CHAPTER XXIII. 1-8.

Ver. 16. "And it cometh to pass, when ye be multiplied and fruitful in the land, in those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more: The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord! And it will not come into the heart, neither shall they remember it, nor miss it, nor shall it be made again."

First, we shall explain some particulars. The words: "When ye be," &c. refer to Gen. i. 28, As it is God's general providence which brings about the fruitfulness of all creatures, so it is His special providence which brings about the increase of His Church whose ranks have been thinned by His judgments; and it is thus that His promise to the patriarchs is carried on towards its fulfilment; compare remarks on Hos, ii. 1. God's future activity in this respect, has an analogy in His former activity in Egypt, Exod. i. 12. The words: "The Ark of the Covenant" must be viewed as an exclamation, in which an ellipsis, in consequence of the emotion, must be supposed,q.d.it is the aim of all our desires, the object of all our longings. The mere mention of the object with which the whole heart is filled, is sufficient for the lively emotion.Venema'sexposition;Arca fœderis Jehovaesc.est, and that ofDe Wette: "They shall no more speak of the Ark of the Covenant of Jehovah," are both feeble and un philological. How were it possible thatאמרwith the Accusative should mean "to speak of something?"--עלה על־לבis, in a similar context, just as it is here, connected withזכרin Is. lxv. 17: "For behold I create a new heaven and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered nor come into the heart," comp. also Jer. li. 50, vii. 31; 1 Cor. ii. 9.זכרwithבdoes not simply stand instead of the usual connection with the Accusative; it signifies a remembering connected with affection, a recollection joined with ardent longings.פקדis, by many interpreters, understood in the sense of "to visit," but the signification "to miss" (Is. xxxiv. 16; 1 Sam. xx. 6-18, xxv. 15; 1 Kingsxx. 39) is recommended by the connection with the following clause: "Nor shall it be made again." This supposes that there shall come a time when the Ark of the Covenant shall no more exist, the time of the destruction of the temple, which was so frequently and emphatically announced by the prophets.[3]God, however, will grant so rich a compensation for that which is lost, that men will neither long for it, nor, urged on by this longing, make any attempt at again procuring it for themselves by their own efforts. The main question now arises:--In what respect does the Ark of the Covenant here come into consideration? The answer is suggested by ver. 17. The Ark of the Covenant is no more remembered, because Jerusalem has now, in a perfect sense, become the throne of God. The Ark of the Covenant comes into consideration, therefore, as the throne of God, in an imperfect sense. It can easily be proved that it was so, although there have been disputes as to the manner in which it was so. The current view was this, that God, as the Covenant God, hadconstantlymanifested himself above the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, in a visible symbol, in a cloud. The first important opposition to this view proceeded fromVitringawho, in theObs. sac.t. i. p. 169, advances, among other arguments, the following: "It is not by any means necessary to maintain that, in the holy of holies, in the tabernacle or the temple of Solomon, there was constantly a cloud over the Ark; but it may be sufficient to say, that the Ark was the symbol of the divine habitation, and it was for this reason said that God was present in the place between the Cherubim, because from thence proceeded the revelation of His will, and He thus proved to the Jews that He was present." But this view ofVitringa, that it wasmerely in an invisible manner that God was present over the Ark of the Covenant, met with strong opposition; and a note to the second edition shows, that he himself afterwards entertained doubts regarding it. ByThalemann, a pupil ofErnesti, it was afterwards advanced far more decidedly, and evidently with the intention of carrying it through, whether it was true or not, in theDissertatio de nube super arcam foederis(Leipzig, 1756). He, too, declared, however, that he did not deny the matter, but only disputed the sign. He found a learned opponent inJohn Eberhard Rau, Professor at Herborn (Ravius,de nube super arcam foederis, Utrecht, 1760; it is a whole book, in whichThalemann'sTreatise is reprinted). The matter is, indeed, very simple; both parties are right and wrong, and the truth lies between the two. From the principal passage, in Lev. xvi. 2, it is evident that, at the annual entry of the High Priest into the holy of holies, the invisible presence of God embodied itself in a cloud, as formerly it also did, on extraordinary occasions, during the journey through the wilderness, and at the dedication of the tabernacle and temple. In that passage, Aaron is exhorted not to enter the holy of holies at all times, for that would prove a want of reverence, but only once a year, "for in the cloud I shall appear over the lid of expiation," (this is the right explanation ofכַּפּרֶתcompareGenuineness of the Pentateuch, p. 525 f.) The place where God manifests himself in so visible a manner when the High Priest enters into it, cannot fail to be a most holy place to him. It is true thatVitringa(S. 171), and still moreThalemann(S. 39 inRau), have endeavoured to remove this objection by their interpretation; but with so plain a violation of all the laws of interpretation, that it is scarcely worth while to enter farther upon this exposition, (compare the refutation inRau, S. 40 ff.), althoughJ. D. Michaelis,Vater,Rosenmüller, andBähr, (Symbol. des Mos. Cultus, i. S. 395), have approved of it.[4]On the other hand,there is nothing to favour the supposition of an ordinary and constant presence of the cloud in the holy of holies. With such a view, questions at once arise, such as: Whether it came also to the Philistines? All thatRauadvances in favour of it, merely proves the invisible presence of God, which surely cannot be considered and called a merely imaginary thing, as is done by him, p. 35. For what, in that case, would be the Lord's presence in the hearts of believers, and in the Lord's supper? It is true that Ezekiel, in chap. xi. 22, beholds the glory of the Lord over the cherubim as being lifted up, and forsaking the temple before its destruction; but how can we draw any reference, as to the actual state of things, from visions which, according to their nature, surround with a body all that is invisible? Still, as we already remarked, this whole controversy has reference to themanneronly, and not to thefactof God's presence over the Ark of the Covenant; and the Ark of the Covenant stands here in a wider sense, and comprehends the cherubim, and "the glory of the Lord dwelling over them." From a vast number of passages, it can be proved that this glory of the Lord was constantly and really present over the Ark of the Covenant, although it was in extraordinary cases only that it manifested itself in an outward, visible form; compare, besides Lev. xvi. 2, Lev. ix. 24, where, after Aaron's consecration to the priesthood, the glory of the Lord appeared to the whole people in confirmation of his office. To these passages belong all those in which God is designated as dwelling over the cherubim, such as 1 Chron. xiii. 6; Ps. lxxx. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 4. To it refers the designation of the ark of the covenant, in a narrower sense, as the footstool of God; comp. 1 Chron. xxviii. 2, where David says: "I had in mine heart to build an house of rest for the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God;" Ps. xcix. 5, cxxxii. 7; Lam. ii. 1. From this circumstance the fact is explained, that the prayer in distress, as well as the thanks for deliverance, were offered up before, or towardsthe Ark of the Covenant. After the defeat before Ai (Josh. vii. 5 ff.), Joshua "rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face, before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, until the eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads, and Joshua said: Alas, O Lord God, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over Jordan?" After the Lord had appeared to Solomon at Gibeah, and had given him the promise, he went before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and offered burnt-offerings, and thank-offerings, 1 Kings iii. 15. In 2 Sam. xv. 32, we are told that David went up the Mount of Olives very sorrowfully, and when he was come to the place,where people were accustomed to worship God, Hushai met him. According to that passage, it was the custom of the people, when on the top of the Mount of Olives, they gained, for the first or last time, a view of the sanctuary, to prostrate themselves before the God of Israel who dwelt there. To the Ark of the Covenant, all those passages refer in which it is said that God dwelleth in the midst of Israel; that He dwelleth in the temple; that He dwelleth at Zion or Jerusalem, comparee.g., the promise in Exodus xxix. 45: "I dwell in the midst of the children of Israel,"and farther, Ps. ix. 12, cxxxii. 13, 14; 1 Kings vi. 12, 13, where God promises to Solomon that if he should only walk in His commandments, and execute His judgments, then would He dwell among the children of Israel; and afterwards fulfils this promise by solemnly entering into his temple. Indissolubly connected with this, was the deep reverence in which the Ark of the Covenant was held in Israel. It was considered as the most precious jewel of the people, as the centre of their whole existence. Being the place where the glory of God dwelt (Ps. xxvi. 8), where He manifested himself in His most glorious revelation, it was calledthe glory of Israel, compare 1 Sam. iv. 21, 22; Ps. lxxviii. 61. The High Priest Eli patiently and quietly heard all the other melancholy tidings--the defeat of Israel, and the death of his sons. But when he who had escaped added: "And the Ark of God is taken," he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate; and his neck brake, and he died. When his daughter-in-law heard the tidings that the Ark of the Covenant was taken, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her. And about the time ofher death, the women that stood by her said unto her: Fear not, for thou hast borne a son. But she answered not, neither did she take it to heart, and she named the child Ichabod, and said. The glory is departed from Israel, because the Ark of the Covenant was taken, and said again: "The glory is departed from Israel, for the Ark of God is taken." But in what manner may this dwelling of God over the Ark of the Covenant be conceived of? Should the Most High God, whom all the heavens, and the heaven of heavens cannot contain (1 Kings viii. 27), whose throne is the heaven, and whose footstool is the earth (Is. lxvi. 1), dwell in a temple made by the hands of men? (Acts vii. 48, ff.) Evidently not in the manner in which men dwell in a place, who areinit only, notoutof it. Nor in such a manner as the carnally minded suppose, who, to the warnings of the prophets, opposed their word: "Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us" (Micah iii. 11), or: "Here is the temple of the Lord, here is the temple of the Lord, here is the temple of the Lord" (Jer. vii. 4), imagining that God could not forsake the place which he had chosen, could not take away the free gift of His grace. The matter rather stands thus: That which constitutes the substance and centre of the whole relation of Israel to God, is, that the God of the heavens and the earth became the God of Israel; that the Creator of heaven and earth became the Covenant-God, that His general providence in blessing and punishing became a special one. In order to make the relation familiar to the people, and thus to make it the object of their love and fear, God gave them apraesens numenin His sanctuary, as a prefiguration, and, at the same time, a prelude of the condescension with which He whom the whole universe cannot contain, rested in the womb of Mary. And in so doing, He gave them not a symbolical representation merely, but an embodiment of the idea, so that they who wished to seek Him as the God of Israel, could find Him in the temple, and over the Ark of the Covenant only. The circumstance that it was just there that He took His seat, shows the difference between this trulypraesens numen, and that merely imaginery one of the Gentiles. There was in this no partial favour for Israel, nothing from which careless sinners could derive any comfort, God's dwelling among Israel rested onHis holy Law. According as the Covenant is kept or not, and the Law is observed or not, it manifests itself by increased blessing, or by severer punishment. If the Covenant be entirely broken, the consequence is that God leaves His dwelling, and it is only the curse which remains, and which is greater than the curse inflicted upon those among whom He never dwelt, and which, by its greatness, indicates the greatness of the former grace.--Now, if this be the case with the Ark of the Covenant; if it be the substance and centre of the whole former dispensation, what, and how much would not fall along with it, if it fell; and how infinitely great must the compensation be which was to be granted for it, if, in consequence of it, no desire and longing after it was to rise at all, if it was to be regarded as belonging to theπτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, and was to be forgotten as a mere image and shadow! The fact that the Ark of the Covenant was made before any thing else, sufficiently shows that every thing sacred under the Old Testament dispensation depended upon it.Witsius Misc. t.i. p. 439, very pertinently remarks: "The Ark of the Covenant being, as it were, the heart of the whole Israelitish religion, was made first of all." Without Ark of the Covenant--no temple; for it became a sanctuary by the Ark of the Covenant only; for holy, so Solomon says in 2 Chron. viii. 11, is the place whereunto the Ark of the Covenant hath come. Without Ark of the Covenant, no priesthood; for what is the use of servants when there is no Lord present? Without temple and priesthood, no sacrifice. We have thus before us the announcement of the entire destruction of the previous form of the Kingdom of God, but such a destruction of the form as brings about, at the same time, the highest completion of the substance,--a perishing like that of the seed-corn, which dies only, in order to bring forth much fruit; like that of the body, which is sown in corruption, in order to be raised in incorruption.Dahlerremarks: "Because a more sublime religion, a more glorious state of things will take the place of the Mosaic dispensation, there will be no cause for regretting the loss of the symbol of the preceding dispensation, and people will no more remember it."--It is quite natural that the prophecy should give great offence, and prove a stumbling-block to Jewish interpreters. Its subject, its high dignity, justconsists in the announcement that, at some future period, the shadow should give way to the substance; but it is just the confounding of the shadow with the substance, the rigid adherence to the former, which characterises Judaism, which considers even the Messiah as a minister of the old dispensation only, and views the great changes to be effected by Him, mainly as external ones. The embarrassment arising from this, is very clearly expressed in the following words ofAbarbanel: "This promise is, then, bad, and uproots the whole Law. How is it then that Scripture mentions it as good?" RabbiArama, in his commentary on the Pentateuch, fol. 101, says, in reference to this prophecy,נבוכו כל המפרשים"all interpreters have been perplexed by it." The interpretations by means of which they endeavour to rid themselves of this embarrassment (see the collection of them inFrischmuth'sdissertation on this passage, Jena; reprinted in theThes. Ant.) are only calculated plainly to manifest it.Kimchigives this explanation: "Although ye shall increase and be multiplied on the earth, yet the nations shall not envy you, nor wage war against you; and it shall no more be necessary for you to go to war with the Ark of the Covenant, as was usual in former times, when they took the Ark of the Covenant out to war. In that time, there will be no necessity for so doing, as they shall not have any war." The weak points of this explanation are at once obvious. That which, in the verse under consideration, is, in a general way, said of the Ark of the Covenant, is, by it, referred to an altogether special use of it, a regard to which is excluded by the evident antithesis in ver. 17.Abarbanelrejects this explanation. He says: "For there is, in the text, no mention at all of war; and therefore I cannot approve of this exposition, althoughJonathan, too, inclines towards it." He himself brings out this sense: The Ark of the Covenant would then, indeed, still continue to exist, and be the seat of the Lord; but no more the exclusive one, no longer the sole sanctuary. "The whole of Jerusalem shall, as regards holiness and glory, equal the Ark of the Covenant. For there shall cease with them every evil thing, and every evil imagination; and there shall be such holiness in the land, that in the same manner as formerly the Ark was the holiest of all things, so at that time, Jerusalem shall bethe throne of the Lord." But, by this explanation, justice is not done to the text. For it is an entire doing away with the Ark of the Covenant which is spoken of in it, not a mere diminution of its dignity, produced by the circumstance, that that which formerly was low shall be exalted. This is particularly evident from the words: "They will not miss it, neither shall it be made again." To this argument we may still add that, by this exposition, not even the object is gained for the sake of which it was advanced. The nature and substance of the Ark of the Covenant is destroyed, as soon as it is put on a level with anything else. It is then no morethethrone of the Lord; and for this reason, the previous form can no longer continue to exist, and, along with it, the temple and priesthood too must fall. If every place in Jerusalem, if every inhabitant of it, be equally holy, how then can institutions still continue, which are based on the difference between holy and unholy?--Here a question still arises. There was no Ark of the Covenant in the second temple. In what relation to the prophecy under consideration stands this absence of the Ark of the Covenant, the restoration of which the Jews expect at the end of the days? There cannot be any doubt that it was really wanting. Every proof of its existence is wanting.Josephus, in enumerating the catalogue of thespolia Judaica, borne before in the triumph, does not mention it. He says expressly (de Bell. Jud. v. 5, § 5), that the holy of holies had been altogether empty. Some of the Jewish writers assert that it had been carried away to Babylon; while most of them, following the account given in 2 Maccabees, tell us that Josiah or Jeremiah had concealed it; compare the Treatise byCalmet, Th. 6, S. 224-258,Mosh.In askingwhysuch was the case, other analogous phenomena, the absence of theUrim and Thummim, the cessation of prophetism soon after the return from the captivity, must not be lost sight of. Every thing was intended to impress upon the people the conviction that their condition was provisional only. It was necessary that the Theocracy should sink beneath its former glory, in order that the future glory, which was far to outshine it, should so much the more be longed for. After having thus determinedwhyit was that the Ark of the Covenant was wanting, at the second temple, it is easy todetermine the relation of this absence to the prophecy under consideration. It was the beginning of its fulfilment. In the Kingdom of God, nothing perishes, without something new arising out of this decay. The extinction of the old was the guarantee, that something new was approaching. On the other hand, the absence of the Ark of the Covenant was, it is true, at the same time, a matter-of-fact prophecy of a sad character. To those who clung to the form, without having in a living manner laid hold of the substance, and who, therefore, were not able to partake in the more glorious display of the substance,--to these it announced that the time was approaching when the form, to which they had attached themselves with their whole existence, was to be broken. Since already one of the great privileges of the covenant-people, theδόξα(Rom. ix. 4), had disappeared, surely all that might and would soon share the same fate, which existed only for the sake of it, and in it only had its significance. In this respect, the non-restoration of the Ark of the Covenant showed that the Chaldean destruction and that by the Romans were connected as commencement and completion; while, in the other aspect, it declared that, with the return from the captivity, the realization of God's great plan of salvation was being prepared. Inasmuch as the most completefuga vacuiis peculiar to the Covenant-God, the emptiness in that place where formerly the glory of God dwelt, proclaimed aloud the future fulness.--Finally, we have still to determine the special reference of our verse to Israel,i.e., the former kingdom of the ten tribes. This reference is, by most interpreters, entirely lost sight of, and is very superficially and erroneously determined by those who, likeCalvin, pay attention to it. In the preceding verse, it had been promised to Israel, that those blessings should again be bestowed upon them, which they had forfeited by their rebellion against the Davidic house, and that they should be restored to them with abundant interest. For David's house is to attain to its completion in its righteous Sprout. This Shepherd, who is, in the fullest sense, what His ancestor had only imperfectly been--a man according to the heart of God--shall feed them with knowledge and understanding.Here, a compensation is promised for the second, infinitely greater loss, whichhad, at all times, been acknowledged as such by the faithful in the kingdom of the ten tribes. The revelation of the Lord over the Ark of the Covenant was the magnet which constantly drew them to Jerusalem. Many sacrificed all their earthly possessions, and took up their abode in Judea. Others went on a pilgrimage from their natural to their spiritual home, to the "throne of the glory exalted from the beginning," Jer. xvii. 12. In vain was every thing which the kings of Israel did in order to stifle their indestructible longing. Every new event by which "the glory of Israel" manifested itself as such, kindled their ardour anew. But here also the great blessing and privilege, which the believers missed with sorrow, the unbelievers without it, is to the returning ones given back, not in its previous form, but in a glorious completion. The whole people have now received eyes to recognise the value of the matter in its previous form; and yet this previous form is now looked upon by them as nothing, because the new, infinitely more glorious form of the same matter occupied their attention.

Ver. 17. "At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered into it, because the name of the Lord is at Jerusalem; neither shall they walk any more after the wickedness of their evil heart."

Many interpreters, proceeding upon the supposition that the emphasis rests upon Jerusalem, have been led to give an altogether erroneous explanation. It is no more the Ark of the Covenant which will then be the throne of the Lord, butallJerusalem. Thus,e.g., after the example ofJarchiandAbarbanel,Manasseh ben Israel,Conciliator, p. 196: "If we keep in mind that, in the tabernacle or temple, the Ark was the place where the Lord dwelt (hence Ex. xxv. 22: 'I will speak with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim'), we shall find that the Lord here says, that the Ark indeed had formerly been the dwelling-place of the Godhead, but that, at the time of Messiah, not some one part of the temple only would be filled with the Godhead, but that this glory should be given to all Jerusalem; so that whosoever would be in her would have the prophetic spirit." If it had been the intention of the Prophet to convey this meaning, the wordallcould not have been omitted. The throne of theLord, Jerusalem had been even formerly, in so far as she possessed in her midst the Ark of the Covenant, and hence was the residence of Jehovah, the city of the great King, Ps. xlviii. 3. The words in the parallel member: "Because the name of the Lord is at Jerusalem," show that Jerusalem is called the throne of the Lord, because there is now in her the true throne of the Lord, just as, formerly, the Ark of the Covenant. The antithesis to what precedes leads us to expect a gradation, not in point of quantity, but of quality. The emphasis rests rather on: "The throne of the Lord;" and these words receive from the antithesis the more definite qualification: the true throne of the Lord. Quite similarly, those who boasted that over the Cherubim was the throne of God, and that the Ark of the Covenant was His footstool, are told in Is. lxvi. 1: "The heaven is my (true) throne, and the earth my (true) footstool;" comp. the passages according to which the Ark of the Covenant is designated as the footstool of God, and, hence, the place over the Cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant as the throne of the Lord, p. 387; and farther, Is. lx. 13; Ezra i. 26.--The highest prerogative of the covenant-people, their highest privilege over the world, is to have God in the midst of them; and this prerogative, this privilege, is now to be bestowed upon them in the most perfect manner; so that idea and reality shall coincide. Perfectly parallel in substance are such passages as Ezek. xliii., in which the Shechinah which, at the destruction of the temple had withdrawn, returns to the new temple, the Kingdom of God in its new and more glorious form. Ver. 2. "And behold the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the East; and its voice was like the voice of great waters, and the earth shone with its splendour." Ver. 7. "And He said unto me, son of man, behold the place ofmy throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and the house of Israel shall no more defile my holy place." Zech. ii. 14 (10): "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come and dwell in the midst of thee," with an allusion to Exod. xxix. 45: "And I dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God." The Prophet declares that the full realization of this promise is reserved for the future; but it could not be so, unless it had already been realised, throughout all past history, in God'sdwelling over the Ark of the Covenant; compare Zech. viii. 3: "Thus saith the Lord, I return unto Zion, and dwell in the midst of Jerusalem."--If we enquire after the fulfilment, we are at once met by the words in John i. 14:καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός; and that so much the more that these words contain an evident allusion to the former dwelling of God in the temple, of which the incarnation of the Logos is looked upon as the highest consummation. It is true that the dwelling of God among His people by means of theπνεῦμα Χριστοῦmust not be separated from the personal manifestation of God in Christ, in whom dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily,σωματικῶς. The former stands to the latter in the same relation, as does the river to the fountain; it is the river of living water flowing forth from the body of Christ. Both together form the true tabernacle of God among men, the new true Ark of the Covenant; for the old things are theσκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα Χριστοῦ, Col. ii. 17; comp. Rev. xxi. 22:καὶ ναὸν οὐκ εἶδον ἐν αὐτῇ· ὁ γὰρ Κύριος, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ναὸς αὐτῆς ἐστι, καὶ τὸ ἀρνίον. The typical import of the Ark of the Covenant is expressly declared in Heb. ix. 4, 5, and that which was typified thereby is intimated in chap. iv. 16:προσερχώμεθα δὲ μετὰ παῤῥησίας τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς χάριτος, where Christ is designated as the true mercy-seat, as the true Ark of the Covenant. Just as, formerly, God could be found over the Ark of the Covenant only, by those from among his people who sought Him; so we have now, through Christ, boldness and access with confidence in God (Eph. iii. 12); and it is only when offered in His name, in living union with Him, that our prayers are acceptable, John xvi. 23. A consequence of that highest realization of the idea of the kingdom of God, and, at the same time, a sign that it has taken place, and a measure of the blessings which Israel has to expect from its re-union with the Church of God, is the gathering of the Gentiles into it, such as, by way of type and prelude, took place even at the lower manifestations of the presence of God among the people; compare,e.g., Josh. ix. 9: "And they (the Gibeonites) said unto him: From a very far country thy servants are come, because of the name (לשם) of Jehovah thy God, for we have heard the fame of Him, and all that He did in Egypt,and all that He did to the two kings of the Amorites," &c. In a manner quite similar it is, in Zech. ii. 15 (11) also, connected with the Lord's dwelling in Jerusalem: "And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day; and they shall be my people; and I dwell in the midst of thee."--לשם יהוה לירושליםmust be literally translated: "On account of the name of the Lord (belonging) to Jerusalem," for: because the name of the Lord belongs to Jerusalem--is there at home The name of the Lord is the Lord himself, in so far as He reveals His invisible nature, manifests himself In the name, His deeds are comprehended; and hence it forms a bridge betwixt existing and knowing. A God without a name is aθεὸς ἄγνωστος, Acts xviii. 23. There is an allusion to Deut. xii. 5: "But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribesto put His name there, to dwell in it, unto it ye shall seek, and thither ye shall come." Formerly, when God put His name in an imperfect manner only, Israel only assembled themselves; but now, all the Gentiles.--The last words: "Neither shall they walk any more," &c., are not by any means to refer to the Gentiles, but to the members of the kingdom of Israel, or also to the whole of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to all the members of the Kingdom of God, including the subjects of the kingdom of Israel. This appears from a comparison of the fundamental passage of the Pentateuch, as well as of the parallel passages in Jeremiah. Whereverשרירותoccurs, the covenant-people are spoken of; everywhere the walking afterשרירותof the heart is opposed to the walking after the revealed law of Jehovah, which Israel alone possessed.שרירות, which properly means "firmness," is then used of hardness in sin, of wickedness.[5]

[1]Vitringavery correctly remarks on this passage: "בעל, properlyὁ ἔχων, he who has any thing in his possession is, by an ellipsis, applied to the husband who, in Exod. xxi. 3, is rightly calledבעל אשהone who has a wife."

[2]Against the explanation ofMaurer: "For I am your Lord;" and that ofEwald: "I take you under my protection," it is decisive thatבעלnever means "to be Lord," far less "to take under protection."בעל, which properly means "to possess," is very commonly used of marriage;--as early as in the Decalogue, the wife appears as the noblestpossessionof the husband--so thata priorithis signification is suggested and demanded.

[3]It is from the circumstance that modern Exegesis is unable to comprehend the prophetic anticipation of the Future, that the assertion has proceeded (Movers,Hitzig) that, even before the Chaldean destruction, the Ark "must have disappeared in a mysterious manner." In the view of the Chaldean destruction the Lord is, in Ps. xcix. 1 (comp. Ps. lxxx. 2), designated as He who sitteth over the Cherubim. In 2 Chron. xxxv. 3, we have a distinct historical witness for the existence of the Ark, so late as the 18th year of Josiah. The fable in 2 Maccab. ii. 4, ff., supposes that the Ark was at its ordinary place, down to the time of the breaking in of the Chaldean catastrophe. One might as well infer from chap. iii. 18, that, at the time when these words were spoken, Judah must already, "in a mysterious manner," have come into the land of the North.

[4]Bähradvances the assertion, "In a (the) cloud" is equivalent to: "in darkness." But the parallel passages, Exod. xl. 34 ff., Numb. ix. 15, 16, quoted byJ. H. Michaelis, are quite sufficient to overthrow this assertion. And these parallel passages are so much the more to the point, that by the article the cloud is designated as being already known; compareHofmann,Schriftbeweisii. 1, S. 36. The cloud in ver. 13 is not identical with that in ver. 2, but is its necessary parallel. The cloud in ver. 2 symbolises the truth that the Lord is a consuming fire (compare my remarks on Rev. i. 7); that in ver. 13 is an embodiedKyrie eleison, compare remarks on Rev. v. 8. Cloud with cloud,--that is a noble advice for the Church when she is threatened by the judgments of God. A thorough refutation ofBährhas been given byW. Neumann:Beiträge zur Symbolik des Mos. Cultus,Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol., 1851, i.

[5]In a certain sense, one may say thatשרירות לבis aἅπαξ λεγόμενον. It occurs independently in one single passage only, in Deut. xxix. 18; in the other passages (eight times in Jeremiah, and besides, in Ps. lxxxi. 13), it was evidently not taken from the livingusus loquendifrom which it had disappeared, but from the fundamental passage in the written code of law. This fact will,a priori, appear probable, when we keep in mind that, among all the books of the Pentateuch, Jeremiah has chiefly Deuteronomy before his eyes; and among all the chapters of Deuteronomy, none more than the 29th; and that Ps. lxxxi. is pervaded by literal allusions to the Pentateuch. But it is put beyond all doubt, when we enter upon a comparison of the passage in Deuteronomy with the parallel passages. Here we must begin with Jer. xxiii. 17, where the verbal agreement comes out most strongly, and then we shall, in the other passages also (vii. 24, ix. 13, xi. 8, xvi. 12, xviii. 12, and the passage under consideration), easily perceive that the word has been borrowed. From a comparison with the fundamental passage, it appears that it is the intention of the Prophet to convey here the promise of an eternal duration of the regained blessing, and to keep off the thought that possibly the people might again, as formerly, fall from grace. Of him who walks after theשרירותof his heart, it is said in Deut. xxix. 19 (20): "The Lord will not be willing to forgive him; for then the anger of the Lord and His jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord blots out his name from under heaven."

These verses form a portion only of a greater whole, to which, besides the whole of chap. xxii., chap. xxiii. 9-40 also belongs. For these verses contain a prophecy against the false prophets, and by the way also, against the degenerated priesthood (comp. ver. 11); and this prophecy easily unites itself with the preceding prophecy against the kings, so as to form one prophecy against the corrupt leaders of the people of God. But, for the exposition of the verses before us, it is only the connection with chap. xxii. which is of importance, and that so much so that, without carefully attending to it, they cannot at all be thoroughly understood. For this reason, we shall confine ourselves to bring it out more clearly.

The Prophet reproves and warns the kings of Judah, first, in general, announcing to them the judgments of the Lord upon them and their people,--the fulfilment of the threatenings, Deut. xxix. 22 ff.--if they are to continue in their hitherto ungodly course, chap. xxii. 1–9. In order to make a stronger impression, he then particularizes the general threatening, showing how God's recompensing justice manifests itself in the fate of the individual apostate kings. First, Jehoahaz is brought forward, the son and the immediate successor of Josiah, whom Pharaoh-Necho dethroned and carried with him to Egypt, vers. 10-12. The declaration concerning him forms a commentary on the name Shallum,i.e., the recompensed one, he whom the Lord recompenses according to his deeds,--which name the Prophet gives to him instead of the meaningless name Jehoahaz,i.e., God holds. His father, who met his death in the battle against the Egyptians, may be called happy when compared with him; for he never returns to his nativeland; he lives and dies in a foreign land. The next whom he brings forward is Jehoiakim, vers. 13–19. He is a despot who does every thing to ruin the people committed to him. There is, therefore, the most glaring contrast between his beautiful name and his miserable fate. The Lord, instead of raising him up, will cast him down to the lowest depth; not even an honourable burial is to be bestowed upon him. No one weeps or laments over him; like a trodden down carcass, he lies outside the gates of Jerusalem, the city of the great King, which he attempted to wrest from him, and make his own. Then follows a parenthetical digression, vers. 20–23. Apostate Judah is addressed. The judgment upon her kings is not one with which she has nothing to do, as little as their guilt belongs to them as individuals only. It is, at the same time a judgment upon the people which, by the Lord's anger which they have called forth by their wickedness, is thrown down into the depth, from the height on which the Lord's mercy had raised them.--Next follows Jehoiachin, vers. 24-30. In his name "TheLordwill establish," the wordwillhas no foundation; the Lordwillreject him, cast him away, and break him in pieces like a worthless vessel. With his mother, he shall be carried away from his native land, and die in exile and captivity. Irrevocable is the Lord's decree, that none of his sons shall ascend the throne of David, so that he, having begotten children in vain, is to be esteemed as one who is childless.

At the commencement of the section under consideration (vers. 1 and 2), the contents of chap. xxii. are comprehended into one sentence. "Woe to the shepherds that destroy and scatter the flock of the Lord." Woe, then, to those shepherds who have done so. With this is then, in vers. 3–8, connected the announcement of salvation for the poor scattered flock. For the same reason, that the Lord visits upon those who have hitherto been their shepherds, the wickedness of their doings--viz., because of His being the chief Shepherd, or because of His covenant-faithfulness, He will in mercy remember them also, gather them from their dispersion, give, instead of the bad shepherds, a good one, viz., the long promised and longed for great descendant of David, who, being arighteousKing, shall diffuse justice and righteousness in the land, and thusacquire for it righteousness and salvation from the Lord. So great shall the mercy of the Future be, that thereby the greatest mercy in the people's past history--their deliverance out of Egypt--shall be altogether cast into the shade.

There cannot be any doubt that the whole prophecy belongs to the reign of Jehoiakim; for the end of Jehoiakim and the fate of Jehoiachin are announced as future events.

Eichhornasserts that this section was composed under Zedekiah; but he could do so only by proceeding from his erroneous fundamental view, that the prophecies are veiled descriptions of historical events. "When Jeremiah"--so he says--"delivered this discourse, Jehoiakim had not only already met his ignominious end (xxii. 19), but Jeconiah also was, with his mother, already carried away captive to Babylon." It is matter of astonishment thatDahler, without holding the same fundamental view, could yet adopt its result. He specially refers to the circumstance that, in ver. 24, Jehoiachin is addressed as king,--a circumstance by whichBertholdalso supports his view, who, cutting the knot, advances the position that vers. 1–19 belong to the reign of Jehoiakim, but vers. 20--xxxii. 8 to the time when Jehoiachin was carried away to Babylon. (MaurerandHitzigtoo suppose that vers. 20 ff. were added at a later period, under the reign of Jehoiachin). But what difficulty is there in supposing that the Prophet transfers himself into the time, when he who is now a hereditary prince will be king,--of which the address is then a simple consequence? It is undeniable that a connection with chap. xxi. takes place, in which chapter Jeremiah announces to Zedekiah, threatened by the Chaldeans, the fall of the Davidic house, and the capture and destruction of the city. And this connection is to be accounted for by the fact that Jeremiah here connects with this announcement a former prophecy, in which, under the reign of Jehoiakim, he had foretold the fall of the Davidic house. The fate of the house of David is the subject common to both the discourses.Küper(Jeremias,libror. Sacror. interpres, p. 58), supposes that, in the message to Zedekiah, Jeremiah had, at that time, repeated his former announcement; but this supposition is opposed by the circumstance that, in chaps. xxii., xxiii., there is no trace of a reference to Zedekiah and his embassy.Ewaldasserts that Jeremiahhere only puts together what "perhaps" he had formerly spoken regarding the three kings; but the words in chap. xxii. 1: "Go down into the house of the king of Judah and speak there this word," is conclusive against this assertion. For, according to these words, we have here not something put together, but a discourse which was delivered at a distinct, definite time; although nothing prevents us from supposing that the going down was done in the Spirit only.

We have here still to make an investigation concerning the names of the three kings occurring in chap. xxii., the result of which is of importance for the exposition of ver. 5.--It cannot but appear strange that the same king who, in the Book of the Kings, is called Jehoahaz, is here called Shallum only; that the same who is there called Jehoiachin, has here the name of Jeconias, which is abbreviated into Conias. The current supposition is, that the two kings had two names each. But this supposition is unsatisfactory, because, by the context in which they stand, the names employed by Jeremiah too clearly appear asnomina realia, as new names given to them by which the contrast between the name and thing was to be removed, and hence are evidently of the same nature with thenomen realeof the good Shepherd in chap. xxiii. 6, which, with quite the same right, could have been changed into anomen propriumin the proper sense, as has, indeed, been done by the LXX. The numerous passages in the prophets, where the name occurs as a designation of the nature and character,e.g., Is. ix. 5, lxii. 4; Jer. xxxiii. 16; Ezek. xlviii. 35, plainly show that a name which has merely a prophetical warrant (and such an one alone takes place here, although the name Shallum occurs also in 1 Chron. iii. 15 [in the historical representation itself, however, Jehoahaz is used in the Book of Kings, and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 1], and the name Jeconias likewise in 1 Chron. iii. 16, while Jehoiakim is found not only in the Book of Kings, but also in Ezek. i. 2; for it is quite possible that those later writers may have drawn from Jeremiah), cannot simply be considered as anomen proprium; but, on the contrary, that there is a strong probability that it is not so. And this probability becomes certainty when that name occurs, eitheralone, ase.g., Shallum, orfirst, as Jeconiah, (which occurs again in chap. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20; the abbreviatedConiah in xxxvii. 1, while, which is well to be observed, we have in the historical account, chap. lii. 31, Jehoiachin) in a context, such as that under consideration; especially when this phenomenon occurs in a prophet such as Jeremiah, in whom, elsewhere also, many traces of holy wit, and even punning, can be pointed out.--With reference to the calamity which more and more threatened Judah, pious Josiah had given to his sons names, which announced salvation. According to his wish, these names should be as many actual prophecies, and would, indeed, have proved themselves to be such, unless they who bore them had made them of no avail by their apostacy from the Lord, and had thus brought about the most glaring contrast between idea and reality. That comes out first in the case of Jehoahaz. He whom the Lord shouldhold, was violently and irresistibly carried away to Egypt. The Prophet, therefore, calls him Shallum,i.e., therecompensed,--notretribution, asHiller,Simonis, andRoedigerthink, norretributoraccording toFürst(comp.Ewald§ 154d); the same who, in 1 Chron. v. 38, is called Shallum, is in 1 Chron. ix. 11, called Meshullam--he upon whom the Lord has visited the wickedness of his deeds.--As regards the name Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, we must, above all things, keep in view the relation of these names to the promise given to David. In 2 Sam. vii. 12 it is said: "And I cause to rise up (והקימתי) thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish (והכינתי) his kingdom." This passage contains the ground ofbothnames; and this is the more easily explained, since both of them have one author, Jehoiakim. Even his former name Eliakim had probably been given to him by his father Josiah with a view to the promise. When Pharaoh, however, desired him to change his name--as the name itself shows, we cannot but supply, in 2 Kings xxiii. 31, such a request to a proposal which was afterwards approved of by Pharaoh--he performed that change in such a manner as to bring it into a still nearer relation to the promise, in which, not El, but Jehovah, is expressly mentioned as He who promised; and indeed the matter proceeded from Jehovah, the God of Israel. As, however, from the whole character of Jehoiakim, we cannot suppose that the twofold naming proceeded from true piety, nothing is more naturalthan to account for it from an opposition to the prophets. The centre of their announcements was formed by the impending calamity from the North, and the decline of the Davidic family. The promise given to David shall indeed be fulfilled in the Messiah; but not till after a previous deep abasement. Jehoiakim mocking at these threatenings, means to transfer the salvation from the future into the present. In his own name, and that of his son, he presented a standing protest to the prophetic announcement; and this protest could not but call forth a counter-protest, which we find expressed in the prophecy under consideration. The Prophet first overthrows the false interpretation: Jehoiakim is not Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin is not Jehoiachin, chap. xxii.; he then restores the right interpretation: the true Jehoiakim is, and remains, the Messiah, chap. xxiii. 5. As regards the first point, he. in the case of Jehoiakim, contents himself with theactualcontrast, and omits to substitute a truly significant name for the usurped one, which may most easily be accounted for from the circumstance, that he thought it to be unsuitable to exercise any kind of wit, even holy wit, against the then reigning king. But the case is different with regard to Jehoiachin. The first change of the name into Jeconiah has its cause not in itself; the two names have quite the same meaning; it had respect to the second change into Coniah only. In Jeconiah we have the Future; and this is put first, in order that, by cutting off theי, the sign of the Future, he might cut off hope; a Jeconiah without theיsays only God establishes, but not that Hewillestablish. In reference to these names,Grotiuscame near the truth; but he erred in the nearer determination, because he did not see the true state of the matter; so that, according to him, it amounts to a mere play: "The Jod," he says, "with which the name begins, is taken away, to intimate that his head shall be diminished; and a Vav is added at the end as a sign of contempt,q.d.that Coniah!"Lightfootcomes nearer to the truth; yet even he was not able to gain assent to it (compare against himHillerandSimoniswho thought his views scarcely worth refuting), because he took an one-sided view. He remarks (Harmon.p. 275): "By taking away the first syllable, God intimated that He would not establish to the progeny of Solomon theuninterrupted government and royal dignity, as Jehoiakim, by giving that name to his son, seems to have expected." Besides these two, compare farther,Alting,de Cabbala sacra§ 73.

In conclusion, we must still direct attention to chap. xx. 3. Who, indeed, could infer from that passage, that, by way of change,Pashurwas called alsoMagor-Missabib?

Chap. xxiii. 1. "Woe to shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord."

It must be well observed thatרֹעִיםis here without the article, but, in ver. 2, with it.Venemaremarks on this: "A general woe upon bad shepherds is premised, which is soon applied to the shepherds of Judah,q.d., since Jehovah has denounced a woe upon all bad shepherds, therefore ye bad shepherds," &c. By the "shepherds," several interpreters would understand only the false prophets and priests. Others would at least have them thought of, along with the kings. This view has exercised an injurious influence upon the understanding of the subsequent Messianic announcement, inasmuch as it occasioned the introduction into it of features which are altogether foreign to it. It is only when it is perceived, that the bad shepherds refer to the kings exclusively, that it is seen that, in the description of the good Shepherd, that only is applicable which has reference to Him as a King. But the very circumstance that, according to a correct interpretation, nothing else is found in this description, is a sufficient proof that, by the bad shepherds, the kings only can be understood. But all doubt is removed when we consider the close connection of the verses under consideration with chap. xxii. In commenting upon chap. iii. 15, we saw that, ordinarily, rulers only are designated by the shepherds; compare, farther, chap. xxv. 34-36, and the imitation and first interpretation of the passage under review by Ezekiel, in chap. xxxiv. Ps. lxxviii. 70, 71: "He chose David his servant, and took him from the sheep-folds. He took him from behind the ewes to feed Jacob, His people, and Israel, His inheritance," shows that a typical interpretation of the former circumstances of David lies at the foundation of thisusus loquendi; compare Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24: "And I raise over them one Shepherd, and he feedeth them, my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall betheir shepherd."--What is to be understood by the destroying and scattering, must be determined partly from ver. 3 and vers. 13 ff. of the preceding chapter; partly from ver. 3 of the chapter before us. The former passages show that the acts of violence of the kings, their oppressions and extortions, come here into consideration (compare Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 3: "Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed, &c., and with force and with cruelty ye rule them"), while the latter passage shows that it is chiefly the heaviest guilt of the kings which comes into consideration, viz., all that by which they became the cause of the people's being carried away into captivity. To this belonged, besides their foolish political counsels, which were based upon ungodliness (comp. chap. x. 21), the negative (Venema: "It was their duty to take care that the true religion, the spiritual food of the people, was rightly and properly exercised"), and positive promotion of ungodliness, and of immorality proceeding from it, by which the divine judgments were forcibly drawn down. It is in this contrast of idea and reality (Calvin: "It is a contradiction that the shepherd should be a destroyer"), that the woe has its foundation, and that the more, that it is pointed out that the flock, which they destroy and scatter, isGod'sflock. (Calvin: "God intimates that, by the unworthy scattering of the flock, an atrocious injury had been committed against himself")צאן מרעיתיmust not be explained by: "the flock of my feeding,"i.e., which I feed. For, whereverמרעיתoccurs by itself, it always has the signification "pasture," but never the significationpastio,pastuscommonly assigned to it. This signification, which is quite in agreement with the form of the word, must therefore be retained in those passages also where it occurs in connection withצאן, when it always denotes the relation of Israel to God. Israel is called the flock of God's pasture, because He has given to them the fertile Canaan as their possession, compare my remarks on Ps. lxxiv. 1. It is, at first sight, strange that a guilt of the rulers only is spoken of, and not a guilt of the people; for every more searching consideration shows that both are inseparable from one another; that bad rulers proceed from the development of the nation, and are, at the same time, a punishmentof its wickedness sent by God. But the fact is easily accounted for, if only we keep in mind that the Prophet had here to do with the kings only, and not with the people. To them it could not serve for an excuse that their wickedness was naturally connected with that of the people. Thisnaturalconnection was not by any means a necessary one, as appears from the example of a Josiah, in whose case it was broken through by divine grace. Nor were they justified by the circumstance, that they were rods of chastisement in the hand of God. To this the Prophet himself alludes, by substituting, in ver. 3: "I have driven away," for "you have driven away," in ver. 2. All which they had to do, was to attend to their vocation and duty; the carrying out of God's counsels belonged to Him alone. From what we have remarked, it plainly follows that we would altogether misunderstand the expression "flock of my pasture," if we were to infer from it a contrast of theinnocentpeople with the guilty kings.Calvinremarks: "In short, when God calls the Jews the flock of His pasture, He has no respect to their condition, or to what they have deserved, but rather commends His grace which He has bestowed upon the seed of Abraham." The kings have nothing to do with the moral condition of the people; they have to look only to God's covenant with them, which is for them a source of obligations so much the greater and more binding than the obligations of heathen kings, as Jehovah is more glorious than Elohim. The moral condition of the people does, to a certain degree, not even concern God; how bad soever it is, He looks to His covenant; and when more deeply viewed, even the outward scattering of the flock is a gathering.

Ver. 2. "Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel, against the shepherds that feed my people: Ye have scattered my flock and driven them away, and have not visited them; behold, I visit upon you the wickedness of your doings, saith the Lord."

In the designation of God as Jehovah the God of Israel, there is already implied that which afterwards is expressly said. Because God is Jehovah, the God of Israel, the crime of the kings is, at the same time, asacrilegium; they have desecrated God. It was just here that it was necessary prominently to point out the fact, that the people still continued tobe God's people. In another very important aspect, they were indeed calledLo-Ammi(Hos. i. 9); but that aspect did not here come into consideration.Calvin: "They had estranged themselves from God; and He too had, in His decree, already renounced them. But, in one respect, God might consider them as aliens, while, in respect to His covenant, He still acknowledged them as His, and hence He calls them His people."--The words "that feed my people," render the idea still more prominent and emphatic than the simple "the shepherds" would have done, and hence serve to make more glaring the contrast presented by the reality. The words "you have not visited them," seem, at first sight, since graver charges have been mentioned before, to be feeble. But that which they did, appears in its whole heinousness only by that which they did not, but which, according to their vocation, they ought to have done. This reference to their destination imparts the greatest severity to the apparently mild reproof Similar is Ezek. xxxiv. 3: "Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed, and ye feed not the flock." The visiting forms the general foundation of every single activity of the shepherd, so that theלא פקדתםcomprehends within itself all that which Ezekiel particularly mentions in chap. xxxiv. 4: "The weak ye strengthen not, and the sick ye heal not, and the wounded ye bind not up, and the scattered ye bring not back, and the perishing ye seek not."--The words: "the wickedness of your doings," look back to Deut. xxviii. 20: "The Lord shall send upon thee curse, terror, and ruin in all thy undertakings, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly,because of the wickedness of thy doings, that thou hast forsaken me." The gentle allusion to that fearful threatening in that portion of the Pentateuch, which was the best known of all, was sufficient to make every one supplement from it that, which was there actually and expressly uttered. Such an allusion to that passage of Deuteronomy can be traced out, wherever the phraseרע מעלליםoccurs, which, in later times, had become obsolete; compare chap. iv. 4 and xxi. 12 (in both of these passagesמפני, too, is introduced); Is. i. 16; Ps. xxviii. 4; Hos. ix. 15.

Ver. 3. "And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries whither I have driven them away, and Ibring them back again to their folds, and they are fruitful and increase."

Compare chap. xxix. 14, xxxi. 8, 10; Ezek. xxxiv. 12, 13: "As a shepherd looketh after his flock in the day that he is in the midst of his flock, the scattered, so will I look after my flock, and I deliver them out of all the places, where they have been scattered in the day of clouds and of darkness. And I bring them out from the nations, and gather them from the countries, and bring them to their land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel, in the valleys, and in all the dwelling places of the land."--A spiritless clinging to the letter has, here too, led several interpreters to suppose, that the Prophet had here in view merely the return from the Babylonish captivity, and perhaps, also, the blessings of the times of the Maccabees, besides and in addition to it. Altogether apart from the consideration that, in that case, the fulfilment would very little correspond to the promise,--for, to the returning ones, Canaan was too little the land of God to allow of our seeing, in this return, the whole fulfilment of God's promise--we can, from the context, easily demonstrate the opposite. With the gathering and bringing back appears, in ver. 4, closely connected the raising of the good shepherds; and according to ver. 5, that promise is to find, if not its sole fulfilment, at all events its substance and centre, in the raising of David's righteous Branch, the Messiah. And from vers. 7, 8, it appears that it is here altogether inadmissible to suppose that these events will take place, one after the other. The particleלכןwith which these verses begin, and which refers to the whole sum and substance of the preceding promises, shows that the bringing back from the captivity, and the raising of the Messiah, cannot, by any means, be separated from one another; and to the same result we are led by the contents of the two verses also. How indeed could it be said of the bodily bringing back from the captivity, that it would far outshine the former deliverance from Egypt, and would cause it to be altogether forgotten? The correct view was stated as early as byCalvin, who says: "There is no doubt that the Prophet has in view, in the first instance, the free return of the people; but Christ must not be separated from this blessing of the deliverance, for, otherwise, it would be difficult toshow the fulfilment of this prophecy." The right of thus assuming a concurrent reference to Christ is afforded to us by the circumstance, that Canaan had such a high value for Israel, not because it was its fatherland in the lower sense, but because it was the land of God, the place where His glory dwelt. From this it follows that a bodily return was to the covenant-people of value, in so far only as God manifested himself as the God of the land. And since, before Christ, this was done in a manner very imperfect, as compared with what was implied in the idea, the value of such a return could not be otherwise than very subordinate. And in like manner, it follows from it, that the gathering and bringing back by Christ is included in the promise. For wherever God is, there is Canaan. Whether it be the old fold, or a new one, is surely of very little consequence, if only the good Shepherd be in the midst of His sheep.As a rule, such externalities lie without the compass of prophecy, which, having in view the substance, refers, as to the way of its manifestation, to history. Into what ridiculous assertions a false clinging to the letter may lead, appears from remarks such as those ofGrotiuson the second hemistich of the following verse: "They shall live in security under the powerful protection of the Persian kings."Protection by the world, and oppression by the world, differed very slightly only, in the case of the covenant-people. The circumstance that Gentiles ruled over them at all, was just that which grieved them; and this grief must therefore continue (compare Neh. ix. 36, 37), although, by the grace of God, a mild rule had taken the place of the former severe one; for this grace of God had its proper value only as a prophecy and pledge of a future greater one. The circumstance that it is to theremnantonly that the gathering is promised (compare Is. x. 22; Rom. ix. 27), points to the truth, that the divine mercy will be accompanied with justice.Calvinremarks on this point: "The Prophet again confirms what I formerly said, viz., mercy shall not be exercised until He has cleansed His Church of filthiness, so great and so horrid, in which she at that time abounded." One must beware of exchanging the Scriptural hope of a conversion of Israel on a large scale, in contrast to the smallἐκλογήat the time of Christ and the Apostles, for the hope of ageneralconversion in the strict sense.When considering the relation of God to the free human nature, the latter is absolutely impossible. When consistently carried out, it necessarily leads to the doctrine of universal restoration. It is beyond doubt, that Godwillsthat all men should be saved; and it would necessarily follow that all men could be saved, if all the members of one nation could be saved. There is no word of Scripture in favour of it, except theπᾶςin Paul, which must just be interpreted and qualified by the contrast to thesmallἐκλογή, while there are opposed to it a number of declarations of Scripture,--especially all those passages of the prophets where, to the remnant, to the escaped ones of Israel only, salvation is promised. And, besides the Word of God, there are opposed to it His deeds also,--especially the great typical prefiguration of things spiritual by things external at the deliverance of the people from Egypt, when theremnantonly came to Canaan, while the bodies of thousands fell in the wilderness; and no less at the deliverance from Babylon, when by far the greatest number preferred the temporary delight in sin to delight in the Lord in His land.

Ver. 4. "And I raise shepherds over them, and they feed them; and they shall fear no more, nor be terrified, neither be lost, saith the Lord."

Even here, the reference to 2 Sam. vii. 12, and to the name of Jehoiakim, is manifest, although, in the subsequent verse, it appears still more distinctly, compare p. 401. This reference also is a proof in favour of this prophecy's having been written under Jehoiakim. The reference was, at that time, easily understood by every one; even the slightest allusion was sufficient. This reference farther shows thatVenema, and several others who preceded him in this view, are wrong in here thinking of the Maccabees. These are here quite out of the question, inasmuch as they were not descended from David. Besides the contrast between the people's apostacy and God's covenant-faithfulness, the Prophet evidently has still another in view, viz., that between the apostacy of the Davidic house, and God's faithfulness in the fulfilment of the promise given to David. The single apostate members of this family are destroyed, although, appropriating to themselves the promise, they, in their names, promise deliverance and salvation tothemselves. But from the family itself, God's grace cannot depart; just because Jehovah is God, a true Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin must rise out of it. It thus appears that the Maccabees are here as little referred to as Ezra and Nehemiah, of whomGrotiusthinks. Much stronger ground is there for thinking of Zerubbabel, for his appearance had really some reference to the promise to David, although as a weak type and prelude only of the true fulfilment, to which he occupies the same relation, as does the gathering from the Babylonish captivity to the gathering by Christ. If, after all, we wish to urge the Plural, we must not, by any means, sever our verse from ver. 5, and declare this to be the sense:firstwill I raise up to you shepherds;then, the Messiah. We must, in that case, followingC. B. Michaelis, rather supplement: specially one, the Messiah. Innoneof Jeremiah's prophecies are there different stages and degrees in the salvation; everywhere he has in his view the whole in its completion. Where this is overlooked, the whole interpretation must necessarily take a wrong direction, as is most clearly seen in the case ofVenema. But there is no reason at all for laying so much stress on the Plural. Every Plural may be used for designating the idea of the whole species; and this kind of designation was here so much the more obvious, that the bad species, with which the good is here contrasted, consisted of a series of individuals. With the bad pastoral office, the Prophet herefirstcontrasts the good one;thenhe gives, in ver. 5, a more detailed description of the individual who is to represent the species, in whom the idea of the species is to be completely realised. The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the comparison of the parallel passage in chap. xxxiii. 15, which, almostverbatim, agrees with that under consideration, and in which only one descendant of David, viz., the Messiah, is spoken of And that is quite natural; for, in that passage, there is no antithesis to the bad shepherds, which was the cause that here, at first, the species was made prominent. And another confirmation is afforded by Ezek. xxxiv. With him, too, one good shepherd is mentioned in contrast with the bad shepherds.--The words: "And they feed them" stand in contrast to "Who feed my people," in ver. 2. The shepherds mentioned in ver. 2 ought to feed the flock; but, instead of doingthat, they feed themselves (compare Ezek. xxxiv. 2); the shepherds, however, mentioned in our verse, really feed. The former are shepherds in name only, but, in reality, wolves; the latter are shepherds, both in name and reality.פקדmust be taken in the signification "to be missing," "lacking." (Compare the Remarks on chap. iii. 16.) There is an allusion toלא פקדתםin ver. 2. Because the bad shepherd does not visit, the sheep are not sought,q.d., they are lost; but those who did not visit, are now, in a very disagreeable manner, visited by God (פקד עליכם); the good shepherd visits, and, therefore, the sheep need not be sought. The clause: "They shall fear no more, nor be terrified," receives its explanation from Ezek. xxxiv. 8: "Because my flock are a prey, and meat to every beast of the field, because they have no shepherd, and because my shepherds do not concern themselves with the flock."

Ver. 5. "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I raise unto David a righteous Branch, and He ruleth as a King, and acteth wisely, and worketh justice and righteousness in the land."

The expression: "Behold the days come," according to the constantusus loquendiof Jeremiah, does not designate a progress in time, in reference to what precedes, but only directs attention to the greatness of that which is to be announced. It contains, at the same time, an allusion to the contrast presented by the visible state of things, which affords no ground for such a thing. How dark soever the present state of things may be, the time isstillcoming; although the heart may loudly say.No, the word ofGodmust be more certain. Concerningצמח, compare Isa. iv. 2, and the passages of Zechariah there quoted,צדיקstands here in the same signification as in Zech. ix. 9,--different from that which it has in Isa. liii. 11. In the latter passage, where the Servant of God is described as the High Priest and sin-offering. His righteousness comes into consideration as the fundamental condition of justification; here, where He appears as King only,--as the cause of the diffusion of justice and righteousness in the land. That there is implied in this a contrast to the former kings, was pointed out as early as byAbarbanel: "He shall not be an unrighteous seed, such as Jehoiakim and his son, but a righteousone."Calvinalso points out "the obvious antithesis between Christ and so many false, and, as it were, adulterous sons. For we know for certain that He alone was the righteous seed of David; for although Hezekiah and Josiah were legitimate successors, yet, when we look to others, they were, as it were, monsters. Except three or four, all the rest were degenerate and covenant-breakers." The words: "I raise unto David a righteous Branch" are here, as well as in chap. xxxiii. 15, not by any means equivalent to: a righteous Branch of David. On the contrary, David is designated as he to whom the act of raising belongs, for whose sake it is undertaken. God has promised to him the eternal dominion of his house. How much soever, therefore, the members of this family may sin against the Lord,--how unworthy soever the people may be to be governed by a righteous Branch of David, God, as surely as He is God, must raise Him for the sake of David. The wordמֶלֶךְmust not be overlooked. It shows thatמָלַךְ, which, standing by itself, may designate also another government than by a king, such as,e.g., that of Zerubbabel, is to be taken in its full sense. And this qualification was so much the more necessary, that the deepest abasement of the house of David, announced by the Prophet in chap. xxii., compare especially ver. 30, was approaching, and that thereby every hope of its rising tocompleteprosperity seemed to be set aside. Since, therefore, the faith in this event rested merely on the word, it was necessary that the word should be as distinct as possible, in order that no one might pervert, or explain it away.Calvinremarks: "He shall rule as a King,i.e., He shall rule gloriously; so that there do not merely appear some relics of former glory, but that He flourish and be powerful as a King, and attain to a perfection, such as existed under David and Solomon; and even much more excellent."--As regardsהשכיל, we have already, in our remarks on chap. iii. 15, proved that it never and nowhere means "to prosper," "to be prosperous," but always "to act wisely." It has been shown byCalvinthat even the context here requires the latter signification. He says: "The Prophet seems here rather to speak of right judgment than of prosperity and success; for we must read this in connexion with one another: He shall act wisely, and then work justice andrighteousness. He shall be endowed with the spirit of wisdom, as well as of justice and righteousness; so that he shall perform all the offices and duties of a king." YetCalvinhas not exhausted the arguments which may be derived from the context. Thewholeverse before us treats of the endowments of the King; the whole succeeding one, of the prosperity which, by these endowments, is imparted to the people. To this may still be added the evident contrast to the folly of the former shepherds, which was the consequence of their wickedness, and which, in the preceding chapter, had been described as the cause of their own, and the people's destruction; compare chap. x. 21: "For the shepherds are become brutish, and do not seek the Lord; therefore they do not act wisely, and their whole flock is scattered." But if here the signification "to act wisely" be established, then it is also in all those passages whereהשכילis used of David; compare remarks on chap. iii. For the fact, that the Prophet has in view these passages, and that, according to him, the reign of David is, in a more glorious manner, to be revived in his righteous Branch, appears from the circumstance that every thing else has its foundation in the description of David's reign, in the books of Samuel. Thus the words: "And he ruleth as a king, and worketh justice and righteousness in the land," refer back to 2 Sam. viii. 15: "And David reigned over all Israel, and David wrought justice and righteousness unto all his people." The foundation of the announcement of ver. 6 is formed by 2 Sam. viii. 14 (compare ver. 6): "And the Lord gave prosperity (ויושע) to David in all his ways." But ifהשכיל, wherever it occurs of David, must be taken in this sense, then the LXX. are right also in translating Is. lii. 13 byσυνήσει: for, in that passage, just as in the verse under consideration, David is referred to as the type of the Messiah. The phraseעשה משפט וצדקהis byDe Wettecommonly translated: "toexercisejustice and righteousness." But the circumstance that, in Ps. cxlvi. 7, he is obliged to give up this translation, proves that it is wrong.עשהmust rather be explained by "to work," "to establish."משפטis here, as everywhere else, the objective right and justice;צדקה, the subjective righteousness. Theworkingof justice is the means by whichrighteousnessis wrought. The forced dominion of justice is necessarily followed by the voluntary,just as the judgments of God, by means of which He is sanctifieduponmankind, are, at the same time, the means by which He is sanctifiedinthem. The high vocation of the King to work justice and righteousness rests upon His dignity, as the bearer of God's image; comp. Ps. cxlvi. 7; chap. ix. 23: "For I the Lord work love, justice, and righteousness in the land." Chap. xxii. 15 is, moreover, to be compared, where it is said of Josiah, the true descendant of David, "he wrought justice and righteousness," and chap. xxii. 3, where his spurious descendants are admonished: "Work justice and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, and do not oppress the stranger; the fatherless and the widow do not wrong, neither shed innocent blood in this place." Farther, still, is the progress to be observed: the King is righteous, his righteousness passeth over from him to the subjects; then follows salvation and righteousness from the Lord.--To explanations, such as that ofGrotius, who, by the righteous Branch, understands Zerubbabel, we here need the less to pay any attention, that the fact of his being in this without predecessors or followers palpably proves it to be erroneous. If, indeed, we could rely onTheodoret'sstatement ("The blinded Jews endeavour, with great impudence, to refer this to Zerubbabel"--then follows the refutation), the older Jews must have led the way to this perverted interpretation. But we cannot implicitly rely onTheodoret'sstatements of this kind. In the Jewish writings themselves, not the slightest trace of such an interpretation is to be found. The Chaldean Paraphrast is decidedly in favour of the Messianic interpretation:אתן אמר יי ואקים הא יומיא לדוד משיח דצדקה"Behold the days shall come, and I will raise up to David the righteous Messiah, (notדצדקיא'the Messiah of the righteous,' as many absurdly read), saith the Lord."Eusebius(compareLe Moyne,de Jehova justitia nostra, p. 23), it is true, refutes the interpretation which refers it to Joshua, the son of Josedech; but we are not entitled to infer from this circumstance, that this view found supporters in his time. His intention is merely to guard against the erroneous interpretation ofἸωσεδέκof the following verse in the Alexandrian version (καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, ὃ καλέσει αὐτὸν κύριος, Ἰωσεδέκ). It can scarcely be imagined that the translators themselves proceeded from this erroneous view. ForJosedech, the father of Joshua the high-priest, is a person altogether obscure. All which they intended, by their retaining the Hebrew form, was certainly only the wish, to express that it was anomen propriumwhich occurred here; and they were specially induced to act thus by the circumstance, that this name was, in their time, generally current, as one of the proper names of the Messiah.

Back to Index Next