diff options
Diffstat (limited to '30410-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 30410-h/30410-h.htm | 17724 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 30410-h/images/image70a.png | bin | 0 -> 294 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 30410-h/images/image70b.png | bin | 0 -> 279 bytes |
3 files changed, 17724 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/30410-h/30410-h.htm b/30410-h/30410-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1b866d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/30410-h/30410-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,17724 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> +<html> + +<head> +<title>Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions. Vol. I. +</title> +<meta name="Author" content="Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg"> +<meta name="Publisher" content="T. & T. Clark"> +<meta name="Date" content="1868"> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> +<style type="text/css"> +body { + margin-left:10%; + margin-right:10%; + +} + +h1,h2,h3,h4,h5 { + text-align: center; +} + +p.normal { + text-indent:1em; + text-align: justify; +} +p.center { + text-align:center; +} +p.right { + text-align:right; +} +p.continue { + text-indent: 0em; + text-align:justify; +} + + +blockquote { margin-left:10%; + margin-right:10%; + margin-top: 12pt; + margin-bottom: 12pt; + text-align: justify +} + +table.page { + width:80%; + margin-left:10%; + border-top-style:solid; + border-top-width:medium; + border-top-color:black; + border-right-style:solid; + border-right-width:medium; + border-right-color:black; + border-left-style:solid; + border-left-width:medium; + border-left-color:black; + border-bottom-style:solid; + border-bottom-width:medium; + border-bottom-color:black; +} + +table.page2 { + width:80%; + margin-left:10%; + +} + +span.sc { font-variant: small-caps } + +span.space {letter-spacing: 2pt; } + +hr.ftn { text-align:left; width:30%; margin-top:48pt; color:black; } +div.ftn { font-size: 100%;} +sup.ftnRef {font-size:100%; color:black; } +p.ftnText { margin-left: 3em; text-indent: -1em; text-align:justify; } +div.ftnlast { font-size: 100%; margin-bottom:64pt;} + + + +.pagenum { + display: inline; + font-size:80%; + text-align: left; + position: absolute; left: 1em; +} + + + +hr.W10 { + width:10%; + margin-top:1em; + margin-bottom:1em; + color:black; +} +hr.W20 { + width:20%; + margin-top:1em; + margin-bottom:1em; + color:black; +} +hr.W100 { + width:100%; + margin-top:2em; + margin-bottom:2em; + color:black; +} + +span.Greek { + font-family: 'Arial Unicode MS', 'Gentium', 'GentiumAlt', 'Palatino Linotype', 'Times New Roman'; + font-size:100%; + color: red; +} +span.Hebrew { + font-family: 'Arial Unicode MS', 'Gentium', 'GentiumAlt', 'Palatino Linotype', 'Times New Roman'; + font-size:150%; +} +</style> +</head> + +<body> +<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 30410 ***</div> + +<p class="normal">[Transcriber's Note: Images taken from the 1868 edition, found +at Books.Google.com., is the source of the text used for this ebook.</p> +<p class="normal">Unclear or missing punctuation marks were corrected by reference +to the 1854 edition of this work.</p> +<p class="normal">Greek and Hebrew words are transcribed using the Unicode format.]</p> +<br><br><br> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 1]</span></p> +<h1><span class="space">CLARK'S</span></h1> +<br> +<h2>FOREIGN</h2> +<br> +<h1>THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY</h1> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<h3>SECOND SERIES.</h3> +<h3>VOL. 1.</h3> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<h3>Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament.</h3> +<h3>VOL. I.</h3> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<h3>EDINBURGH:</h3> +<h4>T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.</h4> +<h5>LONDON: J. GLADDING. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON & CO.</h5> +<hr class="W10"> +<h5>MDCCCLXVIII.</h5> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 2]</span></p> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<h5>MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,<br> +PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.</h5> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 3]</span></p> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<h2><span class="space">CHRISTOLOGY</span></h2> +<br> +<h4>OF</h4> +<br> +<h1><span class="space">THE OLD TESTAMENT</span>,</h1> +<br> +<h4>AND A</h4> +<br> +<h3>COMMENTARY ON THE MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS</h3> +<br> +<br> +<h4>BY</h4> +<h2>E. W. HENGSTENBERG,</h2> +<h5>DR. AND PROF. OF THEOL. IN BERLIN.</h5> +<br> +<br> +<hr class="W20"> +<h4>SECOND EDITION, GREATLY IMPROVED.</h4> +<hr class="W20"><br> +<br> +<h3>Translated from the German,</h3> +<h5>BY THE</h5> +<h3><span class="space">REV. THEODORE MEYER.</span></h3> +<br> +<br> +<h3>VOLUME I.</h3> +<br> +<br> +<h3>EDINBURGH:</h3> +<h3>T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.</h3> +<h4>LONDON: J. GLADDING. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON & CO.</h4> +<hr class="W10"> +<h4>MDCCCLXVIII.</h4> +<p class="normal"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 4]</span></p> +<p class="normal">[Blank page] +</p> +<p class="normal"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 5]</span></p> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<h2>LIST OF CONTENTS.</h2> +<hr class="W20"> +<table cellpadding="0" class="page2" summary="List of Contents" align="center"> + <colgroup> + <col style="width:1em" ><col style="width:1em" ><col style="90%" > + <col style="width:5%; vertical-align: top; text-align:right" > + </colgroup> + <tr> + <td colspan="3"></td> + <td><span class="sc">Page</span></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="3"><span class="sc"><a name="div1Ref_7" href="#div1_7">Translator's + Preface,</a></span></td> + <td>7</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="3"><span class="sc"><a name="div1Ref_9" href="#div1_9">Author's + Preface,</a></span></td> + <td>9</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="3"><span class="sc"><a name="div1Ref_11" href="#div1_11">The + Messianic Prophecies in the Pentateuch</a></span>,</td> + <td>11</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td colspan="2"><span class="sc"><a name="div2Ref_14" href="#div2_14">The + Protevangelium,</a></span></td> + <td>14</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td colspan="2"><span class="sc"><a name="div2Ref_30" href="#div2_30">The + Blessing of Noah upon Shem and Japheth</a></span>, Gen. ix. 18-27,</td> + <td>30</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td colspan="2"><span class="sc"><a name="div2Ref_46" href="#div2_46">The + Promise to the Patriarchs</a></span>, Gen. xii. 1-3,</td> + <td>46</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td colspan="2"><span class="sc"><a name="div2Ref_57" href="#div2_57">The + Blessing of Jacob upon Judah</a></span>, Gen. xlix. 8-10,</td> + <td>57</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td colspan="2"><a name="div2Ref_98" href="#div2_98"><span class="sc">Balaam's + Prophecy</span>, Num. xxiv. 17-19,</a></td> + <td>98</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td colspan="2"><a name="div2Ref_104" href="#div2_104"><span class="sc"> + Moses' Promise of the Prophet</span>, Deut. xviii. 15-19,</a></td> + <td>104</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="3"><span class="sc"><a name="div1Ref_115" href="#div1_115"> + The Angel of the Lord in the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua,</a></span></td> + <td>115</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td></td> + <td><a name="div2Ref_117" href="#div2_117">Gen. xvi. 13,</a></td> + <td>117</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td></td> + <td><a name="div2Ref_119" href="#div2_119">Gen. xviii. and xix.,</a></td> + <td>119</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td></td> + <td><a name="div2Ref_122" href="#div2_122">Gen. xxxi. 11 seqq.,</a></td> + <td>122</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td></td> + <td><a name="div2Ref_123" href="#div2_123">Gen. xxxii. 24,</a></td> + <td>123</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td></td> + <td><a name="div2Ref_125" href="#div2_125">Gen. xlviii. 15, 16,</a></td> + <td>125</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td></td> + <td><a name="div2Ref_126" href="#div2_126">Exod. xxiii. 20, 21,</a></td> + <td>126</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td></td> + <td><a name="div2Ref_127" href="#div2_127">Exod. xxxii. and xxxiii.,</a></td> + <td>127</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td></td> + <td><a name="div2Ref_128" href="#div2_128">Joshua v. and vi.,</a></td> + <td>128</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="3"><span class="sc"><a name="div1Ref_130" href="#div1_130"> + The Promise in 2 Sam. vii.,</a></span></td> + <td>130</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="3"><span class="sc"><a name="div1Ref_149" href="#div1_149"> + Messianic Psalms,</a></span></td> + <td>149</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="3"><span class="sc"><a name="div1Ref_152" href="#div1_152"> + 2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7,</a></span></td> + <td>152</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="3"><span class="sc"><a name="div1Ref_159" href="#div1_159"> + The Song of Solomon,</a></span></td> + <td>159</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="3"><span class="sc"><a name="div1Ref_162" href="#div1_162"> + Messianic Predictions in the Prophets,</a></span></td> + <td>162</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td colspan="2"><span class="sc"><a name="div2Ref_165" href="#div2_165"> + The Prophet Hosea.</a></span></td> + <td></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_165" href="#div3_165">General Preliminary Remarks,</a></td> + <td>165</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_184" href="#div3_184">The Section, Chap. i.-iii.,</a></td> + <td>184</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_197" href="#div3_197">Chap. i.-ii. 3,</a></td> + <td>197</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_230" href="#div3_230">Chap. ii. 4-25,</a></td> + <td>230</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_273" href="#div3_273">Chap. iii.,</a></td> + <td>273</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td colspan="2"><span class="sc"><a name="div2Ref_291" href="#div2_291"> + The Prophet Joel.</a></span></td> + <td></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_291" href="#div3_291">General Preliminary Remarks,</a></td> + <td>291</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_302" href="#div3_302">Chap. i.-ii. 17,</a></td> + <td>302</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_325" href="#div3_325">On chap. ii. 23,</a></td> + <td>325</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_331" href="#div3_331">Chap. iii.,</a></td> + <td>331</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td colspan="2"><span class="sc"><a name="div2Ref_352" href="#div2_352"> + The Prophet Amos.</a></span></td> + <td></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_352" href="#div3_352">General Preliminary Remarks,</a></td> + <td>352</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_399" href="#div3_399">Chap. ix.,</a></td> + <td>363</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td colspan="2"><span class="sc"><a name="div2Ref_399" href="#div2_399"> + The Prophecy of Obadiah,</a></span></td> + <td>399</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td colspan="2"><span class="sc"><a name="div2Ref_407" href="#div2_407"> + The Prophet Jonah,</a></span></td> + <td>407</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td><span class="pagenum">[Pg 6]</span></td> + <td colspan="2"><span class="sc"><a name="div2Ref_413" href="#div2_413"> + The Prophet Micah.</a></span></td> + <td></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_413" href="#div3_413">General Preliminary Remarks,</a></td> + <td>413</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_424" href="#div3_424">Chap. i. and ii.,</a></td> + <td>424</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_440" href="#div3_440">Chap. iii. and iv.,</a></td> + <td>440</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_479" href="#div3_479">Chap. v. 1,</a></td> + <td>479</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td></td> + <td colspan="2"><span class="sc"><a name="div2Ref_490" href="#div2_490"> + History of the Interpretation.</a></span></td> + <td></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_490" href="#div3_490">1. Among the Jews,</a></td> + <td>490</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_499" href="#div3_499">2. Among the Christians,</a></td> + <td>499</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_504" href="#div3_504">The Quotation in Matt. ii. 6,</a></td> + <td>504</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_513" href="#div3_513">Chap. v. 2-14,</a></td> + <td>513</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td colspan="2"></td> + <td><a name="div3Ref_521" href="#div3_521">Chap. vi. and vii.,</a></td> + <td>521</td> + </tr> +</table> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 7]</span></p> +<h2><a name="div1_7" href="#div1Ref_7">TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.</a></h2> +<hr class="W20"> +<p class="normal">The Translator avails himself of his privilege of offering a few +prefatory words, chiefly in order to express the deep obligation under which he +lies to the Rev. <span class="sc">John Laing</span>, Librarian in the New College, +Edinburgh, for the valuable assistance which he afforded to him in the translation +of this work. Any observation on the work itself or its Author would be superfluous, +if not presumptuous, considering the high position which Dr <span class="sc">Hengstenberg</span> +holds as a Biblical Scholar. High, however, as this position is, the Translator +feels confident that it will be raised by the present work, the Author's <i>latest</i> +and <i>first</i>; and not only revering Dr <span class="sc">Hengstenberg</span> +as a beloved Teacher, but being under many obligations to him for proofs of personal +kindness and friendship, the Translator sincerely rejoices in this prospect.</p> +<p class="normal">As regards the translation itself, it was the Translator's aim +to bring out fully the Author's meaning. This object, which ought to be the first +in every translation, has been kept steadily in view, and preferred to all others. +In rendering Dr <span class="sc">Hengstenberg's</span> translation of Scripture-passages, +the expressions in our Authorized Version have, as far as possible, been retained. +Wherever the division of the text in the latter differed from that of the original +text, it has been added in a parenthesis; an exception in this respect having been +made in quotations from the Psalms only, in which this difference is almost constant, +the inscriptions not being counted in our English Version, while they are in the +Hebrew Text.</p> +<p class="normal"><span class="sc">Edinburgh</span>, January 1854.</p> +<p class="normal"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 8]</span></p> +<p class="normal">[Blank page] +</p> +<p class="normal"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 9]</span></p> +<h2><a name="div1_9" href="#div1Ref_9">THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE.</a></h2> +<hr class="W20"> +<p class="normal">The first edition of the Christology, although the impression +was unusually large, had been for years out of print. It was impossible that the +work could appear a second time in its original form. The first volume of +it—written twenty-five years ago—was a juvenile performance, +to which the Author himself had become rather a stranger; and the succeeding volumes +required references to, and comparisons with, a large number of publications which +subsequently appeared. But for the remodelling and revising which these circumstances +rendered necessary, the Author could not find leisure, because new tasks were ever +and anon presenting themselves to him; and these he felt himself, as it were, involuntarily +impelled to undertake. But now he is led to believe that he could no longer delay. +A powerful inclination urges him to comment on the Gospel of St John; but he thinks +that the right to gratify this inclination must first be purchased by him by answering +a call which proceeds from the more immediate sphere of his vocation, and which +he is the less at liberty to disregard, as manifold facts give indication that the +Christology has not yet completed its course. The Author dislikes to return to regions +which have been already visited by him. He prefers the opening up to himself of +paths which are new. It cost him therefore, at first, no little struggle to devote +himself for years to the work of mere revision and emendation; but very soon, even +here, he learned the truth of the proverb: "If there be obedience in the heart, +love will soon enter."</p> +<p class="normal">The arrangement in the present edition differs from that which +was adopted in the former. It bears a closer resemblance to that which has been +followed in the Commentaries on the Psalms, Revelation, and the Song of Solomon. +The work opens with a discussion and commentary on the particular Messianic prophecies, +in their historical order and connection. The general investigations with which, +in the first edition, the work commenced, are, in the present edition, to appear +in the form <span class="pagenum">[Pg 10]</span>of comprehensive treatises, at the +close. The latter have thus obtained a more solid foundation; while the objections +which might be raised against this arrangement will have force only until the completion +of the whole, which, if it please the Lord, will not be very long delayed. The reader +will then, of course, be at liberty, before he enters upon the particular portions, +to go over, cursorily in the meantime, the closing treatises,—the proper study of +which will be appropriate, however, only after he has made himself acquainted with +the particular portions of the main body of the work.</p> +<p class="normal">The matter of the two sections of the first part has been entirely +rewritten. That of the two last parts appears more as a revisal only,—so executed, +however, that not a single line has been reprinted without a renewed and careful +examination.</p> +<p class="normal">The Author shall take care that the new edition shall not exceed +the former one in size. The space intended to be occupied by the enlarged discussions, +and by the new investigations, will be gained by omissions. These, however, will +be limited to such matters as now clearly appear to be superfluous; <i>so that the +old will not retain any value when compared with the new edition.</i> The Author, +had he pursued his usual method of representation, would have curtailed many points, +particularly the history of the interpretation. But the mode of treating the subject +which he had previously adopted, is not without its advantages, and has a certain +right to be retained. The former character of the work, in so far as the avoidance +of everything properly ascetic is concerned, has been, in the present edition, also +retained.</p> +<p class="normal">Scientific Theology is at present threatened by serious dangers +in our Church. Works of an immediately practical interest more and more exclusively +occupy the noblest minds, since the problems which present themselves in this field +are indeed unfathomable. But the Lord of the Church will take care that an excellent +gift, which He has bestowed upon German Christendom especially, shall not, for any +length of time, continue to be neglected. If such were to be the case, a more general +decay would be gradually brought on; and even those interests would be injured to +which at present, with a zeal, noble indeed, but little thoughtful, solid theological +learning is sacrificed.</p> +<p class="normal">"Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but to Thy name give glory."</p> +<p class="normal"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 11]</span></p> +<h3>THE</h3> +<h1><a name="div1_11" href="#div1Ref_11">MESSIANIC PROPHECIES IN THE PENTATEUCH.</a></h1> +<hr class="W20"> +<p class="continue">In the Messianic prophecies contained in Genesis we cannot fail +to perceive a remarkable progress in clearness and definiteness.</p> +<p class="normal">The first Messianic prediction, which was uttered immediately +after the fall of Adam, is also the most indefinite. Opposed to the awful threatening +there stands the consolatory promise, that the dominion of sin, and of the evil +arising from sin, shall not last for ever, but that the seed of the woman shall, +at some future time, overthrow their dreaded conqueror. With the exception of the +victory itself, everything is here left undetermined. We are told neither the mode +in which it is to be achieved, nor whether it shall be accomplished by some peculiarly +gifted race, or family of the progeny of the woman, or by some single individual +from among her descendants. There is nothing more than a very slight hint that the +latter will be the case.</p> +<p class="normal">After the destruction of a whole sinful world, when only Noah +with his three sons had been left, the <i>general</i> promise is, to a certain extent, +defined. Deliverance is to come from the descendants of Shem; Japhet shall become +a partaker of this deliverance; Ham is passed over in silence.</p> +<p class="normal">The prophecy becomes still more definite when the Lord begins +to prepare the way for the appearance of this deliverance, by separating from the +corrupt mass a single individual—Abraham—in order to make him the depositary of +His revelations. The Lord, moreover, according to the good pleasure of His will, +further specifies which of the descendants of Abraham, to the exclusion of all the +rest, is to inherit this dignity, with all its accompanying blessings. From among +the posterity of Shem, the Lord sets apart first the family of Abraham, then that +of <span class="pagenum">[12]</span> Isaac, and lastly that of Jacob, as the family +from which salvation is to come. Yet even these predictions, distinct though they +be when compared with those previously uttered, are still very indefinite when compared +with those subsequently given, and when seen in the light of the actual fulfilment. +Even in these, the blessing only is foretold, but not its author. It still remained +a matter of uncertainty whether salvation should be extended to all the other nations +of the earth through a single individual, or through an entire people descended +from the Patriarchs. The former is obscurely indicated; but the mode in which the +blessing was to be imparted was left in darkness.</p> +<p class="normal">This obscurity is partially removed by the last Messianic prophecy +contained in Gen. xlix. 10. After what had previously taken place, we might well +expect that the question as to which of Jacob's twelve sons should have the privilege +of becoming the source of deliverance to the whole earth, would not be left undetermined; +nor could we imagine that Jacob, when, just before his death, and with the spirit +of a prophet, he transferred to his sons the promises which had been given to his +ancestors and himself, should have passed over in silence the most important part +of them. On the contrary, by being transferred to Judah, the promise of the Messiah +acquires not only the expected limitation, but an unexpected increase of clearness +and precision. Here, for the first time, the <i>person</i> of the Messiah is brought +before us; here also the <i>nature</i> of His kingdom is more distinctly pointed +out by His being represented as the peaceful one, and the peacemaker who will unite, +under His mild sceptre, all the nations of the whole earth. Judah is, in this passage, +placed in the centre of the world's history; he shall obtain dominion, and not lose +it until it has been realized to its fullest extent by means of the <i>Shiloh</i> +descending from him, to whom all the nations of the earth shall render a willing +obedience.</p> +<p class="normal">The subject-matter of the last four books of the Pentateuch would +naturally prevent us from expecting that the Messianic prophecies should occupy +so prominent a place in them as they do in Genesis. The object contemplated in these +books is rather to prepare effectually the way for the Messiah, by laying the theocratic +institutions on a firm foundation, and by establishing the law which is intended +to produce the knowledge of sin, and <span class="pagenum">[Pg 13]</span>to settle +discipline, and by means of which the image of God is to be impressed on the whole +national life. If the hope of the Messiah was to be realized in a proper manner, +and to produce its legitimate effect, it was necessary that the people should first +be accustomed to this new order of life; that, for the present, their regards should +not be too much drawn away from this their proximate and immediate vocation. Yet, +even in the last four books there are not wanting allusions to Him who, as the end +of the law, was, from the very beginning, to be set before the eyes of the people.</p> +<p class="normal">In Num. xxiv. 17-19, Balaam beholds an Israelitish kingdom raised +absolutely above the kingdoms of the world, extending over the whole earth, and +all-powerful; and he sees it in the form of an <i>ideal</i> king, with reference +to Jacob's prophecy contained in Gen. xlix. 10, according to which the kingdom rising +in Judah shall find its full and final realization in the person of one king—the +Messiah.</p> +<p class="normal">We have here the future King of the Jews saluted from the midst +of the heathen world, corresponding to the salutation of the manifested one by the +wise men from the East: compare Matt. ii. 1, 2.</p> +<p class="normal">From the whole position of Moses in the economy of the revelations +of God, it is, <i>a priori</i>, scarcely conceivable that he should have contented +himself with communicating a prophecy of the Messiah uttered by a non-Israelite. +We expect that, as a prefiguration of the testimony which, in the presence of the +chief among the apostles, he bore to the Messiah after He had appeared (compare +Matt. xvii. 3), he should, on his own behalf, testify his faith in Him, and direct +the people to Him. This testimony we have in Deut. xviii. 15-19. It is natural that +Moses' attestation should have reference to Christ in so far as He is his antitype. +He bears witness to Christ as the true Prophet, as the Mediator of the divine revelation—thus +enlarging the slender indications of Christ's prophetical office given in Gen. xlix. +10. A new and important feature of Messianic prophecy is here, for the first time, +brought forward; and because of this, the character of the prophecy is that of a +germ. Behind the person of the future Prophet, which is as yet <i>ideal</i>, the +<i>real</i> person of Him who is the Prophet in an absolute sense, is, in the meantime, +concealed. It is reserved for the future development <span class="pagenum">[Pg 14]</span>of +the prophetic prediction to separate that which is here beheld as still blended +in a single picture.</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Finally</i>, the doctrine of the Divine Mediator of the unseen +God, of the Angel of the Lord, or of the Logos, which forms the theological foundation +for the Christology, is already found pervading the Books of Moses.</p> +<p class="normal">After this survey, we now proceed to an exposition of the particular +passages.</p> +<hr class="W20"> +<h2><a name="div2_14" href="#div2Ref_14">THE PROTEVANGELIUM.</a></h2> +<p class="normal">As the mission of Christ was rendered necessary by the fall of +man, so the first dark intimation of Him was given immediately after the fall. It +is found in the sentence of punishment which was passed upon the tempter. Gen. iii. +14, 15. A correct understanding of it, however, can be obtained only after we have +ascertained who the tempter was.</p> +<p class="normal">It is, in the first place, unquestionable that a real serpent +was engaged in the temptation; so that the opinion of those who maintain that the +serpent is only a symbolical signification of the evil spirit, cannot be admitted.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_14a" href="#ftn_14a">[1]</a></sup> +There must be unity and uniformity in the interpretation of a connected passage. +But the allegorical interpretation of the <i>whole</i> is rendered impossible by +the following considerations:—The passage stands in a book of a strictly historical +character; it is connected with what follows, where the history of the same pair +who, in this section appear as actors, is carried forward; the condition of mankind +announced to them in this passage as a punishment, actually exists; there is the +absence of every indication from which it might be inferred that the author intended +to write an allegory, and not a history; there exist various passages of the New +Testament (<i>e.g.</i>, 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14; Rom. v. 12), in which the +context of the passage before us is referred to as a real historical fact;—and there +are the embarrassment, ambiguity, and arbitrariness shown by the allegorical interpreters +whenever they attempt to exhibit the truth intended to be conveyed; whereas perspicuity +is a characteristic essential to an allegory.—The subtlety of the +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 15]</span> serpent, pointed out in chap. iii. 1, is a +natural attribute of that animal; and the comparison, in this respect, of the serpent +with the other beasts, clearly indicates that a real serpent is spoken of. To such +an one the denunciation of the punishment must necessarily, in the first instance, +be referred. The last two reasons also exclude the opinion that Satan assumed merely +the semblance of a serpent.</p> +<p class="normal">The serpent itself cannot, however, have acted independently; +it can only have served as an instrument to the evil spirit. The position which +the serpent would occupy, in the event of our considering it as the self-acting, +independent seducer, would be in direct contradiction to the position assigned to +the animal creation throughout Holy Scripture—especially in the history of the creation—and +would break down the limits which, according to it, separate man and beast. By such +an assumption we should be transferred from the Israelitish territory—which is distinguished +by the most sharply defined limitations of the respective spheres of God, angels, +men, and beasts—to the heathenish, were these are all mixed up together, and where +all the distinctions disappear in the confusion. Such a fact would be altogether +isolated and without a parallel in Holy Scripture. Nor is it legitimate to adduce +the argument, that the conditions and circumstances of the paradisaic period were +different from those of subsequent times. It is indeed true, according to the statements +contained in the Mosaic account itself, that the animal world of that time was different +from that of the present; but whatever, and how great soever, this difference may +have been, it had no reference to the fundamental relation of the beasts; and hence +we cannot, from it, explain the high intellectual powers with which the serpent +appears endowed, and by the abuse of which it succeeded in seducing men. Man, as +the only being on earth created in the likeness and image of God, is, in Gen. i., +strictly distinguished from all other living beings, and invested with the dominion +over them. Into man alone did God breathe the breath of life (ii. 7); and, according +to ii. 19, 20, man recognises the great gulf which is fixed betwixt him and the +world of beasts. This gulf would be entirely filled up, the serpent would altogether +step beyond the sphere appointed by the Creator to the world of beasts, if there +were no <i>background</i> in Gen. iii. 1-5. <i>Further</i>, The words +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 16]</span> of the serpent are an effect of wickedness: +they raise in man doubts as to the love of God, in order thereby to seduce him to +apostasy, and bring about the execution upon him of the fearful threatening, "On +the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The serpent does not stand +in the truth; it speaks lies; it represents to man as the highest good, that which +in truth is the highest evil. Such language cannot proceed spontaneously from a +being, the creation of which falls within the work of the six days during which +the whole animal creation was made. For everything created within this space of +time was <i>good</i>, according to the remark constantly repeated in the history +of creation. To this we must add the nature of the curse itself, in which a higher +reference to an invisible author of the temptation shines clearly through the lower +reference to the visible one; and, further, the remark in iii. 1, "Now the serpent +was more subtle," etc., evidently points to something beyond the natural subtlety +of the serpent, as the result of which the subsequent words cannot be understood, +but behind which we may discover the intimation: let him who reads, understand.</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">The view, that the serpent was the sole independent +agent in this transaction, is thus refuted by internal reasons. It is set aside +by the testimony of tradition also. It was an opinion universally prevalent among +the Jews, that Satan himself had been active in the temptation of the first man. +It is found in <i>Philo</i>; and in the Book of Wisdom, ii. 24, it is said, "By +the envy of <i>Satan</i>, death came into the world." In the later Jewish writings, +<i>Sammael</i>, the head of the evil spirits, is called +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הנחש הקדמוני</span> "the old serpent," or simply +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נחש</span> "serpent," because in the form of a serpent +he tempted Eve. (See the passage in <i>Eisenmenger's entdecktes Judenthum</i> i. +S. 822.) In the sacred books of the Persians also, the agency of Satan in the fall +of our first parents is taught. According to the <i>Zendavesta</i> (ed. by <i>Kleuker</i>, +Th. 3, S. 84, 85), the first men, Meshia and Meshianeh, were created by God in a +state of purity and goodness, and destined for happiness, on condition of humility +of heart, obedience to the requirements of the law, and purity in thoughts, words, +and actions. But they were deceived by Ahriman, "this mischievous one who from the +beginning sought only to deceive, were induced to rebel against God, and forfeited +their happiness by the eating of fruits." According to the same book (Th. iii. +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 17]</span> S. 62), Ahriman in the form of a serpent springs +down from heaven to earth; and another evil spirit is called (Th. ii. S. 217) the +serpent—<i>Dew.</i> (Compare <i>Rhode</i>, <i>die heilige Sage des Zendvolkes</i>, +S. 392.) These facts prove that at the time when the Persian religion received Jewish +elements (compare <i>Stuhr</i>, <i>die Religionssysteme des Orientes</i>, S. 373), +and hence, soon after the captivity, the doctrine of Satan's agency in the temptation +of our first parents was prevalent among the Jews.</p> +<p class="normal">But of decisive weight upon this point is the evidence furnished +by the New Testament. We must here above all consider the important testimony supplied +by the fact of the history of the first and second Adam being parallel (Rom. v. +12 sqq.; 1 Cor. xv. 45 sqq.),—a testimony, the weight and importance of which have, +in modern times, been again pointed out by <i>Hahn</i> in his <i>Dogmatik</i>. The +necessity of Christ's temptation by the prince of this world, in order that He, +by His firm resistance, might deprive him of his dominion over mankind, indicates +that Adam was assailed by the same tempter, and, by being overcome, laid the foundation +of that dominion.</p> +<p class="normal">Among the express verbal testimonies of the New Testament, we +must first consider the declarations of the Lord Himself; and among these the passage +John viii. 44 requires, above all, to be examined. In that passage the Lord says: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ, καὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας +τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν θέλετε ποιεῖν. Ἑκεῖνος ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἐν τῆ ἀληθείᾳ +οὐχ ἕστηκεν· ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ. Ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ· +ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ.</span> There is, indeed, an element of truth +in the opinion, that Satan is in this passage called the murderer of men from the +beginning, with reference to the murder by Cain—an opinion lately brought forward +again by <i>Nitzsch</i>, <i>Lücke</i>, and others. This is evident from a comparison +of 1 John iii. 12, 15, and of Rev. xii. 3. (See my commentary on this passage.) +Moreover, the words in ver. 40, "Ye seek to kill Me," have a more direct parallelism +in Cain's murder of his brother, than in the death which Satan brought upon our +first parents; although it is altogether wrong to maintain, as <i>Lücke</i> does, +that Satan at that time committed only a <i>spiritual</i> murder, which could not +have come under notice. Bodily death also came upon mankind through the +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 18]</span> temptation. (Compare Gen. ii. 17, iii. 19; +Wisd. ii. 24; Rom. v. 12.) But when the reference to Cain's slaying his brother +is brought forward as the sole, or even as the principal one, we must absolutely +reject it. Cain's murder of his brother comes into consideration only as an effect +of the evil principle which was introduced into human nature by the first temptation; +as, indeed, it appears in the book of Genesis itself as the fruit of the poisonous +tree, the planting of which is detailed in chap. iii. The same murderous spirit +which impelled Satan to bring man under the dominion of death by the lie, "Ye shall +not surely die," was busy in Cain also, and seduced him to slay his pious brother. +The following reasons forbid an exclusive reference to the deed of Cain:—1. The +murdering of man by Satan is brought into the closest connection with his <i>lie</i>. +In connection with Cain's deed, however, there was not even the appearance of falsehood; +while, in the case before us, lies, false and deceitful promises of high blessings +to be attained, and the raising of suspicions against God, were the very means by +which he seduced man, and brought him under the power of sin. The words of Jesus, +when they are understood according to their simple meaning, carry us back to an +event in the primitive times, in which murder and the spirit of falsehood went hand +in hand. 2. The co-operation of Satan in Cain's deed is not expressly mentioned +in Genesis. That there was any such we can with certainty infer, only if this event +be viewed in close connection with what Satan did against our first parents,—if, +behind the serpent, Satan be concealed. Whensoever Jesus has to deal with Jews, +He does not teach any mysterious doctrines, but makes an open appeal to the events +narrated in Scripture. 3. The words, "Ye are of your father the devil," point to +the seed of the serpent spoken of in Gen. iii. 15. 4. The words, "From the beginning," +direct to an event which happened at the first beginnings of mankind, and in which +our first parents took a part. Whatever this may be, the event in question must +be the first in which the devil manifested himself as the murderer of man. Now, +as by the Jews of that time the temptation of the first man, in consequence of which +death entered the world, was attributed to sin—and this appears not only from what +has been already said, but also from a passage in the <i>Sohar Chadash</i>, referred +to by <i>Tholuck</i>, in which the wicked are <span class="pagenum">[Pg 19]</span> +called "The children of the old serpent which has slain Adam and all who are descended +from him"—it is evident that, by "the murderer of men from the beginning," Jesus +can mean only the first tempter of men. That the words, "from the beginning," refer +to the fall of the first man, is also clearly shown by the parallel passages 1 John +iii. 8, and Rev. xii. 9, xx. 2. 5. Jesus says: Satan stands not in the truth, does +not move in its element, because there is no truth in him. This points to a well-known +event, in which Satan displayed his lying nature; and such is found only in the +account of man's fall. 6. Jesus calls Satan not only a liar, but, by way of emphasis, +He designates him as the father of lies. But Satan can be designated thus, only +with reference to a lie of his which is charged against him by Scripture, and which +preceded all lies on earth. Now that is the lie of which we have an account in Gen. +iii. 4, 5. The words, "and the father of it," correspond with the words, "from the +beginning."</p> +<p class="normal">Another declaration of our Lord is found in St Matthew xiii. 38: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">τὰ δὲ ζιζάνιά εἰσιν οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ</span> (<i>i.e.</i>, +<i>mali</i>, <i>masculinum</i>, according to <i>Bengel</i>), compared with ver. +39: <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὁ δὲ ἐχθρὸς ὁ σπείρας αὐτά ἐστιν ὁ διάβολος.</span> +The children of the wicked one, or of the devil, who are spoken of in this passage, +are the seed of the serpent who is mentioned in Gen. iii. 15, and to whom allusion +is made in the words <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὁ σπείρας αὐτα</span> also. Less +incontrovertible is the passage in St Matthew xxiii. 33, where the Lord addressed +the Pharisees as <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὄφεις, γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν</span>. +(Compare Matt. xii. 34, iii. 7.) <i>Olshausen</i>, in his commentary on Matt. iii. +7, gives it as his opinion that the serpent designates the <i>diabolic nature</i>. +But, according to Matt. xii. 34, the point of comparison is only the wickedness +(<span lang="el" class="Greek">πονηροὶ ὄντες</span>), and it is quite sufficient +to refer it to Ps. cxl. 4, where David says of the future enemies of his dynasty +and family foreseen by him, "They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders' +poison is under their lips" (compare also Ps. lviii. 5; Deut. xxxii. 33; Isa. lix. +5),—a passage to which special allusion is made in the words, +<span lang="el" class="Greek">πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ λαλεῖν</span>, Matt. xii. 34, and +in the connection of serpents with vipers, which would be strange when referred +to the history of the fall of the first man.</p> +<p class="normal">Let us now turn from the Lord to His disciples. Just as is done +in the account of the transaction itself, Paul, in 2 Cor. <span class="pagenum"> +[Pg 20]</span> xi. 3 (<span lang="el" class="Greek">ὡς ὁ ὄφις Εὔαν ἐξηπάτησεν ἐν +τῇ πανουργίᾳ αὐτοῦ</span>), places the invisible cause of the temptation in the +background, and speaks of the visible one only. But that behind the serpent he beholds +Satan, appears immediately from ver. 14 and 15: <span lang="el" class="Greek">Καὶ +οὐ θαυμαστόν· αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Σατανᾶς μετασχηματίζεται εἰς ἄγγελον φωτός. Οὐ μέγα οὖν +εἰ καὶ οἱ διάκονοι αὐτοῦ μετασχηματίζονται ὡς διάκονοι δικαιοσύνης</span>, where +the <span lang="el" class="Greek">μετασχηματίζεται</span> is explained by <i>Bengel</i>: +"<i>Transformat se: Præsens, i.e., solet se transformare. Fecit id jam in Paradiso.</i>" +The Apostle alludes to an event narrated in Scripture, where Satan shows himself +in this character. But such an occurrence is not found anywhere else than in Gen. +iii. 4, 5, the only passage where Satan represents himself as the friend and saviour +of men. We have here the explanation of the <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐξηπάτησεν</span> +in ver. 3.—In Rom. xvi. 20, the words, <span lang="el" class="Greek">Ὁ δὲ Θεὸς τῆς +εἰρήνης συντρίψει τὸν Σατανᾶν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας ὑμῶν</span>, contain an allusion to +Gen. iii. 15, too plain to be mistaken. The Apostle recognises, in the promise of +the victory over the serpent given there, a pledge of the victory over Satan. The +words of Paul to Elymas in Acts xiii. 10, "O thou child of the devil," likewise +contain a distinct reference to that which, in the history of man's fall, is written +concerning the serpent. In the charge of subtlety, mischief, and enmity to all righteousness +which he brings against him, there is an evident allusion to Genesis.</p> +<p class="normal">In 1 John iii. 8, <span lang="el" class="Greek">Ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, +ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν· ὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει</span>, allusion is made +to a most heinous sin committed by Satan at the first beginnings of the human race. +But of such a sin there is no account, unless Satan be concealed behind the serpent.—In +Rev. xii. 9 (comp. xx. 2), Satan is called the great dragon, and the <i>old serpent</i>; +the last of which designations refers to the passage now under consideration.</p> +<p class="normal">The agency of Satan in the fall of man has been controverted, +on the plea that, had such been in operation, it ought to have been mentioned. But +the absence of any such mention may be explained on the ground that it is not the +intention of the holy writers to give any information respecting the existence of +the devil, but rather to give an account of his <i>real</i> manifestation, to which, +afterwards, the doctrine connected itself. The judgment of the reader should not, +as it were, be <span class="pagenum">[Pg 21]</span> anticipated. The simple fact +is communicated to him, in order that, from it, he may form his own opinion.</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Further</i>,—It has been asserted that, in the entire Old Testament, +and until the time of the Babylonian captivity, no trace of an evil spirit is to +be found, and that, hence, it cannot be conceived that his existence is here presupposed. +But this assertion may now be regarded as obsolete and without foundation. Closely +connected with the affirmation, to which allusion has just been made, is the opinion +which assigns the Book of Job to the time of the captivity, an opinion which is +now almost universally abandoned. This book must necessarily have been written before +the time of the captivity, because Jeremiah refers to it, both in his Prophecies +(<i>e.g.</i>, Jer. xx. 15 sq., which passage evidently rests on Job iii.) and in +his Lamentations. (Compare, for a fuller discussion of this subject, <i>Küper's</i> +"<i>Jeremias libror. Sacrorum interpres atque Vindex</i>") The reference in Amos +iv. 3 to Job ix. 8, and several allusions occurring in the Prophecies of Isaiah +(<i>e.g.</i>, chap. xl. 2 and lxi. 7, which refer to the issue of Job's history, +which is here viewed as a prophecy of the future fate of the Church; the peculiar +use of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צבא</span> in xl. 2, which alludes to Job +vii. 1; chap. li. 9, which rests on Job xxvi. 13), lead us still farther back. The +assertion of those also who feel themselves compelled to acknowledge the pre-exilic +origin of the book, but who maintain, at the same time, that the Satan of this book +is not the Satan of the later books of the Old Testament, but rather a good angel +who only holds an odious office, is more and more admitted to be futile; so that +we must indeed wonder how even <i>Beck</i> (<i>Lehrwissenschaft</i> i. S. 249) could +be carried away by it, and could make the attempt to support this pretended fact +by the supposition, that the apostasy of part of the angels from God, and their +kingdom of darkness, are ever advancing and progressing. The principal evil spirit +is, in Zech. iii. 1, introduced as the adversary of the holy ones of God; and this +very name is sufficient to contradict such a supposition, for the name is descriptive +of the wickedness of the character. He who, under all circumstances, is an "adversary," +must certainly carry the principle of hatred in his heart. He moves about on the +earth for the purpose of finding materials for his accusations, and grounds on which +he may raise suspicions. It is a characteristic <span class="pagenum">[Pg 22]</span> +feature, that he whose darkness does not comprehend the light, knows of no other +piety but that which has its origin in the hope of reward. It is quite evident that +it is the desire of his heart to destroy Job by sufferings. The only circumstance +which seems to give any countenance to the supposition is, that he appears in the +midst of the angels, before the throne of God. But this circumstance is deprived +of all its significancy, if the fact be kept in view—which, indeed, is most evident—that +the book is, from beginning to end, of a purely poetical character. The form of +it is easily accounted for by the intention to impress this most important thought: +that Satan stands in absolute dependence upon God; that, with all his hatred to +the children of God, he can do nothing against them, but must, on the contrary, +rather subserve the accomplishment of the thoughts of God's love regarding them.—Isaiah +likewise points to evil spirits in chap. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14. (Compare my Comment. +on Rev. xviii. 2.)—But even in some passages of the Pentateuch itself, the doctrine +regarding Satan is brought before us. It is true that it has been erroneously supposed +to be contained in Deut. xxxii. 17 (compare on this opinion, my Comment. on Ps. +cvi. 37); but only bigotry and prejudice can refuse to admit that, under the <i> +Asael</i>, to whom, according to Lev. xvi., a goat was sent into the wilderness, +Satan is to be understood. (The arguments in support of this view will be found +in the author's "<i>Egypt and the Books of Moses</i>," p. 168 ff.)<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_22a" href="#ftn_22a">[2]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal">But we must advert to two additional considerations. <i>First</i>,—To +every one who is in the least familiar with the territory <span class="pagenum"> +[Pg 23]</span> of divine revelation, and who has any conception of the relation +in which the Books of Moses stand to the whole succeeding revelation, it will, +<i>a priori</i>, be inconceivable, that a doctrine which afterwards occupies so +prominent a position in the revealed books should not have already existed, in the +germ at least, in the Books of Moses. <i>Secondly</i>,—We should altogether lose +the origin and foundation of the doctrine concerning Satan, if he be removed from, +or explained away in, the history of the fall. That the first indication of this +doctrine cannot by any means be found in the Book of Job, has already been pointed +out by <i>Hofmann</i>, who remarks in the <i>Schriftbeweis</i> i. S. 378, that Satan +appears in this book as a well-known being, as much so as are the sons of God. Nor +is Lev. xvi. an appropriate place for introducing, for the first time, this doctrine +into the knowledge of the people. The doctrinal essence of the symbolical action +there prescribed is this:—that Satan, the enemy of the Congregation of God, has +no power over those who are reconciled to God; that, with their sins forgiven by +God, they may joyfully appear before, and mock and triumph over, him. The whole +ritual must have had in it something altogether strange for the Congregation of +the Lord, if they had not already known of Satan from some other source. The questions: +Who is Asael? What have we to do with him? must have forced themselves upon every +one's mind. It is not the custom of Scripture to introduce its doctrines so abruptly, +to prescribe any duty which is destitute of the solid foundation of previous instruction.</p> +<p class="normal">If thus we may consider it as proved, (1) that the serpent was +an agent in the temptation, and (2) that it served only as an instrument to Satan, +the real tempter,—then we have also thereby proved that the curse denounced against +the tempter must have a double sense. It must, in the first place, refer to the +instrument; but, in its chief import, it must bear upon the real tempter, for it +was properly he alone who had done that which merited the punishment and the curse. +Let us now, upon this principle, proceed to the interpretation of our passage.</p> +<p class="normal">It is said in ver. 14: "<i>And Jehovah Elohim said unto the serpent, +Because thou hast done this, thou shalt be cursed above all cattle and above every +beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust thou shalt eat all the +days of thy life.</i>"—If we do not <span class="pagenum">[Pg 24]</span> look beyond +the serpent, these words have in them something incomprehensible, inasmuch as the +serpent is destitute of that responsibility which alone could justify so severe +a sentence. There is no difficulty attached to the idea that the serpent must suffer. +It shares this fate along with all the other irrational earthly creation, which +is made subject to vanity (Rom. viii. 20), and which must accompany man, for whose +sake it was created, through all the stages of his existence. But the question here +at issue is not about mere suffering, but about well-merited punishment. The serpent +is not, like the whole remaining earth, cursed for the sake of man (Gen. iii. 17), +but it is cursed because "it has done this." Punishment presupposes being created +in the image of God, and, according to chap. i., such a creation is peculiar only +to man. But as soon as we assume the co-operation of an invisible author of the +temptation, by whom the serpent was animated, everything which is here threatened +against the visible instrument acquires a symbolical meaning. The degradation inflicted +upon the latter,—the announcement of the defeat which it is to sustain in the warfare +with man,—represent in a figure the fate of the real tempter only. The instrument +used by him in the temptation is at the same time the symbol of the punishment which +he is destined to endure.</p> +<p class="normal">Although it be said that the serpent should be "cursed above all +cattle," etc., this does not necessarily imply that the other animals are also cursed, +any more than the words, "subtle above all the beasts," imply that all other beasts +are subtle. It is certainly not always necessary that the whole existing difference +should be pointed out. The sense is simply: Thou shalt be more cursed than all cattle. +In a similar manner it is said, in the song of Deborah, concerning Jael, "Blessed +above women shall Jael be," Judges v. 24; for this does not imply that all other +women are blessed, but means only that, whether they be blessed or not, Jael, at +all events, is the most blessed.</p> +<p class="normal">The <i>eating of dust</i> must not be interpreted literally, as +if the serpent were to feed upon dust; but, since it is to creep on the ground, +it cannot be but that it swallow dust along with its food. Thus we find in Ps. cii., +in "the prayer of the afflicted," ver. 10, "For I have eaten ashes like bread," +used of occasional swallowing of ashes. As an expression of deepest humiliation, +the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 25]</span> licking of dust is used in Mic. vii. 17, +where it is said of the enemies of the Church, "They shall lick dust like the serpent." +In Is. xlix. 23, compared with Ps. lii. 9, the licking up the dust of the feet is +likewise inflicted upon the humbled enemies. If, undoubtedly, there be, even in +these passages, a slight reference to the one before us, the allusion to it is still +plainer in Is. lxv. 25, where it is said, "And dust shall be the serpent's meat." +Of the denunciation in Gen. iii. 14, 15, the eating of dust alone shall remain, +while the bruising of the heel shall come to an end. And while all other creatures +shall escape from the doom which has come upon them in consequence of the fall of +man, the serpent—the instrument used in the temptation—shall, agreeably to the words +in the sentence of punishment, "All the days of thy life," remain condemned to a +perpetual abasement, thus prefiguring the fate of the real tempter, for whom there +is no share in the redemption.</p> +<p class="normal">The opinion which has been again of late defended by <i>Hofmann</i> +and <i>Baumgarten</i>, that the serpent had before the fall the same shape as after +it, only that after the fall it possesses as a punishment what before the fall was +its nature, stands plainly opposed to the context. Even <i>a priori</i>, and in +accordance with Satan's usual mode of proceeding, it is probable that he, who loves +to transform himself into an angel of light, should have chosen an attractive and +charming instrument of temptation. This view loses all that is strange in it, if +only we consider the change of the serpent, not as an isolated thing, but in connection +with the great change which, after the fall of man, affected the whole nature (comp. +Gen. i. 31, according to which the entire animal creation had, previously to the +fall, impressed upon it the image of man's innocence and peace, and the law of destruction +did not pervade it, Gen. iii. 17; Rom. viii. 20); and if only we keep in mind that, +before the fall, the whole animal world was essentially different from what it is +now, so that we cannot by any means think of forming to ourselves a distinct Image +of the serpent, as <i>Luther</i> and others have done.</p> +<p class="normal">The serpent is thus, by its disgusting form, and by the degradation +of its whole being, doomed to be the visible representative of the kingdom of darkness, +and of its head, to whom it had served as an instrument. But the words, when applied +to the head himself, give expression to the idea: "extreme contempt, +the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 26]</span> shame, and abasement shall be thy +lot." Thus <i>Calmet</i> remarks on this passage: "This enemy of mankind crawls, +as it were, on his belly, on account of the shame and disgrace to which he is reduced." +Satan imagined that, by means of the fall of man, he would enlarge his kingdom and +extend his power. But to the eye of God the matter appeared in a totally different +light, because, along with the fall, He beheld the redemption.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 15. "<i>And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, +and between thy seed and her seed; and it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt +bruise its heel.</i>" In the two other passages where the word +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שוף</span> occurs (Ps. cxxxix. 11 [compare my commentary +on that passage] and Job ix. 17), it undeniably signifies: "to crush," "to bruise." +This signification, therefore, which is confirmed by the Chaldee Paraphrast, and +which Paul also follows in Rom. xvi. 20 (<span lang="el" class="Greek">συντρίψει</span>, +whilst the LXX. have <span lang="el" class="Greek">τηρήσει</span>), must here also +be retained. It is only in appearance that, in the second passage referred to, the +signification "to crush" seems to be inappropriate; for there, "to crush" is used +in the sense of "to destroy," "to annihilate," just as in Jonah iv. 7, "to strike" +is used of the sting of an insect, because its effect is similar to that produced +by a stroke. The words <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ראש</span> and +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עקב</span> are a second accusative governed by the +verb, whereby the place of the action is more distinctly marked out. That by "head" +and "heel"—a <i>majus</i> and a <i>minus</i>—a victory of mankind over the seed +of the serpent should be signified, was seen by <i>Calvin</i>, who says, "Meanwhile +we see how graciously the Lord deals even in the punishment of men, inasmuch as +He does not give the serpent power to do more than wound the heel, while to man +is given the power of wounding its head. For the words 'head' and 'heel' point out +only what is superior and what is inferior." That these words are by no means intended +to describe the mutual antipathy between men and serpents, is rendered evident by +the consideration, that, if such were the intention, no special punishment would +be denounced against the serpent, while, according to the context, such denunciation +is certainly designed by the writer. The words treat of the punishment of the serpent; +it is only in ver. 16 that the sentence against man is proclaimed. It is true that +the bite of a serpent is dangerous when it is applied even to the heel, for the +poison thence<!--thence 1854 ed&mdash--> penetrates the whole body; but to this +fact in natural history there is here <span class="pagenum">[Pg 27]</span> no allusion, +nor is the <i>biting</i> of the serpent at all the point here in question. The contrast +between head and heel is simply that which exists between the noble and less noble +parts,—those parts of which the injury is commonly curable or incurable. The objection: +"The serpent creeps, man walks upright; if then an enmity exists between them, how +can it be otherwise than that man wounds its head, and that it wounds his heel?" +entirely overlooks the consideration, that, according to ver. 14, it is in consequence +of the divine curse that the serpent creeps in the dust. In this degraded condition—a +condition which is not natural, but inflicted as a punishment—it is implied that +the serpent can attack man at his heel only. This plain connection between ver. +15 and 14 is evidently overlooked by those who hold the opinion, that this mutual +enmity is pernicious equally to man and serpent. The very circumstance that the +serpent is condemned to go on its belly, and to eat dust, whilst man retains that +erect walk in which the image of God is reflected, paves the way for the announcement +of the victory in ver. 16.</p> +<p class="normal">Experience bears ample witness to the truth of the divine sentence, +that there shall, in future, be enmity between the seed of the serpent and mankind, +in so far as this sentence refers to the instrument of the temptation; for abhorrence +of the serpent is natural to man. Thus <i>Calvin</i> remarks: "It is in consequence +of a secret natural instinct that man abhors them; and as often as the sight of +a serpent fills us with horror, the recollection of our apostasy is renewed."</p> +<p class="normal">But, in the fate of the serpent which is here announced, there +is an indication of the doom of the spiritual author of the temptation. It has been +objected that any reference to Satan is inadmissible, because the "seed of the serpent" +here spoken of cannot designate wicked men, who are "children of the devil;" for +these, too, belong to the seed of the woman, and cannot, therefore, be put in opposition +to it. But against this objection <i>Storr</i>, in his treatise, <i>de Protevangelio</i>, +remarks: "We easily see that many of the seed of the woman likewise belong to the +seed of the serpent; but they have become unworthy of that name, since they apostatized +to the common enemy of their race." It is quite true that, by the seed of the woman, +her whole progeny is designated; but they who enter into communion +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 28]</span> with the hereditary enemy of the human race +are viewed as having excommunicated themselves. Compare Gen. xxi. 12, where Isaac +alone is declared to be the true descendant of Abraham, and his other sons are, +as false descendants, excluded. Moreover, not only wicked men, but also the angels +of Satan (Matt. xxv. 41; Rev. xii. 7-9), belong to the seed of the serpent.</p> +<p class="normal">The greater number of the earlier Christian interpreters were +of opinion that, by the seed of the woman, the Messiah is directly pointed at. But +to this opinion it may be objected, that it does violence to the language to understand, +by the seed of the woman, any single individual; and the more so, since we are compelled +to understand, by the seed of the serpent, a plurality of individuals, viz., the +spiritual children of Satan, the heads and members of the kingdom of darkness. +<i>Further</i>,—As far as the sentence has reference to the serpent, the human race +alone can be understood by the seed of the woman; and to this, therefore, the victory +over the invisible author of the temptation must also be adjudged. The reference +to the human race is also indicated by the connection between "her seed" in this +verse, and the words, "Thou shalt bring forth sons," in ver. 16. <i>Finally</i>,—As +the person of the Messiah does not yet distinctly appear even in the promises to +the Patriarchs, this passage cannot well be explained of a personal Messiah; inasmuch +as, by such an explanation, the progressive expansion of the Messianic prophecy +in Genesis would be destroyed.</p> +<p class="normal">If, however, by the seed of the woman we understand the entire +progeny of the woman, we obtain the following sense: "It is true that thou hast +now inflicted upon the woman a severe wound, and that thou and thine associates +will continue to assail her: but, notwithstanding thine eager desire to injure, +thou shalt be able to inflict on mankind only such wounds as are curable; while, +on the contrary, the posterity of the woman shall, at some future period, vanquish +thee, and make thee feel all thy weakness."</p> +<p class="normal">This interpretation is found as early as in the Targum of Jonathan, +and in that of Jerusalem, where, by the seed of the woman, are understood the Jews, +who, at the time of the Messiah, shall overcome Sammael. Thus, too, does Paul explain +it in Rom. xvi. 20, where the promise is regarded as referring to Christians as +a body. It has found, subsequently, an able defender <span class="pagenum">[Pg 29]</span> +in <i>Calvin</i><sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_29a" href="#ftn_29a">[3]</a></sup> +and, in modern times, in <i>Herder</i>.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_29b" href="#ftn_29b">[4]</a></sup> +The treatise of <i>Storr</i>, too (in the <i>Opusc.</i> ii.), is devoted to its +defence.</p> +<p class="normal">Even according to this interpretation, the passage justly bears +the name of the <i>Protevangelium</i>, which has been given to it by the Church. +It is only in general terms, indeed, that the future victory of the kingdom of light +over that of darkness is foretold, and not the person of the Redeemer who should +lead in the warfare, and bestow the strength which should be necessary for maintaining +it. Anything beyond this we are not even entitled to expect at the first beginnings +of the human race; a gradual progress is observable in the kingdom of grace, as +well as in that of nature.</p> +<p class="normal">It is certainly, however, not a matter of chance that the posterity +of the woman is not broken up into a plurality, but that, in order to designate +it, expressions in the singular (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זרע</span> and +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הוא</span>) are chosen. This unity, which, in the +meanwhile, it is true, is only <i>ideal</i>, was chosen with regard to the person +of the Redeemer, who comprehends within Himself the whole human race. And it is +not less significant, and has certainly a deeper ground, that the victory over the +serpent is assigned to the seed of the woman, not to the posterity of Adam; and +though, indeed, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 30]</span> the circumstance that the woman +was first deceived may have been the proximate cause of it, yet it cannot be exclusively +referred to, and derived from, it. By these remarks we come still nearer to the +view of the ancient Church.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_14a" href="#ftnRef_14a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [1]</sup></a> So, <i>e.g.</i> <i>Cramer</i> in the <i>Nebenarbeiten zur Theologischen + Literatur</i>, St. 2.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText" dir="ltr"><a name="ftn_22a" href="#ftnRef_22a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> The positive reasons by which I there proved + the reference to Satan, have not been invalidated by the objections of <i>Hofmann</i> + in his <i>Schriftbeweis</i> i. 379. He says: As an adjective formed in a manner + similar to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">קלקל</span> (Num. xxi. 6) must have + an intransitive signification, it cannot mean "separated," but according to + its derivation from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עזל = אזל</span>, it means: + "altogether gone away." But this argument has no force. The real import of the + form of the word is gradation, and frequent repetition. Instances of a passive + signification are given in <i>Ewald's Lehrbuch der Hebr. Sprache</i>, § 157 + c.: compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Deut. xxxii. 5. There is so much the stronger reason + for adopting the passive signification, that in Arabic also,—which alone can + be consulted, as the comparison with the Hebrew + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אזל</span> has no sure foundation on which to + rest,—the root has the signification: <i>remotus, sepositus fuit</i>, and the + participle: <i>a ceteris se sejungens</i>. Compare <i>Egypt and the B. M.</i>, + p. 169.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_29a" href="#ftnRef_29a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [3]</sup></a> He says,—This, therefore, is the sense of the passage: "The human + race, whom Satan had endeavoured to destroy, shall at length be victorious. + But, meanwhile, we must bear in mind the mode in which, according to Scripture, + that victory is to be achieved. According to his own pleasure, Satan has, through + all centuries, led captive the sons of men, and even to this day he continues + that sad victory. But, since a stronger one has come down from heaven to subdue + him, the whole Church of God shall, under her Head, and like Him, be victorious."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_29b" href="#ftnRef_29b"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [4]</sup></a> <i>Briefe das Studium der Theologie betr.</i> ii. S. 225 (Tüb. + 1808): "The serpent had injured them; it had become to them a symbol of evil, + of seduction, and at the same time of God's curse, of contempt and punishment. + To men the encouraging prospect was held out, that they, the seed of the woman, + were stronger and nobler than the serpent, and all evil. They should tread upon + the head of the serpent, while the latter should be able to avenge itself only + by a slight wound in their heel. In short, the good should gain the ascendancy + over the evil. Such was the prospect. How clear or how obscure it was to the + first human pair, it is not our present purpose to inquire. It is enough that + the noblest warrior against evil, the most valiant bruiser of the serpent's + head from among the descendants of Eve, was comprehended in this prospect, and + indeed pre-eminently referred to. Thus, then, only an outline, as it were, was + given to them in a figure, the import of which only future times saw more clearly + developed."</p> +</div> +<hr class="W20"> +<h2><a name="div2_30" href="#div2Ref_30">THE BLESSINGS OF NOAH UPON SHEM AND JAPHETH</a></h2> +<h3>(Gen. ix. 18-27.)</h3> +<p class="normal">Ver. 20. "<i>And Noah began and became an husbandman, and planted +vineyards.</i>"—This does not imply that Noah was the first who began to till the +ground, and, more especially, to cultivate the vine; for Cain, too, was a tiller +of the ground, Gen. iv. 2. The sense rather is, that Noah, after the flood, again +took up this calling. Moreover, the remark has not an independent import; it serves +only to prepare the way for the communication of the subsequent account of Noah's +drunkenness. By this remark, a defence of Noah on account of his drunkenness is +entirely cut off. Against such a defence <i>Luther</i> expressed himself in very +strong terms: "They," says he, "who would defend the Patriarch in this, wantonly +reject the consolation which the Holy Ghost considered to be necessary to the Church—the +consolation, namely, that even the greatest saints may, at times, stumble and fall."<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_30a" href="#ftn_30a">[1]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 21. "<i>And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he +was uncovered within his tent.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 22. "<i>And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness +of his father, and told his two brethren without.</i>"—David is reproved in 2 Sam. +xii. 14, for having given occasion to the enemies of God to blaspheme. The same +reproof might justly be administered to Noah also. Ham rejoiced to find a nakedness +in him whose reproving earnestness had often been a burden to his sinful soul. +<i>Luther</i> remarks: "There is no doubt <span class="pagenum">[Pg 31]</span> that +he (Noah) must have done much which was offensive to his proud, high-minded, and +presumptuous son.... For this reason we must not regard this deed of Ham as mere +child's play, as an action destitute of all significance; but as the result of the +bitterest hatred and resentment of Satan, by which he prepares and excites his members +against the true Church, and specially against those who are in the ministry. Let +them, therefore, give earnest heed as to whether, either in their persons or in +their offices, they give any occasion for blasphemy. We have in this history an +example of divine terrors and judgment, that we may take warning from the danger +of Ham, and not venture to be rash in judging, though we should see that a secular +or ecclesiastical authority, or even our parents, do err and fall."</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 23. "<i>And Shem and Japheth took the garment.</i>"—<i>Luther</i> +says: "Such an outward and lovely reverence they could not have shown to their father, +if they had not, inwardly and in their hearts, been rightly disposed towards God, +and had not considered their father as a high priest and king set over them by divine +appointment." The mode of expression indicates that the real impulse proceeded from +Shem, and that, as a prefiguration of what was to take place, Japheth only showed +susceptibility for the good, and a willingness to join with him. It is true that +the singular <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ויקח</span> is not, by itself, decisive. +When the verb precedes, it is not absolutely necessary that it should agree with +the <i>subject</i> in gender and number; but the use of the singular is, nevertheless, +remarkable. If Shem and Japheth had been equally active, the latter also would, +at once, have been present to the mind of the writer. Under these circumstances, +there is the less reason for supposing that the use of the singular can be merely +accidental, especially as the words, "and he told his <i>two brethren</i> without," +immediately precede. But all doubt is removed by a second allusion, which goes hand +in hand with the first, and which is contained in the following verse.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 24. "<i>And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger +son had done unto him.</i>"—That Ham was older than Japheth, appears from the circumstance +that the order in which the sons of Noah are introduced is uniformly thus: Shem, +Ham, Japheth; or, beginning, as in chap. x., from the youngest, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 32]</span> Japheth, Ham, Shem,—where, however, in ver. +21, the words added immediately after Shem—"the elder brother of Japheth," expressly +indicate that, for a certain purpose, the writer has proceeded in order from the +youngest to the oldest. It is altogether in vain that some have attempted to prove +from chap. xi. 10 (according to which Shem was, two years after the flood, only +a hundred years old), compared with chap. v. 32 (according to which Noah began to +beget when he was five hundred years old), that Shem was not the first-born. The +words in chap. v. 32 are: "And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begat Shem, +Ham, and Japheth." That the chronology can here be determined in a way which only +approximates to the truth, is implied, as a matter of course, in the statement, +that all the three sons were begotten when Noah was five hundred years of age; nothing +more is meant than that Noah begat them after he had finished his fifth, or at the +beginning of his sixth, century. (Compare <i>Ranke's Untersuchungen</i>.) It is +just an indefinite statement of time which points forward to another genealogy, +in which the details will be given with greater precision. Ham everywhere stands +between the two; but that, nevertheless, he is, in this passage, called the younger +son, can be explained only on the ground that, in the case before us, Shem and Ham +are the two more especially noticed—Shem as positively good, and Ham as positively +evil, while Japheth only takes part with Shem. We have thus laid an excellent foundation +for the right understanding of the subsequent prophetic utterance of Noah—for the +announcement, namely, of Japheth's dwelling in the tents of Shem.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 25. "<i>And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants +shall he be to his brethren.</i>"—<i>Luther</i> says: "Good old Noah, who is regarded +by his son as a foolish and stupid old man, deserving only of mockery, appears here +in truly prophetic majesty, and announces to his sons a divine revelation of what +shall come to pass in future days; thus verifying what Paul says in 2 Cor. xii., +that God's strength is made perfect in weakness."</p> +<p class="normal">According to the opinion now current, Canaan is said to mean "lowland," +and to be transferred from the land to the people, and from the people to the pretended +ancestor. But this opinion is shown to be untenable by the considerations, that, +according to historical tradition, Canaan appears first as <span class="pagenum"> +[Pg 33]</span> the name of the ancestor;—that the verb +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כנע</span> is never used of natural lowness, but +always of humiliation;—that in our passage, where the name first occurs, it stands +in connection with servitude;—that the masculine form of the noun (on the adjective +termination <i>an</i>, compare <i>Ewald's Lehrb. d. Heb. Spr.</i> § 163, b.) is +not applicable to the country;—that the country Canaan is so far from being a lowland, +that it appears, everywhere in the Pentateuch, as a land of hills (see Deut. xi. +2, iii. 25, where the land itself is even called, "that goodly mountain");<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_33a" href="#ftn_33a">[2]</a></sup>—and, +finally, that, from all appearance, Canaan is primarily the name, not of the country, +but of the people—the former being called <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ארור כנען</span>, +the land of Canaan.</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">The real etymology of the name is almost expressly given +in Judges iv. 23; <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ויכנע</span>, "and God bowed down, +or <i>humbled</i>, on that day Jabin the king of <i>Canaan</i>." Compare also Deut. +ix. 3, where, in reference to the Canaanites, it is said, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הוא יכניעם</span>, "He will humble or subdue them;" +and Nehem. ix. 24: "Thou bowedest down before them the inhabitants of the land—the +Canaanites." Our passage also proceeds upon this interpretation of the name. We +are the rather induced to assume a connection betwixt the name "Canaan," and the +words, "a servant of servants shall he be," as in the case of Japheth also there +is certainly an allusion to the signification of the name, and probably in the case +of Shem also. Perhaps even the name Ham, <i>i.e.</i>, "the blackish one," may be +connected with the character which he here displays—a suggestion which we do not +here follow up. We refer, however, for an analogy, to what has been remarked in +our Commentary on the Psalms, in the Introduction of Ps. vii.</p> +<p class="normal">Canaan means: "the submissive one." It is a name which the people +themselves, on whose monuments it appears, would never have appropriated to themselves +(just as in the case of the Egyptians also, on which point <i>Gesenius</i> in the +<i>Thesaurus</i>, and my work <i>Egypt</i>, etc., p. 210, may be compared), unless +it had been proper to them from their very origin. Ham gave this name to his son +from the obedience which he demanded, but <span class="pagenum">[Pg 34]</span> did +not himself yield. The son was to be the servant of the father (for the name suggests +servile obedience), who was as despotical to his inferiors as he was rebellious +against his superiors. When the father gave that name to his son, he thought only +of submissiveness to <i>his</i> orders; but God, who, in His mysterious providence, +disposes of all these matters, had another submissiveness in view.</p> +<p class="normal">But why is Canaan cursed and not Ham? For an answer to this question, +we are at liberty neither to fall back upon the sovereign decree of God, as <i>Calvin</i> +does, nor to say with <i>Hofmann</i>: "Canaan is the youngest son of Ham (Gen. x. +6); and because Ham, the youngest son of Noah, had caused so much grief to the father, +he, in return, is to experience great grief from his youngest son." This latter +view rests upon false historical suppositions. We have already proved that Ham was +not the youngest son of Noah; and it by no means follows from Gen. x. 6, that Canaan +was the youngest son of Ham. Canaan's name is mentioned last among the sons of Ham, +because the whole account of Ham's family was to be combined with the detailed enumeration +of Canaan's descendants, who stood in so important a relation to Israel. The boundary +line as regards Shem is formed, quite naturally, by that branch of Ham's family +which stood in so important a relation to the main branch of the family of Shem. +But, as little reliance can be placed upon the theological grounds of that conjecture; +for the question at issue is not the withdrawal of outward advantages. Canaan is +<i>cursed</i>, and it is just the sting of his servitude that it is the consequence +of the curse. It would indeed sadly affect the biblical doctrine of recompense, +if cursing and blessing were dependent upon such external reasons as, in the case +before us, upon the circumstance that Canaan was so unfortunate as to be the youngest +son.</p> +<p class="normal">The right answer to the question is without doubt this:—Ham is +punished in his son, just as he himself had sinned against his father. He is punished +in <i>this</i> son, because he followed most decidedly the example of his father's +impiety and wickedness. To this view we are led by the whole doctrine of Holy Scripture +concerning the visitation of the guilt of the fathers upon the children. (Compare +the author's "<i>Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch</i>," vol. ii. +p. 373.) <span class="pagenum">[Pg 35]</span> To this view we are also led by the +passage in Gen. xv. 16: "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again, +for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." According to this passage, the +curse on Canaan can be realized upon him, only when his own iniquity has been fully +matured. This his iniquity is presupposed by his curse. If he were to be punished +on account of the guilt of the father,—a guilt in which he had no share,—then indeed +no delay would have been necessary. To this view we are farther led by what is reported +in Genesis concerning the moral depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah, which, in the development +of the sinful germ inherent in the race, had outrun all others, and were, therefore, +before all others, overtaken by punishment. (To this view we are further led by +what is reported in Genesis concerning the moral depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah, +which, in the development of the sinful germ inherent in the race, had outrun all +others, and were therefore, before all others, overtaken by punishment) To this +view we are led, <i>further</i>, by Lev. xviii. and the parallel passages, where +the Canaanites appear as a nation of abominations which the land spues out; and, +<i>finally</i>, by what ancient heathen writers report regarding the deep corruption +of the Phœnicians and Carthaginians.</p> +<p class="normal">The remainder of Ham's posterity are passed over in silence; it +is only in the sequel that we expect information regarding them. But the foreboding +arises, that their deliverance will be more difficult of accomplishment than that +of Japheth, although the circumstance that Canaan is singled out from among them +affords us decided hope for the rest.</p> +<p class="normal">But not even the exclusion of Ham is to be considered as an unavoidable +fate resting upon him. Heathenism alone knows such a curse. The subjective conditions +of the curse imply the possibility of becoming free from it. To this, there is an +express testimony in the circumstance, that the promise to the Patriarchs is not +limited. David received the remnant of the Canaanitish Jebusites into the congregation +of the Lord. (Compare remarks on Zech. ix. 7.) And, in the Gospels, the Canaanitish +woman appears as a representative of her nation, and as a proof the possibility, +granted to them, of breaking through the fetters of the curse. (Compare also the +remarkable passage, Ezek. xvi. 46.)</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 36]</span></p> +<p class="normal">"The curse is contrasted with the blessing pronounced on Shem +and Japheth, and the second member of ver. 25 is, in vers. 26, 27, used as a repetition +in reference to each of the two brethren, who were, in it, viewed together."—(<i>Tuch.</i>)</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 26. "<i>And he said: Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem; +and Canaan shall be a servant to them.</i>"—The Patriarch Noah,—a just man, and +one who walked before God (Gen. vi. 9),—a man raised on high, as David says of himself +in 2 Sam. xxiii. 1,—a man whose utterances are not mere individual wishes, but, +at the same time, prophecies,—sees such rich blessings in store for his son, that, +instead of announcing them to him, he immediately breaks out into the praise of +God, who is the Author of them, and from whom the piety of Shem,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_36a" href="#ftn_36a">[3]</a></sup> +the foundation of this salvation, was derived, just as Moses, in Deut. xxx. 20, +instead of blessing Gad, blesses him by whom Gad is enlarged. The manner in which +God is here spoken of indicates, <i>indirectly</i>, what that is in which the blessing +consists. <i>First</i>,—God is not called by the name <i>Elohim</i> (which is expressive +of merely the most general outlines of His nature), but by the name <i>Jehovah</i>, +which has reference to His manifested personality, to His revelations, and to His +institutions for salvation.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_36b" href="#ftn_36b">[4]</a></sup> +<i>Secondly</i>,—Jehovah is called the God of Shem,—the first passage of Holy Scripture +in which God is called the God of some person. Both these circumstances indicate +that God is to enter into an altogether peculiar relation to the descendants of +Shem; that He will reveal Himself to them; establish His kingdom among them, and +make them partakers of both His earthly and His heavenly blessings. Thus <i>Luther</i> +says: "This is indeed perceptible and clear, that he thus binds closely together +God and his son Shem, and, as it were, commits the one to the other. In this, he +indeed indicates the mystery of which Paul treats in Rom. xi. 11 sq., and Christ, +in John iv. 22, that salvation cometh from the Jews, but that, nevertheless, the +heathen shall become partakers of it. For <span class="pagenum">[Pg 37]</span> although +Shem alone be the real root and trunk, yet into this tree the Gentiles are, as a +strange branch, graffed, and enjoy the fatness and sap which are in the elect tree. +This light Noah, through the Holy Spirit, sees, and although he speaks dark words, +he yet prophesies very plainly, that the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ shall +be planted in the world, and shall grow up among the race of Shem, and not among +that of Japheth." As yet Shem and Japheth were on an equal footing. In the preceding +part of the narrative, nothing had been communicated by which God had, in His relation +to Shem, given up His nature as Elohim, and had become his God. It is only by anticipation, +then, that God can, in His relation to Shem, be designated as Jehovah, and as the +God of Shem. The thought can, when fully brought out, be this alone: "Blessed be +God, who will, in future, reveal Himself as Jehovah, and as the God of Shem."</p> +<p class="normal">If it be overlooked that, in this appellation of God, there is +implied the indirect designation of the blessings which are to be conferred on Shem +(just as in Gen. xxiv. 27 the words, "Blessed be Jehovah, the God of my master Abraham," +imply the thought: because He has manifested Himself as Jehovah, and as the God +of my master; which thought is then further carried out in the subsequent words: +"And who hath not left destitute my master of His mercy and His truth;"—and just +as it is also in the utterance of Zacharias in Luke i. 68, where the words, "Blessed +be the Lord [<span lang="el" class="Greek">κύριος</span>], the God of Israel," imply +the thought: because He has manifested Himself as the Lord [in the New Testament, +<span lang="el" class="Greek">κύριος</span> is used where the Old has Jehovah], +the God of Israel),—if this be overlooked, we obtain only a weak and inadequate +thought, very unsuitable to the context, the purport of which evidently is to celebrate +Shem, and to mark him out as worthy of his name. So it is according to <i>Hofmann</i>, +who, in the words, "Blessed—Shem," finds only an expression of gratitude for the +gift of this good son, and who limits the announcement of blessings to the single +one—that Canaan shall be Shem's servant. Against this feeble interpretation we must +adduce these considerations also: that nowhere does the gift of the good son form, +even indirectly, the subject in question;—that thus we should lose the opposition +of the curse and the blessing (which requires that, under <span class="pagenum"> +[Pg 38]</span> the "Blessed be Jehovah," we should have concealed the "Blessed be +Shem"), just as we should, the contrast between Jehovah here and Elohim in the following +verse;—and, lastly, that what, in the following verse, is said of Japheth's dwelling +in the tents of Shem, would thus be deprived of its necessary foundation.</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">It is said: "Canaan shall be a servant to <i>them</i>." +The suffix <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">־־ָ־מוֹ</span>, which cannot be used for +the singular, any more than can the suffix <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">־־ָ־ם</span>, +for which it is only the fuller poetical form (the instances of a different use, +adduced by <i>Ewald</i>, § 247, d., can easily be explained in accordance with the +rule), indicates that the announcement has no reference to the personal relation +of Shem and Ham, but that they come into view solely as the heads of families.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 27. "<!--see 1854 ed.--><i>May God enlarge Japheth, and may +he dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be a servant to them.</i>"—These +words, in the first instance, contain the blessing pronounced upon Japheth; but +they entitle us to infer from them, at the same time, a glorious blessing destined +for Shem, which is the source of blessing to Japheth also. They thus complete the +promise of the preceding verse, which directly refers to Shem.</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">The first clause of this verse has received a great +variety of interpretations. The word <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יַפְתְּ</span>, +which refers to, and is explanatory of, the name <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +יֶפֶת</span> (<i>i.e.</i> Japheth), is the future apoc. <i>Hiphil</i> of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פָּתָה</span>. The <i>Piel</i> of this verb has in +Hebrew commonly the signification: "to persuade, or prevail upon any one to do anything." +Hence many interpreters translate with <i>Calvin</i>: "May God allure Japheth that +he may dwell in the tents of Shem." <i>Luther</i> also, in his Commentary, thus +explains it: "God will kindly speak to Japheth;" while, in his translation, he has: +"May God enlarge Japheth."—But to this interpretation it has been rightly objected, +that the verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פתה</span> is found only in Piel, not +in Hiphil, with the signification "to persuade;" that, commonly, it signifies "to +persuade" only in a bad sense; and that, in this sense, it is never construed with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ל</span>, but always with the accusative.—All interpreters +now agree that (in conformity with the LXX. [<span lang="el" class="Greek">πλατύναι +ὁ Θεὸς τῷ Ἰάφεθ</span>], the <i>Vulgate</i> [<i>dilatet Deus Japhet</i>], and <i> +Onkelos</i>) <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יַפְתְּ</span> must be derived from +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פתה</span> in its primary signification, "to be wide, +large," in which it is found in Prov. xx. 19 (where +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שפתיו</span> <span class="pagenum">[Pg 39]</span> +is accusative denoting the place), and which signification is the common one in +Aramaic. But they then again disagree, inasmuch as some think of a local extension: +God shall give to Japheth a numerous posterity, which shall take possession of extended +territories; while others find here expressed the idea of general prosperity: God +shall prosper Japheth, shall bring him into a free and unstraitened position.</p> +<p class="normal">Both of these views partake of alike mistake from regarding the +words <i>per se</i>, and as disconnected from the following announcement of Japheth's +dwelling in the tents of Shem. It must also be objected to them, that in the case +of Shem, only one feature of the blessing is pointed out, viz., that God will be +to him Jehovah, <i>his</i> God; and so, likewise, only one feature of the curse +in the case of Ham. When those words are isolated, separated from what follows, +and understood of extension, this difficulty arises, that Ham enjoys this extension +in common with Japheth, as is shown by a glance at Gen. x. If, on the other hand, +we understand them as expressive of prosperity (according to <i>Hofmann</i>: "general +prosperity in the affairs of outward life"), this explanation is destitute of a +sufficient foundation, and there is nothing reported in the sequel regarding the +fulfilment of such a promise. To this we must further add, that the verb +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יפת</span> is, on account of its immediate nearness +to the proper name, too little expressive, and that, hence, we must expect to find +its meaning more fully brought out in what follows.</p> +<p class="normal">But if it be acknowledged that the extension appears here as a +blessing, in so far only as it leads to the dwelling in the tents of Shem, mentioned +in the subsequent clause of the verse, and that the blessing can consist in nothing +else, there is then no essential difference betwixt the two interpretations. But +we decide in favour of the <i>latter</i> view, because the corresponding verb +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הרחיב</span>, "to make wide, to enlarge," when construed +with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ל</span>, is always used in the signification: +"to bring into a free, unstraitened, easy, happy position." (See, <i>e.g.</i>, Gen. +xxvi. 22; Ps. iv. 2; Prov. xviii. 16; 2 Sam. xxii. 20.) Even when followed by an +accusative, the verb is found with this signification in Deut. xxxiii. 20: "Blessed +be He that enlargeth Gad." (In this passage, too, the word has been understood as +denoting extension; and Deut. xii. 20, xix. 8, have been appealed to in support +of the opinion; but this appeal is inadmissible, because <span class="pagenum">[Pg +40]</span> extension of the borders is the thing which is there spoken of. The allusion +to the signification of the name <i>Gad</i> = good luck [Gen. xxx. 11: "And Leah +said, For good luck;<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_40a" href="#ftn_40a">[5]</a></sup> +and she called his name Gad"], is favourable to our view, as well as the circumstance, +that in this case the subsequent words are only an expansion of the general thought, +and more closely determine the happiness. Jehovah, who enlarges Gad, according to +the words which follow, "He dwelleth like a lion, and teareth the arm with the crown +of the head," is contrasted with the enemies who wish to drive him into a strait. +If room be made for him, he becomes happy, as it were, by enlargement.) To understand +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יַפְתְּ</span> of prosperity and happiness, is countenanced +also by the consideration that, in such circumstances, the name Japheth appears +much more appropriate in the mouth of Noah, by whom it was uttered at a time when +extension could be but little thought of, and that it corresponds much better with +the name Shem.</p> +<p class="normal">Elohim is to enlarge Japheth. Elohim here stands in strict contrast +with Jehovah, the God of Shem. It is only by dwelling in the tents of Shem, that +Japheth passes over into the territory of Jehovah,—up to that time, he belongs to +the territory of Elohim. But Elohim leads him to Jehovah. It is a contrast in all +respects similar to that which we have in Gen. xiv., where, in verse 19, Melchizedek +speaks of "the most high God," whose priest he is, according to verse 20; while +Abraham, on the contrary, speaks, in verse 22, of "Jehovah the most high God."</p> +<p class="normal">There is a difference of opinion regarding the determination of +the subject in the second clause of the verse: "and he shall dwell in the tents +of Shem." According to a very ancient interpretation, Elohim is to be supplied as +such; from which the following sense would be obtained: "God shall indeed enlarge +and prosper Japheth, but He shall dwell in the tents of Shem." +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 41]</span> The inferior blessing of Japheth would thus +be contrasted with the superior one of Shem, among whose posterity God should, by +His gracious presence, glorify Himself,—first in the tabernacle, then in the temple, +and lastly, should, in the highest sense, dwell by the incarnation of His Son. Thus +<i>Onkelos</i>: "God shall extend Japheth, and His Shechinah shall dwell in the +tents of Shem." The ancient book <i>Breshith Rabba</i> remarks on this passage: +"The Shechinah dwells only in the tents of Shem." (See <i>Schöttgen</i>, <i>de Messia</i>, +p. 441.) <i>Theodoret</i> also (Interrog. 58 in Genesin) advances this explanation, +and ably brings out this sense. It has of late been again defended by <i>Hofmann</i> +and <i>Baumgarten</i>. But against this view there are decisive arguments, which +show that Japheth alone can be the subject. To mention only a few:—It cannot be +doubted that it is on purpose that Noah, when speaking of Shem, has chosen the name +Jehovah, and that, as soon as he comes to Japheth, he makes use of the name Elohim. +We cannot, therefore, suppose that here, where, according to this interpretation, +he would just touch upon the essential point in the peculiar relation of Jehovah +to the descendants of Shem—the Israelites, he should have made use of the general +name of Elohim, as in the case of Japheth. The subject—Jehovah—could not in this +case have been omitted before <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ישכן</span>. <i>Further</i>,—By +such an interpretation we are involved in inextricable difficulties as regards the +last clause of the verse. The words, "And Canaan shall be a servant to them," can +neither be referred to Shem alone—for, in that case, they would be an useless repetition, +as in ver. 25 Canaan had been doomed to be a servant to <i>his brethren</i>—nor +can they be referred to Shem and Japheth at the same time; the analogy of the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">למו</span> in the preceding verse, where the plural +referred to the plurality represented by the one Shem, forbids this. If, then, the +last clause can refer to Japheth only, the clause in which the dwelling in the tents +of Shem is spoken of, must likewise be referred to Japheth. To these arguments we +may <i>further</i> add, that there is something altogether strange in the expression: +"God shall dwell in the tents of Shem." There is, in Holy Scripture, frequent mention +of God's dwelling in His tabernacle, on His holy hill, in Zion, in the midst of +the children of Israel. Believers also are said to dwell in the tabernacle or temple +of God; but nowhere is <span class="pagenum">[Pg 42]</span> God spoken of as dwelling +in the tents of Israel. <i>Further</i>,—If we refer the second clause to Shem, the +first, in its detached position, would be too general, too indefinite, and too loose +to admit of the blessing of Japheth being concluded with it. We must not, moreover, +lose sight of the consideration, that when we refer the second clause also to Japheth, +there springs up a beautiful connection between the relation of Shem and Japheth +to each other in the present, and during their future progress. As the reaction +against the corruption of Ham had originated with Shem, and Japheth had only joined +him in it; so in future also, the real home of piety and salvation will be with +Shem, to whom Japheth, in the felt need of salvation, shall come near. <i>Finally</i>,—The +analogy of the promise made to the Patriarch, according to which all the nations +of the earth shall be blessed by the seed of Abraham, is in favour of our referring +the second clause to Japheth. And if the Lord, alluding to our passage, says, in +Luke xvi. 9, "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that +when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations" (<span lang="el" class="Greek">σκηνή</span> += <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אהל</span>), He expresses the view which we are +now defending. For, in that passage, it is not God who receives, but man: they who, +by their prayers, are more advanced, come to the help of those who have made less +progress; those who have already attained to the enjoyment of salvation, make them +partakers who stand in need of salvation.</p> +<p class="normal">Of those who correctly consider Japheth to be the subject, several +(<i>J. D. Michaelis</i>, <i>Vater</i>, <i>Gesenius</i>, <i>Winer</i>, <i>Knobel</i>) +give the translation: "and he shall dwell in renowned habitations." But it is quite +evident that this sense is admissible only as a secondary one: as such, we must +indeed admit it in a context in which the appellative signification of the proper +names is never lost sight of. That <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שם</span> is here, +however, primarily a proper name, is shown by the preceding verse.</p> +<p class="normal">The translation, "Japheth shall dwell in the tents of Shem," is, +then, the correct one. But now the question is,—How are these words to be understood? +According to the views of many interpreters, it is intimated by Japheth's dwelling +in the tents of Shem, that the true religion would be preserved among the posterity +of Shem, and would pass over from them to the descendants of Japheth, who should +be received into the community <span class="pagenum">[Pg 43]</span> of the worshippers +of the true God. So <i>Jonathan</i> explained its meaning: "The Lord shall make +glorious the end of Japheth; his sons shall be proselytes, and shall dwell in the +schools of Shem." So also <i>Jerome</i>: "Since it is said, And he shall dwell in +the tents of <i>Shem</i>, this is a prophecy concerning us, who, after the rejection +of Israel, enjoy the instruction and knowledge of the Scriptures." <i>Augustine</i> +also (<i>c. Faustum</i> xii. 24) understands by the tents of Shem, "the churches +which the apostles, the sons of the prophets, have built up."</p> +<p class="normal">But although this explanation be, in the main, correct, it cannot, +per se, satisfy us. It must be reconciled with that other explanation given by +<i>Bochart</i> (<i>Phaleg.</i> iii. 1 c. 147 sqq.), <i>Calmet</i>, <i>Clericus</i>, +and others, according to which the passage is to be understood literally, as foretelling +that the posterity of Japheth should, at some future time, gain possession of the +country belonging to the descendants of Shem, and should reduce them to subjection.</p> +<p class="normal">The phrase, "and they dwelt in their tents," is, in 1 Chron. v. +10, used to express the relation of conquerors and conquered. There is no parallel +passage which could indubitably prove that "dwelling in the tents of some one" could +ever, by itself, denote spiritual communion with him. If Shem had come to Japheth +with the announcement of salvation only, it is not likely that a dwelling of Japheth +in the tents of Shem would have been spoken of. Even the last clause of the verse—"and +Canaan shall be a servant to them"—when compared with the preceding verse, according +to which Canaan is, in the first place, to be Shem's servant only, supposes that +Japheth will step beyond his borders, and will invade the territory naturally belonging +to Shem. If Japheth assume the dominion of Shem over Canaan, he must then dwell +in the tents of Shem in a sense different from the merely spiritual one. <i>Finally</i>—Even +in other passages of the Pentateuch, an invasion of Shem's territory by Japheth +is foretold. In Num. xxiv. 24, Balaam says: "And ships shall come from the coast +of Chittim and shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish." +"We have here (compare my monography on Balaam) the announcement of a future conquest +of the Asiatic kingdoms by nations from Europe, such as was historically realized +in the Asiatic dominion of the Greeks and Romans."</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 44]</span></p> +<p class="normal">On the other hand, however, it must not by any means be supposed +that Noah should, in favour of Japheth, have weakened the power of the brilliant +promise given to Shem by the announcement of such a sad event; for it is evidently +his intention to exalt Shem above his brethren, as highly as he had excelled them +both in his piety towards his father.</p> +<p class="normal">The difficulties which stand in the way of either explanation +are easily removed by the following consideration. The occupation of the land of +Shem by Japheth is the condition of Japheth's dwelling in the tents of Shem. Why +this dwelling is a blessing to Japheth—"God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall +dwell," etc.—appears from what precedes, according to which, God reveals Himself +to Shem as Jehovah, and becomes <i>his</i> God. To be received into the fellowship +of Jehovah—to find Him in the tents of Shem—constitutes the blessing promised to +Japheth. But if such be the case, there can be no more room for speaking of an announcement +of any event adverse to Shem. Underneath the adversity, joy is hidden. It will here +be fulfilled in its highest sense, that the conquered give laws to the conquerors.</p> +<p class="normal">"And Canaan shall be a servant to them." The servitude of Canaan +was completed by Japheth, among whose sons (Gen. x. 2) Madai also appears; so that +even the Medo-Persian kingdom is one of Japheth's. Phœnicia was completely overthrown +by him. Haughty Tyrus fell to the ground. Zech. ix. 3, 4, when announcing the Greek +dominion (compare ver. 13), says: "And Tyrus did build herself a stronghold, and +heaped up silver like dust, and fine gold as the mire of the streets. Behold, the +Lord will cast her out, and He will smite her power in the sea, and she shall be +devoured with fire."</p> +<p class="normal">The objection raised by <i>Tuch</i> and <i>Hofmann</i>, that the +Greeks and Romans made Shem also their servant, is, after what has been remarked, +destitute of all weight, inasmuch as the servitude then had reference only to the +lower territory. Shem and Judah were not injured in that which, in ver. 26, had +been pointed at as their chief and peculiar good. On the contrary, it shone out, +on that occasion, in its highest glory. Canaan, however, lost that upon which he +set the highest value. In the case of Canaan, the servitude was the consequence +of the curse; but in the case of Shem, the outward servitude was a consequence of +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 45]</span> the blessing, the most emphatic verification +of the words: "Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem."</p> +<p class="normal">It must indeed fill us with adoring wonder when we see how clearly +and distinctly the outlines of the world's history, as well as of the history of +Salvation, are here traced. "This," says <i>Calvin</i>, "is indeed a support to +our faith of no common strength, that the calling of the Gentiles was not only predestined +in God's eternal decree, but also publicly proclaimed by the mouth of the Patriarch; +so that we are not required to believe that by a sudden and fortuitous event merely, +the inheritance of eternal life was proclaimed to all men in common."</p> +<p class="normal">It is not a matter of <i>chance</i> that this prophecy was given +immediately after the deluge, which stands out as so great an event in the history +of the fallen human race,—the first event, indeed, subsequent to the fall, with +which the <i>Protevangelium</i> was connected. A new period begins with the calling +of Abraham, and in it we obtain another link in the chain of the prophecies,—a link +which fits as exactly into that which is now under consideration, as did this into +the <i>Protevangelium</i>. The import of this prophecy is: "The kingdom of God shall +be established in Shem, and Japheth shall be received into its community."—The meaning +of the prophecy which is now to engage our attention is: "By the posterity of the +Patriarchs all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." The promise to the Patriarchs +differs, however, from the prophecy upon which we have just commented, not only +in the natural progress—that from among the descendants of Shem a narrower circle +is separated—but in this circumstance also, that in the former the blessing is extended +to all the nations of the earth, while in the latter Ham is passed over in silence. +This difference, however, has its main foundation in the historical circumstances +of the latter prophecy; although, it is true, the complete silence which is observed +regarding him, calls forth apprehensions about his being less susceptible of salvation, +or, at least, of his not occupying any prominent position in the development of +the kingdom of God. Here, where the object was to punish Ham for his wickedness, +not the prosperous, but the adverse events impending upon him in his posterity, +are brought prominently out; while, on the other hand, to Shem and Japheth blessings +alone are foretold.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_30a" href="#ftnRef_30a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [1]</sup></a> The object of this event, as pointed out by <i>Calvin</i>, viz., + that God intended to give to all coming ages, in the person of Noah, a warning + and an exhortation to temperance, would likewise be frustrated by this unwarrantable + apology.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_33a" href="#ftnRef_33a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [2]</sup></a> The reverse is the case with reference to Aram, which is essentially + a lowland, while these critics would have us to believe that it means "highland." + (Compare <i>Baur</i> on Amos, S. 229.)</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_36a" href="#ftnRef_36a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [3]</sup></a> <i>Bochart</i> remarks: "He cursed the guilty one in his own person, + because the source and nourishment of evil is in man himself. But, rejoiced + at Shem's piety, he rather blessed the Lord, because he knew that God is the + Author of everything which is good."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_36b" href="#ftnRef_36b"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [4]</sup></a> With reference to the difference between these two names, compare + the disquisitions in the author's "<i>Genuineness of the Pent.</i>," vol. i. + p. 213 ff.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_40a" href="#ftnRef_40a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [5]</sup></a> Our English authorized version translates the first clause of + this verse thus: "And Leah said, A troop cometh,"—a rendering which cannot be + objected to on etymological grounds, and which receives some support from Gen. + xlix. 19. The ancient versions, however, are quite unanimous in assigning to + the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גד</span> in + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בגד</span> the signification of "fortune," "good + luck;" and render it either: "in or for good luck;" "luckily," "happily" (so + the LXX. et Vulg.), or, following <i>Onkelos</i> and the Mazorets: "good luck + has come."—(Tr.)</p> +</div> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 46]</span></p> +<h2><a name="div2_46" href="#div2Ref_46">THE PROMISE TO THE PATRIARCHS.</a></h2> +<p class="normal">A great epoch is, in Genesis, ushered in with the history of the +time of the Patriarchs. <i>Luther</i> says: "This is the third period in which Holy +Scripture begins the history of the Church with a new family." In a befitting manner, +the representation is opened in Gen. xii. 1-3 by an account of the first revelation +of God, given to Abraham at Haran, in which the way is opened up for all that follows, +and in which the dispensations of God are brought before us in a rapid survey. Abraham +is to forsake everything, and then God will give him everything.</p> +<p class="normal">Gen. xii. 1. "<i>And the Lord said unto Abraham, Get thee out +of thy country, and from thy hone, and from thy father's house, into a land that +I will show thee.</i> Ver. 2. <i>And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will +bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing.</i> Ver. 3. +<i>And I will bless them that bless thee, and him who curseth thee I will curse: +and in thee all the families of the earth shall be blessed.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">"<i>Into a land that I will show thee.</i>" From what follows, +it appears that, in the very same revelation, the country was afterwards <i>more +definitely</i> pointed out; for Abraham, without having received any new revelation, +goes to Canaan, For the sake of brevity, the writer gives the details only afterwards, +when he has occasion to report how they were carried out. The land which God will +show to Abraham, stands contrasted with that in which he is at home,—in which he +and his whole being had taken root. This contrast points out the greatness of the +sacrifice which God demands of Abraham. With a like intent we have the accumulation +of expressions—"out of thy land," etc.—corresponding to a similar one when the command +was given to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. xxii. 2), and forming the condition of the promise +which follows. This promise is intended to make the sacrifice a light thing to Abraham, +by pointing out what he is to receive if he give up everything which stands in the +way of his living to God. A similar call comes to all who feel impelled to renounce +the world in order to serve God. This call to Abraham is peculiar only as to its +form; as to its essence, it is ever repeating itself. This will appear the more +distinctly, when we inquire into the true reason of the <i>outward</i> separation +here demanded of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 47]</span> Abraham. It can be Intended +only as a means of the internal separation. In the circle in which he lived, sin +had already made a mighty progress, as appears from Josh. xxiv. 2,—a passage which +shows us that idolatry had already made its way into the family of Abraham. In order +to withdraw him from the influences of this corruption, Abraham is removed from +the circle in which he had grown up, and in which he had hitherto moved. That the +special thing here demanded is only the result of the general duty of renunciation +and self-denial, which is here, in Abraham, laid upon the whole Church, appears +from the circumstance, that the promise was renewed at a subsequent period, when, +with a willing heart, he had offered up his son Isaac as a spiritual sacrifice to +his God. The carnal, ungodly love to Isaac is thus placed on a level with the attachment +to the land, etc., which came betwixt him and his God. The general idea, that self-renunciation +lies at the foundation, is brought out in Psalm xlv. 11.</p> +<p class="normal">The words, "<i>And thou shalt be a blessing</i>," imply more than +the words, "I will bless thee:" they are intentionally placed in the centre of the +whole promise. Abraham shall, as it were, be an embodied blessing—himself blessed, +and the cause of blessing to all those who bless him—to all the generations of the +earth who shall, at some future period, enter into this loving and grateful relation +to him. On the ground of Abraham's self-denial, and unreserved surrender, blessing +is poured out <i>upon him</i>, blessing also <i>on his account</i> and <i>through +him</i>. The blessing connected with him begins with himself, and extends over all +the families of the earth.</p> +<p class="normal">"<i>And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth +thee I will curse.</i> The blessing is based upon the turning to Him who has appointed +Abraham for a blessing, as we may learn from the example of Melchizedek, Gen. xiv. +19. They who bless are themselves not far from the kingdom of God; blessing, therefore, +is the preparatory step towards being blessed. (Compare Matt. x. 40-42.)</p> +<p class="normal">"<i>And in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.</i>" +<i>Luther</i> says: "Now there follows the right promise, which ought to be written +in golden letters, and proclaimed in all lands, and for which we ought to praise +and glorify."</p> +<p class="normal">The promise stands here in close connection with the Mosaic +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 48]</span> history of the creation. According to that, +man, as such, bears upon him the impress of the divine image. Gen. i. 26, and is +the depository of the divine breath. Gen. ii. 7. From such a beginning, we cannot +conceive of any limitation of salvation which is not, at the same time, a means +of its universal extension. It must therefore be in entire accordance with the nature +of the thing, that even here, where the setting apart of a particular chosen race +takes its rise, there should be an intimation of its universally comprehensive object. +There is, in the circumstance of <i>families</i> being spoken of, a distinct reference +to the history of creation; <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משפחה</span> everywhere +corresponds exactly with our word "family." It is everywhere used only of the subdivisions +in the greater body of the nation or tribe. The expression, then, points to the +higher unity of the whole human race, as it has its foundation in the fact that +all partake in common of the divine image.</p> +<p class="normal">The announcement of the blessing in this passage leads us back +to the curse pronounced in consequence of sin, Gen. iii. 17: "Cursed is the ground +(<i>Adamah</i>) for thy sake." (Compare Gen. v. 29.) This curse is, at some future +time, to be abolished by Abraham. We can account for the mention of the families +of the "Adamah" only by supposing that a reference to this passage was fully intended; +for it was just the "Adamah" (primarily, "land") which had there been designated +as the object of the curse.</p> +<p class="normal">In announcing that all the families shall be blessed in Abraham, +the writer refers also to the judgment described in Gen. xi., by which the family +of mankind,—which, according to the intention of God, ought to have been united,—was +dispersed and separated. When viewed in this connection, we expect that the blessing +will manifest itself in the healing of the deep wound inflicted upon mankind, in +the re-establishment of the lost unity, and in the gathering again of the scattered +human race around Abraham as their centre.</p> +<p class="normal">Beyond this, no other disclosure about the nature of this salvation +is given. But that it consisted essentially in the union with God accomplished through +the medium of Abraham, and that everything else could be viewed as emanating only +from this source, was implied simply in the circumstance, that all the blessing +which Abraham enjoyed for himself had its origin in <span class="pagenum">[Pg 49]</span> +this, that he could call God <i>his God</i>; just as, in Gen. ix., it had been declared +as the blessing of Shem, that Jehovah should be his God, and as the blessing of +Japheth, that he was called to become a partaker of this blessing. The blessings +which were either bestowed upon or promised to the Patriarchs and their descendants, +had for their object the advancement of knowledge and the practice of true religion, +and had been bestowed or promised only under this condition (compare Gen. xvii. +1, xvii. 17-19, xxii. 16-18, xxvi. 5); they could not hence expect anything else +than that their posterity would, in so far, be the cause of the salvation of the +heathen nations, that the latter should, by means of the former, be made partakers +of the blessings of true religion.</p> +<p class="normal">With regard to the manner in which this blessing was to come to +the Gentiles, no intimation was given by the words themselves. The person of the +Redeemer is not yet brought before us in them; the indication of that was reserved +for a later stage in the progress of revelation.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_49a" href="#ftn_49a">[1]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal">The last clause of ver. 3 cannot, by any means, take away from +the import of the preceding one; the announcement of the blessing which, through +Abraham, is to come upon all the families of the earth, does not repeal the foregoing +one, according to which all shall be cursed who curse him. This view is confirmed +by an allusion to this announcement in Zech. xiv. 16-19, where the words, "the families +of the earth," must be regarded as a quotation. In ver. 16, the prophet says that +<i>all the Gentiles</i> shall go up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles; +but then, in vers. 17-19, he intimates the punishment of those who should refuse +to go up. <i>Luther</i> says: "If you wish to <span class="pagenum">[Pg 50]</span> +comprehend in a few words the history of the Church from the time of Abraham down +to our days, then consider diligently these four verses. For in them you will find +the blessing; but you will see also, that those who curse the Church are cursed, +in turn, by God; so that they must perish, while the eternal seed of the Church +stands unmoved and unshaken. For which reason, this text agrees with the first promise +given in Paradise, concerning the seed which is to bruise the serpent's head. For +the Church is not without enemies, but is assailed and harassed so that she groans +under it; but yet, by this seed, she is invincible, and shall at length be victorious, +and triumphant over all her enemies, in eternity."</p> +<p class="normal">References to this fundamental prophecy are found in other parts +of the Old Testament, besides the passage just quoted from Zechariah. In the 28th +verse of Ps. xxii., which was written by David, it is said: "All the ends of the +world shall remember, and turn unto the Lord; and all the <i>families</i> of the +Gentiles shall worship before Thee." The realization of the blessing announced in +Genesis, to all the families of the earth, appears in this psalm as being connected +with the wonderful deliverance of the just. Another reference is in Ps. lxxii., +which was written by Solomon. In ver. 17 of this psalm it is said of Solomon's great +Antitype: "And they shall bless themselves in Him, all nations shall bless Him." +In these words the realization of the Abrahamitic blessing is distinctly connected +with the person of the Redeemer.</p> +<p class="normal">Among the New Testament references, the most remarkable is in +John viii. There, in ver. 53, the Jews say to Christ: "Art thou greater than our +father Abraham, which is dead? Whom makest thou thyself?" Jesus, in ver. 56, answers: +"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," In ver. +57 the Jews reply: "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" +In ver. 58 Jesus thus says to them: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham +was, I am."</p> +<p class="normal">Let us here, in the first place, consider only the declaration +of Jesus, that Abraham rejoiced to see His day, and was glad. It is altogether out +of the question to think of any such explanation of this as the one given by <i> +Lücke</i>, after the example of <i>Lampe</i> namely: "that Abraham, in the heavenly +life, as a blessed <span class="pagenum">[Pg 51]</span> spirit with God, saw the +day of the Lord, and in heaven rejoiced in the fulfilment." For it is the custom +of Jesus to argue with the Jews from <i>Scripture</i>; and He cannot, therefore, +here be appealing to an assumed fact which could not be proved from it. The answer +of the Jews, in ver. 57, is likewise opposed to such an explanation, inasmuch as +it proceeds from a supposition which Jesus had acknowledged to be true, namely, +that the question at issue was a meeting of Christ with Abraham not mentioned in +history; and in ver. 58 Christ sets aside their argument, "Thou art not yet fifty +years old." But <i>Lücke</i> must himself bear testimony against his own interpretation, +inasmuch as, according to it, he is obliged to speak of "the very foolish question +of the adversaries."<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_51a" href="#ftn_51a">[2]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal">Jesus saw Abraham, and Abraham saw Jesus. Not the person, but +the day of Christ, was future to Abraham. And this can be explained only by Jesus' +being concealed behind Jehovah who appeared to him, and gave him the promise, that +in him and his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. This blessing +of all the families of the earth is the day of Jehovah,—the day when He will be +glorified on the earth.</p> +<p class="normal">The key to the right understanding of this is furnished by the +doctrine of the Angel of the Lord, which meets us as early as in Genesis. From the +passages in which, at the appearances and revelations of Jehovah, the mediation +of the Angel is expressly mentioned, we infer that it (the mediation) took place +even when Jehovah by Himself is spoken of; and the more so, since, even in the former +series of passages, the simple name of Jehovah is commonly varied by that of the +Angel of Jehovah. The Evangelist John's whole doctrine of the <i>Logos</i> points +to the personal identity of Jesus with the Angel of the Lord. Not less so does the +passage, John xii. 41; and there is unquestionably a purpose which cannot be misunderstood +in the fact, that, throughout the discourses of Jesus, as reported by John, the +declaration that God <i>sent</i> Him occurs with such frequency and regularity. +But we can scarcely conceive of any other purpose than that of marking out Jesus +as the Angel or Messenger of Jehovah spoken of in the writings of the Old Testament. +Compare, <i>e.g.</i>, xii. 44, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 52]</span> 45: "Jesus cried +and said, He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on Him that <i>sent</i> +Me; and he that seeth Me, seeth Him that <i>sent</i> Me." So also iv. 34, v. 23, +24, 30, 37, vi. 38-40, vii. 16, 28, 33, viii. 16, 18, 26, 29, ix. 4, xii. 49, xiii. +20, xiv. 24, xv. 21, xvi. 5.</p> +<p class="normal">Let us now, in addition, turn to the words, "Abraham rejoiced +to see (literally, that he might see) My day." It cannot be liable to any doubt, +that these words express the heartfelt, joyful desire of Abraham to see that day, +and that <i>Bengel</i> correctly explains it by the words: <i>gestivit cum desiderio</i>. +It is true, <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἀγαλλιάομαι</span> signifies, by itself, +only "to rejoice;" but it has added to it the idea of joyful desire by its being +connected with <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἵνα</span>. The words now under consideration +are expressive of Abraham's joy and longing in the spirit for the manifestation +of the day of Jehovah and of Christ, while those in the last clause of the verse +express the gratification of this longing, which was produced by his receiving the +promise that all the families of the earth should be blessed.</p> +<p class="normal">The ardent desire of Abraham to see the day of Christ implies +that he already <i>knew</i> Christ, which can be the case only on the supposition +of Christ's concealment in Jehovah. This longing desire is not expressly mentioned +in Genesis, but it is most intimately connected with all living faith, and must +necessarily precede such divine communications. The seed of the divine promises +is everywhere sown only in a well prepared soil. That the promise in 2 Sam. vii. +was to David, in like manner, a gratification of his anxious desire—an answer to +prayer—we are not, it is true, expressly told in the historical record; and yet, +that it was so, is evident from the words of Ps. xxi. 3: "Thou hast given him his +heart's desire, and hast not withholden the request of his lips." There is here, +then, express mention made of that which is a matter of course, and which forms +the necessary condition of that which was reported in Genesis.</p> +<p class="normal">We are furnished by the Book of Genesis itself with the right +explanation of what is meant by the day of Christ, about which interpreters have +so frequently erred. It is not the time of His first appearing, but, in accordance +with the New Testament mode of expression (<i>e.g.</i>, Phil. i. 10), the time of +His glorification. The day of Christ is the time when the promise, "In thee shall +all the families of the earth be blessed," shall be fulfilled.</p> +<p class="normal"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 53]</span> Peter quotes this promise +in Acts iii. 25, 26. Among the families of the earth he enumerates, first and chiefly, +the people of the Old Testament dispensation; and he does so with perfect propriety, +since there is no warrant whatever for limiting it to the Gentiles.</p> +<p class="normal">Paul probably refers to this promise when, in Rom. iv. 13, he +speaks of a promise given to Abraham and his seed that he should be the heir of +the world. A blessing imparted to the whole world is a spiritual victory obtained +over the world. The world is, in a spiritual sense, conquered by Abraham and his +seed. Express references are found in Gal. iii. 8, 14, 16.</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">The same promise is repeated to Abraham in Gen. xviii. +18. Instead of the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משפחות האדמה</span> (the families +of the earth), the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גויי הארץ</span> (the nations +of the earth) are there mentioned; the family-connection is lost sight of, and the +comprehensiveness only—the catholic character of the blessing—is prominently brought +out. This promise is a third time repeated to Abraham in chap. xxii. 18, on a very +appropriate occasion, even that on which, by his endurance of the greatest trial, +and by his willingness to sacrifice to God even what was dearest to him, he had +proved himself a worthy heir of it. It is certainly not a matter of mere accident +that this promise is just three times given to Abraham. There is in this a correspondence +with the three individuals to whom the same promise is addressed. Abraham, however, +as the first of them, and as the father of the faithful, could not be put on the +same footing with the others. Instead of "in thee,"<!--inserted quote 1854 --> or +"by thee" (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בך</span>), we read in xxii. 18, "in" +or "by thy seed" (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בזרעך</span>). The same promise +is confirmed to Isaac in chap. xxvi. 14, and it is transferred to Jacob in chap. +xxviii. 14. But while, in the first and second passages, it is said, "by thee," +and in the third and fourth, "by thy seed," we read, in the passage last mentioned, +"by thee and thy seed." This evidently shows that, in those passages where we find +"by thee" standing alone, we are not at liberty to explain it as meaning simply: +"by thy seed." It is not only the seed of Abraham, but Abraham himself also, who +is to be the medium of blessing to the nations, as the foundation-stone of the large +building of the Church of God, as the father of our Lord Jesus Christ according +to the flesh, and as the father of all believers.</p> +<p class="normal">There is a deep reason for the fact that, wherever the posterity +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 54]</span> of the Patriarchs are spoken of as the instruments +of blessing, the singular is always used. This circumstance is pointed out by Paul +in Gal. iii. 16. The Apostle does not in the least think of maintaining that, by +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זרע</span> "seed," only a single individual could +be signified. Such an opinion, no one who understood Hebrew could for a moment entertain; +and Rom. iv. 13 shows that Paul was indeed very far from doing so. The further development +of the promise (which took place within the limits of Genesis itself, in chap. xlix. +10), as well as its fulfilment (it is, indeed, with reference to the promise now +under consideration that the lineal descent of Christ from Abraham is established +at the commencement of Matthew's Gospel), showed that the real cause of the salvation +bestowed upon the Gentiles was not the seed of Abraham as a whole, but one from +among them, or rather He, in whom this whole posterity was comprehended and concentrated. +Now, all to which Paul intends to draw our attention is the fact, that the Lord, +who, when He gave the promise, had already in view its fulfilment which He had Himself +to accomplish, did not unintentionally choose an expression which, besides the comprehensive +meaning which would most naturally suggest itself to the Patriarchs, admitted also +of the more restricted one which was confirmed by the fulfilment. In the <i>Protevangelium</i>, +and in the promise of the Prophet in Deut. xviii., we have a case quite analogous +to this; and in 2 Sam. vii. there is likewise a case which is, to a certain extent, +parallel.</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">In two passages out of the five—in chap. xxii. 18 and +xxvi. 4—the Hithpael of the verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ברך</span> instead +of the Niphal is found. We meet with it also again in the derived passage in Ps. +lxxii. 17, where it is said of the great King to come, "And they shall bless themselves +in Him, all nations shall bless Him." In xxii. 18 and xxvi. 4, we shall be allowed +to translate only thus: "They shall bless themselves in thy seed." For the Hithpael +of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ברך</span> always signifies "to bless oneself;" +and the person from whom the blessing is derived (Isa. lxv. 16; Jer. iv. 2), or +whose blessing is desired, is connected with it by means of the preposition +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span>. (Compare Gen. xlviii. 20: "In thee shall +Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh.") From the nature +of the case, it is evident that only the latter can be meant here. This is shown +also by the derived passage <span class="pagenum">[Pg 55]</span> in Ps. lxxii. 17, +where the words, "they shall bless themselves in Him," are explained by the subsequent +expression, "they shall bless Him."</p> +<p class="normal">But it is certainly not accidental that the Hithpael is on both +sides inclosed by the Niphal, and that the latter stands not only twice at the beginning, +but also at the end. Hence we are not at liberty to force upon the Hithpael the +signification of the Niphal; but the passages in which the Hithpael occurs must +be supplemented from the real fundamental passages. "To bless oneself <i>in</i>" +is the preparatory step to being "blessed <i>by</i>." The acknowledgment of the +blessing calls forth the wish to be a partaker of it. (Compare Isa. xlv. 14, where, +in consequence of the rich blessings poured out upon Israel, the nations make the +request to be received among them.) Oftentimes in the Psalms utterance is given +to the expectation that, through the blessing resting on the people of God, the +Gentiles will be allowed to seek communion in it. (<!--see 1854 ed.-->See my Commentary +on Ps. vol. iii. p. lxxvii.) But especially in Ps. lxxii. does it clearly appear +how "blessing oneself in" is connected with "being blessed by." The very same people +who bless themselves in the glorious King to come, hasten to Him to partake in the +fulness of the blessings which He dispenses. He has dominion from sea to sea; they +that dwell in the wilderness bow before Him; all kings worship Him; all nations +serve Him.</p> +<p class="normal">Several commentators (<i>Clericus</i>, <i>Gesenius</i>, <i>de +Wette</i>, <i>Maurer</i>, <i>Knobel</i>, and, in substance, <i>Hofmann</i> also) +attempt to explain the fundamental passage by the derived ones, and force upon Niphal +the signification of Hithpael; so that the sense would be only that a great and, +as it were, proverbial happiness and prosperity belonged to Abraham: "Holding up +this name as a pattern, most of the eastern nations will comprehend all blessings +in these or similar words: 'God bless thee as He blessed Abraham.'" But this explanation +is, according to the <i>usus loquendi</i>, incorrect, inasmuch as the Niphal is +used only in the signification "to be blessed," and never means "to bless oneself," +or "to have or find one's blessing in something." To a difference in the significations +of the Niphal and the Hithpael, we are led also by the circumstance that the Hithpael +is connected only with the seed—"they shall bless themselves in thy seed,"—and the +Niphal only with the person of the Patriarch: <span class="pagenum">[Pg 56]</span> +"they shall be blessed in thee," and "in thee and thy seed." The Patriarchs themselves +are the source of blessing, but, if these nations <i>blessed themselves</i>, they +wish for themselves the blessing of their descendants exhibited before their eyes. +The reference in Zech. xiv. 17, 18 to the promise made to the Patriarchs presupposes +the Messianic character, and the passive signification of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נברכו</span>. In like manner, all the quotations +of it in the New Testament rest on the passive signification. It is from this view +of it that the Lord says that Abraham saw His day; that, in Rom. iv. 13, Paul finds, +in this promise, the prophecy of His conquering the world; and that, in Gal. iii. +14, he speaks of the blessing of Abraham upon the Gentiles through Christ Jesus. +Gal. iii. 8 and Acts iii. 25 render <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נברכו</span> +by <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐνευλογηθήσονται</span>. The explanation, "they +shall wish prosperity or happiness to each other," is destructive of the gradation, +so evident in the fundamental passage,—blessing <i>for</i>, <i>on account of</i>, +and <i>by</i> Abraham; it cannot account for the constant, solemn repetition of +this proclamation which everywhere appears as the <i>acme</i> of the promises given +to the Patriarch; it destroys the correspondence existing between this blessing +upon all the families of the earth, and the curse which, after the fall, was inflicted +upon the earth; it does away with the contrast, so clearly marked, between the union +of the families of the earth effected by the blessing, and their dispersion, narrated +in chap. xi.; it demolishes the connection existing between the prophecy of Japheth's +dwelling in the tents of Shem (ix. 27), on the one hand, and the Ruler proceeding +from Judah, to whom shall be the obedience of the nations (xlix. 10), on the other; +and it severs all the necessary connecting links which unite these prophecies with +one another.</p> +<p class="normal">Another attempt to deprive this promise of its Messianic character—that, +namely, made by <i>Bertholdt</i> (<i>de ortu theol. Vet. Hebr.</i> p. 102) and others, +who would have us to understand, by the families and nations of the earth, the Canaanitish +nations—does not require any minute examination, as the weakness of these productions +of rationalistic tendency are so glaringly manifest.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_49a" href="#ftnRef_49a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [1]</sup></a> <i>Herder</i> says, in his <i>Briefe das Studium der Theol.</i> + betr. ii. S. 278: "If, in Abraham's descendants, all the nations of the earth + were to be blessed, Abraham might and should have conceived of this blessing + in all its generality, so that everything whereby his nation deserved well of + the nations of the earth, was implied in it. If, then, Christ also belongs to + the number of those noble individuals who deserved so well, the blessing refers + to Him, not <i>indirectly</i>, but <i>directly</i>; and if Christ be the chief + of all this number, it then most directly, and in preference to all others, + refers to Him;—although, in this germ, Abraham did not distinctly perceive His + person, did not, nor could, except by special revelation, in this bud, so plainly + discover the full growth of His merits."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_51a" href="#ftnRef_51a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [2]</sup></a> Even in this he was preceded by <i>Lampe</i>, who remarks: "Christ + had spoken of seeing the day; the Jews speak about seeing the person. He had + spoken of Abraham's seeing; they speak of Christ's seeing."</p> +</div> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 57]</span></p> +<h2><a name="div2_57" href="#div2Ref_57">THE BLESSING OF JACOB UPON JUDAH</a></h2> +<h3>(Gen. xlix. 8-10.)</h3> +<p class="normal">Ver. 8. "<i>Judah, thou, thy brethren shall praise thee; thy hand +shall be on the neck of thine enemies; before thee shall bow down the sons of thy +father.</i> Ver. 9. <i>A lion's whelp is Judah; from the prey, my son, thou goest +up; he stoopeth down, he coucheth as a lion, and as a full-grown lion, who shall +rouse him up?</i> Ver. 10. <i>The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor lawgiver +from between his feet, until Shiloh come, and unto Him the people shall adhere.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Thus does dying Jacob, in announcing "what shall befall his sons +in the end of the days" (ver. 1), speak to Judah, after having dismissed those of +his sons to whom, in the name of the Lord, he must tell hard things—things which +did not, however, exclude them from the salvation common to all of them (ver. 28), +although their shadow made the light of Judah shine so much the more brightly.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_57a" href="#ftn_57a">[1]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal">In ver. 8 everything depends upon a right determination of the +meaning of the name Judah. Being formed from the Future in Hophal, it signifies: +"He (viz., God) shall be praised." This explanation rests upon Gen. xxix. 35, where +Leah, after the birth of Judah, says, "Now will I praise the Lord;" and then follow +the words: "therefore she called his name Judah." It rests likewise on the common +use of the verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ידה</span>, the Hiphil of which is, +according to <i>Maurer</i>, almost constantly used of "praising God," and is, as +it were, set apart and sanctified for that purpose. After having enumerated a multitude +of passages, <i>Gesenius</i> says, in his <i>Thesaurus</i>: "In all these passages +it refers <span class="pagenum">[Pg 58]</span> to the praise of God, and it is only +rarely (Gen. xlix. 8 compared with Job xl. 14) that it refers to the praise of men." +Even these few exceptions are such only in appearance. In Job xl. 14, he whom God +will praise is not an ordinary man, but a <i>god-man</i>. By the subsequent words +in Gen. xlix. 8, "Before thee shall bow down," something divine is ascribed to Judah; +we need not therefore be astonished that, by the word +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יודוך</span>, he is raised above the merely human +standing. They only who do not know the Lion of the tribe of Judah, have any reason +to explain away, by a forced exposition, the slight allusion to a superhuman dignity +of the tribe of Judah. The greater number of expositors, referring to the subsequent +words, "thy brethren shall praise thee," explain the name by the expression, "blessed +one." But, even though we should retain the sure explanation which has been given +above, the idea now mentioned falls very naturally in with it. He who, in the fullest +sense, is a "God's-praise" (<i>Gottlob</i>), whose very existence becomes the cause +of exclaiming, <span lang="el" class="Greek">δόξα τῷ Θεῷ</span>, praise be to God, +will assuredly receive praise from the brethren.—"Judah thou" stands (according +to Gen. xxvii. 36; Matt. xvi. 18) either for, "Thou art Judah," <i>i.e.</i>, thou +art rightly called so, or, according to Gen. xxiv. 60, for, "Thou Judah," <i>i.e.</i>, +I have something particular to tell thee (compare the emphatic "I" in Gen. xxiv. +27).—On the expression, "Thine hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies," <i>i.e.</i>, +thou shalt put to flight all thine enemies, and press them hard while they are fleeing, +compare Exod. xxiii. 27, "I will make all thine enemies (turn their) backs unto +thee," and Ps. xviii. 41, where David says, in the name of his family, in which +Judah centred, as did Israel in Judah, "Thou hast given me mine enemies (to be) +a back." If, however, we inquire how this prophecy was fulfilled, we must not overlook +the circumstance that the subjects of it are sinful men, and that, for this reason, +God could never give up the right of visiting their iniquity,—a right which has +its foundation in His very nature. Three sentences of condemnation precede the blessing +upon Judah, and this indicates that Judah too will be weighed in the balance of +justice. "The excellency of dignity and the excellency of power," which, in ver. +3, were taken from Reuben, are here adjudged to Judah. The circumstance of his being +the first-born could not protect the former against the loss of his privileges; +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 59]</span> and just as little will the divine election +deliver Judah from a visitation for his sins, although, by that election, the total +loss of his privileges is rendered impossible. These two ordinations—the election +and the visitation of sin in the elect—stand by the side of each other; and the +latter could not be stayed, even at the time when Judah had reached its height in +the Lion from out of his tribe; for although the Shepherd was blameless, yet the +flock was not so. The ordination of election is, however, far from being thereby +darkened; it only shines by a brighter light. Often painful indeed were the defeats +which Judah had to sustain; often enough—as during the centuries which elapsed between +the destruction of David's kingdom and the coming of Christ—was the promise, "Thy +hand shall be in the necks of thine enemies," reversed. But when we behold Judah +ever and anon returning and rising to the dignity here bestowed upon him,—when the +advance then always keeps equal pace with the preceding depths of humiliation (we +need think only of David's time, and compare it with the period of the Judges),—then +indeed it appears all the more clearly, that the hand of God is ever active in bringing +this promise to a sure and firm fulfilment. In the history of the world there is +only one power—that of Judah—in which, notwithstanding all defeats, the promise, +"Thy hand shall be in the necks of thine enemies," is ever, after all, fulfilled +anew; only one power, the victorious energy of which may indeed be overcome by sleep, +but never by death; only one power which can speak as does David in the name of +his family in Ps. xviii. 38-40: "I pursue mine enemies and overtake them, I do not +return till they are consumed; I crush them, and they cannot rise: they fall under +my feet. And Thou girdest me with strength for the war, Thou bowest down those that +rise against me."—Luther remarks on this passage: "These promises must be understood +in spirit and faith. This may be seen from the history of David, where it often +appears as if God had altogether forgotten him, and what He had promised to him. +After he had already been elected, he was, for ten years, not able to obtain a fixed +place, or residence in the whole kingdom; and when at last he took hold of the reins +of government, he fell into great, grievous, heinous sin, and was sore vexed when +he had to bear the punishment of it. Therefore these two things—promise and +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 60]</span> faith—must always be combined; and it is necessary +that a man who has a divine promise know well the art which Paul teaches in Rom. +iv. 18, to believe in hope even against hope.—The kingdom of Israel, too, was assailed +by so great weakness, and pressed down by so many burdens, that it appeared as if +every moment it would fall; and this was especially the case when sin, and punishment +in consequence of sin, broke in upon them, as, for instance, after David's adultery +with Bathsheba, and oftentimes besides. Yet, even in all such temptations, it always +remains, on account of the promise."—It must be carefully observed that the words, +"Thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies," are placed between, "Thy brethren +shall praise thee," and "Before thee shall bow down the sons of thy father," and +that, immediately after this, Judah's victorious power against the enemies of God's +people is again pointed out. This teaches us that the exalted position which Judah, +when compared with his brethren, occupies, rests mainly on this:—that he is their +fore-champion in the warfare against the world, and that God has endowed him with +conquering power against the enemies of His kingdom. The history of David is best +calculated to show and convince us, how closely these two things are connected with +each other. That he was called to verify the truth of the promise given to Judah, +"Thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies," was first seen in his victory +over Goliath the Philistine, fore-champion of the world's power. After David's word +had been fulfilled, "The Lord who delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out +of the paw of the bear. He will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine," +and the Philistines had fled, seeing that their champion was dead (1 Sam. xvii. +37-51), then also were fulfilled the other words: "Thy brethren shall praise thee, +the sons of thy father shall bow before thee." "And it came to pass as they came, +when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came +out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tabrets, +with joy, and with instruments of music. And the women answered one another as they +played, and said, Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands."—And +in Sam. xviii. 16, it is said: "But all Israel and Judah <i>loved</i> David, <i> +because</i> he went out and came in before them;"—and in 2 Sam. v. 2, when the ten +tribes acknowledged <span class="pagenum">[Pg 61]</span> David as their king, they +said: "Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest +out and broughtest in Israel." David would never have succeeded in overcoming the +jealousy and envy of the other tribes, unless the promise, "Thy hand shall be in +the neck of thine enemies," had been fulfilled in him.—<i>Before Judah shall how +down the sons of his father.</i> I have already remarked, in my commentary on Rev. +xix. 10, that there is very little ground for the common distinction between religious +and civil <span lang="el" class="Greek">προσκύνησις</span> (bowing down, worship). +The true distinction is between that <span lang="el" class="Greek">προσκύνησις</span> +which is given to God, either directly or indirectly, in those who bear His image, +in the representatives of His gifts and offices,—and that +<span lang="el" class="Greek">προσκύνησις</span> which is exacted apart from, and +against God. "The God of Scripture demands to be honoured in those who bear His +image, who hold His offices,—in father and mother and old men (Lev. xix. 32), in +princes (Exod. xxii. 28), in the office of the judge (Deut. i. 17; Exod. xxi. 6, +xxii. 7, 8). It is wicked to refuse this honour, and its natural expression in the +bowing of the body, under the pretext, that it is due to <i>God</i> alone. It is +to be refused only where there is some danger that, thereby, any independent honour +would be ascribed to the mere vessel of the divine glory." In what the +<span lang="el" class="Greek">προσκύνησις</span> consists, which Judah is to receive +from his brethren, we see distinctly from Isa. xlv. 14, where the heathen, at the +time of the salvation, fall down before Israel: "Thus saith the Lord, The labour +of Egypt and merchandise of Ethiopia, and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come +over unto thee, and be thine: they shall go behind thee; in chains they shall walk; +<i>and they shall fall down before thee, and they shall make supplication unto thee</i> +(saying). <i>Only in thee is God, and there is no God else.</i>" The ground of Judah's +adoration on the part of his brethren is this:—that God's glory is visibly upon +him, that by glorious deeds and victories the seal is impressed upon him: "with +us is God" (<i>Immanuel</i>). And this found its most glorious fulfilment in the +Lion of the tribe of Judah, in Christ, of whom it is said in Phil. ii. 9-11: "Wherefore +God has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name; that +at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of all those who are in heaven, and +on earth, and under the earth; and that every tongue should +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 62]</span> confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord, to the +glory of God the Father." That, in its final accomplishment, this prophecy referred +to Christ, was known to Jacob as certainly as he makes Judah centre in the Shiloh. +This Solomon also knew, when, in Ps. lxxii. 11 (compare Ps. xlv. 12), he ascribes +to his great Antitype what is here ascribed to Judah: "All kings shall worship Him, +and all nations shall serve Him." The consequence of the worship "by kings and nations" +is the worshipping "by the sons of the father." Jacob thus transfers to Judah that +which Isaac had promised to <i>him</i>: "People shall serve thee, and nations shall +worship thee: be lord over thy brethren, and thy mother's sons shall worship before +thee:" Gen. xxvii. 29.</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">In ver. 9 Judah is first designated a young lion,—a +name which is intended to indicate, that the victorious power ascribed to Judah +exists, as yet, only in the <i>germ</i>. It required that centuries should pass +away before he grew up to be a lion, a full-grown lion. By the long period which +thus intervened between the promise and its fulfilment, the divine election is the +more strikingly manifested. (Several interpreters have been of opinion that there +is no difference between the young lion, the lion, and the full-grown lion. But +it is shown by Ezek. xix. 3—"And she brought up one of her +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גורים</span>, and it became a +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כפיר</span>, and it learnt to tear prey,"—that +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גור אריה</span> is a young lion not yet able to catch +prey.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_62a" href="#ftn_62a">[2]</a></sup>) In +the words, "From the prey, my son, thou art gone up," the <i>prey</i> is the <i> +terminus a quo</i>: for <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עלה</span> with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מן</span> is always used of the place from which +it is gone up (see Josh. iv. 17, x. 9; Song of Sol. iv. 2): the <i>terminus ad quem</i> +is the usual abode, as is shown by what follows. The residence of the conqueror +and ruler is conceived of as being <i>elevated</i>. Joseph, according to Gen. xlvi. +31, goes up to Pharaoh, and in ver. 29 of the same chapter he goes up to meet his +father. The expression "to go up" is commonly used of those who come from +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 63]</span> other countries to Canaan. But the "going up" +in the passage under review implies also the "going down" into the lower regions +to seek for prey, just as in Ps. lxviii. 19, where it is said of the Lord, after +He had fought for His people, and had been victorious, "Thou hast ascended on high, +Thou hast led captivity captive: Thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the +rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them." "<i>To dwell</i>" means +there, that, after having accomplished all this, thou mayest dwell gloriously, and +be inaccessible to the vengeance of the conquered, in thy usual place of abode. +The sense is the same in the passage before us. Luther is therefore wrong in explaining +it thus: "Thou hast risen high, my son, by great victories,"—as are others also +who translate it, "From the prey thou growest up." Such a view of this clause would, +moreover, break up the connection, and all that follows would appear without preparation.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_63a" href="#ftn_63a">[3]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal">The words, "He stoopeth down, he croucheth as a lion, and as a +full-grown lion; who shall rouse him up?" contain a transition and allusion to what +we are subsequently told concerning Shiloh. Even here we are presented with a picture +of peace,—a peace, however, which is not to the prejudice of victorious power, as +in the case of Issachar (vers. 14, 15), but which, on the contrary, preserves it +undiminished. If the promise, "From the prey, my son, thou art gone up," found its +first glorious, although only preliminary, fulfilment in the reign of David (compare +the enumeration of his victories in 2 Sam. viii.), the words, "He stoopeth down, +he coucheth," etc., are the most appropriate inscription for the portal of Solomon's +reign. But, in Christ, the pre-eminence in the reign both of war and peace is united.—That +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לביא</span> is not "the lioness," but only the poetical +designation of the lion, appears from just the very passage which is so commonly +adduced in support of the former signification, viz., Job iv. 11; for the sons of +the lion spoken of in that passage are the sons of the wicked (compare Job xxvii. +14).</p> +<p class="normal">A parallel to the words in ver. 10, "The sceptre shall not depart +from Judah," is formed by the departing of the sceptre from Egypt, in Zech. x. 11: +"And the pride of Assyria shall <span class="pagenum">[Pg 64]</span> be brought +down, and the sceptre of Egypt shall depart away." All dominion of the world over +the people of God is only temporary; and so also, the dominion of the people of +God over the world, as it centres in Judah, can sustain only a temporary <i>interruption</i>: +its departure is everywhere in appearance only; and when it departs, it is only +that it may return with enhanced weight.—The <i>sceptre</i> is the emblem of dominion. +The words, "A sceptre rises out of Israel" (Num. xxiv. 17), are explained in chap. +xxiv. 19 by the words, "<i>Dominion</i> shall come out of Jacob." The question as +to the subjects of this dominion must be determined from the preceding words; for +there shall not depart from Judah what Judah, according to these words, possesses. +Hence they are (1) the brethren of Judah, and (2) the enemies of Israel. The latter +can the less properly be excluded, because of these alone the whole of the preceding +verse treated. In the words of Balaam, in Num. xxiv. 17 (which refer to the passage +under consideration), "There cometh a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre riseth out +of Israel, and smiteth the territories of Moab, and destroyeth all the sons of the +tumult," there is viewed, in the sceptre, only the victorious and destructive power +which he shall display in his relation to the <i>world</i>; but the subjects of +dominion are, in that passage, according to ver. 19, the heathens also. The sceptre +is pre-eminently an ensign of kings. Hence, to the sceptre and star out of Israel +(Num. xxiv. 17) corresponds, in ver. 7, his <i>king</i>: "And his king shall be +higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted,"—<i>i.e.</i>, not merely a single +royal person, but the Israelitish kingdom. But we can here the less legitimately +separate sceptre and kingdom from each other, because, even in the earlier promises +made to the Patriarch, there is the prophecy of the rising of a kingdom among their +descendants,—of a kingdom, too, that shall extend beyond the boundary of that posterity +itself. (Compare Gen. xvii. 6, "Kings shall come out of thee;" ver. 16, "And she +shall become nations. Icings of nations shall be of her." See also Gen. xxxv. 11.) +In vol. ii. of the <i>Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch</i>, p. +166 f., we detailed the natural foundations which there existed for foreseeing the +establishment of a kingdom in Israel. It is evident that the promise which was formally +given to the whole posterity of the Patriarchs, is here appropriated specially to +Judah, who, for <span class="pagenum">[Pg 65]</span> the benefit of the whole people, +is to have the sceptre.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_65a" href="#ftn_65a">[4]</a></sup> +From what has been remarked, it appears that the fulfilment of this prophecy began +first with David; up to that time Judah had been only "a lion's whelp." "In the +person of Saul," as Calvin remarks, "there was an abortive effort; but there came +out at length in David, under the authority and legitimate arrangement of God, the +sovereignty of Judah, according to the prophecy of Jacob." It also appears, from +what has been observed, that <i>Reinke</i>, S. 45 of his Monography, <i>Die Weissagung +Jacobs über Schilo</i>, Münster 1849 (a work written with great diligence), is mistaken +in determining the sense to be,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_65b" href="#ftn_65b">[5]</a></sup> +that Judah as a tribe would not perish, and his superiority not cease, until out +of him Shiloh, etc.; and that he is wrong, too, in maintaining, S. 133, that the +continuance of the royal dignity, and the superiority over all the tribes until +the time of Christ, were not required by these words. From the remarks which we +have made, even more than that is required,—the <i>continuance</i>, namely, <i>of +Judah's dominion over the Gentiles</i>; for otherwise it would be necessary to make +a violent separation of these words from the preceding ones. That which has given +rise to such interpretations and assertions, viz., the apparent difficulty encountered +in pointing out the fulfilment,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_65c" href="#ftn_65c">[6]</a></sup> +is by no means removed by such an explanation. For, if we look to the surface only, +what had been left of the superiority of the tribe of Judah, at the time when Christ +appeared? But if we look deeper, we shall find no reason for such feeble interpretations. +The fulness of strength which, notwithstanding the deepest humiliation, still dwelt +in the sceptre of Judah at the time when Christ appeared, is made manifest by the +very appearance of Christ—the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Although faint-heartedness, +perceiving only what is immediately before the eyes, might have said, "The sceptre +has departed from <span class="pagenum">[Pg 66]</span> Judah," to every one who +was not blinded it must have been evident, at the very moment when Christ appeared, +that the sceptre had not departed from Judah. We must not allow ourselves to be +perplexed by any events and arguments adduced to prove that the sceptre <i>has departed</i> +from Judah; for the very same events and arguments would militate against the eternal +dominion of his house which had been promised to David, and would therefore make +us doubtful of that also. All these events and arguments lose their significancy, +when we remark, that this departing is only an <i>apparent</i>, not a <i>definitive</i> +one;—that God never, by His promises, binds the hands of His punitive justice;—that +His election goes always hand-in-hand with the visitation of the sins of the elected; +but that, in the end, the election will stand in all its validity.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_66a" href="#ftn_66a">[1]</a></sup> +To Judah applies exactly what in Ps. lxxxix. 31-35 is said of David: "If his children +forsake My law, and walk not in My judgments; if they break My statutes, and keep +not My commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their +iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, My loving-kindness will I not utterly take +from him, nor suffer My faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor +alter the thing that is gone out of My lips." But the greater the degradation that +had come upon Judah, the more consoling is this promise. If we see that neither +the decline of David's and Judah's dominion after Solomon, nor the apparently total +disappearance of David's kingdom which took place after the Chaldee catastrophe, +and continued for centuries; nor the altogether comfortless condition (when +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 67]</span> looking only at what Is visible) which Jeremiah +describes in the words: "Judah is captive in affliction and great servitude: she +dwelleth among the heathen, and findeth no rest. The anointed of the Lord, who was +our consolation, is taken in their pits, he of whom we said, Under his shadow we +shall live among the heathen. Slaves are ruling over us, and there is none to deliver +us from their hand;"—if we see that all these things did not prevent the fulfilment +of the words, "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh come;"—that, +notwithstanding all these things, it most gloriously manifested itself in the appearance +of Christ, that the dominion remained still with Judah;—why should we be dismayed +though the river of the kingdom of God should sometimes lose itself in the sand? +Why should we not be firmly confident that in due time it shall spring forth again +with its clear and powerful waters?—But the <i>Jews</i> are not benefited by this +distinction betwixt the <i>definitive</i> departing of the sceptre, and one which +is merely <i>temporary</i>. The latter must necessarily be distinguished from the +former by this:—that even in the times of abasement, there must be single symptoms +which still indicate the continuance of the sceptre; and this was evidently the +case in the times before Christ. In Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, and Hezekiah, the sceptre +of Judah brought forth new leaves; after their return from the captivity, the place, +at least, was pointed out by Zerubbabel, which the Davidic kingdom would, at some +future period, again occupy. The victories of the times of the Maccabees, though +they themselves were not of the tribe of Judah, served to manifest clearly that +the lion's strength and the lion's courage had not yet departed from Judah. It is +not without significance that <i>Judas Maccabeus</i> had his name thus. And under +all these events the family of David always remained distinct, and capable of being +traced out. But nothing of all this is to be found with the Jews during the 1800 +years after Christ; and hence the vanity of their hope that, in some future time, +it will be made evident by the appearance of Shiloh, that the supremacy and dominion +of Judah are not lost.</p> +<p class="normal">Along with the <i>sceptre</i> which shall not depart from Judah, +the <i>lawgiver</i> is mentioned, for whom many would, quite arbitrarily, substitute +the <i>commander's staff</i>. Is. xxxiii. 22 is explanatory of this passage; "For +the Lord our Judge, the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 68]</span> Lord our Lawgiver, +the Lord our King, He will save us"—where the <i>lawgiver</i> is put on a level +with the <i>judge</i> and <i>king</i>. Gesenius translates it by: our <i>commander</i>.</p> +<p class="normal">The lawgiver shall not depart "from between his feet." This is +a poetical expression for "from him." He is, as it were, to have the lawgiver wherever +he moves or stands. Explanatory of this is the passage in Judges v. 27, where, in +the Song of Deborah, it is said of Jael, "He bowed between her feet, he fell, he +lay down." That which any one has between his feet, is accordingly his territory +on which he moves, that within his reach. In the latter passage the prose expression +would have been, "beside her," and in the passage under consideration, "from him."<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_68a" href="#ftn_68a">[8]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">Sceptre and lawgiver shall not depart from Judah until +Shiloh come. Here everything depends upon fixing the derivation and signification +of this word. There cannot be any doubt, and, indeed, it is now almost universally +admitted, that it is derived from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שלה</span>, "to +rest." In the first edition of this work, the author gave it as his opinion, that +its formation was analogous to that of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כידור</span>, +"tumult of war," from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כדר</span>, "to be troubled," +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">קיטר</span>, "smoke," from +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שִׁלֹחַ ,קטר</span> from +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שלח</span>; and many (<i>Hofmann</i>, <i>Kurtz</i>, +<i>Reinke</i>) have stedfastly maintained this opinion even until now. But the author +must confess that the objections raised against this derivation by <i>Tuch</i> are +well-founded. "In the first place," <i>Tuch</i> remarks, "it is well known that +forms like <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">קיטר</span> do not constitute any special +class in the etymology, but have originated from <i>Piel</i> forms (<i>Ewald</i>, +Lehrb. d. Hebr. Spr. § 156 b), as is very clearly shown by +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">קימוש</span>, being found by the side of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">קִמּוֹשׁ</span>. But the <i>o</i> in the final syllable +of these words is not an o unchangeable, according to the rules of etymology, and +could, therefore, not remain in a root <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לח</span>; +<i>and there is not found, in general, any form of a root</i> +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לח</span> <i>analogous to</i> +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">קיטר</span>." But far more decisive is another reason. +"The <i>nomina Gentilia</i> <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גילני</span> (2 Sam. +xv. 12), <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שילני</span> (1 Kings +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 69]</span> xi. 29, xii. 15), lead us from the supposed +form to the substantive termination <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">־וֹן</span> which +a <i>liquida</i> may drop, and express the remaining vowel +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ו</span> by <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ה</span>." +(Compare <i>Ewald</i>, § 163.) Now that <i>Shiloh</i> is an abbreviation of <i>Shilon</i> +is proved, not only by the <i>nomen gentile</i>, but also by the fact, that the +ruins of the town which received its name from the Shiloh in our passage, are, up +to the present moment, called <i>Seilun</i>, and that Josephus writes <i>Silo</i> +as well as <i>Silun</i>, <span lang="el" class="Greek">Σιλοῦν</span> (compare <i> +Robinson</i>, Travels iii. 1, p. 305); and, <i>finally</i>, by the analogy of the +name <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שלמה</span>, which is formed after the manner +of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שילה</span>, and likewise shortened from +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שלמון</span>. We must confess that <i>Tuch</i> is +right also when he asserts: "That it is quite impossible to give the word the signification +of an appellative noun, since it is only in proper names, in which the signification +of the suffix of derivation is of less consequence, that <i>on</i> is shortened +into <i>o</i>." The only exception is that of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אבדה</span>, +"hell," in Prov. xxvii. 20; but even this is only an <i>apparent</i> exception, +and is quite in accordance with the rule laid down, inasmuch as "hell" is, in this +passage, personified,—as is frequently the case in other passages. (Compare Rev. +ix. 11.) But this case very plainly shows that we are not at liberty to apply, as +<i>Tuch</i> does, the measure of our proper names to those of Scripture, which are +used in a more comprehensive sense. The Samaritan translation is, therefore, right +in retaining the "Shiloh." As the passage under review is the first in which the +person of the Redeemer meets us, so Shiloh is also the first <i>name</i> of the +Redeemer,—a name expressive of His nature, and quite in correspondence with the +names in Is. ix. 5, and with the name Immanuel in Is. vii. 14. With respect to the +<i>signification</i> of the name, the termination <i>on</i>, according to <i>Ewald</i>, +§ 163, forms adjectives and abstract nouns. The analogy of the name +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שלמה</span>, which is formed after the manner of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שילה</span>, indicates that it has here <i>an adjective</i> +signification, and, like Solomon, Shiloh denotes "the man of rest," corresponds +to the "Prince of Peace" in Is. ix. 5, and, viewed in its character of a proper +name, is like the German "<i>Friedrich</i>" = Frederick, <i>i.e.</i>, "rich in peace," +"the Peaceful one."</p> +<p class="normal">To Shiloh the nations shall adhere. The word +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יקהה</span> is commonly understood as meaning "obedience."<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_69a" href="#ftn_69a">[9]</a></sup> +But it does not <span class="pagenum">[Pg 70]</span> denote every kind of obedience, +but only that which is spontaneous, and has its root in piety. This is clearly shown +by the only passage in which, besides the one under consideration, the word +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יקהה</span> is found, Prov. xxx. 17: "An eye that +mocketh at his father, and despises the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יקהה</span> +of his mother."<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_70a" href="#ftn_70a">[10]</a></sup> +To this view we are led also by the Arabic, where the word +<img border="0" alt="[Arabic: **]" src="images/image70a.png" height="25" width="25">, +does not denote obedience in general, but willing obedience, docility, in the viii. +sq. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ל</span> <i>dicto audientem se præbuit more discipuli</i>. +(Compare <i>Camus</i> in <i>Schulten</i>, on Prov. l. c.) Cognate is +<img border="0" alt="[Arabic: **]" src="images/image70b.png" height="32" width="25">, +"to take care," "to guard oneself," specially of the conflict with the higher powers +of life, in the viii. <i>semet custodivit ah aliqua re, et absolute timuit coluitque +Deum, pius fuit.</i> From it is derived <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יקה</span> +<i>pius</i> in Prov. xxx. 1, where the son of Jakeh speaks to "With me is God, and +I prevail" (<i>Heb.</i> Itheal and Ucal.)</p> +<p class="normal">Luther, although he has misunderstood the right meaning of Shiloh, +has yet beautifully comprehended the sense of the whole passage. "This is a golden +text," he says, "and well worthy of remembrance, namely: that the kingdom of Christ +will not be such a kingdom as that of David was, of whom it is said, 1 Chron. xxviii. +3, that he was a man of war and had shed much blood. The kingdom of Shiloh, which +succeeded it, is not a kingdom so powerful and bloody, but consists in this,—that +the word, by which it is ruled or administered, is heard, believed, and obeyed. +All will be done by means of preaching; and this will just be the sign by which +the kingdom of Christ is distinguished from the other kingdoms of this world, which +are governed by the sword and by physical power." To this point also Luther draws +attention, that our prophecy affords a powerful support to the ministers of the +Word: "It will be done by the proclamation of the promise, and Shiloh will be +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 71]</span> present with it, and will be efficient and +powerful through our tongue and mouth."</p> +<p class="normal">That by the <i>nations</i> are not meant either the Canaanites +in particular, or the tribes of Israel, but the nations in general, appears, partly, +from the connection with what precedes—those who now willingly obey are evidently +the enemies spoken of in vers. 8, 9,—and, partly, from the reference to the earlier +promises of Genesis, all of which refer to nations in general. If a limitation had +been intended, an express indication of it would have been necessary. The analogy +of the parallel Messianic passages likewise militates against such a limitation; +<i>e.g.</i>, Ps. lxxii. 8: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the +river unto the ends of the earth." (Compare also Is. xi. 10.)</p> +<p class="normal">In the Shiloh, the whole dignity of Judah as Lord and Ruler is +to be concentrated. It hence follows, that the nations who will not willingly obey +Him as Shiloh, must experience the destructive power of His sceptre (Num. xxiv. +17; Ps. ii. 9), and that behind the attractive kingdom of peace, there is concealed +the destructive dominion of the lion.</p> +<p class="normal">Several interpreters have determined the sense as follows:—The +dominion of Judah should continue until the appearing of Shiloh; but that then he +should lose it.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_71a" href="#ftn_71a">[11]</a></sup> +We, on the contrary, conceive the sense to be this: "That the tribe of Judah should +not lose the dominion until he attain to its highest realization by Shiloh, who +should be descended from him, and to whom all the nations of the earth should render +obedience."</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">Against this interpretation no difficulty can be raised +from the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עד כי</span>. It is true that this term +has always a reference to the <i>terminus ad quem</i> only, and includes it; but +it is as certain that, very frequently, a <i>terminus ad quem</i> is mentioned which +is not intended to be the last, but only one of special importance; so that what +lies beyond it is lost sight of. (Compare the author's <i>Dissert. on the Genuin. +of Daniel</i>, pp. 55-56.) If <span class="pagenum">[Pg 72]</span> only sceptre +and lawgiver were secured to Judah up to the time of Shiloh's coming, then, as a +matter of course, they were so afterwards. That, previous to the coming of Shiloh, +great dangers would threaten the sceptre of Judah, is indicated by Jacob, since +he lays so much stress upon the sceptre's not departing until that time. <i>Hence +we expect circumstances that will almost amount to a departing of the sceptre.</i></p> +<p class="normal">But the positive reason for this interpretation is, that if, according +to the other opinion, Judah were told that the dominion of his tribe were, at some +future period, to cease, this would not be in harmony with the tone of the remainder +of the address to Judah, which is altogether of a cheerful character. And <i>then</i>,—Jacob +would, in that case, not have allowed the Messianic promise to remain in its indefinite +state; from former analogies, we should have been induced to expect that he would +transfer it to one of his sons. And <i>finally</i>,—from the analogy of the other +Messianic prophecies, as well as from history, it seems not to be admissible to +contrast the dominion of Judah with the kingdom of the Messiah. The dominion of +Judah does not by any means <i>terminate</i> in Christ; it rather <i>centres</i> +in Him.</p> +<p class="normal">We are not expressly told that the Shiloh will be descended from +Judah; but this is supposed to be self-evident, and is not, therefore, expressly +mentioned. If it were otherwise, the Shiloh would not have been alluded to in connection +with Judah at all. A restriction of the promise to Judah, such as would take place +if the Shiloh did not belong to him, is the less legitimate, inasmuch as, in vers. +8, 9, victory and dominion, without any limitation, are promised to Judah.</p> +<p class="normal">Having thus adduced the positive arguments in support of our view +of this passage, let us now further examine the opinions of those who differ from +us. Here, then, we must first of all consider those which are at one with us in +the acknowledgment that this passage contains the promise of a personal Messiah.</p> +<p class="normal">1. Some interpreters (<i>Jonathan</i>, <i>Luther</i>, <i>Calvin</i>, +<i>Knapp</i>, <i>Dogm.</i>) are of opinion that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שילה</span> +is compounded of the noun <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שיל</span>, "child," and +the suffix of the third person: "Until his (<i>i.e.</i>, Judah's) son or descendant, +the Messiah, shall come." (Luther, somewhat differently.) But this supposed signification +of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שיל</span> <span class="pagenum">[Pg 73]</span> +is destitute of any tenable foundation. That by such an explanation, moreover, there +is a dissolution of the connection betwixt the Shiloh in this passage, and Shiloh +the name of a place, which is written in precisely the same manner, is decisive +against both the view just given forth and that which follows.</p> +<p class="normal">2. Others (the last of them. <i>Sack</i> in the second edition +of his <i>Apolog.</i>) suppose the word to be erroneously pointed. They propose +to read <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שֶׁלֹּה</span>, compounded of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ש</span> for <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשר</span>, +and the suffix <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ה</span> for +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ו</span>. They suppose the language to be elliptical: +"Until He come to whom the dominion or sceptre belongs, or is due." The principal +argument in support of this exposition is, that most of the ancient translators +seem to have followed this punctuation. It is true that this is doubtful as regards +<i>Onkelos</i> and the <i>Targum</i> of Jerusalem, which translate, "<i>Donec veniat +Messias, cujus est regnum</i>;" for we may well suppose that here +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שילה</span> is simply rendered by +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משיחא</span>, while the following clause adds a complement +from Ezek. xxi. 32, which is founded upon the passage now under review. But it is +certain that the LXX. supposed the punctuation to be +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שֶׁלֹּה</span>. They translate: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ</span> (Thus read the +two oldest manuscripts—the Vatican and Alexandrian. The other reading, +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ᾧ ἀπόκειται</span>, has no doubt crept in from the +later Greek translations, notwithstanding the charge which <i>Justinus</i> [<i>Dial. +c. Tryph.</i> § 120] raises against the Jews, that they had substituted the +<span lang="el" class="Greek">τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ</span> for the earlier +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ᾧ ἀπόκειται</span>. Comp. <i>Stroth</i> in <i>Eichhorn's</i> +Repert. ii. 95; <i>Hohne's</i> edition of the LXX.) <i>Aquila</i> and <i>Symmachus</i>, +who translate, <span lang="el" class="Greek">ᾧ ἀπόκειται</span>, as well as the +Syriac and Saadias, who translate, <i>Ille cujus est</i>, follow the same reading. +But the defenders of this exposition are wrong in inferring, from the circumstance +of the ancient translations having followed this punctuation, that it was generally +received. Had such been the case, how could it be explained that it should no more +be found in any of our manuscripts? For the circumstance that forty manuscripts +collected by <i>de Rossi</i> have <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שלה</span> written +without a <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">י</span>, cannot be considered as of great +weight; since it is merely a defective way of writing, occurring frequently in similar +words. But if we consider the fact, which may be established upon historical grounds, +that the Jews watched with most anxious care the uncorrupted preservation of the +received <span class="pagenum">[Pg 74]</span> text of Holy Scripture, according +to its consonants and pronunciation; that they did not even venture to receive into +the text any emendation, though it should have recommended itself as in the highest +degree probable; while, on the other hand, the ancient Jewish and Christian translators +took great liberties in this respect, and, in the manifold perplexities into which, +owing to their insufficient resources and knowledge, they fell, helped themselves +as best they could;—it will certainly appear to us most probable, that even the +ancient translators found our vocalization of the word as the received one, but +felt themselves obliged to depart from it, because they could, in accordance with +it, give no suitable derivation; whilst the punctuation adopted by them agreed perfectly +with the traditional reference of the passage to the Messiah. But if this be the +case, the authority of the ancient translations can here be of no greater weight +than that of any modern interpreter; and, in the case under review, we are at liberty +to urge all those considerations which are, in general, advanced against any change +in the vocalization, unless there be most urgent reasons for it. The ancient translators, +moreover, can have less weight with us, because we can distinctly perceive that +a misapprehension of Ezek. xxi. 32 (27)—on which passage we shall afterwards comment—gave +rise to their error. Against this explanation it may be further urged, not only +that the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ש</span> <i>prefix</i> occurs nowhere else +in the Pentateuch—an objection which is not in itself sufficient, since it occurs +so early as in the song of Deborah, Judges v. 7—but also, that the supposed ellipsis +would be exceedingly hard. (Compare <i>Stange</i>, <i>Theol. Symm.</i> i. S. 238 +ff.)</p> +<p class="normal">Before we pass on to a consideration of the non-Messianic interpretation, +we shall first state the reasons which bear us out in assuming that the passage +under review contains a prophecy of a personal Messiah.</p> +<p class="normal">It is certainly, with respect to this, a matter of no slight importance +that, with a rare agreement, exegetical tradition finds a promise to this effect +here expressed; and this circumstance has a significance so much the greater, the +less that this agreement extends to the interpretation of the particulars, especially +as regards the Shiloh. How manifold soever these differences may be, <i>all antiquity +agrees in interpreting this passage of a personal Messiah</i>; and we could scarcely<!--1854 --> +conceive of such an agreement, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 75]</span> unless there +had been some objective foundation for it. As regards, first, the exegetical tradition +of the Jews,—how far soever we may follow it, it finds, in ver. 10, the Messiah. +Thus the LXX. explained it; for, that by "what is destined to Judah" (<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἕως +ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ</span>) they understood nothing else than the sending +of the Messiah, is shown by the words following—<span lang="el" class="Greek">καὶ +αὐτὸς προσδοκία ἐθνῶν</span>,—which can refer only to the Messiah. (Compare Is. +xlii. 4 according to the LXX.) In the same manner the passage was understood by +<i>Aquila</i>, the Chaldee Paraphrasts, the <i>Targum</i> of <i>Onkelos</i>, of +<i>Jonathan</i>, and of <i>Jerusalem</i>, the <i>Talmud</i>, the <i>Sohar</i>, and +the ancient book of <i>Breshith Rabba</i>. Several even of the modern commentators, +<i>e.g.</i>, <i>Jarchi</i>, have retained this explanation, although a strong doctrinal +interest, to which others yielded, tempted them to give another interpretation to +this passage, which occupied so prominent a place in the polemics of the Christians. +(Compare the passage in <i>Raim. Martini Pug. Fid.</i> ed. <i>Carpzov</i>; <i>Jac. +Alting's</i> Shiloh, Franc. 1660, 4to [also in the opp. t. v.]; <i>Schöttgen</i>, +<i>hor. Hebr.</i> ii. p. 146; and, most completely, in "<i>Jac. Patriarch. de Schiloh +vatic. a depravatione Clerici assertum</i>, op. <i>Seb. Edzardi</i>, Londini 1698, +p. 103 sq.") The Samaritans, too, understood the passage as referring to the Messiah. +(Compare <i>Samarit. Briefwechsel</i>, communicated by <i>Schnurrer</i> in <i>Eichhorn's +Repert.</i> ix. S. 27.) It is true that from other passages ("<i>Epist. Samarit. +ad Jobum Ludolfum</i>," in <i>Eichhorn's Repert.</i> xiii. S. 281-9, compared with +<i>de Sacy</i> "<i>de Vers. Samarit. Arab. Pentateuchi</i> in <i>Eichhorn's Biblioth.</i>" +x. S. 54) it appears that, in accordance with their doctrine of a double Messiah—one +who had already appeared, and one who was still to come—they referred our passage, +partly to the former, and denied its reference to the real Messiah. But this is +of no importance. For, as Gesenius also has remarked (<i>Carmina Samaritana</i>, +p. 75), the doctrine of a double Messiah is of recent origin with the Samaritans +as well as with the Jews; and hence, it is very probable that the reference to the +real Messiah was, formerly, the generally prevailing one, which was, even afterwards, +to a large extent retained, as is shown by the passage first quoted.—<i>Finally</i>, +In the Christian Church the Messianic interpretation has been the prevailing one +ever since the earliest times. We find it as early as <i>Justin Martyr</i>. +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 76]</span> The Greek and Latin Fathers agree in it. (Compare +the statements in <i>Reinke</i>.) Even <i>Grotius</i> could not but admit that this +passage referred to the Messiah; and <i>Clericus</i> stands quite alone and isolated, +in his time, as an objector against the Messianic interpretation of it.</p> +<p class="normal">But even in the Canon itself, this passage is understood of a +personal Messiah. David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, look upon it in this light. (Concerning +this point, compare the inquiries in the subsequent portions of this work.)</p> +<p class="normal">The entire relation of the Pentateuch to the succeeding sacred +literature, and the circumstance that the former constitutes the foundation of the +latter, and contains, in the germ, all that is afterwards more fully developed, +entitle us to expect, that the Messianic idea has also found its expression in those +books. The more prominent the place occupied, in the later books, by the announcement +of a personal Messiah, the more unlikely it will be to him who has acquired right +fundamental views regarding the Pentateuch, to conceive that this announcement should +be wanting in it—the announcement, especially, of the Messiah in His kingly office; +for it is this office of the Messiah which, in the Old Testament, generally takes +a prominent place, and is, before all others, represented in the subsequent books. +But there cannot be any doubt, that the promise of a personal Messiah in His kingly +office, if it be found in the Old Testament at all, must exist in the passage which +we are now considering.</p> +<p class="normal">The promises which first were given to Jacob's parents, and thereafter +transferred to him, included two things:—<i>first</i>, a numerous progeny, and the +possession of Canaan for them;—and <i>secondly</i>, the blessing which, through +them, was to come upon all nations. How, then, could it be expected that Jacob, +in transferring these blessings to his sons, and while in spirit seeing them already +in possession of the promised land, and describing the places of abode which they +would occupy, and what should befall them, should have entirely lost sight of the +second object, which was much the more important, and as often repeated? Is it not, +on the contrary, probable that, as formerly, from among the sons of Abraham and +Isaac, so now, from among the sons of Jacob, <i>he</i> should be pointed out who +should, according to the will of God, become the depositary of this +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 77]</span> promise, which was acquiring more and more +of a definite shape? The contrary of this we can the less imagine, because, according +to ver. 2, Jacob is to tell his sons that which shall befall them "at the end of +the days." The expression, "the end of the days," is always used of that only which +lies at the end of the course which is seen by the speaker. (Compare my work on +Balaam,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_77a" href="#ftn_77a">[12]</a></sup> p. +465 f.) Accordingly, it indicates, in this passage, that Jacob's announcement must +comprehend the whole of the future sphere which was accessible to him. But if we +do not admit the reference, in this passage, to the Messiah, then a whole territory +of future time, notoriously accessible to Jacob, is left untouched by his announcement.—From +the beginning of Genesis, we find the expectation of an universal salvation; and +at every new separation, the depositary of this salvation, and its mediator for +the whole remaining world, are regularly pointed out. At first, salvation is promised +to the whole human race, then to the family of Shem, then to Abraham, then to Isaac, +then to Jacob. "Now that the patriarchal <i>trias</i>, since Jacob, has extended +into a <i>dodekas</i> forming the historical transition from the family of the promise +to the nation of the promise, the question arises, from which of the twelve tribes +salvation, <i>i.e.</i>, the victory of mankind, and the blessing of the nations, +is to come." (<i>Delitzsch</i>, <i>Prophetische Theologie</i>, S. 293.) Should Genesis +become to such a degree inconsistent with itself as not to answer a question which +itself has called forth? But that answer is contained in the passage under consideration, +only if Shiloh be taken for the personal name of the Redeemer. Unless we have recourse +to artificial explanations, the announcement of Judah's being the bearer of salvation +is to be found in our passage, only when, at the same time, the first indication +of the person of the Messiah is perceived in it.</p> +<p class="normal">If the reference of the passage to a personal Messiah be explained +away, we should certainly be at a loss to discover where the fundamental prophecy +of such an one could possibly be found. We should then, in the first place, be thrown +upon the Messianic Psalms, especially Ps. ii. and cx. But as it is the office of +prophecy only to introduce to the knowledge of the congregation +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 78]</span> truths absolutely new, it would subvert the +whole relation of psalm-poetry to prophecy, if in these psalms we were to seek for +the origin of the expectations of a personal Messiah. These psalms become intelligible, +only if in Shiloh we recognise the first name of the Messiah. The passage in question, +in combination with the prophetical announcement of the eternal dominion of the +house of David, afforded the complete objective foundation for the subjective poetry +of the Psalms. The eternity of dominion here promised to Judah was, as we learn +from 2 Sam. vii., transferred to David. The exalted person in whom, according to +our passage, the dominion of Judah was to culminate, must then necessarily belong +to the house of David. <i>Further</i>,—If the passage under review be understood +of the Messiah, we have an excellent fountainhead for all the prophecies of a personal +Messiah; in its significant, enigmatical, and expressive brevity, it is most suitable +for such a purpose. But if its reference to the Messiah be explained away, we are +deprived altogether of a suitable starting-point. In the Davidic psalms, the Messianic +prophecy already more strongly resembles a stream than a fountain.</p> +<p class="normal">So great is the weight of these reasons for the Messianic interpretation, +that we might reasonably have expected that such expositors at least as stand on +the ground of positive Christianity should abandon it only from overwhelming reasons, +or, at least, from such only as are in the highest degree probable. But in this +expectation we have been disappointed. The most superficial objections have been +considered sufficient by <i>Hofmann</i>, <i>Kurtz</i>, and others, to induce them +to disregard the consensus of the whole Christian Church. We cannot, indeed, but +be astonished at this.</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Kurtz</i>, following the example of <i>Hofmann</i>, says: "The +organic progress of prophecy, and its correlative connection with history, which +must be maintained in all its stages, forbid us, most decidedly, to assign to the +expectation of a personal Messiah, a period so early as that of the Patriarchs. +The clearly expressed aim of the whole history of this period is the expansion into +a great nation; its whole tendency is directed towards the growth of the multiplicity +of a people from the unity of the Patriarchs. As long as the subject of the history +was the increase into a nation, the idea of a single personal Saviour +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 79]</span> could not, by any means, take root. Such could +occur only after they had actually expanded into a great nation in history, and +the necessity had been felt of concentrating the multiplicity of the expanded, into +the unity of a single, individual, <i>i.e.</i>, after one had appeared as the deliverer +and saviour, as the leader and ruler of the whole nation. It is therefore only after +Moses, Joshua, and David, that the expectation of a personal Messiah could arise."—Do +you mean to teach God wisdom? we might ask, in answer to such argumentation. To +chain prophecy to history in such a manner, is in reality nothing short of destroying +it. How much soever people may choose to varnish it, this is but another form of +Naturalism, against the influence of which no one is secure, because it is in the +atmosphere of our day. Men who occupy a ground of argumentation so narrow-minded +and trifling,—who would rather shape history than heartily surrender themselves +to it, and find out, meditate upon, and follow the footsteps of God in it,—will +be compelled to erase even the promise in Gen. xii. 3, "In thee all the families +of the earth shall be blessed," yea, even the words, "I will make of thee a great +nation," with which the promise begins; for even <i>that</i> violates the natural +order. But the historical point of connection for the announcement of a personal +Messiah, which here at once, like a flash of lightning, illuminates the darkness, +is not at all wanting to such a degree as is commonly asserted. On the contrary, +if the blessing upon the heathen be allowed to stand, the expectation of a personal +Saviour must necessarily arise from a consideration of the known events of history, +and meet the immediate revelation of such an one by God. The whole history of the +time of the Patriarchs bears a <i>biographical</i> character. Single individuals +are, in it, the depositaries of the divine promises, the channels of the divine +life. All the blessings of salvation which the congregation possessed at the time +when Jacob's blessing was uttered, had come to them through single individuals. +Why, then, should the highest Salvation come to them in any other way? Why should +not Abraham be as fit a type of the Messiah as Moses, Joshua, and David,—Abraham, +of whom God, in Gen. xx. 7, says to Abimelech, the heathen king, "Now therefore +restore the man his wife, for he is a prophet; and if he prays for thee, thou shalt +live?" Or why not Joseph, who, according to Gen. xlvii. 12, "nourished +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 80]</span> his father and his brethren, and all his father's +household," and whom the grateful Egyptians called "the Saviour of the World?"</p> +<p class="normal">Just as untenable is a second argument against the Messianic explanation,—namely, +that there is no parallelism between the two clauses, "until Shiloh comes," "and +to Him shall be the obedience of the nations," but only a pure progress of thought. +The laws of parallelism are not iron fetters; and, moreover, the parallelism in +substance fully exists here, if only it be acknowledged that +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יקהה</span> does not signify any kind of obedience, +but only a willing surrender. The words, "until Shiloh comes, and to Him shall be +the obedience of the nations," are identical in meaning with, "until He cometh, +who bringeth rest, and whom the nations shall willingly obey." The second member +thus serves to explain the first; the sense would be substantially preserved although +one of the members were wanting. The parallelism is slightly concealed only by the +circumstance that the words run, "to Him the obedience of the nations,"—instead +of, "He to whom shall be the obedience of the nations."</p> +<p class="normal">Let us now take a survey of the principal non-Messianic interpretations. +A suspicion as to their having any foundation at all in the subject itself must +surely be raised by their variety and multiplicity, as well as by the circumstance, +that they who object to the Messianic explanation can never, in any way, succeed +in uniting with each other, but that, with them, one interpretation is sure to be +overthrown by another. Such is, in every case, a sure indication of error.</p> +<p class="normal">Moreover, it is possible, in every case, to trace out some interest, +apart from the merits of the question, which has led to the objections against the +Messianic interpretation. With the Jews, it was because they were driven to a strait +by the argumentation of the Christians, that the Messiah must long ago have come, +since sceptre and lawgiver had long ago departed from Judah. The rationalistic interpreters +have evidently been determined by their antipathy to any Messianic prophecies in +the Old Testament. <i>Hofmann</i> and his followers do not in the least conceal +that they are guided by their principle of a concatenation of prophecy with history.</p> +<p class="normal">The opinion, according to which it is maintained that Shiloh is +the name of the well-known locality in Ephraim, has found not a few defenders. Among +these, several, and last of all <span class="pagenum">[Pg 81]</span> <i>Bleek</i>, +in the <i>Observ.</i>; <i>Hitzig</i>, on Ps. li. 2; <i>Diestel</i>, "der Segen Jacobs," +translate: "Until he or they come to Shiloh." The sense is thus supposed to be: +"Judah will be the leader of the tribes, in the journey to Canaan, until they come +to Shiloh." There, in consequence of the tribes being dispersed to the boundaries +assigned to them, he would then lose his leadership.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_81a" href="#ftn_81a">[13]</a></sup> +But such an explanation is, in every point of view, inadmissible. It is very probable +that the town Shiloh did not exist at all, under this name, at the time of Jacob. +The name nowhere occurs in the Pentateuch; and the Book of Joshua (as we shall show +at a subsequent time) contains traces, far from indistinct, that it arose only after +the occupation of the land by the Israelites. But even supposing that the town of +Shiloh already existed tit the time of Jacob, yet the abrupt mention of a place +so little known would be something strange and unaccountable. It would be out of +the range of Jacob's visions, which nowhere regard mere details, but have everywhere +for their object only the future in its general outlines. <i>Further</i>,—The temporary +limitation thus put to the superiority of Judah would be in glaring contradiction +to vers. 8 and 9, where Judah is exalted to be the Lion of God without any limitation +as to time. And, <i>finally</i>,—Up to the time of their arrival<!--1854 --> in +Shiloh, Judah was never in possession of the sceptre and lawgiver;—and this reason +would alone be sufficient to overthrow the opinion which we are now combating. We +have already proved that, by these terms, royal power and dominion are designated, +and that, for this reason, the <i>beginning</i> of the fulfilment cannot be sought +for in any period previous to the time of David. But even if we were to come down +to the mere <i>leadership</i> of Judah, we could demonstrate that even this did +not belong to him. His marching in front of the others cannot, even in the remotest +degree, be considered as a leadership. Moses, who belonged to another tribe, had +been solemnly called by God to the chief command. Nor was Joshua +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 82]</span> of the tribe of Judah. In him, on the contrary, +there appeared the germ of Ephraim's superiority, which continued through the whole +period of the Judges, and which came to an end only by David's having been raised +to the royal dignity. (Compare my commentary on Ps. lxxviii.)</p> +<p class="normal">Others (<i>Tuch</i>, <i>Maurer</i>) give the explanation: "As +long as they come to Shiloh." This, according to them, the "poet" meant to be identical +with: "in all eternity." They think that his (the "poet's") meaning was, that the +holy tabernacle, which at his time (<i>Tuch</i> assigns the composition of Jacob's +blessing to the period of Samuel) was at Shiloh, would remain there to all eternity. +To this exposition it would be alone sufficient to object that, according to it, +the phrase <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עד כי</span>, which uniformly means only +"until," is taken in the signification "as long as." <i>Further</i>,—History plainly +enough shows how little the sanctuary was considered to be bound to Shiloh; to which +place it had been brought, not in consequence of an express divine declaration, +but only in accordance with Joshua's own views. When the ark of the covenant was +carried away by the Philistines, this was considered as an express declaration of +God, that He would no longer dwell in Shiloh. How different was the case as regards +Jerusalem! Notwithstanding the destruction by the Chaldees, the city continued to +be the seat of the sanctuary. <i>Further</i>,—This view implies a strange blending +of gross error—viz., the supposition that the sanctuary would remain for ever in +Shiloh—and of true prophecy, viz., the announcement, uttered at the time of Ephraim's +leadership, of the dominion of the tribe of Judah, which was first realized in David's +royalty. The only ground in support of the Ephraimitic Shiloh—the fact, namely, +that Shiloh, wherever else it occurs in the Old Testament, always signifies the +name of the place—we hope to invalidate by and by; when it will be seen that the +town received its name only on the ground of the passage now under consideration.</p> +<p class="normal">Other opponents of the Messianic interpretation take Shiloh as +a <i>nomen appellativum</i>, in the signification of <i>rest</i>. They translate +either, "Until rest cometh and people obey him" (thus <i>Vater</i>, <i>Gesenius</i>, +<i>Knobel</i>), or, "Until he comes (or, they come) to rest" (thus <i>Hofmann</i>, +<i>Kurtz</i>, and others). By "rest," they understand either the political rest +enjoyed under David and Solomon, or they find here expressed the idea of eternal +rest in <span class="pagenum">[Pg 83]</span> the expected Messianic time. Thus do +<i>Gesenius</i>, <i>Hofmann</i>, and <i>Kurtz</i> understand it. The last-named +determines the sense thus: "Judah shall remain in the uninterrupted possession of +a princely position among his brethren, until through warfare and by victory he +shall have realized the aim, object, and consummation of his sovereignty in the +attained enjoyment of happy rest and undisturbed peace, and in the willing and joyful +obedience of the nations." But this explanation is to be suspected, simply from +the circumstance, that, in whatever other place Shiloh occurs, it is used as a +<i>nomen proprium</i>; while it is entirely overthrown by the circumstance, that, +according to its form, as already deduced, Shiloh can be nothing else than a <i> +nomen proprium</i>.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_83a" href="#ftn_83a">[14]</a></sup> +We here only remark, by way of anticipation, that David, Solomon, Isaiah, and Ezekiel +bear testimony against this explanation. An interpretation which dissevers the connection +betwixt Shiloh and Shiloh, betwixt Shiloh and Solomon, betwixt Shiloh and the Prince +of Peace, betwixt Shiloh and Him "whose is the judgment," must be, thereby, self-condemned. +Against the explanation, "Until he comes to rest," it may also be urged, that the +Accusative could not here stand after a verb of motion; it was too natural to consider +Shiloh as the subject. If it had been intended in any other sense, a preposition +would have been absolutely requisite.</p> +<p class="normal">We further remark, that vers. 11 and 12, which ancient and modern +interpreters, <i>e.g.</i>, <i>Kurtz</i>, have attempted to bring into artificial +connection with ver. 10, simply "finish the picture of Judah's happiness by a description +of the luxurious fulness of his rich territory" (<i>Tuch</i>). Their tenor is quite +different from that which precedes, where a pre-eminence was assigned to Judah; +for they contain nothing beyond a simple, positive declaration. What is in them +assigned to Judah, belongs to him only as a part of the whole, as a fellow-heir +of the country flowing with milk and honey, and corresponds entirely with the blessings +upon the other sons, which are, almost all of them, only individual applications +of the general blessing. It is evidently parallel to what, in vers. 25, 26, is said +of Joseph, and in ver 20 of Asher. That which Jacob here assigns to Judah, was +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 84]</span> formerly, in Gen. xxvii. 28, assigned by Isaac +to Jacob, and in him to the whole people: "God give thee of the dew of heaven, and +the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine." Hence, it is not at all +necessary to examine history for the purpose of ascertaining whether Judah was distinguished +above the other tribes, by plenty of wine and milk.</p> +<p class="normal">We need not lose much time in discussing the attempts which have +been made to assign the blessing of Jacob to a later period. The futility of all +of them is proved by the circumstance, that we have not here before us any special +predictions, such as are peculiar to <i>vaticinia post eventum</i>, but general +prophetical outlines, individual applications of the general blessings, exemplifications. +Whatever seems, at first sight, to be different, melts away while handling it. Thus, +for example, the blessings which Israel enjoyed by his dwelling on the sea-side, +are pointed out in the blessing upon Zebulun, because he had his name from the +<i>dwelling</i>, Gen. xxi. 20. That Zebulun is here viewed only as a part of the +whole, appears from the fact that, afterwards, he did not live by the sea at all. +In the case of Issachar, it was the individuality of the ancestor Jacob which gave +him occasion to describe, from his own example, the dangers of an indolent rest. +History does not say anything of Issachar alone having yielded to these dangers +in a peculiar degree. In the case of Joseph, the events personal to the son are +transferred to the tribe, and in the tribe, to the whole nation. In an inimitable +manner the tender love of the father towards his son and provider meets us here. +The only thing which goes beyond the human sphere of Jacob, is the prediction by +which Judah is placed in the centre of the world's history. But it is just this +which, even in its beginnings, goes beyond the time at which this pretended <i>vaticinium +post eventum</i> is placed by <i>Tuch</i>, <i>Bleek</i>, and <i>Ewald</i>; for, +by this assumption of theirs, they are necessarily limited to the time before David, +if they wish to avoid the insurmountable difficulties which arise from what is said +of Levi and of Joseph. But to the man who looks deeper, vers. 8-10 are just the +seal of the divinity, and hence of the genuineness also, of this prophecy, and, +with all his heart, he will hate such miserable conjectures.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_84a" href="#ftn_84a">[15]</a></sup></p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 85]</span></p> +<p class="normal">Let us now follow through history Jacob's blessing upon Judah. +From this inquiry it will appear how deep has been the impression made by it upon +the people of the covenant. On this occasion also, it will be seen still more distinctly +what the right is which rationalistic criticism has to declare this <i>fundamental +prophecy</i> to be the recent production of an obscure poet. The chain-like character +of Holy Scripture will be seen in a very striking light.</p> +<p class="normal">In Num. ii. regulations are laid down respecting the order in +which the tribes are to encamp about the tabernacle, and in which they are to set +forth. "On the east side, towards which the entrance of the sanctuary is directed, +and hence in the front, Judah, as the principal tribe, is encamped; and the two +sons of his mother—Issachar and Zebulun—who were born immediately after him, pitch +next to him. On the south side there is the camp, with the standard, of Reuben; +and next to him are his brother Simeon, who was born immediately after him, and +Gad, one of the sons of his mother's maid. The west side is assigned to the sons +of Rachel, with Ephraim at their head. And, <i>finally</i>, on the north side, the +three other sons of the maids, viz., Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, have their position. +In the same order as they encamp they are also to set forth." (<i>Baumgarten</i>.)</p> +<p class="normal">Judah is the chief tribe on the chief side. This distinction +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 86]</span> is not based on the deeds hitherto performed +by Judah, nor is it the result of any revelation which Moses received upon the subject. +It is regarded as a matter of course. And yet, there must necessarily have been +some foundation for such a distinction, because, otherwise, it would have called +forth the opposition of the other tribes, especially of that of Ephraim. Such a +foundation, however, is afforded only by the blessing of Jacob, in which the tribe +of Judah appears as the leading one. The complete realization of this prediction +is left, indeed, in the hand of God; but the bearer of honours so great, even although +future, must, in the prospect of that future, enjoy, even in the present, a certain +distinction; such distinction, however, as does not at all imply sovereignty.</p> +<p class="normal">But we are compelled to have recourse to Genesis, and especially +to chap. xlix., the more because the whole arrangement of the camp has evidently +its foundation in Genesis, and the key to a whole series of facts in it can be found +only in chap. xlix. If we ask why it is that the tribes of Issachar and Zebulun +are subordinate to Judah; that Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, that Ephraim and Benjamin, +that Dan, Asher, and Naphtali are encamped by each other; it is in Genesis alone +that we are furnished with the answer.</p> +<p class="normal">The position which Reuben occupies specially points to Gen. xlix. +As the first-born, he ought to stand at the head; but here we find him occupying +the second place. In Gen. xlix. Jacob says to him, on account of his guilt, "Thou +shalt not excel;" and "the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power," +which up to that time he had possessed, are transferred to Judah. Yet Moses has +so much regard to his original dignity, that he places him immediately after Judah; +the utterance of Jacob did not entitle him to assign to him a lower position. <i> +Further</i>,—The reason why Dan stands at the head of the sons of the maids is explained +only in Gen. xlix. 16-18, where Dan is specially distinguished among them, and where +it is specially said of him, "Dan shall judge his people."</p> +<p class="normal">If the blessing of Jacob be the production of a later time, then +the order of the encampment, which rests upon it, must necessarily be so also; but +such an idea will at once be discarded by every man of sound judgment. Even they +who refuse to acknowledge Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, admit that +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 87]</span> those regulations which bear reference only +to the condition of things in the wilderness must have originated from him.</p> +<p class="normal">But exactly the same order which Moses in Num. ii. prescribes +for the encampment and setting forth of the tribes, is found again in chap. vii., +where there is described the offerings which the princes of the tribes offered at +the dedication of the altar. Every prince has here a day to himself, and here also +does Judah occupy the first place: "And he that offered his offering the first day +was Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah."—If any one should venture +to set down this chapter also, with all its details, as a fabrication of later times, +he would only betray an utter absence of all scientific judgment.</p> +<p class="normal">According to Num. x. 14, Judah led the march when they set forth +from Sinai.</p> +<p class="normal">Balaam's prophecies, the genuineness of which is proved by so +many weighty arguments (compare the enumeration of them in my work on Balaam), rest, +in general, on the fundamental prophecies of Genesis, but especially on the blessing +of Jacob upon Judah.</p> +<p class="normal">In Num. xxiii. 24, Balaam says: "Behold, a people, like a full-grown +lion he rises, and like a lion he lifts himself up. Not shall he lie down until +he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain." This conclusion of Balaam's +second prophecy, which at once demolishes Balak's vain hopes of victory, by pointing +out the dreadful power of Israel, unconquerable by all his enemies, and crushing +them all, has an intentional reference to Gen. xlix. 9,—a reference specially suitable +for such a conclusion. What was there ascribed to Judah is here transferred to Israel, +whose fore-champion Judah is. "Dost thou think," says Balaam to Balak, "of being +able to overcome them, to stop them in their course towards the mark held out to +them? Behold, according to an old revelation of their God, they are a people destroying +their enemies with the lion's strength. Therefore, get thee out of their way, lest +such a fate befall thee."</p> +<p class="normal">In Num. xxiv. 9, Balaam says, "He couches, he lies as a lion, +and as a great lion, who shall stir him up?" As in the preceding prophecy he had +pointed out Israel's dreadful power which secures to him victory in the battle, +so here he shows how, even after having finished the battle, this power so intimidates +his enemies, that they do not venture to disturb his peace. +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 88]</span> That which Jacob had said of Judah, is, with +intended literality, here transferred to Israel.</p> +<p class="normal">In Num. xxiv. 17, we read: "I see him, but not now; I behold him, +but not nigh: a star goeth out of Jacob, and a sceptre riseth out of Israel, and +smiteth the borders of Moab, and destroyeth all the sons of the tumult."—As the +two preceding utterances carry us back to Gen. xlix. 9, so this one refers to ver. +10, where the sceptre, the emblem of dominion, denotes, just as it does in this +passage, dominion itself, and where to Judah, and in him to all Israel, the kingdom +is promised which shall at last be consummated in the Shiloh. The meaning of the +words, "A sceptre riseth out of Israel," is explained in ver. 19 by the words, "Dominion +shall come out of Jacob." Jacob has in view the internal relations among his descendants, +and hence he speaks specially of Judah; but Balaam, in accordance with his object, +speaks of Israel only. Jacob points, at the close, to Shiloh's just and peaceful +dominion; but Balaam, who has to do with the enraged and obstinate enemies of Israel, +points out, from among the effects produced by the star and sceptre, only the victorious +might, and destructive power which these will display in the conflict with the enemies +of Israel.</p> +<p class="normal">In the blessing of Moses, Deut. xxxii.<!--xxxiii. is correct chapter--> +7, it is said of Judah: "Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him unto his +people; with his hands he fights for himself, and be Thou an help to him from his +enemies." Even the remarkable brevity of this utterance points back to the blessing +of Jacob. With this brevity, the length of the blessing upon Levi, who had been +treated too summarily by Jacob, forms a striking contrast. In the case of Reuben +also, the attempt to pour oil into the wounds then inflicted is visible. The whole +announcement is based upon the supposition that Judah is the fore-champion of Israel; +and this supposition refers us back to Gen. xlix. This appears especially in the +words, "Bring him to his people," on which light is thrown only by Gen. xlix. It +is for his people that Judah engages in foreign wars, and the Lord, fulfilling the +words, "From the prey, my son, thou goest up," brings him safely to his people.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_88a" href="#ftn_88a">[16]</a></sup></p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 89]</span></p> +<p class="normal">There can be no doubt that in Shiloh, as the name of a place, +there is a reference to Gen. xlix. 10. They who rightly denied that Shiloh could, +in that passage, be understood as the name of the place, could, nevertheless, not +feel satisfied as long as they allowed a twofold Shiloh to exist unconnected with +each other. The agreement in the very rare and peculiar form, which nowhere else +occurs, cannot well be a matter of accident.</p> +<p class="normal">In the Pentateuch, Shiloh does not occur at all as the name of +a place. In the passage where Shiloh is first mentioned—in Josh. xvi. 6—another +name is beside it, and prefixed to it. According to that passage, the former name +was Taanah. (They who are of opinion that this place was different from Shiloh, +can find no support from the authority of <i>Eusebius</i>; it is not said Taanah +by Shiloh, but Taanath-Shiloh.) After that place had become the seat of the Sanctuary, +the holy name <i>Shiloh</i> took the place of the former natural one. The reason +why this name was given to it is indicated in Josh. xviii. 1: "And the whole congregation +of the children of Israel assembled together at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle +of the congregation there; <i>and the land was subdued before them</i>." Compare +also xxi. 44, xxii. 4, where it is remarked that at that time "the Lord gave them +rest round about." (See <i>Bachiene</i>, <i>Palestina</i> ii. 3, S. 409 ff.) In +the subjection of the country,—in the rest which the Lord had given them from all +round about, they saw an earnest of, and a prelude to, the obedience of the nations +in general, and to the state of perfect rest which should take place at some future +time with the appearing of Shiloh. Victory, peace! (<i>Siegfried!</i>) such was +the watchword corresponding to the elevated consciousness of the people. It is an +elevation quite similar to that which we so often perceive in the Psalms. "Sometimes +there rises the hope that the Gentiles shall, at some future period, be received +among the people of God—a hope based upon the experience of the Lord's victorious +power in the present, in which faith perceives a pledge of the future subjection +of the world's power under His sceptre. Thus, in vers. 29-32 of Ps. lxviii., which +was composed by David on the occasion of his having, by the help of the Lord, conquered +his most dangerous enemies, the Aramites and Ammonites; in Ps. xlvii., written on +the occasion of Jehoshaphat's victory over several heathen nations; and in Ps. lxxxvii., +composed on the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 90]</span> ground of the joyful events +under Hezekiah, the germ of the hope for the conversion of the heathen, which had +all along lain dormant in the people, was developed."<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_90a" href="#ftn_90a">[17]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal">After the main power of the Canaanites had been broken by the +expeditions of all Israel under Joshua, Judah begins, at the command of God, to +expel the Canaanites from the territory assigned to him. In Judges i. 1, 2, we read: +"And the children of Israel asked the Lord, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites +at the beginning to fight against them? And the Lord said, Judah shall go up; behold, +I deliver the land into his hands." They were concerned to find out the tribe who, +by the decree of God, had been destined to be the fore-champion for his brethren, +and with whom they might be sure of a happy commencement of the war. The short answer, +"Judah shall go up," would scarcely have been justified, had it not had a foundation +in a previous declaration of God's will. It indicates that Jacob's blessing upon +Judah still possessed its power.</p> +<p class="normal">In like manner, in the war against Benjamin, according to divine +direction, Judah goes up first to the battle, forms the vanguard. Judges xx. 18. +The intentional identity of the expression used here and in chap. i., leads us to +the supposition that the words, "Judah shall go up," have, in both passages, the +same foundation.</p> +<p class="normal">From both of these events, we are led to expect that Judah may +be called to occupy a still more important position. The announcement of Jacob regarding +Judah, to which the words, "Judah shall go up," refer, finds, in these events, evidently +but a poor beginning of its complete fulfilment. All, however, which was required +in the meantime, was the indication, by gentle touches, of the position which Judah +was called to occupy in future times. It is just God's way to take time in carrying +out <span class="pagenum">[Pg 91]</span> His elections; all human conditions must +first disappear. After these two intimations, at the end of the time of Joshua (for +Judges i. 1, 2, belongs to that period; the words, "And it came to pass after the +death of Joshua," do not refer to what follows immediately after, but only to the +contents of the book as a whole), and at the beginning of the time of the Judges, +Judah retires out of view. During the whole period of the Judges, Ephraim held the +supremacy. Under David, the validity of the election suddenly appeared, and the +announcement of Jacob found a glorious fulfilment; but again, such an one only as +pointed to a still more glorious fulfilment in the future. Before this took place, +however,—before Shiloh came, to whom the obedience of the people was promised, the +lamp of Judah was once more to be extinguished, so that, to human eyes, it should +be invisible for many centuries.</p> +<p class="normal">In 1 Chron. xxviii. 4, David says: "And the Lord God of Israel +chose me out of all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever; for +He hath chosen Judah to be the ruler, and in the house of Judah, the house of my +father, and in the house of my father. He liked me to make me king over all Israel." +David here points to an event by which Judah was raised to be the ruling tribe; +and such an election is nowhere else to be found than in Gen. xlix. We cannot for +a moment suppose that Judah was elected only in, and with, the election of David. +Against such a supposition militates the fact, that even the election of David's +house is represented in history as being distinct from the election of David himself; +for in 1 Sam. xvi. the decree of God is first made known, that one of Jesse's sons +is to be king; and it is only afterwards that we are told which of them is to be +chosen. The expression too, "He hath chosen Judah to be the <i>ruler</i>," is decisive +against it; for this expression has an evident reference to the sceptre and lawgiver +in Gen. xlix. But if any doubt should still remain, it would be entirely removed +by the parallel passage in 1 Chron. v. 2, where, in the words, "For Judah was mighty +among his brethren, and of him the prince was to come," there is an allusion, which +cannot be mistaken, to Gen. xlix.</p> +<p class="normal">There cannot be a doubt that David gave to his son the name Solomon, +because he hoped that, in his just and peaceful reign, he would be a type of the +Shiloh whom the nation should willingly <span class="pagenum">[Pg 92]</span> obey, +just as, in his own reign, there had been the first grand fulfilment of what Jacob +had prophesied of Judah's lion-courage, and lion-strength,—of Judah's sceptre and +lawgiver. We have here the counterpart of the fact, that the children of Israel, +after the first occupation of the country, gave to the seat of the sanctuary the +name of Shiloh. In the case of Solomon, both the name and the substance point to +Shiloh. With regard to the <i>name</i>, three out of the four letters of which the +name <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שלמה</span> consists, are common to it with +Shiloh. The signification is precisely the same; so also is the form. In +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שלמה</span> as well as in +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שילה</span> we meet with the very rare case of the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ן</span> at the end being thrown off. In <i>Ewald's</i> +Grammar, § 163, these two names are, for this reason, pointed out and placed immediately +beside each other. And, with regard to the agreement in the <i>substance</i>, we +refer to 1 Chron. xxii. 9, where Nathan says to David: "Behold, a son shall be born +to thee, who shall be a man of <i>rest</i>, and I will give him <i>rest</i> from +all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace +and quietness unto Israel in his days." We refer, <i>further</i>, to 1 Kings v. +4, where Solomon says to Hiram: "And now the Lord my God hath given me <i>rest</i> +round about; there is neither adversary nor evil obstacle." We refer, <i>finally</i>, +to 1 Kings v. 4, 5 (iv. 24, 25): "He had dominion over all the region on the other +side of the river, from Tiphsah even to Gaza, over all the kings on the other side +of the river, and he had peace from all his servants round about. And Judah and +Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and fig-tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, +all the days of Solomon."<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_92a" href="#ftn_92a">[18]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal">But if any further doubt should remain as regards the typical +relation in which Solomon stands to Shiloh, it would be removed by Ps. lxxii., which +discards the very idea that Solomon could be anything more than a type,—that any +hope had ever been entertained of his being himself the Shiloh. Even David's Messianic +Psalms bear witness against such an opinion. In harmony with the words of our Lord +in Matt. xii. 42, "A <span class="pagenum">[Pg 93]</span> greater than Solomon is +here," Solomon In this Psalm points beyond himself. In his own just and peaceful +dominion, he beholds a type of the kingdom of the Prince of Peace, who, by His justice +and love, shall obtain dominion over the world, and whom all kings shall worship, +and all the heathen shall serve. How closely this Psalm is connected with Gen. xlix. +is pointed out by Ezekiel, in a passage of which we shall immediately treat.</p> +<p class="normal">In ver. 9 of Ps. lx., which was composed by David, the words, +"Judah is my lawgiver"—equivalent to, Judah is my, <i>i.e.</i>, Israel's ruling +tribe—point to Gen. xlix. 10, according to which the lawgiver shall not depart from +Judah; just as ver. 13, "Give us help from the enemy," alludes to Deut. xxxiii. +7, where it is said of Judah, "Be thou a help to him from his enemies," and ver. +14, to Num. xxiv. 18.</p> +<p class="normal">That the Prince of Peace spoken of in Is. ix. 5, under whom there +is "no end to the increase of government and of peace," refers to the Peaceful One, +to whom the nations render obedience, will not be doubted by those who have recognised +the connection in which Solomon and Ps. lxxii. stand to the Shiloh. Nor will such +fail to recognise an allusion to the Shiloh in all the other passages of the Prophets, +in which the Messiah is described as the Author of rest and peace; <i>e.g.</i>, +Mic. iv. 1-4; Is. ii. 2-4; Zech. ix. 10; and the less so, the more clearly it appears, +from passages of Ezekiel, what influence Gen. xlix. exercised over the prophetic +consciousness. Isaiah significantly alludes to it in other passages also. In chap. +xxix. 1, 2, he says: "Woe to Ariel, (<i>i.e.</i>, Lion of God), the city where David +encamped! Add ye year to year, let the feasts revolve. And I distress Ariel, and +there shall be heaviness and affliction, but it shall be unto me as Ariel;"—the +meaning of which is: Jerusalem will, in times to come, endure heavy affliction (through +Asshur), but the world-conquering power of the kingdom of God will manifest itself +in her deliverance. The name Ariel is emphatically placed at the beginning, and, +in it, the Prophet gives to the congregation of God a guarantee for her deliverance. +That which Jacob had said of Judah, who, to him, appeared as the invincible lion +of God, is here applied to Zion, the city where David encamped, the centre of the +kingdom of Judah.</p> +<p class="normal">Ezekiel, in his lamentation over the princes of Israel who, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 94]</span> in his time, were standing just at the brink +of the abyss, says in chap. xix. 2: "Thy mother was a lioness, who lay down among +lionesses, and brought up her whelps among young lions." The mother is the congregation +of Judah. The image of the lion points to the blessing of Jacob, and its fulfilment +in history. "Judah once couched in a threatening position, endangering his adversaries,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_94a" href="#ftn_94a">[19]</a></sup> +in the midst of lions, <i>i.e.</i>, among the other powerful kingdoms fond of conquests." +(<i>Hävernick</i>.) </p> +<p class="normal">In Ezek. xxi. 15, 18 (10-15), the Lord, with an evident allusion +to Gen. xlix. 10, announces the (temporary) destruction of the sceptre of His son +(<i>i.e.</i>, Israel or Judah), a sceptre which despises all other sceptres.</p> +<p class="normal">In vers. 30-32 (25-27) of the same chapter, Ezekiel foretells, +in the name of the Lord, a complete overturning of all relations, a total revolution, +in which the Davidic kingdom especially is brought down, a condition of affairs +in which rest and safety will not anywhere be found. This state of things is to +continue "until He comes to whom is the judgment; to Him I will give it."</p> +<p class="normal">The reference of this passage to Gen. xlix. cannot be mistaken. +It was recognised, indeed, by the ancient translators; only that most of them erroneously +found in it an explanation instead of an allusion.</p> +<p class="normal">Instead of the words, "to whom is the judgment," we should, from +the expression used in Gen. xlix. 10, "Until Shiloh cometh," have expected, "to +whom is peace;" but Ezekiel has filled up Gen. xlix. 10 from Ps. lxxii. 1-5, where +judgment and righteousness appear as the basis of the peace which the Anointed One +shall bring. And <i>peace</i> occupies the background in Ezekiel also. The advent +of Him to whom is the judgment, in contrast with the injustice and wickedness of +those who were hitherto the bearers of the sceptre, puts an end to strife, confusion, +and destruction. That, in like manner, in Gen. xlix., the <i>judgment</i> occupies +the background, we see plainly, from the commentary upon that passage furnished +by Ps. lxxii., as well as from Is. ix. and ii. In Ps. lxxii., peace comes into consideration, +only in so far as it is a product and consequence of justice, which is an attribute +of the King, and is by him <span class="pagenum">[Pg 95]</span> infused into the +life of the nation. In vers. 1-50, the thought is: "God gives righteousness to His +King, and in consequence of it, righteousness and the fear of God become indigenous +to the people, and these again bring peace in their train."</p> +<p class="normal">Every word in Ezekiel is taken from Gen. xlix. and Ps. lxxii. +From the latter are taken the words, "judgment," and "I will give it." (Compare +Ps. lxxii. 1: "Give the King thy judgments.") The combination of these two passages +points out their close connection, and indicates that Ps. lxxii. is to be viewed +as a comment. <i>Onkelos</i>, who thus translates the passage in Gen. xlix., "Until +Messiah comes, to whom the kingdom is due, and Him the people shall obey," has very +properly only supplemented the declaration of Jacob from Ezekiel, or, at least, +has taken thence the explanation of Shiloh.</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">But, at the same time, the words +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשר לי המשפט</span>, which, on the basis of Ps. lxxii., +Ezekiel puts in the place of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שילה</span>, allude +to the letters of the latter word which forms the initials of the words in Ezekiel. +That <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ש</span> is the main letter in +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשר</span>, is shown by the common abbreviation of +it into <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ש</span>; and that the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">י</span> in <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שילה</span> +is unessential, is proved by the circumstance that the name of the place is often +written <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שלה</span>, and that even in Gen. xlix. 10, +a number of manuscripts have this orthography.</p> +<p class="normal">"From the allusion to a prophecy so well known, and so frequently +used, the brevity of the prophecy in Ezekiel is to be explained. It forms a most +powerful conclusion and resting-point for the prophetic discourse." (<i>Hävernick</i>.) +</p> +<p class="normal">There cannot be any doubt that Ezekiel found in Gen. xlix. 10, +the prophecy of a personal Messiah. They, therefore, who assert that no such prophecy +is contained in our passage, must, at the same time, assert that Ezekiel misunderstood +it; yea, even more, that, even as early as at that period, a false view of that +passage was generally prevalent. For, the manner in which Ezekiel alludes to it +presupposes that, at that time, the view which found in it a personal Messiah was +generally held. If we observe still further, that Ezekiel connected the allusion +to Ps. lxxii. with that to Gen. xlix., we cannot hesitate for a moment to admit +that he understood the name Shiloh to be Rest-maker, Peace-maker; only, that on +the ground of Ps. lxxii., he mentions the cause instead of the effect. He had, moreover, +the stronger reason for designating the bearer of peace as the bearer of judgment, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 96]</span> because, in his time, the want of judgment +had evidently produced the absence of peace, and the general confusion, misery, +and destruction.</p> +<p class="normal">"As in Gen. xlix. the Patriarch sees a light rising at a far distance, +and spreading its brightness over the darkness of centuries, so in Ezekiel also, +the same ray of glorious hope lightens through the dark night of confusion and unutterable +misery in which he sees himself enveloped."</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Kurtz</i>, S. 266, has altogether denied the connection of +the passage in Ezekiel with Gen. xlix. These two passages are, as he thinks, altogether +different, inasmuch as Ezekiel announces destruction and desolation which shall +continue until He comes to whom is the judgment, while Gen. xlix., when understood +of a personal Messiah, announces dominion which shall continue until Shiloh comes. +But Ezekiel does not contradict Gen. xlix. 10. He gives only the supplement necessary +for preventing this passage from being considered as a permission to sin, and from +becoming a support of false security. Ezekiel, too, assumes a continuation of the +dominion. If that were not concealed behind the destruction, how could "the coming +of Him to whom is the judgment" be pointed out as the limit of that destruction? +The tree indeed is cut down, but the root remains in its full vigour.</p> +<p class="normal">When Jacob announces that the sceptre shall not depart until Shiloh, +the prince of peace, cometh, he can thereby mean only that it would not depart +<i>definitively</i>; for, otherwise, he would have belied his own experience. From +the way by which the Lord had led him, he had sufficiently learnt that God's promises +to sinful men must be taken <i>cum grano salis</i>; that they never exclude the +visitation of the elect on account of their sins, and that it is only in the end +that God will bring all to a glorious fulfilment. When he went to Mesopotamia, God +had said to him, "I am with thee, and I will keep thee in all places whither thou +goest," Gen. xxviii. 15; and yet the deceit which he had practised upon his father +and brother was recompensed to him there by the deceit of Laban, and he was obliged +to say, "In the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night, and my sleep +departed from mine eyes," Gen. xxxi. 40. When he came from the land of the two rivers, +God blessed him and gave him the honourable name of Israel, Gen. xxxii.; and yet +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 97]</span> he had soon thereafter to experience grievous +distress on account of Dinah and Joseph; and in chap. xxxvii. 34, 35, we are told +concerning him: "And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and +mourned for his son many days. And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to +comfort him; but he refused to be comforted, and he said, I shall go down into the +grave unto my son in sorrow." In the kingdom of God there are no other promises +than such as resemble those rivers which flow alternately above and below ground, +since it is certain that all the subjects of the promises are affected by sin.</p> +<p class="normal">Ezekiel xliii. 15 likewise refers to the blessing of Jacob upon +Judah. The altar for the burnt-offerings in the new temple is first called <i>Harel</i> += the mountain of God, and afterwards <i>Ariel</i> = the Lion of God,—indicating +that what had been promised to Judah in Gen. xlix., viz., the Lion's nature and +invincible power, victorious over all enemies, has its root in the altar,—in the +circumstance that the people of God are a people whose sins are forgiven, who dedicate +themselves to God, and give Him thanks and praise.</p> +<p class="normal">A very remarkable reference to Gen. xlix. meets us at the very +threshold of the New Testament. In Luke ii. 13, 14, the heavenly host praise God, +saying: "Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth peace." The words, "glory" +or "praise be to God," are an allusion to Judah, and to the glorious things foretold +in Gen. xlix. of him who centres in Christ. Christ is the true Judah,—He by whom +God is glorified, John xiv. 13. The words, "on earth peace," contain the explanation +of the name Shiloh, the first name under which the Saviour is celebrated in the +Old Testament.</p> +<p class="normal">As the words with which the Saviour is first introduced into the +world allude to Gen. xlix., so the Lord Himself, before His departure, alludes to +this fundamental Messianic prophecy in John xiv. 27: "Peace I leave with you. My +peace I give unto you;" and in xvi. 33: "These things I have spoken unto you, that +in Me ye might have peace." So also, after His resurrection, Christ says, in the +circle of His disciples, "Peace be unto you," John xx. 19, 21, 26.</p> +<p class="normal">The last book of the entire Holy Scripture—the Apocalypse<span class="pagenum">[Pg +98]</span>—likewise points back to the remarkable prophecy of Christ at the close +of its first book. In Rev. v. 5, we read: "And one of the elders saith unto me, +Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed." +"The designation of Christ as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, rests on Gen. xlix. +9. Judah appears there as a lion, in order to denote his warlike and victorious +powers. But Judah himself, according to the blessing of dying Jacob, is at some +future period to centre in the Messiah. As a type, he had formerly centred already +in David, in whom the lion-nature of the tribe of Judah was manifested." This allusion +shows that even what Is said in vers. 8, 9, found its complete fulfilment only in +Christ, and that vers. 8, 9, are parallel to the entire ver. 10, and not to its +first half only.</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Bengel</i> remarks on Rev. v. 6: "The elder had pointed John +to a Lion, and yet John beheld a Lamb. The Lord Jesus is called a Lion only once +in this prophecy, and that, at the very beginning, before the appellation Lamb appears. +This indicates that as often as the Lamb is remembered, we should also remember +Him as the Lion of the tribe of Judah."</p> +<p class="normal">As the designation of Christ as the Lion refers to what, in the +blessing of Jacob, is said of the lion-nature of the tribe of Judah, so, in the +"Lamb"—the emblem of innocence, justice, silent patience and gentleness—the name +Shiloh is embodied.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_57a" href="#ftnRef_57a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [1]</sup></a> <i>Luther</i> says: "No doubt the sons of Jacob will have waited + with anxious desire, and with weeping and groaning, for what their father had + yet to say; for, after having heard curses so hard and severe, they were very + much confounded and afraid. And Judah, too, will certainly not have been able + to refrain from weeping, and will have been afraid, when thinking of what should + now become of him. There will have arisen in his heart very sad recollections + of his sins, of his whoredom with Thamar, and of the advice which he had given + to sell Joseph. Certainly, I should have died with sorrow and tears. But there + soon follow a fine dew and a lovely balm, refreshing the heart again."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_62a" href="#ftnRef_62a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [2]</sup></a> <i>Bochart</i> says: "When the whelp of a lion is weaned, and + begins to go out for prey, and to seek his own food without the help of his + mother, he then ceases to be a <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גור</span>, and + is called a <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כפיר</span>." Deut. xxxiii. 22 must, + therefore, not be translated, "Dan is a lion's whelp leaping from Bashan"—as + if the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גור אריה</span> were already active—but + thus, "Dan is a lion's whelp; he shall leap (<i>i.e.</i>, after he shall have + grown up) from Bashan." Dan is in that place styled a lion's whelp, just as + is Judah in Gen. xlix. 9, because, as yet, he is only a candidate for future + victories.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_63a" href="#ftnRef_63a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [3]</sup></a> The LXX. translate, <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐκ βλαστοῦ υἱέ + μου ἀνέβης</span>, "from a shoot, my son, thou hast grown up." They explain + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">טרף</span> by an inappropriate reference to Ezek. + xvii. 9, where it is used of a fresh green leaf.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_65a" href="#ftnRef_65a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [4]</sup></a> Calvin says: "This dignity is bestowed upon Judah only with a + view to benefit the whole of the people."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_65b" href="#ftnRef_65b"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [5]</sup></a> In the first edition of this work, the author had likewise maintained + that view.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_65c" href="#ftnRef_65c"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [6]</sup></a> It was this difficulty which led <i>Grotius</i> to adopt the feeble + exposition, "That teachers out of Judah's posterity would lead the people until + the times of the Messiah, who would be the highest leader and commander of Jews + and Gentiles."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_66a" href="#ftnRef_66a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [7]</sup></a> Calvin says: "If any one should object, that the words of Jacob + convey a different meaning, we would answer him, that whatever promises God + gave concerning the outward condition of the Church, they were so far limited + that God might, in the meantime, exercise His judgments in the punishment of + men's sins, and prove the faith of His people. And indeed it was not a light + trial when, at the third succession, the tribe of Judah was deprived of the + greater part of his territory. A more severe one followed when, before the eyes + of the father, the sons of the king were slain, his own eyes put out, and himself + was carried to Babylon, and given over to servitude and exile along with the + whole royal family. But the heaviest trial of all came, when the people returned + to their land, and were so far from seeing their expectations fulfilled, that + they were, on the contrary, subjected to a sad dispersion. But even then, the + saints beheld with the eye of faith the sceptre hidden under ground; neither + did their hearts fail, nor their courage give way, so that they desisted not + from continuing their course."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_68a" href="#ftnRef_68a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [8]</sup></a> Many expositors, following the LXX. (<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐκ + τῶν μηρῶν αὐτοῦ</span>), the <i>Vulgate</i> (<i>de femore ejus</i>), and the + Chaldee Paraphrast, understand this expression as a designation of origin and + production. But in that case, we must assume a very hard ellipsis, viz., "he + who is to proceed." Moreover,<!--1854 --> this explanation is destructive of + the parallelism, according to which, "from between his feet" must correspond + with "from Judah."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_69a" href="#ftnRef_69a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [9]</sup></a> The signification, "expectation," given to this word by the LXX. + (<span lang="el" class="Greek">καὶ αὐτὸς προσδοκία ἐθνῶν</span>), <i>Jerome</i>, + and other translators, is founded upon the erroneous derivation of the word + from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">קוה</span>. In the other passage (Prov. + xxx. 17), where the LXX. translate, "the age of his mother," they have confounded + the root <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יקה</span> with + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">קהה</span>, "to be blunted."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_70a" href="#ftnRef_70a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [10]</sup></a> <i>Gousset</i> says: The word can signify something good only, + on account of the passage, Prov. xxx. 17, namely, something which adorns the + relation of the son to his mother, the despising of which is a crime on the + part of the son, and which deserves that he should be sent + <span lang="el" class="Greek">εἰς κόρακας</span>. And not less so from its being + used in Gen. xlix. 10 in reference to the Shiloh, where, thereby, not one or + a few, but all the nations without exception, are bound to Him by a tie similar + to that which exists betwixt mother and son.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_71a" href="#ftnRef_71a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [11]</sup></a> Thus Luther says: "This sceptre of Judah shall continue, and + shall not be taken from him, till the hero come; but when He comes, then the + sceptre also shall depart. The kingdom or sceptre has fallen; the Jews are scattered + throughout the whole world, and, therefore, the Messiah has certainly come; + for, at His appearing, the sceptre should be taken from Judah."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_77a" href="#ftnRef_77a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [12]</sup></a> In the volume containing the <i>Dissertations on the Genuineness + of Daniel</i>, <i>etc.</i> Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_81a" href="#ftnRef_81a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [13]</sup></a> <i>Delitzsch</i> (who had formerly been a defender of the explanation + of a personal Messiah) differs, in his Commentary on Genesis, from this view, + only in so far, that he supposes that, while Judah's dominion over the tribes + comes to an end in Shiloh, his dominion over the nations dates from that period. + But this explanation must be objected to on the ground, that the dominion bestowed + upon Judah is not merely a dominion over the tribes, but over the world.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_83a" href="#ftnRef_83a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [14]</sup></a> <i>Knobel</i> knows of no other expedient by which to escape + from the force of this argument, than by changing the punctuation. He proposes + to read <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שֶׁלֶה</span>, a word which nowhere occurs.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_84a" href="#ftnRef_84a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [15]</sup></a> The rationalistic objection, that at so great an age, and on + the brink of the grave, man is not wont to compose poems, may be refuted by + a reference to the history of the ancient Arabic poetry. The Arabic poets before + the time of Mohammed often recited long poems extempore,—so natural to them + was poetry. (Compare <i>Tharaphæ Moallakah</i>, ed. <i>Reiske</i>, p. xl.; + <i>Antaræ Moallakah</i>, ed. <i>Menil.</i> p. 18.) The poet <i>Lebid</i>, who + attained to the age of 157 years (compare <i>Reiske prolegg. ad Thar. Moall.</i> + p. xxx.; <i>De Sacy</i>, <i>Memoires de l'Academie des inscriptions</i>, p. + 403 ff.), composed a poem when he was dying; compare <i>Herbelot Bibl. Or.</i> + p. 513. The poet <i>Hareth</i> was 135 years old when he recited extempore his + <i>Moallakah</i>, which is still extant; compare <i>Reiske</i> l.c. The objection, + too, that it is inconceivable how the blessing spoken by Jacob could have been + handed down <i>verbatim</i> to Moses, finds its best refutation in the history + of Arabic poetry. The art of writing was introduced among the Arabs only a short + time before Mohammed. (Compare <i>de Sacy</i> l.c. pp. 306, 348; <i>Amrulkeisi + Moall.</i> ed. <i>Hengstenberg</i>, p. 3.) Up to that time, even the longest + poems, of which some consisted of more than a hundred verses, were preserved + by mere oral tradition (compare <i>Nuweiri</i> in <i>Rosenmüller</i>, <i>Zoheiri + Moall.</i> p. 11); and the internal condition of those which have been preserved + to us bears the best testimony to their having been faithfully handed down. + But in the case before us, something altogether different from a poem was concerned.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_88a" href="#ftnRef_88a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [16]</sup></a> <i>Onkelos</i> paraphrases these words very correctly, thus: + "Hear, O Lord, the prayers of Judah when he goes out to war, and bring him safely + back to his people."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_90a" href="#ftnRef_90a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [17]</sup></a> It is probable also, that in the passage, Josh. xvi. 6, where + Shiloh occurs for the first time as the name of a place, and which we have already + discussed, there is not, as we assumed, a connection of the former name with + the latter, but the complete appellation, of which the latter—Shiloh—is only + an abbreviation. From the well ascertained and common signification of the verb + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אנה</span>, we are entitled to explain Taanath-Shiloh: + "the futurity, or the appearance of Shiloh." Shiloh shall come! Such was the + watchword at that time. The word <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תאנה</span> + would then correspond to the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יבא</span> of the + fundamental passage.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_92a" href="#ftnRef_92a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [18]</sup></a> That there exists a connection between Shiloh and Solomon has + often been guessed at and expressed; but expositors have not succeeded well + in determining it more closely. The Samarit. Arab. Translation here says expressly: + "Until Solomon cometh." (Comp. <i>Lib. Genes. sec. Arab. Pent.</i> <i>Samarit. + vers. ed. Kuenen</i>. <i>Leyden</i>, 51.)</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_94a" href="#ftnRef_94a"><sup class="ftnRef"> + [19]</sup></a> <i>Kimchi</i> says: "As long as the Jews were doing the will + of God, they could lie down like the lion without fear."</p> +</div> +<hr class="W20"> +<h2><a name="div2_98" href="#div2Ref_98">BALAAM'S PROPHECY.</a></h2> +<h3>(Numb. xxiv. 17-19.)</h3> +<p class="normal">Carried by the Spirit into the far distant future, Balaam sees +here how a star goeth out of Jacob and a sceptre riseth out of Israel, and how this +sceptre smiteth Moab, by whose enmity the Seer had been brought from a distant region +for the destruction of Israel. And not Moab only shall be smitten, but its southern +neighbour, Edom, too shall be subdued, whose hatred against Israel had already been +prefigured in its ancestor, and had now begun to display Itself; and In general, +all the enemies of the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 99]</span> people of God shall +be cast down to the ground by the Ruler out of Jacob.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 17. "<i>I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh.</i> +<i>A star goeth out of Jacob, and a sceptre riseth out of Israel, and</i> <i>smiteth +the borders of Moab, and destroyeth all the sons of the</i> <i>tumult.</i> Ver. +18. <i>And Edom shall be a possession, and Seir</i> <i>shall be a possession—his +enemies, and Israel acquireth might.</i> Ver. 19. <i>And a Ruler shall come out +of Jacob, and destroyeth</i> <i>what remaineth out of the city.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The star is, in Scripture, the symbol of the splendour of power. +The sceptre leads us back to Gen. xlix. 10; and, in general, the announcements of +Balaam have, throughout, the promises and hopes of the Patriarchs for their foundation. +As in the fundamental passage, so here also, the sceptre, the symbol of dominion, +stands for dominion itself. The substance of the two figurative expressions is briefly +stated in ver. 19, in the words, "They shall rule out of Jacob," which are tantamount +to, "A Ruler shall come out of Jacob."</p> +<p class="normal">A difference of opinion exists regarding the glorious King who +is here announced. From the earliest times, the Jews understood thereby the Messiah, +either exclusively, or, at least, principally, so as to admit of a secondary reference +to David. <i>Onkelos</i> translates: "When a King shall rise out of Jacob, and out +of Israel Messiah shall be anointed;"—<i>Jonathan</i>: "When a valiant King shall +rise out of the house of Jacob, and out of Israel, Messiah, and a strong Sceptre +shall be anointed." The Book of Sohar remarks on the words, "I see him, but now:" +"This was in part fulfilled at that time; it will be completely fulfilled in the +days of Messiah." (Compare the passages in <i>Jos. de</i> <i>Voisin</i>, in the +<i>Prooem.</i> on <i>R. Martini Pugio fid.</i> p. 68; <i>R. Martini</i> iii. 3, +c. 11; <i>Schöttgen</i>, "<i>Jesus Messias</i>," S. 151.) How widely this opinion +was spread among the Jews, is sufficiently apparent from the circumstance, that +the renowned pseudo-Messiah in the time of Hadrian adopted, with reference to the +passage under review, the surname <i>Barcochba</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, Son of the Star.—From +the Jews, this interpretation very soon passed over to the Christians, who rightly +found a warrant for it in the narrative of the star of the wise men from the East. +<i>Cyril</i> of Jerusalem defended the Messianic interpretation against <i>Julian</i>. +(Compare <i>Julian</i>, ed. <i>Spanh.</i> p. 263 c. See other passages +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 100]</span> from the fathers of the Church in <i>Calov.</i>) +According to <i>Theodoret</i> (Quest. 44 in Numb.), there were, indeed, some to +whom "Balaam appeared to have foretold nothing concerning our Saviour;" but this +opinion was rejected as profane. The Messianic interpretation has, in a narrower +and wider sense—<i>i.e.</i>, as referring in the first instance to David, but in +the highest and proper sense to Christ—become the prevailing one in the Evangelical +Church also. It was defended even by such interpreters as <i>Calvin</i> and <i>Clericus</i>, +who, as to other passages, differed from the prevailing Messianic interpretation. +(Compare especially <i>Mieg</i>, <i>de Stella et Sceptro Baleamitico</i> in the +<i>Thes. Nov.</i> p. 423 sqq., and <i>Boullier</i>, <i>Dissert. Syll. Amsterdam</i> +1750, <i>Diss.</i> I.) On the other hand, the Messianic interpretation found a zealous +and ingenious opponent, first in <i>Verschnir</i> in the <i>Bibl. Brem.</i> <i>nova</i>, +reprinted in his <i>Opusc.</i> He was joined by the rationalistic interpreters, +who maintained an exclusive reference to David. But <i>Rosenmüller</i> and <i>Baumgarten-Crusius</i> +(bibl. Theol. S. 369) returned to the Messianic interpretation.</p> +<p class="normal">The question at issue is chiefly this:—Whether by the star and +sceptre some single Israelitish king is designated, or rather, an ideal person—the +personified Israelitish kingdom. The latter view I proved, in my work on Balaam, +to be the correct one, for the following reasons:—1. The reference to a certain +Israelitish king is against the analogy of the other prophecies of the Pentateuch. +A single person, especially a single king of future time, is nowhere announced in +it,—except the Messiah, whose announcement, however, is different from that of David. +But, on the other hand, the rise of the <i>kingdom</i> in Israel is announced as +early as in the promise to the Patriarchs, on which all of Balaam's declarations +rest throughout. It is only to this that the words, "A star goeth out of Jacob, +and a sceptre riseth out of Israel," can refer,—according to the analogy of Gen. +xvii. 6: "Kings shall come out of thee;" ver. 16: "And she shall become nations, +<i>kings</i> of people shall be of her;" and xxxv. 11: "Kings shall come out of +thy loins." 2. The reference to a single king would be against the <i>analogy</i> +of <i>Balaam's</i> prophecies, inasmuch as these nowhere refer to a single individual. +3. The <i>sceptre</i> does not, in itself, lead us to think of an individual, since +it does not designate a ruler, but dominion in general. But that which especially +militates against the reference <span class="pagenum">[Pg 101]</span> to an individual +is the comparison with the fundamental passage, Gen. xlix. 10, in which Judah, and +in him all Israel, does not receive the promise of a single king, but of the kingdom +which shall at last be consummated in the Shiloh. 4. In favour of this general interpretation +is also ver. 19, in which the words, "And dominion shall come out of Jacob," or +literally, "They shall rule out of Jacob," may be considered as just a commentary +on the words, "A sceptre riseth out of Israel." So also is ver. 7, "More elevated +than Agag be his king," where the king of Israel is an <i>ideal</i> person—the personification +of the kingdom. Agag, <i>i.e.</i>, the fiery one, is not a proper name, but a surname +of all Amalekite kings. The Amalekite kingdom—which here represents the world's +power, opposed to the kingdom of God, because at the time of the Seer the Amalekites +were the most powerful among the people who were hostile to Israel (compare ver. +20, where they are called the <i>beginning</i> of the heathen nations, <i>i.e.</i>, +the most powerful of them)—is here put in opposition to the Israelitish kingdom, +and the latter will show itself superior to all worldly power.</p> +<p class="normal">The arguments which thus prove the reference of Balaam's prophecy +to an Israelitish kingdom, disprove also, not only the exclusive reference to David, +but also the exclusive reference to Christ; although they imply at the same time +that the prophecy, in its final reference, has Christ for its subject. The Israelitish +kingdom, indeed, attained to the full height of its destiny only in and with the +Messiah; without the Messiah, the Israelitish kingdom is a trunk without a head. +The prophecy thus centres in Christ. We are, however, not entitled to suppose that +the prophet himself was not aware of this; on the contrary, we cannot but assume +that Balaam must have known it. It is with intention that he does not speak of a +plurality of Israelitish kings. The Israelitish kingdom, on the contrary, appears +to him in the from of an <i>ideal</i> king, because he knows that, at some period, +it will find Its full realization in the person of one king. For the same reason, +Moses also describes the prophetic order, in the first instance, as an <i>ideal</i> +prophet. That Balaam knew that the Israelitish kingdom would centre in the Messiah, +is shown by the reference which his prophecy has to that of dying Jacob, in Gen. +xlix. 10, from which the figure of the sceptre is borrowed. According to the latter +passage, the whole dignity of Judah as <span class="pagenum">[Pg 102]</span> ruler +and lord over the whole heathen world is to centre in one elevated individual—the +Shiloh. As to the letter, Balaam's prophecy falls short of the prophecy to which +it refers, and on which it is founded, in two points. Instead of Judah, it mentions +Israel; and instead of the invincible kingdom which is at last to centre in the +Messiah, it represents the invincible kingdom only in general. But in both cases, +this generality is easily accounted for by the <i>external</i> direction of Balaam's +prophecy: a more definite tendency was of importance only for those who were <i> +within</i>. We are fully entitled to suppose that Balaam himself knew what was contained +in the fundamental passage. To the same result we are led by the contents of the +prophecy itself. Balaam here brings into view an Israelitish kingdom, all-powerful +on earth, and raised absolutely above the world's power. He does not stop with the +victory over Moab and Edom—even this victory appears to him as an absolute and lasting +one, and hence, essentially different from the temporary submission to David—but, +from the particular, which only serves to exemplify the idea in reference to the +historical relations existing at the present, he passes on, in ver. 19, to the general, +the total overthrow of the whole hostile world's power. Indeed, such a progress +is probably found even in ver. 17 itself. If at the close of it we read, "And destroyeth +all the sons of the tumult," the word <i>all</i>, which is wanting in Jer. xlviii. +45, indicates that by the sons of the tumult we are to understand not only the Moabites, +but the whole <i>species</i> to which they belonged, the whole heathen world, whose +nature is restlessness, desire for strife, and the spirit of conquest,—the opposites +of meekness and gentleness, which are the virtues characteristic of the subjects +of the kingdom of God. In ver. 18, the particular is likewise followed by the general. +But while ver. 17 and 18 contain, in each of the two particular features, a previous +short allusion to the general, ver. 19 most expressly and intentionally reduces +the particular to the general. The absolute elevation above the world's power, attributed +by Balaam to the Israelitish kingdom, leads not only beyond the idea of a single +king of the ordinary stamp, but also beyond that of the entire ordinary kingdom.</p> +<p class="normal">The objections urged against the Messianic interpretation are +based either on a misunderstanding, or upon a superficial view of the passage. They +who maintain that the judging activity of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 103]</span> +the Messiah is here brought forward in a manner too one-sided, forget that this +part only could here be treated of. As Balaam's discourse formed the answer to Balak's +message—"Come, curse me this people; peradventure we shall prevail to smite them +and drive them out of the land,"—its natural subject was: <i>Israel's position towards +their enemies</i>; and Balaam had expressly stated, in ver. 14, that he would treat +of that subject. Balaam had to do with an enemy of Israel, and his chief aim was +to represent to him the vanity of all his hostile efforts. The partial view arises, +therefore, from the nature of the case; and only <i>in that case</i> could doubts +arise as to the ultimate reference to the Messiah, if the other view were altogether +<i>denied</i>. But such is by no means the case; for the words in ver. 9, "Blessed +is he that blesseth thee," distinctly point it out. They who object to the Messianic +interpretation on the ground that, at the time of Christ, the Moabites had disappeared +from the stage of history, overlook the circumstance, that the Moabites here, as +well as in Is. xi., where the complete destruction of Moab is likewise assigned +to the times of the Messiah, are viewed only in their character as enemies to the +congregation of God. If the prophecy were fulfilled upon the Moabites, even at the +time when they still existed as a nation, not as Moabites, but as the enemies of +the people of God; then the limit of their national existence cannot be the limit +of the fulfilment of the prophecy. A case quite analogous is found in Mic. v. 4, +5, where the prophet characterizes the enemies of the kingdom of God at the time +of the Messiah by the name of Asshur, although it appears, from other passages, +that he distinctly knew that Asshur must, long ere that time, have disappeared from +the scene of history.</p> +<p class="normal">The Messianic character of the prophecy being thus established, +it will be impossible to misunderstand the internal relation between the star of +Balaam and the star of the wise men from the East. The star of Balaam is the emblem +of the kingdom which will rise in Israel. The star of the Magi is the symbol of +the Ruler in whom the kingly power appears concentrated. The appearance of the star +embodying the image of the prophet, indicates that the last and highest fulfilment +of his prophecies is now to take place.</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 104]</span></p> +<h2><a name="div2_104" href="#div2Ref_104">MOSES' PROMISE OF THE PROPHET.</a></h2> +<h3>(Deut. xviii. 15-19.)</h3> +<p class="normal">Ver. 15. "<i>A prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren,</i> +<i>like unto me, Jehovah thy God will raise up: unto him ye shall hearken.</i> Ver. +16. <i>According to all that thou desiredst of Jehovah thy God in Horeb, in the +day of the assembly, when thou didst say, I will not hear any farther the voice +of Jehovah my God, and will not see this great fire any more, that I die not.</i> +Ver. 17. <i>Then Jehovah said unto me. They have well spoken.</i> Ver. 18. <i>A +prophet I will raise them up from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will +put My words into his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command +him.</i> Ver. 19. <i>And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken +unto My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">If we leave out of view the unfortunate attempts of those who +would understand by the prophet here promised, either Joshua—as is done by <i>Abenezra</i>, +<i>Bechai</i>, and <i>von Ammon</i> (<i>Christol</i>. S. 29)—or Jeremiah—as is the +case in <i>Baal Hatturim</i> and <i>Jalkut</i> out of the book <i>Pesikta</i>, and +in <i>Abarbanel</i>—we may reduce the expositions of this passage to three classes. +1. Several consider the "prophet" as a collective noun, and understand thereby the +prophets of all times. Such was the opinion of <i>Origen</i> (<i>c. Celsum</i> i. +9, § 5, <i>Mosh.</i>), of the Arabic translator, and of most of the modern Jewish +interpreters,—especially <i>Kimchi</i>, <i>Alshech</i>, and <i>Lipman</i> (<i>Nizachon</i> +137); while <i>Abenezra</i> and <i>Bechai</i> conjoin this view with that according +to which Jeremiah is meant. Among recent expositors, it is defended by <i>Rosenmüller</i>, +<i>Vater</i>, <i>Baumgarten-Crusius</i> (<i>Bibl. Theol.</i> S. 369), and others. +2. Some see in it an exclusive reference to Christ,—a view which has been held by +most interpreters in the Christian Church, and from the earliest times. It is found +as early as in <i>Justin Martyr</i>, <i>Tertullian</i>, <i>Athanasius</i>, <i>Eusebius</i> +(<i>Demonstr.</i> iii. 2, ix. 11), <i>Lactantius</i> (iv. 17), <i>Augustine</i> +(<i>c. Faustum</i>, xvi. c. 15, 18, 19), and <i>Isidore</i> of <i>Pelusium</i> (c. +iii. ep. 49). It was held by <i>Luther</i> (t. 3. <i>Jen. Lat.</i> f. 123), became +the prevailing one in the Lutheran Church, and was <span class="pagenum">[Pg 105]</span> +approved of by most of the Reformed interpreters. Among its earliest defenders, +the most eminent are <i>Deyling</i> (<i>Misc.</i> ii. 175), <i>Frischmuth</i> (in +the <i>Thesaurus theol.-philol.</i> i. 354), and <i>Hasaeus</i> (in the <i>Thes. +theol.-philol.</i> nov. i. S. 439.) In recent times it has been defended by <i>Pareau</i> +(in the <i>Inst. interpr. V. T.</i> p. 506), by <i>Knapp</i> (<i>Dogm.</i> ii. 138). +3. Others have steered a middle course, inasmuch as they consider the "prophet" +to be a collective noun, but, at the same time, maintain that only by the mission +of Christ, in whom the idea of the prophetic order was perfectly realized, the promise +was completely fulfilled. Thus did <i>Nicolaus de Lyra</i>, <i>Calvin</i>, several +Roman Catholic interpreters, <i>Grotius</i>, <i>Clericus</i>, and others.</p> +<p class="normal">In favour of the Messianic interpretation, the authority of tradition +has been, first of all, appealed to. It is true that modern Jewish interpreters +differ from it; but this has been the result of polemical considerations alone. +It can be satisfactorily proved that the Messianic interpretation was the prevailing +one among the older Jews. 1 Mac. xiv. 41—"Also that the Jews and priests resolved +that Simon should be commander and high priest for ever, until a <i>credible prophet</i> +should arise,"—has been frequently appealed to in proof of this, but erroneously. +For, that by the "credible prophet," <i>i.e.</i>, one sufficiently attested by miracles +or fulfilled prophecies, we are not to understand the prophet promised by Moses +(as was done by Luther, and many older expositors who followed him), is shown, partly +by the absence of the article, and partly by the circumstance that a <i>credible</i> +prophet is spoken of. The sense is rather this: Simon and his family should continue +to hold the highest dignity until God Himself should make another arrangement by +a future prophet, as there was none at that time (comp. Ps. lxxiv. 9: "There is +no more any prophet"), and thus put an end to a state of things which, on the one +hand, was in contradiction to the law, and, on the other, to the promise,—a state +of things unto which they had been led by the force of circumstances, and which +could, at all events, be only a provisional one. (Compare <i>J. D. Michaelis</i> +on that passage.) It is not on the passage under review that the expectation of +a prophet there rests, but rather on Mal. iii. 1, 23, where a prophet is promised +as the precursor of the Messiah. But the New Testament furnishes sufficient materials +for proving the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 106]</span> Messianic interpretation. +The very manner in which Peter and Stephen quote this passage shows that the Messianic +interpretation was, at that time, the prevailing one. They do not deem it at all +necessary to prove it; they proceed on the supposition of its being universally +acknowledged. It was, no doubt, chiefly our passage which Philip had in view when, +in John i. 46, he said to Nathanael: <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὃν ἔγραψε Μωϋσῆς +ἐν τῷ νόμῳ εὑρήκαμεν, Ἰησοῦν.</span> For, besides the passage under consideration, +there is only one other personal Messianic prophecy in the Pentateuch, namely, Gen. +xlix. 10; and the marks of the Shiloh did not so distinctly appear in Jesus, as +did those of the Prophet. The mention of the person of Moses<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_106a" href="#ftn_106a">[1]</a></sup> +(which in Gen. xlix. 10 is less concerned), and of the law, clearly point to the +passage under review. After the feeding of the five thousand, the people say, in +John vi. 14: <span lang="el" class="Greek">Ὅτι οὗτος ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης, ὁ +ἐρχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον.</span> The Messianic interpretation was, accordingly, +not peculiar to a few learned men, but to the whole people. Even with the Samaritans +the Messianic explanation was the prevailing one,—based, no doubt, upon the tradition +which had come to them from the Jews. The Samaritan woman says, in John iv. 25: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται, ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός· ὅταν +ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν πάντα.</span> Now, as the Samaritans acknowledged only +the Pentateuch, there is no other passage than that under review from which the +idea of the Messiah as a divinely enlightened teacher, which is here expressed, +could have been derived. The last words agree in a remarkable manner with Deut. +xviii. 18: "And he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." That too +great weight, however, must not be attached to tradition, is shown by John i. 21, +and vii. 40, 41; for these passages clearly prove that there were also many who +thought it possible that Deut. xviii. contained not only the announcement of the +Messiah, but of some distinguished prophet also, besides Him, who should be His +precursor or companion. At the same time, we must not overlook the circumstance +that, in both passages, the people are at a loss, and are thereby induced to deviate +from the prevailing <span class="pagenum">[Pg 107]</span> opinion. Their uncertainty +and wavering, however, is only about the person. In this they agree, notwithstanding, +that in Deut. xviii. they find the announcement of one distinguished person.</p> +<p class="normal">But the Messianic interpretation may appeal, with still greater +confidence, to the direct evidence of the New Testament. The declaration of the +Lord in John v. 45-47 is here to be noticed above all: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">Μὴ δοκεῖτε ὅτι ἐγὼ κατηγορήσω ὑμῶν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα· +ἔστιν ὁ κατηγορῶν ὑμῶν, Μωϋσῆς, εἰς ὃν ὑμεῖς ἠλπίκατε. Εἰ γὰρ ἐπιστεύετε Μωϋσῇ, +ἐπιστεύετε ἂν ἐμοί· περὶ γὰρ ἐμοῦ ἐκεῖνος ἔγραψεν. Εἰ δὲ τοῖς ἐκείνου γράμμασιν +οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς τοῖς ἐμοῖς ῥήμασι πιστεύσετε</span>;—It is clear that the Lord +must here have had in view a distinct passage of the Pentateuch,—a clear and definite +declaration of Moses. Dexterous explanations (<i>Bengel</i>: <i>Nunquam non</i>; +<i>Tholuck</i>: The prophetical and typical element implied in the whole form of +worship) are of no apologetic value, and it is not possible summarily, on such grounds, +to call the enemies before the judgment-seat of God. It was not enough to allude, +in a way so general, to what could not be at once perceptible; greater distinctness +and particularity would have been required. But if a single declaration—a direct +Messianic prophecy—form the question at issue, our passage only can be meant; for +it is the only prophecy of Christ which Moses, on whose person great stress is laid, +uttered in his own name. Moreover, Christ would more readily expect that the Jews +would acknowledge our prophecy to be fulfilled in Him, than the prophecy in Gen. +xlix., which refers rather to the Messiah in glory. The preceding words of Jesus +likewise contain references to the passage now under consideration. Ver. 38—"And +ye have not His word abiding in you; for whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not,"—contains +an allusion to Deut. xviii. 18: "And I will put My words into his mouth, and he +shall speak unto them all that I shall command him;" so that whosoever rejects the +Ambassador of God, rejects His word at the same time. John v. 43—"I am come in My +Father's name, and ye receive Me not,"—acquires both its significance and earnestness +from its reference to ver. 19 of our passage: "Whosoever will not hearken unto My +words, which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him." <i>Further</i>,—The +point at issue in this discourse of Christ is an accusation of the Jews against +Christ, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 108]</span> that He had violated the Mosaic law. +(Compare John v. 10-16, and v. 18, which states the second apparent violation of +the law.) It was thus highly appropriate that Jesus should throw back upon the Jews +the charge which they brought against Him, and should prove to them that it was +just they who were in fatal opposition to the enactments of the Mosaic law. <i>Finally</i>,—It +is this same Moses in whom they trusted, whom they considered as their patron, and +whom to please the more, they were so zealous for his law against Jesus,—it is this +same Moses whom Jesus represents as their accuser. And he is such an accuser as +renders every other superfluous, so that Christ did not need specially to come forward +in such a character. The accusation of Moses must, then, according to this declaration, +and in accordance with what follows, refer to the cause of Christ. But the passage +under review is the only Messianic prophecy of a <i>threatening character</i> which +the Pentateuch contains,—the only one in which divine judgments are threatened to +the despisers of the Messiah,—the only Mosaic foundation for the denunciation: "Woe +to the people that despiseth thee." If it be denied that Christ refers to it,—if +its Messianic character be not acknowledged, the first words of Christ are destitute +of foundation. But if it be thus undeniable that Christ declared Himself to be the +prophet of our passage, it must be considered an indirect attack upon His divinity +to say, as <i>Dr Lücke</i> does, that Christ did so by way of "adaptation to the +interpretation of that time." It is just this appeal which forms the pith of Christ's +discourse; it is the real death-blow inflicted by Him upon His adversaries. If this +blow was a mere feint, His honour is endangered,—which may God forbid!—The Lord +further marks Himself out as the prophet announced by Moses, and that, too, in a +very distinct manner, in John xii. 48-50,—a passage which is evidently based upon +vers. 18 and 19 of the text under review. (Compare John xiv. 24-31.)—To this we +may add, further, that, according to St Luke xxiv. 44, the Lord Himself explains +to His disciples the prophecies in the Pentateuch concerning Him; and we cannot +well expect that Christ should have made no reference to a passage which one of +the Apostles points out as being of greater weight than all others. This is done +by Peter in Acts iii. 22, 23. The manner in which he quotes it, entirely excludes +the notion that Moses was <span class="pagenum">[Pg 109]</span> speaking of Christ, +only in so far as He belonged to the collective body of the prophets. Peter says +expressly, that Moses and the later prophets foretold +<span lang="el" class="Greek">τὰς ἡμέρας ταύτας</span>; and the words, +<span lang="el" class="Greek">τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου</span>, show that he did not +understand the singular in a collective sense. The circumstance that Stephen, in +Acts vii. 37, likewise refers the passage to Christ, would not be, in itself, conclusive, +because Stephen's case is different from that of the Apostles. But we must not overlook +the passage Matt. xvii. 5, according to which, at Christ's transfiguration, a voice +was heard from heaven which said: <span lang="el" class="Greek">οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός +μου ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα· αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε.</span> As the first part of this declaration +is taken from the Messianic prediction in Is. xlii., so is the second from the passage +under consideration; and, by this use of its words, the sense is clearly shown. +It is a very significant fact, that our passage is thus connected just with Is. +xlii.—the first prophetic announcement in which it is specially resumed, and in +which the prophetic order itself is the proclaimer of <i>the</i> Prophet. And it +is not less significant that this reference to our text, with which all the other +announcements by Isaiah concerning the Great Prophet to come are so immediately +connected, should precede chapters xlix., l., and lxi. It thus serves as a commentary +upon the declaration of Moses. The beginning and the outlines receive light from +the progress and completion. </p> +<p class="normal">He, however, who believes in Christ, will, after these details, +expect that internal reasons also should prove the reference to Christ; and this +expectation is fully confirmed.</p> +<p class="normal">That Moses did not intend by the word +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נביא</span> "prophet," to designate a collective +body merely, but that he had at least some special individual in view, appears, +partly, from the word itself being constantly in the singular, and, partly, from +the constant use of the singular suffixes in reference to it; while, in the case +of collective nouns, it is usual to interchange the singular with the plural. The +force of this argument is abundantly evident in the fact, that not a few of even +non-Messianic interpreters have been thereby compelled to make some single individual +the subject of this prophecy. But we must hesitate the more to adopt the opinion +that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נביא</span> stands here simply in the singular +instead of the plural, because neither does this word anywhere else occur as a collective +noun, nor is the prophetic order ever <span class="pagenum">[Pg 110]</span> spoken +of in the manner alleged. The expectation of a Messiah was already at that time +current among the people. In what way, then, could they understand a promise, in +which one individual only was spoken of, except by referring it, at least chiefly, +to the one whom they expected?—<i>Hofmann</i> (<i>Weissagung und Erfüllung</i> i. +S. 253) objects that the prophet here spoken of was, in no respect, different from +the <i>king</i> in Deut. xvii. 14-20. But the king mentioned there is no collective +noun. An individual who, in future times, should first attain to royal dignity, +forms there the subject throughout. This appears especially from ver. 20, where +he and his <i>sons</i> are spoken of. The first king is held up as an example, to +show in him what was applicable to the royal dignity in general. On the other hand, +it is in favour of our view, that, in the verses immediately preceding (vers. 8-13), +the priests are, at first, spoken of only in the plural, although the priestly order +had much more of the character of a collective body than the prophetic order.</p> +<p class="normal">A comparison between this prophecy and that of the Shiloh in Gen. +xlix. 10 is likewise in favour of the Messianic interpretation. Even there. His +prophetic office is alluded to in the kingly office. The ruler out of Judah is the +Peaceful One, to whom the nations yield a spontaneous obedience, an obedience flowing +from a pious source,—and He rules not by compulsion, but by the word.</p> +<p class="normal">The prophet is moreover contrasted with a single individual—with +Moses; and this compels us to refer the prophecy to some distinguished individual. +In ver. 15, Moses promises to the people a prophet <i>like unto himself</i>; and +thus also does the Lord say, in ver. 18: "A prophet <i>like unto thee</i> I will +raise up." We cannot for a moment suppose that this likeness should refer to the +prophetic calling only,—to the words: "I will put My words into his mouth, and he +shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." It must at the same time be +implied in it, that the future prophet shall be as thoroughly competent for his +work, as Moses was for that which was committed to him. If it were not so, the promise +would be deficient in that consolatory and elevating character which, according +to the context, it is evidently intended to possess. If we were to paraphrase thus, +"The Lord will raise up a prophet, inferior, indeed, to myself, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 111]</span> but yet the bearer of divine revelations," +we should at once perceive how unsuitable it were. <i>Further</i>,—It is quite evident +that the "Prophet" here is the main instrument of divine agency among the covenant-people +of the future,—that He is the real support and anchor of the kingdom of God. But +now the difficulties of the future were, as Moses himself saw, so great, that gifts +in any way short of those of Moses would by no means have been sufficient. Moses +foresees that the spirit of apostasy, which, even in his time, began to manifest +itself, would, in future times, increase to a fearful extent. (Compare especially +Deut. xxxii.) Against this, ordinary gifts and powers would be of no avail. A successful +and enduring reaction could be brought about only by one who should be, for the +more difficult circumstances of the future, such as Moses was for his times. But—and +this circumstance is of still greater weight—it forms the task of the future to +translate the whole heathen world into the kingdom of God. In it, Japheth is to +dwell in the tents of Shem; all the nations of the earth are to become partakers +in the blessing resting on Abraham. In the view of such a task, a prophet of ordinary +dimensions, as well as the collective body of such, would dwindle down to the appearance +of a dwarf. They would have been less than Moses. In Deut. xxxiv. 10, it is said, +"There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face +to face;"—a passage which not only plainly refers to the experience acquired at +that time, but which expresses also what might be expected of that portion of the +future which was more immediately at hand. When Miriam and Aaron said, "Doth the +Lord indeed speak only by Moses, doth He not speak by us also?" the Lord immediately, +Num. xii. 6-8, reproves their presumption of thinking themselves <i>like unto Moses</i>, +as respects the prophetical gift, in these words: "If some one be your prophet,"—<i>i.e.</i>, +if some one be a prophet according to your way, with prophets of your class,—"I, +the Lord, make myself known unto him in a vision, in a dream I speak unto him. Not +so my servant Moses; in all My house he is faithful. Mouth to mouth I speak to him, +and face to face, and not in dark speeches; and the appearance of the Lord he beholds." +Moses, as a prophet, is here contrasted with the whole order of prophets of ordinary +gifts. A higher dignity among them is claimed for him on the ground that not some +special mission, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 112]</span> but the care of the whole +economy of the Old Testament, was entrusted to him; compare Heb. iii. 5. His is +a specially close relation to the Lord, a specially high degree of illumination. +The collective body of ordinary prophets cannot, therefore, by any possibility be +the "prophet" who is <i>like unto Moses</i>, as completely equal to the task of +the future as Moses was for that of his day. But the greater the work of the future, +the more necessary is it that the prophet of the future, in order to be <i>like +unto Moses</i>, should, in his whole individuality, and in all his gifts, be far +superior to him; compare Heb. iii. 6.</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Finally</i>,—The common prophetic order itself refuses the +honour of being the prophet like unto Moses. The prophecies of Isaiah, in chapters +xlii., xlix., l., and lxi., are based upon our passage, and in all of them the Messiah +appears as the prophet <span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν</span>. It is to +Him that the mission is entrusted of being the restorer of Jacob, and the salvation +of the Lord, even unto the end of the world.</p> +<p class="normal">Whilst these reasons demand the reference of this prophecy to +Christ, there are, on the other hand, weighty considerations which make it appear +that a reference to the prophetic order of the Old Testament cannot be excluded. +These considerations are, 1. The wider context. Deuteronomy is distinguished from +the preceding books by this, that provisions are made in it for the time subsequent +to the death of Moses, which was now at hand. From chap. xvii. 8, the magistrates +and powers—the superiors, to whose authority in secular and spiritual affairs the +people shall submit—are introduced. First, the civil magistrates are brought before +them, xvii. 8-20; and then the ecclesiastical superiors, chap. xviii. Vers. 1-8 +treat of the priests as the ordinary servants of the Lord in spiritual things. Everywhere +else, offices, institutions, orders, are spoken of. In such a connection, it is +not probable that <i>the prophet</i> should be only an individual; and the less +so, because evidently the prophet, as the organ of the immediate revelation of God, +is placed by the side of the priests, the teachers of the law (compare xvii. 10, +11, 18; xxxiv. 10), as their corrective, as a thorn in their flesh, to make up for +their inability. It is true that this wider connection is also against those who +would here <i>exclude</i> Christ. If it be certain that Moses already knew the Messianic +promises (compare the remarks on Gen. xlix.), then, just in this context, the reference +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 113]</span> to Christ, the head of the authorities of +the future, could not be wanting.</p> +<p class="normal">2. An exclusive reference to Christ is opposed by the more immediate +context. This connection is twofold. In ver. 15, Moses first utters the promise +in his own name, and here it stands connected with what precedes. Moses had forbidden +to the people the use of all the means by which those who were given to idolatry +endeavoured to penetrate the boundaries of human knowledge: "Thou shalt not do so," +is his language; for that which these are vainly seeking after in this sinful manner, +shall, in reality, be granted to thee by thy God. Here, it was not only appropriate +to remind them of the Messiah, inasmuch as His appearance, as being the most perfect +revelation of God, satisfies most perfectly the desire after higher communications; +but it would have been very strange if here, where so suitable an opportunity presented +itself, the founder of the Old Economy had omitted all reference to the founder +of the New Economy, and had limited himself to the intervening, more imperfect divine +communications. But, on the other hand, it would have been as strange if Moses had +taken no notice of them at all,—if, supposing that a series of false prophets would +appear, he had been satisfied to lay down in chap. xiii. 2 sqq. the distinctive +marks of true and false prophets, and had then, in the passage under review, referred +to the divine revelations to be expected in the distant future, without noticing +those to be expected in the more immediate future,—thus neglecting to employ means +peculiarly fitted for gaining admission for his exhortations. The word +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נתן</span> in ver. 14 is especially opposed to such +a view. "And thou (shalt) not (do) so, Jehovah thy God gave thee." <i>J. D. Michaelis</i> +says: "What He gave to the Israelites is specified in vers. 15 and 18." The past +tense suggests the idea of a gift which had already taken its beginning in the present.—The +promise stands in a different connection in ver. 18. Moses had already given it +in his own name in ver. 15. In order to give it greater authority, he reports, in +the following verses, when and how he had received it from God. It was delivered +to him on Sinai, where God had directly revealed Himself to the people at the promulgation +of the Law, partly in order to strengthen their confidence in Moses the mediator, +and <span class="pagenum">[Pg 114]</span> partly to show them the folly of their +desiring any other mode of divine communication. But the people were seized with +terror before the dreadful majesty of God, and prayed that God would no longer speak +to them directly, but through a mediator, as He had hitherto done; compare Exod. +xx.; Deut. v. The Lord then said to Moses, "They have well spoken; a prophet," etc. +The words here, in ver. 17, agree very well with Deut. v. 28. The agreement in the +words indicates that <i>here</i> we have an addition to that which is <i>there</i> +communicated regarding what was spoken by God on that occasion. <i>There</i>, we +are told only what had an immediate reference to the present—viz., the appointment +of Moses as mediator; <i>here</i>, we are told what was at that time fixed in reference +to the future of the people. We cannot fail to perceive that <i>here</i>, if ever, +a divine revelation was appropriate concerning the coming of Christ, who, as the +Mediator between God and man, veiled His Godhead, and in human form, brought God +nearer to man. But we should, at the same time, expect here an allusion to the inferior +messengers of God, who were to precede Him.</p> +<p class="normal">3. The exclusive reference to the Messiah is inconsistent with +vers. 20-22. The marks of a false prophet are given in them. If, however, that which +precedes had no reference at all to true prophets, it would be almost impossible +to trace any suitable connection of the thoughts.</p> +<p class="normal">4. If the passage were referred to Christ exclusively, the prophetic +institution would then be without any legitimate authority; and from the whole character +of the Mosaic legislation, as laying the foundation for the future progress and +development of the Theocracy, we could not well conceive that so important an institution +should be deficient in this point. Moreover, the whole historical existence of the +prophetic order necessarily presupposes such a foundation. Deut. xiii. 2 sq. was +not fitted to afford such a foundation, as it refers, only indirectly and by implication, +to true prophets.</p> +<p class="normal">5. <i>Finally</i>,—There are not wanting slight hints in the New +Testament that the reference to Christ is not an exclusive one. These are found +in Luke xi. 50, 51: <span lang="el" class="Greek">Ἵνα ἐκζητηθῇ τὸ αἷμα πάντων τῶν +προφητῶν ... ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης ... ναὶ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐκζητηθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς +ταύτης.</span> The emphatic repetition of <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐκζητεῖν</span> +in that passage shows plainly its connection <span class="pagenum">[Pg 115]</span> +with the words, "I will require it of him," in the passage under review; just as +the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ידרש</span>, which, according to 2 Chron. xxiv. +22, the prophet Zechariah, who was unjustly slain, uttered when dying, alludes not +only to Gen. ix. 5, but to our passage also. But here we must remark that, in consequence +of the sin committed against the Prophet <span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν</span>—Christ—vengeance +for the crimes committed against the inferior prophets is executed at the same time, +so that, in the first instance, <i>His</i> blood is required, and, on this occasion, +all the blood also which was formerly shed.</p> +<p class="normal">But how can these two facts be reconciled:—that Moses had, undeniably, +the Messiah in view, and that, notwithstanding, there seems at the same time to +be a reference to the prophets in general? The simplest mode of reconciling them +is the following. The prophet here is an <i>ideal</i> person, comprehending all +the true prophets who had appeared from Moses to Christ, including the latter. But +Moses does not here speak of the prophets as a collective body, to which, at the +close, Christ also belonged, as it were, incidentally, and as one among the many,—as +<i>Calvin</i> and other interpreters mentioned above suppose; but rather, the plurality +of prophets is, for this reason only, comprehended by Moses in an <i>ideal</i> unity, +that, on the authority of Gen. xlix. 10, and by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, +he knew that the prophetical order would, at some future time, centre in a real +person,—in Christ. But there is so much the more of truth in thus viewing the prophetic +order as a whole, since, according to 1 Peter i. 11, the Spirit of Christ spoke +in the prophets. Thus, in a certain sense, Christ is the only Prophet.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_106a" href="#ftnRef_106a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> <i>Lampe</i> says: He has preserved to us + not only what, in Paradise, and afterwards to and through the Patriarchs, had + been told about this Redeemer; but he himself, under divine inspiration, has + prophesied of Him,—especially in Deut. xviii. 15-18.</p> +</div> +<hr class="W20"> +<h1><a name="div1_115" href="#div1Ref_115">THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN THE PENTATEUCH, +AND THE BOOK OF JOSHUA.</a></h1> +<p class="normal">The New Testament distinguishes between the hidden God and the +revealed God—the Son or Logos—who is connected with the former by oneness of nature, +and who from everlasting, and even at the creation itself, filled up the immeasurable +distance between the Creator and the creation;—who has been the Mediator in all +God's relations to the world;—who at all times, and even before He became man in +Christ, has been the light of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 116]</span> the world,—and +to whom, specially, was committed the direction of the economy of the Old Covenant.</p> +<p class="normal">It is evident that this doctrine stands in the closest connection +with the Christology,—that it forms, indeed, its theological foundation and ground-work. +Until the Christology has attained to a knowledge of the true divinity of the Saviour, +its results cannot be otherwise than very meagre and unsatisfactory. Wheresoever +the true state of human nature is seen in the light of Holy Scripture, no high expectations +can be entertained from a merely human Saviour, although he were endowed even with +as full a measure of the gifts of the Spirit of God as human nature, in its finite +and sinful condition, is able to bear. But unless there exist in the one divine +Being itself, such a distinction of persons, the divinity of the Saviour cannot +be acknowledged, without endangering the unity of God which the Scriptures so emphatically +teach. If, however, there be such a distinction,—if the Word be indeed with God, +we cannot avoid ascribing to God the desire of revealing Himself; nor, in such a +case, can we conceive that He should content Himself with inferior forms of revelation, +with merely transitory manifestations. We can recognise in these only preparations, +and preludes of the highest and truest revelation.</p> +<p class="normal">The question then is, whether any insight into this doctrine is +to be found as early as in the Books of the Old Testament. Sound Christian Theology +has discovered the outlines of such a distinction betwixt the hidden and the revealed +God, in many passages of the Old Testament, in which mention is made of the Angel +or Messenger of God. The general tenor of these passages will be best exemplified +by the first among them,—the narrative of Hagar in Gen. xvi. In ver. 7, we are told +that the Angel of Jehovah found Hagar. In ver. 10, this Angel ascribes to Himself +a divine work, viz., the innumerable increase of Hagar's posterity. In ver. 11, +He says that Jehovah had heard her distress. He thus asserts of Jehovah what, shortly +before. He had said of Himself. Moreover, in ver. 13, Hagar expresses her astonishment +that she had seen God, and yet had remained alive.—The opinion that these passages +form the Old Testament foundation for the Proemium of St John's Gospel, has not +remained uncontroverted. From the very times of the Church-fathers it has been asserted +by many, that where the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 117]</span> Angel of the Lord +is spoken of, we must not think of a person connected with God by unity of nature, +but of a lower angel, by whom God executes His commands, and through whom He acts +and speaks. The latest defenders of the view are <i>Hofmann</i> in "<i>Weissagung +und Erfüllung</i>" and in the "<i>Schriftbeweis</i>" and <i>Delitzsch</i> in his +commentary on Genesis.—Others are of opinion, that the Angel of Jehovah is identical +with Jehovah Himself,—not denoting a person distinct from Him, but only the form +in which He manifests Himself. We shall not here discuss the question in its whole +extent; we shall, in the meantime, consider only what the principal passages of +the Pentateuch and of the adjacent Book of Joshua teach upon this point, and how +far their teaching coincides with, or is in opposition to, these various views. +For it is only to this extent that the inquiry belongs to our present object.</p> +<p class="normal">In <a name="div2_117" href="#div2Ref_117">Gen. xvi. 13</a>, these +words are of special importance: "<i>And she called the name of the Lord who spoke +unto her, Thou art a God of sight: for she said, Do I now</i> (properly <i>here</i>, +in the place where such a sight was vouchsafed to me) <i>still see after my seeing?</i>" +"Do I see" is equivalent to, "Do I live," because death threatened, as it were, +to enter through the eyes. (Compare the expression, "Mine eyes have seen," in Is. +vi.) <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">רֹאִי</span> is the pausal form for +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">רֳאִי</span>; see Job xxxiii. 21, where, however, +the accent is on the penultimate. Then follows ver. 14: <i>They called the well</i>, +"<i>Well of the living sight</i>;" <i>i.e.</i>, where a person had a sight of God, +and remained alive.</p> +<p class="normal">Hagar must have been convinced that she had seen God without the +mediation of a created angel; for, otherwise, she could not have wondered that her +life was preserved. Man, entangled by the visible world, is terrified when he comes +in contact with the invisible world, even with angels. (Compare Dan. viii. 17, 18; +Luke ii. 9.) But this terror rises to fear of death only when man comes into contact +with the Lord Himself. (Compare the remarks on Rev. i. 17.) In Gen. xxxii. 31—a +passage which bears the closest resemblance to the one now under review, and from +which it receives its explanation—it is said: "And Jacob called the name of the +place <i>Peniel</i>, for I have seen <span class="sc">God</span> face to face, and +my life has been preserved." In Exod. xx. 19, the children of Israel said to Moses, +"Speak thou with us, and we will hear; and let not God speak with us, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 118]</span> lest we die;" compared with Deut. v. 21: "Now +therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us; if we hear the +voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die." (Compare also Deut. xviii. +16.) And it is Jehovah who, in Exod. xxxiii. 20, says, "There shall no man see Me +and live." Israel's Lord and God is, in the absolute energy of His nature, a "consuming +fire," Deut. iv. 24. (Compare Deut. ix. 3; Is. xxxiii. 14: "Who among us would dwell +with the devouring fire? who among us would dwell with everlasting burning?" Heb. +xii. 29.) It is not the reflected light, even in the most exalted creatures, nor +the sight of the saints of whom it is said, "Behold, He puts no trust in His servants, +and His angels He chargeth with folly,"—but the sight of the thrice Holy One, which +makes Isaiah exclaim, "Woe is me, for I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips, +and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips."</p> +<p class="normal">So much then is clear,—that the opinion which considers the Angel +of the Lord to be a created angel is overthrown by the first passage where that +angel is mentioned, if the exposition which we have given of vers. 13, 14—an exposition +which is now generally received, and which was last advanced by <i>Knobel</i>—be +correct. But <i>Delitzsch</i> gives another exposition: "Thou art a God of sight,"<!--removed quote mark; see p. 221 of Biblical Commentary on the +Old Testament, v. 1, by Keil and Delitzsch, 1866--> <i>i.e.</i>, one whose all-seeing +eye does not overlook the helpless and destitute, even in the remotest corner of +the wilderness." Against this we remark, that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ראי</span> +never denotes the act of seeing, but the sight itself. "Have I not even here (even +in the desert land of destitution) looked after Him who saw me?" "Well of the living +one who seeth me," <i>i.e.</i>, of the omnipresent divine providence. In opposition +to this exposition, however, we must remark, that God is nowhere else in Genesis +called the Living One. But our chief objection is, that these expositions destroy +the connection which so evidently exists between our passage and those already quoted,—especially +Gen. xxxii. 31; Exod. xxxiii. 20. (Compare, moreover, Jud. xiii. 22: "And Manoah +said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen <span class="sc">God</span>.")</p> +<p class="normal">It has been asked. Why should the Logos have appeared first to +the Egyptian maid? But the low condition of Hagar cannot here come into consideration; +for the appearance is in reality intended, not for her, but for Abraham. Immediately +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 119]</span> before, in chap. xii. 7, it is said, "And +the Lord appeared unto Abraham;" and immediately after, in chap. xvii. 1, "And when +Abraham was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to him;" the appearance +of the Lord Himself is mentioned in order that every thought of a lower angel may +be warded off. The passage under consideration, then, contains the indication, that +such appearances must only be conceived of as manifestations of the Deity Himself +to the world. Just as our passage is preserved from erroneous interpretations by +such passages as Gen. xii. 7, xvii. 1, so these receive from ours, in return, their +most distinct definition. We learn from this, that wherever appearances of Jehovah +are mentioned, we must conceive of them as effected by the mediation of His Angel. +There is no substantial difference betwixt the passages in which Jehovah Himself +is mentioned, and those in which the Angel of Jehovah is spoken of. They serve to +supplement and to explain one another. The words, "In His Angel," in chap. xvi. +7, furnish us with the supplement to the succeeding statement, "And <i>Jehovah</i> +appeared to him" (so, <i>e.g.</i>, also in chap. xviii. 1), just as the writer in +Gen. chap. ii. iii. makes use of the name Jehovah-Elohim, in order that henceforth +every one may understand that where only Jehovah is spoken of. He is yet personally +identical with Elohim.</p> +<p class="normal">Let us now turn to <a name="div2_119" href="#div2Ref_119">Gen. +xviii. xix.</a> According to <i>Delitzsch</i>. all the three men who appeared to +Abraham were "finite spirits made visible." <i>Hofmann</i> (<i>Schriftb.</i> S. +87) says: "Jehovah is present on earth in His angels, in the two with Lot, as in +the three with Abraham." We, however, hold fast by the view of the ancient Church, +that in chap. xviii. the Logos appeared accompanied by two inferior angels.</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">Abraham's regards are, from the very first, involuntarily +directed to one from among the three, and whom he addresses by +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אֲדוֹנָי</span>, O Lord (xviii. 3); the two others +are considered by him as companions only. But Lot has to do with both equally, and +addresses them first by <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אֲדוֹנַי</span>, my Lords.—In +chap. xviii., it is always one only of the three who speaks; the two others are +mute;<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_119a" href="#ftn_119a">[1]</a></sup> while +in chap. xix. everything comes from the two <span class="pagenum">[Pg 120]</span> +equally. He with whom Abraham has to do, always, and without exception, speaks as +God Himself; while the two with whom Lot has to do speak at first, as +<span lang="el" class="Greek">λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα</span>, distinguishing themselves +from the Lord who sent them (compare ver. 13); and it is only after they have thus +drawn the line of separation between themselves and Jehovah, that they appear, in +vers. 21, 22, as speaking in His name. They do so, moreover, only after Lot, in +the anxiety of his heart and in his excitement, had previously addressed, in them, +Him who sent them, and with whom he desired to have to do as immediately as possible. +The scene bears, throughout, a character of excitement, and is not fitted to afford +data for general conclusions. We cannot infer from it that it was, in general, customary +to address, in the angels, the Lord who sent them, or that the angels acted in the +name of the Lord. In chap. xviii., from ver. 1, where the narrative begins with +the words, "And Jehovah appeared unto him," Moses always speaks of him with whom +Abraham had to do as Jehovah only, excepting where he introduces the three men. +(He with whom Abraham has to do is called, not fewer than eight times, Jehovah, +and six times <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אֲדוֹנָי</span>.) But in chap. xix., +Jehovah, who is concealed behind the two angels, appears only twice in the expression, +"And He said," in vers. 17, 21, for which ver. 13 suggests the supplement: "through +His two angels."—Even in ver. 16, the narrative distinguishes Jehovah from the two +men,—and all this in an exciting scene which must have influenced even the narrator. +If he who spoke to Abraham was an angel like the other two, we could scarcely perceive +any reason why he should not have taken part in the mission to Sodom; but if he +was the Angel of the Lord <span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν</span>, the +reason is quite obvious; it would have been inconsistent with divine propriety.—In +chap. xviii. Moses speaks of three men; it is evidently on <span class="pagenum"> +[Pg 121]</span> purpose that he avoids speaking of three angels. In chap. xix. 1, +on the contrary, we are at once told: "And there came the two angels." (Compare +ver. 15.) The reason why in chap. xviii. the use of the name <i>angels</i> is avoided +can only be, because it might easily have led to a misunderstanding, if the Angel +of the Lord had been comprehended in that one designation along with the two inferior +angels, although it would not, in itself, have been inadmissible.—If we suppose +that he, with whom Abraham had to do, was some created angel, we cannot well understand +how, in chap. xviii. 17 seq., the judgment over Sodom could, throughout, be ascribed +to him. <i>He</i> could not, in the name of the Lord, speak of that judgment, as +not he, but the two other angels who went to Sodom, were the instruments of its +execution. Hence it only remains to ascribe the judgment to him as the <i>causa +principalis</i>.—If the three angels were equals, it would be impossible to explain +the adversative clause in chap. xviii. 22: "And the men turned from thence and went +to Sodom; <i>but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.</i>" Jehovah and the two angels +are here contrasted. It is true that, in the two angels also, it is Jehovah who +acts. This is evident from xviii. 21: "I will go down and see"—where the going down +does not refer to descending to the valley of Jordan, the position of which was +lower (thus <i>Delitzsch</i>); but, according to xi. 7, it refers to a descent from +heaven to earth. That Jehovah, though on earth, should declare His resolution to +go down, as in xi. 7, may be explained from the <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὁ +ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ</span> in John iii. 13. God, even when He is on earth, remains in +heaven, and it is thence that He manifests Himself. Moreover, the words immediately +following show in what sense this going down is to be understood,—that it is not +in His own person, but through the medium of His messengers. The resolution, "I +will go down," is carried into effect by the going down of the angels to Sodom.</p> +<p class="normal">By the Jehovah who, from Jehovah out of heaven, caused brimstone +and fire to rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah (xix. 24), we are not at liberty to understand +the two angels only,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_121a" href="#ftn_121a">[2]</a></sup> +but, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 122]</span> agreeably to the views of sound Christian +expositors generally, Christ,—with this modification, however, that the two angels +are to be considered as His servants, and that what they do is His work also. It +is true that the angels say, in xix. 13, "We will destroy," etc.; but much more +emphatically and frequently does he with whom Abraham has to do, ascribe the work +of destruction to himself. (Compare xviii. 17, where Jehovah says, "How can I hide +from Abraham that thing which I am doing?" vers. 24-28, etc.) If in xix. 24 there +be involved the contrast between, so to speak, the heavenly and earthly Jehovah,—between +the hidden God and Him who manifests Himself on earth,—then so much the more must +we seek the latter in chap. xviii., as in ver. 22, compared with ver. 21, the angels +are distinctly pointed out as His Messengers.</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Delitzsch</i> asserts that in Heb. xiii. 2, the words, +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἔλαθόν τινες ξενίσαντες ἀγγέλους</span>, clearly indicate +that "all three were finite spirits made visible." This assertion, however, which +was long before made by the Socinian <i>Crellius</i>, has been sufficiently refuted +by <i>Ode de Angelis</i>, p. 1001. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews intends +to connect the events which happened to Abraham and Lot equally—<span lang="el" class="Greek">τίνες</span>; +and for this reason he did not go beyond what was common to them both. Moreover, +the Angel of the Lord is likewise comprehended in the appellation "<i>angels</i>," +for the name has no reference to the nature, but to the mission.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_119a" href="#ftnRef_119a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> The words in ver. 9, "And they said to him," + are to be understood only thus:—that one spoke at the same time in the name + of the others; in the question thus put, it is, in the first instance, only + the general relation of the guests to the hostess that comes into consideration. + That such is the case, appears from ver. 10, where the use of the plural could + not be continued, because a work was on hand which was peculiar to the one among + them, and in which the others were not equally concerned. If the words in ver. + 9 were spoken by all the three, then the one in ver. 10 ought to have been singled + out thus: "And one from among them thus spoke." On account of the suffix in + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אחריו</span>, "And the door was behind <i>him</i>," + the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ויאמר</span> in ver. 10 can be referred only + to the one, and not to the Jehovah concealed behind all the three. This shows + how the preceding, "And they said," is to be understood.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_121a" href="#ftnRef_121a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> <i>Delitzsch</i> says: "As the two are really + sent to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, it is evident that Jehovah, in ver. 24, + who causes brimstone and fire to rain from Jehovah out of heaven, is viewed + as being present in the two on earth, but in such a manner that, nevertheless, + His real judicial throne is in heaven."</p> +</div> +<hr class="W10"> +<p class="normal">Of no less importance and significance is the passage +<a name="div2_122" href="#div2Ref_122">Gen. xxxi. 11 seq.</a> According to ver. +11, the Angel of God, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מלאך האלהים</span>, appears +to Jacob in a dream. In ver. 13, the same person calls himself the God of Bethel, +with reference to the event recorded in chap. xxviii. 11-22. It cannot be supposed +that in chap xxviii. the mediation of a common angel took place, who, however, had +not been expressly mentioned; for Jehovah is there contrasted with the angels. In +ver. 12, we read: "And behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it." +In ver. 13, there is another sight: "And behold Jehovah stood by him and said, I +am Jehovah, the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac; the land whereon +thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed."</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 123]</span></p> +<p class="normal">This passage is also in so far of importance, because, agreeably +to what has been remarked in p. 119, it follows from it that even there, where Jehovah +simply is mentioned, the mediation through His Angel is to be assumed.</p> +<hr class="W10"> +<p class="normal">He with whom Jacob wrestles, in +<a name="div2_123" href="#div2Ref_123">Gen. xxxii. 24</a>, makes himself known as +God, partly by giving him the name Israel, <i>i.e.</i>, one who wrestles with God, +and partly by bestowing a blessing upon him. Jacob calls the place <i>Peniel</i>, +<i>i.e.</i>, face of God, because he had seen God face to face, and wonders that +his life was preserved. The answer which Elohim gives here to Jacob's question regarding +His name, remarkably coincides with that which in Judges xiii. 17, 18, is given +by <i>the</i> Angel of the Lord to a similar question. In Hosea xii. 4 (comp. the +remarks on this passage in the Author's "<i>Genuineness of the Pentateuch</i>," +vol. i. p. 128 ff.), he who wrestled with Jacob is called Elohim, as in Genesis; +but in ver. 5, he is called <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מלאך</span>, a word which +is more distinctly defined by the preceding Elohim; so that we can, accordingly, +think only of the Angel of God. As it was certainly not the intention of the prophet +to state a new historical circumstance, the mention of the Angel must be founded +upon the supposition, that all revelations of God are made by the mediation of His +Angel,—a supposition which we have already proved to have its foundation in the +book of Genesis itself.</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Delitzsch</i> says, S. 256, "Jehovah reveals Himself in the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מלאך</span>, but just by means of a finite spirit +becoming visible, and therefore in a manner more tolerable to him who occupies a +lower place of communion with God." And similarly, <i>Hofmann</i> expresses himself, +S. 335: "It is quite the same thing whether it be said, he saw God, or an angel, +as is testified by Hosea also; and nowhere have we less right to explain it as if +it were an appearance of God the Son, in contrast with the appearance of an angel."</p> +<p class="normal">But since it is an essentially different matter, whether Jacob +wrestled with God Himself, or, in the first instance, with an ordinary angel merely, +we have, as regards this opinion, only the choice between accusing the prophet Hosea, +who brought in the angel, of an Euhemerismus, or of raising against sacred history +the charge that it cannot be relied on, because it omitted so important +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 124]</span> a circumstance. The name Israel, by which, +"at the same time, the innermost nature of the covenant-people was fixed, and the +divine law of their history was established" (<i>Delitzsch</i>), is, in that case, +a falsehood. Jacob has overcome omnipotence, and, in this one adversary, all others +who might oppose him,—as he is expressly assured in ver. 29: "Thou hast wrestled +with God and <i>with men</i>, and hast prevailed." Can God invest a creature with +omnipotence? Jacob would certainly not have gone so cheerfully to meet Esau, if +in Him over whom he prevailed with weeping and supplication, he himself had recognised +only an angel, and not Jehovah the God of hosts, as Hosea, in ver. 6, calls the +very same, of whom in ver. 5 he had spoken as the angel. The consolatory import +of the event for the Church of all times is destroyed, if Jacob had to do with a +created angel only. With such an one, Jacob had not to reckon on account of his +sinfulness, and it is just the humiliating consciousness of this his sinfulness +which forms the point at issue in his wrestling. Moreover, with such a view, the +New Testament Antitype would be altogether lost. Jesus, the true Israel, does not +wrestle with an angel,—such an one only appears to strengthen Him in His struggle, +Luke xxii. 43—but with God, Heb. v. 7.—The occurrence would, according to this opinion, +furnish a strong argument for the worship of angels: "He wept and made <i>supplication</i> +unto him," Hos. xii. 5 (compare Deut. iii. 23). The +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἀγωνίζεσθαι ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς</span>, mentioned in +Col. iv. 12, in allusion to our passage, would, in that case, besides God, have +the angels for its object.</p> +<p class="normal">If an ordinary angel were here to be understood, we must likewise +believe that an angel is spoken of in Gen. xxxv. 9 seq. For, of the same angel with +whom Jacob wrestled, Hosea says that Jacob found him in Bethel: "And he wrestled +with the Angel and prevailed, he wept and made supplication unto him; he found him +in Bethel, and there he spake with us." (<i>Tarnov</i>: "<i>Nobiscum qui in lumbis +Jacobi hærebamus.</i>") Then, it must have been a common angel, too, who appeared +to Jacob in Gen. xxviii. 10 ff.; for chap. xxxv. 9, compared with ver. 7, does not +allow us to doubt of the identity of him who appeared on these two occasions. But +such an idea cannot be entertained for a moment; for in chap. xxviii. 13, Jehovah +is contrasted with the angels ascending and descending on the ladder.</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 125]</span></p> +<p class="normal">In <a name="div2_125" href="#div2Ref_125">Gen. xlviii. 15, 16</a>, +we read of Jacob: "<i>And he blessed Joseph, and said, The God before whom my fathers +Abraham and Isaac did walk, and the God which fed me all my life long unto this +day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">In this passage, God first appears, twice in the indefiniteness +of His nature, and then, specially, as the Angel concerned for Jacob and his posterity.</p> +<p class="normal">By the Angel, we cannot here understand a divine emanation and +messenger, because no permanent character belongs to such; while here the whole +sum of the preservations of Jacob, and of the blessings upon Ephraim and Manasseh, +is derived from the Angel. And just as little can we thereby understand a created +angel, according to the view of <i>Hofmann</i>, who, in S. 87, says: "Jacob here +makes mention of God, not thrice, but twice only; first as the God of his fathers, +and then as the God of his own experience, but in such a way that in ver. 16 he +names, instead of God, the Angel who watched over him; and he does so for the purpose +of denoting the special providence of which he had been the object."</p> +<p class="normal">The analogy of the threefold blessing of Aaron in Num. vi. 24-26 +would lead us to expect that the name of God should be three times mentioned. No +created angel could in this manner be placed by the side of God, or be introduced +as being independent of, and co-ordinate with, Him. Such an angel can only be meant +as is connected with God by oneness of nature, and whose activity is implied in +that of God. The singular <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יברך</span> is here of +very special significance. It indicates that the Angel is joined to God by an inseparable +oneness, and that his territory is just as wide as that of Elohim.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_125a" href="#ftn_125a">[1]</a></sup> +If by the angel we understand some created one, we cannot then avoid the startling +inference, that God is, in all His manifestations, bound <span class="pagenum">[Pg +126]</span> absolutely to the mediation of the lower angels. In the history upon +which Jacob looks back, the inferior angels do not appear at all as taking any part +in all the preservations of Jacob. Twice only are they mentioned in his whole history,—in +chap. xxviii. 12, and xxxii. 2. <i>Lastly</i>,—The angel cannot well be a collective +noun; for we nowhere meet with the <i>ideal</i> person of the angel, as comprehending +within himself a real plurality. (Compare remarks on Ps. xxxiv. 8.) We should therefore +be compelled to think of Jacob's protecting angel. But this, again, would be in +opposition to the fact, that Scripture nowhere says anything of the guardian angels +of any individual. Moreover, it is a plurality of angels that in xxviii. 12, xxxii. +2, serves for the protection of Jacob, and we nowhere find the slightest trace of +one inferior angel being attached to Jacob for his protection.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_125a" href="#ftnRef_125a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> This significance of the singular was pointed + out as early as in the third century by <i>Novatianus</i>, who, <i>de Trinitate</i> + c. xv. (p. 1016 in <i>Ode</i>), says: "So constant is he in mentioning that + Angel whom he had called God, that even at the close of his speech he again + refers, in an emphatic manner, to the same person, by saying, 'God bless these + lads.' For had he intended that some other angel should be understood, he would + have used the plural number in order to comprehend the two persons. But since, + in his blessing, he made use of the singular, he would have us to understand + that God and the Angel are quite identical."</p> +</div> +<hr class="W10"> +<p class="normal">In <a name="div2_126" href="#div2Ref_126">Exod. xxiii. 20, 21,</a> +Jehovah says to the children of Israel: "<i>Behold, I send an angel before thee, +to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. +Beware of him, and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon +your transgressions: for My name is in him.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">As the people are here told to beware of the Angel, because he +will not pardon their transgressions, so Joshua xxiv. 19 warns them as regards the +most high God: "Ye will not be able to serve Jehovah: for He is a holy (<i>i.e.</i>, +a glorious, exalted) God; He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgressions +nor your sins." The energetic character of the reaction proceeding from the angel +against all violations of His honour, is founded upon the words, "For My name is +in him." By the "name of God" all His deeds are understood and comprehended, His +glory testified by history, the display and testimony of His nature which history +gives. (Compare the remarks in my commentary on Ps. xxiii. 2, xlviii. 11, lxxxiii. +17-19, lxxxvi. 11.) "My name is him;" <i>i.e.</i>, according to Calvin, "My glory +and majesty dwell in him." Compare here what in the New Testament is said of Christ: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ</span>, +John v. 19; <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσι τὸν υἱὸν καθὼς τιμῶσι +τὸν πατέρα</span>, John v. 23; <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν +ἐσμεν</span>, John x. 30; <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε +ὅτι ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ κᾀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ</span>, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 127]</span> John +x. 38; <span lang="el" class="Greek">οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ +ἐν ἐμοί ἐστι</span>, John xiv. 10; <span lang="el" class="Greek">καθὼς σὺ πάτερ +ἐν ἐμοὶ κᾀγὼ ἐν σοί</span>, John xvii. 21; <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐν αὐτῷ +κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς</span>, Col. ii. 9.—It is impossible +that the name of God could be communicated to any other, Is. xlii. 8. The name of +God can dwell in Him only, who is originally of the same nature with God.</p> +<hr class="W10"> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr"><a name="div2_127" href="#div2Ref_127">After Israel</a> +had contracted guilt by the worship of the golden calf. He who had hitherto led +them—Jehovah = the Angel of Jehovah—says, in Exod. xxxii. 34, that He would no more +lead them Himself, but send before them His Angel, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מלאכי</span>: "<i>For I</i> (myself) <i>will not +go up in the midst of thee, for thou art a stiff-necked people, lest I consume thee +in the way</i>;" xxxiii. 3, compared with xxiii. 21. The people are quite inconsolable +on account of this sad intelligence, ver. 4.</p> +<p class="normal">The threatening of the Lord becomes unintelligible, and the grief +of the people incomprehensible, if by the Angel in chap. xxiii. an ordinary angel +be understood. But everything becomes clear and intelligible, if we admit that in +chap. xxiii. there is an allusion to the Angel of the Lord +<span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν</span>, who is connected with Him by oneness +of nature, and who, because the name of God is in Him, is as zealous as Himself +in inflicting punishment as well as in bestowing salvation; whilst in chap. xxxii. +34, the allusion is to an inferior angel, who is added to the highest revealer of +God as His companion and messenger, and who appears in the Book of Daniel under +the name of Gabriel, while the Angel of the Lord appears under the name of Michael.</p> +<p class="normal">On account of the sincere repentance of the people, and the intercession +of Moses, the Lord revokes the threatening, and says in xxxiii. 14, "My face shall +go." But Moses said unto Him, "If Thy face go not, carry us not up hence." </p> +<p class="normal">That <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פנים</span>, <i>face</i>, +signifies here the <i>person</i>, is granted by <i>Gesenius</i>: "The face of some +one means often his personal presence,—himself in his own person." A similar use +of the word occurs in 2 Sam. xvii. 11: "Thy face go to battle" (<i>Michaelis</i>: +"Thou thyself be present, not some commander only"); and in Deut. iv. 37, where +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בפניו</span> means <i>in</i>, or <i>with</i>, <i> +his personal presence</i>: "He <span class="pagenum">[Pg 128]</span> brought them +out with His face, with His mighty power out of Egypt."</p> +<p class="normal">The state of things has in xxxiii. 14, 15, evidently become again +what it was in xxiii. 20, 21. The face of the Lord in the former passage, is the +Angel of the Lord in the latter. Hence, we cannot here admit the idea of some inferior +angel; we can think only of that Angel who is connected with the Lord by oneness +of nature.</p> +<p class="normal">The connection between the face of the Lord in xxxiii. 14, 15, +and the Angel in whom is the name of the Lord, in xxiii., becomes still more evident +by Is. lxiii. 8, 9: "And He (Jehovah) became their Saviour. In all their affliction +(they were) not afflicted, and the Angel of His face saved them; in His love and +in His pity He redeemed them, and He bore and carried them all the days of old." +The Angel of the face, in this text, is an expression which, by its very darkness, +points back to some fundamental passage—a passage, too, in the Pentateuch—as facts +are alluded to, of which the authentic report is given in that book. The expression, +"Angel of the face," arose from a combination of Exod. xxiii. 20—from which the +"Angel" is taken—and Exod. xxxiii. 14, whence he took the "face." To explain "Angel +of the face" by "the angel who sees His face," as several have done, would give +an inadequate meaning; for by the whole context, an expression is demanded which +would elevate the angel to the height of God. Now, as in Exod. xxxiii. 14, "the +face of Jehovah" is tantamount to "Jehovah in His own person," the Angel of the +face can be none other than He in whom Jehovah appeal's personally, in contrast +with inferior created angels. The Angel of the face is the Angel in whom is the +name of the Lord.</p> +<hr class="W10"> +<p class="normal"><a name="div2_128" href="#div2Ref_128">When Joshua</a> was standing +with the army before Jericho, in a state of despondency at the sight of the strongly +fortified city, a man appeared to him, with his sword drawn; and when he was asked +by Joshua, "Art thou for us or for our adversaries?" he answers, in chap. v. 14, +"Nay, for I am the Captain of the host of Jehovah, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שר צבא יהוה</span>, now I have come." This Captain +claims for himself divine honour, in ver. 15, precisely in the same manner as the +Angel of Jehovah in Exod. iii., by commanding <span class="pagenum">[Pg 129]</span> +Joshua to put off his shoes, because the place on which he stood was holy. In chap. +vi. 2 he is called Jehovah. For it is evident that we are not to think of another +divine revelation there given to Joshua in any other way—as some interpreters suppose; +because, in that case, the appearance of the Captain, who only now gives command +to Joshua, would have been without an object. In chap. v. the directions would be +wanting; in chap. vi. we should have no report of the appearance.</p> +<p class="normal">There can be no doubt that, by the host of the Lord, the heavenly +host is to be understood; and <i>Hofmann</i> (S. 291) has not done well in reviving +the opinion of some older expositors (<i>Calvin</i>, <i>Masius</i>) which has been +long ago refuted, viz., that the host of the Lord is "Israel standing at the beginning +of his warfare," and in asserting that the prince of this host is some inferior +angel. The Israelites cannot be the host of the Lord, that explanation is excluded +by the comparison with the host of the Lord mentioned at the very threshold of revelation, +in Gen. ii. 1; that which is commonly (Gen. xxxii. 2; 1 Kings xxii. 19; Neh. ix. +6; Ps. ciii. 21, cxlviii. 2, compared with 2 Kings vi. 27) so called, infinitely +surpasses the earthly one in glory, and of it the Lord has the name +<span class="sc">Jehovah Zebaoth</span>. It is only in two isolated passages of +the Pentateuch that the appellation which properly belongs to the heavenly hosts +of God is transferred to the earthly ones; and that is done in order to point out +their correspondence, and thereby to elevate the mind. In the first of these passages, +Exod. vii. 4, the "host of the Lord" is not spoken of absolutely, but it is expressly +said what host is intended: "And I bring forth My host. My people, the children +of Israel." The second passage, in Exod. xii. 41, is similarly qualified, and refers +to the first. According to this view of <i>Hofmann</i>, the words, "now I have come," +are quite inexplicable.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_129a" href="#ftn_129a">[1]</a></sup> +The Captain of the host of the Lord expresses Himself in such a manner as if, by +His coming, everything were accomplished. But if he was only the commander of Israel—an +inferior <span class="pagenum">[Pg 130]</span> angel—his coming was no guarantee +for success, for his limited power might be checked by a higher one. But if the +Captain of the host of Jehovah be the Prince of angels, we cannot by any means refer +the divine honour which He demands and receives, to Him who sent Him, in contrast +with Him who is sent; the higher the dignity, the more necessary is the limitation. +If the honour be ascribed to Him, He must be a partaker of a divine nature.</p> +<p class="normal">Jesus not at all indistinctly designates Himself as the Captain +of the Lord's host spoken of in our passage, in Matt. xxvi. 53: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">Ἢ δοκεῖς ὅτι οὐ δύναμαι ἄρτι παρακαλέσαι τὸν πατέρα +μου, καὶ παραστήσει μοι πλείους ἢ δώδεκα λεγεῶνας ἀγγέλων</span>; This passage alone +would be sufficient to refute the view which conceives of the Angel of the Lord +as a mere emanation and messenger. It also overthrows the opinion that he is an +inferior angel, inasmuch as the Angel of the Lord here appears as raised above all +inferior angels.</p> +<p class="normal">Thus there existed, even in the time of Moses, the most important +foundation for the doctrine concerning Christ. He who knows the general relation +which the Pentateuch bears to the later development of doctrine, will, <i>a priori</i>, +think it impossible that it should have been otherwise; and, instead of neglecting +these small beginnings, appearing, as it were, in the shape of germs, he will cultivate +them with love and care.</p> +<p class="normal">It is only at a late period, in Malachi iii. 1, that the doctrine +of the Angel of the Lord is expressly brought into connection with that of Christ. +But a knowledge of the divine nature of the Messiah is found at a much earlier period; +and we can certainly not suppose that the doctrine of the Angel of the Lord, and +that of a truly divine Saviour, should have existed by the side of each other, and +yet that manifold forebodings regarding their close obvious connection should not +have been awakened in the mind.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_129a" href="#ftnRef_129a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> <i>Seb. Schmid</i> says: "I have now come + with my heavenly host to attack the Canaanites, and to help thee and thy people. + Be thou of good cheer; prepare thyself for war along with me, and I will now + explain to thee in what manner thou must carry it on;" vi. 2 ff.</p> +</div> +<hr class="W20"> +<h1><a name="div1_130" href="#div1Ref_130">THE PROMISE IN 2 SAMUEL, CHAP. VII.</a></h1> +<p class="normal">The Messianic prophecy, as we have seen, began at a time long +anterior to that of David. Even in Genesis, we perceived <span class="pagenum">[Pg +131]</span> it, increasing more and more in distinctness. There is at first only +the general promise that the seed of the woman should obtain the victory over the +kingdom of the evil one;—then, that the salvation should come through the descendants +of Shem;—then, from among them Abraham is marked out,—of his sons, Isaac,—from among +his sons, Jacob,—and from among the twelve sons of Jacob, Judah is singled out as +the bearer of dominion, and marked out as the person from whom, at length, should +proceed the glorious King whose peaceful dominion is destined to extend over all +the nations of the earth.</p> +<p class="normal">Whilst, hitherto, the tribe only had been pointed out, in the +midst of which an imperishable dominion should be established, and out of which +the Saviour was at last to come,—under David another feature was added by the determination +of the <i>family</i>. This was done in the prophetic announcement which the Lord, +by the prophet Nathan, addressed in 2 Sam. vii. to David, when he had adopted the +resolution of building to the Lord a fixed temple, instead of the moveable tabernacle +which had hitherto been used.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 1. "<i>And it happened when the king sat in his house, and +the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies round about.</i> Ver. 2. <i>And +the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See, now, I dwell in a house of cedar, and +the ark of God dwelleth within curtains.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">The question here is:—To what time is the occurrence +to be assigned? The answer is:—To the time not long after David had obtained the +dominion over all Israel. To this opinion we are led by the position which the report +occupies in the Books both of Chronicles and of Samuel. The supposition is so very +probable, that nothing short of very cogent reasons could induce us to abandon it. +A narrative, in which David's accession to the throne is followed by the conquest +of Jerusalem, and this by the building of his palace,—and this again by the bringing +up of the ark of the covenant,—and this, still further, by David's anxiety for a +fixed sanctuary, evidently agrees with the order in which these events followed +each other. We can the less entertain any doubt concerning it, because we are expressly +told, that the wars and victories of David reported in chap. viii. were subsequent +to what is reported in chap. vii.; compare viii. 1. That the conquest of Jerusalem +and the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 132]</span> building of his palace belong to the +period soon after his accession to the throne, is both evident, and generally acknowledged; +but that David's anxiety for a fixed sanctuary was awakened in him soon after the +completion of his palace, is expressly stated in 1 Chron. xvii. 1. Instead of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי ישב</span> in ver. 1 of our passage, we find there +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כאשר ישב</span>, "when," or "as soon as" he dwelt. +We cannot well think of any later period, as David's zeal for the building of the +house of the Lord was closely connected with the question regarding the duration +of his own family, which was so readily suggested by the fate of Saul, and which +must necessarily have engaged his attention at a very early period. If he obtained +the divine sanction for the building of the temple, that question also was thereby +answered. <i>Further</i>,—It appears from ver. 12, that Solomon was not yet born +at the time when David received the promise. The circumstance, too, that there are +so many allusions to it in the Psalms of David, proves that this promise had been +already given to him at the beginning of his reign.—One circumstance only has been +adduced against assigning to it so early a period, viz., that the event is here +placed within the time when the Lord had given David rest from all his enemies round +about. But there is not one word which affirms that this rest was a definitive one; +while, on the other hand, the contrary is alluded to by the circumstance that the +Books of Chronicles make no mention at all of David's rest from his enemies, and +is distinctly indicated by viii. 1. In 1 Chron. xiv. 17 it is said, after the account +of David's victory over the Philistines (on which event the Books of Samuel report +previous to chap. vii., viz. in v. 17-25): "And the name of David went out into +all lands, and the Lord gave his fear upon all the heathen." This previous result +was so much the more important, as the Philistines had been, for a long time, the +most dangerous enemies of Israel, and David himself may have considered it as a +definitive one,—may have imagined this truce to be a peace,—may not have been aware +that he had yet to bear the burden of the most trying wars. Looking, then, to the +passage in Deut. xii. 10, 11—in which the choice of a place where the Lord will +cause His name to dwell, is connected with the giving of rest from all enemies round +about—he might think that the present circumstance formed a call upon him to erect +a sanctuary to <span class="pagenum">[Pg 133]</span> the Lord.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_133a" href="#ftn_133a">[1]</a></sup> +But the issue (compare viii. 1) soon made it manifest to him, that the supposition +on which he proceeded was an erroneous one. We have a tacit correction of David's +mistake in 1 Kings v. 17, 18: "Thou knowest how that David my father could not build +an house unto the name of the Lord his God, for the wars with which they surrounded +him, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet. And now the Lord my God +hath given me rest on every side, and there is neither adversary nor evil occurrence." +It was only under Solomon that the period provided for by Deut. xii. really arrived. +(Compare 1 Chron. xxii. 19.)</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 3. "<i>And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in +thine heart, for the Lord is with thee.</i> Ver. 4. <i>And it came to pass that +night that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan, saying:</i> Ver. 5. <i>Go and +tell My servant David, Thus saith the Lord, Shalt thou build Me a house to dwell +in?</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">In ver. 5 the question is stated, the answer to which is the point +at issue. In ver. 6, the exposition begins with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span>, +which refers to the whole of it, and not merely to the clause which immediately +follows. Hitherto, the Lord has not had a fixed temple (ver. 6), nor has any such +been wished for or desired by Him (ver. 7). By the grace of God, David has been +raised to be ruler over the people (ver. 8), and the Lord has helped him gloriously +(ver. 9), and, through him, His people (ver. 10). This mercy the Lord had already +bestowed upon him, that, since the beginning of the period of the Judges, it was +through him, first of all, that the people had obtained rest from all their enemies +round about; but to this favour the Lord is now adding another, by announcing to +him that He would make him an house (ver. 11). When David dies, his seed shall occupy +the throne, and be established in the kingdom (ver. 12). It is he who shall build +an house for the Lord who will establish for ever the throne of his kingdom, vers. +13-16.</p> +<p class="normal">David's zeal for the house of the Lord is thus acknowledged (compare +Ps. cxxxii. 1), and so also is the correctness of his supposition, that the building +of the fixed temple is intimately <span class="pagenum">[Pg 134]</span> connected +with his being raised to be ruler over Israel. The first answer of Nathan remains +correct; it is only more distinctly and closely defined and modified. David is to +build the house,—not, however, in his own person, but in his seed, and after the +Lord has begun to fulfil His promise, that He would make him an house.</p> +<p class="normal">But why was it that David himself was not permitted to build the +house to the Lord? In this passage we obtain no answer. In Solomon's message to +Hiram (1 Kings v. 17) an external reason only is stated—viz., that, by his numerous +wars, David had been prevented from building a house to the Lord. There was a deeper +reason than this; but the heathen could not comprehend it. It is contained in the +words which, according to 1 Chron. xxviii. 3, David spoke to the people: "And God +said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for My name, because thou hast been +a man of war, and hast shed blood;" and in the words of the Lord which, according +to 1 Chron. xxii. 8, David repeated to Solomon: "Thou hast shed blood abundantly, +and hast made great wars; thou shalt not build an house unto My name, because thou +hast shed much blood upon the earth in My sight,"—a disclosure which David could +have obtained only at a later period, and as a supplement to the divine communication +which had been made to him through Nathan. For it is only after the revelation in +2 Sam. vii. that David had to carry on his most bloody wars. We must not, by any +means, entertain the idea that these words express anything <i>blameworthy</i> in +David, and that the permission to build the temple was refused to him on account +of his personal unworthiness. David stood in a closer relation to God than did Solomon. +His wars were wars of the Lord, 1 Sam. xxv. 28. It is in this light that David himself +regarded them; and that he was conscious of his being divinely commissioned for +them, is seen, <i>e.g.</i>, from Ps. xviii.: it was the Lord who taught his hands +to war (ver. 35) and who gave him vengeance, and subdued the people unto him, ver. +48. The passages 1 Chron. xxii. 8, xxvii. 3, do not, in themselves, contain one +reproachful word against David. On the contrary, the words, <i>in My sight</i>, +in the former of these passages, rather lead us to suppose that David is, in his +wars, to be considered only as a servant of the Lord (<i>Michaelis</i>: "<i>In My +sight</i>—<i>i.e.</i>, who am, as it were, the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 135]</span> +highest judge, and the commander"). The reason is rather of a symbolical character. +How necessary soever, under certain conditions, war may be for the kingdom of God,—as +indeed the Saviour also says that (in the first instance) He had not come to send +peace, but a sword,—it is after all only something accidental, and rendered needful +by human corruption. The real nature of the kingdom of God is peace. Even in the +Old Testament, the Lord of the Church appears as the Prince of Peace, Is. ix. 5. +According to Luke ix. 56, the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but +to save them. In order to impress upon the mind this view of the nature and aim +of the Church, the Temple—the symbol of the Church—must not be built by David the +man of war, but by Solomon, the peaceful, the man of rest, 1 Chron. xxii. 9.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 6. "<i>For I have not dwelt in any house from the day that +I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt even to this day, and have walked +in a tent and in a tabernacle.</i> Ver. 7. <i>In all that I have walked among the +children of Israel, have I spoken one word with any of the tribes of Israel whom +I commanded to feed My people Israel, saying. Why build ye Me not a house of cedar?</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">According to several interpreters, these words are intended as +a consolation to David for the delay in building the temple, and convey this sense: +that God did not require the temple, that the building of it was of no consequence,—as +sufficiently appears from the circumstance of His not having hitherto urged it. +But such a view would ill agree with the great importance which David continues, +even afterwards, to ascribe to the building of the temple,—-with the grand efforts +of Solomon towards it,—and with the exulting words which are uttered by the latter, +in 1 Kings viii. 13, after the work has been accomplished: "I have built Thee an +house to dwell in, a settled place for Thee to abide in for ever." A comparison +of 1 Kings viii. 16-20 furnishes us with a clue to the right interpretation. In +that passage, the period before David is contrasted with that during which David +lived. (Compare the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עתה</span>, <i>now</i>, in ver. +8.) Hitherto, everything in the government had borne a provisional character, and, +hence, the sanctuary also. But now that, after the unsettled state of things under +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 136]</span> the Judges and Saul, <i>the definitive government</i> +has been called into existence with David, to whom the Lord will make an house, +the <i>definitive sanctuary</i> also shall be built,—only, that it shall not be +founded by David, but by his seed.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_136a" href="#ftn_136a">[2]</a></sup> +The words, <i>I have walked</i>—literally, I have been walking, I have continued +walking—<i>in a tent and in a tabernacle</i>, indicate not only that the Lord dwelt +in a portable sanctuary, but also, that the place of this sanctuary was oftentimes +changed, from one station to another in the wilderness, then to Gilgal, Shiloh, +Nob and Gibeon. This changing of the place of the tabernacle is still more distinctly +pointed out, in the parallel passage in 1 Chron. xvii. 5: "And I have been from +tent to tent, from tabernacle to tabernacle;" <i>i.e.</i>, I went from one tent +into the other, <i>e.g.</i>, from the dwelling-place of Shiloh into that of Nob,—a +mode of expression which pays no attention to the circumstance whether or not the +tent was materially the same. Instead of, "With any of the tribes of Israel," we +find in 1 Chron. xvii. 6, "With any of the judges of Israel,"—a parallel passage +which very well explains the main text. The tribes come into consideration through +their judges, who, in the Book of Judges, always appear as judges in Israel, and +procured a temporary <span class="pagenum">[Pg 137]</span> superiority to the tribe +from which they proceeded.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_137a" href="#ftn_137a">[3]</a></sup> +The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שבטי</span>, which has been doubted, is rendered +certain by 1 Kings viii. 16. (Compare, moreover, Ps. lxxviii. 67, 68.)—The reason +why no such word came to any one of these tribes is, that the superiority of none +of them was permanent; the election of all of them was merely temporary. The continuance +of the tent-temple was intended to indicate that the state of things was, in general, +provisional only, and that a new order of things was at hand. The creation of a +settled sanctuary was to be coincident with the establishment of an abiding kingdom, +to which the grace of God was vouchsafed. It was an evil omen for Saul that the +erection of a fixed sanctuary was not even mooted under him. The close of Ps. lxxviii. +likewise points out the intimate connection of the kingdom and the sanctuary.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 8. "<i>And now, thus shalt thou say unto David My servant: +Thus saith the Lord, of hosts, I took thee from the sheep-cote,</i><sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_137b" href="#ftn_137b">[4]</a></sup> +<i>from behind the sheep, to be ruler over My people, over Israel.</i> Ver. 9. +<i>And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies +from before thee, and have made thee a great name like unto the name of the great +men that are upon the earth.</i> Ver. 10. <i>And I gave room unto My people Israel, +and planted them, and they dwell in their place, and they shall no more be frightened, +and the sons of wickedness shall afflict them no more as heretofore.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Seven divine benefits are here enumerated,—one in ver. 8, which +forms the foundation of all the others, and three in each of the two following verses,—in +ver. 9, what the Lord has given to David,—in ver. 10, what, through him, He has +given to Israel. These benefits are so many symptoms that a <i>definitive</i> order +of things has now taken the place of the <i>provisional</i> one, and that, hence, +the moveable sanctuary will now be soon followed by the settled one. In the first +member of ver. 10, there is an enumeration of the benefits which the +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 138]</span> people have already received through David; +in the second and third members, an enumeration of the benefits to be constantly +bestowed upon them through him. A commentary upon it is formed by Ps. lxxxix. 22-24, +in which it is said of David: "With whom My hand shall be continually. Mine arm +also shall strengthen him. The enemy shall not exact upon him, nor the son of wickedness +afflict him. And I crush his enemies before him, and will smite those who hate him."</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 11. "<i>And since the day that I commanded judges over My +people Israel, I have given thee rest from all thine enemies. And the Lord telleth +thee, that the Lord will make thee an house.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The first part of this verse comprehends all the benefits formerly +enumerated;—the second adds another, which, however, is closely connected with the +previous ones. The circumstance that the Lord first gave rest to David, and, in +him, to the people, was a sign of his election which could not but manifest itself +afterwards in the care for his house. The promise, "The Lord will make thee an house," +was to David an answer to prayer, as is shown by Ps. xxi. 3, 5, lxi. 6, cxxxviii. +3. Even the thought of building the temple was a question put to the Lord, as to +whether He would, in harmony with His past conduct, give a duration to his house, +different from that of the house of Saul.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 12. "<i>And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep +with thy fathers, I shall cause thy seed to rise up after thee which shall proceed +out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הקים</span> does not signify +the beginning of existence, but the elevation to the royal dignity. +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זרע</span>, <i>seed</i>, denotes the posterity, which, +however, may consist of one only, or be represented by a single individual. In the +parallel passage, 1 Chron. xvii. 11, the words run thus: "Thy seed which shall be +of thy sons," <i>i.e.</i>, who shall be one of thy sons (Luther). The truth of the +promise, "I shall establish his kingdom," became manifest, <i>e.g.</i>, in the vain +machinations of Adonijah. That the fulfilment of this promise must be sought in +the history of Solomon, in whom the difference between the house of David and that +of Saul first became evident (instead of, "I establish," in ver. 12, we find, in +the second member of ver. 13, "I establish for ever"), is seen from 1 Kings viii. +20, where Solomon says, "And the Lord hath performed His word which +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 139]</span> He spake; for I am risen up in the room of +David my father, and sit on the throne of Israel, as the Lord promised." (Compare +1 Kings ii. 12: "And Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father, and his kingdom +was established greatly.") </p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 13. "<i>He shall build an house for My name, and I establish +the throne of his kingdom for ever.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The general establishment which was spoken of in ver. 12 precedes +the building of the temple; the eternal establishment mentioned in ver. 13 follows +the building of the temple, or is coincident with it. It is evident, that the first +clause of the verse refers, in the first instance, to the building of the temple +which was undertaken by Solomon. (Compare 1 Kings v. 19, where Solomon says, "Behold, +I purpose to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God, as the Lord spake +unto David my father, saying. Thy son whom I will set upon thy throne in thy stead, +he shall build the house unto My name.") We shall not, however, be at liberty to +confine ourselves to what Solomon, as an individual, did for the house of the Lord. +The building of the house here goes hand in hand with the eternity of the kingdom. +We expect, therefore, that the question is not about a building of limited duration. +If a building of only a limited duration were meant, such, surely, might have been +erected long ago, even in the period of the Judges. The contrary, however, is quite +distinctly brought out in 1 Kings viii. 13, where, at the dedication of the temple, +Solomon says, "I have built Thee an house to dwell in, a fixed place for Thee to +abide in <i>for ever</i>." If, then, with the eternity of the kingdom of David's +house the eternity of the temple to be built by him be closely bound up, the destruction +of the latter can be only <i>temporary</i>, and the consequence of the apostasy +and punishment of the Davidic race,—of which vers. 14 and 15 treat. Or, if it be +definitive, it can concern the <i>form</i> only. If the building of the temple fall +into ruins, it is only the Davidic race from which its restoration can proceed; +the local relation of the royal palace to the temple prefigured their close union. +Hence, the building of the temple by Zerubbabel was likewise comprehended in the +words, "He shall build an house for My name." It was impossible that the second +temple could be reared otherwise than under the direction of David's family. But +we must go still farther. The essence of the temple consists in its being a symbol, +an outward <span class="pagenum">[Pg 140]</span> representation of the kingdom of +God under Israel. The real import of our passage then is,—that henceforth the kingdom +of David and the kingdom of God should be closely and inseparably linked together. +As the third phase, therefore, in the fulfilment of our prophecy, John ii. 19 must +come under consideration: <span lang="el" class="Greek">λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, +καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν</span>]. (Regarding the sense of this passage, +and the symbolical meaning of the tabernacle and temple, compare "<i>Dissertations +on the Genuineness of the Pent.</i>" vol. ii. p. 514 ff.) "House of God" is, in +ver. 14 of the parallel text, used of the Church, and in parallelism with "kingdom +of God,"—a sense in which it occurs as early as in Num. xii. 7.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_140a" href="#ftn_140a">[5]</a></sup> +This <i>usus loquendi</i> is quite common in the New Testament; compare 1 Tim. iii. +15; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Heb. iii. 6. In the first two phases of the temple of Solomon, +the house consists in the first instance of ordinary stones,—although, even at that +time, the <i>spiritual</i> is concealed behind the <i>material</i>; but in its third +phase, the material is altogether thrown off, and the house is entirely spiritual—consisting +of living stones, 1 Pet. ii. 5.—That the expression, "for ever," in the second clause +of the verse, is to be taken in its strict and full sense, is proved not only by +the threefold repetition, but also by a comparison with the numerous secondary passages, +in which the duration of the Davidic dominion appears as absolutely unlimited. In +Ps. lxxxix., for example, where the promise is repeated, "for ever" corresponds +with, "as the days of heaven" in ver. 30,—with "as the sun" in ver. 37,—and with +"as the moon" in ver. 38. The final fulfilment of this promise is pointed out by +the words of the angel to Mary, in Luke i. 32, 33: <span lang="el" class="Greek"> +οὗτος ἔσται μέγας</span> (compare ver. 9 here), <span lang="el" class="Greek">καὶ +υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται</span> (compare ver. 14), <span lang="el" class="Greek"> +καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τὸν θρόνον Δαυὶδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ. Καὶ βασιλεύσει ἐπὶ +τὸν οἶκον Ἰακὼβ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, καὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.</span></p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 14. "<i>And I will be a father to him, and he shall be a +son to Me. If he commit sin, I will chastise him with the rod of men, and with the +stripes of the children of men.</i> Ver. 15. <i>And My mercy shall not depart away +from him, as I caused it to depart away from Saul, whom I put away before thee.</i>"</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 141]</span></p> +<p class="normal">Wheresoever God is, in the Old Testament, designated as <i>Father</i>, +there is a reference to the deepest intensity of His love,—a love which is similar +to that of a father towards his son. (Compare remarks on Ps. ii. 7.) Sonship to +God has this significancy here also, as is shown by what immediately follows, where, +in explanation of it, the promise of indestructible love is connected with it. But +this relationship, in its highest and closest form, cannot exist betwixt God and +a mere man. It is only when the Davidic family is viewed as centring in Christ, +that the words can acquire their full truth. To this, the quotation in Heb. i. 5 +points: <span lang="el" class="Greek">Τίνι γὰρ εἶπέ ποτε τῶν ἀγγέλων, Υἱός μου εἶ +σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε; Καὶ πάλιν· Ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται +μοι εἰς υἱόν</span>; The depth of meaning which is contained in these words appears +plainly from their expansion in Ps. lxxxix. 26: "And I place his hand on the sea, +and his right hand on the rivers. He shall call Me thus: Thou art my Father, my +God, and the rock of my salvation. And I will also make him My first-born, the highest +of the kings of the earth." The sonship accordingly implies the dominion over the +world, which in Ps. ii. 7-9 appears, indeed, as inseparably connected with it.—If +the race of David commit sin, it shall be chastened with the rods of men, and with +the stripes of the children of men. Ps. xvii. 4 distinctly and unambiguously designates +corrupt actions—walking in the ways of transgressors—as "the works of men." (Compare +1 Sam. xxiv. 10; Hos. vi. 7; Job xxxi. 33, xxiii. 12.) Hence, the rods of men, and +the stripes of the children of men, are punishments to which all men are subject, +because they are sinners, and at which no man needs to be surprised. Grace is not +to free the Davidic family from this common lot of mankind, is not to afford to +them the privilege of sinning. The mitigation only follows in ver. 15, in which +the close resumes the beginning: "I will be a father to him." But this mitigation +must not be misunderstood by being conceived of as referring to the individuals. +Such a conception of it would be opposed to the nature of the thing itself, would +be in opposition to 1 Chron. xxviii. 9, where David says to Solomon, "If thou seek +Him, He will be found of thee; and if thou forsake Him, He will cast thee off <i> +for ever</i>:" and would be against history, which shows that the rebellious members +of the Davidic dynasty were visited with destroying <span class="pagenum">[Pg 142]</span> +judgments. The contrast is rather thus to be understood: sin is to be visited upon +the individuals, while the grace abides continually upon the race,—so that the divine +promise is raised to an absolute one. The commentary on it is furnished by Ps. lxxxix. +31 seq.: "If his children forsake My law, and walk not in My judgments ... then +I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. +But My loving-kindness will I not withdraw from him, nor will I break My faithfulness."—The +words from "if he commit sin" to "children of men" are awanting in the parallel +passage. This omission is intended to make the continuance of the mercy appear the +more distinctly, and to show, as indeed is the case, that the main stress is to +be laid upon it. We cannot for a moment conceive that any unworthy motive prompted +this omission; for the Chronicles were written at a time when the chastening rod +of the Lord had already fallen heavily upon the Davidic race. There would have been +stronger reasons for adding the words than for omitting them, inasmuch as, under +these circumstances, they were full of consolation. It is just upon these words +that the penman of Ps. lxxiv. dwells at particular length.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 16. "<i>And thine house and thy kingdom shall be sure for +ever before thee, thy throne shall be firm for ever.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The extent to which this prophecy of Nathan bears the character +of a fundamental one, appears from the circumstance that almost every word of the +verse under review has called forth an echo in later times. +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נאמן</span> <i>sure</i>, <i>certain</i>, <i>constant</i>, +occurs again in Ps. lxxxix. 29, compared with ver. 38, and in Is. lv. 3. The <i> +sure</i> (<i>constant</i>) mercies of David, spoken of in the last of these passages, +shall be bestowed upon the people of the covenant, in the coming of Christ, by which +the perpetuity of the house of David was most fully manifested. The +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נכון</span>, <i>constant</i>, <i>firm</i>, occurs +in Mic. iv. 1, and the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לעולם</span>, <i>for ever</i>, +in Ps. lxxii. 17, lxxxix. 37, xlv. 7, and cx. 4. The saying of the people in John +xii. 34, <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς +μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα</span>, refers, in the first instance, to our passage, and all +the other texts quoted may be considered as a commentary.</p> +<p class="normal">It is certainly not the result of mere accident, that the twelve +verses of Nathan's prophecy are divided into two sections of seven and of five verses +respectively, and that the former again is subdivided into sections of three and +four verses. Its closing <span class="pagenum">[Pg 143]</span> words, "The Lord +will make thee an house," are farther expanded in vers. 12-16.</p> +<p class="normal">We subjoin to the exposition of Nathan's prophecy, that of David's +prayer of thanks, because, by means of the thanks, the promise itself is more clearly +brought out.</p> +<p class="normal">The Lord has done great things for His servant in his low estate, +and has promised things still more glorious, vers. 18-21. By doing such glorious +things to His servant, He has manifested Himself as a faithful God, in harmony with +His revelations in ancient times, vers. 22-24. The thanksgivings for the promise +are followed in vers. 25-29 by a prayer for its fulfilment, intermingled with expressions +of hope.</p> +<p class="normal">As the promise was expressed in twelve verses, so are the thanks. +These twelve verses are again divided into seven and five, and the seven into four +and three.</p> +<p class="normal">The name of Jehovah occurs twelve times. Ten times is the address +directed to Jehovah. Once He is addressed by the simple name of Jehovah, six times +by that of Adonai Jehovah, twice by that of Jehovah Elohim, and once by that of +Jehovah Zebaoth. The address, Adonai Jehovah, occurs at the beginning and the close. +The third division first takes up the name of God which is used in the second, and +returns, at the close, to that which is used in the first division. In the parallel +passage in Chronicles, Jehovah occurs seven times, and Elohim three times.—Ten times +the servant of the Lord is mentioned in David's prayer, and seven times, the house +of David. The servant of the Lord occurs three times in vers. 18-21, and seven times +in vers. 25-29; the house of David twice in 18-21, and five times in vers. 25-29. +In vers. 22-24, where the manifestation of the mercies to David are brought into +connection with the glorious revelations of God in ancient times, neither the servant +nor the house is mentioned.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 18. "<i>And King David came and sat before the Lord, and +said: Who am I, Lord Jehovah, and what my house</i> (literally, <i>who</i> my house,—the +house being conceived of as an <i>ideal</i> person), <i>that Thou hast brought me +hitherto?</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Moses also was sitting in long-continued prayer, Exod. xvii. 12. +David, as a true descendant of Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 10), acknowledges his unworthiness +of the great mercies bestowed upon him. The comparison of Ps. cxliv. 3 is still +more striking <span class="pagenum">[Pg 144]</span> than that of Ps. viii. 5; for, +in the former, the words, "Lord, what is man, that Thou takest knowledge of him; +the son of mortal man, that Thou hast regard to him?" were uttered in praise of +the adorable mercy which the Lord had shown to his house.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 19. "<i>And this is yet too little in Thy sight, Lord Jehovah; +and Thou speakest also to the house of Thy servant of things far distant; and this +is the law of man, Lord Jehovah.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The word <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תורה</span> has only the +signification of <i>law</i>. Gesenius, in assigning to it the signification of +<i>mos</i>, <i>consuetudo</i>, has no other warrant for it than our passage. The +law of any one is the law which has been given for him, or which concerns him; compare +Lev. vi. 2 (9): "This is the law of the burnt-offering;" Lev. xiii. 7: "This is +the law for her that hath born;" Lev. xiv. 2: "This shall be the law of the leper," +etc. Hence the law of man can only be the law regulating the conduct of man. Man +is commanded in the law: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;" compare Mic. +vi. 8: "He hath showed, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee +but to do justice, and to <i>love kindness</i>, and to walk humbly before thy God?" +The fact that God should, in His conduct towards poor mortals, follow the rule which +He hath given to men for their conduct towards one another, and that He shows Himself +to be full of mercy and love, cannot but fill him who knows God and himself with +adoring wonder. The words in Ps. xviii. 36 are parallel: "Thou givest me the shield +of Thy salvation, and Thy right hand holdeth me up, and Thy meekness (the parallel +passage in 2 Sam. has: 'Thy being low') maketh me great." In the parallel passage +in Chronicles the words are these: "And Thou hast regarded me according to the law +of man (concerning <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תורה = תור</span> compare remarks +on Song of Sol. i. 10), Thou height, Jehovah God." The essential agreement of the +sense of the parallel passage with that of the fundamental passage, may be applied +as a test to prove the correctness of our exposition. "To regard some one" is used +for "to visit some one," "to have intercourse with some one;" compare 2 Sam. iii. +13, xiii. 5, xiv. 24, 28; 2 Kings viii. 29. The words, "Thou height" (God is represented +as personified height in Ps. xcii. 9: "And Thou art a height for evermore, O Lord"), +bring out still more prominently the contrast with human lowness, which was already +implied in the names of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 145]</span> God, Adonai Jehovah, +and Jehovah Elohim, and serves therefore to show still more distinctly the condescension +of God, whose revelation on this occasion was a prelude to +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο</span>. <i>Luther</i> has introduced +into the main text a direct allusion to the incarnation of God in Christ. He translates, +"This is the manner of a man who is God the Lord;" and adds, in a marginal note, +the following remark: "This means, Thou speakest to me of such an eternal kingdom, +in which no one can be king unless he be God and man at the same time, because he +is to be my son and yet a king for evermore—which belongs to God alone." But this +single circumstance is sufficient to overthrow this view:—that in the preceding, +as well as in the subsequent context, Adonai Jehovah is always used in the vocative +sense.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 20. "<i>And what shall David say more unto Thee?</i> (In +the parallel passage: 'As regards the honour for Thy servant.') <i>And Thou knowest +Thy servant, Lord Jehovah.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">It is not necessary that David should make many words, in order +to express his thanks, as his thankful heart lies open before God. In Ps. xl. 10, +David also appeals to the testimony of the Omniscient as regards his thankful heart: +"I preach righteousness in the great congregation; lo, I will not refrain my lips, +O Lord, Thou knowest,"—knowest how with my whole heart I am thankful for Thy great +mercy. It is, in general, David's practice to appeal to God, the Searcher of hearts; +compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Ps. xvii. 3.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 21. "<i>For Thy word's sake, and according to Thine own heart, +hast Thou done all these great things to make Thy servant know them.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">In 1 Chron. xvii. 19, the words run thus: "Lord, on account of +Thy <i>servant</i>, and according to Thine own heart, hast Thou done all these great +things, to make known all the glorious things." Hence, by the "word," a promise +given to David can alone be intended,—a word formerly spoken to David, which contained +the germ of the present one. There is, no doubt, a special allusion to the word +in 1 Sam. xvi. 12: "And the Lord said. Arise and anoint him, for this is he." (Compare +2 Sam. xii. 7; Ps. lxxxix. 21; Acts xiii. 22.) <i>According to Thine heart</i>: +"The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and <span class="pagenum">[Pg +146]</span> plenteous in mercy," Ps. ciii. 8. <i>All these great things</i>,—<i>i.e.</i> +the promise of the eternal dominion of his house. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +גְּדֻלָּה</span> and <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גְּדיּלָה</span>—words in which +David takes special delight—never mean "greatness," but always "great things." (Compare +remarks on Ps. lxxi. 21, cxlv. 3.) The words, "To make know," etc., indicate that +the <i>making</i> refers, in the meantime, only to the divine decree.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 22. "<i>Wherefore Thou art great, Lord God: for there is +none like Thee, neither is there any God besides Thee, according to all that we +have heard with our ears.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Wherefore</i>—in the first instance, on account of the great +things which Thou hast done unto me. <i>According to all</i>, etc., <i>i.e.</i>, +as this is confirmed by all, etc. Of this David has been reminded anew by his personal +experience. Just as he does here, David, in Ps. xl. 6, rises from his personal experience +to the whole series of God's glorious manifestations in the history of His people. +As to the words, "There is none like Thee, neither is there any God besides Thee," +compare the fundamental passages Exod. xv. 11; Deut. iii. 24, iv. 35.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 23. "<i>And where is there a nation on earth like Thy people +Israel, for whose sake God went to redeem them for a people to Himself, and make +Him a name, and to do for you great things, and terrible things for Thy land, putting +away from before Thy people, whom Thou redeemedst to Thee out of Egypt, heathen +and their gods?</i>"</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">We must here compare the fundamental passages, Deut. +iv. 7, 34, xxxiii. 29, in which that which Israel has received from his God is praised, +as being without precedent and parallel. In <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לכם</span> +and <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לארצך</span> the address is, with poetical liveliness, +directed to Israel. <i>For you great things</i>—instead of, To do for them great +things, as the Lord has done for you. The phrase <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +מפני עמך</span> means, literally, only, "away from before Thy people;" "putting" +must be supplied from the preceding <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לעשית</span>, +and from a comparison of the fundamental passages, Exod. xxiii. 28, 29, xxxiv. 11; +Deut. xxxiii. 27, to which the concise expression refers. The text in Chronicles, +which expressly adds what we have here to supply, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +לגרש מפני</span>, "to drive out before," is, in this case also, merely a parallel +passage which, by the addition of a word, serves as a commentary.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 24. "<i>And Thou hast confirmed to Thyself Thy people</i> +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 147]</span> <i>Israel to be a people for ever, and Thou, +Lord, art become their God.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 25. "<i>And now, Jehovah God, the word that Thou hast spoken +concerning Thy servant, and concerning his house, establish it for ever, and do +as Thou hast said.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Praise and thanks for the promise are followed by the prayer for +its fulfilment.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 26. "<i>And let Thy name be magnified for ever, so that it +may be said, Jehovah Zebaoth</i> (is) <i>God over Israel. And the house of Thy servant +shall be firm before Thee.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Let Thy name be magnified</i>, instead of, Give cause for its +being glorified; compare Ps. xxxv. 27, xl. 17.—<i>Is God over Israel</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, +proves Himself to be such, by protecting the house of the king, on whom the salvation +of Israel depends. In Chronicles it is thus expressed: "Jehovah Zebaoth, the God +of Israel, is God for Israel," <i>i.e.</i>. He fulfils to Israel what He promised +(Jarchi). The prayer for the establishment of David's house is expressed in the +form of confidence, in the conviction based upon the word of God, that such is according +to the will of God.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 27. "<i>For Thou, Jehovah Zebaoth, God of Israel, hast opened +the ear of Thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house. Therefore Thy servant +found</i> (in) <i>his heart to pray this prayer unto Thee.</i>" (Otherwise, his +heart would have failed him; he would have had neither the desire nor the courage.) +Ver. 28. "<i>And now, Lord Jehovah, Thou art God, and Thy words are truth, and Thou +hast promised unto Thy servant these good things.</i> Ver. 29. <i>And now let it +please Thee to bless the house of Thy servant, that it may continue for ever before +Thee; for Thou, Lord Jehovah, hast spoken, and, by Thy blessing, the house of Thy +servant shall be blessed for ever.</i>"</p> +<hr class="W10"> +<p class="normal">To whom does this promise refer, which David received through +Nathan? Some Rabbins, and <i>Grotius</i>, would fain restrict it to Solomon and +his more immediate posterity. This opinion, however, is refuted by the single circumstance, +that they are compelled to assume merely a long duration of time, instead of the +eternity which is here promised to the house of David. And that such cannot be the +meaning of the words "for ever," is abundantly confirmed by a comparison with +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 148]</span> Ps. lxxxix. 30, "And I place his seed for +ever, and his throne as the days of heaven." In these words of the Psalm there is +a reference to Deut. xi. 21, where the <i>people</i> of the Lord are promised a +duration "as the days of heaven and of earth." An absolute perpetuity is everywhere +ascribed to the people of God. If, then, the house of David is placed on the same +level as they, its perpetuity must likewise be absolute. <i>Further</i>,—with such +a view, it is impossible to comprehend what David here says in his prayer, regarding +the greatness of the promise, and also what he says in Ps. cxxxviii. 2: "For Thou +hast magnified Thy word above all Thy name." The giving of the promise is there +placed on a loftier elevation than all the former deeds of the Lord.</p> +<p class="normal">Others—as <i>Calovius</i>—would refer the promise to Christ alone. +But vers. 14, 15 are decisive against this view; for, according to them, God will +not, by a total rejection, punish the posterity of David, if they commit sin,—from +which the reference is evident to a posterity merely human, and hence sinful. According +to ver. 13, David's posterity is to build a temple to the Lord,—a declaration which, +with reference to David's plan of building a temple to the Lord, can, in the first +instance, be understood in no other way than as relating to the earthly temple to +be built by Solomon. To this consideration it may be added, that, in 1 Chron. xxii. +9 seqq., David himself refers this announcement primarily to Solomon, and that Solomon, +in 1 Kings v. 5 seqq., and in 2 Chron. vi. 7 seqq., refers it to himself.</p> +<p class="normal">Nor is there entire soundness in the view of those who, following +<i>Augustine</i> (<i>de Civitate Dei</i> xvii. 8, 9), assume the existence of a +double reference,—to Solomon and his earthly successors on the one hand, and to +Christ on the other. Thus <i>Brentius</i>: "Solomon is not altogether excluded, +but Christ is chiefly intended." It is true that these interpreters are substantially +right in their view; but they err as to the manner in which they give expression +to it. The promise has not a reference to two subjects simultaneously.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_148a" href="#ftn_148a">[6]</a></sup> +It views David's house as an <i>ideal</i> unity.</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 149]</span></p> +<p class="normal">The promise is given to the house of David, vers. 11, 16, 19, +25, 26, 27, 29; to his seed, ver. 12. It is to the house of David that the absolute +perpetuity of existence, the unchangeable possession of the grace of God—a relation +to God similar to that of a son to his father—and the inseparable connection of +their dominion with the kingdom of God in Israel, are guaranteed.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_133a" href="#ftnRef_133a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> <i>Seb. Schmid</i> says: "He thought that + this duty was imposed upon him by the Word of God. For, as the state enjoyed + peace, the royal palace was finished, and his family established, there seemed + to be nothing wanting but to build a temple to the Lord."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_136a" href="#ftnRef_136a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> In 1 Kings viii. 16, Solomon thus reports + what, in 2 Sam. vii., had been spoken to David, in reference to the house of + the Lord: "Since the day that I brought up My people Israel out of Egypt, I + chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build an house that My name + might be in it; and I chose David to be over My people Israel." The comment + on this passage is given by the parallel one, 2 Chron. vi. 5, 6: "I did not + choose any man to be a ruler over My people Israel. And I have chosen Jerusalem + that My name might be there, and I have chosen David to be over My people Israel." + Since David resided in Jerusalem, the election of David, announced in 2 Sam. + vii., implies also the choice of Jerusalem as the place of the sanctuary. Hence, + we must add to 1 Kings viii. 16, the supplement: "And in connection with this + choice, David (the Davidic dynasty) is to build Me an house at the place of + his residence." The Vulgate translates very correctly: <i>Sed elegi.</i> Solomon + then continues, <i>Ver.</i> 17: "And it was in the heart of David my father + (namely, before he received this divine revelation) to build an house for the + name of the Lord, the God of Israel. <i>Ver.</i> 18. And the Lord said unto + David my father, Whereas it was in thine heart to build an house unto My name, + thou didst well that it was in thine heart. <i>Ver.</i> 19. And thou shalt not + build the house; but thy son that shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall + build the house unto My name."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_137a" href="#ftnRef_137a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[3]</sup></a> <i>Seb. Schmid</i> says: "He rightly considers + the tribes and the judges as one. For the tribes are viewed in the judges who + had sprung from them, and <i>vice versa</i>, the judge, in his paternal tribe. + And that the matter is thus to be understood, is clear, because, in Chronicles, + where the judge is spoken of, he is introduced in the plural: 'Why have <i>ye</i> + not built Me an house,' etc.? viz., thou, judge, with thy tribe."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_137b" href="#ftnRef_137b"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[4]</sup></a> That <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נוה</span>, + properly "habitation," "abode," is used here, as frequently, of the sheep-cote, + is shown by Ps. lxxxviii. 70<!--[**KJV: Ps lxxviii. +70 is correct-->, which is based upon our passage.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_140a" href="#ftnRef_140a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[5]</sup></a> Michaelis says: "Just as in the preceding + verses also, the house of David did not mean a heap of stones and wood brought + together, but a congregation of people."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_148a" href="#ftnRef_148a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[6]</sup></a> This mistake was corrected by <i>Seb. Schmid</i>. + He says: "The promises here given to David have, of course, a reference to Solomon; + but not such as if they were to be fulfilled only in the person of Solomon, + and not also in his posterity, and, most of all, in the Messiah to be descended + from David and Solomon."</p> +</div> +<p class="normal"><a name="div1_149" href="#div1Ref_149">There is no direct mention +of the person of the Messiah;</a> and yet the words, when considered in their full +import, point, indirectly, to Him. The absolute perpetuity of the race can be conceived +of, only when at last it centres in some superhuman person. But still more decisive +is the connection in which this promise stands to Gen. xlix. The dominion which +is there promised to Judah is here transferred to David. It is then to David's race +that the exalted individual must belong, in whom, according to Gen. xlix. 10, Judah's +dominion is to centre at some future period. That David really connected the promise +which he received with Gen. xlix. 10, is shown by 1 Chron. xxviii. 4 (compare p. +91), and also by the name, Solomon, which he gave to his son; compare ibid. That +Solomon also founded his hopes regarding the future upon a combination of Gen. xlix. +and 2 Sam. vii., is shown by Ps. lxxii., which was composed by him; compare pp. +91, 92.</p> +<p class="normal">But, as respects this combination, David was not left to himself. +He received further light from the source from which the promise had come to him. +Although his mission was not properly a prophetic one,—although, in the main, it +belonged to him to describe poetically what had come to him through prophetic inspiration, +yet prophetic inspiration and sacred lyric are frequently commingled in him. The +man who is "the sweet psalmist of Israel" claims a +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נאם</span> in 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, and, in ver. 2, says +that the Spirit of God spake by him, and His word was upon his tongue. In Acts ii. +30, 31, Peter declares that, by the divine promise, David received, first the impulse, +and afterwards further illumination, by the prophetic spirit dwelling in him. The +latter declaration, moreover, rests on the testimony of the Lord Himself, in Matt. +xxii. 43, where He says that in Ps. cx., David had spoken +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐν πνεύματι</span>, <i>i.e.</i>, seized with the Holy +Spirit.</p> +<p class="normal">It is true that, in a series of Psalms, David is not any more +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 150]</span> explicit and definite than the fundamental +prophecy, but speaks only of the grace which the Lord had conferred upon the Davidic +race by the promise of a dominion which should outlast all earthly things. Thus +it is in Ps. xviii., where, in the presence of the congregation, he offers those +thanks which previously he had, as it were, privately expressed, for the glorious +promise made to him;—in Ps. xi., where, in the name of the people, he expresses +thankful joy for this same promise;—in Ps. lxi. and in the cycle of Psalms from +Ps. cxxxviii. to cxlv.—the prophetic legacy of David—in which, at the beginning, +in Ps. cxxxviii., he praises the Lord for His promise of eternal mercy given to +him, and then, with the torch of promise, lightens up the darkness of the sufferings +that are to fall upon this house,—Psalms with which Ps. lxxxix. and cxxxix., which +were composed at a later period, and by other writers, are closely connected.</p> +<p class="normal">But there are other Psalms (ii. and cx.) in which David, with +a distinctness which can be accounted for only by divine revelation, beholds the +Messiah in whose coming the promise in 2 Sam. vii. should find its final and complete +fulfilment. Whilst David, in these Psalms, represents the Messiah as his antitype, +as the mighty conqueror, who will not rest until He shall have subjected the whole +earth to His sway, Solomon, in Ps. lxxii., represents Him as the true Prince of +Peace, and His dominion, as a just and peaceful rule. The circumstances of the time +of Solomon form, in a similar way, the foundation for the description of the Messiah +in Ps. xlv., which was written by the sons of Korah.</p> +<p class="normal">A personal Messianic element is contained in some of those Davidic +Psalms also which refer to the <i>ideal</i> person of the <i>righteous one</i>, +whose image we at last find fully portrayed in the Book of Wisdom. In these the +sufferings of the righteous one in a world of sin are described, as well as the +glorious issue to which he attains by the help of the Lord. After his own experience, +David could not have doubted that, notwithstanding the glorious promise of the Lord, +severe sufferings were impending over his family, and over Him in whom that family +was, at some future time, to centre. But his own experience likewise promised a +glorious issue to these sufferings. The Psalms in which, besides the reference to +the righteous one, and to the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 151]</span> people, the +allusion to the afflictions of the Davidic race, and to the suffering Messiah, most +plainly appear, are the xxii., the cii., and the cix.</p> +<p class="normal">There cannot be any doubt that the Messianic promise made considerable +progress in the time of David. It is, in itself, a circumstance of great importance +that the eyes of the people were henceforth directed to a definite family; for, +thereby, their hopes acquired greater consistency. <i>Further</i>,—The former prophecies +were, all of them, much shorter, and more in the shape of hints; but, now, their +hopes could become detailed descriptions, because a <i>substratum</i> was given +to them in the present. The Messiah had been foretold to David as a successor to +his throne,—as a King. Hence it was, that, in the view of David himself and of the +other psalmists, the earthly head of the Congregation of the Lord formed the <i> +substratum</i> for the future Saviour. The naked thought now clothed itself with +flesh and blood. The hope gained thereby in clearness and distinctness, as well +as in practical significance.</p> +<p class="normal">The slight hint of a higher nature of the Messiah, given in Gen. +xlix. 8, forms the main ground for the advancing and more definite knowledge, which +we find in the days of David and Solomon. Grand and lofty expectations could, henceforth, +not fail to be connected with the promise in 2 Sam. vii. 14, "I will be a father +to him, and he shall be a son to Me," and with the prophecy of the absolute perpetuity +of dominion, in the same passage. In Ps. ii. 12, the Messiah appears as the Son +of God <span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν</span>,—as He, in whom to trust +is to be saved, and whose anger brings destruction. In Ps. cx. 1, He appears as +the Lord of the Congregation and of David himself,—as sitting at the right hand +of omnipotence, and as invested with a full participation in the divine power over +heaven and earth. In Ps. lxxi. eternity of dominion is ascribed to Him. In Ps. xlv. +7, 8, He is called God, Elohim.</p> +<p class="normal">Among the offices of Christ, it is especially the <i>Regal</i> +office on which a clear light has been shed. The Messiah appears prominently as +He "who has dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth," +Ps. lxxii. 8. In Ps. cx., however, the office of the Messiah as the eternal <i>High +Priest</i> is first revealed to the congregation. He appears as the person who atones +for whatever sins cleave to His people, as their Intercessor +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 152]</span> and Advocate with God, and as the Mediator +of the closest communion with God. We have here the outlines, for the filling up +of which Isaiah was, at a later period, called. The <i>Prophetic</i> office of the +Saviour does not distinctly appear in the Psalms. It was reserved for Isaiah to +bring out into a clearer light the allusion given, on this subject, by Moses, after +it had been taken up again, for the first time since Moses' day, by the prophet +Joel.</p> +<p class="normal">It was quite natural that David, who himself was exercised and +proved by the cross, should be the first to introduce to the knowledge of the Church +a <i>suffering Messiah</i>. But the doctrine has with him still the character of +a germ; he still mixes up the references to the Messiah with the allusions to His +types. It was from these that David rose to Him; it was from their destiny that +David, by the Holy Spirit, inferred what would befall Him. Nowhere, however, has +David directly and exclusively to do with a suffering Messiah, as had, afterwards, +the prophet Isaiah.</p> +<p class="normal">In all that respects the Psalms, we must content ourselves with +merely a passing glance, lest we encroach too much upon the territory which belongs +to the Commentary on the Psalms. But "the last words of David," preserved to us +in the Books of Samuel, we shall make the subject of a more minute consideration, +inasmuch as they form a connecting link between the two classes of Psalms which +rest on the promise in 2 Sam. vii., viz., those referring to David's house and family, +and those relating to the personal Messiah. The "ruler among men" whom we meet in +these "last words," is, in the first instance, an <i>ideal</i> person,—viz., the +Davidic race conceived of as a person; but the <i>ideal</i> points to the <i>real</i> +person, in whom all that had been foretold of the Davidic family should, at some +future period, find its full realization. It is with a view to this person, that +the personification has been employed.</p> +<hr class="W20"> +<h1><a name="div1_152" href="#div1Ref_152">2 SAMUEL XXIII. 1-7.</a></h1> +<p class="normal">The last words of David are comprehended in seven verses; and +these, again, are subdivided into sections of five and two <span class="pagenum"> +[Pg 153]</span> verses respectively. First, there is a description of the fulness +of blessings which the dominion of the just ruler shall carry along with it, and +then of the destruction which shall overtake hostile wickedness.</p> +<p class="normal">It is not by accident that these last words are not found in the +collection of Psalms. The reason is indicated by the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נאם</span> There is a prophetic element in the lyric +poetry of David wheresoever it refers to the future destiny of his house; but this +prophetic element rises, here, at the close of his life, to pure prophetic inspiration +and utterance, which stand on an equal footing with the prophecy of Nathan in 2 +Sam. vii., and claim an equal authority.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 1. "<i>And these are the last words of David. David, the +son of Jesse, prophesies, and the man prophesies who was raised up on high, the +anointed of the God of Jacob, and sweet in the Psalms of Israel.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">It is substantially the same thing, whether we understand: "the +last words of David" or "the latter words of David"—later in reference to xxi. 1. +For even Ps. xviii., which precedes in chap. xxii., belongs, according to its inscription +and contents, to the last times of David; it is, as it were, "a grand Hallelujah +with which he withdraws from the scene of life." But, at all events, there is a +closer connection with that Psalm; in it, too, David has in view the future destiny +of his race, and we have here, in the last words, the prophetic conclusion of the +lyrical effusion there. From this connection with chap. xxii., the closer limitation +of the "words" follows. We learn from it that <i>holy</i> words only can be meant. +The solemn introduction, and the parallelism with the blessings of Jacob and Moses, +fully agree with and confirm this our introductory remark regarding the chronological +position of these "words."—There can be no doubt that, in this introduction, there +is a reference to Balaam's prophecy in Num. xxiv. 3,—and this goes far to prove +how much David was occupied with the views which men of God had formerly opened +up into future times:—"And he took up his parable and said: Balaam the son of Beor +prophesies, and the man who had his eyes shut, prophesies: He prophesies who hears +the words of God, who sees the vision of the Almighty, falling down and having his +eyes open." The remarks which we made on that passage find here also a strict application: +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 154]</span> "Balaam begins with a simple designation of +his person, and then, in the following members, adds designations of such qualities +of this person as here come into consideration, and serve for affording a foundation +to the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נאם</span> with which he opens his discourse." +As <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נאם</span> always has the signification, "word +of God," "revelation," it can here be ascribed to David, as it was in the fundamental +passage to Balaam, only in as far as the word has been received by, and communicated +to, him. The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">על</span>, "upon," "over," stands here +for "on high,"<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_154a" href="#ftn_154a">[1]</a></sup>—those +over whom David has been raised up being omitted in order to express the absolute +sovereignty bestowed upon David, more, however, in his posterity, than in his own +person. (Compare Ps. xviii. 44: "Thou makest me the head of the heathen;" and in +ver. 48: "God who avengeth me, and subdueth people under me.") <i>He who was raised +up on high</i>—With the exception of the bodily ancestor and the lawgiver, of none +under the Old Testament could this be with so much truth affirmed, as of David, +the founder of the royal house, which, in all eternity, was to be the channel of +blessings for the Congregation of the Lord, and to which, at last, all power in +heaven and on earth was to be given. <i>The anointed of the God of Jacob</i>—Such +is David, not only as an individual, but also as the representative of his race; +compare Ps. xviii. 51. He is pre-eminently the anointed, the Christ of God.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זמיר</span> +plur. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זמירית</span> signifies, according to derivation +and usage, not <i>song</i> or <i>hymn</i> in general, but the hymn in the higher +strain, the skilful, solemn song of praise; compare my commentary on Song of Sol. +ii. 12. David's Psalms are called <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זמירות</span> of +Israel, because he sang them as the organ of the congregation, and because they +were appointed to be used in public worship; compare Comment, on Psalms, vol. iii. +p. vi. <i>Sweet in Psalms of Israel</i> here finds its place only on the supposition +that David, in his Psalms, spoke in the Spirit, Matt. xxii. 41-46; compare Commentary +on Psalms, vol. iii. p. vii. viii. The most distinguished excellence in poetry which +is <span class="pagenum">[Pg 155]</span> merely human cannot form a foundation for +the assertion in ver. 2. But if, on the other hand, David be an often times tried +organ of the Spirit for the Church, it cannot surprise us that in ver. 2 he even +declares that, in the Spirit, he there foretells the future. Thus the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נאם</span> in our verse also has a good foundation.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 2. "<i>The Spirit of the Lord spake to me, and His word is +upon my tongue.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">That <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דבר</span> refers +to the communication which David promulgates in the sequel, and not to other revelations +which he had formerly received, appears from its relation to the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נאם</span> in ver. 1. We should lose the new revelation +announced in ver. 1, if ver. 2, and, hence, ver. 3 also—for the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אמר</span> there evidently resumes the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דבר</span>—refer to divine revelations which David, +or, as <i>Thenius</i> supposes, even some other person, had formerly received.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בי</span> +is not "through me," for in that case the Participle would have been used instead +of the Preterite; nor "in me," for that is contradicted by the parallel passages +in which <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דבר</span> occurs with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span>; but "into me," which is stronger than "to +me," and marks the deeply penetrating power of the revelation by the Spirit; compare +remarks on Hosea i. 2. Such being the case, the Preterite is quite in its proper +place; for the inward revelation, the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נאם יהוה</span> +precedes the communication—the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נאם דוד</span>. (On +the whole verse, 1 Pet. i. 11, 2 Pet. i. 21, are to be compared.)</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 3. "<i>The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to +me: a Ruler over men—just; a Ruler—fear of God.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The omission of the verb, "will be or rise," is quite suited to +the concise and abrupt style of the divine word. The mention of God, the Rock of +Israel, shows that the revelation has a reference to what is done for the good of +the people of God,—of His Church. For her good, the glorious Ruler shall be raised. +(Compare the words, <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἀντελάβετο Ἰσραὴλ παιδὸς αὑτοῦ</span>, +in Luke i. 54, as also ver. 68, and ii. 32.) The appellation. Rock of Israel, indicates +God's immutability, trustworthiness, and inviolable faithfulness; compare my comment, +on Psalm xviii. 3, 32-47. The connection betwixt Ps. xviii. and the "last words +of David" here also clearly appears. The fundamental passage is Deut. xxxii. 4.—That +<i>men</i> must be conceived of as the subjects of dominion, is proved by Ps. xviii. +44, where David is made the head of nations, and people whom he has not known +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 156]</span> serve him,—and by ver. 45, where the sons +of the stranger do homage to him,—and by ver. 48: "Who subdues people under me."—<i>A +Ruler</i>—<i>fear</i> of God, <i>i.e.</i>, a Ruler who shall, as it were, be fear +of God itself—personified fear of God. We must here compare the expression, "This +man is the peace," Mic. v. 4, and, as to the substance of the expression. Is. xi. +2, "And the Spirit of the Lord rests upon him ... the spirit of knowledge and of +the fear of the Lord." We might be disposed to refer this exclusively to the person +of the Messiah, especially when those Psalms are compared which refer to a personal +Messiah. But Ps. xviii.—which here receives, as it were, its prophetic seal—and +especially the relation of ver. 3 and 4 to ver. 5, where David speaks of his house, +prove that the Ruler here is, primarily, only an ideal person, viz., the seed of +David spoken of in Ps. xviii. 51. Things so glorious can, however, be ascribed to +it only with a reference to the august personage in whom that seed will centre at +the end of days,—the righteous Branch, whom the Lord will raise up unto David (Jer. +xxiii. 5), who executeth judgment and righteousness on earth, Jer. xxxiii. 15. David +knew too well what human nature is, and what is in man, to have expected any such +thing from the collective body, as such.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 4. "<i>And as the light of the morning when the sun riseth, +a mourning without clouds; by brightness, by rain,—grass out of the earth.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">In the first hemistich we have to supply: will be His appearance +in its loveliness and saving importance. The morning elsewhere also, especially +in the Psalms (compare remarks on Ps. lix. 17; Song of Sol. iii. 1), is used as +the emblem of salvation. The condition of men before the appearance of the Ruler +among them, is, in its destitution, like dark night.—The <i>brightness</i> is that +of the Ruler, as the spiritual Sun, the Sun of Salvation. (Compare Mal. iii. 20 +[iv. 2], where righteousness is represented as the sun rising to those who fear +God.) The <i>rain</i>—the warm, mild rain, not the winter's rain which, in the Song +of Sol. ii. 11, and elsewhere, occurs as an emblem of affliction and judgment—is +the emblem of blessing (compare Is. xliv. 3, where "rain" is explained by "blessing"). +The <i>grass</i>, which springs up out of the earth by means of sunshine and rain, +is emblematical of the fruits and effects of salvation. <span class="pagenum">[Pg +157]</span> (Compare Is. xlv. 8, where, in consequence of the rain of salvation +pouring down from the skies, the earth brings forth salvation and righteousness.) +The passage in Ps. lxxii. 6 is parallel, where Solomon says of his Antitype, "He +shall come down like rain upon the mown grass, as showers watering the earth." The +figure of the rain making fresh grass to spring up is there likewise employed to +designate the blessings of the Messianic time.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 5. "<i>For is not thus my house with God? For He has made +with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and kept; for all my salvation, +and all pleasure,—should He not make it to grow?</i>"</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">The special revelation which David received at the close +of his life (compare the remarks on <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נאם</span> in +ver. 1) is here connected with the fundamental promise in 2 Sam. vii., which was +thereby anew confirmed to him. Those who, like <i>De Wette</i> and <i>Thenius</i>, +mistake the correct sense of vers. 3 and 4, are not a little perplexed by the "<i>for</i>" +at the beginning of this verse, and attempt in vain to account for it.—<i>Thus</i>, +<i>i.e.</i>, as it had been told in what precedes.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ערוכה</span>, +"prepared," "ordered," forms the contrast to what is only half finished, indefinite, +depending upon circumstances and conditions, admitting of provisions and exceptions. +The extent to which all interposing obstacles were excluded, or rather, had been +considered and calculated upon beforehand, appears especially from 2 Sam. vii. 14, +15, according to which, even the most fatal of all interpositions—the apostasy of +the bearers of the covenant—should not destroy the covenant,—should not annul the +gracious promise made to the race. <i>Kept</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, firm, inviolable, because +given by Him who keepeth covenant and mercy, Deut. vii. 9; Dan. ix. 4. In 1 Kings +viii. 25, Solomon prays, "And now, Lord God of Israel, keep with Thy servant David +my father what Thou promisedst him when Thou saidst. There shall not be cut off +unto thee a man from My sight to sit on the throne of Israel." The second "<i>for</i>" +points out the cause of <i>kept</i>. <i>All pleasure</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, all that +is well-pleasing to me, all that my heart desires. The preceding +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ישעי</span> serves the purpose of qualifying it more +definitely. The object of David's desires is, accordingly, his salvation, the glory +of his house.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 6. "<i>And wickedness, like thorns, they will all be driven +away; for not will any one take them into his hands.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The subject treated of in this verse is: the Ruler among men +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 158]</span> in His relation to His enemies. To those He +is as formidable as His appearance is blessed to those who surrender themselves +to Him. In Ps. xviii. also, there is a celebration of the indomitable power which +the Lord grants to David, His anointed, and to his seed against all their enemies; +compare ver. 38: "I pursue mine enemies and overtake them, and do not turn again +till they are consumed; ver. 39, I crush them and they cannot rise, they fall under +my feet." In the cycle of Psalms from cxxxviii. to cxlv., David likewise speaks +of the dangers which threaten his house from enemies, and the leading thought of +Ps. ii. is: the Messiah as the conqueror of His enemies. The eyes of David were +the more opened to this circumstance, the more he himself had had to contend against +adversaries.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בליעל</span> always means unworthiness +in a moral point of view, "wickedness," "vileness." <i>Wickedness</i> is here used +in the concrete sense = the wicked ones, the sons of wickedness, Deut. xiii. 14. +The wicked ones, the enemies of the Church, are compared to the thorns, on account +of their pricking nature; and therefore their end is like that of thorns, they will +be thrown aside like them. In Ezek. xxiv. 28, after the judgment upon the neighbouring +people has been proclaimed, it is said, "And there shall remain no more a pricking +brier everywhere round about the house of Israel, where their enemies are, nor a +grieving thorn;" compare Num. xxxiii. 55; Song of Sol. ii. 2; Is. xxvii. 4; Nahum +i. 10.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מנד</span>, the <i>Partic. Hoph.</i> of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נוד</span>, "thrust out," "put to flight" (compare +Ps. xxxvi. 12), cannot be applied to the thorns, but only to the men. <i>Like thorns</i>, +<i>i.e.</i>, so that they become like thorns, of which the land is cleared. <i>For +not will any one take them into his hands</i>—<i>Michaelis</i>: <i>Intractabiles +sunt.</i></p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 7. "<i>And if any one toucheth them, he is filled with iron, +and the staff of a spear; and they shall be utterly burnt with fire where they dwell.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The two members of vers. 6 and 7 stand in an inverted relation +to each other. In ver. 6, we have, first, the punishment described, and then their +hostile nature, by which the punishment was called forth. In ver. 7, we have, first, +the cause, and then the consequence. The thought in the first member is: every touch +of them bears a hostile character. <i>Iron</i>—instead of weapons fabricated of +iron; comp. 1 Sam. xvii. 7; Job xx. 24, xli. 19 compared with vers. 18, 20; Jer. +xv. 12. <span class="pagenum">[Pg 159]</span> <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בשבת</span>, +literally, "in the dwelling" (compare Ps. xxiii. 6, xxvii. 4; Deut. xxx. 20) instead +of "where they dwell," shows that in their own borders they shall be visited and +overtaken by retribution. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בשבת</span> cannot have +the signification, "without delay," ascribed to it by <i>Thenius</i>.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_154a" href="#ftnRef_154a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תחת</span>, + "below," "beneath," "under," is often used adverbially, <i>e.g.</i> Gen. xlix. + 25. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">על</span>, in the signification "on high," + occurs also in Hosea xi. 7,—less certainly in Hos. vii. 16. For, according to + 2 Chron. xxx. 9, that passage may be explained; "they return, not <i>to</i>," + <i>i.e.</i>, there is the mere commencement of conversion, but not the attainment + of the end. On <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הוקם</span> Deut. xxviii. 36 is + to be compared.</p> +</div> +<hr class="W20"> +<h1><a name="div1_159" href="#div1Ref_159">THE SONG OF SOLOMON.</a></h1> +<p class="normal">An important link in the chain of the Messianic hopes is formed +by the Song of Solomon. It is intimately associated with Ps. lxxii., which was written +by Solomon, and represents the Messiah as the Prince of Peace, imperfectly prefigured +by Solomon as His type. As in this Psalm, so also in the Song of Solomon, the coming +of the Messiah forms the subject throughout, and He is introduced there under the +name of Solomon, the Peaceful One. His coming shall be preceded by severe afflictions, +represented under the emblems of the scorching heat of the sun, of winter, of rain, +of dark nights, and of the desert. Connected with this coming is the reception of +the heathen nations into His kingdom, and this, through the medium of the old Covenant-people. +</p> +<p class="normal">Thus far the first part, down to chap. v. 1. The subjects contained +in the second part are, the sin of the daughter of Zion against the heavenly Solomon +and the judgment; then, repentance and reunion, which will be accomplished by the +co-operation of the daughters of Jerusalem, <i>i.e.</i>, of the very heathen nations +who had formerly received salvation through them; the complete re-establishment +of the old relation of love, in consequence of which the daughter of Zion again +occupies the centre of the kingdom of God; and the indissoluble nature of this covenant +of love now anew entered into, in contrast with the instability of the former.</p> +<p class="normal">The Song of Solomon does not, strictly speaking, possess a prophetical +character. It does not communicate any new revelations; like the Psalms, it only +represents, in a poetical form, things already known. It sufficiently appears from +our former statement, that, in the first part of this book, not one feature occurs +which did not form a part of those Messianic prophecies <span class="pagenum">[Pg +160]</span> which we can prove to have been known at the time of Solomon. In the +second part, however, it is somewhat different. No corresponding parallel can be +adduced from any former time to the view, that a great part of the people would +reject the salvation offered to them in Christ, and, thereby, draw down judgment +upon themselves. Yet, all that the book under consideration contains upon this point, +is only the application of a general truth, the knowledge of which the covenant-people +had received at the very beginning of their history. A consideration of human nature +in general, and more especially of Israel's character, as it had been deeply and +firmly impressed upon the people by the Mosaic law, joined to the ample experience +which history had afforded in this respect, sufficiently convinced those who were +more enlightened, that it could not be by any means expected—that, indeed, it was +even impossible—that, at the coming of the Messiah, the whole people would sincerely +and heartily receive Him, and do homage to Him. And there existed, on the other +hand, at the time of Solomon also, the foundation for the doctrine of the final +restoration of the people. For, even in the Pentateuch, the election of Israel by +God is represented as irrevocable and absolute, and which, therefore, must at last +triumph over all apostasy and covenant-breaking on the part of the people.</p> +<p class="normal">The Song of Solomon, then, is no <i>apocalypsis</i>, no revelation +of mysteries till then unknown. There is in it no such disclosure as is, <i>e.g.</i>, +that in 2 Sam. vii., on the descent of the Messiah from David; or, as is that in +Mic. v. 1 (2), on His being born at Bethlehem; or even as is that in Is. liii. on +His office as a High Priest, and His vicarious satisfaction. But, nevertheless, +we must not imagine the case to have been thus, that the contents of the Song of +Solomon could have originated merely from reflection on the part of Solomon. The +truths hitherto revealed had too much of the character of mere germs to allow us +to suppose that from them, and in such a way, we could account for the clearness +and certainty with which they have been blended into one whole. Another element, +moreover, must be joined to the historical ground—viz., an elevated condition of +the soul, a "being in the Spirit,"—a breathing of the divine Spirit upon the human. +History bears witness that such prophetic states, in the wider sense, were not strange +to Solomon. It twice <span class="pagenum">[Pg 161]</span> reports about the Lord's +having appeared to him, 1 Kings iii. 5, ix. 2. From such an elevated state of soul, +his dedicatory prayer, in 1 Kings viii., and Ps. lxxii., also originated.</p> +<p class="normal">We must content ourselves with these hints as regards Solomon's +Song. As it moves throughout on Messianic ground, the Author must consider his commentary +on this book (Berlin, 1853) as an appendix to the Christology.</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 162]</span></p> +<h1><span class="sc"><a name="div1_162" href="#div1Ref_162">MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS +IN THE PROPHETS.</a></span></h1> +<hr class="W20"> +<p class="normal">After the time of Solomon, the Messianic prediction was for a +considerable time discontinued. It was first resumed, and farther expanded, by the +Canonical prophecy which began under Uzziah. There cannot be any doubt that that +which <i>appears</i> as an interval was <i>really</i> such. There is no ground for +the supposition that any important connecting links have been lost. The Messianic +prediction in the oldest canonical prophets is immediately connected with that which +existed previously at the time of David and Solomon.</p> +<p class="normal">It is not a matter of chance that, whilst the blossom of prophetism +appeared as early as Samuel, the canonical prophetism took its rise at a much later +date. Nor is it the result of accident, that we do not possess any written prophecies, +either by Elijah, who, at the transfiguration of the Lord, appeared as the representative +of all the Old Testament prophets, or by Elisha. Nor is it merely accidental that, +at the time of Uzziah, there appears all at once, and simultaneously, a whole series +of prophets. All these things are connected with the circumstance, that it was only +at that time that great events for the Covenant-people were in preparation,—that, +only then, those catastrophes were impending which were to be brought about by the +Asiatic kingdoms, and which kept equal pace with the sin of Israel, the measure +of which was being more and more filled up. Canonical prophecy is closely linked +with these catastrophes. It is called to disclose to the Church the meaning of these +judgments, and, thereby, to secure to them their effects in all time coming. The +Messianic predictions uttered by the prophets are likewise closely connected with +the announcement of these judgments. Whilst false security was shaken by the threatenings, +despondency—which is as <span class="pagenum">[Pg 163]</span> hostile to true conversion—was +prevented by pointing to the future coming of the Saviour.</p> +<p class="normal">The prophets do not deliver the Messianic prediction in its whole +compass, any more than do the writers of the Messianic Psalms. On the contrary, +it is always only certain individual aspects which they exhibit. The writers of +the Messianic Psalms take up those features which presented points of contact with +their own lives and their own experiences, or at least the circumstances of their +times. This is quite in keeping with the more subjective origin of Psalm-poetry. +Thus David describes the suffering Messiah surrounded by powerful enemies, and who, +after severe struggles, at length obtains victory and dominion. To Solomon, He appears +as the Ruler of a great and peaceful kingdom, and he beholds the most distant nations +reverentially offering presents to Him and doing Him allegiance. But the Prophets, +in pointing out this or that feature, are not so much guided by their own experience, +disposition of mind, and peculiar circumstances, as by the wants of those whom they +are addressing, and by the effect which they are anxious to produce on them. When +they have to do with pusillanimity, desponding at the sight of the heathen world +as it seems to be all-powerful,—they then represent the Messiah as the invincible +conqueror of the heathen world, who shall subject the whole earth to the kingdom +of God. When they have to deal with pride, trusting in imaginary prerogatives of +the Covenant-people, and boldly challenging the judgments of God upon the heathen,—they +then represent the Messiah as Him who shall make a great separation among the Covenant-people +themselves, and who shall be a consolation to the godly, while He brings inexorable +judgments upon the wicked when they have to do with those who mourn in Zion, who +through the inflicted judgments of the Lord have been brought to a deep sorrow on +account of their sins,—they then represent the Messiah as Him who shall one day +take away the sins of the land, who is to bear their griefs and carry their sorrows. +Now, as canonical prophecy extends over several centuries, during which circumstances, +wants, and dispositions the most diverse, must have taken place, and as the Messianic +prophecy is in harmony with these, it displayed, more and more fully, its riches, +and did so in a manner far more effective and vivid than it could possibly have +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 164]</span> done had it been proclaimed in the form of +a discussion or treatise. As the Messiah was thus represented from the most various +points of view, and in the way of direct perception, and divine confidence,—as He +was thus everywhere pointed out as the end of the development. He could not but +become more and more the soul of the nation's life.</p> +<p class="normal">In the Messianic announcements by the prophets, no such gradual +progress in clearness and distinctness can be traced, as in those of the Pentateuch. +The assertion that there existed with them at first, only a general hope of better +times, unconnected with any person, rests on the unfounded hypothesis that Joel +is the oldest among all the prophets,—and at the same time on the erroneous assumption +that he was ignorant of a personal Messiah,—and, <i>further</i>, on the incorrect +supposition that the prophets, who write only what presents itself immediately to +their view, have not in their creed all that they omit to say. It is, <i>moreover</i>, +opposed by the prospect of a personal Messiah held out in the Pentateuch, the Psalms, +and the Song of Solomon. How very slender is the ground for inferring that, because +many essential points are not touched upon by Hosea, Joel, and Amos, they, therefore, +did not know them, is shown by the fact that neither do several among the later +prophets—as Jeremiah and Ezekiel—touch upon them, although the previous more distinct +prophecies of Isaiah were certainly known and acknowledged by them. We must never +forget that it is from above that each of the prophets received his share of the +prophetic spirit, and that this depended partly upon the measure of his receptivity, +which might have been greater with the former than with the latter prophets,—and, +partly, upon the wants and capacities of those for whom the prophecy was destined.</p> +<p class="normal">A central position, as regards the Messianic predictions, is occupied +by Isaiah. Even his Messianic prophecies, however, when viewed detached and isolated, +bear the character of onesidedness. He nowhere gives us a complete image of the +Messiah. But, whilst the other prophets were permitted to give only single disclosures, +he gives us, in the whole body of his Messianic prophecies, the materials for a +full and entire image, although not the image itself. The Fathers of the Church +have, therefore, rightly designated him as the Evangelist among the prophets. But +the transition to him from the Psalms and <span class="pagenum">[Pg 165]</span> +the Song of Solomon could not be Immediate. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and +Micah form, as it were, the connecting links. Proceeding from the Messianic promise, +in the shape which it had received at the time of David and Solomon, they give it +a standing in the prophetic message, and infuse into it new life by means of the +connection into which it is brought by them, and supplement it by adding single +new features.</p> +<p class="normal">It is our intention to give an exposition of the Messianic passages +in the prophets, according to their chronological order. In placing Hosea at the +head, we follow the example of those who collected the Canon, and who, regarding +not so much the succession of years as that of the governments, may have assigned +the first place to Hosea, because he is the most important among the prophets at +the time of Jeroboam in Israel, and of Uzziah in Judah, or because he really appeared +first, and the prophecy in chap. i.-iii. is the beginning of written prophecies. +The latter supposition most naturally suggests itself; the analogies are in its +favour, and no decisive argument has been brought forward against it.</p> +<hr class="W20"> +<h2><a name="div2_165" href="#div2Ref_165">THE PROPHET HOSEA.</a></h2> +<h3><a name="div3_165" href="#div3Ref_165">GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">That the kingdom of Israel was the object of the prophet's ministry +is so evident, that upon this point all are, and cannot but be, agreed. But there +is a difference of opinion as to whether the prophet was a fellow-countryman of +those to whom he preached, or was called by God out of the kingdom of Judah. The +latter has been asserted with great confidence by <i>Maurer</i>, among others, in +his <i>Observ. in Hos.</i>, in the <i>Commentat. Theol.</i> ii. i. p. 293. But the +arguments by which he supports this view will not stand the test. He appeals (1) +to the inscription. The circumstance that, in this, there is mention made of the +kings of Judah under whom Hosea exercised his ministry,—that they are mentioned +<i>at all</i>,—and that they are mentioned <i>first</i> and <i>completely</i>, while +only one of the kings of Israel is named, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 166]</span> +proves, according to him—especially on a comparison with the inscription of Amos—that +the prophet acknowledged the kings of Judah as his superiors. But this mode of argumentation +entirely overlooks the position which the pious in Israel generally, and the prophets +especially, occupied in reference to Judah. They considered the whole separation—the +civil as well as the religious—as an apostasy from God. And how could they do otherwise, +since the eternal dominion over the people of God had been granted, by God, to the +house of David? The closeness of the connection between the religious and the civil +sufficiently appears from the fact, that Jeroboam and all his successors despaired +of being able to maintain their power, unless they made the breach, in religious +matters also, as wide as possible. The chief of the prophets in the kingdom of the +ten tribes—Elijah—by taking twelve stones according to the number of the tribes +of Israel (1 Kings xviii. 31), plainly enough declared, that he considered the separation +as one not consistent with the idea of the Jewish kingdom, and that therefore, in +reality, it must at some future period be done away with; that he considered the +government in Israel as existing <i>de facto</i>, but not <i>de jure</i>.</p> +<p class="normal">By none do we find this view so distinctly brought out as by Hosea. +"They have set up kings, and not by Me"—says the Lord by him, chap. viii. 4—"they +have made princes, and I knew it not." In his view, then, the whole basis of the +government in Israel is ungodliness. Because they have chosen kings and princes +without God, and against the will of God, they shall be taken from them by God, +chap. iii. 4. Salvation cannot come to the people until Israel and, Judah set over +themselves one head, ii. 2 (i. 11), until the children of Israel seek Jehovah their +Lord, and David their king, iii. 5. These two things are, in his view, intimately +connected; no true return to the invisible head of the Theocracy is possible without, +at the same time, a return to the visible one—the house of David. What, at some +future time, the mass of the people, when converted, were to do, the converted individual +must do even now. He even now recognised the kings of the tribe of Judah as truly +his sovereigns, although he yielded civil obedience to the rulers of Israel, until +God should again abolish the government which He gave to the people in wrath, and +set <span class="pagenum">[Pg 167]</span> up in opposition to the government of +the house of David in His anger, on account of their apostasy. From all this, it +clearly appears that, in order to account for the peculiarity of the inscription, +we need not have recourse to the conjecture, that Hosea was a native of Judah. One +might, with as much reason, maintain that all the prophets in the kingdom of Israel, +who rejected the worship of the calves—and hence all the prophets without exception—were +natives of the kingdom of Judah. For the worship of the calves is quite on a par +with the apostasy from the anointed of God. Hosea mentions, first and completely, +the kings of the legitimate family. He then further adds the name of one of the +rulers of the kingdom of Israel, under whom his ministry began, because it was of +importance to fix precisely the time of its commencement. Uzziah, the first in the +series of the kings of Judah mentioned by him, survived Jeroboam nearly twenty-six +years; compare <i>Maurer</i>, l. c. p. 284. Now, had the latter not been mentioned +along with him, the thought might easily have suggested itself, that it was only +during the latter period of Uzziah's reign that the prophet entered upon his office; +in which case all that he said about the overthrow of Jeroboam's family would have +appeared to be a <i>vaticinium post eventum</i>, inasmuch as it took place very +soon after Jeroboam's death. The same applies to what was said by him regarding +the total decay of the kingdom which was so flourishing under Jeroboam; for, from +the moment of Jeroboam's death, it hastened with rapid strides towards its destruction. +If, therefore, it was to be seen that future things lie open before God and His +servants "before they spring forth" (Is. xlii. 9), it was necessary that the commencement +of the prophet's ministry should be the more accurately determined; and this is +effected by the statement, that it happened within the period of the fourteen years +during which Uzziah and Jeroboam reigned contemporaneously. That this is the main +reason for mentioning Jeroboam's name, is seen from the relation of ver. 2 to ver. +1. The remark there made,—that Hosea received the subsequent revelation at the very +beginning of his prophetic ministry, corresponds with the mention of Jeroboam's +name in ver. 1. But this is not all; nor can we say that, had it not been for this +reason, Hosea would not have mentioned any king of Israel at all, in order that, +from the outset, he might exhibit <span class="pagenum">[Pg 168]</span> his disposition. +There was a considerable difference between Jeroboam and the subsequent kings. +<i>Cocceius</i> remarked very strikingly: "The other kings of Israel are not considered +as kings, but as robbers." Jeroboam possessed a <i>quasi</i> legitimacy. The house +of Jehu, to which he belonged, had opposed the extreme of religious apostasy. It +was, to a certain degree, acknowledged, even by the prophets. Jeroboam had obtained +the throne, not by usurpation, but by birth. He was the last king by whom the Lord +sent deliverance to the people of the ten tribes; compare 2 Kings xiv. 27: "And +the Lord would not blot out the name of Israel from under heaven; and He saved them +by the hand of Jeroboam, the son of Joash." (2.) The <i>internal</i> reason adduced +by <i>Maurer</i> (S. 294) is equally insignificant. "The <i>morum magistri</i>," +he says, "are wont more slightly to reprove, in the case of strangers, that which +they severely condemn in their own people; but Hosea rebukes with as much severity +the inhabitants of Judah, when he comes to speak of them, as he does the Israelites." +But no certain inferences can be drawn from such commonplaces; for, in this way +we might as reasonably infer, that Isaiah and the writer of the Books of Kings were +natives of the kingdom of the ten tribes, because they censure the sins of the Israelites +as severely as they do those of the inhabitants of Judah. To this commonplace we +might as easily oppose another equally true, viz., the "<i>morum magistri</i>, from +a partiality for their own people, are wont to judge more leniently of their faults +than of those of strangers." Such maxims require to be applied with the utmost caution, +even in the territory to which they belong, because one consideration may be so +easily outweighed by another. Here, however, its application is altogether out of +the question. The prophets, as the instruments of the Spirit, spoke pure and plain +truth without any regard to persons. Whether Hosea was a native of Judah or of Israel, +he would express himself in the same way concerning the inhabitants of Judah. He +would severely rebuke their sins, and at the same time readily acknowledge, as he +does, their advantages,—for "Salvation cometh of the Jews."</p> +<p class="normal">If, then, these be the arguments in favour of the Judean origin +of Hosea, it readily appears that the probabilities of such an origin, compared +with that of his Israelitish descent, are not <span class="pagenum">[Pg 169]</span> +even in the proportion of one to a hundred. The prophets were almost more numerous +in the kingdom of Israel than in that of Judah; and yet the entire history knows +of only two instances of prophets being sent from the kingdom of Judah to that of +Israel, viz., the prophet spoken of in 1 Kings xiii. and Amos. And the former of +these even scarcely belongs to this class, inasmuch as he received only a single +mission into the kingdom of Israel, and <i>that</i>, at a time when the prophetic +institution was not as yet organized there. In the case of Amos likewise, it is +manifest not only that he was only an exception to the rule,—as appears from the +transactions with the priest Amaziah, reported in Amos vii. (compare especially +ver. 12),—but still more plainly, from the mention in the inscription of his having +been a native of Judah.</p> +<p class="normal">With regard to the <i>time</i> of the prophet, the inscription +places his ministry in the reigns of the kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. +A long period is, no doubt, thus assigned to it,—a period embracing at least twenty-six +years of Uzziah's reign, and, in addition, the sixteen years of that of Jotham, +the sixteen years during which Ahaz reigned, and at least one or two years of the +reign of Hezekiah, making, at the lowest calculation, a period of sixty years in +all. </p> +<p class="normal">This exceedingly long duration of the prophet's ministry might +easily excite suspicion regarding the genuineness and correctness of the inscription; +but such suspicion is at once set at rest by the fact, that the statements contained +in the book itself lead us to assume a period equally extended. The <i>beginning</i> +of the prophet's ministry cannot be assigned to any <i>later</i> period; for, in +chap. i. 4, the fall of Jeroboam's house, which took place soon after his death, +is announced as a future event. <i>Moreover</i>, the condition of the kingdom appears +still, throughout the whole first discourse, as a very flourishing one. Nor can +the end of his ministry be assigned to any earlier period. For in chap. x. 14, an +expedition of Shalman or Shalmaneser against the kingdom of Israel (<i>Vitringa</i>, +<i>Proleg. in Is.</i> p. 6) is described as being already past, and a second invasion +is threatened. But the first expedition of Shalmaneser, reported in 2 Kings xvii. +1 seqq., is almost contemporaneous with the beginning of Hezekiah's reign. For it +was directed against Hoshea, king of Israel, who began his reign in the twelfth +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 170]</span> year of that of Ahaz, which lasted sixteen +years. The exact harmony of the passage in Hosea with that in 2 Kings xvii. is very +evident. In 2 Kings xvii. 3, it is said: "Against him came up Shalmaneser, king +of Assyria, and Hoshea became his servant and gave him tribute." This was the first +expedition of Shalmaneser. Then followed the second expedition, which was caused +by the rebellion of Hoshea,—in consequence of which Samaria was taken and the people +carried away. In Hos. x. 14, 15, it is said: "And tumult ariseth against thy people, +and all thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman spoiled Beth-arbel in the day +of battle; the mother was dashed in pieces upon (her) children. So shall he do unto +you, Bethel, because of your great wickedness in the dawn of the morning, destroyed, +destroyed shall be the king of Israel." Hosea here declares that the beginning of +the destruction by Shalmaneser is the prophecy of the end of the kingdom of Israel. +The "morning dawn" is the time of apparently reappearing prosperity, when, according +to <i>Cocceius</i>, a time of peace begins to shine. In Amos iv. 13, v. 8, the prosperity +again dawning upon the kingdom of Israel is likewise expressed by "morning" and +"morning dawn." The identity of Beth-arbel and Arbelah in Galilee can the less be +doubted, because recent researches have rendered it certain that this place, now +called <i>Irbid</i>, was an important fortress. (Compare <i>Münchener gelehrte Anzeigen</i> +1836, S. 870 ff.; <i>Robinson</i>, iii. 2, p. 534; <i>v. Raumer</i>, S. 108.) The +use of Beth-arbel, instead of the more common Arbelah, as well as that of Shalman +instead of Shalmaneser, belongs to the higher style. At the first expedition, the +decisive battle had, no doubt, taken place at Arbelah. They who disconnect this +passage from 2 Kings xvii. do not know what to make of it. <i>Simson</i> complains +of the darkness resting on the passage under consideration.—But Hos. xii. 2 (1) +likewise leads us to the very last times of the kingdom of Israel,—those times when +Hoshea endeavoured to free himself from the Assyrian servitude by the help of Egypt. +"Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the east-wind; he daily increaseth +lies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with Assyria, and oil is carried +into Egypt." Their sending oil to Egypt, notwithstanding the covenant made with +Assyria, is the lie, which goes hand in hand with desolation, while they imagine +thereby to <span class="pagenum">[Pg 171]</span> work deliverance. This explanation +has been already given by <i>J. H. Manger</i>, of whose <i>Commentarius in Hoseam</i>, +<i>Campen</i>, 1782—a commentary in many respects excellent—most of the recent commentators, +and, lastly, <i>Simson</i>, have, to their great disadvantage, not availed themselves. +<i>Manger</i> says: "These words refer to the ambassadors who were sent with splendid +presents by king Hoshea to the king of Egypt, in order to win him over to himself, +and induce him to assist him against the Assyrians, to whom he had become subject +by a solemn treaty."—To the last times of the kingdom of Israel we are likewise +led by what occurs in other passages concerning the relation of Israel to Egypt +and Asshur. The matter has been falsely represented by very many as if two parties +among the people were spoken of,—an Assyrian and an Egyptian party. Nor is it so, +that the whole people turn at one time to Egypt in order to free themselves from +the Assyrians, and at another time to Assyria to assist them against Egypt. The +position is rather thus: The people, heavily oppressed by Asshur, at one time seek +help from Egypt against Asshur, and, at another, attempt to conciliate the latter. +Precisely thus is the situation described in vii. 11: "They call to Egypt, they +go to Asshur." That by which Israel was threatened, was, according to viii. 10, +"the burden of the king of princes, the king of Asshur," ver. 9. This they seek +to turn off, partly by artifices, and partly by calling to their help the king of +Egypt. Asshur alone is the king "warrior" (<i>Jareb</i>), v. 13, x. 6; he only has +received the divine mission to execute judgment; compare xi. 5: "He, <i>i.e.</i>, +Israel, shall not return to the land of Egypt, and Asshur, he is his king." As an +ally not to be trusted, Egypt is described in vii. 16, where, after the announcement +of their destruction on account of their rebellion against the Lord, it is said: +"This shall be their derision on account of the land of Egypt," <i>i.e.</i>, thus +they shall be put to shame in the hope which they place on Egypt. Is. xxx. 1-5 is +quite analogous. In that passage the prophet announces that Judah's attempt to protect +themselves against Asshur by means of Egypt would be vain; compare, especially, +ver. 3: "And the fortress of Pharaoh shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow +of Egypt, your confusion;" and ver. 5: "Not for help nor for profit, but for shame +and for reproach." Such historical circumstances, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 172]</span> +however, had not yet occurred under Menahem. At that time, Israel was not yet placed +in the midst betwixt Asshur and Egypt. It is expressly mentioned in 2 Kings xv. +20, that the invasion of Pul was only transitory, and that not conquest, but spoil, +was its aim. The real commencement of the Assyrian oppression is formed by the invasion +of Tiglathpileser at the time of Ahaz. Isaiah, in chap. vii., points out the pernicious +consequences of Ahaz's calling the Assyrians to his assistance against Syria and +Israel. The very fact of this war carried on against Judah by Syria and Ephraim +shows, that up to that time, Asshur had not laid his hand upon these regions. It +was only with the invasion under Ahaz that there was any display of Asshur's tendency +to make permanent conquests on the other side of Euphrates, which could not fail +to bring about the conflict with the Egyptian power.—"King Jareb,"—such had already +become the historical character of the king of Asshur, at the time when Hosea wrote; +but prior to the times of Ahaz and Hezekiah, he did not stand out as such.</p> +<p class="normal">There is no decisive weight to be attached to what <i>Simson</i> +advances in order to prove that we must fix an earlier date. He argues thus: "Gilead, +which, according to 2 Kings xv. 29, was taken and depopulated by Tiglathpileser, +whom Ahaz had called to his assistance, appears in vi. 8, xii. 12 (11) to be still +in the possession of Israel. Hence, the ministry of the prophet cannot have extended +beyond the invasion of Judah by the Syrians and Ephraim." But since the book gives +the sum and substance of Hosea's prophecies during a prolonged period, there must +necessarily occur in it references to events which already belonged to the past, +at the time when the prophet wrote. In chap. i. 4, even the overthrow of the house +of Jeroboam appears as being still future.</p> +<p class="normal">But even although we could not establish, from other sources, +the statement contained in the inscription, the inscription itself would nevertheless +be a guarantee for it; and the more so, because there are other analogies in favour +of so long a duration of the prophetic office, which was sometimes entered upon +even in early youth. The inscription has the same authority in its favour as every +other part of the book; and it is hardly possible to understand the levity with +which it has, in recent times, been pretty generally designated as spurious, or, +at least, suspicious. <span class="pagenum">[Pg 173]</span> It is altogether impossible +to sever it from the other parts of the book. There must certainly have been some +object in view when, in ver. 2, it is expressly remarked, that what follows took +place at the <i>beginning</i> of Hosea's ministry. But such an object it will be +possible to point out, only in the event of its being more accurately determined +at what time this beginning took place—viz., still under the reign of Jeroboam, +when the state of things as it appeared to the eye did not yet offer any occasion +for such views of the future as are opened up in the first three chapters. Ver. +1 cannot, therefore, be regarded as an addition subsequently made, unless the words +in ver. 2, from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תחלת</span> to +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בהושע</span> be so likewise. But these again are +most closely connected with what follows by the <i>Future</i> with <i>Vav convers.</i>, +which never can begin a narrative. There remains, therefore, only this alternative:—either +to regard the whole as having been written at a later period, or to claim for Hosea +the inscription also. We cannot agree with the view of <i>Simson</i>, that the remark +by which the beginning of the book is assigned to the beginning of the prophet's +ministry, originated from a chronological interest only; and we can the less do +so, because the prophet does not pay any attention to chronology in any other place, +but is anxious to give only the sum and substance of what he had prophesied during +a series of years. The only exception which he makes in this respect must have originated +from strong reasons; and such do not exist, if the inscription in ver. 1, or the +mention of the kings in it, be spurious. The mention of the beginning in ver. 2 +would, in that case, be so much the more groundless, as we could know nothing at +all regarding the length of his ministry.</p> +<p class="normal">Much more fruitful, certainly, than all such vain doubts, are +the reflections of Calvin on the long duration of the prophet's ministry: "How grievous +is it to us when God requires our services for twenty or thirty years; and, especially, +when we have to contend with ungodly people, who would not willingly take upon them +the yoke, yea, who even obstinately resist us! we then wish to be freed at once, +and to become pensioned soldiers. But, seeing this prophet's long protracted ministry, +let us take from it an example of patience, that we may not despair although the +Lord should not at once free us from our burden."</p> +<p class="normal">Many interpreters have zealously attempted to determine the +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 174]</span> particular portions of this lengthened period +to which the particular portions of this book belong. But such an undertaking is +wholly vain in the case before us, as well as in that of Micah, and most of the +minor prophets generally. The supposition upon which it rests is false—viz., that +the collection consists of a number of single, detached portions. We do not possess +the whole of Hosea's prophecies, but only the substance of their essential contents,—a +survey which he himself gave towards the end of his ministry. This appears (1) from +the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דבר יהוה</span> in the inscription. In itself, +this would not be a decisive argument, as the prophet might also have comprehended +in an <i>ideal</i> unity, discourses outwardly distinct; but, nevertheless, as long +as no reason appears for the contrary, it is more naturally referred to a continuous +discourse with an external unity also. (2.) It appears from the entire omission +of all chronological data. The only exception is in ver. 2; but this exception serves +only to strengthen the argument drawn from the omission everywhere else. (3.) It +is proved by the absence of all certain indications about the beginning and ending +of the particular portions. There occur, just as in the second part of Isaiah, new +starting points only; but, with these exceptions, the discourse always moves on +in the same manner. (4.) It is seen from the indefiniteness and generality of the +historical references, which must necessarily arise if the prophet referred, in +like manner, to the whole of this lengthened period. That the facts, upon which +the last two arguments rest, really exist, is made sufficiently apparent from the +immense diversity of opinions as to the number and extent of the particular portions, +and as to the time of their composition. There are not even two of the more important +interpreters who agree in the main points alone. Such a diversity does not exist +in reference to any of the prophetical books which actually consist of detached +prophecies. (5.) The style and language are too much the same throughout the whole, +to admit of the idea that any long period could have elapsed between the particular +prophecies. This, indeed, is only a subordinate argument; but it acquires its full +importance, when connected with the foundation of the third and fourth proofs.</p> +<p class="normal">It now only remains to give a survey of the historical circumstances +at the time of the prophet. This is the more necessary, as a knowledge of these +is required for the exposition of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 175]</span> the Messianic +prophecies, not only of Hosea, but also of Amos, his contemporary.</p> +<p class="normal">The kingdom of Israel carried within it, from its very commencement, +a twofold element of destruction—viz., the establishment of the worship of the calves, +and the rebellion against the dynasty of David. With regard to the former,—the consequence +of this apparently so much isolated transgression of a Mosaic ordinance extended +much further than would appear upon a superficial view. In this case also it was +seen that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Of far higher importance than +the low conceptions of God produced by this symbolical representation of Him, was +another aspect of the transaction. The prohibition of image-worship in the Pentateuch +was as distinct and clear as it was possible to make it. The kings of Israel were +far from rejecting it; but still, how difficult soever it may appear, they found +out an interpretation by which they evaded the application of it to their institution. +Such a course once entered upon, could only lead them further and further astray. +As, in so important a case, they had, in opposition to their own better convictions, +allowed themselves to pervert and explain away the law—asserting, probably, that +it was given only on account of the coarse sensuality of former generations—the +same was done in other things also, as often as it was called for by the disposition +of the corrupted heart. All unfaithfulness which is known to be so, and yet is cherished, +and excused to the conscience and before men, must draw after it entire ruin, in +a community, not less than in an individual. As a reason for this ruin, it is very +strikingly said in 2 Kings xvii. 9: "And they <i>covered</i> (this is the only ascertained +signification of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חפא</span>) words that were not +so, over the Lord their God;" <i>i.e.</i>, they ventured, by a number of perversions +and false interpretations of His word, to veil its true form. To this, the following +consideration must be added:—That first change of the religious institutions proceeded +from the political power which secured to itself, for the future, an absolute influence +upon the religious affairs, by subjecting to its control the ecclesiastical power, +which had hitherto been independent of it. Those Levites who, having no regard to +the miserable sophisms invented by the king as an excuse, declared against the worship +of calves, were expelled, and, in their stead, creatures of the king +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 176]</span> were made ministers of the sanctuary. This +became now the king's sanctuary (compare the remarkable passage, Amos vii. 13), +and all the ecclesiastical affairs were, in strict contradiction to the Mosaic law, +submitted to his arbitrary power. The consequences of this must necessarily have +been all the sadder, the worse the kings were; and they must inevitably have become +so, because of the bad foundation on which the royal power rested.</p> +<p class="normal">Image-worship was very speedily followed by idolatry,—which is, +however, in like manner, not to be looked upon in the light of an undisguised opposition +to the true God. Such an opposition took place during the reign of only one king—Ahab—under +whom the matter was carried to an extreme. Holy Scripture, however, with a total +disregard of the whole multitude of miserable excuses ordinarily made, designates +as <i>direct</i> apostasy from God, everything which was substantially such, although +it did not outwardly manifest itself as such. Externally, they remained faithful +to Jehovah; they celebrated His feasts,—they offered the sacrifices prescribed in +the Pentateuch,—they regulated, in general, all the religious institutions according +to the requirements there laid down, as may be proved from the Books of Kings, and, +still more plainly, from Amos and Hosea. But in all this they discovered a method +by which light and darkness, the worship of idols with that of the Lord, might be +combined. Nor was this discovery so very difficult, since their eye was not single. +They had before them the examples of heathen nations, who were quite prepared reciprocally +to acknowledge their deities, in all of whom they recognised only different forms +of manifestation of one and the same divine being; and they were quite willing to +extend this acknowledgment even to the God of Israel also, as long as they did not +meet with intolerance on the part of those who professed to worship Him, and were +therefore not roused to the practice of intolerance in return. This reciprocal recognition +of their deities by the nations in the midst of whom the Israelites lived, is sufficiently +evident from the circumstance, that they all called their highest deity by the same +name—Baal—and expressed, by some epithet, only the form of manifestation peculiar +to each. Now, the Israelites imagined that they might be able, at one and the same +time, to satisfy the demands of their God, and to propitiate +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 177]</span> the idols of the neighbouring mighty nations—especially +of the Phœnicians—if they removed the wall of separation betwixt the two. Jehovah +and Baal were, in their view, identical as to their essence. The former was that +mode of manifestation peculiar to them, and the main object of their worship according +to the method prescribed by Himself in His revelation. But the latter was not to +be neglected; inasmuch as they imagined that they might thereby become partakers +of the blessings which this form of manifestation of the deity was able to bestow. +And thus to Jehovah they gave the name of Baal also, Hos. ii. 18 (16); they celebrated +the days appointed by Jehovah, ver. 13 (11), but those also devoted to Baalim, ver. +15 (13). In this way we receive an explanation of the fact which, at first sight, +is so startling, viz., that according to Hosea and Amos, all is filled with the +service of Baal; while the Books of Kings would lead us to think that, with the +reign of Ahab, the dominion of this worship had ceased. But it was only its hostile +opposition to the worship of Jehovah that had disappeared, while a far more dangerous +religious compromise took its place. No doubt can be entertained as to the party +on whose side lay the advantage in this compromise. It was plainly on that side +on which it always lies, whensoever the heart is divided betwixt truth and falsehood. +Externally, the worship of Jehovah remained the prevailing one; but, inwardly, idolatry +obtained almost the sole dominion. If only the limits betwixt the two religions +were removed, that religion would of course come with the highest recommendation, +the spirit of which was most in accordance with the spirit of the people. But, owing +to the corrupt condition of human nature, this would not be the strict religion +of Jehovah, which, as coming from God, did not bring God down to the level of human +debasement, but demanded that man should be raised to His elevation,—which placed +the holiness of God in the centre, and founded upon it the requirement that its +possessors should be holy;—but it would be the soft, sensual, idolatrous doctrine +which flattered human corruption, because from that it had its origin. Thus the +Jehovah of the Israelites became in reality what they sometimes called Him by way +of alternation—a Baal. And the matter was now much more dangerous than if they had +deserted Him <span class="pagenum">[Pg 178]</span> externally also, inasmuch as +they now continued to trust in His covenant and promises, and to boast of their +external services,—thus strengthening themselves in their false security.</p> +<p class="normal">The <i>natural</i> consequence of this apostasy from the Lord +was a frightful corruption of manners. The next result of spiritual adultery was +the carnal one. Voluptuousness formed the fundamental characteristic of the Asiatic +religions in general, and, in particular, of those with which the Israelites came +in contact. But the pernicious influence extended still further over the whole moral +territory. Where there is no holy God, neither will there be any effort of man after +holiness. All divine and human laws will be trampled under foot. All the bonds of +love, law, and order, will be broken. And, as such, the condition of the country +in a moral point of view is described by its two prophets throughout. Compare, +<i>e.g.</i>, Hosea iv. 1, 2: "There is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God +in the land. Swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery—they +break through, and blood toucheth blood." There then followed, from the moral corruption, +the internal dissolution of the state, and its external weakness.</p> +<p class="normal">The <i>supernatural</i> consequences of the apostasy from the +Lord, were the severe punishments which He inflicted upon the people. With whomsoever +God has entered into a closer connection, whomsoever He thinks worthy of His grace, +in him the Lord will be glorified by the infliction of punishment upon him, if, +through his own guilt. He has not been glorified by sanctification in him. Just +because Israel formed part of the Covenant-people, they could not be allowed to +continue to retain the outward appearance of it, when, inwardly, they did not retain +a vestige.</p> +<p class="normal">As the second element of the ruin, we mentioned the rebellion +against the dynasty of David. Their dominion rested on divine right, while the new +Israelitish kingdom rested upon the sandy foundation of human caprice. The first +king had raised himself to the throne by his own power and prudence, and through +the favour of the people. Whosoever had the same means at his disposal, imagined +that these gave him the right to do likewise. And thus dynasty supplanted dynasty, +regicide followed regicide. In the bloody struggles thereby occasioned, the people +became more and more lawless. Sometimes interregna, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 179]</span> +and periods of total anarchy took place; and by these internal struggles the power +to resist external enemies was more and more broken. No king was able to stop this +source of mischief, for such an effort would have required him to lay aside his +position as a king. And as little was any one able to put a stop to that source +of evil formerly mentioned: for, if the religious wall of partition which was erected +between Israel and Judah were once removed, the civil one likewise threatened to +fall.</p> +<p class="normal">Such were, in general, the circumstances under which Hosea, like +the other prophets of the kingdom of Israel, appeared. There cannot be any doubt +that these were much more difficult than those of the kingdom of Judah. There, too, +the corruption was indeed very great; but it was not so firmly intertwined with +the foundation of the whole state. Thorough-going reforms, like those under Hezekiah +and Josiah, were possible. The interest of a whole tribe was closely bound up with +the preservation of true religion.</p> +<p class="normal">The reign of Jeroboam II., which was externally so prosperous, +and in which Hosea entered upon his prophetic ministry, had still more increased +the apostasy from the Lord, and the corruption of manners, and thus laid the foundation +for the series of disastrous events which began soon after his death, and which, +in quick succession, brought the people to total ruin. The prosperity only confirmed +them still more in their security. Instead of being led to repentance by the unmerited +mercy of God (compare 2 Kings xiv. 26, 27), they considered this prosperity as a +reward of their apostasy, as the seal by which Jehovah-Baal confirmed the rectitude +of their ways. The false prophets, too, did what was in their power to strengthen +them in their delusion, whilst the true prophets preached to deaf ears.</p> +<p class="normal">Immediately after the death of Jeroboam, it soon became apparent +on which side the truth lay. There followed an interregnum of from eleven to twelve +years.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_179a" href="#ftn_179a">[1]</a></sup> After +the termination <span class="pagenum">[Pg 180]</span> of it, Zachariah, the son +of Jeroboam, succeeded to the throne; but he was murdered by Shallum, after a short +reign of six months, 2 Kings xv. 10. Shallum, after he had reigned only one month, +was slain by Menahem, ver. 14. Menahem reigned ten years at Samaria. Under him, +the catastrophe was already preparing which brought the kingdom to utter destruction. +He became tributary to the Assyrian king Pul, vers. 19-21. He was succeeded by his +son Pekahiah, in the fiftieth year of Uzziah. After a reign of two months, he was +slain by Pekah, the son of Remaliah, who held the government for twenty years (ver. +27), and, by his alliance with the kings of Syria against his brethren the people +of Judah (comp. Is. vii.), hastened on the destruction of Israel. The Assyrians, +under Tiglathpileser, called to his assistance by Ahaz, even at that time carried +away into captivity part of its citizens,—the tribes who lived on the other side +of the Jordan. In the fourth year of Ahaz, Pekah was slain by Hoshea, who, after +an interregnum of eight years, began to reign in the twelfth year of Ahaz, xvii. +1. He became tributary to Shalmaneser; and the end of his government of nine years +was also the end of the kingdom of the ten tribes. His having sought for an alliance +with Egypt drew down, upon himself and his people, the vengeance of the king of +Assyria.</p> +<p class="normal">We have already proved that the historical references in the prophecies +of Hosea extend to the time when the last king of Israel attempted to secure himself +against Asshur, by the alliance with Egypt. It is very probable that the book was +written at <span class="pagenum">[Pg 181]</span> that time. At the time when the +sword of the Lord was just being raised to inflict upon Israel the death-blow, Hosea +wrote down the sum and substance of what he had prophesied during a long series +of years, beginning in the last times of Jeroboam, when, to a superficial view, +the people were in the enjoyment of the fullest prosperity. When at the threshold +of their final fulfilment, he condensed and wrote down his prophecies, just as, +in the <i>annus fatalis</i>, the fourth year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah, according to +chap. xxv., gave a survey of what he had prophesied over Judah during twenty-three +years.</p> +<p class="normal">In the prophecies of Hosea, as in those of Amos, the <i>threatening</i> +character prevails. The number of the elect in Israel was small, and the judgment +was at hand. In Jeremiah and Ezekiel, too, the prophecies, previous to the destruction, +are mainly minatory. It was only after the wrath of God had been manifested in deeds, +that the stream of promise brake forth without hindrance. Hosea, nevertheless, does +not belie his name, by which he had been dedicated to the helping and saving God, +and which he had received, <i>non sine numine</i>. (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הושע</span>, +properly the Inf. Abs. of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ישע</span>, is, in substance, +equivalent to Joshua, <i>i.e.</i>, the Lord is help.) Zeal for the Lord fills and +animates him, not only in the energy of his threatenings, but also in the intensity +and strength of his conviction of the pardoning mercy and healing love of the Lord, +which will, in the end, prevail. In this respect, Hosea is closely connected with +the Song of Solomon—that link in the chain of Holy Scripture into which he had, +in the first instance, to fit. There are in Hosea undeniable references to the Song +of Solomon. (Compare my Comment. on the Song of Solomon, on chap. i. 4, ii. 3.) +It is certainly not by accident that the brighter views appear with special clearness +at the beginning, in chap. i. 3 (compare ii. 1-3, 16-25 [i. 10, ii. 1, 14-23], iii. +5), and at the close, xiv. 2-10 (1-9), where the fundamental thought is expressed +in ver. 4 (3): "For in Thee the fatherless findeth mercy." But even in the darker +middle portions, they sometimes suddenly break through; compare v. 15, vi. 3, where +the subject is: "He teareth and He healeth us; He smiteth and He bindeth up;" vi. +11, where, after the threatening against Israel, we suddenly find the words: "Nevertheless, +O Judah! He grants thee a harvest, when I (<i>i.e.</i>, the Lord) return to the +prison of My people." (Judah is <span class="pagenum">[Pg 182]</span> here mentioned +as the main portion of the people, in whom mercy is bestowed upon the whole, and +in whose salvation the other tribes also share.) Compare also xi. 8-11, where we +have this thought: After wrath, mercy; the Covenant-people can never, like the world, +be altogether borne down by destructive judgments; xiii. 14, where the strong conviction +of the absolutely imperishable nature of the Congregation of the Lord finds utterance +in the words, "I will ransom them from the hand of hell; I will redeem them from +death: O death! where is thy plague? O hell! where is thy pestilence? repentance +is hid from Mine eyes." <i>Simson</i> is perplexed "by the sudden transition of +the discourse, in this passage, from threatening to promise,—and this without even +any particle to indicate the mutual relation of the sentences and thoughts." But +the same phenomenon occurs also in vi. 11 (compare Micah ii. 12, 13), where, likewise, +several expositors are perplexed by the suddenness and abruptness of the transition. +It is explained from the circumstance, that behind even the darkest clouds of wrath +which have gathered over the Congregation of the Lord, there is, nevertheless, concealed +the sun of mercy. In the prophets, it sometimes breaks through suddenly and abruptly; +but in this they are at one with history, in which the deepest darkness of the night +is oftentimes suddenly illuminated by the shining of the Lord: "And at midnight +there was a cry made: Behold, the bridegroom cometh."</p> +<p class="normal">The sum and substance of Hosea's prophetic announcement is the +following:—Israel falls, through Asshur: Judah, the main tribe, shall be preserved +from destruction in this catastrophe. (The prophet's tender care for Judah is strikingly +brought out in his exhortation to Israel, in iv. 15, that they should desist from +their compromises in religion, and that, if they chose to commit sin, they should +rather desert the Lord altogether, lest by their hypocrisy Judah also should be +seduced and infected.) But at a later period, Judah too is to fall under the divine +judgment (ii. 2 [i. 11], where it is supposed that Judah shall also be carried away +into captivity; v. 5: "Israel and Ephraim fall by their iniquity, Judah also falleth +with them;" v. 12: "I am unto Ephraim as a moth, and to the house of Judah as rottenness;" +compare also xii. 1, 3), although the immediate instruments of the judgment upon +Judah are not mentioned <span class="pagenum">[Pg 183]</span> by Hosea. But the +judgments which the two houses of Israel draw upon themselves by their works (ii. +2 [i. 11], iii. 5, indicate that even Judah will, at some future time, rebel against +the house of David) shall be followed by the deliverance to be accomplished by grace. +Judah and Israel shall, in the future, be again gathered together under one head, +ii. 2 (i. 11); a glorious king out of David's house not only restores what was lost, +but also raises the Congregation of the Lord to a decree of glory never before conceived +of, iii. 5: "Afterwards shall the children of Israel return and seek the Lord their +God, and David their King, and shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter +days."</p> +<p class="normal">The peculiarity of the Messianic prophecies of Hosea, as compared +with those of the time of David and Solomon, consists in the connection of the promise +with threatenings of judgments, and in the Messiah's appearing as the light of those +who walk in the deepest darkness of the divine judgments. It was necessary that +this progress should have been made in the Messianic announcements, before the breaking +in of the divine judgments; for, otherwise, the hope of the Messiah would have been +extinguished by them, because it was but too natural to consider the former as, +<i>in fact</i>, an annihilation of these dreamy hopes. But now there was offered +to the elect a staff on which they might support themselves, and walk with confidence +through the dark valley of the shadow of death.</p> +<p class="normal">The Book of Hosea may be divided into two parts, according to +the two principal periods of the prophet's ministry,—under Jeroboam, when the external +condition was as yet prosperous, and the bodily eye did not as yet perceive anything +of the storms of divine wrath which were gathering,—and under the following kings, +down to Hosea, when the punishment had already begun, and was hastening, by rapid +strides, towards its consummation.—Another difference, although a subordinate one, +is this:—that the first part, which comprehends the first three chapters, contains +prophecies connected with a symbol, while the second part contains direct prophecies +which have no such connection. A similar division occurs in Amos also,—with this +difference, that there, the symbolical prophecies form the conclusion. The first +part may be considered as a kind of outline, which all the subsequent prophecies +served to fill up; just <span class="pagenum">[Pg 184]</span> as may the 6th chapter +in Isaiah, and the first and second in Ezekiel. We shall give a complete exposition +of this section, as it will afford us a vivid view of the whole position of Hosea, +and as it is just there that the Messianic announcement meets us in its most developed +form.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_179a" href="#ftnRef_179a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> <i>Ewald</i>, <i>Thenius</i>, and others, + will not grant that such an interregnum took place. As numbers were originally + expressed by letters, in which an interchange might easily happen, we cannot + deny the possibility of such an error having occurred in 2 Kings xiv. 23. It + is quite possible that the duration of Jeroboam's reign was there originally + stated at fifty-two or fifty-three, instead of forty-one years. But strong reasons + would be required for rendering such a supposition admissible,—the more so, + as the interchange would not have been limited to one letter, as <i>Thenius</i> + supposes, but must have extended to both. But no such reasons exist. The silence + of the Books of Kings upon the subject of this interregnum cannot be urged as + a reason, since these books are so exceedingly short as regards the history + of the last times of the kingdom of Israel. Sacred historiography has no interest + in the details of this process of decay, which began with the death of Jeroboam,—which + also is represented by Amos as if it were the day of Israel's death (Amos vii. + 11: "Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall be led away captive out + of their own land"), although bare existence is still, for some time, spared. + By the rejection of this interregnum, Hosea's ministry would be shortened by + twelve years; but this gain—if such it be—can be purchased only at the expense + of a most improbable extension of the duration of Jeroboam's reign. <i>Simson</i>, + S. 201, has defended the interregnum.</p> +</div> +<hr class="W20"> +<h3><a name="div3_184" href="#div3Ref_184">THE SECTION CHAP. I.-III.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">The question which here above all engages our attention, and requires +to be answered, is this: Whether that which is reported in these chapters did, or +did not, actually and outwardly take place. The history of the inquiries connected +with this question is found most fully in <i>Marckius's</i> "<i>Diatribe de uxore +fornicationum</i>," Leyden, 1696, reprinted in the Commentary on the Minor Prophets +by the same author. The various views may be divided into three classes.</p> +<p class="normal">1. It is maintained by very many interpreters, that all the events +here narrated took place actually and outwardly. This opinion was advanced with +the greatest confidence by <i>Theodoret</i>, <i>Cyril</i> of Alexandria, and <i> +Augustine</i> from among the Fathers of the Church; by most interpreters belonging +to the Lutheran and Reformed Churches (<i>e.g. Manger</i>); most recently, by <i> +Stuck</i>, <i>Hofmann</i> (<i>Weissag u. Erf.</i> S. 206), and, to a certain extent, +by <i>Ewald</i> also, who supposes "a free representation of an event actually experienced +by the prophet."</p> +<p class="normal">2. Others consider it as a parabolical representation. Thus does +Calvin, who expressly opposes the supposition not only of an external, but also +of an internal event. He explains it thus: "When the prophet began to teach, he +commenced thus: The Lord has placed me here as on a stage, that I might tell you, +I have taken a wife," etc. Entirely similar was the opinion of the Chaldee Paraphrast, +by whom the words, "Go," etc., are thus paraphrased: "Go and prophesy against the +inhabitants of the adulterous city." Of a like purport is the view held, from among +recent interpreters, by <i>Rosenmüller</i>, <i>Hitzig</i> ("that which the prophet +describes as actual, is only a fiction"), <i>Simson</i> and others. The strange +opinion of Luther, which, out of too great respect, was adopted by a few later theologians +(<i>Osiander</i>, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 185]</span> <i>Gerhard</i>, <i>Tarnovius</i>), +is only a modification of this. It is to the effect, that the prophet had only ascribed +to his own chaste wife the name and works of an adulteress, and, hence, had performed +with her, before the people, a kind of play. (Compare, against this view, <i>Buddeus</i>, +<i>de peccatis typicis</i> in the <i>Misc. s. t.</i> i. p. 262.) The same opinion +is expressed by <i>Umbreit</i>: "His own wife is implicated in the general guilt, +and hence she is a representative of the whole people." In opposition to this view, +compare <i>Simson's</i> Commentary.</p> +<p class="normal">3. Others suppose that the prophet narrates events which took +place <i>actually</i>, indeed, but <i>not outwardly</i>. This opinion was, considering +the time at which it was advanced, very ably defended by <i>Jerome</i> in <i>Epist. +ad Pammachium</i>, and in his commentary on chap. i. 8. According to <i>Rufinus</i>, +all those in Palestine and Egypt who respected the authority of <i>Origen</i>, asserted +that the marriage took place only in spirit. The difficulties attaching to the first +view were made especially obvious by the ridicule of the Manicheans (<i>Faustus</i> +and <i>Secundinus</i> in <i>Augustine</i>, t. vi. p. 575) on this narrative. The +most accomplished Jewish scholars (<i>Maimonides</i> in the <i>More Nebuch.</i> +p. ii. c. 46, <i>Abenezra</i>, <i>Kimchi</i>) support this opinion. Some new arguments +in defence of it have been adduced by <i>Marckius</i>.</p> +<p class="normal">Of these three views:—actually and outwardly; neither outwardly +nor actually; actually, but not outwardly,—the second must be at once rejected. +Those who hold it supply, "God has commanded me to tell you." But there is not the +slightest intimation of such an ellipsis; and those interpreters have no better +right to supply it in this, than in any other narrative. There is before us action, +and nothing but action, without any intimation whatsoever that it is merely an invention.</p> +<p class="normal">But the following arguments are decisive in favour of the third, +and against the first view.</p> +<p class="normal">1. The defenders of an outward transaction rely, in support of +their view, upon the supposition, that their interpretation is most obvious and +natural;—that they are thus, as it were, in the <i>possession</i> of the ground, +and in a position from which they can be driven only by the most cogent reasons;—that +if the transaction had been internal, it would have been necessary for the prophet +to have expressly marked it as such. But precisely the reverse of all this is the +case. The most obvious supposition <span class="pagenum">[Pg 186]</span> is, that +the symbolical action took place in vision. If <i>certain</i> actions of the prophets, +especially seeing, hearing, and their speaking to the Lord, etc., must be conceived +of as having taken place inwardly, unless there be distinct indications of the opposite, +why not the remainder also? For the former presupposes that the world in which the +prophets move, is altogether different from the ordinary one; that it is not the +outward, but the spiritual world. It is certainly not a matter of chance, that the +<i>seeing</i> in the case of the prophets must be understood spiritually; and if +there be a reason for this, the same reason entitles us to assert that the walking, +etc., also took place inwardly only. By what right could we make any difference +between the actions of others, described by the prophet, and his own? Vision and +symbolical action are not opposed to each other; the former is only the <i>genus</i> +comprehending the latter as a <i>species</i>. By this we do not at all mean to assert, +that <i>all</i> the symbolical actions of the prophets took place in inward vision +only. An inward transaction always lay at the foundation; but sometimes, and when +it was appropriate, they embodied it in an outward representation also (1 Kings +xx. 35 seq., xxii. 11; Jer. xix. xxviii.; and a similar remarkable instance from +modern times, in <i>Croesi Hist. Quakeriana</i>, p. 13). For this very reason, however, +this argument cannot be altogether decisive by itself; but it furnishes, at least, +a presumptive proof, and that by no means unimportant. If regularly and naturally +the transaction be internal only, then the opposite requires to be proved in this +case. If this had been admitted, no attempt would have been made elsewhere also, +<i>e.g.</i>, Is. xx., by false and forced interpretations to explain away the supposition +of a merely internal transaction.</p> +<p class="normal">2. No one will certainly venture to assert that a merely internal +transaction would have missed its aim, since there exists a multitude of symbolical +actions, in regard to which it is undeniable, and universally admitted, that they +took place internally only. For the inward action, being narrated and committed +to writing, retained the advantage of vividness and impressiveness over the naked +representation of the same truth. Sometimes, in the case of actions concentrated +into a single moment, this advantage may be still further increased by the inward +transaction being represented outwardly also. But, here, just the +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 187]</span> opposite would take place. We have here before +us a symbolical transaction which, if it had been performed outwardly, would have +continued for several years. The separation of the single events would have prevented +its being taken in at a single view, and have thus deprived it of its impressiveness. +But, what is still more important, the natural <i>substratum</i> would have occupied +the attention so much more than the <i>idea</i>, that the latter would have been +thereby altogether overlooked. The domestic affairs of the prophet would have become +the subject of a large amount of <i>tittle-tattle</i>, and the idea would have been +remembered only to give greater point to the ridicule.</p> +<p class="normal">3. The command of God, when considered as referring to an outward +transaction, cannot be, by any means, justified. This is most glaringly obvious, +if we understand this command, as several do, to mean that the prophet should beget +children with an unchaste woman, and without legitimate marriage. Every one will +sympathize with the indignation expressed by <i>Buddeus</i> (l. c. p. 206) against +<i>Thomas Aquinas</i>, who, following this view, maintains that the law of God had +been, in this special case, repealed by His command. God Himself cannot set us free +from His commands; they are an expression of His nature, an image of His holiness. +To ascribe arbitrariness to God in this respect, would be to annihilate the idea +of God, and the idea of the Law at the same time. This view, it is true, is so decidedly +erroneous as to require no further refutation; but even the opinion of <i>Buddeus</i> +and others presents insurmountable difficulties. They suppose that the prophet had +married a woman who was formerly unchaste. In opposition to this, Calvin very strikingly +remarks: "It seems not to be consistent with reason, that God should spontaneously +have rendered His prophet contemptible; for how could he ever have appeared in public +after such ignominy had been inflicted upon him? If he had married such a wife, +as here described, he ought rather to have hidden himself all his lifetime than +have assumed the prophetic office." In Lev. xxi. 7 the law forbids the priests to +take a wife that is a whore, or profane. That which, according to the letter, referred +to the priests only, is applicable, in its spirit, to the prophets also,—yea, to +them in a higher degree, as will be seen immediately, when the ordinance is reduced +to its <i>idea</i>. The latter is easily inferred from the reason stated, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 188]</span> viz., that the priests should be holy to their +God. The servants of God must represent His holiness; they are, therefore, not allowed, +by so close a contact with sin, to defile or desecrate themselves either inwardly +or outwardly. Although the inward pollution may be prevented in individual cases +by a specially effective assistance of divine grace, yet there always remains the +outward pollution.</p> +<p class="normal">It is inconceivable that, at the very commencement of his ministry, +God should have commanded to the prophet anything, the inevitable effect of which +was to mar its successful execution. Several—and especially <i>Manger</i>—who felt +the difficulties of this interpretation, substituted for it another, by which, as +they imagined, all objections were removed. The prophet, they say, married a person +who had formerly been chaste, and fell only after her marriage. This view is no +doubt the correct one, as is obvious from the relation of the figure to the reality. +According to ver. 2, it is to be expressed figuratively that the people went a-whoring +from Jehovah. The spiritual adultery presupposes that the spiritual marriage had +already been concluded. Hence, the wife can be called a whoring wife, only on account +of the whoredom which she practised after her marriage. This is confirmed by chap. +iii. 1, where the more limited expression "to commit adultery" is substituted for +"to whore," which has a wider sense, and comprehends adultery also. The former unchastity +of the wife would be without any meaning, yea, would be in direct contradiction +to the real state of the case. For before the marriage concluded at Sinai, Israel +was devoted to the Lord in faithful love; comp. Jer. ii. 2: "I remember thee, the +kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, thy walking after Me in the +wilderness, in a land not sown." Compare also Ezek. xvi., where Israel, before her +marriage, appears as a <i>virgo intacta</i>. But how correct soever this view may +be—and every other view perverts the whole position—it is, nevertheless, erroneous +to suppose that thereby all difficulties are removed. All which has been urged against +the former view, may be urged here also. It might have been better for the prophet +to have married one who was previously unchaste, in the hope that her subsequent +better life might wipe out her former shame, than one previously chaste, who <i> +was required</i> to become unchaste, and to remain so for a long time, because, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 189]</span> otherwise, the symbolical action would have +lost all its significance. The objection brought forward, that whatever is unbecoming +as an outward action, is so likewise though it were only an internal action, can +scarcely be meant to be in earnest. For, in this case, every one knew that the prophet +was a mere type; and, with regard to his wife, this circumstance was so obvious, +that mockery certainly gave way to shame and confusion. But a marriage outwardly +entered into is never purely typical. It has always its significance apart from +the typical import, and must be justifiable, independently of its typical character. +Ridicule would, in this case, have been not only too obvious, but to a certain extent +also well founded. </p> +<p class="normal">4. If the action had taken place only outwardly, it would have +been impossible to explain the abrupt transition from the symbolical action to the +mere figure, and again to the entirely naked representation as we find it here, +and <i>vice versa</i>. In the first chapter, the symbolical action is pretty well +maintained; but in the prophecy ii. 1-3 (i. 10-ii. 1), which belongs to the same +section, it is almost entirely lost sight of. As the corporeal adultery, and rejection +in consequence of it, were to be the type of the spiritual adultery and rejection, +so the receiving again of the wife, rejected on account of her faithlessness, but +now reformed, was to typify the Lord's granting mercy to the people. But of this, +not a trace is found. And yet, we are not at liberty to say that the ground of it +lies in a difference betwixt the type and the thing typified,—in the circumstance +that the wife of the prophet did not reform. If there existed such a difference, +the type could not have been chosen at all. The contrary appears also from ii. 9 +(7).—In the whole second section, ii. 4-25 (ii. 2-23), regard is indeed had to the +symbolical action; but in a manner so free, that it dwindles away to a mere figure, +from behind which the thing itself is continually coming into view. In chap. iii. +the symbolical action again acquires greater prominence. These phenomena can be +accounted for, only if the transaction be viewed as an inward one. In the case of +an outward transaction, the transition from the symbolical action to the figure, +and from the figure to the thing itself, would not have been so easy. The substratum +of the idea is, in that case, far more material, and the idea itself too closely +bound to it.</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 190]</span></p> +<p class="normal">5. When the transaction is viewed as an outward one, insurmountable +difficulties are presented by the third chapter; and the argument drawn from this +would, in itself, be quite sufficient to settle the question: "Then the Lord said +unto me. Go again, love a woman beloved of her friend and an adulteress." Interpreters +who have adopted that view, find themselves here in no little embarrassment. Several +suppose that the woman, whom the prophet is here commanded to love, is his former +wife, Gomer,—with her he should get reconciled. But this is quite out of the question. +In opposition to it, there is, <i>first</i>, the indefinite signification by +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשה</span>; <i>then</i>, in ver. 2, there is the +purchase of the woman,—which supposes that she had not yet been in the possession +of the husband; and, <i>further</i>, the words, "beloved of her friend, and an adulteress," +can, according to a sound interpretation, mean only, "who, although she is beloved +by her faithful husband, will yet commit adultery;" so that, if it be referred to +the reunion with Gomer, we should be compelled to suppose that, after being received +again, she again became unfaithful,—and in favour of this opinion, no corresponding +feature can be pointed out in the thing typified. <i>Lastly</i>,—The word "love" +cannot mean "love again," "<i>restitue amoris signa</i>." For the love of the prophet +to his wife must correspond with the love of God to the people of Israel. That this +love, however, cannot be limited to the love which God will show to the Congregation +<i>after</i> her conversion, is seen from the additional clause, "And they turn +themselves to other gods, and love grape-cakes." Hence it appears that the love +of God continues even during the unfaithfulness, and consequently, also, the love +of the prophet, by which it is typified.—Equally untenable is the other opinion, +that the prophet is here called upon, by his entering into a new marriage, to prefigure +the relation of God to the Covenant-people a second time. In that case, it is supposed +either that Gomer had been rejected, because she would not return, or that she had +died. In either case, however, she would not have been chosen by God to be a type +of the people of Israel. The ground of this choice can be no other than the correspondence +with the antitype. But this would be wanting just in the most important point. If +the ungodly part of the nation were not to be deprived of all hope, nor the pious +of all consolation, it was of special importance to <span class="pagenum">[Pg 191]</span> +point out that even the rejected congregation would receive mercy; that the Lo-Ruhamah +should be the Ruhamah. Just the reverse of all this, however, would, according to +this view, have been typified. Two different women would, quite naturally, suggest +the thought of two different nations. Moreover, the non-conversion of Gomer would +be in direct opposition to the prophet's own expressions. There cannot be any doubt, +that her relation to the prophet still lies at the foundation of the description +in ii. 4 seqq. For they are her three children whose former names, announcing disaster, +are changed, in ver. 25 (23), into such as are significant of salvation. In vers. +4-6 (2-4) the whole relation, as previously described, is presupposed. But now, +she who, in ver. 9 (7), says, "I will go and return to my first husband, for then +was it better with me than now," is the same who said in ver. 7 (5), "I will go +after my lovers that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax." To the +same result we are also led by the showing of mercy to her children, announced in +the first section, ii. 1-3 (i. 10-ii. 1), where the prophet alludes to their names; +and still more distinctly in the second section; compare ver. 25 (23). But now, +the showing of mercy to the children cannot be conceived of without the conversion +of the mother, and mercy being subsequently shown to her also. As they are to be +rejected on account of the unfaithfulness of the mother (compare ii. 6 [4], and, +specially, the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span> at the commencement of ver. +7), so the ground of their being received into favour can only be the faithfulness +of the mother. Being begotten in adultery, they stand in connection with the prophet +only through the mother; as soon as he has rejected the mother, he has nothing further +to do with them.—The supposition that Gomer had died, is evidently the result of +an embarrassment which finds itself compelled to invent such fictions.—<i>Finally</i>,—Several +interpreters, after the example of <i>Augustine</i>, suppose that no marriage at +all is here spoken of, but only a certain kindness which the prophet should manifest +to some woman, in order to encourage her conversion. But this opinion is contradicted +by these circumstances:—that the prophet's love towards the woman must necessarily +be of the same extent, and of the same nature, as the love of God towards the people +of Israel, since the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אהב</span> and the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כאהבת</span> exactly correspond with each other; +that only conjugal love is suitable to <span class="pagenum">[Pg 192]</span> the +image; that this view falls, of itself, to the ground when +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">רֵעַ</span> is referred to the prophet, as it must +be; that, in such circumstances, no satisfactory account can be given of the purchase +of the woman, etc. To all these suppositions there is, moreover, the common objection +that, according to them, no account can be given of the omission of very important +circumstances which the prophet leaves to his hearers and readers to supply from +the preceding symbolical action. Two things only are pointed out, viz., the appropriation +of the woman by the prophet, ver. 2, and the course which he pursues for her reformation, +ver. 3. Every intervening circumstance—the criminal, long-continued unfaithfulness +of the wife—is passed over in silence. If we suppose an outward action, this circumstance +cannot be accounted for. For we are not at liberty to draw, from the first case, +any inference bearing upon the second. The latter would again have required a complete +account. But if we suppose an inward transaction, everything is easily explained. +The question as to whether it was Gomer, or some other person, does not come up +at all. If Gomer was only an <i>ideal</i> person, that which applied to her was +equally applicable to the second <i>ideal</i> wife of the prophet; since both typified +the same thing, and without having an independent existence of their own, came into +consideration as types only. Thus, very naturally, the second description was supplemented +from the first, and the prophet was allowed abruptly to point out those circumstances +only which were of special importance in the case before him.</p> +<p class="normal">6. If the whole be viewed as an outward transaction, there arises +a difficulty, by no means inconsiderable, as regards the children mentioned in chap. +i. These had been begotten in adultery. Even although the mother did reform, they +could yet never be considered by the prophet as, in the full sense, his own. There +would then arise a great difference between the type and the thing typified. But +if we suppose a transaction merely inward, this difficulty vanishes. The physical +impossibility then no longer comes into consideration. That which is possible in +the thing typified, viz., that those who formerly were not children of God, become +children of God, is transferred to the type. In point of fact, the mother does not +exist beside, and apart from, the children; she stands related to them as the whole +to the parts; and hence it is, that in ii. 25 (23), the <span class="pagenum">[Pg +193]</span> mother and children are imperceptibly blended in the prophet's description.</p> +<p class="normal">7. We are led to the idea of a mere inward transaction by the +symbolical names of the first wife, and of her father. On the other hand, if such +a symbolical signification could not be proved, this might be used as an argument +for the literal interpretation,—although, indeed, it would be only a single argument +which would be obliged to yield to other counter-arguments. For it may well be conceived +that the prophet, in order to give to the inward transaction more of the appearance +of an outward one, should have chosen names usual at that time; just as, in a similar +manner, poetry would not be satisfied with invented names used only in certain formulas +and proverbs, but makes use of names which would not, at once, be recognised by +every one as mere fictions.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גֹּמֶר</span> can only +mean "completion" in the passive sense. For <i>Segolate-forms</i> in <i>o</i> are +only used to express passive and intransitive notions, and the verb +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גמר</span> is found in the signification "to be completed," +in Ps. vii. 10, xii. 2. The sense in which the woman, the type of the Israelitish +people, is called <i>completion</i>,—<i>i.e.</i>, one who, in her whoredom, had +proceeded to the highest pitch,—is so obvious from the context, as to render nugatory +the argument which <i>Maurer</i> (p. 360) has drawn from the omission of express +statements on this point, in order thereby to recommend his own interpretation, +which is altogether opposed to the laws of the language. A significant proper name +can, in any case, convey only an allusion; but such an allusion was here quite sufficient, +inasmuch as the mention of the wife's whoredom had preceded. Compare, moreover, +Zech. v. 5-11, where the thought, that Israel had filled up the measure of their +sins, is represented by a woman sitting in an Ephah. <i>Hofmann</i> explains the +name Gomer by "end," "utmost ruin:" "By luxury, Israel has become wanton, and hence +it must come to an end, to utter ruin." But this interpretation is at variance with +the context, from which it must necessarily be derived; for it is not the <i>punishment</i>, +but the <i>guilt</i> which is spoken of in the context. +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גמר</span>, "Completion" (compare the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גמיר</span>, "<i>perfectus</i>," "<i>absolutus</i>," +in Ezra vii. 12), is equivalent to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשת זנונים</span>, +"a wife of whoredom." The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בת דבלים</span> can only +mean, "daughter of the two fig-cakes," = <i>filia deliciarum</i> = <i>deliciis</i> +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 194]</span> <i>dedita</i>. The word "daughter" serves +to indicate every relation of dependence and submission: <i>Gesenius</i>, <i>Thesaurus</i>, +p. 220. Fig-cakes were considered as one of the greatest dainties; compare <i>Faber</i> +on <i>Harmar</i>. i. p. 320 ff. Sensuality was the ground of the Israelites' apostasy +from the severe and strict religion of Jehovah to the idolatry of their neighbours, +which was soft, sensual, and licentious. The occasion which had called it forth +with their neighbours was one which rendered them favourably disposed towards it. +The masculine form can offer no difficulty as to the derivation from +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דבלה</span>, "fig-cake;" for the masculine form of +the plural occurs also in 1 Sam. xxv. 18; 1 Chron. xii. 40. As little difficulty +can arise from the Dual form, which may be explained from the circumstance that +fig-cakes commonly consisted of a double layer of figs, or of double cakes (<i>Hesych.</i> +<span lang="el" class="Greek">παλάθη</span>—which Greek word is a corruption of +the Hebrew <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דבלה</span>—<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἡ +τῶν σύκων ἐπάλληλος θέσις</span>), and the Dual is used in reference to objects +which are commonly conceived of as a whole, consisting of two parts, even when several +of them are spoken of. That this explanation of the Dual is correct, is proved from +the circumstance, that it occurs also as the name of a Moabitish town, <i>Beth-Dibhlathaim</i>, +Jer. xlviii. 22, and <i>Dibhlathaim</i>, Num. xxxiii. 46, which, probably, was famous +for its fig-cakes.—There existed another special reason for the prophet's choosing +the Dual in the masculine form, viz., that there was the analogy of other proper +names of men—as Ephraim, etc.—in its favour; and such an analogy was required,—for, +otherwise, the name would not have been, as it was intended to be, a riddle. Our +whole exposition, however, which was already in substance, although without proper +foundation and justification, advanced by <i>Jerome</i>, is raised above the condition +of a mere hypothesis, by its being compared with chap. iii. There, the words, "They +turn themselves to other gods, and love grape-cakes," are a mere paraphrasis of +"<i>Gomer Bath Dibhlaim</i>." It scarcely needs to be remarked, that the difference +betwixt grape-cakes and fig-cakes does not here come into consideration at all, +inasmuch as both belonged to the choicest dainties; and it is as evident, that "to +love," and "to be the daughter of," express the same idea. But if thus the symbolical +signification of the name be established, the correctness of the supposition of +a merely internal transaction is established <span class="pagenum">[Pg 195]</span> +at the same time. The symbolical names of the children alone could not have furnished +a sufficient foundation for this supposition. Against this an appeal might, with +the most perfect propriety, have been made to <i>Shear-Jashub</i>, and <i>Maher-shalal-hash-baz</i>, +neither of whom can, by any means, have been an ideal person. The prophet gave them +these names; but the matter is quite different in the case of the wife, who already +had her name when the prophet took her. All that we can grant to <i>Hofmann</i> +is, that such a providential coincidence was <i>possible</i>; but <i>probable</i> +it could be, only if other decisive arguments favoured the view of the transaction +having been an outward one. If the name were not symbolical—if it belonged to the +real wife of the prophet, it cannot be easily explained, why he did not afterwards +mention the name of his second wife also, but content himself with the general term, +"a wife."</p> +<p class="normal">8. A main argument against the literal interpretation is further +furnished by iii. 2. The verse is commonly translated: "And then I bought her to +me for fifteen pieces of silver, and an homer of barley, and a lethech of barley;" +and is explained from the custom prevalent in the East of purchasing wives from +their parents. But it is very doubtful whether the verb +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כרה</span> has the signification "to purchase." There +is no necessity for deviating from the common signification "to dig," in Deut. ii. +6: "And water also ye shall dig from them for money, and drink" (compare Exod. xxi. +33); the existing wells were not sufficient for so great a multitude, compare Gen. +xxvi. 19, 21, 22. To this philological reason, we must <i>further</i> add, that +the circumstance would be here altogether destitute of significance, while every +other feature in the description is full of meaning. We base our interpretation +upon the supposition, already sufficiently established by <i>J. D. Michaelis</i>, +that the whole purchase-money amounted to thirty shekels, of which the prophet paid +one-half in money, and the other half in the value of money. According to Ezek. +xlv. 11, the homer contained ten ephahs, and a lethech was the half of an homer. +We have thus fifteen pieces of silver, and also fifteen ephahs; and the supposition +is very probable that, at that time, an ephah of barley cost a shekel,—the more +so, as according to 2 Kings vii. 1, 16, 18, in the time of a declining famine, and +only relative cheapness, two-thirds of an ephah of barley cost a shekel. We are +unable <span class="pagenum">[Pg 196]</span> to say with certainty, why one-half +was paid in money, and the other half in natural productions; but a reason certainly +exists, as no other feature is without significance. Perhaps it was determined by +custom, that the sum by which servants were purchased was paid after this manner. +The lowness of their condition was thereby indicated; for barley, <i>vile hordeum</i>, +was, in all antiquity, very little esteemed. Upon this estimate of it was based +its use at the jealousy offering (Num. v. 11 seqq.; compare <i>Bähr's Symb.</i> +ii. S. 445), and the symbolical use of the barley-bread in Judg. vii. 13. The statement +of the sum leads us, involuntarily, to think of slaves or servants. It is the same +sum which was commonly given for a man-servant, or a maid-servant, as is expressly +mentioned in Exod. xxi. 32; compare the remarks on Zech. xi. 12. And this opinion +is confirmed by the use of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ואכרה</span>. The ears +of a servant who was bound to his master to <i>perpetual</i> obedience, were bored; +compare Exod. xxxi. 5, 6; Deut. xv. 17, where it is added: "And also unto thy maid-servant +thou shalt do likewise." In conformity with the custom of omitting the special members +of the body, in expressions frequently occurring, it is said simply "to bore." The +meaning then is: I made her my slave. It was not a free woman, then, whom the prophet +desired in marriage, but a servant, whom he was obliged, previous to marriage, to +redeem from servitude; who was therefore under a double obligation to him, and over +whom he had a double claim. The reference to the thing to be typified is quite apparent. +It was not a free, independent people whom the Lord chose, but a people whom He +was obliged first to redeem from vile servitude, before He entered into a nearer +relation to them. This redemption appears, throughout, as a ransoming from the house +of bondage,—and the wonderful dealings of the Lord, as the price which He paid. +Compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Deut. vii. 8: "But because the Lord loved you, and because +He kept His oath which He had sworn to your fathers, He has brought you out with +a mighty hand, and redeemed thee (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ויפדך</span>) from +the house of bondmen (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מבית עבדים</span>), from the +hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt." See also Deut. ix. 26. It is upon this redemption +that the exhortation to the people is founded—that, as the Lord's servants, they +should serve Him alone; comp., <i>e.g.</i>, the introduction to the Decalogue. Thus, +we have here also a feature so evidently typical, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 197]</span> +so plainly transferred from the thing typified to the type, that we cannot any longer +think of an outward transaction. This argument, however, is, in the main point, +quite independent of the philological interpretation of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כרה</span>. Even if it be translated "I bought her +to me," the circumstance, notwithstanding, always remains, that the wife was redeemed +from slavery, unless there be a denial of the connection of the sum mentioned with +Exod. xxi. 32, and Zech. xi. 12, where the thirty pieces of silver likewise appear +as the estimate of a servant's value; and this circumstance evidently suggests the +inward character of the transaction.</p> +<p class="normal">The first germs of the representation of God's relation to Israel +under the figure of marriage, are found so early as in the Pentateuch, Exod. xxxiv. +15, 16; Lev. xx. 5, 6, xvii. 7; Num. xiv. 33—where idolatry, and apostasy from the +Lord in general, are represented as whoredom—Deut. xxxii. 16, 21; compare the author's +<i>Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pent.</i> vol. i. p. 107 ff.; and commentary +on the Song of Solomon, S. 261. But it was only through the Song of Solomon that +it became quite a common thing to represent the higher love under the figure of +the lower. It is not through accident that this representation appears so prominent +just in Hosea, where it not only pervades the first three chapters, but returns +continually in the second part also. Hosea, being one of the oldest prophets, was +specially called to fit, as a new link, into the Song of Solomon, which was the +last link in the chain of Sacred Literature. There are, moreover, in the details, +other undeniable references to the Song of Solomon, which coincide with this connection +with it, as regards the fundamental idea. The basis, however, for this whole figurative +representation is Gen. ii. 24, where marriage appears as the most intimate of all +earthly relations of love, and must, for this very reason, have a character of absolute +exclusiveness.</p> +<hr class="W20"> +<h3><a name="div3_197" href="#div3Ref_197">CHAP. I.-II. 3 (II. 1).</a></h3> +<p class="normal">The section chap. i.-iii. is distinguished from the other prophecies +by this,—that, in it, the relation of the Lord to the <span class="pagenum">[Pg +198]</span> people of Israel Is represented, <i>throughout</i>, under the figure +and symbol of marriage, whilst this same mode of representation is soon relinquished +wherever else it occurs in the book. By this closer limitation, the objections of +<i>Böckel</i> and <i>Stuck</i> to the common division of the collection into two +parts, are set aside. This first portion may be divided into three parts, which +are, in one respect, closely connected, as is shown by the <i>Fut.</i> with the +<i>Vav Conv.</i> in iii. 1, and likewise by the fact that this chapter requires +to be supplemented from the two preceding ones, while, in another respect, they +may be considered as wholes, complete in themselves. They do not, by any means, +so distribute the contents among themselves, as that the first describes the apostasy; +the second, the punishment; and the third, the return and restoration; but each +of them contains all these three features, and yet in such a manner, that here the +one feature, and there the other, is more fully expanded; so that the whole description +is complete, only when all the three parts are taken together. In the portion now +before us, the covenant relation into which the Lord entered with Israel is typified +by a marriage which the prophet contracted at the command of the Lord; the apostasy +of the people, and especially of the ten tribes, to whom the prophet was sent in +the first instance, is typified by the adultery of the wife, by the divine punishment, +and the unpropitious names which he gives to the children born by the adulterous +wife. In chap. ii. 1-3, there follows the announcement of salvation more directly, +and only with a simple allusion to the symbol.</p> +<hr class="W10"> +<p class="normal">Ver. 1. "<i>The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son +of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in +the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel.</i> Ver. 2. <i>At the beginning +when the Lord spake to Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea: Go take unto thee a wife of +whoredoms, and children of whoredoms; for the land is whoring away from the Lord.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr"><span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דִּבֶּר</span> is never +a noun—not even in Jer. v. 13—but always the 3d pers. <i>Pret. Piel</i>. The <i> +status constr.</i> <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תחלת</span> is explained by the +fact, that the whole of the following sentence is treated as one substantive idea: +the beginning "of the Lord hath spoken," <span class="pagenum">[Pg 199]</span> etc., +for "the beginning of speaking." <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יום דבר יהוה</span>, +<i>the day of</i> "<i>the Lord spoke</i>," instead of, "the day on which the Lord +spoke." Similar constructions occur also in Is. xxix. 1, and Jer. xlviii. 6.—The +<i>Fut.</i> with <i>Vav Conv.</i>, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ויאמר</span>, +"and then He spoke," carries forward the discourse, as if there had preceded: the +Lord began to speak to Hosea. There is here a <i>constructio ad sensum</i>. It is +intentionally, and in order the more distinctly to point out the idea of the beginning, +that the prophet has made use of the noun <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תחלת</span>, +not of the verb. The construction of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דבר</span> with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span>, with the signification "to speak to some +one," may be explained thus:—that the words are, as it were, put into the mind of +the hearer in order that they may remain there. Several interpreters erroneously +translate, "spoke through:" others, following <i>Jerome</i> (the last is <i>Simson</i>), +"spoke in;" as if thereby the act of speaking were to be designated as an inward +one. The difference between outward and inward speaking disappears in the vision; +and, for this reason, we cannot imagine that there is any intention of here noticing +it particularly. Everything which takes place in the vision is substantially, indeed, +internal, but in point of form it is external. Moreover, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דבר</span> with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span> +several times occurs in other passages also, where the signification, "to speak +to some one," is alone admissible. Thus 1 Sam. xxv. 39, where <i>Simson's</i> explanation, +"David sent and <i>ordered</i> to speak <i>about</i> Abigail," is set aside by ver. +40. The analogy of the construction of the verbs of hearing and seeing with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span> is likewise in favour of our explanation.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_199a" href="#ftn_199a">[1]</a></sup>—A +wife of <i>whoredoms</i> and <i>children of whoredoms</i>. The wife belongs to whoredoms +in so far as she is <i>devoted to them</i>; the children, in +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 200]</span> so far as they <i>proceed</i> from them. For +we cannot suppose that the children themselves are described as given to whoredom. +Such a thought would here be altogether out of place. For whoredom is here only +the general designation of adultery, as, by way of applying it to the case in question, +it is immediately subjoined, "away from Jehovah." The subject of consideration is +only the relation of the wife and children to the prophet, as the type of the Lord; +and with this view, it is only the origin of the children from an adulterous wife +which can be of importance. That this alone is regarded, appears from ii. 6 (4), +compared with ver. 7 (5). That the children, as children of whoredoms, deserve no +compassion, is founded upon the fact that their mother plays the harlot. +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשת זנונים</span> is stronger than +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זונה</span>; it expresses the idea that the woman +is given, soul and body, to whoredoms. The same emphasis is expressed also by the +analogous designations: man of blood, of deceit, etc.—Calvin says, "She is called +a wife of whoredoms, because she was long accustomed to them, gave herself over +to the lusts of all indiscriminately, did not prostitute herself once, or twice, +or to a few, but to the debauchery of every one." It is not without reason that +"<i>take</i>" is connected with the children also. The prophet shall, as it were, +receive and take, along with the wife, those who, without his agency, have been +born of her. It is self-evident, and has been, moreover, formerly proved, that we +cannot speak of children who were previously born of the prophet's wife; but that, +on the contrary, the children are they whose birth is narrated in ver. 4 seqq. And +that we cannot consider these children as children of the prophet, as is done by +several interpreters (<i>Drus.</i>: "<i>Accipe uxorem et suscipe ex eâ liberos</i>"), +is obvious from their being designated "children of whoredoms;" from the word "take" +itself, which is expressive of the passive conduct of the prophet; from the fact +that, in the subsequent verses, the conceiving and bearing of the wife are alone +constantly spoken of, but never, as in Is. viii. 3, the begetting by the prophet; +and, <i>finally</i>, from the relation of the type to the thing typified. By the +latter, it is absolutely required that children and mother stand in the same relation +of alienation from the legitimate husband and father. The words in ver. 3, "She +bare him a son," are not indeed in opposition to it, for these words are only intended +to mark the deceit of the wife who <span class="pagenum">[Pg 201]</span> offers +to her husband the children begotten in adultery, as if they were his, and, at the +same time, to bring out the patience and forbearance of the husband who receives +them, and brings them up as if they were his, although he knows that they are not. +In like manner, the Lord treated, for centuries, the rebellious Israelites as if +they were His children, and granted to them the inheritance which was destined only +for the children, along with so many other blessings, until at length He declared +them to be bastards, by carrying them away into captivity. The last words state +the ground of the symbolical action. The causal <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span> +is explained from the fact that the import of a symbolical action is also its ground. +The <i>Inf. absol.</i> preceding the <i>tempus finitum</i> gives special emphasis +to the verbal idea. The prophet thereby indicates that, in using the expression +"to whore," he does so deliberately, and because it corresponds exactly to the thing, +and wishes us to understand it in its full strength and compass. In calling the +thing by its right name, he silences, beforehand, every attempt at palliating and +extenuating it. Of such palliations and extenuations the Jews had abundance. They +had not the slightest notion that they had become unfaithful to their God, but considered +their intercourse with idols as trifling and allowable attentions which they paid +to them.—<i>Manger</i> understands by whoredoms, their placing, at the same time, +their confidence in man; but from what follows, where idolatry alone is constantly +spoken of, it is obvious that this is inadmissible. If this special thing be reduced +to its idea, it is true that trusting in men is, then, not less comprehended under +it than idolatry, inasmuch as this idea is the turning away from God to that which +is not God. And, from this dependence of what is special upon the idea, it follows +that the description has its eternal truth, and does not become antiquated, even +where the folly of gross idolatry has been long since perceived.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הארין</span>, +the definite land, the land of the prophet, the land of Israel.—Concerning the last +words, Ps. lxxiii. 27 may be compared, where <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זנה +מן</span> occurs with a similar signification. This phrase contains an allusion +to the common expression, "to walk with, or after, God;" compare 2 Kings xxiii. +3. According to <i>Calvin</i>, the spiritual chastity of the people of God consists +in their following the Lord.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 3. "<i>And he went and took Gamer the daughter of Dibhlaim, +and she conceived and bare him a son.</i>"</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 202]</span></p> +<p class="normal">Many interpreters suppose that, by the three children, three different +generations are designated, and the gradual degeneracy of the people, which sinks +deeper and deeper. But this opinion must certainly be rejected. There is no gradation +perceptible. On the contrary, the announcement of the total destruction of the kingdom +of Israel is connected immediately with the name of the first child, ver. 4. Nor +is it legitimate to say, as <i>Rückert</i> does, that the three children are a designation +of the "conditions" in which the Israelites would be placed in consequence of their +apostasy from the Lord. For, how could mercy be shown to <i>conditions</i>? The +right view rather is, that the wife and children are both the people of Israel, +viewed only in different relations. In the first designation, they are viewed as +a unity; in the latter, as a plurality proceeding from, and depending upon, this +unity. The circumstance that the prophet mentions the birth of children at all, +and the birth of three only, is accounted for by their names. The children exist +only that they may receive a name. The three names must, therefore, not be considered +separately, but must be viewed together. In that case they present a corresponding +picture of the fate impending upon Israel. The circumstance that the mother and +sons are distinguished in Hosea, rests upon the Song of Solomon. (Compare the more +copious remarks in my commentary on the Song of Sol. iii. 4: "By the mother, the +people is designated according to its historical continuity,—by the daughter or +sons, according to its existence at any moment.")</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 4. "<i>And the Lord said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; +for yet a little</i> (while), <i>and I visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house +of Jehu, and cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The name "Jezreel" is, by most expositors, explained in this passage +as meaning: "God disperses." This they maintain to be its real signification, according +to the etymology, and that all the rest is only an allusion. But this exposition +is erroneous, as <i>Manger</i> has correctly perceived. For, 1. No instance occurs +where the verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זרע</span> has this signification. +When applied to men, it is always used only in a good sense: compare ii. 25, Ezek. +xxxvi. 9, and the subsequent remarks on Zech. x. 9. The idea of <i>scattering</i> +is not at all the fundamental one; so that the signification, to <i>disperse</i>, +is much further from the fundamental <span class="pagenum">[Pg 203]</span> signification +than might, at first sight, appear. 2. The subsequent words must be considered as +an explanation of the name Jezreel, as is obvious from the corresponding explanations +of the names Lo-Ruhamah in ver. 6, and Lo-Ammi in ver. 9, which are intimately connected +with these names. But in this explanation, not even a single word is said on the +subject of the dispersion of the people of Israel. The circumstance that, in this +explanation, Jezreel occurs as a proper name, without any regard being paid to its +appellative signification<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_203a" href="#ftn_203a">[2]</a></sup>—an +allusion to which occurs only in the announcement of the salvation—shows that here +too it must be viewed in the same way. The correct view is this. Jezreel was the +place where the last great judgment of God upon the kingdom of Israel had been executed. +The apostasy from the Lord, and the innocent blood of His servants, shed by Jezebel +and the whole house of Ahab, had been there avenged upon them by Jehu, the founder +of the dynasty which was reigning at the time of the prophet. At the command of +God, Jehu is anointed as king by one of the sons of the prophets sent by Elisha, +2 Kings ix. In vers. 6-9 the Lord says to him through the latter: "I anoint thee +king over the people of the Lord, over Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of +Ahab thy master; and <i>I avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and the +blood of all the servants of the Lord at the hand of Jezebel, and the whole house +of Ahab shall perish.</i> And I give the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam +the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah." The execution +corresponded with the command. When Jehu approached Jezreel, Joram the son of Ahab +went out against him, and met him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite, ver. +21. Appealing to the declaration of the Lord, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 204]</span> +"Surely I have seen the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons, and I will requite +thee in this portion of ground" (ver. 26), Jehu orders the corpse of the slain king +to be cast thither. At Jezreel, Jezebel too found a disgraceful death. Thither, +as to the central point of vengeance, were sent the heads of the seventy royal princes, +who had been slain, x. 1-10, and there Jehu slew all that remained of the house +of Ahab, ver. 11.—The royal house, and, along with it, all Israel, are now anew +to become a Jezreel; <i>i.e.</i>, the same divine punitive justice which, at that +time, was manifested at Jezreel, is to be exhibited anew. The reason why this should +be, is stated in the explanation. The house of Jehu, and all Israel, shall become +a Jezreel, in as far as punishment is concerned, because they have become a Jezreel +with respect to guilt, and because, as in former times at Jezreel, so now again, +blood that has been shed cries to the Lord for vengeance. Where a new carcase is, +there the eagles must anew be gathered together.—It must have, already appeared +from this, how we understand the words, "I visit the blood of Jezreel," used in +the explanation of the name of Jezreel, in the verse under consideration. According +to the prophet's custom of designating, by the name of an old thing, any new thing +which is substantially similar to it, the new guilt is marked by the name of the +old; and it is marked as <i>blood</i>, because the former guilt was pre-eminently +blood-guiltiness;<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_204a" href="#ftn_204a">[3]</a></sup> +and as the blood of Jezreel, because the former blood-guiltiness had been especially +contracted there, and it was there where the punishment was executed. The deep impression, +which just this mode of representation must have produced, must not be overlooked. +The sins formerly committed at Jezreel were acknowledged as such by the whole people, +and especially by the royal house, whose whole rights were based upon this acknowledgment. +The recollection of the fearful punishment was still in the minds of all; but they +did not by any means imagine that they were implicated in the same guilt, and had +to expect the same punishment. That which they considered as already +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 205]</span> absolutely past, the prophet, by a single +word, brings again into the present, and the immediate future. By a single word +of dreadful sound he terrified and aroused them out of their self-deception (which +will not recognise its own sin in the picture of the sins of others), and out of +their carnal security. Entirely analogous are 2 Kings ix. 31, where Jezebel says +to Jehu, "Hast thou peace, Zimri, murderer of his master?" which <i>Schmid</i> well +explains by—"It is time for thee to desist, that thou mayest not experience the +same punishment as Zimri;" Zech. v. 11, where the prophet mentions Shinar as the +place of Israel's future banishment; and x. 11, where he calls their future oppressors +by the names of Asshur and Egypt, and describes a new passing through the Red Sea. +In Revelation, the degenerate church is called by the names of Sodom and Egypt (xi. +18); the true Church, by Jerusalem; Rome, by Babylon.—The explanation which we have +given will be its own defence against the current, and evidently erroneous, expositions. +Many interpreters understand, by the blood of Jezreel, the slaughter of the family +of Ahab which was accomplished there by Jehu. It is, indeed, quite correct to say +that a deed objectively good does not thereby become one which is subjectively so. +That which has been willed and commanded by God may itself become an object of divine +punishment, if it be not performed from love and obedience to God, but from culpable +selfishness. But that Jehu was actuated by motives so bad, is sufficiently obvious +from the circumstance, that he himself did the very thing which he had punished +in the house of Ahab. <i>Calvin</i> rightly remarks: "That slaughter is, as far +as God is concerned, a just vengeance; but, as far as Jehu is concerned, it is open +murder." But yet, this deed cannot be regarded as the principal crime of Jehu and +his family. We must not overlook other crimes far more heinous, and consider the +guilty blood shed by them as the sole ground of their punishment. That this was +indeed considered as guilt, but only as a lower degree of it, is clearly seen from +1 Kings xvi. 7, where destruction is announced to Baasha, who had destroyed the +house of Jeroboam I., "on account of all the evil which he did in the sight of the +Lord, in provoking Him to anger with the works of his hands, so that he may be like +the house of Jeroboam, and because he killed him." The main crime is, that Baasha +had become like the house of Jeroboam. <span class="pagenum">[Pg 206]</span> What +he perpetrated against this house is the minor crime, and becomes a crime only through +the former.—It is worthy of notice that "the blood of Jezreel" exactly corresponds, +according to our explanation, with the expression, "so that he may be like the house +of Jeroboam." It may be further noticed, that, in the deed of Jehu, every better +feeling cannot be excluded. If the command of God had been used by him merely as +a pretext, we could not account for the praise and the promises given to him on +account of this very deed, 2 Kings x. 30. It is true that the limitation of the +promise shows that pure motives alone did not prevail with him.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_206a" href="#ftn_206a">[4]</a></sup>—"The +bloody deed to which the house of Jehu owed its elevation" nowhere else appears +as the cause of the catastrophe which befell this house. That which he had done +against the house of Ahab, whose sins were crying to heaven for vengeance far more +than those of Baasha, is, in 2 Kings x. 30, 31, represented as his <i>merit</i>. +His <i>guilt</i> consisted in his not departing from the ways of Jeroboam, and in +his making Israel to sin. It is this guilt alone which, in the Book of Kings, is +charged against all the members of his family,—against Jehoahaz, the son of Jehu, +in 2 Kings xiii. 2; against Jehoash, in 2 Kings xiii. 11; against Jeroboam, in 2 +Kings xiv. 24; against Zechariah, under whom the catastrophe took place, in 2 Kings +xv. 9: "And he did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord, as his fathers had +done, and departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had made +Israel to sin." According to the context, we must, in the first place, think of +the <i>religious guilt</i>; the blood of Jezreel, in the verse under consideration, +must correspond with the <i>whoredoms</i> in ver. 2.—Moreover, the extension of +the punishment to all Israel could not, according to this explanation, be understood; +for the deed was only that of Jehu and his assistants. How, then, could not only +the house of Jehu be punished, but also <span class="pagenum">[Pg 207]</span> the +kingdom of the house of Israel be destroyed, and its bow broken in the valley of +Jezreel?</p> +<p class="normal">According to another interpretation still more prevalent, "the +blood of Jezreel" denotes "all the evil deeds committed by the Israelitish kings +in Jezreel." But this interpretation is sufficiently invalidated by the single circumstance, +that the residence of the family of Jehu, which, after all, alone comes into consideration +in this place, was, from the very beginning, not Jezreel, but Samaria; compare 2 +Kings x. 36, xiii. 10, xiv. 23.</p> +<p class="normal">Two particulars are contained in the announcement of punishment. +<i>First</i>,—The whole house of Jehu, and <i>then</i> all Israel, are to become +a Jezreel as regards punishment, as they are even now in point of guilt; and, in +this announcement, the significant <i>paronomasia</i> must not be overlooked between +<i>Israel</i>—the designation of the dignity of the people, and <i>Jezreel</i>—that +which is base in deeds and condition. Calvin makes prominent the last-mentioned +feature only: "You are," he explains, "a degenerate people, you differ in nothing +from your king Ahab." We cannot, however, follow him in this explanation; the words, +"I cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel," cannot, as several interpreters +suppose, mean merely, "I will put an end to the dominion of the family of Jehu over +Israel." That these words rather announce the cessation of every native regal government, +and hence of the entire national independence, is so evident, that it stands in +need of no proof. Both of these features are, in their fulfilment, separated indeed +by a long period of time (see the Introduction); but they are nevertheless closely +connected. With the ruin of the house of Jehu, the strength of the kingdom of Israel +was broken; from that time it was only a living corpse. The fall of the house of +Jehu was the beginning of the end,—the commencement of the process of putrefaction. +The omission, in the inscription, of all mention of any of the kings after Jeroboam, +coincides with the circumstance that the fall of the house of Jehu is connected +with the fall of the kingdom. With regard, however, to the former event, Hosea had +an earlier prophecy before him. It had been prophesied to Jehu (2 Kings x. 30) that +his children should sit on the throne until the fourth generation. Now, since Jeroboam +was the great-grandson of Jehu, the glory of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 208]</span> +this family must come to an end with his son. But at no period did the house of +Jehu, and the kingdom of Israel, seem to be so far from destruction as under the +reign of Jeroboam; and, hence, it was time that the forgotten prophecy should be +revived, and, at the same time, expanded.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 5. "<i>And it shall come to pass at that day, that I break +the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Of this, Calvin gives the following paraphrase: "Ye are puffed +up with pride; ye oppose your fierceness to God, because ye excel in weapons and +strength; because ye are warlike men, ye believe that God can do nothing against +you. But surely your bows shall not prevent His hands from destroying you."—In the +valley of Jezreel, Israel shall become, as to punishment, what they already are, +as to guilt, viz., a "Jezreel." The verse is a further expansion of the last words +of the preceding one, to which the words, "at that day," refer. He whose bow is +broken is defenceless and powerless; compare Gen. xlix. 24; 1 Sam. ii. 4; Jer. xlix. +35. It is evident that we can here think only of the defeat of Israel by the Assyrians, +the consequence of which was the total overthrow of the kingdom of Israel. But it +is not to be overlooked, that the Assyrians, who in the second section of Hosea +are frequently mentioned in express terms, as the instruments of God's punishment, +are not spoken of at all as such in the first section, which belongs to the reign +of Jeroboam. Amos likewise abstains from mentioning any name of the enemies. The +Assyrians had not at that time appeared on the historical horizon. But the prophecy +was to evince itself as such, by the fact of the announcement of the judgment at +a time when its instruments were not as yet prepared; just as Elijah, in 1 Kings +xviii. 41, hears the rushing of the rain before there was even a cloud in the sky.—We +are not told in the historical books at what place Israel was defeated by the Assyrians. +<i>Jerome</i>, in his remarks on our passage, says that it took place in the valley +of Jezreel. It is very probable, however, that this is only an inference clothed +in the garb of history. But even apart from the passage under review, the matter +is very probable. The valley of Jezreel or Esdrelon "is the largest, and at the +same time the most fertile, plain of Palestine. The brook of Kishon, which is, next +to Jordan, the most important river of Palestine, waters and fructifies it, and, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 209]</span> with its tributaries, flows through it in +all directions." (<i>Ritter</i>, S. 689.) In all the wars which were carried on +within the territories of the ten tribes, especially when the enemies came from +the North, it was the natural battle-field. "It was, in the first centuries, the +station of a legion (<span lang="el" class="Greek">μέγα πεδίον λεγεῶνος</span>); +it is the place where the troops of Nebuchadnezzar, Vespasian, Justinian, the Sultan +Saladdin, and many other conquering armies were encamped, down to the unsuccessful +expedition of <i>Buonaparte</i>, whose success in Syria here terminated. <i>Clarke</i> +found erected here the tents of the troops of the Pacha of Damascus. In later times, +it was the scene of the skirmishes between the parties of hostile hordes of Arabs +and Turkish pachas. In the political relations of Asia Minor, it is to this locality +that there must be ascribed the total devastation and depopulation of Galilee, which +once was so flourishing, full of towns, and thickly populated." (<i>Ritter</i>, +<i>Erdk.</i> 1 <i>Ausg.</i> ii. S. 387.) We may add, that, in the same plain also, +the battle was fought in which Saul and Jonathan perished (for the plain of Esdrelon +is bounded on the south-east by the mountains of Gilboa), and so likewise was the +battle between Ahab and the Syrians. To it also belonged the plain near the town +of Megiddo, where Josiah, in the battle against Pharaoh-Necho, was mortally wounded. +Compare <i>Rosenmüller</i>, <i>Alt.</i> ii. 1, p. 149.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 6. "<i>And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And +He said to him, Call her name Lo-Ruhamah</i> (<i>i.e.</i>, one who has not obtained +mercy): <i>for I will not continue any more to have mercy upon the house of Israel; +for I will take away from them.</i>"—Interpreters ask why the second child was a +female; and this question is by no means an idle one, since the prophet everywhere +else adheres closely to the subject-matter, and adds no feature, merely for the +sake of giving vividness to the picture. We cannot for a moment suppose, as <i>Jerome</i> +and others do, that the female child denotes a more degraded generation. For why, +then, is the third again a male child? The supposition proceeds from the altogether +unfounded notion that the three children denote different generations. The reason +must, on the contrary, be sought for in the name. <i>Schmid</i> says: "It seems +to have reference to the weakness of the sex. For the female sex +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 210]</span> finds greater sympathy than the male." The +verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">רחם</span> does not denote any kind of love, +but only the love of him who is high to him who is low, of the strong to the weak; +and hence the LXX., whom Peter follows in 1 Pet. ii. 10 (<span lang="el" class="Greek">οὐκ +ἠλεημένη</span>), render the word more accurately than Paul, in Rom. ix. 25 (<span lang="el" class="Greek">οὐκ +ἠγαπημένη</span>). Hence it is never used of man's love to God, but only of the +love of God to man,—of His mercy. The only passage which seems to contradict this, +Ps. xviii. 2, is not to the purpose, as, there, the <i>Kal</i> is used. But the +female sex, being weaker, stands in greater need of the compassion of men, than +does the male. Is. ix. 16. The female child places the neediness and helplessness +of the people in more striking contrast with the refusal of help from Him who alone +can bestow it. The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">רחמה</span> is either <i>Participle</i> +in <i>Pual</i> which has cast off the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מ</span>, or +the 3d fem. <i>Pret. in pause</i>; thus <i>Cocceius</i>, who explains it by: "She +has not obtained mercy." It is in favour of the latter view, that according to +<i>Ewald</i>, § 310 b, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לא</span> does not often stand +before a <i>Participle</i>. The words, "<i>I will not continue</i>," refer to the +former great manifestations of divine mercy, and especially the last under Jeroboam, +which the people still, at that time, enjoyed; compare 2 Kings xiii. 23: "And the +Lord was gracious unto them, and had <i>mercy</i> upon them, and turned towards +them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy +them, neither cast them from His presence." Upon this contrast, also, rests the +mild expression, "I will not have mercy,"—an expression which, in virtue of this +contrast, becomes stronger than any other. Several interpreters here lay peculiar +stress upon the circumstance, that "the <i>house</i> of Israel" is spoken of. This, +the kingdom of Israel, they say, as an independent state, is given over to everlasting +destruction; it is only single individuals who shall obtain mercy after they have +joined the house of David. But the supposition that "house of Israel" is used in +this sense, is altogether unfounded. The house is equivalent to the family; and +the prophets speak of "a house of Israel" after the destruction, no less than before +it. The words in ii. 6 (4), "I will not have mercy upon her children," and the circumstance +that she who is here called Lo-Ruhamah is afterwards called Ruhamah, also militate +against referring "house of Israel" to the state. The right view rather is, that +the denial of mercy <span class="pagenum">[Pg 211]</span> must not be understood +absolutely, but relatively. It is not for ever that mercy shall be denied to them, +but for a time,—until God's punitive justice shall have been satisfied. Just as +Israel shall not always remain Jezreel, Lo-Ammi shall, at some future time, become +again Ammi.—The last words are, by the greater number of recent interpreters, almost +unanimously explained: "That I should forgive them." But, in that case, we can perceive +no reason why the <i>Inf. abs.</i> should be placed before the <i>tempus finitum</i>. +Why should the verbal idea here be rendered so emphatic? In addition to this, the +extreme feebleness of the sense would be remarkable. Nothing would be said that +would not be already implied in the words, "I will not continue any more to have +mercy." But, on the other hand, we obtain a very suitable sense if we translate +thus: "I will take away from them." The object is not mentioned, just because <i> +every thing</i> is to be understood. The prominence given to the verbal idea is +then accounted for from its being contrasted with the <i>having mercy</i>, which +implies <i>giving</i>. There is then, moreover, a very striking contrast with the +standing phrase <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נשא עון ל</span>, or also simply +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נשא ל</span>: I shall take away from them, not, however, +as hitherto, their guilt (compare Amos vii. 8), but all that they have. <i>Calvin</i> +had previously directed attention to the circumstance that the following verse also +is in favour of the translation by <i>tollere</i>: "<i>Servare et tollere inter +se opponit propheta.</i>" Chap. v. 14 may also be compared, where +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נשא</span> is used in a similar manner, the object +being likewise omitted: "I will tear and go away, I will take away, and there is +none that delivereth." </p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 7. "<i>And I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and +I save them by the Lord their God; and I do not save them by bow, and by sword, +and by war, and by horses, and by horsemen.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Several interpreters suppose that mercy is here promised to Judah +as a <i>consolation</i> to Israel, inasmuch as the latter should partake in it. +But this view is erroneous. From the antithesis to ver. 6, it is evident that mercy +is here promised to Judah for the time when Israel shall not find mercy; and we +are not at liberty to anticipate the time described in ii. 1-3, when both become +partakers of mercy. This is apparent also from the circumstance that in vers. 8, +9, the threatening of punishment <span class="pagenum">[Pg 212]</span> to Israel +is still continued. It can then only be the intention of the prophet, by describing +the mercy which Judah their brethren should experience, to sharpen the goad, more +effectually to rouse Israel from their false security, and to direct their attention +to the bad foundation of the entire constitution of their political and ecclesiastical +affairs, in consequence of which they considered as legitimate that which, in Judah, +was only an abuse. As the showing of mercy to Judah runs parallel with the withholding +of it from Israel, we can, primarily and chiefly, think only of the different fates +of the two, during the Assyrian dominion. The wonderful deliverance of Judah on +that occasion is foretold by Isaiah, xxxi. 8, in a similar manner: "And Asshur falls +through the sword not of a man, and the sword not of a man devours him." We must +not, however, limit ourselves to this event; a preference of Judah over Israel, +a remnant of divine mercy appeared, even when they were carried away into captivity. +During its continuance, they were not altogether deprived of marks of the continuance +of the divine election. Prophets continued to labour among them, as immediate ambassadors +of God. Wonderful events showed them in the midst of the Gentiles the superiority +of their God, and prepared the way for their deliverance. They maintained, in a +far greater degree, their national constitution; and, <i>lastly</i>, their affliction +lasted for a far shorter time than did that of the Israelites. Contrary to all human +expectation, their affairs soon took a favourable turn, in which only a comparatively +small number of their Israelitish brethren partook, while, for the rest, the withholding +of mercy continued. But it is just by means of this contrast with the lot of Judah, +that the announcement of the lot of Israel appears in its true light. Without this +contrast, one might have imagined, that the announcement of the prophet did not +go beyond his human vision. It would, of course, appear highly probable that a kingdom +so weak as that of Israel,—weak, especially when compared with those great Asiatic +kingdoms which were great already, and yet were continually striving after enlargement,—a +kingdom, moreover, placed in the midst between these kingdoms, and their natural +enemy and rival, Egypt—should not have been able to maintain its existence for any +length of time. But this probability existed in a far higher decree in the case +of the kingdom of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 213]</span> Judah, which was smaller +and weaker still, and which had suffered much through Jehoash the father of Jeroboam +(2 Kings xiv. 13), under the latter of whom, the splendour and glory of Israel had +been so greatly increased. But that which prevented this probability from becoming +a reality lay altogether beyond the sphere of human calculation, as Hosea himself +here so emphatically expresses. And by <i>such</i> help, the kingdom of Israel would +have been delivered, no less than the kingdom of Judah. It is true that this prediction +of Hosea is no prediction of some accidental event, but has its foundation in the +idea. The lots of Israel and Judah could not be otherwise than so different, after +their different position in reference to the Covenant-God was once fixed. Nor is +this prediction one which has ceased after its first and literal fulfilment, but +is constantly and anew realizing itself. The proceeding of God towards the different +Churches and States is regulated by their conduct towards Him. The history of the +world is a judgment of the world. But even to know this truth is, in itself, a supernatural +gift; and they only are able to use it with safety, to whom God has given an insight +into the mysteries of His government of the world. This becomes very evident, if +we observe how often the predictions of those who knew the truth in general, down +to <i>Bengel</i> and his followers, have been put to shame by the result. God's +ways are not our ways. No one knows them except Himself, and those to whom He will +reveal them. The extent to which the prophecy rests on the idea is, moreover, clearly +seen by the words, "And I save them <i>by Jehovah their God</i>." Here we have the +ground of their deliverance. Jehovah is the God of Judah, and, hence, the source +of their salvation, which does not cease to flow although all human sources be dried +up. The reason why Israel does not obtain mercy must then be, that Jehovah is not +their God. That this contrast is implied here, is confirmed by iii. 5: "Afterwards +shall the children of Israel return and seek the <i>Lord their God</i>, and David +their king." That which in aftertimes they shall seek, and thereby obtain salvation, +they must have lost now; and this loss must be the source of their affliction. Calvin +makes the following pertinent remark: "The antithesis between the false gods and +Jehovah must here be kept in mind. Jehovah was the God of the house of Judah; and +hence, it is just as if the prophet had said, 'Ye <span class="pagenum">[Pg 214]</span> +indeed profess the name of God, but ye worship the devil, and not God. Ye have no +part in Jehovah. He resides in His temple, and has pledged His faithfulness to David +when He commanded him to build Him a temple on Mount Zion; but from you, the true +God has departed!'" (Compare Amos ii. 8, where the prophet speaks of the god of +the ten tribes as one who belongs to them alone, and with whom he has nothing to +do.) In contrast with Him who alone could grant help, and whom Israel did not possess, +but Judah did, the prophet enumerates, in the remaining part of the verse under +consideration, the aids which could not afford any real help, in which Israel was, +at that time, much richer than Judah, and in which they placed a false confidence. +Compare x. 13: "Thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men;" +Ps. xx. 8; Mic. v. 9 seqq.; and Deut. xxxiii. 29, where the Lord is spoken of as +the only true bulwark and armour: "Happy art thou, Israel: who is like unto thee? +a people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, thy proud sword: thine enemies +shall be liars unto thee, and thou shalt tread upon their high places." Calvin says, +"God does not require any other aids; His own strength is quite sufficient. The +sum and substance is therefore this, that although the weakness of the kingdom of +Judah excites the contempt of all, this shall be no obstacle to its deliverance +by the grace of God, although there be no help at all from men."—The prophet has, +at the same time, before his eyes the great events of former history, where, when +all human resources failed, the power of God had shown itself to be alone quite +sufficient.—We cannot assert with <i>Gesenius</i>, that "war" should here be quite +identical with "weapons of war;" it rather comprehends everything which is required +for war, viz., the prudence of the commanders, the valour of the heroes, the strength +of the army, etc. "Heroes and horsemen" are, however, specially mentioned, because +in ancient times the main strength of the armies lay in these. Even Mahommed thought +himself entitled to hold up a victory which he had obtained without cavalry—by infantry +alone—as a miracle wrought immediately by God; comp. <i>Abulf. vit. Moh.</i> pp. +72, 91.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 8. "<i>And she weaned Lo-Ruhamah, and conceived, and bare +a son.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 9. "<i>And He said, Call his name, Lo-Ammi</i> (<i>i.e.</i>, +not <span class="pagenum">[Pg 215]</span> my people); <i>for you are not My people, +and I, not will I be yours.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">As the prophet everywhere else adheres closely to his +subject-matter, as, indeed, he allows the figure to recede behind the subject of +his discourse, but never the opposite, we cannot well imagine that the weaning is +mentioned merely for the purpose of making the description more graphic. Calvin +says, "I do not doubt that the prophet intends here to commend the Lord's long-continued +mercy and forbearance towards that people." The unfaithfulness of the wife, and +the forbearance of the prophet, do indeed continue for years. But it is better to +suppose that the mention of the weaning is intended to separate the territory of +Lo-Ruhamah from the following birth, and to call forth the idea that, now, there +may follow one of better import.—The literal translation of the close of the verse +is, "And I will not be to you"—equivalent to, "I will not any longer belong to you." +We cannot assume, as <i>Manger</i> does, that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לאלהים</span> +has been here left out, nor, as others do, that it must be supplied. Since it is +God who speaks, "to you," or "yours," is sufficiently definite. Similar is Ezek. +xvi. 8: "And I entered into a covenant with thee, and thou becamest Mine," +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ותהיי לי</span>; Ps. cxviii. 6: "The Lord is mine, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יהוה לי</span>, I will not fear." The explanation +given by some, "I shall not be among you," is too limited. It is the highest happiness +to possess God Himself, with all His gifts and blessings, and the greatest misery +to lose Him. The fulfilment of this threatening is reported in 2 Kings xvii. 18: +"And the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of His sight; and +there was none left but the tribe of Judah alone;" comp. also Is. vii.</p> +<p class="normal">The first three verses of the following chapter ought to have +been connected with the first chapter; for they contain the announcement of salvation +which is necessary to complete the first prophecy.</p> +<p class="normal">Chap. ii. 1. "<i>And the number of the children of Israel shall +be as the sand of the sea, which is not measured nor numbered. And it shall come +to pass, in the place where it was said unto them, Not my people ye, it shall be +said unto them. Sons of the living God.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal" dir="ltr">The first point which requires to be determined, is +the subject of the verse. Every other reference except that to the +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 216]</span> ten tribes is here out of the question; inasmuch +as the same who, in the preceding verse, were called Lo-Ammi, are now to be called +sons of the living God. Several of the ancient expositors here assume a sudden transition +to the Christian Church; but such would be a <i>salto mortale</i>. Nor are we to +understand by the children of Israel, all the descendants of Jacob; for the children +of Judah are distinguished from them in ver. 2. Substantially, however, those too +are included, as appears from this very verse; for both shall then form one nation +of brethren. But here the prophet views only one portion, because to this only did +the preceding threatening, and the mission of the prophet in general, refer. From +this, also, it may be explained how the prophet may apply to the <i>part</i> the +promises of Genesis, which there refer to the <i>whole</i>. The reference to these +promises, in the first part of the verse, cannot be at all mistaken. Compare especially, +as agreeing most literally, the passage in Gen. xxii. 17: "I will multiply thy seed +as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is on the shore of the sea;" and xxxii. +13 (12): "I make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which is not numbered for multitude." +A similar literal reference is in Jer. xxxiii. 22: "As the host of heaven is not +numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of David +My servant." Now, the reference here cannot be accidental. It supposes that these +promises were at that time generally known in the kingdom of Israel. They served +to strengthen the ungodly in their false security. Relying on them, they charged +the prophets with making God a liar in thus announcing the impending destruction +of the kingdom, inasmuch as the prophecy had not yet been fulfilled in all its extent. +The prophet, however, by his almost literal repetition of the promise, shows that +thereby his threatenings are not excluded—"teaches that the visitation of which +he had spoken would be such that, nevertheless, God would not forget His word; that +the rejection of the people would be such that, nevertheless, its election should +stand firm and sure,—and, finally, that the adoption should not be invalid by which +He had chosen Abraham's progeny as His people" (<i>Calvin</i>).—The case is quite +analogous, when corrupted Christian churches harden themselves in trusting in the +promise that the Lord would be with them all the days, and that the gates of hell +should not prevail against His Church. The <span class="pagenum">[Pg 217]</span> +Lord knoweth how to execute His judgments so that His promises shall not suffer +thereby, yea, that their fulfilment is thereby rendered possible. The relation of +our passage to Is. x. 22 requires <i>further</i> to be considered: "For though thy +people Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant only shall return." Here, too, +the reference to the promises in Genesis cannot be mistaken. But there is this difference,—that +in the time of Isaiah, the people, viewing the partial fulfilment of the promises +of God in their then prosperous condition, as a sure pledge of divine mercy, founded +thereupon their false security. To this, however, the prophet replies, that even +the perfect fulfilment would give no warrant for it. In Hosea, however, they rely +on the perfect fulfilment, which had, as yet, no existence at all. But Hosea has +in view the godly as much as the ungodly. To the former he shows that here also +there would be a fulfilment of what is written in Num. xxiii. 19: "God is not a +man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent. Should He +say, and not do it; and speak, and not fulfil it?" Moreover, we cannot fail to see +that, in the verse under review, as also in ver. 2, there is an allusion to the +first child, Jezreel,—that in the second member of the verse there is an allusion +to Lo-Ammi, and in ver. 3, to Lo-Ruhamah. But the name Jezreel is now taken in a +good sense, probably in the sense in which it was first given to the valley (compare +remarks on i. 4), and also to the town by its founders. Jezreel means "God sows." +The founders of the town thereby expressed the hope that God would cause an abundant +harvest to proceed from a small sowing—a glorious end from a small beginning. Thus +God will now sow the small seed of Israel, and an infinitely rich harvest shall +be gained from this sowing; compare remarks on ver. 25.—But if now we seek for the +historical reference of the announcement, we are compelled to go back to the sense +of those declarations in Genesis. By many, these are referred merely to the bodily +descendants of the Patriarchs; by many, also, to their spiritual descendants, their +successors in the faith. But the latter reference is altogether arbitrary; and the +former could be well-founded only, if the Congregation of the Lord had been destined +solely for the natural descendants, and if all the Gentiles had been refused admittance +into it. But that such is not the case, is evident from the command to circumcise +every bondservant; <span class="pagenum">[Pg 218]</span> for, by circumcision, a +man was received among the people of God. This appears, <i>further</i>, from the +command in Exod. xii. 48, that every stranger who wished to partake of the Passover +must be previously circumcised; and this implies that strangers might partake in +the sign and feast of the covenant if they wished; compare <i>Michaelis</i>, <i> +Mos. Recht.</i> Th. iv. § 184. This appears, <i>moreover</i>, from Deut. xxiii. +1-8, where the Edomites and Egyptians are expressly declared to be capable of being +received into the Congregation of the Lord. It appears, <i>still further</i>, from +the circumstance that, in the same passage, the command to exclude the Ammonites +and Moabites is founded upon a special reason. And, <i>finally</i>, it appears from +the Jewish practice at all times. But the heathens who were received among the people +of God were considered as belonging to the posterity of the Patriarchs, as their +sons by adoption. How indeed could it be otherwise, since, by intermarriage, every +difference must have very soon disappeared? They were called children of Israel, +and children of Jacob, no less than were the others. It now appears to what extent +the promise to the Patriarchs refers to the Gentiles also—viz., in so far as they +became believers in the God of Israel, and joined themselves to Israel. Compare +Is. xliv. 5: "One shall say, I am Jehovah's, and another shall call the name of +Jacob, and another shall write with his hand. Unto the Lord! and boast of the name +of Israel." Such an eager desire of the Gentiles towards the kingdom of God regularly +took place, either when the God of Israel had revealed Himself by specially distinguishing +manifestations of His omnipotence and glory, as, <i>e.g.</i>, in the deliverance +from the Egyptian and Babylonish captivities, in both of which events we find a +number of those who had previously been heathens, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +ערב</span>, in the train of the Israelites;—or when a feeling of the vanity of the +idols of the heathen world had been awakened with special vividness, as in the times +after Alexander the Great, in which Roman and Greek heathenism became more and more +<i>effete</i>, and rapidly hastened on towards ruin. In the time of Christ, both +of these causes co-operated. If there were soundness in the opinion now generally +prevalent, according to which the Church of the New Testament stands quite independent +of the Congregation of Israel, having originated from a free and equal union of +believers from Israel, and of those from among the Gentiles, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 219]</span> then indeed the promise now before us would +have no longer any reference to New Testament times. The New Testament Church would +be a generation altogether different, and no longer acknowledge Abraham, Isaac, +and Jacob as their fathers. But, according to the constant doctrine of the Old as +well as of the New Testament, there is only one Church of God from Abraham to the +end of the days—only one house under two dispensations. John the Baptist proceeds +upon the supposition that the members of the New Testament also must be children +of Abraham, else the covenant and promise of God would come to nought. But as the +bodily descent from Abraham is no security against the danger of exclusion from +his posterity—of which Ishmael was the first example—and as, so early as in the +Pentateuch, it is said, with reference to every greater transgression, "This soul +is cut off from its people," so, on the other hand, God, in the exercise of His +sovereign liberty, may give to Abraham, in the room of his degenerate children after +the flesh, adopted children without number, who shall sit down with him, and Isaac, +and Jacob, in the kingdom of God, whilst the sons of the kingdom are cast out.—After +these remarks on the promise to the Patriarchs, there can be no longer any difficulty +in making out the historical reference of the announcement before us. It cannot +refer to the bodily descendants of Abraham, as such, any more than the promise of +a son to Abraham was fulfilled in the birth of Ishmael, or than the Arabs stand +related to the promise of the innumerable multitude of his descendants,—a promise +which is repeated, in the same extent, to Isaac and Jacob, although they were not +the ancestors of the Arabs. Degenerate sons are not a blessing; they are no objects +of promise, no sons in the full sense. Every one is a son of Abraham, only in so +far as he is a son of God. For this reason the phrases "sons of Israel" and "sons +of the living God" are, in the passage before us, connected with each other. Not +as though the corporeal descent were altogether a matter of indifference. The corporeal +descendants of the Patriarchs had the nearest claims to becoming their children +in the full sense. It was to them that the means of becoming so were first granted. +To them pertained the covenants, the promises, and the adoption, Rom. ix. 4. But +all these external advantages were of no avail to them when they allowed them to +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 220]</span> remain unused; in these circumstances, neither +the promise to Abraham, nor the announcement before us, had any reference to them. +Both of them would have remained to this day unfulfilled, although the unconverted +children of Israel had increased so as to have become the most populous nation on +the face of the whole earth. It thus appears that the announcement before us was +first truly realized in the time of the Messiah; inasmuch as it was at that time +that the family of the Patriarchs was so mightily increased; and that it will yet +be more fully realized, partly by the reception of an innumerable multitude of adopted +sons, and partly by the elevation of those who were sons only in a lower sense, +to be sons in the highest. That which occurred at the time after the Babylonish +captivity, when the Lord stirred up a number of Israelites to return to Palestine, +we can regard as only an insignificant prelude; partly because this number was too +small to correspond, even in any degree, to the infinite extent of the promise, +and partly because there were among them certainly a few only who, in the fullest +sense, deserved the name of "Children of Israel." "Israel"—which is the higher name, +and has reference to the relation to God—is here used emphatically, as appears especially +from a comparison with ver. 4, where it is taken from the degenerate children, and +exchanged for the name "Jezreel."—In the second part of the verse, we must first +set aside the false interpretation of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">במקום אשר</span> +by "instead of," which is given by <i>Grotius</i> and others. It has arisen from +an inappropriate reference to the Latin, which has, however, no support in the Hebrew +<i>usus loquendi</i>. The words can only mean (compare Lev. iv. 24, 33; Jer. xxii. +12; Ezek. xxi. 35; Neh. iv. 14): "in the place where," or, more literally still, +"in the place that"—the wider designation instead of the narrower. The <i>status +constr.</i> is explained by the circumstance that the whole succeeding sentence +together expresses only one substantive idea, equivalent to: "in the place of the +being said unto them." The place may here be, either that where the people first +received the name Lo-Ammi, <i>i.e.</i>, Palestine, or the place of the exile, where +they first felt the full meaning of it,—the misery being a <i>sermo realis</i> of +God. Decisive in favour of the latter reference is the following verse, where the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הארץ</span>, the land of the exile, corresponds with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מקים</span> in the verse before us. (According to +<i>Jonathan</i>, the sense is: "In the place to <span class="pagenum">[Pg 221]</span> +which they have been carried away among the Gentiles.") It is intentionally that +both times the Future <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יֵאָמֵר</span> is used, which +is to be understood as the Present. The difference of time being thus disregarded, +the contrast becomes so much the more striking.—By "people" and "children" of God, +the same thing is expressed according to different relations. The Israelites were +the people of God, inasmuch as He was their King; and children of God, in as far +as He was their Father,—their Father, it is true, in the first place, not, as in +the New Testament (John i. 12, 13), in reference to the spiritual generation, but +in relation to heart-felt love, similar to the love of a father for a son. With +regard to the Old Testament idea of son ship to God, compare the remarks on Ps. +ii. 7. In this relation, sometimes all Israel is personified as the son of God; +thus, <i>e.g.</i>, Exod. iv. 22: "Thus thou shalt say unto Pharaoh: My son. My first-born +is Israel." Sometimes the Israelites are also called the <i>children</i> or <i>sons</i> +of God; <i>e.g.</i>, Deut. xiv. 1: "Ye are children to the Lord your God" (compare +also Deut. xxxii. 19), although not every single individual could on this account +be called "son of God." In this sense, that designation is never used, evidently +because the sonship under the Old Testament does not rest so much on the personal +relation of the single individual to God,—as is the case in the New Testament,—but +the individual rather partakes in it only as a part of the whole. But there is an +easy transition from the sonship as viewed in the Old Testament, to the sonship +as seen in the New. The former, in its highest perfection, cannot exist at all without +the latter. It is only when its single members are born of God, that the Congregation +can be regarded and treated as the child of God in the full sense of the word, and +that the whole fulness of His love can be poured out upon it; for this is the only +way of attaining to likeness with God, which is the condition of admission to the +rights of children. Hence it appears that the <span lang="el" class="Greek">υἱοθεσία</span> +under the Old Testament was an actual prophecy of the times of the New Testament; +and from it, it follows also that the announcement under consideration has its ultimate +reference to these times. Earlier fulfilments—especially at the return from the +Babylonish captivity—are not to be excluded, inasmuch as the idea comprehends in +it everything in which it is, even in the least degree, realized; but they can be +considered <span class="pagenum">[Pg 222]</span> only as a slight prelude to Its +real fulfilment, which takes place only when the reality fully coincides with the +idea; so that we are not at liberty to limit ourselves to the commencement of the +Messianic time, but must include the Messianic time in its last consummation.—Another +question still remains:—Why is God here called the "<i>living</i>?" Plainly, to +point out the antithesis of the true God to dead idols, which cannot love, because +they do not live; and thus to bring out the greatness of the privilege of being +the child of such a God. The same antithesis is found in Deut. xxxii. 3 seqq.: "Where +are now their gods, the rock in whom they trusted, which did eat the fat of their +sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink-offerings? Let them rise up and help +you; let it be a covering to you. See now that I, I am He, and not is a God beside +Me. I kill and I make alive. I wound and I heal." This antithesis still continues; +the world has only changed its idols. It still always seeks the life from the dead, +from the gross idol of sin up to the refined idol of a self-made abstract god, whether +he be formed from logical notions or from emotions and feelings. But how much soever +they may strive to give life to their idols, they remain dead, although they should +even attain to a semblance of life. The true God, on the contrary, lives and continues +to live, how much soever they may strive to slay Him. He manifests Himself as the +living one, either by smiting and killing them, if they continue in their impenitence, +or by healing and quickening them, if they become His children.—<i>Finally</i>,—we +must still consider the two citations, in the New Testament, of the passage before +us. One in 1 Pet. ii. 10, <span lang="el" class="Greek">οἱ ποτὲ οὐ λαὸς, νῦν δὲ +λαὸς Θεοῦ· οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες</span>, must certainly strike us, +inasmuch as this epistle, on conclusive grounds (compare <i>Steiger</i> S. 14 ff.), +cannot be considered as being addressed to Jewish Christians exclusively. But still +more striking is the second quotation in Rom. ix. 25, 26: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει· Καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου, έν +μου· καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην, ἠγαπημένην. Καὶ ἔσται, ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐῤῥήθη αὐτοῖς +οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ζῶντος.</span> Here our passage is +not only alluded to, but expressly quoted, and, in opposition to the Jews, the calling +of the Gentiles is proved from it. But how can a passage which, according to the +whole context, can refer to Israel only, be applied <span class="pagenum">[Pg 223]</span> +directly to the Gentiles? The answer very readily suggests itself when we reduce +the prophecy to its fundamental idea. This is none other than that of divine mercy, +which may indeed, by apostasy and unfaithfulness, be prevented from manifesting +itself, but can never be extinguished, because it has its foundation in God's nature. +Compare Jer. xxxi. 20: "Is Ephraim a dear son to Me, a child of joy? For as often +as I speak of him, I must still remember him. Therefore My bowels sound for him, +<i>I will have mercy</i> upon him, saith the Lord." Now, in the same manner as this +truth was realized in the restoration of the children of Israel to be again the +children of God, so it is in the reception of the Gentiles. It is not at all a mere +application, but a real proof which here forms the question at issue. It is <i>because</i> +God had promised to receive again the children of Israel, that He must receive the +Gentiles also; for otherwise that divine decree would have its foundation in mere +caprice, which cannot be conceived to have any existence in God. Although the Gentiles +are not so near as Israel, yet He must satisfy the claims of those who are more +remote, just because He acknowledges the claims of those who are near. The necessity +of going back to the fundamental idea appears in the promises as well as in the +commandments. We cite only one instance which is especially fitted to serve as a +parallel to the case before us. There is no doubt, and prejudice alone could have +denied, that in the Pentateuch, by <i>friend</i> and <i>brother</i> the Israelite +is to be understood throughout; it is in the New Testament that the command of Christian +brotherly love is given. After having commended truthfulness, Paul adds: "Because +ye are members of one another"—a reason which can refer to those only who have Christ +as their common head. From this limitation, can anything be inferred to the prejudice +of love towards the whole human race, or of the duties towards all without any distinction? +Just the reverse. It is just because the Israelite is bound to love the Israelite, +and the Christian the Christian, that he should embrace all men in love. If the +special relation to God as the common Redeemer afford the foundation for the <i> +special</i> love, then the <i>general</i> relation to God as the Creator and Preserver +must also afford the foundation of <i>universal</i> love; just as from the command +to honour father and mother, it necessarily follows that we must also +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 224]</span> honour uncle and aunt, king and magistrate. +This is the only correct view of the laws and prophecies; and if it be consistently +followed out, it will make water to flow out of the rock, and will create streams +in the wilderness.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 2. "<i>And the children of Judah and the children of Israel +assemble themselves together, and set over themselves one head, and go up out of +the land; for great is the day of Jezreel.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The words, "They appoint themselves a king," appear strange at +first sight. For it is not, in general, the union of Judah and Israel which the +prophet expects from better times;—a <i>perverse</i> union of both, one, it may +be, in which the house of Judah shall also give up Jehovah his God, and David his +King, only in order to be able to live on a right brotherly footing with Israel, +would have been anything but a progress and a blessing;—but such a union as has +for its foundation the return of Israel to the true God, and to the Davidic dynasty. +This appears clearly from iii. 5. The difficulty is removed by a comparison with +the passage of the Pentateuch to which the prophet seems to allude: "Thou shalt +set over thee a king, whom the Lord thy God shall choose," Deut. xvii. 15. The prophet +seems to have these words before his eyes, as it appears elsewhere also, where he +describes the hitherto opposite conduct of the Israelites; compare the remarks on +iii. 4. From these it appears that the election of the king by God, who had promised +eternal dominion to the house of David, and his election by the people, do not in +the least exclude one another. On the contrary, it is <i>because</i> God had elected +the king, that now the people also elect him. <i>Calvin</i> remarks: "There appears +to be transferred to men what properly belongs to God alone—viz., the appointment +of a king; but the prophet expresses, by this word, the obedience of faith; for +it is not enough that Christ be given, and placed before men as a King, but they +must also acknowledge and reverently receive Him as a King. From this we infer, +that when we believe the Gospel, we choose, as it were by our own vote, Christ as +our King." That the prophet understands the "setting of a head" in this sense, appears +also from the circumstance that the whole verse is based upon the reference to the +Exodus from Egypt, which is now to be repeated. To this the words, "They assemble +themselves together," likewise refer; for the departure from Egypt was preceded +by the assembling together of the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 225]</span> whole people. +The mention of a "head" refers back to Moses. In his case, as well as that of David +subsequently, the election by the people was only the acknowledgment of his having +been divinely called.—Another question is, How are the words, "They go up out of +the land," to be understood? There can be no doubt that by "land," the land of captivity +is designated. For the words are borrowed from Exod. i. 10, where Pharaoh says, +"When there falleth out any war, they will join our enemies, and fight against us, +and go up out of the land," <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ועלה מן הארץ</span>. +The prophet, moreover, is his own interpreter in ii. 17, where he expressly compares +this new going up to the promised land with the former going up from Egypt: "<i>As +in the day when she went up out of the land of Egypt</i>;" just as, in other passages, +he describes their being carried away, under the figure of their being carried away +to Egypt—Assyria being considered as another Egypt. Compare viii. 13: "Now will +He remember their iniquity and visit their sins; they shall return to Egypt;" ix. +3: "They shall not dwell in the Lord's land, and Ephraim returns to Egypt." (Compare, +on this passage, the Author's <i>Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch</i>, +vol. i. p. 121 ff.) Moreover, in the other prophets also, the going up from, or +deliverance out of, Egypt, forms throughout the basis of the second great deliverance. +And this is quite natural; for both of those events stand in the closest actual +connection with each other;—both proceeded from the same Divine Being; and the former +was a prophecy <i>by fact</i>, and a pledge of the latter. The deliverance of the +people of God from Egypt sealed their election; and from the latter the new deliverance +necessarily followed;—a relation which repeats itself in individuals also. From +this we may explain the fact that in the Psalms, they who celebrate God's former +mercies, prove from them to Him and to themselves, throughout, that He must now +also be their helper. It is then by no means a mere external similarity which induces +the prophets ever and anon to refer to the deliverance from Egypt (compare the passages +Mic. ii. 12, 13; Jer. xxiii. 7, 8, which bear so close a resemblance to the passage +before us), any more than that the Passover is a mere memorial. Such cannot occur +in the true religion which has a living God, and hence knows nothing of anything +absolutely past. <i>Ewald's</i> <span class="pagenum">[Pg 226]</span> exposition, +that they go up out of the country for the purpose of further conquest, and that +of <i>Simson</i>, that they go up to Jerusalem, sever the three events which, as +the example of previous history shows, are evidently so closely allied; and these +expositors, moreover, give, by an addition of their own, that definiteness to the +words, "And they shall go up out of the land," which they can obtain only by a reference +to the history of the past. In their ambiguity, they almost expressly point to such +a commentary.—The article in <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הארץ</span>, <i>the</i> +(<i>i.e.</i>, the definite) land, is explained from the circumstance that, in the +previous context, there had been an indirect allusion to their being carried away +into a strange land. If Israel was no more the people of God,—if they no longer +enjoyed His mercy, then it is supposed that they could not remain in the land which +they had received only as the people of God, and had hitherto retained only through +His mercy. But, primarily, the article refers to "the place where it was said unto +them," in the preceding verse.—That along with the children of Israel, the children +of Judah also assemble themselves and go up, implies a fact which the prophet had +not expressly mentioned, because it did not stand immediately connected with his +purpose—viz., that Judah too should be carried into captivity. It thus supplements +chap. i. 7, by showing that the mercy there promised to the inhabitants of Judah +is to be understood relatively only. Such suppositions, indeed, show very plainly +how distinctly the future lay before the eyes of the prophet.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_226a" href="#ftn_226a">[5]</a></sup>—With +regard, now, to the historical reference,—it must, in the first place, be remarked, +that whatever is here determined concerning it, must be applicable to all other +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 227]</span> parallel passages also, in which a future +reunion of Israel and Judah, and their common return to the promised land, are announced; +<i>e.g.</i>, Jer. iii. 18: "In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the +house of Israel, and they come together out of the land of the north to the land +that I have given to their fathers;" l. 4: "In those days the children of Israel +shall come, they and the children of Judah together, weeping shall they come and +seek the Lord their God." Compare also Is. xi.; Ezek. xxxvii. 19, 20. In the passage +under consideration, several interpreters, as <i>Theodoret</i>, think of the return +from Babylon, and refer the "one head" to Zerubbabel. Now we certainly cannot deny +that, in that event, there is a small beginning of the fulfilment. But if that had +been the entire fulfilment, Hosea would more resemble a dreamer and an enthusiast +than a true prophet of the living God. The objection which immediately presents +itself—viz., that, after all, the greatest portion of the ten tribes, and a very +considerable part of Judah, remained in captivity—is by no means the strongest. +Although the whole both of Judah and Israel had returned, the real and final fulfilment +could not be sought for in that event. It is not the renewed possession of the country, +as such, which the prophet promises, but rather a certain kind of possession,—such +a possession as that the land is completely the land of God, partaking in all the +fulness of His blessings, and thus a worthy residence for the people of God, and +for their children. One may be in Canaan, and yet, at the same time, in Babylon +or in Assyria. Had not the threatened punishment of God been indeed as fully executed +upon those who, during the Assyrian and Babylonish captivities, wandered about the +country in sorrow and misery, as upon those who were carried away? Can the circumstance +that Jews are even now living in Jerusalem in the deepest misery, be adduced as +a proof that the loss of the promised land, with which the people were threatened, +had not been completely fulfilled? It is true that, during the times of the Old +Covenant, there existed a certain connection betwixt the lower and the higher kinds +of possession. As soon as the people ceased to be the people of the Lord, they lost +with the former, after being often previously warned by the decrease of it, the +latter also. As soon as they obtained again the lower kind of possession, which +could happen only in the case of a <span class="pagenum">[Pg 228]</span> return +to the Lord, they recovered, to a certain degree, in proportion to the earnestness +and sincerity of their conversion, the higher kind of possession also. A commencement +of the fulfilment must, therefore, be at all events assumed in the return from the +Babylonish captivity; but a very feeble commencement only. Just as the conversion +was very superficial, so was the degree of the higher kind of possession but a very +small one. The manifestations of mercy were very sparing; the condition of the new +colony was, upon the whole, very poor; they did not possess the land as a free property, +but only under the dominion of a foreigner. That which was, in one respect, the +termination of the captivity, was, in another, much rather a continuation of it. +It was certainly not the true Canaan which they possessed, any more than one still +possesses the beloved object while he embraces only his corpse. Where the Lord is +not present with His gifts and blessings, there Canaan cannot be. It was just as +the land of the presence of the Lord, that it was so dear and valuable to all believers.—From +what has now been said, it appears that, as regards the historical reference, we +need not limit ourselves to the times of the Old Covenant, nor dream of a return +of Israel to Canaan to take place at some future time. Luther's explanation, "They +will go up from this place of pilgrimage to the heavenly father-land," is quite +correct,—not indeed according to the letter, but according to the spirit. It is +not the form, but the essence of the divine inheritance, which the prophet has in +view. The form is a different one under the New Covenant, where the whole earth +has become a Canaan; but the essence remains. To cling here to the form, would be +just as absurd as if one, who, for Christ's sake, has forsaken all, were to upbraid +Him because he had not received again, according to the letter of His promise, precisely +an hundred-fold, lands, brothers, sisters, mothers, etc., Mark x. 30. The words +of God, which are spirit and life, must be understood with spirit and life.—Suppose +that the children of Israel were, at some future time, to return to Canaan, this +would have nothing to do with our prophecy. In a religious point of view, it would +be a matter of no consequence, and could not serve to prove the covenant-faithfulness +of God. Under the New Covenant it finds its fulfilment, that "Canaan must, even +in the North, bloom joyfully around the beloved." The three stations<span class="pagenum"> +[Pg 229]</span>—Egypt, the wilderness, and Canaan—will continue to exist for ever; +but we go from the one to the other only with the feet of the spirit, and not, as +in the Old Covenant, with the feet of the body at the same time. The grossly literal +explanation which knows not to separate the thought from its drapery, the essential +from the accidental, agrees, just in the main point, with the allegorical explanation—viz., +in interpolating, instead of interpreting.—The fulfilment of the prophecy before +us is, therefore, a continuous and progressive one, which will not cease until God's +whole plan of salvation be consummated. It began at Babylon, and was carried forward +at the appearance of Christ, whom many out of Judah and Israel set over themselves +as their head, to be their common leader to Canaan. It is, even now, realized every +day before our eyes in every Israelite who follows their example. It will, at some +future time, find its final fulfilment in the last and greatest manifestation of +God's covenant-faithfulness towards Israel, which, happily, is as strongly guaranteed +by the New as it is by the Old Testament.—The last words of the verse have been +already explained, substantially, in ver. 1. The name "Jezreel" is here used with +a reference to its appellative signification. Israel appears here (compare ver. +25 [23], which serves as a commentary and as a refutation of differing interpretations) +as a seed which is sown by God in fruitful land, and which shall produce a rich +harvest. The figure appears, with a somewhat different turn, in Jer. xxxi. 27; Ezek. +xxxvi. 9, where the house of Israel, and the house of Judah, appear as the soil +in which the seed is sown by God. Analogous is also Ps. lxxii. 16: "They of the +city shall flourish up like the grass of the earth."—The +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span> is explained by the circumstance that the +sowing, which can take place only in the land of the Lord (compare ver. 25), supposes +the going up from the land of the captivity. But if the day of sowing be great, +if it be regarded by God as high and important, then the going up, which is the +condition of sowing, must necessarily take place.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 3. "<i>Say ye unto your brethren, My people</i> (Ammi); +<i>and to your sisters, Who has obtained mercy</i> (Ruhamah)."</p> +<p class="normal">The words, "My people," are a concise expression for: "You whom +the Lord has called. My people." The mention of the brothers and sisters is explained +by the reference to the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 230]</span> male and female members +of the prophet's family. The phrase, "Say ye," is in substance equivalent to: "Then +will ye be able to say." The prophet sees before him the people of the Lord who +have experienced mercy; and calls upon the members to salute one another joyfully +with the new name given to them by God. Such is the simple meaning of the verse, +which has been darkened by a multitude of forced interpretations.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_199a" href="#ftnRef_199a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> In Hab. ii. 1, where the prophet is standing + upon his watch, and watches to see what the Lord will say <i>unto</i> him, it + would be rather strange to translate "in me." There is nothing else to lead + us to conceive that the apparition of angels in Zech. is internal. But Num. + xii. 8 is quite decisive. The Lord there says, with reference to His relation + to Moses, "Mouth to mouth I speak to him (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בו</span>);" + and immediately afterwards it is said, "Wherefore, then, were ye not afraid + to speak to My servant (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בעבדי</span>), to Moses?" + It is evident that the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span> cannot be explained + by "in" in the one case, and by "through" in the other. It is remarkable, however, + that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דבר</span> with + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span> occurs very frequently when the Lord + Himself, or, as in Zechariah, <i>the</i> Angel, speaks. This may, perhaps, be + explained from the circumstance, that the heavenly discourses have an especially + penetrating power, and sink very deeply into the heart.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_203a" href="#ftnRef_203a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> This is very natural, for the proper name + has originally a cheering signification. It is apparent from the remarks of + <i>Schubert</i> (<i>Reise</i> iii. S. 164-166), and of <i>Ritter</i> (<i>Erdkunde</i> + 16, i. S. 693), on the natural condition of the plain of Jezreel, how it happened + that it received this name, which means: "God sows." <i>Schubert</i> calls the + soil of Jezreel a field of corn, the seed of which is not sown by any man's + hand, the ripe ears of which are not reaped by any reaper. The various kinds + of corn appeared to him to be wild plants; the mules walked in them with half + their bodies covered by them; the ears of wheat were sown by themselves. "All + travellers," says <i>Ritter</i>, "agree in their descriptions of the extraordinary + beauty and fertility of the plain."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_204a" href="#ftnRef_204a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[3]</sup></a> This transference was so much the more natural, + as, under the government of the house of Jehu, guilt had certainly been frequently + concentrated in the form of blood-guiltiness. Compare Is. i. 21, where the prophet, + in order to mark out the reigning sin in its highest degree, represents Jerusalem + as being full of murderers.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_206a" href="#ftnRef_206a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[4]</sup></a> <i>Hitzig</i> is of opinion that "the prophet + cannot blame him for the death of Joram and Jezebel, but may well do so for + the murder of Ahaziah, king of Judah, and of his brethren, and for the carnage + described in 2 Kings x. 11." But Ahaziah was not killed at Jezreel: compare + 2 Kings ix. 27; 2 Chron. xxii. 9. And "the carnage in 2 Kings xii." likewise + took place at Jezreel to a small extent only, in so far, namely, as it concerned + the princes of the house of Ahab, who still remained in Jezreel. Compare <i> + Thenius</i> on this passage.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_226a" href="#ftnRef_226a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[5]</sup></a> That the carrying away of Judah, which is + here supposed, is a total and future one, and not, as <i>Hofmann</i> (<i>Weiss. + u. Erf.</i> i. S. 210) asserts, one which is partial and already past (Joel + iv. [iii.] 2-8; Amos i. 6, 9), appears from the analogy of the children of Israel,—from + the reference to the type of the Egyptian conditions,—from a comparison of chap. + v. 5, 12, xii. 1-3,—from the fact that the carrying away is placed in the view + of the <i>whole people</i> as early as in the Pentateuch, <i>e.g.</i>, Deut. + xxviii. 36, iv. 26, 27,—and, finally, from the fact, that the other prophets + also, even from the most ancient times, manifest a clear knowledge of the catastrophe + which threatened Judah also; compare<!--1854 -->, <i>e.g.</i>, Amos ii. 4, 5. + Moreover, in Is. xi. 11, 12, also, the return of Judah is prophesied, although + no express announcement of the carrying away precedes. In like manner, in Amos + ix. 11, the restoration of the fallen tabernacle of David is foretold, although + no express mention is made of its fall.</p> +</div> +<hr class="W20"> +<h3><a name="div3_230" href="#div3Ref_230">CHAP. II. 4-25 (2-23).</a></h3> +<p class="normal">"The significant couple"—<i>Rückert</i> remarks—"disappears in +the thing signified by it; Israel itself appears as the wife of whoredoms." This +is the only essential difference between this and the preceding sections; and it +is the less marked, because even there, in the last part of it, the symbolical action +passed over into a mere figure. With this exception, this section also contains +the alternation of punishment and threatening, and of promise,—the latter beginning +with ver. 16 (14). The features of the image, which were less attended to in the +preceding portion, but are here more carefully portrayed, are the rejection of the +unfaithful wife, and her gradual restoration. <i>Calvin</i> says: "After God has +laid open their sins before men. He adds some consolation, and tempers the severity, +lest they should despair. But then He returns again to threatenings, and He must +do so necessarily; for though men may have been terrified by the fear of punishment, +yet they do not recover, and become wise for ever." "By a new impetus as it were," +says <i>Manger</i>, "he suddenly returns to expand the same argument, and sets out +again from things more sad."</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 4. "<i>Contend with your mother, contend; for she is not +my wife, and I am not her husband: and let her put away her whoredoms from her face, +and her adultery from her breasts.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Calvin</i> is of opinion that a contrast is here intended, +inasmuch as the Israelites were striving with God, and attributed to Him the cause +of their misfortune: "Do not contend with Me, but rather with your mother, who, +by her adultery, has brought down <i>righteous</i> punishment upon herself and upon +you." But this interpretation is inadmissible; because it proceeds +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 231]</span> from the unfounded supposition that the divorce +is to be considered as having already taken place outwardly, whilst the contending +here clearly appears as one by which divorce may yet be averted. The words, "Contend +with your mother," rather mean, on the contrary, that it is high time to call her +to account, if they would not go to destruction along with her. From this, however, +we are not entitled to infer that the moral condition of the children was better +than that of the mother. Without any regard to their moral condition, the prophet +only wishes to say that their interest required them to do this. If it were not +his intention just to carry out the image of adultery, he might as well have called +upon the mother to contend against the children, as it is said in Is. li. 1: "Behold, +for your iniquities you have been sold, and for your transgression your mother has +been put away." In point of fact, the mother has no standing-place apart from the +children. <i>Vitringa</i> says: "One and the same people is called 'mother' when +viewed in their collective character; and 'children' when viewed in the individuals +who are born of that people. For a people is born from the people. For the whole +people is considered according to that which is radical in it, which constitutes +its nature and substance,—and, in this respect, it is called the 'mother of its +citizens.'" But we are as little entitled to infer from this exhortation, that a +reform, and an averting of the threatened judgments, may still be hoped for. This +is opposed by what follows, where the wife appears as incorrigible, and her rejection +as unavoidable. The fundamental thought is, on the contrary, only this:—that a reform +is necessary if the threatened judgments are to be averted. That this necessity, +however, would not become a reality, the prophet foresaw; and for this reason he +speaks unconditionally in the sequel. But from this again it must not be inferred +that, in that case, his exhortations and threatenings would be altogether in vain. +Though no reform was to be expected from the people, single individuals might, nevertheless, +be converted. At the same time, it was of great importance for the future, that +before the calamity should break in, a right view of it should be opened up to the +whole people. It is of great importance, that if any one be smitten, he should know +for what reason. The instructions in the doctrines of Christianity, which a criminal +has received in childhood, may <span class="pagenum">[Pg 232]</span> often seem +for a long series of years to have been altogether in vain; but afterwards, notwithstanding, +when punishment has softened his heart, they bring forth their fruits.—In the words, +"For she is not my wife, and I am not her husband," the ground of the exhortation +is stated. Even for this reason, the words cannot be referred to the <i>external</i> +dissolution of the marriage, to the punishment of the wife; they signify rather +the <i>moral</i> dissolution of the marriage—the guilt of the wife—and are equivalent +to: "our marriage is dissolved <i>de facto</i>." But in the case of the spiritual +marriage, this dissolution <i>de facto</i> is always, sooner or later, according +to the greater or smaller measure of God's forbearance, followed by the dissolution +<i>de jure</i>; or, to speak without figure, wherever there is sin, punishment will +always follow. God bears with much weakness on the part of His people; but wherever, +through this weakness, the relation to Him is essentially dissolved, He there annuls +the relation altogether. The <span lang="el" class="Greek">παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας</span> +applies to spiritual marriages also. The surrender of the main faculties and powers +of our nature to something which is not God, stands on a par with carnal adultery. +Thus, then, the connection betwixt "contend" and "for" clearly appears.—Many interpreters, +viewing the clause beginning with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span> as parenthetical, +would connect the last words of the verse with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ריבו</span>: +"Contend with your mother that she may put away." But the words are rather to be +considered as parallel with the first member; for "contend," etc., is equivalent +to: "seek to bring your mother to a better way," or: "let your mother reform herself." +Her crime is designated first as whoredom, and then as adultery. The relation in +which the two stand to one another is plainly seen from chap. i. 2, where the notion +of adultery is paraphrased by: "whoring away from the Lord." By "whoredom," the +<i>genus</i>—carnal crimes in general—is designated; by "adultery," the <i>species</i>, +or carnal crime by which the sacred rights of another person are, at the same time, +violated. The idea of whoredom, when transferred to a spiritual relation, implies +chiefly the worldliness of those with whom God has not entered into any special +relation; whilst the idea of adultery implies the worldliness of individuals and +communities with whom God has entered into a special marriage, and whose apostasy +is, for this reason, far more culpable. Leaving out of <span class="pagenum">[Pg +233]</span> view the more aggravating circumstance, the prophet first speaks of +whoredom in the case of the children of Israel also.—The reason why the whoredom +is here attributed to the face, and the adultery to the breasts, is well given by +<i>Manger</i>: "We need not have any difficulty about seeing adultery attributed +to the very face and breasts. There is a certain expressiveness in this conciseness +which demonstrates, as it were before our eyes, that, in her whole deportment, the +wife was given over to sensuality, and that her whole aim was only to excite to +it, and to practise it. For the face is, with women, the sign of dissolute lasciviousness—as +<i>Horace</i> expresses it in his Odes, I. 19:—</p> +<blockquote> + <p class="continue">Urit grata protervitas <br> + Et vultus nimium lubricus aspici.</p> +</blockquote> +<p class="continue">Ezekiel, too, in chap. xxiii. 3, speaks of 'the pressed breasts +of Israel in Egypt.'" <i>Schmid</i> states as the reason why just the face and breasts +are mentioned, "that Scripture, in order not to offend modesty, forbears to mention +the worse and grosser deeds of fornication." But this is very little in harmony +with the manner of Scripture—as may be seen from a comparison of Ezek. xvi. and +xxiii., and of ver. 12 of the chapter before us. The reason rather is, that those +parts are here specially to be mentioned, in which the whoring nature openly manifests +itself; so that the highest degree of impudence is thereby expressed. This then +shows that there is no longer any halting, no longer any struggle of the better +against the evil principle. Such an impudent whore he resembles who, without shame +or concern, publicly exhibits his devotedness to the world. In this way has <i>Calvin</i> +also explained it. "There is no doubt," says he, "that the prophet here expresses +the impudence of the people, who in their hardihood, in their contempt of God, in +their sinful superstitions, and in every kind of wickedness, had gone to such lengths, +that they were like whores who do not conceal their turpitude, but publicly prostitute +themselves, yea, try to exhibit the signs of their wickedness in their eyes, as +well as in their whole body."</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 5. "<i>Lest I strip her naked and expose her as in the day +of her birth, and make her like the wilderness, and set her like dry land, and slay +her by thirst.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">In the marriage here spoken of, there was this peculiarity, that +the husband first redeemed the wife from a condition the <span class="pagenum">[Pg +234]</span> most wretched and miserable, before he united himself to her; and hence +became her benefactor, before he became her husband. Compare iii. 2, where the Lord +redeems the wife from slavery; and Ezek. xvi. 4, where the people appear as a child +exposed, naked, and covered with filth, upon whom the Lord has mercy,—whom He provides +with precious clothing and splendid ornaments, and destines for His spouse. During +the marriage, the husband continues his liberality towards his wife. But now, the +gifts, all of which had been bestowed upon her only with a view to the marriage +which was to take place or was already entered upon, are to cease, because the marriage-tie +has been broken by her guilt. She now returns to the condition of the deepest misery +in which she had been sunk before her union to the Lord.—There is, in this, an allusion +to that which, in the case of actual marriage, the husband was bound to give to +his wife, viz., clothing and food; compare Is. iv. 1. If God withdraws His gifts, +the consequences are infinitely awful, because, altogether unlike the natural husband, +He has everything in His possession; if He does not give anything to drink. He then +slays by thirst. If we keep in view this aggravation of the punishment, which has +its ground only in the person of the husband, it is evident that we have here before +us only a reference to the withdrawal of the marriage-gifts which is the consequence +of the divorce, and not, as several interpreters—<i>e.g.</i>, <i>Manger</i>—suppose, +to a punishment of adultery, alleged by them to have been common at that time, "that +the wife was stripped of her clothes, exposed to public mockery, and killed by hunger +and thirst." The eternal and universal truth which, in the verse before us, is expressed +with a special reference to Israel, is, that all the gifts of God are bestowed upon +individuals, as well as upon whole nations, either in order to lead them to the +communion of life with Him, or because this communion already exists; just as our +Saviour says that to him who has successfully sought for the kingdom of heaven, +all other things shall be added, without any labour on his part. If we overlook +the truth that the gifts of God have this object—if they be not received and enjoyed +as the gifts of God—if the spiritual marriage be refused, or if, having been already +entered into, it be broken,—sooner or later the gifts will be withdrawn.—The word +"naked" properly includes a whole clause: "I shall strip <span class="pagenum">[Pg +235]</span> her so that she shall become naked." The verb +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הצּיג</span>, "to place," "to set," has the secondary +signification of public exhibition; compare Job xvii. 6. The literal translation +ought to be, "I shall expose her as <i>the day</i> of her birth;" and we must assume +that there is here the occurrence of one of those numerous cases, in which the comparison +is merely alluded to, without being carried out; compare, <i>e.g.</i>, "Like the +day of Midian," Is. ix. 3; "Their heart rejoiceth like wine," Zech. x. 7. The <i> +tertium comparationis</i> between the day of her birth and her future condition +is only the entire nakedness; compare Job i. 21. Any allusion to the filth, etc., +is less obvious; the prophet would have been required to give an intimation of this +in some manner. The two parts of the first hemistich of the verse correspond with +each other; just as do the three parts of the second hemistich. In the first, the +withdrawal of clothing, and nakedness; in the second, the withdrawal of food, and +hunger and thirst. It is questionable whether the mention of the birth-day here +belongs merely to the imagery, is a mere designation of entire nakedness, because +man is never more naked than when he comes into the world; or whether it is to be +understood as belonging to the thing itself, and refers to the condition of the +people in Egypt to which they are now to be reduced. In favour of the latter explanation, +there is not only the comparison of the parallel passage in Ezekiel, but, still +more, the purely matter-of-fact character of the entire description. Israel is, +in this section, not <i>compared</i> to a wife, so that <i>figure</i> and <i>thing</i> +would be co-ordinate, but appears as the wife herself. Ver. 17 also is in favour +of this interpretation.—The words, "I make her like the wilderness," which, by +<i>Hitzig</i> and others, are erroneously referred to the country instead of the +people, are pertinently explained by <i>Manger</i>: "The prophet depicts a horrible +and desperate condition, where everything necessary for sustaining life is awanting,—where +she has to endure a thirst peculiar to an altogether uncultivated and sunburnt wilderness." +The comparison appears so much the more suitable, when we remark that wilderness +and desert are here personified, and appear as hungry and thirsty. This, however, +was too poetical for several prosaic interpreters. Hence they would in both instances +supply a <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span> after the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כ</span>, "as in the wilderness" = "I place her in +the condition in which she was formerly, in the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 236]</span> +wilderness." But it is self-evident that such a supplying of the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span> is inadmissible. If we were to receive this +interpretation, we must rather assume that here also there is merely a comparison +intimated: "as the wilderness,"—for, "as she was in the wilderness." But even then, +the interpretation cannot, for another reason, be admitted. The impending condition +of the people did not, in the least, correspond to what it was in the wilderness. +The natural condition of the wilderness was not then seen in all its reality; the +people of the Lord received bread from heaven, and water from the rock. It has its +antitype rather in such a condition as that which is to follow upon the punishment, +ver. 16. The Article indicates that, by "the wilderness," we are here to understand, +specially, the Desert of Arabia,—the desert <span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν</span>. +But that this comes into consideration only as one especially desolate, and not +as the former abode of the Israelites, appears from the following—"in dry land," +without the Article, and not, as otherwise we would expect, "in <i>the</i> dry land." +<i>Finally</i>,—We have a parallel to this in the threatening in Deut. xxviii. 48: +"And thou servest thine enemy whom the Lord thy God will send upon thee, in hunger, +and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in great want."</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 6. "<i>And I will not have mercy upon her children, for they +are children of whoredoms.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">It appears from ver. 7, that the children are to be repudiated +on account of their origin (compare the remarks on i. 2), and not on account of +their morals. <i>Michaelis</i> says, "They have the same disposition, and follow +the same course as their adulterous mother; for a viper bringeth forth a viper, +and a bad raven lays a bad egg." The cause of their rejection is, that they are +children of whoredoms. That they are such, is proved by the circumstance that their +mother is whoring. Compare also v. 7: "They have become faithless to the Lord, for +they have born strange children." In point of fact, however, a sinful origin and +a sinful nature are identical.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 7. "<i>For their mother has been whoring, she who bore them +has been put to shame; for she has said, I will go after my lovers, the givers of +my bread and my water, of my wool and my flax, of my oil and my drink.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הובישה</span> is explained in a +two-fold way. The common explanation is: "She has practised what is disgraceful, +she has acted <span class="pagenum">[Pg 237]</span> shamefully." Others, on the +contrary, explain: "She has been put to shame, she has been disgraced." In this +latter way it is explained by <i>Manger</i>, who remarks, "that this word is stronger +than <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זנה</span>; that it implies not only an accusation +of vile whoredom, but also that she has been convicted of this crime, and as it +were apprehended <i>in flagranti</i>; so that, even if she were yet impudent enough, +she could no longer deny it, but must sink down in confusion and perplexity." This +latter exposition is, without doubt, the preferable one; for, 1. +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הוביש</span> never occurs in the first-mentioned +signification. <i>Winer</i> contents himself with quoting the passage before us. +<i>Gesenius</i> refers, moreover, to Prov. x. 5. But the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בן מביש</span> of that passage is evidently a son +bringing disgrace upon his parents,—in xxix. 15 <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אמּו</span> +is added,—or making them ashamed, disappointing their hopes. On the other hand, +the signification, "to be put to shame," "to be convicted of a disgraceful deed," +is quite an established one. Compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Jer. ii. 26: "As the disgrace +of a thief when he is found, thus the whole house of Israel is <i>put to shame</i>;" +Jer. vi. 15: "They are put to shame, for they have committed abomination; they shamed +not themselves, they felt no shame;" compare also Jer. viii. 9. In all these passages, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הוביש</span> signifies the shame forced upon those +who have no sense of shame.—2. The signification, "to act disgracefully," does not +admit of a regular grammatical derivation. <i>Gesenius</i> refers to analogies such +as <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הרע ,היטיב</span>; but these would be admissible +only if the <i>Kal</i> <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בוש</span> signified, "to +be infamous," while it means only "to be ashamed." Being derived from +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בוש</span>, the verb can mean only "to put to shame," +in which signification it occurs, <i>e.g.</i>, in 2. Sam. xix. 6. But, on the other +hand, the signification, "to be put to shame," can be well defended. As the <i>Hiphil</i> +cannot have an intransitive signification, it must, with this signification, be +considered as derived from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בשת</span>, "<i>pudorem, +ignominiam contraxit</i>,"—a view which is favoured by Jer. ii. 26.—The "lovers" +are the idols; compare the remarks on Zech. xiii. 6. The +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span> confirms the statement, that she who bare +them has been whoring, and has been put to shame by a further exposure of the crime +and its origin. The same delusion which appears here as the cause of the spiritual +adultery, is stated as such also in Jer. xlix. 17, 18. Jeremiah there warns the +people not to contract sin by idolatry, because that was the cause of all their +present misery, and would bring upon them <span class="pagenum">[Pg 238]</span> +greater misery still. But they answer him, that they would continue to offer incense +and drink-offerings to the Queen of heaven, as they and their fathers had formerly +done in their native land; for, "since we left off to do so, we have wanted all +things, and were consumed by hunger and sword." The antithesis in Jer. ii. 13 of +the fountain of living waters, and the broken cisterns that hold no water, has reference +likewise to this delusion. But that which is the <i>cause</i> of the gross whoredom, +is the <i>consequence</i> of the refined one. The inward apostasy must already have +taken place, when one speaks as the wife does in the verse before us. As long as +man continues faithfully with God in communion of life, he perceives, by the eye +of faith, the hand in the clouds from which he receives everything, which guides +him, and upon which everything—even that which is apparently the most independent +and powerful—depends. As soon as, through unbelief, he has lost this communion with +God, and heaven is shut against him, he allows his eye to wander over every visible +object, looks out for everything in the world which appears to manifest independence +and superior power, makes this an object to which he shows his love, soliciting +its favour, and making it his god. In thus looking around, the Israelites would, +necessarily and chiefly, have their eyes attracted by the idols. For they saw the +neighbouring nations wealthy and powerful; and these nations themselves derived +their power and wealth from the idols. To these also the Israelites now ascribed +the gifts which they had hitherto received; and this so much the rather, because +it was easier to satisfy the demands of these idols, than those of the true God, +who requires just that which it is most difficult to give—the heart, and nothing +else. And, being determined not to give it to Him, they felt deeply that they could +expect no good from Him. Whatever good He had still left to them, they could consider +as only a gift of unmerited mercy, and destined to lead them to repentance,—a consideration +which makes a natural man recoil and draw back, inasmuch as, in his relation to +God, he always thinks only of merit. That which we thus perceive in them is even +now repeated daily. We need only put in the place of idols, the abstract God of +the Rationalists and Deists, man's own power, or the power of other men, and many +other things besides, and it will at once be seen that the words, "I will go after +my lovers that give me my <span class="pagenum">[Pg 239]</span> bread," etc., are, +up to the present moment, the watch-word of the world.—"Bread and water" signify +the necessaries of life; "oil and (strong) drink," those things which serve rather +for luxuries.—"My bread," etc., is an expression of affection, indicating that she +regards these as most necessary, and to be sought after, in preference to everything +else.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 8. "<i>Therefore, behold, I hedge up thy way with thorns, +and I wall her wall, and her paths she shall not find.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The apostate woman is first addressed: "<i>thy</i> way;" but the +discourse then passes to the third person,—"her wall, her paths." We must not conceive +of this, as if the wife were to be shut up in a two-fold way:—first, by a hedge +of thorns, and then, by a wall; but the same thing is expressed here by a double +figure, as is also done in Is. v. 5. First, the shutting up is alone spoken of; +it is afterwards brought into connection with the effects to be thereby produced; +and because she is enclosed by a wall, she cannot find her path. "I wall her wall" +is tantamount to, "I make a wall for her." The words of the husband in the verse +under consideration form an evident contrast to those of the wife in the preceding +verse. <i>Schmid</i> says: "The punishment is by the law of retaliation. She had +said, 'I will go to my lovers;' but God threatens, on the contrary, that He will +obstruct the way so that she cannot go."<!--See 1854 ed.--> The +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הנני</span> points to the unexpectedness of the result. +The wife imagined that she would be able to carry out her purpose with great safety +and ease; it does not even occur to her to think of her husband, who had hitherto +allowed her, from weakness, as she imagines, to go on her way undisturbed; but she +sees herself <i>at once</i> firmly enclosed by a wall.—There can be no doubt, that, +by the hedging and walling about, severe sufferings are intended, by which the people +are encompassed, straitened, and hindered in every free movement. For sufferings +regularly appear as the specific against Israel's apostasy from their God. Compare, +<i>e.g.</i>, Deut. iv. 30: "In the tribulation to thee, and when all these things +come upon thee, thou returnest in the end of the days to the Lord thy God, and hearest +His voice;" Hosea v. 15: "I will go and return to My place till they become guilty; +in the affliction to them, they will seek Me." The figure of enclosing has elsewhere +also, undeniably, the meaning of inflicting sufferings. Thus in Job iii. 23: "To +the man whose way is hid, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 240]</span> and whom God has +hedged in round about;" xix. 8: "He hath fenced up my way and I cannot pass, and +upon my paths He sets darkness;" Lam. iii. 7: "He hath hedged me about, and I cannot +get out; He hath made my chain heavy;" compare also ibid. ver. 9; Ps. lxxxviii. +9.—The object of the walling about is to cut her off from the lovers; the infliction +of heavy sufferings is to put an end to idolatrous tendencies.—The words, "thy way," +clearly refer to, "I will go after my lovers," in ver. 7; and by "her paths which +she cannot find," her whole previous conduct in general is indeed to be understood, +but chiefly, from the connection with ver. 7, her former intercourse with idols. +But here the question arises:—How far is the remedy suited for the attainment of +this end? We can by no means think of an external obstacle. Outwardly, there was, +during the exile, and in the midst of idolatrous nations, a stronger temptation +to idolatry than they had in their native land. Hence, we can think of an internal +obstacle only; and then again we can think only of the absolute incapacity of the +idols to grant to the people consolation and relief in their sufferings. If this +incapacity has been first ascertained by experience, we begin to lose our confidence +in them, and seek help where alone it can be found. As early as in Deut. xxxii. +we are told how misery proves the nothingness of false gods, and shows that the +Lord alone is God; compare especially ver. 36 sqq. Jeremiah says in ii. 28, "And +where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? Let them arise and help thee in the +time of trouble." That which the gods cannot turn away, they cannot have sent; and +if the suffering be sent by the Lord, it is natural that help should be sought from +Him also. Compare vi. 1: "Come and let us return unto the Lord, for He hath torn +and He healeth us, He smiteth and He bindeth us up."</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 9. "<i>And she runs after her lovers and shall not overtake, +and she seeks them and shall not find; then she saith: I will go and return to my +first husband, for it was better with me then than now.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><span lang="he" class="Hebrew">רדף</span> has, in <i>Piel</i>, +not a transitive, but an intensive meaning. <i>Calvin</i> remarks: "By the verb, +insane fervour is indicated, as indeed we see that idolaters are like madmen; it +shows that such is the perverseness of their hearts, that they will not at once +return to a sound mind." The distress at first only increases +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 241]</span> the zeal in idolatry; compare Jer. xliv. 17. +Every effort is made to move the idols to help. But if help be, notwithstanding, +refused—and how could it be otherwise, since they from whom it is sought are <i> +Elilim</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, nothings?—they by and by begin to bethink themselves, and +to recover their senses. They discover the nothingness of their idols, and return +to the true God. This apostasy and return are in a touching manner described by +our prophet in xiv. 2-4 also. The words, "I will go and return to my first husband," +form a beautiful contrast to, "I will go after my lovers," in ver. 7. This statement +of the result shows that God's mercy is then greatest and most effective, just when +it seems to have disappeared altogether, and when His punitive justice seems alone +to be in active exercise. For the latter is by no means to be excluded, inasmuch +as there is no suffering which does not, at the same time, proceed from it, and +no punishment which is inflicted solely on account of the reformation.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 10. "<i>And she, she does not know that I gave her the corn, +and the must, and the oil, and silver I multiplied unto her, and gold which upon +Baal they spent.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The prophet, starting anew, here returns to a description of her +guilt and punishment; and it is only from ver. 16 that he expands what, in ver. +9, he had intimated concerning her conversion, and her obtaining mercy. The words, +"She saith," in that verse, belong thus to a period more remote than the words, +"She does not know," in the verse before us. The things which are here enumerated +were, in the case of Israel, in a peculiar sense, the gift of God. He bestowed them +upon the Congregation as her Covenant-God, as her husband. They are thus announced +as early as in the Pentateuch; compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Deut. vii. 13: "And He loveth +thee, and blesseth thee, and multiplieth thee, and blesseth the fruit of thy womb, +and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, thy must, and thy oil;" xi. 14: "And I give +the rain of your land in due season, and thou gatherest in thy corn, thy must, and +thy oil." It is certainly not accidental that Hosea enumerates the three objects, +just in the same order in which they occur in these two passages. By the celebration +of the feasts, and by the offering of the first-fruits, the Israelites were to give +expression to the acknowledgment, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 242]</span> that they +derived these gifts of God from His special providence—from the covenant relation. +The relative clause <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עשו לבעל</span> is subjoined, +as is frequently the case, without a sign of its relation, and without a <i>pron. +suff.</i>, which is manifest from the preceding substantive. Several interpreters, +from the Chaldee Paraphrast down to <i>Ewald</i>, give the explanation, "which they +have made for a Baal," <i>i.e.</i>, from which they have made images of Baal, and +appeal to viii. 4: "Their silver and their gold they have made into idols for themselves." +But we must object to this opinion on the following grounds. 1. +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עשה</span>, with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ל</span> +following, is a religious <i>terminus technicus</i>, with the sense of, "to make +to any one," "to appropriate," "to dedicate," as appears from its frequent repetition +in Exod. x. 25 sqq., and also from the fact that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +ליהוה</span> is frequently omitted. The phrase is used with a reference to idolatry +in 2 Kings xvii. 32; 2 Chron. xxiv. 7.—2. It cannot be proved that +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הבעל</span>, in the singular and with the Article, +could be used for "statues of Baal."—3. By this explanation we lose the striking +contrast between that which the Israelites <i>were doing</i>, and that which they +<i>were to do</i>. That which the Lord gave to them, they consecrated to Baal, instead +of to Him, to whom alone these embodied thanks were due. And, not satisfied in withdrawing +from the true God the honour and thanks which were due to Him, they transferred +them to His enemy and worthless rival,—a proceeding which bears witness to the deep +corruption of human nature, and which, up to the present day, is continually repeated, +and must be so, because the corruption remains the same. It is substantially the +same thing that the Israelites dedicated their gold to Baal, and that our great +poets consecrate to the world and its prince the rich intellectual gifts which they +have received from God. The words, "and she knew not," in both cases show that they +are equally guilty and equally culpable. He who bestows the gifts has not concealed +Himself; but they on whom they are bestowed have shut their eyes, that they may +not see Him to whom they are unwilling to render thanks. They would fain wish that +their liberal benefactor were utterly annihilated, in order that they may not be +disturbed in the enjoyment of His gifts by a disagreeable thought of Him,—in order +that they may freely use and dispose of them, without being obliged to fear their +loss,—and in order that they may be able to devote them, without any +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 243]</span> obstruction, to a god who is like themselves, +who is only their own self viewed objectively (<i>ihr objectivirtes Ich</i>). Parallel +to the passage before us, and, it may be, formed after it, is Ezek. xvi. 17, 18: +"And thou didst take thy ornament of My gold and of My silver which I gave thee, +and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them. And thou +tookest thy broidered garments, and coveredst them, and My fat and Mine increase +thou gavest before them." <i>Hitzig</i> understands, by the Baal here, the golden +calf, appealing to the fact that the real worship of Baal had been abolished by +Jehu. But no proof at all can be adduced for the assertion that the name of Baal +had been transferred to the golden calf. It is self-evident, and is confirmed by +2 Kings xiii. 6, xvii. 16 (in the latter of which passages the worship of Baal appears +as a continuous sin in the kingdom of the ten tribes), that the destruction of the +heathenish worship by Jehu was not absolute. But so much is certain, that by the +mention of Baal, the sin is here designated only with reference to its highest point, +and that, in substance, the service of the calves is here included. In 1 Kings xiv. +9, it is shown that the sin of worshipping Jehovah under the image of calves is +on a par with real idolatry; and in 2 Chron. xi. 15, the calves are put on a footing +with the goat-deities of Egypt.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 11. "<i>Therefore I return, and take My corn in its time, +and My must in its season, and take away My wool and My flax to cover her nakedness.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לכן</span> stands here with great +emphasis. It points to the eternal law of God's government of the world, according +to which He is sanctified <i>upon</i> them, <i>in</i> whom He has not been sanctified; +and this so much the more, the closer was His relation to them, and the greater +were His gifts. From him who is not thereby moved, they will be taken away; and +nothing but his natural poverty and nakedness is left to him who was formerly so +richly endowed. And well is it with him if they be taken from him at a time when +he is able still to recognise the giver in Him who taketh away, and may yet deeply +repent of his unthankfulness, and return to Him, as is said of Israel in iii. 5. +If such be done, it is seen that the ungrateful one has not yet become an object +of divine justice alone, but that divine mercy is still in store for him. The longer +God allows His <span class="pagenum">[Pg 244]</span> gifts to remain with the ungrateful, +the darker are their prospects for the future. That which He gave in mercy, He, +in such a case, allows to remain only in anger. The words +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשוב ולקחתי</span> are commonly explained by expositors, +"I shall take again," inasmuch as two verbs are frequently found together which, +in their connection, are independent of each other—the one indicating only an accessory +idea of the action. But this mode of expression occurs in general far more rarely +than is commonly assumed; and here the explanation, "I will return and take," is +to be preferred without any hesitation. Scripture says, that God appears even when +He manifests Himself only in the effects of His omnipotence, justice, and love,—a +mode of expression which is explained by that large measure of faith which perceives, +behind the visible effect, the invisible Author of it; compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Gen. +xviii. 10, where the Lord says to Abraham, that He would return to him at the same +period in the following year; whereas He did not return in a visible form, as then, +but only in the fulfilment of His promise. Thus God had formerly appeared to Israel +as the Giver; and now that they did not acknowledge Him as such. He returns as the +God that takes away. "She did not know that I gave, therefore I shall return and +take." That the words were to be thus understood, the prophet, as it appears, intended +to indicate by the change of the tenses. It is quite natural that a verb, used as +an adverb, should be as closely as possible connected with that verb which conveys +the principal idea; and it would scarcely be possible to find a single instance—at +all events there are not many instances—where, in such a case, a difference of the +tense takes place. Altogether analogous is Jer. xii. 15: "And it shall come to pass +after I have destroyed them, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשוב ורחמתים</span>, +I will return and have compassion on them;" where the sense would be very much weakened +if we were to translate, "I shall <i>again</i> have compassion." There appears to +be the same design in the change of the tenses in iii. 5 also. What is there said +of Israel forms a remarkable parallel to what is here said of God. God had formerly +come, giving—Israel, taking; God now returns, taking—Israel giving,—a relation which +opens up an insight into the whole economy of the sufferings.—"<i>My</i> corn," +etc., forms a contrast to ver. 7, where Israel had spoken of all these things as +<i>theirs</i>. Whatever God gives, always remains <span class="pagenum">[Pg 245]</span> +His own, because He gives only as a loan, and on certain conditions. If any one +should consider himself as the absolute master of it, He makes him feel his error +by taking it away.—"In its time" and "in its season" are added, because it was +<i>then</i>, ordinarily, that God had appeared as <i>giving</i>, and because <i> +then</i> they therefore confidently expected His gifts. But now He appears at once +as <i>taking</i>, because they were already so sure of the expected gifts that they +held them, as it were, already in their hands; just as if, at Christmas—which corresponds +to the harvest, the ordinary season of God's granting gifts—parents should withdraw +from their children the accustomed presents, and put a rod in their place. It is +better thus to understand the expression, "in its time, etc.," than to follow <i> +Jerome</i>, who remarks, that "it is a severe punishment, if at the time of harvest +the hoped-for fruits are taken away, and wrested from our hands;" for if, even at +the time of the harvest, there be a want of all things, how will it be during the +remaining time of the year.—The words, "to cover, etc.," are very concise, but without +any grammatical ellipsis, instead of, "which hitherto served to cover her nakedness." +As to the sense, the LXX. are correct in translating, +<span lang="el" class="Greek">τοῦ μὴ καλύπτειν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῆς</span>. For +that which had <i>hitherto</i> been, is mentioned by the prophet only for the purpose +of drawing attention to what <i>in future</i> will <i>not</i> be.—It is the Lord +who must cover the nakedness; and this leads us back to the natural poverty of man, +who has not, in the whole world, a single patch or shred—not even so much as to +cover his shame, which is here specially to be understood by nakedness. The same +thought which is so well calculated to humble pride—what have we that we have not +received, and that the Giver might not at any moment take back?—occurs also in Ezek. +xvi. 8: "I spread out My wings over thee, and covered thy nakedness." </p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 12. "<i>And now I will uncover her shame before the eyes +of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of My hands.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἅπαξ λεγόμενον </span> +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נבלות</span> is best explained by "decay," "<i>corpus +multa stupra passum</i>." Being a femin. of a Segholate-form, its signification +can be derived only from the <i>Kal</i>; but <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נבל</span> +always signifies "to be faded, weak, feeble;" in <i>Piel</i> it means, "to make +weak," "to declare as weak," "to disgrace," "to despise." As the signification of +<i>Kal</i> does not <span class="pagenum">[Pg 246]</span> imply the Idea of ignominy, +we cannot explain the noun, as several interpreters do, by "<i>turpitudo</i>, <i> +ignominia</i>." The <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἀκαθαρσία</span> of the LXX. is +probably a free translation of the word according to our view.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לעיני</span> +is constantly used for "<i>coram, inspectante aliquo</i>," properly, "belonging +to the eyes of some one," and cannot therefore be explained here by "to the eyes," +as if she were uncovered to, or for, the lovers alone; these, on the contrary, are +mentioned only as fellow-witnesses. But in what respect do they come into consideration +here? Several interpreters are of opinion that their powerlessness, and the folly +of trusting in them, are intended to be here pointed out. Thus <i>Calvin</i> says: +"The prophet alludes to the impudent women who are wont, even by terror, to prevent +their husbands from using their rights. He says, therefore, this shall not prevent +me from chastising thee as thou deservest." Thus also <i>Stuck</i>, who subjoins +to the phrase "her lovers:" "who, if they had the strength, might be a help to her." +But it is altogether erroneous thus to understand the verse. The words, "Before +the eyes of the lovers," rather mean, that the Lord would make her an object of +disgust and horror even to those who formerly sought after her. The idea is this: +Whosoever forsakes God on account of the world, shall, by God, be put to shame, +even in the eyes of the world itself, and all the more, the more nearly he formerly +stood to Him. This idea is here expressed in a manner suited to the figurative representation +which pervades the whole section. <i>Jerome</i> says: "All this is brought forward +under the figure of the adulterous woman, who, after she has been taken in the very +act, is exposed and disgraced before the eyes of all." The uncovering, as guilt, +is followed by the uncovering, as punishment; and every one (and her lovers first) +turns away with horror from the disgusting spectacle. They now at once see her who, +hitherto, had made a show with the apparel and goods of her lawful husband, in her +true shape as a withered monster. That this explanation is alone the correct one, +appears from the parallel passages: compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Nah. iii. 5: "Behold, +I come upon thee, saith the Lord of hosts, and uncover thy skirts upon thy face, +and make the heathen to see thy nakedness, and kingdoms thy shame. And it cometh +to pass, all that see thee shall flee from thee:" Lam. i. 8: "Jerusalem hath committed +sin, therefore she has <span class="pagenum">[Pg 247]</span> become a reproach; +all that honoured her, despise her, for they have seen her nakedness; she sigheth +and turneth away;" Jer. xiii. 26: "And I also (as thou hast formerly uncovered) +uncover thy skirts over thy face, and thy shame shall be seen;" Ezek. xvi. 37, 41; +Is. xlvii. 3.—But now, it might seem that, according to this explanation, not the +idols, but only the nations serving them, can be understood by the lovers. But this +is only in appearance. In order to make the scene more lively, the prophet ascribes +to the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אלילים</span>, to them who are nothing, life +and feeling. If they had these, they would act just as it is here described, and +as their worshippers really acted afterwards.—The second member of the verse, "And +none shall deliver," etc., is in so far parallel to the first, as both describe +the dreadfulness of the divine judgment. Parallel is v. 14: "For I will be as one +who roars to Ephraim, and as a lion to the house of Judah: I will tear and go away, +I will take away, and there is no deliverer."</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 13. "<i>And I make to cease all her mirth, her feast, and +her new-moon, and her sabbath, and all her festival time.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The feasts served a double purpose. They were days of sacred dedication, +and days of joy; compare Num. x. 10. Israel had violated them in the former character—just +as at present the sacred days have, throughout the greater part of Christendom, +the name only by way of <i>catachresis</i>—and, as a merited punishment, they were +taken away by God in the latter character. They had deprived the festival days of +their sacredness; by God, they are deprived of their joy fulness. The prophet, in +order to intimate that he announces the cessation of the festival days as days of +gladness, premises "all her mirth," to which all that follows stands in the relation +of <i>species</i> to <i>genus</i>. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משוש</span> does +not here denote "joyful time:" it might, indeed, according to its formation, have +this signification: but it is never found with it. It here means "joy" itself. (Compare +the parallel passages, Jer. vii. 34; Lam. i. 4: "The ways of Zion do mourn, because +none come to the feasts;" Amos viii. 10: "And I will turn your feasts into mourning, +and all your songs into lamentation;" Lam. v. 15; Is. xxiv. 8, 11.) The three following +nouns were very correctly distinguished by <i>Jerome</i>. +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חג</span>, "feast," is the designation of the three +annual principal festivals. In addition to these, there was in every month the +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 248]</span> feast of the new-moon; and in every week, +the Sabbath. This connection is a standing one, which, even in the New Testament +(compare Col. ii. 16), still reverts. The words, "all her festival time," comprehend +the single <i>species</i> in the designation of the <i>genus</i>. That +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מועד</span> properly signifies "appointed time," +then, more specially, "festival time," "feast," appears from Lev. xxiii. 4: "These +are the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מועדי</span> of the Lord, the sacred assemblies +which you shall call <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">במועדם</span>, in their appointed +time." That the <i>feasts</i> are not a single species co-ordinate with the new-moons +and Sabbaths, but the genus, appears from the fact that in Lev. xxiii. the Sabbath +opens the series of the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מועדים</span>. In a wider +sense, the new-moons also belonged to the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מועדים</span>, +although they are not enumerated among them in Lev. xxiii. on account of their subordinate +character. In Num. x. 10, Is. i. 14, Ezra iii. 5, the new-moons are mentioned along +with the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מועדים</span> only as the species by the +side of the genus. But we are at liberty to think only of the feasts appointed by +God; for, otherwise, there would be no room for the application of the <i>lex talionis</i>:—God +takes from the Israelites only what they had taken from Him. The days of the Baalim +are afterwards specially mentioned in ver. 15. The days of God are taken from them; +for the days of the Baalim they are punished. This much, however, appears from the +passage before us—and it is placed beyond any doubt by several other passages in +Hosea as well as in Amos—that, outwardly, the worship, as regulated by the prescriptions +of the Pentateuch, had all along continued. (For the arguments in proof of this +assertion, the author's <i>Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch</i>, +vol. i., are to be compared.)</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 14. "<i>And I make desolate her vine and fig-tree, whereof +she said, They are the wages of whoredom to me, that my lovers have given me; and +I make them a forest, and the beasts of the field eat them.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The vine and fig-tree, as the two noblest productions of Palestine—<i>Ispahan</i>, +in the "<i>Excerpta ex vita Saladini</i>," p. 10, calls them "<i>ambos Francorum +oculos</i>"—are here also connected with each other, as is commonly done in threatenings +and promises, as the representatives of the rich gifts of God, wherewith He has +blessed this country.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשר</span> is often placed +before an entire sentence, to mark it out as being relative in general. +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 249]</span> It is the looser, instead of the closer connection, += "of which."—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אתנה</span> "wages of prostitution," +instead of which, in ix. 1 and other passages, the form +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אתנן</span> occurs, requires a renewed investigation. +It is commonly derived from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תנה</span>, to which +the signification "<i>largiter donavit, dona distribuit</i>," is ascribed. But opposed +to this, there is the fact that the root <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תנה</span> +is, neither in Hebrew, nor in any of the dialects, found with this signification. +It has in Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac, the signification "to laud," "to praise," +"to recount." But besides this <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תנה</span>, there +occurs another <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תנה</span>, not with the general signification +"to give," but in the special one, "to give a reward of whoredom;" in which signification +it cannot be a primitive word, but derived from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נתן +אתנה = אתנה</span>, in the passage under consideration, and in Ezek. xvi. 34. The +supposition of a primitive verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תנה</span>, with +the signification "to give," is also opposed by the circumstance that the noun which +is said to be derived from it never occurs with the general signification "gift," +but always with the special one, "reward of prostitution." +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אתנה</span> is rather derived from the first pers. +Fut. Kal of the verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נתן</span>, a "I will-give-thee," +similar to our "forget-me-not." The whore asks, in Gen. xxxviii. 16, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מה־תתן לי</span> ("what wilt thou give me?"), and +the whoremonger answers, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אתן־לך</span> ("I will give +thee"), ver. 18. From this there originated, in the language of the brothel, a base +word for such base traffic. The sacred writers are not ashamed or afraid to use +it. They speak, throughout, of common things in a common manner; for the vulgar +word is the most suitable for the vulgar thing. The morality of a people, or of +an age, may be measured by their speaking of vulgar things in a vulgar manner, or +the reverse. Wherever, in the language, the "<i>fille de joie</i>" or "<i>Freudenmädchen</i>" +has taken the place of the "whore," a similar change will, in reality, have taken +place. Whatsoever the people of Israel imagined that they received from their idols, +they certainly will not have designated as a "reward of prostitution," but as a +"reward of true love." But the prophet at once destroys all their pleasant imaginings +by putting into their mouths the corresponding expression,—an expression which must +certainly have sounded very rudely and vulgarly in their tender ears; for the tongue +and the ear become more tender, in the same degree in which the heart becomes more +vulgar. She who imagined herself so tender and affectionate sees herself +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 250]</span> at once addressed as a common prostitute. +The sweet proofs of the heartfelt mutual love which her "lovers" gave her are called +"wages of whoredom." This is indeed a good corrective for our language, for our +whole view of things, for our own hearts, which are so easily befooled. All love +of the world, all striving after its favour, every surrender to the spirit of the +age, is whoredom. A reward of whoredom, which must not be brought into the temple +of the Lord (for it is an <i>abomination</i> unto the Lord thy God, Deut. xxiii. +19), is everything which it offers and gives us in return. Like a reward of whoredom, +it will melt away; "of wages of whoredom she has collected, and to wages of whoredom +it shall return."—This derivation from the Future has a great many analogies in +its favour; among others, the whole class of nouns with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ת</span> prefixed, in which it is quite evident (although +this has been so often overlooked) that they have arisen from the Fut. If the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ת</span> in these forms originated from the <i>Hiphil</i>, +how could it be explained that they are more frequently connected with <i>Kal</i>? +Even the very common occurrence of the formation from the Future in the case of +proper names, induces us to expect, <i>a priori</i>, that it will be more frequent +in appellative names than is commonly supposed. The occurrence of the phrase +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נתן אתנה</span>, in the passages quoted, is also +in favour of this derivation. By it, the interchange of the two forms +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אתנה</span> and <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אתנן</span> +is easily accounted for. In the latter of these forms, the <i>Nun</i> which prevails +in <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נתן</span>, but which had been dropped at the +beginning, again reappears. A variation in the form is, moreover, quite natural +in a word which originated from common life, which is entirely destitute of accurate +analogies, and is therefore, as it were, without a model; for the other nouns of +this class are formed from the 3d pers. of the <i>Fut.</i>—As regards, now, the +substance:—Egotism, and selfishness arising out of it, are the ground of all desire +for the love of that which is not God, especially in the case of those who have +already known the true God; for where this is not the case, there may be, even in +idolatry, a better element, which seeks for a false gratification only because it +does not know the true one. From this, however, it appears, that the idolatry of +the Israelites (and this is only a species of the idolatry of all those who have +had opportunity to know the true God, and of whom it is true that "the last is worse +than the first") was <span class="pagenum">[Pg 251]</span> much lower than that +of the Gentiles, whose poets and philosophers, in part, zealously opposed the dispositions +which are here expressed; compare the passages in <i>Manger</i>. Egotism is here, +as it always is, folly; for it trusts in him who himself possesses only borrowed +and stolen goods, which the lawful owner may, at every moment, take away from him. +And in order that such folly may appear as such, and very glaringly too. He appears +here indeed, and takes what He had in reality given out of His mercy, but what, +according to their imagination, they had received from the idols as a reward.—The +suffix in <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שמתים</span> refers to the vine and fig-tree. +The gardens of vines and fig-trees carefully tended, hedged and enclosed round about, +are to be deprived of hedges, enclosures, and culture (<span lang="el" class="Greek">καθυλομανεῖ +γὰρ μὴ κλαδευομένη ἡ ἄμπελος</span>, <i>Clem. Alex. Paed.</i> i. 1, p. 115 Sylb.), +to be changed into a forest, and given over to the ravages of wild beasts; for the +words "and eat them" are by no means to be referred<!--1854 ed--> to the fruits +only. The same image of an entirely devastated country is found in Is. vii. 23 ff.; +Mic. iii. 12.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 15. "<i>And I visit upon her the days of the Baalim, to whom +she burnt incense, and put on her ring and her ornament, and went after her lovers, +and forgat Me, saith the Lord.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The days of the Baalim are the days consecrated to their worship, +whether they were specially set apart for that purpose, or whether they were originally +devoted to the worship of the Lord, whom they sought to confound with Baal. <i>Manger</i>, +and with him, most interpreters, are wrong in understanding by the days of Baal, +"all the time—certainly a very long one—in which that forbidden worship flourished +in this nation." Such would be too indefinite an expression. When days of the Baalim +are spoken of, every one must think of days specially consecrated to them,—their +festivals. To this must be added, moreover, the reference to the days of the Lord +in ver. 13. In ver. 10, however, only one Baal, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הבעל</span>, +is spoken of; here there are several. This may be reconciled by the supposition +that one and the same Baal was worshipped according to his various modes of manifestation +which were expressed by the epithets. But the plural may also be explained—and this +seems to be preferable—from 1 Kings xviii. 18, where Baalim is tantamount to Baal +and his associates (compare <i>Dissertations on the Gen. of the Pent.</i> vol. i. +p. 165); or from Lev. xvii. 7, where <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שעירים</span> +denotes the Goat-idol, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 252]</span> and others of his kind. +The calves, the worship of which was, at the time of Hosea, the prevailing one throughout +the kingdom of the ten tribes, are, in that case, comprehended in the Baalim.—In +the words, "And she put on her ring and ornament," the figurative mode of expression +has been overlooked by most interpreters. Misled by the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תקטיר</span>, which refers directly to the spiritual +adulteress, they imagined that the wearing of nose-rings, and other ornaments, in +honour of the idols, was here spoken of. A more correct view was held by the Chaldee +who thus paraphrases: "The Congregation of Israel was like a wife who deserted her +husband, and adorned herself, and ran after her lovers. Thus the Congregation of +Israel was pleased to worship idols, and to neglect My worship." A great many false +interpretations have had their origin in the circumstance, that they could not comprehend +this liberty of the sacred writers, who at one time speak plainly of the spiritual +antitype, and at another time transfer to it the peculiarities of the outward type. +Had this been kept in view, it would not, <i>e.g.</i>, have been asserted, that +David had, in Ps. xxiii. 5, relinquished the image of the good shepherd, because +he does not speak of a trough which the actual good shepherd places before his sheep, +but of a table, placed before them by the spiritual good Shepherd. In the passage +under consideration, the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תקטיר</span> denotes an +action performed by her who is an adulteress in a spiritual point of view. In the +words, "She puts on," etc., her conduct is described under the figure of that of +her outward type. The actual correspondence is to be found in her efforts of making +herself agreeable,—in the employing of every means in order to gain her spiritual +lovers. The putting on of precious ornaments comes into view, only in so far as +it is one of these efforts, and, indeed, a very subordinate one. The burning of +incense, the offering of sacrifices, etc., are, in this respect, of far greater +importance. The correctness of our interpretation is confirmed by those parallel +passages also, in which the same figurative mode of expression occurs. Thus, <i> +e.g.</i>, Is. lvii. 9: "Thou lookest upon the king (the common translation, "thou +goest to the king," cannot be defended on philological grounds) in oil (<i>i.e.</i>, +smelling of ointment), and multipliest thy perfume,"—evidently a figurative designation, +taken from a coquetish woman, to express the employing of all means in, order to +gain favour;—Is. iv. 30: <span class="pagenum">[Pg 253]</span> "And thou desolate +one, what wilt thou do? For thou puttest on thy purple, for thou adornest thyself +with golden ornaments, for thou rentest thine eyes with painting. In vain thou makest +thyself fair; the lovers despise thee, they seek thy life." In Ezek. xxii. 40-42, +Jerusalem washes and paints herself, expecting her lovers, and decks herself with +ornaments; then she sits down upon a stately couch; a table is prepared before her, +upon which she places the incense of the Lord, and His oil. In this last feature +in Ezekiel, the type disappears behind the thing typified, although not so completely +as is the case in the passage under consideration, in the words, "She burns incense."—From +what has been remarked, it appears that, in substance, Hos. iv. 13, "They sacrifice +upon the tops of the mountains and bum incense upon the hills," is entirely parallel. +The two clauses, "She went after her lovers," and "she forgat Me," both serve to +represent the crime in a more heinous light. Sin must certainly have already poisoned +the whole heart, if occasion for its exercise be spontaneously sought after. In +reference to the latter, <i>Calvin</i> remarks: "Just as when a wife has for a long +time lived with her husband, and has been kindly and liberally treated by him, and +then prostitutes herself to lovers, and does not entertain or retain any more love +for him; such a depravity is nothing less than brutish."</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 16. "<i>Therefore, behold, I allure her, and lead her into +the wilderness and speak to her heart.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The consolation and promise here begin with as great abruptness +as in the first section. It is reported how the Lord gradually leads back His unfaithful +wife to reformation, and to reunion with Him, the lawful husband. Great difficulty +has been occasioned to interpreters by the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לכן</span> +at the commencement. Very easily, but at the same time very inconsiderately, the +difficulty is got over by those who give it the signification, "<i>utique</i>, +<i>profecto</i>;" but this cannot be called interpreting. It must be, above all, +considered as settled and undoubted, that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לכן</span> +can here have that signification only which it always has; and this all the more, +that in vers. 8 and 15 it occurred in the same signification. This being taken for +granted, the "therefore" might be referred to the words of the wife in ver. 9, "I +will go and return to my first husband," and all which follows be considered as +only a kind of parenthesis. That the Lord begins again to show Himself +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 254]</span> kind to His wife would then have its foundation +in this:—that in her the first symptoms of a change of character manifested themselves. +But this supposition is, after all, too forced. These words are too far away as +that the prophet could have expected to be understood, in thus referring to them +in a manner so indefinite. Several interpreters follow the explanation of <i>Tarnovius</i>: +"Therefore, because she is not corrected by so great calamities, I will try the +matter in another and more lenient way, by kindness." But the prophet could not +expect that his hearers and readers should themselves supply the thought, which +is not indicated by anything,—the thought, namely, "because that former method was +of no avail, or rather, because it <i>alone</i> did not suffice;" for it was by +no means wholly in vain. When the Lord had hedged up her way with thorns, the woman +speaks: "I will go and return;" and where tribulations are of no avail—tribulations +through which we must enter the kingdom of God—nothing else will. The severity of +God must precede His love. And even though this train of thought should have occurred +to them, they had no guarantee for its correctness. It is most natural to take the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לכן</span> as being simply co-ordinate with the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לכן</span> in vers. 8 and 11. The "<i>because</i>," +which, in all the three places, corresponds to the <i>therefore</i>, is the wife's +apostasy. Because she has forgotten God, He recalls Himself to her remembrance, +first by the punishment, and then, after this has attained its end,—after the wife +has spoken: "I will go and return,"—by proofs of His love. The leading to Egypt, +into the wilderness, into the land of Canaan, rests on her unfaithfulness as its +foundation. Without it, the Congregation would have remained in undisturbed possession +of the promised land. By it, God is induced, both according to His justice and His +mercy, to take it from her, to lead her back into the wilderness, and thence to +the promised land.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פתה</span>, in the <i>Piel</i>, +is a <i>verbum amatorium</i>; it signifies "to allure by tender persuasion." There +is to be a repetition of the proceeding of God, by which He formerly, in Egypt, +allured the people to Himself, and induced them to follow Him into the wilderness, +from the spiritual and bodily bondage in Egypt. After the sufferings, there always +follows the alluring. God first takes away the objects of sinful love, and then +He comes alluring and persuading us that we should choose, for the object of our +love. Him who alone is worthy of, and entitled to, love. He is not +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 255]</span> satisfied with the strict prosecution of His +right, but endeavours to make duty sweet to us, and, by His love, to bring it about +that we perform it from love. After He has thus allured us. He leads us from Egypt +into the wilderness.—The words, "I lead her into the wilderness," have been very +much misunderstood by interpreters. According to <i>Manger</i>, the wilderness here +is that through which the captives should pass on their return from Babylon. But +one reason alone is sufficient to refute this opinion,—namely, that on account of +the following verse, by the wilderness (the article must not be overlooked), only +that wilderness can be understood which separates Egypt from Canaan. Others (<i>Ewald</i>, +<i>Hitzig</i>), following <i>Grotius</i>, understand by the wilderness, the Assyrian +captivity. <i>Kuehnöl</i> has acquired great merit for this exposition, by proving +from a passage in <i>Herodotus</i>, that there were, at that time, uncultivated +regions in Assyria! The same reason which militates against the former interpretation +is opposed to this also. To this it may be further added, that, according to it, +we can make nothing of the <i>alluring</i>. The Israelites were not <i>allured</i> +into captivity by kindness and love; they were driven into it <i>against</i> their +will, by God's wrath. <i>Moreover</i>, what according to this interpretation is +to be done with the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משם</span> in ver. 17? Did, perhaps, +the vineyards of Canaan begin immediately beyond Assyria, or does not even this +rather lead us to the Arabian desert? It is certain, then, that this desert is the +one to be thought of here, and, in addition, that it can only be as an image and +type that the prophet here represents the leading through the wilderness, as a repetition +of the former one in its individual form; inasmuch as it was, substantially, equal +with it. For they who returned from the Assyrian captivity could not well pass through +the literal Arabian desert; and the comparison expressed in the following verse, +"As in the day when she went up from the land of Egypt," shows that here also a +<i>decurtata comparatio</i> must take place. But, now, all depends upon determining +the essential feature, the real nature and substance, of that first leading through +the wilderness; because the leading spoken of in the verse before us must have that +essential feature in common with it. The principal passage—which must guide us in +this investigation, and which is proved to be such by the circumstance that the +Lord Himself referred <span class="pagenum">[Pg 256]</span> to it when He was <i> +spiritually</i> led through the wilderness, an event which, for a sign, <i>outwardly</i> +also took place in the wilderness—is Deut. viii. 2-5: "And thou shalt remember all +the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to +afflict thee and to prove thee, to know what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldst +keep His commandments, or no. And He afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger, +and fed thee with the manna which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know, +that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by everything +which proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live. Thy raiment waxed not +old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell these forty years. And thou knowest in +thine heart, that as a father chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth +thee." The essential feature in the leading through the wilderness is, accordingly, +the <i>temptation</i>. By the wonderful manifestations of the Lord's omnipotence +and mercy, on the occasion of Israel's deliverance from Egypt, a heartfelt love +to Him had been awakened in the people. (Compare the tender expression of it in +the Song in Exod. xv.; and also the passage in Jer. ii. 2: "I remember thee, the +kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, thy going after Me in the wilderness +in a land not sown,"—which cannot but refer to the very first time of the abode +in the wilderness, before the giving of the law on Sinai, as is evident from the +mention of the youth and espousals; for the latter ceased on Sinai, where the marriage +took place.) The whole conduct of the people at the giving of the law,—their great +readiness in promising to do all that the Lord should command,—likewise bear testimony +to this love. The Lord's heartfelt delight in Israel during the first period of +their marching through the wilderness, of which Hosea speaks in ix. 10, likewise +presupposes this love. Thus the first station was reached. The people now hoped +to be put in immediate possession of the inheritance promised to them by the Lord. +But, because the Lord knew the condition of human nature. His way was a different +one. A state of temptation and trial succeeded that of entire alienation from God. +The first love is but too often—nay, it is, more or less, always—but a flickering +flame. Sin has not been entirely slain; it has been only subdued for a moment, and +only wants a favourable opportunity <span class="pagenum">[Pg 257]</span> to regain +its old dominion. It would never be thoroughly destroyed, if God allowed this condition +always to continue; if by always putting on new fuel, if by uninterrupted proofs +of His love. He were to keep that fire burning continually. If the love of the feelings +and imagination is to become a cordial, thorough moral love, it requires to be tried, +in order that thus it may recognise its own nothingness hitherto, and how necessary +it is that it should take deeper root. The means of this trial are God's afflicting +us, concealing Himself from us, leading us in a way different from that which we +expected, and, apparently, forsaking vis. But because He is the merciful One who +will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able,—because He Himself has +commanded us to pray, "Lead us not into temptation," <i>i.e.</i>, into such an one +as we are not able to bear, and would thereby become a temptation inwardly,—He makes +His gifts to go by the side of His chastisements. He who suffered Israel to hunger, +gave them also to eat. He who suffered them to thirst, gave them also to drink. +He who led them over the burning sand, did not suffer their shoes to wax old. But +this counterpoise to tribulation becomes, in another aspect, a new temptation. As +Satan tries to overthrow us by pleasure as well as by pain; so God proves us by +what He gives, no less than by what He takes away. In the latter case, it will be +seen whether we love God <i>without</i> His gifts; in the former, whether we love +Him in His gifts. This second station is, to many, the last; the bodies of many +fall in the wilderness. But while a multitude of individuals remain there, the Congregation +of God always passes over to the third station,—the possession of Canaan. The state +of temptation is, to her, always a state of sifting and purification at the same +time. That which is to the individual a calamity, is to her a blessing.—That we +have thus correctly defined the nature and substance of the leading through the +wilderness, is confirmed by the temptation of Christ also, which immediately succeeded +the bestowal of the Spirit, which again corresponded to the first love. That this +temptation of Christ corresponded to the leading through the wilderness—in so far +as it could do so in the case of Him who was tempted in all things, yet without +sin; while in our case, there is no temptation, even when resisted +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 258]</span> victoriously, that is without sin—appears +sufficiently from its two external characteristics, viz., the stay in the wilderness, +and the forty days; but still more so, from the internal feature,—the fact that +the Saviour, in order to show the tempter that He recognised in His own case a repetition +of the stay in the wilderness, opposed Him with a passage taken from the <i>locus +classicus</i> concerning it, already quoted.—We now, moreover, cite the parallel +passages which serve as an explanation of the passage under consideration, and as +a confirmation of the explanation which we have given. The most important is Ezek. +xx. 34-38: "And I bring you <i>out from the nations</i>, and gather you out of the +countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand and with a stretched-out +arm, and with fury poured out. And I bring you into the <i>wilderness of the nations</i>, +and there will I plead with you face to face; like as I pleaded with your fathers +in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead there with you, saith the +Lord God. And I cause you to pass under the rod, and bring you into the bond of +the covenant, and purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress +against Me; out of the land of your pilgrimage (the standing designation of Egypt +in the Pentateuch) I will bring them forth, and into the land of Israel they shall +not come, and ye shall know that I am the Lord." Here also, the stay in the wilderness +appears as a state of trial, lying in the middle between the abode among the nations +(corresponding to the bondage in Egypt, which was so not merely bodily, but spiritual +also), and the possession of Canaan. And the result of this trial is a different +one, according to the different condition of the individuals. Some shall be altogether +destroyed; even the appearance of the communion with the Lord, which they hitherto +maintained by having come out of the land of pilgrimage along with the others, shall +be taken away; whilst the others, by the very means which brought about the destruction +of the former, shall be confirmed in their communion with the Lord, and be more +closely united to Him. Hosea, who, in consequence of the personification of the +Congregation of Israel, has the whole more in view, regards chiefly the latter feature. +A very remarkable circumstance in Ezekiel, however, requires to be still more minutely +considered; because it promotes essentially the right understanding of the passage +before us. What is meant <span class="pagenum">[Pg 259]</span> by the "wilderness +of the nations?" Several interpreters think that it is the wilderness between Babylon +and Judea. Thus, for example, <i>Manger</i>: "<i>I am disposed to think</i> that +the desert of Arabia itself is here called the wilderness of the nations, on account +of the different nomadic tribes which are accustomed to wander through it." <i>Rosenmüller</i> +says: "He <i>seems</i> to speak here of those vast solitudes which the Jews had +to pass through, on their way from Babylon to Judea." But this "I am disposed to +think," and this "he seems," on the part of these interpreters, show that they themselves +felt the insufficiency of their own explanation. That nomadic tribes are straying +through that wilderness, is not at all essential, and can therefore not be mentioned +here, where only the essential feature—the nature and substance of the leading through +the wilderness—are concerned. And we cannot at all perceive why just the wilderness +between Babylon and Judea should be called the wilderness of the nations. It was +no more travelled by nomadic tribes than was any other wilderness. And just as little +was it characteristic of it, that it bordered upon the territories of various nations +(<i>Hitzig</i>). Such a designation would throw us upon the territory of mere conjecture, +on which we are, in Holy Scripture, never thrown, except through our own fault. +But it is quite decisive that the words, "I bring you out of the wilderness of the +nations," stand in a close relation to the words, "I bring you out from the nations." +From this it appears that the nations, to which the Israelites are to be brought, +cannot be any other than those, out of the midst of whom they are to be led. In +the first leading out of the Israelites, the two spiritual conditions were separated +externally also. The first belonged to Egypt; the second, to the wilderness. But +it shall not be thus, in this announced repetition of the leading. It is only spiritually +that the Israelites, at the commencement of the second condition, shall be led out +from among the nations, in the midst of whom they, outwardly, still continue to +be. The wilderness is in the second Egypt itself. The stay in the wilderness is +repeated as to its essence only, and not as to its accidental outward form; just +as in Zech. x. 12, the words, "And he passeth through the sea," which apparently +might imply a repetition of the outward form merely, are limited to the substance +by the subjoined "affliction." From this we obtain for our passage (<i>Hitzig</i> +likewise <span class="pagenum">[Pg 260]</span> remarks: Ezek. xx. 34-38 seems to +depend on Hosea ii. 16) the important result, that the leading of God which is here +announced, is not limited to a definite place, and as little, to a definite time. +And what is true of the leading through the wilderness, must necessarily apply to +the leading into Canaan also. Just as Egypt might begin, and actually did begin, +even in Palestine, inasmuch as Israel was there in a condition of heavy spiritual +and bodily bondage;—just as, spiritually, they might already be in the wilderness, +though, outwardly, they were still under Asshur; so, the stay in the wilderness +might, relatively, have still continued in Canaan, even although—which did not happen—the +whole people should have returned thither with Zerubbabel. What is it that makes +Canaan to be Canaan, the promised land, the land of the Lord? It is just this:—that +the Lord is there present with all His gifts and blessings. But such was by no means +the case in the new colony. Because the spiritual condition of those who had returned +was in conformity with the second—in part, even with the first—rather than with. +the last station, their outward condition was so likewise. John the Baptist symbolized +this continuation of the condition of the wilderness, by his appearing <i>in the +wilderness</i>, with the preaching of repentance, and with. the announcement, that +now the introduction to the true Canaan was near at hand. By proclaiming himself +as the voice crying in the wilderness, announced by Isaiah, he showed with sufficient +plainness how false was that carnal view which, without being able to distinguish +the thought from its drapery, understood, and still understands, by the wilderness +spoken of in this prophecy, some piece of land, limited as to space, and then murmured +that the actual limit did not correspond with the fancied one.—As in the case of +Israel, so in ours also, these conditions are distinguished, not absolutely, but +relatively only. Even he who has, in one respect, been already led through to Canaan, +remains, in another respect, in the wilderness still. Canaan, in the full sense, +does not belong to the present world, but to the future, as regards both the single +individual, and the whole Church.—Another parallel passage is Jer. xxxi. 1, 2: "At +this time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and +they shall be My people. Thus saith the Lord, The people who have escaped from the +sword find mercy in the wilderness; <span class="pagenum">[Pg 261]</span> I go to +give rest to Israel." In Rev. xii. 6, 14, the wilderness likewise designates the +state of trial and temptation.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דבר על־לב</span>, +properly "to speak over the heart," because the words fall down upon the heart, +signifies an affectionate and consolatory address; compare Gen. xxxiv. 3 ("And he +loved the damsel, and spoke over the heart of the damsel"), l. 21; Is. xl. 2. Here +they signify that the wife is comforted after she had been so deeply cast down by +the consciousness of her former unfaithfulness, and by the experience of its bitter +consequences. The view of those who would here think only of the comforting words +of the prophets is much too limited,—although these words are, of course, included. +We must chiefly think of the <i>sermo realis</i> of the Lord, of all the proofs +of affectionate and tender love, whereby He gives rest to the weary and heavy-laden, +and brings it about, that those who were formerly unfaithful, but who now suffer +themselves to be led by Him out of the spiritual bondage into the spiritual wilderness, +can now put confidence in Him; just as, formerly. He comforted Israel in the wilderness, +in the waste and desolate land, in the land of drought and of the shadow of death +(Jer. ii. 6), and affectionately cared for all their wants, in order that they might +know that He is the Lord their God, Deut. xxix. 4, 5.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 17. "<i>And I give her her vineyards from thence, and the +valley of Achor</i> (trouble) <i>for a door of hope; and she answers thither as +in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of Egypt.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The same faithful love which led into the wilderness, now leads +into Canaan also; and the entrance into the promised land is immediately followed +by the possession of all its gifts and blessings, which now legitimately belong +to the <i>faithful</i> wife (<i>her</i> vineyards), whilst, formerly, they were +taken from the unfaithful wife by the giver, ver. 14. +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נתן</span> with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ל</span> +of the person, always means "to give to some one." Hence <i>Simson</i> is wrong +in giving the explanation: "And I make her of it, viz., the wilderness, her vineyards;" +for the valley of Achor was not situated in the wilderness, but in Canaan; compare +Is. lxv. 10. The signification "to give" is here suited to the second member of +the verse also. The valley of Achor is given to her in its quality as a valley of +hope. The <i>vineyards</i> are mentioned with reference to ver. 14, where the devastation +of the vine is <span class="pagenum">[Pg 262]</span> threatened. They are brought +under notice as the noblest possession, as the finest ornament of the cultivated +land, in contrast with the barren wilderness. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משם</span>, +properly "from thence," is correctly explained by <i>Manger</i>: "As soon as she +has come out of that wilderness." The explanation of <i>Rödiger</i> and others, +"From that time," is unphilological; <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שם</span> is +never an adverb of time.--According to the opinion of many interpreters (<i>Calvin</i>, +<i>Manger</i>, and others), the valley of Achor here comes into consideration only +because of its fruitfulness, and its situation at the entrance of the promised land, +but not with any reference to the event which, according to Josh. vii., happened +there. But the circumstance that here, as in the whole preceding context, the prophet, +in almost every word, has before his eyes the former leadings of Israel, compels +us, almost involuntarily, to have respect to that event. And, in addition, there +is a still more decisive argument. It cannot be denied that there is a contrast +between what the valley of Achor is by nature, and what it is made by the Lord; +there is too plain a contrast between the <i>hope</i> and the <i>affliction</i>. +But if thus the meaning of the name is brought into view, then certainly there must +also be a reference to the event to which it owed its name. But in order to have +a right understanding of this reference, we must find out what was the essential +feature in the event, the repetition of which is here announced. The people, when +they were entering into Canaan, were immediately deprived of the enjoyment of the +divine favour by the transgression of an individual--Achan--which was only a single +fruit from the tree of the sin which was common to all. But God Himself, in His +mercy, made known the means by which the lost favour might be recovered; and thus +the place, which seemed to be the door of destruction, became the door of hope; +compare <i>Schultens</i> on <i>Harari</i> iii. p. 180. The remembrance of this event +was perpetuated by the name of the place; compare ver. 25: "And Joshua said. Why +hast thou troubled us? The Lord shall trouble thee this day. Therefore the name +of the place was called. The valley of Achor, unto this day." This particular dealing +of God, however, is based upon His nature, and must, therefore, repeat itself when +Israel again comes into similar circumstances,--must be repeated, in general, whensoever +similar conditions arise. Even they who have already entered the +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 263]</span>promised land, who have already come to the +full enjoyment of salvation (<i>full</i>, in so far as it is considered as a whole, +and designated as the last station; but as this last station again has several steps +and gradations, this fulness can be relative only. If it were absolute, if nothing +more of the wilderness were left, then, of course, the case here in question could +no more occur; for a salvation absolutely full presupposes a righteousness absolutely +full);—even they who have already come to the full enjoyment of salvation, and to +a degree of righteousness corresponding to this salvation, require still the mercy +of God; for, without it, they would soon lose their salvation again. This mercy, +however, is vouchsafed to them in abundant measure. The whole manner in which God +leads those who have obtained mercy, is a changing of the valley of trouble into +a door of hope. He will order all things in such a way, that the bond of union betwixt +Him and those for whom all things must work together for good, instead of being +broken by sin—as it would be if He were justice alone—is only the more strengthened. +The same idea occurs again in ver. 21. The new marriage-covenant is there founded +not on justice only, but on mercy also.—The words <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +וענתה שמה</span> are commonly explained, "She sings there," or, "She there raises +alternative songs." But both of these interpretations are unphilological. For 1. +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שמה</span> does not signify "there," but "thither." +Those passages which have been appealed to for the purpose of proving that it may +also sometimes signify "there," or "at yonder place," all belong to the same class. +The opposite of the construction of the verbs of motion with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span> takes place in them. As, in these verbs, +the idea of rest is, for the sake of brevity, omitted, so here, that of motion. +Thus, <i>e.g.</i>, Jer. xviii. 2, "Go down to the potter's house, and <i>thither</i> +will I cause thee to hear My voice," is a concise mode of expression for, "I will +send My voice thither, and cause thee to hear there;" 1 Chron. iv. 41, "Which were +found thither," instead of, "which were found there when they came thither." We +might, in the case of the passage under consideration, most easily concede what +we are contending against, that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שמה</span> is used +instead of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שם</span>, as a kind of grammatical blunder; +but that the writer knew the difference between these two forms clearly appears +from the close of the verse, where, certainly, he would not have put +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שמה</span> for <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שם</span>. +These are the instances adduced by <i>Winer</i>. <i>Gesenius</i>, further, refers +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 264]</span>to Is. xxxiv. 15: "<i>Thither</i> makes her +nest;" but the making of the nest implies the placing of it. <i>Ewald</i>, moreover, +appeals to Ps. cxxii. 5: "<i>Thither</i> sit the thrones for judgment." It is true +that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ישב</span> never signifies "to sit down," but +it frequently implies it. He appeals, further, to the Song of Solomon viii. 5: "<i>Thither</i> +thy mother brought thee forth;" which is tantamount to—there she brought thee forth, +and put thee down. But <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שמה</span> can so much the +less signify "there," that the instances alleged for the weakening of the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ה</span> <i>locale</i> in other passages, will not +stand the test. <i>Ewald</i> appeals to Ps. lxviii. 7: "God makes the solitary to +dwell <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ביתה</span>;" which, however, does not mean +"<i>in</i> the house," as <i>Ewald</i> translates, but "<i>into</i> the house"—He +leads them thither, and makes them to dwell there. The idea of motion being sufficiently +indicated by the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ה</span> itself, no other designation +was required in poetry, which delights in brevity. <i>Further</i>—Hab. iii. 11: +"Sun and moon stand <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זבלה</span>, towards their habitation," +<i>i.e.</i>, go into their habitation and stand there. 2. The verb +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ענה</span> signifies neither "to begin the discourse," +nor "to sing," nor "to sing alternately," nor "to correspond," nor "to be favourably +disposed" (<i>Ewald</i>), nor "to obey" (<i>Hitzig</i>), but always, and everywhere, +"to answer." All these explanations will lose their plausibility, if we only consider, +that it is not always necessary that a question be expressed by words, but that +it may be implied in the thing itself—especially in the case of the lively Orientals, +for whom things, even the most mute, have a language. As examples, we cite only +1 Sam. xxi. 12:—Did they not answer to him in dances, saying, Saul has slain his +thousands, but David his ten thousands!" Similarly also xxix. 5. That even here, +the signification "to answer" ought to be retained, is plain from xviii. 7, compared +with ver. 6. The coming together of David and Saul was a silent question as to which +was the greater. Ps. cxlvii.: "Answer the Lord with praise." The real addresses +of the Lord were His blessings; compare vers. 2-6, 8 ff. By everything which God +gives He asks. What art thou doing to Me, since I am doing that to thee? +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ענה</span> is often used of God, although no formal +question or prayer preceded; but the very relation itself implies prayer and asking. +It is in this sense that even the ravens are said to cry to God. It is in this sense +that God <i>answers</i> His people before they cry to Him. He who has nothing, prays +by this very circumstance, even without words, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 265]</span>yea, +even without the gestures and posture of one who is praying. Since, in these remarks, +we have already refuted the arguments which seemed most plausible, we may pass over +other objections which are less to the purpose. There is only the passage Exod. +xv. 21, which requires to be specially noticed, as it is in that passage that the +signification "to sing alternately" is supposed, beyond any doubt, to be; and many +interpreters assume that there is a verbal reference to it in the passage under +consideration. "And then Miriam answered to them (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">להם</span>, +<i>i.e.</i>, to the men), Sing ye to the Lord," Moses sings first with the children +of Israel, ver. 1, "and then Miriam the prophetess took, etc., and <i>answered</i>." +The signification "to answer," is here quite evident. But, on the other hand, it +appears that that passage has not the slightest relation to the one under consideration, +inasmuch as there is not, in the latter, any mention of a first choir, to which +the second answers.—From what has been hitherto remarked, it is settled that the +translation, "And she answers thither," is alone admissible. But now, since no +<i>verbal</i> question or address has preceded here, the question arises:—Which +address by deeds called forth the answer? To this question an answer is readily +suggested by the reference of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שמה</span> to the preceding +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משם</span>. The address must have come from that +place to which the answer is sent; hence, it can consist only in the giving of the +vineyards, and of the good things of the promised land generally. On entering into +it, she is welcomed by this affectionate address of the Lord, her husband, and there +she answers it. The following words, "As in the days," etc., show what that is in +which the answer consists. If, at that time, Israel answered the Lord by a song +of praise, full of thanks for the deliverance from Egypt, now also they will answer +Him by a song of praise, for being led into Canaan. If history had given any report +of a hymn of praise sung by Israel when they entered into Canaan, the prophet would +have referred to it; but as it was, he could only remind them of that hymn. And +although the occasion on which it was sung did not altogether correspond, it must +be borne in mind, that in this hymn (compare ver. 12 ff.) the passing through the +Red Sea is represented as a preparatory step, and as prefiguring the occupation +of Canaan—the latter being contained in it as in a germ. It is, moreover, self-evident +that the essential fundamental thought is <span class="pagenum">[Pg 266]</span>only +that of the cordial and deep gratitude of the redeemed,—that the form only is borrowed +from the previous manifestation of this thankfulness. An image altogether similar, +and arising from the same cause, is found in Is. xii. also, where the reference +to Moses' hymn of thanks is manifested by employing the very words; and likewise +in Is. xxvi.; and, further, in Hab. iii. and Rev. xv. 3.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ימי</span> +and <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יום</span> are Nominatives, not Accusatives; +which latter could not be made use of here, because the discourse is not of an action +extending through the whole period, but of one happening at a particular point of +that period. The comparison is here also merely intimated, because the <i>tertium +comparationis</i> is abundantly evident from what precedes: "As the days of her +youth," instead of, "As she once answered in the days of her youth."</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 18. "<i>And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, thou +shalt call Me, My husband, and shall call Me no more, My Baal.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The full performance of her duties corresponds with the full admission +to her rights. The prophet expresses this thought, by announcing the removal of +the two forms in which the apostasy of the people from the true God—the violation +of the marriage-covenant which rested on exclusiveness—was at that time manifested. +One of these was the mixing up of the religion of Jehovah with heathenism, according +to which they called the true God "Baal," and worshipped Him as Baal; the other +was still grosser—was pure idolatry. The abolition of the former (compare above, +p. 176 f.) is predicted in this verse; the abolition of the latter, in the verse +following. Both are in a similar way placed beside each other in Zech. xiv. 9: "In +that day shall there be one Lord, and His name one;" where the first clause refers +to the abolition of polytheism, and the second to the abolition of the mixing of +religion—of the hidden apostasy—which, without venturing to forsake the true God +entirely and openly, endeavours to mix up and identify Him with the world. To the +fundamental thought there are several parallels; <i>e.g.</i>, Deut. xxx. 5 ff.: +"And the Lord thy God bringeth thee into the land which thy fathers possessed; and +the Lord thy God circumciseth thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the +Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." +This passage shows that the verse before us, no less than that which precedes, contains +a <i>promise</i>, and that the "calling," and the "calling no more," is a work of +divine <span class="pagenum">[Pg 267]</span>grace. To this we are led also by the +words, "I shall take away," in ver. 19, as well as by the other parallel passages:—Jer. +xxiv. 7: "And I give them an heart to know Me, that I am the Lord; and they shall +be a people to Me, and I will be a God to them, for they shall return to Me with +their whole heart;" Ezek. xi. 19: "And I give them one heart, and a new spirit I +put within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh;" compare further Zech. +xiii. 2. Another interpretation of the verse recommends itself by its apparent depth. +According to it, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בעל</span> is to be taken as an +appellative noun, the "marriage-Lord," in contrast with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">איש</span>, "husband," and that the people are henceforth +to be altogether governed by love. But this interpretation must be objected to, +for a whole multitude of reasons. There is, <i>first</i> of all, the relation of +this verse to the following one, which does not allow that +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בעל</span>, which there occurs as a proper name, +should in this place be taken as an appellative. There is, <i>then</i>, the arbitrariness +in defining the relation between <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">איש</span> and +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בעל</span>, the former of which as little exclusively +expresses the relation of love, as the latter excludes it. (Compare Is. liv. 5, +6, lxii. 4; 2 Sam. xi. 26.) Further, it is incorrect to say that +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בעל</span> properly means "Lord;" it means "possessor." +<i>Still further</i>,—There is the unsuitableness of the thought, which would be +without any analogy in its favour throughout Scripture. And, <i>lastly</i>, the +relation of love to God cannot, even in its highest consummation, do away with reference +to Him, etc.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 19. "<i>And I take away the names of the Baalim out of her +mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The people are to conceive such an abhorrence of idolatry, that +they shall be afraid of being defiled even by pronouncing the name of the idols. +The words are borrowed from Exod. xxiii. 13: "Ye shall not make mention of the name +of other gods, neither shall it be heard out of thy mouth." The special expression +of the idea must, as a matter of course, be referred back to this idea itself, viz., +the abhorrence of the former sin and, hence, such a mention cannot here be spoken +of as, like that in the passage before us, has no reference to that sin.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 20. "<i>And I make a covenant for them in that day with the<!--inserted 1854 ed--> +beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping<!--inserted 1854 ed--> +things of the earth; and bow, and sword, and war I break out<!--inserted 1854 ed--> +of the land, and make them to dwell in safety.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 268]</span></p> +<p class="normal">On the expression, "I make a covenant," <i>Manger</i> remarks, +"The cause is here put for the effect, in order to inspire with greater security." +For the benefit of Israel, God makes a covenant with the beasts, <i>i.e.</i>, He +imposes upon them obligations not to injure them. The phrase +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כרת ברית</span> is frequently used of a transaction +betwixt two parties, whereby an obligation is imposed upon only one of the parties, +without the assumption of any obligation by the other. A somewhat different turn +is given to the image in Job v. 23, where, by the mediation of God, the beasts themselves +enter into a covenant with Job after his restoration. +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">רמש</span> never means "worm," but always "what moves +and creeps," both small and great, as, in Ps. civ. 25, is subjoined by way of explanation. +The three classes stand in the same order in Gen. ix. 2. The normal order there +established, "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast," +etc., returns, after the removal of the disturbance which has been produced by sin. +Upon the words, "I break," etc., <i>Manger</i> makes the very pertinent remark: +"It is an emphatic and expressive brevity, according to which breaking out of the +land all instruments of war, and war itself, means that He will break them and remove +them out of the land." It is self-evident that "war" can here, as little as anywhere +else, mean "weapons of war." The prophet, as it appears, had in view the passage +Lev. xxvi. 3 ff.: "If ye will walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments and +do them, I will give you your rains in due season, and the land shall yield her +increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.... And I give peace +in the land, and you dwell, and there is none who makes you afraid; and I destroy +the wild beasts out of the land, and the sword shall not enter into your land." +It is so much the more obvious that we ought to assume a reference to this passage, +as Ezekiel also, in xxxiv. 25 ff., copies it almost <i>verbatim</i>. On account +of the fatal <i>If</i>, that promise had hitherto been only very imperfectly fulfilled; +and frequently just the opposite of it had happened. But now that the condition +is fulfilled, the promise also shall be fully realized. But we must observe, with +reference to it, that, when we look to the present course of the world, this hope +remains always more or less ideal, because in reference to the condition also, the +idea is not yet reached by the reality. The idea is this:—As evil is, as a +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 269]</span>punishment, the inseparable concomitant of +sin, so prosperity and salvation are the inseparable companions of righteousness. +This is realized even in the present course of the world, in so far as everything +must serve to promote the prosperity of the righteous. But the full realization +belongs to the <span lang="el" class="Greek">παλινγενεσία</span>, where, along with +sin, evil too (which is <i>here</i> still necessary even for the righteous, in order +to purify them) shall be extirpated. Parallel are Is. ii. 4, xi.-xxxv. 9; Zech. +ix. 10.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 21. "<i>And I betroth thee to Me for eternity; and I betroth +thee to Me in righteousness and judgment, and in loving-kindness and mercy.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 22. "<i>And I betroth thee to Me in faithfulness, and thou +knowest the Lord.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The word <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ארש</span>, "to espouse" +(compare Deut. xx. 7, where it is contrasted with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +לקח</span>), has reference to the entrance into a marriage entirely new, with the +wife of youth, and is, for this reason, chosen on purpose. "Just as if (so <i>Calvin</i> +remarks) the people had never violated conjugal fidelity, God promises that they +should be His spouse, in the same manner as one marries a <i>virgo intacta</i>." +It was indeed a great mercy if the unfaithful wife was only received <i>again</i>. +Justly might she have been rejected for ever; for the only valid reason for a divorce +existed, inasmuch as she had lived in adultery for years. But God's mercy goes still +further. The old offences are not only <i>forgiven</i>, but <i>forgotten</i>. A +relation entirely new begins, into which there enter, on the one side, no suspicion +and no bitterness, and on the other, no painful recollections, such as may pass +into similar human relationships, where the consequences of sin never disappear +altogether, and where a painful remembrance always remains. The same dealing of +God is still repeated daily; every believer may still say with exultation: "Old +things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." It is the greatness +of this promise which occasions the direct address, whilst hitherto the Lord had +spoken of the wife in the third person. She shall hear face to face, the great word +out of His mouth, in order that she may be assured that it is she whom it concerns; +and in order to express its greatness, its joyfulness, and the difficulty of believing +it, it is repeated three times. <i>Calvin</i> says: "Because it was difficult to +deliver the people from fear and despair, and because they could not but be +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 270]</span>aware how grievously they had sinned, and in +how many ways they had alienated themselves from God, it was necessary to employ +many consolations, that thus their faith might be confirmed. One likes to hear the +repetition of the intelligence of a great and unexpected good fortune which one +has some difficulty in realizing. And what could a man, despairing on account of +his sins, less readily realize than the greatest of all miracles—viz., that all +his sins should be done away with, at once and for ever? But the repetition is, +in this case, so much the more full of consolation, that, each time, it is accompanied +with the promise of some new blessing; that, each time, it opens up some new prospect +of new blessings from this new connection. First, there is the eternal duration,—then, +as a pledge of this, the attributes which God would display in bestowing it,—and, +finally, there are the blessings which He would impart to His betrothed." The +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לעולם</span> points back to the painful dissolution +of the former marriage-covenant: This new one shall not be liable to such a dissolution; +for "the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed, but My kindness shall +not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of My peace be removed, saith the +Lord:" Is. liv. 10. The attributes which God will display towards the wife, and +the conduct which she shall observe towards Him through His mercy, are connected +with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ארשתיך לי</span>, "I betroth thee to Me," by +means of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span>, which is often used to mark the +circumstances on which some action rests. Thus, in the case before us, the betrothment +rests upon what God vouchsafes along with it, inasmuch as thereby only does it become +a true betrothment. That the accompanying gifts must be thus distributed—as we have +done—first, the faithful discharge of all the duties of a husband on His part, and +then, the inward communication of strength to her for the fulfilment of her obligations; +and that we are neither at liberty to refer, as do some interpreters, everything +to one of the two parties, nor to assume, as others do, that everything refers to +both at the same time—is proved not only by the intervening repetition of "I betroth +thee to Me," but also by the internal nature of the gift's mentioned. +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">רחמים</span>, "mercy," cannot be spoken of in the +relation of the wife to God, nor knowledge of God, in the relation of God to the +wife. The four manifestations of God which are mentioned here form +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 271]</span>a double pair,—righteousness and judgment, +loving-kindness and mercy. The two are frequently connected in a similar way; <i> +e.g.</i>, Is. i. 27: "Zion shall be redeemed in judgment, and her inhabitants in +righteousness." They are distinguished thus:—the former, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צדק</span>, designates the <i>being just</i>, as +a subjective attribute, with the dispositions and actions flowing from it; the latter, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משפט</span>, denotes the <i>objective right</i>.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_271a" href="#ftn_271a">[1]</a></sup> +A man can give to another his right or judgment, and yet not be righteous; but God's +righteousness, and His doing right in reference to the Congregation, consists in +this:—that He faithfully performs the obligations which He took upon Himself when +He entered into covenant with her. This, however, is not sufficient. The obligations +entered into are reciprocal. If, then, the covenant be violated on the part of the +Congregation, what hope is left for her? In order the more to relieve and comfort +the wife, who, from former experience, knew full well what she might expect from +righteousness and judgment alone, the Lord adds a second pair,—loving-kindness and +mercy, the former being the root of the latter, and the latter being the form in +which the former manifests itself, in the relation of an omnipotent and holy God +to weak and sinful man. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חסד</span>, properly "love," +man may also entertain towards God; although even this word is very rarely used +in reference to man, because God's love infinitely exceeds human love; but God only +can have <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">רחמים</span>, "mercy," upon man. But still +a distressing thought might, and must be entertained by the wife. God's mercy and +love have their limits; they extend only to the one case which dissolves even human +marriage—the type of the heavenly marriage, the great mystery which the Apostle +refers to Christ and the Church. What, then, if this case should again occur? Her +heart, it is true, is now filled with pure love; but who knows whether this love +shall not cool,—whether she shall not again yield to temptation? A new consolation +is applied to the new distress. God Himself will bestow what it is not in the power +of man to bestow—viz., faithfulness towards Him (compare +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אמונה</span> used of human faithfulness, in Hab. +ii. 4; Jer. v. 3, vii. 28; the faithfulness in this verse forms the contrast to +the whoredom in i. 2), <span class="pagenum">[Pg 272]</span>and the knowledge of +Him. "Thou knowest the Lord" is tantamount to—"in My knowledge." The knowledge of +God is here substantial knowledge. Whosoever thus knows God cannot but love Him, +and be faithful to Him. All idolatry, all sin, has its foundation in a want of the +knowledge of God.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 23. "<i>And it comes to pass in that day, I will hear, saith +the Lord; I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth;</i> Ver. 24. +<i>And the earth shall hear the corn, and the must, and the oil; and they shall +hear Jezreel</i>" (<i>i.e.</i>, him whom God sows).</p> +<p class="normal">The promise in this passage forms the contrast to the threatening +in Deut. xxviii. 23, 24: "And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and +the earth that is under thee shall be iron. The Lord will give for the rain of thy +land, dust, and dust shall come down from heaven upon thee." The second +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אענה</span> is, by most interpreters, considered +as a resumption of the first. But we obtain a far more expressive sense, if we isolate +the first <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אענה</span>, "I shall hear," namely, all +prayers which will be offered up unto Me by you, and for you. Parallel, among other +passages, is Is. lviii. 9, where the reformed people are promised: "Then shalt thou +call, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt cry, and He shall say. Here I am." By +a bold <i>prosopopœia</i>, the prophet makes heaven to pray that it might be permitted +to give to the earth that which is necessary for its fruitfulness, etc. Hitherto +they have been hindered from fulfilling their <i>destination</i>, since God was +obliged to withdraw His gifts from the unworthy people, ii. 11; but now, since this +obstacle has been removed, they pray for permission to resume their vocation. The +prophets in this manner give, as it were, a visible representation of the idea, +that there is in the whole world no good independent of God,—nothing which, in accordance +with its destination, is not ours, and would indeed be ours, if we stood in the +right relation to Him,—nothing that is not His, and that will not be taken away +from us, if we desire the gift without the Giver. <i>Calvin</i> remarks: "The prophet +shows where and when the happiness of men begins, viz., when God adopts them, when +He betrothes Himself to them, after having put away their sins.... He teaches, also, +in these words, that the heavens do not become dry by some secret instinct; but +it is when God withholds His grace, that there is no rain by which the heavens water +the earth." God, then, here shows <span class="pagenum">[Pg 273]</span>plainly that +the whole <i>order of nature</i> (as men are wont to say) is so entirely in His +hand, that not one drop of rain shall fall from heaven unless by His will,—that +the whole earth would produce no grass,—that, in short, all nature would be sterile, +unless He made it fruitful by His blessing.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 25. "<i>And I sow her unto Me in the land, and I have mercy +upon her 'who had not obtained mercy'</i> (Lo-Ruhamah); <i>and I say to 'not My +people'</i> (Lo-Ammi), <i>Thou art My people, and they say to Me, My God.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The three symbolical names of the children of the prophet here +once more return. The <i>femin. suffix</i> in <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זרעתיה</span>, +referring to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יזרעאל</span>, need not at all surprise +us; for, in the whole passage before us, the sign disappears in the thing signified. +In point of fact, however, <i>Jezreel</i> is equivalent to Israel to be sowed anew. +(It is not the Israel to be <i>planted</i> anew, which is a figure altogether different; +the sowing has always a reference to the increase.)</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_271a" href="#ftnRef_271a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> In our authorized version + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משפט</span> is almost constantly rendered by + "<i>judgment</i>," although evidently in the sense pointed out by the author,—for + which reason, this rendering has been retained here.—<span class="sc">Tr.</span></p> +</div> +<hr class="W20"> +<h3><a name="div3_273" href="#div3Ref_273">CHAPTER III.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">"The significant couple returns for a new reference" (<i>Rückert</i>). +First, in vers. 1-3, the symbolical action is reported. At the command of the Lord, +the prophet takes a wife, who, notwithstanding his affectionate and faithful love, +lives in continued adultery. He does not entirely reject her; but, in order that +she may come to recovery and repentance, he puts her into a position where she must +abstain from her lovers. The interpretation of the symbol is given in ver. 4: Israel, +forsaken by the world, shall spend a long time in sad seclusion. A glance into the +more distant future, without any symbolical imagery, forms the conclusion. The punishment +will at length produce conversion. Israel returns to the Lord his God, and to David +his king.</p> +<hr class="W10"> +<p class="normal">Ver. 1. "<i>Then said the Lord unto me, Go again, love a</i> +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 274]</span><i>woman beloved of her friend, and an adulteress, +as the Lord loveth the sons of Israel, and they turn to other gods and love grape-cakes.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The right point of view for the interpretation of this verse has +been already, in many important respects, established; compare p. 183 sqq. We here +take for granted the results there obtained. It is of great importance, for an insight +into the whole passage, to remark, that the symbolical action in this section, just +as in that to which chap. i. belongs, embraces the entire relation of the Lord to +the people of Israel, and not, as some interpreters assume, one portion only, viz., +the time from the beginning of the captivity. This false view—of which the futility +was first completely exposed by <i>Manger</i>—has arisen from the circumstance, +that the prophet, in narrating the execution of the divine commission, omits very +important events. In the expectation that every one would supply them, partly from +the commission itself, and partly from the preceding portions, where they had been +treated of with peculiar copiousness, he rather at once passes from the first conclusion +of the marriage, to that point which, in this passage, forms his main subject, namely, +the disciplinary punishment to which he subjects his wife,—the Lord, Israel. The +prophet's aim and purpose is to afford to the people a right view of the captivity +so near at hand; to lead them to consider it neither as a merely accidental event, +having, no connection at all with their sins; nor as a pure effect of divine anger, +aiming at their entire destruction; but rather as being at the same time a work +of punitive justice, and of corrective love. Between the second verse, "I purchased +her to me," etc., and the third, "Then I said unto her," etc., we must supply. And +I took her in marriage and loved her; but she committed adultery. That this is the +sound view, appears clearly from ver. 2. According to the right exposition (compare +p. 195 sqq.), this verse can be referred only to the first beginning of the relation +betwixt the Lord and the people of Israel—to that only by which He acquired the +right of property in this people, on delivering them from Egypt. This is confirmed, +moreover, by the second half of the verse under consideration: "As the Lord loveth," +etc. Here the love of the Lord to Israel in its widest extent is spoken of. Every +limitation of it to a single manifestation—be it a <span class="pagenum">[Pg 275]</span>renewal +of love after the apostasy, or the corrective discipline inflicted from love—is +quite arbitrary; and the more so, because, by the addition, "And they turned," etc., +the love of God is represented as running parallel with the apostasy of the people. +The same result is obtained from a consideration of the first half. For what entitles +us to explain "love" by "love again," or even by "<i>restitue amoris signa</i>" +as is done by those who hold the opinion, already refuted, that the woman is <i> +Gomer</i>? The word "love" corresponds exactly with "as the Lord loveth." If the +latter must be understood of the love of the Lord in its whole extent,—if it does +not designate merely the manifestation of love, but love itself,—how can a more +limited view be taken of the former "love?" How could we explain, as is done by +those who defend the reference to a new marriage, the words, "Beloved of her friend, +and an adulteress," as referring to a former marriage of the wife, and as tantamount +to—who was beloved by her former husband, and yet committed adultery? In that case, +there would be the greatest dissimilarity betwixt the type and the antitype. Who, +in that case, is to be the type of the Lord? Is it to be the former husband, or +the prophet? If the figure is at all to correspond with the reality,—the first member +with the second, the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">רֵעַ</span> can be none other +than the prophet himself.—Let us now proceed to particulars, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אהב</span>, "love," is stronger than +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">קח</span>, "take," in chap. i. 2. There, marriage +only was spoken of; here, marriage from love and in love. This is still more emphatically +pointed out by the subsequent words <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אהבת רע</span>, +and contrasted with the conduct of the wife, which is indicated by +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מנאפת</span>, so that the sense is this: "In love +take a wife who, although she is beloved by thee, her friend, commits adultery, +and with whom—I tell it to thee beforehand—thou wilt live in a constant antagonism +of love, and of ingratitude, the grossest violation of love." The word "<i>love</i>" +has a reference to the love preceding and effecting the marriage; the word "<i>beloved</i>," +to the love uninterruptedly continuing during the marriage, and notwithstanding +the continued adultery, unless we should say—and it is quite admissible—that "love" +implies, at the same time, "to take out of love," and "to love constantly." Instead +of "beloved by <i>thee</i>" it is said, "beloved by her <i>friend</i>." Many have +been thereby misled; but it only serves to make the contrast more +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 276]</span> prominent.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_276a" href="#ftn_276a">[1]</a></sup> +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">רֵעַ</span> has only one signification—that of <i> +friend</i>. It never, by itself, means "fellow-man," never "fellow-Jew," never "one +with whom we have intercourse." The Pharisees were quite correct in understanding +it as the opposite of enemy. In their gloss, Matt. v. 43, +<span lang="el" class="Greek">καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου</span>, there was one +thing only objectionable—the most important, it is true—that by the friend, they +understood only him whom their heart, void of love, loved indeed; not him whom they +ought to have loved, because God had united him to them by the sacred ties of friendship +and love. Thus, what ought to have awakened them to love, just served them as a +palliation for their hatred. Now this signification, which alone is the settled +one, is here also very suitable. He whom the wife criminally forsakes, is not a +severe husband, but her loving friend, whom she herself formerly acknowledged as +such, and who always remains the same. Entirely parallel is Jer. iii. 20: "As a +wife is faithless towards her <i>friend</i>, so have ye been faithless to Me;" compare +ver. 4: "Hast thou not formerly called me. My father, <i>friend</i> of my youth +art thou?" Compare also Song of Sol. v. 16. The correct meaning was long ago seen +by <i>Calvin</i>: "There is," says he, "an expressiveness in this word. For often, +when women prostitute themselves, they complain that they have done it on account +of the too great severity of their husbands, and that they are not treated by their +husbands with sufficient kindness. But if a husband delight in having his wife with +him, if he treat her kindly and perform the duties of a husband, she is then less +excusable. Hence, it is this most heinous ingratitude of the people that is here +expressed, and set in opposition to the infinite mercy and kindness of the Lord." +For a still better insight into the meaning of the first half of this verse, we +subjoin the <i>paraphrasis</i> by <i>Manger</i>: "Seek thee a wife in whom thou +art to have thy delight, and whom thou art to treat with such love, that, even if +she, by her unfaithfulness, violate the sacred rights of matrimony, and thou, for +that reason, canst no longer live with her, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 277]</span>she +shall still remain dear to thee, and shall be willingly received again into thy +favour, as soon as she shall have reformed her life."—In the second half of the +verse, there is a verbal agreement with passages of the Pentateuch, so close that +it cannot certainly be accidental. Compare on <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כאהבת +יהוה את־בני ישראל</span>, Deut. vii. 8, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מאהבת יהוה +אתכם</span>,—an agreement which undoubtedly deserves so much more attention, that +we have already established the relationship of the passage with ver. 2. On +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פנים אל אלהים אחרים</span>, compare Deut. xxxi. 18: +"I will hide My face in that day for all the evil they are doing, for they turn +to other gods," <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשישי ענבים—.פנה אל אלהים אחרים</span>, +"grape-cakes," has, as to its substance, been already explained, p. 194 sqq. It +is the result of an entire misunderstanding, that some interpreters should here +think of the love of feasting and banqueting. Others (as <i>Gesenius</i>) are anxious +to prove that such cakes were used at the sacrifices which were offered to idols. +The grape-cakes are rather idolatry itself; but the expression, "They love grape-cakes," +adds an essential feature to the words, "They turn to other gods." It points, namely, +to the sinful origin of idolatry. Earnest and strict religion is substantial and +wholesome food; but idolatry is soft food, which is sought only by the dainty and +squeamish. That which is true of idolatry, is true also of the service of sin, and +of the world in general, which, in Job xx. 12, appears under the image of meat which +is, in the mouth, as sweet as honey from the comb, but which is, in the belly, changed +into the gall of asps. In the symbolism of the law, honey signified the <i>lust</i> +of the world; compare my work <i>Die Opfer der Heil. Schrift</i>, S. 44. It is only +the derivation of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשישיט</span>, the signification +of which is sufficiently established by parallel passages, which requires investigation. +We have no hesitation in deriving it from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אֵשׁ</span>, +"fire;" hence it means properly, "that which has been subjected to fire (compare +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אִשֶּׁה</span>) = that which has been baked," "cakes." +The derivation from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשש</span>, "to found," has of +late become current; but the objections to it are:—partly, that the transition from +"founding," to "cake," is by no means an easy one; partly and mainly, that there +is not the slightest trace of this root elsewhere in Hebrew. It is asserted, indeed, +that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשישים</span> itself is found in Is. xvi. 7, +with a signification which renders necessary the derivation from the verb +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשש</span>. But, even in that passage, the signification +of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 278]</span>"cakes" must be retained. The following +reasons are in favour of it, and against the signification "ruins," adopted by +<i>Gesenius</i>, <i>Winer</i>, and <i>Hitzig</i>. 1. The signification "cakes" deserves, +<i>ceteris paribus</i>, a decided preference, because it is established by the other +passages. It is only for reasons the most cogent that we can grant that one and +the same word has two meanings, and these not at all connected with each other. +2. The transition from the meaning "foundation," which alone can be derived from +the verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשש</span>, to that of "<i>ruins</i>," is +by no means so easy as those critics would represent it. With respect to a rebuilding, +for which the ruins' afford the foundation, they might, it is true, be called foundations, +compare Is. lviii. 12, but not where destruction only is concerned. Who would speak +of howling over foundations, instead of howling over ruins? 3. The context is quite +decisive. If we translate <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשישים</span> by "ruins," +the subsequent <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span> is quite inexplicable. This +little word, upon which so much depends, performs also the office of a guide: "For +this reason Moab howls, for Moab altogether does he howl, for the cakes of Kirhareseth +you do sigh, wholly afflicted; <i>for</i> the vineyards of Heshbon are withered, +the vine of Sibmah, the grapes of which intoxicated the lord of the nations," etc. +Then, ver. 9, "Therefore I weep with Jaeser for the vine of Sibmah." If there be +no more grapes, neither are there any more grape-cakes. The destruction of the vineyards +is therefore the cause of the howling for the cakes. That such cakes, moreover, +were prepared in many places in Moab, sufficiently appears from the name of the +place Dibhlathaim, <i>i.e.</i>, town of cakes. It may be remarked further, that +we are not entitled to assume a sing. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשיש</span> +as given by lexicographers along with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דבלה ;אשישה</span> +likewise forms the plural <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דבלים</span>.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 2. "<i>And I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, +and a homer of barley, and a lethech of barley.</i>" Compare the explanation of +this verse, p. 195 sqq.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 3. "<i>And I said unto her. Thou art to sit for me many days: +thou art not to whore, and thou art not to belong to a man; and so I also to thee.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The sitting has the accessory idea of being forsaken and solitary, +which may be explained from the circumstance, that he who is not invited to go with +us is left to sit. Thus, <i>e.g.</i>, Gen. xxxviii. 11: "Sit as a widow in thy fathers +house, until Shelah <span class="pagenum">[Pg 279]</span>my son be grown;" Is. xlvii. +8, where Babylon says, "I shall not <i>sit</i> as a widow," etc. The Fut. in this +and the following verses must not be taken in an imperative sense, as meaning, thou +shalt sit for me, thou shalt not whore; the explanation given in ver. 4, and in +the parallel passage in chap. ii. 8, 9, are alike opposed to it. The husband will +not subject his wife to a moral probation, but he will lock her up, so that she +must <i>sit</i> solitary, and <i>cannot</i> whore. With reference to this. <i>Manger</i> +strikingly remarks: "There is, in that very severity, the beginning of leniency; +'sit for me,' <i>i.e.</i>, I who have been so unworthily treated by thee, and who +yet am thy most affectionate husband, and who, though now at a distance from thee, +will not altogether forget thee." The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לי</span> indicates +that the sitting of the wife must have reference to the prophet. Quite similar is +Exod. xxiv. 14: "And he said unto the elders, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שבו +לנו</span>, Sit ye here for us until we return to you." The phrase itself, which +must not be explained by "to sit in expectation of some one," does not indicate +in what way the sitting has reference to him. The issue of the whole proceeding, +described in ver. 5, clearly shows, however, that it is not inflicted by him as +a merited punishment, as an effect of his just indignation, but rather that we must +think chiefly of his compassionate love, which makes use of these means in order +to render the reunion possible.—The distinction between "to whore," and "to belong +to a man," is obvious: the former denotes <i>vagos et promiscuus amores</i>; the +other, connubial connection with a single individual; compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Ezek. +xvi. 8; Lev. xxi. 3. But the question is,—Who is to be understood by the "<i>man?</i>" +Several refer it to the prophet exclusively. Thus <i>Jerome</i> says, "Thou shalt +not shamefully prostitute thyself with other lovers, nor be legally connected with +me, the man to whom thou art married." Others admit, at least, a co-reference to +the prophet = the Lord. By the words, "Thou art not to whore," they say that the +intercourse with the lovers is excluded; but, by, "Thou art not to belong to a man," +the intercourse with the husband also; so that the sense would be, "Thou shalt not +have connubial intercourse either with me, or with any other man." But the correct +view is to refer both to the intercourse with the lovers; and so, indeed, that the +former designates the giving of herself up, now to one, then to another; while the +latter points to her entering <span class="pagenum">[Pg 280]</span>into a firm relation +to a single individual; just as, in point of fact, the relation of Israel to the +idols hitherto was a whoring. According as it suited their inclination, they made, +now this, and then that, god of the neighbouring nations an object of their worship; +whilst a marriage connection would have been formed, if they had entered with any +one of them into a permanent and exclusive connection, similar to that which had +heretofore existed between them and the Lord. This explanation is required by the +words, "And so I also to thee," at the close of the verse. If the words, "Thou shalt +not belong to any man," referred to the prophet, then "thou shalt not have any intercourse +with me" would imply, "I shall not have any intercourse with thee;" and did not +require any new mention to be made.—The questions, however, now arise:—By what means +was the state of things corresponding to the figure to be brought about? By what +is adulterous Israel to be prevented from whoring, and from belonging to any man? +By what means is idolatry to be extirpated from among the people? The answer has +been already given in our remarks on chap. ii. 8, 9. The idols manifest themselves +to Israel in their supposed gifts. If these were taken from them,—if they were entirely +stripped, and plunged into want and misery, they could not fail to recognise the +vanity of all their previous efforts, along with the vanity of the object of their +worship, while their love to him could not but vanish. The absolute inability of +the idols to afford consolation and help to the people in their sufferings must +have put an end to their showing them allegiance.—The last words, "And I also to +thee," are explained by the greater number of interpreters to mean, "I also will +be thine." <i>Manger</i> explains them thus: "I will not altogether break the tie +of our love, nor marry another wife; but I will remain thine, will at last receive +thee again into my favour, and restore thee to the position of my wife." <i>De Wette</i> +interprets them thus: "But then I will come to thee;" <i>Umbreit</i>: "And I also +only to thee;" <i>Ewald</i>: "And yet I am full of love towards thee." But the words, +"And I also to thee," are rather tantamount to—"I will conduct myself in a similar +manner towards thee." Now two things may constitute this equality of conduct. <i> +Either</i> it is conceived thus:—that the prophet is placed in parallelism with +the wife. The latter has lost all claims upon the prophet; she has violated connubial +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 281]</span>fidelity, and, hence, has no title to demand +that he should observe it. But that which she cannot demand from him, he does, from +the necessity of his nature. He promises to her that, during the proceeding which +has commenced against her, he would not enter into any new connection; and by holding +out to her the hope of her returning, at some future period, to her old relation +to him, he makes it more easy for her to break off the sinful connections which +have destroyed it. Without a figure: The Lord, from His forbearance and mercy, waits +for the reformation of those who hitherto were His people; does not drive them to +despair by receiving another people in their place. <i>Or</i>, The prophet is placed +in parallelism with the other man. As the wife does not enter into any relation +with that man, so the prophet also abstains from any nearer intercourse with her. +The latter explanation (adopted by <i>Simson</i> and <i>Hitzig</i>) is to be preferred. +The exclusiveness cannot in the same sense be applicable to the prophet, representing +the Lord, as to the wife, representing the people. So early as in Deut. xxxii. 21, +we read: "They have moved Me to jealousy with that which is not God, they have provoked +Me to anger with their vanities; and I will move them to jealousy with those which +are not a people, I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation," After all +that had, in the Song of Solomon, been predicted regarding the reception of the +Gentile nations into the kingdom of God and Christ, and about the receiving again +into it of Israel, to be effected by their instrumentality (compare my <i>Comment. +on Song of Sol.</i>, S. 239), the thought suggested by the former view would be +quite incomprehensible. Quite decisive, however, is ver. 4, in which the thought, +which is here in a symbolical garb, is expressed in plain language. There, however, +not only the intercourse with the idols, but the connection with Jehovah also, appears +to be intermitted. The reason why the prophet does not enter into a closer connection +with the wife is, that her repentance is more of a negative, than of a positive +character. By want and isolation, her hard heart is to be broken, true repentance +to be called forth, and the flame of cordial conversion and love to her husband, +whose faithful love she had so ill requited, to be enkindled in her. In favour of +the explanation given by us, and in opposition to that first mentioned, the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גם</span> is decisive. Against this, that other explanation, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 282]</span>in its various modifications, tries its strength +in vain. "I also will be thine, or will adhere to thee," would require in the preceding +context, "Thou shalt be mine, or adhere to me;" but of this, there is no trace. +It is only in ver. 5 that, with an <i>after</i>, the conversion is reported. In +favour of that false interpretation it is said, and with some plausibility, that +the explanation would otherwise be more extended than the symbol: The latter would +contain the outward dealing only; while the former, in ver. 5, would contain at +the same time its salutary effect. But, even according to this explanation, the +words would not correspond with ver. 5. <i>Here</i>, the showing of mercy would +be announced without the mention, even by a word, of the sincere return to the husband—and +this, altogether apart from the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גם</span>, would +be quite unsuitable, and would, moreover, be opposed by the analogy of chap. ii. +9—while, in ver. 5, not the showing of mercy, but only the reformation, would form +the subject. In that case, it ought not to have been said, "They shall return to +the Lord," but rather, "The Lord shall return to them." But this plausible reason +falls to the ground, along with the unfounded supposition that the two last verses +contain the explanation. The correct view is, that the explanation is limited to +ver. 4. Ver. 5 must be considered as an appendix, in which, without any figurative +covering, the effect is described which will be produced upon the nation by these +outward dealings. The symbol and its explanation extend only as far as the main +object of the prophet in the section under review,—that object being to present +the impending captivity in its true light, and thereby to secure against levity +and despair when it should appear.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 4. "<i>For many days the children of Israel shall sit without +a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without a pillar, and +without an Ephod and Teraphim.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span> is used because the reason +of the performance of the symbolical action lies in its signification. Concerning +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ישב</span>, see the remarks on ver. 3; compare, moreover. +Lament, i. 1: "How does the city sit solitary that was full of people! she has become +as a widow."—The question is, whether, by the religious objects here mentioned, +such only are to be understood as belonged to the worship of the idols, or such +also as belonged to the worship of Jehovah. The following furnishes the reply. The +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מצבה</span> only <span class="pagenum">[Pg 283]</span>can +be considered as belonging exclusively to the idolatrous worship. Such pillars always +occur only as being consecrated to the idols—especially to Baal. It cannot be proved +in any way that, contrary to the express command in Lev. xxvi. 1, Deut. xvi. 22, +they were, in the kingdom of Israel, consecrated to the Lord also; compare 2 Kings +iii. 2, xvii. 10, x. 26-28. On the other hand, among the objects mentioned, there +is also one, the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אפוד</span>, the mantle for the +shoulders of the high priest, on which the Urim and Thummim were placed, which must +be considered as belonging exclusively to the worship of Jehovah; at least there +is not the smallest trace to be found that it was part of any idolatrous worship. +It is true that <i>Gesenius</i>, in the <i>Thesaurus</i>, p. 135, gives <i>s. v.</i> +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אפוד</span>, under 2, the signification <i>statua</i>, +<i>simulacrum idoli</i>, and, besides the passages under consideration, refers to +Jud. viii. 27, xvii. 5, xviii. 14, 17. But one requires only to examine these passages +a little more minutely, to be convinced that the metamorphosis of Jehovah into an +idol is as little justified as the changing of the mantle into a statue. From the +personal character of Gideon, who was so zealous for the Lord against the idols, +we cannot at all think of idolatry in Jud. viii. 27. In the <i>Dissertations on +the Genuineness of the Pentateuch</i>, vol. ii. p. 80, it has been proved that the +Ephod of Gideon was a precious imitation of that of the high priest. In chap. xvii. +5, we need only to consider these words: "And the man Micah had an house of God, +and made an Ephod and Teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, and he became a +priest to him." Afterwards, Micah took a <i>Levite</i> for a priest. But for what +reason should he have been better suited for that purpose than any other man? The +answer is given in ver. 13: "Then said Micah, Now I know that Jehovah will do me +good, for the Levite has become a priest to me." The ignorant man knows after all +thus much, that the Levites alone are the only legitimate servants of Jehovah, and +he rejoices, therefore, that he had now remedied the former irregularity. Jud. xviii. +14 does not require any particular illustration, for it is the same Ephod which +is spoken of in that passage; but we must still direct attention to vers. 5 and +6 of that chapter. "Then they (the Danites) said unto him (the Levite), Ask God, +we pray thee, in order that we may know whether our way in which we go shall be +prosperous. And the priest said unto them, Go in <span class="pagenum">[Pg 284]</span>peace, +before <i>Jehovah</i> is the way wherein ye go." Here, then, we have a revelation +given to the priest, as is alleged, by means of Ephod and Teraphim; and this revelation +is not ascribed to the idols, but to Jehovah, whom alone the Levite wished to serve. +From this it appeal's that the graven image and the molten image—which, besides +Ephod and Teraphim, according to ver. 14, exist in the house of Micah—must be considered +as representations of Jehovah, similar to the calves in the kingdom of the ten tribes. +In vol. ii. pp. 78, 79, of my <i>Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch</i>, +it has been demonstrated that the Ephod of Micah was, along with the Teraphim, an +apeing of the high-priestly Ephod with the Urim and Thummim. The four objects mentioned +in Judges xvii. and xviii. are such as were separable although connected, and connected +although separable. The <i>molten work</i> is the pedestal under the image; the +image is clothed with the Ephod, and in the Ephod were the Teraphim, from whom information +and good counsel for the future were expected. For, that this is the object of the +whole contrivance, is plain from chap. xviii. 5, 6, where the priest asks counsel +of God for the Danites.—With regard to the other two objects mentioned in the verse +before us, viz., the sacrifice and Teraphim, a reference, at least exclusive, to +idolatrous worship, cannot be by any means maintained. As sacrifices are mentioned +in the widest generality, without any limitation in the preceding context, there +is certainly nothing which could in the least entitle us to exclude the sacrifices +which were offered to Jehovah. The Teraphim are intermediate deities, by means of +which the future is to be disclosed (compare the remarks on Zech. x. 2); they might +be brought into connection with every religious system, but are found only once +in connection with any other religion than that of Jehovah,—and this in a case where +a non-Israelite is spoken of. It is true, however, that, in substance, the Teraphim +belong to the side of idolatry; for, wherever they occur within the religion of +Jehovah, they belong to a degenerate condition of it only, which is on a par with +idolatry. It would appear that they are here contrasted with the Ephod, as the illegal +means for ascertaining the future, in opposition to the legal means. That the Ephod +was used for discovering the divine will, is seen from 1 Sam. xxiii. 9, xxx. 7. +The Teraphim, in like manner, served to explore <span class="pagenum">[Pg 285]</span>the +future. A closer connection of the two seems to be indicated by the circumstance +that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אין</span> is omitted before +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תרפים</span>.—But how can we account for this strange +intermingling of what belonged to the idols with what belonged to Jehovah, since +it cannot but be done intentionally? It points to the dark mixture which at that +time existed among the people, and is a kind of ironical reflection upon it.—The +Lord makes them disgusted with idolatry, and all that belongs to it, through His +visitations, in which they seek in vain the help of the idols, and become thoroughly +acquainted with their vanity; compare remarks in ver. 3. At the same time, however, +all the pledges of His grace are taken from them, so that they get into an altogether +isolated position. He withdraws from them their independent government, the altar +and priesthood—the former as a just punishment for their rebellion against the dynasty +ordained by God (compare chap. viii. 4), of which, first Israel, and then Judah, +had made themselves guilty.—As regards the historical reference of this prophecy, +interpreters are divided, and refer it either to the Assyrian, the Babylonish, or +the Romish exile. The greater number of them, however, refer it exclusively to the +last. This is especially the case with the Jewish interpreters; <i>e.g.</i>, <i> +Kimchi</i>, who says: "These are the days of the exile, in which we are now; we +have neither an Israelitish king nor an Israelitish prince, but are under the dominion +of the Gentiles and their kings." The principal defenders of a direct reference +to the Assyrian captivity, are <i>Venema</i> (<i>Dissert.</i> p. 232) and <i>Manger</i>. +The decision depends chiefly upon what we are to understand by "the children of +Israel." If these are the whole people, it is arbitrary to assign any narrower limits +to the <i>Word</i> of God, than to His <i>deed</i>. The prophecy must, in that case, +comprehend everything in which the idea is realized; and this so much the more, +as the spiritual eye of the prophet, directed to the idea only, does not generally +regard the intervals which, in the fulfilment, lie between the various realizations +of the <i>idea</i>. But now, ver. 5 would seem to lead us to entertain the opinion, +that, in the first instance, the prophet has in view the children of Israel in the +more limited sense only. The words, "They shall return and seek David their king," +imply a reference to the then existing apostasy of the ten tribes from the dynasty +of David. But the future apostasy of the sons of Judah also from +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 286]</span>David their king may be as well <i>presupposed</i> +here, as, in chapter ii. 2, their being carried away; and this so much the rather, +as in chap. ii. 2, the words, "They appoint themselves a king," suggest that the +sons of Judah also, no less than the sons of Israel, are without a head, and hence +have apostatized from David the king. And it is so much the more natural to adopt +such a supposition, as the Song of Solomon had already described so minutely the +rebellion of the whole people against the glorious descendant of David—the heavenly +Solomon—to which the apostasy of the ten tribes from the house of David was only +a prelude. Considering the whole relation in which Hosea stands to the Song of Solomon, +we could scarcely imagine that, in this respect, he should not have alluded to, +and resumed its contents. <i>In the whole third chapter there is nothing which refers +exclusively to the ten tribes.</i> Chap. iii. 2 has reference to all Israel. Throughout +the whole Book of Hosea also, as well as by the second Israelitish prophet Amos +(compare the remarks on Amos, chap ix.), Judah and Israel are viewed together, both +as regards apostasy and punishment (v. 5, 12, viii. 14, x. 11, etc.), and as regards +salvation, vi. 1-4, etc. Of special importance is the comparison of the remarkable +prophecy of Azariah in 2 Chron. xv. 2-4, which was uttered at the time of Asa, king +of Judah, and which so nearly coincides with the one before us, that the idea suggests +itself of an allusion to it by Hosea: "Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: +The Lord will be with you, if you are with Him; and if ye seek Him, He will be found +of you; and if ye forsake Him, He will forsake you. And many days will be to Israel +when there is no true God,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_286a" href="#ftn_286a">[2]</a></sup> +and no teaching priest,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_286b" href="#ftn_286b">[3]</a></sup> +and no law. Then they return in their trouble unto Jehovah the God of Israel, and +they seek Him, and He is found of them." If the fundamental prophecy refer to all +Israel, the same must be the case with the prophecy under consideration. The condition +in which the Jews are, up to the present day, is described in both of these prophecies +with remarkable clearness; and hence we may most confidently entertain +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 287]</span>the hope, that there shall be a fulfilment +also of that which, in them as well as in the Song of Solomon, has been foretold +regarding the glorious issue of these dealings of God.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 5. "<i>Afterwards shall the children of Israel return and +seek the Lord their God, and David their king, and shall tremble to the Lord and +to His goodness in the end of the days.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יָשֻׁבוּ</span> must not by any +means be regarded as modifying <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בקשו</span>, so that +both the verbs would constitute only one verbal idea. This must be objected to, +not only from the arguments already stated in the remarks on chap. ii. 11, but, +most decidedly, on account of the parallel passage, chap. ii. 9, "I will go and +return to my first husband." Compare chap. vi. 1: "Come and let us return unto the +Lord;" v. 15, where the Lord says, "I will go and return to My place until they +become guilty and seek My face; in their affliction they will seek Me;" Jer. l. +4: "In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the children of Israel shall +<i>come</i>, they and the children of Judah together, weeping will they come, and +seek the Lord their God,"—a passage which, like Jer. xxx. 9, points to the one before +us in a manner not to be mistaken; Is. x. 21: "The remnant shall <i>return</i>, +the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God." The text, and the parallel passages, +most clearly indicate what is to be considered as the object of their return, namely, +the Lord their God, and David their king, from whom they had so shamefully apostatized; +so that those interpreters who here think of a return to Canaan do not deserve a +refutation. The words, "Jehovah their God," at the same time lay open the delusion +of the Israelites (who imagined that they could still possess the true God, in the +idol which they called Jehovah), and rebuke their ingratitude. <i>Calvin</i> says, +"God had offered Himself to them, yea. He had had familiar intercourse with them,—He +had, as it were, brought them up on His bosom just as a father does his sons. The +prophet, therefore, indirectly rebukes, in these words, their stupendous wickedness." +The God of the Israelites, as well as the God of the Jews after they had rejected +Christ, stood to the God of Israel in the same relation as does the God of the Deists +and Rationalists to the God of the Christians. The question here arises. Who is +to be understood here by "David their king?" Some interpreters refer it, after the +example of <i>Theodoret</i> (t. ii. p. 2, p. 1326), to <span class="pagenum">[Pg +288]</span>Zerubbabel: but by far the greater number of them, following the Chaldee +("And they shall obey the Messiah, the son of David their king"), understand, thereby, +the Messiah. It is true that the latter exposition is quite correct as to its substance, +but not as to the form in which it is commonly expressed. From the words, "They +shall return and seek," it is evident that the Messiah is here not called David +as an individual, as is done in other passages, <i>e.g.</i>, Jer. xxx. 9. For the +return presupposes their having been there formerly, and their having departed; +just as the seeking implies neglecting. The expression, "their king," also requires +special attention. In contrast to the "king" in ver. 4 (compare viii. 4, "They have +made a king, and not by Me, a prince, and I knew it not"), it shows that the subject +of discourse is not by any means a new king to be elected, but such an one as the +Israelites ought to obey, even now, as the king ordained for them by God. The sound +view is this: By the "king David" the whole Davidic house is to be understood, which +is here to be considered as an unity, in the same manner as is done in 2 Sam. vii., +and in a whole series of Psalms which celebrate the mercies shown, and to be shown, +to David and his house.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_288a" href="#ftn_288a">[4]</a></sup> +These mercies are most fully concentrated in Christ, in whose appearance and everlasting +dominion the promises given to David were first to be fully realized. The prophet +mentions the whole—the Davidic family—because it was only thus that the contrast +between the apostasy and the return could be fully brought out; but that, in so +doing, he has Christ especially in view—that he expected a return of the children +of Israel to David in Christ, is shown by the term +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">באחרית הימים</span>, which, in the prophets, never +occurs in any other sense than the times of the Messiah. (Compare, regarding this +expression, the remarks on Amos ix. 1.) This reason is alone sufficient to refute +the reference to Zerubbabel; although so much must indeed be conceded, that the +circumstance of part of the citizens of the kingdom of the ten tribes adhering to +him, the descendant of the house of David, may be considered as a prelude of that +general return. The close connection betwixt the seeking of Jehovah their God and +David their king, likewise claims our attention. David and his family had been elected +by God to be the mediator between Him and the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 289]</span>people—the +channel through which all His blessings flowed clown upon the people—the visible +image of the invisible King, who, at the end of the days, was, in Christ, most perfectly +to reflect His glory. The Israelites, in turning away from David their king, turned +away, at the same time, from Jehovah their God,—as was but too soon manifested by +the other signs of apostasy from Him, by the introduction of the worship of calves, +etc. He who refuses to acknowledge God in that which He has Himself declared to +be His visible image (from Christ down to every relation which represents Him in +any respect, <i>e.g.</i>, that of the father to the son, of the king to the subject), +will soon cease to acknowledge Himself. But as, first, the ten tribes, and afterwards, +the entire people, apostatized from God, by apostatizing from David, so, by their +apostasy from him, they excluded themselves from all participation in the privileges +of the people of God, which could flow to them only through him. It is only when +they return to David by returning to Christ, that, from their self-made God, they +come to the true God, and within the sphere of His blessings. That the same thing +is repeated among ourselves in the case of those who have forsaken Christ their +King, and yet imagine still to possess God, and that it is only by their returning +to the brightness of His glory that they can attain to a true union with the Lord +their God, and to a participation in the blessings which He bestows,—all this is +so obvious as to require nothing beyond a simple suggestion. A perfectly sound interpretation +of this passage is to be found in <i>Calvin</i>, who remarks: "David was, as it +were, a messenger of the Lord, and, hence, that defection of the ten tribes was +tantamount to a rejection of the living God. The Lord had, on a former occasion, +said to Samuel (1 Sam. viii. 7), 'They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected +Me.' But how much more was this applicable in the case of David, whom Samuel had +anointed at the command of God, and whom the Lord had adorned with so many glorious +attributes, that they could not reject his rule without, at the same time, publicly +rejecting, to a certain extent, the Lord Himself! It is true, indeed, that David +was then dead; but Hosea here represents, in his person, his everlasting dominion, +which the Jews knew would last as long as the sun and moon." The expression, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 290]</span>"They tremble to the Lord," graphically describes +the disposition of heart in him, who, trembling with terror and anxiety on account +of the surrounding danger and distress, flees to Him who can alone afford help and +deliverance. That we must thus explain it,—that we cannot entertain the idea of +any trembling which proceeds from the inconceivable greatness of the blessing—a +disposition of heart so graphically described by <i>Claudian</i> in the words,</p> +<blockquote> + <p class="continue">"Horret adhuc animus, manifestaque gaudia differt <br> + Dum stupet et tanto cunctatur credere voto,"—</p> +</blockquote> +<p class="continue">and that we can as little think of a fearing or trembling which +is the consequence of the knowledge of deep sinfulness and unworthiness, is shown +by the parallel passage in chap. xi. 11: "They tremble as a bird out of Egypt, and +as a dove out of the land of Assyria." The bird and the dove are here an emblem +of helplessness. Substantially parallel is also chap. v. 15: "In their affliction +they will seek Me." Their trembling is not voluntary; it is forced upon them by +the Lord. But that they tremble <i>to the Lord</i>—that, through fear, they suffer +themselves to be led to the Lord—is their free act, although possible only by the +assistance of grace. The manner in which the words, "and to His goodness," are to +be understood, is most plainly shown by the words, "I will return to my first husband, +for it was <i>better</i> with me then than now," chap. ii. 9. Along with the Lord, +they have lost His goodness also, and the gifts flowing from it. But distress again +drives them to seek the Lord, and His goodness, which is inseparable from Himself. +This explanation is confirmed by other parallel passages also; <i>e.g.</i>, Jer. +xxxi. 12: "And they come and exult on the height of Zion, and flow together to the +goodness of the Lord (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">טוב יהוה</span>), to corn, +and must, and oil, and lambs, and cattle;" ver. 14: "My people shall be satisfied +with My goodness." Compare also Ps. xxvii. 13, xxxi. 20; Zech. ix. 17. We would +therefore object to the opinion of several interpreters, who would explain +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">טוב יהוה</span> as being equivalent to +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כבוד יהוה</span>, to His manifestation in the Angel +of the Lord, the <span lang="el" class="Greek">Λόγος</span>, by whom His glory and +goodness are made known.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_276a" href="#ftnRef_276a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> It is quite impossible to refer + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">רֵעַ</span> to the adulterers, and for this reason:—that + it is always Israel's love to the idols that is spoken of, but never the love + of the idols to Israel. In the explanation given in the words immediately following, + it is not the idols that take the initiative; it is Israel who turns to other + gods.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_286a" href="#ftnRef_286a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> <i>J. D. Michaelis</i> remarks: "In the present + captivity they do not, indeed, worship idols, but nevertheless they do not know, + nor worship, the true God, since they reject the Son, without whom the Father + will not be worshipped, John xvii. 3; 1 John ii. 23; 2 John 9."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_286b" href="#ftnRef_286b"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[3]</sup></a> The "priest" here corresponds with the "Ephod" + in Hosea.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_288a" href="#ftnRef_288a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[4]</sup></a> In 1 Kings xii. 16, also, David stands for + the Davidic dynasty.</p> +</div> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 291]</span></p> +<h2><a name="div2_291" href="#div2Ref_291">THE PROPHET JOEL</a></h2> +<h3><a name="div3_291" href="#div3Ref_291">PRELIMINARY REMARKS.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">The position which has been assigned to Joel in the collection +of the Minor Prophets, furnishes an external argument for the determination of the +time at which Joel wrote. There cannot be any doubt that the Collectors were guided +by a consideration of the chronology. The circumstance, that they placed the prophecies +of Joel just between the two prophets who, according to the inscriptions and contents +of their prophecies, belonged to the time of Jeroboam and Uzziah, is thus equivalent +to an express testimony that he also lived, and exercised his ministry, during that +time.</p> +<p class="normal">By this testimony we have, in the meanwhile, obtained a firm standing-point; +and it must remain firm, as long as it is not overthrown by other unquestionable +facts, and the Collectors are not convicted of an historical error. But, as regards +the latter point, there is the greater room for caution, because all the other statements +which they have made are, upon a careful examination, found to stand the test; for +none of the other Minor Prophets is found to occupy a place to which he is not entitled. +But no such facts are to be found; on the contrary, everything serves to confirm +their testimony.</p> +<p class="normal">It will not be possible to assign the prophecies of Joel to a +later period; for Amos places at the head of one of his prophecies one of the utterances +of Joel (compare Amos i. 2 with Joel iv. 16 [iii. 16]), as the text, as it were, +on which he is to comment. That we are not thereby precluded from considering the +two prophets as contemporaneous, is shown by the altogether similar case of Isaiah, +in his relation to Micah. Isaiah, too, borrows, in chap. xiii. 6, a sentence from +Joel i. 15, the peculiarity of which proves that the coincidence is not accidental. +Such verbal repetitions must not be, by any means, considered as unintentional reminiscences. +They served to exhibit that the prophets acknowledged one another as the organs +of the Holy Spirit,—to testify the <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν</span>, +the want of which in the times after Ezra and Nehemiah is mentioned by Josephus +as one of the reasons why none of the writings of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 292]</span>that +period could be acknowledged as sacred. (See the Author's <i>Dissertations on the +Genuineness of Daniel</i>, p. 199.) <i>Further</i>,—The description of the threatening +judgment in chap. i. and ii. is, in Joel, kept just in that very same generality +in which we find it in the oldest prophecies that have been preserved to us, viz., +in Amos, in the first chapters of Isaiah and of Hosea; whilst in later times, the +threatening is, throughout, particularized by the express mention of the instruments +who were, in the first instance, to serve for its fulfilment, viz., the Assyrians +and Babylonians. That which Judah had to suffer from the former was so severe, that +Joel, in chap. iv. 4 ff.—where he mentions, although, as it were, only in the way +of example, nations with which Judah had hitherto already come into hostile contact—would +scarcely have passed them over in silence, in order to mention only the far lesser +calamity inflicted by other nations.</p> +<p class="normal">But just as little can we think of an earlier period. It is certainly +not accidental, that among all the prophets whose writings have been preserved to +us, no one appeared at an earlier period; any more than it is accidental, that no +prophecies are extant of the distinguished men of God in earlier times, of whom +the historical books make mention, especially Elijah and Elisha. It was only when +the great divine judgments were being prepared, and were approaching, that it was +time, through their announcement, to waken from the slumber of security those who +had forgotten God, and to open the treasures of hope and consolation to the faithful. +Formerly, the living, oral word of the prophets was the principal thing; but now +that God opened up to them a wider view,—that their calling had regard not only +to the present, but also to the future time, the written word was raised to an equal +dignity. Nothing, then, but the most cogent reasons could induce us to make, in +the case of Joel only, an exception to so established a rule.</p> +<p class="normal">But we cannot acknowledge as such, what <i>Credner</i> (in his +<i>Comment. on Joel</i>, p. 41 sqq.) has brought forward to prove that Joel committed +to writing his prophecies as early as under the reign of Joash, <i>i.e.</i>, about +870-65 B.C., or from seventy to eighty years earlier than any of the other prophecies +which have come down to us. If we do not allow ourselves to be carried away by the +multitude of his words, we shall find that the only remaining plausible argument +is—that the Syrians of Damascus <span class="pagenum">[Pg 293]</span>are not mentioned +among the enemies of the Covenant-people, as they are in Amos. From this, <i>Credner</i> +infers that Joel must have prophesied before the first inroad of the Syrians on +Judea, which, according to 2 Kings xii. 18 ff.; 2 Chron. xxiv. 23 ff., took place +under Jehoash. But we need only look at that passage, in order to be convinced that +the mention of that event could not be expected in Joel. The expedition of the Syrians +was not directed against Judea, but against the Philistines. It was only a single +detached corps which, according to Chronicles, incidentally, and on their return, +made an inroad on Judah; but Jerusalem itself was not taken. This single act of +hostility could not but be soon forgotten in the course of time. It was of quite +a different character from that of the Phœnicians and Philistines mentioned by Joel, +which were only particular outbreaks of the hatred and envy which they continually +cherished against the Covenant-people, and which, as such, were preeminently the +object of punitive divine justice. But on what ground does the supposition rest, +that Joel must necessarily mention all those nations, with which the Covenant-people +came, at any time, into hostile contact? The context certainly does not favour such +an idea. The mention of former hostile attacks in chap. iv. (iii.) 4-8 is altogether +incidental, as <i>Vitringa</i>, in his <i>Typ. Doctr. Proph.</i> p. 189 sqq., has +admitted: "The prophet," says he, "was describing the heavy judgments with which +God would, after the effusion of the Spirit, successively, and especially in the +latter days, visit the enemies of the Church, and overthrow them, on account of +the injuries which they had inflicted upon it. And while he was doing so, those +injuries presented themselves to his mind, which in his own time, and in the immediate +past, were inflicted upon the Jewish people—a portion of the universal Church—by +the neighbouring nations, the Tyrians, Sidonians, and Philistines. To them he addresses +his discourse <i>in passing</i> (<i>in transitu</i>), and announces to them, in +the name of God, that they themselves also would not remain unpunished." The correctness +of <i>Vitringa</i>, with his "<i>in transitu</i>," is proved by the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">וגם</span>, as well as by the circumstance, that +vers. 9 ff. are closely connected with ver. 3; so that vers. 4 ff. form a real parenthesis. +How entirely out of place would here have been any mention of the Syrians! There +was necessarily something required which was very striking, and +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 294]</span>which, having but recently occurred, was still +vividly remembered. But the matter was altogether different in the case of Amos. +Joel has to do with the enemies of Judah only; Amos, with those of the kingdom of +Israel also, among whom the Syrians were the most dangerous. Hence, he begins with +them at once. The crime with which he charges them in chap. i. 3, that they had +threshed the inhabitants of Gilead with threshing instruments of iron, concerns +the kingdom of Israel only. The same applies to the Ammonites and Moabites also, +who, in like manner, are mentioned by Amos, and not by Joel. The Ammonites are charged +in Amos i. 13 with ripping up the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge +their border; and the crime of the Moabites, rebuked in chap. ii. 1, occurred, very +probably, during the time of, or after, the expedition against them, mentioned in +2 Kings iii.—the real instigator of which was the king of Israel.</p> +<p class="normal">We must indeed be astonished that <i>Hitzig</i>, <i>Ewald</i>, +<i>Meier</i>, <i>Baur</i>, and others, after the example of <i>Credner</i>, have +likewise declared in favour of the view that the prophecies of Joel were composed +under Joash. None of the arguments, however, by which they attempt to support their +view, can stand examination.</p> +<p class="normal">"There is nowhere, as yet, the slightest allusion to the Assyrians," +says <i>Ewald</i>. But neither is any such found in Amos, nor in the first part +of Hosea. An irruption, however, such as former times had not known,—an overflowing, +as it were, by the heathen, such as could by no means proceed from the small neighbouring +nations, but from extensive kingdoms only, is here also brought into view. Joel +is, in this respect, in strict agreement with Amos, who embodies his prophecy concerning +this event, in chap. vi. 14, in these words: "For, behold, I raise up against you, +O house of Israel, Gentile people, saith the Lord, the God of hosts, and they shall +afflict you from Hamath unto the river of the wilderness."</p> +<p class="normal">"There breathes here still the unbroken warlike spirit of the +times of Deborah and David," <i>Ewald</i> further remarks. But is there in the fourth +(third) chapter any trace of self-help on the part of the people? Judgment upon +the Gentiles is executed without any human instrumentality, by God,—not by His earthly, +but by His heavenly "heroes," who are sent down <span class="pagenum">[Pg 295]</span>from +heaven to earth, and who make short work with these fancied earthly heroes. Compare +chap. iv. (iii.) 11-13, where the address is directed to the heavenly ministers +of God, at the head of whom the Angel of the Covenant must be supposed to be: Ps. +ciii. 20; Rev. xix. 14. <i>Such</i> a victory of the kingdom of God, all the prophets +announce,—not only Isaiah and Micah, but also Ezekiel, <i>e.g.</i>, in chap. xxxviii. +and xxxix.</p> +<p class="normal">"We perceive here the prophetic order in Jerusalem, still in the +same ancient greatness as when Nathan and Gad may have exercised their office at +the time of David. A whole people, without contradicting or murmuring, still depend +upon the prophet. He desires the observance of a grievous ordinance, and willingly +it is performed; his word is still like a higher command which all cheerfully obey. +Nor is any discord to be seen in the nation, nor any wicked idolatry or superstition; +the ancient simple faith still lives in them, unbroken and undivided." So <i>Ewald</i> +still further remarks. But this argument rests upon a false supposition; a conversion +of the people at the time of the prophet is not at all spoken of. The pretended +repentance is to take place <i>in future</i>,—which, according to chap. i. 4, we +must conceive of as being still afar off, namely, in the time after the divine judgments +have broken in. And as to a progress in the apostasy of the people, it can scarcely +be proved that such took place in the time betwixt Joash and Uzziah. Between these +two, we do not find any new stage of corruption. The idolatry of Solomon, and the +abominations of Athaliah, had exercised their influence, even as early as under +Joash. How deep the rent was which, even then, went through the nation, is shown +by the fact, that, according to 2 Chron. xxiv. 17, 18, after the death of Jehoiada, +Joash gave way to the <i>urgent demands of the prince's of Judah</i>, and allowed +free scope to idolatry. Moreover, the threatening announcement of a judgment, which +is to extend even to the destruction of the temple, proves how deep the apostasy +was at the time of Joel. Where a judgment is thus threatened, which, in its terrors, +far surpasses all former judgments, the "ancient faith" certainly cannot have been +very vigorous.</p> +<p class="normal">"The Messianic idea appears here in its generality and indefiniteness, +without being as yet concentrated in the person of an ideal king," <i>Hitzig</i> +remarks. But if this argument were at all <span class="pagenum">[Pg 296]</span> +valid, we should have to go back even beyond the time of Joash. Solomon, David, +and Jacob already knew the personal Messiah. The prophets, however, do not everywhere +proclaim everything which they know. Even in Isaiah, there occur long Messianic +descriptions, in which the Messiah Himself is not to be found. In Joel, moreover, +everything is collected around the person of the "Teacher of righteousness."</p> +<p class="normal">"Joel," it is further remarked, "must have prophesied at a time +when the Philistine and other nations, who had become so haughty under Jehoram, +had but lately ventured upon destructive plundering expeditions as far as Jerusalem, +2 Chron. xxi. 10 ff." This argument would be plausible, if the injuries inflicted +by the Philistines and the inhabitants of Tyrus had not appeared in equally lively +colours before the mind of Amos (chap. i. 6-10), who, at all events, prophesied +between seventy and eighty years after these events. It is just this fact which +should teach caution in the application of such arguments. The recollection of such +facts could not be lost, as long as the disposition continued from which they originated. +It was as if they had happened in the present; for, under similar circumstances, +similar events would have again immediately taken place. The passage chap. iv. 19, +"Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence +against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in the land," +shows also how lively was the recollection of injuries sustained long ago. Egypt +and Edom in that passage are mentioned individually, in order to designate the enemies +of the people of God in general, and yet with an allusion to deeds perpetrated by +the Egyptians and Edomites properly so called. As the suffix in +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ארצם</span> must be referred to the sons of Judah—for +we have no historical account of a bloody deed perpetrated against Judah by the +Edomites in their own land, and it was the land of Judah which was invaded and devastated +by the host of locusts—we can think, in the case of the Egyptians, only of the invasion +under Rehoboam (1 Kings xiv.), and in the case of the Edomites, only of the great +carnage which they made in Judah, during the time at which David carried on war +with Aram in Arabia and on the Euphrates,—probably at a time when he had sustained +heavy losses in that warfare; compare my Comment. on Ps. xliv. and lx. Of any +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 297]</span> similar later occurrence there is no account +extant. It is only by a fanciful exposition that "the innocent blood" can be found +in 2 Kings viii. 20-22. The Edomites at that time kept only a defensive position, +and did not come into the land of Judah. "The innocent blood" implies a war of conquest, +and a hostile inroad.</p> +<p class="normal">"In chap. iv. (iii.) 4-7, Joel promises a return to the citizens +of Judah, who had been carried away by the Philistines under Jehoram; and, hence, +an age cannot have elapsed since that event." Thus <i>Meier</i> argues. But the +words, "Behold, I raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them," contain +no special prediction, but only the application of the general truth, that God gathers +together the dispersed of Judah, and brings back again the exiled of Israel; and +it is only requisite to compare concerning them. Gen. xv. 16, "In the fourth generation +they shall come hither again," and l. 24, "God will visit you, and bring you out +of this land."</p> +<p class="normal">We thus arrive at the conclusion that Joel occupies the right +place in the Canon.</p> +<p class="normal">The assertion that Joel belonged to the priestly order, is as +baseless as the similar one regarding Habakkuk, and as the supposition that the +author of the Chronicles was a musician.</p> +<p class="normal">The book contains a connected description. It begins with a graphic +account of the ruin which God will bring upon His apostate Congregation, by means +of foreign enemies. These latter represent themselves to the prophet in his spiritual +vision as an all-destroying swarm of locusts. The fundamental thought is this:— +"Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together,"—wherever +corruption manifests itself in the Congregation of the Lord, punishment will be +inflicted. Because God has sanctified Himself <i>in</i> the Congregation, and has +graciously imparted to her His holiness. He must therefore sanctify Himself upon +her,—must manifest His holiness in her punishment, if she has become like the profane +world. He cannot allow that, after the Spirit has departed, the dead body should +still continue to appear as His kingdom, but strips off the mask of hypocrisy from +His degenerate Church, by representing her outwardly as that which, by her guilt, +she has become inwardly. This thought commonly appears in a special +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 298]</span> application, by the mention of the name of +the particular people whom the Lord is, in the immediate future, to employ for the +realization of it. In the case before us, however, He is satisfied with pointing +to the dignity and power inherent in Him. The enemies are designated only as <i> +people from the North</i>. But it was from the North—from Syria—that all the principal +invasions of Palestine proceeded. Hence there is no reason either to think of one +of them exclusively, or to exclude one. On the contrary, the comprehensive character +of the description distinctly appears in i. 4. It is there, at the very threshold, +intimated, that the heathenish invasion will be a fourfold one,—that Israel shall +become the prey of four successive extensive empires. Joel's mission fell at the +commencement of the written prophecy; and in harmony with this, he gives only an +outline of that which it was reserved for the later prophets to fill up, and to +carry out in its details, by the mention of the name of each single empire, as the +times moved on. It was enough that Joel prophesied the destruction by these great +empires, even before any one of them had appeared on the stage of history, and that +he was enabled to point even to the fourfold number of them.</p> +<p class="normal">The threat of punishment, joined with exhortations to repentance, +to which the people willingly listened, and humbled themselves before the Lord, +continues down to chap. ii. 17. With this is connected the proclamation of salvation—which +extends down to chap. iii. 2 (ii. 29). The showing of mercy begins with the fact, +that God sends the <i>Teacher of righteousness</i>. He directs the attention of +the people to the design of their sufferings, and invites the weary and heavy laden +to come to the Lord, that He may refresh them. His voice is heard by those who are +of a broken heart; and there then follows rich divine blessing, with its consummation—the +outpouring of the Spirit. Both—the sending of the Teacher of righteousness, and +the outpouring of the Spirit—had their preliminary fulfilments; the first of which +took place soon after the commencement of the devastation by the locusts, in the +time of the Assyrians,—a second, after the destruction by the Babylonians had come +upon the people,—a third, after the visitation by the Greek tyranny under the Maccabees. +But the chief reference of the prophecy is, throughout, to Christ, and to the vouchsafement +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 299]</span> of the blessing, and to the outpouring of +the Spirit, originating in His mediation.</p> +<p class="normal">The announcement of salvation for the Covenant-people is, in the +third and last part, followed by the opposite of it, viz., the announcement of judgments +upon the enemies of the Congregation of God. Their hatred of it, proceeding from +hatred to God, is employed by Him, indeed, as a means of chastising and purifying +His Church; but it does not, for that reason, cease to be an object of His punitive +justice. The fundamental idea of this part of the book is expressed in 1 Pet. iv. +17 by the words: "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of +God. And if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the +Gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and +the sinner appear?" The description bears here also, as in the second and first +parts, a comprehensive character. That which, in the course of history, is realized +in a long series of single acts of divine interposition against the enemies of the +Church, is here brought together in a single scene. The overthrow of Assyria, Babylon, +the Persian and Grecian monarchies, is comprehended in this prophecy. But its final +fulfilment must be sought for only in the Messianic time. This is sufficiently evident +from the relation of this part, to the second. Having given ear to the Teacher of +righteousness, and the Spirit having been poured out upon her, the Congregation +has become an object of the loving providence of God. From this flows the judgment +upon her enemies. If, then, the promise of the Teacher of righteousness and of the +outpouring of the Spirit be, in substance, Messianic, so, the judgment too must, +in substance, bear a Messianic character. The same appears from iv. (iii.) 18, according +to which passage, simultaneously with the judgments, there cometh forth, from the +house of the Lord, a fountain which watereth the valley of Shittim—the waters of +salvation which water the dry land of human need. (Compare the remarks on Ezek. +xlvii,; Zech. xiv. 8; and my <i>Comment. on Revel.</i> xxii. 1.) This feature, however, +clearly points to the Messianic time.</p> +<p class="normal">We must here, however, avoid confounding the substance with the +form,—the idea with the temporary clothing which the prophet puts upon it, in accordance +with the nature of prophetic <span class="pagenum">[Pg 300]</span> vision, in which, +necessarily, all that is spiritual must be represented in outward sketches and forms. +This form is as follows:—In the place nearest to the temple, and which was able +to contain a great multitude of people, in the valley of Jehoshaphat, all nations +are gathered. (The valley very probably received its name from the appellation which, +in the passage under consideration, the prophet gives to it, in order to mark its +destination; for Jehoshaphat means, "the Lord judges," or "Valley of Judgment."<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_300a" href="#ftn_300a">[1]</a></sup>) +The Lord, enthroned in the temple, exercises judgment upon them. In this manner—in +outward forms of perception—the idea is brought out, that the judgment upon the +Gentiles is an effect of the kingdom of God; that they are not punished on account +of their violation of the natural law, but because of the hostile position which +they had occupied against the teachers of God's revealed truth,—against the Lord +Himself who is in His Church. Every violation of the natural law may be pardoned +to those who have not stood in any other relation to God, even although they should +have <span class="pagenum">[Pg 301]</span> proceeded to the most fearful extent +in depravity. They who were once disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited +in the days of Noah, were not as yet given over to complete condemnation, but were +kept in prison until Christ came and preached to them. "This was the iniquity of +Sodom: fulness of bread, and abundance of peace, were in her and her daughters; +yet the hand of the poor and needy they did not assist; but they were haughty and +committed abomination before the Lord: therefore He took them away as He saw good." +But, nevertheless, the Lord will, at some future time, turn the captivity (the misery) +of this Sodom and her daughters, and they shall be restored as they were before,—not +corporeally, for their seed is utterly rooted out from the earth, and even their +place is destroyed, but spiritually; compare Ezek. xvi. 49 ff. But, on the other +hand, far more severe punishments are inflicted upon those who have rejected, not +the abstract, but the concrete God,—not the God who is shut up in the heavens, but +the God who powerfully manifests Himself on earth, in His Church. It is true, that +as long as this revelation is still an imperfect one—as it was under the Old Testament +dispensation—and hence the guilt of rejecting Him less, mercy may still be shown. +External destruction does not involve spiritual ruin. Moab, indeed, is destroyed, +so that it is no longer a people, because it has exalted itself against the Lord; +yet, "in the latter days I will turn the captivity of Moab, saith the Lord," Jer. +xlviii. 47. But when the revelation of the grace of God has become perfect, His +justice also will be perfectly revealed against all who reject it, and rise in hostility +against those who are the bearers of it: "Their worm shall not die, neither shall +their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh," Is. lxvi. +24. These remarks contain the key to all which the Lord declares as to the future +judgment which, in its completion, belongs only to the future world. It is not the +world as such, but that world to which the Gospel has been declared, and in the +midst of which the Church has been founded, which forms the object of it; compare +Matt. xxiv. 14.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_300a" href="#ftnRef_300a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> <i>Hofmann</i> (<i>Weissag. u. Erfül.</i> + i. S. 203) has revived the explanation, according to which the valley of Jehoshaphat + is to be understood as the valley in which, under Jehoshaphat, judgment was + executed upon several Gentile nations. But this locality, the desert of Thekoa, + which was about three hours distance from Jerusalem (compare my <i>Comment. + on the Psalms</i>, in the <i>Introduction to Ps.</i> xlvi. xlviii. lxxxiii.), + is at too great a distance from the temple, where, according to vers. 16 and + 17, the Lord holds His judgment upon the nations. Tradition has rightly perceived + that the valley of Jehoshaphat can be sought for only in the immediate vicinity + of the temple. In favour of the valley of Jehoshaphat now so called, "at the + high east brink of Moriah, the temple-hill" (<i>Ritter</i>, <i>Erdk.</i> xv. + 1, S. 559; xvi. 1, S. 329), is also Zech. vi. 1-8 (compare the remarks on that + passage). From the circumstance that there is, first, the mention of the name, + and, then, the statement of its signification, "And I gather all nations, and + bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and <i>plead</i> with them there," + <i>Hofmann</i> infers that the name must have already existed as a proper name. + There is, however, an analogy in Num. xx. 1: "And the people encamped at Kadesh;"—but + the place received the name Kadesh only because of the event to be subsequently + related: previous to that, its name was Barnea. (Compare <i>Dissert. on Gen. + of the Pent.</i> vol. ii. p. 310 ff.) The two theological names of the place, + which arose only from the event recorded in Num. xx., occur even as early as + Gen. xiv. 7. The natural name of the valley of Jehoshaphat is, moreover, in + all likelihood, <i>King's Dale</i>; compare Gen. xiv. 17; 2 Sam. xviii. 18; + and <i>Thenius</i> on this passage.</p> +</div> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 302]</span></p> +<h3><a name="div3_302" href="#div3Ref_302">JOEL I.-II. 17.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">We shall not dwell here for any length of time upon the history +of the expositions of this passage. It has been given with sufficient minuteness +by <i>Pococke</i> and <i>Marckius</i> among older writers, and by <i>Credner</i> +among the more modern. We content ourselves with remarking that the figurative exposition +is the more ancient, having been adopted by the Chaldee Paraphrast, and by the Jews +mentioned by <i>Jerome</i>, and that we cannot by any means, as <i>Credner</i> does, +derive it from doctrinal considerations only; for many, with whom such considerations +weighed, as <i>Bochart</i>, <i>Pococke</i>, and <i>J. D. Michaelis</i>, do not approve +of it; whilst, on the other hand, there are among its defenders not a few who were +guided by just the opposite motives, such as <i>Grotius</i>, <i>Eckermann</i>, +<i>Berthold</i> (Einl. S. 1607 ff.), and <i>Theiner</i>. Two preliminary questions, +however, require to be answered, before we can proceed to the main investigation.</p> +<p class="normal">1. Does Joel here describe a present, or a future calamity? The +former has been asserted, in former times, by <i>Luther</i> and <i>Calvin</i> (compare, +especially, his commentary on chap. i. 4), and in more recent times, with special +confidence, by <i>Credner</i>. But there is nothing to favour this view. The frequent +use of the Preterites would prove something in support of it, provided only we were +not standing on prophetical ground. They are, moreover, found quite in the same +manner in chap. iv.—in that portion which, by all interpreters unanimously, is referred +to the future. And yet, if this view were to be acknowledged as sound, it ought +to commend itself by stringent considerations, inasmuch as the prophetic analogy +is, <i>a priori</i>, against it. There is not found anywhere in the prophets so +long and so detailed a description of the present or the past. But, moreover, if +we once give up the reference to the future, we could think of the past only; for +in chap; ii. 18, 19, the description of the salvation following upon the misery, +is connected with the preceding context by the Future with <i>vav conversivum</i>. +If, then, the scene of inward vision be forsaken, and everything referred to external +reality, the calamity described in the preceding context must likewise be viewed +as one already entirely past, and the salvation as already actually existing. It +can be proved, however, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 303]</span> from the contents, +by incontrovertible special reasons, that the reference to the future is alone the +correct one. The day of the Lord is several times spoken of as being at hand, which +may be explained from the circumstance, that God's judgment upon His Church is a +necessary effect of His justice, which never rests, but always shows itself as active. +When, therefore, its object—the sinful apostasy of the people—is already in existence, +its manifestation must also of necessity be expected; and although not the last +and highest manifestation, yet such an one as serves for a prelude to it. The day +of the Lord is, therefore, continually coming, is never absolutely distant; and +its being spoken of as <i>at hand</i> is a necessary consequence of the saying, +"Whereseover<!--see 1854 ed.--> the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered +together,"—a declaration founded upon the divine nature, and therefore ever true. +(Compare my <i>Commentary on the Apocalypse</i> i. 1.) This designation is first +found in i. 15: "Alas! for the day, for the day of the Lord is <i>at hand</i>, and +as a destruction from the Almighty does it come." Here, two expedients for evasion +have been tried. <i>Justi</i> maintained that "the day is at hand" was equivalent +to "the day is there,"—an opinion which does not deserve any further refutation. +<i>Holzhausen</i>, <i>Credner</i>, and <i>Hitzig</i> suppose that, by "the day of +the Lord," we are not to understand the devastation by the locusts, but some severe +judgment, to which that served as a prelude. This supposition is, however, opposed, +first of all, by the verbal parallel passage in Isa. xiii. 6: "Howl ye, for the +day of the Lord is at hand; it cometh as a destruction from the Almighty,"—where +the day of the Lord cannot be any other than that which is described in the preceding +context. But this opinion is further opposed by the circumstance, that, in the subsequent +context, there is not the slightest trace of any other judgment than that of the +devastation by the locusts; on the contrary, with its termination, the whole period +of suffering comes to an end, as regards the Covenant-people, and the time of blessing +upon them and of judgment upon their enemies begins. But the necessity for understanding, +by "the day of the Lord at hand," the devastation by the locusts, and hence, for +viewing the latter as still future, is even more clearly seen from the second passage, +chap. ii. 1, 2: "Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain; +let all the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 304]</span> inhabitants of the land tremble, +for the day of the Lord <i>hath come</i>, for <i>nigh at hand</i>, a day of darkness +and gloominess, a day of clouds and fogs, as the morning-red spread upon the mountains, +a people numerous and strong; there hath not been the like from eternity, neither +shall there be any more after it, even through the years of all generations." That, +by "the day of the Lord," which the prophet, from the standing-point of his inward +vision, here speaks of as having already come, and as being in reality nigh at hand, +we must understand the same day as that which is minutely described in the preceding +and subsequent context, viz., the devastation by the locusts, appears, in the first +place, from the verbal parallel passage, Ezek. xxx. 2, which likewise speaks of +one day only: "Thou son of man, prophesy and say. Thus saith the Lord, Howl ye, +woe for the day! For the day is near, a day to the Lord, a day of clouds, the time +of the heathen it shall be." But what places the matter beyond all doubt are the +words: "A people numerous and strong." These words, by which, according to what +follows, the locusts only can be understood, form an explanatory apposition to "the +day of the Lord," "the day of darkness," etc. To this we may further add, that, +by the last words, this judgment is represented as the most formidable, and the +last by which Judea shall be visited; so that we cannot by any means think of a +subsequent later day of the Lord. 2. Are the different names of the locusts designations +of various species of locusts, or are these, beside the common name of the locusts, +only poetical names, which denote the qualities coming into consideration? <i>Credner</i> +has attempted to prove the former. He maintains that Joel's description has to do +with two generations of locusts,—the first belonging to the end of one year,—the +second, to the beginning of the year following. The latter he thinks to be the offspring +of the former. In accordance with this hypothesis, he explains the different names, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גזם</span> is, according to him, the migratory locust, +which visits Palestine chiefly in autumn; <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ארבה</span>, +elsewhere the general name of locusts, here the young brood; +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ילק</span>, the young locust in the last stage of +its transformation, or between the third and fourth casting of the skin; +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חסיל</span>, the perfect locust, proceeding from +the last transformation, and, hence, as the brood proceeded from the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חסיל ,גזם</span> would be the same +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גזם</span>.</p> +<p class="normal"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 305]</span></p> +<p class="normal">It forms a general argument against this hypothesis, that, according +to it, the prophet should enter so deeply and minutely into the natural history +of locusts, that a Professor of that science might learn from him. There is nothing +analogous to this, either in Scripture generally, or in the Prophets particularly. +The difficulty, moreover, increases, when we assume—what has been already proved—that +the description refers to the future. The religious impression which the prophet +has, after all, solely in view, would not gain, but suffer by such a minute detail +in the description of a future natural event,—especially such as a devastation by +locusts.</p> +<p class="normal">A closer examination proves that the whole explanation of the +names of the locusts, upon which the hypothesis is built, is untenable. It appears, +then, that the prophet knows of only one kind of locusts, which he divides into +four hosts; and that, with the exception of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ארבה</span>, +the names are not those of natural history, but poetical, and taken from the qualities +of the locusts.</p> +<p class="normal">Let us first demonstrate that the interpretation of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ילק</span>, upon which <i>Credner</i> founds that +of the other names, is inadmissible. This interpretation, he maintains (S. 295), +is put beyond all doubt by the passage, Nah. iii. 16: "The +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ילק</span> casts its skin and flies away." The merchants, +who constituted the principal part of the population of Nineveh, are, according +to him, compared to a <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ילק</span> which flies away, +after having cast his skin for the third or last time. But this passage of Nahum, +when minutely examined and correctly interpreted, is by itself sufficient to refute +that opinion concerning the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ילק</span>. In ver. 15, +it is said concerning Nineveh: "There shall the fire devour thee, the sword shall +cut thee off, it shall eat thee up, as the <i>licker</i> (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כילק</span>): +make thyself many as the <i>lickers</i>, make thyself many as the locusts. Ver. +16: Thou hast multiplied thy merchants like the stars of heaven; <i>lickers broke +through and flew away</i>. Ver. 17: Thy princes are like locusts, and thy captains +are as a host of grasshoppers, which camp on the hedges in the day of cold. The +sun has risen, and they flee away, and their place is not known where they are." +This passage just proves that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ילק</span> must be +<i>winged</i> locusts. The inhabitants of Nineveh are numerous like the locusts; +numerous are her rich merchants; but suddenly there cometh upon them a numberless +host of locusts, who rob <span class="pagenum">[Pg 306]</span> them of everything, +and fly away. They who rob and fly away, in ver. 16, are not the merchants, but +the enemies. This becomes quite evident from the comparison of ver. 15, where quite +the same antithesis is found between—"The sword shall eat thee up as the lickers" +(Nominat.), and "Make thyself many as the lickers." The verb +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פשט</span>, in its common signification, <i>irruit</i>, +<i>invasit ad praedam agendam</i>, is here, in reference to the merchants, very +significant. But what is decisive against the explanation of <i>Credner</i> is this:—that +the signification "to cast the skin" cannot be established at all, and that the +whole sense is utterly unsuitable. For the discourse is not here, by any means, +of mercenaries or foreign traders, but of the native merchants of Nineveh, just +as, in the subsequent verses, the discourse is about her own nobles. How then could +that image be suitable, which must certainly denote a safe transition from one state +into a better?—<i>Credner</i> moreover refers to Jer. li. 27, where to +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ילק</span> the quality +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">סמר</span>, <i>horridus</i>, is ascribed. This, according +to him, is to be referred to the rough, horn-like coverings of the wings of the +young locusts. But, according to the context, and to the analogy of the parallel +passage, li. 14, we should rather expect that "horrid" is here a designation of +the multitude. (Compare the <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὡς ἀκρίδων πλῆθος</span> +of the LXX.) But it is still more natural to give to +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">סמר</span> the signification of "awful," "terrible." +(Compare Ps. cxix. 120, where the verb occurs with the meaning "to shudder.")—That +by <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ילק</span>, not the young brood, but the winged +locusts are to be understood, appears also from a comparison of Ps. cv. 34 with +Exod. x. 12 ff. In Exod. a single army of <i>flying</i> locusts overspread Egypt; +the Psalmist, in recalling this event to memory, says: "He spake, and the locusts +came, and <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ילק</span> without number." From this passage, +especially when compared with Ps. lxxvii. 46, where, instead of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חסיל ,ילק</span> is interchanged with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ארבה</span>, which alone is found in Exod., it is +very clearly seen that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ילק</span>, the <i>licker</i>, +is nothing else than a poetical epithet of the locusts. It never occurs, indeed, +in prose; and this can be the less accidental, as <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +גזם</span>, the <i>gnawer</i>, is also never found in prose writings, and +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חסיל</span> only once, in the prayer of Solomon, +1 Kings viii. 37—as that which it is in reality, as a mere attribute to +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ארבה</span>. That <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +ילק</span> has its name from the eating, is shown by Nah. iii. 15: "The sword shall +eat thee up as the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ילק</span>." And, in addition +to this, we may <span class="pagenum">[Pg 307]</span> further urge, that the exposition +of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ארבה</span> is altogether fictitious, and contradicted +by all the passages;—that the prophet in ii. 25 inverts the order, and puts the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גזם</span> last, from which it is certainly to be +safely inferred that the arrangement in i. 4 is not a chronological one;—that <i> +Credner</i> himself, by his being obliged to grant that +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גזם</span> and <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חסיל</span> +do not signify a particular kind of locusts, raises suspicions against his interpreting +the two other names of particular kinds;—and that if this interpretation were to +be considered as correct, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גזם</span> and +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חסיל</span> must denote the locusts as fully grown. +But that is by no means the case. The origin of the name +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גזם</span> is, moreover, clearly shown by Amos iv. +9: "Your vineyards, your fig-trees, and your olive-trees,—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הגזם</span> +devours them." As regards the corn, other divine means of destruction had been mentioned +immediately before; the trees alone then remained for the locusts, and they received +a name corresponding to this special destination, viz., +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הגזם</span>, the <i>gnawer</i>.—The verb +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חסל</span> is, in Deut. xxviii. 38, used of the devouring +of the locusts, and <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חסיל</span> never occurs excepting +where the locusts are viewed in this capacity. (Besides the passages already quoted, +compare Is. xxxiii. 4.)</p> +<p class="normal">The following also may be considered. The description of the ravages +of the second brood is, according to <i>Credner</i>, to begin in chap. ii. 4. But +the suffix in ver. 4 refers directly to the winged locusts spoken of in vers. 1-3; +and in the verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ירוצון</span> they are the subject.</p> +<p class="normal">And now, every one may judge what value is to be attached to a +hypothesis which has everything against it, and nothing in its favour, and the essential +suppositions of which—such as the departure of the swarms, their leaving their eggs +behind, their death in the Red Sea—are, as the author of the hypothesis himself +confesses, passed over in silence by the prophet.</p> +<p class="normal">We may now proceed to the solution of our proper problem. There +are no general reasons, either against the figurative, or against the literal interpretation; +neither of them has any unfavourable prejudice which can be urged against it. A +devastation by real locusts is threatened, in the Pentateuch, against the transgressors +of the law, Deut. xxviii. 38, 39; against the Egyptians, the Lord actually made +use of this, among other methods of punishment; and a devastation in Israel by locusts +is, in Amos iv. 9, represented as an effect of divine anger.— +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 308]</span>On the other hand, figurative representations +of that kind are of very common occurrence. In Isaiah, <i>e.g.</i>, the invading +Assyrians and Egyptians appear, in a continuous description, as swarms of flies +and bees. The comparison of hostile armies with locusts is very common, not only +on account of their multitude (from which circumstance the locusts received their +name in Hebrew), but also on account of the sudden surprise, and the devastation: +compare Judges vi. 5; Jer. xlvi. 23, li. 27; Judith ii. 11. Several times a hostile +invasion also is represented under the <i>image</i> and <i>symbol</i> of the plague +of the locusts. In Nah. iii. 15-17, the Assyrians appear in the form of locusts,—and +that this is not only on account of their numbers, but also on account of the devastations +which they make, is shown by the comparison with the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ילק</span> in ver. 15;—and just in the same manner +are the enemies described who accomplish their overthrow. And,—what is completely +analogous,—in Amos vii. 1-3, the prophet beholds the approaching divine judgment +under the image of a swarm of locusts, just as, in ver. 4, under that of a fire, +and in ver. 7, under that of a plumb-line. All these three images are in substance +identical; their meaning is expressed in ver. 9 by the words: "The high places of +Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be destroyed." The +locusts denote destroying hostile armies; the fire denotes war; and the plumb-line, +the destruction to be accomplished by the enemies. It was so much the more natural +to represent the divine judgment under the image of a devastation by locusts—as +is done also in Rev. ix. 3 ff.—because, formerly, it had actually manifested itself +in this way in Egypt. The figurative representation had therefore a significant +substratum in the history of the past. But it is, throughout, the custom of the +prophets to describe the future under the image of the analogous past, which, as +it were, is revived in it.—It ought to be still further remarked, that we must, +<i>a priori</i>, be the less indisposed to admit a detailed symbolical representation +in Joel, as the two prophets, betwixt whom he is placed, have likewise such symbolical +portions.</p> +<p class="normal">The decision depends, therefore, upon the internal character of +the description itself. An allegory must betray itself as such, by significant hints; +where these are wanting, it is arbitrary to assume its existence. Following the +order of the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 309]</span> text, we shall bring together +everything of this kind which we find in it.</p> +<p class="normal">The words, even, of the introduction,—Hath any such thing happened +in your days, and in the days of your fathers? Of it you shall tell your sons, and +your sons to their sons, and their sons to the succeeding generation,"—scarcely +permit us to think of a devastation by locusts in the literal sense. It could only +be by means of the grossest exaggeration—which, if it were far from any prophet, +was certainly so from the simple and mild Joel—that he could represent, as the greatest +disaster which ever befell, or should ever befall the nation, a devastation by locusts +which was, after all, only a transitory evil. For it is the greatness of the disaster +which is implied in the call to relate it to the latest posterity; no later suffering +should be so great as to cause this one to be forgotten.</p> +<p class="normal">We must not overlook the expression in ver. 6: "<i>For a nation</i> +(<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גוי</span>) has come up over my land." "Nation," +according to most interpreters, is thought to signify the mere multitude; but in +that case, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עם</span> would certainly have been used, +as is done in Prov. xxx. 25, 26, concerning the ants. In +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גוי</span> there is implied not only the idea of +what is hostile—this <i>Credner</i> too acknowledges—but also of what is profane. +This, indeed, is the principal idea; and, on this account, even the degenerate Covenant-people +several times receive the name <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גוי</span>. That this +principal idea is here likewise applicable, is evident from the antithesis: "Over +my land." It is true, that the suffix cannot be referred to Jehovah, as is done +by <i>J. H. Michaelis</i> and others, although the antithesis would thus most strikingly +appear; but as little can we refer it, as is done by modern interpreters, to the +prophet as an individual; for, in this case the antithesis would be lost altogether. +The comparison of vers. 7 and 19 clearly shows that, according to a common practice +(compare the Introduction to Micah, and the whole prophecy of Habakkuk), the prophet +speaks in the name of the people of God. A strange, unheard-of event! A heathen +host has invaded the land of the people of God! The antithesis is in ii. 18: "Then +the Lord was jealous for His land, and spared His people." We do not think that +the prophet loses sight of his image. He designates the locust as the heathen host; +but he would not have chosen this designation, which, when literally +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 310]</span> understood, is very strange, unless the matter +had induced him to do so. If it be understood figuratively, Amos vi. 14 entirely +harmonizes with it.—In the same verse (Joel i. 6) it is said: "His teeth, the teeth +of a lion, cheek teeth of a lion to him;" on which Rev. ix. 8 is to be compared. +This comparison is quite suitable to figurative locusts, to furious enemies (compare +Is. v. 29; Nah. ii. 12, 13; Jer. ii. 15, iv. 7, xlix. 19; Ezek. xxxii. 2; Dan. vii. +4), but not to natural locusts; for the lion cannot possibly be the symbol of mere +voracity.</p> +<p class="normal">It is remarkable, that in the description of the locusts in this +verse, and throughout, their flying is not mentioned at all. It is only in chap. +ii. 2, "Day of darkness and gloominess, day of clouds and thick darkness," that +<i>Credner</i> supposes such an allusion to exist. The darkness is, according to +him, in consequence of the swarm of locusts coming up in the skies. But the incorrectness +of such a supposition is immediately perceived, upon a comparison of chap. ii. 10. +Before the host, and before it arrives, the earth quakes, the heavens tremble, sun +and moon cover themselves with darkness, and the stars withdraw their shining. It +is only after all this has happened, that the Lord approaches at the head of His +host. It is not from this host, therefore, that the darkness can proceed. On the +contrary, the darkening of the heavens, as is quite conclusively shown by the numerous +almost literally agreeing parallel passages (compare the remarks on Zech. xiv. 6), +is the symbol of the anger of God, the sign that He approaches as a Judge, and an +Avenger. But in what way could the omission of every reference to the flying of +the locusts, in a description so minute, be accounted for other than this: that +the reality presented nothing corresponding to this feature?</p> +<p class="normal">It is only the heaviest and most continuous suffering, and not +a transitory plague by locusts, which can justify the call in i. 8: "Howl like a +virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." This verse forms the +transition to ver. 9, where the sacrifice in the house of Jehovah appears as cut +off, and connects Joel with Hosea, in whom the image, of which the outlines only +are given here, appears finished. Zion has also lost the friend of her youth—the +Lord; compare Prov. ii. 17: "Who forsaketh the friend of her youth, and forgot the +covenant of her God;<!--1854 ed inserted-->" Is. liv. 6; Jer. ii. 2, iii. 4.—Of +great <span class="pagenum">[Pg 311]</span> importance for the question under consideration +are ver. 9: "The meat-offering and drink-offering are cut off from the house of +the Lord;" and ver. 13: "Gird yourselves and lament, ye priests, howl ye ministers +of the altar, come, spend all night in sackcloth, ye ministers of my God; for the +meat-offering and drink-offering are withholden from the house of your God." It +is quite inconceivable that the want of provisions, resulting from a natural devastation +by real locusts, could have been the reason that the meat-offering and drink-offering, +which, in a material point of view, were of so little value, should have been withheld +from the Lord; inasmuch as the cessation of it appears in these passages as the +consummation of the national calamity. During the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey, +the legal sacrifices existed, according to <i>Josephus</i> (<i>Arch.</i> xiv. 4, +§ 3), even amidst the greatest dangers to life, during the irruption of the enemies +into the city, and in the midst of the carnage. It is true that, during the last +siege by the Romans, when matters had come to an extremity, <i>Johannes</i> ordered +the sacrifices to be discontinued. But this was done, not from want of materials, +but because there were none to offer them—from <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἀνδρῶν +ἀπορίᾳ</span>, as <i>Josephus</i> says (<i>Bell. Jud.</i> vi. 2, § 1; compare <i> +Reland</i> in <i>Havercamp</i> on this passage)—and to the great dissatisfaction +of the people in the city, <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὁ δῆμοσ δεινῶς ἀθυμεῖ</span>. +The national view is expressed in what <i>Josephus</i> says on this occasion to +Johannes, to whom he had been sent by Titus on account of this event: "If any man +should rob thee of thy daily food, thou, most wicked man, wouldst certainly consider +him as thine enemy. Dost thou then think that thou wilt have for thine associate +in this war, God, whom thou hast robbed of His eternal worship?" But the sound explanation +readily suggests itself, as soon as it is admitted that behind the locusts the Gentiles +are concealed. In that case, Dan. ix. 27, where the destroyer makes sacrifice and +oblation to cease, is parallel. The destruction of the temple is also announced +by the contemporary Amos in chap. ix.; compare ii. 5: "And I send fire upon Judah, +and it devours the palaces of Jerusalem." Of a similar purport, in the time after +Joel, is the passage in Micah, chap. iii. 12.</p> +<p class="normal">The words in ver. 15—"Woe, for the day, for the day of the Lord +is at hand, and as destruction from the Almighty does it come,"—point to something +infinitely higher than a mere <span class="pagenum">[Pg 312]</span> desolation by +locusts in the literal sense. This appears from a comparison of Is. xiii. 6, where +they are taken, almost verbatim, from Joel, and used with a reference to the judgment +of the Lord upon the whole earth. This is granted even by <i>Credner</i> himself, +when he makes the vain attempt (compare S. 345) to refer them to a judgment different +from the devastation by the locust. The same is the case with <i>Maurer</i> and +<i>Hitzig</i>. How, indeed, is it at all conceivable that a national calamity, so +small and transient as a devastation by real locusts would have been, should have +been considered by the prophet as the day of the Lord of the people in the city, +<span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχῄν</span>, as the conclusion and completion +of all the judgments upon the Covenant-people? A conception like this would imply +such low notions of God's justice, and such a total misapprehension of the greatness +of human guilt, as we find in none of the Old Testament prophets, and, generally, +in none of the writers of Holy Scripture. That which the men of God under the Old +Testament, from the first—Moses—to the last, announce, is the total expulsion of +the people from the country which they defiled by their sins.</p> +<p class="normal">The image suddenly changes in vers. 19 and 20: "To thee, O Lord, +do I cry. For fire devoureth the pastures of the wilderness, and flame burneth all +the trees of the field. Even the beasts of the field desire for Thee; for the fountains +of waters are dried up, and fire devoureth the pastures of the wilderness." The +divine punishment appears under the image of an all-devouring fire. Now, since we +cannot here think of a literal fire, it is certain that, in the preceding verses +also, a figurative representation prevails. <i>Holzhausen</i> and <i>Credner</i> +(S. 163), and others, attempt to evade this troublesome inference, by asserting +that fire and flame are here used instead of the heat of the sun, scorching everything. +But this assertion is, at all events, expressed in a distorted and awkward manner. +Fire and flame are never used of the heat of the sun. According to this view, it +ought rather to be said that the prophet represents the consuming heat, under the +image of fire poured down from heaven. But even this cannot be entertained. For +the parallel passage chap. ii. 3, "Before him fire devoureth, and after him flame +burneth," shows that the fire, being immediately connected with the locusts, cannot +be a cause of destruction independent of, and co-ordinate with, them. That the locusts +are the sole cause of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 313]</span> the devastation, and +that there is not another cause besides them, viz., the heat, is evident also from +the words: "As the garden of Eden is the land before them, and behind them a desolate +wilderness, and nothing is left by them." The burning anger of God is represented +under the image of a consuming and destroying fire, with a reference to the destruction +of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which the divine wrath really manifested itself in that +way. Under the image of fire, <i>war</i> also, one of the principal punishments +of God, is often represented. Thus, fire means the fire of war in Num. xxi. 28: +Amos i. 4, 7, 10, etc.; Jer. xlix. 27; Rev. viii. 8, 10. On the latter of these +passages, my Commentary may be compared. If, then, the fire spoken of in this passage +mean likewise the fire of war, and the locusts, the heathen enemies, the difficulty +presented by the connection of these two things is solved. The comparison of Amos +vii. here serves as a key. In vers. 1-3, the divine punishment is represented by +the prophet under the image of a great army of locusts laying waste the country, +which is just beginning to recover under Jeroboam II. after the former calamities +inflicted by the Syrians; and then in ver. 4, under the image of a great fire devouring +the sea (<i>i.e.</i>, the world), and eating up the holy land. This analogy is so +much the more important, the more impossible it is to overlook, in other passages +also, the points of agreement betwixt Joel and Amos. But the symbolical representation +goes still further; it extends even to the details. The beasts of the field are +the barbarous, heathen nations. In ver. 19, the desolations are described which +the fire of war accomplishes among Israel; in ver. 20, those which it effects among +the Gentiles: compare the antithesis between the beasts of the field and the sons +of Zion in ii. 22. In Is. lvi. 9, the beasts of the field likewise occur as a figurative +designation of the heathen. In Jer. xiv.—a prophecy which has been distorted by +expositors through a too literal interpretation—the image is, in vers. 5, 6, individualized +by the mention of particular wild beasts—the hind and the wild ass. Joel himself +indicates that the beasts in this description must, in general, be understood figuratively, +by using in ver. 18 the word <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נאשמו</span>, which +can be explained only by "become guilty," "suffer punishment." (Compare Is. xxiv. +6: "Therefore curse devoureth the land, and they that dwell in it become guilty;" +and <span class="pagenum">[Pg 314]</span> Hos. xiv. 1.) The word +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נאנחה</span>, which is never used of beasts, likewise +leads us to think of men. "How do the beasts groan," is explained by "All the merry-hearted +do groan," in Is. xxiv. 7. The words <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תערג אליך</span>, +in which there is an evident allusion to Ps. xlii. 2, must likewise appear strange, +if the description be understood literally. But what is decisive in favour of the +figurative interpretation is ii. 22: "Be not afraid, ye beasts of the field, for +the pastures of the wilderness are green with grass, for the tree beareth her fruit, +the fig-tree and vine do yield their strength." The object of joy is here described, +first, figuratively, and then, literally. The pastures of the wilderness are green +with grass, <i>i.e.</i>, the tree, etc. It is only thus that the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span> can be accounted for; it states the reason, +only when the pastures of the wilderness are not understood literally. <i>The fruits +of the trees are mentioned here as the ordinary food of the beasts of the field.</i> +<i>Hitzig</i>, it is true, remarks on this: "That many beasts of the field feed +upon fruits of trees which they gather up, and that, <i>e.g.</i>, foxes eat grapes +also." But the point at issue here is the ordinary food; and Gen. i. 29, 30, where +the trees are given to man, and the grass to the beasts, is decisive as to the literal +or figurative interpretation. Under the image of unclean beasts—especially wild +beasts—the Gentiles appear also in Acts xi. 6.—Nor can "the rivers of water" (ver. +20) be understood literally. The water of rivers, brooks, and fountains, is, in +Scripture, the ordinary figure for the sources of sustenance, of thriving, wealth, +and prosperity; compare remarks on Rev. viii. 10.</p> +<p class="normal">Chap. ii. 2 is to be considered as indicating the reason which +induced Joel to choose this figurative representation. The words, "There hath not +been anything the like from eternity, neither may there be any more after it, even +to the years of all generations," are borrowed, almost verbally, from Exod. x. 14. +The prophet thereby indicates that he transfers the past, in its individual definiteness, +to the future, which bears a substantial resemblance to it. What was then said of +the plague of locusts especially, is here applied to the calamity thereby prefigured. +From among all the judgments upon the Covenant-people (for these alone are spoken +of), this judgment is the highest and the last; and such the prophet could say, +only if the whole sum of divine judgments, up to their consummation, represented +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 315]</span> itself to his inner vision under the image +of the devastation by locusts. The absurdities into which men are led by the hypothesis +of a later origin of the Pentateuch, are here seen in a remarkable instance—viz., +in the assertion of <i>Credner</i>, that the passage in Exodus is an imitation of +that of Joel. The verse immediately following, "As the garden of Eden (<i>i.e.</i>, +Paradise) the land is before him," has an obvious reference to Genesis, not only +to Gen. ii. 8, but also to xiii. 10, where the vale of Siddim, before the divine +judgment, is compared to the garden of Jehovah—to Paradise.</p> +<p class="normal">In chap. ii. 6 it is said, "Before him nations tremble." That +the mention of the <i>nations</i> here is but ill adapted to the literal interpretation, +appears from the circumstance, that while <i>Credner</i> understands by the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עמים</span>, Judah and Benjamin, <i>Hitzig</i> attempts +to explain it by people. But if, by the locusts, the heathen conquerors are designated, +the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עמים</span> is quite in its place. When the powerful +heathen empires overflowed the land, Israel always formed only a part of a large +whole of nations; compare i. 19, ii. 22. Amos describes how the fire of war and +of the desire of conquest raged, not only in Israel, but among all the nations round +about, and consumed them. In addition to Amos chap. i. compare especially Amos vii. +4, 5, where, as objects of hostile visitation, are pointed out, first, the sea, +<i>i.e.</i>, the world, and then, the heritage of the Lord. According to Is. x. +6, the mission of Asshur was a very comprehensive one. In Habakkuk and Jer. chap. +xxv. the judgments which the Chaldeans inflicted upon Judah, appear only as a part +of a universal judgment upon all nations.</p> +<p class="normal">According to chap. ii. 7-9, the locusts take the city by storm. +They cannot be warded off by force of arms. They climb the wall. They fill the streets, +and enter by force into the houses. Peal locusts are not dangerous to towns, but +only to the fields.</p> +<p class="normal">In chap. ii. 11, every feature is against the literal explanation. +"And the Lord giveth His voice before His army; for His camp is very numerous, for +he is strong that executeth His word; for the day of the Lord is great and very +terrible, who can comprehend it?" There is not the remotest analogy in favour of +the supposition which would represent an army of locusts as the host and camp of +God, at the head of which He <span class="pagenum">[Pg 316]</span> Himself marches +as a general, and before which He causes His thunders to resound like trumpets. +It is true that, in some Arabic writer, this is mentioned as a Mosaic command: "You +shall not kill locusts, for they are the host of God, the Most High;" see <i>Bochart</i> +ii. p. 482, ed. <i>Rosenmüller</i> iii. p. 318. But who does not see that this sentence +owes its origin to the passage under consideration? Is. xiii. 2-5, where the Lord +marches at the head of a great army to destroy the whole earth, may here be compared; +and on Joel ii. 10, "Before him the earth quaketh, the heavens tremble, the sun +and the moon mourn, and the stars withdraw their shining," Is xiii. 10 and Jer. +iv. 28 may be compared, where, in the view of threatening hostile inundation, the +earth laments, and the heavens above mourn.</p> +<p class="normal">In ii. 17, "Give not Thine heritage to reproach, <i>that the heathen +should rule over them</i>" (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">למשל־בם גוים</span>), +the prophet drops the figure altogether, and allows the reality—the devastation +of the country by heathen enemies—to appear in all its nakedness. (It is worthy +of notice that by the term <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גוים</span> in this verse, +our remarks on <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גיו</span> in ii. 6 receive a confirmation.) +The defenders of the literal explanation have tried a twofold mode of escaping from +this difficulty. <i>Michaelis</i> explains thus: "Spare Thy people, and deliver +them from that plague of locusts. For if they should continue to swarm any longer, +the greatest famine would arise, and Thy people, in order to satisfy the cravings +of hunger, would be compelled to flee into the territories of heathen nations to +serve them for bread, and to submit not only to their sway, but to ignominy." But +every one must at once see how far-fetched this explanation is. In all history we +do not find any instance in which a devastation by locusts—which affects the produce +of one year only, and even this never completely and throughout the whole country—has +reduced a people to the necessity of placing themselves under the dominion of foreign +nations. Modern interpreters—and especially <i>Credner</i>—take refuge in another +explanation: "Give not up Thine heritage to the mockery of heathens over them." +They assert that the signification "to mock" is required by the parallelism. But +we cannot see how, and why. The ignominy of Israel consisted just in this, that +they, the heritage of the Lord, were brought under the dominion of the Gentiles, +It is Just by the parallelism that the signification "to rule" is required. For +it is the heritage <span class="pagenum">[Pg 317]</span> of the Lord, and the dominion +of the Gentiles, which form a striking contrast, and not their mockery. The very +same contrast is implied in ver. 18, in the words: "Then the Lord was jealous for +His land." In these, the prophet reports the manner in which the Lord put away that +glaring contradiction. They are not natural locusts, but only the heathen enemies, +who can be the objects of the jealousy of the Lord; <i>His</i> land. <i>His</i> +people, He cannot give up as a prey to heathen nations. But <i>further</i>—and this +alone is sufficient to settle the question—the explanation is altogether unphilological. +The verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משל</span> never has the signification "to +mock;" the phrase <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מָשַׁל מָשָׁל</span>, "to form +a proverb," is altogether peculiar to Ezekiel, in whose prophecies it several times +occurs. In the other books, nothing occurs which would be, even in the smallest +degree, to the purpose, except that in the ancient language of the Pentateuch +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משלים</span> occurs once, in Num. xxi. 27, in the +signification "poets." The verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משל</span> with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span> means always, and without exception, "to +rule over"—properly, "to rule by entering into any one." Thus it occurs especially +in that passage which the prophet had in view, Deut. xv. 5, 6: "If thou wait hearken +unto the voice of Jehovah thy God ... thou shalt rule over many nations, and they +shall not rule over thee," <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ומשלת בגוים רבים ובך לא +ימשלו</span>. Compare also the very similar passages, Ps. cvi. 41: "And He gave +them into the hand of the heathen, and they that hated them ruled over them," +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">וימשלו בם</span>; and Lament, v. 8: "Servants rule +over us," <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משלו בנו</span>. That it is from prejudice +alone that the selection of the signification "to mock" can be accounted for, appears +also from the circumstance that all the old Translators (the LXX., <i>Jonath.</i>, +<i>Syr.</i>, <i>Vulg.</i>) render it by "to rule."</p> +<p class="normal">More than one proof is offered by ver. 20: "And I will remove +from you the Northman, and will drive him into the land dry and desolate; his van +into the fore sea, and his rear into the hinder sea; and his stench shall come up, +and his ill-savour shall arise, for he has magnified to do."</p> +<p class="normal">1. If we understand this literally, and refer it to real locusts, +then the designation by <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הצפוני</span>, <i>i.e.</i>, +"one from the North," "a Northman," is inexplicable. It is true that there is no +foundation for the common assertion, that locusts move only from the South to the +North (compare <i>Credner</i>, S. 284); but in all history there is not one instance +known of locusts having come <span class="pagenum">[Pg 318]</span> to Palestine +from the North—from Syria. But even although occasionally single swarms, after having +come to Syria from their native country, the hot and dry South, may have strayed +thence to Palestine, such is not conceivable of so enormous a swarm as is here described, +which, with youthful strength, devastated the whole of Palestine from one end to +the other. Is it, moreover, probable that the prophet, who, as we have already seen, +prophesies things future, would mention a circumstance so accidental as the transient +abode of a swarm of locusts in Syria? Such a residence, <i>besides</i>, would not +justify the assertion. The termination <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">־ִ־י</span> +added to common names, indicates origin and descent. An inhabitant of a town, for +example, who should reside for a short time in a village, could not for that reason +be called a <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פרזי</span>.—<i>Finally</i>—The native +country of the real locusts is plainly enough indicated by the words: "And I will +drive him into the land dry and desolate." Who does not see that, by these words, +the hot and dry southern countries are marked out, and that the prophet expresses +the thought, "The enemies will be driven back to the place whence they came," by +mentioning the country from which the real locusts used to come? Our opponents are +here greatly embarrassed. Some explain: "The locusts marching northward,"—<i>Hezel</i> +and <i>Justi</i>, without the slightest countenance from the <i>usus loquendi</i>: +"The dark and fearful host." This opinion was approved of by <i>Gesenius</i> in +the <i>Thesaurus</i>; but in opposition to it <i>Hitzig</i> may be compared, who +himself gives the explanation, "The Typhonic." <i>V. Cöln</i> (<i>de Joelis aetate</i>, +Marb. 1811, p. 10). <i>Ewald</i> and <i>Meier</i> propose a change in the text. +With the reasons preventing us from referring the expression to the locusts In a +literal sense, we may combine the fact that the North is constantly mentioned as +the native land of the most dangerous enemies of Israel, viz., the Assyrians and +Chaldeans. And although this designation be. In a geographical point of view. Inaccurate, +this is outweighed by the circumstance, that enemies always Invaded Palestine from +Syria, after having previously made that land a part of their dominions. Compare +Zeph. ii. 13: "And the Lord stretches out His hand over the <i>North</i>, and destroys +Assyria, and makes Nineveh a desolation—a dry wilderness;" Jer. i. 14: "And the +Lord said unto me, Out of the <i>North</i> the evil shall break forth upon all the +inhabitants of the land;" Jer. iii. 18, where <span class="pagenum">[Pg 319]</span> +the land of the North is mentioned as the land of the captivity of Judah and Israel; +Jer. iv. 6, vi. 1, 22, x. 22, xlvi. 24, where the people of the North form the antithesis +to Egypt, the African power; and Zech. ii. 10. <i>Jerome</i> long ago remarked: +"The prophet mentions the North, that we might not think of real locusts, which +are wont to come from the South, but might, by the locusts, understand the Assyrians +and Chaldeans."</p> +<p class="normal">2. That we have here to do with a poetical description, and not +with one of natural history, appears from a designation of the places to which the +locusts are to be driven. Among these, the dry and hot southern country—the Arabian +desert—is first mentioned; then, the anterior sea, <i>i.e.</i>, the Dead Sea, situated +eastward of Jerusalem; and lastly, the hinder, or Mediterranean Sea. That, according +to the view of the prophet, the dispersion in these different directions was to +take place in a moment, appears from the circumstance that, according to his description, +the van of the same army is driven into one sea, and the rear, into the other sea. +Now, every one very easily sees that this is a physical impossibility, inasmuch +as opposite winds cannot blow at the same time. <i>Credner's</i> explanation, according +to which the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פנים</span> of the locusts is intended +to be the swarm of those who first invaded Palestine, while +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">סופו</span> is their brood, deserves mention in so +far only as it affords a proof of the greatness of the absurdities into which one +may be deluded, after he has once adopted a groundless hypothesis.</p> +<p class="normal">3. The words, "For he has magnified to do," state the reason of +the destruction of the locusts. They are <i>punished</i> in this manner, because +they have <i>committed sin</i> by their proud haughtiness. Because they have magnified +to do, the Lord now magnifies Himself to do against them, ver. 21; He glorifies +Himself in their destruction, since, at the time of their power, they glorified +themselves, and trampled God under foot. But sin and punishment necessarily imply +responsibility; and it would be indeed difficult to prove that, in the way of a +poetical figure, any prophet would ascribe such to irrational creatures; while, +as regards the heathen enemies of Israel, the thought here expressed is of constant +occurrence.</p> +<p class="normal">In chap. ii. 25, "And I restore to you the years (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">השנים</span>) +which the locusts have eaten," etc., <i>several</i> years of calamity are spoken +of. But we cannot agree with <i>Ewald</i> in thinking that <span class="pagenum"> +[Pg 320]</span> the land was, for several years, laid waste by locusts: we are prevented +from doing so by the single word <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יתר</span> in chap. +i. 4. <i>Bochart</i> rightly remarks: "The produce of the new year cannot be called +the residue of the former year. That word is much more applicable to the fruits +of some fields, which are passed by, or to the residue left in a field, which should +be eaten up in the same year." As little can we suppose, with <i>Ewald</i>, that +the plural is here used with reference to the effects produced, by the devastation +of one year, upon the ensuing years; for it is not a possible loss which is here +spoken of, but one which has actually taken place. The prophet then passes, here +also, from the image to the thing itself,—to the hostile invasions extending over +longer periods, which he describes under the image of a devastation by locusts which, +at one time, took place.</p> +<p class="normal">Very strong arguments in favour of the figurative explanation +are furnished, in addition, by chap. iv. (iii.). The whole announcement of punishment +and judgment upon the heathen nations has sense and meaning, only when, in the preceding +context, there has been mention made of the crime which they committed against the +Lord and His people. In that case, we have before us the three main subjects of +prophecy,—God's judgments upon His people by heathen enemies, their obtaining mercy, +and the punishment of the enemies. At the very beginning of chap. iv. (iii.) the +sufferings of Israel, described in chap. i. and ii., and the judgment upon the heathen, +are brought into the closest connection. According to chap. iv. 1, 2, the gathering +of the Gentiles is to take place at a time when the Lord will return to the captivity +of Judah and Jerusalem, <i>i.e.</i>, according to the constant <i>usus loquendi</i> +(compare my Commentary on Ps. xiv. 7), when He will grant them, mercy, and deliver +them from their misery.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_320a" href="#ftn_320a">[1]</a></sup> +But that this misery can be none other than that described in chap. i. and ii. appears +simply from the fact, that this has been declared to be the close of all the judgments +of God.—We must, <i>further</i>, not overlook the article <span class="pagenum"> +[Pg 321]</span> in <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">את־כל־הגוים</span> in chap. iv. +2, and, accordingly, must not translate, "I will gather all nations," but "all +<i>the</i> nations." And how could this be explained in any other way than—all the +nations which are spoken of in the preceding chapters under the image of locusts? +But of special importance is the second part of the verse: "And I plead there with +them concerning My people, and My heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among +the nations, and distributed My land."<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_321a" href="#ftn_321a">[2]</a></sup> +It is quite impossible that there should here be the mention of anything which happened +before the time of Joel. Whatever period we may assign to him, he belongs, at all +events, to a time in which a scattering of Israel among the Gentiles, and a distribution +of their land, had not as yet taken place. <i>Credner</i>, indeed, believes that +the calamities under Jehoram are sufficient to account for these expressions. "At +that time," he says, "the Edomites revolted from Judah; Libnah, which belonged to +Judah In the stricter sense, rebelled; the Arabs and Philistines invaded the kingdom +and plundered its capital; those inroads did then not terminate without a diminution +of the territory of Judah." But all this is irrelevant; the discourse concerns the +distribution of the land of the <i>Lord</i>. The rebellion of a heathen tributary +people does not, therefore, here come under consideration. Just as little can we +see what Libnah has to do here. It belonged, it is true, to the kingdom of Judah; +but the heathen nations had nothing to do with its rebellion;—for this, according +to 2 Kings viii. 22, and 2 Chron. xxi. 10, proceeded from the inhabitants, who were +dissatisfied with the bad government of the king, and was speedily brought to a +close. It cannot then be proved, that even some small portion of the territory was +lost at that time; far less, that the whole country was apportioned anew. It is +quite the same as regards the dispersion among the Gentiles. The invasion of the +Philistines cannot <span class="pagenum">[Pg 322]</span> here come into consideration, +because, in ver. 4, these enemies are expressly distinguished from those who had +effected the dispersion of the people, and the distribution of the land: "And ye +also, what have ye to do with Me, O Tyre and Sidon, and all the borders of Palestine?" +The prophet can thus not be speaking of something which had taken place at his time; +but as little can he speak of something still future, which had not been touched +upon by him when he threatened punishment upon the Covenant-people; for the devastation +by the locusts appears as the highest and last calamity of the future. Nothing, +therefore, remains but to suppose, that under the image of the devastation by locusts, +the devastation of the country by heathen enemies, and the dispersion of its inhabitants, +are described,—a supposition which is confirmed by the great resemblance of the +passage under consideration to chap. ii. 17-19. <i>Vatke</i> (<i>Theol. des A. Th.</i> +i. S. 462) founded upon the fact that the general exile is here predicted, the assertion +that Joel had prophesied only after the captivity. No one, of course, has been willing +to agree with him in this; but as long as the devastation by the locusts is understood +literally, it will not be possible to undermine the grounds upon which he supports +his views. It is altogether in vain that people spend their labour in disputing +the fact, so obvious and evident, that the discourse here concerns the total occupation +of the land by the heathen, the total carrying away of its inhabitants.</p> +<p class="normal">It may be further remarked, that this passage at the same time +considerably strengthens the proof already adduced, that Joel foretells future things +in chap. i. and ii. A devastation by the locusts is described in these chapters; +but the substance of this figure does not refer to the time of Joel.</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Finally</i>—We must still direct attention to the words in +iv. 17:—And Jerusalem shall be a sanctuary, and there shall no strangers pass through +her any more." This promise stands in evident contrast to the former threatening, +and becomes intelligible only by it. In it, therefore, the <i>strangers</i> must +be represented under the figure of the locusts.</p> +<p class="normal">And now, after all these single proofs have been enumerated—proofs +which, if necessary, might easily have been strengthened and increased—let us look +back to this survey of the contents of the book, and we shall see how, according +to our view, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 323]</span> and according to it alone, the +prophecy of Joel forms an harmonious, complete, and well finished whole, and that +the prophet adheres closely to the outlines already given by Moses, with the filling +up and finishing of which all other prophets also are employed. And let us, finally, +add, that exegetical tradition also bears a favourable testimony to the figurative +interpretation.</p> +<p class="normal">We need not spend much time in considering the arguments advanced +against the figurative interpretation by <i>Credner</i> (S. 27 ff.), <i>Hitzig</i>, +and others. They all rest upon an almost incomprehensible ignoring of the nature +of poetry, of the metaphor, and of the allegory. Thus, <i>e.g.</i>, <i>Credner</i> +says, "What man of sound sense will ever be able to say of horses, horsemen and +warriors, that they resemble horses and horsemen? Who has ever seen horses and horsemen +climbing over walls? What shall we say concerning chap. ii. 20? Do land armies ever +perish in the sea, and, moreover, in two different seas? What is the use of foretelling, +in chap. ii. 22, 23, the ceasing of the drought, if the prophet here thought of +real enemies?" But in opposition to all these and similar objections, let us simply +keep in mind, that the prophet does not by any means view the enemies as such, and +only incidentally compares them with locusts; but that in his inward vision they +represented themselves to him as locusts. It is just the characteristic feature +of the allegory, that the image becomes in it substantial, and has the thing represented, +not <i>beside</i> it, but <i>in</i>, <i>with</i>, and <i>under</i> it. But it is +just for this reason that many a feature must be introduced which does not belong +to the <i>real</i> subject, <i>i.e.</i>, the figure, but to the <i>ideal</i> only, +<i>i.e.</i>, the thing represented thereby. It is for this very reason also, that +the metaphor, raised to the <i>ideal</i> subject, may again be compared with the +<i>real</i> subject. After all this we may well judge what right <i>Ewald</i> has +to call the figurative explanation "an error, which, in consideration of our present +knowledge, becomes from day to day less pardonable."</p> +<p class="normal">We remark further, that, in chap. i. 4, it is distinctly indicated +that Israel's visitation by the world's power will not be a simple one, but will +present various aspects: "That which the <i>gnawer</i> has left, the <i>locust</i> +devoureth; and that which the <i>locust</i> hath left, the <i>licker</i> devoureth; +and that which the <i>licker</i> hath left, the <i>eater</i> devoureth." The opinion +has been entertained, that "the prophet does not say, one cloud of locusts after +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 324]</span> another, or swarms of locusts of every description +have come up; but, on the contrary, that they are all contemporary, and that all +of them devour the same things." But a succession is quite obvious. The four parties +do not devour at the same time; but the second devours what the first has left. +It is true that the succession appears as very rapid; but that is a peculiarity +belonging only to the vision. If there be <i>at all</i> a succession of those extensive +empires representing the world's power, there must in reality be considerable intervals +between them. The question then arises, however, whether the number <i>four</i> +is to be considered as a round number, so that the thought would only be this, that +several nations are to visit the people of the Lord, or whether, on the contrary, +importance is to be attached to the number <i>four</i> as such. According to <i> +Jerome</i>, the Jews followed the latter view. In accordance with their view, the +first swarm denotes the Assyrians, together with the Chaldeans; the second, the +Medo-Persians; the third, the Grecian kingdoms; the fourth, the Romans. The analogies +of the four horns in Zech. ii. 1-4 (i. 18-21), the four beasts in Daniel, the seven +heads of the beast in Revelation—denoting the seven phases of the world's power +opposed to God—are decisive in favour of the latter view; compare my <i>Commentary +on Rev.</i> xii. 18, xiii. 1. Now, if we follow this view at all, we must, in determining +the four swarms, certainly assent to the opinion of the Jews, as given in <i>Jerome</i>; +and this so much the more, as the four swarms are, in that case, exactly parallel +to the four beasts in Daniel, which denote the Chaldean, Medo-Persian, Grecian, +and Roman monarchies. The fact that the Assyrians are taken together with the Chaldeans +can be the less strange, because, so early as in the prophecy of Balaam, Asshur +and Babylon are comprehended under the common name +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עבר</span>, <i>i.e.</i>, "that which is on the other +side,"—the power on the other side of the Euphrates; and are contrasted with the +new empire which pressed on from the West—from Europe. (Compare my <i>Dissertation +on Balaam</i>, p. 593 ff.)<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_324a" href="#ftn_324a">[3]</a></sup> +It was the less possible to ascribe to the Assyrians an independent position here, +as Joel has to do mainly with Judah, upon which no judgment of real importance was +inflicted by the Assyrians.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_320a" href="#ftnRef_320a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> The well ascertained <i>usus loquendi</i> + must be here the less given up, as, in the preceding context, to which this + verse carries us back, we are, it is true, told that the Lord will return and + bestow mercy; but the bringing back of the people is as little spoken of as + the carrying of them away, inasmuch as the express mention of which did not + suit the image of the devastation by locusts.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_321a" href="#ftnRef_321a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חִלֵּק</span> + means, not "to divide among themselves," but "to effect a new division," "to + apportion the land anew," as, <i>e.g.</i>, Asshur distributed the territory + of the ten tribes among the Aramean Colonists, + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חלק</span> is used of the distribution of the + land by Joshua, in Josh. xiii. 7, xix. 51. In Mic. ii. 4, when the captivity + was impending, the people, in anticipation of it, utter their lamentation in + the words, "He distributes our fields;" compare Ps. lx. 8.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_324a" href="#ftnRef_324a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[3]</sup></a> In the volume containing the "<i>Dissertations + on the Genuineness of Daniel</i>, etc.," published by T. and T. Clark.</p> +</div> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 325]</span></p> +<h3><a name="div3_325" href="#div3Ref_325">ON CHAPTER II. 23.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">"<i>And, ye sons of Zion, exult and rejoice in Jehovah your God; +for He giveth you the Teacher of righteousness, and then He poureth down upon you +rain, the former rain and the latter rain, for the first time.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The words, "In Jehovah your God," are an addition peculiar to +the sons of Zion. In reference to the <i>earth</i>, which the locusts had devastated, +it was in ver. 21 said only, "Fear not, exult and rejoice." In reference to the +beasts, <i>i.e.</i>, to the heathen world, which was kept in subjection by the conquerors +of the world, but which is delivered by the great deeds of the Lord, it is in ver. +22 said only: "Fear not." They are only the sons of Zion who know and love the Author +of Salvation, and who receive from Him special gifts, besides the general ones.</p> +<p class="normal">There is considerable difference in the interpretations of this +verse. The words, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">את־המורה לצדקה</span>, are, by +the greater number of interpreters, translated, "The Teacher of righteousness." +Thus, <i>Jonathan</i>, the <i>Vulgate</i>, <i>Jarchi</i>, <i>Abarbanel</i>, <i>Grotius</i>, +and almost all the interpreters of the early Lutheran Church translate them. Others +take <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מורה</span> in the signification of "rain," +and <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לצדקה</span> as qualifying its nature more accurately. +Even in ancient times, this explanation was not at all uncommon. Among the Rabbinical +interpreters, it was held by <i>Kimchi</i>, <i>Abenezra</i>, <i>S. B. Melech</i>, +who explain it of a <i>timely</i> rain. <i>Calvin</i>, who rendered the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לצדקה</span> by <i>justa mensura</i>, defends it +with great decision, and declares the other explanations to be forced, and unsuitable +to the connection. It is translated by "rain" in the English<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_325a" href="#ftn_325a">[1]</a></sup> +and Genevan versions, and by many Calvinistic interpreters, who differ, however, +in the translation of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לצדקה</span>, and render it +either: "In right time," or "in right measure," or "in the right place," or "for +His righteousness," or "according to your righteousness." <i>Marckius</i> is of +opinion that "rain" is necessarily required by the context; but that, on account +of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לצדקה</span>, this rain must be understood spiritually +of the Messiah with His saving doctrine, and His Spirit. Among the interpreters +of the Lutheran Church, <i>Seb. Schmid</i> thinks of "a rain in due season." +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 326]</span> Among modern interpreters, the explanation +by "rain" has become altogether so prevalent, that it is considered scarcely of +any importance even to mention the other. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לצדקה</span> +is explained by <i>Eckermann</i>: "In proof of His good pleasure;" by <i>Ewald</i>, +<i>Meier</i>, and <i>Umbreit</i>: "For justification;" by <i>Justi</i>: "For fruitfulness;" +and by the others (<i>Rosenmüller</i>, <i>Holzhausen</i>, <i>Credner</i>, <i>Rückert</i>, +<i>Maurer</i>, and <i>Hitzig</i>) by: "In right measure." We consider this explanation +to be decidedly erroneous, and the other to be the sound one; and this for the following +reasons:—1. The great difference, on the part of the defenders of the current opinion, +as regards the explanation of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לצדקה</span> certainly +indicates, with sufficient clearness, that, by this addition, a considerable obstruction +is put in its way. The most current explanation, by "<i>justa mensura</i>," "in +right measure," "sufficiently," is certainly quite untenable. Even the fact, that +it is not <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צדק</span> but +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צדקה</span> which is used here, must excite suspicion. +(On the difference betwixt these two words, compare <i>Ewald</i> in the first edition +of his Grammar, S. 312-13.) But what is quite decisive is the fact that these two +words, which occur with such extraordinary frequency, are never found in a physical, +but always in a moral sense only. The only passage in which, according to <i>Winer</i>, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צדק</span> signifies "rectitude" in a physical sense, +is Ps. xxiii. 3: <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מעגלי צדק</span> which, according +to him, means: "Straight, right ways." But that verse runs thus: "He restoreth my +soul, He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake." The path +is a spiritual one; it is righteousness itself, which consists in the actual declaration +of being just, and in justification, which are implied in the gift of salvation. +With regard to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צדקה</span>, <i>Holzhausen</i> (S. +120) maintains that it is used of a measure which has its due size in Lev. xix. +35, 36. The words are these: "Ye shall not do <i>unrighteousness</i> in judgment, +in measure, in division. Balances of righteousness, weights of righteousness, ephas +of righteousness, shall ye have: I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the +land of Egypt." Even the contrast—so evident—with the <i>unrighteousness</i>, shows +distinctly that balances, measures, and weights of righteousness are here such as +belong to righteousness—are in harmony with it. Even the root +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צדק</span> never occurs in a physical sense, but +always, only in a moral sense. To this it must be added, that the explanation, "Teacher +of righteousness," <span class="pagenum">[Pg 327]</span> is recommended by the parallel +passage in Hos. x. 12, where, also, teaching occurs in connection with righteousness: +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">וירה צדק לכם</span>, "And the Lord will come and +teach you righteousness." This parallel passage is also opposed to <i>Ewald's</i> +explanation, "for justification,"—the only explanation among those mentioned to +which, it must be admitted, no philological objection can be raised. But the thought, +"The early rain an actual justification of Israel," would be rather strange, and +so much the more so, because the wrath of God had not manifested itself in a drought +and want of water, but rather in the sending of the army of locusts.</p> +<p class="normal">2. That the giving of the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מורה</span>, +in the first hemistich of the verse, must denote a divine blessing different from +the giving of the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מורה</span> in the second, is evident +for this reason:—that, otherwise, there would arise a somewhat meaningless tautology. +They who assigned to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מורה</span> in the first hemistich, +the signification of "rain in general," have felt how very unsuitable is the twofold +mention of the early rain. To this must be added the use of the <i>Fut.</i> with +<i>Vav convers.</i>, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ויורד</span>. By this form, +an action is denoted which <i>follows</i> from the preceding one; but according +to the current explanation, one and the same action would here be expressed, only +in different words. It cannot be denied, indeed, that the form occurs by no means +rarely in a weakened sense, and is used only to express a connection; and that for +this reason, this argument is not, <i>per se</i>, conclusive. Yet the original signification +so generally holds, that we can abandon it only for distinct and forcible reasons. +In addition to this, it must be considered that the addition of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גשם</span> to the second +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מורה</span> distinctly marks out the latter as being +different in its meaning from the former. It must also be kept in mind that it is +one of the peculiarities of Joel to use the same words and phrases, after brief +intervals, in a different sense; compare <i>Credner's</i> remarks on ii. 20, iii. +5.</p> +<p class="normal">3. The explanation by "Teacher" is far more obvious for the reason +that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מורה</span> always occurs with the signification +of "teacher" (even in Ps. lxxxiv. 7, where the right translation is: "With blessing +also the teacher covereth himself"), and never with that of "rain," or "early rain." +This is rather the meaning of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יורה</span>; and the +verb also never occurs in <i>Hiphil</i>, as it does in <i>Kal</i>, with the signification +"to sprinkle," "to water." <span class="pagenum">[Pg 328]</span> By this we are +led to the supposition that Joel, in the second hemistich, made use of the uncommon +form <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מורה</span> with the meaning of "early rain," +solely on account of the resemblance of the sound to the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מורה</span> occurring immediately before, with its +usual signification; and that, at the same time, he added +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גשם</span> for the purpose of avoiding ambiguity. +What serves to confirm this supposition, is the circumstance that Jeremiah, alluding +to the passage under consideration, has, in chap. v. 24, put +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יורה</span> in the place of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מורה</span>; which proves that the second +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מורה</span> in Joel ii. 23 has originated only from +its connection with the first, which is altogether wanting in Jeremiah.</p> +<p class="normal">4. A causal connection, similar to that which exists here betwixt +the sending of the Teacher of righteousness and the pouring out of the rain, occurs +also in that passage of the Pentateuch which the prophet seems to have had in view, +viz., Deut. xi. 13, 14: "And it shall come to pass, <i>if ye shall hearken unto +my commandments</i> which I command you this day, that ye love the Lord your God, +and serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul, that I will give you the +rain of your land in due season, the first rain and the latter rain (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יורה +ומלקוש</span>), and thou shalt gather in thy corn, and thy must, and thine oil." +Here, as well as there, the righteousness of the people is the <i>antecedens</i>; +the divine mercies and blessings are the <i>consequens</i>. Since the former does +not exist, God begins the course of His mercies by sending Him who calls it forth. +This remark removes, at the same time, the objection, that the mention of the Teacher +of righteousness is unsuitable in a connection where the prophet speaks of temporal +blessings only, and rises to spiritual blessings only afterwards, in chap. iii. +There existed for the Covenant-people no benefits which were purely temporal; these +were always, at the same time, signs and pledges of the divine favour, which depended +upon the righteousness of the people, and this, in turn, upon the divine mission +of a Teacher of righteousness.</p> +<p class="normal">5. The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בראשון</span> is also in +favour of our explanation. It stands in close relation to +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אחרי־כן</span> in chap. iii. 1, ii. 28. The sending +of the Teacher of righteousness has two consequences;—<i>first</i>, the pouring +out of the temporal rain—an individualizing designation of every kind of outward +blessings, and chosen with a reference to the passage of the Pentateuch which we +have just <span class="pagenum">[Pg 329]</span> cited, but with special reference +to the description of the calamity, under the figure of a devastation by locusts;—and, +<i>secondly</i>, the outpouring of the spiritual rain—the sending of the Holy Ghost. +It needs only the pointing out of this reference, which has been overlooked by interpreters,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_329a" href="#ftn_329a">[2]</a></sup> +to set aside the manifold and different explanations of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בראשון</span> which are, all of them, unphilological, +or give an unsuitable sense.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_329b" href="#ftn_329b">[3]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal">But if any doubt should still remain, it would be removed by a +parallel passage in Isaiah, which depends upon the text under review, in a manner +not to be mistaken, and which, therefore, must be regarded as the oldest commentary +upon it. Isaiah is describing the condition of the people subsequent to their having +obtained mercy, after a long time of deep misery, in chap. xxx 20: "And the Lord +gives you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction; and then thy <i>teacher</i> +(<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוריך</span> is <i>singular</i>) shall no longer +hide himself, and thine eyes shall see thy teacher; Ver. 21: And thine ears hear +a word behind thee, This is the way, walk ye in it; do not turn to the right hand, +nor to the left." Accordingly, after they have put away what was evil, ver. 22: +"The Lord giveth the rain of thy seed, with which thou sowest thy land," etc., ver. +23. The teacher is not a human teacher, but God. <i>Human</i> teachers had not concealed +themselves; but that the Lord had concealed Himself, is affirmed in the preceding +verses. The words, "Behind thee" (ver. 21), suggest the idea of a teacher of such +a glory that they could not look in his face (compare Rev. i. 10); and the words, +"Thine eyes see thy teacher," ver. 20, imply the idea of the high majesty of the +teacher, and suggest the idea of a revelation of the glory of the Lord; compare +Is. xl. 5, lii. 8. The Lord must first manifest Himself as a Teacher, before He +appears as a Saviour. In Isaiah, the Lord Himself appears as the Teacher; as also +in Hos. x. 12: "It is time to seek the Lord, till He <span class="pagenum">[Pg 330]</span> +come and teach you righteousness;" while in Joel, on the contrary, it is the Lord +who giveth the Teacher. Both may be reconciled by the consideration, that in the +Teacher whom the Lord gives, the glory of the Lord becomes manifest.</p> +<p class="normal">It now only remains to inquire who is to be understood by the +Teacher of righteousness. (Teacher of righteousness is equivalent to: "Teaching +them how they should fear the Lord," 2 Kings xvii. 28.) It is referred to the Messiah, +not only by almost all those Christian interpreters who follow this explanation, +with the exception of <i>Grotius</i>, who conjectures that Isaiah or some other +prophet is to be thereby understood; but also, after the example of <i>Jonathan</i>, +by several Jewish commentators; <i>e.g.</i>, <i>Abarbanel</i>, who says: "This teacher +of righteousness, however, is the King Messiah, who will show the way in which we +must walk, and the works which we must do." Even on account of the article, it is +not possible to refer it to a single human teacher; and this argument may, at the +same time, be added to those which oppose the explanation of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מורה</span> by "an early rain." There can be only +the choice betwixt the Messiah as the long promised Teacher +<span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν</span>, and the <i>ideal</i> teacher,—the +collective body of all divine teachers. But the latter view requires to be somewhat +raised, before it can be allowed to enter into the competition. That we have not +here before us an ordinary collective body, is shown by the parallel passage in +Isaiah, according to which the glory of the Lord is to be manifested in the Teacher. +And this is as little applicable to a plurality of human teachers, as to a single +individual. It is <i>further</i> proved by the fundamental passage in Deut. xviii. +18, 19, where, indeed, the prophetic order is comprehended in an <i>ideal</i> person. +This, however, has its reason only in the circumstance, that the idea of prophetism +was, at some future time, to find its realization in a <i>real</i> person. It is +<i>further</i> seen from the state of the Messianic hopes at the time of Joel, and +from the exceeding greatness of what is here connected with the appearance of the +Teacher of righteousness. In addition to the allusion in Gen. xlix. 10 and Deut. +xviii., the Messiah appears as a Teacher in the Song of Solomon also, chap. viii. +2; and in Is. lv. 4: "Behold, I give Him for a witness to the people, for a prince +and a lawgiver to the people;" as also in those passages of the second part of Isaiah, +in which He is declared to be the Prophet <span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν</span>. +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 331]</span> When thus understood, the explanation of the +<i>ideal</i> teacher may be preferable to the reference to Christ exclusively. In +favour of such a reference, there is the comprehensive character and the <i>ideal</i> +import which are, in general, peculiar to the prophecies of Joel. Such a reference +is, moreover, favoured by the expression itself, which points out only that which +Christ has in common with the former servants of God, viz., the teaching of righteousness, +and especially by a comparison with the fundamental passages, Deut. xviii.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_325a" href="#ftnRef_325a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> The English version has "a teacher of righteousness," + as a marginal reading.—Tr.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_329a" href="#ftnRef_329a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> Since the appearance of the first edition + of this work, it has been acknowledged also by <i>Ewald</i>, <i>Meier</i>, and + <i>Umbreit</i>.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_329b" href="#ftnRef_329b"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[3]</sup></a> <i>Hitzig</i> explains it: "In the first month." + But altogether apart from the consideration that it is only in a chronological + connection that "in the first" can stand for "in the first <i>month</i>," this + explanation is objectionable on the ground that the early rain and the latter + rain cannot, by any means, belong to the same month. There is the less difficulty + in explaining it by "first," as <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בראשונה</span> + undeniably occurs, several times, in this signification; compare, <i>e.g.</i>, + Zech. xii. 7.</p> +</div> +<hr class="W20"> +<h3><a name="div3_331" href="#div3Ref_331">EXPOSITION OF CHAP. III. (II. 28-32.)</a></h3> +<p class="normal">Ver. 1. "<i>And it shall come to pass, afterwards, I will pour +out My Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy; your +old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The communication of the Spirit of God was the constant prerogative +of the Covenant-people. Indeed, the very idea of such a people necessarily requires +it. For the Spirit of God is the only inward bond betwixt Him and that which is +created; a Covenant-people, therefore, without such an inward connection, is an +impossibility. As a constant possession of the Covenant-people, the Spirit of God +appears in Isaiah lxiii. 11, where the people, in the condition of the deepest abandonment, +say, in the remembrance of the divine mercies, "Where is He that put His Holy Spirit +within him?" But it was peculiar to the nature of the Old Testament dispensation, +that the effusion of the Spirit of God was less rich. His effects less powerful, +and a participation in them less general. It was only after God's relation to the +world had been changed by the death of Christ that the Spirit of <i>Christ</i> could +be bestowed,—a higher power of the Spirit of God, standing to Him in the same relation +as the Angel of the Lord to the incarnate Word. The conditions of the bestowal of +the Holy Spirit were, under the Old Testament, far more difficult to obtain. The +view of Christ in His historical personality, in His life, suffering, and death, +was wanting. God, although infinitely nearer to the Jews than to the Gentiles, yet +ever remained a God relatively <span class="pagenum">[Pg 332]</span> distant. Since +the procuring cause of the mercy of God—the merit of Christ—was not yet so clearly +seen, it was far more difficult to lay hold of it, and the by-path of legalism was +far nearer. It was thus only upon a few—especially upon the prophets—that the direct +possession of the Spirit of God was concentrated; while the greater number, even +among those of a better disposition, enjoyed a spiritual life derived only from +a union with them, and hence it was less strong. It arose from the nature of the +case that, at some future time, there must take place a richer and more powerful +effusion of the Spirit of God; and it was just for this reason that it was the desire +of Moses, that such might take place, and that the whole people might prophesy. +Num. xi. 29, besides expressing such a desire, is, at the same time, a prophecy. +He wished nothing else than that the people of God might attain to such a degree +as to realize the idea of a people of God; and this must come to pass at some future +time, because the omnipotent and faithful God could not leave His work unfinished. +But Moses himself immediately subjoins the prophecy to the wish, as a clear proof, +that behind the wish the prophecy is concealed: "Would God that all the Lord's people +were prophets! for the Lord will give His Spirit upon them," etc.; which is equivalent +to: "At some future time, the whole people of the Lord shall be prophets, not against, +but agreeably to, my wish; for," etc. It is this promise of Moses which is here +resumed by Joel, with whom, subsequently. Is. in chap. xxxii. 15, "Until the Spirit +be poured upon us from on high;" chap. xi. 9, liv. 13; Jer. xxxi. 33, 34; Ezek. +xxxvi. 26 ff., and Zech. xii. 10, connect themselves. The ultimate reference of +the promise is to the Messianic time; but the reference to the preparatory steps +must not, for this reason, be by any means excluded. The announcement of the pouring +out of the Spirit rests upon the insight into the nature of God's relation to His +kingdom. God's judgments, in which He draws near to His people, in which the abstract +God becomes a concrete God, excite in the people a longing for a union with Him. +Teachers sent by God give a right direction to this longing, and then an outpouring +of the Spirit takes place. This proceeding does, and must continually, repeat itself +in the history of the Covenant-people. The perfect fulfilment at the time of Christ +could <span class="pagenum">[Pg 333]</span> not at all have taken place, unless +the imperfect fulfilment had already pervaded their whole earlier history; and that +there is, in the prophecy under consideration, no reference at all to such imperfect +fulfilments, could be maintained only, if there existed in the text any hint that +the prophet intended to speak of only the last realization of the idea. But as the +exclusion of all the preliminary stages is entirely arbitrary, it is just as arbitrary +to separate, from the events which make up the main fulfilment in the Messianic +time, one particular event, viz., that which took place on the first day of Pentecost. +It is only to a certain extent that we can affirm that the prophecy found its final +fulfilment in this event, viz., in as far as it formed the pledge of it,—in as far +as the whole succeeding development and progress were already contained in it,—in +as far as Joel's prophecy in words was then changed into an infinitely more powerful +prophecy in deeds. It is from overlooking the relation of the prophecy to the thought +which animates it, and from the error arising from this, viz., that the fulfilment +must necessarily fall within a particular, limited period, that the various opposite +interpretations had their rise (compare the copious enumeration and representation +of these in <i>Dresde</i>, <i>Comparatio Joelis de Effusione Spir. S. vatic. c. +Petrina interpret.</i> <i>Wittemb.</i> 1782, <i>Spec.</i> 2), all of which are partially +true, and are false only by their one-sidedness and exclusiveness. 1. Several interpreters +think of an event at the time of Joel. Thus Rabbi <i>Moses Hakkohen</i>, according +to <i>Abenezra</i>, <i>Teller</i> on <i>Turrettine de interpret.</i> p. 59, <i>Cramer</i> +on the <i>Scythische Denkmäler</i>, p. 221.—2. Others insist on an exclusive reference +to the first Pentecost. Thus do almost all the Fathers of the Church—among whom, +however, <i>Jerome</i> (on Joel iii. 1) felt the great difficulties in the way of +this view, arising from the context—and most of the later Christian interpreters.—3. +Others would refer it at the same time to the events in Joel's time, and to those +at the first Pentecost. Of this opinion are <i>Ephraem Syr.</i>, <i>Grotius</i>, +and <i>Turrettine</i>.—4. Others place the fulfilment altogether in the future. +Thus did the Jews as early as in the time of <i>Jerome</i>, and afterwards Jarchi, +Kimchi, and Abarbanel.—5. Others, finally, find in the first Pentecost the beginning +only of the fulfilment, and regard it as pervading the whole Christian time. Thus, +<i>e.g.</i>, <i>Calovius</i> (<i>Bibl. illustr. ad. h. l.</i>) says: "Although +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 334]</span> that prophecy began to be fulfilled in a remarkable +manner on that feast of the Pentecost, yet its reference is not to that solemn event +only, but to the whole state of these last, or New Testament times, <i>just after +the manner of other general promises</i>." These last words show that <i>Calovius</i> +was very near the truth. But if the promise be a general one, by what are we entitled +to place the beginning of its fulfilment only at the times of the New Testament, +and to exclude all of that same gift which God bestowed in Old Testament times? +The insufficiency of the foundation for such a limitation in the text itself is +proved by the following confession of <i>Dresde</i> (l. c. p. 8), who even believes +himself obliged to defend such a limitation from the authority of the Apostle Peter, +and to whom it did not at all occur, that any other reference than to some particular +event was even possible: "It appears, therefore," he says, "that the prophecy, considered +in itself, is so expressed, that no one, except the first author of the prophecy, +will be able convincingly to define the exact event to which it really refers." +We shall afterwards see that the testimony of the New Testament to which <i>Dresde</i> +here alludes, does not by any means demand such a limitation. We have seen that +Joel points to a fourfold oppression of Israel by the world's power. The <i>main</i> +fulfilment we must then expect at the time of the fourth; but this can scarcely +be the first fulfilment; for we cannot imagine that the former calamities should +have passed over the people altogether without effect; and the divine gift of the +Spirit goes always hand in hand with the susceptibility of the people. By proving +that fourfold oppression, we have also furnished the proof that the prophecy of +the outpouring of the Spirit has a comprehensive character.—From the already established +reference of the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אחרי־כן</span> to the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בראשון</span> in chap. ii. 23, it is obvious that +it is not so much a determination of the succession of time, as of a succession +in point of importance, which is thereby given. Among the two effects of the mission +of the Teacher of righteousness, first, the lower, and then, the higher, presents +itself to the view of the prophet. The determination of time is not the essential +point; that serves only to illustrate the internal relation of these two events, +the gradation of these divine blessings; although we are able to demonstrate that, +even as regards time, the prophecy was fulfilled in this order. For after the destruction +by the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 335]</span> Chaldeans, the temporal blessings were +restored to the people, before the main fulfilment of the promise of the outpouring +of the Holy Spirit took place; compare Ps. cvii. 33-42 with Joel ii. 25-27.—The +words, "I shall pour out," refer to the rain in ver. 23. The idea of copiousness, +opposed to the former scantiness, is indeed implied in it. Yet it must not be exclusively +considered; the qualities of the rain alluded to in ver. 24 ff.—viz., the quickening +of what was previously dead, the fructifying power—must not be overlooked.—The words, +"Upon all flesh," are, by most of the Jewish interpreters (<i>e.g.</i>, <i>Kimchi</i>, +<i>Abenezra</i>; compare <i>Lightfoot</i> and <i>Schöttgen</i> on Acts ii. 16, 17), +referred to the members of the Covenant-people only; but by the Christian interpreters, +whom even Abarbanel joins, to all men. So, still, does <i>Steudel</i> in the <i> +Tübinger Pfingst-Programm</i>, 1820, p. 11. But in this latter explanation, one +thing has been overlooked—as, among the older interpreters, has been well shown +by <i>Calvin</i>,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_335a" href="#ftn_335a">[1]</a></sup> +and among the more recent, by <i>Tychsen</i> (<i>progr. ad h. l.</i> p. 5)—viz., +that the subsequent words, "Your sons, your daughters, your old men, your young +men, the servants, the handmaids," contain a specification of the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בשר</span>; so that the <i>all</i>, by which it is +qualified, does not do away with the limitation to a particular people, but only +with the limits of sex, age, and rank, among the people themselves. The participation +of the Gentiles in the outpouring of the Holy Ghost did not, in the first instance, +come into consideration in this place, inasmuch as the threatening of punishment, +with which the proclamation of salvation is connected, had respect to the Covenant-people +only. <i>Credner</i> has been led into a strange error, by pressing the words +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כל־בושר</span> without any regard to the connection. +He imputes to the prophet the monstrous idea, that the Spirit of God, the fountain +of all which is good and great, well pleasing to God, and divine, is to be poured +out upon all animals also, even upon the locusts.—The foundation for the promise +of the Holy Spirit is formed by Gen. ii. 7, compared with i. 26. It supposes that +the spirit of man, as distinguished from all other living things +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 336]</span> on earth, is a breath from God.—There is here, +moreover, the same contrast betwixt <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בשר</span> and +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">רוח</span> as in Gen. vi. 3 and Is. xxxi. 3: "The +Egyptians are men, and not God; their horses are flesh, and not spirit." (Compare +other passages in <i>Gesenius'</i> <i>Thesaurus</i>, <i>s. v.</i> p. 249.) <i>Flesh</i>, +in this contrast, signifies human nature with respect to its weakness and helplessness; +the <i>spirit</i> is the principle of life and strength. As "your sons," etc., is +a specification of all flesh, so, the words, "They prophesy, they dream dreams, +they see visions," are a specification of: "I pour out My Spirit." From this, it +is evident that the particular gifts do not here come into consideration according +to their individual nature, but according to that essential character which is common +to them as effects of the Spirit of God. Hence it is obvious also, that we are not +at liberty to ask why it is just to the sons and daughters that the prophesying +is ascribed, etc. The prophet, whose object it is only to individualize and expand +the fundamental thought, <i>i.e.</i>, the universality of the effects of the Spirit, +chooses for this purpose the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_336a" href="#ftn_336a">[2]</a></sup> +because these are more obvious than the ordinary ones; and from among the extraordinary +ones, again, those which were common under the Old Testament; without thereby excluding +the others, or, as regards the real import, adding anything to the declaration, +"I will pour out My Spirit." This appears also from ver. 2, where, in reference +to the servants and handmaids, the expression returns to the former generality. +In distributing the gifts of the Spirit among the particular classes, the prophet +has been as little guided by any internal considerations, as, <i>e.g.</i>, Zechariah, +when in chap. ix. 17 he uses the words, "Corn maketh the young men grow up, and +must, the maids." The remark made by <i>Credner</i> and <i>Hitzig</i>, after the +example of <i>Tychsen</i>, that visions are ascribed to vigorous youth, but dreams +to feebler age, appears at once, from an examination of the historical +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 337]</span> instances, and from the comparison of Num. +xii. 6, to be unfounded. "Your sons and your daughters prophesy," etc., is equivalent +to: "Your sons and your daughters, your old men and your young men, prophesy, have +<i>divine</i> dreams (a limitation to such is implied in their being the effects +of the outpouring of the Spirit), and see visions;" and this again is equivalent +to: "They will enjoy the Spirit of God, with all His gifts and blessings." In this, +and in no other way, has the passage been constantly understood among the Jews. +If it had been otherwise, how could Peter have so confidently declared the events +on the feast of Pentecost, where there occurred neither dreams nor visions, to be +a fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel? It is implied, however, in the nature of the +case, that, in the principal fulfilments of the prophecy of Joel, the extraordinary +gifts of the Spirit should be accompanied by the ordinary ones; for the former are +the witnesses and means of the latter, although, at the same time, the basis also +on which they rest; so that times like those which are described in 1 Sam. iii. +1, where the Word of God is precious in the country, and there is no prophecy spread +abroad, must necessarily be poor in the ordinary gifts of grace also. It is not +in the essence, but only in the form of manifestation, that the extraordinary gifts +differ from the ordinary ones,—just as Christ's outward miracles differ from His +inward ones.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 2. "<i>And upon the servants also, and upon the handmaids, +I will pour out My Spirit in those days.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Credner</i> refers this to the Hebrew prisoners of war, living +as servants and handmaids among heathen nations, far away from the Holy Land. But +if the prophet had this in view, he must necessarily have expressed himself with +greater distinctness. Moreover, the relation to the preceding verse requires that, +as the difference of sex and age was there done away with, so no allowance should +here be made for the difference of rank. The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גם</span> +shows that the extension of the gifts of the Spirit even to servants and handmaids, +who, to the carnal eye, appeared to be unworthy of such distinction, is to be considered +as something unexpected and extraordinary. That there is very little correctness +in the assertion of <i>Credner</i>, that "there could have been scarcely any doubt +as regards the participation of the Hebrew <span class="pagenum">[Pg 338]</span> +slaves," is sufficiently shown by the fact, that Jewish interpreters have attempted, +in various ways, to lessen the blessing here promised to the servants and handmaids. +Even the translation of the LXX. by, <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐπὶ τοὺσ δούλουσ +μου καὶ ἐπὶ τὰσ δούλασ μου</span>, may be considered as such an attempt. In the +place of the servants of men, who appeared to them unworthy of such honour, they +put the servants of God. <i>Abarbanel</i> asserts that the Spirit of God here means +something inferior to the gift of prophecy, which is bestowed only upon the free +people. Instead of regarding the Spirit of God as the root and fountain of the particular +gifts mentioned in the preceding verse, he sees in Him only an isolated gift,—that +of an indefinite knowledge of God. But such a view is opposed even by the relation +of the words, "I will pour out My Spirit," in ver. 2, to the same words in ver. +1; and also by Is. xi. 2, where "Spirit of God" is likewise used in a general sense, +and comprehends within itself all that follows. It is not without design that the +fact is so prominently brought out in the New Testament, that the Gospel is preached +to the poor, and that God chooses that which is mean and despised in the eye of +the world. The natural man is always inclined to suppose that that which is esteemed +by the world must be so by God also. This is sufficiently evident from the deep +contempt of the Pharisees for the <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὄχλοι</span>; compare, +<i>e.g.</i>, John vii. 49.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 3. "<i>And I give wonders in the heavens, and on earth; blood, +and fire, and vapour of smoke.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The mercy bestowed upon the Congregation of God is accompanied +by the judgment upon her enemies. Since the Congregation has again become the object +of His favour, especially in consequence of the Holy Spirit being poured out upon +her, it cannot be but that He will protect her against the persecution of the world, +and avenge her upon it. In vers. 3 and 4, the <i>precursors</i> of the judgment +(<i>before</i> cometh, ver. 4) are described, and in chap. iv. throughout, the judgment +itself. There is here an allusion to an event of former times, and which is now +to be repeated on a larger scale, viz., the plagues inflicted upon Egypt in consequence +of the same law. The prophet had specially in view the passage, Deut. vi. 22: "And +the Lord gave signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon +all his household before our eyes."—The wonders are divided +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 339]</span> into those which are in heaven, and those +which are on earth; then those which are on earth are in this verse designated individually; +and afterwards, in ver. 4, those which are in heaven. With regard to the former, +many interpreters (the last of whom is <i>Credner</i>) understand by the "blood," +bloody defeats of the enemies of Israel; by "fire and smoke," their towns and habitations +consumed by fire. But this interpretation cannot be entertained. The very designation +by <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מופתים</span> indicates that we have here to think +of extraordinary phenomena of nature, the symbolical language of which is interpreted +by the evil conscience, which recognises in them the precursors of coming judgment. +This is confirmed also by the more particular statement of the signs in heaven, +in ver. 4; for the signs on earth must certainly be of the same class as these. +It is confirmed likewise by a comparison with the type of former times, which we +have pointed out; for it is from this, that the blood is directly taken. The first +plague is thus announced in Exod. vii. 17: "Behold, I smite with the rod in mine +hand upon the waters in the river, and they are turned into blood." <i>Jalkut Simeoni</i> +(in <i>Schöttgen</i>, p. 210) remarks: "The Lord brought blood upon the enemies +in Egypt: thus also shall it be in future times; for it is written, I will give +wonders, blood and fire." The same is the case as respects the fire. Exod. ix. 24: +"And there came hail, and <i>fire mingled</i> with the hail." It is more natural +to suppose that the prophet borrowed these features, as, in the former description +of the judgment upon Israel, the plague of the locusts lies at the foundation, and +as the contents of the following verse have likewise their prototype in those events. +Compare Exod. x. 21: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward +the heaven, and let there be darkness over the land of Egypt." That it is not real +blood which is here meant, but that only which, by its blood-red colour, reminds +of blood (comp. <i>e.g.</i>, "Waters red as blood," 2 Kings iii. 22), is shown by +the fundamental passage, Exod. vii. 17, where the water which had become red is +called simply blood; compare my work on <i>Egypt and the Books of Moses</i>, p. +106. Blood brings into view the shedding of blood; the fiery phenomena announce +that the fire of the anger of God, and the fire of war, will be enkindled; compare +remarks on i. 19, 20.—The word <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תימרות</span> requires +a renewed investigation. Interpreters <span class="pagenum">[Pg 340]</span> uniformly +explain it by "pillars,"—a signification which is altogether destitute of any foundation; +for the Chaldee <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תלרה</span>, to which they refer, +is not found with the signification "pillar." Such a meaning is quite inappropriate +in the single passage quoted by <i>Buxtorf</i>; the signification "smoke," or "cloud +of smoke," is necessarily required in that place. As little are we at liberty to +appeal to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תמר</span>, "palm," with which +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תימרה</span> has nothing at all to do. The +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">י</span>, which would be without any analogy if derived +from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תמר</span> (compare <i>Ewald</i> on <i>Song +of Sol.</i> iii. 6), requires the derivation from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +ימר</span>. The word <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תימרה</span> is a noun formed +from the 3d pers. <i>fem. Fut.</i> of this verb with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ה</span> affixed (compare, on these nouns, the remarks +on Hos. ii. 14, and my work on <i>Balaam</i>, p. 434), and, as to its form, it corresponds +exactly with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תמורה</span>, derived from the 3d <i> +fem. Fut.</i> of the verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מור</span>. There cannot +now be any doubt regarding the signification of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ימר</span>. +Is. lxi. 6, and Jer. ii. 11, where <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">המיר</span> and +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הימיר</span> occur in the same verse, show that it +corresponds entirely with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מור</span>. Hence <i>Ewald</i> +(l. c.) is wrong in identifying it with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אמר</span>, +the alleged meaning of which is "to be high." Now in Hebrew, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מור</span> and <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ימר</span> +occur only in the derived signification of "to transform," "to change," "to exchange;" +but the primary signification is furnished by the Arabic, where it means: <i>huc +illuc latus, agitatus fuit,—-fluctuavit.</i> (Compare the thorough demonstration +by <i>Scheid</i>, <i>ad cant. Hisk.</i> p. 159 sqq.) +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תימרות</span> can accordingly signify only "clouds" +or "<i>vortices</i>." (In Arabic, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מור</span> means +"dust agitated by the wind.") The connection of this signification with that of +"<i>palpehrae</i>," "eye-lids," in which it occurs in the Talmudic and Rabbinical +languages, is very obvious. They were so called from their continual motion hither +and thither. Such a connection, however, we must the more easily be able to prove, +because that Talmudic and Rabbinical use of the word cannot be derived from any +other root than an ancient Hebrew one. The <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἀτμίς</span> +of the LXX. likewise leads to our interpretation, rather than to the prevailing +one. The former is, in the only passage in which <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +תימרות</span> occurs, besides the one under consideration, and where it likewise +occurs in the connection with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עשן</span>, viz., in +Song of Sol. iii. 6, at least as suitable as the latter. We have to think here of +such phenomena as those which are described in Exod. xix. 18: "And Mount Sinai was +altogether on a smoke, because the Lord had descended upon <span class="pagenum"> +[Pg 341]</span> it in fire, and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace." +Here, as well as there, the fire, and the accompanying smoke, represent, in a visible +manner, the truth that God is <span lang="el" class="Greek">πῦρ καταναλισκον</span>, +Heb. xii. 29. The clouds of smoke are the sad forerunners of the clouds of smoke +of the divine judgments upon the enemies, and of the fire of war, in the form of +which the former commonly appear. Compare Is. ix. 18, 19: "And they mount up like +the lifting up of smoke.... And the people became as the fuel of fire; no man spareth +his brother." The belief—which pervades all antiquity—that the angry Deity announced +the breaking in of judgments through the symbolical language of nature, is very +remarkable. This belief cannot be a mere delusion, but must have a deep root in +the heart. Nature is the echo and the reflection of the disposition of man. If there +prevail within him a fearful expectation of things to come, because he feels his +own sin, and that of his people, all things external harmonize with that expectation; +and, most of all, that which is the natural image and symbol of divine punitive +justice, which would not, however, be acknowledged as such, were it not for the +interpreting voice within. Having regard to this relation of the mind to nature, +God, previous to great catastrophes, often causes those precursors of them to appear +more frequently and vividly, than in the ordinary course of nature. In a manner +especially remarkable, this took place previous to the destruction of Jerusalem. +Compare <i>Josephus</i>, <i>d. Bell. Jud.</i> iv. 4, 5. "For during the night, a +fearful storm arose,—there arose boisterous winds with the most violent showers, +continual lightnings and awful thunders, and tremendous noises, while the earth +was shaken. It was, however, quite evident that the condition of the universe was +put into such disorder for the destruction of men, and almost every one conjectured +that these were the signs of impending calamity." A great number of other signs +and precursors are mentioned by him in <i>B. J.</i> vi. 5, § 3. These will never +be altogether absent, as certainly as punishment never comes without sin, and sin +never exists without the consciousness, without the expectation, of deserved judgment. +But the chief point in this mode of viewing things, is not the sign itself, but +the disposition of mind which interprets it,—the consciousness of guilt, which fills +the soul with the thought of an avenging God,—the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 342]</span> +<i>condition of filings which brings into view the infliction of the judgment.</i> +It is by this that we can account for the circumstance that; in the Old Testament, +the darkening of the sun and moon, and other things, frequently appear as <i>direct +images</i> of sad and heavy times.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 4. "<i>The sun is turned into darkness, and the moon into +blood, before there cometh the great and terrible day of the Lord.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Among all interpreters, <i>Calvin</i> has given the most admirable +interpretation of this verse: "When the prophet says that the sun shall be turned +into darkness, and the moon into blood, these are metaphorical expressions, by which +he indicates that the Lord will show signs of His wrath to all the ends of the earth, +as if a whole revolution of nature were to take place, in order that men may be +stirred up by terror. For, as sun and moon are witnesses of God's fatherly kindness +towards us, as long as, in their changes, they provide the earth with light, so +will they, on the other hand, says the prophet, be the messengers of the angry and +offended God.—By the darkness of the sun, by the bloody appearance of the moon, +by the black cloud of smoke, the prophet intended to express the idea, that wheresoever +men should turn their eyes, upwards or downwards, many things would appear to fill +them with terror. Hence the language of the prophet amounts to this:—that never +had the state of things in the world been so miserable,—that never had there appeared +so many and so terrible signs of the anger of God."—We have already seen that the +prophet has before his eye the Egyptian type. The darkness upon the whole land of +Egypt, while there was light in the dwellings of the Israelites, represented, in +a deeply impressive manner, the anger of God in contrast with His grace, of which +the symbol is the shining of His heavenly lights. The extinction of these is, in +Scripture, frequently the forerunner of coming divine judgments, or an image of +those which have been already inflicted; compare the remarks on Zech. xiv. 6. Thus +it has already occurred in the Book of Joel itself, in the description of the former +judgment; compare ii. 2: "Day of darkness and gloominess, day of clouds and mist;" +ii. 10: "Before Him quaketh the earth, and trembleth the heaven; the sun and the +moon mourn, and the stars withdraw their shining." Thus it returns in iv. +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 343]</span> 14, 15: "The day of the Lord is near in the +valley of judgment. The sun and the moon mourn, and the stars withdraw their shining." +The passages in which, as in the one before us, the extinction has not a <i>figurative</i>, +but a <i>typical</i> character, must not be limited to a single phenomenon. Everything +by which the brightness of the heavenly luminaries is clouded or darkened, eclipses +of the sun or moon, earthquakes, thunderstorms, etc., fill with fear those in whose +hearts the sun of grace has set.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 5. "<i>And it comes to pass, every one who calls on the name +of the Lord is saved; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be such as have escaped, +as the Lord hath said, and amongst those who are spared is whomsoever the Lord calleth.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">We must first determine the signification of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פליטה</span>. The greater number of interpreters +explain it by "deliverance;" but it means rather "that which has escaped." This +appears, 1. from the form. It is the fem. of the Adj. +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פליט</span>, the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">־־ִ־י</span> +of which has arisen from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">־־ֵ־</span> by means of +lengthening; hence it is that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פְלֵיטָה</span> is +thrice formed without <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">־־ִ־י</span>. It is, then, +an adjective of intransitive signification. Now it is true that, by means of the +feminine termination, adjectives are changed into abstract nouns, but never into +such as indicate an action; but always into such only for which, in Latin and Greek, +the neuter of the adjective might be used. This, however, is here inadmissible. +2. To this must be added the constant use; as in Is. xxxvii. 31, 32: "And <i>that +which has escaped</i> (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פליטת</span>) of the house +of Judah, the <i>remnant</i>, taketh root downward, and beareth fruit upward. For +out of Jerusalem shall go forth a <i>remnant</i> (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שארית</span>), +and <i>that which has escaped</i> out of Mount Zion,"—a passage exactly parallel +to the one under consideration (compare also the following words in Is. xxxvii. +32: "For the zeal of the Lord will do this," with "As the Lord hath said," here). +Is. iv. 2: "To that which has escaped," with which, "That which is left in Zion, +and that which remaineth in Jerusalem," in the following verse, is identical; Is. +x. 20: "The remnant (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שאר</span>) of Israel, and that +which has escaped of the house of Jacob;" Obad. ver. 17: "And upon Mount Zion shall +be that which has escaped,"—which forms an antithesis to ver. 9: "And man shall +be cut off from the Mount of Esau;" and <i>finally</i>—Gen. xxxii. 9 (8): "And the +camp which has been left is for <span class="pagenum">[Pg 344]</span> the escaped." +There does not thus remain a single passage in which the signification "deliverance" +is even the probable one. The passages in Jeremiah, where +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שריד ופליט</span> occur together (xlii. 17, xliv. +14; Lam. ii. 2), show that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פליטה</span> here is not +different from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שרידים</span> in the subsequent clause +of the verse.—The expression <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">קרא בשם יהוה</span> +never is used of a merely outward invocation, but always of such as is the external +expression of the faith of the heart; compare the remarks on Zech. xiv. 9. Even +on account of this stated condition, it is not possible to think of the deliverance +of the promiscuous multitude of Israel, in contrast with that of the Gentiles; for +the condition is one which is purely internal, and it affords an important hint +for the right understanding of what follows. The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +כי</span> by which it is connected remains inexplicable, if Mount Zion and Jerusalem +be considered as a place of safety and deliverance for all who are there externally. +The same thing is evident from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פליטה</span>. The +sense is not by any means that all the inhabitants of Zion and Jerusalem shall be +delivered; but that there shall be some who have escaped—viz., those who call on +the name of the Lord; while those who do not, shall be consumed by the divine judgment. +The second condition stated by the prophet—that of being called by the Lord—is in +like manner internal. The words <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אֲשֶׁר יְהוָֹה קֹרֵא</span> +have so evident a reference to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָא בְּשֵׁם +יְהוָה</span>, that we cannot at all suppose, as <i>Credner</i> does, that they +refer to other subjects. On the contrary, they who <i>call on</i> the Lord, are +also they whom <i>He calls</i> from the general calamity into His protecting presence; +and the prophet has endeavoured, by the choice of the words, to bring out into view +the close connection of these two parties. They who call on the Lord, and they whom +the Lord calls (<i>Maurer's</i> explanation: "And among those who have escaped is +every one who calls on the Lord" [compare Ps. xiv. 4], gives a very feeble tautology), +are the very same upon whom, according to vers, 1 and 2, the fulness of the Spirit +has been poured out.—The words, "As the Lord has said," indicate, that the faithful +ones may safely take comfort from this promise; inasmuch as it is not the word of +men, but of God. We may see, from such parallel passages as Is. i. 20, xiv. 5, lviii. +14, how little reason we have for thinking that the prophet here refers to some +other prophecy. That the prophet, and not the Lord Himself, is speaking in this +verse, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 345]</span> is evident from the words: "Who calls +on the name <i>of the Lord</i>." It was, therefore, very suitable to show, that +it was by Immediate, divine commission that the prophet had given utterance to the +consolatory promise, that the people of God would escape in these great and heavy +judgments which were to come upon the world. That it is very natural for believers +to fear that the punishments which threaten the world should fall upon them also +who are living <i>in</i> the world, is shown by Rev. vii., the aim of which is, +throughout, to allay the anxious fear which might arise in believers when considering +the judgments which threaten the world. The relation of the whole verse to what +precedes and follows is this:—In vers. 3 and 4, the prophet had stated the signs +and forerunners of the great and fearful day of the Lord. Now he points to the only, +and the absolutely sure means of standing on that day. Then, in chap. iv., which +is connected by <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span>, he describes the judgment +itself.</p> +<p class="normal">If, now, we endeavour to discover the historical reference of +vers. 3-5, we are met by a great variety of opinions. It is referred to the destruction +of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, by <i>Grotius</i>, <i>Cramer</i>, <i>Turrettine</i> +(<i>de Scrip, s. interpret.</i> p. 331); among the Socinians, in the <i>Raccovian +Catechism</i>, p. 22, and by <i>Oeder</i>; and among the Arminians, by <i>Episcopius</i> +in the <i>Instit. Theol.</i> p. 198. Others (as <i>Jerome</i>) think of the resurrection +of the Lord; others (as <i>Luther</i>) of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit; others +(as <i>Münster</i>, <i>Capell</i>, <i>Lightfoot</i>, <i>Dresde</i>, l.c. p. 22) +of the destruction by the Romans. It is referred to the judgment upon the enemies +of the Covenant-people soon after the return from the Babylonish captivity, by +<i>Ephraem Syrus</i>; to the impending overthrow of Gog, at the time of the Messiah, +by the Jewish interpreters; to the general judgment, by <i>Tertullian</i>, <i>Theodoret</i>, +and <i>Crusius</i>, In <i>Theol. Prophet.</i> i. p. 621; and to the destruction +of Jerusalem, and the general judgment at the same time, by <i>Chrysostom</i> and +others.</p> +<p class="normal">The great variety of these references has arisen solely from the +circumstance, that the prophecy has not been reduced to its fundamental idea. This +fundamental idea is:—The manifestation of God's punitive justice upon all which +is hostile to His kingdom, which runs parallel with the manifestation of His grace +towards the subjects of His kingdom. This idea appears here, in all its generality, +without any temporal limitation <span class="pagenum">[Pg 346]</span> whatsoever. +Not one of these interpretations, therefore, can be absolutely right. They differ +only in this, that some of them are altogether false, inasmuch as they assume a +reference to events which do not at all fall under the fundamental idea; while others +are only limited and partial views of the truth.</p> +<p class="normal">To the first of these classes belong evidently the references +to the resurrection, and to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. It is only by detaching +these verses from the following chapter that such a view could arise. These events +stand in no relation whatsoever to the animating thought of the passage. There is +a certain relation to that thought in the reference to the destruction by the Chaldeans, +in so far as this was really a manifestation of divine punitive justice. But the +reference to this event would be admissible here, only if the prophet were describing +the manifestation of divine punitive justice <i>in general</i>. But such is not +the case. The comparison of chap. i. and ii. shows that the subject of the prophecy +is rather the manifestation of divine justice in reference to those who are enemies +to the kingdom of God. The defenders of such a view have altogether misunderstood +the structure of the prophecy of Joel; for, otherwise, they would have seen that +that event belongs to the threatening of judgment in chap. i. and ii., where the +judgment upon the house of God is described; while, here, there is a description +of the judgment upon those who are without.</p> +<p class="normal">The same argument seems, at first sight, to apply also to the +destruction by the Romans. But on a closer examination, there appears to be a difference +betwixt these two events, and one which brings the latter far more within the scope +of the prophecy. The destruction by the Romans was much more intimately connected +with a total apostasy and rejection, than was that by the Chaldeans. Even before +the former destruction, and immediately after the death of Christ, the former Covenant-people +had sunk down to the rank of the Gentiles. They were no more apostate children, +who were, by means of punishment, to be brought to reformation, but enemies, who +were judged on account of their hostile disposition towards the kingdom of God. +Malachi, in chap. iii. 23 (iv. 5), shows that such a time would come when that, +which they imagined to be intended only for the heathen by descent, should be realized +upon Israel after the flesh. The verbal repetition of the words, "Before there +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 347]</span> cometh the great and dreadful day of the Lord," +and their application to the judgment upon Israel, can be accounted for only by +his intention to oppose the prevailing carnal interpretation of the prophecy under +consideration.</p> +<p class="normal">It will now be seen also, what the relation is which the phenomena +at the death of Christ, the darkening of the sun, the quaking of the earth, the +rending of the rocks (compare Matt. xxvii. 45, 51; Luke xxiii. 44), occupy to the +passage before us. They were like the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מופתים</span> +here, actual declarations of the divine wrath, and forerunners of the approaching +judgment; and they were recognised as such by the guilty, to whom this symbolical +language was interpreted by their consciences; compare Luke xxiii. 48: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">Καὶ πάντες οἱ συμπαραγενόμενοι ὄχλοι; ἐπὶ τὴν θεωρίαν +ταύτην, θεωροῦντες τὰ γενόμενα, τύπτοντες ἑαυτῶν τὰ στήθη, ὑπέστρεφον.</span></p> +<p class="normal">But we must not limit ourselves to the obduracy of the Covenant-people. +This we are taught, not only by the relation of chap. i. and ii. to iv. 2, but, +with especial distinctness, by the renewal of this threatening in Rev. xiv. 14-20, +where the image of the vintage and winepress, in particular, is borrowed from Joel; +see iv. 12, 13. The objects of judgment are there the heathen nations on account +of their hostility to the people of God, who, by Christ, and by the outpouring of +the Spirit procured by Him, have fully attained to that dignity. Nor is the judgment +there an isolated one. On the contrary, all which, in history, is realized in an +entire series of judicial acts, to be at last consummated in the final judgment, +is there comprehended in one great harvest—in one great vintage.</p> +<p class="normal">We have still to make a few remarks upon the quotation in Acts +ii. 16 ff. Nothing but narrow-mindedness and prejudice could deny that Peter found, +in the miracle of Pentecost, an actual fulfilment of the promise in vers. 1 and +2. This becomes probable, not only from the circumstance, that the reference of +this prophecy to the Messianic time was the prevailing one among the Jews (compare +the passages in <i>Schöttgen</i>, S. 413), but also from the translation of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אחרי־כן</span> by <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐν +ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις</span>, by which, in the New Testament, the Messianic time +is always designated. To this must also be added the express declaration in ver. +39, that the promise was unto the generation then present. How could Peter have +uttered such a declaration, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 348]</span> if his view had +been that the promise had found its fulfilment in a time long gone past? At the +same time, it is equally certain, that Peter was so far from considering all the +riches of the promise to be completely exhausted by that Pentecostal miracle, that +he rather considered it to be only a beginning of the fulfilment,—a beginning, indeed, +which implies the consummation, as the germ contains the tree. This is quite obvious +from ver. 38: <span lang="el" class="Greek">μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστοσ ὑμῶν.... +καὶ λήψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.</span> How could Peter, referring to +the prophecy, promise the gift of the Holy Spirit, promised in the prophecy to those +who should be converted, if the prophecy was already completely fulfilled? But it +is still more apparent from ver. 39: <span lang="el" class="Greek">Ὑμῖν γάρ ἐστιν +ἡ ἐπαγγελία καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν, καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς εἰς μακρὰν, ὄσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται +Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν.</span> The question is, who are to be understood by those +<span lang="el" class="Greek">εἰς μακρὰν</span>? No one could have doubted that +the Gentiles are thereby to be understood, unless two things altogether heterogeneous +had been confounded, viz., the uncertainty of Peter concerning the <i>fact</i> of +the reception of the Gentiles into the kingdom of God, and his uncertainty concerning +the <i>mode</i> of their reception. Considering the condition of the Old Testament +prophecy, the latter is easily accounted for; but the former cannot. To state only +one from among the mass of arguments which prove that Peter could not be ignorant +of the <i>fact</i>, we observe that the very manner in which, in Acts iii. 25, he +quotes the promise given to Abraham, that by his seed the nations should be blessed, +proves that he regarded the Gentiles as partakers of the kingdom of Christ. This +is rendered still more incontrovertible by the <span lang="el" class="Greek">πρῶτον</span> +in ver. 26. To understand, by <span lang="el" class="Greek">εἰς μακρὰν</span>, foreign +Jews, is inadmissible, for the single reason that these were present in great numbers, +and hence, were included in the term <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὑμῖν</span>. +Now Peter, throughout, addresses all those who were present. How then could he have +here confined himself, all at once, to a portion of these I There is, moreover, +a plain allusion to the close of Joel iii. 5, which the LXX. translate +<span lang="el" class="Greek">οὓς Κύριος προσκέκληται</span>. This allusion contains, +at the same time, a proof of the concurrent reference to the Gentiles, which is +not in express words contained in the prophecy, provided we do not put an arbitrary +interpretation upon <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בשר</span>. Attention is thereby +directed <span class="pagenum">[Pg 349]</span> to the fact, that, In that passage, +salvation, which requires, as its condition, a participation in the outpouring of +the Spirit, does not depend upon any human cause, but solely upon the call of God—upon +His free grace. In a manner entirely similar, does St Paul, in Rom. x. 12, 13, prove, +from the beginning of Joel iii. 5, the participation of the Gentiles in the Messianic +kingdom: <span lang="el" class="Greek">Οὐ γάρ ἐστι διαστολὴ Ἰουδαίου τε καὶ Ἕλληνος· +ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς Κύριος πάντων, πλουτῶν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους αὐτόν. Πᾶς γὰρ +ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου, σωθήσεται.</span> If the calling on God were +the condition of salvation, access to it was as free to the Gentiles as to the Jews. +But if the prophecy has a distinct reference to the still unconverted Jews, their +children and the Gentiles, it is then evident, that, according to the view of the +Apostle, it did not terminate in that one instance of Its fulfilment, but that, +on the contrary, it extends just as far as the thing promised—as the outpouring +itself of the Holy Spirit. This clearly appears, also, from the allusions to the +passage under consideration. In the accounts of later outpourings of the Spirit; +compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Acts x. 45, xi. 15, xv. 8. How, then, was it even possible +that Peter should have limited to the few who had already, at that time, received +the Spirit, a prophecy, in which the idea of generality is, intentionally, made +so prominent? But, even if the universal character of the prophecy had been less +distinct, Peter would certainly not have thought of confining it in such a manner. +Such a gross and superficial view of the prophecies was far from Peter, as well +as from the other Apostles.</p> +<p class="normal">Another question remains to be answered. For what purpose does +the Apostle quote verses 3-5 also, inasmuch as, apparently, verses 1 and 2 alone +properly served his purpose; and what sense did he put upon them? The answer Is +given In ver. 40: <span lang="el" class="Greek">Ἑτέροις τε λόγοις πλείοσι διεμαρτύρετο, +καὶ παρεκάλει, λέγων· Σώθητε ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς τῆς σκολιᾶς ταύτης.</span> Even in the +few words In which Luke communicates to us the brief summary of what Peter spoke +In this respect, a reference to the passage under consideration has been preserved +to us. Peter made use of the threatening which was, in the first Instance, to be +fulfilled upon the dark refuse of the Covenant-people, In order to Induce them, +by terror, to seek a participation in the promise which alone could deliver them +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 350]</span> from the threatened judgment. That he succeeded +in this, is shown by the words, <span lang="el" class="Greek">Ἐγένετο δὲ πάσῃ φόβος</span>, +in ver. 43. Several interpreters have, by ver. 22, been led into a total misconception +of the sense in which Peter quotes vers. 3-5. It is true, certainly, that the words +<span lang="el" class="Greek">τέρασι καὶ σημείοις</span> are not used without reference +to the passage in Joel. Peter directs attention to the circumstance, that they who, +from their hardness of heart, do not acknowledge the +<span lang="el" class="Greek">τέρατα</span> and <span lang="el" class="Greek">σημεῖα</span> +with which God accompanied the manifestation of His grace, shall be visited by +<span lang="el" class="Greek">τέρατα</span> and <span lang="el" class="Greek">σημεῖα</span> +of a totally different nature, from the fearful impression of which they shall not +be able to escape.</p> +<p class="normal">But let us now in addition consider some of the particulars. In +substance, the quotation by Peter agrees with the LXX.; but deviations occur on +particular points. At the very beginning, the LXX., adhering more closely to the +Hebrew text, have: <span lang="el" class="Greek">καὶ ἔσται μετὰ ταῦτα</span>; whereas +Peter says: <span lang="el" class="Greek">καὶ ἔσται ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις.</span> +The reason of this deviation is, that the Apostle intends to determine, by this +deviation, the expression, which in itself is wider and more indefinite, in such +a manner that the period to which the prophecy specially refers, and hence also +its application to the case in question, should be rendered more obvious. In a case +entirely similar, Jeremiah, in chap. xlix. 6, employs the wider term +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אחרי־כן</span>, while in xlviii. 47 he makes use +of the more definite <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">באחרית הימים</span>. By the +latter term, <i>Kimchi</i> also explains the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אחרי־כן</span> +in the passage before us; while <i>Jarchi</i> (compare <i>Schöttgen</i>, S. 210) +explains it by the equivalent term <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לעתיד לבא</span>. +The words <span lang="el" class="Greek">λέγει ὁ Θεός</span> are wanting in the LXX., +as well as in the original Hebrew text. They have been taken from ver. 5, and, contrasted +with <span lang="el" class="Greek">τὸ εἰρημένον διὰ τοῦ προφήτου Ἰωήλ</span>, they +direct attention to the divine source of prophecy, and hence to the necessity of +its fulfilment. The two members, <span lang="el" class="Greek">καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι +ὑμῶν ἐνύπνια ἐνυπνιασθήσονται, καὶ οἱ νεανίσκοι ὑμῶν ὀράσεις ὄψονται</span>, Peter +has reversed; probably in order to place the young men together with the sons and +daughters, and to assign the place of honour to the old men. In the +<span lang="el" class="Greek">δούλους μου</span> and +<span lang="el" class="Greek">δούλας μου</span>, Peter follows the LXX., and that +in a sense which only expressly makes prominent a point really contained in the +prophecy, whether such was intended by the translators, or not; for the circumstance +that the servants of men were, at the same <span class="pagenum">[Pg 351]</span>time, +servants of God, formed the ground of their participation in the promise. The same +contrast is found, <i>e.g.</i>, in 1 Cor. vii. 22, 23: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">Ὁ γὰρ ἐν Κυρίῳ κληθεὶς δοῦλος ἀπελεύθερος Κυρίου ἐστίν· +ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ ἐλεύθερος κληθεὶς, δοῦλός ἐστι Χριστοῦ. Τιμῆς ἠγοράσθητε· μὴ γίνεσθε +δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων</span>; compare Gal. iii. 28; Philem. 10. Hence it is equivalent +to: Upon servants and handmaids of men who are, at the same time, my servants and +handmaids, and, therefore, in spiritual things of equal rank with those who are +free. To give prominence to this perfect equality, is also the design of the additional +clause: <span lang="el" class="Greek">καὶ προφητεύσουσι</span>, subjoined after +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματός μου.</span> The circumstance +that Peter thought it necessary to add this clause, which, as we have proved, quite +harmonizes with the design of the prophet, seems to prove that, even at his time, +interpretations were current, in which an attempt was made to diminish, or altogether +to take away, in the case of servants and handmaids, their participation in those +blessings;—interpretations similar to those of <i>Abarbanel</i>, and even of <i> +Grotius</i>, who thus paraphrases the verse: "Even to those who seem to be lowest, +I will certainly impart, although not prophesying and dreaming dreams, yet certain +extraordinary and heavenly motions." The antiquity of this false interpretation +is attested by <i>Jerome</i> also, who probably was, in this respect, altogether +dependent upon his Jewish teachers. He interprets, indeed, the servants and handmaids +spiritually, and of such as have not the spirit of freedom he says: "They shall +neither have prophecies, nor dreams nor visions, but, satisfied with the outpouring +of the Holy Spirit, they shall possess only the grace of faith and salvation."—In +ver. 3, Peter adds <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἄνω</span> to +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ</span>, and +<span lang="el" class="Greek">κάτω</span> to <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐπὶ τῆς +γῆς</span>, in order to make the contrast more obvious and striking. All the deviations +from the LXX., and the original text, are thus of the same kind, and intended to +bring out more distinctly what is implied in the passage itself. Not one of them +need to be accounted for by the circumstance, that the Apostle quoted from memory.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_335a" href="#ftnRef_335a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> He says: "The sense in which the universality + must be understood is clearly indicated by what follows. For, it is first said, + in general, 'All flesh,' and afterwards, a specification is added, by which + the prophet intimates, that age or sex will not constitute any difference, but + that God will bring them all, without any distinction, into the communion of + His grace."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_336a" href="#ftnRef_336a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> The two parallel members prove, in opposition + to <i>Redslob</i> and others, that the verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נבא</span> + here, as everywhere else, has reference to an ecstatic condition, to the speaking + in the Spirit, although this is by no means limited to a revelation of the future. + The closeness of the connection between prophesying, dreaming dreams, and seeing + visions, is evident from Num. xii. 6, where visions and dreams appear as the + two principal forms of revelation to the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נביא</span>.</p> +</div> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 352]</span></p> +<h2><a name="div2_352" href="#div2Ref_352">THE PROPHET AMOS.</a></h2> +<h3><a name="div3_352" href="#div3Ref_352">GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">It will not be necessary to extend our preliminary remarks on +the prophet Amos, since on the main point—viz., the circumstances under which he +appeared as a prophet—the introduction to the prophecies of Hosea may be regarded +as having been written for those of Amos also. For, according to the inscription, +they belong to the same period at which Hosea's prophetic ministry began, viz., +the latter part of the reign of Jeroboam II., and after Uzziah had ascended the +throne in Judah.</p> +<p class="normal">The circumstances of the prophet we learn, generally, from the +words in chap. i. 1: "Who was among the herdmen of Tekoah." If there existed no +other statement than this, there might be truth in the remark made by many interpreters, +that we cannot, from his having been a herdman, infer that he was poor and low. +It is shown, however, by a statement in chap. vii. 14, that, by the "herdman," we +are not to understand one who was also possessed of flocks, or, like David, the +son of such, but a poor servant herdman. For, in that passage, the prophet replies +to the command of the priest Amaziah to get himself out of the country, to which +he did not belong, and to return to his native land: "I am no prophet, nor the son +of a prophet, but I am a herdman; and <i>such an one as plucketh sycamores</i>. +And the Lord took me from behind the flock, and the Lord said unto me. Go prophesy +unto My people Israel." The fruit of the sycamores, called +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἄτροφος</span> and <span lang="el" class="Greek">κακοστόμαχος</span> +by <i>Dioscorides</i>, served as food for only the poorest and meanest. <i>Bochart</i> +(<i>Hieroz.</i> t. i. p. 407 [385] <i>Rosenmüller</i>) remarks: "It is the same +as if he had said, that he was a man of the humblest condition, and born in poor +circumstances, so that he scarcely maintained his life by scanty and frugal fare; +that he had never thought of obtaining the prophetical office in Israel, until a +higher power, viz., divine inspiration, impelled him to undertake it."<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_352a" href="#ftn_352a">[1]</a></sup> +But this passage merits our attention in another <span class="pagenum">[Pg 353]</span> +point of view. In what sense is it that Amos here denies that he is a prophet? It +is evidently in a very special sense that he does so. He obviously does not mean +thereby to deny that he possessed the gift of prophecy, or held the prophetical +office; for, otherwise, he would himself have furnished weapons to his enemy, to +whom he wishes to prove his right. The following remarks will be found to contain +the true answer.</p> +<p class="normal">It cannot be proved in any way, that the schools of the prophets, +established by Samuel at a time when the circumstances of Judah and Israel were +altogether similar, were continued in the kingdom of Judah. Every prophet there +stands in an isolated position. The entire prophetic order and institute bears rather +a sporadic character. But in the kingdom of Israel, where the prophetic order occupied +a position altogether different from that which it held in the kingdom of Judah, +inasmuch as, after the expulsion of the tribe of Levi, they had to watch over all +the interests of religion, the schools of the prophets had a very important mission +assigned to them. We must not by any means imagine that their constitution was such, +that after a few years' training, the sons of the prophets attained to perfect independence. +The greater number of them remained during all their lifetime in the position of +sons. The schools of the prophets were a kind of monasteries. Even those who, in +consequence of their peculiar circumstances, no longer remained there, but were +scattered throughout the country, continued always under their authority. One needs +only to read attentively the histories of Elijah and of Elisha, which afford us +the fullest information regarding these institutions, to be speedily convinced of +the soundness of the view which we have here presented. On the subject of the organization +of the schools of the prophets in the kingdom of Israel, compare <i>Dissertations +on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch</i>, i. p. 185. f.</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 354]</span></p> +<p class="normal">But how can Amos adduce it as a proof of his divine mission, that +he is neither a prophet, nor, in the sense explained, a prophet's son, <i>i.e.</i>, +that he was neither a superior nor an inferior member of the prophetic order? The +answer is,—It was the result of that organization of the prophetic order, that the +relation to the Lord was one which was more or less mediate. To those who would +not acknowledge the immediate divine influence, some ground was thereby afforded +for doing so. Their training, their principles, the form of their prophecies, all +admitted of a natural explanation. It is true that the <i>spirit</i> which animated +them baffled any such attempt; but that spirit was not so easily perceived. In the +case of any one, then, who appeared as a prophet, without standing in that connection, +and yet in the full possession of all prophetic gifts,—in demonstration of the spirit +and of power, a natural explanation was far more difficult; especially if, like +Amos, he was, by his outward situation, cut off from all human resources for education. +But was Amos, for that reason, an uneducated man? This is a question which one may +answer either in the affirmative or negative, according to what he understands by +education. So much is certain, that he was in possession of the essential part of +a true Israelitish education—viz., the knowledge of the law. The most intimate acquaintance +with the Pentateuch everywhere manifests itself; compare in proof of this the <i> +Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch</i>, i. p. 136 ff. There are +too many instances, down to most recent times, of living piety breaking, in this +respect, through almost impenetrable barriers, to allow us to consider this as a +strange thing, and to make it necessary for us to excogitate the various ways and +means by which Amos may have received this education. It is only on the lower ground +of the mere forms of language, that the rank of Amos not unfrequently appears. In +all the higher relations he shows himself a type of the Apostles, who, although +they were uneducated fishermen of Galilee, exhibit the most distinguishing proofs +of true education.</p> +<p class="normal">Amos belonged to that circle of prophets who received a commission +to prophesy the ruin which was impending over the Covenant-people, before any human +probability existed for it. <i>Baur</i>, on Amos, S. 60, is of opinion that "the +definiteness with which he prophesies the destruction of the kingdom of +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 355]</span> Jeroboam, although its power was at that time +still flourishing, leads us to expect that he must have had distinct indications +of its speedy decay." In a certain sense we may assent to this opinion. The prophet +himself continually points to such indications. These indications are the sins of +the people. But if <i>Baur</i> endeavours to put political indications in the stead +of these moral ones; if he be of opinion that the Assyrians must, at that time, +have stood in a threatening attitude in the background, we must give to his opinion +a decided opposition. We can, in such an assertion, see only an effect of that naturalistic +mode of viewing things, which would limit the horizon of the prophets to that of +their own times.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_355a" href="#ftn_355a">[2]</a></sup> +Not the slightest allusion to the Assyrians occurs. The supposition that Calneh +or Ktesiphon, in chap. vi. 2, appears as having already fallen (through the Assyrians), +rests upon an incorrect interpretation, just as does the assertion that Hamath, +in the same passage, is supposed to be conquered; concerning the latter point, compare +<i>Thenius</i> on 2 Kings xiv. 28. In the announcement of the carrying away into +captivity beyond Damascus, made in chap. v. 27, there appears nothing more than +the knowledge, that the catastrophe will not be brought about by that heathen power +which had hitherto brought ruin upon the kingdom of Israel But, everywhere, we may +see that the prophet—whom we have no reason to think an especially ingenious politician—appeared +at a time when no one expected any danger. Amos prophesied at a time when the morning-dawn +had risen upon Israel, iv. 13, v. 8; "in the beginning of the shooting up of the +grass, and behold the grass was standing, after the King (Jehovah) had caused to +be mown," vii. 1; at a time when the prosperity of the kingdom of the ten tribes +was again budding forth. In chap. viii. 9, the Lord threatens that He will cause +the sun to go down at noon, and bring darkness over the land in the day of <i>light</i>. +In chap. vi. 4-6, the prevailing careless luxury and <span class="pagenum">[Pg 356]</span> +joy are graphically described. Chap. v. 18 implies that the people mocked at the +threatening of the coming of the day of the Lord, the coming of which could, therefore, +not have been indicated by any human probability. In chap. vi. 1, the prophet gives +utterance to an exclamation of woe over them that are secure in Zion, and that trust +in the mountain of Samaria. In chap. vi. 13, he opposes the delusion of those "who +rejoice in a thing of nought, who say, Have we not taken to us horns by our own +strength?" The people in the kingdom of the ten tribes must accordingly have imagined +that they were living in the golden age of the fulfilment of Deut. xxx. 17, and +must not have thought for a moment that the axe was already laid to the root of +the tree.</p> +<p class="normal">But we are not at liberty to seek the fulfilment of the prophecy +of Amos, only in the visitation by the Assyrians. That which happens to the people +of the ten tribes is, to the prophet, only a part of a general visitation, which +comes, not only upon all the neighbouring nations, but upon Judah also, and which +brings utter ruin upon the latter, chap. ii. 4, 5, destroying the temple at Jerusalem, +and driving the house of David from the throne, ix. 1, 11. According to prophecy +and history, however, this catastrophe came upon Judah, not by Asshur, but, in the +first instance, by Babylon.</p> +<p class="normal">The prophecy possesses a comprehensive character, such as we should +be led to expect from the close connection of Amos with Joel. It comprehends everything +which Judah and Israel, along with the neighbouring people, had to suffer from the +rising heathen powers; compare vi. 14, v. 24, according to which, judgment shall +roll down as waters, and righteousness as a <i>continual</i> stream.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_356a" href="#ftn_356a">[3]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal">In the case of Amos, also, interpreters have been at considerable +pains in fixing the time and the occasion of the single portions, but with as little +success as in the cases of Hosea and Micah. The very inscription proves that we +have before us a whole, composed at one time, and containing the substance of +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 357]</span> what the prophet had uttered previously, and +in a detached form. According to this inscription, the book was composed only two +years after the prophet's personal ministry in the kingdom of Israel. But if there +were such an interval betwixt the oral preaching of the prophet and its having been +committed to writing, it is, <i>a priori</i>, not likely that the latter should +have followed the former, step by step.</p> +<p class="normal">The words, "Two years before the earthquake," cannot be regarded +as a chronological date, intended to fix more definitely the exact time within the +more extended period previously stated, viz., "the days of Uzziah and Jeroboam." +For such a purpose they are ill suited, inasmuch as the time of the earthquake is +not fixed; and, moreover, any such more definite determination would have been without +either significance or interest. This only was of importance, that the word of the +Lord should have been uttered in the days of Jeroboam, and that the prophecy of +the destruction should have been delivered at a time when the Israelites enjoyed +an amount of prosperity, such as they had not known for a long time. It can scarcely +be doubted that the earthquake under Uzziah, the fearfulness of which is testified +by Zech. xiv. 5, comes under consideration only as the reason for the composition +of the book,—for committing to writing what had formerly been delivered orally. +The earthquake denotes, in the symbolical language of Scripture, great revolutions, +by which the form of the earth is changed, and that which is uppermost, overturned; +compare my remarks on Rev. vi. 12. To point to such an earthquake had been the fundamental +thought of Amos' oral predictions. By the natural earthquake, he was induced to +commit them to writing, that they might go side by side with the symbol, and serve +as its interpreter.</p> +<p class="normal">There is a plan in the arrangement of the book, which indicates +that the book is not a collection of separate discourses, but that it bears an independent +character. It is distinctly divided into two parts,—the first, made up of naked +prophecies, from chap. i. to chap. vi.; the second, of such prophecies as are connected +with a symbol, which is always very simple, and very briefly described,—from chap. +vii. to chap. ix.</p> +<p class="normal">In the first part, the prophet begins with the announcement of +the wrath of the Lord, ver. 2. He then reviews, in their <span class="pagenum">[Pg +358]</span> order, those kingdoms upon which it shall be poured out, viz., Damascus, +Philistia, Tyrus, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and Judah: until at last the storm reaches +to Israel, and, according to <i>Rückert's</i> striking remarks, remains suspended +over it.</p> +<p class="normal">In addition to Israel, there are seven nations, and the seven +are divided into three, and four; three not related to the people of the ten tribes, +and four related to them; the brotherly people of Judah being introduced after three +nations have been mentioned which are more distantly related to Israel.</p> +<p class="normal">According to <i>Rückert</i>, it is only in chap. ii. 6-16 that +the storm which remained suspended over Israel is described; then in chap. iii.-vi. +there follow four threatening discourses, which are not connected either with the +preceding ones, or with each other. But the correct view rather is, that this stationary +suspension is described in the whole of the first half,—in the main, indeed, even +to the end of the book.</p> +<p class="normal">This is evident from the consideration that, if such were not +the case, the treatment of the main subject would be, as regards the extent of the +description, greatly disproportioned to the introduction; for chap. i. to ii. 5 +must be considered to be, throughout, merely introductory. But as the ground on +which we advance this assertion is made in opposition to an unsound view, it requires +a more particular determination. It is assumed by many interpreters, that in the +nations besides Israel, the prophet reproves "some haughty excesses, but, evidently, +only as instances of the immorality prevailing" (<i>Jahn</i>, <i>Einl.</i> 2, p. +404). But this view, according to which the prophet might, instead of the various +crimes mentioned, have noticed any other crime, <i>e.g.</i>, fornication, idolatry, +etc., is certainly erroneous. It is rather a <i>theocratic</i> judgment of which +he speaks throughout; they are crimes against the theocracy, the punishment of which +he announces. These he considers as being more heinous than all others; for the +guilt of the latter is diminished by the circumstance of their having been committed +against the hidden God only, while the former have been committed against the God +who has manifested Himself, and who is living among His people. For so much is evident, +that the main cause of the hatred of all the neighbouring nations against Israel +was, that Israel was the people of God. For where can an instance be found of a +hatred betwixt any <span class="pagenum">[Pg 359]</span> two of them, so inextinguishable, +and continuing through centuries? How entirely different is, <i>e.g.</i>, the position +of Edom against Moab, from that of Edom against Israel? Three reasons confirm the +correctness of our assertion as to the purely theocratic nature of the judgment. +1. The general announcement of the judgment. "Jehovah roareth from Zion, and from +Jerusalem He giveth His voice." The very use of the name Jehovah here deserves attention. +A judgment of a general kind upon the heathen would belong to God as Elohim. It +is Elohim who is the God of the heathen,—the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of +the world, from whom blessings, as well as judgments upon it, proceed. Now it might +be said that Jehovah is used in the case of the heathen also, for the sake of uniformity, +because to Him belongeth the judgment upon Judah and Israel. But that this is not +the case, is seen from the addition: "From Zion,—from Jerusalem." Every general +judgment proceeds from heaven; it is only as a theocratic God, that God reigns in +Zion and Jerusalem. This argument admits of no exception; all that God does from +Zion is theocratic deliverance, or theocratic judgment.—2. The nature of the crimes +themselves, which are cited by way of example. It can certainly not be merely accidental, +that they are all such as were committed against the Covenant-people. There is one +only which forms an apparent exception, viz., that of the Moabites, who are, in +chap. ii. 1, charged with having burned into lime the bones of the king of Edom. +But, with the consent of the greater number of interpreters, <i>Jerome</i> remarks +on this: "In order that God might show that He is the Lord of all, and that every +soul is subject to Him who formed it. He punishes the iniquity committed against +the king of Edom." But in this remark of Jerome, the relation in which Idumea stood +to the Covenant-people is altogether lost sight of. It is only as a vassal of their +kings that the king of Edom here comes into view. This is sufficiently manifest +from 2 Kings iii., although the event narrated there is different from that which +is here alluded to, of which no record has been preserved in history.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_359a" href="#ftn_359a">[4]</a></sup> +The hatred against the Covenant-people, which the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 360]</span> +Moabites were too weak openly to exhibit, impelled them to this wicked deed against +the king tributary to them.—3. It must be carefully observed how the prophet, when +coming to Judah, introduces us, at once, into the centre of <i>theocratic</i> transgression, +the forsaking of the living God, and the serving of vain, dead idols.</p> +<p class="normal">It will now be easily seen in what way the portion, chap. i.-ii. +5, serves as an introduction to what follows. The prophecies against foreign nations +do not, as elsewhere, serve as a consolation, or as a proof of the love of God towards +His people, and of His omnipotence, or as a means for destroying confidence in man's +power, in man's help; they are, on the contrary, intended, from the very outset, +to give rise in Israel to the question: If such be done in the green tree, what +shall be done in the dry? That question the prophet answers at large. If severe +punishment be inflicted, even upon those who have trespassed against the living +God, with whom they came into contact only distantly, what will become of those +to whom He manifested Himself so plainly and distinctly,—among whom He had, as it +were, gained a form,—before whose eyes He had been so evidently set forth? The declaration, +"You only do I know of all the families of the earth; therefore I shall visit upon +you all your iniquities" (iii. 2), forms the centre of the whole threatening announcement +to Israel. And could it indeed be introduced in any better way than by pointing +out, how even the lowest degree of knowledge was followed by such a visitation? +But now, that which under the Old Testament was the highest degree, becomes, under +the New Testament, only a preparatory step. The revelation of God in Christ stands +in the same relation to that made to Israel under the Old Testament, as the latter +stands to the manifestation of His character and nature to the heathen, who came +into connection with the Covenant-people. Thus the fulfilment becomes to us a new +prophecy. If the rejection of God, in His inferior revelation, was followed by such +awful consequences to the temporal welfare of the people of the Old Covenant, what +must be the consequences of the rejection of the highest and fullest revelation +of God to the temporal and spiritual welfare of the people of the New Covenant? +This is a thought which is further expanded in Heb. xii. 17 ff., and it forms the +essential feature of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 361]</span> the description of the +judgment of the world in the New Testament. This judgment has been but too often +thus misunderstood, as if it concerned the world as the world,—a misunderstanding +similar to that of the section before us. The Gospel shall first be preached to +every creature, and according as every one has conducted himself towards the <i> +living</i> God, so he shall be judged.—But it is not to the heathen nations only, +but to Judah also that, by way of introduction, destruction is announced. The circumstance +that not even the possession of so many precious privileges, as the temple and the +Davidic throne, could ward off the well-merited punishment of sin, could not but +powerfully affect the hearts of the ten tribes. If God's justice be so energetic, +what have <i>they</i> to expect?</p> +<p class="normal">If we continue the examination of <i>Rückert's</i> view, it will +soon appear that the phrase, "Hear this word," in iii. 1, iv. 1, and v. 1, can alone +be considered as the foundation on which it rests. But these words do not at all +prove a new commencement, but only a new starting-point. This appears sufficiently +from the absence of these words at the alleged fourth threatening discourse in chap. +vi.; and likewise from a comparison of Hosea iv. 1 and v. 1: "Hear the word of the +Lord, ye children of Israel," and "Hear this, ye priests, and hearken, ye house +of Israel, and give ear, house of the king;" while nothing similar occurs in the +following chapters. That such an exhortation was appropriate, even in the middle, +is clearly seen from Amos iii. 13. It cannot then, <i>per se</i>, prove anything +in favour of a new beginning. If it is to be regarded as such, the discourse must +be proved, by other reasons, to have been completed. But no such reasons here exist. +We might as reasonably assume the existence of ten threatening discourses, as of +four. The circumstance that we can nowhere discover a sure commencement and a clearly +defined termination, shows that we are fully justified in considering the whole +first part, chap. i. to vi., as a connected discourse.</p> +<p class="normal">The second part, which contains the visions of the destruction, +is composed, indeed, of various portions,—as might have been expected from the nature +of the subject. Each new vision, with the discourse connected with it, must form +a new section. Chap. vii., viii., and ix., form each a whole. From the account which +is added to the first vision; and which relates <span class="pagenum">[Pg 362]</span> +to the transactions between Amos and the high priest Amaziah, which were caused +by the public announcement of this vision (chap. vii. 12-14), we are led to suppose +that these visions were formerly delivered singly, in the form in which we now possess +them. But that, even here, we have not before us pieces loosely connected with each +other in a chronological arrangement, is evident from the fact, that the promises +stand just at the end of the whole collection. The prophet had rather to reprove +and to threaten than to comfort; but yet he cannot refrain, at least at the close, +from causing the sun to break through the clouds. Without this close there would +be wanting in Amos a main element of the prophetic discourse, which is wanting in +no other prophet, and by which alone the other elements are placed in a proper light.</p> +<p class="normal">It also militates against the supposition of a mere collection, +that in the last vision the prevailing regard to the kingdom of the ten tribes disappears +almost entirely, and that, like the third chapter of Hosea, it relates to the whole +of the Covenant-people,—in agreement with the reference to the earthquake mentioned +in the inscription, which the prophet had experienced in Judah, and which brought +into view, not a particular, but a general, judgment.</p> +<p class="normal">The symbolical clothing, however, forms the sole difference betwixt +the second part and the first. As the "real centre and essence of the book" the +second part cannot be regarded; the threatening is as clear and impressive in the +first part.</p> +<p class="normal">That which is common to Amos with the contemporary prophets, is +the absolute clearness with which he foresees that, before salvation comes, all +that is glorious, not only in Israel, but in Judah also, must be given over to destruction. +Judah and Israel shall be overflowed by the heathen world, the Temple at Jerusalem +destroyed, the Davidic dynasty dethroned, and the inhabitants of both kingdoms carried +away into captivity. But afterwards, the restoration of David's tabernacle (ix. +11), and the extension of the kingdom of God far beyond the borders of the heathen +world (ver. 12), take place. The most characteristic point is the emanation of salvation +from the family of David, at the time of its deepest abasement.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_352a" href="#ftnRef_352a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> <i>Bochart</i> remains unrefuted by the assertions + of <i>Hitzig</i>, <i>Baur</i>, and others, who make Amos the owner of a plantation + of sycamores, which, according to them, made him a wealthy man. + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בלס</span> can be understood only of the plucking, + or gathering of the fruits of the sycamores. The "cutting of the bark" is by + no means obvious, and is too much the language of natural history. That the + prophet's real vocation is designated by <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בוקר</span>, + and that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בולס שקמים</span> is not, by any means, + something independent of, and co-ordinate with that, appears from ver. 15, where + the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בוקר</span> is resumed. The fruits of the + sycamores may, occasionally, not have a disagreeable taste, for him who eats + them only as a dainty; but they are at all events very poor ordinary food; compare + <i>Warnekros</i> in <i>Eichhorn's Repert.</i> 11. 256.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_355a" href="#ftnRef_355a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> The groundlessness of such a mode of viewing + things is shown by the prophecy of events such as that mentioned in i. 15: "The + people of Aram are carried away to Kir, saith the Lord;" compare the fulfilment + in 2 Kings xvi. 9. They had originally come from Kir, Amos ix. 7. This circumstance + furnished the natural foundation for the prophecy, and it was certainly this + circumstance also which induced the conqueror to adopt his measures. But the + supernatural character of the definite prophecy remains, nevertheless, unshaken.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_356a" href="#ftnRef_356a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[3]</sup></a> <i>Caspari</i> in his commentary on Micah, + S. 69, is wrong in remarking: "Joel beholds the instruments of punitive justice + upon Israel, as numberless hosts only; Amos, already, as a single nation." In + Amos vi. 14 the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גוי</span> as little means a + single nation, as it does in the fundamental passage, Deut. xxviii. 49 ff., + beyond the definiteness of which Amos does not go.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_359a" href="#ftnRef_359a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[4]</sup></a> Scarcely any doubt can, however, be entertained + that we have here before us a <i>consequence</i> of the war mentioned in 2 Kings + iii., viz., the vengeance which the Moabites took for what they suffered on + that occasion.</p> +</div> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 363]</span></p> +<h3><a name="div3_399" href="#div3Ref_399">CHAPTER IX.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">The chapter opens with a vision. The temple, shaken by the Angel +of the Lord in its very foundations, falls down, and buries Judah and Israel under +its ruins. Without a figure,—the breach of the Covenant by the Covenant-people brings +destruction upon them. The prophet endeavours to strengthen the impression of this +threatening upon their mind, by breaking down the supports of false security by +which they sought to evade it. There is no deliverance, no escape, vers. 2-4, for +the Almighty God is the enemy and pursuer, vers. 5, 6. There is no mercy on account +of the Covenant, for Israel is no more the Covenant-people. They shall not, however, +be altogether destroyed; but the destruction of the sinful mass shall be accompanied +by the preservation of a small number of the godly, vers. 7-10. This great sifting +is followed, however, by the restoration; the tabernacle of David which is fallen, +the kingdom of God among Israel, connected with the family of David, shall be raised +up again, ver. 11; rendered glorious by its extension over the heathen, ver. 12; +and blessed with the abundance of the divine gifts, vers. 12-15.</p> +<hr class="W10"> +<p class="normal">Ver. 1. "<i>I saw the Lord standing over the altar; and He said, +Smite the chapiter, and make the thresholds tremble, and break them upon the heads +of all; and I will kill their remnant by the sword: he that fleeth away of them +shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The principal question which here arises is:—Who is here addressed,—to +whom is the commission of destruction given by the Lord? As, in accordance with +the dramatic character of the prophetical discourse, the person is not more definitely +marked out, we can think of Him only who, throughout, executes God's judgments upon +the enemies of His kingdom. But He is the same to whom the preservation and protection +of the true members of His kingdom are committed, viz., the Angel of the Lord. It +was He, who, as <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">המשחית</span>, the destroying Angel, +smote the first-born of Egypt, Exod. xii. 2, 3, compared with 12, 13. It was from +Him that the destruction of the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 364]</span> Assyrians +proceeded, 2 Kings xix. 34, 35; Is. xxxvii. 35, 36. After the numbering of Israel, +when the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, it was He who inflicted the +punishment, 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, 15, 16. As He encampeth round about them who fear the +Lord, so He is, in regard to the ungodly, like the wind which carries away the chaff, +Ps. xxxiv. 8, xxxv. 5, 6.—In opposition to the objection raised by <i>Baur</i>,—That, +with the exception of the passage in Is. vi., nowhere, in the books composed before +the Chaldee period, do angels appear to act as mediators in the execution of the +divine commands,"—it is sufficient to refer to Joel iv. (iii.) 9-11, and, as regards +<i>the</i> Angel of the Lord, to Hosea xii. 5 (4). But we have, in addition, a special +reason for thinking here of the Angel of the Lord. This is afforded to us by the +ninth chapter of Ezekiel, which must be considered, throughout, as a further expansion +of the verse under consideration, and as the oldest and most trustworthy commentary +upon it. In that chapter, there appear (at the command of the Lord who is about +to avenge the apostasy of His people) the servants of His justice—six in number—and +in the midst of them, "a man clothed with linen;"—the former, with instruments of +destruction; the latter, with writing materials. They step (the scene is in the +temple) by the side of the brazen altar. Thither there comes to them out of the +holy of holies, to the threshold of the temple, the glory of the Lord, and gives +to Him who is clothed with linen the commission to preserve the faithful, while +the others receive a commission to destroy the ungodly, without mercy. But now, +Who is the man clothed in linen? None other than the Angel of the Lord. This appears +from Daniel x. 5, xii. 6, 7, where Michael = the Angel of the Lord (compare <i>Dissertations +on the Genuineness of Daniel</i>, p. 135 ff.) is designated in the same way,—a remarkable +coincidence in these two contemporary prophets, to which we omitted to direct attention +in our work on Daniel. It is <i>further</i> evident from the subject itself. The +dress is that of the earthly high priest (<i>Theodoret</i> remarks: "The dress of +the seventh is that of the high priest, for he was not one of the destroyers, but +the redeemer of those who were worthy of salvation"); compare Lev. xvi. 4, 23. It +is especially from the former of these passages that the plural +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בדים</span> is to be accounted for. According to +it, the various parts <span class="pagenum">[Pg 365]</span> of the high priest's +dress are of linen. But the heavenly Mediator, High Priest, and Intercessor, is +the Angel of the Lord; compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Zech. i. 12, where He makes intercession +for the Covenant-people, and the Lord answers Him with good and comfortable words. +Concerning the earthly high priest as a type of Christ, and hence a type of the +Angel of the Lord, compare the remarks on Zech. iii. But we must not imagine that +He who is clothed with linen is commissioned solely for the work of delivering the +godly, and hence stands contrasted with the six ministers of justice. On the contrary, +these are rather to be considered as being subordinate to Him, as carrying out the +work of destruction only by His command and authority. From Him, punishment no less +than salvation proceeds. This is sufficiently evident for general reasons. The punishment +and deliverance have both the same root, the same aim, viz., the advancement of +the kingdom of God. We cannot by any means think of evil angels in the case of the +six; such could be assumed only in opposition to the whole doctrine of Scripture +on the point, which is always consistent in ascribing the punishment of the wicked +to the good angels, and the temptation of the godly, with the permission of God, +to the evil angels. In proof of this, we have only to think of Job's trial, of Christ's +temptation, and of the angel of Satan by whom Paul was buffeted. This subject has +already been very well treated by <i>Ode</i>, who, in his work <i>De Angelis</i>, +p. 741 ff., says: "God sends good angels to punish wicked men, and He employs evil +angels to chasten the godly."<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_365a" href="#ftn_365a">[1]</a></sup> +But if this be established, it is then established at the same time, that the judgment +here belongs to the Angel of the Lord. For to Him, as the Prince of the heavenly +host, all inferior angels are subordinate, so that everything +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 366]</span> which they do belongs to Him.—To these general +reasons, we may, however, add special reasons which are altogether decisive. That +He who is clothed with linen is closely connected with the six, is indicated by +the number seven. He also appears at the side of the altar, and comes in the midst +of the others, who follow after Him, ver. 2. But of conclusive significance are +the words in chap. x. 2 and 7: "And the Lord spake unto the man clothed with linen, +and said, Go in between the wheels under the cherubim, and fill Thine hand with +coals of fire from between the cherubim, and scatter them over the city. And He +went in, in my sight. And a cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubim, +unto the fire that was between the cherubim, and took, and put it into the hands +of Him who was clothed with linen. And He took it and went out." The <i>fire</i> +here is not the symbolical designation of wrath, but natural fire; for it is the +setting on fire and burning of the city which is here to be prefigured. The wheels +denote the natural powers,—in the first instance, the wind, chap. x. 13, but the +fire also; while the cherubim denote the living creation. The Angel of the Lord +is here expressly designated as He who executeth the judgments of divine justice.</p> +<p class="normal">The importance of the preceding investigation extends beyond the +mere clearing up of the passage under consideration. We have here obtained the Old +Testament foundation for the New Testament doctrine, that all judgment has been +committed to the Son, while the harmony of the two Testaments is exhibited in a +remarkable instance. Compare with the already cited Old Testament declarations, +such passages as Matt. xiii. 41: <span lang="el" class="Greek">Ἀποστελεῖ ὁ υἱὸς +τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὑτοῦ, καὶ συλλέξουσιν ἐκ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ +σκάνδαλα, καὶ τοὺς ποιοῦντας τὴν ἀνομίαν·</span> and xxv. 31: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">Ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὑτοῦ, +καὶ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοί μετ' αὐτοῦ, τότε καθίσει ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὑτοῦ.</span> In +order to be convinced of the identity of the Angel of the Lord and Christ (compare +above, p. 107 sqq. and <i>Commentary on Rev.</i> i. p. 466), we may further direct +attention to the fact that the Angel of the Lord, who meets us throughout the whole +of the Old Testament, suddenly disappears in the New Testament, and that to Christ +all is ascribed which was in the Old Testament attributed to the Angel of the Lord.</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 367]</span></p> +<p class="normal">A second important question is:—What is to be understood by <i> +the</i> altar, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">המזבח</span>? Several interpreters +adopt the opinion of <i>Cyril</i>, and think of the altar at Bethel, or some other +idolatrous altar in the kingdom of Israel. Others (<i>e.g.</i>, <i>Marckius</i>) +are of opinion that the article stands here without meaning, and that it is the +intention of the prophet only to represent God as appearing on some altar, leaving +it undetermined on which, in order thereby to indicate that He required the blood +of many men. But against such expositions the article is conclusive. <i>The</i> +altar can be that altar only, of which every one would think, if an altar +<span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν</span>, and without a more definite designation, +were spoken of. Such was the brazen altar, or altar of burnt-offering in the outer +court of the temple at Jerusalem. That it was this altar, and not the altar of incense +before the holy of holies, which received, in the common language of the people, +the name of <i>the</i> altar, is easily explained from the circumstance that it +stood in a much closer relation to the people than did the other which was withdrawn +from their view. On this altar all the sacrifices were offered, and it must, throughout, +be understood, when <i>the</i> altar of the Lord is spoken of; compare remarks on +Rev. vi. 9. But that which removes all doubt is the comparison with the parallel +passage in Ezekiel. There, the scene is the temple at Jerusalem. The ministers of +justice step beside the brazen altar. At the threshold of the temple-building proper, +the glory of the Lord moves toward them. This parallel passage, moreover, does not +leave any doubt as to the reason why the Lord appears here beside the altar. <i> +Jerome</i> remarks on this: "They are introduced standing beside the altar, ready +for the order of their commander; so that they know every one whose sins are not +forgiven, and who is liable, therefore, to the sentence of the Lord, and to destruction." +The Lord's appearing beside the altar is a visible representation of the truth, +that wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. The +altar is the place of transgression; it is there that there lies accumulated the +unexpiated guilt of the whole nation, instead of the rich treasure of love and faith, +which alone should be there, embodied in the sacrifice. The Lord appears at the +place of transgression, in order that He may be glorified in the destruction of +those who would not glorify Him in their lives.<span class="pagenum"> [Pg 368]</span>—Now +several interpreters (<i>e.g.</i>, <i>Michaelis</i>), who have correctly defined +the meaning of the altar, would infer from the mention of the temple at Jerusalem, +that the whole prophecy refers to the kingdom of Judah. But such an assumption is +altogether inadmissible. Even the general reason, that a prophecy which refers exclusively +to Judah cannot be at all expected from a prophet who had received his special mission +to Israel, militates against it. <i>Further</i>,—The close of this prophecy, the +proclamation of salvation, belongs, as we have already proved, to the whole collection. +If this be referred to Judah alone, there is then an essential element awanting +in that portion which is addressed to Israel; we should then have judgment without +mercy, threatening without consolation,—a thing which could not well be conceived +of, and would be without analogy in any of the prophets. To this we must <i>further</i> +add the express references, or co-references to Israel throughout the whole chapter,—such +as the mention of Carmel in ver. 3; of the children of Israel, in ver. 7; of the +house of Jacob, in ver. 8; of the house of Israel, in ver. 9; of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פרציהן</span>, in ver. 11; of My people Israel, in +ver. 14. The whole assumption of an exclusive reference to Judah owes its origin +to the circumstance, that features which are only symbolical have been erroneously +interpreted as actual. But if they be viewed and explained as symbols, every reason +for denying the reference to Israel is then at once removed. The temple symbolizes +the kingdom of God; its falling down upon the people is symbolical of the punishment +which is inflicted upon them, in consequence of this kingdom. The destruction of +the temple in the literal sense is not, primarily, spoken of; although the latter, +it is true, be inseparable from the former. If the Covenant-people in general were +outwardly desecrated, because they had desecrated themselves inwardly, then also +the outward sanctuary which they had, by their wickedness, converted into a den +of thieves, was taken from them; compare the remarks on Dan. ix. 27. If Israel then, +at that time, still belonged to the kingdom of God (and this can certainly not be +doubted, and is sufficiently proved by the very mission of our prophet to Israel), +there exists no reason at all for excluding it. For Israel also, the temple at Jerusalem +formed the seat and centre from which it was governed,—the place from which blessings +and punishments <span class="pagenum">[Pg 369]</span> proceeded. The prophet indeed, +at the very opening of his prophecies, describes the Lord as roaring from Zion, +and uttering His voice from Jerusalem. On the altar at Jerusalem the crimes of Israel +were deposited, no less than those of Judah; for there was the place where the people +of both kingdoms were to deposit the embodied expression of their godly disposition. +It was there, then, that, in reality, the fruits of the opposite were lying, although, +as regards the place, they were offered elsewhere.—So much indeed is certain, that +the co-reference to Judah is necessarily required by the symbolical representation. +The rejection of Israel alone could not be symbolized by the destruction of the +temple. And no less does this appear from the announcement of salvation. For this +does not by any means promise the re-establishment of the Davidic dominion among +the people of Israel, but the restoration of the entire fallen Davidic government. +The tabernacle of David that is fallen refers to the destroyed temple. Both signify, +substantially, the same thing. With the destruction of the temple, the Davidic tabernacle +also fell; and its fall included the overthrow of the kingdom of Israel; for, in +this also, the Davidic race had still the dominion <i>de jure</i>, although it was +suspended <i>de facto</i>.</p> +<p class="normal">The passage under consideration is remarkable also, inasmuch as +it furnishes a proof for the custom of designating the kingdom of God from its existing +seat and centre, and thus furnishes us, for other passages also, with the right +of freeing the thought from the figurative clothing.</p> +<p class="normal">A <i>further</i> reason against referring <i>the</i> altar to +the altar at Bethel, is, that the latter enjoyed no such pre-eminence in the kingdom +of Israel. The temple at Bethel was, to the ten tribes, by no means what the temple +at Jerusalem was to Judah. The law regarding the unity of the place of worship was, +among the ten tribes, regarded as non-existing. Even in the verse immediately preceding, +in viii. 14, Dan and Beersheba had been mentioned as the chief seats of the Israelitish +worship; and in chap. iv. 4, Gilgal appears beside Bethel as possessing the same +importance. In chap. v. 5, Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba are mentioned together. +Hosea, in chap. viii. 11, reproves Israel for having made many altars to sin. Hence, +there did not exist in Israel an altar <span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν</span>. +Such an altar existed only in <span class="pagenum">[Pg 370]</span> Judah. Nor had +the sanctuary at Bethel such importance, as that it could be considered as the spiritual +abode of the whole people.—<i>Hofmann</i> (<i>Weissagung u. Erfüllung</i>, S. 203) +raises the following objection against the reference to the altar at Jerusalem:—The +prophet, it is true, reproves the sins in Judah as well as those in Israel; but +it is only to the kingdom of Jeroboam that he announces destruction, while to the +house of David he promises that Jehovah would raise it up from its fallen condition." +But in opposition to this objection, we need only refer to ii. 5: "And I send fire +in Judah, and it devours the palaces of Jerusalem." Passages such as i. 14, 15, +ii. 3, absolutely forbid us to make an exception of the palace of the king; and, +by chap. vii. 9, where destruction is announced to all the sanctuaries of Isaac, +we have as little warrant for excepting the temple. To assume any such exceptions, +would be contrary to the analogy of all other threatenings. <i>Hofmann</i> further +objects (l. c. S. 204), "As the threatening announcement of the prophet had last +remained suspended over Israel, we are at liberty to think of the altar at Bethel +only." But already, in the third chapter, all Israel is addressed, according to +ver. 1; and we may further refer to v. 25, where likewise Israel can mean only the +whole people,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_370a" href="#ftn_370a">[2]</a></sup> +while in vi. 1, Judah is expressly mentioned beside Israel. The prophet employs, +throughout, the name of Israel with a certain ambiguity; so that it would be vain +to attempt to determine whether it be used in the wider, or in the more limited +sense. Wherever he wishes to be distinctly understood as speaking of the ten tribes, +he speaks of Joseph and Samaria. Still less would the prophet have employed the +names of Jacob (iii. 13, vi. 8, vii. 2, 6) and of Isaac (vii. 9, 16), which were +quite uncommon as a designation of the ten tribes,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_370b" href="#ftn_370b">[3]</a></sup> +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 371]</span> if it had been of importance, and intentional +on his part strictly to separate the boundaries of Judah from those of Israel, and, +if there were not everywhere here, only a special application to the ten tribes +of that which concerned the whole who were connected by a common fate. But it is +especially suitable, that just the close of the whole should, in a remarkably distinct +manner, bring into view the two kingdoms, the destinies of which were so intimately +connected.—<i>Hitzig</i>, further, with a view to favour the reference to the temple +in Bethel, adduces the consideration that this vision is connected with the close +of viii. 14, and forms a kind of explanation of it. But we have here an entirely +new beginning, just as in chap. viii. in its relation to chap. vii. The three visions +are altogether independent of, and co-ordinate with each other.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נצב</span> +with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">על</span> is commonly used of a prominent position +<i>at the side of</i>: Gen. xviii. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 20; compare +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עמד</span> with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">על</span> +1 Kings xiii. 1. In Ezek. ix. 1 also, the angels stand at the side of the brazen +altar, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נצב</span> can, of course, never signify "<i>to +be suspended</i>."—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הכפתור</span> is a species of +ornament at the top of the pillars; and <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הספים</span>, +"the thresholds," are contrasted with each other, in order to give expression to +the thought that the building was to be shaken, and destroyed from the highest part +of it to the lowest,—from the top to the bottom. The shaking of the thresholds occurs +also in Is. vi. to denote that the shaking extended to the deepest foundations. +The greater number of interpreters translate: "Strike the knop <i>so that</i> ... +tremble," etc.; but the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">וירעשו</span> must be viewed +rather as co-ordinate with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הך</span>: "And they may +tremble," equivalent to "Make to tremble."—The suffix in +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בצעם</span> refers to the knops and threshold, or +to the entire building, which is marked out by the contrast of the highest and lowest +portions. According to <i>Ewald</i> and <i>Umbreit</i>, it is intended to refer +to the dashed pieces of the altar; but nothing has been said about the destruction +of the altar. In Ezek. ix. 2 likewise, the altar is mentioned, not because it was +to be destroyed, but only because there the guilt is heaped up. The casting down +does not, in itself, imply the <i>breaking</i>, <i>dashing into pieces</i>; it does +so only by its being connected with the following <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +בראש</span>. The passage in Jer. xlix. 20 is analogous: "He shall make their habitation +desolate over them;" instead of: "He shall thus make it desolate that they are buried +beneath its ruins;" <span class="pagenum">[Pg 372]</span> compare Jer. l. 45. +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בראש</span>, properly understood, does not mean "<i>upon</i> +the head;" the head is rather represented as the receptacle of the tumbling ruins; +they fall into their heads and crush them; compare Ps. vii. 17. In what precedes, +there is no definite noun to which <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כלם</span> refers. +This is to be explained by the dramatic character of the whole representation which +arises necessarily from the opening phrase: "I saw." The same reason accounts for +the peculiarity of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הך</span> being employed without +any designation of person. In his inward vision, the prophet sees the whole people +assembled before the Lord at the threshold of the temple. The Lord appears before +him as the judge, at the place of the transgressions, at the side of the altar. +At His command, the whole assembled multitude are buried under the ruins of the +temple. From this also it is evident that a destruction of the temple in a literal +sense cannot be entertained; for how could a whole people be buried under its ruins? +The same appears also from <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ראיתי</span> at the commencement. +This, then, shows that we have here before us a symbolical representation, corresponding +altogether to that which we have in vii. 1, 4, 7, viii. 1. Hitherto, the Lord speaking +to some one, had given him the commission of destruction. He now continues with: +"I will kill." This also shows that the one who is addressed is the Angel of the +Lord. The same occurrence takes place in the greater number of the passages in which +the Angel of the Lord is spoken of. In the action there is constant alternation; +it is ascribed, at one time to Him, at another, to Jehovah.—Several interpreters +(<i>Marckius</i>, <i>De Wette</i>, <i>Rückert</i>, and others) explain +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אחרית</span> by "posterity;" others, after the example +of the Chaldee (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שארהון</span>), by "remnant;" and +others, by "lowest of the people." We must here enter into a closer examination +of the significations of this word. It is commonly supposed (compare <i>Gesenius</i> +and <i>Winer</i>) that, primarily and properly, it signifies "the last and extreme +part," and then "the end." But that which is supposed to be the derived signification +is rather the original and proper one. The form of the word cannot furnish any reason +why this should not be the case, as is evident from what has been remarked by <i> +Ewald</i>: "As the feminine termination, in general, forms abstract nouns, so also, +not unfrequently, abstract nouns are derived from other nouns, by means of the termination +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">־־ית</span>; very frequently there is no +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 373]</span> masculine in +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">־ִי</span> at all at the foundation, but +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">־ִית</span> serves, in general, only as the sign +of derivation." The following reasons prove that the signification "end" is the +primary and proper one. 1. If the contrary were the case, the masculine +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">־ִי</span> would also occur, and the feminine would +be met with as an adjective also. 2. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ראשית</span> +forms the constant antithesis to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אחרית</span>; but +it is universally admitted that the former is, originally and properly, an abstract +noun, and signifies "beginning." The signification "end" must then be retained here +also. The word never has another signification (compare my work on Balaam, p. 465 +ff.); it means only "end" in Its various relations. But the posterity cannot here +be thought of as the end; for the whole action is concentrated in one point of time. +Nor is the word ever used in the sense of "posterity." With as little propriety +can "end" mean "the lowest of the people;" for one cannot see why just these should +be given up to the sword. "End," here, rather denotes "remnant,"—all those who, +at the overthrow of the temple, might escape. These, the Lord will pursue with the +sword. They who were buried under the temple are the beginning, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ראשית</span>; the latter are the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אחרית</span>, end. Corresponding to the shaking of +the temple from the knops to the thresholds, the thought is expressed in this manner, +that from the first to the last, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כלם מקצה</span> +they should be subjected to the divine punishment. An implied antithesis of quite +the same kind, of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אחרית</span> to +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ראשית</span> occurs also In iv. 2 (where <i>De Wette</i> +and <i>Rückert</i> have likewise mistaken the sense), and in viii. 10.—On the last +words of the verse, which are to be considered as a further explanation of, "Their +end, or remnant, I will kill by the sword," <i>Cocceius</i> remarks: "This slaughter +becomes the more thorough, inasmuch as even they who flee, or seemed to have fled, +are not excluded from it." The second member seems to contradict the first; for +if none be allowed to flee away, how can any have escaped? Several Interpreters +have been thereby induced to give to the verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נוס</span> +the first time, the signification "to escape,"—the second time, "to flee." But the +contradiction is quite similar to that which occurs in the preceding context also, +when all are dashed to pieces by the ruins, and yet a remnant is spoken of. It soon +disappears when we consider that it Is the intention of the prophet to cut off every +possible way of escape, by which carnal security endeavoured to save +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 374]</span> and preserve itself against the impression +of his discourse—that it is equivalent to: "<i>All</i> shall be buried under the +ruins, and although some should succeed in escaping from this kind of destruction, +yet the sword of divine vengeance would be behind them, and slay them; flight shall +not be possible to any man; and even although it might be to some, it would be of +no avail to them, for God would be their persecutor." But another apparent contradiction +must not be overlooked. Even here, the destruction is most emphatically described +as being quite general; as such, it is minutely represented ins vers. 2-4. One cannot +fail to see how anxious the prophet is to cut off, from every individual, the idea +of the possibility of an escape. On the other hand, it is announced in ver. 8, that +the house of Jacob shall not be utterly destroyed; according to ver. 9, all the +godly shall be preserved; according to ver. 10, the judgment is to be limited to +the sinners from among the people,—a limitation which is also presupposed by the +description in the 11th and subsequent verses. In iii. 12, the preservation of a +small remnant amidst the general destruction had been promised. The greater number +of interpreters, in order to reconcile this apparent contradiction, assume an hyperbole +in vers. 1-4. But this assumption is certainly erroneous. The ground of this great +copiousness,—the reason why the prophet represents the same thought in aspects so +various,—is evidently to prevent every idea of an hyperbole,—to show that the words +are to be taken in all their strictness of meaning. But the limitation may be arrived +at, and effected in a different, and legitimate way. There is, in the nature of +ungodliness, a levity which flatters every individual with the hope of escape, even +although a threatened general calamity should take place. All the possibilities +of deliverance are sought after in such a disposition of mind, and are, by imagination, +easily changed into probabilities and realities, because just that is wanting which +proves them to be improbable and unreal, viz., the consciousness of a living, omnipotent +God. Thus men free themselves from fear, and with it, from the troublesome obligation +of escaping from it in another and a legitimate way, viz., by true conversion. Now, +it is this levity which the prophet opposes. He shows that whatever possibility +of deliverance such levity may dream of, it never would become a reality, and this +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 375]</span> for the simple reason, that they had not to +deal with human antagonists; from them an escape by human means would be possible, +how powerful and wise soever they might be. But they have to deal with an omnipotent +God, who, being also omnipresent, can arm all His creatures against His despisers, +so that they cannot retreat to any place where He, who reigneth absolutely in heaven +and on earth, has not ministers of His vengeance. Every thought, then, of an escape +by <i>human means</i> is here cut off. But with this, every thought of deliverance +in any way is taken from the <i>ungodly</i>, who are told by their own consciences +that <span class="sc">God</span> will not deliver them. But, on the other hand, +the same consideration could not but administer consolation to the godly. If no +one, should he even hide himself in heaven, can escape from God the Avenger, then +no one, were he even in the midst of his enemies, and were the sword even already +lifted up against him, can be lost from God the Deliverer.—Another question has +been asked, which relates to the historical reference of the threatened punishment. +It goes just as far as the thought which lies at its foundation: "You only have +I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I shall visit upon you all your +transgressions." Those interpreters who think exclusively of either the Assyrian, +or the Chaldean, or the Roman destruction, are, in the same way, partly right and +partly wrong, at the same time. All these events, and others besides, belong essentially +to one whole. The difference as to time and circumstances is that which is unessential. +That a prophet had exclusively in view any single one from among those divine manifestations +of punishment, can be asserted, only where he himself has given express declarations +to such an effect; and even then, the prophecy is limited to that single event, +as to its <i>form</i> only: its <i>idea</i> is not lost by the single fulfilment.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 2. "<i>If they break through into hell, from thence My hand +shall take them; if they ascend up into heaven, from thence I will take them down.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The Future must not, either here, or in what follows, be understood +as <i>potentialis</i>: "Though they should conceal themselves;" but as the real +Future: "If they are to conceal themselves." That <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +אם</span> with the Future is used only <i>de re dubia</i>, as <i>Winer</i> asserts, +is as erroneous as to assert that, with the Preterite, <span class="pagenum">[Pg +376]</span> it supposes the condition as existing. The correct view has been already +given by <i>Gesenius</i> in the <i>Thesaurus</i>. By supposing the possibility of +a condition, impossible in reality, the denial of the consequence becomes so much +the more emphatic and expressive. That such a supposition is made here, is evident +from ver. 4, where the prophet passes over to the territory of actual possibility, +and where, therefore, we cannot translate: "Though they should go." Such a supposition +is, in general, very frequent. It occurs, <i>e.g.</i>, Matt. v. 29, where <i>Tholuch</i> +(<i>Comment. on the Sermon on the Mount</i>) has been led very far astray from the +right understanding of <span lang="el" class="Greek">εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ὁ δεξιὸς +σκανδαλίζει σε, κ.τ.λ.</span>, by overlooking this <i>usus loquendi</i>. We are +not indeed at liberty to translate, "Though thy right eye should offend thee;" but +it must be decided by other arguments, whether the condition here <i>supposed</i> +be one really possible; and these arguments show that it is only for the sake of +greater emphasis that there has here been supposed as possible, what is impossible.—Heaven +and Sheol form a constant contrast between the highest height and the lowest depth. +From a merely imagined possibility, the prophet descends to the real one. If, then, +even the former be not able to afford protection, because God's hand reaches even +where one has escaped far from any human power, how much less the latter!—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חתר</span> +with the Accus. signifies "to break through," Job xxiv. 16; with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span>, "to make a hole in anything;" thus Ezek. +viii. 8, xii. 7, 12 (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חתר בקיר</span>, "to make a +hole in the wall"). These parallel passages show that the Sheol must be conceived +of as being surrounded with strong walls,—by which is expressed its inaccessibility +to all that is living. The fundamental passage is in Ps. cxxxix. 7, 8: "Whither +shall I go from Thy Spirit, and whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend +up into heaven. Thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, Thou art there." +David does not here speak in his own person, but in that of his whole race. The +Psalm is an indirect exhortation to his successors on the throne, and at the same +time to the people. "If you are wicked," so he here addresses them, "you can never +hope to escape from the punishing hand of the Almighty." And since they have become +wicked, the words of David have acquired new emphasis.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 3. "<i>And if they hide themselves on the top of Carmel,</i> +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 377]</span> <i>from thence I will search and take them +out; and if they hide themselves from My sight in the bottom, of the sea, from thence +I will command the serpent, and he bites them.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The question here is:—Why is Carmel specially mentioned? Interpreters +remind us of the numerous caves of this mountain, which make it peculiarly suitable +for concealment. <i>O. F. von Richter</i>, in the <i>Wallfahrten im Morgenlande</i>, +S. 65, remarks on this point: "The caves are extremely numerous in Carmel, especially +on the west side. It is said that there are more than a thousand, and that they +were inhabited in ancient times by monks, to whom, however, their origin cannot +be ascribed. In one part of the mountain, called 'the caves of the members of the +orders,' 400 are found beside each other. Farther down in the hard limestone mountain, +there is one which is distinguished by its size, about 20 paces long, and more than +15 broad and high." Details still more accurate are given by <i>Schulz</i> in the +<i>Leitungen des Höchsten</i>, Th. 5, S. 186, 303. According to him, the road is +pure rock, and very smooth, and so crooked, that those going before cannot see those +who follow them. "When we were only ten paces distant from each other, we heard +each other's voices, indeed, but were invisible to each other, on account of the +winding ways made in consequence of the intervening by-hills.... Everywhere there +are caves, and their mouths are often so small that only one man can creep through +at a time; the approaches to them are so serpentine, that he who is pursued may +escape from his pursuer, and step into such a small opening, of which there are +frequently three or four beside each other, before his pursuer is aware of it. Hence, +if any one should hide himself there, it is exceedingly difficult, yea, even impossible +for the eyes of man to discover him who is pursued." But this circumstance alone +does not exhaust the case, even if we still further add that the mountain was then, +as it is now (<i>Richter</i>, S. 66), covered with trees and shrubberies up to the +summit. The expression, "In the top," must not be overlooked, and the less so, since +it stands in evident antithesis to the "<i>bottom</i> of the sea,"—like the contrast +of height and depth in the preceding verse. Heaven and hell are represented on earth +by the top of Carmel, and the bottom of the sea. The height of Carmel must, therefore, +come also into consideration. This, it is true, is not very great; <i>Buckingham</i> +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 378]</span> estimated it at 1500 feet (<i>v. Raumer</i>, +S. 40); but the prophet chose Carmel in preference to other higher mountains, partly +on account of the peculiarity already stated; partly, and especially, on account +of its position in the immediate neighbourhood of the sea, over which its summit +hangs, and which can be seen to a great distance from it; compare 1 Kings xviii. +43, 44. Of corporeal things it holds true, as it does of spiritual things, that +opposites, placed beside each other, become thereby more distinct. A lower elevation, +placed by the side of a depth, appears to the unscientific eye to be much higher +than another which is really so. Moreover, the position of Carmel at the extreme +western border of the kingdom of Israel must also be considered. He who hides himself +there, must certainly be ignorant of any safer place in the whole country; and if +even then there be no more security, the sea alone is left.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צוה</span> +occurs frequently with the signification "to bid," to "command." The word is chosen +on purpose to show, how even the irrational creatures stand in the service of the +omnipotent God; so that it requires only a word from Him to make them the instruments +of His vengeance. That the prophet had a knowledge of a very dangerous kind of sea-serpents +(of which <i>Pliny</i> xix. 4 speaks), need not be supposed on account of the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משם</span>. That was not of the slightest consequence +here. In v. 19 the serpent occurs in a particularizing representation of the thought +that God is able to arm all nature against His enemies: "As if a man flees from +the lion, and a bear meets him; and he comes home, and leans his hand on the wall, +and a serpent bites him"—just the opposite of the assurance that "to those who love +God, all things shall work together for good." So early as in Deut. xxxii. 24, apostates +are threatened with the poison of the serpents of the dust, besides the teeth of +wild beasts; and what this threatening implied, might have been well known to Israel +from their former history; compare Num. xxi. 6: "And the Lord sent against the people +serpents, and they bit the people, and much people of Israel died,"—a passage to +which Jeremiah alludes in chap. viii. 17, where he says; "For behold I send against +you serpents, basilisks, against which there is no charm, and they bite you, saith +the Lord." It is very probable that to this the prophet also alludes in the passage +before us.</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 379]</span></p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 4. "<i>And if they go into captivity before their enemies, +from thence will I command the sword, and it slayeth them; and I set Mine eyes upon +them for evil and not for good.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בשבי</span> means the state of +exile. The circumstance of their being carried into captivity might awaken the hope +that mercy will be granted to them; for, according to the natural course of things, +he who is carried away into captivity may be sure of his life; but nothing can give +security before God. The last words are strikingly illustrated by <i>Calvin</i>, +who says: "There is an antithesis in this sentence, inasmuch as God had promised +that He would be the protector of His people. But as hypocrites are always apt to +appropriate to themselves the promises of God, without having either repentance +or faith, the prophet here declares, that the eye of God would be upon them, not +to protect them, as was His custom, but rather to add punishments to punishments. +And this sentence is worthy of notice, inasmuch as we are thereby reminded, that +although the Lord does by no means spare infidels. He yet observes us more closely +in order to punish us the more severely, when He sees that we are utterly hardened +and incurable." Under any circumstances, the people of the Lord continue to be the +objects of special attention. They are more richly blessed; but they are also more +severely punished.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 5. "<i>And the Lord, Jehovah, of hosts, who toucheth the +earth, and it melteth, and all that dwell therein mourn; and it riseth up wholly +like the stream, and it sinketh down as the stream of Egypt.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The prophet continues to cut off every false hope with which levity +flatters itself. How can you think to escape, since you have the Almighty God for +your enemy! "The prophet," remarks <i>Jerome</i>, "speaks thus, in order to impress +them with the greatness of divine power, that they might not imagine that He would +perhaps not do what He had threatened, or that His power was not equal to His will." +Similar descriptions of the divine omnipotence, as opposed to unbelief and weak +faith, are very numerous; <i>e.g.</i>, iv. 13, v. 8, 27; Is. xl. 22, xlv. 12. We +are not at liberty to translate: "And the Lord Jehovah of hosts is He who toucheth." +It is rather an abrupt mode of speech; and there must be supplied, either at the +beginning, "And who is your enemy?" or at the end, "He is your opponent." +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 380]</span> This abruptness of language is quite in accordance +with the subject, and belongs, moreover, to the characteristic peculiarities of +Amos. Altogether similar is v. 7, 8, where Israel and their God are simply placed +beside each other, and every one is left to conclude for himself how such a God +would act towards such a people: "They who turn judgment to wormwood, and cast righteousness +to the earth. Making the Pleiades and Orion, and turning the shadow of death into +the morning, and making the day dark with night, calling," etc. The accumulated +appellations. Lord, Jehovah, of hosts, likewise serve to point out the omnipotence +of God. The believer accumulates these appellations in his prayer in order to awaken +his confidence and hope; compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Is. xxxvii. 16, where Hezekiah begins +his prayer to the Lord thus: "Jehovah, of hosts, God of Israel, Thou who art enthroned +on Cherubim, Thou art God alone for all the kingdoms of the earth." But these appellations +are held up to the unbelievers, to cast down all their hopes. We have separated, +of hosts, from the preceding appellation of God by a comma. Ever since <i>Gesenius</i>, +in his Commentary on Is. i. 9, has asserted that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +צבאות</span> when connected with Jehovah, must be considered as a Genitive depending +upon it, his view has been pretty generally adopted. But it is certainly erroneous. +The instances by which <i>Gesenius</i> endeavours to prove the possibility of such +a connection of proper names with appellative names are not to the point. In "Bethlehem +Jehudah" it is only by a false interpretation that Jehudah is considered as standing +in the <i>status constr.</i> with Bethlehem (compare the remarks on Mic. v. 1 [2]); +and with regard to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ארם נהרים</span> it is to be remarked +that, in consequence of its many divisions, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ארם</span> +loses the nature of a proper name. The two words, Jehovah Zebaoth, can no more be +immediately connected with each other than Jehovah (which is as perfect a proper +name as ever existed) ever has, or ever can have, the article. Let us only consider +the phrase <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אלהים צבאות</span> in Ps. lxxx. 15, and +elsewhere, where a <i>status constr.</i> is out of the question; and, <i>further</i>, +the fact that wherever, as in the case under review, Adonai precedes, the Mazorets +have always given to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יהוה</span> the points of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אֱלֹהִים</span> but never of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אֱלֹהֵי</span>; and let us, <i>finally</i>, consider +the far more frequent, full expression, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יהוה אלהי +הצבאות</span> (<i>e.g.</i>, iii. 13, iv. 13, v. 14), and we shall be convinced, +that even where the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 381]</span> simple +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יהוה הצבאות</span> occurs, not indeed +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אלהי</span> is simply to be supplied (if such were +the case, why is it that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הצבאות</span> never occurs +alone?), but that the notion of the Lord is to be taken from the preceding designations +of the sovereignty of God. Compare on <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צבאות</span> +the remarks in my Commentary on Ps. xxiv. 10, where those also are refuted who, +like <i>Maurer</i> (in his Comment. on Is. i. 9), maintain that it had simply become +a name of God.—The manifestations of God's omnipotence are, after the general intimations +of it are given, just such as might now be expected; compare viii. 8. The <i>Fut. +with Vav Conv.</i> <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ותמוג</span> does not here denote +the Past, "And it melted," but only the consequence of the preceding action, as +continuous as that: "Who toucheth the earth, and it melteth." A dissolution of the +earth is to be thought of,—similar to that condition in which it was before the +days of creation, and similar to its condition during the great flood. Such a condition +of dissolution takes place also when the earth is visited by mighty kings desirous +of making conquests. "Who toucheth the earth, and it melteth,"—the truth of these +words Israel had <i>first</i> to learn by sad experience when the wild hosts of +Asshur were poured out over the West of Asia. The passage in Ps. xlvi. 7 is parallel, +where it is said: "The heathen rage, kingdoms are shaken; He uttereth His voice +(which corresponds with, 'Who toucheth the earth,' in the verse before us), and +the earth <i>melteth</i>." The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוג</span>, "to melt," +"to dissolve," signifies, in that passage, the dissolving effect of the divine judgments, +the instruments of which are the conquerors. <i>Further</i>,—Ps. lxx. 4: "The earth +and all the inhabitants thereof are melted,"—by the success of the conqueror of +the world, the earth is, as it were, dissolved, and sunk back into the chaotic state +of primitive time.—The words, "And it riseth up," are to be explained from the fact +that the earth, changed into a great stream, cannot be distinguished from the water +which covers it. The earth rises up, it is overflowed,—the earth sinks down, the +water subsides. The last clause of the verse must not be translated—as is done by +<i>Rosenmüller</i>, <i>Gesenius</i>, <i>Maurer</i>—It is overflowed as by the stream +of Egypt." This explanation is unphilological, and contrary, at the same time, to +the parallelism, which requires that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כיאר</span> +be, both the times, understood in the same way. The verb +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שקע</span> means only "to sink," "to sink down," +and is used of the subsiding water, Ezek. xxxii. 14; of the subsiding flame, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 382]</span> Num. xi. 2; and of a sinking town, Jer. li. +64. The last words thus rather contain the opposite of the clause immediately preceding. +But the sinking does not, by any means, signify a freedom from the waters, nor is +it to be conceived of as remaining. All which is expressed is the change only,—the +ebb takes the place of the flood, and <i>vice versa</i>. This, however, is, on the +dry land, a very sad condition. The inundation is here an emblem of hostile overflowing. +Water is frequently an emblem of enemies; compare Ps. xviii. 17, cxliv. 7. Overflowing +streams are emblematical of the crowds of nations, who, with a view to conquest, +overflow the whole earth. Is. viii. 7, 8, xvii. 12; Jer. xlvii. 2, xlvi. 7, 8, where +Egypt rises as the Nile, just as, in the case before us, the earth; with this difference, +however, that there the rising is an active, while here it is a passive one: "Who +is this who riseth like the Nile, whose waters are moved as the rivers? Egypt riseth +up like the Nile, and his waters are moved like rivers, and he saith, I will go +up and cover the earth, I will destroy the city and the inhabitants thereof;" Ezek. +xxxii. 14: "Then will I make sink their waters, and cause their rivers to run like +oil," equivalent to: The conquering power of Egypt shall cease. Amos viii. 8 is +a parallel passage, in which, after the description of the prevailing sin, it is +said: "Shall not the earth tremble for this, and every one mourn that dwelleth therein? +And it riseth up wholly like the Nile, and is agitated, and sinketh down like the +Nile of Egypt." The earthquake is the symbol of great revolutions, by which that +which is highest is turned upside down; compare Haggai ii. 21, 22: "I shake the +heavens and the earth, and overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and destroy the strength +of the kingdom of the heathen;" while the overflowing is emblematical of hostile +inundation, of visitation by war, in which the ebb succeeds the flood, and <i>vice +versa</i>.—In his negligent mode of writing—which frequently occurs in this book—the +prophet wrote <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נשקה</span> instead of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נשקעה</span>, corresponding to the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שקעה</span> in the verse under consideration, just +as in the same verse he wrote <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כאר</span> instead +of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כיאר</span>. The Mazorets, who everywhere disregarded +the peculiarities of the individual writers, have introduced the common form.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 6. "<i>Who buildeth His upper chambers in the heaven, and +His vault—over the earth He foundeth it: who calleth the waters</i> +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 383]</span> <i>of the sea, and poureth them out over the +earth—Jehovah His name.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">That <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מעלות</span> is here equivalent +to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עלות</span>, "upper chambers" (compare 1 Chron. +xvii. 17, where <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מעלת</span> occurs with the signification +"high place"), is put almost beyond any doubt by the parallel passage, Ps. civ. +3: "Who frameth with the waters His upper chambers." The fundamental passage is +Gen. i. 7: "God made the vault, and divided between the waters which are under the +vault, and the waters which are above the vault." "The waters, viz., the upper ones"—thus +we have remarked in our commentary on that passage from the Psalms—"are the material +out of which the structure is reared. To construct, out of the moveable waters, +a firm palace, the cloudy sky, firm as a molten looking-glass (Job xxxvii. 18), +is a magnificent work of divine omnipotence. The palace of clouds, as the upper +part of the fabric of the universe, gets the name <i>upper chambers</i> of God; +the lower part is the earth." As all the other manifestations of divine omnipotence +in vers. 5, 6, are such as are to be called into existence now, the upper chambers +and the vault will here come into consideration, in so far as from thence the torrents +of rain are poured forth; compare Ps. civ. 13, according to which the rain cometh +from the upper chambers of God; and Gen. vii. 11: "The same day broke forth all +the fountains of the great flood (the last member of our verse), and <i>the windows +of heaven were opened</i>." From the upper chambers of God, whence once, at the +time of the deluge, the natural rain came down, the rain of affliction will now +descend.<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">—הקורא—שמו</span> already occurred, <i>verbatim</i>, +in v. 8. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הקורא</span> stands in the same relation +to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">וישפכם</span>, as in ver. 5 +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נוגע</span> does to +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ותמוג</span> and is equivalent to: "Upon whose mere +word the waters of the sea cover the surface of the earth;" compare Gen. vi. 17: +"And, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth." The sea is the common +emblem of the heathen world; compare remarks on Ps. xciii., civ. 6-9. In chap. vii. +4, the "great flood" is contrasted with the "lot" in Deut. xxxiii. 9,—the heathen +world, with the people of God. The fire of war, which the Lord kindles, devours +both in the same way. Here, in contrast with the deluge, the conquering inundation +of the earth proceeds from the midst of the heathen world, stirred up by the Lord, +and destroys first of all unfaithful Israel, who, had they been +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 384]</span> faithful to the Covenant, would have been +able to say, as in Ps. xlvi. 2-4, "God is our refuge and strength, a help in trouble +He is found very much. Therefore will we not fear when the earth is overturned, +and the mountains shake in the midst of the sea; its waters roar and foam, mountains +tremble by its swelling."</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 7. "<i>Are you not as the sons of the Cushites unto Me, O +children of Israel? saith the Lord. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land +of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The prophet here deprives the people of another prop of false +security. They boasted of their election, by which God Himself, as they imagined, +had bound His hands. They considered the pledge of it—the deliverance from Egypt—as +a charter of security against every calamity, as an obligation to further help in +every distress, which God could not retract even if He would. A great truth lay +at the foundation of this error,—a truth which has been disregarded by the greater +number of interpreter's, who have, in consequence, forced upon the prophet a sense +which is altogether false.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_384a" href="#ftn_384a">[4]</a></sup> +The election of the people, and their deliverance from Egypt, were actually what +they considered them to be. God Himself had in reality thereby bound His hands; +He <i>was obliged</i> to deliver the people. He <i>could</i> not cast them off. +The election was an act of free grace; the manifestation of it in deeds was an act +of His righteousness. The people had a right to remind Him of His duty, when He +seemed not to perform it. Their election was then a firm anchorage of hope, a rich +source of consolation, the foundation of all their prayers. But the error consisted +in this, that the election was usurped by those to whom it did not belong,—an error +which is continually repeating itself, and which shows itself in a fearful form, +especially in the case of those who believe in the doctrine of Predestination. We +need, for example, refer only to <i>Cromwell</i>, who, in the hour of death, silenced, +by this false consolation, all the accusations of his <span class="pagenum">[Pg +385]</span> conscience. <span lang="el" class="Greek">Περιτομὴ μὲν γὰρ ὠφελεῖ</span>, +says the Apostle, in Rom. ii. 25, <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐὰν νόμον πράσσῃς· +ἐὰν δὲ παραβάτης νόμου ᾕς, ἡ περιτομή σου ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν</span>. The deliverance +from Egypt stands on the same footing as circumcision. The former also was profitable; +to those who showed themselves to be children of Israel, it afforded the certainty +that God would prove Himself to be their God. For those, however, who had become +degenerate, it entered altogether into the circle of ordinary events. For them, +it became something that had altogether passed away—that did not carry within itself +any pledge of renovation. This error is here laid open by the prophet, as he had +already done in v. 14: "Seek good and not evil, that ye may live, and <i>thus</i> +the Lord, the God of hosts, be with you." He directs their attention to the fact, +that, in the Covenant-relation, which rests on reciprocity, the party who broke +the Covenant had nothing to ask, nothing to hope for. "<i>Be not</i>," etc.; the +<i>tertium comparationis</i> is evidently the alienation from God. The "children +of Israel" (the appellation expressive of their dignity is intentionally chosen +in order to make more striking the contradiction between the appearance and the +reality) have become so degenerate, that they are no more any nearer to God than +the sons of the Cushites. Those interpreters who regard sin alone as the <i>tertium +comparationis</i> (<i>Cocceius</i> says: "Ye are so alienated from Him, and so unfaithful, +that every one of you may be called a Cushite"), give too limited a sense to the +expression. "You are to Me," is rather equivalent to, "I have not any more concern +in you, you stand not to Me in any other relation." But why are the Cushites alone +mentioned as an example of a people alienated from God? Their colour, perhaps, is +more to be considered in this, than their descent from Ham; the physical blackness +is viewed as an emblem of the spiritual. Thus they appear in Jer. xiii. 23: "Will +indeed the Cushite change his skin, and the leopard his spots? will you indeed be +able to do good, who have been taught to do evil?" But the fundamental passage is +the inscription of Ps. vii., where Saul, on account of his black wickedness, appears +under the symbolical name of Cush.—The right explanation of these first words furnishes, +at the same time, the key to the sound interpretation of the words which +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 386]</span> follow: It is only for the Covenant-people +that the deliverance from Egypt is a pledge of grace. But you are no longer the +Covenant-people; your being brought up out of Egypt, therefore, stands on the same +line with the bringing up of the Philistines from their former dwelling-places in +Caphtor to their present abodes, and with the bringing up of the Syrians from Kir, +in which no one will see a pledge of divine grace, a preservative against every +danger, and, especially, an assurance of the impossibility of a new captivity. The +geographical inquiries regarding Caphtor and Kir would lead us too far away from +the subject which we are here discussing. The view which is now prevalent, and according +to which Crete is to be understood by the former, is in contradiction to the old +translations, which have Cappadocia, and with Gen. x. 14,—as long as, in that passage, +the Colchians are to be understood by the Casluhim. But that point would require +a minute investigation, which may be more suitably carried on at some other place.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 8. "<i>Behold, the eyes of the Lord Jehovah are upon the +sinful kingdom, and I destroy them from off the face of the earth, saving that I +will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><i>The</i> sinful kingdom, whether its name be Israel or Judah, +or whether it be called Egypt or Edom. The holy God has not by any means, as you +in your blindness imagine, given you a privilege to sin. A difference exists between +Israel and the others in this respect only, that utter ruin does not take place +in the case of the former, as it does in that of the latter. For the distinction +between the people of God and other nations consists in this, that in the former, +there always remains a holy seed, an <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐκλογή</span>, +which the Lord must protect, and make the nursery of His kingdom, according to the +same necessity of His nature as that by which He extirpates the sinners of His people. +The "sinful kingdom" forms the contrast with the righteous kingdom; the article +being here used in a generic sense. Similar are Is. x. 6: "<i>I send him against +impious people, and against the people of My wrath</i> (wheresoever there are such) +<i>I give him command</i>;" and Ps. xxxiii. 12: "Blessed is the nation whose God +is the Lord, the people whom He hath chosen for His inheritance;" on which latter +passage <i>Michaelis</i> remarks, "Blessed is the nation, whichsoever it may be." +The eyes of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 387]</span> the Lord are open upon <i>the</i> +sinful kingdom, and hence also upon the house of Jacob; it must be destroyed as +all others are, but it cannot be <i>destroyed like them</i>,—an idea which is prominently +brought out by the prefixed Infinit. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">השמיד</span>. +That is an erroneous interpretation which understands by the sinful nation, Ephraim, +and, after the example of <i>Grotius</i> ("I will destroy the kingdom, not the people"), +assumes that, by the house, in contrast with the kingdom, the people are intended. +Such a contrast betwixt the house and the kingdom would have required a more distinct +intimation. The house of Jacob, when referred to the ten tribes, is identical with +the kingdom. They were a house only in so far as they were a kingdom. But it is +both against the words (in Obad. ver. 17, "house of Jacob" is likewise used of the +whole of the nation), and against the connection, to refer it to the ten tribes. +When, however, it is referred to the whole, a contrast betwixt people and kingdom +can the less have place, as, according to ver. 11, the kingdom also shall be restored.—The +first part of the verse is almost literally identical with Deut. vi. 15: "For a +jealous God is Jehovah, thy God, in thy midst; lest the anger of Jehovah thy God +be kindled against thee, and He destroy thee from off the face of the earth," +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">והשמידך מעל פני האדמה</span>. The prophet says nothing +new; he only resumes the threatening of the revered lawgiver.—The construction of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עיני יהוה</span> with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span> is explained by the circumstance that, according +to the context, the eyes of the Lord can mean only His angry eyes—equivalent to +the anger of the Lord in the passage quoted from Deuteronomy; and the verbs and +nouns expressive of anger are connected by <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span> +with the object on which the anger rests; compare Ps. xxxiv. 17.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 9. "<i>For behold I command and shake the house of Israel +among all the nations, as one shaketh in a sieve, and not shall anything firm fall +to the ground.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The figure in this verse is, upon the whole, plain; but some of +the particulars require to be explained, and to be more accurately determined. The +signification "sieve," commonly assigned to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כברה</span>, +must be conceded to it. We must, however, here understand it of such a sieve as +serves similar purposes as a winnowing shovel, in which the corn is violently shaken, +and thus purified; and not of a sieve in which, by mere sifting, the corn is freed +from the dust which has remained after the first <span class="pagenum">[Pg 388]</span> +and proper cleansing. The latter is assumed by <i>Paulsen</i> (<i>vom Ackerbau der +Morgenländer</i>, S. 144), and, along with him, by the greater number of interpreters. +Such a sieve—a kind of fan—is mentioned in Is. xxx. 24, in addition to the winnowing +shovel. It occurs likewise in Luke xxii. 31, where <span lang="el" class="Greek"> +συνιάζειν</span> is <i>vanno agitare</i>. The LXX. also have here adopted the explanation, +not of an ordinary sieve, but of an instrument which serves the same purposes as +the winnowing shovel: <span lang="el" class="Greek">διότι ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαι καὶ +λικμιῶ (Α. λικμήσω) ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ, ὃν τρόπον λίκμᾶται +ἐν τῷ λικμῷ. </span><i>Hesych.</i> <span lang="el" class="Greek">λικμῷ</span>, +<span lang="el" class="Greek">πτύῳ</span>. To this we are likewise led by the verb +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הניעותי</span>, which is indicative of a violent +procedure, and by the occurrence of the same figure in so many passages of Scripture; +compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Jer. li. 2; "I will send against Babylon fanners that shall +fan her, and shall empty her land;" Jer. xv. 7, and Matt. iii. 12; while the use +of the ordinary sieve for such a purpose is never mentioned, nor is it ever employed +for a figure.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בכל־הגוים</span> is not to be translated, +"<i>by</i> all nations," but, as the corresponding +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בכברה</span> shows, "in," or "among all nations." +The many people are the spiritual sieve,—the means of purging. The Lord, whose instruments +they are, employs them for the destruction of the ungodly. They are taken away by +His secret judgments, for the execution of which He employs the heathen; compare +ver. 10. Even the godly are violently shaken; but the hand of the Lord secretly +upholds them that they may not sink, but that the temptation may serve for their +spiritual growth; compare Luke xxii. 31, 32, where the Lord distinctly alludes to +the passage under consideration. The corn is shaken; dust and impurity fall to the +ground, the chaff flies into the air. Many interpreters ascribe to +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צרור</span> the signification, "corn;" others, "little +stone." But these significations have been both assumed merely for the sake of the +context. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צרור</span>, from +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צרר</span>, <i>colligavit</i>, <i>constrinxit</i>, +means, primarily, "that which is tightly bound together;" then, "bundle," "bag;" +but here, as in 2 Sam. xvii. 13, "that which is compact, firm, and solid," as opposed +to that which is loose, dissolved, and thin. That which is here meant is the solid, +firm corn, as opposed to the loose chaff, and the dust which falls to the ground +through the sieve.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 10. "<i>By the sword, shall die all the sinners of My people +who say, The evil will not come near, nor advance to us.</i>"</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 389]</span></p> +<p class="normal">In order that the preceding mitigation of the threatening of punishment +might not be appropriated by those to whom it did not belong, the prophet, before +passing on to the further detail of the promise, once more presents the threatening +in all its severity. "The sinners who speak," etc., are they who usurped the promises +of the Covenant without having truly fulfilled its conditions,—who boasted of, and +trusted in, their belonging outwardly to the people of God (compare iii. 2), and +their zeal in the external performance of the duties of worship (compare v. 21-23); +and who therefore imagined that the judgments of the Lord could not reach them, +while, by their sins, they did all in their power to draw them down upon them, v. +18, vi. 3.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 11. "<i>In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David +that is fallen, and wall up its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and build it as +the days of eternity.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The words, "In that day," are to be understood quite generally, +viz., as referring to a time after the divine judgments have broken in and have +completed their work upon Israel. <span lang="el" class="Greek">μετὰ ταῦτα</span>, +by which James renders it in Acts xv. 16, completely expresses the sense. The assertion +of <i>Baur</i>, "That the prophet must have conceived of the restoration of the +tabernacle of David as being near at hand, because he recognised the instruments +of judgment in the invading Assyrians," falls to the ground along with the supposition +on which it rests. The prophet has nothing at all special to do with the invasion +of the Assyrians.—The Partic. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נפלת</span>, according +to the usual signification of the Partic., expresses a permanent condition. The +very expression, "tabernacle," suggests the idea of a sunken condition of the house +of David. The prophet sees the proud palace of David changed into a humble tabernacle, +everywhere in ruins, and perforated. The same idea is expressed by a different image +in Is. xi. 1. There the house of David is called the cut off trunk of Jesse, which +puts forth a new shoot. <i>Hofmann</i> and others are of opinion that the prophet +designates the house of David as a fallen tabernacle, on account of its abasement +at the time then present. "At present," he says, "the lofty house of David is a +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">סכה נפלת</span> when compared with the power of Jeroboam; +but the latter shall fall, and the former shall raise itself again from its decay." +But this designation is certainly not applicable to <span class="pagenum">[Pg 390]</span> +the house of David under a king like Uzziah, nor, in general, to the whole time +of the existing Davidic kingdom. The fact that Amos foresees the deep fall of Judah, +is placed beyond all doubt even by ii. 5. It is impossible that the announcement +of the restoration which is to <i>follow</i> only after this fall, should altogether +ignore the latter. This is, moreover, proved by the parallel passages. The predictions +of all the prophets are pervaded by the foresight of the Messiah's appearing at +the time of the deepest debasement of the Davidic dynasty, and after the total loss +of the royal dignity; compare the remarks on Mic. iv. 8, vi. (2); Is. xi. 1, liii. +2; Ezek. xvii. 22-24.—It might now appear as though the prophet here only supposed +the ruin of the house of David, without having, in the preceding context, expressly +mentioned it; but such is not the case. The whole of the preceding threatening of +punishment relates to the ruin of the house of David; for when the kingdom suffers, +the reigning family cannot but suffer also. This close connection of the two is +pointed out by the prophet himself in the subsequent words. The change of the suffixes +is there certainly not without a reason. The suffix in +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פרציהן</span> refers to the two kingdoms; that in +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הריסתיו</span> to David; and that in +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בניתיה</span> to the tabernacle, while the subject +of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יירשו</span> (ver. 12) is the people. By this +it is intimated that David, his tabernacle, the kingdoms, and the people, are in +substance one—that one stands and falls with the other. They who overlook the co-reference +to Judah, in the preceding verses, do not know what to make of the suffix in +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">פרציהן</span> (compare the expression "these kingdoms," +used of Judah and Israel in vi. 2), and, in their uncertainty, conjecture sometimes +one thing and sometimes another.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ימי</span> is Nominat., +not Accusat. The comparison is merely intimated; compare remarks on Hos. ii. 17. +The circumstance that the happy days of the times of David and Solomon are here +spoken of as "days of eternity"—of the remotest past (compare Mic. vii. 14)—implies +that the prophet sees a long interval between the present and the predicted event.—The +foundation of this prophecy is the promise to David in 2 Sam. vii.; compare especially +ver. 16: "And thine house and thy kingdom shall be sure in eternity before thee, +and thy throne shall be firm in eternity." This reference has also been pointed +out by <i>Calvin</i>, who remarks: "When the prophet says, 'as in the days of old,' +he confirms <span class="pagenum">[Pg 391]</span> the doctrine that the dignity +of the house would not always flow in an equal current, but that, nevertheless, +there would always be such a restoration as would make it easily perceptible that +God's promise of an eternal dominion to David had not been in vain." The dominion +of David had already suffered a considerable shock by the separation of the two +kingdoms, existing at the prophet's time; but it was in future to sink even far +more deeply, and the people along with it. But, with all these things, God's promise +remains true. The judgments do not shut up the way for His mercy, but rather prepare +it. That it was only through the family of David that the promised salvation could +be imparted to the people, the prophet plainly declares. If it were not so, how +could he have identified the tabernacle of David with the two kingdoms, and with +the people? As to the person of the restorer, he does not more particularly designate +it. The main thing with him, as with Hosea (compare the remarks on Hos. ii. 2, and +iii. 5), is to impress upon the people of Israel the conviction, that salvation +could come to them only from a reunion with Judah—from their joining again the house +of David; compare Ezek. xxxvii. 22: "And I make them one nation in the land upon +the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall +be no more two nations, and they shall be no more divided into two kingdoms." But +if this was sure and established, there could then be no more any doubt as to the +person. It was at that time generally known that the promise given to David would +be finally fulfilled in the Messiah; and it was generally acknowledged by the ancient +Jews, that the passages under consideration refer to the Messiah. <i>Jerome</i> +remarks: "The Jews refer everything which, in this and the other prophets, is foretold +concerning the building up of Jerusalem and the temple, and the happy condition +of all things, to themselves, and foolishly expect that all shall be fulfilled in +a carnal sense." It is from the passage under review that the Messiah received the +name <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בר נפלים</span>, <i>filius cadentium</i>—He +who springs forth from the fallen family of David; compare <i>Sanhedrin</i>, fol. +96, 2: R. Nachman said to R. Isaac, Hast thou heard when +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בר נפילים</span> is to come? The latter answered: +Who is he? R. Nachman said: The Messiah. R. Isaac: But is the Messiah thus named? +R. Nachman: Certainly, in Amos ix. 11: <span class="pagenum">[Pg 392]</span> "In +that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen." In <i>Breshith +Rabbah</i>, sec. 88, we read: "Who would have expected that God should raise up +again the fallen tabernacle of David? And yet we read in Amos ix. 11, 'In that day,' +etc. And who could have hoped that the whole world could yet become one flock? And +yet, such is declared in Zeph. iii. 9: 'Then will I turn to the people in pure lips, +that they all may call upon the name of the Lord, and serve Him with one lip.' But +all that is prophesied only in reference to the Messiah." See <i>Schöttgen</i>, +p. 70, and other passages, especially from the <i>Sohar</i>, ibid. p. 111, 566.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 12. "<i>In order that they may possess the remnant of Edom, +and of all the heathen upon whom My name is called, saith the Lord that doeth this.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Calvin</i> remarks on this verse: "This main point is plainly +declared to us, that there is here promised an extension of the kingdom under Christ; +and it is just as if the prophet had said that the Jews were enclosed within narrow +limits, even when the kingdom of David did most flourish, inasmuch as, under Christ, +God is to extend their territory, so that they shall rule far and wide." There is +here an evident allusion to the times of David, which, in the last words of the +preceding verse, formed the subject of discourse. This is quite plain also from +the mention of the Edomites. These had been made subject by David; but afterwards, +availing themselves of the commencing fall of David's tabernacle, they had again +freed themselves. Not only they, however, but all the other heathen nations, shall +be again subjected to the raised up tabernacle of David. That former event served +as a type and prelude to the latter, and formed moreover a prophecy of it in deeds, +inasmuch as both rested on the same foundation, viz., God's protection of His Church, +and His care for His kingdom. It is for this reason too, that, with an allusion +to the former event, the verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יירשו</span> is chosen. +By this verb, expression is given only to the fact of their agreement, and to points +in which those events agree; but it gives no indication of <i>how far</i> they agree, +or in what respects they differ; this is to be declared in the subsequent words. +The prophet, however, in speaking only of the <i>remnant</i> of Edom, looks back +to the threatening in chap. i. They only who have been preserved in the judgment +which is there announced, are to come <span class="pagenum">[Pg 393]</span> under +the blissful dominion of the kingdom of David. As Israel, so also the Gentiles, +must be prepared for the coming of the kingdom of Christ by crushing judgments. +The judgment upon Israel is only a single portion of a great judgment upon all nations. +Into this connection it is brought by the very opening chapters of this book. In +chap. v. 8, vii. 7, there is likewise an intimation of great calamities and shakings, +which are to come upon the heathen world. The submission of the remnant of the heathen +world, however, will not be an abasement, but, on the contrary, an exalting of them; +this is shown by the words, "Upon whom My name is called." These words do not allow +us to think of such a relation of Edom and the other nations to Israel, as existed +at the time of David in the case of the conquered nations. They are never used to +designate a form of allegiance to the Lord so low and false, but always denote the +relation of close and cordial allegiance. The heathen are in future to be considered +and treated as those who are consecrated to the Lord, and who belong to His holy +people,—just as Israel is now considered and treated. Compare, as to the use of +these words with reference to Israel, Deut. xxviii. 9, 10: "The Lord shall raise +thee <i>an Holy people unto Him</i>, as He hath sworn unto thee ... and all people +of the earth see that the name of the Lord is called upon thee, and are afraid of +thee." In this verse, the expression, "The name of the Lord is called upon thee," +corresponds with "holy people." Jer. xiv. 9: "And Thou, O Lord, art in the midst +of us, and Thy name is called upon us." Is. lxiii. 19: "We are those over whom Thou +hast not reigned from eternity, and upon whom Thy name has not been called." As +regards the use of these words in reference to the temple, compare, further, Jer. +vii. 10, 11: "And ye come and stand before Me in this house, upon which My name +is called. Is, perhaps, this house upon which My name is called, a den of robbers +in your eyes?" The exceeding greatness of their wickedness is denounced in these +words; and the ground why it is so great, is not by any means the fact, that the +temple, as was indeed the case with that at Bethel, bore the name of the house of +God only by the caprice of the people, but that it really was the house of God, +and that God, in His gracious condescension, was there <i>really</i> present, as +a type of His dwelling in Christ; compare Deut. xii. 5: "The place which +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 394]</span> the Lord your God shall choose out of all +your tribes, to put His name there." <i>Finally</i>, These words are used in reference +to single individuals, whom God, in a special sense, has made His own, His representatives, +the bearers of His word, the mediators of His revelations, in Jer. xv. 16: "I found +Thy words and I did eat them, and Thy words became unto me the joy and rejoicing +of my heart: for Thy name was called upon me, Jehovah, God of hosts," etc., equivalent +to, "For I was the messenger and representative of Thee, the Almighty God."—<i>Hitzig</i>, +<i>Hofmann</i>, and <i>Baur</i> explain the expression, "Upon whom My name is called," +by, "Upon all the nations who once, at the time of David, were in subjection to +the people of God." The use of the Preterite has been urged in favour of this explanation; +but it is certainly very rash to assert, on the ground of this, that "this view +alone is admissible according to the rules of grammar." The statement of <i>Ewald</i>, +§ 135 <i>a</i>, is exactly applicable to this case: "The <i>Perfectum</i>, when +used with reference to some future event, either mentioned or conceived of, may +as well indicate the past which <i>then</i> has taken place." The sense might thus +be: "All the heathen upon whom then My name will be called." In the same sense, +the Preterite is used in another passage, quoted by <i>Hofmann</i> for a different +purpose—viz., 2 Sam. xii. 28: "In order that I may not take (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אלכד</span>) +the city, and my name be called (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נקרא</span>) upon +it." It militates, however, against their view, that the name of the Lord being +called upon any one, has, according to all the parallel passages, a sense too profound +to admit of a relation to the Lord so loose and external being thereby designated. +It is used only of such as are received into the condition of the people and sons +of Jehovah, Hos. ii. 1 (i. 10). <i>Further</i>, The mere restoration of the Davidic +dominion over the heathen is a very meagre thought, which is far from coming up +to what Jacob had foretold in Gen. xlix. 10, and to what David and Solomon expected +of the future; compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Ps. lxxii. 11: "And all kings worship Him, +all the heathen serve Him."—The closing words, "Thus saith the Lord that doeth this," +are intended to strengthen faith in a promise which appears to be incredible, by +calling attention to the fact, that the person who promises is also the person who +carries it out to its fulfilment; compare Jer. xxxiii. 2: "Thus saith the Lord that +makes it, the Lord that forms it, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 395]</span> to carry +it out, the Lord is His name." This closing formula is also very ill suited for +so meagre a prediction as that of the restoration of the old borders, of which Israel, +under the reign of Uzziah and Jeroboam, was not so very far short. It was, probably, +solely from a false interpretation of the passage under review, that an important +historical event had its rise. Hyrcanus compelled the Idumeans, who were conquered +by him, to be circumcised, and in that way to be incorporated into the Theocracy; +so that they lost entirely their national existence and name (<i>Jos. Arch.</i> +xiii. 9, 1; <i>Prideaux Hist. des Juifs</i>, vol. v. p. 16). This proceeding differed +so materially from that which was ordinarily followed—for David did not think it +at all necessary to adopt a similar proceeding against the Idumeans, and the other +nations which were conquered by him—that it necessarily requires some special reason +to account for it; and such a reason is furnished by the passage under consideration. +Hyrcanus washed to be instrumental in the fulfilment of the prophecy contained in +it; but in this he failed. He did not consider, 1. That the reception of Edom into +the kingdom of God is here brought into connection with the restoration of the tabernacle +of David, and hence could be brought about only by a king of the house of David. +He did not consider, 2. That the matter here in question is not such a reception +into the kingdom of God as depends upon the will of man, but a spiritual reception, +which carries along with it the full enjoyment of divine blessings. That it was, +however, easy for Hyrcanus to fall into such a mistake, is shown by the example +of <i>Grotius</i>, who confined himself to this merely apparent fulfilment, although +he had the real fulfilment before his eyes. By a similar misunderstanding of Old +Testament prophecies, other important events also were brought about; <i>e.g.</i>, +according to the express testimony of Josephus, the building of the Egyptian temple, +and, as we shall afterwards see, the building of the temple by Herod.</p> +<p class="normal">It now only remains to consider the quotation of this passage +in the New Testament, in Acts xv. 16, 17. <i>Olshausen</i> has directed attention +to a difficulty regarding it, which has been overlooked by the greater number of +interpreters. He says that one cannot well see how the quotation bears upon the +point at issue. Both parties were at one as to the duty of admitting the Gentiles +into the kingdom of God. The only question was <span class="pagenum">[Pg 396]</span> +about the manner of their reception—whether with, or without, circumcision—and as +to this, the prophecy, which confines itself to the fact only, does not contain +any express declaration. But this difficulty has its sole foundation on the erroneous +view that James was stating two reasons altogether independent of each other;—the +first in ver. 14, God's declaration by facts, in His having given His Holy Spirit +to the Gentiles, without their having been circumcised; and then, in vers. 16, 17, +the testimony of the Old Testament. But the sound view rather is, that both together +form only one reason. Apart from that testimony which God, the Searcher of hearts, +had given to the Gentiles by the gift of the Holy Spirit, and by making no difference +betwixt them and Israel, the prophetic declaration would have been without any significance; +but it acquires this significance when combined with the testimony of God. It is +now also that the silence of James, in reference to that condition which was demanded +by those of a pharisaic tendency, gains significance. Simeon has declared how God +at first was pleased to take a people for His name out of the Gentiles; and after +the <i>fact</i> of their reception has been so expressively declared, the Old Testament +passage, where this reception is spoken of, is not cognizant of any other <i>mode</i>. +The Apostle does not content himself with quoting ver. 12; he first cites ver. 11, +because it furnished the proof that the declaration contained in ver. 12 referred +to that time. That event, with which the conversion of the Gentiles is here immediately +connected, had already taken place in Christ, at least as to the germ, which contained +within itself the whole substance which afterwards displayed itself. But it was +the main thought only which came into consideration in ver. 11, and therefore it +is somewhat abbreviated. In the quotation, the translation of the LXX. evidently +forms the foundation.</p> +<p class="normal">The quotation of ver. 12 agrees, almost <i>verbatim</i>, with +the LXX. It follows them in their important deviation from the Hebrew text. Instead +of, "In order that they may occupy the remnant of Edom," the LXX. read, +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ὅπως ἂν ἐκζητήσωσιν σἱ καταλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων με</span> +(instead of <span lang="el" class="Greek">με</span> Luke has +<span lang="el" class="Greek">τὸν κύριον</span>, which is found in the <i>Cod. Alex.</i> +also, but has very likely come in from Luke). It is of very little consequence to +determine in what manner the translation of the LXX. arose; whether they had a different +reading, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">למען ידרשו שארית אדם</span>, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 397]</span> before them; or whether they merely read erroneously; +or whether, according to <i>Lightfoot</i> (in his remarks on Acts xv. 16, 17), they +intentionally thus altered the words; or whether it was their object to express +the sense only generally and approximately (in the last two cases we should be obliged +to suppose that, by a kind of play, and in order to represent, in an outward manner, +the substantial agreement of the thought, they chose words exactly corresponding +to the Hebrew text, with the exception of a change of a few letters,—a thing which +frequently occurs in the Talmud, and even in Jeremiah when compared with the older +prophets); only, we must set aside the idea of a really different reading,—a reading +resting on the authority of good Manuscripts, inasmuch as such an idea would be +irreconcilable with the deviations of the LXX. elsewhere, and with the unanimity +of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the passage before us. The assertion of <i>Olshausen</i>, +however, that, in the Hebrew form, the passage would not have been suitable for +the purpose, and that therefore it is probable that, on this occasion, Greek must +have been spoken in the assembly, does indeed deserve our attention.</p> +<p class="normal">Whether or not the latter was the case, we leave undecided. That +it was probable, may be proved from other grounds, but it by no means follows from +the reason stated by <i>Olshausen</i>. The passage was suited for the proof, as +well according to the Hebrew text, as according to the Alexandrian version; for +the latter is quite correct and faithful in so far as the sense is concerned. The +<i>occupying</i>, in the sense in which it is used by Amos, has the <i>seeking</i> +for its necessary supposition. For how, indeed, can spiritual possession, spiritual +dominion by the people of the Lord exist, unless the Lord has been sought by those +who are to be ruled over? Compare the declaration: "The isles shall wait for His +law," Is. xlii. 4. The words, "And of all the heathen," following immediately after +Edom, evidently prove that Amos mentions Edom, only by way of individualizing; and +the Idumeans, especially, as a people, only because their former, specially violent +hatred to the Covenant-people (compare i. 11) made their future humble submission +more evidently a work of the omnipotence of God, and of His love watching over His +people; and at the same time there may be a reference also to the former subjection +by David. The LXX. <span class="pagenum">[Pg 398]</span> have done nothing more, +than at once to substitute for the particular, the general which comprehends this +particular,—a particular which is, by Amos too, designated as a part of the general.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_398a" href="#ftn_398a">[5]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 13. "<i>Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and the ploughman +reacheth to the reaper, and the treader of the wine-press to him that soweth seed. +And the mountains drop must, and all the hills melt.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The fundamental thought in this passage is this:—Wheresoever the +Lord is, there also is the fulness of His gifts.—The imagery in the first hemistich +is taken from Lev. xxvi. 3-5: "If ye shall walk in My laws, and keep My commandments +and do them; then I will give your rains in their seasons, and the land gives its +produce, and the tree of the field gives its fruit. And your threshing <i>reaches</i> +to the vintage, and the vintage <i>reaches to the sowing</i> time." After the Lord +has purified His congregation by His judgments, then the joyful time of blessing, +prophesied by His servant Moses, shall likewise come. <i>Cocceius</i> says: "One +shall reap, the other shall immediately plough; one shall scatter the seeds in the +ploughed field, while another shall, at the same time, tread the grapes,—a work +is wont to be done at the last time of the year. There shall be continual work, +and continual fruit, and a fruitfulness such as that in the land of the Troglodytes +which <i>Scaliger</i> (<i>Exercit.</i> 249, 2) thus describes: 'Throughout the whole +year there is sowing and reaping at the same time; at one place the seed is committed +to the fields, and at another the wheat shoots up, at another it gets ears, at another +it is reaped, at another it is collected, and <span class="pagenum">[Pg 399]</span> +brought to the threshing-places, and thence to the barn.'"—The second hemistich +agrees with Joel iv. (iii.) 18 (which is certainly not accidental; compare the introduction +to Joel): "At that time the mountains shall drop must, and the hills go with milk." +From a comparison of this passage it appears that the melting of the hills can mean +only their dissolving into rivers of milk, must, and honey, with an allusion to +the description of the promised land in the Pentateuch (Exod. iii. 8) as a land +flowing with milk and honey.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 14. "<i>And I turn Myself to the captivity of My people Israel, +and they build waste cities, and dwell, and plant vineyards, and drink their wine; +and they make gardens and eat their fruit.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The captivity is a figure of misery. With reference to +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שבות שוב</span> compare the remarks on Joel.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 15. "<i>And I plant them in their land, and they shall no +more he plucked up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy +God.</i>" Compare p. 227 seqq.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_365a" href="#ftnRef_365a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> <i>Hofmann</i>, <i>Schriftbeweis</i> I. S. + 312, objects: "If this were correct, Paul ought to have delivered that fornicator + at Corinth (1 Cor. v. 5), or Hymeneus and Alexander (1 Tim. i. 20), not to Satan, + but to the good angels." But the individuals mentioned were members of the Church + of Christ, and they were delivered to Satan, not for their absolute destruction, + but for their salvation: <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα</span>, + (which of course was still in existence; and it is just the + <span lang="el" class="Greek">πνεῦμα</span> that separates between the world + and the Church, compare Ps. li. 13) <span lang="el" class="Greek">σωθῇ ἐν τῇ + ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου, ἵνα παιδευθῶσι μὴ βλασφημεῖν.</span> It is, as in the case + of Job, a punishment with a view to purification, for which power is given to + Satan, Heb. xii. 6. These passages, then, serve only to confirm the view which + we have expressed.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_370a" href="#ftnRef_370a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> The same is probably the case in vi. 14: "For + behold I raise up against you, O house of Israel, saith the Lord God of Hosts, + heathen people; and they shall afflict you from Hamath unto the river of the + wilderness." The river of the wilderness can here be none other than the river + of Egypt, which commonly appears as the boundary of the whole. Compare 1 Kings + viii. 65; 2 Chron. vii. 8, where Solomon assembles the whole people from Hamath + unto the river of Egypt; Josh. xv. 4, 47; 2 Kings xxiv. 7; Is. xxvii. 12. They + who think of the boundary of the kingdom of the ten tribes only, are at a loss, + and have recourse to uncertain conjectures.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_370b" href="#ftnRef_370b"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[3]</sup></a> In Micah i. 15 the entire people are called + Jacob. The same occurs also in Hos. x. 11, xii. 3 (2).</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_384a" href="#ftnRef_384a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[4]</sup></a> <i>Hitzig</i> says: With a disposition of + mind different from that in iii. 2, the prophet says here, "You enjoy no privileges + with me, you are to me like all others." A strange disposition of mind indeed + for a prophet! An interpretation which results in such thoughts, which cannot + be entertained for a moment, is self-condemned.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_398a" href="#ftnRef_398a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[5]</sup></a> Whether, however, it was James or Luke who + quoted these words according to the version of the LXX., this passage is one + of the many hundreds which prove that the violent urging and pressing for an + improvement in our (German) authorized version of the Scriptures, as it proceeded + from <i>von Meier</i> and <i>Stier</i>, is exaggerated. The Saviour and His + Apostles adopted, without hesitation, the version current at their time, when + its deviations concerned not the thought but the words. If we proceed upon this + principle, how will the mountain of complaints melt away which has been raised + against <i>Luther's</i> translation of the Scriptures. But it is true that, + even then, weighty objections remain. The revision of it is a want of the Church; + but it is not so urgent that we may not, and must not, wait for the time when + it may be satisfied without danger. If it were undertaken at present, the disadvantages + would far outweigh the advantages. To everything there is a season; and it is + the duty of the wise steward to find it out, and to know it.</p> +</div> +<hr class="W20"> +<h2><a name="div2_399" href="#div2Ref_399">THE PROPHECY OF OBADIAH.</a></h2> +<p class="normal">We need not enter into details regarding the question as to the +time when the prophet wrote. By a thorough argumentation, <i>Caspari</i> has proved, +that he occupies his right position in the Canon, and hence belongs to the earliest +age of written prophecy, <i>i.e.</i>, to the time of Jeroboam II. and Uzziah. As +bearing conclusively against those who would assign to him a far later date, viz., +the time of the exile, there is not only the indirect testimony borne by the place +which this prophecy occupies in the collection of the prophets which is chronologically +arranged, but there are also the following facts;—that those who are to inflict +the predicted calamity upon Judah are not at all more definitely characterized than +in the first part of Hosea, in Joel, and Amos;—that, in like manner, the heathen +power from which the overthrow of Edom is to proceed, is neither mentioned, nor +more definitely pointed out in any other way;—that Jeremiah already made use of +Obadiah's prophecy; and if such be denied, the older foundation would then be withdrawn +from the prophecy of Jeremiah—which would be contrary <span class="pagenum">[Pg +400]</span> to the analogy of Jeremiah's prophecies against foreign nations;—and, +finally, that, in vers. 12-14, the prophet exhorts the Edomites neither to rejoice +nor to co-operate in the destruction of Jerusalem, because, otherwise, they would +certainly receive the well-merited reward of such wickedness committed against the +Covenant-people, to whom they were so nearly related. Such an exhortation would +have been out of place, after the wickedness had been committed.—The view of <i> +Hofmann</i> (which was revived by <i>Delitzsch</i> in his treatise, "When did Obadiah +prophesy?" [<i>Guerike's Zeitschrift</i> 51, <i>Hft.</i> 1])—according to which +the capture of Jerusalem by the Philistines and Arabians under Jehoram (2 Chron. +xxi. 16 ff.) was the occasion of the prophecy before us, and according to which +Obadiah is thus made the oldest among all the prophets in the Canon, and separated +by nearly a century from the three prophets who preceded him—overlooks the fact +that only cogent reasons could induce us to assume so isolated a position, since +it is certainly not a matter of accident that the written prophecy began its course +under the reign of Jeroboam and Uzziah. The guilt and punishment of Edom are, in +like manner, spoken of in the Preterite; and it is inadmissible to understand the +Preterites as historical, in so far as they refer to the guilt, and as prophetical, +in so far as they refer to the punishment. The words, "Day of their destruction," +in ver. 12, are decisive against every other catastrophe upon Judah, but that of +the Chaldean. Ver. 20, when rightly interpreted, supposes the carrying away of Israel +and Judah, and hence allows us to think only of the Assyro-Chaldean catastrophe. +In ver. 21, Mount Zion is forsaken, and "the saviours" return to it from the land +of captivity.</p> +<p class="normal">In strict accordance with the position of the book in the Canon, +is the fact, that Obadiah connects himself most closely with Joel, and, excepting +him, among all the prophets, with Amos only; compare <i>Caspari</i>, S. 20 ff., +35; <i>Hävernick</i>, <i>Einleitung</i> II. S. 318. Of greater importance than the +coincidences in particulars, is the fact that the prophecy of Obadiah, upon the +whole, connects itself most closely and immediately with the fourth (third) chapter +of Joel—that in the prophecy of Obadiah, we have indeed a <i>variation</i> on that +chapter. The judgment upon Judah, which Joel announces in the first part, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 401]</span> is here supposed to have already taken place; +and this might be done so much the rather, because, even in Joel, the prophetic +<i>Plerophory</i>, with which rationalistic interpreters are so much puzzled, has +changed the Future into the Present and Past—as, even there, the destruction of +Jerusalem, and the overflowing of the whole country by the heathen, are represented +as already existing. It is only the judgment upon the heathen, and the restoration +of Israel, which Obadiah represents in his prophetic picture.</p> +<p class="normal">Like Hosea (in the first three chapters), Joel, and Amos, so Obadiah +also, received the mission to point out the catastrophe threatened by the world's +power, even before the latter existed on the scene of history. It was to the Covenant-people +a source of rich consolation that it was so clearly and distinctly foretold to them, +even before it had an existence, and the points of view from which it must be regarded +were opened up to them. He, however, distinctly points to one idea only, just because +there were already predecessors to whose prophecies he could refer. He did not receive +the mission to call to repentance, or to represent the judgment as a well-deserved +punishment—although, <i>indirectly</i>, in him as well as in Joel, these thoughts +also occur, as certainly as the supposed destruction of Judah and Israel could only +be the punishment of their sin; he has to point out only the salvation subsequent +to the overflowing by the heathen world, the conquering power of the kingdom of +God which, in the end, will manifest itself, and deeply to impress upon the Covenant-people +the words: <span lang="el" class="Greek">θαρσεῖτε, ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον.</span> +The glaring contrast betwixt the <i>idea</i>—according to which the kingdom of God +was to be all prevailing—and the <i>reality</i>, in which it is pressed into a corner, +shall in future increase still more. Even from this corner, the people of God shall +be driven. But death is the transition to life; the uttermost degree of sufferings, +the forerunner of deliverance and salvation. Not a restoration only is in store +for the people of God—they even obtain the dominion of the world; but to the heathen +world, which is at enmity with God, their exaltation is a forerunner of destruction.</p> +<p class="normal">All which Obadiah had to say in reference to the heathen, God-hating +world, and to the form which, in future, Israel's <span class="pagenum">[Pg 402]</span> +relation to it would assume, has been exemplified by him in the case of Edom. For +the fact, that it is only the heathen power individualized which we have before +us, is shown by the transition to the heathen in general in ver. 15, according to +which, Edom comes into consideration only as a part of the whole: "For near is the +day of the Lord upon <i>all the heathen</i>." So also is it in ver. 16: "For as +ye<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_402a" href="#ftn_402a">[1]</a></sup> have +drunk upon My holy mountain, so shall <i>all the heathen</i> drink continually;<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_402b" href="#ftn_402b">[2]</a></sup> +and they drink, and sup up, and they are as though they were not." When speaking +of the guilt, he mentions Edom only; when speaking of punishment, he introduces +all the heathen at once. According to ver. 17, Israel shall occupy the possessions +of <i>all the heathen</i>. And even the last words of the whole prophecy, "And the +kingdom shall be the Lord's," show that it bears a universal character,—that in +the case of Edom, we have only a principle exemplified which applies to all the +enemies of the kingdom of God. The leading thought is: The kingdom of God shall +obtain universal dominion, which follows the deepest abasement of the people of +God, and of which the fullest and most perfect realization must be sought in Christ.</p> +<p class="normal">The animating thought could be so much the better individualized +in the case of Edom, as its natural relation to Israel was one of special nearness, +and its hatred specially deep; and as, moreover, it at all times considered itself +the rival of Israel, of whose advantages it was envious. That which Amos, the cotemporary +of Obadiah, says of Edom in chap. i. 11—"He pursues his brother with the sword, +and corrupts his compassions, and his anger tears perpetually, and he keeps his +wrath for ever"—shows how exceedingly well he was fitted to be a representative +of the enemies of the kingdom of God. It was so much the more obvious thus to represent +Edom as a particular and individualizing exemplification of this principle, as the +prophets of that period had not as yet received any more definite disclosures as +to the threatening kingdoms of the future, while Edom, in his +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 403]</span> hatred against the people of God, stood before +their eyes. The germ of this is to be found in Joel iv. (iii.) 19, where Edom already +appears as a representative and type of the God-hating heathen world, which is to +be judged by the Lord, after the judgment upon Judah.</p> +<p class="normal">In Obadiah, we find a fulness of remarkable glances into the future +compressed within a narrow space. The chief events are the following:—1. The capture +of Jerusalem, the total carrying away of the entire people, both of Judah and Israel, +to a far distance, vers. 20, 21. 2. The return of Israel, the cessation of the separation +of the two kingdoms, ver. 18 (compare Hos. ii. 2 [i. 11]; Amos ix. 11, 12), and +his elevation to the dominion of the world by the "Saviours," ver. 21. 3. The judgment +upon Edom by heathen nations, vers. 1-9. Jeremiah, in xxvii. 2 ff., compared with +xxv., more distinctly points out the Chaldeans as the heathen instruments of the +judgment upon Edom and all the people round about; and Matt. i. 3, 4, shows the +weight of the sufferings which were inflicted by them upon Edom. 4. The occupation +of the land of Edom by Judah. One realization of this prophecy took place in the +time of the Maccabees; but we must not confine ourselves to this. As, in the main, +Edom is only a type of the God-hating heathen world, the true and real fulfilment +can be sought in Christ alone. Compare the remarks, p. 98, with reference to Moab +in Balaam's prophecy.</p> +<p class="normal">The prophecy of Obadiah is divided into three parts:—the destruction +of Edom by heathen nations summoned by Jehovah, vers. 1-9; the cause of it, his +wickedness against Judah, vers. 10-16; Judah, on the contrary, rises with Joseph +from this humiliation, and becomes a conqueror of the world, vers. 17-21. This last +part claims our closer consideration.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 17. "<i>And upon Mount Zion shall be they that have escaped, +and it is holy</i> (compare Joel iii. 5, iv. 17 [ii. 32, iii. 17]), <i>and the house +of Jacob occupies their possessions.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The suffix in <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מורשיהם</span> refers +to all the heathen in ver. 16. The kingdom shall be the Lord's, according to ver. +16, and the dominion of His people extends as far as His own. We have here the general +prophecy; and in what immediately follows, the application to Edom. The first two +clauses serve as a foundation for the third. The holiness has, so to speak, not +only a <span class="pagenum">[Pg 404]</span> defensive, but also an offensive character. +Its consequence is the dominion of the world.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 18. "<i>And the house of Jacob becomes a fire, and the house +of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau stubble, and they kindle them, and devour +them; and there shall not be any remaining to the house of Esau; for the Lord has +spoken.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Besides the whole of the people, that part of them (the house +of Joseph, the people of the ten tribes) is specially mentioned which one might +have expected to be excluded. That there is none remaining to the house of Esau +(and to all who are like him) agrees with the declaration uttered by Joel in iii. +5 (ii. 32): "Amongst those who are spared, is whomsoever the Lord calleth." They, +however, whom the Lord calls, are, according to the same verse, they who call on +the name of the Lord. But the characteristic of Edom is his hatred against the kingdom +of God,—and that excludes both the calling on the Lord, and the being called by +the Lord. The single individual, however, may come out of the community of his people, +and enter into the territory of saving grace, as is shown by the example of Rahab. +In the further description of the conquering power, which the people of God shall, +in future, exercise, we are, in ver. 19, first met by Judah and Benjamin.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 19. "<i>And they of the south possess the Mount of Esau, +and they from the low region, the Philistines; and they</i> (<i>i.e.</i>, they of +Judah, the whole, of whom they of the South and of the low region are parts only) +<i>possess the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria, and Benjamin—Gilead.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">It is obvious that we have here before us only an individualized +representation of the thought already expressed in Gen. xxviii. 14: "And thy seed +shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt break forth to the East and to +the West, to the North and to the South; and in thee, and in thy seed, all the families +of the earth are blessed;" compare also Is. liv. 3: "Thou shalt break forth on the +right hand and on the left, and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles."—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נגב</span> +is the south part of Judea, at the borders of Edom; +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שפלה</span> the low region on the West, at the borders +of the Philistines. As, according to the vision of the prophet, the exaltation of +Judah is preceded by his total overthrow and captivity (compare vers. 11-14, 20, +21), the tribe of Judah, which, before the catastrophe, was settled in +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 405]</span> the South and low region, is here meant. That +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">את</span> can be taken only as the sign of the Accus., +and "Mount of Esau," accordingly, as the object only, appears from ver. 20, according +to which the South is vacant. Judah thus extends in the South, over Edom, in the +West, over Philistia, in the North, over the former territory of the ten tribes, +and hence also over the territory of Benjamin, which formerly lay betwixt Judah +and Joseph. Benjamin is indemnified by Gilead. The whole of Canaan comes thus to +Judah and Benjamin. Joseph, to whose damage, according to ver. 18, this enlargement +of Judah's territory must lead, must be transferred altogether to heathenish territory. +We expect to find, in ver. 20, how he is indemnified.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 20. "<i>And the exiles of this host of the children of Israel +(shall possess) what are Canaanites unto Zarephath, and the exiles of Jerusalem +that are in Sepharad shall possess the cities of the South.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The circumstance that the Athnach stands below +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ספרד</span> indicates that +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ירשו</span> implies the common property of the exiles +of this host, and of the exiles of Jerusalem. The "Sons of Israel," in this context, +can only be the ten tribes; for they are here indemnified for their former territory, +which, according to ver. 19, has become the possession of Judah. "The exiles of +this host" is equivalent to: "This whole host of exiles,"—the whole mass of the +ten tribes, carried away according to prophetic foresight (compare Amos v. 27: "And +I carry you away beyond Damascus, saith the Lord, the God of hosts"), as opposed +to a piecemeal carrying away, such as had once already taken place before the time +of the prophet in respect to Judah, but not in respect to the children of Israel; +compare Joel iv. (iii.) 6. That the "Canaanites unto Zarephath"—<i>i.e.</i>, the +Phœnicians, whose territory formed part of the promised land, but had never, in +former times, come into the real possession of Israel—are the objects of conquest, +and that, hence, we cannot explain as <i>Caspari</i> does, "Who are among the Canaanites, +even unto Zarephath," is evident from the circumstance, that all the neighbouring +nations appear as objects of the conquering activity;—that the great mass of the +Israelitish exiles were not among the Canaanites;—that the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span> could, in that case, not have been omitted;—and +that the South country is too small <span class="pagenum">[Pg 406]</span> a space +for the children of Israel, and of Jerusalem together. Sepharad, the very name of +which is scarcely known, is mentioned as a particularizing designation of the utmost +distance. The description becomes complete by its returning to the South country, +from which it had proceeded. The South country penetrates to Edom; the inhabitants +of Jerusalem extend beyond the South country.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 21. "<i>And saviours go up on Mount Zion to judge the Mount +of Esau, and the kingdom shall be the Lord's.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal"><span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עלו</span> is to be accounted for +from the consideration, that the deliverance and salvation imply the entire overthrow—the +total carrying away of the people. The Saviour <span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ +ἐξοχήν</span> is hidden beneath the "saviours;" compare Judges iii. 9, 15; Neh. +ix. 27. But even here, everything is connected with human individuals; and the more +glorious the salvation which the prophet beholds in the future, viz., the absolute +dominion of the Lord, and His people, over the world, the less can it be conceived +that the prophet should have expected the realization of it by a collective body +of mortal men without a leader. But the plural intimates that the antitype is not +without types,—that the head cannot be conceived of without members. In Jer. xxiii. +4, we read: "And I raise up shepherds over them which shall feed them;" and immediately +afterwards the one good shepherd—Christ—forms the subject of discourse.—And the +kingdom shall be the Lord's."—His dominion, till <i>then</i> concealed, shall now +be publicly manifested, and the people of the earth shall acknowledge it, either +spontaneously, or by constraint. The coming of this kingdom has begun with Christ, +and, in Him, waits for its consummation. The opinion of <i>Caspari</i>, that the +contents of vers. 19 and 20, as well as the close of this prophecy, belong altogether +to the future, rests on a false, literal explanation, the inadmissibility of which +is sufficiently evident from the circumstance that the Edomites, Philistines, and +Canaanites have long since disappeared from the scene of history; so that there +exists no longer the possibility of a literal fulfilment.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_402a" href="#ftnRef_402a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> The fact that, <i>everywhere</i>, the discourse + is addressed to the Edomites, proves that here also Edom is addressed. The + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span> and the + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כאשר</span> sin this verse, compared with those + in the preceding verse, likewise suggest this. Compare, moreover, Joel iv. (iii.) + 3, to which passage there is already an allusion in ver. 11.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_402b" href="#ftnRef_402b"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> Namely, the cup of punishment, of divine wrath.</p> +</div> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 407]</span></p> +<h2><a name="div2_407" href="#div2Ref_407">THE PROPHET JONAH.</a></h2> +<p class="normal">It has been asserted without any sufficient reason, that Jonah +is older than Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Obadiah,—that he is the oldest among the prophets +whose written monuments have been preserved to us. The passage in 2 Kings xiv. 25, +where it is said, that Jonah, the son of Amittai the prophet, prophesied to Jeroboam +the happy success of his arms, and the restoration of the ancient boundaries of +Israel, and that this prophecy was confirmed by the event, cannot decide in favour +of this assertion, because it cannot be proved that the victories of Jeroboam belonged +to the <i>beginning</i> of his reign. On the other hand, it is opposed, <i>first</i>, +by the position of the book in the collection of the Minor Prophets, which, throughout, +is chronologically arranged, and which is tantamount to an express testimony that +Jonah wrote <i>after</i> Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Obadiah. <i>Then</i>,—the circumstance +that Nineveh is mentioned here, and that too in a way which implies that, even at +that time, the hostile relations of the Assyrians to the Covenant-people had already +begun, while in the first part of Hosea, in Joel, Amos, and Obadiah, no reference +to the Assyrians is as yet found. Even ancient interpreters, as <i>Chr. B. Michaelis</i>, +<i>Crusius</i> (in the <i>Theol. Proph.</i> iii. S. 38), inferred from this mention +of Nineveh, that the book had been composed in consequence of the first invasion +of the Assyrians under Menahem, who ascended the throne 13 years after the death +of Jeroboam II. <i>Finally</i>,—the book begins with <i>and</i>. Wherever else, +in the canonical books of the Old Testament, such a beginning occurs, it indicates +a resumption of, and a junction with, former links in the chain of sacred literature; +compare Judges i. 1; 1 Sam. i. 1; Ezek. i. 1. That the expression, "And it came +to pass," with which the book opens, is intended to establish the connection with +the prophecy of Obadiah, which occupies the immediately preceding place in the Canon, +is intimated by the internal relation of the two books to each other. The prophecy +of Obadiah bears, throughout, a hostile aspect to the heathen world; it appears +to him as the object only of God's judging activity. Jonah, on the other hand, received +the mission, distinctly to point out the other aspect of the matter, and +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 408]</span> thereby, not indeed to correct, but certainly +to supplement his predecessor.</p> +<p class="normal">The time was approaching when the heathen world was to pour out +its floods upon the people of God. It was obvious that the position of Israel towards +it became one altogether repulsive, that the susceptibility of the heathen for salvation +was denied, and God's mercy was limited to Israel. Narrow-minded exclusiveness received +a powerful support from the oppression and haughtiness of the heathen. Whilst other +prophets opposed such exclusiveness by their words, by announcing the extension +of salvation to the Gentiles, Jonah received the mission to illustrate, by a symbolical +action, the capacity of the heathen for salvation, and their future participation +in it. The effect of this must necessarily have been so much the greater, as the +whole of the little book is exclusively devoted to this subject, as it appeared +at the first beginning of the conflict, and as Nineveh is mentioned here, for the +first time, in so peaceable and conciliatory a relation, and in close harmony and +connection with the announcement of the willing submission of the heathen world +to the dominion of Shiloh, spoken of in Gen. xlix. 10. It is remarkably impressive +to see how spirit here triumphs over nature—a triumph which appears so much the +brighter because the prophet himself pays his tribute to nature; for it was because +he listened to the voice of nature, that, at first, he intended to flee to Tarshish. +The reason why the commission of the Lord was so disagreeable to him, we learn from +chap. iv. 2. He was afraid lest the preaching of repentance, which was committed +to him, might turn away the judgments of the Lord from Nineveh, the metropolis of +that country which threatened destruction to Israel. He knew the deep corruption +of his own people, and foreboded the issue which the extension of the means of grace +to the Gentiles might very easily bring about in the end. But yet, he felt almost +irresistibly impelled to carry out the commission of God, and in order to cut himself +off from the possibility of following the voice which called him to the east, he +resolved to go to the far distant west. The voice, however, followed him even there; +but the farther he advanced on his journey, the more difficult it became for him +to follow it. At a later period, when the Lord granted mercy to Nineveh, he was +angry and wished to die, not by any means because he <span class="pagenum">[Pg 409]</span> +felt himself injured in his honour as a prophet (as was erroneously supposed, even +by <i>Calvin</i>), but because he grudged to the Gentiles the mercy which he considered +as a prerogative of Israel only, and because he was anxious for the destruction +of Nineveh as the metropolis of that kingdom which was destined to be the rod of +chastisement for his own people. He was thus actuated by the same ardent love for +his people which called forth the wish of St Paul, that he might become an anathema +for his brethren,—by the same disposition of mind which prevailed in the elder brother +at the return of the prodigal son (Luke xv. 25 ff.), and which at first would manifest +itself even in Peter, Acts x. 14 ff. The Jewish sentence (<i>Carpzov. Introd.</i> +3, p. 149), "Jonah was anxious for the glory of the Son, but he did not seek the +glory of the Father," is very significant. Jonah exhibits, in a very striking way, +the thoughts of his old man, in order that Israel might recognise themselves in +his image. But we are not at liberty to say that the prophet represented the people +only. It is true that, as one of the people, he also entertained those thoughts; +but, besides these, he entertained other thoughts also. The voices of the Lord which +he heard were spiritual; and such voices can be heard only when there is something +akin in the heart. Not even with one step did Jonah touch the territory of the false +prophets, who prophesied out of their own hearts. He retained all his human weakness +to himself, and the Word of God stood by the side of it in unclouded brightness, +and obtained absolute victory.</p> +<p class="normal">There can be no doubt that we have before us in the Book of Jonah +the description of a symbolical action,—that his mission to Nineveh has an object +distinct from the mission itself,—that it is not the result attained by it in the +first instance which is the essential point, but that it is its aim to bring to +light certain truths, and in the form of fact, to prophesy future things. The truths +are these:—<i>First</i>, that the Gentiles are by no means so unsusceptible of the +higher truth as vulgar prejudice imagined them to be. This was manifested by the +conduct of the sailors, who, at last, offer sacrifices and even vows to Jehovah; +but, in a more striking manner, by the deep impression which the discourse of Jonah +produced upon the Ninevites. In this we have the actual proof of Ezek. iii. 5, 6, +where the prophet represents his mission as one of peculiar difficulty—more +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 410]</span> difficult, even, than it would have been if +addressed to the Gentiles: "Had I sent thee to them, surely they would have hearkened +to thee." <i>Further</i>,—that it is not in His relation to Israel only, but in +His relation to the Gentiles also, that the Lord is "gracious and merciful, slow +to anger and of great kindness," chap. iv. 2. The view which these words, at once, +open up into the future, is, that at some future period the Lord will grant to the +Gentiles the preaching of His word, and admission into His kingdom. The glory of +His mercy and grace would have been darkened, if the revelation of them had been +for ever limited to a particular, small portion of the human race. Nineveh, the +representative of the heathen multitude, is very significantly called the "great +city" at the very outset, in i. 2, and "a great city for God," in iii. 3, for which, +as <i>Michaelis</i> remarks, God specially cared, on account of the great number +of souls; compare iv. 11.</p> +<p class="normal">If the symbolical and prophetical character of the book be denied, +the fact of its having its place among the prophetical, and not among the historical, +books, admits of no explanation at all. For so much is evident, that this fact cannot +be satisfactorily accounted for by the circumstance that the book reports the events +which happened to a prophet. The sound explanation has been already given by <i> +Marckius</i>: "The book is, in a great measure, historical, but in such a manner, +that in the history itself there is hidden the mystery of the greatest prophecy, +and that Jonah proves himself to be a true prophet, by the events which happened +to him, not less than by his utterances." A similar explanation is given by <i>Carpzovius</i>: +"By his own example, as well as by the event itself, he bore witness that it was +the will of God that all men should be saved, and should come to the knowledge of +the truth," 1 Tim. ii. 4.</p> +<p class="normal">We are led to the same conclusion by the representation itself. +This differs very widely from that given in the historical books. The objection +raised by <i>Hitzig</i> against the historical truth,—viz., that the narrative is +fragmentary,—that it wants completeness,—that a number of events are communicated +only in so far as is required by the object of gaining a foundation for the graphic +representation of the doctrinal contents,—cannot be set aside so easily as is done +by <i>Hävernich</i> when he says: <span class="pagenum">[Pg 411]</span> "By arguments +of a nature so flimsy, suspicions may be raised against the truth of every historical +report." We cannot but confess that, to the writer, history is indeed a means only +of representing a thought to which he is anxious to give currency in the Church +of God. It is just for this reason that he abstains from graphically enlarging, +because that would have been an obstacle to his purpose. The narrative of a symbolical +action which took place outwardly, comes, in this respect, under the same law as +the narrative of a symbolical action belonging to the internal territory, and to +that of the parable. The narrative would lose the character of perspicuity which +is so necessary for the whole matter, if it were complete in the subordinate circumstances.</p> +<p class="normal">It also tells in favour of the symbolical character of the history +of Jonah, that the missionary activity on behalf of the Gentiles does not properly +belong to the vocation of the prophets, their mission being to the two houses of +Israel only. In the entire history, not even a single example is to be found of +a prophet who, for the good of the heathen world itself, went out among them. The +history of Elisha, in 2 Kings viii. 7 ff., has, without sufficient reason, been +adduced by <i>Hävernick</i>. According to the visions of the prophets themselves, +the conversion of the heathen is not to be accomplished <i>at present</i>, but in +the Messianic time, and by the Messiah Himself. If, then, the book itself is not +to stand altogether isolated, the symbolical character of Jonah's mission must be +acknowledged. But then it is only in the form that it differs from the announcements +of the extension of salvation to the heathen also,—announcements which occur in +the other prophets also. That which these exhibited in words merely, is here made +conspicuous by deeds. The influence thereby produced upon the heathen appears then +only as the means, while the real purpose is to make an important truth familiar +to the Congregation of God, and, by a striking fact, to remove the prejudices which +prevailed in it.</p> +<p class="normal"><i>Finally</i>,—If the symbolical character of the facts be denied, +the mission of Jonah appears to be almost divested of every aim; for the good emotions +of the crew, and the repentance of the Ninevites, evidently did not lead to any +lasting result. If anything else were aimed at than the prefiguring of future events, +the prophet might better have stayed at home; an unassuming +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 412]</span> ministry in some corner among the Covenant-people +would have carried along with it a greater reward.</p> +<p class="normal">If, on the other hand, the symbolical character of the history +of Jonah be admitted, remarkable parallels in the history of Jesus present themselves. +The Saviour, in the days of His flesh, was satisfied with the prophetic intimation +of the future farther extension of His salvation. That which He Himself did for +this extension, in those particular cases where the faith of non-Israelites obtruded +itself upon Him, must, in its isolation, be viewed as an embodiment of that intimation,—as +a prophecy by deeds. He says in Matt. xv. 24: "I am not sent but to the lost sheep +of the house of Israel;" but if, nevertheless. He purposely makes His abode in the +territory of Tyre and Sidon; if there He hears the prayer of the Canaanitish woman +to heal her daughter, after having first tried her faith, then His purpose evidently +is: That His prophecy in words concerning the extension of salvation to the Gentiles, +might find a support in His prophecy in deeds. Jesus, prefiguring the future doings +of His servants, passed over the boundaries of the Gentiles. Whilst the Jews had +rejected the salvation offered to them, and forced Jesus to retire into concealment, +the heathen woman comes full of faith, and seeks Him in His concealment. The Canaanitish +woman is a representative of the heathen world, the future faith of which she was +called to prefigure by sustaining the trial. From her example, the Apostles were +to learn what might be expected from the Gentiles when the time should arrive for +proclaiming the Gospel to them also. In Matt. x. 5, 6, the Lord speaks to the Apostles: +"Go not in the way of the Gentiles, and into any of the cities of the <i>Samaritans</i> +enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." His own conduct, +however, as it is reported in John iv., stands in contradiction to this command +to His Apostles, so long as its prophetical significance is not acknowledged. That +which was, on a large scale, to be done by Christ in the state of glorification, +was prefigured by Him, on a smaller scale, in the state of humiliation. The ministry +of Christ in Samaria bears the same relation to the later mission among this people, +that the single instances of Christ's raising the dead do to the general resurrection. +The Lord afterwards did not foster the germs which had come forth among the Samaritans; +He, in the meantime, left them altogether <span class="pagenum">[Pg 413]</span> +to their fate. That prelude was quite sufficient for the object which He then had +in view, and nothing further could be done without violating the rights of the Covenant-people, +to which, in the conversation as recorded by John, the Lord as expressly pays attention, +as He does in Matt. x.</p> +<hr class="W20"> +<h2><span class="sc"><a name="div2_413" href="#div2Ref_413">THE PROPHET MICAH.</a></span></h2> +<h3><a name="div3_413" href="#div3Ref_413">PRELIMINARY REMARKS.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">Micah signifies: "Who is like Jehovah;" and by this name, the +prophet is consecrated to the incomparable God, just as Hosea was to the helping +God, and Nahum to the comforting God. He prophesied, according to the inscription, +under Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. We are not, however, entitled, on this account, +to dissever his prophecies, and to assign particular discourses to the reign of +each of these kings. On the contrary, the entire collection forms only one whole. +At the termination of his prophetic ministry, under Hezekiah, the prophet committed +to writing everything which was of importance for all coming time that had been +revealed to him during the whole duration of that ministry. He collected into one +comprehensive picture all the detached visions which had been granted to him in +manifold repetition; giving us the sum and substance (of which nothing has been +lost in the case of any of the men inspired by God) of what was spoken at different +times, and omitting all which was accidental, and purely local and temporary.</p> +<p class="normal">This view, which alone is the correct one, and which contributes +so largely to the right understanding of the prophet, has been already advanced +by several of the older scholars. Thus <i>Lightfoot</i> (<i>Ordo temporum</i>, opp. +i. p. 99) remarks: "It is easier to conceive that the matter of this whole book +represents the substance of the prophecy which he uttered under these various kings, +than to determine which of the chapters of this book were uttered under the particular +reign of each of these kings." <i>Majus</i> also (<i>Economia temporum</i>, p. 898) +says: "He repeated, at a subsequent period, what he had spoken at different +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 414]</span> times, and under different kings." In modern +times, however, this view had been generally abandoned; and although, at present, +many critics are disposed to return to it, <i>Hitzig</i> and <i>Maurer</i> still +assert, that the book was composed at different periods.</p> +<p class="normal">We shall now endeavour to prove the unity of the book, <i>first</i>, +from the prophecies themselves. If we were entitled to separate them at all, according +to time and circumstances, we could form a division into three discourses only; +viz., chap. i. and ii.; chap. iii.-v.; and chap. vi. and vii. For, 1. Each of these +discourses forms a whole, complete in itself, and in which the various elements +of the prophetic discourse—reproof, threatening, promise—are repeated. If these +discourses be torn asunder, we get only the <i>lacera membra</i> of a prophetic +discourse. 2. Each of these three discourses, forming an harmonious whole, begins +with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שמעו</span>, <i>hear</i>. That this is not merely +accidental, appears from the beginning of the first discourse, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שמעו עמים כלם</span>, "Hear, all ye people." These +words literally agree with those which were uttered by the prophet's elder namesake, +when, according to 1 Kings xxii. 28, he called upon the whole world to attend to +the remarkable struggle betwixt the true and false prophets. It is evidently on +purpose that the prophet begins with the same words as those with which the elder +Micah had closed his discourse to Ahab, and, it may be, his whole prophetic ministry. +By this very circumstance he gives intimation of what may be expected from him, +shows that his activity is to be considered as a continuation of that of his predecessor, +who was so jealous for God, and that he had more in common with him than the mere +name. <i>Rosenmüller</i> (<i>Prol. ad Mich.</i> p. 8) has asserted, indeed, that +these words are only put into the mouth of the elder Micah, and that they are taken +from the passage under consideration. But the reason which he adduces in support +of this assertion, viz., that it cannot be conceived how it could ever have entered +the mind of that elder Micah to call upon all people to be witnesses of an announcement +which concerned Ahab only, needs no detailed refutation. Why then is it that in +Deut. xxxii. 1, Is. i. 2, heaven and earth are called upon to be witnesses of an +announcement which concerned the Jewish people only? Who does not see that, to the +prophet, Israel appears as too small an audience <span class="pagenum">[Pg 415]</span> +for the announcement of the great decision which he has just uttered; in the same +manner as the Psalmist (compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Ps. xcvi. 3) exhorts to proclaim to +the Gentiles the great deeds of the Lord, because Palestine is too narrow for them?—But +now, if it be established that it was with a distinct object that the prophet employed +the words, "Hear ye," does not the circumstance that they are found at the commencement +of the three discourses, which are complete in themselves, afford sufficient ground +for the assumption, that it was the intention of the prophet, not indeed absolutely +to limit them to the beginning of a new discourse (compare, on the contrary, iii. +9<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_415a" href="#ftn_415a">[1]</a></sup>), but +yet, not to commence a new discourse without them; so that the want of them is decisive +against the supposition of a new section? 3. As soon as an attempt is made to break +up any of these three discourses, many particular circumstances are at once found, +upon a careful examination, to prove a connection of the sections so close, as not +to admit of a separation without mutilating them. Thus chap. i. and ii. cannot be +separated from each other, for the reason that the promise in ii. 12, 13, refers +to the threatening in i. 5. That promise refers to all Israel, just as does the +threatening in chap. i.; whilst in the threatening and reproof in chap. ii. the +eye of the prophet is directed only to the main object of his ministry, viz., to +Judah.</p> +<p class="normal">But even these three divisions, which hitherto we have proved +to be the only divisions that do exist,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_415b" href="#ftn_415b">[2]</a></sup> +can be considered as such, in so far only as in them the discourse takes a fresh +start, and enters upon a new sphere. They cannot be considered as complete in themselves, +and separated from one another by the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 416]</span> difference +of the periods of their composition; for even in them there are found traces of +a close connection. Even the uniform beginning by "Hear" may be considered as such. +The second discourse in iii. 1 begins with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ואמר</span>; +but the <i>Fut.</i> with <i>Vav convers.</i> always, and without exception, connects +a new action with a preceding one, and can never be used where there is an absolutely +new commencement. Its significance here, where it is used in the transition from +the promise to a new reproof and threatening, has been very strikingly brought out +thus, by <i>Ch. Bened. Michaelis</i>: "But while we are yet but too far away from +those longed-for times, which have just been promised, I <i>say</i> in the meanwhile, +viz., in order to complete the list of the iniquities of evil princes and teachers, +begun in chap. ii." The words of iii. 1, "Hear, I pray you, ye heads of Jacob, and +ye princes of the house of Israel," have an evident reference to ii. 12: "I will +assemble Jacob all of thee, I will gather the remnant of Israel." In the new threatening, +the prophet chooses quite the same designation as in the preceding promise, in order +to prevent the latter from giving support to false security. It is not by any means +Samaria alone, but all Israel, which is the object of divine punishment. It is only +a remnant of Israel that shall be gathered. But the reference to the preceding discourse +is still more obvious in ver. 4: "Then they shall cry unto the Lord, and He will +not answer; and may He hide<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_416a" href="#ftn_416a">[3]</a></sup> +His face from them at this time, as they have behaved themselves ill towards Him +in their doings." Now, as in vers. 1-3 divine judgments had not yet been spoken +of, the terms "then," and "at this time," can refer only to the threatenings of +punishment in ii. 3 ff., which have a special reference to the ungodly nobles.</p> +<p class="normal">Thus the result presented at the beginning, is confirmed to us +by internal reasons. The inscription<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_416b" href="#ftn_416b">[4]</a></sup> +announces the oracles <span class="pagenum">[Pg 417]</span> of God which came to +Micah under the reign of three kings; while the examination of the contents proves +that the collection forms a connected whole, written <i>uno tenore</i>. How, now, +can these two facts be reconciled in any other way than by supposing that we have +here before us a comprehensive picture of the prophetic ministry of Micah, the single +component parts of which are at once contemporaneous, and yet belonging to different +periods? This supposition, moreover, affords us the advantage of being allowed to +maintain all the historical references in their fullest import, without being led +to disregard the one, while we give attention to the other; for nothing is, in this +case, more natural, than that the prophet connects with one another different prophecies +uttered at different times.</p> +<p class="normal">The weight of these internal reasons is increased, however, by +external reasons which are equally strong. When Jeremiah was called to account for +his prophecy concerning the destruction of the city, the elders, for his justification, +appealed to the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 418]</span> entirely similar prophecy +of Micah in iii. 12: "Therefore shall Zion for your sake be ploughed as a field, +and Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, and the mountain of the house as the +high places of the forest." In Jer. xxvi. 18, 19, it is said, "Micah prophesied +in the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, etc. +Did Hezekiah, king of Judah, and all Judah, put him to death? Did he not fear the +Lord, and besought the Lord, and the Lord repented Him of the evil which He had +pronounced against them?" All interpreters admit that this passage forms an authority +for the composition of the discourse in iii.-v. under Hezekiah; but we cannot well +limit it in this way, we must extend it to the whole collection. For, even apart +from the reasons by which we proved that the entire book forms one closely connected +whole, it is most improbable that the elders should have known, by an oral tradition, +the exact time of the composition of one single discourse, which has no special +date at the head of it. Is it not a far more natural supposition, that they considered +the collection as a whole, of which the component parts had, indeed, been delivered +by the prophet at a former period, but had been repeated, and united into one description +under Hezekiah; and that they mentioned Hezekiah, partly because it could not be +determined with certainty whether this special prediction had already been uttered +under one of his predecessors, and, if so, under which of them; and partly, because +among the three kings mentioned in the inscription, Hezekiah alone formed an ecclesiastical +authority?</p> +<p class="normal">But just as that quotation in Jeremiah furnishes us with a proof +that all the prophecies of Micah, which have been preserved to us, were committed +to writing under Hezekiah, so we can, in a similar manner, prove from Isaiah, chap. +ii., that they were, at least in part, uttered at a previous period. The problem +of the relation of Is. ii. 2-4 to Micah iv. 1-3, cannot be solved in any other way +than by supposing, that this portion of a prophecy which, in Jeremiah, is assigned +to the reign of Hezekiah, was uttered by Micah as early as under the reign of Jotham, +and that soon after it Isaiah, by placing the words of Micah at the head of his +own prophecies, expressed that which had come to him also in inward vision; for, +being already known to the people, they could not fail to produce their impression. +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 419]</span> Every other solution can be proved to be untenable. +1. Least of all is there any refutation needed of the hypothesis which is now generally +abandoned, viz., that the passage in Isaiah is the original one; compare, against +this hypothesis, <i>Kleinert</i>, <i>Aechtheit des Jes.</i> S. 356; <i>Caspari</i>, +S. 444. 2. Equally objectionable is another supposition, that both the prophets +had made use of some older prophecy—one uttered by Joel, as <i>Hitzig</i> and <i> +Ewald</i> have maintained. The connection in which these verses stand in Micah, +is by far too close for such a supposition. We could not, indeed, so confidently +advance this argument, if the connection consisted only in what is commonly brought +forward, viz., that upon the monitory announcement of punishment in chap. iii., +there follows, in chap. iv. 1 ff., the <i>consolatory</i> promise of a glorious +future for the godly, and that the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ו</span> in ver. +1 evidently connects it with what immediately precedes. But the reference and connection +are far more close. The promise in iv. 1, 2, is, throughout, contrasted with the +threatening in iii. 12. "The mountain of the house shall become as the high places +of the forest,"—hence, despised, solitary, and desolate. In iv. 1, there is opposed +to it, "The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established on the top of +the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and upon it people shall +flee together." "Zion shall be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem become a heap +of ruins." Contrasted with this, there is in iv. 2 the declaration: "For the law +shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord of Jerusalem." The desolate and +despised place now becomes the residence of the Lord, from which He sends His commands +over the whole earth, and of which the brilliant centre now is Jerusalem. In order +to make this contrast so much the more obvious, the prophet begins, in the promise, +with just the mountain of the temple, which, in the threatening, had occupied the +last place; so that the opposites are brought into immediate connection. Nor is +it certainly merely accidental that, in the threatening, he speaks of the mountain +of the house only, while, in the promise, he speaks of the mountain of the house +of the Lord; compare Matt. xxiii. 38, where "your house," according to <i>Bengel</i>, +"is the house which, in other passages, is called the house of the Lord," just as +the Lord, in Exod. xxxii. 7, says to Moses, "<i>Thy people.</i>" The temple must +have ceased to be the house of the Lord, before it would be destroyed; for +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 420]</span> which reason, as we are told In Ezekiel, the +Shechinah removed from it before the Babylonish destruction. And in point of form, +the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יהיה</span> in iv. 1 so much the more corresponds +with the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תהיה</span> in iii. 12, as from the latter +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יהיה</span> must be supplied for the last clause +of the verse; compare <i>Caspari</i>, S. 445. That ver. 5 must not be separated +from the prophecy which Isaiah had before him, is seen from a comparison of Is. +ii. 5: "O house of Jacob, come ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord." According +to the true interpretation, "the light of the Lord" signifies His grace, and the +blessings which, according to what precedes, are to be bestowed by it; and "to walk +in the light of the Lord," means to participate in the enjoyment of grace. These +words, accordingly, are closely related to those in Mic. iv. 5: "For all the people +shall walk, every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the +Lord our God for ever and ever:" <i>i.e.</i>, the fate of the people in the heathen +world corresponds to the nature of their gods; because these are nothing, they too +shall sink down into nothingness, while Israel shall partake in the glory of his +God. There is the same thought, and in essentially the same dress, both in Isaiah +and Micah,—only that the words which in Micah embody a pure promise, are transformed +by Isaiah into an exhortation that Israel should not, by their own fault, forfeit +this preference over the heathen nations, that they should not wantonly wander away +into dark solitudes, from the path of light which the Lord had opened up before +them. This transformation in Isaiah, however, may be accounted for by the consideration, +that he was anxious to prepare the way for the reproofs which now follow from ver. +6; whilst Micah, who had already premised them, could continue in the promise. It +is also in favour of the originality of the passage in Micah, that the text which, +in Isaiah, appears as a variation, appears as original in Micah; so that both cannot +be equally dependent upon a third writer. 3. There now remains only the view of +<i>Kleinert</i>, according to which the prophecy of Micah, in chap. iii.-v., was +first uttered under the reign of Hezekiah; and, under the reign of the same king, +but somewhat later, the prophecy, in chap. ii.-iv. of Isaiah, who avails himself +of it. But, upon a closer examination, this view also proves untenable. Isaiah's +description of the condition of the people in a moral point of view, the general +spread of idolatry <span class="pagenum">[Pg 421]</span> and vice, exclude every +other period in the reign of Hezekiah except the first beginning of it, when the +effect and influence of the time of Ahaz were still felt; so that even <i>Kleinert</i> +(p. 364) is obliged to assume, that not only the prophecy of Micah, but also that +of Isaiah, were uttered in the first months of the reign of this king. But other +difficulties—and these altogether insuperable—stand in the way of this assumption. +In the whole section of Isaiah, the nation appears as rich, flourishing, and powerful. +This is most strongly expressed in chap. ii. 7: "His land is full of silver and +gold, there is no end to his treasure; his land is full of horses, and there is +no end to his chariots." To this may be added the description of the consequences +of wealth, and of the unbounded luxury, in iii. 16 ff.; and the threatening of the +withdrawal of all power, and all riches, as a strong contrast with their present +condition, upon which they, in their blindness, rested the hope of their security, +and hence imagined that they stood in no need of the assistance of the Lord, iii. +1 ff. Now this description is so inapplicable to the commencement of Hezekiah's +reign, that the very opposite of it should rather be expected. The invasion by the +allied Syrians and Israelites, the oppression by the Assyrians, and the tribute +which they had to pay to them, the internal administration, which was bad beyond +example, and the curse of God resting on all their enterprises and efforts, had +exhausted, during the reign of the ungodly Ahaz, the treasures which had been collected +under Uzziah and Jotham, and had dried up the sources of prosperity. He had left +the kingdom to his successors in a condition of utter decay. To these, other reasons +still may be added, which are in favour of the composition of it under Jotham, while +they are against its composition under Hezekiah; especially the circumstance of +their standing at the beginning of the collection of the first twelve chapters (a +circumstance which is of great weight, inasmuch as these chapters are, beyond any +doubt, arranged chronologically), but still more, the indefiniteness and generality +in the threatening of the divine judgments, which the prophecy of Micah has in common +with the nearly contemporaneous chapters i. and v. of Isaiah, whilst the threatenings +out of the first period of the reign of Ahaz have at once a far more definite character. +By these considerations we are involuntarily led back to a period when Isaiah still +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 422]</span> pre-eminently exercised the office of exhorting +and reproving, and had not yet been favoured with special revelations concerning +the events of a future which, at that time, was as yet rather distant,—perhaps as +far as the time when Jotham administered the government for his father, who was +at that time still alive; compare 2 Kings xv. 5. By this hypothesis. Is. iii. 12 +is more satisfactorily explained than by any other; and we are no longer under the +necessity of asserting, that the chronological order is interrupted by chap. vi.; +for this certainly could not have been intended by the collector. The solemn call +and consecration of the prophet to his office, accompanied by an increased bestowal +of grace, must be carefully distinguished from the ordinary ones which were common +to him with all the other prophets. But if the prophecy of Isaiah was uttered as +early as under Jotham (which has lately been most satisfactorily proved by <i>Caspari</i> +in his <i>Beiträge zur Einl. in das Buch Jesaias</i>, S. 234 ff.), that of Micah +also must have existed at that time, and must have been in the mouths of the people. +And since its composition is assigned to the reign of Hezekiah, it follows that +the prophet delivered anew, under the reign of this king, the revelations which +he had already received at an earlier period.</p> +<p class="normal">It will not be possible to infer with certainty from vers. 6, +7, as <i>Caspari</i> does, that the book was committed to writing before the destruction +of Samaria, and hence, before the sixth year of Hezekiah. Since the book gives the +sum and substance of what was prophesied under three kings, all that is implied +in vers. 6, 7, is, that the destruction of Samaria was foretold by Micah; but the +prophecy itself may have been committed to writing even after the fulfilment had +taken place. But, on the other hand, according to the analogy of Is. xxxix., and +xiii. and xiv., we are led by iv. 9, 10, to the time of Sennacherib's invasion of +Judea, in which the prophetic spirit of Isaiah likewise most richly displayed itself, +and in which he was privileged with a glance into the far distant future.</p> +<p class="normal">The exordium in chap. i. and ii., and the close in vi. and vii., +are distinguished by the generality of the threatening and promise which prevails +in them. They have this in common with the first five chapters of Isaiah, and thus +certainly afford us pre-eminently an image of the prophetic ministry of Micah, in +the time previous to the Assyrian invasion; whilst the main +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 423]</span> body (especially from iv. 8) represents to +us particularly the character of the prophecy during the Assyrian period.</p> +<p class="normal">We shall now attempt to give a survey of the contents of Micah's +prophecy.</p> +<p class="normal">Upon Samaria and Jerusalem—the kingdom of the ten tribes, and +Judah—a judgment by foreign enemies is to come. Total destruction, and the carrying +away of the inhabitants, will be the issue of this judgment, and, as regards Judah +more particularly, the total overthrow of the dominion of the Davidic dynasty.</p> +<p class="normal">Samaria is first visited by this judgment. This is indicated by +the fact that it is first mentioned in the inscription, and that in i. 6, 7, the +judgment upon Samaria is, first of all, described; but especially by the circumstance +that Samaria, in i. 5, appears as the chief seat of corruption for the whole people, +whence it flowed upon Judah also, i. 14, and particularly, vi. 16. We expect that +where the carcases first were, there the eagles would first be gathered together.</p> +<p class="normal">As the first, and principal instrument of the destructive judgment +upon Judah, Babylon is mentioned in iv. 10.</p> +<p class="normal">As the representative of the world's power, at the time then present, +Asshur appears in v. 4, 5. If destruction is to fall upon the kingdom of the ten +tribes <i>before</i> it falls upon Judah—which is most distinctly foretold by Hosea +in i. 4-7—then, nothing was more obvious than to think of Asshur as the instrument +of the judgment. That to which Micah, on this point, only alludes, is more fully +expanded by Isaiah.</p> +<p class="normal">Judah is delivered from Babylon, but without a restoration of +the kingdom, iv. 10, compared with ver. 14 (v. 1).</p> +<p class="normal">But a second catastrophe comes upon Judah, inasmuch as many heathens +gather themselves against Jerusalem, with the intention of desecrating it, but yet +in such a manner that, by the assistance of the Lord, it comes forth victoriously +from this severe attack, chap. iv. 11-13. Then follows a third catastrophe, in which +Judah becomes anew and totally subject to the world's power, iv. 14 (v. 1).</p> +<p class="normal">From the deepest abasement, however, the Congregation of the Lord +rises to the highest glory, inasmuch as the dominion returns to the old Davidic +race, iv. 8. From the little Bethlehem, the native place of David, where his race, +sunk back again into <span class="pagenum">[Pg 424]</span> the lowliness of private +life, has resumed its seat, a new and glorious Ruler proceeds, born, and at the +same time eternal, and clothed with the fulness of the glory of the Lord, v. 1, +3 (2, 4), by whom Jacob obtains truth, and Abraham mercy, vii. 20, compared with +John i. 17; by whom the Congregation is placed in the centre of the world, and becomes +the object of the longing of all nations, iv. 1-3, delivered from the servitude +of the world, and conquering the world, v. 4, 5 (5, 6), vii. 11, 12; and at the +same time lowly, and inspiring the nations with fear, v. 6-8 (7-9). To such a height, +however, she shall attain after, by means of the judgment preceding the mercy, all +that has been taken from her upon which she in the present founded the hope of her +salvation, v. 9-14 (10-15).</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_415a" href="#ftnRef_415a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> It must not, however, be overlooked, that + there the term "hear" is only a resumption of "hear" in iii. 1 (and, to a certain + extent, even of that in i. 2), intimating, that that which they are about to + hear, will concentrate itself in a distinct and powerful expression,—the acme + of the whole threatening in iii. 12.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_415b" href="#ftnRef_415b"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> Besides the division into three sections, + there is, to a certain extent, a division also into two. By + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ואמר</span> in iii. 1, the first and second discourses, + or the exordium and principal part, are brought into a still closer connection,—a + connection founded upon the circumstance that the reproof and threatening of + the first part are to be here resumed, in order that thus a comprehensive representation + may be given. It is only in iii. 12 that the threatening reaches its height. + But yet the tripartition remains the prominent one. This cannot be denied without + forcing a false sense and a false position upon ii. 12, 13.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_416a" href="#ftnRef_416a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[3]</sup></a> The <i>Fut. apoc.</i> forbids us to translate: + "He will hide." In order to express his own delight in the doings of divine + justice, the prophet changes the prediction into a wish, just as is the case + in Is. ii. 9, where the greater number of interpreters assume, in opposition + to the rules of grammar, that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אל</span> stands + for <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לא</span>.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_416b" href="#ftnRef_416b"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[4]</sup></a> Against the genuineness of the inscription, + doubts have been raised by many, after the example of <i>Hartmann</i>, and last + of all by <i>Ewald</i> and <i>Hitzig</i>; but it is established by the striking + allusions to, and coincidences with it, in the text. With the mention of Micah's + name in the former, the allusion to this name in the <i>close</i> of the book, + in chap. vii. 18, corresponds. The circumstance of Micah being called the Morasthite, + accounts for the fact that, in this threatening against the cities of Judah, + in i. 14, it is Moresheth alone which is mentioned. In the inscription, Samaria + and Jerusalem are pointed out as the objects of the prophet's predictions; and + it is in harmony with this, that in i. 6, 7, the judgment upon Samaria is first + described, and then the judgment upon Judah; that the prophet—although, indeed, + he has Judah chiefly in view—frequently gives attention to the ten tribes also, + and includes them,—as in the promise in ii. 12, 13, v. 1 (2), where the Messiah + appears as the Ruler in Israel, and vers. 6, 7 (7, 8), of the same chapter; + and that in iii. 8, 9, Judah is represented as a particular part only of the + great whole. <i>Finally</i>—It is peculiar to Micah, that he thus views so specially + the two <i>capitals</i>; and this again is in harmony with the inscription, + where just these, and not Israel and Judah, appear as the subjects of the prophecy. + It is in the capitals that Micah beholds the concentration of the corruption + (i. 5); and to them the threatening also is chiefly addressed, i. 6, 7, iii. + 12. Of the promise, also, Jerusalem forms the centre.—The statement, too, in + the inscription—that Micah uttered the contents of his book under various kings—likewise + receives a confirmation from the prophecy. The mention of the high places of + Judah in i. 5, and of the walking in the statutes of Omri, and in all the works + of the house of Ahab, refers especially to the time of Ahaz; compare 2 Kings + xvi. 4; 2 Chron. xxviii. 4, 25; further, 2 Kings xvi. 3; 2 Chron. xxviii. 2; + and <i>Caspari</i> on Micah, S. 74. On the other hand, the time of Hezekiah + is suggested by v. 4, 6 (5, 6), which implies that already, at that time, Asshur + had appeared as the enemy of the people of God,—and so likewise by the prophecy + in iv. 9-14.</p> +</div> +<hr class="W20"> +<h3><a name="div3_424" href="#div3Ref_424">CHAP. I. AND II.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">The prophet begins with the words: "<i>Hear, all ye people, hearken, +O earth and the fulness thereof, and let the Lord God be witness against you, the +Lord from His holy temple. For, behold, the Lord cometh forth out of His place, +and cometh down, and treadeth upon the high places of the earth. And the mountains +are melted under Him, and the valleys are cleft, as wax before the fire, as waters +poured down a steep place. For the transgression of Jacob is all this, and for the +sins of the house of Israel.</i>" Vers. 2-5.</p> +<p class="normal">This majestic exordium has been misunderstood in various ways: +<i>First</i>, by those who, like <i>Hitzig</i>, would understand by the people, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צמים</span> in ver. 2, the tribes of Israel. We shall +show, when commenting on Zech. xi. 10, that this is altogether inadmissible. But +in the present case especially, this interpretation must be rejected; partly on +account of the reference to the words of the elder Micah, and partly on account +of the parallel terms, "O earth and the fulness thereof," which, according to the +constant <i>usus loquendi</i>, lead us far beyond the narrow limits of Palestine. +On the other hand, they who by the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צמים</span> rightly +understand the nations of the whole earth, are mistaken in this, that they consider +them as mere witnesses, whom the Lord calls <span class="pagenum">[Pg 425]</span> +up against His unthankful people, instead of considering them as the very same against +whom the Lord bears witness; and that they come into consideration from this point +of view, clearly appears from the words, "The Lord be witness against you." As regards +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צד</span> with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span> +following, compare, <i>e.g.</i>, Mal. iii. 5.—Another mistake is committed in the +definition of the way and manner of the divine witness. The greater number of interpreters +suppose it to be the subsequent admonitory, reproving, and threatening discourse +of the prophet. Thus, <i>e.g.</i>, <i>Michaelis</i>, who explains: "Do not despise +and lightly esteem such a witness, who by me earnestly and publicly testifies to +you His will." But in opposition to this view, it appears from ver. 3, that here, +as well as in Mal. iii. 5, "And I will come near to you in judgment, and I am a +swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against those +that swear to a lie," the witness is a real one,—that it consists in the actual +attestation of the guilt by the punishment, viz., by the divine judgment described +in vers. 3, 4. The words, "The Lord cometh forth out of His place, and cometh down," +there correspond to, "From His holy temple,"—from which it is evident, at the same +time, that by the temple, the heavenly temple must be understood.</p> +<p class="normal">We have thus, in vers. 2-4, before us the description of a sublime +theophany, not for a partial judgment upon Judah, but for a judgment upon the whole +world, the people of which are called upon to gather around their judge—whom the +prophet beholds as already approaching, descending from His glorious habitation +in heaven, accompanied by the insignia of His power, the precursors of the judgment—and +silently to wait for His judicial and penal sentence.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_425a" href="#ftn_425a">[1]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal">But how is it to be explained that with the words, "For the transgression +of Jacob is all this," etc., there is a sudden transition to the judgments upon +Israel, yea, that the prophet <span class="pagenum">[Pg 426]</span> goes on as if +Israel alone had been spoken of? Only from the relation in which these two judgments +stand to one another. For they are perfectly one in substance. They are separated +only by space, time, and unessential circumstances; so that we may say that the +general judgment appears in every partial judgment upon Israel. In order to give +expression to the thought, that it is the <i>judge of the world</i> who is to judge +Israel, the prophets not unfrequently represent the Lord appearing to judge the +whole world; and in Israel, the <i>Microcosmos</i>, it was indeed judged. We have +a perfectly analogous case, <i>e.g.</i>, in Is. chap. ii.-iv. It is only by means +of a very forced explanation, that it can be denied that after the prophet has, +by a few bold touches, from ii. 6-9, described the moral debasement of the Covenant-people, +and marked out pride as its last source, the last judgment upon the whole earth +forms the subject of discourse. In that judgment there will be a most clear revelation +of the vanity of all which is created—a vanity which, in the present course of the +world, is so frequently concealed—and that the Lord alone is exalted, and that those +who now shut their eyes will then be compelled to acknowledge these truths. That +Isaiah has this general judgment in view, is too clearly proved by the sublimity +of the whole description, by the express mention of the whole earth, <i>e.g.</i>, +ii. 19, and by not limiting, in the individualized description in ver. 12 sqq., +the high and lofty which is to be brought low to Judah alone, but by extending it +to the whole world. But in iii. 1 ff. the prophet suddenly passes over to the typical, +penal judgment upon Judah; and the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span>, at +the commencement, shows that he does not consider this subject as one altogether +new, but as being substantially identical with the preceding subject. This reminds +us forcibly of the mode in which, in the prophecies of our Lord, the references +to the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the last judgment, are connected with one +another. In the "burden of Babylon" in chap. xiii. likewise, the judgment of the +Lord upon the whole earth is first described. Nor is it only on the territory of +prophecy that this close connection of the general judgment with the inferior judgments +upon the Covenant-people appears. In Ps. lxxxii. 8, <i>e.g.</i>, after the unrighteousness +prevailing among the Covenant-people has been described, the Lord is called upon +to come to judge, not them <span class="pagenum">[Pg 427]</span> alone, but the +whole earth; compare my Commentary on Ps. vii. 8, lvi. 8, lix. 6.</p> +<p class="normal">The prophet thus passes over, in ver. 5, from the general manifestation +of divine justice to its special manifestation among the Covenant-people, and mentions +here, as the most prominent points upon which it will be inflicted, Samaria and +Jerusalem, the two capitals, from which the apostasy from the Lord spread over the +rest of the country. He mentions Samaria first, and then, in vers. 6, 7, he describes +its destruction which was brought about by the Assyrians, before he makes mention +of that of Jerusalem, because the apostasy took place first in Samaria, and hence +the punishment also was hastened on. The latter circumstance, which is merely a +consequence of the former, is in an one-sided manner made prominent by the greater +number of interpreters, who therein follow the example of <i>Jerome</i>. It was +at the same time, however, probably the intention of the prophet to be done with +Samaria, in order that he might be at liberty to take up exclusively the case of +Judah and Jerusalem—the main objects of his prophetic ministry.</p> +<p class="normal">He makes the transition to this in ver. 8, by means of the words: +"<i>On that account I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked; I will make +a wailing like the jackals, and a mourning like the ostriches.</i>" "<i>On that +account</i>"—<i>i.e.</i>, on account of the judgment upon Judah, to be announced +in the subsequent verses. It is commonly supposed that the prophet here speaks in +his own person; thus, <i>e.g.</i>, <i>Rosenmüller</i>: "The prophet mourns in a +bitter lamentation for the number and magnitude of the calamities impending over +the Israelitish people." But the correct view rather is, that the prophet, when, +in his inward vision, he sees the divine judgments not remaining and stopping at +Samaria, but poured out like a desolating torrent over Judah and Jerusalem, suddenly +sinks his own consciousness in that of his suffering people. We have thus here before +us an imperfect symbolical action, similar to that more finished one which occurs +in Is. xx. 3, 4, and which can be explained only by a deeper insight into the nature +of prophecy, according to which the dramatic character is inseparable from it. The +transition from the mere description of what is present in the inward vision only, +to the prophet's own action, is, according to this view, very easy. If we confine +ourselves to the passage before us, the following <span class="pagenum">[Pg 428]</span> +arguments are in favour of our view. 1. The predicates +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שילל</span> and <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ערום</span> +cannot be explained upon the supposition that the prophet describes only his own +painful feelings on account of the condition of his people. Even if +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ערום</span> stood alone, the explanation by "naked," +in the sense of "deprived of the usual and decent dress, and, on the contrary, clothed +in dirt and rags," would be destitute of all proof and authority. No instance whatsoever +is found of the outward habit of a mourner being designated as nakedness. But it +is still more arbitrary thus to deal with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שילל</span>, +whether it be explained by "deprived of his mental faculties on account of the unbounded +grief of his soul,"—as is done by several Jewish expositors (who, in the explanation +of this passage, would have done much better, had they followed the Chaldee, in +whom the correct view is found; only that he, giving up the figurative representation, +substitutes the third person for the first, paraphrasing it thus: "On that account +they shall wail and howl, they shall go stripped and naked," etc.),—or by "badly +clothed," as is done by the greater number of Christian expositors. The signification +"robbed," "plundered," is the only established one; compare +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שולל</span> in Job xii. 17-19. The parallel passages, +in which nakedness appears as the characteristic feature of the captives taken in +war, show how little we are entitled to depart from the most obvious signification, +in these two words. Thus we find immediately afterwards, in ver. 11: "Pass ye away, +ye inhabitants of Saphir, having your shame naked;" on which <i>Michaelis</i> remarks: +"With naked bodies, as is the case with those who are led into captivity after having +been stripped of their clothes." Thus Is. xx. 3, 4: "And the Lord said. Like as +My servant Isaiah walketh <i>naked</i> and <i>barefoot</i> three years, for a sign +and wonder upon Egypt and Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the prisoners +of Egypt, and the prisoners of Ethiopia, young men and old men, <i>naked</i> and +<i>barefoot</i>;" compare Is. xlvii. 3.—2. The term +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">התפלשתי</span>, in ver. 10, is in favour of the supposition, +that the prophet here appears as the representative of the future condition of his +people. The <i>Imperat. fem. </i><span lang="he" class="Hebrew">התפלשי</span> of +the marginal reading is evidently, as is commonly the case, only the result of the +embarrassment of the Mazorets. The reading of the text can be pointed as the first +person of the Preterite only; for the view of <i>Rosenmüller</i>, who takes it as +the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 429]</span> second person of the Preterite, which +here is to have an optative signification, is, grammatically, inadmissible. <i>Rückert's</i> +explanation, "In the house of <i>dust</i> (<i>zu Staubheim</i>), I have strewed +dust upon me," is quite correct. But if <i>here</i> we must suppose that the prophet +suddenly passes over from the address to his unfortunate people, to himself as their +representative, why should not this supposition be the natural one in ver. 8 also?</p> +<p class="normal">The correctness of the view which we have given is further strengthened, +if we compare the similar lamentations of the prophets in other passages, in all +of which the same results will be found. In Jer. xlviii. 31, <i>e.g.</i>, "Therefore +will I howl over Moab, and cry out over all Moab, over the men of Kir-heres shall +<i>he</i> groan," the "he" in the last clause sufficiently shows how the "I" in +the two preceding clauses, is to be understood,—especially if Is. xvi. 7, "Therefore +Moab howleth over Moab," be compared. But if this interpretation be correct in Jeremiah, +it must certainly be correct in Is. xv. 5 also: "My heart crieth out over Moab,"—a +passage which Jeremiah had in view; and this so much the more, that in Is. xvi. +9-11—where a similar lamentation for Moab occurs: "Therefore do I bewail as for +Jazer for the vine of Sibmah; I water thee with my tears, O Heshbon and Elealeh.... +Therefore my bowels sound like a harp for Moab, mine inward parts for Kirhareseth"—it +is quite unsuitable to think of a lamentation of the prophet, which is expressive +of his own grief. This was seen by the Chaldee, who renders "<i>my</i> bowels" by +"bowels of the Moabites,"—a view the correctness of which has been strikingly demonstrated +by <i>Vitringa</i>: "Although," he says, "the emotion of compassion be by no means +unsuitable in the prophet, yet no one will be readily convinced that the prophet +was so much concerned for the vines of Sibmah and Jazer, and for the crops of the +summer-fruits of a nation hostile and opposed to the people of God, that it should +have been for him a cause for lamentation and wailing." In Is. xxi., in the prophecy +against Babylon, and in the lamentation in vers. 3, 4, "Therefore are my loins filled +with pain, pangs take hold upon me as the pangs of a woman that travaileth, etc., +the night of my pleasure has been turned into terror," it is clearly shown in what +sense such lamentations are to be understood. By "the night of pleasure," we can, +especially by a comparison of Jeremiah, understand only the night of the capture +of Babylon, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 430]</span> in which the whole city was given +up to drunkenness and riot. But it is impossible that the prophet should say that +this night—the precursor of the long-desired day for Israel—had been turned for +him into terror. Either the whole lamentation is without any meaning, or the prophet +speaks in the name of Babylon, and that, not of the Babylon of the present, but +of the Babylon of the future. This must be granted, even by those who assert that +this portion was composed at a later period; so that, even from this quarter, the +soundness of our view cannot be assailed.</p> +<p class="normal">In ver. 9, the prophet returns to quiet description, from the +symbolical action to which he had been carried away by his emotions. The subject +of this description he states in the words: "<i>It cometh unto Judah; it cometh +unto the gate of my people, unto Jerusalem.</i>" By individualizing, he endeavours +to give a lively view of the thought, and to impress it. He begins with an allusion +to the lamentation of David over Saul and Jonathan in 2 Sam. i. 17 ff., which is +so much the more significant, that in this impending catastrophe, Israel also was +to lose his king (compare iv. 9), and that in it David was to experience the fate +of Saul. He then indicates the stations by which the hostile army advances towards +Jerusalem, and describes how, from thence, it spreads over the whole country, even +to its southern boundary, and carries away the inhabitants into exile. But, in doing +so, he always chooses places, whose names might, in some way, be brought into connection +with what they were now suffering; so that the whole passage forms a chain of <i> +paronomasias</i>. These, however, are not by any means idle plays. They have, throughout, +a practical design. The threatening is thereby to be, as it were, localized. The +thought of a divine judgment could not but be called forth in every one who should +think of one of the places mentioned. Jerusalem is first spoken of in ver. 9 as +the centre of the life of Judah: "The gate of my people," etc., being tantamount +to "<i>the</i> city or metropolis of it." Then, it appears a second time in ver. +12, in the middle between five Judean places preceding and five following it,—the +number ten, which is the symbolical signification of completeness, indicating that +the judgment is to be altogether comprehensive. The five places mentioned after +Jerusalem are all of them situated to the south of it. That the +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 431]</span> five places, the mention of which precedes +that of Jerusalem, are all to be sought to the north of it, and that, hence, the +judgment advances from the north in geographical order, as is the case in Is. x. +28 ff. also, is evident from the fact that Beth-Leaphrah, which is identical with +Ophrah, is situated in the territory of Benjamin, and that Beth-Haezel, which is +identical with Azal in Zech. xiv. 5, was situated in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. +Hence, we cannot suppose that Zaanan here is identical with Zenan, which is situated +in the south of Jerusalem, Josh. xv. 37, nor Saphir with Samir.</p> +<p class="normal">The question still arises, In what event did the threatening of +punishment, contained in chap. i., find its fulfilment? <i>Theodoret</i>, <i>Cyril</i>, +<i>Tarnovius</i>, <i>Marckius</i>, <i>Jahn</i>, and others, refer it to the Assyrian +invasion. <i>Jerome</i> referred it to the Babylonish captivity: "The same sin," +he says, "yea, the same punishment of sin which shall overturn Samaria, is to extend +to Judah, yea, even unto the gates of my city of Jerusalem. For, as Samaria was +overturned by the Assyrians, so Judah and Jerusalem shall be overturned by the Chaldeans." +This opinion was adopted by <i>Michaelis</i> and others.</p> +<p class="normal">At first sight, it would appear as if the circumstance, that the +judgment upon Judah is brought into immediate connection with that upon Israel, +favoured the first view. But this argument loses its weight when we remark, that +the events appear to the prophet in inward vision, and, therefore, quite irrespective +of their relation in time; that the continuity of the punitive judgment upon Israel +and Judah only, points out distinctly the truth, that both proceed from the same +cause, viz., the relation of divine justice to the sin of the Covenant-people. It +is this truth alone which forms the essence and soul of the prophetic threatenings; +and with reference to that, the difference in point of time, which is merely accidental, +is altogether kept out of view. Another argument in favour of the Assyrian invasion +might be derived from the expression, "<i>to</i> Jerusalem," in ver. 9, inasmuch +as the Chaldean invasion visited Jerusalem itself. But, because the calamity was +not by any means to stop at Judah, but to overflow even it, it is shown by the preceding +expression, "unto Judah," that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עַד</span> (compare +on this word, <i>Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel</i>, p. 55 seq.) must, +in both cases, be explained from a tacit antithesis with the expectation, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 432]</span> that the judgment would either stop at the +boundary of Judah, or, although this should not be the case, would at least spare +the metropolis. The prophet contents himself with representing that this opinion +was erroneous. Although this passage itself asserts nothing upon the point as to +whether Jerusalem itself is to be thought of as the object of the divine punishment, +or whether it will be spared, the following reasons show that the former will be +the case. Even ver. 5 does not admit of our expecting anything else. Jerusalem is +there marked out as the chief seat and source of corruption in the kingdom of Judah, +just as is Samaria in the kingdom of Israel. The declaration which is there made +forms the foundation of the subsequent threatening. How is it possible, then, that, +while in the kingdom of Israel it is concentrated upon Samaria, in the kingdom of +Judah the seducer should be altogether passed over, and punishment announced to +the seduced only? That such is not the intention of the prophet, is clearly seen +from ver. 12: "<i>For evil cometh down from the Lord upon the gate of Jerusalem.</i>" +The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span> alone is sufficient to prevent our +limiting the sense of these words, so that they mean only that evil will come no +farther than to the gate of Jerusalem, and will stop there. The <i>Particula causalis</i> +proves that they are the ground of the declaration in ver. 11, and that the mourning +will not cease at Beth-Haezel, "the house of stopping;" compare the remarks on Zech. +xiv. 5. But, altogether apart from this connection, the words themselves furnish +a proof. They contain a verbal reference to the description of the judgment upon +Sodom and Gomorrha, Gen. xix. 24. Jerusalem is marked out by them as a second Sodom +(compare Is. i. 10), upon which the divine judgments would discharge themselves. +As a second mark of this extension to Jerusalem, the carrying away of the people +into captivity is added (compare vers. 11, 15, 16), which, in the promise in chap. +ii. 12, 13, is supposed to have taken place. It is not Israel alone, but the whole +Covenant-people, who are in a state of dispersion, and are gathered from it by the +Lord.</p> +<p class="normal">Now, both of these marks are not applicable to the Assyrian invasion; +and if once we suppose the divine illumination of the prophet, it cannot be regarded +as the real object of his threatenings. This, too, is equally inadmissible, if we +consider the matter from a merely human point of view. The predictions +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 433]</span> of the prophets with regard to Assyria are, +from the very outset, rather encouraging. It is true that they are to be, in the +hand of the Lord, a rod of chastisement for His people, but these are never to be +altogether given up to them for destruction. By an immediate divine interference, +their plan of capturing Jerusalem is frustrated. Thus the matter is constantly represented +in Isaiah; thus also in Hosea i. 7. We can, moreover, adduce proofs from Micah himself, +that his spiritual eye was not pre-eminently, or exclusively, directed to the Assyrians. +In the prophecy from chap. iii. to v., where he describes the judgment upon Judah +in a manner altogether similar to that in which he mentions it here, he passes over +the Assyrians altogether in silence. Babylon is, in iv. 10, mentioned as the place +to which Judah is to be led into captivity.</p> +<p class="normal">Yet here, as well as everywhere else in the threatenings and promises +of the prophets, we must beware, lest, in referring them to some particular historical +event, we lose sight of the animating idea. If this, on the other hand, be rightly +understood, it will be seen that a particular historical event may indeed be pre-eminently +referred to, but that it can never exhaust the prophecy. Although, therefore, the +main reference here be to the destruction by the Chaldeans, we must not on that +account exclude anything in which the same law of retaliation was manifested, either +before, as in the invasion of the Syrians and Assyrians; or afterwards, as in the +destruction by the Romans. The prophet himself points, in iv. 11-14 (iv. 11-v. 1), +to two other phases of the divine judgment which are to follow upon that by the +Chaldeans.</p> +<p class="normal">After the prophet has thus hitherto described the impending divine +judgment in great general outlines, he passes on, in chap. ii., to chastise particular +vices, which, however, must always be at the same time, yea, prominently, considered +as indications of the wholly depraved condition of the nation, and of the punishments +to follow upon it. One feature upon which he here chiefly dwells, and which must, +therefore, have been a peculiarly prominent manifestation of the sinful corruption, +consists in the acts of injustice and oppression committed by the great, the description +of which presents striking resemblances to that in Is. v. 8 ff. The prophet interrupts +this description only in order <span class="pagenum">[Pg 434]</span> to rebuke the +false prophets, who reproved him for the severity of his discourses, and asserted +that they were unworthy of the merciful God. Such severity, answered the prophet, +was true mildness, because it alone could be the means of warding off the approaching +punitive judgment; that his God did not punish from want of forbearance—from want +of mercy; but that the fault was altogether that of the transgressors, who drew +down upon themselves, by force. His judgments.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_434a" href="#ftn_434a">[2]</a></sup></p> +<p class="normal">The prophecy closes with the promise in vers. 12, 13. It is introduced +quite abruptly, in order to place it in more striking contrast with the threatening; +just as, in iv. 1, there is a similar abrupt and unconnected contrast between the +promise and the threatening.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_434b" href="#ftn_434b">[3]</a></sup> +It is only brief; far more so than in the subsequent discourses, and far less detailed +than it is in them. The prophet desires first of all to terrify sinners from their +security; and for this reason, he causes only a very feeble glimmering of hope to +fall upon the dark future.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 12. "<i>I will assemble, surely I will assemble, O Jacob, +thee wholly: I will gather the remnant of Israel. I will bring</i> +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 435]</span> <i>them together as the sheep of Bozrah; as +a flock on their pasture, they shall make a noise by reason of men.</i> Ver. 13. +<i>The breaker goeth up before them; they break through, pass through the gate and +go out, and their King marches before them, and the Lord is on the head of them.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The remark, that almost all the features of this description are +borrowed from the deliverance out of Egypt, will throw much light upon the whole +description. In the midst of oppression and misery, Israel, while there, increased +by means of the blessing of the Lord, hidden under the cross, to greater and greater +numbers; compare Exod. i. 12. When the time of deliverance had arrived, the Lord, +who had for a long time concealed Himself, manifested Himself again as their God. +First, the people were gathered together, and then, the Lord went before them,—in +a pillar of cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire by night: Exod. xiii. 21. He led +them out of Egypt, the house of bondage: Exod. xx. 2. So it is here also. Ver. 12 +describes the increase and gathering, and ver. 13 the deliverance. In both passages, +Israel's misery is represented under the figure of an abode in the house of bondage, +or in prison, the gates of which the Lord opens—the walls of which He breaks down. +In this allusion to, and connection with, the former deliverance, Micah agrees with +his contemporaries, Hosea and Isaiah. The deeper reason of this lies in the typical +import of the former deliverance, which forms a prophecy by deeds of all future +deliverances, and contains within itself completely their germ and pledge; compare +Hosea ii. 1, 2 (i. 10, 11); Is. xi. 11 ff.: "And the Lord shall stretch forth His +hand a <i>second time</i> to redeem the remnant of His people.... And He sets up +an ensign for the nations, and gathers together the dispersed of Israel, and assembles +the scattered of Judah from the four corners of the earth.... And the Lord smites +with a curse the tongue of the Egyptian sea, and shakes His hand over the river, +in the violence of His wind, and smites it to seven rivers, so that one may wade +through in shoes. And there shall be a highway to the remnant of His people, ... +like as it was to Israel in the day when he came up out of the land of Egypt." This +reference to the typical deliverance clearly shows, that in the description we have +carefully to separate between the thought and the language in which it is clothed.</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 436]</span></p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 12. The <i>Infin. absol.</i>, which in both the clauses precedes +the <i>tempus finitum</i>, expresses the emphasis which is to be placed on the +<i>gathering</i>, as opposed to the carrying away, and the scattering formerly announced; +for the latter, according to the view of man, and apart from God's mercy and omnipotence, +did not seem to admit of any favourable turn. By "Jacob" and "Israel," several interpreters +understand Judah alone; others, the ten tribes alone; others, both together. The +last view is alone the correct one. This appears from i. 5, where, by Jacob and +Israel, the whole nation is designated. The promise in the passage before us stands +closely related to the threatening uttered there. All Israel shall be given up to +destruction on account of their sins; all Israel shall be saved by the grace of +God. This assumption is confirmed by a comparison of the parallel passages in Hosea +and Isaiah, where the whole is designated by the two parts, Judah and Israel. Micah +does not notice this division, because that visible separation, which even in the +present was overbalanced by an invisible unity, shall disappear altogether in that +future, when there shall be only one flock, as there is only one Shepherd. The expression, +"remnant of Israel," in the second clause, which corresponds to, "O Jacob, thee +wholly," in the first, indicates, that the fulfilment of the promise, so far from +doing away with the threatening, rather rests on its preceding realization. The +Congregation of God, purified by the divine judgments, shall be <i>wholly</i> gathered. +Divine mercy has in itself no limits; and those which in the present are assigned +to it by the objects of mercy, shall then be removed.—The words, "I will bring them +together," etc., indicate equally the faithfulness of the great Shepherd, who gathers +His dispersed flock from all parts of the world, and the unexpected and wonderful +increase of the flock; compare Jer. xxiii. 3: "And I will gather the remnant of +My flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and lead them back to +their pasture-ground, and they are fruitful and increase;" and xxxi. 10: "He that +scattereth Israel will gather him and keep him as a shepherd does his flock."—Bozrah +we consider to be the name of a capital of the Idumeans in Auranitis, four days' +journey from Damascus. The great wealth of this town in flocks appears from Is. +xxxiv. 6 (although a slaughter of men is spoken of in that passage, yet evidently +the wealth of Bozrah in natural <span class="pagenum">[Pg 437]</span> flocks is +there supposed), and can with perfect ease be accounted for from its situation. +For, in its neighbourhood, there begins the immeasurable plain of Arabia, which, +on one side, continues without interruption as far as <i>Dshof</i>, into the heart +of Arabia, while, towards the North, it extends to Bagdad, under the name of <i> +El Hamad</i>. Its length and breadth are calculated to amount to eight days' journey. +It contains many shrubs and blooming plants; compare <i>Burkhardt</i> and <i>Ritter</i>.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_437a" href="#ftn_437a">[4]</a></sup> +Several interpreters consider <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בצרה</span> to be an +appellative, and assign to it the signification "sheepfold," "cote." But there is +no reason whatsoever in favour of such a meaning of Bozrah, while there is this +argument against it, that the probable signification of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בצרה</span> as the name of a town is "<i>locus munitus</i>" += <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מִבְצָר</span> or +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בִּצָּרוֹן</span>. It can hardly be supposed that +the word should at the same time have had the significations of "fortress" and "fold." +It is, moreover, more in harmony with the prophetical character to particularize, +than to use a general term. As is shown, however, by the last member (with which, +according to the accents, the words, "As <span class="pagenum">[Pg 438]</span> a +flock on their pasture," must be connected), the point of comparison is not the +assembling and gathering, but the multitude, the crowd,—As the sheep of Bozrah" +being thus tantamount to, "So that in multitude they are like the sheep of Bozrah." +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הַדָּבְרוֹ</span>, from +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דֹּבֶר</span>, is, contrary to the general rule, +doubly qualified, both by the article and by the suffix. This has been accounted +for on the ground that the little suffix had gradually lost its power. But it is +perhaps more natural to suppose that the article sometimes lost its power, and coalesced +with the noun. The frequent use of the <i>Status emphaticus</i> in undefined nouns, +in the Syriac language (compare <i>Hofmann</i>, <i>Gram. Syr.</i>, p. 290), presents +an analogy in favour of this opinion.—The last words graphically describe the noise +produced by a numerous, closely compacted flock. The plur. of the Fem. refers to +the sheep.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מן</span> denotes the <i>causa efficiens</i>. +They make a noise; and this noise proceeds from the numerous assembled people. The +same connection of figure and thing occurs in Ezek. xxxiv. 31: "And ye (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ואתן</span>) +are My flock, the flock of My pasture are ye men;" compare Ezek. xxxvi. 38.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 13. The whole verse must be explained by the figure of a +prison, which lies at the foundation. The people of God are shut up in it, but are +now delivered by God's powerful hand. By the "breaker," many interpreters understand +the Lord Himself. But if we consider, that in a double clause, at the end of the +verse, the Lord is mentioned as the leader of the expedition if we look to the type +of the deliverance from Egypt, where Moses, as the breaker, marches in front of +Israel; and if, further, we look to the parallel passage in Hosea, where, with an +evident allusion to that type, the children of Israel and of Judah appoint themselves +one head; we shall rather be disposed to understand by the "breaker" the <i>dux +et antesignanus</i> raised up by God. With the raising up and equipping of such +a leader every divine deliverance commences; and that which, in the inferior deliverance, +the typical leaders, Moses and Zerubbabel, were, Christ was in the highest and last +deliverance. To Him the "breaker" has been referred by several Jewish interpreters +(compare <i>Schöttgen</i>, <i>Horæ</i> ii. p. 212); and if we compare chap. v., +where that which is here indicated by general outlines only is further expanded +and detailed, we shall have to urge against this interpretation this objection only, +viz., that it excludes the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 439]</span> typical breakers,—that, +in the place of the <i>ideal</i> person of the breaker, which presents itself to +the internal vision of the prophet, it puts the individual in whom this idea is +most fully realized.—The words <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ויעברו שער</span> +are, by several interpreters, referred to the forcing and entering of hostile gates. +Thus <i>Michaelis</i>, whom <i>Rosenmüller</i> follows: "No gate shall be so fortified +as to prevent them from forcing it." But this interpretation destroys the whole +figure, and violates the type of the deliverance from Egypt which lies at the foundation. +For the gate through which they break is certainly the gate of the prison.—The three +verbs—"They break through, they pass through, they go out"—graphically describe +their progress, which is not to be stopped by any human power.—The last words open +up the view to the highest leader of the expedition; compare besides, Exod. xiii. +21; Is. lii. 12: "For ye shall not go out in trembling, nor shall ye go out by flight. +For the Lord goeth before you, and the God of Israel closeth your rear;" Is. xl. +11; Ps. lxxx. 3. In the exodus from Egypt, a visible symbol of the presence of God +marched before the host, besides Moses, the breaker. On the return from Babylon, +the Angel of the Lord was visible to the eye of faith only, as formerly when Abraham's +servant journeyed to Mesopotamia, Gen. xxiv. 7. At the last and highest deliverance, +the breaker was at once the King and God of the people.</p> +<p class="normal">As this prophecy has no limitation at all in itself, we are fully +entitled to refer it to the whole sum of the deliverances and salvation which are +destined for the Covenant-people; and to seek for its fulfilment in every event, +either past or future, in the same degree as the fundamental idea—God's mercy upon +His people—is manifested in it. Every limitation to any particular event is evidently +inadmissible; but, most of all, a limitation to the deliverance from the Babylonish +captivity, which, especially with regard to Israel, can be considered as only a +faint prelude of the fulfilment. They, however, have come nearest to the truth who +assume an exclusive reference to Christ,—provided they acknowledge, that the conversion +of the first fruits of Israel, at the time when Christ appeared in His humiliation, +is not the end of His dealings with this people.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_425a" href="#ftnRef_425a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> The reference to the general judgment would + indeed disappear, if we suppose <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בכם</span> in + ver. 2 to be addressed to <i>Israel</i>. It seems, indeed, to be in favour of + this supposition, that, in 1 Kings xxii. 28, the people alone are called upon + as witnesses, and that in Deut. xxxi. 28, xxxii. 1, and Is. i. 2, heaven and + earth, and in Hos. vi. 1, the mountains also, are called upon only in order + to make the scene more solemn. But the reference of + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בכם</span> to the nations mentioned immediately + before, is too evident.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_434a" href="#ftnRef_434a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> Ver. 6 must be translated thus: + <!---quote mark unnecessary because of italics; end quote is missing--><i>Not + shall ye drop</i> (prophesy),—<i>they</i> (the false prophets) <i>drop; if they</i> + (the individuals addressed, the true prophets) <i>do not drop to these</i> (the + rapacious great), <i>the ignominy will not cease</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, the ignominious + destruction breaks in irresistibly. The fundamental passage in Deut. xxxii. + 2, and ver. 11 of the chapter before us, show that + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הטיף</span> has not the signification, "to talk," + which is assigned to it by <i>Caspari</i>. The false prophets must be considered + as the accomplices of the corrupted great, especially as to the bulwark which + they opposed to the true prophets, and their influence on the nation, and on + their own consciences,—as indeed material power everywhere seeks for such a + spiritual ally. If this be kept in view, the censure and threatening acquire + a still greater unity.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_434b" href="#ftnRef_434b"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[3]</sup></a> To a certain extent, however, verse 11 forms + the transition: "If one were to come, a wind, and lie falsely: I will prophesy + to thee of wine and of strong drink,—he would be the prophet of this people." + Such a prophet Micah, indeed, is not; but although he neither can nor dare announce + salvation <i>without</i> judgment, he has, in the name of the Lord, to announce + salvation <i>after</i> the judgment. The very singular opinion, that in vers. + 12, 13, the false prophets are introduced as speaking, is refuted by the single + circumstance that, in ver. 12, the gathering of the <i>remnant</i> of Israel + only is promised, and hence the judgment is supposed to have preceded. It is + no less erroneous if, instead of considering ver. 11 as introductory to vers. + 12, 13, the latter be made to depend upon ver. 11, and be therefore considered + as, to a certain extent, accidental.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_437a" href="#ftnRef_437a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[4]</sup></a> After the example of <i>v. Raumer</i>, <i> + Robinson</i>, <i>Ritter</i> (<i>Erdk.</i> 14, 101), it has now become customary + to distinguish between two Bozrahs,—one in Auranitis, and the other in Edom. + But the arguments adduced for this distinction are not of very great weight. + Nowhere is a "high situation" in reality ascribed to the Bozrah in Edom. The + assertion, that Edom was always limited to the territory between the Dead Sea + and the Red Sea, is opposed to Gen. xxxvi. 35, according to which passage, even + in the time before Moses, the Edomitic king, Hadad, smote Midian in the field + of Moab; and further, to Lam. iv. 21, according to which Edom dwells in the + land of Uz, which can be sought for only in <i>Arabia Deserta</i>. We need to + think only of that branch of the Midianites who had gone over to <i>Arabia Deserta</i>, + whilst their chief settlement continued in <i>Arabia Petræa</i>. But the following + arguments may be adduced <i>against</i> the distinction. 1. Bozrah is constantly + and simply spoken of, without any further distinctive designation. 2. The Edomitic + Bozrah must have been a great and powerful city, which agrees well with the + "mighty ruins" in <i>Hauran</i>, but not with the much more insignificant ruins + near <i>Busseireh</i> in <i>Dshebal</i>. 3. It is improbable that so important + a city as that of Bozrah in Auranitis should never have been mentioned in Scripture.—But + not satisfied with a double Bozrah, even a third, in Moab, has been assumed + on the ground of Jer. xlviii. 24. But it is certainly strange that Bozrah, in + that passage, is mentioned as the last of all the Moabitish towns, and that, + immediately after its mention, there follow the words, "Upon all the cities + of the land of Moab, far and near." It may be that Bozrah was conquered by the + Edomites and Moabites in common, or that, in later times, the latter obtained + a kind of possession of the town in common with the former.</p> +</div> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 440]</span></p> +<h3><a name="div3_440" href="#div3Ref_440">CHAP. III.-V.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">The discourse opens with new reproofs and threatenings. It is +<i>first</i>, in vers. 1-4, directed against the rapacious great, who in ver. 2 +are described as murderers of men (compare Sirach xxxi. 21: "He who taketh from +his neighbour his livelihood, <i>killeth</i> him"), and in ver. 3, as eaters of +men, because they turn to their own advantage the necessaries of life of which they +have robbed the poor. The discourse <i>then</i> passes over to the false prophets, +vers. 5-7. Their character is described as hypocritical, weak, and selfish, and +is incidentally contrasted with the character of the true prophet, as represented +by himself, whose strength is always renewed by the Spirit of the Lord, and who, +in this strength, serves only truth and righteousness, and holds up their sins to +the people deluded by the false prophets, ver. 8. This the prophet continues to +do in vers. 9-12. The three orders of divinely called rulers, upon whom the life +or death of the Congregation was depending,—the princes, the priests, and the prophets +(compare remarks on Zech. x. 1),—have become so degenerate, that they are not at +all concerned for the glory of God, but only for their own interest. And while they +have thus inwardly apostatized from Jehovah, they are strengthened in their false +security by the promises which God has given to His people, and which they, altogether +overlooking the fact that these are conditional, referred, in hypocritical blindness, +to themselves. But God will, in a fearful manner, punish them for this apostasy, +and frighten them from their security. The Congregation of the Lord, which has been +desecrated inwardly, shall be so outwardly also. Zion shall become a corn-field; +Jerusalem, the city of God, shall sink into rubbish and ruins; the Temple-hill shall +again become what it was previous to its being the residence of God, viz., a thickly +wooded hill, which shall then appear in all its natural lowness, and be considered +as insignificant when compared with the neighbouring mountains.—In the whole section, +the twelve verses of which are equally divided into three portions of four verses +each, the prophet views chiefly the great, and the civil rulers. The false prophets, +whom he takes up in the second of these subdivisions (vers. 5-8), come under consideration +as their helpers only. In the third subdivision, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 441]</span> +the discourse is again directed to the great alone, in vers. 9, 10. The two other +orders are added to them in vers. 11, 12 only; and the charges raised against them +refer to their relation to the great. The <i>priests</i> are not by any means reproved +because they made teaching a profession, from which they derived their livelihood, +but because, for bribes, they interpreted the law in a manner favourable to the +rapacious lusts of the great, and thereby, no less than the false prophets, assisted +them in their wickedness.—The charge raised in ver. 10 against the great,—Building +up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity,"—has been frequently misunderstood. +The words must not be explained from Hab. ii. 12, but from Ps. li. 20, where David +prays to the Lord, "Build Thou the walls of Jerusalem," which he had destroyed by +his blood, ver. 16. The word "building" is used ironically by Micah, and is tantamount +to: "Ye who are destroying Jerusalem by blood and iniquity (compare ver. 12: 'For +your sakes Zion shall be ploughed as a field'), instead of building it up by righteousness." +Righteousness builds up, because it draws down God's blessing and protection; but +unrighteousness destroys, because it calls down the curse of God.</p> +<p class="normal">The unfaithfulness of the Covenant-people can nevertheless not +make void the faithfulness of God. The prophet, therefore, passes suddenly from +threatening to promise. <i>Calvin</i> thus expresses the relation of these two: +"But I must now come to the little remnant. Hitherto I have spoken about the judgment +of God, which is near at hand, upon the king's councillors, upon the priests and +prophets, upon the whole people in short, because they are all wicked and ungodly, +because the whole body is pervaded by contempt of God, and by desperate obstinacy. +Let them receive, then, that which they all have deserved. But I now gather the +children of God apart, for to them too I have a message to deliver."</p> +<p class="normal">The intimate relation of the first part of the promise to the +preceding threatening has been already demonstrated, p. 420. The Mount of Zion, +which forms the subject of vers. 1-7, shall, in future, not only be restored to +its former dignity, but it shall be exalted above all the mountains of the earth. +The kingdom of God, which is represented by it, shall, by the glory imparted to +it by a new revelation of the Lord (compare ver. 7: "And <span class="pagenum">[Pg +442]</span> the Lord shall be King over them on Mount Zion"), outshine all the kingdoms +of the world, and exercise an attractive power upon their citizens; so that they +flow to Zion, there to receive the commands of the Lord, vers. 1, 2. By the sway +which the Lord exercises from Zion, peace shall have its dwelling in the heathen +world, ver. 3, and, consequently, the Congregation of the Lord ceases to be a prey +to injury from the world's power, ver. 4<sup>a</sup>. How incredible soever it may +appear, this promise shall surely be fulfilled; for omnipotent faithfulness has +given it, ver. 4<sup>b</sup>, and has given it indeed for this very purpose; for +it is altogether natural, and to be expected, that the glory of the Lord should +in all eternity display itself in His dealings with His people, ver. 5. In vers. +6, 7, the promise receives a new impetus, by which it connects itself with ver. +4<sup>a</sup>. In that time of mercy, the Lord will put an end to all the misery +of His people.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 1. "<i>And it shall come to pass at the end of the days, +that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be firmly established on the top +of the mountains, and exalted above the hills, and people flow unto it.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The words, "And it shall come to pass," excite the attention to +the great and unexpected turn which things are to take. The expression, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">באחרית הימים</span>, is explained by many as meaning: +"In times to come," "in future." But we have already proved, in our work on <i>Balaam</i>, +p. 465 seq., that the right explanation is: "At the end of the days." This is the +explanation given by the LXX. also, who commonly render it by +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταισ ἡμέραις</span>; and by the Chaldee +Paraphrast, who translates it by <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בסוף יומיא</span>. +The reasons which seem, at first sight, to favour the signification "in future," +are invalidated by these two considerations:—<i>first</i>, that it is not at all +necessary that the end be just absolutely the last, but only the end of those events +which the speaker is reviewing; and, <i>second</i>, that it altogether depends upon +the will of the speaker, what extent he is to assign to the beginning and to the +end. The expression is used by the prophets in a manner different from that of the +Pentateuch. The prophets use it almost exclusively with a reference to the Messianic +times,—an <i>usus loquendi</i> which originated in Deut. iv. 30. They divide the +whole duration of the kingdom of God into two parts, the beginning and the end,—the +state of humiliation, and <span class="pagenum">[Pg 443]</span> the state of glorification. +The line of demarcation is formed by the birth of the Messiah, according to v. 2 +(3): "He will give them up until she who is bearing brings forth."—The mountain +of the house of the Lord" is, according to the common <i>usus loquendi</i>, not +Moriah, but the whole mountain of Zion, of which Moriah was considered as a part; +compare Ps. lxxvi. 3, lxxviii. 68. In ver. 8, the prophet speaks of two parts only, +Zion and Jerusalem. In iii. 12, Zion only, as the better part, is first spoken of; +and then, in the second clause, Jerusalem and the mountain of the house, the latter +corresponding to Zion, are contrasted with each other, or Jerusalem and Mount Zion +considered in its highest quality as the temple-mountain.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נכון</span>, +"fixed," "firmly established," implies more than, simply, "placed." It shows that +the change is not merely momentary, but that the temple-mountain shall be exalted +for ever, and that no earthly power shall be able to abase it. It thus goes hand +in hand with the declaration in ver. 7: "The Lord shall be king over them from now +<i>until eternity</i>." The same word <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נכון</span> +is used in 1 Kings ii. 45 of the immutable firmness of the throne of David: "The +throne of David shall be firmly established before the Lord for ever;" compare 2 +Sam. vii. 12, 13. The commentary on <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נכון</span> is +given by Dan. ii. 44: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set +up a kingdom which shall not be destroyed in all eternity ... it shall break in +pieces and destroy all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." That +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בראש ההרים</span> does not mean, "at the head of +the mountains," <i>i.e.</i>, standing at the head, as the first among them (as +<i>Hitzig</i> and others think), but "on the summit of the mountains" (the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ב</span> is used in a similar manner in Judg. ix. +7, compared with 1 Sam. xxvi, 13), is evident from the fact that +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בראש</span>, in connection with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הר</span>, is constantly used of the summit of the +mountains, and, hence, cannot be used in a figurative sense, in this connection. +The sense can therefore be this only: "Zion, in future, so pre-eminently stands +out from among the other mountains, that these serve, as it were, only for its foundation." +Now, the elevation of the temple-mountain is considered, by several interpreters, +as a <i>physical</i> one. Passages from Jewish commentaries, in which the expectation +is expressed that, in the days of the Messiah, Jehovah would bring near Mount Carmel +and Tabor, and place Jerusalem on <span class="pagenum">[Pg 444]</span> the summit +of them, will be found in <i>Galatinus</i>, <i>de Arcanis Catholicæ Veritatis</i>, +L. v. c. 3. The literal explanation has, in recent times, been defended by <i>Hofmann</i> +and <i>Drechsler</i>. But <i>Caspari</i>, by pointing out the exact correspondence +between the words, "The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be firmly established +on the top of the mountains," and the words in ver. 2, "The law shall go forth of +Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem," has proved in a very striking manner +that the elevation is a moral one. "As 1<sup>b</sup> corresponds to 2<sup>a</sup>, +so does 1<sup>a</sup> to 2<sup>b</sup>; ver. 1<sup>a</sup> is the ground of ver. +1<sup>b</sup>; ver. 2<sup>a</sup>, by which ver. 1<sup>b</sup> is further expanded, +is the consequence of 2<sup>b</sup>. Hence 2<sup>b</sup> must be substantially identical +with ver. 1<sup>a</sup>; but 2<sup>b</sup> speaks of something that points to the +moral height of Mount Zion, and states something upon which it is based." To this +it may be added, that height, in a moral sense, is often ascribed to the temple-mountain, +even with reference to the ante-Messianic time, and that the passage under consideration +could be disjoined from these by force only. It is upon such a view of it, indeed, +that the use of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עלה</span> in reference to the journeys +to Jerusalem rests, just as it is here used in ver. 2. We may, moreover, compare +Ps. xlviii. 3; Ezek. xvii. 22, 33: "And I plant upon a mountain high and elevated. +On the high mountains of Israel I will plant it;" but especially Ps. lxviii. 16: +"Mountain of God is the mountain of Bashan, the top of mountains is the mountain +of Bashan." Ver. 17. "Why do ye tops of mountains insidiously observe the mountain +which God desireth for His residence? Yea, the Lord will dwell in it for ever." +The mountain of God is, in these verses, an emblem of the kingdoms of the world, +which are powerful through God's grace. In ver. 16, the Psalmist declares what the +mountain of Bashan is. In ver. 17, he rejects the unfounded claims which it raises +on account of its real advantages. Although it be great, yet Mount Zion is infinitely +greater, and vain are all its efforts to overturn this relation. This passage, then, +leads to another argument against the literal interpretation. We find in it the +kingdoms represented under the figure of mountains,<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_444a" href="#ftn_444a">[1]</a></sup>—a +mode of representation which is of very frequent occurrence in Scripture; compare +my Commentary on <span class="pagenum">[Pg 445]</span> Ps. lxv. 7, lxxvi. 5; Rev. +viii. 8, xvii. 9. The more difficult it was to separate, according to the Israelitish +conception, <i>mountain</i> and <i>kingdom</i>, the more natural it was to find, +in the passage before us, expression given to the thought, that the kingdom of God +would, in future, be exalted above all the kingdoms of the world. If we take into +account the common practice of employing "mountain" in a figurative sense, it is +natural to suppose that not the exaltation alone is to be understood figuratively, +but that the mountain itself also is to be regarded chiefly in its symbolical signification,—as +the symbol of the kingdom of God in Israel; although, in this aspect, we should +expect, at least in the beginning of the relation, that the thing itself should +still be connected with the symbol; afterwards they may be disjoined without any +hesitation. The deep grief which must, of necessity, have been called forth by the +announcement in iii. 12, did not regard the mountain as such. It had, for its real +object, the condition of the kingdom of God which was prefigured by the condition +of the mountain; and it is just this to which the consolation has respect.—But by +what means is the exaltation of the temple-mountain to be effected? <i>Cocceius</i> +has already directed attention to the circumstance, that it must not be supposed +to consist in the flowing of the people unto it; for that is not the <i>cause</i>, +but the <i>effect</i>. We find the correct answer in ver. 2: "The law goeth forth +of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem;" and in ver. 7: "And the Lord +will be king over them on Mount Zion." The exaltation will, accordingly, be effected +by a glorious manifestation of the Lord within His congregation; in consequence +of which, Zion becomes the centre of the whole earth. That this manifestation is +to take place in Christ, is brought out only subsequently; compare especially, v. +1, 3 (2-4). A parallel passage is also Ezek. xl. 2, where Mount Zion is likewise +seen exalted in the Messianic time.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 2. "<i>And many nations go and say, Come and let us go up +to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, that He may teach +us His ways, and that we may walk in His path; for from Zion the law shall go forth, +and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">From the words, "And many nations go," to "paths," we have an +expansion of—"People flow unto it." Zech. viii. 20-23 are founded upon, and serve +as a commentary on the passage before <span class="pagenum">[Pg 446]</span> us. +The people go to one another, and send messengers to one another; a powerful commotion +pervades the heathen world, which causes them to seek Zion, that had formerly been +despised by them. It makes no substantial difference whether the going is to be +understood physically or spiritually,—whether the people flow to the literal Mount +Zion, or to the Church, which is thereby prefigured. All that is requisite is, that +the commencement of their going and flowing must belong to a time in which the symbol +and the thing symbolized were still connected,—when the literal Zion was still the +seat of the Church. The <i>plurality</i> of nations forms a contrast with the <i> +unity</i>, but not with the <i>universality</i>, as is shown by a comparison of +the parallel passage in Isaiah, where the "many people" are preceded by the mention +of "all the heathens (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כל־הגוים</span>, <i>i.e.</i>, +the whole heathen world) flow unto it," instead of—"People flow unto it," as in +Micah. Formerly, <i>one</i> people only went to Zion, in order there to offer to +the Lord their worship, and to be taught His ways, Exod. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23; Deut. +xxxi. 10 sqq.; now, many people flow thither. In the anticipation of this future +glory of Mount Zion, which will infinitely outshine that of the present, the sad +interval described in iii. 12, during which the mountain of the house is altogether +forsaken, may be more easily borne. The connection of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הורה</span> with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מן</span>, +which is rather uncommon, may be most simply explained by viewing the instruction +as proceeding from its object. "The ways of the Lord" are the ways in which He would +have men to walk,—that mode of life which is well-pleasing to Him. The contrast +of it is walking in one's own ways. Is. liii. 6,—regulating of one's life according +to the desires of one's own corrupt heart.—The last words, "For from Zion, etc.," +are not to be conceived of as spoken by the people, stirring up and encouraging +one another, but by the prophet. They state the reason why the people are so anxious +to go to Zion; and this accounts also for the circumstance that Zion is so emphatically +placed at the beginning. Zion shall, at that time, be the residence of the true +God, and proved to be such by glorious revelations; and from it His commands go +forth over the whole earth. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יצא</span>, "to go out," +stands here, as in ver. 1, in the sense of "to go forth." As the sphere for the +going forth of the law from Zion is not limited, it must be considered in as wide +an extent as possible; in harmony with the preceding words, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 447]</span> according to which we must think of "people," +"many nations," as being comprehended within this sphere.—We must not overlook the +fact that the article is awanting before <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תורה</span>, +and that the law is not more strictly defined as the law of God. It is intended, +in the first place, only to indicate that despised and desolate Zion is to be the +seat of legislation for the whole earth. The law itself is then more strictly defined +as the word of God. Many interpreters understand <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +תורה</span> here as meaning religion in general;<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_447a" href="#ftn_447a">[2]</a></sup> +the going forth is explained by them of its spreading itself. From Zion, true religion +is to extend over all the nations; and hence it is that to Zion the eyes of all +of them are directed. Thus, <i>e.g.</i>, <i>Theodoret</i>, who remarks: "This is +the preaching of the Gospel, which began at Jerusalem, and from thence, as from +its source, flowed over all the earth, offering drink to those who came to it in +faith." But <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תורה</span> never signifies "doctrine," +"religion," any more than does <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">משפט</span>: it is +always used as meaning "law;" and this sense of it can with the less propriety be +departed from here, as the people, according to what precedes, flow to Zion not +in order to seek religion in general, but laws for their conduct in life. But even +if we were to follow <i>Caspari</i>, and to modify the explanation thus, "The law, +which was formerly confined to Zion, and hence to a narrow circle, shall go forth +from thence into the wide world,"—weighty objections to it would still remain. If +"to go forth" were to be understood as meaning "to spread," the sphere of the going +forth would have been more closely determined; as, <i>e.g.</i>, in Is. xlii. 1: +"He shall bring forth judgment <i>to the Gentiles</i>." In Is. li. 4, "Law shall +<i>go out</i> from Me, and My judgment I will make for a light of the people," +<i>to go out</i> is tantamount to, <i>to go forth</i>. "Mine arms shall judge the +people," in li. 5, is parallel to it. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יצא</span> +in itself does not mean "to go forth." <i>Further</i>—The circumstance that the +law spreads from Zion, does not account sufficiently for the zeal with which the +nations flow to Zion. If it <i>goes out</i>, there is then no need for their seeking +for it at its home. In Zech. viii. 20-23, also, the thronging of the people to Zion, +in order to enter there into a closer relation to the Lord, forms the subject of +discourse. Zion, as the place where the Lord of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 448]</span> +the whole earth issues His orders, as if from His residence (Is. xi. 10), forms +an appropriate contrast to "Zion shall be ploughed as a field,"—a suitable parallel +to the exaltation of the temple-mountain above all the mountains of the earth, to +which the prophet here returns, after having, in the first part of the verse, expanded +the thought: "People flow unto it;" and to vers. 7, 8 also, where Zion appears likewise +as the seat of dominion.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 3. "<i>And He judges among many people, and rebukes strong +nations, even unto a distance. And they heat their swords into ploughshares, and +their spears into pruning-knives; nation shall not lift up a sword, against nation, +neither shall they learn war any more.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">It appears strange to us that here we see ourselves transferred +all at once to the sphere of the general description of the Messianic time; for, +according to the whole context, and to the contrast with chap. iii., we expect such +predictions as will serve especially for the consolation of the daughter of Zion, +whose heart had been pierced by the announcement that the mountain of the house +should become a wooded hill, and that she herself should be given into the power +of the Gentiles. But this difficulty is removed by remarking that this verse only +prepares the way for ver. 4, where there is a representation of the advantage which +accrues to the daughter of Zion from the spirit of peace, which, through the powerful +influence of Zion's God, has become prevalent in the heathen world. It is from failing +to perceive the connection of the two verses, that the remark of <i>Hitzig</i> has +arisen: "It is very probable that Micah, if he had been the (original) author, would +rather have mentioned the change and restoration of Jerusalem, than the change of +the arms."—The subject is the Lord. That it was through <i>Christ</i>, who as early +as in the Song of Solomon appears as the true Solomon, that the Lord would carry +out what is here announced, the prophet could, according to his plan, detail only +afterwards. In chap. iv. 1-7, he describes how Zion is glorified by what the Lord +does from thence; in ver. 8, by the restoration of the dominion of the Davidic race; +and in v. 1 ff., by the appearance of the Messiah. It is especially from v. 3 (4), +according to which the Messiah stands and feeds in the strength of the Lord, in +the majesty of the name of the Lord His God,—and from v. 4 (5), according +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 449]</span> to which He is the Peace, that we infer with +certainty that the judging also shall be done by His mediation. In Isaiah we meet +the person of the Messiah in the prophecy of chap. iv., which, along with that in +chap. ii., belongs to one discourse, and supplements it. The judging and rebuking +(<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הוכיח</span> with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +ל</span>, "to rebuke," "to reprove") refer to the strifes among the nations which +hitherto could not be allayed, because there was wanting the counterpoise to selfishness +which was productive of wrong. But such a counterpoise is now given in the word +of God, which, carried home by His Spirit, penetrates deeply into the heart.—<i>Strong</i> +nations," who were hitherto most ready to seize the sword. The words, "And they +beat," etc., refer to Joel iv. (iii.) 10, where the heathen beat their ploughshares +into swords, their pruning-knives into spears; and they do so to the prejudice of +the people of God, which the prophet, although apparently he speaks in general terms, +has specially in view. By this allusion Micah indicates that, with reference to +the disposition of the heathen world, Joel has spoken a word, true, indeed, but +giving only a partial view. The words of <i>Justinus</i> in the <i>Dialogus cum +Tryphone</i>—For, having learned the fear and worship of God from the Law and Gospel +which came to us through the Apostles from Jerusalem, we have fled for refuge to +the God of Jacob, and the God of Israel; and we, who formerly were filled with war +and murder, and every wickedness, have put away the instruments of war from the +whole earth, and have, every one of us, changed the swords into ploughshares, and +the spears into agricultural implements, and cultivate the fear of God, justice, +brotherly love, faith, hope," etc.,—show that, even soon after the appearance of +Christ, it was held that the fulfilment of this prophecy had commenced. But it was +acknowledged by the prophet also, that even after the appearance of the salvation, +this description would, in the meantime, give only a partial exhibition of the truth; +inasmuch as not every one will submit to the judging activity of the Lord, how powerful +soever may be the effect of the new principle which entered into the life of the +nations; for in v. 4, 5 (5, 6) he speaks of the nations which, in the Messianic +time, attack the people of God; in ver. 8 (9), of their adversaries and enemies; +and in ver. 14 (15), of such as do not hear. But the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 450]</span> +imperfect fulfilment is a pledge and guarantee for that which is perfect, as it +will take place when, by the last judgment, they have been removed who have obstinately +preserved within themselves the spirit of strife and hatred. According to the predictions +of the prophets—compare especially Is. xi. 6, 7—peace shall, at some future period, +be extended even to the irrational creation, and the strife which has come upon +earth by the fall, shall entirely cease from it.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 4. "<i>And they sit every man under his vine, and under his +fig-tree, and none maketh them afraid; for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken +it.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">This verse contains a description of the happy consequences which +the peaceful influence which goes forth from the Lord to the heathen world, shall +have upon Israel. For Israel is the subject in <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ישבו</span>, +and the verse does not at all pretend to give a description of "a Solomonic time +for all the nations." This is shown by what is stated, in the following verse, as +to the ground of this happy change, as well as by a comparison of the fundamental +passages. Lev. xxvi. 6: "And I give peace in the land, and ye lie down, and none +maketh you afraid;" and 1 Kings v. 5 (iv. 25): "And Judah and Israel dwelt safely +every man under his vine and fig-tree, from Dan to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon;" +and of the parallel passages, Micah v. 4 (5); Zech. iii. 10. It is <i>further</i> +shown by the connection with what precedes, where great calamity, and the devastation +of their whole country had been predicted to Israel,—and by the mention of the vine +and fig-tree, which are characteristic of the land of Israel. The words, "For the +mouth of the Lord," etc., point out the pledge, which the person of Him who promises +affords for the fulfilment of the promise, which appears incredible.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 5. "<i>For all the nations shall walk, every one in the name +of their God; and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The causal particle <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span> states +the ground of the fact that the Lord of hosts has spoken this, and given the promise +of the final safety of Israel, and of his enjoying peace after the strife, in consequence +of God's exercising dominion from Zion over the whole heathen world; while this +peace after the strife is then more fully described in vers. 6, 7. The lot of every +people corresponds to the nature of their God. And now, how +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 451]</span> could it be otherwise, than that all other +nations should be humbled, because their gods are idols, while Israel, on the other +hand, is exalted and endowed with everlasting salvation and prosperity, because +his God is the only true God? Is. xlv. 16, 17 is parallel: "They shall be ashamed, +and also confounded, all of them; they shall go to confusion, the makers of idols. +Israel is saved by the Lord, with an everlasting salvation; ye shall not be ashamed +nor confounded in all eternity."—The name of the Lord" is the complex whole of His +excellency which is revealed, and proved by deeds; compare Prov. xviii. 10: "The +name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous runneth into it and is exalted." +Inasmuch as the name of the Lord is to manifest itself in His dealings with His +people, it represents itself as the way in which they are to walk: the prayer of +the Psalmist in Ps. xxv. 5, that the Lord would lead him in His <i>truth</i>, forms +a parallel to this; and so does also what he says in ver. 9 of the same Psalm, that +"He guides the meek in <i>judgment</i>." But exactly corresponding is Zech. x. 12: +"And I strengthen them in the Lord, and <i>in His name shall they walk</i>" = in +the path of His name, so that the latter manifests itself in His dealings with them; +compare the remarks on that passage. In favour of our exposition, moreover, is the +comparison of the passage Is. ii. 5, the evidently requisite harmony of which with +the passage under consideration is obtained, only if the latter be understood as +we have explained it. The <i>light</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, the salvation of the Lord spoken +of there, corresponds with the name of the Lord in the passage under review. Several +interpreters explain: "They may walk, they may worship their gods. Although all +nations should be idolaters, yet we, inhabitants of Judah, shall faithfully worship +Jehovah." Against this explanation <i>Caspari</i> remarks, "An exhortation, or a +resolution which implies an exhortation, is here not easily justified, because it +would stand in the midst of promises." Moreover, the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span> cannot be explained according to this interpretation, +as appears with sufficient clearness from the remark of <i>Justi</i>: "This verse +does not seem to be so closely connected with the preceding one." The connection +is more firmly established by the explanation of <i>Tarnovius</i>, <i>Michaelis</i>, +and others: "Surely so brilliant a lot must fall to us; for we are faithful worshippers +of the true God, while all other nations walk after their idols." +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 452]</span> But the objections to tins explanation are: +(1) the circumstance that it is rather unusual to found the salvation of the people +upon their covenant-faithfulness (of which, from the preceding reproof, we cannot +entertain very high notions), instead of founding it upon God's grace and faithfulness, +compare vii. 18-20;<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_452a" href="#ftn_452a">[3]</a></sup> +(2) the repeated use of the Future, while, according to it, we should have expected +the Preterite, at least in the first member; and (3), and most decisive of all, +the expression, "For ever and ever;" compare the expression, "From henceforth, even +for ever," in ver. 7.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 6. "<i>In that day, saith the Lord, I will assemble that +which halteth, and that which hath been driven out I will gather, and that which +I have afflicted.</i> Ver. 7. <i>And I make that which is halting a remnant, and +that which is far off a strong nation, and the Lord reigneth over them in Mount +Zion from henceforth, even for ever.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The expression "in that day" does not refer to "at the end of +the days," in ver. 1, but is connected with, and resumes ver. 4<sup>a</sup> That +the verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אסף</span> has here the signification "to +assemble," and not that "to receive," is shown by ii. 12, and especially by Ezek. +xi. 17. The word refers to the announcement of Israel's being carried away, which +was formerly made, and with which the scattering is connected. They are assembled +for their return to the Holy Land. Such an assembling, however, is meant, as is +connected with the full enjoyment of salvation, and in which the Congregation truly +manifests itself in a close unity, as a kingdom of priests. In the passage, Zeph. +iii. 19, which is founded upon the one under review, we find "I save" instead of +"I assemble." Of such a description, the assembling under Zerubbabel was not; compare +Nehem. ix. 36, 37. It can therefore come into notice only as a prelude to the true +assembling.—The Fem. sing. of the Partic.," says <i>Hitzig</i>, "must be understood +collectively; and it is not several subjects, but predicates of the same subject, +viz., of the whole of Israel, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 453]</span> which are thereby +designated." The "halting," which is a condition of bodily helplessness and weakness, +occurs also in Ps. xxxv. 15, and xxxviii. 18, as a designation of adversity and +misery.—The expression, "to make a remnant," forms the contrast to total annihilation. +While these words show that a limit will be put to the <i>diminution</i>, the following +words predict a vast <i>increase</i>. In the words, "In Mount Zion," the contrast +with iii. 12 appears once more at the close of the section. As regards +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מלך יהוה</span>, compare Ps. xciii. 1. It does not +refer to the constant government of the Lord, but to a new and glorious manifestation +of it—as it were to a new ascension to the throne. The expression, "From henceforth," +refers to the <i>ideal</i> present. In spirit, the prophet is in that time when +the Lord is just entering upon His government. The words, "The Lord reigneth ... +for ever," are thus beautifully illustrated by <i>Calvin</i>: "Micah does not here +mention the descendants of David, but Jehovah Himself; not as if he wished thereby +to exclude that dominion of David, but in order to show that God would make it manifest +that He was the author of that dominion, yea, that He Himself held all the power. +For, although God governed the ancient people by the hand of David, and by the hand +of Josiah and Hezekiah, <i>yet there was, as it were, a shadow placed between, so +that God's government was then perceived darkly only.</i> The prophet, therefore, +here expresses, that there would be some difference betwixt that shadowy government, +and the future new dominion which He was openly to set up by the advent of the Messiah. +And this was truly and solidly fulfilled in Christ's person. For although Christ +was the true seed of David, yet He was also, at the same time, Jehovah, viz., God +made manifest in the flesh." With respect to this promise, however, it must also +be kept in mind that it will be finally fulfilled only in the future, when the kingdom +and throne of glory (compare Matt. xix. 28) shall be set up.</p> +<p class="normal">The prophet had hitherto described the kingdom which was to be +established anew, as a kingdom of God, without mentioning the channel through which +His mercy was to be poured out upon the Congregation—the mediator who was to represent +Him among them. His representation, therefore, was still defective; it still wanted +the connection with the promise given to David, and so frequently celebrated by +him, and by other <span class="pagenum">[Pg 454]</span> holy Psalmists and Prophets—the +promise of the eternal dominion of David's house. According to this promise, every +new, great manifestation of grace, must be through some descendant of this family +as a mediator. This house must ever form the substratum on which the divine power +and the divine nature, in its most complete manifestation, showed themselves. This +blank is supplied in ver. 8.</p> +<p class="normal">"<i>And thou tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, +unto thee it will come; and to thee cometh the former dominion, the kingdom of the +daughter of Zion.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">In the words immediately preceding it is said: "And the Lord reigneth +over them from henceforth, even for ever." We have here, then, a prediction of the +dominion of the house of David, by whose mediation the Lord is to reign; compare +v. 3 (4), where it is said of Him in whom the Davidic race is to centre, "And He +stands, and feeds in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the +Lord His God." All interpreters agree that the Davidic race is designated by the +"Tower of the flock," and by "the hill of the daughter of Zion;" but, with respect +to the ground of this designation, they are very much at variance. A great number +of them (<i>Grotius</i>, and among the recent interpreters, <i>Rosenmüller</i>, +<i>Winer</i>, <i>Gesenius</i>, <i>De Wette</i>) think of that Tower of the flock, +in the neighbourhood of which Jacob, according to Gen. xxxv. 21, took up his abode +for a time. They say that, according to <i>Jerome</i>, this Tower of the flock was +situated in the immediate neighbourhood of Bethlehem; that it is used here only +by way of a <i>metalepsis</i> for Bethlehem, and that Bethlehem again designates +the Davidic race; so that the passage agrees altogether with v. 1 (2). But, upon +a closer examination, this interpretation appears to be objectionable, for the following +reasons. 1. It is anything but fixed that that Tower of the flock was situated in +the immediate neighbourhood of Bethlehem. It cannot be inferred from the passage +in Genesis, and as little can it be proved from <i>Jerome</i>. In the <i>Quest. +ad Genes. Opp.</i> iii. p. 145, Frcf., he first mentions the opinion of the Jews, +according to which, by the "Tower of the flock" is to be understood the place on +which the temple was afterwards built, and then says: "But if we follow the direction +of the road, we find, by Bethlehem, a 'place of the shepherds,' which was so called, +either because it was there <span class="pagenum">[Pg 455]</span> that, at the birth +of the Lord, the angels sang their hymn of praise; or because Jacob fed his flock +there, and gave this name to the place; or, which is more likely, because even then +the future mystery was, by a revelation, shown to him." According to this, <i>Jerome</i> +does not know anything of a "Tower of the flock" near Bethlehem. From the direction +of the road which Jacob took, he only <i>surmises</i> that it was situated thereabouts; +and since there was, in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, a place called "the place +of the shepherds," he, from a mere combination, declares this to be identical with +the Tower of the flock; while, after all, he is so cautious as not at once to reject +the only true derivation of this name from the shepherds at the birth of Christ. +By this, the other passage in the book <i>de locis Hebr.</i> must be judged, where +<i>Jerome</i> expressly delivers his supposition as if it were historical truth: +"Bethlehem, the city of David ... and about a thousand paces (<i>passus</i>) distant +is the tower <i>Ader</i>, which is called 'the Tower of the flock,' indicating that, +by some vision, the shepherds had, beforehand, been made conscious of the birth +of the Lord." That tradition knew but little of any "Tower of the flock" in the +neighbourhood of Bethlehem, appears also from <i>Eusebius Onom.</i> s. v. <i>Gader.</i> +p. 79, ed. <i>Cleric</i>: "The tower Gader ... While Jacob dwelt there, Reuben went +in to Bilhah." <i>Eusebius</i> evidently knew nothing more regarding the "Tower +of the flock" than what we also may learn from the passage in Genesis. He does not +venture to offer even a conjecture as to its position. The same ignorance is shown +by the Jews, mentioned by <i>Jerome</i>, who certainly would not have thought of +a reference to the temple, if a place called "Tower of the flock" had existed in +the neighbourhood of Bethlehem. 2. But even assuming the existence of the Tower +of the flock in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, is it anything else than the assumption +of a pure <i>quid pro quo</i>, to assert, without assigning any reason, that the +"Tower of the flock" stands for Bethlehem? <i>Rosenmüller</i>, at least, has felt +this. He makes the attempt to assign a reason: "In substituting, however, an unknown +hamlet in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, for Bethlehem itself, he intended to indicate +that the dominion of David would be altogether weakened and brought low." But this +reason is certainly not by any means sufficient; Bethlehem was, in itself, so small, +that no further <span class="pagenum">[Pg 456]</span> diminution was required; compare +v. 1 (2). It had, moreover, been always small, and had not by any means sunk down +in the course of time from former greatness. Hence, such a designation, in contrast +with its former glory, would be entirely out of place; and even supposing that it +were not, the mode of this designation would always be inexplicable, unless we could +assume a closer reference of the "Tower of the flock" to the Davidic family. It +is only by establishing such a reference, that the whole explanation can be saved +and confirmed. For this purpose, it would be necessary to suppose that Bethlehem, +and the district belonging to it, were the general designation of the native place +of the Davidic family, while the "Tower of the flock" was the special one. But there +is not the slightest ground on which to support this hypothesis. Everywhere, Bethlehem +itself appears as the residence of Jesse, the father of David (compare 1 Sam. xvi. +1, 18, 19, xvii. 12), and likewise of Boaz, Ruth ii. 4.</p> +<p class="normal">The incorrectness of another explanation is still more evident. +According to it, we are, by the "Tower of the flock," to understand a tower which +is alleged to have stood at Jerusalem, near to the Sheep-gate. But the existence +of such a tower is supported by no evidence whatsoever, and does not become even +probable by the existence of a sheep-gate; for a Tower of the flock is not a tower +which stands near the Sheep-gate, but a tower which is erected for the protection +of the flock, as is clearly seen from <i>Migdal Eder</i> in Genesis. But, even supposing +that such a tower existed, is there anything which could somehow make it a suitable +designation of the Davidic family?</p> +<p class="normal">Let us now proceed to the establishment of our own opinion, by +which the arguments advanced against the other explanations will be considerably +strengthened. Concerning the situation of Jerusalem, <i>Josephus</i>, <i>de B. J.</i> +i. 6, c. 13, remarks as follows: "It was built on two hills fronting each other, +separated by a chasm running between, down to which the houses were situated. One +of the hills, on which the upper part of the city lay, was much higher and longer +than the other. And, because it was fortified, it was called the Citadel of King +David," etc. These two hills are Akra and Zion. The city situated upon the latter, +is, in other passages also, described by Josephus to be very high and steep; <i> +e.g.</i>, vi. 40: <span lang="el" class="Greek">τὴν ἄνω πόλιν περίκρημνον</span> +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 457]</span><span lang="el" class="Greek">οὖσαν</span>. +The sight afforded by the towers in this steep height is, by him, compared with +that of the beacon at Alexandria from the sea (<i>B. J.</i> vi. c. 6: "It resembled +in shape the lighthouse as seen by people sailing up to Alexandria"). Compare the +similar representation of <i>Tacitus</i>, <i>Lib.</i> 5. <i>Histor.</i> c. 11 (<i>Reland</i> +ii. p. 848 sqq.).</p> +<p class="normal">On the summit of this high and steep hill, in the upper town, +was situated the royal castle, called the "upper house of the king," Neh. iii. 25. +Its situation could not fail to afford to it extraordinary security. This is sufficiently +shown by the ridicule of the Jebusites, when David, who did not build, but only +enlarged it, was about to besiege it. They were of opinion that the lame and the +blind would be sufficient for its defence, 2 Sam. v. 7-9; compare <i>Faber's Archæol.</i> +p. 191.</p> +<p class="normal">Far above this royal castle, which David first selected for his +residence (compare 2 Sam. v. 9: "And David dwelt in the castle and called it the +City of David, and built it round about"), a tower jutted prominently out, and afforded +a majestic sight. It is frequently mentioned in Scripture. The principal passage +is Neh. iii. 25: "Opposite the tower which standeth out from the upper house of +the king (appositely the Vulgate: <i>quæ eminet de domo regis excelsa</i>) in the +court of the prison;" compare ver. 26, where the tower standing out, and elevated +far above the king's castle, is likewise spoken of. Concerning the words, "In the +court of the prison," we obtain some information from Jer. xxxii. 2: "Jeremiah the +prophet was shut up in the court of the prison, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בחצר +המטרה</span>, which is in the house of the king of Judah;" compare Jer. xxxviii. +6, according to which the pit into which the prophet was let down, was in the court +of the prison. According to these passages, the court of the prison formed, agreeably +to the customs of the East, part of the royal castle on Zion; and it was in this +court that the tower rose. The other principal passage is in the Song of Solomon +iv. 4: "Thy neck is like the tower of David built for arms; a thousand bucklers +are hanging on it, all arms of heroes." According to this passage, the majestic +appearance which the tower afforded was still further increased by the glittering +arms which covered it. <i>Döpke</i> and others think of the armour of conquered +heroes; but that we must rather think of the armour of David's own heroes, appears +from Ezek. xxvii. 10, 11, where it is said of <span class="pagenum">[Pg 458]</span> +the hired troops of the Tyrians, "Shield and helmet they hanged up in thee," and +is confirmed by the constant designation of David's faithful ones, as <i>his heroes</i>; +compare Song of Sol. iii. 7: "Threescore heroes stand around the bed of the king, +of the heroes of Israel;" and 1 Chron. xii. 1: "These were among the heroes, helpers +in the war." The expression in the Song of Solomon iv. 4, "All shields of the heroes," +indicates that the armour of all those who were received into the number of the +heroes, was hung up on that tower, as an outward sign of this reception, as a kind +of diploma of it. The circumstance that this tower, which is certainly quite identical +with the tower mentioned by Nehemiah, is called the tower of David, refutes the +supposition of <i>Clericus</i>, on Nehemiah, <i>l.c.</i>, according to which, it +is not the castle of David or Zion which is spoken of in that passage, but another +castle and its tower in the lower town, supposed to have been built by Solomon. +This hypothesis is refuted, moreover, by that passage itself, inasmuch as the castle +is there designated as the upper, or high one.</p> +<p class="normal">Now, it is this tower which Micah considers as the symbol of the +Davidic house; and in so doing, he follows the example of the Song of Solomon, where +it is the symbol of the lofty elevation of Israel, the centre and life-blood of +which was the Davidic family. It scarcely needs any lengthened demonstration to +show how well suited it was for this signification, how very naturally it represented +the thing signified. It was indeed the most elevated part of the castle, the main-mast, +as it were, of the ship, which, since the elevation of the Davidic family to the +royal dignity, had been for centuries, and was still to be, the seat of the Davidic +race. Its height was a symbol of the royal dignity and authority. Its relation to +the whole of the rest of the city, which it overlooked and commanded, and which +looked up to it with astonishment, symbolized the relation of the subjects to their +king.</p> +<p class="normal">Micah calls this tower the "Tower of the flock." The main reason +for this appellation must be sought in what immediately precedes, in vers. 6 and +7. As in chap. ii. 12, 13, so here also, Micah represented the Covenant-people under +the figure of a flock that was to be gathered from its dispersion and estrangement, +and protected against every hostile attack. Could anything then be more natural +than that, continuing the image <span class="pagenum">[Pg 459]</span> which he had +begun, he should call the tower, which, to him, symbolized the family by whom, under +the guidance of the Lord, that gathering should be accomplished, the "Tower of the +flock?"<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_459a" href="#ftn_459a">[4]</a></sup> +It is just this close connection with what precedes which furnishes an important +proof for the correctness of our explanation, for which the way was prepared by +all those expositors who, like <i>Jerome</i>, <i>Theodoret</i>, <i>Cyril</i>, <i> +Cocceius</i>, and <i>Paulus</i> (<i>über die Evang.</i> i. p. 189), understand +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מגדל עדר</span> as an appellative, and regard, as +the ground of the appellation, the protection and the refuge. In the East, they +look out from the towers of the flock, whether beasts of prey or hostile bands be +approaching. It is into these that the flocks are driven, in those regions where +there are no towns and villages, as soon as danger appears; compare the proofs in +<i>Faber</i>, l.c., p. 192 ff. There was so much the stronger reason for Micah's +choosing this figurative mode of representation, as he had the type immediately +before his eyes. According to 2 Chron. xxvi. 10, xxvii. 4, Uzziah and Jotham erected, +in the woods and pasture grounds, castles and towers for the protection and refuge +of the flocks. But, besides this main reason, there seems to have existed a secondary +one for choosing this appellation. They who adhere so firmly to the "Tower of the +flock," mentioned in Genesis, are not altogether wrong. Except in that passage, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מגדל עדר</span> nowhere occurs in precisely the same +manner as it stands here. If, then, we consider that, besides this reference, there +occur in Micah other plain references to the Pentateuch (and very numerous they +are, compared with the extent of his prophecies; compare, <i>e.g.</i>, ii. 12, 13. +[vide supra], vi. 4, 5, vii. 14, where the words <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +שכני לבדד</span> receive light from Num. xxiii. 9 only<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_459b" href="#ftn_459b">[5]</a></sup>); +and still more, if we consider that, in v. 1 (2), the appellation Bethlehem Ephratah +is likewise taken from Gen. xxxv. 19, and that it is in ver. 21 of the same chapter +that the "Tower of the flock" is mentioned,—we shall certainly not be guilty of +trifling, if we assert that there is a suspicion of error and unsoundness against +all those interpretations which cannot connect the "Tower of the flock" +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 460]</span> in Micah with that which is spoken of in Genesis. +But the explanation which we have given is not liable to this charge. For why should +not Jacob, and the tower which he built for the protection of his literal flocks, +serve the prophet as a type and substratum for the relation of a spiritual Shepherd? +We must not overlook the truth, that the main and secondary reasons which we have +adduced, do not stand beside each other, but run into each other,—are related to +each other as the general and particular. For the reason why the prophet had specially +in view the "Tower of the flock" which had been built by Jacob was certainly this +only: that it partook of the nature of all such towers of the flocks. The <i>tertium +comparationis</i> is not thereby changed; the figure is only more individualized, +and, therefore, more striking and impressive. A reference to the pastoral life of +the Patriarchs is certainly one of the reasons of the frequent use of images taken +from pastoral life. In a different way, <i>Hitzig</i> endeavours to come to the +same result. He supposes that the "Tower of the flock" mentioned in Genesis was +not situated in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, but is identical with the tower +of the castle on Zion, and of the castle of Millo which David already found existing, +and which was only more strongly fortified by him and by Solomon, 2 Sam. v. 9; 1 +Kings ix. 15, 24, xi. 27. The figure of the "Tower of the flock" was so much the +more appropriate in the passage under consideration, as the founder of the royal +dynasty had been, for a long time, a shepherd of the lambs, before he was elected +to be a shepherd of the people, and had thus himself prefigured his future relation—a +circumstance to which allusion is frequently made in Scripture itself; compare 2 +Sam. v. 2, vii. 8; 1 Chron. xi. 2; Ps. lxxviii. 70-72.</p> +<p class="normal">After having thus ascertained what is to be understood by the +"Tower of the flock," there can be no great difficulty in explaining the "hill of +the daughter of Zion." The daughter of Zion is Zion itself, personified, and represented +as a virgin; and if her hill be spoken of, what else can be meant, than Mount Zion +in the more restricted sense—the Mount <span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν</span>, +before which Akra and Moriah are changed into plains? We have thus a most appropriate +relation of the two appellations to each other,—the tower of the flock being the +particular, and the hill of the daughter of Zion, the general. +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 461]</span> <i>Further</i>,—We obtain the most perfect +harmony and agreement with the last words of the verse. The hill which, morally +and physically, commands the daughter of Zion, is the same which obtains dominion +over the daughter of Jerusalem. <i>Finally</i>,—We see the most striking contrast +with iii. 12, and the most admirable connection with iv. 1-7, in which, everywhere, +Mount Zion is spoken of, and the exaltation is described which, after its deep abasement, +it shall obtain in the future, by the flowing of the heathens to it, and by the +dominion of the Lord to be there exercised.</p> +<p class="normal">It is only in appearance that our explanation is contradicted +by passages of the Old Testament, and of <i>Josephus</i>, where <i>Ophel</i> is +mentioned as a particular place; compare <i>Bachiene</i> 2. 1, § 76; <i>Hamelsveld</i> +2, S. 35 ff. The supposition of several interpreters, that this <i>Ophel</i> is +some particular hill (compare, <i>e.g.</i>, <i>Vitringa de Templo Ezech.</i> L. +i. c. iii. p. 159, and his <i>Commentary on Isaiah</i> xxxii. 13), has already been +invalidated by <i>Reland</i> (p. 855), and <i>Faber</i> l.c., p. 347, who rightly +remark, that <i>Josephus</i>, in enumerating the hills of Jerusalem, makes no mention +of <i>Ophel</i>, but speaks always only of the place <i>Ophel</i>. All the difficulties, +however, which stand in the way of the other assumptions, are removed by the following +view of the matter. Mount Zion was called <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">העפל</span>, +the Hill <span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν</span>, and this word became, +by and by, a <i>nomen proprium</i>, and, in this state, as well as in its transition +to the <i>nomen proprium</i>, was used without the Article. From this it followed—and +numerous analogies everywhere occur—that the foot of the mountain, the place where +it was connected with the lower part of the temple-mountain by means of a deep valley, +acquired this name in preference, and received it, as it were, as a <i>nomen proprium</i>. +At this foot of Zion—and hence over against the temple, and near it—dwelt the Nethinim, +the temple servants, Neh. iii. 26; and <i>Josephus</i> says, that the wall surrounding +Mount Zion extended on the east side to the place which was called <i>Ophel</i>, +and ended at the eastern porch of the temple (<i>de Bell. Jud.</i> vi. 6).</p> +<p class="normal">The view which we have taken, not only of <i>Ophel</i>, but of +this whole passage, receives an important confirmation by Is. xxxii. 13, 14: "Upon +the land of My people come up thorns and briars, for they shoot up in all the houses +of joy, in the joyous city. For palaces are forsaken, tumult of the city is +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 462]</span> forsaken, <i>hill</i> and <i>tower</i> are +around caves (<i>i.e.</i>, it is only this which they have to protect) for ever, +a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks." In this threatening of punishment, <i> +hill</i>, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עפל</span>, and <i>tower</i>, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בחן</span> (properly "a watch-tower," corresponding +to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מגדל</span>), are joined, just as in Micah's promise; +and this is a certain proof of the unsoundness of all those explanations which would +sever the two in Micah. Perhaps there is, in that passage of Isaiah, the addition +of a third object, standing in the middle between the two, viz., the castle of the +king which was situated on Zion, and of which the highest and strongest part was +formed by the tower. There seems, at least, to be better ground for understanding +this by <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ארמון</span> than the temple, as is done +by <i>Vitringa</i>. It will, nevertheless, be better to understand the palace collectively, +and to view it as being parallel to the houses of joy in ver. 13. So much is, at +all events, evident, that here also, <i>Ophel</i> cannot be understood of the lowest +part of Mount Zion, inasmuch as it had nothing distinguished about it that could +account for its being mentioned in this context; and to this, the circumstance of +its being connected with the tower, must, moreover, be added. <i>Faber</i>, l.c., +has convincingly proved, that <i>Ophel</i>, in the stricter sense, neither had, +nor could have, any fortifications.</p> +<p class="normal"><span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עדיך</span>, "unto thee," seems +here to have that emphasis which originally belongs to +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עד</span>. It indicates that the object in motion +really reaches its goal, while <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אל</span> originally +expresses only its direction towards the goal. It points to all the obstacles which +seem to render it impossible for the dominion to reach its goal, and represents +them as such as shall be overcome by divine omnipotence. This is quite in accordance +with the scope of the whole representation, which <i>Calvin</i> thus appositely +points out: "The prophet endeavours to confirm the faith and hope of the godly, +that they might look forward to the distant future, and not dwell only upon the +present destruction; that they might rather believe that the matter was in the hands +of God, who had promised, that He who raised the dead, would also restore the kingdom +of David, which had been destroyed."</p> +<p class="normal">Several interpreters, <i>e.g.</i>, <i>Rosenmüller</i>, connect +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תאתה</span> immediately with what follows: "The kingdom +shall come and attain." But, in opposition to this, there are not only the <i>accents</i> +(<i>Michaelis</i>; "The <i>Athnach</i> is intended to keep the mind +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 463]</span> of the reader in suspense for some time, and +to direct his attention to what follows"), but also the change of the tenses, which +is intended just to prevent this connection, and the weak sense which would be the +result, inasmuch as one of the verbs would be a pleonasm. It must rather be supposed, +therefore, that the subject in <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תאתה</span> is indefinite. +The remark which <i>Hävernick</i>, in his <i>Commentary on Daniel</i>, S. 386, makes +on the omission of the indefinite subject, is here fully applicable, although he +himself makes a wrong application of it to that passage: "The indefinite subject," +he says, "has a special emphasis. By the omission of the definite idea, it is, as +it were, left to the reader to supply everything possible (in the passage under +consideration, the compass of all that is glorious), for which the writer cannot +find language."</p> +<p class="normal">The "first," <i>i.e.</i>, former, or ancient "dominion," refers +to the splendid times under David and Solomon; but, at the same time, it supposes +a period when the dominion is altogether taken away from the dynasty of David. Such +a period had already been announced by the prophet, in his first discourse, inasmuch +as it is implied in the carrying away of all Judah into captivity; and still more +distinctly in iii. 12, according to which, Zion, the seat of the Davidic dominion, +is to be ploughed as a field. This announcement, with the express mention of the +king, returns in ver. 9, and, contrasted with It, the announcement of the restoration +of the Davidic dominion in v. 1 (2).</p> +<p class="normal">The last words of the verse are, by many expositors (<i>Calvin</i>, +<i>Michaelis</i>, and <i>Rosenmüller</i>), translated thus: "And the kingdom, I +say, shall belong to the daughter of Jerusalem;" so that Jerusalem would here be, +not the <i>object</i>, but the <i>subject</i> of dominion. The sense, according +to this explanation, is best brought out by <i>Calvin</i>: "The prophet here distinctly +mentions the daughter of Jerusalem, because the kingdom of Israel had obscured the +glory of the true kingdom. The prophet hence testifies, that God was not unmindful +of His promise, and would so arrange it that Jerusalem should recover its lost dignity, +and the whole people be gathered unto one body." But this explanation must be rejected +on philological grounds. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ממלכת</span> is <i>status +constr.</i>; the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ל</span> serves, therefore, only +as a circumlocution of the genitive; and it is not admissible to supply the Verb +Substant. To this, moreover, there must be added the reference +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 464]</span> to what precedes. The dominion over the daughter +of Jerusalem is to come to the tower which commands the daughter of Zion, not, by +any means, to the daughter of Zion herself. The prophet makes Jerusalem to represent +the kingdom of God; and, in so doing, he probably has regard to the relation of +Zion and of the king's castle to the town, by which was symbolized the relation +which the Davidic dynasty occupied to the kingdom of God.</p> +<hr class="W10"> +<h3>CHAP. IV. 9-14.</h3> +<p class="normal">At the close of the last chapter, the prophet had announced severe +judgments. In the verses immediately preceding, he had given glorious promises. +In that which follows, he now combines these two elements; and it is only in chap. +v. that the promise again appears, purely, and by itself. The judgments are thus +introduced into the middle of the proclamation of salvation, in order that the faithful +might thus be preserved from forming any vain hopes, which, if not confirmed by +the result, are apt to be exchanged for much deeper despondency. But this same circumstance +contained within it an indirect consolation; for it is certain that He who causes +future events to be foretold, overrules them also; and "He who sends them, can also +turn them." For the greatest cause of our despondency under the cross is certainly +the doubt which we entertain as to whether it really comes from God. The prophet, +however, affords <i>direct</i> consolation also. Whensoever he speaks of any calamity, +he immediately subjoins the announcement of divine deliverance. The intimation of +the sufferings, in this section, differs essentially from the former ones. It is +not, like these, in a threatening, but in an affectionate character; indeed, in +vers. 11-13, the consolation preponderates even outwardly. From this, it is sufficiently +evident, that it must have a different destination. Whilst the threatening was intended +chiefly for the ungodly, it has, just as much as the preceding pure promise, the +truly godly members of the Theocracy also in view, and aims at strengthening them +in the manifold temptations into which they must fall, in consequence of the sufferings +which <span class="pagenum">[Pg 465]</span> always come upon them also at the same +time, on account of their outward, and therefore also their inward, connection with +the wicked.</p> +<p class="normal">A glance at the great catastrophes, which were to precede the +appearance of Christ, was here just in its proper place. In the preceding context, +the prophet had mentioned the restoration of the former dominion. Here, he describes +how the dominion is lost ("There is no king in thee," ver. 9), and what shall happen +during the period of this loss. He then further details, in v. 1 (2) sq., in what +manner the dominion is to be restored.</p> +<p class="normal">It is a threefold suffering, joined with deliverance from it, +which presents itself to the prophet in his inward vision, and which he describes +accordingly. This is evident from the three-fold <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +עתה</span>, compare vers. 9, 11, 14, which, each time, indicates when a new scene +presents itself to the prophet. This, further, appears from the different character +which each one bears. In the case of the announcement in vers. 9 and 10, viz., the +carrying away to Babylon, it is alone the Lord's hand which delivers His people. +In the calamity described in vers. 11-13, He grants to Israel courage in war, and +victory to his <i>arms</i>. The plans of the enemies to destroy Zion are frustrated, +while in the former calamity they succeeded. In ver. 14, Zion is anew represented +as sorely pressed by enemies, and captured by them. According to v. 1, which is +closely connected with what precedes, the deliverance is accomplished by the Messiah, +in whom the promise of the restoration of the dominion of the house of David over +the daughter of Zion is fulfilled.</p> +<hr class="W10"> +<p class="normal">Ver. 9. "<i>Now why dost thou raise a cry? Is there no king in +thee, or is thy councillor gone? For pangs have seized thee as a woman in travail.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Zion, mourning at the time of the carrying away into captivity, +stands before the prophet's spirit, and is addressed by him. This ought never to +have been overlooked. But since, nevertheless, it has been so, we quote from the +multitude of analogous instances, at least one which is altogether incontrovertible, +and where the writer likewise transfers himself into the time of the +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 466]</span> captivity, viz., the passage in Hos. xiii. +9-11, which, in other respects also, shows a great resemblance to the one under +consideration: "This has destroyed thee, O Israel, that thou wast against Me, against +thine help. Where is now thy king? Let him deliver thee in all thy cities. And where +are thy judges? Surely thou didst say: Give me kings and princes. And I gave thee +a king in Mine anger, and took him away in My wrath." It is quite impossible to +entertain, even for a moment, the thought that, in this passage, Hosea speaks of +the real past and present, inasmuch as he prophesied before the destruction of the +kingdom of the ten tribes. Micah opens his representation just with the moment that +Jerusalem is captured by the enemies; and he announces to her that her sufferings +are not yet at an end,—that she must wander into exile. The progress of the thought +in the verse under consideration is this:—The prophet sees Zion dissolved in grief +and lamentation. Full of sympathy, he asks of her the cause of this mourning,—whether, +it may be, it was caused by the loss of her king; and he himself answers this question +in the affirmative, because such a cause could alone account for such a grief. Now, +in order fully to realize the mourning of Zion over her king, we must bear in mind +that the visible head was a representative of the invisible one,—the mediator of +His mercies: that hence, his removal was a token of divine anger, and an extinction +of every hope of salvation. Every other king is, indeed, likewise an anointed of +the Lord; but the king of Israel was so in a totally different sense. How deeply, +from this point of view, the loss of the king was felt, at the time when that which +is here merely the <i>ideal</i> present became the <i>real</i> present, is seen +from Lam. iv. 20: "The breath of our life, the anointed of the Lord, is taken a +prisoner in their pits, he of whom we said. Under his shadow we shall live among +the heathen." In Zech. iv. the civil magistrates, along with the ecclesiastical +authorities, appear as the greatest gift of God's grace; henceforth these two shall +again be the medium through which the Lord communicates His gracious gifts to the +Congregation, just as they had been before the captivity. It must further be borne +in mind, that all the promises for the future were bound up with the regal institution. +With its extinction, therefore, everything seemed to be lost; every prospect of +a better future seemed to have disappeared. The reference in +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 467]</span> Jer. viii. 19, where the king is the Lord +Himself, to the passage before us, is very beautiful, and full of deep meaning. +It points out the truth, that the loss of the earthly king is a consequence of their +having forced the heavenly King to withdraw from the midst of them.—The "councillor" +is preeminently the king himself; compare Is. ix. 5, where Christ, in whom the Davidic +dynasty is to attain to the full height of its destination, appears as the councillor +in the highest sense. Other councillors, it is true, are not thereby excluded; they +form, however, only a group around the king as their centre; compare Is. iii. 3.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 10. "<i>Travail and break forth, O daughter of Zion, like +a woman who bringeth forth; for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou +dwellest in the field, and comest till to Babylon: there shalt thou be delivered, +there the Lord shall redeem thee out of the hand of thine enemies.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The consolation begins with the words +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שם תנצלי</span> only; the whole remaining part of +the verse is of a mournful character. In the words, "Travail and break forth," one +aspect only of the figure of the parturient woman is brought into view, viz., the +pain; but not the joy following upon the pain; compare remarks on v. 2. The Imperative +is thus not, as some interpreters erroneously assume, an <i>Imper. consolationis</i>, +but an intimation that the pain would reach its height, put into the form of an +exhortation to submit to it. Much more satisfactorily than by many of the later +expositors, the sense of this verse has been thus fixed by <i>Calvin</i>: "The sum +and substance is, that although God would, according to His promise, take care of +the people, the faithful should have no reason from this to indulge in joy, as if +they were to be exempt from all troubles; on the contrary, the prophet exhorts them +that they should rather prepare themselves to undergo all kinds of misery, so that, +when driven out of their own land, they should not only, like straying people, wander +about in the fields, but should be driven to Babylon as into a grave. But while +he thus prepares the faithful to bear the cross, he subjoins the hope of salvation, +viz., that God would deliver them, and redeem them from thence out of the hands +of their enemies."—The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חולי</span> resumes the preceding, +where the prophet had, at the point of time where he had taken his stand, viz., +the capture of the city, represented that calamity of this <span class="pagenum"> +[Pg 468]</span> people, under the image of the pains of child-bearing. It thus becomes +equivalent to—Thou shalt be obliged to bear, not only the pains which precede the +birth, but also the highest of all pains, viz., the pains of the birth itself. What +the latter are in relation to the former, that, in the view of the prophet, is the +carrying away out of the Holy Land,—the expulsion from the face of God (an expulsion +similar to that of Cain when he was obliged to flee from Eden), when compared to +the mere capture. Hence the close connexion with what follows, by means of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span>. The word +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">וגחי</span> (the <i>o</i> is, for the sake of euphony, +employed instead of <i>u</i>; just as in ver. 13 <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +דושי</span>) is, by most interpreters, translated, "And lead out." But we must object +to this, on the ground that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גוח</span> has always +an intransitive signification only, viz., "to break forth;" and this signification +is here quite suitable, more so even than the transitive; for it marks more emphatically +the <i>pain</i> during the birth, which is here the only point: Jer. iv. 31. It +is, as it were, a dissolution of the whole nature, a violent breaking of it into +pieces. The "now," just as the "now" at the commencement of the description of the +scene, belongs to the <i>ideal</i> standing-point, where the carrying away is just +at hand; for this is the period of the future into which the prophet has been carried. +The "dwelling in the field" is the intervening station between the "going forth" +and "the coming to Babylon." In the open air, exposed to all the inclemencies of +the weather (compare the expression, "Under the dew of heaven," in Dan. iv. 22, +30 [25, 33]), the prisoners were collected for the purpose of being afterwards carried +away. The word <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עד</span>, as well as the twofold +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שם</span>, are emphatic. Irresistibly, the divine +<i>judgment</i> advances to its last goal; but as irresistibly does divine <i>mercy</i> +wrest from the enemies the prey which seemed to have been given to them even for +ever.—The futility of all attempts to explain away the distinct prophecy of the +Babylonish captivity in this passage has been shown in the <i>Dissertations on the +Genuineness of Daniel</i>, p. 151 sqq. How even <i>Caspari</i> could join in these +attempts, it is difficult to explain. Even he is of opinion that the prophet had +expected the catastrophe to come from Asshur. Chap. v. 4, 5 (5, 6) cannot be decisive +<i>for</i> the reference to Asshur. For the circumstance that Asshur appears there +as the type of the future enemies of the kingdom of God, implies, indeed, that he +occupied the first place among the enemies <span class="pagenum">[Pg 469]</span> +at the time of the prophet; but it by no means Implies that he must occupy a place +in the outline of the future catastrophes of the people of God. Such a catastrophe +was not to proceed from him, but rather from an enemy who had not yet at that time +appeared on the scene, although his power was already germinating, as is shown by +Is. xxxix. and other passages. The oppression of Judah by Asshur was indeed a heavy +one; but it was transitory, and did not by any means constitute an era. From the +relation in which vers. 9-14 (iv. 9-v. 1) stands to ver. 8, it sufficiently appears +that the oppression by the Chaldeans must here form the commencement, although the +Assyrian oppression must be added to it as an introduction and a prelude. According +to this relation, the point at issue here can be only the cessation of the dominion +of the Davidic family. From. Jer. xxvi. 18, 19, <i>Caspari</i> endeavours to prove +that Micah had in view, in the first instance, the Assyrians only. But that passage +of Jeremiah refers to Mic. iii. 12, where the prophecy has a general character, +and where the instruments of the divine judgment are not expressly mentioned, as +is the case here. On the other hand, the following arguments are opposed to the +reference to the Assyrians. 1. The prophet does not mention Asshur, but Babylon. +Nothing is, certainly, proved by the circumstance that, at the time of the prophet, +Babylon was still under the Assyrian dominion; for Babylon comes here into consideration, +not so much as a place, but as a hostile power. The place, as such, was of no consequence, +and the mention of it was not required by the character of the prophecy. 2. If the +announcement referred to Asshur, the result would contradict the prophecy. <i>Caspari</i> +says, that by the repentance and conversion of the people, the fulfilment had been +averted. But with such a view of prophecy, the position of the prophetic institution +becomes untenable, and historically incomprehensible. The Mosaic regulation, that +whosoever prophesied anything that did not take place should be punished with death, +would in that case lose all practical significance; for there would always have +been at hand the excuse, that by the repentance the execution of that sentence of +punishment had been repealed. From the nature of the case, and from that Mosaic +regulation, it follows that special announcements expressed absolutely must be fulfilled +absolutely; and not a single fact in the history of prophetism +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 470]</span> stands in contradiction to this truth. Jonah's +announcement to Nineveh, indeed, has been appealed to; but, in reply, we remark +simply, that the words of that announcement have not been communicated to us, while +we see from the result that it was conditional only. Such a decided repentance would +scarcely have been called forth by it among the inhabitants of Nineveh, had repentance +not been expressly declared in it as a means of deliverance. 3. Micah everywhere +goes hand in hand with his contemporary Isaiah. But the latter always opposes energetically +the despondency of Judah in the face of Asshur, and declares that his proud power +would be broken at Jerusalem (as had been already prophesied by Hosea in i. 4-7), +and that, while the kingdom of the ten tribes would be destroyed, Judah would experience +the protecting hand of the Lord. <i>Caspari</i> contradicts himself in thus making +these two men of God to differ in so essential a point. For a man like <i>Hitzig</i>, +it may be quite befitting to say, "Micah did not possess the firm, courageous faith +which was displayed by Isaiah." 4. It is quite impossible to get rid of the obvious +parallelism of the passage under consideration with Is. xxxix. 6, 7, where the rising +of the Babylonish empire, the destruction of the Davidic kingdom by it, and the +carrying away of Judah to Babylon, are clearly and distinctly predicted. And in +a number of other prophecies, Isaiah likewise declares or supposes, that that which +the Assyrians threatened in vain, would at some future period, when the iniquity +of the people had become full, be carried out by Babylon with her Chaldeans. It +is scarcely conceivable how <i>Caspari</i>, acknowledging as he does the genuineness +of these prophecies of Isaiah, could think of dissevering from them the prophecy +now under consideration.—Declarations like that before us, where, in clear and distinct +outlines, a future event is foretold one hundred and fifty years before it takes +place, inflict a death-blow upon the naturalistic view of the prophetic institution, +as is sufficiently evident from <i>Hitzig's</i> embarrassment, and from his efforts +to free himself from the bands of this troublesome fact.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 11. "<i>And now many nations assemble themselves against +thee, that say: Let her be profaned, and let our eyes look upon Zion.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">Israel, with its claim of being alone the people of the only true +God, was a thorn in the eyes of the nations. These here <span class="pagenum">[Pg +471]</span> burn with eager desire to prove, actually and by deeds, that this presumptuous +claim was unfounded, and, by the destruction of the city, to take from it its fancied +holiness, and the glory of holiness. Destruction and profanation are, in their view, +inseparably connected. The contrast to the verse under review is formed by vii. +10: "And mine enemy shall see it, and shame shall come upon her who said. Where +is the Lord thy God? Mine eyes shall behold her, now shall she be trodden down as +the mire of the streets." The words, "Where is the Lord thy God?" entirely agree +in substance with, "Let her be profaned!" But the desire of profaning Jerusalem +must be conceived of as the human motive only. According to the view of Scripture +generally, and of Micah particularly, all the distress of the people of God has +its foundation in <i>sin</i>; and from the whole context, and especially from v. +2 (3), where this event also is comprehended within the time when God's people are +given up, it clearly appears that, notwithstanding the happy issue, we have here +before us a heavy calamity. By a new phase of sin, a new phase of judgment is brought +about; and by a new phase of worldliness, a new phase of aggression by the world's +power.—It is owing to a striving after variety, that the word "and" here stands +before "now," while it is omitted in the third scene. It may stand, or it may be +omitted, because the various catastrophes are independent of each other, and yet, +at the same time, form a connected whole, as is evident from the words, "He will +give them up," in v. 2 (3), by which they are connected together. The heavy oppression +of Judah appears here under the form of a siege of its centre, in accordance with +the scope of prophecy, which, everywhere, seeks to impart vividness and animation +to the scene, by uniting into one picture that which is separated by time and space. +The historical reference of the prophecy is thus very accurately stated by <i>Calvin</i>: +"Although the Babylonish captivity has come to an end, and Israel has been restored +from it, the promised kingdom shall not immediately come. Before that takes place, +the neighbouring nations shall assemble themselves against Jerusalem, with the desire +of profaning it, and of enjoying a pleasant spectacle. This took place under Antiochus." +That to which the prophet here simply alludes, but yet in such a way that the right +reference cannot possibly be mistaken (since a great hostile aggression is here +described, which should happen <span class="pagenum">[Pg 472]</span> after the people +have returned from Babylon, and which is removed by the piety and courage of the +people themselves; and since, after this second oppression, there follows a third, +which is described in ver. 14, there certainly remains no other alternative: the +times of the Maccabees are those which can alone be thought of), is further detailed +by Zechariah in ix. 11 ff. At his time, the deliverance from the first calamity +had already taken place; and he expressly states the names of the enemies; just +as, in the prophecy under review, the authors of the first calamity are expressly +named. That which is especially characteristic, and which points to the time of +the Maccabees, is, moreover, the special mention of many nations, which are united +in their decided hatred against Jerusalem as a city, and against Judah as the people +of the Lord, taken in connection with the character of the war as a <i>religious +war</i> in the strictest sense,—it being an attempt of heathenism to destroy the +Congregation of the Lord as such. <i>These features are found in no other catastrophe +during the time between Micah and Christ.</i> And that the aggression belongs to +the period before the appearing of the Saviour, is evident from the whole context, +as well as from v. 2 (3). In the time of the Maccabees, it was not with Syria alone +that Judah had to do; but all the heathen nations without exception, with which +Judah had any connection at that time, united themselves for a decisive stroke against +the kingdom of God. Their purpose was to extirpate the whole race of Jacob, 1 Macc. +v. 2. Striking remarks upon the real nature of the struggle at that period, as a +struggle of faithful Judaism against Heathenism, the latter of which had gained +a considerable party among the people themselves, are made by Stark, in "<i>Gaza +und die Philistäische Küste</i>," <i>Jena</i>, 52, S. 481 ff. Among other things, +he says: "The national distinctions in the boundaries of Palestine had by no means +ceased, but continued under the general cover of the Egyptian and Syrian administration +in a varied, unyielding, and hostile manner. There were the Idumeans in the whole +of the south of Palestine to near Jerusalem; then, the Philistines, or when called +by their cities, the Gazeans and Ashdodians; the Phœnicians, the Samaritans or Chutteans, +the mixed population of Galilee, the Arabs of Perea.... As soon as the Jewish people, +who, up to that time, had been altogether insignificant in a political point of +view, rose against <span class="pagenum">[Pg 473]</span> the Syrian empire, at first +for their religious peculiarities, then, for their political independence, and, +finally, even for the recovery of the <i>ideal</i> possession of their country—an +idea which had been kept alive by tradition,—it could not but be that those who +were naturally the supports and centres of the Syrian operations, became the objects +of the hostile Jewish operations; and that the whole national portion of the population, +although not Greeks, were anew inflamed by their old hatred of, and opposition to, +Judaism; so that they considered that Hellenic struggle as also a national one. +This period thus produced at the same time a revival of the old national struggle +of the inhabitants of Palestine, modified and increased by the struggle of Hellenism +with the national reaction which served as a superstructure for it." The objection, +raised even by <i>Caspari</i>, that a prophecy of the victorious struggles in the +time of the Maccabees must be strange and surprising in a prophet of the Assyrian +period, will not startle those who look at the analogies—such as the prophecy in +Is. vi. In the latter prophecy, first the Chaldean, and then the Roman catastrophes, +are described in sharp outlines, but without any mention of the names of the instruments +of punishment. It is only in reference to the executors of the first of these judgments +that more distinct disclosures were given to the prophet himself at a subsequent +period. The announcement in Zech. ix., where the Greeks are expressly mentioned, +is, in reality, not less miraculous. According to all prophetical analogies, it +is <i>a priori</i> probable that this detailed prophecy of the Maccabean period, +and the similar one in Daniel, should have been preceded by some older prophecy +which refers to the same facts, but only in general outlines, such as we have in +the passage under consideration. If any doubt should still remain, it would be removed +by a glance at the conflicting interpretations. <i>Ewald</i> and <i>Hitzig</i> think +of the Assyrian invasion, to which vers. 9, 10, are likewise referred by them, although +such a reference is in opposition to the express words of these verses,—which, for +a Naturalistic tendency, are rather inconvenient. The contradiction in these two +prophecies <i>Ewald</i> endeavours to reconcile by the evidently erroneous supposition, +that the carrying away in ver. 10 must be conceived of as only a partial one,—a +supposition which is invalidated by a simple comparison of iii. 12. According to +<i>Hitzig</i>, the prophet has, in vers. 11-13, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 474]</span>overcome +the despondency expressed in vers. 9, 10, and has raised himself to confidence in +God. He thus makes the prophet distinctly contradict himself in one breath,—a supposition +which does not even deserve a refutation. Even if we were entirely to separate this +passage from its connection, how ill does the activity here ascribed to Judah agree +with the oppression by the Assyrians! This activity of Judah supposes that it has +to do with many small nations. Against the great Asiatic empires, a direct and immediate +interposition of the Lord is <i>everywhere</i> referred to. The salvation, however, +which is here announced to Judah, can be only an imperfect one, and cannot go beyond +what they really received at the time of the Maccabees. This is sufficiently evident +from the circumstance, that it belongs to a time in which Judah has no king of the +Davidic house; for him they have already lost in ver. 9, and receive again only +in v. 1 (2), in Christ; and it is certain that the Davidic house was the channel +through which all the true and great mercies of the Lord were bestowed upon His +people.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 12. "<i>And they know not the thoughts of the Lord, neither +understand they His counsel; for He gathereth them as the sheaf for the threshing-floor.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The particle "and" is here used, where we, for the sake of a closer +connection, would employ "but." The thoughts of the Lord are these,—that the sufferings, +after having served their purpose as regards Zion, shall pass over to the enemies, +so that they shall themselves be destroyed by Zion, while they so confidently thought +to inflict destruction upon Zion. The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כי</span> introduces +the reason of their not knowing the way of the Lord. If they knew it, they would +not express such desire and hope; <i>for it is they themselves</i> whom the Lord +gives over to destruction.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 13. "<i>Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion, for I make +thine horn iron, and thy claws brass; and thou crushest in pieces many people, and +I consecrate their gain unto the Lord, and their strength to the Ruler of the whole +earth.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The figure is based upon the Eastern mode of threshing; compare +<i>Paulsen vom Ackerbau der Morgenl.</i> § 40-42; <i>Niebuhr</i>, <i>Reise</i> i. +S. 151; and likewise Is. xxi. 10, xli. 15; Hab. iii. 12. Strictly speaking, one +characteristic only of the threshing oxen is here considered, viz., the crushing +power of their hoofs. The prophet, however, extends the comparison to that also +in which <span class="pagenum">[Pg 475]</span> the bullock is formidable, even when +it is not engaged in the work of threshing, viz., to its horns. On this point 1 +Kings xxii. 11 may be compared, where the pseudo-prophet Zedekiah makes to himself +iron horns, and thus states the import of this symbolical action: "Thus saith the +Lord, With these shalt thou push Aram until it is destroyed." The first person in +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">החרמתי</span> has perplexed several ancient translators +(<i>Syr.</i>, <i>Jerome</i>), as well as many modern interpreters, who, therefore, +substitute the second person for it. But it is quite appropriate. As at the beginning, +where the Lord gathers the sheaf on the threshing-floor, so at the close also, the +prophet declares that the victory is the work of God. It is He Himself, the true +God, the Lord of the whole earth, who reminds His rebellious subjects of their true +relation to Him, by vindicating to Himself a part of the good things which He bestowed +upon them; just as He once did in Egypt. This thought contains the reason why, instead +of the pronoun of the first person, the noun is employed; so that it is equivalent +to: To Me the only God, the Lord of the whole earth. But it is altogether distorted, +if the first person here be changed into the second. With respect to the import +of the word, we must by no means think only of the gifts of consecration which were +brought to the temple. Such a view would be necessary, only if the goods of the +Covenant-people, or the Covenant-people themselves, were introduced as that which +is to be consecrated. In that case we could understand, by that which is consecrated, +that only which is the exclusive property of the Lord, which has been dedicated +to Him exclusively, and for ever withdrawn from the use of His subjects, and which, +as far as they are concerned, is as good as annihilated; compare Lev. xxvii. 28: +"Everything consecrated, which any one consecrates to the Lord, of man and of beast, +and of the field of his possession, shall not be sold nor redeemed; every consecrated +thing is most holy to the Lord." But here, where He who consecrates is the Lord, +while the goods are those of the heathen, the latter only are to be considered as +being excluded from the possession, and as those in reference to whom the goods +are consecrated goods; while the people of God must, on the other hand, be considered +as partaking in what He has acquired. The community of goods between these two is +rendered prominent in other passages also where the object required it. Thus, <i> +e.g.</i>, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 476]</span> Joel iv. (iii.) 5, where the Phœnicians +and Philistines are charged: "My silver and My gold ye have taken, and My precious +things, the goodly ones, ye have carried into your palaces." That we cannot here +think of the temple-treasure is evident, not only from a comparison of ver. 4, where +the attempts of these nations to avenge themselves on Israel on account of former +injuries, are expressly represented as attempts to take vengeance upon God, but +also from history, which knows nothing of the plunder of the temple by Phœnicians +and Philistines. The mention of the <i>gain</i> points to the <i>male parta</i>,—and +this is the more strictly applicable, the nearer the relation is in which he who +is robbed stands to the Lord of the earth. With the <i>gain</i>, the substance in +general is lost.—The fundamental thought of the verse, which is here expressed only +with an application to a special case, is that of the victory of the Congregation +of the Lord over the world. This was perceived by <i>Calvin</i>, who strikingly +demonstrates how this declaration is ever anew realized, and how its complete fulfilment +is reserved only for the second coming of Christ. He has erred, however, in this, +that looking only to the eternal import of the thought, he overlooked the circumstance +that it is here expressed with reference to a definite event in which it was to +be realized.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 14. "<i>Who thou gatherest thyself in troops, O daughter +of troops. They lay siege against us, they smite the judge of Israel with the rod +upon the cheek.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">A new scene presents itself to the prophet. Zion, victorious on +the preceding occasion, appears here as powerless, and locked up within her walls. +She is captured; and ignominious abuse is cast upon the leaders of the deeply abased +people.—We need not here dwell for any length of time upon the numerous expositions +of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תתגדדי</span>. There is only one, viz., "thou +shalt press thyself together," which affords an appropriate contrast; while this +contrast is lost when it is translated, as <i>Hofmann</i> does, by: "thou shalt +lacerate thyself" (compare what <i>Caspari</i> has advanced against it). "Thou shalt +press thyself together" does not, moreover, destroy the import of Hithpael, and +has especially the use of the Hithp. of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גדד</span>, +in Jer. v. 7, in its favour. The Hithpael in this signification is probably a Denominative +of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גדוד</span>. The person addressed, the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בת־גדוד</span>, can be none other than the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בת־ציון</span> in ver. 13. For it is she who is addressed +by the prophet <span class="pagenum">[Pg 477]</span> in each of the new scenes announced +by <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עתה</span>, and she is, generally, the only one +to whom the discourse is, throughout the whole section, addressed. The intentional +paronomasia occasioned by the designation "daughter of troops," <i>i.e.</i>, who +appeared in warlike array, evidently alludes to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בת־ציון</span>, +and refers to the description of Zion as a brave victorious hero, in the preceding +verses. The <i>enemy</i> is immediately afterwards spoken of in the third person. +The words, "Siege (not by any means 'a wall,' as <i>De Wette</i> maintains) they +lay, or direct against us," clearly indicate that the pressing of themselves together, +which forms a contrast with the former courageous excursions indicated by +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גדוד</span>, is the consequence of fear, weakness, +and hostile oppression. The words are therefore strikingly paraphrased by <i>Justi</i>, +thus: "But now, why dost thou thus press thyself together, thou who wast accustomed +to press others?" This, however, only must be kept in mind, that +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בת־גדוד</span> implies an allusion to the fact that +the warlike disposition continues even in the present, notwithstanding the feebleness +forced upon her,—a very characteristic feature. In saying, "They lay siege against +<i>us</i>," instead of "against <i>thee</i>," the prophet is carried away by his +emotions to show himself as one of the people whom he sees to be oppressed by so +heavy sufferings. As indicated by the word "now" also, he is, in spirit, in the +midst of them. The ignominious treatment of the judge of Israel supposes that the +prophet sees, in his inward vision, the capture of the city as having already taken +place; for it is impossible to conceive of the judge, the soul of the city, as being +outside of it. This judge of Israel is an <i>ideal</i> person, formed by the prophet +in order that he might be able to contrast him with the Ruler of Israel in v. 1 +(2), who represents all the theocratic authorities; compare, <i>e.g.</i>. Is. iii. +12, where the corrupted leaders of the Theocracy present themselves to the prophet +in the person of a large child. To speak, in such a case, of a collective noun, +as is usually done, is out of place. But it may be observed that it is not a king +who is here spoken of, but, very significantly, a judge of Israel only, probably +with reference to the times before Saul, when Israel was governed by judges. The +royal dominion which, according to the announcement in ver. 9, shall be destroyed +by Babylon, shall be restored by the Messiah only (compare v. 1 [2], iv. 8), who +is not <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שפט ישראל</span>, but, like His great ancestor +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 478]</span> David, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מושל +בישראל</span>; compare 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. There can be no doubt that, in this connection, +the <i>Judge</i> is spoken of as distinguished from, and contrasted with, the <i> +King</i>. But even by itself, the mention of the <i>Judge</i> cannot but be startling. +It would have been against the object of the prophet to have mentioned any inferior +persons, when there existed a superior one; and if the <i>King</i> was thereby denoted, +why should he have been designated thus?—It is on purpose that +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ישראל</span>, which is the <i>nomen dignitatis</i> +of the people, is here chosen. It more emphatically points out the unworthiness +of the treatment, as well as the contrast between the reality and the idea in the +destinies of the nation,—a contrast, it is true, which Israel has called forth by +the preceding contrast between the reality and the idea with regard to his conduct. +Since Israel has inwardly profaned himself by his own guilt, he is now, as a just +punishment, profaned outwardly also.—With respect, now, to the historical reference +of this disastrous announcement, its fulfilment cannot be sought for in any other +event than the invasion by the Romans. Among the sufferings of the people, which +are here described in general outlines, this is the only one recorded in history, +with the exception of those already mentioned. Isaiah, the contemporary of Micah, +likewise announced, as early as in chap. vi., that upon those who should return +from the captivity a second judgment would be inflicted, by which the national independence +should be destroyed. This judgment is described with remarkable clearness and distinctness +by the post-exilic prophets, inasmuch as, to them, it appeared already more in the +foreground; compare the remarks on Zech. v. and xi.; Dan. ix. The only plausible +argument against this reference is this,—that the capture of the city by the Romans +was subsequent to the appearance of the Messiah, and that it is, after all, the +latter which forms the subject of the announcement of salvation in v. 1 (2), which, +again, refers to the sufferings described in the verse before us. This argument, +however, is set aside by the following considerations. 1. The prophet, indeed, designates +the misery which was inflicted by those enemies upon the Covenant-people only according +to its acme, viz., the siege and capture of the city; but he, nevertheless, views +it in, and understands it of, its whole extent, and from its first beginnings. These, +then, in so far as the Romans are concerned, fall in the time before Christ, for +the Jewish <span class="pagenum">[Pg 479]</span> people were already subjected to +the Roman dominion by Pompey. 2. This alone, however, is not sufficient. If, with +<i>Vershuir</i> (<i>de celebri oraculo Mic.</i> iv. 14, in the <i>Dissert. Philol. +exeg.</i> Leuw. 1775), we confine ourselves to the capture by Pompey, we cannot, +by any means, get rid of the feeling that that fulfilment does not exhaust the prophecy. +But we are, on the other hand, quite entitled to add that highest point, viz., the +destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, along with all its still existing consequences, +if only we consider, that the announcement of salvation in chap. v.—as is shown +by its contents, and by its accordance with the analogy of all the Messianic prophecies—is +not limited to the short period of the first appearance of Christ. That comes into +consideration rather as the grain of seed only from which the tree grew up, under +which all the fowls of heaven were to dwell. Hence it is, that the salvation, no +less than the punishment, is a continuous one, until, at the end of the days, it +appears in its glorious consummation. But if it be established that Christ is presented +as the only Saviour from the calamity here described, then that calamity must still +continue for those who reject Him, yea, it must still be increased. It is only by +giving up their opposition that they can be delivered from the yoke which presses +upon them. The election, on the other hand, is, from the very beginning, received +into the communion of His kingdom, which extends over the whole world. Here, however, +that which has been already remarked in reference to vers. 11-13 finds its application. +The siege and capture of Zion are pre-eminently the means of representing the idea +of the heavy oppression and deep abasement of Israel, and of the cessation of its +political independence, although it must not upon any account be overlooked, that +the natural form of the representation is, at the same time, the natural form of +the realization of the idea that Judah could not be destroyed without the siege +and capture of Jerusalem, its centre.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_444a" href="#ftnRef_444a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[1]</sup></a> We must not by any means suppose, as has been + done last of all by <i>Caspari</i>, that the mountains are here regarded as + places of worship.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_447a" href="#ftnRef_447a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[2]</sup></a> Thus does <i>Calvin</i>, who says: "He speaks + after the manner of the prophets, who under the term 'law' used to comprehend + the whole doctrine of God."</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_452a" href="#ftnRef_452a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[3]</sup></a> <i>Caspari</i>, indeed, is of opinion, that + the walking in the name of the Lord is not to be considered as a merit, on account + of which the salvation is granted, but as a mercy which has been bestowed upon + Israel, and which forms the ground of the salvation. But this feature is not + at all intimated; and we are the less at liberty to introduce it, as the walking + in the name of the gods is parallel to the walking in the name of the Lord.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftn"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_459a" href="#ftnRef_459a"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[4]</sup></a> <i>Caspari</i> very properly refers here to + v. 3 (4), where the Messiah, in whom the former dominion is to come to the Tower + of the flock, is represented as a shepherd.</p> +</div> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><a name="ftn_459b" href="#ftnRef_459b"> + <sup class="ftnRef">[5]</sup></a> Micah's references to the Pentateuch are made + the subject of a most thorough disquisition by <i>Caspari</i>, S. 419 ff.</p> +</div> +<hr class="W20"> +<h3><a name="div3_479" href="#div3Ref_479">CHAP. V. 1.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">"<i>And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, too little to be among the thousands +of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto Me</i> (one) <span class="pagenum">[Pg +480]</span> <i>to be Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth are the times of old, +the days of eternity.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The close connection of this verse with what immediately precedes +(<i>Caspari</i> is wrong in considering iv. 9-14 as an episode) is evident, not +only from the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ו</span> copulative, and from the analogy +of the near relation of the announcement of salvation to the prophecy of disaster +in the preceding verse (for if the connection with ver. 14 be overlooked, the announcement +of disaster contained in it remains without a corresponding consolation,—and this +would be against the analogy of vers. 9, 10, 11-13); but more strikingly so from +the contrast of the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בישראל מושל</span> with the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שפט ישראל</span>. The <i>Judge</i> of Israel in his +deepest abasement, is here contrasted with the <i>Ruler</i> of Israel in His highest +divine glory. The connection is seen also in the indication of Bethlehem's natural +littleness, as contrasted with the greatness to be bestowed upon it by God. What +could have induced the prophet thus strongly to point out this circumstance, had +it not been that he considered Bethlehem as the type of the Jewish people in their +misery, described in the preceding verse, and the miraculous elevation of the former, +to be accomplished by divine omnipotence, as the pledge of a like result for the +whole people? There is, moreover, a reference to the <i>beginning</i> of the pretended +episode. In iv. 9, it was said: "There is no king in thee;" here, it is announced +that from Bethlehem there comes forth a glorious Ruler in Israel. But, on the other +hand, there is also a close connection with ver. 8, as has been rightly perceived +by Caspari. This connection and reference are sufficiently indicated by the like +form. The address to Bethlehem here corresponds with the address to "the Tower of +the flock" there,—the "Ruler," <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מושל</span>, here, +with the "dominion," <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ממשלה</span>, there. There, +the dominion returns to the house of David; here, the august person is described +by whom this return is effected, after the events, described iv. 9-14, have come +upon the Covenant-people. That the Ruler here comes forth out of Bethlehem, corresponds +with iv. 8 in so far as there the dominion <i>returns</i> to the Tower of the flock, +to the hill of the daughter of Zion, which implies the overthrow of the Davidic +kingdom, and the return of the family of David to the condition in which it lived +at Bethlehem before the time of David,—which must necessarily precede its final +glory.—According to <i>Bachiene</i> <span class="pagenum">[Pg 481]</span> ii. 2, +S. 7 ff., Bethlehem and Ephratah are to be distinguished, so that the former designates +the town alone, and the latter at the same time its whole environs,—so that Bethlehem +Ephratah would be equivalent to Bethlehem situated in Ephratah. But even if we were +to agree with this opinion, we must not, by any means, consider the two words as +standing in the <i>stat. constr.</i>, any more than the corresponding +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בית־לחם יהודה</span> in Judges xvii. 9, xix. 1, 2, +18. For as a <i>Nomen proprium</i> is equivalent to a noun with the article, it +can never stand in the <i>stat. constr.</i> with another noun. We should thus be +obliged to assume that, by way of brevity, common in geographical designations, +both appellations were placed unconnectedly beside each other, without any indication +of their relation, just as in addressing a letter, we would simply write Berlin, +Prussia. But if we compare Gen. xxxv. 19, where Ephratah is simply declared to be +identical with Bethlehem (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אפרתה הוא בית לחם</span>);—and +if we consider that the prophet had already alluded to the contents of that chapter +(compare remarks on iv. 8), and that he regards the events which formerly happened +in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem as a type of those which were to take place in +future;—that in ver. 2 (3) he brings the new birth which is there to happen in parallelism +with one which had formerly occurred in its nearest neighbourhood, and that it is +just in the account of the latter that the designation occurs,—we shall have the +strongest reason for understanding here also the two names as a designation of the +town, without deciding whether the above-mentioned difference, as regards other +passages, be well founded or not. Interpreters commonly assert that the sole ground +of the twofold designation of the place is the intention of distinguishing it from +another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun; compare Josh. xix. 15. But in that case, +we should rather have expected the common Bethlehem Judah, instead of Bethlehem +Ephratah. There can be no doubt, that the prophet, in choosing this designation, +was guided by a regard to that passage in Genesis. One might also suppose that the +prophet wished to allude, at the same time, to the appellative significations of +these nouns, viz., "house of bread," and "field of fruit," and to lay stress upon +their typical import: the place, the blessing of which, as regards temporal things, +is indicated by its name, shall, at some <span class="pagenum">[Pg 482]</span> future +time, be blessed and fruitful in a higher sense. It is just in Micah, who is fond +of making significant allusions to names, that such a supposition is very natural, +as is shown, not only by chap. i., but also by vii. 18, where he gives an interpretation +of his own name. As, however, the two names elsewhere also occur thus connected, +without any attention being given to their signification, the prophet would not +have omitted giving a hint upon this point. It is not the way of Scripture to make +any allusions which cannot be understood with certainty. We shall, therefore, be +obliged to suppose that, after the common name, the prophet mentions, in addition, +the ancient name rendered sacred by memory from the time of the Patriarch, and by +the authority of the most ancient documents of revelation (compare, besides Gen. +xxxv. 19, Gen. xlviii. 7), in order thereby to impart greater solemnity to the discourse, +and to intimate what great things he had to say of Bethlehem. In accordance with +this designation by two names, is, then, the circumstance that the address is directed +to Bethlehem.—The word <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צעיר</span> forms an apposition +to Bethlehem: "little to be," instead of, "who art too little to be." If the sense +were to be, "thou art little," the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אתה</span> would +not have been omitted after <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צעיר</span>. The circumstance +that Bethlehem is addressed as a masculine (comp. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +צעיר ,אתה</span>, and <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ממך</span>) may be accounted +for by the prophet's viewing the town in the image of its <i>ideal</i> representative; +compare remarks on Zech. ix. 7. In such a case, the gender may be neglected; compare, +<i>e.g.</i>, Gen. iv. 7, where sin, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">חטאת</span>, +appears as a masculine noun, on account of the image of a ravenous beast. Such personifications +occur very frequently. Thus, nothing is more common in the Mosaic law than that +Israel is addressed as one man. This has been frequently misunderstood, and, in +consequence, that which refers to the whole people has been applied to the single +individual. Thus it is even in the Decalogue. In Is. v. 7, the people of Judah appear +as the <i>man</i> Judah.</p> +<p class="normal">The <i>littleness</i> of Bethlehem is sufficiently evident from +the circumstance of its being left out in the catalogue of the towns of the tribe +of Judah, in Joshua (compare <i>Bachiene</i>, § 192). This induced the LXX. to insert +it in Josh. xv. 60 along with several other towns which had been omitted; and, in +doing so, they were probably guided, not so much by a regard to its outward +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 483]</span> importance, as by the interest which attached +to it from the recollection of an event of former times (compare Gen. xxxv.), from +its being the birth-place of David, and still more, from the prophecy under consideration, +by which the eyes of the whole nation were directed to this place, outwardly so +unimportant. The assertion of <i>Jerome</i>, that the Jews omitted the name in the +Hebrew text, in order that Christ might not appear as a descendant of the tribe +of Judah, has received from <i>Reland</i> (S. 643) a more thorough refutation than +it deserved. <i>Keil</i>, in his commentary on Joshua, has lately renewed the attempt +to prove, from internal reasons, the genuineness of the addition; but, from the +whole condition of the Alex. Version, it is very dangerous to trust to such arguments. +The very reasons which <i>Keil</i> brings forward in support of the addition, are +just those which might have induced the LXX. to make it. The circumstance that they +added to Bethlehem the name Ephratah, plainly indicates the reason which induced +them to introduce Bethlehem specially. Bethlehem is likewise omitted in the catalogue +of the towns of Judah, in Neh. xi. 25 ff., and can therefore have occupied among +them a very low place only, although it is mentioned in Ezra ii. 21, Neh. vii. 26. +In the New Testament, it is called a mere village (<span lang="el" class="Greek">κώμη</span>, +John vii. 42). <i>Josephus</i>, indeed, occasionally gives it the title of a town +(compare Luke ii. 4, 11); but, in other passages, he designates it by +<span lang="el" class="Greek">χωρίον</span>, <i>Ant.</i> v. 2, 8.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צעיר +להיות</span> means properly, "little in reference to being," instead of, "too little +to be,"—the wider expression being used to indicate the relations of the town to +the being, where we use the more limited expression.—Instead of the "thousands of +Judah," <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שרי אלפים</span> ought to have been employed, +as it appears, in order strictly to maintain the personification. The representative +of Bethlehem is too small to be numbered among the heads of Judah. Several expositors +(<i>J. D. Michaelis</i>, <i>Justi</i>) have thereby been induced to point +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בְּאַלֻּפֵי</span> instead of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בְּאַלְפֵי</span>. But this supposed emendation is +set aside by the consideration that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אַלּוּף</span> +is only the special designation of the Edomitish princes, and occurs in a general +sense, only by way of <i>Catachresis</i>, in Zechariah, who lived at a time when +the Hebrew language was nearly extinct. The most simple explanation is, that the +prophet views the thousands, or the families of Judah, no less than the town Bethlehem, +as <i>ideal</i> existences; in which <span class="pagenum">[Pg 484]</span> case, +the personification is maintained throughout. Moreover, there would not be any insurmountable +difficulty in the way of supposing that the prophet had given up the personification; +for these are frequently not strictly adhered to by the prophets, who constantly +pass from the figure to the thing prefigured. This may be at once seen from the +preceding verse, in the first clause of which, Zion appears personified as a woman, +while immediately afterwards there follows, "against us."—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אלף</span>, +"thousand," is frequently used for designating a family, because the number of its +members usually consisted of about a thousand; compare Num. i. 16, where it is said +of the twelve princes of the tribes: "Heads of the thousands of Israel are they;" +Num. x. 4; Josh. xxii. 14, 21; Judg. vi. 15; 1 Sam. x. 19. On the division of Israel +into thousands, hundreds, etc.—a division which existed before the time of Moses—compare +what has been advanced in my Dissertations on the <i>Genuineness of the Pentateuch</i>, +ii. p. 341 sqq. It is self-evident that the thought here is, that Bethlehem is too +little to constitute a thousand <i>by itself</i>. Communities, however, which were +not sufficiently numerous to constitute, by themselves, a generation or family, +were reckoned with others, and formed with them an artificial generation, an artificial +family; for the divisions of generations and families were, owing to the great significance +which numbers had in ancient times, connected with numerical relations. An instance +of this kind occurs in 1 Chron. xxiii. 11, 12, where it is said of four brothers +that they had not sons enough, and were, for that reason, reckoned as one family +only. Being merely <i>part</i> of a generation, Bethlehem had no place among the +generations. The sense is clearly this: Bethlehem occupies a very low rank among +the towns of the Covenant-people,—can scarcely show herself in the company of her +distinguished sisters, who proudly look down upon her.—It is altogether a matter +of course that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יָצָא</span>, "to go out," may be +used also of "being born," of "descent," inasmuch as this belongs to the general +category of going out; compare, <i>e.g.</i>, 2 Kings xx. 18. We must, however, confine +ourselves to the general idea of "going forth," "proceeding," and not consider Bethlehem +as the father of the Messiah. In opposition to <i>Hofmann</i>, this is proved by +<i>Caspari</i>, from Jer. xxx. 21: "And their governor shall proceed from the midst +of them;" and from Zech. x. 4.<span class="pagenum">[Pg 485]</span>—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יֵצַא</span> +is without a definite subject. It is best to supply "one," which is evidently implied +in what follows. The construction, which might otherwise appear somewhat strange, +has been occasioned by the desire of making perceptible, by the very words, and +their position, the contrast between the divine greatness and the natural littleness +of Bethlehem:—</p> +<blockquote> + <p class="continue">Thou art little to be among the thousands of Judah;—<br> + From thee shall come forth unto me, to be a Ruler in Israel.</p> +</blockquote> +<p class="continue">From a place which is too little to form a single independent +member of the body, the head proceeds. From this contrast appears also the reason +why it is said, "Ruler in Israel," while we should have expected to hear of the +Ruler of Israel <span lang="el" class="Greek">κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν</span>,—a circumstance +on which <i>Paulus</i> lays so much stress in opposing the Messianic interpretation.—Had +the prophet adopted the latter expression, not only would this contrast have been +less striking, but the other also, which is likewise intended, viz., the contrast +with the Judge of Israel, in the preceding verse, who loses his dignity. The prophet +was, in the first instance, concerned more about the <i>genus</i> than the <i>individual</i>,—more +about the idea of dominion in general, than about the mode and kind of it. The individual +is, afterwards, however, partly in this verse itself, partly in the following verse, +so distinctly characterized, that he cannot be by any means mistaken. Nothing more, +it is true, is implied in these words, than that, at some future time, there would +come forth from Bethlehem a Ruler over all Israel; and if these words stood isolated, +and if it could be proved that, after the time of Micah, there came forth from Bethlehem +a Ruler over all Israel, besides the Messiah—a thing which, however, cannot be proved—then, +indeed, it might be questionable which of the two to choose. <i>Caspari's</i> exposition, +"Will <i>he</i> come forth," has this against it, that, in the preceding verses, +the Messiah was not yet spoken of, and, hence, that He cannot simply be supposed +as known; and least of all—if the acquaintance with Him were to be supposed from +other passages—could He have been introduced with a simple unaccented <i>he</i>: +the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">היא</span> could not have been omitted in this +case. The case in iv. 8 is but little analogous, for the subject in +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">תאתה</span> is there an indefinite one.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לי</span> +is, by several interpreters, referred to the prophet. Thus <i>Rosenmüller</i>, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 486]</span> following <i>Michaelis</i>, says, "<i>To me</i>, +<i>i.e.</i>, for my good, the prophet says, in the name of his whole people." But +the reference to God is required by the contrast between human littleness and divine +greatness. <i>Calvin</i> remarks on it: "By this word, God declares that His decree +to give up the people was not such, that Tie should not be willing to restore them +after some time. He therefore calls the faithful back to Himself, and reminds them +of His counsel, just as if He said, 'I have indeed rejected you for a time, but +not so as that I am not filled with compassion for you.'" The import of the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לי</span>, viz., that God could exalt that which +was low, the believer saw, in a type, in David; and there is no doubt that the prophet +was anxious indirectly to refer them to this type, and thereby to strengthen their +faith in the promise, which appeared almost incredible. He (David) had been a native +of the humble, little Bethlehem, the youngest among his brothers, without power, +without renown. In order that the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לי</span> might +become the more evident, the Lord, at his election, gave such a direction to the +circumstances, that this, his natural lowliness, might be most strikingly exhibited. +It was God who raised him from being a shepherd of lambs, to be a shepherd of nations.</p> +<p class="normal">In contrast with the Messiah's human and lowly origin. His divine +and lofty dignity is prominently brought out in the last words of the verse,—a contrast +similar to that in the case of Bethlehem, to which the prophet thereby refers. Here +also, the prophet has so clearly expressed the contrast by the words themselves, +that, upon the <i>homines bonæ voluntatis</i> among the interpreters of all ages, +it has most forcibly impressed itself. Thus, <i>e.g.</i>, <i>Chrysostom</i>, <i> +demonstratio adv. Judæos et Gentiles, quod Christus sit Deus</i>, opp. T. V., p. +739: "He exhibits both Godhead and manhood. For in the words, 'His goings forth +are from the beginning, from the days of eternity,' His existence from all eternity +is revealed; while in the words, 'Shall come forth the ruler who feeds My people +Israel,' His origin according to the flesh is revealed." A more minute inquiry into +the meaning of these words must begin with the investigation of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוצאתיו</span>. The greater number of interpreters +agree in this, that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוצאה</span>, the feminine form +of the more common <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוצא</span> here denotes the action +of the going forth. But this is opposed by the following considerations. 1. The +use of the plural. Those especially <span class="pagenum">[Pg 487]</span> who here +think of the eternal going forth of the Son from the Father, cannot by any means +justify it. Several among them consider it as <i>plur. majest.</i> Thus, <i>e.g.</i>, +do <i>Tarnovius</i> and <i>Frischmuth</i>, in the <i>Dissert. de Nativitate Messiæ</i>, +in the remarks on this passage, Jena 1661. But although such a plural exists, indeed, +in Hebrew, and many traces of it are to be found (compare my <i>Dissertations on +the Genuineness of the Pentateuch</i>, i. p. 267 ff.), it could appear here, of +course, in the suffix only, not in the noun. Others suppose that the plural stands +here simply for the singular. Now, there are, it is true, three cases in which such +does apparently take place:—the first, when a definite individual out of the multitude +is meant,—when accordingly, not the <i>number</i>, but the general idea only is +concerned;—the second, when a noun in the plural gradually loses its plural signification, +because the etymology and original signification have become indistinct;—the third, +when the plural stands for the abstract. Not one of these cases, however, is applicable +here. Those interpreters have most plausibly removed the difficulty who understand +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוצאתיו</span> to be really a repeated act of going +forth, and refer it to the Old Testament doctrine of the Angel of the Lord. Thus +<i>Jerome</i>: "Because He had always spoken to them through the prophets, and became +in their hands the Word of God." <i>Tremellius</i> and <i>Junius</i>: "The goings +forth, <i>i.e.</i>, the declarations and demonstrations of, as it were, a rising +sun; He from the very beginning revealed and manifested Himself to all created things, +by the light of His word, and the excellency of His works;<!--1854 ed insert--> +just as the rising sun manifests himself from the moment of his rising, by the light +and its effects." <i>Cocceius</i>: "I cannot, however, be persuaded to believe that +the plural <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוצאתיו</span> is here used without emphasis. +For the Son has not gone forth from the Father, like a man from a man, who begins +to exist only when he is brought forth from a man, and when he goes forth, ceases +to be brought forth and to go out. In all the days of eternity, the Son proceeds +from the Father, and is the eternal <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἀπαύγασμα τῆς +δόξης αὐτοῦ</span>." But this circumstance is, in general, against this explanation, +that the contrast with the going forth from Bethlehem, which is completed in one +act, does not admit of the mention of a manifold going forth, and that, in this +contrast, the arising, the origin of the existence of the Messiah, can alone be +thought of; while, more specially, <i>Jerome</i>, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 488]</span> +<i>Tremellius</i>, and <i>Junius</i>, who, with <i>Piscator</i> also, limit the +going forth to the relation to created things only, are contradicted by +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מימי עולם</span>, by which the going forth is placed +beyond the beginning of creation; and <i>Cocceius</i>, by the fact that the +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מלאך יהוה</span> in the Old Testament, differently +from the <span lang="el" class="Greek">Λόγος</span> in the New Testament, appears +always as going forth from God, in relation to the world only. But although the +"time of old and the days of eternity" should be considered as the place of the +going forth, yet the plural cannot be explained, as is done by <i>Caspari</i>, from +the circumstance that "a person is always descended from several;" for the transferring +of such a <i>usus loquendi</i> to a relation, to which in itself it is not applicable, +could be admitted only when it could be demonstrated to be altogether common and +firmly established. But the plural might indeed, although only with some difficulty, +be vindicated and accounted for from the circumstance, that two points of going +forth are mentioned, which, as it were, suppose a twofold act. 2. But even if the +singular were used, the explanation of the act of going forth would not be admissible. +It is contrary to the idea of nouns with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מ</span>, +that they could be used as <i>nomina actionis</i>. It is only with writers living +at a time when the language was dying out, that a few instances of this erroneous +use can be found. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מ</span> denotes the place where, +the instrument wherewith, the time wherein, and perhaps the way and manner whereby, +something is done, or is. <i>Further</i>—It may signify also the thing itself which +is done, or is; but, in no writer of the living and flourishing language, does it +ever denote the action itself. <i>Caspari</i>, indeed, attempts to prove that "there +occurs in the older books a number, by no means inconsiderable, of nouns with +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מ</span>, which undeniably denote an action;" but +what he has advanced on this point requires still to be minutely sifted, and to +be more closely examined; compare, <i>e.g.</i>, on Num. x. 2, my pamphlet on "<i>The +Day of the Lord</i>," S. 32. But we are quite satisfied with what is granted by +<i>Caspari</i> himself (compare <i>Ewald's Lehrbuch d. Hebr. Spr.</i> § 160), that +it is against the nature and common use of this form to denote the action. Even +by this concession, a presumption is raised against the correctness of an interpretation +which would ascribe to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוצא</span>, here, and in +other passages, the signification of going forth, viewed as an action. The passages +quoted by <i>Winer</i> in favour of the signification, <i>egressus</i>, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 489]</span> are the following: 1. Hos. vi. 3, where it +is said of the Lord <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כשחר נכון מוצאו</span>, "firm +like the morning-dawn is His going forth." But <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוצא</span> +is there, not the action, but the place and the time of the going forth, as is evident +from the word "firm" also. 2. Ezek. xii. 4: "And thou shalt go forth at even in +their sight, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">כמוצאי גולה</span>." Several interpreters +agree that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוצא</span> here signifies the kind and +mode of the going forth. <i>Vatablus</i> says, "It denotes the deportment of him +who goes forth, and means, Thou shalt go forth in sorrow, and indignant." But it +is better, with <i>Hävernick</i>, to refer it to the time: "According to the goings +forth of prisoners, at the time when emigrants of this kind prefer to go forth from +their places." 3. Num. xxxiii. 2: "And Moses wrote down +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">את מוצאיהם</span>, 'the places of their goings out.'" +4. Ps. xix. 7, it is said of the sun: <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מקצה השמים +מוצאו</span>, "from the end of the heaven is his going forth," which is tantamount +to—The end of the heaven is the place from which he goes forth. 5. 1 Kings x. 28: +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ומוצא הסוסים אשר לשלמה ממצרים</span>, which <i>De +Wette</i> translates, "And the export of the horses which Solomon had, (was) from +Egypt." But a more accurate translation is, "And the place of coming forth of the +horses which Solomon had was Egypt," or, more literally still, "from Egypt,"—a concise +mode of expression for, "The place from which the horses of Solomon came forth was +Egypt,"—just as in the preceding example. In proof of the signification, "action +of going out," <i>Ch. B. Michaelis</i> refers, moreover, to 2 Sam. iii. 25, where +<i>De Wette</i> translates, "Thou knowest Abner, the son of Ner; he came to deceive +thee, and to see thy going out and thy coming in, and all that thou doest." But +a more accurate translation would be, "The place from which thou goest out, and +to which thou art going;" compare Ezek. xliii. 11. In all other passages—and these +are rather numerous—the signification "place of going out," or "that which goes +out," is quite obvious. Even <i>Caspari</i> grants that the signification "place +of going out" has, <i>a priori</i>, the greatest probability in its favour.—To this +it may be added, that the signification "place of going out" is recommended here, +even by the contrast with what precedes, inasmuch as there Bethlehem, is mentioned +as the place from which the Euler in Israel is to come forth. With this place of +going out, another and a higher one is contrasted. This contrast also shows us how +the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מן</span> <span class="pagenum">[Pg 490]</span> +in <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מקדם</span> and <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +מימי עולם</span> must be understood, viz., in the same manner as +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מן</span> in <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ממך</span>; +for the evident reference of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוצאתיו</span> to +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יצא לי</span> shows that it must correspond with +it. Hence the literal translation would be, "And His places of going out are from +the times of old, from the days of eternity," which is equivalent to—The places +from which He goes forth are the times of old, the days of eternity,—just as in +the two passages, Ps. xix. 7; 1 Kings x. 28. The <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +מן</span> might very well have been omitted; but its insertion here has arisen chiefly +from a desire to make the reference to the corresponding clause outwardly also more +perceptible. This reference shows also, that the explanation of +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מן</span> by <i>præ</i>, which was proposed by <i> +Pococke</i> and others, is inadmissible, besides involving an absurdity, inasmuch +as nothing can be <i>before</i> eternity; while, on the other hand, this reference +alone affords a satisfactory explanation of the plural. According to it, the words, +"From the time of old, from the days of eternity," contain a gradation. <i>First</i>, +the existence of the Messiah before His birth in time, in Bethlehem, is pointed +out in general; and <i>then</i>, in contrast with all time, it is vindicated to +eternity. This could not fail to afford a great consolation to Israel. He who hereafter, +in a visible manifestation, was to deliver them from their misery, was already in +existence,—during it, before it, and through all eternity.</p> +<hr class="W20"> +<h2><span class="sc"><a name="div2_490" href="#div2Ref_490">HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION.</a></span></h2> +<h3><a name="div3_490" href="#div3Ref_490">1. AMONG THE JEWS.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">This History, as to its essential features, might, <i>a priori</i>, +be sketched with tolerable certainty. From the nature of the case, we could scarcely +expect that the Jews should have adopted views altogether erroneous as to the subject +of the prophecy in question; for the Messiah appears in it, not in His humiliation, +but in His glory—rich in gifts and blessings, and Pelagian self-delusion will, +<i>a priori</i>, return an affirmative answer to the question as to whether one +is called to partake in them. But, on the other hand, the prophecy contains a twofold +ground of offence which had to be removed, and explained away at any +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 491]</span> expense. One of these, the eternity of the +Messiah—which was in contradiction to the popular notions, and conceivable only +from a knowledge of His Godhead—could not but exist at all times; while the second +of these—the birth at Bethlehem—made its appearance, and exercised its influence, +only after the birth of Christ. That this should be set aside, was demanded by two +causes. <i>First</i>, there was the desire of depriving the Christians of the proof, +which they derived from the birth at Bethlehem, for the proposition that He who +had appeared was also He who was promised. And, <i>secondly</i>, there was the difficulty +of any longer deriving from Bethlehem the descent of Christ, after, by an ordinance +of Hadrian (compare <i>Reland</i>, S. 647), all the Jews had been expelled from +Bethlehem and its neighbourhood. This difficulty was strongly urged against them +by Christian controversialists; compare <i>Tertullian cont. Jud.</i> c. xiii., "How +then can the Ruler be descended from Judah, and how can He come forth from Bethlehem, +as, in the present day, there is not one of Israel left there, of whose family Christ +may be born?" The actual history furnishes facts and details which only confirm +and enlarge what, in its essential features, we have sketched <i>a priori</i>.</p> +<p class="normal">1. The reference to the Messiah was, at all times, not the private +opinion of a few scholars, but was publicly received, and acknowledged with perfect +unanimity. As respects the time of Christ, this is obvious from Matt. ii. 5. According +to that passage, the whole Sanhedrim, when officially interrogated as to the birth-place +of the Messiah, supposed this explanation to be the only correct one. But if this +proof required a corroboration, it might be derived from John vii. 41, 42. In that +passage, several who erroneously supposed Christ to be a native of Galilee, objected +to His being the Messiah on the ground that Scripture says: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ καὶ ἀπὸ Βηθλεὲμ τῆς κώμης, +ὅπον ἦν Δαβίδ, ὁ Χριστὸς ἔρχεται.</span> But even after Christ had appeared, the +interest in depriving the Christians at once of the arguments which, in their controversies, +they derived from this passage, was not sufficiently strong to blind the Jews to +the evident indications contained in this passage, or to induce them to deprive +themselves of the sweet hope which it afforded. This, it is true, would be the case +nevertheless, if we were to rely upon, and believe in the assertion of <i>Chrysostom</i> +(<i>Hom.</i> 7, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 492]</span> in Matt. c. 2, in <i>Nov. +Test.</i>, t. i. p. 80, ed. Frcf.): "Some of them, in their impudence, assert that +this prophecy has a reference to Zerubbabel;" of <i>Theodoret</i> (on this passage): +"The Jews have tried to refer this to Zerubbabel, which evidently fights against +the truth;" of <i>Theophylact</i> (on Matt. ii.); and of <i>Euthymius Zigabenus</i> +(in iv. <i>Evang.</i> t. 1, p. 61, ed. Mat.). But the supposition is here forced +upon us—a supposition which, in another case also (compare remarks on Zech. ix. +9, 10), we must acknowledge to be well-founded—that the Fathers, having in their +controversies with the Jews sometimes met a reference to Zerubbabel, forced it upon +the Jews, even when the latter themselves refused it. And there can be the less +difficulty in admitting this supposition, as the apparently fourfold testimony may +be easily reduced to a single one, viz., to that of <i>Chrysostom</i>. If these +statements had any truth in them, some traces, at least, of this interpretation +must be found among the Jews themselves. This, however, is not the case. All the +Jewish interpreters adhere to the Messianic interpretation, and in this they are +headed by the Chaldee, who paraphrases the words <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +ממך לי יצא</span> in this way: <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מנך קדמי יפק משיחא</span>, +<i>i.e.</i>, From thee Messiah shall go out before me.</p> +<p class="normal">2. A twofold method has been tried to remove the first ground +of objection mentioned above. In ancient times, they gave their full sense to the +words, "Of (or from) the days of eternity," but substituted the name of the Messiah +for His person. This we meet with as early as in the Chaldee, who says: +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">דשמיה אמיר מלקדמין מיומי עלמא</span>, <i>i.e.</i>, +"Whose name is said (or called) from the days of old, from the days of eternity." +Thus also the <i>Pirke R. Elieser</i>, ch. iii., where, with a reference to the +passage before us, the name of the Messiah is mentioned among the seven things created +before the world existed, viz., along with the Law, Hell, Paradise, the Throne of +Glory, the Temple, Repentance; compare <i>Schöttgen</i> ii. S. 213. According to +<i>Eisenmenger</i> i. S. 317, the same, with some change, is found in the Talmud, +<i>Tract. Pesachim</i>, fol. 54, col. i., and <i>Nedarim</i> f. 39, c. 2. We cannot, +in that explanation by the Chaldee, understand "name" in its emphatic signification, +in which it often occurs in Scripture, viz., as an expression and image of the substance,—a +signification in which the "name" of the Messiah would be equivalent to "the glory +of the Messiah," or to "the Messiah <span class="pagenum">[Pg 493]</span> in His +glory." This is evident from the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אמיר</span>, <i> +i.e.</i>, "said" or "spoken," of the Chaldee, which does not allow of our thinking +of the creation of a substance; and not less from the consideration, that if this +signification of "name" were assumed, the aim and object which he had in view in +substituting "name" for "person" at all, would have been missed. The name of the +Messiah expresses His nature, the idea of His existence. The creation or pronouncing +of this name marks, accordingly, the rise of this idea in God,—His forming the decree +of redemption by the Messiah. By this explanation—which we again meet with, afterwards, +in <i>Calvin</i>, and which we shall then consider more minutely—a mere existence +in thought, was substituted for the real existence of the Messiah,—His predestination, +for His pre-existence.—But in aftertimes they came still further down. To supply +"the name," was too arbitrary to admit of their resting satisfied with such an explanation. +Almost unanimously they now came to the supposition, that the words of the passage +under consideration merely marked the descent of the Messiah from the ancient, royal +house of David. Thus <i>Abenezra</i>: "All this is said of David; the words also, +'His goings out are of old,' refer to David." <i>Aberbanel</i> (<i>Praec. Sal.</i> +p. 62): "The goings out of the family from which that Ruler is to be descended are +of old, and of the days of eternity, <i>i.e.</i>, of the seed of David, and the +rod of Jesse, which is of Bethlehem-Judah." On the similar expositions of <i>Kimchi</i> +and others, compare <i>Frischmuth l.c.</i>, and <i>Wichmannshausen</i>, <i>Dissert. +on the pass.</i>, Wittenb. 1722, S. 6 ff. We could not urge against this exposition +that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוצאות</span> is erroneously understood either +as "going out," or, as "family;" and that, in the latter signification, the <i>usus +loquendi</i>, as well as the evident reference to <span lang="he" class="Hebrew"> +יצא</span>, are disregarded. For that might be given up, and yet the explanation +would stand as to its substance. Even then, it might be translated: "His goings +out (in the signification of 'places of going out') are the days of old, the days +of eternity," <i>i.e.</i>, the very ancient times; so that there would be ascribed +to the time something which belongs to that which exists in it, viz., to the family +of David. But the following reason is decisive against it. Every one will admit +that the eternal origin of the Messiah forms a far more suitable contrast with His +temporal origin from Bethlehem, than His descent from the ancient family of +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 494]</span> David. The latter would come into consideration +here, only on account of its antiquity; a reference to its dignity is not made by +even a single word, nor is the family itself mentioned at all in the text; but the +attribute of antiquity, and that alone, is nevertheless taken from it, and ascribed +to the Messiah. But now, we cannot at all see what pre-eminence in this respect +the family of David enjoyed above other families, and how, therefore, it could have +been an honour for the Messiah to be descended from it. How strange would, according +to this explanation, be the words, "of the days of eternity," which, as a climax, +are added to, "of days of old!" What reason could there have existed for the prophet +to exalt, by a hyperbolical expression, a limited time to eternity? As regards His +human origin, the Messiah had not the slightest advantage over other mortals, as +far as the age of the family was concerned. What, then, was the use of such a hyperbole +in a matter which, in this connection, was of no consequence, and which could not +in any way serve for His exaltation? It is just this, however, which after all is +required by the contrast. What kind of consolation would thereby have been afforded +to the people? Certainly no one doubted that the Messiah would have parents, and +ancestors reaching back to a hoar antiquity. But was there anything gained by this, +since He had it only in common with the lowest and feeblest among the people? How +does this shallow, unmeaning, and yet so much pretending contrast in reference to +the Messiah, suit the other contrast in reference to Bethlehem, which is so brilliant +and exalted? And now what reason is there for preferring that explanation which +is so unnatural, to the other, which is so natural, so obvious, which presents a +contrast so beautiful, and opens up to the Covenant-people a source of consolation +so rich? Is it this, perhaps, that the eternity of the Messiah is not mentioned +anywhere else in the Old Testament? But the eternity of the Messiah is only a single +feature of His divine nature, and just that feature which, according to the context, +came here into special consideration. <i>Caspari</i> very correctly remarks: "The +prophet pointed out just the feature of the pre-existence, and of the eternal existence +of the Messiah, and these only, because the announcement of His origin from the +little Bethlehem led just to this, and to this alone." The intimation of the divine +nature of the Messiah is, <span class="pagenum">[Pg 495]</span> however, as old +as the Messianic prediction in general; compare, concerning this, my remarks on +Gen. xlix. 10. In a more definite shape, and in a more distinct form, it appears +as early as in the Messianic Psalms. But it is found, in sharply defined outlines, +in Isaiah, and specially in ix. 5, where, just as in the passage before us, the +divine glory of the Messiah is contrasted with the lower aspect of His existence; +and the closer the points of contact are between Isaiah and Micah, the less can +we refuse to acknowledge such here. This circumstance also must prevent us from +doing so, that immediately afterwards, in ver. 3 (4), the divine dignity and nature +of the Messiah meet us anew. This passage requires, as its foundation, the one upon +which we are now commenting. Moreover, the eternity which, in contrast with His +birth in time, is here ascribed to the Messiah, corresponds with the eternity of +His existence and dominion after His birth, which is repeatedly ascribed to the +Messiah, and, most prominently, in Is. ix. 5, where He receives the name "Father +of eternity," <i>i.e.</i>, He who will be Father in all eternity.—Some one, perhaps, +would infer from the subjoined words, "of the days," that +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עילם</span> is here to be understood in a limited +sense. But who does not know that, when eternity is predicated in contrast with +a limited duration of time, just to make the contrast the more striking, those measures +of time, which are properly applicable to the latter only, are transferred to the +former? For in order to be able to compare things, a certain resemblance between +them must necessarily be first established. Thus in Dan. vii. 9, God is called "the +Ancient of Days;" thus it is said of Him in Ps. cii. 28, "Thy years have no end;" +and the New Testament frequently speaks in the same way of eternal times. We are, +in our thoughts, generally so much bound to time, that we can conceive of eternity +only as "time without time." It cannot by any means be satisfactorily or incontrovertibly +proved from vii. 14, 20, that <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">קדם</span> and +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ימי עילם</span> here designate merely the ancient +time. All which that passage proves is, that such a sense is possible—and this, +no one probably has ever doubted—but not that it is applicable in this connection. +If the connection be considered, Prov. viii. 22, 23, will then be acknowledged to +be parallel,—a passage in which the eternal existence of Wisdom is spoken of in +a similar manner.</p> +<p class="normal">3. That, in the prophecy under consideration, Bethlehem is +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 496]</span> marked out as the birth-place of the Messiah, +was held as an undoubted truth by the ancient Jews. This appears from the confident +reply of the Sanhedrim to the question of Herod as to the birth-place of Christ. +And it is not less evident from John vii. 42. The circumstance that, after the tumult +raised by Barcochba, not only Jerusalem, but Bethlehem also, was, by the Emperor +Adrian, interdicted to the Jews as a residence, renders it probable that this interpretation +was not given up immediately after the death of Christ. But even after this edict +of Adrian, and after the difficulty had appeared in all its force, they did not, +for a considerable time, venture to assert that the prophecy knew nothing of Bethlehem +as the birth-place of the Messiah. It is with the later Rabbinical interpreters +only, who were better skilled in the art of distorting, that this assertion is found. +The ancient Jews endeavoured to evade the difficulty by the fable, dressed up in +various ways, that the Messiah was indeed born at Bethlehem, on the day of the destruction +of the temple, but that, on account of the sins of the people. He was afterwards +carried away by a storm, and had, since that time, remained, unknown and concealed, +in various places. Thus speak the Talmud, the very ancient commentary on Lamentations, +<i>Echa Rabbati</i>, and the very old commentary on Genesis, <i>Breshith Rabba</i> +(compare the passages in <i>Raim. Martini</i>, S. 348-50; <i>Carpzovius</i> and +<i>Frischmuth</i>, l.c.). Indeed, we can trace this fiction still farther back. +Closely connected with it is the explanation of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עפל +בת־ציון</span> by "darkness of the daughter of Zion" (<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עפל</span> +being confounded with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אפל</span>), <i>i.e.</i>, hidden +on account of Zion. This explanation is found as early as in Jonathan. The concealment +of the Messiah is only an isolated feature of this fiction. The fiction itself, +indeed, has its roots, not only in the passage under review, but also in the endeavour +to remove the contradiction between the destruction of the temple, and the firm +expectation of the Messiah's appearing during the time of its existence,—an expectation +founded on passages of the Old Testament. This concealment of the Messiah is mentioned +as early as in the <i>Dialogus cum Tryphone</i> (No. 8 <i>Bened. Ven.</i>; compare +also p. 114): "Christ, even if he be born, and exist anywhere, is unknown, and neither +manifests himself in any way, nor has he any power until Elijah come, etc." In order +to be convinced that, at the time when this book was composed, +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 497]</span> and hence in the second century, the fiction +was already fully developed, we need only compare the account in <i>Breshith Rabba</i>. +After Elijah, at the time of the birth of the Messiah, had visited his mother in +Bethlehem Judah, and consoled her who was afflicted on account of the destruction +of the temple, which was contemporaneous with her delivery, he withdraws. "After +five years had elapsed, he said, I will go and see the Saviour of Israel, whether +he be nursed up in the manner of kings or of ministering angels. He went and found +the woman standing at the door of her house, and said to her: My daughter, in what +state is that boy? And she answered him: Rabbi, did I not tell thee that it is a +bad thing to nurse him, because, on the day on which he was born, the temple was +destroyed? But this is not all; for <i>he has feet and walks not, he has eyes and +sees not, he has ears and hears not, he has a mouth and does not speak at all, and +there he lies like a stone.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The Rabbinical interpreters felt, however, that this fiction, +being destitute of all warrant, was of no use to them in their controversies with +Christians; and it was to these that their view was chiefly directed. Hence they +sought to remove the difficulty by means of the interpretation; and as all had the +same interest, the result was that the distorted explanation became as generally +prevalent, as the correct one had formerly been. <i>Kimchi</i>, <i>Abenezra</i>, +<i>Abendana</i>, <i>Abarbanel</i>, and, in general, all the later Rabbins (compare +the passages in <i>Wichmannsh.</i> l. c. S. 9), maintain that Bethlehem is mentioned +here as the birth-place of the Messiah indirectly only,—in so far only as the Messiah +was to be descended from David the Bethlehemite. There cannot well be a prepossession +in favour of this exposition. The circumstance that, formerly, no one ever thought +that it was even possible to explain the passage under review in any other way than +that, in it, Bethlehem is spoken of as the birth-place of the Messiah, and that +this exposition was discovered and introduced, only at a time when the other could +no longer be received, raises, <i>a priori</i>, strong suspicions against it. And +this suspicion is fully confirmed by a closer examination. <i>Cæteris paribus</i>, +that explanation which here finds Bethlehem mentioned as the birth-place of the +Messiah, would deserve the preference, even for this reason, that the passage, as +thus understood, fills up a blank <span class="pagenum">[Pg 498]</span> in the Messianic +prophecy,—and that from the whole analogy, we are led to expect that no such blank +would be left. Should the family from which Christ was to descend, the time at which +He was to appear, the part of the country which was pre-eminently to enjoy His blessings, +and so many other things concerning Him, have been so minutely foretold, and not +the place where He was to be born? Even the question of Herod, +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ποῦ ὁ Χριστὸς γεννᾶται</span>; shows how much reason +we have, <i>a priori</i>, to expect such a prediction. He supposes that, as a matter +of course, the birth-place of the Messiah must have been determined in the Old Testament; +he only inquires about the place where. But the matter is not so, that there could +be any choice at all betwixt the two explanations. If we suppose that it is only +the descent of the Messiah from the family of David which is here announced, the +contrast between the natural littleness of Bethlehem, and its divine greatness, +would be very far from being appropriate. After the family of David had, for centuries, +resided and ruled at Jerusalem, the natural littleness of Bethlehem came very little +into further consideration. It was not this which could render improbable the appearance +of the Messiah. It was only the downfall of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the +King's Castle, which were in opposition to the belief in the Messiah's appearance. +And, in like manner, the glory, resulting from His appearance, was not imparted +to Bethlehem, but to Zion. Hence it is that, in iv. 8, where the prophet wishes +to declare the descent of the Messiah from the family of David, he contrasts the +glorification of Zion, and especially of the King's Castle, with its previous degradation.—<i>Further</i>—There +is not a single instance to be found of a place, in which the ancestors of some +one resided centuries ago, being spoken of as the place of his descent. Is there +a single passage in which Bethlehem is mentioned as the native place of any of the +kings from the Davidic dynasty who were born at Jerusalem, or as the native place +of Zerubbabel who was born at Babylon? For further details concerning this argument, +<i>Huetius</i>, <i>dem. Evang.</i> p 579 <i>ed. Amstel.</i> 1680, maybe compared.—<i>Further</i>—The +relation of the passage under review to the parallel passage Is. viii. 23 (ix. 1) +must not be overlooked. As in the latter text, the <i>province</i> is marked out +which, by the appearance of the Messiah, is to be raised from the deepest degradation +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 499]</span> to the highest glory, so, in the passage under +consideration, the <i>place</i> is designated.—<i>Finally</i>—If any doubt yet remained, +it must surely be removed by the fulfilment,—by the fact that Christ was actually +born at Bethlehem; and this so much the more, that this fact cannot be looked upon +as an accidental circumstance, for Bethlehem was not the residence of His parents.</p> +<p class="normal">But the Jews endeavoured, in another way, to wrest from Christian +controversialists the advantage afforded by this passage. They denied altogether +that Christ was born at Bethlehem. Thus <i>Abr. Peritsol</i> (compare <i>Eisenmenger</i>, +l. c. S. 259): "Since they called Him Jesus the Nazarene, and not Jesus the Bethlehemite, +it is to be inferred that He was born at Nazareth, as it is written in the <i>Targum</i> +of Jerusalem." Upon this point, however, there existed no unanimity among them. +<i>David Gans</i>, in the Book <i>Zemach David</i>, mentions, without any remark, +Bethlehem as the birth-place of the Messiah (S. 105 of <i>Vorst's</i> translation).</p> +<h3><a name="div3_499" href="#div3Ref_499">2. AMONG THE CHRISTIANS.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">The conviction that Christ is the subject of the prophecy under +consideration was so much the prevailing one in the Christian Church, that the mention +of any of its defenders is altogether superfluous. It were more interesting to learn +who were the opponents of it. The assertion of <i>Huetius</i>, l. c., that <i>Chrysostom</i>, +<i>Theophylact</i>, and <i>Euthymius Zigabenus</i> attempted an explanation by which +it was referred to Zerubbabel, rests on a misapprehension resulting from want of +memory. <i>Huetius</i> himself ascribes to them that very view which they most decidedly +oppose as the one alleged to be held by the Jews. But this interpretation was actually +advanced by <i>Theodorus</i> of <i>Mopsueste</i>, whose exegetical tendencies it +admirably suited. Along with several other interpretations, it was condemned by +the Council at Rome, under Pope Vigilius; compare <i>H. Prado</i> on Ezek. <i>prooem. +Sect.</i> 3, and <i>Hippol. a Lapide in prophet. min. prooem.</i>, and in the remarks +on this passage. The immediate successor of <i>Theodorus</i> was <i>Grotius</i>. +His book <i>de veritate relig. Christ.</i>—where in i. 5, § 17 (p. 266, ed. Oxon. +1820), he proves <span class="pagenum">[Pg 500]</span> against the Jews the Messianic +dignity of Christ, from the circumstance that He was, in accordance with the passage, +born at Bethlehem—might, indeed, entitle us to infer that he was not confirmed in +this opinion. But perhaps he only imagined that, in a popular work, he needed not +to be so careful, and that, even according to his own views, he had retained a certain +right to this use of the passage, inasmuch as he considered Zerubbabel as a type +of Christ, and the birth of the latter at Bethlehem as an outward representation +of His descent from the Davidic family. It was at the commencement of the Rationalistic +period, when an easier mode of evading the reference to Christ had not as yet been +discovered, that the reference to Zerubbabel was seized upon. It is found in <i> +Dathe</i> and <i>Kuehnöl</i> (<i>Mess. Weissagungen</i>, S. 88). The latter, however, +changed his opinion (compare Commentary on Matt. ii.), after such a mode had been +discovered, by referring the prophecy to the <i>ideal</i> Christ. From that time +onwards, the reference to the <i>ideal</i> Christ is found in almost all the Rationalistic +interpreters. The distinctness with which the marks here given, viz., the birth +in time at Bethlehem, and the eternity of the origin, lead to the <i>historical</i> +Christ; and the difficulty of explaining these when the prophecy is referred to +the <i>ideal</i> Messiah, are rendered sufficiently evident by the efforts which +all these interpreters, without exception, have made to explain these marks away. +Who does not discover, in these very efforts, a confession of their force, on the +supposition that they can be, as they have already been, demonstrated to have an +actual existence? God Himself has borne witness by facts against this explanation; +for He ordered the circumstance in such a manner that, by the birth of Christ at +Bethlehem, the prophecy was fulfilled. But how can a fulfilment be spoken of by +those who do not believe in prophecy, but see in it human conjectures only, since +the very idea of prophecy necessarily implies divine inspiration? How should God +have impressed His own seal upon mere human conjectures, as He would have done by +effecting an apparent fulfilment? He would Himself have surely become the author +of error by so doing. <i>Finally</i>,—We shall afterwards see that, in the New Testament, +this passage has been explained in the strictest sense, of the historical Christ; +and the attempts of the Rationalistic interpreters to divest that +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 501]</span> quotation of its import, will furnish us with +a proof, that it is not truth for which they are concerned, but the removal only, +at any rate and cost, of a fact which is irreconcilable with their system. All that +has been advanced by them (<i>e.g.</i>, by <i>Justi</i> and <i>Ammon</i>) against +the reference to the historical Christ, rests on their misapprehension of Christ's +Regal office. The Regal office of Christ is by no means a poetical image, but the +most <i>real</i> among all kingly offices; yea. His kingdom is that from which all +others derive their existence and reality. It rests, <i>further</i>, on their ignorance +as regards the final history of the Messianic kingdom. Of the whole history of Christ, +they know a single fragment only, viz.. His first appearance in His humiliation; +and even this they know, and can know, only very imperfectly. His invisible dominion +existing even now, they do not recognise, because it is beheld with the eye of faith +only; and His future visible manifestation of it they do not believe, because they +have not experienced in their own hearts the invisible power of Christ, which is +a pledge and earnest of this visible success. It rests, <i>finally</i>, on their +ignorance of the prophetic vision, which necessarily requires that the kingdom of +God under the Old Testament should serve as a substratum for the description of +the kingdom of Christ. It can be demonstrated, from the intimations contained in +this passage, in which the Messiah appears in His glory, how little it is contradictory +to others, in which He is represented in His lowest humiliation. Through humiliation +to glory,—this is the proposition which lies at the foundation of the announcements +of the prophet concerning the destinies of the Covenant-people, and which he distinctly +expresses in regard to Bethlehem. That this proposition is applicable to the Head +not less than to the members,—to Him who was born, not less than to the place where +He was born, appears from the circumstance that He was to be born at the time of +the deepest degradation of the Davidic dynasty, iv. 8, and not at Jerusalem, where +His Royal ancestors resided, but at Bethlehem.</p> +<p class="normal">2. As regards the last words of this verse, the same twofold false +interpretation which we noticed among Jewish interpreters, is found among Christian +expositors also. One of these, which, besides in other Jewish interpreters, occurs +in <i>Jarchi</i> ("<i>and His goings out</i>, etc.; just as in Ps. lxxii. 17, it +was said that His name <span class="pagenum">[Pg 502]</span> should continue as +long as the sun;—thus <i>Jonathan</i> also translated it"), changes the eternal +origin of Christ into an eternal predestination. This view was held by <i>Calvin</i>: +"These words," he says, "signify that the rising of the Prince who was to rule the +nations would not be something sudden, but long ago decreed by God. I know that +some pertinaciously insist that the prophet speaks here of Christ's eternal essence, +and as far as I am concerned, I <i>willingly</i> acknowledge that Christ's eternal +Godhead is here proved to us; but as we shall never succeed in convincing the Jews +of this, I prefer to hold that the words of the prophet signify that Christ would +not thus suddenly proceed from Bethlehem, as if God had formerly decreed nothing +concerning Him." He speaks indeed of his "<i>willingly</i> acknowledging;" but that +he was not very much in earnest in his willingness, appears from what follows: "Others +advance a new and ingenious view," etc. It is only from the relation of <i>Calvin</i> +to the earlier interpreters, that we can account for his advancing an exposition +so very arbitrary. These had, <i>ad majorem Dei gloriam</i>, advanced a multitude +of forced expositions. Calvin, who very properly hated such interpretations ("I +do not like such distorted explanations," he says, in his commentary on Joel ii.), +always regarded them with suspicion; and whensoever there was the appearance of +any motive which may possibly have guided them in adopting a certain explanation, +he himself, rather than concur with them, falls upon the most unnatural explanations +in return. The best refutation of his exposition is to be found in <i>Pococke</i>. +It is absurd to suppose that the actual going forth of Christ from Bethlehem is +here contrasted with one which is merely imaginary,—the action, with a mere decree. +It is without any analogy that some one should be designated as actually existing, +or going forth, who exists merely in the divine foreknowledge, or the divine predestination.—The +other view, which regards the last words of this verse as referring to the Messiah's +descent from the ancient family of David, is found among all interpreters who, from +some cause, were prevented from adopting the sound one. It is thus with the Socinians +(compare, <i>e.g.</i>, <i>Volkel de vera religione</i>, l. 5, c. 2), some of whom, +in order the more surely to set aside a passage so damaging to their system, supposed +that, according to its proper sense, it did not refer to Christ at all; <i>e.g.</i>, +<i>Jo. Crellius</i>, who, in his exposition of Matt. ii., asserts that it refers +indefinitely to <span class="pagenum">[Pg 503]</span> some one of the family of +David who, after the Babylonish captivity, was to rule the nation. It is thus with +<i>Grotius</i> also, who says: "He (Zerubbabel) has his origin from the days of +old, from ancient times, <i>i.e.</i>, he has descended from a house, illustrious +from ancient times, and governing for five hundred years." Thus it is with all the +Rationalistic interpreters. Among recent faithful Christian expositors, <i>Jahn</i> +also (<i>Vatic. Mess.</i> 2, p. 147) has been led away to the adoption of this opinion. +But that he felt strongly, at least, one of the difficulties which stood in its +way, viz., that if the reference to the family of David be assumed, it is the mere +age of the family, apart from every preference on the ground of its dignity, which +is mentioned to magnify the Messiah—appears from the strange exegetical process +which he employs for the purpose of removing it. He supplies at the end, <i>celebris +est</i>:—His origin or His family (thus he erroneously explains +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוצאתיו</span>) is <i>celebrated</i> from ancient +times." One may see in this case how much, in particulars, an individual still remains +dependent upon a community, even although, upon the whole, he may have freed himself +from such dependence. For it is certainly from this dependence alone that the fact +can be accounted for, that this commentator rejected an exposition which must have +been to him the most agreeable, which has everything in its favour, and nothing +against it,—and chose another instead, the nakedness of which he was obliged to +cover as well as he could, while, in so doing, he was violating his <i>exegetical +convictions</i>. <i>Ewald</i> also permits himself to introduce into the passage +what is necessary for the sense which he has made up his mind to adopt. In place +of the simple antiquity, he puts: "Descended from the ancient, venerable royal family +of David." The view taken by <i>Hofmann</i> is peculiar: "He comes from the family +of David, just as it had happened long ago, when that family still belonged to the +community of Bethlehem,—from the community of Bethlehem does He come." <i>Weiss. +u. Erf.</i> 1, S. 251. In order to get at this rather superfluous repetition, he +has substituted the manner in which the family of David formerly existed, for "the +days of old, and eternity." The "origins" (this is the sense which he gives to +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מוצאתיו</span>) cannot be attributed to that portion +only of David's family which dwelt at Bethlehem; for He was descended from them +indirectly only, through the royal family of David.</p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 504]</span></p> +<p class="normal">3. The Jewish assertion, that in the prophecy there is no allusion +to the birth at Bethlehem of Him who was to come, could not fail to be repeated +by <i>Grotius</i> and his supporters, inasmuch as Zerubbabel was not born at Bethlehem. +"Zerubbabel," he says, "is rightly said to have been born at Bethlehem, because +he was of the family of David which had its origin there." This is, in like manner, +repeated by the Rationalistic interpreters, in order to avoid the too close coincidence +of the prophecy with the actual history of Christ, <i>e.g.</i>, by <i>Paulus</i> +and <i>Strauss</i> (both, in their "Life of Jesus"), and by <i>Hitzig</i>. It is +remarkable, however, that, in order the more securely to attain this object, some +have gone so far even as to follow the example of several Jews, and of the infamous +<i>Bodinus</i> (<i>de abditis rerum sublimium arcanis</i>, l. 5, compare the refutation +by <i>Huetius</i>, l.c. p. 701), and to characterize the evangelical account concerning +the birth of Christ at Bethlehem as unworthy of credit. Such has been the case with +<i>Ammon</i> especially.</p> +<hr class="W20"> +<h3><a name="div3_504" href="#div3Ref_504">THE QUOTATION IN MATT. II. 6.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">Several interpreters, <i>Paulus</i> especially, have asserted +that the interpretation of Micah which is here given, was that of the Sanhedrim +only, and not of the Evangelist, who merely recorded what happened and was said. +But this assertion is at once refuted when we consider the object which Matthew +has in view in his entire representation of the early life of Jesus. His object +in recording the early life of Jesus is not like that of Luke, viz., to communicate +historical information to his readers. The historical event which he could suppose +to be already known to <i>his</i> readers, comes into his view only in so far as +it served for the confirmation of Old Testament prophecies. Hence it is that he +touches upon any historical circumstance, just when the mention of it can serve +for the attainment of this purpose. Thus, the design of the genealogy is to prove +that, in accordance with the prophecies of the Old Testament, Christ was descended +from Abraham, through David. Thus all which he mentions in chap. i. 18-21, serves +only to prepare the way for the quotation of the prophecy of Isaiah, that the Messiah +was to be born of a <span class="pagenum">[Pg 505]</span> virgin, which is subjoined +in ver. 22, with the words: <span lang="el" class="Greek">τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν +ἵνα πληρωθῇ.</span> Even the <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὅλον</span> proves that +all which precedes is mentioned solely with a view to the prophecy. The +<span lang="el" class="Greek">παρερμηνεία</span> of <i>Olshausen</i> which refers +the <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὅλον</span> to the whole, in contrast with the +particular, can be accounted for only from the embarrassment into which this commentator +could not here avoid falling by his interpretation of the prophecy of Isaiah, according +to which a semblance of agreement is, with the utmost difficulty, made out betwixt +it, and the event in which Matthew finds its fulfilment. Moreover, all the single +features of the account have too distinct a reference to the prophecy which is to +be afterwards quoted. It is from a regard to it, that he is most anxious to point +out that Christ was conceived by a pure and immaculate virgin, that, in ver. 25, +he expressly adds that before the birth of Jesus, Mary had had no connubial intercourse +with Joseph, because Immanuel was not only to be conceived, but born of a virgin. +The words, <span lang="el" class="Greek">καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν</span>, +correspond exactly with <span lang="el" class="Greek">καὶ καλέσουσι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ +Ἐμμανουήλ</span>. The Evangelist explains the latter name by +<span lang="el" class="Greek">μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός</span>, which, again, cannot be without +an object, for the name of Jesus (<i>Gottheil</i>, <i>God-Salvation</i>) has, with +him, the same signification. We pass over, in the meantime, the section ii. 1-12. +In ver. 13 there follows the account of the flight into Egypt with a reference to +Hos. xi. 1. This passage refers, in the first instance, to Israel; but Israel does +not here come into view according to its carnal condition, but only according to +its divine destination and election,—as is evidently shown by the designation "Son +of God." Israel was called to preserve the truth of God in the midst of error, to +proclaim among the Gentiles the mighty acts of God, and to be His messenger and +ambassador. In this respect Israel was a type of the Messiah, and the latter, as +it were, a concentrated and exalted Israel. It is from this relation alone that +many passages in the second part of Isaiah can be explained; and in Is. xlix. 3, +the Messiah is expressly called Israel. If, then, there existed between Israel and +the Messiah such a relation of type and Antitype;—if this relation was not accidental, +but designed by God, it will, <i>a priori</i>, appear to us most probable that the +abode of the children of Israel in Egypt, and the residence of Christ in the same +country, have a relation to each other. This supposition rests upon the perception +of the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 506]</span> remarkable coincidence which, by divine +Providence, generally exists betwixt the destinies of typical persons, and those +of the Antitype, so that the former may be considered as an actual prophecy of the +latter. But this coincidence must here not be sought in the stay in the same country +only; this circumstance served only to direct attention to the deeper unity, to +represent it outwardly. It was not from their own choice, but from a series of the +most remarkable dispensations of Providence, and on the express command of God, +that Israel went to Egypt. They thereby escaped from the destruction which threatened +them in the land for which they were really destined. They were there prepared for +their destiny; and when that preparation was finished, they were, agreeably to the +promise of God, which was given to them even before they went down into Egypt, introduced +into that land in which their destiny was to be realized. The same providence of +God which there chose the means for the preservation of His kingdom, which was at +that time bound up with the existence of the typical Israel, chose the same means +now also when their hopes concentrated themselves in the person of their future +Head. It was necessary that Egypt should afford Him a safe abode until the danger +was over.—There then follows, in vers. 16-19, the account of the murder of the children +of Bethlehem, with a sole reference to Jer. xxxi. 15, and just on account of it. +Here, too, we must not think of a simple simile only. In Jeremiah, the mother of +Israel laments over the destruction of her children. The Lord appears and comforts +her. Her grief is, at some future time, to be changed into joy. She is to see the +salvation which the Lord will still bestow upon her sons. That which, therefore, +constitutes the essence of that passage is the contrast of the merited punishment +which Israel drew down upon themselves by their sins, with the unmerited salvation +which the mercy of the Lord will bestow upon them. Now, quite the same contrast +is perceptible in the event under consideration. In the same manner as the tyranny +of the Chaldeans, so that of Herod also was a deserved punishment for the sins of +the Covenant-people. Herod, by birth a foreigner, was, like Nebuchadnezzar, a rod +of correction in the hand of the Lord. The cruel deed which, with divine permission, +he committed at the very place in which the Saviour was born, was designed actually +and visibly to remind the Covenant-people <span class="pagenum">[Pg 507]</span> +of what they had deserved by their sins,—was intended also to be a matter-of-fact +prophecy of the impending more comprehensive judgment, and thus to make it manifest +that so much the more plainly, the sending of the Messiah was purely a work of divine +mercy, destined for those only who would recognise it as such. From this it appears +that the Old Testament event, to which the prophet, in the first instance, refers, +viz., the carrying away into captivity, and the deliverance from it, were prophecies +by deeds of those New Testament relations (in which, however, the typical relation +of the murder of the children at Bethlehem, as we have stated it, must not be overlooked);—that +both were subject to the same laws, that both were a necessary result of the working +of the same divine mercy, and that hence, a declaration which, in the first instance, +referred to the first event, might at the same time be considered as a prophecy +of the second.—Vers. 19 and 20 have for their foundation Exod. iv. 19, where the +Lord, after having ordered Moses to return to Egypt, subjoins the words: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">τεθνήκασι γὰρ πάντες οἱ ζητοῦντές σου τὴν ψυχήν</span>. +That which the Lord there speaks to Moses, and that which, here. He speaks to Joseph, +proceed from the same cause. Like all servants of God under the Old Testament, Moses +is a type of Christ. There is the same overruling by divine Providence, the same +direction of all events for the good of the kingdom of God. Moses is first withdrawn +from threatening danger by flight into distant regions. As soon as it is time that +he should enter upon his vocation, the door for the return to the scene of his activity +is opened to him. Just so is it with regard to Christ.—Vers. 21-23 have for their +sole foundation the prophetic declaration: <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὅτι Ναζωραῖος +κληθήσεται</span> (compare, on these words, the remarks on Is. xi.). The particular +circumstances which are mentioned, viz., that Joseph had the intention of settling +in Judea, but received from God the command to go into Galilee, are designed only +to make it more perceptible that the fulfilment of this prophecy was willed by God.</p> +<p class="normal">From this summary it sufficiently appears that the object of Matthew +in chap. i. and ii. was by no means of an historical, but rather of a doctrinal +nature; and since this is the case, all the objections fall to the ground, which +<i>Sieffert</i>, solely by disregarding this object of the writer, has lately drawn +from these <span class="pagenum">[Pg 508]</span> chapters against the genuineness +of Matthew's Gospel. And if we apply this to the question before us, it follows +that the section ii. 1-12 must likewise have an Old Testament foundation. That this +foundation can, in the first instance, be sought for only in the prophecy of Micah, +becomes evident from the circumstance, that Bethlehem is, in ver. 1, mentioned as +Christ's birth-place. If we now take into consideration the fact that the Evangelist +does not mention at all that the parents of Jesus formerly resided at Nazareth, +just because it had no reference to any prophecy of the Old Testament (it is merely +by designating, in the account of the birth of Jesus, Bethlehem as the place of +His parents, that he intimates that that which had been previously reported had +happened in a different place),—and that, on the other hand, he mentions the residence +of the Holy Family at Nazareth, after their return from Egypt, evidently for the +sole purpose of bringing it into connection with a prophecy,—it becomes quite evident +that it is not from any historical interest that this circumstance, which was known +to all his readers, is mentioned. To this it may be further added, that the account +given in vers. 1-6, especially the communication of the answer of the Sanhedrim +to the question of Herod, would, according to the proved object and aim of Matthew, +stand altogether without a purpose, unless he had considered the answer of the Doctors +as being in harmony with the truth, and hence as superseding his usual formula, +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἵνα πληρωθῇ</span>. In order to show how much Matthew +was guided by a regard to the Old Testament, and how frequently, at the same time, +he contented himself with a mere allusion, supposing his readers to be acquainted +with the Old Testament—as is quite evident from vers. 20 and 23—we must further +consider the second Old Testament reference which he has in view in vers. 1-12. +The passages to which he refers are Ps. lxxii. 10: "The kings of Sheba and Seba +shall offer gifts;" and Is. lx. 6: "All they from Sheba shall come, they shall bring +gold and incense, and they shall show forth the praises of the Lord." The representation, +in these and other similar passages, is, in the first instance, a figurative one. +Gifts are in the East a sign of allegiance. The fundamental thought is this: "The +most distant, the wealthiest, and the most powerful nations of the earth shall do +homage to the Messiah, and consecrate to Him themselves and all that they have." +But that which is <span class="pagenum">[Pg 509]</span> prophesied by a figurative +representation in these Old Testament passages began to be fulfilled by the symbolical +action of the Magi, by which the image was represented externally; for the gold, +incense, and myrrh which they consecrated to the new-born King of the Jews symbolized +the homage which they offered to Him; and these gifts are certainly expressly mentioned +by Matthew for this reason, that they occur in the Old Testament passages. As this +event formed, in one respect, the beginning of the fulfilment, so, in another, it +formed a new prophecy by deeds,—the type of a new, greater, and more proper fulfilment. +The Apostles considered these Magi as the types and representatives of the whole +mass of heathen nations who were, at a subsequent period, to do homage to the Messiah. +They were the ambassadors, as it were, of the heathen world, to greet the new-born +King, just as the shepherds, whom God Himself had chosen, were the deputies of the +Jews. In my work on Balaam, pp. 480-482, I have proved that, even with these references, +the contents of the passage are not yet exhausted,—that there still remains a prominent +point, viz., the star which the Magi saw, and that this refers to Balaam's prophecy +of the star proceeding from Jacob.</p> +<p class="normal">But if it be established that the view of the prophecy under consideration, +which the Evangelist reports as that of the Sanhedrim, must, at the same time, be +considered as his own, we must also suppose that the quotation, even in its particulars, +is approved by him, and that the view which was first advanced by <i>Jerome</i> +("I believe that he wished to exhibit the negligence of the scribes and priests, +and wrote it down as it had been spoken by them"), and recently by <i>Paulus</i>, +cannot be made use of in order to justify the deviations,—if any should indeed be +found. In order to ascertain this, we must examine more closely the quotation in +its relation to the original text of the passage, Matt. ii. 6: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">Καὶ σὺ Βηθλεέμ, γῆ Ἰούδα οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς +ἡγεμόσιν Ἰουδα· ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου, τὸν +Ἰσραήλ.</span> The first thing which demands our attention is +<span lang="el" class="Greek">γῆ Ἰούδα</span> for the Ephratah of the original. +The reason of this deviation is to be sought for in the circumstance, that the place +appears as Bethlehem Judah in 1 Sam. xvii. 12, where it is mentioned with a reference +to David. The deviation at the beginning has, accordingly, the same purpose +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 510]</span> as that at the close. As regards the grammatical +exposition of <span lang="el" class="Greek">γῆ Ἰούδα</span>, it stands for: Bethlehem +situated in the land of Judah,—a short mode of expression which is common in geographical +and other similar designations, just as in the Old Testament also we find +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בית־לחם יהודה</span>, for: Bethlehem situated in +the land of Judah. The assertion of many interpreters, that +<span lang="el" class="Greek">γῆ</span> has here the signification "town," is as +objectionable as the attempt to change the text, made by <i>Fritzsche</i>, who advances +nothing on the whole verse that can stand examination. The Evangelist here as little +follows the LXX. as he does the Hebrew text. The former has here: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">καὶ σὺ Βεθλεέμ, οἶκος Ἐφραθά</span> (thus without +an article. <i>Cod. Vatic.</i>). <i>Fritzsche</i> thinks that +<span lang="el" class="Greek">οἶκος</span> had been brought into the text from the +margin. But the translator evidently considered "Ephratah" to be the proper name +of Caleb's wife (1 Chron. ii. 19, 50, iv. 4), from whom others also, <i>e.g.</i>, +<i>Adrichomius</i> (compare <i>Bachiene</i> ii. 2, § 190), derived the name of the +place, and did nothing else than express more definitely, by the subjoined +<span lang="el" class="Greek">οἶκος</span>, the relation of dependence which, as +he supposed, was indicated by the Genitive. The apparent contradiction, that the +prophet calls Bethlehem small, whereas the Evangelist speaks of it as by no means +small, has already been so satisfactorily explained by ancient and modern interpreters +(compare, <i>e.g.</i>, <i>Euthymius Zigabenus</i> <i>l. c.</i> p. 59: "Although +in appearance thou art small, yet, truly, thou art by no means the least among the +principalities of the tribe of Judah;" <i>Michaelis</i>: "Micah, looking to the +outward condition, calls it small; Matthew, looking to the birth of the Messiah, +calls it by no means small, inasmuch as, by that birth, that town was in a wonderful +manner adorned and exalted"), that we need not dwell upon it. We only remark, that +the supposition of <i>Paulus</i>, that the members of the Sanhedrim understood the +verse interrogatively—"Art thou, perhaps, too small," etc.—receives no confirmation +from the passage in <i>Pirke Eliezer</i>, c. 3, which he quotes in favour of it, +but which he saw only in the Latin translation of <i>Wetzstein</i>; for, in the +original text, the verse is quoted in literal agreement with the Hebrew original; +compare <i>Eisenmenger</i>, i. p. 316. A comparison with the Chaldee, who with similar +liberty paraphrases, "Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, shalt soon be numbered," clearly +shows that the deviation has arisen rather from an endeavour to express the sense +more <span class="pagenum">[Pg 511]</span> clearly and definitely. On such deviations, +<i>Calvin</i> strikingly remarks: "Let the reader always attend to the purpose for +which the Evangelists quote Scripture passages, that they may not scrupulously insist +upon single words, but be satisfied with this,—that the Scriptures are never distorted +by them to a different sense."—Micah introduces Bethlehem in the person of its representative; +but this figure Matthew has dropped at the beginning. Instead of the Masculine +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">צעיר</span> he puts the Feminine +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐλαχίστη</span>; and, on the other hand, he renders +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">באלפי</span> by <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐν +τοῖς ἡγεμόσι</span>, which, in a way not to be mistaken, suggests this representation. +<i>Fritzsche</i> announces himself as the man who would heal this <i>fœdum solœcismum</i> +which had not hitherto been remarked by any one. He proposes to read: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">Καὶ σὺ Βεθλεὲμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν +τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα</span>,—and thou Bethlehem, by no means the smallest part of +the land of Judah, art," etc. But altogether apart from the arbitrary change of +<span lang="el" class="Greek">γῆ Ἰούδα</span>,—which certainly no one could ever +have been tempted to put for the more simple <span lang="el" class="Greek">τῆς Ἰουδαίας</span>,—the +personification could even then not have been maintained, and the <i>fœdus solœcismus</i> +would still remain. Even although the <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἐλαχίστη</span> +be understood in accordance with the "<i>elegantissimus Græcorum usus</i>," Bethlehem +must, after all, be treated as a thing—as a town. Nor is the case much improved +by the assistance which <i>Fritzsche</i> immediately afterwards endeavours to give +to the text: <span lang="el" class="Greek">καὶ σὺ Βεθλεὲμ, γῆ Ἰουδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη +εἶ ἐν ταῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα</span>, "among the principal towns of the families in +Judea." Is there an instance in which <span lang="el" class="Greek">αἱ ἡγεμόνες</span> +means the "principal towns?" Moreover, the relation of +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἡγεμόσιν</span> to the subsequent +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἡγούμενος</span>, which requires the Masculine, has +been overlooked.—Micah personifies Bethlehem from the outset. Matthew first introduces +Bethlehem as a town, but afterwards passes to the personification by speaking of +the <span lang="el" class="Greek">ἡγεμόνες</span>; instead of the tribes. For this +he had a special reason in the regard to the subsequent +<span lang="el" class="Greek">ἡγούμενος</span>. Bethlehem, although outwardly small, +is, notwithstanding, when regarded from a higher point of view, even in the present +by no means small among the <i>leaders</i> of Judah, for, from it, in the future, +the great <i>leader</i> of Judah shall proceed. This relation, which is so evident, +must the rather be assumed, that in Micah also a contrast occurs which, as to the +sense, is altogether similar. It serves, at the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 512]</span> +same time, for a proof against the assumption that the Gospel of Matthew was originally +written in the Aramean language,—a view which is, generally, opposed also by the +free handling of the Old Testament text in the whole quotation. The inconsistency +in the use of the personification is, further, the more easy of explanation, since +it is altogether of an <i>ideal</i> character, and, substantially, person and town +are not distinguished.—The last words in Micah, "And His goings forth," etc., have +been omitted by Matthew, because they were not needed for his purpose, which was +to show that, according to the prophecies of the Old Testament, the Messiah was +to be born at Bethlehem. On the other hand, the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בישראל</span> +of Micah is paraphrased by: <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν +μου, τὸν Ἰσραήλ</span>. These words refer to 2 Sam. v. 2: "And the Lord says to +thee, <i>Thou shalt feed My people Israel</i>, and thou shalt be a prince over Israel." +They point out the typical relation between the first David who was born at Bethlehem, +and the second David, the Messiah.</p> +<p class="normal">With respect to the relation betwixt prophecy and its fulfilment, +we must here still make a general remark. It is everywhere evident (compare the +remarks on Zech. ix. 9), that the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament +forms a secondary purpose of the events of the New Testament, but that in none of +the latter this fulfilment is the sole object. Every one, on the contrary, has its +significance apart from the prophecy; and it is by this significance that prophecy +and history are equally governed. This general remark is here also confirmed. The +birth of Christ at Bethlehem testified, in one respect, for the divine origin of +the prophecy of the Old Testament, and, in another, that Jesus is the Christ. But +its main object, altogether independent of this, was to represent, outwardly also, +the descent of Christ from David. This was recognised by the Jews even, at the time +of Christ, as appears from the addition <span lang="el" class="Greek">ὅπου ἦν Δαβίδ</span>, +John vii. 42. Of the two seats of the Davidic family, viz., Bethlehem and Jerusalem, +the former is chosen, partly, because, from its external littleness, it was, generally, +very suitable for prefiguring the lowliness of the Messiah at the outset—a circumstance +which is expressly pointed out by the prophet himself—and partly, because it was +peculiar to the family of David during its obscurity; whilst Jerusalem, on the contrary, +belonged to their regal condition,—and the Messiah <span class="pagenum">[Pg 513]</span> +was to be born in the fallen tabernacle of David, to be a rod from the cut off stem +of Jesse, Is. xi. 1. That this reference also was in the view of the prophet, seems +to be evident from a comparison of iii. 12, and iv. 8, 9, 14. At all events he considered +the family of David as having altogether sunk at the time of the Messiah's appearing. +The very threatenings in chap. i.-iii. imply the destruction of the Davidic kingdom. +This meets us, very distinctly, in chap. iv.</p> +<hr class="W10"> +<p class="normal"><a name="div3_513" href="#div3Ref_513">Ver. 2.</a> "<i>Therefore +will He give them up until the time that she who is hearing hath brought forth; +and then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the sons of Israel.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">The description of what the Messiah is to bestow upon the Covenant-people +begins in this verse, and is carried on through the whole chapter. By +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">לכן</span> the close connection of v. 1 with vi. +9-14 is indicated. <i>Michaelis</i> remarks: "Because this is the counsel of God, +first to afflict Zion, on account of her sins, and, afterwards only, to restore +her through the Messiah to be born at Bethlehem." In chap. iv. 9-14, it is implied +that the giving up will not terminate <i>before</i> His birth; in v. 1, that it +will come to an end <i>with</i> His birth. The whole time described in iv. 9-14 +is a time of affliction, of giving up Israel to the world's power in a threefold +form of its manifestation. In iv. 14, however, the affliction has reached its highest +point, and the lucid interval, mentioned in vers. 12, 13, has fully expired. It +is only when we look back to v. 1 alone, that the "therefore" with which our verse +opens is not explained, inasmuch as there it is said only, that with the Messiah +deliverance and salvation would come, but not that the affliction would continue +until He should come.—<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">נתן</span> is similarly used +in 2 Chron. xxx. 7: "And be not ye like your fathers, and like your brethren who +trespassed against the Lord God of your fathers; therefore He gave them up to desolation +(<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">ויתנם לשמה</span>), as you see." With respect to +the words, "Until the time that she who is bearing hath brought forth," there is +an essential difference of opinion as to the explanation of the main point. One +class of interpreters—comprehending <i>Eusebius</i> and <i>Cyril</i>, and by far +the greatest number of the ancient Christian expositors; and among the more recent, +<i>Rosenmüller</i>, <i>Ewald</i>, <i>Hitzig</i>, <i>Maurer</i>, and <i>Caspari</i>—understand +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 514]</span> by "her who is bearing," the mother of the +Messiah. Another class understands thereby the Congregation of Israel. The latter, +however, differ from each other as to the signification and import of the figure +of the birth. Some—<i>Abendana</i>, <i>Calvin</i>, and <i>Justi</i>—suppose the +<i>tertium comparationis</i> to be the joy following upon the pain. Others—<i>Theodoret</i>, +<i>Tarnovius</i> ("until Israel, like a fruitful mother, has brought forth a numerous +progeny"), <i>Vitringa</i> (in his <i>Commentary on Revel.</i> S. 534)—suppose it +to be the great increase. Let us first decide between these two modifications of +that view which refers the words to the Congregation of Israel. The former—the joy +following after the pain—appears to be inadmissible for this single reason, that +among the very numerous passages of the Old Testament where the image of a birth +is employed, there does not occur even one, in which the joy following after the +pain is made prominent, as is the case in the well-known passage in the New Testament. +On the contrary,<!--see 1854 ed.-->, in all the passages which come into consideration +on this point, it is rather the pain accompanying the birth which is considered. +Thus Mic. iv. 10; Is. xxvi. 17; Jer. iv. 31: "For I hear a voice as of a woman in +travail, anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first-born child, the voice of +the daughter of Zion, she groaneth, spreadeth her hands: Woe to me, for my soul +is wearied, through them that kill;" xxx. 6, xlix. 24; Hos. xiii. 13. To consider +the pain alone, however, as the <i>tertium comparationis</i>, is inadmissible, because, +in that case, we would obtain the absurd meaning: the suffering shall continue until +the suffering cometh. It is likewise impossible to understand the bringing forth +as the highest degree of affliction,—so that the sense would be: the Lord will give +them up until the distress reaches its highest point,—because this meaning could +apply only in the event of the lower degrees, the pains before the birth, being +also mentioned. They who hold and defend the second modification of this view, can +indeed refer to, and quote, a large number of parallel passages—almost all of them +from the second part of Isaiah—where this image occurs with a similar signification. +Thus, <i>e.g.</i>. Is. liv. 1: "Shout for joy, O barren, thou that didst not bear; +break forth into shouting and exult, thou that didst not travail; for more numerous +are the sons of the desolate than the sons of the married wife, saith the Lord;" +xlix. 21, 22, lxvi. 7-9. But we must nevertheless prefer <span class="pagenum">[Pg +515]</span> to this explanation, that which refers the words to the mother of the +Messiah, for the following reasons. 1. If the words were to be referred to the Congregation +of Israel, we should expect the Article before <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יולדה</span>. +For the Congregation of Israel is substantially mentioned in what immediately precedes; +she is only a personification of those who are to be given up. 2. It is true that, +frequently, the personification is not consistently carried out; but the circumstance +that here, in the same sentence, the children of Israel are spoken of in the plural +("He will give <i>them</i> up"), and that no trace of a personification is found +in what follows, but that, on the contrary, the children of Israel are mentioned +expressly, makes the pretended personification appear in rather an abrupt manner, +so that such an assumption would be admissible in a case of necessity only. 3. If +referred to the Congregation of Israel, the relation of the Messiah to that great +event, and epoch, is not intimated by a single word. Of Him ver. 1 speaks, and of +Him vers. 3-5. How then can it be that in ver. 2 there should all at once be a transition +to the general Messianic representation? 4. The suffix in +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אחיו</span>, which refers to the Messiah, requires +that He should be indirectly mentioned in what precedes; and such is the case, only +when the <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יולדה</span> is she who is to bring forth +the Ruler announced in ver. 1. 5. It appears from the reference to Gen. xxxv., which +we have already pointed out and proved, that the prophet has in view one who is +to bring forth in Bethlehem. Bethlehem, which had in ancient times already become +remarkable by a birth, is in future to be ennobled by another birth, infinitely +more important. 6. The comparison of Is. vii. 14, where likewise the mother of the +Messiah is mentioned; compare the remarks on that passage. 7, and lastly—The evident +reference of "Until the time that she who is bearing hath brought forth" to "From +thee shall come forth," suggests the mother of the Messiah. That she is designated +as "she who brings forth," may be explained from the circumstance that she comes +into view here in a relation which is altogether one-sided, viz., only as regards +the one event of the birth of the Messiah.—Among the blessings which the Messiah +is to confer upon the Congregation of the Lord, there is first of all viewed the +fundamental blessing, the condition of all others, viz., the change which He is +to effect in the disposition of the Covenant-people. <span class="pagenum">[Pg 516]</span> +It is this which, above and before everything else, needs to be changed, if Israel +is not any more to be given up; for Israel which is so only by name and in appearance, +is the legitimate prey of the world.—By the Brethren of the Messiah, the members +of the Old Covenant-people, His brethren according to the flesh, can alone be understood. +There is no Old Testament analogy for referring the expression to the Gentiles. +We are led to the reference to Israel by the connection with the first member of +the verse. The brethren are such as have become the Messiah's brethren by the circumstance +that He has been born of the Bethlehemitish woman "who is to bring forth" (<i>Caspari</i>). +We are led to it, <i>further</i>, by v. 1, according to which, the Messiah is to +be Ruler in Israel; and, <i>still further</i>, by the fundamental passage in Ps. +xxii. 23: "I will declare Thy name unto my brethren," where, according to the address +in ver. 24, the brethren are all the descendants of Israel, among whom a great awakening +is to be produced.—The construction of <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שוב</span> +with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">על</span> may be explained by the remark of +<i>Ewald</i>: "<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">על</span> stands in its primary local +signification with verbs also, when the thing moves to another thing, and remains +upon it." Of a material return the verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שוב</span> +with <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">על</span> is thus used in Prov. xxvi. 11, Eccles. +i. 6;—of a spiritual return, 2 Chron. xxx. 9: <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בשובכם +על יהוה</span> "when ye return to the Lord," properly, "upon the Lord;" and Mal. +iii. 24 (iv. 6): "And he makes return the hearts of the fathers to the sons, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">על בנים</span>,"—which latter passage has a striking +resemblance to the one under review. In the latter signification +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שוב</span> must be taken here also.—By the "sons +of Israel," here, as ordinarily, the whole of the Covenant-people are signified, +and that by its highest and holiest name. From this holy communion, the wicked—the +souls which, according to the expression of the Lord, are cut off from their people—are +separated and dissevered; compare my commentary on Ps. lxxiii. 1. The whole description +of the prevailing corruption, and especially vii. 1, 2, show us to what an extent +this separation existed at the time of the prophet. But, by the Saviour, this separation +is to be abolished, and the lost and wandering are to be brought back to the communion +of the church,—a work which, according to Rom. xi., will be perfected in the future +only.<sup class="ftnRef"><a name="ftnRef_516a" href="#ftn_516a">[1]</a></sup></p> +<p class="continue"><span class="pagenum">[Pg 517]</span></p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 3. "<i>And He stands and feeds in the strength of the Lord, +in the majesty of the name of the Lord His God; and they dwell, for now shall He +be great unto the ends of the earth.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">In this verse we are told what the Saviour shall do for awakened +and, thus, inwardly united Israel. "He stands," has here not the signification of +"He abides," but belongs merely to the graphic description of the habit of the shepherd; +compare Is. lxi. 5: "And strangers stand and feed your flocks." The shepherd stands, +leaning upon his staff, and overlooks the flock. The connection of "He feeds" with +"in the strength of the Lord," we cannot better express than <i>Calvin</i> has done +in the words: "The word 'to feed' expresses what Christ will be towards His people, +<i>i.e.</i>, towards the flock committed to Him. He does not exercise dominion in +the Church like a formidable tyrant who keeps down his subjects through terror, +but He is a Shepherd, and treats His sheep with all the gentleness which they can +desire. But, inasmuch as we are surrounded on all sides by enemies, the prophet +adds: 'He shall feed in the strength,' etc.; <i>i.e.</i>, as much power as there +is in God, so much protection there will be in Christ, when it is necessary to defend +and protect His Church against enemies. We may learn, then, from this, that we may +expect as much of salvation from Christ as there is strength in God." The great +King is so closely united to God, that the whole fulness of divine power and majesty +belongs to Him. Such attributes are never given to any earthly king. Such a king +has, indeed, strength in the Lord, Is. xlv. 24; "The Lord giveth strength to His +king, and exalteth the horn of His anointed," 1 Sam. ii. 10; but the whole strength +and majesty of God are not his possession. The passage <span class="pagenum">[Pg +518]</span> in Is. ix. 5 (6) is parallel,—where the Messiah is called +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אל גבור</span>, God-hero.—The "name of God" points +to the rich fulness in deeds, by which He has manifested the glory of His nature. +The Messiah will be the brightness and image of this His glory,—a glory which is +manifested by acts, and not a glory which is inactive and concealed. "They dwell" +forms a contrast to the disquietude and scattering, and we are, therefore, not at +liberty to supply "safely" before it. The last words are deprived of their meaning +and significance by explanations such as that of <i>Dathe</i>: "His name shall attain +to great renown and celebrity." The ground of the present rest and safety of the +Congregation of the Lord rather is this,—that her Head has now extended His dominion +beyond the narrow limits of Palestine, over the whole earth; compare iv. 3.—2 Sam. +vii. 9 cannot here be compared, as there the <i>name</i> of the Lord is not spoken +of as it is here. That the "being great" here implies real dominion (<i>Maurer</i>: +<i>auctoritate et potentia valebit</i>), which alone can afford a pledge for the +dwelling in safety, is shown also by the fundamental passages Ps. ii. 8, lxxii. +8; compare Zech. ix. 10. In Luke i. 32 the passage before us is referred to. The +"now" does not by any means form a contrast with a former condition of the Messiah, +but with the former condition of the Congregation when she did not enjoy so powerful +a Ruler.</p> +<p class="normal">Ver. 4. "<i>And this</i> (man) <i>is peace. When Asshur comes +into our land, and when he treads in our palaces, we raise against him seven shepherds, +and eight princes of men.</i> Ver. 5. <i>And they feed the land of Asshur with the +sword, and the land of Nimrod in its gates; and He protects from Asshur when he +comes into our land, and when he treads within our borders.</i>"</p> +<p class="normal">"And this man (He whose glory has just been described) is peace,"—He +bestows that which we have so much needed, and longed for with so much anxiety in +these troublous times before His appearing. In a similar manner, and with reference +to the passage before us, it is said in Ephes. ii. 14: +<span lang="el" class="Greek">αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν</span>, compare also Judges +vi. 24: "And Gideon built an altar there unto the Lord, and called it Jehovah-Peace, +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יהוה שלום</span>." Abandoning this explanation, which +is so natural, <i>Jonathan</i>, <i>Grotius</i>, <i>Rosenmüller</i>, and <i>Winer</i> +explain: "And <i>there</i> will be peace to us,"—an interpretation, however, which +is inadmissible even on philological grounds, <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זה</span> +is nowhere used, either <span class="pagenum">[Pg 519]</span> as Adverb, loci =<!--1854 ed insert--> +"here," or as Adverb, temp. = "then." As regards the latter, such passages as Gen. +xxxi. 41—"These are to me twenty years," instead of, "twenty years have now elapsed"—are, +of course, not at all to the purpose. But of such a kind are almost all the examples +quoted by <i>Nolde</i>. In Esther ii. 13 <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">בזה</span> +is used. The verb <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">הציל</span> in ver. 5 is likewise +in favour of understanding <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">זה</span> personally; +compare also Zech. ix. 10: "And He shall speak peace unto the nations."—There can +scarcely be any doubt that the words allude to the name of Solomon, and that the +Messiah is represented in them as the Antitype of Solomon. Upon this point there +is the less room for doubt, because even Solomon himself called the Messiah by his +name in the Song of Solomon; and in Is. ix. 5 (6) also, He is, with an evident allusion +to the name of Solomon, called the Prince of Peace.—All which follows after these +words, to the end of ver. 5, is only a particularizing expansion of the words: "And +this (man) is peace." Interpreters have almost all agreed, that Asshur, the most +dangerous enemy of the Covenant-people at the time of the prophet, stands here as +a type of the enemies of the Covenant-people. Even <i>L. Baur</i> has translated: +"And though another Asshur," etc., with a reference to the passage in <i>Virgil</i> +to which allusion had already been made by <i>Castalio</i>: "<i>Alter erit tum Tiphys +et altera quæ vehat Argo delectos heroas.</i>" That the prophet, however, was fully +conscious of his here using Asshur typically, appears from iv. 9, 10. For, according +to these verses, the first of the three catastrophes which preceded the birth of +the Messiah, proceeds from a new phase of the world's power, viz., from the Babylonian +empire, the rising of which implies the overthrow of the Assyrian. But the figurative +element in the representation goes still farther. From ver. 9 ff.—according to which +the Lord makes His people outwardly defenceless, before they become, in Christ, +the conquerors of the world—it is obvious that the spiritual struggle against the +world's power is here represented under the image of the outward struggle, carried +on with the sword. One might be tempted to confine the thought of the passage to +this: "The Messiah affords to His people the same protection and security as would +a large number of brave princes with their hosts," inasmuch as the bestowal of these +was, under the Old Testament, the ordinary means by which the Lord delivered His +people. If, however, the spiritual character <span class="pagenum">[Pg 520]</span> +of the struggle only be maintained, there is no sufficient reason for considering +the seven and more shepherds and the princes as mere imagery, because, in the kingdom +of Christ also, the cause of the kingdom of God is carried on by human instruments, +whom He furnishes with His own strength. The words, "This (man) is peace," and "He +protects," in ver. 5, show indeed with sufficient distinctness, that, in the main, +Christ is the only Saviour,—the shepherds, His instruments only,—and their world-conquering +power, a derived one only. The apparent contradiction of the passage before us to +iv. 1-3, vii. 12—according to which the heathen nations shall, in the time of the +Messiah, spontaneously press towards the kingdom of God—is removed by the remark, +that we have here before us two different streams which may as well flow together +in prophecy as they do in history. The zeal with which the nations press towards +the kingdom is, in part, greatly called forth by the fact, that, in attacking the +kingdom of Christ, they have experienced its world-conquering power. The circumstance +that the words, "This (man) is peace," stand at the beginning, proves that the main +idea is the security of the kingdom of God against all hostile attacks. For the +like reason it is, towards the end, resumed in the words, "And He protects," etc. +But this affords no reason for saying, with <i>Caspari</i>: "It forms part of the +defence, it is indeed its consummation, that the war is carried into Asshur." In +the first hemistich of ver. 5, it is intimated rather, that, in the time of the +Messiah, the positions of the world and of the people of God are changed,—that the +latter becomes world-conquering; and for this reason, every thought of their own +insecurity must so much the rather disappear. "The land of Nimrod" is, according +to Gen. x. 11, Asshur. The "gates" are those of the cities and fortresses, corresponding +with, "When he treads in our palaces," in ver. 4. It weakens the sense to think +of the gates of the country, as such, <i>i.e.</i>, the borders. The attack, on the +contrary, is directed against, and strikes the real centre of the seat of the world's +power, just as, formerly, the stroke was always directed against Zion.</p> +<p class="normal">With regard to the remaining part of the chapter, we content ourselves +with a mere statement of the contents. The Congregation of the Lord shall, at that +time, not only be lovely and refreshing, ver. 6 (7), (this is the constant signification +of the <span class="pagenum">[Pg 521]</span> image of the dew, compare Ps. cx. 3, +cxxxiii. 3, lxxii. 6; the relative pronoun <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">אשר</span> +must be referred to the grass, mentioned immediately before; that which the dew +descending from heaven is to the grass, Israel will, in his heavenly mission, be +to the heathen world), but at the same time fearful and irresistible, vers. 7, 8 +(8, 9); the latter of these qualities shall show itself not only as a curse in the +case of obstinate despisers, but also as a blessing in the case of those who are +estranged from the kingdom of God, through ignorance only. Resuming then the last +words of ver. 8 (9), "All thine enemies shall be cut off," the prophet declares +that before this word shall be fulfilled, the destructive activity of the Lord will +be manifested in Israel itself. He will cut off by His judgments, and by the catastrophes +described in iv. 9-14, everything in which, in the present, they placed a carnal +confidence, everything by which they became externally strong and powerful (<i>Caspari</i>: +"A cutting off, in the first instance, of all wherewith elsewhere enemies are commonly +cut off"), and so likewise all idolatry, to which the Chaldean catastrophe already +put a violent end. It is only of such a termination by force, and not of a purely +inward effect of the "gentle power of the Spirit then poured out upon them," that +the words here, as well as in reference to the horses, etc., permit us to think. +The two kinds of objects of false confidence are then, in conclusion, in ver. 13 +(14) once more summed up,—when the cities, just as in ver. 10 (11), come into view +as fortresses only. If thus the path be cleared and prepared for the Lord, He will, +on behalf of His people, execute vengeance upon the heathen world.</p> +<hr class="ftn"> +<div class="ftnlast"> + <p class="ftnText"><sup class="ftnRef"> + <a name="ftn_516a" href="#ftnRef_516a">[1]</a></sup> After the example of <i> + Hofmann</i>, <i>Caspari</i> gives this exposition: "And the remnant of His brethren, + viz., the inhabitants of Judah, shall return from the captivity to Canaan, along + with the sons of Israel, <i>i.e.</i>, the ten tribes." But the return from the + captivity never appears in the prophets, as a work of the Messiah. It has here + taken place long before His appearing: chap. iv. 10, iv. 11-14 supposes it to + have taken place, and Zion to be in existence. The "brethren of the Messiah" + can neither be the inhabitants of Judah especially, nor the sons of Israel, + the ten tribes, unless the antithesis to Judah be distinctly expressed. It is + absurd to suppose that the ten tribes should appear as those chiefly who are + to be redeemed. <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שוב</span>, which means "to return," + cannot be used simply of a return to the country, while + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">שוב</span> with + <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">על</span> can, according to the <i>usus loquendi</i>, + be understood only in the sense of "to return to," etc., etc.</p> +</div> +<hr class="W20"> +<h3><a name="div3_521" href="#div3Ref_521">CHAP. VI. VII.</a></h3> +<p class="normal">We shall now, in conclusion, give a survey of the third and closing +discourse of the prophet. After an introduction in vi. 1, 2, where the mountains +serve only to give greater solemnity to the scene (in the fundamental passages Deut. +xxxii. 1, and in Is. 1, 2,<!--should be Is. 1.2--> "heaven and earth" are mentioned +for the same purposes, inasmuch as they are the most venerable parts of creation; +"contend <i>with</i> the mountains" by taking them in and applying to +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 522]</span> them as hearers), the prophet reminds the +people of the benefits which they have repaid with ingratitude, vers. 3-5. (In ver. +5 those facts also which served as a proof of its truth, are considered as part +of Balaam's answer.) He then, in vers. 6-8, shows the fallacy of the imagination +that they could satisfy the Lord by the observance of the mere outward forms of +worship, though such should be increased to the utmost, and performed in a manner +totally different from that in which it was in the present, and points out the spiritual +demands already made even by the law, and especially by Deut. x. 12, a compliance +with which could alone be pleasing to the Lord. From vi. 9-vii. 6, he shows to how +limited an extent these demands are complied with by the people,—how true and cordial +piety and justice have disappeared from the midst of them,—and how, therefore, the +threatenings of the law must, and shall be fulfilled upon them. The reproof and +threatening are then followed by the announcement of salvation, which refers indeed +to the Messianic times, but without any mention in it of the person of the Messiah, +the brightness of which meets us only in the main body of the prophecy. The main +thought here also is the entirely altered position of Israel in their relation to +the heathen world. "A day is coming"—so it is said in ver. 11—"to build thy walls; +in that day shall the law be far removed." <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">גדר</span> +is used especially of the walls and fences of vineyards; and under the image of +a vineyard, Israel appears as early as in the Song of Solomon. The wall around the +vineyard of Israel is the protection against the heathen world; Is. v. 5. The "law" +is, according to the context, in which the heathen oppressors are spoken of, that +which is imposed by them upon the people of God; Ps. xciv. 20. Ver. 12. "<i>A day +it is when they shall come to thee from Asshur, and from the cities of Egypt, and +from Egypt to the river, and to sea from sea, and to mountain from mountain.</i>" +It is not enough that the people of God are freed from the servitude of the world. +They shall become the objects of the longing of the nations, even the most powerful +and hostile. They become the magnet which attracts them; compare iv. 1, 2. From +among the heathen nations Asshur and Egypt are first specially mentioned, as the +two principal representatives of hostility against the kingdom of God in the present +and past, and, at the same time, as the two most powerful empires at the time of +the prophet<span class="pagenum"> [Pg 523]</span>—the latter quality being indicated +by the circumstance of Egypt's appearing under the name +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">מצור</span>, "fortress." But then, by the expressions +"from sea to sea," "from mountain to mountain," which are equivalent to "from every +sea to every sea," etc., all barriers in general are completely removed; compare +in v. 3 (4) the words: "He shall be great unto the ends of the earth." (The subject +in <span lang="he" class="Hebrew">יבוא</span> can only be the inhabitants of these +countries themselves, not the Jews living there. If the latter had been intended, +a more distinct indication of it would have been required. The Masculine Suffix +<span lang="he" class="Hebrew">עָדֶיךָ</span> "to thee," <i>i.e.</i>, not to Zion +but to Israel, is opposed to such a reference. This shows clearly that they who +come are different from Israel. In entire harmony with this prophecy is Is. xix. +18-25.) But, before such glory can be bestowed upon the people of God, the irrevocable +judgment must first have done its fearful work, ver. 13; compare the fundamental +passage Lev. xxvi. 33, and Is. i. 7. In ver. 14 the announcement of salvation takes +a new start. Vers. 18-20 form the sublime close, not only of the last discourse, +but also of the whole book, as is clearly indicated by the coincidence of the words, +"Who is, O God, like unto Thee?" ver. 18, with the mention of Micah's name in the +inscription. The name of the prophet, by which he is dedicated to the incomparable +God, has been confirmed by the contents of his prophecy. The New Testament parallel +passage is Rom. xi. 33-36: "<i>Who is, O God, like unto Thee; pardoning iniquity, +and remitting transgression to the remnant of His heritage? He retaineth not His +anger for ever, because He delighteth in mercy.</i>" "Who is, O God, like unto Thee?" +so the people once already sang after the redemption from Egypt. Thus it resounds +still more loudly in the view of the antitypal redemption, by which the fundamental +definition of the divine nature in Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7, and David's praise of divine +mercy in Ps. ciii., are fully realized. "He will return and have compassion upon +us (according to the promise in Deut. xxx. 3), will overcome our iniquities (which, +like a cruel tyrant, like Pharaoh of old, subjected us to their power, Ps. xix. +14), and cast all their sins into the depth of the sea," as once He cast the proud +Egyptians, Exod. xv. 5-10. "Thou wilt give truth to Jacob, and mercy to Abraham, +as Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old."</p> +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 524]</span> +<p class="continue">[Blank page] +</p> +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 525]</span> +<table cellpadding="10" class="page" align="center"> + <tr> + <td> + <p class="center"><b>Works Published by T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh.</b></p> + <h3>PROSPECTUS</h3> + <h5>OF THE</h5> + <h3>ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY.</h3> + <hr class="W20"> + <p class="continue">MESSRS CLARK of Edinburgh, Publishers of the + <span class="sc">Foreign Theological Library</span>, beg respectfully to + invite attention to the Prospectus of a Collection of all the works of the + Fathers of the Christian Church, prior to the Council of Nicæa, to be Edited + by </p> + <h3><span class="sc">Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D.,</span></h3> + <h4><span class="sc">Author of 'Discussions on the Gospels,' Etc.;</span></h4> + <h5>AND</h5> + <h3><span class="sc">James Donaldson, LL.D.,</span></h3> + <h4><span class="sc">Author of 'A Critical History Of Christian Literature + and Doctrine from the<br> + Death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council.'</span></h4> + <hr class="W20"> + <p class="continue">The writings of the early Christians are allowed on + all hands to be of great importance, and to be invested with a peculiar + interest; and regrets have often been expressed that it should be so difficult + to know their contents. Many of them are mere fragments; and where complete + works exist, the text is often so corrupt, and the style is so involved, + that even a good classical scholar is repelled from their perusal. If the + student of Latin and Greek meets with obstacles, the merely English reader + is absolutely without the means of information. The greater part of the + most important writings have never been translated; and those translations + which have been made are, with the exception of the few executed in recent + times, for the most part loose, inaccurate, and difficult to procure. To + supply this great want is the object of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. + All the Christian writings antecedent to the Nicene Council have been put + into the hands of competent translators. These will make it their first + and principal aim to produce translations as faithful as possible, uncoloured + by any bias, dogmatic or ecclesiastical. They will also endeavour, in brief + notes, to place the English reader in the position of those acquainted with + the original languages. They will indicate important variations in the text; + they will give different translations of the same passage where more than + one have been proposed; they will note the various meanings attributed to + the words in ecclesiastical controversies; and when the ancient documents + appear in widely different forms, the various forms will be presented. At + the same time, they will strive to combine with this strict accuracy and + faithfulness as much elegance as may be consistent with the main aim. Short + biographical <span class="pagenum">[Pg 526]</span> and explanatory notices + will be prefixed to each translation; and in every case where there is variety + of opinion, the writer will abstain from expressing his own sentiments, + and confine himself simply to an impartial statement of the opinions of + the most noteworthy critics on the point.</p> + <p class="normal">The following are the works which are now being translated:--</p> + <p class="normal">I. The Apostolical Fathers, including the Epistles of + <b>Clemens Romanus</b>, the Epistles of <b>Ignatius</b> in their various + forms, the Epistle of <b>Barnabas</b>, the Epistle of <b>Polycarp</b>, the + Epistle to <b>Diognetus</b>, and the Pastor of <b>Hermas</b>, with the Martyria + of <b>Ignatius</b> and <b>Polycarp</b>.</p> + <p class="normal">II. The undoubted and doubtful works of <b>Justin Martyr</b>,--the + Apologies, the Dialogue with Trypho, the Oratio ad Gentiles, the Cohortatio, + the De Monarchia, and the fragments on the Resurrection, along with the + Martyrium of one Justin.</p> + <p class="normal">III. The works of <b>Tatian</b>, <b>Athenagoras</b>, + <b>Theophilus</b> of Antioch, <b>Hermias</b>, and the fragments of the rest + of the Apologists.</p> + <p class="normal">IV. <b>Irenaeus:</b> All his extant works.</p> + <p class="normal">V. <b>Clemens Alexandrinus:</b> All his extant works.</p> + <p class="normal">VI. <b>Origen</b>. The Series will include the De Principiis, + and the Contra Celsum. The rest of his works will be translated if the Series + is successful.</p> + <p class="normal">VII. The fragments of <b>Julius Africanus</b>, and of + the other writers given in Dr Routh's <span class="sc">Reliquiæ Sacræ</span>.</p> + <p class="normal">VIII. The works generally ascribed to <b>Hippolytus</b>, + along with the recently discovered Refutatio Omnium Hæresium.</p> + <p class="normal">IX. The works ascribed to <b>Dionysius</b> of Alexandria, + <b>Gregory Thaumaturgus</b>, <b>Methodius</b>, and others of the same period.</p> + <p class="normal">X. The Recognitions and the Clementine Homilies, the Letters + of <b>Clemens</b> on Virginity, the Constitutions, the Canons of the Apostles, + Decrees of Councils till the period of the Nicene Council, and the Martyria + written within the period, and generally believed to be genuine.</p> + <p class="normal">XI. The Apocryphal Gospels, and other Apocryphal Literature + of the New Testament.</p> + <p class="normal">XII. The Octavius of <b>Minucius Felix</b>.</p> + <p class="normal">XIII. The entire works of <b>Tertullian</b>.</p> + <p class="normal">XIV. All the genuine works of <b>Cyprian</b>.</p> + <p class="normal">XV. <b>Arnobius</b> adversus <b>Gentes</b>.</p> + <p class="normal">XVI. The works of <b>Lactantius</b>.</p> + <p class="normal">XVII. The extant works of <b>Novatian</b>, <b>Victorinus</b>, + <b>Commodianus</b>, and other Christian Latin writers preceding the Council + of Nice.</p> + <span class="pagenum">[Pg 527]</span> + <p class="normal">It is intended to include in the Series every Christian + writing and document produced before the Nicene Council, whether in Greek, + Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Æthiopic, or in any other language. The list includes + a number of works, some portions of which are generally believed to have + been written after the Council of Nice; but as other portions were, or may + have been, written before that time, it has been thought the safer course + to give them fully. Only those works which are now allowed on every hand + to have been written after the Nicene Council, will be excluded.</p> + <hr class="W20"> + <p class="normal">It is believed that the writings comprised in the above + Synopsis will form about sixteen or eighteen Volumes, in demy octavo, of + a size similar to the Publishers' <span class="sc">Foreign Theological Library</span>; + and the Series will be published at the same rate to <i>Subscribers</i>, + namely—</p> + <h4>FOUR VOLUMES for ONE GUINEA.</h4> + <p class="continue">Each work will have a separate Index; and a very complete + Index to the whole Series will be published in a separate Volume, especial + care being taken hi its compilation.</p> + <p class="normal">The Publishers' arrangements are such, that the publication, + once commenced, will proceed very rapidly; so that, whilst no Subscriber + will be required to take the work more rapidly than four Volumes annually, + it is highly probable that the whole may be finished at a much earlier period, + for the convenience of those who may desire to have their sets completed. + The Volumes will be handsomely bound in cloth, with red edges; but Subscribers + may have them with uncut edges, by intimating their wish with their order.</p> + <p class="normal">They will be greatly obliged by intending Subscribers + filling up the accompanying Slip, and returning it to them speedily, as + this will very much facilitate their arrangements.</p> + <p class="center">** <i>When not paid in advance, the retail Bookseller + is entitled to charge 24s.</i></p> + <hr class="W100"> + <p class="right">.......................................186 .</p> + <p class="normal">I request <span class="sc">Messrs Clark</span> to insert + my name in their list of Subscribers to the <span class="sc">Ante-Nicene + Christian Library</span>, and to forward the books as published, through + my bookseller,</p> + <p class="normal"><i>Mr</i> ...............................................................</p> + <p class="right">(<i>Signed</i>)......................................................................... + </p> + <p class="normal">If it la preferred to have the works forwarded direct + per railway or book post (at cost of postage), It is requested that it be + so stated. The Subscription is payable in advance, annually, on or before + the FIRST Issue for each Year.</p> + </td> + </tr> +</table> +<span class="pagenum">[Pg 528]</span> +<table cellpadding="10" class="page" align="center"> + <tr> + <td> + <p class="center"><b>Works Published by T. & T. Clark,</b></p> + <p class="center"><b>Now ready, in Four Volumes, demy 8vo, price 32s., handsomely + bound in cloth,</b></p> + <h3>THE COMPARATIVE GEOGRAPHY</h3> + <h5>OF</h5> + <h3>PALESTINE</h3> + <h5>AND THE</h5> + <h3>SINAITIC PENINSULA.</h3> + <br> + <h3>By CARL RITTER,</h3> + <h5>PROFESSOR OF GEOGRAPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN.</h5> + <br> + <h4>Translated and Adapted to the use of Biblical Students, by</h4> + <h3>WILLIAM L. GAGE.</h3> + <hr class="W20"> + <p class="continue"><span class="sc">Carl Ritter</span>, the late Professor + of Geography in the University of Berlin, is known by name to many who are + comparatively uninformed respecting the extent and value of his labours. + In portraying the connection of geography with the physical sciences, Alexander + von Humboldt had no superior; while in establishing the relation between + geography and history, <span class="sc">Carl Ritter</span> was as unquestionably + pre-eminent. A chair was created for him in the Berlin University as early + as 1820. He lived to occupy it for forty years, and to confer no less honour + upon the city where he resided, and the institution in which he taught, + than upon his own name. And though but slight glimpses of his career have + been caught by the people of Great Britain, yet such references to him as + that in the Preface to Robinson's <i>Biblical Researches</i>, and works + of a similar character, will convince the readers of this country that whatever + comes from his pen must have great and permanent value.</p> + <p class="normal">Professor <span class="sc">Ritter's</span> main work relates + to Asia, and includes therefore all of that territory which is known as + the Holy Land. To this,—including the Lebanon district, Palestine proper, + the country east of the Jordan, and the Sinaitic Peninsula,—<span class="sc">Ritter</span> + devotes a space equal to 6000 pages of the size employed in Messrs Clark's + publications. To translate a mass so voluminous as this would be evidently + impracticable; and yet the immense erudition and power of graphic description + of Professor <span class="sc">Ritter</span>, conjoined with the fact that + he brought to the study of the Holy Land, not the unbelief of a rationalist, + but living faith of a genuine Christian, has convinced the publishers that + a portion of his great work would be a welcome offering to all students + of Biblical Geography.</p> + <p class="normal">Messrs Clark accordingly now publish a translation executed + by <span class="sc">Rev. William L. Gage</span>, a pupil and friend of the + lamented <span class="sc">Ritter</span>, comprising that portion of the + volumes relating to the Holy Land, which, in his judgment as editor, shall + be the most acceptable addition to our biblical literature. The work is + comprised in four octavo volumes. <span class="sc">Mr GAGE</span> has been + engaged for several years in the study and interpretation of Professor + <span class="sc">Ritter's</span> writings, and has enjoyed the active co-operation + of many of the most eminent living geographers.</p> + <p class="normal">The main object which has been held in view in condensing + and in selecting from the original, is to prepare the work for the use of + biblical students. Everything illustrating the Bible bas been considered + of prime importance, and everything has been retained, needful to maintain + the unity of the work. Notes are added, indicative of discoveries made since + <span class="sc">Ritter</span> wrote, and the object has never been lost + from sight—to make the work worthy of taking the same place in English that + it has already done in German literature.</p> + </td> + </tr> +</table> + +<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 30410 ***</div> +</body> + +</html> diff --git a/30410-h/images/image70a.png b/30410-h/images/image70a.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..fcbab2e --- /dev/null +++ b/30410-h/images/image70a.png diff --git a/30410-h/images/image70b.png b/30410-h/images/image70b.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..e744c0e --- /dev/null +++ b/30410-h/images/image70b.png |
