First, we shall explain some particulars. The words: "When ye be," &c.

refer to Gen. i. 28, As it is God's general providence which brings

about the fruitfulness of all creatures, so it is His special

providence which brings about the increase of His Church whose ranks

have been thinned by His judgments; and it is thus that His promise to

the patriarchs is carried on towards its fulfilment; compare remarks on

Hos, ii. 1. God's future activity in this respect, has an analogy in

His former activity in Egypt, Exod. i. 12. The words: "The Ark of the

Covenant" must be viewed as an exclamation, in which an ellipsis, in

consequence of the emotion, must be supposed, _q.d._ it is the aim of

all our desires, the object of all our longings. The mere mention of

the object with which the whole heart is filled, is sufficient for the

lively emotion. _Venema's_ exposition; _Arca f[oe]deris Jehovae_ sc.

_est_, and that of _De Wette_: "They shall no more speak of the Ark of

the Covenant of Jehovah," are both feeble and un philological. How were

it possible that [Hebrew: amr] with the Accusative should mean "to

speak of something?"--[Hebrew: elh el-lb] is, in a similar context,

just as it is here, connected with [Hebrew: zkr] in Is. lxv. 17: "For

behold I create a new heaven and a new earth, and the former shall not

be remembered nor come into the heart," comp. also Jer. li. 50, vii.

31; 1 Cor. ii. 9. [Hebrew: zkr] with [Hebrew: b] does not simply stand

instead of the usual connection with the Accusative; it signifies a

remembering connected with affection, a recollection joined with ardent

longings. [Hebrew: pqd] is, by many interpreters, understood in the

sense of "to visit," but the signification "to miss" (Is. xxxiv. 16; 1

Sam. xx. 6-18, xxv. 15; 1 Kings [Pg 385] xx. 39) is recommended by the

connection with the following clause: "Nor shall it be made again."

This supposes that there shall come a time when the Ark of the Covenant

shall no more exist, the time of the destruction of the temple, which

was so frequently and emphatically announced by the prophets.[3] God,

however, will grant so rich a compensation for that which is lost, that

men will neither long for it, nor, urged on by this longing, make any

attempt at again procuring it for themselves by their own efforts. The

main question now arises:--In what respect does the Ark of the Covenant

here come into consideration? The answer is suggested by ver. 17. The

Ark of the Covenant is no more remembered, because Jerusalem has now,

in a perfect sense, become the throne of God. The Ark of the Covenant

comes into consideration, therefore, as the throne of God, in an

imperfect sense. It can easily be proved that it was so, although there

have been disputes as to the manner in which it was so. The current

view was this, that God, as the Covenant God, had _constantly_

manifested himself above the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, in a

visible symbol, in a cloud. The first important opposition to this view

proceeded from _Vitringa_ who, in the _Obs. sac._ t. i. p. 169,

advances, among other arguments, the following: "It is not by any means

necessary to maintain that, in the holy of holies, in the tabernacle or

the temple of Solomon, there was constantly a cloud over the Ark; but

it may be sufficient to say, that the Ark was the symbol of the divine

habitation, and it was for this reason said that God was present in the

place between the Cherubim, because from thence proceeded the

revelation of His will, and He thus proved to the Jews that He was

present." But this view of _Vitringa_, that it was [Pg 386] merely in

an invisible manner that God was present over the Ark of the Covenant,

met with strong opposition; and a note to the second edition shows,

that he himself afterwards entertained doubts regarding it. By

_Thalemann_, a pupil of _Ernesti_, it was afterwards advanced far more

decidedly, and evidently with the intention of carrying it through,

whether it was true or not, in the _Dissertatio de nube super arcam

foederis_ (Leipzig, 1756). He, too, declared, however, that he did not

deny the matter, but only disputed the sign. He found a learned

opponent in _John Eberhard Rau_, Professor at Herborn (_Ravius_, _de

nube super arcam foederis_, Utrecht, 1760; it is a whole book, in which

_Thalemann's_ Treatise is reprinted). The matter is, indeed, very

simple; both parties are right and wrong, and the truth lies between

the two. From the principal passage, in Lev. xvi. 2, it is evident

that, at the annual entry of the High Priest into the holy of holies,

the invisible presence of God embodied itself in a cloud, as formerly

it also did, on extraordinary occasions, during the journey through the

wilderness, and at the dedication of the tabernacle and temple. In that

passage, Aaron is exhorted not to enter the holy of holies at all

times, for that would prove a want of reverence, but only once a year,

"for in the cloud I shall appear over the lid of expiation," (this is

the right explanation of [Hebrew: kprt] compare _Genuineness of the

Pentateuch_, p. 525 f.) The place where God manifests himself in so

visible a manner when the High Priest enters into it, cannot fail to be

a most holy place to him. It is true that _Vitringa_ (S. 171), and

still more _Thalemann_ (S. 39 in _Rau_), have endeavoured to remove

this objection by their interpretation; but with so plain a violation

of all the laws of interpretation, that it is scarcely worth while to

enter farther upon this exposition, (compare the refutation in _Rau_,

S. 40 ff.), although _J. D. Michaelis_, _Vater_, _Rosenmüller_, and

_Bähr_, (_Symbol. des Mos. Cultus_, i. S. 395), have approved of it.[4]

On the other hand, [Pg 387] there is nothing to favour the supposition

of an ordinary and constant presence of the cloud in the holy of

holies. With such a view, questions at once arise, such as: Whether it

came also to the Philistines? All that _Rau_ advances in favour of it,

merely proves the invisible presence of God, which surely cannot be

considered and called a merely imaginary thing, as is done by him, p.

35. For what, in that case, would be the Lord's presence in the hearts

of believers, and in the Lord's supper? It is true that Ezekiel, in

chap. xi. 22, beholds the glory of the Lord over the cherubim as being

lifted up, and forsaking the temple before its destruction; but how can

we draw any reference, as to the actual state of things, from visions

which, according to their nature, surround with a body all that is

invisible? Still, as we already remarked, this whole controversy has

reference to the _manner_ only, and not to the _fact_ of God's presence

over the Ark of the Covenant; and the Ark of the Covenant stands here

in a wider sense, and comprehends the cherubim, and "the glory of the

Lord dwelling over them." From a vast number of passages, it can be

proved that this glory of the Lord was constantly and really present

over the Ark of the Covenant, although it was in extraordinary cases

only that it manifested itself in an outward, visible form; compare,

besides Lev. xvi. 2, Lev. ix. 24, where, after Aaron's consecration to

the priesthood, the glory of the Lord appeared to the whole people in

confirmation of his office. To these passages belong all those in which

God is designated as dwelling over the cherubim, such as 1 Chron. xiii.

6; Ps. lxxx. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 4. To it refers the designation of the ark

of the covenant, in a narrower sense, as the footstool of God; comp. 1

Chron. xxviii. 2, where David says: "I had in mine heart to build an

house of rest for the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and for the

footstool of our God;" Ps. xcix. 5, cxxxii. 7; Lam. ii. 1. From this

circumstance the fact is explained, that the prayer in distress, as

well as the thanks for deliverance, were offered up before, or towards

[Pg 388] the Ark of the Covenant. After the defeat before Ai (Josh.

vii. 5 ff.), Joshua "rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his

face, before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, until the eventide,

he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads, and Joshua

said: Alas, O Lord God, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people

over Jordan?" After the Lord had appeared to Solomon at Gibeah, and had

given him the promise, he went before the Ark of the Covenant of the

Lord, and offered burnt-offerings, and thank-offerings, 1 Kings iii.

15. In 2 Sam. xv. 32, we are told that David went up the Mount of

Olives very sorrowfully, and when he was come to the place, _where

people were accustomed to worship God_, Hushai met him. According to

that passage, it was the custom of the people, when on the top of the

Mount of Olives, they gained, for the first or last time, a view of the

sanctuary, to prostrate themselves before the God of Israel who dwelt

there. To the Ark of the Covenant, all those passages refer in which it

is said that God dwelleth in the midst of Israel; that He dwelleth in

the temple; that He dwelleth at Zion or Jerusalem, compare _e.g._, the

promise in Exodus xxix. 45: "I dwell in the midst of the children of

Israel," and farther, Ps. ix. 12, cxxxii. 13, 14; 1 Kings vi. 12, 13,

where God promises to Solomon that if he should only walk in His

commandments, and execute His judgments, then would He dwell among the

children of Israel; and afterwards fulfils this promise by solemnly

entering into his temple. Indissolubly connected with this, was the

deep reverence in which the Ark of the Covenant was held in Israel. It

was considered as the most precious jewel of the people, as the centre

of their whole existence. Being the place where the glory of God dwelt

(Ps. xxvi. 8), where He manifested himself in His most glorious

revelation, it was called _the glory of Israel_, compare 1 Sam. iv. 21,

22; Ps. lxxviii. 61. The High Priest Eli patiently and quietly heard

all the other melancholy tidings--the defeat of Israel, and the death

of his sons. But when he who had escaped added: "And the Ark of God is

taken," he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate; and

his neck brake, and he died. When his daughter-in-law heard the tidings

that the Ark of the Covenant was taken, she bowed herself and

travailed; for her pains came upon her. And about the time of [Pg 389]

her death, the women that stood by her said unto her: Fear not, for

thou hast borne a son. But she answered not, neither did she take it to

heart, and she named the child Ichabod, and said. The glory is departed

from Israel, because the Ark of the Covenant was taken, and said again:

"The glory is departed from Israel, for the Ark of God is taken." But

in what manner may this dwelling of God over the Ark of the Covenant be

conceived of? Should the Most High God, whom all the heavens, and the

heaven of heavens cannot contain (1 Kings viii. 27), whose throne is

the heaven, and whose footstool is the earth (Is. lxvi. 1), dwell in a

temple made by the hands of men? (Acts vii. 48, ff.) Evidently not in

the manner in which men dwell in a place, who are _in_ it only, not

_out_ of it. Nor in such a manner as the carnally minded suppose, who,

to the warnings of the prophets, opposed their word: "Is not the Lord

among us? none evil can come upon us" (Micah iii. 11), or: "Here is the

temple of the Lord, here is the temple of the Lord, here is the temple

of the Lord" (Jer. vii. 4), imagining that God could not forsake the

place which he had chosen, could not take away the free gift of His

grace. The matter rather stands thus: That which constitutes the

substance and centre of the whole relation of Israel to God, is, that

the God of the heavens and the earth became the God of Israel; that the

Creator of heaven and earth became the Covenant-God, that His general

providence in blessing and punishing became a special one. In order to

make the relation familiar to the people, and thus to make it the

object of their love and fear, God gave them a _praesens numen_ in His

sanctuary, as a prefiguration, and, at the same time, a prelude of the

condescension with which He whom the whole universe cannot contain,

rested in the womb of Mary. And in so doing, He gave them not a

symbolical representation merely, but an embodiment of the idea, so

that they who wished to seek Him as the God of Israel, could find Him

in the temple, and over the Ark of the Covenant only. The circumstance

that it was just there that He took His seat, shows the difference

between this truly _praesens numen_, and that merely imaginery one of

the Gentiles. There was in this no partial favour for Israel, nothing

from which careless sinners could derive any comfort, God's dwelling

among Israel rested on [Pg 390] His holy Law. According as the Covenant

is kept or not, and the Law is observed or not, it manifests itself by

increased blessing, or by severer punishment. If the Covenant be

entirely broken, the consequence is that God leaves His dwelling, and

it is only the curse which remains, and which is greater than the curse

inflicted upon those among whom He never dwelt, and which, by its

greatness, indicates the greatness of the former grace.--Now, if this

be the case with the Ark of the Covenant; if it be the substance and

centre of the whole former dispensation, what, and how much would not

fall along with it, if it fell; and how infinitely great must the

compensation be which was to be granted for it, if, in consequence of

it, no desire and longing after it was to rise at all, if it was to be

regarded as belonging to the [Greek: ptôcha stoicheia], and was to be

forgotten as a mere image and shadow! The fact that the Ark of the

Covenant was made before any thing else, sufficiently shows that every

thing sacred under the Old Testament dispensation depended upon it.

_Witsius Misc. t._ i. p. 439, very pertinently remarks: "The Ark of the

Covenant being, as it were, the heart of the whole Israelitish

religion, was made first of all." Without Ark of the Covenant--no

temple; for it became a sanctuary by the Ark of the Covenant only; for

holy, so Solomon says in 2 Chron. viii. 11, is the place whereunto the

Ark of the Covenant hath come. Without Ark of the Covenant, no

priesthood; for what is the use of servants when there is no Lord

present? Without temple and priesthood, no sacrifice. We have thus

before us the announcement of the entire destruction of the previous

form of the Kingdom of God, but such a destruction of the form as

brings about, at the same time, the highest completion of the

substance,--a perishing like that of the seed-corn, which dies only, in

order to bring forth much fruit; like that of the body, which is sown

in corruption, in order to be raised in incorruption. _Dahler_ remarks:

"Because a more sublime religion, a more glorious state of things will

take the place of the Mosaic dispensation, there will be no cause for

regretting the loss of the symbol of the preceding dispensation, and

people will no more remember it."--It is quite natural that the

prophecy should give great offence, and prove a stumbling-block to

Jewish interpreters. Its subject, its high dignity, just [Pg 391]

consists in the announcement that, at some future period, the shadow

should give way to the substance; but it is just the confounding of the

shadow with the substance, the rigid adherence to the former, which

characterises Judaism, which considers even the Messiah as a minister

of the old dispensation only, and views the great changes to be

effected by Him, mainly as external ones. The embarrassment arising

from this, is very clearly expressed in the following words of

_Abarbanel_: "This promise is, then, bad, and uproots the whole Law.

How is it then that Scripture mentions it as good?" Rabbi _Arama_, in

his commentary on the Pentateuch, fol. 101, says, in reference to this

prophecy, [Hebrew: nbvkv kl hmprwiM] "all interpreters have been

perplexed by it." The interpretations by means of which they endeavour

to rid themselves of this embarrassment (see the collection of them in

_Frischmuth's_ dissertation on this passage, Jena; reprinted in the

_Thes. Ant._) are only calculated plainly to manifest it. _Kimchi_

gives this explanation: "Although ye shall increase and be multiplied

on the earth, yet the nations shall not envy you, nor wage war against

you; and it shall no more be necessary for you to go to war with the

Ark of the Covenant, as was usual in former times, when they took the

Ark of the Covenant out to war. In that time, there will be no

necessity for so doing, as they shall not have any war." The weak

points of this explanation are at once obvious. That which, in the

verse under consideration, is, in a general way, said of the Ark of the

Covenant, is, by it, referred to an altogether special use of it, a

regard to which is excluded by the evident antithesis in ver. 17.

_Abarbanel_ rejects this explanation. He says: "For there is, in the

text, no mention at all of war; and therefore I cannot approve of this

exposition, although _Jonathan_, too, inclines towards it." He himself

brings out this sense: The Ark of the Covenant would then, indeed,

still continue to exist, and be the seat of the Lord; but no more the

exclusive one, no longer the sole sanctuary. "The whole of Jerusalem

shall, as regards holiness and glory, equal the Ark of the Covenant.

For there shall cease with them every evil thing, and every evil

imagination; and there shall be such holiness in the land, that in the

same manner as formerly the Ark was the holiest of all things, so at

that time, Jerusalem shall be [Pg 392] the throne of the Lord." But, by

this explanation, justice is not done to the text. For it is an entire

doing away with the Ark of the Covenant which is spoken of in it, not a

mere diminution of its dignity, produced by the circumstance, that that

which formerly was low shall be exalted. This is particularly evident

from the words: "They will not miss it, neither shall it be made

again." To this argument we may still add that, by this exposition, not

even the object is gained for the sake of which it was advanced. The

nature and substance of the Ark of the Covenant is destroyed, as soon

as it is put on a level with anything else. It is then no more _the_

throne of the Lord; and for this reason, the previous form can no

longer continue to exist, and, along with it, the temple and priesthood

too must fall. If every place in Jerusalem, if every inhabitant of it,

be equally holy, how then can institutions still continue, which are

based on the difference between holy and unholy?--Here a question still

arises. There was no Ark of the Covenant in the second temple. In what

relation to the prophecy under consideration stands this absence of the

Ark of the Covenant, the restoration of which the Jews expect at the

end of the days? There cannot be any doubt that it was really wanting.

Every proof of its existence is wanting. _Josephus_, in enumerating the

catalogue of the _spolia Judaica_, borne before in the triumph, does

not mention it. He says expressly (de Bell. Jud. v. 5, § 5), that the

holy of holies had been altogether empty. Some of the Jewish writers

assert that it had been carried away to Babylon; while most of them,

following the account given in 2 Maccabees, tell us that Josiah or

Jeremiah had concealed it; compare the Treatise by _Calmet_, Th. 6, S.

224-258, _Mosh._ In asking _why_ such was the case, other analogous

phenomena, the absence of the _Urim and Thummim_, the cessation of

prophetism soon after the return from the captivity, must not be lost

sight of. Every thing was intended to impress upon the people the

conviction that their condition was provisional only. It was necessary

that the Theocracy should sink beneath its former glory, in order that

the future glory, which was far to outshine it, should so much the more

be longed for. After having thus determined _why_ it was that the Ark

of the Covenant was wanting, at the second temple, it is easy to [Pg

393] determine the relation of this absence to the prophecy under

consideration. It was the beginning of its fulfilment. In the Kingdom

of God, nothing perishes, without something new arising out of this

decay. The extinction of the old was the guarantee, that something new

was approaching. On the other hand, the absence of the Ark of the

Covenant was, it is true, at the same time, a matter-of-fact prophecy

of a sad character. To those who clung to the form, without having in a

living manner laid hold of the substance, and who, therefore, were not

able to partake in the more glorious display of the substance,--to

these it announced that the time was approaching when the form, to

which they had attached themselves with their whole existence, was

to be broken. Since already one of the great privileges of the

covenant-people, the [Greek: doxa] (Rom. ix. 4), had disappeared,

surely all that might and would soon share the same fate, which existed

only for the sake of it, and in it only had its significance. In this

respect, the non-restoration of the Ark of the Covenant showed that the

Chaldean destruction and that by the Romans were connected as

commencement and completion; while, in the other aspect, it declared

that, with the return from the captivity, the realization of God's

great plan of salvation was being prepared. Inasmuch as the most

complete _fuga vacui_ is peculiar to the Covenant-God, the emptiness in

that place where formerly the glory of God dwelt, proclaimed aloud the

future fulness.--_Finally_, we have still to determine the special

reference of our verse to Israel, _i.e._, the former kingdom of the ten

tribes. This reference is, by most interpreters, entirely lost sight

of, and is very superficially and erroneously determined by those who,

like _Calvin_, pay attention to it. In the preceding verse, it had been

promised to Israel, that those blessings should again be bestowed upon

them, which they had forfeited by their rebellion against the Davidic

house, and that they should be restored to them with abundant interest.

For David's house is to attain to its completion in its righteous

Sprout. This Shepherd, who is, in the fullest sense, what His ancestor

had only imperfectly been--a man according to the heart of God--shall

feed them with knowledge and understanding. _Here_, a compensation is

promised for the second, infinitely greater loss, which [Pg 394] had,

at all times, been acknowledged as such by the faithful in the kingdom

of the ten tribes. The revelation of the Lord over the Ark of the

Covenant was the magnet which constantly drew them to Jerusalem. Many

sacrificed all their earthly possessions, and took up their abode in

Judea. Others went on a pilgrimage from their natural to their

spiritual home, to the "throne of the glory exalted from the

beginning," Jer. xvii. 12. In vain was every thing which the kings of

Israel did in order to stifle their indestructible longing. Every new

event by which "the glory of Israel" manifested itself as such, kindled

their ardour anew. But here also the great blessing and privilege,

which the believers missed with sorrow, the unbelievers without it, is

to the returning ones given back, not in its previous form, but in a

glorious completion. The whole people have now received eyes to

recognise the value of the matter in its previous form; and yet this

previous form is now looked upon by them as nothing, because the new,

infinitely more glorious form of the same matter occupied their

attention.

Ver. 17. "_At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the

Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered into it, because the name

of the Lord is at Jerusalem; neither shall they walk any more after the

wickedness of their evil heart._"

Many interpreters, proceeding upon the supposition that the emphasis

rests upon Jerusalem, have been led to give an altogether erroneous

explanation. It is no more the Ark of the Covenant which will then be

the throne of the Lord, but _all_ Jerusalem. Thus, _e.g._, after the

example of _Jarchi_ and _Abarbanel_, _Manasseh ben Israel_,

_Conciliator_, p. 196: "If we keep in mind that, in the tabernacle or

temple, the Ark was the place where the Lord dwelt (hence Ex. xxv. 22:

'I will speak with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two

cherubim'), we shall find that the Lord here says, that the Ark indeed

had formerly been the dwelling-place of the Godhead, but that, at the

time of Messiah, not some one part of the temple only would be filled

with the Godhead, but that this glory should be given to all Jerusalem;

so that whosoever would be in her would have the prophetic spirit." If

it had been the intention of the Prophet to convey this meaning, the

word _all_ could not have been omitted. The throne of the [Pg 395]

Lord, Jerusalem had been even formerly, in so far as she possessed in

her midst the Ark of the Covenant, and hence was the residence of

Jehovah, the city of the great King, Ps. xlviii. 3. The words in the

parallel member: "Because the name of the Lord is at Jerusalem," show

that Jerusalem is called the throne of the Lord, because there is now

in her the true throne of the Lord, just as, formerly, the Ark of the

Covenant. The antithesis to what precedes leads us to expect a

gradation, not in point of quantity, but of quality. The emphasis rests

rather on: "The throne of the Lord;" and these words receive from the

antithesis the more definite qualification: the true throne of the

Lord. Quite similarly, those who boasted that over the Cherubim was the

throne of God, and that the Ark of the Covenant was His footstool, are

told in Is. lxvi. 1: "The heaven is my (true) throne, and the earth my

(true) footstool;" comp. the passages according to which the Ark of the

Covenant is designated as the footstool of God, and, hence, the place

over the Cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant as the throne of the Lord,

p. 387; and farther, Is. lx. 13; Ezra i. 26.--The highest prerogative

of the covenant-people, their highest privilege over the world, is to

have God in the midst of them; and this prerogative, this privilege, is

now to be bestowed upon them in the most perfect manner; so that idea

and reality shall coincide. Perfectly parallel in substance are such

passages as Ezek. xliii., in which the Shechinah which, at the

destruction of the temple had withdrawn, returns to the new temple, the

Kingdom of God in its new and more glorious form. Ver. 2. "And behold

the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the East; and its

voice was like the voice of great waters, and the earth shone with its

splendour." Ver. 7. "And He said unto me, son of man, behold the place

of _my throne_, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will

dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and the house of

Israel shall no more defile my holy place." Zech. ii. 14 (10): "Sing

and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come and dwell in the midst

of thee," with an allusion to Exod. xxix. 45: "And I dwell among the

children of Israel, and will be their God." The Prophet declares that

the full realization of this promise is reserved for the future; but it

could not be so, unless it had already been realised, throughout all

past history, in God's [Pg 396] dwelling over the Ark of the Covenant;

compare Zech. viii. 3: "Thus saith the Lord, I return unto Zion, and

dwell in the midst of Jerusalem."--If we enquire after the fulfilment,

we are at once met by the words in John i. 14: [Greek: kai ho logos

sarx egeneto kai eskênôsen en hêmin, kai etheasametha tên doxan autou,

doxan hôs monogenous para patros]; and that so much the more that these

words contain an evident allusion to the former dwelling of God in the

temple, of which the incarnation of the Logos is looked upon as the

highest consummation. It is true that the dwelling of God among His

people by means of the [Greek: pneuma Christou] must not be separated

from the personal manifestation of God in Christ, in whom dwelt the

fulness of the Godhead bodily, [Greek: sômatikôs]. The former stands to

the latter in the same relation, as does the river to the fountain; it

is the river of living water flowing forth from the body of Christ.

Both together form the true tabernacle of God among men, the new true

Ark of the Covenant; for the old things are the [Greek: skia tôn

mellontôn, to de sôma Christou], Col. ii. 17; comp. Rev. xxi. 22:

[Greek: kai naon ouk eidon en autê. ho gar Kurios, ho Theos ho

pantokratôr naos autês esti, kai to arnion]. The typical import of the

Ark of the Covenant is expressly declared in Heb. ix. 4, 5, and that

which was typified thereby is intimated in chap. iv. 16: [Greek:

proserchômtha de meta parhrêsias tô thronô tês charitos], where Christ

is designated as the true mercy-seat, as the true Ark of the Covenant.

Just as, formerly, God could be found over the Ark of the Covenant

only, by those from among his people who sought Him; so we have now,

through Christ, boldness and access with confidence in God (Eph. iii.

12); and it is only when offered in His name, in living union with Him,

that our prayers are acceptable, John xvi. 23. A consequence of that

highest realization of the idea of the kingdom of God, and, at the same

time, a sign that it has taken place, and a measure of the blessings

which Israel has to expect from its re-union with the Church of God, is

the gathering of the Gentiles into it, such as, by way of type and

prelude, took place even at the lower manifestations of the presence of

God among the people; compare, _e.g._, Josh. ix. 9: "And they (the

Gibeonites) said unto him: From a very far country thy servants are

come, because of the name ([Hebrew: lwM]) of Jehovah thy God, for we

have heard the fame of Him, and all that He did in Egypt, [Pg 397] and

all that He did to the two kings of the Amorites," &c. In a manner

quite similar it is, in Zech. ii. 15 (11) also, connected with the

Lord's dwelling in Jerusalem: "And many nations shall be joined to the

Lord in that day; and they shall be my people; and I dwell in the midst

of thee."--[Hebrew: lwM ihvh lirvwliM] must be literally translated:

"On account of the name of the Lord (belonging) to Jerusalem," for:

because the name of the Lord belongs to Jerusalem--is there at home The

name of the Lord is the Lord himself, in so far as He reveals His

invisible nature, manifests himself In the name, His deeds are

comprehended; and hence it forms a bridge betwixt existing and knowing.

A God without a name is a [Greek: theos agnôstos], Acts xviii. 23.

There is an allusion to Deut. xii. 5: "But unto the place which the

Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes _to put His name

there_, to dwell in it, unto it ye shall seek, and thither ye shall

come." Formerly, when God put His name in an imperfect manner only,

Israel only assembled themselves; but now, all the Gentiles.--The last

words: "Neither shall they walk any more," &c., are not by any means to

refer to the Gentiles, but to the members of the kingdom of Israel, or

also to the whole of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to all the members

of the Kingdom of God, including the subjects of the kingdom of Israel.

This appears from a comparison of the fundamental passage of the

Pentateuch, as well as of the parallel passages in Jeremiah. Wherever

[Hebrew: wrirvt] occurs, the covenant-people are spoken of; everywhere

the walking after [Hebrew: wrirvt] of the heart is opposed to the

walking after the revealed law of Jehovah, which Israel alone

possessed. [Hebrew: wrirvt], which properly means "firmness," is then

used of hardness in sin, of wickedness.[5]

[Footnote 1: _Vitringa_ very correctly remarks on this passage:

"[Hebrew: bel], properly [Greek: ho echôn], he who has any thing in his

possession is, by an ellipsis, applied to the husband who, in Exod.

xxi. 3, is rightly called [Hebrew: bel awh] _one who has a wife_."]

[Footnote 2: Against the explanation of _Maurer_: "For I am your Lord;"

and that of _Ewald_: "I take you under my protection," it is decisive

that [Hebrew: bel] never means "to be Lord," far less "to take under

protection." [Hebrew: bel], which properly means "to possess," is very

commonly used of marriage;--as early as in the Decalogue, the wife

appears as the noblest _possession_ of the husband--so that _a priori_

this signification is suggested and demanded.]

[Footnote 3: It is from the circumstance that modern Exegesis is unable

to comprehend the prophetic anticipation of the Future, that the

assertion has proceeded (_Movers_, _Hitzig_) that, even before the

Chaldean destruction, the Ark "must have disappeared in a mysterious

manner." In the view of the Chaldean destruction the Lord is, in Ps.

xcix. 1 (comp. Ps. lxxx. 2), designated as He who sitteth over the

Cherubim. In 2 Chron. xxxv. 3, we have a distinct historical witness

for the existence of the Ark, so late as the 18th year of Josiah. The

fable in 2 Maccab. ii. 4, ff., supposes that the Ark was at its

ordinary place, down to the time of the breaking in of the Chaldean

catastrophe. One might as well infer from chap. iii. 18, that, at the

time when these words were spoken, Judah must already, "in a mysterious

manner," have come into the land of the North.]

[Footnote 4: _Bähr_ advances the assertion, "In a (the) cloud" is

equivalent to: "in darkness." But the parallel passages, Exod. xl. 34

ff., Numb. ix. 15, 16, quoted by _J. H. Michaelis_, are quite

sufficient to overthrow this assertion. And these parallel passages are

so much the more to the point, that by the article the cloud is

designated as being already known; compare _Hofmann_, _Schriftbeweis_

ii. 1, S. 36. The cloud in ver. 13 is not identical with that in ver.

2, but is its necessary parallel. The cloud in ver. 2 symbolises the

truth that the Lord is a consuming fire (compare my remarks on Rev. i.

7); that in ver. 13 is an embodied _Kyrie eleison_, compare remarks on

Rev. v. 8. Cloud with cloud,--that is a noble advice for the Church

when she is threatened by the judgments of God. A thorough refutation

of _Bähr_ has been given by _W. Neumann_: _Beiträge zur Symbolik des

Mos. Cultus_, _Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol._, 1851, i.]

[Footnote 5: In a certain sense, one may say that [Hebrew: wrirvt lb]

is a [Greek: hapax legomenon]. It occurs independently in one single

passage only, in Deut. xxix. 18; in the other passages (eight times in

Jeremiah, and besides, in Ps. lxxxi. 13), it was evidently not taken

from the living _usus loquendi_ from which it had disappeared, but from

the fundamental passage in the written code of law. This fact will, _a

priori_, appear probable, when we keep in mind that, among all the

books of the Pentateuch, Jeremiah has chiefly Deuteronomy before his

eyes; and among all the chapters of Deuteronomy, none more than the

29th; and that Ps. lxxxi. is pervaded by literal allusions to the

Pentateuch. But it is put beyond all doubt, when we enter upon a

comparison of the passage in Deuteronomy with the parallel passages.

Here we must begin with Jer. xxiii. 17, where the verbal agreement

comes out most strongly, and then we shall, in the other passages also

(vii. 24, ix. 13, xi. 8, xvi. 12, xviii. 12, and the passage under

consideration), easily perceive that the word has been borrowed. From a

comparison with the fundamental passage, it appears that it is the

intention of the Prophet to convey here the promise of an eternal

duration of the regained blessing, and to keep off the thought that

possibly the people might again, as formerly, fall from grace. Of him

who walks after the [Hebrew: wrirvt] of his heart, it is said in Deut.

xxix. 19 (20): "The Lord will not be willing to forgive him; for then

the anger of the Lord and His jealousy shall smoke against that man,

and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him,

and the Lord blots out his name from under heaven."]

[Pg 398]

CHAPTER XXIII. 1-8.

These verses form a portion only of a greater whole, to which, besides

the whole of chap. xxii., chap. xxiii. 9-40 also belongs. For these

verses contain a prophecy against the false prophets, and by the way

also, against the degenerated priesthood (comp. ver. 11); and this

prophecy easily unites itself with the preceding prophecy against the

kings, so as to form one prophecy against the corrupt leaders of the

people of God. But, for the exposition of the verses before us, it is

only the connection with chap. xxii. which is of importance, and that

so much so that, without carefully attending to it, they cannot at all

be thoroughly understood. For this reason, we shall confine ourselves

to bring it out more clearly.

The Prophet reproves and warns the kings of Judah, first, in general,

announcing to them the judgments of the Lord upon them and their

people,--the fulfilment of the threatenings, Deut. xxix. 22 ff.--if

they are to continue in their hitherto ungodly course, chap. xxii. 1-9.

In order to make a stronger impression, he then particularizes the

general threatening, showing how God's recompensing justice manifests

itself in the fate of the individual apostate kings. First, Jehoahaz is

brought forward, the son and the immediate successor of Josiah, whom

Pharaoh-Necho dethroned and carried with him to Egypt, vers. 10-12. The

declaration concerning him forms a commentary on the name Shallum,

_i.e._, the recompensed one, he whom the Lord recompenses according to

his deeds,--which name the Prophet gives to him instead of the

meaningless name Jehoahaz, _i.e._, God holds. His father, who met his

death in the battle against the Egyptians, may be called happy when

compared with him; for he never returns to his native [Pg 399] land; he

lives and dies in a foreign land. The next whom he brings forward is

Jehoiakim, vers. 13-19. He is a despot who does every thing to ruin the

people committed to him. There is, therefore, the most glaring contrast

between his beautiful name and his miserable fate. The Lord, instead of

raising him up, will cast him down to the lowest depth; not even an

honourable burial is to be bestowed upon him. No one weeps or laments

over him; like a trodden down carcass, he lies outside the gates of

Jerusalem, the city of the great King, which he attempted to wrest from

him, and make his own. Then follows a parenthetical digression, vers.

20-23. Apostate Judah is addressed. The judgment upon her kings is not

one with which she has nothing to do, as little as their guilt belongs

to them as individuals only. It is, at the same time a judgment upon

the people which, by the Lord's anger which they have called forth by

their wickedness, is thrown down into the depth, from the height on

which the Lord's mercy had raised them.--Next follows Jehoiachin, vers.

24-30. In his name "The _Lord_ will establish," the word _will_ has no

foundation; the Lord _will_ reject him, cast him away, and break him in

pieces like a worthless vessel. With his mother, he shall be carried

away from his native land, and die in exile and captivity. Irrevocable

is the Lord's decree, that none of his sons shall ascend the throne of

David, so that he, having begotten children in vain, is to be esteemed

as one who is childless.

At the commencement of the section under consideration (vers. 1 and 2),

the contents of chap. xxii. are comprehended into one sentence. "Woe to

the shepherds that destroy and scatter the flock of the Lord." Woe,

then, to those shepherds who have done so. With this is then,

in vers. 3-8, connected the announcement of salvation for the poor

scattered flock. For the same reason, that the Lord visits upon those

who have hitherto been their shepherds, the wickedness of their

doings--viz., because of His being the chief Shepherd, or because of

His covenant-faithfulness, He will in mercy remember them also, gather

them from their dispersion, give, instead of the bad shepherds, a good

one, viz., the long promised and longed for great descendant of David,

who, being a _righteous_ King, shall diffuse justice and righteousness

in the land, and thus [Pg 400] acquire for it righteousness and

salvation from the Lord. So great shall the mercy of the Future be,

that thereby the greatest mercy in the people's past history--their

deliverance out of Egypt--shall be altogether cast into the shade.

There cannot be any doubt that the whole prophecy belongs to the reign

of Jehoiakim; for the end of Jehoiakim and the fate of Jehoiachin are

announced as future events.

_Eichhorn_ asserts that this section was composed under Zedekiah; but

he could do so only by proceeding from his erroneous fundamental view,

that the prophecies are veiled descriptions of historical events. "When

Jeremiah"--so he says--"delivered this discourse, Jehoiakim had not

only already met his ignominious end (xxii. 19), but Jeconiah also was,

with his mother, already carried away captive to Babylon." It is matter

of astonishment that _Dahler_, without holding the same fundamental

view, could yet adopt its result. He specially refers to the

circumstance that, in ver. 24, Jehoiachin is addressed as king,--a

circumstance by which _Berthold_ also supports his view, who, cutting

the knot, advances the position that vers. 1-19 belong to the reign of

Jehoiakim, but vers. 20--xxxii. 8 to the time when Jehoiachin was

carried away to Babylon. (_Maurer_ and _Hitzig_ too suppose that vers.

20 ff. were added at a later period, under the reign of Jehoiachin).

But what difficulty is there in supposing that the Prophet transfers

himself into the time, when he who is now a hereditary prince will be

king,--of which the address is then a simple consequence? It is

undeniable that a connection with chap. xxi. takes place, in which

chapter Jeremiah announces to Zedekiah, threatened by the Chaldeans,

the fall of the Davidic house, and the capture and destruction of the

city. And this connection is to be accounted for by the fact that

Jeremiah here connects with this announcement a former prophecy, in

which, under the reign of Jehoiakim, he had foretold the fall of the

Davidic house. The fate of the house of David is the subject common to

both the discourses. _Küper_ (_Jeremias_, _libror. Sacror. interpres_,

p. 58), supposes that, in the message to Zedekiah, Jeremiah had, at

that time, repeated his former announcement; but this supposition is

opposed by the circumstance that, in chaps. xxii., xxiii., there is no

trace of a reference to Zedekiah and his embassy. _Ewald_ asserts that

Jeremiah [Pg 401] here only puts together what "perhaps" he had

formerly spoken regarding the three kings; but the words in chap. xxii.

1: "Go down into the house of the king of Judah and speak there this

word," is conclusive against this assertion. For, according to these

words, we have here not something put together, but a discourse which

was delivered at a distinct, definite time; although nothing prevents

us from supposing that the going down was done in the Spirit only.

We have here still to make an investigation concerning the names of the

three kings occurring in chap. xxii., the result of which is of

importance for the exposition of ver. 5.--It cannot but appear strange

that the same king who, in the Book of the Kings, is called Jehoahaz,

is here called Shallum only; that the same who is there called

Jehoiachin, has here the name of Jeconias, which is abbreviated into

Conias. The current supposition is, that the two kings had two names

each. But this supposition is unsatisfactory, because, by the context

in which they stand, the names employed by Jeremiah too clearly appear

as _nomina realia_, as new names given to them by which the contrast

between the name and thing was to be removed, and hence are evidently

of the same nature with the _nomen reale_ of the good Shepherd in chap.

xxiii. 6, which, with quite the same right, could have been changed

into a _nomen proprium_ in the proper sense, as has, indeed, been done

by the LXX. The numerous passages in the prophets, where the name

occurs as a designation of the nature and character, _e.g._, Is. ix. 5,

lxii. 4; Jer. xxxiii. 16; Ezek. xlviii. 35, plainly show that a name

which has merely a prophetical warrant (and such an one alone takes

place here, although the name Shallum occurs also in 1 Chron. iii. 15

[in the historical representation itself, however, Jehoahaz is used in

the Book of Kings, and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 1], and the name Jeconias

likewise in 1 Chron. iii. 16, while Jehoiakim is found not only in the

Book of Kings, but also in Ezek. i. 2; for it is quite possible that

those later writers may have drawn from Jeremiah), cannot simply be

considered as a _nomen proprium_; but, on the contrary, that there is a

strong probability that it is not so. And this probability becomes

certainty when that name occurs, either _alone_, as _e.g._, Shallum, or

_first_, as Jeconiah, (which occurs again in chap. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20;

the abbreviated [Pg 402] Coniah in xxxvii. 1, while, which is well to

be observed, we have in the historical account, chap. lii. 31,

Jehoiachin) in a context, such as that under consideration; especially

when this phenomenon occurs in a prophet such as Jeremiah, in whom,

elsewhere also, many traces of holy wit, and even punning, can be

pointed out.--With reference to the calamity which more and more

threatened Judah, pious Josiah had given to his sons names, which

announced salvation. According to his wish, these names should be as

many actual prophecies, and would, indeed, have proved themselves to be

such, unless they who bore them had made them of no avail by their

apostacy from the Lord, and had thus brought about the most glaring

contrast between idea and reality. That comes out first in the case of

Jehoahaz. He whom the Lord should _hold_, was violently and

irresistibly carried away to Egypt. The Prophet, therefore, calls him

Shallum, _i.e._, the _recompensed_,--not _retribution_, as _Hiller_,

_Simonis_, and _Roediger_ think, nor _retributor_ according to _Fürst_

(comp. _Ewald_ § 154d); the same who, in 1 Chron. v. 38, is called

Shallum, is in 1 Chron. ix. 11, called Meshullam--he upon whom the Lord

has visited the wickedness of his deeds.--As regards the name Jehoiakim

and Jehoiachin, we must, above all things, keep in view the relation of

these names to the promise given to David. In 2 Sam. vii. 12 it is

said: "And I cause to rise up ([Hebrew: vhqimti]) thy seed after thee,

which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish ([Hebrew:

vhkinti]) his kingdom." This passage contains the ground of _both_

names; and this is the more easily explained, since both of them have

one author, Jehoiakim. Even his former name Eliakim had probably been

given to him by his father Josiah with a view to the promise. When

Pharaoh, however, desired him to change his name--as the name itself

shows, we cannot but supply, in 2 Kings xxiii. 31, such a request to a

proposal which was afterwards approved of by Pharaoh--he performed that

change in such a manner as to bring it into a still nearer relation to

the promise, in which, not El, but Jehovah, is expressly mentioned as

He who promised; and indeed the matter proceeded from Jehovah, the God

of Israel. As, however, from the whole character of Jehoiakim, we

cannot suppose that the twofold naming proceeded from true piety,

nothing is more natural [Pg 403] than to account for it from an

opposition to the prophets. The centre of their announcements was

formed by the impending calamity from the North, and the decline of the

Davidic family. The promise given to David shall indeed be fulfilled in

the Messiah; but not till after a previous deep abasement. Jehoiakim

mocking at these threatenings, means to transfer the salvation from the

future into the present. In his own name, and that of his son, he

presented a standing protest to the prophetic announcement; and this

protest could not but call forth a counter-protest, which we find

expressed in the prophecy under consideration. The Prophet first

overthrows the false interpretation: Jehoiakim is not Jehoiakim, and

Jehoiachin is not Jehoiachin, chap. xxii.; he then restores the right

interpretation: the true Jehoiakim is, and remains, the Messiah, chap.

xxiii. 5. As regards the first point, he. in the case of Jehoiakim,

contents himself with the _actual_ contrast, and omits to substitute a

truly significant name for the usurped one, which may most easily be

accounted for from the circumstance, that he thought it to be

unsuitable to exercise any kind of wit, even holy wit, against the then

reigning king. But the case is different with regard to Jehoiachin. The

first change of the name into Jeconiah has its cause not in itself; the

two names have quite the same meaning; it had respect to the second

change into Coniah only. In Jeconiah we have the Future; and this is

put first, in order that, by cutting off the [Hebrew: i], the sign of

the Future, he might cut off hope; a Jeconiah without the [Hebrew: i]

says only God establishes, but not that He _will_ establish. In

reference to these names, _Grotius_ came near the truth; but he erred

in the nearer determination, because he did not see the true state of

the matter; so that, according to him, it amounts to a mere play: "The

Jod," he says, "with which the name begins, is taken away, to intimate

that his head shall be diminished; and a Vav is added at the end as a

sign of contempt, _q.d._ that Coniah!" _Lightfoot_ comes nearer to the

truth; yet even he was not able to gain assent to it (compare against

him _Hiller_ and _Simonis_ who thought his views scarcely worth

refuting), because he took an one-sided view. He remarks (_Harmon._ p.

275): "By taking away the first syllable, God intimated that He would

not establish to the progeny of Solomon the [Pg 404] uninterrupted

government and royal dignity, as Jehoiakim, by giving that name to his

son, seems to have expected." Besides these two, compare farther,

_Alting_, _de Cabbala sacra_ § 73.

In conclusion, we must still direct attention to chap. xx. 3. Who,

indeed, could infer from that passage, that, by way of change, _Pashur_

was called also _Magor-Missabib_?

Chap. xxiii. 1. "_Woe to shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep

of my pasture, saith the Lord._"

It must be well observed that [Hebrew: reiM] is here without the

article, but, in ver. 2, with it. _Venema_ remarks on this: "A general

woe upon bad shepherds is premised, which is soon applied to the

shepherds of Judah, _q.d._, since Jehovah has denounced a woe upon all

bad shepherds, therefore ye bad shepherds," &c. By the "shepherds,"

several interpreters would understand only the false prophets and

priests. Others would at least have them thought of, along with the

kings. This view has exercised an injurious influence upon the

understanding of the subsequent Messianic announcement, inasmuch as it

occasioned the introduction into it of features which are altogether

foreign to it. It is only when it is perceived, that the bad shepherds

refer to the kings exclusively, that it is seen that, in the

description of the good Shepherd, that only is applicable which has

reference to Him as a King. But the very circumstance that, according

to a correct interpretation, nothing else is found in this description,

is a sufficient proof that, by the bad shepherds, the kings only can be

understood. But all doubt is removed when we consider the close

connection of the verses under consideration with chap. xxii. In

commenting upon chap. iii. 15, we saw that, ordinarily, rulers only are

designated by the shepherds; compare, farther, chap. xxv. 34-36, and

the imitation and first interpretation of the passage under review by

Ezekiel, in chap. xxxiv. Ps. lxxviii. 70, 71: "He chose David his

servant, and took him from the sheep-folds. He took him from behind the

ewes to feed Jacob, His people, and Israel, His inheritance," shows

that a typical interpretation of the former circumstances of David

lies at the foundation of this _usus loquendi_; compare Ezek. xxxiv.

23, 24: "And I raise over them one Shepherd, and he feedeth them, my

servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be [Pg 405] their

shepherd."--What is to be understood by the destroying and scattering,

must be determined partly from ver. 3 and vers. 13 ff. of the preceding

chapter; partly from ver. 3 of the chapter before us. The former

passages show that the acts of violence of the kings, their oppressions

and extortions, come here into consideration (compare Ezek. xxxiv. 2,

3: "Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should

not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you

with the wool, ye kill them that are fed, &c., and with force and with

cruelty ye rule them"), while the latter passage shows that it is

chiefly the heaviest guilt of the kings which comes into consideration,

viz., all that by which they became the cause of the people's being

carried away into captivity. To this belonged, besides their foolish

political counsels, which were based upon ungodliness (comp. chap. x.

21), the negative (_Venema_: "It was their duty to take care that the

true religion, the spiritual food of the people, was rightly and

properly exercised"), and positive promotion of ungodliness, and of

immorality proceeding from it, by which the divine judgments were

forcibly drawn down. It is in this contrast of idea and reality

(_Calvin_: "It is a contradiction that the shepherd should be a

destroyer"), that the woe has its foundation, and that the more, that

it is pointed out that the flock, which they destroy and scatter, is

_God's_ flock. (_Calvin_: "God intimates that, by the unworthy

scattering of the flock, an atrocious injury had been committed against

himself") [Hebrew: caN mreiti] must not be explained by: "the flock of

my feeding," _i.e._, which I feed. For, wherever [Hebrew: mreit] occurs

by itself, it always has the signification "pasture," but never the

signification _pastio_, _pastus_ commonly assigned to it. This

signification, which is quite in agreement with the form of the word,

must therefore be retained in those passages also where it occurs in

connection with [Hebrew: caN], when it always denotes the relation of

Israel to God. Israel is called the flock of God's pasture, because He

has given to them the fertile Canaan as their possession, compare my

remarks on Ps. lxxiv. 1. It is, at first sight, strange that a guilt of

the rulers only is spoken of, and not a guilt of the people; for every

more searching consideration shows that both are inseparable from one

another; that bad rulers proceed from the development of the nation,

and are, at the same time, a punishment [Pg 406] of its wickedness sent

by God. But the fact is easily accounted for, if only we keep in mind

that the Prophet had here to do with the kings only, and not with the

people. To them it could not serve for an excuse that their wickedness

was naturally connected with that of the people. This _natural_

connection was not by any means a necessary one, as appears from the

example of a Josiah, in whose case it was broken through by divine

grace. Nor were they justified by the circumstance, that they were rods

of chastisement in the hand of God. To this the Prophet himself

alludes, by substituting, in ver. 3: "I have driven away," for "you

have driven away," in ver. 2. All which they had to do, was to attend

to their vocation and duty; the carrying out of God's counsels belonged

to Him alone. From what we have remarked, it plainly follows that we

would altogether misunderstand the expression "flock of my pasture," if

we were to infer from it a contrast of the _innocent_ people with the

guilty kings. _Calvin_ remarks: "In short, when God calls the Jews the

flock of His pasture, He has no respect to their condition, or to what

they have deserved, but rather commends His grace which He has bestowed

upon the seed of Abraham." The kings have nothing to do with the moral

condition of the people; they have to look only to God's covenant with

them, which is for them a source of obligations so much the greater and

more binding than the obligations of heathen kings, as Jehovah is more

glorious than Elohim. The moral condition of the people does, to a

certain degree, not even concern God; how bad soever it is, He looks to

His covenant; and when more deeply viewed, even the outward scattering

of the flock is a gathering.

Ver. 2. "_Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel, against the

shepherds that feed my people: Ye have scattered my flock and driven

them away, and have not visited them; behold, I visit upon you the

wickedness of your doings, saith the Lord._"

In the designation of God as Jehovah the God of Israel, there is

already implied that which afterwards is expressly said. Because God is

Jehovah, the God of Israel, the crime of the kings is, at the same

time, a _sacrilegium_; they have desecrated God. It was just here that

it was necessary prominently to point out the fact, that the people

still continued to [Pg 407] be God's people. In another very important

aspect, they were indeed called _Lo-Ammi_ (Hos. i. 9); but that aspect

did not here come into consideration. _Calvin_: "They had estranged

themselves from God; and He too had, in His decree, already renounced

them. But, in one respect, God might consider them as aliens, while, in

respect to His covenant, He still acknowledged them as His, and hence

He calls them His people."--The words "that feed my people," render the

idea still more prominent and emphatic than the simple "the shepherds"

would have done, and hence serve to make more glaring the contrast

presented by the reality. The words "you have not visited them," seem,

at first sight, since graver charges have been mentioned before, to be

feeble. But that which they did, appears in its whole heinousness only

by that which they did not, but which, according to their vocation,

they ought to have done. This reference to their destination imparts

the greatest severity to the apparently mild reproof Similar is Ezek.

xxxiv. 3: "Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill

them that are fed, and ye feed not the flock." The visiting forms the

general foundation of every single activity of the shepherd, so that

the [Hebrew: la pqdtM] comprehends within itself all that which Ezekiel

particularly mentions in chap. xxxiv. 4: "The weak ye strengthen not,

and the sick ye heal not, and the wounded ye bind not up, and the

scattered ye bring not back, and the perishing ye seek not."--The

words: "the wickedness of your doings," look back to Deut. xxviii. 20:

"The Lord shall send upon thee curse, terror, and ruin in all thy

undertakings, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly,

_because of the wickedness of thy doings_, that thou hast forsaken me."

The gentle allusion to that fearful threatening in that portion of the

Pentateuch, which was the best known of all, was sufficient to make

every one supplement from it that, which was there actually and

expressly uttered. Such an allusion to that passage of Deuteronomy can

be traced out, wherever the phrase [Hebrew: re melliM] occurs, which,

in later times, had become obsolete; compare chap. iv. 4 and xxi. 12

(in both of these passages [Hebrew: mpni], too, is introduced); Is. i.

16; Ps. xxviii. 4; Hos. ix. 15.

Ver. 3. "_And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the

countries whither I have driven them away, and I_ [Pg 408] _bring them

back again to their folds, and they are fruitful and increase._"

Compare chap. xxix. 14, xxxi. 8, 10; Ezek. xxxiv. 12, 13: "As a

shepherd looketh after his flock in the day that he is in the midst of

his flock, the scattered, so will I look after my flock, and I deliver

them out of all the places, where they have been scattered in the day

of clouds and of darkness. And I bring them out from the nations, and

gather them from the countries, and bring them to their land, and feed

them upon the mountains of Israel, in the valleys, and in all the

dwelling places of the land."--A spiritless clinging to the letter has,

here too, led several interpreters to suppose, that the Prophet had

here in view merely the return from the Babylonish captivity, and

perhaps, also, the blessings of the times of the Maccabees, besides and

in addition to it. Altogether apart from the consideration that, in

that case, the fulfilment would very little correspond to the

promise,--for, to the returning ones, Canaan was too little the land of

God to allow of our seeing, in this return, the whole fulfilment of

God's promise--we can, from the context, easily demonstrate the

opposite. With the gathering and bringing back appears, in ver. 4,

closely connected the raising of the good shepherds; and according to

ver. 5, that promise is to find, if not its sole fulfilment, at all

events its substance and centre, in the raising of David's righteous

Branch, the Messiah. And from vers. 7, 8, it appears that it is here

altogether inadmissible to suppose that these events will take place,

one after the other. The particle [Hebrew: lkN] with which these verses

begin, and which refers to the whole sum and substance of the preceding

promises, shows that the bringing back from the captivity, and the

raising of the Messiah, cannot, by any means, be separated from one

another; and to the same result we are led by the contents of the two

verses also. How indeed could it be said of the bodily bringing back

from the captivity, that it would far outshine the former deliverance

from Egypt, and would cause it to be altogether forgotten? The correct

view was stated as early as by _Calvin_, who says: "There is no doubt

that the Prophet has in view, in the first instance, the free return of

the people; but Christ must not be separated from this blessing of the

deliverance, for, otherwise, it would be difficult to [Pg 409] show the

fulfilment of this prophecy." The right of thus assuming a concurrent

reference to Christ is afforded to us by the circumstance, that Canaan

had such a high value for Israel, not because it was its fatherland in

the lower sense, but because it was the land of God, the place where

His glory dwelt. From this it follows that a bodily return was to the

covenant-people of value, in so far only as God manifested himself as

the God of the land. And since, before Christ, this was done in a

manner very imperfect, as compared with what was implied in the idea,

the value of such a return could not be otherwise than very

subordinate. And in like manner, it follows from it, that the gathering

and bringing back by Christ is included in the promise. For wherever

God is, there is Canaan. Whether it be the old fold, or a new one, is

surely of very little consequence, if only the good Shepherd be in the

midst of His sheep. _As a rule_, such externalities lie without the

compass of prophecy, which, having in view the substance, refers, as to

the way of its manifestation, to history. Into what ridiculous

assertions a false clinging to the letter may lead, appears from

remarks such as those of _Grotius_ on the second hemistich of the

following verse: "They shall live in security under the powerful

protection of the Persian kings." Protection by the world, and

oppression by the world, differed very slightly only, in the case of

the covenant-people. The circumstance that Gentiles ruled over them at

all, was just that which grieved them; and this grief must therefore

continue (compare Neh. ix. 36, 37), although, by the grace of God, a

mild rule had taken the place of the former severe one; for this grace

of God had its proper value only as a prophecy and pledge of a future

greater one. The circumstance that it is to the _remnant_ only that the

gathering is promised (compare Is. x. 22; Rom. ix. 27), points to the

truth, that the divine mercy will be accompanied with justice. _Calvin_

remarks on this point: "The Prophet again confirms what I formerly

said, viz., mercy shall not be exercised until He has cleansed His

Church of filthiness, so great and so horrid, in which she at that time

abounded." One must beware of exchanging the Scriptural hope of a

conversion of Israel on a large scale, in contrast to the small [Greek:

eklogê] at the time of Christ and the Apostles, for the hope of a

_general_ conversion in the strict sense. [Pg 410] When considering the

relation of God to the free human nature, the latter is absolutely

impossible. When consistently carried out, it necessarily leads to the

doctrine of universal restoration. It is beyond doubt, that God _wills_

that all men should be saved; and it would necessarily follow that all

men could be saved, if all the members of one nation could be saved.

There is no word of Scripture in favour of it, except the [Greek: pas]

in Paul, which must just be interpreted and qualified by the contrast

to the _small_ [Greek: eklogê], while there are opposed to it a number

of declarations of Scripture,--especially all those passages of the

prophets where, to the remnant, to the escaped ones of Israel only,

salvation is promised. And, besides the Word of God, there are opposed

to it His deeds also,--especially the great typical prefiguration of

things spiritual by things external at the deliverance of the people

from Egypt, when the _remnant_ only came to Canaan, while the bodies of

thousands fell in the wilderness; and no less at the deliverance from

Babylon, when by far the greatest number preferred the temporary

delight in sin to delight in the Lord in His land.

Ver. 4. "_And I raise shepherds over them, and they feed them; and they

shall fear no more, nor be terrified, neither be lost, saith the

Lord._"

Even here, the reference to 2 Sam. vii. 12, and to the name of

Jehoiakim, is manifest, although, in the subsequent verse, it appears

still more distinctly, compare p. 401. This reference also is a proof

in favour of this prophecy's having been written under Jehoiakim. The

reference was, at that time, easily understood by every one; even the

slightest allusion was sufficient. This reference farther shows that

_Venema_, and several others who preceded him in this view, are wrong

in here thinking of the Maccabees. These are here quite out of the

question, inasmuch as they were not descended from David. Besides the

contrast between the people's apostacy and God's covenant-faithfulness,

the Prophet evidently has still another in view, viz., that between the

apostacy of the Davidic house, and God's faithfulness in the fulfilment

of the promise given to David. The single apostate members of this

family are destroyed, although, appropriating to themselves the

promise, they, in their names, promise deliverance and salvation to [Pg

411] themselves. But from the family itself, God's grace cannot depart;

just because Jehovah is God, a true Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin must rise

out of it. It thus appears that the Maccabees are here as little

referred to as Ezra and Nehemiah, of whom _Grotius_ thinks. Much

stronger ground is there for thinking of Zerubbabel, for his appearance

had really some reference to the promise to David, although as a weak

type and prelude only of the true fulfilment, to which he occupies the

same relation, as does the gathering from the Babylonish captivity to

the gathering by Christ. If, after all, we wish to urge the Plural, we

must not, by any means, sever our verse from ver. 5, and declare this

to be the sense: _first_ will I raise up to you shepherds; _then_, the

Messiah. We must, in that case, following _C. B. Michaelis_, rather

supplement: specially one, the Messiah. In _none_ of Jeremiah's

prophecies are there different stages and degrees in the salvation;

everywhere he has in his view the whole in its completion. Where this

is overlooked, the whole interpretation must necessarily take a wrong

direction, as is most clearly seen in the case of _Venema_. But there

is no reason at all for laying so much stress on the Plural. Every

Plural may be used for designating the idea of the whole species; and

this kind of designation was here so much the more obvious, that the

bad species, with which the good is here contrasted, consisted of a

series of individuals. With the bad pastoral office, the Prophet here

_first_ contrasts the good one; _then_ he gives, in ver. 5, a more

detailed description of the individual who is to represent the species,

in whom the idea of the species is to be completely realised. The

correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the comparison of

the parallel passage in chap. xxxiii. 15, which, almost _verbatim_,

agrees with that under consideration, and in which only one descendant

of David, viz., the Messiah, is spoken of And that is quite natural;

for, in that passage, there is no antithesis to the bad shepherds,

which was the cause that here, at first, the species was made

prominent. And another confirmation is afforded by Ezek. xxxiv. With

him, too, one good shepherd is mentioned in contrast with the bad

shepherds.--The words: "And they feed them" stand in contrast to "Who

feed my people," in ver. 2. The shepherds mentioned in ver. 2 ought to

feed the flock; but, instead of doing [Pg 412] that, they feed

themselves (compare Ezek. xxxiv. 2); the shepherds, however, mentioned

in our verse, really feed. The former are shepherds in name only, but,

in reality, wolves; the latter are shepherds, both in name and reality.

[Hebrew: pqd] must be taken in the signification "to be missing,"

"lacking." (Compare the Remarks on chap. iii. 16.) There is an allusion

to [Hebrew: la pqdtM] in ver. 2. Because the bad shepherd does not

visit, the sheep are not sought, _q.d._, they are lost; but those who

did not visit, are now, in a very disagreeable manner, visited by God

([Hebrew: pqd elikM]); the good shepherd visits, and, therefore, the

sheep need not be sought. The clause: "They shall fear no more, nor be

terrified," receives its explanation from Ezek. xxxiv. 8: "Because my

flock are a prey, and meat to every beast of the field, because they

have no shepherd, and because my shepherds do not concern themselves

with the flock."

Ver. 5. "_Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I raise unto David

a righteous Branch, and He ruleth as a King, and acteth wisely, and

worketh justice and righteousness in the land._"

The expression: "Behold the days come," according to the constant _usus

loquendi_ of Jeremiah, does not designate a progress in time, in

reference to what precedes, but only directs attention to the greatness

of that which is to be announced. It contains, at the same time, an

allusion to the contrast presented by the visible state of things,

which affords no ground for such a thing. How dark soever the present

state of things may be, the time is _still_ coming; although the heart

may loudly say. _No_, the word of _God_ must be more certain.

Concerning [Hebrew: cmH], compare Isa. iv. 2, and the passages of

Zechariah there quoted, [Hebrew: cdiq] stands here in the same

signification as in Zech. ix. 9,--different from that which it has in

Isa. liii. 11. In the latter passage, where the Servant of God is

described as the High Priest and sin-offering. His righteousness comes

into consideration as the fundamental condition of justification; here,

where He appears as King only,--as the cause of the diffusion of

justice and righteousness in the land. That there is implied in this a

contrast to the former kings, was pointed out as early as by

_Abarbanel_: "He shall not be an unrighteous seed, such as Jehoiakim

and his son, but a righteous [Pg 413] one." _Calvin_ also points out

"the obvious antithesis between Christ and so many false, and, as it

were, adulterous sons. For we know for certain that He alone was the

righteous seed of David; for although Hezekiah and Josiah were

legitimate successors, yet, when we look to others, they were, as it

were, monsters. Except three or four, all the rest were degenerate and

covenant-breakers." The words: "I raise unto David a righteous Branch"

are here, as well as in chap. xxxiii. 15, not by any means equivalent

to: a righteous Branch of David. On the contrary, David is designated

as he to whom the act of raising belongs, for whose sake it is

undertaken. God has promised to him the eternal dominion of his house.

How much soever, therefore, the members of this family may sin against

the Lord,--how unworthy soever the people may be to be governed by a

righteous Branch of David, God, as surely as He is God, must raise Him

for the sake of David. The word [Hebrew: mlK] must not be overlooked.

It shows that [Hebrew: mlK], which, standing by itself, may designate

also another government than by a king, such as, _e.g._, that of

Zerubbabel, is to be taken in its full sense. And this qualification

was so much the more necessary, that the deepest abasement of the house

of David, announced by the Prophet in chap. xxii., compare especially

ver. 30, was approaching, and that thereby every hope of its rising to

_complete_ prosperity seemed to be set aside. Since, therefore, the

faith in this event rested merely on the word, it was necessary that

the word should be as distinct as possible, in order that no one might

pervert, or explain it away. _Calvin_ remarks: "He shall rule as a

King, _i.e._, He shall rule gloriously; so that there do not merely

appear some relics of former glory, but that He flourish and be

powerful as a King, and attain to a perfection, such as existed under

David and Solomon; and even much more excellent."--As regards [Hebrew:

hwkil], we have already, in our remarks on chap. iii. 15, proved that

it never and nowhere means "to prosper," "to be prosperous," but always

"to act wisely." It has been shown by _Calvin_ that even the context

here requires the latter signification. He says: "The Prophet seems

here rather to speak of right judgment than of prosperity and success;

for we must read this in connexion with one another: He shall act

wisely, and then work justice and [Pg 414] righteousness. He shall be

endowed with the spirit of wisdom, as well as of justice and

righteousness; so that he shall perform all the offices and duties of a

king." Yet _Calvin_ has not exhausted the arguments which may be

derived from the context. The _whole_ verse before us treats of the

endowments of the King; the whole succeeding one, of the prosperity

which, by these endowments, is imparted to the people. To this may

still be added the evident contrast to the folly of the former

shepherds, which was the consequence of their wickedness, and which, in

the preceding chapter, had been described as the cause of their own,

and the people's destruction; compare chap. x. 21: "For the shepherds

are become brutish, and do not seek the Lord; therefore they do not act

wisely, and their whole flock is scattered." But if here the

signification "to act wisely" be established, then it is also in all

those passages where [Hebrew: hwkil] is used of David; compare remarks

on chap. iii. For the fact, that the Prophet has in view these

passages, and that, according to him, the reign of David is, in a more

glorious manner, to be revived in his righteous Branch, appears from

the circumstance that every thing else has its foundation in the

description of David's reign, in the books of Samuel. Thus the words:

"And he ruleth as a king, and worketh justice and righteousness in the

land," refer back to 2 Sam. viii. 15: "And David reigned over all

Israel, and David wrought justice and righteousness unto all his

people." The foundation of the announcement of ver. 6 is formed by 2

Sam. viii. 14 (compare ver. 6): "And the Lord gave prosperity ([Hebrew:

vivwe]) to David in all his ways." But if [Hebrew: hwkil], wherever it

occurs of David, must be taken in this sense, then the LXX. are right

also in translating Is. lii. 13 by [Greek: sunêsei]: for, in that

passage, just as in the verse under consideration, David is referred to

as the type of the Messiah. The phrase [Hebrew: ewh mwpT vcdqh] is by

_De Wette_ commonly translated: "to _exercise_ justice and

righteousness." But the circumstance that, in Ps. cxlvi. 7, he is

obliged to give up this translation, proves that it is wrong. [Hebrew:

ewh] must rather be explained by "to work," "to establish." [Hebrew:

mwpT] is here, as everywhere else, the objective right and justice;

[Hebrew: cdqh], the subjective righteousness. The _working_ of justice

is the means by which _righteousness_ is wrought. The forced dominion

of justice is necessarily followed by the voluntary, [Pg 415] just as

the judgments of God, by means of which He is sanctified _upon_

mankind, are, at the same time, the means by which He is sanctified

_in_ them. The high vocation of the King to work justice and

righteousness rests upon His dignity, as the bearer of God's image;

comp. Ps. cxlvi. 7; chap. ix. 23: "For I the Lord work love, justice,

and righteousness in the land." Chap. xxii. 15 is, moreover, to be

compared, where it is said of Josiah, the true descendant of David, "he

wrought justice and righteousness," and chap. xxii. 3, where his

spurious descendants are admonished: "Work justice and righteousness,

and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, and do not

oppress the stranger; the fatherless and the widow do not wrong,

neither shed innocent blood in this place." Farther, still, is the

progress to be observed: the King is righteous, his righteousness

passeth over from him to the subjects; then follows salvation and

righteousness from the Lord.--To explanations, such as that of

_Grotius_, who, by the righteous Branch, understands Zerubbabel, we

here need the less to pay any attention, that the fact of his being in

this without predecessors or followers palpably proves it to be

erroneous. If, indeed, we could rely on _Theodoret's_ statement ("The

blinded Jews endeavour, with great impudence, to refer this to

Zerubbabel"--then follows the refutation), the older Jews must have led

the way to this perverted interpretation. But we cannot implicitly rely

on _Theodoret's_ statements of this kind. In the Jewish writings

themselves, not the slightest trace of such an interpretation is to be

found. The Chaldean Paraphrast is decidedly in favour of the Messianic

interpretation: [Hebrew: atN amr ii vaqiM ha ivmia ldvd mwiH dcdqh]

"Behold the days shall come, and I will raise up to David the righteous

Messiah, (not [Hebrew: dcdqia] 'the Messiah of the righteous,' as many

absurdly read), saith the Lord." _Eusebius_ (compare _Le Moyne_, _de

Jehova justitia nostra_, p. 23), it is true, refutes the interpretation

which refers it to Joshua, the son of Josedech; but we are not entitled

to infer from this circumstance, that this view found supporters in his

time. His intention is merely to guard against the erroneous

interpretation of [Greek: Iôsedek] of the following verse in the

Alexandrian version ([Greek: kai touto to onoma autou, ho kalesei auton

kurios, Iôsedek]). It can scarcely be imagined that the translators

themselves proceeded from this erroneous view. For [Pg 416] Josedech,

the father of Joshua the high-priest, is a person altogether obscure.

All which they intended, by their retaining the Hebrew form, was

certainly only the wish, to express that it was a _nomen proprium_

which occurred here; and they were specially induced to act thus by the

circumstance, that this name was, in their time, generally current, as

one of the proper names of the Messiah.

Ver. 6. "_And in His days Judah is endowed with salvation, and Israel

dwelleth safely; and this is the name whereby they shall call him: The

Lord our righteousness._"

It has already been pointed out that the first words here look back to

David. That which Jeremiah here expresses by several words, Zechariah

expresses more briefly, by calling the Sprout of David [Hebrew: cdiq

vnvwe] "righteous, and protected by God." It makes no difference that,

in that passage, the salvation, the inseparable concomitant of

righteousness, is ascribed to the King, its possessor; while, here, it

is ascribed to the people. For, in that passage, too, it is for his

subjects that salvation is attributed to the King who comes for Zion,

just as he is righteous for Zion also. Israel must here be taken either

in the restricted sense, or in the widest, either as the ten tribes

_alone_, or as the ten tribes along with Judah. It is a favourite

thought of Jeremiah, which recurs in all his Messianic prophecies, that

the ten tribes are to partake in the future prosperity and salvation.

He has a true tenderness for Israel; his bowels roar when he remembers

them, who were already, for so long a time, forsaken and rejected. His

lively hope for Israel is a great testimony of his lively faith. For,

in the case of Israel, the visible state of things afforded still less

ground for hope than in the case of Judah. There is here an allusion to

Deut. xxxiii. 28: ("And He thrusteth out thine enemy from before thee,

and saith: Destroy") "And Israel dwelleth in safety ([Hebrew: viwkN

iwral bTH]), alone, Jacob looketh upon a land of corn and wine, and his

heavens drop dew." There can be the less doubt of the existence of this

allusion, that this expression occurs, besides in Deuteronomy, and

in the verse under consideration, only once more in chap. xxxiii.

16,--that a reference to the majestic close of the blessing of Moses,

which certainly was in the hearts and mouths of all the pious, was very

natural, and that the word [Hebrew: tvwe] has there its analogy in ver.

29: [Pg 417] "Happy art thou, O Israel, who is like unto thee, a people

saved ([Hebrew: nvwe]) by the Lord, the shield of thy help, thy proud

sword; and thine enemies flatter thee, and thou treadest upon their

high places." This glorious destination of the covenant-people, which,

hitherto, had been so imperfectly only realized (most perfectly

under David, compare 2 Sam. viii. 6, 14), shall, under the reign

of the Messiah, be carried out in such a manner that idea and reality

shall fully coincide. The covenant-people is to appear in its full

dignity.--In the second hemistich of the verse, the reading requires

first to be established. Instead of the reading [Hebrew: iqrav] which

is found in the text, and which is the third pers. Sing. with the

Suffix, several MSS. (compare _De Rossi_), have the third pers. Plur.

[Hebrew: iqrav]. Several controversial writers, such as _Raim.

Martini_, _Pug. Fid._ p. 517, and _Galatinus_, iii. 9, p. 126, (The

Jews of our time assert that here Jeremiah did not say "they shall

call," [Hebrew: iqrav], as we read it, but "he shall call him,"

[Hebrew: iqrav]; and they declare this to be the sense: "This is the

name of Him who shall call him, viz., the Messiah: Our righteous God,")

declare the latter to be unconditionally correct, and assert that the

other had originated from an intentional Jewish corruption, got up for

the purpose of setting aside the divinity of the Messiah, which, to

them, was so offensive. This allegation, however, is certainly

unfounded. It is true, that some Jewish interpreters availed themselves

of the reading [Hebrew: iqrav] for the purpose stated. Thus _Rabbi

Saadias Haggaon_, according to _Abenezra_ and _Manasseh Ben Israel_,

who explain: "And this is the name by which the Lord will call him: Our

righteousness." But it by no means follows from this, that they

invented the reading; it may have existed, and they only connected

their perversion with it. That the latter was indeed the case, appears

from the circumstance that by far the greater number of Jewish

interpreters and controversialists rejected this perversion, because it

was in opposition to the accents (compare especially _Abenezra_ and

_Norzi_ on the passage), and acknowledged [Hebrew: ihvh cdqnv] to be

the name of the Messiah. The reading [Hebrew: iqrav] must be

unconditionally rejected, because it has by far the smallest external

authority in its favour. It is true, that its supporters (comp.

especially _Schulze_, _vollst. Critik der gewöhnlichen_ [Pg 418]

_Bibelausgaben_, S. 321) have endeavoured to make up for its deficiency

in manuscript authority, by appealing to the authority of the ancient

translators, all of whom, with the sole exception of the Alexandrian

version, according to them, express it. But this assertion is entirely

without foundation. The _vocabunt eum_ of _Jonathan_ and the Vulgate is

the correct translation of [Hebrew: iqrav]. And when _Jerome_, in

opposition to the Alex., remarks that, according to the Hebrew, the

translation ought to be: _Nomen ejus vocabunt_, he does not contend

against their use of the Singular _per se_, but only against their

arbitrarily supplying "Jehovah" as the subject; against their

explaining "The Lord shall call," instead of "one" shall call. The

manner in which the false reading [Hebrew: iqrav] first arose, is

clearly seen from the reasons by which its later defenders endeavour to

support it; compare especially _Schulze_ l. c. The chief argument is

the erroneous supposition that the third Plur. only could be used

impersonally. To this was farther added the use of the rarer Suffix

[Hebrew: v] instead of the common [Hebrew: -hv]--But from internal

reasons, too, the reading [Hebrew: iqrav] is objectionable; the

designation of the object of calling cannot be omitted.--There cannot

be any doubt that we are not allowed to refer the Suffix in [Hebrew:

iqrav] to Israel, (_Ewald_: "And this is their name by which they call

them,") but to the Messiah. For it is only in this case, that those who

call, viz., Judah or Israel, the Members of the Church, are indirectly

mentioned in the preceding words; and the Messiah is, in both verses,

the chief person to whom all the other clauses refer. At all events,

the _then_ could not, in that case, have been omitted, as in this

context every thing depends upon the connection of the salvation with

the person of the King; and this connection must be clearly and

distinctly expressed. We now come to [Hebrew: ihvh cdqnv]. Great

difference of opinion prevails as to the explanation of these words.

The better portion of the Jewish interpreters, indeed, likewise

consider them as names of the Messiah, but not in such a manner that He

is called "Jehovah," and then, in apposition to it, "Our

righteousness," but rather in such a manner that [Hebrew: ihvh cdqnv]

is an abbreviation of the whole sentence. Thus the Chaldean, who thus

paraphrases: "And this is the name by which they shall call him:

Righteousness [Pg 419] will be bestowed upon us from the face of the

Lord;" _Kimchi_, "Israel shall call the Messiah by this name: The Lord

our righteousness, because at His time, the righteousness of the Lord

will be to us firm, continuous, everlasting;" the [Hebrew: spr eqriM]

(in _Le Moyne_, p. 20): "Scripture calls the name of the Messiah: The

Lord our righteousness, because He is the Mediator of God, and we

obtain the righteousness of God by His ministry." Besides to chap.

xxxiii. 16, they refer to passages such as Exod. xvii. 15, where Moses

calls the altar "Jehovah my banner;" to Gen. xxxiii. 20, where Jacob

calls it [Hebrew: al alhi iwral]. _Grotius_ follows these expositors,

only that he dilutes the sense still more. The other Christian

expositors, (the Vulgate excludes every other interpretation, even by

its translation: _Dominus justus noster_) on the contrary, contend with

all their might for the opinion, that the Messiah is here called

Jehovah, and hence must be truly God. That which _Dassov_ i. h. 1.

remarks: "Since then the Messiah is called Jehovah, we have firm ground

for inferring, that He is truly God, inasmuch as that name is peculiar

and essential to the true God," is the argument common to all of them.

_Le Moyne_ wrote in defence of this explanation a whole book, which we

have already quoted, but from which little is to be learned. Even

_Calvin_, who elsewhere sometimes erred from an exaggerated dread of

doctrinal prejudice, decidedly adopts it. He remarks: "Those who judge

without prejudice and bitterness, easily see that that name belongs to

Christ, in so far as He is God, just as the name of the Son of David is

assigned to Him in reference to His human nature. To all those who are

just and unprejudiced, it will be clear that Christ is here

distinguished by a twofold attribute; so that the Prophet commends Him

to us, both as regards the glory of His deity, and his true human

nature." By righteousness he, too, understands justification through

the merits of Christ, "for Christ is not righteous for himself, but

received righteousness in order to communicate it to us" (1 Cor. i.

30). We have the following observations to make in reference to this

exposition. 1. The principal mistake in it is this, that it has been

overlooked that the Prophet here expresses the nature of the Messiah

and of His time in the form of a _nomen proprium_. If the words were

thus: "And this is Jehovah our righteousness," we should be fully [Pg

420] entitled to take Jehovah as a personal designation of the Messiah.

But in reference to a name, it is as common, as it is natural, to take

from a whole sentence the principal words only, and to leave it to the

reader or hearer to supply the rest. In the case of all _naming_,

brevity is unavoidable, as is proved by the usual abbreviation of even

those proper names which consist of one word only. The two cases

mentioned by _Kimchi_ will serve as instances. "Jehovah my Banner" is a

concise expression for: "This altar is consecrated to Jehovah my

Banner;" [Hebrew: al alhi iwral] for: "This altar belongs to the

Almighty, the God of Israel." A number of other instances might easily

be quoted; one need only compare, in _Hiller's_ and _Simonis'_

Onomastica, the names which are compounded with Jehovah. Thus, _e.g._,

Jehoshua, _i.e._, Jehovah salvation, is a concise expression for:

Jehovah will grant me salvation; Jehoram, _i.e._, _Jehovah altus_, for:

I am consecrated to the exalted God of Israel. Most perfectly

analogous, however, is the name Zedekiah, _i.e._, the righteousness of

the Lord, for: He under whose reign the Lord will grant righteousness

to His people. This name, moreover, seems to refer directly to the

prophecy before us. Just as Eliakim, by changing his name into

Jehoiakim, intended to represent himself as he in whom the prophecy in

2 Sam. vii. would be fulfilled; so he who was formerly called Mattaniah

changed, at the instance of Nebuchadnezzar (who had, indeed, no other

object in view than that, as a sign of his supremacy, his name should

be different from that by which he was formerly called, and who left

the choice of the name to Mattaniah himself), his name into Zedekiah,

imagining that in a manner so easy, he would become the Jehovah Zidkenu

announced by Jeremiah, and longed for by the people. 2. The preceding

argument only showed that there is nothing opposed to the exposition:

He by whom and under whom Jehovah will be our righteousness. A positive

proof, however, in favour of it is offered by the parallel passage,

chap. xxxiii. 15, 16: "In those days and at that time will I cause a

righteous Branch to grow up unto David; and He worketh justice and

righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and

Jerusalem shall dwell safely, and this is the name which they shall

give to _her_: Jehovah our righteousness." Here Jehovah Zidkenu by no

means [Pg 421] appears as the name of the Messiah, but as that of

Jerusalem in the Messianic time. In vain are all the attempts which

have been made to set aside this troublesome argument. They only serve

to show, that it cannot be invalidated. _Le Moyne_, "in order that no

way of escape may be left to the enemies," brings forward, p. 298 ff.,

five different expedients among which the reader may choose. But their

very difference is a plain sign of arbitrariness; and that appears

still more clearly, when we begin to examine them individually. Several

interpreters assume an _enallage generis_ [Hebrew: lh] = [Hebrew: lv],

"and thus shall they call _him_." _Le Moyne_ thinks that we need have

no difficulty in assuming such an _enallage_. Others explain: "And he

who shall call, _i.e._, invite her, is Jehovah our righteousness." A

simple reference to the passage before us is decisive against it; the

parallelism of the two passages is too close to admit of [Hebrew: iqra]

in the second passage being understood in a sense altogether different.

By the same argument, the explanations by _Hottinger_ (Thesaur.

Philolog. p. 17l), and _Dassov_: "This shall come to pass when the Lord,

the Lord our righteousness, shall call her," are also refuted, quite

apart from the consideration, that [Hebrew: awr] cannot by any means

signify _when_. The most recent defender of the old orthodox view,

_Schmieder_, cuts the knot by simply severing our passage from chap.

xxxiii. 16-3. The ancient explanation, which refers [Hebrew: cdqnv],

"our righteousness," to the remission of sins, does not even correctly

understand this word. It is true that the remission of sins is often

represented as one of the chief blessings of the Messianic time; but

here it is out of place. According to the context, it is actual

justification, _i.e._, salvation according to another mode of viewing

it, which is here spoken of (compare remarks on Mal. iii. 20).

Righteousness in this sense implies, of course, the forgiveness of

sins; but, besides, the righteousness of life is comprehended in it.

Righteousness stands here in parallelism with salvation, and the order

and progress is this: righteousness of the king, righteousness of the

subjects, then salvation and righteousness as a reward from God, To

this argument may still be added the contrast to the former time.

Connected with the unrighteousness of the kings was that of the people;

and hence it was that the country was deprived of salvation, and

smitten by the divine judgments. That [Pg 422] which Jeremiah

comprehends in the name _Jehovah Zidkenu_, Ezekiel, in the parallel

passage, chap. xxxiv. 25-31, farther carries out and expands. The Lord

enters into a covenant of peace with them; rich blessing is bestowed

upon them; He breaks their yoke and delivers them from servitude; they

do not become a prey to the Gentiles.--_Schmieder_ has objected, that

the name would be without meaning for the promised King, unless the

name Jehovah belonged to him. But the King, by being called _Jehovah

Zidkenu_, is designated as the channel, through which the divine

blessings flow upon the Church, as the Mediator of Salvation, as the

Saviour. We must not, however, omit to remark that this ancient

explanation was wrong only in endeavouring to draw out from the word

that which, no doubt, is contained in the matter itself No one born of

a woman is _righteous_, in the full sense of the word; and if there be

anything wanting in the personal righteousness of the King, the

working of justice and righteousness, too, will at once be deficient;

and salvation and righteousness are not granted in their full extent

from above. To no one among all the former kings did the attribute

[Hebrew: cdiq] belong in a higher degree than to David; and yet in how

imperfect a degree did even he possess it! The calamity which, by this

imperfection, was inflicted upon the people, is, _e.g._, seen in the

numbering of the people. And it was not only the _will_ to work justice

and righteousness which was imperfect, but the power also was

imperfect, and the knowledge limited. He only who truly rules as a

king, and is truly wise (compare the words [Hebrew: vmlK mlK vhwkil])

can come up to, and realize the idea, after which David was striving in

vain. All the three offices of Christ, the royal no less than the

prophetic and priestly, imply His divinity; and the conviction that, in

the way hitherto pursued, nothing was to be effected; that it was only

by the divine entering into the earthly, that such splendid promises

could be fulfilled,--this conviction surely must have been plain to a

Jeremiah, whose fundamental sentiment is, "all flesh is grass," and who

lived at a time which, more than any other, was fitted to cure that

Pelagianism which always seeks to gather grapes from thorns. If then,

farther, we keep in mind that Jeremiah had before him the clear

announcements of the former prophets, as regards the divinity of the

Messiah (compare [Pg 423] remarks on Mic. v. 1; Is. ix. 5), we can

account for the fact, that he does not expressly speak of it, only

because it was not suitable in this context, in which only the fact

itself comes into consideration, but not the particular way.

Ver. 7. "_Wherefore, behold days come, saith the Lord, that they shall

no more say: As the Lord liveth who brought up the children of Israel

out of the land of Egypt_; ver. 8, but: _As the Lord liveth, who

brought up, and who led the seed of the house of Israel out of the

North country, and from all the countries whither I have driven them;

and they dwell in their land._"

The sense is this: The future prosperity and salvation shall by far

outshine the greatest deliverance and salvation of the Past. _Calvin_

remarks: "If the first deliverance be valued by itself, it will be

worthy of everlasting remembrance; but if it be compared with the

second deliverance, it will almost vanish;" compare, besides chap. xvi.

14, 15, where the verses now under consideration already occurred

almost _verbatim_ (Jeremiah is fond of such repetitions, which are any

thing but vain repetitions; and this fondness forms one of his

peculiarities); chap. iii. 16, where, in the same sense, it is said of

the Ark of the Covenant that it shall be forgotten in future; Is.

xliii. 18, 19, lxv. 17.--[Hebrew: Hi-ihvh] "living (is) Jehovah," for:

"As Jehovah liveth." It is quite natural that, when God is invoked as a

witness and judge, He should be designated as the _living one_; and it

is as natural that, on such an occasion, the greatest sign of life

which He gave should be pointed to. But that, under the Old Testament

dispensation, was the deliverance from Egypt, the strongest and most

impressive of all those deeds by which the delusion was dissipated,

that God was walking upon the vault of heaven, and did not judge

through the clouds. In future, a still stronger manifestation of life

is to take place. Hence the formula of the oath is altogether general;

the deliverance from Egypt comes into consideration as a manifestation

of life, and not as an act of grace. This was overlooked by _Calvin_

when he remarked: "Whensoever they saw themselves so oppressed, that

they did not see any other end to their evils than in the grace of God,

they said that the same God, who, in former times, had been the

deliverer of His people, was still living, and His power undiminished."

[Pg 424]

CHAP. XXXI. 31-40.

The 30th and 31st chapters may rightly be called the grand hymn of

Israel's deliverance. They are connected into one whole, not only a

material, but also by a formal unity; so that we must indeed wonder at

views such as those of _Venema_ and _Rosenmüller_, who assume that the

section is composed of fragments loosely connected, and written at

different times; but still more at the views of _Movers_ and _Hitzig_,

who assert that a whole number of strange interpolations had been

introduced into the text; compare _Küper_, Jerem. S. 170 ff.

With respect to the time of the composition, we must not allow

ourselves to be deceived by the circumstance that, as a rule, Judah

appears no less that Israel, already far away from the land of the

Lord, in captivity. The Prophet, taking his stand in the time when the

catastrophe has already taken place, speaks from an ideal Present. The

fact that the destruction of Jerusalem was indeed imminent, and

immediately in view, but had not yet taken place, becomes probable even

from the inscriptions in chap. xxxii. and xxxiii., according to which

these two chapters, which are so closely related to the two before us,

belong to the tenth year of Zedekiah, when Jerusalem was besieged by

the Chaldeans. This is rendered certain by chap. xxx. 5-7, where the

final catastrophe upon the covenant-people, which belongs to the time

of Jeremiah, is represented as still impending. Hitherto the

threatening had prevailed in the predictions of the Prophet; but now,

in the view of their fulfilment, when the thunders of the judgment were

already heard from the heavens, the promise flows in full streams. The

false prophets had prophesied prosperity and salvation, at a time when,

to the human eye, there was no. cause for fear; but Jeremiah just steps

forth to announce salvation, at a time when all human hope had

vanished.

The Prophet begins, in chap. xxx., with the promise of salvation for

_all_ Israel; and after a detailed description, he comprehends and sums

it up, in ver. 22, in the words, brief but infinitely rich and

comprehensive: "And ye shall be my people [Pg 425] and I will be your

God."[1] The majestic close of the promise for the true Israel is, in

vers. 23, 24, formed by the threatening against those who are Israel in

appearance only,--analogous to the words of Isaiah: "There is no peace

to the wicked." Let them not, in their foolish delusion, seize the

promise for themselves. The time of the highest blessing for the godly,

and for those who are willing to become godly, the [Hebrew: ahrit

himiM]. will be for them, at the same time, a time of the highest

curse. The climax of the manifestation of grace has the climax of the

manifestation of justice as its inseparable companion. "Behold the

storm of the Lord, glowing fire, goeth forth, a _continuing_ storm, on

the head of the wicked it shall remain. The fierce anger of the Lord

shall not return, until He have done, and until He have performed the

intents of His heart; at the end of days ye shall consider it."

Formerly, in chap. xxiii. 19, 20, in a threatening prophecy which

referred to the exile, the Prophet had uttered the same words. By their

verbal repetition, he intimates that the matter was not by any means

settled with the exile; that the latter must not be considered as the

absolute and final punishment for the sins of the whole nation, but

that, as truly as God is Jehovah, so surely His words will revive, as

often as the circumstances again exist, to which they originally

referred.

[Pg 426]

The more specific the consolation is, the more impressive is it, and

the more does it reach the heart. After having announced salvation,

therefore, to _all_ Israel, the Prophet now proceeds to the consolation

for the two divisions of Israel. He begins with Israel in the

restricted sense--the ten tribes (chap. xxxi. 1-22), and with them he

continues longest, because, when looking to the outward appearance,

they seemed to be lost beyond all hope of recovery, to be for ever

rejected by the Lord. The thought, that we have here an original and

independent announcement of salvation for Israel, is set aside even by

the relation of ver. 1 to ver. 22 of the preceding chapter. For it is

to this verse that the Prophet immediately connects his discourse;

vers. 23 and 24 are only a parenthetical remark, an _Odi profanum

vulgus et arceo_, addressed to those to whom the promise did not

belong. Upon the words: "You shall be my people, and I will be your

God," follow in an inverted order, the words: "At that time, saith the

Lord, I will (specially) be the God of all the families of Israel, and

they shall be my people." Rachel, the mother of Joseph and Benjamin,

weeping over her sons, vers. 15-17, is so much the more suited to

represent Israel, that the tribe of Benjamin also, as to its principal

portion, belonged to the kingdom of the ten tribes; compare my

commentary on Ps. lxxx. Upon Israel there follows, in vers. 23-26,

Judah. The announcement closes in ver. 26 with the words so often

misunderstood: "Upon this I awaked, and I beheld, and my sleep was

sweet unto me." The Prophet has lost sight of the Present; like a

sleeping man, he is not susceptible of its impressions, compare remarks

on Zech. iv. 1. Then he awakes for a moment from his sweet dream (an

allusion to Prov. iii. 24), which, however, is not, like ordinary

dreams, without foundation. He looks around; every thing is dark,

dreary, and cold; nowhere is there consolation for the weary soul.

"Ah," he exclaims, "I have sweetly dreamed,"--and immediately the hand

of the Lord again seizes him, and carries him away from the scenes of

the Present.

There is not by any means a different salvation destined for Israel and

Judah; it is one salvation to be partaken of by both, who are in future

to be re-united into one covenant-people, into a nation of brethren.

From the parts, therefore, [Pg 427] the description returns, in vers.

27-40, to the whole from which it had proceeded, and is thus completely

rounded off, especially by the circumstance that, just in this close,

there is contained the crown of the promises, the substance and centre

of the declaration recurring here in ver. 33: "And I will be their God,

and they shall be my people."

The whole description in both chapters is Messianic; and after what we

have already had frequent occasion to remark, no farther proof is

necessary to show how inadmissible is a proceeding like that of

_Venema_, who cuts it all up into small pieces, and here assumes an

exclusive reference to the return from the captivity; there, to the

Maccabees, whom he almost raises to Saviours; in another place, to

Christ and His Kingdom. We ought therefore, indeed, to give an

exposition of the whole section; but, for external reasons, we are

obliged to limit ourselves to an exposition of the principal portion,

chap. xxxi. 31-40.

It is chap. xxxi. 22 only which we shall briefly explain, because that

passage was, in former times, understood by many interpreters to

contain a personal Messianic prophecy. "_How long wilt thou turn aside,

O thou apostate daughter? for the Lord createth a new thing in the

land, woman shall compass about man._" The last words of the verse are,

by the ancient interpreters, commonly explained as referring to

Christ's birth by a virgin. Thus, _e.g._, _Cocceius_: "It could not be

said more distinctly, at least not without ceasing to be enigmatical,

unless he had said that a virgin has born Christ the Son of God." But

quite apart from other arguments, this explanation is opposed by the

obvious consideration, in that case, just that would here be stated

which, in the birth of Christ by a virgin, is _not_ peculiar. For

[Hebrew: gbr] and [Hebrew: nqbh] are a designation of the sex; the fact

that the woman brings forth the man (since [Hebrew: gbr] is asserted to

designate _proles mascula_), is something altogether common; but the

important feature is wanting, that the woman is to be a virgin, and the

man, the Son of God. But certainly not a whit better than this

explanation is that which modern interpreters (_Schnurrer_, _Gesenius_,

_Rosenmüller_, _Maurer_), have advanced in its stead: "The woman shall

protect the man, shall perform for him the _munus excubitoris

circumeuntis_." This, surely, is a "_ridiculus_ [Pg 428] _mus_"--an

argument quite unique. We must fully agree with _Schnurrer_, who

remarks: "This, surely, is something new, uncommon, unheard of;" but

not every thing _new_ is, for that reason, suitable for furnishing an

effectual motive for conversion. The sense at which _Ewald_ arrives: "A

woman transforming herself into a man," is surely not worthy of being

entertained at the expense of a change in the reading. The correct view

is the following:--The Prophet founds his exhortation to return to the

Lord upon the most effectual argument possible, viz., upon the fact

that the Lord was to return to them, that the time of wrath was now

over, that they might hasten back into the open arms of God's love.

Without hope of mercy, there cannot be a conversion. The perverse and

desponding heart of man must, by His preventing love, be allured to

come to God. How important and valuable the "new thing" is which the

Lord is to create, the Prophet shows by the terms which he has

selected. It is just the _nomina sexus_ which here are suitable; the

omission of the article also is intentional. The relation is

represented in its general aspect; and thereby the look is more

steadily directed to its fundamental nature and substance. "Woman shall

compass about (Ps. xxxii. 7, 10) man;" the strong will again take the

weak and tender into His intimate communion, under His protection and

loving care. The woman art thou, O Israel, who hitherto hast

sufficiently experienced, what a woman is without the man, how she is a

reed exposed to, and a sport of, all winds. The man is the Lord. How

foolish would it be on thy part, if thou wert to persevere any longer

in thine independence and dissoluteness, and if thou didst refuse to

return into the sweet relation of dependence and unconditional

surrender, which alone, being the only natural relation, can be

productive of happiness! In favour of this explanation is also the

clear reference of [Hebrew: tsvbb] to [Hebrew: ttHmqiN], and to

[Hebrew: hwvbbh], which, in the case of the latter word, is even

outwardly expressed by the alliteration. How foolish would it be still

farther to _depart_, as now the time is at hand when the Lord is

approaching.--It is obvious that, even according to our interpretation,

the prophecy retains its Messianic character.

[Pg 429]

The contents of the section, vers. 31-40, are as follows:--The Lord is

far from punishing with entire rejection the contempt of His former

gifts and blessings. On the contrary, by increased grace, He will renew

the bond between Him and the people, and render it for ever

indissoluble. The foundation of this is formed by the remission of

sins, of which the richer outpouring of the Spirit is a consequence;

and it is now, when the Law no more comes to Israel as an outward

letter, but is written in their hearts, that Israel attain their

destination; they will truly be the people of God, and God will be

truly their God, vers. 31-34. To the people conscious of their guilt,

and still groaning under the judgments of God, such a manifestation of

God's continuous grace appears incredible; but God most emphatically

assures them, that this election is still in force, and must continue

for ever, as truly as He is God, vers. 31-37. The city of God shall

gloriously arise out of its ashes. While formerly the unholy

abomination entered into her, the holy one, even into her innermost

parts, she _now_ shall extend her boundaries beyond the territory of

the unholy; and the Lord, who is sanctified _within_ her, will sanctify

himself _upon_ her also. There shall be no more destruction.

* * * * * * * * * *

Ver. 31. "_Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and I make a new covenant

with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah._"

Ver. 32. "_Not as the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the

day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of

Egypt, which my covenant they brake; but I marry them to me, saith the

Lord._"