, in endeavouring to trace the sons of Japheth, Gomer,
Magog, Meshech, and Tubal, we look to the earliest settlements
along the coasts here mentioned, and in an European direction.
[3.] As to Magog. The country of Magog is placed by ancient
authority on the east and north-east of the Black Sea, and therefore
comprehends a territory now forming a part of the Russian Empire,
viz., the provinces of the Don and Dneiper, reaching into Caucasus, the
country of the Circassians and Cossacks. Magog was considered the pro-
genitor of the Scythians, who occupied those countries, for Pliny says
that Scythopolis (Bysan, or Bethsan, in the province of Samaria) and
344 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Hierapolis, which those Scythians took when they made their irrup-
tion into Syria, were afterwards called “Magog.” Ptolemy also
allows that the proper name of the city Hierapolis was “Magog.”
This fact is confirmed by Josephus, B. 1, chap. vi., S. 1, who says
that the Scythians were called “Magog” by the Greeks, and from
that circumstance infers their lineal descent from Magog the son of
Japheth. Bochart (“Phaleg, or Sacred Geography,” lib. 3, chap.
xiii., p. 186) conjectures that the mountains of Caucasus derived their
name from Gog, who was the first that settled on their stupendous
range, or in the circumjacent countries. He says that the words
Gog Chasan denote, in the neighbouring Oriental tongue, Gog's
fort ; and from Gog Chasan he infers that the Greeks formed
Caucasus; and Michaelis was of opinion that Gog and Magog denoted
the inhabitants of Independent Tartary, east of the Caspian Sea; an
opinion perfectly reconcilable with their also peopling the banks of the
Don, or the region on the opposite or western side of the same sea,
an opinion also perfectly reconcilable with the historical fact, that the
Tartars of the Golden Horde were once the masters of Muscovy, and
that the people of that empire, at this day, embrace many of the
Tartar race among them. The passage of Ezekiel before us (chap.
xxxix. 3) seems to denote that the Scythians, the ancient inhabitants
of those parts, are alluded to :—“I will smite thy bow out of thy
left-hand, and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy right-hand.”
These people having been celebrated for the use of the bow; and the
armour of their descendants in the latter days being described by the
prophet through the medium of the weapons they used in his own
times.
Next, as to Meshech and Tubal. We take them together because
they are usually mentioned together in Holy Scripture; and the
natural inference is that their settlements were contiguous.
The name Meshech is translated by the LXX., as shown above,
Mesoch, and from this word the people called Moschi derived their
Grecian name. The Moschi were, therefore, the descendants of
Meshech, and they inhabited the country around the Moschic moun-
tains, lying at the eastern end of the Black Sea, and being, in fact,
the country forming the extreme north-eastern point of Turkey, with
the province of Georgia recently acquired by Russia, and lying
between the river Kour, or Kur, and the Aras, or Araxes. In this
country, along with the Moschi, or sons of Meshech, were settled the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 345
Chalybes, Iberi, and Albani, or sons of Tubal, of whom Josephus
says (B. 1, chap. vi., s. 1.):-‘Thobel founded the Thobelites, who
are now called Iberes; and the Mosocheni were founded by Mosoch,
now they are the Cappadocians.” These nations were originally
called Thobeli, from Thobel, their founder ; Thobel being, as already
noticed, the Greek for Tubal. Ezekiel has the following:—“Javan,
Tubal, and Meshech were thy merchants, they traded in the persons
of men, and vessels of brass in thy markets” (chap. xxvii. 13), a
passage remarkable for associating Javan so early with Meshech and
Tubal ; but also because ancient writers inform us that, in the regions
of Pontus and Cappadocia, the parts of Asia Minor comprising and
adjoining the countries of the Chalybes and Moschi, viz., Tubal and
Meshech, the traffic in slaves was carried to a great extent, an
infamous and degrading traffic, which we know has lasted down to
our own times, for, among the slaves of Oriental nations, some of
the most esteemed are Georgians and Circassians, who systematically
sell their daughters. Thus Ezekiel becomes authority for placing
Tubal and Meshech by Pontus and Cappadocia, where, and eastward
of which, we find their descendants as Moschi, Albani, Iberi, and
Chalybes. Ezekiel also mentions brass as among the merchandise of
Tubal and Meshech ; and this is important, both in connexion with
the name Tubal, and also with that of Chalybes; for Bochart observes,
“Phaleg,” lib. 3, chap. xii., p. 180, that the word in Ezekiel trans-
lated brass is sometimes rendered steel, and hence, as a piece of iron,
or brass, is in Arabic called Tubal (probably from its coming out of
the country known to be inhabited by Tubal's descendants), so it is
likely that, from the excellent steel which was made in this country,
some of its people were called Chalybes by the Greeks, the Greek
word “chalybs” signifying steel. Thus, by their peculiar traffic in
slaves and metal, Ezekiel enables us, when explained by the evidence
of antiquity, to place Tubal and Meshech where we find the Moschi
and Chalybes, viz., at the eastern end of the Black Sea:-“xáAvil,
steel, from XáXw3es, a people of Pontus, through whom the Greeks
became acquainted with it. ‘A’schy. Prometh.,’ 133.” (Donegan.)
It is also a curious fact that, even before the flood, Tubal-cain was
“an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron.” (Gen. iv. 22.)
It appears that the country of Meshech and Tubal was that
territory which is surrounded by the Caucasian range on the north,
Persia on the south, the Black Sea on the west, and the Caspian on
346 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
- : : - , -- ~~~x. ... pre------. -- - ---------sºº-- = – sº-xº~~~---- - - - - -- - - --- - - ~-- - - -------------…-r- ºr - :-r--- ---
the east ; being, in fact, in these latter days, the southern salient of
Russia upon the adjoining kingdoms of Turkey and Persia—in other
words, the province of Georgia. And it is manifest from one of the
passages before us—viz., Ezek. xxxviii. 2—that the countries of
Magog, Meshech, and Tubal were adjacent. “Son of man, set thy
face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech
and Tubal.” It is clear that the land of Magog was also the land of
the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and that thus these settle-
ments were adjacent. With this statement of Ezekiel all that is
advanced above corresponds; for it has placed Magog, Meshech, and
Tubal side by side in the southernmost parts of the Russian Empire,
occupying the provinces of Georgia, Caucasus, and those bordering
the Sea of Azof, between the rivers Don and Dnieper. Such were
the first settlements of Magog, Meshech, and Tubal.
But their descendants penetrated into the wilds of Scythia (the
northern coast of the Black Sea, from the Danube to the Dnieper,
the ancients called Parva Scythia), and peopled the dreary regions of
the North : for Meshech and Tubal are sometimes, in Ezekiel,
expressive of that vast country. “There is Meshech, Tubal, and
all her multitude; her graves are round about him; all of them
uncircumcised; slain by the sword ; though they caused their terror
in the land of the living. And they shall not lie with the mighty
that are fallen of the uncircumcised which are gone down to hell
(i.e., the grave) with their weapons of war; and they have laid their
swords under their heads ; but their iniquities shall be upon their
bones, though they were the terror of the mighty in the land of the
living.” (Chap. xxxii. 26.) This traces the descendants of Magog,
Meshech, and Tubal into the heart of Russia. “What the peremp-
tory assertions of Pinkerton, in his ‘Origin of the various Scythian
and Gothic Establishments,’ and his theory of conflicting authorities
(Possidonius, Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, and Herodotus), most clearly
prove is, the impossibility of rationally deciding in favour of any
opinion whatever, eacept that the most anciently and historically
known inhabitants to the north of the Black Sea were the Scythians ;
those of the centre of European Russia, the Sarmatians, or Slavo-
nians,” &c. (Sègur, note 2, p. 439.) The Sarmatians, or Slavonians,
the real Muscovites or Meshechites, being near fifty millions of the
population of all the Russias (Ségur, p. 2), the ancient Sarmatia
being, in fact, Russia, and the Sarmatians being the Asiatic people
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 34.7
inhabiting the country between the Caspian and Euxine Seas, and
north of Caucasus, comprising the Russian county of Caucasus and
parts of counties Don and Astrachan. Such was the cradle of
the Muscovite people, close to which we have traced Meshech and
Tubal as ancestors of the Moschi, Iberi, Chalybes, and Albani: the
Moschi, Chalybes, and Iberi being the ancient possessors of the
Southern plains of Caucasus—viz., Russian Georgia; and the Albani
and Sarmatians of the northern plains of Caucasus; Albania being
the Russian Daghestan; and Albaniae Pylae, the city Derbend, or
Perbend, on the shore of the Caspian, in that province. Surely it is
no great stretch of the imagination to say that we thus trace the
peopling of Russia to the ancient settlements of Magog, Meshech, and
Tubal. De Custine tells us (“Russia,” chap. xxviii.) that the Sar-
matians or Slavonian inhabitants of Muscovy have the name from the
Greek Sauromatae, or lizard-eyed: and I would add, that Herodotus'
testimony as to the origin of the Sauromatae, or Sarmatians, their
Scythian descent, and their entering Russia from the provinces
bordering Caucasus, just alluded to, may be seen in his lib. 4, chaps.
cx,−cxvii. Herodotus' account amounts to this, that the Sarmatians,
Sauromatae, or Muscovites, are descended from Scythians, and people
who came from Pontus, in Asia Minor, the very province in Asia
Minor to which, with Cappadocia, we traced the first settlements
of Meshech and Tubal. -
The river Aras, or Araxes, was mentioned as bordering Georgia,
the country of Meshech and Tubal ; it, in fact, separates that Russian
province from Persia. Now, Bochart observes (Phaleg, lib. 3,
chap. xii., p. 180), that the river in Armenia which the Greeks call
Araxes is, by the Arabians, called Rosh ; and from this and other
similar instances he infers that the people who lived on the banks of
that river were at first called Rosh ; and not only so, but he cites
Josephus Bengarion, to prove that a people did exist in those parts
under the name of Rossi. Thus, in accordance with the Septuagint
translation of Ezek. xxxviii. 2, he considers that three tribes of
people are there mentioned—viz., Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal; which
nations, having lived contiguously before they left their first settle-
ments in Asia, preserved their relations of amity throughout their
various migrations northward, settled in neighbouring regions, and
became the progenitors of Russians, Muscovites, and people of
Tobolsk.
348 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
In short, Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, or the
prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal (whichever we choose to read)
is the Russian Empire in its length and breadth, and takes the lead,
or chief part, in Ezekiel's predicted confederacy against restored
Israel in the Holy Land. Should it hereafter prove that Russia's
invasion of Syria is made by Caucasus, through Daghestan and
Georgia, into Asia Minor, of which the first provinces reached are
Pontus and Cappadocia, the Turkish Trebizond, &c.; the peculiar
significance of prophesying of Gog as chief prince of Meshech and
Tubal, whose first settlements were in Georgia, Pontus, and Cappa-
docia, became singularly apparent ; as well as Ezekiel's description of
Gog's confederacy from the north parts; and perhaps Zechariah's (chap.
ix. 1) burden-restingat Damascus: the direct northern route to Palestine
being through Aleppo and Damascus. I wish no more weight to be
attached to the cited authorities than properly belongs to them ; but I
do wish this singular and important fact to be felt and acknowledged,
viz., that all the information which learned moderns—such as
Bochart, Michaelis, &c., &c.—have been able to command respecting
the settlements and descendants of Meshech and Tubal, point steadily
Russia-ward. I say that is an incontrovertible fact, and deserves to
have a fair weight attached to it: and also conversely, that what
information we have respecting the origin of the Sarmatian or
Slavonian people points backward through southern Russia, by
Caucasus, into Pontus and Cappadocia: the first settlements of
Meshech and Tubal. Let the reader deal dispassionately with
himself. Let him remember that the conclusion advanced is not
drawn merely from the Holy Bible, merely by a Christian, merely
by a student of prophecy, merely by an enthusiast, or merely by
a popular preacher, but that it really is the result of the calm,
learned, unbiblical, philosophical, enlightened, intellectual, unpro-
phesying labour, not of Christians, but of those who by some seem
more confided in ; of heathen, such as Herodotus, Pliny, Ptolemy,
and Lactantius; not merely of heathen, but of Jews, such as
Josephus and the Seventy; not only of Jews, but of Christians,
such as Bochart and Michaelis. Let him remember that the con-
clusion is drawn, not merely from the comparison of names, but also
from various words or phrases used in the Greek and Arabic
languages, and from various historical facts, and the recorded habits
of the people alluded to : all tending to one great result, viz., to
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 349
assure us that the Magog, Meshech, and Tubal of Holy Scripture
indicate the progenitors of the great Muscovite family: there is even
a significance about the uncertainty attached to Rosh; we are con-
fined to Meshech and Tubal, ever joined in Scripture, and our conclu-
sions are thus directed peculiarly to the Muscovite element, the great
body of the (so-called Russian) people. The Moscow-vite is the
subject of the prediction, not the Russian. At Moscow Ivan Kalita
consolidated his empire; the grand princes of Moscow made Russia
what she is. De Custine and other travellers will tell you that Russia
is not really known and understood but through Moscow ; that Moscow
and her Kremlin are the characteristic emblems of that vast empire.
It is Muscovy and her fifty millions of Slavonian people still Oriental
in their prejudices and anticipations ; it is this Muscovy that Ezekiel
selects as the leading object in his prediction. Let the reader
remember that this important conclusion, that Meshech and Tubal
mean the Russian empire, originates not with me, but that, without
particular reference to prophecy, and merely for purposes of geo-
graphical investigation, the authorities were collated, and the result
confirmed, by that laborious and skilful compiler, Paaton, in his
“Sacred Geography.” To a dispassionate and unprejudiced mind,
such evidence is not unworthy of serious reflection ; and I conclude
the Jews were right, who, as recorded by Munster (“Crit. Sacri"),
“Ex eo colligunt tempore Meschiae ex Scythiae partibus maximum
erupturum exercitum sub rege Gog.” I doubt not the prophet means
“Scythians indeed.” So Faber (“Restoration of the Jews,” vol. ii.,
p. 63): “The Russians and Muscovites seem to be the colonies of
Rosh and Meshech, or (as the name may be pronounced) Mosoch ;
but I know not that we have any reason for supposing that they are
here intended.” . . . But this is a sad mistake. If Mr. Faber
believed that the Russians and Muscovites were the colonies of Rosh
and Meshech, he was bound to believe as a consequence that Ezekiel's
prophecy referred to them : for it is specifically of the Meshech of the
latter days that Ezekiel prophesies. Mr. Faber's mistake arose from
his not understanding the scriptural force of tº n*Tºº (See
chap. v., suprā.) I shall point out this error more clearly in another
place, but now observe briefly, he erred in looking for Gog's con-
federacy exclusively within the territories those people of Meshech
anciently inhabited, but forgot two facts—viz., 1, That we ought
also to look for their descendants in these latter days; and, 2, That
350 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
when Ezekiel's prophecy shall be fulfilled, they—the descendants—
may really have become possessed of their ancestors' old territories
again. (See also Lowth's note on Ezek. xxxviii. 2, which is entirely
consistent with the interpretation here advanced.) I select only the
following :-" Rosh, taken as a proper name, signifies those inhabitants
of Scythia, from whom the Russians derive their name and original.”
[4] As to “Gomer and all his bands,” and “the house of Togarmah
of the north quarters, and all his bands” (chap. xxxviii. 6): Togarmah
being a son of Gomer.
Gomer had three sons: “And the sons of Gomer, Ashkenaz and
Rephat and Togarmah.” (Gen. x. 3.) If, then, we can ascertain the
first settlements of these sons, we have ascertained the first settlements
of Gomer. But let it be still borne in mind, we are to endeavour to
trace their descendants among the sons of Japheth, during the present
times of the Christian dispensation, through the settlements of Japheth,
along the coasts of the sea, as known to exist in the times of Ezekiel.
Jeremiah mentions Ashkenaz when predicting the fall of Babylon :
“Call together against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and
Ashkenaz.” (Jer. li. 27.) And Xenophon informs us (Anab., lib. 1,
chap. ii., sec. 3) that Cyrus, having taken Sardis, sent Hystaspes
with an army into Phrygia, that lies on the Hellespont; and that
Hystaspes, having made himself master of the country, brought from
it a great body of Phrygian horse and other soldiers, whom Cyrus
united to his army, and led against Babylon. Now, in this same
Phrygia, that lies upon the Hellespont, we find mentioned by Pliny
(Nat. Hist, lib. 5, sec. 40–3) the river Ascanius, the province Ascania,
and the Ascanian Isles; so that it seems sufficiently clear that the
Ashkenaz of Jeremiah, being Gomer's son, which was to be brought
against Babylon, was led by Hystaspes for Cyrus out of Phrygia on
the Hellespont, and is the same as Pliny’s Ascanius. This assigns to
'Ashkenaz, the son of Gomer, his first settlement in the part of Asia
Minor called Troas, and lying along the shores of the Dardanelles ;
Rephat, Gomer's second son, settled next Ashkenaz on the east, in the
territory known to the ancients as Paphlagonia, which Josephus
says was originally called Rephataea, from Rephat. A part of this
people afterwards settled in the adjoining provinces of Pontus and
Bithynia, and the whole nation were at first called Rephataei, and
afterwards, by contraction, Riphaei. (Bochart's Phaleg, lib. 3,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 351
chap. x., p. 147; Wells' Histor. Geog., vol. i., p. 64; John Edwards’
“Perfection of Scripture,” vol. iii., p. 66.) Some traces of this name
may be found in the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans.
Apollonius, in his Argonautics, mentions a river called Rhebaeus,
which, rising in the country, empties itself into the Black Sea. This
river is called by other writers Rhebas. Stephanus mentions both
the river and a country of the same name, whose inhabitants were called
Rhebaei, which people Pliny denominates, more agreeably to the name
of their ancestor, Rhiphaei. These considerations assign to Rephat,
Gomer's son, the northern territories of Asia Minor, forming the
Southern shores of the Black Sea. Of Gomer's third son, Togarmah,
it is said emphatically that his settlements were of the north quarters
—“Togarmah of the north quarters: ” the whole confederacy of
which Ezekiel spoke was to come from parts north of the land of his
captivity; but this specification of Togarmah—as well as from the
fact that, though one of Gomer's sons, he is separately mentioned
—I should infer, that in the days of the prophecy's fulfilment
Togarmah would be, in some way or other, distinguished from the
rest of Gomer's children. To this thought respecting Togarmah I
shall revert presently; meanwhile I note that he is mentioned by
Ezekiel, at chap. xxvii. 14: “They of the house of Togarmah traded
in thy fairs (viz., Tyre's) with horses, horsemen, and mules.” And
Cappadocia, that province of Asia Minor which, lying next on the
south to the territories of Rephat, immediately joined Syria, was
remarkable for its excellent breed of horses and mules, and for its
expert horsemen. Of this country Strabo says (Geog., lib. 4, p. 131)
that the Trochmi dwelt on the confines of Pontus and Cappadocia.
Cicero calls them Trogmi ; and Stephanus Trogmeni. These names
are the same in their radical letters; but the Greeks, as usual, to suit
their fastidiousness, have transposed a letter, placing the third radical
“R” before the second “G,” thus making Togarmah Trogmah,
Strabo's Trochma, and Cicero's Trogma. Thus, then, Cappadocia
was the place of Togarmah, close by (be it noted) the first settlements
of Meshech and Tubal ; with whom his descendants are at this day
mingled.
By the above authorities, Xenophon, Pliny, Apollonius, Stephanus,
Strabo, Cicero, Josephus, Bochart, it is agreed that Gomer's three
sons settled in and long possessed that territory known of old as Asia
Minor, comprising the present provinces Anatolia, Carmania, &c.,
*—r-r-z-z-z-r - - ----- - .* x - - - - - - - - -- - ---------- - - ====.----------------wºº ºrzº, sºrrºr. - - - - - ºr--ºr ºr ºw-wºrway. - ~~
- - .* - -
352 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
&c., of the Turkish Empire. But there remain yet other reasons
for the same conclusion. Josephus says (Antiq., b. i., c. 7) that the
inhabitants of Galatia, the central province of Asia Minor, were
called Gomerites ; and Herodotus (lib. 4, chap. xi., ver. 12) mentions
the Cimmerit as inhabiting the same region ; and we shall presently
see that Cimmerii are Gomerii. Pliny (Nat. Hist, lib. 5, sec. 20)
speaks of a town on the Dardanelles, called Comara, or Cimmeris;
and Mela mentions the Comari—names all evidently derived from
Gomer. And Michaelis (Spicileg., part i., p. 22) conjectures them to
have been the founders of the Celtic nations—a fact very useful in our
investigation. However, from all the above arguments, we conclude
that Gomer, in his three sons, occupied at first the land of Asia
Minor.
But the sons of Gomer soon extended themselves beyond their
original settlements. Large bodies of them crossed the straits in
search of new habitations, and eventually gave their name to, and
formed settlements upon, the narrow which joins the Sea of Azof
to the Black Sea, and washes the opposite shores of Caucasus and
Crimea (Cimmeria), which strait was called from them the Gomerian, or
Cimmerian, Bosphorus. They also advanced westwards, along the banks
of Danube, till they spread themselves over that country, which from
them has been called Gomer-man, or Germany. The ancient name of
Gomer may be easily traced in the name Cymbri, an ancient German
tribe, and also in their common name, Germans, or, as they call them-
selves, German, which is a slight variation of Germanen, or Gomren,
which is a contraction of Gomeren, or Gomeroeans. From Germany the
descendants of Gomer spread, by degrees, into ancient Gaul, of which
they were the aboriginal inhabitants. Their posterity received from the
Greeks the name of Galatae (the Galatians of Asia Minor) or Kalatae,
by contraction Keltae; the Celtae of the Latins, the Kelts, or Celts, of
modern times. Appian distinctly states that the Gauls, or Celtae,
were Cimmerii, or descendants from Gomer ; they were otherwise, he
says, called Cymbri; and Plutarch asserts that the Cymbri are called
Gallo-Scythians. (Bochart's Phaleg, lib. 3.) Facts which tend to
justify Michaelis' opinion, above mentioned, that the Cimmerii were
the fathers of the Celtic nations. From Gaul the Cimmerii, or
Cymbri, passed into Britain. That the ancient Britons were the
lineal descendants from Gomer, is evident from the very names by
which the Welsh continue to distinguish themselves from the rest of
- AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 353
the nation. They call themselves Cymmro, or Cymmry; in
like manner they call a Welsh woman Cymmraes, and their
language Cymmraeg. These are terms which exhibit an undeniable
affinity to the primitive name Gomer, and clearly suggest their
descent from that patriarch. The inhabitants of Cumber-land, also,
retain the name of their progenitor. They were at first called
Cymbri, or Cimbri, and afterwards Cambri (Cambria is also the
ancient name for Wales), and Cumber-land is the land of the Cumbri,
Cimbri, Gomer, or Gomer-oeans. Neither are the Welsh people and
the inhabitants of Cumberland the only descendants of Gomer within
the British Isles. It is well known that the Saxons, and especially
the Angles, were near neighbours to the Cimbri. And if it be
admitted that Germany was peopled by the sons of Gomer, then the
German tribes, Saxons and Angles, who drove the ancient Britons
into the mountains of Wales, are branches from the same root ; the
people of England remain Gomer-ites, and are equally descended
with the Germans and Celts from that son of Japheth. But what is
peculiarly clear from this investigation of “Gomer” is, that it
includes especially the great German family. -
But, however, from all the above considerations it appears that
“Gomer and all his bands, with the house of Togarmah of the north
quarters, and all his bands,” as prophesied of by Ezekiel, mean, when
taken in their fullest sense, the united powers of the sons of Gomer,
viz., all Germany, France, and Britain ; which, added to Meshech
and Tubal, as comprehensive of the Russian Empire, presents to us
the confederacy of Gog, formed of the united powers of all Europe.
This it does mean, unless we can prove from Holy Scripture any
eaception from the nations signified by the above names, whose
import has been thus investigated. But we showed at p. 235, suprā,
that Ezekiel does except from Gog's confederacy certain people whom
he calls “Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish ; ” and it will be my duty
presently to prove that Holy Scripture gives us reason to think
that of these three exceptions one—viz., Tarshish—has a most
important reference to the European powers, being not an opponent,
but an assistant, to Israel in his restoration. Again, let me beg the
reader to banish prejudice from his mind, and to remember the
numerous and high authorities upon whose dispassionate researches
the above conclusions respecting Gomer are based.
A A
354 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
[5.] Togarmah has been mentioned as a son of Gomer ; but I also
observed at p. 351, that, seeing he was a son of Gomer specifically
mentioned, as no other of Gomer's sons was, I should infer that at the
time when this prophecy will be fulfilled Togarmah would be, in some
way or other, separated and distinct from his brethren, the general
descendants of Gomer. I do think so; and especially—1. Because
he is mentioned as a power by himself: “Gomer and all his bands,”
“Togarmah and all his bands; ” just as Gomer stands for some
numerous people ; so Togarmah stands for some numerous people.
2. Ezekiel, prophesying by the waters of Babylonia, calls him
Togarmah of the north quarters, which he does not call Gomer ; he
describes only Gog as coming from the north parts (chap. xxxviii. 16),
and Togarmah from the north quarters, as coming at the time the
prophecy is fulfilled; therefore, in these latter days, Togarmah and
Gog, prince of Meshech and Tubal, are still north of Babylonia:
whence I infer that this characteristic peculiarly and similarly suits
Meshech, Tubal, and Togarmah in these latter days—suits them
in a sense which it does not suit Gomer's sons. 3. I perceive from
Ezekiel (chap. xxvii. 14) that Togarmah peculiarly excelled by the
possession and training of horsemen and horses—an advantage to his
people which might tempt them inland, but was hardly convenient or
conducive to their crossing seaward with their brethren. It is a singular
fact that the Jews maintain Togarmah stands in Ezekiel for the Turk.
It is also a remarkable fact, that other Scriptures—viz., Isa.xi. 15, Zech.
x. 11, and Rev. xvi. 12, give us reason to believe that the final overthrow
of the Turkish power: and the present Scripture—viz., Ezek. xxxviii. 5
—of the Persian power (see below), i.e., of the whole Mohammedan
power, Turk and Persian, Soffee and Sunnee, will be synchronical
with the deliverance and conversion of Israel. It is also to be
remarked that the Turks are but a tribe of those numerous hordes
which people, and long have peopled, Tartary. It is also a remarkable
fact, that Independent Tartary, through its cities or provinces, Khiva,
Kokand, Tashcand, and Bokhara, is (according to Jews themselves)
the present prison of the ten tribes, lying in the direction from which
we have shown (pp. 115, 161, suprā) the prophets say they will
return to Palestine. Is it possible that Togarmah stands here for
the progenitor of the Tartar hordes, whose power in that day, whether
through Turk or Tartar or Persian, will be joined to Russia (in part
of whose territory some of them already reside), for the purpose of
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 355
subduing and destroying the restoration of Israel ? If so, we see
why Togarmah is joined to Gog as being like him of the north
quarters of Asia, and their people being commingled as they have
been since the days of Usbeck Khan of the Golden Horde. The sons of
Togarmah made the sons of Meshech head of “all the Russias.” Also
we see why he is separately mentioned from his brethren, “Gomer
and all his bands,” as a separate power, “Togarmah of the north
quarters and all his bands”—Gomer being of Europe, Togarmah
of Asia, but the Muscovite of both. “It is very remarkable that
the Prophet Ezekiel, in chap. xxvii. 14, gives an exact description of
the trade carried on by the Turkomauns with the inhabitants of
Bokhara, Khiva, and Kokand. The prophet says, “They of the
house of Togarmah (i.e., the Turkomauns) traded in thy fairs with
horses and horsemen and mules.” The Turkomauns to this day, like
the Swiss guards, are mercenaries, and let themselves out for a few
tengas a-day. It is also remarkable that I frequently heard the
Turkomauns call themselves Toghramah, and the Jews call them
Togarmah.” (Woolf’s “Mission to Bokhara,” p. 354.)
However, this suggestion about Togarmah in no way prejudices
our previous arguments. It still remains clear that Meshech, Tubal,
and Gomer comprehend the united powers of Russia, Germany,
France, and England, unless we can prove from other Scriptures
an exception to either.
[6.] I proceed with the rest of the confederacy—“Persia, Ethiopia,
and Libya with thee" (chap. xxxviii. 5)—of which names it has
already been stated they are in Hebrew Paras, Cush, and Phut,
which are, therefore, the titles requiring to be explained.
Of Paras, or Persia, I imagine there can be no doubt. Daniel
says (chap. viii. 20), “The ram which thou sawest, having two
horns, are the kings of Media and Paras.” Again (chap. x. 13),
“But the prince of the kingdom of Paras withstood me one-and-
twenty days; but lo! Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help
me; and I remained there with the kings of Paras.” Again
(chap. xi. 2), “And now will I show thee the truth : Behold there
shall stand up yet three kings in Paras.” Again (2 Chron. xxxvi. 20),
—“Where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of
the kingdom of Paras.” And ver. 22—“Now, in the first year of
Cyrus, King of Paras.” It must be quite unnecessary to cite further
A. A 2.
356 a NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
to show even the plainest reader that Paras is the Hebrew word for
Persia, and that Ezekiel, who prophesied before the establishment of
the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, did thus virtually predict
the supremacy of Persia, and in the verse before us implies that the
remnant of that same kingdom of Persia, in these our latter days,
shall form part of Gog's confederacy against the sons of Israel in the
Holy Land.
Next, as to Cush and Phut. We find that the sons of Ham were
Cush, Misraim, Phut, and Canaan. (Gen. x. 6.) And it is added,—
“And the sons of Cush ; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah,
and Sabtechah : and the sons of Raamah ; Sheba, and Dedan.” So
that through his sons we may endeavour to trace Cush, as before we
sought for Gomer.
It is important to observe that the descendants of Cush are found
among extensive territories, both in Asia and Africa. And the
result of this inquiry will show that the Asiatic Cushite is excepted
from Gog's confederacy, but the African included. These sons of
Cush, the Arabian and the African, were separated from each other
by the Red Sea, yet frequently submitted to the same princes
(Michaelis' Spicileg., part i., p. 144); it is, however, universally
admitted that their first settlements were in Arabia, and that they
did not enter Africa until some time after their establishment in that
peninsula. That Arabia was the ancient abode of the Cushite is
manifest from several texts of Scripture. “And Miriam and Aaron
Spake against Moses, because of the Cushite woman whom he had
married; for he had married a Cushite woman” (Numb. xii. 1); but
we know, from Exod. ii. 15, that Moses’ wife was a Midianitish
woman—“Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters,” &c., &c. :
and Midian was a city and country of Arabia, on the shore of the
Red Sea ; hence the Midianites were descendants of Cush settled
in Arabia. Another proof of this may be drawn from Hab. iii. 7:—
“I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction ; the curtains of the land of
Midian did tremble.” Here Cush and Midian are used equivalently to
denote the same part or parts of one country. Thus the Arabs
of Midian were Cushites. There are also other passages which
indirectly prove that one branch of the Cushite people continued
in late times to be inhabitants of Arabia. Ezekiel says (xxix. 10),
“I will make the land of Egypt desolate, from Migdol (the tower)
of Syene even unto the border of Cush.” Here the prophet evidently
AND CoNVERSION OF THE JEws. 357
means that “Migdol of Syene" and “the border of Cush" are two
extremities of Egypt. But Syene, or Assouan, is situated on the
very border of the countries of Egypt and Nubia—that is, on the
extreme southern border of Egypt, the very margin of the country
that separates Egypt from African Cush, or Ethiopia; therefore
Cush, at the opposite extremity of Egypt, cannot be the country
in Africa inhabited by the Cushite—viz., Ethiopia, but must be
understood of that part of Arabia which extends to the northern
boundary of Egypt, and is at the greatest distance from Ethiopia.
Again, we are told at 2 Kings xix. 9, that while Sennacherib, King
of Assyria, was besieging Libnah, in the tribe of Judah, Tirkahah,
Ring of Cush, came against him with a numerous army. Also, at
2 Chron. xiv. 9, Zerah the Cushite came with a great army against
Asa, King of Judah. Now, it would be absurd to suppose that
African Cush is meant here ; for the king of that country, if he
would enter Judah, must cross the desert or the country of Nubia,
and march through the entire length of Egypt. But to the King of
Arabian Cush it was easy enough to march into Judah, for his
dominions bordered the lot of Judah.
It is plain, therefore, from several parts of Scripture, that there
were Arabian Cushites. It is also clear there were African.
For, -
Josephus asserts (Antiq., 61, chap. vi., sec. 2) that the Cushites
passed over the Red Sea, and settled in Ethiopia and the neighbouring
countries, and his statement—a sufficient authority by itself—seems
to be supported by several passages of Scripture. Thus (Isa. xviii. 1)
—“Woe to the land shadowing with wings, which is beyond the
rivers of Cush.” Again (Zeph. iii. 10)—“From beyond the rivers of
Cush my suppliants, even the daughters of my despised, shall bring
mine offering.” The Spirit of God, speaking through these prophets,
could not here mean Arabian Cush, for Arabia has no rivers, and, by
consequence, some other Cush must be intended, viz. (as we shall
show), the African, which abounds in rivers. Again, we are told, at
2 Chron. xii. 3, that when Shishak, King of Egypt, invaded Judah,
a numerous body of Cushites marched with him : “And the people
were without number that came with him out of Egypt: the Lubims,
the Sukkiims, and the Cushites.” This is positive testimony that in
Shishak's time there were Cushites residing on the Egyptian side of
the Red Sea. (Michaelis’ “Spicileg,” part i., p. 153.) Thus, from
358 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
the testimony of Josephus, and from Holy Scripture, and from the
well-known fact that the Cush, or Ethiopia, of the ancients lay south
of Egypt, it is sufficiently clear that part of the posterity of Cush
became, and continued to be, resident upon the continent of Africa,
and must, therefore, be distinguished from their brethren, proved by
Scripture to have been inhabitants of Arabia, on the shores of the
Red Sea. That part of Africa which these Cushites inhabited was
doubtless the Ethiopia of the ancients, viz., the region of Abyssinia,
which lies immediately opposite the south-western promontory of
Arabia, the Yemen, where the Cushite originally settled. So
Horsley : “But the name of Cush (vulgarly, as hath been observed,
rendered Ethiopia) is applied in Holy Writ to a large tract of country,
comprehending besides the proper territory of the Cushites the rest of
Arabia Deserta, the whole peninsula of Arabia Felia, and extending
east along the coast of the Persian Gulf, at least as far as the Tigris.”
(Letter on Isaiah xviii., p. 39.) Or again—“The land of Cush in
Holy Writ (commonly, but by mistake, rendered Ethiopia) is properly
that district of Arabia where the sons of Cush first settled. But
as this race multiplied exceedingly, and spread not only into other
parts of Arabia, but eastward, round the head of the Persian Gulf, to
the confines of Susiana, and westward, across the Arabian Gulf, into
the region since called Abyssinia, which extended along the coast
from Ptolemais to Arsinoe, and inland to the very sources of the
Nile. The land of Cush is often taken more largely for a great tract
of country, not only comprehending the whole of Arabia Felia, but
having for its eastern boundary the branch of the Tigris below the
town of Asia, and for its western boundary the Nile. The rivers of
Cush in this place (Isa. xviii. 1) may be either the Euphrates or the
Tigris on the east, or the Nile, the Astraboras, and the Astapus on
the west; but which of these are meant it must be left to time
to show.” (Ibid., p. 93.) -
Here, therefore, is Bishop Horsley's authority direct for our state-
ment that Holy Scripture knows two branches of the Cushite family,
viz., the African, or Abyssinian, and the Arabian. Which of these
two branches does Ezekiel include in Gog's confederacy 2 The
Abyssinian ; and he specially excepts the Arabian under the names
“Sheba and Dedan ;” for,
Not only shall we presently show that Sheba and Dedan, which are
excepted, mean the Arabian Cushite, and that, therefore, the Cushite
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 359
not excepted must be the African; but also, since Cush and Phut
were really brethren, it is reasonable to suppose that, being thus
mentioned together, that branch of Cush is intended whose territories
were contiguous to Phut's. But Phut, we know, inhabited that part
of Africa from which the whole continent took its name. In Africa,
properly so called, below Adrumetum, was a city named Putea,
mentioned by Pliny ; and in Mauritania, into the western parts of
which the possessions of Phut extended to some length, is a river
mentioned by Ptolemy called Phut. Jerome asserts that the river
still retained the name in his time, and extended it to the whole
country round, which from it was called the country of Phut.
(Michaelis' “Spicileg.,” pt. 1, p. 166; Bochart's “Phaleg,” lib. 4,
chap. xxxiii., p. 294.) Thus the country of Phut comprised Africa
proper, Numidia, and part of Mauritania ; or, taking the modern
kingdoms of Tunis and Algiers, the French Algeria. Such being
the dominions of Phut, and the principal Arabian Cushites being
excepted from Gog's confederacy by Ezekiel, I conclude that by
Ethiopia and Libya, i.e., Cush and Phut, he means Phut, and the
African Cushite alone, viz., the Abyssinian. In short, Misraim,
Cush, and Phut were brethren whose dwellings lay contiguous in
Africa, Misraim occupying Egypt, Phut dwelling on his north-west
side, and Cush on his south. Ezekiel includes the two Phut and
Cush, tenants on the coast of Africa, omitting Misraim, i.e., Egypt,
who inhabited the banks of the Nile ; and no wonder, for he was
delivering a prophecy regarding the Christian Church, and Israel's
future in connexion with her, to be fulfilled at a time when Cush, or
Abyssinia, and Phut, or Algeria, would be under very different
religious and political influence from Egypt, whose territory is
included, in the latter days, under another name and domination,
equally mixed up with these events.
Persia, Cush, and Phut, mentioned by Ezekiel as part of Gog's
confederacy, will therefore mean, the remnant of the ancient kingdom
of Persia, the people of the country south of Egypt, and along the
borders of the Red Sea; in fact, the people of Abyssinia, and also
the people of the country bordering the Mediterranean, lying west of
the northern end of Egypt, and containing the modern kingdoms of
Tunis and Algiers, the present French Algeria; the people of these
several countries, under those conditions in which the era of Gog's
360 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
confederacy against Israel will find them, these are the people of
whom Ezekiel prophesies, as either politically, or religiously, or
in both senses, identified with Gog's confederacy.
[7.] We have already proved that certain people mentioned by
Ezekiel (chaps. xxxviii. 13) as “Sheba, Dedan, and Tarshish, and
all the young lions thereof,” are excepted from this confederacy, and
mentioned as disapproving, although the prophet does not predict
they will possess either the ability, or the opportunity, actively to
oppose. (See p. 235, suprā.) We have now to endeavour to show
who these people are. -
Sheba and Dedan are the Arabian Cushites, the people peculiarly
of Yemen; for, when speaking of Cush, we proved that his first
settlements were on the south-western coast of Arabia, and that thence
he passed over the Red Sea to the shores of Africa, immediately
opposite ; Meroe, in Sennaar, a little north of Abyssinia, being,
according to Josephus, his capital, the ancient Saba. In short, the
Cushite family comprised two divisions, the Arabian and the African ;
the African being descended from Cush's son Seba, Sºtº, is included
by Ezekiel in Gog's confederacy, but the Arabian, descended from
Cush's grandson Sheba, Sãº, is excepted.
Moses tells us (Gen. x. 7)—“And the sons of Cush; Seba, and
Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah ; and the sons of
Raamah, Sheba and Dedan.” Upon which it is at once desirable to
observe, that Seba, and Sheba, Sº? and Sºtº, are quite different
names, indicative of different, although of nearly related, families ;
and that our inquiry now is not after Seba the son of Cush, but
Sheba, the grandson, and his brother Dedan, sons of Raamah. The
two families of Seba and Sheba were quickly confounded by Greeks
and Romans; but, in the sacred writings, they are accurately distin-
guished. One verse from the inspired volume is sufficient to prove
this:—“The kings of Tarshish, and of the isles, shall bring presents;
the kings of Sheba, and Seba, shall offer gifts” (Ps. lxxii. 10);
where David not only joins Tarshish with Sheba and Seba, particu-
larly distinguishing the two, and (unless we mistake) purposely
embracing in their two names the two branches of the Cushite family;
the African, from Seba, the son ; the Arabian, from Sheba, the grand-
son ; but also describes them, in Messiah's days, of which he is
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 361.
prophesying, and during an extension of Messiah's kingdom, parallel
to Zech. ix. 10, yet to be accomplished, as bringing a present, a Tºſh,
to which we shall have occasion to refer again.
That Seba was the head of the African Cushites, and, with
Misraim and Phut, colonized the isles, or coasts, and river-banks of
Africa, seems intimated in the following passages from Isaiah :-
“For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour;
I gave Egypt (Misraim) for thy ransom, Ethiopia (Cush) and Seba
for thee.” (Chap. xliii. 3.) The words in brackets are the Hebrew
titles; and, translating even, it runs thus:—“Cush, even Seba, for
thee.” Misraim was not a Cushite, but the brother of Cush ; but
Seba was the son of Cush ; and the prophet's meaning seems to be,
“I gave Misraim for thy ransom, and Cush, the Cush living by
Misraim, even Seba, for thee.” In other words, Seba, or Satº, the
son of Cush, was the head of the African Cushites, but not Sheba,
or Sãº, the son of Raamah. This opinion will be further confirmed
as we proceed.
Still, from the fact that Seba is thus manifestly traced to the
African shores of the southern end of the Red Sea, we naturally
infer that his original settlements were in that part of the Arabian
peninsula immediately opposite ; and this inference is supported by
the traces which remained of his name in ages long after. In the
south of Arabia we find mentioned the cities of Sabe, and Sabana,
and the people of Sabaei ; and, as these names are not to be traced,
but in immediate conjunction, it seems probable that Seba, and his
brother Raamah, settled near each other, and that from Seba, and
Raamah's son Sheba, the city and people in those parts acquired the
names above mentioned. Raamah is mentioned by Moses (Gen. x. 7)
as having sons, Sheba and Dedan ; these remain with Raamah, in
the land of Arabia, while Seba crosses the strait into that part of
Africa, now called Abyssinia, and becomes the head of the African
branch of the Cushite family. -
However, our present inquiry is concerning Sheba and Dedan, the
sons of Raamah. That they were settled in the south of Arabia is
clear, for it will be found in the following passages that Sheba, and
Dedan, in Holy Scripture are associated with Tema —“The troops
of Tema looked, the companies of Sheba waited for them.” (Job
vi. 19.) Again :-‘‘Dedan, and Teman, and Buz, and all that are
in the utmost corners, and all the kings of Arabia, and all the
362 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
mingled people that dwell in the desert.” (Jerem. xxv. 23, 24.)
Thus Sheba and Dedan are both connected in Holy Scripture with
Tema, who was one of the sons of Ishmael. (Gen. xxv. 15.) And
Ezekiel, doubtless, in the above passage, by “all the mingled people
that dwell in the desert,” intends all the inhabitants of Arabia,
mentioning specifically Dedan as connected with Tema, who had
already been joined with Sheba in the pages of Job. It is clear that
Sheba, Dedan, and Tema, were alike inhabitants of Arabia. The
same fact is proved by the notice of Sheba, Dedan, and Raamah,
given at Ezek. xxvii. 20:—“Dedan was thy merchant in precious
clothes for chariots; Arabia, and all the princes of Kedar ; they
occupied with thee in lambs, and rams, and goats; in these were they
thy merchants. The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were
thy merchants ; they occupied in thy fairs with chief of all spices,
and with all precious stones and gold.” Here again we have Sheba
and Dedan associated with Arabia, and Sheba especially mentioned
as dealing in those productions which are peculiarly identified with
that country. Again :-‘‘When the Queen of Sheba heard of the
fame of Solomon concerning the name of the Lord, she came to prove
him with hard questions; and she came to Jerusalem with a very
great train, with camels that bare spices, and very much gold, and
precious stones” (1 Kings x. 1, 2), the very same merchandise which
Ezekiel above attributes to Sheba and Raamah ; hence I infer that
the Sheba mentioned in both places is the same, viz., the country of
Raamah's son, Yemen, or South Arabia. For this same Queen of
Sheba is elsewhere (Matt. xii. 42) called Queen of the South,
that is, Queen of Yemen 7"º, Queen of the country on the right
hand; the Jews reckoning their cardinal points when looking eastward,
so that the south lay on their right-hand, and was therefore called
7"º, Yamin ; Arabic, Yemen. This Queen of Sheba was Queen of
Yemen; this Queen of Sheba, who brought vast quantities of spices,
and gold, and precious stones to Solomon, brought that in which
Ezekiel says Raamah and his sons Sheba traded at Tyre; hence the
land of Sheba is Yemen, the southern part of Arabia, called, from
its rich productions, “The Happy.”
Ptolemy mentions a city called Rhegmah (the name by which the
Septuagint translates Raamah), on the Persian Gulf, viz., on the
south-eastern shore of Arabia; and Michaelis also places Raamah in
Arabia Felix, and says it was a place of great trade. And, a little
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 363
to the eastward of Rhegmah, or Raamah, another city called Dedan,
the Daden, or Aden of modern times, ascertains the settlement of
Dedan, the brother of Sheba, and remaining son of Raamah.
(Bochart's “Phaleg,” lib. 4, chap. v., p. 218 ; and chap. vi., p. 219.)
Thus the cities Rhegmah and Aden enable us to fix the settlements of
Raamah's sons Sheba and Dedan, on the extreme south-western
promontory of Arabia Felix, or Yemen ; and besides, that Dedan
was on the coast of Arabia is clear from the following passage :-
“The men of Dedan were thy merchants ; many isles (coasts) were
the merchandise of thy hand; they brought thee for a present horns of
ivory, and ebony” (Ezek. xxvii. 15); a curious allusion, for, accepting
Bochart's opinion, that the Tº ni TE horns of ivory here mentioned
be from the elephant, it is not unlikely to direct our attention to India
as the country whence Solomon imported his ivory, and from which it
probably also found its way to Tyre. (See Bochart's “Hierozoicon,”
tom. i., pp. 239–243.) Thus Dedan, or Aden, is even, in the
earliest ages, connected with the trade to India, an important fact
when its connexion with Tarshish, by Ezekiel, is considered.
From all the above arguments I consider it clear that Sheba and
Dedan, the sons of Raamah, were the progenitors of the Arabian
Cushites, who are distinct from the descendants of Seba, the father of
the Cushites of Africa. Raamah settled in and continued to occupy
the south and south-western shores of Arabia, being, in fact, the
modern Yemen, and containing within it the town of Daden, or
Aden, on the Red Sea. This country his sons, Sheba and Dedan,
continued to occupy, and thence their descendants traded with the
north through Tyre. These are the people Sheba and Dedan
excepted with Tarshish from Gog's confederacy against Israel.
These are the Sheba and Dedan of Holy Scripture, carefully specified
as sons of Raamah, and, therefore, not to be. confounded with Sheba
and Dedan, sons of Abraham, long afterwards, through Keturah.
(Gen. xxv. 3.) Not that this is of any prejudice to our argument.
For if it be supposed that the Sheba and Dedan mentioned are the
sons of Jockshan, then it will probably be thought they are also the
Sheba and Dedan connected with Midian, their uncle. The Midian-
ites, we have seen, are sometimes called Cushites in Scripture, and,
therefore, the name Cushite extends to Sheba and Dedan, the sons of
Jockshan; and the idea is probable that Sheba and Dedan, sons of
Jockshan, successors of Midian, mingled with Sheba and Dedan,
364 NoTEs on THE RESTORATION
grandsons of Cush; but, at any rate, they were all inhabitants
of Arabia, and that is the fact to which we are calling particular
attention. “Sabeans—so the country of Sheba is described. (Jer.
vi. 20.) They are called ‘The Sabeans from the wilderness’
(Ezek. xxiii. 42), i.e., who came from Arabia Deserta, or the places
bordering upon it.” (Lowth, on Joel iii. 7.)
[8.] We proceed, lastly, to examine the expression, “Tarshish
and all the young lions thereof.” In doing which, we shall first have
to show that Tarshish cannot be meant in his natural descent as a
son of Javan; and next, that the word Tarshish has a scriptural
meaning peculiar to itself, signifying a people marked by specific
characteristics, but not a people having for their ancestor Tarshish,
the son of Javan, or any other Tarshish. & .
Moses informs us (Gen. x. 4), that the sons of Javan (one of
Japheth's sons) were Elishah and Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim. The
same names as in the Hebrew, only Kittim would be more familiar to
the English reader as Cittim, or Chittim. “And ships shall come
from the coasts of Chittim.” (Numb. xxiv. 24.) “For the ships of
Chittim shall come against him.” (Dan. xi. 30.) It will be seen in
our endeavour to trace him, that Tarshish was separated in a singular
manner from his brethren, Javan's other sons. The first settlements
of them all were along the southern coasts of Asia Minor, the central
and northern parts of that country being inhabited by the sons
of Gomer ; but although we are able to discover the descendants of
Elisha, Dodanim, and Chittim, in the inhabitants of Greece and parts
of Italy, we cannot discover any descendants of their brother Tarshish.
This curious fact will be clearly evinced by an examination of the
pest accounts we have of the settlements of these four sons of Javan.
As to Elisha, Dodanim, and Chittim—Elisha, the son of Javan,
originally settled in the south west of Asia Minor. We find some
traces of his name in the Eoles, or Eolians, who occupied those parts,
and are expressly affirmed by Josephus to have descended from
Elisha. From these his early settlements, Elisha passed to the opposite
shores of Greece, and finally settled in that country. Javan, the
father, was with Elisha, the son, for Greece certainly took its name
from Javan, and, accordingly in the Hebrew Scriptures, is always
called 7], or Javan. (Dan. x. 20, and xi. 2, &c.; see p. 317, suprā.)
TT 2
7] may be read Ion; and Josephus asserts that from Javan came
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 365
Ionia and all the Greeks; the names of the Iones, or Iaones, of
Homer and Strabo, are to be traced to the same origin. (Joseph.
Ant., lib. i., c. 6, sec. l ; Well’s “Hist. Geog.,” vol. i., p. 70;
Bochart's “Phaleg,” lib. iii., c. 3, p. 153; and c. 4, p. 155.)
The sons of Elisha, in their passage from Asia to Europe, seem to
have occupied the principal islands of the Grecian Archipelago; for
the prophet Ezekiel calls them “the isles of Elisha.” (Ezek. xxvii. 7.)
That he alludes to these islands is evident, from what he says of the
blue and purple fabrics which constituted the principal part of their
trade with Tyre; for we know that they were long celebrated for
the brilliancy of their blue and purple dyes; and Elis, or Hellas, was
a port in Peloponnesus, whence some of the shells were obtained that
yielded the dye. (Wilde, vol. ii., p. 113.) The Greeks were
constantly reminded of their descent by the name of their country
&é Ellas,” and their own name “Ellenes,” which for many ages
belonged to all the people of Greece. They could trace their origin
also in the city and province of Elis in the Peloponesus, and the city
Eleusis in Attica, and in the river Elissus, or Ilissus, in the same
province; and (as many believe) in the Elysian fields, so long one of
the favourite themes of their poets. Thus the settlements of Elisha
are traced.
As to Dodanim, the next son of Javan, the Septuagint translates
the name at Gen. x. 4, "Poêvot, or Rhodians; the Samaritan Pentateuch
also agrees with this rendering, and Jerome, Eusebius, and Isidore
coincide in the opinion that the first inhabitants of the islands of
Rhodes were the descendants of Dodanim. Other learned authors
assent to the reading of Rhodanim for Dodanim, and think they
settled at the mouth of the Rhone, in the vicinity of Marseilles; which
may be perfectly true, but does not contradict the assertion that they
first settled in the island of Rhodes, and thence passed into Greece.
Dr. Wells is of opinion (“Hist. Geog.,” vol. i., p. 71) that the
Dorians of the western coast of Asia Minor, who passed over to
Greece, like the Ionians and Eolians, were the Dodanim, and that the
change of name was originally caused by the carelessness of some
transcriber, who wrote Doranim for Dodanim (putting " for T); and
that thence the Greeks derived the names Doris, by which a part of
Western Asia was known to the ancients. However, the name
of Dodanim may be traced in the city Dodona of Epirus, the seat of
the celebrated oracle, whence the chief of gods was termed Dodonian
Jove. It is not improbable that Dodanim and his sons, after leaving
366 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Babel and the region of Mesopotamia, its site, remained some time in
Asia Minor, and perhaps formed a permanent establishment in the
neighbourhood of his brother Elisha, but they seem to have left no
certain traces behind them, till they finally settled in Epirus and
Peloponnesus.
Chittim, or Kittim, another son of Javan's, settled immediately west
of Cilicia, in the centre of the southern coast of Asia Minor, where
(according to Ptolemy) was the country of Cetis; and Homer
(“Odys,” l. xi., 520) mentions a people whom he calls Cetii, who
are supposed to derive their name from the river Cetius, which flowed
through their country. In perfect agreement with Homer, the
Septuagint renders Kittim, or Chittim, by Keriou, or Ketii, or Cetii;
and, therefore, it is probable that both people and river took their
name from Kittim, or Chittim, the son of Javan. The posterity of
Chittim seem to have colonized the neighbouring isles of Crete
and Cyprus; for Ptolemy mentions the city of Cytium in Crete;
and Strabo, the city of Citium in Cyprus; and Josephus
(“Antiq.,” lib. i., c. 6, s. 1) relates that Citios was the Greek
name of Cyprus itself, from whence, says he, all the Greek
isles were called Chittim. Colonies of these people crossed the
Hellespont and settled in Greece. In the first book of Maccabees
(ch. i. 1), the king of Macedon is called king of Chettiim. And
Cilicia itself (being at first the country of Tarshish, as we shall show)
is called in Scripture the land of Chittim, being the country from
which Alexander marched to the siege of Tyre, according to Isaiah's
prophecy, “The burden of Tyre. Howl, ye ships of Tarshish, for it
is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entering in ; from the land
of Chittim it is revealed to them.” (Isaiah xxiii. 1.) It is clear also
from Daniel (chap. xi. 30) that Italy also was indebted to the sons of
Chittim for her first inhabitants: “The ships of Chittim shall come
against thee.” The Roman fleets are undoubtedly meant in this
prediction, but they might sail to the attack of Antiochus from
Cilicia, in whose harbours they were constantly stationed to command
the Mediterranean. The most probable opinion, and one that puts an
end to the disputes of commentators and critics on this passage of the
prophet, is, that colonies of the Chittim were settled both in Greece
and Italy; and, consequently, whether the Roman fleet sailed from
the Tiber or from the harbours of Cilicia, its ships might still be truly
called, “ships of Chittim.”
From all the above notices of Elisha, Dodanim, and Chittim, it
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 367
seems plain that the descendants of Javan, through these three sons,
can be traced with certainty into Greece and Italy; but we shall find
from similar authorities, that it is impossible to trace the descendants
of Tarshish in the same, or, indeed, in any direction. If so, some
other meaning must be sought for Tarshish than that of national
ancestry.
[9.] This is the point we now proceed to examine, and it will be
seen that Tarshish may perhaps be traced to various detached cities
widely distant from each other, but certainly not to any distinctive
country, or any part of a distinctive country, as the parent of its people.
Tarshish, without doubt, settled by the side of his brethren in Asia
Minor. Josephus tells us (“Antiq.,” lib. i., ch. 6) that the whole of
Cilicia, the province of Asia Minor, which lies at its south west
corner, was anciently called Tarshish, from the founder of the king-
dom; and its chief city was Tarsus. But this is all. The next notice
is that the city Tartessus, in Spain, and the adjoining territory, so
highly celebrated by the ancients for its valuable productions, was a
colony of Tarshish—the name Tarshish, by an easy and frequent
change, being pronounced Tartish, from whence Tartessus is formed.
Bochart also observes (“Phaleg,” lib. iii., c. 7, p. 165) that Polybius,
reciting the words of a league made between the Romans and Cartha-
ginians, mentions a place Tarseium ; and Stephanus expressly says
that Tarseium was a city near the pillars of Hercules or straits of
Gibraltar, a situation corresponding sufficiently with the site of
Tartessus, in Spain. To this city the prophet alludes in his address
to Tyre: “Tarshish was thy merchant, by reason of the multitude of
all kinds of riches; with silver, iron, tin, lead, they traded in thy
fairs.” (Ezek. xxvii. 12.) This Tartessus was long renowned for its
various and abundant riches; and Spain, as is well known, formerly
abounded in the metals here enumerated by the prophet.
It moreover appears from several notices in the sacred writings
that the descendants of Tarshish were the most expert seamen of
their day, and consequently, the principal merchants of those remote
ages. Hence they gave the name of their progenitor first to the sea
of Cilicia, which washes the shores of their original settlements, and
afterwards to the whole expanse of the Mediterranean, which seems
to have been called for several ages the Sea of Tarshish. The extent
of their commerce and the length of their voyages were sufficient to
368 , NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
give a distinctive name to ships of a certain form and burden, though
they might neither belong to the sons of Tarshish nor navigate the
sea which bore their name. Wessels of greater burden and for the
longer voyages were built in imitation of theirs, and called ships of
Tarshish. Solomon's fleet was called a “navy of Tarshish,” and the
ships which Jehoshaphat ordered to be built, “ships of Tarshish.”
(1 Kings x. 22; and xxii. 48.) The fleets of these princes were
stationed at Ezion-Geber (Elath, or Akaba), on the Red Sea, and, by
consequence, neither navigated the sea of Tarshish, viz., the Mediter-
ranean, nor traded to Tartessus, or Tarshish, in Spain, but to some
part of Africa, Arabia, or the East Indies—the only countries that
produced the commodities, ivory, apes, and peacocks, with which
these voyagers returned to Palestine, after a coasting voyage of three
years. -
This is all the notice the best authorities have found of Tarshish,
and his descendants ; little enough, indeed ; while in his brethren,
Elisha, Dodanim, and Chittim, they readily trace the parents of the
inhabitants of Greece and Italy, an ancestry for those nations which
Holy Scripture supports. - -
It seems that Tarshish did really settle in Cilicia of Asia Minor,
but that, in the very earliest times, while the sea of Cilicia was
called the sea of Tarshish, the land of Cilicia had equally the title,
“land of Chittim” (Isa. xxiii. 1)—a title thus adopted by Holy
Scripture is indisputable—the original settlements of Chittim having
been a little west of his brother Tarshish. The inference seems just
that, even in those earliest ages, the sons of Chittim were out-
numbering, and at the same time mingling with, the sons of Tarshish,
to so great an extent as to overspread their territory, and, at length,
as the more numerous people, to give their own name to the land once
called by that of Tarshish ; and this fair inference seems the more
reasonable that, from the very first, the sons of Tarshish were
engaged in the navigation of the seas, and the plantation of colonies.
Such occupations would have a natural tendency not only to diminish,
but to disseminate, their numbers, Scattering them, we have seen,
along the distant shores of Europe, if not really on shores more
distant still, viz., the southern shores of Africa and Arabia. I say
the probable inference appears to be that these seafaring men of
Tarshish were so diminished by their perilous line of life, and the
colonies they settled in distant and unreclaimed quarters, that they
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 369.
soon ceased to be the principal inhabitants of their earliest settlement
in Asia Minor; and that their brethren of Chittim supplanted them,
while they were still met with for some time in various settlements
upon the coasts visited by the ships in which they traded, until at last
they became merged among the nations. At least, it is clear that no
separate nation, nor people, nor tribe within a nation, nor even a part
of Greece, can be traced to Tarshish, the son of Javan, the father of
the Grécian people. . . •
And yet it is clear that the name of Tarshish is continually used in
various parts of Scripture, especially in certain important passages of
the prophets; that, for instance, of Ezekiel before us. We proceed
to show that it is so used to signify a people, not lineally descended
from Tarshish the son of Javan, but embracing the national charac-
teristics, the seafaring, colonizing, and mercantile features, for which
the sons of Tarshish were so remarkable in their day.
Let, however, one or two observations more be previously impressed
upon the reader's mind, as arising naturally from the above observa-
tions, in reference to the sons of Javan. It appears that his only son
mentioned in connexion with Gog's confederacy is Tarshish, and that
him we cannot trace to any distinct people; his name is used typically;
but his other three sons we can trace well to Greece and Italy; Javan
is, in fact, the scriptural title for Greece, as we have already clearly
shown. Now, had any of Javan's descendants been nationally
included in Gog's confederacy, this seems to have been the very place
for mentioning them, since Ezekiel is giving us, as it were, a list or
catalogue of the people out of which that confederacy is formed. We
conclude, then, that Greece is not, as a nation, involved in Gog's
confederacy; but we have already shown that Javan, or Greece, is,
in some sense, involved in it, whence I venture to believe that that
sense is different from that in which Meshech, Tubal, Gomer, and
others are included; in fact, not like theirs, a national sense, but a
mystical. -
[10] Tarshish. The name is used by Ezekiel, “Tarshish, and
all the young lions thereof,” not literally, as of any sons of Javan;
but typically, of some people in the latter days, being, like the sons
of Tarshish, celebrated for maritime, colonizing, and mercantile
ascendancy.
B B
370 e . NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Tarshish is mentioned in about twenty places of the Sacred Volume;
and, by a fair investigation of some of these, we believe the above
position may be established ; for
We are told (1 Kings iz. 26) that “King Solomon made a navy of
ships, in Ezion Geber, which is beside Elath, on the shores of the
Red Sea, which is in the land of Edom ;” and it is stated that these
vessels traded for gold to Ophir. There can be no doubt that this is
the same branch of trade mentioned 2 Chron. ix. 21, where it is said
that King Solomon's “ships went to Tarshish with the servants of
Hiram ; every three years once came the ships of Tarshish, bringing
gold and silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks.” It appears also that long
after Solomon's times, Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, endeavoured to
carry out again the policy of his great predecessor, for it is recorded,
2 Chron. xx. 36, that “he joined himself with him (Ahaziah, King of
Israel) to make ships go to Tarshish; and they made the ships in
Ezion Geber.” These ships were built at Ezion Geber, in the land
of Edom, on the Eleanitic gulf of the Red Sea ; if, then, Tarshish
be here correctly written as the name of a place to which Solomon's
ships went, and Jehoshaphat's were meant to go, and not merely as the
name of the class of ships themselves, it is clear that some Tarshish
lay southward of Ezion Geber, and (since ships coasted as closely as
possible in those days) probably on the shores of Arabia, or the north-
eastern coast of Africa. The time of the voyage is precisely men-
tioned, but that does not enable us certainly to determine the distance;
it is probable, however, that it was not inconsiderable.
Some, however, think that there is a miscopy here, and that these
ships, being called Ships of Tarshish, traded to Ophir only; in short,
that the two passages in Chronicles are errors, and that Tarshish is
merely the title of the ships, and not the name of a place. It seems
curious that in two different places the same mistake should be made;
but whatever the proper reading may be, our argument is the same
upon the passages; Scripture here connects the name of Tarshish,
whether as of the ships or the place, of a maritime people, with a
rich and valuable trade in the south-eastern seas, the important
character of which connexion will presently be seen.
In the passage before us (Ezek. xxxviii. 13), Sheba is joined with
Tarshish, which Sheba we have shown, at p. 362, to be Yemen, the
south-western promontory of Arabia, and that the Queen of Sheba
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 371
who came to Solomon, and is also called Queen of the South (Matt.
xii. 42), was Queen of i'º, or Yemen, a country on the right-hand
of Judea, or the south. This would almost suggest that Sheba, in
the south of Arabia, and Tarshish, were not wholly unassociated in the
minds of the Jews to whom Ezekiel spake, and it seems more than
probable that this Queen of Yemen was induced to visit Solomon at
Jerusalem through reports of him which had reached her by ships of
Tarshish, which that monarch made and sent to some place on the
coast of Arabia; in fact, that perhaps there was a settlement called
Tarshish either within, or not far from, the dominions of the Queen
of Yemen, and that the passages in the Chronicles are not erroneous.
The verse already quoted from Ps. lxxii. seems to support this
opinion :-‘The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring
presents; the kings of Sheba, and Seba, shall offer gifts.” The
style of Hebrew poetry, which is to repeat in the second hemistich
the same, or a similar truth, in words of increased force or beauty, as
that announced in the first, would incline us to expect that some
Tarshish was situated on the coast, not very far from, perhaps within,
the dominions of the kings of Sheba, or the Yemen, or else that
Tarshish had, in David's days, become a word of vast and general
significance, for lordly traders of the isles or coasts of any sea.
In either case our present object is secured. Tarshish, in one
connexion of Holy Scripture, imports a rich and valuable course of
commerce in the south-eastern seas of Asia.
Nor is it impossible to form a reasonable conjecture as to the direc-
tion and character of this trade ; the productions mentioned assist in
directing our attention to the rich and extensive continents of the
East. This making of ships at Ezion Geber did, in fact, imply an
effort to secure the trade of the East, through the land of Edom, to
Jerusalem, to Tyre, to the nations of the West. Thus Volney terms
Edom the “Emporium of the commerce of the East,” and it is well
known that for a long period caravans were engaged in carrying the
articles of this trade by that route through Gaza, Tyre, Jerusalem,
and Damascus, to the shores of the Mediterranean; a sufficient reason
why Hiram, King of Tyre, the monarch of the greatest mercantile
and maritime power of the day, was associated with Solomon in that
undertaking. Solomon could not provide sailors, nor build nor
navigate ships; Hiram could do this, but could not possess the
navigation of the Red Sea without the consent of Solomon ; their
B B 2
372 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
alliance was therefore dictated by mutual interests, and together they
sought and acquired the monopoly, of the Eastern trade.
Volney, though a bitter enemy to Christianity, is good authority as
a traveller ; his “Travels in Syria and the East” was long considered
the best, and is still one of the best, works in the department of
literature to which it belongs. This man says, when speaking of the
trade of Palmyra, or Tadmor, in the desert, which Solomon built
(2 Chron. viii. 4):—“This commerce extended itself to India, and
the Persian Gulf was the principal point of union. Various facts
concur in corroborating this last assertion ; nay, necessarily force us
to acknowledge the Persian Gulf as the centre of the commerce of
that Ophir about which so many false hypotheses have been formed.
© e º e C & Have not peacocks, which were so much admired by the
Jews, been always supposed natives of that province of Persia which
adjoins the Gulff Did they not procure their monkeys from Yemen,
which was in their way, and where they still abound 2 Was not
Yemen the country of Sheba, whose Queen brought frankincense and
gold to the Jewish King 2 And is not the country of the Sabaeans
celebrated by Strabo for producing great quantities of gold 2 Ophir
has been sought for in India and Africa, but is it not one of those
twelve Arabian districts, or tribes, mentioned in the genealogical
annals of the Hebrews 2 . . . . . . If Babylon, from being the vassal
of Nineveh, in a short time became her rival, and the site of a new
empire, it was because her situation rendered her the emporium of
this lucrative trade ; in short, if the kings of this great city waged
perpetual wars with Jerusalem and Tyre, their object was not to
despoil those cities of their riches, but to prevent their invading their
trade by the Red Sea.” (Volney's “Travels,” vol. ii.) Undoubtedly poor
Volney belonged to that high order of geniuses, who can ask questions
much more easily than they can answer them ; but one thing is clear
from the above extracts, viz., that he was quite convinced that
Solomon and the King of Tyre, who made ships to go to Tarshish, or
Ophir, were, in fact, engaged in pursuing the trade of the Eas
Indies. 4.
One of our best Christian commentators seems as thoroughly
convinced of this as Infidel Volney, for Mr. Scott, in one comprehen-
sive remark on 2 Chron. ix. 13–21, observes—“The imports here
mentioned (apes and peacocks) indicate that prosperity had ener-
wated the minds of Solomon and his subjects, and led them to love
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 373
things curious and uncommon, though useless in themselves; and
indeed the East Indian trade has helped to render every nation
luxurious and self-indulgent which has prospered in it, from the
beginning to this day.”
From the above considerations it follows that the first interpretation
which Scripture suggests of the typical import of Tarshish, and the
ships thereof, is some place or kingdom whose ships have acquired,
and are engaged in, the commerce of the East, peculiarly of the
peninsula known as “India.”
But, further, we are told that, when Jonah fled from the presence
of the Lord to avoid going to Nineveh, he “went down to Joppa,
and found a ship going to Tarshish ; so he paid the fare thereof, and
went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish, from the presence
of the Lord.” (Chap. i. 3.) If Jonah were circumstanced at all like
the prophets of the Lord in these days, it was no heavy fare which he
could pay so readily, and the distance to this Tarshish was short in
proportion. This alone would convince us that Tarshish mentioned
by Jonah is not that Tarshish (if there were one) to which they traded
from Ezion Geber, for to reach that Tarshish from Joppa by sea, the
whole continent of Africa must be sailed round; a supposition absurd
in a commercial point of view, considering the articles of trade to be
presently mentioned; besides the fact that, in Jonah's days, such a
voyage was impossible. There must have been then at least one other
place known by the name of Tarshish. Ezekiel, too, says (chap.
xxvii. 12), when speaking of Tyre, “Tarshish was thy merchant, by
reason of the multitude of all riches ; with silver, iron, tin, and lead,
she traded in thy fairs:” and again, ver. 25:—“The ships of Tar-
shish did sing of thee in thy market ; and thou wast replenished and
made glorious in the midst of the seas.” Thus ships of Tarshish
harboured at Tyre, being freighted to that city with silver, iron, tin,
and lead, the latter three being commodities of that heavy, yet
common character, as to forbid, in commercial respects, their being
brought to Tyre from so great a distance as Ezion Geber and the
eastern seas. The Tarshish mentioned by Ezekiel, therefore, is not
that Tarshish (if there were any) to which Solomon's ships traded from
Ezion Geber. There can be no doubt but that the Tarshish mentioned
by Ezekiel and Jonah is one and the same ; and the commodities.
mentioned by Ezekiel, “iron, tin, and lead,” teach us to look for the
place not very distant from Tyre by sea, and necessarily in a westerly
374, NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
direction. The Tarshish mentioned by these two prophets was doubt-
less a commercial port, reached by the shores of the Mediterranean,
probably in Europe; perhaps, as suggested by some, Tartessus, on
the coast of Spain.
But at least we may conclude that the second interpretation which
the Holy Bible gives us of Tarshish, as a type, is that of a place, or
kingdom, renowned for commerce in metals, lying in an European
direction, that is, westerly of the Holy Land. * -
Closely allied to this second interpretation, Jeremiah suggests a
third. He says (chap. x.9), “Silver spread into plates is brought
from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz ; the work of the workman, and
of the hands of the founder; blue and purple is their clothing; they
are all the work of cunning men.” It seems that this quotation puts
some Tarshish before us in a light quite new. . One would think there
can scarcely be any doubt but that Jeremiah's Tarshish is the same as
that alluded to above by Ezekiel ; but, however that may be, one
fact is clear ; Jeremiah's is a manufacturing Tarshish. Ezekiel
mentions the import to Tyre from Tarshish of silver bullion, as well
as of iron, tin, and lead ; but Jeremiah expressly mentions the
exportation of it from Tarshish, in a manufactured state ; “silver
spread into plates;” gold and silver, “the work of the workman, and
of the hands of the founder ; ” so that Jeremiah's Tarshish was a
place engaged in the manufacture of metals. But, even more than
this, Jeremiah alludes to the dress of the mariners, apparently as
being manufactured in their own country :—“Blue and purple is their
clothing ; they are all the work of cunning men.” Hence, whether
Jeremiah's Tarshish be the same as Ezekiel's or not, the following
conclusion is clear :-
A third interpretation which the Word of God permits of Tarshish,
as a type, is that of a maritime, commercial place or kingdom, skilful
in the manufacturing both of metals and of fabrics fit for clothing.
But, still further, Scripture gives us direct authority for under-
standing Tarshish to imply generally any great maritime, commercial,
and manufacturing power; for it is applied immediately to Tyre herself.
Scripture gives Tyre the appellation Tarshish ; hence, whatever Tyre
was, of that we may conceive Tarshish to be a type :—“The burden
of Tyre. Howl, ye ships of Tarshish, for it is laid waste. Pass ye
over to Tarshish. Howl, ye inhabitants of the isle: is this your
joyous city whose antiquity is of ancient days?” Here is authority
º
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 375
of Scripture for the direct, and individual application of Tarshish as
a title. Whatever Tyre was, that Tarshish may be understood to be.
Here is scriptural authority for my typical application of Tarshish.
The Tyrians were the principal maritime, commercial, manufacturing
people of their day; and Isaiah called their city Tarshish, when the
Jews knew them to be so, and when, too, they were probably
acquainted with other cities of trade called Tarshish, and with one
especially, whose mention implied the richest commerce of the world,
which had been wrested from themselves in the days of those prophets.
Surely the import of the name to Jewish ears was certain and un-
avoidable; they understood by it the greatest maritime, commercial,
and manufacturing people of their days, concentrating, and, as it
were, monopolizing, the trade both of east and west. With this
impression they heard Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel ; and, in
studying the Hebrew Scripture, we should now read the name with
the same understanding.
A fourth interpretation, therefore, of Tarshish, as a type, is the
greatest maritime, commercial, manufacturing power of their day,
eminently engaged in the commerce of the world.
But again, the use of Tarshish in Scripture must needs imply a
..Gentile European nation from the sons of Japhet, and therefore to be
looked for in the isles or coasts of the West, i.e., of Europe.
For Tarshish, as we have seen from Gen. x. 2–5, was a son of
Japheth, whose settlements were in the isles, or coasts, of the sea ;
“by these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands;" and
such a force the name must always carry with it, for, in endeavouring
to determine its meaning now, we may never draw from it anything
opposed to its original application. Tarshish, as a type, must needs
refer to some Gentile nation from the sons of Japheth in the West.
Accordingly in late times Isaiah says, “Surely the isles shall wait for
me, and the ships of Tarshish first.” (Chap. lx. 9.) The meaning
of isles has already been explained, p. 342, in this chapter. “The
isles of the sea,” “the isles of the Gentiles,” “the isles of the
heathen,” these expressions denoted the settlement of Japheth along the
coast and in the islands of the west, i.e., of Europe. Isaiah delivering
a certain prediction, signalises the Tarshish of prophecy, which of
course Ezekiel's passage (chap. xxxviii. 13) refers to, as a place
among the isles of Japheth, of Europe, whose ships will wait for th
Lord. - -
376 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
A fifth interpretation, therefore, of Tarshish, as a type, is a
maritime power among the isles of the West, in Europe, among the
sons of Japheth.
And, lastly, the Tarshish of prophecy. Tarshish, as a type, is a
warlike nation of merchants: Ezekiel marks this, “The merchants of
Tarshish, and all the young lions thereof;” the word Tº, in the
Hebrew Scriptures, denoting not only warlike, but even fierce and
cruel people ; so that the peaceful merchants of Ezekiel's Tarshish,
disapproving Gog's confederacy, will also be known as a people fierce
and terrible in war. Therefore a sixth, and last, interpretation of
Tarshish, as a type, is a people of merchants, powerful, and to be
feared in war. “Cum leonibus gentes bellicosas, et rapaces, Scriptura
confert.” (Bochart's “Hierozoicon,” vol. ii., p. 88; also, ibid., p. 4,
on Tº a young lion able to seize his own prey.) I would go farther
upon this peculiar expression, “all the young lions thereof,” only that
I fear to do so. Let me merely say that national heraldic ensigns are
not unnoticed by the prophets of God, nor, perhaps, even by the
Saviour himself. (See Jerem. xlvi. 16—“The oppressing sword ;”
Tºlºſ B.II sword of the dove, the dove being the heraldic emblem
of Assyria; as the eagle of the Roman power alluded to by our
Saviour in Matt, xxiv. 28, and Luke xvii. 37—“There will the
eagles be gathered together.” See also Faber’s “Sac. Cal. Proph.,”
vol. i., p. 175.)
Thus, then, we have traced, and, I believe, fairly and truthfully
traced, six various interpretations of the prophetical, or typical,
Tarshish ; and the sum of them is this :—Tarshish, in Ezek.
xxxviii. 13, means, The most renowned maritime, colonizing, com-
mercial, warlike people of the latter days, celebrated for manufactures
both in metals and fabrics for clothing, and eminently engrossing the
commerce of the west and east of the world, descended from Japheth,
and residing in the islands of the west—in Europe. Tarshish, we say,
as used by Ezekiel, is a type, and this is the meaning of it; and the more
clearly so that Tarshish, by lineal descent as a son of Javan, cannot
be traced in any people, or part of a people, in these days. “The
country, therefore, to which the prophet calls is characterised as one
which, in the days of the completion of this prophecy, should be a
great maritime and commercial power, forming remote alliances,
making distant voyages to all parts of the world with expedition and
security, and in the habit of affording protection to their friends and
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 377
allies.” (Horsley's Xviii. Isa., p. 145.) And Faber, vol. ii., p. 65:-
“I know not who can be meant here except the great maritime nation
of faithful worshippers which had so vigorously opposed the tyranny
of Antichrist.” This Tarshish being such a nation of the west, the
Holy Spirit has caused Ezekiel to join, for some reason not necessarily
apparent, with the people of Sheba and Dedan inhabiting southern
Arabia, in disapproving of Gog's confederacy against Israel. In that
confederacy all the nations of Europe were included, unless some
exception could be proved ; Russia, in Meshech and Tubal ; Germany,
France, and England, the great German and Celtic tribes, in Gomer
and his bands: but an exception is proved; it is of the greatest
maritime, colonizing, mercantile, manufacturing people of Europe,
merchants by very birth and history, but terrible in war ; let the
history of modern Europe point out to the reader the exception
intended. The commanders of the sea, both in the old and new
world, are one people, but recently divided. This is that typical
Tarshish of which not only has Ezekiel said that it shall discountenance
and condemn Gog's confederacy of European and Asiatic powers
against restored Israel, although perhaps not permitted, in God's
providence, actually to resist it ; but of which, also, Isaiah, fore-
telling the restoration of Israel, had declared, long before Ezekiel's
time, that it should actively, with honour, assist in it; that it should
be faithfully engaged on the side of the Most High in opposition to
the designs and armies of Antichrist. Surely,” says he, speaking of
the glorious day when the Jewish Church, or nation, is restored to
her land, and the favour of her God, “surely the isles shall wait for
me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their
silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God,
and to the Holy One of Israel, for He hath glorified thee.” (Isa.
lx, 9.) And if the union of such people as Sheba and Dedan on this
occasion seem to the reader a strange conclusion to extract from
Ezek. xxxviii. 13, let him observe that Isaiah foretels this very same
extraordinary alliance in regard to Israel's restoration. Not only do
Sheba and Dedan join with Tarshish in condemning Gog's confederacy,
according to Ezekiel, but they, too, like Tarshish, are honourably
distinguished in actively accelerating their restoration according to
Isaiah —“The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries
of Midian and Ephah ; all they from Sheba shall come ; they shall
bring gold and incense, and they shall show forth the praises of the
378 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Lord. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee,
the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee; they shall come up
with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my
glory” (Isa. lx. 6, 7); a passage which represents Midian, and Ephah
his son, and Sheba, son of Raamah, viz., the Arabian Cushite;
and Kedar and Nebaioth, viz., the sons of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 13);
a passage, in short, which represents the inhabitants of the peninsula
of Arabia as co-operating with Tarshish in accelerating and assisting
in Israel's restoration, precisely according to Ezekiel's prediction, as
above explained. Such predictions are valuable, indeed, to the
numerous Jews known to be now resident in Yemen.
[11.] A.confederacy of extraordinary strength is to be formed for
purposes of war, invasion, and plunder, against the sons of Jacob, re-
stored to their own land, in these latter days. The pretext or occasion
for that confederacy and invasion Ezekiel does not state ; but its
termination he describes as marvellous to a supernatural degree ; the
hand of God will be seen and acknowledged in its complete destruc-
tion ; and the elements, or people, of which it is composed, he
sufficiently describes.
Our object in endeavouring to understand his account is rightly,
after having identified the clans or people of the earth known in
Ezekiel's days by the term he employs, to trace their descendants,
viz., the nations which have sprung from them, in our own. This
the researches of learned men have enabled us to do with considerable
accuracy, sufficiently so to enable us to determine, upon the whole,
the quarters of the world from which this impious confederacy
against God's purposes will be formed. It does not follow because it
is a confederacy against God's purposes that therefore those who form
it will believe, or admit it to be so. On the contrary, the direction in
which Ezekiel bids us look for the people composing it suggests the
idea that it will be formed of believers in Christianity, of the people
of states, professedly Christian, who perhaps may have some religious
motives, and even think they will do God service by oppressing
unbelieving Israelites in the land of Calvary. Such motives, and such
feelings, have roused the so-called Christian Church to ungodly perse-
cutions before to-day. The blood of Judah has been shed oftentimes
professedly in the cause of Christ, his King. *
Ezekiel tells us that this combination of people against Israel will
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 379
be overwhelming in its influence and numbers, and perhaps irresistible,
and unresisted, by reason of the strength of the nations united to
form it; but he says also that it will not be uncondemned, for, while
several mighty nations are joined in it, there will be one, as mighty
as any, untainted with its iniquity. There will be people, also, on
the confines of the Holy Land, sufficiently powerful in independence
to be uninfluenced by the oppressive combination of others, and able,
with Tarshish, to abstain from, and condemn, the confederacy thus
formed against the sons of Israel.
This confederacy will be formed from the sons of Japheth, for his
sons are mentioned by name as the fathers of the chief nations it
comprises; it will, therefore, be a confederacy of western, or Euro-
pean powers; it will be therefore of necessity a confederacy of those
nations lying west and north of the Holy Land. That in this con-
federacy one nation will take the most prominent part, the leadership,
Ezekiel states in terms perfectly unambiguous; he calls the confederacy
by his name ; he personifies the confederacy in him, and predicts its
overthrow through such personification :-‘‘I am against thee, O
Gog.” This leading power, thus unambiguously singled out, he calls
the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, names of two sons of Japheth
whose descendants we trace unequivocally to the heart of Russia.
Russia is that European power to whom the fearful precedence must
be accorded of leading this impious confederacy against God's people
Israel, in the land of Palestine.
The other principal powers included in this confederacy are com-
prehended in the description “Gomer, and all his bands,” the name of
another son of Japheth, in whom we identify the ancestor of the
great German and Celtic families of Germany, France, and England;
but out of these the prophet excepts some power, typically fore-
shadowed as the greatest maritime and commercial people of its day,
a people typically described as scattering themselves by colonies
throughout the world, merchants by profession, but not unskilled in,
nor indisposed to, the terrible energies of war. If we confine our
search for this nation among the European sons of Japheth, there can
be no doubt to which of the European powers it applies : it is
England. But if it be permissible to look among the sons of Japheth
beyond the settlements of Europe, the same conclusion virtually meets
us; they are the sons of England. ' The analogy of Scripture would
perhaps require us to interpret the type in its fullest sense, and say
380 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
that Tarshish, thus excepted from Gog's confederacy, means, first, the
great naval, and mercantile, and warlike European power found
among the sons of Japheth, and afterwards, those people descended
from that European power, and still retaining the same character-
istics, wherever they may be. Nor is it presumptuous to believe that
England is this power. The researches of able Christian men into
the mysteries of prophecy have enabled them unanimously to conclude
that the time for these events is rapidly approaching : the days of
Antichrist are literally numbered, and his fall will be synchronical
with Israel's exaltation. There is every reason for concluding that
the actors in this terrific drama are even now preparing for their parts;
but, if so, God, who appointed the nature of things, as well as
imparted the supernatural conceptions of his prophetic word, assures
us that, in the nature of things, no space remains for the growth of
an European power that shall dispute with England the maritime and
commercial pre-eminence to which the same God has permitted that
Protestant country to attain.
Russia, Germany, France, and such states as these may politically
immerge, compose this confederacy; the great maritime and mercantile
power of Europe condemns it.
But the prophet further includes and excepts certain other nations
of Africa and the East. He includes unequivocally Persia, the Persia
of the ancients, and the same Persia of these latter days. He includes
(unless we mistake) Abyssinia, as well as the coast of Africa imme-
diately west of Egypt. Why, or in what manner, these territories shall
then be associated with Russia and other powers of Europe against the
restored sons of Israel it is not for us to inquire. The fulfilment of pro-
phecy depends not upon the possibility nor reasonableness of our conjec-
tures, but upon the power and truth of God. Yet, remembering that
in Holy Scripture the memorial of nations is the history of the Church,
reasons are conceivable why these countries are likely to be included
in a confederacy of European powers against the Jews. It is not im-
possible to believe that, when this confederacy of (so-called) Christian
powers against God's people Israel shall be formed—a confederacy
held together by the bond of a common corrupted faith—it is not impos-
sible to conceive that there will be between the parts of Africa, now
held by France, and the kingdom of Abyssinia a stronger tie of
religious sympathy with the Greek and Roman Churches than that
even which we know already exists. Besides, although the profession
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 381.
of a corrupted Christianity will probably be the characteristic bond of
union between the confederated people, political motives and combina-
tions are not excluded. Religion may attach some, political purposes
others. Political influences and a communion of hostility to Jews
may join Persia to the confederacy ; political motives and hope of
worldly advantages, leading in a different direction, may induce
Arabia to oppose: for it is Arabia that, through Sheba and Dedan
(the Yemen particularly, and its maritime port, Aden), is, with
England as Tarshish, excepted from Gog's confederacy.
Russia, therefore, with Germany and France, religiously or politi-
cally sympathized with and abetted by the distant people of Persia,
Abyssinia, and the northern coast of Africa, compose this confederacy
under the leadership of the chief prince of Moscow : England and her
maritime descendants or allies disapprove and condemn it ; and motives,
probably political, induce the inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula to
do the same, - -
It is also to be noticed that Ezekiel gives us no means of recognising
any allusion to the Turkish power, unless, indeed, it be, as Jews say,
in Togarmah, as the ancestral name of the Turkomauns; and that
neither Misraim, or Egypt, nor the children of Javan, or Greece,
appear in his account to be nationally included. But I showed in the
last chapter, at p. 317, that Zechariah, Subsequently predicting these
same events, does specifically describe “sons of Greece" as the life
and soul of the warfare against Israel in the latter days—a respect in
which he singularly corroborates Ezekiel, who depicts the mystical sons
of Greece—viz., the only powerful embodiment of the Grecian apostasy
—as the leading people, the very life and soul of Gog's confederacy. I
conclude, therefore, that the sons of Javan are either territorially or
mystically, or both, but certainly mystically, comprised in the associates
of Gog; and as for Egypt and the Turkish power, we have reminded
the reader continually (see pp. 119, 354, suprā), that Scripture gives
us reason to believe that the great event of Israel's conversion
synchronizes with the final overthrow of the Mohammedan apostatic
power. The scene which Ezekiel presents to my mind is the con-
junction of three great apostasies from Christ—the Greek through
Meshech, the Roman through Gomer, the Mohammedan through
Togarmah and Persia, in an impious confederacy for the oppression
of God's ancient people, and in an unthinking opposition to his own
382. NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
.*
determined will under the leadership of the Greek. In these great
divisions subordinate people are comprised; but the great maritime
power, being a power from the European sons of Japheth, must needs
be a Christian power, and, as we have yet to show, is not only
opposed to the Antichristian confederates, but also assists in com-
pleting and establishing the restoration of Israel—a restoration national
before Gog's overthrow, but to be vastly increased in numbers by the
aid of “Tarshish first " after that event.
[12.] And there are reflections of a very useful and practical
character to be made upon the confederacy of Gog, with reference
to events now passing in Europe. Assuming that this explanation
of the names employed by Ezekiel be correct, an explanation not
founded upon its probability (which is great), nor upon any views of
popularity, but the very contrary, founded entirely upon the import of
the several names employed, as far as that import can be determined from
the learned investigations of writers—Heathen, Jews, and Christians—
collated with Holy Scripture ;-assuming, I say, that this interpreta-
tion is, in the main, correct, and that Meshech stands for the Musco-
vite, and Gomer for the great German family, then we observe that,
in times yet to come, the vast power of Russia, however disappointed
and humiliated now, or however successful (it matters not), will, in
the end, succeed in her known and avowed purpose, and become the
power holding the ascendancy of political and religious influence in
the East; and that, acting in subservience to her, under her leadership,
and confederated with her for one and the same purpose, will be
equally the power of all Germany and France ; of Germany certainly,
though it may be more difficult to identify France or England with
sons of Gomer. Russian policy will prevail in the East, and that, as
we showed in the last chapter, in her peculiar character of European
representative of the Grecian apostasy, not for her honour, nor
in obedience to the sanctifying will of the Almighty, but for her
condign disgrace and overthrow, under especial blinding judgment of
God. The designs of that State, doomed to be successful against the
East, are not Christian, but peculiarly Antichristian, by the Word of
God, and place her, the sword of one great apostasy, in close alliance
and amity with the known and recognised swords of the other.
Ezekiel's picture is that of the two great apostasies from the Church
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 383
of Christ united in opposition to God's last design for the salvation
and unity of his Church, to be wrought out by their overthrow and
Israel's conversion. By what means Israel shall be restored Holy
Scripture does not inform us, though passing events are calculated to
suggest a way ; but Holy Scripture does assert, and re-assert, and
assert again, the eventual fact that Israel shall ; and having been so
restored, by what method that people incurs the animosity of the
Greek and Roman heresies is not said, but incur it she will ; be
warred against by them she will ; be rescued from their armies she
will; and, by that rescue, be converted.
Nor let it be objected that this reunion of Greece and Rome seems
so contrary to probability; nor let it be a matter of surprise that both
are thus referred to in similar terms of condemnation. It is much to
be deplored that, in usual expositions of certain parts of Scripture,
while everything has been written and thought of against Rome (God
grant we may never think or write against her less (), nothing, com-
paratively, has been thought or said against the twin sister, Greece.
Our attention in Western Europe has been so engrossed by the
apostasy of one division of the empire, that we seem almost to have
forgotten the other was the subject of an apostasy almost identical,
but certainly as base. In what respects do the characters of the
Greek and Roman Churches so differ that we should be tender of
fixing upon one the spiritual leprosy we have so unanimously
charged upon the other ? Let the accepted authorities of the Grecian
Church be examined (of which a clear and comprehensive account
may be seen in the “Christian Observer,” of January, 1854), and it
will be easily perceived that the Grecian Church, like the Roman, has
the real and infallible marks of apostasy, of Antichrist, in—1. Their
rule of faith, composed of Scripture and tradition ; 2. The procession
of the Holy Spirit from the Father only—in which particular she is more
heretical than Rome; 3. The unscriptural multiplication of sacraments
to seven; 4. The doctrine of transubstantiation, and worshipping, as
we worship God, the consecrated elements; 5. That the eucharist is
a real atoning sacrifice both for the living and the dead; 6. Praying
for the dead; 7. Worshipping the Virgin Mary as Christians
worship God alone; 8. Subordinately worshipping saints and angels;
9. The adoration of pictures and the cross; 10. Denying the Scrip-
tures to the people. What more do we need for discovering the
plague-spot of apostasy 2 “From the head even to the foot there is
384 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
no soundness in it.” And we need evince no surprise that some
believe Holy Scripture declares that the Antichrist, which shall be
overthrown in these last days, is not only of the Church of Rome, but
also of the Church of Greece—of the two united under the headman-
ship of the Russian. We may safely say, with Mr. Pahmer, the
author of “Dissertations relating to the Orthodoa, or Eastern
Catholic Communion,” that “the destinies of the old Greek Church
may be said to be practically wrapped up with those of the Slavonic
race, and so again with those of the Russian Empire. And we may
affirm it to be probable that in the course of time it will, through the
Russian power, regain the whole of those countries which formerly
constituted the Graeco-Eastern Empire; and not only so, but that it
will cover the whole of Asia, to the uttermost shores of the Eastern
and Southern Ocean.” (Page 7.) The chief part of this I believe ;
but God forbid that either I or Mr. Palmer should pray for it as he
advises. The result may be anticipated ; but it is a result to all con-
federated, whether of the East or Western Churches, full of national
rebuke and disgrace; the result is Antichrist's last rebellion, and his
destruction in these latter days; it is a result from which every
Christian and patriotic and loyal Englishman will pray his beloved
country may be providentially preserved.
And she will be so preserved. For when Greece and Rome, united
in apostasy, are stricken down in Palestine, then England, that modern
Tarshish, will be found in the Lord, and her mighty armaments
waiting to do his will. God be praised, the efforts of our faithful
ministers of Christ, and the Protestant energies of her people, blessed
of God, will be crowned with honour and success. In that day—
“die irae, die illá”—the “merchants of Tarshish and all the young
lions thereof.” will be found attendant on the Lord of Hosts, separated
both from Greece and Rome, waiting to herald blessing to Israel,
by carrying back her expectant sons to the loved country of
their fathers, there to receive their own political rights, and to
embrace and bow down before that glorious Christ whom, up to
that time, Greece and Rome will dishonour, and Israel contemn.
God be praised, the efforts of Rome, ever hated and felt to be more
hateful by Englishmen day by day, against our Protestant Queen and
country, will not be successful; and we have cause to bless Him that,
already in our own day, that hostility to Greece has commenced,
destined, we doubt not, to last until the consummation.
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 385
* = . . . . . . .--—-------- . . . -------------------' r----" "
- ºr r- ------------------rºr" -
CHAPTER IX.
“AT THAT TIME SHALL A PRESENT BE BROUGHT TO THE LORD
OF HOSTs.”—ISA. xviii. 7.
THIS seems to me the most convenient place for considering the
arguments which have been advanced for believing in a conversion
of the Jews prior to their restoration ; for, surely, they must be
strong arguments indeed to enable us to ride over that declaration of
Ezekiel contained in his chap. xxxix. 22, which (to those, at least,
who believe in any literal restoration of Israel at all) seems so plain
and indisputable : and it certainly is a remarkable fact, that Mr. Faber,
who has written the most fully on this subject, should have so tho-
roughly misconceived Ezekiel (chaps, xxxviii., xxxix.), as I shall be
able to show he has ; for, but for that misconception, it seems impos-
sible to think he could ever have maintained that Israel's conversion,
as specifically predicted in Holy Scripture, was to take place before
the restoration. In other particulars, he merely followed Bishop
Horsley.
II.] Bishop Horsley's opinion, when writing upon Isa. xviii. 7–
“In that time shall the present be brought unto the Lord of Hosts,
of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people terrible from their
beginning hitherto ; a nation meted out, and trodden under foot,
whose land the rivers have spoiled, to the place of the name of the
Lord of Hosts, the mount Zion”—is thus recorded :—
“The messenger people is certainly to be a Christian people. For
I think it cannot be doubted that the messenger people, and the
leaders of the present to Jehovah to Mount Zion, are the same people.
And the act of leading a present to Jehovah to Mount Zion must be
an act of worshippers of Jehovah ; for it is an act of worship. They,
therefore, who lead the present will be true worshippers performing
that service from religious motives. And as stich, they are most
C C
386 NotEs on THE RESTORATION
expressly described by the Prophet Zephaniah, if I construe his words
aright—‘Thy worshippers, beyond the rivers of Cush, shall conduct
as an offering to me the daughter of my dispersion.” (Zeph. iii. 10.)”
Thus far, from Horsley's Letter on Isa. xviii. (p. 102), as regards
those who bring the offering, all of which is granted, and is an
explicit declaration of that which we inferred respecting Tarshish
in the last chapter, viz., that the power so denominated will be a
faithful Christian, and therefore Protestant power, of Europe, opposed
to Antichrist in the day of the recovery of Israel; for we showed
that the people so denominated was a warlike nation of merchants
from the sons of Japheth possessing the characteristics of the ancient
sons of Tarshish, as a great commercial, manufacturing, maritime
people, specifically excepted from Gog's confederacy. But he adds,-
“I have an unfashionable partiality for the opinions of antiquity.
I think there is ground in the prophecies for the notion of the early
fathers, that Palestine is the stage on which Antichrist, in the height
of his impiety, will perish. I am much inclined, too, to assent to
another opinion of the fathers, that a small band of the Jews will
join Antichrist, and be active instruments of his persecutions. And
I agree with you, that it is not unlikely that this small part of the
Jews will be settled in Jerusalem, under the protection of Antichrist.
But it is not to the settlement of this apostate band that the prophecy
of this eighteenth of Isaiah relates. For I must observe, that when
the present offered consists of persons, the offered, as well as the
offerers, must be worshippers. For to be offered is to be made a
worshipper, or, in some instances, to be devoted to some particular
service, in which the general character of a worshipper is previously
implied, both in the person who hath authority to so devote, and in the
devoted; as in the instances of Jephtha's daughter and the child
Samuel. The people, therefore, brought as a present to Jehovah to
Mount Zion, will be brought thither in a converted state. The great
body of the Jewish people will be converted previous to their restora-
tion, and, being converted, will be assisted by Christian nations of the
uncircumcision in settling themselves in their ancient seats. I agree
with you that some passages, in Zechariah in particular, make strongly
for this notion of a previous settlement of worse than unconverted Jews.
But I am not without hope, from the same passages, that the great
body of the converted Jews returning will find these first settlers
broken off from the Antichristian faction in a state of deep contrition,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS, 387
and ready to receive their brethren with open arms. So the whole
race shall be offered to Jehovah at Mount Zion, and not one of
Israel shall be lost. And so far, but no farther, I can admit an
inchoate restoration of the Jews antecedent to their conversion, and a
settlement of a small body of them in the Holy Land by the Anti-
christian powers. But this, Irepeat, is not the great subject to which
the prophecy (Isaiah xviii.) relates; the general restoration of the
Jewish people—a business in which the Atheistical faction will have
no share.” - • - -
Such is Bishop Horsley's view of the conversion and restoration of
Israel as stated by himself, upon which I would observe generally,
that what is true in it is true only in a sense to confuse the subject,
but that also there is something, and that most important, which is
€I’I'OI16OUIS. -
[1..] It will be noticed that the Bishop's statement consists of two
parts; the one having reference to the 18th chapter of Isaiah, the
other expressing his views upon this great subject from other
prophecies, among which he specifies Zechariah's. As to Isaiah xviii.,
he states that it predicts the bringing back of the great body of the
Jewish people by a certain Christian power. This is, but partly,
admitted. And he maintains that this great body, brought as an
offering, must therefore be converted. This is denied for reasons
which we shall show ; but, besides, this is not the real point. The
question is, whether, admitting that this “great body” is brought
back converted, will they be so brought back before or after the
national restoration? As to other prophecies, he admits an inchoate
nestoration of the Jews antecedent to their conversion ; and it will be
seen that this admission of an inchoate restoration is fatal to his case.
He persists in calling this inchoate restoration a “small body,” but
“small body” is merely a comparative expression, upon the size of
which there may be differences of opinion; besides which, nationality
does not depend on numbers. Admitting, therefore, two points—
1. That the “great body” brought back by the Christian power,
according to Isaiah xviii., is converted ; and, 2. That Horsley's
“inchoate restoration” is a small body, the great and real question
remains, Does this small inchoate restoration constitute in Scripture
a national restoration? i.e., a compotent representation of both houses?
We have shown, and shall further show, that it does, and that this

C C 2
388 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
restoration, though afterwards to be considerably increased in
numbers, was nevertheless national, and possessing the characteristics
constituting nationalism, which is entirely independent of numbers;
and that such restoration is accordingly treated as national in Holy
Scripture. Further, he maintains that this small body (as he chooses
to call it) is in possession of Jerusalem at the time certain prophecies
are fulfilled. True ; but also in possession of the whole land (from
Ezek. xxxviii. 39), which he does not acknowledge. Also, he main-
tains that they are settled by Antichrist and protected by Antichrist.
Now, we have nothing to do with the manner of their settlement; but,
however, we have shown, and shall show, that by whomsoever
restored or protected, they will be assaulted by Antichrist, who will
war against them at Jerusalem, and whose overthrow is the immediate
cause of their conversion. This the Bishop partly sees, for he is not
without hope they will be found broken off from the Antichristian
faction when their brethren return.
[2] Having made this general remark, and again pressing upon
the reader's memory the fact that the real question is not whether
the great body represented as brought back in Isaiah xviii. will be at
that time converted or not, but whether a national restoration will
previously have been accomplished, I proceed to show the incon-
clusiveness of Bishop Horsley's reasoning. He maintains that the
maritime people who bring the present to Jehovah (and whom I shall
for brevity's sake henceforth call Tarshish) must be worshippers: True.
But he also argues that when the present consists of people, as in this
case, they must be worshippers also ; or, since the present is of Jews,
must be converted: this is denied. For, take the Bishop's own
illustration of “Samuel” (Jephtha's daughter seems to me very ill
chosen), “Samuel.” We offer children to the Lord as Samuel
was offered, or to be Nazarites from their youth, or to be
circumcised. Are these children believers? They are accepted
offerings into covenant with the Almighty, who has willed they
should be offered; and we cherish the belief they will become
believers; but even of little Samuel it was said, “Now Samuel did
not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet
revealed unto him.” (1 Sam. iii. 7.) Just so of Israel brought
back after Messiah's overthrow of Antichrist at Jerusalem, they come
willing, expectant, preparing; but to say, as Bishop Horsley says,

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 389
that they must be worshippers, is to say more than the language of
Isaiah or his own mode of argument justifies. This will be yet
further manifest by keeping Isaiah's language carefully in mind: “A
present shall be brought unto the Lord of Hosts of a people scattered
and peeled.” (Ver, 7.) Now the only part of Scripture from which
we are able to form ideas respecting offerings to the Most High
consistently with Hebrew sentiment is the book of Leviticus, in which
the various offerings and means of offering in the Mosaic ritual are
prescribed ; and it seems much to the present purpose to observe that,
whether with regard to the FTP; the bloody offering, or the nºn the
bloodless, no offerings under that ritual were accepted until, having been
brought, they underwent certain preparations before the Lord at the
hands of those appointed by Him for that purpose. It may be verified by
reference to many passages in Leviticus, that after the offering (which
the Lord himself appointed) was brought by the willing offerer, the
worshipper, it experienced that particular preparation by which its
acceptability was produced—a preparation which, separating part
from the remainder, furnished that very offering which then, and not
before, was acknowledged and received of the Most High: just so, I
not only object to the rapidity of Bishop Horsley's conclusion, but,
further, should also reason that, as there was no prior fitness or
preparedness in the offering brought to the Lord under the Mosaic
dispensation, so there will be no prior fitness or preparédness in Israel
when he is the offering brought under the Christian. Just as the
offering underwent purification and was consecrated after it was
brought by the willing worshipper, and not before, so when Tarshish
carries Israel back to the Lord's temple at Jerusalem Israel's purifi-
cation will commence, and there he will be consecrated and find
acceptance. The preparation of the offerings after being brought,
fitly represents, to my mind, the purging out of Israel's impurities and
unbelief by contrition, confession, and conversion at Jerusalem, the
place of offering. And the Bishop's argument seems to have failed
almost to his own mind, for he uses this remarkable expression,
“For to be offered is to be made a worshipper;” which is just
what we mean, and that the offering was not a worshipper until
so offered.
Yet the willingness of the people thus brought back and their
expectance of the great result are beautifully set forth by Isaiah:
“A people meted out and trodden down,” says the English version,
with a marginal emendation; but the Hebrew is Tºº lººp ºil,
390 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
of which Horsley fully treats at p. 57, and in the end settles
on this translation: “A nation expecting, expecting, and trampled
under foot.” (But see Gesenius and Lee, sub voce.) This same
idea of expectance and readiness to accept the message of Messiah's
advent is (there is cause to think) also suggested by the ex-
pression, “a present" shall be brought. It is a remarkable fact
that the word here translated present is used only three times in the
Scriptures, and, I believe, in each place of the same incident, viz., the
recovery of Israel from their last dispersion, and certainly always in
the phrase here employed : “Alitër non legitur nisi in håc solemni
locutione; "g ºn dona, s. mumera obtulit Deo . Isa. xviii. 7 :
Ps. lxviii. 30; and Ps. lxxvi. 12.” (Gesenius’ “Thesaurus,” 1397.)
If the reader will refer to these two extraordinary and beautiful
Psalms I believe he will not be able fully to appreciate them unless he
refers them to the coming restoration of Israel. However, in such
places only is the phrase employed, and the derivation of "tº present,
is altogether uncertain. Yet Eichorn has suggested one which, if not
certainly correct, is at least wonderfully significant, when we recollect
the connexion in which the word is used. For he derives it from an
Arabic word which signifies milk spontaneously flowing from the
udder: “Unde (says Gesenius) "tº proprié affluentiam explicaveres.”
A rich and abundant offering, overflowing, flowing spontaneously to
the Lord. When we recollect how Israel is scattered over the face of
the earth—many, if not most of them, in dark, untracked places—
surely the willing flocking of them to Palestine at the message of
Messiah's arrival may well be likened to the free flowing of a rich
and acceptable present from the dark places of its secretion. If
Eichorn has not discovered the correct derivation of "g , he has
surely suggested a very beautiful lesson.
[3] And in proper connexion with this, I cannot help noticing that
Bishop Horsley's supposition of conversion anterior to restoration is
unsound and fallacious in another particular. For he argues that the
great body of Israel will be brought back by this maritime nation of
faithful worshippers, this Tarshish, according to Isaiah xviii. But I
would observe with the greatest deference that Isaiah gives us no
reason at all for calling this “present” the great body of the people ;
and that all Scripture is against this gratuitous assumption. For
Israel is depicted, and not least by Isaiah himself (see chap. xi.
11, 12), as gathered from all quarters of the world, and the great
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 391
body of them undoubtedly from places and countries inland and
continental, whither the ships of Tarshish could never come. Isaiah,
like Zephaniah (chap. iii. 10), describing the Lord's offering as a
mincha Tºº : “they shall bring all your brethren an offering unto
the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters,
and upon mules, and upon swift beasts to my holy mountain Jerusa-
lem, as the children of Israel bring the mincha in a clean vessel into
the house of the Lord.” (Chap. lxvi. 20.) So that Horsley's
assumption is very ill founded indeed; these maritime worshippers,
this Tarshish, will bring back, and be the first to bring back (Isaiah
lx. 9) a present to the Lord no doubt, but only a part present. The
great whole, the remaining "g will flow, full and ready, the rich
stream of an acceptable offering, from all parts of the habitable globe,
wheresoever they be at present secreted. As Jeremiah taught us
(see p. 153, suprā), they “shall flow together to the goodness of the
Lord.” Or, again, Isaiah: “I will make all my mountains a way, and
my highways shall be exalted. Behold, these shall come from far;
and lo, these from the north and from the west, and these from the
land of Sinim.” (Chap. xlix. 11, 12.) But if the reader will reflect
on Horsley's language, he will perceive that this idea of conversion
previous to restoration is closely dependant upon the supposed fact
that the great body are brought by worshippers, which supposed fact
proves to be an assumption opposed by Scripture. The faithful
worshippers, as Horsley admits, are maritime, are Tarshish; and this
bringing of people by them can at best extend to only a portion of
the return, and can hardly be supposed to comprise the flocking home
of those dwelling in Assyria, and the East, China, &c., &c., who will
need no maritime aid at all. (Examine Isaiah xi. 14; xlix. 11, 12,
22, 23 ; lxvi. 20; Jerem. xxxi. 21, &c., &c.) The “great body” of
Israel flocks overland, though the ships of Tarshish are the first to
lend their aid in the restoration. -
[4.] I said that the real question was not whether those brought
back by Tarshish and others was the “great body” of Israel or not,
nor whether they were converted or not when so brought back, for
that numbers do not constitute nationality; but this, whether, before
they were so brought back, a restoration of any termed in Scripture a
national body had been effected in an unconverted condition. I also
stated that it was not permissible to us to term any body of restored
392 .NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Israel small or large, according to our own notions, seeing that these
are but comparative terms upon which different opinions may be held;
but that we were bound to consider whether the body so restored was
described in Holy Scripture by national terms or otherwise ; because,
whether small or large in our opinion, if they be spoken of in Holy
Scripture by national terms, then they are the national restoration;
and if described as restored previously to conversion, then the
conversion will take place after the national restoration, no matter
what accession of numbers, converted or unconverted, that national
restoration may receive. - .
Thus, for instance, the people who returned from Babylon were few
compared with those who remained behind; but undoubtedly they
constituted the restoration predicted by Jeremiah. So the people
restored before the coming conversion may, or may not, be few in our
opinion; but the real question is, Will they constitute the national
restoration continually foretold by the prophets? The answer to
which I base contentedly upon the consistent interpretation of Holy
Scripture. All through this book I profess to have shown that certain
religious convictions, which we may otherwise denominate conversion,
are produced by events which shall befall certain sons of Jacob in the
Holy Land. Now these people upon whom these events are to fall
are variously termed :—Jacob, Judah, the captivity of Jerusalem, and
captivity of Samaria, the house of Israel, the flock of Israel, the whole
house of Israel, my people of Israel, the children of Israel, and
children of Judah, prisoners of hope, Judah, Ephraim ; in prophecies
of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Zechariah, already treated of; and
the rebellious children, a rebellious people, the people, the children of
Israel, the congregation, his people, children of Zion, Israel, Judah,
my people and heritage Israel, and represented as under the governors
of Judah and house of David, in prophecies of Isaiah, Joel, and
Zechariah, yet to be considered. Now, to spiritualize these titles is
perfectly allowable to, and consistent in, those who deny any future
restoration and conversion of Israel, but by no means so to any who
believe in and anticipate those events. To us the interpretation of
these terms in their literal integrity is a vital principle which we dare
not at any time depart from, or our whole theory falls in. Judah
must always stand for the two tribes, Ephraim for the ten, Israel
either for the ten or all the tribes ; house of Israel for the same;
whole house of Israel undoubtedly for all, &c., &c. In short, these are
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 393
national terms, and must be understood nationally. If, then, the
assault of Antichrist can be proved to take place within the Holy
Land upon people thus denominated by national titles, those people,
those restored people, so assaulted by Antichrist, must in all consis-
tency be held by us, who believe in a national restoration, to be the
national representation of their people, i.e., the national restoration.
And thus it becomes not permissible to Bishop Horsley to call people so
denominated by the prophets a “small body;” nor is it by any means
consistent with that mode of interpretation upon consistent main-
tenance of which belief in a future national restoration of Israel
depends—a belief as earnestly entertained by him as by us.
This argument is supported by every chapter of this volume; but
upon the dissertations on Ezek. xxxviii. and xxxix., Joel's Book;
Zechar. ix. and x.; also xii. and xiv.; and Isaiah xxviii.-xxxii.,
upon these I am willing to found entirely the proof that Antichrist's
assault takes place upon a restored people, called by the most compre-
hensive national titles, and, therefore, rightly to be considered the
national restoration. So that, whatever conversion takes place after
that assault, must be considered as taking place after the national
Testoration. But it is manifest from all these prophecies that
Messiah’s overthrow of Antichrist, accompanied by the outpouring of
the Holy Spirit, produces in the restored people that remarkable
religious change which we denominate conversion ; and hence it
follows that the whole national conversion will take place after the
national restoration. I suspect the truth is this—that as the few
restored from Babylon were nevertheless the tribal restoration of the
two predicted, by Jeremiah, because the rightful governorship and
legal priesthood accompanied it, so the partial restoration of Judah
joined by confused people of Ephraim, previous to the assault of
Antichrist, will constitute the national restoration predicted by the
prophets, because in the providence of the Most High it also will be
accompanied by the rightful governorship of David's house and legal
priesthood of Levi's, as intimated by Zechariah at chap. xii. 6–8, and
11–14, which we have yet to speak of, and as already intimated on
Ezek. xxxviii. 39, at p. 248, suprā. That will be the national
restoration, after which the great event by which conversion is to be
effected will take place, and all additions to this restoration, whether
by Tarshish or any other power, whether of converted people or not,
must be considered as mere adjuncts to their principals; and if of
394 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
converted people, are nevertheless after the national restoration.
For once more, I beg the reader to bear in mind the important
principle that nationality does not depend on numbers.
[5.] Bishop Horsley represents this “inchoate restoration” as
settled in the Holy Land by Antichrist, as protected by Antichrist, as
having joined Antichrist, though he thinks there is ground to hope
that, when the great body of their brethren return, they will be found
broken off from Antichrist. Now it is no part of the present subject
to inquire whether Antichrist is the means of restoring any or what
portion of Israel; nor how nor by whom that restoration shall be
effected; the only question we have to do with is whether the people
of Israel, possessing Jerusalem and the Holy Land, at the time of
Antichrist's invasion, constitute what Scripture recognises as the
national restoration? This question was in part replied to under the
last head; but that reply shall now be made clearer.
I will for the present assume, what will become abundantly plain in
the sequel, that the confederacy of Gog and Magog predicted by
Ezekiel is, in fact, that which is also foretold by other prophets, and
known among Christian writers as the confederacy of Antichrist.
This being for the present assumed, it is, I submit, clear that the
people residing within the Holy Land at the time of Antichrist's
invasion are unconverted people of Israel, possessing the land generally,
and recognised by Ezekiel as a fair representation of the nation, and
as constituting the predicted national restoration. Bishop Horsley
expects to find a “ small band ”or “small part” of the Jews settled in
Jerusalem under the protection of Antichrist. But those of whom
Ezekiel speaks as already restored when Antichrist invades Judea
are described in language which does not permit them to be con-
sidered so trifling and inconsiderable a restoration as the Bishop
implies ; for they are called, “the people gathered out of the
nations,” “my people Israel,” “the house of Israel,” terms of a national
character, which, as before remarked, consistency of interpretation
requires that they who believe in a future restoration at all, should
interpret in a national sense, for unless they do so, they deprive
themselves in fairness of any right to interpret such phrases in a
sense agreeable to their purpose when occurring in prophecies which
they would explain of a future restoration and conversion of Israel.
But further, the people attacked by Gog's confederacy (which we now
AND conversion of THE JEws. - 395
assume to be the same as Antichrist's) are described as in such
general possession of the Holy Land, and to have acquired it in a
manner so progressive, that it becomes impossible to consider them a
small or inconsiderable band, as suggested by Horsley. ' When Gog
comes up the land, the whole land is represented as “brought back
from the sword,” the people as “brought back from the nations.”
(Ezek. xxxviii. 8.) They are described as dwelling at rest “in
unwalled villages; ” the “desolate places” are described as “now
inhabited; ” the people to have “gotten cattle and much goods,
dwelling in the midst of the land,” i.e., in complete and quiet possession
of it. (Ver. 12.) The people are spoken of as those “that dwell in
the cities of Israel,” going forth to destroy the weapons of war; as
“the house of Israel,” “the people of the land,” engaged seven months
in cleansing the land. (Chap. xxxix. 9—13.) Such expressions are
entirely inconsistent with the idea that only a few people, a small
part or band of Israel, possess the country at the time of Gog's
invasion. And Mr. Faber agrees with us. (Page 407, infra.)
If, then, it be proved that these restored are describéd by national
terms, such as prophets usually employ when speaking of Israel as a
nation ; and if it be proved that Ezekiel describes such restored
people as in general possession of the Holy Land when Gog comes
up ; and if it be proved that the destruction of Gog's confederacy
produces upon their minds that impression, which leads them thence-
forward to know the Lord in a sense peculiar to Christianity—viz.,
in the time of the latter days; then it must follow that the people thus
described by Ezekiel as restored are the national representation of
their whole people, and must be regarded in consistency as the
national restoration. So that, whether they were first brought back
through the instrumentality of Antichrist, or not (which is of no
moment to the subject), the national restoration will have been
effected before Gog's confederacy is stricken down, and therefore
before the national conversion.
[6.] If the above remarks be fairly weighed, I cannot help thinking
they will be considered a sufficient reply to Horsley's opinion, that
Israel's conversion will precede his restoration; and I conclude them
by making a valuable use of his “Letter upon Isaiah xviii.”
There is not space to recite it at length; but let me briefly point
out, to those who will refer to it, that Ezekiel's prophecy (chaps.
xxxviii. and xxxix.) is not only perfectly agreeable to Bishop
396 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Horsley's exposition of Isa. xviii., but also contains much that is
fitted to elucidate it. Thus—1. “The land shadowing with wings,”
the land of “swift messengers,” to whom Isaiah's proclamation is
addressed (chap. xviii. 1, 2), is proved by Horsley's criticism to be
the land of a great maritime people, celebrated for extending their
protection over others, and dwelling anywhere westward of the
mouths of the Nile ; “beyond the rivers of Ethiopia” (ver. 1), being
a nautical phrase of Phoenician mariners, which implied any country
sea-westward of the Mediterranean. (See Horsley's Isaiah, pp. 37,
38.) This is that Tarshish excepted from Gog's confederacy (Ezek.
xxxviii. 13), and which I endeavoured to explain in the last chapter.
(See p. 369.) Thus—2. The pruning of the vine “afore the
harvest,” the cutting down “the branches,” and leaving them together
“unto the fowls of the mountains and beasts of the earth” (Isa.
xviii. 5, 6) is determined by Horsley to be “the purification of the
Christian Church by the awful visitation predicted,” the end of
“Antichrist's last exploit.” (“Letter on Isaiah,” pp. 85–87.) In
fact, the very destruction of Gog, and many people with him, pre-
dicted by Ezekiel. (See chap. xxxix. 4, 17.) Thus—3. “The
lifting up of the ensign upon the mountains,” and the “blowing of
the trumpet” (Isa. xviii. 3), are the very same lifting up of “an
ensign to the people,” and setting up “an ensign to the nations,”
predicted in Isaiah (chap. xi.), for the days of Branch ; are “the
setting up of the standard to the people,” that they should “bring
his sons in their arms, and carry his daughters on their shoulders ; ”
are “the lifting up of God's hand” in Isa. xlix. 22 ; are “the lifting
up of the standard” when “sin enters in as a flood” (Isa. lix. 19);
are “the stones of a crown lifted up as an ensign upon his land”
(Zech. ix. 16); are, in short, the various modes of describing the
appearance of Messiah for the immediate purpose of overthrowing
Antichrist, or (as Ezekiel calls him) Gog and his many confederates ;
and are acknowledged as such by Horsley. (“Letter on Isaiah,”
p. 59.) “An ensign, or standard, is lifted up upon the mountains—
a trumpet is blown on the hills—the standard of the cross of Christ,
the trumpet of the Gospel. The resort to the standard, the effect of
the summons, in the end, will be universal. A pruning of the vine
shall take place, after a long suspension of visible interpositions of
Providence, just before the season of the gathering of the fruits.
Fowls of prey and wild beasts shall take possession of Jehovah's
dwelling-place. But at that very season, when the affairs of the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 397
Church seemed ruined and desperate, a sudden reverse shall take
place. The people, to whom the message is sent, shall be conducted
in pomp as a present to Jehovah, to the place of his name, to Mount
Zion.”
The pruning of the vine takes place just before the gathering of
the fruits, the harvest, the nº. (See p. 129, suprā.) After which
“the merchants of Tarshish, and all the young lions thereof.” (Ezek.
xxxviii. 13), the people of the “land shadowing with wings” (Isa.
xviii. 1),—the maritime, colonizing, manufacturing, commercial,
warlike power, described in the last chapter, is engaged in actively
promoting the return of the rest of the scattered people, at least of
that part of them which maritime assistance peculiarly avails, and
the national restoration, previously effected, is thus confirmed by the
overthrow of Antichrist, and increased in numbers by the remainder
of the people called in to constitute in the Holy Land one great
Christian nation, formed of the sons of Jacob. Isa. xviii., and Ezek,
xxxviii., xxxix., are prophecies in effect coincident with each other.
Just so the parallel prophecy in Zephaniah iii. 8–13.
First. The destruction of Antichrist –“ Therefore wait ye upon
me, saith the Lord, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my
determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the
kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce
anger; for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my
jealousy.”
Second. The conversion of Israel and the nations:—“For then
(78) will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call
upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent.” So
Zechariah :—“In that day shall there be one Lord, and his name
one.” (Chap. xiv. 9.)
Third. The bringing of God's offering, the sons of dispersed
Israel as a mincha :—“From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my
suppliants, even the daughters of my dispersed, shall bring mine
offering ; ” or, as Horsley would render it (see p. 387, supra),—
“From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants shall bring mine
offering, even the daughter of my dispersion.” I prefer the Autho-
rized Version. But the main subject—viz., Israel's ingathering—
remains the same, whether we understand that Israel brings the
offering, or that others bring Israel as an offering. -
Fourth. Israel's firm settlement in Palestine as a converted people :
—“In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein
398 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION,
thou hast transgressed against me : for then (#8) I will take away
out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shalt
no more be haughty, because of my holy mountain. I will also leave
in thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name
of the Lord. The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak
lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth ; for
they shall feed, and lie down, and none shall make them afraid,” &c.,
&c., to the end of the chapter.
[II.] Mr. Faber's reasons for adopting the opinion of Bishop
Horsley, so far as to expect Israel's conversion before his restoration,
next demand attention. They will be found closely connected with
that misapplication of Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., which I have already
mentioned, and shall now endeavour to expose. His interpretation
of this prophecy may be gathered from two sources—“The View of
the Prophecies relative to the Houses of Israel and Judah,” published
in 1808 as a supplement to his “Dissertation on the Twelve Hundred
and Sixty Years,” and “The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy,” which
was designed to supersede that “Dissertation,” and passed through
its last edition in 1844. In each work his application of Ezek.
xxxviii., xxxix., is the same. Thus:— *
“Ezekiel only teaches us that the expedition of Gog and Magog
should be undertaken when the united Jews and Israelites were
dwelling in careless security under. David their king in their own
land, when they had spread themselves through all the unwalled
villages, when they had become rich in cattle and goods, and when,
living under the immediate protection of Heaven, they little expected
any assault from man; in other words, that it should be undertaken
at some indefinite period after the commencement of the millennium ;
but St. John is more explicit ; he fixes this period to a thousand
years, either natural or prophetic, after the season of great blessedness
had commenced.” (“View of Proph,” &c., vol. ii., p. 102.)
I wish it to be at once observed that the spirit of Faber's interpre-
tation as to the extent of the restoration implied by Ezekiel is precisely
the same as that I have already advanced against Bishop Horsley—
viz., that it is of both Judah and Israel to all the land ; and that this
simple question remains—Is Ezek. xxxviii. and xxxix. to be fulfilled
before or after, the millennium ? For if before the millennium (which
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEws. 399
we shall prove is the case), then Mr. Faber's authority, as to the
extent of Israel's restoration previous to the Antichristian confederacy,
is directly opposed to Bishop Horsley's. Meanwhile we observe, that
Mr. Faber takes Ezekiel's Gog and Magog to be the same as . St.
John's, in Rev. xix., and places it therefore after the millennium,
which is nothing less than a palpable error, and was the whole cause
of his misinterpretation. The same curious opinion is republished in
his “Sacred Calendar.”
“Now, subsequent to the termination of St. John's thousand years,
the following circumstances are distinctly foretold as occurring. In
the first place, Satan, being liberated from his confinement, goes forth
to deceive the nations, which are then in the four quarters of the
earth, for the purpose of gathering them together to battle against the
Lord and against his saints; in the next place, a great confederacy,
which the apostle from Ezekiel denominates Gog and Magog, having
thus, at length, been formed out of the deluded nations, goes up in
the breadth of the earth, and compasses the camp of the saints with
the beloved city; and, in the last place, fire comes down from God
out of heaven, and devours them.” (Vol. i., p. 247.) Again,_* The
period which is thus occupied, partly with the gradual corruption of
the once holy millennians, partly with the formation of a second
Antichristian confederacy, partly with its war against the saints, and
partly with its final destruction, will comprehend the term 335 years;
such being the excess of Daniel's 1335 years above St. John's 1000
years ; but what exact space of time will elapse between the overthrow
of the Magogian confederacy, and the literal day of judgment, we are
nowhere positively informed. In a parallel prophecy, which similarly
treats of the war and destruction of Gog and Magog, Ezekiel gives us
reason to believe that the one will not quite immediately succeed the
other; and, respecting the final day of retribution, our Lord himself
assures us that “ of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels of heaven, but the Father only.’” (Ibid., p. 278.) And—
“The overthrow of the last Antichristian confederacy upon which
St. John, like his predecessor Ezekiel, bestows the appellation Gog
and Magog, is followed by the literal or proper day of judgment,
when all mankind must stand before the tribunal of Christ to receive
the final, and eternal, recompense of their various actions.” (Vol. iii.,
p. 339.) -
... From such extracts it is clear that Mr. Faber, in both works,
400 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
conceived that Ezekiel's Gog and Magog denoted the same order of
events as St. John's ; and that, therefore, the time of its accomplish-
ment should be placed after the millennium. This error lay at the
root of his opinion that Israel would be converted before his restora-
tion; for, had he rightly applied Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., he never
could have continued of that opinion ; and I proceed to show that
this misinterpretation can no longer be denied.
[1..] “So the house of Israel shall know that I am the Lord their
God from that day and forward.” (Ezek. xxxix. 22.) Upon which
Mr. Faber observes:—“And Ezekiel speaks of their knowing Jehovah
their God “from that day and forward,” an expression which evidently
implies a certain undefined continuance of time.” (“Sac. Calend,”
vol. iii., p. 389.) An undefined continuance of time. True ; but
Mr. Faber omits to observe that its commencement is perfectly
defined. If, then, Ezekiel's prophecy is not to be fulfilled until
after the millennium, the house of Israel will not have known the
Lord their God before or during the millennium. Now, we proved
in chap. vi., p. 251, suprā, that “to know the Lord” must mean, in
this place, to know God in Christ, i.e., be converted ; and it is a part
(and a sound part) of Mr. Faber's doctrine that the house of Israel
will be restored and converted to Christ, or (as Ezekiel terms it)
know the Lord their God, before the millennium ; it is also clear, and
admitted by Mr. Faber, that the house of Israel is no part of Gog's
confederacy, but is a helpless, faithful people, not backslidden, but
attacked by Gog : hence the house of Israel will have known the
Lord before, during, and at the end of the millennium ; and therefore
Ezekiel's phrase, “from that day and forward,” dates before, and not
after, the millennium, as Mr. Faber supposes. If not, the house of
Israel will not be converted until attacked by Gog after the millen-
nium ! I beg the reader to reflect upon this argument, for it is fatal
to Mr. Faber's interpretation.
[2.] Ezekiel places the time of this prophecy (chaps. xxxviii.,
xxxix.) distinctly in the latter days (ver. 16)—tº nºr Sã-
using precisely the phrase so fully discussed in chap. v., suprā and
his misconception of the prophecy forced him to put a false construc-
tion upon this phrase, and hurried him into a serious inconsistency.
And I cannot doubt that, had his attention been in later years directed
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 401
especially to the prophecies immediately affecting the restoration and
conversion of Israel only, he would have rectified this error. He
says:–“ The latter days, or the end of days, denotes in the Old
Testament that portion of time which begins at the termination of the
great apostasy of 1260 years, and which expires at the end of the
millennium, and at the consummation of all things. See the meaning
of this phrase discussed in my “Dissertation on the Twelve Hundred
and Sixty Years,’ chap. iii.” (“Rest. of Jews,” vol. ii., p. 107.)
The “Sacred Calendar ” superseded the “Dissertation on the Twelve
Hundred and Sixty Years;” and if the student of prophecy will refer
to vol. i., chap. viii., he will find the treatise on “the latter days,” and
“the time of the end.” The truth is, that if Mr. Faber's commentary
on Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., be examined, he is guilty of what is usually
styled arguing in a circle. He puts his own interpretation upon
Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., and says that therefore the latter days must
comprise the millennium. He also puts his own interpretation upon
“latter days,” and says that therefore Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., will not
be fulfilled until after the millennium. He might take one or other
of these courses, but not both. But further, he has, in “Sacred
Calendar,” chap. viii., investigated tº h"Tºº, and by that inves-
tigation renders his interpretation of Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., impossible.
For he maintains that this phrase commonly denotes that period of
time which is the latter half of the great prophetic seven times, and
which he makes to end (we are not concerned with his dates) in
1864; and here he puts, with a clear and accurate definition of Y12,
already quoted, the end, or time of the end. That definition of “the
end” is one great point of his “Sacred Calendar,” and may be read
in numerous places throughout it. I quote only the following :—
“Hence the end, or ‘time of the end,” must inevitably signify the
absolute eaſpiration of the period to which it refers.” (Vol. i., p. 154.)
Again,_* The time of the end, or the end of the period of wonders,
denotes the termination of the period of the latter three times and a
half.” (Page 156.) Again,-‘‘Perhaps, indeed, to express the
matter with strict accuracy, we ought to say that “the end ' is the
precise terminating point of the latter three times and a half; and
that the time of the end is a short period, which commences when
the latter three times and a half expire.” (Page 178.) These
extracts are clear ; and to such definition of YE, the end, I make no
objection : let it be the precise terminating point of the 1260 years.
D D
402 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Then Mr. Faber says that Bºbº nº ſº, the latter days, commonly
denotes the latter three times and a half, or 1260 years; and that Y12,
the end is the precise terminating point of those latter days, those
1260 years. And yet when we come to Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., we
find ourselves (according to his interpretation of those chapters) still in
the latter days, 1000 years after “the end,” the precise point at which
they terminated For Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., are specifically limited
to “the latter days,” and Mr. Faber says they are not to be fulfilled
until after the millennium.
The contradiction is manifest, and its consequence clear. Mr.
Faber's idea, that Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., describe events to occur
after the millennium, is utterly untenable ; and I maintain that we
have, as already shown, a certain explanation for the prophetic phrase
alluded to, and that Mr. Faber generally puts the correct construction
upon it. It denotes the Christian dispensation down to Messiah's
own establishment of his Universal Church on earth, comprehending
Israel's restoration, Antichrist's overthrow, and Israel’s consequent
conversion; and YE, the end, is (as Mr. Faber defined it) the precise
point at which tº n*Tºº is terminated, or cut off. Ezek.
xxxviii., xxxix., will be fulfilled before the millennium ; Mr. Faber
erred in asserting the contrary; and this error was the cause of his
not seeing that Israel's restoration precedes his conversion.
That Ezekiel's “Gog and Magog” is not the same as St. John's, see
also Scott on Ezek. xxxviii. 2, 3, and Rev. xx. 7–10.
[3.] It is a principle with Mr. Faber that the great Antichristian
confederacy of the last days should be a Roman power ; but he says
the Gog and Magog of Ezekiel is not a Roman power, but is composed
of the relics of the first empires—Babylonian, Persian, and Grecian.
Thus, at “Rest. of Jews,” vol. ii., p. 85 :—
“The Jews begin to be restored at the close of the 1260 years :
the power of the Roman beast, and his little horn, begins to be
broken at the same period ; the confederacy of the Roman beast, the
false prophet, and the kings of the Latin earth, begins to be over-
thrown under the seventh vial, likewise at the same period ; the
Infidel King, or the Atheistical Antichrist of the last days, comes to
his end also at the same period. The Jews themselves, as we have
seen, understand the mystic Edom, which the Lord destroys at the
time of their restoration, to mean the Roman Empire; from all which
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 403
we must unavoidably conclude that the great confederacy which is
destined to be overthrown at the close of the 1260 years, and which is
noticed more or less explicitly by almost every prophet who foretels
the return of Judah, will be composed of powers situated within the
limits of the ancient Roman Empire. If, then, Ezekiel's Gog and
Magog be the same as the Antichristian confederacy, we may expect to
find both them and their allies described as being Roman powers, and as
answering exactly to the ten-horned beast, the little horn or false
prophet, the Infidel King, and his associated vassal kings. Not the
least similarity, however, can be discovered between the persons who
compose the confederacy of Gog and Magog, and those who compose
the confederacy of Antichrist. On the contrary, as the Antichristian
confederacy is plainly a Roman power, so the Magogian confederacy
does not comprehend a single Roman power, but is entirely composed of
the relics of the three first empires, which Daniel assures us should have
their lives preserved after the destruction of the Roman beast, though
their dominion or power of injuring the Church should be taken away.”
The reader will not fail to remember that we are not engaged on
Mr. Faber's peculiar theory, but upon The National Restoration and
Conversion of Israel. At the same time I would observe that there
is great reason for believing that Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., is not opposed to
Mr. Faber's expositions of prophecy, but rather a valuable assistance
to them ; for I showed, in the last chapter, that Gog's confederacy,
through “Gomer and all his bands,” takes us into the very heart of
“the Latin earth,” and, not a little singularly, into “the Latin earth”
of Mr. Faber. My own conviction is that Ezekiel dramatically
describes the overthrow of the very confederacy depicted by Mr.
Faber, “The confederacy of the Roman Beast, the false prophet, and
the kings of the Latin earth ;” and I shall show, by a collation of
prophecies, in the next three chapters, with Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., and
Zech. ix. 10, that Gog's confederacy is precisely the antichristian
confederacy of these last days, comprising (as I believe) the two
great apostasies of east and west, of Greece and Rome ; and that Mr.
Faber's error arose from this simple fact, viz., that instead of searching
for the representatives of Magog, Meshech, Gomer, and Togarmah,
as existing in the latter days (of which Ezekiel was specifically
speaking), he took them as they stood, in times of old, settled in Asia
Minor, Bochart being his guide and ours. These are his words:—
“Now let the reader consult the map which Bochart has prefixed to
D D 2
404 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
the first book of his ‘Sacred Geography,” and he will find every one
of these nations seated within the limits of the three first great
empires, although some of their colonies doubtless extended beyond
them,” &c., &c. (“Rest. of Jews,” vol. ii., p. 86.) But what we
want is Meshech, Gomer, and Togarmah, of these times, not of
those, these latter days. Mr. Faber's error arose, I repeat, from two
facts:—1. He omitted to perceive that, if we regard people, we have
to look for the descendants of these families in these latter days.
2. He forgot that, if we regard lands, we have to look for the countries
these descendants occupy in the latter days, which may be both the
lands of “the Latin earth,” and, for aught we know, ancient settlements
again recovered. Whoever will examine Mr. Birks' twenty combina-
tions suggestive of the fractional kingdoms of the Western Empire, may
see for himself how far the territories of Russia, Germany, and France
comprise “the Latin earth.” (Birks’ “Prophetic Empires,” p. 151.)
Whatever may be thought of Mesoch (chap. viii., p. 344, suprā),
or of Javan, who peopled Greece and Italy (chap. vii., p. 318,
suprā), I doubt not but “Gomer and all his bands” sufficiently meet
Mr. Faber's requirements for “the Latin earth.”
[4] Mr. Faber says (“Rest. of Jews,” vol. ii., p. 89), “The
antichristian confederacy will at first be successful, will overrun the
whole of Palestine, will take Jerusalem, will conquer Egypt, and
will reduce the Libyans and Cushim to some kind of subjection. The
Magogian confederacy will not be at all successful; at least Ezekiel
does not give us the slightest hint that it will ; and St. John, if it be .
allowed that he speaks of it, explicitly declares that, although it will
encamp around the beloved city, it shall not be able to take it, but
shall be destroyed by fire from heaven.” Of course, we deny that
St. John does speak of it ; his Gog and Magog, of which Ezekiel's is
typical, will be after the millennium : but, however, this is a most
extraordinary assertion Mr. Faber makes as to Ezekiel's Gog and
Magog. Not successful at all ! not the slightest hint of it ! Is
coming up “like a storm,” and covering the land; is taking posses-
sion of the land of “unwalled villages,” held by people that
have gotten cattle and much goods; is commanding the moun-
tains and vales, the cities and the coasts, and the very midst of
the land ; is all this no success for the Magogian confederacy of
Ezekiel? Refer to chaps, xxxviii. 9, 11, 16, 21, and xxxix. 2, 4, 6,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS, 405
tº
11, 13, all of which will show the entire success of Gog, so as fully
to occupy, and irresistibly to hold, the whole land of Israel, those of
Magog being especially the holders of the coast. (Chap. xxxix. 6.)
Is this not success P Surely we may adopt Mr. Faber's own words,
and say of Ezekiel's Gog and Magog, “The antichristian confederacy
will at first prove successful, and will overrun the whole of Palestine.”
And that is not all, but Ishowed, in the last chapter, that the Libyans
and Cushim (whom, according to Mr. Faber, the antichristian con-
federacy will reduce to subjection) are specifically included in Gog's
confederacy; for Phut's settlements were in Libya, the present French
Algeria (see p. 359, suprā); and we have no record of Phut's
descendants beyond the territories of their earliest occupation. While
the African Cushim are specifically included in Gog's confederacy.
(See p. 356, suprā.) I shall also show, in succeeding chapters,
that this confederacy will take Jerusalem, at which precise time
Messiah will interpose and overthrow them.
[5.] These observations are, I think, sufficient to prove the
erroneousness of Mr.Faber's commentary upon Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix. ;
and with that commentary perish his reasons for believing in a conver-
sion of Israel prior to the national restoration; for I desire to have
noticed how completely his interpretation admits that the national
restoration will have taken place before Gog comes up into the land.
(See “Rest. of Jews,” vol. ii., pp. 73, 74, 98, 99.) -
“He simply places the war of Gog and Magog after the destruction
of the mystic Edom, and after the restoration of the whole house of
Israel; how long after he nowhere determines.” “He represents the
house of Judah and house of Israel as having coalesced into one
people, as having both been restored, as having both been restored a
considerable length of time, for they are said to have gotten cattle
and goods, to have rebuilt their desolate cities, and to be dwelling in
the land in all the carelessness of confident security.” And, lastly, he
overthrows Bishop Horsley —“In some points of less moment I
cannot quite agree with his Lordship, but I am persuaded that his
opinion itself is perfectly well founded. He seems to consider the
destruction of Antichrist as being past, and the unconverted Jews as
being penitent, at the time when their converted brethren arrive under
the protection of the maritime power; whereas Ezekiel leads us to
conclude that the goats will war upon the rams; and, not content
with acquiring a settlement themselves, will do all in their power to
406 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
prevent their return. He likewise inclines to believe that only a
small body of the Jews will be restored in their unbelieving state.
But when we consider the almost exclusive influence which Anti-
christian France already exerts over the Papal Roman Empire, and
when we further consider that, at the close of the 1260 years,
it will have succeeded in completely organising a vast confederacy of
the whole of that empire, we can scarcely suppose that its power will
be so limited as to extend only to a small body of the Jews. After
the formation of this tremendous confederacy, it is not easy to con-
ceive how the Protestant maritime power will be able to take under
its protection any Jews, excepting such as are out of the reach of the
confederacy; those, for instance, who will then be scattered throughout
Britain, Sweden, the maritime parts of Russia, America, Africa,
and the coasts of Asia. Those, therefore, who are within the reach
of the confederacy, that is to say, those who are scattered through
the Roman Papal Empire, can hardly be thought to constitute a
small body, unless some very remarkable emigration of the Jews
from Popish into Protestant countries should previously take place.
This opinion seems to be confirmed by what Zechariah says on the
subject. He represents the Jews who will be converted after their
return as constituting a very large body of men, so large, indeed, that
were we not prevented by the explicit declaration of other prophecies,
we should be in danger of fancying, as some actually have fancied,
that the general conversion of the whole house of Judah would
succeed their restoration.” -
As to these “goats and rams,” I shall look to them presently ;
meanwhile we may make use of Mr. Faber to overthrow Bishop
Horsley. For the reader will note—First, That whereas Horsley's
great point is that only a small body of Jews is restored unconverted,
Faber decidedly differs, and calls the unconverted restoration a very
'large body of men, so large indeed that, from Zechariah's language,
one might “fancy” them the general restoration, both writers falling
into the error of assuming that nationality depends upon numbers, which,
I submit, was a very great mistake. Second. He detects the fallacious
assumption in Horsley's argument that those brought back by the
maritime power, Tarshish, can be the whole nation, or national
restoration, for he properly reminds us that the maritime power can
reach only part of them. Third. Such admissions, taken in connexion
with those previously extracted, are absolutely fatal to Mr. Faber's
idea that Israel is converted before restored; provided we are correct

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 407
in thinking his interpretation of Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., to be wrong.
Fourth. Mr. Faber would have done well to give a list of “other
prophecies” explicitly declaring that Israel will be converted before
restored, for they might have settled the question; but indeed there
are none, as I shall show. -
[6.] There was one error which lay at the root, and, indeed, was the
cause of Mr. Faber's misinterpretation of Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., viz.,
the assumption at “Rest. of Jews,” vol. ii., p. 92, that “the whole of
Ezekiel, from chaps. xxxiv. to xxxix. inclusive, is one continued
prophecy,” and to be interpreted, at least as regards chaps. xxxvii.-
xxxix., in consecutive order. This caused him to place the con-
federacy of Gog and Magog after the formation of Judah and Israel
into one kingdom under Messiah ; and he reasons thus:–Judah is to
be first restored, Messiah's kingdom to be established, then Israel is
to be added to this restoration, and thus the complete nation to be
formed again ; but Judah’s restoration synchronises with the great
Antichristian confederacy foretold everywhere by the prophets;
therefore it must have taken place before Gog and Magog's confederacy,
which represents all Israel as restored at the time it is formed. But
the fact is that chaps. xxxvii., xxxviii., xxxix. are parallel, not
continuous prophecies; the overthrow of Gog and Magog is the over-
throw of Antichrist, is the manifestation of Branch, the advent of
the King, the constitution of the united kingdom of Judah and
Israel; the restoration which had taken place up to that time being
partial, and chiefly of Judah, but also of some of Ephraim, and
being represented by the prophets, especially by Ezekiel and Zecha-
riah, as national; national in this respect, that the governorship of it
will be in David's house, and the rightful priesthood of Levi will have
accompanied it ; national, for it will possess the land, and be master
of Jerusalem. From that overthrow of Gog and Magog by the
epiphany of Messiah dates the national conversion, and from that
time commences the rapid accession, from all quarters of the world,
of numbers to nationality, of the ten, overland, chiefly from the
East (Isa. xi., and lxvi. 20 ; and Jerem. xxxi. 21), and of the dis-
persion of the west by “the ships of Tarshish first.” (Isa. lx. 9,
xviii.; Ezek. xxxviii.; Zephan. iii.) However, this assumption had
been made by Mr. Faber that Ezek. xxxiv.–xxxix. are continuous
prophecy; and having made it, he felt it necessary to frame his
interpretation accordingly; and from chap. xxxiv. he derives a
408 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
peculiar argument for believing that the conversion will precede the
restoration, to which I now invite particular attention. He
observes:— - -
“Ezekiel first notices the dispersion of Israel through the tyranny
of their shepherds, or rulers, who, after grinding their faces, and
treating them in all respects as a conquered and debased people,
instead of ruling them with gentleness, and consulting their political
happiness, at length became instruments in the hands of God of
dispersing them through all countries. From these shepherds, or, in
literal exactness of speech, from their successors and representatives,
the powers of the Roman Empire in its last broken form, God, at the
time of the end, will require his flock. He will set his face against
these tyrannical shepherds, who have so long persecuted his scattered
people, and will cause them to cease from feeding the flock. He will
not suffer them to feed themselves any more, or to harass, like their
Roman predecessors, the wretched Jews, with endless extortion and
oppression; but He will deliver his flock from their mouth, that they
may be no more meat for them. As soon as the appointed period shall
arrive, He will search his sheep, and bring them back into their own
land from all the countries whither they have been dispersed. He
will feed them in a good pasture upon the mountains of Israel, by the
rivers, and in all the inhabited places; and will set up one shepherd
over them, the mystical David, even Christ the Lord.”
“At this era, however, of the first restoration, or the restoration
of Judah, the prophet notices a remarkable distinction in the flock,
which will serve to explain an apparent contradiction of some
prophecies to others. We are generally led to conclude that the Jews
will be converted previous to their restoration, but Zechariah un-
doubtedly speaks of their being converted after it. (Zech. xii. 9–14.)
How, then, are we to reconcile this discrepancy 2 Ezekiel teaches us
that, at the time of the restoration, God will judge between cattle and
cattle, between the rams and the he-goats. He will make a marked
distinction between the fat cattle, and between the lean cattle ; between
those that trample down the pastures, and foul the waters, and
between those who are constrained to eat what is trodden down and
to drink what is fouled ; between those that push with the shoulder,
and thrust with the horn, and between the weak who are scattered
abroad by this unnatural cruelty of their fellows. Yet both these
different descriptions of cattle are equally considered the flock, and
are placed in contradistinction to the beasts of the earth, or the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 409
tyrannical Roman powers under the influence of Antichrist and the
false prophet. By the goats, therefore, we must obviously understand
certain unconverted Jews, and by the rams such as are converted.
Now it manifestly appears from the tenor of the prophecy that both
the rams and the goats will equally return to Palestine; and that,
when they have thus returned, there will be a bitter dissension
between them, the goats labouring by all possible means to injure and
expel the rams.” -
“It further appears, from other prophecies, that the rams, or
converted Jews, will be restored by the instrumentality of the then
prevailing Protestant European maritime power; and that Antichrist
and his host will at that period invade Palestine, and occupy Jerusa-
lem. Thus we learn, from comparing these several prophecies with
each other, that four different descriptions of persons will then be
collected together in Palestine ; the great maritime power, the con-
verted Jews, the Antichristian confederacy, and the unconverted Jews.
The converted Jews we know will be restored by the aid of the
maritime power; and how are we to account for the appearance of the
unconverted Jews at the same time, in the same country, and in
direct opposition to their converted brethren, except by supposing
that they are in league with Antichrist, and have been brought back
into their own land, for political purposes, by his instrumentality ?
In the dreadful conflict many of the goats will perish, for God hath
declared that He will destroy the fat and the strong; many, also, of
the rams will be slain; for God hath taught us that, although He will
surely chasten his people in exact measure, yet He will not make a
full end of them, as He will of the nations, their enemies. But at
length, when the appointed time shall come, such goats as survive the
slaughter of their fellows will perceive their error, and repent them of
their sins. They will look upon him whom they have pierced, and
mourn for him as one that mourneth for his only son (Zech. xii. 10);
they will acknowledge their fault to their converted brethren, and will
be reconciled to them ; and they will jointly form one flock, under
one Shepherd, David their King.” (“Rest. of Jews,” vol. ii., p. 92.)
It is one great encouragement I experience in publishing these
chapters, that the conclusions to which they lead do not contradict,
but harmonise with, the elaborate investigations of Mr. Faber's
“Sacred Calendar; ” the few points affecting the restoration and
conversion of Israel in which I have presumed to differ from him
labour not under the prejudice of opposing, but, on the contrary, give
410 . NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
consistency to that part of his extensive researches; and it is with
much admiration of him as a writer, and with the deepest veneration
for his memory, that I have already departed from his interpretation
of Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., and now proceed to exhibit the errors of the
above exposition of chap. xxxiv. I have extracted at length, because,
if this be unsound, and his interpretation of Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix.,
unsound also, Ireally know nothing in all his work which can support
his opinion that Israel will be converted before restoration.
[1..] He says, we have four different descriptions of persons
represented, by comparing this and other prophecies, as being in the
Holy Land at the time of the restoration, viz., the maritime power,
converted Jews, Antichrist, and unconverted Jews ; the converted
Jews, or rams, being protected by the maritime power; the uncon-
verted Jews, or goats, by Antichrist. Now, I venture to say, here are
three inaccuracies:—1. The maritime power is represented as carrying
back Jews, but never engaged in their protection or within the Holy
Land. 2. The maritime power is not represented as acting until
after the overthrow of Antichrist. 3. Antichrist is distinctly
represented as warring against Israel indiscriminately, and his over-
throw effects their conversion. But my concern is now with the error
affecting the maritime power.
The prophecies about this maritime power are Isaiah xviii. 1, 2,
and 7; Isaiah lx. 9; Zeph. iii. 10; and (though Mr. Faber did not
notice that) Ezek. xxxviii. 13. It is not until Antichrist has come to
take a spoil, has gathered his company to take a prey, that “Sheba,
Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, and all the young lions
thereof.” viz., the maritime power, express their indignation and
intimate their opposition; but Ezekiel says not that they do actively
interfere. (See above, p. 238, on Ezek. xxxviii. 13.) Similarly
Isaiah represents the maritime power as facilitating and assisting in
the return of Israel after, and not before, the vine is pruned, after the
fowls and the beasts summer and winter upon the branches, viz., the
armies of Antichrist. Isaiah distinctly says, “He shall both cut off
the sprigs with pruning hooks, and take away and cut down the
branches afore the harvest” (Isaiah xviii. 5), which harvest is the
ingathering of Israel; the present which Tarshish and others will
bring “at that time.” So Isaiah lx. 9 refers to the same great
ingathering of Israel as Isaiah xi. 14. It is after the lifting up of
the ensign and blowing of the trumpet (Isaiah xi. 12, and xviii. 3);
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 411
it is after this arising of Messiah upon Zion and his glory's being seen
over Jerusalem; it is after this raising of the standard, this epiphany
of Jesus, which throws Antichrist prostrate ; it is after this that
Israel flocks “as a cloud, as the doves to the windows,” and the work
of Tarshish begins. And Horsley agrees. (See p. 396, suprā.)
Mr. Faber errs in representing the maritime Protestant European
power (which we call Tarshish) as having brought back converted
Jews before the overthrow of Antichrist. Tarshish may or may not
assist in the restoration of the unconverted people, probably she will;
but the work which the prophets predict for her is that of being the
first to hail their entire recovery with joy, and to lend her ships to
carry their “sons from far, their silver and their gold with them,
unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel,
because He hath glorified thee.” (Isaiah lx. 9.) After Antichrist
has been overthrown. But Mr. Faber's whole exposition depends
upon the part which he imagines Tarshish will perform, and with his
error in this respect the whole exposition perishes.
[2.] I note another inaccuracy. Mr. Faber states that the Anti-
christian confederacy will “occupy” Jerusalem ; but prophecy does
not state so. It predicts that Antichrist will besiege and will take
Jerusalem, but not to occupy it ; for in the very moment of victory
Messiah is foretold as appearing, and by that appearance over-
throwing the victors and delivering the vanquished. This mistake,
however, is of small moment.
[3.] The exposition is erroneous from further considerations.
For Mr. Faber takes the shepherds to be Antichristian Gentile
rulers, oppressing, robbing, scattering the flock; and the goats or
unconverted as doing precisely the same thing against their brethren,
the rams or converted Jews at Jerusalem. And it is indeed clear
from vers. 18–21, that “the fat and the strong” of the flock, or, as
they are also termed, the “he-goats” (ver. 17), are represented as
doing precisely the same thing. Now nothing is clearer than that
Ezekiel's description refers to the general dispersion among the
Gentiles; hence the goats doing the same thing as the Antichristian
shepherds: we have here two errors:—1. It is erroneous, even
assuming the goats are Jews, to place this evil conduct of theirs at
Jerusalem, and at a particular date yet to come ; for the misconduct
412 NoTEs on THE RESTORATION
refers to the whole time of the general dispersion. And, 2. The
history of the Jews is before us, and, I venture to think, it will be
generally admitted that the Jews have ever been a peculiarly
Jºraternal people, and have not trampled on and ill used each other
during the general dispersion. The very cruelty of their Gentile
oppressors has driven them closer to each other. Thus the tenor of
the prophetical language and historical fact are adverse to Mr.
Faber's notions of a contest in the Holy Land yet to come between
unconverted and converted Jews.
It is not for me, when disproving Mr. Faber's interpretation and
thereby overturning the theory of conversion prior to restoration—it
is not for me to suggest another exposition of Ezek. xxxiv.; but yet
I would briefly add that “the goats” doing precisely the same thing
as the Antichristian shepherds during the times of general dispersion
are not unconverted Jews, but Antichristian subjects of Anti-
christian rulers of a diverse family from the “rams,” or Jews. That,
in fact, Ezek. xxxiv. contains a prophecy of Antichrist's assault
upon the Jews in the Holy Land yet to come precisely parallel to
other prophecies, e.g., Ezek. xxxviii. and xxxix. The rams are the
lean cattle, the oppressed, berobbed, persecuted Israelites attacked in
Palestine ; the goats are the subject armies of Antichrist, fat and
strong, rich and prosperous, and successful, always having persecuted
Israel, always intending to do so, and doing so at that very time in
Palestine, at which time Messiah interposes (their one shepherd) and
judges fearfully between his cattle; for, indeed, they are judiciously
described, these unbelieving Jews and Antichristian Gentiles, as equally
Messiah's flock. For unbelieving Jews, the rams, though of a diverse
family, are as much Christ's flock as backslidden, apostatized, Anti-
christian Gentiles, the goats. There can be no choice between Jeru-
salem, Samaria, and Sodom at that day. (See Ezek. xvi.) But,
inasmuch as the covenant of mercy in Jesus equally extends to each
of these, when he shall appear in his glory, the unbelief of Jews and
the apostasy of Gentiles will cease together, and rams and goats alike
hear and obey the voice of the One Good Shepherd. , Did not Jesus
look upon unbelieving Jews, just about to crucify him, and say of
wnconverted Gentiles, “And other sheep I have, which are not of this
fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there
shall be one fold and one shepherd P’’ (John x. 16.) This verse,
believe me, is the key to Ezek. xxxiv. So Zechariah in the parallel
- - --~. --~~<-------— :-si-º-º-º:
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 413
prophecy, predicting Antichrist's overthrow, “Mine anger was kindled
against the shepherds, and I punished the goats; for the Lord of hosts
hath visited his flock, the house of Judah, and made them as his goodly
horse in the battle.” (Zech. x. 3, &c., &c., where the goats punished
are the Gentile assailants of Israel; compare also Jerem. xxiii. 1–4;
but especially Jerem. xxv. 34–38.) “Howl, ye shepherds, and cry,
and wallow yourselves in the ashes, ye principal of the flock; for the
days of your slaughter and of your dispersions are accomplished, and ye
shall fall like a pleasant vessel;” for your days for slaughtering (Tiaº).
[4] I will only add that I have examined Mr. Faber's work
carefully upon the special question,-conversion before or conversion
after restoration ? and I find that invariably his view of the office of
Tarshish, the maritime power, at that day, is the foundation of his
opinion that Israel is converted before restoration ; and hence I
conclude that neither Mr. Faber nor Bishop Horsley, whom he
followed, could find any better foundation for it. But the above
observations will have shown that the office of Tarshish is placed
after Antichrist's overthrow, and Ezek. xxxviii. 39, according to
Mr. Faber himself, assures us that Israel will be nationally restored
before Gog's overthrow, which is Antichrist's. Hence I conclude
that, from the Scriptures yet considered, there is no foundation either
in Horsley or Faber, for believing that Israel will be converted
before the restoration. And what is singular, both Horsley and
Faber are compelled to admit “an inchoate restoration ” of uncon-
verted Jews,” which the Bishop calls a “small body,” but Mr. Faber
calls “a very large body.” Each of them also makes the mistake of
assuming that nationality depends on numbers.
[III] There is a peculiar division of Scriptures which has been
thought to favour the idea that Israel will be converted before
restored, but which upon examination is found to describe with
beautiful harmony that state of expectancy and preparedness, that con-
viction of past misdoings and approaching deliverance, that assurance
of God's invincible power and love, which (as Horsley gathered
from Yp Yp, in Isaiah xviii. 7) will characterize all Israel prior both
to their restoration and conversion, but which by no means warrant
414 NotEs on THE RESTORATION
the conclusion that, whenever in the frame of mind predicted, they
will actually have become converted, although such predictive descrip-
tions are uniformly accompanied with positive and unconditional
assurances that God himself will visit them to consummate their
deliverance and conversion. The passages I shall consider are (out
of compliment to Professor Lee), Rom. xi. 23, and 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16,
and (because really touching the merits of the question) Lev. xxvi.
40–45 ; Deut. iv. 27–31 ; and xxx. 1–3; Ezek. vi. 8–10;
Hosea v. 14, 15; and vi. 1–3; and 2 Chron. vi. 36–42. To which
I add, as another class, Jerem. xxxi. 9, and such predictions.
[1..] As regards Rom. xi. 23, and 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16, there really is
no occasion to mention them, only that Professor Lee has thought
proper, at “Inquiry,” pp. 40–43, to do so, and point out that they
contain a condition: “And they also, if they abide not in unbelief,
shall be graffed in ; for God is able to graft them in again.” (Rom.
xi. 23.) And, “But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the
veil is upon their heart ; nevertheless, when it shall turn unto the
Lord, the veil shall be taken away.” (2 Cor. iii. 15, 16.) We may
safely permit the most to be made of these passages; it is perfectly
certain that Israel will not and cannot be graffed into the Christian
Church until converted; in other words, “if they abide in unbelief,
they will not be graffed in.” But the Lord has foretold that they shall
not abide in unbelief—nationally they shall not. And so exactly
2 Cor. iii. 15, 16, tells us the veil must be taken away. Israel
remains blinded and unable to see the Lord until God's hand is
extended to remove the veil ; and none but He can take away that
veil, who has also promised to do so—when 2 One characteristic of
that time is, that Israel's heart will yearn towards his God: there
will be a certain preparedness, suspicions of what the real truth is ;
anticipations of approaching light and Salvation ; when Israel thus
turns, the Lord will remove their veil—there will be the heart-wrung
cry at Jerusalem before Messiah comes as the “Sun of Righteousness,”
arising with healing in his wings, to dispel the mists of Israel's
unbelief, to scatter with his glory the night clouds of Israel's national
offences: “I have blotted out as a thick cloud thy transgressions, and
as a cloud thy sins; return unto me, for I have redeemed thee.”
(Isaiah xliv. 22.) Then the veil will be taken away from Israel
“through the tender mercy of our God, whereby the dayspring
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 415.
(margin, sunrising) from on high hath visited us; to give light to them
that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into
the way of peace ; ” as saith the Jew Zacharias. (Luke i. 77.) Then
the prophecies will be consummated, and (2 Pet. i. 19) “the day
dawn and the day-star arise in your hearts,” O Israel. For that
removing of the veil is in another word their conversion, and, there-
fore, the turning of the heart is something different from, and not the
same as, conversion. It is preparation for conversion : “My people
shall be willing in the day of my power” (Ps. cxvi. 3), which
Almighty power alone in the Sun of Righteousness can roll back or
melt away that vast, that leaden veil which covers like a starless
night all scattered Israel. It is when world-worn, oppressed, perse-
cuted, Israel bursts forth in one wild bitter cry, “Oh that thou
wouldest rend the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the
mountains might flow down at thy presence. . . . . But now, O Lord,
thou art our Father 1 we are the clay and thou the potter ; and we all
are the work of thy hand l Be not wroth very sore, O Lord, neither
remember iniquity for ever ! Behold, see, we beseech thee, we are
all thy people.” Whoever wishes to note the aspirations of Israel
before Messiah comes, let him read that 64th chapter of Isaiah.
When Israel's heart thus turns to the Lord, as turn it will (for God
has written it), then the whirlwinds of his glorious appearing (Zech.
ix. 14) shall tear away “the veil; ” which means conversion. We
are well introduced by such passages in the New Testament to the
spirit of those yet to be considered from the Old.
[2] Moses says (Levit. xxvi. 40–45), “If they shall confess
their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers with their
trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they
have walked contrary unto me, and that I also have walked
contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of
their enemies, if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and
they then accept of the punishment of their iniquities, then will I
remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac,
and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, and I will
remember the land.” Again (Deut. iv. 29–31): “But if from thence
thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him if thou seek
Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. When thou art in
tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter
416 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his
voice (for the Lord thy God is a merciful God), He will not forsake
thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers
which he sware unto them.” Again (Deut. xxx. 1–10): “And the
Lord thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hands,
in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the
fruit of thy land for good; for the Lord will again rejoice over thee
for good, as He rejoiced over thy fathers; if thou shalt hearken unto
the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his
statutes which are written in the book of the law ; and if thou turn
unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul.”
To which we may add, as manifestly alluding to such passages,
Solomon's prayer (2 Cor. vi. 36–42): “Yet if they bethink them-
selves in the land whither they are carried captive, and turn and pray
unto thee in the land of their captivity, saying, We have sinned, we
have done amiss, and have dealt wickedly ; if they return to thee with
all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their captivity
whither they have carried them captive, and pray toward their land,
which thou gavest to their fathers, and towards the city which thou
hast chosen, and towards the house which I have built for thy name ;
then hear thou from the heavens, even from thy dwelling place, their
prayer and their supplications, and maintain their cause, and forgive
thy people which have sinned against thee.”
I imagine it will be generally admitted that all these are kindred
passages, and may, consequently, fairly be treated of under one head.
Of one of them, viz., Deut. iv. 27–31, I have spoken at p. 215, supra,
and have endeavoured to give sound reasons for doubting its con-
ditional character. I believe that some strong reasons might be
advanced for questioning the conditional character of the others also,
which reasons I should base upon the Levitical use of the particles
"P and in such passages (see p. 212, suprā); but as Professor Lee
in his “Inquiry,” pp. 39–43, and 86, 87, has said that they are
conditional, and as the English translation does undoubtedly support
this view, I submit to that decision, and content myself with observing
that even the English translation gives us reason to think that certain
qualifying predictions of a most unconditional character are added to
such supposed conditional promises, apparently for the especial
encouragement of the Jews. I allude to Deut. xxx. 4–8, and Levit.
xxvi. 44–46, the latter being particularly emphatic : “And yet for
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 4.17
- - - ------, 3-, ---- •ºr
all that,” &c., &c. But the reader should examine the whole contexts
for himself. And, indeed, the question does not turn upon the
conditionality or the contrary of these passages; for, 1. If they be
conditional, we have numerous prophecies to show that the condition
will be complied with ; and, 2. If they be not conditional, they then
become passages predicting positively a particular frame of mind to
which the Jews will certainly be brought before the Lord their God
will receive them into favour again. The real question is, Does or
does not the language employed compel us to believe that this
particular frame of mind will be what we commonly denominate
conversion to Christianity ? Professor Lee (“Inquiry,” p. 86) treats
the passages in a very summary manner : “And what must all this
necessarily mean? The receiving of Christ; hence a life of faith and
the possession not of the earthly Canaan exclusively, but of the heritage
of all the heathen.” But to say that he really investigates the passages
would be disrespectful to his memory; for any one may satisfy
himself, by reference, that his assertions are advanced without the
support of argument. I venture to submit for consideration a few
reasons for doubting whether the language employed can justly be.
considered to imply conversion to Christianity, for,
[3.] I observe that it is rather for those who maintain that the
language of the passages has such force to prove it, than for us to
show it has not; and yet it is a remarkable fact that Bishop Horsley
and Mr. Faber, two most learned and copious writers on the future
restoration and conversion of Israel, do not found their convictions of
previous conversion upon such passages as these, but, as already
explained, upon certain prophecies defining the work of Tarshish or
the maritime power at that restoration. Surely had they been of
opinion that these passages were such as to be relied on for their
purpose, they would have urged that opinion with the great ability
which characterized them both. I maintain that the utmost we can
argue from these passages is, that a national penitential cry will
ascend from Israel before—what? I will not say before such a partial
restoration of both houses as shall, nevertheless, be sufficiently
national to constitute the restoration ; but I will say, before Messiah
delivers them; I will say, before Antichrist is overthrown; I will
say, before Jesus by the brightness of his coming destroys the one
(2 Thess, ii. 8) and converts the other; one thrilling penitential cry
E E
418 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION *
out of Israel's last woe, destined to be answered swiftly as Daniel's
prayer: “And it shall come to pass before they call I will answer,
and while they are yet speaking I will hear” (Isaiah lxv. 24), which
is precisely the promise made them through Isaiah for the times
commencing with this occasion. So Mr. Bickersteth : “There can
indeed be no doubt that their full and glorious restoration is after
their repentance; but I think we have also abundant evidence, as
noticed in former discourses, that the Jews will be partially restored
in an unconverted state, and that this is what we have first to expect,
and that it is well to see to this that we may not be deceived by their
first restoration, as if this were the beginning of their blessedness
instead of after a short season of tranquillity (Ezek. xxxviii. 11), the
beginning of their last and greatest trouble before their final
deliverance and their full glory.” (Ezek. xxxviii. 39.) (“Rest. of
Jews,” p. 188.) And I believe Mr. Bickersteth has stated the case
exactly. - *
Now let the reader reflect upon this my first reason for doubting
whether these and such passages tend to prove conversion before
restoration. Horsley and Faber, who reason largely and well about
the Jewish future from other prophecies, never trusted their theory
of previous conversion to these. Bickersteth carefully gave as par-
ticular point to them, maintaining the opinions advocated at large in
this work.
[4] Had the sacred writers of the Scriptures in question been
permitted by the Holy Spirit to use language which was intended to
imply belief in the new covenant of the latter days, i.e., conversion,
as supposed, I cannot but consider it a remarkable fact that not a
word occurs to convey this more distinctly. It would not have been
new for Moses to allude to Messiah or his covenant, yet only one of
his passages under notice contains the least possible allusion of the
kind, and that only indirectly through the times of the covenant—
viz., the latter days; and this, be it observed, in that very passage
which we have shown reason to think is most positively prophetic—
an opinion in which Lowth supported us. (See p. 215, 246, suprā.)
Neither would it have been extraordinary for Solomon to have
intimated the nature of the frame of mind he desired to describe ;
some clear reference to Messiah's time and covenant and deliverance
would have seemed (we should say) much in place under Solomon's
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 419
circumstances. But Solomon refers, doubtless, to the words of Moses,
who had given no intimation that the penitence alluded to was in
accordance with a new covenant, and Solomon accordingly gives none
either. But more than this, it appears to me that both Solomon and
Moses take peculiar care to limit their words to the Abrahamic
covenant—not to the Christian, not to the Levitical, but by special
distinction the Abrahamic. Says Solomon, “Pray towards the land
which thou gavest unto their fathers, and toward the city which thou
hast chosen, and towards the house which I have built for thy name.”
(2 Chron. vi. 38.) Says Moses, “Then will I remember my covenant
with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant
with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.”
(Levit. xxvi. 42.) A treble cord of assurance Oh I let Chris-
tians remember that He has made a twofold covenant with the
Hebrews—the Levitical, which is fulfilled, and, by that fulfilment,
abolished in Christ; and the Abrahamic, which has never yet been
changed, and is perpetual as the promise of Messiah. (See p. 274,
suprā.) Again (Deut. iv. 31), “He will not forsake thee, neither
destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers, which He sware
unto them.” When God made a promise to Abraham, because He
could sware by no greater, He sware by himself. (Heb. vi. 13.)
The Abrahamic covenant is meant by Moses, under which Israel's
seed was to be infinitely multiplied, and eventually to possess the
gate of their enemies. (Gen. xxii. 17.) And yet, as if Moses would
not have us doubt that these promises appertained to his hearers as
Jews, he added (Deut. xxx. 10)--although it is admitted he was
anticipating the times of Christ,-‘‘If thou wilt hearken unto the
voice of the Lord thy God to keep his commandments and his statutes
which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the
Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.” Here is
required a turning unto the Lord under the law ; and surely such a
specification of obedience to the law, when Moses is supposed to be
speaking of their turning to the Lord in the times of Christ, is at
least peculiar.
And let this important fact be noticed, viz., that we cannot separate
the language of such passages. If, therefore, the “turning to the
Lord” be referred to the times of Christianity, then the recognition
of the Mosaical “statutes and law" must be also referred to the
times of Christianity for Israel; and the turning required of them
E E 2
420 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
becomes, consequently, turning to the Lord under the law, and not
what we call conversion. If this be objected to as shocking Christian
ears, then there is but one alternative, we must limit the whole
language of such passages to times preceding the Christian dis-
pensation, and all argument upon them as to the future of Israel
is at an end. In the one case, Israel's turning to the Lord in
the land of their dispersions—i.e., before restoration—is not con-
version. In the other, such passages do not reach the question.
And observe this remarkable fact. In the order of his predictive
description, which, I doubt not, refers entirely to the Christian
dispensation, Moses places the real conversion, or circumcision of
the heart, after the restoration —“And the Lord thy God will bring
thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess
it ; and He will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers;
and the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart
of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with
all thy soul, that thou mayest live.” (Vers. 5, 6.) I do not wish
to dwell upon this, or make too much of it; but there is the fact.
In a passage peculiarly describing the prospect of recovery after
the present general dispersion of Israel, Moses places recovery of
the land before circumcision of the heart ; and what phrase so truly
denotes conversion as this 2 (See Rom. ii. 28, 29, and Acts vii. 51.)
The passage (Deut. xxx. 6) being, I believe, the only one of its
kind. And observe, this circumcision of heart is to be national;
bring thee, thou shalt possess it, circumcise thine heart, the heart
of thy seed, that thou mayest live ; all Israel is individualized.
From Moses to Malachi, the Lord knows Israel, keeps Israel, restores
Israel, converts Israel, only as a people, a nation. -
I ask the reader to note also the force of this, my second reason, for
concluding that the passages under notice speak only of Israel's
humiliated state of mind in the lands of their dispersion before
conversion to Christ. The absence of any specific allusion to Messiah
and his covenant, the most careful specification of the Abrahamic
covenant, the notice of the law of Moses emphatically when Moses
is supposed (and rightly) to anticipate Christian times,—such ideas
suggest my second reason for thinking that the force of these
passages is to assure us that the Most High will acknowledge
unbelieving Israel's penitential frame of mind, and bring him back
to Palestine, partly in remembrance of the Levitical covenant, as
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 421
predicted by Ezekiel, in chap. xvi. 60, but also and chiefly in
consideration of the Abrahamic.
[5.] The Levitical covenant is abolished—the Abrahamic is not ;
and that under which Israel was delivered from Egypt was not the
Levitical, but the Abrahamic. “Go and gather the elders of Israel
together, and say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me
unto you ; this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial to all
generations” (" "tº for generations of generations). (Ex. iii. 15.)
This memorial was eternal; and it is by this Israel will make mention
of God's name acceptably, previous to their coming restoration. True
the threatened judgment was, that if they kept not the Levitical
covenant, they should “perish utterly” from off the land ; and it has
been accurately fulfilled. True, the recovery of the land to all its
ancient privileges and fruitfulness is carefully limited to the time
of their conversion and complete restoration (Isa. xxxii. 13–20);
but I am not aware that in all the judgments threatened, nor in all
the promises of future restoration and conversion, and consequent
territorial aggrandisement, there is a single word to suggest that
the Abrahamic covenant is revoked, or shall ever be forgotten ; but
the very contrary. Rather, I would urge, that it is entirely con-
sistent with the dealings of the Almighty—first, to signalize his own
immutable truth and invincible love, notwithstanding his people's
provocations, and then to humble them under the conviction of their
complete unworthiness before receiving them into favour. I should
expect to find the Abrahamic covenant vindicated before Israel's
last trouble and consequent conversion. And the grand figure under
which the people Israel is represented, in reference to the future
restoration and conversion, is not opposed to such arguments. It
is the figure—fully illustrated by Hosea (chaps, i.-iii.)—of an
adulterous wife undergoing, in banishment and separation, a certain
course or process of purification prior entirely to her remarriage.
Now, this husband is Messiah—this marriage is conversion : this
conversion cannot take place till Messiah is embraced as Lord ; this
marriage cannot take place until the preparation is complete : but
this preparation is completed in separation ; therefore it is prior to,
and distinct from, conversion, and is effected under some covenant
or condition different from that of Christianity; in other words, there
422 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
is a preparatory process anterior to conversion; and it is to that
preparatory process the passages under examination refer. The
penitent frame of mind does not involve conversion, nor does it
necessarily follow that the scene of separation is also the scene of
marriage. St. John, too, alludes to this preparation for conversion,
or marriage to Messiah :-“Let us be glad and rejoice, and give
honour to Him ; for the marriage of the Lamb is come ; and his
bride hath made herself ready” (Rev. xix. 7)—where the bride
intended is the Jewish nation (Faber’s “Sac. Calend,” vol. 3, p. 296)
described, before Messiah goes forth to tread “the winepress of the
fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” (Wer. 15 ; and Isa. lxiii.
1–6.)
[6.] From all the above considerations, I conclude that the penitent
frame of mind predicted or (according to some) made conditional by
Moses, previous to Israel's restoration, is a penitent frame of mind
anterior to, and distinct from, the acknowledgment of Christianity;
and that, therefore, such passages do not justify the expectation that
Israel's conversion will precede his restoration. And precisely to this
penitent but unconverted frame of mind I refer such passages as
Hosea v. 15 and vi. 1–3.
As to Jer. xxxi. 9—“They shall come with weeping, and with
supplications will I lead them *—and similar passages, such as Isa.
xviii. 7 and lxvi. 20, they do not enter into the merits of this
question, for they describe the condition of the people returning from
all parts of the world to their already restored brethren at Jerusalem
(against whom Antichrist had been warring) after Messiah's appear-
ance, after Antichrist's overthrow, and after the consequent conversion
of that national restoration at Jerusalem. Corresponding passages are
—Isa. xi. 14–16 ; xlix. 22; &c., &c.
[IV.] I now enter upon the last class of Scriptures affecting the
question whether Israel's restoration may properly be expected before
his conversion to Christianity. My object is to show that, far from
implying the impossibility of restoration in an unconverted state, the
Books of Moses suggest some reasons for anticipating that Israel
may be restored unconverted. In endeavouring to show this, I shall
AND conversIon of THE JEWS. 423
take the Book of Deuteronomy as a summary of the rest of the
Pentateuch, and venture to believe it may be taken for granted that
the other books contain no great religious principle which is not
resumed and recognised in that. At the same time I would especially
refer to Exod. xxiii. 20–23, and Lev. xxvi.
[1..] I observe that the truth laid down by St. Paul (Gal. iii. 17)—
“And this I say, that the covenant which was confirmed before of
God in Christ, the law which was 430 years after cannot disannul,
that it should make the promise of none effect”—is incontrovertible;
and that if it be admitted, as it must, that the promises made to
Abraham extended also to his literal seed through Isaac and Jacob,
then we are sure that those promises having been made absolutely
long before the days of Moses will be fulfilled absolutely, the law
of Moses and all breaches of it notwithstanding, Israel's fitness or
unfitness notwithstanding. No breaches of the Levitical law, and
consequent chastisement, could abrogate the covenant which God
had made with Abraham 430 years before that law was promulgated.
Accordingly Moses, whenever he alludes to God's covenant with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, always refers to it as absolute and
unconditional. (See Deut. i. 8, vi. 10, xi. 9, &c., &c.) Such is
the manner in which God's covenant with their fathers is ever alluded
to. No conditions, no limitations, are hinted at, as indeed none were
mentioned, when that covenant and its confirmation by oath was
effected. No limitations, no conditions, as to God's gift of the land,
though undoubtedly both limitations and conditions, in abundant
places to be referred to, the breach of which was to affect the period
and degree of their peaceful enjoyment of it, without prejudicing
their unchangeable right to reacquire it. The gift of the land of
Canaan, was part of God's covenant with Abraham, irrespective of
Christianity; and I argue that the right of Abraham's children to it
remains, irrespective of Christianity, and that we ought not to be
unprepared for their reacquiring it, irrespective of Christianity.
Accordingly we find that Israel's restoration is assured to him by
an unconditional repetition of this the Almighty's oath—“The Lord
hath sworn by his right hand, and by the arm of his strength, Surely
I will no more give thy corn to be meat for thine enemies, and the
sons of the stranger shall not drink thy wine, for the which thou hast
laboured; but they that have gathered it shall eat it, and praise the
424 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Lord ; and they that have brought it together shall drink it in the
courts of my holiness.” (Isa. lxii. 8.)
[2] But undoubtedly the Levitical covenant was added to the
Abrahamic as the great code of conditions upon which Israel's
continuing to enjoy the land depended ; but this, I venture to say,
is a very different thing from making the observance of that law
a condition upon which God's oath to Abraham should remain in
force or be entirely abrogated. God’s promise and oath to Abraham
was of three articles—the gift of Canaan, blessing for Israel and
cursing for his enemies, and the birth of Messiah ; breaches of the
Levitical law were to suspend the enjoyment of the first of these,
without prejudicing the other two, and also without abolishing or
recalling either. And the language of Moses accords with this
explanation. Some passages in which the adoption of the Levitical
covenant is made the condition, on compliance with which their entire
possession and uninterrupted enjoyment of the land of Canaan
depended, are—Deut. iv. 1, 40; v. 33 ; vi. 1–4 ; vii. 12; xi. 9, 22;
xiii. 17; xv. 5; xxvi. 16; xxviii.; and xxxii. 17. These are
abundantly sufficient for admitting and proving the adoption of the
Levitical covenant with the conditional purpose expressed ; but what
is that ? Merely the entire possession of the land, and the prolonga-
tion of their residence upon it. Here were two possible penalties to
be incurred—1. That they should fail to obtain possession of all
the land (Deut. xi. 20–24); 2. That they should be thrust out from
what they did acquire. Both these penalties disobedient Israel
incurred; and it would be as scriptural and as reasonable to say
that the Abrahamic covenant was abolished because they incurred
the one as the other. Their disobedience prevented their ever
thrusting out the Gentiles from Canaan; was the Abrahamic cove-
nant therefore null ? Surely not. Their disobedience caused them
to be driven from the land ; was the Abrahamic covenant therefore
annulled * Surely not. The Abrahamic covenant remained, and
does remain, the same, all their iniquities notwithstanding.
And from the very nature of the case, if once they did perish from
off the land, and were ever restored, it must have been in consequence
of some source of mercy other than that of the Levitical covenant ;
for to keep that covenant beyond the land was impossible : thus,
during the captivity in Babylon, to seek God according to the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. - 425
* ...; : * r * : * *
Levitical covenant had become impossible ; but Israel still remained
God's people, and possessed a source of mercy which the Levitical
law could neither benefit nor impair, and which source of mercy was
not the Christian. If Israel broke the Levitical covenant, chastise-
ment was to follow ; but Moses gives us no reason to infer that Israel
was, therefore, to be entirely cast away, or to be left bereft of
covenant with God, whether in Levitical or Christian times. Ac-
cordingly, not only does Moses recite the promise to Abraham as
absolute and unconditional, but he also carefully distinguishes it from
the Levitical: “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in
Horeb ; the Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with
us, who are all of us here alive this day.” (Deut. v. 2, 3.) I admit,
therefore, that Moses says neglect of the Levitical covenant should
produce two effects of chastisement—viz., 1, They should not acquire
all the land; 2, They should lose what they did acquire. Both
threats have been fulfilled. But Moses by no means implies that
therefore Israel is hopelessly cast away. On the contrary, they had
a source of mercy—a means of memorializing the Most High—
anterior to either covenant, Levitical or Christian, which source
of mercy has never been done away.
The difficulty which presents itself regarding the future of Israel,
when we note the certainty of the promise to Abraham, and the
perpetual nature of the gift of Canaan, and of the blessing, contrasted
with the certainty with which Moses anticipates their faithlessness and
dispersion, seems to me the key to Deut. xxix. 29:—“The secret
things belong unto the Lord our God, but those which are revealed
belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the
words of this law.” Moses knew the oath was unalterable ; that Canaan
was Israel's for ever, i.e., as long as Israelites existed on the face of
the earth; that God's blessing was Israel's similarly ; he knew also
that their continuance on the land was conditional upon obedience to
the Levitical covenant ; he knew also that Israel would not obey, but
would perish off the land; these truths he had recounted in chap.
xxix., and not permitted fully to foresee, or at least to declare, the
manner in which the seeming contradiction could be reconciled, he
warns them that while there were certain secret purposes of God's
own, by which, notwithstanding their rebellions, his mercies might
ultimately overflow, and of which they could know but little, there
was one thing they did know, and were admonished to attend to, viz.,
426 , NOTES ON THE RESTORATION .
the law of God then revealed to them, and that “all the words of
that law” it was their duty, and the duty of their children, to obey.
[3.] Nor is the obdurate and rebellious temper of Israel towards
the Levitical covenant, when they were led from Egypt into Canaan,
without significance, in contemplating their return thither. That
rebellious condition is carefully reproved by Moses (Deut. ix.4—6):—
“Not for thy righteousness . . . . . . but that He may perform the
word which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob.” And even when standing before the Lord their God, “That
thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into
his oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day, that He
may establish thee to-day for a people unto himself, and that He may
be unto thee a God, as He hath said unto thee, and as He hath sworn
unto thy fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and to Jacob” (Deut. xxix. 12);
even in that very day Moses declared unto them, “Yet the Lord
hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to
hear, unto this day.” (Ver. 4.) They were brought into Canaan, and
into the Levitical covenant, and the oath to Abraham was remembered,
although the people still remained impenitent, and unbelieving of heart.
So, again, we expect they will be brought into Canaan, and into the
Christian covenant, and the oath to Abraham will be remembered, even
though Israel remain impenitent and unbelieving of heart, with respect
to Christianity. Yes; and Moses has not left us without reason
for expecting this, even from his own prophecies. He is told that
the people will certainly rebel against the Lord, break his covenant,
and be scattered over the earth ; and he is to write a song, that they
may learn it as a testimony against themselves (Deut. xxxi. 28–30);
and, in this very song, referring to the latter days, we have assurances
of their being preserved as a people, notwithstanding their rebellion
(Deut. xxxii. 26); of the Lord's delivering them out of their
calamities (ver. 35); and overthrowing their enemies; and this, too,
with express reference to the land (ver. 42); and with this song the
life of Moses closed. Such a chapter is calculated to suggest some of
those “secret things,” only dimly, though sublimely, alluded to by
Moses, to be, in the course of God's own time, fully declared and
explained by the prophets, who flourished, and prophesied, peculiarly
at that time, when the judgments upon Israel for despising the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 427.
covenant of Levi were about to commence. Not unsimilarly, also, as
to Lev. xxvi. g g
Upon this branch of the subject, I will add but one observation,
viz., that there are good reasons for thinking Holy Scripture has ever
carefully limited the promise of Israel's full possession of Canaan to
Messiah's times. I ground this remark upon the terms of the oath to
Abraham, where the gift of Canaan, the perpetual blessing, and the
promise of Messiah, are inseparably connected, as three articles of
one covenant ; upon the song of Moses, where the triumph of Israel
over his enemies is carefully identified with the land (Deut. xxxii. 43),
and also limited to Messiah's times, the latter days, upon the increas-
ingly explicit declarations of the prophets, some of which are fully
treated of in this volume, and upon the declaration of Zecharias, by
inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Luke i. 67), where He directly explains
all the declarations concerning Israel, “by the mouth of his holy
prophets, which have been since the world began,” with the saving of
literal Israel from national enemies, and their establishment as a
peaceful, holy nation, in their own land, in connexion with the coming
of Messiah, whose way John was to prepare. And all this is distinctly
associated with “The oath which He sware to our father Abraham.”
But of this I shall speak in a concluding chapter.
[V.] The preceding arguments being fairly weighed, I submit the
conclusion—That the reasons adduced by Horsley and Faber for
believing in a conversion of Israel previous to restoration were unsound;
that the passages frequently referred to in the books of Deuteronomy,
Hosea, &c., and supposed to make that restoration conditional upon
certain previous repentance, do not describe such a state of mind as
implies the acceptance of Christianity, or conversion ; that the books
of Moses rather favour the expectation that Israel would be restored
unconverted ; and that such restoration will be effected prior to con-
version, in vindication of the Abrahamic covenant; and now I add
that Micah, speaking in the name of Jerusalem, distinctly foretels
God's return to Israel in acknowledgment of the Abrahamic covenant.
“Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy; when I fall, I shall
arise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me. I
428 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against
Him, until He plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: He
will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness.
Then she that is mine enemy shall see it, and shame shall cover her
which said unto me, Where is the Lord thy God 2 mine eyes shall
behéld her ; now shall she be trodden down as the mire in the streets.
In the day that thy walls are to be built, in that day shall the decree
be far removed. In that day also he shall come even to thee from
Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the
river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain. Notwith-
standing the land shall be desolate, because of them that dwell
therein, for the fruit of their doings.”
“Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which
dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel ; let them feed in
Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old. According to the days of
thy coming out of the land of Egypt will I show unto him marvellous
things.”
“The nations shall see, and be confounded at, all their might; they
shall lay their hand upon their mouth, their ears shall be deaf. They
shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes
like worms of the earth ; they shall be afraid of the Lord our God,
and shall fear because of thee. Who is a God like unto thee, that
pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant
of his heritage 2 He retaineth not his anger for ever, because He
delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, He will have compassion
upon us ; He will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their
sins into the depths of the sea. Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob,
and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers
from the days of old.” (Micah vii. 8—20.)
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 429
CHAPTER X.
§
“MULTITUDES, MULTITUDES, IN THE WALLEY OF DECISION.”—
JOEL III. 14.
WE venture to claim Joel's entire prophecy as a prediction of events
to be accomplished after a coming restoration of the Jews. As this is
not completely in accordance with the views of many commentators
(though not altogether without support from some), there is the more
need that our reasons for doing so should be carefully explained.
There is no certainty as to the time when Joel prophesied; but it
seems clear that, as Hosea was appointed a prophet especially for the
ten, so Joel exercised that sacred office for Judah and Benjamin, the
two. Upon the unity of his book little need be premised, since it
would be hard to find any good reason for doubting it ; but this unity
will prove (unless I mistake) a valuable element in any effort to under-
stand its contents. Calvin says the chapters “ have been absurdly and
foolishly divided.” The opinion of such a man is always valuable ;
but, in fact, the style of the whole prophecy, and the close and rapid
succession of its various predictions, seem at once to convey the idea
that the book was delivered by the prophet at one time, and in refer-
ence to one order or series of events, apart from any notions we may
entertain as to the duration of the time to be occupied in its fulfilment.
This close connexion, or unity of the book, is intimated by the occa-
sional repetition of the same, or similar, figures or modes of speech.
Thus, in chap. i., “Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather
the elders, and all the inhabitants of the land, into the house of the Lord
your God ; and cry unto the Lord, Alas ! for the day, for the day of the
Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.”
(Vers. 14, 15.) And at chap. ii. 1 : “The day of the Lord cometh, for
it is nigh at hand, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds
and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains ; a
great people and a strong,” &c., &c. “Blow the trumpet in Zion,
sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly.” (Ver. 15, &c, &c.) A
cageful examination of the whole, with a view of connecting such
430 NoTEs on THE RESTORATION
predictions as these, will show that, whatever period of time may be
comprehended in it, the prophecy is unbroken, and entirely one,
indicating a connected course of events present predictively to Joel's
mind throughout it. It is for us to inquire whether such events are
yet future, or otherwise.
pon the first chapter little need be said. It contains a vivid
description of the wasting and desolation of the Holy Land by the
agency of locusts, and other noxious insects:—“That which the
palmerworm hath left, hath the locust eaten ; and that which the
locust hath left, the cankerworm hath eaten ; and that which the
cankerworm hath left, hath the caterpillar eaten.” (Wer. 4.) The
description of this desolated condition of the country is continued
throughout the chapter, and may, perhaps, indicate to us the desolated
condition of Palestine during the dispersion of these last days.
Having thus opened the subject, he proceeds to predict an invasion of
the land by that which locusts typified, viz., an army of men ; a
prediction contained in chap. ii. 1–11. It has been much disputed
whether this chap. ii. 1–11 is a prediction of the eruption of real
locusts, or of a mighty army of men typified by them. Those who
wish to see the argument fully considered, and the authorities referred
to, can consult Mr. Faber’s “Rest. of Israel,” vol. ii., pp. 181—188,
or Henderson’s “Min. Proph.,” p. 94. My reasons for considering it
a description of a human host will abundantly appear in the course of
the chapter, meanwhile I assign but one (from Dr. Henderson), which
seems absolutely conclusive —“The term "liºn The Northern,
Northlander, or (as Coverdale renders it) Him of the North, is of
prime importance in the interpretation of the prophecy. . . . . . That,
however, which determines the question is the addition of the patro-
nymic "to lieś, indicating that the north was not merely the quarter
whence the subject of discourse came, but that its native country lay
to the north of Palestine ; just as "ºlſ. The Temanite means the
Southern, or he who dwells to the right of Palestine (looking east-
ward): "Tº a native Egyptian.” (“Minor Proph,” p. 109.) Mark
here the literal inspiration of Hebrew Scripture; that little "deter-
mines an important sense of Joel's prophecy. Scott, indeed, quotes
Bishop Newcome, on chap. ii., 7–9 :—“The particles of similitude
here, and in the fourth and fifth verses, shew that real locusts are
described.” But I see nothing in this: for surely it is a very common
and legitimate way of speaking to say that persons we are alluding to
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 431
act like the best of their kind we can conceive. “They shall run like
mighty men ;” let the emphasis be laid on mighty. Take, again, the
following:—“Ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”
(Ps. lxxxii. 7.) According to Newcome's reasoning, those who are
here to die are not men, because the particle of similitude is used. I
shall, at present, conclude that Joel prophesies of an army of real
men ; other reasons for this will appear in time ; meanwhile it is our
business to inquire, of what army Joel is here speaking 2 Locusts
cannot be intended, because locusts were not natives of the north.
[I.] Several commentators have applied this prophecy to the
invading army of Sennacherib, others to that of the Babylonians
under Nebuchadnezzar: but, for the following reasons, it appears
doubtful whether it can be applied chiefly, if at all, to either.
[1..] For Joel, in ver. 2, speaking of the strength, not of the
number, of the army describes it as “a great people and a strong ;
there hath not been ever the like”— ºivºrº from an indefinite time
previously; “A seculo–ab omni memoria” (Drusius)—“neither shall
be any more like it, even to the years of many generations”—
TiT, Ti". “Generationis et generationis; actatis et actatis ; i., Mul-
torum seculorum ; nunquam ultrà.” (Vatablus.) But it may fairly
be doubted whether the Israelites themselves, and especially the men
of Judah (to whom Joel spake), when under David, and even the
Jews and Israelites, under separate kings, had not, before the times
of Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, formed armies which were equal,
or even superior, to the Assyrian and Babylonian under these
monarchs; if so, Joel's description, “there hath not been ever the
like,” can hardly be considered verified as to armies which invaded
Palestine so soon after as those. And the other expression, Till Ti",
must be held utterly inapplicable in either case ; for, 1. From the
time of Sennacherib to the overthrow of the united Assyrian and
Babylonian powers by Cyrus the Great was but 172 years; and,
2. From the time of Nebuchadnezzar's taking Jerusalem to the same,
only 49 years; neither of which periods of 172 years and 49
respectively seem competent to meet the expression Till it "...tº Ty,
to the years of many generations; or multorum seculorum, according
432 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
to Watablus. And similarly, from the time of Cyrus to that of the
Romans, the armies in Asia, and especially in Europe, continued to
exceed in strength all that had preceded them ; so that, commencing
with the time of Sennacherib, we know not when Joel's expression,
“neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many genera-
tions,” can be verified, until we come to the Roman armies themselves.
[2.] The circumstances of the prediction (to which we shall show
the strongest prophetical certainty belongs) indicate a storming and
sacking of Jerusalem not attempted in the case of the Assyrians, and
not occurring in that of the Babylonians. “They shall run to and fro
in the city; they shall run upon the wall; they shall climb up upon
the houses; they shall enter into the windows like a thief.” (Ver, 9.).
Let Dr. Henderson speak: “Here the description quite excels in the
graphic. The comparison to warriors is admirably carried out.
First their rapid advance upon the city is specified: next, their
scaling the walls in the most regular order; then their consentaneous
encounter with the troops of defence, their invulnerability, their
progress through the streets, their climbing the walls and entering
the windows of the houses are set forth in terms of singular and
appropriate beauty.” (“Minor Proph,” p. 105.) Now the predic-
tions of this siege and taking of Jerusalem are of the most affirmative
character; but in the case of the Assyrians Jerusalem was not taken ;
and in that of the Babylonians, Jerusalem, though taken, was not
taken in a manner to justify this description. (See 2 Kings xxiv. 25 ;
also “Joseph. Antiq.,” B. 10, c. vi., s. 3.) “Now a little time after
the king of Babylon made an expedition against Jehoiachin, whom
he received (into the city), and this out of fear of the foregoing
predictions of this prophet (Jeremiah), as supposing that he should
suffer nothing that was terrible, because he neither shut the gates, nor
fought against him.” Also, same Book, chap. vii., s. 1, where he
besieges Jehoiachin, who, being “of a gentle and just disposition, he
did not desire to see the city endangered on his account; but he took,”
&c., &c. Also, chap. viii., S. 2, describing Zedekiah's reign, but
without any such particulars as would meet Joel's prediction ; and
same chapter, s. 5, describing the pillage of Jerusalem by Nebuzar-
adan, who apparently entered Jerusalem unopposed.
For such reasons as these, and more will appear as we proceed, I
venture to doubt the accuracy of applying this prediction either to the
AND conversion of THE JEws. 433
Assyrian or Babylonian armies, neither of which applications seems
indeed either clear or satisfactory to the commentators themselves.
And for similar reasons it cannot be applied to the Syrian armies
under the successors of Alexander. (See “Joseph. Antiq.,” B. 12,
chaps. i. and ii.; chap. v., S. 3; chap. x., S. 4; and B. 13,
chap. viii., S. 3.)
[3.] But does it refer to the Romans ? The question is worth
considering, although the prophecy is not usually applied to them.
It may be readily admitted that Joel's description may well enough
be applied to the Roman army that took Jerusalem, and that particu-
larly the phrase, “neither shall be any more after it, even to the years
of many generations,” may be considered as sustained by their armies,
whose discipline and prowess was never equalled except by the armies
of Europe in modern times, distant from the Romans, “even to the
years of many generations.” And, even admitting it to apply to them
alone, one consequence of great importance to the subject follows from
that admission, viz., we are brought at once fully into the times of
the Christian dispensation. A fact which may materially facilitate our
application of the rest of the prophecy ; for the capture of Jerusalem
by the Romans was the first grand mundane event connecting the
people of Europe, i.e., the north and west, with the history of the
Jews. But supposing we admit that Joel's description might apply
primarily to the Romans, there seem important reasons for thinking
it cannot belong to them alone nor chiefly. And this is that part of
the subject to which the closest attention should be directed ; for if
that opinion can be substantiated, the application of the remainder of
the prophecy becomes comparatively easy ; at least in this respect,
that we know it must refer to events yet future.
Let it be observed that the prediction of the siege is followed
(vers. 12–17) by an earnest exhortation to repentance, the whole
nation being enjoined to turn unto the Lord with all their heart, and
“with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning.” And the
consequence promised to this national repentance is thus described:
“Then will the Lord be jealous for his land and pity his people. Yea,
the Lord will answer and say unto his people, Behold, I will send
you corn, and wine, and oil, and ye shall be satisfied therewith: and I
will no more make you a reproach among the heathen : but I will
F. F.
434 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
remove far off from you the northern army, and will drive him into a
land barren and desolate, with his face toward the east sea, and his
hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall come up, and
his ill-savour shall come up, because he hath done great things.”
(Vers. 18–20.) This is a very important passage, for, 1. The
blessings promised are national to the land and people of the land :
and, 2. The destruction of the heathen army is promised in such terms
as prove it was not accomplished in the Assyrians under Sennacherib.
Again, let Dr. Henderson speak: “His van towards the eastern sea,
and his rear towards the western sea.” The eastern sea being the
Asphaltic Lake, or Dead Sea; and the western sea the Mediterranean,
by general admission. Here is a division of the army in destruction
which was not fulfilled when Sennacherib's one hundred and eighty-
five thousand sleepers were stricken dead in their camp at Libnah.
And, again, the description implies that the besieging army is one
part on the side of the Dead Sea, the other on that of the Mediterranean.
This destroys the idea which Henderson suggests (“Minor Proph.,”
p. 106), that Jerusalem is not the besieged place specifically intended,
but rather the land of Judah and its fortified cities generally. We shall
show reason to believe that Joel describes two destructions here, one on
the east of Jerusalem, in the valley of Jehoshaphat ; the other north-
west of Jerusalem, at Armageddon, or the plain of Megiddo. Again,
“I will drive him,” Tºrſºlſ ; it is an overthrow, not an eactinction,
like Sennacherib's. Again, “Because he hath done great things; ”
ning? bºn ** because he is become great as to doing—his
deeds have magnified him. The army is predicted of as having really
done great things most affirmatively ; so that, to whomsoever we
apply the prophecy, the siege and capture of Jerusalem must take
place, which, of course, forbids its application to Sennacherib.
As this affirmative character is of great importance to the interpre-
tation of the prophecy, let Lowth assure us of it : “Because he hath
done great things, or, rather, although he hath done great things;
though this army of insects by God's appointment has made such
dreadful ravages in the land, yet it shall come to this shameful
end: the Lord will do,” &c., &c. Lowth undoubtedly erred in
supposing literal locusts were intended; but he thus marks the
affirmative character of the predictions. So also Lee (“Gram.,”
p. 354) refers to this very prophecy in illustration of the affirmative
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 435
power of the paragogic Nun. We thus learn incidentally that the
prophecy cannot refer to Sennacherib.
[4] However, the present question is, Does it refer to the
Romans ? They took Jerusalem, but how can the exhortation to
national repentance and its national consequences be received upon
the assumption that it refers to them 2 If Joel be indeed predicting
the siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Romans, then the promises
of blessing and deliverance already quoted must needs be referred to
that siege also, which necessarily presupposes that at the time the city
was taken and destroyed by the Romans, national (observe, national)
and political repentance and reconstitution was possible to the Jews ;
which I take to be a supposition entirely contrary to the whole tenor
of the divine predictions, and also to the express words of Scripture
itself. For, I imagine, that the national and political rejection and
dissolution of Judah was an important subject of the Divine predic-
tions from the earliest ages to take place after He came, whose Judah’s
sceptre was (Gen. xlix. 10); and that such rejection and dissolution
was the immediate consequence of their having filled up the measure
of their iniquities (Matt. xxiii. 32) by the crucifixion of the Son of
God, and that, therefore, such rejection and dissolution was as certain
after the death of Jesus as that death itself; so that, although indi-
vidual repentance and salvation remained to the sons of Judah, their
national and political reconciliation to God had, for the time, become
impossible. This is confirmed by the predictive declaration of Christ
himself: “If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the
things which belong unto thy peace but now they are hid from thine
eyes; for the days shall come,” &c., &c. (Luke xix. 42.) From this
we learn that, even before Messiah's death, judicial impenitence had
been permitted to settle upon Judah as a national punishment for
their repeated provocations. For our blessed Lord does not merely
state predictively that Jerusalem would not know at the time the
Romans came against her, but positively that such things as belonged
to her peace were already in his day hid from her eyes, which
language ought to be carefully borne in mind.
Hence, to suppose that Joel in the chapter before us predicts the
capture of Jerusalem by the Romans, exhorts to national repentance,
and promises upon that condition God's reconciliation to the people at
that time, is to suppose what other parts of Scripture pronounce as
F F 2
436 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
impossible as Messiah's death was certain, and makes besides our
blessed Saviour state that which would have been in direct opposition
to the Scriptures of truth. For He declared before his death that
national repentance was hid from Jerusalem; whereas the suppo-
sition makes the Holy Spirit, through Joel, to intimate it was
possible, which it could not be when “hid from their eyes.”
Much more might be said to the same effect ; but these reasons seem
sufficient to justify the conclusion that Joel does not alone nor chiefly
predict the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans, but that, even if his
prophecy can rightly receive that interpretation primarily, he had
another siege present to his mind when he delivered the prophecy to
take place after that successfully carried on by the Romans. But if
so, there must be a siege and capture of Jerusalem yet to come ; for
this prophecy does not refer to the army of Sennacherib, does not
refer to the Babylonians, does not refer chiefly, if at all, to the
Romans. And since the times of the Romans no siege has taken
place of Jerusalem in the occupation of Judah and his priesthood as
the prophet Joel here describes it. To a similar conclusion Mr.
Faber: “In this prediction Joel gives a full account of what shall
take place in the great day of the Lord and in the period which
ushers in that great day. He beholds the armies of Antichrist,
numerous and rapacious as locusts and caterpillars, spreading them-
selves over the whole land of Palestine, and destroying all its
produce.” (“Rest. of Jews,” vol. ii., p. 175.) &
[II.] The above arguments have been advanced to show that
Joel's prediction cannot apply to any siege of Jerusalem which has
yet taken place, and they were advanced irrespectively of any
critical observations on the language employed. The conditional
character of vers. 18–20 was permitted to be assumed according to
the interpretations usually advanced, but there is a consideration in
reference to the language which seems to deserve attention.
[1..] It will be observed that Joel's second chapter commences
with the prediction of the siege and closes (vers. 28–32) with that
remarkable prophecy of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost quoted by
St. Peter on the day of Pentecost. (Acts ii. 16.) This recital by
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 437
St. Peter is very important to our purpose, for it proves that the
language in that particular prediction is positive and unconditional.
In other words, Joel foretold a fact which was to happen irrespective
of and notwithstanding the bad conduct of the Jews. Now, it is
undeniable, and Lowth and Lee support us, that the prediction of the
siege (chap. ii. 1–11) is affirmative and unconditional also. If, then,
the language in eleven verses at the commencement of the chapter,
and of five at its termination (making just one half), be positive and
unconditional, as they are, the question is fairly asked, Why should
the remaining sixteen verses be considered otherwise in the absence of
any mode of speech distinctly eaſpressing such condition? Nay, the
question withdraws itself into still narrower limits; for at vers.
21–27, the prophet delivers a prediction of the coming fruitfulness
of the land in language of the most positive and unconditional kind,
adopting the imperative form of speech as significant of the greatest
certainty: “Fear not, O land; be glad and rejoice, for the Lord will
do great things. Be not afraid, ye beasts of the field, for the pastures
of the wilderness do spring, for the tree beareth his fruit, the fig tree
and the vine do yield their strength. Be glad, then, ye children of
Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God, for He hath given you the
former rain moderately, and he will cause to come down for you the
rain, the former rain and the latter rain in the first month.” (Vers.
21–23.) Where the promise, “The Lord will do great things,”
nitoyº Tit, ºr "à, ought to be particularly noticed, for they
are precisely the same words and used to correspond to the prediction
concerning the northern army; “because he hath done great things;”
so that the certainty which belongs to the one belongs also to the
other. If the siege was predicted positively, then the Lord's
deliverance was predicted positively, or the converse; and the
repentance, &c., &c., alluded to in vers. 12–17, is not merely
supposititious or hortatory, but predicted as a positive event of
national penitence sure to happen, which, remembering the prophecy
has yet to be fulfilled, is an important fact.
\
[2.] However, the whole passage, of which the above (vers.
21–23) is a part, occupies eight verses, conceived in most uncon-
ditional language; and the question really becomes, In a chapter of
thirty-two verses, of which twenty-four are plainly unconditional,
what reason can we show for believing the remaining eight, standing
4.38 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
in the full current of the predictions, are otherwise ? I answer,
None ; and the only appearance of it even in the English version is
the use of then as the rendering of the particle at the commencement
of ver. 18, where that particle is neither conditional nor used as an
adverb of time, but in the sense explained at p. i89, suprā, to denote
the consequence of the promises contained in vers. 15–17, depending
upon them undoubtedly as an effect upon its cause, but certain, and
not conditional, if we can show that vers. 15–17 do indeed contain
promises absolutely certain. Accordingly, Noldius, among his
numerous examples of this use of cites our two passages (Joel
ii. 18 and 24), the second of which will effectually illustrate the first,
upon which we are now speaking. Joel says (chap. ii. 23), “Be glad,
then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God; for He
hath given you the former rain moderately, and He will cause to
come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in
the first month. And ( ) so, in consequence whereof) the floors shall
be full of wheat, and the fats shall overflow with wine and oil.” No
example could more clearly illustrate this use of the particle; the
fruitfulness of the land being the natural consequence of God's
“showers of blessing,” or blessed showers. Precisely thus at ver. 18,
upon which we are engaged : “Then () so, or, in consequence of
conduct previously described) will the Lord be jealous for his land,
and pity his people.” (See Noldius, p. 303.) The whole interpre-
tation of the passage, therefore, depends upon this question, Are vers.
15–17 merely hortatory, i.e., supposititious, of a penitence of Judah,
or are those imperatives used with that peculiar force which belongs
in a multitude of passages to the Hebrew imperative as indicating
prophetical certainty?
[3.] That to express prophetic certainty, or, in other words, to
announce events that shall certainly occur, is one chief property of the
Hebrew imperative, any one may convince himself by referring to
Lee’s “Gram.,” Lect. xvii., Art. 231, Sec. 11; also, Ibid., Art. 239;
and Glassius’ “Philolo. Sacra,” lib. 1, tract iii., can. 40, who adds,
“Huc pertinent omnia loca, in quibus prophetae de rebus futuris
vaticinantur per modum imperativi; e.g., Esa. viii. 10; xxix. 9;
xxxvii. 30; liv.1, &c.” There can be no doubt that this is a force
of the Hebrew imperative when used by the prophets. The question
is, Is that the force of it as used by Joel at chap. ii. 15–17 ? I
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 439
maintain that it is (and not the other force of it described by
Glassius, p. 287, as “Imperativus pro subjunctivo cum conjunctione.
Si vel quamvis’), and for reasons which will gradually develope
themselves. Meanwhile, I observe that if Joel's prophecy have any
individuality of its own, any peculiar characteristic calculated to
arrest attention, it is this very use of the imperative. Even the
English reader may perceive it by referring to his Book generally—
this use of the imperative is Joel's style. “Awake, ye drunkards, and
weep.–Be ashamed, O ye husbandmen.—Gird yourselves, and
lament, ye priests—Sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly.—Fear not,
O land, be glad and rejoice.” And especially that whole passage,
chap. iii. 9–13, the prophetic character of which will not be
disputed. I maintain that, if requested to choose a part of Scripture
especially illustrative of the prophetic use of the Hebrew imperative,
we could not select a more appropriate Book than Joel's. Why, then,
amid such a host of examples of this use of that form of speech, clear
and undisputed, am I required to except chap. ii. 15–17, unless it
be in deference to common and preconceived notions. Surely there
is nothing more reasonable than to illustrate the same prophet's style
by references to similar passages in his own Book. The peculiar
style and characteristic of Joel's Book go to prove that chap. ii.
12, 13, and vers. 15–17, are not merely precatory or eahortative, but
also certainly predictive of penitence, national fasting, and prayer,
which shall undoubtedly yet take place at Jerusalem. .
If this should prove to be sound, then we observe, 1. That at the
time of Sennacherib's invasion, the national reformation of Judah and
his peculiar acceptance with God had already been effected by
Hezekiah, as Rabshakeh admits (2 Kings xviii. 22; and Isaiah
xxxvi. 7)—a fact to be dwelt upon in the next chapter ; and neither
historian nor prophet intimates any such national event of general
humiliation as would fulfil Joel's prophecy, but only Hezekiah's
prayer (2 Kings xix. 14, and Isaiah xxxvii. 14), and Isaiah's conse-
quent errand of mercy. I infer, again, that Joel's prediction did not,
and could not apply to Sennacherib's invasion. 2. It did not apply
to the Babylonian. And, 3. We are sure it did not, and could not
apply to the Roman. And, therefore, Joel predicts another capture
of Jerusalem yet to take place, but also to be accompanied with
the national repentance of Judah and their consequent deliver-
all Ce,
440 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
[4.] But there is another way of arriving at the same result. One
great objection to the interpretations of Joel usually advanced is that
they cut up his Book into small pieces as predictive of different events
hundreds of years apart, without respect to the close consecutiveness
of the language he employs. Thus chap. ii. 1–11 refers either to
the Assyrians or the Babylonians; vers. 21–27 describe the
condition of Judah during Maccabean times; vers. 28, 29 belong to
the day of Pentecost and the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Romans;
chap. iii. 1, 2, are not yet fulfilled; but vers. 3–8 belong to the times
of Alexander the Great, &c., &c. Thus the whole prophecy is shaken
together in confusion, and the manifest connexion of the language
disregarded. Were Joel's such a Book as Isaiah's, Jeremiah's, or
Ezekiel's, the case would be very different, and there would then
probably be no difficulty in assigning various prophecies to various
times; but I imagine that nothing is plainer than that Joel's Book is
one prophecy, and its various parts closely and indissolubly connected.
There is nothing to lead us to believe that its day, or F, extends
over a period of more than 2500 years, viz., from Sennacherib's time
to a period later than our own, for it is manifest that part of the
Book, viz., chap. iii. 9—17, is not yet fulfilled. *
Let the well-known prediction of the effusion of the Holy Spirit
(chap. ii. 28–32) be read ; surely it will assist us to see the unity of
Joel's book. First. Speaking of the day of siege (chap. ii. 10), Joel
says, “The earth shall quake before them ; the heavens shall tremble;
the sun and the moon be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their
shining.” Second. Speaking of the day of the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit, he says, ver. 30:—“I will show wonders in the heaven
and the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke ; the sun shall be ,
turned into darkness, and the moon into blood; before the great and
terrible day of the Lord do come.” Third. Speaking of the destruc-
tion of the heathen in the valley of Jehoshaphat (chap. iii. 14):—
“Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision ; for the day of
the Lord is near in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon
shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.” The
words in chap. ii. 10, and chap. iii. 15, being precisely the same.
Now, 1. In prophecy we have “a fixed set of symbols,” or (in Dr.
Henderson's words), “The heavens and the earth mean the political
world, with its civil and religious establishments; the sun and the
moon the higher and superior ruling powers ; while the other images

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 44f.
are employed to denote the disastrous prognosticatory changes that
were to happen in relation to both.” (“Min. Proph,” p. 115. See
also Faber's “Sac. Cal,” vol. i., chap. i.) And for Joel's Book
we have three days supposed :-1. The time of the Assyrian or
Babylonian invasion : 2. The commencement of the Christian era;
Pentecost, with the destruction of Jerusalem : 3. The day of the
valley of Jehoshaphat yet to come. But it is certain these fixed
symbols were not verified in either of the first two events; they
are world-wide symbols, indicative of world-wide effects; such as
neither the Assyrian, nor Babylonian invasions, nor Pentecost, with
the overthrow of the Jewish polity (including the intervening
time), produced. And, 2, In a book so rapid, and connective,
as Joel's, is it reasonable to believe that he employs the same
fixed symbols of prophetic imagery of three different days or
eras so widely separate as the three above mentioned 2 I am
persuaded that a close examination of that little book will convince us
of the contrary. But, if not, the day is the same in each case ; and
let us mark the result. We know, as regards two of the epochs
alluded to, viz., the Assyrian, or Babylonian invasion, and Pentecost
with the destruction of Jerusalem, that the predicted incidents were
not verified; for the invasions were connected with no Pentecost, and
Jerusalem's overthrow with no destruction of Gentiles in the valley of
Jehoshaphat. Hence nothing remains but to refer the prophecy to
one day when—1. Jerusalem shall be besieged and taken ; 2. The
Holy Ghost shall be poured out ; and, 3. The heathen shall be
destroyed in the valley of Jehoshaphat.
[5.] But an important argument can be drawn from the prediction
relating to Pentecost to show that the whole second chapter, including
vers. 12–17, is predictive, affirmative, and unconditional ; for at
once it is seen how much depends upon the interpretation of the word
afterwards. Because, if this word be relative as to what precedes, it
will follow that the siege foretold by Joel was neither Assyrian,
Babylonian, nor Roman, nor any which has yet taken place, since no
outpouring of the Holy Spirit followed either. And, more than this,
if the word afterwards have relation to what precedes, then the gift
of the Holy Spirit foretold was to be after the overthrow of the
northern army, which is promised to follow the national repentance at
vers. 12–17. In that paragraph (chap. ii. 21–32) is one continuous
4.42 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
prediction of unequalled blessing. Hence it follows that, since we
are assured by inspiration (Acts ii. 16) that the promise of the Holy
Spirit was unconditional and affirmative, the overthrow of the
northern army, and the national repentance, are unconditional and
affirmative also ; full, as we said at p. 439, of predictive certainty.
Now, I am persuaded this is the proper interpretation of afterwards,
12" ſlº, viz., that it is an adverb having relation to what precedes,
and not an arbitrary and independent denotation of time.
But the objection will be immediately advanced that St. Peter,
speaking by inspiration of God, has given this phrase its interpreta-
tion, as being really an independent notation of time, viz., the last days.
Peter's assertion is this :—“This is that which was spoken by the
prophet Joel ; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God,”
&c., &c. “Tobrá čott, this is the fact, predicted by Joel.” (Hender-
son, p. 114.) But, whoever will compare St. Peter's quotation with
the Hebrew, and consult the commentators, will perceive how clear it
is that St. Peter did not profess to give an exact rendering of Joel's
words, but to cite the spirit and purpose of his prophecy, with, no
doubt, a general indication of its times. St. Peter's is by no means a
verbal quotation. We can place but two interpretations on his
words —l. Either he meant to say that Joel's prediction was com-
pletely fulfilled at Pentecost, there and then (which all commentators
agree is not the case); or, 2. He meant to say that Pentecost was
the thing in its kind spoken of by Joel ; an effusion of the Spirit
characteristic of the last days; not limited to Pentecost, but indefi-
nitely protracted through them. I say, let it be carefully noticed,
either we must maintain that Peter meant to assert a complete
fulfilment of Joel's prediction there and then, or else we must admit
a protraction of the time ; and, having once admitted a protraction of
it, we have no means of limiting that protraction; so that St. Peter's
language may apply even to a period later than our own times. This
we maintain it does, and that St. Peter intended not to give a precise
or logical explanation of the phrase 12"TS, used by Joel, but
merely to fix the age, or era, denoted by it. -
. Of course St. Peter's authority is unanswerable ; he spake by
inspiration of God. But so did Joel ; and therefore St. Peter cannot
be imagined to put a construction upon Joel's language not borne out
by facts; and to eatisting and visible facts St. Peter was alluding when
he spoke. Let, then, the account we have of Pentecost (Acts ii.
AND conversion of THE JEws. 443
1–4) be placed by the side of Joel's prediction, and we shall not
wonder that commentators refer vers. 30, 31, to the overthrow of
Jerusalem by the Romans, thus protracting the time of St. Peter's
quotation. But that protraction once permitted, the context does not
enable us to limit it. Joel speaks, under figure, of portents alarming
the world, influences as extensive as that of sun, and moon, and
stars, of whole communities moved by the Holy Ghost, of some great
and terrible day of judgment, called “The day of the Lord,” and of
complete deliverance at Jerusalem. St. Luke's account of Pentecost
offers no parallel to this wonderful description. That day marked an
isolated event, confined to few comparatively, wholly unconnected
with such portents, and such a day as Joel describes. Peter's appli-
cation of Joel travels on beyond Pentecost—who shall say how far 2
St. Peter, taught of the Holy Ghost, cannot be supposed to assert a
fulfilment of Joel's prophecy, delivered also through the same Spirit,
which occurring facts, specifically alluded to by him, did not verify. That
day of Pentecost did not meet the requirements of Joel's language ;
and St. Peter cannot be understood to say that that was the full
fulfilment of that prediction. It might, indeed, have been a fulfilment
in kind, but not the fulfilment in degree ; and, therefore, not the
fulfilment in time. - :
In one word, if commentators, ancient and modern, have felt
compelled, as they have, to carry forward the time of Peter's quota-
tion even to the destruction of Jerusalem, there is nothing to forbid
our carrying it further still ; on the contrary, the whole context
favours our doing so ; it being, I maintain, manifest that Joel's “day
of the Lord” is immediately associated with an outpouring of the
Holy Ghost. -
So Lowth :—“There will be another remarkable effusion of the
Spirit, in order to their conversion in the latter times of the world.”
And Faber :—“He will pour out, in a manner unknown in former
ages, His Holy Spirit upon all flesh ; insomuch that the day of Pente-
cost itself shall be only a type of this yet greater and more extensive
effusion.” (“Rest. of Jews,” p. 177, 194, 195.)
[6.] But, besides the argument thus drawn from these existing
facts, to shew that Pentecost could not be affirmed by St. Peter a
complete accomplishment of Joel's prediction, there is the other and
chief deducible from the words the prophet uses, which are translated
444 . NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
afterwards. For Joel spake, like other prophets, by inspiration of
God; and, speaking in Hebrew, used the words of that language in
their correct and idiomatic import, and especially in that import
which consistency with the rest of God's inspired Word would demand.
The Holy Ghost, inspiring all the prophets, harmonized their lan-
guage, and forbad that we should use the same words in a sense
opposed to the meaning already attached to them by others; for this
reason, Peter's words on Pentecost, uttered and recorded by inspira-
tion, cannot be supposed to assign to Joel's words a meaning which
Hebrew scriptural usage would not justify. If, then, we can learn
from the Holy Volume the meaning of any phrase involved in Joel's
prediction, we know the meaning which St. Peter must have attached
to them also, when he too was speaking, as moved by the Holy Ghost.
The phrase used by Joel, and translated afterward, is 75".TIS ;
sometimes used in the form 12"Th; ; and its literal English is
“after—thus ;” given more accurately by Noldius (“Concord. Part.,”
pp. 10–15), “à tergo constitutionis istius; h.e., rebus ità consti-
tutis ;” in plain English, “after things have been thus brought to
pass,” or, “after such things have occurred.” And Noldius gives an
abundance of examples of the scriptural use of the phrase, under the
heads “Postea, postguam.” Similarly, Gesenius (“Thesaurus,”
p. 71, sub TTS 2 and 4):—“Post sic., i.e., postguam ità, ut dictum
est, res evenerant, i.e., postea ;”
and I believe any one who will consult those examples will be con-
vinced that there is no doubt of the Biblical meaning of 72". Ilº,
viz., that it is a relative form df speech, applicable both to place and
time, always relating to something gone before. It is a relative
adverbial expression, and not, and cannot be an independent index of
time. -
Two places have been referred to as exceptions, viz., Jerem.
xlviii. 47, and Dan. ii. 29–45, where a similar Chaldaic expression
is employed, but reference will prove that neither case is clear, far
less conclusive. Dr. Henderson observes (“Min. Proph,” p. 113),
“That the two phrases are identical in meaning clearly appears from
a comparison of Jerem. xlviii. 47 with xlix. 6.” He had previously
said, “T3". Iſs, though indefinite, is nearly equivalent to Fºſſ
m"Tºº, as appears from its having been rendered by the Apostle
Peter v ráis oxáras juépaus, in the last days.” But surely neither of
these observations is sound. For, 1. Nothing is clearer (as already
who also gives abundant examples:
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 445
noticed) than that St. Peter does not intend verbally to render Joel, as
may be proved by comparing his quotation with the passage in Joel ;
he merely delivers the spirit, and generally fixes the era of Joel's
prediction ; and, 2. 72"|Tºº, used in a place immediately connected
with Dº nºr's, may receive from that very connecion a shade of
meaning which it does not carry abstractedly. Which observation
applies both to Henderson's reference to Jerem. xlviii. 47, and Lowth's
reference to the corresponding Chaldaic phrase, TT2"| "...ſº, in Dan.
ii. 29–45. But Joel does not employ the term in connexion with
any other mark of time ; we are, therefore, limited to its Biblical,
and essential force. That essential force is relative—after certain
events described have occurred, then that introduced by 72". Tº will
take place.
Accordingly, we find that Noldius places his reference to Joel
ii. 28 by itself, as exceptional, and renders “Tempore novissimo ;”
but, to justify that which he knew required explanation, he refers, at
122, “Annot. et Wind,” to Acts. ii. 17. In fact, he makes the
exception out of deference to that place in the New Testament, as
though St. Luke meant to represent Peter as translating Joel's words,
which, once more we repeat, was not the case. But, even while doing
this, Noldius carefully reminds us that various Christian translators
rendered the phrase “post hac" without supposing that, by so doing,
they contradicted St. Peter. The principal who do so are Jerome, the
Vulgate, Luther, and Drusius; to whom we may add, Grotius, post ista,
and Erasmus, post hac, with this quotation:—“Caeterúm Lucas nonnihil
discrepat et ab Hebræis et à Septuaginta quibus hoc loco cum illis est
ferè concordia. Non est apud Hebraeis in novissimis diebus, sed
posthac.” Thus Christian interpreters abundantly show us that to
interpret 72"Tº relatively as to what precedes, by after these things,
is not to contradict St. Peter, but that such is its literal, and essential
meaning. -
Neither do we contradict Hebrew interpreters, for the Septuagint
renders it però raúra; and Kimchi, and Abenezra, who render it by
Pºſ n'Tºº, are not to be understood as thus giving the abstract,
and essential force of là"...ſº, but merely as stating that the time
referred to is some time in the days of Messiah; which is manifest
enough by examination of the context (but see Henderson’s “Min.
Proph.,” p. 113), and is precisely what St. Peter himself has done.
And examples of the same mode of quoting in the New Testament
from the Old are found elsewhere. See Henderson's notes on Zech. xi.
446 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
12, 13; and Zech. xii. 10. (“Minor Proph,” pp. 423,431.) Which
mode of quotation will be again alluded to under [7] in the con-
cluding chapter. - -
I conclude then that 72" ſº, translated afterward in Joel ii. 17,
might have been more correctly rendered after these things; and that
it is a relative, and not an independent, mark of time, and implies
that the prediction of the effusion of the Holy Spirit which it pre-
cedes would not be fulfilled until the events which Joel previously
predicts had taken place ; and the following results flow from this
conclusion :-
First. Joel could not have meant, in chap. ii. 1–11, the Assyrian
invasion, nor the Babylonian, nor the Roman sieges, for no such
outpouring of the Spirit followed them, or either of them.
Second. No such outpouring has followed any siege of Jerusalem
which has yet taken place ; therefore Joel foretels a siege, and
capture, of Jerusalem yet to come.
Third. Inspiration, through St. Peter, has given an unconditional
and affirmative character to Joel's prediction of the gift of the Holy
Ghost: hence all which precedes this prediction, which is to be
fulfilled “after these things,” is unconditional and affirmative also 5
therefore such siege and capture of Jerusalem has yet to occur, by an
army, natives of the north ; such national repentance will yet take
place ; such northern army, though having taken Jerusalem, will be
removed, i.e., overthrown, by the Lord ; and then, “after these
things,” such territorial and spiritual blessings as are promised in the
unbroken, continuous paragraph, chap. ii. 21–32, will be bestowed
upon Judah ; every verse of this paragraph being inseparably con-
nected with its preceding.
Fourth. But this outpouring of God's Spirit having yet to take
place, must import their conversion ; therefore Judah’s conversion to
Christianity will be national and public, commencing at Jerusalem,
after their restoration in an unbelieving state, through the outpouring
of the Holy Ghost, at a time when Jerusalem, having been taken by
an army of natives of the north, that army is wonderfully overthrown
by the Lord.
Fifth. The inseparable nature of the context, chap. ii. 21–32, is
important, for it is clear that then the affirmative character of vers.
28–32 must affect the whole. But vers. 21–32 are but a continua-
tion of promises commencing at ver. 18, which describe the conse-
quence of the national repentance. Therefore the whole passage,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 447
vers. 18–32, viz., the consequence, being affirmative, and full of
prophetic certainty, it follows that the description of repentance in
vers. 12–17, viz., the cause, is affirmative, and full of prophetic
certainty, and not merely hortatory, as some would imagine. Restored
Judah will celebrate a national penitence at Jerusalem.
[4.] Taking altogether the various arguments hitherto urged in
this chapter, I consider the conclusion justified—That Joel ii. is an
unfulfilled prophecy of a most affirmative and unconditional kind ;
and that St. Peter's allusion to it has fixed undeniably the era of it
for these last days, to be accomplished at Jerusalem. Some arguments
may appear of less force, some of greater, but, upon the whole, I
believe the conclusion is established.
[III.] But now, if the relative force of 12"TITS be denied, it
must be taken as an arbitrary and independent specification of time,
equivalent precisely to Pººl nºſº. In the last days; and thus
we are supplied with a specific date to which the remainder of Joel's
book may be referred. Upon that chap. iii. we now enter, and believe
it will prove strongly corroborative of the observations already made.
For it is admitted that the predictions of this chapter are, for the more
part, unfulfilled ; if, then, we can shew that the times of chap. iii. are
specifically the times of chap. ii., then the whole of chap. ii., as well
as of chap. iii., remains to be accomplished.
The prediction of the third chapter, which I shall quote as certainly
unfulfilled, is ver. 2:—“I will gather all nations, and will bring them
down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there
for my people, and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered
among the nations, and parted my land ; ” which prediction is more
fully repeated at ver, 12. It is clear from these passages that Joel
predicts a gathering together, at some time, of multitudes in a certain
place near Jerusalem, called the valley of Jehoshaphat, a valley of
decision, and that in such place the Lord will inflict judgments on
such nations on behalf of his heritage Israel, because such nations
have scattered his people, and parted his land. That these predictions
are unfulfilled, let Scott assure us for all :—“Nothing took place
between the captivity in Babylon and the coming of Christ, either in
448 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
respect of the Jews or their enemies, answerable to this energetic
language. Strangers, one after another, took Jerusalem, and even
polluted the temple, and, after Christ, the Romans destroyed both,
and they have ever since been trodden under foot of the Gentiles.
But the Scriptures referred to show that almost all the prophets foretel
the same final victory of the Church over all that oppose it, about the
time when the Jews shall be converted, and restored to their own
land, and just before the millennium, when ‘the kingdoms of this
world shall become the kingdoms of our God and his Christ.’”
[1..] Now Joel does declare that the times of the fulfilment of
chap. iii. are the same times as those when the events of chap. ii. shall
be accomplished :-‘‘For behold in those days, and at that time, when
(nº as to which) I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and
Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations and bring them down,” &c.,
&c. Where we have two important specifications of time; 1. When
God will bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, in times
yet to come; and, 2. Those days and that time, relating to what has
been already mentioned; a relative mode of designating the time
confirmed by the conjunctive phrase, “For, behold”—Tºry "P. The
connexion of the times of chap. iii. with those of chap. ii. depends
upon two points, viz., the conjunctive force of TAT ** for behold;
and the relative force of S^TTTT nº. Tºlºſ Bºº, In those days,
and at that time.
As to the first, or conjunctive force of “For, behold,” I imagine it
will be scarcely doubted ; the force of a phrase so frequently occurring
in Scripture needs no explanation. The commentators admit the
sequence of chap. iii.; so Newcome, and Henderson ; so Grotius–
“Nam º saepe est sed; cohaerent haec, ut dixi, cum superioribus.”
The prophet intimates that he is about to substantiate, and, as it
were, account for the wonderful predictions he had just delivered.
Let the unity of Joel's book be remembered, as (as Calvin calls it) the
absurdity of its division into chapters, and the justice of this observa-
tion is more clearly perceived. It is as though Joel said, “I have
foretold a great and terrible day of the Lord, when Jerusalem shall
be taken ; yet I have also foretold deliverance in Zion at Jerusalem,
accompanied with marvellous blessings, temporal and spiritual. Does
this seem strange to you ? Nevertheless it is true ; ‘for, behold, in
those days, and at that time’ of which I spake, and when, also, God
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 449
will bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, He will
gather,” &c., &c. This seems to be the plain and natural coherence
of the language.
But the second, viz., the relative force of the expression, “In those
days, and at that time,” requires a more careful elucidation. The
interpretation which may be suggested is manifest. Those days and
that time—what days, and what time —“when God shall bring
again,” &c., &c. Referring those days, and that time, to what follows,
and not to that which precedes. But such an interpretation would be
incorrect. Says Henderson :-‘‘That the days and times here specified
are not identical with the period spoken of in the last five verses is
evident from their being connected with the relative conjunction
-ºffs with the following words, which relate to the restoration of the
Jewish state.” (“Min. Proph,” p. 117.) But how unsatisfactory
this observation is may be seen from the following example —“Thus
saith the Lord of Hosts; In those days it shall come to pass that ten
men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations,” &c., &c.
(Zech. viii. 23); which refers to ver. 22, immediately preceding, and
where the identical mode of speech is employed, pººr. Tº Tººlſ
Eºſ, where (says Henderson, “Min. Proph.” p. 405) “nº is
redundant.” Equally redundant might we say it is at Joel iii. 1.
But the fact is, as Gesenius informs us (“Thesaurus,” p. 165), that
in these places -gs “pariter atque "... et ponitur ; praecedentibus
aliis casibus absolutis impr. tempus locumque designantibus.”
See also Gesenius’ “Thesaurus,” p. 585 Pi (2). And Bishop
Horsley has an observation exactly to our purpose:–“I suggest it to
the learned to consider whether the phrase so frequent in the prophets,
shrin Piº, Tºll, is not to be differently taken according as it is
connected with the subsequent clause by the copula l. I am much
inclined to think that, when it is not so connected, Sºrſº Pi is to be
understood by some event already mentioned; and the force of the
expression is to notify that the event of the subsequent clause is to
take place at that time. But when these three words are connected
with the subsequent clause by the copula 1, then I conceive that the
event of the subsequent clause affords the mark of the time, and gives
the date to the event previously mentioned. So that, in both cases, a
synchronism is described, but with this difference, that in the first
case the event previously mentioned gives the date of the other ; in
the second case, the other event gives the date of that previously
G. G.

450 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
mentioned.” Thus, in the place before us, Joel iii. 1, Horsley would
make the return of the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem fix the
date of the preceding prophecy, Joel ii.; but, at any rate, holds
that synchronism is implied. The times of Joel iii., when Judah's
captivity is to be brought back, are the same as those of chap. ii.; or,
at the least, are the same of chap. ii. 28–32, according as we take
73". Tº to be relative, or otherwise. So Lowth —“In those days,
and at that time—the time called the last days, chap. ii. 28, according
to St. Peter's interpretation, Acts ii. 17, which comprehends all that
time which reaches from the first to the second appearing of Messias.”
(See chap. v., p. 227, suprā.) After examining about 150 places in
the prophets, being all, or nearly all, the references Noldius gives, I
am convinced that the phrases Shrin] blº, Sºrſº hy; , and their
kindreds, are modes of speech always used relatively as to time previ-
ously introduced or described ; of which use we have had abundant
examples in prophecies considered in this work, e.g., Isa. ii. 20,
iii. 18, and iv. 1; also, xi. 10–11, and xii. 1 ; also, xxix. 18, and
xxxi. 7 ; and Jerem. xxxi. 1, and xxxiii.; also, xxxiii. 15 : and
Zech. iii. 10, and ix. 16, xii., &c., &c.
For these reasons I conclude that the time of Joel iii. is the same
as that of Joel ii., particularly is the same as that of Joel ii. 28–32,
and that Joel introduces a fresh characteristic of the days he speaks
of, viz., they are the days when, or as to which, God “will bring
again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,” a captivity evidently
not the Babylonian, because return from it is associated with predic-
tions (chap. ii. 28–32) limited to Messiah’s days.
[2] To what days, or times, does Joel refer ? Clearly to the
days, or era, mentioned chap. ii. 28–32, the only passage where
hitherto, time had been specified at all." The days or times when the
captivity of Judah shall be brought again are the 73-'Iſs, or after-
ward, to be signalised by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. Now,
it will be remembered we have shown two interpretations of that
phrase, each of them, we believe, perfectly accordant with St. Peter's
paraphrase in Acts ii., for verbal interpretation it was not : they .
were—1. That it meant the last days absolutely, which none dispute;
2. That, besides this, it has also a relative force, implying that the
time Joel intended, though it were part of the last days, was a time
closely related to, and connected, with, the preceding predictions; and
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 451
that, therefore, such predictions belong also to the last days, and are
yet unfulfilled.
Hence, referring the verse, “For, behold, in those days, and at
that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and
Jerusalem’’ (chap. iii. 1), to the first of these interpretations, one
conclusion follows undeniably. The predictions of chap. iii, belong
to the Christian dispensation, and a captivity of Judah and Jerusalem
has yet to be restored, i.e., Judah the people has to be restored, and
Jerusalem, their chief city, to be reacquired and repossessed by them;
or, as Jeremiah would say, “built again upon her own heap.”
(Chap. xxx. 18.) Also, certain Gentile nations have yet to be
gathered together in the valley of Jehoshaphat, there to experience
God's judgments upon themselves in defence of his heritage Israel.
But, referring the same chap. iii. 1 to the second of these interpreta-
tions of 72"|Tºº, i.e., admitting that chap. ii. 28–32 describes a
part only of all the events predicted in chap. ii., then the siege by the
army of northerners, described chap. ii. 1–11, and the destruction
of that army, vers. 18–20, have yet to take place, and are so closely
identified by the prophet's language, that it seems impossible to evade
the conclusion that they are descriptions of the same, or parts of the
same, events, taking place in the last days, and ending in the triumph
of God’s people at Jerusalem. So that the army of native northerns
in chap. ii. is the “Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision,”
the “all nations in the valley of Jehoshaphat” of chap. iii.; and the
destruction of that northern army, its van near the Dead Sea, and its
rear near the Mediterranean, is a part of the Lord's sitting “ to judge
all the heathen round about,” in the valley of Jehoshaphat, in chap. iii.
And, if we can show cause to believe that “the valley of Jehosha-
phat” is near Jerusalem, there will remain little doubt as to what
place that northern army will so besiege.
Briefly thus:–If, as the second interpretation of 72"Tº main-
tains, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit follows the destruction of the
northern army, and if it be true, also, that the gathering of “all
nations” in the valley of Jehoshaphat takes place “in those days, and
at that time,” viz., the same time, then the overthrow of the northern
army, and the destruction of “all nations” in the vale of Jehosha-
phat, is one and the same event.
We believe that this has been distinctly proved, but, for greater
satisfaction, shall make the deductions which depend upon the two
G G 2
452 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
interpretations separately, so that the conclusions based upon the first
interpretation will be clear and undisputed, while, again, those built
upon the second will be available to all who believe, as we do, that
such interpretation was sound.
[3.] But, before we do this, there are two passages to be referred
to, which may seem to prejudice the present scheme of interpreta-
tion :-
First. The denunciations against “Tyre and Zidon and all the
coasts of Palestine,” who sold Israel's children to “the Grecians,”
and are themselves to be sold to “the Sabeans.” (Chap. iii. 4–8.)
Is it reasonable to refer this to times yet to come 2 In endeavouring
to understand prophecy, it behoves us not at all to inquire what
is reasonable according to our preconceived notions. Our sole
business is to investigate the language used by any sacred writer,
considered by itself, and according to scriptural idiomatic usage.
But as regards the passage here alluded to, we have noticed in
Isa. xi., Ezek. xxxviii., and Zech. ix., that the names of the ancient
inhabitants of the coasts of Palestine and neighbouring places are
used to signify the enemies of Israel in the last days, and in
especial connexion with his restoration ; the same is frequently the
case elsewhere as regards the Assyrians, Edom, Moab, &c. (see
Obadiah 18, 19 ; Micah v. 6; Zephaniah ii. 7–9 ; &c., &c.);
so also Egypt and Edom, at ver, 19 ; so that it would be
nothing surprising or unusual to find Tyrians and Sidonians
alluded to here as typical of Israel's enemies when Joel's prophecy is
to be fulfilled, especially when we find Ezekiel describing some of
those enemies as slain upon the coasts. (Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix.,
p. 231, supra.) And what is singularly worthy of notice, these
judgments upon the coasts of Palestine are because Israel was sold
by Tyrians and Sidonians to “the Grecians;” we have shown
(p. 317, suprā) that there is good reason for believing that “Grecians”
—Javanim—will be the great enemies of Israel in the time yet to
come, to which Joel is alluding. Again, the threatened retribution
is, that restored Israel shall sell their enemies to “the Sabeans.”
“D’Sºtº, Sabeans. Pococke's ‘Arab. MSS.,’ the people of Yemen.”
(Henderson’s “Min. Prophets,” p. 119.) I have shown (p. 364,
supra) that in that day the Sabeans, or people of Yemen, will be
on the side of Israel; and as to the word sell, I shall only add this—
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 453
that many political compromises, not literally Jewish, do, nevertheless,
serve to illustrate very clearly the force of the verb “to sell.”
Nothing is more likely than that, in days yet to come, “thy sons,
O Zion,” will be sacrificed from pecuniary considerations to “thy
sons, O Greece.” (Zech. ix. 13); and that when the Almighty lays
his judgments upon the invaders, both those who sold and those who
bought, they, from similar motives, will be sacrificed to the sons of
Sheba. e
There is nothing unreasonable in expecting that chap. iii. 3–8 will
yet receive a further accomplishment, although it may be more
generally acceptable to take the passage as parenthetical, and de-
scribing the fate of Tyre and Sidon in the days of Alexander and
the Maccabees. “On the capture of Tyre by the Grecian monarch,
13,000 of the inhabitants were sold into slavery. When he took
Gaza, also, he put 10,000 of the citizens to death, and sold the rest
with the women and children for slaves.” (Henderson, p. 120.) So
also Lowth. . te ‘A &
Second. If the whole of Joel's book, including chap. ii., has yet to
be fulfilled, how are we to understand chap. ii. 2, “Even to the
years of many generations f" Is a like gathering together, to be ex-
pected against Israel at a day still further future ? Look to Rev.
xx. 7: “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be
loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which
are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather
them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the
sea.” We shall presently show that Joel's gathering together of “all
nations in the valley of Jehoshaphat ” is the same as Ezekiel's
confederacy of Gog and Magog. (Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix.) This
gathering is to precede, and its destruction to cause the conversion
of the restored Jews, the conversion of all Gentile nations, the
thousand years of universal Christianity, which labours under the
prejudice of being known as the millennium, after which St. John
predicts a combination of Antichrists figured by the previously
predicted Gog and Magog—i.e., a combination of Antichrists, like
nothing which had ever occurred before, except Ezekiel's Gog and
Magog. So that Joel's expression, “Neither shall be after it, even to
the years of many generations,” will be literally fulfilled. Ezekiel's
confederacy and St. John's being separated by 1,000 years.
454 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
[IV.] I now proceed to deduce severally the future events which
Joel's prophecy justifies our expecting : and, first, from that interpre-
tation of 72". Tº afterward, which applies (chap. xx. 28–32) to the
last days generally, without giving the phrase any force relatively to
preceding predictions. -
[1..] St. Peter having determined the times of chap. ii. 29 as those
of the Christian dispensation, and Joel's prediction of the return of
Judah and Jerusalem (chap. iii. 1) having reference to the same,
there is yet a time to come when their captivity will be brought
again—i.e., when Judah will be restored to his own land, and
particularly to Jerusalem. But in the same days, and at the very
same time, Joel says God will also “gather all nations into the valley .
of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for (i.e., on behalf of)
my people and heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the
nations, and parted my land.” Whence we observe, first, that even as
to Christian times yet to come, God terms Palestine his land and
Israel his heritage, precisely as at Ezek. xxxviii. 16; and, second,
that an immense gathering of people, so great as to be termed “all
nations,” will yet take place against the people Israel (for on Israel's
behalf they are to be smitten), in some place within the Holy Land,
termed the “valley of Jehoshaphat,” i.e., “the valley of the judgment
of God,” called elsewhere—viz., ver. 14—“the valley of decision,”
or cutting off. On Israel's behalf these multitudes are to be smitten,
because they scattered them among the nations and parted their land;
therefore against Israel they are gathered together in the Holy Land.
Where is the place in which this gathering and judgment of Israel's
foes is to be 2 It is called “the valley of the judgment of God,”
and “the valley of cutting off,” but Joel does not say where that
valley lies. -
It is true there lies eastward of Jerusalem a valley to which, in
modern times (Paxton’s “Sacred Geog,” p. 338), the Jews have
given the name, “valley of Jehoshaphat; ” but this gives us no
reason for believing that Joel here intended to use that monarch's
name. The vale so called by the Jews is a part of that whole valley
which, running south and east of Jerusalem, is called in Scripture
“the valley of the son of Hinnom,” or “Tophet; ” but still Joel
gives us no positive authority for interpreting his expression
vºirſ, ‘ppy’s unto the valley of Jehoshaphat of that particular
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 455
locality. But he does presently say, “The Lord shall roar out of
Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem” (ver. 14); whence we
may infer that the valley of decision, in which Israel's enemies are
destroyed by the mighty voice of the Lord, is near Jerusalem; and
not only near Jerusalem, but near Zion, the south-east quarter of
Jerusalem ; for out of Zion—the Zion of Jerusalem—does the Lord's
voice come : in other words, Joel does give us reason to infer that his
“valley of decision” will be just where we know the place vulgarly
called Valley of Jehoshaphat—biblically called Vale of Hinnom, or
Tophet—will be. For, indeed, these are parts of one great vale,
lying east-south-east of Jerusalem. I shall prove that Tophet is the
place, in the next chapter. “Wallis est inter Jerusalem et montem
Olivet, unde Christum ascendisse in coelum quidam scipserunt.”
(“Watablus. Drusius.”) *
Calvin observes :—“Walley of decision Yºng-a threshing instru-
ment ;” with which remark I associate the predictions of Isaiah and
Micah, parallel to Joel's :—“Behold, I will make thee (Jacob) a new
sharp threshing instrument, having teeth ; thou shalt thresh the
mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff; ”
where Isaiah, chap. xli. 15, uses the same word. And Micah :-
“Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion : for I will make thine horn
iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces
many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto the Lord, and
their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.” We have seen in
the parallel prophecy (Zech. viii. 9), and shall yet see more clearly,
that in the day of which Joel and other prophets speak, Judah and
Ephraim will fight together against their common foes.
However, all we learn from Joel as to the place of this destruction
is, that it will occur in some valley probably not far from Jerusalem,
and especially not far from that part of Jerusalem called Zion, or
The City of David, which was the south-east quarter. Mr. Faber,
indeed, took this place, “Valley of decision,” to be Megiddo, or St.
John's Armageddon ; but unreasonably so according to his own
admission, for he adds, “which, though it may be considered as
lying between the Dead Sea and Mediterranean, is (to speak with
more geographical accuracy) situate between the Mediterranean and
the sea of Gennesareth.” (“Rest. of Jews,” vol. ii., p. 188.) A
neighbourhood of the place where I have already shown Ezekiel's
Gog and Magog will be destroyed. But there are two, perhaps three,
456 .NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
distinctions; one at Tiberias (vide p. 233, suprā), and another at
Jerusalem.
[2] It is remarkable that, although Joel, at chap. iii. 1, speaks of
Judah’s captivity alone, yet he describes the judgment upon the
Gentile nations gathered together against Jerusalem as “for my
people, and my heritage Israel” (ver. 2); or, again—“The Lord will
be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel”
(ver. 16); terms including the national body, or representation of both
houses; hence, either at this very time the judgments upon the multi-
tudes in the vale of Jehoshaphat will be an actual deliverance of
Israel as well as of Judah, viz., of the national body, or else Judah
and his land being thus delivered from the assembled Gentile powers,
the recovery and restoration of these other ten tribes will succeed
that deliverance as a consequence. The two inferences are perfectly
harmonious ; for, from the parallel prophecies, Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix.,
and Zech. ix. 10, we know that some of Ephraim as well as of Judah
will form the first, or political restoration ; and from Isa. xi., xviii.;
Jerem. xxxi.; Ezek. xvi., &c., &c., we know that a great accession of
numbers will be made to that political or national restoration, after
their conversion. -
And the character of the confederacy against the restored people,
and consequent judgment, viz., as occasioned by “spiritual wicked-
ness,” is clearly marked at ver, 12:—“Put ye in the sickle, for the
harvest is ripe; come, get you down, for the press is full, for the fats
overflow ; for their wickedness is great.” It is a confederacy against
Israel in the Holy Land, of nations, heathen all, when Joel spake,
but Christian at the time the prophecy is fulfilled, as appears from the
investigation of the names of the confederates as given in Ezek.
xxxviii.: it is the great Antichristian confederacy of the last days.
“The vintage of Joel undoubtedly relates to the same period as the
vintage of the Apocalypse ; they both equally typify the overthrow of
the Antichristian confederacy.” (Faber’s “Rest. of Jews,” vol. ii.,
p. 155.) It is the same pruning of the vine which Isaiah mentions as
taking place before the work of Tarshish, in helping to gather in
Israel :—“For, afore the harvest, when the bud is perfect, and the
sour grape is ripening in the flower, he shall both cut off the sprigs
with pruning-hooks, and take away and cut down the branches.”
(Isa. xviii. 5.) It is the wine-press of the wrath of God, trodden by
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 457
Messiah —“Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of
the vine of the earth ; for her grapes are fully ripe. And the angel
thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth,
and cast it into the great wine-press of the wrath of God. And the
wine-press was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the
wine-press, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand
and six hundred furlongs.” (Rev. xiv. 18.) Which passages the
united authorities of Horsley and Faber enable me to mark as parallel;
but, if so, nothing is clearer than that, according to Joel before us,
the vintage takes place outside Jerusalem, besieged of Gentiles, in
the occupation of the restored people. It is the same fearful woe, on
Israel’s behalf, of which Isaiah prophesies at chap. lxiii. 1–6:-
“For the day of vengeance is in my heart, and the year of my
redeemed is come.”
Accordingly, all through the prophecy Joel ascribes the work of
judgment peculiarly to the Lord. Not a word does he say to indicate
human instrumentality. It is “the day of the Lord.” “I will sit to
judge all the Gentiles round about.”—“The Lord shall roar out of
Zion.”—“The Lord will be the hope of his people and the strength of
the children of Israel.” From all which it is plain that the judgment
is of such a marvellous kind as to be the peculiar and immediate work
of Jehovah himself. And as to ver. 16 especially, we may observe
that the day when the Gentile northern confederacy is judged thus
miraculously is the day of Israel's hope and strength, i.e., his deliver-
ance, as at chap. ii. 32 (which is specifically limited to the same
times), “For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance,
as the Lord hath said.” This deliverance, therefore, is wrought by
the Lord at Jerusalem itself. -
[3.] The whole force of Joel's description is to cause us to under-
stand that at the time of this confederacy of “multitudes, multitudes,”
God's land is in possession of God's heritage, as observed under [1].
And, therefore, the prophecy of this destruction of multitudes being
yet unfulfilled, a restoration of that people Israel has yet to be
expected antecedently to the confederacy described. Of literal
Israel, for all through Joel's Book, which is peculiarly national,
Israel and other Hebrew titles are manifestly used in their ordinary
sense. But not only is the restoration thus implied antecedently to
458, - NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
the confederacy of the multitudes, but also their conversion in conse-
quence of the overthrow of such multitudes.
For that such verses as vers. 17, and 20, 21, applied to times yet to
come, viz., Christian times, must denote the accession of Israel to
Christianity, will not be denied. “So shall ye know that I am the
Lord your God, dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain; then shall
Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any
more.” (Wer. 17.) “But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem
from generation to generation. For I will cleanse their blood whom I
have not cleansed, for the Lord dwelleth in Zion.” Such a passage,
belonging, as this does, to Christian times, must denote conversion of
Israel to Christianity, which conversion is marked as the effect of the
overthrow of the “multitudes, multitudes in the valley” of decision.
The argument is precisely as at p. 170, suprā, on Ezek. xxxiv. 29 :
“So shall ye know that I am the Lord,” &c., &c. tº Tº so ye shall
know, where once more marks the consequence or effect on Israel's
mind of what the Lord does for him in the destruction of the con-
federated army. “It was the burthen of the threatenings of Ezekiel's
prophecy. Such and such evils I will bring upon you, and ye shall
know that I am the Lord; and the same is here made the crown of
the promises.” (M. Henry on chap. ii. 27; which chap. ii. 27
I would have the reader note is precisely parallel to chap. iii. 17.
So chap. ii. 22, 24, and 26, to chap. iii. 18.) In which last passage
the recovered fruitfulness of the land is depicted for Israel to enjoy it,
and that remarkable prediction is delivered, “A fountain shall come
forth of the house of the Lord, and shall water the valley of Shittim.”
This Shittim was a place in the plains of Moab, on the confines of
Israel and Moab, on the eastern border of the Holy Land. (Numb.
xxxiii. 49, and Josh. ii. 1 : “Haud longè a mari mortuo. Unde
apparet describi hic aquaeductum eundem quem Ezekiel é templo
deducit ad mare mortuum et ultra, c. xlvii., ab initio ad ver. 12:
Sensus est, Fons ille licet initio tenuis est et exiguus, laté tandem
spargetur. Benedictio Dei longè latéque diffusa erit; ita ut universam
ecclesiam perfundat, et procul se diffundat, nempè usque ad valles
desertas. Erit enim Sittim in deserto; q.d., Fons ille loca arida et
remota humectabit. Ut quae hic dicuntur rectè intelligantur, utile
erit consulere Zech. xiv. 8, et Ezek. xlvii. 1–9 : ubi eadem de
ecclesiá totă irriganda ad extremos usque fines ejus sententia est.”
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 459
(Poole.) To which collated passages we may also add Ezek. xvi.
53, 55 : “When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of
Sodom and her daughters,” &c., &c.; and maintain, as at p. 53,
suprā, that while a mystical and spiritual meaning may be couched
under this language, and in all these passages the recovery of the most
debased of Gentiles, particularly of Gentile backslidden Churches, is
predicted, yet there can be no consistent reason for excluding a literal
meaning also, nor for refusing to believe that in that day the fruit-
fulness of Israel's whole land (for the plain was given to Abraham
too) shall be recovered, and even Sodom's site, now typical of
Gentiles immersed in the dead seas of Greece and Rome, shall once
again become the fruitful scene of cities of the plain, and thus
become also typical of their recovery to God.
The restoration of “God’s heritage,” viz., of both houses, is
implied antecedently to the confederacy of “multitudes, multitudes; ”
the overthrow of these distinctly predicted, and Israel's conversion to
Christianity in consequence, and, therefore, after the restoration, to be
succeeded by the universal dominance of Messiah.
[W.] The reader will remember that the above deductions are
grounded only upon one interpretation of chap. ii. 28–32, viz., that
7:"Tº was an independent mark of time, meaning the last days. I
now point out others dependent upon the second interpretation of this
phrase, viz., that it is relative, and implies that the predictions of
chap. ii. 28–32 will be fulfilled after the others previously delivered
in that chapter. For this second interpretation we gave three
substantial reasons:–1. That comparison of Acts ii. 17–21 with
Joel ii. 28–32 shows, as all admit, that St. Peter did not intend to
give a verbal translation of Joel, but rather a general application or
paraphrase. 2. That the biblical essential force of 72"Tºº is
relative. And, 3. That this was shown by the Septuagint and a long
list of Christian translators, who, by rendering the phrase by “post
haec,” could not be supposed to contradict St. Peter, who renders it by
last days, though it is manifest that “post haec * is very different from
“in ultimis temporibus.” Accordingly, I maintained that Joel ii.
28–32, and all the inseparable paragraph of promises comprised
between vers. 21–32 would be fulfilled subsequently to the previous
parts of the chapter, and that the prediction (vers. 28–32) formed
460 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
the hinge of connexion between the second and third chapters; while
the third chapter, being referred wholly to “those days and that time,”
mentioned at chap. ii. 29, the unity of the prophecy was established.
(See p. 444.) To any who may have thought the arguments thus
advanced conclusive, the following important inferences will be clear.
[1..] It is believed to have been proved that the outpouring of the
Holy Ghost, foretold by Joel, is to take place after the siege described
at chap. ii. 1–11, and after the national fast, humiliation, and
repentance at vers. 13–17. But we know upon St. Peter's inspired
authority that “I will pour out my Spirit,” &c., means religious con-
version by the operation of the Holy Spirit ; religious conversion in
the age and according to the doctrines of Christianity. Hence Joel's
prediction amounts to an assurance that the conversion of Judah to
Christianity will take place at Jerusalem after a siege and taking of
that city, and after public national fasting, humiliation, and prayer.
The Jews, therefore, will have been restored in an unconverted
State.
But now let it be observed that in chap. iii. it is distinctly foretold
that the conversion of Judah to Christianity will take place after the
destruction of the assembled nations in the valley of Jehoshaphat, near
Jerusalem, by miraculous interposition of the Most High ; hence it
follows that the siege and taking of Jerusalem, predicted in chap. ii.
1—11, and the gathering together of Gentiles in the valley of
Jehoshaphat, predicted in chap. iii. 1, and 14—17, produce precisely
the same result; and, therefore, are parts of the same event ; and that,
in fact, the army native of the north which besieges and takes
Jerusalem (chap. ii. 1–11), but is removed far off, at ver. 20, is the
same combination of people, described at chap. iii. 14, as “multitudes,
multitudes in the valley of decision,” where the Lord will sit to
judge them ; “Plead with them there for my people and my heritage,
Israel.” (Chap. iii. 1.) Hence the inference is easy, natural, and
clear. The multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision, near
Jerusalem, are assembled together to besiege that city; and, being so
assembled, are marvellously destroyed by especial intervention of the
Almighty. Further, it is clear from chap. ii. 7–9 that the besieging
army will take and sack Jerusalem (the same prophetical certainty
extending to all the chapter), so that the destruction of the assembled
armies in the valley of Jehoshaphat will take place after those same
ltitudes have besieged and have taken Jerusalem. In that
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 461
extremity, “the Lord will be the hope of his people, and the strength
of the children of Israel.” “Alas ! for that day is great, so that none
is like it ; it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved
out of it.” (Jer. xxx. 7.) .
Joel's Book is as a book of two leaves, the connexion of which is the
prediction of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost at chap. ii. 28–32,
each leaf containing upon the whole the same predictions.
[2] The effusion of the Holy Spirit converting (according to St.
Peter) to Christianity takes place after the siege of Jerusalem and the
destruction of the victorious besiegers; whence it follows that Judah
will be restored unconverted, and, as we before observed (p. 107),
that therefore the public reconstitution of the Jewish religion at
Jerusalem is almost a matter of course. Joel intimates that it will be
publicly reconstituted by the predictions contained in chap. ii. 15, 17.
A literal prediction conveyed in all the force and certainty of
prophetical language, from which we infer that restored Judah will
re-establish at Jerusalem his own Mosaical religion, be directed in that
religion by Levitical priests as of old, and worship in a temple
arranged after the ancient house on Mount Moriah in all its essential
features, in order that the ancient rights of worship may be legiti-
mately celebrated. And this is quite conceivable without supposing
that Solomon's temple, or even the second temple, will be equalled in
magnificence by a third : though whether the fulfilment of any
prophecy be conceivable or not can never be a consideration fairly
involved in its interpretation ; we have to regard the words of
Scripture, not probabilities in things external. That very mosque of
Omar, which now stands upon the site of God's temple, may even
itself be converted into a house adapted to the celebration of Levitical
institutions. -
Once more the sacred trumpets of Levitical priests shall be blown
in Zion; once more the solemn assembly of the people be called; the
elders of the people sanctified, and priests in their several orders
intercede for their people with the Lord, saying, “Spare thy people,
O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen
should rule over them ; wherefore should they say among the
people, Where is their God?” (Ver. 17.) Those heathen, for deliver-
ance from whom Judah will thus pray, will be the assembled multi-
tude of Gentile nations scattered along the valley of Jehoshaphat, and
462 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
this prayer will result, after the capture of Jerusalem and the
miraculous overthrow of the captors, in the conversion of Judah to
Christianity.
[VI.] Now, if the reader will refer to chap. vii., p. 320, suprá, he
will find four distinct types selected, by which it is proved that
Ezekiel's prophecy concerning Gog and Magog in chaps. xxxviii. and
xxxix., and Zechariah's prophecy against “thy sons, O Greece.”
(chaps. ix. and x.), have reference to the same order or series of
events. These four types are, 1. Each prophecy is referred to the
latter days or Christian era for fulfilment. 2. Each series of events
is described by each prophet as after a restoration of the Jews. 3. The
deliverance of the Jews foretold by each is in consequence of miracu-
lous interposition. 4. Each asserts that the deliverance he foretels
will be followed by the conversion of the Jews. For these four good
reasons we said that Ezekiel and Zechariah were foretelling the same
order or series of events. But each of these types, or characteristics,
or conditions is exactly met by Joel. 1. His prophecy is directly
applied and limited to these last days. 2. He foretels a confederacy
of multitudes against restored Judah. 3. He says they will be
miraculously overthrown in the midst of victory. 4. This overthrow
is followed by Judah’s conversion to Christianity. We infer, there-
fore, that Joel also, like Zechariah, foretels the same order or series of
events as Ezekiel; and that, therefore, Ezekiel's Gog and Magog, Zecha-
riah’s “sons of Greece,” and Joel's multitudes of “multitudes in the
valley of decision,” are different titles for the same military combination
of northern people gathered together to war against Jerusalem. So
“Alii putant hanc prophetiam implendam tempore Meschiae, quem
inani exspectant spe, quando Gog et Magog propé Jerusalem a
Meschià interficietur.” (“Critici Sacri,” on Joel iii.) -
The general important lessons deducible from the harmony of these
and other prophecies will be pointed out, with God's permission, in a
concluding chapter. But for the present certain valuable facts may
be noted by comparing Joel's with Zechariah's.
First. Joel prophesies especially for Judah, or the two, and we find
scarcely an allusion to Israel, or the ten, unless at chap. iii. 2 and 16.
It is plain from Joel, that, when this confederacy takes place, the two
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS, 463
will be in possession of Jerusalem, but we can scarcely from him
determine whether any members of the ten will be with them.
Zechariah distinctly settles this, chap. ix. 13, upon which we have
shown at p. 301 that Ephraim, or members of the ten, will fight under
the leadership of Judah ; this being like the bow, those as the arrow :
and Ezek. xxxviii. 39 corroborates it. Second. We ventured to infer
only from Zech. ix. 5, that the fighting he predicted would actually
take place at Jerusalem (p. 299, suprā). Joel enables us distinctly to
say that Jerusalem will be literally besieged, and taken, and pillaged :
and the fighting at Jerusalem inferred from Zechariah's language is
immediately accounted for and explained by Joel's. It was not
necessary that on such a matter Zechariah, the later prophet, should
be plainer when Joel had been so distinct. Third. While Zechariah.
depicts actual and most courageous fighting by Judah and Ephraim
at Jerusalem (chap. v. 6), he also explicitly attributes their deliver-
ance to the especial interposition of God (chap. viii. 14–16); whence
we might infer, that the fighting itself, though glorious, was not
efficient unto victory; Joel distinctly assures it shall be insufficient,
for the city will assuredly be taken. According to Joel, the Most
High delivers Judah at the very moment of defeat. Fourth. Zecha-
riah tells us that Judah and Ephraim will fight, which Joel does not :
but Zechariah did not say that Judah would fast and pray publicly
and nationally, which Joel does.
Thus putting Zechariah and Joel together, we learn that when Joel's
multitudes besiege the Holy City, it will be in the occupation of Jews
united with various people of the ten ; that in that siege they will
fast, and pray, and supplicate the Most High for deliverance ; that,
notwithstanding, the city will be taken, taken notwithstanding fighting
of the most noble and courageous character ; but, that, when so taken,
the power of God will be manifested towards them, and in the midst
of victory their enemies be overthrown.
And in concluding this chapter I observe that the unconditional
character of the prophecy has been proved in the course of the
arguments advanced to justify its present application ; and as to its
literal meaning, viz., that it speaks of the literal Jews, the literal
Judea, the literal Jerusalem, I shall merely suggest the heads of
arguments to prove it. First. The judgment of the siege (chap. ii.
1–11) is undoubtedly predicted against the literal Jerusalem; the
blessings afterwards announced are affirmatively consequent upon
464 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
that siege; therefore these blessings are to the literal Jerusalem.
and literal sons of Judah. Second. St. Peter (Acts ii. 16) has by
inspiration certified the affirmative and literal meaning of chap. ii.
28–32, as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon literal sons of
Judah in the literal Jerusalem ; but this prediction (vers. 28–32) is
but one part of the whole context (vers. 21–32), and essentially
connected with it ; therefore the whole paragraph (21–32), full of
predictions of the choicest temporal and spiritual character, belongs to
the literal sons of Judah in the literal Jerusalem. Third. It is
admitted by all that chap. ii. does relate to the literal sons of Judah
and the literal Jerusalem; and it behoves us to assign very excellent
reasons before we presume to deprive those same sons of Judah of
chap. iii. That is a vicious principle of interpretation which assigns
the curses to the Jews, but complacently claims all the blessings
for “the Church.” Unless, indeed, the grand, real fact be acknow-
ledged, that these blessings are for the Jews when by conversion they
have become part of “the Church.” Fourth. As certainly as the
judgments in chap. iii. upon the Gentiles in the valley of Jehoshaphat
are upon Fia, or Gentiles as contradistinguished from the literal
Jews, so certainly the blessings of deliverance and adoption resulting
from that judgment are blessings bestowed upon literal Jews as
contradistinguished from the Pºia, or Gentiles.
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 465
CHAPTER, XI.
“THE KING IN HIS BEAUTY.”—ISAIAH xxxHI. 17.
“THE subject of this and the four following chapters is the
invasion of Sennacherib ; the great distress of the Jews while it
continued; their sudden and unexpected deliverance by God's imme-
diate interposition in their favour ; the subsequent prosperous
state of the kingdom under Hezekiah: ” a part of Lowth's excellent
summary of the contents of these five chapters, viz., Isaiah xxix.-
xxxiii. (see his “Isaiah,” vol. ii., p. 206), enabling us upon his high
authority to treat them “as a collection of different discourses upon
the same subject,” in which “the prophet seldom goes far from his
subject.” A summary by this most excellent commentator, which is
in the main correct; for, 1. The prophecy does predict an invasion,
but also something more, viz., a siege of Jerusalem. 2. It does
foretel the great alarm, and distress, and helplessness of the Jews
while that siege lasts. 3. It does predict their sudden and unexpected
deliverance by God's immediate interposition in their favour, and
other matters of equal importance connected with and resulting from
that deliverance. But, 4. It does not refer chiefly to Sennacherib ;
nor is Hezekiah, “the king,” to be seen by rescued Israel “in his
beauty.”
Our object on the present occasion, as in the chapter referring to
the “sons of Greece,” is not to deny that this may have some
reference to Sennacherib, as that to Alexander's successors, but to
prove that its chief and proper application is to other times and
events, because its chief characteristics were not then fulfilled—just
as the chief conditions of Zech. ix. 10 were not fulfilled under the
Maccabees, nor nearly so.
This connexion between the five chapters, xxix.-xxxiii., of
Isaiah, thus asserted by Lowth, will become manifest to the plainest
reader as we endeavour to harmonize their contents. But our first
step in the present investigation will be based upon the connexion
which is undoubtedly observable between chaps. xxx. and xxxi., each
H H
466 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
of which, the reader may remark, is alike a woe addressed to the
house of Judah, as “rebellious children” that walk to go down into
Egypt for help, and relied not upon the power and promises of God.
(Chap. xxx. 1–7 ; and xxxi. 1–5.)
[I.] Of the thirtieth chapter the last verse is as follows:—“For
Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath:
made it deep and large : the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the
breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.” Let
us imagine this verse submitted separately from its context for our
consideration. Such remarks as follow would probably suggest them-
selves: Some place, called Tophet, perhaps a place and name well
known by the Jews to whom Isaiah spake, is mentioned as having
been appointed of old time the scene where somewhat, not particu-
larly described, shall be destroyed by fire. But it is not stated
plainly where this Tophet is ; neither is it said what is to be destroyed,
nor why. Since, however, it is affirmed that this Tophet has been
ordained “of old,” it would seem to be implied that He who ordained it
is the Sovereign of Time, is the Lord the Creator, the Great God of
Eternity: who absolutely appoints events and the scenes of them by
the counsels of his own will. The Lord, therefore, it would probably be
inferred, is He who ordained Tophet of old. But He alone who ordained
Tophet for a purpose could adapt it to the purpose for which it was
ordained ; therefore the Lord is He who “ hath made it deep and large.”
But since the Lord God was He who ordained Tophet and adapted it to
its purpose—a purpose necessarily of the Lord's own designing—it is
suggested at once that the purpose of destruction for which Tophet is
ordained, must have some relation to the Lord's spiritual purposes
towards man, and, probably, relation towards those spiritual purposes
as connected with the very people among whom Isaiah was prophe-
sying; and that, therefore, the destruction foretold as by fire in
Tophet has some connexion with the history of those people. But, at
least, it must be considered manifest that He who ordained Tophet
for his own purpose is the Lord ; “He made it deep and large, and his
breath, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.” And yet it is said,
“For the king it is prepared ; he hath made it deep and large.” Is
then, the verse suggests—is the Lord who ordained and prepared
Tophet, is He also king 2 The reading seems to imply that He is :
“Yea, for the king it is prepared ; and he, ‘the king,” hath made it
AND CONVERSION of THE JEWS. 467
*
deep and large.” If this be a correct reading, then He who gave
Tophet its attributes is the king ; but He who ordained Tophet and
gave it its attributes of old must be the Lord ; and, therefore, the
king intended is the Lord.
[1..] As the right interpretation of the chap. xxx. 33 is so
important to the subject, we shall endeavour at once to establish it.
Nor is this a needless undertaking, for it is unfortunate for our
subject that many commentators have adopted an interpretation which
is unfavourable to us: “Yea, for the king it is prepared,” i.e. (some
say), for “the destruction of the king; ” but the reading now proposed
is for the use, or purpose, or honour of the king ; so that the king
alluded to was not to be involved in the destruction of Tophet, but
was to be himself the destroyer. The misinterpretation of the verse
has proceeded (I submit) from a misconception of the force of
preceding Tºp , although the difficulty of applying the word king
to Sennacherib is noticed by both Lowth and Scott, it being an
admitted fact that Sennacherib did not perish with his army, but, on
the contrary, was assassinated at the place and in the manner
recorded at Isaiah xxxvii. 37, 38 ; and it being also an undeniable
fact that the Assyrians did not perish by Jerusalem, on the east of
which the literal Tophet was.
Now, the right reading of the verse, it seems to me, both according
to the English and Hebrew, is opposed to the above interpretation.
In either I should have thought the natural construction would have
referred the actions “made deep,” “made large,” to the word king as
the agent; and if so, since He who ordained Tophet of old and gave
it its attributes must be the Lord, then the king is the Lord, and,
consequently, Tophet is prepared, not for the destruction of the king,
but for his use and glory. And the force of PTTTT pºp. 7-hit
Hººb 8°7′E. carefully punctuated as one clause is not inconsistent
with the view proposed. I maintain that the proper reading refers
the Hiphil verbs HTTT and pºſſ to Tºp as their subject, and that
the verbs ſºmy ordained, and lºſſ prepared, may also be considered
in construction with Hºp by the use of h . “For Tophet is ordained
of old (for the use of the king); yea, for the use of the king it is
prepared; He, the king,” &c., &c. If so, this king can be neither
Hezekiah nor Sennacherib, to each of whom the verse has been
referred. Take a few examples, in each of which the word in italics
H H 2
468 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
*
stands for h : “The valley of Achor, a place for the herds to be
driven in, for my people that have sought me.” (Isaiah lxv. 10.)
“The carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls,” &c., &c.
(Jerem. vii. 33.) “Into a land that I had espied for them, flowing,”
&c., &c. (Ezek. xx.6.) “Dedan was thy merchant in precious clothes
for chariots.” (Ezek. xxvii. 20.) “For their bread for their souls
shall not come into the house of the Lord.” (Hosea ix. 4.) “That which
went forth by a hundred shall leave ten to the house of Israel.” (Amos
v. 3.) “A book of remembrance was written before him for them
that feared the Lord.” (Mal. iii. 16.) Examples may be quoted to any
extent, but the above are chosen as very appositely illustrating that
rendering of h , which we claim for Isaiah xxx. 33; in each the word in
italics is the translation of h ; and in each it clearly means, for
the use of, or purpose of, or glory of the object to which this
preposition is prefixed. But the following from the Psalms are
clearer still —“Who will rise up for me against the evil-doers, or who
will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity ?” (Ps. xciv. 16.)
“The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are
oppressed.” (Ps. ciii. 6.) “He causeth the grass to grow for the
cattle, and herb for the service of man.” (Ps. civ. 14.) “Which
executeth judgment for the oppressed, which giveth food to the
hungry.” (Ps. cxlvi. 7.) It may be well observed in the third of
these examples that the for (?) in the first clause is directly explained
by for the service of (nºssº) in the second. But the following are
more exact still, and employ the very words of Isaiah —“Thy
congregation hath dwelt therein; thou, O Lord, hast prepared of thy
goodness for the poor.” (Ps. lxviii. 10.) ** Tº thou hast
prepared for the poor; 72hrſ mº Tº Tophet prepared for the
hing. In each case the words clearly mean, prepared for the use or
service of. So the following: “There will I make the horn of David
to bud; I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed.” (Ps. cxxxii. 17.)
•rtigº T2 "Fºg I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed;
tº Hºpp ºnsp iſºmy"P for ordained of old is Tophet for
the king. In each case the same word is used, and in each clearly
means for the glory of. It were as rational to say that the light of
this lamp was not ordained for the honour of David the anointed, as
that the fire of Tophet was not ordained for the honour of the
king.
Again, I say, exomples might be multiplied; but surely these are
AND CONVERSION of THE JEws. 469
enough to convince the reader that the proposed rendering is perfectly
in accordance with Hebrew idiom and usage; besides which it
possesses the advantage, as will be most clearly seen, of harmonizing
with the rest of the prophecy, and raises no difficulty to be explained
away, as the rendering usually received by the commentators does.
I venture, therefore, to conclude that the right rendering of Isaiah
xxx. 33 is this, “For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, it is prepared
for the service of the king ; He the king hath made it deep and large;
the breath of the Lord as a stream of brimstone hath kindled it.” If
so, observe what follows. Tophet is of old ordained and prepared for
the use of the king, who made it deep and large, and adapted it to its
purpose. Now he who adapted it for its purpose must be the same
who ordained it of old, viz., the Lord of time. Hence the king, for
whose service Tophet is prepared, is the same Lord whose breath
kindles destruction in it.
“For Tophet is ordained of old.” ºnsº of old, from yesterday,
i.e., from an indefinite time past. (See Lee’s “Lexicon,” sub voce ;
and Job viii. 9; and Ps. Xc. 4.) “Et primö quidem dicitur praeparata
at heri, h.e., ab initio mundi: hoc enim heri non raro, in scripturå.
significat.” (Munster.)
[2.] But the only fair way of considering the verse is in connexion
with its whole context; and having done this, we shall find that the
nature of the destruction foretold to happen in Tophet is clearly
defined; those who are to be destroyed, and for whom, distinctly
specified; He also who is to destroy, and by what, and extending the
reasoning in this manner from chap. xxx. 33, as a centre, to the whole
prophecy comprised in the four chapters xxix.-xxxiii., we shall find
that Tophet is literally that well-known place on the east side of Jeru-
Salem, near the temple and east gate of that city, whose character and
situation is particularly explained at Josh. xv. 8 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 10 ;
Jerem. vii. 32; xix. 2–6 ; and xxxi. 40, &c., &c.; and that they
who are to be there destroyed are nations hostile to Judah, congre-
gated there together as an army engaged in the successful siege of
Jerusalem, and that, consequently, those who are to be delivered are
literally sons of Judah under a state of actual siege at Jerusalem ;
that they will be delivered, as Lowth correctly observes the force of
the language employed demands, by a sudden and unexpected miracu-
lous interposition of the Most High on their behalf; and that the
method of their destruction will be partly by natural, partly by super-
470 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
natural causes; and that the whole prophecy is dotted over with
undeniable marks of non-fulfilment hitherto, which we shall gradually
develop ; and lastly, that its final result is the recognition by rescued
Judah of the Lord Christ Jesus as the king. Such things we have
to prove.
[3.] I beg the reader to examine the whole context, chap. xxx.
27–33; and it will doubtless be admitted that the verse which
mentions Tophet contains the concluding prediction of the whole ;
that the particle "3 or for, with which that verse begins, is undoubtedly
conjunctive ; so that ver. 33 cannot be considered a lonely or isolated
prediction, but, on the contrary, has a necessary, and relative con-
nexion with all the preceding verses. In fact, the whole paragraph,
vers. 27–33, as above quoted, contains a continuous series of predic-
tions, each being a component part of certain grand events foretold
by Isaiah as some time to happen to the Jewish people; and that
ver. 33 is merely the closing prediction of the whole, having, perhaps,
this peculiar purpose of its own, viz., to select, and designate the
scene of the events predicted.
Now let the scope, or character, of the whole paragraph be sought
for. The name of the Lord is represented as coming from far, that
is, uneapectedly. When the people against whom Isaiah prophesies are
little thinking that the hand of the Most High is near them, behold,
He is actually present. God would come, says Calvin, when “they
thought Him to be at a great distance.” The Lord from far thus
comes burning with anger, full of indignation. For what purpose ?
To sift the nations, Bºia, that is, Gentile nations, as known to be
distinguished from Jews, as in Joel iii. 12, p. 464, with a sieve of
vanity, viz., in a disappointed, utterly failing, confounded enterprise.
But what nations 2 and are there more than one P are there few, or
many ? The prophet enables us to answer these questions —
“There shall be a bridle ºn the jaws of the peoples, causing them to
err.” Where he says leoples, Pºy, using the plural number to
imply that those against whom the fearful name of the Lord thus
comes unexpectedly with indignation will be of various nations, a
collection of men of various races. These Gentile nations, these
peoples, these men of 7:rious origin and diverse races, will be under
judicial infatuation, as though directed by a bridle, “causing them to
err.” Their best-conceived plans will be frustrated, their intentions
foiled, as certainly as the object of such intentions proceeded from
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 471
error and misconception. Their undertaking will be frustrated, and
themselves destroyed. But what undertaking 2 and for whom
destroyed 2 Now, in the present paragraph it is not said by Isaiah
what undertaking ; but it is said for whom destroyed. And, clearly,
for whomsoever these nations are to be destroyed, against such people,
so delivered, their undertaking must have been designed, as in Joel iii.
Now the Jews are those for whom those peoples are destroyed; there-
fore the Jews are they against whom such people conceived, and
endeavoured to effect, that purpose which, the prophet says, the Lord
will frustrate. Ye (sons of Judah) shall have a song, as in the blessed
night of Passover, when, while Egypt was smitten in the firstborn, the
chief of all her strength, the Lord passed over, spared, and delivered,
and entered into paschal covenant with you. As the Egyptians
would have enslaved you still, so these peoples shall combine against
you ; but as the Egyptians were smitten, and ye delivered, so these
nations shall be marvellously stricken down, while ye are saved, and
taken into covenant. And from that time ye shall know the Paschal
Lamb. The prophet's allusion is to the Passover; a fact to which we
merely direct attention now, but intend presently to notify more
distinctly:—“Ye shall have a song, as in the night when a holy
Solemnity is kept ; ye shall have gladness of heart ; ” but upon these
hostile nations, these assembled peoples, your foes, the Lord will
show the lighting down of his arm, with the indignation of his anger,
for-Tophet is ordained of old ; yea, for the service of the King it is
prepared ; He hath made it deep and large ; and his breath, the
breath of Him, the Lord, shall kindle it. In Tophet, and like the
fire and burning of Tophet, God will overthrow and destroy your
enemies. To understand Tophet here of the place of torment, as
Some would, seems to be absurd, for the effect would be to consign
all the enemies of Israel to hell, and all Israelites themselves to
Salvation.
But who are those enemies 2 The prophet replies —“For through
the voice of the Lord shall the Assyrian be beaten down, who Smite
with a rod.” This destruction, therefore, from the Lord, in Tophet,
is on behalf of the Jews, against or upon the Assyrian.
[II.] It is clear, then, from a consideration of the preceding
extract, that this wonderful destruction from the Lord, which Isaiah
472 NotES ON THE RESTORATION
predicts, was to be on behalf of the literal Judah, and that, therefore,
against that same Judah were to be laid some designs of certain
nations or peoples, which, the prophet says, God will frustrate, bring
to a vain and empty conclusion, so far as they themselves are con-
cerned, “sift them with the sieve of vanity;” and further, it is clear
that those nations, or peoples, are individualised as “the Assyrian,” a
title from which we may learn that they are combined into one body,
under one leadership, with unity of purpose, but no more ; though
the question occurs, is the name of “the Assyrian” used in this place
literally or symbolically P & -
The reader will observe that upon this question all depends. If
the literal Assyrian be intended, then the prophecy has already been
fulfilled. If “the Assyrian” be mentioned symbolically, then the
prophecy may not have been yet fulfilled. But certainly, if we can
prove that the prophecy has never been fulfilled, then “the Assyrian,”
the literal Assyrian, cannot be intended, but his name is used symboli-
cally of some other mighty power. We shall prove that the prophecy
has never yet been fulfilled.
[1..] Upon the high authority of Lowth, referred to at p. 465,
chaps. xxix-xxxiii., are discourses upon the same subject ; and this
fact is indeed manifest upon a perusal of them. But of those five
chapters, none are so evidently connected as chaps. xxx. and xxxi.
Accordingly Lowth calls chap. xxxi. “A continuation of the same
subject treated of in the former chapter.” (Comment, on chap. xxxi.)
They both detail and condemn the conduct of the Jews in resorting
to Egypt for help. They both predict that the Lord himself will
deliver Judah by his mighty power. They both declare that his
power, in thus delivering Judah, will be exercised against “the
Assyrian.”
But it is admitted by all, and indeed could not be rationally denied,
that “the Assyrian * mentioned at chap. xxxi. 8 is the same person,
or power, mentioned under the same name at chap. xxx. 31. We
shall avail ourselves of this admission, and consider it as undenied,
that chaps. xxx, and xxxi. are manifestly connected, predict in effect
the same events, and foretel the same judgments, against the same
power, called in each “the Assyrian.” The question to be determined
is—Did “the Assyrian” mean the literal Assyrian power in Mesopo-
tamia 2
Let the context, chap. xxxi. 4—9, be read. It cannot be denied,
AND conversion of THE JEws. 473
with probability, nor is it attempted to be denied, that the Assyrian in
this extract from chap. xxxi. is the same Assyrian mentioned at .
chap. xxx. 31. In fact, it is admitted that this whole passage,
chap. xxxi, 4–9, coincides with, and predicts the same events, as
chap. xxx. 27–33, against the same Assyrian. Let us endeavour to
analyse its contents. . .
First. The Assyrian here, as in chap. xxx., is to be overthrown
miraculously by the Lord, who comes down to fight for Mount Zion;
and not only for Mount Zion, but also, and more particularly, at
Mount Zion; and therefore it is added, at ver. 9, “ saith the Lord,
whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace at Jerusalem.” Now, there is
a significance assumed for the name “Ariel,” given in the twenty-
ninth chapter to Jerusalem, which significance we are willing to admit,
and shall presently mention more particularly, but which has led to
the following gloss of the phrase, “fire in Mount Zion, and furnace
in Jerusalem ; ” “Who hath placed his altar and his Sanctuary there;
and from thence will issue forth like fire, and consume all those who
shall presume to violate that place of his especial presence.” This is
from Lowth. But even this gloss does virtually admit that the pre-
dicted destruction will be at Mount Zion, whence the Lord will come
forth against those who violate that place; I say it virtually admits
that the destroyed, and therefore the destroyer, will be at that place.
But, however, the allusion is not rightly explained by reference to
Jerusalem as Ariel, the place of God's altar, but as Ariel, the scene
of God's sacrifice of peoples, and therefore itself God's altar. The
allusion is not so much to the title Ariel as the previous predictions of
the fire in Tophet, “the flame of a devouring fire,” &c., &c., in the
preceding chapter. Had merely God's fire in Zion been mentioned,
the reference to the altar (which, however, was not at Mount Zion)
might have been more probable ; but when it is added “furnace at
Jerusalem,” very different ideas are suggested, but ideas perfectly
accordant with the previous predictions. When we find that, in the
same prophecy, Isaiah has said, in reference to the same occasion,
“Thou (Jerusalem) shalt be visited of the Lord of Hosts with . . . . .
the flame of a devouring fire.” (Chap. xxix. 6.) And again –
“The name of the Lord cometh (viz., to Jerusalem), burning with
his anger . . . . . . and his tongue as a devouring fire.” (Chap. xxx.
27.) And again —“The Lord will show the lighting down of his
arm with . . . . . . the flame of a devouring fire.” (Ver, 30.) And
$74, NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
again :-"Tophet is ordained of old . . . . . . the pile thereof is fire
and much wood, the breath of the Lord like a stream of brimstone
doth kindle it.” (Ver, 33.)—I say, when we read these predictions,
we have a better interpretation for “whose fire is in Mount Zion, and
his furnace at Jerusalem,” than to refer it to the altar of burnt-
offerings, which, after all, was not at Mount Zion, but at Mount
Moriah. Scripture will hardly encourage such vagueness as this.
Second. Accordingly the prophet marks Mount Zion, in Jerusalem,
as the actual scene of the judgments he here predicts against the
Assyrian, and that by a most peculiar allusion. Just as in chap.
xxx. 29 he referred to the deliverance of the Passover paraphrastically
(see p. 471), so here he alludes to the same event by employing care-
fully the very words required to denote it. By this second allusion to
the night of Passover he enables us to connect chaps. xxx. and xxxi.,
and to prove that the Lord's destruction of the Assyrian was to be at
Jerusalem —“So shall the Lord of Hosts come down to fight for
Mount Zion, and for the hill thereof; as birds flying, so will the Lord
of Hosts defend Jerusalem; defending, also He will deliver it; and,
passing over, He will preserve it.” (Chap. xxxi. 4, 5.) So shall the
Lord of Hosts come down; whither ? To Mount Zion, to fight for
it, yea, even for the very hill thereof; the character of the place
being specified the more accurately to note its identity; not for Mount
Zion in any vague, or characteristic, or spiritual sense, but for that
Mount Zion, that very hill on which the city of David stood.
And the exactness of locality he developes more plainly by allusion
to the Passover —“Passing over” (Tipº-the very word), He will
deliver; just as at Passover there was an eacact, and particular place,
containing the separate dwellings of Israel, over each of which the
destroying angel passed, but smote not ; so whenever “The Assyrian”
should be smitten, there should be again an exact, and well-denoted
place, comprising the dwellings of Judah, before which once more the
Lord will stand, miraculously preserving it, and its people, but not
smiting them in that destruction which He would inflict upon their
adversaries there. Mount Zion, at Jerusalem, is the very scene of
this second Passover.
In accordance with such ideas, the commentators notice this allusion
to the Passover. Thus Henry:-" The word for passing over is used
in that sense only here and in Exodus xii. 12–23,” &c., &c. But
Lowth most instructively and minutely observes, on ver. 5, “as birds
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS, 475
flying,” &c., &c. “The generality of interpreters derive in this place
an allusion to the deliverance which God vouchsafed to his people .
when He destroyed the first-born of the Egyptians, and exempted
those of the Israelites sojourning among them by a peculiar inter-
position. The same word is made use of here which is used upon
that occasion, and which gave the name to the feast which was
instituted in commemoration of that deliverance—rip?. But the
difficulty is to reconcile the commonly received meaning of that word
with the circumstances of the similitude here used to illustrate the
deliverance, represented as parallel to the deliverance in Egypt.
As the mother birds hovering over their young,
So shall Jehovah God of Hosts protect Jerusalem;
Protecting and delivering, passing over, and rescuing her.”
This difficulty, I think, is well solved by Vitringa, whose remark is
the more worthy of observation, as it leads to the true meaning of an
important word, which hitherto seems greatly to have been misunder-
stood, though Vitringa himself, as it appears to me, has not exactly
enough defined the precise meaning of it. He says, “Tº signifies
to cover, to protect by covering ; orkerato ipas, LXX. ; Jehovah
obteget ostium,” whereas it means that particular action or motion by
which God at that time placed himself in such a situation as to
protect the house of the Israelites against the destroying angel—to
spring forward—to throw oneself in the way, in order to cover and
protect. Cocceius comes nearer to the true meaning than Vitringa, by
rendering it gradum facere—to march, to step forward. (“Lexicon,”
in v.) The common meaning of the word FTDP, upon other occasions,
is to halt, to be lame, to leap, in a rude manner of dancing, as the
prophets of Baal did (1 Kings xviii. 26); all which agrees very well
together ; for the motion of a lame person is a perpetual springing
forward, by throwing himself from the weaker upon the stronger leg.
The common notion of God's passing over the houses of the Israelites
is, that in going through the land of Egypt to smite the firstborn,
seeing the blood on the door of the houses of the Israelites, he passed
on, or skipped those houses, and forbore to smite them. But that
this is not the true notion of the thing, will be plain, from considering
the words of the sacred historian, where he describes very accurately
the action: “For Jehovah will pass through to smite the Egyp-
tians; and when He seeth the blood on the lintels and the two
side-posts, Jehovah will spring forward over (or before) the door
f
476 . NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
rtnerſ-by rtiſt. Tipº, and will not suffer the destroyer to come
into your houses to smite you.” (Exod. xii. 23.) Here are manifestly
two distinct agents with which the notion of passing over is not
consistent; for that supposes but one agent : the two agents are the
destroying angel passing through to smite every house, and Jehovah
the protector keeping pace with him, and who, seeing the door of the
Israelites marked with the blood, the token prescribed, leaps forward,
throws himself with a sudden motion in the way, opposes the
destroying angel, and covers and protects that house against the
destroying angel, nor suffers him to smite it. In this way of con-
sidering the action, the beautiful similitude of the bird protecting
her young answers exactly to the application by the allusion to the
deliverance in Egypt; as the mother bird spreads her wings to cover
her young, throws herself before them, and opposes the rapacious
bird that assaults them, so shall Jehovah protect, as with a shield,
Jerusalem from the enemy, protecting and delivering, springing
forward, and rescuing her : inrepSavov, as the three other Greek
interpreters—Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion—render it ;
LXX., reputoumorera ; instead of which MSS. Pachom. has
Trepéngeral, circumeando proteget, which I think is the true reading.
Nothing could be more exactly to the purpose. And we maintain
that not only this allusion to the Passover by its very name, found
nowhere else in Holy Scripture, but also this particular illustration of
it, imparting, as Lowth beautifully shows, its exact meaning, requires
the very identification of place to which we are calling the reader's
attention. Lowth's explanation, in fact, requires as much. Before
the place preserved Jehovah will be found in the act of protecting his
people, and close by the place preserved the destroying angel will be
engaged in inflicting his destruction. In this sense the Lord’s “fire
is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem.” The Lord descends to
fight for Mount Zion, even the very hill thereof, and therefore at
Jerusalem. - .
We conclude that the destruction of “the Assyrian” was to be
really at Jerusalem. Then mark the consequence.
The question was, Is the Assyrian the literal Assyrian of Mesopo-
tamia º And no doubt it is usual to answer this inquiry in the
affirmative. The prophecy is interpreted of the Assyrian people
under Sennacherib, the first king of that great empire who dared to
invade Judea. And, indeed, if the prophecy have reference at all to
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 477.
the ancient Assyrians, it must refer to Sennacherib, because under
no other king but him were the Assyrians marvellously overthrown
by the Lord when contemplating to fight against Judah. But it does
not refer to those Assyrians, nor to that Sennacherib; for,
“The Assyrian” was to be overthrown at Jerusalem, according to
Isaiah's prophecy, as proved above. But the Assyrians under Senna-
cherib never reached or came to Jerusalem, but were marvellously
smitten of the Lord at Libnah, a city about twenty miles south-west
of Jerusalem. (See Isa. xxxvii. 33–36, and 2 Kings xix. 8 and
35.)
And the fact that Sennacherib's army was not destroyed at
Jerusalem, nor even got so far as that Holy City, is fully admitted by
Lowth (see his “Isaiah,” vol. ii., p. 206), who, speaking of Tophet,
at chap. xxx. 33, says, “Here the place where the Assyrian army
was destroyed is called Tophet by a metonymy, for the Assyrian army
was destroyed probably at a greater distance from Jerusalem, and
quite on the opposite side of it; for Nob is mentioned as the last
station from which the King of Assyria should threaten Jerusalem
(chap. x. 32); where the prophet seems to have given a very exact
chorographical description of his march, in order to attack the city.”
Sennacherib's army was not destroyed near Jerusalem, but at
Libnah ; and therefore Isaiah's prediction of “the Assyrian" cannot
have its proper application to him, for Isaiah says that “the Assyrian”
is to be destroyed of the Lord, whose furnace is in Jerusalem, and
who comes down, as at Passover, to protect that city when the
destroying angel is smiting at its very doors.
Third. Another valuable result follows from this minute specifica-
tion of Jerusalem, and more particularly Mount Zion, as the very
scene of the Assyrian's overthrow. For let us compare the parallel
predictions in the thirtieth and thirty-first chapters. In the first of
these the Lord's fire for the Assyrian is at Tophet (chap. xxx. 33):
“deep and large : the pile thereof fire and much wood : ” in the
second of these the Lord's fire for the Assyrian is “in Mount Zion,
and his furnace in Jerusalem.” (Chap. xxxi. 9.) If, then, our
argument as to Isaiah's minute designation of place be sound, as
we believe it is, Tophet is no name used here by metonymy
for any other place, but is some place at or near the literal Mount
2ion—at or near the very hill on which the city of David stood;
is, in fact, that very Tophet, in the vale of the son of Hinnom, which
478 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Scriptures just referred to abundantly show to be on the western side
of the valley running east-south-east of Jerusalem, and really looked
into from Zion, the city of David, which occupied the south-east
quarter of Jerusalem. There, in that vale, at that Tophet, by that
Mount Zion, will Isaiah's “Assyrian * be cut off. But so was not
Sennacherib's army. (For these various localities of Jerusalem, see
Paxton’s “Sacred Geography,” p. 317–326.)
Fourth. We are still proceeding with the analysis of chap. xxxi.
4—9. And we observe, therefore, in the next place, that the
overthrow of “the Assyrian,” which Isaiah predicts, is to be accom-
panied with a complete and general revival of religion among the
Jews. “Turn ye unto Him from whom the children of Israel have
deeply revolted. For in that day every man shall cast away his idols
of silver, and his idols of gold, which your own hands have made unto
you for a sin.” In that day, that is (see p. 450), in the day previously
described, viz., when the Lord comes down to fight “for Mount
Zion, and for the hill thereof,” shall be such a revival of religion,
as the effect of that deliverance; or, in the words of Scott, “it was
also predicted that their preservation from the Assyrians would be
attended with zeal against idolatry, and contempt of the idols which
they had made, as an occasion of sin, even those which were formed
of silver and gold.” But I find that Sennacherib's invasion of Judea
did not take place until the fourteenth year of Hezekiah's reign
(2 Kings xviii. 13), and it was the eighteenth of Hezekiah when
Rabshakeh came to Jerusalem ; whereas that king commenced, and
carried out acceptably, the destruction of idolatry and the revival of
true religion in the very first year of his reign (2 Chron. xxix. 3):
so that when Sennacherib's “Assyrian” came into the land, Judah,
under Hezekiah, had turned from idolatry to the Lord, and was
already accepted : and this very fact was used as a reproach against
him by Rabshakeh, who was probably an apostate from the Jews.
“But if thou say to me, We trust in the Lord our God, is it not He
whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and
said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar”
(Isa. xxxvi. 7.) Sennacherib's destruction was granted in answer to
Hezekiah's prayer, and to a people who approved of the reformation
their monarch had already effected, and showed that approval by
answering Rabshakeh not a word. (2 Kings xviii. 36.) If, then,
Hezekiah had reformed the Jewish religion, and had already cast
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 4.79
away idolatry when Sennacherib invaded Judea, how can I apply to
Sennacherib a prophecy which says that the effect, or consequence, of
“ the Assyrian’s ” destruction shall be the institution of true religion
among the Jews 2
The above, contained under III.], are some considerations suggested
to prove that “the Assyrian” intended is not the literal Assyrian—
is not Semnacherib ; and more will occur to us as we proceed with
this chapter. Meanwhile, observe, if it do not relate to the Assyrians
under Sennacherib, it cannot relate to any literal Assyrians at all;
for at no other time were the Assyrians assailing Judah overthrown,
Save in the time of Sennacherib.
[III.] It has been already observed on chap. xxx. 27—33 that the
burning in Tophet is the “devouring fire, with scattering, and
tempest, and hailstones,” mentioned in that chapter, at ver. 30, as
“the lighting down of God's arm with the indignation of his anger,”
for the deliverance of Judah, and that, therefore, those upon whom
this judgment is to be inflicted must needs be assembled enemies of
Judah ; that, in short, they are “the nations” mentioned at ver. 28,
the Gentile nations to be sifted “with the sieve of vanity;” they are
“ the peoples,” in the same verse, in whose jaws a bridle is to be put,
causing them to err, and thus to pass under the Lord's dreadful
visitation. It has been observed that such is the burning ordained in
Tophet.
[1..] But, upon chap. xxxi. 4—9, it was shown that the same
judgment was there predicted, upon the same enemy individualised as
“the Assyrian,” and was distinctly, and with the emphasis of peculiar
illustration, by means of the Passover, described as occurring at the
literal Mount Zion, to whose very hill the Lord would come down to
fight for his people ; for it is said, at ver. 9, that the Lord’s “fire is
in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem.” Hence, it was argued, the
fire and furnace at Jerusalem, in the second, being the same as the
burning at Tophet, ordained for the service of the King, in the first,
Tophet is not merely the name of a certain place, used by metonymy
for the camp of the Assyrians (as Lowth erroneously suggests), nor
for any other place by metonymy, but is that well-known place itself,
480 - NoTES ON THE RESTORATION
lying in the valley of Hinnom, and joining on to Mount Zion, the
South-east quarter of Jerusalem.
Thus, putting the two predictions, chap. xxx. 27–33, and chap.
xxxi, 4–9, together, they amount to this, that Isaiah predicted a
gathering of some national power, or powers, described as nations
and peoples, against Judah; Gentiles, as peculiarly contradistinguished
from Jews; that this gathering of some power, or powers, individual-
ised as “the Assyrian,” would be against Judah ; not merely near,
but actually at Jerusalem, since to that very place the Lord is
described as coming down to fight for, and ‘marvellously deliver his
people by a destruction symbolised by burning, or a fire, or furnace,
“a devouring fire, scattering, and tempest, and hailstones,” “a pile
of fire and much wood; ” and that this destruction of these nations,
or peoples, would not only take place at Jerusalem, but also at that
particular suburb of it known by the name of Tophet. So Micah,
prophesying of the same work of Messiah for Israel, says, “And this
man shall be the peace when the Assyrian shall come into our land ;”
the time when “the remnant of Jacob" shall flit away to Palestine
unexpectedly. “The remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of
many people, as a dew from the Lord, as the showers upon the grass,
that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men.” (Micah
v. 4–7.) But such a gathering of Judah’s enemies against him at
Jerusalem implies, in ordinary language, a siege of that city ; hence
we are not surprised to find that the prophecy really commences, at
chap. xxix. 1–8, with a description of such a siege.
Isaiah chap. xxix. 1–8 contains a clear prediction of some siege
of Jerusalem. Let it, then, be remembered, it is allowed that the
five chapters xxix-xxxiii. inclusive are discourses upon one subject;
in other words, are one prophecy; for, from this admission, it must
follow in reason that the description of nations gathered against
Jerusalem, and destroyed there suddenly by the Lord, given at chap.
xxix. 1–8, refer to the same events as the nations or peoples gathered
together against Judah, and marvellously destroyed by the Lord, at
chap. xxx. 27–33; must be the same as “the Assyrian’’ marvellously
smitten by the Lord “whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jeru-
salem,” prophesied of at chap. xxxi. 4—9. Clearly, the prophecy
being one-by admission, these three corresponding predictions in the
three consecutive chapters, cannot reasonably be denied to relate to
the same events. s
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 481
Accordingly we find that the commentators interpret them of the
same events, but very strangely refer them all to Sennacherib, to
whom we are showing they cannot apply.
[2.] We shall dwell, with some care, upon the identity of the
three predictions, not only for the purpose of illustrating their proper
application, but also of showing, with reference to the first (chap.
xxix. 1–8), what we have shown of the other two, viz., that they
do not relate by any means to the miraculous overthrow of the
Assyrian host under Sennacherib, which (as the reader will remember)
is described at Isa. xxxviii. 3–6, and 2 Kings xix. 35.
Let then the identity of these predictions be marked. We showed,
on chap. xxx. 27–33, that the following six results were obtained
from a fair consideration of the language:–1. Certain peoples or
nations would come hostilely against Judah. 2. Those nations would
be frustrated in their purpose, sifted in a sieve of vanity. 3. Their
overthrow would be by immediate interposition from the Lord. 4. It
would be unexpected and sudden ; the name of the Lord cometh
from far. 5. It was symbolised by fire, “devouring fire,” “the pile
thereof fire and much wood.” 6. It would be at Tophet, which, by
collating chap. xxxi, 4–9 with chap. xxx. 27–33, was proved to be
literal Tophet, at Jerusalem.
But every one of these six particulars is more clearly specified in
chap. xxix. 1–8, before us :-1. A multitude of strangers, multitude
of terrible ones, multitude of all the nations, fight against Mount
Zion; Jerusalem is laid siege against, with mounts and forts. 2. This
multitude passes away like chaft, like a dream, when the dreamer is
disappointed. 3. When they so pass away, Jerusalem, the scene of
these events, is visited of the Lord with thunder, and earthquake,
great noise, storm and tempest, the flame of a devouring fire, i.e.,
their overthrow is by special interposition of the Lord. 4. It is said
distinctly, “Yea, it shall be at an instant, suddenly.” 5. The
destruction is emblematized by fire:—“Fire in Zion, furnace at
Jerusalem,” says chap. xxxi.; “Flame of a devouring fire, scattering
tempest and hailstones,” says chap. xxx. ; “Thunder, earthquake,
great noise, storm and tempest, and flame of a devouring fire,” says
chap. xxix. ; in the last two the very same words being used.
6. This assemblage of “the multitude of all the nations,” being in
actual siege of the city Jerusalem, it follows that their destruction
I I
482 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
takes place there; and, indeed, it is plainly said so. “Thou (Jeru-
salem) shalt be visited.” Thus we find that, in six curious and
important particulars, the great incidents of the burning at Tophet,
predicted at chap. xxx. 27–33, are exactly foretold, also, at chap.
xxix. 1–8, as taking place during an actual siege of Jerusalem,
when mounts and forts are raised against her. Hence, First, We see
the identity of the predictions; Second, We establish the connexion
of the two chapters; and, Third, Have reason again to notice that
“Tophet” is not used by metonymy, or any other figure, at
chap. xxx. 33, but stands literally for that place, in the valley of
Hinnom, which joined on to the very temple, and extended east-
south-east round Mount Zion, the city of David ; the same place
where the abominations of Moloch were celebrated amid the beating
of drums, from which instrument it received the name Tophet.
[3.] The predictions are the same : then mark the consequence.
Isaiah foretold that, at some time not specified, Jerusalem was to be
besieged in fact, mounts and forts being actually raised against her, by
a host so mighty as to be called “the multitude of all the nations.”
This combination of peoples was to be suddenly and miraculously
overthrown of the Lord; causes natural, and supernatural, were to
unite in effecting this overthrow ; tempest, hailstones, earthquake,
thunder ; but all together, and in such marvellous degree, that their
supernatural coincidence would be manifest ; the Lord coming down
to Mount Zion to fight for it ; and this overthrow would take place in
Tophet. -
Therefore this prophecy was not fulfilled in the destruction of the
Assyrian under Sennacherib. For those “hundred and fourscore and
five thousand” were slain, not at Jerusalem, nor contiguous to it,
but at Libnah. (P. 477.) Jerusalem was not then besieged either
by Sennacherib or Rabshakeh, normounts nor forts erected against it;
the very contrary was the subject of prophetical promise, as is clear
from Isa. xxxvii. 33. In a word, and as to chap. xxix. 1—8 particu-
larly, the circumstances of the siege, predicted by Isaiah, were not
paralleled by any means when Sennacherib came into Judea, but did
not reach Jerusalem ; nor when Rabshakeh reached, and summoned
Jerusalem, but did not besiege it.
I imagine the reader needs not to be assured that Rabshakeh did
not besiege Jerusalem. It is indeed said, at 2 Kings xviii. 17, and
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 483
Isa. xxxvi. 2, that Sennacherib sent him with a great host against
Jerusalem; but it is not said that such host ever reached the city.
Rabshakeh himself, and some with him, did undoubtedly arrive at
and summon the city, but this by no means implies that the Assyrian
army did so. However, it is immediately stated, at 2 Kings xix. 8,
and Isa. xxxvii. 8, “So Rabshakeh returned (having summoned but
not besieged Jerusalem), and found the King of Assyria warring
against Libnah, for he had heard that he had departed from Lachish.”
That Rabshakeh did not besiege Jerusalem is also clear from 2 Kings
xix. 32, and Isa. xxxvii. 33:—“He shall not come into this city, nor
shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shields, nor cast a bank
against it.” Undoubtedly this was spoken of Sennacherib himself;
but it would be trifling to say that what the Lord solemnly promised,
through Isaiah, that Sennacherib should not do, was at the same time
permitted to be done by his general, Rabshakeh.
Josephus, indeed (Book x., chap. i.), though he does not say him-
self that Rabshakeh besieged the city, but merely “they pitched their
camp,” does nevertheless quote from Berosus, the Chaldean, to the
effect that it was Rabshakeh's army which was destroyed, and at
Jerusalem, “on the very first night of the siege; ” but this very
expression shows that, even according to Berosus' account, the siege
of Jerusalem was never commenced by the Assyrians in effect, and
therefore that Isa. xxix. 1–8 could not then have been fulfilled.
Besides which, this extract from Berosus is not worthy of credit. It
was Sennacherib's main army that was destroyed; and accordingly
Prideaux, with the Bible, and Josephus before him, rejects this piece
of Berosus, and informs us that when Sennacherib “was on his full
march towards Jerusalem, with thorough purpose utterly to destroy
that place, and all in it, an angel of the Lord went forth, and in one
night Smote, in the camp of the Assyrians, a hundred fourscore and
five thousand men, so when he arose in the morning he found almost
all his army dead corps.” (“Prid. Connec,” vol. i., part 1, Book 1.)
Thus Prideaux's authority assures us we rightly understand that
Sennacherib's army was destroyed, not Rabshakeh's, and not at
Jerusalem, but on his way to it; and not a word does Prideaux say
about Rabshakeh's besieging Jerusalem, for he knew he did not. The
reader will also note particularly that Prideaux marks the fact that
when the Assyrians rose in the morning they discovered their comrades
“all dead corpses.” -
I I 2
484 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Jerusalem, then, was never besieged either by Sennacherib or
Rabshakeh, and hence the prediction at chap. xxix. 1–8, which we
have identified with chap. xxx. 27–33, was not fulfilled by the
destruction of the Assyrian army under that monarch.
[4] Here is the proper place to explain to the reader the signifi-
cance of the title “Ariel” applied to Jerusalem, to which title
reference was made at p. 473.
Lowth informs us (see his “Isaiah,” vol. ii., p. 206);-“That Jeru-
salem is here called by this name is very certain; but the reason of
this name, and the meaning of it, as applied to Jerusalem, is very
obscure and doubtful. Some, with the Chaldee, suppose it to be
taken from the hearth of the great altar of burned offerings, which
Ezekiel plainly calls by the same name; and that Jerusalem is here
considered as the seat of the fire of God, *2S → is , which should issue
from thence to consume his enemies. Compare chap. xxxi. 9.” But
Gesenius observes (“Thesaurus,” p. 147), “Paulo difficilior est locus
Ezech. xliii. 15, 16, ubi altare holocaustorum, vel certe focus éjus,
semel b$nſin (mons Dei) et bis secundum Chethibh bºsºsri
(b’s Sr.), sec. Keri bsºsri appellatur.” Where the question is at
once raised whether it be rightly rendered mons Dei, or leo Dei—
mountain of God, or lion of God.
Gesenius also observes, “Si genuina vocabuli forma esset bsºn 5
cum Hillero (“Onomast,” p. 8) hoc pariter atque ºsms montem Dei
interpretari possis, quandoquidem summum hocce altare imitabatur
Quasi montes sanctos, in quibus sacrificia Deis gratissima ; ” which
observation is most important. For, as we shall show, Ariel means
here, with a fulness common to the Word of God and in perfect
accordance with the nature of the prophecy, both altar of God and
lion of God, and thus enables us to recognise no material difference
in the various readings.
The following is Gesenius's interpretation of the word as used by
Isaiah in the place before us:—“ bºns (comp. ex. "Tº et bS) leo
Dei, i.e., fortissimus heros. Semel (Jes. xxix. 1, 2) Hierosolymis hoc
epitheton tribuitur, tanquam heroum urbi, quae invicta futura sit (cf.
Storr, Observat., p. 55); quanquam alii ut Chald. Saad. Grotius Coll.
Ezechielis loco statim laudando focum, i.e., altare Dei reddunt. Aqu.
Symm. Aeov 6eov.” Thus Gesenius, in recognition of the reference to
Ezekiel, prefers the rendering, with Aquila and Symmachus, “lion of
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 485
God; ” applied to Jerusalem as a city of heroes, “ quae invicta
futura sit,” which in times to come would be unconquered, though
assailed. And he refers to Storr.
Storr says (p. 355, and not 55, as above), “ bsºns, leo Dei,
h.e., leo magnus, metaphoricë urbi munitissima ; v.c., Hierosolymae,
Esa. xxix. 1, 7.” And he refers to Bochart. .
Now Bochart says (“Hierozoicon,” vol. ii., p. 7, or 716), “Ex ºns
ari et 78 et compositum bsºns Ariel, proprie est leo Dei, id est, leo
magnus, utmontes Dei, cedri Dei, luctationes Dei. Ariel fuit virorum
fortium cognomen tum in terrā Moab. Unde est quod Benaja percussisse
legitur R$ip ºsºs "Sº duos Ariel Moabitarum 2 Sam. xxiii. 20.
Et huic fortasse Eºsins viri fortes eorum. Esa. xxxiii. 7, ut recenti-
ores multi volunt.” He then proceeds to show, “Sed notandum
imprimis, hodieque apud Arabes virum fortem dici, asedollahi, leonem
Pei.” And afterwards adds, “Idem nomen Ariel bsºns etiam altari
inditum Ezech. xliii. 15, 16, adeoque templo, et urbi Esa. xxix. 1,
nisi fallor propter altare, cujus ignis perpetuo accensus, holocausta,
leonis instar, vorabat et consumebit.”
Whence we see, as Gesenius intimates, that these authorities do not
so widely disagree. For one says it means altar of God, another lion
of God, and applied to the altar because holocausts are there entirely
consumed ; another adopting a various reading, mountain of God; but,
adds Gesenius, still with reason applied to the altar, because that was
reared as in imitation of mountains in which sacrifices to the gods
were supposed to be most acceptable ; and another, viz., Gesenius
himself, prefers rendering it lion of God, because Jerusalem was to
become the city of heroes, to whom, as Bochart shows, even to this
day the Arabs give the title, “lion of God,”—a title not without
precedent in Scripture (2 Sam. xxiii. 20), and even in this very
prophecy, viz., Isaiah xxxiii. 7. These various meanings of the
word Ariel are perfectly reconcilable. For the prophecy before us
shows that when it is fulfilled, Jerusalem will be like an altar of
God; for there holocausts of Judah’s enemies will be offered up near
Mount Zion at Tophet ; there himself the Lord will kindle his sacred
fire, “the flame of a devouring fire,” to lick up all Judah’s enemies
round about. This meaning is justified by the prophecy under present
consideration. And by comparing it with Zech. ix. and x., which
we have already considered, and with Zech. xii.-xiv., yet to be
treated of, we find that whenever this prophecy is fulfilled, the sons of
486 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Judah will be found to contend like “lions of God,” and make that a
“city of heroes.” “Raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O
Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.” (Zech. ix. 13.)
“They shall be as mighty men treading down their enemies in the
mire of the streets in the battle ; and they shall fight, because the
Lord is with them, and the riders on horses shall be confounded.”
Zech. x. 5; see also Zech. xii. 3–6, which we have yet particularly
to consider, and where “the governors of Judah like a hearth of fire
among the wood” as especially prophesied of. The Lord makes
Judah his goodly horse in the day of battle. (Zech. x. 3.)
The meanings, we say, and the various readings are reconcilable,
for in that day Jerusalem will be indeed herself an altar for whole
burned offerings of Judah’s enemies unto God, and be also, through
her restored and rescued people, “a city of heroes.” Of the two
meanings we prefer that which explains Ariel by reference to the
destruction as by fire, the fire of Tophet, predicted against the
enemies of Judah. Vitringa gives this meaning beautifully, and is
thus translated for the English reader at vol. ii. Calvin’s “Isaiah,”
p. 309, note, Calv. Trans. Soc. 1852:-‘The meaning of the prophet
in my opinion is, that God will make Jerusalem the hearth of
his anger, which shall consume not only the enemies, but the
obstinate rebellious Jews. This meaning. is elegant and emphatic,
and agrees well with the wisdom of the prophet Isaiah. Ariel is here
taken in its true signification, not for the altar, but for the hearth of
the altar, as in Ezekiel. The import of the name lies here. The
hearth of the altar sustained the symbol of the most holy and pure
will of God, by which all the sacrifices offered to God must be tried;
and to this applies the justice of God, burning like a fire and
consuming the sinner if no atonement be found. Jerusalem would
become the theatre of divine judgments.”
However, let one fact be noticed. All agree that Ariel is the name
given to Jerusalem, and that, therefore, Jerusalem is the scene of the
events predicted, whichever meaning of “Ariel ” be adopted. But
Jerusalem was not the scene of the Assyrian destruction; therefore to
that destruction these predictions do not refer. Also, if Jerusalem
be the scene of these events (as it is described to be), then there is
every reason for our taking “Tophet” in a literal sense, as that place
so called lying between Olivet and Zion. And let it be borne in mind
that “the Assyrian,” against whom nominally these predictions are
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 487
delivered, never did besiege Jerusalem to be frustrated in his purpose,
and never was thus overthrown in the suburbs of that city when
besieging it. But if this prophecy do not apply to “the Assyrian *
under Sennacherib, it does not apply to “the Assyrian” literally at
all, and no other conclusion remains than that “the Assyrian’”
is mentioned to typify another people really intended. “The destruc-
tion of Sennacherib's army might be a type, but it was nothing
more.” (Horsley on Hos. i. 7.) Not only, then, does the prophecy
not refer to Sennacherib, but it has never yet been fulfilled. A
conclusion to become yet more manifest from other parts of its
COntentS.
[IV.] There are several particulars in the mode of destruction here
predicted against Judah’s enemies which were not fulfilled in that of
the Assyrians under Sennacherib,
[1..] It seems impossible by any ingenuity of interpretation to
avoid the conclusion that the overthrow described by Isaiah will not
be silent as that of Sennacherib was. “Thou shalt be visited of the
Lord of hosts with thunder, and with earthquake, and a great noise,
with storm and tempest, and the flame of a devouring fire” (chap.
xxix. 6); “with the flame of a devouring fire, with scattering, and
tempest, and hailstones.” (Chap. xxx. 30.) “At the noise of the tumult
the people fled; at the lighting up of thyself the nations were scattered.”
(Chap. xxxiii. 4.) How can such predictions as these, full of great
noise, and terror, and tumult, and storm, and tempest, and thunder,
and earthquake be adjusted to an event described by inspiration thus:
—“And when they arose early in the morning, behold, these were all
dead corpses”? (2 Kings xix. 35 ; and Isaiah xxxvii. 36.) The
passage in chap. xxxiii. deserves peculiar attention, because “the
tumult” there mentioned is carefully identified with the Lord's
lifting up himself; so that the very visitation of the Lord then and
there produces immediately the tumult. The commentators agree
that this verse alludes to the destruction foretold all through the
prophecy; but it is certain that, when Sennacherib's “hundred
and fourscore and five thousand” were slain, the survivors awoke
in the morning from the silence of undisturbed sleep, and then, but

488 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
not before, became aware of the terrific judgment which had been
inflicted in the stillness of the night. They fled at no tumult, for
there had been none ; but truly all had been still as death that night.
But Isaiah predicts not only tumult, but storm, and tempest, and
earthquake—phenomena of nature too frequently exhibited to permit
of our explaining away such terms by figurative interpretations.
And, accordingly, we find the commentators labouring to show
that the simoom, the agent they have selected as the probable means of
the Assyrians' destruction, is accompanied by such incidents as these.
I believe (notwithstanding a reference sometimes made to Thevenot)
that, if the travels of Forbes, Campbell, Parke, Bruce, Clarke,
Maillet, Savary, Merier, and Wolney, be examined, it will be found
that the simoom is not so accompanied by “great noise, storm
and tempest, hailstones, and earthquake: ” but it is no part of
our business to inquire whether simoom killed the Assyrians, as
Christian commentators imagine, or lightning, as the Jews say ;
—what we have to observe is, that the destruction Isaiah foretels
, is effected with great noise, and tempest, and earthquake, while
that of Sennacherib's army was attended with neither; and that,
therefore, this prophecy was not fulfilled when that Assyrian army
was destroyed. . -
[2.] That idea of tumult in the very destruction itself is also borne
out by the expression, “in battles of shaking will he fight with it.”
(chap. xxx. 32); with it; but the Keri gives tº with them, which is,
no doubt, the correct reading. “In battles of shaking (Tºº!)
shall He fight with them.”—i.e., against them—the Assyrians. Now,
the proper use of this word, translated shaking, is in relation to
the sacrifice called “the heave offering,” viz., the offering heaved,
or waved, or shaken, before the altar. (See the Books of Exodus
and Leviticus generally.) Here, again, we have reference to Jeru-
salem as Ariel; not because the altar of burned offerings was there,
but because she herself, when made the scene—the very scene—of
the Assyrians' overthrow in Tophet, will be the very altar of the
Lord, and they the sacrifice, the heave offering, the offering shaken
by terror and horrible dread at the sudden epiphany of the Lord.
Accordingly we have Gesenius observing, in his “Thesaurus,” sub
voce,—“Metonymià sacrificium hoc ritu oblatum (Ex. xxxv. 22;
Numb. xviii. 11); (and then, under the third meaning) c. idem quod

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 489
tumultus (Isa. xxx. 32), Tºm nicrºp bella, s. praelia tumultuosa.”
Here, then, we have Gesenius' authority for understanding “battles
of shaking,” at chap. xxx. 32, in precisely the same sense as “the
noise of the tumult” in chap. xxxiii. 3, while the allusion to the
Levitical heave offering before the altar gives the fullest force to the
expression employed. The battles of shaking are the tumult of the
Assyrians' destruction, and Tophet next Jerusalem is the precise
place where this heave offering is finally consumed.
I need not remind the reader that Sennacherib's destruction was
not effected by any Tºlſº niprºp , praelia tumultuosa, or noisy
battles; and that, therefore, again Isaiah's prediction was not fulfilled
at that time. M. Henry says:–“At the noise of the tumult, or the
shrieks of the dying men, who (we may suppose) did not die silently,
the rest of the people fled, and shifted every one for his own safety.”
He forgets that “when they arose early in the morning, behold, these
were all dead corpses.” Evidently they died silently enough. But it
is to be noticed that Henry fully admits the correctness of the inter-
pretation, that the time of the tumult was also the time of actual
destruction.
[3.] It has been already observed that chap. xxix. 1–6 predicts
a real siege of Jerusalem, and that xxix. 6, xxx. 30, and
xxxi. 9, demand. that the destruction predicted should take place at
Jerusalem, which that of Sennacherib's army did not. This idea
receives peculiar illustration from chap. xxx. 25, where “the day of
great slaughter” (admitted to be the slaughter of the Assyrian) is
described as one “when the towers fall.” Now, whatever be the exact
allusion of the verse, whether the towers mentioned be those of the
enemy or of Judah, it seems undeniable that the allusion describes an
actual scene or occurrence “in the great day of slaughter,” denoting the
actual existence of some which fall at Jerusalem when the Assyrian
is there beaten down. The verse gains considerable light from chap.
xxix. 3: “And I will camp against thee round about, and lay siege
against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.” But
the promise on the occasion of Sennacherib's invasion was, “He shall
not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it
with shields, nor cast a bank against it.” Distinctly adverse to
Isaiah's prophecy.
I conclude, therefore, again, that this day of the Assyrians' great
490 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
slaughter when the towers fall, is another than that when Sennacherib's
army was silently destroyed, and when no towers fell. Nor am I
surprised that Lowth attempts an interpretation of the passage chap.
xxx. 25 entirely figurative.
[4.] But though there be differences of opinion as to the applica-
tion of this prophecy, upon one point there is none. All are agreed
that the destruction of the Assyrian, whoever was meant, was to be so
sudden and remarkable, as to be acknowledged a miraculous interpo-
sition of the Most High, as that of the Assyrians under Sennacherib
undoubtedly was. That such is the kind of destruction intended is
clear from chap. xxix. 6: xxx. 27–33; xxxi. 9; xxxiii. 2, 3, and
10–12.
This is the same destruction as that foretold at chap. xxx. 33 to
take place at Tophet. And we showed, p. 467, that by the con-
struction of that verse, and the scriptural usage of 2 for in this place,
Tophet is to be read as ordained of old and prepared for the use of
the King ; in short, that the King is the destroyer. But, as is clear
from the passages just cited, all through these five chapters the Lord
is the destroyer; and, therefore, the Lord is the King mentioned at
chap. xxx. 33 ; and neither did Hezekiah prepare Tophet, nor was it
prepared for Sennacherib, as is sometimes maintained in explanation
of that verse. •
From this proof that the King at chap. xxx. 33 is the Lord we shall
proceed to show that all through the prophecy the King alluded to is
the Lord—a position the importance of which will gradually develop
itself.
IV.] Meanwhile, let us pause to consider the consequences resulting
from the arguments already advanced. It has been shown that the
prophecy was not fulfilled as against the Assyrian under Sennacherib,
and it is mere matter of history well and popularly understood that at
no period of their history were the Jews ever thus delivered from the
Assyrian power, if not at the time of that monarch. Hence it follows
that some other power or powers, but capable of individualization,
i.e., of powers or a combination of powers, as one body, for one
purpose, under one leadership, and in such particulars rightly
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 491
typified as one by “the Assyrian,” must be intended. But, again, it
is mere matter of history that from no such power or powers, nation or
nations, have the Jews ever yet been rescued ; so that it only remains
to acknowledge that the prophecy is even now unfulfilled.
Yet upon the main subject of the prophecy there is no dispute.
The prophet says, Jerusalem shall be besieged, forts be raised against
her ; that Jerusalem thus besieged will be in the possession of Judah’s
sons; that she shall be brought down in that siege low in distress;
harassed, dejected, perilled, well-nigh overcome, in the same siege ;
that her assembled enemies shall be so mighty as to be a multitude of
nations, “a multitude of all the nations ; ” that in her distress the
Lord will burst with terror upon Jerusalem to deliver her; and that
then her foes shall perish in an instant, suddenly. Causes natural,
causes supernatural, shall co-operate, and the enemies of Judah be
destroyed.
All this has to be fulfilled; the restoration of the Jews is therefore
implied, and the repossession by them, as a people, of Jerusalem.
Much more is added, which we now proceed to consider; and in
considering which, further proofs that the prophecy was not fulfilled
in Sennacherib, and therefore has never yet been fulfilled, will
manifest themselves. For religious blessings not previously enjoyed
are predicted to Judah, as resulting from, and therefore following;
yet accompanying—i.e., being present to, as results—the destruction
of the Assyrian here foretold. But no such religious blessings
were acquired in Hezekiah's days after the overthrow of Senna-
cherib.
In calling attention to these promises of religious blessings, we
shall have occasion to evince these several facts:–1. The blessings
are consequent upon the predicted overthrow of “the Assyrian ; ”
2. They are promised directly from the Lord, who effects that over-
throw ; 3. But they are also promised him who is termed the King ;
and therefore the Lord and the King mean one and the same
Almighty Ruler ; 4. But the King is Christ Jesus; and therefore
the Lord who overthrows the Assyrian is Christ Jesus; and this
prophecy belongs to the times of Christianity, and has yet to be
fulfilled: and therefore the promises of religious blessings imply
Judah's conversion to Christianity.
[1..] The promises of religious blessings are that such blessings will
492 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
accrue immediately after, and in consequence of, the predicted over-
throw of the Assyrian.
If the whole prophecy—viz., chaps, xxix. to xxxiii.-be read, it
cannot but be observed, that just as predictions of judgment against
some certain enemy of Judah pervade the whole, and that such
predictions are linked together by an evident similarity, or parallelism,
amounting in effect to identity, and certainly admitting, at the least,
the most perfect harmony between them : so throughout the whole
prophecy there are certain promises of blessing—religious and temporal
—blessings so similar, so parallel, as to suggest at once their actual
identity, but certainly of such a character as to admit the completest
agreement and harmony, directing a reader's attention to one and the
same class of religious and temporal blessings to be realized by Judah
at one time—viz., when “the Assyrian’’ is overthrown.
This is but a general observation upon the whole chapters. Let us
come to particulars. Take the following verse :—“Ye shall have a
song as in the night, when a holy solemnity is kept; and gladness of
heart as when one goeth with a pipe to come into the mountain of the
Lord to the mighty one of Israel.” (Chap. xxx. 29.) I imagine
that whatever may be the exact blessings promised in this verse,
no one will deny that the blessings are promised to Judah, nor that
they are religious blessings, implying acceptability of the people
with God. Let it be noticed, then, that this verse stands in the very
centre of the fearful judgments predicted upon “the Assyrian”
at Tophet, and are, in fact, contrasted with that judgment. The
inference is unavoidable : whenever the Assyrian (no matter who was
meant) was to be so overthrown, at that very time this religious peace
and joy was to be experienced by the Jews at Jerusalem. Just as in
Egypt the Jews blessed God over the paschal lamb, and were saved
at the very moment the Egyptian was destroyed, so the moment
of Antichrist's destruction will be the very moment when Christ's
blood is applied for the salvation of that nation—the moment of
their conversion. So Bickersteth very beautifully—“As some of
the most solemn and delightful seasons of worship may have been
in the darkest and dreariest of wintry nights, and the lights, and
the psalms, and the music, and the instruction, be the more prized, as
contrasted with the outer darkness, so we are assured it shall then
be in the midst of the last black tempest of Divine wrath against
the mystical Assyrian: it is said to the people of God, ‘Ye shall
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 493
have a song as in the night when a holy solemnity is kept ; and
gladness of heart as when one goeth with a pipe to come into the
mountain of the Lord, the mighty one of Israel.” (Isa. xxx. 29.)”
Take again the following:—“And there shall be upon every high
mountain, and every high hill, rivers and streams of water in the day
of the great slaughter, when the towers fall. Moreover the light
of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun
shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the Lord
bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their
wound.” (Chap. xxx. 25, 26.) Here, it will be said, are several
figures of speech. Very good: it is not denied. But the design
and character of these figures are manifest. Upon the peculiarity
of the language we hope to make useful observations presently : but
its character and design are this—viz., refreshing blessings for the
soul, “rivers and streams of water” in places unexpected, increasing
spiritual light, the moon as the sun, the sun sevenfold. But (and
it is to this we have now to invite attention) these blessings are
bestowed “ in the day of the great slaughter”—“ in the day when
the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke
of their wound.” Such blessings come, therefore, in the day “when
the Assyrian is beaten down that smote with a rod,” and not before.
The blessings promised are synchronical with the delivery predicted—
synchronical as an effect. For,
The language employed proves this, and is valuable to us in
another way. “In the day of the great slaughter, when the towers
fall"—ºn bb2+, an aºri più : “in the day that the Lord
bindeth up the breach of his people.”—iby."-tº-nº Tintº tºr. Diº.
In each case the verbal noun is employed with the same force
precisely as explained at p. 64, suprā, showing that its force is
to make the event foretold present to the time implied in the pre-
diction.' It is clear that the religious blessing of reconciliation
implied is to be bestowed upon Judah at the very time of the great
slaughter, when the towers fall—viz., at the very time of the over-
throw of the besiegers of Jerusalem, before alluded to.
[2.] But these two verses (25 and 26) are merely the conclusion of
a whole paragraph of predicted blessing, carrying with it all the
marks of non-fulfilment. Let the reader examine vers. 18–26.
Now, the limitation of time—viz., “in the day of the great slaughter,
494 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
when the towers fall”—extends itself to the whole paragraph : let us
look more closely into some parts of it, and ask ourselves whether
they were fulfilled in Sennacherib's time 2 or whether they have been
fulfilled at all ? Have the following 2
“The people shall dwell at Jerusalem ; thou shalt weep no more.”
(Wer. 19.) “Yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner
any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers.” (Ver. 20.) Predic-
tions these clearly unfulfilled, and limited in the context to the “day
of the great slaughter.” But if these blessings be synchronical with
that day, and have not yet been enjoyed by Judah, as they have not,
then the day of great slaughter has not yet arrived, and Sennacherib's
army was not “the Assyrian” intended.
Again, that the blessings promised are religious blessings, and to
be received at the time of the Lord's smiting the Assyrian, is clear
from chap. xxx. 22, and the parallel place, chap. xxxi. 6, 7:—“Turn
ye unto Him from whom the children of Israel have deeply revolted.
For in that day every man shall cast away his idols of silver, and his
idols of gold, which your own hands have made unto you for a sin.”
The proper relative force of the phrase Sºnſ. Fºa at that day,
and its kindreds—viz., the day of which I, the prophet, have been,
and am now, speaking—has been explained at p. 449, suprā. And if
chap. xxxi. be carefully read, it will be observed that there is no
other day or time alluded to, but this: “Then shall the Assyrian
fall” (ver. 8) ; viz., when the Lord of Hosts comes down “to fight
for Jerusalem.” (Wer. 4.) But the fact has already been pointed
out (p. 478, suprā), that Hezekiah's reformation of the Jewish
Church and State was completed long previously to Rabshakeh's
summoning without besieging Jerusalem : so that idolatry was already
then purged away, as Rabshakeh admitted. (Isa. xxxvi. 7.) Hence
that reformation did not take place at the time of the Assyrians’
invasion, far less was it the consequence of the Assyrians' slaughter.
Rather that slaughter was the reward of that reformation. And
thus it becomes manifest from chap. xxxi. 4–9, not only that the
religious blessings promised are synchronical with Judah’s deliverance,
but also that they were not received at the time of Sennacherib's
overthrow ; and that, therefore, some other Assyrian is intended.
Passages (chap. xxx. 22, and chap. xxxi. 7) are correlative and
similar, being two of those peculiar passages characterizing all these
prophecies (p. 34, suprā), where Israel's conversion is assimilated to
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 4.95
a return from idolatry; all of which we hope to gather up in the
next chapter. -
The same truth—viz., that the blessings promised are religious
blessings, consequent upon the destruction of the Assyrian—is equally
plain from chap. xxxiii. 23, 24 ; and I deem it not necessary to say
more upon the subject, but venture to conclude that the religious
blessings promised are synchronical with, are present as a result
to follow immediately upon, the deliverance of Judah from “the
Assyrian.” In this conclusion we are supported by the commen-
tators.
M. Henry, on chap. xxx. 22 : “The deliverance God shall work
for them, shall convince them that it is their interest, as well as duty,
to serve Him only.”
Lowth, on chap. xxxii. 18, 19: “God’s people shall enjoy all
manner of rest and security ; at which time his judgments shall come
down in a very severe manner upon their enemies.”
Scott, on chap. xxxi. 6–9 : “Their preservation from the As-
syrians would be attended with zeal against idolatry.”
[3.] Our second point was, that these blessings are foretold by
Isaiah as bestowed immediately from the Lord, who overthrows the
Assyrian. But this can need no enlarged proof: it must be so of
course, inasmuch as they are religious or spiritual blessings. I shall,
therefore, only quote one passage, for the purpose of introducing the
third head—viz., that these blessings are also from the King, and
that, therefore, the King intended is the Lord. “O Lord, be gracious
unto us; we have waited for thee: be thou their arm every morning,
our salvation also in the time of trouble. At the noise of the tumult
the people fled; at the lifting up of thyself the nations were scattered.
And your spoil shall be gathered like the gathering of the caterpillar;
as the running to and fro of locusts shall he run upon them. The
Lord is exalted ; for He dwelleth on high : He hath filled Zion with
judgment and righteousness.” (Chap. xxxiii. 2–5.) Now, I conceive
that, as to the above extract, no one will deny that the Lord, at
whose lifting up the nations—the multitude of nations—the multitude
of all the nations that fight against Zion—the Assyrian—fled ;
I imagine that no one will deny that He is the same Lord who fills
Zion with judgment and righteousness.
But those are the very blessings characterizing the times of the
King, and secured to the people by Him. -
496 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
“Behold a King shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule
in judgment. And a man shall be as a hiding-place from the wind,
and a covert from the tempest . . . . . . the heart also of the rash shall
understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerer shall speak
plainly . . . . . Judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteous-
ness shall remain in the fruitful field.” (Chap. xxxii.) I proceed,
therefore, to show, thirdly, that these religious blessings, thus following
the overthrow of the Assyrian, and coming from the Lord, are the
same blessings as are to come from “the King ; ” and, therefore, that
the King is the Lord. And from this we shall have to show—
4. That the Lord is the Lord Christ, and that all this prophecy
belongs to Christ, and to the Christian dispensation; and that, there-
fore, 5. These promised blessings denote Judah’s conversion, which is
consequently subsequent to his restoration, he being in possession of
Jerusalem when the Assyrian is overthrown. .
But it should not be forgotten that we have already, in an inde-
pendent proof, shown that the Lord is the King, when we proved
that by the construction of chap. xxx. 33, and by an important
scriptural use of the particle h, the King for whom, or for whose use,
Tophet is prepared; and He who ordained it of old, and adapted it for
its purpose, is the same as the Lord who executes that purpose, viz.,
the judgment upon the Assyrian there; the same as the Lord who
executes all the judgments predicted in these chaps. xxix.—xxxiii.
against the enemy of Judah. This, I say, was a proof altogether
independent of that we now advance to the same purpose, viz.,
that the blessings promised flow from the Lord, and also from the
Ring, and that, therefore, the King is the Lord.
Also it should be observed before we enter upon the argument, that
the simplest way of considering what King is meant in this prophecy
is to collate and examine all the verses in which the title “King” is
employed, and endeavour to discover, if we can, whether or not they
all relate to one person, and, if so, then to inquire who that person is.
Now, in all the prophecy there are but four places where the title
King is employed; and the commentators are found in one place
applying the title to Sennacherib, in others to Hezekiah ; and indeed
unless they did so the usual interpretation of the prophecy could not
be entertained for a single moment. But we maintain there is not, in
all the prophecy, a shadow of reason for doubting but that in each
place the title belongs to one and the same person, while all ambiguity
in the first three is removed by the fourth, which explicitly declares
AND CONVERSION OF THE J1EWS. 497
that “the Lord is the King.” Now, if there be not in the contexts
any reason for assigning the same title to different persons, then all
fair inference leads us to believe that the same person is meant by the
same title; but if there be in such contexts any reason for assigning
such title to different persons, it would have been well if the commen-
tators had shown it, which they have not ; and at least it would be
well if the reader would discover it for himself, which he cannot. The
four verses are these :—“Tophet is ordained of old, yea, for the
Ring it is prepared ; He hath made it deep and large ; the pile thereof
fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord like a stream of brim-
stone doth kindle it.” (Chap. xxx. 33.) “Behold, a King shall reign
in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.” (Chap. xxxii. 1.)
“Thine eyes shall see the King in his beauty; they shall behold the
land that is very far off.” (Chap. xxxiii. 17.) “For the Lord is our
judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king ; He will save
us.” (Ver, 22.) Of which it will be seen that the first is applied to
Sennacherib ; the second and third primarily to Hezekiah, but
eventually to Christ; the fourth is, of course, undeniably clear. But
I maintain that a fair examination of the prophecy will show that each
passage refers to the Lord ; and since chap. xxxii. 1, by admission of
all Christians, is a prophecy of Messiah-Jesus, that each of them
refers to Messiah-Jesus, as the Lord, and therefore asserts Messiah's
divinity. However, I maintain that each of them refers to the Lord,
and that this last verse is an eaplanation of the others; it is, in fact,
the triumphant climax of the whole prophecy, and the salvation fore-
told is salvation from the predicted invasion of the Assyrian, ending
in religious salvation also. But, if so, then the salvation mentioned
at chap. xxxiii. 22 is the same as the deliverance from the Assyrian,
in Tophet, at chap. xxx. 33 ; and therefore, again, in both verses, the
King and the Lord are one. And, certainly, to my mind it is mere
violation of the context to say that the King, at chap. xxxiii. 22, is not
the King, in the same chapter, at ver. 17, for the promise of seeing
“ the King in his beauty” is the second verse in a category of bless-
ings, the prediction of which winds up with the assurance, “The
Lord is our King; He will save us.” Yet Commentators deny that
the King in each case is the same, and refer ver, 17 to Hezekiah.
Thus Lowth —“The King will appear in public dressed in his royal
robes" !! as if the Spirit of God condescended to describe his
servants as more beautiful when bedizened by a tailor |
FK K
498 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
The beauty of the King to be seen by the faithful Jew is, according
to my view, the beauty that King acquires when He defends and
delivers Jerusalem, inaugurates at that time a reign of righteousness
and judgment; when wisdom and knowledge become, at Jerusalem,
the stability of his times; when He makes Jerusalem a quiet habita-
tion, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down. All these constitute
the beauty of the King, that glorious Lord to be unto Judah “a
place of broad rivers and streams, wherein shall go no galley with
oars, neither shall gallant ship pass by ; for the Lord is our judge;
the Lord is our lawgiver ; the Lord is our king ; He will save us.”
Similarly the Psalmist of the same times (Ps. xciii. 1) :-" The Lord
reigneth ; He is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with
strength, wherewith He hath girded himself: the world, also, is
established that it cannot be moved.”
[VI.] But let us proceed systematically to proof. I propose
endeavouring to effect this by referring all the blessings in all the
prophecy to chap. xxxii. as a centre ; for it is not, nor can it be,
denied that the blessings promised in that chapter are from “The
Ring who shall reign in righteousness:” if, then, we can show that
the blessings promised in other parts of the prophecy, and predicted
as coming from the Lord, are the same as those promised in the thirty-
second chapter, it will follow that the Lord, bestowing those blessings
in one part of the prophecy, is the King who bestows them in the
other ; and, further, that if those blessings from the Lord are
synchronical, as an effect, with the overthrow of the Assyrian, as we
have shown them to be, then the blessings from the King, in chap.
xxxii., are also synchronical, as an effect, with the overthrow of the
Assyrian ; and then, further, the fourth and fifth heads will follow,
viz., that if the King of chap. xxxii. be Christ, as is admitted by all
Christian commentators, then the Lord in the rest of the prophecy is
Christ, and the whole prophecy refers to Christ, and the times of
Christianity; and that, since the blessings are from Christ, they
import conversion; and since they are the effect of the Assyrians'
overthrow, that conversion will be after the restoration.
[1..] Now, in chap. xxxiii. 13–24, certain blessings to be experi-
&
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 499
enced at Jerusalem are prophetically foreseen for Jews, and the reason
assigned for their occurrence and confirmation is that “the Lord is
our judge ; the Lord is our lawgiver; the Lord is our king; He will
save us.” (Wer. 24.) Where there can be no doubt who is meant by
Ring, nor to whom the words our and us apply. “The Lord is judge,
is lawgiver, is King of Israel ; He will save Israel”—Moses and
David in one great antitype. But among the blessings is the follow-
ing:—“Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities; thine eyes shall
see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken
down; not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither
shall any of the cords thereof be broken. But there the glorious
Lord will be unto us,” &c. (Chap. xxxiii. 20.) In which verse the
phrase “thine eyes shall see” is taken up from ver. 17:—“Thine
eyes shall see the King in his beauty.” Those same eyes which see
“the King in his beauty” shall also see Jerusalem a quiet habitation,
a tabernacle that shall not be taken down, in the times of the glorious
Lord. Now compare chap. xxxii. 17:—“And the work of righteous-
ness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness quietness and
assurance for ever. And my people shall dwell in a peaceable habi-
tation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting-places.” “My
people;” who they are is clear from ver, 13 —“Upon the land of
my people shall come up briars and thorns; yea, upon all the houses
of joy in the joyous city.” So that my people are the sons of Judah
at Jerusalem: these same people are to dwell in a peaceable habitation,
in sure dwellings, in quiet resting-places. Where 2 in that same land;
in that joyous city, delivered from its thorns and briars. When P
In the days when “a King shall reign in righteousness.” I say
compare chap. xxxii. 17, 18, with chap. xxxiii. 20, and are not the
promises in each the same 2–1. [“My people shall dwell in a peace-
able habitation.” (Chap. xxxii. 18.) “Thine eyes shall see Jerusalem
a quiet habitation.” (Chap. xxxiii. 20.)]. 2. [“Süre dwellings,
quiet resting-places.” (Chap. xxxii. 18.) “A tabernacle that shall
not be taken down ; not one of the stakes thereof shall be removed,
neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken.” (Chap. xxxiii. 20.) I
These promises are the same. But those of chap. xxxii. come from
“a King that shall reign in righteousness;” those in chap. xxxiii.
from “the glorious Lord;” therefore the King in righteousness is “the
glorious Lord,” reigning spiritually at Jerusalem and bestowing these
blessings. And so Isaiah says, “The Lord is our king.” (Ver. 22.)
K K 2
500 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
[2.] Again, let particular attention be paid to chap. xxx. 18–26,
and the character of the blessings there promised be carefully noted,
and then compared with chap. xxxii. :-‘Then shall He give the rain
of thy seed, that thou shalt sow the ground withal; and bread of the
increase of the earth ; and it shall be fat and plenteous; in that day
shall thy cattle feed,” &c., &c. (Chap. xxx. 23.) “Upon the land
of my people shall come up thorns and briars; yea, upon all the
houses of joy in the joyous city: because the palaces shall be forsaken;
the multitude of the city shall be left ; the forts and towers shall be
for dens for ever; a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks; until the
Spirit be,” &c., &c. (Chap. xxxii. 13–15.) These are promises of
temporal blessings, but those of the spiritual and eternal may be
similarly compared from the context of the two chapters referred to ;
and the identity of the blessings, whether secular or religious, becomes
manifest in each. But the blessings in chap. xxx, are distinctly fixed
for “the day of great slaughter, when the towers fall” at Jerusalem,
i.e. (as was shewn), the day when “the Assyrian’’ is destroyed in
Tophet, (next) Jerusalem, by the Lord, from whom come equally the
judgments upon the Assyrian and the blessings upon the Jews. And
the blessings thus, by comparison, proved the same, of chap. xxxii.,
are limited to the time of “the King, who shall reign in righteous-
ness,” and are said to proceed from Him. Hence the time when the
Lord Smites the Assyrian, and the time when the King reigns in
righteousness, produce the same blessings to the Jews; therefore
these times are the same, and the two are different lights in which the
same events are presented. “The Lord ” smiting the Assyrian, and
“ the King” reigning in righteousness, produce synchronically the
same blessings upon Judah ; therefore “the Lord” who smites is
“the King” who reigns. The smiting of the Assyrian is the inaugu-
ration of Christ's kingdom, the manifestation of the Branch, the
overthrow of Ezekiel's Gog and Magog, and of Zechariah's sons of
Greece, and of Joel's “multitudes, multitudes,” in the vale of Jehos-
haphat, which joins Tophet, and lies opposite the Mount of Olives.
These same times and events equally mark the national conversion of
Israel, and the ultimate discomfiture of her foes, and are recorded by
Isaiah as the time when Jerusalem shall know that “I, the Lord, am
thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty one of Jacob.” (Isa. lx.)
[3] The same result precisely may be obtained by comparing
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. - 501
chaps. xxix. and xxxii., the blessings of each being identical ; those of
chap. xxix. represented as coming from the Lord, of chap. xxxii.
from the King. Compare chap. xxix. 24, and chap. xxxii. 3, 4 ;
also, chap. xxix. 18, and chap. xxxii. 34, e.g., 1. [“The eyes of the
blind shall see out of obscurity and out of darkness.” (Chap. xxix. 18.)
“The eyes of them that see shall not be dim.” (Chap. xxxii. 3.) I
2. [“The deaf shall hear the words of the Book.” (Chap. xxix. 18.)
“The ears of them that hear shall hearken.” (Chap. xxxii. 3.) I It
is evident that, in both chaps. Xxix. and xxxii. similar blessings are
promised by the use of similar figures of speech. But in chap. xxxii.
they are undoubtedly spiritual promises for the times, and by the gift
of “the King” that reigns in righteousness; and in chap. xxix., as
in chap. xxx., they are as undoubtedly blessings from “the Lord,”
when He delivers Jerusalem from the siege, makes her his Ariel, or
altar of burned offerings, and fights against “the multitude of all the
nations” that fight against her; and, therefore, again, the King, and
the Lord, are the same Christ Jesus.
Thus by collating the blessings promised in chaps. xxix., xxx...,
xxxi., and xxxiii. with those of xxxii., we notice that both religious
and secular blessings, promised in language almost identical, are
assured to Judah, 1. In chap. xxix., when “the multitudes” in
actual siege of Jerusalem are overthrown by the Lord. 2. In chaps.
xxx, and xxxi., when “the Assyrian * is utterly consumed in Tophet,
the Lord's furnace at Jerusalem, by the Lord. 3. In chap. xxxii.,
when “the King” (admitted by all Christians to be), Christ Jesus,
reigns in righteousness. And, 4. When Judah exclaims, “The Lord
is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king, He will
save us.” Whence I conclude, 1. That the multitudes disappointed
in the siege of Jerusalem, and the Assyrian destroyed at Tophet are the
same. 2. That Christ Jesus is the Lord who smites them. And, 3. That
in that precise act He is recognised as Judah's King, which means,
4. That Judah, restored Judah, is then, and not before, converted.
Test this result by comparing contexts chap. xxix. 18–24;
xxx. 18—26; xxxi. 6–9 ; xxxii. 15—20 ; xxxiii. 13—24.
From all the above considerations I conclude that the blessings
promised in each of the five chapters of which this prophecy consists
are the same blessings; and that, since those of chap. xxxii. un-
doubtedly proceed from the King, our blessed Lord and Saviour, all
the blessings are promised equally to proceed from Him. They are
502 * NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
blessings promised upon Judah, and an examination of the language
makes it evident that they are Gospel blessings; hence the prophecy
is unfulfilled, and “the Assyrian * is a name typically used for some
other combined enemies of Judah yet to be developed, yet to be
engaged in a siege of Jerusalem occupied by restored Jews, and yet
to be destroyed on the eastern side of Jerusalem, between that city
and Mount Olivet, in the valley of Hinnom or Tophet, of which the
valley of Jehoshaphat is a continuation. Indeed, that the prophecy
was never fulfilled in the literal Assyrian is manifest, for it was not
fulfilled at Sennacherib's time ; and an examination of Jewish history
as connected with Assyria, shows it was not fulfilled as to that people
at any other time. “The Assyrian,” therefore, stands typically, and
the prophecy is yet unaccomplished.
[VII.] The prophecy, then, is not yet fulfilled. Let us notice the
consequences of our having arrived at that conclusion. *-
Jerusalem has yet again to be besieged, and in that siege to be
brought into the extremest distress. (Chap. xxix. 4.) This siege is
by especial appointment of the Lord. (Wer. 3.) It will be by a
multitude of strangers, multitude of nations, a multitude of all the
nations (that is, by a confederacy of diverse peoples), who, though
brought against Jerusalem by the appointment of the Lord, will
nevertheless be themselves under judicial visitation. (Chap. xxx. 28.)
This combination of peoples against Judah at Jerusalem will be so
general in the day when it takes place as to be correctly typified by
“the Assyrian,”—that empire which, in Hezekiah's days, was
already acquiring the dominion of the world; and this grand con-
federacy of nations would undoubtedly succeed against Jerusalem,
only that the Lord himself will come down to fight for her and
deliver her. (Chap. xxix. 6–8 ; xxx. 27—33; xxxi. 4—9;
xxxiii. 2–5, and 10–12.) This delivery of Judah and his city
from such a confederacy of peoples will yet be accomplished by
Jehovah at Jerusalem, partly by natural and partly by supernatural
means; by tempest (chap. xxx. 30), by thunder and earthquake
(chap. xxix. 6), but chiefly by supernatural interposition at once
referable and really to be referred to the hand of the Almighty; and
that destruction, of which Isaiah speaks, of Judah’s enemies will
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEW.S. - 503
take place chiefly on the south-east side of Jerusalem, between Mount
Oliyet and the temple, close by Mount Zion, in the vale of Hinnom,
where Tophet was, the scene of the fiery abominations of Moloch.
But if these be just inferences, then, since the defenders of Jerusa-
lem are represented by Isaiah as sons of Judah (as all admit), the two
tribes, viz., Judah and Benjamin, have yet to be restored, and will
have been restored, and have acquired re-possession of Jerusalem in
strength before these events take place. .
Again, certain temporal and religious benefits are represented by
Isaiah as following from, and produced by, this miraculous deliverance
of Judah from his enemies. Temporal blessings; a multiplying
people (chap. xxix. 33); the peaceful occupation of Jerusalem, and
the enjoyment of their land in all its fruitfulness (chap. xxx. 19–24);
gladness of heart at the moment their enemies perish (ver. 29); the
certainty they shall never be removed again (chap. xxxii. 17–19); this
also bestowed at the same time ; promises, which are again repeated at
chap. xxxiii. 29. Religious blessings—the right understanding of the
doctrines of their own religion (chap. xxix. 34) ; the uninterrupted
possession of good and faithful teachers (chap. xxx. 20); a complete
reformation of their religion, their Church, so complete as to be
compared to passing from idolatry to the worship of the true God.
(Chap. xxx. 22; and xxxi. 6, 7.) But this religious revolution will
not take place except under the Holy Spirit's influence, to be
especially poured out upon the Jews at Jerusalem (chap. xxxii. 15;
and xxx. 21); and being followed by the full acquisition of the
temporal blessings above described (chap. xxxii. 13–17; and
xxix. 33): “When he seeth his children, the work of mine hands in
the midst of Him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy
One of Jacob, and fear the God of Israel.”
But these religious blessings having yet to be attained, it follows of
necessity that they import conversion to Christianity; for there can
be no other way of reconciliation to God; accordingly (as invariably
admitted), the language used implies Gospel blessings; and chap.
xxxii. refers peculiarly and entirely to the reign of Christ the King.
And, in accordance with this, all these blessings are attributed to
“the Lord the King,” in whom all the forms and powers of supremacy
known to Israel are foretold to be concentrated. “For the Lord is our .
judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king, He will save us.”
And so all through the prophecy, the Lord who destroys and the King
504 NoTEs on THE RESTORATION
who blesses are the same ; and the destruction of “the Assyrian”
evolves the blessing of Judah ; and this Lord and King can be none
other than Jesus Christ. Christ it is who comes down to fight for
Mount Zion ; Christ who destroys the Assyrian in Tophet; Christ
who saves his people ; to see Christ the King in his beauty (chap.
xxxiii. 17) is to see “the glorious Lord” seated in his kingdom, his
universal kingdom of peace and holiness, and Christianity inaugurated
at Jerusalem : “For surely there (Pºps *2) the glorious Lord will
be unto us a place of broad rivers and streams, wherein shall go no
galley with oars, neither shall gallant ship pass by.” (Wer. 21.)
But if so, then the national conversion of Judah is promised, and
that after their restoration. The final cause of such conversion being
the miraculous overthrow close by Jerusalem of Judah’s confederated
enemies by the Lord, Messiah-Jesus, himself.
But who does not see how exactly all this corresponds to the
prophecy of Joel? And yet what important information each
prophet severally gives | Joel foretels “multitudes, multitudes
in the valley of Jehoshaphat,” there confederated against the Jews,
and there to be miraculously destroyed. Isaiah does the same.
Multitudes of all the nations fighting against Ariel to be destroyed
miraculously in Tophet. This Tophet being in the very valley
where also tradition affixes the title, “Walley of Jehoshaphat.” Joel
predicts a siege, and a successful siege, of Jerusalem. Isaiah, too,
foretels a siege of Jerusalem, in the which Jerusalem will be brought
very low, and speak in humiliation from the dust. Out of this
humiliation Isaiah predicts deliverance from the Lord: “The multi-
tude of all the nations that fight against Ariel, even all that fight
against her and her munition, and that distress her, shall be as a
dream of a night vision.” (Chap. xxix. 7.) A dream of disappointed
expectation: “So shall the multitude of all the nations be that fight
against Mount Zion.” (Ver, 8.) Joel predicts the removal of the
northern army, after its successful siege of Jerusalem. Isaiah says
not whence this mighty confederacy comes. Joel (like Ezekiel) says
they are natives of the north. Isaiah makes no mention of Judah's
repentance and supplication to the Most High. Joel foretels a
national fasting, with repentance and earnest prayer. Isaiah merely
intimates (chap. xxxii. 15) that the Spirit will be poured out upon
the Jews when these events take place; for he connects the renewed
fertility of Palestine with the overthrow of the Assyrian, and says
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 505
its barrenness will last until the Holy Ghost is given. Joel predicts
this effusion of the Spirit in so plain and remarkable a manner that
his readers may anticipate even its miraculous influence in those
days—an expectation which inspiration, through St. Peter, justifies.
Isaiah intimates that this gift of the Spirit will be at Jerusalem.
Joel, through St. Peter, definitely assigns it to that scene. Joel
associates fºe recovered fruitfulness of Palestine and the temporal
prosperity of the restored people with this effusion of the Holy
Spirit, in one unbroken paragraph (Joel ii. 21–32); but Isaiah
distinctly says that Palestine shall be comparatively unpeopled until
the effusion of the Holy Spirit takes place ; for (though Professor
Lee objects to these “little vocables,”—“Inquiry,” p. 39) examination
of the use of Ty will justify our laying emphasis on the word until.
And by comparing this passage in Isaiah (chap. xxxii. 13–20) with
Ezekiel (chaps. xxxviii., xxxix.) we learn, that although the primary
or (using Horsley's term) the inchoate restoration will nationally
represent the people, or both houses—will be spread throughout the
land—will prosper as a restoration, and be increased with cattle and
much goods,-yet that the condition of Palestine, up to that time of
Gog's invasion and overthrow will be unpeopled, unfertile, unre-
covered, unbuilt, compared with its condition after that overthrow
—after the effusion of the Holy Ghost—after the mighty accession of
numbers from all parts of the world by that rapid return which the
ships of Tarshish peculiarly assist in. Lastly, Joel gives us no
indication that He who delivers Judah in the valley of decision is
Messiah ; but Isaiah enables us to establish that fact by assuring
us that the Lord who delivers is the King who reigns, and whom
all Christians know and acknowledge to be—Messiah-Jesus. But
Joel does not say in what manner his manhood as Messiah-Jesus
will be identified with his miraculous interposition as the Lord. For
this we have yet to seek; and it was reserved to another prophet to
declare it.
I shall close the chapter by calling attention to the curious predic-
tion at chap. xxxi. 9—“His princes shall be afraid of the ensign.”
At p. 321 I have shown the identity of Zechariah’s chaps. ix. and x.
with Ezekiel's prophecy of Gog and Magog, and at p. 462 the
identity of Joel's predictions with those of Zechariah. I have now
pointed out the parallelism between Joel's and those of Isaiah, and in
the next chapter I shall collate them all with others of Zechariah ;
503 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
meanwhile let us note this prediction of “the ensign.” Sennacherib's
army fled from no human ensign, nor were they smitten with any
sword of man, a fact which undoubtedly meets the spirit of Isa.
xxxi. 8, 9, and will be justified in the case of those who perish when
this prophecy is fulfilled ; for, as abundantly shown, this prophecy at
large was not fulfilled in the case of Sennacherib. The ensign here
predicted is that of Isaiah, in chap. xi. 12, and of Zechariah, in
chap. ix. 16 ; it is the gorgeous ensign of Israel rescued by a visible
Messiah; it is that manifestation of Branch in his victory, from which
the confederated armies strive to flee, and by which they will be over-
thrown at Tophet. “His feet shall stand in that day upon the
Mount of Olives.” (Zech. xiv. 4.) And because He stands there
visible to all, Antichrist is overthrown in his separate divisions—
at Tiberias, as in Ezekiel ; at Tophet-next-Mount Olives, as in
Isaiah : and probably not only at Tophet, but also at Megiddo (or
Armageddon), as in Joel ; for his van is driven towards the Dead
Sea, and his rear towards the Mediterranean; for, says Joel, “I
will remove far off from you the northern army, and will drive him
into a land barren and desolate, with his face towards the east sea,
and his hinder part towards the utmost sea”—and then, similarly to
Ezekiel—“ and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come
up, because he hath done great things.” (Joel ii. 20.)
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 507
CHAPTER XII.
“ONE LORD, AND HIS NAME ONE.”—zECH. xiv. 9.
“BEHOLD,” says Zechariah, “I will make Jerusalem a cup of
trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in
the siege both against Judah and Jerusalem.” (Chap. xii. 2.)
There seems no ambiguity in this language. The well-known
Holy City is described as in a state of siege by some people not
particularly set forth, but called generally “all the peoples round
about ; ” the plural number being used, as elsewhere (see p. 470,
suprā), to indicate their multitude. During that siege, or rather as
the result and effect of it, Jerusalem is compared to a cup, the
contents of which produce trembling to those who drink them ; a
“cup of trembling,” a well-understood scriptural figure : “Awake,
awake, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord
the cup of his fury; thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of
trembling, and wrung them out” (Isa. li. 17): where Isaiah employs
a similar expression. In the course of chapters xii. to xiv. the same
idea is frequently insisted on : “I will make Jerusalem a burdensome
stone for all people; all that burden themselves with it shall be cut
to pieces” (ver. 3); “I will make the governors of Judah like a
hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf.”
(ver. 6); “This shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite
all the people that have fought against Jerusalem” (chap. xiv. 12);
“And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem.” (Ver. 14.) It seems
clear that Zechariah foretels a time when Jerusalem shall be be-
sieged, but that such siege shall be attended with the utter discom-
fiture of the besiegers, and the corresponding triumph of Israel;-
of Israel, because the prophet terms his subject, “The burden of
the word of the Lord for Israel” (chap. xii. 1); where the word
“burden” does not necessarily involve a sentence of judgment, but
(in this place) of blessing; and “the term Israel is obviously employed
in its original acceptation as designating the whole Hebrew people.”
(See Henderson’s “Min. Proph,” p. 427.) Zechariah's subject is
508 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
of a siege of Jerusalem to issue in blessing to the whole house of
Israel.
[I.] That men of the tribe of Judah will be actual inhabitants of
Jerusalem at the time here foretold, follows from the expression at
ver. 2—“when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and
against Jerusalem.” T.T. Tºny by P2] : “yea, even against Judah
shall it be (i.e., it shall come to pass) in the siege against Jerusalem.”
Such a variation in the reading is also noted in the margin of the
English Version. But whichever reading we prefer, the fact remains
the same, approved by the Authorized Version, that very sons of
Judah will be inhabitants of Jerusalem whenever this prophecy shall
be fulfilled. To my mind, it suggests that Zechariah was taught to
express this fact with singular emphasis, because the Gracious Spirit
would intimate that the events predicted were not to be accomplished
until after it had long been improbable, and credible but to few, that
Judah nationally could ever inhabit Jerusalem. As to the various
renderings of this place, see Henderson (“Min. Proph,” p. 427),
who adds,-‘‘I consider the preposition (by) to be here used for the
purpose of conveying the idea of addition or accompaniment ; so that,
connecting Judah with Jerusalem, it represents the former, as well as
the latter, as a cup of intoxication to the invaders.”
[1..] The question at once suggests itself—Have these predictions
yet been fulfilled ? The whole history of the Jews since Zechariah's
time is well known to us. Holy Scripture, as well as Apocrypha,
Josephus, and Heathen writers, have made us familiar with that
history. Since the restoration from Babylon, to which this prophet
belonged, have the predictions which he here delivers ever been
fulfilled ? Was Jerusalem ever besieged, with such a fearful result
of overthrow to its enemies 2 The authorities above referred to
(whose accounts are epitomized for the general reader in the pages of
Rollin and Prideaux) enable us to conclude that, since Zechariah's
time, Jerusalem has never thus been besieged, nor her besiegers thus
overthrown around her. Besides the Roman, various sieges of Jeru-
salem are mentioned in the books of Josephus; and of all such sieges
those of Antiochus Epiphanes and of the Romans were far the most
memorable, and were the most fearful to the Jews. The destructive
results of the latter need only to be alluded to; but the other—viz.,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 509
that of Antiochus Epiphanes—may be shortly described in the words
of Rollin. “Antiochus, therefore, besieged the city, took it by storm,
and, during the three days that it was abandoned to the fury of the
soldiers, he caused 80,000 men to be inhumanly butchered. Forty
thousand were also taken prisoners, and the like numbers sold to the
neighbouring nations.” (Vol. v., p. 475.) On this occasion Jeru-
salem was no more “a cup of trembling,” or “a burdensome stone,”
or “a hearth of fire among the wood” to her besiegers, than at a
subsequent period, when she was utterly overthrown by the Romans.
No such siege as Zechariah predicts is anywhere recorded. Has,
then, Jerusalem ever been thus besieged and thus delivered 2 We
are constrained to believe it has never. Is the Holy Bible true?
Then Christians are compelled to admit—and Jews also—that Jeru-
salem, occupied by sons of Judah, has yet again to be besieged, and
to prove the scene of destruction to her foes. Just as we have
already seen Joel predicting in chap. ii. 1–11, and Isaiah in chaps.
xxix. to xxxiii., especially at chap. xxix. 1–8. The besiegers of
Judah at Jerusalem will pass away at an instant, suddenly, as chaff,
or “as a dream of a night vision.” (Vers. 5, 7.) Just as Isaiah
also predicts of Jerusalem —“Therefore hear now this, thou
afflicted, and drunken, but not with wine : thus saith thy Lord the
Lord, and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold,
I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, even the dregs
of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again : but I will
put it into the hand of them that afflict thee; which have said to thy
soul, Bow down, that we may go over : and thou hast laid thy body
as the ground, and as the street, to them that went over.” (Chap. li.
21—23.) Where Isaiah predicts the same event as Zechariah.
[2] Zechariah does not enable us to determine the times and the
seasons “which the Father hath put in his own power” (Acts i. 7),
but he so carefully sustains his allusions to the time when the predic-
tions of chaps. xii. to xiv. shall be accomplished, that we can scarcely
doubt but that, all through these three extraordinary chapters, he had
one time, or Pi", or series of events—one uninterrupted consecution
of events, continually upon his mind. He commences at chap. xii. 3.
“And in that day”—viz., the day of Jerusalem's being besieged, and
being made a “cup of trembling; ” and in the course of two chapters,
viz., xii. and xiii., consisting only of twenty-three verses, he repeats
510 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
the expression no fewer than nine times—“In that day will I make
Jerusalem a burdensome stone” (chap. xii. 3); “In that day I will
smite every horse with astonishment” (ver. 4); “In that day the
governors of Judah shall be like a hearth of fire" (ver. 6); “In that
day the Lord shall defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (ver. 8);
“In that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against
Jerusalem” (ver. 9); “In that day there shall be a great mourning
in Jerusalem” (ver. 11); “In that day there shall be a fountain
opened to the house of David” (chap. xiii. 1); “In that day the
people shall be ashamed every one of his vision.” (Ver. 4.) The
fourteenth chapter I shall consider separately: but taking these
extracts alone, the phrase shrin Fiº, in that day is used in a
connexion which plainly intimates an unbroken series of incidents
in which Judah and Jerusalem and their enemies are the place and
the persons immediately concerned. The relative force of this phrase
I believe to be undeniable from Holy Scripture, as explained at
p. 450, suprā; notwithstanding, Lowth tells us, “this phrase often
denotes in Isaiah not the same time with that which was last
mentioned, but an extraordinary season, remarkable for some signal
events of Providence,” on Isa. iv. 2 (a passage by no means favourable
to his observation, since Fi there may be understood of the Christian
dispensation); but, however, its relative and consecutive force in the
chapters of Zechariah before us is not likely to be disputed : his
whole context is, by the force of this very expression, kept carefully
together, and no break, no hiatus, can be detected in the prophetical
narrative, which is briefly this :—“When Jerusalem is besieged,
then, in that day, God will make her a burdensome stone to the
besiegers; every horse shall be smitten with astonishment, and his
rider with madness. He will make the governors of Judah like a
torch of fire in a sheaf, and they shall burn up the besiegers; for God
shall defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and destroy all the nations
that come against her. He will pour in that day the spirit of grace
and of supplication upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, whom He
thus defends; and they shall mourn as in sorrow for an only son ; that
mourning in Jerusalem shall be great, as when they mourned at ,
Megiddo for Jesus (Josiah) their king; the very land shall mourn;
every family apart, and their wives apart. And in that same day there
shall be thrown open to these mourning people, to the house of
David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, a fountain in which to wash
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 511
away their sins. And the Lord will cut off in that same day the
names of all idols out of their land ; and will cause the false prophets
and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land; and false teachers shall
no more be found among the people of Judah.”
This is precisely the order of Zechariah's predictions, all designated
as taking place in that day; viz., that day, that one day, that same
day, whereof I, Zechariah, am prophesying ; where it seems scarcely
possible to invent a doubt that the word Riº day imports that period
of time occupied by such events, in immediate and not protracted
consecution. So that whatever limit human reason is compelled to
assign to the events and duration of a siege of any, even the strongest,
fortified city, that limit must be the outmost limit of the day or
period of time here spoken of. It may be shorter; but there is
nothing in the prophet's language to justify the idea of its protraction.
“That day” commences with the siege of Jerusalem, and ends with
the overthrow of the besiegers, the outpouring of the Holy Ghost,
and consequent conversion of Judah at Jerusalem. So Lowth,
notwithstanding his remarks just quoted on Isa. iv. 2, and again
referred to here, admits the identity and continuousness of the day
or Pi in these chapters (xii. to xiv.); thus—“The same expression,
in that day, is repeated at vers. 4, 6, 9, 11 ; chap. xiii. 1, 2, 4 ; and
chap. xiv. 6, 8, 20. The phrase signifies, in the prophets, an extra-
ordinary season, remarkable for some signal events of Providence.”
(See note, Isa. iv. 2.) The idea attached here to Zechariah's use of
Piº, as implying an unbroken connected series of events (whether
more or less protracted), gains considerable force by reference to its
origin in Gen. i. “And the evening and the morning were the
first F :” viz., a period of time between fixed limits, characterized
by one connected and assimilated course of operations.
If such observations be just, we have undoubted authority for two
conclusions: 1. That a siege of Jerusalem has yet to take place,
to be followed by the overthrow of the besiegers, and by the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the people at Jerusalem ;
and, 2, . That the consequence of such gift of the Holy Spirit will be
Judah’s looking unto Jesus with repentance for the sins of their
nation who pierced Him; and that, therefore, Judah's national repent-
ance will be consummated at Jerusalem after the restoration, in the
very midst of deliverance from besieging enemies.
[3] For the prophet, in the course of his historical predictions,
512 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
delivers one which limits the time of his prophecy undeniably to those
of Christianity. “In that day” (viz., the day of the siege of Jeru-
salem and of the victory of the Jews)—“And it shall come to pass
in that day that I will seek to destroy all nations that come against
Jerusalem ; and I will pour out upon the house of David, and the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplication ; and
they shall look upon me whom they have pierced ; and they shall
mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in
bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”
(Vers. 9, 10.) Where the destruction of Jerusalem's besiegers, the
outpouring of the spirit of supplication, and the mourning for Jesus
—i.e., their conversion (specified as national: “whom they have
pierced")—are carefully made synchronical. And the prophet,
especially prophesying for Judah, but extending the results of his
prediction particularly to all Israel (chap. xii. 1), makes the national
conversion of Israel the effect of the Spirit's influence, given to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem in the very moment of Judah’s deliverance
from the siege of Jerusalem. So Lowth, at the commencement of
chap. xii. : “The former part of this chapter, and several passages in
the fourteenth, relate to an invasion made upon the inhabitants of
Judah and Jerusalem in the latter times of the world, probably after
their return to, and settlement in, their own land, which is often
spoken of by the prophets.” Similarly Henderson (“Min, Proph,”
pp. 426–444.)
[II.] Let us note the consequences which follow. It seems
abundantly clear that, since the siege is to be “against Judah and
Jerusalem,” the sons of Judah will have previously returned, and
become independent occupiers of that city ; whence it is clear they
have yet again to be restored; and, even if restored in subjugation
to others, to become subsequently independent in that restoration.
Accordingly, we find Zechariah, having indirectly asserted that resto-
ration, intimating certain particulars of it far more minute than any we
have yet had to consider, and enabling us satisfactorily to demonstrate
the nationality of the restoration previous to conversion; and, by
consequence, the nationality of that conversion itself. For,
[1..] The inhabitants during Jerusalem's siege, yet to take place,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 513
will be of the tribe of Judah, since that siege is against Judah and
Jerusalem : since also He says, “In that day I will open mine eyes
upon the house of Judah.” (Wer. 4.) At least it will be a housely
restoration. And this restored “house of Judah” will be not only
independent in their possession of the Holy City, and resolved to hold
it against all assailants, but independent also in the possession and
elevation of their own rightful governors or chiefs: “And the
governors of Judah shall say in their heart” (ver. 5); “I will make
the governors of Judah like a hearth,” &c., &c.; so that restored
Judah will hold Jerusalem under governors or chieftains ("Eºs) from
among themselves ; sons of Judah, chieftains of the house of Judah ;
and more than that, sons of David, chieftains of the house of Judah; for,
as to the day which Zechariah foretels, the house of David is specified
at vers. 7, 8, 10, and 12 of chap. xii., and chap. xiii. 1. This same
“house of David" thus specified in five different places “at that
day" is described as contrasted with, and joined to, the inhabitant of
Jerusalem ’’ and also “the tents of Judah ; ” as receiving the spirit
of grace and supplication, and looking upon Jesus who was pierced; as
“mourning apart" from other inhabitants of Jerusalem; and also as
partaking of the benefit of the fountain opened “for sin and unclean-
ness.” Hence the “house of David’’ must mean literal sons of literal
David being converted to Christ, repentant, and cleansed from sin;
and we are reduced to the alternative, either of supposing that “in
that day” the house of David being thus known and living at Jeru-
salem, will not be permitted to govern the restored people of Judah,
or else that the chieftains or governors of Judah, mentioned at vers.
5 and 6, will be of this very house of David. I conclude that the
latter will be the case, that “in that day” the governors of Jerusa-
lem saying in their heart, when they resolved to stand the siege, “The
inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the Lord of hosts
their God” (ver. 5); are of the literal house of David; and that this
is what Zechariah meant when he said, “In that day shall the Lord
defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem ; and he that is feeble among
them shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as
the angel of the Lord before them.” (Ver, 8.) As God (Eriºsº),
where I understand the phrase to indicate the great prowess which
will be imparted to the governors of Judah “in that day,” under the
immediate blessing of the Almighty. The feeble among them shall be
mighty in battle as the son of Jesse, and the house of David, then
L. L.
514 Notes on THE RESTORATION
directing them, shall be gifted with an address and courage as if
immediately and supernaturally derived from God himself. “Ye
shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. iii. 5): Eriºsº, aS
though having attained to Divine knowledge. “The house of David
shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them :” (="ribs2) 3S
though gifted with superhuman, with Divine strength. In fact,
I carry on the idea contained in the former part of the same ver, 8,
which Lowth thus paraphrases: “He shall inspire those within the
city with unusual courage, so that the feeblest among them shall do
as great exploits as David of old.” “Coram hostibus suis, tyrannis
scilicet intrepido animo usquè ad mortem occurrentes.” (Munster.)
Consistency of interpretation forces us to believe that “house of
David,” in ver. 8, must be taken literally, and not applied to the Lord
Jesus himself, nor in any manner spirited away : “the house of
David” is among the inhabitants of Jerusalem at that day; “the house
of David” mourns apart from other inhabitants of Jerusalem ; “the
house of David” receives the spirit of grace and supplication ; hence
the same, i.e., the literal “house of David;” this same house of David
destined to mourn, repent, and be converted; is made (Eriºsº)
mighty as if with Divine strength at the head of the inhabitants of
Jerusalem. Similarly Calvin : “The prophet, then, does opportunely
declare that the royal house would be most eminent, as though all the
men belonging to it were angels.” Zechariah's prediction of these
governors from the house of David is parallel to Jeremiah's in chap.
xxx. 21, and xxxiii. 26, where the seed of David are foretold to
become “rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (See
p. 104, suprā.) -
Here, I maintain, we have two chief respects in which Zechariah
enables us, as intimated at p. 394, suprā, to mark the nationality of the
coming restoration prior to conversion. The nationality (we observed
at p. 248) does not, cannot depend on numbers any more than the
housely restoration of the two from Babylon depended upon their
numbers, which we know it did not. Nationality does not depend upon
numbers, but upon other accidents, e.g., an independent recognition
by other people, an assertion of an independent existence on the part
of a people, the possession of an independent place and organization
for government, and especially the resolution to maintain and contend
for this independent existence against assailants. These character-
istics of nationality Zechariah carefully attributes to restored Judah,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 515
for he represents them under the chieftainship of their rightful
governors of David's house, in independent possession of Jerusalem,
and resolved to maintain it. It will be objected that he speaks only
of Judah, viz., of the two. True ; but Zech. ix. and x., and Ezek.
xxxviii., xxxix., being proved identical with these chaps. xii-xiv.
(as they will be) enable us to conclude that with Judah will be
associated some of the house of Ephraim, enough to constitute the
national representation of all, who will be in possession of all the land
when invaded by Gog, while the fighting takes place chiefly or
entirely in Jerusalem in the fact of its being besieged and defended,
under the leadership of Judah and the house of David. This is
precisely what we said before ; precedence in restoration and con-
version of some sort belongs to Judah, p. 44, suprā; Judah the bow,
Ephraim the arrow, p. 301 ; precedence in government, superiority
in numbers, and the conversion taking place at Jerusalem, in the
possession (as Zechariah distinctly states) of Judah, precedence in
conversion also, which dates from that day at Jerusalem, and irradiates
Palestine and the world.
[2.] But the “house of David" being thus separately known in
that day, the prophet gives us reason to anticipate that even the first
restoration, or (as Bishop Horsley termed it) “the inchoate restora-
tion,” will be capable of contradistinction by its families. And in
confirming this idea the prophet supplies us with another and most
important proof of the nationality of this inchoate restoration.
Speaking of the public repentance at Jerusalem which is to follow the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, he says, “And the land shall mourn;
every family apart ; the family of the house of David apart, and their
wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their
wives apart ; the family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives
apart ; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart ; all the
families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.”
(Chap. xii. 12–14.) Where Nathan of the house of David is classed
with David, and Shimei of the house of Levi is classed with Levi ;
Zechariah, like Moses in Numb. iii. 21, using the phrase
"yptºrſ nºb, the family of the Shimeites. The inference is
plain—if David be literal in the prophecy, then Levi is literal; and
not only is the house of David to be known “in that day,” but the
house of Levi also ; and restored Judah is thus represented by
L L 2
516 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Zechariah in absolute and independent possession of Jerusalem, and
determined to maintain it; possessed also of independent government
in the rightful governorship of the house of David, in possession also,
in a corresponding sense, of the rightful representatives of the house
of Levi ; what further marks of nationality can the restored people
require 2 This prediction again corresponds to that in Jerem. xxxiii.,
already referred to.
But if these families apart, then every family apart ; “all the
families that remain * literally apart. And the restoration known by
families must needs also be distinguishable into tribes. So that we are
prepared to believe that not only the inchoate, but also the completed
restoration will be contradistinguished into tribes. Refer to Dr.
Henderson’s “Minor Proph,” p. 431, from whom I extract the
following:—“To show that all will be the subjects of it, (viz., the
penitential mourning,) the prophet begins with the descendants of
David, and then proceeds to those of the priests, on account of the
influence which their example would have on the rest of the people.”
And (I would add), to mark the nationality of this restoration before
conversion. No wonder that Joel predicts affirmatively, “Let the
priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between the porch and the
altar”—prophesying of these times. w
[3] The prophet distinctly specifies Jerusalem as the very same
city known and renowned of old. “Jerusalem shall be inhabited
again in her own place, even in Jerusalem” (ver. 6); corresponding
to Jeremiah's assurance, “The city shall be builded upon her own
heap, and the palace shall remain after the manner thereof.” (Chap.
xxx. 18.) Each prophet by his distinctness precluding the possibility
of a mere figurative interpretation, and asserting that the very same
city, upon the very same hills, that witnessed the royal splendour of
David and Solomon, as well as the bitter pains and death of Messiah,
shall also be the scene of his glorious appearing. This is the
Jerusalem whose inhabitants the Lord will defend in that day. But
Zechariah also intimates that the country surrounding Jerusalem will,
in the day when his prophecy shall be fulfilled, be inhabited by Jews
in other and meaner residences; and that the miraculous deliverance
which God will work for them will commence outside the walls of the
city. “The Lord also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory
of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem
AND conversion of THE JEws. 517
do not magnify themselves against Judah.” (Ver, 7.) Here the
“inhabitants of Jerusalem" are clearly distinguished from “the tents
of Judah ; ” so that while “ the house of David’’ and “the inhabitants
of Jerusalem” indicate those within the walls, “the tents of Judah”
must be taken to mean the people of Judah outside the walls; and
the salvation spoken of is the destruction which the Most High will
effect of the people gathered together to besiege that holy city. The
scene thus depicted appears to be that of the united tribes of Judah
and Benjamin restored to the possession of Jerusalem and her adjacent
parts, but assailed by a mighty force that succeeds in investing the
Holy City and in seizing the adjoining country. This hostile power is
to be wonderfully overthrown, and that overthrow is to commence in
some suburb or adjacent territory of Jerusalem : the prophet stating
the reason for this to be that the governors and people of Jerusalem
may know that no precedence in God's favouris shown to them above the
rest of their brethren the sons of Judah. Grotius and Kimchi inform
us, that “tents of Judah” mean the towns and villages of Judah: and,
says Scott, “These verses further confirm the supposition that the
grand accomplishment of the prophecy is yet future, and that it
relates to the times when Israel shall be converted and restored to
their own land. . . . . The conversion of the nation will begin among
the more obscure Jews.” This last observation is true, inasmuch as
the miraculous deliverance from the enemy is the final cause of the
conversion ; and it comes to the same thing whether we take the word
save in a literal or spiritual sense ; for the literal deliverance is the
cause of the spiritual, and synchronical with it. Only Scott speaks
vaguely of the conversion and restoration, and fails to notice that
Zechariah represents the Jews as being at the time in their own land;
so that, according to his own admission, the conversion commences
with the more obscure Jews after the restoration: “The inhabitants
of the country being more exposed to the evils of the war than those
in the fortified city, shall be the first to experience the Divine help,”
&c., &c. (Henderson, “Minor Proph,” p. 428.)
The supernatural character of the deliverance predicted is abund-
antly intimated. “I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling ; ”
“I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone;” “I will smite every
horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness;” “I will open
mine eyes upon the house of Judah; ” “I will make the governors of
Judah a hearth of fire ; ” “The Lord shall save the tents of Judah
first ; ” “ The Lord shall defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; ” “I
518 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
will seek to destroy.” A deliverance thus emphatically predicted as
immediately from the Lord must surely be by supernatural interpo-
sition of Providence. A particular in which Zechariah's present
prophecy agrees with that already considered in chap. vii., “Against
thy sons, O Greece;” agrees also with Ezekiel's Gog and Magog ;
and the destruction of Joel's “multitudes, multitudes;” agrees also
with the destruction of Israel’s “Assyrian" in Tophet, with which we
purpose specially to collate it.
[III.] Indeed, we can scarcely fail to have noticed the several
coincidences of Zechariah's present prophecy with that delivered in
his chaps, ix. and x., as previously considered. Then we observed that
probably Jerusalem was the place in whose very streets the contest
described would take place ; here we are distinctly told that Jerusalem,
on her ancient site, will certainly be besieged. Then we noticed that
the deliverance of the Jews from their enemies would be supernatural ;
here the same fact is constantly insisted on. Two other coincidences
are extremely peculiar. In Zechariah, chap. x., it was plainly stated
that the enemy overthrown would have a great force in cavalry; “the
riders on horses shall be confounded:” here the same singular fact is
predicted, “I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider
with madness.” Lowth, noticing this fact, interprets it of the
Turkish cavalry, but he had no more reason to assign the predictions
to Turkish cavalry than we have for giving them to the cavalry of
the Don, nor, indeed, so much. But, whichever we take, that cavalry
will be from the sons of “Togarmah.” (See p. 355, suprá.) This
is the first of the two peculiar coincidences we would have noticed ;
the next is, the parallel manner in which the intervention of
Providence is foretold in both prophecies. Thus, in chap. ix.,
“The Lord shall be seen over them ; the Lord of Hosts shall
defend them ; the Lord their God shall save them ;” three par-
ticulars paralleled in chap. xii. :—“I will open mine eyes upon the
house of Judah ; the Lord shall defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem;
the Lord shall save the tents of Judah first.” There seems little
room for doubting that the same course of events is alluded to in the
prophet's chaps. ix., x., xii., xiii., of which we shall presently show
chap. xiv. to be a continuation. This conclusion is strengthened by
the fact that Zechariah foretels the conversion of the Jews to Christi-

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 519
anity as immediately succeeding the deliverance predicted on each
occasion. This was proved, as regards chaps. ix. and x., at p. 325,
supra; we proceed to show it in reference to chaps. xii. and xiii.
[1..] Let the context, chap. xii. 9 to chap. xiii. 2, be read. “It
shall come to pass in that day.” What shall come to pass 2 1. God
will seek to destroy the nations that come against Jerusalem. 2. He
will pour out upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace
and supplication. 3. They shall look upon Jesus, whom they pierced.
4. They shall mourn for Jesus as for an only son. Then four events
shall come to pass in that day, that one day, that Tº Riº, precisely
in the order in which Zechariah places them. This makes the out-
pouring of the Spirit of grace, and consequent repentance of Judah,
and their recognition of Messiah, whom they pierced, synchronical
with the overthrow of their enemies at Jerusalem. This I believe to
be the true force of the passage, confirmed particularly in chap. xiv.
It is the grand catastrophe of the siege ; it is the signal deliverance
and victory of the Jews in a temporal and spiritual sense ; it is the
visible appearance of Messiah, on which they look ; the epiphany of
the Branch before restored Judah in the Holy Land, according to
Zech., chaps. iii. and vi. : and it follows that, since the restoration of
the Jews must have preceded the siege of “Judah and Jerusalem "
here foretold, their conversion to Christianity, or looking with
mourning upon Jesus, whom they pierced, must be subsequent to the
restoration ; which restoration, as explained at p. 514, Zechariah
specifically describes as national, by representing Judah in independent
possession of Jerusalem, under rightful governors of David's house,
associated with the lawful priesthood of Levi. I understand Zecha-
riah to declare that the conversion of Israel, nationally, will com-
mence at Jerusalem with the tribe of Judah, upon occasion of his
miraculous deliverance from an armed host yet to besiege him in his
holy city; and if we had only Zech. xii.-xiv. to guide us, we should
be compelled to conclude that, whenever this shall happen, only
Judah will be within the Holy Land, i.e., restored, although the
effects of the events are extended to all Israel also, chap. xii. 1. But
we are not left to Zech. xii., xiii., xiv., only, but chaps. ix. and x.
have already taught that Ephraim is associated with Judah in these
events, this siege and this conversion ; and Ezek. xxxviii. 88 assures
us that when they happen, Judah and Israel together, viz., competent
representation of both houses, will be in possession of the Holy Land;
520 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Zechariah now adding (chap. xii. 14) these great facts, that the
government will have been independently constituted at Jerusalem,
under sons of the royal family of David. So that the restoration,
before they look on Him whom they pierced, comprises both houses,
under David's governorship, joined with the lawful priesthood, at
Jerusalem, and is therefore national, a feature which mere numbers
never could impart to it. Thus Mr. Bickersteth :—“Conceive the
state of mind of this remnant on the veil being removed, and their
beholding Christ, with the marks of the wounds in his body, appearing
visibly as their deliverer to extricate them from their last bitter
trouble. When all hope is gone, when half of their city is already
captured, then they see Jesus of Nazareth come as their deliverer,
and stand on Mount Olivet. They recal all their blasphemies of his
name for 1,800 years, his crucifixion, his rejection, their hatred and
scorn, their persevering contempt and blasphemy, through so many
generations, against their own long-desired King and deliverer. Oh!
what remorse and bitter grief fills every bosom How could we have
been so blind l How could we have sinned against such a meek,
tender, mighty, and gracious King and Saviour ! This is perhaps
the deepest sorrow for sin that will ever agonize the human heart.”
(“Rest. of Jews,” p. 158.)
[1..] The mode of conversion, as here alluded to by Mr. Bickersteth,
is derivable, in part, from chap. xii. 10, but also from chap. xiv. 4,
not yet touched upon : but surely nobody can doubt that conversion,
the conversion of the people in a mass to Christianity, is predicted
here. If there were any ambiguity in the expression, “I will pour
out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the spirit of grace and supplication,” when the times to which Zecha-
riah is referred to are considered, what else than conversion to
Christianity can be meant by this—“They shall look upon me whom
they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth
for his only son ; and shall be in bitterness for Him as one that is in
bitterness for his first-born ?” St. John, as we know, alludes to this
passage in his chap. xix. 37, but his object was to record that the
piercing here foretold was literally, and most remarkably, fulfilled ; he
gives us one out of many inspired proofs to show the justice of the
principle maintained by all those who would expound prophecy as
literally as possible ; but St. John's object was not to intimate that
this whole prophecy was then fulfilled. Clearly that could not have
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 521
been his meaning, for the prophecy itself would then contradict his
statement, because Zechariah foretels that, as the Jews look upon Him
who was pierced, they will, at the very time, mourn and weep for
Him as for an only son, which, in Pilate's days, they did not.
Zechariah foretels the repentance of the Jews nationally; his very
language requires this ; nationally, as those who, though they never
pierced Him themselves, are the real national representatives of those
who did : he foretels this national repentance and mourning at a
certain day, or period of time, which period of time, as we have
shown, cannot yet have commenced, for it is a period of siege and
warfare, which ends in triumph to the Jews.
This variation in St. John's quotation from the words of Zechariah
is not unlike that of St. Peter's quotation, in Acts ii. 19, from the
words of Joel, nor unlike that again of St. Matthew's departure, in chap.
xxvii. 7–10 of his Gospel, from Zech. xi. 12, 13, upon which Dr.
Henderson's note should be consulted (“Min. Proph.,” p. 423). Each
sacred writer gave the spirit of his prophet, as necessary to the
immediate purpose before him ; but his object was not a verbal quota-
tion of his author. But, whether we read “they shall look upon me
whom they pierced,” or, as St. John has it in chap. xix. 37, “they
shall look on Him whom they pierced,” matters not to our present
subject ; the meaning in either case is plain—“They shall look upon
Jesus whom they pierced, and mourn,” &c., &c. Conversion to
Christianity must be implied. (See Henderson’s “Min. Proph,” p.431.)
There is no other conclusion consistent with reason than that the
prophet foretels in this place the conversion to Christianity of the
Jews, gathered together as Jews at Jerusalem, undergoing a siege in
that city in their own independent occupation, defended by themselves,
under governors of the house of David ; as Jeremiah, so far as
respects these governors, had similarly declared at chaps. xxx. 21,
and xxxiii. 26 (see p. 104, suprā); the country around Jerusalem
being at that time occupied by the restored tribe of Judah ; but then
for the present again oppressed by an invading army up to that moment
successful in their attack upon the Holy Land. Calvin perceived the
force of this passage, but, not believing in a national future for
Israel, falls to distorting it with his peculiar views —“I therefore
prefer to take this simple view of what is here said, that the Jews,
after having despised Christ, would at length acknowledge Him to be
a precious and valuable treasure, the contempt of whom deserved the
vengeance of God. . . . . . . Were any to object that the death of
522 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Christ was not accompanied with tears and mourning, I answer that
the penitence of believers only is here described, for we know that a
few only of the whole people were converted to God; but it is not to be
wondered at that the prophet speaks generally of the whole nation,
though he referred only to the elect of God, and a small remnant,
for he regarded those few who repented as the whole race of
Abraham ” -
[2] The expression Bºrº III ITT the spirit of grace and
supplications, is peculiarly significant of conversion, and deserves
peculiar attention. The two modes of interpretation may be thus
stated, in the words of the Editor of Calvin’s “Minor Prophets:”—
“The two words are thus expressed by the Septuagint, Tveilpa
xáptros kai čuktippot, the spirit of grace and commiseration. For the
last word, Jerome, Drusius, and Piscator, have deprecationum—of
entreaties. Both these authors have “A Spirit,” &c., &c., as though
an impulse, or disposition, is meant of the Spirit, as Grotius under-
stood the expression ; but Spirit here signifies the same as Spirit in
Joel ii. 28, “I will pour out my Spirit,” &c., &c., and is called the
Spirit of grace and entreaties, or supplications, because He, the
Divine Spirit, is the author of them. Renewing grace and sincere
entreaties come from the Spirit. The latter word, derived from a
reduplicate verb, signifies more than supplications; it means earnest
supplications or entreaties.” (Zechar. Calv. Trans. Soc. 1849.)
Upon which I would observe that it signifies not to our present
purpose which interpretation we adopt. One represents the Deity as
the subject of the emotions “grace and commiserations; ” the other
makes Judah the subject of the emotions “grace and supplications.”
It comes to the same thing in the end; for if the Most High pour out
his favour and commiseration upon Judah, it will be to reconcile them
to himself, which, in these days, means, to convert them to Christi-
anity. On the other hand, if He give them the Spirit to lead them
to seek Him by “supplications,” those supplications will issue in their
conversion. Either mode of interpretation predicts the conversion of
restored Judah in mass; but I prefer the second, because it has the
authority of Lee, Gesenius, and Henderson. Gesenius illustrates it
by ºxº biº Pºº hear the voice of my supplications, and refers to
Ps. xxviii. 2–6, xxxi. 23, czvi. 1, czzx. 2, czl. 7 ; 2 Chron. vi. 21 ;
Jerem. iii. 21, xxxi. 9; Dan, ix. 3, 17, 18, 23 ; and Zech. xii. 10.
(See “Thesaurus” sub voce.) In which rendering Lee fully concurs.
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS, 523
~ --& re- -
“Prayers for favour or mercy” is his interpretation. Also Henderson,
“Min. Proph,” p. 429, who adds accordingly:-
“We have here a clear and definite prophecy of the future conver-
sion of the Jews in consequence of a special and extraordinary out-
pouring of the influence of the Holy Spirit. Nothing that has
hitherto taken place in the history of that people can be regarded as
in any degree answering to the description here furnished, not even
the numerous conversions that accompanied the Apostolic preaching
on the day of Pentecost, and subsequently as narrated in the Acts.”
For this observation we are indebted to the high authority of Dr.
Henderson, and I would submit that the context plainly assures us that
this outpouring of the Holy Spirit will take place at Jerusalem upon
Judah there assembled ; so that, resulting as it does in Judah’s con-
version, such conversion will be after the restoration. &
[3] And this same conversion is similarly foretold at chap. xiii. 1:—
“In that day”—viz., the day of Jerusalem's siege and assault, and
deliverance, for no other day is mentioned by Zechariah (see p. 510,
suprā)—“In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of
David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for unclean-
ness.” No comment is necessary; “the blood of Jesus Christ, his
Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” (1 John i. 7.) It is only desirable
to remark that this fountain shall be opened for the people, at Jeru-
salem, in a body, “at that day,” and not before; one day, or period of
time, alone having been mentioned by Zechariah—for the house of
David, and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Where the specific designation
of the house of David shows that, in a prophecy not yet fulfilled,
David's literal sons are contemplated, and also prevents us from any
vague application of the name Jerusalem to “the Church.” The
verse, therefore, predicts literally Judah’s conversion to Christ, the
fountain, after their approaching restoration, and subsequent tribula-
tion at Jerusalem.
Says Scott :—“In that day mentioned at the close of the foregoing
chapter.” At the close of which same chapter, Archbishop Newcome
observes, in his “Minor Prophets,” “God's special interposition on
behalf of Judah and Jerusalem, after their future restoration, having
been foretold, the prophet proceeds to foretel their conversion to
Christianity.”
[4] In treating of several prophecies connected with the restora-
524. NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
tion and conversion of the Jews, I have on former occasions alluded
to the predictions of purgation from idolatry which characterize
several of them, e.g., Isaiah xxxi. 7, “In that day (viz., when the
Assyrian is destroyed in Tophet) every man shall cast away his idols,”
&c., &c.; Ezek. xi. 18, “They shall come thither (viz., to the land
of Israel), and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof,
and all the abominations thereof from thence ; ” also chap. xxxvi. 25,
“From all your filthiness and from all your idols I will cleanse you;”
and chap. xxxvii. 23, “Neither shall they defile themselves any more
with their idols, nor with their detestable things,” &c., &c. Such
predictions, which relate undoubtedly to times yet to come, are
peculiar, and suggest the inquiry, in what sense the word idols is to
be taken at a time when Israel, in fulfilment of especial predictions,
as at Hos. ii. 17, and iii. 3, is known to be free from idolatry in the
ordinary import of the term * Zechariah, in the chapters before us, has
a corresponding passage, viz., chap. xiii. 2–6, the severe and uncom-
promising manner in which restored and converted Israel cleanses his
land and nation from the permission of any spiritual impurities, “I
will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no
more be remembered; and I will also cause the prophets and the
wnclean spirit to pass out of the land.” Here, in a prophecy certainly
unfulfilled, the purgation of the Jews and their land from spiritual
impurity or false doctrine is described under the character of deliver-
ance from idolatry. This is precisely the sense in which we
previously suggested (see p. 34, suprā) that these passages were
to be taken in connexion with the conversion of Israel, viz., that
not idolatry in the ordinary sense is to be understood, for Israel will
then, as now, be free from that; but idolatry in St. John's sense at
1 John v. 21, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols,” viz., that
idolatry which, whether in Judaism, Romanism, Socinianism, Hellen-
ism, consists either in denying or attempting to eclipse the Divine
glory of the Incarnate Redeemer. Micah has a prophecy for the
remnant of Israel yet to be proved as a lion among apostate Gentiles
“in that day” which is peculiarly parallel : “And I will cut off
witchcrafts out of thine hand, and thou shalt have no more sooth-
sayers; thy graven images also will I cut off, and thy standing
images out of the midst of thee; and thou shalt no more worship the
work of thine hands. And I will pluck up thy groves out of the
midst of thee; so I will destroy thy cities. And I will eacecute
vengeance in anger and fury upon the heathen such as they have not
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS, 525
'heard.” (Micah v. 8–15.) All the known abominations of back-
slidden Israel are used in prophecy to typify his final purgation and
recovery at that day, when “the remnant of Jacob " is delivered from
the apostate Churches by the vengeance which Messiah executes.
When Sodom is recovered (Ezek. xvi.), Aholah and Aholibah
(Ezek Kxiii.), Samaria and Jerusalem, are recovered also. (Ezek.
xvi. 53.) So Dr. Henderson : “As no idolatry has existed among
the Jews since their return from Babylon, and it is in the highest
degree improbable that they will ever fall into it again, YTS. should
not be rendered, as in our common version, the land, but the earth ;
so that this and the following verses describe the total extinction of
that horrible evil, and all the other systems of superstition and false
religion which now impose upon the human family, together with those
who teach and defend them ; ” of which the latter observation is
exactly to our purpose; but the remarks already made upon this and
kindred passages may perhaps have suggested the sense in which the
Jews and their land are included in this purgation.
And, indeed, it will take place within their land; for, as abundantly
shown in various places, the signal for Israel's conversion is the
overthrow of armies of the great apostasies at Jerusalem. To dwell
at length upon the particular prediction, “I will cause the prophets
and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land,” might lead to a
subject connected with the conversion of Israel, which I have carefully
avoided as much as possible. But reference to Rev. xvi. 12–14 may
suggest its character, where, in a word, the drying up of Euphrates
and the gathering together of the foes of Israel by the three unclean
spirits proceeding from the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet,
appear justly taken to describe the overthrow of the Mahommedan
power, and of the armies of the great apostasies gathered together
within the Holy Land. From that time all idols, unclean spirits, and
false prophets are purged away, not only from the earth, but from the
land of Judah, by a purgation which commences at Jerusalem and
converts the Jews. I perceive that Dr. Henderson, on Tºlºſſ ſºn,
justifies “especially” this reference to Rev. xvi. 16. And Lowth says,
“Or else we may understand it of the putting down of that idolatry
now practised in Judea both by the Greek and Latin Christians.” It
is encouraging to find that at least one commentator has anticipated
that another Church besides that of Rome is concerned in the events
which accompany the restoration and conversion of Israel. And see
also Mr. Faber’s “Restoration of Israel,” vol. ii., p. 99.
526 NOTES ON THE : RESTORATION
[5.] On the prediction, chap. xiii. 7–10, completing this part of
the prophecy, I shall only observe that, predicting the death of
Messiah, and the scattering of Israel, it also foretels the constant
preservation of the remnant, to be tried, and refined, and again.
reconciled to God by spiritual marriage to Messiah, as at Hosea i. 10;
their condition, when Lo-ammi and Lo-ruhamah, being reversed.
(Compare Hos. ii. 21–23.) But Mr. Faber singularly mistook this
passage of “The Antichristian Confederacy” (see “Rest. of Jews,”
vol. ii., p. 89); and, having done so, concluded that Ezekiel's Gog and
Magog could not be the same as the antichristian confederacy, because
of that a sixth part only is spared (Ezek. xxxix. 2); of this a third,
as he supposed from Zech. xiii. 8. But see Henderson’s “Min.
Proph.,” p. 435.
[IV.] “Behold, the day of the Lord cometh.” Such is the
beginning of Zech. xiv. Is the day thus spoken of the same as that
of chaps. xii. and xiii., or another ? For if it be the same, we have a
right to take chap. xiv. in elucidation of those which precede it ; and,
indeed, it may be necessary for their right understanding to do so.
Let us note, then, the identity of these days; for,
[1..] If the characteristics of the days in chaps. xii. and xiv., as given
by Zechariah, be found singularly coincident, we can scarcely reject
the conclusion that the day of each chapter is the same, for each
chapter contains manifestly prophecy unfulfilled even up to the
present day. The characteristics of the day of the Lord in chap. xiv.
are these :—1. Jerusalem is besieged. (Wer. 2.) 2. The Lord
miraculously interposes. (Wer. 3.) 3. Judah also fights at Jerusa-
lem. (Wer. 14.) 4. These events are followed by the establishment
universally of the one true religion. (Ver, 9.) 5. And Jerusalem
remains safely inhabited. (Ver. 11.) Now these are precisely
the events of the day in chaps. xii. and xiii. :—l. Jerusalem is
besieged when in possession of Jews. (Wer. 2.) 2. The Lord
miraculously interposes against the besiegers. (Vers. 6–8.) 3. But
Judah himself fights. (Ibid.) 4. These events are followed by the
national conversion of the Jews, and the overthrow of all idolatries and
apostasies. (Chap. xii. 9–14; and xiii. 2–6.) 5. And Jerusalem
remains safely inhabited by a Christian people. Now, why should
AND conversion of THE Jews. 527
we reject or refuse fair force to this identity in the predictions of these
chapters ? Does the context give any reason for so doing? Not at
all so; on the contrary, I believe it will be found that no different
days can be assigned to these chapters without positive violation to
the text. Thus Dr. Henderson (whose annotations on these chapters
are so valuable), in declining to recognise the identity of the days, is
compelled abruptly to introduce fresh time at chap. xiii. 7, and as
abruptly to resort to the time first expressed in chap. xii. when he gets
to chap. xiv. 7. But, I submit, that nothing is more certain than the
continuity of the entire chap. xiv. And I ask the reader to observe
that Zechariah having predicted the siege of Jerusalem at vers. 1, 2,
instantly commences describing the result of that siege and conse-
quences which follow ; verse after verse, from ver. 1, being carefully
connected with its preceding by as far as ver. 18, with the solitary
exception of ver. 10. I cannot conceive how the context could have
been more clearly sustained in the unity of its time ; and I should
have concluded thus:—if vers. 12–21 be unfulfilled, as admitted
generally, then the rest of the chapter, verse after verse, being thus
inseparably connected, is unfulfilled also ; and Zechariah gives us this
as the order of events : “Jerusalem is besieged, taken, and sacked,
and half the people (doubtless, the most important of them) carried
away; when the Lord appears to the rescue, his feet standing on
Mount Olives; Judah’s enemies are overthrown, and Jews themselves
flee in terror; from that day the Lord is King over all the earth, and
the nations, by their representatives, habitually resort to his worship
at Jerusalem.” Why should prejudice oppose so natural a reading 2
I allude to Dr. Henderson, as the ablest annotator on these
chapters with whose work I am acquainted, and ask respectfully
what is gained by these transpositions of time 2 for he admits all the
chief points of the above exposition—viz., 1. That Judah has yet to
be restored, and to occupy Jerusalem under a regular government of
his own; 2. That being so restored, they will be attacked at Jerusalem
by the great final confederacy; 3. That being so attacked at Jeru-
salem, they will be rescued by the Lord, and then and there receive
the outpouring of the Holy Ghost; 4. That the millennium becomes
then established. What then, I ask respectfully, has Dr. Henderson
gained to the sacred context by any transposition of time at chap.
xiii. 7, to be continued down to chap. xiv. 7, in order that the siege,
at chap. xiv. 12, may be understood of the Roman 2 If I am to
528 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
believe with him, as I do, that Jerusalem possessed of Judah has
yet to be attacked, what further draft is there upon my faith to
acknowledge that, when so attacked, she shall be taken 2 If that
city, yet to be attacked, is to be miraculously delivered by the Lord,
will that gracious interposition be less impressive, or less awful and less
amazing, because the Lord suffers Judah's foe to succeed to the utmost
limit consistent with Judah’s deliverance 2 Rather, I think, the
work of the Lord is thus magnified; Judah’s last moment is the
moment of Messiah’s appearance; the triumph of Antichrist is the
moment of his final overthrow : when man's hope was gone, God's
power was then most signal.
For such reasons, and in regard to the coherence of the context, I
conclude that the day of chap. xiv. is the same as that of chaps. xii.
and xiii., and that Mr. Faber was correct, who interpreted Zech.
xiv. 1, 2, of a siege and sacking of Jerusalem yet to take place. (See
“Rest. of Jews,” vol. ii., p. 295, where he quotes Dr. Blayney to the
same purpose.)
Besides, the language employed can never justify the interpretation
usually put upon it. When we remember the completeness of Jeru-
salem's overthrow by the Romans, as predicted by our Saviour
(Matt. xxiv. 2, &c., &c.), are we to believe that such predictions
corresponded to Zechariah's, who says distinctly that the “residue
of the people shall not be cut off from the city?” But, indeed, the
better way will be, by an examination of the commentators, to note
the difficulties which oppose themselves to the usual method of
interpretation. There seems but one satisfactory conclusion—viz.,
that the whole of Zech. xiv. is continuous prophecy, not yet fulfilled,
describing one rapid course of events, and by the coincidences of its
predictions proved to answer to the previous announcements of chaps.
xii. and xiii. Thus, while chap. xii. 2, 3, informed us that Jerusalem
has yet again to be besieged, chap. xiv. 2 adds that it will also be
taken and sacked, and half its inhabitants carried out prisoners of
war, to be rescued probably at Megiddo. Thus, while chap. xii.
9, 10, assured us that when the Lord seeks to destroy the nations
that shall yet assail Jerusalem, the sons of Judah shall look upon
Him whom their fathers pierced; chap. xiv. 3, 4, repeats this predic-
tion, fixes the scene of its accomplishment, and tells us exactly how
the Lord will go forth to fight against those nations, his feet that very
day standing on the Mount of Olives; then the armies are overthrown
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 529
in the midst of victory, and thither the eyes of Judah look, and
behold the Son of man, the God of Christians personally epiphanied,
their Deliverer, Messiah, King, and God.
[2.] This brings us to that part of the present prophecy which consti- .
tutes its peculiar feature, and makes it the fittest with which to conclude
our investigations. In many important respects it coincides with, and
confirms, our interpretation of prophecies already considered : the
times of it are the later periods of the Christian dispensation ; the
grand events of it occur after a coming restoration of the Jews ; the
scene of it is Jerusalem itself; it predicts an actual siege and taking
of that city ; the miraculous interposition of the Almighty, the out-
pouring of the Holy Spirit at that very time, and the consequent
conversion of the people. All these are particulars of the prophecy
contained also, with more or less perspicuity, in other prophecies
already treated of, especially those of Joel and Isaiah, in chaps. x.
and xi., suprä. But one important particular was wanting, which
none of the preceding prophecies enable us to supply, viz., a declara-
tion of the very manner in which restored and rescued Judah would
be constrained to identify their Great Deliverer, in that day, with the
God of Christians. Other prophecies, especially Isa. xxviii. 33, had,
indeed, given us reason to think that Messiah himself would be seen
in that work ; we had argued that there would be, according to
Zechariah iii. and vi., a manifestation of the Branch before assembled
Judah, at Jerusalem, and that then the prophecies of Branch and
Ring would receive accomplishment, when all Israel beheld and
acknowledged “the Lord our Righteousness ; ” but Zechariah alone,
and that in the prophecy before us, suggests the very manner in
which conviction will be brought to Israel that Jesus of Nazareth, as
the God of Christians, as God manifest in the flesh, is their own
Messiah. This he assures us will be by a personal epiphany of Christ
in manhood. (Zech. xiv. 4–11.) “His feet shall stand in that day
upon the Mount of Olives,” &c., &c. *
Now, before we make any observations upon this remarkable
passage, we should note to what extent its interpretation is essential
to our subject. To this end I observe that it matters not in reality,
as regards the conversion of Israel, whether it be taken in a literal or
figurative sense. All we are concerned to perceive is that, in some
sense, either literal or figurative, this place, “His feet shall stand in
that day upon the Mount of Olives,” predicts the precise event which,
M. M.
530 NoTEs on THE RESTORATION
occasioning the overthrow of the besiegers of Jerusalem, effects, by
that fact, the conversion of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, viz., the
restored people.
Having noticed this important fact, I now venture to assign some
reasons for understanding the place of a literal advent of the Lord
Jesus Christ.
First. It seems impossible to deny with reason that the whole
context, vers. 4–11 (and, indeed, the whole chapter), must be taken
literally: the specification of places, Geba, Rimmon, Benjamin's
gate, the first gate, the corner gate, the tower of Hananeel, and the
Ring's wine-presses, round about Jerusalem, constrains one to believe
here, as it did at Jerem. xxxi. 38–40, where some of the same places
are mentioned in a parallel sense as becoming “holy unto the Lord,”
that literal Jerusalem and her suburbs are alluded to by Zechariah ;
and that, therefore, literally, such a convulsion of the earth there
will take place as shall justify Zechariah's prediction, “all the land
shall be turned as a plain, shall be lifted up,” &c., &c. (Ver, 10.)
And similarly, with regard to ver. 5, Zechariah's illustration of the
coming events by a literal earthquake, and its immediate effects upon
those who witness it, “Ye shall flee like as ye fled,” &c., &c., forces
one to believe that he predicts a literal earthquake, and literally
describes its effects—“The Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst
thereof.” &c., &c.; but the effects being thus literally depicted, I can
find no justification for denying the same literal meaning to the cause.
“His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives” (ver. 4),
which I take to be precisely equivalent to “The Lord my God shall
come, and all the saints with thee" (ver. 5); and explaining the two
with that additional light which Christianity imparts, I can understand
it in no other way than this—“The Lord my God shall come, and his
feet in manhood shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives.”
But—
Second. As already observed, I regard chap. xiv. as an explanation
of chap. xii., a process than which nothing is more common in Holy
Scripture, the same prophet, or subsequent prophets, carefully
enlarging upon and explaining preceding prophecies, e.g., those of
Branch, in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah ; those of King, in
Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel ; Ezekiel's own prophecies of
“the Prince;” and, indeed, the continual predictions regarding the
antichristian confederacy of the last days. Zechariah, I say, in chap.
AND CONVERSION of THE JEws. 531
xiv., explains minutely chap. xii, ; and whereas we read, chap.
xii. 16, “they shall look upon me whom they have pierced,” it is
explained, chap. xiv. 4, “his feet shall stand in that day upon the
Mount of Olives;” to that place, and to that epiphany of Messiah,
restored Judah shall look, and become convinced and converted. But
this same chap. xii. 10 appears to me a specification of the very
manhood of Christ, as seen after crucifixion. They shall look upon
me, TETº nº, the very one who was pierced; where Tº"mºs,
thrown together as a compound word, marks, to my mind, the
important truth, that He who is to be looked upon is to be so looked upon
just as He was pierced, viz., in manhood, after crucifixion; just as
Thomas saw Him, and believed (John xx. 29); just as Paul saw Him,
and was converted (1 Cor. xv. 8): Judah, at Jerusalem, shall look
upon not simply a glorious symbol; that day shall be characterized, not
simply by miraculous indications of the presence and power of the
Lord, but by a visible incarnation of Deity, an epiphany of the
Lamb as He was slain (Rev. v. 6); Judah, at Jerusalem, shall
look upon the glorious appearing of Jesus as He reigns now “in
the midst of the throne.” I say I take this to be the force of
Zech. xii. 10, and that force I transfer to the parallel place in
Zech. xiv. 3. He who was pierced l His feet shall stand in .
that day upon his own Mount Olives | “And ye shall flee to the
valley of my mountains” (”Tº in the original ver. 5). I believe what
Dr. Henderson says, “Jehovah calls them his because He had formed
them by cleaving Olivet in two,” and also because when on earth. He
loved them, and also because all Palestine's fair hills are, in the
prophecies referring to our days, called “my mountains.” (See Ezek.
xxxviii. 21.) There, on his own Mount Olives, as He was pierced,
his feet shall stand; and thither restored Israel shall look, and be
converted by the sight. -
Third. I gather the same idea from St. John, who seems to allude
to this place : —“Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye
shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him; and all kindreds of
the earth shall wail because of Him” (Rev. i. 7); and from the
declaration of the angels when our blessed Lord ascended from the
same Mount Olivet “to the glory which He had with the Father
before the world was:”—“This same Jesus, which is taken up from
you into heaven, shall so come in like manner (obros éAeſo'eral àv
Tpárov čffedoraorée) as ye have seen Him go into heaven,” (Acts ii. 11.)
M M 2 --- -
532 • NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Come—it seems probable from Zechariah's prophecy—not only in the
same visible human form, but also to the same Mount Olivet.
[3.] I conclude that a literal epiphany of the crucified Redeemer is
intended by St. Paul; but this, I imagine (and I bespeak the kindness
of my Christian brethren), is very different from the second coming
of the Son of man to judge both the quick and the dead; for,
First. The language of Zechariah justifies no idea that it is the
same ; nor do those passages in the New Testament which we have
reason to believe relate to the same event as Zechariah's ; but to
which I shall endeavour to allude briefly in the concluding chapter.
Second. It is, I hope, abundantly clear from prophecies treated of
in this volume, that the event alluded to by Zechariah specifically as
a coming of the incarnate Messiah, and by other prophets, e.g.,
Isaiah's, as “the coming of the name of the Lord” (chap. xxx. 27);
“the coming of the King” (Isa. xxxii. 22 ; Hosea iii. 5; &c., &c.);
“ the Lord's roaring out of Zion,” &c., &c. (Joel iii. 16); is that
very event which delivers restored Israel from the armies of his
assailants at Jerusalem, and thereby converts Israel, and destroys all
apostasy. But after this event the great ingathering of the rest of
Israel has to take place. (Isa. xi. 14, xviii. 7, xliii. 6, xlix. 12, lxvi. 20;
and other prophets already abundantly referred to.) And converted
Israel is to be the means of converting the Gentiles then yet remaining
heathen, as declared by St. Paul (Rom. xi. 12), and as again con-
tinually asserted in the prophecies we have treated of. There is to be
an active ingathering of people, and an active work of conversion
carried on, after that great event which the prophets, and Zechariah,
describe as the final cause of Israel's conversion. But Zechariah
describes that cause as an appearance of the crucified Redeemer; and
the coming of the Son of man to judge is, all through the New
Testament, spoken of as a sudden, and conclusive epoch, after which
there remains no probation, no room for preaching the Gospel, no
space for repentance and conversion. Hence I conclude that, if that
were the coming which the prophets, and Zechariah, allude to, there
would be no conversion for Israel but sudden judgment; no preaching
the Gospel to the nations, but immediate condemnation in their sins;
no establishment of a millennial Church capable, in some of its
members, of sin (see Zech. xiv. 17–19; Rev. xx. 8); but the whole
probationary state would be then concluded, and that glorious city,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 533
New Jerusalem, established everlastingly, where “God shall wipe
all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither
sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain ; for the
former things are passed away.” (Rev. xxi. 4.) -
In a word, the prophets unanimously declare that, by some coming
of the Lord, apostasy is destroyed, and Israel converted ; and after-
ward multitudes more of Jews gathered home, and more Gentile
nations converted; and afterward a Church established upon earth,
with Jerusalem for its centre, capable of sin, aye, of apostate sin ;
and this coming of the Lord Zechariah defines, in chap. xiv., to be a
personal epiphany of God-Incarnate ; therefore, since penitence, and
conversion, and backsliding also, follow that coming, it cannot be the
coming of the Son of man finally to judge the living and the dead,
since, after such coming to judgé, there remains no more capability
of conversion, and, God be praised, no more possibility of sin.
Third. Nor peed we be startled at this conclusion, as if it were
unsanctioned by the holy Word. An epiphany of Messiah for con-
version's sake has taken place since his ascension, without thereby
throwing into confusion, in Christian minds, his second coming to
judge the quick and the dead. St. Paul had such an epiphany of
Jesus vouchsafed him, as is clear from 1 Cor. xv. 3–9 ; where it is
plain St. Paul is enumerating Christ's personal appearances to his
disciples, as to Peter, as to Thomas, as to the “five hundred brethren
at once;” and then, he adds, “last of all He was seen of me, as of one
born out of due time,” &c., &c., i.e., seen of me as He had been
previously seen of the others; seen in the flesh as crucified ; seen as
I journeyed to Damascus; seen of me alone in the midst of many,
“who heard a voice, but saw no man’” (Acts ix. 3—7); seen for the
purpose of my conversion ; “whereas Saul, in vision, saw Jesus in
human form, as Stephen had done.” (Scott, on Acts ix. 7. See
also Scott and Whitby, on 1 Cor. xv. 3–9.) Now, I can see no
great distinction between these epiphanies of the Incarnate Messiah-
God vouchsafed to Stephen (Acts viii. 56) and to Paul, and that
which Zechariah describes as taking place on Olivet. I see no great
distance between the Incarnate God, vested in the glories of the
Shechinah, shining round about Saul, and those who journeyed with
Him on the road to Damascus, and this same “glorious appearing of
the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus ii. 13), his
feet resting on Mount Olivet, to the terror of all, to the destruction
of apostates, but the salvation of the Jew. In short, I adopt Mr.
534 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Faber's opinion (Eight Dissert, vol. i., preface, p. 10)—“The usual
argument of pre-millenarian expositors, deduced from a combination
of Dan. vii. 9–14, and 25–27; Zechar. xiv. 1–9 ; 2 Thess. ii.
1–8; and Rev. xix. 11—21; where, no doubt, some advent of Christ
is predicted as occurring at the close of the 1260 years, and therefore
previous to the 1000 years, is wholly inconclusive, partly because,
even if an actual manifestation be spoken of, it would no more of
necessity be what is ecclesiastically denominated THE SECOND ADVENT,
than the actual manifestation of Christ to St. Paul ; and partly,
perhaps still more especially, because the argument works upon the
gratuitous assumption that the advent, announced in these syn-
chronical passages, must be literal, and cannot be figurative.”
I close, however, with that assumption—viz., that the appearance
is literal—and admit it to be true; though I would still remind the
reader that it is not essential to our subject to believe so. I need
scarcely add that this glorious appearing of Messiah does not involve
his personal continuance upon earth to reign. I regard it only as an
epiphany. “When the Lord shall build up Zion, He shall appear in
his glory.” (Ps. cii. 16.) Or again—Isaiah: “Your brethren that
hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord
be glorified ; but He shall appear to your joy, and they shall be
ashamed.” (Chap. lxvi. 5.) And Lowth appears to have taken it
similarly. “The glory of the Lord—i.e., the shechinah, or symbol
of God's presence—when it departed from the city and temple,
settled itself upon Mount Olivet (Ezek. xi. 23); so, when God shall
return to Jerusalem, and make it the seat of his presence again,
it shall return by the same way it departed. (Ezek. xliii. 2.) We
may add, that when our Lord ascended from the Mount of Olives,
the angels told his disciples “He should come again in like manner,’
i.e., in a visible and glorious appearance, at the same place. (Acts
i. 11, 12.)” Lowth's exposition is quite corroborative; but I believe
that, if it be accepted, reflection will convince us it leads to the
conclusion that our Saviour's return will not only be “in a visible.
and glorious appearance ; ” but that also that appearance will be as
He went, viz., in humanity. So Bickersteth : “Nothing less than a
personal visible appearance of our Immanuel, Christ, in his glorified
humanity, appears to me to be here (Zech. xiv. 3, 4) plainly predicted.
How earnestly St. Peter calls the Jews to repentance in the assurance
of this salvation ; ” and then he quotes Acts iii. 19—21. (Bicker-
steth’s “Rest, of Jews,” p. 235.) *
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 535
We see, then, in what manner the Lord's work in delivering
Jerusalem will be identified with the God of Christians, and how
naturally the conversion of Israel may be expected as the consequence.
What better adapted to strike terror into their Gentile assailants,
professed believers in Christ Jesus as they will be What better
than a personal epiphany of Him in whose service they will profess
to be engaged when pillaging the beloved city, and leading her restored
people captives l What better calculated to convince unbelieving
Sons of Judah, or to overwhelm them with shame and remorse for
their long contempt of so merciful a Redeemer | Then, indeed, like
the son of Didymus, every convicted mourner at Jerusalem will
exclaim, “My Lord and my God . "
IV.] Our plan has been, in the later chapters, to connect the
prophecies which relate to the great confederacy against restored
Israel in the order in which we have placed them—viz., Ezek. xxxviii.,
xxxix., with Zech. ix., x, ; Zech. ix., x., with Joel ; Joel with Isa.
xxix. to xxxiii.; and Isa. xxix. to xxxiii. with Zech. xii. to xiv.;
and a general harmony of these will be given at the close of this
chapter. I now proceed, with the utmost brevity, to notice no fewer
than twelve especial features by which this prophecy of Zech. xii. toxiv.
is proved to be precisely the same as Isaiah's, chap. xxix. to xxxiii.
[1..] Each predicts a siege of Jerusalem. “I will encamp against
thee round about, and lay siege against thee.” (Isa. xxix. 3.) “When
they shall be in the siege both against Judah and Jerusalem.” (Zech.
xii. 2.) [2] Each predicts, that this siege of Jerusalem shall prosper
to a certain extent. “Thou shalt be brought down and speak out of
the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust.” (Isa.
xxix. 4.) “The city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the
women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity;
and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.”
(Zech. xiv. 2.) [3] Each describes the siege in a singular manner,
as by a multitude of people of various nations. “Multitude of thy
strangers; ” “multitude of the terrible ones; ” “multitude of all the
nations that fight against Ariel.” (Isa. xxix. 5 and 7.) “Jerusalem
a cup of trembling unto all the people round about ;” “a burdensome
stone for all people ; ” “though all the people of the earth be gathered

536 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
together against it;” “I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to
battle.” (Zech. xii. 2, 3, and 6 ; and xiv. 2. An instance of coinci-
dence also with Joel's “multitudes, multitudes.”) [4] Each says
that the Lord himself will fight for, and defend, Jerusalem. Let one
passage from Isaiah suffice. “So shall the Lord of Hosts come down
to fight for Mount Zion, and for the hill thereof. As birds flying,
so will the Lord of Hosts defend Jerusalem ; defending also He will
deliver it; and passing over He will preserve it.” (Isa. xxxi. 4, 5.)
“In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”
(Zech. xii. 8.) Each prophet using for defend the very same word—
72 defend as with a shield. The mother bird hovering before
her offspring (p. 476, suprā). “Then shall the Lord go forth, and
fight against these nations, as when He fought in the day of battle.”
(Zech. xiv. 3.) [5.] Each prophet depicts Jerusalem in that day
by the same very peculiar figure of speech. If the reader will refer
to p. 484, he will perceive certain observations upon the name
Isaiah gives to Jerusalem—“Ariel; ” where we show that the Holy
City is called by the name which signifies the altar of God, or rather
the hearth of the altar, because at that city the Lord, by judgment,
will offer up the confederated enemies of Israel, like holocausts, in the
fire of Tophet. Precisely in the same spirit says Zechariah here :
“In that day I will make the governors of Judah like an hearth
of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they
shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand, and on the
left.” (Zech. xii. 6.) Where the word used for hearth is a kind of
pot, or brazier, in which fire is kept. The force of the figures used
by the two prophets, as applied to Jerusalem, is precisely the same.
[6.] Each prophet places the destruction of Judah’s confederated
enemies outside the city. “Tophet is ordained of old,” &c. (Isaiah
xxx. 33.) Which we proved to be the scene of the Assyrian's
destruction, in the vale of Hinnom, outside Jerusalem. “The Lord
shall save the tents of Judah first.” (Zech. xii. 7.) Where we
showed that the people outside Jerusalem are contradistinguished
from the inhabitants of the city. Here the Lord's work begins.
[7.] A similar feature is the following:—“The Lord of hosts shall
come down to fight for Mount Zion, and for the hill thereof.” (Isaiah
xxxi. 4.) Again, “The Lord, whose fire is at Zion and his furnace
at Jerusalem.” (Ver. 9.) We argued, p. 477, that this locality was
there literally specified, and that the Lord, being close by Tophet,
would also be literally close by “Mount Zion and the hill thereof.”
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 537
Zechariah says this distinctly, “And his feet shall stand in that day
upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east.”
(Zech. xiv. 4.) Which Mount of Olives faced Tophet, the temple,
and Mount Zion on the east. Thus the scene in the two prophets is
actually the same. The Lord stands on Mount Olives, beholding, as
he was wont, Jerusalem and Mount Zion, the very place where
David dwelt; and in the valley between commences the fearful
overthrow of the assembled foe. [8.] Isaiah especially predicted
earthquake at Jerusalem as accompanying the Assyrian's destruction:
“Thou shalt be visited of the Lord of hosts with thunder, and with
earthquake, and with great noise, with storm and tempest, and the
flame of a devouring fire.” (Isaiah xxix. 6.) The very place of this
earthquake is, Zechariah assures us, the Mount of Olives: “ The
Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof, towards the east,
and towards the west ; ” and, “Ye shall flee, like as ye fled before the
earthquake in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah.” (Zech. xiv. 4, 5.)
[9.] There was a singular prediction in Isaiah, which furnished a
strong proof that his prophecy did not apply to Sennacherib's army,
which slept so soundly all night: “At the noise of the tumult the
people fled; at the lifting up of thyself the nations were scattered.”
(Isaiah xxxiii. 3.) In which place for tumult Isaiah gives Tib'ſ multi-
tude; from the noise or voice of the multitude the people fled (another
coincidence with Joel's Fribºj, Pºint, multitudes, multitudes). But
Zechariah says, “And it shall come to pass in that day that a great
tumult from the Lord shall be among them.” (Zech. xiv. 15.) Where
for tumult Zechariah gives nºſſº a tumult of the Lord, using a cognate
word. A tumult of men like the raging of the sea. Read Ps. xciii.,
where the throne of “the King in his beauty” (p. 498, suprā) is repre-
sented as lifted up above the raging waves of the sea—sea being
emblematical of the Gentiles. Our prophet expresses himself by the
cause, viz., the multitude; the other prophet takes literally the effect,
viz., the noise of that multitude. The predictions are the same. The
tumult spoken of is that caused by terror, internal disorganization,
and an actual struggle between comrades. (Zech. xiv. 13.) [10.] Each
prophet predicts the taking of quantities of spoil : “And your spoil
shall be gathered like the gathering of a caterpillar;” “then is the
prey of a great spoil divided ; the lame take the prey.” (Isaiah xxxiii.
4, 23.) “And the wrath of all the heathen shall be gathered
together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.” (Zech.
538 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
xiv. 14.) [11.] Each prophet predicts a peculiar effusion of the
Spirit at that same time: “Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on
high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be
counted for a forest.” (Isaiah xxxii. 13.) We dwell not now upon
the word until, but merely note the fact that an effusion of the Spirit
is promised. So Zechariah : “And I will pour upon the house of
David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and
supplications.” (Chap. xii. 10.) Just as Joel had said before, “And
it shall come to pass afterwards I will pour out my Spirit upon all
flesh.” (Joel ii. 28.) Joel and Zechariah using the same word for
pour, but Isaiah using a word (Tº) more indicative of the source of
that blessing; Zechariah and Joel having reference to the people who
shall receive the Spirit, but Isaiah looking to Him who gives it ; and
therefore he alludes to the dwelling-place of the Spirit; Fiºn from
on high : “Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high ; ” and,
being thus by Divine love effused, descend upon us (ºy). [12.]
Each prophet predicts reformation of religion and reconciliation
to God. Such reformation of religion being so extraordinary as to be
illustrated by purgation from idolatry: “In that day every man shall
cast away his idols of silver and his idols of gold which your own
hands have made unto you for a sin.” (Isaiah xxxi. 7.) So Zecha-
riah : “In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, I will cut off the names
of the idols out of the land.” (Chap. xiii. 2.) Of which passages we
have given explanations. (See p. 524, suprá.)
Here, then, are no fewer than twelve parallel predictions in the two
prophecies of Isaiah and Zechariah. These parallels are not con-
strained, but very peculiar and significant, and they answer two
important purposes. First, running, as they do, respectively through
the whole of the two prophecies—of which one consists of five, the
other of three chapters—they show the close connexion between the
several chapters of each prophecy, i.e., they show that the five chapters
in one case, and the three in the other, form severally one inseparable
and connected prophecy in Isaiah, and one such prophecy also in
Zechariah. Second. These parallelisms show that the two prophecies
are the same, and describe but one Piº , or day, or series of events;
and from this an important consequence follows; for the first, viz.,
Isaiah's, is applied to the Assyrians under Sennacherib ; the second,
or Zechariah's, either to the Maccabees or the Romans. Now, it is clear
and undenied that the first cannot refer to the Maccabees nor to the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 539
Romans; and equally so, that the second does not refer to the Assyrian.
But the two are proved, by collating them, to refer to the same
events. Hence, neither of them refers to the Assyrians under
Sennacherib, nor either of them to the Maccabees or the Romans;
but each has yet to be fulfilled.
[VI.] Without detaining the reader to show at any length the
literal and unconditional character of this, Zechariah's prophecy, I
would observe generally that various arguments already applied to
other prophecies for such purpose are equally applicable here,
e.g., the inseparable intermixture with the context of prophecies
relating to Messiah, the predictions of judgments upon Gentiles, the
minute specifications of places by name, and the predictions with
which the chapters close, of the universal establishment of Christi-
anity. Such arguments are available to show the literal and absolute
nature of Zechariah's Xii.-xiv. I rather pass on to collate as a
conclusion to the present chapter, the several prophecies, Ezek.
xxxviii., xxxix. ; Zech. ix., x. ; Joel's Book, Isaiah xxviii., xxxiii.;
and the present, Zech. xii.-xiv., each of which, I submit it has been
proved, relate to the same order of events; for each has been proved
to be unfulfilled, and to predict certain military commotions yet to be
exerted against restored sons of Israel within the Holy Land; to
result, according to each prophecy, in irreparable disaster to the
assailants and complete victory and triumph to the Jews; and in each
case it has been shown that such overthrow of their enemies is to be
accompanied with the bestowal upon the rescued people of certain
religious advantages, described in such language as, applied to the
times of Christianity, can denote nothing less than conversion to that
true religion. Either, therefore, we are constrained to acknowledge
that these prophecies do refer to the same events, or else we must admit
that, in times yet to come, similar events resulting in similar religious
blessings to Israel have to take place more than once within the Holy
Land against the restored people. I do not think that this latter
conclusion will be chosen; and I shall therefore proceed to collate these
prophecies, upon the belief that they all relate to the same events.
The first of them is Isaiah's. He predicts a siege of Jerusalem by
a numerous host, described as “the multitude of all the nations,” and
540 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
individualized typically as “the Assyrian; ” during which siege the
city shall be reduced to the greatest distress, but out of which she
shall be miraculously delivered; the besiegers are to prove as the
dream of a night vision that vanisheth away. This deliverance of
Jerusalem he specifically attributes to the miraculous interposition of
the Most High, and fixes the scene of it in Tophet or the Vale of
Hinnom, which lies between Mount Olivet and Zion. He describes
Jerusalem figuratively as the altar of the Lord, upon which these
besieging nations are offered up as a holocaust; and depicts Jehovah
as defending Jerusalem as He did their dwellings in Egypt at the
institution of passover. So that the very moment of their deliverance
from the Assyrian, as from the Egyptian, is the precise moment
of instituting the covenant in the blood of the Lamb. Accordingly,
upon close examination of the prophecy, it is observed that the time of
temporal rescue is also the time of peculiar spiritual favour. Blessings
of the highest temporal and spiritual import are there assured to
them—spiritual blessings especially assured to them in such language,
as all Christians admit, are indicative of Gospel blessing. And
throughout the prophecy it is proved that the deliverance from the
Assyrian and the gift of such spiritual blessings are equally from the
Lord. But the same blessings being also in the same prophecy
promised from the King, it is proved that throughout the prophecy the
Lord who smites is the King who reigns, viz., Christ Jesus. So that
Isaiah predicts the deliverance of Judah and Jerusalem from siege
and straitness by Christ Jesus, and therefore implies the previous.
restoration of Judah to Jerusalem as masters of it in the days
of Christianity. It further appears that the spiritual blessings,
conveyed in language which all admit to be expressive of Gospel
blessings, are assured to the rescued Jews precisely when the Lord thus
smites the Assyrian : “In the day of great slaughter, when the
towers fall; ” in the night of their deliverance: so that these religious
blessings, which in times of Christianity must mean convérsion, are
given at the day of rescue, and not before. In other words, restored
Judah at Jerusalem is brought to recognise the Lord the King when
thus delivered from the typical Assyrian, and not before ; so that his
conversion is after the restoration. And Isaiah has these remarkable
passages: “Thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation” (chap.
xxxiii. 20), where there is no reason to doubt that he means to say
the natural eye of Judah shall look upon the literal Jerusalem
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 541
recovered to a state of peacefulness and prosperity, temporal and
spiritual. But he took up this expression from his previous verse 17,
“Thine eyes shall see the King in his beauty;” where there seems as
little reason to doubt that he meant, as in the other case, to predict
that the natural eye of Judah should literally look upon the King,
viz., the Lord Jesus, in the beauty of his exaltation in Judah’s
deliverance and redemption. So that even Isaiah thus early justifies
the expectation of a literal appearance of Messiah which shall effect
the deliverance and conversion of restored Judah. For it remains to
be noted that Isaiah was prophesying for Judah and Jerusalem
alone.
Now Joel confirms, and to a great extent repeats, Isaiah's predic-
tions. His prophecy consists of two leaves, one of which (viz., chaps.
i., ii.) is by some believed to have been fulfilled ; but the other, viz.,
chap. iii., is for the more part, by general admission, unfulfilled. And
if we regard the first of these as unfulfilled, Joel, prophesying peculiarly
for Judah and Jerusalem, like Isaiah, predicts not only a siege, but
also a capture of Jerusalem by storm ; predicts also affirmatively the
national repentance and humiliation under their legal priesthood of
Judah at Jerusalem ; predicts also the Lord's supernatural rescue of
the people by overthrowing on the east and west the victorious army
of the invaders. These Isaiah had only intimated would come from
the north, calling them “the Assyrian,” who in Holy Scripture is
frequently represented as coming from the north. But Joel does
more. He not only says the invaders will come into Judea from the
north, but also that they will be natives-born of the north, which the
Assyrians were not. He describes these invading northerners as
overthrown in the midst of victory after they have captured Jerusalem,
while Judah is calling upon God in penitence, in conformity with the
terms of the Levitical covenant. And “after these things,” he
promises the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, accompanying deliverance
in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, with the recovered fertility and
beauty of all the land. The relative positions of which two events,
viz., the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the restoration of the land to
fruitfulness and beauty, Isaiah had already fixed, declaring that briars,
and thorns, and desolations should, comparatively speaking, characterize
the whole land until the Spirit was wakened from on high. (Chap.
xxxii. 15.) So that, putting the two together, we are assured of this,
that (not laying undue stress upon the word until) the gift of the
542 - NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Holy Spirit and the recovery of Palestine to fruitfulness will take
place about the same time ; but that probably the complete and most
extraordinary fructification of the land will succeed, and not be
witnessed before, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the people,
which, moreover, is the natural order of things. For the great
ingathering of numbers to nationality succeeds the gift of the Holy
Ghost to Jews at Jerusalem, and this accession of numbers would, in
the natural order of events, induce the increasing fertility of the
land. - -
But if any decline to acknowledge that Joel i. and ii. are yet
unfulfilled, we are limited for our deductions to chap. iii., and they
amount to this, that in times yet to come, “multitudes, multitudes”
of Gentile people will be gathered together for purposes of war
against Jerusalem, whither they will be brought judicially in the
providence of the Most High, and where the Lord will visit them with
condign overthrow and disgrace. This will occur in a place termed,
“The Valley of the Judgment of God,” or otherwise, “Valley of
Jehoshaphat,” fixed by tradition by the Vale of Hinnom, next
Tophet, between Olivet and Zion, the very scene where Isaiah had
placed the destruction of the Assyrian. But if we cannot prove this
from Joel with certainty, he at least gives us good cause to infer that
such is his meaning, for he describes the Lord as uttering “his voice
from Jerusalem,” and “roaring out of Mount Zion,”—the very part
of Jerusalem adjoining this vale, and opposite Olivet. Just as Isaiah
had said before him, when describing the overthrow of the Assyrian,
“So shall the Lord of hosts come down to fight for Mount Zion, and
for the hill thereof. As birds flying, so will the Lord of hosts defend
Jerusalem.” (Chap. xxxi. 5.) Joel, too, like Isaiah, associates
peculiar religious blessing with the deliverance of Judah in the
valley of Judgment; and as the consequence of it, “So shall ye
know,” &c., &c. (Chap. iii. 17.) So that, remembering this prophecy
(chap. iii.) is yet unfulfilled, Joel predicts the deliverance at Jerusa-
lem of restored Judah from an armed host of enemies, and his
conversion as the consequence of that deliverance, This from
chap. iii.; but if the whole Book be taken, as we believe it might,
then he predicts blessings for restored Judah in this order. The
siege and capture of Jerusalem after their restoration and in the
midst of their national repentance, but at that moment the complete
overthrow on the east and on the west of the victorious besiegers, by the
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 543
special interposition of the Lord ; at that same moment the out-
pouring of the Holy Spirit, the consequent conversion of the people,
and henceforward the complete possession and enjoyment of their land
in its fruitfulness; for “Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem
from generation to generation.” (Chap. iii. 20.)
Joel also particularly describes the day of these events as when
the Lord “shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem”
(chap. iii. 2), and extends the consequence of their deliverance to all
the tribes: I “will plead with them there for my people, and for my
heritage Israel.” (Chap. iii. 2.)
Now, Zechariah was one of the last prophets. He, too, delivers a
prophecy specifically for Judah and Jerusalem, but extends its effects
to all the tribes, calling it “the burden of the Word of the Lord for
Israel.” This prophecy is contained in his chaps. xii.-xiv., and, like
Joel's, is part (viz., chap. xii.), admitted to be unfulfilled; and part
(viz., chap. xiv.), to be, in some respects, fulfilled, in others, not.
Confining ourselves, first, to chap. xii. (to which chap. xiii. 1–6 is
granted to belong), Zechariah predicts, in times yet to come, a siege
of Jerusalem held by Judah, so disastrous to the besiegers, that she
is termed a “cup of trembling,” “a burdensome stöne,” “a hearth of
fire * to them. During this siege, not only is Judah represented as
being masters of Jerusalem, but also as being under the governorship
of the house of David (vers. 5–8); also as accompanied by the
rightful representatives of the tribe of Levi (ver. 13); and also the
adjoining country, then overrun by the besiegers, as then inhabited
by the common people of the tribe of Judah. At this precise time,
Zechariah predicts (ver. 9) that “the Lord will seek to destroy all the
nations that come against Jerusalem,” and at the same time will pour
out the spirit of grace and supplication, and cause them to “look
upon me whom they have pierced ; ” where the reading, “upon me,”
is proved correct by the highest criticism ; so that “upon me.” refers
to “I will seek to destroy,” and refers to the Lord that will save the
tents of Judah first ; where the tents of Judah mean the people
outside of Jerusalem, contrasted with the inhabitants of that city.
(Ver, 7.) How exactly this would be fulfilled if the Lord, Messiah,
who was pierced, was looked upon at some place beyond the walls of
Jerusalem, at the moment when besieged Judah is delivered, when
the spirit of grace is given, and, by so looking, and by that deliver-
ance, and by the influence of that spirit of grace, is converted 1 for
544 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
conversion does follow that gift of the Spirit (vers. 10–14). And
how exactly, under this aspect, would Zech. xii. correspond with the
prophecies of Isaiah and Joel already referred to, marking this
additional fact—that He who delivers is the Lord, the King, Christ
Jesus, as He was pierced, the Lord in manhood, the Redeemer come
to Zion, with the proofs of his redemption-price
But Zechariah, in the corresponding chap. xiv., does say this
precisely. He describes Jerusalem as besieged, as taken, as rifled,
and half the people (doubtless the most important) carried out of it ;
at which time “His feet stand on the Mount of Olives,” the very
mount facing “ the Vale of Hinnom,” probably Joel's “Walley of
Judgment,” facing Isaiah’s “Tophet,” facing “Mount Zion, and the
hill thereof.” for which, says Isaiah, “the Lord comes down to fight.”
By which Judah is converted, and, through Judah, all other people,
“one Lord, and his name one ; ” and the same temporal and spiritual
mercies are granted to Judah and Jerusalem, reaching also to all the
world, as had been previously described by Isaiah and Joel. There
seems no just room for doubting that Zech. xiv. refers to the same
events as chap. xii., and, like that, should be admitted to be unfulfilled.
Joel also had predicted that, after the success of the besiegers,
part of the besieging army would be drawn towards the eastern, or
Dead sea, and part towards the western, or Mediterranean ; and
Zechariah foretels that, after the same success, half the city shall be
carried away captive, but the rest of the people shall remain in the
city (chap. xiv. 2), whence it seems that part of the besiegers will
have departed with their prey, and this retirement of part of the
besiegers, with part of the besieged, for the purpose of carrying them
away captive, may assist us in understanding Joel's prediction of the
overthrow towards the Mediterranean, and may also, if the interpre-
tation placed by many upon Rev. xvi. 16 be correct, enable us to
identify two divisions of this overthrow of Judah’s enemies, viz., one
at Tophet, on the east of Jerusalem, driven towards the eastern sea,
and another westward, of the part of the army retiring, driven
towards the Mediterranean, in the plain of Megiddo or Esdraelon,
and may tend to explain Hosea's allusion to these times (chap. i. 11),
“for great shall be the day of Jezreel ; ” the plain of Jezreel and the
valley of Megiddo being different names for the same place. (Paxton's
“Sacred Geog.,” p. 335.) Zechariah, too, prophesying of the same
day as Hosea, TTS F, one day, one great day, one unique day
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 545
~~~~~~~-----. ----------------------...------- -
(Henderson’s “Minor Proph,” p. 438):—“But it shall be one day,
which shall be known to the Lord,” &c., &c. (Chap. xiv. 7.) Just
as it is said, in Rev. xviii. 8, of the destruction of mystical Babylon
(which synchronises with these events), “her plagues come in one
day.”
Moreover, Ezekiel also had prophesied of these events in his chaps.
xxxviii., xxxix. He had depicted the entire invasion of the Holy
Land, limited specifically to the latter days; an invasion to issue in
the most marvellous destruction of the invaders, and known, therefore,
never to have been yet fulfilled. Of which destruction the most
marvellous part he places in the vale east of Tiberias; and thus the
whole plain of Megiddo, or valley of Jezreel, from Tiberias, by
Bysan or Scythopolis, to the mountains of Samaria, and from this
line north-westward to the Mediterranean, appears to be marked out
as the scene where the great body of Israel's invaders are to be over-
thrown; while an especial destruction is also foretold eastward of Jeru-
salem, between Olivet and Zion. But not only does Ezekiel, like the
others, predict the complete and miraculous overthrow of the invaders,
he also assures us that, at that time, all Palestine will be in possession
of the sons of Israel; not only of sons of Judah, whom the other
prophets specifically place in possession of Jerusalem, but of the other
tribes besides ; and he does this, as already explained, p. 393, suprā,
by the employment of the most general national titles ; so that we
learn from him this especial fact, that when this assault upon the
restored people takes place, they will comprise sons of both houses,
Judah and Ephraim, alike restored ; a restoration of all, nationally
described.
And Ezekiel appears to have been commissioned to indicate, in a
peculiar manner, the nations of whom this great confederacy would
be formed : he limits his description in chief to the sons of Japhet ;
and, speaking as he does of “the latter days,” bids us look for the
chief of the confederates to the nations of the west and north—to
Europe. But, while including the nations of Europe generally, he
particularizes their leader as being peculiarly of the north; thus, in
addition to Isaiah and to Joel, not only directing us to the north for
the confederacy, but especially to the north of Europe for the leaders
of it, and describing them by such titles as we believe enable us
sufficiently to identify them. He, too, like the other prophets,
associates Israel's conversion with the destruction of their enemies,
N N.

546 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
saying distinctly they shall know the Lord “from that day and
forward.” # º
These predictions Zechariah, in a distinct prophecy, viz., chaps.
ix., x, singularly strengthens and corroborates. In these chapters,
unlike chaps. xii.-xiv., above mentioned, he prophesies for “all the
tribes of Israel,” depicts Judah and Ephraim as fighting against their
common foe at Jerusalem (chaps, ix. 12—17, and x. 5–8), Judah's
being the directing power ; and with the overthrow of these enemies,
whom he describes as “sons of Greece,” he associates, as its conse-
quence, the conversion of the people to Christianity. So that thus,
putting all these prophecies together, it appears that Holy Scripture
permits us to anticipate a time yet coming when Judah and Ephraim,
sons of both houses, shall be restored, unconverted, to the Holy
Land; being so restored, shall possess Jerusalem in their right, as
masters of it, shall be under the governorship of the house of Judah,
with the lawful priesthood of Levi, asserting a national existence and
independence ; that being thus restored, in considerable numbers, and
with national coincidents, possessing Jerusalem and the villages of
Israel, “having gotten cattle and much goods,” their country will be
invaded, and themselves be unable to resist the storm. Jerusalem
will be invested, and its people, in reliance upon “the Lord their
God,” induced, though almost hopelessly, to resist the siege (Zech.
xii. 5); but Jerusalem will be taken, and Israel's hope lost, when the
Lord Jesus himself will stand on Olivet, rescuing his people tempo-
rally and spiritually, their conversion being effected by that epiphany.
“Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with
all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem. The Lord hath taken away
thy judgments; He hath cast out thine enemy: the King of Israel,
even the Lord, is in the midst of thee; thou shalt not see evil any
more. In that day it shall be said of Jerusalem, Fear thou not ; and
to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack. The Lord thy God in the
midst of thee is mighty: He will save, He will rejoice over thee with
joy: He will rest in his love, He will joy over thee with singing,” &c.,
&c. (Zeph. iii. 14—20.)
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 547
CONCLUDING CHAPTER.
“I WILL BLESS THEM that BLESS THEE.”—GEN. XII. 3.
MR. BICKERSTETH assures us, “It would not have been difficult to
have accumulated here testimonies from all ages. Fathers, and their
successors, Protestants, Reformers of different countries, Puritans,
Church of England writers, and Dissenters, and men of vast variety
of opinions on other parts of Christian theology, who have agreed in
expounding the prophecies of the Old Testament as declaring a yet
future national conversion and restoration of the Jews ; but let us
rest on the simple and full testimony of Scripture. Let the reader's
faith be in God's Word, and not in man's. My friend, Mr. Brooks,
in his valuable work entitled “Elements of Prophetical Interpretation,'
has brought together much of this voice of the Church. Bishop Pri-
deaux states:—‘Astruunt hoc, inter Patres, Origines, Chrysostomus,
Ambrosius, Hieronymus, et é recentioribus quâm plurimi, qui alias
inter se in nimium multis degladiantur.’” (“Rest. of Jews,” Introd.,
p. 10.) And Bishop Horsley had long before observed, in the same
vein—“Amongst ourselves it has long been the persuasion of our best
Biblical scholars and ablest divines that the restoration of the Jews is
a principal article of prophecy, being, indeed, a principal branch of
the great scheme of general redemption.” (On Hosea, p. 27, preface.)
Let those, therefore, whose attention, contrary to previous pre-
possessions, is now invited to the examination of this subject, be
careful lest they should adopt the error of supposing that conclusions
of correct divinity, or of sound and extensive learning, are against it;
for the very contrary is the case. We have the evidence not only of
the plain letter of Holy Scripture, but of its letter and spirit also,
after being subjected to the severest test of critical examination.
Unfortunately it is too often the custom to consider those who advocate
certain well-known views, as remarkable for other gifts than those of
solid attainments, calm judgment, and close reading. Even Dr. Lee
falls into this vulgar error, and more than once makes the singular
mistake of calling “the national restoration and conversion of Israel.”
N N 2
548 NotES ON THE RESTORATION
*
a popular subject. (See “Inquiry,” Introd., p. 119.) We regret to
state that at present it is not popular, nor generally understood ; but
we have the assurance of God's own Word that, in proper time, it is
destined to become so. “Thou shalt arise and have mercy upon Zion ;
for the time to favour her, yea, the set time, is come. For thy
servants take pleasure in her stones, and favour the dust thereof.”
(Ps. cii. 13.) Time will be when all that concerns the Israelites will
be matter of absorbing moment to the world at large, and to the
nations of Europe first of all ; meanwhile, we take comfort in the
correct theology and sound learning of our cause.
[1..] The question has hitherto been the reverse of popular ; the
Church at large seems to have laboured under a deep and strange
prejudice against every suggestion favourable to the future hopes and
elevation of the Jews. Perhaps it may be considered one part of that
curse which the Almighty has laid upon them that it should be so :
that not only Christians of great learning and eminence should
disregard the manifest literal import of God's Word on this subject,
while asserting it as a first great principle upon others, but also should
invent a false and pernicious system of interpretation which in effect
perverts that Word; and that such a process, so opposed to correct
divinity, and the dictates of solid learning, should have become
popular in the Christian Church. The following extract from Bishop
Horsley's notes on Hosea will show that the ruling idea of Lee's
“Inquiry” is by no means new or original, written as it was forty-five
years before the great Professor's book :-" A prejudice which for a
long time possessed the minds of Christians against the literal sense
of the prophecies relating to the future exaltation of the Jewish
nation, gave occasion to a false scheme of interpretation, which,
assuming it as a principle that prophecy, under the old dispensation,
looked forward to nothing beyond the abrogation of the Mosaic ritual,
and the dispersion of the Jews by the Romans, either wrested every-
thing to the history antecedent to that epoch, and generally as near
as possible to the prophets' times (as if it were not the gift and business
of a prophet to see far before him), or by figurative interpretations,
for the most part forced and unnatural, applied what could not be so
wrested to the Christian Church, and rarely to the Christian Church
on earth, but to the condition of the glorified saints in heaven.”
(P. 26.) This is precisely the principle of those interpreters, even

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 549
the oldest of them, who have denied either the future restoration, or
the conversion, or both, of the people Israel. And, as observed at
the commencement of this book, Dr. Lee's work must be considered
precisely of this distorted caste, unless, by reason of his unequalled
attainments as a Gentile Hebraist, he has succeeded in placing this
dilapidated mode of exposition upon a new and better principle.
This an examination of his work will show he has not done ; and we,
who venerate his memory, cannot fail to perceive that the cause of
Israel was not attacked by the Regius Professor of Hebrew, but merely
by the Rector of Barley.
[2.] They who desire to read the recorded opinions of the Fathers
in favour of Israel's conversion will consult Whitby's “Discourse on
the Calling of the Jews,” being “An Appendix to Romans xi.,” in
his Commentary. He will there see the sentiments of Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Gennadius, Photius, Theophylact, Origen, Hilary, Prima-
sius, Sedulius, Haymo, Augustine, Jerome, and Cyril, either specifi-
cally quoted or referred to ; so that the commentator observes, “This
doctrine hath the suffrages of all the ancient Fathers:” and whoever
will carefully read that appendix cannot fail of observing two things:
—1. That the conversion spoken of is always national, i.e., of Israel
in a mass, and after the fulness of the Gentiles is come in ; and
2. That arguing for the conversion, irrespective of the restoration,
involves the commentator in this inconsistency, viz., that in one
breath he interprets the same verse of Holy Scripture partly in a
literal and partly in a figurative sense. I shall give an extract or
two in proof. First,--The conversion spoken of is national. Chry-
sostom :—-‘‘When the fulness of the Gentiles is come in, then all
Israel shall be saved, at the time of Christ's second coming, and the
consummation of all things.” Origen —“If the fulness of the
Gentiles be come in, then all Israel shall be saved, and there shall
be one fold and one shepherd.” Augustine:—“The carnal Israel,
who now will not believe, shall hereafter do so.” Jerome —“This
is the blindness that happened to Israel in part, that the fulness
of the Gentiles might come in, and all Israel be saved, and after
a long time might return and seek the Lord. Some do interpret this
(Hosea iii. 4, 5) of the captivity of Babylon, but others, with us,
refer it to a time yet future.” Cyril :-* Here is a manifest declara-
tion of what shall hereafter happen to the adulterous synagogue, and
550 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
that she should be received again; that Israel should not always be
rejected, but being recalled and converted to the faith, should own
Christ according to the flesh to be King of all, and that this glorious
grace should be afforded to her at the end of the world.” Nothing
can be plainer than that the Fathers, following closely the language
of Scripture, were constrained, when advocating the future conversion
of Israel, to use national terms; and that, therefore, the conversion
they held is, by implication, national, although some of them—e.g.,
Origen—did not maintain a future national restoration. But, Second,
maintaining the national conversion, without admitting a restoration,
involved Whitby (and it will any other commentator) in inconsist-
ency of interpretation. A few examples. “That there is still to be
a glorious conversion of the Jewish nation,” he quotes, among others,
the following Scriptures:—“Everlasting joy shall be unto them,
and I will make an everlasting covenant with them” (Isa. lxi. 7, 8) ;
“Thou shalt be no more termed Forsaken, neither shall thy land
be any more termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzi-bah,
and thy land Beulah : for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land
shall be married” (Isa. lxii. 4, 12); “I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
and joy in my people; and the voice of weeping shall no more be
heard in her, nor the voice of crying ” (Isa. lxv. 19); “For as the
new heavens and new earth which I will make shall remain before
me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.”
(Isa. lxvi. 22.) The argument becomes unanswerable. If the words
thee, thou, thy, &c., &c., are to be understood (as Whitby and the
Fathers took them) literally of the nation Israel, then consistency
demands that Jerusalem, thy land, her, &c., &c., be understood of the
city and land of the literal Israelites, to whom, it is admitted, these
promises belong. If the promises in these verses be to the literal
Israel, then the promises to the land, in the same verses, belong to
the literal land; and the restoration and conversion are predicted in
the same breath. So in the following, also quoted by Whitby:-
“And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my
servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt, and they shall dwell therein,
even they and their children, and their children's children for ever;
and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.” (Ezek. xxxvii.
35.) If it be admitted (as Whitby does admit) that this refers to
literal Israel, then it is to literal Israel in their literal land, and David
(Messiah) their prince over them there.

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 551
It is, indeed, an extraordinary perversion of Scripture to deny, like
Dr. Lee and such writers, that Israel has any national recognition,
or specific promises of national spiritual blessings during Christian
times; but to admit that Israel is nationally recognised, and nationally
promised to be converted, and yet to deny the national restoration, is
an inconsistency of some (it seems to me) far exceeding the perversion
of others. And I wish to call attention to this fact that, in all the
prophecies which we have considered, Israel is ever prophesied of in
mass. Branch is manifested before assembled people; the King rules
over the two houses united into one ; Zion is an unity struggling
against Greece; the armies of Antichrist come up into the land to
war against Israel; Jerusalem receives her sister Samaria ; the
assembled two receive the assembled ten ; the people is described
as one Church or body, under the emblem of one once adulterous
but then purified wife, brought into marriage as an unity into one place,
which place itself is, by another prophet, said to be married : “thy
land Beulah.” And promises of blessing, relating beyond contradic-
tion to Messiah’s times, are addressed directly to the land, the hills
and valleys, the rivers and brooks, the villages and cities, blessings
of corn and wine, and increased flocks and people, which could have
no sense or significance only that they imply blessings to people upon
that land—i.e., they imply national restoration as well as national
conversion. I can see no middle place between spiritualizing entirely
and unsparingly, as Dr. Lee and such interpreters who deny anything
peculiar to Israel during the Christian age, and admitting that Israel
is to be nationally both restored and converted. But which of these
two great events shall first occur may, of course, be open to dis-
putation. ge
[3.] And the New Testament contains distinct prophecies, not only
of their conversion, but also of their restoration. I take first our
blessed Lord's soliloquy upon Jerusalem. (Matt. xxiii. 27 ; Luke
xiii. 24.) He beholds Jerusalem in the occupation of her own people,
and predicting the desolation which commenced with the destruction
of the city by the Romans and has continued to our times, declares—
“Ye shall not see me until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed
is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” This is a prophecy;
and I infer that three particulars are essential to its fulfilment:-
1. That a time shall come when Jesus shall be thus hailed as Messiah.
552 Notes on THE RESTORATION
2. That when so hailed, He shall be seen literally in the flesh, as
He was seen in that day. 3. Shall be so seen by sons of Judah,
inhabitants of that same Jerusalem. “Ye (inhabitants of this Jeru-
salem) shall not see me (Christ Jesus, God manifest in flesh) until ye
shall say, Blessed,” &c., &c. (but then ye shall so see me). The
national character of the language should be carefully borne in mind.
Our Lord is not contemplating those individual inhabitants of Jeru-
salem at that time, but the future of the sons of Judah as identified
with Jerusalem. As to critical efforts to evade this passage, I refer
to Bloomfield's note on Matt. xxiii. 39. (“Gr. Test,” vol. i., p. 140.)
That the phrase “Blessed be he,” &c., &c., &c., implies the hailing of
Christ as Messiah, is clear by a collation of the following passages:—
“Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is He that comethin the name
of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest” (Matt. xxi. 1–11); “Hosanna;
Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed be the
kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord :
Hosanna in the highest" (Mark xi. 1–11); “Blessed be the King
that cometh in the name of the Lord : peace in heaven, and glory in
the highest” (Luke xix. 28–40); “Hosanna : Blessed be the King
of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.” (John xii. 12—19.)
Thus, then, our blessed Saviour, alluding to his triumphal entry into
Jerusalem, so offensive to the chiefs of the people, predicts, in Matt.
xxiii., the desolation and dispersion of the nation, but affirms that
a time shall come when, at the same Jerusalem, the sons of Judah
shall similarly again behold Him, and hail Him with all their souls
as the real Messiah. I maintain that this conclusion is essential to
our Saviour's language, and that He in effect predicts the restoration
of Judah to Jerusalem, and his visible presence before them, acknow-
ledged as Messiah.
[4] Or, again, those places alluding to the coming of Elias (Matt.
xvii. 11; Mark ix. 12; Acts i. 6, and iii. 21); for I consider these
two passages in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles as referring to
our Lord's declaration, well known to the apostles, that Elias would
restore all things ; the same word, or its derivatives, being used in
each ; and that word invariably carrying in the New Testament the
force restore, i.e., to replace in former integrity or completeness, as
proved by Mr. Birks at p. 335 of his “Four Prophetic Empires.”
Our Saviour's declaration is, “Elias truly shall first come, and restore

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 553
all things; but I say unto you that Elias is come already, and they
knew him not :” where the allusion to John the Baptist does not
controvert the distinct assurance that Elias also shall first come, and
restore all things, though some have struggled hard to explain the
whole passage of John the Baptist. Those who desire to see that the
idea of a coming Elias is not novel, nor confined to a few individuals
in our times only, can consult Whitby's “Appendix to Romans xi. :”
but our subject is not so much concerned with that disputed question
as with the two passages in the Book of the Acts. The apostles
inquire of our Blessed Lord, just before his ascension, “Lord, wilt
thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts i. 6);
where it is clear they meant a temporal kingdom to literal Israel.
Our Saviour by no means denies that such a kingdom has to be
restored to literal Israel, but the very contrary. He indirectly
asserts that such a kingdom has to be restored; He speaks of certain
times and seasons, viz., of such restoration. “Lord, wilt thou at
this time?” &c., &c. Answer—“It is not for you to know the
times,”’ &c., &c.; i.e., the times about which you have now inquired
—viz., the times of such temporal kingdom's restoration to literal
Israel. Our Lord indirectly predicts the restoration of literal Israel
to a temporal kingdom—a temporal kingdom which (by the consent
of all investigators) synchronises with the destruction of Antichrist
and the end of the 1260 days, but the times of which events our
blessed Lord expressly declares it is not even for Apostles to know,
but “the Father hath put in his own power.” So that all attempts
to fia: the date of the Antichristian confederacy, and its destruction,
and of Israel's consequent conversion—i.e., the epiphany of Messiah
—and Israel's institution as a kingdom, must certainly fail. Our
Lord, I say, directly asserts this, but indirectly predicts the restoration
of all literal Israel in a kingdom, as of old. For the scriptural force
of the word here rendered restore, as explained above from Mr. Birks
and justified by Bloomfield (“Gr. Test,” vol. i., p. 100), should be
carefully borne in mind. Bloomfield's remark is, “By &rok. is
properly meant to restore a thing to its original state, and, by
implication, to reform and amend it.” The temporal kingdom of
literal Israel has to be restored to its original state. s
Similarly with regard to the other passage (Acts iii. 21)—“Whom
the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things,
which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since
554 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
the world began.” Upon which I accept Mr. Birks' observation —
“Two things appear evidently from this inspired statement. First,
that the national conversion of Israel is linked, by Divine promise,
with the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. And next, that the same
return of our Lord will introduce the period foretold by all the
prophets of the restitution of all things.” “The restitution of all
things,” addressed to Jewish ears, had a peculiar significance, which
seems explained by the passages under consideration, where the same
word is employed. Elias “restoreth all things; ” “Wilt thou at
this time restore the kingdom unto Israel?” There is predicted,
both by our Saviour and by St. Peter, such a restitution of all
things; but not to follow Israel's national conversion, nor (so far as I
can see) in language which implies the coming of the Son of man to
judgment. He appears at that time not to judge, but to convert, and
to institute his universal empire.
[5.] “Which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets
since the world began,” says St. Peter, using the same words as
Zacharias in Luke i. 70. This parallelism directs peculiar attention
to that first chapter of St. Luke's Gospel, and by it to all those
passages in the New Testament where our blessed Lord permits
himself to be recognised as King of Israel,—e.g., Luke xxiii. 3.;
John i. 49 ; to which we may add, as similar, Acts v. 31. If the
inspired songs of Mary and of Zacharias be attentively considered, I
cannot think it will be denied that the New Testament gives us
authority for these several conclusions :— 1. That the spiritual
benefits of Messiah’s coming are carefully extended to Israel as a
nation ; and that therefore, whether the conversion take place before
or after the restoration, all Christians may, from the New Testament,
anticipate the time when Israel—viz., the twelve tribes—will be
embodied as one Christian people, distinct from the Gentiles: which
embodiment implies, I submit, their national restoration. The passages
which lay down this truth are—Luke i. 54, 55, 68, 69, 77, 78. I
quote but one. “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He hath
visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up a horn of salva-
tion for us in the house of his servant David.” 2. That the temporal
elevation of all Israel, as a people distinct from Gentiles—i.e., their
national restoration—is also specified as part of the work which the
covenant in Messiah assures them shall be done. The passages
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 555
asserting this truth are—Luke i. 71, 74, 75. “That we should be
saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us. . . . .
That He would grant unto us that we, being delivered out of the
hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear; in holiness
and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life.” It seems to
me that no ingenuity can filch from these inspired assurances their
national force. We, the sons of Israel, shall be delivered from all
those that hate us ; we shall be delivered out of the hand of our
enemies; we shall serve Him in holiness all the days of our life
—i.e., our existence as a people. That such is the national force
of the passage is clear from ver. 73 –“The oath which He sware to
our father Abraham.” Israel's rescue as a nation, his separation as
a nation, his holiness as a nation, which mean his national restoration
and conversion, are predictively asserted by Zacharias, “filled with the
Holy Ghost.” (Ver. 67.) 3. That thus Israel's temporal and spiritual
recovery and constitution as a nation in the Holy Land is specifically
limited to Messiah's times—viz., the times of Christianity, and that
Zacharias especially refers the complete fulfilment of the promise
to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to these times. “To perform the
mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
the oath which He sware to our father Abraham, that He would
grant us,” &c., &c. (Vers. 72, 73.) So that, whatever the oath
to Abraham and the promise to Isaac and Jacob included, all that
is referred for its fulfilment to Messiah’s times. But I showed
abundantly, at p. 271—277, suprā, that the immutable Abrahamic
covenant, confirmed with an oath, and repeated to Isaac and Jacob,
included three articles, viz., the gift of Canaan, the gift of Messiah,
and the enduring blessing, which heads this chapter. So that
Zacharias, filled with the Holy Ghost, assures us that this oath
had reference peculiarly to Messiah’s coming ; and that, by con-
sequence, the full rescue of Israel as a people, and the complete
possession of the land of Canaan, appertained to Messiah's times;
i.e., the three articles of the covenant were not only synchronically
delivered, but were also to be synchronically fulfilled to Israel. This
is what I referred to at p. 427, suprā; this is that which has never
yet been accomplished; this oath has never yet been kept ; and
nothing remains to a believer but to anticipate the time when Israel
as a nation shall be temporally and spiritually thus blessed in
Messiah, i.e., shall be nationally restored and converted, according
to Zacharias’ prophecy.
556 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
And upon this declaration of Zacharias, taken in connexion with
the terms of the Abrahamic covenant; of Moses' song at Deut.
xxxii. 43—“Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people ; for He will
avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his
adversaries; and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people ; ”
and with Balaam's prediction, Numbers xxiv. 17–19.; upon these
Scriptures, limited, as they are, specially to Messiah's times, I ground
the conviction that the full possession of Canaan was always intended
to be limited to his days, according to the increasing light of prophe-
cies treated of in this volume. *
I said that to this head I should refer all those places in the New
Testament where our Lord permits himself to be called the King of
Israel, or wherever inspiration has assigned that title to Him. And
I should do this because of the angel's declaration at Luke i. 32.
Gabriel says, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the
Highest ; and 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.” To this same declaration
I refer all the prophecies of “the King” considered in chap. iv. of
this volume, and as inseparably connected with them (see p. 225,
supra), all the prophecies of “the Branch * in chap. iii. For the
throne of David was over all Israel, as one people, in the Holy Land.
The throne which the Lord Jesus is to have is David's throne :
granted that his kingdom is spiritual; but for sons of Israel, all
Israel, it must be temporal also, or it cannot be David's throne. It
must be a throne over literal Israel, over all literal Israel, over all
literal Israel united within the Holy Land. Such are the requisites of
David's throne, and it is David's throne which is promised to Messiah.
And to associate a spiritual empire with it does not controvert this
great fact. It is a spiritual kingdom, temporally constituted, upon
the face of this earth, of all Israel gathered into one in Palestine, a
Christian people, acknowledged the chief of all by their Gentile
brethren around. And the expressions, “over the house of Jacob
for ever,” and “of his kingdom there shall be no end,” suggest no
difficulty, for the Greek expression, eis roës dióvas, is equivalent to
the Hebrew Elish, so fully explained at p. 267, suprā, and means
not eternity in the abstract, but the period of religious dispensation.
(See also Lee's Appendix, p. 134, in his “Inquiry,” where he treats
of this phrase, and refers to Luke i. 33.) He shall thus spiritually
reign over the whole house of Jacob, thus embodied in the Holy
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 557
Land, throughout the whole remaining periods of a probationary, and
terrestrial, religion. And the expression “of his kingdom shall be
no end" seems parallel to Daniel ii. 44, vii. 14, “It shall stand for
ever "—sºphy', “His dominion is an everlasting dominion *-
Eby jº . Accordingly Whitby (Luke i. 33):—“And He shall
reign over the house of Jacob for ever (whilst He hath any seed in
being); and of his kingdom there shall be no end (as there hath, and
shall be, of the four great monarchies).” And, in a note—“Whilst
the house and the seed of Jacob, or the world lasts; his kingdom
being never to give place to any other kingdom, as the four monar-
chies did (Dan. vii. 14); but yet when death, the last enemy of his
Church, shall be dissolved, He shall give up this mediatory kingdom
to the Father.” (See note on 1 Cor. xv. 28.)
Thus Gabriel predicts, as a message to Christians immediately from
heaven, that all Israel shall be restored and formed into one Christian
kingdom, in their own land; and that this Christian kingdom
shall last as long as time lasts; and Christ shall not resign it
till He comes to judgment ; when St. Paul says He will resign
this kingdom (for it implies his mediatorial kingdom also):-" Then
cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom
to God, even the Father ; when He shall have put down all rule and
all authority and power ; for He must reign till He hath put all
enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is
death.” (1 Cor. xv. 24.) From the inauguration of universal
Christianity, commencing with the conversion of restored Israel, by
the epiphany of Messiah, all through the thousand years, until
Christ's coming to judgment, all Israel continues a firm and faithful
Christian people, in the Holy Land, never to backslide again. And
to this agrees Rev. xx., where the last great apostasy comes up against
and compasses the camp of the saints, and the beloved city; then, as
all through the thousand years, in the possession of faithful Israel.
Then comes the end (Rev. xx. 10); the last judgment (ver. 12); the
destruction of the last enemy, death (1 Cor. xv. 26 ; Rev.
xx. 14).
[6] The national character of the promises made to Israel in the
New Testament may be especially seen in Romans ix–xi. Proofs of
this are evident in chaps. ix. 1–5; x. 1–21 ; xi. 1–2, 9–11,
15–23, 25–27, and 29–32. I quote only the following :-" I say
then, have they stumbled that they should fall 2 God forbid ; but
558 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to
provoke them to jealousy. Now, if the fall of them be the riches of
the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles,
how much more their fulness ** Again :-‘‘If the casting away of
them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them
be but life from the dead P’’ “Blindness, in part, is happened unto
Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel
shall be saved.” It is not my intention to enter at any length upon
these Scriptures, upon which so much has at various times been said,
but simply to mark the national character of St. Paul's discourse. It
may be termed a discourse upon the national future of Israel, and of
Israel specifically in a state of impenitence and unbelief during the
age of Christianity. I see no way of avoiding the conclusion that the
prophet here—for such St. Paul is as he writes—not only argues to
the Romans upon God’s power to graff all Israel, as a nation, into the
Christian Church, but also asserts prophetically that He will ; and
this I take especially to be the meaning of chap. xi. 25–32. The
national conversion is asserted so plainly as to seem scarcely deniable;
but this national character of the context seems to me to assert, by
implication, their national restoration also. It should be remem-
bered that when St. Paul wrote, Israel yet existed as a separate people,
and that the natural and necessary force of his language would be to
convey to his readers ideas of Israel, as such separate people; they
would form no other conception of them. The national polity of the
sons of Judah was a real and visible fact, to which the minds of the
Romans would naturally revert whenever that people was mentioned.
This alone is an important consideration, apart from the grand fact
that St. Paul uses language peculiarly national and comprehensive.
He speaks of their past as a people whose history had been wrought
out peculiarly in Canaan : he speaks of their present as a people still
possessing a national polity in Canaan ; he speaks of their future by
implication similarly.
This national character of the prophecies affecting the future history
of Israel should be carefully borne in mind; for, upon the assumption
that they are to be fulfilled, it seems natural to expect their fulfilment
will be signalised by events characteristically national, and that those
events will have a national arena for their transaction. National
prophecies, even if of conversion only, seem to involve national
reconstruction. And accordingly we find, throughout all the prophe-
cies we have considered, that this national character is everywhere
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 559
attached to predictions of the restoration. Israel is always spoken of
as a people, and never otherwise.
[7.] When speaking of the Book of Joel, allusion was made, at
p. 445, suprā, to the manner in which quotations are frequently made
in the New Testament from the Old. On the particular passage, Joel
ii. 28–32, it was remarked that St. Peter's intention, in Acts ii.
16–21, was not to quote or translate Joel verbally, but to give the
spirit, and generally to fix the era, of the prophet's language. Just
as at Matt. xxvii. 7–10, the evangelist's purpose is not to quote
Zechariah verbally, or translate him word for word ; but (in Dr.
Henderson's language, “Minor Proph,” p. 423), “In producing the
citation, the latter (Matthew) had his eye more intent upon the
historical circumstances which he had just detailed, than upon the
strict grammatical construction, and verbality of the language employed
in the prophecy.” This is precisely the principle upon which we
maintained that St. Peter's év taſs éoxárats àuépaus, in Acts, was not
to be taken as a verbal translation of Joel's 72"Tºš. And it is clear,
upon an examination of various quotations in the New Testament
from the Old, that these quotations were frequently preceded by the
phrases, “then was fulfilled that which was spoken by,” &c., &c., or
“this is that which was spoken by,” &c., &c.; but that the intention
of the sacred writers, in such cases, was not to imply that the entire
predictions, of which such quotations formed a part, were then
fulfilled, but merely that the part so quoted received then a fulfilment,
either partial or complete. Thus, if Zech. xi. be read, and particularly
the concluding verses 14—17, it seems sufficiently plain that the
whole context, of which Matthew's quotation was part, was not
fulfilled at the particular time when that particular event occurred in
reference to which he wrote—“Then was fulfilled (róre ém Ampº.6m rô
§móēv) that which was spoken by the prophet. And they took the
thirty pieces of silver,” &c. (Matt. xxvii. 9.) Matthew is taught to
Select that quotation which marks the era of the whole context,
without its being intended to imply that the whole context was then
fulfilled.
Just so at Matthew ii. 17:—“Then was fulfilled (róre ét}\mptºn
rô fimºv) that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In
Rama there was a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great
mourning, Rachel weeping,” &c., &c. Are we to understand that
560 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
that context of Jeremiah's prophecy, of which this prediction con-
cerning Rachel was an inseparable part, was then completely fulfilled 2
The following is that context:—“Thus saith the Lord ; A voice was
heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping ; Rachel weeping
for her children, refused to be comforted for her children, because they
were not. Thus saith the Lord : Refrain thy voice from weeping,
and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the
Lord ; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And
there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall
come again to their own BORDER * *-ā territorial border. (Jerem.
xxxi. 17.) Most blessed promise yet remaining to be fulfilled !
Herod's cruel slaughter of the children, literally fulfilling Jeremy's
prediction, was typical of Gentile oppression of sons of Judah all
through the days of Christianity, which did but commence in Herod's
time. It pleased Almighty wisdom, by a singular literal accomplish-
ment of one prediction, to enable us to fia: the era of Jeremiah's
prophecy, which (it is manifest) yet awaits its full completion ; for
Herod's time knew in no sense Israel's, or Judah's, coming again
from the land of the enemy; in no sense, Rachel's children,
Joseph and Benjamin, i.e., Ephraim and the inseparable member
of the two, coming “again to their own BoFDER.” When, then,
Matthew said then was fulfilled that which was spoken, he did
not mean to assert a full accomplishment of the prophecy from which
he quoted, but a primary or partial; and thus directs our attention
to that which is yet to come. So Peter (Acts ii. 16):—“This is that
which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (todró art to eipmuévov); he
does not intend to assert a full accomplishment of Joel's prediction,
but a primary and partial; and he directs our attention to that which
is yet to come. -
I have recurred to this subject for the purpose of suggesting, what
seems to me an important principle to be recognised in these quota-
tions by evangelists and apostles from the Old Testament of prophe-
cies which relate to a future restoration and conversion of Israel.
For remembering that one Mind inspired both the original prophet
and the writer who quotes him, and that such Divine Mind is perfect
in knowledge, whether foreseeing, or retrospective, it seems to me
we can hardly fail to understand that the Holy Spirit intended the
quotation to prove an index, or directory, to the prophecy from which
the quotation is taken. And that when the verse, or verses, quoted
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 561
are found, upon reference, to be essential parts of the Hebrew writer's
context, we are required to believe that the Spirit of inspiration
indicates to the reader that the whole prophecy (of which the quota-
tidnis but afragment) is to be taken in its integrity. The fragmentary
part was sufficient for the sacred writer's immediate purpose, and
therefore only that part is taken; but the era of the whole is fixed,
and devout attention challenged to its contents. Taking such a view,
we have one or two very important allusions to the coming restoration
and conversion of Israel made in the New Testament.
Thus, for instance, Matt. ii. 6 refers to Micah v. 2: “And they
said unto him in Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the
prophet, And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least
among the princes of Judah, for out of thee shall come a governor that
shall rule my people Israel.” We know that this reply was scriptural
and sound ; for Scripture had said, “That Christ cometh of the seed
of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem where David was.”
(John vii. 42.) Messiah of literal David in Bethlehem, a governor
for literal Israel. The chief priests and scribes answered soundly.
We refer to Micah v. 2, and find the context thus: “But thou,
Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me that is to be ruler in
Israel, whose goings forth have been of old from everlasting. There-
fore will he give them up until the time that she that travaileth hath
brought forth; then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the
children of Israel,” &c., &c. : the connexion of the whole chap. v.
being vigorously sustained. So that Matthew is made to direct us
to a large context, and by a specific quotation to fix the era of its
application, though that context contains in close connexion with the
extract he gives, one prediction manifestly unfulfilled. For he fixes
the literal meaning of the word “Israel” in Micah's prophecy, and it
is certain that during Messiah's times, hitherto there has been in no
sense, spiritual or temporal, any return of “th # remnant of his
brethren” unto the literal “children of Israel.” So if we regard the
whole context (which, I maintain, cannot be divided as to its era
without violence to the Hebrew), we shall find Messiah predicted to
be the peace of Israel, i.e., his complete restoration to God's favour
when the Assyrian in Messiah's days, i.e., the mystical Assyrian (see
chap. xi., p. 492, &c., supra), comes into Israel's land. We shall find
the separation of Israel from Gentile nations under God's immediate
O O

562 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
hand in Messiah's days described as the disappearance of dew or rain
from the grass under the influence of the solar rays. (Ver, 7.) We
shall find the exploits of this same “remnant of Jacob,” i.e., remnant
of all the tribes, against his adversaries in Messiah's days described as
in the prophecies of Zechariah ix. 10, and 12–14, already considered.
(Vers. 8, 9.) And also in Messiah's days the purgation of Israel and
his land from all oppressors and means of oppression together (vers.
10, 11) (see p. 290, suprā), and also from all forms of false doctrine
and means of apostatical corruption (vers. 12–14) (see p. 524, suprā);
by the Lord's entire and final overthrow of apostasy at Jerusalem.
(Wer. 14.) It being particularly manifest of all this context that
vers. 8–15 are most inseparably connected ; that vers. 10, 11, are to
be fulfilled in that day of vers. 8, 9; and vers. 12–15 in the same
day as vers. 10, 11.
So also Acts xv. 16 refers to Amos ix. 11, 12. In reference to the
spiritual calling of the Gentiles St. James says, “And to this agree
the words of the prophets, as it is written, After this I will return,
and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down, and
I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up ; that the
residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon
whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.”
St. James quotes a particular passage for his immediate purpose,
and becomes an inspired director to a context, the grand features of
which are not fulfilled; for, as may be seen by reference, the whole
belongs to that day when “the house of Israel,” i.e., all the tribes,
are sifted among all nations like corn in a sieve, “yet shall not the
least grain fall upon the earth,” i.e., be lost to him who sifts it, and
ends with a triumphant prediction of a literal restoration of all the
house of Israel to the Holy Land. “It is impossible to conceive of a
prophecy more distinctly or positively asserting the future and final
restoration of the Jews to Canaan than that contained in these verses.”
(Henderson’s “Min. Proph,” p. 183.) But, by such quotations and
consequent references, the New Testament does not ignore, but
through evangelists and apostles reminds us of the coming restoration
of Israel.
And, I would add, that these two references to Micah and to Amos
by Matthew and by James illustrate remarkably the mode of quota-
tion adopted by Peter as to Joel, which is explained above and made
an important use of at p. 445, suprā. They are not intended to be

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 563
verbal translations. Similarly Stephen, at Acts vii. 43, to Amos
v. 25. Damascus, says the Hebrew ; which Stephen explains by
Babylon. After these things, says Joel ; which Peter explains by the
last days. And we might as well say that Babylon was a translation
of Damascus, as év rais éoxáras #1épais a translation of 72"Tº.
[8.] The prophecy of Amos, just alluded to, which, containing so
remarkable a prediction of Israel's national restoration, concludes with
these words: “I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no
more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the
Lord God.” (Amos ix. 15.)—I quote the passage merely as another
of many instances pointed out in the course of these chapters, where
the Holy Land is termed, in prophecy having reference undoubtedly to
days not yet arrived, Israel's land ; just as it is also called God's
land. (See p. 276, &c., suprā.) Such passages remind us of the perpe-
tuity of God's gift of Palestine to Israel, and that even in their days
no nation but that has any claim to it or can expect to hold it except
under chastisement from the Most High. This was proved in opposition
to Professor Lee's scheme in chap. vi., p. 261. The Professor's system
is to interpret “Canaan” and “the land” in these cases spiritually,
as if the whole habitable world was intended, because possessed of
Gentiles who from the first were covenanted to become the spiritual
seed of Abraham. (See p. 184, suprā.) This ingenious device may
probably be traced to a misconception of St. Paul at Rom. iv. 13:
“For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to
Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness
of faith;” and it, in fact, perpetrates the error of confusing the Lord's
gift of a literal inheritance, viz., Palestine, with that of a spiritual,
viz., the Gentiles. St. Paul's whole object in that chapter is to
direct attention to the spiritual promises and spiritual seed, which by
no means invalidate or interfere with the literal. And it would be
as reasonable to say that Abraham has in these days no natural
descendants because he has spiritual ; as to say, a literal in-
heritance was never given because from the first a spiritual promise
was given also. The literal promises and the spiritual go together.
The way to test this scheme of explaining “Canaan,” “the land,”
&c., &c. of a spiritual inheritance as soon as we arrive at Christian
times is, 1. To examine the terms of the original grant, and to see
whether a literal inheritance was ever given, and if so, whether there
O O 2
564, NotEs on THE RESTORATION
was any limitation attached to the gift. This was fully done in chap. vi.
And, 2. To examine specific prophecies, by general admission
unfulfilled, to see if the land of Israel, &c., &c., are in such prophecies
so specifically described, and by such designations as preclude any
rational endeavour to interpret such passages spiritually. This has
been done generally all through this volume.
St. Paul's whole context shows that his phrase, “heir of the world,”
is a figurative expression, having relation to the promise, “And in
thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. xxii. 18),
repeated to Abraham peculiarly at that time, when, in all probability,
the way of salvation through Messiah's blood and the extent of that
salvation was especially revealed to him. (Compare John viii. 56.)
But this by no means contradicts, nor must it be confused with that
other promise, “And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee
(i.e., as long as thou hast seed), the land wherein thou art a stranger,
all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession ; and I will be
their God.” (Gen. xvii. 8 ; or, again, Gen. xv. 18–21.) One
promise is specifically spiritual, the other as specifically literal.
But it should be particularly remembered that the spiritual
interpretation put by the New Testament upon certain passages in the
Old is not by any means opposed to the literal, which we advocate.
One might imagine from the language adopted by some persons on
this subject that the evangelists and apostles (particularly St. Paul)
had been commissioned to supply us with paraphrases or expositions
of all the prophets and every part of them, and that such spiritual
expositions of the prophets, and no other, were consistent with
Christianity. But the fact is that these spiritual illustrations of parts
of the Old Testament are, comparatively speaking, rare ; but rare as
they are, they perfectly permit and harmonize with the literal inter-
pretation contended for. Instances of such spiritual interpretation
may be found at Rom. ix. 6; Gal. iv. 24–27; also vi. 16; and the
Epistle to the Hebrews at large : but particularly Heb. xii. 22. And
it is certain that it has pleased the Almighty so to publish his Word
that every part of it is capable of a highly spiritual exposition,-the
historical Books as well as the Levitical and prophetical, and not
least, the various incidents recorded concerning the life and actions of
our blessed Lord and his apostles. But the power to extract the
spiritual lessons, these “improvements,” as they are sometimes called,
does not take away from the literal meaning of such places. Thus,
AND CONVERSION of THE JEws. g' 565
as there was a literal meaning peculiar to the Levitical laws capable (as
St. Paul shows) of a highly spiritual exposition, so there was a literal
meaning for the language of the sacred historians capable of a similar ;
thus there is a literal meaning to the language of the prophets
capable of the same. As, for instance, certain prophecies affecting
Babylon and Tyre, which have been fulfilled, admitted also an expo-
sition for spiritual purposes, so certain other prophecies affecting the
Assyrian, the Idumean, the sons of Greece, Gomer and all his bands,
&c., &c., which have yet to be fulfilled, admit also such spiritual
exposition. But in neither case is the literal force of the language to
be denied. .
The people Israel were always a type of the Church; Canaan of the
promised heaven; Jerusalem of the heavenly Zion. No one denies
this. But when the apostles allude to the Church and her hopes
under such titles, they do not intend to invalidate the literal meaning
of the words so employed by the prophets, although they be used in
reference to Christian times. It would be as scriptural and as
Christian to say that the Book of Leviticus never had a literal
meaning because the apostle puts a spiritual upon it, as to say that the
prophecies concerning Israel yet manifestly unfulfilled, are not literal
because they may be taken spiritually. The difference between the
two cases lies here:—in the first we know (historically) that the
words were literal; in the second we have unfulfilled prophecy, and,
therefore, do not know it; and there poor Christians stumble. “Blessed
are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John xx. 29.)
[9.] And of great importance to this part of the question are the
abundance of passages contained in the prophets, and relating clearly
to the Christian Church, where the Jews as a people, and Jerusalem
as their city, are carefully contradistinguished from Gentiles as
members of the Church, the spiritual Jerusalem. Reference to these
passages I shall preface by one from the New Testament, which
might serve as a type for all: “A light to lighten the Gentiles, and
the glory (i.e., to glorify or make renowned) of thy people Israel.”
(Luke ii. 32.) Where aged Simeon, especially inspired of the Holy
Ghost, prophesying of the Christian Church, predicts that Israel
nationally, viz., as “a people,” and as a part of that Church, is still
God's people, distinguished as a people from Gentile nations. Such
passages are Isaiah xlix. 6, and 22, 23 ; also lx. 9–11, and 15, 16;

566 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
also lxi. 7–9 ; also lxvi. 19, 20; illustrative of prophecies considered
in this volume, e.g., Ezek. xvi., where Sodom is distinguished from
Jerusalem and Samaria; and the prophecies relating to the great
Antichristian confederacy generally, where Gentiles are the chastened,
Israelites the rescued, but the spiritual consequences are afterwards
extended to all. I shall quote but one of the above, being probably
that to which Simeon alluded: “It is a light thing that thou shouldest
be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the
preserved of Israel; I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles,
that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth.”
(Isaiah xlix. 6.) -
There are also passages which not only mention Gentiles, but also
include the Jews and their land within the Christian Church in
language so definite as to admit of no reasonable denial. Such are
Isaiah xl. 1, 2; also xlii. 24, 25, with xliii. 1–3; also xliii. 18–21 ;
also xlv. 14—17 ; also xlix. 13–19.; also lxii. 5–9. I take from
Isaiah for facility of reference; similar passages, though less fre-
quently, may be found in other Books. And there is no controverting
them with reason; the people and their land in various particulars
are alluded to, their rebellions recounted, and God's chastisements, in
such manner that the identification of literal Israel and his literal
land cannot be denied. These promises of terrestrial fertility, national
prosperity, and spiritual blessedness are made in such terms and so
absolutely, that Israel's literal restoration and conversion,--I was
almost about to say, becomes an imperative article of Christian faith.
That passage in Isaiah xlv. 14—17 is so singular that I shall not
hesitate to quote it : “Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel
and his maker, Ask of me things concerning my sons, and concerning
the work of my hands command ye me; I have made the earth and
created man upon it; I, even my hands, have stretched out the
heavens, and all their host have I commanded. I have raised him up
in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways; he shall build my
city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith
the Lord of hosts. Thus saith the Lord, The labour of Egypt and
merchandise of Ethiopia, and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall
come over unto thee, and they shall be thine; they shall come after
thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto
thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in
thee; and there is none else, there is no God. Verily thou art a God
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 567
that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. They shall be
ashamed, and also confounded, all of them ; they shall go to confusion
together that are makers of idols. But Israel shall be saved in the
Lord with an everlasting salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor
confounded world without end.” -
It is, however, not only denied that Israel's restoration is predicted
in the Holy Volume, but sometimes broadly asserted that there are
passages which plainly state that Israel shall never be restored nor
Jerusalem rebuilt. Passages referred to are Isaiah xxv.2; Jerem.
xxiii. 39, 40; Hosea i. 6; and Ezek. vii. 13. (See Lee's “Inquiry,”
pp. 44–47, 56, 63, 95, 102.) These are the only passages which
deserve consideration ; and it will be easily shown that such adverse
predictions against Israel are apparent, not real. It is indeed
surprising that Professor Lee should have alluded to them, and the
manner of his doing so equally singular.
“For thou hast made of a city a heap, of a defenced city a ruin; a
palace of strangers to be no city; it shall never be built.” (Isaiah
xxv. 2.) Tº §2 Eºivº for a period not defined, but also not
unlimited, it shall not be built. All depends upon the rendering
of Fºix, which means not never in the English sense, but is a
variable term defined by its contexts, parallel places, necessity of the
case, &c. (See p. 262, suprā, and Lee’s “Lexicon,” p. 453.) We
see this prophecy of Isaiah being literally fulfilled in our day,
commencing, as it did, with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.
But we know from other prophecies that Bºis here has its limits.
Precisely so with respect to Jerem. xxiii. 40: “I will bring an
everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame which shall not
be forgotten.” The two words perpetual and everlasting here are
Eºis in the Hebrew. Not unsimilarly on Hosea i. 6: “I will no
more have mercy upon the house of Israel, but I will utterly take
them away;” is ºpis sº. But Hosea is speaking of the ten
as distinguished from the two, and predicts that they should no
more constitute a separate kingdom, like Judah ; which is exactly
shown by contrasting ver. 7 with ver. 6: “But I will have mercy
upon the house of Judah,” &c., &c. Just as Hosea says at chap. xi. 12,
“Ephraim compasseth me about with lies, and the house of Israel
with deceit ; but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the
saints.” This prophecy of Hosea we have seen literally fulfilled ; Israel
soon ceased to be a kingdom, and will never be such again. When
568 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
*
the restoration takes place, Joseph, i.e., Israel, will be added to Judah
(p. 174, suprā): and even in the first, or political restoration, the govern-
ing power will be Judah's. (See pp. 293, 514, on Zech. ix. 13 and xii.
5, 6.) Now, as regards Ezek. vii. 13, “the vision is touching the
whole multitude thereof, which shall not return.” Let the context be
examined. Ezekiel is predicting the devastation of Judea, and the
scattering of her people by the Romans; and, among other predictions,
says, “The time is come, the day draweth near ; let not the buyer
rejoice, nor the seller mourn; for wrath is upon all the multitude
thereof. For the seller shall not return to that which is sold, although
they were yet alive ; for the vision is touching the whole multitude
thereof, which shall not return; neither shall any strengthen himself
in the iniquity of his life.” . Ezekiel's meaning is clear. He predicts
a captivity very unlike that of Babylon, before which a man might
buy that to which he might expect to return (see Jerem. xxxii. 6—
15); and he speaks predictively of the multitude at Jerusalem then
living when his prophecy should be fulfilled, and declares that neither
seller nor buyer need care about his sale or purchase, for that the
captivity he predicted would be so complete, and of such duration,
that that whole multitude would perish before its termination, and at
its termination the recovery of such purchased possessions, as pur-
chased, would be impossible. The prediction has been literally
fulfilled; and if we, who advocate Judah's literal restoration, main-
tained that Judah’s sons would return to their own patrimonial lands,
and demand of their Gentile oppressors arrears of rent and compound
interest, it might be of some use to quote this prophecy of Ezekiel's
against us, but not otherwise.
[10.] When considering the Scriptural probability, or otherwise,
of a coming national restoration and conversion of Israel, we should
carefully distinguish between those matters which are essential to the
subject, and others which, though commonly associated with it, are
not. Of this second kind are questions relating to the character of
that period known generally as “the millennium ; ” the expectation
earnestly entertained by some most Christian men of a literal “personal
reign “ of Christ our Lord on earth ; the anticipation, undoubtedly
scriptural, of a vast ingathering of the Gentiles to Christianity,
through the conversion of the Jews; and, lastly, the manner in
which Israel's conversion is associated with the Redeemer, whether by

AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 569
a personal coming, or otherwise ; for I wish it to be at once observed,
as at p. 534, suprā, that a personal coming, or appearance, does not
necessarily imply a personal continuance, or reign.
The extent of these notes precludes my entering at large upon these
topicſ, as well as more especially insisting upon the important fact,
that belief in conversion subsequent to restoration, by immediate
interposition of the Most High, should by no means tend to check
our zeal in prosecuting already missionary efforts for the conversion of
the Jews; nor does it by any means controvert our duty to do so, than
which, I suppose, nothing can be plainer. But, as regards the first
two, viz., the millennium and the personal reign, I confess I am awed
by perceiving how unsatisfactory upon these subjects have been the
efforts of some to whose opinions generally one is disposed to pay the
highest deference. I would only hazard two observations, viz.,
1. That Christian friends of Israel may with equal earnestness and
sincerity anticipate the coming redemption of Israel, and yet be
allowed on these two topics to entertain different opinions; and,
2. That the smallest spiritual results so far surpass the powers of
human conception, that the language of Holy Scripture, describing
events, compared with heaven, and the presence of God, earthly and
inconsiderable, are nevertheless taken by us to imply issues not only
spiritual, but transcendently heavenly, and fraught with the unchange-
ableness of eternity.—Who that lived before it would have supposed
that that part of the Christian dispensation which has already elapsed,
and is now expiring, described in such language as Holy Scripture
uses of it, would have proved such a fearful history of bloodshed and
terror, of falsehood, hypocrisy, Schism, and apostasy, as we know it
to have been 2 Yet even from millennians apostasy is to be evolved.
(Rev. xx. 7.) No doubt, could we fully appreciate the spiritual
effects of the Christianity which has been developed, as well as of
that which is yet to be exhibited after the conversion of Israel, we
should find the language of Scripture literally justified, but we
cannot. The exceeding sinfulness of sin, and the powers of spiritual
wickedness in high places, as well as the strength and beauty of
Divine love, and the spiritual might which effects our deliverance,
and will at last consummate the whole scheme of redemption, are
subjects which evade all human efforts to comprehend them ; mean-
while, we have to guard against imaginations which would confound
that whose scene is earth, and whose catastrophe is, by revelation,
earthly and apostatic, with the inconceivable and unchangeful glories
570 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
of the heavenly rest, to which alone appertains the presence of the
Lamb. (Rev. xxii. 1–6.)
But, as regards the manner in which our God and Saviour is
associated with the work of Israel's conversion, I have undoubtedly
presumed, at p. 531, suprā, to conclude that it will be a personal
epiphany, or appearance, of Messiah, effecting Israel's conversion at
Jerusalem; as St. Paul's, near Damascus. But acceptance of this
opinion, or perception of the meaning of Holy Scripture on this
head, is not essential to the chief parts of the subject. And the
opinion may be dismissed as unceremoniously as, by some, I anticipate
it will ; and yet the main design of the chapters be admitted to have
been attained, viz., the proof that a national restoration of Israel is
yet to be expected before the conversion. Still I would urge that
there is nothing in Holy Scripture opposed to the idea. I ground the
conviction that there will be a visible manifestation of Messiah upon
Isa. xxxiii. 17, taken with 20—“Thine eyes shall see ; ” upon Zech.
xii. 10, taken with xiv. 4; and Rev. i. 7 ; upon Acts i. 11, taken
with Acts iii. 21 ; in which last verse I understand “the restitution
of all things” to be precisely the restoration of the kingdom inquired
after by the apostles at Acts i. 6; the restoration of that kingdom
involving the universal prevalence of Christianity, embracing the
whole world. But this personal appearance of Messiah does not
imply his continuance on earth to reign, nor does it in any way oppose
the Scriptures which speak of Christ's second coming to judge the
world, any more than the appearance of the same Saviour to St. Paul
did ; nor, if the corresponding Scriptures be examined, shall we find
anything in them opposed to the idea. Now, such Scriptures are
Dan. vii. 13, 14:—“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like
the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came,” &c., &c.;
Dan. xii. 1 —“And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great
prince which standeth for the children of thy people,” &c., &c.;
Matt. xxiv. 30 (and corresponding places in the evangelists):—“And
then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then
shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of
man coming,” &c., &c.; 2 Thess. ii. 8:—“And then shall that wicked
be revealed whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his
mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming; ” and
Rev. xix. 11—21:—“And I saw heaven opened,” &c., &c., as far as
Rev. xx. 6.
All these passages make for a visible personal presence of Messiah,
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 571
especially when taken in connexion with Isa. xxxiii. 17–20 ; Zech.
xii. 10, and xiv. 4; Rev. i. 7 ; Acts i. 11, xxi., and iii. 21. But
there are made two objections; First. Mr. Faber's, who maintains
that the advent mentioned in such passages must be figurative, or we
“violate the whole principle of prophetic symbolization” (“Sac.
Cal,” vol. i., p. 184); an argument the force of which I do not see, for
(in his own language, “Eight Dissert,” vol. i., p. 10), “The recorded
appearance of the Lord to St. Paul, as he came near to Damascus,
has never been deemed his second advent, nor has this descent ever
been thought to contravene,”—we may say, “the whole principle of
prophetic symbolization,” where he puts “the broad general declara-
tion” contained in Acts iii. 21. I cannot see that the expectation of
a personal epiphany of Messiah, yet to happen, any more violates the
prophetic symbolization than the personal epiphany which has happened
did in St. Paul's days. But, however, if that principle was then
violated, for St. Paul's sake, who should wonder if it were again
violated for Israel's 2
But, Second. There is the objection of those, or, rather, the mis-
conception of those, who with this personal epiphany will associate
Christ's coming to judge, which is quite a different event. At p. 532,
suprā, I have already hinted at some reasons why this appearance of
the Son of man cannot be the occasion of final judgment. I shall
now briefly suggest a few more. 1. Of all the coincident Scrip-
tures above referred to, those which suggest this idea of judgment
are Dan. vii. 10:—“The judgment was set, and the books were
opened,” the limited character of which judgment is immediately
defined ; it is the judgment of the beast, and the rest of the beasts,
parallel to Rev. xix. 17–21, parallel to (I venture to believe) the
destruction of Gog, &c., &c., as in chaps. vi., vii., x., xi., xii.,
suprā; just as ver. 26:—“But the judgment shall sit, and they shall
take away his dominion,” &c., &c.; Dan. xii. 2, 3:—“And many of
them that sleep in the dust,” &c, &c.—ºn Pººl and many from
the sleeping ones—showing again the limited character of this resur-
rection, even if we admit it to be literal ; Rev. xx. 4, 5, where the
expression, “And the rest of the dead lived not"—oi 8& Mottrol rôv
vekpów, and the left of the dead—shows again the limited character of
that resurrection, admitting it to be literal. But, because it is so
limited, therefore such passages cannot be descriptive of the final
judgment ; nor the coming of the Son of man, which is connected
with them, be that coming which precedes his judging “the living
*
572 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
and the dead.” But now, even supposing this resurrection to be
literal, then the statement, “they lived and reigned with Christ a
thousand years” (Rev. xx. 4–6), does not involve a personal continu-
ance on earth, any more than the resurrection at Matt. xxvii. 52 :—
“And the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which
slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and
appeared unto many.” I say that, even granting a literal resurrection
of them “that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,” &c., &c.
(Rev. xx. 4), this in no way involves their continuance on earth;
while Scripture itself supplies a precedent against it.
But, further, the epiphany of Messiah which, as we maintain,
effects Israel's conversion at Jerusalem is not his coming to judge,
because in 2 Thess. ii. 8, “the brightness of the Lord's coming ”
which destroys “that wicked” is parallel to Dan. vii. 11, 12, and
Rev. xix. 19, 20; and also because Matt. xxiv. 29–31 is parallel to
Joel ii. 31 ; Dan. xii. 1; Zech. xii. 9—14; and Rev. i. 7 ; and
xix. 15. Our Saviour had been predicting a siege and capture of
Jérusalem which has taken place, but which was also emblematical
of another yet to come ; and he foretels for these days the overthrow
of powers temporal and religious in the destruction of the powers of
Antichrist, temporal and spiritual—delusive systems falling like stars
from heaven ; he foretels the mourning of such “tribes of the earth,”
and not least, of Israel, precisely as at Rev. i. 7, and Zech. xii. 11 ;
and he foretels the ingathering of Israel from all quarters of the
world, like Isaiah in so many places; only it is assumed that, “And
he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they
shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of
heaven to the other” (ver. 31), must mean the final judgment;
whereas it may mean that, but also the ingathering of Israel, which
typifies it precisely as at Dan. xii. 1 : “And at that time thy people
shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book; ”
where “thy people,” twice used in the same verse, must be in reason
taken of the same people. So that, putting all these passages together,
they harmonize well enough.
The “judgment set” is the judgment of the apostates, and limited
to them ; the mourning foretold is the mourning of the nations whose
apostasy embodied in their armies is overthrown in Palestine; “the
distress of nations” (Luke xxi. 25–28), when Israel's redemption
draweth nigh; but not least, Israel's mourning also when they look
on Him whom their fathers pierced ; and the resurrection foretold, if
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. - 573
admitted to be literal (to which I do not object), a limited resurrection
of privileged souls, eminent for the sufferings and witness of Jesus,
and limited to them, but not because risen and reigning therefore
confined to earth, any more than he with whom they reign; or any more
than they are confined to the earth who, at the same time, are repre-
sented as rising to “shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. xii. 2); and
the kingdom established (Dan. vii. 14. and 27) is the kingdom of
universal Christianity. (Zech. xiv. 9, and Rev. xi. 15.) In none of
which have weindications of the day of final judgment, but the contrary.
The judgment predicted is limited, the resurrection predicted (even if
literal) is limited ; the event of “the coming” foretold is attended
with a repentance ending in conversion of Jews and Gentiles, and
the whole with the institution of an universal Church, from which,
however, arises in the lapse of ages once more, but finally, the errors
of apostasy. How can Christian men ever confound such a “coming of
the Son of man” with his coming to judge the world 2 It is open to
us to understand such “coming,” such “judgment,” and such “resur-
rection ” figuratively, as Mr. Faber does ; or to conclude that the
“coming” describes an epiphany not involving the personal presence
or continuance of the Son of man ; but the doctrine of a premillennial
coming of Christ to judge is by Scripture utterly untenable. “In
fact, so long as Matt. xxv. 21–36; 1 Thess. iv. 13—18; and 2 Pet.
iii. 3–13 are acknowledged to be synchronical, and to treat of the
literal second advent with its circumstantial concomitants, it will be a
hopeless task to fix that advent at the close of the 1260 years, and at
the commencement of the thousand years.” (Faber’s “Eight Dissert,”
vol. i., preface, p. 13.) It should be carefully noted that “the
coming ” associated with Israel's redemption is a coming to convert
both Jews and Gentiles, and, therefore, not to judge. -
[11.] But whatever Christian brethren may think of the senti-
ments here expressed respecting “the personal reign,” or the manner
in which I have ventured to deduce from Scripture the conversion of
Israel will be effected, I trust they may not be indisposed to admit
that the main subject of this inquiry, viz., the national restoration and
conversion of Israel, has not been discussed altogether without
success, but that it has upon the whole been proved that such literal
restoration and such national conversion remain yet to be expected, and
that this conversion will take place after the restoration. For,
574. NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
As regards the restoration, it has been treated of from various
Scriptures with respect to which we showed in each case that they had
never been fulfilled, and, whenever necessary, that specifically they
had not been fulfilled at the Babylonian restoration; so that no con-
clusion remained but either that their fulfilment must yet be antici-
pated, or else that no literal restoration is foretold at all. But we proved
that by the very force of the language employed and by all Christian
consistency of Scriptural interpretation, such passages demanded to be
taken in their literal import. For that such literal force was clear
from the minute designations of persons and places, by the contradis-
tinction of parts of the people of Israel from other parts by families,
or tribes, or houses, and their contradistinction also by such houses,
or tribes, or families from the Gentile nations, so that it was impossible
to interpret such places vaguely of the Christian Church. Similarly
also as regards places, that the literal parts of the Holy Land, of
Jerusalem, and other places, were so minutely and cautiously specified
in prophecies evidently not yet fulfilled, that we could not attach
spiritual meanings to such words and passages without incurring the
risk of an absurdity almost profane, but certainly of such a sort that
Christianity revolts from it. So that it became clear that such
passages of Scripture, belonging manifestly to prophecy unaccom-
plished, predicted the literal restoration of all the house of Israel to all
parts of their ancient Holy Land ; settled by division of families and
tribes known and recognised distinctly from each other, And this
restoration under the governorship of the house of David. And this
literal import of Scriptures predicting Israel's restoration becomes the
more impressive when we perceive such passages placed in contrast,
as they continually are, with others describing the chastisements they
were literally to experience for their national transgressions; for the
conclusion is thus made unavoidable that the same nation that under-
went such chastisement was to become literally as a nation recipient
of such covenanted blessings.
And as regards the conversion, and that it was to be national, these
two important subjects of Christian faith are found clearly enjoined in
the Word of God—1. Because the unfulfilled prophecies considered
were full of spiritual promises of reconciliation and subsequent
blessing, which, belonging, as they were proved to belong, to times
yet to come, must of necessity imply conversion to Christianity—the
only remaining means of reconciliation and peace ; and because such
AND CONVERSION OF THE JEWS. 575
unfulfilled prophecies thus literally involving the nation Israel were
in several instances specifically associated with the work of Messiah,
the Branch, the King ; in others as specifically limited to these “last
days; ” and in others described as the consequences of a covenant to
be made with Israel specifically not the Levitical; so that no other
inference remained but that it must be the Christian. In fact, it
followed that such prophecies being proved to be unfulfilled, and to
belong to Israel literally, the religious blessings predicted—predicted
especially in connexion with Messiah’s work and the teaching of the
Holy Ghost—must import conversion to Christianity. And, 2. That
such conversion must be national, i.e., of Israel as a body, in a mass;
for prophecy treats of Israel in no other way. The restoration
foretold is national, and the conversion similar ; so that as we
recognise no national restoration until the parts of it are brought
together and capable of designation before the world, we acknowledge
no conversion as that described in Holy Scripture, which is ever by
national terms, unless of such embodied people of the house of Israel.
This consideration alone might lead us to expect that Israel's conver-
sion would be effected, viz., effected of Israel in a mass.
Accordingly we find prophecy with an unvarying voice declaring
that such will be the case. The conversion is described as the result
of certain events, of which the scene is laid within the Holy Land
and at Jerusalem. These events take place, according to prophecies,
as already noticed, manifestly unfulfilled and limited to the latter
days, or days of Messiah-Jesus, when the land generally is in
possession of people of the house of Israel, and Jerusalem particularly
in possession of the sons of Judah governed by the house of David,
and ministered to by sons of Levi. The land is described as at that
time having been for some period in possession of the people Israel,
but yet a land of unwalled villages, and though possessed by those
who have cattle and much goods, yet compared with its former
condition and what it is to become again, thinly peopled and yet
unfertile. Neither is it said distinctly that this inchoate restoration
will be distinguished or settled by tribes, though it is said it will
comprehend people both of Judah and Ephraim, and that at Jerusalem
at least the restored people will be identified by families. This
restoration, thus consisting of people of both houses, will also be
strictly national—national in independence, independent possession
of Jerusalem under rightful governorship and legal priesthood of their
own, and recognised as independent in their resolve to maintain
576 NOTES ON THE RESTORATION
Jerusalem against invading foes. It being also clear by reason as well as
by precedent in the Babylonian restoration that the national or housely
character of the predicted restoration does not depend on numbers.
This restoration, considerable in numbers by possession of all the land,
national by its being composed of people of both houses, by its
possession of Jerusalem, and independent government under rightful
governors, will be the national restoration which precedes these great
events, by which instrumentality the conversion is effected.
The events thus foretold, the consequence of which is to be the
public national conversion of Israel before the world, consist of the
invasion of Palestine by a confederated army of northern powers,
representing the two great apostasies of the Christian Church in
conjunction with nations known to be comprised in the wide apostasy
of Mahomet, although it is perfectly consistent with the expectation
of these events to believe that the Mussulman Empire, as an European
power, may previously have been wasted away; for a distinction
should be drawn between the overthrow of the temporal power
identified with that system, which takes place under the sixth vial
(Rev. xvi. 12), and its final and entire extinction as an apostasy,
which takes place, as a part of the great antichristian confederacy,
under the seventh vial (Rev. xvi. 17); Persia and Togarmah, with
Greece and Gomer. These confederated people under the leadership of
Gog, thus invading Palestine, and composed in chief of the sons of
Greece, will succeed in attaining entire possession of the land, and in
the investment of Jerusalem, whither, in the extremity of Israel's
last trouble, Messiah will come down to deliver, them. This is
proved by a collation of various Scriptures, and enlists in its service
the criticism not of letters and words and phrases only (though, with
characteristic force of the Hebrew tongue, not despising these),
but also the peculiar force of scenic prophecy, depicting Messiah
as displayed to the adoration of assembled Israel and his confederated
foes ; Israel as united in spiritual marriage to Messiah in that great
day; all Israel as one recovered united body; but Israel peculiarly
as the ten, added to Judah, to whom the leadership and priority
especially appertains. They besiege Jerusalem, they take Jerusalem,
they pillage Jerusalem, they lead half the city away into captivity,
when Messiah, by his glorious appearing, overthrows these armed
agents of the apostasies, at Tophet, at Tiberias, along the plain of
Esdraelon, and displays himself as their deliverer come to Zion, to
turn ungodliness from Jacob in that great day of Jezreel.
AND conversion of THE JEws. 577
Israel looks upon Him whom their fathers pierced, and by that
epiphany of Messiah, God in Christ, is converted ; and Gentile
apostates, too, perceive, and by that sight are stricken dumb in their
apostasy. All false systems are then overturned, Judaism, Greece,
and Rome, with all the deceptions of Mahomet and the abominations
of Paganism ; and there remains “one Lord, and his name One.”
Henceforward the work and victory of grace advances unopposed.
The restoration of Israel—a national and accomplished fact recognised
of the Christian world before—is now completed as to numbers.
From all quarters of the world a willing and expectant people hurries
on to the glad sound of Messiah’s coming. The shoulders of Philis-
tines, the ships of Tarshish, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah,
litters and swift beasts and mules of the Gentile world,—all are
subservient to Messiah's will in the rescue of his people, and none
remain among them but those who being, like themselves, the faithful
servants of the Redeemer, are the loved and honoured subjects of
their Gentile rulers. Judea is established a kingdom by itself to the
utmost limits of the land covenanted to Abraham, and Jerusalem
becomes the metropolis of the universally Christian world, ruled by
sons of David in the flesh, subordinate, like Zerubbabel, to the spiritual
dominion of Messiah, acknowledged to be both King and Priest upon
his throne. For the great event of the national conversion at Jeru-
Salem is rapidly followed by the ingathering of others, though
Scripture carries us no farther than that event itself, nor gives us any
reason to believe that even this subsequent addition of numbers will
be of converted people. We have no more reason for expecting that all
scattered Israel will be suddenly metamorphosed into Christians, than
we have for thinking that Gentile sons of Japheth, Shem, and Ham
disseminated throughout the world, will so suddenly become believers.
The overthrow of Antichrist in Palestine, and the conversion of the
restoration there, is described as suddenly effected by an unexpected
epiphany of the Lord ; but for the rest—the ingathering both of
Jews and Gentiles—though a rapid, is also a gradual and consecutive
work, forming the first incidents of the millennial age. Except the
passage (Jer. xxxi. 9), “They shall come with weeping, and with
supplication will I lead them,” there is none which so strongly
favours the idea of a previous conversion ; but that stands alone,
and belongs only to part—viz., sons of the ten returning from the
east, the land of their original captivity. There is nothing in
P P

578 NotES ON THE RESTORATION, ETC.
Scripture to indicate a previous conversion, for it quits the subject
with the marvellous incidents at Zion ; and even that return of
people of the ten, thus described by Jeremiah, alludes to a return
after these events at Jerusalem, viz., after the national restoration.
Nor is there anything unscriptural in this idea of restoration
previous to conversion, but the contrary. For Israel possesses an
eternal memorial to the God of his fathers. The gift of the land was
perpetual, and has never been fulfilled ; and Abraham's covenant was
unchangeable. The Lord has sworn by himself, and will not repent
for his truth’s sake. All the promises are unconditional, and are
delivered accordingly as prophecy without reserve affirmative.
Israel's rebellions are contrasted with God’s love, and the assurance
stands the same for ever: “For my name's sake, not according to
your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house
of Israel, saith the Lord God.” God will vindicate his own truth, as
He sware to “Abraham our forefather,” and then all Israel shall be
saved. The Scriptures considered in these chapters belong, without
one exception, to prophecy, peculiarly so called ; and in each case its
unconditional character has been pointed out, and in some the fact
that this character is specifically asserted; and this unconditional
character would lead us to anticipate the restoration of Israel in the
absence of any qualifications to fit him for such a blessing. It is
after the Lord has vindicated his own truth and his own mercy that
He visits Israel with deliverance and salvation in the midst of his
last trouble and his extremest impenitence. And it is not surprising
that, upon examining the arguments advanced by the two most able
writers upon the previous conversion of Israel, we find they are
entirely insufficient. Those writers are left, in fact, without grounds
for that opinion ; and we venture to assert, that, so long as Ezek.
xxxviii., xxxix., form part of Holy Scripture, limited to “the latter
days,” declaring a religious reformation of all Israel in the Holy
Land, associated with the influence of the Holy Spirit, and as the
consequence of Gog's overthrow, and dated “from that day and
forward,” it will be a hopeless task to undertake the proof that Israel
will be converted before restored. That prophécy is inevadably
conclusive, and with that prophecy those of Zechariah's chapters ix.,
x., xii.-xiv. of Joel, and of Isaiah's chapters xxix.-xxxiii., entirely
agree.
FINIS.
** 15 1915

*~ : ----|x-r- ºr-- tºxx-
- - ..." . " - - --
{
~~~~~~~~~~~w-r-------------~~~~ - - - - ---, -, - . .
LONDON :
::, ºr , , ; ; WERTHEIM AND MACINTOSH,
-- - - - 24, PATER NosTER-Row, LonDoN.
* , , , , ,- ;
*f; ; ; , ; * }
..
''
3
#
*
; : ... tº
's Avº
|
}
{
|
}
|
|
|
*k， * ·
· *














li. Ill
...------------
DD NOT REMOVE
[]R
MUTILATE CARD
§§ PRiMºrº itſ U. º. A. - 23 20-002

§2. R.
§
º º
§: #.
ſº
§
º
§a
º
#
º º º
; §§
sº
† º º:
s: º
§
º
§
º #
º
f º -
s H º
§ º §
§ § i. r §
§ §
s § º
§ § º §
º º § i § º
§ º # # º § §§ #
§ | º
§ §
§ - §
º º
º º § #- § º §
º § § §
# § º: - $ #
# º #. º
r # § §
i. i º º º § [...
º th º § #
* º § º º
º º §
i § º
º
t º º
§ ſº
º º i. §
f
#
º º
#
§
º
†
ſº
# ſ
º
º
#.
º
º
º
º #.
§ º
§
# §
tº: §
§
º;
§ #
#
º
º
#;
º
k
§
º
§. #
§ -
º jº,
#
º;
§
§
#
#
§
º: º
º t;
º º: º
Fº §
# § §
º G
º # t º:
§
º
fººt | i.
º
º
f §
# #: f
§ §
is -
º
§