The first question which we have here to examine is: What is to be

understood by the making of a covenant? We cannot here think of a

formal transaction, of a mutual contract, such as the covenant made

on Sinai. This appears from ver. 32, according to which the old

covenant was concluded on the day when the Lord took Israel by

the hand, in order to bring them out of Egypt; but at that time a

covenant-transaction proper was not yet mentioned. Most interpreters

erroneously suppose that by the words: "In the day," &c., the abode at

Sinai is [Pg 430] designated. But since the _day_ of the deliverance

from Egypt is commonly thus spoken of (comp. Exod. xii. 51 ff.); since

this _day_ was, as such, marked out by the annually returning feast of

the Passover, we must, here also, take [Hebrew: ivM], "day," in its

proper sense. And there is the less reason for abandoning this most

obvious sense that, in Exod. vi. 4; Ezek. xvi. 8; Hag. ii. 5, a

covenant with Israel is spoken of, which was not first concluded on

Sinai, but was already concluded when they went out from Egypt.

_Farther_--No obligation is spoken of in reference to the new covenant;

blessing and gifts are mentioned, and nothing but these. But are we to

adopt the opinion of _Frischmuth_ (_de foedere nov._ in the _Thes.

Ant._ i. p. 857), and of many other interpreters and lexicographers,

and say that [Hebrew: brit] "does not only signify a covenant entered

upon by two or several parties, but also [Greek: prothesin],

_propositum Dei_, [Greek: epangelias], His gratuitous and unconditional

promises, as well as His constant ordinances?" That might after all be

objectionable. [Hebrew: krt brit] cannot _signify_ any thing but to

make a covenant.[2] But the question is, whether the making of a

covenant cannot be spoken of in passages, where there is no mention of

transactions of a mutual agreement between two parties. The substance

of the covenant evidently precedes the outward conclusion of the

covenant, and forms the foundation of it. The conclusion of the

covenant does not first form the relation, but is merely a solemn

acknowledgment of the relation already existing. Thus it is ever in

human relations; the contract, as a rule, only fixes and settles

outwardly, a relation already existing. And that is still more the case

in the relation between God and man. By every benefit from God, an

obligation is imposed upon him who receives it, whether it may, in

express words, have been stated by God, and have been outwardly

acknowledged by the recipient or not. This is clearly seen in the case

under consideration. At the giving of the Law on Sinai, the obligatory

power of the commandments of [Pg 431] God is founded upon the fact,

that God brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage.

Hence, it appears that the Sinaitic covenant existed, in substance,

from the moment that the Lord led Israel out of Egypt. By apostatizing

from the Lord, the people would have broken the covenant, even if it

had not been solemnly confirmed on Sinai; just as their apostacy, in

the time between their going out and the transactions on Sinai, was

treated as a violation of the covenant. It would have been a breach of

the covenant, if the people had answered, in the negative, the solemn

questions of God, whether they would enter into a covenant with Him.

This appears so much the more clearly, when we keep in mind, that the

New Covenant was not at all sanctioned by such an external solemn act.

But if, nevertheless, it is a covenant in the strictest sense; if,

here, the relation is independent upon its acknowledgment,--then, under

the Old Testament too, this acknowledgment must be a secondary element.

The same is the case with all the other passages commonly quoted in

proof, that [Hebrew: krt brit] may also be used of mere blessings and

promises. Thus, _e.g._, Gen. ix. 9: "Behold, I establish my covenant

with you, and with your seed after you." That which is here designated

as a covenant is not the promise _per se_, that in future the course of

nature should, on the whole, remain undisturbed, but in so far only, as

it imposes upon them who receive it, the obligation to glorify, by

their walk, the Lord of the order of nature. In part, this obligation

is afterwards outwardly fixed in the commandments concerning murder,

eating of blood, &c. Gen. xv. 18: "In the same day God made a covenant

with Abraham, saying: Unto thy seed I give this land." In what

precedes, a promise only is contained; but this promise itself is, at

the same time, an obligation; and this obligation existed even then,

although it was at a later period only, solemnly undertaken by

receiving the sign of the covenant, circumcision. Exod. xxxiv. 10: "And

He said: Behold I make a covenant; before all thy people I will do

marvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation;

and all the people among whom thou art, shall see the work of the Lord;

for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee." The covenant on

Sinai is here already made; the making of the new covenant here spoken

of consists [Pg 432] in the mercies by which God will manifest himself

to His people as their God. Every one of these mercies involves a new

obligation for the people; every one is a question in deeds: This I do

to thee, what doest thou to me?--It will now be possible to determine

in what sense the Old Covenant is here contrasted with the New, The

point in question cannot be a new and more perfect revelation of the

Law of God; for that is common to both the dispensations. No jot or

tittle of it can be lost under the New Testament, and as little can a

jot or tittle be added. God's law is based on His nature, and that is

eternal and unchangeable, compare Mal. iii. 22 (iv. 4). The revelation

of the Law does not belong to the going out from Egypt, to which the

making of the former covenant is here attributed, but to Sinai. As

little can the discourse be of the introduction of an entirely new

relation, which is not founded at all upon the former one. On this

subject, _David Kimchi's_ remark is quite pertinent: "It will not be

the newness of the covenant, but its stability." The covenant with

Israel is an everlasting covenant. Jehovah would not be Jehovah, if an

entirely new commencement could take place; [Greek: legô de]--so the

Apostle writes in Rom. xv. 8--[Greek: Iêsoun Christon diakonon

gegenêsthai peritomês huper alêtheias theou eis to bebaiôsai tas

epangelias tôn paterôn. ta de ethnê huper eleous doxasai ton theon].

The sending of Christ with His gifts and blessings, the making of the

New Covenant, is thus the consequence of the covenant-faithfulness of

God. If then the Old and New Covenants are here contrasted, the former

cannot designate the relation of God to Israel _per se_, and in its

whole extent, but it must rather designate the former mode only, in

which this relation was manifested,--that whereby the Lord had, up to

the time of the Prophet, manifested himself as the God of Israel. With

this former imperfect form, the future more perfect form is here

contrasted, under the name of the New Covenant. The New Covenant which

is to take the place of the Old, when looking to the form (comp. Heb.

viii. 13: [Greek: en tô legein. Kainên, pepalaiôke tên prôtên. to de

palaioumenon kai gêraskon, engus aphanismou]), is, in substance, the

realization of the Old. These remarks are in perfect harmony with that

which was formerly said concerning the meaning of [Hebrew: krt brit].

We saw that this expression does not designate an act only once done,

[Pg 433] by which a covenant is solemnly sanctioned, but rather that it

is used of every action, by which a covenant-relation is instituted or

confirmed.--If, then, the Old Covenant is the former form of the

covenant with Israel; and the New Covenant the future form of it,

another question is:--Which among the manifold differences of those two

forms are here specially regarded by the Prophet? The answer to this

question is supplied by that which the Prophet declares concerning the

New Covenant. For since it is _not_ to be like the former covenant, the

excellences of the New must be as many defects of the Old. These

excellences, however, are all of a spiritual nature,--first, the

forgiveness of sins, and then the writing of the Law in the heart.

It follows from this, that the blessings of the Old Covenant were

_pre-eminently_ (for we shall afterwards see that an entire absence of

these spiritual blessings cannot be spoken of, and that the difference

between the Old and the New Covenant is, in this respect, a relative

one only, not an absolute one) of an external nature; and this is also

suggested by the circumstance, that it is represented as being

concluded when the people were led out of Egypt; in which fact, all the

later similar deliverances and blessings are comprehended. The Prophet,

if any one, had learned that, in the way hitherto pursued, they could

not successfully continue. The sinfulness of the people had, at his

time, manifested itself in such fearful outbreaks, that, even when

looking at the matter from a human point of view, he could not but feel

most deeply that, with outward blessings and gifts, with an outward

deliverance from servitude, the people were very little benefited. What

is the use of a mercy which, according to divine necessity, must be

immediately followed by a punishment so much the more severe? The

necessary condition for the true and lasting bestowal of outward

salvation, is the bestowal of the internal salvation; without the

latter the former is only a mockery. It is this internal salvation,

therefore, which is the highest aim of the Prophet's longings; to it he

here points as the highest blessing of the Future; compare also chap.

xxxii. 40: "And I make an everlasting covenant with them, and I will no

more turn away from them to do them good, and I will put my fear in

their hearts that they shall not depart from me."--The closing words of

ver. 32 are frequently misunderstood. [Pg 434] The erroneous

interpretation of [Hebrew: awr] by "_quia_," which is found with most

expositors, is of less consequence. [Hebrew: awr] indicates, in

general, the connection with what precedes. We may explain it either

by: "which my covenant they brake," as is done by _Ewald_; or, "since

(Deut. iii. 24) they brake my covenant," in which latter case, [Hebrew:

awr] refers at the same time to "I marry them unto me." We have here

farther carried out and detailed that which previously was said of the

making of a new covenant; and the sense is: Although they have broken

my former covenant, yet I marry them unto me, or make a new covenant

with them. Of greater importance is the difference in the

interpretation of [Hebrew: belti]. By far the greater number of

interpreters understand this _sensu malo_; the ancient interpreters in

doing so refer to the words [Greek: kagô êmelêsa autôn], (Heb. viii.

9); but these can scarcely prove anything. For the author of that

epistle, whose sole object it is to show that the new covenant stands

higher than the old--the insufficiency of the latter was, as the

Prophet's expressions show, sufficiently felt even by those who lived

under it--has, in these words, which do not stand in any relation to

the object which he has in view, followed the LXX. But it is a rather

doubtful and suspicious circumstance that, in determining the sense,

these interpreters greatly vary. Some, referring to the Arabic, explain

[Hebrew: bel] by "_fastidire_;" others, as they allege, from the Hebrew

_usus loquendi_, by "to tyrannize." Thus, _e.g._ _Buddeus_ (_de

praerogat. fidelium N. T._ in the Miscell. p. 106): "We may readily

understand thereby every severe chastisement by the neighbouring

nations, such as frequently happened: they did not remain in my

covenant, therefore I made them to bear the yoke of others, [Greek:

êmelêsa autôn], _neglexi eos_." But we have already seen (comp. remarks

on chap. iii. 14), that for neither of these significations is there

any foundation; and this has been felt by those also who, in order to

bring out a bad signification, such as, according to their view, the

text requires, undertook to change the reading, as _e.g._ _Cappellus_,

who would read [Hebrew: gelti], and _Grotius_, who would read [Hebrew:

bhlti].[3] The signification "to betroth onesself," "to [Pg 435] take

in marriage," which in that passage we vindicated for [Hebrew: bel]

with [Hebrew: b], is, here too, quite applicable; comp. Jer. ii. 1.

This signification the Chaldee Paraphrast too seems to have had in

view; for he translates [Hebrew: atreiti] "_cupio vos_," "_delector

vobis_." And is there anything to indicate, that here the reason is to

be stated, why the old covenant is abolished? That reason can be

brought in only by very forced explanations (comp. _e.g._ _Maurer_ and

_Hitzig_); and it is, moreover, sufficiently expressed, as the author

of the Epistle to the Hebrews has shown. Even in the announcement of a

_new_ covenant, the declaration is implied that the old covenant was

insufficient: [Greek: ei gar hê prôtê ekeinê ên amemptos, ouk an

deuteras ezêteito topos] (Heb. viii. 7), as well as the reason why it

was so, viz., on account of human sinfulness and hardness of heart,

which are not helped and remedied by pre-eminently outward blessings

and benefits, be they never so great. This their former greatness is

indicated by the words: "When I took them by the hand,"--words which

imply the most tender love. To this subjective cause of the

insufficiency of the old covenant there is a reference in the words:

[Greek: memphomenos gar autois legei], in Heb. viii. 8, which by _De

Wette_ and _Bleek_ are erroneously translated: "For reprovingly He says

to them." The Dative [Greek: autois] belongs to [Greek: memphomenos]

(comp. _Mathiae_, S. 705); if it were otherwise it would be redundant,

and would the less be in its place, that the discourse is not addressed

to the children of Israel. The reason why a better covenant was

required, such a one [Greek: hêtis epi kreittosin epangeliais

nenomothetêtai], Heb. viii. 6, appears sufficiently from that which, in

vers. 33, 34, is said of this new covenant in contrast to the old.

Here, however, it is rather the infinite love of God, the greatness of

His covenant-faithfulness which are pointed out; and this thought is,

from among all others, best suited to the context. [Hebrew: hmh] and

[Hebrew: anki] form an emphatic contrast. _They_, in wicked

ingratitude, have broken the former covenant, have shaken off the

obligations [Pg 436] which God's former mercies imposed upon them. God

too--so it might be expected--ought now to annul the old covenant, and

for ever withdraw from them the old mercies. But, instead of doing so,

He grants the new covenant, the greater mercy. He anew takes in

marriage apostate Israel, and in such a manner that now the bond of

love becomes firm and indestructible. _Bleek_ objects to our

interpretation: "The object is not the city of Jerusalem, or even the

Congregation of Israel, but the single Israelites, who may indeed be

designated as the children of Jehovah, but not as His spouse." But, in

such personifications, it is quite a common thing that the real

plurality should take the place of the ideal unity. In Exod. xxxiv.

15, for instance, it is said: "And they go a whoring after their

gods,"--instead of the congregation, to which the _whoring_ properly

belongs, (comp. Is. lvii. 7), the individual members are mentioned;

comp. Hos. ii. 1, 2 (i. 10, ii. 19).

Ver. 33. "_For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of

Israel after these days, saith the Lord: I give my law in their inward

parts, and will write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and

they shall be my people._"

[Hebrew: ki] is, by some interpreters, here supposed to mean "but;" so

much, only, however, is correct that "but" might _also_ have been put;

_for_ is here quite in its place. The words: "Not as the covenant,"

&c., in the preceding verse, are here vindicated, and expanded by a

positive definition of the nature and substance of the New Covenant. It

is just because it is of such a nature, that it is not like the former

covenant. [Hebrew: hhM] does not, by any means, as is erroneously

supposed by _Venema_ and _Hitzig_, refer to the days mentioned in ver.

31, in which the New Covenant was to be made. "These days," on the

contrary, are a designation of the Present; "after these days,"

equivalent to [Hebrew: bahrit himiM] "at the end of days." The Prophet

so repeatedly and emphatically points to the Future, because unbelief

and weak faith imagined that, with the Present, the history of the

covenant-people was finished, and that no Future was in store for them.

_Calvin_ pertinently remarks: "It is just as if the Prophet had said,

that the grace of which he was prophesying could not be apprehended,

unless they, believers, kept their minds composed, and patiently waited

until the [Pg 437] time of the promised salvation had come." As regards

the following enumeration of the blessings, in and by the bestowal of

which the new covenant-relation is to be established, _Venema_ very

correctly remarks: "The blessings are distinguished into radical or

causal ones, and subsequent or derived ones." The second [Hebrew: ki],

in ver. 34: "_For_ I will forgive their sin," proves the correctness of

this division, which is also pointed out by the _Athnach_.--[Hebrew:

tvrh] is, by many interpreters, here understood to signify "doctrine."

Thus _Buddeus_: "By the word [Hebrew: tvrh], the whole New Testament

doctrine is to be understood." This interpretation, however, is

objectionable, and destructive of the sense, [Hebrew: tvrh] never means

"doctrine," but always "law;" and the fact that it is only _the_ law of

God, the eternal expression of His nature, and common, therefore, to

both the Old and New Covenants, which can be here spoken of, and not a

new constitution for the latter, is seen from the reference in which

the giving in the inward parts and the writing on the heart (the tables

of the heart, 2 Cor. iii. 3), stands to the outward communication and

the writing on the tables of stone on Sinai. The law is the same; the

relation only is different in which God places it to man, ("_lex cum

homine conciliatur quasi_," _Michaelis_.) One might easily infer from

the passage before us a confirmation of the error, that the law under

the Old Covenant was _only_ an outward dead letter. Against this error

_Buddeus_ already contended, who, S. 117, acknowledges that it is a

relative difference and contrast only, which are here spoken of He

says: "This, of course, was the case with the Old Testament believers

also; here, however, God promises a richer fulness and higher degree of

this blessing." _Calvin_ declares the opinion that, under the Old

Testament dispensation, there did not exist any regeneration, to be

absurd, and says: "we know that, under the Law, the grace of God was

rare and dark; but that, under the Gospel, the gifts of the Spirit were

_poured_ out, and that God dealt much more liberally with His Church."

The idea of a purely outward giving of the Law is indeed one which is

quite inconceivable. God would, in that case, have done nothing else

towards Israel than He did to the traitor Judas, in whose conscience He

proclaimed His holy Law, without communicating to him strength for

repentance. But such a proceeding can be conceived of, only where there

is a subjective impossibility [Pg 438] of [Greek: anakainizein eis

metanoian]. Every outward manifestation of God _must_, according to the

constitution of human nature, be accompanied by the inward

manifestation, since it is inconceivable that He who knows our nature,

should mock us by the semblance of a blessing. As soon as we know the

outward fact of the deliverance from Egypt, we know, at the same time,

that God has then powerfully touched the heart of Israel. As soon as it

is established that the Law on Sinai was written on tables of stone by

the finger of God, it is also established that He, at the same time,

wrote it on the tables of Israel's heart. But that which is thus

implied in the matter itself, is confirmed by the testimony of history.

In the Law itself, circumcision is designated as the pledge and seal of

the bestowal, not merely of outward blessings, but of the circumcision

of the heart, of the removal of sin attaching to every one by birth; so

that man can love God with all his heart, all his sold, and all his

powers, Deut. xxx. 6. This circumcision of the heart which, in the

outward circumcision, was at the same time _required_ and promised by

God (comp. Deut. l. c. with x. 16), is not substantially different from

the writing of the Law on the heart. _Farther_--If the Law of the Lord

had, for Israel, been a mere outward letter, how could the animated

praise of it in the Holy Scriptures, _e.g._, in Ps. xix., be accounted

for? Surely, a bridge must already have been formed between the Law and

him who can speak of it as rejoicing the heart, as enlightening the

eyes, as converting the soul, as sweeter than honey and the honeycomb.

That is no more the Law in its isolation which worketh wrath, but it is

the Law in its connection with the Spirit, whose commandments are not

grievous; comp. my commentary on Ps. xix. 8 ff. A _new_ heart was

created under the Old Testament also, Ps. li. 12; and not to know the

nature of this creation was, for a teacher in Israel, the highest

disgrace, John iii. 10. Yea, that which is here promised for the

Future, a pious member of the Old Covenant expresses, in Ps. xl. 9, _in

the same form_, as being already granted to him as his present

spiritual condition: "I delight to do thy will, O my God, and thy Law

is in the midst of my bowels,"--words which imply the same contrast to

the Law as outward letter, as being written on tables of stone, comp.

Prov. iii. 1-3: "My son, [Pg 439] forget not my law, and let thine

heart keep my commandments ... bind them about thy neck, write them

upon the table of thine heart;" compare my commentary on Psalms, Vol.

iii. p. lxvii.--But how is it to be explained that the contrariety

which, in itself, is relative, appears here under the form of the

absolute contrariety,--the difference in degree, as a difference in

kind? Evidently in the same manner as the same phenomenon must be

explained elsewhere also, _e.g._ John i. 17, where it is said that the

Law was given by Moses, but mercy and truth by Christ. By overlooking

this fact, so many errors have been called forth. The blessings of the

Old Covenant which, when considered in themselves, are so important and

rich, appear, when compared with the much fuller and more important

blessings of the New Covenant, to be so trifling that they vanish

entirely out of sight. It is quite similar when, in chap. iii. 16, the

Prophet represents the highest sanctuary of the Old Covenant, the Ark

of the Covenant, as sinking into entire oblivion in future; when, in

chap. xxiii. 7, 8, he describes the deliverance from Egypt as no longer

worthy of being mentioned. Parallel to the passage under consideration

is the promise of Joel of the pouring out of the Spirit, chap. iii. 1,

2 (ii. 28, 29); so that that which we remarked on that passage, is

applicable here also. But, in that passage, the relative nature of the

promise appears more clearly than it does here, just because, in

general, under the New Covenant, in its relation to the Old, there is

nowhere an absolutely new beginning, but always a completion only (just

in the same manner as, on the other hand, under the New Covenant

itself, it is in the relation of the _regnum gloriae_ to the _regnum

gratiae_). Joel, in reference to the communication of the Spirit, puts

the abundance in the place of the scarcity; the many in the place of

the few. Compare, moreover, chap. xxiv. 7: "And I give them a heart to

know me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be

their God;" xxxii. 39: "And I give them one heart and one way, that

they may fear me for ever, for the good of them and of their children

after them;" but especially Ezek. xi. 19, 20, xxxvi. 26, 27.--The

remarks of Jewish interpreters on the passage under consideration, in

which they cannot avoid seeing that, in it, a purely moral revelation

is prophesied, [Pg 440] in contrast to a mere external one, clearly

show how strongly the Old Testament is opposed to that carnal Jewish

delusion of the condition of the Messianic Kingdom (as it is most

glaringly expressed in the Talmudic passage _Massechet Sanhedrim_, fol.

119: "There is no other difference between the days of the Messiah and

the present state of things, excepting only that the kingdoms shall be

our slaves),"--a delusion which is quite analogous to the expectations

which are entertained by revolutionists concerning the Future, and

which flow from the same source. Thus Rabbi _Bechai_ (see _Frischmuth_)

remarks: "This means that every evil concupiscence shall be taken away,

and every desire to covet any thing;" _Moses Nachmanides_ (_ibid._ S.

861): "And this is nothing else than that every evil concupiscence

shall be taken away, so that the heart, by an internal impulse, does

what is right.--In the days of Messiah there will not exist any

evil desire, but, from the impulse of his nature, man will do what

is right. And there will, therefore, not be innocence and guilt,

inasmuch as these depend upon concupiscence." But if once bent upon it,

pre-conceived opinions will overcome every, even the strongest,

contradiction offered by the matter itself This may be seen from the

example of _Grotius_, who here explains: "I will cause that all of

them keep my Law in memory,--in the first instance, by the multitude

of synagogues which, at that time, were built, and in which the

Law was taught thrice a-week." Thrice a-week! Surely that will produce

first-rate men, viz., such as are described in Isa. lviii. 2. It is not

without meaning, that the words: "And I will be their God," &c., follow

upon: "And I give my Law in their inward parts," &c. The Law is the

expression of God's nature; it is only by the Law being written in the

heart that man can become a partaker of God's nature; that His name can

be sanctified in him. And it is this participation in the nature of

God, this sanctification of God's name, which forms the foundation of:

"I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Without this, the

relation cannot exist at all, as truly as God is not an idol, but the

True and Holy One. These words express, as _Buddeus_, S. 94, rightly

remarks: "That He will impart himself altogether to them." But how were

it possible that God, with His blessings and gifts, should [Pg 441]

impart himself entirely and unconditionally to them who are not of His

nature? Of all unnatural things, this would be the most unnatural.

Here, however, likewise the relative character of the promise most

clearly appears. As early as to Abraham, God had promised that He would

be a God to _him_, and to his seed after him; and this promise he had

afterwards repeated to the whole people, Lev. xxvi. 12, comp. Exod.

xxix. 45: "And I dwell in the midst of the children of Israel and will

be their God." In the consciousness that this promise was fulfilled in

the time then present, David exclaims in Ps. xxxiii. 12: "Blessed is

the nation whose God is Jehovah, the generation whom He hath chosen for

His inheritance." Hence, here too, there is nothing absolutely new. If

such were the subject of discourse, then the whole Kingdom of God under

the Old Testament dispensation would be changed into a mere semblance

and illusion. But the small measure of the condition--with which even

God himself cannot dispense, but of which He may vouchsafe a larger

measure, viz., the writing of the Law in the heart, whereby man becomes

a copy of God, the personal Law--was necessarily accompanied by the

small measure of the consequence, The perfect fulfilment of God's

promise to Abraham and Israel, to which the prophet here alludes,

could, therefore, be expected from the future only.

Ver. 34. "_And they shall teach no more a man his neighbour, and a man

his brother, saying: Know the Lord; for they all shall know me, small

and great, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I

will remember their sin no more._"

Even from ancient times, the first hemistich of the verse has created

great embarrassment to interpreters, from which very few of them, not

excepting even _Calvin_, manage to extricate themselves skilfully. The

declaration that, because all will be taught by God, human instruction

in things divine is to cease, has, at first sight, something fanatical

in it, and, indeed, was made use of by Anabaptists and other

enthusiasts in vindication of their delusion.[4] Many interpreters

attempt an evasion, [Pg 442] by referring the words to the future life;

thus _Theodoret_, _Augustine_, (_de Spirit. et lit._ c. 24) and _Este_,

who, in a manner almost _naïve_, remarks: "This difficulty, it seems,

is very simply avoided by those who refer this promise to the future

world, where, no doubt, all care about teaching will cease." But the

matter is, indeed, not at all difficult. All that is necessary is to

keep in mind that human instruction is here excluded, in so far only as

it is opposed to divine instruction concerning God himself; that hence,

that which is here spoken of, is _mere_ human instruction, by which men

are trained and drilled in religion, just as in every other branch of

common knowledge,--a result of which is, that they may learn for ever

without ever coming to the knowledge of the truth. Such an instruction

may be productive of historical faith, of belief in human authority;

but it is just by this, that the nature of religion will be altogether

destroyed. Even the true God becomes an idol when He is not known

through himself, when He himself does not prepare the heart as a place

to dwell in. He is, and remains a mere idea that can impart no strength

in the struggle against sin which is a real power, and no comfort in

affliction. Now, such a condition was very frequent under the Old

Testament dispensation. The mass of the people possessed only a

knowledge of God, which was chiefly, although not exclusively, obtained

through human instrumentality. By the New Covenant, richer gifts of the

Spirit were to be bestowed, and along with them, the number of those

was to be increased who were to partake in them, just as Isaiah, in

chap. vii. 16, represents believers under the Old Testament as being

taught by the Lord, while in chap. liv. 13, in reference to the

Messianic time, he announces: "And all thy children shall be taught of

the Lord." Under the New Covenant, the antithesis of teaching by God,

and teaching by man, is to cease. The teachers do not teach in their

own strength, but as servants and instruments of the Lord. It is not

they who speak, Init the Holy Spirit in them. Those who are taught by

them hear the word that comes to them through men, not as man's word,

but as God's word; and they receive it, not because it satisfies their

limited human reason, but because the Spirit testifies that the Spirit

is truth. How this antithesis is done away with, and reconciled in a

higher unity, is, among other passages, [Pg 443] shown by 2 Cor. iii.

3: "You are an epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with

ink, but with the Spirit of the living God." They are [Greek:

theodidaktoi], but through the ministry of the Apostle who, in so far

as he performs this service, is not different from God, but only a

conductor of His power, a channel through which the oil of the Holy

Spirit flows to the Church of God; compare remarks on Zech. iv. The

same is taught in 1 John ii. 20: [Greek: Kai humeis chrisma echete apo

tou hagiou, kai oidate panta. Ouk egrapsa humin, hoti ouk oidate tên

alêtheian, all'hoti oidate autên.] Ver. 27: [Greek: Kai humeis to

chrisma, ho elabete ap'autou, en humin, menei kai ou chreian echete,

hina tis didaskê humas, all'hos to auto chrisma didaskei humas peri

pantôn k. t. l.] The [Greek: didaskein] here signifies the human

teaching in contrast to that which is divine, such an one as undertakes

by its own power to work knowledge in him who is taught. Such a

teaching cannot take place under the new covenant. A fundamental

knowledge is already imparted to all its members; the [Greek:

paraklêtos], the Holy Ghost, alone teaches them, John xiv. 26; He leads

them into all truth, John xvi. 13. But, just because this is the case,

the teaching by means of those whom God has given, in His Church, as

apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers (Eph. iv. 11), to whom He has

communicated His [Greek: charismata], is quite in its place. The

apostle writes just _because_ they know the truth. If it were

otherwise, his efforts would be altogether in vain. Of what use is it

to give instruction about colours to him who is blind? In things

divine, the truth becomes truth to the single individual, only because

his knowledge of God is founded on his being in God; and that can be

accomplished only by his being connected to God through God. Being,

life, and hence, also, real living knowledge, can proceed only from the

fountain of all being and life. But in the case of those who are in

God, who possess the fundamental knowledge, this knowledge must be

developed, carried on, and brought to full consciousness through the

instrumentality of those to whom God has granted the gifts for it. A

glance into the deep meaning of our passage was obtained by the author

of the book _Jelammedenu_, which is quoted by _Abarbanel_ (in

_Frischmuth_, S. 863); he says: "Under the present dispensation, Israel

learns the Law from mortal men, and therefore forgets it; for as flesh

and blood pass away (comp. [Pg 444] Matt. xvi. 17, where the antithesis

existing between a knowledge of divine things which rests on human

ground, and that which rests on divine ground, is brought before us in

its strictest form), so also its instruction passes away. But a time

shall come when a man shall not learn from the mouth of a man, but from

the mouth of the blessed God, for it is written: 'All thy children

shall be taught by God.'In these words, it is implied that hitherto

the knowledge of the Law was an artificial one obtained by mortal men.

But for that reason, it cannot stand long, for the effect stands in

proportion to its cause. At the time of the deliverance, however, the

knowledge of the Law will be obtained in a miraculous manner." It is,

however, quite obvious that this promise, too, must be understood

relatively only. All the pious men of the Old Covenant were [Greek:

theodidaktoi]; and under the New Covenant, the number of those is

infinitely great who, through their own guilt, stand to truth in a

relation which is entirely or preeminently mediate.--Instead of the

"small," by way of individualization, servants and handmaids are

mentioned in Joel iii. 2 (ii. 29); compare remarks on Rev. xi. 18.--We

have already seen that in the last words of the verse, the fundamental

blessing is promised. But whether [Hebrew: ki] be referred only to that

which immediately precedes, or to every thing which goes before

(_Venema_: _vocala_ [Hebrew: ki] _non ad proxime praecedentia

referenda, sed ad totam pericopam, qua bona foederis recensita sunt,

extenda_), amounts to nearly the same thing; for that which immediately

precedes includes all the rest. We have before us nothing but

designations of the same thing from various aspects; everything depends

upon the richer bestowal of the gifts of the Spirit. This has the

forgiveness of sins for its necessary foundation; for, before God can

give, He must first take. The sins which separate the people and their

God from one another, must first be taken away; it is then only that

the inward means can be bestowed, so that the people may become truly

God's people, and God's name may be sanctified in them. It is obvious

that, here too, a relative difference only between the Old and New

Covenant can be spoken of A covenant-people without forgiveness of sins

is no covenant-people; a God with whom there is not forgiveness, in

order that He may be feared, who does not heal the bones [Pg 445] which

He has broken, who in this respect gives promises for the Future only,

is no God, and no blessing. For if He does not grant this, He cannot

grant any thing else, inasmuch as every thing else implies this, and is

of no value without it. Forgiveness of sins is the essence of the

Passover as the feast of the covenant. On the Ark of the Covenant, it

was represented by the _Capporeth_ (see _Genuineness of the

Pentateuch_, Vol. ii., p. 525 f.). Without it the sin-offerings

appointed by God are a lie; without it, all that is untrue which God

says of himself as the covenant-God, that He is gracious and merciful,

Exod. xxxiv. 6. The holy Psalmists often acknowledge with praise and

thanks that God _has_ forgiven sins; comp. _e.g._ Ps. lxxxv. 3: "Thou

hast taken away the iniquities of thy people, thou hast covered all

their sins." In the same manner they are loud in praising the high

blessing bestowed upon the individual by the forgiveness of sins; comp.

Ps. xxxii. 51. The consciousness that their sins are forgiven, forms

the foundation of the disposition of heart which we perceive in the

Psalmists; see Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. iii. p. lxv. f. "What a

[Greek: plêrophoria]"--so _Buddeus_ remarks, p. 109--"what a

confidence, what a joy of a tranquil and quiet conscience shines forth

in the psalms and prayers of David!" We have thus before us merely a

difference in degree. To the believers of that time, the sin of the

covenant-people appeared to be too great to admit of its being

forgiven. Driven away from the face of the Lord, so they imagined, it

would close its miserable existence in the land of Nod; never would the

[Greek: kairoi anapsuxeôs] return. But, in opposition to such fears,

the Prophet declares, in the name of the Lord, that they would not only

return, but come, for the first time, in the true and full sense; that

where they imagined to behold the end to the forgiveness of sins, there

would be its real beginning; that where sin abounded, the grace of God

should there so much the more abound. Only, they should not despair,

and thus place a barrier in the way of God's mercy. Your God is not a

mere hard task-master; He himself will sow and then reap, as surely as

He is God, the gracious and merciful One.

Ver. 35. "_Thus saith the Lord, giving the sun for a light by day, and

the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for_ [Pg 446] _a light by

night, agitating the sea, and the waves thereof roar, the Lord of hosts

is His name._"

Ver. 36. "_If these ordinances will cease before me, saith the Lord,

then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me

for ever._"

Interpreters commonly assume that, already in ver. 35, the discourse is

of the firm and immutable divine laws which every thing must obey. But

opposed to this view are the words: "Agitating the sea, and the waves

thereof roar," in which no definite perceptible rule, no uninterrupted

return takes place. To this argument may be added the comparison of the

fundamental passage, Isa. li. 15, in which the omnipotence only of God

is to be brought out: "And I am the Lord thy God, who agitates the sea,

and its waves roar, the Lord of hosts is His name;" comp. also Amos.

ix. 5, 6. It thus appears that, in ver. 35, God's omnipotence only is

spoken of, which establishes that He is God and not man; and this forms

the foundation for the declaration set forth in ver. 36, which is so

full of comfort for the despairing covenant-people,--the proposition,

namely, that, while all men are liars, He does not lie; that He can

never repent of His covenant and promises. The "ordinances" (moon and

stars are, in their regular return, themselves, as it were, embodied

ordinances), are mentioned already in ver. 35, because just the

circumstance that, according to eternal and inviolable laws, sun and

moon must appear every day at a fixed time, and have done so for

thousands and thousands of years, testifies more strongly for His

omnipotence and absolute power, never liable to any foreign influence

or interference, than if they at one time appeared, and, at another,

failed to appear. God's omnipotence, as it is testified by a look to

nature (_Calvin_: "The Prophet contents himself with pointing out what

even boys knew, viz., that the sun makes his daily circuit round the

whole earth, that the moon does the same, and that the stars in their

turn succeed, so that, as it were, the moon with the stars exercises

dominion by night, and, afterwards, the sun reigns by day"), results

from the fact that He is the pure, absolute, being (Jehovah His name,

comp. remarks on Mal. iii. 6); and it is just because He is this, that

His counsels, which He declared without any condition attached to them,

must be [Pg 447] unchangeable. To believe that He has for ever rejected

Israel, is to degrade Him, to make Him an idol, a creature.--In ver.

36, the immutability of God's counsel of grace is put on a level with

the immutability of God's order of nature; but this is done with a view

to the weakness of the people, who receive, for a pledge of their

election, that which is most firm among visible things; so that every

rising of the sun and moon is to them a guarantee of it; compare Ps.

lxxxix. 37, 38. But considered in itself, the counsels of God's grace

are _much firmer_ than the order of nature. The heavens wax old as a

garment, and as a vesture He changes them and they are changed (Ps.

cii. 27-29); heaven and earth shall pass away, but the word of God

shall not pass away.--From chap. xxxiii. 24: "They despise my people

([Hebrew: emi]) that they should be still a nation ([Hebrew: gvi])

before them" it appears why it is that [Hebrew: gvi] is here used, and

not [Hebrew: eM]. The covenant-people in their despair imagined that

their national existence, which, in the Present, was destroyed, was

gone for ever. If only their national existence was sure, then

also was their existence as a covenant-people. For, just as their

national existence had ceased, because they had ceased to be the

covenant-people, so they could again obtain a national existence as the

covenant-people only.

Ver. 37. "_Thus saith the Lord: If the heavens above be measured, and

the foundations of the earth beneath be searched out, I will also cast

off all the seed of Israel, for all that they have done, saith the

Lord._"

It is not without meaning that the Prophet so frequently repeats: Thus

saith the Lord. This formed the [Greek: A] and [Greek: Ô]; His word was

the _sole_ ground of hope for Israel. Apart from it, despair was as

reasonable, as now it was unreasonable. The measuring of heaven, and

the searching out of the innermost parts of the earth, come here into

consideration as things impossible. The words: "All the seed of

Israel," take from the hypocrites that consolation which they might be

disposed to draw from these promises. It is as much in opposition to

the nature of God that He should permit all the seed of Israel, the

faithful with the unbelievers, to perish, as that He should save all

the seed of Israel, unbelievers as well as believers. The promise, as

well as the threatening, always leaves a remnant. All that the covenant

grants is, that the whole cannot [Pg 448] perish (the discourse is

here, of course, of definite rejection); but it gives no security to

the individual sinner. The words: "For all that they have done," are

added intentionally, because the greatness of the sins of the people

was the _punctum saliens_ in the believers'despair of the mercy of

God. _Calvin_ says: "The Prophet here intentionally brings forward the

sins of the people, in order that we may know that the grace of God is

greater still, and that the multitude of so many wicked men would not

be an obstacle to God's granting pardon."

Ver. 38. "_Behold, days, saith the Lord, and the city is built to the

Lord from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner._ Ver. 39.

_And the measuring line goeth yet farther over against it, over the

hill Gareb_ (the leper), _and turneth towards Goah_ (place of

execution). Ver. 40. _And the whole valley of the carcasses and of the

ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, and from thence

unto the horsegate, towards the East,_ (all this is) _holiness unto the

Lord. No more shall it be destroyed, nor shall it be laid waste for

ever._"

This prophecy embraces two features: _first_, the restoration of the

Kingdom of God, represented under the figure of a restoration of

Jerusalem, which, under the Old Covenant, was its seat and centre (it

is this aspect only which Zechariah, in resuming this prophecy, has

brought forward in chap. xiv. 10); and, _secondly_, the glorification

of the Kingdom of God, which now is so strengthened and increased, that

it can undertake to attack and assail the dark kingdom of evil, and

subject it to itself, while formerly it was attacked and assailed by

it, and often could not prevent the enemy from penetrating into the

innermost heart of its territory. This thought the Prophet graphically

clothes in a perceptible form, and in such a manner that he describes

how the unholy places, by which Jerusalem, the holy city, was

surrounded on all sides, are included in its circumference, and become

holiness unto the Lord. In former times, the victory of the world over

the Kingdom of God had been embodied in the fact, that the abominations

of sin and idolatry had penetrated into the very temple; compare chap.

vii. 11: "Is then this house, which is called by the name of the Lord,

a den of robbers, saith the Lord?" Other passages will be mentioned

when we come to comment upon Dan. ix. 27. This inward victory must,

according to divine necessity, [Pg 449] be followed by the outward one.

The covenant-people which, inwardly, had submitted to the world, which,

by its own guilt, had profaned itself, was, outwardly also, given up to

the world, and was profaned in punishment. And this profanation,

inflicted upon it as a punishment, again manifested itself just at that

place, where the profanation by the guilt had chiefly manifested

itself, viz., in the holy city, and in the holy temple. It is with a

view to the former manifestation of the victory of the world over the

Kingdom of God, that here the victory of the Kingdom of God over the

world is described; and the imagery is just simple imagery. To the

outward holiness of the city and of the temple, the outward unholiness

of the places around Jerusalem is opposed. While the victory of the

world over the Kingdom of God had been manifested by the profanation of

these places, the victory of the Kingdom of God now appears under the

image of the sanctification of these formerly unholy places. By what

means that great change had been brought about; by what means the

Kingdom of God, which now lay so powerlessly prostrate, should again

obtain powers which it had never before possessed; by what means the

servant was to be changed into a lord, it was unnecessary for the

Prophet here to point out; it had been already mentioned in vers.

32-34. The difference consists in this, that the New Covenant is not

like the Old, but that it first furnishes the right weapons by which

sin and the world can be overcome, viz., an infinitely richer measure

of the forgiveness of sins, of the graces of the Spirit.--We must still

premise a general remark concerning the determination of the boundaries

of the New Jerusalem here given, because this must guide us in

determining the single doubtful places which are here mentioned. The

correct view has been already given by _Vitringa_ in his Commentary on

Isaiah xxx. 33: "The Prophet promises to the returning ones the

restoration of the city of Jerusalem in its whole circumference; and he

describes it in this way, that he begins from the Eastern wall, passes

on thence, through the North side, to the West side, and thence, by the

South side, returns to the East." For the Prophet begins with the tower

of Hananeel which was situated at the East side of the town, near the

sheep-gate; compare remarks on Zech. xiv. 10. Thence he proceeds to [Pg

450] the corner-gate, which was situated in that corner where the North

and East met (compare l. c.), and hence comprehends the whole North

side. He closes with the horse-gate, of which he expressly states that

it was situated towards the East, and hence points out that he had

again arrived at the place from which he set out. We have thus gained a

firm foundation for determining those among the places mentioned, the

situation of which is, in itself, doubtful.--Let us now proceed to the

consideration of particulars. After [Hebrew: imiM], the _Keri_ inserts

[Hebrew: baiM]. It is true that this fuller expression is commonly used

by the Prophet; but, for that very reason, the more concise one is to

be preferred, which alone has the authority of the MSS. in its favour,

while the _Keri_ is nothing but a conjecture, perhaps not even that.

The full expression having already occurred so frequently in the

passage under consideration, the Prophet here, at the close, and for a

change, contents himself with the mere intimation. The Prophet says

intentionally: "The city is built to the Lord," so that "to the Lord"

must be connected with "is built;" not "the city of the Lord." The

latter expression had become so much a _nomen proprium_ of Jerusalem,

that the full depth of its meaning was no more thought of. This new

city is no more to be called simply the city of the Lord; it is truly

to be built to the Lord, so that it belongs to Him.--In the first two

points of the boundary, the tower of Hananeel and the Corner-gate, the

second main idea of the passage does not yet come out so prominently.

This is to be accounted for simply by the circumstance, that on the

whole North side of the town there was not any unholy places. The

Suffix in [Hebrew: ngdv] refers to the Corner-gate; the measuring line,

[Hebrew: qvh] according to the _Kethibh_, [Hebrew: qv hmdh], which is

the common form, according to the _Keri_, goes yet farther over against

it, &c. By the words "over against," it is intimated that it now goes

beyond the former dimensions of the town. [Hebrew: el] "over" (_Hitzig_

erroneously translates it "towards," or "by the side of it"), shows

that the hill Gareb is included within the circumference of the new

city. From the remarks formerly made, it appears that the hill Gareb,

and Goah, places which are nowhere else mentioned, must have been

situated on the West side; and, moreover, Gareb on the North-west [Pg

451] side[5] and Goah on the South-west side, [Hebrew: grb] has no

other signification than "the leper;" and "the hill of the leper" can

be the hill only, where the lepers had their abode. For, as early as in

the second year after the Exodus from Egypt, these lepers were obliged

to remain without the camp (comp. Numb. v. 3: "Without the camp shall

ye send them, and not shall they defile their camp in the midst whereof

I dwell"); and this law was so strictly enforced, that even Moses'

sister was removed out of the camp. When they had come to Canaan, the

provisions of the law in reference to the camp were transferred to the

towns; comp. farther Lev. xiii. 46: "All the days that he has the

leprosy, he shall be defiled; he shall dwell alone, without the camp

shall his habitation be;" Luke xvii. 12. Even Uzziah could not be

released from it; he lived without the city in Beth Chofshith, 2 Kings

xv. 5, which is commonly translated "house of the sick," instead of

"house of emancipation," viz., place where they lived, whom the Lord

had manumitted, who no more belonged to His servants; compare remarks

on Psa. lxxxviii. 6. Even in the kingdom of Israel they were so strict

in the execution of this Mosaic ordinance (one from among the

numberless proofs which are opposed to the current views of the

religious condition of this kingdom, and of its relation to the Law of

Moses), that, even during the siege of Samaria, the lepers were not

allowed to leave the place before the gate assigned to them, 2 Kings

vii. 3.--In order more fully to understand the meaning of our passage,

it is indispensable that we should inquire into the causes of that

regulation. _J. D. Michaelis_ (Mos. Recht. iv. § 210) has his answer at

once in readiness, and is so fully convinced of its being right and to

the point, that he does not think it worth while to mention any other

view. Because _to him_ the temporal objects and aims are the highest,

he at once supposes them everywhere in the Law of the Holy God also.

The ordinance is to him nothing but a sanitary measure intended to

prevent contagion. But that would surely be a degree of severity

against the sick which could the less be excused by a regard to the

healthy, that leprosy, [Pg 452] if contagious at all, is so, at all

events, very slightly only, and is never propagated by a single touch.

(_Michaelis_ himself remarks: "Except in the case of cohabitation, one

may be quite safe.") But this severity against the sick must appear in

a still more glaring light, and the concern for the healthy becomes

even ridiculous, when we take into consideration the other regulations

concerning the lepers. They were obliged to go about in torn clothes,

bare-headed, and with covered chin, and to cry out to every that came

near them, that they were unclean. Even _Michaelis_ grants that those

regulations could not be designed to guard against infection. He

remarks: "But the leper should not cause disgust to any one by his

really shocking appearance, or terror by an accidental, unexpected

touch." But such a sentimental, unmerciful regard to the tender nerves

is surely elsewhere not to be perceived in the Law, which regulates all

the relations of man to his neighbour, by the principle: Thou shalt

love thy neighbour as thyself. _Farther_--From mere sanitary or police

considerations, the law in reference to the leprosy of the clothes and

houses, which is closely connected with the law about the leprosy of

men, cannot be accounted for. The reason which _Michaelis_ advances for

the law in reference to the clothes, is of such a nature, that not even

the most refined politicians have ever yet thought of a similar one.

The leprosy of the houses is, according to him, the dry-rot, which,

although not contagious, was so hateful to Moses, that, out of concern

for the health of the possessor, and for the goods kept in them, he

ordered them to be altogether pulled down. If Moses had entertained the

views on the power of the magistrates which lie at the foundation of

this, he could not have been an ambassador of God,--even apart

altogether from the absurdity of the measure. But the shallowness and

untenableness of _Michaelis'_ view will appear still more strongly,

when we state the positive argument for our view. It is this: Leprosy

is the outward image of sin; that, therefore, which is done upon the

leper, is, in reality, done upon the sinner. Every leper, therefore,

was a living sermon, a loud admonition to keep unspotted from the

world. The exclusion of the lepers from the camp, from the holy city,

conveyed figuratively quite the same lesson, as is done in Words by

John, in Revel. xxi. 27: [Greek: Kai ou mê eiselthê eis autên] [Pg 453]

[Greek: pan koinon kai poioun bdelugma kai pseudos], and by Paul, in

Ephes. v. 5: [Greek: touto gar iste ginôskontes, hoti pas pornos, ê

akathartos, ê pleonektês ... ouk echei klêronomian en tê basileia tou

Christou kai Theou]; comp. Gal. v. 19, 21. Now it is clearly seen what

is the Prophet's meaning in including the hill of the lepers in the

holy city. That which hitherto was unclean becomes clean; the Kingdom

of God now does violence to the sinners, while, hitherto, the sinners

had done violence to the Kingdom of God. It is only when we take this

view of leprosy, that we account for the fact, that just this disease

so frequently occurs as the theocratic punishment of sin. The image of

sin is best suited for reflecting it; he who is a sinner before God, is

represented as a sinner in the eyes of man also, by the circumstance

that he must exhibit before men the image of sin. God took care that

ordinarily the image and the thing itself were perfectly coincident;

although, no doubt, there were exceptions,--cases where God, according

to His wise and holy purposes, allowed that one relatively innocent (in

the case of a perfectly innocent man, if such an one existed, that

would not be possible, except in the case of Christ who bore _our_

disease), had to bear the image of sin, _e.g._, in the case of such as

were in danger of self-righteousness. As a theocratic punishment,

leprosy is found especially with such as had secretly sinned, or had

surrounded their sin with a good appearance, which, in the eyes of men,

prevents them from appearing as sinners, _e.g._, in the case of Miriam,

Uzziah, Gehazi, 2 Kings v. 27. In the Law, there are many warnings

against it, _e.g._, Deut. xxiv. 8; and David wishes, 2 Sam. iii. 29,

that the threatening of the Law might be fulfilled upon the house of

wicked Joab. The leprosy of houses, too, comes into consideration only

as an image of spiritual leprosy, as is seen from the command in Lev.

xiv. 49: "And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar

wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; ver. 53: and make an atonement for the

house, and it shall be clean." The procedure here is quite the same as

that which was applied in the case of sin and sinners; and since the

house cannot sin, it follows that a symbolical action only can here be

spoken of.--Goah, in this context, in the midst of unclean places, can

hardly be anything else than some unclean place; and it is a very

obvious supposition that this nature is expressed in the very [Pg 454]

name. This signification interpreters usually endeavour to obtain by

deriving the word from [Hebrew: geh] "to roar," of which it is properly

the Partic. Fem., hence "the roaring one;" but it is more easily

obtained by adopting the derivation from [Hebrew: gve], just as

[Hebrew: wve] is derived from [Hebrew: wve], a derivation which was

first proposed by _Hiller_, S. 127. [Hebrew: gve] is used of a violent

death, no less than of a natural death; thus Numb. xvii. 27, 28, of a

death like that of the company of Korah, Datham, and Abiram; comp.

Zech. xiii. 8. This derivation being assumed, Goah would denote

"expiring," "hill[6] of expiring," which would be a very suitable name

of the place for the execution of criminals. _Vitringa_, in commenting

upon Is. xxx. 33, already expressed the conjecture that Goah, [Hebrew:

gl gveth] might perhaps be identical with Golgotha, but retracted it,

because the Evangelists explain Golgotha by [Greek: kraniou topos]. But

this is no sufficient and conclusive reason. When the Aramean became

the prevailing language, the name of the place may have received a new

etymology, just as the Fathers of the Church derive [Greek: pascha],

from [Greek: paschein], and many similar instances. It has already been

observed that the appellation, "place of skulls," is rather strange,

inasmuch as the skulls did not remain in the place of execution.[7] The

use of "skull" for "the place of skulls," as well as the omission of

the _L_, have been found strange. But all that is easily accounted for,

if the new signification, which substantially agreed with the former,

was merely transferred to the word. The identity of Goah and Golgotha

cannot be disputed,--at least, not from the situation. From Heb. xiii.

12, it is certain that Golgotha, as an unclean place, was situated

outside the city; that it was situated on the West side is, it is [Pg

455] true, testified by tradition only; comp. _Krafft_, S. 168 ff.;

_Ritter_, _Erdk._ xvi. 1, S. 422 ff.--We now come to the valley of

carcasses and of ashes. Even from the position, it becomes probable

that this is the valley of Hinnom. The North and West sides are already

done, and hence the South and East sides only remain. But the valley of

Hinnom was situated towards the South, or South-east of Jerusalem,

comp. _Krafft_, S 2; v. _Raumer_, S. 269. The valley of the carcasses

is here brought into immediate connection with _all_ the fields

(_q.d._, all the other fields), unto the brook Kidron, and is hence

designated as a portion of the valley of Kidron. But the valley of

Hinnom was the Southern, or South-eastern continuation of the valley of

Kidron, which extended on the East side. To this it may be added that,

in this context, we must necessarily expect the mention of the valley

of Hinnom, but that otherwise it would be wanting. Among all the

unclean places around Jerusalem, this was the most unclean. There could

be no greater victory of the Kingdom of God over the world, than if

this strictest antithesis to the holy city, this image of hell, was

included within the Holy City. It is only with respect to the cause of

the appellation, that some doubt may exist, [Hebrew: pgr], [Hebrew:

pgriM] is a common designation of dead bodies, of carcasses. There is

not one among the twenty-two passages in which it occurs, where it

refers to deceased righteous ones. It is used of the dead bodies of

animals, of idols, Lev. xxvi. 30; of the dead bodies of those whom the

Lord has smitten in His anger and wrath, Jer. xxxiii. 5; 1 Sam. xvii.

46; Amos viii. 3; Neh. iii. 3; Is. lxvi. 24; of such as are, after

death, treated like beasts, Jer. i. 49. Hence, opinions such as that of

_Venema_ fall to the ground, who supposes that the valley had that

name, because it was the public burying-ground. But there is,

nevertheless, scope for difference of opinion. One may understand by

[Hebrew: pgriM] the carcasses of animals;--the valley of Hinnom would,

in that case, be the public flaying-ground. It is in itself probable,

and it is generally held[8] that, after the defilement by Josiah (2

Kings xxiii. 10), it received this designation. But there are not

wanting evident traces that, [Pg 456] even in former times, the valley

served this purpose. In Is. xxx. 33, it is said in reference to the

Assyrians: "For Tophet (_Gesenius_ arbitrarily changes the _nomen

proprium_ into an _appellativum_, and translates: the place for

burning) is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared, made

deep and large; the pile thereof has fire and wood in abundance." This

passage supposes that, even at that time, the valley of Hinnom, or

Tophet (which properly is only a part of it, but is sometimes, however,

used for the whole), had that destination; that piles were constantly

burning in it, on which the carcasses of animals were burned. Such a

place of execution and burial is already prepared for the carcasses of

the Assyrians rebelling against God. Even the existence of the name

Tophet, _i.e._, _horror_, _abomination_, bears witness to the impure

destination. The second passage is Is. lxvi. 24. Outside the Holy City,

the place where formerly the carcasses of the beasts were lying, there

now lie the dead bodies of the transgressors. As the former were, in

times past, food both for the worms and fire, so they are now. It is

true, that _Vitringa's_ objection, that it can scarcely be imagined

that the idolators should have chosen a place so unclean, is very

plausible. But how plausible soever such an argument may appear, it

cannot invalidate distinct historical testimonies; and it might very

well be set aside, although it would lead us too far away from our

purpose, to do so here. But it may also be supposed that the Prophet

looks back to his own declarations, chap. vii. 31, and xix. 4 ff.; and

that by [Hebrew: pgriM] here the corpses of transgressors are to be

understood, who are destined to destruction, and therefore are to be

buried in the flaying-ground. But this reference is, after all, too

far-fetched; and it is more natural to say, that the nature of Tophet,

as the flaying-ground, forms the foundation, which is common to those

passages and that before us.--But, besides the arguments already

advanced, there is still a grammatical reason, which shows that it is

really the valley of Hinnom which is meant. The article in [Hebrew:

hemq] forbids us to view it as being in the _Stat. construct._ and

connected with the following words. We must translate: "And the whole

valley, (viz. the valley of) the carcasses and ashes." The place is,

hence, first designated as "the valley," without any further

qualification, and receives this qualification only afterwards. But it

is just the valley of Hinnom which, in Jer. ii. 23, is [Pg 457]

designated as the valley [Greek: kat' exochên], and the gate leading to

it, as the gate of the valley, in Neh. ii. 13, 15; comp. remarks on

Zech. xi. 13.--In reference to [Hebrew: dwN], _Gousset_ Lex. p. 368,

remarks: "The words [Hebrew: dwN], and [Hebrew: dwN] are used only of

the ashes of the sacrificial animals, and their removal." This

observation is confirmed by every careful examination of the passages

in question. Never are [Hebrew: dwN] and [Hebrew: dwN] used otherwise

than of the ashes of sacrificial animals; comp. Lev. i. 16; vi. 3, 4; 1

Kings xiii. 5; Numb. iv. 13; Exod. xxvii. 3. The derivation of the

signification "ashes," from the fundamental signification "fat," as

advanced by _Winer_ and others (_cinis_ = _pinguefactio agrorum_), is

therefore wrong. On the contrary, even the burnt fat was still

considered as fat; the ashes of the fat are the [Hebrew: warit], the

residuum of the fat. By this determination of the word, the explanation

is very much facilitated. In Lev. vi. 3, 11, it is said: "And he (the

priest, after having offered up the burnt-offering) shall put off his

garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without

the camp into a clean place." According to this regulation, the ashes

of the sacrificial animals were considered as relatively unclean. The

priest had to put off his holy garments, and to put on common garments,

and to carry the ashes without the camp,--afterwards without the Holy

City. Hence, in contrast to the sacrifices themselves, the ashes were

considered as the impure residuum which is found in everything which

men do in relation to God, as the image of sinful contamination

attaching to all, even the best works, and to the holiest elevation of

the heart. If, then, the place where the ashes are deposited is to be

included within the boundaries of the Holy City; is, in holiness, to be

equal to the place where the sacrifices themselves are offered,--what

else can be signified thereby, than that the unholy is to be

overpowered by the holy, the earthly by the divine, by means of a more

glorious communication of the Holy Spirit? It is quite analogous, when

Zechariah represents the horses as being in future adorned by the Lord

with the symbol of holiness, which formerly the High-priest only wore;

compare remarks on Zech. xiv. 20. This one argument might be brought

forward against the explanation which we have given, viz., that we

cannot well imagine that this was the destination of [Pg 458] the

valley of Hinnom, because, according to the Law, the ashes of the

sacrifices were to be carried to a _clean_ place; because that which

once stood in connection with that which is most holy and pure,

although, in itself, it may be unclean, must not be mingled with that

which is absolutely and constantly unclean. But in opposition to this

we remark, that it was not this whole valley that was unclean, but only

the place Tophet in it; and that if sometimes the whole is designated

as unclean, it is only because it included this most unclean among

all unclean places; comp. chap. vii. 31, xxxii. 35; 2 Kings xxiii.

10.--There cannot be any doubt that "the [Hebrew: wrmvt] unto the brook

Kidron" are identical with the fields of Kidron, [Hebrew: wdmvt qdrvN],

mentioned in 2 Kings xxiii.; but much to be doubted is the correctness

of the common supposition (after the example of _Kuypers_, _ad varia V.

T. loca_, in the _Syll. Dissert. sub praes. Schultens, et Schroederi_,

t. 1. p. 537), that [Hebrew: wrmvt] is identical with [Hebrew: wdmvt].

If that were the case, we could not see why Jeremiah should have

exchanged the common word for an uncommon one, which elsewhere does not

occur. Jeremiah is fond of exchanging words of similar sounds, and

especially words differing from one another merely by one letter, and

especially by [Hebrew: d] and [Hebrew: r]; but these exchanges are

always significant. (Compare _Küper_. Jerem. p. xiv. and 43, and

_History of Balaam_, p. 447 f.) Although we cannot, with certainty, fix

the meaning of [Hebrew: wrmvt], yet so much seems to be sure, that this

word was one which more accurately designated the nature of those

places than the current _nomen proprium_, inasmuch as it would be

absurd to substitute for it another name, if there had not been deeper

reasons. One need only compare the [Hebrew: hr hmwHit] itself which, in

the simple historical prose, is used of the Mount of Olives, 2 Kings

xxiii. 13. The most simple and natural supposition is the following.

All the significations of the verbs [Arabic: **], [Arabic: **],

[Arabic: **] in Arabic run together in that of _cutting off_. [Hebrew:

wdmvt] the Plural of the Feminine of the Adjective [Hebrew: wrm] are,

accordingly, _loca abscissa_, places which are cut off and excluded

[from the Holy City] outwardly (_Aq._: [Greek: proasteia]), and, at the

same time, inwardly. Thus we obtain a striking contrast between their

present nature and future destination. What is now distinctly separated

from the holy, [Pg 459] then become holiness, [Hebrew: qdw]. From 2

Kings xxiii. it appears, moreover, that the fields of Kidron were

unclean. It was thither as to an unclean place, that Josiah caused all

the abominations of idolatry to be carried, and to be burnt; comp. ver.

4 (Josiah commanded all the vessels which had been made to Baal and

Ashera to be brought forth out of the temple): "And he burned them

_without Jerusalem_ in the fields of Kidron." Ver. 6: "And he brought

out the Ashera out of the house of the Lord, _without Jerusalem_, unto

the brook Kidron, and he burned them in the valley of Kidron.... And

cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people."

These last words (the children of the people = the mob, high and low,

who had polluted themselves by idolatry, comp. 2 Chron. xxxiv. 4: "And

he strewed the dust upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto

them") enable us perhaps to conjecture the cause of the uncleanness of

these fields. They served as a burying ground to the adherents of the

worship of Moloch, who were anxious to rest in the neighbourhood of

their idol, which dwelt in the neighbouring Tophet; and this is the

more easily accounted for, that it is very probable that the sacrifices

offered up to the idol were, in a great measure, sacrifices offered for

the dead.--[Hebrew: qdw lihvh] refers to every thing mentioned in the

verse before us. As regards the last words, comp. Remarks on Zech. xiv.

11.

[Footnote 1: The person of the Messiah meets us as the living centre of

the salvation in ver. 9: "And they serve the Lord their God, and David

their King, whom I will raise up unto them;" on which words _Jonathan_

remarks: "And the Messiah the Son of David;" and _Abarbanel_: "This is

King Messiah, who is of the house of David, and is therefore called by

his name." From the parallel passages, Hos. iii. 5; Is. lv. 3, our

passage differs in this, that David here does not, as in those

passages, designate the family of David which centres in Christ, but

the person of the Messiah. The commentary is furnished by chap. xxiii.

5: "I raise unto David a righteous Sprout." The circumstance, that it

is not the Sprout of David, but David, that is spoken of here, is

explained from a reference to the words which the ten tribes spoke at

their rebellion, 1 Kings xii. 16: "We have no portion in David, neither

have we inheritance in the Son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel." To

the person of the Messiah the Prophet reverts once more towards the

close also: "And their glorious one shall be out of themselves, and

their governor shall proceed from the midst of them (compare Mic. v. 1,

2, [2, 3]), and I cause him to draw near, and he approacheth unto me;

for who is surety for his heart to approach unto me, saith the Lord?"

God himself receives the King of the Future into the closest communion

with Him,--"I and the Father are one"--a communion which no one can

usurp by his own power, and which, in the case of the former kings,

even in that of David, was frequently disturbed by their sinful

weakness.]

[Footnote 2: _Hofmann_ (_Weiss. u. Erf._ 1 S. 138) assigns to the

phrase the meaning: "to make an arrangement." But decisive against this

is not only the derivation, (comp. _Gesenius Thesaurus_), but the

circumstance also, that it is almost exclusively and quite manifestly

used of a relation resting on reciprocity, of the making of a covenant

in the ordinary sense; and that the few instances where there is

apparently a reference to one party, form an exception only to the

rule.]

[Footnote 3: Even the most recent interpreters, who take [Hebrew: bel]

_ sensu malo_, still greatly differ,--a proof that this interpretation

has a very insufficient foundation on which to rest. _Gesenius_, _De

Wette_, _Bleek_ (on Heb. viii. 9), retain the explanation by

_fastidire_, _rejicere_; _Maurer_ translates: _dominarer_, _domini

partes sustinerem_, contrasting tyrannical dominion with a relation of

love; _Ewald_: "Seeing that I am her master and protector;" _Hitzig_:

"And I got possession of her." All these interpretations are opposed by

the _usus loquendi_, according to which [Hebrew: bel] has only the two

significations: "to possess," and "to take for a wife," the latter

being the ordinary and prevailing one.]

[Footnote 4: Not less than these, _Hitzig_ too has allowed himself to

be carried away by the appearance. He says: "Then, indeed, the office

of religious instructors must cease."]

[Footnote 5: According to _Krafft_ (_sur Topographie Jerus._ S. 158),

it is only the hill Bezetha which, by the third wall of Agrippa, was

added to the town, that can correspond to the situation of Gareb.]

[Footnote 6: _Thenius_, in the appendix to the Commentary on the Books

of Kings, S. 24, remarks: "[Hebrew: gl] does not, in any of the

dialects, denote the natural hill of rocks, but merely stones heaped

up." Hence, the hill would be an artificial hill for the execution of

criminals. (Compare the German word _Rabenstein_, lit. "raven-stone,"

for: place of execution.)]

[Footnote 7: This objection would be removed if, following _Thenius_

and _Krafft_, S. 158, we were to explain the name from the form of the

hill, which is that of a skull. But _none_ of the Evangelists at least

have advanced this explanation. The fact that three of them add the

Greek explanation to the name (Matt. xxvii. 33; Mark xv. 22; John xix.

17), and one translated it into Greek (Luke xxiii. 33) shows that it

stood in connection with the event in question. But this circumstance

is quite decisive, that three Evangelists explain it by [Greek: kraniou

topos], "place of a skull."]

[Footnote 8: Compare the Book _Kosri_, p. 72. _Buxtorff_ says: "Gehenna

was a well-known place near Jerusalem, viz., a valley in which the fire

was never extinguished, and where unclean bones, carcasses, and other

unclean things, were burned."]

CHAPTER XXXIII. 14-26.

Still before the destruction, but in the view of it, the Prophet, while

in the outer court of the prison, was favoured with the revelation

contained in chap. xxxii., and with that revelation of which our

section forms a portion. It may appear strange that, in the

introduction, the revelation of great things hitherto unknown to him is

promised to the Prophet, and which he is told to seek by calling unto

the Lord; while, after all, the subsequent prophecy contains scarcely

any prominent, peculiar feature. But this is easily explained, when we

take into consideration that, throughout Scripture, dead [Pg 460]

knowledge is not regarded as knowledge; that the hope of restoration

had, in the natural man, in the Prophet as well as in all believers, an

enemy that strove to darken and extinguish it; that, therefore, the

promise of restoration was ever new, and the word of God always great

and exalted. In the first part of the revelation, after the destruction

had been represented as unavoidable, and all human hope had been cut

oft, the restoration is described more in general terms. In the second

part, the Lord meets a two-fold special grief of the believers. The

time was approaching when the house of David was to be most deeply

humbled, when every trace of its former glory was to be done away with.

With it, the hopes of the people seem to be buried. God himself had

declared this house to be the medium, through which all the mercies

were to come, which He, as the King, had promised to bestow upon His

people. But what was to become of the mercies, if the channel was

destroyed, through which they were to be bestowed upon the people? The

temple which, through the guilt of the people, had been changed into a

den of robbers, was to be destroyed. But, with the existence of the

temple, the existence of the Levitical priesthood was bound up, and if

the latter was done away with, how was to be obtained forgiveness of

sins, which, in the Law, had been connected with the mediation of the

Levitical priesthood? These fears and cares the Lord now meets by

declaring that, in both respects, the perishing would be an arising,

that life should arise from death.

The genuineness of this section has been assailed by _Jahn_ (_Vaticinia

Mess._ iii. p. 112, ff.[1]), after the example of _J. D. Michaelis_,

who, in the German translation of the Bible, inclosed it within

brackets. For the present, we mention only the internal

reason--deferring the refutation till we come to the exposition of

particulars--because we require it in order to set aside the external

reason. Jahn, p. 121, sums it up in these words: "The matter stands in

opposition to all the prophecies of Jeremiah and all the other

Prophets. For all of them limit themselves to the one David who was to

come [Pg 461] after the captivity, and do not mention any successor to

him, far less such a multitude of descendants of David and of Levites,

which is promised to the people under the name of a blessing, but which

would, in reality, have been a very heavy burden to the people, at

whose expense they were to be splendidly maintained." The external

reason is the omission of the section in the Alexandrian version.

Proceeding upon the altogether gratuitous assumption of a double

recension of the prophecies of Jeremiah, people imagine that, by the

omission in the Alexandrian version, they are entitled to suppose that,

in that recension which the LXX. followed, this section was not

contained. But the arguments are most unsatisfactory, by which the

attempt is made to establish that many portions, not translated by the

LXX., were not found by them in their manuscripts. Where there

notoriously prevail negligence, ignorance, arbitrariness, entire want

of a clear conception of the task of a translator, those inferences are

out of place which suppose just the opposite of all these (comp.

_e.g._, the inferences in _Jahn_, S. 116 ff.) Although we cannot

sometimes discover and state the reason which induced the LXX. to make

any omission, in case that that which was omitted was really in the

text, what is it that is thereby proved? Could we, _a priori_, expect

anything else, since we are on the territory of accident and whim? It

is quite sufficient that in a multitude of passages we can point out

the most insufficient reasons which induced them to make omissions,

alterations, transpositions; for it is just these which show that we

are in the territory of accident and whim, where it is unreasonable

every where to expect reasons. Now, to these passages, that before us

likewise belongs; so that, even supposing that the ground of the

deviation sometimes lies in a different recension, our passage cannot

be regarded as belonging to this class; and, hence, from its omission,

nothing can be inferred against its genuineness. A twofold reason here

presents itself, which may have induced them to the omission: 1.

Important elements of the prophecy under consideration have already

occurred, vers. 15, 16, almost _verbatim_, in chap. xxiii. 3, 6; vers.

20-25, as regards the thought, altogether, and as regards the words,

partly agree with chap. xxxi. 35-37; and it is certain that the LXX.

often omitted [Pg 462] that which had occurred previously, because they

were unable to perceive the deeper meaning of the repetition, and

transferred their own ignorance to the Prophet. 2. In that which

was peculiar to the passage before us, it was just the principal

thought--the same which _J. D. Michaelis_ and _Jahn_ advance against

the genuineness--which must have been most objectionable to the LXX.,

who were incapable of perceiving the deeper meaning. An increase of

the Levites and of the family of David as the stare of the heavens and

the sand of the sea, is a thought of which the Prophet must be freed,

whether he entertained it or not. The omission in the Alexandrian

version, therefore, does not prove any thing, except that even 2000

years before _J. D. Michaelis_, _Jahn_, _Hitzig_, and _Movers_, there

were men who were as little able to understand the text as these

expositors.

Ver. 14. "_Behold days come, saith the Lord, and I perform the good

word which I leave spoken unto the house of Israel, and concerning the

house of Judah._"

The "good word" may, in a more general way, be understood of all the

gracious promises of God to Israel, in contrast to the evil word, the

threatenings which hitherto had been fulfilled upon Israel; comp. 1

Kings viii. 56, where Solomon, in the prayer at the consecration of the

temple, says: "Blessed be the Lord, that has given rest unto His people

Israel, according to all which He spoke; there has not failed (the

opposite of [Hebrew: qvM]) one word of all His good word which He spoke

through Moses His servant." In Deut. xxviii. the _good_ word and the

_evil_ word are placed beside one another; and the former is blessed,

from vers. 1-14; afterwards, the curse is declared. The centre and

substance of this good word was the promise to David, through whose

righteous Sprout all the promises to Israel should find their final

fulfilment. But we may also suppose that, by the "good word," the

Prophet specially denotes this promise to David, which he had repeated

in chap. xxiii. 5, 6. This latter supposition is preferable, since, in

vers. 15, 16, that repetition of it is quoted, and ver. 17 contains an

allusion to the fundamental promise. The change of [Hebrew: al] and

[Hebrew: el] is significant; Judah is considered as the object of the

proclamation of salvation, because salvation cometh from the Jews. The

correctness of this view is proved by [Pg 463] vers. 15, 16, where that

only is spoken of, which, in the first instance, belongs to Judah; so

that Israel is only received into the communion of the salvation, in

the first instance, destined for Judah.

Ver. 15, 16. "_In those days and at that time will I cause a righteous

Sprout to grow up unto David, and he worketh justice and righteousness

in the land. In those days Judah is endowed with salvation, and

Jerusalem dwelleth safely; and this is the name by which she shall be

called: The Lord our righteousness._"

It is intentionally that the promise is here repeated in the former

shape, in order to show that it still existed; that the glaring

contrast presented by the present state of things was not able to annul

it; that even in the view of the destruction, of the deepest abasement

of the house of David, it still retained its right and power. Instead

of [Hebrew: hqimvti], the more suitable [Hebrew: acmiH] is here used,

because the reference to Jehoiakim does not take place in this passage,

as it did in the previous one. Instead of Israel, which is found there,

we have here Jerusalem, because it was just the restoration of

Jerusalem, which it was so difficult for the faithful to believe, after

its destruction had been described in ver. 4 ff. For the same reason,

the Prophet here assigns the same name to Jerusalem which he did there

to the Sprout of David. The same city, which as yet is groaning under

the wrath of God, shall, in future, be endowed with righteousness by

the Lord.

Ver. 17. "_For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut of from

David a man sitting upon the throne of the house of Israel._"

The connection with what precedes is pertinently brought out by

_Calvin_: "The Prophet had spoken of the restoration of the Church;

that doctrine he now confirms by promising, that both the kingly and

priestly office should be perpetual; and it was just these two things

which constituted the salvation of the people. For, without a king,

they were just like a cut-off tree, or a mutilated body; without a

priest they were in a state of dispersion. For the priest was the

mediator between God and the people, but the king represented the

person of God." The expression [Hebrew: la ikrt], "there shall not be

cut off," &c., is a simple repetition of the promise to David, in [Pg

464] that form in which it had been quoted by David himself, shortly

before his death, in his address to Solomon, 1 Kings ii. 4, and

afterwards twice by Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 25, ix. 5. It does not

designate an uninterrupted succession, but forms the contrast only to a

breaking off for ever. This appears even from the circumstance that, in

the fundamental promise, God reserves to himself the punishment of the

apostate members of the Davidic house, and that in Jeremiah the

announcement of its utter abasement is so frequently repeated.

Ver. 18, "_And to the Levitical priests there shall not be cut off

before me a man, offering burnt-offerings, and kindling meat-offerings,

and doing sacrifice all days._"

In order rightly to understand these words, it is necessary to go back

to their cause; for it is from the grief only that the comfort receives

its explanation. The Prophet has here not by any means to do with

members of the tribe of Levi mourning over the loss of the prerogatives

of their tribe. If such were the case, it would be necessary to hold

fast by the letter, inasmuch as it is only when the letter is adhered

to, that the promise can afford consolation for such grief. The

Prophet's consolations, on the contrary, are destined for all the

believers, who were mourning over the destruction of the relation to

God, which hitherto had existed through the mediation of the tribe of

Levi. If only the relation remained, it was of little importance

whether it was realised by the tribe of Levi, as heretofore, or in some

other way. Just as the grief has respect to the substance only, so has

the consolation also. Israel, in future too, shall retain free access

to his reconciled God,--that is the fundamental thought; and every

thing by which this thought was manifested and realised in history, in

what form soever it might be, must be viewed as comprehended in it. We

thus obtain a threefold fulfilment: 1. In the time after the return

from the captivity, the consolation was realised in the form in which

it is here expressed. The fact, that God admitted and promoted the

rebuilding of the temple, was an actual declaration that the Levitical

priesthood was reinstated in its mediatorial office. 2. In the highest

degree the idea of the Levitical priesthood was realised through

Christ, who, as a High-Priest and Mediator, bore the sins of His

people, and made intercession for the transgressors, and [Pg 465] in

whom the Levitical priesthood ceased, just as the seed-corn disappears

in the stalk. 3. Through Christ, the believers themselves became

priests, and obtained free access to the Father.--The following reasons

show that we have a right to maintain this independence of the thought

upon the form: 1. The Prophet is so penetrated with the thought of the

glory of the New Dispensation far outshining that of the Old, that,

_even a priori_, we could not suppose that, as regards the priesthood,

he expected an eternal duration of its form, hitherto so poor. It is

the substance only which, in his view, is permanent. One need only

compare the section, chap. xxxi. 31 ff. How intentionally does he here

bring forward the idea that the New Covenant would not be like the Old;

how does he point from the shadow to the substance! But it is

especially chap. iii. 16 which, in this respect, is to be regarded. In

that passage, the ceasing of the former dignity of the Ark of the

Covenant is announced repeatedly, and in the strongest terms; and we

have already seen that, along with the Ark of the Covenant, the temple,

the Levitical priesthood, the whole sacrificial service stands in the

closest and most indissoluble connection; so that all this must fall

along with it. 2. A very important proof is furnished by ver. 22, which

must be regarded as a declaration, by the Prophet himself, as to the

manner in which he wishes to be understood. Now, in that verse, it is

promised that all the descendants of Abraham shall be changed into

Levites; and this is declared to form a part of the eternal acceptance

of the tribe of Levi, promised in the verse under consideration. This

shows then, that, in the verse under review, the Levites cannot come

into consideration as descendants of Levi after the flesh, but only as

regards their destination and vocation. 3. As the most ancient and

authentic interpreter of Jeremiah, Zechariah must be considered. He was

most anxious to obviate the same fears which Jeremiah here meets; and,

in him, the first two of the three features which Jeremiah comprehends

in the unity of the idea, appear separated, but in such a manner that

the connecting unity of the idea is not lost sight of In Zech. iii.,

God assures the people that, notwithstanding the greatness of their

sins, He would not only allow the office of High-priest to continue as

heretofore, and accept his mediation, but that, at some future period,

[Pg 466] He would also send the true High-priest, who should make a

complete and everlasting atonement. In ver. 8, the High-priest and his

colleagues in the priestly office are designated as types of Christ

who, putting most completely to shame the people's despair in God's

mercy, should fully accomplish the expiation and atonement which the

former had effected only imperfectly. In chap. iv. the priestly is,

along with the royal order, designated as one of the two sons of the

oil, the two anointed ones of the Lord, whose anointing remaineth for

ever; and from chap. vi. 13, where the Messiah appears as the true

High-priest and King at the same time, it appears that, here too, the

shadow only belongs to the Levitical priesthood, but the substance to

Christ. 4. Elsewhere, too, plain examples are not wanting, in which the

idea of the priesthood only is regarded, while the peculiar form of its

manifestation under the Old Testament is lost sight of. Among those is

Is. lxi. 6, where, in reference to all Israel, it is said: "And ye

shall be named priests of Jehovah, ministers of our God shall they call

you." Here the change of all Israel into the tribe of Levi is

announced; and the objection which, perhaps, might be brought forward,

that here only priests in general are spoken of, while Jeremiah speaks

of Levitical priests, is met by the second passage, chap. lxvi. 21:

"And from them also will I take for _Levitical_ priests saith the

Lord." It makes no difference for our purpose whether "from them" be

referred to the Gentiles (which is the correct view, compare p. 360),

as is done by _Vitringa_ and _Gesenius_, or to the Israelites living in

exile. For, although the latter interpretation be received, yet so much

is certain, that such shall be taken for Levitical priests as were not

descendants of Levi: for, otherwise, no _taking_, no special divine

mercy would have taken place. Even the Law already knows an _ideal_

priesthood by the side of the ordinary one; and such an one meets us

also in Ps. xcix. 6; compare my Commentary on that passage.--After

having thus fixed the sense of the promise referring to the Levitical

priesthood, it will not be difficult to discover the right view in

reference to the family of David. Here, too, a threefold fulfilment

takes place. 1. It was realized in the times immediately after the

captivity, when Zerubbabel, a scion of the Davidic house, became the

mediator of the mercies which God [Pg 467] as King, vouchsafed to His

people. To a certain degree, that mercy too comes in here which, at a

later period, God, in His capacity as King, bestowed upon the people by

means of civil rulers, who were not from the house of David. For, since

the dominion had been for ever transferred to the house of David, these

rulers can be considered only as being engrafted into it, as

representatives and vice-regents,--much in the same way as the

blessing, which was bestowed upon the people by the priestly office of

the non-priest Samuel, must be considered as being included in the

promise in reference to the Aaronic priesthood. For all that God

vouchsafed through those rulers, was for the sake of the Davidic house

only, which for ever had been destined to be the channel of His regal

blessings. If the kingdom of David had really been at an end, He would

not have given to the people even those rulers, and the deliverance and

prosperity granted to them,--as is clearly seen from a comparison of

the times, after the great Hero of David's race ascended the throne,

when every trace of the regal grace of God in raising other rulers

ceased; for now, that the race of David itself rules again, and for

ever, no representation of it can any more take place. But, in the

passage under consideration, it would the less be suitable to separate

everything which does not, in the strictest sense, belong to it, that

here the promise to David is not viewed with reference to him and his

house, but solely with reference to the people. Hence, the

manifestation of the regal grace of God forms the centre; and the house

of David comes into consideration, only in so far as it was destined to

be the mediator of this grace. 2. It was fulfilled in Christ; and from

vers. 15, 16, it appears that the Prophet had this fulfilment chiefly

in view. These two fulfilments are connected with one another by

Zechariah also, in chap. iv.--3. It was realized by the raising of the

whole true posterity of Abraham to the royal dignity, through Christ.

This most striking antithesis to the despair--the despair saying: there

is no king in Israel; the consolation: all Israel are kings--is

expressly brought forward in ver. 22.--We still remark that we must

not, by any means, as is commonly done, translate: "To the priests and

Levites," but, as also in Is. lxvi. 21: To the Levitical priests;

compare the arguments in proof in _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, p.

329 ff. The epithet, [Pg 468] "Levitical," is added in order to prevent

the thought that, perhaps, priests in another than the literal sense

are spoken of, compare p. 360. It serves therefore the same purpose as

the expression: "He ruleth as a king," in chap. xxxiii. 5.--As regards

the sacrifices, we must not by any means suppose, as is done by the

ancient interpreters, that spiritual sacrifices are here simply spoken

of. The correct view rather is, that the Prophet represents the

substance under its present form, in and with which it would now soon

be lost for a season; and as he has to do with the substance only, he

does not say anything as to whether this substance would, in future,

rise again in the same form, and whether it was to continue for ever in

that form. History has answered the first in the affirmative, and the

second in the negative; and from chap. iii. 16, it appears that the

Prophet, too, would, upon _inquiry_, have answered in the negative as

regards the last point. Moreover, how well they knew, even under the

Old Testament dispensation, to distinguish, in reference to the

sacrifices, between the substance and the form, considering the latter

as a thing merely accidental, is seen from passages such as Hosea xiv.

3 (2): "Take with you words, and turn to the Lord and say unto Him:

_Take_ all iniquity, and _give_ good, and we will recompense to thee

bulls, our lips." Here the thanks are represented as the substance of

the thank-offering, and, indeed, so perfectly, that the thank-offering,

the bullocks, is _entirely_ where only thanks, the lips, are. The

outward sacrifice is the vessel only in which the gift is presented to

God. _Farther_--Ps. iv. 14, where, in contrast to the merely external

sacrifices, it is said: "Offer unto God thanksgivings;" Mal. i. 11, and

many other passages.

Vers. 19, 20. "_And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying: Thus

saith the Lord, If ye will make void my covenant, the day, and my

covenant, the night, so that there shall be no more day and night in

their season_; Ver. 21. _Then also shall be void my covenant with

David, my servant, that he shall not have one who reigns on his throne,

and with the Levitical priests, my servants._"

The word [Hebrew: tprv] is very significant. _Calvin_ says: "The

Prophet indirectly reproves the wickedness of the people, because, as

much as lay with them, they destroyed the covenant [Pg 469] of God by

their obstreperous cries.... This incredulity, therefore, the Prophet

blames, and it is as if he were saying: To what are these complaints to

lead? It is just as if you were trying to draw down sun and moon from

heaven, and to do away with the difference between day and night, and

overturn all the laws of nature, because it is I, the same God, whose

will it was that the night should follow the day, who have also

promised, &c."--[Hebrew: hivM] and [Hebrew: hlilh] are appositions to:

My covenant. The day and night in their regular succession are the

covenant which is here spoken of The phrase [Hebrew: ivmM vlilh], which

signifies "by day and night," "daily and nightly," stands here for:

_tempus diurnum et nocturnum_. "The covenant," [Hebrew: brit], does not

by any means stand here in the signification _stabilis ordinatio_; nor

is it be considered as being entered into with the day and night;

these, on the contrary, are the covenant-blessings. God, who vouchsafed

_them_, and all that is connected with them, that the sun shines by

day, and the moon by night, enters thereby, according to the

explanation given on chap. xxxi. 32, into a covenant with man. By the

inviolable maintenance of the course of nature, He binds himself to the

inviolable maintenance of the moral order. This clearly appears when we

consider that, after the great flood, the covenant with nature is anew

entered into, and its inviolability anew established; comp. Gen. ix. 9:

"Behold, I establish my covenant _with you_, and with your seed after

you;" viii. 22: "All the days of the earth, seed time and harvest, and

heat and cold, and summer and autumn, and day and night shall not cease

any more." With these covenant-promises, covenant-laws and obligations

are connected, which the covenant imposes. With this covenant of

nature, which is common to all men, and which, at Noah's time, was not

made for the first time, but only renewed, the covenant of grace, which

is peculiar to Israel only, stands on a level. To assert that the

latter has become void, is nothing else than to attempt to pull sun and

moon down from heaven. For it is one and the same God who has made both

covenants.

Ver. 22. "_As the host of heaven is not numbered, and as the sand of

the sea is not measured, so will I increase the seed of David, my

servant, and the Levites that minister unto me._"

Even considered in itself, the literal fulfilment of this verse [Pg

470] involves an absurdity. Such an increase of the bodily descendants

of David lies beyond the bounds of possibility; and even if this were

not the case, yet this increase, just as the similar increase of the

Levites, would not have the nature of a promise, but that of a

threatening. At all events, the consolation would have no relation to,

or connection with, the grief For the latter did not refer to the

number of the descendants of David, and that of the Levites, but to

their acceptance with God, and, in them, to the acceptance of the

people; but that acceptance has nothing to do with number. To this,

another reason is still to be added. It cannot be denied that there is

a verbal reference to the promise to Abraham in Gen. xv. 5, xxii. 17.

Since, then, these words, which originally referred to all Israel, are

here transferred to the family of David, and to the Levites, it is

thereby sufficiently intimated that all Israel shall be changed into

the family of David, and into the tribe of Levi. This idea need not at

all surprise us. It has its foundation in the Law itself All that is

announced here is, that the vocation and destination of the

covenant-people, which is already expressed in the Law, but which

hitherto was realised only very imperfectly, is, at some future period,

to be perfectly realised. In Exod. xix. 6, God says of Israel: "Ye

shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, [Hebrew: mmlkt khniM]."[2]

Hence, first a kingdom. The nature of a kingdom is, not to have any

power over it other than the Divine power, and to have everything else

under its authority. By this declaration, the dominion of the world was

secured to the people of God. This high prerogative always remained

with the covenant-people so long as they had not, by their guilt,

spontaneously got under a moral servitude to the world. The outward

servitude was always a reflection of the inward only. It never was

inflicted upon the covenant-people as such, but always upon that

covenant-people which had become like the world. And even when this

_unnatural_ condition took place, this high dignity was not forfeited

by the single individuals who, knowing that they were purchased at a

high price, had kept themselves inwardly free from the bondage of the

world. Although in fetters and bonds, they yet remained inwardly free.

World, [Pg 471] sin, death, and hell, could do them no harm. Yea,

notwithstanding all outward appearance of victory, those enemies were,

in reality, ruled by them; and even their outward servitude was, when

more deeply considered, a sign of their dominion. For the Law of the

Lord of Hosts was in their inward parts; it was the living principle of

their existence. It was according to this Law that the whole world was

governed; and it was according to it that the servitude of their people

also took place. They were thus co-regents with God, and, as such,

ruled over their rulers.--All the single members of this kingdom, which

consists entirely of kings, were, at the same time, to be priests. In

these words it was already implied and declared, that the Levitical

priesthood, which was instituted at a later period, could not have that

importance which the priesthood had with other nations of antiquity,

where priests and people stood in an absolute antithesis, which

admitted of no mediation, and where it was the priests only who stood

in an immediate relation to God. It was thereby implied and declared,

that the priests, in one aspect, (in other respects, they were types

and foreshadowings of Christ) possessed rights that were only

transferred to them; that they were representatives of Christ, and

that, hence, their mediation would, at some future period, disappear

altogether. And in order that the people might always remain fully

conscious of this; in order that they might know that they themselves

were the real bearers of the priestly dignity, they retained, even

after the institution of the Levitical priesthood, that priestly

function which formed the root and foundation of all others, viz., the

slaying of the covenant-sacrifice, of the paschal lamb, which formed

the centre of all other sacrifices, inasmuch as the latter served only

as a supplement to it. That, even under the Old Testament dispensation,

this importance of the paschal rite was duly recognized, is seen from

_Philo_, _de vita Mos._ (p. 686, Francf.): "In offering up the paschal

lamb, the office of the laymen is by no means simply to bring the

sacrificial animals to the altar, that they may be slain and offered up

by the priests; but, according to the regulations of the Law, the whole

people exercise priestly functions, inasmuch as every one in his own

behalf offers up the prescribed sacrifice."--We have thus here before

[Pg 472] us the highest completion of the comfort for the mourning

covenant-people. They are not merely to receive back their king, their

priests; nay, they are altogether to be changed into a kingly and

priestly generation. It must not be overlooked that, in substance, this

was already contained in the promise to Abraham. We have already proved

in Vol. i. p. 211, ff., that this promise to Abraham does not refer to

a great number of bodily descendants, _tales quales_, but that, on the

contrary, it refers only to such sons of Abraham as are, at the same

time, sons of God; hence, to a royal and priestly generation.--If now

we look to the fulfilment, the passage which, above all, presents

itself, is 1 Pet. ii. 9: [Greek: humeis de genos eklekton, basileion

hierateuma k.t.l.] Here that passage of Exodus is represented as a

prophecy which, in the present only, was fulfilled. Israel has now

become that which, according to its destiny, it ought always to have

been, a host of royal priests,--priests who at the same time have a

royal nature and character. That which now already exists perfectly in

the germ, shall, at some future period, come forth in full development,

according to Rev. v. 10: [Greek: kai epoiêsas autous tô theô hêmôn

basileis kai hiereis, kai basileusousin epi tês gês.] Believers, when

sin has been extirpated in them, shall have the freest access to God.

When His will shall have become theirs, and when, at the same time, His

dominion over the whole world appears more visibly, they shall

unconditionally rule with Him. How this dignity of theirs has its

foundation in Christ, is seen from Rev. i. 5, 6, where the words:

[Greek: kai epoiêsen hêmas basileian, hiereis tô theô kai patri

hautou], stand in close connection to [Greek: ho archôn tôn basileôn

tês gês], and to [Greek: kai lusanti hêmas apo tôn hamartiôn hêmôn en

tô haimati hautou.]

Ver. 23. "_And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying:_ Ver. 24.

_Dost thou not see what this people are speaking, and say: The two

families which the Lord hath chosen, He hath now rejected them, and my

people they despise, that they should still be a people before them._"

It is scarcely conceivable how modern interpreters can assert that by

"this people," not the Israelites, but Gentiles, the Egyptians or

Chaldeans, or the "neighbours of the Jews on the Chaboras," (_Hitzig_),

or the Samaritans (_Movers_), are to be understood. In advancing such

assertions, it is overlooked [Pg 473] that the Prophet has here quite

the same persons in view as in the whole remaining section, and as in

these chapter's throughout, viz., those among Israel--and to them more

or less all belonged, even those most faithful--who, because they saw

Israel prostrate, for ever despaired of its deliverance and salvation;

and, indeed, for the most part, in such a manner as to give to this

despair a good aspect, viz., that of humility. They imagined, and said

that the people had sinned in such a manner against God, that He was

free from all his obligations, and could not at all receive them again.

To those the Prophet shows that such a thought is, notwithstanding the

fair appearance, blasphemy. All despair abases God into an idol, into a

creature. Faith holds fast by the word, by the promise. It says:

Although sin abounds with us, the grace of God does much more abound.

As truly as God always remains God, so surely His people will always

remain His people. He indeed chastises them, but He does not give them

over to death. One need only consider the [Hebrew: tprv] in ver.

20.--The expression "this people," is contemptuous, comp. Is. viii. 11.

The Prophet thereby intimates that those who use such language, cease

thereby to be members of the people of God. The "two families" are

Judah and Israel. These had, in the preceding verses, likewise been, in

substance, the subject of discourse; for the election and rejection of

the tribe of Levi, and of the house of David, had been treated of in so

far only, as they stood in relation to the election or rejection of the

people; so that here only the same thing is repeated in a different

form, in consideration of the fact, that weak faith and despair are so

slow to hear. The words: "He hath now rejected them," were, in a

certain sense, true; but not in the sense of the speakers. They, on the

contrary, maintained, in opposition to the election, a rejection for

ever, which was tantamount to: Jehovah, the eternal and unchangeable

One, is no more Jehovah; He is a man that He lieth, and a son of man

that He repenteth. As surely as God is Jehovah, so surely also [Greek:

ametamelêta ta charismata kai hê klêsis tou theou], Rom. xi. 29. The

expression "_my_ people," directs attention to how God is now despised

in Israel. On the contrast between "_my_ people" and "a people,"

compare remarks on chap. xxxi. 36.

Ver. 25. "_Thus saith the Lord: If not my covenant daily_ [Pg 474] _and

nightly, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and

earth_;"--

Compare ver. 20. The covenant daily and nightly, _i.e._, the covenant

which refers to the constant and regular alternation of day and night.

The ordinances of heaven and earth denote the whole course of

nature,--especially the relations of sun, moon, and stars, to the

earth, comp. chap. xxxi. 35--in so far as it is regulated by God's

ordinance, and is, therefore, a lasting one.

Ver. 26. "_So will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David, my

servant, that I do not take farther from his seed rulers over the seed

of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will turn to their captivity, and

have mercy upon them._"

The casting away of the seed of Jacob, and that of the seed of David,

are inseparably connected. For since, by the promise to David, the

kingdom had been for ever bound together with his race, Israel was no

more the people of God, and no more a people at all, if David was no

more the servant of God. The Plural [Hebrew: mwliM] is easily accounted

for, from the circumstance that it was not the number, but only the

_fact_ that was here concerned (comp. remarks on chap. xxiii. 4, and,

at the same time, those on ver. 18); but it is beyond any doubt, that

the Prophet has here in view the revival of the dominion of David in

the Messiah,--has it, at least, chiefly in view. The enumeration of the

three Patriarchs recalls to mind the whole series of the promises

granted to them. The words: "I will turn to their captivity" (not: "I

will turn their captivity," compare remarks on Ps. xiv. 7; captivity is

an image of misery), rest on Deut. xxx. 3.

[Footnote 1: They have been joined by _Movers_ (_de utriusque recens.

Jerem. indole_), who declares ver. 18 and 21-24 to be a later

interpolation (comp. against this view _Küper_, S. 173, and

_Wichelhaus_, de Jerem. Vers. Alex., p. 170), and _Hitzig_, according

to whom the whole portion, vers. 14-26, consists of "a series of single

additions from a later period."]

[Footnote 2: Compare the discussions on this passage in my Commentary

on Rev. i. 6.]

END OF VOLUME SECOND.