{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30410/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30410","id":"gutenberg_30410","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30410","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Old Testament -- Prophecies","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Messiah -- Prophecies"],"text":"Transcriber's Note: Images taken from the 1868 edition, found at\nBooks.Google.com., is the source of the text used for this ebook.\n\nUnclear or missing punctuation marks were corrected by reference\nto the 1854 edition of this work.\n\nSuperscripts are preceded by a caret (^), e.g. 2^a, 2(superscript \"a\").\n\nGreek and Hebrew words are transcribed using the Unicode format.]\n\n\n\n[Pg 1]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n CLARK'S\n\n\n FOREIGN\n\n\n THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY\n\n\n\n SECOND SERIES.\n VOL. I.\n\n\n\n Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament.\n VOL. I.\n\n\n\n EDINBURGH:\n T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.\n LONDON: J. GLADDING. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON & CO.\n\n MDCCCLXVIII.\n\n\n[Pg 2]\n\n\n\n\n MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,\n PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.\n\n[Pg 3]\n\n\n\n\n CHRISTOLOGY\n\n OF\n\n THE OLD TESTAMENT,\n\n AND A\n\n COMMENTARY ON THE MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS\n\n\n\n BY\n E. W. HENGSTENBERG,\n DR. AND PROF. OF THEOL. IN BERLIN.\n\n\n\n SECOND EDITION, GREATLY IMPROVED.\n\n\n\n Translated from the German,\n BY THE\n REV. THEODORE MEYER.\n\n\n VOLUME I.\n\n\n EDINBURGH:\n T. AND T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.\n LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON & CO.\n\n MDCCCLXVIII.\n\n[Pg 4]\n[Blank page]\n\n[Pg 5]\n\n\n\n\n LIST OF CONTENTS.\n\n\n Page\n\nTranslator's Preface, 7\nAuthor's Preface, 9\nThe Messianic Prophecies in the Pentateuch, 11\nThe Protevangelium, 14\nThe Blessing of Noah upon Shem and Japheth, Gen. ix. 18-27, 30\nThe Promise to the Patriarchs, Gen. xii. 1-3, 46\nThe Blessing of Jacob upon Judah, Gen. xlix. 8-10, 57\nBalaam's Prophecy, Num. xxiv. 17-19, 98\nMoses' Promise of the Prophet, Deut. xviii. 15-19, 104\nThe Angel of the Lord in the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, 115\n Gen. xvi. 13, 117\n Gen. xviii. and xix., 119\n Gen. xxxi. 11 seqq., 122\n Gen. xxxii. 24, 123\n Gen. xlviii. 15, 16, 125\n Exod. xxiii. 20, 21, 126\n Exod. xxxii. and xxxiii., 127\n Joshua v. and vi., 128\nThe Promise in 2 Sam. vii., 130\nMessianic Psalms, 149\n2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7, 152\nThe Song of Solomon, 159\nMessianic Predictions in the Prophets, 162\n The Prophet Hosea.\n General Preliminary Remarks, 165\n The Section, Chap. i.-iii., 184\n Chap. i.-ii. 3, 197\n Chap. ii. 4-25, 230\n Chap. iii., 273\n The Prophet Joel.\n General Preliminary Remarks, 291\n Chap. i.-ii. 17, 302\n On chap. ii. 23, 325\n Chap. iii., 331\n The Prophet Amos.\n General Preliminary Remarks, 352\n Chap. ix., 363\n The Prophecy of Obadiah, 399\n The Prophet Jonah, 407\n[Pg 6]\n The Prophet Micah.\n General Preliminary Remarks, 413\n Chap. i. and ii., 424\n Chap. iii. and iv., 440\n Chap. v. 1, 479\n History of the Interpretation.\n 1. Among the Jews, 490\n 2. Among the Christians, 499\n The Quotation in Matt. ii. 6, 504\n Chap. v. 2-14, 513\n Chap. vi. and vii., 521\n\n[Pg 7]\n\n\n\n\n TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.\n\n\nThe Translator avails himself of his privilege of offering a few\nprefatory words, chiefly in order to express the deep obligation under\nwhich he lies to the Rev. John Laing, Librarian in the New College,\nEdinburgh, for the valuable assistance which he afforded to him in the\ntranslation of this work. Any observation on the work itself or its\nAuthor would be superfluous, if not presumptuous, considering the high\nposition which Dr Hengstenberg holds as a Biblical Scholar. High,\nhowever, as this position is, the Translator feels confident that it\nwill be raised by the present work, the Author's _latest_ and _first_;\nand not only revering Dr Hengstenberg as a beloved Teacher, but being\nunder many obligations to him for proofs of personal kindness and\nfriendship, the Translator sincerely rejoices in this prospect.\n\nAs regards the translation itself, it was the Translator's aim to bring\nout fully the Author's meaning. This object, which ought to be the\nfirst in every translation, has been kept steadily in view, and\npreferred to all others. In rendering Dr Hengstenberg's translation of\nScripture-passages, the expressions in our Authorized Version have, as\nfar as possible, been retained. Wherever the division of the text in\nthe latter differed from that of the original text, it has been added\nin a parenthesis; an exception in this respect having been made in\nquotations from the Psalms only, in which this difference is almost\nconstant, the inscriptions not being counted in our English Version,\nwhile they are in the Hebrew Text.\n\n Edinburgh, January 1854.\n\n[Pg 8]\n\n[Blank page]\n\n[Pg 9]\n\n\n\n\n THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE.\n\n\nThe first edition of the Christology, although the impression was\nunusually large, had been for years out of print. It was impossible\nthat the work could appear a second time in its original form. The\nfirst volume of it--written twenty-five years ago--was a juvenile\nperformance, to which the Author himself had become rather a stranger;\nand the succeeding volumes required references to, and comparisons\nwith, a large number of publications which subsequently appeared. But\nfor the remodelling and revising which these circumstances rendered\nnecessary, the Author could not find leisure, because new tasks were\never and anon presenting themselves to him; and these he felt himself,\nas it were, involuntarily impelled to undertake. But now he is led to\nbelieve that he could no longer delay. A powerful inclination urges him\nto comment on the Gospel of St John; but he thinks that the right to\ngratify this inclination must first be purchased by him by answering a\ncall which proceeds from the more immediate sphere of his vocation, and\nwhich he is the less at liberty to disregard, as manifold facts give\nindication that the Christology has not yet completed its course. The\nAuthor dislikes to return to regions which have been already visited by\nhim. He prefers the opening up to himself of paths which are new. It\ncost him therefore, at first, no little struggle to devote himself for\nyears to the work of mere revision and emendation; but very soon, even\nhere, he learned the truth of the proverb: \"If there be obedience in\nthe heart, love will soon enter.\"\n\nThe arrangement in the present edition differs from that which was\nadopted in the former. It bears a closer resemblance to that which has\nbeen followed in the Commentaries on the Psalms, Revelation, and the\nSong of Solomon. The work opens with a discussion and commentary on\nthe particular Messianic prophecies, in their historical order and\nconnection. The general investigations with which, in the first\nedition, the work commenced, are, in the present edition, to appear in\nthe form [Pg 10]of comprehensive treatises, at the close. The latter\nhave thus obtained a more solid foundation; while the objections which\nmight be raised against this arrangement will have force only until the\ncompletion of the whole, which, if it please the Lord, will not be very\nlong delayed. The reader will then, of course, be at liberty, before he\nenters upon the particular portions, to go over, cursorily in the\nmeantime, the closing treatises,--the proper study of which will be\nappropriate, however, only after he has made himself acquainted with\nthe particular portions of the main body of the work.\n\nThe matter of the two sections of the first part has been entirely\nrewritten. That of the two last parts appears more as a revisal\nonly,--so executed, however, that not a single line has been reprinted\nwithout a renewed and careful examination.\n\nThe Author shall take care that the new edition shall not exceed the\nformer one in size. The space intended to be occupied by the enlarged\ndiscussions, and by the new investigations, will be gained by\nomissions. These, however, will be limited to such matters as now\nclearly appear to be superfluous; _so that the old will not retain any\nvalue when compared with the new edition._ The Author, had he pursued\nhis usual method of representation, would have curtailed many points,\nparticularly the history of the interpretation. But the mode of\ntreating the subject which he had previously adopted, is not without\nits advantages, and has a certain right to be retained. The former\ncharacter of the work, in so far as the avoidance of everything\nproperly ascetic is concerned, has been, in the present edition, also\nretained.\n\nScientific Theology is at present threatened by serious dangers in our\nChurch. Works of an immediately practical interest more and more\nexclusively occupy the noblest minds, since the problems which present\nthemselves in this field are indeed unfathomable. But the Lord of the\nChurch will take care that an excellent gift, which He has bestowed\nupon German Christendom especially, shall not, for any length of time,\ncontinue to be neglected. If such were to be the case, a more general\ndecay would be gradually brought on; and even those interests would be\ninjured to which at present, with a zeal, noble indeed, but little\nthoughtful, solid theological learning is sacrificed.\n\n\"Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but to Thy name give glory.\"\n\n[Pg 11]\n\n\n\n\n THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES IN THE PENTATEUCH.\n\n\nIn the Messianic prophecies contained in Genesis we cannot fail to\nperceive a remarkable progress in clearness and definiteness.\n\nThe first Messianic prediction, which was uttered immediately after the\nfall of Adam, is also the most indefinite. Opposed to the awful\nthreatening there stands the consolatory promise, that the dominion of\nsin, and of the evil arising from sin, shall not last for ever, but\nthat the seed of the woman shall, at some future time, overthrow their\ndreaded conqueror. With the exception of the victory itself, everything\nis here left undetermined. We are told neither the mode in which it is\nto be achieved, nor whether it shall be accomplished by some peculiarly\ngifted race, or family of the progeny of the woman, or by some single\nindividual from among her descendants. There is nothing more than a\nvery slight hint that the latter will be the case.\n\nAfter the destruction of a whole sinful world, when only Noah with his\nthree sons had been left, the _general_ promise is, to a certain\nextent, defined. Deliverance is to come from the descendants of Shem;\nJaphet shall become a partaker of this deliverance; Ham is passed over\nin silence.\n\nThe prophecy becomes still more definite when the Lord begins to\nprepare the way for the appearance of this deliverance, by separating\nfrom the corrupt mass a single individual--Abraham--in order to make\nhim the depositary of His revelations. The Lord, moreover, according to\nthe good pleasure of His will, further specifies which of the\ndescendants of Abraham, to the exclusion of all the rest, is to inherit\nthis dignity, with all its accompanying blessings. From among the\nposterity of Shem, the Lord sets apart first the family of Abraham,\nthen that of [12] Isaac, and lastly that of Jacob, as the family from\nwhich salvation is to come. Yet even these predictions, distinct though\nthey be when compared with those previously uttered, are still very\nindefinite when compared with those subsequently given, and when seen\nin the light of the actual fulfilment. Even in these, the blessing only\nis foretold, but not its author. It still remained a matter of\nuncertainty whether salvation should be extended to all the other\nnations of the earth through a single individual, or through an entire\npeople descended from the Patriarchs. The former is obscurely\nindicated; but the mode in which the blessing was to be imparted was\nleft in darkness.\n\nThis obscurity is partially removed by the last Messianic prophecy\ncontained in Gen. xlix. 10. After what had previously taken place, we\nmight well expect that the question as to which of Jacob's twelve sons\nshould have the privilege of becoming the source of deliverance to the\nwhole earth, would not be left undetermined; nor could we imagine that\nJacob, when, just before his death, and with the spirit of a prophet,\nhe transferred to his sons the promises which had been given to his\nancestors and himself, should have passed over in silence the most\nimportant part of them. On the contrary, by being transferred to Judah,\nthe promise of the Messiah acquires not only the expected limitation,\nbut an unexpected increase of clearness and precision. Here, for the\nfirst time, the _person_ of the Messiah is brought before us; here also\nthe _nature_ of His kingdom is more distinctly pointed out by His being\nrepresented as the peaceful one, and the peacemaker who will unite,\nunder His mild sceptre, all the nations of the whole earth. Judah is,\nin this passage, placed in the centre of the world's history; he shall\nobtain dominion, and not lose it until it has been realized to its\nfullest extent by means of the _Shiloh_ descending from him, to whom\nall the nations of the earth shall render a willing obedience.\n\nThe subject-matter of the last four books of the Pentateuch would\nnaturally prevent us from expecting that the Messianic prophecies\nshould occupy so prominent a place in them as they do in Genesis. The\nobject contemplated in these books is rather to prepare effectually the\nway for the Messiah, by laying the theocratic institutions on a firm\nfoundation, and by establishing the law which is intended to produce\nthe knowledge of sin, and [Pg 13]to settle discipline, and by means of\nwhich the image of God is to be impressed on the whole national life.\nIf the hope of the Messiah was to be realized in a proper manner, and\nto produce its legitimate effect, it was necessary that the people\nshould first be accustomed to this new order of life; that, for the\npresent, their regards should not be too much drawn away from this\ntheir proximate and immediate vocation. Yet, even in the last four\nbooks there are not wanting allusions to Him who, as the end of the\nlaw, was, from the very beginning, to be set before the eyes of the\npeople.\n\nIn Num. xxiv. 17-19, Balaam beholds an Israelitish kingdom raised\nabsolutely above the kingdoms of the world, extending over the whole\nearth, and all-powerful; and he sees it in the form of an _ideal_ king,\nwith reference to Jacob's prophecy contained in Gen. xlix. 10,\naccording to which the kingdom rising in Judah shall find its full and\nfinal realization in the person of one king--the Messiah.\n\nWe have here the future King of the Jews saluted from the midst of the\nheathen world, corresponding to the salutation of the manifested one by\nthe wise men from the East: compare Matt. ii. 1, 2.\n\nFrom the whole position of Moses in the economy of the revelations of\nGod, it is, _a priori_, scarcely conceivable that he should have\ncontented himself with communicating a prophecy of the Messiah uttered\nby a non-Israelite. We expect that, as a prefiguration of the testimony\nwhich, in the presence of the chief among the apostles, he bore to the\nMessiah after He had appeared (compare Matt. xvii. 3), he should, on\nhis own behalf, testify his faith in Him, and direct the people to Him.\nThis testimony we have in Deut. xviii. 15-19. It is natural that Moses'\nattestation should have reference to Christ in so far as He is his\nantitype. He bears witness to Christ as the true Prophet, as the\nMediator of the divine revelation--thus enlarging the slender\nindications of Christ's prophetical office given in Gen. xlix. 10. A\nnew and important feature of Messianic prophecy is here, for the first\ntime, brought forward; and because of this, the character of the\nprophecy is that of a germ. Behind the person of the future Prophet,\nwhich is as yet _ideal_, the _real_ person of Him who is the Prophet in\nan absolute sense, is, in the meantime, concealed. It is reserved for\nthe future development [Pg 14]of the prophetic prediction to separate\nthat which is here beheld as still blended in a single picture.\n\n_Finally_, the doctrine of the Divine Mediator of the unseen God, of\nthe Angel of the Lord, or of the Logos, which forms the theological\nfoundation for the Christology, is already found pervading the Books of\nMoses.\n\nAfter this survey, we now proceed to an exposition of the particular\npassages.\n\n\n THE PROTEVANGELIUM.\n\nAs the mission of Christ was rendered necessary by the fall of man, so\nthe first dark intimation of Him was given immediately after the fall.\nIt is found in the sentence of punishment which was passed upon the\ntempter. Gen. iii. 14, 15. A correct understanding of it, however, can\nbe obtained only after we have ascertained who the tempter was.\n\nIt is, in the first place, unquestionable that a real serpent was\nengaged in the temptation; so that the opinion of those who maintain\nthat the serpent is only a symbolical signification of the evil spirit,\ncannot be admitted.[1] There must be unity and uniformity in the\ninterpretation of a connected passage. But the allegorical\ninterpretation of the _whole_ is rendered impossible by the following\nconsiderations:--The passage stands in a book of a strictly historical\ncharacter; it is connected with what follows, where the history of the\nsame pair who, in this section appear as actors, is carried forward;\nthe condition of mankind announced to them in this passage as a\npunishment, actually exists; there is the absence of every indication\nfrom which it might be inferred that the author intended to write an\nallegory, and not a history; there exist various passages of the New\nTestament (_e.g._, 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14; Rom. v. 12), in\nwhich the context of the passage before us is referred to as a real\nhistorical fact;--and there are the embarrassment, ambiguity, and\narbitrariness shown by the allegorical interpreters whenever they\nattempt to exhibit the truth intended to be conveyed; whereas\nperspicuity is a characteristic essential to an allegory.--The subtlety\nof the [Pg 15] serpent, pointed out in chap. iii. 1, is a natural\nattribute of that animal; and the comparison, in this respect, of the\nserpent with the other beasts, clearly indicates that a real serpent is\nspoken of. To such an one the denunciation of the punishment must\nnecessarily, in the first instance, be referred. The last two reasons\nalso exclude the opinion that Satan assumed merely the semblance of a\nserpent.\n\nThe serpent itself cannot, however, have acted independently; it can\nonly have served as an instrument to the evil spirit. The position\nwhich the serpent would occupy, in the event of our considering it as\nthe self-acting, independent seducer, would be in direct contradiction\nto the position assigned to the animal creation throughout Holy\nScripture--especially in the history of the creation--and would break\ndown the limits which, according to it, separate man and beast. By\nsuch an assumption we should be transferred from the Israelitish\nterritory--which is distinguished by the most sharply defined\nlimitations of the respective spheres of God, angels, men, and\nbeasts--to the heathenish, were these are all mixed up together, and\nwhere all the distinctions disappear in the confusion. Such a fact\nwould be altogether isolated and without a parallel in Holy Scripture.\nNor is it legitimate to adduce the argument, that the conditions and\ncircumstances of the paradisaic period were different from those of\nsubsequent times. It is indeed true, according to the statements\ncontained in the Mosaic account itself, that the animal world of that\ntime was different from that of the present; but whatever, and how\ngreat soever, this difference may have been, it had no reference to the\nfundamental relation of the beasts; and hence we cannot, from it,\nexplain the high intellectual powers with which the serpent appears\nendowed, and by the abuse of which it succeeded in seducing men. Man,\nas the only being on earth created in the likeness and image of God,\nis, in Gen. i., strictly distinguished from all other living beings,\nand invested with the dominion over them. Into man alone did God\nbreathe the breath of life (ii. 7); and, according to ii. 19, 20, man\nrecognises the great gulf which is fixed betwixt him and the world of\nbeasts. This gulf would be entirely filled up, the serpent would\naltogether step beyond the sphere appointed by the Creator to the world\nof beasts, if there were no _background_ in Gen. iii. 1-5. _Further_,\nThe words [Pg 16] of the serpent are an effect of wickedness: they\nraise in man doubts as to the love of God, in order thereby to seduce\nhim to apostasy, and bring about the execution upon him of the fearful\nthreatening, \"On the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely\ndie.\" The serpent does not stand in the truth; it speaks lies; it\nrepresents to man as the highest good, that which in truth is the\nhighest evil. Such language cannot proceed spontaneously from a being,\nthe creation of which falls within the work of the six days during\nwhich the whole animal creation was made. For everything created within\nthis space of time was _good_, according to the remark constantly\nrepeated in the history of creation. To this we must add the nature of\nthe curse itself, in which a higher reference to an invisible author of\nthe temptation shines clearly through the lower reference to the\nvisible one; and, further, the remark in iii. 1, \"Now the serpent was\nmore subtle,\" etc., evidently points to something beyond the natural\nsubtlety of the serpent, as the result of which the subsequent words\ncannot be understood, but behind which we may discover the intimation:\nlet him who reads, understand.\n\nThe view, that the serpent was the sole independent agent in this\ntransaction, is thus refuted by internal reasons. It is set aside by\nthe testimony of tradition also. It was an opinion universally\nprevalent among the Jews, that Satan himself had been active in the\ntemptation of the first man. It is found in _Philo_; and in the Book of\nWisdom, ii. 24, it is said, \"By the envy of _Satan_, death came into\nthe world.\" In the later Jewish writings, _Sammael_, the head of the\nevil spirits, is called \u05d4\u05e0\u05d7\u05e9 \u05d4\u05e7\u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \"the old serpent,\" or simply \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\n\"serpent,\" because in the form of a serpent he tempted Eve. (See the\npassage in _Eisenmenger's entdecktes Judenthum_ i. S. 822.) In the\nsacred books of the Persians also, the agency of Satan in the fall of\nour first parents is taught. According to the _Zendavesta_ (ed. by\n_Kleuker_, Th. 3, S. 84, 85), the first men, Meshia and Meshianeh, were\ncreated by God in a state of purity and goodness, and destined for\nhappiness, on condition of humility of heart, obedience to the\nrequirements of the law, and purity in thoughts, words, and actions.\nBut they were deceived by Ahriman, \"this mischievous one who from the\nbeginning sought only to deceive, were induced to rebel against God,\nand forfeited their happiness by the eating of fruits.\" According to\nthe same book (Th. iii. [Pg 17] S. 62), Ahriman in the form of a\nserpent springs down from heaven to earth; and another evil spirit is\ncalled (Th. ii. S. 217) the serpent--_Dew._ (Compare _Rhode_, _die\nheilige Sage des Zendvolkes_, S. 392.) These facts prove that at the\ntime when the Persian religion received Jewish elements (compare\n_Stuhr_, _die Religionssysteme des Orientes_, S. 373), and hence, soon\nafter the captivity, the doctrine of Satan's agency in the temptation\nof our first parents was prevalent among the Jews.\n\nBut of decisive weight upon this point is the evidence furnished by the\nNew Testament. We must here above all consider the important testimony\nsupplied by the fact of the history of the first and second Adam being\nparallel (Rom. v. 12 sqq.; 1 Cor. xv. 45 sqq.),--a testimony, the\nweight and importance of which have, in modern times, been again\npointed out by _Hahn_ in his _Dogmatik_. The necessity of Christ's\ntemptation by the prince of this world, in order that He, by His firm\nresistance, might deprive him of his dominion over mankind, indicates\nthat Adam was assailed by the same tempter, and, by being overcome,\nlaid the foundation of that dominion.\n\nAmong the express verbal testimonies of the New Testament, we must\nfirst consider the declarations of the Lord Himself; and among these\nthe passage John viii. 44 requires, above all, to be examined. In that\npassage the Lord says: \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f72, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. \u1f19\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f15\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7. \u1f4d\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c8\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\nThere is, indeed, an element of truth in the opinion, that Satan is in\nthis passage called the murderer of men from the beginning, with\nreference to the murder by Cain--an opinion lately brought forward\nagain by _Nitzsch_, _L\u00fccke_, and others. This is evident from a\ncomparison of 1 John iii. 12, 15, and of Rev. xii. 3. (See my\ncommentary on this passage.) Moreover, the words in ver. 40, \"Ye seek\nto kill Me,\" have a more direct parallelism in Cain's murder of his\nbrother, than in the death which Satan brought upon our first parents;\nalthough it is altogether wrong to maintain, as _L\u00fccke_ does, that\nSatan at that time committed only a _spiritual_ murder, which could not\nhave come under notice. Bodily death also came upon mankind through the\n[Pg 18] temptation. (Compare Gen. ii. 17, iii. 19; Wisd. ii. 24; Rom.\nv. 12.) But when the reference to Cain's slaying his brother is brought\nforward as the sole, or even as the principal one, we must absolutely\nreject it. Cain's murder of his brother comes into consideration only\nas an effect of the evil principle which was introduced into human\nnature by the first temptation; as, indeed, it appears in the book of\nGenesis itself as the fruit of the poisonous tree, the planting of\nwhich is detailed in chap. iii. The same murderous spirit which\nimpelled Satan to bring man under the dominion of death by the lie, \"Ye\nshall not surely die,\" was busy in Cain also, and seduced him to slay\nhis pious brother. The following reasons forbid an exclusive reference\nto the deed of Cain:--1. The murdering of man by Satan is brought into\nthe closest connection with his _lie_. In connection with Cain's deed,\nhowever, there was not even the appearance of falsehood; while, in the\ncase before us, lies, false and deceitful promises of high blessings to\nbe attained, and the raising of suspicions against God, were the very\nmeans by which he seduced man, and brought him under the power of sin.\nThe words of Jesus, when they are understood according to their\nsimple meaning, carry us back to an event in the primitive times,\nin which murder and the spirit of falsehood went hand in hand. 2. The\nco-operation of Satan in Cain's deed is not expressly mentioned in\nGenesis. That there was any such we can with certainty infer, only if\nthis event be viewed in close connection with what Satan did against\nour first parents,--if, behind the serpent, Satan be concealed.\nWhensoever Jesus has to deal with Jews, He does not teach any\nmysterious doctrines, but makes an open appeal to the events narrated\nin Scripture. 3. The words, \"Ye are of your father the devil,\" point to\nthe seed of the serpent spoken of in Gen. iii. 15. 4. The words, \"From\nthe beginning,\" direct to an event which happened at the first\nbeginnings of mankind, and in which our first parents took a part.\nWhatever this may be, the event in question must be the first in which\nthe devil manifested himself as the murderer of man. Now, as by the\nJews of that time the temptation of the first man, in consequence of\nwhich death entered the world, was attributed to sin--and this appears\nnot only from what has been already said, but also from a passage in\nthe _Sohar Chadash_, referred to by _Tholuck_, in which the wicked are\n[Pg 19] called \"The children of the old serpent which has slain Adam\nand all who are descended from him\"--it is evident that, by \"the\nmurderer of men from the beginning,\" Jesus can mean only the first\ntempter of men. That the words, \"from the beginning,\" refer to the fall\nof the first man, is also clearly shown by the parallel passages 1 John\niii. 8, and Rev. xii. 9, xx. 2. 5. Jesus says: Satan stands not in the\ntruth, does not move in its element, because there is no truth in him.\nThis points to a well-known event, in which Satan displayed his lying\nnature; and such is found only in the account of man's fall. 6. Jesus\ncalls Satan not only a liar, but, by way of emphasis, He designates him\nas the father of lies. But Satan can be designated thus, only with\nreference to a lie of his which is charged against him by Scripture,\nand which preceded all lies on earth. Now that is the lie of which we\nhave an account in Gen. iii. 4, 5. The words, \"and the father of it,\"\ncorrespond with the words, \"from the beginning.\"\n\nAnother declaration of our Lord is found in St Matthew xiii. 38: \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03b6\u03b9\u03b6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 (_i.e._, _mali_, _masculinum_, according\nto _Bengel_), compared with ver. 39: \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. The children of the wicked one, or of the devil, who are\nspoken of in this passage, are the seed of the serpent who is mentioned\nin Gen. iii. 15, and to whom allusion is made in the words \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1 also. Less incontrovertible is the passage in St Matthew xxiii. 33,\nwhere the Lord addressed the Pharisees as \u1f44\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b9\u03b4\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd.\n(Compare Matt. xii. 34, iii. 7.) _Olshausen_, in his commentary on\nMatt. iii. 7, gives it as his opinion that the serpent designates the\n_diabolic nature_. But, according to Matt. xii. 34, the point of\ncomparison is only the wickedness (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2), and it is quite\nsufficient to refer it to Ps. cxl. 4, where David says of the future\nenemies of his dynasty and family foreseen by him, \"They have sharpened\ntheir tongues like a serpent; adders' poison is under their lips\"\n(compare also Ps. lviii. 5; Deut. xxxii. 33; Isa. lix. 5),--a passage\nto which special allusion is made in the words, \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f70\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, Matt. xii. 34, and in the connection of serpents with vipers,\nwhich would be strange when referred to the history of the fall of the\nfirst man.\n\nLet us now turn from the Lord to His disciples. Just as is done in the\naccount of the transaction itself, Paul, in 2 Cor. [Pg 20] xi. 3 (\u1f61\u03c2 \u1f41\n\u1f44\u03c6\u03b9\u03c2 \u0395\u1f54\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6), places the invisible cause\nof the temptation in the background, and speaks of the visible one\nonly. But that behind the serpent he beholds Satan, appears immediately\nfrom ver. 14 and 15: \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f41 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2. \u039f\u1f50 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, where the \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 is\nexplained by _Bengel_: \"_Transformat se: Pr\u00e6sens, i.e., solet se\ntransformare. Fecit id jam in Paradiso._\" The Apostle alludes to an\nevent narrated in Scripture, where Satan shows himself in this\ncharacter. But such an occurrence is not found anywhere else than in\nGen. iii. 4, 5, the only passage where Satan represents himself as the\nfriend and saviour of men. We have here the explanation of the\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd in ver. 3.--In Rom. xvi. 20, the words, \u1f49 \u03b4\u1f72 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, contain an allusion to Gen.\niii. 15, too plain to be mistaken. The Apostle recognises, in the\npromise of the victory over the serpent given there, a pledge of the\nvictory over Satan. The words of Paul to Elymas in Acts xiii. 10, \"O\nthou child of the devil,\" likewise contain a distinct reference to that\nwhich, in the history of man's fall, is written concerning the serpent.\nIn the charge of subtlety, mischief, and enmity to all righteousness\nwhich he brings against him, there is an evident allusion to Genesis.\n\nIn 1 John iii. 8, \u1f49 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1fbd\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, allusion is made to a most heinous sin\ncommitted by Satan at the first beginnings of the human race. But of\nsuch a sin there is no account, unless Satan be concealed behind the\nserpent.--In Rev. xii. 9 (comp. xx. 2), Satan is called the great\ndragon, and the _old serpent_; the last of which designations refers to\nthe passage now under consideration.\n\nThe agency of Satan in the fall of man has been controverted, on the\nplea that, had such been in operation, it ought to have been mentioned.\nBut the absence of any such mention may be explained on the ground that\nit is not the intention of the holy writers to give any information\nrespecting the existence of the devil, but rather to give an account of\nhis _real_ manifestation, to which, afterwards, the doctrine connected\nitself. The judgment of the reader should not, as it were, be [Pg 21]\nanticipated. The simple fact is communicated to him, in order that,\nfrom it, he may form his own opinion.\n\n_Further_,--It has been asserted that, in the entire Old Testament, and\nuntil the time of the Babylonian captivity, no trace of an evil spirit\nis to be found, and that, hence, it cannot be conceived that his\nexistence is here presupposed. But this assertion may now be regarded\nas obsolete and without foundation. Closely connected with the\naffirmation, to which allusion has just been made, is the opinion which\nassigns the Book of Job to the time of the captivity, an opinion which\nis now almost universally abandoned. This book must necessarily have\nbeen written before the time of the captivity, because Jeremiah refers\nto it, both in his Prophecies (_e.g._, Jer. xx. 15 sq., which passage\nevidently rests on Job iii.) and in his Lamentations. (Compare, for a\nfuller discussion of this subject, _K\u00fcper's_ \"_Jeremias libror.\nSacrorum interpres atque Vindex_\") The reference in Amos iv. 3 to Job\nix. 8, and several allusions occurring in the Prophecies of Isaiah\n(_e.g._, chap. xl. 2 and lxi. 7, which refer to the issue of Job's\nhistory, which is here viewed as a prophecy of the future fate of the\nChurch; the peculiar use of \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0 in xl. 2, which alludes to Job vii. 1;\nchap. li. 9, which rests on Job xxvi. 13), lead us still farther back.\nThe assertion of those also who feel themselves compelled to\nacknowledge the pre-exilic origin of the book, but who maintain, at the\nsame time, that the Satan of this book is not the Satan of the later\nbooks of the Old Testament, but rather a good angel who only holds an\nodious office, is more and more admitted to be futile; so that we must\nindeed wonder how even _Beck_ (_Lehrwissenschaft_ i. S. 249) could be\ncarried away by it, and could make the attempt to support this\npretended fact by the supposition, that the apostasy of part of the\nangels from God, and their kingdom of darkness, are ever advancing and\nprogressing. The principal evil spirit is, in Zech. iii. 1, introduced\nas the adversary of the holy ones of God; and this very name is\nsufficient to contradict such a supposition, for the name is\ndescriptive of the wickedness of the character. He who, under all\ncircumstances, is an \"adversary,\" must certainly carry the principle of\nhatred in his heart. He moves about on the earth for the purpose of\nfinding materials for his accusations, and grounds on which he may\nraise suspicions. It is a characteristic [Pg 22] feature, that he whose\ndarkness does not comprehend the light, knows of no other piety but\nthat which has its origin in the hope of reward. It is quite evident\nthat it is the desire of his heart to destroy Job by sufferings. The\nonly circumstance which seems to give any countenance to the\nsupposition is, that he appears in the midst of the angels, before the\nthrone of God. But this circumstance is deprived of all its\nsignificancy, if the fact be kept in view--which, indeed, is most\nevident--that the book is, from beginning to end, of a purely poetical\ncharacter. The form of it is easily accounted for by the intention to\nimpress this most important thought: that Satan stands in absolute\ndependence upon God; that, with all his hatred to the children of God,\nhe can do nothing against them, but must, on the contrary, rather\nsubserve the accomplishment of the thoughts of God's love regarding\nthem.--Isaiah likewise points to evil spirits in chap. xiii. 21, xxxiv.\n14. (Compare my Comment. on Rev. xviii. 2.)--But even in some passages\nof the Pentateuch itself, the doctrine regarding Satan is brought\nbefore us. It is true that it has been erroneously supposed to be\ncontained in Deut. xxxii. 17 (compare on this opinion, my Comment. on\nPs. cvi. 37); but only bigotry and prejudice can refuse to admit that,\nunder the _Asael_, to whom, according to Lev. xvi., a goat was sent\ninto the wilderness, Satan is to be understood. (The arguments in\nsupport of this view will be found in the author's \"_Egypt and the\nBooks of Moses_,\" p. 168 ff.)[2]\n\nBut we must advert to two additional considerations. _First_,--To\nevery one who is in the least familiar with the territory [Pg 23]\nof divine revelation, and who has any conception of the relation in\nwhich the Books of Moses stand to the whole succeeding revelation, it\nwill, _a priori_, be inconceivable, that a doctrine which afterwards\noccupies so prominent a position in the revealed books should not have\nalready existed, in the germ at least, in the Books of Moses.\n_Secondly_,--We should altogether lose the origin and foundation of the\ndoctrine concerning Satan, if he be removed from, or explained away in,\nthe history of the fall. That the first indication of this doctrine\ncannot by any means be found in the Book of Job, has already been\npointed out by _Hofmann_, who remarks in the _Schriftbeweis_ i. S. 378,\nthat Satan appears in this book as a well-known being, as much so as\nare the sons of God. Nor is Lev. xvi. an appropriate place for\nintroducing, for the first time, this doctrine into the knowledge of\nthe people. The doctrinal essence of the symbolical action there\nprescribed is this:--that Satan, the enemy of the Congregation of God,\nhas no power over those who are reconciled to God; that, with their\nsins forgiven by God, they may joyfully appear before, and mock and\ntriumph over, him. The whole ritual must have had in it something\naltogether strange for the Congregation of the Lord, if they had not\nalready known of Satan from some other source. The questions: Who is\nAsael? What have we to do with him? must have forced themselves upon\nevery one's mind. It is not the custom of Scripture to introduce its\ndoctrines so abruptly, to prescribe any duty which is destitute of the\nsolid foundation of previous instruction.\n\nIf thus we may consider it as proved, (1) that the serpent was an agent\nin the temptation, and (2) that it served only as an instrument to\nSatan, the real tempter,--then we have also thereby proved that the\ncurse denounced against the tempter must have a double sense. It must,\nin the first place, refer to the instrument; but, in its chief import,\nit must bear upon the real tempter, for it was properly he alone who\nhad done that which merited the punishment and the curse. Let us now,\nupon this principle, proceed to the interpretation of our passage.\n\nIt is said in ver. 14: \"_And Jehovah Elohim said unto the serpent,\nBecause thou hast done this, thou shalt be cursed above all cattle\nand above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go,\nand dust thou shalt eat all the days of thy life._\"--If we do not [Pg\n24] look beyond the serpent, these words have in them something\nincomprehensible, inasmuch as the serpent is destitute of that\nresponsibility which alone could justify so severe a sentence. There is\nno difficulty attached to the idea that the serpent must suffer. It\nshares this fate along with all the other irrational earthly creation,\nwhich is made subject to vanity (Rom. viii. 20), and which must\naccompany man, for whose sake it was created, through all the stages of\nhis existence. But the question here at issue is not about mere\nsuffering, but about well-merited punishment. The serpent is not, like\nthe whole remaining earth, cursed for the sake of man (Gen. iii. 17),\nbut it is cursed because \"it has done this.\" Punishment presupposes\nbeing created in the image of God, and, according to chap. i., such\na creation is peculiar only to man. But as soon as we assume the\nco-operation of an invisible author of the temptation, by whom the\nserpent was animated, everything which is here threatened against the\nvisible instrument acquires a symbolical meaning. The degradation\ninflicted upon the latter,--the announcement of the defeat which it is\nto sustain in the warfare with man,--represent in a figure the fate of\nthe real tempter only. The instrument used by him in the temptation is\nat the same time the symbol of the punishment which he is destined to\nendure.\n\nAlthough it be said that the serpent should be \"cursed above all\ncattle,\" etc., this does not necessarily imply that the other animals\nare also cursed, any more than the words, \"subtle above all the\nbeasts,\" imply that all other beasts are subtle. It is certainly not\nalways necessary that the whole existing difference should be pointed\nout. The sense is simply: Thou shalt be more cursed than all cattle. In\na similar manner it is said, in the song of Deborah, concerning Jael,\n\"Blessed above women shall Jael be,\" Judges v. 24; for this does not\nimply that all other women are blessed, but means only that, whether\nthey be blessed or not, Jael, at all events, is the most blessed.\n\nThe _eating of dust_ must not be interpreted literally, as if the\nserpent were to feed upon dust; but, since it is to creep on the\nground, it cannot be but that it swallow dust along with its food. Thus\nwe find in Ps. cii., in \"the prayer of the afflicted,\" ver. 10, \"For I\nhave eaten ashes like bread,\" used of occasional swallowing of ashes.\nAs an expression of deepest humiliation, the [Pg 25] licking of dust is\nused in Mic. vii. 17, where it is said of the enemies of the Church,\n\"They shall lick dust like the serpent.\" In Is. xlix. 23, compared with\nPs. lii. 9, the licking up the dust of the feet is likewise inflicted\nupon the humbled enemies. If, undoubtedly, there be, even in these\npassages, a slight reference to the one before us, the allusion to it\nis still plainer in Is. lxv. 25, where it is said, \"And dust shall be\nthe serpent's meat.\" Of the denunciation in Gen. iii. 14, 15, the\neating of dust alone shall remain, while the bruising of the heel shall\ncome to an end. And while all other creatures shall escape from the\ndoom which has come upon them in consequence of the fall of man, the\nserpent--the instrument used in the temptation--shall, agreeably to the\nwords in the sentence of punishment, \"All the days of thy life,\" remain\ncondemned to a perpetual abasement, thus prefiguring the fate of the\nreal tempter, for whom there is no share in the redemption.\n\nThe opinion which has been again of late defended by _Hofmann_ and\n_Baumgarten_, that the serpent had before the fall the same shape as\nafter it, only that after the fall it possesses as a punishment what\nbefore the fall was its nature, stands plainly opposed to the context.\nEven _a priori_, and in accordance with Satan's usual mode of\nproceeding, it is probable that he, who loves to transform himself into\nan angel of light, should have chosen an attractive and charming\ninstrument of temptation. This view loses all that is strange in it, if\nonly we consider the change of the serpent, not as an isolated thing,\nbut in connection with the great change which, after the fall of man,\naffected the whole nature (comp. Gen. i. 31, according to which the\nentire animal creation had, previously to the fall, impressed upon it\nthe image of man's innocence and peace, and the law of destruction did\nnot pervade it, Gen. iii. 17; Rom. viii. 20); and if only we keep in\nmind that, before the fall, the whole animal world was essentially\ndifferent from what it is now, so that we cannot by any means think of\nforming to ourselves a distinct Image of the serpent, as _Luther_ and\nothers have done.\n\nThe serpent is thus, by its disgusting form, and by the degradation of\nits whole being, doomed to be the visible representative of the kingdom\nof darkness, and of its head, to whom it had served as an instrument.\nBut the words, when applied to the head himself, give expression to the\nidea: \"extreme contempt, [Pg 26] shame, and abasement shall be thy\nlot.\" Thus _Calmet_ remarks on this passage: \"This enemy of mankind\ncrawls, as it were, on his belly, on account of the shame and disgrace\nto which he is reduced.\" Satan imagined that, by means of the fall of\nman, he would enlarge his kingdom and extend his power. But to the eye\nof God the matter appeared in a totally different light, because, along\nwith the fall, He beheld the redemption.\n\nVer. 15. \"_And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and\nbetween thy seed and her seed; and it shall bruise thy head, and thou\nshalt bruise its heel._\" In the two other passages where the word \u05e9\u05d5\u05e3\noccurs (Ps. cxxxix. 11 [compare my commentary on that passage] and Job\nix. 17), it undeniably signifies: \"to crush,\" \"to bruise.\" This\nsignification, therefore, which is confirmed by the Chaldee Paraphrast,\nand which Paul also follows in Rom. xvi. 20 (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9, whilst the LXX.\nhave \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9), must here also be retained. It is only in appearance\nthat, in the second passage referred to, the signification \"to crush\"\nseems to be inappropriate; for there, \"to crush\" is used in the sense\nof \"to destroy,\" \"to annihilate,\" just as in Jonah iv. 7, \"to strike\"\nis used of the sting of an insect, because its effect is similar to\nthat produced by a stroke. The words \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 and \u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 are a second\naccusative governed by the verb, whereby the place of the action is\nmore distinctly marked out. That by \"head\" and \"heel\"--a _majus_ and a\n_minus_--a victory of mankind over the seed of the serpent should be\nsignified, was seen by _Calvin_, who says, \"Meanwhile we see how\ngraciously the Lord deals even in the punishment of men, inasmuch as He\ndoes not give the serpent power to do more than wound the heel, while\nto man is given the power of wounding its head. For the words 'head'\nand 'heel' point out only what is superior and what is inferior.\" That\nthese words are by no means intended to describe the mutual antipathy\nbetween men and serpents, is rendered evident by the consideration,\nthat, if such were the intention, no special punishment would be\ndenounced against the serpent, while, according to the context, such\ndenunciation is certainly designed by the writer. The words treat of\nthe punishment of the serpent; it is only in ver. 16 that the sentence\nagainst man is proclaimed. It is true that the bite of a serpent is\ndangerous when it is applied even to the heel, for the poison thence\npenetrates the whole body; but to this fact in natural history there is\nhere [Pg 27] no allusion, nor is the _biting_ of the serpent at all the\npoint here in question. The contrast between head and heel is simply\nthat which exists between the noble and less noble parts,--those parts\nof which the injury is commonly curable or incurable. The objection:\n\"The serpent creeps, man walks upright; if then an enmity exists\nbetween them, how can it be otherwise than that man wounds its head,\nand that it wounds his heel?\" entirely overlooks the consideration,\nthat, according to ver. 14, it is in consequence of the divine curse\nthat the serpent creeps in the dust. In this degraded condition--a\ncondition which is not natural, but inflicted as a punishment--it is\nimplied that the serpent can attack man at his heel only. This plain\nconnection between ver. 15 and 14 is evidently overlooked by those who\nhold the opinion, that this mutual enmity is pernicious equally to man\nand serpent. The very circumstance that the serpent is condemned to go\non its belly, and to eat dust, whilst man retains that erect walk in\nwhich the image of God is reflected, paves the way for the announcement\nof the victory in ver. 16.\n\nExperience bears ample witness to the truth of the divine sentence,\nthat there shall, in future, be enmity between the seed of the serpent\nand mankind, in so far as this sentence refers to the instrument of the\ntemptation; for abhorrence of the serpent is natural to man. Thus\n_Calvin_ remarks: \"It is in consequence of a secret natural instinct\nthat man abhors them; and as often as the sight of a serpent fills us\nwith horror, the recollection of our apostasy is renewed.\"\n\nBut, in the fate of the serpent which is here announced, there is an\nindication of the doom of the spiritual author of the temptation. It\nhas been objected that any reference to Satan is inadmissible, because\nthe \"seed of the serpent\" here spoken of cannot designate wicked men,\nwho are \"children of the devil;\" for these, too, belong to the seed of\nthe woman, and cannot, therefore, be put in opposition to it. But\nagainst this objection _Storr_, in his treatise, _de Protevangelio_,\nremarks: \"We easily see that many of the seed of the woman likewise\nbelong to the seed of the serpent; but they have become unworthy of\nthat name, since they apostatized to the common enemy of their race.\"\nIt is quite true that, by the seed of the woman, her whole progeny is\ndesignated; but they who enter into communion [Pg 28] with the\nhereditary enemy of the human race are viewed as having excommunicated\nthemselves. Compare Gen. xxi. 12, where Isaac alone is declared to be\nthe true descendant of Abraham, and his other sons are, as false\ndescendants, excluded. Moreover, not only wicked men, but also the\nangels of Satan (Matt. xxv. 41; Rev. xii. 7-9), belong to the seed of\nthe serpent.\n\nThe greater number of the earlier Christian interpreters were of\nopinion that, by the seed of the woman, the Messiah is directly pointed\nat. But to this opinion it may be objected, that it does violence to\nthe language to understand, by the seed of the woman, any single\nindividual; and the more so, since we are compelled to understand, by\nthe seed of the serpent, a plurality of individuals, viz., the\nspiritual children of Satan, the heads and members of the kingdom of\ndarkness. _Further_,--As far as the sentence has reference to the\nserpent, the human race alone can be understood by the seed of the\nwoman; and to this, therefore, the victory over the invisible author of\nthe temptation must also be adjudged. The reference to the human race\nis also indicated by the connection between \"her seed\" in this\nverse, and the words, \"Thou shalt bring forth sons,\" in ver. 16.\n_Finally_,--As the person of the Messiah does not yet distinctly appear\neven in the promises to the Patriarchs, this passage cannot well be\nexplained of a personal Messiah; inasmuch as, by such an explanation,\nthe progressive expansion of the Messianic prophecy in Genesis would be\ndestroyed.\n\nIf, however, by the seed of the woman we understand the entire progeny\nof the woman, we obtain the following sense: \"It is true that thou hast\nnow inflicted upon the woman a severe wound, and that thou and thine\nassociates will continue to assail her: but, notwithstanding thine\neager desire to injure, thou shalt be able to inflict on mankind only\nsuch wounds as are curable; while, on the contrary, the posterity of\nthe woman shall, at some future period, vanquish thee, and make thee\nfeel all thy weakness.\"\n\nThis interpretation is found as early as in the Targum of Jonathan, and\nin that of Jerusalem, where, by the seed of the woman, are understood\nthe Jews, who, at the time of the Messiah, shall overcome Sammael.\nThus, too, does Paul explain it in Rom. xvi. 20, where the promise is\nregarded as referring to Christians as a body. It has found,\nsubsequently, an able defender [Pg 29] in _Calvin_[3] and, in modern\ntimes, in _Herder_.[4] The treatise of _Storr_, too (in the _Opusc._\nii.), is devoted to its defence.\n\nEven according to this interpretation, the passage justly bears the\nname of the _Protevangelium_, which has been given to it by the Church.\nIt is only in general terms, indeed, that the future victory of the\nkingdom of light over that of darkness is foretold, and not the person\nof the Redeemer who should lead in the warfare, and bestow the strength\nwhich should be necessary for maintaining it. Anything beyond this we\nare not even entitled to expect at the first beginnings of the human\nrace; a gradual progress is observable in the kingdom of grace, as well\nas in that of nature.\n\nIt is certainly, however, not a matter of chance that the posterity of\nthe woman is not broken up into a plurality, but that, in order to\ndesignate it, expressions in the singular (\u05d6\u05e8\u05e2 and \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0) are chosen.\nThis unity, which, in the meanwhile, it is true, is only _ideal_, was\nchosen with regard to the person of the Redeemer, who comprehends\nwithin Himself the whole human race. And it is not less significant,\nand has certainly a deeper ground, that the victory over the serpent is\nassigned to the seed of the woman, not to the posterity of Adam; and\nthough, indeed, [Pg 30] the circumstance that the woman was first\ndeceived may have been the proximate cause of it, yet it cannot be\nexclusively referred to, and derived from, it. By these remarks we come\nstill nearer to the view of the ancient Church.\n\n\nFootnote 1: So, _e.g._ _Cramer_ in the _Nebenarbeiten zur Theologischen\nLiteratur_, St. 2.\n\nFootnote 2: The positive reasons by which I there proved the reference\nto Satan, have not been invalidated by the objections of _Hofmann_ in\nhis _Schriftbeweis_ i. 379. He says: As an adjective formed in a manner\nsimilar to \u05e7\u05dc\u05e7\u05dc (Num. xxi. 6) must have an intransitive signification,\nit cannot mean \"separated,\" but according to its derivation from \u05e2\u05d6\u05dc =\n\u05d0\u05d6\u05dc, it means: \"altogether gone away.\" But this argument has no force.\nThe real import of the form of the word is gradation, and frequent\nrepetition. Instances of a passive signification are given in _Ewald's\nLehrbuch der Hebr. Sprache_, \u00a7 157 c.: compare, _e.g._, Deut. xxxii. 5.\nThere is so much the stronger reason for adopting the passive\nsignification, that in Arabic also,--which alone can be consulted, as\nthe comparison with the Hebrew \u05d0\u05d6\u05dc has no sure foundation on which to\nrest,--the root has the signification: _remotus, sepositus fuit_, and\nthe participle: _a ceteris se sejungens_. Compare _Egypt and the B.\nM._, p. 169.\n\nFootnote 3: He says,--This, therefore, is the sense of the passage:\n\"The human race, whom Satan had endeavoured to destroy, shall at length\nbe victorious. But, meanwhile, we must bear in mind the mode in which,\naccording to Scripture, that victory is to be achieved. According to\nhis own pleasure, Satan has, through all centuries, led captive the\nsons of men, and even to this day he continues that sad victory. But,\nsince a stronger one has come down from heaven to subdue him, the whole\nChurch of God shall, under her Head, and like Him, be victorious.\"\n\nFootnote 4: _Briefe das Studium der Theologie betr._ ii. S. 225 (T\u00fcb.\n1808): \"The serpent had injured them; it had become to them a symbol of\nevil, of seduction, and at the same time of God's curse, of contempt\nand punishment. To men the encouraging prospect was held out, that\nthey, the seed of the woman, were stronger and nobler than the serpent,\nand all evil. They should tread upon the head of the serpent, while the\nlatter should be able to avenge itself only by a slight wound in their\nheel. In short, the good should gain the ascendancy over the evil. Such\nwas the prospect. How clear or how obscure it was to the first human\npair, it is not our present purpose to inquire. It is enough that the\nnoblest warrior against evil, the most valiant bruiser of the serpent's\nhead from among the descendants of Eve, was comprehended in this\nprospect, and indeed pre-eminently referred to. Thus, then, only an\noutline, as it were, was given to them in a figure, the import of which\nonly future times saw more clearly developed.\"\n\n\n\n\n THE BLESSINGS OF NOAH UPON SHEM AND JAPHETH.\n (Gen. ix. 18-27.)\n\nVer. 20. \"_And Noah began and became an husbandman, and planted\nvineyards._\"--This does not imply that Noah was the first who began to\ntill the ground, and, more especially, to cultivate the vine; for Cain,\ntoo, was a tiller of the ground, Gen. iv. 2. The sense rather is, that\nNoah, after the flood, again took up this calling. Moreover, the remark\nhas not an independent import; it serves only to prepare the way for\nthe communication of the subsequent account of Noah's drunkenness. By\nthis remark, a defence of Noah on account of his drunkenness is\nentirely cut off. Against such a defence _Luther_ expressed himself in\nvery strong terms: \"They,\" says he, \"who would defend the Patriarch in\nthis, wantonly reject the consolation which the Holy Ghost considered\nto be necessary to the Church--the consolation, namely, that even the\ngreatest saints may, at times, stumble and fall.\"[1]\n\nVer. 21. \"_And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was\nuncovered within his tent._\"\n\nVer. 22. \"_And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his\nfather, and told his two brethren without._\"--David is reproved in 2\nSam. xii. 14, for having given occasion to the enemies of God to\nblaspheme. The same reproof might justly be administered to Noah also.\nHam rejoiced to find a nakedness in him whose reproving earnestness had\noften been a burden to his sinful soul. _Luther_ remarks: \"There is no\ndoubt [Pg 31] that he (Noah) must have done much which was offensive to\nhis proud, high-minded, and presumptuous son.... For this reason we\nmust not regard this deed of Ham as mere child's play, as an action\ndestitute of all significance; but as the result of the bitterest\nhatred and resentment of Satan, by which he prepares and excites his\nmembers against the true Church, and specially against those who are in\nthe ministry. Let them, therefore, give earnest heed as to whether,\neither in their persons or in their offices, they give any occasion for\nblasphemy. We have in this history an example of divine terrors and\njudgment, that we may take warning from the danger of Ham, and not\nventure to be rash in judging, though we should see that a secular or\necclesiastical authority, or even our parents, do err and fall.\"\n\nVer. 23. \"_And Shem and Japheth took the garment._\"--_Luther_ says:\n\"Such an outward and lovely reverence they could not have shown to\ntheir father, if they had not, inwardly and in their hearts, been\nrightly disposed towards God, and had not considered their father as a\nhigh priest and king set over them by divine appointment.\" The mode of\nexpression indicates that the real impulse proceeded from Shem, and\nthat, as a prefiguration of what was to take place, Japheth only showed\nsusceptibility for the good, and a willingness to join with him. It is\ntrue that the singular \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05d7 is not, by itself, decisive. When the verb\nprecedes, it is not absolutely necessary that it should agree with the\n_subject_ in gender and number; but the use of the singular is,\nnevertheless, remarkable. If Shem and Japheth had been equally active,\nthe latter also would, at once, have been present to the mind of the\nwriter. Under these circumstances, there is the less reason for\nsupposing that the use of the singular can be merely accidental,\nespecially as the words, \"and he told his _two brethren_ without,\"\nimmediately precede. But all doubt is removed by a second allusion,\nwhich goes hand in hand with the first, and which is contained in the\nfollowing verse.\n\nVer. 24. \"_And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger\nson had done unto him._\"--That Ham was older than Japheth, appears\nfrom the circumstance that the order in which the sons of Noah are\nintroduced is uniformly thus: Shem, Ham, Japheth; or, beginning, as\nin chap. x., from the youngest, [Pg 32] Japheth, Ham, Shem,--where,\nhowever, in ver. 21, the words added immediately after Shem--\"the\nelder brother of Japheth,\" expressly indicate that, for a certain\npurpose, the writer has proceeded in order from the youngest to the\noldest. It is altogether in vain that some have attempted to prove\nfrom chap. xi. 10 (according to which Shem was, two years after the\nflood, only a hundred years old), compared with chap. v. 32 (according\nto which Noah began to beget when he was five hundred years old), that\nShem was not the first-born. The words in chap. v. 32 are: \"And Noah\nwas five hundred years old, and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.\"\nThat the chronology can here be determined in a way which only\napproximates to the truth, is implied, as a matter of course, in the\nstatement, that all the three sons were begotten when Noah was five\nhundred years of age; nothing more is meant than that Noah begat them\nafter he had finished his fifth, or at the beginning of his sixth,\ncentury. (Compare _Ranke's Untersuchungen_.) It is just an indefinite\nstatement of time which points forward to another genealogy, in which\nthe details will be given with greater precision. Ham everywhere stands\nbetween the two; but that, nevertheless, he is, in this passage, called\nthe younger son, can be explained only on the ground that, in the case\nbefore us, Shem and Ham are the two more especially noticed--Shem as\npositively good, and Ham as positively evil, while Japheth only takes\npart with Shem. We have thus laid an excellent foundation for the right\nunderstanding of the subsequent prophetic utterance of Noah--for the\nannouncement, namely, of Japheth's dwelling in the tents of Shem.\n\nVer. 25. \"_And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall\nhe be to his brethren._\"--_Luther_ says: \"Good old Noah, who is\nregarded by his son as a foolish and stupid old man, deserving only of\nmockery, appears here in truly prophetic majesty, and announces to his\nsons a divine revelation of what shall come to pass in future days;\nthus verifying what Paul says in 2 Cor. xii., that God's strength is\nmade perfect in weakness.\"\n\nAccording to the opinion now current, Canaan is said to mean \"lowland,\"\nand to be transferred from the land to the people, and from the people\nto the pretended ancestor. But this opinion is shown to be untenable by\nthe considerations, that, according to historical tradition, Canaan\nappears first as [Pg 33] the name of the ancestor;--that the verb \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\nis never used of natural lowness, but always of humiliation;--that in\nour passage, where the name first occurs, it stands in connection with\nservitude;--that the masculine form of the noun (on the adjective\ntermination _an_, compare _Ewald's Lehrb. d. Heb. Spr._ \u00a7 163, b.) is\nnot applicable to the country;--that the country Canaan is so far from\nbeing a lowland, that it appears, everywhere in the Pentateuch, as a\nland of hills (see Deut. xi. 2, iii. 25, where the land itself is even\ncalled, \"that goodly mountain\");[2]--and, finally, that, from all\nappearance, Canaan is primarily the name, not of the country, but of\nthe people--the former being called \u05d0\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05e0\u05e2\u05df, the land of Canaan.\nThe real etymology of the name is almost expressly given in Judges iv.\n23; \u05d5\u05d9\u05db\u05e0\u05e2, \"and God bowed down, or _humbled_, on that day Jabin the\nking of _Canaan_.\" Compare also Deut. ix. 3, where, in reference to the\nCanaanites, it is said, \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d9\u05db\u05e0\u05d9\u05e2\u05dd, \"He will humble or subdue them;\"\nand Nehem. ix. 24: \"Thou bowedest down before them the inhabitants of\nthe land--the Canaanites.\" Our passage also proceeds upon this\ninterpretation of the name. We are the rather induced to assume a\nconnection betwixt the name \"Canaan,\" and the words, \"a servant of\nservants shall he be,\" as in the case of Japheth also there is\ncertainly an allusion to the signification of the name, and probably in\nthe case of Shem also. Perhaps even the name Ham, _i.e._, \"the blackish\none,\" may be connected with the character which he here displays--a\nsuggestion which we do not here follow up. We refer, however, for an\nanalogy, to what has been remarked in our Commentary on the Psalms, in\nthe Introduction of Ps. vii.\n\nCanaan means: \"the submissive one.\" It is a name which the people\nthemselves, on whose monuments it appears, would never have\nappropriated to themselves (just as in the case of the Egyptians also,\non which point _Gesenius_ in the _Thesaurus_, and my work _Egypt_,\netc., p. 210, may be compared), unless it had been proper to them from\ntheir very origin. Ham gave this name to his son from the obedience\nwhich he demanded, but [Pg 34] did not himself yield. The son was to be\nthe servant of the father (for the name suggests servile obedience),\nwho was as despotical to his inferiors as he was rebellious against his\nsuperiors. When the father gave that name to his son, he thought only\nof submissiveness to _his_ orders; but God, who, in His mysterious\nprovidence, disposes of all these matters, had another submissiveness\nin view.\n\nBut why is Canaan cursed and not Ham? For an answer to this question,\nwe are at liberty neither to fall back upon the sovereign decree of\nGod, as _Calvin_ does, nor to say with _Hofmann_: \"Canaan is the\nyoungest son of Ham (Gen. x. 6); and because Ham, the youngest son of\nNoah, had caused so much grief to the father, he, in return, is to\nexperience great grief from his youngest son.\" This latter view rests\nupon false historical suppositions. We have already proved that Ham was\nnot the youngest son of Noah; and it by no means follows from Gen. x.\n6, that Canaan was the youngest son of Ham. Canaan's name is mentioned\nlast among the sons of Ham, because the whole account of Ham's family\nwas to be combined with the detailed enumeration of Canaan's\ndescendants, who stood in so important a relation to Israel. The\nboundary line as regards Shem is formed, quite naturally, by that\nbranch of Ham's family which stood in so important a relation to the\nmain branch of the family of Shem. But, as little reliance can be\nplaced upon the theological grounds of that conjecture; for the\nquestion at issue is not the withdrawal of outward advantages. Canaan\nis _cursed_, and it is just the sting of his servitude that it is the\nconsequence of the curse. It would indeed sadly affect the biblical\ndoctrine of recompense, if cursing and blessing were dependent upon\nsuch external reasons as, in the case before us, upon the circumstance\nthat Canaan was so unfortunate as to be the youngest son.\n\nThe right answer to the question is without doubt this:--Ham is\npunished in his son, just as he himself had sinned against his father.\nHe is punished in _this_ son, because he followed most decidedly the\nexample of his father's impiety and wickedness. To this view we are led\nby the whole doctrine of Holy Scripture concerning the visitation of\nthe guilt of the fathers upon the children. (Compare the author's\n\"_Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_,\" vol. ii. p.\n373.) [Pg 35] To this view we are also led by the passage in Gen. xv.\n16: \"But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again, for the\niniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.\" According to this passage,\nthe curse on Canaan can be realized upon him, only when his own\niniquity has been fully matured. This his iniquity is presupposed by\nhis curse. If he were to be punished on account of the guilt of the\nfather,--a guilt in which he had no share,--then indeed no delay would\nhave been necessary. To this view we are farther led by what is\nreported in Genesis concerning the moral depravity of Sodom and\nGomorrah, which, in the development of the sinful germ inherent in the\nrace, had outrun all others, and were, therefore, before all others,\novertaken by punishment. (To this view we are further led by what is\nreported in Genesis concerning the moral depravity of Sodom and\nGomorrah, which, in the development of the sinful germ inherent in the\nrace, had outrun all others, and were therefore, before all others,\novertaken by punishment) To this view we are led, _further_, by Lev.\nxviii. and the parallel passages, where the Canaanites appear as a\nnation of abominations which the land spues out; and, _finally_, by\nwhat ancient heathen writers report regarding the deep corruption of\nthe Ph\u0153nicians and Carthaginians.\n\nThe remainder of Ham's posterity are passed over in silence; it is only\nin the sequel that we expect information regarding them. But the\nforeboding arises, that their deliverance will be more difficult of\naccomplishment than that of Japheth, although the circumstance that\nCanaan is singled out from among them affords us decided hope for the\nrest.\n\nBut not even the exclusion of Ham is to be considered as an unavoidable\nfate resting upon him. Heathenism alone knows such a curse. The\nsubjective conditions of the curse imply the possibility of becoming\nfree from it. To this, there is an express testimony in the\ncircumstance, that the promise to the Patriarchs is not limited. David\nreceived the remnant of the Canaanitish Jebusites into the congregation\nof the Lord. (Compare remarks on Zech. ix. 7.) And, in the Gospels, the\nCanaanitish woman appears as a representative of her nation, and as a\nproof the possibility, granted to them, of breaking through the fetters\nof the curse. (Compare also the remarkable passage, Ezek. xvi. 46.)\n\n[Pg 36]\n\n\"The curse is contrasted with the blessing pronounced on Shem and\nJapheth, and the second member of ver. 25 is, in vers. 26, 27, used as\na repetition in reference to each of the two brethren, who were, in it,\nviewed together.\"--(_Tuch._)\n\nVer. 26. \"_And he said: Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem; and Canaan\nshall be a servant to them._\"--The Patriarch Noah,--a just man, and one\nwho walked before God (Gen. vi. 9),--a man raised on high, as David\nsays of himself in 2 Sam. xxiii. 1,--a man whose utterances are not\nmere individual wishes, but, at the same time, prophecies,--sees such\nrich blessings in store for his son, that, instead of announcing them\nto him, he immediately breaks out into the praise of God, who is the\nAuthor of them, and from whom the piety of Shem,[3] the foundation of\nthis salvation, was derived, just as Moses, in Deut. xxx. 20, instead\nof blessing Gad, blesses him by whom Gad is enlarged. The manner in\nwhich God is here spoken of indicates, _indirectly_, what that is in\nwhich the blessing consists. _First_,--God is not called by the name\n_Elohim_ (which is expressive of merely the most general outlines of\nHis nature), but by the name _Jehovah_, which has reference to His\nmanifested personality, to His revelations, and to His institutions for\nsalvation.[4] _Secondly_,--Jehovah is called the God of Shem,--the\nfirst passage of Holy Scripture in which God is called the God of some\nperson. Both these circumstances indicate that God is to enter into an\naltogether peculiar relation to the descendants of Shem; that He will\nreveal Himself to them; establish His kingdom among them, and make them\npartakers of both His earthly and His heavenly blessings. Thus _Luther_\nsays: \"This is indeed perceptible and clear, that he thus binds closely\ntogether God and his son Shem, and, as it were, commits the one to the\nother. In this, he indeed indicates the mystery of which Paul treats in\nRom. xi. 11 sq., and Christ, in John iv. 22, that salvation cometh from\nthe Jews, but that, nevertheless, the heathen shall become partakers of\nit. For [Pg 37] although Shem alone be the real root and trunk, yet\ninto this tree the Gentiles are, as a strange branch, graffed, and\nenjoy the fatness and sap which are in the elect tree. This light Noah,\nthrough the Holy Spirit, sees, and although he speaks dark words, he\nyet prophesies very plainly, that the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ\nshall be planted in the world, and shall grow up among the race of\nShem, and not among that of Japheth.\" As yet Shem and Japheth were on\nan equal footing. In the preceding part of the narrative, nothing\nhad been communicated by which God had, in His relation to Shem,\ngiven up His nature as Elohim, and had become his God. It is only\nby anticipation, then, that God can, in His relation to Shem, be\ndesignated as Jehovah, and as the God of Shem. The thought can, when\nfully brought out, be this alone: \"Blessed be God, who will, in future,\nreveal Himself as Jehovah, and as the God of Shem.\"\n\nIf it be overlooked that, in this appellation of God, there is implied\nthe indirect designation of the blessings which are to be conferred on\nShem (just as in Gen. xxiv. 27 the words, \"Blessed be Jehovah, the God\nof my master Abraham,\" imply the thought: because He has manifested\nHimself as Jehovah, and as the God of my master; which thought is then\nfurther carried out in the subsequent words: \"And who hath not left\ndestitute my master of His mercy and His truth;\"--and just as it is\nalso in the utterance of Zacharias in Luke i. 68, where the words,\n\"Blessed be the Lord [\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2], the God of Israel,\" imply the thought:\nbecause He has manifested Himself as the Lord [in the New Testament,\n\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is used where the Old has Jehovah], the God of Israel),--if this\nbe overlooked, we obtain only a weak and inadequate thought, very\nunsuitable to the context, the purport of which evidently is to\ncelebrate Shem, and to mark him out as worthy of his name. So it is\naccording to _Hofmann_, who, in the words, \"Blessed--Shem,\" finds only\nan expression of gratitude for the gift of this good son, and who\nlimits the announcement of blessings to the single one--that Canaan\nshall be Shem's servant. Against this feeble interpretation we must\nadduce these considerations also: that nowhere does the gift of the\ngood son form, even indirectly, the subject in question;--that thus we\nshould lose the opposition of the curse and the blessing (which\nrequires that, under [Pg 38] the \"Blessed be Jehovah,\" we should have\nconcealed the \"Blessed be Shem\"), just as we should, the contrast\nbetween Jehovah here and Elohim in the following verse;--and, lastly,\nthat what, in the following verse, is said of Japheth's dwelling in the\ntents of Shem, would thus be deprived of its necessary foundation.\n\nIt is said: \"Canaan shall be a servant to _them_.\" The suffix \u05be\u05be\u05b8\u05be\u05de\u05d5\u05b9,\nwhich cannot be used for the singular, any more than can the suffix\n\u05be\u05be\u05b8\u05be\u05dd, for which it is only the fuller poetical form (the instances of a\ndifferent use, adduced by _Ewald_, \u00a7 247, d., can easily be explained\nin accordance with the rule), indicates that the announcement has no\nreference to the personal relation of Shem and Ham, but that they come\ninto view solely as the heads of families.\n\nVer. 27. \"_May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of\nShem; and Canaan shall be a servant to them._\"--These words, in the\nfirst instance, contain the blessing pronounced upon Japheth; but they\nentitle us to infer from them, at the same time, a glorious blessing\ndestined for Shem, which is the source of blessing to Japheth also.\nThey thus complete the promise of the preceding verse, which directly\nrefers to Shem.\n\nThe first clause of this verse has received a great variety of\ninterpretations. The word \u05d9\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc, which refers to, and is explanatory of,\nthe name \u05d9\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05ea (_i.e._ Japheth), is the future apoc. _Hiphil_ of \u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05ea\u05b8\u05d4. The\n_Piel_ of this verb has in Hebrew commonly the signification: \"to\npersuade, or prevail upon any one to do anything.\" Hence many\ninterpreters translate with _Calvin_: \"May God allure Japheth that he\nmay dwell in the tents of Shem.\" _Luther_ also, in his Commentary, thus\nexplains it: \"God will kindly speak to Japheth;\" while, in his\ntranslation, he has: \"May God enlarge Japheth.\"--But to this\ninterpretation it has been rightly objected, that the verb \u05e4\u05ea\u05d4 is found\nonly in Piel, not in Hiphil, with the signification \"to persuade;\"\nthat, commonly, it signifies \"to persuade\" only in a bad sense; and\nthat, in this sense, it is never construed with \u05dc, but always with the\naccusative.--All interpreters now agree that (in conformity with the\nLXX. [\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f38\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b8], the _Vulgate_ [_dilatet Deus Japhet_],\nand _Onkelos_) \u05d9\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc must be derived from \u05e4\u05ea\u05d4 in its primary\nsignification, \"to be wide, large,\" in which it is found in Prov. xx.\n19 (where \u05e9\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 [Pg 39] is accusative denoting the place), and which\nsignification is the common one in Aramaic. But they then again\ndisagree, inasmuch as some think of a local extension: God shall give\nto Japheth a numerous posterity, which shall take possession of\nextended territories; while others find here expressed the idea of\ngeneral prosperity: God shall prosper Japheth, shall bring him into a\nfree and unstraitened position.\n\nBoth of these views partake of alike mistake from regarding the words\n_per se_, and as disconnected from the following announcement of\nJapheth's dwelling in the tents of Shem. It must also be objected to\nthem, that in the case of Shem, only one feature of the blessing is\npointed out, viz., that God will be to him Jehovah, _his_ God; and so,\nlikewise, only one feature of the curse in the case of Ham. When those\nwords are isolated, separated from what follows, and understood of\nextension, this difficulty arises, that Ham enjoys this extension in\ncommon with Japheth, as is shown by a glance at Gen. x. If, on the\nother hand, we understand them as expressive of prosperity (according\nto _Hofmann_: \"general prosperity in the affairs of outward life\"),\nthis explanation is destitute of a sufficient foundation, and there is\nnothing reported in the sequel regarding the fulfilment of such a\npromise. To this we must further add, that the verb \u05d9\u05e4\u05ea is, on account\nof its immediate nearness to the proper name, too little expressive,\nand that, hence, we must expect to find its meaning more fully brought\nout in what follows.\n\nBut if it be acknowledged that the extension appears here as a\nblessing, in so far only as it leads to the dwelling in the tents of\nShem, mentioned in the subsequent clause of the verse, and that the\nblessing can consist in nothing else, there is then no essential\ndifference betwixt the two interpretations. But we decide in favour of\nthe _latter_ view, because the corresponding verb \u05d4\u05e8\u05d7\u05d9\u05d1, \"to make wide,\nto enlarge,\" when construed with \u05dc, is always used in the\nsignification: \"to bring into a free, unstraitened, easy, happy\nposition.\" (See, _e.g._, Gen. xxvi. 22; Ps. iv. 2; Prov. xviii. 16; 2\nSam. xxii. 20.) Even when followed by an accusative, the verb is found\nwith this signification in Deut. xxxiii. 20: \"Blessed be He that\nenlargeth Gad.\" (In this passage, too, the word has been understood as\ndenoting extension; and Deut. xii. 20, xix. 8, have been appealed to in\nsupport of the opinion; but this appeal is inadmissible, because [Pg\n40] extension of the borders is the thing which is there spoken of. The\nallusion to the signification of the name _Gad_ = good luck [Gen. xxx.\n11: \"And Leah said, For good luck;[5] and she called his name Gad\"], is\nfavourable to our view, as well as the circumstance, that in this case\nthe subsequent words are only an expansion of the general thought, and\nmore closely determine the happiness. Jehovah, who enlarges Gad,\naccording to the words which follow, \"He dwelleth like a lion, and\nteareth the arm with the crown of the head,\" is contrasted with the\nenemies who wish to drive him into a strait. If room be made for him,\nhe becomes happy, as it were, by enlargement.) To understand \u05d9\u05b7\u05e4\u05b0\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc of\nprosperity and happiness, is countenanced also by the consideration\nthat, in such circumstances, the name Japheth appears much more\nappropriate in the mouth of Noah, by whom it was uttered at a time when\nextension could be but little thought of, and that it corresponds much\nbetter with the name Shem.\n\nElohim is to enlarge Japheth. Elohim here stands in strict contrast\nwith Jehovah, the God of Shem. It is only by dwelling in the tents of\nShem, that Japheth passes over into the territory of Jehovah,--up to\nthat time, he belongs to the territory of Elohim. But Elohim leads him\nto Jehovah. It is a contrast in all respects similar to that which we\nhave in Gen. xiv., where, in verse 19, Melchizedek speaks of \"the most\nhigh God,\" whose priest he is, according to verse 20; while Abraham, on\nthe contrary, speaks, in verse 22, of \"Jehovah the most high God.\"\n\nThere is a difference of opinion regarding the determination of the\nsubject in the second clause of the verse: \"and he shall dwell in the\ntents of Shem.\" According to a very ancient interpretation, Elohim is\nto be supplied as such; from which the following sense would be\nobtained: \"God shall indeed enlarge and prosper Japheth, but He shall\ndwell in the tents of Shem.\" [Pg 41] The inferior blessing of Japheth\nwould thus be contrasted with the superior one of Shem, among whose\nposterity God should, by His gracious presence, glorify Himself,--first\nin the tabernacle, then in the temple, and lastly, should, in the\nhighest sense, dwell by the incarnation of His Son. Thus _Onkelos_:\n\"God shall extend Japheth, and His Shechinah shall dwell in the tents\nof Shem.\" The ancient book _Breshith Rabba_ remarks on this passage:\n\"The Shechinah dwells only in the tents of Shem.\" (See _Sch\u00f6ttgen_, _de\nMessia_, p. 441.) _Theodoret_ also (Interrog. 58 in Genesin) advances\nthis explanation, and ably brings out this sense. It has of late been\nagain defended by _Hofmann_ and _Baumgarten_. But against this view\nthere are decisive arguments, which show that Japheth alone can be the\nsubject. To mention only a few:--It cannot be doubted that it is on\npurpose that Noah, when speaking of Shem, has chosen the name Jehovah,\nand that, as soon as he comes to Japheth, he makes use of the name\nElohim. We cannot, therefore, suppose that here, where, according to\nthis interpretation, he would just touch upon the essential point in\nthe peculiar relation of Jehovah to the descendants of Shem--the\nIsraelites, he should have made use of the general name of Elohim, as\nin the case of Japheth. The subject--Jehovah--could not in this case\nhave been omitted before \u05d9\u05e9\u05db\u05df. _Further_,--By such an interpretation we\nare involved in inextricable difficulties as regards the last clause of\nthe verse. The words, \"And Canaan shall be a servant to them,\" can\nneither be referred to Shem alone--for, in that case, they would be an\nuseless repetition, as in ver. 25 Canaan had been doomed to be a\nservant to _his brethren_--nor can they be referred to Shem and Japheth\nat the same time; the analogy of the \u05dc\u05de\u05d5 in the preceding verse, where\nthe plural referred to the plurality represented by the one Shem,\nforbids this. If, then, the last clause can refer to Japheth only, the\nclause in which the dwelling in the tents of Shem is spoken of, must\nlikewise be referred to Japheth. To these arguments we may _further_\nadd, that there is something altogether strange in the expression: \"God\nshall dwell in the tents of Shem.\" There is, in Holy Scripture,\nfrequent mention of God's dwelling in His tabernacle, on His holy hill,\nin Zion, in the midst of the children of Israel. Believers also are\nsaid to dwell in the tabernacle or temple of God; but nowhere is [Pg\n42] God spoken of as dwelling in the tents of Israel. _Further_,--If we\nrefer the second clause to Shem, the first, in its detached position,\nwould be too general, too indefinite, and too loose to admit of the\nblessing of Japheth being concluded with it. We must not, moreover,\nlose sight of the consideration, that when we refer the second clause\nalso to Japheth, there springs up a beautiful connection between the\nrelation of Shem and Japheth to each other in the present, and during\ntheir future progress. As the reaction against the corruption of\nHam had originated with Shem, and Japheth had only joined him in it;\nso in future also, the real home of piety and salvation will be with\nShem, to whom Japheth, in the felt need of salvation, shall come near.\n_Finally_,--The analogy of the promise made to the Patriarch, according\nto which all the nations of the earth shall be blessed by the seed of\nAbraham, is in favour of our referring the second clause to Japheth.\nAnd if the Lord, alluding to our passage, says, in Luke xvi. 9, \"Make\nto yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye\nfail they may receive you into everlasting habitations\" (\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03ae = \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc),\nHe expresses the view which we are now defending. For, in that passage,\nit is not God who receives, but man: they who, by their prayers, are\nmore advanced, come to the help of those who have made less progress;\nthose who have already attained to the enjoyment of salvation, make\nthem partakers who stand in need of salvation.\n\nOf those who correctly consider Japheth to be the subject, several (_J.\nD. Michaelis_, _Vater_, _Gesenius_, _Winer_, _Knobel_) give the\ntranslation: \"and he shall dwell in renowned habitations.\" But it is\nquite evident that this sense is admissible only as a secondary one: as\nsuch, we must indeed admit it in a context in which the appellative\nsignification of the proper names is never lost sight of. That \u05e9\u05dd is\nhere, however, primarily a proper name, is shown by the preceding\nverse.\n\nThe translation, \"Japheth shall dwell in the tents of Shem,\" is, then,\nthe correct one. But now the question is,--How are these words to be\nunderstood? According to the views of many interpreters, it is\nintimated by Japheth's dwelling in the tents of Shem, that the true\nreligion would be preserved among the posterity of Shem, and would pass\nover from them to the descendants of Japheth, who should be received\ninto the community [Pg 43] of the worshippers of the true God. So\n_Jonathan_ explained its meaning: \"The Lord shall make glorious the end\nof Japheth; his sons shall be proselytes, and shall dwell in the\nschools of Shem.\" So also _Jerome_: \"Since it is said, And he shall\ndwell in the tents of _Shem_, this is a prophecy concerning us, who,\nafter the rejection of Israel, enjoy the instruction and knowledge of\nthe Scriptures.\" _Augustine_ also (_c. Faustum_ xii. 24) understands by\nthe tents of Shem, \"the churches which the apostles, the sons of the\nprophets, have built up.\"\n\nBut although this explanation be, in the main, correct, it cannot, per\nse, satisfy us. It must be reconciled with that other explanation given\nby _Bochart_ (_Phaleg._ iii. 1 c. 147 sqq.), _Calmet_, _Clericus_, and\nothers, according to which the passage is to be understood literally,\nas foretelling that the posterity of Japheth should, at some future\ntime, gain possession of the country belonging to the descendants of\nShem, and should reduce them to subjection.\n\nThe phrase, \"and they dwelt in their tents,\" is, in 1 Chron. v. 10,\nused to express the relation of conquerors and conquered. There is no\nparallel passage which could indubitably prove that \"dwelling in the\ntents of some one\" could ever, by itself, denote spiritual communion\nwith him. If Shem had come to Japheth with the announcement of\nsalvation only, it is not likely that a dwelling of Japheth in the\ntents of Shem would have been spoken of. Even the last clause of the\nverse--\"and Canaan shall be a servant to them\"--when compared with the\npreceding verse, according to which Canaan is, in the first place, to\nbe Shem's servant only, supposes that Japheth will step beyond his\nborders, and will invade the territory naturally belonging to Shem. If\nJapheth assume the dominion of Shem over Canaan, he must then dwell in\nthe tents of Shem in a sense different from the merely spiritual one.\n_Finally_--Even in other passages of the Pentateuch, an invasion of\nShem's territory by Japheth is foretold. In Num. xxiv. 24, Balaam says:\n\"And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim and shall afflict\nAsshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish.\" \"We have\nhere (compare my monography on Balaam) the announcement of a future\nconquest of the Asiatic kingdoms by nations from Europe, such as was\nhistorically realized in the Asiatic dominion of the Greeks and\nRomans.\"\n\n[Pg 44]\n\nOn the other hand, however, it must not by any means be supposed that\nNoah should, in favour of Japheth, have weakened the power of the\nbrilliant promise given to Shem by the announcement of such a sad\nevent; for it is evidently his intention to exalt Shem above his\nbrethren, as highly as he had excelled them both in his piety towards\nhis father.\n\nThe difficulties which stand in the way of either explanation are\neasily removed by the following consideration. The occupation of the\nland of Shem by Japheth is the condition of Japheth's dwelling in the\ntents of Shem. Why this dwelling is a blessing to Japheth--\"God shall\nenlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell,\" etc.--appears from what precedes,\naccording to which, God reveals Himself to Shem as Jehovah, and becomes\n_his_ God. To be received into the fellowship of Jehovah--to find Him\nin the tents of Shem--constitutes the blessing promised to Japheth. But\nif such be the case, there can be no more room for speaking of an\nannouncement of any event adverse to Shem. Underneath the adversity,\njoy is hidden. It will here be fulfilled in its highest sense, that the\nconquered give laws to the conquerors.\n\n\"And Canaan shall be a servant to them.\" The servitude of Canaan was\ncompleted by Japheth, among whose sons (Gen. x. 2) Madai also appears;\nso that even the Medo-Persian kingdom is one of Japheth's. Ph\u0153nicia was\ncompletely overthrown by him. Haughty Tyrus fell to the ground. Zech.\nix. 3, 4, when announcing the Greek dominion (compare ver. 13), says:\n\"And Tyrus did build herself a stronghold, and heaped up silver like\ndust, and fine gold as the mire of the streets. Behold, the Lord will\ncast her out, and He will smite her power in the sea, and she shall be\ndevoured with fire.\"\n\nThe objection raised by _Tuch_ and _Hofmann_, that the Greeks and\nRomans made Shem also their servant, is, after what has been remarked,\ndestitute of all weight, inasmuch as the servitude then had reference\nonly to the lower territory. Shem and Judah were not injured in that\nwhich, in ver. 26, had been pointed at as their chief and peculiar\ngood. On the contrary, it shone out, on that occasion, in its highest\nglory. Canaan, however, lost that upon which he set the highest value.\nIn the case of Canaan, the servitude was the consequence of the curse;\nbut in the case of Shem, the outward servitude was a consequence of [Pg\n45] the blessing, the most emphatic verification of the words: \"Blessed\nbe Jehovah, the God of Shem.\"\n\nIt must indeed fill us with adoring wonder when we see how clearly and\ndistinctly the outlines of the world's history, as well as of the\nhistory of Salvation, are here traced. \"This,\" says _Calvin_, \"is\nindeed a support to our faith of no common strength, that the calling\nof the Gentiles was not only predestined in God's eternal decree, but\nalso publicly proclaimed by the mouth of the Patriarch; so that we are\nnot required to believe that by a sudden and fortuitous event merely,\nthe inheritance of eternal life was proclaimed to all men in common.\"\n\nIt is not a matter of _chance_ that this prophecy was given immediately\nafter the deluge, which stands out as so great an event in the history\nof the fallen human race,--the first event, indeed, subsequent to the\nfall, with which the _Protevangelium_ was connected. A new period\nbegins with the calling of Abraham, and in it we obtain another\nlink in the chain of the prophecies,--a link which fits as exactly\ninto that which is now under consideration, as did this into the\n_Protevangelium_. The import of this prophecy is: \"The kingdom of God\nshall be established in Shem, and Japheth shall be received into its\ncommunity.\"--The meaning of the prophecy which is now to engage our\nattention is: \"By the posterity of the Patriarchs all the nations of\nthe earth shall be blessed.\" The promise to the Patriarchs differs,\nhowever, from the prophecy upon which we have just commented, not only\nin the natural progress--that from among the descendants of Shem a\nnarrower circle is separated--but in this circumstance also, that in\nthe former the blessing is extended to all the nations of the earth,\nwhile in the latter Ham is passed over in silence. This difference,\nhowever, has its main foundation in the historical circumstances of the\nlatter prophecy; although, it is true, the complete silence which is\nobserved regarding him, calls forth apprehensions about his being less\nsusceptible of salvation, or, at least, of his not occupying any\nprominent position in the development of the kingdom of God. Here,\nwhere the object was to punish Ham for his wickedness, not the\nprosperous, but the adverse events impending upon him in his posterity,\nare brought prominently out; while, on the other hand, to Shem and\nJapheth blessings alone are foretold.\n\n\nFootnote 1: The object of this event, as pointed out by _Calvin_, viz.,\nthat God intended to give to all coming ages, in the person of Noah, a\nwarning and an exhortation to temperance, would likewise be frustrated\nby this unwarrantable apology.\n\nFootnote 2: The reverse is the case with reference to Aram, which is\nessentially a lowland, while these critics would have us to believe\nthat it means \"highland.\" (Compare _Baur_ on Amos, S. 229.)\n\nFootnote 3: _Bochart_ remarks: \"He cursed the guilty one in his own\nperson, because the source and nourishment of evil is in man himself.\nBut, rejoiced at Shem's piety, he rather blessed the Lord, because he\nknew that God is the Author of everything which is good.\"\n\nFootnote 4: With reference to the difference between these two names,\ncompare the disquisitions in the author's \"_Genuineness of the Pent._,\"\nvol. i. p. 213 ff.\n\nFootnote 5: Our English authorized version translates the first clause\nof this verse thus: \"And Leah said, A troop cometh,\"--a rendering which\ncannot be objected to on etymological grounds, and which receives some\nsupport from Gen. xlix. 19. The ancient versions, however, are quite\nunanimous in assigning to the \u05d2\u05d3 in \u05d1\u05d2\u05d3 the signification of \"fortune,\"\n\"good luck;\" and render it either: \"in or for good luck;\" \"luckily,\"\n\"happily\" (so the LXX. et Vulg.), or, following _Onkelos_ and the\nMazorets: \"good luck has come.\"--(Tr.)\n\n\n[Pg 46]\n\n\n THE PROMISE TO THE PATRIARCHS.\n\nA great epoch is, in Genesis, ushered in with the history of the time\nof the Patriarchs. _Luther_ says: \"This is the third period in which\nHoly Scripture begins the history of the Church with a new family.\" In\na befitting manner, the representation is opened in Gen. xii. 1-3 by an\naccount of the first revelation of God, given to Abraham at Haran, in\nwhich the way is opened up for all that follows, and in which the\ndispensations of God are brought before us in a rapid survey. Abraham\nis to forsake everything, and then God will give him everything.\n\nGen. xii. 1. \"_And the Lord said unto Abraham, Get thee out of thy\ncountry, and from thy hone, and from thy father's house, into a land\nthat I will show thee._ Ver. 2. _And I will make of thee a great\nnation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt\nbe a blessing._ Ver. 3. _And I will bless them that bless thee, and him\nwho curseth thee I will curse: and in thee all the families of the\nearth shall be blessed._\"\n\n\"_Into a land that I will show thee._\" From what follows, it appears\nthat, in the very same revelation, the country was afterwards _more\ndefinitely_ pointed out; for Abraham, without having received any new\nrevelation, goes to Canaan, For the sake of brevity, the writer gives\nthe details only afterwards, when he has occasion to report how they\nwere carried out. The land which God will show to Abraham, stands\ncontrasted with that in which he is at home,--in which he and his whole\nbeing had taken root. This contrast points out the greatness of the\nsacrifice which God demands of Abraham. With a like intent we have the\naccumulation of expressions--\"out of thy land,\" etc.--corresponding to\na similar one when the command was given to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. xxii.\n2), and forming the condition of the promise which follows. This\npromise is intended to make the sacrifice a light thing to Abraham, by\npointing out what he is to receive if he give up everything which\nstands in the way of his living to God. A similar call comes to all who\nfeel impelled to renounce the world in order to serve God. This call to\nAbraham is peculiar only as to its form; as to its essence, it is ever\nrepeating itself. This will appear the more distinctly, when we inquire\ninto the true reason of the _outward_ separation here demanded of [Pg\n47] Abraham. It can be Intended only as a means of the internal\nseparation. In the circle in which he lived, sin had already made a\nmighty progress, as appears from Josh. xxiv. 2,--a passage which shows\nus that idolatry had already made its way into the family of Abraham.\nIn order to withdraw him from the influences of this corruption,\nAbraham is removed from the circle in which he had grown up, and in\nwhich he had hitherto moved. That the special thing here demanded is\nonly the result of the general duty of renunciation and self-denial,\nwhich is here, in Abraham, laid upon the whole Church, appears from the\ncircumstance, that the promise was renewed at a subsequent period,\nwhen, with a willing heart, he had offered up his son Isaac as a\nspiritual sacrifice to his God. The carnal, ungodly love to Isaac is\nthus placed on a level with the attachment to the land, etc., which\ncame betwixt him and his God. The general idea, that self-renunciation\nlies at the foundation, is brought out in Psalm xlv. 11.\n\nThe words, \"_And thou shalt be a blessing_,\" imply more than the\nwords, \"I will bless thee:\" they are intentionally placed in the centre\nof the whole promise. Abraham shall, as it were, be an embodied\nblessing--himself blessed, and the cause of blessing to all those who\nbless him--to all the generations of the earth who shall, at some\nfuture period, enter into this loving and grateful relation to him. On\nthe ground of Abraham's self-denial, and unreserved surrender, blessing\nis poured out _upon him_, blessing also _on his account_ and _through\nhim_. The blessing connected with him begins with himself, and extends\nover all the families of the earth.\n\n\"_And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee I\nwill curse._ The blessing is based upon the turning to Him who has\nappointed Abraham for a blessing, as we may learn from the example of\nMelchizedek, Gen. xiv. 19. They who bless are themselves not far from\nthe kingdom of God; blessing, therefore, is the preparatory step\ntowards being blessed. (Compare Matt. x. 40-42.)\n\n\"_And in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed._\"\n_Luther_ says: \"Now there follows the right promise, which ought to be\nwritten in golden letters, and proclaimed in all lands, and for which\nwe ought to praise and glorify.\"\n\nThe promise stands here in close connection with the Mosaic [Pg 48]\nhistory of the creation. According to that, man, as such, bears upon\nhim the impress of the divine image. Gen. i. 26, and is the depository\nof the divine breath. Gen. ii. 7. From such a beginning, we cannot\nconceive of any limitation of salvation which is not, at the same time,\na means of its universal extension. It must therefore be in entire\naccordance with the nature of the thing, that even here, where the\nsetting apart of a particular chosen race takes its rise, there should\nbe an intimation of its universally comprehensive object. There is, in\nthe circumstance of _families_ being spoken of, a distinct reference to\nthe history of creation; \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4 everywhere corresponds exactly with our\nword \"family.\" It is everywhere used only of the subdivisions in the\ngreater body of the nation or tribe. The expression, then, points to\nthe higher unity of the whole human race, as it has its foundation in\nthe fact that all partake in common of the divine image.\n\nThe announcement of the blessing in this passage leads us back to the\ncurse pronounced in consequence of sin, Gen. iii. 17: \"Cursed is the\nground (_Adamah_) for thy sake.\" (Compare Gen. v. 29.) This curse is,\nat some future time, to be abolished by Abraham. We can account for the\nmention of the families of the \"Adamah\" only by supposing that a\nreference to this passage was fully intended; for it was just the\n\"Adamah\" (primarily, \"land\") which had there been designated as the\nobject of the curse.\n\nIn announcing that all the families shall be blessed in Abraham, the\nwriter refers also to the judgment described in Gen. xi., by which\nthe family of mankind,--which, according to the intention of God, ought\nto have been united,--was dispersed and separated. When viewed in\nthis connection, we expect that the blessing will manifest itself\nin the healing of the deep wound inflicted upon mankind, in the\nre-establishment of the lost unity, and in the gathering again of the\nscattered human race around Abraham as their centre.\n\nBeyond this, no other disclosure about the nature of this salvation is\ngiven. But that it consisted essentially in the union with God\naccomplished through the medium of Abraham, and that everything else\ncould be viewed as emanating only from this source, was implied simply\nin the circumstance, that all the blessing which Abraham enjoyed for\nhimself had its origin in [Pg 49] this, that he could call God _his\nGod_; just as, in Gen. ix., it had been declared as the blessing of\nShem, that Jehovah should be his God, and as the blessing of Japheth,\nthat he was called to become a partaker of this blessing. The blessings\nwhich were either bestowed upon or promised to the Patriarchs and their\ndescendants, had for their object the advancement of knowledge and the\npractice of true religion, and had been bestowed or promised only under\nthis condition (compare Gen. xvii. 1, xvii. 17-19, xxii. 16-18, xxvi.\n5); they could not hence expect anything else than that their posterity\nwould, in so far, be the cause of the salvation of the heathen nations,\nthat the latter should, by means of the former, be made partakers of\nthe blessings of true religion.\n\nWith regard to the manner in which this blessing was to come to the\nGentiles, no intimation was given by the words themselves. The person\nof the Redeemer is not yet brought before us in them; the indication of\nthat was reserved for a later stage in the progress of revelation.[1]\n\nThe last clause of ver. 3 cannot, by any means, take away from the\nimport of the preceding one; the announcement of the blessing which,\nthrough Abraham, is to come upon all the families of the earth, does\nnot repeal the foregoing one, according to which all shall be cursed\nwho curse him. This view is confirmed by an allusion to this\nannouncement in Zech. xiv. 16-19, where the words, \"the families of the\nearth,\" must be regarded as a quotation. In ver. 16, the prophet says\nthat _all the Gentiles_ shall go up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast\nof Tabernacles; but then, in vers. 17-19, he intimates the punishment\nof those who should refuse to go up. _Luther_ says: \"If you wish to [Pg\n50] comprehend in a few words the history of the Church from the time\nof Abraham down to our days, then consider diligently these four\nverses. For in them you will find the blessing; but you will see also,\nthat those who curse the Church are cursed, in turn, by God; so that\nthey must perish, while the eternal seed of the Church stands unmoved\nand unshaken. For which reason, this text agrees with the first promise\ngiven in Paradise, concerning the seed which is to bruise the serpent's\nhead. For the Church is not without enemies, but is assailed and\nharassed so that she groans under it; but yet, by this seed, she is\ninvincible, and shall at length be victorious, and triumphant over all\nher enemies, in eternity.\"\n\nReferences to this fundamental prophecy are found in other parts of the\nOld Testament, besides the passage just quoted from Zechariah. In the\n28th verse of Ps. xxii., which was written by David, it is said: \"All\nthe ends of the world shall remember, and turn unto the Lord; and all\nthe _families_ of the Gentiles shall worship before Thee.\" The\nrealization of the blessing announced in Genesis, to all the families\nof the earth, appears in this psalm as being connected with the\nwonderful deliverance of the just. Another reference is in Ps. lxxii.,\nwhich was written by Solomon. In ver. 17 of this psalm it is said of\nSolomon's great Antitype: \"And they shall bless themselves in Him, all\nnations shall bless Him.\" In these words the realization of the\nAbrahamitic blessing is distinctly connected with the person of the\nRedeemer.\n\nAmong the New Testament references, the most remarkable is in John\nviii. There, in ver. 53, the Jews say to Christ: \"Art thou greater than\nour father Abraham, which is dead? Whom makest thou thyself?\" Jesus, in\nver. 56, answers: \"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he\nsaw it, and was glad,\" In ver. 57 the Jews reply: \"Thou art not yet\nfifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?\" In ver. 58 Jesus thus\nsays to them: \"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I\nam.\"\n\nLet us here, in the first place, consider only the declaration of\nJesus, that Abraham rejoiced to see His day, and was glad. It is\naltogether out of the question to think of any such explanation of this\nas the one given by _L\u00fccke_, after the example of _Lampe_ namely: \"that\nAbraham, in the heavenly life, as a blessed [Pg 51] spirit with God,\nsaw the day of the Lord, and in heaven rejoiced in the fulfilment.\" For\nit is the custom of Jesus to argue with the Jews from _Scripture_; and\nHe cannot, therefore, here be appealing to an assumed fact which could\nnot be proved from it. The answer of the Jews, in ver. 57, is likewise\nopposed to such an explanation, inasmuch as it proceeds from a\nsupposition which Jesus had acknowledged to be true, namely, that the\nquestion at issue was a meeting of Christ with Abraham not mentioned in\nhistory; and in ver. 58 Christ sets aside their argument, \"Thou art not\nyet fifty years old.\" But _L\u00fccke_ must himself bear testimony against\nhis own interpretation, inasmuch as, according to it, he is obliged to\nspeak of \"the very foolish question of the adversaries.\"[2]\n\nJesus saw Abraham, and Abraham saw Jesus. Not the person, but the day\nof Christ, was future to Abraham. And this can be explained only by\nJesus' being concealed behind Jehovah who appeared to him, and gave him\nthe promise, that in him and his seed all the nations of the earth\nshould be blessed. This blessing of all the families of the earth is\nthe day of Jehovah,--the day when He will be glorified on the earth.\n\nThe key to the right understanding of this is furnished by the doctrine\nof the Angel of the Lord, which meets us as early as in Genesis. From\nthe passages in which, at the appearances and revelations of Jehovah,\nthe mediation of the Angel is expressly mentioned, we infer that it\n(the mediation) took place even when Jehovah by Himself is spoken of;\nand the more so, since, even in the former series of passages, the\nsimple name of Jehovah is commonly varied by that of the Angel of\nJehovah. The Evangelist John's whole doctrine of the _Logos_ points to\nthe personal identity of Jesus with the Angel of the Lord. Not less so\ndoes the passage, John xii. 41; and there is unquestionably a purpose\nwhich cannot be misunderstood in the fact, that, throughout the\ndiscourses of Jesus, as reported by John, the declaration that God\n_sent_ Him occurs with such frequency and regularity. But we can\nscarcely conceive of any other purpose than that of marking out Jesus\nas the Angel or Messenger of Jehovah spoken of in the writings of the\nOld Testament. Compare, _e.g._, xii. 44, [Pg 52] 45: \"Jesus cried and\nsaid, He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on Him that\n_sent_ Me; and he that seeth Me, seeth Him that _sent_ Me.\" So also iv.\n34, v. 23, 24, 30, 37, vi. 38-40, vii. 16, 28, 33, viii. 16, 18, 26,\n29, ix. 4, xii. 49, xiii. 20, xiv. 24, xv. 21, xvi. 5.\n\nLet us now, in addition, turn to the words, \"Abraham rejoiced to see\n(literally, that he might see) My day.\" It cannot be liable to any\ndoubt, that these words express the heartfelt, joyful desire of Abraham\nto see that day, and that _Bengel_ correctly explains it by the words:\n_gestivit cum desiderio_. It is true, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 signifies, by itself,\nonly \"to rejoice;\" but it has added to it the idea of joyful desire by\nits being connected with \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1. The words now under consideration are\nexpressive of Abraham's joy and longing in the spirit for the\nmanifestation of the day of Jehovah and of Christ, while those in the\nlast clause of the verse express the gratification of this longing,\nwhich was produced by his receiving the promise that all the families\nof the earth should be blessed.\n\nThe ardent desire of Abraham to see the day of Christ implies that he\nalready _knew_ Christ, which can be the case only on the supposition of\nChrist's concealment in Jehovah. This longing desire is not expressly\nmentioned in Genesis, but it is most intimately connected with all\nliving faith, and must necessarily precede such divine communications.\nThe seed of the divine promises is everywhere sown only in a well\nprepared soil. That the promise in 2 Sam. vii. was to David, in like\nmanner, a gratification of his anxious desire--an answer to prayer--we\nare not, it is true, expressly told in the historical record; and yet,\nthat it was so, is evident from the words of Ps. xxi. 3: \"Thou hast\ngiven him his heart's desire, and hast not withholden the request of\nhis lips.\" There is here, then, express mention made of that which is a\nmatter of course, and which forms the necessary condition of that which\nwas reported in Genesis.\n\nWe are furnished by the Book of Genesis itself with the right\nexplanation of what is meant by the day of Christ, about which\ninterpreters have so frequently erred. It is not the time of His first\nappearing, but, in accordance with the New Testament mode of expression\n(_e.g._, Phil. i. 10), the time of His glorification. The day of Christ\nis the time when the promise, \"In thee shall all the families of the\nearth be blessed,\" shall be fulfilled.\n\n[Pg 53]\n\nPeter quotes this promise in Acts iii. 25, 26. Among the\nfamilies of the earth he enumerates, first and chiefly, the people of\nthe Old Testament dispensation; and he does so with perfect propriety,\nsince there is no warrant whatever for limiting it to the Gentiles.\n\nPaul probably refers to this promise when, in Rom. iv. 13, he speaks of\na promise given to Abraham and his seed that he should be the heir of\nthe world. A blessing imparted to the whole world is a spiritual\nvictory obtained over the world. The world is, in a spiritual sense,\nconquered by Abraham and his seed. Express references are found in Gal.\niii. 8, 14, 16.\n\nThe same promise is repeated to Abraham in Gen. xviii. 18. Instead of\nthe \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4 (the families of the earth), the \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5 (the\nnations of the earth) are there mentioned; the family-connection is\nlost sight of, and the comprehensiveness only--the catholic character\nof the blessing--is prominently brought out. This promise is a third\ntime repeated to Abraham in chap. xxii. 18, on a very appropriate\noccasion, even that on which, by his endurance of the greatest trial,\nand by his willingness to sacrifice to God even what was dearest to\nhim, he had proved himself a worthy heir of it. It is certainly not a\nmatter of mere accident that this promise is just three times given to\nAbraham. There is in this a correspondence with the three individuals\nto whom the same promise is addressed. Abraham, however, as the first\nof them, and as the father of the faithful, could not be put on the\nsame footing with the others. Instead of \"in thee,\" or \"by thee\" (\u05d1\u05da),\nwe read in xxii. 18, \"in\" or \"by thy seed\" (\u05d1\u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05da). The same promise is\nconfirmed to Isaac in chap. xxvi. 14, and it is transferred to Jacob in\nchap. xxviii. 14. But while, in the first and second passages, it is\nsaid, \"by thee,\" and in the third and fourth, \"by thy seed,\" we read,\nin the passage last mentioned, \"by thee and thy seed.\" This evidently\nshows that, in those passages where we find \"by thee\" standing alone,\nwe are not at liberty to explain it as meaning simply: \"by thy seed.\"\nIt is not only the seed of Abraham, but Abraham himself also, who is to\nbe the medium of blessing to the nations, as the foundation-stone of\nthe large building of the Church of God, as the father of our Lord\nJesus Christ according to the flesh, and as the father of all\nbelievers.\n\nThere is a deep reason for the fact that, wherever the posterity [Pg\n54] of the Patriarchs are spoken of as the instruments of blessing, the\nsingular is always used. This circumstance is pointed out by Paul in\nGal. iii. 16. The Apostle does not in the least think of maintaining\nthat, by \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2 \"seed,\" only a single individual could be signified. Such\nan opinion, no one who understood Hebrew could for a moment entertain;\nand Rom. iv. 13 shows that Paul was indeed very far from doing so. The\nfurther development of the promise (which took place within the limits\nof Genesis itself, in chap. xlix. 10), as well as its fulfilment (it\nis, indeed, with reference to the promise now under consideration that\nthe lineal descent of Christ from Abraham is established at the\ncommencement of Matthew's Gospel), showed that the real cause of the\nsalvation bestowed upon the Gentiles was not the seed of Abraham as a\nwhole, but one from among them, or rather He, in whom this whole\nposterity was comprehended and concentrated. Now, all to which Paul\nintends to draw our attention is the fact, that the Lord, who, when He\ngave the promise, had already in view its fulfilment which He had\nHimself to accomplish, did not unintentionally choose an expression\nwhich, besides the comprehensive meaning which would most naturally\nsuggest itself to the Patriarchs, admitted also of the more restricted\none which was confirmed by the fulfilment. In the _Protevangelium_, and\nin the promise of the Prophet in Deut. xviii., we have a case quite\nanalogous to this; and in 2 Sam. vii. there is likewise a case which\nis, to a certain extent, parallel.\n\nIn two passages out of the five--in chap. xxii. 18 and xxvi. 4--the\nHithpael of the verb \u05d1\u05e8\u05da instead of the Niphal is found. We meet with\nit also again in the derived passage in Ps. lxxii. 17, where it is said\nof the great King to come, \"And they shall bless themselves in Him, all\nnations shall bless Him.\" In xxii. 18 and xxvi. 4, we shall be allowed\nto translate only thus: \"They shall bless themselves in thy seed.\" For\nthe Hithpael of \u05d1\u05e8\u05da always signifies \"to bless oneself;\" and the person\nfrom whom the blessing is derived (Isa. lxv. 16; Jer. iv. 2), or whose\nblessing is desired, is connected with it by means of the preposition\n\u05d1. (Compare Gen. xlviii. 20: \"In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God\nmake thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh.\") From the nature of the case, it\nis evident that only the latter can be meant here. This is shown also\nby the derived passage [Pg 55] in Ps. lxxii. 17, where the words, \"they\nshall bless themselves in Him,\" are explained by the subsequent\nexpression, \"they shall bless Him.\"\n\nBut it is certainly not accidental that the Hithpael is on both sides\ninclosed by the Niphal, and that the latter stands not only twice at\nthe beginning, but also at the end. Hence we are not at liberty to\nforce upon the Hithpael the signification of the Niphal; but the\npassages in which the Hithpael occurs must be supplemented from the\nreal fundamental passages. \"To bless oneself _in_\" is the preparatory\nstep to being \"blessed _by_.\" The acknowledgment of the blessing calls\nforth the wish to be a partaker of it. (Compare Isa. xlv. 14, where, in\nconsequence of the rich blessings poured out upon Israel, the nations\nmake the request to be received among them.) Oftentimes in the Psalms\nutterance is given to the expectation that, through the blessing\nresting on the people of God, the Gentiles will be allowed to seek\ncommunion in it. (See my Commentary on Ps. vol. iii. p. lxxvii.) But\nespecially in Ps. lxxii. does it clearly appear how \"blessing oneself\nin\" is connected with \"being blessed by.\" The very same people who\nbless themselves in the glorious King to come, hasten to Him to partake\nin the fulness of the blessings which He dispenses. He has dominion\nfrom sea to sea; they that dwell in the wilderness bow before Him; all\nkings worship Him; all nations serve Him.\n\nSeveral commentators (_Clericus_, _Gesenius_, _de Wette_, _Maurer_,\n_Knobel_, and, in substance, _Hofmann_ also) attempt to explain the\nfundamental passage by the derived ones, and force upon Niphal the\nsignification of Hithpael; so that the sense would be only that a great\nand, as it were, proverbial happiness and prosperity belonged to\nAbraham: \"Holding up this name as a pattern, most of the eastern\nnations will comprehend all blessings in these or similar words: 'God\nbless thee as He blessed Abraham.'\" But this explanation is, according\nto the _usus loquendi_, incorrect, inasmuch as the Niphal is used only\nin the signification \"to be blessed,\" and never means \"to bless\noneself,\" or \"to have or find one's blessing in something.\" To a\ndifference in the significations of the Niphal and the Hithpael, we are\nled also by the circumstance that the Hithpael is connected only with\nthe seed--\"they shall bless themselves in thy seed,\"--and the Niphal\nonly with the person of the Patriarch: [Pg 56] \"they shall be blessed\nin thee,\" and \"in thee and thy seed.\" The Patriarchs themselves are the\nsource of blessing, but, if these nations _blessed themselves_, they\nwish for themselves the blessing of their descendants exhibited before\ntheir eyes. The reference in Zech. xiv. 17, 18 to the promise made to\nthe Patriarchs presupposes the Messianic character, and the passive\nsignification of \u05e0\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d5. In like manner, all the quotations of it in the\nNew Testament rest on the passive signification. It is from this view\nof it that the Lord says that Abraham saw His day; that, in Rom. iv.\n13, Paul finds, in this promise, the prophecy of His conquering the\nworld; and that, in Gal. iii. 14, he speaks of the blessing of Abraham\nupon the Gentiles through Christ Jesus. Gal. iii. 8 and Acts iii. 25\nrender \u05e0\u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d5 by \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. The explanation, \"they shall wish\nprosperity or happiness to each other,\" is destructive of the\ngradation, so evident in the fundamental passage,--blessing _for_, _on\naccount of_, and _by_ Abraham; it cannot account for the constant,\nsolemn repetition of this proclamation which everywhere appears as the\n_acme_ of the promises given to the Patriarch; it destroys the\ncorrespondence existing between this blessing upon all the families of\nthe earth, and the curse which, after the fall, was inflicted upon the\nearth; it does away with the contrast, so clearly marked, between the\nunion of the families of the earth effected by the blessing, and their\ndispersion, narrated in chap. xi.; it demolishes the connection\nexisting between the prophecy of Japheth's dwelling in the tents of\nShem (ix. 27), on the one hand, and the Ruler proceeding from Judah, to\nwhom shall be the obedience of the nations (xlix. 10), on the other;\nand it severs all the necessary connecting links which unite these\nprophecies with one another.\n\nAnother attempt to deprive this promise of its Messianic\ncharacter--that, namely, made by _Bertholdt_ (_de ortu theol. Vet.\nHebr._ p. 102) and others, who would have us to understand, by the\nfamilies and nations of the earth, the Canaanitish nations--does not\nrequire any minute examination, as the weakness of these productions of\nrationalistic tendency are so glaringly manifest.\n\n\nFootnote 1: _Herder_ says, in his _Briefe das Studium der Theol._ betr.\nii. S. 278: \"If, in Abraham's descendants, all the nations of the earth\nwere to be blessed, Abraham might and should have conceived of this\nblessing in all its generality, so that everything whereby his nation\ndeserved well of the nations of the earth, was implied in it. If, then,\nChrist also belongs to the number of those noble individuals who\ndeserved so well, the blessing refers to Him, not _indirectly_, but\n_directly_; and if Christ be the chief of all this number, it then most\ndirectly, and in preference to all others, refers to Him;--although, in\nthis germ, Abraham did not distinctly perceive His person, did not, nor\ncould, except by special revelation, in this bud, so plainly discover\nthe full growth of His merits.\"\n\nFootnote 2: Even in this he was preceded by _Lampe_, who remarks:\n\"Christ had spoken of seeing the day; the Jews speak about seeing the\nperson. He had spoken of Abraham's seeing; they speak of Christ's\nseeing.\"\n\n\n[Pg 57]\n\n\n THE BLESSING OF JACOB UPON JUDAH.\n (Gen. xlix. 8-10.)\n\nVer. 8. \"_Judah, thou, thy brethren shall praise thee; thy hand shall\nbe on the neck of thine enemies; before thee shall bow down the sons of\nthy father._ Ver. 9. _A lion's whelp is Judah; from the prey, my\nson, thou goest up; he stoopeth down, he coucheth as a lion, and as a\nfull-grown lion, who shall rouse him up?_ Ver. 10. _The sceptre shall\nnot depart from Judah, nor lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh\ncome, and unto Him the people shall adhere._\"\n\nThus does dying Jacob, in announcing \"what shall befall his sons in the\nend of the days\" (ver. 1), speak to Judah, after having dismissed\nthose of his sons to whom, in the name of the Lord, he must tell hard\nthings--things which did not, however, exclude them from the salvation\ncommon to all of them (ver. 28), although their shadow made the light\nof Judah shine so much the more brightly.[1]\n\nIn ver. 8 everything depends upon a right determination of the meaning\nof the name Judah. Being formed from the Future in Hophal, it\nsignifies: \"He (viz., God) shall be praised.\" This explanation rests\nupon Gen. xxix. 35, where Leah, after the birth of Judah, says, \"Now\nwill I praise the Lord;\" and then follow the words: \"therefore she\ncalled his name Judah.\" It rests likewise on the common use of the verb\n\u05d9\u05d3\u05d4, the Hiphil of which is, according to _Maurer_, almost constantly\nused of \"praising God,\" and is, as it were, set apart and sanctified\nfor that purpose. After having enumerated a multitude of passages,\n_Gesenius_ says, in his _Thesaurus_: \"In all these passages it refers\n[Pg 58] to the praise of God, and it is only rarely (Gen. xlix. 8\ncompared with Job xl. 14) that it refers to the praise of men.\" Even\nthese few exceptions are such only in appearance. In Job xl. 14, he\nwhom God will praise is not an ordinary man, but a _god-man_. By the\nsubsequent words in Gen. xlix. 8, \"Before thee shall bow down,\"\nsomething divine is ascribed to Judah; we need not therefore be\nastonished that, by the word \u05d9\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05da, he is raised above the merely human\nstanding. They only who do not know the Lion of the tribe of Judah,\nhave any reason to explain away, by a forced exposition, the slight\nallusion to a superhuman dignity of the tribe of Judah. The greater\nnumber of expositors, referring to the subsequent words, \"thy brethren\nshall praise thee,\" explain the name by the expression, \"blessed one.\"\nBut, even though we should retain the sure explanation which has been\ngiven above, the idea now mentioned falls very naturally in with it. He\nwho, in the fullest sense, is a \"God's-praise\" (_Gottlob_), whose very\nexistence becomes the cause of exclaiming, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7, praise be to\nGod, will assuredly receive praise from the brethren.--\"Judah thou\"\nstands (according to Gen. xxvii. 36; Matt. xvi. 18) either for, \"Thou\nart Judah,\" _i.e._, thou art rightly called so, or, according to Gen.\nxxiv. 60, for, \"Thou Judah,\" _i.e._, I have something particular to\ntell thee (compare the emphatic \"I\" in Gen. xxiv. 27).--On the\nexpression, \"Thine hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies,\" _i.e._,\nthou shalt put to flight all thine enemies, and press them hard while\nthey are fleeing, compare Exod. xxiii. 27, \"I will make all thine\nenemies (turn their) backs unto thee,\" and Ps. xviii. 41, where David\nsays, in the name of his family, in which Judah centred, as did Israel\nin Judah, \"Thou hast given me mine enemies (to be) a back.\" If,\nhowever, we inquire how this prophecy was fulfilled, we must not\noverlook the circumstance that the subjects of it are sinful men, and\nthat, for this reason, God could never give up the right of visiting\ntheir iniquity,--a right which has its foundation in His very nature.\nThree sentences of condemnation precede the blessing upon Judah, and\nthis indicates that Judah too will be weighed in the balance of\njustice. \"The excellency of dignity and the excellency of power,\"\nwhich, in ver. 3, were taken from Reuben, are here adjudged to Judah.\nThe circumstance of his being the first-born could not protect the\nformer against the loss of his privileges; [Pg 59] and just as little\nwill the divine election deliver Judah from a visitation for his sins,\nalthough, by that election, the total loss of his privileges is\nrendered impossible. These two ordinations--the election and the\nvisitation of sin in the elect--stand by the side of each other; and\nthe latter could not be stayed, even at the time when Judah had reached\nits height in the Lion from out of his tribe; for although the Shepherd\nwas blameless, yet the flock was not so. The ordination of election is,\nhowever, far from being thereby darkened; it only shines by a brighter\nlight. Often painful indeed were the defeats which Judah had to\nsustain; often enough--as during the centuries which elapsed between\nthe destruction of David's kingdom and the coming of Christ--was the\npromise, \"Thy hand shall be in the necks of thine enemies,\" reversed.\nBut when we behold Judah ever and anon returning and rising to the\ndignity here bestowed upon him,--when the advance then always keeps\nequal pace with the preceding depths of humiliation (we need think only\nof David's time, and compare it with the period of the Judges),--then\nindeed it appears all the more clearly, that the hand of God is ever\nactive in bringing this promise to a sure and firm fulfilment. In the\nhistory of the world there is only one power--that of Judah--in which,\nnotwithstanding all defeats, the promise, \"Thy hand shall be in the\nnecks of thine enemies,\" is ever, after all, fulfilled anew; only one\npower, the victorious energy of which may indeed be overcome by sleep,\nbut never by death; only one power which can speak as does David in the\nname of his family in Ps. xviii. 38-40: \"I pursue mine enemies and\novertake them, I do not return till they are consumed; I crush them,\nand they cannot rise: they fall under my feet. And Thou girdest me\nwith strength for the war, Thou bowest down those that rise against\nme.\"--Luther remarks on this passage: \"These promises must be\nunderstood in spirit and faith. This may be seen from the history of\nDavid, where it often appears as if God had altogether forgotten him,\nand what He had promised to him. After he had already been elected, he\nwas, for ten years, not able to obtain a fixed place, or residence in\nthe whole kingdom; and when at last he took hold of the reins of\ngovernment, he fell into great, grievous, heinous sin, and was sore\nvexed when he had to bear the punishment of it. Therefore these two\nthings--promise and [Pg 60] faith--must always be combined; and it is\nnecessary that a man who has a divine promise know well the art which\nPaul teaches in Rom. iv. 18, to believe in hope even against hope.--The\nkingdom of Israel, too, was assailed by so great weakness, and pressed\ndown by so many burdens, that it appeared as if every moment it would\nfall; and this was especially the case when sin, and punishment in\nconsequence of sin, broke in upon them, as, for instance, after David's\nadultery with Bathsheba, and oftentimes besides. Yet, even in all such\ntemptations, it always remains, on account of the promise.\"--It must be\ncarefully observed that the words, \"Thy hand shall be in the neck of\nthine enemies,\" are placed between, \"Thy brethren shall praise thee,\"\nand \"Before thee shall bow down the sons of thy father,\" and that,\nimmediately after this, Judah's victorious power against the enemies of\nGod's people is again pointed out. This teaches us that the exalted\nposition which Judah, when compared with his brethren, occupies, rests\nmainly on this:--that he is their fore-champion in the warfare against\nthe world, and that God has endowed him with conquering power against\nthe enemies of His kingdom. The history of David is best calculated to\nshow and convince us, how closely these two things are connected with\neach other. That he was called to verify the truth of the promise given\nto Judah, \"Thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies,\" was first\nseen in his victory over Goliath the Philistine, fore-champion of the\nworld's power. After David's word had been fulfilled, \"The Lord who\ndelivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the\nbear. He will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine,\" and the\nPhilistines had fled, seeing that their champion was dead (1 Sam. xvii.\n37-51), then also were fulfilled the other words: \"Thy brethren shall\npraise thee, the sons of thy father shall bow before thee.\" \"And it\ncame to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter\nof the Philistine, that the women came out of all the cities of Israel,\nsinging and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and\nwith instruments of music. And the women answered one another as\nthey played, and said, Saul has slain his thousands, and David his\nten thousands.\"--And in Sam. xviii. 16, it is said: \"But all Israel\nand Judah _loved_ David, _because_ he went out and came in before\nthem;\"--and in 2 Sam. v. 2, when the ten tribes acknowledged [Pg 61]\nDavid as their king, they said: \"Also in time past, when Saul was king\nover us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel.\" David\nwould never have succeeded in overcoming the jealousy and envy of the\nother tribes, unless the promise, \"Thy hand shall be in the neck of\nthine enemies,\" had been fulfilled in him.--_Before Judah shall how\ndown the sons of his father._ I have already remarked, in my commentary\non Rev. xix. 10, that there is very little ground for the common\ndistinction between religious and civil \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (bowing down,\nworship). The true distinction is between that \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 which is\ngiven to God, either directly or indirectly, in those who bear His\nimage, in the representatives of His gifts and offices,--and that\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 which is exacted apart from, and against God. \"The God of\nScripture demands to be honoured in those who bear His image, who hold\nHis offices,--in father and mother and old men (Lev. xix. 32), in\nprinces (Exod. xxii. 28), in the office of the judge (Deut. i. 17;\nExod. xxi. 6, xxii. 7, 8). It is wicked to refuse this honour, and its\nnatural expression in the bowing of the body, under the pretext, that\nit is due to _God_ alone. It is to be refused only where there is some\ndanger that, thereby, any independent honour would be ascribed to the\nmere vessel of the divine glory.\" In what the \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 consists,\nwhich Judah is to receive from his brethren, we see distinctly from\nIsa. xlv. 14, where the heathen, at the time of the salvation, fall\ndown before Israel: \"Thus saith the Lord, The labour of Egypt and\nmerchandise of Ethiopia, and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come\nover unto thee, and be thine: they shall go behind thee; in chains they\nshall walk; _and they shall fall down before thee, and they shall make\nsupplication unto thee_ (saying). _Only in thee is God, and there is no\nGod else._\" The ground of Judah's adoration on the part of his brethren\nis this:--that God's glory is visibly upon him, that by glorious deeds\nand victories the seal is impressed upon him: \"with us is God\"\n(_Immanuel_). And this found its most glorious fulfilment in the Lion\nof the tribe of Judah, in Christ, of whom it is said in Phil. ii. 9-11:\n\"Wherefore God has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is\nabove every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of\nall those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth; and\nthat every tongue should [Pg 62] confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord,\nto the glory of God the Father.\" That, in its final accomplishment,\nthis prophecy referred to Christ, was known to Jacob as certainly as he\nmakes Judah centre in the Shiloh. This Solomon also knew, when, in Ps.\nlxxii. 11 (compare Ps. xlv. 12), he ascribes to his great Antitype what\nis here ascribed to Judah: \"All kings shall worship Him, and all\nnations shall serve Him.\" The consequence of the worship \"by kings and\nnations\" is the worshipping \"by the sons of the father.\" Jacob thus\ntransfers to Judah that which Isaac had promised to _him_: \"People\nshall serve thee, and nations shall worship thee: be lord over thy\nbrethren, and thy mother's sons shall worship before thee:\" Gen. xxvii.\n29.\n\nIn ver. 9 Judah is first designated a young lion,--a name which is\nintended to indicate, that the victorious power ascribed to Judah\nexists, as yet, only in the _germ_. It required that centuries should\npass away before he grew up to be a lion, a full-grown lion. By the\nlong period which thus intervened between the promise and its\nfulfilment, the divine election is the more strikingly manifested.\n(Several interpreters have been of opinion that there is no difference\nbetween the young lion, the lion, and the full-grown lion. But it is\nshown by Ezek. xix. 3--\"And she brought up one of her \u05d2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, and it\nbecame a \u05db\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8, and it learnt to tear prey,\"--that \u05d2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 is a young\nlion not yet able to catch prey.[2]) In the words, \"From the prey, my\nson, thou art gone up,\" the _prey_ is the _terminus a quo_: for \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4\nwith \u05de\u05df is always used of the place from which it is gone up (see Josh.\niv. 17, x. 9; Song of Sol. iv. 2): the _terminus ad quem_ is the usual\nabode, as is shown by what follows. The residence of the conqueror and\nruler is conceived of as being _elevated_. Joseph, according to Gen.\nxlvi. 31, goes up to Pharaoh, and in ver. 29 of the same chapter he\ngoes up to meet his father. The expression \"to go up\" is commonly used\nof those who come from [Pg 63] other countries to Canaan. But the\n\"going up\" in the passage under review implies also the \"going down\"\ninto the lower regions to seek for prey, just as in Ps. lxviii. 19,\nwhere it is said of the Lord, after He had fought for His people, and\nhad been victorious, \"Thou hast ascended on high, Thou hast led\ncaptivity captive: Thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the\nrebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.\" \"_To\ndwell_\" means there, that, after having accomplished all this, thou\nmayest dwell gloriously, and be inaccessible to the vengeance of the\nconquered, in thy usual place of abode. The sense is the same in the\npassage before us. Luther is therefore wrong in explaining it thus:\n\"Thou hast risen high, my son, by great victories,\"--as are others also\nwho translate it, \"From the prey thou growest up.\" Such a view of this\nclause would, moreover, break up the connection, and all that follows\nwould appear without preparation.[3]\n\nThe words, \"He stoopeth down, he croucheth as a lion, and as a\nfull-grown lion; who shall rouse him up?\" contain a transition and\nallusion to what we are subsequently told concerning Shiloh. Even here\nwe are presented with a picture of peace,--a peace, however, which is\nnot to the prejudice of victorious power, as in the case of Issachar\n(vers. 14, 15), but which, on the contrary, preserves it undiminished.\nIf the promise, \"From the prey, my son, thou art gone up,\" found its\nfirst glorious, although only preliminary, fulfilment in the reign of\nDavid (compare the enumeration of his victories in 2 Sam. viii.), the\nwords, \"He stoopeth down, he coucheth,\" etc., are the most appropriate\ninscription for the portal of Solomon's reign. But, in Christ, the\npre-eminence in the reign both of war and peace is united.--That \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\nis not \"the lioness,\" but only the poetical designation of the lion,\nappears from just the very passage which is so commonly adduced in\nsupport of the former signification, viz., Job iv. 11; for the sons of\nthe lion spoken of in that passage are the sons of the wicked (compare\nJob xxvii. 14).\n\nA parallel to the words in ver. 10, \"The sceptre shall not depart from\nJudah,\" is formed by the departing of the sceptre from Egypt, in Zech.\nx. 11: \"And the pride of Assyria shall [Pg 64] be brought down, and the\nsceptre of Egypt shall depart away.\" All dominion of the world over the\npeople of God is only temporary; and so also, the dominion of the\npeople of God over the world, as it centres in Judah, can sustain only\na temporary _interruption_: its departure is everywhere in appearance\nonly; and when it departs, it is only that it may return with enhanced\nweight.--The _sceptre_ is the emblem of dominion. The words, \"A sceptre\nrises out of Israel\" (Num. xxiv. 17), are explained in chap. xxiv. 19\nby the words, \"_Dominion_ shall come out of Jacob.\" The question as to\nthe subjects of this dominion must be determined from the preceding\nwords; for there shall not depart from Judah what Judah, according to\nthese words, possesses. Hence they are (1) the brethren of Judah, and\n(2) the enemies of Israel. The latter can the less properly be\nexcluded, because of these alone the whole of the preceding verse\ntreated. In the words of Balaam, in Num. xxiv. 17 (which refer to the\npassage under consideration), \"There cometh a star out of Jacob, and a\nsceptre riseth out of Israel, and smiteth the territories of Moab, and\ndestroyeth all the sons of the tumult,\" there is viewed, in the\nsceptre, only the victorious and destructive power which he shall\ndisplay in his relation to the _world_; but the subjects of dominion\nare, in that passage, according to ver. 19, the heathens also. The\nsceptre is pre-eminently an ensign of kings. Hence, to the sceptre and\nstar out of Israel (Num. xxiv. 17) corresponds, in ver. 7, his _king_:\n\"And his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be\nexalted,\"--_i.e._, not merely a single royal person, but the\nIsraelitish kingdom. But we can here the less legitimately separate\nsceptre and kingdom from each other, because, even in the earlier\npromises made to the Patriarch, there is the prophecy of the rising of\na kingdom among their descendants,--of a kingdom, too, that shall\nextend beyond the boundary of that posterity itself. (Compare Gen.\nxvii. 6, \"Kings shall come out of thee;\" ver. 16, \"And she shall become\nnations. Icings of nations shall be of her.\" See also Gen. xxxv. 11.)\nIn vol. ii. of the _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the\nPentateuch_, p. 166 f., we detailed the natural foundations which there\nexisted for foreseeing the establishment of a kingdom in Israel. It is\nevident that the promise which was formally given to the whole\nposterity of the Patriarchs, is here appropriated specially to Judah,\nwho, for [Pg 65] the benefit of the whole people, is to have the\nsceptre.[4] From what has been remarked, it appears that the fulfilment\nof this prophecy began first with David; up to that time Judah had been\nonly \"a lion's whelp.\" \"In the person of Saul,\" as Calvin remarks,\n\"there was an abortive effort; but there came out at length in David,\nunder the authority and legitimate arrangement of God, the sovereignty\nof Judah, according to the prophecy of Jacob.\" It also appears, from\nwhat has been observed, that _Reinke_, S. 45 of his Monography, _Die\nWeissagung Jacobs \u00fcber Schilo_, M\u00fcnster 1849 (a work written with great\ndiligence), is mistaken in determining the sense to be,[5] that Judah\nas a tribe would not perish, and his superiority not cease, until out\nof him Shiloh, etc.; and that he is wrong, too, in maintaining, S. 133,\nthat the continuance of the royal dignity, and the superiority over all\nthe tribes until the time of Christ, were not required by these words.\nFrom the remarks which we have made, even more than that is\nrequired,--the _continuance_, namely, _of Judah's dominion over the\nGentiles_; for otherwise it would be necessary to make a violent\nseparation of these words from the preceding ones. That which has given\nrise to such interpretations and assertions, viz., the apparent\ndifficulty encountered in pointing out the fulfilment,[6] is by no\nmeans removed by such an explanation. For, if we look to the surface\nonly, what had been left of the superiority of the tribe of Judah, at\nthe time when Christ appeared? But if we look deeper, we shall find no\nreason for such feeble interpretations. The fulness of strength which,\nnotwithstanding the deepest humiliation, still dwelt in the sceptre of\nJudah at the time when Christ appeared, is made manifest by the\nvery appearance of Christ--the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Although\nfaint-heartedness, perceiving only what is immediately before the eyes,\nmight have said, \"The sceptre has departed from [Pg 66] Judah,\" to\nevery one who was not blinded it must have been evident, at the very\nmoment when Christ appeared, that the sceptre had not departed from\nJudah. We must not allow ourselves to be perplexed by any events and\narguments adduced to prove that the sceptre _has departed_ from Judah;\nfor the very same events and arguments would militate against the\neternal dominion of his house which had been promised to David, and\nwould therefore make us doubtful of that also. All these events and\narguments lose their significancy, when we remark, that this departing\nis only an _apparent_, not a _definitive_ one;--that God never, by His\npromises, binds the hands of His punitive justice;--that His election\ngoes always hand-in-hand with the visitation of the sins of the\nelected; but that, in the end, the election will stand in all its\nvalidity.[1] To Judah applies exactly what in Ps. lxxxix. 31-35 is said\nof David: \"If his children forsake My law, and walk not in My\njudgments; if they break My statutes, and keep not My commandments;\nthen will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity\nwith stripes. Nevertheless, My loving-kindness will I not utterly take\nfrom him, nor suffer My faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not\nbreak, nor alter the thing that is gone out of My lips.\" But the\ngreater the degradation that had come upon Judah, the more consoling is\nthis promise. If we see that neither the decline of David's and Judah's\ndominion after Solomon, nor the apparently total disappearance of\nDavid's kingdom which took place after the Chaldee catastrophe, and\ncontinued for centuries; nor the altogether comfortless condition (when\n[Pg 67] looking only at what Is visible) which Jeremiah describes in\nthe words: \"Judah is captive in affliction and great servitude: she\ndwelleth among the heathen, and findeth no rest. The anointed of the\nLord, who was our consolation, is taken in their pits, he of whom we\nsaid, Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen. Slaves are\nruling over us, and there is none to deliver us from their hand;\"--if\nwe see that all these things did not prevent the fulfilment of the\nwords, \"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh\ncome;\"--that, notwithstanding all these things, it most gloriously\nmanifested itself in the appearance of Christ, that the dominion\nremained still with Judah;--why should we be dismayed though the river\nof the kingdom of God should sometimes lose itself in the sand? Why\nshould we not be firmly confident that in due time it shall spring\nforth again with its clear and powerful waters?--But the _Jews_ are not\nbenefited by this distinction betwixt the _definitive_ departing of the\nsceptre, and one which is merely _temporary_. The latter must\nnecessarily be distinguished from the former by this:--that even in the\ntimes of abasement, there must be single symptoms which still indicate\nthe continuance of the sceptre; and this was evidently the case in the\ntimes before Christ. In Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, and Hezekiah, the sceptre\nof Judah brought forth new leaves; after their return from the\ncaptivity, the place, at least, was pointed out by Zerubbabel, which\nthe Davidic kingdom would, at some future period, again occupy. The\nvictories of the times of the Maccabees, though they themselves were\nnot of the tribe of Judah, served to manifest clearly that the lion's\nstrength and the lion's courage had not yet departed from Judah. It is\nnot without significance that _Judas Maccabeus_ had his name thus. And\nunder all these events the family of David always remained distinct,\nand capable of being traced out. But nothing of all this is to be found\nwith the Jews during the 1800 years after Christ; and hence the vanity\nof their hope that, in some future time, it will be made evident by the\nappearance of Shiloh, that the supremacy and dominion of Judah are not\nlost.\n\nAlong with the _sceptre_ which shall not depart from Judah, the\n_lawgiver_ is mentioned, for whom many would, quite arbitrarily,\nsubstitute the _commander's staff_. Is. xxxiii. 22 is explanatory of\nthis passage; \"For the Lord our Judge, the [Pg 68] Lord our Lawgiver,\nthe Lord our King, He will save us\"--where the _lawgiver_ is put on a\nlevel with the _judge_ and _king_. Gesenius translates it by: our\n_commander_.\n\nThe lawgiver shall not depart \"from between his feet.\" This is a\npoetical expression for \"from him.\" He is, as it were, to have the\nlawgiver wherever he moves or stands. Explanatory of this is the\npassage in Judges v. 27, where, in the Song of Deborah, it is said of\nJael, \"He bowed between her feet, he fell, he lay down.\" That which any\none has between his feet, is accordingly his territory on which he\nmoves, that within his reach. In the latter passage the prose\nexpression would have been, \"beside her,\" and in the passage under\nconsideration, \"from him.\"[8]\n\nSceptre and lawgiver shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh come.\nHere everything depends upon fixing the derivation and signification of\nthis word. There cannot be any doubt, and, indeed, it is now almost\nuniversally admitted, that it is derived from \u05e9\u05dc\u05d4, \"to rest.\" In the\nfirst edition of this work, the author gave it as his opinion, that its\nformation was analogous to that of \u05db\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e8, \"tumult of war,\" from \u05db\u05d3\u05e8,\n\"to be troubled,\" \u05e7\u05d9\u05d8\u05e8, \"smoke,\" from \u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d7\u05b7 ,\u05e7\u05d8\u05e8 from \u05e9\u05dc\u05d7; and many\n(_Hofmann_, _Kurtz_, _Reinke_) have stedfastly maintained this opinion\neven until now. But the author must confess that the objections raised\nagainst this derivation by _Tuch_ are well-founded. \"In the first\nplace,\" _Tuch_ remarks, \"it is well known that forms like \u05e7\u05d9\u05d8\u05e8 do not\nconstitute any special class in the etymology, but have originated from\n_Piel_ forms (_Ewald_, Lehrb. d. Hebr. Spr. \u00a7 156 b), as is very\nclearly shown by \u05e7\u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05e9, being found by the side of \u05e7\u05b4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1. But the _o_ in\nthe final syllable of these words is not an o unchangeable, according\nto the rules of etymology, and could, therefore, not remain in a root\n\u05dc\u05d7; _and there is not found, in general, any form of a root_ \u05dc\u05d7\n_analogous to_ \u05e7\u05d9\u05d8\u05e8.\" But far more decisive is another reason. \"The\n_nomina Gentilia_ \u05d2\u05d9\u05dc\u05e0\u05d9 (2 Sam. xv. 12), \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05e0\u05d9 (1 Kings [Pg 69] xi. 29,\nxii. 15), lead us from the supposed form to the substantive termination\n\u05be\u05d5\u05b9\u05df which a _liquida_ may drop, and express the remaining vowel \u05d5 by\n\u05d4.\" (Compare _Ewald_, \u00a7 163.) Now that _Shiloh_ is an abbreviation of\n_Shilon_ is proved, not only by the _nomen gentile_, but also by the\nfact, that the ruins of the town which received its name from the\nShiloh in our passage, are, up to the present moment, called _Seilun_,\nand that Josephus writes _Silo_ as well as _Silun_, \u03a3\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd (compare\n_Robinson_, Travels iii. 1, p. 305); and, _finally_, by the analogy of\nthe name \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d4, which is formed after the manner of \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4, and likewise\nshortened from \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05df. We must confess that _Tuch_ is right also when he\nasserts: \"That it is quite impossible to give the word the\nsignification of an appellative noun, since it is only in proper names,\nin which the signification of the suffix of derivation is of less\nconsequence, that _on_ is shortened into _o_.\" The only exception is\nthat of \u05d0\u05d1\u05d3\u05d4, \"hell,\" in Prov. xxvii. 20; but even this is only an\n_apparent_ exception, and is quite in accordance with the rule laid\ndown, inasmuch as \"hell\" is, in this passage, personified,--as is\nfrequently the case in other passages. (Compare Rev. ix. 11.) But this\ncase very plainly shows that we are not at liberty to apply, as _Tuch_\ndoes, the measure of our proper names to those of Scripture, which are\nused in a more comprehensive sense. The Samaritan translation is,\ntherefore, right in retaining the \"Shiloh.\" As the passage under review\nis the first in which the person of the Redeemer meets us, so Shiloh is\nalso the first _name_ of the Redeemer,--a name expressive of His\nnature, and quite in correspondence with the names in Is. ix. 5, and\nwith the name Immanuel in Is. vii. 14. With respect to the\n_signification_ of the name, the termination _on_, according to\n_Ewald_, \u00a7 163, forms adjectives and abstract nouns. The analogy of the\nname \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d4, which is formed after the manner of \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4, indicates that it\nhas here _an adjective_ signification, and, like Solomon, Shiloh\ndenotes \"the man of rest,\" corresponds to the \"Prince of Peace\" in Is.\nix. 5, and, viewed in its character of a proper name, is like the\nGerman \"_Friedrich_\" = Frederick, _i.e._, \"rich in peace,\" \"the\nPeaceful one.\"\n\nTo Shiloh the nations shall adhere. The word \u05d9\u05e7\u05d4\u05d4 is commonly\nunderstood as meaning \"obedience.\"[9] But it does not [Pg 70] denote\nevery kind of obedience, but only that which is spontaneous, and has\nits root in piety. This is clearly shown by the only passage in which,\nbesides the one under consideration, the word \u05d9\u05e7\u05d4\u05d4 is found, Prov. xxx.\n17: \"An eye that mocketh at his father, and despises the \u05d9\u05e7\u05d4\u05d4 of his\nmother.\"[10] To this view we are led also by the Arabic, where the word\n[Arabic: **], does not denote obedience in general, but willing\nobedience, docility, in the viii. sq. \u05dc _dicto audientem se pr\u00e6buit\nmore discipuli_. (Compare _Camus_ in _Schulten_, on Prov. l. c.)\nCognate is [Arabic: **], \"to take care,\" \"to guard oneself,\" specially\nof the conflict with the higher powers of life, in the viii. _semet\ncustodivit ah aliqua re, et absolute timuit coluitque Deum, pius fuit._\nFrom it is derived \u05d9\u05e7\u05d4 _pius_ in Prov. xxx. 1, where the son of Jakeh\nspeaks to \"With me is God, and I prevail\" (_Heb._ Itheal and Ucal.)\n\nLuther, although he has misunderstood the right meaning of Shiloh, has\nyet beautifully comprehended the sense of the whole passage. \"This is a\ngolden text,\" he says, \"and well worthy of remembrance, namely: that\nthe kingdom of Christ will not be such a kingdom as that of David was,\nof whom it is said, 1 Chron. xxviii. 3, that he was a man of war and\nhad shed much blood. The kingdom of Shiloh, which succeeded it, is not\na kingdom so powerful and bloody, but consists in this,--that the word,\nby which it is ruled or administered, is heard, believed, and obeyed.\nAll will be done by means of preaching; and this will just be the sign\nby which the kingdom of Christ is distinguished from the other kingdoms\nof this world, which are governed by the sword and by physical power.\"\nTo this point also Luther draws attention, that our prophecy affords a\npowerful support to the ministers of the Word: \"It will be done by the\nproclamation of the promise, and Shiloh will be [Pg 71] present with\nit, and will be efficient and powerful through our tongue and mouth.\"\n\nThat by the _nations_ are not meant either the Canaanites in\nparticular, or the tribes of Israel, but the nations in general,\nappears, partly, from the connection with what precedes--those who now\nwillingly obey are evidently the enemies spoken of in vers. 8, 9,--and,\npartly, from the reference to the earlier promises of Genesis, all of\nwhich refer to nations in general. If a limitation had been intended,\nan express indication of it would have been necessary. The analogy of\nthe parallel Messianic passages likewise militates against such a\nlimitation; _e.g._, Ps. lxxii. 8: \"He shall have dominion from sea to\nsea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.\" (Compare also Is.\nxi. 10.)\n\nIn the Shiloh, the whole dignity of Judah as Lord and Ruler is to be\nconcentrated. It hence follows, that the nations who will not willingly\nobey Him as Shiloh, must experience the destructive power of His\nsceptre (Num. xxiv. 17; Ps. ii. 9), and that behind the attractive\nkingdom of peace, there is concealed the destructive dominion of the\nlion.\n\nSeveral interpreters have determined the sense as follows:--The\ndominion of Judah should continue until the appearing of Shiloh; but\nthat then he should lose it.[11] We, on the contrary, conceive the\nsense to be this: \"That the tribe of Judah should not lose the dominion\nuntil he attain to its highest realization by Shiloh, who should be\ndescended from him, and to whom all the nations of the earth should\nrender obedience.\"\n\nAgainst this interpretation no difficulty can be raised from the \u05e2\u05d3 \u05db\u05d9.\nIt is true that this term has always a reference to the _terminus ad\nquem_ only, and includes it; but it is as certain that, very\nfrequently, a _terminus ad quem_ is mentioned which is not intended to\nbe the last, but only one of special importance; so that what lies\nbeyond it is lost sight of. (Compare the author's _Dissert. on the\nGenuin. of Daniel_, pp. 55-56.) If [Pg 72] only sceptre and lawgiver\nwere secured to Judah up to the time of Shiloh's coming, then, as a\nmatter of course, they were so afterwards. That, previous to the coming\nof Shiloh, great dangers would threaten the sceptre of Judah, is\nindicated by Jacob, since he lays so much stress upon the sceptre's not\ndeparting until that time. _Hence we expect circumstances that will\nalmost amount to a departing of the sceptre._\n\nBut the positive reason for this interpretation is, that if, according\nto the other opinion, Judah were told that the dominion of his tribe\nwere, at some future period, to cease, this would not be in harmony\nwith the tone of the remainder of the address to Judah, which is\naltogether of a cheerful character. And _then_,--Jacob would, in\nthat case, not have allowed the Messianic promise to remain in\nits indefinite state; from former analogies, we should have been\ninduced to expect that he would transfer it to one of his sons. And\n_finally_,--from the analogy of the other Messianic prophecies, as well\nas from history, it seems not to be admissible to contrast the dominion\nof Judah with the kingdom of the Messiah. The dominion of Judah does\nnot by any means _terminate_ in Christ; it rather _centres_ in Him.\n\nWe are not expressly told that the Shiloh will be descended from Judah;\nbut this is supposed to be self-evident, and is not, therefore,\nexpressly mentioned. If it were otherwise, the Shiloh would not have\nbeen alluded to in connection with Judah at all. A restriction of the\npromise to Judah, such as would take place if the Shiloh did not belong\nto him, is the less legitimate, inasmuch as, in vers. 8, 9, victory and\ndominion, without any limitation, are promised to Judah.\n\nHaving thus adduced the positive arguments in support of our view of\nthis passage, let us now further examine the opinions of those who\ndiffer from us. Here, then, we must first of all consider those which\nare at one with us in the acknowledgment that this passage contains the\npromise of a personal Messiah.\n\n1. Some interpreters (_Jonathan_, _Luther_, _Calvin_, _Knapp_, _Dogm._)\nare of opinion that \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 is compounded of the noun \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc, \"child,\" and\nthe suffix of the third person: \"Until his (_i.e._, Judah's) son or\ndescendant, the Messiah, shall come.\" (Luther, somewhat differently.)\nBut this supposed signification of \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc [Pg 73] is destitute of any\ntenable foundation. That by such an explanation, moreover, there is a\ndissolution of the connection betwixt the Shiloh in this passage, and\nShiloh the name of a place, which is written in precisely the same\nmanner, is decisive against both the view just given forth and that\nwhich follows.\n\n2. Others (the last of them. _Sack_ in the second edition of his\n_Apolog._) suppose the word to be erroneously pointed. They propose to\nread \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b9\u05bc\u05d4, compounded of \u05e9 for \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8, and the suffix \u05d4 for \u05d5. They\nsuppose the language to be elliptical: \"Until He come to whom the\ndominion or sceptre belongs, or is due.\" The principal argument in\nsupport of this exposition is, that most of the ancient translators\nseem to have followed this punctuation. It is true that this is\ndoubtful as regards _Onkelos_ and the _Targum_ of Jerusalem, which\ntranslate, \"_Donec veniat Messias, cujus est regnum_;\" for we may well\nsuppose that here \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 is simply rendered by \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u05d0, while the following\nclause adds a complement from Ezek. xxi. 32, which is founded upon the\npassage now under review. But it is certain that the LXX. supposed the\npunctuation to be \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b9\u05bc\u05d4. They translate: \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7\n(Thus read the two oldest manuscripts--the Vatican and Alexandrian. The\nother reading, \u1fa7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, has no doubt crept in from the later Greek\ntranslations, notwithstanding the charge which _Justinus_ [_Dial. c.\nTryph._ \u00a7 120] raises against the Jews, that they had substituted the \u03c4\u1f70\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 for the earlier \u1fa7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. Comp. _Stroth_ in\n_Eichhorn's_ Repert. ii. 95; _Hohne's_ edition of the LXX.) _Aquila_\nand _Symmachus_, who translate, \u1fa7 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, as well as the Syriac and\nSaadias, who translate, _Ille cujus est_, follow the same reading. But\nthe defenders of this exposition are wrong in inferring, from the\ncircumstance of the ancient translations having followed this\npunctuation, that it was generally received. Had such been the case,\nhow could it be explained that it should no more be found in any of our\nmanuscripts? For the circumstance that forty manuscripts collected by\n_de Rossi_ have \u05e9\u05dc\u05d4 written without a \u05d9, cannot be considered as of\ngreat weight; since it is merely a defective way of writing, occurring\nfrequently in similar words. But if we consider the fact, which may be\nestablished upon historical grounds, that the Jews watched with most\nanxious care the uncorrupted preservation of the received [Pg 74] text\nof Holy Scripture, according to its consonants and pronunciation; that\nthey did not even venture to receive into the text any emendation,\nthough it should have recommended itself as in the highest degree\nprobable; while, on the other hand, the ancient Jewish and Christian\ntranslators took great liberties in this respect, and, in the manifold\nperplexities into which, owing to their insufficient resources and\nknowledge, they fell, helped themselves as best they could;--it will\ncertainly appear to us most probable, that even the ancient translators\nfound our vocalization of the word as the received one, but felt\nthemselves obliged to depart from it, because they could, in accordance\nwith it, give no suitable derivation; whilst the punctuation adopted by\nthem agreed perfectly with the traditional reference of the passage to\nthe Messiah. But if this be the case, the authority of the ancient\ntranslations can here be of no greater weight than that of any modern\ninterpreter; and, in the case under review, we are at liberty to urge\nall those considerations which are, in general, advanced against any\nchange in the vocalization, unless there be most urgent reasons for it.\nThe ancient translators, moreover, can have less weight with us,\nbecause we can distinctly perceive that a misapprehension of Ezek. xxi.\n32 (27)--on which passage we shall afterwards comment--gave rise to\ntheir error. Against this explanation it may be further urged, not only\nthat the \u05e9 _prefix_ occurs nowhere else in the Pentateuch--an objection\nwhich is not in itself sufficient, since it occurs so early as in the\nsong of Deborah, Judges v. 7--but also, that the supposed ellipsis\nwould be exceedingly hard. (Compare _Stange_, _Theol. Symm._ i. S. 238\nff.)\n\nBefore we pass on to a consideration of the non-Messianic\ninterpretation, we shall first state the reasons which bear us out in\nassuming that the passage under review contains a prophecy of a\npersonal Messiah.\n\nIt is certainly, with respect to this, a matter of no slight importance\nthat, with a rare agreement, exegetical tradition finds a promise to\nthis effect here expressed; and this circumstance has a significance so\nmuch the greater, the less that this agreement extends to the\ninterpretation of the particulars, especially as regards the Shiloh.\nHow manifold soever these differences may be, _all antiquity agrees in\ninterpreting this passage of a personal Messiah_; and we could scarcely\nconceive of such an agreement, [Pg 75] unless there had been some\nobjective foundation for it. As regards, first, the exegetical\ntradition of the Jews,--how far soever we may follow it, it finds, in\nver. 10, the Messiah. Thus the LXX. explained it; for, that by \"what is\ndestined to Judah\" (\u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7) they understood\nnothing else than the sending of the Messiah, is shown by the words\nfollowing--\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd,--which can refer only to the\nMessiah. (Compare Is. xlii. 4 according to the LXX.) In the same manner\nthe passage was understood by _Aquila_, the Chaldee Paraphrasts, the\n_Targum_ of _Onkelos_, of _Jonathan_, and of _Jerusalem_, the _Talmud_,\nthe _Sohar_, and the ancient book of _Breshith Rabba_. Several even of\nthe modern commentators, _e.g._, _Jarchi_, have retained this\nexplanation, although a strong doctrinal interest, to which others\nyielded, tempted them to give another interpretation to this passage,\nwhich occupied so prominent a place in the polemics of the Christians.\n(Compare the passage in _Raim. Martini Pug. Fid._ ed. _Carpzov_; _Jac.\nAlting's_ Shiloh, Franc. 1660, 4to [also in the opp. t. v.];\n_Sch\u00f6ttgen_, _hor. Hebr._ ii. p. 146; and, most completely, in \"_Jac.\nPatriarch. de Schiloh vatic. a depravatione Clerici assertum_, op.\n_Seb. Edzardi_, Londini 1698, p. 103 sq.\") The Samaritans, too,\nunderstood the passage as referring to the Messiah. (Compare _Samarit.\nBriefwechsel_, communicated by _Schnurrer_ in _Eichhorn's Repert._ ix.\nS. 27.) It is true that from other passages (\"_Epist. Samarit. ad Jobum\nLudolfum_,\" in _Eichhorn's Repert._ xiii. S. 281-9, compared with _de\nSacy_ \"_de Vers. Samarit. Arab. Pentateuchi_ in _Eichhorn's Biblioth._\"\nx. S. 54) it appears that, in accordance with their doctrine of a\ndouble Messiah--one who had already appeared, and one who was still to\ncome--they referred our passage, partly to the former, and denied its\nreference to the real Messiah. But this is of no importance. For, as\nGesenius also has remarked (_Carmina Samaritana_, p. 75), the doctrine\nof a double Messiah is of recent origin with the Samaritans as well as\nwith the Jews; and hence, it is very probable that the reference to the\nreal Messiah was, formerly, the generally prevailing one, which was,\neven afterwards, to a large extent retained, as is shown by the passage\nfirst quoted.--_Finally_, In the Christian Church the Messianic\ninterpretation has been the prevailing one ever since the earliest\ntimes. We find it as early as _Justin Martyr_. [Pg 76] The Greek and\nLatin Fathers agree in it. (Compare the statements in _Reinke_.) Even\n_Grotius_ could not but admit that this passage referred to the\nMessiah; and _Clericus_ stands quite alone and isolated, in his\ntime, as an objector against the Messianic interpretation of it.\n\nBut even in the Canon itself, this passage is understood of a personal\nMessiah. David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, look upon it in this light.\n(Concerning this point, compare the inquiries in the subsequent\nportions of this work.)\n\nThe entire relation of the Pentateuch to the succeeding sacred\nliterature, and the circumstance that the former constitutes the\nfoundation of the latter, and contains, in the germ, all that is\nafterwards more fully developed, entitle us to expect, that the\nMessianic idea has also found its expression in those books. The more\nprominent the place occupied, in the later books, by the announcement\nof a personal Messiah, the more unlikely it will be to him who has\nacquired right fundamental views regarding the Pentateuch, to conceive\nthat this announcement should be wanting in it--the announcement,\nespecially, of the Messiah in His kingly office; for it is this office\nof the Messiah which, in the Old Testament, generally takes a prominent\nplace, and is, before all others, represented in the subsequent books.\nBut there cannot be any doubt, that the promise of a personal Messiah\nin His kingly office, if it be found in the Old Testament at all, must\nexist in the passage which we are now considering.\n\nThe promises which first were given to Jacob's parents, and thereafter\ntransferred to him, included two things:--_first_, a numerous progeny,\nand the possession of Canaan for them;--and _secondly_, the blessing\nwhich, through them, was to come upon all nations. How, then, could it\nbe expected that Jacob, in transferring these blessings to his sons,\nand while in spirit seeing them already in possession of the promised\nland, and describing the places of abode which they would occupy, and\nwhat should befall them, should have entirely lost sight of the second\nobject, which was much the more important, and as often repeated? Is it\nnot, on the contrary, probable that, as formerly, from among the sons\nof Abraham and Isaac, so now, from among the sons of Jacob, _he_ should\nbe pointed out who should, according to the will of God, become the\ndepositary of this [Pg 77] promise, which was acquiring more and more\nof a definite shape? The contrary of this we can the less imagine,\nbecause, according to ver. 2, Jacob is to tell his sons that which\nshall befall them \"at the end of the days.\" The expression, \"the end of\nthe days,\" is always used of that only which lies at the end of the\ncourse which is seen by the speaker. (Compare my work on Balaam,[12]\np. 465 f.) Accordingly, it indicates, in this passage, that Jacob's\nannouncement must comprehend the whole of the future sphere which\nwas accessible to him. But if we do not admit the reference, in\nthis passage, to the Messiah, then a whole territory of future\ntime, notoriously accessible to Jacob, is left untouched by his\nannouncement.--From the beginning of Genesis, we find the expectation\nof an universal salvation; and at every new separation, the depositary\nof this salvation, and its mediator for the whole remaining world, are\nregularly pointed out. At first, salvation is promised to the whole\nhuman race, then to the family of Shem, then to Abraham, then to Isaac,\nthen to Jacob. \"Now that the patriarchal _trias_, since Jacob, has\nextended into a _dodekas_ forming the historical transition from the\nfamily of the promise to the nation of the promise, the question\narises, from which of the twelve tribes salvation, _i.e._, the victory\nof mankind, and the blessing of the nations, is to come.\" (_Delitzsch_,\n_Prophetische Theologie_, S. 293.) Should Genesis become to such a\ndegree inconsistent with itself as not to answer a question which\nitself has called forth? But that answer is contained in the passage\nunder consideration, only if Shiloh be taken for the personal name of\nthe Redeemer. Unless we have recourse to artificial explanations, the\nannouncement of Judah's being the bearer of salvation is to be found in\nour passage, only when, at the same time, the first indication of the\nperson of the Messiah is perceived in it.\n\nIf the reference of the passage to a personal Messiah be explained\naway, we should certainly be at a loss to discover where the\nfundamental prophecy of such an one could possibly be found. We should\nthen, in the first place, be thrown upon the Messianic Psalms,\nespecially Ps. ii. and cx. But as it is the office of prophecy only to\nintroduce to the knowledge of the congregation [Pg 78] truths\nabsolutely new, it would subvert the whole relation of psalm-poetry to\nprophecy, if in these psalms we were to seek for the origin of the\nexpectations of a personal Messiah. These psalms become intelligible,\nonly if in Shiloh we recognise the first name of the Messiah. The\npassage in question, in combination with the prophetical announcement\nof the eternal dominion of the house of David, afforded the complete\nobjective foundation for the subjective poetry of the Psalms. The\neternity of dominion here promised to Judah was, as we learn from 2\nSam. vii., transferred to David. The exalted person in whom, according\nto our passage, the dominion of Judah was to culminate, must then\nnecessarily belong to the house of David. _Further_,--If the passage\nunder review be understood of the Messiah, we have an excellent\nfountainhead for all the prophecies of a personal Messiah; in its\nsignificant, enigmatical, and expressive brevity, it is most suitable\nfor such a purpose. But if its reference to the Messiah be explained\naway, we are deprived altogether of a suitable starting-point. In the\nDavidic psalms, the Messianic prophecy already more strongly resembles\na stream than a fountain.\n\nSo great is the weight of these reasons for the Messianic\ninterpretation, that we might reasonably have expected that such\nexpositors at least as stand on the ground of positive Christianity\nshould abandon it only from overwhelming reasons, or, at least, from\nsuch only as are in the highest degree probable. But in this\nexpectation we have been disappointed. The most superficial objections\nhave been considered sufficient by _Hofmann_, _Kurtz_, and others, to\ninduce them to disregard the consensus of the whole Christian Church.\nWe cannot, indeed, but be astonished at this.\n\n_Kurtz_, following the example of _Hofmann_, says: \"The organic\nprogress of prophecy, and its correlative connection with history,\nwhich must be maintained in all its stages, forbid us, most decidedly,\nto assign to the expectation of a personal Messiah, a period so early\nas that of the Patriarchs. The clearly expressed aim of the whole\nhistory of this period is the expansion into a great nation; its whole\ntendency is directed towards the growth of the multiplicity of a people\nfrom the unity of the Patriarchs. As long as the subject of the history\nwas the increase into a nation, the idea of a single personal Saviour\n[Pg 79] could not, by any means, take root. Such could occur only after\nthey had actually expanded into a great nation in history, and the\nnecessity had been felt of concentrating the multiplicity of the\nexpanded, into the unity of a single, individual, _i.e._, after one had\nappeared as the deliverer and saviour, as the leader and ruler of the\nwhole nation. It is therefore only after Moses, Joshua, and David, that\nthe expectation of a personal Messiah could arise.\"--Do you mean to\nteach God wisdom? we might ask, in answer to such argumentation. To\nchain prophecy to history in such a manner, is in reality nothing short\nof destroying it. How much soever people may choose to varnish it, this\nis but another form of Naturalism, against the influence of which no\none is secure, because it is in the atmosphere of our day. Men who\noccupy a ground of argumentation so narrow-minded and trifling,--who\nwould rather shape history than heartily surrender themselves to it,\nand find out, meditate upon, and follow the footsteps of God in\nit,--will be compelled to erase even the promise in Gen. xii. 3, \"In\nthee all the families of the earth shall be blessed,\" yea, even the\nwords, \"I will make of thee a great nation,\" with which the promise\nbegins; for even _that_ violates the natural order. But the historical\npoint of connection for the announcement of a personal Messiah, which\nhere at once, like a flash of lightning, illuminates the darkness, is\nnot at all wanting to such a degree as is commonly asserted. On the\ncontrary, if the blessing upon the heathen be allowed to stand, the\nexpectation of a personal Saviour must necessarily arise from a\nconsideration of the known events of history, and meet the immediate\nrevelation of such an one by God. The whole history of the time of the\nPatriarchs bears a _biographical_ character. Single individuals are,\nin it, the depositaries of the divine promises, the channels of the\ndivine life. All the blessings of salvation which the congregation\npossessed at the time when Jacob's blessing was uttered, had come to\nthem through single individuals. Why, then, should the highest\nSalvation come to them in any other way? Why should not Abraham be as\nfit a type of the Messiah as Moses, Joshua, and David,--Abraham, of\nwhom God, in Gen. xx. 7, says to Abimelech, the heathen king, \"Now\ntherefore restore the man his wife, for he is a prophet; and if he\nprays for thee, thou shalt live?\" Or why not Joseph, who, according to\nGen. xlvii. 12, \"nourished [Pg 80] his father and his brethren, and all\nhis father's household,\" and whom the grateful Egyptians called \"the\nSaviour of the World?\"\n\nJust as untenable is a second argument against the Messianic\nexplanation,--namely, that there is no parallelism between the two\nclauses, \"until Shiloh comes,\" \"and to Him shall be the obedience of\nthe nations,\" but only a pure progress of thought. The laws of\nparallelism are not iron fetters; and, moreover, the parallelism in\nsubstance fully exists here, if only it be acknowledged that \u05d9\u05e7\u05d4\u05d4 does\nnot signify any kind of obedience, but only a willing surrender. The\nwords, \"until Shiloh comes, and to Him shall be the obedience of the\nnations,\" are identical in meaning with, \"until He cometh, who bringeth\nrest, and whom the nations shall willingly obey.\" The second member\nthus serves to explain the first; the sense would be substantially\npreserved although one of the members were wanting. The parallelism is\nslightly concealed only by the circumstance that the words run, \"to Him\nthe obedience of the nations,\"--instead of, \"He to whom shall be the\nobedience of the nations.\"\n\nLet us now take a survey of the principal non-Messianic\ninterpretations. A suspicion as to their having any foundation at all\nin the subject itself must surely be raised by their variety and\nmultiplicity, as well as by the circumstance, that they who object to\nthe Messianic explanation can never, in any way, succeed in uniting\nwith each other, but that, with them, one interpretation is sure to be\noverthrown by another. Such is, in every case, a sure indication of\nerror.\n\nMoreover, it is possible, in every case, to trace out some interest,\napart from the merits of the question, which has led to the objections\nagainst the Messianic interpretation. With the Jews, it was because\nthey were driven to a strait by the argumentation of the Christians,\nthat the Messiah must long ago have come, since sceptre and lawgiver\nhad long ago departed from Judah. The rationalistic interpreters have\nevidently been determined by their antipathy to any Messianic\nprophecies in the Old Testament. _Hofmann_ and his followers do not in\nthe least conceal that they are guided by their principle of a\nconcatenation of prophecy with history.\n\nThe opinion, according to which it is maintained that Shiloh is the\nname of the well-known locality in Ephraim, has found not a few\ndefenders. Among these, several, and last of all [Pg 81] _Bleek_, in\nthe _Observ._; _Hitzig_, on Ps. li. 2; _Diestel_, \"der Segen Jacobs,\"\ntranslate: \"Until he or they come to Shiloh.\" The sense is thus\nsupposed to be: \"Judah will be the leader of the tribes, in the journey\nto Canaan, until they come to Shiloh.\" There, in consequence of the\ntribes being dispersed to the boundaries assigned to them, he would\nthen lose his leadership.[13] But such an explanation is, in every\npoint of view, inadmissible. It is very probable that the town Shiloh\ndid not exist at all, under this name, at the time of Jacob. The name\nnowhere occurs in the Pentateuch; and the Book of Joshua (as we shall\nshow at a subsequent time) contains traces, far from indistinct, that\nit arose only after the occupation of the land by the Israelites. But\neven supposing that the town of Shiloh already existed tit the time of\nJacob, yet the abrupt mention of a place so little known would\nbe something strange and unaccountable. It would be out of the\nrange of Jacob's visions, which nowhere regard mere details, but have\neverywhere for their object only the future in its general outlines.\n_Further_,--The temporary limitation thus put to the superiority of\nJudah would be in glaring contradiction to vers. 8 and 9, where Judah\nis exalted to be the Lion of God without any limitation as to time.\nAnd, _finally_,--Up to the time of their arrival in Shiloh, Judah was\nnever in possession of the sceptre and lawgiver;--and this reason\nwould alone be sufficient to overthrow the opinion which we are now\ncombating. We have already proved that, by these terms, royal power and\ndominion are designated, and that, for this reason, the _beginning_ of\nthe fulfilment cannot be sought for in any period previous to the time\nof David. But even if we were to come down to the mere _leadership_ of\nJudah, we could demonstrate that even this did not belong to him. His\nmarching in front of the others cannot, even in the remotest degree,\nbe considered as a leadership. Moses, who belonged to another tribe,\nhad been solemnly called by God to the chief command. Nor was Joshua\n[Pg 82] of the tribe of Judah. In him, on the contrary, there appeared\nthe germ of Ephraim's superiority, which continued through the whole\nperiod of the Judges, and which came to an end only by David's having\nbeen raised to the royal dignity. (Compare my commentary on Ps.\nlxxviii.)\n\nOthers (_Tuch_, _Maurer_) give the explanation: \"As long as they come\nto Shiloh.\" This, according to them, the \"poet\" meant to be identical\nwith: \"in all eternity.\" They think that his (the \"poet's\") meaning\nwas, that the holy tabernacle, which at his time (_Tuch_ assigns the\ncomposition of Jacob's blessing to the period of Samuel) was at Shiloh,\nwould remain there to all eternity. To this exposition it would be\nalone sufficient to object that, according to it, the phrase \u05e2\u05d3 \u05db\u05d9,\nwhich uniformly means only \"until,\" is taken in the signification \"as\nlong as.\" _Further_,--History plainly enough shows how little the\nsanctuary was considered to be bound to Shiloh; to which place it had\nbeen brought, not in consequence of an express divine declaration, but\nonly in accordance with Joshua's own views. When the ark of the\ncovenant was carried away by the Philistines, this was considered as an\nexpress declaration of God, that He would no longer dwell in Shiloh.\nHow different was the case as regards Jerusalem! Notwithstanding the\ndestruction by the Chaldees, the city continued to be the seat of the\nsanctuary. _Further_,--This view implies a strange blending of gross\nerror--viz., the supposition that the sanctuary would remain for ever\nin Shiloh--and of true prophecy, viz., the announcement, uttered at the\ntime of Ephraim's leadership, of the dominion of the tribe of Judah,\nwhich was first realized in David's royalty. The only ground in support\nof the Ephraimitic Shiloh--the fact, namely, that Shiloh, wherever else\nit occurs in the Old Testament, always signifies the name of the\nplace--we hope to invalidate by and by; when it will be seen that the\ntown received its name only on the ground of the passage now under\nconsideration.\n\nOther opponents of the Messianic interpretation take Shiloh as a _nomen\nappellativum_, in the signification of _rest_. They translate either,\n\"Until rest cometh and people obey him\" (thus _Vater_, _Gesenius_,\n_Knobel_), or, \"Until he comes (or, they come) to rest\" (thus\n_Hofmann_, _Kurtz_, and others). By \"rest,\" they understand either the\npolitical rest enjoyed under David and Solomon, or they find here\nexpressed the idea of eternal rest in [Pg 83] the expected Messianic\ntime. Thus do _Gesenius_, _Hofmann_, and _Kurtz_ understand it. The\nlast-named determines the sense thus: \"Judah shall remain in the\nuninterrupted possession of a princely position among his brethren,\nuntil through warfare and by victory he shall have realized the aim,\nobject, and consummation of his sovereignty in the attained enjoyment\nof happy rest and undisturbed peace, and in the willing and joyful\nobedience of the nations.\" But this explanation is to be suspected,\nsimply from the circumstance, that, in whatever other place Shiloh\noccurs, it is used as a _nomen proprium_; while it is entirely\noverthrown by the circumstance, that, according to its form, as already\ndeduced, Shiloh can be nothing else than a _nomen proprium_.[14] We\nhere only remark, by way of anticipation, that David, Solomon,\nIsaiah, and Ezekiel bear testimony against this explanation. An\ninterpretation which dissevers the connection betwixt Shiloh and\nShiloh, betwixt Shiloh and Solomon, betwixt Shiloh and the Prince of\nPeace, betwixt Shiloh and Him \"whose is the judgment,\" must be,\nthereby, self-condemned. Against the explanation, \"Until he comes to\nrest,\" it may also be urged, that the Accusative could not here stand\nafter a verb of motion; it was too natural to consider Shiloh as the\nsubject. If it had been intended in any other sense, a preposition\nwould have been absolutely requisite.\n\nWe further remark, that vers. 11 and 12, which ancient and modern\ninterpreters, _e.g._, _Kurtz_, have attempted to bring into artificial\nconnection with ver. 10, simply \"finish the picture of Judah's\nhappiness by a description of the luxurious fulness of his rich\nterritory\" (_Tuch_). Their tenor is quite different from that which\nprecedes, where a pre-eminence was assigned to Judah; for they contain\nnothing beyond a simple, positive declaration. What is in them assigned\nto Judah, belongs to him only as a part of the whole, as a fellow-heir\nof the country flowing with milk and honey, and corresponds entirely\nwith the blessings upon the other sons, which are, almost all of them,\nonly individual applications of the general blessing. It is evidently\nparallel to what, in vers. 25, 26, is said of Joseph, and in ver 20 of\nAsher. That which Jacob here assigns to Judah, was [Pg 84] formerly, in\nGen. xxvii. 28, assigned by Isaac to Jacob, and in him to the whole\npeople: \"God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the\nearth, and plenty of corn and wine.\" Hence, it is not at all necessary\nto examine history for the purpose of ascertaining whether Judah was\ndistinguished above the other tribes, by plenty of wine and milk.\n\nWe need not lose much time in discussing the attempts which have been\nmade to assign the blessing of Jacob to a later period. The futility of\nall of them is proved by the circumstance, that we have not here before\nus any special predictions, such as are peculiar to _vaticinia post\neventum_, but general prophetical outlines, individual applications\nof the general blessings, exemplifications. Whatever seems, at first\nsight, to be different, melts away while handling it. Thus, for\nexample, the blessings which Israel enjoyed by his dwelling on the\nsea-side, are pointed out in the blessing upon Zebulun, because he had\nhis name from the _dwelling_, Gen. xxi. 20. That Zebulun is here viewed\nonly as a part of the whole, appears from the fact that, afterwards, he\ndid not live by the sea at all. In the case of Issachar, it was the\nindividuality of the ancestor Jacob which gave him occasion to\ndescribe, from his own example, the dangers of an indolent rest.\nHistory does not say anything of Issachar alone having yielded to these\ndangers in a peculiar degree. In the case of Joseph, the events\npersonal to the son are transferred to the tribe, and in the tribe, to\nthe whole nation. In an inimitable manner the tender love of the father\ntowards his son and provider meets us here. The only thing which goes\nbeyond the human sphere of Jacob, is the prediction by which Judah is\nplaced in the centre of the world's history. But it is just this which,\neven in its beginnings, goes beyond the time at which this pretended\n_vaticinium post eventum_ is placed by _Tuch_, _Bleek_, and _Ewald_;\nfor, by this assumption of theirs, they are necessarily limited to the\ntime before David, if they wish to avoid the insurmountable\ndifficulties which arise from what is said of Levi and of Joseph. But\nto the man who looks deeper, vers. 8-10 are just the seal of the\ndivinity, and hence of the genuineness also, of this prophecy, and,\nwith all his heart, he will hate such miserable conjectures.[15]\n\n[Pg 85]\n\nLet us now follow through history Jacob's blessing upon Judah. From\nthis inquiry it will appear how deep has been the impression made by it\nupon the people of the covenant. On this occasion also, it will be seen\nstill more distinctly what the right is which rationalistic criticism\nhas to declare this _fundamental prophecy_ to be the recent production\nof an obscure poet. The chain-like character of Holy Scripture will be\nseen in a very striking light.\n\nIn Num. ii. regulations are laid down respecting the order in which the\ntribes are to encamp about the tabernacle, and in which they are to set\nforth. \"On the east side, towards which the entrance of the sanctuary\nis directed, and hence in the front, Judah, as the principal tribe, is\nencamped; and the two sons of his mother--Issachar and Zebulun--who\nwere born immediately after him, pitch next to him. On the south side\nthere is the camp, with the standard, of Reuben; and next to him are\nhis brother Simeon, who was born immediately after him, and Gad, one of\nthe sons of his mother's maid. The west side is assigned to the sons of\nRachel, with Ephraim at their head. And, _finally_, on the north side,\nthe three other sons of the maids, viz., Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, have\ntheir position. In the same order as they encamp they are also to set\nforth.\" (_Baumgarten_.)\n\nJudah is the chief tribe on the chief side. This distinction [Pg 86] is\nnot based on the deeds hitherto performed by Judah, nor is it the\nresult of any revelation which Moses received upon the subject. It is\nregarded as a matter of course. And yet, there must necessarily have\nbeen some foundation for such a distinction, because, otherwise, it\nwould have called forth the opposition of the other tribes, especially\nof that of Ephraim. Such a foundation, however, is afforded only by the\nblessing of Jacob, in which the tribe of Judah appears as the leading\none. The complete realization of this prediction is left, indeed, in\nthe hand of God; but the bearer of honours so great, even although\nfuture, must, in the prospect of that future, enjoy, even in the\npresent, a certain distinction; such distinction, however, as does not\nat all imply sovereignty.\n\nBut we are compelled to have recourse to Genesis, and especially to\nchap. xlix., the more because the whole arrangement of the camp has\nevidently its foundation in Genesis, and the key to a whole series of\nfacts in it can be found only in chap. xlix. If we ask why it is that\nthe tribes of Issachar and Zebulun are subordinate to Judah; that\nReuben, Simeon, and Gad, that Ephraim and Benjamin, that Dan, Asher,\nand Naphtali are encamped by each other; it is in Genesis alone that we\nare furnished with the answer.\n\nThe position which Reuben occupies specially points to Gen. xlix. As\nthe first-born, he ought to stand at the head; but here we find him\noccupying the second place. In Gen. xlix. Jacob says to him, on account\nof his guilt, \"Thou shalt not excel;\" and \"the excellency of dignity,\nand the excellency of power,\" which up to that time he had possessed,\nare transferred to Judah. Yet Moses has so much regard to his original\ndignity, that he places him immediately after Judah; the utterance of\nJacob did not entitle him to assign to him a lower position.\n_Further_,--The reason why Dan stands at the head of the sons of the\nmaids is explained only in Gen. xlix. 16-18, where Dan is specially\ndistinguished among them, and where it is specially said of him, \"Dan\nshall judge his people.\"\n\nIf the blessing of Jacob be the production of a later time, then the\norder of the encampment, which rests upon it, must necessarily be so\nalso; but such an idea will at once be discarded by every man of sound\njudgment. Even they who refuse to acknowledge Moses as the author of\nthe Pentateuch, admit that [Pg 87] those regulations which bear\nreference only to the condition of things in the wilderness must have\noriginated from him.\n\nBut exactly the same order which Moses in Num. ii. prescribes for the\nencampment and setting forth of the tribes, is found again in chap.\nvii., where there is described the offerings which the princes of the\ntribes offered at the dedication of the altar. Every prince has here a\nday to himself, and here also does Judah occupy the first place: \"And\nhe that offered his offering the first day was Nahshon, the son of\nAmminadab, of the tribe of Judah.\"--If any one should venture to set\ndown this chapter also, with all its details, as a fabrication of later\ntimes, he would only betray an utter absence of all scientific\njudgment.\n\nAccording to Num. x. 14, Judah led the march when they set forth from\nSinai.\n\nBalaam's prophecies, the genuineness of which is proved by so many\nweighty arguments (compare the enumeration of them in my work on\nBalaam), rest, in general, on the fundamental prophecies of Genesis,\nbut especially on the blessing of Jacob upon Judah.\n\nIn Num. xxiii. 24, Balaam says: \"Behold, a people, like a full-grown\nlion he rises, and like a lion he lifts himself up. Not shall he lie\ndown until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain.\" This\nconclusion of Balaam's second prophecy, which at once demolishes\nBalak's vain hopes of victory, by pointing out the dreadful power of\nIsrael, unconquerable by all his enemies, and crushing them all, has an\nintentional reference to Gen. xlix. 9,--a reference specially suitable\nfor such a conclusion. What was there ascribed to Judah is here\ntransferred to Israel, whose fore-champion Judah is. \"Dost thou think,\"\nsays Balaam to Balak, \"of being able to overcome them, to stop them in\ntheir course towards the mark held out to them? Behold, according to an\nold revelation of their God, they are a people destroying their enemies\nwith the lion's strength. Therefore, get thee out of their way, lest\nsuch a fate befall thee.\"\n\nIn Num. xxiv. 9, Balaam says, \"He couches, he lies as a lion, and as a\ngreat lion, who shall stir him up?\" As in the preceding prophecy he had\npointed out Israel's dreadful power which secures to him victory in the\nbattle, so here he shows how, even after having finished the battle,\nthis power so intimidates his enemies, that they do not venture to\ndisturb his peace. [Pg 88] That which Jacob had said of Judah, is, with\nintended literality, here transferred to Israel.\n\nIn Num. xxiv. 17, we read: \"I see him, but not now; I behold him, but\nnot nigh: a star goeth out of Jacob, and a sceptre riseth out of\nIsrael, and smiteth the borders of Moab, and destroyeth all the sons of\nthe tumult.\"--As the two preceding utterances carry us back to Gen.\nxlix. 9, so this one refers to ver. 10, where the sceptre, the emblem\nof dominion, denotes, just as it does in this passage, dominion itself,\nand where to Judah, and in him to all Israel, the kingdom is promised\nwhich shall at last be consummated in the Shiloh. The meaning of the\nwords, \"A sceptre riseth out of Israel,\" is explained in ver. 19 by the\nwords, \"Dominion shall come out of Jacob.\" Jacob has in view the\ninternal relations among his descendants, and hence he speaks specially\nof Judah; but Balaam, in accordance with his object, speaks of Israel\nonly. Jacob points, at the close, to Shiloh's just and peaceful\ndominion; but Balaam, who has to do with the enraged and obstinate\nenemies of Israel, points out, from among the effects produced by the\nstar and sceptre, only the victorious might, and destructive power\nwhich these will display in the conflict with the enemies of Israel.\n\nIn the blessing of Moses, Deut. xxxii. 7, it is said of Judah: \"Hear,\nLord, the voice of Judah, and bring him unto his people; with his hands\nhe fights for himself, and be Thou an help to him from his enemies.\"\nEven the remarkable brevity of this utterance points back to the\nblessing of Jacob. With this brevity, the length of the blessing upon\nLevi, who had been treated too summarily by Jacob, forms a striking\ncontrast. In the case of Reuben also, the attempt to pour oil into the\nwounds then inflicted is visible. The whole announcement is based upon\nthe supposition that Judah is the fore-champion of Israel; and this\nsupposition refers us back to Gen. xlix. This appears especially in the\nwords, \"Bring him to his people,\" on which light is thrown only by Gen.\nxlix. It is for his people that Judah engages in foreign wars, and the\nLord, fulfilling the words, \"From the prey, my son, thou goest up,\"\nbrings him safely to his people.[16]\n\n[Pg 89]\n\nThere can be no doubt that in Shiloh, as the name of a place, there is\na reference to Gen. xlix. 10. They who rightly denied that Shiloh\ncould, in that passage, be understood as the name of the place, could,\nnevertheless, not feel satisfied as long as they allowed a twofold\nShiloh to exist unconnected with each other. The agreement in the very\nrare and peculiar form, which nowhere else occurs, cannot well be a\nmatter of accident.\n\nIn the Pentateuch, Shiloh does not occur at all as the name of\na place. In the passage where Shiloh is first mentioned--in Josh.\nxvi. 6--another name is beside it, and prefixed to it. According to\nthat passage, the former name was Taanah. (They who are of opinion that\nthis place was different from Shiloh, can find no support from the\nauthority of _Eusebius_; it is not said Taanah by Shiloh, but\nTaanath-Shiloh.) After that place had become the seat of the Sanctuary,\nthe holy name _Shiloh_ took the place of the former natural one. The\nreason why this name was given to it is indicated in Josh. xviii. 1:\n\"And the whole congregation of the children of Israel assembled\ntogether at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle of the congregation\nthere; _and the land was subdued before them_.\" Compare also xxi. 44,\nxxii. 4, where it is remarked that at that time \"the Lord gave them\nrest round about.\" (See _Bachiene_, _Palestina_ ii. 3, S. 409 ff.) In\nthe subjection of the country,--in the rest which the Lord had given\nthem from all round about, they saw an earnest of, and a prelude to,\nthe obedience of the nations in general, and to the state of perfect\nrest which should take place at some future time with the appearing of\nShiloh. Victory, peace! (_Siegfried!_) such was the watchword\ncorresponding to the elevated consciousness of the people. It is an\nelevation quite similar to that which we so often perceive in the\nPsalms. \"Sometimes there rises the hope that the Gentiles shall, at\nsome future period, be received among the people of God--a hope based\nupon the experience of the Lord's victorious power in the present, in\nwhich faith perceives a pledge of the future subjection of the world's\npower under His sceptre. Thus, in vers. 29-32 of Ps. lxviii., which was\ncomposed by David on the occasion of his having, by the help of the\nLord, conquered his most dangerous enemies, the Aramites and Ammonites;\nin Ps. xlvii., written on the occasion of Jehoshaphat's victory over\nseveral heathen nations; and in Ps. lxxxvii., composed on the [Pg 90]\nground of the joyful events under Hezekiah, the germ of the hope for\nthe conversion of the heathen, which had all along lain dormant in the\npeople, was developed.\"[17]\n\nAfter the main power of the Canaanites had been broken by the\nexpeditions of all Israel under Joshua, Judah begins, at the command of\nGod, to expel the Canaanites from the territory assigned to him. In\nJudges i. 1, 2, we read: \"And the children of Israel asked the Lord,\nWho shall go up for us against the Canaanites at the beginning to fight\nagainst them? And the Lord said, Judah shall go up; behold, I deliver\nthe land into his hands.\" They were concerned to find out the tribe\nwho, by the decree of God, had been destined to be the fore-champion\nfor his brethren, and with whom they might be sure of a happy\ncommencement of the war. The short answer, \"Judah shall go up,\" would\nscarcely have been justified, had it not had a foundation in a previous\ndeclaration of God's will. It indicates that Jacob's blessing upon\nJudah still possessed its power.\n\nIn like manner, in the war against Benjamin, according to divine\ndirection, Judah goes up first to the battle, forms the vanguard.\nJudges xx. 18. The intentional identity of the expression used here and\nin chap. i., leads us to the supposition that the words, \"Judah shall\ngo up,\" have, in both passages, the same foundation.\n\nFrom both of these events, we are led to expect that Judah may be\ncalled to occupy a still more important position. The announcement of\nJacob regarding Judah, to which the words, \"Judah shall go up,\" refer,\nfinds, in these events, evidently but a poor beginning of its complete\nfulfilment. All, however, which was required in the meantime, was the\nindication, by gentle touches, of the position which Judah was called\nto occupy in future times. It is just God's way to take time in\ncarrying out [Pg 91] His elections; all human conditions must first\ndisappear. After these two intimations, at the end of the time of\nJoshua (for Judges i. 1, 2, belongs to that period; the words, \"And it\ncame to pass after the death of Joshua,\" do not refer to what follows\nimmediately after, but only to the contents of the book as a whole),\nand at the beginning of the time of the Judges, Judah retires out of\nview. During the whole period of the Judges, Ephraim held the\nsupremacy. Under David, the validity of the election suddenly appeared,\nand the announcement of Jacob found a glorious fulfilment; but again,\nsuch an one only as pointed to a still more glorious fulfilment in the\nfuture. Before this took place, however,--before Shiloh came, to whom\nthe obedience of the people was promised, the lamp of Judah was once\nmore to be extinguished, so that, to human eyes, it should be invisible\nfor many centuries.\n\nIn 1 Chron. xxviii. 4, David says: \"And the Lord God of Israel chose me\nout of all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever; for\nHe hath chosen Judah to be the ruler, and in the house of Judah, the\nhouse of my father, and in the house of my father. He liked me to make\nme king over all Israel.\" David here points to an event by which Judah\nwas raised to be the ruling tribe; and such an election is nowhere else\nto be found than in Gen. xlix. We cannot for a moment suppose that\nJudah was elected only in, and with, the election of David. Against\nsuch a supposition militates the fact, that even the election of\nDavid's house is represented in history as being distinct from the\nelection of David himself; for in 1 Sam. xvi. the decree of God is\nfirst made known, that one of Jesse's sons is to be king; and it is\nonly afterwards that we are told which of them is to be chosen. The\nexpression too, \"He hath chosen Judah to be the _ruler_,\" is decisive\nagainst it; for this expression has an evident reference to the sceptre\nand lawgiver in Gen. xlix. But if any doubt should still remain, it\nwould be entirely removed by the parallel passage in 1 Chron. v. 2,\nwhere, in the words, \"For Judah was mighty among his brethren, and of\nhim the prince was to come,\" there is an allusion, which cannot be\nmistaken, to Gen. xlix.\n\nThere cannot be a doubt that David gave to his son the name Solomon,\nbecause he hoped that, in his just and peaceful reign, he would be a\ntype of the Shiloh whom the nation should willingly [Pg 92] obey, just\nas, in his own reign, there had been the first grand fulfilment of what\nJacob had prophesied of Judah's lion-courage, and lion-strength,--of\nJudah's sceptre and lawgiver. We have here the counterpart of the fact,\nthat the children of Israel, after the first occupation of the country,\ngave to the seat of the sanctuary the name of Shiloh. In the case of\nSolomon, both the name and the substance point to Shiloh. With regard\nto the _name_, three out of the four letters of which the name \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d4\nconsists, are common to it with Shiloh. The signification is precisely\nthe same; so also is the form. In \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d4 as well as in \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 we meet with\nthe very rare case of the \u05df at the end being thrown off. In _Ewald's_\nGrammar, \u00a7 163, these two names are, for this reason, pointed out and\nplaced immediately beside each other. And, with regard to the agreement\nin the _substance_, we refer to 1 Chron. xxii. 9, where Nathan says to\nDavid: \"Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of\n_rest_, and I will give him _rest_ from all his enemies round about;\nfor his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto\nIsrael in his days.\" We refer, _further_, to 1 Kings v. 4, where\nSolomon says to Hiram: \"And now the Lord my God hath given me _rest_\nround about; there is neither adversary nor evil obstacle.\" We refer,\n_finally_, to 1 Kings v. 4, 5 (iv. 24, 25): \"He had dominion over all\nthe region on the other side of the river, from Tiphsah even to Gaza,\nover all the kings on the other side of the river, and he had peace\nfrom all his servants round about. And Judah and Israel dwelt safely,\nevery man under his vine and fig-tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all\nthe days of Solomon.\"[18]\n\nBut if any further doubt should remain as regards the typical relation\nin which Solomon stands to Shiloh, it would be removed by Ps. lxxii.,\nwhich discards the very idea that Solomon could be anything more than a\ntype,--that any hope had ever been entertained of his being himself the\nShiloh. Even David's Messianic Psalms bear witness against such an\nopinion. In harmony with the words of our Lord in Matt. xii. 42, \"A [Pg\n93] greater than Solomon is here,\" Solomon In this Psalm points beyond\nhimself. In his own just and peaceful dominion, he beholds a type of\nthe kingdom of the Prince of Peace, who, by His justice and love, shall\nobtain dominion over the world, and whom all kings shall worship, and\nall the heathen shall serve. How closely this Psalm is connected with\nGen. xlix. is pointed out by Ezekiel, in a passage of which we shall\nimmediately treat.\n\nIn ver. 9 of Ps. lx., which was composed by David, the words, \"Judah\nis my lawgiver\"--equivalent to, Judah is my, _i.e._, Israel's ruling\ntribe--point to Gen. xlix. 10, according to which the lawgiver shall\nnot depart from Judah; just as ver. 13, \"Give us help from the enemy,\"\nalludes to Deut. xxxiii. 7, where it is said of Judah, \"Be thou a help\nto him from his enemies,\" and ver. 14, to Num. xxiv. 18.\n\nThat the Prince of Peace spoken of in Is. ix. 5, under whom there is\n\"no end to the increase of government and of peace,\" refers to the\nPeaceful One, to whom the nations render obedience, will not be doubted\nby those who have recognised the connection in which Solomon and Ps.\nlxxii. stand to the Shiloh. Nor will such fail to recognise an allusion\nto the Shiloh in all the other passages of the Prophets, in which the\nMessiah is described as the Author of rest and peace; _e.g._, Mic. iv.\n1-4; Is. ii. 2-4; Zech. ix. 10; and the less so, the more clearly it\nappears, from passages of Ezekiel, what influence Gen. xlix. exercised\nover the prophetic consciousness. Isaiah significantly alludes to it in\nother passages also. In chap. xxix. 1, 2, he says: \"Woe to Ariel,\n(_i.e._, Lion of God), the city where David encamped! Add ye year to\nyear, let the feasts revolve. And I distress Ariel, and there shall be\nheaviness and affliction, but it shall be unto me as Ariel;\"--the\nmeaning of which is: Jerusalem will, in times to come, endure heavy\naffliction (through Asshur), but the world-conquering power of the\nkingdom of God will manifest itself in her deliverance. The name Ariel\nis emphatically placed at the beginning, and, in it, the Prophet gives\nto the congregation of God a guarantee for her deliverance. That which\nJacob had said of Judah, who, to him, appeared as the invincible lion\nof God, is here applied to Zion, the city where David encamped, the\ncentre of the kingdom of Judah.\n\nEzekiel, in his lamentation over the princes of Israel who, [Pg 94] in\nhis time, were standing just at the brink of the abyss, says in chap.\nxix. 2: \"Thy mother was a lioness, who lay down among lionesses, and\nbrought up her whelps among young lions.\" The mother is the\ncongregation of Judah. The image of the lion points to the blessing of\nJacob, and its fulfilment in history. \"Judah once couched in a\nthreatening position, endangering his adversaries,[19] in the midst of\nlions, _i.e._, among the other powerful kingdoms fond of conquests.\"\n(_H\u00e4vernick_.)\n\nIn Ezek. xxi. 15, 18 (10-15), the Lord, with an evident allusion to\nGen. xlix. 10, announces the (temporary) destruction of the sceptre of\nHis son (_i.e._, Israel or Judah), a sceptre which despises all other\nsceptres.\n\nIn vers. 30-32 (25-27) of the same chapter, Ezekiel foretells, in the\nname of the Lord, a complete overturning of all relations, a total\nrevolution, in which the Davidic kingdom especially is brought down, a\ncondition of affairs in which rest and safety will not anywhere be\nfound. This state of things is to continue \"until He comes to whom is\nthe judgment; to Him I will give it.\"\n\nThe reference of this passage to Gen. xlix. cannot be mistaken. It was\nrecognised, indeed, by the ancient translators; only that most of them\nerroneously found in it an explanation instead of an allusion.\n\nInstead of the words, \"to whom is the judgment,\" we should, from the\nexpression used in Gen. xlix. 10, \"Until Shiloh cometh,\" have expected,\n\"to whom is peace;\" but Ezekiel has filled up Gen. xlix. 10 from Ps.\nlxxii. 1-5, where judgment and righteousness appear as the basis of the\npeace which the Anointed One shall bring. And _peace_ occupies the\nbackground in Ezekiel also. The advent of Him to whom is the judgment,\nin contrast with the injustice and wickedness of those who were\nhitherto the bearers of the sceptre, puts an end to strife, confusion,\nand destruction. That, in like manner, in Gen. xlix., the _judgment_\noccupies the background, we see plainly, from the commentary upon that\npassage furnished by Ps. lxxii., as well as from Is. ix. and ii. In Ps.\nlxxii., peace comes into consideration, only in so far as it is a\nproduct and consequence of justice, which is an attribute of the King,\nand is by him [Pg 95] infused into the life of the nation. In vers.\n1-50, the thought is: \"God gives righteousness to His King, and in\nconsequence of it, righteousness and the fear of God become indigenous\nto the people, and these again bring peace in their train.\"\n\nEvery word in Ezekiel is taken from Gen. xlix. and Ps. lxxii. From the\nlatter are taken the words, \"judgment,\" and \"I will give it.\" (Compare\nPs. lxxii. 1: \"Give the King thy judgments.\") The combination of these\ntwo passages points out their close connection, and indicates that Ps.\nlxxii. is to be viewed as a comment. _Onkelos_, who thus translates the\npassage in Gen. xlix., \"Until Messiah comes, to whom the kingdom is\ndue, and Him the people shall obey,\" has very properly only\nsupplemented the declaration of Jacob from Ezekiel, or, at least, has\ntaken thence the explanation of Shiloh.\n\nBut, at the same time, the words \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d9 \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8, which, on the basis of\nPs. lxxii., Ezekiel puts in the place of \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4, allude to the letters of\nthe latter word which forms the initials of the words in Ezekiel. That\n\u05e9 is the main letter in \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8, is shown by the common abbreviation of it\ninto \u05e9; and that the \u05d9 in \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 is unessential, is proved by the\ncircumstance that the name of the place is often written \u05e9\u05dc\u05d4, and that\neven in Gen. xlix. 10, a number of manuscripts have this orthography.\n\n\"From the allusion to a prophecy so well known, and so frequently used,\nthe brevity of the prophecy in Ezekiel is to be explained. It forms a\nmost powerful conclusion and resting-point for the prophetic\ndiscourse.\" (_H\u00e4vernick_.)\n\nThere cannot be any doubt that Ezekiel found in Gen. xlix. 10, the\nprophecy of a personal Messiah. They, therefore, who assert that no\nsuch prophecy is contained in our passage, must, at the same time,\nassert that Ezekiel misunderstood it; yea, even more, that, even as\nearly as at that period, a false view of that passage was generally\nprevalent. For, the manner in which Ezekiel alludes to it presupposes\nthat, at that time, the view which found in it a personal Messiah was\ngenerally held. If we observe still further, that Ezekiel connected the\nallusion to Ps. lxxii. with that to Gen. xlix., we cannot hesitate for\na moment to admit that he understood the name Shiloh to be Rest-maker,\nPeace-maker; only, that on the ground of Ps. lxxii., he mentions the\ncause instead of the effect. He had, moreover, the stronger reason for\ndesignating the bearer of peace as the bearer of judgment, [Pg 96]\nbecause, in his time, the want of judgment had evidently produced the\nabsence of peace, and the general confusion, misery, and destruction.\n\n\"As in Gen. xlix. the Patriarch sees a light rising at a far distance,\nand spreading its brightness over the darkness of centuries, so in\nEzekiel also, the same ray of glorious hope lightens through the dark\nnight of confusion and unutterable misery in which he sees himself\nenveloped.\"\n\n_Kurtz_, S. 266, has altogether denied the connection of the passage in\nEzekiel with Gen. xlix. These two passages are, as he thinks,\naltogether different, inasmuch as Ezekiel announces destruction and\ndesolation which shall continue until He comes to whom is the judgment,\nwhile Gen. xlix., when understood of a personal Messiah, announces\ndominion which shall continue until Shiloh comes. But Ezekiel does not\ncontradict Gen. xlix. 10. He gives only the supplement necessary for\npreventing this passage from being considered as a permission to sin,\nand from becoming a support of false security. Ezekiel, too, assumes a\ncontinuation of the dominion. If that were not concealed behind the\ndestruction, how could \"the coming of Him to whom is the judgment\" be\npointed out as the limit of that destruction? The tree indeed is cut\ndown, but the root remains in its full vigour.\n\nWhen Jacob announces that the sceptre shall not depart until Shiloh,\nthe prince of peace, cometh, he can thereby mean only that it would not\ndepart _definitively_; for, otherwise, he would have belied his own\nexperience. From the way by which the Lord had led him, he had\nsufficiently learnt that God's promises to sinful men must be taken\n_cum grano salis_; that they never exclude the visitation of the elect\non account of their sins, and that it is only in the end that God will\nbring all to a glorious fulfilment. When he went to Mesopotamia, God\nhad said to him, \"I am with thee, and I will keep thee in all places\nwhither thou goest,\" Gen. xxviii. 15; and yet the deceit which he had\npractised upon his father and brother was recompensed to him there by\nthe deceit of Laban, and he was obliged to say, \"In the day the drought\nconsumed me, and the frost by night, and my sleep departed from mine\neyes,\" Gen. xxxi. 40. When he came from the land of the two rivers, God\nblessed him and gave him the honourable name of Israel, Gen. xxxii.;\nand yet [Pg 97] he had soon thereafter to experience grievous distress\non account of Dinah and Joseph; and in chap. xxxvii. 34, 35, we are\ntold concerning him: \"And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth\nupon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. And all his sons and\nall his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be\ncomforted, and he said, I shall go down into the grave unto my son in\nsorrow.\" In the kingdom of God there are no other promises than such as\nresemble those rivers which flow alternately above and below ground,\nsince it is certain that all the subjects of the promises are affected\nby sin.\n\nEzekiel xliii. 15 likewise refers to the blessing of Jacob upon Judah.\nThe altar for the burnt-offerings in the new temple is first called\n_Harel_ = the mountain of God, and afterwards _Ariel_ = the Lion of\nGod,--indicating that what had been promised to Judah in Gen. xlix.,\nviz., the Lion's nature and invincible power, victorious over all\nenemies, has its root in the altar,--in the circumstance that the\npeople of God are a people whose sins are forgiven, who dedicate\nthemselves to God, and give Him thanks and praise.\n\nA very remarkable reference to Gen. xlix. meets us at the very\nthreshold of the New Testament. In Luke ii. 13, 14, the heavenly host\npraise God, saying: \"Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth\npeace.\" The words, \"glory\" or \"praise be to God,\" are an allusion to\nJudah, and to the glorious things foretold in Gen. xlix. of him who\ncentres in Christ. Christ is the true Judah,--He by whom God is\nglorified, John xiv. 13. The words, \"on earth peace,\" contain the\nexplanation of the name Shiloh, the first name under which the Saviour\nis celebrated in the Old Testament.\n\nAs the words with which the Saviour is first introduced into the world\nallude to Gen. xlix., so the Lord Himself, before His departure,\nalludes to this fundamental Messianic prophecy in John xiv. 27: \"Peace\nI leave with you. My peace I give unto you;\" and in xvi. 33: \"These\nthings I have spoken unto you, that in Me ye might have peace.\" So\nalso, after His resurrection, Christ says, in the circle of His\ndisciples, \"Peace be unto you,\" John xx. 19, 21, 26.\n\nThe last book of the entire Holy Scripture--the Apocalypse [Pg\n98]--likewise points back to the remarkable prophecy of Christ at the\nclose of its first book. In Rev. v. 5, we read: \"And one of the elders\nsaith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the\nRoot of David, hath prevailed.\" \"The designation of Christ as the Lion\nof the tribe of Judah, rests on Gen. xlix. 9. Judah appears there as a\nlion, in order to denote his warlike and victorious powers. But Judah\nhimself, according to the blessing of dying Jacob, is at some future\nperiod to centre in the Messiah. As a type, he had formerly centred\nalready in David, in whom the lion-nature of the tribe of Judah was\nmanifested.\" This allusion shows that even what Is said in vers. 8, 9,\nfound its complete fulfilment only in Christ, and that vers. 8, 9, are\nparallel to the entire ver. 10, and not to its first half only.\n\n_Bengel_ remarks on Rev. v. 6: \"The elder had pointed John to a Lion,\nand yet John beheld a Lamb. The Lord Jesus is called a Lion only once\nin this prophecy, and that, at the very beginning, before the\nappellation Lamb appears. This indicates that as often as the Lamb is\nremembered, we should also remember Him as the Lion of the tribe of\nJudah.\"\n\nAs the designation of Christ as the Lion refers to what, in the\nblessing of Jacob, is said of the lion-nature of the tribe of Judah,\nso, in the \"Lamb\"--the emblem of innocence, justice, silent patience\nand gentleness--the name Shiloh is embodied.\n\n\nFootnote 1: _Luther_ says: \"No doubt the sons of Jacob will have waited\nwith anxious desire, and with weeping and groaning, for what their\nfather had yet to say; for, after having heard curses so hard and\nsevere, they were very much confounded and afraid. And Judah, too, will\ncertainly not have been able to refrain from weeping, and will have\nbeen afraid, when thinking of what should now become of him. There will\nhave arisen in his heart very sad recollections of his sins, of his\nwhoredom with Thamar, and of the advice which he had given to sell\nJoseph. Certainly, I should have died with sorrow and tears. But there\nsoon follow a fine dew and a lovely balm, refreshing the heart again.\"\n\nFootnote 2: _Bochart_ says: \"When the whelp of a lion is weaned, and\nbegins to go out for prey, and to seek his own food without the help of\nhis mother, he then ceases to be a \u05d2\u05d5\u05e8, and is called a \u05db\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8.\" Deut.\nxxxiii. 22 must, therefore, not be translated, \"Dan is a lion's whelp\nleaping from Bashan\"--as if the \u05d2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 were already active--but thus,\n\"Dan is a lion's whelp; he shall leap (_i.e._, after he shall have\ngrown up) from Bashan.\" Dan is in that place styled a lion's whelp,\njust as is Judah in Gen. xlix. 9, because, as yet, he is only a\ncandidate for future victories.\n\nFootnote 3: The LXX. translate, \u1f10\u03ba \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2, \"from a shoot,\nmy son, thou hast grown up.\" They explain \u05d8\u05e8\u05e3 by an inappropriate\nreference to Ezek. xvii. 9, where it is used of a fresh green leaf.\n\nFootnote 4: Calvin says: \"This dignity is bestowed upon Judah only with\na view to benefit the whole of the people.\"\n\nFootnote 5: In the first edition of this work, the author had likewise\nmaintained that view.\n\nFootnote 6: It was this difficulty which led _Grotius_ to adopt the\nfeeble exposition, \"That teachers out of Judah's posterity would lead\nthe people until the times of the Messiah, who would be the highest\nleader and commander of Jews and Gentiles.\"\n\nFootnote 7: Calvin says: \"If any one should object, that the words of\nJacob convey a different meaning, we would answer him, that whatever\npromises God gave concerning the outward condition of the Church, they\nwere so far limited that God might, in the meantime, exercise His\njudgments in the punishment of men's sins, and prove the faith of His\npeople. And indeed it was not a light trial when, at the third\nsuccession, the tribe of Judah was deprived of the greater part of his\nterritory. A more severe one followed when, before the eyes of the\nfather, the sons of the king were slain, his own eyes put out, and\nhimself was carried to Babylon, and given over to servitude and exile\nalong with the whole royal family. But the heaviest trial of all came,\nwhen the people returned to their land, and were so far from seeing\ntheir expectations fulfilled, that they were, on the contrary,\nsubjected to a sad dispersion. But even then, the saints beheld with\nthe eye of faith the sceptre hidden under ground; neither did their\nhearts fail, nor their courage give way, so that they desisted not from\ncontinuing their course.\"\n\nFootnote 8: Many expositors, following the LXX. (\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6),\nthe _Vulgate_ (_de femore ejus_), and the Chaldee Paraphrast,\nunderstand this expression as a designation of origin and production.\nBut in that case, we must assume a very hard ellipsis, viz., \"he who is\nto proceed.\" Moreover, this explanation is destructive of the\nparallelism, according to which, \"from between his feet\" must\ncorrespond with \"from Judah.\"\n\nFootnote 9: The signification, \"expectation,\" given to this word by the\nLXX. (\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd), _Jerome_, and other translators, is\nfounded upon the erroneous derivation of the word from \u05e7\u05d5\u05d4. In the\nother passage (Prov. xxx. 17), where the LXX. translate, \"the age of\nhis mother,\" they have confounded the root \u05d9\u05e7\u05d4 with \u05e7\u05d4\u05d4, \"to be\nblunted.\"\n\nFootnote 10: _Gousset_ says: The word can signify something good only,\non account of the passage, Prov. xxx. 17, namely, something which\nadorns the relation of the son to his mother, the despising of which is\na crime on the part of the son, and which deserves that he should be\nsent \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2. And not less so from its being used in Gen. xlix. 10\nin reference to the Shiloh, where, thereby, not one or a few, but all\nthe nations without exception, are bound to Him by a tie similar to\nthat which exists betwixt mother and son.\n\nFootnote 11: Thus Luther says: \"This sceptre of Judah shall continue,\nand shall not be taken from him, till the hero come; but when He comes,\nthen the sceptre also shall depart. The kingdom or sceptre has fallen;\nthe Jews are scattered throughout the whole world, and, therefore, the\nMessiah has certainly come; for, at His appearing, the sceptre should\nbe taken from Judah.\"\n\nFootnote 12: In the volume containing the _Dissertations on the\nGenuineness of Daniel_, _etc._ Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.\n\nFootnote 13: _Delitzsch_ (who had formerly been a defender of the\nexplanation of a personal Messiah) differs, in his Commentary on\nGenesis, from this view, only in so far, that he supposes that, while\nJudah's dominion over the tribes comes to an end in Shiloh, his\ndominion over the nations dates from that period. But this explanation\nmust be objected to on the ground, that the dominion bestowed upon\nJudah is not merely a dominion over the tribes, but over the world.\n\nFootnote 14: _Knobel_ knows of no other expedient by which to escape\nfrom the force of this argument, than by changing the punctuation. He\nproposes to read \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05dc\u05b6\u05d4, a word which nowhere occurs.\n\nFootnote 15: The rationalistic objection, that at so great an age, and\non the brink of the grave, man is not wont to compose poems, may be\nrefuted by a reference to the history of the ancient Arabic poetry.\nThe Arabic poets before the time of Mohammed often recited long\npoems extempore,--so natural to them was poetry. (Compare _Tharaph\u00e6\nMoallakah_, ed. _Reiske_, p. xl.; _Antar\u00e6 Moallakah_, ed. _Menil._ p.\n18.) The poet _Lebid_, who attained to the age of 157 years (compare\n_Reiske prolegg. ad Thar. Moall._ p. xxx.; _De Sacy_, _Memoires de\nl'Academie des inscriptions_, p. 403 ff.), composed a poem when he was\ndying; compare _Herbelot Bibl. Or._ p. 513. The poet _Hareth_ was\n135 years old when he recited extempore his _Moallakah_, which is\nstill extant; compare _Reiske_ l.c. The objection, too, that it is\ninconceivable how the blessing spoken by Jacob could have been handed\ndown _verbatim_ to Moses, finds its best refutation in the history of\nArabic poetry. The art of writing was introduced among the Arabs only a\nshort time before Mohammed. (Compare _de Sacy_ l.c. pp. 306, 348;\n_Amrulkeisi Moall._ ed. _Hengstenberg_, p. 3.) Up to that time, even\nthe longest poems, of which some consisted of more than a hundred\nverses, were preserved by mere oral tradition (compare _Nuweiri_ in\n_Rosenm\u00fcller_, _Zoheiri Moall._ p. 11); and the internal condition of\nthose which have been preserved to us bears the best testimony to their\nhaving been faithfully handed down. But in the case before us,\nsomething altogether different from a poem was concerned.\n\nFootnote 16: _Onkelos_ paraphrases these words very correctly, thus:\n\"Hear, O Lord, the prayers of Judah when he goes out to war, and bring\nhim safely back to his people.\"\n\nFootnote 17: It is probable also, that in the passage, Josh. xvi. 6,\nwhere Shiloh occurs for the first time as the name of a place, and\nwhich we have already discussed, there is not, as we assumed, a\nconnection of the former name with the latter, but the complete\nappellation, of which the latter--Shiloh--is only an abbreviation. From\nthe well ascertained and common signification of the verb \u05d0\u05e0\u05d4, we are\nentitled to explain Taanath-Shiloh: \"the futurity, or the appearance of\nShiloh.\" Shiloh shall come! Such was the watchword at that time. The\nword \u05ea\u05d0\u05e0\u05d4 would then correspond to the \u05d9\u05d1\u05d0 of the fundamental passage.\n\nFootnote 18: That there exists a connection between Shiloh and Solomon\nhas often been guessed at and expressed; but expositors have not\nsucceeded well in determining it more closely. The Samarit. Arab.\nTranslation here says expressly: \"Until Solomon cometh.\" (Comp. _Lib.\nGenes. sec. Arab. Pent._ _Samarit. vers. ed. Kuenen_. _Leyden_, 51.)\n\nFootnote 19: _Kimchi_ says: \"As long as the Jews were doing the will of\nGod, they could lie down like the lion without fear.\"\n\n\n\n\n BALAAM'S PROPHECY.\n (Numb. xxiv. 17-19.)\n\nCarried by the Spirit into the far distant future, Balaam sees here how\na star goeth out of Jacob and a sceptre riseth out of Israel, and how\nthis sceptre smiteth Moab, by whose enmity the Seer had been brought\nfrom a distant region for the destruction of Israel. And not Moab only\nshall be smitten, but its southern neighbour, Edom, too shall be\nsubdued, whose hatred against Israel had already been prefigured in its\nancestor, and had now begun to display Itself; and In general, all the\nenemies of the [Pg 99] people of God shall be cast down to the ground\nby the Ruler out of Jacob.\n\nVer. 17. \"_I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh. A star\ngoeth out of Jacob, and a sceptre riseth out of Israel, and smiteth\nthe borders of Moab, and destroyeth all the sons of the tumult._\nVer. 18. _And Edom shall be a possession, and Seir shall be a\npossession--his enemies, and Israel acquireth might._ Ver. 19. _And a\nRuler shall come out of Jacob, and destroyeth what remaineth out of\nthe city._\"\n\nThe star is, in Scripture, the symbol of the splendour of power. The\nsceptre leads us back to Gen. xlix. 10; and, in general, the\nannouncements of Balaam have, throughout, the promises and hopes of the\nPatriarchs for their foundation. As in the fundamental passage, so here\nalso, the sceptre, the symbol of dominion, stands for dominion itself.\nThe substance of the two figurative expressions is briefly stated in\nver. 19, in the words, \"They shall rule out of Jacob,\" which are\ntantamount to, \"A Ruler shall come out of Jacob.\"\n\nA difference of opinion exists regarding the glorious King who is here\nannounced. From the earliest times, the Jews understood thereby the\nMessiah, either exclusively, or, at least, principally, so as to\nadmit of a secondary reference to David. _Onkelos_ translates: \"When a\nKing shall rise out of Jacob, and out of Israel Messiah shall be\nanointed;\"--_Jonathan_: \"When a valiant King shall rise out of the\nhouse of Jacob, and out of Israel, Messiah, and a strong Sceptre shall\nbe anointed.\" The Book of Sohar remarks on the words, \"I see him, but\nnow:\" \"This was in part fulfilled at that time; it will be completely\nfulfilled in the days of Messiah.\" (Compare the passages in _Jos. de_\n_Voisin_, in the _Prooem._ on _R. Martini Pugio fid._ p. 68; _R.\nMartini_ iii. 3, c. 11; _Sch\u00f6ttgen_, \"_Jesus Messias_,\" S. 151.) How\nwidely this opinion was spread among the Jews, is sufficiently apparent\nfrom the circumstance, that the renowned pseudo-Messiah in the time of\nHadrian adopted, with reference to the passage under review, the\nsurname _Barcochba_, _i.e._, Son of the Star.--From the Jews, this\ninterpretation very soon passed over to the Christians, who rightly\nfound a warrant for it in the narrative of the star of the wise\nmen from the East. _Cyril_ of Jerusalem defended the Messianic\ninterpretation against _Julian_. (Compare _Julian_, ed. _Spanh._\np. 263 c. See other passages [Pg 100] from the fathers of the\nChurch in _Calov._) According to _Theodoret_ (Quest. 44 in Numb.),\nthere were, indeed, some to whom \"Balaam appeared to have foretold\nnothing concerning our Saviour;\" but this opinion was rejected as\nprofane. The Messianic interpretation has, in a narrower and wider\nsense--_i.e._, as referring in the first instance to David, but in the\nhighest and proper sense to Christ--become the prevailing one in the\nEvangelical Church also. It was defended even by such interpreters as\n_Calvin_ and _Clericus_, who, as to other passages, differed from the\nprevailing Messianic interpretation. (Compare especially _Mieg_, _de\nStella et Sceptro Baleamitico_ in the _Thes. Nov._ p. 423 sqq., and\n_Boullier_, _Dissert. Syll. Amsterdam_ 1750, _Diss._ I.) On the other\nhand, the Messianic interpretation found a zealous and ingenious\nopponent, first in _Verschnir_ in the _Bibl. Brem. nova_, reprinted\nin his _Opusc._ He was joined by the rationalistic interpreters, who\nmaintained an exclusive reference to David. But _Rosenm\u00fcller_ and\n_Baumgarten-Crusius_ (bibl. Theol. S. 369) returned to the Messianic\ninterpretation.\n\nThe question at issue is chiefly this:--Whether by the star and sceptre\nsome single Israelitish king is designated, or rather, an ideal\nperson--the personified Israelitish kingdom. The latter view I proved,\nin my work on Balaam, to be the correct one, for the following\nreasons:--1. The reference to a certain Israelitish king is against the\nanalogy of the other prophecies of the Pentateuch. A single person,\nespecially a single king of future time, is nowhere announced in\nit,--except the Messiah, whose announcement, however, is different from\nthat of David. But, on the other hand, the rise of the _kingdom_ in\nIsrael is announced as early as in the promise to the Patriarchs, on\nwhich all of Balaam's declarations rest throughout. It is only to this\nthat the words, \"A star goeth out of Jacob, and a sceptre riseth out of\nIsrael,\" can refer,--according to the analogy of Gen. xvii. 6: \"Kings\nshall come out of thee;\" ver. 16: \"And she shall become nations,\n_kings_ of people shall be of her;\" and xxxv. 11: \"Kings shall come out\nof thy loins.\" 2. The reference to a single king would be against the\n_analogy_ of _Balaam's_ prophecies, inasmuch as these nowhere refer to\na single individual. 3. The _sceptre_ does not, in itself, lead us to\nthink of an individual, since it does not designate a ruler, but\ndominion in general. But that which especially militates against the\nreference [Pg 101] to an individual is the comparison with the\nfundamental passage, Gen. xlix. 10, in which Judah, and in him all\nIsrael, does not receive the promise of a single king, but of the\nkingdom which shall at last be consummated in the Shiloh. 4. In favour\nof this general interpretation is also ver. 19, in which the words,\n\"And dominion shall come out of Jacob,\" or literally, \"They shall rule\nout of Jacob,\" may be considered as just a commentary on the words, \"A\nsceptre riseth out of Israel.\" So also is ver. 7, \"More elevated than\nAgag be his king,\" where the king of Israel is an _ideal_ person--the\npersonification of the kingdom. Agag, _i.e._, the fiery one, is not a\nproper name, but a surname of all Amalekite kings. The Amalekite\nkingdom--which here represents the world's power, opposed to the\nkingdom of God, because at the time of the Seer the Amalekites were the\nmost powerful among the people who were hostile to Israel (compare ver.\n20, where they are called the _beginning_ of the heathen nations,\n_i.e._, the most powerful of them)--is here put in opposition to the\nIsraelitish kingdom, and the latter will show itself superior to all\nworldly power.\n\nThe arguments which thus prove the reference of Balaam's prophecy to\nan Israelitish kingdom, disprove also, not only the exclusive reference\nto David, but also the exclusive reference to Christ; although they\nimply at the same time that the prophecy, in its final reference, has\nChrist for its subject. The Israelitish kingdom, indeed, attained to\nthe full height of its destiny only in and with the Messiah; without\nthe Messiah, the Israelitish kingdom is a trunk without a head. The\nprophecy thus centres in Christ. We are, however, not entitled to\nsuppose that the prophet himself was not aware of this; on the\ncontrary, we cannot but assume that Balaam must have known it. It is\nwith intention that he does not speak of a plurality of Israelitish\nkings. The Israelitish kingdom, on the contrary, appears to him in the\nfrom of an _ideal_ king, because he knows that, at some period, it will\nfind Its full realization in the person of one king. For the same\nreason, Moses also describes the prophetic order, in the first\ninstance, as an _ideal_ prophet. That Balaam knew that the Israelitish\nkingdom would centre in the Messiah, is shown by the reference which\nhis prophecy has to that of dying Jacob, in Gen. xlix. 10, from which\nthe figure of the sceptre is borrowed. According to the latter passage,\nthe whole dignity of Judah as [Pg 102] ruler and lord over the whole\nheathen world is to centre in one elevated individual--the Shiloh. As\nto the letter, Balaam's prophecy falls short of the prophecy to which\nit refers, and on which it is founded, in two points. Instead of Judah,\nit mentions Israel; and instead of the invincible kingdom which is at\nlast to centre in the Messiah, it represents the invincible kingdom\nonly in general. But in both cases, this generality is easily accounted\nfor by the _external_ direction of Balaam's prophecy: a more definite\ntendency was of importance only for those who were _within_. We are\nfully entitled to suppose that Balaam himself knew what was contained\nin the fundamental passage. To the same result we are led by the\ncontents of the prophecy itself. Balaam here brings into view an\nIsraelitish kingdom, all-powerful on earth, and raised absolutely above\nthe world's power. He does not stop with the victory over Moab and\nEdom--even this victory appears to him as an absolute and lasting one,\nand hence, essentially different from the temporary submission to\nDavid--but, from the particular, which only serves to exemplify the\nidea in reference to the historical relations existing at the present,\nhe passes on, in ver. 19, to the general, the total overthrow of the\nwhole hostile world's power. Indeed, such a progress is probably found\neven in ver. 17 itself. If at the close of it we read, \"And destroyeth\nall the sons of the tumult,\" the word _all_, which is wanting in Jer.\nxlviii. 45, indicates that by the sons of the tumult we are to\nunderstand not only the Moabites, but the whole _species_ to which they\nbelonged, the whole heathen world, whose nature is restlessness, desire\nfor strife, and the spirit of conquest,--the opposites of meekness and\ngentleness, which are the virtues characteristic of the subjects of the\nkingdom of God. In ver. 18, the particular is likewise followed by the\ngeneral. But while ver. 17 and 18 contain, in each of the two\nparticular features, a previous short allusion to the general, ver. 19\nmost expressly and intentionally reduces the particular to the general.\nThe absolute elevation above the world's power, attributed by Balaam to\nthe Israelitish kingdom, leads not only beyond the idea of a single\nking of the ordinary stamp, but also beyond that of the entire ordinary\nkingdom.\n\nThe objections urged against the Messianic interpretation are based\neither on a misunderstanding, or upon a superficial view of the\npassage. They who maintain that the judging activity of [Pg 103] the\nMessiah is here brought forward in a manner too one-sided, forget that\nthis part only could here be treated of. As Balaam's discourse\nformed the answer to Balak's message--\"Come, curse me this people;\nperadventure we shall prevail to smite them and drive them out of the\nland,\"--its natural subject was: _Israel's position towards their\nenemies_; and Balaam had expressly stated, in ver. 14, that he would\ntreat of that subject. Balaam had to do with an enemy of Israel, and\nhis chief aim was to represent to him the vanity of all his hostile\nefforts. The partial view arises, therefore, from the nature of the\ncase; and only _in that case_ could doubts arise as to the ultimate\nreference to the Messiah, if the other view were altogether _denied_.\nBut such is by no means the case; for the words in ver. 9, \"Blessed is\nhe that blesseth thee,\" distinctly point it out. They who object to the\nMessianic interpretation on the ground that, at the time of Christ, the\nMoabites had disappeared from the stage of history, overlook the\ncircumstance, that the Moabites here, as well as in Is. xi., where the\ncomplete destruction of Moab is likewise assigned to the times of the\nMessiah, are viewed only in their character as enemies to the\ncongregation of God. If the prophecy were fulfilled upon the Moabites,\neven at the time when they still existed as a nation, not as Moabites,\nbut as the enemies of the people of God; then the limit of their\nnational existence cannot be the limit of the fulfilment of the\nprophecy. A case quite analogous is found in Mic. v. 4, 5, where the\nprophet characterizes the enemies of the kingdom of God at the time of\nthe Messiah by the name of Asshur, although it appears, from other\npassages, that he distinctly knew that Asshur must, long ere that time,\nhave disappeared from the scene of history.\n\nThe Messianic character of the prophecy being thus established, it will\nbe impossible to misunderstand the internal relation between the star\nof Balaam and the star of the wise men from the East. The star of\nBalaam is the emblem of the kingdom which will rise in Israel. The star\nof the Magi is the symbol of the Ruler in whom the kingly power appears\nconcentrated. The appearance of the star embodying the image of the\nprophet, indicates that the last and highest fulfilment of his\nprophecies is now to take place.\n\n[Pg 104]\n\n\n MOSES' PROMISE OF THE PROPHET.\n (Deut. xviii. 15-19.)\n\nVer. 15. \"_A prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like\nunto me, Jehovah thy God will raise up: unto him ye shall hearken._\nVer. 16. _According to all that thou desiredst of Jehovah thy God in\nHoreb, in the day of the assembly, when thou didst say, I will not hear\nany farther the voice of Jehovah my God, and will not see this great\nfire any more, that I die not._ Ver. 17. _Then Jehovah said unto me.\nThey have well spoken._ Ver. 18. _A prophet I will raise them up from\namong their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words into his\nmouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him._ Ver.\n19. _And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My\nwords which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him._\"\n\nIf we leave out of view the unfortunate attempts of those who would\nunderstand by the prophet here promised, either Joshua--as is done\nby _Abenezra_, _Bechai_, and _von Ammon_ (_Christol_. S. 29)--or\nJeremiah--as is the case in _Baal Hatturim_ and _Jalkut_ out of the\nbook _Pesikta_, and in _Abarbanel_--we may reduce the expositions of\nthis passage to three classes. 1. Several consider the \"prophet\"\nas a collective noun, and understand thereby the prophets of all\ntimes. Such was the opinion of _Origen_ (_c. Celsum_ i. 9, \u00a7 5,\n_Mosh._), of the Arabic translator, and of most of the modern Jewish\ninterpreters,--especially _Kimchi_, _Alshech_, and _Lipman_ (_Nizachon_\n137); while _Abenezra_ and _Bechai_ conjoin this view with that\naccording to which Jeremiah is meant. Among recent expositors, it is\ndefended by _Rosenm\u00fcller_, _Vater_, _Baumgarten-Crusius_ (_Bibl.\nTheol._ S. 369), and others. 2. Some see in it an exclusive reference\nto Christ,--a view which has been held by most interpreters in the\nChristian Church, and from the earliest times. It is found as early as\nin _Justin Martyr_, _Tertullian_, _Athanasius_, _Eusebius_ (_Demonstr._\niii. 2, ix. 11), _Lactantius_ (iv. 17), _Augustine_ (_c. Faustum_, xvi.\nc. 15, 18, 19), and _Isidore_ of _Pelusium_ (c. iii. ep. 49). It was\nheld by _Luther_ (t. 3. _Jen. Lat._ f. 123), became the prevailing one\nin the Lutheran Church, and was [Pg 105] approved of by most of the\nReformed interpreters. Among its earliest defenders, the most eminent\nare _Deyling_ (_Misc._ ii. 175), _Frischmuth_ (in the _Thesaurus\ntheol.-philol._ i. 354), and _Hasaeus_ (in the _Thes. theol.-philol._\nnov. i. S. 439.) In recent times it has been defended by _Pareau_ (in\nthe _Inst. interpr. V. T._ p. 506), by _Knapp_ (_Dogm._ ii. 138). 3.\nOthers have steered a middle course, inasmuch as they consider the\n\"prophet\" to be a collective noun, but, at the same time, maintain that\nonly by the mission of Christ, in whom the idea of the prophetic order\nwas perfectly realized, the promise was completely fulfilled. Thus did\n_Nicolaus de Lyra_, _Calvin_, several Roman Catholic interpreters,\n_Grotius_, _Clericus_, and others.\n\nIn favour of the Messianic interpretation, the authority of tradition\nhas been, first of all, appealed to. It is true that modern Jewish\ninterpreters differ from it; but this has been the result of polemical\nconsiderations alone. It can be satisfactorily proved that the\nMessianic interpretation was the prevailing one among the older Jews. 1\nMac. xiv. 41--\"Also that the Jews and priests resolved that Simon\nshould be commander and high priest for ever, until a _credible\nprophet_ should arise,\"--has been frequently appealed to in proof of\nthis, but erroneously. For, that by the \"credible prophet,\" _i.e._, one\nsufficiently attested by miracles or fulfilled prophecies, we are not\nto understand the prophet promised by Moses (as was done by Luther, and\nmany older expositors who followed him), is shown, partly by the\nabsence of the article, and partly by the circumstance that a\n_credible_ prophet is spoken of. The sense is rather this: Simon and\nhis family should continue to hold the highest dignity until God\nHimself should make another arrangement by a future prophet, as there\nwas none at that time (comp. Ps. lxxiv. 9: \"There is no more any\nprophet\"), and thus put an end to a state of things which, on the one\nhand, was in contradiction to the law, and, on the other, to the\npromise,--a state of things unto which they had been led by the force\nof circumstances, and which could, at all events, be only a provisional\none. (Compare _J. D. Michaelis_ on that passage.) It is not on the\npassage under review that the expectation of a prophet there rests, but\nrather on Mal. iii. 1, 23, where a prophet is promised as the precursor\nof the Messiah. But the New Testament furnishes sufficient materials\nfor proving the [Pg 106] Messianic interpretation. The very manner in\nwhich Peter and Stephen quote this passage shows that the Messianic\ninterpretation was, at that time, the prevailing one. They do not deem\nit at all necessary to prove it; they proceed on the supposition of its\nbeing universally acknowledged. It was, no doubt, chiefly our passage\nwhich Philip had in view when, in John i. 46, he said to Nathanael: \u1f43\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 \u039c\u03c9\u03cb\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd. For, besides the passage\nunder consideration, there is only one other personal Messianic\nprophecy in the Pentateuch, namely, Gen. xlix. 10; and the marks of the\nShiloh did not so distinctly appear in Jesus, as did those of the\nProphet. The mention of the person of Moses[1] (which in Gen. xlix. 10\nis less concerned), and of the law, clearly point to the passage under\nreview. After the feeding of the five thousand, the people say, in John\nvi. 14: \u1f4d\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd.\nThe Messianic interpretation was, accordingly, not peculiar to a few\nlearned men, but to the whole people. Even with the Samaritans the\nMessianic explanation was the prevailing one,--based, no doubt, upon\nthe tradition which had come to them from the Jews. The Samaritan woman\nsays, in John iv. 25: \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u039c\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f41 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. Now, as the Samaritans acknowledged\nonly the Pentateuch, there is no other passage than that under review\nfrom which the idea of the Messiah as a divinely enlightened teacher,\nwhich is here expressed, could have been derived. The last words agree\nin a remarkable manner with Deut. xviii. 18: \"And he shall speak unto\nthem all that I shall command him.\" That too great weight, however,\nmust not be attached to tradition, is shown by John i. 21, and vii. 40,\n41; for these passages clearly prove that there were also many who\nthought it possible that Deut. xviii. contained not only the\nannouncement of the Messiah, but of some distinguished prophet also,\nbesides Him, who should be His precursor or companion. At the same\ntime, we must not overlook the circumstance that, in both passages, the\npeople are at a loss, and are thereby induced to deviate from the\nprevailing [Pg 107] opinion. Their uncertainty and wavering, however,\nis only about the person. In this they agree, notwithstanding, that in\nDeut. xviii. they find the announcement of one distinguished person.\n\nBut the Messianic interpretation may appeal, with still greater\nconfidence, to the direct evidence of the New Testament. The\ndeclaration of the Lord in John v. 45-47 is here to be noticed above\nall: \u039c\u1f74 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u00b7 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u039c\u03c9\u03cb\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f43\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5. \u0395\u1f30 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u039c\u03c9\u03cb\u03c3\u1fc7,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u00b7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd. \u0395\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5;--It is clear\nthat the Lord must here have had in view a distinct passage of the\nPentateuch,--a clear and definite declaration of Moses. Dexterous\nexplanations (_Bengel_: _Nunquam non_; _Tholuck_: The prophetical and\ntypical element implied in the whole form of worship) are of no\napologetic value, and it is not possible summarily, on such grounds, to\ncall the enemies before the judgment-seat of God. It was not enough to\nallude, in a way so general, to what could not be at once perceptible;\ngreater distinctness and particularity would have been required. But if\na single declaration--a direct Messianic prophecy--form the question at\nissue, our passage only can be meant; for it is the only prophecy of\nChrist which Moses, on whose person great stress is laid, uttered in\nhis own name. Moreover, Christ would more readily expect that the Jews\nwould acknowledge our prophecy to be fulfilled in Him, than the\nprophecy in Gen. xlix., which refers rather to the Messiah in glory.\nThe preceding words of Jesus likewise contain references to the passage\nnow under consideration. Ver. 38--\"And ye have not His word abiding in\nyou; for whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not,\"--contains an allusion\nto Deut. xviii. 18: \"And I will put My words into his mouth, and\nhe shall speak unto them all that I shall command him;\" so that\nwhosoever rejects the Ambassador of God, rejects His word at the\nsame time. John v. 43--\"I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive\nMe not,\"--acquires both its significance and earnestness from its\nreference to ver. 19 of our passage: \"Whosoever will not hearken unto\nMy words, which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.\"\n_Further_,--The point at issue in this discourse of Christ is an\naccusation of the Jews against Christ, [Pg 108] that He had violated\nthe Mosaic law. (Compare John v. 10-16, and v. 18, which states the\nsecond apparent violation of the law.) It was thus highly appropriate\nthat Jesus should throw back upon the Jews the charge which they\nbrought against Him, and should prove to them that it was just they who\nwere in fatal opposition to the enactments of the Mosaic law.\n_Finally_,--It is this same Moses in whom they trusted, whom they\nconsidered as their patron, and whom to please the more, they were so\nzealous for his law against Jesus,--it is this same Moses whom Jesus\nrepresents as their accuser. And he is such an accuser as renders every\nother superfluous, so that Christ did not need specially to come\nforward in such a character. The accusation of Moses must, then,\naccording to this declaration, and in accordance with what follows,\nrefer to the cause of Christ. But the passage under review is\nthe only Messianic prophecy of a _threatening character_ which the\nPentateuch contains,--the only one in which divine judgments are\nthreatened to the despisers of the Messiah,--the only Mosaic foundation\nfor the denunciation: \"Woe to the people that despiseth thee.\" If it be\ndenied that Christ refers to it,--if its Messianic character be not\nacknowledged, the first words of Christ are destitute of foundation.\nBut if it be thus undeniable that Christ declared Himself to be the\nprophet of our passage, it must be considered an indirect attack upon\nHis divinity to say, as _Dr L\u00fccke_ does, that Christ did so by way of\n\"adaptation to the interpretation of that time.\" It is just this appeal\nwhich forms the pith of Christ's discourse; it is the real death-blow\ninflicted by Him upon His adversaries. If this blow was a mere feint,\nHis honour is endangered,--which may God forbid!--The Lord further\nmarks Himself out as the prophet announced by Moses, and that, too, in\na very distinct manner, in John xii. 48-50,--a passage which is\nevidently based upon vers. 18 and 19 of the text under review. (Compare\nJohn xiv. 24-31.)--To this we may add, further, that, according to St\nLuke xxiv. 44, the Lord Himself explains to His disciples the\nprophecies in the Pentateuch concerning Him; and we cannot well expect\nthat Christ should have made no reference to a passage which one of the\nApostles points out as being of greater weight than all others. This is\ndone by Peter in Acts iii. 22, 23. The manner in which he quotes it,\nentirely excludes the notion that Moses was [Pg 109] speaking of\nChrist, only in so far as He belonged to the collective body of the\nprophets. Peter says expressly, that Moses and the later prophets\nforetold \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2; and the words, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, show\nthat he did not understand the singular in a collective sense. The\ncircumstance that Stephen, in Acts vii. 37, likewise refers the passage\nto Christ, would not be, in itself, conclusive, because Stephen's case\nis different from that of the Apostles. But we must not overlook the\npassage Matt. xvii. 5, according to which, at Christ's transfiguration,\na voice was heard from heaven which said: \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41\n\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5. As the first part of this\ndeclaration is taken from the Messianic prediction in Is. xlii., so is\nthe second from the passage under consideration; and, by this use of\nits words, the sense is clearly shown. It is a very significant fact,\nthat our passage is thus connected just with Is. xlii.--the first\nprophetic announcement in which it is specially resumed, and in which\nthe prophetic order itself is the proclaimer of _the_ Prophet. And it\nis not less significant that this reference to our text, with which all\nthe other announcements by Isaiah concerning the Great Prophet to come\nare so immediately connected, should precede chapters xlix., l., and\nlxi. It thus serves as a commentary upon the declaration of Moses. The\nbeginning and the outlines receive light from the progress and\ncompletion.\n\nHe, however, who believes in Christ, will, after these details, expect\nthat internal reasons also should prove the reference to Christ; and\nthis expectation is fully confirmed.\n\nThat Moses did not intend by the word \u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 \"prophet,\" to designate a\ncollective body merely, but that he had at least some special\nindividual in view, appears, partly, from the word itself being\nconstantly in the singular, and, partly, from the constant use of the\nsingular suffixes in reference to it; while, in the case of collective\nnouns, it is usual to interchange the singular with the plural. The\nforce of this argument is abundantly evident in the fact, that not a\nfew of even non-Messianic interpreters have been thereby compelled to\nmake some single individual the subject of this prophecy. But we must\nhesitate the more to adopt the opinion that \u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0 stands here simply in\nthe singular instead of the plural, because neither does this word\nanywhere else occur as a collective noun, nor is the prophetic order\never [Pg 110] spoken of in the manner alleged. The expectation of a\nMessiah was already at that time current among the people. In what way,\nthen, could they understand a promise, in which one individual only was\nspoken of, except by referring it, at least chiefly, to the one whom\nthey expected?--_Hofmann_ (_Weissagung und Erf\u00fcllung_ i. S. 253)\nobjects that the prophet here spoken of was, in no respect, different\nfrom the _king_ in Deut. xvii. 14-20. But the king mentioned there is\nno collective noun. An individual who, in future times, should first\nattain to royal dignity, forms there the subject throughout. This\nappears especially from ver. 20, where he and his _sons_ are spoken of.\nThe first king is held up as an example, to show in him what was\napplicable to the royal dignity in general. On the other hand, it is in\nfavour of our view, that, in the verses immediately preceding (vers.\n8-13), the priests are, at first, spoken of only in the plural,\nalthough the priestly order had much more of the character of a\ncollective body than the prophetic order.\n\nA comparison between this prophecy and that of the Shiloh in Gen. xlix.\n10 is likewise in favour of the Messianic interpretation. Even there.\nHis prophetic office is alluded to in the kingly office. The ruler out\nof Judah is the Peaceful One, to whom the nations yield a spontaneous\nobedience, an obedience flowing from a pious source,--and He rules not\nby compulsion, but by the word.\n\nThe prophet is moreover contrasted with a single individual--with\nMoses; and this compels us to refer the prophecy to some distinguished\nindividual. In ver. 15, Moses promises to the people a prophet _like\nunto himself_; and thus also does the Lord say, in ver. 18: \"A prophet\n_like unto thee_ I will raise up.\" We cannot for a moment suppose that\nthis likeness should refer to the prophetic calling only,--to the\nwords: \"I will put My words into his mouth, and he shall speak unto\nthem all that I shall command him.\" It must at the same time be implied\nin it, that the future prophet shall be as thoroughly competent for his\nwork, as Moses was for that which was committed to him. If it were not\nso, the promise would be deficient in that consolatory and elevating\ncharacter which, according to the context, it is evidently intended to\npossess. If we were to paraphrase thus, \"The Lord will raise up a\nprophet, inferior, indeed, to myself, [Pg 111] but yet the bearer of\ndivine revelations,\" we should at once perceive how unsuitable it were.\n_Further_,--It is quite evident that the \"Prophet\" here is the main\ninstrument of divine agency among the Covenant-people of the\nfuture,--that He is the real support and anchor of the kingdom of God.\nBut now the difficulties of the future were, as Moses himself saw, so\ngreat, that gifts in any way short of those of Moses would by no means\nhave been sufficient. Moses foresees that the spirit of apostasy,\nwhich, even in his time, began to manifest itself, would, in future\ntimes, increase to a fearful extent. (Compare especially Deut. xxxii.)\nAgainst this, ordinary gifts and powers would be of no avail. A\nsuccessful and enduring reaction could be brought about only by one who\nshould be, for the more difficult circumstances of the future, such as\nMoses was for his times. But--and this circumstance is of still greater\nweight--it forms the task of the future to translate the whole heathen\nworld into the kingdom of God. In it, Japheth is to dwell in the tents\nof Shem; all the nations of the earth are to become partakers in the\nblessing resting on Abraham. In the view of such a task, a prophet of\nordinary dimensions, as well as the collective body of such, would\ndwindle down to the appearance of a dwarf. They would have been less\nthan Moses. In Deut. xxxiv. 10, it is said, \"There arose not a prophet\nsince in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face;\"--a\npassage which not only plainly refers to the experience acquired at\nthat time, but which expresses also what might be expected of that\nportion of the future which was more immediately at hand. When Miriam\nand Aaron said, \"Doth the Lord indeed speak only by Moses, doth He\nnot speak by us also?\" the Lord immediately, Num. xii. 6-8, reproves\ntheir presumption of thinking themselves _like unto Moses_, as\nrespects the prophetical gift, in these words: \"If some one be your\nprophet,\"--_i.e._, if some one be a prophet according to your way,\nwith prophets of your class,--\"I, the Lord, make myself known unto him\nin a vision, in a dream I speak unto him. Not so my servant Moses; in\nall My house he is faithful. Mouth to mouth I speak to him, and face to\nface, and not in dark speeches; and the appearance of the Lord he\nbeholds.\" Moses, as a prophet, is here contrasted with the whole order\nof prophets of ordinary gifts. A higher dignity among them is claimed\nfor him on the ground that not some special mission, [Pg 112] but the\ncare of the whole economy of the Old Testament, was entrusted to him;\ncompare Heb. iii. 5. His is a specially close relation to the Lord, a\nspecially high degree of illumination. The collective body of ordinary\nprophets cannot, therefore, by any possibility be the \"prophet\" who is\n_like unto Moses_, as completely equal to the task of the future as\nMoses was for that of his day. But the greater the work of the future,\nthe more necessary is it that the prophet of the future, in order to be\n_like unto Moses_, should, in his whole individuality, and in all his\ngifts, be far superior to him; compare Heb. iii. 6.\n\n_Finally_,--The common prophetic order itself refuses the honour of\nbeing the prophet like unto Moses. The prophecies of Isaiah, in\nchapters xlii., xlix., l., and lxi., are based upon our passage, and in\nall of them the Messiah appears as the prophet \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd. It is to\nHim that the mission is entrusted of being the restorer of Jacob, and\nthe salvation of the Lord, even unto the end of the world.\n\nWhilst these reasons demand the reference of this prophecy to Christ,\nthere are, on the other hand, weighty considerations which make it\nappear that a reference to the prophetic order of the Old Testament\ncannot be excluded. These considerations are, 1. The wider context.\nDeuteronomy is distinguished from the preceding books by this, that\nprovisions are made in it for the time subsequent to the death of\nMoses, which was now at hand. From chap. xvii. 8, the magistrates and\npowers--the superiors, to whose authority in secular and spiritual\naffairs the people shall submit--are introduced. First, the civil\nmagistrates are brought before them, xvii. 8-20; and then the\necclesiastical superiors, chap. xviii. Vers. 1-8 treat of the priests\nas the ordinary servants of the Lord in spiritual things. Everywhere\nelse, offices, institutions, orders, are spoken of. In such a\nconnection, it is not probable that _the prophet_ should be only an\nindividual; and the less so, because evidently the prophet, as the\norgan of the immediate revelation of God, is placed by the side of the\npriests, the teachers of the law (compare xvii. 10, 11, 18; xxxiv. 10),\nas their corrective, as a thorn in their flesh, to make up for their\ninability. It is true that this wider connection is also against those\nwho would here _exclude_ Christ. If it be certain that Moses already\nknew the Messianic promises (compare the remarks on Gen. xlix.), then,\njust in this context, the reference [Pg 113] to Christ, the head of the\nauthorities of the future, could not be wanting.\n\n2. An exclusive reference to Christ is opposed by the more immediate\ncontext. This connection is twofold. In ver. 15, Moses first utters the\npromise in his own name, and here it stands connected with what\nprecedes. Moses had forbidden to the people the use of all the means by\nwhich those who were given to idolatry endeavoured to penetrate the\nboundaries of human knowledge: \"Thou shalt not do so,\" is his language;\nfor that which these are vainly seeking after in this sinful manner,\nshall, in reality, be granted to thee by thy God. Here, it was not only\nappropriate to remind them of the Messiah, inasmuch as His appearance,\nas being the most perfect revelation of God, satisfies most perfectly\nthe desire after higher communications; but it would have been very\nstrange if here, where so suitable an opportunity presented itself, the\nfounder of the Old Economy had omitted all reference to the founder of\nthe New Economy, and had limited himself to the intervening, more\nimperfect divine communications. But, on the other hand, it would have\nbeen as strange if Moses had taken no notice of them at all,--if,\nsupposing that a series of false prophets would appear, he had been\nsatisfied to lay down in chap. xiii. 2 sqq. the distinctive marks of\ntrue and false prophets, and had then, in the passage under review,\nreferred to the divine revelations to be expected in the distant\nfuture, without noticing those to be expected in the more immediate\nfuture,--thus neglecting to employ means peculiarly fitted for gaining\nadmission for his exhortations. The word \u05e0\u05ea\u05df in ver. 14 is especially\nopposed to such a view. \"And thou (shalt) not (do) so, Jehovah thy God\ngave thee.\" _J. D. Michaelis_ says: \"What He gave to the Israelites is\nspecified in vers. 15 and 18.\" The past tense suggests the idea of a\ngift which had already taken its beginning in the present.--The promise\nstands in a different connection in ver. 18. Moses had already given it\nin his own name in ver. 15. In order to give it greater authority, he\nreports, in the following verses, when and how he had received it from\nGod. It was delivered to him on Sinai, where God had directly revealed\nHimself to the people at the promulgation of the Law, partly in order\nto strengthen their confidence in Moses the mediator, and [Pg 114]\npartly to show them the folly of their desiring any other mode of\ndivine communication. But the people were seized with terror before the\ndreadful majesty of God, and prayed that God would no longer speak to\nthem directly, but through a mediator, as He had hitherto done; compare\nExod. xx.; Deut. v. The Lord then said to Moses, \"They have well\nspoken; a prophet,\" etc. The words here, in ver. 17, agree very well\nwith Deut. v. 28. The agreement in the words indicates that _here_ we\nhave an addition to that which is _there_ communicated regarding what\nwas spoken by God on that occasion. _There_, we are told only what had\nan immediate reference to the present--viz., the appointment of Moses\nas mediator; _here_, we are told what was at that time fixed in\nreference to the future of the people. We cannot fail to perceive that\n_here_, if ever, a divine revelation was appropriate concerning the\ncoming of Christ, who, as the Mediator between God and man, veiled His\nGodhead, and in human form, brought God nearer to man. But we should,\nat the same time, expect here an allusion to the inferior messengers of\nGod, who were to precede Him.\n\n3. The exclusive reference to the Messiah is inconsistent with vers.\n20-22. The marks of a false prophet are given in them. If, however,\nthat which precedes had no reference at all to true prophets, it would\nbe almost impossible to trace any suitable connection of the thoughts.\n\n4. If the passage were referred to Christ exclusively, the prophetic\ninstitution would then be without any legitimate authority; and from\nthe whole character of the Mosaic legislation, as laying the foundation\nfor the future progress and development of the Theocracy, we could not\nwell conceive that so important an institution should be deficient in\nthis point. Moreover, the whole historical existence of the prophetic\norder necessarily presupposes such a foundation. Deut. xiii. 2 sq. was\nnot fitted to afford such a foundation, as it refers, only indirectly\nand by implication, to true prophets.\n\n5. _Finally_,--There are not wanting slight hints in the New Testament\nthat the reference to Christ is not an exclusive one. These are found\nin Luke xi. 50, 51: \u1f3d\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd ... \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 ... \u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. The emphatic repetition of \u1f10\u03ba\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd in that passage shows\nplainly its connection [Pg 115] with the words, \"I will require it of\nhim,\" in the passage under review; just as the \u05d9\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9, which, according\nto 2 Chron. xxiv. 22, the prophet Zechariah, who was unjustly slain,\nuttered when dying, alludes not only to Gen. ix. 5, but to our passage\nalso. But here we must remark that, in consequence of the sin committed\nagainst the Prophet \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd--Christ--vengeance for the crimes\ncommitted against the inferior prophets is executed at the same time,\nso that, in the first instance, _His_ blood is required, and, on this\noccasion, all the blood also which was formerly shed.\n\nBut how can these two facts be reconciled:--that Moses had, undeniably,\nthe Messiah in view, and that, notwithstanding, there seems at the same\ntime to be a reference to the prophets in general? The simplest mode of\nreconciling them is the following. The prophet here is an _ideal_\nperson, comprehending all the true prophets who had appeared from Moses\nto Christ, including the latter. But Moses does not here speak of the\nprophets as a collective body, to which, at the close, Christ also\nbelonged, as it were, incidentally, and as one among the many,--as\n_Calvin_ and other interpreters mentioned above suppose; but rather,\nthe plurality of prophets is, for this reason only, comprehended by\nMoses in an _ideal_ unity, that, on the authority of Gen. xlix. 10, and\nby the illumination of the Holy Spirit, he knew that the prophetical\norder would, at some future time, centre in a real person,--in Christ.\nBut there is so much the more of truth in thus viewing the prophetic\norder as a whole, since, according to 1 Peter i. 11, the Spirit of\nChrist spoke in the prophets. Thus, in a certain sense, Christ is the\nonly Prophet.\n\n\nFootnote 1: _Lampe_ says: He has preserved to us not only what, in\nParadise, and afterwards to and through the Patriarchs, had been told\nabout this Redeemer; but he himself, under divine inspiration, has\nprophesied of Him,--especially in Deut. xviii. 15-18.\n\n\n\n\n THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN THE PENTATEUCH, AND THE BOOK OF JOSHUA.\n\n\nThe New Testament distinguishes between the hidden God and the revealed\nGod--the Son or Logos--who is connected with the former by oneness of\nnature, and who from everlasting, and even at the creation itself,\nfilled up the immeasurable distance between the Creator and the\ncreation;--who has been the Mediator in all God's relations to the\nworld;--who at all times, and even before He became man in Christ, has\nbeen the light of [Pg 116] the world,--and to whom, specially, was\ncommitted the direction of the economy of the Old Covenant.\n\nIt is evident that this doctrine stands in the closest connection with\nthe Christology,--that it forms, indeed, its theological foundation and\nground-work. Until the Christology has attained to a knowledge of the\ntrue divinity of the Saviour, its results cannot be otherwise than very\nmeagre and unsatisfactory. Wheresoever the true state of human nature\nis seen in the light of Holy Scripture, no high expectations can be\nentertained from a merely human Saviour, although he were endowed even\nwith as full a measure of the gifts of the Spirit of God as human\nnature, in its finite and sinful condition, is able to bear. But unless\nthere exist in the one divine Being itself, such a distinction of\npersons, the divinity of the Saviour cannot be acknowledged, without\nendangering the unity of God which the Scriptures so emphatically\nteach. If, however, there be such a distinction,--if the Word be indeed\nwith God, we cannot avoid ascribing to God the desire of revealing\nHimself; nor, in such a case, can we conceive that He should content\nHimself with inferior forms of revelation, with merely transitory\nmanifestations. We can recognise in these only preparations, and\npreludes of the highest and truest revelation.\n\nThe question then is, whether any insight into this doctrine is to be\nfound as early as in the Books of the Old Testament. Sound Christian\nTheology has discovered the outlines of such a distinction betwixt the\nhidden and the revealed God, in many passages of the Old Testament, in\nwhich mention is made of the Angel or Messenger of God. The general\ntenor of these passages will be best exemplified by the first among\nthem,--the narrative of Hagar in Gen. xvi. In ver. 7, we are told that\nthe Angel of Jehovah found Hagar. In ver. 10, this Angel ascribes to\nHimself a divine work, viz., the innumerable increase of Hagar's\nposterity. In ver. 11, He says that Jehovah had heard her distress. He\nthus asserts of Jehovah what, shortly before. He had said of Himself.\nMoreover, in ver. 13, Hagar expresses her astonishment that she had\nseen God, and yet had remained alive.--The opinion that these passages\nform the Old Testament foundation for the Proemium of St John's\nGospel, has not remained uncontroverted. From the very times of the\nChurch-fathers it has been asserted by many, that where the [Pg 117]\nAngel of the Lord is spoken of, we must not think of a person connected\nwith God by unity of nature, but of a lower angel, by whom God executes\nHis commands, and through whom He acts and speaks. The latest defenders\nof the view are _Hofmann_ in \"_Weissagung und Erf\u00fcllung_\" and in the\n\"_Schriftbeweis_\" and _Delitzsch_ in his commentary on Genesis.--Others\nare of opinion, that the Angel of Jehovah is identical with Jehovah\nHimself,--not denoting a person distinct from Him, but only the form in\nwhich He manifests Himself. We shall not here discuss the question in\nits whole extent; we shall, in the meantime, consider only what the\nprincipal passages of the Pentateuch and of the adjacent Book of Joshua\nteach upon this point, and how far their teaching coincides with, or is\nin opposition to, these various views. For it is only to this extent\nthat the inquiry belongs to our present object.\n\nIn Gen. xvi. 13, these words are of special importance: \"_And she\ncalled the name of the Lord who spoke unto her, Thou art a God of\nsight: for she said, Do I now_ (properly _here_, in the place where\nsuch a sight was vouchsafed to me) _still see after my seeing?_\" \"Do I\nsee\" is equivalent to, \"Do I live,\" because death threatened, as it\nwere, to enter through the eyes. (Compare the expression, \"Mine eyes\nhave seen,\" in Is. vi.) \u05e8\u05b9\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9 is the pausal form for \u05e8\u05b3\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9; see Job\nxxxiii. 21, where, however, the accent is on the penultimate. Then\nfollows ver. 14: _They called the well_, \"_Well of the living sight_;\"\n_i.e._, where a person had a sight of God, and remained alive.\n\nHagar must have been convinced that she had seen God without the\nmediation of a created angel; for, otherwise, she could not have\nwondered that her life was preserved. Man, entangled by the visible\nworld, is terrified when he comes in contact with the invisible world,\neven with angels. (Compare Dan. viii. 17, 18; Luke ii. 9.) But this\nterror rises to fear of death only when man comes into contact with the\nLord Himself. (Compare the remarks on Rev. i. 17.) In Gen. xxxii. 31--a\npassage which bears the closest resemblance to the one now under\nreview, and from which it receives its explanation--it is said: \"And\nJacob called the name of the place _Peniel_, for I have seen God face\nto face, and my life has been preserved.\" In Exod. xx. 19, the children\nof Israel said to Moses, \"Speak thou with us, and we will hear; and let\nnot God speak with us, [Pg 118] lest we die;\" compared with Deut. v.\n21: \"Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume\nus; if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall\ndie.\" (Compare also Deut. xviii. 16.) And it is Jehovah who, in Exod.\nxxxiii. 20, says, \"There shall no man see Me and live.\" Israel's Lord\nand God is, in the absolute energy of His nature, a \"consuming fire,\"\nDeut. iv. 24. (Compare Deut. ix. 3; Is. xxxiii. 14: \"Who among us would\ndwell with the devouring fire? who among us would dwell with\neverlasting burning?\" Heb. xii. 29.) It is not the reflected light,\neven in the most exalted creatures, nor the sight of the saints of whom\nit is said, \"Behold, He puts no trust in His servants, and His angels\nHe chargeth with folly,\"--but the sight of the thrice Holy One, which\nmakes Isaiah exclaim, \"Woe is me, for I am undone; for I am a man of\nunclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.\"\n\nSo much then is clear,--that the opinion which considers the Angel of\nthe Lord to be a created angel is overthrown by the first passage where\nthat angel is mentioned, if the exposition which we have given of vers.\n13, 14--an exposition which is now generally received, and which was\nlast advanced by _Knobel_--be correct. But _Delitzsch_ gives another\nexposition: \"Thou art a God of sight, _i.e._, one whose all-seeing eye\ndoes not overlook the helpless and destitute, even in the remotest\ncorner of the wilderness.\" Against this we remark, that \u05e8\u05d0\u05d9 never\ndenotes the act of seeing, but the sight itself. \"Have I not even here\n(even in the desert land of destitution) looked after Him who saw me?\"\n\"Well of the living one who seeth me,\" _i.e._, of the omnipresent\ndivine providence. In opposition to this exposition, however, we must\nremark, that God is nowhere else in Genesis called the Living One. But\nour chief objection is, that these expositions destroy the connection\nwhich so evidently exists between our passage and those already\nquoted,--especially Gen. xxxii. 31; Exod. xxxiii. 20. (Compare,\nmoreover, Jud. xiii. 22: \"And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall\nsurely die, because we have seen God.\")\n\nIt has been asked. Why should the Logos have appeared first to the\nEgyptian maid? But the low condition of Hagar cannot here come into\nconsideration; for the appearance is in reality intended, not for her,\nbut for Abraham. Immediately [Pg 119] before, in chap. xii. 7, it is\nsaid, \"And the Lord appeared unto Abraham;\" and immediately after, in\nchap. xvii. 1, \"And when Abraham was ninety years old and nine, the\nLord appeared to him;\" the appearance of the Lord Himself is mentioned\nin order that every thought of a lower angel may be warded off. The\npassage under consideration, then, contains the indication, that such\nappearances must only be conceived of as manifestations of the Deity\nHimself to the world. Just as our passage is preserved from erroneous\ninterpretations by such passages as Gen. xii. 7, xvii. 1, so these\nreceive from ours, in return, their most distinct definition. We learn\nfrom this, that wherever appearances of Jehovah are mentioned, we must\nconceive of them as effected by the mediation of His Angel. There is no\nsubstantial difference betwixt the passages in which Jehovah Himself is\nmentioned, and those in which the Angel of Jehovah is spoken of. They\nserve to supplement and to explain one another. The words, \"In His\nAngel,\" in chap. xvi. 7, furnish us with the supplement to the\nsucceeding statement, \"And _Jehovah_ appeared to him\" (so, _e.g._, also\nin chap. xviii. 1), just as the writer in Gen. chap. ii. iii. makes use\nof the name Jehovah-Elohim, in order that henceforth every one may\nunderstand that where only Jehovah is spoken of. He is yet personally\nidentical with Elohim.\n\nLet us now turn to Gen. xviii. xix. According to _Delitzsch_. all the\nthree men who appeared to Abraham were \"finite spirits made visible.\"\n_Hofmann_ (_Schriftb._ S. 87) says: \"Jehovah is present on earth in His\nangels, in the two with Lot, as in the three with Abraham.\" We,\nhowever, hold fast by the view of the ancient Church, that in chap.\nxviii. the Logos appeared accompanied by two inferior angels.\nAbraham's regards are, from the very first, involuntarily directed to\none from among the three, and whom he addresses by \u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9, O Lord\n(xviii. 3); the two others are considered by him as companions only.\nBut Lot has to do with both equally, and addresses them first by \u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9,\nmy Lords.--In chap. xviii., it is always one only of the three who\nspeaks; the two others are mute;[1] while in chap. xix. everything\ncomes from the two [Pg 120] equally. He with whom Abraham has to do,\nalways, and without exception, speaks as God Himself; while the two\nwith whom Lot has to do speak at first, as \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1,\ndistinguishing themselves from the Lord who sent them (compare ver.\n13); and it is only after they have thus drawn the line of separation\nbetween themselves and Jehovah, that they appear, in vers. 21, 22, as\nspeaking in His name. They do so, moreover, only after Lot, in the\nanxiety of his heart and in his excitement, had previously addressed,\nin them, Him who sent them, and with whom he desired to have to do as\nimmediately as possible. The scene bears, throughout, a character of\nexcitement, and is not fitted to afford data for general conclusions.\nWe cannot infer from it that it was, in general, customary to address,\nin the angels, the Lord who sent them, or that the angels acted in the\nname of the Lord. In chap. xviii., from ver. 1, where the narrative\nbegins with the words, \"And Jehovah appeared unto him,\" Moses always\nspeaks of him with whom Abraham had to do as Jehovah only, excepting\nwhere he introduces the three men. (He with whom Abraham has to do is\ncalled, not fewer than eight times, Jehovah, and six times \u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9.) But\nin chap. xix., Jehovah, who is concealed behind the two angels, appears\nonly twice in the expression, \"And He said,\" in vers. 17, 21, for which\nver. 13 suggests the supplement: \"through His two angels.\"--Even in\nver. 16, the narrative distinguishes Jehovah from the two men,--and all\nthis in an exciting scene which must have influenced even the narrator.\nIf he who spoke to Abraham was an angel like the other two, we could\nscarcely perceive any reason why he should not have taken part in the\nmission to Sodom; but if he was the Angel of the Lord \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, the\nreason is quite obvious; it would have been inconsistent with divine\npropriety.--In chap. xviii. Moses speaks of three men; it is evidently\non [Pg 121] purpose that he avoids speaking of three angels. In chap.\nxix. 1, on the contrary, we are at once told: \"And there came the two\nangels.\" (Compare ver. 15.) The reason why in chap. xviii. the use of\nthe name _angels_ is avoided can only be, because it might easily have\nled to a misunderstanding, if the Angel of the Lord had been\ncomprehended in that one designation along with the two inferior\nangels, although it would not, in itself, have been inadmissible.--If\nwe suppose that he, with whom Abraham had to do, was some created\nangel, we cannot well understand how, in chap. xviii. 17 seq., the\njudgment over Sodom could, throughout, be ascribed to him. _He_ could\nnot, in the name of the Lord, speak of that judgment, as not he, but\nthe two other angels who went to Sodom, were the instruments of its\nexecution. Hence it only remains to ascribe the judgment to him as the\n_causa principalis_.--If the three angels were equals, it would be\nimpossible to explain the adversative clause in chap. xviii. 22: \"And\nthe men turned from thence and went to Sodom; _but Abraham stood yet\nbefore the Lord._\" Jehovah and the two angels are here contrasted. It\nis true that, in the two angels also, it is Jehovah who acts. This is\nevident from xviii. 21: \"I will go down and see\"--where the going down\ndoes not refer to descending to the valley of Jordan, the position of\nwhich was lower (thus _Delitzsch_); but, according to xi. 7, it refers\nto a descent from heaven to earth. That Jehovah, though on earth,\nshould declare His resolution to go down, as in xi. 7, may be explained\nfrom the \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 in John iii. 13. God, even when He is on\nearth, remains in heaven, and it is thence that He manifests Himself.\nMoreover, the words immediately following show in what sense this going\ndown is to be understood,--that it is not in His own person, but\nthrough the medium of His messengers. The resolution, \"I will go down,\"\nis carried into effect by the going down of the angels to Sodom.\n\nBy the Jehovah who, from Jehovah out of heaven, caused brimstone and\nfire to rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah (xix. 24), we are not at liberty\nto understand the two angels only,[2] but, [Pg 122] agreeably to the\nviews of sound Christian expositors generally, Christ,--with this\nmodification, however, that the two angels are to be considered as His\nservants, and that what they do is His work also. It is true that the\nangels say, in xix. 13, \"We will destroy,\" etc.; but much more\nemphatically and frequently does he with whom Abraham has to do,\nascribe the work of destruction to himself. (Compare xviii. 17, where\nJehovah says, \"How can I hide from Abraham that thing which I am\ndoing?\" vers. 24-28, etc.) If in xix. 24 there be involved the contrast\nbetween, so to speak, the heavenly and earthly Jehovah,--between the\nhidden God and Him who manifests Himself on earth,--then so much the\nmore must we seek the latter in chap. xviii., as in ver. 22, compared\nwith ver. 21, the angels are distinctly pointed out as His Messengers.\n\n_Delitzsch_ asserts that in Heb. xiii. 2, the words, \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, clearly indicate that \"all three were finite\nspirits made visible.\" This assertion, however, which was long before\nmade by the Socinian _Crellius_, has been sufficiently refuted by _Ode\nde Angelis_, p. 1001. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews intends\nto connect the events which happened to Abraham and Lot equally--\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2;\nand for this reason he did not go beyond what was common to them both.\nMoreover, the Angel of the Lord is likewise comprehended in the\nappellation \"_angels_,\" for the name has no reference to the nature,\nbut to the mission.\n\n\nFootnote 1: The words in ver. 9, \"And they said to him,\" are to be\nunderstood only thus:--that one spoke at the same time in the name of\nthe others; in the question thus put, it is, in the first instance,\nonly the general relation of the guests to the hostess that comes into\nconsideration. That such is the case, appears from ver. 10, where the\nuse of the plural could not be continued, because a work was on hand\nwhich was peculiar to the one among them, and in which the others were\nnot equally concerned. If the words in ver. 9 were spoken by all the\nthree, then the one in ver. 10 ought to have been singled out thus:\n\"And one from among them thus spoke.\" On account of the suffix in\n\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5, \"And the door was behind _him_,\" the \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 in ver. 10 can be\nreferred only to the one, and not to the Jehovah concealed behind all\nthe three. This shows how the preceding, \"And they said,\" is to be\nunderstood.\n\n\nFootnote 2: _Delitzsch_ says: \"As the two are really sent to destroy\nSodom and Gomorrah, it is evident that Jehovah, in ver. 24, who causes\nbrimstone and fire to rain from Jehovah out of heaven, is viewed as\nbeing present in the two on earth, but in such a manner that,\nnevertheless, His real judicial throne is in heaven.\"\n\n\n * * * * *\n\nOf no less importance and significance is the passage Gen. xxxi. 11\nseq. According to ver. 11, the Angel of God, \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd, appears to\nJacob in a dream. In ver. 13, the same person calls himself the God of\nBethel, with reference to the event recorded in chap. xxviii. 11-22. It\ncannot be supposed that in chap xxviii. the mediation of a common angel\ntook place, who, however, had not been expressly mentioned; for Jehovah\nis there contrasted with the angels. In ver. 12, we read: \"And behold\nthe angels of God ascending and descending on it.\" In ver. 13, there is\nanother sight: \"And behold Jehovah stood by him and said, I am Jehovah,\nthe God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac; the land whereon\nthou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed.\"\n\n[Pg 123]\n\nThis passage is also in so far of importance, because, agreeably to\nwhat has been remarked in p. 119, it follows from it that even there,\nwhere Jehovah simply is mentioned, the mediation through His Angel is\nto be assumed.\n\n * * * * *\n\nHe with whom Jacob wrestles, in Gen. xxxii. 24, makes himself known as\nGod, partly by giving him the name Israel, _i.e._, one who wrestles\nwith God, and partly by bestowing a blessing upon him. Jacob calls the\nplace _Peniel_, _i.e._, face of God, because he had seen God face to\nface, and wonders that his life was preserved. The answer which Elohim\ngives here to Jacob's question regarding His name, remarkably coincides\nwith that which in Judges xiii. 17, 18, is given by _the_ Angel of the\nLord to a similar question. In Hosea xii. 4 (comp. the remarks on this\npassage in the Author's \"_Genuineness of the Pentateuch_,\" vol. i. p.\n128 ff.), he who wrestled with Jacob is called Elohim, as in Genesis;\nbut in ver. 5, he is called \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da, a word which is more distinctly\ndefined by the preceding Elohim; so that we can, accordingly, think\nonly of the Angel of God. As it was certainly not the intention of the\nprophet to state a new historical circumstance, the mention of the\nAngel must be founded upon the supposition, that all revelations of God\nare made by the mediation of His Angel,--a supposition which we have\nalready proved to have its foundation in the book of Genesis itself.\n\n_Delitzsch_ says, S. 256, \"Jehovah reveals Himself in the \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da, but\njust by means of a finite spirit becoming visible, and therefore in a\nmanner more tolerable to him who occupies a lower place of communion\nwith God.\" And similarly, _Hofmann_ expresses himself, S. 335: \"It is\nquite the same thing whether it be said, he saw God, or an angel, as is\ntestified by Hosea also; and nowhere have we less right to explain it\nas if it were an appearance of God the Son, in contrast with the\nappearance of an angel.\"\n\nBut since it is an essentially different matter, whether Jacob wrestled\nwith God Himself, or, in the first instance, with an ordinary angel\nmerely, we have, as regards this opinion, only the choice between\naccusing the prophet Hosea, who brought in the angel, of an\nEuhemerismus, or of raising against sacred history the charge that it\ncannot be relied on, because it omitted so important [Pg 124] a\ncircumstance. The name Israel, by which, \"at the same time, the\ninnermost nature of the Covenant-people was fixed, and the divine law\nof their history was established\" (_Delitzsch_), is, in that case, a\nfalsehood. Jacob has overcome omnipotence, and, in this one adversary,\nall others who might oppose him,--as he is expressly assured in ver.\n29: \"Thou hast wrestled with God and _with men_, and hast prevailed.\"\nCan God invest a creature with omnipotence? Jacob would certainly not\nhave gone so cheerfully to meet Esau, if in Him over whom he prevailed\nwith weeping and supplication, he himself had recognised only an angel,\nand not Jehovah the God of hosts, as Hosea, in ver. 6, calls the very\nsame, of whom in ver. 5 he had spoken as the angel. The consolatory\nimport of the event for the Church of all times is destroyed, if Jacob\nhad to do with a created angel only. With such an one, Jacob had not to\nreckon on account of his sinfulness, and it is just the humiliating\nconsciousness of this his sinfulness which forms the point at issue in\nhis wrestling. Moreover, with such a view, the New Testament Antitype\nwould be altogether lost. Jesus, the true Israel, does not wrestle with\nan angel,--such an one only appears to strengthen Him in His struggle,\nLuke xxii. 43--but with God, Heb. v. 7.--The occurrence would,\naccording to this opinion, furnish a strong argument for the worship of\nangels: \"He wept and made _supplication_ unto him,\" Hos. xii. 5\n(compare Deut. iii. 23). The \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, mentioned\nin Col. iv. 12, in allusion to our passage, would, in that case,\nbesides God, have the angels for its object.\n\nIf an ordinary angel were here to be understood, we must likewise\nbelieve that an angel is spoken of in Gen. xxxv. 9 seq. For, of the\nsame angel with whom Jacob wrestled, Hosea says that Jacob found him in\nBethel: \"And he wrestled with the Angel and prevailed, he wept and made\nsupplication unto him; he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with\nus.\" (_Tarnov_: \"_Nobiscum qui in lumbis Jacobi h\u00e6rebamus._\") Then, it\nmust have been a common angel, too, who appeared to Jacob in Gen.\nxxviii. 10 ff.; for chap. xxxv. 9, compared with ver. 7, does not allow\nus to doubt of the identity of him who appeared on these two occasions.\nBut such an idea cannot be entertained for a moment; for in chap.\nxxviii. 13, Jehovah is contrasted with the angels ascending and\ndescending on the ladder.\n\n[Pg 125]\n\nIn Gen. xlviii. 15, 16, we read of Jacob: \"_And he blessed Joseph, and\nsaid, The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, and\nthe God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which\nredeemed me from all evil, bless the lads._\"\n\nIn this passage, God first appears, twice in the indefiniteness of His\nnature, and then, specially, as the Angel concerned for Jacob and his\nposterity.\n\nBy the Angel, we cannot here understand a divine emanation and\nmessenger, because no permanent character belongs to such; while here\nthe whole sum of the preservations of Jacob, and of the blessings upon\nEphraim and Manasseh, is derived from the Angel. And just as little can\nwe thereby understand a created angel, according to the view of\n_Hofmann_, who, in S. 87, says: \"Jacob here makes mention of God, not\nthrice, but twice only; first as the God of his fathers, and then as\nthe God of his own experience, but in such a way that in ver. 16 he\nnames, instead of God, the Angel who watched over him; and he does so\nfor the purpose of denoting the special providence of which he had been\nthe object.\"\n\nThe analogy of the threefold blessing of Aaron in Num. vi. 24-26 would\nlead us to expect that the name of God should be three times mentioned.\nNo created angel could in this manner be placed by the side of God, or\nbe introduced as being independent of, and co-ordinate with, Him. Such\nan angel can only be meant as is connected with God by oneness of\nnature, and whose activity is implied in that of God. The singular \u05d9\u05d1\u05e8\u05da\nis here of very special significance. It indicates that the Angel is\njoined to God by an inseparable oneness, and that his territory is just\nas wide as that of Elohim.[1] If by the angel we understand some\ncreated one, we cannot then avoid the startling inference, that God is,\nin all His manifestations, bound [Pg 126] absolutely to the mediation\nof the lower angels. In the history upon which Jacob looks back, the\ninferior angels do not appear at all as taking any part in all the\npreservations of Jacob. Twice only are they mentioned in his whole\nhistory,--in chap. xxviii. 12, and xxxii. 2. _Lastly_,--The angel\ncannot well be a collective noun; for we nowhere meet with the _ideal_\nperson of the angel, as comprehending within himself a real plurality.\n(Compare remarks on Ps. xxxiv. 8.) We should therefore be compelled to\nthink of Jacob's protecting angel. But this, again, would be in\nopposition to the fact, that Scripture nowhere says anything of the\nguardian angels of any individual. Moreover, it is a plurality of\nangels that in xxviii. 12, xxxii. 2, serves for the protection of\nJacob, and we nowhere find the slightest trace of one inferior angel\nbeing attached to Jacob for his protection.\n\n\nFootnote 1: This significance of the singular was pointed out as early\nas in the third century by _Novatianus_, who, _de Trinitate_ c. xv. (p.\n1016 in _Ode_), says: \"So constant is he in mentioning that Angel whom\nhe had called God, that even at the close of his speech he again\nrefers, in an emphatic manner, to the same person, by saying, 'God\nbless these lads.' For had he intended that some other angel should be\nunderstood, he would have used the plural number in order to comprehend\nthe two persons. But since, in his blessing, he made use of the\nsingular, he would have us to understand that God and the Angel are\nquite identical.\"\n\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn Exod. xxiii. 20, 21, Jehovah says to the children of Israel:\n\"_Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to\nbring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and\nobey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your\ntransgressions: for My name is in him._\"\n\nAs the people are here told to beware of the Angel, because he will not\npardon their transgressions, so Joshua xxiv. 19 warns them as regards\nthe most high God: \"Ye will not be able to serve Jehovah: for He is a\nholy (_i.e._, a glorious, exalted) God; He is a jealous God; He will\nnot forgive your transgressions nor your sins.\" The energetic character\nof the reaction proceeding from the angel against all violations of His\nhonour, is founded upon the words, \"For My name is in him.\" By the\n\"name of God\" all His deeds are understood and comprehended, His glory\ntestified by history, the display and testimony of His nature which\nhistory gives. (Compare the remarks in my commentary on Ps. xxiii. 2,\nxlviii. 11, lxxxiii. 17-19, lxxxvi. 11.) \"My name is him;\" _i.e._,\naccording to Calvin, \"My glory and majesty dwell in him.\" Compare here\nwhat in the New Testament is said of Christ: \u1f03 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc7\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6, John v. 19; \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, John v. 23; \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f15\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, John x.\n30; \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03ba\u1f80\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7, [Pg 127]\nJohn x. 38; \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9,\nJohn xiv. 10; \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u1f80\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03af, John xvii. 21; \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2, Col. ii. 9.--It is\nimpossible that the name of God could be communicated to any other, Is.\nxlii. 8. The name of God can dwell in Him only, who is originally of\nthe same nature with God.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAfter Israel had contracted guilt by the worship of the golden calf. He\nwho had hitherto led them--Jehovah = the Angel of Jehovah--says, in\nExod. xxxii. 34, that He would no more lead them Himself, but send\nbefore them His Angel, \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d9: \"_For I_ (myself) _will not go up in the\nmidst of thee, for thou art a stiff-necked people, lest I consume thee\nin the way_;\" xxxiii. 3, compared with xxiii. 21. The people are quite\ninconsolable on account of this sad intelligence, ver. 4.\n\nThe threatening of the Lord becomes unintelligible, and the grief of\nthe people incomprehensible, if by the Angel in chap. xxiii. an\nordinary angel be understood. But everything becomes clear and\nintelligible, if we admit that in chap. xxiii. there is an allusion to\nthe Angel of the Lord \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, who is connected with Him by oneness\nof nature, and who, because the name of God is in Him, is as zealous as\nHimself in inflicting punishment as well as in bestowing salvation;\nwhilst in chap. xxxii. 34, the allusion is to an inferior angel, who is\nadded to the highest revealer of God as His companion and messenger,\nand who appears in the Book of Daniel under the name of Gabriel, while\nthe Angel of the Lord appears under the name of Michael.\n\nOn account of the sincere repentance of the people, and the\nintercession of Moses, the Lord revokes the threatening, and says in\nxxxiii. 14, \"My face shall go.\" But Moses said unto Him, \"If Thy face\ngo not, carry us not up hence.\"\n\nThat \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, _face_, signifies here the _person_, is granted by\n_Gesenius_: \"The face of some one means often his personal\npresence,--himself in his own person.\" A similar use of the word occurs\nin 2 Sam. xvii. 11: \"Thy face go to battle\" (_Michaelis_: \"Thou thyself\nbe present, not some commander only\"); and in Deut. iv. 37, where \u05d1\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\nmeans _in_, or _with_, _his personal presence_: \"He [Pg 128] brought\nthem out with His face, with His mighty power out of Egypt.\"\n\nThe state of things has in xxxiii. 14, 15, evidently become again what\nit was in xxiii. 20, 21. The face of the Lord in the former passage, is\nthe Angel of the Lord in the latter. Hence, we cannot here admit the\nidea of some inferior angel; we can think only of that Angel who is\nconnected with the Lord by oneness of nature.\n\nThe connection between the face of the Lord in xxxiii. 14, 15, and the\nAngel in whom is the name of the Lord, in xxiii., becomes still more\nevident by Is. lxiii. 8, 9: \"And He (Jehovah) became their Saviour. In\nall their affliction (they were) not afflicted, and the Angel of His\nface saved them; in His love and in His pity He redeemed them, and He\nbore and carried them all the days of old.\" The Angel of the face, in\nthis text, is an expression which, by its very darkness, points back to\nsome fundamental passage--a passage, too, in the Pentateuch--as facts\nare alluded to, of which the authentic report is given in that book.\nThe expression, \"Angel of the face,\" arose from a combination of Exod.\nxxiii. 20--from which the \"Angel\" is taken--and Exod. xxxiii. 14,\nwhence he took the \"face.\" To explain \"Angel of the face\" by \"the angel\nwho sees His face,\" as several have done, would give an inadequate\nmeaning; for by the whole context, an expression is demanded which\nwould elevate the angel to the height of God. Now, as in Exod. xxxiii.\n14, \"the face of Jehovah\" is tantamount to \"Jehovah in His own person,\"\nthe Angel of the face can be none other than He in whom Jehovah\nappeal's personally, in contrast with inferior created angels. The\nAngel of the face is the Angel in whom is the name of the Lord.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWhen Joshua was standing with the army before Jericho, in a state of\ndespondency at the sight of the strongly fortified city, a man appeared\nto him, with his sword drawn; and when he was asked by Joshua, \"Art\nthou for us or for our adversaries?\" he answers, in chap. v. 14, \"Nay,\nfor I am the Captain of the host of Jehovah, \u05e9\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4, now I have\ncome.\" This Captain claims for himself divine honour, in ver. 15,\nprecisely in the same manner as the Angel of Jehovah in Exod. iii., by\ncommanding [Pg 129] Joshua to put off his shoes, because the place on\nwhich he stood was holy. In chap. vi. 2 he is called Jehovah. For it\nis evident that we are not to think of another divine revelation\nthere given to Joshua in any other way--as some interpreters suppose;\nbecause, in that case, the appearance of the Captain, who only now\ngives command to Joshua, would have been without an object. In chap. v.\nthe directions would be wanting; in chap. vi. we should have no report\nof the appearance.\n\nThere can be no doubt that, by the host of the Lord, the heavenly host\nis to be understood; and _Hofmann_ (S. 291) has not done well in\nreviving the opinion of some older expositors (_Calvin_, _Masius_)\nwhich has been long ago refuted, viz., that the host of the Lord is\n\"Israel standing at the beginning of his warfare,\" and in asserting\nthat the prince of this host is some inferior angel. The Israelites\ncannot be the host of the Lord, that explanation is excluded by the\ncomparison with the host of the Lord mentioned at the very threshold of\nrevelation, in Gen. ii. 1; that which is commonly (Gen. xxxii. 2; 1\nKings xxii. 19; Neh. ix. 6; Ps. ciii. 21, cxlviii. 2, compared with 2\nKings vi. 27) so called, infinitely surpasses the earthly one in glory,\nand of it the Lord has the name Jehovah Zebaoth. It is only in two\nisolated passages of the Pentateuch that the appellation which properly\nbelongs to the heavenly hosts of God is transferred to the earthly\nones; and that is done in order to point out their correspondence, and\nthereby to elevate the mind. In the first of these passages, Exod. vii.\n4, the \"host of the Lord\" is not spoken of absolutely, but it is\nexpressly said what host is intended: \"And I bring forth My host. My\npeople, the children of Israel.\" The second passage, in Exod. xii. 41,\nis similarly qualified, and refers to the first. According to this view\nof _Hofmann_, the words, \"now I have come,\" are quite inexplicable.[1]\nThe Captain of the host of the Lord expresses Himself in such a manner\nas if, by His coming, everything were accomplished. But if he was only\nthe commander of Israel--an inferior [Pg 130] angel--his coming was no\nguarantee for success, for his limited power might be checked by a\nhigher one. But if the Captain of the host of Jehovah be the Prince of\nangels, we cannot by any means refer the divine honour which He demands\nand receives, to Him who sent Him, in contrast with Him who is sent;\nthe higher the dignity, the more necessary is the limitation. If the\nhonour be ascribed to Him, He must be a partaker of a divine nature.\n\nJesus not at all indistinctly designates Himself as the Captain of the\nLord's host spoken of in our passage, in Matt. xxvi. 53: \u1f2a \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9\n\u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u1f22 \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd; This passage alone would be sufficient to\nrefute the view which conceives of the Angel of the Lord as a mere\nemanation and messenger. It also overthrows the opinion that he is an\ninferior angel, inasmuch as the Angel of the Lord here appears as\nraised above all inferior angels.\n\nThus there existed, even in the time of Moses, the most important\nfoundation for the doctrine concerning Christ. He who knows the general\nrelation which the Pentateuch bears to the later development of\ndoctrine, will, _a priori_, think it impossible that it should have\nbeen otherwise; and, instead of neglecting these small beginnings,\nappearing, as it were, in the shape of germs, he will cultivate them\nwith love and care.\n\nIt is only at a late period, in Malachi iii. 1, that the doctrine of\nthe Angel of the Lord is expressly brought into connection with that of\nChrist. But a knowledge of the divine nature of the Messiah is found at\na much earlier period; and we can certainly not suppose that the\ndoctrine of the Angel of the Lord, and that of a truly divine Saviour,\nshould have existed by the side of each other, and yet that manifold\nforebodings regarding their close obvious connection should not have\nbeen awakened in the mind.\n\n\nFootnote 1: _Seb. Schmid_ says: \"I have now come with my heavenly host\nto attack the Canaanites, and to help thee and thy people. Be thou of\ngood cheer; prepare thyself for war along with me, and I will now\nexplain to thee in what manner thou must carry it on;\" vi. 2 ff.\n\n\n\n\n THE PROMISE IN 2 SAMUEL, CHAP. VII.\n\n\nThe Messianic prophecy, as we have seen, began at a time long anterior\nto that of David. Even in Genesis, we perceived [Pg 131] it, increasing\nmore and more in distinctness. There is at first only the general\npromise that the seed of the woman should obtain the victory over the\nkingdom of the evil one;--then, that the salvation should come through\nthe descendants of Shem;--then, from among them Abraham is marked\nout,--of his sons, Isaac,--from among his sons, Jacob,--and from among\nthe twelve sons of Jacob, Judah is singled out as the bearer of\ndominion, and marked out as the person from whom, at length, should\nproceed the glorious King whose peaceful dominion is destined to extend\nover all the nations of the earth.\n\nWhilst, hitherto, the tribe only had been pointed out, in the midst of\nwhich an imperishable dominion should be established, and out of which\nthe Saviour was at last to come,--under David another feature was added\nby the determination of the _family_. This was done in the prophetic\nannouncement which the Lord, by the prophet Nathan, addressed in 2 Sam.\nvii. to David, when he had adopted the resolution of building to the\nLord a fixed temple, instead of the moveable tabernacle which had\nhitherto been used.\n\nVer. 1. \"_And it happened when the king sat in his house, and the\nLord had given him rest from all his enemies round about._ Ver. 2.\n_And the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See, now, I dwell in a\nhouse of cedar, and the ark of God dwelleth within curtains._\"\nThe question here is:--To what time is the occurrence to be assigned?\nThe answer is:--To the time not long after David had obtained the\ndominion over all Israel. To this opinion we are led by the position\nwhich the report occupies in the Books both of Chronicles and of\nSamuel. The supposition is so very probable, that nothing short of very\ncogent reasons could induce us to abandon it. A narrative, in which\nDavid's accession to the throne is followed by the conquest of\nJerusalem, and this by the building of his palace,--and this again by\nthe bringing up of the ark of the covenant,--and this, still further,\nby David's anxiety for a fixed sanctuary, evidently agrees with the\norder in which these events followed each other. We can the less\nentertain any doubt concerning it, because we are expressly told, that\nthe wars and victories of David reported in chap. viii. were subsequent\nto what is reported in chap. vii.; compare viii. 1. That the conquest\nof Jerusalem and the [Pg 132] building of his palace belong to the\nperiod soon after his accession to the throne, is both evident, and\ngenerally acknowledged; but that David's anxiety for a fixed sanctuary\nwas awakened in him soon after the completion of his palace, is\nexpressly stated in 1 Chron. xvii. 1. Instead of \u05db\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d1 in ver. 1 of\nour passage, we find there \u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d1, \"when,\" or \"as soon as\" he dwelt.\nWe cannot well think of any later period, as David's zeal for the\nbuilding of the house of the Lord was closely connected with the\nquestion regarding the duration of his own family, which was so readily\nsuggested by the fate of Saul, and which must necessarily have engaged\nhis attention at a very early period. If he obtained the divine\nsanction for the building of the temple, that question also was thereby\nanswered. _Further_,--It appears from ver. 12, that Solomon was not yet\nborn at the time when David received the promise. The circumstance,\ntoo, that there are so many allusions to it in the Psalms of David,\nproves that this promise had been already given to him at the beginning\nof his reign.--One circumstance only has been adduced against assigning\nto it so early a period, viz., that the event is here placed within the\ntime when the Lord had given David rest from all his enemies round\nabout. But there is not one word which affirms that this rest was a\ndefinitive one; while, on the other hand, the contrary is alluded to by\nthe circumstance that the Books of Chronicles make no mention at all of\nDavid's rest from his enemies, and is distinctly indicated by viii. 1.\nIn 1 Chron. xiv. 17 it is said, after the account of David's victory\nover the Philistines (on which event the Books of Samuel report\nprevious to chap. vii., viz. in v. 17-25): \"And the name of David went\nout into all lands, and the Lord gave his fear upon all the heathen.\"\nThis previous result was so much the more important, as the Philistines\nhad been, for a long time, the most dangerous enemies of Israel, and\nDavid himself may have considered it as a definitive one,--may have\nimagined this truce to be a peace,--may not have been aware that he had\nyet to bear the burden of the most trying wars. Looking, then, to the\npassage in Deut. xii. 10, 11--in which the choice of a place where the\nLord will cause His name to dwell, is connected with the giving of rest\nfrom all enemies round about--he might think that the present\ncircumstance formed a call upon him to erect a sanctuary to [Pg 133]\nthe Lord.[1] But the issue (compare viii. 1) soon made it manifest to\nhim, that the supposition on which he proceeded was an erroneous one.\nWe have a tacit correction of David's mistake in 1 Kings v. 17, 18:\n\"Thou knowest how that David my father could not build an house unto\nthe name of the Lord his God, for the wars with which they surrounded\nhim, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet. And now the\nLord my God hath given me rest on every side, and there is neither\nadversary nor evil occurrence.\" It was only under Solomon that the\nperiod provided for by Deut. xii. really arrived. (Compare 1 Chron.\nxxii. 19.)\n\nVer. 3. \"_And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine\nheart, for the Lord is with thee._ Ver. 4. _And it came to pass that\nnight that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan, saying:_ Ver. 5. _Go\nand tell My servant David, Thus saith the Lord, Shalt thou build Me a\nhouse to dwell in?_\"\n\nIn ver. 5 the question is stated, the answer to which is the point at\nissue. In ver. 6, the exposition begins with \u05db\u05d9, which refers to the\nwhole of it, and not merely to the clause which immediately follows.\nHitherto, the Lord has not had a fixed temple (ver. 6), nor has any\nsuch been wished for or desired by Him (ver. 7). By the grace of God,\nDavid has been raised to be ruler over the people (ver. 8), and the\nLord has helped him gloriously (ver. 9), and, through him, His people\n(ver. 10). This mercy the Lord had already bestowed upon him, that,\nsince the beginning of the period of the Judges, it was through him,\nfirst of all, that the people had obtained rest from all their enemies\nround about; but to this favour the Lord is now adding another, by\nannouncing to him that He would make him an house (ver. 11). When David\ndies, his seed shall occupy the throne, and be established in the\nkingdom (ver. 12). It is he who shall build an house for the Lord who\nwill establish for ever the throne of his kingdom, vers. 13-16.\n\nDavid's zeal for the house of the Lord is thus acknowledged (compare\nPs. cxxxii. 1), and so also is the correctness of his supposition, that\nthe building of the fixed temple is intimately [Pg 134] connected with\nhis being raised to be ruler over Israel. The first answer of Nathan\nremains correct; it is only more distinctly and closely defined and\nmodified. David is to build the house,--not, however, in his own\nperson, but in his seed, and after the Lord has begun to fulfil His\npromise, that He would make him an house.\n\nBut why was it that David himself was not permitted to build the house\nto the Lord? In this passage we obtain no answer. In Solomon's message\nto Hiram (1 Kings v. 17) an external reason only is stated--viz., that,\nby his numerous wars, David had been prevented from building a house to\nthe Lord. There was a deeper reason than this; but the heathen could\nnot comprehend it. It is contained in the words which, according to 1\nChron. xxviii. 3, David spoke to the people: \"And God said unto me,\nThou shalt not build an house for My name, because thou hast been a man\nof war, and hast shed blood;\" and in the words of the Lord which,\naccording to 1 Chron. xxii. 8, David repeated to Solomon: \"Thou hast\nshed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars; thou shalt not build\nan house unto My name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth\nin My sight,\"--a disclosure which David could have obtained only at a\nlater period, and as a supplement to the divine communication which had\nbeen made to him through Nathan. For it is only after the revelation in\n2 Sam. vii. that David had to carry on his most bloody wars. We must\nnot, by any means, entertain the idea that these words express anything\n_blameworthy_ in David, and that the permission to build the temple was\nrefused to him on account of his personal unworthiness. David stood in\na closer relation to God than did Solomon. His wars were wars of the\nLord, 1 Sam. xxv. 28. It is in this light that David himself regarded\nthem; and that he was conscious of his being divinely commissioned for\nthem, is seen, _e.g._, from Ps. xviii.: it was the Lord who taught his\nhands to war (ver. 35) and who gave him vengeance, and subdued the\npeople unto him, ver. 48. The passages 1 Chron. xxii. 8, xxvii. 3, do\nnot, in themselves, contain one reproachful word against David. On the\ncontrary, the words, _in My sight_, in the former of these passages,\nrather lead us to suppose that David is, in his wars, to be considered\nonly as a servant of the Lord (_Michaelis_: \"_In My sight_--_i.e._, who\nam, as it were, the [Pg 135] highest judge, and the commander\"). The\nreason is rather of a symbolical character. How necessary soever, under\ncertain conditions, war may be for the kingdom of God,--as indeed the\nSaviour also says that (in the first instance) He had not come to send\npeace, but a sword,--it is after all only something accidental, and\nrendered needful by human corruption. The real nature of the kingdom of\nGod is peace. Even in the Old Testament, the Lord of the Church appears\nas the Prince of Peace, Is. ix. 5. According to Luke ix. 56, the Son of\nMan is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. In order to\nimpress upon the mind this view of the nature and aim of the Church,\nthe Temple--the symbol of the Church--must not be built by David the\nman of war, but by Solomon, the peaceful, the man of rest, 1 Chron.\nxxii. 9.\n\nVer. 6. \"_For I have not dwelt in any house from the day that I brought\nup the children of Israel out of Egypt even to this day, and have\nwalked in a tent and in a tabernacle._ Ver. 7. _In all that I have\nwalked among the children of Israel, have I spoken one word with any of\nthe tribes of Israel whom I commanded to feed My people Israel, saying.\nWhy build ye Me not a house of cedar?_\"\n\nAccording to several interpreters, these words are intended as\na consolation to David for the delay in building the temple, and\nconvey this sense: that God did not require the temple, that the\nbuilding of it was of no consequence,--as sufficiently appears from\nthe circumstance of His not having hitherto urged it. But such a view\nwould ill agree with the great importance which David continues, even\nafterwards, to ascribe to the building of the temple,--with the grand\nefforts of Solomon towards it,--and with the exulting words which are\nuttered by the latter, in 1 Kings viii. 13, after the work has been\naccomplished: \"I have built Thee an house to dwell in, a settled place\nfor Thee to abide in for ever.\" A comparison of 1 Kings viii. 16-20\nfurnishes us with a clue to the right interpretation. In that passage,\nthe period before David is contrasted with that during which David\nlived. (Compare the \u05e2\u05ea\u05d4, _now_, in ver. 8.) Hitherto, everything in the\ngovernment had borne a provisional character, and, hence, the sanctuary\nalso. But now that, after the unsettled state of things under [Pg 136]\nthe Judges and Saul, _the definitive government_ has been called into\nexistence with David, to whom the Lord will make an house, the\n_definitive sanctuary_ also shall be built,--only, that it shall\nnot be founded by David, but by his seed.[2] The words, _I have\nwalked_--literally, I have been walking, I have continued walking--_in\na tent and in a tabernacle_, indicate not only that the Lord dwelt in a\nportable sanctuary, but also, that the place of this sanctuary was\noftentimes changed, from one station to another in the wilderness, then\nto Gilgal, Shiloh, Nob and Gibeon. This changing of the place of the\ntabernacle is still more distinctly pointed out, in the parallel\npassage in 1 Chron. xvii. 5: \"And I have been from tent to tent, from\ntabernacle to tabernacle;\" _i.e._, I went from one tent into the other,\n_e.g._, from the dwelling-place of Shiloh into that of Nob,--a mode of\nexpression which pays no attention to the circumstance whether or not\nthe tent was materially the same. Instead of, \"With any of the tribes\nof Israel,\" we find in 1 Chron. xvii. 6, \"With any of the judges of\nIsrael,\"--a parallel passage which very well explains the main text.\nThe tribes come into consideration through their judges, who, in the\nBook of Judges, always appear as judges in Israel, and procured a\ntemporary [Pg 137] superiority to the tribe from which they\nproceeded.[3] The \u05e9\u05d1\u05d8\u05d9, which has been doubted, is rendered certain by\n1 Kings viii. 16. (Compare, moreover, Ps. lxxviii. 67, 68.)--The reason\nwhy no such word came to any one of these tribes is, that the\nsuperiority of none of them was permanent; the election of all of them\nwas merely temporary. The continuance of the tent-temple was intended\nto indicate that the state of things was, in general, provisional only,\nand that a new order of things was at hand. The creation of a settled\nsanctuary was to be coincident with the establishment of an abiding\nkingdom, to which the grace of God was vouchsafed. It was an evil omen\nfor Saul that the erection of a fixed sanctuary was not even mooted\nunder him. The close of Ps. lxxviii. likewise points out the intimate\nconnection of the kingdom and the sanctuary.\n\nVer. 8. \"_And now, thus shalt thou say unto David My servant: Thus\nsaith the Lord, of hosts, I took thee from the sheep-cote,_[4] _from\nbehind the sheep, to be ruler over My people, over Israel._ Ver. 9.\n_And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all\nthine enemies from before thee, and have made thee a great name like\nunto the name of the great men that are upon the earth._ Ver. 10. _And\nI gave room unto My people Israel, and planted them, and they dwell in\ntheir place, and they shall no more be frightened, and the sons of\nwickedness shall afflict them no more as heretofore._\"\n\nSeven divine benefits are here enumerated,--one in ver. 8, which forms\nthe foundation of all the others, and three in each of the two\nfollowing verses,--in ver. 9, what the Lord has given to David,--in\nver. 10, what, through him, He has given to Israel. These benefits are\nso many symptoms that a _definitive_ order of things has now taken the\nplace of the _provisional_ one, and that, hence, the moveable sanctuary\nwill now be soon followed by the settled one. In the first member of\nver. 10, there is an enumeration of the benefits which the [Pg 138]\npeople have already received through David; in the second and third\nmembers, an enumeration of the benefits to be constantly bestowed upon\nthem through him. A commentary upon it is formed by Ps. lxxxix. 22-24,\nin which it is said of David: \"With whom My hand shall be continually.\nMine arm also shall strengthen him. The enemy shall not exact upon him,\nnor the son of wickedness afflict him. And I crush his enemies before\nhim, and will smite those who hate him.\"\n\nVer. 11. \"_And since the day that I commanded judges over My people\nIsrael, I have given thee rest from all thine enemies. And the Lord\ntelleth thee, that the Lord will make thee an house._\"\n\nThe first part of this verse comprehends all the benefits formerly\nenumerated;--the second adds another, which, however, is closely\nconnected with the previous ones. The circumstance that the Lord first\ngave rest to David, and, in him, to the people, was a sign of his\nelection which could not but manifest itself afterwards in the care for\nhis house. The promise, \"The Lord will make thee an house,\" was to\nDavid an answer to prayer, as is shown by Ps. xxi. 3, 5, lxi. 6,\ncxxxviii. 3. Even the thought of building the temple was a question put\nto the Lord, as to whether He would, in harmony with His past conduct,\ngive a duration to his house, different from that of the house of Saul.\n\nVer. 12. \"_And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with\nthy fathers, I shall cause thy seed to rise up after thee which shall\nproceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom._\"\n\nThe \u05d4\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd does not signify the beginning of existence, but the elevation\nto the royal dignity. \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2, _seed_, denotes the posterity, which,\nhowever, may consist of one only, or be represented by a single\nindividual. In the parallel passage, 1 Chron. xvii. 11, the words run\nthus: \"Thy seed which shall be of thy sons,\" _i.e._, who shall be one\nof thy sons (Luther). The truth of the promise, \"I shall establish his\nkingdom,\" became manifest, _e.g._, in the vain machinations of\nAdonijah. That the fulfilment of this promise must be sought in the\nhistory of Solomon, in whom the difference between the house of David\nand that of Saul first became evident (instead of, \"I establish,\" in\nver. 12, we find, in the second member of ver. 13, \"I establish for\never\"), is seen from 1 Kings viii. 20, where Solomon says, \"And the\nLord hath performed His word which [Pg 139] He spake; for I am risen up\nin the room of David my father, and sit on the throne of Israel, as the\nLord promised.\" (Compare 1 Kings ii. 12: \"And Solomon sat upon the\nthrone of David his father, and his kingdom was established greatly.\")\n\nVer. 13. \"_He shall build an house for My name, and I establish the\nthrone of his kingdom for ever._\"\n\nThe general establishment which was spoken of in ver. 12 precedes the\nbuilding of the temple; the eternal establishment mentioned in ver. 13\nfollows the building of the temple, or is coincident with it. It is\nevident, that the first clause of the verse refers, in the first\ninstance, to the building of the temple which was undertaken by\nSolomon. (Compare 1 Kings v. 19, where Solomon says, \"Behold, I purpose\nto build an house unto the name of the Lord my God, as the Lord spake\nunto David my father, saying. Thy son whom I will set upon thy throne\nin thy stead, he shall build the house unto My name.\") We shall not,\nhowever, be at liberty to confine ourselves to what Solomon, as an\nindividual, did for the house of the Lord. The building of the house\nhere goes hand in hand with the eternity of the kingdom. We expect,\ntherefore, that the question is not about a building of limited\nduration. If a building of only a limited duration were meant, such,\nsurely, might have been erected long ago, even in the period of the\nJudges. The contrary, however, is quite distinctly brought out in 1\nKings viii. 13, where, at the dedication of the temple, Solomon says,\n\"I have built Thee an house to dwell in, a fixed place for Thee to\nabide in _for ever_.\" If, then, with the eternity of the kingdom of\nDavid's house the eternity of the temple to be built by him be closely\nbound up, the destruction of the latter can be only _temporary_, and\nthe consequence of the apostasy and punishment of the Davidic race,--of\nwhich vers. 14 and 15 treat. Or, if it be definitive, it can concern\nthe _form_ only. If the building of the temple fall into ruins, it is\nonly the Davidic race from which its restoration can proceed; the local\nrelation of the royal palace to the temple prefigured their close\nunion. Hence, the building of the temple by Zerubbabel was likewise\ncomprehended in the words, \"He shall build an house for My name.\" It\nwas impossible that the second temple could be reared otherwise than\nunder the direction of David's family. But we must go still farther.\nThe essence of the temple consists in its being a symbol, an outward\n[Pg 140] representation of the kingdom of God under Israel. The real\nimport of our passage then is,--that henceforth the kingdom of David\nand the kingdom of God should be closely and inseparably linked\ntogether. As the third phase, therefore, in the fulfilment of our\nprophecy, John ii. 19 must come under consideration: \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. (Regarding the sense of\nthis passage, and the symbolical meaning of the tabernacle and temple,\ncompare \"_Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pent._\" vol. ii. p.\n514 ff.) \"House of God\" is, in ver. 14 of the parallel text, used of\nthe Church, and in parallelism with \"kingdom of God,\"--a sense in which\nit occurs as early as in Num. xii. 7.[5] This _usus loquendi_ is quite\ncommon in the New Testament; compare 1 Tim. iii. 15; 2 Cor. vi. 16;\nHeb. iii. 6. In the first two phases of the temple of Solomon, the\nhouse consists in the first instance of ordinary stones,--although,\neven at that time, the _spiritual_ is concealed behind the _material_;\nbut in its third phase, the material is altogether thrown off, and the\nhouse is entirely spiritual--consisting of living stones, 1 Pet. ii.\n5.--That the expression, \"for ever,\" in the second clause of the verse,\nis to be taken in its strict and full sense, is proved not only by the\nthreefold repetition, but also by a comparison with the numerous\nsecondary passages, in which the duration of the Davidic dominion\nappears as absolutely unlimited. In Ps. lxxxix., for example, where the\npromise is repeated, \"for ever\" corresponds with, \"as the days of\nheaven\" in ver. 30,--with \"as the sun\" in ver. 37,--and with \"as the\nmoon\" in ver. 38. The final fulfilment of this promise is pointed out\nby the words of the angel to Mary, in Luke i. 32, 33: \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2\n(compare ver. 9 here), \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (compare ver. 14),\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u0394\u03b1\u03c5\u1f76\u03b4 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03b2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nVer. 14. \"_And I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to Me.\nIf he commit sin, I will chastise him with the rod of men, and with the\nstripes of the children of men._ Ver. 15. _And My mercy shall not\ndepart away from him, as I caused it to depart away from Saul, whom I\nput away before thee._\"\n\n[Pg 141]\n\nWheresoever God is, in the Old Testament, designated as _Father_, there\nis a reference to the deepest intensity of His love,--a love which is\nsimilar to that of a father towards his son. (Compare remarks on Ps.\nii. 7.) Sonship to God has this significancy here also, as is shown by\nwhat immediately follows, where, in explanation of it, the promise of\nindestructible love is connected with it. But this relationship, in its\nhighest and closest form, cannot exist betwixt God and a mere man. It\nis only when the Davidic family is viewed as centring in Christ, that\nthe words can acquire their full truth. To this, the quotation in Heb.\ni. 5 points: \u03a4\u03af\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03ad \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u03a5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f36 \u03c3\u1f7a, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\n\u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5; \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f18\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f14\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03bd; The depth of meaning which is contained in these\nwords appears plainly from their expansion in Ps. lxxxix. 26: \"And I\nplace his hand on the sea, and his right hand on the rivers. He shall\ncall Me thus: Thou art my Father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.\nAnd I will also make him My first-born, the highest of the kings of the\nearth.\" The sonship accordingly implies the dominion over the world,\nwhich in Ps. ii. 7-9 appears, indeed, as inseparably connected with\nit.--If the race of David commit sin, it shall be chastened with the\nrods of men, and with the stripes of the children of men. Ps. xvii. 4\ndistinctly and unambiguously designates corrupt actions--walking in the\nways of transgressors--as \"the works of men.\" (Compare 1 Sam. xxiv. 10;\nHos. vi. 7; Job xxxi. 33, xxiii. 12.) Hence, the rods of men, and the\nstripes of the children of men, are punishments to which all men are\nsubject, because they are sinners, and at which no man needs to be\nsurprised. Grace is not to free the Davidic family from this common lot\nof mankind, is not to afford to them the privilege of sinning. The\nmitigation only follows in ver. 15, in which the close resumes the\nbeginning: \"I will be a father to him.\" But this mitigation must not be\nmisunderstood by being conceived of as referring to the individuals.\nSuch a conception of it would be opposed to the nature of the thing\nitself, would be in opposition to 1 Chron. xxviii. 9, where David says\nto Solomon, \"If thou seek Him, He will be found of thee; and if thou\nforsake Him, He will cast thee off _for ever_:\" and would be against\nhistory, which shows that the rebellious members of the Davidic dynasty\nwere visited with destroying [Pg 142] judgments. The contrast is rather\nthus to be understood: sin is to be visited upon the individuals, while\nthe grace abides continually upon the race,--so that the divine promise\nis raised to an absolute one. The commentary on it is furnished by Ps.\nlxxxix. 31 seq.: \"If his children forsake My law, and walk not in My\njudgments ... then I will visit their transgression with the rod, and\ntheir iniquity with stripes. But My loving-kindness will I not withdraw\nfrom him, nor will I break My faithfulness.\"--The words from \"if he\ncommit sin\" to \"children of men\" are awanting in the parallel passage.\nThis omission is intended to make the continuance of the mercy appear\nthe more distinctly, and to show, as indeed is the case, that the main\nstress is to be laid upon it. We cannot for a moment conceive that any\nunworthy motive prompted this omission; for the Chronicles were written\nat a time when the chastening rod of the Lord had already fallen\nheavily upon the Davidic race. There would have been stronger reasons\nfor adding the words than for omitting them, inasmuch as, under these\ncircumstances, they were full of consolation. It is just upon these\nwords that the penman of Ps. lxxiv. dwells at particular length.\n\nVer. 16. \"_And thine house and thy kingdom shall be sure for ever\nbefore thee, thy throne shall be firm for ever._\"\n\nThe extent to which this prophecy of Nathan bears the character of a\nfundamental one, appears from the circumstance that almost every word\nof the verse under review has called forth an echo in later times. \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05df\n_sure_, _certain_, _constant_, occurs again in Ps. lxxxix. 29, compared\nwith ver. 38, and in Is. lv. 3. The _sure_ (_constant_) mercies of\nDavid, spoken of in the last of these passages, shall be bestowed upon\nthe people of the covenant, in the coming of Christ, by which the\nperpetuity of the house of David was most fully manifested. The \u05e0\u05db\u05d5\u05df,\n_constant_, _firm_, occurs in Mic. iv. 1, and the \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd, _for ever_, in\nPs. lxxii. 17, lxxxix. 37, xlv. 7, and cx. 4. The saying of the people\nin John xii. 34, \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f20\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1, refers, in the first instance, to our passage, and all the\nother texts quoted may be considered as a commentary.\n\nIt is certainly not the result of mere accident, that the twelve verses\nof Nathan's prophecy are divided into two sections of seven and of five\nverses respectively, and that the former again is subdivided into\nsections of three and four verses. Its closing [Pg 143] words, \"The\nLord will make thee an house,\" are farther expanded in vers. 12-16.\n\nWe subjoin to the exposition of Nathan's prophecy, that of David's\nprayer of thanks, because, by means of the thanks, the promise itself\nis more clearly brought out.\n\nThe Lord has done great things for His servant in his low estate, and\nhas promised things still more glorious, vers. 18-21. By doing such\nglorious things to His servant, He has manifested Himself as a faithful\nGod, in harmony with His revelations in ancient times, vers. 22-24. The\nthanksgivings for the promise are followed in vers. 25-29 by a prayer\nfor its fulfilment, intermingled with expressions of hope.\n\nAs the promise was expressed in twelve verses, so are the thanks. These\ntwelve verses are again divided into seven and five, and the seven into\nfour and three.\n\nThe name of Jehovah occurs twelve times. Ten times is the address\ndirected to Jehovah. Once He is addressed by the simple name of\nJehovah, six times by that of Adonai Jehovah, twice by that of Jehovah\nElohim, and once by that of Jehovah Zebaoth. The address, Adonai\nJehovah, occurs at the beginning and the close. The third division\nfirst takes up the name of God which is used in the second, and\nreturns, at the close, to that which is used in the first division. In\nthe parallel passage in Chronicles, Jehovah occurs seven times, and\nElohim three times.--Ten times the servant of the Lord is mentioned in\nDavid's prayer, and seven times, the house of David. The servant of the\nLord occurs three times in vers. 18-21, and seven times in vers. 25-29;\nthe house of David twice in 18-21, and five times in vers. 25-29. In\nvers. 22-24, where the manifestation of the mercies to David are\nbrought into connection with the glorious revelations of God in ancient\ntimes, neither the servant nor the house is mentioned.\n\nVer. 18. \"_And King David came and sat before the Lord, and said: Who\nam I, Lord Jehovah, and what my house_ (literally, _who_ my house,--the\nhouse being conceived of as an _ideal_ person), _that Thou hast brought\nme hitherto?_\"\n\nMoses also was sitting in long-continued prayer, Exod. xvii. 12. David,\nas a true descendant of Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 10), acknowledges his\nunworthiness of the great mercies bestowed upon him. The comparison of\nPs. cxliv. 3 is still more striking [Pg 144] than that of Ps. viii. 5;\nfor, in the former, the words, \"Lord, what is man, that Thou takest\nknowledge of him; the son of mortal man, that Thou hast regard to him?\"\nwere uttered in praise of the adorable mercy which the Lord had shown\nto his house.\n\nVer. 19. \"_And this is yet too little in Thy sight, Lord Jehovah; and\nThou speakest also to the house of Thy servant of things far distant;\nand this is the law of man, Lord Jehovah._\"\n\nThe word \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 has only the signification of _law_. Gesenius, in\nassigning to it the signification of _mos_, _consuetudo_, has no other\nwarrant for it than our passage. The law of any one is the law which\nhas been given for him, or which concerns him; compare Lev. vi. 2 (9):\n\"This is the law of the burnt-offering;\" Lev. xiii. 7: \"This is the law\nfor her that hath born;\" Lev. xiv. 2: \"This shall be the law of the\nleper,\" etc. Hence the law of man can only be the law regulating the\nconduct of man. Man is commanded in the law: \"Thou shalt love thy\nneighbour as thyself;\" compare Mic. vi. 8: \"He hath showed, O man, what\nis good; and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice, and\nto _love kindness_, and to walk humbly before thy God?\" The fact that\nGod should, in His conduct towards poor mortals, follow the rule which\nHe hath given to men for their conduct towards one another, and that He\nshows Himself to be full of mercy and love, cannot but fill him who\nknows God and himself with adoring wonder. The words in Ps. xviii. 36\nare parallel: \"Thou givest me the shield of Thy salvation, and Thy\nright hand holdeth me up, and Thy meekness (the parallel passage in 2\nSam. has: 'Thy being low') maketh me great.\" In the parallel passage in\nChronicles the words are these: \"And Thou hast regarded me according to\nthe law of man (concerning \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 = \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8 compare remarks on Song of Sol.\ni. 10), Thou height, Jehovah God.\" The essential agreement of the sense\nof the parallel passage with that of the fundamental passage, may be\napplied as a test to prove the correctness of our exposition. \"To\nregard some one\" is used for \"to visit some one,\" \"to have intercourse\nwith some one;\" compare 2 Sam. iii. 13, xiii. 5, xiv. 24, 28; 2 Kings\nviii. 29. The words, \"Thou height\" (God is represented as personified\nheight in Ps. xcii. 9: \"And Thou art a height for evermore, O Lord\"),\nbring out still more prominently the contrast with human lowness, which\nwas already implied in the names of [Pg 145] God, Adonai Jehovah, and\nJehovah Elohim, and serves therefore to show still more distinctly the\ncondescension of God, whose revelation on this occasion was a prelude\nto \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. _Luther_ has introduced into the main text a\ndirect allusion to the incarnation of God in Christ. He translates,\n\"This is the manner of a man who is God the Lord;\" and adds, in a\nmarginal note, the following remark: \"This means, Thou speakest to me\nof such an eternal kingdom, in which no one can be king unless he be\nGod and man at the same time, because he is to be my son and yet a king\nfor evermore--which belongs to God alone.\" But this single circumstance\nis sufficient to overthrow this view:--that in the preceding, as well\nas in the subsequent context, Adonai Jehovah is always used in the\nvocative sense.\n\nVer. 20. \"_And what shall David say more unto Thee?_ (In the parallel\npassage: 'As regards the honour for Thy servant.') _And Thou knowest\nThy servant, Lord Jehovah._\"\n\nIt is not necessary that David should make many words, in order to\nexpress his thanks, as his thankful heart lies open before God. In\nPs. xl. 10, David also appeals to the testimony of the Omniscient\nas regards his thankful heart: \"I preach righteousness in the\ngreat congregation; lo, I will not refrain my lips, O Lord, Thou\nknowest,\"--knowest how with my whole heart I am thankful for Thy great\nmercy. It is, in general, David's practice to appeal to God, the\nSearcher of hearts; compare, _e.g._, Ps. xvii. 3.\n\n\nVer. 21. \"_For Thy word's sake, and according to Thine own heart, hast\nThou done all these great things to make Thy servant know them._\"\n\nIn 1 Chron. xvii. 19, the words run thus: \"Lord, on account of Thy\n_servant_, and according to Thine own heart, hast Thou done all these\ngreat things, to make known all the glorious things.\" Hence, by the\n\"word,\" a promise given to David can alone be intended,--a word\nformerly spoken to David, which contained the germ of the present one.\nThere is, no doubt, a special allusion to the word in 1 Sam. xvi. 12:\n\"And the Lord said. Arise and anoint him, for this is he.\" (Compare 2\nSam. xii. 7; Ps. lxxxix. 21; Acts xiii. 22.) _According to Thine\nheart_: \"The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and [Pg 146]\nplenteous in mercy,\" Ps. ciii. 8. _All these great things_,--_i.e._ the\npromise of the eternal dominion of his house. \u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05bb\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 and \u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05d3\u05d9\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4--words in\nwhich David takes special delight--never mean \"greatness,\" but always\n\"great things.\" (Compare remarks on Ps. lxxi. 21, cxlv. 3.) The words,\n\"To make know,\" etc., indicate that the _making_ refers, in the\nmeantime, only to the divine decree.\n\nVer. 22. \"_Wherefore Thou art great, Lord God: for there is none like\nThee, neither is there any God besides Thee, according to all that we\nhave heard with our ears._\"\n\n_Wherefore_--in the first instance, on account of the great things\nwhich Thou hast done unto me. _According to all_, etc., _i.e._, as this\nis confirmed by all, etc. Of this David has been reminded anew by his\npersonal experience. Just as he does here, David, in Ps. xl. 6, rises\nfrom his personal experience to the whole series of God's glorious\nmanifestations in the history of His people. As to the words, \"There is\nnone like Thee, neither is there any God besides Thee,\" compare the\nfundamental passages Exod. xv. 11; Deut. iii. 24, iv. 35.\n\nVer. 23. \"_And where is there a nation on earth like Thy people\nIsrael, for whose sake God went to redeem them for a people to\nHimself, and make Him a name, and to do for you great things, and\nterrible things for Thy land, putting away from before Thy people,\nwhom Thou redeemedst to Thee out of Egypt, heathen and their gods?_\"\nWe must here compare the fundamental passages, Deut. iv. 7, 34, xxxiii.\n29, in which that which Israel has received from his God is praised,\nas being without precedent and parallel. In \u05dc\u05db\u05dd and \u05dc\u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05da the address\nis, with poetical liveliness, directed to Israel. _For you great\nthings_--instead of, To do for them great things, as the Lord has done\nfor you. The phrase \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e2\u05de\u05da means, literally, only, \"away from before\nThy people;\" \"putting\" must be supplied from the preceding \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea, and\nfrom a comparison of the fundamental passages, Exod. xxiii. 28, 29,\nxxxiv. 11; Deut. xxxiii. 27, to which the concise expression refers.\nThe text in Chronicles, which expressly adds what we have here to\nsupply, \u05dc\u05d2\u05e8\u05e9 \u05de\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9, \"to drive out before,\" is, in this case also, merely\na parallel passage which, by the addition of a word, serves as a\ncommentary.\n\nVer. 24. \"_And Thou hast confirmed to Thyself Thy people_ [Pg 147]\n_Israel to be a people for ever, and Thou, Lord, art become their\nGod._\"\n\nVer. 25. \"_And now, Jehovah God, the word that Thou hast spoken\nconcerning Thy servant, and concerning his house, establish it for\never, and do as Thou hast said._\"\n\nPraise and thanks for the promise are followed by the prayer for its\nfulfilment.\n\nVer. 26. \"_And let Thy name be magnified for ever, so that it may be\nsaid, Jehovah Zebaoth_ (is) _God over Israel. And the house of Thy\nservant shall be firm before Thee._\"\n\n_Let Thy name be magnified_, instead of, Give cause for its being\nglorified; compare Ps. xxxv. 27, xl. 17.--_Is God over Israel_, _i.e._,\nproves Himself to be such, by protecting the house of the king, on whom\nthe salvation of Israel depends. In Chronicles it is thus expressed:\n\"Jehovah Zebaoth, the God of Israel, is God for Israel,\" _i.e._. He\nfulfils to Israel what He promised (Jarchi). The prayer for the\nestablishment of David's house is expressed in the form of confidence,\nin the conviction based upon the word of God, that such is according to\nthe will of God.\n\nVer. 27. \"_For Thou, Jehovah Zebaoth, God of Israel, hast opened the\near of Thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house. Therefore Thy\nservant found_ (in) _his heart to pray this prayer unto Thee._\"\n(Otherwise, his heart would have failed him; he would have had neither\nthe desire nor the courage.) Ver. 28. \"_And now, Lord Jehovah, Thou art\nGod, and Thy words are truth, and Thou hast promised unto Thy servant\nthese good things._ Ver. 29. _And now let it please Thee to bless the\nhouse of Thy servant, that it may continue for ever before Thee; for\nThou, Lord Jehovah, hast spoken, and, by Thy blessing, the house of Thy\nservant shall be blessed for ever._\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nTo whom does this promise refer, which David received through Nathan?\nSome Rabbins, and _Grotius_, would fain restrict it to Solomon and his\nmore immediate posterity. This opinion, however, is refuted by the\nsingle circumstance, that they are compelled to assume merely a long\nduration of time, instead of the eternity which is here promised to the\nhouse of David. And that such cannot be the meaning of the words \"for\never,\" is abundantly confirmed by a comparison with [Pg 148] Ps.\nlxxxix. 30, \"And I place his seed for ever, and his throne as the days\nof heaven.\" In these words of the Psalm there is a reference to Deut.\nxi. 21, where the _people_ of the Lord are promised a duration \"as the\ndays of heaven and of earth.\" An absolute perpetuity is everywhere\nascribed to the people of God. If, then, the house of David is placed\non the same level as they, its perpetuity must likewise be absolute.\n_Further_,--with such a view, it is impossible to comprehend what David\nhere says in his prayer, regarding the greatness of the promise, and\nalso what he says in Ps. cxxxviii. 2: \"For Thou hast magnified Thy word\nabove all Thy name.\" The giving of the promise is there placed on a\nloftier elevation than all the former deeds of the Lord.\n\nOthers--as _Calovius_--would refer the promise to Christ alone. But\nvers. 14, 15 are decisive against this view; for, according to them,\nGod will not, by a total rejection, punish the posterity of David, if\nthey commit sin,--from which the reference is evident to a posterity\nmerely human, and hence sinful. According to ver. 13, David's posterity\nis to build a temple to the Lord,--a declaration which, with reference\nto David's plan of building a temple to the Lord, can, in the first\ninstance, be understood in no other way than as relating to the earthly\ntemple to be built by Solomon. To this consideration it may be added,\nthat, in 1 Chron. xxii. 9 seqq., David himself refers this announcement\nprimarily to Solomon, and that Solomon, in 1 Kings v. 5 seqq., and in 2\nChron. vi. 7 seqq., refers it to himself.\n\nNor is there entire soundness in the view of those who, following\n_Augustine_ (_de Civitate Dei_ xvii. 8, 9), assume the existence of a\ndouble reference,--to Solomon and his earthly successors on the one\nhand, and to Christ on the other. Thus _Brentius_: \"Solomon is not\naltogether excluded, but Christ is chiefly intended.\" It is true that\nthese interpreters are substantially right in their view; but they err\nas to the manner in which they give expression to it. The promise has\nnot a reference to two subjects simultaneously.[6] It views David's\nhouse as an _ideal_ unity.\n\n[Pg 149]\n\nThe promise is given to the house of David, vers. 11, 16, 19, 25,\n26, 27, 29; to his seed, ver. 12. It is to the house of David that\nthe absolute perpetuity of existence, the unchangeable possession of\nthe grace of God--a relation to God similar to that of a son to his\nfather--and the inseparable connection of their dominion with the\nkingdom of God in Israel, are guaranteed.\n\n\nFootnote 1: _Seb. Schmid_ says: \"He thought that this duty was imposed\nupon him by the Word of God. For, as the state enjoyed peace, the royal\npalace was finished, and his family established, there seemed to be\nnothing wanting but to build a temple to the Lord.\"\n\nFootnote 2: In 1 Kings viii. 16, Solomon thus reports what, in 2 Sam.\nvii., had been spoken to David, in reference to the house of the Lord:\n\"Since the day that I brought up My people Israel out of Egypt, I chose\nno city out of all the tribes of Israel to build an house that My name\nmight be in it; and I chose David to be over My people Israel.\" The\ncomment on this passage is given by the parallel one, 2 Chron. vi. 5,\n6: \"I did not choose any man to be a ruler over My people Israel. And I\nhave chosen Jerusalem that My name might be there, and I have chosen\nDavid to be over My people Israel.\" Since David resided in Jerusalem,\nthe election of David, announced in 2 Sam. vii., implies also the\nchoice of Jerusalem as the place of the sanctuary. Hence, we must add\nto 1 Kings viii. 16, the supplement: \"And in connection with this\nchoice, David (the Davidic dynasty) is to build Me an house at the\nplace of his residence.\" The Vulgate translates very correctly: _Sed\nelegi._ Solomon then continues, _Ver._ 17: \"And it was in the heart of\nDavid my father (namely, before he received this divine revelation) to\nbuild an house for the name of the Lord, the God of Israel. _Ver._ 18.\nAnd the Lord said unto David my father, Whereas it was in thine heart\nto build an house unto My name, thou didst well that it was in thine\nheart. _Ver._ 19. And thou shalt not build the house; but thy son that\nshall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house unto My\nname.\"\n\nFootnote 3: _Seb. Schmid_ says: \"He rightly considers the tribes and\nthe judges as one. For the tribes are viewed in the judges who had\nsprung from them, and _vice versa_, the judge, in his paternal tribe.\nAnd that the matter is thus to be understood, is clear, because, in\nChronicles, where the judge is spoken of, he is introduced in the\nplural: 'Why have _ye_ not built Me an house,' etc.? viz., thou, judge,\nwith thy tribe.\"\n\nFootnote 4: That \u05e0\u05d5\u05d4, properly \"habitation,\" \"abode,\" is used here, as\nfrequently, of the sheep-cote, is shown by Ps. lxxxviii. 70, which is\nbased upon our passage.\n\nFootnote 5: Michaelis says: \"Just as in the preceding verses also, the\nhouse of David did not mean a heap of stones and wood brought together,\nbut a congregation of people.\"\n\nFootnote 6: This mistake was corrected by _Seb. Schmid_. He says: \"The\npromises here given to David have, of course, a reference to Solomon;\nbut not such as if they were to be fulfilled only in the person of\nSolomon, and not also in his posterity, and, most of all, in the\nMessiah to be descended from David and Solomon.\"\n\n\n\nThere is no direct mention of the person of the Messiah; and yet the\nwords, when considered in their full import, point, indirectly, to Him.\nThe absolute perpetuity of the race can be conceived of, only when at\nlast it centres in some superhuman person. But still more decisive is\nthe connection in which this promise stands to Gen. xlix. The dominion\nwhich is there promised to Judah is here transferred to David. It is\nthen to David's race that the exalted individual must belong, in whom,\naccording to Gen. xlix. 10, Judah's dominion is to centre at some\nfuture period. That David really connected the promise which he\nreceived with Gen. xlix. 10, is shown by 1 Chron. xxviii. 4 (compare p.\n91), and also by the name, Solomon, which he gave to his son; compare\nibid. That Solomon also founded his hopes regarding the future upon a\ncombination of Gen. xlix. and 2 Sam. vii., is shown by Ps. lxxii.,\nwhich was composed by him; compare pp. 91, 92.\n\nBut, as respects this combination, David was not left to himself.\nHe received further light from the source from which the promise\nhad come to him. Although his mission was not properly a prophetic\none,--although, in the main, it belonged to him to describe poetically\nwhat had come to him through prophetic inspiration, yet prophetic\ninspiration and sacred lyric are frequently commingled in him. The man\nwho is \"the sweet psalmist of Israel\" claims a \u05e0\u05d0\u05dd in 2 Sam. xxiii. 1,\nand, in ver. 2, says that the Spirit of God spake by him, and His word\nwas upon his tongue. In Acts ii. 30, 31, Peter declares that, by the\ndivine promise, David received, first the impulse, and afterwards\nfurther illumination, by the prophetic spirit dwelling in him. The\nlatter declaration, moreover, rests on the testimony of the Lord\nHimself, in Matt. xxii. 43, where He says that in Ps. cx., David had\nspoken \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, _i.e._, seized with the Holy Spirit.\n\nIt is true that, in a series of Psalms, David is not any more [Pg 150]\nexplicit and definite than the fundamental prophecy, but speaks only of\nthe grace which the Lord had conferred upon the Davidic race by the\npromise of a dominion which should outlast all earthly things. Thus it\nis in Ps. xviii., where, in the presence of the congregation, he offers\nthose thanks which previously he had, as it were, privately expressed,\nfor the glorious promise made to him;--in Ps. xi., where, in the name\nof the people, he expresses thankful joy for this same promise;--in\nPs. lxi. and in the cycle of Psalms from Ps. cxxxviii. to cxlv.--the\nprophetic legacy of David--in which, at the beginning, in Ps.\ncxxxviii., he praises the Lord for His promise of eternal mercy given\nto him, and then, with the torch of promise, lightens up the darkness\nof the sufferings that are to fall upon this house,--Psalms with which\nPs. lxxxix. and cxxxix., which were composed at a later period, and by\nother writers, are closely connected.\n\nBut there are other Psalms (ii. and cx.) in which David, with a\ndistinctness which can be accounted for only by divine revelation,\nbeholds the Messiah in whose coming the promise in 2 Sam. vii. should\nfind its final and complete fulfilment. Whilst David, in these Psalms,\nrepresents the Messiah as his antitype, as the mighty conqueror, who\nwill not rest until He shall have subjected the whole earth to His\nsway, Solomon, in Ps. lxxii., represents Him as the true Prince of\nPeace, and His dominion, as a just and peaceful rule. The circumstances\nof the time of Solomon form, in a similar way, the foundation for the\ndescription of the Messiah in Ps. xlv., which was written by the sons\nof Korah.\n\nA personal Messianic element is contained in some of those Davidic\nPsalms also which refer to the _ideal_ person of the _righteous one_,\nwhose image we at last find fully portrayed in the Book of Wisdom. In\nthese the sufferings of the righteous one in a world of sin are\ndescribed, as well as the glorious issue to which he attains by the\nhelp of the Lord. After his own experience, David could not have\ndoubted that, notwithstanding the glorious promise of the Lord, severe\nsufferings were impending over his family, and over Him in whom that\nfamily was, at some future time, to centre. But his own experience\nlikewise promised a glorious issue to these sufferings. The Psalms in\nwhich, besides the reference to the righteous one, and to the [Pg 151]\npeople, the allusion to the afflictions of the Davidic race, and to the\nsuffering Messiah, most plainly appear, are the xxii., the cii., and\nthe cix.\n\nThere cannot be any doubt that the Messianic promise made considerable\nprogress in the time of David. It is, in itself, a circumstance of\ngreat importance that the eyes of the people were henceforth directed\nto a definite family; for, thereby, their hopes acquired greater\nconsistency. _Further_,--The former prophecies were, all of them, much\nshorter, and more in the shape of hints; but, now, their hopes could\nbecome detailed descriptions, because a _substratum_ was given to them\nin the present. The Messiah had been foretold to David as a successor\nto his throne,--as a King. Hence it was, that, in the view of David\nhimself and of the other psalmists, the earthly head of the\nCongregation of the Lord formed the _substratum_ for the future\nSaviour. The naked thought now clothed itself with flesh and blood. The\nhope gained thereby in clearness and distinctness, as well as in\npractical significance.\n\nThe slight hint of a higher nature of the Messiah, given in Gen. xlix.\n8, forms the main ground for the advancing and more definite knowledge,\nwhich we find in the days of David and Solomon. Grand and lofty\nexpectations could, henceforth, not fail to be connected with the\npromise in 2 Sam. vii. 14, \"I will be a father to him, and he shall be\na son to Me,\" and with the prophecy of the absolute perpetuity of\ndominion, in the same passage. In Ps. ii. 12, the Messiah appears as\nthe Son of God \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd,--as He, in whom to trust is to be saved,\nand whose anger brings destruction. In Ps. cx. 1, He appears as the\nLord of the Congregation and of David himself,--as sitting at the right\nhand of omnipotence, and as invested with a full participation in the\ndivine power over heaven and earth. In Ps. lxxi. eternity of dominion\nis ascribed to Him. In Ps. xlv. 7, 8, He is called God, Elohim.\n\nAmong the offices of Christ, it is especially the _Regal_ office on\nwhich a clear light has been shed. The Messiah appears prominently as\nHe \"who has dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends\nof the earth,\" Ps. lxxii. 8. In Ps. cx., however, the office of the\nMessiah as the eternal _High Priest_ is first revealed to the\ncongregation. He appears as the person who atones for whatever sins\ncleave to His people, as their Intercessor [Pg 152] and Advocate with\nGod, and as the Mediator of the closest communion with God. We have\nhere the outlines, for the filling up of which Isaiah was, at a later\nperiod, called. The _Prophetic_ office of the Saviour does not\ndistinctly appear in the Psalms. It was reserved for Isaiah to bring\nout into a clearer light the allusion given, on this subject, by Moses,\nafter it had been taken up again, for the first time since Moses' day,\nby the prophet Joel.\n\nIt was quite natural that David, who himself was exercised and proved\nby the cross, should be the first to introduce to the knowledge of the\nChurch a _suffering Messiah_. But the doctrine has with him still the\ncharacter of a germ; he still mixes up the references to the Messiah\nwith the allusions to His types. It was from these that David rose to\nHim; it was from their destiny that David, by the Holy Spirit, inferred\nwhat would befall Him. Nowhere, however, has David directly and\nexclusively to do with a suffering Messiah, as had, afterwards, the\nprophet Isaiah.\n\nIn all that respects the Psalms, we must content ourselves with merely\na passing glance, lest we encroach too much upon the territory which\nbelongs to the Commentary on the Psalms. But \"the last words of David,\"\npreserved to us in the Books of Samuel, we shall make the subject of a\nmore minute consideration, inasmuch as they form a connecting link\nbetween the two classes of Psalms which rest on the promise in 2\nSam. vii., viz., those referring to David's house and family, and\nthose relating to the personal Messiah. The \"ruler among men\" whom we\nmeet in these \"last words,\" is, in the first instance, an _ideal_\nperson,--viz., the Davidic race conceived of as a person; but the\n_ideal_ points to the _real_ person, in whom all that had been foretold\nof the Davidic family should, at some future period, find its full\nrealization. It is with a view to this person, that the personification\nhas been employed.\n\n\n\n\n 2 SAMUEL XXIII. 1-7.\n\n\nThe last words of David are comprehended in seven verses; and these,\nagain, are subdivided into sections of five and two [Pg 153] verses\nrespectively. First, there is a description of the fulness of blessings\nwhich the dominion of the just ruler shall carry along with it, and\nthen of the destruction which shall overtake hostile wickedness.\n\nIt is not by accident that these last words are not found in the\ncollection of Psalms. The reason is indicated by the \u05e0\u05d0\u05dd There is a\nprophetic element in the lyric poetry of David wheresoever it refers to\nthe future destiny of his house; but this prophetic element rises,\nhere, at the close of his life, to pure prophetic inspiration and\nutterance, which stand on an equal footing with the prophecy of Nathan\nin 2 Sam. vii., and claim an equal authority.\n\nVer. 1. \"_And these are the last words of David. David, the son of\nJesse, prophesies, and the man prophesies who was raised up on high,\nthe anointed of the God of Jacob, and sweet in the Psalms of Israel._\"\n\nIt is substantially the same thing, whether we understand: \"the last\nwords of David\" or \"the latter words of David\"--later in reference to\nxxi. 1. For even Ps. xviii., which precedes in chap. xxii., belongs,\naccording to its inscription and contents, to the last times of David;\nit is, as it were, \"a grand Hallelujah with which he withdraws from the\nscene of life.\" But, at all events, there is a closer connection with\nthat Psalm; in it, too, David has in view the future destiny of his\nrace, and we have here, in the last words, the prophetic conclusion of\nthe lyrical effusion there. From this connection with chap. xxii., the\ncloser limitation of the \"words\" follows. We learn from it that _holy_\nwords only can be meant. The solemn introduction, and the parallelism\nwith the blessings of Jacob and Moses, fully agree with and confirm\nthis our introductory remark regarding the chronological position of\nthese \"words.\"--There can be no doubt that, in this introduction, there\nis a reference to Balaam's prophecy in Num. xxiv. 3,--and this goes far\nto prove how much David was occupied with the views which men of God\nhad formerly opened up into future times:--\"And he took up his parable\nand said: Balaam the son of Beor prophesies, and the man who had his\neyes shut, prophesies: He prophesies who hears the words of God, who\nsees the vision of the Almighty, falling down and having his eyes\nopen.\" The remarks which we made on that passage find here also a\nstrict application: [Pg 154] \"Balaam begins with a simple designation\nof his person, and then, in the following members, adds designations of\nsuch qualities of this person as here come into consideration, and\nserve for affording a foundation to the \u05e0\u05d0\u05dd with which he opens his\ndiscourse.\" As \u05e0\u05d0\u05dd always has the signification, \"word of God,\"\n\"revelation,\" it can here be ascribed to David, as it was in the\nfundamental passage to Balaam, only in as far as the word has been\nreceived by, and communicated to, him. The \u05e2\u05dc, \"upon,\" \"over,\" stands\nhere for \"on high,\"[1]--those over whom David has been raised up being\nomitted in order to express the absolute sovereignty bestowed upon\nDavid, more, however, in his posterity, than in his own person.\n(Compare Ps. xviii. 44: \"Thou makest me the head of the heathen;\" and\nin ver. 48: \"God who avengeth me, and subdueth people under me.\") _He\nwho was raised up on high_--With the exception of the bodily ancestor\nand the lawgiver, of none under the Old Testament could this be with so\nmuch truth affirmed, as of David, the founder of the royal house,\nwhich, in all eternity, was to be the channel of blessings for the\nCongregation of the Lord, and to which, at last, all power in heaven\nand on earth was to be given. _The anointed of the God of Jacob_--Such\nis David, not only as an individual, but also as the representative of\nhis race; compare Ps. xviii. 51. He is pre-eminently the anointed, the\nChrist of God.--\u05d6\u05de\u05d9\u05e8 plur. \u05d6\u05de\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea signifies, according to derivation\nand usage, not _song_ or _hymn_ in general, but the hymn in the higher\nstrain, the skilful, solemn song of praise; compare my commentary on\nSong of Sol. ii. 12. David's Psalms are called \u05d6\u05de\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea of Israel,\nbecause he sang them as the organ of the congregation, and because they\nwere appointed to be used in public worship; compare Comment, on\nPsalms, vol. iii. p. vi. _Sweet in Psalms of Israel_ here finds its\nplace only on the supposition that David, in his Psalms, spoke in the\nSpirit, Matt. xxii. 41-46; compare Commentary on Psalms, vol. iii. p.\nvii. viii. The most distinguished excellence in poetry which is [Pg\n155] merely human cannot form a foundation for the assertion in ver. 2.\nBut if, on the other hand, David be an often times tried organ of the\nSpirit for the Church, it cannot surprise us that in ver. 2 he even\ndeclares that, in the Spirit, he there foretells the future. Thus the\n\u05e0\u05d0\u05dd in our verse also has a good foundation.\n\nVer. 2. \"_The Spirit of the Lord spake to me, and His word is upon my\ntongue._\" That \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 refers to the communication which David promulgates\nin the sequel, and not to other revelations which he had formerly\nreceived, appears from its relation to the \u05e0\u05d0\u05dd in ver. 1. We should\nlose the new revelation announced in ver. 1, if ver. 2, and, hence,\nver. 3 also--for the \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 there evidently resumes the \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8--refer to\ndivine revelations which David, or, as _Thenius_ supposes, even some\nother person, had formerly received.--\u05d1\u05d9 is not \"through me,\" for in\nthat case the Participle would have been used instead of the Preterite;\nnor \"in me,\" for that is contradicted by the parallel passages in which\n\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 occurs with \u05d1; but \"into me,\" which is stronger than \"to me,\" and\nmarks the deeply penetrating power of the revelation by the Spirit;\ncompare remarks on Hosea i. 2. Such being the case, the Preterite is\nquite in its proper place; for the inward revelation, the \u05e0\u05d0\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\nprecedes the communication--the \u05e0\u05d0\u05dd \u05d3\u05d5\u05d3. (On the whole verse, 1 Pet. i.\n11, 2 Pet. i. 21, are to be compared.)\n\nVer. 3. \"_The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me: a\nRuler over men--just; a Ruler--fear of God._\"\n\nThe omission of the verb, \"will be or rise,\" is quite suited to the\nconcise and abrupt style of the divine word. The mention of God, the\nRock of Israel, shows that the revelation has a reference to what is\ndone for the good of the people of God,--of His Church. For her good,\nthe glorious Ruler shall be raised. (Compare the words, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\n\u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u1f74\u03bb \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, in Luke i. 54, as also ver. 68, and ii. 32.) The\nappellation. Rock of Israel, indicates God's immutability,\ntrustworthiness, and inviolable faithfulness; compare my comment, on\nPsalm xviii. 3, 32-47. The connection betwixt Ps. xviii. and the \"last\nwords of David\" here also clearly appears. The fundamental passage is\nDeut. xxxii. 4.--That _men_ must be conceived of as the subjects of\ndominion, is proved by Ps. xviii. 44, where David is made the head of\nnations, and people whom he has not known [Pg 156] serve him,--and by\nver. 45, where the sons of the stranger do homage to him,--and by ver.\n48: \"Who subdues people under me.\"--_A Ruler_--_fear_ of God, _i.e._, a\nRuler who shall, as it were, be fear of God itself--personified fear of\nGod. We must here compare the expression, \"This man is the peace,\" Mic.\nv. 4, and, as to the substance of the expression. Is. xi. 2, \"And the\nSpirit of the Lord rests upon him ... the spirit of knowledge and of\nthe fear of the Lord.\" We might be disposed to refer this exclusively\nto the person of the Messiah, especially when those Psalms are compared\nwhich refer to a personal Messiah. But Ps. xviii.--which here receives,\nas it were, its prophetic seal--and especially the relation of ver. 3\nand 4 to ver. 5, where David speaks of his house, prove that the Ruler\nhere is, primarily, only an ideal person, viz., the seed of David\nspoken of in Ps. xviii. 51. Things so glorious can, however, be\nascribed to it only with a reference to the august personage in whom\nthat seed will centre at the end of days,--the righteous Branch, whom\nthe Lord will raise up unto David (Jer. xxiii. 5), who executeth\njudgment and righteousness on earth, Jer. xxxiii. 15. David knew too\nwell what human nature is, and what is in man, to have expected any\nsuch thing from the collective body, as such.\n\nVer. 4. \"_And as the light of the morning when the sun riseth, a\nmourning without clouds; by brightness, by rain,--grass out of the\nearth._\"\n\nIn the first hemistich we have to supply: will be His appearance in its\nloveliness and saving importance. The morning elsewhere also,\nespecially in the Psalms (compare remarks on Ps. lix. 17; Song of Sol.\niii. 1), is used as the emblem of salvation. The condition of men\nbefore the appearance of the Ruler among them, is, in its destitution,\nlike dark night.--The _brightness_ is that of the Ruler, as the\nspiritual Sun, the Sun of Salvation. (Compare Mal. iii. 20 [iv. 2],\nwhere righteousness is represented as the sun rising to those who fear\nGod.) The _rain_--the warm, mild rain, not the winter's rain which, in\nthe Song of Sol. ii. 11, and elsewhere, occurs as an emblem of\naffliction and judgment--is the emblem of blessing (compare Is. xliv.\n3, where \"rain\" is explained by \"blessing\"). The _grass_, which springs\nup out of the earth by means of sunshine and rain, is emblematical of\nthe fruits and effects of salvation. [Pg 157] (Compare Is. xlv. 8,\nwhere, in consequence of the rain of salvation pouring down from the\nskies, the earth brings forth salvation and righteousness.) The passage\nin Ps. lxxii. 6 is parallel, where Solomon says of his Antitype, \"He\nshall come down like rain upon the mown grass, as showers watering the\nearth.\" The figure of the rain making fresh grass to spring up is there\nlikewise employed to designate the blessings of the Messianic time.\n\nVer. 5. \"_For is not thus my house with God? For He has made with me an\neverlasting covenant, ordered in all things and kept; for all my\nsalvation, and all pleasure,--should He not make it to grow?_\"\nThe special revelation which David received at the close of his life\n(compare the remarks on \u05e0\u05d0\u05dd in ver. 1) is here connected with the\nfundamental promise in 2 Sam. vii., which was thereby anew confirmed to\nhim. Those who, like _De Wette_ and _Thenius_, mistake the correct\nsense of vers. 3 and 4, are not a little perplexed by the \"_for_\"\nat the beginning of this verse, and attempt in vain to account for\nit.--_Thus_, _i.e._, as it had been told in what precedes.--\u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05db\u05d4,\n\"prepared,\" \"ordered,\" forms the contrast to what is only half\nfinished, indefinite, depending upon circumstances and conditions,\nadmitting of provisions and exceptions. The extent to which all\ninterposing obstacles were excluded, or rather, had been considered and\ncalculated upon beforehand, appears especially from 2 Sam. vii. 14, 15,\naccording to which, even the most fatal of all interpositions--the\napostasy of the bearers of the covenant--should not destroy the\ncovenant,--should not annul the gracious promise made to the race.\n_Kept_, _i.e._, firm, inviolable, because given by Him who keepeth\ncovenant and mercy, Deut. vii. 9; Dan. ix. 4. In 1 Kings viii. 25,\nSolomon prays, \"And now, Lord God of Israel, keep with Thy servant\nDavid my father what Thou promisedst him when Thou saidst. There shall\nnot be cut off unto thee a man from My sight to sit on the throne of\nIsrael.\" The second \"_for_\" points out the cause of _kept_. _All\npleasure_, _i.e._, all that is well-pleasing to me, all that my heart\ndesires. The preceding \u05d9\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9 serves the purpose of qualifying it more\ndefinitely. The object of David's desires is, accordingly, his\nsalvation, the glory of his house.\n\nVer. 6. \"_And wickedness, like thorns, they will all be driven away;\nfor not will any one take them into his hands._\"\n\nThe subject treated of in this verse is: the Ruler among men [Pg 158]\nin His relation to His enemies. To those He is as formidable as His\nappearance is blessed to those who surrender themselves to Him. In Ps.\nxviii. also, there is a celebration of the indomitable power which the\nLord grants to David, His anointed, and to his seed against all their\nenemies; compare ver. 38: \"I pursue mine enemies and overtake them, and\ndo not turn again till they are consumed; ver. 39, I crush them and\nthey cannot rise, they fall under my feet.\" In the cycle of Psalms from\ncxxxviii. to cxlv., David likewise speaks of the dangers which threaten\nhis house from enemies, and the leading thought of Ps. ii. is: the\nMessiah as the conqueror of His enemies. The eyes of David were the\nmore opened to this circumstance, the more he himself had had to\ncontend against adversaries.--\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05dc always means unworthiness in a\nmoral point of view, \"wickedness,\" \"vileness.\" _Wickedness_ is here\nused in the concrete sense = the wicked ones, the sons of wickedness,\nDeut. xiii. 14. The wicked ones, the enemies of the Church, are\ncompared to the thorns, on account of their pricking nature; and\ntherefore their end is like that of thorns, they will be thrown aside\nlike them. In Ezek. xxiv. 28, after the judgment upon the neighbouring\npeople has been proclaimed, it is said, \"And there shall remain no more\na pricking brier everywhere round about the house of Israel, where\ntheir enemies are, nor a grieving thorn;\" compare Num. xxxiii. 55; Song\nof Sol. ii. 2; Is. xxvii. 4; Nahum i. 10.--\u05de\u05e0\u05d3, the _Partic. Hoph._ of\n\u05e0\u05d5\u05d3, \"thrust out,\" \"put to flight\" (compare Ps. xxxvi. 12), cannot be\napplied to the thorns, but only to the men. _Like thorns_, _i.e._, so\nthat they become like thorns, of which the land is cleared. _For not\nwill any one take them into his hands_--_Michaelis_: _Intractabiles\nsunt._\n\nVer. 7. \"_And if any one toucheth them, he is filled with iron, and the\nstaff of a spear; and they shall be utterly burnt with fire where they\ndwell._\"\n\nThe two members of vers. 6 and 7 stand in an inverted relation to each\nother. In ver. 6, we have, first, the punishment described, and then\ntheir hostile nature, by which the punishment was called forth. In ver.\n7, we have, first, the cause, and then the consequence. The thought in\nthe first member is: every touch of them bears a hostile character.\n_Iron_--instead of weapons fabricated of iron; comp. 1 Sam. xvii. 7;\nJob xx. 24, xli. 19 compared with vers. 18, 20; Jer. xv. 12. [Pg 159]\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea, literally, \"in the dwelling\" (compare Ps. xxiii. 6, xxvii. 4;\nDeut. xxx. 20) instead of \"where they dwell,\" shows that in their own\nborders they shall be visited and overtaken by retribution. \u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea cannot\nhave the signification, \"without delay,\" ascribed to it by _Thenius_.\n\n\nFootnote 1: \u05ea\u05d7\u05ea, \"below,\" \"beneath,\" \"under,\" is often used\nadverbially, _e.g._ Gen. xlix. 25. \u05e2\u05dc, in the signification \"on high,\"\noccurs also in Hosea xi. 7,--less certainly in Hos. vii. 16. For,\naccording to 2 Chron. xxx. 9, that passage may be explained; \"they\nreturn, not _to_,\" _i.e._, there is the mere commencement of\nconversion, but not the attainment of the end. On \u05d4\u05d5\u05e7\u05dd Deut. xxviii. 36\nis to be compared.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n THE SONG OF SOLOMON.\n\n\nAn important link in the chain of the Messianic hopes is formed by the\nSong of Solomon. It is intimately associated with Ps. lxxii., which was\nwritten by Solomon, and represents the Messiah as the Prince of Peace,\nimperfectly prefigured by Solomon as His type. As in this Psalm, so\nalso in the Song of Solomon, the coming of the Messiah forms the\nsubject throughout, and He is introduced there under the name of\nSolomon, the Peaceful One. His coming shall be preceded by severe\nafflictions, represented under the emblems of the scorching heat of the\nsun, of winter, of rain, of dark nights, and of the desert. Connected\nwith this coming is the reception of the heathen nations into His\nkingdom, and this, through the medium of the old Covenant-people.\n\nThus far the first part, down to chap. v. 1. The subjects contained in\nthe second part are, the sin of the daughter of Zion against the\nheavenly Solomon and the judgment; then, repentance and reunion, which\nwill be accomplished by the co-operation of the daughters of Jerusalem,\n_i.e._, of the very heathen nations who had formerly received salvation\nthrough them; the complete re-establishment of the old relation of\nlove, in consequence of which the daughter of Zion again occupies the\ncentre of the kingdom of God; and the indissoluble nature of this\ncovenant of love now anew entered into, in contrast with the\ninstability of the former.\n\nThe Song of Solomon does not, strictly speaking, possess a prophetical\ncharacter. It does not communicate any new revelations; like the\nPsalms, it only represents, in a poetical form, things already known.\nIt sufficiently appears from our former statement, that, in the first\npart of this book, not one feature occurs which did not form a part of\nthose Messianic prophecies [Pg 160] which we can prove to have been\nknown at the time of Solomon. In the second part, however, it is\nsomewhat different. No corresponding parallel can be adduced from any\nformer time to the view, that a great part of the people would reject\nthe salvation offered to them in Christ, and, thereby, draw down\njudgment upon themselves. Yet, all that the book under consideration\ncontains upon this point, is only the application of a general truth,\nthe knowledge of which the Covenant-people had received at the very\nbeginning of their history. A consideration of human nature in general,\nand more especially of Israel's character, as it had been deeply and\nfirmly impressed upon the people by the Mosaic law, joined to the ample\nexperience which history had afforded in this respect, sufficiently\nconvinced those who were more enlightened, that it could not be by any\nmeans expected--that, indeed, it was even impossible--that, at the\ncoming of the Messiah, the whole people would sincerely and heartily\nreceive Him, and do homage to Him. And there existed, on the other\nhand, at the time of Solomon also, the foundation for the doctrine of\nthe final restoration of the people. For, even in the Pentateuch, the\nelection of Israel by God is represented as irrevocable and absolute,\nand which, therefore, must at last triumph over all apostasy and\nCovenant-breaking on the part of the people.\n\nThe Song of Solomon, then, is no _apocalypsis_, no revelation of\nmysteries till then unknown. There is in it no such disclosure as is,\n_e.g._, that in 2 Sam. vii., on the descent of the Messiah from David;\nor, as is that in Mic. v. 1 (2), on His being born at Bethlehem; or\neven as is that in Is. liii. on His office as a High Priest, and His\nvicarious satisfaction. But, nevertheless, we must not imagine the case\nto have been thus, that the contents of the Song of Solomon could have\noriginated merely from reflection on the part of Solomon. The truths\nhitherto revealed had too much of the character of mere germs to allow\nus to suppose that from them, and in such a way, we could account for\nthe clearness and certainty with which they have been blended into one\nwhole. Another element, moreover, must be joined to the historical\nground--viz., an elevated condition of the soul, a \"being in the\nSpirit,\"--a breathing of the divine Spirit upon the human. History\nbears witness that such prophetic states, in the wider sense, were not\nstrange to Solomon. It twice [Pg 161] reports about the Lord's having\nappeared to him, 1 Kings iii. 5, ix. 2. From such an elevated state of\nsoul, his dedicatory prayer, in 1 Kings viii., and Ps. lxxii., also\noriginated.\n\nWe must content ourselves with these hints as regards Solomon's Song.\nAs it moves throughout on Messianic ground, the Author must consider\nhis commentary on this book (Berlin, 1853) as an appendix to the\nChristology.\n\n[Pg 162]\n\n\n\n\n MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.\n\n\nAfter the time of Solomon, the Messianic prediction was for a\nconsiderable time discontinued. It was first resumed, and farther\nexpanded, by the Canonical prophecy which began under Uzziah. There\ncannot be any doubt that that which _appears_ as an interval was\n_really_ such. There is no ground for the supposition that any\nimportant connecting links have been lost. The Messianic prediction in\nthe oldest canonical prophets is immediately connected with that which\nexisted previously at the time of David and Solomon.\n\nIt is not a matter of chance that, whilst the blossom of prophetism\nappeared as early as Samuel, the canonical prophetism took its rise at\na much later date. Nor is it the result of accident, that we do not\npossess any written prophecies, either by Elijah, who, at the\ntransfiguration of the Lord, appeared as the representative of all the\nOld Testament prophets, or by Elisha. Nor is it merely accidental that,\nat the time of Uzziah, there appears all at once, and simultaneously, a\nwhole series of prophets. All these things are connected with the\ncircumstance, that it was only at that time that great events for the\nCovenant-people were in preparation,--that, only then, those\ncatastrophes were impending which were to be brought about by the\nAsiatic kingdoms, and which kept equal pace with the sin of Israel, the\nmeasure of which was being more and more filled up. Canonical prophecy\nis closely linked with these catastrophes. It is called to disclose to\nthe Church the meaning of these judgments, and, thereby, to secure to\nthem their effects in all time coming. The Messianic predictions\nuttered by the prophets are likewise closely connected with the\nannouncement of these judgments. Whilst false security was shaken by\nthe threatenings, despondency--which is as [Pg 163] hostile to true\nconversion--was prevented by pointing to the future coming of the\nSaviour.\n\nThe prophets do not deliver the Messianic prediction in its whole\ncompass, any more than do the writers of the Messianic Psalms. On the\ncontrary, it is always only certain individual aspects which they\nexhibit. The writers of the Messianic Psalms take up those features\nwhich presented points of contact with their own lives and their own\nexperiences, or at least the circumstances of their times. This is\nquite in keeping with the more subjective origin of Psalm-poetry. Thus\nDavid describes the suffering Messiah surrounded by powerful enemies,\nand who, after severe struggles, at length obtains victory and\ndominion. To Solomon, He appears as the Ruler of a great and peaceful\nkingdom, and he beholds the most distant nations reverentially offering\npresents to Him and doing Him allegiance. But the Prophets, in pointing\nout this or that feature, are not so much guided by their own\nexperience, disposition of mind, and peculiar circumstances, as by the\nwants of those whom they are addressing, and by the effect which they\nare anxious to produce on them. When they have to do with\npusillanimity, desponding at the sight of the heathen world as it seems\nto be all-powerful,--they then represent the Messiah as the invincible\nconqueror of the heathen world, who shall subject the whole earth to\nthe kingdom of God. When they have to deal with pride, trusting in\nimaginary prerogatives of the Covenant-people, and boldly challenging\nthe judgments of God upon the heathen,--they then represent the Messiah\nas Him who shall make a great separation among the Covenant-people\nthemselves, and who shall be a consolation to the godly, while He\nbrings inexorable judgments upon the wicked when they have to do with\nthose who mourn in Zion, who through the inflicted judgments of the\nLord have been brought to a deep sorrow on account of their sins,--they\nthen represent the Messiah as Him who shall one day take away the sins\nof the land, who is to bear their griefs and carry their sorrows. Now,\nas canonical prophecy extends over several centuries, during which\ncircumstances, wants, and dispositions the most diverse, must have\ntaken place, and as the Messianic prophecy is in harmony with these, it\ndisplayed, more and more fully, its riches, and did so in a manner far\nmore effective and vivid than it could possibly have [Pg 164] done had\nit been proclaimed in the form of a discussion or treatise. As the\nMessiah was thus represented from the most various points of view, and\nin the way of direct perception, and divine confidence,--as He was thus\neverywhere pointed out as the end of the development. He could not but\nbecome more and more the soul of the nation's life.\n\nIn the Messianic announcements by the prophets, no such gradual\nprogress in clearness and distinctness can be traced, as in those of\nthe Pentateuch. The assertion that there existed with them at first,\nonly a general hope of better times, unconnected with any person, rests\non the unfounded hypothesis that Joel is the oldest among all the\nprophets,--and at the same time on the erroneous assumption that he was\nignorant of a personal Messiah,--and, _further_, on the incorrect\nsupposition that the prophets, who write only what presents itself\nimmediately to their view, have not in their creed all that they omit\nto say. It is, _moreover_, opposed by the prospect of a personal\nMessiah held out in the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Song of\nSolomon. How very slender is the ground for inferring that, because\nmany essential points are not touched upon by Hosea, Joel, and Amos,\nthey, therefore, did not know them, is shown by the fact that neither\ndo several among the later prophets--as Jeremiah and Ezekiel--touch\nupon them, although the previous more distinct prophecies of Isaiah\nwere certainly known and acknowledged by them. We must never forget\nthat it is from above that each of the prophets received his share of\nthe prophetic spirit, and that this depended partly upon the measure of\nhis receptivity, which might have been greater with the former than\nwith the latter prophets,--and, partly, upon the wants and capacities\nof those for whom the prophecy was destined.\n\nA central position, as regards the Messianic predictions, is occupied\nby Isaiah. Even his Messianic prophecies, however, when viewed detached\nand isolated, bear the character of onesidedness. He nowhere gives us a\ncomplete image of the Messiah. But, whilst the other prophets were\npermitted to give only single disclosures, he gives us, in the whole\nbody of his Messianic prophecies, the materials for a full and entire\nimage, although not the image itself. The Fathers of the Church have,\ntherefore, rightly designated him as the Evangelist among the prophets.\nBut the transition to him from the Psalms and [Pg 165] the Song of\nSolomon could not be Immediate. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and\nMicah form, as it were, the connecting links. Proceeding from the\nMessianic promise, in the shape which it had received at the time of\nDavid and Solomon, they give it a standing in the prophetic message,\nand infuse into it new life by means of the connection into which it is\nbrought by them, and supplement it by adding single new features.\n\nIt is our intention to give an exposition of the Messianic passages in\nthe prophets, according to their chronological order. In placing Hosea\nat the head, we follow the example of those who collected the Canon,\nand who, regarding not so much the succession of years as that of the\ngovernments, may have assigned the first place to Hosea, because he is\nthe most important among the prophets at the time of Jeroboam in\nIsrael, and of Uzziah in Judah, or because he really appeared first,\nand the prophecy in chap. i.-iii. is the beginning of written\nprophecies. The latter supposition most naturally suggests itself; the\nanalogies are in its favour, and no decisive argument has been brought\nforward against it.\n\n\n THE PROPHET HOSEA.\n\n GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS.\n\nThat the kingdom of Israel was the object of the prophet's ministry is\nso evident, that upon this point all are, and cannot but be, agreed.\nBut there is a difference of opinion as to whether the prophet was a\nfellow-countryman of those to whom he preached, or was called by God\nout of the kingdom of Judah. The latter has been asserted with great\nconfidence by _Maurer_, among others, in his _Observ. in Hos._, in the\n_Commentat. Theol._ ii. i. p. 293. But the arguments by which he\nsupports this view will not stand the test. He appeals (1) to the\ninscription. The circumstance that, in this, there is mention made of\nthe kings of Judah under whom Hosea exercised his ministry,--that they\nare mentioned _at all_,--and that they are mentioned _first_ and\n_completely_, while only one of the kings of Israel is named, [Pg 166]\nproves, according to him--especially on a comparison with the\ninscription of Amos--that the prophet acknowledged the kings of Judah\nas his superiors. But this mode of argumentation entirely overlooks the\nposition which the pious in Israel generally, and the prophets\nespecially, occupied in reference to Judah. They considered the whole\nseparation--the civil as well as the religious--as an apostasy from\nGod. And how could they do otherwise, since the eternal dominion over\nthe people of God had been granted, by God, to the house of David? The\ncloseness of the connection between the religious and the civil\nsufficiently appears from the fact, that Jeroboam and all his\nsuccessors despaired of being able to maintain their power, unless they\nmade the breach, in religious matters also, as wide as possible. The\nchief of the prophets in the kingdom of the ten tribes--Elijah--by\ntaking twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of Israel (1\nKings xviii. 31), plainly enough declared, that he considered the\nseparation as one not consistent with the idea of the Jewish kingdom,\nand that therefore, in reality, it must at some future period be done\naway with; that he considered the government in Israel as existing _de\nfacto_, but not _de jure_.\n\nBy none do we find this view so distinctly brought out as by Hosea.\n\"They have set up kings, and not by Me\"--says the Lord by him, chap.\nviii. 4--\"they have made princes, and I knew it not.\" In his view,\nthen, the whole basis of the government in Israel is ungodliness.\nBecause they have chosen kings and princes without God, and against the\nwill of God, they shall be taken from them by God, chap. iii. 4.\nSalvation cannot come to the people until Israel and, Judah set over\nthemselves one head, ii. 2 (i. 11), until the children of Israel seek\nJehovah their Lord, and David their king, iii. 5. These two things are,\nin his view, intimately connected; no true return to the invisible head\nof the Theocracy is possible without, at the same time, a return to the\nvisible one--the house of David. What, at some future time, the mass of\nthe people, when converted, were to do, the converted individual must\ndo even now. He even now recognised the kings of the tribe of Judah as\ntruly his sovereigns, although he yielded civil obedience to the rulers\nof Israel, until God should again abolish the government which He gave\nto the people in wrath, and set [Pg 167] up in opposition to the\ngovernment of the house of David in His anger, on account of their\napostasy. From all this, it clearly appears that, in order to account\nfor the peculiarity of the inscription, we need not have recourse to\nthe conjecture, that Hosea was a native of Judah. One might, with as\nmuch reason, maintain that all the prophets in the kingdom of Israel,\nwho rejected the worship of the calves--and hence all the prophets\nwithout exception--were natives of the kingdom of Judah. For the\nworship of the calves is quite on a par with the apostasy from the\nanointed of God. Hosea mentions, first and completely, the kings of the\nlegitimate family. He then further adds the name of one of the rulers\nof the kingdom of Israel, under whom his ministry began, because it was\nof importance to fix precisely the time of its commencement. Uzziah,\nthe first in the series of the kings of Judah mentioned by him,\nsurvived Jeroboam nearly twenty-six years; compare _Maurer_, l. c. p.\n284. Now, had the latter not been mentioned along with him, the thought\nmight easily have suggested itself, that it was only during the latter\nperiod of Uzziah's reign that the prophet entered upon his office; in\nwhich case all that he said about the overthrow of Jeroboam's family\nwould have appeared to be a _vaticinium post eventum_, inasmuch as it\ntook place very soon after Jeroboam's death. The same applies to what\nwas said by him regarding the total decay of the kingdom which was so\nflourishing under Jeroboam; for, from the moment of Jeroboam's death,\nit hastened with rapid strides towards its destruction. If, therefore,\nit was to be seen that future things lie open before God and His\nservants \"before they spring forth\" (Is. xlii. 9), it was necessary\nthat the commencement of the prophet's ministry should be the more\naccurately determined; and this is effected by the statement, that it\nhappened within the period of the fourteen years during which Uzziah\nand Jeroboam reigned contemporaneously. That this is the main reason\nfor mentioning Jeroboam's name, is seen from the relation of ver. 2 to\nver. 1. The remark there made,--that Hosea received the subsequent\nrevelation at the very beginning of his prophetic ministry, corresponds\nwith the mention of Jeroboam's name in ver. 1. But this is not all; nor\ncan we say that, had it not been for this reason, Hosea would not have\nmentioned any king of Israel at all, in order that, from the outset, he\nmight exhibit [Pg 168] his disposition. There was a considerable\ndifference between Jeroboam and the subsequent kings. _Cocceius_\nremarked very strikingly: \"The other kings of Israel are not considered\nas kings, but as robbers.\" Jeroboam possessed a _quasi_ legitimacy. The\nhouse of Jehu, to which he belonged, had opposed the extreme of\nreligious apostasy. It was, to a certain degree, acknowledged, even by\nthe prophets. Jeroboam had obtained the throne, not by usurpation, but\nby birth. He was the last king by whom the Lord sent deliverance to the\npeople of the ten tribes; compare 2 Kings xiv. 27: \"And the Lord would\nnot blot out the name of Israel from under heaven; and He saved them by\nthe hand of Jeroboam, the son of Joash.\" (2.) The _internal_ reason\nadduced by _Maurer_ (S. 294) is equally insignificant. \"The _morum\nmagistri_,\" he says, \"are wont more slightly to reprove, in the case of\nstrangers, that which they severely condemn in their own people; but\nHosea rebukes with as much severity the inhabitants of Judah, when he\ncomes to speak of them, as he does the Israelites.\" But no certain\ninferences can be drawn from such commonplaces; for, in this way we\nmight as reasonably infer, that Isaiah and the writer of the Books of\nKings were natives of the kingdom of the ten tribes, because they\ncensure the sins of the Israelites as severely as they do those of the\ninhabitants of Judah. To this commonplace we might as easily oppose\nanother equally true, viz., the \"_morum magistri_, from a partiality\nfor their own people, are wont to judge more leniently of their faults\nthan of those of strangers.\" Such maxims require to be applied with the\nutmost caution, even in the territory to which they belong, because one\nconsideration may be so easily outweighed by another. Here, however,\nits application is altogether out of the question. The prophets, as the\ninstruments of the Spirit, spoke pure and plain truth without any\nregard to persons. Whether Hosea was a native of Judah or of Israel, he\nwould express himself in the same way concerning the inhabitants of\nJudah. He would severely rebuke their sins, and at the same time\nreadily acknowledge, as he does, their advantages,--for \"Salvation\ncometh of the Jews.\"\n\nIf, then, these be the arguments in favour of the Judean origin of\nHosea, it readily appears that the probabilities of such an origin,\ncompared with that of his Israelitish descent, are not [Pg 169] even in\nthe proportion of one to a hundred. The prophets were almost more\nnumerous in the kingdom of Israel than in that of Judah; and yet the\nentire history knows of only two instances of prophets being sent from\nthe kingdom of Judah to that of Israel, viz., the prophet spoken of in\n1 Kings xiii. and Amos. And the former of these even scarcely belongs\nto this class, inasmuch as he received only a single mission into the\nkingdom of Israel, and _that_, at a time when the prophetic institution\nwas not as yet organized there. In the case of Amos likewise, it is\nmanifest not only that he was only an exception to the rule,--as\nappears from the transactions with the priest Amaziah, reported in Amos\nvii. (compare especially ver. 12),--but still more plainly, from the\nmention in the inscription of his having been a native of Judah.\n\nWith regard to the _time_ of the prophet, the inscription places his\nministry in the reigns of the kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.\nA long period is, no doubt, thus assigned to it,--a period embracing at\nleast twenty-six years of Uzziah's reign, and, in addition, the sixteen\nyears of that of Jotham, the sixteen years during which Ahaz reigned,\nand at least one or two years of the reign of Hezekiah, making, at the\nlowest calculation, a period of sixty years in all.\n\nThis exceedingly long duration of the prophet's ministry might easily\nexcite suspicion regarding the genuineness and correctness of the\ninscription; but such suspicion is at once set at rest by the fact,\nthat the statements contained in the book itself lead us to assume a\nperiod equally extended. The _beginning_ of the prophet's ministry\ncannot be assigned to any _later_ period; for, in chap. i. 4, the fall\nof Jeroboam's house, which took place soon after his death, is\nannounced as a future event. _Moreover_, the condition of the kingdom\nappears still, throughout the whole first discourse, as a very\nflourishing one. Nor can the end of his ministry be assigned to any\nearlier period. For in chap. x. 14, an expedition of Shalman or\nShalmaneser against the kingdom of Israel (_Vitringa_, _Proleg. in Is._\np. 6) is described as being already past, and a second invasion is\nthreatened. But the first expedition of Shalmaneser, reported in 2\nKings xvii. 1 seqq., is almost contemporaneous with the beginning of\nHezekiah's reign. For it was directed against Hoshea, king of Israel,\nwho began his reign in the twelfth [Pg 170] year of that of Ahaz, which\nlasted sixteen years. The exact harmony of the passage in Hosea with\nthat in 2 Kings xvii. is very evident. In 2 Kings xvii. 3, it is said:\n\"Against him came up Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, and Hoshea became\nhis servant and gave him tribute.\" This was the first expedition of\nShalmaneser. Then followed the second expedition, which was caused by\nthe rebellion of Hoshea,--in consequence of which Samaria was taken and\nthe people carried away. In Hos. x. 14, 15, it is said: \"And tumult\nariseth against thy people, and all thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as\nShalman spoiled Beth-arbel in the day of battle; the mother was dashed\nin pieces upon (her) children. So shall he do unto you, Bethel, because\nof your great wickedness in the dawn of the morning, destroyed,\ndestroyed shall be the king of Israel.\" Hosea here declares that the\nbeginning of the destruction by Shalmaneser is the prophecy of the end\nof the kingdom of Israel. The \"morning dawn\" is the time of apparently\nreappearing prosperity, when, according to _Cocceius_, a time of peace\nbegins to shine. In Amos iv. 13, v. 8, the prosperity again dawning\nupon the kingdom of Israel is likewise expressed by \"morning\" and\n\"morning dawn.\" The identity of Beth-arbel and Arbelah in Galilee can\nthe less be doubted, because recent researches have rendered it certain\nthat this place, now called _Irbid_, was an important fortress.\n(Compare _M\u00fcnchener gelehrte Anzeigen_ 1836, S. 870 ff.; _Robinson_,\niii. 2, p. 534; _v. Raumer_, S. 108.) The use of Beth-arbel, instead of\nthe more common Arbelah, as well as that of Shalman instead of\nShalmaneser, belongs to the higher style. At the first expedition, the\ndecisive battle had, no doubt, taken place at Arbelah. They who\ndisconnect this passage from 2 Kings xvii. do not know what to make of\nit. _Simson_ complains of the darkness resting on the passage under\nconsideration.--But Hos. xii. 2 (1) likewise leads us to the very last\ntimes of the kingdom of Israel,--those times when Hoshea endeavoured to\nfree himself from the Assyrian servitude by the help of Egypt. \"Ephraim\nfeedeth on wind, and followeth after the east-wind; he daily increaseth\nlies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with Assyria, and oil\nis carried into Egypt.\" Their sending oil to Egypt, notwithstanding the\ncovenant made with Assyria, is the lie, which goes hand in hand with\ndesolation, while they imagine thereby to [Pg 171] work deliverance.\nThis explanation has been already given by _J. H. Manger_, of whose\n_Commentarius in Hoseam_, _Campen_, 1782--a commentary in many respects\nexcellent--most of the recent commentators, and, lastly, _Simson_,\nhave, to their great disadvantage, not availed themselves. _Manger_\nsays: \"These words refer to the ambassadors who were sent with splendid\npresents by king Hoshea to the king of Egypt, in order to win him over\nto himself, and induce him to assist him against the Assyrians, to whom\nhe had become subject by a solemn treaty.\"--To the last times of the\nkingdom of Israel we are likewise led by what occurs in other passages\nconcerning the relation of Israel to Egypt and Asshur. The matter has\nbeen falsely represented by very many as if two parties among the\npeople were spoken of,--an Assyrian and an Egyptian party. Nor is it\nso, that the whole people turn at one time to Egypt in order to free\nthemselves from the Assyrians, and at another time to Assyria to assist\nthem against Egypt. The position is rather thus: The people, heavily\noppressed by Asshur, at one time seek help from Egypt against Asshur,\nand, at another, attempt to conciliate the latter. Precisely thus is\nthe situation described in vii. 11: \"They call to Egypt, they go to\nAsshur.\" That by which Israel was threatened, was, according to viii.\n10, \"the burden of the king of princes, the king of Asshur,\" ver. 9.\nThis they seek to turn off, partly by artifices, and partly by calling\nto their help the king of Egypt. Asshur alone is the king \"warrior\"\n(_Jareb_), v. 13, x. 6; he only has received the divine mission to\nexecute judgment; compare xi. 5: \"He, _i.e._, Israel, shall not return\nto the land of Egypt, and Asshur, he is his king.\" As an ally not to be\ntrusted, Egypt is described in vii. 16, where, after the announcement\nof their destruction on account of their rebellion against the Lord, it\nis said: \"This shall be their derision on account of the land of\nEgypt,\" _i.e._, thus they shall be put to shame in the hope which they\nplace on Egypt. Is. xxx. 1-5 is quite analogous. In that passage the\nprophet announces that Judah's attempt to protect themselves against\nAsshur by means of Egypt would be vain; compare, especially, ver. 3:\n\"And the fortress of Pharaoh shall be your shame, and the trust in the\nshadow of Egypt, your confusion;\" and ver. 5: \"Not for help nor for\nprofit, but for shame and for reproach.\" Such historical circumstances,\n[Pg 172] however, had not yet occurred under Menahem. At that time,\nIsrael was not yet placed in the midst betwixt Asshur and Egypt. It is\nexpressly mentioned in 2 Kings xv. 20, that the invasion of Pul was\nonly transitory, and that not conquest, but spoil, was its aim. The\nreal commencement of the Assyrian oppression is formed by the invasion\nof Tiglathpileser at the time of Ahaz. Isaiah, in chap. vii., points\nout the pernicious consequences of Ahaz's calling the Assyrians to his\nassistance against Syria and Israel. The very fact of this war carried\non against Judah by Syria and Ephraim shows, that up to that time,\nAsshur had not laid his hand upon these regions. It was only with the\ninvasion under Ahaz that there was any display of Asshur's tendency to\nmake permanent conquests on the other side of Euphrates, which could\nnot fail to bring about the conflict with the Egyptian power.--\"King\nJareb,\"--such had already become the historical character of the king\nof Asshur, at the time when Hosea wrote; but prior to the times of Ahaz\nand Hezekiah, he did not stand out as such.\n\nThere is no decisive weight to be attached to what _Simson_ advances in\norder to prove that we must fix an earlier date. He argues thus:\n\"Gilead, which, according to 2 Kings xv. 29, was taken and depopulated\nby Tiglathpileser, whom Ahaz had called to his assistance, appears in\nvi. 8, xii. 12 (11) to be still in the possession of Israel. Hence, the\nministry of the prophet cannot have extended beyond the invasion of\nJudah by the Syrians and Ephraim.\" But since the book gives the sum and\nsubstance of Hosea's prophecies during a prolonged period, there must\nnecessarily occur in it references to events which already belonged to\nthe past, at the time when the prophet wrote. In chap. i. 4, even the\noverthrow of the house of Jeroboam appears as being still future.\n\nBut even although we could not establish, from other sources, the\nstatement contained in the inscription, the inscription itself would\nnevertheless be a guarantee for it; and the more so, because there are\nother analogies in favour of so long a duration of the prophetic\noffice, which was sometimes entered upon even in early youth. The\ninscription has the same authority in its favour as every other part of\nthe book; and it is hardly possible to understand the levity with which\nit has, in recent times, been pretty generally designated as spurious,\nor, at least, suspicious. [Pg 173] It is altogether impossible to sever\nit from the other parts of the book. There must certainly have been\nsome object in view when, in ver. 2, it is expressly remarked, that\nwhat follows took place at the _beginning_ of Hosea's ministry. But\nsuch an object it will be possible to point out, only in the event of\nits being more accurately determined at what time this beginning took\nplace--viz., still under the reign of Jeroboam, when the state of\nthings as it appeared to the eye did not yet offer any occasion for\nsuch views of the future as are opened up in the first three chapters.\nVer. 1 cannot, therefore, be regarded as an addition subsequently made,\nunless the words in ver. 2, from \u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05ea to \u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2 be so likewise. But\nthese again are most closely connected with what follows by the\n_Future_ with _Vav convers._, which never can begin a narrative. There\nremains, therefore, only this alternative:--either to regard the whole\nas having been written at a later period, or to claim for Hosea the\ninscription also. We cannot agree with the view of _Simson_, that the\nremark by which the beginning of the book is assigned to the beginning\nof the prophet's ministry, originated from a chronological interest\nonly; and we can the less do so, because the prophet does not pay any\nattention to chronology in any other place, but is anxious to give only\nthe sum and substance of what he had prophesied during a series of\nyears. The only exception which he makes in this respect must have\noriginated from strong reasons; and such do not exist, if the\ninscription in ver. 1, or the mention of the kings in it, be spurious.\nThe mention of the beginning in ver. 2 would, in that case, be so much\nthe more groundless, as we could know nothing at all regarding the\nlength of his ministry.\n\nMuch more fruitful, certainly, than all such vain doubts, are the\nreflections of Calvin on the long duration of the prophet's ministry:\n\"How grievous is it to us when God requires our services for twenty or\nthirty years; and, especially, when we have to contend with ungodly\npeople, who would not willingly take upon them the yoke, yea, who even\nobstinately resist us! we then wish to be freed at once, and to become\npensioned soldiers. But, seeing this prophet's long protracted\nministry, let us take from it an example of patience, that we may not\ndespair although the Lord should not at once free us from our burden.\"\n\nMany interpreters have zealously attempted to determine the [Pg 174]\nparticular portions of this lengthened period to which the particular\nportions of this book belong. But such an undertaking is wholly vain in\nthe case before us, as well as in that of Micah, and most of the minor\nprophets generally. The supposition upon which it rests is false--viz.,\nthat the collection consists of a number of single, detached portions.\nWe do not possess the whole of Hosea's prophecies, but only the\nsubstance of their essential contents,--a survey which he himself gave\ntowards the end of his ministry. This appears (1) from the \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 in\nthe inscription. In itself, this would not be a decisive argument, as\nthe prophet might also have comprehended in an _ideal_ unity,\ndiscourses outwardly distinct; but, nevertheless, as long as no reason\nappears for the contrary, it is more naturally referred to a continuous\ndiscourse with an external unity also. (2.) It appears from the entire\nomission of all chronological data. The only exception is in ver. 2;\nbut this exception serves only to strengthen the argument drawn from\nthe omission everywhere else. (3.) It is proved by the absence of all\ncertain indications about the beginning and ending of the particular\nportions. There occur, just as in the second part of Isaiah, new\nstarting points only; but, with these exceptions, the discourse always\nmoves on in the same manner. (4.) It is seen from the indefiniteness\nand generality of the historical references, which must necessarily\narise if the prophet referred, in like manner, to the whole of this\nlengthened period. That the facts, upon which the last two arguments\nrest, really exist, is made sufficiently apparent from the immense\ndiversity of opinions as to the number and extent of the particular\nportions, and as to the time of their composition. There are not even\ntwo of the more important interpreters who agree in the main points\nalone. Such a diversity does not exist in reference to any of the\nprophetical books which actually consist of detached prophecies. (5.)\nThe style and language are too much the same throughout the whole, to\nadmit of the idea that any long period could have elapsed between the\nparticular prophecies. This, indeed, is only a subordinate argument;\nbut it acquires its full importance, when connected with the foundation\nof the third and fourth proofs.\n\nIt now only remains to give a survey of the historical circumstances at\nthe time of the prophet. This is the more necessary, as a knowledge of\nthese is required for the exposition of [Pg 175] the Messianic\nprophecies, not only of Hosea, but also of Amos, his contemporary.\n\nThe kingdom of Israel carried within it, from its very commencement, a\ntwofold element of destruction--viz., the establishment of the worship\nof the calves, and the rebellion against the dynasty of David. With\nregard to the former,--the consequence of this apparently so much\nisolated transgression of a Mosaic ordinance extended much further than\nwould appear upon a superficial view. In this case also it was seen\nthat a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Of far higher importance\nthan the low conceptions of God produced by this symbolical\nrepresentation of Him, was another aspect of the transaction. The\nprohibition of image-worship in the Pentateuch was as distinct and\nclear as it was possible to make it. The kings of Israel were far from\nrejecting it; but still, how difficult soever it may appear, they found\nout an interpretation by which they evaded the application of it to\ntheir institution. Such a course once entered upon, could only lead\nthem further and further astray. As, in so important a case, they\nhad, in opposition to their own better convictions, allowed themselves\nto pervert and explain away the law--asserting, probably, that\nit was given only on account of the coarse sensuality of former\ngenerations--the same was done in other things also, as often as it\nwas called for by the disposition of the corrupted heart. All\nunfaithfulness which is known to be so, and yet is cherished, and\nexcused to the conscience and before men, must draw after it entire\nruin, in a community, not less than in an individual. As a reason for\nthis ruin, it is very strikingly said in 2 Kings xvii. 9: \"And they\n_covered_ (this is the only ascertained signification of \u05d7\u05e4\u05d0) words\nthat were not so, over the Lord their God;\" _i.e._, they ventured, by a\nnumber of perversions and false interpretations of His word, to\nveil its true form. To this, the following consideration must be\nadded:--That first change of the religious institutions proceeded from\nthe political power which secured to itself, for the future, an\nabsolute influence upon the religious affairs, by subjecting to its\ncontrol the ecclesiastical power, which had hitherto been independent\nof it. Those Levites who, having no regard to the miserable sophisms\ninvented by the king as an excuse, declared against the worship of\ncalves, were expelled, and, in their stead, creatures of the king [Pg\n176] were made ministers of the sanctuary. This became now the king's\nsanctuary (compare the remarkable passage, Amos vii. 13), and all the\necclesiastical affairs were, in strict contradiction to the Mosaic law,\nsubmitted to his arbitrary power. The consequences of this must\nnecessarily have been all the sadder, the worse the kings were; and\nthey must inevitably have become so, because of the bad foundation on\nwhich the royal power rested.\n\nImage-worship was very speedily followed by idolatry,--which is,\nhowever, in like manner, not to be looked upon in the light of an\nundisguised opposition to the true God. Such an opposition took place\nduring the reign of only one king--Ahab--under whom the matter was\ncarried to an extreme. Holy Scripture, however, with a total disregard\nof the whole multitude of miserable excuses ordinarily made, designates\nas _direct_ apostasy from God, everything which was substantially such,\nalthough it did not outwardly manifest itself as such. Externally, they\nremained faithful to Jehovah; they celebrated His feasts,--they offered\nthe sacrifices prescribed in the Pentateuch,--they regulated, in\ngeneral, all the religious institutions according to the requirements\nthere laid down, as may be proved from the Books of Kings, and, still\nmore plainly, from Amos and Hosea. But in all this they discovered a\nmethod by which light and darkness, the worship of idols with that of\nthe Lord, might be combined. Nor was this discovery so very difficult,\nsince their eye was not single. They had before them the examples of\nheathen nations, who were quite prepared reciprocally to acknowledge\ntheir deities, in all of whom they recognised only different forms of\nmanifestation of one and the same divine being; and they were quite\nwilling to extend this acknowledgment even to the God of Israel also,\nas long as they did not meet with intolerance on the part of those who\nprofessed to worship Him, and were therefore not roused to the practice\nof intolerance in return. This reciprocal recognition of their deities\nby the nations in the midst of whom the Israelites lived, is\nsufficiently evident from the circumstance, that they all called their\nhighest deity by the same name--Baal--and expressed, by some epithet,\nonly the form of manifestation peculiar to each. Now, the Israelites\nimagined that they might be able, at one and the same time, to satisfy\nthe demands of their God, and to propitiate [Pg 177] the idols of the\nneighbouring mighty nations--especially of the Ph\u0153nicians--if they\nremoved the wall of separation betwixt the two. Jehovah and Baal were,\nin their view, identical as to their essence. The former was that mode\nof manifestation peculiar to them, and the main object of their worship\naccording to the method prescribed by Himself in His revelation. But\nthe latter was not to be neglected; inasmuch as they imagined that they\nmight thereby become partakers of the blessings which this form of\nmanifestation of the deity was able to bestow. And thus to Jehovah they\ngave the name of Baal also, Hos. ii. 18 (16); they celebrated the days\nappointed by Jehovah, ver. 13 (11), but those also devoted to Baalim,\nver. 15 (13). In this way we receive an explanation of the fact which,\nat first sight, is so startling, viz., that according to Hosea and\nAmos, all is filled with the service of Baal; while the Books of Kings\nwould lead us to think that, with the reign of Ahab, the dominion of\nthis worship had ceased. But it was only its hostile opposition to the\nworship of Jehovah that had disappeared, while a far more dangerous\nreligious compromise took its place. No doubt can be entertained as to\nthe party on whose side lay the advantage in this compromise. It was\nplainly on that side on which it always lies, whensoever the heart is\ndivided betwixt truth and falsehood. Externally, the worship of Jehovah\nremained the prevailing one; but, inwardly, idolatry obtained\nalmost the sole dominion. If only the limits betwixt the two religions\nwere removed, that religion would of course come with the highest\nrecommendation, the spirit of which was most in accordance with\nthe spirit of the people. But, owing to the corrupt condition of\nhuman nature, this would not be the strict religion of Jehovah,\nwhich, as coming from God, did not bring God down to the level of\nhuman debasement, but demanded that man should be raised to His\nelevation,--which placed the holiness of God in the centre, and founded\nupon it the requirement that its possessors should be holy;--but it\nwould be the soft, sensual, idolatrous doctrine which flattered human\ncorruption, because from that it had its origin. Thus the Jehovah of\nthe Israelites became in reality what they sometimes called Him by way\nof alternation--a Baal. And the matter was now much more dangerous\nthan if they had deserted Him [Pg 178] externally also, inasmuch as\nthey now continued to trust in His covenant and promises, and to boast\nof their external services,--thus strengthening themselves in their\nfalse security.\n\nThe _natural_ consequence of this apostasy from the Lord was a\nfrightful corruption of manners. The next result of spiritual\nadultery was the carnal one. Voluptuousness formed the fundamental\ncharacteristic of the Asiatic religions in general, and, in particular,\nof those with which the Israelites came in contact. But the pernicious\ninfluence extended still further over the whole moral territory. Where\nthere is no holy God, neither will there be any effort of man after\nholiness. All divine and human laws will be trampled under foot. All\nthe bonds of love, law, and order, will be broken. And, as such, the\ncondition of the country in a moral point of view is described by its\ntwo prophets throughout. Compare, _e.g._, Hosea iv. 1, 2: \"There is no\ntruth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. Swearing, and\nlying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery--they break\nthrough, and blood toucheth blood.\" There then followed, from the moral\ncorruption, the internal dissolution of the state, and its external\nweakness.\n\nThe _supernatural_ consequences of the apostasy from the Lord, were the\nsevere punishments which He inflicted upon the people. With whomsoever\nGod has entered into a closer connection, whomsoever He thinks worthy\nof His grace, in him the Lord will be glorified by the infliction of\npunishment upon him, if, through his own guilt. He has not been\nglorified by sanctification in him. Just because Israel formed part of\nthe Covenant-people, they could not be allowed to continue to retain\nthe outward appearance of it, when, inwardly, they did not retain a\nvestige.\n\nAs the second element of the ruin, we mentioned the rebellion against\nthe dynasty of David. Their dominion rested on divine right, while the\nnew Israelitish kingdom rested upon the sandy foundation of human\ncaprice. The first king had raised himself to the throne by his own\npower and prudence, and through the favour of the people. Whosoever had\nthe same means at his disposal, imagined that these gave him the right\nto do likewise. And thus dynasty supplanted dynasty, regicide followed\nregicide. In the bloody struggles thereby occasioned, the people became\nmore and more lawless. Sometimes interregna, [Pg 179] and periods of\ntotal anarchy took place; and by these internal struggles the power to\nresist external enemies was more and more broken. No king was able to\nstop this source of mischief, for such an effort would have required\nhim to lay aside his position as a king. And as little was any one able\nto put a stop to that source of evil formerly mentioned: for, if the\nreligious wall of partition which was erected between Israel and Judah\nwere once removed, the civil one likewise threatened to fall.\n\nSuch were, in general, the circumstances under which Hosea, like the\nother prophets of the kingdom of Israel, appeared. There cannot be any\ndoubt that these were much more difficult than those of the kingdom\nof Judah. There, too, the corruption was indeed very great; but it\nwas not so firmly intertwined with the foundation of the whole state.\nThorough-going reforms, like those under Hezekiah and Josiah, were\npossible. The interest of a whole tribe was closely bound up with the\npreservation of true religion.\n\nThe reign of Jeroboam II., which was externally so prosperous, and in\nwhich Hosea entered upon his prophetic ministry, had still more\nincreased the apostasy from the Lord, and the corruption of manners,\nand thus laid the foundation for the series of disastrous events which\nbegan soon after his death, and which, in quick succession, brought\nthe people to total ruin. The prosperity only confirmed them still\nmore in their security. Instead of being led to repentance by the\nunmerited mercy of God (compare 2 Kings xiv. 26, 27), they considered\nthis prosperity as a reward of their apostasy, as the seal by which\nJehovah-Baal confirmed the rectitude of their ways. The false prophets,\ntoo, did what was in their power to strengthen them in their delusion,\nwhilst the true prophets preached to deaf ears.\n\nImmediately after the death of Jeroboam, it soon became apparent on\nwhich side the truth lay. There followed an interregnum of from eleven\nto twelve years.[1] After the termination [Pg 180] of it, Zachariah,\nthe son of Jeroboam, succeeded to the throne; but he was murdered by\nShallum, after a short reign of six months, 2 Kings xv. 10. Shallum,\nafter he had reigned only one month, was slain by Menahem, ver. 14.\nMenahem reigned ten years at Samaria. Under him, the catastrophe was\nalready preparing which brought the kingdom to utter destruction. He\nbecame tributary to the Assyrian king Pul, vers. 19-21. He was\nsucceeded by his son Pekahiah, in the fiftieth year of Uzziah. After a\nreign of two months, he was slain by Pekah, the son of Remaliah, who\nheld the government for twenty years (ver. 27), and, by his alliance\nwith the kings of Syria against his brethren the people of Judah (comp.\nIs. vii.), hastened on the destruction of Israel. The Assyrians, under\nTiglathpileser, called to his assistance by Ahaz, even at that time\ncarried away into captivity part of its citizens,--the tribes who lived\non the other side of the Jordan. In the fourth year of Ahaz, Pekah was\nslain by Hoshea, who, after an interregnum of eight years, began to\nreign in the twelfth year of Ahaz, xvii. 1. He became tributary to\nShalmaneser; and the end of his government of nine years was also the\nend of the kingdom of the ten tribes. His having sought for an alliance\nwith Egypt drew down, upon himself and his people, the vengeance of the\nking of Assyria.\n\nWe have already proved that the historical references in the prophecies\nof Hosea extend to the time when the last king of Israel attempted to\nsecure himself against Asshur, by the alliance with Egypt. It is very\nprobable that the book was written at [Pg 181] that time. At the time\nwhen the sword of the Lord was just being raised to inflict upon Israel\nthe death-blow, Hosea wrote down the sum and substance of what he had\nprophesied during a long series of years, beginning in the last times\nof Jeroboam, when, to a superficial view, the people were in the\nenjoyment of the fullest prosperity. When at the threshold of their\nfinal fulfilment, he condensed and wrote down his prophecies, just as,\nin the _annus fatalis_, the fourth year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah,\naccording to chap. xxv., gave a survey of what he had prophesied over\nJudah during twenty-three years.\n\nIn the prophecies of Hosea, as in those of Amos, the _threatening_\ncharacter prevails. The number of the elect in Israel was small, and\nthe judgment was at hand. In Jeremiah and Ezekiel, too, the prophecies,\nprevious to the destruction, are mainly minatory. It was only after the\nwrath of God had been manifested in deeds, that the stream of promise\nbrake forth without hindrance. Hosea, nevertheless, does not belie his\nname, by which he had been dedicated to the helping and saving God, and\nwhich he had received, _non sine numine_. (\u05d4\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2, properly the Inf. Abs.\nof \u05d9\u05e9\u05e2, is, in substance, equivalent to Joshua, _i.e._, the Lord is\nhelp.) Zeal for the Lord fills and animates him, not only in the energy\nof his threatenings, but also in the intensity and strength of his\nconviction of the pardoning mercy and healing love of the Lord, which\nwill, in the end, prevail. In this respect, Hosea is closely connected\nwith the Song of Solomon--that link in the chain of Holy Scripture into\nwhich he had, in the first instance, to fit. There are in Hosea\nundeniable references to the Song of Solomon. (Compare my Comment. on\nthe Song of Solomon, on chap. i. 4, ii. 3.) It is certainly not by\naccident that the brighter views appear with special clearness at the\nbeginning, in chap. i. 3 (compare ii. 1-3, 16-25 [i. 10, ii. 1, 14-23],\niii. 5), and at the close, xiv. 2-10 (1-9), where the fundamental\nthought is expressed in ver. 4 (3): \"For in Thee the fatherless findeth\nmercy.\" But even in the darker middle portions, they sometimes suddenly\nbreak through; compare v. 15, vi. 3, where the subject is: \"He teareth\nand He healeth us; He smiteth and He bindeth up;\" vi. 11, where, after\nthe threatening against Israel, we suddenly find the words:\n\"Nevertheless, O Judah! He grants thee a harvest, when I (_i.e._, the\nLord) return to the prison of My people.\" (Judah is [Pg 182] here\nmentioned as the main portion of the people, in whom mercy is bestowed\nupon the whole, and in whose salvation the other tribes also share.)\nCompare also xi. 8-11, where we have this thought: After wrath, mercy;\nthe Covenant-people can never, like the world, be altogether borne down\nby destructive judgments; xiii. 14, where the strong conviction of the\nabsolutely imperishable nature of the Congregation of the Lord finds\nutterance in the words, \"I will ransom them from the hand of hell; I\nwill redeem them from death: O death! where is thy plague? O hell!\nwhere is thy pestilence? repentance is hid from Mine eyes.\" _Simson_ is\nperplexed \"by the sudden transition of the discourse, in this passage,\nfrom threatening to promise,--and this without even any particle to\nindicate the mutual relation of the sentences and thoughts.\" But the\nsame phenomenon occurs also in vi. 11 (compare Micah ii. 12, 13),\nwhere, likewise, several expositors are perplexed by the suddenness and\nabruptness of the transition. It is explained from the circumstance,\nthat behind even the darkest clouds of wrath which have gathered over\nthe Congregation of the Lord, there is, nevertheless, concealed the sun\nof mercy. In the prophets, it sometimes breaks through suddenly and\nabruptly; but in this they are at one with history, in which the\ndeepest darkness of the night is oftentimes suddenly illuminated by the\nshining of the Lord: \"And at midnight there was a cry made: Behold, the\nbridegroom cometh.\"\n\nThe sum and substance of Hosea's prophetic announcement is the\nfollowing:--Israel falls, through Asshur: Judah, the main tribe, shall\nbe preserved from destruction in this catastrophe. (The prophet's\ntender care for Judah is strikingly brought out in his exhortation to\nIsrael, in iv. 15, that they should desist from their compromises in\nreligion, and that, if they chose to commit sin, they should rather\ndesert the Lord altogether, lest by their hypocrisy Judah also should\nbe seduced and infected.) But at a later period, Judah too is to fall\nunder the divine judgment (ii. 2 [i. 11], where it is supposed that\nJudah shall also be carried away into captivity; v. 5: \"Israel and\nEphraim fall by their iniquity, Judah also falleth with them;\" v. 12:\n\"I am unto Ephraim as a moth, and to the house of Judah as rottenness;\"\ncompare also xii. 1, 3), although the immediate instruments of the\njudgment upon Judah are not mentioned [Pg 183] by Hosea. But the\njudgments which the two houses of Israel draw upon themselves by their\nworks (ii. 2 [i. 11], iii. 5, indicate that even Judah will, at some\nfuture time, rebel against the house of David) shall be followed by the\ndeliverance to be accomplished by grace. Judah and Israel shall, in the\nfuture, be again gathered together under one head, ii. 2 (i. 11); a\nglorious king out of David's house not only restores what was lost, but\nalso raises the Congregation of the Lord to a decree of glory never\nbefore conceived of, iii. 5: \"Afterwards shall the children of Israel\nreturn and seek the Lord their God, and David their King, and shall\nfear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days.\"\n\nThe peculiarity of the Messianic prophecies of Hosea, as compared with\nthose of the time of David and Solomon, consists in the connection of\nthe promise with threatenings of judgments, and in the Messiah's\nappearing as the light of those who walk in the deepest darkness of the\ndivine judgments. It was necessary that this progress should have been\nmade in the Messianic announcements, before the breaking in of the\ndivine judgments; for, otherwise, the hope of the Messiah would have\nbeen extinguished by them, because it was but too natural to consider\nthe former as, _in fact_, an annihilation of these dreamy hopes. But\nnow there was offered to the elect a staff on which they might support\nthemselves, and walk with confidence through the dark valley of the\nshadow of death.\n\nThe Book of Hosea may be divided into two parts, according to the two\nprincipal periods of the prophet's ministry,--under Jeroboam, when the\nexternal condition was as yet prosperous, and the bodily eye did not as\nyet perceive anything of the storms of divine wrath which were\ngathering,--and under the following kings, down to Hosea, when the\npunishment had already begun, and was hastening, by rapid strides,\ntowards its consummation.--Another difference, although a subordinate\none, is this:--that the first part, which comprehends the first three\nchapters, contains prophecies connected with a symbol, while the second\npart contains direct prophecies which have no such connection. A\nsimilar division occurs in Amos also,--with this difference, that\nthere, the symbolical prophecies form the conclusion. The first part\nmay be considered as a kind of outline, which all the subsequent\nprophecies served to fill up; just [Pg 184] as may the 6th chapter in\nIsaiah, and the first and second in Ezekiel. We shall give a complete\nexposition of this section, as it will afford us a vivid view of the\nwhole position of Hosea, and as it is just there that the Messianic\nannouncement meets us in its most developed form.\n\n\nFootnote 1: _Ewald_, _Thenius_, and others, will not grant that such an\ninterregnum took place. As numbers were originally expressed by\nletters, in which an interchange might easily happen, we cannot deny\nthe possibility of such an error having occurred in 2 Kings xiv. 23. It\nis quite possible that the duration of Jeroboam's reign was there\noriginally stated at fifty-two or fifty-three, instead of forty-one\nyears. But strong reasons would be required for rendering such a\nsupposition admissible,--the more so, as the interchange would not have\nbeen limited to one letter, as _Thenius_ supposes, but must have\nextended to both. But no such reasons exist. The silence of the Books\nof Kings upon the subject of this interregnum cannot be urged as a\nreason, since these books are so exceedingly short as regards the\nhistory of the last times of the kingdom of Israel. Sacred\nhistoriography has no interest in the details of this process of decay,\nwhich began with the death of Jeroboam,--which also is represented by\nAmos as if it were the day of Israel's death (Amos vii. 11: \"Jeroboam\nshall die by the sword, and Israel shall be led away captive out of\ntheir own land\"), although bare existence is still, for some time,\nspared. By the rejection of this interregnum, Hosea's ministry would be\nshortened by twelve years; but this gain--if such it be--can be\npurchased only at the expense of a most improbable extension of the\nduration of Jeroboam's reign. _Simson_, S. 201, has defended the\ninterregnum.\n\n\n\n THE SECTION CHAP. I.-III.\n\nThe question which here above all engages our attention, and requires\nto be answered, is this: Whether that which is reported in these\nchapters did, or did not, actually and outwardly take place. The\nhistory of the inquiries connected with this question is found most\nfully in _Marckius's_ \"_Diatribe de uxore fornicationum_,\" Leyden,\n1696, reprinted in the Commentary on the Minor Prophets by the same\nauthor. The various views may be divided into three classes.\n\n1. It is maintained by very many interpreters, that all the events here\nnarrated took place actually and outwardly. This opinion was advanced\nwith the greatest confidence by _Theodoret_, _Cyril_ of Alexandria, and\n_Augustine_ from among the Fathers of the Church; by most interpreters\nbelonging to the Lutheran and Reformed Churches (_e.g. Manger_); most\nrecently, by _Stuck_, _Hofmann_ (_Weissag u. Erf._ S. 206), and, to a\ncertain extent, by _Ewald_ also, who supposes \"a free representation of\nan event actually experienced by the prophet.\"\n\n2. Others consider it as a parabolical representation. Thus does\nCalvin, who expressly opposes the supposition not only of an external,\nbut also of an internal event. He explains it thus: \"When the prophet\nbegan to teach, he commenced thus: The Lord has placed me here as on a\nstage, that I might tell you, I have taken a wife,\" etc. Entirely\nsimilar was the opinion of the Chaldee Paraphrast, by whom the words,\n\"Go,\" etc., are thus paraphrased: \"Go and prophesy against the\ninhabitants of the adulterous city.\" Of a like purport is the view\nheld, from among recent interpreters, by _Rosenm\u00fcller_, _Hitzig_ (\"that\nwhich the prophet describes as actual, is only a fiction\"), _Simson_\nand others. The strange opinion of Luther, which, out of too great\nrespect, was adopted by a few later theologians (_Osiander_, [Pg 185]\n_Gerhard_, _Tarnovius_), is only a modification of this. It is to the\neffect, that the prophet had only ascribed to his own chaste wife the\nname and works of an adulteress, and, hence, had performed with her,\nbefore the people, a kind of play. (Compare, against this view,\n_Buddeus_, _de peccatis typicis_ in the _Misc. s. t._ i. p. 262.) The\nsame opinion is expressed by _Umbreit_: \"His own wife is implicated in\nthe general guilt, and hence she is a representative of the whole\npeople.\" In opposition to this view, compare _Simson's_ Commentary.\n\n3. Others suppose that the prophet narrates events which took place\n_actually_, indeed, but _not outwardly_. This opinion was, considering\nthe time at which it was advanced, very ably defended by _Jerome_ in\n_Epist. ad Pammachium_, and in his commentary on chap. i. 8. According\nto _Rufinus_, all those in Palestine and Egypt who respected the\nauthority of _Origen_, asserted that the marriage took place only in\nspirit. The difficulties attaching to the first view were made\nespecially obvious by the ridicule of the Manicheans (_Faustus_ and\n_Secundinus_ in _Augustine_, t. vi. p. 575) on this narrative. The most\naccomplished Jewish scholars (_Maimonides_ in the _More Nebuch._ p. ii.\nc. 46, _Abenezra_, _Kimchi_) support this opinion. Some new arguments\nin defence of it have been adduced by _Marckius_.\n\nOf these three views:--actually and outwardly; neither outwardly nor\nactually; actually, but not outwardly,--the second must be at once\nrejected. Those who hold it supply, \"God has commanded me to tell you.\"\nBut there is not the slightest intimation of such an ellipsis; and\nthose interpreters have no better right to supply it in this, than in\nany other narrative. There is before us action, and nothing but action,\nwithout any intimation whatsoever that it is merely an invention.\n\nBut the following arguments are decisive in favour of the third, and\nagainst the first view.\n\n1. The defenders of an outward transaction rely, in support of their\nview, upon the supposition, that their interpretation is most obvious\nand natural;--that they are thus, as it were, in the _possession_ of\nthe ground, and in a position from which they can be driven only by the\nmost cogent reasons;--that if the transaction had been internal, it\nwould have been necessary for the prophet to have expressly marked it\nas such. But precisely the reverse of all this is the case. The most\nobvious supposition [Pg 186] is, that the symbolical action took place\nin vision. If _certain_ actions of the prophets, especially seeing,\nhearing, and their speaking to the Lord, etc., must be conceived of as\nhaving taken place inwardly, unless there be distinct indications of\nthe opposite, why not the remainder also? For the former presupposes\nthat the world in which the prophets move, is altogether different from\nthe ordinary one; that it is not the outward, but the spiritual world.\nIt is certainly not a matter of chance, that the _seeing_ in the case\nof the prophets must be understood spiritually; and if there be a\nreason for this, the same reason entitles us to assert that the\nwalking, etc., also took place inwardly only. By what right could we\nmake any difference between the actions of others, described by the\nprophet, and his own? Vision and symbolical action are not opposed to\neach other; the former is only the _genus_ comprehending the latter as\na _species_. By this we do not at all mean to assert, that _all_ the\nsymbolical actions of the prophets took place in inward vision only. An\ninward transaction always lay at the foundation; but sometimes, and\nwhen it was appropriate, they embodied it in an outward representation\nalso (1 Kings xx. 35 seq., xxii. 11; Jer. xix. xxviii.; and a similar\nremarkable instance from modern times, in _Croesi Hist. Quakeriana_, p.\n13). For this very reason, however, this argument cannot be altogether\ndecisive by itself; but it furnishes, at least, a presumptive proof,\nand that by no means unimportant. If regularly and naturally the\ntransaction be internal only, then the opposite requires to be proved\nin this case. If this had been admitted, no attempt would have been\nmade elsewhere also, _e.g._, Is. xx., by false and forced\ninterpretations to explain away the supposition of a merely internal\ntransaction.\n\n2. No one will certainly venture to assert that a merely internal\ntransaction would have missed its aim, since there exists a multitude\nof symbolical actions, in regard to which it is undeniable, and\nuniversally admitted, that they took place internally only. For the\ninward action, being narrated and committed to writing, retained the\nadvantage of vividness and impressiveness over the naked representation\nof the same truth. Sometimes, in the case of actions concentrated into\na single moment, this advantage may be still further increased by the\ninward transaction being represented outwardly also. But, here, just\nthe [Pg 187] opposite would take place. We have here before us a\nsymbolical transaction which, if it had been performed outwardly, would\nhave continued for several years. The separation of the single events\nwould have prevented its being taken in at a single view, and have thus\ndeprived it of its impressiveness. But, what is still more important,\nthe natural _substratum_ would have occupied the attention so much more\nthan the _idea_, that the latter would have been thereby altogether\noverlooked. The domestic affairs of the prophet would have become the\nsubject of a large amount of _tittle-tattle_, and the idea would have\nbeen remembered only to give greater point to the ridicule.\n\n3. The command of God, when considered as referring to an outward\ntransaction, cannot be, by any means, justified. This is most glaringly\nobvious, if we understand this command, as several do, to mean that the\nprophet should beget children with an unchaste woman, and without\nlegitimate marriage. Every one will sympathize with the indignation\nexpressed by _Buddeus_ (l. c. p. 206) against _Thomas Aquinas_, who,\nfollowing this view, maintains that the law of God had been, in this\nspecial case, repealed by His command. God Himself cannot set us free\nfrom His commands; they are an expression of His nature, an image of\nHis holiness. To ascribe arbitrariness to God in this respect, would be\nto annihilate the idea of God, and the idea of the Law at the same\ntime. This view, it is true, is so decidedly erroneous as to require no\nfurther refutation; but even the opinion of _Buddeus_ and others\npresents insurmountable difficulties. They suppose that the prophet had\nmarried a woman who was formerly unchaste. In opposition to this,\nCalvin very strikingly remarks: \"It seems not to be consistent with\nreason, that God should spontaneously have rendered His prophet\ncontemptible; for how could he ever have appeared in public after such\nignominy had been inflicted upon him? If he had married such a wife, as\nhere described, he ought rather to have hidden himself all his lifetime\nthan have assumed the prophetic office.\" In Lev. xxi. 7 the law forbids\nthe priests to take a wife that is a whore, or profane. That which,\naccording to the letter, referred to the priests only, is applicable,\nin its spirit, to the prophets also,--yea, to them in a higher degree,\nas will be seen immediately, when the ordinance is reduced to its\n_idea_. The latter is easily inferred from the reason stated, [Pg 188]\nviz., that the priests should be holy to their God. The servants of God\nmust represent His holiness; they are, therefore, not allowed, by so\nclose a contact with sin, to defile or desecrate themselves either\ninwardly or outwardly. Although the inward pollution may be prevented\nin individual cases by a specially effective assistance of divine\ngrace, yet there always remains the outward pollution.\n\nIt is inconceivable that, at the very commencement of his ministry, God\nshould have commanded to the prophet anything, the inevitable effect of\nwhich was to mar its successful execution. Several--and especially\n_Manger_--who felt the difficulties of this interpretation, substituted\nfor it another, by which, as they imagined, all objections were\nremoved. The prophet, they say, married a person who had formerly been\nchaste, and fell only after her marriage. This view is no doubt the\ncorrect one, as is obvious from the relation of the figure to the\nreality. According to ver. 2, it is to be expressed figuratively that\nthe people went a-whoring from Jehovah. The spiritual adultery\npresupposes that the spiritual marriage had already been concluded.\nHence, the wife can be called a whoring wife, only on account of the\nwhoredom which she practised after her marriage. This is confirmed by\nchap. iii. 1, where the more limited expression \"to commit adultery\" is\nsubstituted for \"to whore,\" which has a wider sense, and comprehends\nadultery also. The former unchastity of the wife would be without any\nmeaning, yea, would be in direct contradiction to the real state of the\ncase. For before the marriage concluded at Sinai, Israel was devoted to\nthe Lord in faithful love; comp. Jer. ii. 2: \"I remember thee, the\nkindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, thy walking after\nMe in the wilderness, in a land not sown.\" Compare also Ezek. xvi.,\nwhere Israel, before her marriage, appears as a _virgo intacta_. But\nhow correct soever this view may be--and every other view perverts the\nwhole position--it is, nevertheless, erroneous to suppose that thereby\nall difficulties are removed. All which has been urged against the\nformer view, may be urged here also. It might have been better for the\nprophet to have married one who was previously unchaste, in the hope\nthat her subsequent better life might wipe out her former shame, than\none previously chaste, who _was required_ to become unchaste, and to\nremain so for a long time, because, [Pg 189] otherwise, the symbolical\naction would have lost all its significance. The objection brought\nforward, that whatever is unbecoming as an outward action, is so\nlikewise though it were only an internal action, can scarcely be meant\nto be in earnest. For, in this case, every one knew that the prophet\nwas a mere type; and, with regard to his wife, this circumstance was so\nobvious, that mockery certainly gave way to shame and confusion. But a\nmarriage outwardly entered into is never purely typical. It has always\nits significance apart from the typical import, and must be\njustifiable, independently of its typical character. Ridicule would, in\nthis case, have been not only too obvious, but to a certain extent also\nwell founded.\n\n4. If the action had taken place only outwardly, it would have been\nimpossible to explain the abrupt transition from the symbolical action\nto the mere figure, and again to the entirely naked representation as\nwe find it here, and _vice versa_. In the first chapter, the symbolical\naction is pretty well maintained; but in the prophecy ii. 1-3 (i.\n10-ii. 1), which belongs to the same section, it is almost entirely\nlost sight of. As the corporeal adultery, and rejection in consequence\nof it, were to be the type of the spiritual adultery and rejection, so\nthe receiving again of the wife, rejected on account of her\nfaithlessness, but now reformed, was to typify the Lord's granting\nmercy to the people. But of this, not a trace is found. And yet, we are\nnot at liberty to say that the ground of it lies in a difference\nbetwixt the type and the thing typified,--in the circumstance that the\nwife of the prophet did not reform. If there existed such a difference,\nthe type could not have been chosen at all. The contrary appears also\nfrom ii. 9 (7).--In the whole second section, ii. 4-25 (ii. 2-23),\nregard is indeed had to the symbolical action; but in a manner so free,\nthat it dwindles away to a mere figure, from behind which the thing\nitself is continually coming into view. In chap. iii. the symbolical\naction again acquires greater prominence. These phenomena can be\naccounted for, only if the transaction be viewed as an inward one. In\nthe case of an outward transaction, the transition from the symbolical\naction to the figure, and from the figure to the thing itself, would\nnot have been so easy. The substratum of the idea is, in that case, far\nmore material, and the idea itself too closely bound to it.\n\n[Pg 190]\n\n5. When the transaction is viewed as an outward one, insurmountable\ndifficulties are presented by the third chapter; and the argument drawn\nfrom this would, in itself, be quite sufficient to settle the question:\n\"Then the Lord said unto me. Go again, love a woman beloved of her\nfriend and an adulteress.\" Interpreters who have adopted that view,\nfind themselves here in no little embarrassment. Several suppose that\nthe woman, whom the prophet is here commanded to love, is his former\nwife, Gomer,--with her he should get reconciled. But this is quite out\nof the question. In opposition to it, there is, _first_, the indefinite\nsignification by \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4; _then_, in ver. 2, there is the purchase of the\nwoman,--which supposes that she had not yet been in the possession of\nthe husband; and, _further_, the words, \"beloved of her friend, and an\nadulteress,\" can, according to a sound interpretation, mean only, \"who,\nalthough she is beloved by her faithful husband, will yet commit\nadultery;\" so that, if it be referred to the reunion with Gomer,\nwe should be compelled to suppose that, after being received again,\nshe again became unfaithful,--and in favour of this opinion, no\ncorresponding feature can be pointed out in the thing typified.\n_Lastly_,--The word \"love\" cannot mean \"love again,\" \"_restitue\namoris signa_.\" For the love of the prophet to his wife must correspond\nwith the love of God to the people of Israel. That this love,\nhowever, cannot be limited to the love which God will show to the\nCongregation _after_ her conversion, is seen from the additional\nclause, \"And they turn themselves to other gods, and love grape-cakes.\"\nHence it appears that the love of God continues even during the\nunfaithfulness, and consequently, also, the love of the prophet, by\nwhich it is typified.--Equally untenable is the other opinion, that the\nprophet is here called upon, by his entering into a new marriage, to\nprefigure the relation of God to the Covenant-people a second time. In\nthat case, it is supposed either that Gomer had been rejected, because\nshe would not return, or that she had died. In either case, however,\nshe would not have been chosen by God to be a type of the people\nof Israel. The ground of this choice can be no other than the\ncorrespondence with the antitype. But this would be wanting just in the\nmost important point. If the ungodly part of the nation were not to be\ndeprived of all hope, nor the pious of all consolation, it was of\nspecial importance to [Pg 191] point out that even the rejected\ncongregation would receive mercy; that the Lo-Ruhamah should be the\nRuhamah. Just the reverse of all this, however, would, according to\nthis view, have been typified. Two different women would, quite\nnaturally, suggest the thought of two different nations. Moreover, the\nnon-conversion of Gomer would be in direct opposition to the prophet's\nown expressions. There cannot be any doubt, that her relation to the\nprophet still lies at the foundation of the description in ii. 4 seqq.\nFor they are her three children whose former names, announcing\ndisaster, are changed, in ver. 25 (23), into such as are significant of\nsalvation. In vers. 4-6 (2-4) the whole relation, as previously\ndescribed, is presupposed. But now, she who, in ver. 9 (7), says, \"I\nwill go and return to my first husband, for then was it better with me\nthan now,\" is the same who said in ver. 7 (5), \"I will go after my\nlovers that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax.\" To the\nsame result we are also led by the showing of mercy to her children,\nannounced in the first section, ii. 1-3 (i. 10-ii. 1), where the\nprophet alludes to their names; and still more distinctly in the second\nsection; compare ver. 25 (23). But now, the showing of mercy to the\nchildren cannot be conceived of without the conversion of the mother,\nand mercy being subsequently shown to her also. As they are to be\nrejected on account of the unfaithfulness of the mother (compare ii.\n6 [4], and, specially, the \u05db\u05d9 at the commencement of ver. 7), so the\nground of their being received into favour can only be the faithfulness\nof the mother. Being begotten in adultery, they stand in connection\nwith the prophet only through the mother; as soon as he has rejected\nthe mother, he has nothing further to do with them.--The supposition\nthat Gomer had died, is evidently the result of an embarrassment which\nfinds itself compelled to invent such fictions.--_Finally_,--Several\ninterpreters, after the example of _Augustine_, suppose that no\nmarriage at all is here spoken of, but only a certain kindness\nwhich the prophet should manifest to some woman, in order to\nencourage her conversion. But this opinion is contradicted by\nthese circumstances:--that the prophet's love towards the woman must\nnecessarily be of the same extent, and of the same nature, as the love\nof God towards the people of Israel, since the \u05d0\u05d4\u05d1 and the \u05db\u05d0\u05d4\u05d1\u05ea\nexactly correspond with each other; that only conjugal love is suitable\nto [Pg 192] the image; that this view falls, of itself, to the ground\nwhen \u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05b7 is referred to the prophet, as it must be; that, in such\ncircumstances, no satisfactory account can be given of the purchase of\nthe woman, etc. To all these suppositions there is, moreover, the\ncommon objection that, according to them, no account can be given of\nthe omission of very important circumstances which the prophet leaves\nto his hearers and readers to supply from the preceding symbolical\naction. Two things only are pointed out, viz., the appropriation of the\nwoman by the prophet, ver. 2, and the course which he pursues for her\nreformation, ver. 3. Every intervening circumstance--the criminal,\nlong-continued unfaithfulness of the wife--is passed over in silence.\nIf we suppose an outward action, this circumstance cannot be accounted\nfor. For we are not at liberty to draw, from the first case, any\ninference bearing upon the second. The latter would again have required\na complete account. But if we suppose an inward transaction, everything\nis easily explained. The question as to whether it was Gomer, or some\nother person, does not come up at all. If Gomer was only an _ideal_\nperson, that which applied to her was equally applicable to the second\n_ideal_ wife of the prophet; since both typified the same thing, and\nwithout having an independent existence of their own, came into\nconsideration as types only. Thus, very naturally, the second\ndescription was supplemented from the first, and the prophet was\nallowed abruptly to point out those circumstances only which were of\nspecial importance in the case before him.\n\n6. If the whole be viewed as an outward transaction, there arises a\ndifficulty, by no means inconsiderable, as regards the children\nmentioned in chap. i. These had been begotten in adultery. Even\nalthough the mother did reform, they could yet never be considered by\nthe prophet as, in the full sense, his own. There would then arise a\ngreat difference between the type and the thing typified. But if we\nsuppose a transaction merely inward, this difficulty vanishes. The\nphysical impossibility then no longer comes into consideration. That\nwhich is possible in the thing typified, viz., that those who formerly\nwere not children of God, become children of God, is transferred to the\ntype. In point of fact, the mother does not exist beside, and apart\nfrom, the children; she stands related to them as the whole to the\nparts; and hence it is, that in ii. 25 (23), the [Pg 193] mother and\nchildren are imperceptibly blended in the prophet's description.\n\n7. We are led to the idea of a mere inward transaction by the\nsymbolical names of the first wife, and of her father. On the other\nhand, if such a symbolical signification could not be proved, this\nmight be used as an argument for the literal interpretation,--although,\nindeed, it would be only a single argument which would be obliged to\nyield to other counter-arguments. For it may well be conceived that the\nprophet, in order to give to the inward transaction more of the\nappearance of an outward one, should have chosen names usual at that\ntime; just as, in a similar manner, poetry would not be satisfied with\ninvented names used only in certain formulas and proverbs, but makes\nuse of names which would not, at once, be recognised by every\none as mere fictions.--\u05d2\u05b9\u05bc\u05de\u05b6\u05e8 can only mean \"completion\" in the\npassive sense. For _Segolate-forms_ in _o_ are only used to express\npassive and intransitive notions, and the verb \u05d2\u05de\u05e8 is found in the\nignification \"to be completed,\" in Ps. vii. 10, xii. 2. The sense in\nwhich the woman, the type of the Israelitish people, is called\n_completion_,--_i.e._, one who, in her whoredom, had proceeded to the\nhighest pitch,--is so obvious from the context, as to render nugatory\nthe argument which _Maurer_ (p. 360) has drawn from the omission of\nexpress statements on this point, in order thereby to recommend his\nown interpretation, which is altogether opposed to the laws of the\nlanguage. A significant proper name can, in any case, convey only an\nallusion; but such an allusion was here quite sufficient, inasmuch as\nthe mention of the wife's whoredom had preceded. Compare, moreover,\nZech. v. 5-11, where the thought, that Israel had filled up the measure\nof their sins, is represented by a woman sitting in an Ephah. _Hofmann_\nexplains the name Gomer by \"end,\" \"utmost ruin:\" \"By luxury, Israel has\nbecome wanton, and hence it must come to an end, to utter ruin.\" But\nthis interpretation is at variance with the context, from which it must\nnecessarily be derived; for it is not the _punishment_, but the _guilt_\nwhich is spoken of in the context. \u05d2\u05de\u05e8, \"Completion\" (compare the \u05d2\u05de\u05d9\u05e8,\n\"_perfectus_,\" \"_absolutus_,\" in Ezra vii. 12), is equivalent to \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\n\u05d6\u05e0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, \"a wife of whoredom.\" The \u05d1\u05ea \u05d3\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd can only mean, \"daughter of\nthe two fig-cakes,\" = _filia deliciarum_ = _deliciis_ [Pg 194]\n_dedita_. The word \"daughter\" serves to indicate every relation of\ndependence and submission: _Gesenius_, _Thesaurus_, p. 220. Fig-cakes\nwere considered as one of the greatest dainties; compare _Faber_ on\n_Harmar_. i. p. 320 ff. Sensuality was the ground of the Israelites'\napostasy from the severe and strict religion of Jehovah to the idolatry\nof their neighbours, which was soft, sensual, and licentious. The\noccasion which had called it forth with their neighbours was one which\nrendered them favourably disposed towards it. The masculine form can\noffer no difficulty as to the derivation from \u05d3\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4, \"fig-cake;\" for the\nmasculine form of the plural occurs also in 1 Sam. xxv. 18; 1 Chron.\nxii. 40. As little difficulty can arise from the Dual form, which may\nbe explained from the circumstance that fig-cakes commonly consisted of\na double layer of figs, or of double cakes (_Hesych._ \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7--which\nGreek word is a corruption of the Hebrew \u05d3\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4--\u1f21 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), and the Dual is used in reference to objects which are commonly\nconceived of as a whole, consisting of two parts, even when several of\nthem are spoken of. That this explanation of the Dual is correct, is\nproved from the circumstance, that it occurs also as the name of a\nMoabitish town, _Beth-Dibhlathaim_, Jer. xlviii. 22, and _Dibhlathaim_,\nNum. xxxiii. 46, which, probably, was famous for its fig-cakes.--There\nexisted another special reason for the prophet's choosing the Dual in\nthe masculine form, viz., that there was the analogy of other proper\nnames of men--as Ephraim, etc.--in its favour; and such an analogy was\nrequired,--for, otherwise, the name would not have been, as it was\nintended to be, a riddle. Our whole exposition, however, which was\nalready in substance, although without proper foundation and\njustification, advanced by _Jerome_, is raised above the condition of a\nmere hypothesis, by its being compared with chap. iii. There, the\nwords, \"They turn themselves to other gods, and love grape-cakes,\" are\na mere paraphrasis of \"_Gomer Bath Dibhlaim_.\" It scarcely needs to be\nremarked, that the difference betwixt grape-cakes and fig-cakes does\nnot here come into consideration at all, inasmuch as both belonged to\nthe choicest dainties; and it is as evident, that \"to love,\" and \"to be\nthe daughter of,\" express the same idea. But if thus the symbolical\nsignification of the name be established, the correctness of the\nsupposition of a merely internal transaction is established [Pg 195] at\nthe same time. The symbolical names of the children alone could not\nhave furnished a sufficient foundation for this supposition. Against\nthis an appeal might, with the most perfect propriety, have been made\nto _Shear-Jashub_, and _Maher-shalal-hash-baz_, neither of whom can, by\nany means, have been an ideal person. The prophet gave them these\nnames; but the matter is quite different in the case of the wife, who\nalready had her name when the prophet took her. All that we can grant\nto _Hofmann_ is, that such a providential coincidence was _possible_;\nbut _probable_ it could be, only if other decisive arguments favoured\nthe view of the transaction having been an outward one. If the name\nwere not symbolical--if it belonged to the real wife of the prophet, it\ncannot be easily explained, why he did not afterwards mention the name\nof his second wife also, but content himself with the general term, \"a\nwife.\"\n\n8. A main argument against the literal interpretation is further\nfurnished by iii. 2. The verse is commonly translated: \"And then I\nbought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and an homer of barley,\nand a lethech of barley;\" and is explained from the custom prevalent in\nthe East of purchasing wives from their parents. But it is very\ndoubtful whether the verb \u05db\u05e8\u05d4 has the signification \"to purchase.\"\nThere is no necessity for deviating from the common signification \"to\ndig,\" in Deut. ii. 6: \"And water also ye shall dig from them for money,\nand drink\" (compare Exod. xxi. 33); the existing wells were not\nsufficient for so great a multitude, compare Gen. xxvi. 19, 21, 22. To\nthis philological reason, we must _further_ add, that the circumstance\nwould be here altogether destitute of significance, while every other\nfeature in the description is full of meaning. We base our\ninterpretation upon the supposition, already sufficiently established\nby _J. D. Michaelis_, that the whole purchase-money amounted to thirty\nshekels, of which the prophet paid one-half in money, and the other\nhalf in the value of money. According to Ezek. xlv. 11, the homer\ncontained ten ephahs, and a lethech was the half of an homer. We have\nthus fifteen pieces of silver, and also fifteen ephahs; and the\nsupposition is very probable that, at that time, an ephah of barley\ncost a shekel,--the more so, as according to 2 Kings vii. 1, 16,\n18, in the time of a declining famine, and only relative cheapness,\ntwo-thirds of an ephah of barley cost a shekel. We are unable [Pg 196]\nto say with certainty, why one-half was paid in money, and the other\nhalf in natural productions; but a reason certainly exists, as no other\nfeature is without significance. Perhaps it was determined by custom,\nthat the sum by which servants were purchased was paid after this\nmanner. The lowness of their condition was thereby indicated; for\nbarley, _vile hordeum_, was, in all antiquity, very little esteemed.\nUpon this estimate of it was based its use at the jealousy offering\n(Num. v. 11 seqq.; compare _B\u00e4hr's Symb._ ii. S. 445), and the\nsymbolical use of the barley-bread in Judg. vii. 13. The statement\nof the sum leads us, involuntarily, to think of slaves or servants.\nIt is the same sum which was commonly given for a man-servant, or a\nmaid-servant, as is expressly mentioned in Exod. xxi. 32; compare the\nremarks on Zech. xi. 12. And this opinion is confirmed by the use of\n\u05d5\u05d0\u05db\u05e8\u05d4. The ears of a servant who was bound to his master to _perpetual_\nobedience, were bored; compare Exod. xxxi. 5, 6; Deut. xv. 17, where it\nis added: \"And also unto thy maid-servant thou shalt do likewise.\" In\nconformity with the custom of omitting the special members of the body,\nin expressions frequently occurring, it is said simply \"to bore.\" The\nmeaning then is: I made her my slave. It was not a free woman, then,\nwhom the prophet desired in marriage, but a servant, whom he was\nobliged, previous to marriage, to redeem from servitude; who was\ntherefore under a double obligation to him, and over whom he had a\ndouble claim. The reference to the thing to be typified is quite\napparent. It was not a free, independent people whom the Lord chose,\nbut a people whom He was obliged first to redeem from vile servitude,\nbefore He entered into a nearer relation to them. This redemption\nappears, throughout, as a ransoming from the house of bondage,--and the\nwonderful dealings of the Lord, as the price which He paid. Compare,\n_e.g._, Deut. vii. 8: \"But because the Lord loved you, and because He\nkept His oath which He had sworn to your fathers, He has brought you\nout with a mighty hand, and redeemed thee (\u05d5\u05d9\u05e4\u05d3\u05da) from the house of\nbondmen (\u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd), from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.\" See\nalso Deut. ix. 26. It is upon this redemption that the exhortation to\nthe people is founded--that, as the Lord's servants, they should serve\nHim alone; comp., _e.g._, the introduction to the Decalogue. Thus, we\nhave here also a feature so evidently typical, [Pg 197] so plainly\ntransferred from the thing typified to the type, that we cannot any\nlonger think of an outward transaction. This argument, however, is, in\nthe main point, quite independent of the philological interpretation of\n\u05db\u05e8\u05d4. Even if it be translated \"I bought her to me,\" the circumstance,\nnotwithstanding, always remains, that the wife was redeemed from\nslavery, unless there be a denial of the connection of the sum\nmentioned with Exod. xxi. 32, and Zech. xi. 12, where the thirty pieces\nof silver likewise appear as the estimate of a servant's value; and\nthis circumstance evidently suggests the inward character of the\ntransaction.\n\nThe first germs of the representation of God's relation to Israel under\nthe figure of marriage, are found so early as in the Pentateuch,\nExod. xxxiv. 15, 16; Lev. xx. 5, 6, xvii. 7; Num. xiv. 33--where\nidolatry, and apostasy from the Lord in general, are represented as\nwhoredom--Deut. xxxii. 16, 21; compare the author's _Dissertations on\nthe Genuineness of the Pent._ vol. i. p. 107 ff.; and commentary on the\nSong of Solomon, S. 261. But it was only through the Song of Solomon\nthat it became quite a common thing to represent the higher love\nunder the figure of the lower. It is not through accident that this\nrepresentation appears so prominent just in Hosea, where it not only\npervades the first three chapters, but returns continually in the\nsecond part also. Hosea, being one of the oldest prophets, was\nspecially called to fit, as a new link, into the Song of Solomon, which\nwas the last link in the chain of Sacred Literature. There are,\nmoreover, in the details, other undeniable references to the Song of\nSolomon, which coincide with this connection with it, as regards the\nfundamental idea. The basis, however, for this whole figurative\nrepresentation is Gen. ii. 24, where marriage appears as the most\nintimate of all earthly relations of love, and must, for this very\nreason, have a character of absolute exclusiveness.\n\n\n CHAP. I.-II. 3 (II. 1).\n\nThe section chap. i.-iii. is distinguished from the other prophecies by\nthis,--that, in it, the relation of the Lord to the [Pg 198] people of\nIsrael Is represented, _throughout_, under the figure and symbol of\nmarriage, whilst this same mode of representation is soon relinquished\nwherever else it occurs in the book. By this closer limitation, the\nobjections of _B\u00f6ckel_ and _Stuck_ to the common division of the\ncollection into two parts, are set aside. This first portion may be\ndivided into three parts, which are, in one respect, closely connected,\nas is shown by the _Fut._ with the _Vav Conv._ in iii. 1, and likewise\nby the fact that this chapter requires to be supplemented from the two\npreceding ones, while, in another respect, they may be considered as\nwholes, complete in themselves. They do not, by any means, so\ndistribute the contents among themselves, as that the first describes\nthe apostasy; the second, the punishment; and the third, the return and\nrestoration; but each of them contains all these three features, and\nyet in such a manner, that here the one feature, and there the other,\nis more fully expanded; so that the whole description is complete, only\nwhen all the three parts are taken together. In the portion now before\nus, the covenant relation into which the Lord entered with Israel is\ntypified by a marriage which the prophet contracted at the command of\nthe Lord; the apostasy of the people, and especially of the ten tribes,\nto whom the prophet was sent in the first instance, is typified by the\nadultery of the wife, by the divine punishment, and the unpropitious\nnames which he gives to the children born by the adulterous wife. In\nchap. ii. 1-3, there follows the announcement of salvation more\ndirectly, and only with a simple allusion to the symbol.\n\n\n * * * * *\n\nVer. 1. \"_The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri,\nin the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in\nthe days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel._ Ver. 2. _At\nthe beginning when the Lord spake to Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea: Go\ntake unto thee a wife of whoredoms, and children of whoredoms; for the\nland is whoring away from the Lord._\" \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8 is never a noun--not even in\nJer. v. 13--but always the 3d pers. _Pret. Piel_. The _status constr._\n\u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05ea is explained by the fact, that the whole of the following sentence\nis treated as one substantive idea: the beginning \"of the Lord hath\nspoken,\" [Pg 199] etc., for \"the beginning of speaking.\" \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4,\n_the day of_ \"_the Lord spoke_,\" instead of, \"the day on which the Lord\nspoke.\" Similar constructions occur also in Is. xxix. 1, and Jer.\nxlviii. 6.--The _Fut._ with _Vav Conv._, \u05d5\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8, \"and then He spoke,\"\ncarries forward the discourse, as if there had preceded: the Lord began\nto speak to Hosea. There is here a _constructio ad sensum_. It is\nintentionally, and in order the more distinctly to point out the idea\nof the beginning, that the prophet has made use of the noun \u05ea\u05d7\u05dc\u05ea, not\nof the verb. The construction of \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 with \u05d1, with the signification \"to\nspeak to some one,\" may be explained thus:--that the words are, as it\nwere, put into the mind of the hearer in order that they may remain\nthere. Several interpreters erroneously translate, \"spoke through:\"\nothers, following _Jerome_ (the last is _Simson_), \"spoke in;\" as if\nthereby the act of speaking were to be designated as an inward one. The\ndifference between outward and inward speaking disappears in the\nvision; and, for this reason, we cannot imagine that there is any\nintention of here noticing it particularly. Everything which takes\nplace in the vision is substantially, indeed, internal, but in point of\nform it is external. Moreover, \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 with \u05d1 several times occurs in other\npassages also, where the signification, \"to speak to some one,\" is\nalone admissible. Thus 1 Sam. xxv. 39, where _Simson's_ explanation,\n\"David sent and _ordered_ to speak _about_ Abigail,\" is set aside by\nver. 40. The analogy of the construction of the verbs of hearing and\nseeing with \u05d1 is likewise in favour of our explanation.[1]--A wife of\n_whoredoms_ and _children of whoredoms_. The wife belongs to whoredoms\nin so far as she is _devoted to them_; the children, in [Pg 200] so far\nas they _proceed_ from them. For we cannot suppose that the children\nthemselves are described as given to whoredom. Such a thought would\nhere be altogether out of place. For whoredom is here only the general\ndesignation of adultery, as, by way of applying it to the case in\nquestion, it is immediately subjoined, \"away from Jehovah.\" The subject\nof consideration is only the relation of the wife and children to the\nprophet, as the type of the Lord; and with this view, it is only the\norigin of the children from an adulterous wife which can be of\nimportance. That this alone is regarded, appears from ii. 6 (4),\ncompared with ver. 7 (5). That the children, as children of whoredoms,\ndeserve no compassion, is founded upon the fact that their mother plays\nthe harlot. \u05d0\u05e9\u05ea \u05d6\u05e0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd is stronger than \u05d6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4; it expresses the idea\nthat the woman is given, soul and body, to whoredoms. The same emphasis\nis expressed also by the analogous designations: man of blood, of\ndeceit, etc.--Calvin says, \"She is called a wife of whoredoms, because\nshe was long accustomed to them, gave herself over to the lusts of all\nindiscriminately, did not prostitute herself once, or twice, or to a\nfew, but to the debauchery of every one.\" It is not without reason that\n\"_take_\" is connected with the children also. The prophet shall, as it\nwere, receive and take, along with the wife, those who, without his\nagency, have been born of her. It is self-evident, and has been,\nmoreover, formerly proved, that we cannot speak of children who were\npreviously born of the prophet's wife; but that, on the contrary, the\nchildren are they whose birth is narrated in ver. 4 seqq. And that we\ncannot consider these children as children of the prophet, as is done\nby several interpreters (_Drus._: \"_Accipe uxorem et suscipe ex e\u00e2\nliberos_\"), is obvious from their being designated \"children of\nwhoredoms;\" from the word \"take\" itself, which is expressive of the\npassive conduct of the prophet; from the fact that, in the subsequent\nverses, the conceiving and bearing of the wife are alone constantly\nspoken of, but never, as in Is. viii. 3, the begetting by the prophet;\nand, _finally_, from the relation of the type to the thing typified. By\nthe latter, it is absolutely required that children and mother stand in\nthe same relation of alienation from the legitimate husband and father.\nThe words in ver. 3, \"She bare him a son,\" are not indeed in opposition\nto it, for these words are only intended to mark the deceit of the wife\nwho [Pg 201] offers to her husband the children begotten in adultery,\nas if they were his, and, at the same time, to bring out the patience\nand forbearance of the husband who receives them, and brings them up as\nif they were his, although he knows that they are not. In like manner,\nthe Lord treated, for centuries, the rebellious Israelites as if they\nwere His children, and granted to them the inheritance which was\ndestined only for the children, along with so many other blessings,\nuntil at length He declared them to be bastards, by carrying them away\ninto captivity. The last words state the ground of the symbolical\naction. The causal \u05db\u05d9 is explained from the fact that the import of a\nsymbolical action is also its ground. The _Inf. absol._ preceding the\n_tempus finitum_ gives special emphasis to the verbal idea. The prophet\nthereby indicates that, in using the expression \"to whore,\" he does so\ndeliberately, and because it corresponds exactly to the thing, and\nwishes us to understand it in its full strength and compass. In calling\nthe thing by its right name, he silences, beforehand, every attempt at\npalliating and extenuating it. Of such palliations and extenuations the\nJews had abundance. They had not the slightest notion that they had\nbecome unfaithful to their God, but considered their intercourse\nwith idols as trifling and allowable attentions which they paid to\nthem.--_Manger_ understands by whoredoms, their placing, at the same\ntime, their confidence in man; but from what follows, where idolatry\nalone is constantly spoken of, it is obvious that this is inadmissible.\nIf this special thing be reduced to its idea, it is true that trusting\nin men is, then, not less comprehended under it than idolatry, inasmuch\nas this idea is the turning away from God to that which is not God.\nAnd, from this dependence of what is special upon the idea, it follows\nthat the description has its eternal truth, and does not become\nantiquated, even where the folly of gross idolatry has been long since\nperceived.--\u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05d9\u05df, the definite land, the land of the prophet, the land\nof Israel.--Concerning the last words, Ps. lxxiii. 27 may be compared,\nwhere \u05d6\u05e0\u05d4 \u05de\u05df occurs with a similar signification. This phrase contains\nan allusion to the common expression, \"to walk with, or after, God;\"\ncompare 2 Kings xxiii. 3. According to _Calvin_, the spiritual chastity\nof the people of God consists in their following the Lord.\n\nVer. 3. \"_And he went and took Gamer the daughter of Dibhlaim, and she\nconceived and bare him a son._\"\n\n[Pg 202]\n\nMany interpreters suppose that, by the three children, three different\ngenerations are designated, and the gradual degeneracy of the people,\nwhich sinks deeper and deeper. But this opinion must certainly be\nrejected. There is no gradation perceptible. On the contrary, the\nannouncement of the total destruction of the kingdom of Israel is\nconnected immediately with the name of the first child, ver. 4. Nor is\nit legitimate to say, as _R\u00fcckert_ does, that the three children are a\ndesignation of the \"conditions\" in which the Israelites would be placed\nin consequence of their apostasy from the Lord. For, how could mercy be\nshown to _conditions_? The right view rather is, that the wife and\nchildren are both the people of Israel, viewed only in different\nrelations. In the first designation, they are viewed as a unity; in the\nlatter, as a plurality proceeding from, and depending upon, this unity.\nThe circumstance that the prophet mentions the birth of children at\nall, and the birth of three only, is accounted for by their names. The\nchildren exist only that they may receive a name. The three names must,\ntherefore, not be considered separately, but must be viewed together.\nIn that case they present a corresponding picture of the fate impending\nupon Israel. The circumstance that the mother and sons are\ndistinguished in Hosea, rests upon the Song of Solomon. (Compare the\nmore copious remarks in my commentary on the Song of Sol. iii. 4: \"By\nthe mother, the people is designated according to its historical\ncontinuity,--by the daughter or sons, according to its existence at any\nmoment.\")\n\nVer. 4. \"_And the Lord said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a\nlittle_ (while), _and I visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of\nJehu, and cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel._\"\n\nThe name \"Jezreel\" is, by most expositors, explained in this passage as\nmeaning: \"God disperses.\" This they maintain to be its real\nsignification, according to the etymology, and that all the rest is\nonly an allusion. But this exposition is erroneous, as _Manger_ has\ncorrectly perceived. For, 1. No instance occurs where the verb \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2 has\nthis signification. When applied to men, it is always used only in a\ngood sense: compare ii. 25, Ezek. xxxvi. 9, and the subsequent remarks\non Zech. x. 9. The idea of _scattering_ is not at all the fundamental\none; so that the signification, to _disperse_, is much further from the\nfundamental [Pg 203] signification than might, at first sight, appear.\n2. The subsequent words must be considered as an explanation of the\nname Jezreel, as is obvious from the corresponding explanations of the\nnames Lo-Ruhamah in ver. 6, and Lo-Ammi in ver. 9, which are intimately\nconnected with these names. But in this explanation, not even a single\nword is said on the subject of the dispersion of the people of\nIsrael. The circumstance that, in this explanation, Jezreel occurs\nas a proper name, without any regard being paid to its appellative\nsignification[2]--an allusion to which occurs only in the announcement\nof the salvation--shows that here too it must be viewed in the same\nway. The correct view is this. Jezreel was the place where the last\ngreat judgment of God upon the kingdom of Israel had been executed. The\napostasy from the Lord, and the innocent blood of His servants, shed by\nJezebel and the whole house of Ahab, had been there avenged upon them\nby Jehu, the founder of the dynasty which was reigning at the time of\nthe prophet. At the command of God, Jehu is anointed as king by one of\nthe sons of the prophets sent by Elisha, 2 Kings ix. In vers. 6-9 the\nLord says to him through the latter: \"I anoint thee king over the\npeople of the Lord, over Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab\nthy master; and _I avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and\nthe blood of all the servants of the Lord at the hand of Jezebel, and\nthe whole house of Ahab shall perish._ And I give the house of Ahab\nlike the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of\nBaasha the son of Ahijah.\" The execution corresponded with the command.\nWhen Jehu approached Jezreel, Joram the son of Ahab went out against\nhim, and met him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite, ver. 21.\nAppealing to the declaration of the Lord, [Pg 204] \"Surely I have seen\nthe blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons, and I will requite thee\nin this portion of ground\" (ver. 26), Jehu orders the corpse of the\nslain king to be cast thither. At Jezreel, Jezebel too found a\ndisgraceful death. Thither, as to the central point of vengeance, were\nsent the heads of the seventy royal princes, who had been slain, x.\n1-10, and there Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab, ver.\n11.--The royal house, and, along with it, all Israel, are now anew to\nbecome a Jezreel; _i.e._, the same divine punitive justice which, at\nthat time, was manifested at Jezreel, is to be exhibited anew. The\nreason why this should be, is stated in the explanation. The house of\nJehu, and all Israel, shall become a Jezreel, in as far as punishment\nis concerned, because they have become a Jezreel with respect to guilt,\nand because, as in former times at Jezreel, so now again, blood that\nhas been shed cries to the Lord for vengeance. Where a new carcase is,\nthere the eagles must anew be gathered together.--It must have, already\nappeared from this, how we understand the words, \"I visit the blood of\nJezreel,\" used in the explanation of the name of Jezreel, in the verse\nunder consideration. According to the prophet's custom of designating,\nby the name of an old thing, any new thing which is substantially\nsimilar to it, the new guilt is marked by the name of the old; and it\nis marked as _blood_, because the former guilt was pre-eminently\nblood-guiltiness;[3] and as the blood of Jezreel, because the former\nblood-guiltiness had been especially contracted there, and it was there\nwhere the punishment was executed. The deep impression, which just this\nmode of representation must have produced, must not be overlooked. The\nsins formerly committed at Jezreel were acknowledged as such by the\nwhole people, and especially by the royal house, whose whole rights\nwere based upon this acknowledgment. The recollection of the fearful\npunishment was still in the minds of all; but they did not by any means\nimagine that they were implicated in the same guilt, and had to expect\nthe same punishment. That which they considered as already [Pg 205]\nabsolutely past, the prophet, by a single word, brings again into the\npresent, and the immediate future. By a single word of dreadful sound\nhe terrified and aroused them out of their self-deception (which will\nnot recognise its own sin in the picture of the sins of others), and\nout of their carnal security. Entirely analogous are 2 Kings ix. 31,\nwhere Jezebel says to Jehu, \"Hast thou peace, Zimri, murderer of his\nmaster?\" which _Schmid_ well explains by--\"It is time for thee to\ndesist, that thou mayest not experience the same punishment as Zimri;\"\nZech. v. 11, where the prophet mentions Shinar as the place of Israel's\nfuture banishment; and x. 11, where he calls their future oppressors by\nthe names of Asshur and Egypt, and describes a new passing through the\nRed Sea. In Revelation, the degenerate church is called by the names of\nSodom and Egypt (xi. 18); the true Church, by Jerusalem; Rome, by\nBabylon.--The explanation which we have given will be its own defence\nagainst the current, and evidently erroneous, expositions. Many\ninterpreters understand, by the blood of Jezreel, the slaughter of the\nfamily of Ahab which was accomplished there by Jehu. It is, indeed,\nquite correct to say that a deed objectively good does not thereby\nbecome one which is subjectively so. That which has been willed and\ncommanded by God may itself become an object of divine punishment, if\nit be not performed from love and obedience to God, but from culpable\nselfishness. But that Jehu was actuated by motives so bad, is\nsufficiently obvious from the circumstance, that he himself did the\nvery thing which he had punished in the house of Ahab. _Calvin_ rightly\nremarks: \"That slaughter is, as far as God is concerned, a just\nvengeance; but, as far as Jehu is concerned, it is open murder.\" But\nyet, this deed cannot be regarded as the principal crime of Jehu and\nhis family. We must not overlook other crimes far more heinous, and\nconsider the guilty blood shed by them as the sole ground of their\npunishment. That this was indeed considered as guilt, but only as a\nlower degree of it, is clearly seen from 1 Kings xvi. 7, where\ndestruction is announced to Baasha, who had destroyed the house of\nJeroboam I., \"on account of all the evil which he did in the sight of\nthe Lord, in provoking Him to anger with the works of his hands, so\nthat he may be like the house of Jeroboam, and because he killed him.\"\nThe main crime is, that Baasha had become like the house of Jeroboam.\n[Pg 206] What he perpetrated against this house is the minor crime, and\nbecomes a crime only through the former.--It is worthy of notice that\n\"the blood of Jezreel\" exactly corresponds, according to our\nexplanation, with the expression, \"so that he may be like the house of\nJeroboam.\" It may be further noticed, that, in the deed of Jehu, every\nbetter feeling cannot be excluded. If the command of God had been used\nby him merely as a pretext, we could not account for the praise and the\npromises given to him on account of this very deed, 2 Kings x. 30. It\nis true that the limitation of the promise shows that pure motives\nalone did not prevail with him.[4]--\"The bloody deed to which the house\nof Jehu owed its elevation\" nowhere else appears as the cause of the\ncatastrophe which befell this house. That which he had done against the\nhouse of Ahab, whose sins were crying to heaven for vengeance far more\nthan those of Baasha, is, in 2 Kings x. 30, 31, represented as his\n_merit_. His _guilt_ consisted in his not departing from the ways of\nJeroboam, and in his making Israel to sin. It is this guilt alone\nwhich, in the Book of Kings, is charged against all the members of his\nfamily,--against Jehoahaz, the son of Jehu, in 2 Kings xiii. 2; against\nJehoash, in 2 Kings xiii. 11; against Jeroboam, in 2 Kings xiv. 24;\nagainst Zechariah, under whom the catastrophe took place, in 2 Kings\nxv. 9: \"And he did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord, as his\nfathers had done, and departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of\nNebat, who had made Israel to sin.\" According to the context, we must,\nin the first place, think of the _religious guilt_; the blood of\nJezreel, in the verse under consideration, must correspond with the\n_whoredoms_ in ver. 2.--Moreover, the extension of the punishment to\nall Israel could not, according to this explanation, be understood; for\nthe deed was only that of Jehu and his assistants. How, then, could not\nonly the house of Jehu be punished, but also [Pg 207] the kingdom of\nthe house of Israel be destroyed, and its bow broken in the valley of\nJezreel?\n\nAccording to another interpretation still more prevalent, \"the blood of\nJezreel\" denotes \"all the evil deeds committed by the Israelitish kings\nin Jezreel.\" But this interpretation is sufficiently invalidated by the\nsingle circumstance, that the residence of the family of Jehu, which,\nafter all, alone comes into consideration in this place, was, from the\nvery beginning, not Jezreel, but Samaria; compare 2 Kings x. 36, xiii.\n10, xiv. 23.\n\nTwo particulars are contained in the announcement of punishment.\n_First_,--The whole house of Jehu, and _then_ all Israel, are to become\na Jezreel as regards punishment, as they are even now in point of\nguilt; and, in this announcement, the significant _paronomasia_ must\nnot be overlooked between _Israel_--the designation of the dignity of\nthe people, and _Jezreel_--that which is base in deeds and condition.\nCalvin makes prominent the last-mentioned feature only: \"You are,\" he\nexplains, \"a degenerate people, you differ in nothing from your king\nAhab.\" We cannot, however, follow him in this explanation; the words,\n\"I cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel,\" cannot, as\nseveral interpreters suppose, mean merely, \"I will put an end to the\ndominion of the family of Jehu over Israel.\" That these words rather\nannounce the cessation of every native regal government, and hence of\nthe entire national independence, is so evident, that it stands in need\nof no proof. Both of these features are, in their fulfilment, separated\nindeed by a long period of time (see the Introduction); but they are\nnevertheless closely connected. With the ruin of the house of Jehu, the\nstrength of the kingdom of Israel was broken; from that time it was\nonly a living corpse. The fall of the house of Jehu was the beginning\nof the end,--the commencement of the process of putrefaction. The\nomission, in the inscription, of all mention of any of the kings after\nJeroboam, coincides with the circumstance that the fall of the house of\nJehu is connected with the fall of the kingdom. With regard, however,\nto the former event, Hosea had an earlier prophecy before him. It had\nbeen prophesied to Jehu (2 Kings x. 30) that his children should sit on\nthe throne until the fourth generation. Now, since Jeroboam was the\ngreat-grandson of Jehu, the glory of [Pg 208] this family must come to\nan end with his son. But at no period did the house of Jehu, and the\nkingdom of Israel, seem to be so far from destruction as under the\nreign of Jeroboam; and, hence, it was time that the forgotten prophecy\nshould be revived, and, at the same time, expanded.\n\nVer. 5. \"_And it shall come to pass at that day, that I break the bow\nof Israel in the valley of Jezreel._\"\n\nOf this, Calvin gives the following paraphrase: \"Ye are puffed up with\npride; ye oppose your fierceness to God, because ye excel in weapons\nand strength; because ye are warlike men, ye believe that God can do\nnothing against you. But surely your bows shall not prevent His hands\nfrom destroying you.\"--In the valley of Jezreel, Israel shall become,\nas to punishment, what they already are, as to guilt, viz., a\n\"Jezreel.\" The verse is a further expansion of the last words of the\npreceding one, to which the words, \"at that day,\" refer. He whose bow\nis broken is defenceless and powerless; compare Gen. xlix. 24; 1 Sam.\nii. 4; Jer. xlix. 35. It is evident that we can here think only of the\ndefeat of Israel by the Assyrians, the consequence of which was the\ntotal overthrow of the kingdom of Israel. But it is not to be\noverlooked, that the Assyrians, who in the second section of Hosea are\nfrequently mentioned in express terms, as the instruments of God's\npunishment, are not spoken of at all as such in the first section,\nwhich belongs to the reign of Jeroboam. Amos likewise abstains from\nmentioning any name of the enemies. The Assyrians had not at that time\nappeared on the historical horizon. But the prophecy was to evince\nitself as such, by the fact of the announcement of the judgment at a\ntime when its instruments were not as yet prepared; just as Elijah, in\n1 Kings xviii. 41, hears the rushing of the rain before there was even\na cloud in the sky.--We are not told in the historical books at what\nplace Israel was defeated by the Assyrians. _Jerome_, in his remarks on\nour passage, says that it took place in the valley of Jezreel. It is\nvery probable, however, that this is only an inference clothed in the\ngarb of history. But even apart from the passage under review, the\nmatter is very probable. The valley of Jezreel or Esdrelon \"is the\nlargest, and at the same time the most fertile, plain of Palestine. The\nbrook of Kishon, which is, next to Jordan, the most important river of\nPalestine, waters and fructifies it, and, [Pg 209] with its\ntributaries, flows through it in all directions.\" (_Ritter_, S. 689.)\nIn all the wars which were carried on within the territories of the ten\ntribes, especially when the enemies came from the North, it was the\nnatural battle-field. \"It was, in the first centuries, the station of a\nlegion (\u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2); it is the place where the troops of\nNebuchadnezzar, Vespasian, Justinian, the Sultan Saladdin, and many\nother conquering armies were encamped, down to the unsuccessful\nexpedition of _Buonaparte_, whose success in Syria here terminated.\n_Clarke_ found erected here the tents of the troops of the Pacha of\nDamascus. In later times, it was the scene of the skirmishes between\nthe parties of hostile hordes of Arabs and Turkish pachas. In the\npolitical relations of Asia Minor, it is to this locality that there\nmust be ascribed the total devastation and depopulation of Galilee,\nwhich once was so flourishing, full of towns, and thickly populated.\"\n(_Ritter_, _Erdk._ 1 _Ausg._ ii. S. 387.) We may add, that, in the same\nplain also, the battle was fought in which Saul and Jonathan perished\n(for the plain of Esdrelon is bounded on the south-east by the\nmountains of Gilboa), and so likewise was the battle between Ahab and\nthe Syrians. To it also belonged the plain near the town of Megiddo,\nwhere Josiah, in the battle against Pharaoh-Necho, was mortally\nwounded. Compare _Rosenm\u00fcller_, _Alt._ ii. 1, p. 149.\n\nVer. 6. \"_And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And He said to\nhim, Call her name Lo-Ruhamah_ (_i.e._, one who has not obtained\nmercy): _for I will not continue any more to have mercy upon the house\nof Israel; for I will take away from them._\"--Interpreters ask why\nthe second child was a female; and this question is by no means an\nidle one, since the prophet everywhere else adheres closely to the\nsubject-matter, and adds no feature, merely for the sake of giving\nvividness to the picture. We cannot for a moment suppose, as _Jerome_\nand others do, that the female child denotes a more degraded\ngeneration. For why, then, is the third again a male child? The\nsupposition proceeds from the altogether unfounded notion that the\nthree children denote different generations. The reason must, on the\ncontrary, be sought for in the name. _Schmid_ says: \"It seems to have\nreference to the weakness of the sex. For the female sex [Pg 210] finds\ngreater sympathy than the male.\" The verb \u05e8\u05d7\u05dd does not denote any kind\nof love, but only the love of him who is high to him who is low, of the\nstrong to the weak; and hence the LXX., whom Peter follows in 1 Pet.\nii. 10 (\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f20\u03bb\u03b5\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7), render the word more accurately than Paul, in\nRom. ix. 25 (\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7). Hence it is never used of man's love to\nGod, but only of the love of God to man,--of His mercy. The only\npassage which seems to contradict this, Ps. xviii. 2, is not to the\npurpose, as, there, the _Kal_ is used. But the female sex, being\nweaker, stands in greater need of the compassion of men, than does the\nmale. Is. ix. 16. The female child places the neediness and\nhelplessness of the people in more striking contrast with the refusal\nof help from Him who alone can bestow it. The \u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d4 is either\n_Participle_ in _Pual_ which has cast off the \u05de, or the 3d fem. _Pret.\nin pause_; thus _Cocceius_, who explains it by: \"She has not obtained\nmercy.\" It is in favour of the latter view, that according to _Ewald_,\n\u00a7 310 b, \u05dc\u05d0 does not often stand before a _Participle_. The words, \"_I\nwill not continue_,\" refer to the former great manifestations of divine\nmercy, and especially the last under Jeroboam, which the people still,\nat that time, enjoyed; compare 2 Kings xiii. 23: \"And the Lord was\ngracious unto them, and had _mercy_ upon them, and turned towards them\nbecause of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not\ndestroy them, neither cast them from His presence.\" Upon this contrast,\nalso, rests the mild expression, \"I will not have mercy,\"--an\nexpression which, in virtue of this contrast, becomes stronger than any\nother. Several interpreters here lay peculiar stress upon the\ncircumstance, that \"the _house_ of Israel\" is spoken of. This, the\nkingdom of Israel, they say, as an independent state, is given over to\neverlasting destruction; it is only single individuals who shall obtain\nmercy after they have joined the house of David. But the supposition\nthat \"house of Israel\" is used in this sense, is altogether unfounded.\nThe house is equivalent to the family; and the prophets speak of \"a\nhouse of Israel\" after the destruction, no less than before it. The\nwords in ii. 6 (4), \"I will not have mercy upon her children,\" and the\ncircumstance that she who is here called Lo-Ruhamah is afterwards\ncalled Ruhamah, also militate against referring \"house of Israel\" to\nthe state. The right view rather is, that the denial of mercy [Pg 211]\nmust not be understood absolutely, but relatively. It is not for ever\nthat mercy shall be denied to them, but for a time,--until God's\npunitive justice shall have been satisfied. Just as Israel shall not\nalways remain Jezreel, Lo-Ammi shall, at some future time, become again\nAmmi.--The last words are, by the greater number of recent\ninterpreters, almost unanimously explained: \"That I should forgive\nthem.\" But, in that case, we can perceive no reason why the _Inf. abs._\nshould be placed before the _tempus finitum_. Why should the verbal\nidea here be rendered so emphatic? In addition to this, the extreme\nfeebleness of the sense would be remarkable. Nothing would be said that\nwould not be already implied in the words, \"I will not continue any\nmore to have mercy.\" But, on the other hand, we obtain a very suitable\nsense if we translate thus: \"I will take away from them.\" The object is\nnot mentioned, just because _every thing_ is to be understood. The\nprominence given to the verbal idea is then accounted for from its\nbeing contrasted with the _having mercy_, which implies _giving_. There\nis then, moreover, a very striking contrast with the standing phrase\n\u05e0\u05e9\u05d0 \u05e2\u05d5\u05df \u05dc, or also simply \u05e0\u05e9\u05d0 \u05dc: I shall take away from them, not,\nhowever, as hitherto, their guilt (compare Amos vii. 8), but all that\nthey have. _Calvin_ had previously directed attention to the\ncircumstance that the following verse also is in favour of the\ntranslation by _tollere_: \"_Servare et tollere inter se opponit\npropheta._\" Chap. v. 14 may also be compared, where \u05e0\u05e9\u05d0 is used in a\nsimilar manner, the object being likewise omitted: \"I will tear and go\naway, I will take away, and there is none that delivereth.\"\n\nVer. 7. \"_And I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and I save\nthem by the Lord their God; and I do not save them by bow, and by\nsword, and by war, and by horses, and by horsemen._\"\n\nSeveral interpreters suppose that mercy is here promised to Judah as a\n_consolation_ to Israel, inasmuch as the latter should partake in it.\nBut this view is erroneous. From the antithesis to ver. 6, it is\nevident that mercy is here promised to Judah for the time when Israel\nshall not find mercy; and we are not at liberty to anticipate the time\ndescribed in ii. 1-3, when both become partakers of mercy. This is\napparent also from the circumstance that in vers. 8, 9, the threatening\nof punishment [Pg 212] to Israel is still continued. It can then only\nbe the intention of the prophet, by describing the mercy which Judah\ntheir brethren should experience, to sharpen the goad, more effectually\nto rouse Israel from their false security, and to direct their\nattention to the bad foundation of the entire constitution of their\npolitical and ecclesiastical affairs, in consequence of which they\nconsidered as legitimate that which, in Judah, was only an abuse. As\nthe showing of mercy to Judah runs parallel with the withholding of it\nfrom Israel, we can, primarily and chiefly, think only of the different\nfates of the two, during the Assyrian dominion. The wonderful\ndeliverance of Judah on that occasion is foretold by Isaiah, xxxi. 8,\nin a similar manner: \"And Asshur falls through the sword not of a man,\nand the sword not of a man devours him.\" We must not, however, limit\nourselves to this event; a preference of Judah over Israel, a remnant\nof divine mercy appeared, even when they were carried away into\ncaptivity. During its continuance, they were not altogether deprived of\nmarks of the continuance of the divine election. Prophets continued to\nlabour among them, as immediate ambassadors of God. Wonderful events\nshowed them in the midst of the Gentiles the superiority of their God,\nand prepared the way for their deliverance. They maintained, in a far\ngreater degree, their national constitution; and, _lastly_, their\naffliction lasted for a far shorter time than did that of the\nIsraelites. Contrary to all human expectation, their affairs soon took\na favourable turn, in which only a comparatively small number of their\nIsraelitish brethren partook, while, for the rest, the withholding of\nmercy continued. But it is just by means of this contrast with the lot\nof Judah, that the announcement of the lot of Israel appears in its\ntrue light. Without this contrast, one might have imagined, that the\nannouncement of the prophet did not go beyond his human vision. It\nwould, of course, appear highly probable that a kingdom so weak as that\nof Israel,--weak, especially when compared with those great Asiatic\nkingdoms which were great already, and yet were continually striving\nafter enlargement,--a kingdom, moreover, placed in the midst between\nthese kingdoms, and their natural enemy and rival, Egypt--should not\nhave been able to maintain its existence for any length of time. But\nthis probability existed in a far higher decree in the case of the\nkingdom of [Pg 213] Judah, which was smaller and weaker still, and\nwhich had suffered much through Jehoash the father of Jeroboam (2 Kings\nxiv. 13), under the latter of whom, the splendour and glory of Israel\nhad been so greatly increased. But that which prevented this\nprobability from becoming a reality lay altogether beyond the sphere of\nhuman calculation, as Hosea himself here so emphatically expresses. And\nby _such_ help, the kingdom of Israel would have been delivered, no\nless than the kingdom of Judah. It is true that this prediction of\nHosea is no prediction of some accidental event, but has its foundation\nin the idea. The lots of Israel and Judah could not be otherwise than\nso different, after their different position in reference to the\nCovenant-God was once fixed. Nor is this prediction one which has\nceased after its first and literal fulfilment, but is constantly and\nanew realizing itself. The proceeding of God towards the different\nChurches and States is regulated by their conduct towards Him. The\nhistory of the world is a judgment of the world. But even to know this\ntruth is, in itself, a supernatural gift; and they only are able to use\nit with safety, to whom God has given an insight into the mysteries of\nHis government of the world. This becomes very evident, if we observe\nhow often the predictions of those who knew the truth in general, down\nto _Bengel_ and his followers, have been put to shame by the result.\nGod's ways are not our ways. No one knows them except Himself, and\nthose to whom He will reveal them. The extent to which the prophecy\nrests on the idea is, moreover, clearly seen by the words, \"And I save\nthem _by Jehovah their God_.\" Here we have the ground of their\ndeliverance. Jehovah is the God of Judah, and, hence, the source of\ntheir salvation, which does not cease to flow although all human\nsources be dried up. The reason why Israel does not obtain mercy must\nthen be, that Jehovah is not their God. That this contrast is implied\nhere, is confirmed by iii. 5: \"Afterwards shall the children of Israel\nreturn and seek the _Lord their God_, and David their king.\" That which\nin aftertimes they shall seek, and thereby obtain salvation, they must\nhave lost now; and this loss must be the source of their affliction.\nCalvin makes the following pertinent remark: \"The antithesis between\nthe false gods and Jehovah must here be kept in mind. Jehovah was the\nGod of the house of Judah; and hence, it is just as if the prophet had\nsaid, 'Ye [Pg 214] indeed profess the name of God, but ye worship the\ndevil, and not God. Ye have no part in Jehovah. He resides in His\ntemple, and has pledged His faithfulness to David when He commanded him\nto build Him a temple on Mount Zion; but from you, the true God has\ndeparted!'\" (Compare Amos ii. 8, where the prophet speaks of the god of\nthe ten tribes as one who belongs to them alone, and with whom he has\nnothing to do.) In contrast with Him who alone could grant help, and\nwhom Israel did not possess, but Judah did, the prophet enumerates, in\nthe remaining part of the verse under consideration, the aids which\ncould not afford any real help, in which Israel was, at that time, much\nricher than Judah, and in which they placed a false confidence. Compare\nx. 13: \"Thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty\nmen;\" Ps. xx. 8; Mic. v. 9 seqq.; and Deut. xxxiii. 29, where the Lord\nis spoken of as the only true bulwark and armour: \"Happy art thou,\nIsrael: who is like unto thee? a people saved by the Lord, the shield\nof thy help, thy proud sword: thine enemies shall be liars unto thee,\nand thou shalt tread upon their high places.\" Calvin says, \"God does\nnot require any other aids; His own strength is quite sufficient. The\nsum and substance is therefore this, that although the weakness of the\nkingdom of Judah excites the contempt of all, this shall be no obstacle\nto its deliverance by the grace of God, although there be no help at\nall from men.\"--The prophet has, at the same time, before his eyes the\ngreat events of former history, where, when all human resources failed,\nthe power of God had shown itself to be alone quite sufficient.--We\ncannot assert with _Gesenius_, that \"war\" should here be quite\nidentical with \"weapons of war;\" it rather comprehends everything which\nis required for war, viz., the prudence of the commanders, the valour\nof the heroes, the strength of the army, etc. \"Heroes and horsemen\"\nare, however, specially mentioned, because in ancient times the main\nstrength of the armies lay in these. Even Mahommed thought himself\nentitled to hold up a victory which he had obtained without cavalry--by\ninfantry alone--as a miracle wrought immediately by God; comp. _Abulf.\nvit. Moh._ pp. 72, 91.\n\nVer. 8. \"_And she weaned Lo-Ruhamah, and conceived, and bare a son._\"\n\nVer. 9. \"_And He said, Call his name, Lo-Ammi_ (_i.e._, not [Pg 215] my\npeople); _for you are not My people, and I, not will I be yours._\"\n\nAs the prophet everywhere else adheres closely to his subject-matter,\nas, indeed, he allows the figure to recede behind the subject of his\ndiscourse, but never the opposite, we cannot well imagine that the\nweaning is mentioned merely for the purpose of making the description\nmore graphic. Calvin says, \"I do not doubt that the prophet intends\nhere to commend the Lord's long-continued mercy and forbearance towards\nthat people.\" The unfaithfulness of the wife, and the forbearance of\nthe prophet, do indeed continue for years. But it is better to suppose\nthat the mention of the weaning is intended to separate the territory\nof Lo-Ruhamah from the following birth, and to call forth the idea\nthat, now, there may follow one of better import.--The literal\ntranslation of the close of the verse is, \"And I will not be to\nyou\"--equivalent to, \"I will not any longer belong to you.\" We cannot\nassume, as _Manger_ does, that \u05dc\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd has been here left out, nor, as\nothers do, that it must be supplied. Since it is God who speaks, \"to\nyou,\" or \"yours,\" is sufficiently definite. Similar is Ezek. xvi. 8:\n\"And I entered into a covenant with thee, and thou becamest Mine,\"\n\u05d5\u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d9; Ps. cxviii. 6: \"The Lord is mine, \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d9, I will not fear.\"\nThe explanation given by some, \"I shall not be among you,\" is too\nlimited. It is the highest happiness to possess God Himself, with all\nHis gifts and blessings, and the greatest misery to lose Him. The\nfulfilment of this threatening is reported in 2 Kings xvii. 18: \"And\nthe Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of His sight;\nand there was none left but the tribe of Judah alone;\" comp. also Is.\nvii.\n\nThe first three verses of the following chapter ought to have been\nconnected with the first chapter; for they contain the announcement of\nsalvation which is necessary to complete the first prophecy.\n\nChap. ii. 1. \"_And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the\nsand of the sea, which is not measured nor numbered. And it shall come\nto pass, in the place where it was said unto them, Not my people ye, it\nshall be said unto them. Sons of the living God._\"\n\nThe first point which requires to be determined, is the subject of the\nverse. Every other reference except that to the [Pg 216] ten tribes is\nhere out of the question; inasmuch as the same who, in the preceding\nverse, were called Lo-Ammi, are now to be called sons of the living\nGod. Several of the ancient expositors here assume a sudden transition\nto the Christian Church; but such would be a _salto mortale_. Nor are\nwe to understand by the children of Israel, all the descendants of\nJacob; for the children of Judah are distinguished from them in ver. 2.\nSubstantially, however, those too are included, as appears from this\nvery verse; for both shall then form one nation of brethren. But here\nthe prophet views only one portion, because to this only did the\npreceding threatening, and the mission of the prophet in general,\nrefer. From this, also, it may be explained how the prophet may apply\nto the _part_ the promises of Genesis, which there refer to the\n_whole_. The reference to these promises, in the first part of the\nverse, cannot be at all mistaken. Compare especially, as agreeing most\nliterally, the passage in Gen. xxii. 17: \"I will multiply thy seed as\nthe stars of heaven, and as the sand which is on the shore of the sea;\"\nand xxxii. 13 (12): \"I make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which is\nnot numbered for multitude.\" A similar literal reference is in Jer.\nxxxiii. 22: \"As the host of heaven is not numbered, neither the sand of\nthe sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of David My servant.\"\nNow, the reference here cannot be accidental. It supposes that these\npromises were at that time generally known in the kingdom of Israel.\nThey served to strengthen the ungodly in their false security. Relying\non them, they charged the prophets with making God a liar in thus\nannouncing the impending destruction of the kingdom, inasmuch as the\nprophecy had not yet been fulfilled in all its extent. The prophet,\nhowever, by his almost literal repetition of the promise, shows that\nthereby his threatenings are not excluded--\"teaches that the visitation\nof which he had spoken would be such that, nevertheless, God would not\nforget His word; that the rejection of the people would be such that,\nnevertheless, its election should stand firm and sure,--and, finally,\nthat the adoption should not be invalid by which He had chosen\nAbraham's progeny as His people\" (_Calvin_).--The case is quite\nanalogous, when corrupted Christian churches harden themselves in\ntrusting in the promise that the Lord would be with them all the days,\nand that the gates of hell should not prevail against His Church. The\n[Pg 217] Lord knoweth how to execute His judgments so that His promises\nshall not suffer thereby, yea, that their fulfilment is thereby\nrendered possible. The relation of our passage to Is. x. 22 requires\n_further_ to be considered: \"For though thy people Israel be as the\nsand of the sea, the remnant only shall return.\" Here, too, the\nreference to the promises in Genesis cannot be mistaken. But there is\nthis difference,--that in the time of Isaiah, the people, viewing the\npartial fulfilment of the promises of God in their then prosperous\ncondition, as a sure pledge of divine mercy, founded thereupon their\nfalse security. To this, however, the prophet replies, that even the\nperfect fulfilment would give no warrant for it. In Hosea, however,\nthey rely on the perfect fulfilment, which had, as yet, no existence at\nall. But Hosea has in view the godly as much as the ungodly. To the\nformer he shows that here also there would be a fulfilment of what is\nwritten in Num. xxiii. 19: \"God is not a man, that He should lie;\nneither the son of man, that He should repent. Should He say, and not\ndo it; and speak, and not fulfil it?\" Moreover, we cannot fail to see\nthat, in the verse under review, as also in ver. 2, there is an\nallusion to the first child, Jezreel,--that in the second member of the\nverse there is an allusion to Lo-Ammi, and in ver. 3, to Lo-Ruhamah.\nBut the name Jezreel is now taken in a good sense, probably in the\nsense in which it was first given to the valley (compare remarks on i.\n4), and also to the town by its founders. Jezreel means \"God sows.\" The\nfounders of the town thereby expressed the hope that God would cause an\nabundant harvest to proceed from a small sowing--a glorious end from a\nsmall beginning. Thus God will now sow the small seed of Israel, and an\ninfinitely rich harvest shall be gained from this sowing; compare\nremarks on ver. 25.--But if now we seek for the historical reference of\nthe announcement, we are compelled to go back to the sense of those\ndeclarations in Genesis. By many, these are referred merely to the\nbodily descendants of the Patriarchs; by many, also, to their spiritual\ndescendants, their successors in the faith. But the latter reference is\naltogether arbitrary; and the former could be well-founded only, if the\nCongregation of the Lord had been destined solely for the natural\ndescendants, and if all the Gentiles had been refused admittance into\nit. But that such is not the case, is evident from the command to\ncircumcise every bondservant; [Pg 218] for, by circumcision, a man was\nreceived among the people of God. This appears, _further_, from the\ncommand in Exod. xii. 48, that every stranger who wished to partake of\nthe Passover must be previously circumcised; and this implies that\nstrangers might partake in the sign and feast of the covenant if they\nwished; compare _Michaelis_, _Mos. Recht._ Th. iv. \u00a7 184. This appears,\n_moreover_, from Deut. xxiii. 1-8, where the Edomites and Egyptians are\nexpressly declared to be capable of being received into the\nCongregation of the Lord. It appears, _still further_, from the\ncircumstance that, in the same passage, the command to exclude the\nAmmonites and Moabites is founded upon a special reason. And,\n_finally_, it appears from the Jewish practice at all times. But the\nheathens who were received among the people of God were considered as\nbelonging to the posterity of the Patriarchs, as their sons by\nadoption. How indeed could it be otherwise, since, by intermarriage,\nevery difference must have very soon disappeared? They were called\nchildren of Israel, and children of Jacob, no less than were the\nothers. It now appears to what extent the promise to the Patriarchs\nrefers to the Gentiles also--viz., in so far as they became believers\nin the God of Israel, and joined themselves to Israel. Compare Is.\nxliv. 5: \"One shall say, I am Jehovah's, and another shall call the\nname of Jacob, and another shall write with his hand. Unto the Lord!\nand boast of the name of Israel.\" Such an eager desire of the Gentiles\ntowards the kingdom of God regularly took place, either when the God of\nIsrael had revealed Himself by specially distinguishing manifestations\nof His omnipotence and glory, as, _e.g._, in the deliverance from the\nEgyptian and Babylonish captivities, in both of which events we find a\nnumber of those who had previously been heathens, \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1, in the train of\nthe Israelites;--or when a feeling of the vanity of the idols of the\nheathen world had been awakened with special vividness, as in the times\nafter Alexander the Great, in which Roman and Greek heathenism became\nmore and more _effete_, and rapidly hastened on towards ruin. In the\ntime of Christ, both of these causes co-operated. If there were\nsoundness in the opinion now generally prevalent, according to which\nthe Church of the New Testament stands quite independent of the\nCongregation of Israel, having originated from a free and equal union\nof believers from Israel, and of those from among the Gentiles, [Pg\n219] then indeed the promise now before us would have no longer any\nreference to New Testament times. The New Testament Church would be a\ngeneration altogether different, and no longer acknowledge Abraham,\nIsaac, and Jacob as their fathers. But, according to the constant\ndoctrine of the Old as well as of the New Testament, there is only one\nChurch of God from Abraham to the end of the days--only one house under\ntwo dispensations. John the Baptist proceeds upon the supposition that\nthe members of the New Testament also must be children of Abraham, else\nthe covenant and promise of God would come to nought. But as the bodily\ndescent from Abraham is no security against the danger of exclusion\nfrom his posterity--of which Ishmael was the first example--and as, so\nearly as in the Pentateuch, it is said, with reference to every greater\ntransgression, \"This soul is cut off from its people,\" so, on the other\nhand, God, in the exercise of His sovereign liberty, may give to\nAbraham, in the room of his degenerate children after the flesh,\nadopted children without number, who shall sit down with him, and\nIsaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God, whilst the sons of the kingdom\nare cast out.--After these remarks on the promise to the Patriarchs,\nthere can be no longer any difficulty in making out the historical\nreference of the announcement before us. It cannot refer to the bodily\ndescendants of Abraham, as such, any more than the promise of a son to\nAbraham was fulfilled in the birth of Ishmael, or than the Arabs stand\nrelated to the promise of the innumerable multitude of his\ndescendants,--a promise which is repeated, in the same extent, to Isaac\nand Jacob, although they were not the ancestors of the Arabs.\nDegenerate sons are not a blessing; they are no objects of promise, no\nsons in the full sense. Every one is a son of Abraham, only in so far\nas he is a son of God. For this reason the phrases \"sons of Israel\" and\n\"sons of the living God\" are, in the passage before us, connected with\neach other. Not as though the corporeal descent were altogether a\nmatter of indifference. The corporeal descendants of the Patriarchs had\nthe nearest claims to becoming their children in the full sense. It was\nto them that the means of becoming so were first granted. To them\npertained the covenants, the promises, and the adoption, Rom. ix. 4.\nBut all these external advantages were of no avail to them when they\nallowed them to [Pg 220] remain unused; in these circumstances, neither\nthe promise to Abraham, nor the announcement before us, had any\nreference to them. Both of them would have remained to this day\nunfulfilled, although the unconverted children of Israel had increased\nso as to have become the most populous nation on the face of the whole\nearth. It thus appears that the announcement before us was first truly\nrealized in the time of the Messiah; inasmuch as it was at that time\nthat the family of the Patriarchs was so mightily increased; and that\nit will yet be more fully realized, partly by the reception of an\ninnumerable multitude of adopted sons, and partly by the elevation of\nthose who were sons only in a lower sense, to be sons in the highest.\nThat which occurred at the time after the Babylonish captivity, when\nthe Lord stirred up a number of Israelites to return to Palestine, we\ncan regard as only an insignificant prelude; partly because this number\nwas too small to correspond, even in any degree, to the infinite extent\nof the promise, and partly because there were among them certainly a\nfew only who, in the fullest sense, deserved the name of \"Children of\nIsrael.\" \"Israel\"--which is the higher name, and has reference to the\nrelation to God--is here used emphatically, as appears especially from\na comparison with ver. 4, where it is taken from the degenerate\nchildren, and exchanged for the name \"Jezreel.\"--In the second part of\nthe verse, we must first set aside the false interpretation of \u05d1\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd\n\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 by \"instead of,\" which is given by _Grotius_ and others. It has\narisen from an inappropriate reference to the Latin, which has,\nhowever, no support in the Hebrew _usus loquendi_. The words can only\nmean (compare Lev. iv. 24, 33; Jer. xxii. 12; Ezek. xxi. 35; Neh. iv.\n14): \"in the place where,\" or, more literally still, \"in the place\nthat\"--the wider designation instead of the narrower. The _status\nconstr._ is explained by the circumstance that the whole succeeding\nsentence together expresses only one substantive idea, equivalent to:\n\"in the place of the being said unto them.\" The place may here be,\neither that where the people first received the name Lo-Ammi, _i.e._,\nPalestine, or the place of the exile, where they first felt the full\nmeaning of it,--the misery being a _sermo realis_ of God. Decisive in\nfavour of the latter reference is the following verse, where the \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5,\nthe land of the exile, corresponds with \u05de\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd in the verse before us.\n(According to _Jonathan_, the sense is: \"In the place to [Pg 221] which\nthey have been carried away among the Gentiles.\") It is intentionally\nthat both times the Future \u05d9\u05b5\u05d0\u05b8\u05de\u05b5\u05e8 is used, which is to be understood as\nthe Present. The difference of time being thus disregarded, the\ncontrast becomes so much the more striking.--By \"people\" and \"children\"\nof God, the same thing is expressed according to different relations.\nThe Israelites were the people of God, inasmuch as He was their King;\nand children of God, in as far as He was their Father,--their Father,\nit is true, in the first place, not, as in the New Testament (John i.\n12, 13), in reference to the spiritual generation, but in relation to\nheart-felt love, similar to the love of a father for a son. With regard\nto the Old Testament idea of son ship to God, compare the remarks on\nPs. ii. 7. In this relation, sometimes all Israel is personified as the\nson of God; thus, _e.g._, Exod. iv. 22: \"Thus thou shalt say unto\nPharaoh: My son. My first-born is Israel.\" Sometimes the Israelites are\nalso called the _children_ or _sons_ of God; _e.g._, Deut. xiv. 1: \"Ye\nare children to the Lord your God\" (compare also Deut. xxxii. 19),\nalthough not every single individual could on this account be called\n\"son of God.\" In this sense, that designation is never used, evidently\nbecause the sonship under the Old Testament does not rest so much on\nthe personal relation of the single individual to God,--as is the case\nin the New Testament,--but the individual rather partakes in it only as\na part of the whole. But there is an easy transition from the sonship\nas viewed in the Old Testament, to the sonship as seen in the New. The\nformer, in its highest perfection, cannot exist at all without the\nlatter. It is only when its single members are born of God, that the\nCongregation can be regarded and treated as the child of God in the\nfull sense of the word, and that the whole fulness of His love can be\npoured out upon it; for this is the only way of attaining to likeness\nwith God, which is the condition of admission to the rights of\nchildren. Hence it appears that the \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 under the Old Testament\nwas an actual prophecy of the times of the New Testament; and from it,\nit follows also that the announcement under consideration has its\nultimate reference to these times. Earlier fulfilments--especially at\nthe return from the Babylonish captivity--are not to be excluded,\ninasmuch as the idea comprehends in it everything in which it is, even\nin the least degree, realized; but they can be considered [Pg 222] only\nas a slight prelude to Its real fulfilment, which takes place only when\nthe reality fully coincides with the idea; so that we are not at\nliberty to limit ourselves to the commencement of the Messianic time,\nbut must include the Messianic time in its last consummation.--Another\nquestion still remains:--Why is God here called the \"_living_?\"\nPlainly, to point out the antithesis of the true God to dead idols,\nwhich cannot love, because they do not live; and thus to bring out the\ngreatness of the privilege of being the child of such a God. The same\nantithesis is found in Deut. xxxii. 3 seqq.: \"Where are now their gods,\nthe rock in whom they trusted, which did eat the fat of their\nsacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink-offerings? Let them rise\nup and help you; let it be a covering to you. See now that I, I am He,\nand not is a God beside Me. I kill and I make alive. I wound and I\nheal.\" This antithesis still continues; the world has only changed its\nidols. It still always seeks the life from the dead, from the gross\nidol of sin up to the refined idol of a self-made abstract god, whether\nhe be formed from logical notions or from emotions and feelings. But\nhow much soever they may strive to give life to their idols, they\nremain dead, although they should even attain to a semblance of life.\nThe true God, on the contrary, lives and continues to live, how much\nsoever they may strive to slay Him. He manifests Himself as the living\none, either by smiting and killing them, if they continue in their\nimpenitence, or by healing and quickening them, if they become His\nchildren.--_Finally_,--we must still consider the two citations, in\nthe New Testament, of the passage before us. One in 1 Pet. ii. 10, \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2, \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f20\u03bb\u03b5\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\nmust certainly strike us, inasmuch as this epistle, on conclusive\ngrounds (compare _Steiger_ S. 14 ff.), cannot be considered as being\naddressed to Jewish Christians exclusively. But still more striking is\nthe second quotation in Rom. ix. 25, 26: \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f69\u03c3\u03b7\u1f72 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u00b7\n\u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ad\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f10\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Here our passage is not only alluded to, but\nexpressly quoted, and, in opposition to the Jews, the calling of the\nGentiles is proved from it. But how can a passage which, according to\nthe whole context, can refer to Israel only, be applied [Pg 223]\ndirectly to the Gentiles? The answer very readily suggests itself when\nwe reduce the prophecy to its fundamental idea. This is none other than\nthat of divine mercy, which may indeed, by apostasy and unfaithfulness,\nbe prevented from manifesting itself, but can never be extinguished,\nbecause it has its foundation in God's nature. Compare Jer. xxxi. 20:\n\"Is Ephraim a dear son to Me, a child of joy? For as often as I speak\nof him, I must still remember him. Therefore My bowels sound for him,\n_I will have mercy_ upon him, saith the Lord.\" Now, in the same manner\nas this truth was realized in the restoration of the children of Israel\nto be again the children of God, so it is in the reception of the\nGentiles. It is not at all a mere application, but a real proof which\nhere forms the question at issue. It is _because_ God had promised to\nreceive again the children of Israel, that He must receive the Gentiles\nalso; for otherwise that divine decree would have its foundation in\nmere caprice, which cannot be conceived to have any existence in God.\nAlthough the Gentiles are not so near as Israel, yet He must satisfy\nthe claims of those who are more remote, just because He acknowledges\nthe claims of those who are near. The necessity of going back to the\nfundamental idea appears in the promises as well as in the\ncommandments. We cite only one instance which is especially fitted to\nserve as a parallel to the case before us. There is no doubt, and\nprejudice alone could have denied, that in the Pentateuch, by _friend_\nand _brother_ the Israelite is to be understood throughout; it is in\nthe New Testament that the command of Christian brotherly love is\ngiven. After having commended truthfulness, Paul adds: \"Because ye are\nmembers of one another\"--a reason which can refer to those only who\nhave Christ as their common head. From this limitation, can anything be\ninferred to the prejudice of love towards the whole human race, or of\nthe duties towards all without any distinction? Just the reverse. It is\njust because the Israelite is bound to love the Israelite, and the\nChristian the Christian, that he should embrace all men in love. If the\nspecial relation to God as the common Redeemer afford the foundation\nfor the _special_ love, then the _general_ relation to God as the\nCreator and Preserver must also afford the foundation of _universal_\nlove; just as from the command to honour father and mother, it\nnecessarily follows that we must also [Pg 224] honour uncle and aunt,\nking and magistrate. This is the only correct view of the laws and\nprophecies; and if it be consistently followed out, it will make water\nto flow out of the rock, and will create streams in the wilderness.\n\nVer. 2. \"_And the children of Judah and the children of Israel assemble\nthemselves together, and set over themselves one head, and go up out of\nthe land; for great is the day of Jezreel._\"\n\nThe words, \"They appoint themselves a king,\" appear strange at first\nsight. For it is not, in general, the union of Judah and Israel which\nthe prophet expects from better times;--a _perverse_ union of both,\none, it may be, in which the house of Judah shall also give up Jehovah\nhis God, and David his King, only in order to be able to live on a\nright brotherly footing with Israel, would have been anything but a\nprogress and a blessing;--but such a union as has for its foundation\nthe return of Israel to the true God, and to the Davidic dynasty. This\nappears clearly from iii. 5. The difficulty is removed by a comparison\nwith the passage of the Pentateuch to which the prophet seems to\nallude: \"Thou shalt set over thee a king, whom the Lord thy God shall\nchoose,\" Deut. xvii. 15. The prophet seems to have these words before\nhis eyes, as it appears elsewhere also, where he describes the hitherto\nopposite conduct of the Israelites; compare the remarks on iii. 4. From\nthese it appears that the election of the king by God, who had promised\neternal dominion to the house of David, and his election by the people,\ndo not in the least exclude one another. On the contrary, it is\n_because_ God had elected the king, that now the people also elect him.\n_Calvin_ remarks: \"There appears to be transferred to men what properly\nbelongs to God alone--viz., the appointment of a king; but the prophet\nexpresses, by this word, the obedience of faith; for it is not enough\nthat Christ be given, and placed before men as a King, but they must\nalso acknowledge and reverently receive Him as a King. From this we\ninfer, that when we believe the Gospel, we choose, as it were by our\nown vote, Christ as our King.\" That the prophet understands the\n\"setting of a head\" in this sense, appears also from the circumstance\nthat the whole verse is based upon the reference to the Exodus from\nEgypt, which is now to be repeated. To this the words, \"They assemble\nthemselves together,\" likewise refer; for the departure from Egypt was\npreceded by the assembling together of the [Pg 225] whole people. The\nmention of a \"head\" refers back to Moses. In his case, as well as that\nof David subsequently, the election by the people was only the\nacknowledgment of his having been divinely called.--Another question\nis, How are the words, \"They go up out of the land,\" to be understood?\nThere can be no doubt that by \"land,\" the land of captivity is\ndesignated. For the words are borrowed from Exod. i. 10, where Pharaoh\nsays, \"When there falleth out any war, they will join our enemies, and\nfight against us, and go up out of the land,\" \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5. The\nprophet, moreover, is his own interpreter in ii. 17, where he expressly\ncompares this new going up to the promised land with the former going\nup from Egypt: \"_As in the day when she went up out of the land of\nEgypt_;\" just as, in other passages, he describes their being carried\naway, under the figure of their being carried away to Egypt--Assyria\nbeing considered as another Egypt. Compare viii. 13: \"Now will He\nremember their iniquity and visit their sins; they shall return\nto Egypt;\" ix. 3: \"They shall not dwell in the Lord's land, and\nEphraim returns to Egypt.\" (Compare, on this passage, the Author's\n_Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, vol. i. p. 121\nff.) Moreover, in the other prophets also, the going up from, or\ndeliverance out of, Egypt, forms throughout the basis of the second\ngreat deliverance. And this is quite natural; for both of those events\nstand in the closest actual connection with each other;--both proceeded\nfrom the same Divine Being; and the former was a prophecy _by fact_,\nand a pledge of the latter. The deliverance of the people of God from\nEgypt sealed their election; and from the latter the new deliverance\nnecessarily followed;--a relation which repeats itself in individuals\nalso. From this we may explain the fact that in the Psalms, they who\ncelebrate God's former mercies, prove from them to Him and to\nthemselves, throughout, that He must now also be their helper. It is\nthen by no means a mere external similarity which induces the prophets\never and anon to refer to the deliverance from Egypt (compare the\npassages Mic. ii. 12, 13; Jer. xxiii. 7, 8, which bear so close a\nresemblance to the passage before us), any more than that the Passover\nis a mere memorial. Such cannot occur in the true religion which has a\nliving God, and hence knows nothing of anything absolutely past.\n_Ewald's_ [Pg 226] exposition, that they go up out of the country for\nthe purpose of further conquest, and that of _Simson_, that they go up\nto Jerusalem, sever the three events which, as the example of previous\nhistory shows, are evidently so closely allied; and these expositors,\nmoreover, give, by an addition of their own, that definiteness to the\nwords, \"And they shall go up out of the land,\" which they can obtain\nonly by a reference to the history of the past. In their ambiguity,\nthey almost expressly point to such a commentary.--The article in \u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5,\n_the_ (_i.e._, the definite) land, is explained from the circumstance\nthat, in the previous context, there had been an indirect allusion to\ntheir being carried away into a strange land. If Israel was no more the\npeople of God,--if they no longer enjoyed His mercy, then it is\nsupposed that they could not remain in the land which they had received\nonly as the people of God, and had hitherto retained only through His\nmercy. But, primarily, the article refers to \"the place where it was\nsaid unto them,\" in the preceding verse.--That along with the children\nof Israel, the children of Judah also assemble themselves and go up,\nimplies a fact which the prophet had not expressly mentioned, because\nit did not stand immediately connected with his purpose--viz., that\nJudah too should be carried into captivity. It thus supplements chap.\ni. 7, by showing that the mercy there promised to the inhabitants of\nJudah is to be understood relatively only. Such suppositions, indeed,\nshow very plainly how distinctly the future lay before the eyes of the\nprophet.[5]--With regard, now, to the historical reference,--it must,\nin the first place, be remarked, that whatever is here determined\nconcerning it, must be applicable to all other [Pg 227] parallel\npassages also, in which a future reunion of Israel and Judah, and their\ncommon return to the promised land, are announced; _e.g._, Jer. iii.\n18: \"In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of\nIsrael, and they come together out of the land of the north to the land\nthat I have given to their fathers;\" l. 4: \"In those days the children\nof Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together, weeping\nshall they come and seek the Lord their God.\" Compare also Is. xi.;\nEzek. xxxvii. 19, 20. In the passage under consideration, several\ninterpreters, as _Theodoret_, think of the return from Babylon, and\nrefer the \"one head\" to Zerubbabel. Now we certainly cannot deny that,\nin that event, there is a small beginning of the fulfilment. But if\nthat had been the entire fulfilment, Hosea would more resemble a\ndreamer and an enthusiast than a true prophet of the living God. The\nobjection which immediately presents itself--viz., that, after all, the\ngreatest portion of the ten tribes, and a very considerable part of\nJudah, remained in captivity--is by no means the strongest. Although\nthe whole both of Judah and Israel had returned, the real and final\nfulfilment could not be sought for in that event. It is not the renewed\npossession of the country, as such, which the prophet promises, but\nrather a certain kind of possession,--such a possession as that the\nland is completely the land of God, partaking in all the fulness of His\nblessings, and thus a worthy residence for the people of God, and for\ntheir children. One may be in Canaan, and yet, at the same time, in\nBabylon or in Assyria. Had not the threatened punishment of God been\nindeed as fully executed upon those who, during the Assyrian and\nBabylonish captivities, wandered about the country in sorrow and\nmisery, as upon those who were carried away? Can the circumstance that\nJews are even now living in Jerusalem in the deepest misery, be adduced\nas a proof that the loss of the promised land, with which the people\nwere threatened, had not been completely fulfilled? It is true that,\nduring the times of the Old Covenant, there existed a certain\nconnection betwixt the lower and the higher kinds of possession. As\nsoon as the people ceased to be the people of the Lord, they lost with\nthe former, after being often previously warned by the decrease of it,\nthe latter also. As soon as they obtained again the lower kind of\npossession, which could happen only in the case of a [Pg 228] return to\nthe Lord, they recovered, to a certain degree, in proportion to the\nearnestness and sincerity of their conversion, the higher kind of\npossession also. A commencement of the fulfilment must, therefore, be\nat all events assumed in the return from the Babylonish captivity; but\na very feeble commencement only. Just as the conversion was very\nsuperficial, so was the degree of the higher kind of possession but a\nvery small one. The manifestations of mercy were very sparing; the\ncondition of the new colony was, upon the whole, very poor; they did\nnot possess the land as a free property, but only under the dominion of\na foreigner. That which was, in one respect, the termination of the\ncaptivity, was, in another, much rather a continuation of it. It was\ncertainly not the true Canaan which they possessed, any more than one\nstill possesses the beloved object while he embraces only his corpse.\nWhere the Lord is not present with His gifts and blessings, there\nCanaan cannot be. It was just as the land of the presence of the Lord,\nthat it was so dear and valuable to all believers.--From what has now\nbeen said, it appears that, as regards the historical reference, we\nneed not limit ourselves to the times of the Old Covenant, nor dream of\na return of Israel to Canaan to take place at some future time.\nLuther's explanation, \"They will go up from this place of pilgrimage to\nthe heavenly father-land,\" is quite correct,--not indeed according to\nthe letter, but according to the spirit. It is not the form, but the\nessence of the divine inheritance, which the prophet has in view. The\nform is a different one under the New Covenant, where the whole earth\nhas become a Canaan; but the essence remains. To cling here to the\nform, would be just as absurd as if one, who, for Christ's sake, has\nforsaken all, were to upbraid Him because he had not received again,\naccording to the letter of His promise, precisely an hundred-fold,\nlands, brothers, sisters, mothers, etc., Mark x. 30. The words of\nGod, which are spirit and life, must be understood with spirit and\nlife.--Suppose that the children of Israel were, at some future time,\nto return to Canaan, this would have nothing to do with our prophecy.\nIn a religious point of view, it would be a matter of no consequence,\nand could not serve to prove the Covenant-faithfulness of God. Under\nthe New Covenant it finds its fulfilment, that \"Canaan must, even in\nthe North, bloom joyfully around the beloved.\" The three stations\n[Pg 229]--Egypt, the wilderness, and Canaan--will continue to exist for\never; but we go from the one to the other only with the feet of the\nspirit, and not, as in the Old Covenant, with the feet of the body at\nthe same time. The grossly literal explanation which knows not to\nseparate the thought from its drapery, the essential from the\naccidental, agrees, just in the main point, with the allegorical\nexplanation--viz., in interpolating, instead of interpreting.--The\nfulfilment of the prophecy before us is, therefore, a continuous and\nprogressive one, which will not cease until God's whole plan of\nsalvation be consummated. It began at Babylon, and was carried forward\nat the appearance of Christ, whom many out of Judah and Israel set over\nthemselves as their head, to be their common leader to Canaan. It is,\neven now, realized every day before our eyes in every Israelite who\nfollows their example. It will, at some future time, find its final\nfulfilment in the last and greatest manifestation of God's\nCovenant-faithfulness towards Israel, which, happily, is as strongly\nguaranteed by the New as it is by the Old Testament.--The last words of\nthe verse have been already explained, substantially, in ver. 1. The\nname \"Jezreel\" is here used with a reference to its appellative\nsignification. Israel appears here (compare ver. 25 [23], which serves\nas a commentary and as a refutation of differing interpretations) as a\nseed which is sown by God in fruitful land, and which shall produce a\nrich harvest. The figure appears, with a somewhat different turn, in\nJer. xxxi. 27; Ezek. xxxvi. 9, where the house of Israel, and the house\nof Judah, appear as the soil in which the seed is sown by God.\nAnalogous is also Ps. lxxii. 16: \"They of the city shall flourish up\nlike the grass of the earth.\"--The \u05db\u05d9 is explained by the circumstance\nthat the sowing, which can take place only in the land of the Lord\n(compare ver. 25), supposes the going up from the land of the\ncaptivity. But if the day of sowing be great, if it be regarded by God\nas high and important, then the going up, which is the condition of\nsowing, must necessarily take place.\n\nVer. 3. \"_Say ye unto your brethren, My people_ (Ammi); _and to your\nsisters, Who has obtained mercy_ (Ruhamah).\"\n\nThe words, \"My people,\" are a concise expression for: \"You whom the\nLord has called. My people.\" The mention of the brothers and sisters is\nexplained by the reference to the [Pg 230] male and female members of\nthe prophet's family. The phrase, \"Say ye,\" is in substance equivalent\nto: \"Then will ye be able to say.\" The prophet sees before him the\npeople of the Lord who have experienced mercy; and calls upon the\nmembers to salute one another joyfully with the new name given to them\nby God. Such is the simple meaning of the verse, which has been\ndarkened by a multitude of forced interpretations.\n\n\nFootnote 1: In Hab. ii. 1, where the prophet is standing upon his\nwatch, and watches to see what the Lord will say _unto_ him, it would\nbe rather strange to translate \"in me.\" There is nothing else to lead\nus to conceive that the apparition of angels in Zech. is internal. But\nNum. xii. 8 is quite decisive. The Lord there says, with reference to\nHis relation to Moses, \"Mouth to mouth I speak to him (\u05d1\u05d5);\" and\nimmediately afterwards it is said, \"Wherefore, then, were ye not afraid\nto speak to My servant (\u05d1\u05e2\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9), to Moses?\" It is evident that the \u05d1\ncannot be explained by \"in\" in the one case, and by \"through\" in the\nother. It is remarkable, however, that \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 with \u05d1 occurs very\nfrequently when the Lord Himself, or, as in Zechariah, _the_ Angel,\nspeaks. This may, perhaps, be explained from the circumstance, that the\nheavenly discourses have an especially penetrating power, and sink very\ndeeply into the heart.\n\nFootnote 2: This is very natural, for the proper name has originally a\ncheering signification. It is apparent from the remarks of _Schubert_\n(_Reise_ iii. S. 164-166), and of _Ritter_ (_Erdkunde_ 16, i. S. 693),\non the natural condition of the plain of Jezreel, how it happened that\nit received this name, which means: \"God sows.\" _Schubert_ calls the\nsoil of Jezreel a field of corn, the seed of which is not sown by any\nman's hand, the ripe ears of which are not reaped by any reaper. The\nvarious kinds of corn appeared to him to be wild plants; the mules\nwalked in them with half their bodies covered by them; the ears of\nwheat were sown by themselves. \"All travellers,\" says _Ritter_, \"agree\nin their descriptions of the extraordinary beauty and fertility of the\nplain.\"\n\nFootnote 3: This transference was so much the more natural, as, under\nthe government of the house of Jehu, guilt had certainly been\nfrequently concentrated in the form of blood-guiltiness. Compare Is. i.\n21, where the prophet, in order to mark out the reigning sin in its\nhighest degree, represents Jerusalem as being full of murderers.\n\nFootnote 4: _Hitzig_ is of opinion that \"the prophet cannot blame him\nfor the death of Joram and Jezebel, but may well do so for the murder\nof Ahaziah, king of Judah, and of his brethren, and for the carnage\ndescribed in 2 Kings x. 11.\" But Ahaziah was not killed at Jezreel:\ncompare 2 Kings ix. 27; 2 Chron. xxii. 9. And \"the carnage in 2 Kings\nxii.\" likewise took place at Jezreel to a small extent only, in so far,\nnamely, as it concerned the princes of the house of Ahab, who still\nremained in Jezreel. Compare _Thenius_ on this passage.\n\nFootnote 5: That the carrying away of Judah, which is here supposed,\nis a total and future one, and not, as _Hofmann_ (_Weiss. u. Erf._\ni. S. 210) asserts, one which is partial and already past (Joel\niv. [iii.] 2-8; Amos i. 6, 9), appears from the analogy of the\nchildren of Israel,--from the reference to the type of the Egyptian\nconditions,--from a comparison of chap. v. 5, 12, xii. 1-3,--from the\nfact that the carrying away is placed in the view of the _whole people_\nas early as in the Pentateuch, _e.g._, Deut. xxviii. 36, iv. 26,\n27,--and, finally, from the fact, that the other prophets also, even\nfrom the most ancient times, manifest a clear knowledge of the\ncatastrophe which threatened Judah also; compare, _e.g._, Amos ii. 4,\n5. Moreover, in Is. xi. 11, 12, also, the return of Judah is\nprophesied, although no express announcement of the carrying away\nprecedes. In like manner, in Amos ix. 11, the restoration of the fallen\ntabernacle of David is foretold, although no express mention is made of\nits fall.\n\n\n\n CHAP. II. 4-25 (2-23).\n\n\"The significant couple\"--_R\u00fcckert_ remarks--\"disappears in the thing\nsignified by it; Israel itself appears as the wife of whoredoms.\" This\nis the only essential difference between this and the preceding\nsections; and it is the less marked, because even there, in the last\npart of it, the symbolical action passed over into a mere figure. With\nthis exception, this section also contains the alternation of\npunishment and threatening, and of promise,--the latter beginning with\nver. 16 (14). The features of the image, which were less attended to in\nthe preceding portion, but are here more carefully portrayed, are the\nrejection of the unfaithful wife, and her gradual restoration. _Calvin_\nsays: \"After God has laid open their sins before men. He adds some\nconsolation, and tempers the severity, lest they should despair. But\nthen He returns again to threatenings, and He must do so necessarily;\nfor though men may have been terrified by the fear of punishment, yet\nthey do not recover, and become wise for ever.\" \"By a new impetus as it\nwere,\" says _Manger_, \"he suddenly returns to expand the same argument,\nand sets out again from things more sad.\"\n\nVer. 4. \"_Contend with your mother, contend; for she is not my wife,\nand I am not her husband: and let her put away her whoredoms from her\nface, and her adultery from her breasts._\"\n\n_Calvin_ is of opinion that a contrast is here intended, inasmuch as\nthe Israelites were striving with God, and attributed to Him the cause\nof their misfortune: \"Do not contend with Me, but rather with your\nmother, who, by her adultery, has brought down _righteous_ punishment\nupon herself and upon you.\" But this interpretation is inadmissible;\nbecause it proceeds [Pg 231] from the unfounded supposition that the\ndivorce is to be considered as having already taken place outwardly,\nwhilst the contending here clearly appears as one by which divorce may\nyet be averted. The words, \"Contend with your mother,\" rather mean, on\nthe contrary, that it is high time to call her to account, if they\nwould not go to destruction along with her. From this, however, we are\nnot entitled to infer that the moral condition of the children was\nbetter than that of the mother. Without any regard to their moral\ncondition, the prophet only wishes to say that their interest required\nthem to do this. If it were not his intention just to carry out the\nimage of adultery, he might as well have called upon the mother to\ncontend against the children, as it is said in Is. li. 1: \"Behold, for\nyour iniquities you have been sold, and for your transgression your\nmother has been put away.\" In point of fact, the mother has no\nstanding-place apart from the children. _Vitringa_ says: \"One and the\nsame people is called 'mother' when viewed in their collective\ncharacter; and 'children' when viewed in the individuals who are born\nof that people. For a people is born from the people. For the whole\npeople is considered according to that which is radical in it, which\nconstitutes its nature and substance,--and, in this respect, it is\ncalled the 'mother of its citizens.'\" But we are as little entitled to\ninfer from this exhortation, that a reform, and an averting of the\nthreatened judgments, may still be hoped for. This is opposed by what\nfollows, where the wife appears as incorrigible, and her rejection\nas unavoidable. The fundamental thought is, on the contrary, only\nthis:--that a reform is necessary if the threatened judgments are to be\naverted. That this necessity, however, would not become a reality, the\nprophet foresaw; and for this reason he speaks unconditionally in the\nsequel. But from this again it must not be inferred that, in that case,\nhis exhortations and threatenings would be altogether in vain. Though\nno reform was to be expected from the people, single individual\nmight, nevertheless, be converted. At the same time, it was of great\nimportance for the future, that before the calamity should break in, a\nright view of it should be opened up to the whole people. It is of\ngreat importance, that if any one be smitten, he should know for what\nreason. The instructions in the doctrines of Christianity, which a\ncriminal has received in childhood, may [Pg 232] often seem for a long\nseries of years to have been altogether in vain; but afterwards,\nnotwithstanding, when punishment has softened his heart, they bring\nforth their fruits.--In the words, \"For she is not my wife, and I am\nnot her husband,\" the ground of the exhortation is stated. Even for\nthis reason, the words cannot be referred to the _external_ dissolution\nof the marriage, to the punishment of the wife; they signify rather the\n_moral_ dissolution of the marriage--the guilt of the wife--and are\nequivalent to: \"our marriage is dissolved _de facto_.\" But in the case\nof the spiritual marriage, this dissolution _de facto_ is always,\nsooner or later, according to the greater or smaller measure of God's\nforbearance, followed by the dissolution _de jure_; or, to speak\nwithout figure, wherever there is sin, punishment will always follow.\nGod bears with much weakness on the part of His people; but wherever,\nthrough this weakness, the relation to Him is essentially dissolved, He\nthere annuls the relation altogether. The \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\napplies to spiritual marriages also. The surrender of the main\nfaculties and powers of our nature to something which is not God,\nstands on a par with carnal adultery. Thus, then, the connection\nbetwixt \"contend\" and \"for\" clearly appears.--Many interpreters,\nviewing the clause beginning with \u05db\u05d9 as parenthetical, would connect\nthe last words of the verse with \u05e8\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5: \"Contend with your mother that\nshe may put away.\" But the words are rather to be considered as\nparallel with the first member; for \"contend,\" etc., is equivalent to:\n\"seek to bring your mother to a better way,\" or: \"let your mother\nreform herself.\" Her crime is designated first as whoredom, and then as\nadultery. The relation in which the two stand to one another is plainly\nseen from chap. i. 2, where the notion of adultery is paraphrased by:\n\"whoring away from the Lord.\" By \"whoredom,\" the _genus_--carnal crimes\nin general--is designated; by \"adultery,\" the _species_, or carnal\ncrime by which the sacred rights of another person are, at the same\ntime, violated. The idea of whoredom, when transferred to a spiritual\nrelation, implies chiefly the worldliness of those with whom God has\nnot entered into any special relation; whilst the idea of adultery\nimplies the worldliness of individuals and communities with whom God\nhas entered into a special marriage, and whose apostasy is, for this\nreason, far more culpable. Leaving out of [Pg 233] view the more\naggravating circumstance, the prophet first speaks of whoredom in the\ncase of the children of Israel also.--The reason why the whoredom is\nhere attributed to the face, and the adultery to the breasts, is well\ngiven by _Manger_: \"We need not have any difficulty about seeing\nadultery attributed to the very face and breasts. There is a certain\nexpressiveness in this conciseness which demonstrates, as it were\nbefore our eyes, that, in her whole deportment, the wife was given over\nto sensuality, and that her whole aim was only to excite to it, and to\npractise it. For the face is, with women, the sign of dissolute\nlasciviousness--as _Horace_ expresses it in his Odes, I. 19:--\n\n Urit grata protervitas\n Et vultus nimium lubricus aspici.\n\nEzekiel, too, in chap. xxiii. 3, speaks of 'the pressed breasts of\nIsrael in Egypt.'\" _Schmid_ states as the reason why just the face and\nbreasts are mentioned, \"that Scripture, in order not to offend modesty,\nforbears to mention the worse and grosser deeds of fornication.\" But\nthis is very little in harmony with the manner of Scripture--as may be\nseen from a comparison of Ezek. xvi. and xxiii., and of ver. 12 of the\nchapter before us. The reason rather is, that those parts are here\nspecially to be mentioned, in which the whoring nature openly manifests\nitself; so that the highest degree of impudence is thereby expressed.\nThis then shows that there is no longer any halting, no longer any\nstruggle of the better against the evil principle. Such an impudent\nwhore he resembles who, without shame or concern, publicly exhibits his\ndevotedness to the world. In this way has _Calvin_ also explained it.\n\"There is no doubt,\" says he, \"that the prophet here expresses the\nimpudence of the people, who in their hardihood, in their contempt of\nGod, in their sinful superstitions, and in every kind of wickedness,\nhad gone to such lengths, that they were like whores who do not conceal\ntheir turpitude, but publicly prostitute themselves, yea, try to\nexhibit the signs of their wickedness in their eyes, as well as in\ntheir whole body.\"\n\nVer. 5. \"_Lest I strip her naked and expose her as in the day of her\nbirth, and make her like the wilderness, and set her like dry land, and\nslay her by thirst._\"\n\nIn the marriage here spoken of, there was this peculiarity, that the\nhusband first redeemed the wife from a condition the [Pg 234] most\nwretched and miserable, before he united himself to her; and hence\nbecame her benefactor, before he became her husband. Compare iii. 2,\nwhere the Lord redeems the wife from slavery; and Ezek. xvi. 4, where\nthe people appear as a child exposed, naked, and covered with filth,\nupon whom the Lord has mercy,--whom He provides with precious clothing\nand splendid ornaments, and destines for His spouse. During the\nmarriage, the husband continues his liberality towards his wife. But\nnow, the gifts, all of which had been bestowed upon her only with a\nview to the marriage which was to take place or was already entered\nupon, are to cease, because the marriage-tie has been broken by her\nguilt. She now returns to the condition of the deepest misery in which\nshe had been sunk before her union to the Lord.--There is, in this, an\nallusion to that which, in the case of actual marriage, the husband was\nbound to give to his wife, viz., clothing and food; compare Is. iv. 1.\nIf God withdraws His gifts, the consequences are infinitely awful,\nbecause, altogether unlike the natural husband, He has everything in\nHis possession; if He does not give anything to drink. He then slays\nby thirst. If we keep in view this aggravation of the punishment,\nwhich has its ground only in the person of the husband, it is evident\nthat we have here before us only a reference to the withdrawal of the\nmarriage-gifts which is the consequence of the divorce, and not, as\nseveral interpreters--_e.g._, _Manger_--suppose, to a punishment of\nadultery, alleged by them to have been common at that time, \"that the\nwife was stripped of her clothes, exposed to public mockery, and killed\nby hunger and thirst.\" The eternal and universal truth which, in the\nverse before us, is expressed with a special reference to Israel, is,\nthat all the gifts of God are bestowed upon individuals, as well as\nupon whole nations, either in order to lead them to the communion of\nlife with Him, or because this communion already exists; just as our\nSaviour says that to him who has successfully sought for the kingdom of\nheaven, all other things shall be added, without any labour on his\npart. If we overlook the truth that the gifts of God have this\nobject--if they be not received and enjoyed as the gifts of God--if the\nspiritual marriage be refused, or if, having been already entered into,\nit be broken,--sooner or later the gifts will be withdrawn.--The word\n\"naked\" properly includes a whole clause: \"I shall strip [Pg 235] her\nso that she shall become naked.\" The verb \u05d4\u05e6\u05bc\u05d9\u05d2, \"to place,\" \"to set,\"\nhas the secondary signification of public exhibition; compare Job xvii.\n6. The literal translation ought to be, \"I shall expose her as _the\nday_ of her birth;\" and we must assume that there is here the\noccurrence of one of those numerous cases, in which the comparison is\nmerely alluded to, without being carried out; compare, _e.g._, \"Like\nthe day of Midian,\" Is. ix. 3; \"Their heart rejoiceth like wine,\" Zech.\nx. 7. The _tertium comparationis_ between the day of her birth and her\nfuture condition is only the entire nakedness; compare Job i. 21. Any\nallusion to the filth, etc., is less obvious; the prophet would have\nbeen required to give an intimation of this in some manner. The two\nparts of the first hemistich of the verse correspond with each other;\njust as do the three parts of the second hemistich. In the first, the\nwithdrawal of clothing, and nakedness; in the second, the withdrawal of\nfood, and hunger and thirst. It is questionable whether the mention of\nthe birth-day here belongs merely to the imagery, is a mere designation\nof entire nakedness, because man is never more naked than when he comes\ninto the world; or whether it is to be understood as belonging to the\nthing itself, and refers to the condition of the people in Egypt to\nwhich they are now to be reduced. In favour of the latter explanation,\nthere is not only the comparison of the parallel passage in Ezekiel,\nbut, still more, the purely matter-of-fact character of the entire\ndescription. Israel is, in this section, not _compared_ to a wife, so\nthat _figure_ and _thing_ would be co-ordinate, but appears as the wife\nherself. Ver. 17 also is in favour of this interpretation.--The words,\n\"I make her like the wilderness,\" which, by _Hitzig_ and others, are\nerroneously referred to the country instead of the people, are\npertinently explained by _Manger_: \"The prophet depicts a horrible and\ndesperate condition, where everything necessary for sustaining life is\nawanting,--where she has to endure a thirst peculiar to an altogether\nuncultivated and sunburnt wilderness.\" The comparison appears so much\nthe more suitable, when we remark that wilderness and desert are here\npersonified, and appear as hungry and thirsty. This, however, was too\npoetical for several prosaic interpreters. Hence they would in both\ninstances supply a \u05d1 after the \u05db, \"as in the wilderness\" = \"I place her\nin the condition in which she was formerly, in the [Pg 236]\nwilderness.\" But it is self-evident that such a supplying of the \u05d1 is\ninadmissible. If we were to receive this interpretation, we must rather\nassume that here also there is merely a comparison intimated: \"as the\nwilderness,\"--for, \"as she was in the wilderness.\" But even then, the\ninterpretation cannot, for another reason, be admitted. The impending\ncondition of the people did not, in the least, correspond to what it\nwas in the wilderness. The natural condition of the wilderness was not\nthen seen in all its reality; the people of the Lord received bread\nfrom heaven, and water from the rock. It has its antitype rather in\nsuch a condition as that which is to follow upon the punishment, ver.\n16. The Article indicates that, by \"the wilderness,\" we are here to\nunderstand, specially, the Desert of Arabia,--the desert \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd.\nBut that this comes into consideration only as one especially desolate,\nand not as the former abode of the Israelites, appears from the\nfollowing--\"in dry land,\" without the Article, and not, as otherwise we\nwould expect, \"in _the_ dry land.\" _Finally_,--We have a parallel to\nthis in the threatening in Deut. xxviii. 48: \"And thou servest thine\nenemy whom the Lord thy God will send upon thee, in hunger, and in\nthirst, and in nakedness, and in great want.\"\n\nVer. 6. \"_And I will not have mercy upon her children, for they are\nchildren of whoredoms._\"\n\nIt appears from ver. 7, that the children are to be repudiated on\naccount of their origin (compare the remarks on i. 2), and not on\naccount of their morals. _Michaelis_ says, \"They have the same\ndisposition, and follow the same course as their adulterous mother; for\na viper bringeth forth a viper, and a bad raven lays a bad egg.\" The\ncause of their rejection is, that they are children of whoredoms. That\nthey are such, is proved by the circumstance that their mother is\nwhoring. Compare also v. 7: \"They have become faithless to the Lord,\nfor they have born strange children.\" In point of fact, however, a\nsinful origin and a sinful nature are identical.\n\nVer. 7. \"_For their mother has been whoring, she who bore them has been\nput to shame; for she has said, I will go after my lovers, the givers\nof my bread and my water, of my wool and my flax, of my oil and my\ndrink._\"\n\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05d4 is explained in a two-fold way. The common explanation is: \"She\nhas practised what is disgraceful, she has acted [Pg 237] shamefully.\"\nOthers, on the contrary, explain: \"She has been put to shame, she has\nbeen disgraced.\" In this latter way it is explained by _Manger_, who\nremarks, \"that this word is stronger than \u05d6\u05e0\u05d4; that it implies not only\nan accusation of vile whoredom, but also that she has been convicted of\nthis crime, and as it were apprehended _in flagranti_; so that, even if\nshe were yet impudent enough, she could no longer deny it, but must\nsink down in confusion and perplexity.\" This latter exposition is,\nwithout doubt, the preferable one; for, 1. \u05d4\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05e9 never occurs in the\nfirst-mentioned signification. _Winer_ contents himself with quoting\nthe passage before us. _Gesenius_ refers, moreover, to Prov. x. 5. But\nthe \u05d1\u05df \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05e9 of that passage is evidently a son bringing disgrace upon\nhis parents,--in xxix. 15 \u05d0\u05de\u05bc\u05d5 is added,--or making them ashamed,\ndisappointing their hopes. On the other hand, the signification, \"to be\nput to shame,\" \"to be convicted of a disgraceful deed,\" is quite an\nestablished one. Compare, _e.g._, Jer. ii. 26: \"As the disgrace of a\nthief when he is found, thus the whole house of Israel is _put to\nshame_;\" Jer. vi. 15: \"They are put to shame, for they have committed\nabomination; they shamed not themselves, they felt no shame;\" compare\nalso Jer. viii. 9. In all these passages, \u05d4\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05e9 signifies the shame\nforced upon those who have no sense of shame.--2. The signification,\n\"to act disgracefully,\" does not admit of a regular grammatical\nderivation. _Gesenius_ refers to analogies such as \u05d4\u05e8\u05e2 ,\u05d4\u05d9\u05d8\u05d9\u05d1; but\nthese would be admissible only if the _Kal_ \u05d1\u05d5\u05e9 signified, \"to be\ninfamous,\" while it means only \"to be ashamed.\" Being derived from \u05d1\u05d5\u05e9,\nthe verb can mean only \"to put to shame,\" in which signification it\noccurs, _e.g._, in 2. Sam. xix. 6. But, on the other hand, the\nsignification, \"to be put to shame,\" can be well defended. As the\n_Hiphil_ cannot have an intransitive signification, it must, with this\nsignification, be considered as derived from \u05d1\u05e9\u05ea, \"_pudorem, ignominiam\ncontraxit_,\"--a view which is favoured by Jer. ii. 26.--The \"lovers\"\nare the idols; compare the remarks on Zech. xiii. 6. The \u05db\u05d9 confirms\nthe statement, that she who bare them has been whoring, and has been\nput to shame by a further exposure of the crime and its origin. The\nsame delusion which appears here as the cause of the spiritual\nadultery, is stated as such also in Jer. xlix. 17, 18. Jeremiah there\nwarns the people not to contract sin by idolatry, because that was the\ncause of all their present misery, and would bring upon them [Pg 238]\ngreater misery still. But they answer him, that they would continue to\noffer incense and drink-offerings to the Queen of heaven, as they and\ntheir fathers had formerly done in their native land; for, \"since we\nleft off to do so, we have wanted all things, and were consumed by\nhunger and sword.\" The antithesis in Jer. ii. 13 of the fountain of\nliving waters, and the broken cisterns that hold no water, has\nreference likewise to this delusion. But that which is the _cause_ of\nthe gross whoredom, is the _consequence_ of the refined one. The inward\napostasy must already have taken place, when one speaks as the wife\ndoes in the verse before us. As long as man continues faithfully with\nGod in communion of life, he perceives, by the eye of faith, the hand\nin the clouds from which he receives everything, which guides him, and\nupon which everything--even that which is apparently the most\nindependent and powerful--depends. As soon as, through unbelief, he has\nlost this communion with God, and heaven is shut against him, he allows\nhis eye to wander over every visible object, looks out for everything\nin the world which appears to manifest independence and superior power,\nmakes this an object to which he shows his love, soliciting its favour,\nand making it his god. In thus looking around, the Israelites would,\nnecessarily and chiefly, have their eyes attracted by the idols. For\nthey saw the neighbouring nations wealthy and powerful; and these\nnations themselves derived their power and wealth from the idols. To\nthese also the Israelites now ascribed the gifts which they had\nhitherto received; and this so much the rather, because it was easier\nto satisfy the demands of these idols, than those of the true God, who\nrequires just that which it is most difficult to give--the heart, and\nnothing else. And, being determined not to give it to Him, they felt\ndeeply that they could expect no good from Him. Whatever good He had\nstill left to them, they could consider as only a gift of unmerited\nmercy, and destined to lead them to repentance,--a consideration which\nmakes a natural man recoil and draw back, inasmuch as, in his relation\nto God, he always thinks only of merit. That which we thus perceive in\nthem is even now repeated daily. We need only put in the place of\nidols, the abstract God of the Rationalists and Deists, man's own\npower, or the power of other men, and many other things besides, and it\nwill at once be seen that the words, \"I will go after my lovers that\ngive me my [Pg 239] bread,\" etc., are, up to the present moment, the\nwatch-word of the world.--\"Bread and water\" signify the necessaries of\nlife; \"oil and (strong) drink,\" those things which serve rather for\nluxuries.--\"My bread,\" etc., is an expression of affection, indicating\nthat she regards these as most necessary, and to be sought after, in\npreference to everything else.\n\nVer. 8. \"_Therefore, behold, I hedge up thy way with thorns, and I wall\nher wall, and her paths she shall not find._\"\n\nThe apostate woman is first addressed: \"_thy_ way;\" but the discourse\nthen passes to the third person,--\"her wall, her paths.\" We must not\nconceive of this, as if the wife were to be shut up in a two-fold\nway:--first, by a hedge of thorns, and then, by a wall; but the same\nthing is expressed here by a double figure, as is also done in Is. v.\n5. First, the shutting up is alone spoken of; it is afterwards brought\ninto connection with the effects to be thereby produced; and because\nshe is enclosed by a wall, she cannot find her path. \"I wall her wall\"\nis tantamount to, \"I make a wall for her.\" The words of the husband in\nthe verse under consideration form an evident contrast to those of the\nwife in the preceding verse. _Schmid_ says: \"The punishment is by the\nlaw of retaliation. She had said, 'I will go to my lovers;' but God\nthreatens, on the contrary, that He will obstruct the way so that she\ncannot go.\" The \u05d4\u05e0\u05e0\u05d9 points to the unexpectedness of the result. The\nwife imagined that she would be able to carry out her purpose with\ngreat safety and ease; it does not even occur to her to think of her\nhusband, who had hitherto allowed her, from weakness, as she imagines,\nto go on her way undisturbed; but she sees herself _at once_ firmly\nenclosed by a wall.--There can be no doubt, that, by the hedging and\nwalling about, severe sufferings are intended, by which the people are\nencompassed, straitened, and hindered in every free movement. For\nsufferings regularly appear as the specific against Israel's apostasy\nfrom their God. Compare, _e.g._, Deut. iv. 30: \"In the tribulation to\nthee, and when all these things come upon thee, thou returnest in the\nend of the days to the Lord thy God, and hearest His voice;\" Hosea v.\n15: \"I will go and return to My place till they become guilty; in the\naffliction to them, they will seek Me.\" The figure of enclosing has\nelsewhere also, undeniably, the meaning of inflicting sufferings. Thus\nin Job iii. 23: \"To the man whose way is hid, [Pg 240] and whom God has\nhedged in round about;\" xix. 8: \"He hath fenced up my way and I cannot\npass, and upon my paths He sets darkness;\" Lam. iii. 7: \"He hath hedged\nme about, and I cannot get out; He hath made my chain heavy;\" compare\nalso ibid. ver. 9; Ps. lxxxviii. 9.--The object of the walling about is\nto cut her off from the lovers; the infliction of heavy sufferings is\nto put an end to idolatrous tendencies.--The words, \"thy way,\" clearly\nrefer to, \"I will go after my lovers,\" in ver. 7; and by \"her paths\nwhich she cannot find,\" her whole previous conduct in general is indeed\nto be understood, but chiefly, from the connection with ver. 7, her\nformer intercourse with idols. But here the question arises:--How far\nis the remedy suited for the attainment of this end? We can by no\nmeans think of an external obstacle. Outwardly, there was, during the\nexile, and in the midst of idolatrous nations, a stronger temptation to\nidolatry than they had in their native land. Hence, we can think of an\ninternal obstacle only; and then again we can think only of the\nabsolute incapacity of the idols to grant to the people consolation and\nrelief in their sufferings. If this incapacity has been first\nascertained by experience, we begin to lose our confidence in them, and\nseek help where alone it can be found. As early as in Deut. xxxii. we\nare told how misery proves the nothingness of false gods, and shows\nthat the Lord alone is God; compare especially ver. 36 sqq. Jeremiah\nsays in ii. 28, \"And where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? Let\nthem arise and help thee in the time of trouble.\" That which the gods\ncannot turn away, they cannot have sent; and if the suffering be sent\nby the Lord, it is natural that help should be sought from Him also.\nCompare vi. 1: \"Come and let us return unto the Lord, for He hath torn\nand He healeth us, He smiteth and He bindeth us up.\"\n\nVer. 9. \"_And she runs after her lovers and shall not overtake, and she\nseeks them and shall not find; then she saith: I will go and return to\nmy first husband, for it was better with me then than now._\"\n\n\u05e8\u05d3\u05e3 has, in _Piel_, not a transitive, but an intensive meaning.\n_Calvin_ remarks: \"By the verb, insane fervour is indicated, as indeed\nwe see that idolaters are like madmen; it shows that such is the\nperverseness of their hearts, that they will not at once return to a\nsound mind.\" The distress at first only increases [Pg 241] the zeal in\nidolatry; compare Jer. xliv. 17. Every effort is made to move the idols\nto help. But if help be, notwithstanding, refused--and how could it be\notherwise, since they from whom it is sought are _Elilim_, _i.e._,\nnothings?--they by and by begin to bethink themselves, and to recover\ntheir senses. They discover the nothingness of their idols, and return\nto the true God. This apostasy and return are in a touching manner\ndescribed by our prophet in xiv. 2-4 also. The words, \"I will go and\nreturn to my first husband,\" form a beautiful contrast to, \"I will go\nafter my lovers,\" in ver. 7. This statement of the result shows that\nGod's mercy is then greatest and most effective, just when it seems to\nhave disappeared altogether, and when His punitive justice seems alone\nto be in active exercise. For the latter is by no means to be excluded,\ninasmuch as there is no suffering which does not, at the same time,\nproceed from it, and no punishment which is inflicted solely on account\nof the reformation.\n\nVer. 10. \"_And she, she does not know that I gave her the corn, and the\nmust, and the oil, and silver I multiplied unto her, and gold which\nupon Baal they spent._\"\n\nThe prophet, starting anew, here returns to a description of her guilt\nand punishment; and it is only from ver. 16 that he expands what, in\nver. 9, he had intimated concerning her conversion, and her obtaining\nmercy. The words, \"She saith,\" in that verse, belong thus to a period\nmore remote than the words, \"She does not know,\" in the verse before\nus. The things which are here enumerated were, in the case of Israel,\nin a peculiar sense, the gift of God. He bestowed them upon the\nCongregation as her Covenant-God, as her husband. They are thus\nannounced as early as in the Pentateuch; compare, _e.g._, Deut. vii.\n13: \"And He loveth thee, and blesseth thee, and multiplieth thee, and\nblesseth the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn,\nthy must, and thy oil;\" xi. 14: \"And I give the rain of your land in\ndue season, and thou gatherest in thy corn, thy must, and thy oil.\"\nIt is certainly not accidental that Hosea enumerates the three\nobjects, just in the same order in which they occur in these two\npassages. By the celebration of the feasts, and by the offering\nof the first-fruits, the Israelites were to give expression to the\nacknowledgment, [Pg 242] that they derived these gifts of God from His\nspecial providence--from the covenant relation. The relative clause \u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\n\u05dc\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc is subjoined, as is frequently the case, without a sign of its\nrelation, and without a _pron. suff._, which is manifest from the\npreceding substantive. Several interpreters, from the Chaldee\nParaphrast down to _Ewald_, give the explanation, \"which they have made\nfor a Baal,\" _i.e._, from which they have made images of Baal, and\nappeal to viii. 4: \"Their silver and their gold they have made into\nidols for themselves.\" But we must object to this opinion on the\nfollowing grounds. 1. \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4, with \u05dc following, is a religious _terminus\ntechnicus_, with the sense of, \"to make to any one,\" \"to appropriate,\"\n\"to dedicate,\" as appears from its frequent repetition in Exod. x. 25\nsqq., and also from the fact that \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 is frequently omitted. The\nphrase is used with a reference to idolatry in 2 Kings xvii. 32; 2\nChron. xxiv. 7.--2. It cannot be proved that \u05d4\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc, in the singular and\nwith the Article, could be used for \"statues of Baal.\"--3. By this\nexplanation we lose the striking contrast between that which the\nIsraelites _were doing_, and that which they _were to do_. That which\nthe Lord gave to them, they consecrated to Baal, instead of to Him, to\nwhom alone these embodied thanks were due. And, not satisfied in\nwithdrawing from the true God the honour and thanks which were due to\nHim, they transferred them to His enemy and worthless rival,--a\nproceeding which bears witness to the deep corruption of human nature,\nand which, up to the present day, is continually repeated, and must be\nso, because the corruption remains the same. It is substantially the\nsame thing that the Israelites dedicated their gold to Baal, and that\nour great poets consecrate to the world and its prince the rich\nintellectual gifts which they have received from God. The words, \"and\nshe knew not,\" in both cases show that they are equally guilty and\nequally culpable. He who bestows the gifts has not concealed Himself;\nbut they on whom they are bestowed have shut their eyes, that they may\nnot see Him to whom they are unwilling to render thanks. They would\nfain wish that their liberal benefactor were utterly annihilated, in\norder that they may not be disturbed in the enjoyment of His gifts by a\ndisagreeable thought of Him,--in order that they may freely use and\ndispose of them, without being obliged to fear their loss,--and in\norder that they may be able to devote them, without any [Pg 243]\nobstruction, to a god who is like themselves, who is only their own\nself viewed objectively (_ihr objectivirtes Ich_). Parallel to the\npassage before us, and, it may be, formed after it, is Ezek. xvi. 17,\n18: \"And thou didst take thy ornament of My gold and of My silver which\nI gave thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit\nwhoredom with them. And thou tookest thy broidered garments, and\ncoveredst them, and My fat and Mine increase thou gavest before them.\"\n_Hitzig_ understands, by the Baal here, the golden calf, appealing to\nthe fact that the real worship of Baal had been abolished by Jehu. But\nno proof at all can be adduced for the assertion that the name of Baal\nhad been transferred to the golden calf. It is self-evident, and is\nconfirmed by 2 Kings xiii. 6, xvii. 16 (in the latter of which passages\nthe worship of Baal appears as a continuous sin in the kingdom of the\nten tribes), that the destruction of the heathenish worship by Jehu was\nnot absolute. But so much is certain, that by the mention of Baal, the\nsin is here designated only with reference to its highest point, and\nthat, in substance, the service of the calves is here included. In 1\nKings xiv. 9, it is shown that the sin of worshipping Jehovah under the\nimage of calves is on a par with real idolatry; and in 2 Chron. xi. 15,\nthe calves are put on a footing with the goat-deities of Egypt.\n\nVer. 11. \"_Therefore I return, and take My corn in its time, and My\nmust in its season, and take away My wool and My flax to cover her\nnakedness._\"\n\n\u05dc\u05db\u05df stands here with great emphasis. It points to the eternal law of\nGod's government of the world, according to which He is sanctified\n_upon_ them, _in_ whom He has not been sanctified; and this so much the\nmore, the closer was His relation to them, and the greater were His\ngifts. From him who is not thereby moved, they will be taken away; and\nnothing but his natural poverty and nakedness is left to him who was\nformerly so richly endowed. And well is it with him if they be taken\nfrom him at a time when he is able still to recognise the giver in Him\nwho taketh away, and may yet deeply repent of his unthankfulness, and\nreturn to Him, as is said of Israel in iii. 5. If such be done, it is\nseen that the ungrateful one has not yet become an object of divine\njustice alone, but that divine mercy is still in store for him. The\nlonger God allows His [Pg 244] gifts to remain with the ungrateful, the\ndarker are their prospects for the future. That which He gave in mercy,\nHe, in such a case, allows to remain only in anger. The words \u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\n\u05d5\u05dc\u05e7\u05d7\u05ea\u05d9 are commonly explained by expositors, \"I shall take again,\"\ninasmuch as two verbs are frequently found together which, in their\nconnection, are independent of each other--the one indicating only an\naccessory idea of the action. But this mode of expression occurs in\ngeneral far more rarely than is commonly assumed; and here the\nexplanation, \"I will return and take,\" is to be preferred without any\nhesitation. Scripture says, that God appears even when He manifests\nHimself only in the effects of His omnipotence, justice, and love,--a\nmode of expression which is explained by that large measure of faith\nwhich perceives, behind the visible effect, the invisible Author of it;\ncompare, _e.g._, Gen. xviii. 10, where the Lord says to Abraham, that\nHe would return to him at the same period in the following year;\nwhereas He did not return in a visible form, as then, but only in the\nfulfilment of His promise. Thus God had formerly appeared to Israel as\nthe Giver; and now that they did not acknowledge Him as such. He\nreturns as the God that takes away. \"She did not know that I gave,\ntherefore I shall return and take.\" That the words were to be thus\nunderstood, the prophet, as it appears, intended to indicate by the\nchange of the tenses. It is quite natural that a verb, used as an\nadverb, should be as closely as possible connected with that verb which\nconveys the principal idea; and it would scarcely be possible to find a\nsingle instance--at all events there are not many instances--where, in\nsuch a case, a difference of the tense takes place. Altogether\nanalogous is Jer. xii. 15: \"And it shall come to pass after I have\ndestroyed them, \u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd, I will return and have compassion on\nthem;\" where the sense would be very much weakened if we were to\ntranslate, \"I shall _again_ have compassion.\" There appears to be the\nsame design in the change of the tenses in iii. 5 also. What is there\nsaid of Israel forms a remarkable parallel to what is here said of\nGod. God had formerly come, giving--Israel, taking; God now returns,\ntaking--Israel giving,--a relation which opens up an insight into the\nwhole economy of the sufferings.--\"_My_ corn,\" etc., forms a contrast\nto ver. 7, where Israel had spoken of all these things as _theirs_.\nWhatever God gives, always remains [Pg 245] His own, because He gives\nonly as a loan, and on certain conditions. If any one should consider\nhimself as the absolute master of it, He makes him feel his error by\ntaking it away.--\"In its time\" and \"in its season\" are added, because\nit was _then_, ordinarily, that God had appeared as _giving_, and\nbecause _then_ they therefore confidently expected His gifts. But now\nHe appears at once as _taking_, because they were already so sure of\nthe expected gifts that they held them, as it were, already in their\nhands; just as if, at Christmas--which corresponds to the harvest, the\nordinary season of God's granting gifts--parents should withdraw from\ntheir children the accustomed presents, and put a rod in their place.\nIt is better thus to understand the expression, \"in its time, etc.,\"\nthan to follow _Jerome_, who remarks, that \"it is a severe punishment,\nif at the time of harvest the hoped-for fruits are taken away, and\nwrested from our hands;\" for if, even at the time of the harvest, there\nbe a want of all things, how will it be during the remaining time of\nthe year.--The words, \"to cover, etc.,\" are very concise, but without\nany grammatical ellipsis, instead of, \"which hitherto served to cover\nher nakedness.\" As to the sense, the LXX. are correct in translating,\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2. For that which had _hitherto_\nbeen, is mentioned by the prophet only for the purpose of drawing\nattention to what _in future_ will _not_ be.--It is the Lord who must\ncover the nakedness; and this leads us back to the natural poverty of\nman, who has not, in the whole world, a single patch or shred--not even\nso much as to cover his shame, which is here specially to be understood\nby nakedness. The same thought which is so well calculated to humble\npride--what have we that we have not received, and that the Giver might\nnot at any moment take back?--occurs also in Ezek. xvi. 8: \"I spread\nout My wings over thee, and covered thy nakedness.\"\n\nVer. 12. \"_And now I will uncover her shame before the eyes of her\nlovers, and none shall deliver her out of My hands._\"\n\nThe \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u05e0\u05d1\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea is best explained by \"decay,\" \"_corpus multa\nstupra passum_.\" Being a femin. of a Segholate-form, its signification\ncan be derived only from the _Kal_; but \u05e0\u05d1\u05dc always signifies \"to be\nfaded, weak, feeble;\" in _Piel_ it means, \"to make weak,\" \"to declare\nas weak,\" \"to disgrace,\" \"to despise.\" As the signification of _Kal_\ndoes not [Pg 246] imply the Idea of ignominy, we cannot explain the\nnoun, as several interpreters do, by \"_turpitudo_, _ignominia_.\" The\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 of the LXX. is probably a free translation of the word\naccording to our view.--\u05dc\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 is constantly used for \"_coram,\ninspectante aliquo_,\" properly, \"belonging to the eyes of some one,\"\nand cannot therefore be explained here by \"to the eyes,\" as if she were\nuncovered to, or for, the lovers alone; these, on the contrary, are\nmentioned only as fellow-witnesses. But in what respect do they come\ninto consideration here? Several interpreters are of opinion that their\npowerlessness, and the folly of trusting in them, are intended to be\nhere pointed out. Thus _Calvin_ says: \"The prophet alludes to the\nimpudent women who are wont, even by terror, to prevent their husbands\nfrom using their rights. He says, therefore, this shall not prevent me\nfrom chastising thee as thou deservest.\" Thus also _Stuck_, who\nsubjoins to the phrase \"her lovers:\" \"who, if they had the strength,\nmight be a help to her.\" But it is altogether erroneous thus to\nunderstand the verse. The words, \"Before the eyes of the lovers,\"\nrather mean, that the Lord would make her an object of disgust and\nhorror even to those who formerly sought after her. The idea is this:\nWhosoever forsakes God on account of the world, shall, by God, be put\nto shame, even in the eyes of the world itself, and all the more, the\nmore nearly he formerly stood to Him. This idea is here expressed in a\nmanner suited to the figurative representation which pervades the whole\nsection. _Jerome_ says: \"All this is brought forward under the figure\nof the adulterous woman, who, after she has been taken in the very act,\nis exposed and disgraced before the eyes of all.\" The uncovering, as\nguilt, is followed by the uncovering, as punishment; and every one (and\nher lovers first) turns away with horror from the disgusting spectacle.\nThey now at once see her who, hitherto, had made a show with the\napparel and goods of her lawful husband, in her true shape as a\nwithered monster. That this explanation is alone the correct one,\nappears from the parallel passages: compare, _e.g._, Nah. iii. 5:\n\"Behold, I come upon thee, saith the Lord of hosts, and uncover thy\nskirts upon thy face, and make the heathen to see thy nakedness, and\nkingdoms thy shame. And it cometh to pass, all that see thee shall flee\nfrom thee:\" Lam. i. 8: \"Jerusalem hath committed sin, therefore she has\n[Pg 247] become a reproach; all that honoured her, despise her, for\nthey have seen her nakedness; she sigheth and turneth away;\" Jer. xiii.\n26: \"And I also (as thou hast formerly uncovered) uncover thy skirts\nover thy face, and thy shame shall be seen;\" Ezek. xvi. 37, 41; Is.\nxlvii. 3.--But now, it might seem that, according to this explanation,\nnot the idols, but only the nations serving them, can be understood by\nthe lovers. But this is only in appearance. In order to make the\nscene more lively, the prophet ascribes to the \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd, to them\nwho are nothing, life and feeling. If they had these, they would act\njust as it is here described, and as their worshippers really acted\nafterwards.--The second member of the verse, \"And none shall deliver,\"\netc., is in so far parallel to the first, as both describe the\ndreadfulness of the divine judgment. Parallel is v. 14: \"For I will be\nas one who roars to Ephraim, and as a lion to the house of Judah: I\nwill tear and go away, I will take away, and there is no deliverer.\"\n\nVer. 13. \"_And I make to cease all her mirth, her feast, and her\nnew-moon, and her sabbath, and all her festival time._\"\n\nThe feasts served a double purpose. They were days of sacred\ndedication, and days of joy; compare Num. x. 10. Israel had violated\nthem in the former character--just as at present the sacred days have,\nthroughout the greater part of Christendom, the name only by way of\n_catachresis_--and, as a merited punishment, they were taken away by\nGod in the latter character. They had deprived the festival days of\ntheir sacredness; by God, they are deprived of their joy fulness. The\nprophet, in order to intimate that he announces the cessation of the\nfestival days as days of gladness, premises \"all her mirth,\" to which\nall that follows stands in the relation of _species_ to _genus_. \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05e9\ndoes not here denote \"joyful time:\" it might, indeed, according to its\nformation, have this signification: but it is never found with it. It\nhere means \"joy\" itself. (Compare the parallel passages, Jer. vii. 34;\nLam. i. 4: \"The ways of Zion do mourn, because none come to the\nfeasts;\" Amos viii. 10: \"And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and\nall your songs into lamentation;\" Lam. v. 15; Is. xxiv. 8, 11.) The\nthree following nouns were very correctly distinguished by _Jerome_.\n\u05d7\u05d2, \"feast,\" is the designation of the three annual principal\nfestivals. In addition to these, there was in every month the [Pg 248]\nfeast of the new-moon; and in every week, the Sabbath. This connection\nis a standing one, which, even in the New Testament (compare Col. ii.\n16), still reverts. The words, \"all her festival time,\" comprehend the\nsingle _species_ in the designation of the _genus_. That \u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d3 properly\nsignifies \"appointed time,\" then, more specially, \"festival time,\"\n\"feast,\" appears from Lev. xxiii. 4: \"These are the \u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d3\u05d9 of the Lord,\nthe sacred assemblies which you shall call \u05d1\u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d3\u05dd, in their appointed\ntime.\" That the _feasts_ are not a single species co-ordinate with the\nnew-moons and Sabbaths, but the genus, appears from the fact that in\nLev. xxiii. the Sabbath opens the series of the \u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd. In a wider\nsense, the new-moons also belonged to the \u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd, although they are not\nenumerated among them in Lev. xxiii. on account of their subordinate\ncharacter. In Num. x. 10, Is. i. 14, Ezra iii. 5, the new-moons are\nmentioned along with the \u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd only as the species by the side of the\ngenus. But we are at liberty to think only of the feasts appointed by\nGod; for, otherwise, there would be no room for the application of the\n_lex talionis_:--God takes from the Israelites only what they had taken\nfrom Him. The days of the Baalim are afterwards specially mentioned in\nver. 15. The days of God are taken from them; for the days of the\nBaalim they are punished. This much, however, appears from the passage\nbefore us--and it is placed beyond any doubt by several other passages\nin Hosea as well as in Amos--that, outwardly, the worship, as regulated\nby the prescriptions of the Pentateuch, had all along continued. (For\nthe arguments in proof of this assertion, the author's _Dissertations\non the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, vol. i., are to be compared.)\n\nVer. 14. \"_And I make desolate her vine and fig-tree, whereof she said,\nThey are the wages of whoredom to me, that my lovers have given me; and\nI make them a forest, and the beasts of the field eat them._\"\n\nThe vine and fig-tree, as the two noblest productions of\nPalestine--_Ispahan_, in the \"_Excerpta ex vita Saladini_,\" p. 10,\ncalls them \"_ambos Francorum oculos_\"--are here also connected with\neach other, as is commonly done in threatenings and promises, as the\nrepresentatives of the rich gifts of God, wherewith He has blessed this\ncountry.--\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 is often placed before an entire sentence, to mark it out\nas being relative in general. [Pg 249] It is the looser, instead of the\ncloser connection, = \"of which.\"--\u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 \"wages of prostitution,\" instead\nof which, in ix. 1 and other passages, the form \u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05df occurs, requires a\nrenewed investigation. It is commonly derived from \u05ea\u05e0\u05d4, to which the\nsignification \"_largiter donavit, dona distribuit_,\" is ascribed. But\nopposed to this, there is the fact that the root \u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 is, neither in\nHebrew, nor in any of the dialects, found with this signification. It\nhas in Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac, the signification \"to laud,\" \"to\npraise,\" \"to recount.\" But besides this \u05ea\u05e0\u05d4, there occurs another \u05ea\u05e0\u05d4,\nnot with the general signification \"to give,\" but in the special one,\n\"to give a reward of whoredom;\" in which signification it cannot be a\nprimitive word, but derived from \u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 = \u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4, in the passage under\nconsideration, and in Ezek. xvi. 34. The supposition of a primitive\nverb \u05ea\u05e0\u05d4, with the signification \"to give,\" is also opposed by the\ncircumstance that the noun which is said to be derived from it never\noccurs with the general signification \"gift,\" but always with the\nspecial one, \"reward of prostitution.\" \u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 is rather derived from the\nfirst pers. Fut. Kal of the verb \u05e0\u05ea\u05df, a \"I will-give-thee,\" similar to\nour \"forget-me-not.\" The whore asks, in Gen. xxxviii. 16, \u05de\u05d4\u05be\u05ea\u05ea\u05df \u05dc\u05d9\n(\"what wilt thou give me?\"), and the whoremonger answers, \u05d0\u05ea\u05df\u05be\u05dc\u05da (\"I\nwill give thee\"), ver. 18. From this there originated, in the language\nof the brothel, a base word for such base traffic. The sacred writers\nare not ashamed or afraid to use it. They speak, throughout, of common\nthings in a common manner; for the vulgar word is the most suitable for\nthe vulgar thing. The morality of a people, or of an age, may be\nmeasured by their speaking of vulgar things in a vulgar manner, or the\nreverse. Wherever, in the language, the \"_fille de joie_\" or\n\"_Freudenm\u00e4dchen_\" has taken the place of the \"whore,\" a similar change\nwill, in reality, have taken place. Whatsoever the people of Israel\nimagined that they received from their idols, they certainly will not\nhave designated as a \"reward of prostitution,\" but as a \"reward of true\nlove.\" But the prophet at once destroys all their pleasant imaginings\nby putting into their mouths the corresponding expression,--an\nexpression which must certainly have sounded very rudely and vulgarly\nin their tender ears; for the tongue and the ear become more tender, in\nthe same degree in which the heart becomes more vulgar. She who\nimagined herself so tender and affectionate sees herself [Pg 250] at\nonce addressed as a common prostitute. The sweet proofs of the\nheartfelt mutual love which her \"lovers\" gave her are called \"wages of\nwhoredom.\" This is indeed a good corrective for our language, for our\nwhole view of things, for our own hearts, which are so easily befooled.\nAll love of the world, all striving after its favour, every surrender\nto the spirit of the age, is whoredom. A reward of whoredom, which must\nnot be brought into the temple of the Lord (for it is an _abomination_\nunto the Lord thy God, Deut. xxiii. 19), is everything which it offers\nand gives us in return. Like a reward of whoredom, it will melt away;\n\"of wages of whoredom she has collected, and to wages of whoredom it\nshall return.\"--This derivation from the Future has a great many\nanalogies in its favour; among others, the whole class of nouns with \u05ea\nprefixed, in which it is quite evident (although this has been so often\noverlooked) that they have arisen from the Fut. If the \u05ea in these forms\noriginated from the _Hiphil_, how could it be explained that they are\nmore frequently connected with _Kal_? Even the very common occurrence\nof the formation from the Future in the case of proper names, induces\nus to expect, _a priori_, that it will be more frequent in appellative\nnames than is commonly supposed. The occurrence of the phrase \u05e0\u05ea\u05df \u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4,\nin the passages quoted, is also in favour of this derivation. By it,\nthe interchange of the two forms \u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05d4 and \u05d0\u05ea\u05e0\u05df is easily accounted for.\nIn the latter of these forms, the _Nun_ which prevails in \u05e0\u05ea\u05df, but\nwhich had been dropped at the beginning, again reappears. A variation\nin the form is, moreover, quite natural in a word which originated from\ncommon life, which is entirely destitute of accurate analogies, and is\ntherefore, as it were, without a model; for the other nouns of this\nclass are formed from the 3d pers. of the _Fut._--As regards, now, the\nsubstance:--Egotism, and selfishness arising out of it, are the ground\nof all desire for the love of that which is not God, especially in the\ncase of those who have already known the true God; for where this is\nnot the case, there may be, even in idolatry, a better element, which\nseeks for a false gratification only because it does not know the true\none. From this, however, it appears, that the idolatry of the\nIsraelites (and this is only a species of the idolatry of all those who\nhave had opportunity to know the true God, and of whom it is true that\n\"the last is worse than the first\") was [Pg 251] much lower than that\nof the Gentiles, whose poets and philosophers, in part, zealously\nopposed the dispositions which are here expressed; compare the passages\nin _Manger_. Egotism is here, as it always is, folly; for it trusts in\nhim who himself possesses only borrowed and stolen goods, which the\nlawful owner may, at every moment, take away from him. And in order\nthat such folly may appear as such, and very glaringly too. He appears\nhere indeed, and takes what He had in reality given out of His mercy,\nbut what, according to their imagination, they had received from\nthe idols as a reward.--The suffix in \u05e9\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd refers to the vine and\nfig-tree. The gardens of vines and fig-trees carefully tended, hedged\nand enclosed round about, are to be deprived of hedges, enclosures, and\nculture (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f21 \u1f04\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, _Clem. Alex. Paed._\ni. 1, p. 115 Sylb.), to be changed into a forest, and given over to the\nravages of wild beasts; for the words \"and eat them\" are by no means to\nbe referred to the fruits only. The same image of an entirely\ndevastated country is found in Is. vii. 23 ff.; Mic. iii. 12.\n\nVer. 15. \"_And I visit upon her the days of the Baalim, to whom she\nburnt incense, and put on her ring and her ornament, and went after her\nlovers, and forgat Me, saith the Lord._\"\n\nThe days of the Baalim are the days consecrated to their worship,\nwhether they were specially set apart for that purpose, or whether they\nwere originally devoted to the worship of the Lord, whom they sought to\nconfound with Baal. _Manger_, and with him, most interpreters, are\nwrong in understanding by the days of Baal, \"all the time--certainly a\nvery long one--in which that forbidden worship flourished in this\nnation.\" Such would be too indefinite an expression. When days of\nthe Baalim are spoken of, every one must think of days specially\nconsecrated to them,--their festivals. To this must be added, moreover,\nthe reference to the days of the Lord in ver. 13. In ver. 10, however,\nonly one Baal, \u05d4\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc, is spoken of; here there are several. This may be\nreconciled by the supposition that one and the same Baal was worshipped\naccording to his various modes of manifestation which were expressed by\nthe epithets. But the plural may also be explained--and this seems to\nbe preferable--from 1 Kings xviii. 18, where Baalim is tantamount to\nBaal and his associates (compare _Dissertations on the Gen. of the\nPent._ vol. i. p. 165); or from Lev. xvii. 7, where \u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd denotes the\nGoat-idol, [Pg 252] and others of his kind. The calves, the worship of\nwhich was, at the time of Hosea, the prevailing one throughout the\nkingdom of the ten tribes, are, in that case, comprehended in the\nBaalim.--In the words, \"And she put on her ring and ornament,\" the\nfigurative mode of expression has been overlooked by most interpreters.\nMisled by the \u05ea\u05e7\u05d8\u05d9\u05e8, which refers directly to the spiritual adulteress,\nthey imagined that the wearing of nose-rings, and other ornaments, in\nhonour of the idols, was here spoken of. A more correct view was held\nby the Chaldee who thus paraphrases: \"The Congregation of Israel was\nlike a wife who deserted her husband, and adorned herself, and ran\nafter her lovers. Thus the Congregation of Israel was pleased to\nworship idols, and to neglect My worship.\" A great many false\ninterpretations have had their origin in the circumstance, that they\ncould not comprehend this liberty of the sacred writers, who at one\ntime speak plainly of the spiritual antitype, and at another time\ntransfer to it the peculiarities of the outward type. Had this been\nkept in view, it would not, _e.g._, have been asserted, that David had,\nin Ps. xxiii. 5, relinquished the image of the good shepherd, because\nhe does not speak of a trough which the actual good shepherd places\nbefore his sheep, but of a table, placed before them by the spiritual\ngood Shepherd. In the passage under consideration, the \u05ea\u05e7\u05d8\u05d9\u05e8 denotes an\naction performed by her who is an adulteress in a spiritual point of\nview. In the words, \"She puts on,\" etc., her conduct is described under\nthe figure of that of her outward type. The actual correspondence is to\nbe found in her efforts of making herself agreeable,--in the employing\nof every means in order to gain her spiritual lovers. The putting on of\nprecious ornaments comes into view, only in so far as it is one of\nthese efforts, and, indeed, a very subordinate one. The burning of\nincense, the offering of sacrifices, etc., are, in this respect, of far\ngreater importance. The correctness of our interpretation is confirmed\nby those parallel passages also, in which the same figurative mode of\nexpression occurs. Thus, _e.g._, Is. lvii. 9: \"Thou lookest upon the\nking (the common translation, \"thou goest to the king,\" cannot be\ndefended on philological grounds) in oil (_i.e._, smelling of\nointment), and multipliest thy perfume,\"--evidently a figurative\ndesignation, taken from a coquetish woman, to express the employing of\nall means in, order to gain favour;--Is. iv. 30: [Pg 253] \"And thou\ndesolate one, what wilt thou do? For thou puttest on thy purple, for\nthou adornest thyself with golden ornaments, for thou rentest thine\neyes with painting. In vain thou makest thyself fair; the lovers\ndespise thee, they seek thy life.\" In Ezek. xxii. 40-42, Jerusalem\nwashes and paints herself, expecting her lovers, and decks herself with\nornaments; then she sits down upon a stately couch; a table is prepared\nbefore her, upon which she places the incense of the Lord, and His oil.\nIn this last feature in Ezekiel, the type disappears behind the thing\ntypified, although not so completely as is the case in the passage\nunder consideration, in the words, \"She burns incense.\"--From what has\nbeen remarked, it appears that, in substance, Hos. iv. 13, \"They\nsacrifice upon the tops of the mountains and bum incense upon the\nhills,\" is entirely parallel. The two clauses, \"She went after her\nlovers,\" and \"she forgat Me,\" both serve to represent the crime in a\nmore heinous light. Sin must certainly have already poisoned the whole\nheart, if occasion for its exercise be spontaneously sought after. In\nreference to the latter, _Calvin_ remarks: \"Just as when a wife has for\na long time lived with her husband, and has been kindly and liberally\ntreated by him, and then prostitutes herself to lovers, and does not\nentertain or retain any more love for him; such a depravity is nothing\nless than brutish.\"\n\nVer. 16. \"_Therefore, behold, I allure her, and lead her into the\nwilderness and speak to her heart._\"\n\nThe consolation and promise here begin with as great abruptness as in\nthe first section. It is reported how the Lord gradually leads back His\nunfaithful wife to reformation, and to reunion with Him, the lawful\nhusband. Great difficulty has been occasioned to interpreters by the\n\u05dc\u05db\u05df at the commencement. Very easily, but at the same time very\ninconsiderately, the difficulty is got over by those who give it the\nsignification, \"_utique_, _profecto_;\" but this cannot be called\ninterpreting. It must be, above all, considered as settled and\nundoubted, that \u05dc\u05db\u05df can here have that signification only which it\nalways has; and this all the more, that in vers. 8 and 15 it occurred\nin the same signification. This being taken for granted, the\n\"therefore\" might be referred to the words of the wife in ver. 9, \"I\nwill go and return to my first husband,\" and all which follows be\nconsidered as only a kind of parenthesis. That the Lord begins again to\nshow Himself [Pg 254] kind to His wife would then have its foundation\nin this:--that in her the first symptoms of a change of character\nmanifested themselves. But this supposition is, after all, too forced.\nThese words are too far away as that the prophet could have expected to\nbe understood, in thus referring to them in a manner so indefinite.\nSeveral interpreters follow the explanation of _Tarnovius_: \"Therefore,\nbecause she is not corrected by so great calamities, I will try the\nmatter in another and more lenient way, by kindness.\" But the prophet\ncould not expect that his hearers and readers should themselves supply\nthe thought, which is not indicated by anything,--the thought, namely,\n\"because that former method was of no avail, or rather, because it\n_alone_ did not suffice;\" for it was by no means wholly in vain. When\nthe Lord had hedged up her way with thorns, the woman speaks: \"I will\ngo and return;\" and where tribulations are of no avail--tribulations\nthrough which we must enter the kingdom of God--nothing else will. The\nseverity of God must precede His love. And even though this train\nof thought should have occurred to them, they had no guarantee for\nits correctness. It is most natural to take the \u05dc\u05db\u05df as being simply\nco-ordinate with the \u05dc\u05db\u05df in vers. 8 and 11. The \"_because_,\" which, in\nall the three places, corresponds to the _therefore_, is the wife's\napostasy. Because she has forgotten God, He recalls Himself to her\nremembrance, first by the punishment, and then, after this has attained\nits end,--after the wife has spoken: \"I will go and return,\"--by proofs\nof His love. The leading to Egypt, into the wilderness, into the land\nof Canaan, rests on her unfaithfulness as its foundation. Without it,\nthe Congregation would have remained in undisturbed possession of the\npromised land. By it, God is induced, both according to His justice and\nHis mercy, to take it from her, to lead her back into the wilderness,\nand thence to the promised land.--\u05e4\u05ea\u05d4, in the _Piel_, is a _verbum\namatorium_; it signifies \"to allure by tender persuasion.\" There is to\nbe a repetition of the proceeding of God, by which He formerly, in\nEgypt, allured the people to Himself, and induced them to follow Him\ninto the wilderness, from the spiritual and bodily bondage in Egypt.\nAfter the sufferings, there always follows the alluring. God first\ntakes away the objects of sinful love, and then He comes alluring and\npersuading us that we should choose, for the object of our love. Him\nwho alone is worthy of, and entitled to, love. He is not [Pg 255]\nsatisfied with the strict prosecution of His right, but endeavours to\nmake duty sweet to us, and, by His love, to bring it about that we\nperform it from love. After He has thus allured us. He leads us\nfrom Egypt into the wilderness.--The words, \"I lead her into the\nwilderness,\" have been very much misunderstood by interpreters.\nAccording to _Manger_, the wilderness here is that through which the\ncaptives should pass on their return from Babylon. But one reason alone\nis sufficient to refute this opinion,--namely, that on account of the\nfollowing verse, by the wilderness (the article must not be\noverlooked), only that wilderness can be understood which separates\nEgypt from Canaan. Others (_Ewald_, _Hitzig_), following _Grotius_,\nunderstand by the wilderness, the Assyrian captivity. _Kuehn\u00f6l_ has\nacquired great merit for this exposition, by proving from a passage\nin _Herodotus_, that there were, at that time, uncultivated regions\nin Assyria! The same reason which militates against the former\ninterpretation is opposed to this also. To this it may be further\nadded, that, according to it, we can make nothing of the _alluring_.\nThe Israelites were not _allured_ into captivity by kindness and\nlove; they were driven into it _against_ their will, by God's wrath.\n_Moreover_, what according to this interpretation is to be done with\nthe \u05de\u05e9\u05dd in ver. 17? Did, perhaps, the vineyards of Canaan begin\nimmediately beyond Assyria, or does not even this rather lead us to the\nArabian desert? It is certain, then, that this desert is the one to be\nthought of here, and, in addition, that it can only be as an image and\ntype that the prophet here represents the leading through the\nwilderness, as a repetition of the former one in its individual form;\ninasmuch as it was, substantially, equal with it. For they who returned\nfrom the Assyrian captivity could not well pass through the literal\nArabian desert; and the comparison expressed in the following verse,\n\"As in the day when she went up from the land of Egypt,\" shows that\nhere also a _decurtata comparatio_ must take place. But, now, all\ndepends upon determining the essential feature, the real nature and\nsubstance, of that first leading through the wilderness; because the\nleading spoken of in the verse before us must have that essential\nfeature in common with it. The principal passage--which must guide us\nin this investigation, and which is proved to be such by the\ncircumstance that the Lord Himself referred [Pg 256] to it when He was\n_spiritually_ led through the wilderness, an event which, for a sign,\n_outwardly_ also took place in the wilderness--is Deut. viii. 2-5: \"And\nthou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these\nforty years in the wilderness, to afflict thee and to prove thee, to\nknow what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldst keep His commandments,\nor no. And He afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee\nwith the manna which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know,\nthat He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but\nby everything which proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man\nlive. Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell\nthese forty years. And thou knowest in thine heart, that as a father\nchasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee.\" The essential\nfeature in the leading through the wilderness is, accordingly, the\n_temptation_. By the wonderful manifestations of the Lord's omnipotence\nand mercy, on the occasion of Israel's deliverance from Egypt, a\nheartfelt love to Him had been awakened in the people. (Compare the\ntender expression of it in the Song in Exod. xv.; and also the passage\nin Jer. ii. 2: \"I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of\nthine espousals, thy going after Me in the wilderness in a land not\nsown,\"--which cannot but refer to the very first time of the abode in\nthe wilderness, before the giving of the law on Sinai, as is evident\nfrom the mention of the youth and espousals; for the latter ceased on\nSinai, where the marriage took place.) The whole conduct of the people\nat the giving of the law,--their great readiness in promising to do all\nthat the Lord should command,--likewise bear testimony to this love.\nThe Lord's heartfelt delight in Israel during the first period of their\nmarching through the wilderness, of which Hosea speaks in ix. 10,\nlikewise presupposes this love. Thus the first station was reached. The\npeople now hoped to be put in immediate possession of the inheritance\npromised to them by the Lord. But, because the Lord knew the condition\nof human nature. His way was a different one. A state of temptation and\ntrial succeeded that of entire alienation from God. The first love is\nbut too often--nay, it is, more or less, always--but a flickering\nflame. Sin has not been entirely slain; it has been only subdued for a\nmoment, and only wants a favourable opportunity [Pg 257] to regain its\nold dominion. It would never be thoroughly destroyed, if God allowed\nthis condition always to continue; if by always putting on new fuel, if\nby uninterrupted proofs of His love. He were to keep that fire burning\ncontinually. If the love of the feelings and imagination is to become a\ncordial, thorough moral love, it requires to be tried, in order that\nthus it may recognise its own nothingness hitherto, and how necessary\nit is that it should take deeper root. The means of this trial are\nGod's afflicting us, concealing Himself from us, leading us in a way\ndifferent from that which we expected, and, apparently, forsaking vis.\nBut because He is the merciful One who will not suffer us to be tempted\nabove that we are able,--because He Himself has commanded us to pray,\n\"Lead us not into temptation,\" _i.e._, into such an one as we are not\nable to bear, and would thereby become a temptation inwardly,--He makes\nHis gifts to go by the side of His chastisements. He who suffered\nIsrael to hunger, gave them also to eat. He who suffered them to\nthirst, gave them also to drink. He who led them over the burning sand,\ndid not suffer their shoes to wax old. But this counterpoise to\ntribulation becomes, in another aspect, a new temptation. As Satan\ntries to overthrow us by pleasure as well as by pain; so God proves us\nby what He gives, no less than by what He takes away. In the latter\ncase, it will be seen whether we love God _without_ His gifts; in the\nformer, whether we love Him in His gifts. This second station is, to\nmany, the last; the bodies of many fall in the wilderness. But while a\nmultitude of individuals remain there, the Congregation of God always\npasses over to the third station,--the possession of Canaan. The state\nof temptation is, to her, always a state of sifting and purification at\nthe same time. That which is to the individual a calamity, is to her a\nblessing.--That we have thus correctly defined the nature and substance\nof the leading through the wilderness, is confirmed by the temptation\nof Christ also, which immediately succeeded the bestowal of the Spirit,\nwhich again corresponded to the first love. That this temptation of\nChrist corresponded to the leading through the wilderness--in so far as\nit could do so in the case of Him who was tempted in all things,\nyet without sin; while in our case, there is no temptation, even\nwhen resisted [Pg 258] victoriously, that is without sin--appears\nsufficiently from its two external characteristics, viz., the stay\nin the wilderness, and the forty days; but still more so, from the\ninternal feature,--the fact that the Saviour, in order to show the\ntempter that He recognised in His own case a repetition of the stay in\nthe wilderness, opposed Him with a passage taken from the _locus\nclassicus_ concerning it, already quoted.--We now, moreover, cite the\nparallel passages which serve as an explanation of the passage under\nconsideration, and as a confirmation of the explanation which we have\ngiven. The most important is Ezek. xx. 34-38: \"And I bring you _out\nfrom the nations_, and gather you out of the countries wherein ye are\nscattered, with a mighty hand and with a stretched-out arm, and with\nfury poured out. And I bring you into the _wilderness of the nations_,\nand there will I plead with you face to face; like as I pleaded with\nyour fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead\nthere with you, saith the Lord God. And I cause you to pass under the\nrod, and bring you into the bond of the covenant, and purge out from\namong you the rebels, and them that transgress against Me; out of the\nland of your pilgrimage (the standing designation of Egypt in the\nPentateuch) I will bring them forth, and into the land of Israel they\nshall not come, and ye shall know that I am the Lord.\" Here also, the\nstay in the wilderness appears as a state of trial, lying in the middle\nbetween the abode among the nations (corresponding to the bondage in\nEgypt, which was so not merely bodily, but spiritual also), and the\npossession of Canaan. And the result of this trial is a different one,\naccording to the different condition of the individuals. Some shall be\naltogether destroyed; even the appearance of the communion with the\nLord, which they hitherto maintained by having come out of the land of\npilgrimage along with the others, shall be taken away; whilst the\nothers, by the very means which brought about the destruction of the\nformer, shall be confirmed in their communion with the Lord, and be\nmore closely united to Him. Hosea, who, in consequence of the\npersonification of the Congregation of Israel, has the whole more in\nview, regards chiefly the latter feature. A very remarkable\ncircumstance in Ezekiel, however, requires to be still more minutely\nconsidered; because it promotes essentially the right understanding of\nthe passage before us. What is meant [Pg 259] by the \"wilderness of the\nnations?\" Several interpreters think that it is the wilderness between\nBabylon and Judea. Thus, for example, _Manger_: \"_I am disposed to\nthink_ that the desert of Arabia itself is here called the wilderness\nof the nations, on account of the different nomadic tribes which are\naccustomed to wander through it.\" _Rosenm\u00fcller_ says: \"He _seems_ to\nspeak here of those vast solitudes which the Jews had to pass through,\non their way from Babylon to Judea.\" But this \"I am disposed to think,\"\nand this \"he seems,\" on the part of these interpreters, show that they\nthemselves felt the insufficiency of their own explanation. That\nnomadic tribes are straying through that wilderness, is not at all\nessential, and can therefore not be mentioned here, where only the\nessential feature--the nature and substance of the leading through the\nwilderness--are concerned. And we cannot at all perceive why just the\nwilderness between Babylon and Judea should be called the wilderness of\nthe nations. It was no more travelled by nomadic tribes than was any\nother wilderness. And just as little was it characteristic of it, that\nit bordered upon the territories of various nations (_Hitzig_). Such a\ndesignation would throw us upon the territory of mere conjecture, on\nwhich we are, in Holy Scripture, never thrown, except through our own\nfault. But it is quite decisive that the words, \"I bring you out of the\nwilderness of the nations,\" stand in a close relation to the words, \"I\nbring you out from the nations.\" From this it appears that the nations,\nto which the Israelites are to be brought, cannot be any other than\nthose, out of the midst of whom they are to be led. In the first\nleading out of the Israelites, the two spiritual conditions were\nseparated externally also. The first belonged to Egypt; the second, to\nthe wilderness. But it shall not be thus, in this announced repetition\nof the leading. It is only spiritually that the Israelites, at the\ncommencement of the second condition, shall be led out from among the\nnations, in the midst of whom they, outwardly, still continue to be.\nThe wilderness is in the second Egypt itself. The stay in the\nwilderness is repeated as to its essence only, and not as to its\naccidental outward form; just as in Zech. x. 12, the words, \"And he\npasseth through the sea,\" which apparently might imply a repetition of\nthe outward form merely, are limited to the substance by the subjoined\n\"affliction.\" From this we obtain for our passage (_Hitzig_ likewise\n[Pg 260] remarks: Ezek. xx. 34-38 seems to depend on Hosea ii. 16) the\nimportant result, that the leading of God which is here announced, is\nnot limited to a definite place, and as little, to a definite time. And\nwhat is true of the leading through the wilderness, must necessarily\napply to the leading into Canaan also. Just as Egypt might begin, and\nactually did begin, even in Palestine, inasmuch as Israel was there\nin a condition of heavy spiritual and bodily bondage;--just as,\nspiritually, they might already be in the wilderness, though,\noutwardly, they were still under Asshur; so, the stay in the wilderness\nmight, relatively, have still continued in Canaan, even although--which\ndid not happen--the whole people should have returned thither with\nZerubbabel. What is it that makes Canaan to be Canaan, the promised\nland, the land of the Lord? It is just this:--that the Lord is there\npresent with all His gifts and blessings. But such was by no means the\ncase in the new colony. Because the spiritual condition of those who\nhad returned was in conformity with the second--in part, even with the\nfirst--rather than with. the last station, their outward condition was\nso likewise. John the Baptist symbolized this continuation of the\ncondition of the wilderness, by his appearing _in the wilderness_, with\nthe preaching of repentance, and with. the announcement, that now the\nintroduction to the true Canaan was near at hand. By proclaiming\nhimself as the voice crying in the wilderness, announced by Isaiah, he\nshowed with sufficient plainness how false was that carnal view which,\nwithout being able to distinguish the thought from its drapery,\nunderstood, and still understands, by the wilderness spoken of\nin this prophecy, some piece of land, limited as to space, and then\nmurmured that the actual limit did not correspond with the fancied\none.--As in the case of Israel, so in ours also, these conditions are\ndistinguished, not absolutely, but relatively only. Even he who has, in\none respect, been already led through to Canaan, remains, in another\nrespect, in the wilderness still. Canaan, in the full sense, does not\nbelong to the present world, but to the future, as regards both the\nsingle individual, and the whole Church.--Another parallel passage is\nJer. xxxi. 1, 2: \"At this time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of\nall the families of Israel, and they shall be My people. Thus saith\nthe Lord, The people who have escaped from the sword find mercy\nin the wilderness; [Pg 261] I go to give rest to Israel.\" In Rev. xii.\n6, 14, the wilderness likewise designates the state of trial and\ntemptation.--\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05dc\u05d1, properly \"to speak over the heart,\" because the\nwords fall down upon the heart, signifies an affectionate and\nconsolatory address; compare Gen. xxxiv. 3 (\"And he loved the damsel,\nand spoke over the heart of the damsel\"), l. 21; Is. xl. 2. Here they\nsignify that the wife is comforted after she had been so deeply cast\ndown by the consciousness of her former unfaithfulness, and by the\nexperience of its bitter consequences. The view of those who would here\nthink only of the comforting words of the prophets is much too\nlimited,--although these words are, of course, included. We must\nchiefly think of the _sermo realis_ of the Lord, of all the proofs of\naffectionate and tender love, whereby He gives rest to the weary and\nheavy-laden, and brings it about, that those who were formerly\nunfaithful, but who now suffer themselves to be led by Him out of the\nspiritual bondage into the spiritual wilderness, can now put confidence\nin Him; just as, formerly. He comforted Israel in the wilderness, in\nthe waste and desolate land, in the land of drought and of the shadow\nof death (Jer. ii. 6), and affectionately cared for all their wants, in\norder that they might know that He is the Lord their God, Deut. xxix.\n4, 5.\n\nVer. 17. \"_And I give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of\nAchor_ (trouble) _for a door of hope; and she answers thither as in the\ndays of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of Egypt._\"\n\nThe same faithful love which led into the wilderness, now leads into\nCanaan also; and the entrance into the promised land is immediately\nfollowed by the possession of all its gifts and blessings, which now\nlegitimately belong to the _faithful_ wife (_her_ vineyards), whilst,\nformerly, they were taken from the unfaithful wife by the giver, ver.\n14. \u05e0\u05ea\u05df with \u05dc of the person, always means \"to give to some one.\" Hence\n_Simson_ is wrong in giving the explanation: \"And I make her of it,\nviz., the wilderness, her vineyards;\" for the valley of Achor was not\nsituated in the wilderness, but in Canaan; compare Is. lxv. 10. The\nsignification \"to give\" is here suited to the second member of the\nverse also. The valley of Achor is given to her in its quality as a\nvalley of hope. The _vineyards_ are mentioned with reference to ver.\n14, where the devastation of the vine is [Pg 262] threatened. They are\nbrought under notice as the noblest possession, as the finest ornament\nof the cultivated land, in contrast with the barren wilderness. \u05de\u05e9\u05dd,\nproperly \"from thence,\" is correctly explained by _Manger_: \"As\nsoon as she has come out of that wilderness.\" The explanation of\n_R\u00f6diger_ and others, \"From that time,\" is unphilological; \u05e9\u05dd is never\nan adverb of time.--According to the opinion of many interpreters\n(_Calvin_, _Manger_, and others), the valley of Achor here comes into\nconsideration only because of its fruitfulness, and its situation at\nthe entrance of the promised land, but not with any reference to the\nevent which, according to Josh. vii., happened there. But the\ncircumstance that here, as in the whole preceding context, the prophet,\nin almost every word, has before his eyes the former leadings of\nIsrael, compels us, almost involuntarily, to have respect to that\nevent. And, in addition, there is a still more decisive argument. It\ncannot be denied that there is a contrast between what the valley of\nAchor is by nature, and what it is made by the Lord; there is too plain\na contrast between the _hope_ and the _affliction_. But if thus the\nmeaning of the name is brought into view, then certainly there must\nalso be a reference to the event to which it owed its name. But in\norder to have a right understanding of this reference, we must find out\nwhat was the essential feature in the event, the repetition of which is\nhere announced. The people, when they were entering into Canaan, were\nimmediately deprived of the enjoyment of the divine favour by the\ntransgression of an individual--Achan--which was only a single fruit\nfrom the tree of the sin which was common to all. But God Himself,\nin His mercy, made known the means by which the lost favour might\nbe recovered; and thus the place, which seemed to be the door of\ndestruction, became the door of hope; compare _Schultens_ on _Harari_\niii. p. 180. The remembrance of this event was perpetuated by the\nname of the place; compare ver. 25: \"And Joshua said. Why hast thou\ntroubled us? The Lord shall trouble thee this day. Therefore the name\nof the place was called. The valley of Achor, unto this day.\" This\nparticular dealing of God, however, is based upon His nature, and\nmust, therefore, repeat itself when Israel again comes into similar\ncircumstances,--must be repeated, in general, whensoever similar\nconditions arise. Even they who have already entered the [Pg 263]\npromised land, who have already come to the full enjoyment of salvation\n(_full_, in so far as it is considered as a whole, and designated as\nthe last station; but as this last station again has several steps and\ngradations, this fulness can be relative only. If it were absolute, if\nnothing more of the wilderness were left, then, of course, the case\nhere in question could no more occur; for a salvation absolutely full\npresupposes a righteousness absolutely full);--even they who have\nalready come to the full enjoyment of salvation, and to a degree of\nrighteousness corresponding to this salvation, require still the mercy\nof God; for, without it, they would soon lose their salvation again.\nThis mercy, however, is vouchsafed to them in abundant measure. The\nwhole manner in which God leads those who have obtained mercy, is a\nchanging of the valley of trouble into a door of hope. He will order\nall things in such a way, that the bond of union betwixt Him and those\nfor whom all things must work together for good, instead of being\nbroken by sin--as it would be if He were justice alone--is only the\nmore strengthened. The same idea occurs again in ver. 21. The new\nmarriage-covenant is there founded not on justice only, but on mercy\nalso.--The words \u05d5\u05e2\u05e0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05e9\u05de\u05d4 are commonly explained, \"She sings there,\"\nor, \"She there raises alternative songs.\" But both of these\ninterpretations are unphilological. For 1. \u05e9\u05de\u05d4 does not signify\n\"there,\" but \"thither.\" Those passages which have been appealed to for\nthe purpose of proving that it may also sometimes signify \"there,\" or\n\"at yonder place,\" all belong to the same class. The opposite of the\nconstruction of the verbs of motion with \u05d1 takes place in them. As, in\nthese verbs, the idea of rest is, for the sake of brevity, omitted, so\nhere, that of motion. Thus, _e.g._, Jer. xviii. 2, \"Go down to the\npotter's house, and _thither_ will I cause thee to hear My voice,\" is a\nconcise mode of expression for, \"I will send My voice thither, and\ncause thee to hear there;\" 1 Chron. iv. 41, \"Which were found thither,\"\ninstead of, \"which were found there when they came thither.\" We might,\nin the case of the passage under consideration, most easily concede\nwhat we are contending against, that \u05e9\u05de\u05d4 is used instead of \u05e9\u05dd, as a\nkind of grammatical blunder; but that the writer knew the difference\nbetween these two forms clearly appears from the close of the verse,\nwhere, certainly, he would not have put \u05e9\u05de\u05d4 for \u05e9\u05dd. These are the\ninstances adduced by _Winer_. _Gesenius_, further, refers [Pg 264]to\nIs. xxxiv. 15: \"_Thither_ makes her nest;\" but the making of the nest\nimplies the placing of it. _Ewald_, moreover, appeals to Ps. cxxii. 5:\n\"_Thither_ sit the thrones for judgment.\" It is true that \u05d9\u05e9\u05d1 never\nsignifies \"to sit down,\" but it frequently implies it. He appeals,\nfurther, to the Song of Solomon viii. 5: \"_Thither_ thy mother brought\nthee forth;\" which is tantamount to--there she brought thee forth, and\nput thee down. But \u05e9\u05de\u05d4 can so much the less signify \"there,\" that the\ninstances alleged for the weakening of the \u05d4 _locale_ in other\npassages, will not stand the test. _Ewald_ appeals to Ps. lxviii. 7:\n\"God makes the solitary to dwell \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4;\" which, however, does not mean\n\"_in_ the house,\" as _Ewald_ translates, but \"_into_ the house\"--He\nleads them thither, and makes them to dwell there. The idea of motion\nbeing sufficiently indicated by the \u05d4 itself, no other designation was\nrequired in poetry, which delights in brevity. _Further_--Hab. iii. 11:\n\"Sun and moon stand \u05d6\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4, towards their habitation,\" _i.e._, go into\ntheir habitation and stand there. 2. The verb \u05e2\u05e0\u05d4 signifies neither \"to\nbegin the discourse,\" nor \"to sing,\" nor \"to sing alternately,\" nor \"to\ncorrespond,\" nor \"to be favourably disposed\" (_Ewald_), nor \"to obey\"\n(_Hitzig_), but always, and everywhere, \"to answer.\" All these\nexplanations will lose their plausibility, if we only consider, that it\nis not always necessary that a question be expressed by words, but that\nit may be implied in the thing itself--especially in the case of the\nlively Orientals, for whom things, even the most mute, have a language.\nAs examples, we cite only 1 Sam. xxi. 12:--\"Did they not answer to him\nin dances, saying, Saul has slain his thousands, but David his ten\nthousands!\" Similarly also xxix. 5. That even here, the signification\n\"to answer\" ought to be retained, is plain from xviii. 7, compared with\nver. 6. The coming together of David and Saul was a silent question as\nto which was the greater. Ps. cxlvii.: \"Answer the Lord with praise.\"\nThe real addresses of the Lord were His blessings; compare vers. 2-6, 8\nff. By everything which God gives He asks. What art thou doing to Me,\nsince I am doing that to thee? \u05e2\u05e0\u05d4 is often used of God, although no\nformal question or prayer preceded; but the very relation itself\nimplies prayer and asking. It is in this sense that even the ravens are\nsaid to cry to God. It is in this sense that God _answers_ His people\nbefore they cry to Him. He who has nothing, prays by this very\ncircumstance, even without words, [Pg 265]yea, even without the\ngestures and posture of one who is praying. Since, in these remarks, we\nhave already refuted the arguments which seemed most plausible, we may\npass over other objections which are less to the purpose. There is only\nthe passage Exod. xv. 21, which requires to be specially noticed, as it\nis in that passage that the signification \"to sing alternately\" is\nsupposed, beyond any doubt, to be; and many interpreters assume that\nthere is a verbal reference to it in the passage under consideration.\n\"And then Miriam answered to them (\u05dc\u05d4\u05dd, _i.e._, to the men), Sing ye to\nthe Lord,\" Moses sings first with the children of Israel, ver. 1, \"and\nthen Miriam the prophetess took, etc., and _answered_.\" The\nsignification \"to answer,\" is here quite evident. But, on the other\nhand, it appears that that passage has not the slightest relation to\nthe one under consideration, inasmuch as there is not, in the latter,\nany mention of a first choir, to which the second answers.--From what\nhas been hitherto remarked, it is settled that the translation, \"And\nshe answers thither,\" is alone admissible. But now, since no _verbal_\nquestion or address has preceded here, the question arises:--Which\naddress by deeds called forth the answer? To this question an answer is\nreadily suggested by the reference of \u05e9\u05de\u05d4 to the preceding \u05de\u05e9\u05dd. The\naddress must have come from that place to which the answer is sent;\nhence, it can consist only in the giving of the vineyards, and of the\ngood things of the promised land generally. On entering into it, she is\nwelcomed by this affectionate address of the Lord, her husband, and\nthere she answers it. The following words, \"As in the days,\" etc.,\nshow what that is in which the answer consists. If, at that time,\nIsrael answered the Lord by a song of praise, full of thanks for the\ndeliverance from Egypt, now also they will answer Him by a song of\npraise, for being led into Canaan. If history had given any report\nof a hymn of praise sung by Israel when they entered into Canaan,\nthe prophet would have referred to it; but as it was, he could only\nremind them of that hymn. And although the occasion on which it was\nsung did not altogether correspond, it must be borne in mind, that in\nthis hymn (compare ver. 12 ff.) the passing through the Red Sea is\nrepresented as a preparatory step, and as prefiguring the occupation of\nCanaan--the latter being contained in it as in a germ. It is, moreover,\nself-evident that the essential fundamental thought is [Pg 266]only\nthat of the cordial and deep gratitude of the redeemed,--that the form\nonly is borrowed from the previous manifestation of this thankfulness.\nAn image altogether similar, and arising from the same cause, is found\nin Is. xii. also, where the reference to Moses' hymn of thanks is\nmanifested by employing the very words; and likewise in Is. xxvi.; and,\nfurther, in Hab. iii. and Rev. xv. 3.--\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 and \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd are Nominatives, not\nAccusatives; which latter could not be made use of here, because the\ndiscourse is not of an action extending through the whole period, but\nof one happening at a particular point of that period. The comparison\nis here also merely intimated, because the _tertium comparationis_ is\nabundantly evident from what precedes: \"As the days of her youth,\"\ninstead of, \"As she once answered in the days of her youth.\"\n\nVer. 18. \"_And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, thou shalt call\nMe, My husband, and shall call Me no more, My Baal._\"\n\nThe full performance of her duties corresponds with the full admission\nto her rights. The prophet expresses this thought, by announcing the\nremoval of the two forms in which the apostasy of the people from the\ntrue God--the violation of the marriage-covenant which rested on\nexclusiveness--was at that time manifested. One of these was the mixing\nup of the religion of Jehovah with heathenism, according to which they\ncalled the true God \"Baal,\" and worshipped Him as Baal; the other was\nstill grosser--was pure idolatry. The abolition of the former (compare\nabove, p. 176 f.) is predicted in this verse; the abolition of the\nlatter, in the verse following. Both are in a similar way placed beside\neach other in Zech. xiv. 9: \"In that day shall there be one Lord,\nand His name one;\" where the first clause refers to the abolition\nof polytheism, and the second to the abolition of the mixing of\nreligion--of the hidden apostasy--which, without venturing to forsake\nthe true God entirely and openly, endeavours to mix up and identify Him\nwith the world. To the fundamental thought there are several parallels;\n_e.g._, Deut. xxx. 5 ff.: \"And the Lord thy God bringeth thee into the\nland which thy fathers possessed; and the Lord thy God circumciseth\nthine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with\nall thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.\" This\npassage shows that the verse before us, no less than that which\nprecedes, contains a _promise_, and that the \"calling,\" and the\n\"calling no more,\" is a work of divine [Pg 267]grace. To this we are\nled also by the words, \"I shall take away,\" in ver. 19, as well as by\nthe other parallel passages:--Jer. xxiv. 7: \"And I give them an heart\nto know Me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be a people to Me, and I\nwill be a God to them, for they shall return to Me with their whole\nheart;\" Ezek. xi. 19: \"And I give them one heart, and a new spirit I\nput within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh;\" compare\nfurther Zech. xiii. 2. Another interpretation of the verse recommends\nitself by its apparent depth. According to it, \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc is to be taken as an\nappellative noun, the \"marriage-Lord,\" in contrast with \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9, \"husband,\"\nand that the people are henceforth to be altogether governed by love.\nBut this interpretation must be objected to, for a whole multitude of\nreasons. There is, _first_ of all, the relation of this verse to the\nfollowing one, which does not allow that \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc, which there occurs as a\nproper name, should in this place be taken as an appellative. There is,\n_then_, the arbitrariness in defining the relation between \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 and \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc,\nthe former of which as little exclusively expresses the relation of\nlove, as the latter excludes it. (Compare Is. liv. 5, 6, lxii. 4; 2\nSam. xi. 26.) Further, it is incorrect to say that \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc properly\nmeans \"Lord;\" it means \"possessor.\" _Still further_,--There is the\nunsuitableness of the thought, which would be without any analogy in\nits favour throughout Scripture. And, _lastly_, the relation of love to\nGod cannot, even in its highest consummation, do away with reference to\nHim, etc.\n\nVer. 19. \"_And I take away the names of the Baalim out of her mouth,\nand they shall no more be remembered by their name._\"\n\nThe people are to conceive such an abhorrence of idolatry, that they\nshall be afraid of being defiled even by pronouncing the name of the\nidols. The words are borrowed from Exod. xxiii. 13: \"Ye shall not make\nmention of the name of other gods, neither shall it be heard out of thy\nmouth.\" The special expression of the idea must, as a matter of course,\nbe referred back to this idea itself, viz., the abhorrence of the\nformer sin and, hence, such a mention cannot here be spoken of as, like\nthat in the passage before us, has no reference to that sin.\n\nVer. 20. \"_And I make a covenant for them in that day with the beasts\nof the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping\nthings of the earth; and bow, and sword, and war I break out of the\nland, and make them to dwell in safety._\"\n\n[Pg 268]\n\nOn the expression, \"I make a covenant,\" _Manger_ remarks, \"The cause is\nhere put for the effect, in order to inspire with greater security.\"\nFor the benefit of Israel, God makes a covenant with the beasts,\n_i.e._, He imposes upon them obligations not to injure them. The phrase\n\u05db\u05e8\u05ea \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea is frequently used of a transaction betwixt two parties,\nwhereby an obligation is imposed upon only one of the parties, without\nthe assumption of any obligation by the other. A somewhat different\nturn is given to the image in Job v. 23, where, by the mediation of\nGod, the beasts themselves enter into a covenant with Job after his\nrestoration. \u05e8\u05de\u05e9 never means \"worm,\" but always \"what moves and\ncreeps,\" both small and great, as, in Ps. civ. 25, is subjoined by way\nof explanation. The three classes stand in the same order in Gen. ix.\n2. The normal order there established, \"And the fear of you and the\ndread of you shall be upon every beast,\" etc., returns, after the\nremoval of the disturbance which has been produced by sin. Upon the\nwords, \"I break,\" etc., _Manger_ makes the very pertinent remark: \"It\nis an emphatic and expressive brevity, according to which breaking out\nof the land all instruments of war, and war itself, means that He will\nbreak them and remove them out of the land.\" It is self-evident that\n\"war\" can here, as little as anywhere else, mean \"weapons of war.\" The\nprophet, as it appears, had in view the passage Lev. xxvi. 3 ff.: \"If\nye will walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments and do them, I\nwill give you your rains in due season, and the land shall yield her\nincrease, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.... And I\ngive peace in the land, and you dwell, and there is none who makes you\nafraid; and I destroy the wild beasts out of the land, and the sword\nshall not enter into your land.\" It is so much the more obvious that we\nought to assume a reference to this passage, as Ezekiel also, in xxxiv.\n25 ff., copies it almost _verbatim_. On account of the fatal _If_, that\npromise had hitherto been only very imperfectly fulfilled; and\nfrequently just the opposite of it had happened. But now that the\ncondition is fulfilled, the promise also shall be fully realized. But\nwe must observe, with reference to it, that, when we look to the\npresent course of the world, this hope remains always more or less\nideal, because in reference to the condition also, the idea is not yet\nreached by the reality. The idea is this:--As evil is, as a [Pg\n269]punishment, the inseparable concomitant of sin, so prosperity and\nsalvation are the inseparable companions of righteousness. This is\nrealized even in the present course of the world, in so far as\neverything must serve to promote the prosperity of the righteous. But\nthe full realization belongs to the \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, where, along with\nsin, evil too (which is _here_ still necessary even for the righteous,\nin order to purify them) shall be extirpated. Parallel are Is. ii. 4,\nxi.-xxxv. 9; Zech. ix. 10.\n\nVer. 21. \"_And I betroth thee to Me for eternity; and I betroth thee to\nMe in righteousness and judgment, and in loving-kindness and mercy._\"\n\nVer. 22. \"_And I betroth thee to Me in faithfulness, and thou knowest\nthe Lord._\"\n\nThe word \u05d0\u05e8\u05e9, \"to espouse\" (compare Deut. xx. 7, where it is contrasted\nwith \u05dc\u05e7\u05d7), has reference to the entrance into a marriage entirely new,\nwith the wife of youth, and is, for this reason, chosen on purpose.\n\"Just as if (so _Calvin_ remarks) the people had never violated\nconjugal fidelity, God promises that they should be His spouse, in the\nsame manner as one marries a _virgo intacta_.\" It was indeed a great\nmercy if the unfaithful wife was only received _again_. Justly might\nshe have been rejected for ever; for the only valid reason for a\ndivorce existed, inasmuch as she had lived in adultery for years. But\nGod's mercy goes still further. The old offences are not only\n_forgiven_, but _forgotten_. A relation entirely new begins, into which\nthere enter, on the one side, no suspicion and no bitterness, and on\nthe other, no painful recollections, such as may pass into similar\nhuman relationships, where the consequences of sin never disappear\naltogether, and where a painful remembrance always remains. The same\ndealing of God is still repeated daily; every believer may still say\nwith exultation: \"Old things are passed away; behold, all things are\nbecome new.\" It is the greatness of this promise which occasions the\ndirect address, whilst hitherto the Lord had spoken of the wife in the\nthird person. She shall hear face to face, the great word out of His\nmouth, in order that she may be assured that it is she whom it\nconcerns; and in order to express its greatness, its joyfulness, and\nthe difficulty of believing it, it is repeated three times. _Calvin_\nsays: \"Because it was difficult to deliver the people from fear and\ndespair, and because they could not but be [Pg 270]aware how grievously\nthey had sinned, and in how many ways they had alienated themselves\nfrom God, it was necessary to employ many consolations, that thus their\nfaith might be confirmed. One likes to hear the repetition of the\nintelligence of a great and unexpected good fortune which one has some\ndifficulty in realizing. And what could a man, despairing on account of\nhis sins, less readily realize than the greatest of all miracles--viz.,\nthat all his sins should be done away with, at once and for ever? But\nthe repetition is, in this case, so much the more full of consolation,\nthat, each time, it is accompanied with the promise of some new\nblessing; that, each time, it opens up some new prospect of new\nblessings from this new connection. First, there is the eternal\nduration,--then, as a pledge of this, the attributes which God would\ndisplay in bestowing it,--and, finally, there are the blessings which\nHe would impart to His betrothed.\" The \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd points back to the painful\ndissolution of the former marriage-covenant: This new one shall not be\nliable to such a dissolution; for \"the mountains shall depart, and the\nhills be removed, but My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither\nshall the covenant of My peace be removed, saith the Lord:\" Is. liv.\n10. The attributes which God will display towards the wife, and the\nconduct which she shall observe towards Him through His mercy, are\nconnected with \u05d0\u05e8\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9\u05da \u05dc\u05d9, \"I betroth thee to Me,\" by means of \u05d1,\nwhich is often used to mark the circumstances on which some action\nrests. Thus, in the case before us, the betrothment rests upon\nwhat God vouchsafes along with it, inasmuch as thereby only does it\nbecome a true betrothment. That the accompanying gifts must be thus\ndistributed--as we have done--first, the faithful discharge of all the\nduties of a husband on His part, and then, the inward communication of\nstrength to her for the fulfilment of her obligations; and that we are\nneither at liberty to refer, as do some interpreters, everything\nto one of the two parties, nor to assume, as others do, that everything\nrefers to both at the same time--is proved not only by the intervening\nrepetition of \"I betroth thee to Me,\" but also by the internal\nnature of the gift's mentioned. \u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd, \"mercy,\" cannot be spoken\nof in the relation of the wife to God, nor knowledge of God, in the\nrelation of God to the wife. The four manifestations of God which are\nmentioned here form [Pg 271] a double pair,--righteousness and\njudgment, loving-kindness and mercy. The two are frequently connected\nin a similar way; _e.g._, Is. i. 27: \"Zion shall be redeemed in\njudgment, and her inhabitants in righteousness.\" They are distinguished\nthus:--the former, \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7, designates the _being just_, as a subjective\nattribute, with the dispositions and actions flowing from it; the\nlatter, \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8, denotes the _objective right_.[1] A man can give to\nanother his right or judgment, and yet not be righteous; but God's\nrighteousness, and His doing right in reference to the Congregation,\nconsists in this:--that He faithfully performs the obligations which\nHe took upon Himself when He entered into covenant with her. This,\nhowever, is not sufficient. The obligations entered into are\nreciprocal. If, then, the covenant be violated on the part of the\nCongregation, what hope is left for her? In order the more to relieve\nand comfort the wife, who, from former experience, knew full well what\nshe might expect from righteousness and judgment alone, the Lord adds a\nsecond pair,--loving-kindness and mercy, the former being the root of\nthe latter, and the latter being the form in which the former manifests\nitself, in the relation of an omnipotent and holy God to weak and\nsinful man. \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3, properly \"love,\" man may also entertain towards\nGod; although even this word is very rarely used in reference to man,\nbecause God's love infinitely exceeds human love; but God only can have\n\u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd, \"mercy,\" upon man. But still a distressing thought might, and\nmust be entertained by the wife. God's mercy and love have their\nlimits; they extend only to the one case which dissolves even human\nmarriage--the type of the heavenly marriage, the great mystery which\nthe Apostle refers to Christ and the Church. What, then, if this case\nshould again occur? Her heart, it is true, is now filled with pure\nlove; but who knows whether this love shall not cool,--whether she\nshall not again yield to temptation? A new consolation is applied to\nthe new distress. God Himself will bestow what it is not in the power\nof man to bestow--viz., faithfulness towards Him (compare \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\nused of human faithfulness, in Hab. ii. 4; Jer. v. 3, vii. 28;\nthe faithfulness in this verse forms the contrast to the whoredom in i.\n2), [Pg 272]and the knowledge of Him. \"Thou knowest the Lord\" is\ntantamount to--\"in My knowledge.\" The knowledge of God is here\nsubstantial knowledge. Whosoever thus knows God cannot but love Him,\nand be faithful to Him. All idolatry, all sin, has its foundation in a\nwant of the knowledge of God.\n\nVer. 23. \"_And it comes to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the\nLord; I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth;_ Ver. 24.\n_And the earth shall hear the corn, and the must, and the oil; and they\nshall hear Jezreel_\" (_i.e._, him whom God sows).\n\nThe promise in this passage forms the contrast to the threatening in\nDeut. xxviii. 23, 24: \"And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be\nbrass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. The Lord will\ngive for the rain of thy land, dust, and dust shall come down from\nheaven upon thee.\" The second \u05d0\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4 is, by most interpreters, considered\nas a resumption of the first. But we obtain a far more expressive\nsense, if we isolate the first \u05d0\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4, \"I shall hear,\" namely, all\nprayers which will be offered up unto Me by you, and for you. Parallel,\namong other passages, is Is. lviii. 9, where the reformed people are\npromised: \"Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt\ncry, and He shall say. Here I am.\" By a bold _prosopop\u0153ia_, the prophet\nmakes heaven to pray that it might be permitted to give to the earth\nthat which is necessary for its fruitfulness, etc. Hitherto they have\nbeen hindered from fulfilling their _destination_, since God was\nobliged to withdraw His gifts from the unworthy people, ii. 11; but\nnow, since this obstacle has been removed, they pray for permission to\nresume their vocation. The prophets in this manner give, as it were, a\nvisible representation of the idea, that there is in the whole world no\ngood independent of God,--nothing which, in accordance with its\ndestination, is not ours, and would indeed be ours, if we stood in the\nright relation to Him,--nothing that is not His, and that will not be\ntaken away from us, if we desire the gift without the Giver. _Calvin_\nremarks: \"The prophet shows where and when the happiness of men begins,\nviz., when God adopts them, when He betrothes Himself to them, after\nhaving put away their sins.... He teaches, also, in these words, that\nthe heavens do not become dry by some secret instinct; but it is when\nGod withholds His grace, that there is no rain by which the heavens\nwater the earth.\" God, then, here shows [Pg 273]plainly that the whole\n_order of nature_ (as men are wont to say) is so entirely in His\nhand, that not one drop of rain shall fall from heaven unless by His\nwill,--that the whole earth would produce no grass,--that, in short,\nall nature would be sterile, unless He made it fruitful by His\nblessing.\n\nVer. 25. \"_And I sow her unto Me in the land, and I have mercy upon her\n'who had not obtained mercy'_ (Lo-Ruhamah); _and I say to 'not My\npeople'_ (Lo-Ammi), _Thou art My people, and they say to Me, My God._\"\n\nThe three symbolical names of the children of the prophet here once\nmore return. The _femin. suffix_ in \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4, referring to \u05d9\u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05d0\u05dc, need\nnot at all surprise us; for, in the whole passage before us, the sign\ndisappears in the thing signified. In point of fact, however, _Jezreel_\nis equivalent to Israel to be sowed anew. (It is not the Israel to be\n_planted_ anew, which is a figure altogether different; the sowing has\nalways a reference to the increase.)\n\n\nFootnote 1: In our authorized version \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 is almost constantly\nrendered by \"_judgment_,\" although evidently in the sense pointed out\nby the author,--for which reason, this rendering has been retained\nhere.--Tr.\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n\"The significant couple returns for a new reference\" (_R\u00fcckert_).\nFirst, in vers. 1-3, the symbolical action is reported. At the command\nof the Lord, the prophet takes a wife, who, notwithstanding his\naffectionate and faithful love, lives in continued adultery. He does\nnot entirely reject her; but, in order that she may come to recovery\nand repentance, he puts her into a position where she must abstain\nfrom her lovers. The interpretation of the symbol is given in ver.\n4: Israel, forsaken by the world, shall spend a long time in sad\nseclusion. A glance into the more distant future, without any\nsymbolical imagery, forms the conclusion. The punishment will at length\nproduce conversion. Israel returns to the Lord his God, and to David\nhis king.\n\n * * * * *\n\nVer. 1. \"_Then said the Lord unto me, Go again, love a_ [Pg 274]_woman\nbeloved of her friend, and an adulteress, as the Lord loveth the sons\nof Israel, and they turn to other gods and love grape-cakes._\"\n\nThe right point of view for the interpretation of this verse has been\nalready, in many important respects, established; compare p. 183 sqq.\nWe here take for granted the results there obtained. It is of great\nimportance, for an insight into the whole passage, to remark, that the\nsymbolical action in this section, just as in that to which chap. i.\nbelongs, embraces the entire relation of the Lord to the people of\nIsrael, and not, as some interpreters assume, one portion only, viz.,\nthe time from the beginning of the captivity. This false view--of which\nthe futility was first completely exposed by _Manger_--has arisen from\nthe circumstance, that the prophet, in narrating the execution of the\ndivine commission, omits very important events. In the expectation that\nevery one would supply them, partly from the commission itself, and\npartly from the preceding portions, where they had been treated of with\npeculiar copiousness, he rather at once passes from the first\nconclusion of the marriage, to that point which, in this passage, forms\nhis main subject, namely, the disciplinary punishment to which he\nsubjects his wife,--the Lord, Israel. The prophet's aim and purpose is\nto afford to the people a right view of the captivity so near at hand;\nto lead them to consider it neither as a merely accidental event,\nhaving, no connection at all with their sins; nor as a pure effect of\ndivine anger, aiming at their entire destruction; but rather as being\nat the same time a work of punitive justice, and of corrective love.\nBetween the second verse, \"I purchased her to me,\" etc., and the third,\n\"Then I said unto her,\" etc., we must supply. And I took her in\nmarriage and loved her; but she committed adultery. That this is the\nsound view, appears clearly from ver. 2. According to the right\nexposition (compare p. 195 sqq.), this verse can be referred only to\nthe first beginning of the relation betwixt the Lord and the people of\nIsrael--to that only by which He acquired the right of property in this\npeople, on delivering them from Egypt. This is confirmed, moreover, by\nthe second half of the verse under consideration: \"As the Lord loveth,\"\netc. Here the love of the Lord to Israel in its widest extent is spoken\nof. Every limitation of it to a single manifestation--be it a [Pg\n275]renewal of love after the apostasy, or the corrective discipline\ninflicted from love--is quite arbitrary; and the more so, because, by\nthe addition, \"And they turned,\" etc., the love of God is represented\nas running parallel with the apostasy of the people. The same result is\nobtained from a consideration of the first half. For what entitles us\nto explain \"love\" by \"love again,\" or even by \"_restitue amoris signa_\"\nas is done by those who hold the opinion, already refuted, that the\nwoman is _Gomer_? The word \"love\" corresponds exactly with \"as the Lord\nloveth.\" If the latter must be understood of the love of the Lord in\nits whole extent,--if it does not designate merely the manifestation of\nlove, but love itself,--how can a more limited view be taken of the\nformer \"love?\" How could we explain, as is done by those who defend the\nreference to a new marriage, the words, \"Beloved of her friend, and an\nadulteress,\" as referring to a former marriage of the wife, and as\ntantamount to--who was beloved by her former husband, and yet committed\nadultery? In that case, there would be the greatest dissimilarity\nbetwixt the type and the antitype. Who, in that case, is to be the type\nof the Lord? Is it to be the former husband, or the prophet? If the\nfigure is at all to correspond with the reality,--the first member with\nthe second, the \u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05b7 can be none other than the prophet himself.--Let us\nnow proceed to particulars, \u05d0\u05d4\u05d1, \"love,\" is stronger than \u05e7\u05d7, \"take,\"\nin chap. i. 2. There, marriage only was spoken of; here, marriage from\nlove and in love. This is still more emphatically pointed out by the\nsubsequent words \u05d0\u05d4\u05d1\u05ea \u05e8\u05e2, and contrasted with the conduct of the\nwife, which is indicated by \u05de\u05e0\u05d0\u05e4\u05ea, so that the sense is this: \"In\nlove take a wife who, although she is beloved by thee, her friend,\ncommits adultery, and with whom--I tell it to thee beforehand--thou\nwilt live in a constant antagonism of love, and of ingratitude, the\ngrossest violation of love.\" The word \"_love_\" has a reference to the\nlove preceding and effecting the marriage; the word \"_beloved_,\"\nto the love uninterruptedly continuing during the marriage, and\nnotwithstanding the continued adultery, unless we should say--and it is\nquite admissible--that \"love\" implies, at the same time, \"to take out\nof love,\" and \"to love constantly.\" Instead of \"beloved by _thee_\" it\nis said, \"beloved by her _friend_.\" Many have been thereby misled; but\nit only serves to make the contrast more [Pg 276]prominent.[1] \u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05b7 has\nonly one signification--that of _friend_. It never, by itself, means\n\"fellow-man,\" never \"fellow-Jew,\" never \"one with whom we have\nintercourse.\" The Pharisees were quite correct in understanding it as\nthe opposite of enemy. In their gloss, Matt. v. 43, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, there was one thing only objectionable--the most important,\nit is true--that by the friend, they understood only him whom their\nheart, void of love, loved indeed; not him whom they ought to have\nloved, because God had united him to them by the sacred ties of\nfriendship and love. Thus, what ought to have awakened them to love,\njust served them as a palliation for their hatred. Now this\nsignification, which alone is the settled one, is here also very\nsuitable. He whom the wife criminally forsakes, is not a severe\nhusband, but her loving friend, whom she herself formerly acknowledged\nas such, and who always remains the same. Entirely parallel is Jer.\niii. 20: \"As a wife is faithless towards her _friend_, so have ye been\nfaithless to Me;\" compare ver. 4: \"Hast thou not formerly called me. My\nfather, _friend_ of my youth art thou?\" Compare also Song of Sol. v.\n16. The correct meaning was long ago seen by _Calvin_: \"There is,\" says\nhe, \"an expressiveness in this word. For often, when women prostitute\nthemselves, they complain that they have done it on account of the too\ngreat severity of their husbands, and that they are not treated by\ntheir husbands with sufficient kindness. But if a husband delight in\nhaving his wife with him, if he treat her kindly and perform the duties\nof a husband, she is then less excusable. Hence, it is this most\nheinous ingratitude of the people that is here expressed, and set in\nopposition to the infinite mercy and kindness of the Lord.\" For a still\nbetter insight into the meaning of the first half of this verse, we\nsubjoin the _paraphrasis_ by _Manger_: \"Seek thee a wife in whom thou\nart to have thy delight, and whom thou art to treat with such love,\nthat, even if she, by her unfaithfulness, violate the sacred rights of\nmatrimony, and thou, for that reason, canst no longer live with her,\n[Pg 277]she shall still remain dear to thee, and shall be willingly\nreceived again into thy favour, as soon as she shall have reformed her\nlife.\"--In the second half of the verse, there is a verbal agreement\nwith passages of the Pentateuch, so close that it cannot certainly be\naccidental. Compare on \u05db\u05d0\u05d4\u05d1\u05ea \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc, Deut. vii. 8, \u05de\u05d0\u05d4\u05d1\u05ea\n\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea\u05db\u05dd,--an agreement which undoubtedly deserves so much more\nattention, that we have already established the relationship of the\npassage with ver. 2. On \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, compare Deut. xxxi. 18: \"I\nwill hide My face in that day for all the evil they are doing, for they\nturn to other gods,\" \u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd--.\u05e4\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, \"grape-cakes,\"\nhas, as to its substance, been already explained, p. 194 sqq. It is the\nresult of an entire misunderstanding, that some interpreters should\nhere think of the love of feasting and banqueting. Others (as\n_Gesenius_) are anxious to prove that such cakes were used at the\nsacrifices which were offered to idols. The grape-cakes are rather\nidolatry itself; but the expression, \"They love grape-cakes,\" adds an\nessential feature to the words, \"They turn to other gods.\" It points,\nnamely, to the sinful origin of idolatry. Earnest and strict religion\nis substantial and wholesome food; but idolatry is soft food, which is\nsought only by the dainty and squeamish. That which is true of\nidolatry, is true also of the service of sin, and of the world in\ngeneral, which, in Job xx. 12, appears under the image of meat which\nis, in the mouth, as sweet as honey from the comb, but which is, in the\nbelly, changed into the gall of asps. In the symbolism of the law,\nhoney signified the _lust_ of the world; compare my work _Die Opfer\nder Heil. Schrift_, S. 44. It is only the derivation of \u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05d8, the\nsignification of which is sufficiently established by parallel\npassages, which requires investigation. We have no hesitation in\nderiving it from \u05d0\u05b5\u05e9\u05c1, \"fire;\" hence it means properly, \"that which has\nbeen subjected to fire (compare \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b6\u05bc\u05c1\u05d4) = that which has been baked,\"\n\"cakes.\" The derivation from \u05d0\u05e9\u05e9, \"to found,\" has of late become\ncurrent; but the objections to it are:--partly, that the transition\nfrom \"founding,\" to \"cake,\" is by no means an easy one; partly and\nmainly, that there is not the slightest trace of this root elsewhere in\nHebrew. It is asserted, indeed, that \u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd itself is found in Is. xvi.\n7, with a signification which renders necessary the derivation from the\nverb \u05d0\u05e9\u05e9. But, even in that passage, the signification of [Pg 278]\n\"cakes\" must be retained. The following reasons are in favour of it,\nand against the signification \"ruins,\" adopted by _Gesenius_, _Winer_,\nand _Hitzig_. 1. The signification \"cakes\" deserves, _ceteris paribus_,\na decided preference, because it is established by the other passages.\nIt is only for reasons the most cogent that we can grant that one and\nthe same word has two meanings, and these not at all connected with\neach other. 2. The transition from the meaning \"foundation,\" which\nalone can be derived from the verb \u05d0\u05e9\u05e9, to that of \"_ruins_,\" is by no\nmeans so easy as those critics would represent it. With respect to a\nrebuilding, for which the ruins' afford the foundation, they might, it\nis true, be called foundations, compare Is. lviii. 12, but not where\ndestruction only is concerned. Who would speak of howling over\nfoundations, instead of howling over ruins? 3. The context is quite\ndecisive. If we translate \u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd by \"ruins,\" the subsequent \u05db\u05d9 is quite\ninexplicable. This little word, upon which so much depends, performs\nalso the office of a guide: \"For this reason Moab howls, for Moab\naltogether does he howl, for the cakes of Kirhareseth you do sigh,\nwholly afflicted; _for_ the vineyards of Heshbon are withered, the vine\nof Sibmah, the grapes of which intoxicated the lord of the nations,\"\netc. Then, ver. 9, \"Therefore I weep with Jaeser for the vine of\nSibmah.\" If there be no more grapes, neither are there any more\ngrape-cakes. The destruction of the vineyards is therefore the cause of\nthe howling for the cakes. That such cakes, moreover, were prepared in\nmany places in Moab, sufficiently appears from the name of the place\nDibhlathaim, _i.e._, town of cakes. It may be remarked further, that we\nare not entitled to assume a sing. \u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e9 as given by lexicographers\nalong with \u05d3\u05d1\u05dc\u05d4 ;\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05e9\u05d4 likewise forms the plural \u05d3\u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd.\n\nVer. 2. \"_And I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and a\nhomer of barley, and a lethech of barley._\" Compare the explanation of\nthis verse, p. 195 sqq.\n\nVer. 3. \"_And I said unto her. Thou art to sit for me many days: thou\nart not to whore, and thou art not to belong to a man; and so I also to\nthee._\"\n\nThe sitting has the accessory idea of being forsaken and solitary,\nwhich may be explained from the circumstance, that he who is not\ninvited to go with us is left to sit. Thus, _e.g._, Gen. xxxviii. 11:\n\"Sit as a widow in thy fathers house, until Shelah [Pg 279]my son be\ngrown;\" Is. xlvii. 8, where Babylon says, \"I shall not _sit_ as a\nwidow,\" etc. The Fut. in this and the following verses must not be\ntaken in an imperative sense, as meaning, thou shalt sit for me, thou\nshalt not whore; the explanation given in ver. 4, and in the parallel\npassage in chap. ii. 8, 9, are alike opposed to it. The husband will\nnot subject his wife to a moral probation, but he will lock her up, so\nthat she must _ sit_ solitary, and _cannot_ whore. With reference to\nthis. _Manger_ strikingly remarks: \"There is, in that very severity,\nthe beginning of leniency; 'sit for me,' _i.e._, I who have been so\nunworthily treated by thee, and who yet am thy most affectionate\nhusband, and who, though now at a distance from thee, will not\naltogether forget thee.\" The \u05dc\u05d9 indicates that the sitting of the wife\nmust have reference to the prophet. Quite similar is Exod. xxiv. 14:\n\"And he said unto the elders, \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5, Sit ye here for us until we\nreturn to you.\" The phrase itself, which must not be explained by \"to\nsit in expectation of some one,\" does not indicate in what way the\nsitting has reference to him. The issue of the whole proceeding,\ndescribed in ver. 5, clearly shows, however, that it is not inflicted\nby him as a merited punishment, as an effect of his just indignation,\nbut rather that we must think chiefly of his compassionate love, which\nmakes use of these means in order to render the reunion possible.--The\ndistinction between \"to whore,\" and \"to belong to a man,\" is obvious:\nthe former denotes _vagos et promiscuus amores_; the other, connubial\nconnection with a single individual; compare, _e.g._, Ezek. xvi. 8;\nLev. xxi. 3. But the question is,--Who is to be understood by the\n\"_man?_\" Several refer it to the prophet exclusively. Thus _Jerome_\nsays, \"Thou shalt not shamefully prostitute thyself with other lovers,\nnor be legally connected with me, the man to whom thou art married.\"\nOthers admit, at least, a co-reference to the prophet = the Lord. By\nthe words, \"Thou art not to whore,\" they say that the intercourse with\nthe lovers is excluded; but, by, \"Thou art not to belong to a man,\" the\nintercourse with the husband also; so that the sense would be, \"Thou\nshalt not have connubial intercourse either with me, or with any other\nman.\" But the correct view is to refer both to the intercourse with the\nlovers; and so, indeed, that the former designates the giving of\nherself up, now to one, then to another; while the latter points to her\nentering [Pg 280]into a firm relation to a single individual; just as,\nin point of fact, the relation of Israel to the idols hitherto was a\nwhoring. According as it suited their inclination, they made, now this,\nand then that, god of the neighbouring nations an object of their\nworship; whilst a marriage connection would have been formed, if they\nhad entered with any one of them into a permanent and exclusive\nconnection, similar to that which had heretofore existed between them\nand the Lord. This explanation is required by the words, \"And so I also\nto thee,\" at the close of the verse. If the words, \"Thou shalt not\nbelong to any man,\" referred to the prophet, then \"thou shalt not have\nany intercourse with me\" would imply, \"I shall not have any intercourse\nwith thee;\" and did not require any new mention to be made.--The\nquestions, however, now arise:--By what means was the state of things\ncorresponding to the figure to be brought about? By what is adulterous\nIsrael to be prevented from whoring, and from belonging to any man? By\nwhat means is idolatry to be extirpated from among the people? The\nanswer has been already given in our remarks on chap. ii. 8, 9. The\nidols manifest themselves to Israel in their supposed gifts. If these\nwere taken from them,--if they were entirely stripped, and plunged into\nwant and misery, they could not fail to recognise the vanity of all\ntheir previous efforts, along with the vanity of the object of their\nworship, while their love to him could not but vanish. The absolute\ninability of the idols to afford consolation and help to the people in\ntheir sufferings must have put an end to their showing them\nallegiance.--The last words, \"And I also to thee,\" are explained by the\ngreater number of interpreters to mean, \"I also will be thine.\"\n_Manger_ explains them thus: \"I will not altogether break the tie of\nour love, nor marry another wife; but I will remain thine, will at last\nreceive thee again into my favour, and restore thee to the position of\nmy wife.\" _De Wette_ interprets them thus: \"But then I will come to\nthee;\" _Umbreit_: \"And I also only to thee;\" _Ewald_: \"And yet I am\nfull of love towards thee.\" But the words, \"And I also to thee,\" are\nrather tantamount to--\"I will conduct myself in a similar manner\ntowards thee.\" Now two things may constitute this equality of conduct.\n_Either_ it is conceived thus:--that the prophet is placed in\nparallelism with the wife. The latter has lost all claims upon the\nprophet; she has violated connubial [Pg 281]fidelity, and, hence, has\nno title to demand that he should observe it. But that which she cannot\ndemand from him, he does, from the necessity of his nature. He promises\nto her that, during the proceeding which has commenced against her, he\nwould not enter into any new connection; and by holding out to her the\nhope of her returning, at some future period, to her old relation to\nhim, he makes it more easy for her to break off the sinful connections\nwhich have destroyed it. Without a figure: The Lord, from His\nforbearance and mercy, waits for the reformation of those who hitherto\nwere His people; does not drive them to despair by receiving another\npeople in their place. _Or_, The prophet is placed in parallelism with\nthe other man. As the wife does not enter into any relation with that\nman, so the prophet also abstains from any nearer intercourse with her.\nThe latter explanation (adopted by _Simson_ and _Hitzig_) is to be\npreferred. The exclusiveness cannot in the same sense be applicable to\nthe prophet, representing the Lord, as to the wife, representing the\npeople. So early as in Deut. xxxii. 21, we read: \"They have moved Me to\njealousy with that which is not God, they have provoked Me to anger\nwith their vanities; and I will move them to jealousy with those which\nare not a people, I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation,\"\nAfter all that had, in the Song of Solomon, been predicted regarding\nthe reception of the Gentile nations into the kingdom of God and\nChrist, and about the receiving again into it of Israel, to be effected\nby their instrumentality (compare my _Comment. on Song of Sol._, S.\n239), the thought suggested by the former view would be quite\nincomprehensible. Quite decisive, however, is ver. 4, in which the\nthought, which is here in a symbolical garb, is expressed in plain\nlanguage. There, however, not only the intercourse with the idols, but\nthe connection with Jehovah also, appears to be intermitted. The reason\nwhy the prophet does not enter into a closer connection with the wife\nis, that her repentance is more of a negative, than of a positive\ncharacter. By want and isolation, her hard heart is to be broken, true\nrepentance to be called forth, and the flame of cordial conversion and\nlove to her husband, whose faithful love she had so ill requited, to be\nenkindled in her. In favour of the explanation given by us, and in\nopposition to that first mentioned, the \u05d2\u05dd is decisive. Against this,\nthat other explanation, [Pg 282]in its various modifications, tries its\nstrength in vain. \"I also will be thine, or will adhere to thee,\" would\nrequire in the preceding context, \"Thou shalt be mine, or adhere to\nme;\" but of this, there is no trace. It is only in ver. 5 that, with\nan _after_, the conversion is reported. In favour of that false\ninterpretation it is said, and with some plausibility, that the\nexplanation would otherwise be more extended than the symbol: The\nlatter would contain the outward dealing only; while the former, in\nver. 5, would contain at the same time its salutary effect. But, even\naccording to this explanation, the words would not correspond with ver.\n5. _Here_, the showing of mercy would be announced without the mention,\neven by a word, of the sincere return to the husband--and this,\naltogether apart from the \u05d2\u05dd, would be quite unsuitable, and would,\nmoreover, be opposed by the analogy of chap. ii. 9--while, in ver. 5,\nnot the showing of mercy, but only the reformation, would form the\nsubject. In that case, it ought not to have been said, \"They shall\nreturn to the Lord,\" but rather, \"The Lord shall return to them.\" But\nthis plausible reason falls to the ground, along with the unfounded\nsupposition that the two last verses contain the explanation. The\ncorrect view is, that the explanation is limited to ver. 4. Ver. 5 must\nbe considered as an appendix, in which, without any figurative\ncovering, the effect is described which will be produced upon the\nnation by these outward dealings. The symbol and its explanation extend\nonly as far as the main object of the prophet in the section under\nreview,--that object being to present the impending captivity in its\ntrue light, and thereby to secure against levity and despair when it\nshould appear.\n\nVer. 4. \"_For many days the children of Israel shall sit without a\nking, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without a\npillar, and without an Ephod and Teraphim._\"\n\n\u05db\u05d9 is used because the reason of the performance of the symbolical\naction lies in its signification. Concerning \u05d9\u05e9\u05d1, see the remarks on\nver. 3; compare, moreover. Lament, i. 1: \"How does the city sit\nsolitary that was full of people! she has become as a widow.\"--The\nquestion is, whether, by the religious objects here mentioned, such\nonly are to be understood as belonged to the worship of the idols, or\nsuch also as belonged to the worship of Jehovah. The following\nfurnishes the reply. The \u05de\u05e6\u05d1\u05d4 only [Pg 283]can be considered as\nbelonging exclusively to the idolatrous worship. Such pillars always\noccur only as being consecrated to the idols--especially to Baal. It\ncannot be proved in any way that, contrary to the express command in\nLev. xxvi. 1, Deut. xvi. 22, they were, in the kingdom of Israel,\nconsecrated to the Lord also; compare 2 Kings iii. 2, xvii. 10, x.\n26-28. On the other hand, among the objects mentioned, there is also\none, the \u05d0\u05e4\u05d5\u05d3, the mantle for the shoulders of the high priest, on\nwhich the Urim and Thummim were placed, which must be considered as\nbelonging exclusively to the worship of Jehovah; at least there is not\nthe smallest trace to be found that it was part of any idolatrous\nworship. It is true that _Gesenius_, in the _Thesaurus_, p. 135, gives\n_s. v._ \u05d0\u05e4\u05d5\u05d3, under 2, the signification _statua_, _simulacrum idoli_,\nand, besides the passages under consideration, refers to Jud. viii. 27,\nxvii. 5, xviii. 14, 17. But one requires only to examine these passages\na little more minutely, to be convinced that the metamorphosis of\nJehovah into an idol is as little justified as the changing of the\nmantle into a statue. From the personal character of Gideon, who was so\nzealous for the Lord against the idols, we cannot at all think of\nidolatry in Jud. viii. 27. In the _Dissertations on the Genuineness of\nthe Pentateuch_, vol. ii. p. 80, it has been proved that the Ephod of\nGideon was a precious imitation of that of the high priest. In chap.\nxvii. 5, we need only to consider these words: \"And the man Micah had\nan house of God, and made an Ephod and Teraphim, and consecrated one of\nhis sons, and he became a priest to him.\" Afterwards, Micah took a\n_Levite_ for a priest. But for what reason should he have been better\nsuited for that purpose than any other man? The answer is given in ver.\n13: \"Then said Micah, Now I know that Jehovah will do me good, for the\nLevite has become a priest to me.\" The ignorant man knows after all\nthus much, that the Levites alone are the only legitimate servants of\nJehovah, and he rejoices, therefore, that he had now remedied the\nformer irregularity. Jud. xviii. 14 does not require any particular\nillustration, for it is the same Ephod which is spoken of in that\npassage; but we must still direct attention to vers. 5 and 6 of that\nchapter. \"Then they (the Danites) said unto him (the Levite), Ask God,\nwe pray thee, in order that we may know whether our way in which we go\nshall be prosperous. And the priest said unto them, Go in [Pg\n284]peace, before _Jehovah_ is the way wherein ye go.\" Here, then, we\nhave a revelation given to the priest, as is alleged, by means of Ephod\nand Teraphim; and this revelation is not ascribed to the idols, but to\nJehovah, whom alone the Levite wished to serve. From this it appeal's\nthat the graven image and the molten image--which, besides Ephod and\nTeraphim, according to ver. 14, exist in the house of Micah--must be\nconsidered as representations of Jehovah, similar to the calves in the\nkingdom of the ten tribes. In vol. ii. pp. 78, 79, of my _Dissertations\non the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, it has been demonstrated that\nthe Ephod of Micah was, along with the Teraphim, an apeing of the\nhigh-priestly Ephod with the Urim and Thummim. The four objects\nmentioned in Judges xvii. and xviii. are such as were separable\nalthough connected, and connected although separable. The _molten work_\nis the pedestal under the image; the image is clothed with the Ephod,\nand in the Ephod were the Teraphim, from whom information and good\ncounsel for the future were expected. For, that this is the object of\nthe whole contrivance, is plain from chap. xviii. 5, 6, where the\npriest asks counsel of God for the Danites.--With regard to the other\ntwo objects mentioned in the verse before us, viz., the sacrifice and\nTeraphim, a reference, at least exclusive, to idolatrous worship,\ncannot be by any means maintained. As sacrifices are mentioned in the\nwidest generality, without any limitation in the preceding context,\nthere is certainly nothing which could in the least entitle us to\nexclude the sacrifices which were offered to Jehovah. The Teraphim are\nintermediate deities, by means of which the future is to be disclosed\n(compare the remarks on Zech. x. 2); they might be brought into\nconnection with every religious system, but are found only once in\nconnection with any other religion than that of Jehovah,--and this in a\ncase where a non-Israelite is spoken of. It is true, however, that, in\nsubstance, the Teraphim belong to the side of idolatry; for, wherever\nthey occur within the religion of Jehovah, they belong to a degenerate\ncondition of it only, which is on a par with idolatry. It would appear\nthat they are here contrasted with the Ephod, as the illegal means for\nascertaining the future, in opposition to the legal means. That the\nEphod was used for discovering the divine will, is seen from 1 Sam.\nxxiii. 9, xxx. 7. The Teraphim, in like manner, served to explore [Pg\n285]the future. A closer connection of the two seems to be indicated by\nthe circumstance that \u05d0\u05d9\u05df is omitted before \u05ea\u05e8\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd.--But how can we\naccount for this strange intermingling of what belonged to the idols\nwith what belonged to Jehovah, since it cannot but be done\nintentionally? It points to the dark mixture which at that time existed\namong the people, and is a kind of ironical reflection upon it.--The\nLord makes them disgusted with idolatry, and all that belongs to it,\nthrough His visitations, in which they seek in vain the help of the\nidols, and become thoroughly acquainted with their vanity; compare\nremarks in ver. 3. At the same time, however, all the pledges of His\ngrace are taken from them, so that they get into an altogether isolated\nposition. He withdraws from them their independent government, the\naltar and priesthood--the former as a just punishment for their\nrebellion against the dynasty ordained by God (compare chap. viii. 4),\nof which, first Israel, and then Judah, had made themselves guilty.--As\nregards the historical reference of this prophecy, interpreters are\ndivided, and refer it either to the Assyrian, the Babylonish, or the\nRomish exile. The greater number of them, however, refer it exclusively\nto the last. This is especially the case with the Jewish interpreters;\n_e.g._, _Kimchi_, who says: \"These are the days of the exile, in which\nwe are now; we have neither an Israelitish king nor an Israelitish\nprince, but are under the dominion of the Gentiles and their kings.\"\nThe principal defenders of a direct reference to the Assyrian\ncaptivity, are _Venema_ (_Dissert._ p. 232) and _Manger_. The decision\ndepends chiefly upon what we are to understand by \"the children of\nIsrael.\" If these are the whole people, it is arbitrary to assign any\nnarrower limits to the _Word_ of God, than to His _deed_. The prophecy\nmust, in that case, comprehend everything in which the idea is\nrealized; and this so much the more, as the spiritual eye of the\nprophet, directed to the idea only, does not generally regard the\nintervals which, in the fulfilment, lie between the various\nrealizations of the _idea_. But now, ver. 5 would seem to lead us to\nentertain the opinion, that, in the first instance, the prophet has in\nview the children of Israel in the more limited sense only. The words,\n\"They shall return and seek David their king,\" imply a reference to the\nthen existing apostasy of the ten tribes from the dynasty of David. But\nthe future apostasy of the sons of Judah also from [Pg 286]David their\nking may be as well _presupposed_ here, as, in chapter ii. 2, their\nbeing carried away; and this so much the rather, as in chap. ii. 2, the\nwords, \"They appoint themselves a king,\" suggest that the sons of Judah\nalso, no less than the sons of Israel, are without a head, and hence\nhave apostatized from David the king. And it is so much the more\nnatural to adopt such a supposition, as the Song of Solomon had already\ndescribed so minutely the rebellion of the whole people against the\nglorious descendant of David--the heavenly Solomon--to which the\napostasy of the ten tribes from the house of David was only a prelude.\nConsidering the whole relation in which Hosea stands to the Song of\nSolomon, we could scarcely imagine that, in this respect, he should not\nhave alluded to, and resumed its contents. _In the whole third chapter\nthere is nothing which refers exclusively to the ten tribes._ Chap.\niii. 2 has reference to all Israel. Throughout the whole Book of Hosea\nalso, as well as by the second Israelitish prophet Amos (compare the\nremarks on Amos, chap ix.), Judah and Israel are viewed together, both\nas regards apostasy and punishment (v. 5, 12, viii. 14, x. 11, etc.),\nand as regards salvation, vi. 1-4, etc. Of special importance is the\ncomparison of the remarkable prophecy of Azariah in 2 Chron. xv. 2-4,\nwhich was uttered at the time of Asa, king of Judah, and which so\nnearly coincides with the one before us, that the idea suggests itself\nof an allusion to it by Hosea: \"Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and\nBenjamin: The Lord will be with you, if you are with Him; and if ye\nseek Him, He will be found of you; and if ye forsake Him, He will\nforsake you. And many days will be to Israel when there is no true\nGod,[2] and no teaching priest,[3] and no law. Then they return in\ntheir trouble unto Jehovah the God of Israel, and they seek Him, and He\nis found of them.\" If the fundamental prophecy refer to all Israel, the\nsame must be the case with the prophecy under consideration. The\ncondition in which the Jews are, up to the present day, is described in\nboth of these prophecies with remarkable clearness; and hence we may\nmost confidently entertain [Pg 287]the hope, that there shall be a\nfulfilment also of that which, in them as well as in the Song of\nSolomon, has been foretold regarding the glorious issue of these\ndealings of God.\n\nVer. 5. \"_Afterwards shall the children of Israel return and seek the\nLord their God, and David their king, and shall tremble to the Lord and\nto His goodness in the end of the days._\"\n\n\u05d9\u05b8\u05e9\u05bb\u05c1\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc must not by any means be regarded as modifying \u05d1\u05e7\u05e9\u05d5, so that both\nthe verbs would constitute only one verbal idea. This must be objected\nto, not only from the arguments already stated in the remarks on chap.\nii. 11, but, most decidedly, on account of the parallel passage, chap.\nii. 9, \"I will go and return to my first husband.\" Compare chap. vi. 1:\n\"Come and let us return unto the Lord;\" v. 15, where the Lord says, \"I\nwill go and return to My place until they become guilty and seek My\nface; in their affliction they will seek Me;\" Jer. l. 4: \"In those\ndays, and in that time, saith the Lord, the children of Israel shall\n_come_, they and the children of Judah together, weeping will they\ncome, and seek the Lord their God,\"--a passage which, like Jer. xxx. 9,\npoints to the one before us in a manner not to be mistaken; Is. x. 21:\n\"The remnant shall _return_, the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty\nGod.\" The text, and the parallel passages, most clearly indicate what\nis to be considered as the object of their return, namely, the Lord\ntheir God, and David their king, from whom they had so shamefully\napostatized; so that those interpreters who here think of a return to\nCanaan do not deserve a refutation. The words, \"Jehovah their God,\" at\nthe same time lay open the delusion of the Israelites (who imagined\nthat they could still possess the true God, in the idol which they\ncalled Jehovah), and rebuke their ingratitude. _Calvin_ says, \"God had\noffered Himself to them, yea. He had had familiar intercourse with\nthem,--He had, as it were, brought them up on His bosom just as a\nfather does his sons. The prophet, therefore, indirectly rebukes, in\nthese words, their stupendous wickedness.\" The God of the Israelites,\nas well as the God of the Jews after they had rejected Christ, stood to\nthe God of Israel in the same relation as does the God of the Deists\nand Rationalists to the God of the Christians. The question here\narises. Who is to be understood here by \"David their king?\" Some\ninterpreters refer it, after the example of _Theodoret_ (t. ii. p. 2,\np. 1326), to [Pg 288]Zerubbabel: but by far the greater number of them,\nfollowing the Chaldee (\"And they shall obey the Messiah, the son of\nDavid their king\"), understand, thereby, the Messiah. It is true that\nthe latter exposition is quite correct as to its substance, but not as\nto the form in which it is commonly expressed. From the words, \"They\nshall return and seek,\" it is evident that the Messiah is here not\ncalled David as an individual, as is done in other passages, _e.g._,\nJer. xxx. 9. For the return presupposes their having been there\nformerly, and their having departed; just as the seeking implies\nneglecting. The expression, \"their king,\" also requires special\nattention. In contrast to the \"king\" in ver. 4 (compare viii. 4, \"They\nhave made a king, and not by Me, a prince, and I knew it not\"), it\nshows that the subject of discourse is not by any means a new king to\nbe elected, but such an one as the Israelites ought to obey, even now,\nas the king ordained for them by God. The sound view is this: By the\n\"king David\" the whole Davidic house is to be understood, which is here\nto be considered as an unity, in the same manner as is done in 2 Sam.\nvii., and in a whole series of Psalms which celebrate the mercies\nshown, and to be shown, to David and his house.[4] These mercies are\nmost fully concentrated in Christ, in whose appearance and everlasting\ndominion the promises given to David were first to be fully realized.\nThe prophet mentions the whole--the Davidic family--because it was only\nthus that the contrast between the apostasy and the return could be\nfully brought out; but that, in so doing, he has Christ especially in\nview--that he expected a return of the children of Israel to David in\nChrist, is shown by the term \u05d1\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd, which, in the prophets,\nnever occurs in any other sense than the times of the Messiah.\n(Compare, regarding this expression, the remarks on Amos ix. 1.) This\nreason is alone sufficient to refute the reference to Zerubbabel;\nalthough so much must indeed be conceded, that the circumstance of part\nof the citizens of the kingdom of the ten tribes adhering to him, the\ndescendant of the house of David, may be considered as a prelude of\nthat general return. The close connection betwixt the seeking of\nJehovah their God and David their king, likewise claims our attention.\nDavid and his family had been elected by God to be the mediator\nbetween Him and the [Pg 289] people--the channel through which all His\nblessings flowed clown upon the people--the visible image of the\ninvisible King, who, at the end of the days, was, in Christ, most\nperfectly to reflect His glory. The Israelites, in turning away from\nDavid their king, turned away, at the same time, from Jehovah their\nGod,--as was but too soon manifested by the other signs of apostasy\nfrom Him, by the introduction of the worship of calves, etc. He who\nrefuses to acknowledge God in that which He has Himself declared to be\nHis visible image (from Christ down to every relation which represents\nHim in any respect, _e.g._, that of the father to the son, of the king\nto the subject), will soon cease to acknowledge Himself. But as, first,\nthe ten tribes, and afterwards, the entire people, apostatized from\nGod, by apostatizing from David, so, by their apostasy from him, they\nexcluded themselves from all participation in the privileges of the\npeople of God, which could flow to them only through him. It is only\nwhen they return to David by returning to Christ, that, from their\nself-made God, they come to the true God, and within the sphere of His\nblessings. That the same thing is repeated among ourselves in the case\nof those who have forsaken Christ their King, and yet imagine still to\npossess God, and that it is only by their returning to the brightness\nof His glory that they can attain to a true union with the Lord their\nGod, and to a participation in the blessings which He bestows,--all\nthis is so obvious as to require nothing beyond a simple suggestion. A\nperfectly sound interpretation of this passage is to be found in\n_Calvin_, who remarks: \"David was, as it were, a messenger of the Lord,\nand, hence, that defection of the ten tribes was tantamount to a\nrejection of the living God. The Lord had, on a former occasion, said\nto Samuel (1 Sam. viii. 7), 'They have not rejected thee, but they have\nrejected Me.' But how much more was this applicable in the case of\nDavid, whom Samuel had anointed at the command of God, and whom the\nLord had adorned with so many glorious attributes, that they could not\nreject his rule without, at the same time, publicly rejecting, to a\ncertain extent, the Lord Himself! It is true, indeed, that David was\nthen dead; but Hosea here represents, in his person, his everlasting\ndominion, which the Jews knew would last as long as the sun and moon.\"\nThe expression, [Pg 290] \"They tremble to the Lord,\" graphically\ndescribes the disposition of heart in him, who, trembling with terror\nand anxiety on account of the surrounding danger and distress, flees to\nHim who can alone afford help and deliverance. That we must thus\nexplain it,--that we cannot entertain the idea of any trembling which\nproceeds from the inconceivable greatness of the blessing--a\ndisposition of heart so graphically described by _Claudian_ in the\nwords,\n\n \"Horret adhuc animus, manifestaque gaudia differt\n Dum stupet et tanto cunctatur credere voto,\"--\n\nand that we can as little think of a fearing or trembling which is the\nconsequence of the knowledge of deep sinfulness and unworthiness, is\nshown by the parallel passage in chap. xi. 11: \"They tremble as a bird\nout of Egypt, and as a dove out of the land of Assyria.\" The bird and\nthe dove are here an emblem of helplessness. Substantially parallel is\nalso chap. v. 15: \"In their affliction they will seek Me.\" Their\ntrembling is not voluntary; it is forced upon them by the Lord. But\nthat they tremble _to the Lord_--that, through fear, they suffer\nthemselves to be led to the Lord--is their free act, although possible\nonly by the assistance of grace. The manner in which the words, \"and to\nHis goodness,\" are to be understood, is most plainly shown by the\nwords, \"I will return to my first husband, for it was _better_ with me\nthen than now,\" chap. ii. 9. Along with the Lord, they have lost His\ngoodness also, and the gifts flowing from it. But distress again drives\nthem to seek the Lord, and His goodness, which is inseparable from\nHimself. This explanation is confirmed by other parallel passages also;\n_e.g._, Jer. xxxi. 12: \"And they come and exult on the height of Zion,\nand flow together to the goodness of the Lord (\u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4), to corn, and\nmust, and oil, and lambs, and cattle;\" ver. 14: \"My people shall be\nsatisfied with My goodness.\" Compare also Ps. xxvii. 13, xxxi. 20;\nZech. ix. 17. We would therefore object to the opinion of several\ninterpreters, who would explain \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 as being equivalent to \u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\n\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4, to His manifestation in the Angel of the Lord, the \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, by whom\nHis glory and goodness are made known.\n\n\nFootnote 1: It is quite impossible to refer \u05e8\u05b5\u05e2\u05b7 to the adulterers, and\nfor this reason:--that it is always Israel's love to the idols that is\nspoken of, but never the love of the idols to Israel. In the\nexplanation given in the words immediately following, it is not the\nidols that take the initiative; it is Israel who turns to other gods.\n\nFootnote 2: _J. D. Michaelis_ remarks: \"In the present captivity they\ndo not, indeed, worship idols, but nevertheless they do not know, nor\nworship, the true God, since they reject the Son, without whom the\nFather will not be worshipped, John xvii. 3; 1 John ii. 23; 2 John 9.\"\n\nFootnote 3: The \"priest\" here corresponds with the \"Ephod\" in Hosea.\n\nFootnote 4: In 1 Kings xii. 16, also, David stands for the Davidic\ndynasty.\n\n\n[Pg 291]\n\n\n THE PROPHET JOEL.\n\n PRELIMINARY REMARKS.\n\nThe position which has been assigned to Joel in the collection of the\nMinor Prophets, furnishes an external argument for the determination of\nthe time at which Joel wrote. There cannot be any doubt that the\nCollectors were guided by a consideration of the chronology. The\ncircumstance, that they placed the prophecies of Joel just between the\ntwo prophets who, according to the inscriptions and contents of their\nprophecies, belonged to the time of Jeroboam and Uzziah, is thus\nequivalent to an express testimony that he also lived, and exercised\nhis ministry, during that time.\n\nBy this testimony we have, in the meanwhile, obtained a firm\nstanding-point; and it must remain firm, as long as it is not\noverthrown by other unquestionable facts, and the Collectors are not\nconvicted of an historical error. But, as regards the latter point,\nthere is the greater room for caution, because all the other statements\nwhich they have made are, upon a careful examination, found to stand\nthe test; for none of the other Minor Prophets is found to occupy a\nplace to which he is not entitled. But no such facts are to be found;\non the contrary, everything serves to confirm their testimony.\n\nIt will not be possible to assign the prophecies of Joel to a later\nperiod; for Amos places at the head of one of his prophecies one of the\nutterances of Joel (compare Amos i. 2 with Joel iv. 16 [iii. 16]), as\nthe text, as it were, on which he is to comment. That we are not\nthereby precluded from considering the two prophets as contemporaneous,\nis shown by the altogether similar case of Isaiah, in his relation to\nMicah. Isaiah, too, borrows, in chap. xiii. 6, a sentence from Joel i.\n15, the peculiarity of which proves that the coincidence is not\naccidental. Such verbal repetitions must not be, by any means,\nconsidered as unintentional reminiscences. They served to exhibit that\nthe prophets acknowledged one another as the organs of the Holy\nSpirit,--to testify the \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, the want of which in the times\nafter Ezra and Nehemiah is mentioned by Josephus as one of the reasons\nwhy none of the writings of [Pg 292]that period could be acknowledged\nas sacred. (See the Author's _Dissertations on the Genuineness of\nDaniel_, p. 199.) _Further_,--The description of the threatening\njudgment in chap. i. and ii. is, in Joel, kept just in that very same\ngenerality in which we find it in the oldest prophecies that have been\npreserved to us, viz., in Amos, in the first chapters of Isaiah and of\nHosea; whilst in later times, the threatening is, throughout,\nparticularized by the express mention of the instruments who were, in\nthe first instance, to serve for its fulfilment, viz., the Assyrians\nand Babylonians. That which Judah had to suffer from the former was so\nsevere, that Joel, in chap. iv. 4 ff.--where he mentions, although, as\nit were, only in the way of example, nations with which Judah had\nhitherto already come into hostile contact--would scarcely have passed\nthem over in silence, in order to mention only the far lesser calamity\ninflicted by other nations.\n\nBut just as little can we think of an earlier period. It is certainly\nnot accidental, that among all the prophets whose writings have been\npreserved to us, no one appeared at an earlier period; any more than it\nis accidental, that no prophecies are extant of the distinguished men\nof God in earlier times, of whom the historical books make mention,\nespecially Elijah and Elisha. It was only when the great divine\njudgments were being prepared, and were approaching, that it was time,\nthrough their announcement, to waken from the slumber of security those\nwho had forgotten God, and to open the treasures of hope and\nconsolation to the faithful. Formerly, the living, oral word of the\nprophets was the principal thing; but now that God opened up to them a\nwider view,--that their calling had regard not only to the present, but\nalso to the future time, the written word was raised to an equal\ndignity. Nothing, then, but the most cogent reasons could induce us to\nmake, in the case of Joel only, an exception to so established a rule.\n\nBut we cannot acknowledge as such, what _Credner_ (in his _Comment. on\nJoel_, p. 41 sqq.) has brought forward to prove that Joel committed to\nwriting his prophecies as early as under the reign of Joash, _i.e._,\nabout 870-65 B.C., or from seventy to eighty years earlier than\nany of the other prophecies which have come down to us. If we do not\nallow ourselves to be carried away by the multitude of his words,\nwe shall find that the only remaining plausible argument is--that the\nSyrians of Damascus [Pg 293]are not mentioned among the enemies of the\nCovenant-people, as they are in Amos. From this, _Credner_ infers that\nJoel must have prophesied before the first inroad of the Syrians on\nJudea, which, according to 2 Kings xii. 18 ff.; 2 Chron. xxiv. 23 ff.,\ntook place under Jehoash. But we need only look at that passage, in\norder to be convinced that the mention of that event could not be\nexpected in Joel. The expedition of the Syrians was not directed\nagainst Judea, but against the Philistines. It was only a single\ndetached corps which, according to Chronicles, incidentally, and on\ntheir return, made an inroad on Judah; but Jerusalem itself was not\ntaken. This single act of hostility could not but be soon forgotten in\nthe course of time. It was of quite a different character from that of\nthe Ph\u0153nicians and Philistines mentioned by Joel, which were only\nparticular outbreaks of the hatred and envy which they continually\ncherished against the Covenant-people, and which, as such, were\npreeminently the object of punitive divine justice. But on what ground\ndoes the supposition rest, that Joel must necessarily mention all those\nnations, with which the Covenant-people came, at any time, into hostile\ncontact? The context certainly does not favour such an idea. The\nmention of former hostile attacks in chap. iv. (iii.) 4-8 is altogether\nincidental, as _Vitringa_, in his _Typ. Doctr. Proph._ p. 189 sqq., has\nadmitted: \"The prophet,\" says he, \"was describing the heavy judgments\nwith which God would, after the effusion of the Spirit, successively,\nand especially in the latter days, visit the enemies of the Church, and\noverthrow them, on account of the injuries which they had inflicted\nupon it. And while he was doing so, those injuries presented themselves\nto his mind, which in his own time, and in the immediate past, were\ninflicted upon the Jewish people--a portion of the universal Church--by\nthe neighbouring nations, the Tyrians, Sidonians, and Philistines. To\nthem he addresses his discourse _in passing_ (_in transitu_), and\nannounces to them, in the name of God, that they themselves also would\nnot remain unpunished.\" The correctness of _Vitringa_, with his \"_in\ntransitu_,\" is proved by the \u05d5\u05d2\u05dd, as well as by the circumstance, that\nvers. 9 ff. are closely connected with ver. 3; so that vers. 4 ff. form\na real parenthesis. How entirely out of place would here have been any\nmention of the Syrians! There was necessarily something required which\nwas very striking, and [Pg 294]which, having but recently occurred, was\nstill vividly remembered. But the matter was altogether different in\nthe case of Amos. Joel has to do with the enemies of Judah only; Amos,\nwith those of the kingdom of Israel also, among whom the Syrians were\nthe most dangerous. Hence, he begins with them at once. The crime with\nwhich he charges them in chap. i. 3, that they had threshed the\ninhabitants of Gilead with threshing instruments of iron, concerns the\nkingdom of Israel only. The same applies to the Ammonites and Moabites\nalso, who, in like manner, are mentioned by Amos, and not by Joel. The\nAmmonites are charged in Amos i. 13 with ripping up the women with\nchild of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border; and the crime of\nthe Moabites, rebuked in chap. ii. 1, occurred, very probably, during\nthe time of, or after, the expedition against them, mentioned in 2\nKings iii.--the real instigator of which was the king of Israel.\n\nWe must indeed be astonished that _Hitzig_, _Ewald_, _Meier_, _Baur_,\nand others, after the example of _Credner_, have likewise declared in\nfavour of the view that the prophecies of Joel were composed under\nJoash. None of the arguments, however, by which they attempt to support\ntheir view, can stand examination.\n\n\"There is nowhere, as yet, the slightest allusion to the Assyrians,\"\nsays _Ewald_. But neither is any such found in Amos, nor in the first\npart of Hosea. An irruption, however, such as former times had not\nknown,--an overflowing, as it were, by the heathen, such as could by no\nmeans proceed from the small neighbouring nations, but from extensive\nkingdoms only, is here also brought into view. Joel is, in this\nrespect, in strict agreement with Amos, who embodies his prophecy\nconcerning this event, in chap. vi. 14, in these words: \"For, behold, I\nraise up against you, O house of Israel, Gentile people, saith the\nLord, the God of hosts, and they shall afflict you from Hamath unto the\nriver of the wilderness.\"\n\n\"There breathes here still the unbroken warlike spirit of the times of\nDeborah and David,\" _Ewald_ further remarks. But is there in the fourth\n(third) chapter any trace of self-help on the part of the people?\nJudgment upon the Gentiles is executed without any human\ninstrumentality, by God,--not by His earthly, but by His heavenly\n\"heroes,\" who are sent down [Pg 295]from heaven to earth, and who make\nshort work with these fancied earthly heroes. Compare chap. iv. (iii.)\n11-13, where the address is directed to the heavenly ministers of God,\nat the head of whom the Angel of the Covenant must be supposed to be:\nPs. ciii. 20; Rev. xix. 14. _Such_ a victory of the kingdom of God, all\nthe prophets announce,--not only Isaiah and Micah, but also Ezekiel,\n_e.g._, in chap. xxxviii. and xxxix.\n\n\"We perceive here the prophetic order in Jerusalem, still in the same\nancient greatness as when Nathan and Gad may have exercised their\noffice at the time of David. A whole people, without contradicting or\nmurmuring, still depend upon the prophet. He desires the observance of\na grievous ordinance, and willingly it is performed; his word is still\nlike a higher command which all cheerfully obey. Nor is any discord to\nbe seen in the nation, nor any wicked idolatry or superstition; the\nancient simple faith still lives in them, unbroken and undivided.\" So\n_Ewald_ still further remarks. But this argument rests upon a false\nsupposition; a conversion of the people at the time of the prophet is\nnot at all spoken of. The pretended repentance is to take place _in\nfuture_,--which, according to chap. i. 4, we must conceive of as being\nstill afar off, namely, in the time after the divine judgments have\nbroken in. And as to a progress in the apostasy of the people, it can\nscarcely be proved that such took place in the time betwixt Joash and\nUzziah. Between these two, we do not find any new stage of corruption.\nThe idolatry of Solomon, and the abominations of Athaliah, had\nexercised their influence, even as early as under Joash. How deep the\nrent was which, even then, went through the nation, is shown by the\nfact, that, according to 2 Chron. xxiv. 17, 18, after the death of\nJehoiada, Joash gave way to the _urgent demands of the prince's of\nJudah_, and allowed free scope to idolatry. Moreover, the threatening\nannouncement of a judgment, which is to extend even to the destruction\nof the temple, proves how deep the apostasy was at the time of Joel.\nWhere a judgment is thus threatened, which, in its terrors, far\nsurpasses all former judgments, the \"ancient faith\" certainly cannot\nhave been very vigorous.\n\n\"The Messianic idea appears here in its generality and indefiniteness,\nwithout being as yet concentrated in the person of an ideal king,\"\n_Hitzig_ remarks. But if this argument were at all [Pg 296] valid, we\nshould have to go back even beyond the time of Joash. Solomon, David,\nand Jacob already knew the personal Messiah. The prophets, however, do\nnot everywhere proclaim everything which they know. Even in Isaiah,\nthere occur long Messianic descriptions, in which the Messiah Himself\nis not to be found. In Joel, moreover, everything is collected around\nthe person of the \"Teacher of righteousness.\"\n\n\"Joel,\" it is further remarked, \"must have prophesied at a time when\nthe Philistine and other nations, who had become so haughty under\nJehoram, had but lately ventured upon destructive plundering\nexpeditions as far as Jerusalem, 2 Chron. xxi. 10 ff.\" This argument\nwould be plausible, if the injuries inflicted by the Philistines and\nthe inhabitants of Tyrus had not appeared in equally lively colours\nbefore the mind of Amos (chap. i. 6-10), who, at all events, prophesied\nbetween seventy and eighty years after these events. It is just this\nfact which should teach caution in the application of such arguments.\nThe recollection of such facts could not be lost, as long as the\ndisposition continued from which they originated. It was as if they had\nhappened in the present; for, under similar circumstances, similar\nevents would have again immediately taken place. The passage chap. iv.\n19, \"Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate\nwilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, because\nthey have shed innocent blood in the land,\" shows also how lively was\nthe recollection of injuries sustained long ago. Egypt and Edom in that\npassage are mentioned individually, in order to designate the enemies\nof the people of God in general, and yet with an allusion to deeds\nperpetrated by the Egyptians and Edomites properly so called. As the\nsuffix in \u05d0\u05e8\u05e6\u05dd must be referred to the sons of Judah--for we have no\nhistorical account of a bloody deed perpetrated against Judah by the\nEdomites in their own land, and it was the land of Judah which was\ninvaded and devastated by the host of locusts--we can think, in the\ncase of the Egyptians, only of the invasion under Rehoboam (1 Kings\nxiv.), and in the case of the Edomites, only of the great carnage which\nthey made in Judah, during the time at which David carried on war with\nAram in Arabia and on the Euphrates,--probably at a time when he had\nsustained heavy losses in that warfare; compare my Comment. on Ps.\nxliv. and lx. Of any [Pg 297] similar later occurrence there is no\naccount extant. It is only by a fanciful exposition that \"the innocent\nblood\" can be found in 2 Kings viii. 20-22. The Edomites at that time\nkept only a defensive position, and did not come into the land of\nJudah. \"The innocent blood\" implies a war of conquest, and a hostile\ninroad.\n\n\"In chap. iv. (iii.) 4-7, Joel promises a return to the citizens of\nJudah, who had been carried away by the Philistines under Jehoram; and,\nhence, an age cannot have elapsed since that event.\" Thus _Meier_\nargues. But the words, \"Behold, I raise them out of the place whither\nye have sold them,\" contain no special prediction, but only the\napplication of the general truth, that God gathers together the\ndispersed of Judah, and brings back again the exiled of Israel; and it\nis only requisite to compare concerning them. Gen. xv. 16, \"In the\nfourth generation they shall come hither again,\" and l. 24, \"God will\nvisit you, and bring you out of this land.\"\n\nWe thus arrive at the conclusion that Joel occupies the right place in\nthe Canon.\n\nThe assertion that Joel belonged to the priestly order, is as baseless\nas the similar one regarding Habakkuk, and as the supposition that the\nauthor of the Chronicles was a musician.\n\nThe book contains a connected description. It begins with a graphic\naccount of the ruin which God will bring upon His apostate\nCongregation, by means of foreign enemies. These latter represent\nthemselves to the prophet in his spiritual vision as an all-destroying\nswarm of locusts. The fundamental thought is this:--\"Wheresoever the\ncarcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together,\"--wherever\ncorruption manifests itself in the Congregation of the Lord, punishment\nwill be inflicted. Because God has sanctified Himself _in_ the\nCongregation, and has graciously imparted to her His holiness. He must\ntherefore sanctify Himself upon her,--must manifest His holiness in her\npunishment, if she has become like the profane world. He cannot allow\nthat, after the Spirit has departed, the dead body should still\ncontinue to appear as His kingdom, but strips off the mask of hypocrisy\nfrom His degenerate Church, by representing her outwardly as that\nwhich, by her guilt, she has become inwardly. This thought commonly\nappears in a special [Pg 298] application, by the mention of the name\nof the particular people whom the Lord is, in the immediate future, to\nemploy for the realization of it. In the case before us, however, He is\nsatisfied with pointing to the dignity and power inherent in Him. The\nenemies are designated only as _people from the North_. But it was from\nthe North--from Syria--that all the principal invasions of Palestine\nproceeded. Hence there is no reason either to think of one of them\nexclusively, or to exclude one. On the contrary, the comprehensive\ncharacter of the description distinctly appears in i. 4. It is there,\nat the very threshold, intimated, that the heathenish invasion will be\na fourfold one,--that Israel shall become the prey of four successive\nextensive empires. Joel's mission fell at the commencement of the\nwritten prophecy; and in harmony with this, he gives only an outline of\nthat which it was reserved for the later prophets to fill up, and to\ncarry out in its details, by the mention of the name of each single\nempire, as the times moved on. It was enough that Joel prophesied the\ndestruction by these great empires, even before any one of them had\nappeared on the stage of history, and that he was enabled to point even\nto the fourfold number of them.\n\nThe threat of punishment, joined with exhortations to repentance, to\nwhich the people willingly listened, and humbled themselves before the\nLord, continues down to chap. ii. 17. With this is connected the\nproclamation of salvation--which extends down to chap. iii. 2 (ii. 29).\nThe showing of mercy begins with the fact, that God sends the _Teacher\nof righteousness_. He directs the attention of the people to the design\nof their sufferings, and invites the weary and heavy laden to come to\nthe Lord, that He may refresh them. His voice is heard by those who are\nof a broken heart; and there then follows rich divine blessing, with\nits consummation--the outpouring of the Spirit. Both--the sending of\nthe Teacher of righteousness, and the outpouring of the Spirit--had\ntheir preliminary fulfilments; the first of which took place soon after\nthe commencement of the devastation by the locusts, in the time of the\nAssyrians,--a second, after the destruction by the Babylonians had come\nupon the people,--a third, after the visitation by the Greek tyranny\nunder the Maccabees. But the chief reference of the prophecy is,\nthroughout, to Christ, and to the vouchsafement [Pg 299] of the\nblessing, and to the outpouring of the Spirit, originating in His\nmediation.\n\nThe announcement of salvation for the Covenant-people is, in the third\nand last part, followed by the opposite of it, viz., the announcement\nof judgments upon the enemies of the Congregation of God. Their hatred\nof it, proceeding from hatred to God, is employed by Him, indeed, as a\nmeans of chastising and purifying His Church; but it does not, for that\nreason, cease to be an object of His punitive justice. The fundamental\nidea of this part of the book is expressed in 1 Pet. iv. 17 by the\nwords: \"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of\nGod. And if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that\nobey not the Gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved,\nwhere shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?\" The description bears\nhere also, as in the second and first parts, a comprehensive character.\nThat which, in the course of history, is realized in a long series of\nsingle acts of divine interposition against the enemies of the Church,\nis here brought together in a single scene. The overthrow of Assyria,\nBabylon, the Persian and Grecian monarchies, is comprehended in this\nprophecy. But its final fulfilment must be sought for only in the\nMessianic time. This is sufficiently evident from the relation of this\npart, to the second. Having given ear to the Teacher of righteousness,\nand the Spirit having been poured out upon her, the Congregation has\nbecome an object of the loving providence of God. From this flows the\njudgment upon her enemies. If, then, the promise of the Teacher of\nrighteousness and of the outpouring of the Spirit be, in substance,\nMessianic, so, the judgment too must, in substance, bear a Messianic\ncharacter. The same appears from iv. (iii.) 18, according to which\npassage, simultaneously with the judgments, there cometh forth, from\nthe house of the Lord, a fountain which watereth the valley of\nShittim--the waters of salvation which water the dry land of human\nneed. (Compare the remarks on Ezek. xlvii,; Zech. xiv. 8; and my\n_Comment. on Revel._ xxii. 1.) This feature, however, clearly points to\nthe Messianic time.\n\nWe must here, however, avoid confounding the substance with the\nform,--the idea with the temporary clothing which the prophet puts upon\nit, in accordance with the nature of prophetic [Pg 300] vision, in\nwhich, necessarily, all that is spiritual must be represented in\noutward sketches and forms. This form is as follows:--In the place\nnearest to the temple, and which was able to contain a great multitude\nof people, in the valley of Jehoshaphat, all nations are gathered. (The\nvalley very probably received its name from the appellation which, in\nthe passage under consideration, the prophet gives to it, in order to\nmark its destination; for Jehoshaphat means, \"the Lord judges,\" or\n\"Valley of Judgment.\"[1]) The Lord, enthroned in the temple, exercises\njudgment upon them. In this manner--in outward forms of perception--the\nidea is brought out, that the judgment upon the Gentiles is an effect\nof the kingdom of God; that they are not punished on account of\ntheir violation of the natural law, but because of the hostile\nposition which they had occupied against the teachers of God's revealed\ntruth,--against the Lord Himself who is in His Church. Every violation\nof the natural law may be pardoned to those who have not stood in any\nother relation to God, even although they should have [Pg 301]\nproceeded to the most fearful extent in depravity. They who were once\ndisobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah,\nwere not as yet given over to complete condemnation, but were kept in\nprison until Christ came and preached to them. \"This was the iniquity\nof Sodom: fulness of bread, and abundance of peace, were in her and her\ndaughters; yet the hand of the poor and needy they did not assist; but\nthey were haughty and committed abomination before the Lord: therefore\nHe took them away as He saw good.\" But, nevertheless, the Lord will, at\nsome future time, turn the captivity (the misery) of this Sodom and her\ndaughters, and they shall be restored as they were before,--not\ncorporeally, for their seed is utterly rooted out from the earth, and\neven their place is destroyed, but spiritually; compare Ezek. xvi. 49\nff. But, on the other hand, far more severe punishments are inflicted\nupon those who have rejected, not the abstract, but the concrete\nGod,--not the God who is shut up in the heavens, but the God who\npowerfully manifests Himself on earth, in His Church. It is true, that\nas long as this revelation is still an imperfect one--as it was under\nthe Old Testament dispensation--and hence the guilt of rejecting Him\nless, mercy may still be shown. External destruction does not involve\nspiritual ruin. Moab, indeed, is destroyed, so that it is no longer a\npeople, because it has exalted itself against the Lord; yet, \"in the\nlatter days I will turn the captivity of Moab, saith the Lord,\" Jer.\nxlviii. 47. But when the revelation of the grace of God has become\nperfect, His justice also will be perfectly revealed against all who\nreject it, and rise in hostility against those who are the bearers of\nit: \"Their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched,\nand they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh,\" Is. lxvi. 24. These\nremarks contain the key to all which the Lord declares as to the future\njudgment which, in its completion, belongs only to the future world. It\nis not the world as such, but that world to which the Gospel has been\ndeclared, and in the midst of which the Church has been founded, which\nforms the object of it; compare Matt. xxiv. 14.\n\n\nFootnote 1: _Hofmann_ (_Weissag. u. Erf\u00fcl._ i. S. 203) has revived the\nexplanation, according to which the valley of Jehoshaphat is to be\nunderstood as the valley in which, under Jehoshaphat, judgment was\nexecuted upon several Gentile nations. But this locality, the desert of\nThekoa, which was about three hours distance from Jerusalem (compare my\n_Comment. on the Psalms_, in the _Introduction to Ps._ xlvi. xlviii.\nlxxxiii.), is at too great a distance from the temple, where, according\nto vers. 16 and 17, the Lord holds His judgment upon the nations.\nTradition has rightly perceived that the valley of Jehoshaphat can be\nsought for only in the immediate vicinity of the temple. In favour of\nthe valley of Jehoshaphat now so called, \"at the high east brink of\nMoriah, the temple-hill\" (_Ritter_, _Erdk._ xv. 1, S. 559; xvi. 1, S.\n329), is also Zech. vi. 1-8 (compare the remarks on that passage). From\nthe circumstance that there is, first, the mention of the name, and,\nthen, the statement of its signification, \"And I gather all nations,\nand bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and _plead_ with\nthem there,\" _Hofmann_ infers that the name must have already existed\nas a proper name. There is, however, an analogy in Num. xx. 1: \"And the\npeople encamped at Kadesh;\"--but the place received the name Kadesh\nonly because of the event to be subsequently related: previous to that,\nits name was Barnea. (Compare _Dissert. on Gen. of the Pent._ vol. ii.\np. 310 ff.) The two theological names of the place, which arose only\nfrom the event recorded in Num. xx., occur even as early as Gen. xiv.\n7. The natural name of the valley of Jehoshaphat is, moreover, in all\nlikelihood, _King's Dale_; compare Gen. xiv. 17; 2 Sam. xviii. 18; and\n_Thenius_ on this passage.\n\n\n\n[Pg 302]\n\n JOEL I.-II. 17.\n\nWe shall not dwell here for any length of time upon the history of the\nexpositions of this passage. It has been given with sufficient\nminuteness by _Pococke_ and _Marckius_ among older writers, and by\n_Credner_ among the more modern. We content ourselves with remarking\nthat the figurative exposition is the more ancient, having been adopted\nby the Chaldee Paraphrast, and by the Jews mentioned by _Jerome_, and\nthat we cannot by any means, as _Credner_ does, derive it from\ndoctrinal considerations only; for many, with whom such considerations\nweighed, as _Bochart_, _Pococke_, and _J. D. Michaelis_, do not approve\nof it; whilst, on the other hand, there are among its defenders not a\nfew who were guided by just the opposite motives, such as _Grotius_,\n_Eckermann_, _Berthold_ (Einl. S. 1607 ff.), and _Theiner_. Two\npreliminary questions, however, require to be answered, before we can\nproceed to the main investigation.\n\n1. Does Joel here describe a present, or a future calamity? The former\nhas been asserted, in former times, by _Luther_ and _Calvin_ (compare,\nespecially, his commentary on chap. i. 4), and in more recent times,\nwith special confidence, by _Credner_. But there is nothing to favour\nthis view. The frequent use of the Preterites would prove something in\nsupport of it, provided only we were not standing on prophetical\nground. They are, moreover, found quite in the same manner in chap.\niv.--in that portion which, by all interpreters unanimously, is\nreferred to the future. And yet, if this view were to be acknowledged\nas sound, it ought to commend itself by stringent considerations,\ninasmuch as the prophetic analogy is, _a priori_, against it. There is\nnot found anywhere in the prophets so long and so detailed a\ndescription of the present or the past. But, moreover, if we once give\nup the reference to the future, we could think of the past only; for in\nchap; ii. 18, 19, the description of the salvation following upon the\nmisery, is connected with the preceding context by the Future with _vav\nconversivum_. If, then, the scene of inward vision be forsaken, and\neverything referred to external reality, the calamity described in the\npreceding context must likewise be viewed as one already entirely past,\nand the salvation as already actually existing. It can be proved,\nhowever, [Pg 303] from the contents, by incontrovertible special\nreasons, that the reference to the future is alone the correct one. The\nday of the Lord is several times spoken of as being at hand, which may\nbe explained from the circumstance, that God's judgment upon His Church\nis a necessary effect of His justice, which never rests, but always\nshows itself as active. When, therefore, its object--the sinful\napostasy of the people--is already in existence, its manifestation must\nalso of necessity be expected; and although not the last and highest\nmanifestation, yet such an one as serves for a prelude to it. The day\nof the Lord is, therefore, continually coming, is never absolutely\ndistant; and its being spoken of as _at hand_ is a necessary\nconsequence of the saying, \"Whereseover the carcase is, there will the\neagles be gathered together,\"--a declaration founded upon the divine\nnature, and therefore ever true. (Compare my _Commentary on the\nApocalypse_ i. 1.) This designation is first found in i. 15: \"Alas! for\nthe day, for the day of the Lord is _at hand_, and as a destruction\nfrom the Almighty does it come.\" Here, two expedients for evasion have\nbeen tried. _Justi_ maintained that \"the day is at hand\" was equivalent\nto \"the day is there,\"--an opinion which does not deserve any further\nrefutation. _Holzhausen_, _Credner_, and _Hitzig_ suppose that, by \"the\nday of the Lord,\" we are not to understand the devastation by the\nlocusts, but some severe judgment, to which that served as a prelude.\nThis supposition is, however, opposed, first of all, by the verbal\nparallel passage in Isa. xiii. 6: \"Howl ye, for the day of the Lord is\nat hand; it cometh as a destruction from the Almighty,\"--where the day\nof the Lord cannot be any other than that which is described in the\npreceding context. But this opinion is further opposed by the\ncircumstance, that, in the subsequent context, there is not the\nslightest trace of any other judgment than that of the devastation by\nthe locusts; on the contrary, with its termination, the whole period of\nsuffering comes to an end, as regards the Covenant-people, and the time\nof blessing upon them and of judgment upon their enemies begins. But\nthe necessity for understanding, by \"the day of the Lord at hand,\" the\ndevastation by the locusts, and hence, for viewing the latter as still\nfuture, is even more clearly seen from the second passage, chap. ii. 1,\n2: \"Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy\nmountain; let all the [Pg 304] inhabitants of the land tremble, for the\nday of the Lord _hath come_, for _nigh at hand_, a day of darkness and\ngloominess, a day of clouds and fogs, as the morning-red spread upon\nthe mountains, a people numerous and strong; there hath not been the\nlike from eternity, neither shall there be any more after it, even\nthrough the years of all generations.\" That, by \"the day of the Lord,\"\nwhich the prophet, from the standing-point of his inward vision, here\nspeaks of as having already come, and as being in reality nigh at hand,\nwe must understand the same day as that which is minutely described in\nthe preceding and subsequent context, viz., the devastation by the\nlocusts, appears, in the first place, from the verbal parallel passage,\nEzek. xxx. 2, which likewise speaks of one day only: \"Thou son of man,\nprophesy and say. Thus saith the Lord, Howl ye, woe for the day! For\nthe day is near, a day to the Lord, a day of clouds, the time of the\nheathen it shall be.\" But what places the matter beyond all doubt are\nthe words: \"A people numerous and strong.\" These words, by which,\naccording to what follows, the locusts only can be understood, form an\nexplanatory apposition to \"the day of the Lord,\" \"the day of darkness,\"\netc. To this we may further add, that, by the last words, this judgment\nis represented as the most formidable, and the last by which Judea\nshall be visited; so that we cannot by any means think of a subsequent\nlater day of the Lord. 2. Are the different names of the locusts\ndesignations of various species of locusts, or are these, beside the\ncommon name of the locusts, only poetical names, which denote the\nqualities coming into consideration? _Credner_ has attempted to prove\nthe former. He maintains that Joel's description has to do with two\ngenerations of locusts,--the first belonging to the end of one\nyear,--the second, to the beginning of the year following. The latter\nhe thinks to be the offspring of the former. In accordance with this\nhypothesis, he explains the different names, \u05d2\u05d6\u05dd is, according to him,\nthe migratory locust, which visits Palestine chiefly in autumn; \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4,\nelsewhere the general name of locusts, here the young brood; \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7, the\nyoung locust in the last stage of its transformation, or between the\nthird and fourth casting of the skin; \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc, the perfect locust,\nproceeding from the last transformation, and, hence, as the brood\nproceeded from the \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc ,\u05d2\u05d6\u05dd would be the same \u05d2\u05d6\u05dd.\n\n[Pg 305]\n\nIt forms a general argument against this hypothesis, that, according to\nit, the prophet should enter so deeply and minutely into the natural\nhistory of locusts, that a Professor of that science might learn from\nhim. There is nothing analogous to this, either in Scripture generally,\nor in the Prophets particularly. The difficulty, moreover, increases,\nwhen we assume--what has been already proved--that the description\nrefers to the future. The religious impression which the prophet has,\nafter all, solely in view, would not gain, but suffer by such a minute\ndetail in the description of a future natural event,--especially such\nas a devastation by locusts.\n\nA closer examination proves that the whole explanation of the names of\nthe locusts, upon which the hypothesis is built, is untenable. It\nappears, then, that the prophet knows of only one kind of locusts,\nwhich he divides into four hosts; and that, with the exception of \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4,\nthe names are not those of natural history, but poetical, and taken\nfrom the qualities of the locusts.\n\nLet us first demonstrate that the interpretation of \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7, upon which\n_Credner_ founds that of the other names, is inadmissible. This\ninterpretation, he maintains (S. 295), is put beyond all doubt by the\npassage, Nah. iii. 16: \"The \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7 casts its skin and flies away.\" The\nmerchants, who constituted the principal part of the population of\nNineveh, are, according to him, compared to a \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7 which flies away,\nafter having cast his skin for the third or last time. But this passage\nof Nahum, when minutely examined and correctly interpreted, is by\nitself sufficient to refute that opinion concerning the \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7. In ver.\n15, it is said concerning Nineveh: \"There shall the fire devour thee,\nthe sword shall cut thee off, it shall eat thee up, as the _licker_\n(\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05e7): make thyself many as the _lickers_, make thyself many as the\nlocusts. Ver. 16: Thou hast multiplied thy merchants like the stars of\nheaven; _lickers broke through and flew away_. Ver. 17: Thy princes are\nlike locusts, and thy captains are as a host of grasshoppers, which\ncamp on the hedges in the day of cold. The sun has risen, and they flee\naway, and their place is not known where they are.\" This passage just\nproves that \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7 must be _winged_ locusts. The inhabitants of Nineveh\nare numerous like the locusts; numerous are her rich merchants; but\nsuddenly there cometh upon them a numberless host of locusts, who rob\n[Pg 306] them of everything, and fly away. They who rob and fly away,\nin ver. 16, are not the merchants, but the enemies. This becomes quite\nevident from the comparison of ver. 15, where quite the same antithesis\nis found between--\"The sword shall eat thee up as the lickers\"\n(Nominat.), and \"Make thyself many as the lickers.\" The verb \u05e4\u05e9\u05d8, in\nits common signification, _irruit_, _invasit ad praedam agendam_, is\nhere, in reference to the merchants, very significant. But what is\ndecisive against the explanation of _Credner_ is this:--that the\nsignification \"to cast the skin\" cannot be established at all, and that\nthe whole sense is utterly unsuitable. For the discourse is not here,\nby any means, of mercenaries or foreign traders, but of the native\nmerchants of Nineveh, just as, in the subsequent verses, the discourse\nis about her own nobles. How then could that image be suitable, which\nmust certainly denote a safe transition from one state into a\nbetter?--_Credner_ moreover refers to Jer. li. 27, where to \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7 the\nquality \u05e1\u05de\u05e8, _horridus_, is ascribed. This, according to him, is to be\nreferred to the rough, horn-like coverings of the wings of the young\nlocusts. But, according to the context, and to the analogy of the\nparallel passage, li. 14, we should rather expect that \"horrid\" is here\na designation of the multitude. (Compare the \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 of the\nLXX.) But it is still more natural to give to \u05e1\u05de\u05e8 the signification of\n\"awful,\" \"terrible.\" (Compare Ps. cxix. 120, where the verb occurs with\nthe meaning \"to shudder.\")--That by \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7, not the young brood, but the\nwinged locusts are to be understood, appears also from a comparison of\nPs. cv. 34 with Exod. x. 12 ff. In Exod. a single army of _flying_\nlocusts overspread Egypt; the Psalmist, in recalling this event to\nmemory, says: \"He spake, and the locusts came, and \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7 without number.\"\nFrom this passage, especially when compared with Ps. lxxvii. 46, where,\ninstead of \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc ,\u05d9\u05dc\u05e7 is interchanged with \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4, which alone is found in\nExod., it is very clearly seen that \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7, the _licker_, is nothing else\nthan a poetical epithet of the locusts. It never occurs, indeed, in\nprose; and this can be the less accidental, as \u05d2\u05d6\u05dd, the _gnawer_, is\nalso never found in prose writings, and \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc only once, in the prayer\nof Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 37--as that which it is in reality, as a mere\nattribute to \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4. That \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7 has its name from the eating, is shown by\nNah. iii. 15: \"The sword shall eat thee up as the \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7.\" And, in\naddition to this, we may [Pg 307] further urge, that the exposition\nof \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 is altogether fictitious, and contradicted by all the\npassages;--that the prophet in ii. 25 inverts the order, and puts the\n\u05d2\u05d6\u05dd last, from which it is certainly to be safely inferred that the\narrangement in i. 4 is not a chronological one;--that _Credner_\nhimself, by his being obliged to grant that \u05d2\u05d6\u05dd and \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc do not signify\na particular kind of locusts, raises suspicions against his\ninterpreting the two other names of particular kinds;--and that if this\ninterpretation were to be considered as correct, \u05d2\u05d6\u05dd and \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc must\ndenote the locusts as fully grown. But that is by no means the case.\nThe origin of the name \u05d2\u05d6\u05dd is, moreover, clearly shown by Amos iv. 9:\n\"Your vineyards, your fig-trees, and your olive-trees,--\u05d4\u05d2\u05d6\u05dd devours\nthem.\" As regards the corn, other divine means of destruction had been\nmentioned immediately before; the trees alone then remained for the\nlocusts, and they received a name corresponding to this special\ndestination, viz., \u05d4\u05d2\u05d6\u05dd, the _gnawer_.--The verb \u05d7\u05e1\u05dc is, in Deut.\nxxviii. 38, used of the devouring of the locusts, and \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc never occurs\nexcepting where the locusts are viewed in this capacity. (Besides the\npassages already quoted, compare Is. xxxiii. 4.)\n\nThe following also may be considered. The description of the ravages of\nthe second brood is, according to _Credner_, to begin in chap. ii. 4.\nBut the suffix in ver. 4 refers directly to the winged locusts spoken\nof in vers. 1-3; and in the verb \u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e6\u05d5\u05df they are the subject.\n\nAnd now, every one may judge what value is to be attached to a\nhypothesis which has everything against it, and nothing in its favour,\nand the essential suppositions of which--such as the departure of the\nswarms, their leaving their eggs behind, their death in the Red\nSea--are, as the author of the hypothesis himself confesses, passed\nover in silence by the prophet.\n\nWe may now proceed to the solution of our proper problem. There are no\ngeneral reasons, either against the figurative, or against the literal\ninterpretation; neither of them has any unfavourable prejudice which\ncan be urged against it. A devastation by real locusts is threatened,\nin the Pentateuch, against the transgressors of the law, Deut. xxviii.\n38, 39; against the Egyptians, the Lord actually made use of this,\namong other methods of punishment; and a devastation in Israel by\nlocusts is, in Amos iv. 9, represented as an effect of divine\nanger.--[Pg 308]On the other hand, figurative representations of that\nkind are of very common occurrence. In Isaiah, _e.g._, the invading\nAssyrians and Egyptians appear, in a continuous description, as swarms\nof flies and bees. The comparison of hostile armies with locusts is\nvery common, not only on account of their multitude (from which\ncircumstance the locusts received their name in Hebrew), but also on\naccount of the sudden surprise, and the devastation: compare Judges vi.\n5; Jer. xlvi. 23, li. 27; Judith ii. 11. Several times a hostile\ninvasion also is represented under the _image_ and _symbol_ of the\nplague of the locusts. In Nah. iii. 15-17, the Assyrians appear in\nthe form of locusts,--and that this is not only on account of their\nnumbers, but also on account of the devastations which they make, is\nshown by the comparison with the \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7 in ver. 15;--and just in the same\nmanner are the enemies described who accomplish their overthrow.\nAnd,--what is completely analogous,--in Amos vii. 1-3, the prophet\nbeholds the approaching divine judgment under the image of a swarm of\nlocusts, just as, in ver. 4, under that of a fire, and in ver. 7, under\nthat of a plumb-line. All these three images are in substance\nidentical; their meaning is expressed in ver. 9 by the words: \"The high\nplaces of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall\nbe destroyed.\" The locusts denote destroying hostile armies; the fire\ndenotes war; and the plumb-line, the destruction to be accomplished by\nthe enemies. It was so much the more natural to represent the divine\njudgment under the image of a devastation by locusts--as is done also\nin Rev. ix. 3 ff.--because, formerly, it had actually manifested itself\nin this way in Egypt. The figurative representation had therefore a\nsignificant substratum in the history of the past. But it is,\nthroughout, the custom of the prophets to describe the future under the\nimage of the analogous past, which, as it were, is revived in it.--It\nought to be still further remarked, that we must, _a priori_, be the\nless indisposed to admit a detailed symbolical representation in Joel,\nas the two prophets, betwixt whom he is placed, have likewise such\nsymbolical portions.\n\nThe decision depends, therefore, upon the internal character of the\ndescription itself. An allegory must betray itself as such, by\nsignificant hints; where these are wanting, it is arbitrary to assume\nits existence. Following the order of the [Pg 309] text, we shall bring\ntogether everything of this kind which we find in it.\n\nThe words, even, of the introduction,--\"Hath any such thing happened in\nyour days, and in the days of your fathers? Of it you shall tell your\nsons, and your sons to their sons, and their sons to the succeeding\ngeneration,\"--scarcely permit us to think of a devastation by locusts\nin the literal sense. It could only be by means of the grossest\nexaggeration--which, if it were far from any prophet, was certainly so\nfrom the simple and mild Joel--that he could represent, as the greatest\ndisaster which ever befell, or should ever befall the nation, a\ndevastation by locusts which was, after all, only a transitory evil.\nFor it is the greatness of the disaster which is implied in the call to\nrelate it to the latest posterity; no later suffering should be so\ngreat as to cause this one to be forgotten.\n\nWe must not overlook the expression in ver. 6: \"_For a nation_ (\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9)\nhas come up over my land.\" \"Nation,\" according to most interpreters, is\nthought to signify the mere multitude; but in that case, \u05e2\u05dd would\ncertainly have been used, as is done in Prov. xxx. 25, 26, concerning\nthe ants. In \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 there is implied not only the idea of what is\nhostile--this _Credner_ too acknowledges--but also of what is profane.\nThis, indeed, is the principal idea; and, on this account, even the\ndegenerate Covenant-people several times receive the name \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9. That\nthis principal idea is here likewise applicable, is evident from the\nantithesis: \"Over my land.\" It is true, that the suffix cannot be\nreferred to Jehovah, as is done by _J. H. Michaelis_ and others,\nalthough the antithesis would thus most strikingly appear; but as\nlittle can we refer it, as is done by modern interpreters, to the\nprophet as an individual; for, in this case the antithesis would be\nlost altogether. The comparison of vers. 7 and 19 clearly shows that,\naccording to a common practice (compare the Introduction to Micah, and\nthe whole prophecy of Habakkuk), the prophet speaks in the name of the\npeople of God. A strange, unheard-of event! A heathen host has invaded\nthe land of the people of God! The antithesis is in ii. 18: \"Then the\nLord was jealous for His land, and spared His people.\" We do not think\nthat the prophet loses sight of his image. He designates the locust as\nthe heathen host; but he would not have chosen this designation, which,\nwhen literally [Pg 310] understood, is very strange, unless the matter\nhad induced him to do so. If it be understood figuratively, Amos vi. 14\nentirely harmonizes with it.--In the same verse (Joel i. 6) it is said:\n\"His teeth, the teeth of a lion, cheek teeth of a lion to him;\" on\nwhich Rev. ix. 8 is to be compared. This comparison is quite suitable\nto figurative locusts, to furious enemies (compare Is. v. 29; Nah. ii.\n12, 13; Jer. ii. 15, iv. 7, xlix. 19; Ezek. xxxii. 2; Dan. vii. 4), but\nnot to natural locusts; for the lion cannot possibly be the symbol of\nmere voracity.\n\nIt is remarkable, that in the description of the locusts in this verse,\nand throughout, their flying is not mentioned at all. It is only in\nchap. ii. 2, \"Day of darkness and gloominess, day of clouds and thick\ndarkness,\" that _Credner_ supposes such an allusion to exist. The\ndarkness is, according to him, in consequence of the swarm of locusts\ncoming up in the skies. But the incorrectness of such a supposition is\nimmediately perceived, upon a comparison of chap. ii. 10. Before the\nhost, and before it arrives, the earth quakes, the heavens tremble, sun\nand moon cover themselves with darkness, and the stars withdraw their\nshining. It is only after all this has happened, that the Lord\napproaches at the head of His host. It is not from this host,\ntherefore, that the darkness can proceed. On the contrary, the\ndarkening of the heavens, as is quite conclusively shown by the\nnumerous almost literally agreeing parallel passages (compare the\nremarks on Zech. xiv. 6), is the symbol of the anger of God, the sign\nthat He approaches as a Judge, and an Avenger. But in what way could\nthe omission of every reference to the flying of the locusts, in a\ndescription so minute, be accounted for other than this: that the\nreality presented nothing corresponding to this feature?\n\nIt is only the heaviest and most continuous suffering, and not a\ntransitory plague by locusts, which can justify the call in i. 8: \"Howl\nlike a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth.\" This\nverse forms the transition to ver. 9, where the sacrifice in the house\nof Jehovah appears as cut off, and connects Joel with Hosea, in whom\nthe image, of which the outlines only are given here, appears finished.\nZion has also lost the friend of her youth--the Lord; compare Prov. ii.\n17: \"Who forsaketh the friend of her youth, and forgot the covenant of\nher God;\" Is. liv. 6; Jer. ii. 2, iii. 4.--Of great [Pg 311] importance\nfor the question under consideration are ver. 9: \"The meat-offering and\ndrink-offering are cut off from the house of the Lord;\" and ver. 13:\n\"Gird yourselves and lament, ye priests, howl ye ministers of the\naltar, come, spend all night in sackcloth, ye ministers of my God; for\nthe meat-offering and drink-offering are withholden from the house of\nyour God.\" It is quite inconceivable that the want of provisions,\nresulting from a natural devastation by real locusts, could have been\nthe reason that the meat-offering and drink-offering, which, in a\nmaterial point of view, were of so little value, should have been\nwithheld from the Lord; inasmuch as the cessation of it appears in\nthese passages as the consummation of the national calamity. During the\nsiege of Jerusalem by Pompey, the legal sacrifices existed, according\nto _Josephus_ (_Arch._ xiv. 4, \u00a7 3), even amidst the greatest dangers\nto life, during the irruption of the enemies into the city, and in the\nmidst of the carnage. It is true that, during the last siege by the\nRomans, when matters had come to an extremity, _Johannes_ ordered the\nsacrifices to be discontinued. But this was done, not from want of\nmaterials, but because there were none to offer them--from \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u1fb3, as _Josephus_ says (_Bell. Jud._ vi. 2, \u00a7 1; compare _Reland_\nin _Havercamp_ on this passage)--and to the great dissatisfaction of\nthe people in the city, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6. The national view is\nexpressed in what _Josephus_ says on this occasion to Johannes, to whom\nhe had been sent by Titus on account of this event: \"If any man should\nrob thee of thy daily food, thou, most wicked man, wouldst certainly\nconsider him as thine enemy. Dost thou then think that thou wilt have\nfor thine associate in this war, God, whom thou hast robbed of His\neternal worship?\" But the sound explanation readily suggests itself, as\nsoon as it is admitted that behind the locusts the Gentiles are\nconcealed. In that case, Dan. ix. 27, where the destroyer makes\nsacrifice and oblation to cease, is parallel. The destruction of the\ntemple is also announced by the contemporary Amos in chap. ix.; compare\nii. 5: \"And I send fire upon Judah, and it devours the palaces of\nJerusalem.\" Of a similar purport, in the time after Joel, is the\npassage in Micah, chap. iii. 12.\n\nThe words in ver. 15--\"Woe, for the day, for the day of the Lord is at\nhand, and as destruction from the Almighty does it come,\"--point to\nsomething infinitely higher than a mere [Pg 312] desolation by locusts\nin the literal sense. This appears from a comparison of Is. xiii. 6,\nwhere they are taken, almost verbatim, from Joel, and used with a\nreference to the judgment of the Lord upon the whole earth. This is\ngranted even by _Credner_ himself, when he makes the vain attempt\n(compare S. 345) to refer them to a judgment different from the\ndevastation by the locust. The same is the case with _Maurer_ and\n_Hitzig_. How, indeed, is it at all conceivable that a national\ncalamity, so small and transient as a devastation by real locusts would\nhave been, should have been considered by the prophet as the day of the\nLord of the people in the city, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u1fc4\u03bd, as the conclusion and\ncompletion of all the judgments upon the Covenant-people? A conception\nlike this would imply such low notions of God's justice, and such a\ntotal misapprehension of the greatness of human guilt, as we find in\nnone of the Old Testament prophets, and, generally, in none of the\nwriters of Holy Scripture. That which the men of God under the Old\nTestament, from the first--Moses--to the last, announce, is the total\nexpulsion of the people from the country which they defiled by their\nsins.\n\nThe image suddenly changes in vers. 19 and 20: \"To thee, O Lord, do I\ncry. For fire devoureth the pastures of the wilderness, and flame\nburneth all the trees of the field. Even the beasts of the field desire\nfor Thee; for the fountains of waters are dried up, and fire devoureth\nthe pastures of the wilderness.\" The divine punishment appears under\nthe image of an all-devouring fire. Now, since we cannot here think of\na literal fire, it is certain that, in the preceding verses also, a\nfigurative representation prevails. _Holzhausen_ and _Credner_ (S.\n163), and others, attempt to evade this troublesome inference, by\nasserting that fire and flame are here used instead of the heat of the\nsun, scorching everything. But this assertion is, at all events,\nexpressed in a distorted and awkward manner. Fire and flame are never\nused of the heat of the sun. According to this view, it ought rather to\nbe said that the prophet represents the consuming heat, under the image\nof fire poured down from heaven. But even this cannot be entertained.\nFor the parallel passage chap. ii. 3, \"Before him fire devoureth, and\nafter him flame burneth,\" shows that the fire, being immediately\nconnected with the locusts, cannot be a cause of destruction\nindependent of, and co-ordinate with, them. That the locusts are the\nsole cause of [Pg 313] the devastation, and that there is not another\ncause besides them, viz., the heat, is evident also from the words: \"As\nthe garden of Eden is the land before them, and behind them a desolate\nwilderness, and nothing is left by them.\" The burning anger of God is\nrepresented under the image of a consuming and destroying fire, with a\nreference to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which the divine\nwrath really manifested itself in that way. Under the image of fire,\n_war_ also, one of the principal punishments of God, is often\nrepresented. Thus, fire means the fire of war in Num. xxi. 28: Amos i.\n4, 7, 10, etc.; Jer. xlix. 27; Rev. viii. 8, 10. On the latter of these\npassages, my Commentary may be compared. If, then, the fire spoken of\nin this passage mean likewise the fire of war, and the locusts, the\nheathen enemies, the difficulty presented by the connection of these\ntwo things is solved. The comparison of Amos vii. here serves as a key.\nIn vers. 1-3, the divine punishment is represented by the prophet under\nthe image of a great army of locusts laying waste the country, which is\njust beginning to recover under Jeroboam II. after the former\ncalamities inflicted by the Syrians; and then in ver. 4, under the\nimage of a great fire devouring the sea (_i.e._, the world), and eating\nup the holy land. This analogy is so much the more important, the more\nimpossible it is to overlook, in other passages also, the points of\nagreement betwixt Joel and Amos. But the symbolical representation goes\nstill further; it extends even to the details. The beasts of the field\nare the barbarous, heathen nations. In ver. 19, the desolations are\ndescribed which the fire of war accomplishes among Israel; in ver. 20,\nthose which it effects among the Gentiles: compare the antithesis\nbetween the beasts of the field and the sons of Zion in ii. 22. In Is.\nlvi. 9, the beasts of the field likewise occur as a figurative\ndesignation of the heathen. In Jer. xiv.--a prophecy which has been\ndistorted by expositors through a too literal interpretation--the image\nis, in vers. 5, 6, individualized by the mention of particular wild\nbeasts--the hind and the wild ass. Joel himself indicates that the\nbeasts in this description must, in general, be understood\nfiguratively, by using in ver. 18 the word \u05e0\u05d0\u05e9\u05de\u05d5, which can be\nexplained only by \"become guilty,\" \"suffer punishment.\" (Compare Is.\nxxiv. 6: \"Therefore curse devoureth the land, and they that dwell in it\nbecome guilty;\" and [Pg 314] Hos. xiv. 1.) The word \u05e0\u05d0\u05e0\u05d7\u05d4, which is\nnever used of beasts, likewise leads us to think of men. \"How do the\nbeasts groan,\" is explained by \"All the merry-hearted do groan,\" in Is.\nxxiv. 7. The words \u05ea\u05e2\u05e8\u05d2 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05da, in which there is an evident allusion to\nPs. xlii. 2, must likewise appear strange, if the description be\nunderstood literally. But what is decisive in favour of the figurative\ninterpretation is ii. 22: \"Be not afraid, ye beasts of the field, for\nthe pastures of the wilderness are green with grass, for the tree\nbeareth her fruit, the fig-tree and vine do yield their strength.\" The\nobject of joy is here described, first, figuratively, and then,\nliterally. The pastures of the wilderness are green with grass, _i.e._,\nthe tree, etc. It is only thus that the \u05db\u05d9 can be accounted for; it\nstates the reason, only when the pastures of the wilderness are not\nunderstood literally. _The fruits of the trees are mentioned here as\nthe ordinary food of the beasts of the field._ _Hitzig_, it is true,\nremarks on this: \"That many beasts of the field feed upon fruits of\ntrees which they gather up, and that, _e.g._, foxes eat grapes also.\"\nBut the point at issue here is the ordinary food; and Gen. i. 29, 30,\nwhere the trees are given to man, and the grass to the beasts, is\ndecisive as to the literal or figurative interpretation. Under the\nimage of unclean beasts--especially wild beasts--the Gentiles appear\nalso in Acts xi. 6.--Nor can \"the rivers of water\" (ver. 20) be\nunderstood literally. The water of rivers, brooks, and fountains, is,\nin Scripture, the ordinary figure for the sources of sustenance, of\nthriving, wealth, and prosperity; compare remarks on Rev. viii. 10.\n\nChap. ii. 2 is to be considered as indicating the reason which induced\nJoel to choose this figurative representation. The words, \"There hath\nnot been anything the like from eternity, neither may there be any more\nafter it, even to the years of all generations,\" are borrowed, almost\nverbally, from Exod. x. 14. The prophet thereby indicates that he\ntransfers the past, in its individual definiteness, to the future,\nwhich bears a substantial resemblance to it. What was then said of the\nplague of locusts especially, is here applied to the calamity thereby\nprefigured. From among all the judgments upon the Covenant-people (for\nthese alone are spoken of), this judgment is the highest and the last;\nand such the prophet could say, only if the whole sum of divine\njudgments, up to their consummation, represented [Pg 315] itself to his\ninner vision under the image of the devastation by locusts. The\nabsurdities into which men are led by the hypothesis of a later origin\nof the Pentateuch, are here seen in a remarkable instance--viz., in the\nassertion of _Credner_, that the passage in Exodus is an imitation of\nthat of Joel. The verse immediately following, \"As the garden of Eden\n(_i.e._, Paradise) the land is before him,\" has an obvious reference to\nGenesis, not only to Gen. ii. 8, but also to xiii. 10, where the vale\nof Siddim, before the divine judgment, is compared to the garden of\nJehovah--to Paradise.\n\nIn chap. ii. 6 it is said, \"Before him nations tremble.\" That the\nmention of the _nations_ here is but ill adapted to the literal\ninterpretation, appears from the circumstance, that while _Credner_\nunderstands by the \u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd, Judah and Benjamin, _Hitzig_ attempts to\nexplain it by people. But if, by the locusts, the heathen conquerors\nare designated, the \u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd is quite in its place. When the powerful\nheathen empires overflowed the land, Israel always formed only a part\nof a large whole of nations; compare i. 19, ii. 22. Amos describes how\nthe fire of war and of the desire of conquest raged, not only in\nIsrael, but among all the nations round about, and consumed them. In\naddition to Amos chap. i. compare especially Amos vii. 4, 5, where, as\nobjects of hostile visitation, are pointed out, first, the sea, _i.e._,\nthe world, and then, the heritage of the Lord. According to Is. x. 6,\nthe mission of Asshur was a very comprehensive one. In Habakkuk and\nJer. chap. xxv. the judgments which the Chaldeans inflicted upon Judah,\nappear only as a part of a universal judgment upon all nations.\n\nAccording to chap. ii. 7-9, the locusts take the city by storm. They\ncannot be warded off by force of arms. They climb the wall. They fill\nthe streets, and enter by force into the houses. Peal locusts are not\ndangerous to towns, but only to the fields.\n\nIn chap. ii. 11, every feature is against the literal explanation. \"And\nthe Lord giveth His voice before His army; for His camp is very\nnumerous, for he is strong that executeth His word; for the day of the\nLord is great and very terrible, who can comprehend it?\" There is not\nthe remotest analogy in favour of the supposition which would represent\nan army of locusts as the host and camp of God, at the head of which He\n[Pg 316] Himself marches as a general, and before which He causes His\nthunders to resound like trumpets. It is true that, in some Arabic\nwriter, this is mentioned as a Mosaic command: \"You shall not kill\nlocusts, for they are the host of God, the Most High;\" see _Bochart_\nii. p. 482, ed. _Rosenm\u00fcller_ iii. p. 318. But who does not see that\nthis sentence owes its origin to the passage under consideration? Is.\nxiii. 2-5, where the Lord marches at the head of a great army to\ndestroy the whole earth, may here be compared; and on Joel ii. 10,\n\"Before him the earth quaketh, the heavens tremble, the sun and the\nmoon mourn, and the stars withdraw their shining,\" Is xiii. 10 and Jer.\niv. 28 may be compared, where, in the view of threatening hostile\ninundation, the earth laments, and the heavens above mourn.\n\nIn ii. 17, \"Give not Thine heritage to reproach, _that the heathen\nshould rule over them_\" (\u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05dd \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd), the prophet drops the figure\naltogether, and allows the reality--the devastation of the country by\nheathen enemies--to appear in all its nakedness. (It is worthy of\nnotice that by the term \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd in this verse, our remarks on \u05d2\u05d9\u05d5 in ii. 6\nreceive a confirmation.) The defenders of the literal explanation have\ntried a twofold mode of escaping from this difficulty. _Michaelis_\nexplains thus: \"Spare Thy people, and deliver them from that plague of\nlocusts. For if they should continue to swarm any longer, the greatest\nfamine would arise, and Thy people, in order to satisfy the cravings of\nhunger, would be compelled to flee into the territories of heathen\nnations to serve them for bread, and to submit not only to their sway,\nbut to ignominy.\" But every one must at once see how far-fetched this\nexplanation is. In all history we do not find any instance in which a\ndevastation by locusts--which affects the produce of one year only, and\neven this never completely and throughout the whole country--has\nreduced a people to the necessity of placing themselves under the\ndominion of foreign nations. Modern interpreters--and especially\n_Credner_--take refuge in another explanation: \"Give not up Thine\nheritage to the mockery of heathens over them.\" They assert that the\nsignification \"to mock\" is required by the parallelism. But we cannot\nsee how, and why. The ignominy of Israel consisted just in this, that\nthey, the heritage of the Lord, were brought under the dominion of the\nGentiles, It is Just by the parallelism that the signification \"to\nrule\" is required. For it is the heritage [Pg 317] of the Lord, and the\ndominion of the Gentiles, which form a striking contrast, and not their\nmockery. The very same contrast is implied in ver. 18, in the words:\n\"Then the Lord was jealous for His land.\" In these, the prophet reports\nthe manner in which the Lord put away that glaring contradiction. They\nare not natural locusts, but only the heathen enemies, who can be the\nobjects of the jealousy of the Lord; _His_ land. _His_ people, He\ncannot give up as a prey to heathen nations. But _further_--and this\nalone is sufficient to settle the question--the explanation is\naltogether unphilological. The verb \u05de\u05e9\u05dc never has the signification \"to\nmock;\" the phrase \u05de\u05b8\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05dc \u05de\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc, \"to form a proverb,\" is altogether peculiar\nto Ezekiel, in whose prophecies it several times occurs. In the other\nbooks, nothing occurs which would be, even in the smallest degree, to\nthe purpose, except that in the ancient language of the Pentateuch\n\u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd occurs once, in Num. xxi. 27, in the signification \"poets.\"\nThe verb \u05de\u05e9\u05dc with \u05d1 means always, and without exception, \"to rule\nover\"--properly, \"to rule by entering into any one.\" Thus it occurs\nespecially in that passage which the prophet had in view, Deut.\nxv. 5, 6: \"If thou wait hearken unto the voice of Jehovah thy God ...\nthou shalt rule over many nations, and they shall not rule over\nthee,\" \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d1\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d1\u05da. Compare also the very similar\npassages, Ps. cvi. 41: \"And He gave them into the hand of the heathen,\nand they that hated them ruled over them,\" \u05d5\u05d9\u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05dd; and Lament, v. 8:\n\"Servants rule over us,\"\u05d1\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5. That it is from prejudice alone that\nthe selection of the signification \"to mock\" can be accounted for,\nappears also from the circumstance that all the old Translators (the\nLXX., _Jonath._, _Syr._, _Vulg._) render it by \"to rule.\"\n\nMore than one proof is offered by ver. 20: \"And I will remove from you\nthe Northman, and will drive him into the land dry and desolate; his\nvan into the fore sea, and his rear into the hinder sea; and his stench\nshall come up, and his ill-savour shall arise, for he has magnified to\ndo.\"\n\n1. If we understand this literally, and refer it to real locusts, then\nthe designation by \u05d4\u05e6\u05e4\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9, _i.e._, \"one from the North,\" \"a Northman,\"\nis inexplicable. It is true that there is no foundation for the common\nassertion, that locusts move only from the South to the North (compare\n_Credner_, S. 284); but in all history there is not one instance known\nof locusts having come [Pg 318] to Palestine from the North--from\nSyria. But even although occasionally single swarms, after having come\nto Syria from their native country, the hot and dry South, may have\nstrayed thence to Palestine, such is not conceivable of so enormous a\nswarm as is here described, which, with youthful strength, devastated\nthe whole of Palestine from one end to the other. Is it, moreover,\nprobable that the prophet, who, as we have already seen, prophesies\nthings future, would mention a circumstance so accidental as the\ntransient abode of a swarm of locusts in Syria? Such a residence,\n_besides_, would not justify the assertion. The termination \u05be\u05b4\u05be\u05d9 added\nto common names, indicates origin and descent. An inhabitant of a town,\nfor example, who should reside for a short time in a village, could not\nfor that reason be called a \u05e4\u05e8\u05d6\u05d9.--_Finally_--The native country of the\nreal locusts is plainly enough indicated by the words: \"And I will\ndrive him into the land dry and desolate.\" Who does not see that, by\nthese words, the hot and dry southern countries are marked out, and\nthat the prophet expresses the thought, \"The enemies will be driven\nback to the place whence they came,\" by mentioning the country from\nwhich the real locusts used to come? Our opponents are here greatly\nembarrassed. Some explain: \"The locusts marching northward,\"--_Hezel_\nand _Justi_, without the slightest countenance from the _usus\nloquendi_: \"The dark and fearful host.\" This opinion was approved of by\n_Gesenius_ in the _Thesaurus_; but in opposition to it _Hitzig_ may be\ncompared, who himself gives the explanation, \"The Typhonic.\" _V. C\u00f6ln_\n(_de Joelis aetate_, Marb. 1811, p. 10). _Ewald_ and _Meier_ propose a\nchange in the text. With the reasons preventing us from referring the\nexpression to the locusts In a literal sense, we may combine the fact\nthat the North is constantly mentioned as the native land of the most\ndangerous enemies of Israel, viz., the Assyrians and Chaldeans. And\nalthough this designation be. In a geographical point of view.\nInaccurate, this is outweighed by the circumstance, that enemies always\nInvaded Palestine from Syria, after having previously made that land a\npart of their dominions. Compare Zeph. ii. 13: \"And the Lord stretches\nout His hand over the _North_, and destroys Assyria, and makes Nineveh\na desolation--a dry wilderness;\" Jer. i. 14: \"And the Lord said unto\nme, Out of the _North_ the evil shall break forth upon all the\ninhabitants of the land;\" Jer. iii. 18, where [Pg 319] the land of the\nNorth is mentioned as the land of the captivity of Judah and Israel;\nJer. iv. 6, vi. 1, 22, x. 22, xlvi. 24, where the people of the North\nform the antithesis to Egypt, the African power; and Zech. ii. 10.\n_Jerome_ long ago remarked: \"The prophet mentions the North, that we\nmight not think of real locusts, which are wont to come from the South,\nbut might, by the locusts, understand the Assyrians and Chaldeans.\"\n\n2. That we have here to do with a poetical description, and not with\none of natural history, appears from a designation of the places to\nwhich the locusts are to be driven. Among these, the dry and hot\nsouthern country--the Arabian desert--is first mentioned; then, the\nanterior sea, _i.e._, the Dead Sea, situated eastward of Jerusalem; and\nlastly, the hinder, or Mediterranean Sea. That, according to the view\nof the prophet, the dispersion in these different directions was to\ntake place in a moment, appears from the circumstance that, according\nto his description, the van of the same army is driven into one sea,\nand the rear, into the other sea. Now, every one very easily sees that\nthis is a physical impossibility, inasmuch as opposite winds cannot\nblow at the same time. _Credner's_ explanation, according to which the\n\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd of the locusts is intended to be the swarm of those who first\ninvaded Palestine, while \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5 is their brood, deserves mention in so\nfar only as it affords a proof of the greatness of the absurdities into\nwhich one may be deluded, after he has once adopted a groundless\nhypothesis.\n\n3. The words, \"For he has magnified to do,\" state the reason of the\ndestruction of the locusts. They are _punished_ in this manner, because\nthey have _committed sin_ by their proud haughtiness. Because they have\nmagnified to do, the Lord now magnifies Himself to do against them,\nver. 21; He glorifies Himself in their destruction, since, at the time\nof their power, they glorified themselves, and trampled God under foot.\nBut sin and punishment necessarily imply responsibility; and it would\nbe indeed difficult to prove that, in the way of a poetical figure, any\nprophet would ascribe such to irrational creatures; while, as regards\nthe heathen enemies of Israel, the thought here expressed is of\nconstant occurrence.\n\nIn chap. ii. 25, \"And I restore to you the years (\u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd) which the\nlocusts have eaten,\" etc., _several_ years of calamity are spoken of.\nBut we cannot agree with _Ewald_ in thinking that [Pg 320] the land\nwas, for several years, laid waste by locusts: we are prevented from\ndoing so by the single word \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8 in chap. i. 4. _Bochart_ rightly\nremarks: \"The produce of the new year cannot be called the residue of\nthe former year. That word is much more applicable to the fruits of\nsome fields, which are passed by, or to the residue left in a field,\nwhich should be eaten up in the same year.\" As little can we suppose,\nwith _Ewald_, that the plural is here used with reference to the\neffects produced, by the devastation of one year, upon the ensuing\nyears; for it is not a possible loss which is here spoken of, but one\nwhich has actually taken place. The prophet then passes, here also,\nfrom the image to the thing itself,--to the hostile invasions extending\nover longer periods, which he describes under the image of a\ndevastation by locusts which, at one time, took place.\n\nVery strong arguments in favour of the figurative explanation are\nfurnished, in addition, by chap. iv. (iii.). The whole announcement of\npunishment and judgment upon the heathen nations has sense and meaning,\nonly when, in the preceding context, there has been mention made of the\ncrime which they committed against the Lord and His people. In that\ncase, we have before us the three main subjects of prophecy,--God's\njudgments upon His people by heathen enemies, their obtaining mercy,\nand the punishment of the enemies. At the very beginning of chap. iv.\n(iii.) the sufferings of Israel, described in chap. i. and ii., and the\njudgment upon the heathen, are brought into the closest connection.\nAccording to chap. iv. 1, 2, the gathering of the Gentiles is to take\nplace at a time when the Lord will return to the captivity of Judah and\nJerusalem, _i.e._, according to the constant _usus loquendi_ (compare\nmy Commentary on Ps. xiv. 7), when He will grant them, mercy, and\ndeliver them from their misery.[1] But that this misery can be none\nother than that described in chap. i. and ii. appears simply from the\nfact, that this has been declared to be the close of all the judgments\nof God.--We must, _further_, not overlook the article [Pg 321] in\n\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd in chap. iv. 2, and, accordingly, must not translate, \"I\nwill gather all nations,\" but \"all _the_ nations.\" And how could this\nbe explained in any other way than--all the nations which are spoken of\nin the preceding chapters under the image of locusts? But of special\nimportance is the second part of the verse: \"And I plead there with\nthem concerning My people, and My heritage Israel, whom they have\nscattered among the nations, and distributed My land.\"[2] It is quite\nimpossible that there should here be the mention of anything which\nhappened before the time of Joel. Whatever period we may assign to him,\nhe belongs, at all events, to a time in which a scattering of Israel\namong the Gentiles, and a distribution of their land, had not as yet\ntaken place. _Credner_, indeed, believes that the calamities under\nJehoram are sufficient to account for these expressions. \"At that\ntime,\" he says, \"the Edomites revolted from Judah; Libnah, which\nbelonged to Judah In the stricter sense, rebelled; the Arabs and\nPhilistines invaded the kingdom and plundered its capital; those\ninroads did then not terminate without a diminution of the territory of\nJudah.\" But all this is irrelevant; the discourse concerns the\ndistribution of the land of the _Lord_. The rebellion of a heathen\ntributary people does not, therefore, here come under consideration.\nJust as little can we see what Libnah has to do here. It belonged, it\nis true, to the kingdom of Judah; but the heathen nations had nothing\nto do with its rebellion;--for this, according to 2 Kings viii. 22, and\n2 Chron. xxi. 10, proceeded from the inhabitants, who were dissatisfied\nwith the bad government of the king, and was speedily brought to a\nclose. It cannot then be proved, that even some small portion of the\nterritory was lost at that time; far less, that the whole country was\napportioned anew. It is quite the same as regards the dispersion among\nthe Gentiles. The invasion of the Philistines cannot [Pg 322] here come\ninto consideration, because, in ver. 4, these enemies are expressly\ndistinguished from those who had effected the dispersion of the people,\nand the distribution of the land: \"And ye also, what have ye to do with\nMe, O Tyre and Sidon, and all the borders of Palestine?\" The prophet\ncan thus not be speaking of something which had taken place at his\ntime; but as little can he speak of something still future, which had\nnot been touched upon by him when he threatened punishment upon the\nCovenant-people; for the devastation by the locusts appears as the\nhighest and last calamity of the future. Nothing, therefore, remains\nbut to suppose, that under the image of the devastation by locusts, the\ndevastation of the country by heathen enemies, and the dispersion of\nits inhabitants, are described,--a supposition which is confirmed by\nthe great resemblance of the passage under consideration to chap. ii.\n17-19. _Vatke_ (_Theol. des A. Th._ i. S. 462) founded upon the fact\nthat the general exile is here predicted, the assertion that Joel had\nprophesied only after the captivity. No one, of course, has been\nwilling to agree with him in this; but as long as the devastation by\nthe locusts is understood literally, it will not be possible to\nundermine the grounds upon which he supports his views. It is\naltogether in vain that people spend their labour in disputing the\nfact, so obvious and evident, that the discourse here concerns the\ntotal occupation of the land by the heathen, the total carrying away of\nits inhabitants.\n\nIt may be further remarked, that this passage at the same time\nconsiderably strengthens the proof already adduced, that Joel foretells\nfuture things in chap. i. and ii. A devastation by the locusts is\ndescribed in these chapters; but the substance of this figure does not\nrefer to the time of Joel.\n\n_Finally_--We must still direct attention to the words in iv. 17:--\"And\nJerusalem shall be a sanctuary, and there shall no strangers pass\nthrough her any more.\" This promise stands in evident contrast to the\nformer threatening, and becomes intelligible only by it. In it,\ntherefore, the _strangers_ must be represented under the figure of the\nlocusts.\n\nAnd now, after all these single proofs have been enumerated--proofs\nwhich, if necessary, might easily have been strengthened and\nincreased--let us look back to this survey of the contents of the book,\nand we shall see how, according to our view, [Pg 323] and according to\nit alone, the prophecy of Joel forms an harmonious, complete, and well\nfinished whole, and that the prophet adheres closely to the outlines\nalready given by Moses, with the filling up and finishing of which all\nother prophets also are employed. And let us, finally, add, that\nexegetical tradition also bears a favourable testimony to the\nfigurative interpretation.\n\nWe need not spend much time in considering the arguments advanced\nagainst the figurative interpretation by _Credner_ (S. 27 ff.),\n_Hitzig_, and others. They all rest upon an almost incomprehensible\nignoring of the nature of poetry, of the metaphor, and of the allegory.\nThus, _e.g._, _Credner_ says, \"What man of sound sense will ever be\nable to say of horses, horsemen and warriors, that they resemble horses\nand horsemen? Who has ever seen horses and horsemen climbing over\nwalls? What shall we say concerning chap. ii. 20? Do land armies ever\nperish in the sea, and, moreover, in two different seas? What is the\nuse of foretelling, in chap. ii. 22, 23, the ceasing of the drought, if\nthe prophet here thought of real enemies?\" But in opposition to all\nthese and similar objections, let us simply keep in mind, that the\nprophet does not by any means view the enemies as such, and only\nincidentally compares them with locusts; but that in his inward vision\nthey represented themselves to him as locusts. It is just the\ncharacteristic feature of the allegory, that the image becomes in it\nsubstantial, and has the thing represented, not _beside_ it, but _in_,\n_with_, and _under_ it. But it is just for this reason that many a\nfeature must be introduced which does not belong to the _real_ subject,\n_i.e._, the figure, but to the _ideal_ only, _i.e._, the thing\nrepresented thereby. It is for this very reason also, that the\nmetaphor, raised to the _ideal_ subject, may again be compared with the\n_real_ subject. After all this we may well judge what right _Ewald_ has\nto call the figurative explanation \"an error, which, in consideration\nof our present knowledge, becomes from day to day less pardonable.\"\n\nWe remark further, that, in chap. i. 4, it is distinctly indicated that\nIsrael's visitation by the world's power will not be a simple one, but\nwill present various aspects: \"That which the _gnawer_ has left, the\n_locust_ devoureth; and that which the _locust_ hath left, the _licker_\ndevoureth; and that which the _licker_ hath left, the _eater_\ndevoureth.\" The opinion has been entertained, that \"the prophet does\nnot say, one cloud of locusts after [Pg 324] another, or swarms of\nlocusts of every description have come up; but, on the contrary, that\nthey are all contemporary, and that all of them devour the same\nthings.\" But a succession is quite obvious. The four parties do not\ndevour at the same time; but the second devours what the first has\nleft. It is true that the succession appears as very rapid; but that is\na peculiarity belonging only to the vision. If there be _at all_ a\nsuccession of those extensive empires representing the world's power,\nthere must in reality be considerable intervals between them. The\nquestion then arises, however, whether the number _four_ is to be\nconsidered as a round number, so that the thought would only be this,\nthat several nations are to visit the people of the Lord, or whether,\non the contrary, importance is to be attached to the number _four_ as\nsuch. According to _Jerome_, the Jews followed the latter view. In\naccordance with their view, the first swarm denotes the Assyrians,\ntogether with the Chaldeans; the second, the Medo-Persians; the third,\nthe Grecian kingdoms; the fourth, the Romans. The analogies of the four\nhorns in Zech. ii. 1-4 (i. 18-21), the four beasts in Daniel, the seven\nheads of the beast in Revelation--denoting the seven phases of the\nworld's power opposed to God--are decisive in favour of the latter\nview; compare my _Commentary on Rev._ xii. 18, xiii. 1. Now, if we\nfollow this view at all, we must, in determining the four swarms,\ncertainly assent to the opinion of the Jews, as given in _Jerome_; and\nthis so much the more, as the four swarms are, in that case, exactly\nparallel to the four beasts in Daniel, which denote the Chaldean,\nMedo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman monarchies. The fact that the\nAssyrians are taken together with the Chaldeans can be the less\nstrange, because, so early as in the prophecy of Balaam, Asshur and\nBabylon are comprehended under the common name \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8, _i.e._, \"that which\nis on the other side,\"--the power on the other side of the Euphrates;\nand are contrasted with the new empire which pressed on from the\nWest--from Europe. (Compare my _Dissertation on Balaam_, p. 593 ff.)[3]\nIt was the less possible to ascribe to the Assyrians an independent\nposition here, as Joel has to do mainly with Judah, upon which no\njudgment of real importance was inflicted by the Assyrians.\n\n\nFootnote 1: The well ascertained _usus loquendi_ must be here the less\ngiven up, as, in the preceding context, to which this verse carries us\nback, we are, it is true, told that the Lord will return and bestow\nmercy; but the bringing back of the people is as little spoken of as\nthe carrying of them away, inasmuch as the express mention of which did\nnot suit the image of the devastation by locusts.\n\nFootnote 2: \u05d7\u05b4\u05dc\u05b5\u05bc\u05e7 means, not \"to divide among themselves,\" but \"to effect\na new division,\" \"to apportion the land anew,\" as, _e.g._, Asshur\ndistributed the territory of the ten tribes among the Aramean\nColonists, \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 is used of the distribution of the land by Joshua, in\nJosh. xiii. 7, xix. 51. In Mic. ii. 4, when the captivity was\nimpending, the people, in anticipation of it, utter their lamentation\nin the words, \"He distributes our fields;\" compare Ps. lx. 8.\n\nFootnote 3: In the volume containing the \"_Dissertations on the\nGenuineness of Daniel_, etc.,\" published by T. and T. Clark.\n\n\n[Pg 325]\n\n ON CHAPTER II. 23.\n\n\"_And, ye sons of Zion, exult and rejoice in Jehovah your God; for He\ngiveth you the Teacher of righteousness, and then He poureth down upon\nyou rain, the former rain and the latter rain, for the first time._\"\n\nThe words, \"In Jehovah your God,\" are an addition peculiar to the sons\nof Zion. In reference to the _earth_, which the locusts had devastated,\nit was in ver. 21 said only, \"Fear not, exult and rejoice.\" In\nreference to the beasts, _i.e._, to the heathen world, which was kept\nin subjection by the conquerors of the world, but which is delivered by\nthe great deeds of the Lord, it is in ver. 22 said only: \"Fear not.\"\nThey are only the sons of Zion who know and love the Author of\nSalvation, and who receive from Him special gifts, besides the general\nones.\n\nThere is considerable difference in the interpretations of this verse.\nThe words, \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4, are, by the greater number of interpreters,\ntranslated, \"The Teacher of righteousness.\" Thus, _Jonathan_, the\n_Vulgate_, _Jarchi_, _Abarbanel_, _Grotius_, and almost all the\ninterpreters of the early Lutheran Church translate them. Others take\n\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 in the signification of \"rain,\" and \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 as qualifying its nature\nmore accurately. Even in ancient times, this explanation was not at all\nuncommon. Among the Rabbinical interpreters, it was held by _Kimchi_,\n_Abenezra_, _S. B. Melech_, who explain it of a _timely_ rain.\n_Calvin_, who rendered the \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 by _justa mensura_, defends it with\ngreat decision, and declares the other explanations to be forced, and\nunsuitable to the connection. It is translated by \"rain\" in the\nEnglish[1] and Genevan versions, and by many Calvinistic interpreters,\nwho differ, however, in the translation of \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4, and render it either:\n\"In right time,\" or \"in right measure,\" or \"in the right place,\" or\n\"for His righteousness,\" or \"according to your righteousness.\"\n_Marckius_ is of opinion that \"rain\" is necessarily required by the\ncontext; but that, on account of \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4, this rain must be understood\nspiritually of the Messiah with His saving doctrine, and His Spirit.\nAmong the interpreters of the Lutheran Church, _Seb. Schmid_ thinks of\n\"a rain in due season.\" [Pg 326] Among modern interpreters, the\nexplanation by \"rain\" has become altogether so prevalent, that it is\nconsidered scarcely of any importance even to mention the other. \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4\nis explained by _Eckermann_: \"In proof of His good pleasure;\" by\n_Ewald_, _Meier_, and _Umbreit_: \"For justification;\" by _Justi_: \"For\nfruitfulness;\" and by the others (_Rosenm\u00fcller_, _Holzhausen_,\n_Credner_, _R\u00fcckert_, _Maurer_, and _Hitzig_) by: \"In right measure.\"\nWe consider this explanation to be decidedly erroneous, and the other\nto be the sound one; and this for the following reasons:--1. The great\ndifference, on the part of the defenders of the current opinion, as\nregards the explanation of \u05dc\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 certainly indicates, with sufficient\nclearness, that, by this addition, a considerable obstruction is put in\nits way. The most current explanation, by \"_justa mensura_,\" \"in right\nmeasure,\" \"sufficiently,\" is certainly quite untenable. Even the fact,\nthat it is not \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 but \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4 which is used here, must excite suspicion.\n(On the difference betwixt these two words, compare _Ewald_ in the\nfirst edition of his Grammar, S. 312-13.) But what is quite decisive is\nthe fact that these two words, which occur with such extraordinary\nfrequency, are never found in a physical, but always in a moral sense\nonly. The only passage in which, according to _Winer_, \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 signifies\n\"rectitude\" in a physical sense, is Ps. xxiii. 3: \u05de\u05e2\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 which,\naccording to him, means: \"Straight, right ways.\" But that verse runs\nthus: \"He restoreth my soul, He leadeth me in the paths of\nrighteousness for His name's sake.\" The path is a spiritual one; it is\nrighteousness itself, which consists in the actual declaration of being\njust, and in justification, which are implied in the gift of salvation.\nWith regard to \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d4, _Holzhausen_ (S. 120) maintains that it is used of\na measure which has its due size in Lev. xix. 35, 36. The words are\nthese: \"Ye shall not do _unrighteousness_ in judgment, in measure, in\ndivision. Balances of righteousness, weights of righteousness, ephas of\nrighteousness, shall ye have: I am the Lord your God who brought you\nout of the land of Egypt.\" Even the contrast--so evident--with the\n_unrighteousness_, shows distinctly that balances, measures, and\nweights of righteousness are here such as belong to righteousness--are\nin harmony with it. Even the root \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 never occurs in a physical sense,\nbut always, only in a moral sense. To this it must be added, that the\nexplanation, \"Teacher of righteousness,\" [Pg 327] is recommended by the\nparallel passage in Hos. x. 12, where, also, teaching occurs in\nconnection with righteousness: \u05d5\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 \u05dc\u05db\u05dd, \"And the Lord will come\nand teach you righteousness.\" This parallel passage is also opposed to\n_Ewald's_ explanation, \"for justification,\"--the only explanation among\nthose mentioned to which, it must be admitted, no philological\nobjection can be raised. But the thought, \"The early rain an actual\njustification of Israel,\" would be rather strange, and so much the more\nso, because the wrath of God had not manifested itself in a drought and\nwant of water, but rather in the sending of the army of locusts.\n\n2. That the giving of the \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4, in the first hemistich of the verse,\nmust denote a divine blessing different from the giving of the \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 in\nthe second, is evident for this reason:--that, otherwise, there would\narise a somewhat meaningless tautology. They who assigned to \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 in\nthe first hemistich, the signification of \"rain in general,\" have felt\nhow very unsuitable is the twofold mention of the early rain. To this\nmust be added the use of the _Fut._ with _Vav convers._, \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d3. By this\nform, an action is denoted which _follows_ from the preceding one; but\naccording to the current explanation, one and the same action would\nhere be expressed, only in different words. It cannot be denied,\nindeed, that the form occurs by no means rarely in a weakened sense,\nand is used only to express a connection; and that for this reason,\nthis argument is not, _per se_, conclusive. Yet the original\nsignification so generally holds, that we can abandon it only for\ndistinct and forcible reasons. In addition to this, it must be\nconsidered that the addition of \u05d2\u05e9\u05dd to the second \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 distinctly marks\nout the latter as being different in its meaning from the former. It\nmust also be kept in mind that it is one of the peculiarities of Joel\nto use the same words and phrases, after brief intervals, in a\ndifferent sense; compare _Credner's_ remarks on ii. 20, iii. 5.\n\n3. The explanation by \"Teacher\" is far more obvious for the reason that\n\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 always occurs with the signification of \"teacher\" (even in Ps.\nlxxxiv. 7, where the right translation is: \"With blessing also the\nteacher covereth himself\"), and never with that of \"rain,\" or \"early\nrain.\" This is rather the meaning of \u05d9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4; and the verb also never\noccurs in _Hiphil_, as it does in _Kal_, with the signification \"to\nsprinkle,\" \"to water.\" [Pg 328] By this we are led to the supposition\nthat Joel, in the second hemistich, made use of the uncommon form \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\nwith the meaning of \"early rain,\" solely on account of the resemblance\nof the sound to the \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 occurring immediately before, with its usual\nsignification; and that, at the same time, he added \u05d2\u05e9\u05dd for the purpose\nof avoiding ambiguity. What serves to confirm this supposition, is the\ncircumstance that Jeremiah, alluding to the passage under\nconsideration, has, in chap. v. 24, put \u05d9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 in the place of \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4;\nwhich proves that the second \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 in Joel ii. 23 has originated only\nfrom its connection with the first, which is altogether wanting in\nJeremiah.\n\n4. A causal connection, similar to that which exists here betwixt the\nsending of the Teacher of righteousness and the pouring out of the\nrain, occurs also in that passage of the Pentateuch which the prophet\nseems to have had in view, viz., Deut. xi. 13, 14: \"And it shall come\nto pass, _if ye shall hearken unto my commandments_ which I command you\nthis day, that ye love the Lord your God, and serve Him with all your\nheart and with all your soul, that I will give you the rain of your\nland in due season, the first rain and the latter rain (\u05d9\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05de\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05e9),\nand thou shalt gather in thy corn, and thy must, and thine oil.\" Here,\nas well as there, the righteousness of the people is the _antecedens_;\nthe divine mercies and blessings are the _consequens_. Since the former\ndoes not exist, God begins the course of His mercies by sending Him who\ncalls it forth. This remark removes, at the same time, the objection,\nthat the mention of the Teacher of righteousness is unsuitable in a\nconnection where the prophet speaks of temporal blessings only, and\nrises to spiritual blessings only afterwards, in chap. iii. There\nexisted for the Covenant-people no benefits which were purely temporal;\nthese were always, at the same time, signs and pledges of the divine\nfavour, which depended upon the righteousness of the people, and this,\nin turn, upon the divine mission of a Teacher of righteousness.\n\n5. The \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df is also in favour of our explanation. It stands in close\nrelation to \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05be\u05db\u05df in chap. iii. 1, ii. 28. The sending of the Teacher\nof righteousness has two consequences;--_first_, the pouring out of the\ntemporal rain--an individualizing designation of every kind of outward\nblessings, and chosen with a reference to the passage of the Pentateuch\nwhich we have just [Pg 329] cited, but with special reference to the\ndescription of the calamity, under the figure of a devastation by\nlocusts;--and, _secondly_, the outpouring of the spiritual rain--the\nsending of the Holy Ghost. It needs only the pointing out of this\nreference, which has been overlooked by interpreters,[2] to set aside\nthe manifold and different explanations of \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df which are, all of\nthem, unphilological, or give an unsuitable sense.[3]\n\nBut if any doubt should still remain, it would be removed by a parallel\npassage in Isaiah, which depends upon the text under review, in a\nmanner not to be mistaken, and which, therefore, must be regarded as\nthe oldest commentary upon it. Isaiah is describing the condition of\nthe people subsequent to their having obtained mercy, after a long time\nof deep misery, in chap. xxx 20: \"And the Lord gives you the bread of\nadversity, and the water of affliction; and then thy _teacher_ (\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05da\nis _singular_) shall no longer hide himself, and thine eyes shall see\nthy teacher; Ver. 21: And thine ears hear a word behind thee, This is\nthe way, walk ye in it; do not turn to the right hand, nor to the\nleft.\" Accordingly, after they have put away what was evil, ver. 22:\n\"The Lord giveth the rain of thy seed, with which thou sowest thy\nland,\" etc., ver. 23. The teacher is not a human teacher, but God.\n_Human_ teachers had not concealed themselves; but that the Lord had\nconcealed Himself, is affirmed in the preceding verses. The words,\n\"Behind thee\" (ver. 21), suggest the idea of a teacher of such a glory\nthat they could not look in his face (compare Rev. i. 10); and the\nwords, \"Thine eyes see thy teacher,\" ver. 20, imply the idea of the\nhigh majesty of the teacher, and suggest the idea of a revelation of\nthe glory of the Lord; compare Is. xl. 5, lii. 8. The Lord must first\nmanifest Himself as a Teacher, before He appears as a Saviour. In\nIsaiah, the Lord Himself appears as the Teacher; as also in Hos. x. 12:\n\"It is time to seek the Lord, till He [Pg 330] come and teach you\nrighteousness;\" while in Joel, on the contrary, it is the Lord who\ngiveth the Teacher. Both may be reconciled by the consideration, that\nin the Teacher whom the Lord gives, the glory of the Lord becomes\nmanifest.\n\nIt now only remains to inquire who is to be understood by the Teacher\nof righteousness. (Teacher of righteousness is equivalent to: \"Teaching\nthem how they should fear the Lord,\" 2 Kings xvii. 28.) It is referred\nto the Messiah, not only by almost all those Christian interpreters who\nfollow this explanation, with the exception of _Grotius_, who\nconjectures that Isaiah or some other prophet is to be thereby\nunderstood; but also, after the example of _Jonathan_, by several\nJewish commentators; _e.g._, _Abarbanel_, who says: \"This teacher of\nrighteousness, however, is the King Messiah, who will show the way in\nwhich we must walk, and the works which we must do.\" Even on account of\nthe article, it is not possible to refer it to a single human teacher;\nand this argument may, at the same time, be added to those which oppose\nthe explanation of \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 by \"an early rain.\" There can be only the\nchoice betwixt the Messiah as the long promised Teacher \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd,\nand the _ideal_ teacher,--the collective body of all divine teachers.\nBut the latter view requires to be somewhat raised, before it can be\nallowed to enter into the competition. That we have not here before us\nan ordinary collective body, is shown by the parallel passage in\nIsaiah, according to which the glory of the Lord is to be manifested in\nthe Teacher. And this is as little applicable to a plurality of human\nteachers, as to a single individual. It is _further_ proved by the\nfundamental passage in Deut. xviii. 18, 19, where, indeed, the\nprophetic order is comprehended in an _ideal_ person. This, however,\nhas its reason only in the circumstance, that the idea of prophetism\nwas, at some future time, to find its realization in a _real_ person.\nIt is _further_ seen from the state of the Messianic hopes at the time\nof Joel, and from the exceeding greatness of what is here connected\nwith the appearance of the Teacher of righteousness. In addition to the\nallusion in Gen. xlix. 10 and Deut. xviii., the Messiah appears as a\nTeacher in the Song of Solomon also, chap. viii. 2; and in Is. lv. 4:\n\"Behold, I give Him for a witness to the people, for a prince and a\nlawgiver to the people;\" as also in those passages of the second part\nof Isaiah, in which He is declared to be the Prophet \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd. [Pg\n331] When thus understood, the explanation of the _ideal_ teacher may\nbe preferable to the reference to Christ exclusively. In favour of such\na reference, there is the comprehensive character and the _ideal_\nimport which are, in general, peculiar to the prophecies of Joel. Such\na reference is, moreover, favoured by the expression itself, which\npoints out only that which Christ has in common with the former\nservants of God, viz., the teaching of righteousness, and especially by\na comparison with the fundamental passages, Deut. xviii.\n\n\nFootnote 1: The English version has \"a teacher of righteousness,\" as a\nmarginal reading.--Tr.\n\nFootnote 2: Since the appearance of the first edition of this work, it\nhas been acknowledged also by _Ewald_, _Meier_, and _Umbreit_.\n\nFootnote 3: _Hitzig_ explains it: \"In the first month.\" But altogether\napart from the consideration that it is only in a chronological\nconnection that \"in the first\" can stand for \"in the first _month_,\"\nthis explanation is objectionable on the ground that the early rain and\nthe latter rain cannot, by any means, belong to the same month. There\nis the less difficulty in explaining it by \"first,\" as \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\nundeniably occurs, several times, in this signification; compare,\n_e.g._, Zech. xii. 7.\n\n\n\n EXPOSITION OF CHAP. III. (II. 28-32.)\n\nVer. 1. \"_And it shall come to pass, afterwards, I will pour out My\nSpirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy;\nyour old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see\nvisions._\"\n\nThe communication of the Spirit of God was the constant prerogative of\nthe Covenant-people. Indeed, the very idea of such a people necessarily\nrequires it. For the Spirit of God is the only inward bond betwixt Him\nand that which is created; a Covenant-people, therefore, without such\nan inward connection, is an impossibility. As a constant possession of\nthe Covenant-people, the Spirit of God appears in Isaiah lxiii. 11,\nwhere the people, in the condition of the deepest abandonment, say, in\nthe remembrance of the divine mercies, \"Where is He that put His Holy\nSpirit within him?\" But it was peculiar to the nature of the Old\nTestament dispensation, that the effusion of the Spirit of God was less\nrich. His effects less powerful, and a participation in them less\ngeneral. It was only after God's relation to the world had been\nchanged by the death of Christ that the Spirit of _Christ_ could be\nbestowed,--a higher power of the Spirit of God, standing to Him in the\nsame relation as the Angel of the Lord to the incarnate Word. The\nconditions of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit were, under the Old\nTestament, far more difficult to obtain. The view of Christ in His\nhistorical personality, in His life, suffering, and death, was wanting.\nGod, although infinitely nearer to the Jews than to the Gentiles, yet\never remained a God relatively [Pg 332] distant. Since the procuring\ncause of the mercy of God--the merit of Christ--was not yet so clearly\nseen, it was far more difficult to lay hold of it, and the by-path of\nlegalism was far nearer. It was thus only upon a few--especially upon\nthe prophets--that the direct possession of the Spirit of God was\nconcentrated; while the greater number, even among those of a better\ndisposition, enjoyed a spiritual life derived only from a union with\nthem, and hence it was less strong. It arose from the nature of the\ncase that, at some future time, there must take place a richer and more\npowerful effusion of the Spirit of God; and it was just for this reason\nthat it was the desire of Moses, that such might take place, and that\nthe whole people might prophesy. Num. xi. 29, besides expressing such a\ndesire, is, at the same time, a prophecy. He wished nothing else than\nthat the people of God might attain to such a degree as to realize the\nidea of a people of God; and this must come to pass at some future\ntime, because the omnipotent and faithful God could not leave His work\nunfinished. But Moses himself immediately subjoins the prophecy to the\nwish, as a clear proof, that behind the wish the prophecy is concealed:\n\"Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets! for the Lord will\ngive His Spirit upon them,\" etc.; which is equivalent to: \"At some\nfuture time, the whole people of the Lord shall be prophets, not\nagainst, but agreeably to, my wish; for,\" etc. It is this promise of\nMoses which is here resumed by Joel, with whom, subsequently. Is. in\nchap. xxxii. 15, \"Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high;\"\nchap. xi. 9, liv. 13; Jer. xxxi. 33, 34; Ezek. xxxvi. 26 ff., and Zech.\nxii. 10, connect themselves. The ultimate reference of the promise is\nto the Messianic time; but the reference to the preparatory steps must\nnot, for this reason, be by any means excluded. The announcement of the\npouring out of the Spirit rests upon the insight into the nature of\nGod's relation to His kingdom. God's judgments, in which He draws near\nto His people, in which the abstract God becomes a concrete God, excite\nin the people a longing for a union with Him. Teachers sent by God give\na right direction to this longing, and then an outpouring of the Spirit\ntakes place. This proceeding does, and must continually, repeat itself\nin the history of the Covenant-people. The perfect fulfilment at the\ntime of Christ could [Pg 333] not at all have taken place, unless the\nimperfect fulfilment had already pervaded their whole earlier history;\nand that there is, in the prophecy under consideration, no reference at\nall to such imperfect fulfilments, could be maintained only, if there\nexisted in the text any hint that the prophet intended to speak of only\nthe last realization of the idea. But as the exclusion of all the\npreliminary stages is entirely arbitrary, it is just as arbitrary to\nseparate, from the events which make up the main fulfilment in the\nMessianic time, one particular event, viz., that which took place on\nthe first day of Pentecost. It is only to a certain extent that we can\naffirm that the prophecy found its final fulfilment in this event,\nviz., in as far as it formed the pledge of it,--in as far as the whole\nsucceeding development and progress were already contained in it,--in\nas far as Joel's prophecy in words was then changed into an infinitely\nmore powerful prophecy in deeds. It is from overlooking the relation of\nthe prophecy to the thought which animates it, and from the error\narising from this, viz., that the fulfilment must necessarily fall\nwithin a particular, limited period, that the various opposite\ninterpretations had their rise (compare the copious enumeration and\nrepresentation of these in _Dresde_, _Comparatio Joelis de Effusione\nSpir. S. vatic. c. Petrina interpret._ _Wittemb._ 1782, _Spec._ 2), all\nof which are partially true, and are false only by their one-sidedness\nand exclusiveness. 1. Several interpreters think of an event at the\ntime of Joel. Thus Rabbi _Moses Hakkohen_, according to _Abenezra_,\n_Teller_ on _Turrettine de interpret._ p. 59, _Cramer_ on the\n_Scythische Denkm\u00e4ler_, p. 221.--2. Others insist on an exclusive\nreference to the first Pentecost. Thus do almost all the Fathers of the\nChurch--among whom, however, _Jerome_ (on Joel iii. 1) felt the great\ndifficulties in the way of this view, arising from the context--and\nmost of the later Christian interpreters.--3. Others would refer it at\nthe same time to the events in Joel's time, and to those at the first\nPentecost. Of this opinion are _Ephraem Syr._, _Grotius_, and\n_Turrettine_.--4. Others place the fulfilment altogether in the future.\nThus did the Jews as early as in the time of _Jerome_, and afterwards\nJarchi, Kimchi, and Abarbanel.--5. Others, finally, find in the first\nPentecost the beginning only of the fulfilment, and regard it as\npervading the whole Christian time. Thus, _e.g._, _Calovius_ (_Bibl.\nillustr. ad. h. l._) says: \"Although [Pg 334] that prophecy began to be\nfulfilled in a remarkable manner on that feast of the Pentecost, yet\nits reference is not to that solemn event only, but to the whole state\nof these last, or New Testament times, _just after the manner of other\ngeneral promises_.\" These last words show that _Calovius_ was very near\nthe truth. But if the promise be a general one, by what are we entitled\nto place the beginning of its fulfilment only at the times of the New\nTestament, and to exclude all of that same gift which God bestowed in\nOld Testament times? The insufficiency of the foundation for such a\nlimitation in the text itself is proved by the following confession of\n_Dresde_ (l. c. p. 8), who even believes himself obliged to defend such\na limitation from the authority of the Apostle Peter, and to whom it\ndid not at all occur, that any other reference than to some particular\nevent was even possible: \"It appears, therefore,\" he says, \"that the\nprophecy, considered in itself, is so expressed, that no one, except\nthe first author of the prophecy, will be able convincingly to define\nthe exact event to which it really refers.\" We shall afterwards see\nthat the testimony of the New Testament to which _Dresde_ here alludes,\ndoes not by any means demand such a limitation. We have seen that Joel\npoints to a fourfold oppression of Israel by the world's power. The\n_main_ fulfilment we must then expect at the time of the fourth; but\nthis can scarcely be the first fulfilment; for we cannot imagine that\nthe former calamities should have passed over the people altogether\nwithout effect; and the divine gift of the Spirit goes always hand in\nhand with the susceptibility of the people. By proving that fourfold\noppression, we have also furnished the proof that the prophecy of the\noutpouring of the Spirit has a comprehensive character.--From the\nalready established reference of the \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05be\u05db\u05df to the \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05df in chap. ii.\n23, it is obvious that it is not so much a determination of the\nsuccession of time, as of a succession in point of importance, which is\nthereby given. Among the two effects of the mission of the Teacher of\nrighteousness, first, the lower, and then, the higher, presents itself\nto the view of the prophet. The determination of time is not the\nessential point; that serves only to illustrate the internal relation\nof these two events, the gradation of these divine blessings; although\nwe are able to demonstrate that, even as regards time, the prophecy was\nfulfilled in this order. For after the destruction by the [Pg 335]\nChaldeans, the temporal blessings were restored to the people, before\nthe main fulfilment of the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit\ntook place; compare Ps. cvii. 33-42 with Joel ii. 25-27.--The words, \"I\nshall pour out,\" refer to the rain in ver. 23. The idea of copiousness,\nopposed to the former scantiness, is indeed implied in it. Yet it must\nnot be exclusively considered; the qualities of the rain alluded to in\nver. 24 ff.--viz., the quickening of what was previously dead, the\nfructifying power--must not be overlooked.--The words, \"Upon all\nflesh,\" are, by most of the Jewish interpreters (_e.g._, _Kimchi_,\n_Abenezra_; compare _Lightfoot_ and _Sch\u00f6ttgen_ on Acts ii. 16, 17),\nreferred to the members of the Covenant-people only; but by the\nChristian interpreters, whom even Abarbanel joins, to all men. So,\nstill, does _Steudel_ in the _T\u00fcbinger Pfingst-Programm_, 1820, p. 11.\nBut in this latter explanation, one thing has been overlooked--as,\namong the older interpreters, has been well shown by _Calvin_,[1] and\namong the more recent, by _Tychsen_ (_progr. ad h. l._ p. 5)--viz.,\nthat the subsequent words, \"Your sons, your daughters, your old men,\nyour young men, the servants, the handmaids,\" contain a specification\nof the \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8; so that the _all_, by which it is qualified, does not do\naway with the limitation to a particular people, but only with the\nlimits of sex, age, and rank, among the people themselves. The\nparticipation of the Gentiles in the outpouring of the Holy Ghost did\nnot, in the first instance, come into consideration in this place,\ninasmuch as the threatening of punishment, with which the proclamation\nof salvation is connected, had respect to the Covenant-people only.\n_Credner_ has been led into a strange error, by pressing the words\n\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d1\u05d5\u05e9\u05e8 without any regard to the connection. He imputes to the prophet\nthe monstrous idea, that the Spirit of God, the fountain of all which\nis good and great, well pleasing to God, and divine, is to be poured\nout upon all animals also, even upon the locusts.--The foundation for\nthe promise of the Holy Spirit is formed by Gen. ii. 7, compared with\ni. 26. It supposes that the spirit of man, as distinguished from all\nother living things [Pg 336] on earth, is a breath from God.--There is\nhere, moreover, the same contrast betwixt \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 and \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7 as in Gen. vi. 3\nand Is. xxxi. 3: \"The Egyptians are men, and not God; their horses are\nflesh, and not spirit.\" (Compare other passages in _Gesenius'_\n_Thesaurus_, _s. v._ p. 249.) _Flesh_, in this contrast, signifies\nhuman nature with respect to its weakness and helplessness; the\n_spirit_ is the principle of life and strength. As \"your sons,\" etc.,\nis a specification of all flesh, so, the words, \"They prophesy, they\ndream dreams, they see visions,\" are a specification of: \"I pour out My\nSpirit.\" From this, it is evident that the particular gifts do not here\ncome into consideration according to their individual nature, but\naccording to that essential character which is common to them as\neffects of the Spirit of God. Hence it is obvious also, that we are not\nat liberty to ask why it is just to the sons and daughters that the\nprophesying is ascribed, etc. The prophet, whose object it is only to\nindividualize and expand the fundamental thought, _i.e._, the\nuniversality of the effects of the Spirit, chooses for this purpose the\nextraordinary gifts of the Spirit,[2] because these are more obvious\nthan the ordinary ones; and from among the extraordinary ones, again,\nthose which were common under the Old Testament; without thereby\nexcluding the others, or, as regards the real import, adding anything\nto the declaration, \"I will pour out My Spirit.\" This appears also from\nver. 2, where, in reference to the servants and handmaids, the\nexpression returns to the former generality. In distributing the gifts\nof the Spirit among the particular classes, the prophet has been as\nlittle guided by any internal considerations, as, _e.g._, Zechariah,\nwhen in chap. ix. 17 he uses the words, \"Corn maketh the young men grow\nup, and must, the maids.\" The remark made by _Credner_ and _Hitzig_,\nafter the example of _Tychsen_, that visions are ascribed to vigorous\nyouth, but dreams to feebler age, appears at once, from an examination\nof the historical [Pg 337] instances, and from the comparison of Num.\nxii. 6, to be unfounded. \"Your sons and your daughters prophesy,\" etc.,\nis equivalent to: \"Your sons and your daughters, your old men and your\nyoung men, prophesy, have _divine_ dreams (a limitation to such is\nimplied in their being the effects of the outpouring of the Spirit),\nand see visions;\" and this again is equivalent to: \"They will enjoy the\nSpirit of God, with all His gifts and blessings.\" In this, and in no\nother way, has the passage been constantly understood among the Jews.\nIf it had been otherwise, how could Peter have so confidently declared\nthe events on the feast of Pentecost, where there occurred neither\ndreams nor visions, to be a fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel? It is\nimplied, however, in the nature of the case, that, in the principal\nfulfilments of the prophecy of Joel, the extraordinary gifts of the\nSpirit should be accompanied by the ordinary ones; for the former are\nthe witnesses and means of the latter, although, at the same time, the\nbasis also on which they rest; so that times like those which are\ndescribed in 1 Sam. iii. 1, where the Word of God is precious in the\ncountry, and there is no prophecy spread abroad, must necessarily be\npoor in the ordinary gifts of grace also. It is not in the essence, but\nonly in the form of manifestation, that the extraordinary gifts differ\nfrom the ordinary ones,--just as Christ's outward miracles differ from\nHis inward ones.\n\nVer. 2. \"_And upon the servants also, and upon the handmaids, I will\npour out My Spirit in those days._\"\n\n_Credner_ refers this to the Hebrew prisoners of war, living as\nservants and handmaids among heathen nations, far away from the Holy\nLand. But if the prophet had this in view, he must necessarily have\nexpressed himself with greater distinctness. Moreover, the relation to\nthe preceding verse requires that, as the difference of sex and age was\nthere done away with, so no allowance should here be made for the\ndifference of rank. The \u05d2\u05dd shows that the extension of the gifts of the\nSpirit even to servants and handmaids, who, to the carnal eye, appeared\nto be unworthy of such distinction, is to be considered as something\nunexpected and extraordinary. That there is very little correctness in\nthe assertion of _Credner_, that \"there could have been scarcely any\ndoubt as regards the participation of the Hebrew [Pg 338] slaves,\" is\nsufficiently shown by the fact, that Jewish interpreters have\nattempted, in various ways, to lessen the blessing here promised to the\nservants and handmaids. Even the translation of the LXX. by, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c3\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c3 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, may be considered as such an\nattempt. In the place of the servants of men, who appeared to them\nunworthy of such honour, they put the servants of God. _Abarbanel_\nasserts that the Spirit of God here means something inferior to the\ngift of prophecy, which is bestowed only upon the free people. Instead\nof regarding the Spirit of God as the root and fountain of the\nparticular gifts mentioned in the preceding verse, he sees in Him only\nan isolated gift,--that of an indefinite knowledge of God. But such a\nview is opposed even by the relation of the words, \"I will pour out My\nSpirit,\" in ver. 2, to the same words in ver. 1; and also by Is. xi. 2,\nwhere \"Spirit of God\" is likewise used in a general sense, and\ncomprehends within itself all that follows. It is not without design\nthat the fact is so prominently brought out in the New Testament, that\nthe Gospel is preached to the poor, and that God chooses that which is\nmean and despised in the eye of the world. The natural man is always\ninclined to suppose that that which is esteemed by the world must be so\nby God also. This is sufficiently evident from the deep contempt of the\nPharisees for the \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9; compare, _e.g._, John vii. 49.\n\nVer. 3. \"_And I give wonders in the heavens, and on earth; blood, and\nfire, and vapour of smoke._\"\n\nThe mercy bestowed upon the Congregation of God is accompanied by the\njudgment upon her enemies. Since the Congregation has again become the\nobject of His favour, especially in consequence of the Holy Spirit\nbeing poured out upon her, it cannot be but that He will protect her\nagainst the persecution of the world, and avenge her upon it. In vers.\n3 and 4, the _precursors_ of the judgment (_before_ cometh, ver. 4) are\ndescribed, and in chap. iv. throughout, the judgment itself. There is\nhere an allusion to an event of former times, and which is now to be\nrepeated on a larger scale, viz., the plagues inflicted upon Egypt in\nconsequence of the same law. The prophet had specially in view the\npassage, Deut. vi. 22: \"And the Lord gave signs and wonders, great and\nsore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household before our\neyes.\"--The wonders are divided [Pg 339] into those which are in\nheaven, and those which are on earth; then those which are on earth are\nin this verse designated individually; and afterwards, in ver. 4, those\nwhich are in heaven. With regard to the former, many interpreters (the\nlast of whom is _Credner_) understand by the \"blood,\" bloody defeats of\nthe enemies of Israel; by \"fire and smoke,\" their towns and habitations\nconsumed by fire. But this interpretation cannot be entertained. The\nvery designation by \u05de\u05d5\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd indicates that we have here to think of\nextraordinary phenomena of nature, the symbolical language of which is\ninterpreted by the evil conscience, which recognises in them the\nprecursors of coming judgment. This is confirmed also by the more\nparticular statement of the signs in heaven, in ver. 4; for the signs\non earth must certainly be of the same class as these. It is confirmed\nlikewise by a comparison with the type of former times, which we have\npointed out; for it is from this, that the blood is directly taken. The\nfirst plague is thus announced in Exod. vii. 17: \"Behold, I smite with\nthe rod in mine hand upon the waters in the river, and they are turned\ninto blood.\" _Jalkut Simeoni_ (in _Sch\u00f6ttgen_, p. 210) remarks: \"The\nLord brought blood upon the enemies in Egypt: thus also shall it be in\nfuture times; for it is written, I will give wonders, blood and fire.\"\nThe same is the case as respects the fire. Exod. ix. 24: \"And there\ncame hail, and _fire mingled_ with the hail.\" It is more natural to\nsuppose that the prophet borrowed these features, as, in the former\ndescription of the judgment upon Israel, the plague of the locusts lies\nat the foundation, and as the contents of the following verse have\nlikewise their prototype in those events. Compare Exod. x. 21: \"And the\nLord said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward the heaven, and let\nthere be darkness over the land of Egypt.\" That it is not real blood\nwhich is here meant, but that only which, by its blood-red colour,\nreminds of blood (comp. _e.g._, \"Waters red as blood,\" 2 Kings iii.\n22), is shown by the fundamental passage, Exod. vii. 17, where the\nwater which had become red is called simply blood; compare my work on\n_Egypt and the Books of Moses_, p. 106. Blood brings into view the\nshedding of blood; the fiery phenomena announce that the fire of the\nanger of God, and the fire of war, will be enkindled; compare remarks\non i. 19, 20.--The word \u05ea\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea requires a renewed investigation.\nInterpreters [Pg 340] uniformly explain it by \"pillars,\"--a\nsignification which is altogether destitute of any foundation; for the\nChaldee \u05ea\u05dc\u05e8\u05d4, to which they refer, is not found with the signification\n\"pillar.\" Such a meaning is quite inappropriate in the single passage\nquoted by _Buxtorf_; the signification \"smoke,\" or \"cloud of smoke,\" is\nnecessarily required in that place. As little are we at liberty to\nappeal to \u05ea\u05de\u05e8, \"palm,\" with which \u05ea\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d4 has nothing at all to do. The\n\u05d9, which would be without any analogy if derived from \u05ea\u05de\u05e8 (compare\n_Ewald_ on _Song of Sol._ iii. 6), requires the derivation from \u05d9\u05de\u05e8.\nThe word \u05ea\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d4 is a noun formed from the 3d pers. _fem. Fut._ of this\nverb with \u05d4 affixed (compare, on these nouns, the remarks on Hos. ii.\n14, and my work on _Balaam_, p. 434), and, as to its form, it\ncorresponds exactly with \u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4, derived from the 3d _fem. Fut._ of the\nverb \u05de\u05d5\u05e8. There cannot now be any doubt regarding the signification of\n\u05d9\u05de\u05e8. Is. lxi. 6, and Jer. ii. 11, where \u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05e8 and \u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05e8 occur in the\nsame verse, show that it corresponds entirely with \u05de\u05d5\u05e8. Hence _Ewald_\n(l. c.) is wrong in identifying it with \u05d0\u05de\u05e8, the alleged meaning of\nwhich is \"to be high.\" Now in Hebrew, \u05de\u05d5\u05e8 and \u05d9\u05de\u05e8 occur only in the\nderived signification of \"to transform,\" \"to change,\" \"to exchange;\"\nbut the primary signification is furnished by the Arabic, where it\nmeans: _huc illuc latus, agitatus fuit,--fluctuavit._ (Compare the\nthorough demonstration by _Scheid_, _ad cant. Hisk._ p. 159 sqq.)\n\u05ea\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea can accordingly signify only \"clouds\" or \"_vortices_.\" (In\nArabic, \u05de\u05d5\u05e8 means \"dust agitated by the wind.\") The connection of this\nsignification with that of \"_palpehrae_,\" \"eye-lids,\" in which it\noccurs in the Talmudic and Rabbinical languages, is very obvious. They\nwere so called from their continual motion hither and thither. Such a\nconnection, however, we must the more easily be able to prove, because\nthat Talmudic and Rabbinical use of the word cannot be derived from any\nother root than an ancient Hebrew one. The \u1f00\u03c4\u03bc\u03af\u03c2 of the LXX. likewise\nleads to our interpretation, rather than to the prevailing one. The\nformer is, in the only passage in which \u05ea\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea occurs, besides the one\nunder consideration, and where it likewise occurs in the connection\nwith \u05e2\u05e9\u05df, viz., in Song of Sol. iii. 6, at least as suitable as the\nlatter. We have to think here of such phenomena as those which are\ndescribed in Exod. xix. 18: \"And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke,\nbecause the Lord had descended upon [Pg 341] it in fire, and the smoke\nthereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace.\" Here, as well as there,\nthe fire, and the accompanying smoke, represent, in a visible manner,\nthe truth that God is \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, Heb. xii. 29. The clouds of\nsmoke are the sad forerunners of the clouds of smoke of the divine\njudgments upon the enemies, and of the fire of war, in the form of\nwhich the former commonly appear. Compare Is. ix. 18, 19: \"And they\nmount up like the lifting up of smoke.... And the people became as the\nfuel of fire; no man spareth his brother.\" The belief--which pervades\nall antiquity--that the angry Deity announced the breaking in of\njudgments through the symbolical language of nature, is very\nremarkable. This belief cannot be a mere delusion, but must have a deep\nroot in the heart. Nature is the echo and the reflection of the\ndisposition of man. If there prevail within him a fearful expectation\nof things to come, because he feels his own sin, and that of his\npeople, all things external harmonize with that expectation; and, most\nof all, that which is the natural image and symbol of divine punitive\njustice, which would not, however, be acknowledged as such, were it not\nfor the interpreting voice within. Having regard to this relation of\nthe mind to nature, God, previous to great catastrophes, often causes\nthose precursors of them to appear more frequently and vividly, than in\nthe ordinary course of nature. In a manner especially remarkable, this\ntook place previous to the destruction of Jerusalem. Compare\n_Josephus_, _d. Bell. Jud._ iv. 4, 5. \"For during the night, a fearful\nstorm arose,--there arose boisterous winds with the most violent\nshowers, continual lightnings and awful thunders, and tremendous\nnoises, while the earth was shaken. It was, however, quite evident that\nthe condition of the universe was put into such disorder for the\ndestruction of men, and almost every one conjectured that these were\nthe signs of impending calamity.\" A great number of other signs and\nprecursors are mentioned by him in _B. J._ vi. 5, \u00a7 3. These will never\nbe altogether absent, as certainly as punishment never comes without\nsin, and sin never exists without the consciousness, without the\nexpectation, of deserved judgment. But the chief point in this mode of\nviewing things, is not the sign itself, but the disposition of mind\nwhich interprets it,--the consciousness of guilt, which fills the soul\nwith the thought of an avenging God,--the [Pg 342] _condition of\nfilings which brings into view the infliction of the judgment._ It is\nby this that we can account for the circumstance that; in the Old\nTestament, the darkening of the sun and moon, and other things,\nfrequently appear as _direct images_ of sad and heavy times.\n\nVer. 4. \"_The sun is turned into darkness, and the moon into blood,\nbefore there cometh the great and terrible day of the Lord._\"\n\nAmong all interpreters, _Calvin_ has given the most admirable\ninterpretation of this verse: \"When the prophet says that the sun shall\nbe turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, these are\nmetaphorical expressions, by which he indicates that the Lord will show\nsigns of His wrath to all the ends of the earth, as if a whole\nrevolution of nature were to take place, in order that men may be\nstirred up by terror. For, as sun and moon are witnesses of God's\nfatherly kindness towards us, as long as, in their changes, they\nprovide the earth with light, so will they, on the other hand, says the\nprophet, be the messengers of the angry and offended God.--By the\ndarkness of the sun, by the bloody appearance of the moon, by the black\ncloud of smoke, the prophet intended to express the idea, that\nwheresoever men should turn their eyes, upwards or downwards, many\nthings would appear to fill them with terror. Hence the language of the\nprophet amounts to this:--that never had the state of things in the\nworld been so miserable,--that never had there appeared so many and so\nterrible signs of the anger of God.\"--We have already seen that the\nprophet has before his eye the Egyptian type. The darkness upon the\nwhole land of Egypt, while there was light in the dwellings of the\nIsraelites, represented, in a deeply impressive manner, the anger of\nGod in contrast with His grace, of which the symbol is the shining of\nHis heavenly lights. The extinction of these is, in Scripture,\nfrequently the forerunner of coming divine judgments, or an image of\nthose which have been already inflicted; compare the remarks on Zech.\nxiv. 6. Thus it has already occurred in the Book of Joel itself, in the\ndescription of the former judgment; compare ii. 2: \"Day of darkness and\ngloominess, day of clouds and mist;\" ii. 10: \"Before Him quaketh the\nearth, and trembleth the heaven; the sun and the moon mourn, and the\nstars withdraw their shining.\" Thus it returns in iv. [Pg 343] 14, 15:\n\"The day of the Lord is near in the valley of judgment. The sun and the\nmoon mourn, and the stars withdraw their shining.\" The passages in\nwhich, as in the one before us, the extinction has not a _figurative_,\nbut a _typical_ character, must not be limited to a single phenomenon.\nEverything by which the brightness of the heavenly luminaries is\nclouded or darkened, eclipses of the sun or moon, earthquakes,\nthunderstorms, etc., fill with fear those in whose hearts the sun of\ngrace has set.\n\nVer. 5. \"_And it comes to pass, every one who calls on the name of the\nLord is saved; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be such as have\nescaped, as the Lord hath said, and amongst those who are spared is\nwhomsoever the Lord calleth._\"\n\nWe must first determine the signification of \u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4. The greater number\nof interpreters explain it by \"deliverance;\" but it means rather \"that\nwhich has escaped.\" This appears, 1. from the form. It is the fem. of\nthe Adj. \u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05d8, the \u05be\u05be\u05b4\u05be\u05d9 of which has arisen from \u05be\u05be\u05b5\u05be by means of\nlengthening; hence it is that \u05e4\u05b0\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9\u05d8\u05b8\u05d4 is thrice formed without \u05be\u05be\u05b4\u05be\u05d9. It\nis, then, an adjective of intransitive signification. Now it is true\nthat, by means of the feminine termination, adjectives are changed into\nabstract nouns, but never into such as indicate an action; but always\ninto such only for which, in Latin and Greek, the neuter of the\nadjective might be used. This, however, is here inadmissible. 2. To\nthis must be added the constant use; as in Is. xxxvii. 31, 32: \"And\n_that which has escaped_ (\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05d8\u05ea) of the house of Judah, the _remnant_,\ntaketh root downward, and beareth fruit upward. For out of Jerusalem\nshall go forth a _remnant_ (\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea), and _that which has escaped_ out of\nMount Zion,\"--a passage exactly parallel to the one under consideration\n(compare also the following words in Is. xxxvii. 32: \"For the zeal of\nthe Lord will do this,\" with \"As the Lord hath said,\" here). Is. iv. 2:\n\"To that which has escaped,\" with which, \"That which is left in Zion,\nand that which remaineth in Jerusalem,\" in the following verse, is\nidentical; Is. x. 20: \"The remnant (\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8) of Israel, and that which has\nescaped of the house of Jacob;\" Obad. ver. 17: \"And upon Mount Zion\nshall be that which has escaped,\"--which forms an antithesis to ver. 9:\n\"And man shall be cut off from the Mount of Esau;\" and _finally_--Gen.\nxxxii. 9 (8): \"And the camp which has been left is for [Pg 344] the\nescaped.\" There does not thus remain a single passage in which the\nsignification \"deliverance\" is even the probable one. The passages in\nJeremiah, where \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d5\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05d8 occur together (xlii. 17, xliv. 14; Lam. ii.\n2), show that \u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4 here is not different from \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd in the subsequent\nclause of the verse.--The expression \u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 never is used of a\nmerely outward invocation, but always of such as is the external\nexpression of the faith of the heart; compare the remarks on Zech. xiv.\n9. Even on account of this stated condition, it is not possible to\nthink of the deliverance of the promiscuous multitude of Israel, in\ncontrast with that of the Gentiles; for the condition is one which is\npurely internal, and it affords an important hint for the right\nunderstanding of what follows. The \u05db\u05d9 by which it is connected remains\ninexplicable, if Mount Zion and Jerusalem be considered as a place of\nsafety and deliverance for all who are there externally. The same thing\nis evident from \u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05d8\u05d4. The sense is not by any means that all the\ninhabitants of Zion and Jerusalem shall be delivered; but that there\nshall be some who have escaped--viz., those who call on the name of the\nLord; while those who do not, shall be consumed by the divine judgment.\nThe second condition stated by the prophet--that of being called by the\nLord--is in like manner internal. The words \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05b9\u05d4 \u05e7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b5\u05d0 have so\nevident a reference to \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05be\u05d9\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4, that we cannot at all\nsuppose, as _Credner_ does, that they refer to other subjects. On the\ncontrary, they who _call on_ the Lord, are also they whom _He calls_\nfrom the general calamity into His protecting presence; and the prophet\nhas endeavoured, by the choice of the words, to bring out into view the\nclose connection of these two parties. They who call on the Lord, and\nthey whom the Lord calls (_Maurer's_ explanation: \"And among those who\nhave escaped is every one who calls on the Lord\" [compare Ps. xiv. 4],\ngives a very feeble tautology), are the very same upon whom, according\nto vers, 1 and 2, the fulness of the Spirit has been poured out.--The\nwords, \"As the Lord has said,\" indicate, that the faithful ones may\nsafely take comfort from this promise; inasmuch as it is not the word\nof men, but of God. We may see, from such parallel passages as Is. i.\n20, xiv. 5, lviii. 14, how little reason we have for thinking that the\nprophet here refers to some other prophecy. That the prophet, and not\nthe Lord Himself, is speaking in this verse, [Pg 345] is evident from\nthe words: \"Who calls on the name _of the Lord_.\" It was, therefore,\nvery suitable to show, that it was by Immediate, divine commission that\nthe prophet had given utterance to the consolatory promise, that the\npeople of God would escape in these great and heavy judgments which\nwere to come upon the world. That it is very natural for believers to\nfear that the punishments which threaten the world should fall upon\nthem also who are living _in_ the world, is shown by Rev. vii., the aim\nof which is, throughout, to allay the anxious fear which might arise in\nbelievers when considering the judgments which threaten the world. The\nrelation of the whole verse to what precedes and follows is this:--In\nvers. 3 and 4, the prophet had stated the signs and forerunners of the\ngreat and fearful day of the Lord. Now he points to the only, and the\nabsolutely sure means of standing on that day. Then, in chap. iv.,\nwhich is connected by \u05db\u05d9, he describes the judgment itself.\n\nIf, now, we endeavour to discover the historical reference of vers.\n3-5, we are met by a great variety of opinions. It is referred to the\ndestruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, by _Grotius_, _Cramer_,\n_Turrettine_ (_de Scrip, s. interpret._ p. 331); among the Socinians,\nin the _Raccovian Catechism_, p. 22, and by _Oeder_; and among the\nArminians, by _Episcopius_ in the _Instit. Theol._ p. 198. Others (as\n_Jerome_) think of the resurrection of the Lord; others (as _Luther_)\nof the outpouring of the Holy Spirit; others (as _M\u00fcnster_, _Capell_,\n_Lightfoot_, _Dresde_, l.c. p. 22) of the destruction by the Romans. It\nis referred to the judgment upon the enemies of the Covenant-people\nsoon after the return from the Babylonish captivity, by _Ephraem\nSyrus_; to the impending overthrow of Gog, at the time of the Messiah,\nby the Jewish interpreters; to the general judgment, by _Tertullian_,\n_Theodoret_, and _Crusius_, In _Theol. Prophet._ i. p. 621; and to the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, and the general judgment at the same time, by\n_Chrysostom_ and others.\n\nThe great variety of these references has arisen solely from the\ncircumstance, that the prophecy has not been reduced to its fundamental\nidea. This fundamental idea is:--The manifestation of God's punitive\njustice upon all which is hostile to His kingdom, which runs parallel\nwith the manifestation of His grace towards the subjects of His\nkingdom. This idea appears here, in all its generality, without any\ntemporal limitation [Pg 346] whatsoever. Not one of these\ninterpretations, therefore, can be absolutely right. They differ only\nin this, that some of them are altogether false, inasmuch as they\nassume a reference to events which do not at all fall under the\nfundamental idea; while others are only limited and partial views of\nthe truth.\n\nTo the first of these classes belong evidently the references to the\nresurrection, and to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. It is only by\ndetaching these verses from the following chapter that such a view\ncould arise. These events stand in no relation whatsoever to the\nanimating thought of the passage. There is a certain relation to that\nthought in the reference to the destruction by the Chaldeans, in so far\nas this was really a manifestation of divine punitive justice. But the\nreference to this event would be admissible here, only if the prophet\nwere describing the manifestation of divine punitive justice _in\ngeneral_. But such is not the case. The comparison of chap. i. and ii.\nshows that the subject of the prophecy is rather the manifestation of\ndivine justice in reference to those who are enemies to the kingdom of\nGod. The defenders of such a view have altogether misunderstood the\nstructure of the prophecy of Joel; for, otherwise, they would have seen\nthat that event belongs to the threatening of judgment in chap. i. and\nii., where the judgment upon the house of God is described; while,\nhere, there is a description of the judgment upon those who are\nwithout.\n\nThe same argument seems, at first sight, to apply also to the\ndestruction by the Romans. But on a closer examination, there appears\nto be a difference betwixt these two events, and one which brings the\nlatter far more within the scope of the prophecy. The destruction by\nthe Romans was much more intimately connected with a total apostasy and\nrejection, than was that by the Chaldeans. Even before the former\ndestruction, and immediately after the death of Christ, the former\nCovenant-people had sunk down to the rank of the Gentiles. They were no\nmore apostate children, who were, by means of punishment, to be brought\nto reformation, but enemies, who were judged on account of their\nhostile disposition towards the kingdom of God. Malachi, in chap. iii.\n23 (iv. 5), shows that such a time would come when that, which they\nimagined to be intended only for the heathen by descent, should be\nrealized upon Israel after the flesh. The verbal repetition of the\nwords, \"Before there [Pg 347] cometh the great and dreadful day of the\nLord,\" and their application to the judgment upon Israel, can be\naccounted for only by his intention to oppose the prevailing carnal\ninterpretation of the prophecy under consideration.\n\nIt will now be seen also, what the relation is which the phenomena at\nthe death of Christ, the darkening of the sun, the quaking of the\nearth, the rending of the rocks (compare Matt. xxvii. 45, 51; Luke\nxxiii. 44), occupy to the passage before us. They were like the \u05de\u05d5\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd\nhere, actual declarations of the divine wrath, and forerunners of the\napproaching judgment; and they were recognised as such by the guilty,\nto whom this symbolical language was interpreted by their consciences;\ncompare Luke xxiii. 48: \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f44\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9; \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7,\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nBut we must not limit ourselves to the obduracy of the Covenant-people.\nThis we are taught, not only by the relation of chap. i. and ii. to iv.\n2, but, with especial distinctness, by the renewal of this threatening\nin Rev. xiv. 14-20, where the image of the vintage and winepress, in\nparticular, is borrowed from Joel; see iv. 12, 13. The objects of\njudgment are there the heathen nations on account of their hostility to\nthe people of God, who, by Christ, and by the outpouring of the Spirit\nprocured by Him, have fully attained to that dignity. Nor is the\njudgment there an isolated one. On the contrary, all which, in history,\nis realized in an entire series of judicial acts, to be at last\nconsummated in the final judgment, is there comprehended in one great\nharvest--in one great vintage.\n\nWe have still to make a few remarks upon the quotation in Acts ii. 16\nff. Nothing but narrow-mindedness and prejudice could deny that Peter\nfound, in the miracle of Pentecost, an actual fulfilment of the promise\nin vers. 1 and 2. This becomes probable, not only from the\ncircumstance, that the reference of this prophecy to the Messianic time\nwas the prevailing one among the Jews (compare the passages in\n_Sch\u00f6ttgen_, S. 413), but also from the translation of \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05be\u05db\u05df by \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, by which, in the New Testament, the Messianic\ntime is always designated. To this must also be added the express\ndeclaration in ver. 39, that the promise was unto the generation then\npresent. How could Peter have uttered such a declaration, [Pg 348] if\nhis view had been that the promise had found its fulfilment in a time\nlong gone past? At the same time, it is equally certain, that Peter was\nso far from considering all the riches of the promise to be completely\nexhausted by that Pentecostal miracle, that he rather considered it to\nbe only a beginning of the fulfilment,--a beginning, indeed, which\nimplies the consummation, as the germ contains the tree. This is quite\nobvious from ver. 38: \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd.... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1f70\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. How could Peter, referring to\nthe prophecy, promise the gift of the Holy Spirit, promised in the\nprophecy to those who should be converted, if the prophecy was already\ncompletely fulfilled? But it is still more apparent from ver. 39: \u1f59\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd,\n\u1f44\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. The question is, who are to\nbe understood by those \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd? No one could have doubted that the\nGentiles are thereby to be understood, unless two things altogether\nheterogeneous had been confounded, viz., the uncertainty of Peter\nconcerning the _fact_ of the reception of the Gentiles into the kingdom\nof God, and his uncertainty concerning the _mode_ of their reception.\nConsidering the condition of the Old Testament prophecy, the latter is\neasily accounted for; but the former cannot. To state only one from\namong the mass of arguments which prove that Peter could not be\nignorant of the _fact_, we observe that the very manner in which, in\nActs iii. 25, he quotes the promise given to Abraham, that by his seed\nthe nations should be blessed, proves that he regarded the Gentiles as\npartakers of the kingdom of Christ. This is rendered still more\nincontrovertible by the \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd in ver. 26. To understand, by \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd, foreign Jews, is inadmissible, for the single reason that these\nwere present in great numbers, and hence, were included in the term\n\u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd. Now Peter, throughout, addresses all those who were present. How\nthen could he have here confined himself, all at once, to a portion of\nthese I There is, moreover, a plain allusion to the close of Joel iii.\n5, which the LXX. translate \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. This allusion\ncontains, at the same time, a proof of the concurrent reference to the\nGentiles, which is not in express words contained in the prophecy,\nprovided we do not put an arbitrary interpretation upon \u05d1\u05e9\u05e8. Attention\nis thereby directed [Pg 349] to the fact, that, In that passage,\nsalvation, which requires, as its condition, a participation in the\noutpouring of the Spirit, does not depend upon any human cause, but\nsolely upon the call of God--upon His free grace. In a manner entirely\nsimilar, does St Paul, in Rom. x. 12, 13, prove, from the beginning of\nJoel iii. 5, the participation of the Gentiles in the Messianic\nkingdom: \u039f\u1f50 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. \u03a0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f43\u03c2\n\u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. If the calling on God were\nthe condition of salvation, access to it was as free to the Gentiles as\nto the Jews. But if the prophecy has a distinct reference to the still\nunconverted Jews, their children and the Gentiles, it is then evident,\nthat, according to the view of the Apostle, it did not terminate in\nthat one instance of Its fulfilment, but that, on the contrary, it\nextends just as far as the thing promised--as the outpouring itself of\nthe Holy Spirit. This clearly appears, also, from the allusions to the\npassage under consideration. In the accounts of later outpourings of\nthe Spirit; compare, _e.g._, Acts x. 45, xi. 15, xv. 8. How, then, was\nit even possible that Peter should have limited to the few who had\nalready, at that time, received the Spirit, a prophecy, in which the\nidea of generality is, intentionally, made so prominent? But, even if\nthe universal character of the prophecy had been less distinct, Peter\nwould certainly not have thought of confining it in such a manner. Such\na gross and superficial view of the prophecies was far from Peter, as\nwell as from the other Apostles.\n\nAnother question remains to be answered. For what purpose does the\nApostle quote verses 3-5 also, inasmuch as, apparently, verses 1 and 2\nalone properly served his purpose; and what sense did he put upon them?\nThe answer Is given In ver. 40: \u1f19\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03a3\u03ce\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. Even in\nthe few words In which Luke communicates to us the brief summary of\nwhat Peter spoke In this respect, a reference to the passage under\nconsideration has been preserved to us. Peter made use of the\nthreatening which was, in the first Instance, to be fulfilled upon the\ndark refuse of the Covenant-people, In order to Induce them, by terror,\nto seek a participation in the promise which alone could deliver them\n[Pg 350] from the threatened judgment. That he succeeded in this, is\nshown by the words, \u1f18\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, in ver. 43. Several\ninterpreters have, by ver. 22, been led into a total misconception of\nthe sense in which Peter quotes vers. 3-5. It is true, certainly, that\nthe words \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 are not used without reference to the\npassage in Joel. Peter directs attention to the circumstance, that they\nwho, from their hardness of heart, do not acknowledge the \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 and\n\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 with which God accompanied the manifestation of His grace, shall\nbe visited by \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 and \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 of a totally different nature, from the\nfearful impression of which they shall not be able to escape.\n\nBut let us now in addition consider some of the particulars. In\nsubstance, the quotation by Peter agrees with the LXX.; but deviations\noccur on particular points. At the very beginning, the LXX., adhering\nmore closely to the Hebrew text, have: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1; whereas\nPeter says: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2. The reason of this\ndeviation is, that the Apostle intends to determine, by this deviation,\nthe expression, which in itself is wider and more indefinite, in such a\nmanner that the period to which the prophecy specially refers, and\nhence also its application to the case in question, should be rendered\nmore obvious. In a case entirely similar, Jeremiah, in chap. xlix. 6,\nemploys the wider term \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05be\u05db\u05df, while in xlviii. 47 he makes use of the\nmore definite \u05d1\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd. By the latter term, _Kimchi_ also explains\nthe \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05be\u05db\u05df in the passage before us; while _Jarchi_ (compare\n_Sch\u00f6ttgen_, S. 210) explains it by the equivalent term \u05dc\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d0. The\nwords \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 are wanting in the LXX., as well as in the original\nHebrew text. They have been taken from ver. 5, and, contrasted with \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ae\u03bb, they direct attention to the divine\nsource of prophecy, and hence to the necessity of its fulfilment. The\ntwo members, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03cd\u03c0\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Peter has reversed; probably in order\nto place the young men together with the sons and daughters, and to\nassign the place of honour to the old men. In the \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 and\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, Peter follows the LXX., and that in a sense which only\nexpressly makes prominent a point really contained in the prophecy,\nwhether such was intended by the translators, or not; for the\ncircumstance that the servants of men were, at the same [Pg 351]time,\nservants of God, formed the ground of their participation in the\npromise. The same contrast is found, _e.g._, in 1 Cor. vii. 22, 23: \u1f49\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f20\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u00b7 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\n\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd; compare Gal. iii. 28; Philem. 10. Hence it is\nequivalent to: Upon servants and handmaids of men who are, at the same\ntime, my servants and handmaids, and, therefore, in spiritual things of\nequal rank with those who are free. To give prominence to this perfect\nequality, is also the design of the additional clause: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, subjoined after \u1f10\u03ba\u03c7\u03b5\u1ff6 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5. The\ncircumstance that Peter thought it necessary to add this clause, which,\nas we have proved, quite harmonizes with the design of the prophet,\nseems to prove that, even at his time, interpretations were current, in\nwhich an attempt was made to diminish, or altogether to take away, in\nthe case of servants and handmaids, their participation in those\nblessings;--interpretations similar to those of _Abarbanel_, and even\nof _Grotius_, who thus paraphrases the verse: \"Even to those who seem\nto be lowest, I will certainly impart, although not prophesying and\ndreaming dreams, yet certain extraordinary and heavenly motions.\" The\nantiquity of this false interpretation is attested by _Jerome_ also,\nwho probably was, in this respect, altogether dependent upon his Jewish\nteachers. He interprets, indeed, the servants and handmaids\nspiritually, and of such as have not the spirit of freedom he says:\n\"They shall neither have prophecies, nor dreams nor visions, but,\nsatisfied with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, they shall possess\nonly the grace of faith and salvation.\"--In ver. 3, Peter adds \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 to\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7, and \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 to \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2, in order to make the contrast\nmore obvious and striking. All the deviations from the LXX., and the\noriginal text, are thus of the same kind, and intended to bring out\nmore distinctly what is implied in the passage itself. Not one of them\nneed to be accounted for by the circumstance, that the Apostle quoted\nfrom memory.\n\n\nFootnote 1: He says: \"The sense in which the universality must be\nunderstood is clearly indicated by what follows. For, it is first said,\nin general, 'All flesh,' and afterwards, a specification is added, by\nwhich the prophet intimates, that age or sex will not constitute any\ndifference, but that God will bring them all, without any distinction,\ninto the communion of His grace.\"\n\nFootnote 2: The two parallel members prove, in opposition to _Redslob_\nand others, that the verb \u05e0\u05d1\u05d0 here, as everywhere else, has reference\nto an ecstatic condition, to the speaking in the Spirit, although this\nis by no means limited to a revelation of the future. The closeness of\nthe connection between prophesying, dreaming dreams, and seeing\nvisions, is evident from Num. xii. 6, where visions and dreams appear\nas the two principal forms of revelation to the \u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0.\n\n\n[Pg 352]\n\n\n THE PROPHET AMOS.\n\n GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS.\n\nIt will not be necessary to extend our preliminary remarks on the\nprophet Amos, since on the main point--viz., the circumstances under\nwhich he appeared as a prophet--the introduction to the prophecies of\nHosea may be regarded as having been written for those of Amos also.\nFor, according to the inscription, they belong to the same period at\nwhich Hosea's prophetic ministry began, viz., the latter part of the\nreign of Jeroboam II., and after Uzziah had ascended the throne in\nJudah.\n\nThe circumstances of the prophet we learn, generally, from the words in\nchap. i. 1: \"Who was among the herdmen of Tekoah.\" If there existed no\nother statement than this, there might be truth in the remark made by\nmany interpreters, that we cannot, from his having been a herdman,\ninfer that he was poor and low. It is shown, however, by a statement in\nchap. vii. 14, that, by the \"herdman,\" we are not to understand one who\nwas also possessed of flocks, or, like David, the son of such, but a\npoor servant herdman. For, in that passage, the prophet replies to the\ncommand of the priest Amaziah to get himself out of the country, to\nwhich he did not belong, and to return to his native land: \"I am no\nprophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I am a herdman; and _such an one\nas plucketh sycamores_. And the Lord took me from behind the flock, and\nthe Lord said unto me. Go prophesy unto My people Israel.\" The fruit of\nthe sycamores, called \u1f04\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 by _Dioscorides_, served\nas food for only the poorest and meanest. _Bochart_ (_Hieroz._ t. i. p.\n407 [385] _Rosenm\u00fcller_) remarks: \"It is the same as if he had said,\nthat he was a man of the humblest condition, and born in poor\ncircumstances, so that he scarcely maintained his life by scanty and\nfrugal fare; that he had never thought of obtaining the prophetical\noffice in Israel, until a higher power, viz., divine inspiration,\nimpelled him to undertake it.\"[1] But this passage merits our attention\nin another [Pg 353] point of view. In what sense is it that Amos here\ndenies that he is a prophet? It is evidently in a very special sense\nthat he does so. He obviously does not mean thereby to deny that he\npossessed the gift of prophecy, or held the prophetical office; for,\notherwise, he would himself have furnished weapons to his enemy, to\nwhom he wishes to prove his right. The following remarks will be found\nto contain the true answer.\n\nIt cannot be proved in any way, that the schools of the prophets,\nestablished by Samuel at a time when the circumstances of Judah and\nIsrael were altogether similar, were continued in the kingdom of Judah.\nEvery prophet there stands in an isolated position. The entire\nprophetic order and institute bears rather a sporadic character. But in\nthe kingdom of Israel, where the prophetic order occupied a position\naltogether different from that which it held in the kingdom of Judah,\ninasmuch as, after the expulsion of the tribe of Levi, they had to\nwatch over all the interests of religion, the schools of the prophets\nhad a very important mission assigned to them. We must not by any means\nimagine that their constitution was such, that after a few years'\ntraining, the sons of the prophets attained to perfect independence.\nThe greater number of them remained during all their lifetime in the\nposition of sons. The schools of the prophets were a kind of\nmonasteries. Even those who, in consequence of their peculiar\ncircumstances, no longer remained there, but were scattered throughout\nthe country, continued always under their authority. One needs only to\nread attentively the histories of Elijah and of Elisha, which afford us\nthe fullest information regarding these institutions, to be speedily\nconvinced of the soundness of the view which we have here presented. On\nthe subject of the organization of the schools of the prophets in the\nkingdom of Israel, compare _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the\nPentateuch_, i. p. 185. f.\n\n[Pg 354]\n\nBut how can Amos adduce it as a proof of his divine mission, that he is\nneither a prophet, nor, in the sense explained, a prophet's son,\n_i.e._, that he was neither a superior nor an inferior member of the\nprophetic order? The answer is,--It was the result of that organization\nof the prophetic order, that the relation to the Lord was one which was\nmore or less mediate. To those who would not acknowledge the immediate\ndivine influence, some ground was thereby afforded for doing so. Their\ntraining, their principles, the form of their prophecies, all admitted\nof a natural explanation. It is true that the _spirit_ which animated\nthem baffled any such attempt; but that spirit was not so easily\nperceived. In the case of any one, then, who appeared as a prophet,\nwithout standing in that connection, and yet in the full possession of\nall prophetic gifts,--in demonstration of the spirit and of power, a\nnatural explanation was far more difficult; especially if, like Amos,\nhe was, by his outward situation, cut off from all human resources for\neducation. But was Amos, for that reason, an uneducated man? This is a\nquestion which one may answer either in the affirmative or negative,\naccording to what he understands by education. So much is certain, that\nhe was in possession of the essential part of a true Israelitish\neducation--viz., the knowledge of the law. The most intimate\nacquaintance with the Pentateuch everywhere manifests itself; compare\nin proof of this the _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the\nPentateuch_, i. p. 136 ff. There are too many instances, down to most\nrecent times, of living piety breaking, in this respect, through almost\nimpenetrable barriers, to allow us to consider this as a strange thing,\nand to make it necessary for us to excogitate the various ways and\nmeans by which Amos may have received this education. It is only on the\nlower ground of the mere forms of language, that the rank of Amos not\nunfrequently appears. In all the higher relations he shows himself a\ntype of the Apostles, who, although they were uneducated fishermen of\nGalilee, exhibit the most distinguishing proofs of true education.\n\nAmos belonged to that circle of prophets who received a commission to\nprophesy the ruin which was impending over the Covenant-people, before\nany human probability existed for it. _Baur_, on Amos, S. 60, is of\nopinion that \"the definiteness with which he prophesies the destruction\nof the kingdom of [Pg 355] Jeroboam, although its power was at that\ntime still flourishing, leads us to expect that he must have had\ndistinct indications of its speedy decay.\" In a certain sense we may\nassent to this opinion. The prophet himself continually points to such\nindications. These indications are the sins of the people. But if\n_Baur_ endeavours to put political indications in the stead of these\nmoral ones; if he be of opinion that the Assyrians must, at that time,\nhave stood in a threatening attitude in the background, we must give to\nhis opinion a decided opposition. We can, in such an assertion, see\nonly an effect of that naturalistic mode of viewing things, which would\nlimit the horizon of the prophets to that of their own times.[2] Not\nthe slightest allusion to the Assyrians occurs. The supposition that\nCalneh or Ktesiphon, in chap. vi. 2, appears as having already fallen\n(through the Assyrians), rests upon an incorrect interpretation, just\nas does the assertion that Hamath, in the same passage, is supposed to\nbe conquered; concerning the latter point, compare _Thenius_ on 2 Kings\nxiv. 28. In the announcement of the carrying away into captivity beyond\nDamascus, made in chap. v. 27, there appears nothing more than the\nknowledge, that the catastrophe will not be brought about by that\nheathen power which had hitherto brought ruin upon the kingdom of\nIsrael But, everywhere, we may see that the prophet--whom we have no\nreason to think an especially ingenious politician--appeared at a time\nwhen no one expected any danger. Amos prophesied at a time when the\nmorning-dawn had risen upon Israel, iv. 13, v. 8; \"in the beginning of\nthe shooting up of the grass, and behold the grass was standing, after\nthe King (Jehovah) had caused to be mown,\" vii. 1; at a time when the\nprosperity of the kingdom of the ten tribes was again budding forth. In\nchap. viii. 9, the Lord threatens that He will cause the sun to go down\nat noon, and bring darkness over the land in the day of _light_. In\nchap. vi. 4-6, the prevailing careless luxury and [Pg 356] joy are\ngraphically described. Chap. v. 18 implies that the people mocked at\nthe threatening of the coming of the day of the Lord, the coming of\nwhich could, therefore, not have been indicated by any human\nprobability. In chap. vi. 1, the prophet gives utterance to an\nexclamation of woe over them that are secure in Zion, and that trust in\nthe mountain of Samaria. In chap. vi. 13, he opposes the delusion of\nthose \"who rejoice in a thing of nought, who say, Have we not taken to\nus horns by our own strength?\" The people in the kingdom of the ten\ntribes must accordingly have imagined that they were living in the\ngolden age of the fulfilment of Deut. xxx. 17, and must not have\nthought for a moment that the axe was already laid to the root of the\ntree.\n\nBut we are not at liberty to seek the fulfilment of the prophecy of\nAmos, only in the visitation by the Assyrians. That which happens to\nthe people of the ten tribes is, to the prophet, only a part of a\ngeneral visitation, which comes, not only upon all the neighbouring\nnations, but upon Judah also, and which brings utter ruin upon the\nlatter, chap. ii. 4, 5, destroying the temple at Jerusalem, and driving\nthe house of David from the throne, ix. 1, 11. According to prophecy\nand history, however, this catastrophe came upon Judah, not by Asshur,\nbut, in the first instance, by Babylon.\n\nThe prophecy possesses a comprehensive character, such as we should be\nled to expect from the close connection of Amos with Joel. It\ncomprehends everything which Judah and Israel, along with the\nneighbouring people, had to suffer from the rising heathen powers;\ncompare vi. 14, v. 24, according to which, judgment shall roll down as\nwaters, and righteousness as a _continual_ stream.[3]\n\nIn the case of Amos, also, interpreters have been at considerable pains\nin fixing the time and the occasion of the single portions, but with as\nlittle success as in the cases of Hosea and Micah. The very inscription\nproves that we have before us a whole, composed at one time, and\ncontaining the substance of [Pg 357] what the prophet had uttered\npreviously, and in a detached form. According to this inscription, the\nbook was composed only two years after the prophet's personal ministry\nin the kingdom of Israel. But if there were such an interval betwixt\nthe oral preaching of the prophet and its having been committed to\nwriting, it is, _a priori_, not likely that the latter should have\nfollowed the former, step by step.\n\nThe words, \"Two years before the earthquake,\" cannot be regarded as a\nchronological date, intended to fix more definitely the exact time\nwithin the more extended period previously stated, viz., \"the days of\nUzziah and Jeroboam.\" For such a purpose they are ill suited, inasmuch\nas the time of the earthquake is not fixed; and, moreover, any such\nmore definite determination would have been without either significance\nor interest. This only was of importance, that the word of the Lord\nshould have been uttered in the days of Jeroboam, and that the prophecy\nof the destruction should have been delivered at a time when the\nIsraelites enjoyed an amount of prosperity, such as they had not known\nfor a long time. It can scarcely be doubted that the earthquake under\nUzziah, the fearfulness of which is testified by Zech. xiv. 5, comes\nunder consideration only as the reason for the composition of the\nbook,--for committing to writing what had formerly been delivered\norally. The earthquake denotes, in the symbolical language of\nScripture, great revolutions, by which the form of the earth is\nchanged, and that which is uppermost, overturned; compare my remarks on\nRev. vi. 12. To point to such an earthquake had been the fundamental\nthought of Amos' oral predictions. By the natural earthquake, he was\ninduced to commit them to writing, that they might go side by side with\nthe symbol, and serve as its interpreter.\n\nThere is a plan in the arrangement of the book, which indicates that\nthe book is not a collection of separate discourses, but that it bears\nan independent character. It is distinctly divided into two parts,--the\nfirst, made up of naked prophecies, from chap. i. to chap. vi.; the\nsecond, of such prophecies as are connected with a symbol, which is\nalways very simple, and very briefly described,--from chap. vii. to\nchap. ix.\n\nIn the first part, the prophet begins with the announcement of the\nwrath of the Lord, ver. 2. He then reviews, in their [Pg 358] order,\nthose kingdoms upon which it shall be poured out, viz., Damascus,\nPhilistia, Tyrus, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and Judah: until at last the storm\nreaches to Israel, and, according to _R\u00fcckert's_ striking remarks,\nremains suspended over it.\n\nIn addition to Israel, there are seven nations, and the seven are\ndivided into three, and four; three not related to the people of the\nten tribes, and four related to them; the brotherly people of Judah\nbeing introduced after three nations have been mentioned which are more\ndistantly related to Israel.\n\nAccording to _R\u00fcckert_, it is only in chap. ii. 6-16 that the storm\nwhich remained suspended over Israel is described; then in chap.\niii.-vi. there follow four threatening discourses, which are not\nconnected either with the preceding ones, or with each other. But the\ncorrect view rather is, that this stationary suspension is described in\nthe whole of the first half,--in the main, indeed, even to the end of\nthe book.\n\nThis is evident from the consideration that, if such were not the case,\nthe treatment of the main subject would be, as regards the extent of\nthe description, greatly disproportioned to the introduction; for chap.\ni. to ii. 5 must be considered to be, throughout, merely introductory.\nBut as the ground on which we advance this assertion is made in\nopposition to an unsound view, it requires a more particular\ndetermination. It is assumed by many interpreters, that in the nations\nbesides Israel, the prophet reproves \"some haughty excesses, but,\nevidently, only as instances of the immorality prevailing\" (_Jahn_,\n_Einl._ 2, p. 404). But this view, according to which the prophet\nmight, instead of the various crimes mentioned, have noticed any other\ncrime, _e.g._, fornication, idolatry, etc., is certainly erroneous. It\nis rather a _theocratic_ judgment of which he speaks throughout; they\nare crimes against the theocracy, the punishment of which he announces.\nThese he considers as being more heinous than all others; for the guilt\nof the latter is diminished by the circumstance of their having been\ncommitted against the hidden God only, while the former have been\ncommitted against the God who has manifested Himself, and who is living\namong His people. For so much is evident, that the main cause of the\nhatred of all the neighbouring nations against Israel was, that Israel\nwas the people of God. For where can an instance be found of a hatred\nbetwixt any [Pg 359] two of them, so inextinguishable, and continuing\nthrough centuries? How entirely different is, _e.g._, the position of\nEdom against Moab, from that of Edom against Israel? Three reasons\nconfirm the correctness of our assertion as to the purely theocratic\nnature of the judgment. 1. The general announcement of the judgment.\n\"Jehovah roareth from Zion, and from Jerusalem He giveth His voice.\"\nThe very use of the name Jehovah here deserves attention. A judgment of\na general kind upon the heathen would belong to God as Elohim. It is\nElohim who is the God of the heathen,--the Creator, Preserver, and\nGovernor of the world, from whom blessings, as well as judgments upon\nit, proceed. Now it might be said that Jehovah is used in the case of\nthe heathen also, for the sake of uniformity, because to Him belongeth\nthe judgment upon Judah and Israel. But that this is not the case, is\nseen from the addition: \"From Zion,--from Jerusalem.\" Every general\njudgment proceeds from heaven; it is only as a theocratic God, that God\nreigns in Zion and Jerusalem. This argument admits of no exception; all\nthat God does from Zion is theocratic deliverance, or theocratic\njudgment.--2. The nature of the crimes themselves, which are cited by\nway of example. It can certainly not be merely accidental, that they\nare all such as were committed against the Covenant-people. There is\none only which forms an apparent exception, viz., that of the Moabites,\nwho are, in chap. ii. 1, charged with having burned into lime the bones\nof the king of Edom. But, with the consent of the greater number of\ninterpreters, _Jerome_ remarks on this: \"In order that God might show\nthat He is the Lord of all, and that every soul is subject to Him who\nformed it. He punishes the iniquity committed against the king of\nEdom.\" But in this remark of Jerome, the relation in which Idumea stood\nto the Covenant-people is altogether lost sight of. It is only as a\nvassal of their kings that the king of Edom here comes into view. This\nis sufficiently manifest from 2 Kings iii., although the event narrated\nthere is different from that which is here alluded to, of which no\nrecord has been preserved in history.[4] The hatred against the\nCovenant-people, which the [Pg 360] Moabites were too weak openly to\nexhibit, impelled them to this wicked deed against the king tributary\nto them.--3. It must be carefully observed how the prophet, when coming\nto Judah, introduces us, at once, into the centre of _theocratic_\ntransgression, the forsaking of the living God, and the serving of\nvain, dead idols.\n\nIt will now be easily seen in what way the portion, chap. i.-ii. 5,\nserves as an introduction to what follows. The prophecies against\nforeign nations do not, as elsewhere, serve as a consolation, or as a\nproof of the love of God towards His people, and of His omnipotence, or\nas a means for destroying confidence in man's power, in man's help;\nthey are, on the contrary, intended, from the very outset, to give rise\nin Israel to the question: If such be done in the green tree, what\nshall be done in the dry? That question the prophet answers at large.\nIf severe punishment be inflicted, even upon those who have trespassed\nagainst the living God, with whom they came into contact only\ndistantly, what will become of those to whom He manifested Himself so\nplainly and distinctly,--among whom He had, as it were, gained a\nform,--before whose eyes He had been so evidently set forth? The\ndeclaration, \"You only do I know of all the families of the earth;\ntherefore I shall visit upon you all your iniquities\" (iii. 2), forms\nthe centre of the whole threatening announcement to Israel. And could\nit indeed be introduced in any better way than by pointing out, how\neven the lowest degree of knowledge was followed by such a visitation?\nBut now, that which under the Old Testament was the highest degree,\nbecomes, under the New Testament, only a preparatory step. The\nrevelation of God in Christ stands in the same relation to that made to\nIsrael under the Old Testament, as the latter stands to the\nmanifestation of His character and nature to the heathen, who came into\nconnection with the Covenant-people. Thus the fulfilment becomes to us\na new prophecy. If the rejection of God, in His inferior revelation,\nwas followed by such awful consequences to the temporal welfare of the\npeople of the Old Covenant, what must be the consequences of the\nrejection of the highest and fullest revelation of God to the temporal\nand spiritual welfare of the people of the New Covenant? This is a\nthought which is further expanded in Heb. xii. 17 ff., and it forms the\nessential feature of [Pg 361] the description of the judgment of the\nworld in the New Testament. This judgment has been but too often\nthus misunderstood, as if it concerned the world as the world,--a\nmisunderstanding similar to that of the section before us. The Gospel\nshall first be preached to every creature, and according as every one\nhas conducted himself towards the _living_ God, so he shall be\njudged.--But it is not to the heathen nations only, but to Judah also\nthat, by way of introduction, destruction is announced. The\ncircumstance that not even the possession of so many precious\nprivileges, as the temple and the Davidic throne, could ward off the\nwell-merited punishment of sin, could not but powerfully affect the\nhearts of the ten tribes. If God's justice be so energetic, what have\n_they_ to expect?\n\nIf we continue the examination of _R\u00fcckert's_ view, it will soon appear\nthat the phrase, \"Hear this word,\" in iii. 1, iv. 1, and v. 1,\ncan alone be considered as the foundation on which it rests. But\nthese words do not at all prove a new commencement, but only a new\nstarting-point. This appears sufficiently from the absence of these\nwords at the alleged fourth threatening discourse in chap. vi.; and\nlikewise from a comparison of Hosea iv. 1 and v. 1: \"Hear the word of\nthe Lord, ye children of Israel,\" and \"Hear this, ye priests, and\nhearken, ye house of Israel, and give ear, house of the king;\" while\nnothing similar occurs in the following chapters. That such an\nexhortation was appropriate, even in the middle, is clearly seen from\nAmos iii. 13. It cannot then, _per se_, prove anything in favour of a\nnew beginning. If it is to be regarded as such, the discourse must be\nproved, by other reasons, to have been completed. But no such reasons\nhere exist. We might as reasonably assume the existence of ten\nthreatening discourses, as of four. The circumstance that we can\nnowhere discover a sure commencement and a clearly defined termination,\nshows that we are fully justified in considering the whole first part,\nchap. i. to vi., as a connected discourse.\n\nThe second part, which contains the visions of the destruction, is\ncomposed, indeed, of various portions,--as might have been expected\nfrom the nature of the subject. Each new vision, with the discourse\nconnected with it, must form a new section. Chap. vii., viii., and ix.,\nform each a whole. From the account which is added to the first vision;\nand which relates [Pg 362] to the transactions between Amos and the\nhigh priest Amaziah, which were caused by the public announcement of\nthis vision (chap. vii. 12-14), we are led to suppose that these\nvisions were formerly delivered singly, in the form in which we now\npossess them. But that, even here, we have not before us pieces loosely\nconnected with each other in a chronological arrangement, is evident\nfrom the fact, that the promises stand just at the end of the whole\ncollection. The prophet had rather to reprove and to threaten than to\ncomfort; but yet he cannot refrain, at least at the close, from causing\nthe sun to break through the clouds. Without this close there would be\nwanting in Amos a main element of the prophetic discourse, which is\nwanting in no other prophet, and by which alone the other elements are\nplaced in a proper light.\n\nIt also militates against the supposition of a mere collection, that in\nthe last vision the prevailing regard to the kingdom of the ten tribes\ndisappears almost entirely, and that, like the third chapter of Hosea,\nit relates to the whole of the Covenant-people,--in agreement with the\nreference to the earthquake mentioned in the inscription, which the\nprophet had experienced in Judah, and which brought into view, not a\nparticular, but a general, judgment.\n\nThe symbolical clothing, however, forms the sole difference betwixt the\nsecond part and the first. As the \"real centre and essence of the book\"\nthe second part cannot be regarded; the threatening is as clear and\nimpressive in the first part.\n\nThat which is common to Amos with the contemporary prophets, is the\nabsolute clearness with which he foresees that, before salvation comes,\nall that is glorious, not only in Israel, but in Judah also, must be\ngiven over to destruction. Judah and Israel shall be overflowed by the\nheathen world, the Temple at Jerusalem destroyed, the Davidic dynasty\ndethroned, and the inhabitants of both kingdoms carried away into\ncaptivity. But afterwards, the restoration of David's tabernacle (ix.\n11), and the extension of the kingdom of God far beyond the borders of\nthe heathen world (ver. 12), take place. The most characteristic point\nis the emanation of salvation from the family of David, at the time of\nits deepest abasement.\n\n\nFootnote 1: _Bochart_ remains unrefuted by the assertions of _Hitzig_,\n_Baur_, and others, who make Amos the owner of a plantation of\nsycamores, which, according to them, made him a wealthy man. \u05d1\u05dc\u05e1 can be\nunderstood only of the plucking, or gathering of the fruits of the\nsycamores. The \"cutting of the bark\" is by no means obvious, and is too\nmuch the language of natural history. That the prophet's real vocation\nis designated by \u05d1\u05d5\u05e7\u05e8, and that \u05d1\u05d5\u05dc\u05e1 \u05e9\u05e7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd is not, by any means,\nsomething independent of, and co-ordinate with that, appears from ver.\n15, where the \u05d1\u05d5\u05e7\u05e8 is resumed. The fruits of the sycamores may,\noccasionally, not have a disagreeable taste, for him who eats them only\nas a dainty; but they are at all events very poor ordinary food;\ncompare _Warnekros_ in _Eichhorn's Repert._ 11. 256.\n\nFootnote 2: The groundlessness of such a mode of viewing things is\nshown by the prophecy of events such as that mentioned in i. 15: \"The\npeople of Aram are carried away to Kir, saith the Lord;\" compare the\nfulfilment in 2 Kings xvi. 9. They had originally come from Kir, Amos\nix. 7. This circumstance furnished the natural foundation for the\nprophecy, and it was certainly this circumstance also which induced the\nconqueror to adopt his measures. But the supernatural character of the\ndefinite prophecy remains, nevertheless, unshaken.\n\nFootnote 3: _Caspari_ in his commentary on Micah, S. 69, is wrong in\nremarking: \"Joel beholds the instruments of punitive justice upon\nIsrael, as numberless hosts only; Amos, already, as a single nation.\"\nIn Amos vi. 14 the \u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 as little means a single nation, as it does in\nthe fundamental passage, Deut. xxviii. 49 ff., beyond the definiteness\nof which Amos does not go.\n\nFootnote 4: Scarcely any doubt can, however, be entertained that we\nhave here before us a _consequence_ of the war mentioned in 2 Kings\niii., viz., the vengeance which the Moabites took for what they\nsuffered on that occasion.\n\n[Pg 363]\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n\nThe chapter opens with a vision. The temple, shaken by the Angel of the\nLord in its very foundations, falls down, and buries Judah and Israel\nunder its ruins. Without a figure,--the breach of the Covenant by the\nCovenant-people brings destruction upon them. The prophet endeavours to\nstrengthen the impression of this threatening upon their mind, by\nbreaking down the supports of false security by which they sought to\nevade it. There is no deliverance, no escape, vers. 2-4, for the\nAlmighty God is the enemy and pursuer, vers. 5, 6. There is no mercy on\naccount of the Covenant, for Israel is no more the Covenant-people.\nThey shall not, however, be altogether destroyed; but the destruction\nof the sinful mass shall be accompanied by the preservation of a small\nnumber of the godly, vers. 7-10. This great sifting is followed,\nhowever, by the restoration; the tabernacle of David which is fallen,\nthe kingdom of God among Israel, connected with the family of David,\nshall be raised up again, ver. 11; rendered glorious by its extension\nover the heathen, ver. 12; and blessed with the abundance of the divine\ngifts, vers. 12-15.\n\n * * * * *\n\nVer. 1. \"_I saw the Lord standing over the altar; and He said, Smite\nthe chapiter, and make the thresholds tremble, and break them upon the\nheads of all; and I will kill their remnant by the sword: he that\nfleeth away of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them\nshall not be delivered._\"\n\nThe principal question which here arises is:--Who is here\naddressed,--to whom is the commission of destruction given by the Lord?\nAs, in accordance with the dramatic character of the prophetical\ndiscourse, the person is not more definitely marked out, we can think\nof Him only who, throughout, executes God's judgments upon the enemies\nof His kingdom. But He is the same to whom the preservation and\nprotection of the true members of His kingdom are committed, viz., the\nAngel of the Lord. It was He, who, as \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea, the destroying Angel,\nsmote the first-born of Egypt, Exod. xii. 2, 3, compared with 12, 13.\nIt was from Him that the destruction of the [Pg 364] Assyrians\nproceeded, 2 Kings xix. 34, 35; Is. xxxvii. 35, 36. After the numbering\nof Israel, when the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, it was\nHe who inflicted the punishment, 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, 15, 16. As He\nencampeth round about them who fear the Lord, so He is, in regard to\nthe ungodly, like the wind which carries away the chaff, Ps. xxxiv. 8,\nxxxv. 5, 6.--In opposition to the objection raised by _Baur_,--\"That,\nwith the exception of the passage in Is. vi., nowhere, in the books\ncomposed before the Chaldee period, do angels appear to act as\nmediators in the execution of the divine commands,\"--it is sufficient\nto refer to Joel iv. (iii.) 9-11, and, as regards _the_ Angel of the\nLord, to Hosea xii. 5 (4). But we have, in addition, a special reason\nfor thinking here of the Angel of the Lord. This is afforded to us by\nthe ninth chapter of Ezekiel, which must be considered, throughout, as\na further expansion of the verse under consideration, and as the oldest\nand most trustworthy commentary upon it. In that chapter, there appear\n(at the command of the Lord who is about to avenge the apostasy of His\npeople) the servants of His justice--six in number--and in the midst of\nthem, \"a man clothed with linen;\"--the former, with instruments of\ndestruction; the latter, with writing materials. They step (the scene\nis in the temple) by the side of the brazen altar. Thither there comes\nto them out of the holy of holies, to the threshold of the temple, the\nglory of the Lord, and gives to Him who is clothed with linen the\ncommission to preserve the faithful, while the others receive a\ncommission to destroy the ungodly, without mercy. But now, Who is the\nman clothed in linen? None other than the Angel of the Lord. This\nappears from Daniel x. 5, xii. 6, 7, where Michael = the Angel of the\nLord (compare _Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_, p. 135 ff.)\nis designated in the same way,--a remarkable coincidence in these two\ncontemporary prophets, to which we omitted to direct attention in our\nwork on Daniel. It is _further_ evident from the subject itself. The\ndress is that of the earthly high priest (_Theodoret_ remarks: \"The\ndress of the seventh is that of the high priest, for he was not one of\nthe destroyers, but the redeemer of those who were worthy of\nsalvation\"); compare Lev. xvi. 4, 23. It is especially from the former\nof these passages that the plural \u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd is to be accounted for.\nAccording to it, the various parts [Pg 365] of the high priest's dress\nare of linen. But the heavenly Mediator, High Priest, and Intercessor,\nis the Angel of the Lord; compare, _e.g._, Zech. i. 12, where He makes\nintercession for the Covenant-people, and the Lord answers Him with\ngood and comfortable words. Concerning the earthly high priest as a\ntype of Christ, and hence a type of the Angel of the Lord, compare the\nremarks on Zech. iii. But we must not imagine that He who is clothed\nwith linen is commissioned solely for the work of delivering the godly,\nand hence stands contrasted with the six ministers of justice. On the\ncontrary, these are rather to be considered as being subordinate to\nHim, as carrying out the work of destruction only by His command and\nauthority. From Him, punishment no less than salvation proceeds.\nThis is sufficiently evident for general reasons. The punishment\nand deliverance have both the same root, the same aim, viz., the\nadvancement of the kingdom of God. We cannot by any means think of evil\nangels in the case of the six; such could be assumed only in opposition\nto the whole doctrine of Scripture on the point, which is always\nconsistent in ascribing the punishment of the wicked to the good\nangels, and the temptation of the godly, with the permission of God, to\nthe evil angels. In proof of this, we have only to think of Job's\ntrial, of Christ's temptation, and of the angel of Satan by whom Paul\nwas buffeted. This subject has already been very well treated by _Ode_,\nwho, in his work _De Angelis_, p. 741 ff., says: \"God sends good angels\nto punish wicked men, and He employs evil angels to chasten the\ngodly.\"[1] But if this be established, it is then established at the\nsame time, that the judgment here belongs to the Angel of the Lord. For\nto Him, as the Prince of the heavenly host, all inferior angels are\nsubordinate, so that everything [Pg 366] which they do belongs to\nHim.--To these general reasons, we may, however, add special reasons\nwhich are altogether decisive. That He who is clothed with linen is\nclosely connected with the six, is indicated by the number seven. He\nalso appears at the side of the altar, and comes in the midst of the\nothers, who follow after Him, ver. 2. But of conclusive significance\nare the words in chap. x. 2 and 7: \"And the Lord spake unto the man\nclothed with linen, and said, Go in between the wheels under the\ncherubim, and fill Thine hand with coals of fire from between the\ncherubim, and scatter them over the city. And He went in, in my sight.\nAnd a cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubim, unto\nthe fire that was between the cherubim, and took, and put it into the\nhands of Him who was clothed with linen. And He took it and went out.\"\nThe _fire_ here is not the symbolical designation of wrath, but natural\nfire; for it is the setting on fire and burning of the city which is\nhere to be prefigured. The wheels denote the natural powers,--in the\nfirst instance, the wind, chap. x. 13, but the fire also; while the\ncherubim denote the living creation. The Angel of the Lord is here\nexpressly designated as He who executeth the judgments of divine\njustice.\n\nThe importance of the preceding investigation extends beyond the mere\nclearing up of the passage under consideration. We have here obtained\nthe Old Testament foundation for the New Testament doctrine, that all\njudgment has been committed to the Son, while the harmony of the two\nTestaments is exhibited in a remarkable instance. Compare with the\nalready cited Old Testament declarations, such passages as Matt. xiii.\n41: \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 and xxv. 31: \u1f4d\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 \u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u1fc3\n\u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03af \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4' \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. In order to be convinced of the identity of the Angel of the\nLord and Christ (compare above, p. 107 sqq. and _Commentary on Rev._ i.\np. 466), we may further direct attention to the fact that the Angel of\nthe Lord, who meets us throughout the whole of the Old Testament,\nsuddenly disappears in the New Testament, and that to Christ all is\nascribed which was in the Old Testament attributed to the Angel of the\nLord.\n\n[Pg 367]\n\nA second important question is:--What is to be understood by _the_\naltar, \u05d4\u05de\u05d6\u05d1\u05d7? Several interpreters adopt the opinion of _Cyril_, and\nthink of the altar at Bethel, or some other idolatrous altar in the\nkingdom of Israel. Others (_e.g._, _Marckius_) are of opinion that the\narticle stands here without meaning, and that it is the intention of\nthe prophet only to represent God as appearing on some altar, leaving\nit undetermined on which, in order thereby to indicate that He required\nthe blood of many men. But against such expositions the article is\nconclusive. _The_ altar can be that altar only, of which every one\nwould think, if an altar \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, and without a more definite\ndesignation, were spoken of. Such was the brazen altar, or altar of\nburnt-offering in the outer court of the temple at Jerusalem. That it\nwas this altar, and not the altar of incense before the holy of holies,\nwhich received, in the common language of the people, the name of _the_\naltar, is easily explained from the circumstance that it stood in a\nmuch closer relation to the people than did the other which was\nwithdrawn from their view. On this altar all the sacrifices were\noffered, and it must, throughout, be understood, when _the_ altar of\nthe Lord is spoken of; compare remarks on Rev. vi. 9. But that which\nremoves all doubt is the comparison with the parallel passage in\nEzekiel. There, the scene is the temple at Jerusalem. The ministers\nof justice step beside the brazen altar. At the threshold of the\ntemple-building proper, the glory of the Lord moves toward them. This\nparallel passage, moreover, does not leave any doubt as to the reason\nwhy the Lord appears here beside the altar. _Jerome_ remarks on this:\n\"They are introduced standing beside the altar, ready for the order of\ntheir commander; so that they know every one whose sins are not\nforgiven, and who is liable, therefore, to the sentence of the Lord,\nand to destruction.\" The Lord's appearing beside the altar is a visible\nrepresentation of the truth, that wheresoever the carcase is, there\nwill the eagles be gathered together. The altar is the place of\ntransgression; it is there that there lies accumulated the unexpiated\nguilt of the whole nation, instead of the rich treasure of love and\nfaith, which alone should be there, embodied in the sacrifice. The Lord\nappears at the place of transgression, in order that He may be\nglorified in the destruction of those who would not glorify Him in\ntheir lives. [Pg 368]--Now several interpreters (_e.g._, _Michaelis_),\nwho have correctly defined the meaning of the altar, would infer from\nthe mention of the temple at Jerusalem, that the whole prophecy refers\nto the kingdom of Judah. But such an assumption is altogether\ninadmissible. Even the general reason, that a prophecy which refers\nexclusively to Judah cannot be at all expected from a prophet who had\nreceived his special mission to Israel, militates against it.\n_Further_,--The close of this prophecy, the proclamation of salvation,\nbelongs, as we have already proved, to the whole collection. If this be\nreferred to Judah alone, there is then an essential element awanting in\nthat portion which is addressed to Israel; we should then have judgment\nwithout mercy, threatening without consolation,--a thing which could\nnot well be conceived of, and would be without analogy in any of the\nprophets. To this we must _further_ add the express references, or\nco-references to Israel throughout the whole chapter,--such as the\nmention of Carmel in ver. 3; of the children of Israel, in ver. 7; of\nthe house of Jacob, in ver. 8; of the house of Israel, in ver. 9; of\n\u05e4\u05e8\u05e6\u05d9\u05d4\u05df, in ver. 11; of My people Israel, in ver. 14. The whole\nassumption of an exclusive reference to Judah owes its origin to the\ncircumstance, that features which are only symbolical have been\nerroneously interpreted as actual. But if they be viewed and explained\nas symbols, every reason for denying the reference to Israel is then at\nonce removed. The temple symbolizes the kingdom of God; its falling\ndown upon the people is symbolical of the punishment which is inflicted\nupon them, in consequence of this kingdom. The destruction of the\ntemple in the literal sense is not, primarily, spoken of; although\nthe latter, it is true, be inseparable from the former. If the\nCovenant-people in general were outwardly desecrated, because they had\ndesecrated themselves inwardly, then also the outward sanctuary which\nthey had, by their wickedness, converted into a den of thieves, was\ntaken from them; compare the remarks on Dan. ix. 27. If Israel then, at\nthat time, still belonged to the kingdom of God (and this can certainly\nnot be doubted, and is sufficiently proved by the very mission of our\nprophet to Israel), there exists no reason at all for excluding it. For\nIsrael also, the temple at Jerusalem formed the seat and centre from\nwhich it was governed,--the place from which blessings and punishments\n[Pg 369] proceeded. The prophet indeed, at the very opening of his\nprophecies, describes the Lord as roaring from Zion, and uttering His\nvoice from Jerusalem. On the altar at Jerusalem the crimes of Israel\nwere deposited, no less than those of Judah; for there was the place\nwhere the people of both kingdoms were to deposit the embodied\nexpression of their godly disposition. It was there, then, that, in\nreality, the fruits of the opposite were lying, although, as regards\nthe place, they were offered elsewhere.--So much indeed is certain,\nthat the co-reference to Judah is necessarily required by the\nsymbolical representation. The rejection of Israel alone could not be\nsymbolized by the destruction of the temple. And no less does this\nappear from the announcement of salvation. For this does not by any\nmeans promise the re-establishment of the Davidic dominion among the\npeople of Israel, but the restoration of the entire fallen Davidic\ngovernment. The tabernacle of David that is fallen refers to the\ndestroyed temple. Both signify, substantially, the same thing. With the\ndestruction of the temple, the Davidic tabernacle also fell; and its\nfall included the overthrow of the kingdom of Israel; for, in this\nalso, the Davidic race had still the dominion _de jure_, although it\nwas suspended _de facto_.\n\nThe passage under consideration is remarkable also, inasmuch as it\nfurnishes a proof for the custom of designating the kingdom of God from\nits existing seat and centre, and thus furnishes us, for other passages\nalso, with the right of freeing the thought from the figurative\nclothing.\n\nA _further_ reason against referring _the_ altar to the altar at\nBethel, is, that the latter enjoyed no such pre-eminence in the kingdom\nof Israel. The temple at Bethel was, to the ten tribes, by no means\nwhat the temple at Jerusalem was to Judah. The law regarding the\nunity of the place of worship was, among the ten tribes, regarded as\nnon-existing. Even in the verse immediately preceding, in viii. 14, Dan\nand Beersheba had been mentioned as the chief seats of the Israelitish\nworship; and in chap. iv. 4, Gilgal appears beside Bethel as possessing\nthe same importance. In chap. v. 5, Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba are\nmentioned together. Hosea, in chap. viii. 11, reproves Israel for\nhaving made many altars to sin. Hence, there did not exist in Israel an\naltar \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd. Such an altar existed only in [Pg 370] Judah. Nor\nhad the sanctuary at Bethel such importance, as that it could be\nconsidered as the spiritual abode of the whole people.--_Hofmann_\n(_Weissagung u. Erf\u00fcllung_, S. 203) raises the following objection\nagainst the reference to the altar at Jerusalem:--\"The prophet, it is\ntrue, reproves the sins in Judah as well as those in Israel; but it is\nonly to the kingdom of Jeroboam that he announces destruction, while to\nthe house of David he promises that Jehovah would raise it up from its\nfallen condition.\" But in opposition to this objection, we need only\nrefer to ii. 5: \"And I send fire in Judah, and it devours the palaces\nof Jerusalem.\" Passages such as i. 14, 15, ii. 3, absolutely forbid us\nto make an exception of the palace of the king; and, by chap. vii. 9,\nwhere destruction is announced to all the sanctuaries of Isaac, we have\nas little warrant for excepting the temple. To assume any such\nexceptions, would be contrary to the analogy of all other threatenings.\n_Hofmann_ further objects (l. c. S. 204), \"As the threatening\nannouncement of the prophet had last remained suspended over Israel, we\nare at liberty to think of the altar at Bethel only.\" But already, in\nthe third chapter, all Israel is addressed, according to ver. 1; and we\nmay further refer to v. 25, where likewise Israel can mean only the\nwhole people,[2] while in vi. 1, Judah is expressly mentioned beside\nIsrael. The prophet employs, throughout, the name of Israel with a\ncertain ambiguity; so that it would be vain to attempt to determine\nwhether it be used in the wider, or in the more limited sense. Wherever\nhe wishes to be distinctly understood as speaking of the ten tribes, he\nspeaks of Joseph and Samaria. Still less would the prophet have\nemployed the names of Jacob (iii. 13, vi. 8, vii. 2, 6) and of Isaac\n(vii. 9, 16), which were quite uncommon as a designation of the ten\ntribes,[3] [Pg 371] if it had been of importance, and intentional on\nhis part strictly to separate the boundaries of Judah from those of\nIsrael, and, if there were not everywhere here, only a special\napplication to the ten tribes of that which concerned the whole who\nwere connected by a common fate. But it is especially suitable, that\njust the close of the whole should, in a remarkably distinct manner,\nbring into view the two kingdoms, the destinies of which were so\nintimately connected.--_Hitzig_, further, with a view to favour the\nreference to the temple in Bethel, adduces the consideration that this\nvision is connected with the close of viii. 14, and forms a kind of\nexplanation of it. But we have here an entirely new beginning, just as\nin chap. viii. in its relation to chap. vii. The three visions are\naltogether independent of, and co-ordinate with each other.--\u05e0\u05e6\u05d1 with\n\u05e2\u05dc is commonly used of a prominent position _at the side of_: Gen.\nxviii. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 20; compare \u05e2\u05de\u05d3 with \u05e2\u05dc 1 Kings xiii. 1. In Ezek.\nix. 1 also, the angels stand at the side of the brazen altar, \u05e0\u05e6\u05d1 can,\nof course, never signify \"_to be suspended_.\"--\u05d4\u05db\u05e4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8 is a species of\nornament at the top of the pillars; and \u05d4\u05e1\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd, \"the thresholds,\" are\ncontrasted with each other, in order to give expression to the thought\nthat the building was to be shaken, and destroyed from the highest part\nof it to the lowest,--from the top to the bottom. The shaking of the\nthresholds occurs also in Is. vi. to denote that the shaking extended\nto the deepest foundations. The greater number of interpreters\ntranslate: \"Strike the knop _so that_ ... tremble,\" etc.; but the\n\u05d5\u05d9\u05e8\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5 must be viewed rather as co-ordinate with \u05d4\u05da: \"And they may\ntremble,\" equivalent to \"Make to tremble.\"--The suffix in \u05d1\u05e6\u05e2\u05dd refers\nto the knops and threshold, or to the entire building, which is marked\nout by the contrast of the highest and lowest portions. According to\n_Ewald_ and _Umbreit_, it is intended to refer to the dashed pieces of\nthe altar; but nothing has been said about the destruction of the\naltar. In Ezek. ix. 2 likewise, the altar is mentioned, not because it\nwas to be destroyed, but only because there the guilt is heaped up. The\ncasting down does not, in itself, imply the _breaking_, _dashing into\npieces_; it does so only by its being connected with the following\n\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9. The passage in Jer. xlix. 20 is analogous: \"He shall make their\nhabitation desolate over them;\" instead of: \"He shall thus make it\ndesolate that they are buried beneath its ruins;\" [Pg 372] compare Jer.\nl. 45. \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9, properly understood, does not mean \"_upon_ the head;\" the\nhead is rather represented as the receptacle of the tumbling ruins;\nthey fall into their heads and crush them; compare Ps. vii. 17. In what\nprecedes, there is no definite noun to which \u05db\u05dc\u05dd refers. This is to be\nexplained by the dramatic character of the whole representation which\narises necessarily from the opening phrase: \"I saw.\" The same reason\naccounts for the peculiarity of \u05d4\u05da being employed without any\ndesignation of person. In his inward vision, the prophet sees the whole\npeople assembled before the Lord at the threshold of the temple.\nThe Lord appears before him as the judge, at the place of the\ntransgressions, at the side of the altar. At His command, the whole\nassembled multitude are buried under the ruins of the temple. From this\nalso it is evident that a destruction of the temple in a literal sense\ncannot be entertained; for how could a whole people be buried under its\nruins? The same appears also from \u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 at the commencement. This,\nthen, shows that we have here before us a symbolical representation,\ncorresponding altogether to that which we have in vii. 1, 4, 7, viii.\n1. Hitherto, the Lord speaking to some one, had given him the\ncommission of destruction. He now continues with: \"I will kill.\" This\nalso shows that the one who is addressed is the Angel of the Lord. The\nsame occurrence takes place in the greater number of the passages in\nwhich the Angel of the Lord is spoken of. In the action there is\nconstant alternation; it is ascribed, at one time to Him, at another,\nto Jehovah.--Several interpreters (_Marckius_, _De Wette_, _R\u00fcckert_,\nand others) explain \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea by \"posterity;\" others, after the example of\nthe Chaldee (\u05e9\u05d0\u05e8\u05d4\u05d5\u05df), by \"remnant;\" and others, by \"lowest of the\npeople.\" We must here enter into a closer examination of the\nsignifications of this word. It is commonly supposed (compare\n_Gesenius_ and _Winer_) that, primarily and properly, it signifies \"the\nlast and extreme part,\" and then \"the end.\" But that which is supposed\nto be the derived signification is rather the original and proper one.\nThe form of the word cannot furnish any reason why this should not be\nthe case, as is evident from what has been remarked by _Ewald_: \"As the\nfeminine termination, in general, forms abstract nouns, so also, not\nunfrequently, abstract nouns are derived from other nouns, by means of\nthe termination \u05be\u05be\u05d9\u05ea; very frequently there is no [Pg 373] masculine in\n\u05be\u05b4\u05d9 at all at the foundation, but \u05be\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea serves, in general, only as the\nsign of derivation.\" The following reasons prove that the signification\n\"end\" is the primary and proper one. 1. If the contrary were the\ncase, the masculine \u05be\u05b4\u05d9 would also occur, and the feminine would be met\nwith as an adjective also. 2. \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea forms the constant antithesis to\n\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea; but it is universally admitted that the former is, originally\nand properly, an abstract noun, and signifies \"beginning.\" The\nsignification \"end\" must then be retained here also. The word never has\nanother signification (compare my work on Balaam, p. 465 ff.); it means\nonly \"end\" in Its various relations. But the posterity cannot here be\nthought of as the end; for the whole action is concentrated in one\npoint of time. Nor is the word ever used in the sense of \"posterity.\"\nWith as little propriety can \"end\" mean \"the lowest of the people;\" for\none cannot see why just these should be given up to the sword. \"End,\"\nhere, rather denotes \"remnant,\"--all those who, at the overthrow of the\ntemple, might escape. These, the Lord will pursue with the sword. They\nwho were buried under the temple are the beginning, \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea; the latter\nare the \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea, end. Corresponding to the shaking of the temple from the\nknops to the thresholds, the thought is expressed in this manner, that\nfrom the first to the last, \u05db\u05dc\u05dd \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4 they should be subjected to the\ndivine punishment. An implied antithesis of quite the same kind, of\n\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea to \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea occurs also In iv. 2 (where _De Wette_ and _R\u00fcckert_\nhave likewise mistaken the sense), and in viii. 10.--On the last words\nof the verse, which are to be considered as a further explanation of,\n\"Their end, or remnant, I will kill by the sword,\" _Cocceius_ remarks:\n\"This slaughter becomes the more thorough, inasmuch as even they who\nflee, or seemed to have fled, are not excluded from it.\" The second\nmember seems to contradict the first; for if none be allowed to flee\naway, how can any have escaped? Several Interpreters have been thereby\ninduced to give to the verb \u05e0\u05d5\u05e1 the first time, the signification \"to\nescape,\"--the second time, \"to flee.\" But the contradiction is quite\nsimilar to that which occurs in the preceding context also, when all\nare dashed to pieces by the ruins, and yet a remnant is spoken of. It\nsoon disappears when we consider that it Is the intention of the\nprophet to cut off every possible way of escape, by which carnal\nsecurity endeavoured to save [Pg 374] and preserve itself against the\nimpression of his discourse--that it is equivalent to: \"_All_ shall be\nburied under the ruins, and although some should succeed in escaping\nfrom this kind of destruction, yet the sword of divine vengeance would\nbe behind them, and slay them; flight shall not be possible to any man;\nand even although it might be to some, it would be of no avail to them,\nfor God would be their persecutor.\" But another apparent contradiction\nmust not be overlooked. Even here, the destruction is most emphatically\ndescribed as being quite general; as such, it is minutely represented\nins vers. 2-4. One cannot fail to see how anxious the prophet is to cut\noff, from every individual, the idea of the possibility of an escape.\nOn the other hand, it is announced in ver. 8, that the house of Jacob\nshall not be utterly destroyed; according to ver. 9, all the godly\nshall be preserved; according to ver. 10, the judgment is to be limited\nto the sinners from among the people,--a limitation which is also\npresupposed by the description in the 11th and subsequent verses. In\niii. 12, the preservation of a small remnant amidst the general\ndestruction had been promised. The greater number of interpreters, in\norder to reconcile this apparent contradiction, assume an hyperbole in\nvers. 1-4. But this assumption is certainly erroneous. The ground of\nthis great copiousness,--the reason why the prophet represents the same\nthought in aspects so various,--is evidently to prevent every idea of\nan hyperbole,--to show that the words are to be taken in all their\nstrictness of meaning. But the limitation may be arrived at, and\neffected in a different, and legitimate way. There is, in the nature of\nungodliness, a levity which flatters every individual with the hope of\nescape, even although a threatened general calamity should take place.\nAll the possibilities of deliverance are sought after in such a\ndisposition of mind, and are, by imagination, easily changed into\nprobabilities and realities, because just that is wanting which proves\nthem to be improbable and unreal, viz., the consciousness of a living,\nomnipotent God. Thus men free themselves from fear, and with it, from\nthe troublesome obligation of escaping from it in another and a\nlegitimate way, viz., by true conversion. Now, it is this levity which\nthe prophet opposes. He shows that whatever possibility of deliverance\nsuch levity may dream of, it never would become a reality, and this [Pg\n375] for the simple reason, that they had not to deal with human\nantagonists; from them an escape by human means would be possible, how\npowerful and wise soever they might be. But they have to deal with an\nomnipotent God, who, being also omnipresent, can arm all His creatures\nagainst His despisers, so that they cannot retreat to any place where\nHe, who reigneth absolutely in heaven and on earth, has not ministers\nof His vengeance. Every thought, then, of an escape by _human means_ is\nhere cut off. But with this, every thought of deliverance in any way is\ntaken from the _ungodly_, who are told by their own consciences that\nGod will not deliver them. But, on the other hand, the same\nconsideration could not but administer consolation to the godly. If no\none, should he even hide himself in heaven, can escape from God the\nAvenger, then no one, were he even in the midst of his enemies, and\nwere the sword even already lifted up against him, can be lost from God\nthe Deliverer.--Another question has been asked, which relates to the\nhistorical reference of the threatened punishment. It goes just as far\nas the thought which lies at its foundation: \"You only have I known of\nall the families of the earth; therefore I shall visit upon you all\nyour transgressions.\" Those interpreters who think exclusively of\neither the Assyrian, or the Chaldean, or the Roman destruction, are, in\nthe same way, partly right and partly wrong, at the same time. All\nthese events, and others besides, belong essentially to one whole. The\ndifference as to time and circumstances is that which is unessential.\nThat a prophet had exclusively in view any single one from among those\ndivine manifestations of punishment, can be asserted, only where he\nhimself has given express declarations to such an effect; and even\nthen, the prophecy is limited to that single event, as to its _form_\nonly: its _idea_ is not lost by the single fulfilment.\n\nVer. 2. \"_If they break through into hell, from thence My hand shall\ntake them; if they ascend up into heaven, from thence I will take them\ndown._\"\n\nThe Future must not, either here, or in what follows, be understood as\n_potentialis_: \"Though they should conceal themselves;\" but as the real\nFuture: \"If they are to conceal themselves.\" That \u05d0\u05dd with the Future is\nused only _de re dubia_, as _Winer_ asserts, is as erroneous as to\nassert that, with the Preterite, [Pg 376] it supposes the condition as\nexisting. The correct view has been already given by _Gesenius_ in the\n_Thesaurus_. By supposing the possibility of a condition, impossible in\nreality, the denial of the consequence becomes so much the more\nemphatic and expressive. That such a supposition is made here, is\nevident from ver. 4, where the prophet passes over to the territory of\nactual possibility, and where, therefore, we cannot translate: \"Though\nthey should go.\" Such a supposition is, in general, very frequent. It\noccurs, _e.g._, Matt. v. 29, where _Tholuch_ (_Comment. on the Sermon\non the Mount_) has been led very far astray from the right\nunderstanding of \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f41 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b5, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.,\nby overlooking this _usus loquendi_. We are not indeed at liberty to\ntranslate, \"Though thy right eye should offend thee;\" but it must be\ndecided by other arguments, whether the condition here _supposed_ be\none really possible; and these arguments show that it is only for the\nsake of greater emphasis that there has here been supposed as possible,\nwhat is impossible.--Heaven and Sheol form a constant contrast between\nthe highest height and the lowest depth. From a merely imagined\npossibility, the prophet descends to the real one. If, then, even the\nformer be not able to afford protection, because God's hand reaches\neven where one has escaped far from any human power, how much less the\nlatter!--\u05d7\u05ea\u05e8 with the Accus. signifies \"to break through,\" Job xxiv.\n16; with \u05d1, \"to make a hole in anything;\" thus Ezek. viii. 8, xii. 7,\n12 (\u05d7\u05ea\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e7\u05d9\u05e8, \"to make a hole in the wall\"). These parallel passages\nshow that the Sheol must be conceived of as being surrounded with\nstrong walls,--by which is expressed its inaccessibility to all that is\nliving. The fundamental passage is in Ps. cxxxix. 7, 8: \"Whither shall\nI go from Thy Spirit, and whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I\nascend up into heaven. Thou art there; if I make my bed in hell,\nbehold, Thou art there.\" David does not here speak in his own person,\nbut in that of his whole race. The Psalm is an indirect exhortation to\nhis successors on the throne, and at the same time to the people. \"If\nyou are wicked,\" so he here addresses them, \"you can never hope to\nescape from the punishing hand of the Almighty.\" And since they have\nbecome wicked, the words of David have acquired new emphasis.\n\nVer. 3. \"_And if they hide themselves on the top of Carmel,_ [Pg 377]\n_from thence I will search and take them out; and if they hide\nthemselves from My sight in the bottom, of the sea, from thence I will\ncommand the serpent, and he bites them._\"\n\nThe question here is:--Why is Carmel specially mentioned? Interpreters\nremind us of the numerous caves of this mountain, which make it\npeculiarly suitable for concealment. _O. F. von Richter_, in the\n_Wallfahrten im Morgenlande_, S. 65, remarks on this point: \"The caves\nare extremely numerous in Carmel, especially on the west side. It is\nsaid that there are more than a thousand, and that they were inhabited\nin ancient times by monks, to whom, however, their origin cannot be\nascribed. In one part of the mountain, called 'the caves of the members\nof the orders,' 400 are found beside each other. Farther down in the\nhard limestone mountain, there is one which is distinguished by its\nsize, about 20 paces long, and more than 15 broad and high.\" Details\nstill more accurate are given by _Schulz_ in the _Leitungen des\nH\u00f6chsten_, Th. 5, S. 186, 303. According to him, the road is pure rock,\nand very smooth, and so crooked, that those going before cannot see\nthose who follow them. \"When we were only ten paces distant from each\nother, we heard each other's voices, indeed, but were invisible to each\nother, on account of the winding ways made in consequence of the\nintervening by-hills.... Everywhere there are caves, and their mouths\nare often so small that only one man can creep through at a time; the\napproaches to them are so serpentine, that he who is pursued may escape\nfrom his pursuer, and step into such a small opening, of which there\nare frequently three or four beside each other, before his pursuer is\naware of it. Hence, if any one should hide himself there, it is\nexceedingly difficult, yea, even impossible for the eyes of man to\ndiscover him who is pursued.\" But this circumstance alone does not\nexhaust the case, even if we still further add that the mountain was\nthen, as it is now (_Richter_, S. 66), covered with trees and\nshrubberies up to the summit. The expression, \"In the top,\" must not be\noverlooked, and the less so, since it stands in evident antithesis to\nthe \"_bottom_ of the sea,\"--like the contrast of height and depth in\nthe preceding verse. Heaven and hell are represented on earth by the\ntop of Carmel, and the bottom of the sea. The height of Carmel must,\ntherefore, come also into consideration. This, it is true, is not very\ngreat; _Buckingham_ [Pg 378] estimated it at 1500 feet (_v. Raumer_, S.\n40); but the prophet chose Carmel in preference to other higher\nmountains, partly on account of the peculiarity already stated; partly,\nand especially, on account of its position in the immediate\nneighbourhood of the sea, over which its summit hangs, and which can be\nseen to a great distance from it; compare 1 Kings xviii. 43, 44. Of\ncorporeal things it holds true, as it does of spiritual things, that\nopposites, placed beside each other, become thereby more distinct. A\nlower elevation, placed by the side of a depth, appears to the\nunscientific eye to be much higher than another which is really so.\nMoreover, the position of Carmel at the extreme western border of the\nkingdom of Israel must also be considered. He who hides himself there,\nmust certainly be ignorant of any safer place in the whole country; and\nif even then there be no more security, the sea alone is left.--\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4\noccurs frequently with the signification \"to bid,\" to \"command.\" The\nword is chosen on purpose to show, how even the irrational creatures\nstand in the service of the omnipotent God; so that it requires only a\nword from Him to make them the instruments of His vengeance. That the\nprophet had a knowledge of a very dangerous kind of sea-serpents (of\nwhich _Pliny_ xix. 4 speaks), need not be supposed on account of the\n\u05de\u05e9\u05dd. That was not of the slightest consequence here. In v. 19 the\nserpent occurs in a particularizing representation of the thought that\nGod is able to arm all nature against His enemies: \"As if a man flees\nfrom the lion, and a bear meets him; and he comes home, and leans his\nhand on the wall, and a serpent bites him\"--just the opposite of the\nassurance that \"to those who love God, all things shall work together\nfor good.\" So early as in Deut. xxxii. 24, apostates are threatened\nwith the poison of the serpents of the dust, besides the teeth of wild\nbeasts; and what this threatening implied, might have been well known\nto Israel from their former history; compare Num. xxi. 6: \"And the Lord\nsent against the people serpents, and they bit the people, and much\npeople of Israel died,\"--a passage to which Jeremiah alludes in chap.\nviii. 17, where he says; \"For behold I send against you serpents,\nbasilisks, against which there is no charm, and they bite you, saith\nthe Lord.\" It is very probable that to this the prophet also alludes in\nthe passage before us.\n\n[Pg 379]\n\nVer. 4. \"_And if they go into captivity before their enemies, from\nthence will I command the sword, and it slayeth them; and I set Mine\neyes upon them for evil and not for good._\"\n\n\u05d1\u05e9\u05d1\u05d9 means the state of exile. The circumstance of their being carried\ninto captivity might awaken the hope that mercy will be granted to\nthem; for, according to the natural course of things, he who is carried\naway into captivity may be sure of his life; but nothing can give\nsecurity before God. The last words are strikingly illustrated by\n_Calvin_, who says: \"There is an antithesis in this sentence, inasmuch\nas God had promised that He would be the protector of His people. But\nas hypocrites are always apt to appropriate to themselves the promises\nof God, without having either repentance or faith, the prophet here\ndeclares, that the eye of God would be upon them, not to protect them,\nas was His custom, but rather to add punishments to punishments. And\nthis sentence is worthy of notice, inasmuch as we are thereby reminded,\nthat although the Lord does by no means spare infidels. He yet observes\nus more closely in order to punish us the more severely, when He sees\nthat we are utterly hardened and incurable.\" Under any circumstances,\nthe people of the Lord continue to be the objects of special attention.\nThey are more richly blessed; but they are also more severely punished.\n\nVer. 5. \"_And the Lord, Jehovah, of hosts, who toucheth the earth, and\nit melteth, and all that dwell therein mourn; and it riseth up wholly\nlike the stream, and it sinketh down as the stream of Egypt._\"\n\nThe prophet continues to cut off every false hope with which levity\nflatters itself. How can you think to escape, since you have the\nAlmighty God for your enemy! \"The prophet,\" remarks _Jerome_, \"speaks\nthus, in order to impress them with the greatness of divine power, that\nthey might not imagine that He would perhaps not do what He had\nthreatened, or that His power was not equal to His will.\" Similar\ndescriptions of the divine omnipotence, as opposed to unbelief and weak\nfaith, are very numerous; _e.g._, iv. 13, v. 8, 27; Is. xl. 22, xlv.\n12. We are not at liberty to translate: \"And the Lord Jehovah of hosts\nis He who toucheth.\" It is rather an abrupt mode of speech; and there\nmust be supplied, either at the beginning, \"And who is your enemy?\" or\nat the end, \"He is your opponent.\" [Pg 380] This abruptness of language\nis quite in accordance with the subject, and belongs, moreover, to the\ncharacteristic peculiarities of Amos. Altogether similar is v. 7, 8,\nwhere Israel and their God are simply placed beside each other, and\nevery one is left to conclude for himself how such a God would act\ntowards such a people: \"They who turn judgment to wormwood, and cast\nrighteousness to the earth. Making the Pleiades and Orion, and turning\nthe shadow of death into the morning, and making the day dark with\nnight, calling,\" etc. The accumulated appellations. Lord, Jehovah, of\nhosts, likewise serve to point out the omnipotence of God. The believer\naccumulates these appellations in his prayer in order to awaken his\nconfidence and hope; compare, _e.g._, Is. xxxvii. 16, where Hezekiah\nbegins his prayer to the Lord thus: \"Jehovah, of hosts, God of Israel,\nThou who art enthroned on Cherubim, Thou art God alone for all the\nkingdoms of the earth.\" But these appellations are held up to the\nunbelievers, to cast down all their hopes. We have separated, of hosts,\nfrom the preceding appellation of God by a comma. Ever since\n_Gesenius_, in his Commentary on Is. i. 9, has asserted that \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea when\nconnected with Jehovah, must be considered as a Genitive depending upon\nit, his view has been pretty generally adopted. But it is certainly\nerroneous. The instances by which _Gesenius_ endeavours to prove the\npossibility of such a connection of proper names with appellative names\nare not to the point. In \"Bethlehem Jehudah\" it is only by a false\ninterpretation that Jehudah is considered as standing in the _status\nconstr._ with Bethlehem (compare the remarks on Mic. v. 1 [2]); and\nwith regard to \u05d0\u05e8\u05dd \u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd it is to be remarked that, in consequence of\nits many divisions, \u05d0\u05e8\u05dd loses the nature of a proper name. The two\nwords, Jehovah Zebaoth, can no more be immediately connected with each\nother than Jehovah (which is as perfect a proper name as ever existed)\never has, or ever can have, the article. Let us only consider the\nphrase \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea in Ps. lxxx. 15, and elsewhere, where a _status\nconstr._ is out of the question; and, _further_, the fact that\nwherever, as in the case under review, Adonai precedes, the Mazorets\nhave always given to \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 the points of \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd but never of \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b5\u05d9; and\nlet us, _finally_, consider the far more frequent, full expression,\n\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea (_e.g._, iii. 13, iv. 13, v. 14), and we shall be\nconvinced, that even where the [Pg 381] simple \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea occurs, not\nindeed \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9 is simply to be supplied (if such were the case, why is it\nthat \u05d4\u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea never occurs alone?), but that the notion of the Lord is to\nbe taken from the preceding designations of the sovereignty of God.\nCompare on \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea the remarks in my Commentary on Ps. xxiv. 10, where\nthose also are refuted who, like _Maurer_ (in his Comment. on Is. i.\n9), maintain that it had simply become a name of God.--The\nmanifestations of God's omnipotence are, after the general intimations\nof it are given, just such as might now be expected; compare viii. 8.\nThe _Fut. with Vav Conv._ \u05d5\u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05d2 does not here denote the Past, \"And it\nmelted,\" but only the consequence of the preceding action, as\ncontinuous as that: \"Who toucheth the earth, and it melteth.\" A\ndissolution of the earth is to be thought of,--similar to that\ncondition in which it was before the days of creation, and similar to\nits condition during the great flood. Such a condition of dissolution\ntakes place also when the earth is visited by mighty kings desirous of\nmaking conquests. \"Who toucheth the earth, and it melteth,\"--the truth\nof these words Israel had _first_ to learn by sad experience when the\nwild hosts of Asshur were poured out over the West of Asia. The passage\nin Ps. xlvi. 7 is parallel, where it is said: \"The heathen rage,\nkingdoms are shaken; He uttereth His voice (which corresponds with,\n'Who toucheth the earth,' in the verse before us), and the earth\n_melteth_.\" The \u05de\u05d5\u05d2, \"to melt,\" \"to dissolve,\" signifies, in that\npassage, the dissolving effect of the divine judgments, the instruments\nof which are the conquerors. _Further_,--Ps. lxx. 4: \"The earth and all\nthe inhabitants thereof are melted,\"--by the success of the conqueror\nof the world, the earth is, as it were, dissolved, and sunk back into\nthe chaotic state of primitive time.--The words, \"And it riseth up,\"\nare to be explained from the fact that the earth, changed into a great\nstream, cannot be distinguished from the water which covers it. The\nearth rises up, it is overflowed,--the earth sinks down, the water\nsubsides. The last clause of the verse must not be translated--as is\ndone by _Rosenm\u00fcller_, _Gesenius_, _Maurer_--\"It is overflowed as by the\nstream of Egypt.\" This explanation is unphilological, and contrary, at\nthe same time, to the parallelism, which requires that \u05db\u05d9\u05d0\u05e8 be, both\nthe times, understood in the same way. The verb \u05e9\u05e7\u05e2 means only \"to\nsink,\" \"to sink down,\" and is used of the subsiding water, Ezek. xxxii.\n14; of the subsiding flame, [Pg 382] Num. xi. 2; and of a sinking town,\nJer. li. 64. The last words thus rather contain the opposite of the\nclause immediately preceding. But the sinking does not, by any means,\nsignify a freedom from the waters, nor is it to be conceived of as\nremaining. All which is expressed is the change only,--the ebb takes\nthe place of the flood, and _vice versa_. This, however, is, on the dry\nland, a very sad condition. The inundation is here an emblem of hostile\noverflowing. Water is frequently an emblem of enemies; compare Ps.\nxviii. 17, cxliv. 7. Overflowing streams are emblematical of the crowds\nof nations, who, with a view to conquest, overflow the whole earth. Is.\nviii. 7, 8, xvii. 12; Jer. xlvii. 2, xlvi. 7, 8, where Egypt rises as\nthe Nile, just as, in the case before us, the earth; with this\ndifference, however, that there the rising is an active, while here it\nis a passive one: \"Who is this who riseth like the Nile, whose waters\nare moved as the rivers? Egypt riseth up like the Nile, and his waters\nare moved like rivers, and he saith, I will go up and cover the earth,\nI will destroy the city and the inhabitants thereof;\" Ezek. xxxii. 14:\n\"Then will I make sink their waters, and cause their rivers to run like\noil,\" equivalent to: The conquering power of Egypt shall cease. Amos\nviii. 8 is a parallel passage, in which, after the description of the\nprevailing sin, it is said: \"Shall not the earth tremble for this, and\nevery one mourn that dwelleth therein? And it riseth up wholly like the\nNile, and is agitated, and sinketh down like the Nile of Egypt.\" The\nearthquake is the symbol of great revolutions, by which that which is\nhighest is turned upside down; compare Haggai ii. 21, 22: \"I shake the\nheavens and the earth, and overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and\ndestroy the strength of the kingdom of the heathen;\" while the\noverflowing is emblematical of hostile inundation, of visitation by\nwar, in which the ebb succeeds the flood, and _vice versa_.--In his\nnegligent mode of writing--which frequently occurs in this book--the\nprophet wrote \u05e0\u05e9\u05e7\u05d4 instead of \u05e0\u05e9\u05e7\u05e2\u05d4, corresponding to the \u05e9\u05e7\u05e2\u05d4 in the\nverse under consideration, just as in the same verse he wrote \u05db\u05d0\u05e8\ninstead of \u05db\u05d9\u05d0\u05e8. The Mazorets, who everywhere disregarded the\npeculiarities of the individual writers, have introduced the common\nform.\n\nVer. 6. \"_Who buildeth His upper chambers in the heaven, and His\nvault--over the earth He foundeth it: who calleth the waters_ [Pg 383]\n_of the sea, and poureth them out over the earth--Jehovah His name._\"\n\nThat \u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea is here equivalent to \u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea, \"upper chambers\" (compare 1\nChron. xvii. 17, where \u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05ea occurs with the signification \"high\nplace\"), is put almost beyond any doubt by the parallel passage, Ps.\nciv. 3: \"Who frameth with the waters His upper chambers.\" The\nfundamental passage is Gen. i. 7: \"God made the vault, and divided\nbetween the waters which are under the vault, and the waters which are\nabove the vault.\" \"The waters, viz., the upper ones\"--thus we have\nremarked in our commentary on that passage from the Psalms--\"are the\nmaterial out of which the structure is reared. To construct, out of the\nmoveable waters, a firm palace, the cloudy sky, firm as a molten\nlooking-glass (Job xxxvii. 18), is a magnificent work of divine\nomnipotence. The palace of clouds, as the upper part of the fabric of\nthe universe, gets the name _upper chambers_ of God; the lower part is\nthe earth.\" As all the other manifestations of divine omnipotence in\nvers. 5, 6, are such as are to be called into existence now, the upper\nchambers and the vault will here come into consideration, in so far as\nfrom thence the torrents of rain are poured forth; compare Ps. civ. 13,\naccording to which the rain cometh from the upper chambers of God; and\nGen. vii. 11: \"The same day broke forth all the fountains of the great\nflood (the last member of our verse), and _the windows of heaven were\nopened_.\" From the upper chambers of God, whence once, at the time of\nthe deluge, the natural rain came down, the rain of affliction will now\ndescend.--\u05d4\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0--\u05e9\u05de\u05d5 already occurred, _verbatim_, in v. 8. \u05d4\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\nstands in the same relation to \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05e4\u05db\u05dd, as in ver. 5 \u05e0\u05d5\u05d2\u05e2 does to \u05d5\u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05d2\nand is equivalent to: \"Upon whose mere word the waters of the sea cover\nthe surface of the earth;\" compare Gen. vi. 17: \"And, behold, I do\nbring the flood of waters upon the earth.\" The sea is the common emblem\nof the heathen world; compare remarks on Ps. xciii., civ. 6-9. In chap.\nvii. 4, the \"great flood\" is contrasted with the \"lot\" in Deut. xxxiii.\n9,--the heathen world, with the people of God. The fire of war, which\nthe Lord kindles, devours both in the same way. Here, in contrast with\nthe deluge, the conquering inundation of the earth proceeds from the\nmidst of the heathen world, stirred up by the Lord, and destroys first\nof all unfaithful Israel, who, had they been [Pg 384] faithful to the\nCovenant, would have been able to say, as in Ps. xlvi. 2-4, \"God is our\nrefuge and strength, a help in trouble He is found very much. Therefore\nwill we not fear when the earth is overturned, and the mountains shake\nin the midst of the sea; its waters roar and foam, mountains tremble by\nits swelling.\"\n\nVer. 7. \"_Are you not as the sons of the Cushites unto Me, O children\nof Israel? saith the Lord. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land\nof Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?_\"\n\nThe prophet here deprives the people of another prop of false security.\nThey boasted of their election, by which God Himself, as they imagined,\nhad bound His hands. They considered the pledge of it--the deliverance\nfrom Egypt--as a charter of security against every calamity, as an\nobligation to further help in every distress, which God could not\nretract even if He would. A great truth lay at the foundation of this\nerror,--a truth which has been disregarded by the greater number of\ninterpreter's, who have, in consequence, forced upon the prophet a\nsense which is altogether false.[4] The election of the people, and\ntheir deliverance from Egypt, were actually what they considered them\nto be. God Himself had in reality thereby bound His hands; He _was\nobliged_ to deliver the people. He _could_ not cast them off. The\nelection was an act of free grace; the manifestation of it in deeds was\nan act of His righteousness. The people had a right to remind Him of\nHis duty, when He seemed not to perform it. Their election was then a\nfirm anchorage of hope, a rich source of consolation, the foundation of\nall their prayers. But the error consisted in this, that the election\nwas usurped by those to whom it did not belong,--an error which is\ncontinually repeating itself, and which shows itself in a fearful form,\nespecially in the case of those who believe in the doctrine of\nPredestination. We need, for example, refer only to _Cromwell_, who, in\nthe hour of death, silenced, by this false consolation, all the\naccusations of his [Pg 385] conscience. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f60\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6, says\nthe Apostle, in Rom. ii. 25, \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\n\u1f95\u03c2, \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd. The deliverance from Egypt\nstands on the same footing as circumcision. The former also was\nprofitable; to those who showed themselves to be children of Israel, it\nafforded the certainty that God would prove Himself to be their God.\nFor those, however, who had become degenerate, it entered altogether\ninto the circle of ordinary events. For them, it became something that\nhad altogether passed away--that did not carry within itself any pledge\nof renovation. This error is here laid open by the prophet, as he had\nalready done in v. 14: \"Seek good and not evil, that ye may live, and\n_thus_ the Lord, the God of hosts, be with you.\" He directs their\nattention to the fact, that, in the Covenant-relation, which rests on\nreciprocity, the party who broke the Covenant had nothing to ask,\nnothing to hope for. \"_Be not_,\" etc.; the _tertium comparationis_ is\nevidently the alienation from God. The \"children of Israel\" (the\nappellation expressive of their dignity is intentionally chosen in\norder to make more striking the contradiction between the appearance\nand the reality) have become so degenerate, that they are no more any\nnearer to God than the sons of the Cushites. Those interpreters who\nregard sin alone as the _tertium comparationis_ (_Cocceius_ says: \"Ye\nare so alienated from Him, and so unfaithful, that every one of you may\nbe called a Cushite\"), give too limited a sense to the expression. \"You\nare to Me,\" is rather equivalent to, \"I have not any more concern in\nyou, you stand not to Me in any other relation.\" But why are the\nCushites alone mentioned as an example of a people alienated from God?\nTheir colour, perhaps, is more to be considered in this, than their\ndescent from Ham; the physical blackness is viewed as an emblem of the\nspiritual. Thus they appear in Jer. xiii. 23: \"Will indeed the Cushite\nchange his skin, and the leopard his spots? will you indeed be able to\ndo good, who have been taught to do evil?\" But the fundamental passage\nis the inscription of Ps. vii., where Saul, on account of his black\nwickedness, appears under the symbolical name of Cush.--The right\nexplanation of these first words furnishes, at the same time, the key\nto the sound interpretation of the words which [Pg 386] follow: It is\nonly for the Covenant-people that the deliverance from Egypt is a\npledge of grace. But you are no longer the Covenant-people; your being\nbrought up out of Egypt, therefore, stands on the same line with the\nbringing up of the Philistines from their former dwelling-places in\nCaphtor to their present abodes, and with the bringing up of the\nSyrians from Kir, in which no one will see a pledge of divine grace, a\npreservative against every danger, and, especially, an assurance of the\nimpossibility of a new captivity. The geographical inquiries regarding\nCaphtor and Kir would lead us too far away from the subject which we\nare here discussing. The view which is now prevalent, and according to\nwhich Crete is to be understood by the former, is in contradiction to\nthe old translations, which have Cappadocia, and with Gen. x. 14,--as\nlong as, in that passage, the Colchians are to be understood by the\nCasluhim. But that point would require a minute investigation, which\nmay be more suitably carried on at some other place.\n\nVer. 8. \"_Behold, the eyes of the Lord Jehovah are upon the sinful\nkingdom, and I destroy them from off the face of the earth, saving that\nI will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord._\"\n\n_The_ sinful kingdom, whether its name be Israel or Judah, or whether\nit be called Egypt or Edom. The holy God has not by any means, as you\nin your blindness imagine, given you a privilege to sin. A difference\nexists between Israel and the others in this respect only, that utter\nruin does not take place in the case of the former, as it does in that\nof the latter. For the distinction between the people of God and other\nnations consists in this, that in the former, there always remains a\nholy seed, an \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ae, which the Lord must protect, and make the nursery\nof His kingdom, according to the same necessity of His nature as that\nby which He extirpates the sinners of His people. The \"sinful kingdom\"\nforms the contrast with the righteous kingdom; the article being here\nused in a generic sense. Similar are Is. x. 6: \"_I send him against\nimpious people, and against the people of My wrath_ (wheresoever there\nare such) _I give him command_;\" and Ps. xxxiii. 12: \"Blessed is the\nnation whose God is the Lord, the people whom He hath chosen for His\ninheritance;\" on which latter passage _Michaelis_ remarks, \"Blessed is\nthe nation, whichsoever it may be.\" The eyes of [Pg 387] the Lord are\nopen upon _the_ sinful kingdom, and hence also upon the house of Jacob;\nit must be destroyed as all others are, but it cannot be _destroyed\nlike them_,--an idea which is prominently brought out by the prefixed\nInfinit. \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05d3. That is an erroneous interpretation which understands\nby the sinful nation, Ephraim, and, after the example of _Grotius_ (\"I\nwill destroy the kingdom, not the people\"), assumes that, by the house,\nin contrast with the kingdom, the people are intended. Such a contrast\nbetwixt the house and the kingdom would have required a more distinct\nintimation. The house of Jacob, when referred to the ten tribes, is\nidentical with the kingdom. They were a house only in so far as they\nwere a kingdom. But it is both against the words (in Obad. ver. 17,\n\"house of Jacob\" is likewise used of the whole of the nation), and\nagainst the connection, to refer it to the ten tribes. When, however,\nit is referred to the whole, a contrast betwixt people and kingdom can\nthe less have place, as, according to ver. 11, the kingdom also shall\nbe restored.--The first part of the verse is almost literally identical\nwith Deut. vi. 15: \"For a jealous God is Jehovah, thy God, in thy\nmidst; lest the anger of Jehovah thy God be kindled against thee, and\nHe destroy thee from off the face of the earth,\" \u05d5\u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05da \u05de\u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05de\u05d4.\nThe prophet says nothing new; he only resumes the threatening of the\nrevered lawgiver.--The construction of \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 with \u05d1 is explained by\nthe circumstance that, according to the context, the eyes of the Lord\ncan mean only His angry eyes--equivalent to the anger of the Lord in\nthe passage quoted from Deuteronomy; and the verbs and nouns expressive\nof anger are connected by \u05d1 with the object on which the anger rests;\ncompare Ps. xxxiv. 17.\n\nVer. 9. \"_For behold I command and shake the house of Israel among all\nthe nations, as one shaketh in a sieve, and not shall anything firm\nfall to the ground._\"\n\nThe figure in this verse is, upon the whole, plain; but some of the\nparticulars require to be explained, and to be more accurately\ndetermined. The signification \"sieve,\" commonly assigned to \u05db\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4, must\nbe conceded to it. We must, however, here understand it of such a sieve\nas serves similar purposes as a winnowing shovel, in which the corn is\nviolently shaken, and thus purified; and not of a sieve in which, by\nmere sifting, the corn is freed from the dust which has remained after\nthe first [Pg 388] and proper cleansing. The latter is assumed by\n_Paulsen_ (_vom Ackerbau der Morgenl\u00e4nder_, S. 144), and, along with\nhim, by the greater number of interpreters. Such a sieve--a kind of\nfan--is mentioned in Is. xxx. 24, in addition to the winnowing shovel.\nIt occurs likewise in Luke xxii. 31, where \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is _vanno\nagitare_. The LXX. also have here adopted the explanation, not of an\nordinary sieve, but of an instrument which serves the same purposes as\nthe winnowing shovel: \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bc\u03b9\u1ff6 (\u0391. \u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9)\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u1f74\u03bb, \u1f43\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bc\u1ff7. _Hesych._ \u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bc\u1ff7, \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u1ff3. To this we are likewise led by the verb\n\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9, which is indicative of a violent procedure, and by the\noccurrence of the same figure in so many passages of Scripture;\ncompare, _e.g._, Jer. li. 2; \"I will send against Babylon fanners that\nshall fan her, and shall empty her land;\" Jer. xv. 7, and Matt. iii.\n12; while the use of the ordinary sieve for such a purpose is never\nmentioned, nor is it ever employed for a figure.--\u05d1\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd is not to\nbe translated, \"_by_ all nations,\" but, as the corresponding \u05d1\u05db\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\nshows, \"in,\" or \"among all nations.\" The many people are the spiritual\nsieve,--the means of purging. The Lord, whose instruments they are,\nemploys them for the destruction of the ungodly. They are taken away by\nHis secret judgments, for the execution of which He employs the\nheathen; compare ver. 10. Even the godly are violently shaken; but the\nhand of the Lord secretly upholds them that they may not sink, but\nthat the temptation may serve for their spiritual growth; compare\nLuke xxii. 31, 32, where the Lord distinctly alludes to the passage\nunder consideration. The corn is shaken; dust and impurity fall to the\nground, the chaff flies into the air. Many interpreters ascribe\nto \u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 the signification, \"corn;\" others, \"little stone.\" But these\nsignifications have been both assumed merely for the sake of the\ncontext. \u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8, from \u05e6\u05e8\u05e8, _colligavit_, _constrinxit_, means, primarily,\n\"that which is tightly bound together;\" then, \"bundle,\" \"bag;\" but\nhere, as in 2 Sam. xvii. 13, \"that which is compact, firm, and solid,\"\nas opposed to that which is loose, dissolved, and thin. That which is\nhere meant is the solid, firm corn, as opposed to the loose chaff, and\nthe dust which falls to the ground through the sieve.\n\nVer. 10. \"_By the sword, shall die all the sinners of My people who\nsay, The evil will not come near, nor advance to us._\"\n\n[Pg 389]\n\nIn order that the preceding mitigation of the threatening of punishment\nmight not be appropriated by those to whom it did not belong, the\nprophet, before passing on to the further detail of the promise, once\nmore presents the threatening in all its severity. \"The sinners who\nspeak,\" etc., are they who usurped the promises of the Covenant without\nhaving truly fulfilled its conditions,--who boasted of, and trusted in,\ntheir belonging outwardly to the people of God (compare iii. 2), and\ntheir zeal in the external performance of the duties of worship\n(compare v. 21-23); and who therefore imagined that the judgments of\nthe Lord could not reach them, while, by their sins, they did all in\ntheir power to draw them down upon them, v. 18, vi. 3.\n\nVer. 11. \"_In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is\nfallen, and wall up its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and build it\nas the days of eternity._\"\n\nThe words, \"In that day,\" are to be understood quite generally, viz.,\nas referring to a time after the divine judgments have broken in and\nhave completed their work upon Israel. \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, by which James\nrenders it in Acts xv. 16, completely expresses the sense. The\nassertion of _Baur_, \"That the prophet must have conceived of the\nrestoration of the tabernacle of David as being near at hand, because\nhe recognised the instruments of judgment in the invading Assyrians,\"\nfalls to the ground along with the supposition on which it rests. The\nprophet has nothing at all special to do with the invasion of the\nAssyrians.--The Partic. \u05e0\u05e4\u05dc\u05ea, according to the usual signification of\nthe Partic., expresses a permanent condition. The very expression,\n\"tabernacle,\" suggests the idea of a sunken condition of the house of\nDavid. The prophet sees the proud palace of David changed into a humble\ntabernacle, everywhere in ruins, and perforated. The same idea is\nexpressed by a different image in Is. xi. 1. There the house of David\nis called the cut off trunk of Jesse, which puts forth a new shoot.\n_Hofmann_ and others are of opinion that the prophet designates the\nhouse of David as a fallen tabernacle, on account of its abasement at\nthe time then present. \"At present,\" he says, \"the lofty house of David\nis a \u05e1\u05db\u05d4 \u05e0\u05e4\u05dc\u05ea when compared with the power of Jeroboam; but the latter\nshall fall, and the former shall raise itself again from its decay.\"\nBut this designation is certainly not applicable to [Pg 390] the house\nof David under a king like Uzziah, nor, in general, to the whole time\nof the existing Davidic kingdom. The fact that Amos foresees the deep\nfall of Judah, is placed beyond all doubt even by ii. 5. It is\nimpossible that the announcement of the restoration which is to\n_follow_ only after this fall, should altogether ignore the latter.\nThis is, moreover, proved by the parallel passages. The predictions of\nall the prophets are pervaded by the foresight of the Messiah's\nappearing at the time of the deepest debasement of the Davidic dynasty,\nand after the total loss of the royal dignity; compare the remarks on\nMic. iv. 8, vi. (2); Is. xi. 1, liii. 2; Ezek. xvii. 22-24.--It might\nnow appear as though the prophet here only supposed the ruin of the\nhouse of David, without having, in the preceding context, expressly\nmentioned it; but such is not the case. The whole of the preceding\nthreatening of punishment relates to the ruin of the house of David;\nfor when the kingdom suffers, the reigning family cannot but suffer\nalso. This close connection of the two is pointed out by the prophet\nhimself in the subsequent words. The change of the suffixes is there\ncertainly not without a reason. The suffix in \u05e4\u05e8\u05e6\u05d9\u05d4\u05df refers to the two\nkingdoms; that in \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05e1\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 to David; and that in \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 to the\ntabernacle, while the subject of \u05d9\u05d9\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5 (ver. 12) is the people. By this\nit is intimated that David, his tabernacle, the kingdoms, and the\npeople, are in substance one--that one stands and falls with the other.\nThey who overlook the co-reference to Judah, in the preceding verses,\ndo not know what to make of the suffix in \u05e4\u05e8\u05e6\u05d9\u05d4\u05df (compare the\nexpression \"these kingdoms,\" used of Judah and Israel in vi. 2), and,\nin their uncertainty, conjecture sometimes one thing and sometimes\nanother.--\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 is Nominat., not Accusat. The comparison is merely\nintimated; compare remarks on Hos. ii. 17. The circumstance that\nthe happy days of the times of David and Solomon are here spoken\nof as \"days of eternity\"--of the remotest past (compare Mic. vii.\n14)--implies that the prophet sees a long interval between the present\nand the predicted event.--The foundation of this prophecy is the\npromise to David in 2 Sam. vii.; compare especially ver. 16: \"And thine\nhouse and thy kingdom shall be sure in eternity before thee, and thy\nthrone shall be firm in eternity.\" This reference has also been pointed\nout by _Calvin_, who remarks: \"When the prophet says, 'as in the days\nof old,' he confirms [Pg 391] the doctrine that the dignity of\nthe house would not always flow in an equal current, but that,\nnevertheless, there would always be such a restoration as would make it\neasily perceptible that God's promise of an eternal dominion to David\nhad not been in vain.\" The dominion of David had already suffered a\nconsiderable shock by the separation of the two kingdoms, existing at\nthe prophet's time; but it was in future to sink even far more deeply,\nand the people along with it. But, with all these things, God's promise\nremains true. The judgments do not shut up the way for His mercy, but\nrather prepare it. That it was only through the family of David that\nthe promised salvation could be imparted to the people, the prophet\nplainly declares. If it were not so, how could he have identified the\ntabernacle of David with the two kingdoms, and with the people? As to\nthe person of the restorer, he does not more particularly designate it.\nThe main thing with him, as with Hosea (compare the remarks on Hos. ii.\n2, and iii. 5), is to impress upon the people of Israel the conviction,\nthat salvation could come to them only from a reunion with Judah--from\ntheir joining again the house of David; compare Ezek. xxxvii. 22: \"And\nI make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel, and\none king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two\nnations, and they shall be no more divided into two kingdoms.\" But if\nthis was sure and established, there could then be no more any doubt as\nto the person. It was at that time generally known that the promise\ngiven to David would be finally fulfilled in the Messiah; and it was\ngenerally acknowledged by the ancient Jews, that the passages under\nconsideration refer to the Messiah. _Jerome_ remarks: \"The Jews refer\neverything which, in this and the other prophets, is foretold\nconcerning the building up of Jerusalem and the temple, and the\nhappy condition of all things, to themselves, and foolishly expect\nthat all shall be fulfilled in a carnal sense.\" It is from the passage\nunder review that the Messiah received the name \u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd, _filius\ncadentium_--He who springs forth from the fallen family of David;\ncompare _Sanhedrin_, fol. 96, 2: R. Nachman said to R. Isaac, Hast thou\nheard when \u05d1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd is to come? The latter answered: Who is he? R.\nNachman said: The Messiah. R. Isaac: But is the Messiah thus named? R.\nNachman: Certainly, in Amos ix. 11: [Pg 392] \"In that day I will raise\nup the tabernacle of David that is fallen.\" In _Breshith Rabbah_, sec.\n88, we read: \"Who would have expected that God should raise up again\nthe fallen tabernacle of David? And yet we read in Amos ix. 11, 'In\nthat day,' etc. And who could have hoped that the whole world could yet\nbecome one flock? And yet, such is declared in Zeph. iii. 9: 'Then will\nI turn to the people in pure lips, that they all may call upon the name\nof the Lord, and serve Him with one lip.' But all that is prophesied\nonly in reference to the Messiah.\" See _Sch\u00f6ttgen_, p. 70, and other\npassages, especially from the _Sohar_, ibid. p. 111, 566.\n\nVer. 12. \"_In order that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of\nall the heathen upon whom My name is called, saith the Lord that doeth\nthis._\"\n\n_Calvin_ remarks on this verse: \"This main point is plainly declared to\nus, that there is here promised an extension of the kingdom under\nChrist; and it is just as if the prophet had said that the Jews were\nenclosed within narrow limits, even when the kingdom of David did most\nflourish, inasmuch as, under Christ, God is to extend their territory,\nso that they shall rule far and wide.\" There is here an evident\nallusion to the times of David, which, in the last words of the\npreceding verse, formed the subject of discourse. This is quite plain\nalso from the mention of the Edomites. These had been made subject by\nDavid; but afterwards, availing themselves of the commencing fall of\nDavid's tabernacle, they had again freed themselves. Not only they,\nhowever, but all the other heathen nations, shall be again subjected to\nthe raised up tabernacle of David. That former event served as a type\nand prelude to the latter, and formed moreover a prophecy of it in\ndeeds, inasmuch as both rested on the same foundation, viz., God's\nprotection of His Church, and His care for His kingdom. It is for this\nreason too, that, with an allusion to the former event, the verb \u05d9\u05d9\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\nis chosen. By this verb, expression is given only to the fact of their\nagreement, and to points in which those events agree; but it gives no\nindication of _how far_ they agree, or in what respects they differ;\nthis is to be declared in the subsequent words. The prophet, however,\nin speaking only of the _remnant_ of Edom, looks back to the\nthreatening in chap. i. They only who have been preserved in the\njudgment which is there announced, are to come [Pg 393] under the\nblissful dominion of the kingdom of David. As Israel, so also the\nGentiles, must be prepared for the coming of the kingdom of Christ by\ncrushing judgments. The judgment upon Israel is only a single portion\nof a great judgment upon all nations. Into this connection it is\nbrought by the very opening chapters of this book. In chap. v. 8, vii.\n7, there is likewise an intimation of great calamities and shakings,\nwhich are to come upon the heathen world. The submission of the remnant\nof the heathen world, however, will not be an abasement, but, on the\ncontrary, an exalting of them; this is shown by the words, \"Upon whom\nMy name is called.\" These words do not allow us to think of such a\nrelation of Edom and the other nations to Israel, as existed at the\ntime of David in the case of the conquered nations. They are never used\nto designate a form of allegiance to the Lord so low and false, but\nalways denote the relation of close and cordial allegiance. The heathen\nare in future to be considered and treated as those who are consecrated\nto the Lord, and who belong to His holy people,--just as Israel is now\nconsidered and treated. Compare, as to the use of these words with\nreference to Israel, Deut. xxviii. 9, 10: \"The Lord shall raise thee\n_an Holy people unto Him_, as He hath sworn unto thee ... and all\npeople of the earth see that the name of the Lord is called upon thee,\nand are afraid of thee.\" In this verse, the expression, \"The name of\nthe Lord is called upon thee,\" corresponds with \"holy people.\" Jer.\nxiv. 9: \"And Thou, O Lord, art in the midst of us, and Thy name is\ncalled upon us.\" Is. lxiii. 19: \"We are those over whom Thou hast not\nreigned from eternity, and upon whom Thy name has not been called.\" As\nregards the use of these words in reference to the temple, compare,\nfurther, Jer. vii. 10, 11: \"And ye come and stand before Me in this\nhouse, upon which My name is called. Is, perhaps, this house upon which\nMy name is called, a den of robbers in your eyes?\" The exceeding\ngreatness of their wickedness is denounced in these words; and the\nground why it is so great, is not by any means the fact, that the\ntemple, as was indeed the case with that at Bethel, bore the name of\nthe house of God only by the caprice of the people, but that it really\nwas the house of God, and that God, in His gracious condescension, was\nthere _really_ present, as a type of His dwelling in Christ; compare\nDeut. xii. 5: \"The place which [Pg 394] the Lord your God shall choose\nout of all your tribes, to put His name there.\" _Finally_, These words\nare used in reference to single individuals, whom God, in a special\nsense, has made His own, His representatives, the bearers of His word,\nthe mediators of His revelations, in Jer. xv. 16: \"I found Thy words\nand I did eat them, and Thy words became unto me the joy and rejoicing\nof my heart: for Thy name was called upon me, Jehovah, God of hosts,\"\netc., equivalent to, \"For I was the messenger and representative of\nThee, the Almighty God.\"--_Hitzig_, _Hofmann_, and _Baur_ explain the\nexpression, \"Upon whom My name is called,\" by, \"Upon all the nations\nwho once, at the time of David, were in subjection to the people of\nGod.\" The use of the Preterite has been urged in favour of this\nexplanation; but it is certainly very rash to assert, on the ground of\nthis, that \"this view alone is admissible according to the rules of\ngrammar.\" The statement of _Ewald_, \u00a7 135 _a_, is exactly applicable to\nthis case: \"The _Perfectum_, when used with reference to some future\nevent, either mentioned or conceived of, may as well indicate the past\nwhich _then_ has taken place.\" The sense might thus be: \"All the\nheathen upon whom then My name will be called.\" In the same sense, the\nPreterite is used in another passage, quoted by _Hofmann_ for a\ndifferent purpose--viz., 2 Sam. xii. 28: \"In order that I may not take\n(\u05d0\u05dc\u05db\u05d3) the city, and my name be called (\u05e0\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0) upon it.\" It militates,\nhowever, against their view, that the name of the Lord being called\nupon any one, has, according to all the parallel passages, a sense too\nprofound to admit of a relation to the Lord so loose and external being\nthereby designated. It is used only of such as are received into the\ncondition of the people and sons of Jehovah, Hos. ii. 1 (i. 10).\n_Further_, The mere restoration of the Davidic dominion over the\nheathen is a very meagre thought, which is far from coming up to what\nJacob had foretold in Gen. xlix. 10, and to what David and Solomon\nexpected of the future; compare, _e.g._, Ps. lxxii. 11: \"And all kings\nworship Him, all the heathen serve Him.\"--The closing words, \"Thus\nsaith the Lord that doeth this,\" are intended to strengthen faith in a\npromise which appears to be incredible, by calling attention to the\nfact, that the person who promises is also the person who carries it\nout to its fulfilment; compare Jer. xxxiii. 2: \"Thus saith the Lord\nthat makes it, the Lord that forms it, [Pg 395] to carry it out, the\nLord is His name.\" This closing formula is also very ill suited for so\nmeagre a prediction as that of the restoration of the old borders, of\nwhich Israel, under the reign of Uzziah and Jeroboam, was not so very\nfar short. It was, probably, solely from a false interpretation of the\npassage under review, that an important historical event had its rise.\nHyrcanus compelled the Idumeans, who were conquered by him, to be\ncircumcised, and in that way to be incorporated into the Theocracy; so\nthat they lost entirely their national existence and name (_Jos. Arch._\nxiii. 9, 1; _Prideaux Hist. des Juifs_, vol. v. p. 16). This proceeding\ndiffered so materially from that which was ordinarily followed--for\nDavid did not think it at all necessary to adopt a similar proceeding\nagainst the Idumeans, and the other nations which were conquered by\nhim--that it necessarily requires some special reason to account for\nit; and such a reason is furnished by the passage under consideration.\nHyrcanus washed to be instrumental in the fulfilment of the prophecy\ncontained in it; but in this he failed. He did not consider, 1. That\nthe reception of Edom into the kingdom of God is here brought into\nconnection with the restoration of the tabernacle of David, and hence\ncould be brought about only by a king of the house of David. He did not\nconsider, 2. That the matter here in question is not such a reception\ninto the kingdom of God as depends upon the will of man, but a\nspiritual reception, which carries along with it the full enjoyment of\ndivine blessings. That it was, however, easy for Hyrcanus to fall into\nsuch a mistake, is shown by the example of _Grotius_, who confined\nhimself to this merely apparent fulfilment, although he had the real\nfulfilment before his eyes. By a similar misunderstanding of Old\nTestament prophecies, other important events also were brought about;\n_e.g._, according to the express testimony of Josephus, the building of\nthe Egyptian temple, and, as we shall afterwards see, the building of\nthe temple by Herod.\n\nIt now only remains to consider the quotation of this passage in the\nNew Testament, in Acts xv. 16, 17. _Olshausen_ has directed attention\nto a difficulty regarding it, which has been overlooked by the greater\nnumber of interpreters. He says that one cannot well see how the\nquotation bears upon the point at issue. Both parties were at one as to\nthe duty of admitting the Gentiles into the kingdom of God. The only\nquestion was [Pg 396] about the manner of their reception--whether\nwith, or without, circumcision--and as to this, the prophecy, which\nconfines itself to the fact only, does not contain any express\ndeclaration. But this difficulty has its sole foundation on the\nerroneous view that James was stating two reasons altogether\nindependent of each other;--the first in ver. 14, God's declaration by\nfacts, in His having given His Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, without\ntheir having been circumcised; and then, in vers. 16, 17, the testimony\nof the Old Testament. But the sound view rather is, that both together\nform only one reason. Apart from that testimony which God, the Searcher\nof hearts, had given to the Gentiles by the gift of the Holy Spirit,\nand by making no difference betwixt them and Israel, the prophetic\ndeclaration would have been without any significance; but it acquires\nthis significance when combined with the testimony of God. It is now\nalso that the silence of James, in reference to that condition which\nwas demanded by those of a pharisaic tendency, gains significance.\nSimeon has declared how God at first was pleased to take a people for\nHis name out of the Gentiles; and after the _fact_ of their reception\nhas been so expressively declared, the Old Testament passage, where\nthis reception is spoken of, is not cognizant of any other _mode_. The\nApostle does not content himself with quoting ver. 12; he first cites\nver. 11, because it furnished the proof that the declaration contained\nin ver. 12 referred to that time. That event, with which the conversion\nof the Gentiles is here immediately connected, had already taken place\nin Christ, at least as to the germ, which contained within itself the\nwhole substance which afterwards displayed itself. But it was the main\nthought only which came into consideration in ver. 11, and therefore it\nis somewhat abbreviated. In the quotation, the translation of the LXX.\nevidently forms the foundation.\n\nThe quotation of ver. 12 agrees, almost _verbatim_, with the LXX. It\nfollows them in their important deviation from the Hebrew text. Instead\nof, \"In order that they may occupy the remnant of Edom,\" the LXX. read,\n\u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5 (instead of \u03bc\u03b5 Luke\nhas \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, which is found in the _Cod. Alex._ also, but has very\nlikely come in from Luke). It is of very little consequence to\ndetermine in what manner the translation of the LXX. arose; whether\nthey had a different reading, \u05dc\u05de\u05e2\u05df \u05d9\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d0\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd, [Pg 397] before\nthem; or whether they merely read erroneously; or whether, according to\n_Lightfoot_ (in his remarks on Acts xv. 16, 17), they intentionally\nthus altered the words; or whether it was their object to express the\nsense only generally and approximately (in the last two cases we should\nbe obliged to suppose that, by a kind of play, and in order to\nrepresent, in an outward manner, the substantial agreement of the\nthought, they chose words exactly corresponding to the Hebrew text,\nwith the exception of a change of a few letters,--a thing which\nfrequently occurs in the Talmud, and even in Jeremiah when compared\nwith the older prophets); only, we must set aside the idea of a really\ndifferent reading,--a reading resting on the authority of good\nManuscripts, inasmuch as such an idea would be irreconcilable with the\ndeviations of the LXX. elsewhere, and with the unanimity of the Hebrew\nManuscripts in the passage before us. The assertion of _Olshausen_,\nhowever, that, in the Hebrew form, the passage would not have been\nsuitable for the purpose, and that therefore it is probable that, on\nthis occasion, Greek must have been spoken in the assembly, does indeed\ndeserve our attention.\n\nWhether or not the latter was the case, we leave undecided. That it was\nprobable, may be proved from other grounds, but it by no means follows\nfrom the reason stated by _Olshausen_. The passage was suited for the\nproof, as well according to the Hebrew text, as according to the\nAlexandrian version; for the latter is quite correct and faithful in so\nfar as the sense is concerned. The _occupying_, in the sense in which\nit is used by Amos, has the _seeking_ for its necessary supposition.\nFor how, indeed, can spiritual possession, spiritual dominion by the\npeople of the Lord exist, unless the Lord has been sought by those who\nare to be ruled over? Compare the declaration: \"The isles shall wait\nfor His law,\" Is. xlii. 4. The words, \"And of all the heathen,\"\nfollowing immediately after Edom, evidently prove that Amos mentions\nEdom, only by way of individualizing; and the Idumeans, especially, as\na people, only because their former, specially violent hatred to the\nCovenant-people (compare i. 11) made their future humble submission\nmore evidently a work of the omnipotence of God, and of His love\nwatching over His people; and at the same time there may be a reference\nalso to the former subjection by David. The LXX. [Pg 398] have done\nnothing more, than at once to substitute for the particular, the\ngeneral which comprehends this particular,--a particular which is, by\nAmos too, designated as a part of the general.[5]\n\nVer. 13. \"_Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and the ploughman\nreacheth to the reaper, and the treader of the wine-press to him that\nsoweth seed. And the mountains drop must, and all the hills melt._\"\n\nThe fundamental thought in this passage is this:--Wheresoever the Lord\nis, there also is the fulness of His gifts.--The imagery in the first\nhemistich is taken from Lev. xxvi. 3-5: \"If ye shall walk in My laws,\nand keep My commandments and do them; then I will give your rains in\ntheir seasons, and the land gives its produce, and the tree of the\nfield gives its fruit. And your threshing _reaches_ to the vintage, and\nthe vintage _reaches to the sowing_ time.\" After the Lord has purified\nHis congregation by His judgments, then the joyful time of blessing,\nprophesied by His servant Moses, shall likewise come. _Cocceius_ says:\n\"One shall reap, the other shall immediately plough; one shall scatter\nthe seeds in the ploughed field, while another shall, at the same time,\ntread the grapes,--a work is wont to be done at the last time of the\nyear. There shall be continual work, and continual fruit, and a\nfruitfulness such as that in the land of the Troglodytes which\n_Scaliger_ (_Exercit._ 249, 2) thus describes: 'Throughout the whole\nyear there is sowing and reaping at the same time; at one place the\nseed is committed to the fields, and at another the wheat shoots up, at\nanother it gets ears, at another it is reaped, at another it is\ncollected, and [Pg 399] brought to the threshing-places, and thence to\nthe barn.'\"--The second hemistich agrees with Joel iv. (iii.) 18 (which\nis certainly not accidental; compare the introduction to Joel): \"At\nthat time the mountains shall drop must, and the hills go with milk.\"\nFrom a comparison of this passage it appears that the melting of the\nhills can mean only their dissolving into rivers of milk, must, and\nhoney, with an allusion to the description of the promised land in the\nPentateuch (Exod. iii. 8) as a land flowing with milk and honey.\n\nVer. 14. \"_And I turn Myself to the captivity of My people Israel, and\nthey build waste cities, and dwell, and plant vineyards, and drink\ntheir wine; and they make gardens and eat their fruit._\"\n\nThe captivity is a figure of misery. With reference to \u05e9\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 compare\nthe remarks on Joel.\n\nVer. 15. \"_And I plant them in their land, and they shall no more he\nplucked up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord\nthy God._\" Compare p. 227 seqq.\n\n\nFootnote 1: _Hofmann_, _Schriftbeweis_ I. S. 312, objects: \"If this\nwere correct, Paul ought to have delivered that fornicator at Corinth\n(1 Cor. v. 5), or Hymeneus and Alexander (1 Tim. i. 20), not to Satan,\nbut to the good angels.\" But the individuals mentioned were members of\nthe Church of Christ, and they were delivered to Satan, not for their\nabsolute destruction, but for their salvation: \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, (which of\ncourse was still in existence; and it is just the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 that separates\nbetween the world and the Church, compare Ps. li. 13) \u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b2\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. It is, as in the case of Job,\na punishment with a view to purification, for which power is given to\nSatan, Heb. xii. 6. These passages, then, serve only to confirm the\nview which we have expressed.\n\nFootnote 2: The same is probably the case in vi. 14: \"For behold I\nraise up against you, O house of Israel, saith the Lord God of Hosts,\nheathen people; and they shall afflict you from Hamath unto the river\nof the wilderness.\" The river of the wilderness can here be none other\nthan the river of Egypt, which commonly appears as the boundary of the\nwhole. Compare 1 Kings viii. 65; 2 Chron. vii. 8, where Solomon\nassembles the whole people from Hamath unto the river of Egypt; Josh.\nxv. 4, 47; 2 Kings xxiv. 7; Is. xxvii. 12. They who think of the\nboundary of the kingdom of the ten tribes only, are at a loss, and have\nrecourse to uncertain conjectures.\n\nFootnote 3: In Micah i. 15 the entire people are called Jacob. The same\noccurs also in Hos. x. 11, xii. 3 (2).\n\nFootnote 4: _Hitzig_ says: With a disposition of mind different from\nthat in iii. 2, the prophet says here, \"You enjoy no privileges with\nme, you are to me like all others.\" A strange disposition of mind\nindeed for a prophet! An interpretation which results in such thoughts,\nwhich cannot be entertained for a moment, is self-condemned.\n\nFootnote 5: Whether, however, it was James or Luke who quoted these\nwords according to the version of the LXX., this passage is one of the\nmany hundreds which prove that the violent urging and pressing for an\nimprovement in our (German) authorized version of the Scriptures, as it\nproceeded from _von Meier_ and _Stier_, is exaggerated. The Saviour and\nHis Apostles adopted, without hesitation, the version current at their\ntime, when its deviations concerned not the thought but the words. If\nwe proceed upon this principle, how will the mountain of complaints\nmelt away which has been raised against _Luther's_ translation of the\nScriptures. But it is true that, even then, weighty objections remain.\nThe revision of it is a want of the Church; but it is not so urgent\nthat we may not, and must not, wait for the time when it may be\nsatisfied without danger. If it were undertaken at present, the\ndisadvantages would far outweigh the advantages. To everything there is\na season; and it is the duty of the wise steward to find it out, and to\nknow it.\n\n\n THE PROPHECY OF OBADIAH.\n\nWe need not enter into details regarding the question as to the time\nwhen the prophet wrote. By a thorough argumentation, _Caspari_ has\nproved, that he occupies his right position in the Canon, and hence\nbelongs to the earliest age of written prophecy, _i.e._, to the time of\nJeroboam II. and Uzziah. As bearing conclusively against those who\nwould assign to him a far later date, viz., the time of the exile,\nthere is not only the indirect testimony borne by the place which this\nprophecy occupies in the collection of the prophets which is\nchronologically arranged, but there are also the following facts;--that\nthose who are to inflict the predicted calamity upon Judah are not at\nall more definitely characterized than in the first part of Hosea, in\nJoel, and Amos;--that, in like manner, the heathen power from which the\noverthrow of Edom is to proceed, is neither mentioned, nor more\ndefinitely pointed out in any other way;--that Jeremiah already made\nuse of Obadiah's prophecy; and if such be denied, the older foundation\nwould then be withdrawn from the prophecy of Jeremiah--which would be\ncontrary [Pg 400] to the analogy of Jeremiah's prophecies against\nforeign nations;--and, finally, that, in vers. 12-14, the prophet\nexhorts the Edomites neither to rejoice nor to co-operate in the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, because, otherwise, they would certainly\nreceive the well-merited reward of such wickedness committed against\nthe Covenant-people, to whom they were so nearly related. Such an\nexhortation would have been out of place, after the wickedness had been\ncommitted.--The view of _Hofmann_ (which was revived by _Delitzsch_ in\nhis treatise, \"When did Obadiah prophesy?\" [_Guerike's Zeitschrift_ 51,\n_Hft._ 1])--according to which the capture of Jerusalem by the\nPhilistines and Arabians under Jehoram (2 Chron. xxi. 16 ff.) was the\noccasion of the prophecy before us, and according to which Obadiah is\nthus made the oldest among all the prophets in the Canon, and separated\nby nearly a century from the three prophets who preceded him--overlooks\nthe fact that only cogent reasons could induce us to assume so isolated\na position, since it is certainly not a matter of accident that the\nwritten prophecy began its course under the reign of Jeroboam and\nUzziah. The guilt and punishment of Edom are, in like manner, spoken of\nin the Preterite; and it is inadmissible to understand the Preterites\nas historical, in so far as they refer to the guilt, and as\nprophetical, in so far as they refer to the punishment. The words, \"Day\nof their destruction,\" in ver. 12, are decisive against every other\ncatastrophe upon Judah, but that of the Chaldean. Ver. 20, when rightly\ninterpreted, supposes the carrying away of Israel and Judah, and hence\nallows us to think only of the Assyro-Chaldean catastrophe. In ver. 21,\nMount Zion is forsaken, and \"the saviours\" return to it from the land\nof captivity.\n\nIn strict accordance with the position of the book in the Canon, is the\nfact, that Obadiah connects himself most closely with Joel, and,\nexcepting him, among all the prophets, with Amos only; compare\n_Caspari_, S. 20 ff., 35; _H\u00e4vernick_, _Einleitung_ II. S. 318. Of\ngreater importance than the coincidences in particulars, is the fact\nthat the prophecy of Obadiah, upon the whole, connects itself most\nclosely and immediately with the fourth (third) chapter of Joel--that\nin the prophecy of Obadiah, we have indeed a _variation_ on that\nchapter. The judgment upon Judah, which Joel announces in the first\npart, [Pg 401] is here supposed to have already taken place; and this\nmight be done so much the rather, because, even in Joel, the prophetic\n_Plerophory_, with which rationalistic interpreters are so much\npuzzled, has changed the Future into the Present and Past--as, even\nthere, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the overflowing of the whole\ncountry by the heathen, are represented as already existing. It is only\nthe judgment upon the heathen, and the restoration of Israel, which\nObadiah represents in his prophetic picture.\n\nLike Hosea (in the first three chapters), Joel, and Amos, so Obadiah\nalso, received the mission to point out the catastrophe threatened by\nthe world's power, even before the latter existed on the scene of\nhistory. It was to the Covenant-people a source of rich consolation\nthat it was so clearly and distinctly foretold to them, even before it\nhad an existence, and the points of view from which it must be regarded\nwere opened up to them. He, however, distinctly points to one idea\nonly, just because there were already predecessors to whose prophecies\nhe could refer. He did not receive the mission to call to repentance,\nor to represent the judgment as a well-deserved punishment--although,\n_indirectly_, in him as well as in Joel, these thoughts also occur, as\ncertainly as the supposed destruction of Judah and Israel could only be\nthe punishment of their sin; he has to point out only the salvation\nsubsequent to the overflowing by the heathen world, the conquering\npower of the kingdom of God which, in the end, will manifest itself,\nand deeply to impress upon the Covenant-people the words: \u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd. The glaring contrast betwixt the _idea_--according\nto which the kingdom of God was to be all prevailing--and the\n_reality_, in which it is pressed into a corner, shall in future\nincrease still more. Even from this corner, the people of God shall be\ndriven. But death is the transition to life; the uttermost degree of\nsufferings, the forerunner of deliverance and salvation. Not a\nrestoration only is in store for the people of God--they even obtain\nthe dominion of the world; but to the heathen world, which is at enmity\nwith God, their exaltation is a forerunner of destruction.\n\nAll which Obadiah had to say in reference to the heathen, God-hating\nworld, and to the form which, in future, Israel's [Pg 402] relation to\nit would assume, has been exemplified by him in the case of Edom. For\nthe fact, that it is only the heathen power individualized which we\nhave before us, is shown by the transition to the heathen in general in\nver. 15, according to which, Edom comes into consideration only as a\npart of the whole: \"For near is the day of the Lord upon _all the\nheathen_.\" So also is it in ver. 16: \"For as ye[1] have drunk upon My\nholy mountain, so shall _all the heathen_ drink continually;[2] and\nthey drink, and sup up, and they are as though they were not.\" When\nspeaking of the guilt, he mentions Edom only; when speaking of\npunishment, he introduces all the heathen at once. According to ver.\n17, Israel shall occupy the possessions of _all the heathen_. And even\nthe last words of the whole prophecy, \"And the kingdom shall be the\nLord's,\" show that it bears a universal character,--that in the case of\nEdom, we have only a principle exemplified which applies to all the\nenemies of the kingdom of God. The leading thought is: The kingdom of\nGod shall obtain universal dominion, which follows the deepest\nabasement of the people of God, and of which the fullest and most\nperfect realization must be sought in Christ.\n\nThe animating thought could be so much the better individualized in the\ncase of Edom, as its natural relation to Israel was one of special\nnearness, and its hatred specially deep; and as, moreover, it at all\ntimes considered itself the rival of Israel, of whose advantages it was\nenvious. That which Amos, the cotemporary of Obadiah, says of Edom in\nchap. i. 11--\"He pursues his brother with the sword, and corrupts his\ncompassions, and his anger tears perpetually, and he keeps his wrath\nfor ever\"--shows how exceedingly well he was fitted to be a\nrepresentative of the enemies of the kingdom of God. It was so much the\nmore obvious thus to represent Edom as a particular and individualizing\nexemplification of this principle, as the prophets of that period had\nnot as yet received any more definite disclosures as to the threatening\nkingdoms of the future, while Edom, in his [Pg 403] hatred against the\npeople of God, stood before their eyes. The germ of this is to be found\nin Joel iv. (iii.) 19, where Edom already appears as a representative\nand type of the God-hating heathen world, which is to be judged by the\nLord, after the judgment upon Judah.\n\nIn Obadiah, we find a fulness of remarkable glances into the\nfuture compressed within a narrow space. The chief events are the\nfollowing:--1. The capture of Jerusalem, the total carrying away of the\nentire people, both of Judah and Israel, to a far distance, vers. 20,\n21. 2. The return of Israel, the cessation of the separation of the two\nkingdoms, ver. 18 (compare Hos. ii. 2 [i. 11]; Amos ix. 11, 12), and\nhis elevation to the dominion of the world by the \"Saviours,\" ver. 21.\n3. The judgment upon Edom by heathen nations, vers. 1-9. Jeremiah, in\nxxvii. 2 ff., compared with xxv., more distinctly points out the\nChaldeans as the heathen instruments of the judgment upon Edom and all\nthe people round about; and Matt. i. 3, 4, shows the weight of the\nsufferings which were inflicted by them upon Edom. 4. The occupation of\nthe land of Edom by Judah. One realization of this prophecy took place\nin the time of the Maccabees; but we must not confine ourselves to\nthis. As, in the main, Edom is only a type of the God-hating heathen\nworld, the true and real fulfilment can be sought in Christ alone.\nCompare the remarks, p. 98, with reference to Moab in Balaam's\nprophecy.\n\nThe prophecy of Obadiah is divided into three parts:--the destruction\nof Edom by heathen nations summoned by Jehovah, vers. 1-9; the cause of\nit, his wickedness against Judah, vers. 10-16; Judah, on the contrary,\nrises with Joseph from this humiliation, and becomes a conqueror of the\nworld, vers. 17-21. This last part claims our closer consideration.\n\nVer. 17. \"_And upon Mount Zion shall be they that have escaped, and it\nis holy_ (compare Joel iii. 5, iv. 17 [ii. 32, iii. 17]), _and the\nhouse of Jacob occupies their possessions._\"\n\nThe suffix in \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd refers to all the heathen in ver. 16. The kingdom\nshall be the Lord's, according to ver. 16, and the dominion of His\npeople extends as far as His own. We have here the general prophecy;\nand in what immediately follows, the application to Edom. The first two\nclauses serve as a foundation for the third. The holiness has, so to\nspeak, not only a [Pg 404] defensive, but also an offensive character.\nIts consequence is the dominion of the world.\n\nVer. 18. \"_And the house of Jacob becomes a fire, and the house of\nJoseph a flame, and the house of Esau stubble, and they kindle them,\nand devour them; and there shall not be any remaining to the house of\nEsau; for the Lord has spoken._\"\n\nBesides the whole of the people, that part of them (the house of\nJoseph, the people of the ten tribes) is specially mentioned which one\nmight have expected to be excluded. That there is none remaining to the\nhouse of Esau (and to all who are like him) agrees with the declaration\nuttered by Joel in iii. 5 (ii. 32): \"Amongst those who are spared, is\nwhomsoever the Lord calleth.\" They, however, whom the Lord calls, are,\naccording to the same verse, they who call on the name of the Lord.\nBut the characteristic of Edom is his hatred against the kingdom of\nGod,--and that excludes both the calling on the Lord, and the being\ncalled by the Lord. The single individual, however, may come out of the\ncommunity of his people, and enter into the territory of saving grace,\nas is shown by the example of Rahab. In the further description of the\nconquering power, which the people of God shall, in future, exercise,\nwe are, in ver. 19, first met by Judah and Benjamin.\n\nVer. 19. \"_And they of the south possess the Mount of Esau, and they\nfrom the low region, the Philistines; and they_ (_i.e._, they of Judah,\nthe whole, of whom they of the South and of the low region are parts\nonly) _possess the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria, and\nBenjamin--Gilead._\"\n\nIt is obvious that we have here before us only an individualized\nrepresentation of the thought already expressed in Gen. xxviii. 14:\n\"And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt break\nforth to the East and to the West, to the North and to the South; and\nin thee, and in thy seed, all the families of the earth are blessed;\"\ncompare also Is. liv. 3: \"Thou shalt break forth on the right hand and\non the left, and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles.\"--\u05e0\u05d2\u05d1 is the\nsouth part of Judea, at the borders of Edom; \u05e9\u05e4\u05dc\u05d4 the low region on the\nWest, at the borders of the Philistines. As, according to the vision of\nthe prophet, the exaltation of Judah is preceded by his total overthrow\nand captivity (compare vers. 11-14, 20, 21), the tribe of Judah, which,\nbefore the catastrophe, was settled in [Pg 405] the South and low\nregion, is here meant. That \u05d0\u05ea can be taken only as the sign of the\nAccus., and \"Mount of Esau,\" accordingly, as the object only, appears\nfrom ver. 20, according to which the South is vacant. Judah thus\nextends in the South, over Edom, in the West, over Philistia, in the\nNorth, over the former territory of the ten tribes, and hence also over\nthe territory of Benjamin, which formerly lay betwixt Judah and Joseph.\nBenjamin is indemnified by Gilead. The whole of Canaan comes thus to\nJudah and Benjamin. Joseph, to whose damage, according to ver. 18, this\nenlargement of Judah's territory must lead, must be transferred\naltogether to heathenish territory. We expect to find, in ver. 20, how\nhe is indemnified.\n\nVer. 20. \"_And the exiles of this host of the children of Israel (shall\npossess) what are Canaanites unto Zarephath, and the exiles of\nJerusalem that are in Sepharad shall possess the cities of the South._\"\n\nThe circumstance that the Athnach stands below \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u05d3 indicates that \u05d9\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\nimplies the common property of the exiles of this host, and of the\nexiles of Jerusalem. The \"Sons of Israel,\" in this context, can only be\nthe ten tribes; for they are here indemnified for their former\nterritory, which, according to ver. 19, has become the possession of\nJudah. \"The exiles of this host\" is equivalent to: \"This whole host of\nexiles,\"--the whole mass of the ten tribes, carried away according to\nprophetic foresight (compare Amos v. 27: \"And I carry you away beyond\nDamascus, saith the Lord, the God of hosts\"), as opposed to a piecemeal\ncarrying away, such as had once already taken place before the time of\nthe prophet in respect to Judah, but not in respect to the children of\nIsrael; compare Joel iv. (iii.) 6. That the \"Canaanites unto\nZarephath\"--_i.e._, the Ph\u0153nicians, whose territory formed part\nof the promised land, but had never, in former times, come into\nthe real possession of Israel--are the objects of conquest, and\nthat, hence, we cannot explain as _Caspari_ does, \"Who are among\nthe Canaanites, even unto Zarephath,\" is evident from the circumstance,\nthat all the neighbouring nations appear as objects of the conquering\nactivity;--that the great mass of the Israelitish exiles were not among\nthe Canaanites;--that the \u05d1 could, in that case, not have been\nomitted;--and that the South country is too small [Pg 406] a space for\nthe children of Israel, and of Jerusalem together. Sepharad, the very\nname of which is scarcely known, is mentioned as a particularizing\ndesignation of the utmost distance. The description becomes complete by\nits returning to the South country, from which it had proceeded. The\nSouth country penetrates to Edom; the inhabitants of Jerusalem extend\nbeyond the South country.\n\nVer. 21. \"_And saviours go up on Mount Zion to judge the Mount of Esau,\nand the kingdom shall be the Lord's._\"\n\n\u05e2\u05dc\u05d5 is to be accounted for from the consideration, that the deliverance\nand salvation imply the entire overthrow--the total carrying away of\nthe people. The Saviour \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd is hidden beneath the \"saviours;\"\ncompare Judges iii. 9, 15; Neh. ix. 27. But even here, everything is\nconnected with human individuals; and the more glorious the salvation\nwhich the prophet beholds in the future, viz., the absolute dominion of\nthe Lord, and His people, over the world, the less can it be conceived\nthat the prophet should have expected the realization of it by a\ncollective body of mortal men without a leader. But the plural\nintimates that the antitype is not without types,--that the head cannot\nbe conceived of without members. In Jer. xxiii. 4, we read: \"And I\nraise up shepherds over them which shall feed them;\" and immediately\nafterwards the one good shepherd--Christ--forms the subject of\ndiscourse.--\"And the kingdom shall be the Lord's.\"--His dominion, till\n_then_ concealed, shall now be publicly manifested, and the people of\nthe earth shall acknowledge it, either spontaneously, or by constraint.\nThe coming of this kingdom has begun with Christ, and, in Him, waits\nfor its consummation. The opinion of _Caspari_, that the contents of\nvers. 19 and 20, as well as the close of this prophecy, belong\naltogether to the future, rests on a false, literal explanation, the\ninadmissibility of which is sufficiently evident from the circumstance\nthat the Edomites, Philistines, and Canaanites have long since\ndisappeared from the scene of history; so that there exists no longer\nthe possibility of a literal fulfilment.\n\n\nFootnote 1: The fact that, _everywhere_, the discourse is addressed to\nthe Edomites, proves that here also Edom is addressed. The \u05db\u05d9 and the\n\u05db\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 sin this verse, compared with those in the preceding verse,\nlikewise suggest this. Compare, moreover, Joel iv. (iii.) 3, to which\npassage there is already an allusion in ver. 11.\n\nFootnote 2: Namely, the cup of punishment, of divine wrath.\n\n\n[Pg 407]\n\n\n THE PROPHET JONAH.\n\nIt has been asserted without any sufficient reason, that Jonah is older\nthan Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Obadiah,--that he is the oldest among the\nprophets whose written monuments have been preserved to us. The passage\nin 2 Kings xiv. 25, where it is said, that Jonah, the son of Amittai\nthe prophet, prophesied to Jeroboam the happy success of his arms, and\nthe restoration of the ancient boundaries of Israel, and that this\nprophecy was confirmed by the event, cannot decide in favour of this\nassertion, because it cannot be proved that the victories of Jeroboam\nbelonged to the _beginning_ of his reign. On the other hand, it is\nopposed, _first_, by the position of the book in the collection of\nthe Minor Prophets, which, throughout, is chronologically arranged,\nand which is tantamount to an express testimony that Jonah wrote\n_after_ Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Obadiah. _Then_,--the circumstance that\nNineveh is mentioned here, and that too in a way which implies that,\neven at that time, the hostile relations of the Assyrians to the\nCovenant-people had already begun, while in the first part of Hosea, in\nJoel, Amos, and Obadiah, no reference to the Assyrians is as yet found.\nEven ancient interpreters, as _Chr. B. Michaelis_, _Crusius_ (in the\n_Theol. Proph._ iii. S. 38), inferred from this mention of Nineveh,\nthat the book had been composed in consequence of the first invasion of\nthe Assyrians under Menahem, who ascended the throne 13 years after the\ndeath of Jeroboam II. _Finally_,--the book begins with _and_. Wherever\nelse, in the canonical books of the Old Testament, such a beginning\noccurs, it indicates a resumption of, and a junction with, former links\nin the chain of sacred literature; compare Judges i. 1; 1 Sam. i. 1;\nEzek. i. 1. That the expression, \"And it came to pass,\" with which the\nbook opens, is intended to establish the connection with the prophecy\nof Obadiah, which occupies the immediately preceding place in the\nCanon, is intimated by the internal relation of the two books to each\nother. The prophecy of Obadiah bears, throughout, a hostile aspect to\nthe heathen world; it appears to him as the object only of God's\njudging activity. Jonah, on the other hand, received the mission,\ndistinctly to point out the other aspect of the matter, and [Pg 408]\nthereby, not indeed to correct, but certainly to supplement his\npredecessor.\n\nThe time was approaching when the heathen world was to pour out its\nfloods upon the people of God. It was obvious that the position of\nIsrael towards it became one altogether repulsive, that the\nsusceptibility of the heathen for salvation was denied, and God's mercy\nwas limited to Israel. Narrow-minded exclusiveness received a powerful\nsupport from the oppression and haughtiness of the heathen. Whilst\nother prophets opposed such exclusiveness by their words, by announcing\nthe extension of salvation to the Gentiles, Jonah received the mission\nto illustrate, by a symbolical action, the capacity of the heathen for\nsalvation, and their future participation in it. The effect of this\nmust necessarily have been so much the greater, as the whole of the\nlittle book is exclusively devoted to this subject, as it appeared at\nthe first beginning of the conflict, and as Nineveh is mentioned here,\nfor the first time, in so peaceable and conciliatory a relation, and in\nclose harmony and connection with the announcement of the willing\nsubmission of the heathen world to the dominion of Shiloh, spoken of in\nGen. xlix. 10. It is remarkably impressive to see how spirit here\ntriumphs over nature--a triumph which appears so much the brighter\nbecause the prophet himself pays his tribute to nature; for it was\nbecause he listened to the voice of nature, that, at first, he intended\nto flee to Tarshish. The reason why the commission of the Lord was so\ndisagreeable to him, we learn from chap. iv. 2. He was afraid lest the\npreaching of repentance, which was committed to him, might turn away\nthe judgments of the Lord from Nineveh, the metropolis of that country\nwhich threatened destruction to Israel. He knew the deep corruption of\nhis own people, and foreboded the issue which the extension of the\nmeans of grace to the Gentiles might very easily bring about in the\nend. But yet, he felt almost irresistibly impelled to carry out the\ncommission of God, and in order to cut himself off from the possibility\nof following the voice which called him to the east, he resolved to go\nto the far distant west. The voice, however, followed him even there;\nbut the farther he advanced on his journey, the more difficult it\nbecame for him to follow it. At a later period, when the Lord granted\nmercy to Nineveh, he was angry and wished to die, not by any means\nbecause he [Pg 409] felt himself injured in his honour as a prophet (as\nwas erroneously supposed, even by _Calvin_), but because he grudged to\nthe Gentiles the mercy which he considered as a prerogative of Israel\nonly, and because he was anxious for the destruction of Nineveh as the\nmetropolis of that kingdom which was destined to be the rod of\nchastisement for his own people. He was thus actuated by the same\nardent love for his people which called forth the wish of St Paul, that\nhe might become an anathema for his brethren,--by the same disposition\nof mind which prevailed in the elder brother at the return of the\nprodigal son (Luke xv. 25 ff.), and which at first would manifest\nitself even in Peter, Acts x. 14 ff. The Jewish sentence (_Carpzov.\nIntrod._ 3, p. 149), \"Jonah was anxious for the glory of the Son, but\nhe did not seek the glory of the Father,\" is very significant. Jonah\nexhibits, in a very striking way, the thoughts of his old man, in order\nthat Israel might recognise themselves in his image. But we are not at\nliberty to say that the prophet represented the people only. It is true\nthat, as one of the people, he also entertained those thoughts; but,\nbesides these, he entertained other thoughts also. The voices of the\nLord which he heard were spiritual; and such voices can be heard only\nwhen there is something akin in the heart. Not even with one step did\nJonah touch the territory of the false prophets, who prophesied out of\ntheir own hearts. He retained all his human weakness to himself, and\nthe Word of God stood by the side of it in unclouded brightness, and\nobtained absolute victory.\n\nThere can be no doubt that we have before us in the Book of Jonah the\ndescription of a symbolical action,--that his mission to Nineveh has an\nobject distinct from the mission itself,--that it is not the result\nattained by it in the first instance which is the essential point, but\nthat it is its aim to bring to light certain truths, and in the form of\nfact, to prophesy future things. The truths are these:--_First_, that\nthe Gentiles are by no means so unsusceptible of the higher truth as\nvulgar prejudice imagined them to be. This was manifested by the\nconduct of the sailors, who, at last, offer sacrifices and even vows to\nJehovah; but, in a more striking manner, by the deep impression which\nthe discourse of Jonah produced upon the Ninevites. In this we have the\nactual proof of Ezek. iii. 5, 6, where the prophet represents his\nmission as one of peculiar difficulty--more [Pg 410] difficult, even,\nthan it would have been if addressed to the Gentiles: \"Had I sent thee\nto them, surely they would have hearkened to thee.\" _Further_,--that it\nis not in His relation to Israel only, but in His relation to the\nGentiles also, that the Lord is \"gracious and merciful, slow to anger\nand of great kindness,\" chap. iv. 2. The view which these words, at\nonce, open up into the future, is, that at some future period the Lord\nwill grant to the Gentiles the preaching of His word, and admission\ninto His kingdom. The glory of His mercy and grace would have been\ndarkened, if the revelation of them had been for ever limited to a\nparticular, small portion of the human race. Nineveh, the\nrepresentative of the heathen multitude, is very significantly called\nthe \"great city\" at the very outset, in i. 2, and \"a great city for\nGod,\" in iii. 3, for which, as _Michaelis_ remarks, God specially\ncared, on account of the great number of souls; compare iv. 11.\n\nIf the symbolical and prophetical character of the book be denied, the\nfact of its having its place among the prophetical, and not among the\nhistorical, books, admits of no explanation at all. For so much is\nevident, that this fact cannot be satisfactorily accounted for by the\ncircumstance that the book reports the events which happened to a\nprophet. The sound explanation has been already given by _Marckius_:\n\"The book is, in a great measure, historical, but in such a manner,\nthat in the history itself there is hidden the mystery of the greatest\nprophecy, and that Jonah proves himself to be a true prophet, by the\nevents which happened to him, not less than by his utterances.\" A\nsimilar explanation is given by _Carpzovius_: \"By his own example, as\nwell as by the event itself, he bore witness that it was the will of\nGod that all men should be saved, and should come to the knowledge of\nthe truth,\" 1 Tim. ii. 4.\n\nWe are led to the same conclusion by the representation itself. This\ndiffers very widely from that given in the historical books. The\nobjection raised by _Hitzig_ against the historical truth,--viz., that\nthe narrative is fragmentary,--that it wants completeness,--that a\nnumber of events are communicated only in so far as is required by the\nobject of gaining a foundation for the graphic representation of the\ndoctrinal contents,--cannot be set aside so easily as is done by\n_H\u00e4vernich_ when he says: [Pg 411] \"By arguments of a nature so flimsy,\nsuspicions may be raised against the truth of every historical report.\"\nWe cannot but confess that, to the writer, history is indeed a means\nonly of representing a thought to which he is anxious to give currency\nin the Church of God. It is just for this reason that he abstains from\ngraphically enlarging, because that would have been an obstacle to his\npurpose. The narrative of a symbolical action which took place\noutwardly, comes, in this respect, under the same law as the narrative\nof a symbolical action belonging to the internal territory, and to that\nof the parable. The narrative would lose the character of perspicuity\nwhich is so necessary for the whole matter, if it were complete in the\nsubordinate circumstances.\n\nIt also tells in favour of the symbolical character of the history of\nJonah, that the missionary activity on behalf of the Gentiles does not\nproperly belong to the vocation of the prophets, their mission being to\nthe two houses of Israel only. In the entire history, not even a single\nexample is to be found of a prophet who, for the good of the heathen\nworld itself, went out among them. The history of Elisha, in 2 Kings\nviii. 7 ff., has, without sufficient reason, been adduced by\n_H\u00e4vernick_. According to the visions of the prophets themselves, the\nconversion of the heathen is not to be accomplished _at present_, but\nin the Messianic time, and by the Messiah Himself. If, then, the book\nitself is not to stand altogether isolated, the symbolical character of\nJonah's mission must be acknowledged. But then it is only in the form\nthat it differs from the announcements of the extension of salvation to\nthe heathen also,--announcements which occur in the other prophets\nalso. That which these exhibited in words merely, is here made\nconspicuous by deeds. The influence thereby produced upon the heathen\nappears then only as the means, while the real purpose is to make an\nimportant truth familiar to the Congregation of God, and, by a striking\nfact, to remove the prejudices which prevailed in it.\n\n_Finally_,--If the symbolical character of the facts be denied, the\nmission of Jonah appears to be almost divested of every aim; for the\ngood emotions of the crew, and the repentance of the Ninevites,\nevidently did not lead to any lasting result. If anything else were\naimed at than the prefiguring of future events, the prophet might\nbetter have stayed at home; an unassuming [Pg 412] ministry in some\ncorner among the Covenant-people would have carried along with it a\ngreater reward.\n\nIf, on the other hand, the symbolical character of the history of Jonah\nbe admitted, remarkable parallels in the history of Jesus present\nthemselves. The Saviour, in the days of His flesh, was satisfied with\nthe prophetic intimation of the future farther extension of His\nsalvation. That which He Himself did for this extension, in those\nparticular cases where the faith of non-Israelites obtruded itself upon\nHim, must, in its isolation, be viewed as an embodiment of that\nintimation,--as a prophecy by deeds. He says in Matt. xv. 24: \"I am not\nsent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel;\" but if,\nnevertheless. He purposely makes His abode in the territory of Tyre and\nSidon; if there He hears the prayer of the Canaanitish woman to heal\nher daughter, after having first tried her faith, then His purpose\nevidently is: That His prophecy in words concerning the extension of\nsalvation to the Gentiles, might find a support in His prophecy in\ndeeds. Jesus, prefiguring the future doings of His servants, passed\nover the boundaries of the Gentiles. Whilst the Jews had rejected the\nsalvation offered to them, and forced Jesus to retire into concealment,\nthe heathen woman comes full of faith, and seeks Him in His\nconcealment. The Canaanitish woman is a representative of the heathen\nworld, the future faith of which she was called to prefigure by\nsustaining the trial. From her example, the Apostles were to learn what\nmight be expected from the Gentiles when the time should arrive for\nproclaiming the Gospel to them also. In Matt. x. 5, 6, the Lord speaks\nto the Apostles: \"Go not in the way of the Gentiles, and into any of\nthe cities of the _Samaritans_ enter ye not; but go rather to the lost\nsheep of the house of Israel.\" His own conduct, however, as it is\nreported in John iv., stands in contradiction to this command to His\nApostles, so long as its prophetical significance is not acknowledged.\nThat which was, on a large scale, to be done by Christ in the state of\nglorification, was prefigured by Him, on a smaller scale, in the state\nof humiliation. The ministry of Christ in Samaria bears the same\nrelation to the later mission among this people, that the single\ninstances of Christ's raising the dead do to the general resurrection.\nThe Lord afterwards did not foster the germs which had come forth among\nthe Samaritans; He, in the meantime, left them altogether [Pg 413] to\ntheir fate. That prelude was quite sufficient for the object which He\nthen had in view, and nothing further could be done without violating\nthe rights of the Covenant-people, to which, in the conversation as\nrecorded by John, the Lord as expressly pays attention, as He does in\nMatt. x.\n\n\n THE PROPHET MICAH.\n\n PRELIMINARY REMARKS.\n\nMicah signifies: \"Who is like Jehovah;\" and by this name, the prophet\nis consecrated to the incomparable God, just as Hosea was to the\nhelping God, and Nahum to the comforting God. He prophesied, according\nto the inscription, under Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. We are not,\nhowever, entitled, on this account, to dissever his prophecies, and to\nassign particular discourses to the reign of each of these kings. On\nthe contrary, the entire collection forms only one whole. At the\ntermination of his prophetic ministry, under Hezekiah, the prophet\ncommitted to writing everything which was of importance for all coming\ntime that had been revealed to him during the whole duration of that\nministry. He collected into one comprehensive picture all the detached\nvisions which had been granted to him in manifold repetition; giving us\nthe sum and substance (of which nothing has been lost in the case of\nany of the men inspired by God) of what was spoken at different times,\nand omitting all which was accidental, and purely local and temporary.\n\nThis view, which alone is the correct one, and which contributes so\nlargely to the right understanding of the prophet, has been already\nadvanced by several of the older scholars. Thus _Lightfoot_ (_Ordo\ntemporum_, opp. i. p. 99) remarks: \"It is easier to conceive that the\nmatter of this whole book represents the substance of the prophecy\nwhich he uttered under these various kings, than to determine which of\nthe chapters of this book were uttered under the particular reign of\neach of these kings.\" _Majus_ also (_Economia temporum_, p. 898) says:\n\"He repeated, at a subsequent period, what he had spoken at different\n[Pg 414] times, and under different kings.\" In modern times, however,\nthis view had been generally abandoned; and although, at present, many\ncritics are disposed to return to it, _Hitzig_ and _Maurer_ still\nassert, that the book was composed at different periods.\n\nWe shall now endeavour to prove the unity of the book, _first_, from\nthe prophecies themselves. If we were entitled to separate them at all,\naccording to time and circumstances, we could form a division into\nthree discourses only; viz., chap. i. and ii.; chap. iii.-v.; and chap.\nvi. and vii. For, 1. Each of these discourses forms a whole, complete\nin itself, and in which the various elements of the prophetic\ndiscourse--reproof, threatening, promise--are repeated. If these\ndiscourses be torn asunder, we get only the _lacera membra_ of a\nprophetic discourse. 2. Each of these three discourses, forming an\nharmonious whole, begins with \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5, _hear_. That this is not merely\naccidental, appears from the beginning of the first discourse, \u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d5\n\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05dc\u05dd, \"Hear, all ye people.\" These words literally agree with those\nwhich were uttered by the prophet's elder namesake, when, according to\n1 Kings xxii. 28, he called upon the whole world to attend to the\nremarkable struggle betwixt the true and false prophets. It is\nevidently on purpose that the prophet begins with the same words as\nthose with which the elder Micah had closed his discourse to Ahab, and,\nit may be, his whole prophetic ministry. By this very circumstance he\ngives intimation of what may be expected from him, shows that his\nactivity is to be considered as a continuation of that of his\npredecessor, who was so jealous for God, and that he had more in common\nwith him than the mere name. _Rosenm\u00fcller_ (_Prol. ad Mich._ p. 8) has\nasserted, indeed, that these words are only put into the mouth of the\nelder Micah, and that they are taken from the passage under\nconsideration. But the reason which he adduces in support of this\nassertion, viz., that it cannot be conceived how it could ever have\nentered the mind of that elder Micah to call upon all people to be\nwitnesses of an announcement which concerned Ahab only, needs no\ndetailed refutation. Why then is it that in Deut. xxxii. 1, Is. i. 2,\nheaven and earth are called upon to be witnesses of an announcement\nwhich concerned the Jewish people only? Who does not see that, to the\nprophet, Israel appears as too small an audience [Pg 415] for the\nannouncement of the great decision which he has just uttered; in the\nsame manner as the Psalmist (compare, _e.g._, Ps. xcvi. 3) exhorts to\nproclaim to the Gentiles the great deeds of the Lord, because Palestine\nis too narrow for them?--But now, if it be established that it was with\na distinct object that the prophet employed the words, \"Hear ye,\" does\nnot the circumstance that they are found at the commencement of the\nthree discourses, which are complete in themselves, afford sufficient\nground for the assumption, that it was the intention of the prophet,\nnot indeed absolutely to limit them to the beginning of a new discourse\n(compare, on the contrary, iii. 9[1]), but yet, not to commence a new\ndiscourse without them; so that the want of them is decisive against\nthe supposition of a new section? 3. As soon as an attempt is made to\nbreak up any of these three discourses, many particular circumstances\nare at once found, upon a careful examination, to prove a connection of\nthe sections so close, as not to admit of a separation without\nmutilating them. Thus chap. i. and ii. cannot be separated from each\nother, for the reason that the promise in ii. 12, 13, refers to the\nthreatening in i. 5. That promise refers to all Israel, just as does\nthe threatening in chap. i.; whilst in the threatening and reproof in\nchap. ii. the eye of the prophet is directed only to the main object of\nhis ministry, viz., to Judah.\n\nBut even these three divisions, which hitherto we have proved to be the\nonly divisions that do exist,[2] can be considered as such, in so far\nonly as in them the discourse takes a fresh start, and enters upon a\nnew sphere. They cannot be considered as complete in themselves, and\nseparated from one another by the [Pg 416] difference of the periods of\ntheir composition; for even in them there are found traces of a close\nconnection. Even the uniform beginning by \"Hear\" may be considered as\nsuch. The second discourse in iii. 1 begins with \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8; but the _Fut._\nwith _Vav convers._ always, and without exception, connects a new\naction with a preceding one, and can never be used where there is an\nabsolutely new commencement. Its significance here, where it is used in\nthe transition from the promise to a new reproof and threatening, has\nbeen very strikingly brought out thus, by _Ch. Bened. Michaelis_: \"But\nwhile we are yet but too far away from those longed-for times, which\nhave just been promised, I _say_ in the meanwhile, viz., in order to\ncomplete the list of the iniquities of evil princes and teachers, begun\nin chap. ii.\" The words of iii. 1, \"Hear, I pray you, ye heads of\nJacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel,\" have an evident\nreference to ii. 12: \"I will assemble Jacob all of thee, I will gather\nthe remnant of Israel.\" In the new threatening, the prophet chooses\nquite the same designation as in the preceding promise, in order to\nprevent the latter from giving support to false security. It is not by\nany means Samaria alone, but all Israel, which is the object of divine\npunishment. It is only a remnant of Israel that shall be gathered. But\nthe reference to the preceding discourse is still more obvious in ver.\n4: \"Then they shall cry unto the Lord, and He will not answer; and may\nHe hide[3] His face from them at this time, as they have behaved\nthemselves ill towards Him in their doings.\" Now, as in vers. 1-3\ndivine judgments had not yet been spoken of, the terms \"then,\" and \"at\nthis time,\" can refer only to the threatenings of punishment in ii. 3\nff., which have a special reference to the ungodly nobles.\n\nThus the result presented at the beginning, is confirmed to us by\ninternal reasons. The inscription[4] announces the oracles [Pg 417] of\nGod which came to Micah under the reign of three kings; while the\nexamination of the contents proves that the collection forms a\nconnected whole, written _uno tenore_. How, now, can these two facts be\nreconciled in any other way than by supposing that we have here before\nus a comprehensive picture of the prophetic ministry of Micah, the\nsingle component parts of which are at once contemporaneous, and yet\nbelonging to different periods? This supposition, moreover, affords us\nthe advantage of being allowed to maintain all the historical\nreferences in their fullest import, without being led to disregard the\none, while we give attention to the other; for nothing is, in this\ncase, more natural, than that the prophet connects with one another\ndifferent prophecies uttered at different times.\n\nThe weight of these internal reasons is increased, however, by external\nreasons which are equally strong. When Jeremiah was called to account\nfor his prophecy concerning the destruction of the city, the elders,\nfor his justification, appealed to the [Pg 418] entirely similar\nprophecy of Micah in iii. 12: \"Therefore shall Zion for your sake be\nploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, and the\nmountain of the house as the high places of the forest.\" In Jer. xxvi.\n18, 19, it is said, \"Micah prophesied in the days of Hezekiah, king of\nJudah, and spake to all the people of Judah, etc. Did Hezekiah, king of\nJudah, and all Judah, put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord, and\nbesought the Lord, and the Lord repented Him of the evil which He had\npronounced against them?\" All interpreters admit that this passage\nforms an authority for the composition of the discourse in iii.-v.\nunder Hezekiah; but we cannot well limit it in this way, we must extend\nit to the whole collection. For, even apart from the reasons by which\nwe proved that the entire book forms one closely connected whole, it is\nmost improbable that the elders should have known, by an oral\ntradition, the exact time of the composition of one single discourse,\nwhich has no special date at the head of it. Is it not a far more\nnatural supposition, that they considered the collection as a whole, of\nwhich the component parts had, indeed, been delivered by the prophet at\na former period, but had been repeated, and united into one description\nunder Hezekiah; and that they mentioned Hezekiah, partly because it\ncould not be determined with certainty whether this special prediction\nhad already been uttered under one of his predecessors, and, if so,\nunder which of them; and partly, because among the three kings\nmentioned in the inscription, Hezekiah alone formed an ecclesiastical\nauthority?\n\nBut just as that quotation in Jeremiah furnishes us with a proof that\nall the prophecies of Micah, which have been preserved to us, were\ncommitted to writing under Hezekiah, so we can, in a similar manner,\nprove from Isaiah, chap. ii., that they were, at least in part, uttered\nat a previous period. The problem of the relation of Is. ii. 2-4 to\nMicah iv. 1-3, cannot be solved in any other way than by supposing,\nthat this portion of a prophecy which, in Jeremiah, is assigned to the\nreign of Hezekiah, was uttered by Micah as early as under the reign of\nJotham, and that soon after it Isaiah, by placing the words of Micah at\nthe head of his own prophecies, expressed that which had come to him\nalso in inward vision; for, being already known to the people, they\ncould not fail to produce their impression. [Pg 419] Every other\nsolution can be proved to be untenable. 1. Least of all is there any\nrefutation needed of the hypothesis which is now generally abandoned,\nviz., that the passage in Isaiah is the original one; compare, against\nthis hypothesis, _Kleinert_, _Aechtheit des Jes._ S. 356; _Caspari_, S.\n444. 2. Equally objectionable is another supposition, that both the\nprophets had made use of some older prophecy--one uttered by Joel, as\n_Hitzig_ and _Ewald_ have maintained. The connection in which these\nverses stand in Micah, is by far too close for such a supposition. We\ncould not, indeed, so confidently advance this argument, if the\nconnection consisted only in what is commonly brought forward, viz.,\nthat upon the monitory announcement of punishment in chap. iii., there\nfollows, in chap. iv. 1 ff., the _consolatory_ promise of a glorious\nfuture for the godly, and that the \u05d5 in ver. 1 evidently connects it\nwith what immediately precedes. But the reference and connection are\nfar more close. The promise in iv. 1, 2, is, throughout, contrasted\nwith the threatening in iii. 12. \"The mountain of the house shall\nbecome as the high places of the forest,\"--hence, despised, solitary,\nand desolate. In iv. 1, there is opposed to it, \"The mountain of the\nhouse of the Lord shall be established on the top of the mountains, and\nit shall be exalted above the hills, and upon it people shall flee\ntogether.\" \"Zion shall be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem become\na heap of ruins.\" Contrasted with this, there is in iv. 2 the\ndeclaration: \"For the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the\nLord of Jerusalem.\" The desolate and despised place now becomes the\nresidence of the Lord, from which He sends His commands over the whole\nearth, and of which the brilliant centre now is Jerusalem. In order to\nmake this contrast so much the more obvious, the prophet begins, in\nthe promise, with just the mountain of the temple, which, in the\nthreatening, had occupied the last place; so that the opposites\nare brought into immediate connection. Nor is it certainly merely\naccidental that, in the threatening, he speaks of the mountain of the\nhouse only, while, in the promise, he speaks of the mountain of the\nhouse of the Lord; compare Matt. xxiii. 38, where \"your house,\"\naccording to _Bengel_, \"is the house which, in other passages, is\ncalled the house of the Lord,\" just as the Lord, in Exod. xxxii. 7,\nsays to Moses, \"_Thy people._\" The temple must have ceased to be the\nhouse of the Lord, before it would be destroyed; for [Pg 420] which\nreason, as we are told In Ezekiel, the Shechinah removed from it before\nthe Babylonish destruction. And in point of form, the \u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 in iv. 1 so\nmuch the more corresponds with the \u05ea\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 in iii. 12, as from the latter\n\u05d9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 must be supplied for the last clause of the verse; compare\n_Caspari_, S. 445. That ver. 5 must not be separated from the prophecy\nwhich Isaiah had before him, is seen from a comparison of Is. ii. 5: \"O\nhouse of Jacob, come ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord.\"\nAccording to the true interpretation, \"the light of the Lord\" signifies\nHis grace, and the blessings which, according to what precedes, are to\nbe bestowed by it; and \"to walk in the light of the Lord,\" means to\nparticipate in the enjoyment of grace. These words, accordingly, are\nclosely related to those in Mic. iv. 5: \"For all the people shall walk,\nevery one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the\nLord our God for ever and ever:\" _i.e._, the fate of the people in the\nheathen world corresponds to the nature of their gods; because these\nare nothing, they too shall sink down into nothingness, while Israel\nshall partake in the glory of his God. There is the same thought, and\nin essentially the same dress, both in Isaiah and Micah,--only that the\nwords which in Micah embody a pure promise, are transformed by Isaiah\ninto an exhortation that Israel should not, by their own fault, forfeit\nthis preference over the heathen nations, that they should not wantonly\nwander away into dark solitudes, from the path of light which the Lord\nhad opened up before them. This transformation in Isaiah, however, may\nbe accounted for by the consideration, that he was anxious to prepare\nthe way for the reproofs which now follow from ver. 6; whilst Micah,\nwho had already premised them, could continue in the promise. It is\nalso in favour of the originality of the passage in Micah, that the\ntext which, in Isaiah, appears as a variation, appears as original in\nMicah; so that both cannot be equally dependent upon a third writer. 3.\nThere now remains only the view of _Kleinert_, according to which the\nprophecy of Micah, in chap. iii.-v., was first uttered under the reign\nof Hezekiah; and, under the reign of the same king, but somewhat later,\nthe prophecy, in chap. ii.-iv. of Isaiah, who avails himself of it.\nBut, upon a closer examination, this view also proves untenable.\nIsaiah's description of the condition of the people in a moral point of\nview, the general spread of idolatry [Pg 421] and vice, exclude every\nother period in the reign of Hezekiah except the first beginning of it,\nwhen the effect and influence of the time of Ahaz were still felt; so\nthat even _Kleinert_ (p. 364) is obliged to assume, that not only the\nprophecy of Micah, but also that of Isaiah, were uttered in the first\nmonths of the reign of this king. But other difficulties--and these\naltogether insuperable--stand in the way of this assumption. In the\nwhole section of Isaiah, the nation appears as rich, flourishing, and\npowerful. This is most strongly expressed in chap. ii. 7: \"His land is\nfull of silver and gold, there is no end to his treasure; his land is\nfull of horses, and there is no end to his chariots.\" To this may be\nadded the description of the consequences of wealth, and of the\nunbounded luxury, in iii. 16 ff.; and the threatening of the withdrawal\nof all power, and all riches, as a strong contrast with their present\ncondition, upon which they, in their blindness, rested the hope of\ntheir security, and hence imagined that they stood in no need of the\nassistance of the Lord, iii. 1 ff. Now this description is so\ninapplicable to the commencement of Hezekiah's reign, that the very\nopposite of it should rather be expected. The invasion by the allied\nSyrians and Israelites, the oppression by the Assyrians, and the\ntribute which they had to pay to them, the internal administration,\nwhich was bad beyond example, and the curse of God resting on all their\nenterprises and efforts, had exhausted, during the reign of the ungodly\nAhaz, the treasures which had been collected under Uzziah and Jotham,\nand had dried up the sources of prosperity. He had left the kingdom to\nhis successors in a condition of utter decay. To these, other reasons\nstill may be added, which are in favour of the composition of it under\nJotham, while they are against its composition under Hezekiah;\nespecially the circumstance of their standing at the beginning of the\ncollection of the first twelve chapters (a circumstance which is of\ngreat weight, inasmuch as these chapters are, beyond any doubt,\narranged chronologically), but still more, the indefiniteness and\ngenerality in the threatening of the divine judgments, which the\nprophecy of Micah has in common with the nearly contemporaneous\nchapters i. and v. of Isaiah, whilst the threatenings out of the first\nperiod of the reign of Ahaz have at once a far more definite character.\nBy these considerations we are involuntarily led back to a period when\nIsaiah still [Pg 422] pre-eminently exercised the office of exhorting\nand reproving, and had not yet been favoured with special revelations\nconcerning the events of a future which, at that time, was as yet\nrather distant,--perhaps as far as the time when Jotham administered\nthe government for his father, who was at that time still alive;\ncompare 2 Kings xv. 5. By this hypothesis. Is. iii. 12 is more\nsatisfactorily explained than by any other; and we are no longer under\nthe necessity of asserting, that the chronological order is interrupted\nby chap. vi.; for this certainly could not have been intended by the\ncollector. The solemn call and consecration of the prophet to his\noffice, accompanied by an increased bestowal of grace, must be\ncarefully distinguished from the ordinary ones which were common to him\nwith all the other prophets. But if the prophecy of Isaiah was uttered\nas early as under Jotham (which has lately been most satisfactorily\nproved by _Caspari_ in his _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Einl. in das Buch Jesaias_, S.\n234 ff.), that of Micah also must have existed at that time, and must\nhave been in the mouths of the people. And since its composition is\nassigned to the reign of Hezekiah, it follows that the prophet\ndelivered anew, under the reign of this king, the revelations which he\nhad already received at an earlier period.\n\nIt will not be possible to infer with certainty from vers. 6, 7, as\n_Caspari_ does, that the book was committed to writing before the\ndestruction of Samaria, and hence, before the sixth year of Hezekiah.\nSince the book gives the sum and substance of what was prophesied under\nthree kings, all that is implied in vers. 6, 7, is, that the\ndestruction of Samaria was foretold by Micah; but the prophecy itself\nmay have been committed to writing even after the fulfilment had taken\nplace. But, on the other hand, according to the analogy of Is. xxxix.,\nand xiii. and xiv., we are led by iv. 9, 10, to the time of\nSennacherib's invasion of Judea, in which the prophetic spirit of\nIsaiah likewise most richly displayed itself, and in which he was\nprivileged with a glance into the far distant future.\n\nThe exordium in chap. i. and ii., and the close in vi. and vii., are\ndistinguished by the generality of the threatening and promise which\nprevails in them. They have this in common with the first five chapters\nof Isaiah, and thus certainly afford us pre-eminently an image of the\nprophetic ministry of Micah, in the time previous to the Assyrian\ninvasion; whilst the main [Pg 423] body (especially from iv. 8)\nrepresents to us particularly the character of the prophecy during the\nAssyrian period.\n\nWe shall now attempt to give a survey of the contents of Micah's\nprophecy.\n\nUpon Samaria and Jerusalem--the kingdom of the ten tribes, and Judah--a\njudgment by foreign enemies is to come. Total destruction, and the\ncarrying away of the inhabitants, will be the issue of this judgment,\nand, as regards Judah more particularly, the total overthrow of the\ndominion of the Davidic dynasty.\n\nSamaria is first visited by this judgment. This is indicated by the\nfact that it is first mentioned in the inscription, and that in i. 6,\n7, the judgment upon Samaria is, first of all, described; but\nespecially by the circumstance that Samaria, in i. 5, appears as the\nchief seat of corruption for the whole people, whence it flowed upon\nJudah also, i. 14, and particularly, vi. 16. We expect that where the\ncarcases first were, there the eagles would first be gathered together.\n\nAs the first, and principal instrument of the destructive judgment upon\nJudah, Babylon is mentioned in iv. 10.\n\nAs the representative of the world's power, at the time then present,\nAsshur appears in v. 4, 5. If destruction is to fall upon the kingdom\nof the ten tribes _before_ it falls upon Judah--which is most\ndistinctly foretold by Hosea in i. 4-7--then, nothing was more obvious\nthan to think of Asshur as the instrument of the judgment. That to\nwhich Micah, on this point, only alludes, is more fully expanded by\nIsaiah.\n\nJudah is delivered from Babylon, but without a restoration of the\nkingdom, iv. 10, compared with ver. 14 (v. 1).\n\nBut a second catastrophe comes upon Judah, inasmuch as many heathens\ngather themselves against Jerusalem, with the intention of desecrating\nit, but yet in such a manner that, by the assistance of the Lord, it\ncomes forth victoriously from this severe attack, chap. iv. 11-13. Then\nfollows a third catastrophe, in which Judah becomes anew and totally\nsubject to the world's power, iv. 14 (v. 1).\n\nFrom the deepest abasement, however, the Congregation of the Lord rises\nto the highest glory, inasmuch as the dominion returns to the old\nDavidic race, iv. 8. From the little Bethlehem, the native place of\nDavid, where his race, sunk back again into [Pg 424] the lowliness of\nprivate life, has resumed its seat, a new and glorious Ruler proceeds,\nborn, and at the same time eternal, and clothed with the fulness of the\nglory of the Lord, v. 1, 3 (2, 4), by whom Jacob obtains truth, and\nAbraham mercy, vii. 20, compared with John i. 17; by whom the\nCongregation is placed in the centre of the world, and becomes the\nobject of the longing of all nations, iv. 1-3, delivered from the\nservitude of the world, and conquering the world, v. 4, 5 (5, 6), vii.\n11, 12; and at the same time lowly, and inspiring the nations with\nfear, v. 6-8 (7-9). To such a height, however, she shall attain after,\nby means of the judgment preceding the mercy, all that has been taken\nfrom her upon which she in the present founded the hope of her\nsalvation, v. 9-14 (10-15).\n\n\nFootnote 1: It must not, however, be overlooked, that there the term\n\"hear\" is only a resumption of \"hear\" in iii. 1 (and, to a certain\nextent, even of that in i. 2), intimating, that that which they are\nabout to hear, will concentrate itself in a distinct and powerful\nexpression,--the acme of the whole threatening in iii. 12.\n\nFootnote 2: Besides the division into three sections, there is, to a\ncertain extent, a division also into two. By \u05d5\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 in iii. 1, the first\nand second discourses, or the exordium and principal part, are brought\ninto a still closer connection,--a connection founded upon the\ncircumstance that the reproof and threatening of the first part are to\nbe here resumed, in order that thus a comprehensive representation may\nbe given. It is only in iii. 12 that the threatening reaches its\nheight. But yet the tripartition remains the prominent one. This cannot\nbe denied without forcing a false sense and a false position upon ii.\n12, 13.\n\nFootnote 3: The _Fut. apoc._ forbids us to translate: \"He will hide.\"\nIn order to express his own delight in the doings of divine justice,\nthe prophet changes the prediction into a wish, just as is the case in\nIs. ii. 9, where the greater number of interpreters assume, in\nopposition to the rules of grammar, that \u05d0\u05dc stands for \u05dc\u05d0.\n\nFootnote 4: Against the genuineness of the inscription, doubts have\nbeen raised by many, after the example of _Hartmann_, and last of all\nby _Ewald_ and _Hitzig_; but it is established by the striking\nallusions to, and coincidences with it, in the text. With the mention\nof Micah's name in the former, the allusion to this name in the _close_\nof the book, in chap. vii. 18, corresponds. The circumstance of Micah\nbeing called the Morasthite, accounts for the fact that, in this\nthreatening against the cities of Judah, in i. 14, it is Moresheth\nalone which is mentioned. In the inscription, Samaria and Jerusalem\nare pointed out as the objects of the prophet's predictions; and\nit is in harmony with this, that in i. 6, 7, the judgment upon\nSamaria is first described, and then the judgment upon Judah; that\nthe prophet--although, indeed, he has Judah chiefly in view--frequently\ngives attention to the ten tribes also, and includes them,--as in the\npromise in ii. 12, 13, v. 1 (2), where the Messiah appears as the Ruler\nin Israel, and vers. 6, 7 (7, 8), of the same chapter; and that in iii.\n8, 9, Judah is represented as a particular part only of the great\nwhole. _Finally_--It is peculiar to Micah, that he thus views so\nspecially the two _capitals_; and this again is in harmony with the\ninscription, where just these, and not Israel and Judah, appear\nas the subjects of the prophecy. It is in the capitals that Micah\nbeholds the concentration of the corruption (i. 5); and to them\nthe threatening also is chiefly addressed, i. 6, 7, iii. 12. Of\nthe promise, also, Jerusalem forms the centre.--The statement,\ntoo, in the inscription--that Micah uttered the contents of his\nbook under various kings--likewise receives a confirmation from the\nprophecy. The mention of the high places of Judah in i. 5, and of the\nwalking in the statutes of Omri, and in all the works of the house of\nAhab, refers especially to the time of Ahaz; compare 2 Kings xvi. 4; 2\nChron. xxviii. 4, 25; further, 2 Kings xvi. 3; 2 Chron. xxviii. 2; and\n_Caspari_ on Micah, S. 74. On the other hand, the time of Hezekiah is\nsuggested by v. 4, 6 (5, 6), which implies that already, at that time,\nAsshur had appeared as the enemy of the people of God,--and so likewise\nby the prophecy in iv. 9-14.\n\n\n\n CHAP. I. AND II.\n\nThe prophet begins with the words: \"_Hear, all ye people, hearken, O\nearth and the fulness thereof, and let the Lord God be witness against\nyou, the Lord from His holy temple. For, behold, the Lord cometh forth\nout of His place, and cometh down, and treadeth upon the high places of\nthe earth. And the mountains are melted under Him, and the valleys are\ncleft, as wax before the fire, as waters poured down a steep place. For\nthe transgression of Jacob is all this, and for the sins of the house\nof Israel._\" Vers. 2-5.\n\nThis majestic exordium has been misunderstood in various ways: _First_,\nby those who, like _Hitzig_, would understand by the people, \u05e6\u05de\u05d9\u05dd in\nver. 2, the tribes of Israel. We shall show, when commenting on Zech.\nxi. 10, that this is altogether inadmissible. But in the present case\nespecially, this interpretation must be rejected; partly on account of\nthe reference to the words of the elder Micah, and partly on account of\nthe parallel terms, \"O earth and the fulness thereof,\" which, according\nto the constant _usus loquendi_, lead us far beyond the narrow limits\nof Palestine. On the other hand, they who by the \u05e6\u05de\u05d9\u05dd rightly\nunderstand the nations of the whole earth, are mistaken in this, that\nthey consider them as mere witnesses, whom the Lord calls [Pg 425] up\nagainst His unthankful people, instead of considering them as the very\nsame against whom the Lord bears witness; and that they come into\nconsideration from this point of view, clearly appears from the words,\n\"The Lord be witness against you.\" As regards \u05e6\u05d3 with \u05d1 following,\ncompare, _e.g._, Mal. iii. 5.--Another mistake is committed in the\ndefinition of the way and manner of the divine witness. The greater\nnumber of interpreters suppose it to be the subsequent admonitory,\nreproving, and threatening discourse of the prophet. Thus, _e.g._,\n_Michaelis_, who explains: \"Do not despise and lightly esteem such a\nwitness, who by me earnestly and publicly testifies to you His will.\"\nBut in opposition to this view, it appears from ver. 3, that here, as\nwell as in Mal. iii. 5, \"And I will come near to you in judgment, and I\nam a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers,\nand against those that swear to a lie,\" the witness is a real\none,--that it consists in the actual attestation of the guilt by the\npunishment, viz., by the divine judgment described in vers. 3, 4. The\nwords, \"The Lord cometh forth out of His place, and cometh down,\" there\ncorrespond to, \"From His holy temple,\"--from which it is evident, at\nthe same time, that by the temple, the heavenly temple must be\nunderstood.\n\nWe have thus, in vers. 2-4, before us the description of a sublime\ntheophany, not for a partial judgment upon Judah, but for a judgment\nupon the whole world, the people of which are called upon to gather\naround their judge--whom the prophet beholds as already approaching,\ndescending from His glorious habitation in heaven, accompanied by the\ninsignia of His power, the precursors of the judgment--and silently to\nwait for His judicial and penal sentence.[1]\n\nBut how is it to be explained that with the words, \"For the\ntransgression of Jacob is all this,\" etc., there is a sudden transition\nto the judgments upon Israel, yea, that the prophet [Pg 426] goes on as\nif Israel alone had been spoken of? Only from the relation in which\nthese two judgments stand to one another. For they are perfectly one in\nsubstance. They are separated only by space, time, and unessential\ncircumstances; so that we may say that the general judgment appears in\nevery partial judgment upon Israel. In order to give expression to the\nthought, that it is the _judge of the world_ who is to judge Israel,\nthe prophets not unfrequently represent the Lord appearing to judge the\nwhole world; and in Israel, the _Microcosmos_, it was indeed judged. We\nhave a perfectly analogous case, _e.g._, in Is. chap. ii.-iv. It is\nonly by means of a very forced explanation, that it can be denied that\nafter the prophet has, by a few bold touches, from ii. 6-9, described\nthe moral debasement of the Covenant-people, and marked out pride as\nits last source, the last judgment upon the whole earth forms the\nsubject of discourse. In that judgment there will be a most clear\nrevelation of the vanity of all which is created--a vanity which, in\nthe present course of the world, is so frequently concealed--and that\nthe Lord alone is exalted, and that those who now shut their eyes will\nthen be compelled to acknowledge these truths. That Isaiah has this\ngeneral judgment in view, is too clearly proved by the sublimity of the\nwhole description, by the express mention of the whole earth, _e.g._,\nii. 19, and by not limiting, in the individualized description in ver.\n12 sqq., the high and lofty which is to be brought low to Judah alone,\nbut by extending it to the whole world. But in iii. 1 ff. the prophet\nsuddenly passes over to the typical, penal judgment upon Judah; and the\n\u05db\u05d9, at the commencement, shows that he does not consider this subject\nas one altogether new, but as being substantially identical with the\npreceding subject. This reminds us forcibly of the mode in which, in\nthe prophecies of our Lord, the references to the destruction of\nJerusalem, and to the last judgment, are connected with one another. In\nthe \"burden of Babylon\" in chap. xiii. likewise, the judgment of the\nLord upon the whole earth is first described. Nor is it only on the\nterritory of prophecy that this close connection of the general\njudgment with the inferior judgments upon the Covenant-people appears.\nIn Ps. lxxxii. 8, _e.g._, after the unrighteousness prevailing among\nthe Covenant-people has been described, the Lord is called upon to come\nto judge, not them [Pg 427] alone, but the whole earth; compare my\nCommentary on Ps. vii. 8, lvi. 8, lix. 6.\n\nThe prophet thus passes over, in ver. 5, from the general manifestation\nof divine justice to its special manifestation among the\nCovenant-people, and mentions here, as the most prominent points upon\nwhich it will be inflicted, Samaria and Jerusalem, the two capitals,\nfrom which the apostasy from the Lord spread over the rest of the\ncountry. He mentions Samaria first, and then, in vers. 6, 7, he\ndescribes its destruction which was brought about by the Assyrians,\nbefore he makes mention of that of Jerusalem, because the apostasy took\nplace first in Samaria, and hence the punishment also was hastened on.\nThe latter circumstance, which is merely a consequence of the former,\nis in an one-sided manner made prominent by the greater number of\ninterpreters, who therein follow the example of _Jerome_. It was at the\nsame time, however, probably the intention of the prophet to be done\nwith Samaria, in order that he might be at liberty to take up\nexclusively the case of Judah and Jerusalem--the main objects of his\nprophetic ministry.\n\nHe makes the transition to this in ver. 8, by means of the words: \"_On\nthat account I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked; I will\nmake a wailing like the jackals, and a mourning like the ostriches._\"\n\"_On that account_\"--_i.e._, on account of the judgment upon Judah, to\nbe announced in the subsequent verses. It is commonly supposed that the\nprophet here speaks in his own person; thus, _e.g._, _Rosenm\u00fcller_:\n\"The prophet mourns in a bitter lamentation for the number and\nmagnitude of the calamities impending over the Israelitish people.\" But\nthe correct view rather is, that the prophet, when, in his inward\nvision, he sees the divine judgments not remaining and stopping at\nSamaria, but poured out like a desolating torrent over Judah and\nJerusalem, suddenly sinks his own consciousness in that of his\nsuffering people. We have thus here before us an imperfect symbolical\naction, similar to that more finished one which occurs in Is. xx. 3, 4,\nand which can be explained only by a deeper insight into the nature of\nprophecy, according to which the dramatic character is inseparable from\nit. The transition from the mere description of what is present in the\ninward vision only, to the prophet's own action, is, according to this\nview, very easy. If we confine ourselves to the passage before us, the\nfollowing [Pg 428] arguments are in favour of our view. 1. The\npredicates \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05dc and \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05dd cannot be explained upon the supposition that\nthe prophet describes only his own painful feelings on account of the\ncondition of his people. Even if \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05dd stood alone, the explanation by\n\"naked,\" in the sense of \"deprived of the usual and decent dress, and,\non the contrary, clothed in dirt and rags,\" would be destitute of all\nproof and authority. No instance whatsoever is found of the outward\nhabit of a mourner being designated as nakedness. But it is still more\narbitrary thus to deal with \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05dc, whether it be explained by \"deprived\nof his mental faculties on account of the unbounded grief of his\nsoul,\"--as is done by several Jewish expositors (who, in the\nexplanation of this passage, would have done much better, had they\nfollowed the Chaldee, in whom the correct view is found; only that he,\ngiving up the figurative representation, substitutes the third person\nfor the first, paraphrasing it thus: \"On that account they shall wail\nand howl, they shall go stripped and naked,\" etc.),--or by \"badly\nclothed,\" as is done by the greater number of Christian expositors. The\nsignification \"robbed,\" \"plundered,\" is the only established one;\ncompare \u05e9\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc in Job xii. 17-19. The parallel passages, in which\nnakedness appears as the characteristic feature of the captives taken\nin war, show how little we are entitled to depart from the most obvious\nsignification, in these two words. Thus we find immediately afterwards,\nin ver. 11: \"Pass ye away, ye inhabitants of Saphir, having your shame\nnaked;\" on which _Michaelis_ remarks: \"With naked bodies, as is the\ncase with those who are led into captivity after having been stripped\nof their clothes.\" Thus Is. xx. 3, 4: \"And the Lord said. Like as My\nservant Isaiah walketh _naked_ and _barefoot_ three years, for a sign\nand wonder upon Egypt and Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria lead\naway the prisoners of Egypt, and the prisoners of Ethiopia, young men\nand old men, _naked_ and _barefoot_;\" compare Is. xlvii. 3.--2. The\nterm \u05d4\u05ea\u05e4\u05dc\u05e9\u05ea\u05d9, in ver. 10, is in favour of the supposition, that\nthe prophet here appears as the representative of the future condition\nof his people. The _Imperat. fem. _\u05d4\u05ea\u05e4\u05dc\u05e9\u05d9 of the marginal reading\nis evidently, as is commonly the case, only the result of the\nembarrassment of the Mazorets. The reading of the text can be\npointed as the first person of the Preterite only; for the view of\n_Rosenm\u00fcller_, who takes it as the [Pg 429] second person of the\nPreterite, which here is to have an optative signification, is,\ngrammatically, inadmissible. _R\u00fcckert's_ explanation, \"In the house of\n_dust_ (_zu Staubheim_), I have strewed dust upon me,\" is quite\ncorrect. But if _here_ we must suppose that the prophet suddenly passes\nover from the address to his unfortunate people, to himself as their\nrepresentative, why should not this supposition be the natural one in\nver. 8 also?\n\nThe correctness of the view which we have given is further\nstrengthened, if we compare the similar lamentations of the prophets in\nother passages, in all of which the same results will be found. In Jer.\nxlviii. 31, _e.g._, \"Therefore will I howl over Moab, and cry out over\nall Moab, over the men of Kir-heres shall _he_ groan,\" the \"he\" in the\nlast clause sufficiently shows how the \"I\" in the two preceding\nclauses, is to be understood,--especially if Is. xvi. 7, \"Therefore\nMoab howleth over Moab,\" be compared. But if this interpretation be\ncorrect in Jeremiah, it must certainly be correct in Is. xv. 5 also:\n\"My heart crieth out over Moab,\"--a passage which Jeremiah had in view;\nand this so much the more, that in Is. xvi. 9-11--where a similar\nlamentation for Moab occurs: \"Therefore do I bewail as for Jazer for\nthe vine of Sibmah; I water thee with my tears, O Heshbon and\nElealeh.... Therefore my bowels sound like a harp for Moab, mine\ninward parts for Kirhareseth\"--it is quite unsuitable to think of a\nlamentation of the prophet, which is expressive of his own grief. This\nwas seen by the Chaldee, who renders \"_my_ bowels\" by \"bowels of the\nMoabites,\"--a view the correctness of which has been strikingly\ndemonstrated by _Vitringa_: \"Although,\" he says, \"the emotion of\ncompassion be by no means unsuitable in the prophet, yet no one will be\nreadily convinced that the prophet was so much concerned for the vines\nof Sibmah and Jazer, and for the crops of the summer-fruits of a nation\nhostile and opposed to the people of God, that it should have been for\nhim a cause for lamentation and wailing.\" In Is. xxi., in the prophecy\nagainst Babylon, and in the lamentation in vers. 3, 4, \"Therefore are\nmy loins filled with pain, pangs take hold upon me as the pangs of a\nwoman that travaileth, etc., the night of my pleasure has been turned\ninto terror,\" it is clearly shown in what sense such lamentations are\nto be understood. By \"the night of pleasure,\" we can, especially by a\ncomparison of Jeremiah, understand only the night of the capture of\nBabylon, [Pg 430] in which the whole city was given up to drunkenness\nand riot. But it is impossible that the prophet should say that this\nnight--the precursor of the long-desired day for Israel--had been\nturned for him into terror. Either the whole lamentation is without any\nmeaning, or the prophet speaks in the name of Babylon, and that, not of\nthe Babylon of the present, but of the Babylon of the future. This must\nbe granted, even by those who assert that this portion was composed at\na later period; so that, even from this quarter, the soundness of our\nview cannot be assailed.\n\nIn ver. 9, the prophet returns to quiet description, from the\nsymbolical action to which he had been carried away by his emotions.\nThe subject of this description he states in the words: \"_It cometh\nunto Judah; it cometh unto the gate of my people, unto Jerusalem._\" By\nindividualizing, he endeavours to give a lively view of the thought,\nand to impress it. He begins with an allusion to the lamentation of\nDavid over Saul and Jonathan in 2 Sam. i. 17 ff., which is so much the\nmore significant, that in this impending catastrophe, Israel also was\nto lose his king (compare iv. 9), and that in it David was to\nexperience the fate of Saul. He then indicates the stations by which\nthe hostile army advances towards Jerusalem, and describes how, from\nthence, it spreads over the whole country, even to its southern\nboundary, and carries away the inhabitants into exile. But, in doing\nso, he always chooses places, whose names might, in some way, be\nbrought into connection with what they were now suffering; so that the\nwhole passage forms a chain of _paronomasias_. These, however, are not\nby any means idle plays. They have, throughout, a practical design. The\nthreatening is thereby to be, as it were, localized. The thought of a\ndivine judgment could not but be called forth in every one who should\nthink of one of the places mentioned. Jerusalem is first spoken of in\nver. 9 as the centre of the life of Judah: \"The gate of my people,\"\netc., being tantamount to \"_the_ city or metropolis of it.\" Then, it\nappears a second time in ver. 12, in the middle between five Judean\nplaces preceding and five following it,--the number ten, which is the\nsymbolical signification of completeness, indicating that the judgment\nis to be altogether comprehensive. The five places mentioned after\nJerusalem are all of them situated to the south of it. That the [Pg\n431] five places, the mention of which precedes that of Jerusalem, are\nall to be sought to the north of it, and that, hence, the judgment\nadvances from the north in geographical order, as is the case in Is. x.\n28 ff. also, is evident from the fact that Beth-Leaphrah, which is\nidentical with Ophrah, is situated in the territory of Benjamin, and\nthat Beth-Haezel, which is identical with Azal in Zech. xiv. 5, was\nsituated in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Hence, we cannot suppose\nthat Zaanan here is identical with Zenan, which is situated in the\nsouth of Jerusalem, Josh. xv. 37, nor Saphir with Samir.\n\nThe question still arises, In what event did the threatening of\npunishment, contained in chap. i., find its fulfilment? _Theodoret_,\n_Cyril_, _Tarnovius_, _Marckius_, _Jahn_, and others, refer it to the\nAssyrian invasion. _Jerome_ referred it to the Babylonish captivity:\n\"The same sin,\" he says, \"yea, the same punishment of sin which shall\noverturn Samaria, is to extend to Judah, yea, even unto the gates of my\ncity of Jerusalem. For, as Samaria was overturned by the Assyrians, so\nJudah and Jerusalem shall be overturned by the Chaldeans.\" This opinion\nwas adopted by _Michaelis_ and others.\n\nAt first sight, it would appear as if the circumstance, that the\njudgment upon Judah is brought into immediate connection with that upon\nIsrael, favoured the first view. But this argument loses its weight\nwhen we remark, that the events appear to the prophet in inward vision,\nand, therefore, quite irrespective of their relation in time; that the\ncontinuity of the punitive judgment upon Israel and Judah only, points\nout distinctly the truth, that both proceed from the same cause, viz.,\nthe relation of divine justice to the sin of the Covenant-people. It is\nthis truth alone which forms the essence and soul of the prophetic\nthreatenings; and with reference to that, the difference in point of\ntime, which is merely accidental, is altogether kept out of view.\nAnother argument in favour of the Assyrian invasion might be derived\nfrom the expression, \"_to_ Jerusalem,\" in ver. 9, inasmuch as the\nChaldean invasion visited Jerusalem itself. But, because the calamity\nwas not by any means to stop at Judah, but to overflow even it, it is\nshown by the preceding expression, \"unto Judah,\" that \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3 (compare on\nthis word, _Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_, p. 55 seq.)\nmust, in both cases, be explained from a tacit antithesis with the\nexpectation, [Pg 432] that the judgment would either stop at the\nboundary of Judah, or, although this should not be the case, would at\nleast spare the metropolis. The prophet contents himself with\nrepresenting that this opinion was erroneous. Although this passage\nitself asserts nothing upon the point as to whether Jerusalem itself is\nto be thought of as the object of the divine punishment, or whether it\nwill be spared, the following reasons show that the former will be the\ncase. Even ver. 5 does not admit of our expecting anything else.\nJerusalem is there marked out as the chief seat and source of\ncorruption in the kingdom of Judah, just as is Samaria in the kingdom\nof Israel. The declaration which is there made forms the foundation of\nthe subsequent threatening. How is it possible, then, that, while in\nthe kingdom of Israel it is concentrated upon Samaria, in the kingdom\nof Judah the seducer should be altogether passed over, and punishment\nannounced to the seduced only? That such is not the intention of the\nprophet, is clearly seen from ver. 12: \"_For evil cometh down from the\nLord upon the gate of Jerusalem._\" The \u05db\u05d9 alone is sufficient to\nprevent our limiting the sense of these words, so that they mean only\nthat evil will come no farther than to the gate of Jerusalem, and will\nstop there. The _Particula causalis_ proves that they are the ground of\nthe declaration in ver. 11, and that the mourning will not cease at\nBeth-Haezel, \"the house of stopping;\" compare the remarks on Zech. xiv.\n5. But, altogether apart from this connection, the words themselves\nfurnish a proof. They contain a verbal reference to the description of\nthe judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrha, Gen. xix. 24. Jerusalem is marked\nout by them as a second Sodom (compare Is. i. 10), upon which the\ndivine judgments would discharge themselves. As a second mark of this\nextension to Jerusalem, the carrying away of the people into captivity\nis added (compare vers. 11, 15, 16), which, in the promise in chap. ii.\n12, 13, is supposed to have taken place. It is not Israel alone, but\nthe whole Covenant-people, who are in a state of dispersion, and are\ngathered from it by the Lord.\n\nNow, both of these marks are not applicable to the Assyrian invasion;\nand if once we suppose the divine illumination of the prophet, it\ncannot be regarded as the real object of his threatenings. This, too,\nis equally inadmissible, if we consider the matter from a merely human\npoint of view. The predictions [Pg 433] of the prophets with regard to\nAssyria are, from the very outset, rather encouraging. It is true that\nthey are to be, in the hand of the Lord, a rod of chastisement for\nHis people, but these are never to be altogether given up to them\nfor destruction. By an immediate divine interference, their plan\nof capturing Jerusalem is frustrated. Thus the matter is constantly\nrepresented in Isaiah; thus also in Hosea i. 7. We can, moreover,\nadduce proofs from Micah himself, that his spiritual eye was not\npre-eminently, or exclusively, directed to the Assyrians. In the\nprophecy from chap. iii. to v., where he describes the judgment upon\nJudah in a manner altogether similar to that in which he mentions it\nhere, he passes over the Assyrians altogether in silence. Babylon is,\nin iv. 10, mentioned as the place to which Judah is to be led into\ncaptivity.\n\nYet here, as well as everywhere else in the threatenings and promises\nof the prophets, we must beware, lest, in referring them to some\nparticular historical event, we lose sight of the animating idea. If\nthis, on the other hand, be rightly understood, it will be seen that a\nparticular historical event may indeed be pre-eminently referred to,\nbut that it can never exhaust the prophecy. Although, therefore, the\nmain reference here be to the destruction by the Chaldeans, we must not\non that account exclude anything in which the same law of retaliation\nwas manifested, either before, as in the invasion of the Syrians and\nAssyrians; or afterwards, as in the destruction by the Romans. The\nprophet himself points, in iv. 11-14 (iv. 11-v. 1), to two other phases\nof the divine judgment which are to follow upon that by the Chaldeans.\n\nAfter the prophet has thus hitherto described the impending divine\njudgment in great general outlines, he passes on, in chap. ii., to\nchastise particular vices, which, however, must always be at the same\ntime, yea, prominently, considered as indications of the wholly\ndepraved condition of the nation, and of the punishments to follow upon\nit. One feature upon which he here chiefly dwells, and which must,\ntherefore, have been a peculiarly prominent manifestation of the sinful\ncorruption, consists in the acts of injustice and oppression committed\nby the great, the description of which presents striking resemblances\nto that in Is. v. 8 ff. The prophet interrupts this description only in\norder [Pg 434] to rebuke the false prophets, who reproved him for the\nseverity of his discourses, and asserted that they were unworthy of the\nmerciful God. Such severity, answered the prophet, was true mildness,\nbecause it alone could be the means of warding off the approaching\npunitive judgment; that his God did not punish from want of\nforbearance--from want of mercy; but that the fault was altogether that\nof the transgressors, who drew down upon themselves, by force. His\njudgments.[2]\n\nThe prophecy closes with the promise in vers. 12, 13. It is introduced\nquite abruptly, in order to place it in more striking contrast with the\nthreatening; just as, in iv. 1, there is a similar abrupt and\nunconnected contrast between the promise and the threatening.[3] It is\nonly brief; far more so than in the subsequent discourses, and far less\ndetailed than it is in them. The prophet desires first of all to\nterrify sinners from their security; and for this reason, he causes\nonly a very feeble glimmering of hope to fall upon the dark future.\n\nVer. 12. \"_I will assemble, surely I will assemble, O Jacob, thee\nwholly: I will gather the remnant of Israel. I will bring_ [Pg 435]\n_them together as the sheep of Bozrah; as a flock on their pasture,\nthey shall make a noise by reason of men._ Ver. 13. _The breaker goeth\nup before them; they break through, pass through the gate and go out,\nand their King marches before them, and the Lord is on the head of\nthem._\"\n\nThe remark, that almost all the features of this description are\nborrowed from the deliverance out of Egypt, will throw much light upon\nthe whole description. In the midst of oppression and misery, Israel,\nwhile there, increased by means of the blessing of the Lord, hidden\nunder the cross, to greater and greater numbers; compare Exod. i. 12.\nWhen the time of deliverance had arrived, the Lord, who had for a long\ntime concealed Himself, manifested Himself again as their God. First,\nthe people were gathered together, and then, the Lord went before\nthem,--in a pillar of cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire by night:\nExod. xiii. 21. He led them out of Egypt, the house of bondage: Exod.\nxx. 2. So it is here also. Ver. 12 describes the increase and\ngathering, and ver. 13 the deliverance. In both passages, Israel's\nmisery is represented under the figure of an abode in the house of\nbondage, or in prison, the gates of which the Lord opens--the walls of\nwhich He breaks down. In this allusion to, and connection with, the\nformer deliverance, Micah agrees with his contemporaries, Hosea and\nIsaiah. The deeper reason of this lies in the typical import of the\nformer deliverance, which forms a prophecy by deeds of all future\ndeliverances, and contains within itself completely their germ and\npledge; compare Hosea ii. 1, 2 (i. 10, 11); Is. xi. 11 ff.: \"And the\nLord shall stretch forth His hand a _second time_ to redeem the remnant\nof His people.... And He sets up an ensign for the nations, and gathers\ntogether the dispersed of Israel, and assembles the scattered of Judah\nfrom the four corners of the earth.... And the Lord smites with a curse\nthe tongue of the Egyptian sea, and shakes His hand over the river, in\nthe violence of His wind, and smites it to seven rivers, so that one\nmay wade through in shoes. And there shall be a highway to the remnant\nof His people, ... like as it was to Israel in the day when he came up\nout of the land of Egypt.\" This reference to the typical deliverance\nclearly shows, that in the description we have carefully to separate\nbetween the thought and the language in which it is clothed.\n\n[Pg 436]\n\nVer. 12. The _Infin. absol._, which in both the clauses precedes the\n_tempus finitum_, expresses the emphasis which is to be placed on the\n_gathering_, as opposed to the carrying away, and the scattering\nformerly announced; for the latter, according to the view of man, and\napart from God's mercy and omnipotence, did not seem to admit of any\nfavourable turn. By \"Jacob\" and \"Israel,\" several interpreters\nunderstand Judah alone; others, the ten tribes alone; others, both\ntogether. The last view is alone the correct one. This appears from i.\n5, where, by Jacob and Israel, the whole nation is designated. The\npromise in the passage before us stands closely related to the\nthreatening uttered there. All Israel shall be given up to destruction\non account of their sins; all Israel shall be saved by the grace of\nGod. This assumption is confirmed by a comparison of the parallel\npassages in Hosea and Isaiah, where the whole is designated by the two\nparts, Judah and Israel. Micah does not notice this division, because\nthat visible separation, which even in the present was overbalanced by\nan invisible unity, shall disappear altogether in that future,\nwhen there shall be only one flock, as there is only one Shepherd.\nThe expression, \"remnant of Israel,\" in the second clause, which\ncorresponds to, \"O Jacob, thee wholly,\" in the first, indicates,\nthat the fulfilment of the promise, so far from doing away with\nthe threatening, rather rests on its preceding realization. The\nCongregation of God, purified by the divine judgments, shall be\n_wholly_ gathered. Divine mercy has in itself no limits; and those\nwhich in the present are assigned to it by the objects of mercy, shall\nthen be removed.--The words, \"I will bring them together,\" etc.,\nindicate equally the faithfulness of the great Shepherd, who gathers\nHis dispersed flock from all parts of the world, and the unexpected and\nwonderful increase of the flock; compare Jer. xxiii. 3: \"And I will\ngather the remnant of My flock out of all countries whither I have\ndriven them, and lead them back to their pasture-ground, and they are\nfruitful and increase;\" and xxxi. 10: \"He that scattereth Israel will\ngather him and keep him as a shepherd does his flock.\"--Bozrah we\nconsider to be the name of a capital of the Idumeans in Auranitis, four\ndays' journey from Damascus. The great wealth of this town in flocks\nappears from Is. xxxiv. 6 (although a slaughter of men is spoken of in\nthat passage, yet evidently the wealth of Bozrah in natural [Pg 437]\nflocks is there supposed), and can with perfect ease be accounted for\nfrom its situation. For, in its neighbourhood, there begins the\nimmeasurable plain of Arabia, which, on one side, continues without\ninterruption as far as _Dshof_, into the heart of Arabia, while,\ntowards the North, it extends to Bagdad, under the name of _El Hamad_.\nIts length and breadth are calculated to amount to eight days' journey.\nIt contains many shrubs and blooming plants; compare _Burkhardt_ and\n_Ritter_.[4] Several interpreters consider \u05d1\u05e6\u05e8\u05d4 to be an appellative,\nand assign to it the signification \"sheepfold,\" \"cote.\" But there is no\nreason whatsoever in favour of such a meaning of Bozrah, while there is\nthis argument against it, that the probable signification of \u05d1\u05e6\u05e8\u05d4 as\nthe name of a town is \"_locus munitus_\" = \u05de\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e6\u05b8\u05e8 or \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05e6\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05df. It can hardly\nbe supposed that the word should at the same time have had the\nsignifications of \"fortress\" and \"fold.\" It is, moreover, more in\nharmony with the prophetical character to particularize, than to use a\ngeneral term. As is shown, however, by the last member (with which,\naccording to the accents, the words, \"As [Pg 438] a flock on their\npasture,\" must be connected), the point of comparison is not the\nassembling and gathering, but the multitude, the crowd,--\"As the sheep\nof Bozrah\" being thus tantamount to, \"So that in multitude they are\nlike the sheep of Bozrah.\" \u05d4\u05b7\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9, from \u05d3\u05b9\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8, is, contrary to the\ngeneral rule, doubly qualified, both by the article and by the suffix.\nThis has been accounted for on the ground that the little suffix had\ngradually lost its power. But it is perhaps more natural to suppose\nthat the article sometimes lost its power, and coalesced with the noun.\nThe frequent use of the _Status emphaticus_ in undefined nouns, in the\nSyriac language (compare _Hofmann_, _Gram. Syr._, p. 290), presents an\nanalogy in favour of this opinion.--The last words graphically describe\nthe noise produced by a numerous, closely compacted flock. The plur. of\nthe Fem. refers to the sheep.--\u05de\u05df denotes the _causa efficiens_. They\nmake a noise; and this noise proceeds from the numerous assembled\npeople. The same connection of figure and thing occurs in Ezek. xxxiv.\n31: \"And ye (\u05d5\u05d0\u05ea\u05df) are My flock, the flock of My pasture are ye men;\"\ncompare Ezek. xxxvi. 38.\n\nVer. 13. The whole verse must be explained by the figure of a prison,\nwhich lies at the foundation. The people of God are shut up in it, but\nare now delivered by God's powerful hand. By the \"breaker,\" many\ninterpreters understand the Lord Himself. But if we consider, that in a\ndouble clause, at the end of the verse, the Lord is mentioned as the\nleader of the expedition if we look to the type of the deliverance from\nEgypt, where Moses, as the breaker, marches in front of Israel; and if,\nfurther, we look to the parallel passage in Hosea, where, with an\nevident allusion to that type, the children of Israel and of Judah\nappoint themselves one head; we shall rather be disposed to understand\nby the \"breaker\" the _dux et antesignanus_ raised up by God. With the\nraising up and equipping of such a leader every divine deliverance\ncommences; and that which, in the inferior deliverance, the typical\nleaders, Moses and Zerubbabel, were, Christ was in the highest and last\ndeliverance. To Him the \"breaker\" has been referred by several Jewish\ninterpreters (compare _Sch\u00f6ttgen_, _Hor\u00e6_ ii. p. 212); and if we\ncompare chap. v., where that which is here indicated by general\noutlines only is further expanded and detailed, we shall have to urge\nagainst this interpretation this objection only, viz., that it excludes\nthe [Pg 439] typical breakers,--that, in the place of the _ideal_\nperson of the breaker, which presents itself to the internal vision of\nthe prophet, it puts the individual in whom this idea is most fully\nrealized.--The words \u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e2\u05e8 are, by several interpreters, referred\nto the forcing and entering of hostile gates. Thus _Michaelis_, whom\n_Rosenm\u00fcller_ follows: \"No gate shall be so fortified as to prevent\nthem from forcing it.\" But this interpretation destroys the whole\nfigure, and violates the type of the deliverance from Egypt which lies\nat the foundation. For the gate through which they break is certainly\nthe gate of the prison.--The three verbs--\"They break through, they\npass through, they go out\"--graphically describe their progress, which\nis not to be stopped by any human power.--The last words open up the\nview to the highest leader of the expedition; compare besides, Exod.\nxiii. 21; Is. lii. 12: \"For ye shall not go out in trembling, nor shall\nye go out by flight. For the Lord goeth before you, and the God of\nIsrael closeth your rear;\" Is. xl. 11; Ps. lxxx. 3. In the exodus from\nEgypt, a visible symbol of the presence of God marched before the host,\nbesides Moses, the breaker. On the return from Babylon, the Angel of\nthe Lord was visible to the eye of faith only, as formerly when\nAbraham's servant journeyed to Mesopotamia, Gen. xxiv. 7. At the last\nand highest deliverance, the breaker was at once the King and God of\nthe people.\n\nAs this prophecy has no limitation at all in itself, we are fully\nentitled to refer it to the whole sum of the deliverances and salvation\nwhich are destined for the Covenant-people; and to seek for its\nfulfilment in every event, either past or future, in the same degree as\nthe fundamental idea--God's mercy upon His people--is manifested in it.\nEvery limitation to any particular event is evidently inadmissible;\nbut, most of all, a limitation to the deliverance from the Babylonish\ncaptivity, which, especially with regard to Israel, can be considered\nas only a faint prelude of the fulfilment. They, however, have\ncome nearest to the truth who assume an exclusive reference to\nChrist,--provided they acknowledge, that the conversion of the first\nfruits of Israel, at the time when Christ appeared in His humiliation,\nis not the end of His dealings with this people.\n\n\nFootnote 1: The reference to the general judgment would indeed\ndisappear, if we suppose \u05d1\u05db\u05dd in ver. 2 to be addressed to _Israel_. It\nseems, indeed, to be in favour of this supposition, that, in 1 Kings\nxxii. 28, the people alone are called upon as witnesses, and that in\nDeut. xxxi. 28, xxxii. 1, and Is. i. 2, heaven and earth, and in Hos.\nvi. 1, the mountains also, are called upon only in order to make the\nscene more solemn. But the reference of \u05d1\u05db\u05dd to the nations mentioned\nimmediately before, is too evident.\n\nFootnote 2: Ver. 6 must be translated thus: _Not shall ye drop_\n(prophesy),--_they_ (the false prophets) _drop; if they_ (the\nindividuals addressed, the true prophets) _do not drop to these_ (the\nrapacious great), _the ignominy will not cease_, _i.e._, the\nignominious destruction breaks in irresistibly. The fundamental passage\nin Deut. xxxii. 2, and ver. 11 of the chapter before us, show that \u05d4\u05d8\u05d9\u05e3\nhas not the signification, \"to talk,\" which is assigned to it by\n_Caspari_. The false prophets must be considered as the accomplices of\nthe corrupted great, especially as to the bulwark which they opposed to\nthe true prophets, and their influence on the nation, and on their own\nconsciences,--as indeed material power everywhere seeks for such a\nspiritual ally. If this be kept in view, the censure and threatening\nacquire a still greater unity.\n\nFootnote 3: To a certain extent, however, verse 11 forms the\ntransition: \"If one were to come, a wind, and lie falsely: I will\nprophesy to thee of wine and of strong drink,--he would be the prophet\nof this people.\" Such a prophet Micah, indeed, is not; but although he\nneither can nor dare announce salvation _without_ judgment, he has, in\nthe name of the Lord, to announce salvation _after_ the judgment. The\nvery singular opinion, that in vers. 12, 13, the false prophets are\nintroduced as speaking, is refuted by the single circumstance that, in\nver. 12, the gathering of the _remnant_ of Israel only is promised, and\nhence the judgment is supposed to have preceded. It is no less\nerroneous if, instead of considering ver. 11 as introductory to vers.\n12, 13, the latter be made to depend upon ver. 11, and be therefore\nconsidered as, to a certain extent, accidental.\n\nFootnote 4: After the example of _v. Raumer_, _Robinson_, _Ritter_\n(_Erdk._ 14, 101), it has now become customary to distinguish between\ntwo Bozrahs,--one in Auranitis, and the other in Edom. But the\narguments adduced for this distinction are not of very great weight.\nNowhere is a \"high situation\" in reality ascribed to the Bozrah in\nEdom. The assertion, that Edom was always limited to the territory\nbetween the Dead Sea and the Red Sea, is opposed to Gen. xxxvi. 35,\naccording to which passage, even in the time before Moses, the Edomitic\nking, Hadad, smote Midian in the field of Moab; and further, to Lam.\niv. 21, according to which Edom dwells in the land of Uz, which can be\nsought for only in _Arabia Deserta_. We need to think only of that\nbranch of the Midianites who had gone over to _Arabia Deserta_, whilst\ntheir chief settlement continued in _Arabia Petr\u00e6a_. But the following\narguments may be adduced _against_ the distinction. 1. Bozrah is\nconstantly and simply spoken of, without any further distinctive\ndesignation. 2. The Edomitic Bozrah must have been a great and powerful\ncity, which agrees well with the \"mighty ruins\" in _Hauran_, but not\nwith the much more insignificant ruins near _Busseireh_ in _Dshebal_.\n3. It is improbable that so important a city as that of Bozrah in\nAuranitis should never have been mentioned in Scripture.--But not\nsatisfied with a double Bozrah, even a third, in Moab, has been assumed\non the ground of Jer. xlviii. 24. But it is certainly strange that\nBozrah, in that passage, is mentioned as the last of all the Moabitish\ntowns, and that, immediately after its mention, there follow the words,\n\"Upon all the cities of the land of Moab, far and near.\" It may be that\nBozrah was conquered by the Edomites and Moabites in common, or that,\nin later times, the latter obtained a kind of possession of the town in\ncommon with the former.\n\n\n[Pg 440]\n\n CHAP. III.-V.\n\nThe discourse opens with new reproofs and threatenings. It is _first_,\nin vers. 1-4, directed against the rapacious great, who in ver. 2 are\ndescribed as murderers of men (compare Sirach xxxi. 21: \"He who taketh\nfrom his neighbour his livelihood, _killeth_ him\"), and in ver. 3, as\neaters of men, because they turn to their own advantage the necessaries\nof life of which they have robbed the poor. The discourse _then_ passes\nover to the false prophets, vers. 5-7. Their character is described as\nhypocritical, weak, and selfish, and is incidentally contrasted with\nthe character of the true prophet, as represented by himself, whose\nstrength is always renewed by the Spirit of the Lord, and who, in this\nstrength, serves only truth and righteousness, and holds up their sins\nto the people deluded by the false prophets, ver. 8. This the\nprophet continues to do in vers. 9-12. The three orders of divinely\ncalled rulers, upon whom the life or death of the Congregation was\ndepending,--the princes, the priests, and the prophets (compare remarks\non Zech. x. 1),--have become so degenerate, that they are not at all\nconcerned for the glory of God, but only for their own interest. And\nwhile they have thus inwardly apostatized from Jehovah, they are\nstrengthened in their false security by the promises which God has\ngiven to His people, and which they, altogether overlooking the fact\nthat these are conditional, referred, in hypocritical blindness, to\nthemselves. But God will, in a fearful manner, punish them for this\napostasy, and frighten them from their security. The Congregation of\nthe Lord, which has been desecrated inwardly, shall be so outwardly\nalso. Zion shall become a corn-field; Jerusalem, the city of God, shall\nsink into rubbish and ruins; the Temple-hill shall again become what it\nwas previous to its being the residence of God, viz., a thickly wooded\nhill, which shall then appear in all its natural lowness, and be\nconsidered as insignificant when compared with the neighbouring\nmountains.--In the whole section, the twelve verses of which are\nequally divided into three portions of four verses each, the prophet\nviews chiefly the great, and the civil rulers. The false prophets, whom\nhe takes up in the second of these subdivisions (vers. 5-8), come under\nconsideration as their helpers only. In the third subdivision, [Pg 441]\nthe discourse is again directed to the great alone, in vers. 9, 10. The\ntwo other orders are added to them in vers. 11, 12 only; and the\ncharges raised against them refer to their relation to the great. The\n_priests_ are not by any means reproved because they made teaching a\nprofession, from which they derived their livelihood, but because, for\nbribes, they interpreted the law in a manner favourable to the\nrapacious lusts of the great, and thereby, no less than the false\nprophets, assisted them in their wickedness.--The charge raised in ver.\n10 against the great,--\"Building up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with\niniquity,\"--has been frequently misunderstood. The words must not be\nexplained from Hab. ii. 12, but from Ps. li. 20, where David prays to\nthe Lord, \"Build Thou the walls of Jerusalem,\" which he had destroyed\nby his blood, ver. 16. The word \"building\" is used ironically by Micah,\nand is tantamount to: \"Ye who are destroying Jerusalem by blood and\niniquity (compare ver. 12: 'For your sakes Zion shall be ploughed as a\nfield'), instead of building it up by righteousness.\" Righteousness\nbuilds up, because it draws down God's blessing and protection; but\nunrighteousness destroys, because it calls down the curse of God.\n\nThe unfaithfulness of the Covenant-people can nevertheless not make\nvoid the faithfulness of God. The prophet, therefore, passes suddenly\nfrom threatening to promise. _Calvin_ thus expresses the relation of\nthese two: \"But I must now come to the little remnant. Hitherto I have\nspoken about the judgment of God, which is near at hand, upon the\nking's councillors, upon the priests and prophets, upon the whole\npeople in short, because they are all wicked and ungodly, because the\nwhole body is pervaded by contempt of God, and by desperate obstinacy.\nLet them receive, then, that which they all have deserved. But I now\ngather the children of God apart, for to them too I have a message to\ndeliver.\"\n\nThe intimate relation of the first part of the promise to the preceding\nthreatening has been already demonstrated, p. 420. The Mount of Zion,\nwhich forms the subject of vers. 1-7, shall, in future, not only be\nrestored to its former dignity, but it shall be exalted above all the\nmountains of the earth. The kingdom of God, which is represented by it,\nshall, by the glory imparted to it by a new revelation of the Lord\n(compare ver. 7: \"And [Pg 442] the Lord shall be King over them on\nMount Zion\"), outshine all the kingdoms of the world, and exercise an\nattractive power upon their citizens; so that they flow to Zion, there\nto receive the commands of the Lord, vers. 1, 2. By the sway which the\nLord exercises from Zion, peace shall have its dwelling in the heathen\nworld, ver. 3, and, consequently, the Congregation of the Lord ceases\nto be a prey to injury from the world's power, ver. 4^a. How incredible\nsoever it may appear, this promise shall surely be fulfilled; for\nomnipotent faithfulness has given it, ver. 4^b, and has given it indeed\nfor this very purpose; for it is altogether natural, and to be\nexpected, that the glory of the Lord should in all eternity display\nitself in His dealings with His people, ver. 5. In vers. 6, 7, the\npromise receives a new impetus, by which it connects itself with ver.\n4^a. In that time of mercy, the Lord will put an end to all the misery\nof His people.\n\nVer. 1. \"_And it shall come to pass at the end of the days, that the\nmountain of the house of the Lord shall be firmly established on the\ntop of the mountains, and exalted above the hills, and people flow unto\nit._\"\n\nThe words, \"And it shall come to pass,\" excite the attention to the\ngreat and unexpected turn which things are to take. The expression,\n\u05d1\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd, is explained by many as meaning: \"In times to come,\"\n\"in future.\" But we have already proved, in our work on _Balaam_, p.\n465 seq., that the right explanation is: \"At the end of the days.\"\nThis is the explanation given by the LXX. also, who commonly render it\nby \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2; and by the Chaldee Paraphrast, who\ntranslates it by \u05d1\u05e1\u05d5\u05e3 \u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05d0. The reasons which seem, at first sight, to\nfavour the signification \"in future,\" are invalidated by these two\nconsiderations:--_first_, that it is not at all necessary that the end\nbe just absolutely the last, but only the end of those events which the\nspeaker is reviewing; and, _second_, that it altogether depends upon\nthe will of the speaker, what extent he is to assign to the beginning\nand to the end. The expression is used by the prophets in a manner\ndifferent from that of the Pentateuch. The prophets use it almost\nexclusively with a reference to the Messianic times,--an _usus\nloquendi_ which originated in Deut. iv. 30. They divide the whole\nduration of the kingdom of God into two parts, the beginning and the\nend,--the state of humiliation, and [Pg 443] the state of\nglorification. The line of demarcation is formed by the birth of the\nMessiah, according to v. 2 (3): \"He will give them up until she who is\nbearing brings forth.\"--\"The mountain of the house of the Lord\" is,\naccording to the common _usus loquendi_, not Moriah, but the whole\nmountain of Zion, of which Moriah was considered as a part; compare Ps.\nlxxvi. 3, lxxviii. 68. In ver. 8, the prophet speaks of two parts only,\nZion and Jerusalem. In iii. 12, Zion only, as the better part, is first\nspoken of; and then, in the second clause, Jerusalem and the mountain\nof the house, the latter corresponding to Zion, are contrasted with\neach other, or Jerusalem and Mount Zion considered in its highest\nquality as the temple-mountain.--\u05e0\u05db\u05d5\u05df, \"fixed,\" \"firmly established,\"\nimplies more than, simply, \"placed.\" It shows that the change is not\nmerely momentary, but that the temple-mountain shall be exalted for\never, and that no earthly power shall be able to abase it. It thus goes\nhand in hand with the declaration in ver. 7: \"The Lord shall be king\nover them from now _until eternity_.\" The same word \u05e0\u05db\u05d5\u05df is used in 1\nKings ii. 45 of the immutable firmness of the throne of David: \"The\nthrone of David shall be firmly established before the Lord for ever;\"\ncompare 2 Sam. vii. 12, 13. The commentary on \u05e0\u05db\u05d5\u05df is given by Dan. ii.\n44: \"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a\nkingdom which shall not be destroyed in all eternity ... it shall break\nin pieces and destroy all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.\"\nThat \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd does not mean, \"at the head of the mountains,\" _i.e._,\nstanding at the head, as the first among them (as _Hitzig_ and others\nthink), but \"on the summit of the mountains\" (the \u05d1 is used in a\nsimilar manner in Judg. ix. 7, compared with 1 Sam. xxvi, 13), is\nevident from the fact that \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9, in connection with \u05d4\u05e8, is constantly\nused of the summit of the mountains, and, hence, cannot be used in a\nfigurative sense, in this connection. The sense can therefore be this\nonly: \"Zion, in future, so pre-eminently stands out from among\nthe other mountains, that these serve, as it were, only for its\nfoundation.\" Now, the elevation of the temple-mountain is considered,\nby several interpreters, as a _physical_ one. Passages from Jewish\ncommentaries, in which the expectation is expressed that, in the days\nof the Messiah, Jehovah would bring near Mount Carmel and Tabor, and\nplace Jerusalem on [Pg 444] the summit of them, will be found in\n_Galatinus_, _de Arcanis Catholic\u00e6 Veritatis_, L. v. c. 3. The literal\nexplanation has, in recent times, been defended by _Hofmann_ and\n_Drechsler_. But _Caspari_, by pointing out the exact correspondence\nbetween the words, \"The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be\nfirmly established on the top of the mountains,\" and the words in ver.\n2, \"The law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from\nJerusalem,\" has proved in a very striking manner that the elevation is\na moral one. \"As 1^b corresponds to 2^a, so does 1^a to 2^b; ver. 1^a\nis the ground of ver. 1^b; ver. 2^a, by which ver. 1^b is further\nexpanded, is the consequence of 2^b. Hence 2^b must be substantially\nidentical with ver. 1^a; but 2^b speaks of something that points to the\nmoral height of Mount Zion, and states something upon which it is\nbased.\" To this it may be added, that height, in a moral sense,\nis often ascribed to the temple-mountain, even with reference to the\nante-Messianic time, and that the passage under consideration could be\ndisjoined from these by force only. It is upon such a view of it,\nindeed, that the use of \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 in reference to the journeys to Jerusalem\nrests, just as it is here used in ver. 2. We may, moreover, compare Ps.\nxlviii. 3; Ezek. xvii. 22, 33: \"And I plant upon a mountain high and\nelevated. On the high mountains of Israel I will plant it;\" but\nespecially Ps. lxviii. 16: \"Mountain of God is the mountain of Bashan,\nthe top of mountains is the mountain of Bashan.\" Ver. 17. \"Why do ye\ntops of mountains insidiously observe the mountain which God desireth\nfor His residence? Yea, the Lord will dwell in it for ever.\" The\nmountain of God is, in these verses, an emblem of the kingdoms of the\nworld, which are powerful through God's grace. In ver. 16, the Psalmist\ndeclares what the mountain of Bashan is. In ver. 17, he rejects the\nunfounded claims which it raises on account of its real advantages.\nAlthough it be great, yet Mount Zion is infinitely greater, and vain\nare all its efforts to overturn this relation. This passage, then,\nleads to another argument against the literal interpretation. We find\nin it the kingdoms represented under the figure of mountains,[1]--a\nmode of representation which is of very frequent occurrence in\nScripture; compare my Commentary on [Pg 445] Ps. lxv. 7, lxxvi. 5; Rev.\nviii. 8, xvii. 9. The more difficult it was to separate, according to\nthe Israelitish conception, _mountain_ and _kingdom_, the more natural\nit was to find, in the passage before us, expression given to the\nthought, that the kingdom of God would, in future, be exalted above all\nthe kingdoms of the world. If we take into account the common practice\nof employing \"mountain\" in a figurative sense, it is natural to suppose\nthat not the exaltation alone is to be understood figuratively, but\nthat the mountain itself also is to be regarded chiefly in its\nsymbolical signification,--as the symbol of the kingdom of God in\nIsrael; although, in this aspect, we should expect, at least in the\nbeginning of the relation, that the thing itself should still be\nconnected with the symbol; afterwards they may be disjoined without any\nhesitation. The deep grief which must, of necessity, have been called\nforth by the announcement in iii. 12, did not regard the mountain as\nsuch. It had, for its real object, the condition of the kingdom of God\nwhich was prefigured by the condition of the mountain; and it is just\nthis to which the consolation has respect.--But by what means is the\nexaltation of the temple-mountain to be effected? _Cocceius_ has\nalready directed attention to the circumstance, that it must not be\nsupposed to consist in the flowing of the people unto it; for that is\nnot the _cause_, but the _effect_. We find the correct answer in ver.\n2: \"The law goeth forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from\nJerusalem;\" and in ver. 7: \"And the Lord will be king over them on\nMount Zion.\" The exaltation will, accordingly, be effected by a\nglorious manifestation of the Lord within His congregation; in\nconsequence of which, Zion becomes the centre of the whole earth. That\nthis manifestation is to take place in Christ, is brought out only\nsubsequently; compare especially, v. 1, 3 (2-4). A parallel passage is\nalso Ezek. xl. 2, where Mount Zion is likewise seen exalted in the\nMessianic time.\n\nVer. 2. \"_And many nations go and say, Come and let us go up to the\nmountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, that He may\nteach us His ways, and that we may walk in His path; for from Zion the\nlaw shall go forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem._\"\n\nFrom the words, \"And many nations go,\" to \"paths,\" we have an expansion\nof--\"People flow unto it.\" Zech. viii. 20-23 are founded upon, and\nserve as a commentary on the passage before [Pg 446] us. The people go\nto one another, and send messengers to one another; a powerful\ncommotion pervades the heathen world, which causes them to seek Zion,\nthat had formerly been despised by them. It makes no substantial\ndifference whether the going is to be understood physically or\nspiritually,--whether the people flow to the literal Mount Zion, or to\nthe Church, which is thereby prefigured. All that is requisite is, that\nthe commencement of their going and flowing must belong to a time in\nwhich the symbol and the thing symbolized were still connected,--when\nthe literal Zion was still the seat of the Church. The _plurality_\nof nations forms a contrast with the _unity_, but not with the\n_universality_, as is shown by a comparison of the parallel passage in\nIsaiah, where the \"many people\" are preceded by the mention of \"all the\nheathens (\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9\u05dd, _i.e._, the whole heathen world) flow unto it,\"\ninstead of--\"People flow unto it,\" as in Micah. Formerly, _one_ people\nonly went to Zion, in order there to offer to the Lord their worship,\nand to be taught His ways, Exod. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23; Deut. xxxi. 10\nsqq.; now, many people flow thither. In the anticipation of this future\nglory of Mount Zion, which will infinitely outshine that of the\npresent, the sad interval described in iii. 12, during which the\nmountain of the house is altogether forsaken, may be more easily borne.\nThe connection of \u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 with \u05de\u05df, which is rather uncommon, may be most\nsimply explained by viewing the instruction as proceeding from its\nobject. \"The ways of the Lord\" are the ways in which He would have men\nto walk,--that mode of life which is well-pleasing to Him. The contrast\nof it is walking in one's own ways. Is. liii. 6,--regulating of one's\nlife according to the desires of one's own corrupt heart.--The last\nwords, \"For from Zion, etc.,\" are not to be conceived of as spoken by\nthe people, stirring up and encouraging one another, but by the\nprophet. They state the reason why the people are so anxious to go to\nZion; and this accounts also for the circumstance that Zion is so\nemphatically placed at the beginning. Zion shall, at that time, be the\nresidence of the true God, and proved to be such by glorious\nrevelations; and from it His commands go forth over the whole earth.\n\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0, \"to go out,\" stands here, as in ver. 1, in the sense of \"to go\nforth.\" As the sphere for the going forth of the law from Zion is not\nlimited, it must be considered in as wide an extent as possible; in\nharmony with the preceding words, [Pg 447] according to which we must\nthink of \"people,\" \"many nations,\" as being comprehended within this\nsphere.--We must not overlook the fact that the article is awanting\nbefore \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4, and that the law is not more strictly defined as the law\nof God. It is intended, in the first place, only to indicate that\ndespised and desolate Zion is to be the seat of legislation for the\nwhole earth. The law itself is then more strictly defined as the word\nof God. Many interpreters understand \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 here as meaning religion in\ngeneral;[2] the going forth is explained by them of its spreading\nitself. From Zion, true religion is to extend over all the nations; and\nhence it is that to Zion the eyes of all of them are directed. Thus,\n_e.g._, _Theodoret_, who remarks: \"This is the preaching of the Gospel,\nwhich began at Jerusalem, and from thence, as from its source, flowed\nover all the earth, offering drink to those who came to it in faith.\"\nBut \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 never signifies \"doctrine,\" \"religion,\" any more than does\n\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8: it is always used as meaning \"law;\" and this sense of it can with\nthe less propriety be departed from here, as the people, according to\nwhat precedes, flow to Zion not in order to seek religion in general,\nbut laws for their conduct in life. But even if we were to follow\n_Caspari_, and to modify the explanation thus, \"The law, which was\nformerly confined to Zion, and hence to a narrow circle, shall go forth\nfrom thence into the wide world,\"--weighty objections to it would still\nremain. If \"to go forth\" were to be understood as meaning \"to spread,\"\nthe sphere of the going forth would have been more closely determined;\nas, _e.g._, in Is. xlii. 1: \"He shall bring forth judgment _to\nthe Gentiles_.\" In Is. li. 4, \"Law shall _go out_ from Me, and My\njudgment I will make for a light of the people,\" _to go out_ is\ntantamount to, _to go forth_. \"Mine arms shall judge the people,\" in\nli. 5, is parallel to it. \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 in itself does not mean \"to go forth.\"\n_Further_--The circumstance that the law spreads from Zion, does not\naccount sufficiently for the zeal with which the nations flow to Zion.\nIf it _goes out_, there is then no need for their seeking for it at its\nhome. In Zech. viii. 20-23, also, the thronging of the people to Zion,\nin order to enter there into a closer relation to the Lord, forms the\nsubject of discourse. Zion, as the place where the Lord of [Pg 448] the\nwhole earth issues His orders, as if from His residence (Is. xi. 10),\nforms an appropriate contrast to \"Zion shall be ploughed as a\nfield,\"--a suitable parallel to the exaltation of the temple-mountain\nabove all the mountains of the earth, to which the prophet here\nreturns, after having, in the first part of the verse, expanded the\nthought: \"People flow unto it;\" and to vers. 7, 8 also, where Zion\nappears likewise as the seat of dominion.\n\nVer. 3. \"_And He judges among many people, and rebukes strong nations,\neven unto a distance. And they heat their swords into ploughshares, and\ntheir spears into pruning-knives; nation shall not lift up a sword,\nagainst nation, neither shall they learn war any more._\"\n\nIt appears strange to us that here we see ourselves transferred all at\nonce to the sphere of the general description of the Messianic time;\nfor, according to the whole context, and to the contrast with chap.\niii., we expect such predictions as will serve especially for the\nconsolation of the daughter of Zion, whose heart had been pierced by\nthe announcement that the mountain of the house should become a wooded\nhill, and that she herself should be given into the power of the\nGentiles. But this difficulty is removed by remarking that this verse\nonly prepares the way for ver. 4, where there is a representation of\nthe advantage which accrues to the daughter of Zion from the spirit of\npeace, which, through the powerful influence of Zion's God, has become\nprevalent in the heathen world. It is from failing to perceive the\nconnection of the two verses, that the remark of _Hitzig_ has arisen:\n\"It is very probable that Micah, if he had been the (original) author,\nwould rather have mentioned the change and restoration of Jerusalem,\nthan the change of the arms.\"--The subject is the Lord. That it was\nthrough _Christ_, who as early as in the Song of Solomon appears as the\ntrue Solomon, that the Lord would carry out what is here announced, the\nprophet could, according to his plan, detail only afterwards. In chap.\niv. 1-7, he describes how Zion is glorified by what the Lord does from\nthence; in ver. 8, by the restoration of the dominion of the Davidic\nrace; and in v. 1 ff., by the appearance of the Messiah. It is\nespecially from v. 3 (4), according to which the Messiah stands and\nfeeds in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the\nLord His God,--and from v. 4 (5), according [Pg 449] to which He is the\nPeace, that we infer with certainty that the judging also shall be done\nby His mediation. In Isaiah we meet the person of the Messiah in the\nprophecy of chap. iv., which, along with that in chap. ii., belongs to\none discourse, and supplements it. The judging and rebuking (\u05d4\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d7 with\n\u05dc, \"to rebuke,\" \"to reprove\") refer to the strifes among the nations\nwhich hitherto could not be allayed, because there was wanting the\ncounterpoise to selfishness which was productive of wrong. But such a\ncounterpoise is now given in the word of God, which, carried home by\nHis Spirit, penetrates deeply into the heart.--\"_Strong_ nations,\" who\nwere hitherto most ready to seize the sword. The words, \"And they\nbeat,\" etc., refer to Joel iv. (iii.) 10, where the heathen beat their\nploughshares into swords, their pruning-knives into spears; and they do\nso to the prejudice of the people of God, which the prophet, although\napparently he speaks in general terms, has specially in view. By this\nallusion Micah indicates that, with reference to the disposition of the\nheathen world, Joel has spoken a word, true, indeed, but giving\nonly a partial view. The words of _Justinus_ in the _Dialogus cum\nTryphone_--For, having learned the fear and worship of God from the Law\nand Gospel which came to us through the Apostles from Jerusalem, we\nhave fled for refuge to the God of Jacob, and the God of Israel; and\nwe, who formerly were filled with war and murder, and every wickedness,\nhave put away the instruments of war from the whole earth, and have,\nevery one of us, changed the swords into ploughshares, and the spears\ninto agricultural implements, and cultivate the fear of God, justice,\nbrotherly love, faith, hope,\" etc.,--show that, even soon after the\nappearance of Christ, it was held that the fulfilment of this prophecy\nhad commenced. But it was acknowledged by the prophet also, that even\nafter the appearance of the salvation, this description would, in the\nmeantime, give only a partial exhibition of the truth; inasmuch as not\nevery one will submit to the judging activity of the Lord, how powerful\nsoever may be the effect of the new principle which entered into the\nlife of the nations; for in v. 4, 5 (5, 6) he speaks of the nations\nwhich, in the Messianic time, attack the people of God; in ver. 8 (9),\nof their adversaries and enemies; and in ver. 14 (15), of such as do\nnot hear. But the [Pg 450] imperfect fulfilment is a pledge and\nguarantee for that which is perfect, as it will take place when, by the\nlast judgment, they have been removed who have obstinately preserved\nwithin themselves the spirit of strife and hatred. According to the\npredictions of the prophets--compare especially Is. xi. 6, 7--peace\nshall, at some future period, be extended even to the irrational\ncreation, and the strife which has come upon earth by the fall, shall\nentirely cease from it.\n\nVer. 4. \"_And they sit every man under his vine, and under his\nfig-tree, and none maketh them afraid; for the mouth of the Lord of\nhosts hath spoken it._\"\n\nThis verse contains a description of the happy consequences which the\npeaceful influence which goes forth from the Lord to the heathen world,\nshall have upon Israel. For Israel is the subject in \u05d9\u05e9\u05d1\u05d5, and the\nverse does not at all pretend to give a description of \"a Solomonic\ntime for all the nations.\" This is shown by what is stated, in the\nfollowing verse, as to the ground of this happy change, as well as by a\ncomparison of the fundamental passages. Lev. xxvi. 6: \"And I give peace\nin the land, and ye lie down, and none maketh you afraid;\" and 1 Kings\nv. 5 (iv. 25): \"And Judah and Israel dwelt safely every man under his\nvine and fig-tree, from Dan to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon;\" and\nof the parallel passages, Micah v. 4 (5); Zech. iii. 10. It is\n_further_ shown by the connection with what precedes, where great\ncalamity, and the devastation of their whole country had been predicted\nto Israel,--and by the mention of the vine and fig-tree, which are\ncharacteristic of the land of Israel. The words, \"For the mouth of the\nLord,\" etc., point out the pledge, which the person of Him who promises\naffords for the fulfilment of the promise, which appears incredible.\n\nVer. 5. \"_For all the nations shall walk, every one in the name of\ntheir God; and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever\nand ever._\"\n\nThe causal particle \u05db\u05d9 states the ground of the fact that the Lord of\nhosts has spoken this, and given the promise of the final safety of\nIsrael, and of his enjoying peace after the strife, in consequence of\nGod's exercising dominion from Zion over the whole heathen world; while\nthis peace after the strife is then more fully described in vers. 6, 7.\nThe lot of every people corresponds to the nature of their God. And\nnow, how [Pg 451] could it be otherwise, than that all other nations\nshould be humbled, because their gods are idols, while Israel, on the\nother hand, is exalted and endowed with everlasting salvation and\nprosperity, because his God is the only true God? Is. xlv. 16, 17 is\nparallel: \"They shall be ashamed, and also confounded, all of them;\nthey shall go to confusion, the makers of idols. Israel is saved by the\nLord, with an everlasting salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor\nconfounded in all eternity.\"--\"The name of the Lord\" is the complex\nwhole of His excellency which is revealed, and proved by deeds; compare\nProv. xviii. 10: \"The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous\nrunneth into it and is exalted.\" Inasmuch as the name of the Lord is to\nmanifest itself in His dealings with His people, it represents itself\nas the way in which they are to walk: the prayer of the Psalmist in Ps.\nxxv. 5, that the Lord would lead him in His _truth_, forms a parallel\nto this; and so does also what he says in ver. 9 of the same Psalm,\nthat \"He guides the meek in _judgment_.\" But exactly corresponding is\nZech. x. 12: \"And I strengthen them in the Lord, and _in His name shall\nthey walk_\" = in the path of His name, so that the latter manifests\nitself in His dealings with them; compare the remarks on that passage.\nIn favour of our exposition, moreover, is the comparison of the passage\nIs. ii. 5, the evidently requisite harmony of which with the passage\nunder consideration is obtained, only if the latter be understood as we\nhave explained it. The _light_, _i.e._, the salvation of the Lord\nspoken of there, corresponds with the name of the Lord in the passage\nunder review. Several interpreters explain: \"They may walk, they may\nworship their gods. Although all nations should be idolaters, yet we,\ninhabitants of Judah, shall faithfully worship Jehovah.\" Against this\nexplanation _Caspari_ remarks, \"An exhortation, or a resolution which\nimplies an exhortation, is here not easily justified, because it would\nstand in the midst of promises.\" Moreover, the \u05db\u05d9 cannot be explained\naccording to this interpretation, as appears with sufficient clearness\nfrom the remark of _Justi_: \"This verse does not seem to be so closely\nconnected with the preceding one.\" The connection is more firmly\nestablished by the explanation of _Tarnovius_, _Michaelis_, and others:\n\"Surely so brilliant a lot must fall to us; for we are faithful\nworshippers of the true God, while all other nations walk after their\nidols.\" [Pg 452] But the objections to tins explanation are: (1) the\ncircumstance that it is rather unusual to found the salvation of the\npeople upon their Covenant-faithfulness (of which, from the preceding\nreproof, we cannot entertain very high notions), instead of founding it\nupon God's grace and faithfulness, compare vii. 18-20;[3] (2) the\nrepeated use of the Future, while, according to it, we should have\nexpected the Preterite, at least in the first member; and (3), and most\ndecisive of all, the expression, \"For ever and ever;\" compare the\nexpression, \"From henceforth, even for ever,\" in ver. 7.\n\nVer. 6. \"_In that day, saith the Lord, I will assemble that which\nhalteth, and that which hath been driven out I will gather, and that\nwhich I have afflicted._ Ver. 7. _And I make that which is halting a\nremnant, and that which is far off a strong nation, and the Lord\nreigneth over them in Mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever._\"\n\nThe expression \"in that day\" does not refer to \"at the end of the\ndays,\" in ver. 1, but is connected with, and resumes ver. 4^a That the\nverb \u05d0\u05e1\u05e3 has here the signification \"to assemble,\" and not that \"to\nreceive,\" is shown by ii. 12, and especially by Ezek. xi. 17. The word\nrefers to the announcement of Israel's being carried away, which was\nformerly made, and with which the scattering is connected. They are\nassembled for their return to the Holy Land. Such an assembling,\nhowever, is meant, as is connected with the full enjoyment of\nsalvation, and in which the Congregation truly manifests itself in a\nclose unity, as a kingdom of priests. In the passage, Zeph. iii. 19,\nwhich is founded upon the one under review, we find \"I save\" instead of\n\"I assemble.\" Of such a description, the assembling under Zerubbabel\nwas not; compare Nehem. ix. 36, 37. It can therefore come into notice\nonly as a prelude to the true assembling.--\"The Fem. sing, of the\nPartic.,\" says _Hitzig_, \"must be understood collectively; and it is\nnot several subjects, but predicates of the same subject, viz., of the\nwhole of Israel, [Pg 453] which are thereby designated.\" The \"halting,\"\nwhich is a condition of bodily helplessness and weakness, occurs also\nin Ps. xxxv. 15, and xxxviii. 18, as a designation of adversity and\nmisery.--The expression, \"to make a remnant,\" forms the contrast to\ntotal annihilation. While these words show that a limit will be put to\nthe _diminution_, the following words predict a vast _increase_. In the\nwords, \"In Mount Zion,\" the contrast with iii. 12 appears once more at\nthe close of the section. As regards \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4, compare Ps. xciii. 1. It\ndoes not refer to the constant government of the Lord, but to a new and\nglorious manifestation of it--as it were to a new ascension to the\nthrone. The expression, \"From henceforth,\" refers to the _ideal_\npresent. In spirit, the prophet is in that time when the Lord is just\nentering upon His government. The words, \"The Lord reigneth ... for\never,\" are thus beautifully illustrated by _Calvin_: \"Micah does not\nhere mention the descendants of David, but Jehovah Himself; not as if\nhe wished thereby to exclude that dominion of David, but in order to\nshow that God would make it manifest that He was the author of that\ndominion, yea, that He Himself held all the power. For, although God\ngoverned the ancient people by the hand of David, and by the hand of\nJosiah and Hezekiah, _yet there was, as it were, a shadow placed\nbetween, so that God's government was then perceived darkly only._ The\nprophet, therefore, here expresses, that there would be some difference\nbetwixt that shadowy government, and the future new dominion which He\nwas openly to set up by the advent of the Messiah. And this was truly\nand solidly fulfilled in Christ's person. For although Christ was the\ntrue seed of David, yet He was also, at the same time, Jehovah, viz.,\nGod made manifest in the flesh.\" With respect to this promise, however,\nit must also be kept in mind that it will be finally fulfilled only in\nthe future, when the kingdom and throne of glory (compare Matt. xix.\n28) shall be set up.\n\nThe prophet had hitherto described the kingdom which was to be\nestablished anew, as a kingdom of God, without mentioning the channel\nthrough which His mercy was to be poured out upon the Congregation--the\nmediator who was to represent Him among them. His representation,\ntherefore, was still defective; it still wanted the connection with the\npromise given to David, and so frequently celebrated by him, and by\nother [Pg 454] holy Psalmists and Prophets--the promise of the eternal\ndominion of David's house. According to this promise, every new, great\nmanifestation of grace, must be through some descendant of this family\nas a mediator. This house must ever form the substratum on which the\ndivine power and the divine nature, in its most complete manifestation,\nshowed themselves. This blank is supplied in ver. 8.\n\n\"_And thou tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, unto thee\nit will come; and to thee cometh the former dominion, the kingdom of\nthe daughter of Zion._\"\n\nIn the words immediately preceding it is said: \"And the Lord reigneth\nover them from henceforth, even for ever.\" We have here, then, a\nprediction of the dominion of the house of David, by whose mediation\nthe Lord is to reign; compare v. 3 (4), where it is said of Him in whom\nthe Davidic race is to centre, \"And He stands, and feeds in the\nstrength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord His God.\"\nAll interpreters agree that the Davidic race is designated by the\n\"Tower of the flock,\" and by \"the hill of the daughter of Zion;\" but,\nwith respect to the ground of this designation, they are very much at\nvariance. A great number of them (_Grotius_, and among the recent\ninterpreters, _Rosenm\u00fcller_, _Winer_, _Gesenius_, _De Wette_) think of\nthat Tower of the flock, in the neighbourhood of which Jacob, according\nto Gen. xxxv. 21, took up his abode for a time. They say that,\naccording to _Jerome_, this Tower of the flock was situated in the\nimmediate neighbourhood of Bethlehem; that it is used here only by way\nof a _metalepsis_ for Bethlehem, and that Bethlehem again designates\nthe Davidic race; so that the passage agrees altogether with v. 1 (2).\nBut, upon a closer examination, this interpretation appears to be\nobjectionable, for the following reasons. 1. It is anything but fixed\nthat that Tower of the flock was situated in the immediate\nneighbourhood of Bethlehem. It cannot be inferred from the passage in\nGenesis, and as little can it be proved from _Jerome_. In the _Quest.\nad Genes. Opp._ iii. p. 145, Frcf., he first mentions the opinion of\nthe Jews, according to which, by the \"Tower of the flock\" is to be\nunderstood the place on which the temple was afterwards built, and then\nsays: \"But if we follow the direction of the road, we find, by\nBethlehem, a 'place of the shepherds,' which was so called, either\nbecause it was there [Pg 455] that, at the birth of the Lord, the\nangels sang their hymn of praise; or because Jacob fed his flock there,\nand gave this name to the place; or, which is more likely, because even\nthen the future mystery was, by a revelation, shown to him.\" According\nto this, _Jerome_ does not know anything of a \"Tower of the flock\" near\nBethlehem. From the direction of the road which Jacob took, he only _\nsurmises_ that it was situated thereabouts; and since there was, in the\nneighbourhood of Bethlehem, a place called \"the place of the\nshepherds,\" he, from a mere combination, declares this to be identical\nwith the Tower of the flock; while, after all, he is so cautious as not\nat once to reject the only true derivation of this name from the\nshepherds at the birth of Christ. By this, the other passage in the\nbook _de locis Hebr._ must be judged, where _Jerome_ expressly delivers\nhis supposition as if it were historical truth: \"Bethlehem, the city of\nDavid ... and about a thousand paces (_passus_) distant is the tower\n_Ader_, which is called 'the Tower of the flock,' indicating that, by\nsome vision, the shepherds had, beforehand, been made conscious of the\nbirth of the Lord.\" That tradition knew but little of any \"Tower of the\nflock\" in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, appears also from _Eusebius\nOnom._ s. v. _Gader._ p. 79, ed. _Cleric_: \"The tower Gader ... While\nJacob dwelt there, Reuben went in to Bilhah.\" _Eusebius_ evidently knew\nnothing more regarding the \"Tower of the flock\" than what we also may\nlearn from the passage in Genesis. He does not venture to offer even a\nconjecture as to its position. The same ignorance is shown by the Jews,\nmentioned by _Jerome_, who certainly would not have thought of a\nreference to the temple, if a place called \"Tower of the flock\" had\nexisted in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem. 2. But even assuming the\nexistence of the Tower of the flock in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem,\nis it anything else than the assumption of a pure _quid pro quo_, to\nassert, without assigning any reason, that the \"Tower of the flock\"\nstands for Bethlehem? _Rosenm\u00fcller_, at least, has felt this. He makes\nthe attempt to assign a reason: \"In substituting, however, an unknown\nhamlet in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, for Bethlehem itself, he\nintended to indicate that the dominion of David would be altogether\nweakened and brought low.\" But this reason is certainly not by any\nmeans sufficient; Bethlehem was, in itself, so small, that no further\n[Pg 456] diminution was required; compare v. 1 (2). It had, moreover,\nbeen always small, and had not by any means sunk down in the course of\ntime from former greatness. Hence, such a designation, in contrast with\nits former glory, would be entirely out of place; and even supposing\nthat it were not, the mode of this designation would always be\ninexplicable, unless we could assume a closer reference of the \"Tower\nof the flock\" to the Davidic family. It is only by establishing such a\nreference, that the whole explanation can be saved and confirmed. For\nthis purpose, it would be necessary to suppose that Bethlehem, and the\ndistrict belonging to it, were the general designation of the native\nplace of the Davidic family, while the \"Tower of the flock\" was the\nspecial one. But there is not the slightest ground on which to support\nthis hypothesis. Everywhere, Bethlehem itself appears as the residence\nof Jesse, the father of David (compare 1 Sam. xvi. 1, 18, 19, xvii.\n12), and likewise of Boaz, Ruth ii. 4.\n\nThe incorrectness of another explanation is still more evident.\nAccording to it, we are, by the \"Tower of the flock,\" to understand\na tower which is alleged to have stood at Jerusalem, near to the\nSheep-gate. But the existence of such a tower is supported by no\nevidence whatsoever, and does not become even probable by the existence\nof a sheep-gate; for a Tower of the flock is not a tower which stands\nnear the Sheep-gate, but a tower which is erected for the protection of\nthe flock, as is clearly seen from _Migdal Eder_ in Genesis. But, even\nsupposing that such a tower existed, is there anything which could\nsomehow make it a suitable designation of the Davidic family?\n\nLet us now proceed to the establishment of our own opinion, by which\nthe arguments advanced against the other explanations will be\nconsiderably strengthened. Concerning the situation of Jerusalem,\n_Josephus_, _de B. J._ i. 6, c. 13, remarks as follows: \"It was built\non two hills fronting each other, separated by a chasm running between,\ndown to which the houses were situated. One of the hills, on which the\nupper part of the city lay, was much higher and longer than the other.\nAnd, because it was fortified, it was called the Citadel of King\nDavid,\" etc. These two hills are Akra and Zion. The city situated upon\nthe latter, is, in other passages also, described by Josephus to be\nvery high and steep; _e.g._, vi. 40: \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd [Pg\n457]\u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. The sight afforded by the towers in this steep height is, by\nhim, compared with that of the beacon at Alexandria from the sea (_B.\nJ._ vi. c. 6: \"It resembled in shape the lighthouse as seen by people\nsailing up to Alexandria\"). Compare the similar representation of\n_Tacitus_, _Lib._ 5. _Histor._ c. 11 (_Reland_ ii. p. 848 sqq.).\n\nOn the summit of this high and steep hill, in the upper town, was\nsituated the royal castle, called the \"upper house of the king,\" Neh.\niii. 25. Its situation could not fail to afford to it extraordinary\nsecurity. This is sufficiently shown by the ridicule of the Jebusites,\nwhen David, who did not build, but only enlarged it, was about to\nbesiege it. They were of opinion that the lame and the blind would be\nsufficient for its defence, 2 Sam. v. 7-9; compare _Faber's Arch\u00e6ol._\np. 191.\n\nFar above this royal castle, which David first selected for his\nresidence (compare 2 Sam. v. 9: \"And David dwelt in the castle and\ncalled it the City of David, and built it round about\"), a tower jutted\nprominently out, and afforded a majestic sight. It is frequently\nmentioned in Scripture. The principal passage is Neh. iii. 25:\n\"Opposite the tower which standeth out from the upper house of the king\n(appositely the Vulgate: _qu\u00e6 eminet de domo regis excelsa_) in the\ncourt of the prison;\" compare ver. 26, where the tower standing out,\nand elevated far above the king's castle, is likewise spoken of.\nConcerning the words, \"In the court of the prison,\" we obtain some\ninformation from Jer. xxxii. 2: \"Jeremiah the prophet was shut up in\nthe court of the prison, \u05d1\u05d7\u05e6\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05d8\u05e8\u05d4, which is in the house of the king\nof Judah;\" compare Jer. xxxviii. 6, according to which the pit into\nwhich the prophet was let down, was in the court of the prison.\nAccording to these passages, the court of the prison formed, agreeably\nto the customs of the East, part of the royal castle on Zion; and it\nwas in this court that the tower rose. The other principal passage is\nin the Song of Solomon iv. 4: \"Thy neck is like the tower of David\nbuilt for arms; a thousand bucklers are hanging on it, all arms of\nheroes.\" According to this passage, the majestic appearance which the\ntower afforded was still further increased by the glittering arms which\ncovered it. _D\u00f6pke_ and others think of the armour of conquered heroes;\nbut that we must rather think of the armour of David's own heroes,\nappears from Ezek. xxvii. 10, 11, where it is said of [Pg 458] the\nhired troops of the Tyrians, \"Shield and helmet they hanged up in\nthee,\" and is confirmed by the constant designation of David's faithful\nones, as _his heroes_; compare Song of Sol. iii. 7: \"Threescore heroes\nstand around the bed of the king, of the heroes of Israel;\" and 1\nChron. xii. 1: \"These were among the heroes, helpers in the war.\" The\nexpression in the Song of Solomon iv. 4, \"All shields of the heroes,\"\nindicates that the armour of all those who were received into the\nnumber of the heroes, was hung up on that tower, as an outward sign of\nthis reception, as a kind of diploma of it. The circumstance that this\ntower, which is certainly quite identical with the tower mentioned by\nNehemiah, is called the tower of David, refutes the supposition of\n_Clericus_, on Nehemiah, _l.c._, according to which, it is not the\ncastle of David or Zion which is spoken of in that passage, but another\ncastle and its tower in the lower town, supposed to have been built by\nSolomon. This hypothesis is refuted, moreover, by that passage itself,\ninasmuch as the castle is there designated as the upper, or high one.\n\nNow, it is this tower which Micah considers as the symbol of the\nDavidic house; and in so doing, he follows the example of the Song of\nSolomon, where it is the symbol of the lofty elevation of Israel, the\ncentre and life-blood of which was the Davidic family. It scarcely\nneeds any lengthened demonstration to show how well suited it was for\nthis signification, how very naturally it represented the thing\nsignified. It was indeed the most elevated part of the castle, the\nmain-mast, as it were, of the ship, which, since the elevation of the\nDavidic family to the royal dignity, had been for centuries, and was\nstill to be, the seat of the Davidic race. Its height was a symbol of\nthe royal dignity and authority. Its relation to the whole of the rest\nof the city, which it overlooked and commanded, and which looked up to\nit with astonishment, symbolized the relation of the subjects to their\nking.\n\nMicah calls this tower the \"Tower of the flock.\" The main reason for\nthis appellation must be sought in what immediately precedes, in vers.\n6 and 7. As in chap. ii. 12, 13, so here also, Micah represented the\nCovenant-people under the figure of a flock that was to be gathered\nfrom its dispersion and estrangement, and protected against every\nhostile attack. Could anything then be more natural than that,\ncontinuing the image [Pg 459] which he had begun, he should call the\ntower, which, to him, symbolized the family by whom, under the guidance\nof the Lord, that gathering should be accomplished, the \"Tower of the\nflock?\"[4] It is just this close connection with what precedes which\nfurnishes an important proof for the correctness of our explanation,\nfor which the way was prepared by all those expositors who, like\n_Jerome_, _Theodoret_, _Cyril_, _Cocceius_, and _Paulus_ (_\u00fcber die\nEvang._ i. p. 189), understand \u05de\u05d2\u05d3\u05dc \u05e2\u05d3\u05e8 as an appellative, and regard,\nas the ground of the appellation, the protection and the refuge. In the\nEast, they look out from the towers of the flock, whether beasts of\nprey or hostile bands be approaching. It is into these that the flocks\nare driven, in those regions where there are no towns and villages, as\nsoon as danger appears; compare the proofs in _Faber_, l.c., p. 192 ff.\nThere was so much the stronger reason for Micah's choosing this\nfigurative mode of representation, as he had the type immediately\nbefore his eyes. According to 2 Chron. xxvi. 10, xxvii. 4, Uzziah and\nJotham erected, in the woods and pasture grounds, castles and towers\nfor the protection and refuge of the flocks. But, besides this main\nreason, there seems to have existed a secondary one for choosing this\nappellation. They who adhere so firmly to the \"Tower of the flock,\"\nmentioned in Genesis, are not altogether wrong. Except in that passage,\n\u05de\u05d2\u05d3\u05dc \u05e2\u05d3\u05e8 nowhere occurs in precisely the same manner as it stands here.\nIf, then, we consider that, besides this reference, there occur in\nMicah other plain references to the Pentateuch (and very numerous they\nare, compared with the extent of his prophecies; compare, _e.g._, ii.\n12, 13. [vide supra], vi. 4, 5, vii. 14, where the words \u05e9\u05db\u05e0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d3\u05d3\nreceive light from Num. xxiii. 9 only[5]); and still more, if we\nconsider that, in v. 1 (2), the appellation Bethlehem Ephratah is\nlikewise taken from Gen. xxxv. 19, and that it is in ver. 21 of the\nsame chapter that the \"Tower of the flock\" is mentioned,--we shall\ncertainly not be guilty of trifling, if we assert that there is a\nsuspicion of error and unsoundness against all those interpretations\nwhich cannot connect the \"Tower of the flock\" [Pg 460] in Micah with\nthat which is spoken of in Genesis. But the explanation which we have\ngiven is not liable to this charge. For why should not Jacob, and the\ntower which he built for the protection of his literal flocks, serve\nthe prophet as a type and substratum for the relation of a spiritual\nShepherd? We must not overlook the truth, that the main and secondary\nreasons which we have adduced, do not stand beside each other, but run\ninto each other,--are related to each other as the general and\nparticular. For the reason why the prophet had specially in view the\n\"Tower of the flock\" which had been built by Jacob was certainly this\nonly: that it partook of the nature of all such towers of the flocks.\nThe _tertium comparationis_ is not thereby changed; the figure is only\nmore individualized, and, therefore, more striking and impressive. A\nreference to the pastoral life of the Patriarchs is certainly one of\nthe reasons of the frequent use of images taken from pastoral life. In\na different way, _Hitzig_ endeavours to come to the same result. He\nsupposes that the \"Tower of the flock\" mentioned in Genesis was not\nsituated in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, but is identical with the\ntower of the castle on Zion, and of the castle of Millo which David\nalready found existing, and which was only more strongly fortified by\nhim and by Solomon, 2 Sam. v. 9; 1 Kings ix. 15, 24, xi. 27. The figure\nof the \"Tower of the flock\" was so much the more appropriate in the\npassage under consideration, as the founder of the royal dynasty had\nbeen, for a long time, a shepherd of the lambs, before he was elected\nto be a shepherd of the people, and had thus himself prefigured his\nfuture relation--a circumstance to which allusion is frequently made in\nScripture itself; compare 2 Sam. v. 2, vii. 8; 1 Chron. xi. 2; Ps.\nlxxviii. 70-72.\n\nAfter having thus ascertained what is to be understood by the \"Tower\nof the flock,\" there can be no great difficulty in explaining the\n\"hill of the daughter of Zion.\" The daughter of Zion is Zion itself,\npersonified, and represented as a virgin; and if her hill be spoken\nof, what else can be meant, than Mount Zion in the more restricted\nsense--the Mount \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, before which Akra and Moriah are changed\ninto plains? We have thus a most appropriate relation of the two\nappellations to each other,--the tower of the flock being the\nparticular, and the hill of the daughter of Zion, the general. [Pg 461]\n_Further_,--We obtain the most perfect harmony and agreement with the\nlast words of the verse. The hill which, morally and physically,\ncommands the daughter of Zion, is the same which obtains dominion over\nthe daughter of Jerusalem. _Finally_,--We see the most striking\ncontrast with iii. 12, and the most admirable connection with iv. 1-7,\nin which, everywhere, Mount Zion is spoken of, and the exaltation is\ndescribed which, after its deep abasement, it shall obtain in the\nfuture, by the flowing of the heathens to it, and by the dominion of\nthe Lord to be there exercised.\n\nIt is only in appearance that our explanation is contradicted by\npassages of the Old Testament, and of _Josephus_, where _Ophel_ is\nmentioned as a particular place; compare _Bachiene_ 2. 1, \u00a7 76;\n_Hamelsveld_ 2, S. 35 ff. The supposition of several interpreters, that\nthis _Ophel_ is some particular hill (compare, _e.g._, _Vitringa de\nTemplo Ezech._ L. i. c. iii. p. 159, and his _Commentary on Isaiah_\nxxxii. 13), has already been invalidated by _Reland_ (p. 855), and\n_Faber_ l.c., p. 347, who rightly remark, that _Josephus_, in\nenumerating the hills of Jerusalem, makes no mention of _Ophel_, but\nspeaks always only of the place _Ophel_. All the difficulties, however,\nwhich stand in the way of the other assumptions, are removed by the\nfollowing view of the matter. Mount Zion was called \u05d4\u05e2\u05e4\u05dc, the Hill \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd\n\u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, and this word became, by and by, a _nomen proprium_, and, in\nthis state, as well as in its transition to the _nomen proprium_, was\nused without the Article. From this it followed--and numerous analogies\neverywhere occur--that the foot of the mountain, the place where it was\nconnected with the lower part of the temple-mountain by means of a deep\nvalley, acquired this name in preference, and received it, as it were,\nas a _nomen proprium_. At this foot of Zion--and hence over against the\ntemple, and near it--dwelt the Nethinim, the temple servants, Neh. iii.\n26; and _Josephus_ says, that the wall surrounding Mount Zion extended\non the east side to the place which was called _Ophel_, and ended at\nthe eastern porch of the temple (_de Bell. Jud._ vi. 6).\n\nThe view which we have taken, not only of _Ophel_, but of this whole\npassage, receives an important confirmation by Is. xxxii. 13, 14: \"Upon\nthe land of My people come up thorns and briars, for they shoot up in\nall the houses of joy, in the joyous city. For palaces are forsaken,\ntumult of the city is [Pg 462] forsaken, _hill_ and _tower_ are around\ncaves (_i.e._, it is only this which they have to protect) for ever, a\njoy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks.\" In this threatening of\npunishment, _hill_, \u05e2\u05e4\u05dc, and _tower_, \u05d1\u05d7\u05df (properly \"a watch-tower,\"\ncorresponding to \u05de\u05d2\u05d3\u05dc), are joined, just as in Micah's promise; and\nthis is a certain proof of the unsoundness of all those explanations\nwhich would sever the two in Micah. Perhaps there is, in that passage\nof Isaiah, the addition of a third object, standing in the middle\nbetween the two, viz., the castle of the king which was situated on\nZion, and of which the highest and strongest part was formed by the\ntower. There seems, at least, to be better ground for understanding\nthis by \u05d0\u05e8\u05de\u05d5\u05df than the temple, as is done by _Vitringa_. It will,\nnevertheless, be better to understand the palace collectively, and to\nview it as being parallel to the houses of joy in ver. 13. So much is,\nat all events, evident, that here also, _Ophel_ cannot be understood of\nthe lowest part of Mount Zion, inasmuch as it had nothing distinguished\nabout it that could account for its being mentioned in this context;\nand to this, the circumstance of its being connected with the tower,\nmust, moreover, be added. _Faber_, l.c., has convincingly proved, that\n_Ophel_, in the stricter sense, neither had, nor could have, any\nfortifications.\n\n\u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05da, \"unto thee,\" seems here to have that emphasis which originally\nbelongs to \u05e2\u05d3. It indicates that the object in motion really reaches\nits goal, while \u05d0\u05dc originally expresses only its direction towards the\ngoal. It points to all the obstacles which seem to render it impossible\nfor the dominion to reach its goal, and represents them as such as\nshall be overcome by divine omnipotence. This is quite in accordance\nwith the scope of the whole representation, which _Calvin_ thus\nappositely points out: \"The prophet endeavours to confirm the faith and\nhope of the godly, that they might look forward to the distant future,\nand not dwell only upon the present destruction; that they might rather\nbelieve that the matter was in the hands of God, who had promised, that\nHe who raised the dead, would also restore the kingdom of David, which\nhad been destroyed.\"\n\nSeveral interpreters, _e.g._, _Rosenm\u00fcller_, connect \u05ea\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 immediately\nwith what follows: \"The kingdom shall come and attain.\" But, in\nopposition to this, there are not only the _accents_ (_Michaelis_; \"The\n_Athnach_ is intended to keep the mind [Pg 463] of the reader in\nsuspense for some time, and to direct his attention to what follows\"),\nbut also the change of the tenses, which is intended just to prevent\nthis connection, and the weak sense which would be the result, inasmuch\nas one of the verbs would be a pleonasm. It must rather be supposed,\ntherefore, that the subject in \u05ea\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 is indefinite. The remark which\n_H\u00e4vernick_, in his _Commentary on Daniel_, S. 386, makes on the\nomission of the indefinite subject, is here fully applicable, although\nhe himself makes a wrong application of it to that passage: \"The\nindefinite subject,\" he says, \"has a special emphasis. By the omission\nof the definite idea, it is, as it were, left to the reader to supply\neverything possible (in the passage under consideration, the compass of\nall that is glorious), for which the writer cannot find language.\"\n\nThe \"first,\" _i.e._, former, or ancient \"dominion,\" refers to the\nsplendid times under David and Solomon; but, at the same time, it\nsupposes a period when the dominion is altogether taken away from the\ndynasty of David. Such a period had already been announced by the\nprophet, in his first discourse, inasmuch as it is implied in the\ncarrying away of all Judah into captivity; and still more distinctly in\niii. 12, according to which, Zion, the seat of the Davidic dominion, is\nto be ploughed as a field. This announcement, with the express mention\nof the king, returns in ver. 9, and, contrasted with It, the\nannouncement of the restoration of the Davidic dominion in v. 1 (2).\n\nThe last words of the verse are, by many expositors (_Calvin_,\n_Michaelis_, and _Rosenm\u00fcller_), translated thus: \"And the kingdom, I\nsay, shall belong to the daughter of Jerusalem;\" so that Jerusalem\nwould here be, not the _object_, but the _subject_ of dominion. The\nsense, according to this explanation, is best brought out by _Calvin_:\n\"The prophet here distinctly mentions the daughter of Jerusalem,\nbecause the kingdom of Israel had obscured the glory of the true\nkingdom. The prophet hence testifies, that God was not unmindful of His\npromise, and would so arrange it that Jerusalem should recover its lost\ndignity, and the whole people be gathered unto one body.\" But this\nexplanation must be rejected on philological grounds. \u05de\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05ea is _status\nconstr._; the \u05dc serves, therefore, only as a circumlocution of the\ngenitive; and it is not admissible to supply the Verb Substant. To\nthis, moreover, there must be added the reference [Pg 464] to what\nprecedes. The dominion over the daughter of Jerusalem is to come to the\ntower which commands the daughter of Zion, not, by any means, to the\ndaughter of Zion herself. The prophet makes Jerusalem to represent the\nkingdom of God; and, in so doing, he probably has regard to the\nrelation of Zion and of the king's castle to the town, by which was\nsymbolized the relation which the Davidic dynasty occupied to the\nkingdom of God.\n\n * * * * *\n\n CHAP. IV. 9-14.\n\nAt the close of the last chapter, the prophet had announced severe\njudgments. In the verses immediately preceding, he had given glorious\npromises. In that which follows, he now combines these two elements;\nand it is only in chap. v. that the promise again appears, purely, and\nby itself. The judgments are thus introduced into the middle of the\nproclamation of salvation, in order that the faithful might thus be\npreserved from forming any vain hopes, which, if not confirmed by the\nresult, are apt to be exchanged for much deeper despondency. But this\nsame circumstance contained within it an indirect consolation; for it\nis certain that He who causes future events to be foretold, overrules\nthem also; and \"He who sends them, can also turn them.\" For the\ngreatest cause of our despondency under the cross is certainly the\ndoubt which we entertain as to whether it really comes from God. The\nprophet, however, affords _direct_ consolation also. Whensoever he\nspeaks of any calamity, he immediately subjoins the announcement of\ndivine deliverance. The intimation of the sufferings, in this section,\ndiffers essentially from the former ones. It is not, like these, in a\nthreatening, but in an affectionate character; indeed, in vers. 11-13,\nthe consolation preponderates even outwardly. From this, it is\nsufficiently evident, that it must have a different destination. Whilst\nthe threatening was intended chiefly for the ungodly, it has, just as\nmuch as the preceding pure promise, the truly godly members of the\nTheocracy also in view, and aims at strengthening them in the manifold\ntemptations into which they must fall, in consequence of the sufferings\nwhich [Pg 465] always come upon them also at the same time, on account\nof their outward, and therefore also their inward, connection with the\nwicked.\n\nA glance at the great catastrophes, which were to precede the\nappearance of Christ, was here just in its proper place. In the\npreceding context, the prophet had mentioned the restoration of the\nformer dominion. Here, he describes how the dominion is lost (\"There is\nno king in thee,\" ver. 9), and what shall happen during the period of\nthis loss. He then further details, in v. 1 (2) sq., in what manner the\ndominion is to be restored.\n\nIt is a threefold suffering, joined with deliverance from it, which\npresents itself to the prophet in his inward vision, and which he\ndescribes accordingly. This is evident from the three-fold \u05e2\u05ea\u05d4, compare\nvers. 9, 11, 14, which, each time, indicates when a new scene presents\nitself to the prophet. This, further, appears from the different\ncharacter which each one bears. In the case of the announcement in\nvers. 9 and 10, viz., the carrying away to Babylon, it is alone the\nLord's hand which delivers His people. In the calamity described in\nvers. 11-13, He grants to Israel courage in war, and victory to his\n_arms_. The plans of the enemies to destroy Zion are frustrated, while\nin the former calamity they succeeded. In ver. 14, Zion is anew\nrepresented as sorely pressed by enemies, and captured by them.\nAccording to v. 1, which is closely connected with what precedes, the\ndeliverance is accomplished by the Messiah, in whom the promise of the\nrestoration of the dominion of the house of David over the daughter of\nZion is fulfilled.\n\n * * * * *\n\nVer. 9. \"_Now why dost thou raise a cry? Is there no king in thee, or\nis thy councillor gone? For pangs have seized thee as a woman in\ntravail._\"\n\nZion, mourning at the time of the carrying away into captivity, stands\nbefore the prophet's spirit, and is addressed by him. This ought never\nto have been overlooked. But since, nevertheless, it has been so, we\nquote from the multitude of analogous instances, at least one which is\naltogether incontrovertible, and where the writer likewise transfers\nhimself into the time of the [Pg 466] captivity, viz., the passage in\nHos. xiii. 9-11, which, in other respects also, shows a great\nresemblance to the one under consideration: \"This has destroyed thee, O\nIsrael, that thou wast against Me, against thine help. Where is now thy\nking? Let him deliver thee in all thy cities. And where are thy judges?\nSurely thou didst say: Give me kings and princes. And I gave thee a\nking in Mine anger, and took him away in My wrath.\" It is quite\nimpossible to entertain, even for a moment, the thought that, in this\npassage, Hosea speaks of the real past and present, inasmuch as he\nprophesied before the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes.\nMicah opens his representation just with the moment that Jerusalem is\ncaptured by the enemies; and he announces to her that her sufferings\nare not yet at an end,--that she must wander into exile. The progress\nof the thought in the verse under consideration is this:--The prophet\nsees Zion dissolved in grief and lamentation. Full of sympathy, he asks\nof her the cause of this mourning,--whether, it may be, it was caused\nby the loss of her king; and he himself answers this question in the\naffirmative, because such a cause could alone account for such a grief.\nNow, in order fully to realize the mourning of Zion over her king, we\nmust bear in mind that the visible head was a representative of the\ninvisible one,--the mediator of His mercies: that hence, his removal\nwas a token of divine anger, and an extinction of every hope of\nsalvation. Every other king is, indeed, likewise an anointed of the\nLord; but the king of Israel was so in a totally different sense. How\ndeeply, from this point of view, the loss of the king was felt, at the\ntime when that which is here merely the _ideal_ present became the\n_real_ present, is seen from Lam. iv. 20: \"The breath of our life, the\nanointed of the Lord, is taken a prisoner in their pits, he of whom we\nsaid. Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen.\" In Zech. iv.\nthe civil magistrates, along with the ecclesiastical authorities,\nappear as the greatest gift of God's grace; henceforth these two shall\nagain be the medium through which the Lord communicates His gracious\ngifts to the Congregation, just as they had been before the captivity.\nIt must further be borne in mind, that all the promises for the future\nwere bound up with the regal institution. With its extinction,\ntherefore, everything seemed to be lost; every prospect of a better\nfuture seemed to have disappeared. The reference in [Pg 467] Jer. viii.\n19, where the king is the Lord Himself, to the passage before us, is\nvery beautiful, and full of deep meaning. It points out the truth, that\nthe loss of the earthly king is a consequence of their having forced\nthe heavenly King to withdraw from the midst of them.--The \"councillor\"\nis preeminently the king himself; compare Is. ix. 5, where Christ, in\nwhom the Davidic dynasty is to attain to the full height of its\ndestination, appears as the councillor in the highest sense. Other\ncouncillors, it is true, are not thereby excluded; they form, however,\nonly a group around the king as their centre; compare Is. iii. 3.\n\nVer. 10. \"_Travail and break forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman\nwho bringeth forth; for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and\nthou dwellest in the field, and comest till to Babylon: there shalt\nthou be delivered, there the Lord shall redeem thee out of the hand of\nthine enemies._\"\n\nThe consolation begins with the words \u05e9\u05dd \u05ea\u05e0\u05e6\u05dc\u05d9 only; the whole\nremaining part of the verse is of a mournful character. In the words,\n\"Travail and break forth,\" one aspect only of the figure of the\nparturient woman is brought into view, viz., the pain; but not the joy\nfollowing upon the pain; compare remarks on v. 2. The Imperative is\nthus not, as some interpreters erroneously assume, an _Imper.\nconsolationis_, but an intimation that the pain would reach its height,\nput into the form of an exhortation to submit to it. Much more\nsatisfactorily than by many of the later expositors, the sense of this\nverse has been thus fixed by _Calvin_: \"The sum and substance is, that\nalthough God would, according to His promise, take care of the people,\nthe faithful should have no reason from this to indulge in joy, as if\nthey were to be exempt from all troubles; on the contrary, the prophet\nexhorts them that they should rather prepare themselves to undergo all\nkinds of misery, so that, when driven out of their own land, they\nshould not only, like straying people, wander about in the fields, but\nshould be driven to Babylon as into a grave. But while he thus prepares\nthe faithful to bear the cross, he subjoins the hope of salvation,\nviz., that God would deliver them, and redeem them from thence out of\nthe hands of their enemies.\"--The \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9 resumes the preceding, where the\nprophet had, at the point of time where he had taken his stand, viz.,\nthe capture of the city, represented that calamity of this [Pg 468]\npeople, under the image of the pains of child-bearing. It thus becomes\nequivalent to--Thou shalt be obliged to bear, not only the pains which\nprecede the birth, but also the highest of all pains, viz., the pains\nof the birth itself. What the latter are in relation to the former,\nthat, in the view of the prophet, is the carrying away out of the Holy\nLand,--the expulsion from the face of God (an expulsion similar to that\nof Cain when he was obliged to flee from Eden), when compared to the\nmere capture. Hence the close connexion with what follows, by means of\n\u05db\u05d9. The word \u05d5\u05d2\u05d7\u05d9 (the _o_ is, for the sake of euphony, employed\ninstead of _u_; just as in ver. 13 \u05d3\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9) is, by most interpreters,\ntranslated, \"And lead out.\" But we must object to this, on the ground\nthat \u05d2\u05d5\u05d7 has always an intransitive signification only, viz., \"to break\nforth;\" and this signification is here quite suitable, more so even\nthan the transitive; for it marks more emphatically the _pain_ during\nthe birth, which is here the only point: Jer. iv. 31. It is, as it\nwere, a dissolution of the whole nature, a violent breaking of it into\npieces. The \"now,\" just as the \"now\" at the commencement of the\ndescription of the scene, belongs to the _ideal_ standing-point, where\nthe carrying away is just at hand; for this is the period of the future\ninto which the prophet has been carried. The \"dwelling in the field\" is\nthe intervening station between the \"going forth\" and \"the coming to\nBabylon.\" In the open air, exposed to all the inclemencies of the\nweather (compare the expression, \"Under the dew of heaven,\" in Dan. iv.\n22, 30 [25, 33]), the prisoners were collected for the purpose of being\nafterwards carried away. The word \u05e2\u05d3, as well as the twofold \u05e9\u05dd, are\nemphatic. Irresistibly, the divine _judgment_ advances to its last\ngoal; but as irresistibly does divine _mercy_ wrest from the enemies\nthe prey which seemed to have been given to them even for ever.--The\nfutility of all attempts to explain away the distinct prophecy of\nthe Babylonish captivity in this passage has been shown in the\n_Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_, p. 151 sqq. How even\n_Caspari_ could join in these attempts, it is difficult to explain.\nEven he is of opinion that the prophet had expected the catastrophe to\ncome from Asshur. Chap. v. 4, 5 (5, 6) cannot be decisive _for_ the\nreference to Asshur. For the circumstance that Asshur appears there as\nthe type of the future enemies of the kingdom of God, implies, indeed,\nthat he occupied the first place among the enemies [Pg 469] at the time\nof the prophet; but it by no means Implies that he must occupy a place\nin the outline of the future catastrophes of the people of God. Such a\ncatastrophe was not to proceed from him, but rather from an enemy who\nhad not yet at that time appeared on the scene, although his power was\nalready germinating, as is shown by Is. xxxix. and other passages. The\noppression of Judah by Asshur was indeed a heavy one; but it was\ntransitory, and did not by any means constitute an era. From the\nrelation in which vers. 9-14 (iv. 9-v. 1) stands to ver. 8, it\nsufficiently appears that the oppression by the Chaldeans must here\nform the commencement, although the Assyrian oppression must be added\nto it as an introduction and a prelude. According to this relation, the\npoint at issue here can be only the cessation of the dominion of the\nDavidic family. From. Jer. xxvi. 18, 19, _Caspari_ endeavours to prove\nthat Micah had in view, in the first instance, the Assyrians only. But\nthat passage of Jeremiah refers to Mic. iii. 12, where the prophecy has\na general character, and where the instruments of the divine judgment\nare not expressly mentioned, as is the case here. On the other hand,\nthe following arguments are opposed to the reference to the Assyrians.\n1. The prophet does not mention Asshur, but Babylon. Nothing is,\ncertainly, proved by the circumstance that, at the time of the prophet,\nBabylon was still under the Assyrian dominion; for Babylon comes here\ninto consideration, not so much as a place, but as a hostile power. The\nplace, as such, was of no consequence, and the mention of it was not\nrequired by the character of the prophecy. 2. If the announcement\nreferred to Asshur, the result would contradict the prophecy. _Caspari_\nsays, that by the repentance and conversion of the people, the\nfulfilment had been averted. But with such a view of prophecy, the\nposition of the prophetic institution becomes untenable, and\nhistorically incomprehensible. The Mosaic regulation, that whosoever\nprophesied anything that did not take place should be punished with\ndeath, would in that case lose all practical significance; for there\nwould always have been at hand the excuse, that by the repentance the\nexecution of that sentence of punishment had been repealed. From the\nnature of the case, and from that Mosaic regulation, it follows that\nspecial announcements expressed absolutely must be fulfilled\nabsolutely; and not a single fact in the history of prophetism [Pg 470]\nstands in contradiction to this truth. Jonah's announcement to Nineveh,\nindeed, has been appealed to; but, in reply, we remark simply, that the\nwords of that announcement have not been communicated to us, while we\nsee from the result that it was conditional only. Such a decided\nrepentance would scarcely have been called forth by it among the\ninhabitants of Nineveh, had repentance not been expressly declared in\nit as a means of deliverance. 3. Micah everywhere goes hand in hand\nwith his contemporary Isaiah. But the latter always opposes\nenergetically the despondency of Judah in the face of Asshur, and\ndeclares that his proud power would be broken at Jerusalem (as had been\nalready prophesied by Hosea in i. 4-7), and that, while the kingdom of\nthe ten tribes would be destroyed, Judah would experience the\nprotecting hand of the Lord. _Caspari_ contradicts himself in thus\nmaking these two men of God to differ in so essential a point. For a\nman like _Hitzig_, it may be quite befitting to say, \"Micah did not\npossess the firm, courageous faith which was displayed by Isaiah.\" 4.\nIt is quite impossible to get rid of the obvious parallelism of the\npassage under consideration with Is. xxxix. 6, 7, where the rising of\nthe Babylonish empire, the destruction of the Davidic kingdom by it,\nand the carrying away of Judah to Babylon, are clearly and distinctly\npredicted. And in a number of other prophecies, Isaiah likewise\ndeclares or supposes, that that which the Assyrians threatened in vain,\nwould at some future period, when the iniquity of the people had become\nfull, be carried out by Babylon with her Chaldeans. It is scarcely\nconceivable how _Caspari_, acknowledging as he does the genuineness of\nthese prophecies of Isaiah, could think of dissevering from them the\nprophecy now under consideration.--Declarations like that before us,\nwhere, in clear and distinct outlines, a future event is foretold one\nhundred and fifty years before it takes place, inflict a death-blow\nupon the naturalistic view of the prophetic institution, as is\nsufficiently evident from _Hitzig's_ embarrassment, and from his\nefforts to free himself from the bands of this troublesome fact.\n\nVer. 11. \"_And now many nations assemble themselves against thee, that\nsay: Let her be profaned, and let our eyes look upon Zion._\"\n\nIsrael, with its claim of being alone the people of the only true God,\nwas a thorn in the eyes of the nations. These here [Pg 471] burn with\neager desire to prove, actually and by deeds, that this presumptuous\nclaim was unfounded, and, by the destruction of the city, to take from\nit its fancied holiness, and the glory of holiness. Destruction and\nprofanation are, in their view, inseparably connected. The contrast to\nthe verse under review is formed by vii. 10: \"And mine enemy shall see\nit, and shame shall come upon her who said. Where is the Lord thy God?\nMine eyes shall behold her, now shall she be trodden down as the mire\nof the streets.\" The words, \"Where is the Lord thy God?\" entirely agree\nin substance with, \"Let her be profaned!\" But the desire of profaning\nJerusalem must be conceived of as the human motive only. According to\nthe view of Scripture generally, and of Micah particularly, all the\ndistress of the people of God has its foundation in _sin_; and from the\nwhole context, and especially from v. 2 (3), where this event also is\ncomprehended within the time when God's people are given up, it clearly\nappears that, notwithstanding the happy issue, we have here before us a\nheavy calamity. By a new phase of sin, a new phase of judgment is\nbrought about; and by a new phase of worldliness, a new phase of\naggression by the world's power.--It is owing to a striving after\nvariety, that the word \"and\" here stands before \"now,\" while it is\nomitted in the third scene. It may stand, or it may be omitted, because\nthe various catastrophes are independent of each other, and yet, at the\nsame time, form a connected whole, as is evident from the words, \"He\nwill give them up,\" in v. 2 (3), by which they are connected together.\nThe heavy oppression of Judah appears here under the form of a siege of\nits centre, in accordance with the scope of prophecy, which,\neverywhere, seeks to impart vividness and animation to the scene, by\nuniting into one picture that which is separated by time and space. The\nhistorical reference of the prophecy is thus very accurately stated by\n_Calvin_: \"Although the Babylonish captivity has come to an end, and\nIsrael has been restored from it, the promised kingdom shall not\nimmediately come. Before that takes place, the neighbouring nations\nshall assemble themselves against Jerusalem, with the desire of\nprofaning it, and of enjoying a pleasant spectacle. This took place\nunder Antiochus.\" That to which the prophet here simply alludes, but\nyet in such a way that the right reference cannot possibly be mistaken\n(since a great hostile aggression is here described, which should\nhappen [Pg 472] after the people have returned from Babylon, and which\nis removed by the piety and courage of the people themselves; and\nsince, after this second oppression, there follows a third, which is\ndescribed in ver. 14, there certainly remains no other alternative: the\ntimes of the Maccabees are those which can alone be thought of),\nis further detailed by Zechariah in ix. 11 ff. At his time, the\ndeliverance from the first calamity had already taken place; and he\nexpressly states the names of the enemies; just as, in the prophecy\nunder review, the authors of the first calamity are expressly named.\nThat which is especially characteristic, and which points to the time\nof the Maccabees, is, moreover, the special mention of many nations,\nwhich are united in their decided hatred against Jerusalem as a city,\nand against Judah as the people of the Lord, taken in connection\nwith the character of the war as a _religious war_ in the strictest\nsense,--it being an attempt of heathenism to destroy the Congregation\nof the Lord as such. _These features are found in no other catastrophe\nduring the time between Micah and Christ._ And that the aggression\nbelongs to the period before the appearing of the Saviour, is evident\nfrom the whole context, as well as from v. 2 (3). In the time of the\nMaccabees, it was not with Syria alone that Judah had to do; but all\nthe heathen nations without exception, with which Judah had any\nconnection at that time, united themselves for a decisive stroke\nagainst the kingdom of God. Their purpose was to extirpate the whole\nrace of Jacob, 1 Macc. v. 2. Striking remarks upon the real nature of\nthe struggle at that period, as a struggle of faithful Judaism against\nHeathenism, the latter of which had gained a considerable party\namong the people themselves, are made by Stark, in \"_Gaza und die\nPhilist\u00e4ische K\u00fcste_,\" _Jena_, 52, S. 481 ff. Among other things, he\nsays: \"The national distinctions in the boundaries of Palestine had by\nno means ceased, but continued under the general cover of the Egyptian\nand Syrian administration in a varied, unyielding, and hostile manner.\nThere were the Idumeans in the whole of the south of Palestine to near\nJerusalem; then, the Philistines, or when called by their cities, the\nGazeans and Ashdodians; the Ph\u0153nicians, the Samaritans or Chutteans,\nthe mixed population of Galilee, the Arabs of Perea.... As soon as the\nJewish people, who, up to that time, had been altogether insignificant\nin a political point of view, rose against [Pg 473] the Syrian empire,\nat first for their religious peculiarities, then, for their political\nindependence, and, finally, even for the recovery of the _ideal_\npossession of their country--an idea which had been kept alive by\ntradition,--it could not but be that those who were naturally the\nsupports and centres of the Syrian operations, became the objects of\nthe hostile Jewish operations; and that the whole national portion of\nthe population, although not Greeks, were anew inflamed by their old\nhatred of, and opposition to, Judaism; so that they considered that\nHellenic struggle as also a national one. This period thus produced at\nthe same time a revival of the old national struggle of the inhabitants\nof Palestine, modified and increased by the struggle of Hellenism with\nthe national reaction which served as a superstructure for it.\" The\nobjection, raised even by _Caspari_, that a prophecy of the victorious\nstruggles in the time of the Maccabees must be strange and surprising\nin a prophet of the Assyrian period, will not startle those who look at\nthe analogies--such as the prophecy in Is. vi. In the latter prophecy,\nfirst the Chaldean, and then the Roman catastrophes, are described in\nsharp outlines, but without any mention of the names of the instruments\nof punishment. It is only in reference to the executors of the first of\nthese judgments that more distinct disclosures were given to the\nprophet himself at a subsequent period. The announcement in Zech. ix.,\nwhere the Greeks are expressly mentioned, is, in reality, not less\nmiraculous. According to all prophetical analogies, it is _a priori_\nprobable that this detailed prophecy of the Maccabean period, and the\nsimilar one in Daniel, should have been preceded by some older prophecy\nwhich refers to the same facts, but only in general outlines, such as\nwe have in the passage under consideration. If any doubt should\nstill remain, it would be removed by a glance at the conflicting\ninterpretations. _Ewald_ and _Hitzig_ think of the Assyrian invasion,\nto which vers. 9, 10, are likewise referred by them, although\nsuch a reference is in opposition to the express words of these\nverses,--which, for a Naturalistic tendency, are rather inconvenient.\nThe contradiction in these two prophecies _Ewald_ endeavours to\nreconcile by the evidently erroneous supposition, that the carrying\naway in ver. 10 must be conceived of as only a partial one,--a\nsupposition which is invalidated by a simple comparison of iii. 12.\nAccording to _Hitzig_, the prophet has, in vers. 11-13, [Pg\n474]overcome the despondency expressed in vers. 9, 10, and has raised\nhimself to confidence in God. He thus makes the prophet distinctly\ncontradict himself in one breath,--a supposition which does not even\ndeserve a refutation. Even if we were entirely to separate this passage\nfrom its connection, how ill does the activity here ascribed to Judah\nagree with the oppression by the Assyrians! This activity of Judah\nsupposes that it has to do with many small nations. Against the great\nAsiatic empires, a direct and immediate interposition of the Lord is\n_everywhere_ referred to. The salvation, however, which is here\nannounced to Judah, can be only an imperfect one, and cannot go beyond\nwhat they really received at the time of the Maccabees. This is\nsufficiently evident from the circumstance, that it belongs to a time\nin which Judah has no king of the Davidic house; for him they have\nalready lost in ver. 9, and receive again only in v. 1 (2), in Christ;\nand it is certain that the Davidic house was the channel through which\nall the true and great mercies of the Lord were bestowed upon His\npeople.\n\nVer. 12. \"_And they know not the thoughts of the Lord, neither\nunderstand they His counsel; for He gathereth them as the sheaf for the\nthreshing-floor._\"\n\nThe particle \"and\" is here used, where we, for the sake of a closer\nconnection, would employ \"but.\" The thoughts of the Lord are\nthese,--that the sufferings, after having served their purpose as\nregards Zion, shall pass over to the enemies, so that they shall\nthemselves be destroyed by Zion, while they so confidently thought to\ninflict destruction upon Zion. The \u05db\u05d9 introduces the reason of their\nnot knowing the way of the Lord. If they knew it, they would not\nexpress such desire and hope; _for it is they themselves_ whom the Lord\ngives over to destruction.\n\nVer. 13. \"_Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion, for I make thine horn\niron, and thy claws brass; and thou crushest in pieces many people, and\nI consecrate their gain unto the Lord, and their strength to the Ruler\nof the whole earth._\"\n\nThe figure is based upon the Eastern mode of threshing; compare\n_Paulsen vom Ackerbau der Morgenl._ \u00a7 40-42; _Niebuhr_, _Reise_ i. S.\n151; and likewise Is. xxi. 10, xli. 15; Hab. iii. 12. Strictly\nspeaking, one characteristic only of the threshing oxen is here\nconsidered, viz., the crushing power of their hoofs. The prophet,\nhowever, extends the comparison to that also in which [Pg 475] the\nbullock is formidable, even when it is not engaged in the work of\nthreshing, viz., to its horns. On this point 1 Kings xxii. 11 may be\ncompared, where the pseudo-prophet Zedekiah makes to himself iron\nhorns, and thus states the import of this symbolical action: \"Thus\nsaith the Lord, With these shalt thou push Aram until it is destroyed.\"\nThe first person in \u05d4\u05d7\u05e8\u05de\u05ea\u05d9 has perplexed several ancient translators\n(_Syr._, _Jerome_), as well as many modern interpreters, who,\ntherefore, substitute the second person for it. But it is quite\nappropriate. As at the beginning, where the Lord gathers the sheaf on\nthe threshing-floor, so at the close also, the prophet declares that\nthe victory is the work of God. It is He Himself, the true God, the\nLord of the whole earth, who reminds His rebellious subjects of their\ntrue relation to Him, by vindicating to Himself a part of the good\nthings which He bestowed upon them; just as He once did in Egypt. This\nthought contains the reason why, instead of the pronoun of the first\nperson, the noun is employed; so that it is equivalent to: To Me the\nonly God, the Lord of the whole earth. But it is altogether distorted,\nif the first person here be changed into the second. With respect to\nthe import of the word, we must by no means think only of the gifts of\nconsecration which were brought to the temple. Such a view would\nbe necessary, only if the goods of the Covenant-people, or the\nCovenant-people themselves, were introduced as that which is to be\nconsecrated. In that case we could understand, by that which is\nconsecrated, that only which is the exclusive property of the Lord,\nwhich has been dedicated to Him exclusively, and for ever withdrawn\nfrom the use of His subjects, and which, as far as they are concerned,\nis as good as annihilated; compare Lev. xxvii. 28: \"Everything\nconsecrated, which any one consecrates to the Lord, of man and of\nbeast, and of the field of his possession, shall not be sold nor\nredeemed; every consecrated thing is most holy to the Lord.\" But here,\nwhere He who consecrates is the Lord, while the goods are those of the\nheathen, the latter only are to be considered as being excluded from\nthe possession, and as those in reference to whom the goods are\nconsecrated goods; while the people of God must, on the other hand, be\nconsidered as partaking in what He has acquired. The community of goods\nbetween these two is rendered prominent in other passages also where\nthe object required it. Thus, _e.g._, [Pg 476] Joel iv. (iii.) 5, where\nthe Ph\u0153nicians and Philistines are charged: \"My silver and My gold ye\nhave taken, and My precious things, the goodly ones, ye have carried\ninto your palaces.\" That we cannot here think of the temple-treasure is\nevident, not only from a comparison of ver. 4, where the attempts of\nthese nations to avenge themselves on Israel on account of former\ninjuries, are expressly represented as attempts to take vengeance upon\nGod, but also from history, which knows nothing of the plunder of the\ntemple by Ph\u0153nicians and Philistines. The mention of the _gain_ points\nto the _male parta_,--and this is the more strictly applicable, the\nnearer the relation is in which he who is robbed stands to the Lord of\nthe earth. With the _gain_, the substance in general is lost.--The\nfundamental thought of the verse, which is here expressed only with\nan application to a special case, is that of the victory of the\nCongregation of the Lord over the world. This was perceived by\n_Calvin_, who strikingly demonstrates how this declaration is ever anew\nrealized, and how its complete fulfilment is reserved only for\nthe second coming of Christ. He has erred, however, in this, that\nlooking only to the eternal import of the thought, he overlooked the\ncircumstance that it is here expressed with reference to a definite\nevent in which it was to be realized.\n\nVer. 14. \"_Who thou gatherest thyself in troops, O daughter of troops.\nThey lay siege against us, they smite the judge of Israel with the rod\nupon the cheek._\"\n\nA new scene presents itself to the prophet. Zion, victorious on the\npreceding occasion, appears here as powerless, and locked up within her\nwalls. She is captured; and ignominious abuse is cast upon the leaders\nof the deeply abased people.--We need not here dwell for any length of\ntime upon the numerous expositions of \u05ea\u05ea\u05d2\u05d3\u05d3\u05d9. There is only one, viz.,\n\"thou shalt press thyself together,\" which affords an appropriate\ncontrast; while this contrast is lost when it is translated, as\n_Hofmann_ does, by: \"thou shalt lacerate thyself\" (compare what\n_Caspari_ has advanced against it). \"Thou shalt press thyself together\"\ndoes not, moreover, destroy the import of Hithpael, and has especially\nthe use of the Hithp. of \u05d2\u05d3\u05d3, in Jer. v. 7, in its favour. The Hithpael\nin this signification is probably a Denominative of \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3. The person\naddressed, the \u05d1\u05ea\u05be\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3, can be none other than the \u05d1\u05ea\u05be\u05e6\u05d9\u05d5\u05df in ver. 13.\nFor it is she who is addressed by the prophet [Pg 477] in each of the\nnew scenes announced by \u05e2\u05ea\u05d4, and she is, generally, the only one to\nwhom the discourse is, throughout the whole section, addressed. The\nintentional paronomasia occasioned by the designation \"daughter of\ntroops,\" _i.e._, who appeared in warlike array, evidently alludes to\n\u05d1\u05ea\u05be\u05e6\u05d9\u05d5\u05df, and refers to the description of Zion as a brave victorious\nhero, in the preceding verses. The _enemy_ is immediately afterwards\nspoken of in the third person. The words, \"Siege (not by any means 'a\nwall,' as _De Wette_ maintains) they lay, or direct against us,\"\nclearly indicate that the pressing of themselves together, which forms\na contrast with the former courageous excursions indicated by \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3, is\nthe consequence of fear, weakness, and hostile oppression. The words\nare therefore strikingly paraphrased by _Justi_, thus: \"But now, why\ndost thou thus press thyself together, thou who wast accustomed to\npress others?\" This, however, only must be kept in mind, that \u05d1\u05ea\u05be\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05d3\nimplies an allusion to the fact that the warlike disposition continues\neven in the present, notwithstanding the feebleness forced upon her,--a\nvery characteristic feature. In saying, \"They lay siege against _us_,\"\ninstead of \"against _thee_,\" the prophet is carried away by his\nemotions to show himself as one of the people whom he sees to be\noppressed by so heavy sufferings. As indicated by the word \"now\" also,\nhe is, in spirit, in the midst of them. The ignominious treatment of\nthe judge of Israel supposes that the prophet sees, in his inward\nvision, the capture of the city as having already taken place; for it\nis impossible to conceive of the judge, the soul of the city, as being\noutside of it. This judge of Israel is an _ideal_ person, formed by the\nprophet in order that he might be able to contrast him with the Ruler\nof Israel in v. 1 (2), who represents all the theocratic authorities;\ncompare, _e.g._. Is. iii. 12, where the corrupted leaders of the\nTheocracy present themselves to the prophet in the person of a large\nchild. To speak, in such a case, of a collective noun, as is usually\ndone, is out of place. But it may be observed that it is not a king who\nis here spoken of, but, very significantly, a judge of Israel only,\nprobably with reference to the times before Saul, when Israel was\ngoverned by judges. The royal dominion which, according to the\nannouncement in ver. 9, shall be destroyed by Babylon, shall be\nrestored by the Messiah only (compare v. 1 [2], iv. 8), who is not \u05e9\u05e4\u05d8\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc, but, like His great ancestor [Pg 478] David, \u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc \u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc;\ncompare 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. There can be no doubt that, in this\nconnection, the _Judge_ is spoken of as distinguished from, and\ncontrasted with, the _King_. But even by itself, the mention of the\n_Judge_ cannot but be startling. It would have been against the object\nof the prophet to have mentioned any inferior persons, when there\nexisted a superior one; and if the _King_ was thereby denoted, why\nshould he have been designated thus?--It is on purpose that \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc,\nwhich is the _nomen dignitatis_ of the people, is here chosen. It more\nemphatically points out the unworthiness of the treatment, as well as\nthe contrast between the reality and the idea in the destinies of the\nnation,--a contrast, it is true, which Israel has called forth by the\npreceding contrast between the reality and the idea with regard to his\nconduct. Since Israel has inwardly profaned himself by his own guilt,\nhe is now, as a just punishment, profaned outwardly also.--With\nrespect, now, to the historical reference of this disastrous\nannouncement, its fulfilment cannot be sought for in any other event\nthan the invasion by the Romans. Among the sufferings of the people,\nwhich are here described in general outlines, this is the only one\nrecorded in history, with the exception of those already mentioned.\nIsaiah, the contemporary of Micah, likewise announced, as early as in\nchap. vi., that upon those who should return from the captivity a\nsecond judgment would be inflicted, by which the national independence\nshould be destroyed. This judgment is described with remarkable\nclearness and distinctness by the post-exilic prophets, inasmuch as, to\nthem, it appeared already more in the foreground; compare the remarks\non Zech. v. and xi.; Dan. ix. The only plausible argument against this\nreference is this,--that the capture of the city by the Romans was\nsubsequent to the appearance of the Messiah, and that it is, after all,\nthe latter which forms the subject of the announcement of salvation in\nv. 1 (2), which, again, refers to the sufferings described in the verse\nbefore us. This argument, however, is set aside by the following\nconsiderations. 1. The prophet, indeed, designates the misery which was\ninflicted by those enemies upon the Covenant-people only according to\nits acme, viz., the siege and capture of the city; but he,\nnevertheless, views it in, and understands it of, its whole extent, and\nfrom its first beginnings. These, then, in so far as the Romans are\nconcerned, fall in the time before Christ, for the Jewish [Pg 479]\npeople were already subjected to the Roman dominion by Pompey. 2. This\nalone, however, is not sufficient. If, with _Vershuir_ (_de celebri\noraculo Mic._ iv. 14, in the _Dissert. Philol. exeg._ Leuw. 1775), we\nconfine ourselves to the capture by Pompey, we cannot, by any means,\nget rid of the feeling that that fulfilment does not exhaust the\nprophecy. But we are, on the other hand, quite entitled to add that\nhighest point, viz., the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, along\nwith all its still existing consequences, if only we consider, that the\nannouncement of salvation in chap. v.--as is shown by its contents, and\nby its accordance with the analogy of all the Messianic prophecies--is\nnot limited to the short period of the first appearance of Christ. That\ncomes into consideration rather as the grain of seed only from which\nthe tree grew up, under which all the fowls of heaven were to dwell.\nHence it is, that the salvation, no less than the punishment, is a\ncontinuous one, until, at the end of the days, it appears in its\nglorious consummation. But if it be established that Christ is\npresented as the only Saviour from the calamity here described, then\nthat calamity must still continue for those who reject Him, yea, it\nmust still be increased. It is only by giving up their opposition that\nthey can be delivered from the yoke which presses upon them. The\nelection, on the other hand, is, from the very beginning, received into\nthe communion of His kingdom, which extends over the whole world.\nHere, however, that which has been already remarked in reference to\nvers. 11-13 finds its application. The siege and capture of Zion\nare pre-eminently the means of representing the idea of the heavy\noppression and deep abasement of Israel, and of the cessation of its\npolitical independence, although it must not upon any account be\noverlooked, that the natural form of the representation is, at the same\ntime, the natural form of the realization of the idea that Judah could\nnot be destroyed without the siege and capture of Jerusalem, its\ncentre.\n\n\nFootnote 1: We must not by any means suppose, as has been done last of\nall by _Caspari_, that the mountains are here regarded as places of\nworship.\n\nFootnote 2: Thus does _Calvin_, who says: \"He speaks after the manner\nof the prophets, who under the term 'law' used to comprehend the whole\ndoctrine of God.\"\n\nFootnote 3: _Caspari_, indeed, is of opinion, that the walking in the\nname of the Lord is not to be considered as a merit, on account of\nwhich the salvation is granted, but as a mercy which has been bestowed\nupon Israel, and which forms the ground of the salvation. But this\nfeature is not at all intimated; and we are the less at liberty to\nintroduce it, as the walking in the name of the gods is parallel to the\nwalking in the name of the Lord.\n\nFootnote 4: _Caspari_ very properly refers here to v. 3 (4), where the\nMessiah, in whom the former dominion is to come to the Tower of the\nflock, is represented as a shepherd.\n\nFootnote 5: Micah's references to the Pentateuch are made the subject\nof a most thorough disquisition by _Caspari_, S. 419 ff.\n\n\n\n CHAP. V. 1.\n\n\"_And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, too little to be among the thousands of\nJudah, out of thee shall come forth unto Me_ (one) [Pg 480] _to be\nRuler in Israel; and His goings forth are the times of old, the days of\neternity._\"\n\nThe close connection of this verse with what immediately precedes\n(_Caspari_ is wrong in considering iv. 9-14 as an episode) is evident,\nnot only from the \u05d5 copulative, and from the analogy of the near\nrelation of the announcement of salvation to the prophecy of disaster\nin the preceding verse (for if the connection with ver. 14 be\noverlooked, the announcement of disaster contained in it remains\nwithout a corresponding consolation,--and this would be against the\nanalogy of vers. 9, 10, 11-13); but more strikingly so from the\ncontrast of the \u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc with the \u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc. The _Judge_ of Israel\nin his deepest abasement, is here contrasted with the _Ruler_ of Israel\nin His highest divine glory. The connection is seen also in the\nindication of Bethlehem's natural littleness, as contrasted with the\ngreatness to be bestowed upon it by God. What could have induced the\nprophet thus strongly to point out this circumstance, had it not been\nthat he considered Bethlehem as the type of the Jewish people in their\nmisery, described in the preceding verse, and the miraculous elevation\nof the former, to be accomplished by divine omnipotence, as the pledge\nof a like result for the whole people? There is, moreover, a reference\nto the _beginning_ of the pretended episode. In iv. 9, it was said:\n\"There is no king in thee;\" here, it is announced that from Bethlehem\nthere comes forth a glorious Ruler in Israel. But, on the other hand,\nthere is also a close connection with ver. 8, as has been rightly\nperceived by Caspari. This connection and reference are sufficiently\nindicated by the like form. The address to Bethlehem here corresponds\nwith the address to \"the Tower of the flock\" there,--the \"Ruler,\" \u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc,\nhere, with the \"dominion,\" \u05de\u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05d4, there. There, the dominion returns to\nthe house of David; here, the august person is described by whom this\nreturn is effected, after the events, described iv. 9-14, have come\nupon the Covenant-people. That the Ruler here comes forth out of\nBethlehem, corresponds with iv. 8 in so far as there the dominion\n_returns_ to the Tower of the flock, to the hill of the daughter of\nZion, which implies the overthrow of the Davidic kingdom, and the\nreturn of the family of David to the condition in which it lived at\nBethlehem before the time of David,--which must necessarily precede its\nfinal glory.--According to _Bachiene_ [Pg 481] ii. 2, S. 7 ff.,\nBethlehem and Ephratah are to be distinguished, so that the former\ndesignates the town alone, and the latter at the same time its whole\nenvirons,--so that Bethlehem Ephratah would be equivalent to Bethlehem\nsituated in Ephratah. But even if we were to agree with this opinion,\nwe must not, by any means, consider the two words as standing in the\n_stat. constr._, any more than the corresponding \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05be\u05dc\u05d7\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4 in\nJudges xvii. 9, xix. 1, 2, 18. For as a _Nomen proprium_ is equivalent\nto a noun with the article, it can never stand in the _stat. constr._\nwith another noun. We should thus be obliged to assume that, by way of\nbrevity, common in geographical designations, both appellations were\nplaced unconnectedly beside each other, without any indication of their\nrelation, just as in addressing a letter, we would simply write Berlin,\nPrussia. But if we compare Gen. xxxv. 19, where Ephratah is simply\ndeclared to be identical with Bethlehem (\u05d0\u05e4\u05e8\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d7\u05dd);--and if we\nconsider that the prophet had already alluded to the contents of that\nchapter (compare remarks on iv. 8), and that he regards the events\nwhich formerly happened in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem as a type of\nthose which were to take place in future;--that in ver. 2 (3) he brings\nthe new birth which is there to happen in parallelism with one which\nhad formerly occurred in its nearest neighbourhood, and that it is just\nin the account of the latter that the designation occurs,--we shall\nhave the strongest reason for understanding here also the two names as\na designation of the town, without deciding whether the above-mentioned\ndifference, as regards other passages, be well founded or not.\nInterpreters commonly assert that the sole ground of the twofold\ndesignation of the place is the intention of distinguishing it from\nanother Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun; compare Josh. xix. 15. But\nin that case, we should rather have expected the common Bethlehem\nJudah, instead of Bethlehem Ephratah. There can be no doubt, that the\nprophet, in choosing this designation, was guided by a regard to that\npassage in Genesis. One might also suppose that the prophet wished to\nallude, at the same time, to the appellative significations of these\nnouns, viz., \"house of bread,\" and \"field of fruit,\" and to lay stress\nupon their typical import: the place, the blessing of which, as regards\ntemporal things, is indicated by its name, shall, at some [Pg 482]\nfuture time, be blessed and fruitful in a higher sense. It is just in\nMicah, who is fond of making significant allusions to names, that such\na supposition is very natural, as is shown, not only by chap. i., but\nalso by vii. 18, where he gives an interpretation of his own name. As,\nhowever, the two names elsewhere also occur thus connected, without any\nattention being given to their signification, the prophet would not\nhave omitted giving a hint upon this point. It is not the way of\nScripture to make any allusions which cannot be understood with\ncertainty. We shall, therefore, be obliged to suppose that, after the\ncommon name, the prophet mentions, in addition, the ancient name\nrendered sacred by memory from the time of the Patriarch, and by the\nauthority of the most ancient documents of revelation (compare, besides\nGen. xxxv. 19, Gen. xlviii. 7), in order thereby to impart greater\nsolemnity to the discourse, and to intimate what great things he had to\nsay of Bethlehem. In accordance with this designation by two names, is,\nthen, the circumstance that the address is directed to Bethlehem.--The\nword \u05e6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 forms an apposition to Bethlehem: \"little to be,\" instead of,\n\"who art too little to be.\" If the sense were to be, \"thou art little,\"\nthe \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 would not have been omitted after \u05e6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8. The circumstance that\nBethlehem is addressed as a masculine (comp. \u05e6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 ,\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4, and \u05de\u05de\u05da) may be\naccounted for by the prophet's viewing the town in the image of its\n_ideal_ representative; compare remarks on Zech. ix. 7. In such a case,\nthe gender may be neglected; compare, _e.g._, Gen. iv. 7, where sin,\n\u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05ea, appears as a masculine noun, on account of the image of a\nravenous beast. Such personifications occur very frequently. Thus,\nnothing is more common in the Mosaic law than that Israel is addressed\nas one man. This has been frequently misunderstood, and, in\nconsequence, that which refers to the whole people has been applied to\nthe single individual. Thus it is even in the Decalogue. In Is. v. 7,\nthe people of Judah appear as the _man_ Judah.\n\nThe _littleness_ of Bethlehem is sufficiently evident from the\ncircumstance of its being left out in the catalogue of the towns of the\ntribe of Judah, in Joshua (compare _Bachiene_, \u00a7 192). This induced the\nLXX. to insert it in Josh. xv. 60 along with several other towns which\nhad been omitted; and, in doing so, they were probably guided, not so\nmuch by a regard to its outward [Pg 483] importance, as by the interest\nwhich attached to it from the recollection of an event of former times\n(compare Gen. xxxv.), from its being the birth-place of David, and\nstill more, from the prophecy under consideration, by which the eyes of\nthe whole nation were directed to this place, outwardly so unimportant.\nThe assertion of _Jerome_, that the Jews omitted the name in the Hebrew\ntext, in order that Christ might not appear as a descendant of the\ntribe of Judah, has received from _Reland_ (S. 643) a more thorough\nrefutation than it deserved. _Keil_, in his commentary on Joshua, has\nlately renewed the attempt to prove, from internal reasons, the\ngenuineness of the addition; but, from the whole condition of the Alex.\nVersion, it is very dangerous to trust to such arguments. The very\nreasons which _Keil_ brings forward in support of the addition, are\njust those which might have induced the LXX. to make it. The\ncircumstance that they added to Bethlehem the name Ephratah, plainly\nindicates the reason which induced them to introduce Bethlehem\nspecially. Bethlehem is likewise omitted in the catalogue of the towns\nof Judah, in Neh. xi. 25 ff., and can therefore have occupied among\nthem a very low place only, although it is mentioned in Ezra ii. 21,\nNeh. vii. 26. In the New Testament, it is called a mere village (\u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7,\nJohn vii. 42). _Josephus_, indeed, occasionally gives it the title of a\ntown (compare Luke ii. 4, 11); but, in other passages, he designates it\nby \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, _Ant._ v. 2, 8.--\u05e6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea means properly, \"little in\nreference to being,\" instead of, \"too little to be,\"--the wider\nexpression being used to indicate the relations of the town to the\nbeing, where we use the more limited expression.--Instead of the\n\"thousands of Judah,\" \u05e9\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd ought to have been employed, as it\nappears, in order strictly to maintain the personification. The\nrepresentative of Bethlehem is too small to be numbered among the heads\nof Judah. Several expositors (_J. D. Michaelis_, _Justi_) have thereby\nbeen induced to point \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05bb\u05bc\u05e4\u05b5\u05d9 instead of \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05e4\u05b5\u05d9. But this supposed\nemendation is set aside by the consideration that \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e3 is only the\nspecial designation of the Edomitish princes, and occurs in a general\nsense, only by way of _Catachresis_, in Zechariah, who lived at a time\nwhen the Hebrew language was nearly extinct. The most simple\nexplanation is, that the prophet views the thousands, or the families\nof Judah, no less than the town Bethlehem, as _ideal_ existences; in\nwhich [Pg 484] case, the personification is maintained throughout.\nMoreover, there would not be any insurmountable difficulty in the way\nof supposing that the prophet had given up the personification; for\nthese are frequently not strictly adhered to by the prophets, who\nconstantly pass from the figure to the thing prefigured. This may be at\nonce seen from the preceding verse, in the first clause of which, Zion\nappears personified as a woman, while immediately afterwards there\nfollows, \"against us.\"--\u05d0\u05dc\u05e3, \"thousand,\" is frequently used for\ndesignating a family, because the number of its members usually\nconsisted of about a thousand; compare Num. i. 16, where it is said of\nthe twelve princes of the tribes: \"Heads of the thousands of Israel are\nthey;\" Num. x. 4; Josh. xxii. 14, 21; Judg. vi. 15; 1 Sam. x. 19. On\nthe division of Israel into thousands, hundreds, etc.--a division which\nexisted before the time of Moses--compare what has been advanced in my\nDissertations on the _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, ii. p. 341 sqq.\nIt is self-evident that the thought here is, that Bethlehem is too\nlittle to constitute a thousand _by itself_. Communities, however,\nwhich were not sufficiently numerous to constitute, by themselves, a\ngeneration or family, were reckoned with others, and formed with them\nan artificial generation, an artificial family; for the divisions of\ngenerations and families were, owing to the great significance which\nnumbers had in ancient times, connected with numerical relations. An\ninstance of this kind occurs in 1 Chron. xxiii. 11, 12, where it is\nsaid of four brothers that they had not sons enough, and were, for that\nreason, reckoned as one family only. Being merely _part_ of a\ngeneration, Bethlehem had no place among the generations. The sense is\nclearly this: Bethlehem occupies a very low rank among the towns of\nthe Covenant-people,--can scarcely show herself in the company of\nher distinguished sisters, who proudly look down upon her.--It is\naltogether a matter of course that \u05d9\u05b8\u05e6\u05b8\u05d0, \"to go out,\" may be used also\nof \"being born,\" of \"descent,\" inasmuch as this belongs to the general\ncategory of going out; compare, _e.g._, 2 Kings xx. 18. We must,\nhowever, confine ourselves to the general idea of \"going forth,\"\n\"proceeding,\" and not consider Bethlehem as the father of the Messiah.\nIn opposition to _Hofmann_, this is proved by _Caspari_, from Jer. xxx.\n21: \"And their governor shall proceed from the midst of them;\" and from\nZech. x. 4.[Pg 485]--\u05d9\u05b5\u05e6\u05b7\u05d0 is without a definite subject. It is best to\nsupply \"one,\" which is evidently implied in what follows. The\nconstruction, which might otherwise appear somewhat strange, has been\noccasioned by the desire of making perceptible, by the very words, and\ntheir position, the contrast between the divine greatness and the\nnatural littleness of Bethlehem:--\n\n Thou art little to be among the thousands of Judah;--\n From thee shall come forth unto me, to be a Ruler in Israel.\n\nFrom a place which is too little to form a single independent member\nof the body, the head proceeds. From this contrast appears also the\nreason why it is said, \"Ruler in Israel,\" while we should have\nexpected to hear of the Ruler of Israel \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd,--a circumstance\non which _Paulus_ lays so much stress in opposing the Messianic\ninterpretation.--Had the prophet adopted the latter expression, not\nonly would this contrast have been less striking, but the other also,\nwhich is likewise intended, viz., the contrast with the Judge of\nIsrael, in the preceding verse, who loses his dignity. The prophet was,\nin the first instance, concerned more about the _genus_ than the\n_individual_,--more about the idea of dominion in general, than about\nthe mode and kind of it. The individual is, afterwards, however, partly\nin this verse itself, partly in the following verse, so distinctly\ncharacterized, that he cannot be by any means mistaken. Nothing more,\nit is true, is implied in these words, than that, at some future time,\nthere would come forth from Bethlehem a Ruler over all Israel; and if\nthese words stood isolated, and if it could be proved that, after the\ntime of Micah, there came forth from Bethlehem a Ruler over all\nIsrael, besides the Messiah--a thing which, however, cannot be\nproved--then, indeed, it might be questionable which of the two to\nchoose. _Caspari's_ exposition, \"Will _he_ come forth,\" has this\nagainst it, that, in the preceding verses, the Messiah was not yet\nspoken of, and, hence, that He cannot simply be supposed as known; and\nleast of all--if the acquaintance with Him were to be supposed from\nother passages--could He have been introduced with a simple unaccented\n_he_: the \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 could not have been omitted in this case. The case in iv.\n8 is but little analogous, for the subject in \u05ea\u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 is there an\nindefinite one.--\u05dc\u05d9 is, by several interpreters, referred to the\nprophet. Thus _Rosenm\u00fcller_, [Pg 486] following _Michaelis_, says, \"_To\nme_, _i.e._, for my good, the prophet says, in the name of his whole\npeople.\" But the reference to God is required by the contrast between\nhuman littleness and divine greatness. _Calvin_ remarks on it: \"By this\nword, God declares that His decree to give up the people was not such,\nthat Tie should not be willing to restore them after some time. He\ntherefore calls the faithful back to Himself, and reminds them of His\ncounsel, just as if He said, 'I have indeed rejected you for a time,\nbut not so as that I am not filled with compassion for you.'\" The\nimport of the \u05dc\u05d9, viz., that God could exalt that which was low, the\nbeliever saw, in a type, in David; and there is no doubt that the\nprophet was anxious indirectly to refer them to this type, and thereby\nto strengthen their faith in the promise, which appeared almost\nincredible. He (David) had been a native of the humble, little\nBethlehem, the youngest among his brothers, without power, without\nrenown. In order that the \u05dc\u05d9 might become the more evident, the Lord,\nat his election, gave such a direction to the circumstances, that this,\nhis natural lowliness, might be most strikingly exhibited. It was God\nwho raised him from being a shepherd of lambs, to be a shepherd of\nnations.\n\nIn contrast with the Messiah's human and lowly origin. His divine and\nlofty dignity is prominently brought out in the last words of the\nverse,--a contrast similar to that in the case of Bethlehem, to which\nthe prophet thereby refers. Here also, the prophet has so clearly\nexpressed the contrast by the words themselves, that, upon the _homines\nbon\u00e6 voluntatis_ among the interpreters of all ages, it has most\nforcibly impressed itself. Thus, _e.g._, _Chrysostom_, _demonstratio\nadv. Jud\u00e6os et Gentiles, quod Christus sit Deus_, opp. T. V., p. 739:\n\"He exhibits both Godhead and manhood. For in the words, 'His goings\nforth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity,' His existence\nfrom all eternity is revealed; while in the words, 'Shall come forth\nthe ruler who feeds My people Israel,' His origin according to the\nflesh is revealed.\" A more minute inquiry into the meaning of these\nwords must begin with the investigation of \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5. The greater number\nof interpreters agree in this, that \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05d4, the feminine form of the\nmore common \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 here denotes the action of the going forth. But this\nis opposed by the following considerations. 1. The use of the plural.\nThose especially [Pg 487] who here think of the eternal going forth of\nthe Son from the Father, cannot by any means Justify it. Several among\nthem consider it as _plur. majest._ Thus, _e.g._, do _Tarnovius_\nand _Frischmuth_, in the _Dissert. de Nativitate Messi\u00e6_, in the\nremarks on this passage, Jena 1661. But although such a plural exists,\nindeed, in Hebrew, and many traces of it are to be found (compare my\n_Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, i. p. 267 ff.),\nit could appear here, of course, in the suffix only, not in the noun.\nOthers suppose that the plural stands here simply for the singular.\nNow, there are, it is true, three cases in which such does apparently\ntake place:--the first, when a definite individual out of the multitude\nis meant,--when accordingly, not the _number_, but the general idea\nonly is concerned;--the second, when a noun in the plural gradually\nloses its plural signification, because the etymology and original\nsignification have become indistinct;--the third, when the plural\nstands for the abstract. Not one of these cases, however, is applicable\nhere. Those interpreters have most plausibly removed the difficulty who\nunderstand \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 to be really a repeated act of going forth, and\nrefer it to the Old Testament doctrine of the Angel of the Lord. Thus\n_Jerome_: \"Because He had always spoken to them through the prophets,\nand became in their hands the Word of God.\" _Tremellius_ and _Junius_:\n\"The goings forth, _i.e._, the declarations and demonstrations of, as\nit were, a rising sun; He from the very beginning revealed and\nmanifested Himself to all created things, by the light of His word, and\nthe excellency of His works; just as the rising sun manifests himself\nfrom the moment of his rising, by the light and its effects.\"\n_Cocceius_: \"I cannot, however, be persuaded to believe that the plural\n\u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 is here used without emphasis. For the Son has not gone forth\nfrom the Father, like a man from a man, who begins to exist only when\nhe is brought forth from a man, and when he goes forth, ceases to be\nbrought forth and to go out. In all the days of eternity, the Son\nproceeds from the Father, and is the eternal \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\" But this circumstance is, in general, against this explanation,\nthat the contrast with the going forth from Bethlehem, which is\ncompleted in one act, does not admit of the mention of a manifold going\nforth, and that, in this contrast, the arising, the origin of the\nexistence of the Messiah, can alone be thought of; while, more\nspecially, _Jerome_, [Pg 488] _Tremellius_, and _Junius_, who, with\n_Piscator_ also, limit the going forth to the relation to created\nthings only, are contradicted by \u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd, by which the going forth is\nplaced beyond the beginning of creation; and _Cocceius_, by the fact\nthat the \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 in the Old Testament, differently from the \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 in\nthe New Testament, appears always as going forth from God, in relation\nto the world only. But although the \"time of old and the days of\neternity\" should be considered as the place of the going forth, yet the\nplural cannot be explained, as is done by _Caspari_, from the\ncircumstance that \"a person is always descended from several;\" for the\ntransferring of such a _usus loquendi_ to a relation, to which in\nitself it is not applicable, could be admitted only when it could be\ndemonstrated to be altogether common and firmly established. But the\nplural might indeed, although only with some difficulty, be vindicated\nand accounted for from the circumstance, that two points of going forth\nare mentioned, which, as it were, suppose a twofold act. 2. But even if\nthe singular were used, the explanation of the act of going forth would\nnot be admissible. It is contrary to the idea of nouns with \u05de, that\nthey could be used as _nomina actionis_. It is only with writers living\nat a time when the language was dying out, that a few instances of this\nerroneous use can be found. \u05de denotes the place where, the instrument\nwherewith, the time wherein, and perhaps the way and manner whereby,\nsomething is done, or is. _Further_--It may signify also the thing\nitself which is done, or is; but, in no writer of the living and\nflourishing language, does it ever denote the action itself. _Caspari_,\nindeed, attempts to prove that \"there occurs in the older books a\nnumber, by no means inconsiderable, of nouns with \u05de, which undeniably\ndenote an action;\" but what he has advanced on this point requires\nstill to be minutely sifted, and to be more closely examined; compare,\n_e.g._, on Num. x. 2, my pamphlet on \"_The Day of the Lord_,\" S. 32.\nBut we are quite satisfied with what is granted by _Caspari_ himself\n(compare _Ewald's Lehrbuch d. Hebr. Spr._ \u00a7 160), that it is against\nthe nature and common use of this form to denote the action. Even by\nthis concession, a presumption is raised against the correctness of an\ninterpretation which would ascribe to \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0, here, and in other\npassages, the signification of going forth, viewed as an action. The\npassages quoted by _Winer_ in favour of the signification, _egressus_,\n[Pg 489] are the following: 1. Hos. vi. 3, where it is said of the Lord\n\u05db\u05e9\u05d7\u05e8 \u05e0\u05db\u05d5\u05df \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5, \"firm like the morning-dawn is His going forth.\" But\n\u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 is there, not the action, but the place and the time of the going\nforth, as is evident from the word \"firm\" also. 2. Ezek. xii. 4: \"And\nthou shalt go forth at even in their sight, \u05db\u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d2\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4.\" Several\ninterpreters agree that \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0 here signifies the kind and mode of the\ngoing forth. _Vatablus_ says, \"It denotes the deportment of him who\ngoes forth, and means, Thou shalt go forth in sorrow, and indignant.\"\nBut it is better, with _H\u00e4vernick_, to refer it to the time: \"According\nto the goings forth of prisoners, at the time when emigrants of this\nkind prefer to go forth from their places.\" 3. Num. xxxiii. 2: \"And\nMoses wrote down \u05d0\u05ea \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd, 'the places of their goings out.'\" 4. Ps.\nxix. 7, it is said of the sun: \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d4\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5, \"from the end of the\nheaven is his going forth,\" which is tantamount to--The end of the\nheaven is the place from which he goes forth. 5. 1 Kings x. 28: \u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\n\u05d4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d4 \u05de\u05de\u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, which _De Wette_ translates, \"And the export\nof the horses which Solomon had, (was) from Egypt.\" But a more accurate\ntranslation is, \"And the place of coming forth of the horses which\nSolomon had was Egypt,\" or, more literally still, \"from Egypt,\"--a\nconcise mode of expression for, \"The place from which the horses of\nSolomon came forth was Egypt,\"--just as in the preceding example. In\nproof of the signification, \"action of going out,\" _Ch. B. Michaelis_\nrefers, moreover, to 2 Sam. iii. 25, where _De Wette_ translates, \"Thou\nknowest Abner, the son of Ner; he came to deceive thee, and to see thy\ngoing out and thy coming in, and all that thou doest.\" But a more\naccurate translation would be, \"The place from which thou goest out,\nand to which thou art going;\" compare Ezek. xliii. 11. In all other\npassages--and these are rather numerous--the signification \"place of\ngoing out,\" or \"that which goes out,\" is quite obvious. Even _Caspari_\ngrants that the signification \"place of going out\" has, _a priori_, the\ngreatest probability in its favour.--To this it may be added, that the\nsignification \"place of going out\" is recommended here, even by the\ncontrast with what precedes, inasmuch as there Bethlehem, is mentioned\nas the place from which the Euler in Israel is to come forth. With this\nplace of going out, another and a higher one is contrasted. This\ncontrast also shows us how the \u05de\u05df [Pg 490] in \u05de\u05e7\u05d3\u05dd and \u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd must\nbe understood, viz., in the same manner as \u05de\u05df in \u05de\u05de\u05da; for the evident\nreference of \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5 to \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d9 shows that it must correspond with it.\nHence the literal translation would be, \"And His places of going out\nare from the times of old, from the days of eternity,\" which is\nequivalent to--The places from which He goes forth are the times of\nold, the days of eternity,--just as in the two passages, Ps. xix. 7; 1\nKings x. 28. The \u05de\u05df might very well have been omitted; but its\ninsertion here has arisen chiefly from a desire to make the reference\nto the corresponding clause outwardly also more perceptible. This\nreference shows also, that the explanation of \u05de\u05df by _pr\u00e6_, which was\nproposed by _Pococke_ and others, is inadmissible, besides involving an\nabsurdity, inasmuch as nothing can be _before_ eternity; while, on the\nother hand, this reference alone affords a satisfactory explanation of\nthe plural. According to it, the words, \"From the time of old, from the\ndays of eternity,\" contain a gradation. _First_, the existence of the\nMessiah before His birth in time, in Bethlehem, is pointed out in\ngeneral; and _then_, in contrast with all time, it is vindicated to\neternity. This could not fail to afford a great consolation to Israel.\nHe who hereafter, in a visible manifestation, was to deliver them from\ntheir misery, was already in existence,--during it, before it, and\nthrough all eternity.\n\n\n HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION.\n\n 1. AMONG THE JEWS.\n\nThis History, as to its essential features, might, _a priori_, be\nsketched with tolerable certainty. From the nature of the case, we\ncould scarcely expect that the Jews should have adopted views\naltogether erroneous as to the subject of the prophecy in question;\nfor the Messiah appears in it, not in His humiliation, but in His\nglory--rich in gifts and blessings, and Pelagian self-delusion will, _a\npriori_, return an affirmative answer to the question as to whether one\nis called to partake in them. But, on the other hand, the prophecy\ncontains a twofold ground of offence which had to be removed, and\nexplained away at any [Pg 491] expense. One of these, the eternity of\nthe Messiah--which was in contradiction to the popular notions, and\nconceivable only from a knowledge of His Godhead--could not but exist\nat all times; while the second of these--the birth at Bethlehem--made\nits appearance, and exercised its influence, only after the birth of\nChrist. That this should be set aside, was demanded by two causes.\n_First_, there was the desire of depriving the Christians of the proof,\nwhich they derived from the birth at Bethlehem, for the proposition\nthat He who had appeared was also He who was promised. And, _secondly_,\nthere was the difficulty of any longer deriving from Bethlehem the\ndescent of Christ, after, by an ordinance of Hadrian (compare _Reland_,\nS. 647), all the Jews had been expelled from Bethlehem and its\nneighbourhood. This difficulty was strongly urged against them by\nChristian controversialists; compare _Tertullian cont. Jud._ c. xiii.,\n\"How then can the Ruler be descended from Judah, and how can He come\nforth from Bethlehem, as, in the present day, there is not one of\nIsrael left there, of whose family Christ may be born?\" The actual\nhistory furnishes facts and details which only confirm and enlarge\nwhat, in its essential features, we have sketched _a priori_.\n\n1. The reference to the Messiah was, at all times, not the private\nopinion of a few scholars, but was publicly received, and acknowledged\nwith perfect unanimity. As respects the time of Christ, this is obvious\nfrom Matt. ii. 5. According to that passage, the whole Sanhedrim, when\nofficially interrogated as to the birth-place of the Messiah, supposed\nthis explanation to be the only correct one. But if this proof required\na corroboration, it might be derived from John vii. 41, 42. In that\npassage, several who erroneously supposed Christ to be a native of\nGalilee, objected to His being the Messiah on the ground that Scripture\nsays: \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u1f76\u03b4 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03bb\u03b5\u1f72\u03bc \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03bd\n\u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03b4, \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. But even after Christ had appeared, the\ninterest in depriving the Christians at once of the arguments which, in\ntheir controversies, they derived from this passage, was not\nsufficiently strong to blind the Jews to the evident indications\ncontained in this passage, or to induce them to deprive themselves of\nthe sweet hope which it afforded. This, it is true, would be the case\nnevertheless, if we were to rely upon, and believe in the assertion of\n_Chrysostom_ (_Hom._ 7, [Pg 492] in Matt. c. 2, in _Nov. Test._, t. i.\np. 80, ed. Frcf.): \"Some of them, in their impudence, assert that this\nprophecy has a reference to Zerubbabel;\" of _Theodoret_ (on this\npassage): \"The Jews have tried to refer this to Zerubbabel, which\nevidently fights against the truth;\" of _Theophylact_ (on Matt. ii.);\nand of _Euthymius Zigabenus_ (in iv. _Evang._ t. 1, p. 61, ed. Mat.).\nBut the supposition is here forced upon us--a supposition which, in\nanother case also (compare remarks on Zech. ix. 9, 10), we must\nacknowledge to be well-founded--that the Fathers, having in their\ncontroversies with the Jews sometimes met a reference to Zerubbabel,\nforced it upon the Jews, even when the latter themselves refused it.\nAnd there can be the less difficulty in admitting this supposition, as\nthe apparently fourfold testimony may be easily reduced to a single\none, viz., to that of _Chrysostom_. If these statements had any truth\nin them, some traces, at least, of this interpretation must be found\namong the Jews themselves. This, however, is not the case. All the\nJewish interpreters adhere to the Messianic interpretation, and in this\nthey are headed by the Chaldee, who paraphrases the words \u05de\u05de\u05da \u05dc\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 in\nthis way: \u05de\u05e0\u05da \u05e7\u05d3\u05de\u05d9 \u05d9\u05e4\u05e7 \u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7\u05d0, _i.e._, From thee Messiah shall go out\nbefore me.\n\n2. A twofold method has been tried to remove the first ground of\nobjection mentioned above. In ancient times, they gave their full sense\nto the words, \"Of (or from) the days of eternity,\" but substituted the\nname of the Messiah for His person. This we meet with as early as in\nthe Chaldee, who says: \u05d3\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05e8 \u05de\u05dc\u05e7\u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05d9 \u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d0, _i.e._, \"Whose\nname is said (or called) from the days of old, from the days of\neternity.\" Thus also the _Pirke R. Elieser_, ch. iii., where, with a\nreference to the passage before us, the name of the Messiah is\nmentioned among the seven things created before the world existed,\nviz., along with the Law, Hell, Paradise, the Throne of Glory, the\nTemple, Repentance; compare _Sch\u00f6ttgen_ ii. S. 213. According to\n_Eisenmenger_ i. S. 317, the same, with some change, is found in the\nTalmud, _Tract. Pesachim_, fol. 54, col. i., and _Nedarim_ f. 39, c. 2.\nWe cannot, in that explanation by the Chaldee, understand \"name\" in its\nemphatic signification, in which it often occurs in Scripture, viz., as\nan expression and image of the substance,--a signification in which the\n\"name\" of the Messiah would be equivalent to \"the glory of the\nMessiah,\" or to \"the Messiah [Pg 493] in His glory.\" This is evident\nfrom the \u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05e8, _i.e._, \"said\" or \"spoken,\" of the Chaldee, which does\nnot allow of our thinking of the creation of a substance; and not less\nfrom the consideration, that if this signification of \"name\" were\nassumed, the aim and object which he had in view in substituting \"name\"\nfor \"person\" at all, would have been missed. The name of the Messiah\nexpresses His nature, the idea of His existence. The creation or\npronouncing of this name marks, accordingly, the rise of this idea in\nGod,--His forming the decree of redemption by the Messiah. By this\nexplanation--which we again meet with, afterwards, in _Calvin_, and\nwhich we shall then consider more minutely--a mere existence in\nthought, was substituted for the real existence of the Messiah,--His\npredestination, for His pre-existence.--But in aftertimes they came\nstill further down. To supply \"the name,\" was too arbitrary to admit of\ntheir resting satisfied with such an explanation. Almost unanimously\nthey now came to the supposition, that the words of the passage under\nconsideration merely marked the descent of the Messiah from the\nancient, royal house of David. Thus _Abenezra_: \"All this is said of\nDavid; the words also, 'His goings out are of old,' refer to David.\"\n_Aberbanel_ (_Praec. Sal._ p. 62): \"The goings out of the family from\nwhich that Ruler is to be descended are of old, and of the days of\neternity, _i.e._, of the seed of David, and the rod of Jesse, which is\nof Bethlehem-Judah.\" On the similar expositions of _Kimchi_ and others,\ncompare _Frischmuth l.c._, and _Wichmannshausen_, _Dissert. on the\npass._, Wittenb. 1722, S. 6 ff. We could not urge against this\nexposition that \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea is erroneously understood either as \"going out,\"\nor, as \"family;\" and that, in the latter signification, the _usus\nloquendi_, as well as the evident reference to \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0, are disregarded.\nFor that might be given up, and yet the explanation would stand as to\nits substance. Even then, it might be translated: \"His goings out (in\nthe signification of 'places of going out') are the days of old, the\ndays of eternity,\" _i.e._, the very ancient times; so that there would\nbe ascribed to the time something which belongs to that which exists in\nit, viz., to the family of David. But the following reason is decisive\nagainst it. Every one will admit that the eternal origin of the Messiah\nforms a far more suitable contrast with His temporal origin from\nBethlehem, than His descent from the ancient family of [Pg 494] David.\nThe latter would come into consideration here, only on account of its\nantiquity; a reference to its dignity is not made by even a single\nword, nor is the family itself mentioned at all in the text; but the\nattribute of antiquity, and that alone, is nevertheless taken from\nit, and ascribed to the Messiah. But now, we cannot at all see what\npre-eminence in this respect the family of David enjoyed above other\nfamilies, and how, therefore, it could have been an honour for the\nMessiah to be descended from it. How strange would, according to this\nexplanation, be the words, \"of the days of eternity,\" which, as a\nclimax, are added to, \"of days of old!\" What reason could there have\nexisted for the prophet to exalt, by a hyperbolical expression, a\nlimited time to eternity? As regards His human origin, the Messiah had\nnot the slightest advantage over other mortals, as far as the age of\nthe family was concerned. What, then, was the use of such a hyperbole\nin a matter which, in this connection, was of no consequence, and\nwhich could not in any way serve for His exaltation? It is just this,\nhowever, which after all is required by the contrast. What kind of\nconsolation would thereby have been afforded to the people? Certainly\nno one doubted that the Messiah would have parents, and ancestors\nreaching back to a hoar antiquity. But was there anything gained by\nthis, since He had it only in common with the lowest and feeblest\namong the people? How does this shallow, unmeaning, and yet so much\npretending contrast in reference to the Messiah, suit the other\ncontrast in reference to Bethlehem, which is so brilliant and exalted?\nAnd now what reason is there for preferring that explanation which is\nso unnatural, to the other, which is so natural, so obvious, which\npresents a contrast so beautiful, and opens up to the Covenant-people a\nsource of consolation so rich? Is it this, perhaps, that the eternity\nof the Messiah is not mentioned anywhere else in the Old Testament? But\nthe eternity of the Messiah is only a single feature of His divine\nnature, and just that feature which, according to the context, came\nhere into special consideration. _Caspari_ very correctly remarks: \"The\nprophet pointed out just the feature of the pre-existence, and of\nthe eternal existence of the Messiah, and these only, because the\nannouncement of His origin from the little Bethlehem led just to this,\nand to this alone.\" The intimation of the divine nature of the Messiah\nis, [Pg 495] however, as old as the Messianic prediction in general;\ncompare, concerning this, my remarks on Gen. xlix. 10. In a more\ndefinite shape, and in a more distinct form, it appears as early as in\nthe Messianic Psalms. But it is found, in sharply defined outlines, in\nIsaiah, and specially in ix. 5, where, just as in the passage before\nus, the divine glory of the Messiah is contrasted with the lower aspect\nof His existence; and the closer the points of contact are between\nIsaiah and Micah, the less can we refuse to acknowledge such here. This\ncircumstance also must prevent us from doing so, that immediately\nafterwards, in ver. 3 (4), the divine dignity and nature of the Messiah\nmeet us anew. This passage requires, as its foundation, the one upon\nwhich we are now commenting. Moreover, the eternity which, in contrast\nwith His birth in time, is here ascribed to the Messiah, corresponds\nwith the eternity of His existence and dominion after His birth, which\nis repeatedly ascribed to the Messiah, and, most prominently, in Is.\nix. 5, where He receives the name \"Father of eternity,\" _i.e._, He who\nwill be Father in all eternity.--Some one, perhaps, would infer from\nthe subjoined words, \"of the days,\" that \u05e2\u05d9\u05dc\u05dd is here to be understood\nin a limited sense. But who does not know that, when eternity is\npredicated in contrast with a limited duration of time, just to make\nthe contrast the more striking, those measures of time, which are\nproperly applicable to the latter only, are transferred to the former?\nFor in order to be able to compare things, a certain resemblance\nbetween them must necessarily be first established. Thus in Dan. vii.\n9, God is called \"the Ancient of Days;\" thus it is said of Him in Ps.\ncii. 28, \"Thy years have no end;\" and the New Testament frequently\nspeaks in the same way of eternal times. We are, in our thoughts,\ngenerally so much bound to time, that we can conceive of eternity only\nas \"time without time.\" It cannot by any means be satisfactorily or\nincontrovertibly proved from vii. 14, 20, that \u05e7\u05d3\u05dd and \u05d9\u05de\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d9\u05dc\u05dd here\ndesignate merely the ancient time. All which that passage proves is,\nthat such a sense is possible--and this, no one probably has ever\ndoubted--but not that it is applicable in this connection. If the\nconnection be considered, Prov. viii. 22, 23, will then be acknowledged\nto be parallel,--a passage in which the eternal existence of Wisdom is\nspoken of in a similar manner.\n\n3. That, in the prophecy under consideration, Bethlehem is [Pg 496]\nmarked out as the birth-place of the Messiah, was held as an undoubted\ntruth by the ancient Jews. This appears from the confident reply of the\nSanhedrim to the question of Herod as to the birth-place of Christ. And\nit is not less evident from John vii. 42. The circumstance that, after\nthe tumult raised by Barcochba, not only Jerusalem, but Bethlehem also,\nwas, by the Emperor Adrian, interdicted to the Jews as a residence,\nrenders it probable that this interpretation was not given up\nimmediately after the death of Christ. But even after this edict of\nAdrian, and after the difficulty had appeared in all its force, they\ndid not, for a considerable time, venture to assert that the prophecy\nknew nothing of Bethlehem as the birth-place of the Messiah. It is with\nthe later Rabbinical interpreters only, who were better skilled in the\nart of distorting, that this assertion is found. The ancient Jews\nendeavoured to evade the difficulty by the fable, dressed up in various\nways, that the Messiah was indeed born at Bethlehem, on the day of the\ndestruction of the temple, but that, on account of the sins of the\npeople. He was afterwards carried away by a storm, and had, since that\ntime, remained, unknown and concealed, in various places. Thus speak\nthe Talmud, the very ancient commentary on Lamentations, _Echa\nRabbati_, and the very old commentary on Genesis, _Breshith Rabba_\n(compare the passages in _Raim. Martini_, S. 348-50; _Carpzovius_ and\n_Frischmuth_, l.c.). Indeed, we can trace this fiction still farther\nback. Closely connected with it is the explanation of \u05e2\u05e4\u05dc \u05d1\u05ea\u05be\u05e6\u05d9\u05d5\u05df by\n\"darkness of the daughter of Zion\" (\u05e2\u05e4\u05dc being confounded with \u05d0\u05e4\u05dc),\n_i.e._, hidden on account of Zion. This explanation is found as early\nas in Jonathan. The concealment of the Messiah is only an isolated\nfeature of this fiction. The fiction itself, indeed, has its roots, not\nonly in the passage under review, but also in the endeavour to remove\nthe contradiction between the destruction of the temple, and the\nfirm expectation of the Messiah's appearing during the time of its\nexistence,--an expectation founded on passages of the Old Testament.\nThis concealment of the Messiah is mentioned as early as in the\n_Dialogus cum Tryphone_ (No. 8 _Bened. Ven._; compare also p. 114):\n\"Christ, even if he be born, and exist anywhere, is unknown, and\nneither manifests himself in any way, nor has he any power until Elijah\ncome, etc.\" In order to be convinced that, at the time when this book\nwas composed, [Pg 497] and hence in the second century, the fiction was\nalready fully developed, we need only compare the account in _Breshith\nRabba_. After Elijah, at the time of the birth of the Messiah, had\nvisited his mother in Bethlehem Judah, and consoled her who was\nafflicted on account of the destruction of the temple, which was\ncontemporaneous with her delivery, he withdraws. \"After five years had\nelapsed, he said, I will go and see the Saviour of Israel, whether he\nbe nursed up in the manner of kings or of ministering angels. He went\nand found the woman standing at the door of her house, and said to her:\nMy daughter, in what state is that boy? And she answered him: Rabbi,\ndid I not tell thee that it is a bad thing to nurse him, because, on\nthe day on which he was born, the temple was destroyed? But this is not\nall; for _he has feet and walks not, he has eyes and sees not, he has\nears and hears not, he has a mouth and does not speak at all, and there\nhe lies like a stone._\"\n\nThe Rabbinical interpreters felt, however, that this fiction, being\ndestitute of all warrant, was of no use to them in their controversies\nwith Christians; and it was to these that their view was chiefly\ndirected. Hence they sought to remove the difficulty by means of the\ninterpretation; and as all had the same interest, the result was that\nthe distorted explanation became as generally prevalent, as the correct\none had formerly been. _Kimchi_, _Abenezra_, _Abendana_, _Abarbanel_,\nand, in general, all the later Rabbins (compare the passages in\n_Wichmannsh._ l. c. S. 9), maintain that Bethlehem is mentioned here as\nthe birth-place of the Messiah indirectly only,--in so far only as the\nMessiah was to be descended from David the Bethlehemite. There cannot\nwell be a prepossession in favour of this exposition. The circumstance\nthat, formerly, no one ever thought that it was even possible to\nexplain the passage under review in any other way than that, in it,\nBethlehem is spoken of as the birth-place of the Messiah, and that this\nexposition was discovered and introduced, only at a time when the other\ncould no longer be received, raises, _a priori_, strong suspicions\nagainst it. And this suspicion is fully confirmed by a closer\nexamination. _C\u00e6teris paribus_, that explanation which here finds\nBethlehem mentioned as the birth-place of the Messiah, would deserve\nthe preference, even for this reason, that the passage, as thus\nunderstood, fills up a blank [Pg 498] in the Messianic prophecy,--and\nthat from the whole analogy, we are led to expect that no such blank\nwould be left. Should the family from which Christ was to descend,\nthe time at which He was to appear, the part of the country which\nwas pre-eminently to enjoy His blessings, and so many other things\nconcerning Him, have been so minutely foretold, and not the place where\nHe was to be born? Even the question of Herod, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9;\nshows how much reason we have, _a priori_, to expect such a prediction.\nHe supposes that, as a matter of course, the birth-place of the Messiah\nmust have been determined in the Old Testament; he only inquires about\nthe place where. But the matter is not so, that there could be any\nchoice at all betwixt the two explanations. If we suppose that it is\nonly the descent of the Messiah from the family of David which is here\nannounced, the contrast between the natural littleness of Bethlehem,\nand its divine greatness, would be very far from being appropriate.\nAfter the family of David had, for centuries, resided and ruled at\nJerusalem, the natural littleness of Bethlehem came very little into\nfurther consideration. It was not this which could render improbable\nthe appearance of the Messiah. It was only the downfall of Jerusalem,\nand the destruction of the King's Castle, which were in opposition to\nthe belief in the Messiah's appearance. And, in like manner, the glory,\nresulting from His appearance, was not imparted to Bethlehem, but to\nZion. Hence it is that, in iv. 8, where the prophet wishes to declare\nthe descent of the Messiah from the family of David, he contrasts the\nglorification of Zion, and especially of the King's Castle, with its\nprevious degradation.--_Further_--There is not a single instance to be\nfound of a place, in which the ancestors of some one resided centuries\nago, being spoken of as the place of his descent. Is there a single\npassage in which Bethlehem is mentioned as the native place of any of\nthe kings from the Davidic dynasty who were born at Jerusalem, or as\nthe native place of Zerubbabel who was born at Babylon? For further\ndetails concerning this argument, _Huetius_, _dem. Evang._ p 579 _ed.\nAmstel._ 1680, maybe compared.--_Further_--The relation of the passage\nunder review to the parallel passage Is. viii. 23 (ix. 1) must not be\noverlooked. As in the latter text, the _province_ is marked out which,\nby the appearance of the Messiah, is to be raised from the deepest\ndegradation [Pg 499] to the highest glory, so, in the passage under\nconsideration, the _place_ is designated.--_Finally_--If any doubt yet\nremained, it must surely be removed by the fulfilment,--by the fact\nthat Christ was actually born at Bethlehem; and this so much the more,\nthat this fact cannot be looked upon as an accidental circumstance, for\nBethlehem was not the residence of His parents.\n\nBut the Jews endeavoured, in another way, to wrest from Christian\ncontroversialists the advantage afforded by this passage. They denied\naltogether that Christ was born at Bethlehem. Thus _Abr. Peritsol_\n(compare _Eisenmenger_, l. c. S. 259): \"Since they called Him Jesus the\nNazarene, and not Jesus the Bethlehemite, it is to be inferred that He\nwas born at Nazareth, as it is written in the _Targum_ of Jerusalem.\"\nUpon this point, however, there existed no unanimity among them. _David\nGans_, in the Book _Zemach David_, mentions, without any remark,\nBethlehem as the birth-place of the Messiah (S. 105 of _Vorst's_\ntranslation).\n\n 2. AMONG THE CHRISTIANS.\n\nThe conviction that Christ is the subject of the prophecy under\nconsideration was so much the prevailing one in the Christian Church,\nthat the mention of any of its defenders is altogether superfluous. It\nwere more interesting to learn who were the opponents of it. The\nassertion of _Huetius_, l. c., that _Chrysostom_, _Theophylact_, and\n_Euthymius Zigabenus_ attempted an explanation by which it was referred\nto Zerubbabel, rests on a misapprehension resulting from want of\nmemory. _Huetius_ himself ascribes to them that very view which they\nmost decidedly oppose as the one alleged to be held by the Jews.\nBut this interpretation was actually advanced by _Theodorus_ of\n_Mopsueste_, whose exegetical tendencies it admirably suited. Along\nwith several other interpretations, it was condemned by the Council at\nRome, under Pope Vigilius; compare _H. Prado_ on Ezek. _prooem. Sect._\n3, and _Hippol. a Lapide in prophet. min. prooem._, and in the remarks\non this passage. The immediate successor of _Theodorus_ was _Grotius_.\nHis book _de veritate relig. Christ._--where in i. 5, \u00a7 17 (p. 266, ed.\nOxon. 1820), he proves [Pg 500] against the Jews the Messianic dignity\nof Christ, from the circumstance that He was, in accordance with the\npassage, born at Bethlehem--might, indeed, entitle us to infer that he\nwas not confirmed in this opinion. But perhaps he only imagined that,\nin a popular work, he needed not to be so careful, and that, even\naccording to his own views, he had retained a certain right to this use\nof the passage, inasmuch as he considered Zerubbabel as a type of\nChrist, and the birth of the latter at Bethlehem as an outward\nrepresentation of His descent from the Davidic family. It was at the\ncommencement of the Rationalistic period, when an easier mode of\nevading the reference to Christ had not as yet been discovered, that\nthe reference to Zerubbabel was seized upon. It is found in _Dathe_ and\n_Kuehn\u00f6l_ (_Mess. Weissagungen_, S. 88). The latter, however, changed\nhis opinion (compare Commentary on Matt. ii.), after such a mode had\nbeen discovered, by referring the prophecy to the _ideal_ Christ. From\nthat time onwards, the reference to the _ideal_ Christ is found in\nalmost all the Rationalistic interpreters. The distinctness with which\nthe marks here given, viz., the birth in time at Bethlehem, and the\neternity of the origin, lead to the _historical_ Christ; and the\ndifficulty of explaining these when the prophecy is referred to the\n_ideal_ Messiah, are rendered sufficiently evident by the efforts which\nall these interpreters, without exception, have made to explain these\nmarks away. Who does not discover, in these very efforts, a confession\nof their force, on the supposition that they can be, as they have\nalready been, demonstrated to have an actual existence? God Himself has\nborne witness by facts against this explanation; for He ordered the\ncircumstance in such a manner that, by the birth of Christ at\nBethlehem, the prophecy was fulfilled. But how can a fulfilment be\nspoken of by those who do not believe in prophecy, but see in it human\nconjectures only, since the very idea of prophecy necessarily implies\ndivine inspiration? How should God have impressed His own seal upon\nmere human conjectures, as He would have done by effecting an apparent\nfulfilment? He would Himself have surely become the author of error by\nso doing. _Finally_,--We shall afterwards see that, in the New\nTestament, this passage has been explained in the strictest sense,\nof the historical Christ; and the attempts of the Rationalistic\ninterpreters to divest that [Pg 501] quotation of its import, will\nfurnish us with a proof, that it is not truth for which they are\nconcerned, but the removal only, at any rate and cost, of a fact which\nis irreconcilable with their system. All that has been advanced by\nthem (_e.g._, by _Justi_ and _Ammon_) against the reference to the\nhistorical Christ, rests on their misapprehension of Christ's Regal\noffice. The Regal office of Christ is by no means a poetical image, but\nthe most _real_ among all kingly offices; yea. His kingdom is that\nfrom which all others derive their existence and reality. It rests,\n_further_, on their ignorance as regards the final history of the\nMessianic kingdom. Of the whole history of Christ, they know a single\nfragment only, viz.. His first appearance in His humiliation; and even\nthis they know, and can know, only very imperfectly. His invisible\ndominion existing even now, they do not recognise, because it is beheld\nwith the eye of faith only; and His future visible manifestation of it\nthey do not believe, because they have not experienced in their own\nhearts the invisible power of Christ, which is a pledge and earnest of\nthis visible success. It rests, _finally_, on their ignorance of the\nprophetic vision, which necessarily requires that the kingdom of\nGod under the Old Testament should serve as a substratum for the\ndescription of the kingdom of Christ. It can be demonstrated, from the\nintimations contained in this passage, in which the Messiah appears\nin His glory, how little it is contradictory to others, in which\nHe is represented in His lowest humiliation. Through humiliation to\nglory,--this is the proposition which lies at the foundation of the\nannouncements of the prophet concerning the destinies of the\nCovenant-people, and which he distinctly expresses in regard to\nBethlehem. That this proposition is applicable to the Head not less\nthan to the members,--to Him who was born, not less than to the place\nwhere He was born, appears from the circumstance that He was to be born\nat the time of the deepest degradation of the Davidic dynasty, iv. 8,\nand not at Jerusalem, where His Royal ancestors resided, but at\nBethlehem.\n\n2. As regards the last words of this verse, the same twofold false\ninterpretation which we noticed among Jewish interpreters, is found\namong Christian expositors also. One of these, which, besides in other\nJewish interpreters, occurs in _Jarchi_ (\"_and His goings out_, etc.;\njust as in Ps. lxxii. 17, it was said that His name [Pg 502] should\ncontinue as long as the sun;--thus _Jonathan_ also translated it\"),\nchanges the eternal origin of Christ into an eternal predestination.\nThis view was held by _Calvin_: \"These words,\" he says, \"signify that\nthe rising of the Prince who was to rule the nations would not be\nsomething sudden, but long ago decreed by God. I know that some\npertinaciously insist that the prophet speaks here of Christ's eternal\nessence, and as far as I am concerned, I _willingly_ acknowledge that\nChrist's eternal Godhead is here proved to us; but as we shall never\nsucceed in convincing the Jews of this, I prefer to hold that the words\nof the prophet signify that Christ would not thus suddenly proceed from\nBethlehem, as if God had formerly decreed nothing concerning Him.\" He\nspeaks indeed of his \"_willingly_ acknowledging;\" but that he was not\nvery much in earnest in his willingness, appears from what follows:\n\"Others advance a new and ingenious view,\" etc. It is only from the\nrelation of _Calvin_ to the earlier interpreters, that we can account\nfor his advancing an exposition so very arbitrary. These had, _ad\nmajorem Dei gloriam_, advanced a multitude of forced expositions.\nCalvin, who very properly hated such interpretations (\"I do not like\nsuch distorted explanations,\" he says, in his commentary on Joel ii.),\nalways regarded them with suspicion; and whensoever there was the\nappearance of any motive which may possibly have guided them in\nadopting a certain explanation, he himself, rather than concur with\nthem, falls upon the most unnatural explanations in return. The best\nrefutation of his exposition is to be found in _Pococke_. It is absurd\nto suppose that the actual going forth of Christ from Bethlehem is here\ncontrasted with one which is merely imaginary,--the action, with a\nmere decree. It is without any analogy that some one should be\ndesignated as actually existing, or going forth, who exists merely in\nthe divine foreknowledge, or the divine predestination.--The other\nview, which regards the last words of this verse as referring to the\nMessiah's descent from the ancient family of David, is found among all\ninterpreters who, from some cause, were prevented from adopting the\nsound one. It is thus with the Socinians (compare, _e.g._, _Volkel de\nvera religione_, l. 5, c. 2), some of whom, in order the more surely to\nset aside a passage so damaging to their system, supposed that,\naccording to its proper sense, it did not refer to Christ at all;\n_e.g._, _Jo. Crellius_, who, in his exposition of Matt. ii., asserts\nthat it refers indefinitely to [Pg 503] some one of the family of David\nwho, after the Babylonish captivity, was to rule the nation. It is thus\nwith _Grotius_ also, who says: \"He (Zerubbabel) has his origin from the\ndays of old, from ancient times, _i.e._, he has descended from a house,\nillustrious from ancient times, and governing for five hundred years.\"\nThus it is with all the Rationalistic interpreters. Among recent\nfaithful Christian expositors, _Jahn_ also (_Vatic. Mess._ 2, p. 147)\nhas been led away to the adoption of this opinion. But that he felt\nstrongly, at least, one of the difficulties which stood in its way,\nviz., that if the reference to the family of David be assumed, it is\nthe mere age of the family, apart from every preference on the ground\nof its dignity, which is mentioned to magnify the Messiah--appears from\nthe strange exegetical process which he employs for the purpose of\nremoving it. He supplies at the end, _celebris est_:--\"His origin or His\nfamily (thus he erroneously explains \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5) is _celebrated_ from\nancient times.\" One may see in this case how much, in particulars, an\nindividual still remains dependent upon a community, even although,\nupon the whole, he may have freed himself from such dependence. For it\nis certainly from this dependence alone that the fact can be accounted\nfor, that this commentator rejected an exposition which must have been\nto him the most agreeable, which has everything in its favour, and\nnothing against it,--and chose another instead, the nakedness of which\nhe was obliged to cover as well as he could, while, in so doing, he was\nviolating his _exegetical convictions_. _Ewald_ also permits himself to\nintroduce into the passage what is necessary for the sense which he has\nmade up his mind to adopt. In place of the simple antiquity, he puts:\n\"Descended from the ancient, venerable royal family of David.\" The view\ntaken by _Hofmann_ is peculiar: \"He comes from the family of David,\njust as it had happened long ago, when that family still belonged to\nthe community of Bethlehem,--from the community of Bethlehem does He\ncome.\" _Weiss. u. Erf._ 1, S. 251. In order to get at this rather\nsuperfluous repetition, he has substituted the manner in which the\nfamily of David formerly existed, for \"the days of old, and eternity.\"\nThe \"origins\" (this is the sense which he gives to \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5) cannot be\nattributed to that portion only of David's family which dwelt at\nBethlehem; for He was descended from them indirectly only, through the\nroyal family of David.\n\n[Pg 504]\n\n3. The Jewish assertion, that in the prophecy there is no allusion to\nthe birth at Bethlehem of Him who was to come, could not fail to be\nrepeated by _Grotius_ and his supporters, inasmuch as Zerubbabel was\nnot born at Bethlehem. \"Zerubbabel,\" he says, \"is rightly said to have\nbeen born at Bethlehem, because he was of the family of David which had\nits origin there.\" This is, in like manner, repeated by the\nRationalistic interpreters, in order to avoid the too close coincidence\nof the prophecy with the actual history of Christ, _e.g._, by _Paulus_\nand _Strauss_ (both, in their \"Life of Jesus\"), and by _Hitzig_. It is\nremarkable, however, that, in order the more securely to attain this\nobject, some have gone so far even as to follow the example of several\nJews, and of the infamous _Bodinus_ (_de abditis rerum sublimium\narcanis_, l. 5, compare the refutation by _Huetius_, l.c. p. 701), and\nto characterize the evangelical account concerning the birth of Christ\nat Bethlehem as unworthy of credit. Such has been the case with _Ammon_\nespecially.\n\n THE QUOTATION IN MATT. II. 6.\n\nSeveral interpreters, _Paulus_ especially, have asserted that the\ninterpretation of Micah which is here given, was that of the Sanhedrim\nonly, and not of the Evangelist, who merely recorded what happened and\nwas said. But this assertion is at once refuted when we consider the\nobject which Matthew has in view in his entire representation of the\nearly life of Jesus. His object in recording the early life of Jesus is\nnot like that of Luke, viz., to communicate historical information to\nhis readers. The historical event which he could suppose to be already\nknown to _his_ readers, comes into his view only in so far as it served\nfor the confirmation of Old Testament prophecies. Hence it is that he\ntouches upon any historical circumstance, just when the mention of it\ncan serve for the attainment of this purpose. Thus, the design of the\ngenealogy is to prove that, in accordance with the prophecies of the\nOld Testament, Christ was descended from Abraham, through David. Thus\nall which he mentions in chap. i. 18-21, serves only to prepare the way\nfor the quotation of the prophecy of Isaiah, that the Messiah was to be\nborn of a [Pg 505] virgin, which is subjoined in ver. 22, with the\nwords: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7. Even the \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd proves that all\nwhich precedes is mentioned solely with a view to the prophecy. The\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 of _Olshausen_ which refers the \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd to the whole, in\ncontrast with the particular, can be accounted for only from the\nembarrassment into which this commentator could not here avoid falling\nby his interpretation of the prophecy of Isaiah, according to which a\nsemblance of agreement is, with the utmost difficulty, made out betwixt\nit, and the event in which Matthew finds its fulfilment. Moreover, all\nthe single features of the account have too distinct a reference to the\nprophecy which is to be afterwards quoted. It is from a regard to it,\nthat he is most anxious to point out that Christ was conceived by a\npure and immaculate virgin, that, in ver. 25, he expressly adds that\nbefore the birth of Jesus, Mary had had no connubial intercourse with\nJoseph, because Immanuel was not only to be conceived, but born of a\nvirgin. The words, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, correspond exactly\nwith \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f18\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03ae\u03bb. The Evangelist explains\nthe latter name by \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, which, again, cannot be without an\nobject, for the name of Jesus (_Gottheil_, _God-Salvation_) has, with\nhim, the same signification. We pass over, in the meantime, the section\nii. 1-12. In ver. 13 there follows the account of the flight into Egypt\nwith a reference to Hos. xi. 1. This passage refers, in the first\ninstance, to Israel; but Israel does not here come into view according\nto its carnal condition, but only according to its divine destination\nand election,--as is evidently shown by the designation \"Son of God.\"\nIsrael was called to preserve the truth of God in the midst of error,\nto proclaim among the Gentiles the mighty acts of God, and to be His\nmessenger and ambassador. In this respect Israel was a type of the\nMessiah, and the latter, as it were, a concentrated and exalted Israel.\nIt is from this relation alone that many passages in the second part of\nIsaiah can be explained; and in Is. xlix. 3, the Messiah is expressly\ncalled Israel. If, then, there existed between Israel and the Messiah\nsuch a relation of type and Antitype;--if this relation was not\naccidental, but designed by God, it will, _a priori_, appear to us most\nprobable that the abode of the children of Israel in Egypt, and the\nresidence of Christ in the same country, have a relation to each other.\nThis supposition rests upon the perception of the [Pg 506] remarkable\ncoincidence which, by divine Providence, generally exists betwixt the\ndestinies of typical persons, and those of the Antitype, so that the\nformer may be considered as an actual prophecy of the latter. But this\ncoincidence must here not be sought in the stay in the same country\nonly; this circumstance served only to direct attention to the deeper\nunity, to represent it outwardly. It was not from their own choice, but\nfrom a series of the most remarkable dispensations of Providence, and\non the express command of God, that Israel went to Egypt. They thereby\nescaped from the destruction which threatened them in the land for\nwhich they were really destined. They were there prepared for their\ndestiny; and when that preparation was finished, they were, agreeably\nto the promise of God, which was given to them even before they went\ndown into Egypt, introduced into that land in which their destiny was\nto be realized. The same providence of God which there chose the means\nfor the preservation of His kingdom, which was at that time bound up\nwith the existence of the typical Israel, chose the same means now also\nwhen their hopes concentrated themselves in the person of their future\nHead. It was necessary that Egypt should afford Him a safe abode until\nthe danger was over.--There then follows, in vers. 16-19, the account\nof the murder of the children of Bethlehem, with a sole reference to\nJer. xxxi. 15, and just on account of it. Here, too, we must not think\nof a simple simile only. In Jeremiah, the mother of Israel laments over\nthe destruction of her children. The Lord appears and comforts her. Her\ngrief is, at some future time, to be changed into joy. She is to see\nthe salvation which the Lord will still bestow upon her sons. That\nwhich, therefore, constitutes the essence of that passage is the\ncontrast of the merited punishment which Israel drew down upon\nthemselves by their sins, with the unmerited salvation which the mercy\nof the Lord will bestow upon them. Now, quite the same contrast is\nperceptible in the event under consideration. In the same manner as the\ntyranny of the Chaldeans, so that of Herod also was a deserved\npunishment for the sins of the Covenant-people. Herod, by birth a\nforeigner, was, like Nebuchadnezzar, a rod of correction in the hand of\nthe Lord. The cruel deed which, with divine permission, he committed at\nthe very place in which the Saviour was born, was designed actually and\nvisibly to remind the Covenant-people [Pg 507] of what they had\ndeserved by their sins,--was intended also to be a matter-of-fact\nprophecy of the impending more comprehensive judgment, and thus to make\nit manifest that so much the more plainly, the sending of the Messiah\nwas purely a work of divine mercy, destined for those only who would\nrecognise it as such. From this it appears that the Old Testament\nevent, to which the prophet, in the first instance, refers, viz., the\ncarrying away into captivity, and the deliverance from it, were\nprophecies by deeds of those New Testament relations (in which,\nhowever, the typical relation of the murder of the children at\nBethlehem, as we have stated it, must not be overlooked);--that both\nwere subject to the same laws, that both were a necessary result of the\nworking of the same divine mercy, and that hence, a declaration which,\nin the first instance, referred to the first event, might at the same\ntime be considered as a prophecy of the second.--Vers. 19 and 20 have\nfor their foundation Exod. iv. 19, where the Lord, after having ordered\nMoses to return to Egypt, subjoins the words: \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31\n\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd. That which the Lord there speaks to Moses, and\nthat which, here. He speaks to Joseph, proceed from the same cause.\nLike all servants of God under the Old Testament, Moses is a type of\nChrist. There is the same overruling by divine Providence, the same\ndirection of all events for the good of the kingdom of God. Moses is\nfirst withdrawn from threatening danger by flight into distant regions.\nAs soon as it is time that he should enter upon his vocation, the door\nfor the return to the scene of his activity is opened to him. Just\nso is it with regard to Christ.--Vers. 21-23 have for their sole\nfoundation the prophetic declaration: \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n(compare, on these words, the remarks on Is. xi.). The particular\ncircumstances which are mentioned, viz., that Joseph had the intention\nof settling in Judea, but received from God the command to go into\nGalilee, are designed only to make it more perceptible that the\nfulfilment of this prophecy was willed by God.\n\nFrom this summary it sufficiently appears that the object of Matthew in\nchap. i. and ii. was by no means of an historical, but rather of a\ndoctrinal nature; and since this is the case, all the objections fall\nto the ground, which _Sieffert_, solely by disregarding this object of\nthe writer, has lately drawn from these [Pg 508] chapters against the\ngenuineness of Matthew's Gospel. And if we apply this to the question\nbefore us, it follows that the section ii. 1-12 must likewise have an\nOld Testament foundation. That this foundation can, in the first\ninstance, be sought for only in the prophecy of Micah, becomes evident\nfrom the circumstance, that Bethlehem is, in ver. 1, mentioned as\nChrist's birth-place. If we now take into consideration the fact that\nthe Evangelist does not mention at all that the parents of Jesus\nformerly resided at Nazareth, just because it had no reference to any\nprophecy of the Old Testament (it is merely by designating, in the\naccount of the birth of Jesus, Bethlehem as the place of His parents,\nthat he intimates that that which had been previously reported had\nhappened in a different place),--and that, on the other hand, he\nmentions the residence of the Holy Family at Nazareth, after their\nreturn from Egypt, evidently for the sole purpose of bringing it into\nconnection with a prophecy,--it becomes quite evident that it is not\nfrom any historical interest that this circumstance, which was known to\nall his readers, is mentioned. To this it may be further added, that\nthe account given in vers. 1-6, especially the communication of the\nanswer of the Sanhedrim to the question of Herod, would, according to\nthe proved object and aim of Matthew, stand altogether without a\npurpose, unless he had considered the answer of the Doctors as being in\nharmony with the truth, and hence as superseding his usual formula, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7. In order to show how much Matthew was guided by a regard to\nthe Old Testament, and how frequently, at the same time, he contented\nhimself with a mere allusion, supposing his readers to be acquainted\nwith the Old Testament--as is quite evident from vers. 20 and 23--we\nmust further consider the second Old Testament reference which he has\nin view in vers. 1-12. The passages to which he refers are Ps. lxxii.\n10: \"The kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts;\" and Is. lx. 6:\n\"All they from Sheba shall come, they shall bring gold and incense, and\nthey shall show forth the praises of the Lord.\" The representation, in\nthese and other similar passages, is, in the first instance, a\nfigurative one. Gifts are in the East a sign of allegiance. The\nfundamental thought is this: \"The most distant, the wealthiest, and the\nmost powerful nations of the earth shall do homage to the Messiah, and\nconsecrate to Him themselves and all that they have.\" But that which is\n[Pg 509] prophesied by a figurative representation in these Old\nTestament passages began to be fulfilled by the symbolical action of\nthe Magi, by which the image was represented externally; for the gold,\nincense, and myrrh which they consecrated to the new-born King of the\nJews symbolized the homage which they offered to Him; and these gifts\nare certainly expressly mentioned by Matthew for this reason, that they\noccur in the Old Testament passages. As this event formed, in one\nrespect, the beginning of the fulfilment, so, in another, it formed a\nnew prophecy by deeds,--the type of a new, greater, and more proper\nfulfilment. The Apostles considered these Magi as the types and\nrepresentatives of the whole mass of heathen nations who were, at a\nsubsequent period, to do homage to the Messiah. They were the\nambassadors, as it were, of the heathen world, to greet the new-born\nKing, just as the shepherds, whom God Himself had chosen, were the\ndeputies of the Jews. In my work on Balaam, pp. 480-482, I have proved\nthat, even with these references, the contents of the passage are not\nyet exhausted,--that there still remains a prominent point, viz., the\nstar which the Magi saw, and that this refers to Balaam's prophecy of\nthe star proceeding from Jacob.\n\nBut if it be established that the view of the prophecy under\nconsideration, which the Evangelist reports as that of the Sanhedrim,\nmust, at the same time, be considered as his own, we must also suppose\nthat the quotation, even in its particulars, is approved by him, and\nthat the view which was first advanced by _Jerome_ (\"I believe that he\nwished to exhibit the negligence of the scribes and priests, and wrote\nit down as it had been spoken by them\"), and recently by _Paulus_,\ncannot be made use of in order to justify the deviations,--if any\nshould indeed be found. In order to ascertain this, we must examine\nmore closely the quotation in its relation to the original text of the\npassage, Matt. ii. 6: \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a \u0392\u03b7\u03b8\u03bb\u03b5\u03ad\u03bc, \u03b3\u1fc6 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f36 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u00b7 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb. The first thing which demands our attention\nis \u03b3\u1fc6 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1 for the Ephratah of the original. The reason of this\ndeviation is to be sought for in the circumstance, that the place\nappears as Bethlehem Judah in 1 Sam. xvii. 12, where it is mentioned\nwith a reference to David. The deviation at the beginning has,\naccordingly, the same purpose [Pg 510] as that at the close. As regards\nthe grammatical exposition of \u03b3\u1fc6 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1, it stands for: Bethlehem\nsituated in the land of Judah,--a short mode of expression which is\ncommon in geographical and other similar designations, just as in the\nOld Testament also we find \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\u05be\u05dc\u05d7\u05dd \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4, for: Bethlehem situated in\nthe land of Judah. The assertion of many interpreters, that \u03b3\u1fc6 has\nhere the signification \"town,\" is as objectionable as the attempt to\nchange the text, made by _Fritzsche_, who advances nothing on the whole\nverse that can stand examination. The Evangelist here as little follows\nthe LXX. as he does the Hebrew text. The former has here: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a\n\u0392\u03b5\u03b8\u03bb\u03b5\u03ad\u03bc, \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac (thus without an article. _Cod. Vatic._).\n_Fritzsche_ thinks that \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 had been brought into the text from the\nmargin. But the translator evidently considered \"Ephratah\" to be the\nproper name of Caleb's wife (1 Chron. ii. 19, 50, iv. 4), from whom\nothers also, _e.g._, _Adrichomius_ (compare _Bachiene_ ii. 2, \u00a7 190),\nderived the name of the place, and did nothing else than express more\ndefinitely, by the subjoined \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, the relation of dependence which,\nas he supposed, was indicated by the Genitive. The apparent\ncontradiction, that the prophet calls Bethlehem small, whereas the\nEvangelist speaks of it as by no means small, has already been so\nsatisfactorily explained by ancient and modern interpreters (compare,\n_e.g._, _Euthymius Zigabenus_ _l. c._ p. 59: \"Although in appearance\nthou art small, yet, truly, thou art by no means the least among the\nprincipalities of the tribe of Judah;\" _Michaelis_: \"Micah, looking to\nthe outward condition, calls it small; Matthew, looking to the\nbirth of the Messiah, calls it by no means small, inasmuch as, by\nthat birth, that town was in a wonderful manner adorned and exalted\"),\nthat we need not dwell upon it. We only remark, that the supposition\nof _Paulus_, that the members of the Sanhedrim understood the verse\ninterrogatively--\"Art thou, perhaps, too small,\" etc.--receives no\nconfirmation from the passage in _Pirke Eliezer_, c. 3, which he quotes\nin favour of it, but which he saw only in the Latin translation of\n_Wetzstein_; for, in the original text, the verse is quoted in literal\nagreement with the Hebrew original; compare _Eisenmenger_, i. p. 316. A\ncomparison with the Chaldee, who with similar liberty paraphrases,\n\"Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, shalt soon be numbered,\" clearly shows that\nthe deviation has arisen rather from an endeavour to express the sense\nmore [Pg 511] clearly and definitely. On such deviations, _Calvin_\nstrikingly remarks: \"Let the reader always attend to the purpose\nfor which the Evangelists quote Scripture passages, that they\nmay not scrupulously insist upon single words, but be satisfied\nwith this,--that the Scriptures are never distorted by them to a\ndifferent sense.\"--Micah introduces Bethlehem in the person of its\nrepresentative; but this figure Matthew has dropped at the beginning.\nInstead of the Masculine \u05e6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 he puts the Feminine \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7; and, on\nthe other hand, he renders \u05d1\u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 by \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9, which, in a way\nnot to be mistaken, suggests this representation. _Fritzsche_ announces\nhimself as the man who would heal this _f\u0153dum sol\u0153cismum_ which had not\nhitherto been remarked by any one. He proposes to read: \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a \u0392\u03b5\u03b8\u03bb\u03b5\u1f72\u03bc\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f36 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1,--\"and thou\nBethlehem, by no means the smallest part of the land of Judah, art,\"\netc. But altogether apart from the arbitrary change of \u03b3\u1fc6 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1,--which\ncertainly no one could ever have been tempted to put for the more\nsimple \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,--the personification could even then not have been\nmaintained, and the _f\u0153dus sol\u0153cismus_ would still remain. Even\nalthough the \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 be understood in accordance with the\n\"_elegantissimus Gr\u00e6corum usus_,\" Bethlehem must, after all, be treated\nas a thing--as a town. Nor is the case much improved by the assistance\nwhich _Fritzsche_ immediately afterwards endeavours to give to the\ntext: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a \u0392\u03b5\u03b8\u03bb\u03b5\u1f72\u03bc, \u03b3\u1fc6 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f36 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1, \"among the principal towns of the families in Judea.\" Is there\nan instance in which \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 means the \"principal towns?\" Moreover,\nthe relation of \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd to the subsequent \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, which requires\nthe Masculine, has been overlooked.--Micah personifies Bethlehem from\nthe outset. Matthew first introduces Bethlehem as a town, but\nafterwards passes to the personification by speaking of the \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2;\ninstead of the tribes. For this he had a special reason in the regard\nto the subsequent \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Bethlehem, although outwardly small, is,\nnotwithstanding, when regarded from a higher point of view, even in the\npresent by no means small among the _leaders_ of Judah, for, from it,\nin the future, the great _leader_ of Judah shall proceed. This\nrelation, which is so evident, must the rather be assumed, that in\nMicah also a contrast occurs which, as to the sense, is altogether\nsimilar. It serves, at the [Pg 512] same time, for a proof against the\nassumption that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in the\nAramean language,--a view which is, generally, opposed also by the free\nhandling of the Old Testament text in the whole quotation. The\ninconsistency in the use of the personification is, further, the more\neasy of explanation, since it is altogether of an _ideal_ character,\nand, substantially, person and town are not distinguished.--The last\nwords in Micah, \"And His goings forth,\" etc., have been omitted by\nMatthew, because they were not needed for his purpose, which was to\nshow that, according to the prophecies of the Old Testament, the\nMessiah was to be born at Bethlehem. On the other hand, the \u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc of\nMicah is paraphrased by: \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb. These\nwords refer to 2 Sam. v. 2: \"And the Lord says to thee, _Thou shalt\nfeed My people Israel_, and thou shalt be a prince over Israel.\" They\npoint out the typical relation between the first David who was born at\nBethlehem, and the second David, the Messiah.\n\nWith respect to the relation betwixt prophecy and its fulfilment, we\nmust here still make a general remark. It is everywhere evident\n(compare the remarks on Zech. ix. 9), that the fulfilment of the\nprophecies of the Old Testament forms a secondary purpose of the events\nof the New Testament, but that in none of the latter this fulfilment is\nthe sole object. Every one, on the contrary, has its significance apart\nfrom the prophecy; and it is by this significance that prophecy and\nhistory are equally governed. This general remark is here also\nconfirmed. The birth of Christ at Bethlehem testified, in one respect,\nfor the divine origin of the prophecy of the Old Testament, and, in\nanother, that Jesus is the Christ. But its main object, altogether\nindependent of this, was to represent, outwardly also, the descent of\nChrist from David. This was recognised by the Jews even, at the time of\nChrist, as appears from the addition \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f26\u03bd \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03b4, John vii. 42. Of\nthe two seats of the Davidic family, viz., Bethlehem and Jerusalem, the\nformer is chosen, partly, because, from its external littleness, it\nwas, generally, very suitable for prefiguring the lowliness of the\nMessiah at the outset--a circumstance which is expressly pointed out by\nthe prophet himself--and partly, because it was peculiar to the family\nof David during its obscurity; whilst Jerusalem, on the contrary,\nbelonged to their regal condition,--and the Messiah [Pg 513] was to be\nborn in the fallen tabernacle of David, to be a rod from the cut off\nstem of Jesse, Is. xi. 1. That this reference also was in the view of\nthe prophet, seems to be evident from a comparison of iii. 12, and iv.\n8, 9, 14. At all events he considered the family of David as having\naltogether sunk at the time of the Messiah's appearing. The very\nthreatenings in chap. i.-iii. imply the destruction of the Davidic\nkingdom. This meets us, very distinctly, in chap. iv.\n\n * * * * *\n\nVer. 2. \"_Therefore will He give them up until the time that she who is\nhearing hath brought forth; and then the remnant of his brethren shall\nreturn unto the sons of Israel._\"\n\nThe description of what the Messiah is to bestow upon the\nCovenant-people begins in this verse, and is carried on through the\nwhole chapter. By \u05dc\u05db\u05df the close connection of v. 1 with vi. 9-14 is\nindicated. _Michaelis_ remarks: \"Because this is the counsel of God,\nfirst to afflict Zion, on account of her sins, and, afterwards only, to\nrestore her through the Messiah to be born at Bethlehem.\" In chap. iv.\n9-14, it is implied that the giving up will not terminate _before_ His\nbirth; in v. 1, that it will come to an end _with_ His birth. The whole\ntime described in iv. 9-14 is a time of affliction, of giving up Israel\nto the world's power in a threefold form of its manifestation. In iv.\n14, however, the affliction has reached its highest point, and the\nlucid interval, mentioned in vers. 12, 13, has fully expired. It is\nonly when we look back to v. 1 alone, that the \"therefore\" with which\nour verse opens is not explained, inasmuch as there it is said only,\nthat with the Messiah deliverance and salvation would come, but not\nthat the affliction would continue until He should come.--\u05e0\u05ea\u05df is\nsimilarly used in 2 Chron. xxx. 7: \"And be not ye like your fathers,\nand like your brethren who trespassed against the Lord God of your\nfathers; therefore He gave them up to desolation (\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05e0\u05dd \u05dc\u05e9\u05de\u05d4), as you\nsee.\" With respect to the words, \"Until the time that she who is\nbearing hath brought forth,\" there is an essential difference of\nopinion as to the explanation of the main point. One class of\ninterpreters--comprehending _Eusebius_ and _Cyril_, and by far the\ngreatest number of the ancient Christian expositors; and among\nthe more recent, _Rosenm\u00fcller_, _Ewald_, _Hitzig_, _Maurer_, and\n_Caspari_--understand [Pg 514] by \"her who is bearing,\" the mother of\nthe Messiah. Another class understands thereby the Congregation of\nIsrael. The latter, however, differ from each other as to the\nsignification and import of the figure of the birth. Some--_Abendana_,\n_Calvin_, and _Justi_--suppose the _tertium comparationis_ to be the\njoy following upon the pain. Others--_Theodoret_, _Tarnovius_ (\"until\nIsrael, like a fruitful mother, has brought forth a numerous progeny\"),\n_Vitringa_ (in his _Commentary on Revel._ S. 534)--suppose it to be the\ngreat increase. Let us first decide between these two modifications of\nthat view which refers the words to the Congregation of Israel. The\nformer--the joy following after the pain--appears to be inadmissible\nfor this single reason, that among the very numerous passages of the\nOld Testament where the image of a birth is employed, there does not\noccur even one, in which the joy following after the pain is made\nprominent, as is the case in the well-known passage in the New\nTestament. On the contrary, in all the passages which come into\nconsideration on this point, it is rather the pain accompanying the\nbirth which is considered. Thus Mic. iv. 10; Is. xxvi. 17; Jer. iv. 31:\n\"For I hear a voice as of a woman in travail, anguish as of her that\nbringeth forth her first-born child, the voice of the daughter of\nZion, she groaneth, spreadeth her hands: Woe to me, for my soul\nis wearied, through them that kill;\" xxx. 6, xlix. 24; Hos. xiii. 13.\nTo consider the pain alone, however, as the _tertium comparationis_, is\ninadmissible, because, in that case, we would obtain the absurd\nmeaning: the suffering shall continue until the suffering cometh. It is\nlikewise impossible to understand the bringing forth as the highest\ndegree of affliction,--so that the sense would be: the Lord will give\nthem up until the distress reaches its highest point,--because this\nmeaning could apply only in the event of the lower degrees, the pains\nbefore the birth, being also mentioned. They who hold and defend the\nsecond modification of this view, can indeed refer to, and quote, a\nlarge number of parallel passages--almost all of them from the second\npart of Isaiah--where this image occurs with a similar signification.\nThus, _e.g._. Is. liv. 1: \"Shout for joy, O barren, thou that didst not\nbear; break forth into shouting and exult, thou that didst not travail;\nfor more numerous are the sons of the desolate than the sons of the\nmarried wife, saith the Lord;\" xlix. 21, 22, lxvi. 7-9. But we must\nnevertheless prefer [Pg 515] to this explanation, that which refers the\nwords to the mother of the Messiah, for the following reasons. 1. If\nthe words were to be referred to the Congregation of Israel, we should\nexpect the Article before \u05d9\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d4. For the Congregation of Israel is\nsubstantially mentioned in what immediately precedes; she is only a\npersonification of those who are to be given up. 2. It is true that,\nfrequently, the personification is not consistently carried out; but\nthe circumstance that here, in the same sentence, the children\nof Israel are spoken of in the plural (\"He will give _them_ up\"), and\nthat no trace of a personification is found in what follows, but that,\non the contrary, the children of Israel are mentioned expressly, makes\nthe pretended personification appear in rather an abrupt manner, so\nthat such an assumption would be admissible in a case of necessity\nonly. 3. If referred to the Congregation of Israel, the relation of the\nMessiah to that great event, and epoch, is not intimated by a single\nword. Of Him ver. 1 speaks, and of Him vers. 3-5. How then can it be\nthat in ver. 2 there should all at once be a transition to the general\nMessianic representation? 4. The suffix in \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5, which refers to the\nMessiah, requires that He should be indirectly mentioned in what\nprecedes; and such is the case, only when the \u05d9\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3\u05d4 is she who is to\nbring forth the Ruler announced in ver. 1. 5. It appears from the\nreference to Gen. xxxv., which we have already pointed out and proved,\nthat the prophet has in view one who is to bring forth in Bethlehem.\nBethlehem, which had in ancient times already become remarkable by a\nbirth, is in future to be ennobled by another birth, infinitely more\nimportant. 6. The comparison of Is. vii. 14, where likewise the mother\nof the Messiah is mentioned; compare the remarks on that passage. 7,\nand lastly--The evident reference of \"Until the time that she who is\nbearing hath brought forth\" to \"From thee shall come forth,\" suggests\nthe mother of the Messiah. That she is designated as \"she who brings\nforth,\" may be explained from the circumstance that she comes into view\nhere in a relation which is altogether one-sided, viz., only as regards\nthe one event of the birth of the Messiah.--Among the blessings which\nthe Messiah is to confer upon the Congregation of the Lord, there is\nfirst of all viewed the fundamental blessing, the condition of all\nothers, viz., the change which He is to effect in the disposition of\nthe Covenant-people. [Pg 516] It is this which, above and before\neverything else, needs to be changed, if Israel is not any more to be\ngiven up; for Israel which is so only by name and in appearance, is the\nlegitimate prey of the world.--By the Brethren of the Messiah, the\nmembers of the Old Covenant-people, His brethren according to the\nflesh, can alone be understood. There is no Old Testament analogy for\nreferring the expression to the Gentiles. We are led to the reference\nto Israel by the connection with the first member of the verse. The\nbrethren are such as have become the Messiah's brethren by the\ncircumstance that He has been born of the Bethlehemitish woman \"who is\nto bring forth\" (_Caspari_). We are led to it, _further_, by v. 1,\naccording to which, the Messiah is to be Ruler in Israel; and, _still\nfurther_, by the fundamental passage in Ps. xxii. 23: \"I will declare\nThy name unto my brethren,\" where, according to the address in ver. 24,\nthe brethren are all the descendants of Israel, among whom a great\nawakening is to be produced.--The construction of \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 with \u05e2\u05dc may be\nexplained by the remark of _Ewald_: \"\u05e2\u05dc stands in its primary local\nsignification with verbs also, when the thing moves to another thing,\nand remains upon it.\" Of a material return the verb \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 with \u05e2\u05dc is thus\nused in Prov. xxvi. 11, Eccles. i. 6;--of a spiritual return, 2 Chron.\nxxx. 9: \u05d1\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05db\u05dd \u05e2\u05dc \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \"when ye return to the Lord,\" properly, \"upon\nthe Lord;\" and Mal. iii. 24 (iv. 6): \"And he makes return the hearts of\nthe fathers to the sons, \u05e2\u05dc \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd,\"--which latter passage has a striking\nresemblance to the one under review. In the latter signification \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\nmust be taken here also.--By the \"sons of Israel,\" here, as ordinarily,\nthe whole of the Covenant-people are signified, and that by its highest\nand holiest name. From this holy communion, the wicked--the souls\nwhich, according to the expression of the Lord, are cut off from their\npeople--are separated and dissevered; compare my commentary on Ps.\nlxxiii. 1. The whole description of the prevailing corruption, and\nespecially vii. 1, 2, show us to what an extent this separation existed\nat the time of the prophet. But, by the Saviour, this separation is to\nbe abolished, and the lost and wandering are to be brought back to the\ncommunion of the church,--a work which, according to Rom. xi., will be\nperfected in the future only.[1]\n\n[Pg 517]\n\nVer. 3. \"_And He stands and feeds in the strength of the Lord, in the\nmajesty of the name of the Lord His God; and they dwell, for now shall\nHe be great unto the ends of the earth._\"\n\nIn this verse we are told what the Saviour shall do for awakened\nand, thus, inwardly united Israel. \"He stands,\" has here not the\nsignification of \"He abides,\" but belongs merely to the graphic\ndescription of the habit of the shepherd; compare Is. lxi. 5: \"And\nstrangers stand and feed your flocks.\" The shepherd stands, leaning\nupon his staff, and overlooks the flock. The connection of \"He feeds\"\nwith \"in the strength of the Lord,\" we cannot better express than\n_Calvin_ has done in the words: \"The word 'to feed' expresses what\nChrist will be towards His people, _i.e._, towards the flock committed\nto Him. He does not exercise dominion in the Church like a formidable\ntyrant who keeps down his subjects through terror, but He is a\nShepherd, and treats His sheep with all the gentleness which they can\ndesire. But, inasmuch as we are surrounded on all sides by enemies, the\nprophet adds: 'He shall feed in the strength,' etc.; _i.e._, as much\npower as there is in God, so much protection there will be in Christ,\nwhen it is necessary to defend and protect His Church against enemies.\nWe may learn, then, from this, that we may expect as much of salvation\nfrom Christ as there is strength in God.\" The great King is so closely\nunited to God, that the whole fulness of divine power and majesty\nbelongs to Him. Such attributes are never given to any earthly king.\nSuch a king has, indeed, strength in the Lord, Is. xlv. 24; \"The Lord\ngiveth strength to His king, and exalteth the horn of His anointed,\" 1\nSam. ii. 10; but the whole strength and majesty of God are not his\npossession. The passage [Pg 518] in Is. ix. 5 (6) is parallel,--where\nthe Messiah is called \u05d0\u05dc \u05d2\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8, God-hero.--The \"name of God\" points to\nthe rich fulness in deeds, by which He has manifested the glory of His\nnature. The Messiah will be the brightness and image of this His\nglory,--a glory which is manifested by acts, and not a glory which\nis inactive and concealed. \"They dwell\" forms a contrast to the\ndisquietude and scattering, and we are, therefore, not at liberty to\nsupply \"safely\" before it. The last words are deprived of their meaning\nand significance by explanations such as that of _Dathe_: \"His name\nshall attain to great renown and celebrity.\" The ground of the present\nrest and safety of the Congregation of the Lord rather is this,--that\nher Head has now extended His dominion beyond the narrow limits of\nPalestine, over the whole earth; compare iv. 3.--2 Sam. vii. 9 cannot\nhere be compared, as there the _name_ of the Lord is not spoken of\nas it is here. That the \"being great\" here implies real dominion\n(_Maurer_: _auctoritate et potentia valebit_), which alone can afford a\npledge for the dwelling in safety, is shown also by the fundamental\npassages Ps. ii. 8, lxxii. 8; compare Zech. ix. 10. In Luke i. 32 the\npassage before us is referred to. The \"now\" does not by any means form\na contrast with a former condition of the Messiah, but with the former\ncondition of the Congregation when she did not enjoy so powerful a\nRuler.\n\nVer. 4. \"_And this_ (man) _is peace. When Asshur comes into our land,\nand when he treads in our palaces, we raise against him seven\nshepherds, and eight princes of men._ Ver. 5. _And they feed the land\nof Asshur with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in its gates; and He\nprotects from Asshur when he comes into our land, and when he treads\nwithin our borders._\"\n\n\"And this man (He whose glory has just been described) is peace,\"--He\nbestows that which we have so much needed, and longed for with so much\nanxiety in these troublous times before His appearing. In a similar\nmanner, and with reference to the passage before us, it is said in\nEphes. ii. 14: \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, compare also Judges vi.\n24: \"And Gideon built an altar there unto the Lord, and called it\nJehovah-Peace, \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd.\" Abandoning this explanation, which is so\nnatural, _Jonathan_, _Grotius_, _Rosenm\u00fcller_, and _Winer_ explain:\n\"And _there_ will be peace to us,\"--an interpretation, however, which\nis inadmissible even on philological grounds, \u05d6\u05d4 is nowhere used,\neither [Pg 519] as Adverb, loci = \"here,\" or as Adverb, temp. = \"then.\"\nAs regards the latter, such passages as Gen. xxxi. 41--\"These are to me\ntwenty years,\" instead of, \"twenty years have now elapsed\"--are, of\ncourse, not at all to the purpose. But of such a kind are almost all\nthe examples quoted by _Nolde_. In Esther ii. 13 \u05d1\u05d6\u05d4 is used. The verb\n\u05d4\u05e6\u05d9\u05dc in ver. 5 is likewise in favour of understanding \u05d6\u05d4 personally;\ncompare also Zech. ix. 10: \"And He shall speak peace unto the\nnations.\"--There can scarcely be any doubt that the words allude to the\nname of Solomon, and that the Messiah is represented in them as the\nAntitype of Solomon. Upon this point there is the less room for doubt,\nbecause even Solomon himself called the Messiah by his name in the Song\nof Solomon; and in Is. ix. 5 (6) also, He is, with an evident allusion\nto the name of Solomon, called the Prince of Peace.--All which follows\nafter these words, to the end of ver. 5, is only a particularizing\nexpansion of the words: \"And this (man) is peace.\" Interpreters have\nalmost all agreed, that Asshur, the most dangerous enemy of the\nCovenant-people at the time of the prophet, stands here as a type of\nthe enemies of the Covenant-people. Even _L. Baur_ has translated: \"And\nthough another Asshur,\" etc., with a reference to the passage in\n_Virgil_ to which allusion had already been made by _Castalio_: \"_Alter\nerit tum Tiphys et altera qu\u00e6 vehat Argo delectos heroas._\" That the\nprophet, however, was fully conscious of his here using Asshur\ntypically, appears from iv. 9, 10. For, according to these verses, the\nfirst of the three catastrophes which preceded the birth of the\nMessiah, proceeds from a new phase of the world's power, viz., from the\nBabylonian empire, the rising of which implies the overthrow of the\nAssyrian. But the figurative element in the representation goes still\nfarther. From ver. 9 ff.--according to which the Lord makes His people\noutwardly defenceless, before they become, in Christ, the conquerors of\nthe world--it is obvious that the spiritual struggle against the\nworld's power is here represented under the image of the outward\nstruggle, carried on with the sword. One might be tempted to confine\nthe thought of the passage to this: \"The Messiah affords to His people\nthe same protection and security as would a large number of brave\nprinces with their hosts,\" inasmuch as the bestowal of these was, under\nthe Old Testament, the ordinary means by which the Lord delivered His\npeople. If, however, the spiritual character [Pg 520] of the struggle\nonly be maintained, there is no sufficient reason for considering the\nseven and more shepherds and the princes as mere imagery, because, in\nthe kingdom of Christ also, the cause of the kingdom of God is carried\non by human instruments, whom He furnishes with His own strength.\nThe words, \"This (man) is peace,\" and \"He protects,\" in ver. 5,\nshow indeed with sufficient distinctness, that, in the main, Christ\nis the only Saviour,--the shepherds, His instruments only,--and their\nworld-conquering power, a derived one only. The apparent contradiction\nof the passage before us to iv. 1-3, vii. 12--according to which the\nheathen nations shall, in the time of the Messiah, spontaneously press\ntowards the kingdom of God--is removed by the remark, that we have here\nbefore us two different streams which may as well flow together in\nprophecy as they do in history. The zeal with which the nations press\ntowards the kingdom is, in part, greatly called forth by the fact,\nthat, in attacking the kingdom of Christ, they have experienced its\nworld-conquering power. The circumstance that the words, \"This (man) is\npeace,\" stand at the beginning, proves that the main idea is the\nsecurity of the kingdom of God against all hostile attacks. For the\nlike reason it is, towards the end, resumed in the words, \"And He\nprotects,\" etc. But this affords no reason for saying, with _Caspari_:\n\"It forms part of the defence, it is indeed its consummation, that the\nwar is carried into Asshur.\" In the first hemistich of ver. 5, it is\nintimated rather, that, in the time of the Messiah, the positions of\nthe world and of the people of God are changed,--that the latter\nbecomes world-conquering; and for this reason, every thought of their\nown insecurity must so much the rather disappear. \"The land of Nimrod\"\nis, according to Gen. x. 11, Asshur. The \"gates\" are those of the\ncities and fortresses, corresponding with, \"When he treads in our\npalaces,\" in ver. 4. It weakens the sense to think of the gates of the\ncountry, as such, _i.e._, the borders. The attack, on the contrary, is\ndirected against, and strikes the real centre of the seat of the\nworld's power, just as, formerly, the stroke was always directed\nagainst Zion.\n\nWith regard to the remaining part of the chapter, we content ourselves\nwith a mere statement of the contents. The Congregation of the Lord\nshall, at that time, not only be lovely and refreshing, ver. 6 (7),\n(this is the constant signification of the [Pg 521] image of the dew,\ncompare Ps. cx. 3, cxxxiii. 3, lxxii. 6; the relative pronoun \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 must\nbe referred to the grass, mentioned immediately before; that which the\ndew descending from heaven is to the grass, Israel will, in his\nheavenly mission, be to the heathen world), but at the same time\nfearful and irresistible, vers. 7, 8 (8, 9); the latter of these\nqualities shall show itself not only as a curse in the case of\nobstinate despisers, but also as a blessing in the case of those who\nare estranged from the kingdom of God, through ignorance only. Resuming\nthen the last words of ver. 8 (9), \"All thine enemies shall be cut\noff,\" the prophet declares that before this word shall be fulfilled,\nthe destructive activity of the Lord will be manifested in Israel\nitself. He will cut off by His judgments, and by the catastrophes\ndescribed in iv. 9-14, everything in which, in the present, they placed\na carnal confidence, everything by which they became externally strong\nand powerful (_Caspari_: \"A cutting off, in the first instance, of all\nwherewith elsewhere enemies are commonly cut off\"), and so likewise all\nidolatry, to which the Chaldean catastrophe already put a violent end.\nIt is only of such a termination by force, and not of a purely inward\neffect of the \"gentle power of the Spirit then poured out upon them,\"\nthat the words here, as well as in reference to the horses, etc.,\npermit us to think. The two kinds of objects of false confidence are\nthen, in conclusion, in ver. 13 (14) once more summed up,--when the\ncities, just as in ver. 10 (11), come into view as fortresses only. If\nthus the path be cleared and prepared for the Lord, He will, on behalf\nof His people, execute vengeance upon the heathen world.\n\n\nFootnote 1: After the example of _Hofmann_, _Caspari_ gives this\nexposition: \"And the remnant of His brethren, viz., the inhabitants of\nJudah, shall return from the captivity to Canaan, along with the sons\nof Israel, _i.e._, the ten tribes.\" But the return from the captivity\nnever appears in the prophets, as a work of the Messiah. It has here\ntaken place long before His appearing: chap. iv. 10, iv. 11-14 supposes\nit to have taken place, and Zion to be in existence. The \"brethren of\nthe Messiah\" can neither be the inhabitants of Judah especially, nor\nthe sons of Israel, the ten tribes, unless the antithesis to Judah be\ndistinctly expressed. It is absurd to suppose that the ten tribes\nshould appear as those chiefly who are to be redeemed. \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1, which means\n\"to return,\" cannot be used simply of a return to the country, while\n\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 with \u05e2\u05dc can, according to the _usus loquendi_, be understood only\nin the sense of \"to return to,\" etc., etc.\n\n\n\n CHAP. VI. VII.\n\nWe shall now, in conclusion, give a survey of the third and closing\ndiscourse of the prophet. After an introduction in vi. 1, 2, where the\nmountains serve only to give greater solemnity to the scene (in the\nfundamental passages Deut. xxxii. 1, and in Is. 1, 2, \"heaven and\nearth\" are mentioned for the same purposes, inasmuch as they are the\nmost venerable parts of creation; \"contend _with_ the mountains\" by\ntaking them in and applying to [Pg 522] them as hearers), the prophet\nreminds the people of the benefits which they have repaid with\ningratitude, vers. 3-5. (In ver. 5 those facts also which served as a\nproof of its truth, are considered as part of Balaam's answer.) He\nthen, in vers. 6-8, shows the fallacy of the imagination that they\ncould satisfy the Lord by the observance of the mere outward forms of\nworship, though such should be increased to the utmost, and performed\nin a manner totally different from that in which it was in the present,\nand points out the spiritual demands already made even by the law, and\nespecially by Deut. x. 12, a compliance with which could alone be\npleasing to the Lord. From vi. 9-vii. 6, he shows to how limited an\nextent these demands are complied with by the people,--how true and\ncordial piety and justice have disappeared from the midst of them,--and\nhow, therefore, the threatenings of the law must, and shall be\nfulfilled upon them. The reproof and threatening are then followed by\nthe announcement of salvation, which refers indeed to the Messianic\ntimes, but without any mention in it of the person of the Messiah, the\nbrightness of which meets us only in the main body of the prophecy. The\nmain thought here also is the entirely altered position of Israel in\ntheir relation to the heathen world. \"A day is coming\"--so it is said\nin ver. 11--\"to build thy walls; in that day shall the law be far\nremoved.\" \u05d2\u05d3\u05e8 is used especially of the walls and fences of vineyards;\nand under the image of a vineyard, Israel appears as early as in the\nSong of Solomon. The wall around the vineyard of Israel is the\nprotection against the heathen world; Is. v. 5. The \"law\" is, according\nto the context, in which the heathen oppressors are spoken of, that\nwhich is imposed by them upon the people of God; Ps. xciv. 20. Ver. 12.\n\"_A day it is when they shall come to thee from Asshur, and from the\ncities of Egypt, and from Egypt to the river, and to sea from sea, and\nto mountain from mountain._\" It is not enough that the people of God\nare freed from the servitude of the world. They shall become the\nobjects of the longing of the nations, even the most powerful and\nhostile. They become the magnet which attracts them; compare iv. 1, 2.\nFrom among the heathen nations Asshur and Egypt are first specially\nmentioned, as the two principal representatives of hostility against\nthe kingdom of God in the present and past, and, at the same time, as\nthe two most powerful empires at the time of the prophet [Pg 523]--the\nlatter quality being indicated by the circumstance of Egypt's appearing\nunder the name \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05e8, \"fortress.\" But then, by the expressions \"from sea\nto sea,\" \"from mountain to mountain,\" which are equivalent to \"from\nevery sea to every sea,\" etc., all barriers in general are completely\nremoved; compare in v. 3 (4) the words: \"He shall be great unto the\nends of the earth.\" (The subject in \u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0 can only be the inhabitants of\nthese countries themselves, not the Jews living there. If the latter\nhad been intended, a more distinct indication of it would have been\nrequired. The Masculine Suffix \u05e2\u05b8\u05d3\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8 \"to thee,\" _i.e._, not to Zion but\nto Israel, is opposed to such a reference. This shows clearly that they\nwho come are different from Israel. In entire harmony with this\nprophecy is Is. xix. 18-25.) But, before such glory can be bestowed\nupon the people of God, the irrevocable judgment must first have done\nits fearful work, ver. 13; compare the fundamental passage Lev. xxvi.\n33, and Is. i. 7. In ver. 14 the announcement of salvation takes a new\nstart. Vers. 18-20 form the sublime close, not only of the last\ndiscourse, but also of the whole book, as is clearly indicated by the\ncoincidence of the words, \"Who is, O God, like unto Thee?\" ver. 18,\nwith the mention of Micah's name in the inscription. The name of the\nprophet, by which he is dedicated to the incomparable God, has been\nconfirmed by the contents of his prophecy. The New Testament parallel\npassage is Rom. xi. 33-36: \"_Who is, O God, like unto Thee; pardoning\niniquity, and remitting transgression to the remnant of His heritage?\nHe retaineth not His anger for ever, because He delighteth in mercy._\"\n\"Who is, O God, like unto Thee?\" so the people once already sang after\nthe redemption from Egypt. Thus it resounds still more loudly in the\nview of the antitypal redemption, by which the fundamental definition\nof the divine nature in Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7, and David's praise of divine\nmercy in Ps. ciii., are fully realized. \"He will return and have\ncompassion upon us (according to the promise in Deut. xxx. 3), will\novercome our iniquities (which, like a cruel tyrant, like Pharaoh of\nold, subjected us to their power, Ps. xix. 14), and cast all their sins\ninto the depth of the sea,\" as once He cast the proud Egyptians, Exod.\nxv. 5-10. \"Thou wilt give truth to Jacob, and mercy to Abraham, as Thou\nhast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.\"\n\n[Pg 524]\n[Blank page]\n\n[Pg 525]\n\n\n\n Works Published by T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh.\n\n PROSPECTUS\n\n OF THE\n\n ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY.\n\nMESSRS CLARK of Edinburgh, Publishers of the Foreign Theological\nLibrary, beg respectfully to invite attention to the Prospectus of a\nCollection of all the works of the Fathers of the Christian Church,\nprior to the Council of Nic\u00e6a, to be Edited by\n\n REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D.,\n Author of 'Discussions on the Gospels,' Etc.;\n\n AND\n\n JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D.,\n Author of 'A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine\n from the Death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council.'\n\n\nTHE writings of the early Christians are allowed on all hands to be of\ngreat importance, and to be invested with a peculiar interest; and\nregrets have often been expressed that it should be so difficult to\nknow their contents. Many of them are mere fragments; and where\ncomplete works exist, the text is often so corrupt, and the style is so\ninvolved, that even a good classical scholar is repelled from their\nperusal. If the student of Latin and Greek meets with obstacles, the\nmerely English reader is absolutely without the means of information.\nThe greater part of the most important writings have never been\ntranslated; and those translations which have been made are, with the\nexception of the few executed in recent times, for the most part loose,\ninaccurate, and difficult to procure. To supply this great want is the\nobject of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. All the Christian writings\nantecedent to the Nicene Council have been put into the hands of\ncompetent translators. These will make it their first and principal aim\nto produce translations as faithful as possible, uncoloured by any\nbias, dogmatic or ecclesiastical. They will also endeavour, in brief\nnotes, to place the English reader in the position of those acquainted\nwith the original languages. They will indicate important variations in\nthe text; they will give different translations of the same passage\nwhere more than one have been proposed; they will note the various\nmeanings attributed to the words in ecclesiastical controversies; and\nwhen the ancient documents appear in widely different forms, the\nvarious forms will be presented. At the same time, they will strive to\ncombine with this strict accuracy and faithfulness as much elegance as\nmay be consistent with the main aim. Short biographical [Pg 526] and\nexplanatory notices will be prefixed to each translation; and in every\ncase where there is variety of opinion, the writer will abstain from\nexpressing his own sentiments, and confine himself simply to an\nimpartial statement of the opinions of the most noteworthy critics on\nthe point.\n\nThe following are the works which are now being translated:--\n\nI. The Apostolical Fathers, including the Epistles of Clemens Romanus,\nthe Epistles of Ignatius in their various forms, the Epistle of\nBarnabas, the Epistle of Polycarp, the Epistle to Diognetus, and the\nPastor of Hermas, with the Martyria of Ignatius and Polycarp.\n\nII. The undoubted and doubtful works of Justin Martyr,--the Apologies,\nthe Dialogue with Trypho, the Oratio ad Gentiles, the Cohortatio, the\nDe Monarchia, and the fragments on the Resurrection, along with the\nMartyrium of one Justin.\n\nIII. The works of Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Hermias,\nand the fragments of the rest of the Apologists.\n\nIV. Irenaeus: All his extant works.\n\nV. Clemens Alexandrinus: All his extant works.\n\nVI. Origen. The Series will include the De Principiis, and the Contra\nCelsum. The rest of his works will be translated if the Series is\nsuccessful.\n\nVII. The fragments of Julius Africanus, and of the other writers given\nin Dr Routh's Reliqui\u00e6 Sacr\u00e6.\n\nVIII. The works generally ascribed to Hippolytus, along with the\nrecently discovered Refutatio Omnium H\u00e6resium.\n\nIX. The works ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory\nThaumaturgus, Methodius, and others of the same period.\n\nX. The Recognitions and the Clementine Homilies, the Letters of Clemens\non Virginity, the Constitutions, the Canons of the Apostles, Decrees of\nCouncils till the period of the Nicene Council, and the Martyria\nwritten within the period, and generally believed to be genuine.\n\nXI. The Apocryphal Gospels, and other Apocryphal Literature of the New\nTestament.\n\nXII. The Octavius of Minucius Felix.\n\nXIII. The entire works of Tertullian.\n\nXIV. All the genuine works of Cyprian.\n\nXV. Arnobius adversus Gentes.\n\nXVI. The works of Lactantius.\n\nXVII. The extant works of Novatian, Victorinus, Commodianus, and other\nChristian Latin writers preceding the Council of Nice.\n\n[Pg 527]\n\nIt is intended to include in the Series every Christian writing and\ndocument produced before the Nicene Council, whether in Greek, Latin,\nSyriac, Arabic, \u00c6thiopic, or in any other language. The list includes a\nnumber of works, some portions of which are generally believed to have\nbeen written after the Council of Nice; but as other portions were, or\nmay have been, written before that time, it has been thought the safer\ncourse to give them fully. Only those works which are now allowed on\nevery hand to have been written after the Nicene Council, will be\nexcluded.\n\n\nIt is believed that the writings comprised in the above Synopsis will\nform about sixteen or eighteen Volumes, in demy octavo, of a size\nsimilar to the Publishers' Foreign Theological Library; and the Series\nwill be published at the same rate to Subscribers, namely--\n\n FOUR VOLUMES for ONE GUINEA.\n\nEach work will have a separate Index; and a very complete Index to the\nwhole Series will be published in a separate Volume, especial care\nbeing taken hi its compilation.\n\nThe Publishers' arrangements are such, that the publication, once\ncommenced, will proceed very rapidly; so that, whilst no Subscriber\nwill be required to take the work more rapidly than four Volumes\nannually, it is highly probable that the whole may be finished at a\nmuch earlier period, for the convenience of those who may desire to\nhave their sets completed. The Volumes will be handsomely bound in\ncloth, with red edges; but Subscribers may have them with uncut edges,\nby intimating their wish with their order.\n\nThey will be greatly obliged by intending Subscribers filling up the\naccompanying Slip, and returning it to them speedily, as this will very\nmuch facilitate their arrangements.\n\n** _When not paid in advance, the retail Bookseller is entitled to\ncharge 24s_\n\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\n .......................................186 .\n\nI request Messrs Clark to insert my name in their list of Subscribers\nto the ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY, and to forward the books as\npublished, through my bookseller,\n\n _Mr_ ........................................................\n\n (_Signed_)...................................................\n\nIf it is preferred to have the works forwarded direct per railway or\nbook post (at cost of postage), It is requested that it be so stated.\nThe Subscription is payable in advance, annually, on or before the\nFIRST Issue for each Year.\n\n[Pg 528]\n\nNow ready, in Four Volumes, demy 8vo, price 32s., handsomely bound in\ncloth,\n\n THE COMPARATIVE GEOGRAPHY\n\n OF\n\n PALESTINE\n\n AND THE\n\n SINAITIC PENINSULA.\n\n By CARL RITTER,\n\n PROFESSOR OF GEOGRAPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN.\n\n Translated and Adapted to the use of Biblical Students, by\n\n WILLIAM L. GAGE.\n\n\n\nCARL RITTER, the late Professor of Geography in the University of\nBerlin, is known by name to many who are comparatively uninformed\nrespecting the extent and value of his labours. In portraying the\nconnection of geography with the physical sciences, Alexander von\nHumboldt had no superior; while in establishing the relation between\ngeography and history, CARL RITTER was as unquestionably pre-eminent. A\nchair was created for him in the Berlin University as early as 1820. He\nlived to occupy it for forty years, and to confer no less honour upon\nthe city where he resided, and the institution in which he taught, than\nupon his own name. And though but slight glimpses of his career have\nbeen caught by the people of Great Britain, yet such references to him\nas that in the Preface to Robinson's _Biblical Researches_, and works\nof a similar character, will convince the readers of this country that\nwhatever comes from his pen must have great and permanent value.\n\nProfessor RITTER'S main work relates to Asia, and includes\ntherefore all of that territory which is known as the Holy Land. To\nthis,--including the Lebanon district, Palestine proper, the country\neast of the Jordan, and the Sinaitic Peninsula,--RITTER devotes a\nspace equal to 6000 pages of the size employed in Messrs Clark's\npublications. To translate a mass so voluminous as this would be\nevidently impracticable; and yet the immense erudition and power of\ngraphic description of Professor RITTER, conjoined with the fact that\nhe brought to the study of the Holy Land, not the unbelief of a\nrationalist, but living faith of a genuine Christian, has convinced the\npublishers that a portion of his great work would be a welcome offering\nto all students of Biblical Geography.\n\nMessrs Clark accordingly now publish a translation executed by REV.\nWILLIAM L. GAGE, a pupil and friend of the lamented RITTER, comprising\nthat portion of the volumes relating to the Holy Land, which, in his\njudgment as editor, shall be the most acceptable addition to our\nbiblical literature. The work is comprised in four octavo volumes. MR\nGAGE has been engaged for several years in the study and interpretation\nof Professor RITTER'S writings, and has enjoyed the active co-operation\nof many of the most eminent living geographers.\n\nThe main object which has been held in view in condensing and in\nselecting from the original, is to prepare the work for the use of\nbiblical students. Everything illustrating the Bible bas been\nconsidered of prime importance, and everything has been retained,\nneedful to maintain the unity of the work. Notes are added, indicative\nof discoveries made since RITTER wrote, and the object has never been\nlost from sight--to make the work worthy of taking the same place in\nEnglish that it has already done in German literature.","title":"Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, Vol. 1","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":221251}