_And the Governors of Judah shall say in their hearts, the inhabitants of
Jerusalem shall be my strength in the Lord of hosts their God._
“This text,” says Dr. Blayney, “has been supposed corrupt, and many
attempts made to amend it. But without any alteration, it well expresses
the sentiments of the men of Judah, concerning the interest they had in
the safety of Jerusalem and its inhabitants, on which their own safety and
security depended in a great degree,” &c. I fully agree with Dr. Blayney
in the literal meaning of the words, which involves no difficulty; but in
looking beyond the literal, to the symbolical and spiritual sense,
considerable difficulty appears. A different solution from that I have
offered at first occurred to me, which is this, that as _Judah_ means the
earliest converts to Christianity, these being evidently contrasted with
_the inhabitants of Jerusalem_, who were subsequently saved, the latter
might mean the yet unconverted Jews. Upon this view, the anxiety of
Christians for the conversion of the Jews, would appear to be the subject
intimated in the verse before us; and as this idea may occur to others as
it did to myself, I think it right to state my reasons for relinquishing
it. One objection to this view is, that in verse 10, the _unconverted
Jews_, if they be the inhabitants of Jerusalem, would here mourn the
crucified Saviour, which would be a complete solecism. Another objection
is, that the abolition of idolatry in the next chapter, instead of being
represented as opening the way for the admission of the Pagans to
Christianity, which it certainly did, would then be represented as opening
the way to the conversion of the Jews, which it certainly did not, but
rather had a contrary effect, as history declares. And, lastly, upon this
view, the corruption of Christianity, leading to the loss of the spiritual
Jerusalem, mentioned at the beginning of chap. xiv., instead of being
ascribed to the Gentile church, would thus appear to be the work of the
Jews, either of those more recently converted to Christianity, or of those
still unconverted, both of which would be alike unreasonable. Such are the
reasons which led me to reject that view, and adopt the one proposed in
the text. With respect to the house of David, as signifying the Jewish
converts who embraced Christianity subsequent to the Apostolic age, those
objections do not apply.