CHAPTER X.
MISCELLANEOUS
In Matthew, ch. v. Jesus says, ye have heard that it was said, that shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy.' But this is no where said in the Law, or the Prophets; but, on the contrary, we read directly the reverse. For it is written, Ex. xxiii. If thou find the ox of thine enemy or his ass going astray, thou shalt certainly bring him back to him. If thou meet the ass of him that hateth thee, lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help him. Again, Levit. xix. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; rebuke thy neighbour, nor suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not revenge, nor keep anger, (or bear any grudge,) against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; I am the Lord. So also in Prov. xxxiv. When thine enemy falleth, do not triumph, and when he stumbleth, let not thine heart exult. So also in ch. xxv. If thy enemy hunger, give him food; if he thirst, give him to drink. These precepts are to the purpose, and are practicable; but this command of Jesus, Love your enemies, if by loving he means, do them good, it is commanded in the above passages in the Hebrew Law. But if by love, he means to look upon them with the same affection that we feel for those who love us, and with whom we are connected by the tenderest ties of mature, and friendship, the command is impracticable; and the fulfillment of it contrary to nature, and those very instincts given us by our Creator. And therefore, whoever thinks he fulfills, really fulfills this command, does in fact play the hypocrite unknown to himself; for though we can, and ought to do good to our enemy, yet to love him is as unnatural as to hate our friends.
In Mark ch. ii. 25, Jesus says to the Pharisees, Have ye not read what David did when he hungered, and those that were with him. How that he entered into the house of the Lord, in the time of Abiathar the High Priest, and did eat of the shew-bread, &c. See the same also in Matthew, ch. xii. 3. Luke vi. 3. Now here is a great blunder; for this thing happened in the time of Achimelech, not in the time of Abiathar; for so it is written, 1 Sam. xxi. And David came to Nob, to Achimelech the Priest, &c. And in the 22d chapter it is said that Abiathar was his son.
In Luke ch. i. 26, The angel Gabriel is said to have come from God to Mary, when she was yet a virgin, espoused to Joseph, who was of the house of David, and announced to her that she should conceive, and bear a son, and should call his name Jesus; that her holy offspring should be called the Son of God, and that God should give unto him the throne of David his father, and that he should rule the house of Jacob for ever, and that to his kingdom there should be no end. Now this story is encumbered with many difficulties, which I shall not consider; but confine myself to asking wherefore, if these things were true, did not the Mother of Jesus? and his brethren, knowing these extraordinary things, obey his teachings. For it is certain, that they did not at first believe him, but, as appears from the 7th chap. of John, derided him. Besides, neither did his mother nor his brethren, when they came to the house where he was preaching to simple and credulous men, come for the purpose of being edified, but to lay hold of him, to carry him home, for said they he is mad, or beside himself [Mark iii. 24] which certainly they would not have dared to do, if this story of Lukes were true. For their mother would have taught them of his miraculous conception, and extraordinary character. Moreover, how was it that God did not give him the throne of David, as was promised by the Angel to his Mother? For he did not sit upon the throne of David, nor exercise any authority in Israel. Moreover, how comes it that David is called the Father of Jesus, since Jesus was not the son of Joseph, who, according to the Evangelists drew his origin from that king. Finally, the saying that to his kingdom there should be no end, is directly contradicted by Paul in the 1st Epis. to the Cor. ch. xv: for he says therein, that Jesus shall render up his kingdom unto the Father, and be himself subject unto him. Here you see, that the kingdom of Jesus is to have an end; for when he renders up his kingdom to the Father, he certainly must divest himself of his authority. How then can it be said, that to his kingdom there shall be no end?
Jesus says, John v. 39, And the Father himself which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me; ye have neither heard his voice at any time, &c. But how does this agree with Moses, who says, Deut. iv. 33, Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of fire, as thou hast heard?—And we heard his voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day, that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. Deut. v. 24.
Luke, ch. 4, 17, And they gave to Jesus the Book of Isaiah the Prophet, and he opened the Book, and found this place, where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, therefore hath he anointed me to preach the Gospel; to the poor hath he sent me, that I should bind up the broken in heart, proclaim liberty to the captives, and sight to the blind; that I should preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And shutting the Book, he gave it to the minister, and afterwards addressed them, saying This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears. Here you see the words which gave offence; and by turning to Is. in loco. ch. lxi. you may see the reason why the inhabitants of Nazareth arose up in wrath against him. For these words alledged in Luke, are somewhat perverted from the original in Isaiah; for these words, and sight to the blind, are not in Isaiah, but are inserted in Luke for purposes very obvious. And 2. he neglects the words following, and the day of vengeance of our God, and of consolation to all who mourn. To give consolation to the mourners of Zion; to give them beauty instead of ashes, and the oil of joy instead of grief; a garment of praise instead of a broken heart, &c. to the end of the chapter. From this it is very clear, that this prophecy has no reference to Jesus: but Isaiah speaks these things of himself; and the words the Lord hath anointed me, signify, God hath chosen, established me to declare—what follows. This exposition of anointing is confirmed from these passages;—1 Kings, xix ch.
Anoint a prophet in thy stead, where the sense is, constitute a prophet in thy place. Again, touch not mine anointed ones, and do my prophets no harm, i. e. Touch not my chosen servants; and so in several other places. The meaning, therefore, of Isaiah is, that God had appointed, and constituted him a prophet to announce these consolations to the Israelites, who were to be in captivity, in order that they should not dispair of liberation; and that they should have hope, when they read those comfortable words spoken by the mouth of Isaiah, at the command of God. For he calls the subjects of his message the broken in heart, the captives, the mourners of Zion, &c. all which terms are applicable only to the Israelites. That this is the true interpretation, will be made further evident to any impartial person, by reading the context preceding, and following.
Jo. ch. ii. v. 18. The Jews said to Jesus, what sign showest thou to us, that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews answered, saying, forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou build it in three days? The Jews could never have spoken these words, here related; for the temple then standing was built by Herod, who reigned but thirty-seven years, and built it in eight years. This, therefore, must be a blunder of the Evangelists.
Jo. xiii. v. 21. Jesus says to his Disciples, a new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another. This is not true, for the love of man towards his neighbour, was not a new precept, but at least as ancient as Moses, who gives it, Levit. xix. as the command of God, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Acts vii. v. 4. When he (Abraham) went out of the land of the Chaldees, he dwelt in Charran; from thence after his father was dead, he led him into this land in which ye dwell. This directly contradicts the chapter in Genesis where the story of Abraham's leaving Haran is related; for it is certain from thence, that Abraham left his father Terah in Haran alive, when he departed thence. And he did not die till many years afterwards. This chronological contradiction has given much trouble to Christian Commentators, as may be seen in Whitby, Hammond, &c. &c.
V. 14, Stephen says, Jacob therefore descended into Egypt, and our Fathers, and there died. And they were carried to Sichem, and buried in the sepulchre which Abraham bought from the Sons of Hemor the Father of Sichem. Here is another blunder; for this piece of land was not purchased by Abraham, but by Jacob. Gen. xlix. 29; so also see the end of Joshua. But it is evident, that Stephen has confounded the story of the purchase of the field of Machpelah, recorded in Gen. xxiii. with the circumstances related concerning the purchase by Jacob.
In v. 43 of the same chapter, there is another disagreement between Stephen's quotation from Amos, and the original. [In the Acts the quotation is,—Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the Star of your God. Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them, and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. In Amos, ch. v. 26—But ye have borne the tabernacle of Moloch and Chinn your images, the Star of your God which ye made, &c.]
So also there is in the speech of James, Acts xv. a quotation from Amos, in which to make it fit the subject, (which after all it does not fit,) is the substitution of the words, the remnant of men, for the words, remnant of Edom, as it is in the original.
All these mistakes, besides others to be met with in almost—I was going to say in every page, of these Histories of Jesus and his Apostles, sufficiently show how superficial was the acquaintance of these men with the Old Testament, and how grossly, either through design or ignorance, they have perverted it. Indeed from these mistakes alone, I should be led strongly to suspect, that the Books of the New Testament were written by Gentiles, as I can hardly conceive that any Jew could have quoted his Bible in such a blundering manner.