CHAPTER IX.

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.

* * * * *

Ver. 1. "_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._"

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 המשחית, 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 [Pg 364] 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 _Baur_,--"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 _the_ 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 _Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_, 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 _further_ evident from the subject itself. The

dress is that of the earthly high priest (_Theodoret_ 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 בדים is to be accounted for.

According to it, the various parts [Pg 365] of the high priest's dress

are of linen. But the heavenly Mediator, High Priest, and Intercessor,

is the Angel of the Lord; compare, _e.g._, 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 _Ode_,

who, in his work _De Angelis_, p. 741 ff., says: "God sends good angels

to punish wicked men, and He employs evil angels to chasten the

godly."[1] 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 [Pg 366] 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 _fire_ 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.

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: Ἀποστελεῖ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὑτοῦ, καὶ συλλέξουσιν

ἐκ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ σκάνδαλα, καὶ τοὺς ποιοῦντας τὴν

ἀνομίαν· and xxv. 31: Ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ δόξῃ

αὑτοῦ, καὶ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοί μετ' αὐτοῦ, τότε καθίσει ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης

αὑτοῦ. In order to be convinced of the identity of the Angel of the

Lord and Christ (compare above, p. 107 sqq. and _Commentary on Rev._ 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.

[Pg 367]

A second important question is:--What is to be understood by _the_

altar, המזבח? Several interpreters adopt the opinion of _Cyril_, and

think of the altar at Bethel, or some other idolatrous altar in the

kingdom of Israel. Others (_e.g._, _Marckius_) 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. _The_ altar can be that altar only, of which every one

would think, if an altar κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, 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 _the_

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 _the_ 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. _Jerome_ 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. [Pg 368]--Now several interpreters (_e.g._, _Michaelis_),

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.

_Further_,--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 _further_ 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

פרציהן, 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

[Pg 369] 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 _de jure_, although it

was suspended _de facto_.

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.

A _further_ reason against referring _the_ 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 κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. Such an altar existed only in [Pg 370] Judah. Nor

had the sanctuary at Bethel such importance, as that it could be

considered as the spiritual abode of the whole people.--_Hofmann_

(_Weissagung u. Erfüllung_, 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.

_Hofmann_ 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,[2] 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,[3] [Pg 371] 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.--_Hitzig_, 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.--נצב with

על is commonly used of a prominent position _at the side of_: Gen.

xviii. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 20; compare עמד with על 1 Kings xiii. 1. In Ezek.

ix. 1 also, the angels stand at the side of the brazen altar, נצב can,

of course, never signify "_to be suspended_."--הכפתור is a species of

ornament at the top of the pillars; and הספים, "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 _so that_ ... tremble," etc.; but the

וירעשו must be viewed rather as co-ordinate with הך: "And they may

tremble," equivalent to "Make to tremble."--The suffix in בצעם 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

_Ewald_ and _Umbreit_, 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 _breaking_, _dashing into

pieces_; it does so only by its being connected with the following

בראש. 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;" [Pg 372] compare Jer.

l. 45. בראש, properly understood, does not mean "_upon_ 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 כלם 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 הך 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 ראיתי 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 (_Marckius_, _De Wette_, _Rückert_,

and others) explain אחרית by "posterity;" others, after the example of

the Chaldee (שארהון), 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

_Gesenius_ and _Winer_) 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 _Ewald_: "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 ־־ית; very frequently there is no [Pg 373] masculine in

־ִי at all at the foundation, but ־ִית 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 ־ִי would also occur, and the feminine would be met

with as an adjective also. 2. ראשית forms the constant antithesis to

אחרית; 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, ראשית; the latter

are the אחרית, 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, כלם מקצה they should be subjected to the

divine punishment. An implied antithesis of quite the same kind, of

אחרית to ראשית occurs also In iv. 2 (where _De Wette_ and _Rückert_

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," _Cocceius_ 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 נוס 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 [Pg 374] and preserve itself against the

impression of his discourse--that it is equivalent to: "_All_ 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 [Pg

375] 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 _human means_ is

here cut off. But with this, every thought of deliverance in any way is

taken from the _ungodly_, who are told by their own consciences that

God 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 _form_

only: its _idea_ is not lost by the single fulfilment.

Ver. 2. "_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._"

The Future must not, either here, or in what follows, be understood as

_potentialis_: "Though they should conceal themselves;" but as the real

Future: "If they are to conceal themselves." That אם with the Future is

used only _de re dubia_, as _Winer_ asserts, is as erroneous as to

assert that, with the Preterite, [Pg 376] it supposes the condition as

existing. The correct view has been already given by _Gesenius_ in the

_Thesaurus_. 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, _e.g._, Matt. v. 29, where _Tholuch_ (_Comment. on the Sermon

on the Mount_) has been led very far astray from the right

understanding of εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλίζει σε, κ.τ.λ.,

by overlooking this _usus loquendi_. 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 _supposed_ 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!--חתר with the Accus. signifies "to break through," Job xxiv.

16; with ב, "to make a hole in anything;" thus Ezek. viii. 8, xii. 7,

12 (חתר בקיר, "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.

Ver. 3. "_And if they hide themselves on the top of Carmel,_ [Pg 377]

_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._"

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. _O. F. von Richter_, in the

_Wallfahrten im Morgenlande_, 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 _Schulz_ in the _Leitungen des

Höchsten_, 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 (_Richter_, 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 "_bottom_ 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; _Buckingham_ [Pg 378] estimated it at 1500 feet (_v. Raumer_, 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.--צוה

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 _Pliny_ xix. 4 speaks), need not be supposed on account of the

משם. 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.

[Pg 379]

Ver. 4. "_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._"

בשבי 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

_Calvin_, 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.

Ver. 5. "_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._"

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 _Jerome_, "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; _e.g._, 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." [Pg 380] 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, _e.g._, 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

_Gesenius_, in his Commentary on Is. i. 9, has asserted that צבאות 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 _Gesenius_ 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 _status

constr._ with Bethlehem (compare the remarks on Mic. v. 1 [2]); and

with regard to ארם נהרים it is to be remarked that, in consequence of

its many divisions, ארם 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 אלהים צבאות in Ps. lxxx. 15, and elsewhere, where a _status

constr._ is out of the question; and, _further_, the fact that

wherever, as in the case under review, Adonai precedes, the Mazorets

have always given to יהוה the points of אֱלֹהִים but never of אֱלֹהֵי; and

let us, _finally_, consider the far more frequent, full expression,

יהוה אלהי הצבאות (_e.g._, iii. 13, iv. 13, v. 14), and we shall be

convinced, that even where the [Pg 381] simple יהוה הצבאות occurs, not

indeed אלהי is simply to be supplied (if such were the case, why is it

that הצבאות 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 צבאות the remarks in my Commentary on Ps. xxiv. 10, where

those also are refuted who, like _Maurer_ (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 _Fut. with Vav Conv._ ותמוג 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 _first_ 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

_melteth_." The מוג, "to melt," "to dissolve," signifies, in that

passage, the dissolving effect of the divine judgments, the instruments

of which are the conquerors. _Further_,--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 _Rosenmüller_, _Gesenius_, _Maurer_--"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 כיאר be, both

the times, understood in the same way. The verb שקע means only "to

sink," "to sink down," and is used of the subsiding water, Ezek. xxxii.

14; of the subsiding flame, [Pg 382] 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 _vice versa_. 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 _vice versa_.--In his

negligent mode of writing--which frequently occurs in this book--the

prophet wrote נשקה instead of נשקעה, corresponding to the שקעה in the

verse under consideration, just as in the same verse he wrote כאר

instead of כיאר. The Mazorets, who everywhere disregarded the

peculiarities of the individual writers, have introduced the common

form.

Ver. 6. "_Who buildeth His upper chambers in the heaven, and His

vault--over the earth He foundeth it: who calleth the waters_ [Pg 383]

_of the sea, and poureth them out over the earth--Jehovah His name._"

That מעלות is here equivalent to עלות, "upper chambers" (compare 1

Chron. xvii. 17, where מעלת 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 _upper chambers_ 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 _the windows of heaven were

opened_." 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.--הקורא--שמו already occurred, _verbatim_, in v. 8. הקורא

stands in the same relation to וישפכם, as in ver. 5 נוגע does to ותמוג

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 [Pg 384] 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."

Ver. 7. "_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?_"

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.[4] 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 _was

obliged_ to deliver the people. He _could_ 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 _Cromwell_, who, in

the hour of death, silenced, by this false consolation, all the

accusations of his [Pg 385] conscience. Περιτομὴ μὲν γὰρ ὠφελεῖ, says

the Apostle, in Rom. ii. 25, ἐὰν νόμον πράσσῃς· ἐὰν δὲ παραβάτης νόμου

ᾕς, ἡ περιτομή σου ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν. 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

_thus_ 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. "_Be not_," etc.; the _tertium comparationis_ 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 _tertium comparationis_ (_Cocceius_ 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 [Pg 386] 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.

Ver. 8. "_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._"

_The_ 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 ἐκλογή, 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 send him against

impious people, and against the people of My wrath_ (wheresoever there

are such) _I give him command_;" 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 _Michaelis_ remarks, "Blessed is

the nation, whichsoever it may be." The eyes of [Pg 387] the Lord are

open upon _the_ sinful kingdom, and hence also upon the house of Jacob;

it must be destroyed as all others are, but it cannot be _destroyed

like them_,--an idea which is prominently brought out by the prefixed

Infinit. השמיד. That is an erroneous interpretation which understands

by the sinful nation, Ephraim, and, after the example of _Grotius_ ("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," והשמידך מעל פני האדמה.

The prophet says nothing new; he only resumes the threatening of the

revered lawgiver.--The construction of עיני יהוה with ב 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 ב with the object on which the anger rests;

compare Ps. xxxiv. 17.

Ver. 9. "_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._"

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 כברה, 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 [Pg 388] and proper cleansing. The latter is assumed by

_Paulsen_ (_vom Ackerbau der Morgenländer_, 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 συνιάζειν is _vanno

agitare_. 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: διότι ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαι καὶ λικμιῶ (Α. λικμήσω)

ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ, ὃν τρόπον λίκμᾶται ἐν τῷ

λικμῷ. _Hesych._ λικμῷ, πτύῳ. To this we are likewise led by the verb

הניעותי, which is indicative of a violent procedure, and by the

occurrence of the same figure in so many passages of Scripture;

compare, _e.g._, 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.--בכל־הגוים is not to

be translated, "_by_ all nations," but, as the corresponding בכברה

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 צרור the signification, "corn;" others, "little stone." But these

significations have been both assumed merely for the sake of the

context. צרור, from צרר, _colligavit_, _constrinxit_, 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.

Ver. 10. "_By the sword, shall die all the sinners of My people who

say, The evil will not come near, nor advance to us._"

[Pg 389]

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.

Ver. 11. "_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._"

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. μετὰ ταῦτα, by which James

renders it in Acts xv. 16, completely expresses the sense. The

assertion of _Baur_, "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. נפלת, 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.

_Hofmann_ 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 סכה נפלת 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 [Pg 390] 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

_follow_ 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 פרציהן refers to the two

kingdoms; that in הריסתיו to David; and that in בניתיה to the

tabernacle, while the subject of יירשו (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 פרציהן (compare the

expression "these kingdoms," used of Judah and Israel in vi. 2), and,

in their uncertainty, conjecture sometimes one thing and sometimes

another.--ימי 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 _Calvin_, who remarks: "When the prophet says, 'as in the days

of old,' he confirms [Pg 391] 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. _Jerome_ 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 בר נפלים, _filius

cadentium_--He who springs forth from the fallen family of David;

compare _Sanhedrin_, fol. 96, 2: R. Nachman said to R. Isaac, Hast thou

heard when בר נפילים 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: [Pg 392] "In that day I will raise

up the tabernacle of David that is fallen." In _Breshith Rabbah_, 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 _Schöttgen_, p. 70, and other

passages, especially from the _Sohar_, ibid. p. 111, 566.

Ver. 12. "_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._"

_Calvin_ 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 יירשו

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 _how far_ 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 _remnant_ 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 [Pg 393] 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

_an Holy people unto Him_, 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 _really_ present, as a type of His dwelling in Christ; compare

Deut. xii. 5: "The place which [Pg 394] the Lord your God shall choose

out of all your tribes, to put His name there." _Finally_, 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."--_Hitzig_, _Hofmann_, and _Baur_ 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 _Ewald_, § 135 _a_, is exactly applicable to

this case: "The _Perfectum_, when used with reference to some future

event, either mentioned or conceived of, may as well indicate the past

which _then_ 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 _Hofmann_ for a

different purpose--viz., 2 Sam. xii. 28: "In order that I may not take

(אלכד) the city, and my name be called (נקרא) 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).

_Further_, 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, _e.g._, 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, [Pg 395] 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 (_Jos. Arch._

xiii. 9, 1; _Prideaux Hist. des Juifs_, 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 _Grotius_, 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;

_e.g._, 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.

It now only remains to consider the quotation of this passage in the

New Testament, in Acts xv. 16, 17. _Olshausen_ 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 [Pg 396] 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 _fact_ of their reception

has been so expressively declared, the Old Testament passage, where

this reception is spoken of, is not cognizant of any other _mode_. 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.

The quotation of ver. 12 agrees, almost _verbatim_, 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,

ὅπως ἂν ἐκζητήσωσιν σἱ καταλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων με (instead of με Luke

has τὸν κύριον, which is found in the _Cod. Alex._ 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, למען ידרשו שארית אדם, [Pg 397] before

them; or whether they merely read erroneously; or whether, according to

_Lightfoot_ (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 _Olshausen_,

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.

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 _Olshausen_. 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 _occupying_, in the sense in which

it is used by Amos, has the _seeking_ 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. [Pg 398] 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.[5]

Ver. 13. "_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._"

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 _reaches_ to the vintage, and

the vintage _reaches to the sowing_ 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. _Cocceius_ 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

_Scaliger_ (_Exercit._ 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 [Pg 399] 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.

Ver. 14. "_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._"

The captivity is a figure of misery. With reference to שבות שוב compare

the remarks on Joel.

Ver. 15. "_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._" Compare p. 227 seqq.

Footnote 1: _Hofmann_, _Schriftbeweis_ 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: ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα, (which of

course was still in existence; and it is just the πνεῦμα that separates

between the world and the Church, compare Ps. li. 13) σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ

τοῦ Κυρίου, ἵνα παιδευθῶσι μὴ βλασφημεῖν. 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.

Footnote 2: 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.

Footnote 3: In Micah i. 15 the entire people are called Jacob. The same

occurs also in Hos. x. 11, xii. 3 (2).

Footnote 4: _Hitzig_ 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.

Footnote 5: 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 _von Meier_ and _Stier_, 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 _Luther's_ 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.