« ZurückWeiter »
conveyed have been already considered (p. 89); those in which the latter was conveyed are the following. Speaking of Solomon, the Lord says: “He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever .... And thine house, and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee : thy throne shall be established for ever” (2 Sam. vii. 13, 16). “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations ....Once have I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven” (Ps. lxxxix. 3, 4, 35—37).
Now as the perpetual grant oF THE LAND secures the restoration of Israel as an united people to their country; so this perpetual grant OF THE THRONE, confined to the tribe of Judah, secures to the house of David the restoration of all its royal honours and dignity. It is to this that the prophecy of “seven times” must have a reference as it regards Judah; because, for purposes essentially connected with the first coming of Christ, it cannot have a reference to their dispersion, as they were, after seventy years' captivity in Babylon, restored to their own land for above 500 years ; so that their dispersion has not continued yet for 1800 years. Applied to Judah this period must refer, therefore, to something of a nature peculiar to that tribe; and as this grant of the sovereignty remains in equal force with that of the country made to Abraham, so it possesses in an equal degree the principle of resuscitation, which ere long, like Aaron's rod, shall bud, and blossom, and bear fruit. I consider, therefore, that this perfection of calamity as applied to the tribe of Judah, in addition to their other complicated sufferings, is the loss of their regal honours, which, after the period of 2520 years, shall be again restored.
If this view of the subject be correct, the next inquiry is, in what particular year did the kingdom of Judah finally become dependent and cease to exercise regal authority? as from this year the restoration of the house of David must be dated.
It may be proper in the first place to notice, before pursuing this inquiry, that as long as the kingdom of Judah stood, the crown did actually continue in the line and family of David. Un like that of the Ten Tribes which was continually changing from one family to another, and from one tribe to another-this crown continued in one uninterrupted, unbroken line of succession, from David to Jehoiakim, the last king who exercised the rights of an independent sovereign. And this succession from father to
he rose, leading captivity captive, and his flesh saw no corruption.
He carried with him our nature, united to his own Divine nature, into Heaven; where he now appears, clothed in that body in the presence of God, for us.
This argument, as if the Psalmist had foreseen the objection that might arise from the death of Christ in reference to the kingdom, he brings forward very prominently and distinctly: “ Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Ps. xvi. 10). In allusion to this, Peter said in his first sermon, Acts ii. 31, “He seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.” And again : “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption : but he whom God raised again saw no corruption” (Acts xiii. 36, 37.)
As death had, therefore, no power over his body, and as he still lives in that same incorruptible body in which he purchased our redemption, he consequently remains in his own person still the legitimate heir of the throne of David. Whenever that throne shall be re-established and according to the anticipations of the elegant and accomplished Heber,
danger of being broken, and indeed destroyed ; particularly when Athaliah conspired to murder all the seed royal, and proceeded so far in its accomplishment as to imagine she had actually accomplished her purpose. (2 Kings xi.) And also in the instance of the confederacy formed by the kings of Syria and Israel (see the “Second Period”) to dispossess Ahaz and his family of the throne, and set up in their place another family, even the son of Tabeal (Isa. vii. 6). On both these occasions the house of David seemed to be on the very brink of destruction, but the blessing that was in it saved it; and in these, as well as in every threatened danger, it was preserved up to the time of Nebuchadnezzar's invasion, when, with the nation in general, it went into captivity.
In the consideration of the “ Third Period” we have seen that there were two commencements from which this captivity is to be dated -namely, the years 606 and 588 B. c.: it must, therefore, be somewhere between these two points of time, from whence the loss of this regal and sovereign authority is to be reckoned. I consider that the last independent act of sovereignty exercised by Jehoiakim, the last king of Judah, must have been what is related in 2 Kings xxiv. 1 : “In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years : then he turned and rebelled against him.” It is then added, in the next verse, that “ the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it.”
Now, as Nebuchadnezzar first carried away Judah captive in 606, it would be three years after this, in 603, when Jehoiakim rebelled against him; and it is probable that it was not longer than the following year that he was able to maintain himself against the mighty power of the king of Babylon, and the other nations that came against him. This would bring it to 602 B. c.; and as he died two or three years afterwards, and his son and successor Jehoiachin was, immmediately on his accession, carried captive to Babylon, where he lived many years, it appears to me that it must have been in this year that the last independent act of sovereignty was performed by the rightful king : for Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar placed upon the throne, could not be considered as the rightful monarch whilst Jehoiachin was living. If this reasoning be correct, then the year 602 is the point of time from which to date the loss of the throne by the house of David ; and consequently, after the lapse of the long period of 2520 years, the year 1918 after Christ will