and was therefore always reckoned as the same second temple *, repaired and ornamented. And the continuation of the sacrifice was never interrupted; for the altar on which it was burnt was not destroyed, being in the open air between the inner building, (the vaos) and the circumference of the outer buildings, (the περιβολος). TeρCoλos). And this was probably so left for the express purpose, that as a part of the old building was thus remaining, the temple in common conversation might not be deemed a new one, but reckoned still the same. For the Jews were very unwilling that Herod should take this temple down in order to rebuild it; and the chief arguments which he used to induce them to consent to it, were that this second temple, was not so high as Solomon's by sixty cubits, and that the kingdom was *So that eminent scholar Dr. Wilkins says, "Vixit autem-circa trecentesimum post secundi Templi eversio. nem annum.' Præfatio ad Paraph. Chald. in Lib. Chron. But testimonies to this effect are too abundant to be mentioned. now in peace, and he in possession of great riches as well as revenues. All his aim therefore, was to make his temple equal to that of Solomon in external splendour, confessing that it did not equal the glory of that former house. Josephus also tells us**, that it certainly was not built by the desirable things (as the objectors would render the desire) of all nations (that is, their contributions) but by taxes levied on the people. It is also remarkable that Josephus himself in relating the destruction of the temple, makes no distinction between that which was rebuilt by Herod, and that which was built by Zerubbabel concerning which Haggai prophesied, but reckons them as one and the same. From the foundation, says he, of the latter temple, which Haggai built in the second year of King Cyrus, till it was destroyed under Vespatian, was 639 years and 45 days. * As cited by Chandler, P. 92. + Απο δε τῆς (κλισεως) υστερον, ην ελει δευτερων κυρο βασιλεύς εντός εποιήσαλο Αγγαιος, εθημεχρη της υπο Βεσπασιανε αλώσεως τριακονταεννέα προς εξακοσίες, κι ημεραι τεσσαρακονταπέντε. Jos. de Bel. Lib. vi. [vii.] Cap. iv. Edit. Hudsoni. And this testimony from Josephus, seems to me quite conclusive upon this subject. In popular language therefore, and general estimation, there were but two temples; and the Jews themselves both ancient and modern*, never reckoned more: See their testimonies cited by Chandler and Newcome, and also by Lightfoot in his " Prospect of the Temple." Their opinion is the same at this day: "Soon after the establishment of Christianity, the Jewish nation, dispersed since the second destruction of its temple, had totally disappeared."" The qualification of Rabbi did not exist in the days of the first temple: it is only mentioned towards the end of those of the second." Trans. of the Parisian Sanhedrim, 1806, P. 194, &c. Benjamin of Tudela also speaks only of the first and second temples. See his travels translated by Gerrans, Chap. xiii. P. 107. The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, was evidently of opinion that this prophecy was meant of Christ. See Whitby on Hebrews xii. 26. See also that powerful and convincing reasoner Leslie, in his " Short and Easy Method with the Jews." 8vo. 9th. Edit. P. 22, &c. Mr. Dimock thinks that the passage in Malachi iii. 1, relates to this same appearance of Christ in the temple, and justly observes that, "if they (these two prophecies) are not understood of the kingdom of peace under the Messiah, they are not true in any other sense." Bishop Ross strangely applies this prophecy of Haggai solely to the christian church allegorically; supposing the former x 2 more: the first built by Solomon; the second by Zerubbabel and Haggai; which was rebuilt and enlarged by Herod. Indeed had it been otherwise, the prophecy of Haggai has not been completed, and never now can be; for the temple has long been wholly destroyed, and its very foundations, as our Lord foretold, (Matt. xxiv. 2, &c.) entirely erased; and the temple of which Haggai spoke (supposing Herod's to be a third and different one) never, in any sense whatsoever, either in regard to things spiritual or temporal, was filled with glory, or equalled the glory of the first temple. The prophecy therefore has no meaning, unless it was fulfilled by the coming of Christ; but as it is generally, and I am persuaded truely, consi former and the latter house to be the Law and the Gospel. There has also been a controversy between Mr. Hawtrey and Bishop Burgess on this subject; in which Mr. Hawtrey argues, that Josephus only meant that Herod repaired and enlarged the second Temple, which the learned Bishop denies, though he still allows that the prophecy may apply to Christ, and that Haggai's and Herod's Temple were in popular acceptation the same. dered dered to be of very high importance, and such objections have been started against it, it was necessary to enlarge upon it more particularly, than would have been done otherwise. I have examined those objections, and reflected upon them with as much care and attention as I am capable of exerting, and the result has been the firm belief, that the prophecy was designed to foretel the coming of Christ at a specified time; that He was the desire of all nations, and that it was his presence which filled that house with glory. This is the only prophecy of Haggai which relates directly to Christ; though some commentators are of opinion that the latter part of this chapter refers to his times and his kingdom, and that Zerubbabel was a type of him who was descended from him after the flesh. * The comforte of all heathen. Great Bible, 1566. Wells, Geneva Bible, &c. See also Mr. Granville Sharp's "Remarks," 1768, Diss. xi. in which this pro phecy is ably explained. СНАР. |