SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

ΤΟ

SECT. VII.

Note [A] p. 184.

There can be no reasonable doubt that n in the former passage, and in the latter, are the same term; whether we suppose, that in the latter instance a final ♬ or ♬ has been absorbed by the succeeding ; or, with Schmidt, Clodius, and J. H. Michaelis, that the two are merely different forms of the same word, having the same radical idea, order, succession, regulation. The ancient versions seem to have generally overlooked the true sense of the terms and the scope of the passage; which is no cause of surprize, if it be considered that the oldest of them were made in the corrupt periods of the Jewish state, and that the more recent are imitators of the former. 2 Sam. vii. 19. "This is a vision for the sons of men." Targ. Jon. "This is an instruction for man." Syr. "This is a prediction relating to man." Arab. is the law of the man." Lxx. "This is the law of the Adam." "All the children of men who reveVulg.-1 Chron. xvii. 17.rentially worship thee with all their hearts, dost thou bring out of darkness into light, O Lord of Lords!" Syr. "Thou hast looked upon me, as a vision of man, and hast exalted me, O Lord God!" Lxx. The Arabic unites both these interpretations, or rather paraphrases. "Thou hast made me honourable above all men, O Lord God!" Vulg.

This - אנוש by אום All these have rendered

Note [B] p. 184.

"The New Testament begins with asserting, that Jesus Christ was the son of David, the son of Abraham. As to the descent of Christ from Abraham, every one knows that Christ was born a Jew, and consequently descended from Jacob, the grandson of Abraham. And we all know, that the promise given to Abraham concerning the Messiah is recorded in the history of Abraham's life: in Gen. xxii. 18. Christ being also to descend from David, there can be no doubt, but that this promise, as made to David, was recorded likewise in the history of David. "Tis remarkable, that David's life is given more at large than that of any other person in the Old Testament; and it cannot be supposed that the historian omitted to record that promise, which was more honourable to David than any other circumstance. The record of this promise, if written at all, must have been written in this chapter: in the message from God by Nathan to David, which is here inserted. Here (I am fully persuaded) the promise was, and still is, recorded; and the chief reason why our divines have so frequently missed it, or been so so much perplexed about it, is owing to our very improper translation of the 10th and 14th verses.

"This wrong translation, in a part of scripture so very interesting, has been artfully laid hold of, and expatiated upon splendidly, by the deistical author of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion; who pretends to demonstrate, that the promise of a Messiah could not be here recorded. His reasons (hitherto I believe unanswered) are three;-1st. because, in ver. 10, the prophet speaks of the future prosperity of the Jews, as to be afterwards fixed, and no more afflicted; which circumstances are totally repugnant to the fate of the Jews, as connected with the birth and death of Christ.-2dly. because the son, here promised, was (ver. 13) to build an house; which house, it is pretended, must mean the temple of Solomon; and of course Solomon must be the son here promised.—and 3dly. because verse 14 supposes, that this son might commit iniquity, which could not be supposed of the Messiah. The first of these objections is founded on our wrong translation of verse 10, where the words should be expressed as relating to the time past or

present. For the prophet is there declaring what great things. God had already done for David and his people-that he had raised David from the sheepfold to the throne-and that he had planted the Israelites in a place of safety; at rest from all those enemies who had so often before afflicted them. That the verbs

may be rendered in the time past or the ונטעתי, and ושמתי

66

6

present, is allowed by our own translators; who here (ver. 11) render and have caused thee to rest,' and also render and telleth' which construction, made necessary here by the context, might be confirmed by other proofs almost innumerable. The translation therefore should run thus: I took thee from the sheepcote--and have made thee a great name--and I have appointed a place for my people Israel; and have planted them, that they dwell in a place of their own, and move no more. Neither do the children of wickedness afflict them any more; as before time, and as since the time that I commanded judges to be over Israel: and I have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Objection the 2d is founded on a mistake in the sense. David indeed had proposed to build an house to God, which God did not admit. Yet, approving the piety of David's intention, God was pleased to reward it by promising-that He would make an house for David; which house, to be thus erected by God, was certainly not material, or made of stones, but a spiritual house, or family, to be raised up for the honour of God and the salvation of mankind. And this house, which God would make, was to be built by David's seed; and this seed was to be raised up after David slept with his fathers: which words clearly exclude Solomon, who was set up, and placed upon the throne, before David was dead. This building, promised by God, was to be erected by one of David's descendants, who was also to be an everlasting King: and indeed the house, and the kingdom, were both of them to be established for ever. Now that this house, or spiritual building, was to be set up, together with a kingdom, by the Messiah, is clear from Zechariah, who very emphatically says, (vi. 12, 13) Behold the man, whose name is the Branch-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,' &c. Observe also the language of the New Testament. In 1 Corinth. iii. 9-17, St. Paul says→

'Ye are God's building-Know ye not, that ye are the temple of God?—the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.' And the author of the epistle to the Hebrews seems to have his eye upon this very promise in Samuel, concerning a son to David, and of the house which he should build, when he says, (3-6) Christ, as a son, over his own house; whose house are we.' "As to the 3d and greatest difficulty, that also may be removed, by a more just translation of verse 14: for the Heb. words do not properly signify what they are now made to speak. "Tis certain that the principal word is not the active infinitive of Kal, which would be nya; but myn from my is in Niphal, as ban from ba. 'Tis also certain, that a verb, which in the active voice signifies to commit iniquity, may in the passive. signify to suffer for iniquity: and hence it is, that nouns from such verbs sometimes signify iniquity, sometimes punishment. See Lowth's Isaiah, p. 187; with many other authorities. The way being thus made clear, we are now prepared for abolishing our translation' if he commit iniquity;' and also for adopting the true one—even in his suffering for iniquity.' The Messiah, who is thus the person possibly here spoken of, will be made still more manifest from the whole verse thus translated. 'I will be his father, and he shall be my son: even in his suffering for iniquity, I shall chasten him with the rod of men (with the rod due to men) and with the stripes (due to) the children of Adam.' And this construction is well supported by Isaiah liii. 4 and 5 he hath carried our sorrows (i. e. the sorrows due to us, and which we must otherwise have suffered)—he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.' See note p. 479, in Hallet, on Heb. 11, 26. Thus then God declares himself the father of the son here meant;* and promises, that, even amidst the sufferings of this son (as they would be for the sins of others, not for his own) his mercy should still attend him: nor should his favour be ever removed from this king, as it had been from Saul. And thus (as it follows) thine house (O David) and thy kingdom, shall (in Messiah) be established for ever, before me (before God): thy throne shall be established for ever.' Thus the angel, de

6

*See also Heb. i. 5.

livering his message to the virgin-mother (Luk. i. 32, 33) speaks, as if he was quoting from this very prophecy-- 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.' In ver. 16, is here rendered as ; on the authority of one Heb. MS. with the Gr. and Syr. versions; and indeed nothing could be established for ever, in the presence of David, but in the presence of God only. So Dr. S. Clarke.

"Having thus shewn, that the words fairly admit here the promise made to David, that from his seed should arise Messiah, the everlasting King, it may be necessary to addthat, if the Messiah be the person here meant, as suffering innocently for the sins of others, Solomon cannot be; nor can this be a prophecy admitting such double sense, or be applied properly to two such opposite characters. • Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?'-This was a question properly put by the Ethiopian treasurer (Acts viii. 34) who never dreamt that such a description as he was reading could relate to different persons: and Philip shews him, that the person was Jesus only. So here, it may be asked-Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of Solomon, or of Christ? It must be answered, of Christ: one reason is, because the description does not agree to Solomon; and therefore Solomon, being necessarily excluded in a single sense, must also be excluded in a double. Lastly: if it would be universally held absurd, to consider the promise of Messiah made to Abraham, as relating to any other person besides Messiah; why is there not an equal absurdity, in giving a double sense to the promise of Messiah thus made to David?

"Next to our present very improper translation, the cause of the common confusion here has been not distinguishing the promise here made, as to Messiah alone, from another made as to Solomon alone: the 1st brought by Nathan, the 2d by Gad; the 1st near the beginning of David's reign, the 2d near the end of it; the 1st, relating to Messiah's spiritual kingdom, everlasting without conditions; the 2d, relating to the fate of the temporal kingdom of Solomon, and his heirs, depending entirely on their obedience or rebellion. 1 Chron. xxii. 8-13