and even had it been possible, he would only have changed masters. But, according to the counsel of God, who takes away the understanding of the wise, these political reasons, obvious though they were, should not exercise any influence upon him, because his obdurate heart prevented him from listening to the religious arguments which Jeremiah brought before him. Melancthon (opp. ii., p. 407 ff.) points it out as a remarkable circumstance that, while other prophets, e.g., Samuel, Elisha, Isaiah, exhort to a vigorous opposition to the enemies, and, in that case, promise divine assistance, yea that, to some extent, they even took an active part in the deliverance, Jeremiah, on the other hand, always preaches unconditional submission. The issue, which is as different as the advice, shows that this difference has not, by any means, its foundation in the persons, but in the state of things. The seventy years of Chaldean servitude were irrevocably decreed upon Judah; even the exact statement of years, which else is so uncommon in reference to the fate of the covenant-people, shows how firm and determined was that decree. They had altogether, and more fully than at any other time, given themselves over to the internal power of heathenism; according to a divine necessity, they must therefore also be given over to the external power of the heathen, both for punishment and reform. God himself could not change that decree, for it rested on His nature. Hence, it would be in vain though even the greatest intercessors, Moses and Samuel, should stand before Him, Jer. xv. 1 ff. Intercessory prayer can be effectual, only if it be offered in [Pg 368] the name of God. But if such were the case, how foolish was it to rebel against the Chaldean power; to attempt to remove the effect, while they allowed the cause to remain; to stop the brook, while the source still continued to send forth its waters. It would have been foolish, even if the relative power of the Jews and Chaldeans had been altogether reversed. For when the Lord sells a people, one can chase a thousand, and two can put ten thousand to flight (Deut. xxxii. 30). But the shepherd of the people had become a fool, and did not enquire after the Lord. He could not, therefore, act wisely; and the whole flock was scattered, Jer. x. 21. Jehoiakim rebelled against the Chaldeans, and for some years he was allowed to continue in the delusion of having acted very wisely, for Nebuchadnezzar had more important things to mind and to settle. But then he went up against Jerusalem, and put an end to his reign and life, Jer. xxii. 1-12; 2 Kings xxiv. 2; "Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel," p. 49. As yet, the long-suffering of God, and, hence, the patience of the Chaldeans, were not at an end. Jehoiachin or Jeconiah was raised to the throne of his father. Even the short reign of three months gave to the youth sufficient occasion to manifest the wickedness of his heart, and his enmity to God. Suspicions against his fidelity arose; a Chaldean army anew entered the city, and carried away the king, and, along with him, the great mass of the people. This was the first great deportation. In the providence of God it was so arranged that, among those who were carried away, there was the very flower of the nation. The apparent suffering was to them a blessing. They were, for their good, sent away from the place over which the storms of God's anger were soon to discharge themselves, into the land of the Chaldeans, and formed there the nucleus for the Kingdom of God, in its impending new form, Jer. xxiv. Nothing now seemed to stand in the way of the divine judgment upon the wicked mass that had been left behind, like bad figs that no one can eat for badness,—they whom the Lord had threatened that He would give them over to hurt and calamity in all the kingdoms of the earth, to reproach, and a proverb, and a taunt, and a curse, in all places whither He would drive them, Jer. xxiv. 9. And still the Lord was waiting before He carried out this [Pg 369] threatening, and smote the land to cursing. Mattaniah or Zedekiah, the son of Josiah, the uncle of Jehoiachin, who was given to them for a king, might, at least partially, have averted the evil. But he too had to learn that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. From various quarters, attempts have been made to exculpate him, on the plea that his fault was only weakness, which made him the tool of a corrupt party; but Scripture forms a different estimate of him, and he who looks deeper will find its judgment to be correct,—will be able to grant to him that preference only over Jehoiakim which C. B. Michaelis assigned to him in the words: "Jehoiakim was of an obdurate and wild disposition; Zedekiah had some fear of God, although it was a servile, hypocritical fear, but Jehoiakim had none at all." And even this preference, when more narrowly examined, amounts to nothing, for it belongs to nature, and not to grace. Whether corruption manifests itself as weakness, or as a carnal, powerful opposition to divine truth, is accidental, and depends upon the diversity of mental and bodily organization. The fact that Zedekiah did not altogether put away from himself the truth and its messengers (Dahler remarks: "He respected the Prophet, without having the power of following his advice; he even protected his life against his persecutors, but he did not venture to secure him against their vexation") cannot be put down to his credit; he was, against his will, forced to do so; and indeed he could not resist a powerful impression of any kind. In a man of Jehoiakim's character, the same measure of the fear of God would induce us to mitigate our opinion; for in such a one it could not exist without some support from within. Confiding in the help of the neighbouring nations, especially the Egyptians; persuaded by the false prophets and the nobles; himself seized by that spirit of giddiness and intoxication which, with irresistible power, carried away the people to the abyss, Zedekiah broke the holy oath which he had sworn to the Chaldeans, and, after an obstinate resistance, Jerusalem was taken and destroyed. As yet, the long suffering of God, and, hence, also that of man, was not altogether at an end. The conquerors left a comparatively small portion of the inhabitants in the land. The grace of God gave them Gedaliah, an excellent man, for their civil superior, and Jeremiah for their ecclesiastical [Pg 370] superior. The latter preferred to remain in the smoking ruins, rather than follow the brilliant promises of the Chaldeans, and was willing to persevere to the last in the discharge of his duty, although he was by this time far advanced in life, and oppressed with deep grief But it appears as if the people had been bent upon emptying, to the last drop, the cup of divine wrath. Gedaliah is assassinated. Even those who did not partake in the crime fled to Egypt, disregarding the word of the Lord through the Prophet, who announced a curse upon them if they fled, but a blessing if they remained.

What the Prophet had to suffer under such circumstances, one may easily imagine even without consulting history. Even although he had remained free from all personal vexations and attacks, it could not but be an immeasurable grief to him to dwell in the midst of such a generation, to see their corruption increasing more and more, to see the abyss coming nearer and nearer, to find all his faithful warnings unheeded, and his whole ministry in vain, at least as far as the mass of the people were concerned. "O that they would give me in the wilderness a lodging-place for wayfaring men"—so he speaks as early as under Josiah, chap. ix. 1 (2)—"and I would leave my people and go from them; for they are all adulterer, an assembly of treacherous men." But from these personal vexations and attacks, he neither was, nor could be exempted. Mockery, hatred, calumny, ignominy, curses, imprisonment, bonds were his portion. To bear such a burden would have been difficult to any man, but most of all to a man of his disposition. "The more tender the heart, the deeper the smart." He was not a second Elijah; he had a soft disposition, a lively sensibility; his eyes were easily filled with tears. And he who would have liked so much to live in peace and love with all, having entered into the service of truth, was obliged to become a second Ishmael, his hand against every man, and every man's hand against him. He who so ardently loved his people, must see this love misconstrued and rejected; must see himself branded as a traitor to the people, by those men who were themselves traitors. All these things were to him the cause of violent struggles and conflicts, which he candidly lays before us in various passages, especially in chap. xii. and [Pg 371] xx., because, by the victory, the Lord, who alone could give it, was glorified.

He was sustained by inward consolations, by wonderful deliverances, by the remarkable fulfilment of his prophecies which he himself lived to witness; but especially by the circumstance that the Lord caused him to behold His future salvation with the same clearness as His judgments; so that he could consider the latter only as transient, and, even by the most glaring contrast between the appearance and the idea, never lost the firm hope of the final victory of the former. This hope formed the centre of his whole life. For a long series of years, he is somewhat cautious in giving utterance to it; for, just as Hosea in the kingdom of the ten tribes, so he too has to do with secure and gross sinners, who must be terrified by the preaching of the Law, and the message of wrath. But, even here, single sunbeams everywhere constantly break through the dark clouds. But towards the close, when the total destruction is already at hand, and his commission to root out and destroy draws to an end, because now the Lord himself is to speak by deeds, he can, to the full desire of his heart, carry out the second part of his calling, viz., to plant and to build (compare chap. i.); and it is now, that his mouth is overflowing, that it is seen how full of it his heart had always been. The whole vocation of the Prophet, Calvin strikingly expresses in these words: "I say simply that Jeremias was sent by God to announce to the people the last defeat, and, farther, to proclaim the future redemption, but in such a manner, that he always puts in the seventy years'exile." That, according to him, this redemption is not destined for Israel only, but that the Gentiles also partake in it, appears not incidentally only in the prophecies to his own people; but it is also prominently brought out in the prophecies against the foreign nations themselves, e.g., in the prophecy against Egypt, chap. xlvi. 26; against Moab, chap. xlviii. 47; against Ammon, xlix. 6.

In announcing the Messiah from the house of David (chap, xxii. 5, xxx. 9, xxxiii. 15), Jeremiah agrees with the former prophets. The Messianic features peculiar to him are the following:—The announcement of a revelation of God, which by far outshines the former one from above the Ark of the Covenant, and by which the Ark of the Covenant, with every [Pg 372] thing attached to it, shall become antiquated, chap. iii. 14-17; the announcement of a new covenant, distinguished from the former by greater richness in the forgiveness of sins, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit: "I give my law in their inward parts, and I will write it in their hearts," chap. xxxi. 31-34; the intimation of the impending realization of the promise of Moses: "Ye shall be to me a kingdom of priests," with which the abolition of the poor form of the priesthood hitherto is connected, chap. xxxiii. 14-26.

As regards the style of Jeremiah, Cunaeus (de repub. Hebr. i. 3, c. 7) pertinently remarks: "The whole majesty of Jeremiah lies in his negligent language; that rough diction becomes him exceedingly well." It is certainly very superficial in Jerome to seek the cause of that humilitas dictionis of the Prophet, whom he, at the same time, calls in majestate sensuum profundissimum, in his origin from the viculus Anathoth. It would be unnatural if it were otherwise. The style of Jeremiah stands on the same ground as the hairy garment and leather girdle of Elijah. He who is sorrowful and afflicted in his heart, whose eyes fail with tears (Lament. ii. 11), cannot adorn and decorate himself in his dress or speech.

From chap. xi. 21, xii. 5, 6, several interpreters have inferred, that the Prophet first came forward in his native place Anathoth, and that, because they there said to him: "Thou shalt not prophecy in the name of the Lord, else thou shalt die by our hand," he then went to Jerusalem. But those passages rather refer to an experience which the Prophet made at an incidental visit in his native place, quite similar to what our Saviour experienced at Nazareth, according to Luke iv. 24. For in chap. xxv. 3, Jeremiah says to "all the inhabitants of Jerusalem," that he had spoken to them since the thirteenth year of Josiah. As early as in chap. ii. 2, at the beginning of a discourse which bears a general introductory character, and which immediately follows, and is connected with his vocation in chap. i., he receives the command: "Go, and cry into the ears of Jerusalem." The opening speech itself cannot, according to its contents, have been spoken in some corner of the country, but in the metropolis only, in the temple more specially, the centre of the nation and its spiritual dwelling place. It was there that that must be delivered which was to be told to the whole people as such.

[Pg 373]



THE SECTION, CHAP. III, 14-17.

The whole Section, from chap. iii. 6, to the end of chap. vi., forms one connected discourse, separated from the preceding context by the inscription in chap. iii. 6, and from the subsequent context, by the inscription in chap. vii. 1. This separation, however, is more external than internal. The contents and tone remain the same through the whole series of chapters which open the collection of the prophecies of Jeremiah, and that to such a degree, that we are compelled to doubt the correctness of the proceeding of those interpreters, who would determine the chronological order of the single portions, and fix the exact period in the reign of Josiah to which every single portion belongs. If such a proceeding were admissible, why should the Prophet have expressed himself, in the inscription of the Section before us, in terms so general as: "And the Lord said unto me in the days of Josiah the king?" Every thing on which these interpreters endeavour to found more accurate determinations in regard to the single Sections, disappears upon a closer consideration. Thus, e.g., the twofold reference to the seeking of help from Egypt, in chap. ii. 16 ff., xxxvi., xxxvii., on which Eichhorn and Dahler lay so much stress. We are not entitled here to suppose a reference to a definite historical event, which, moreover, cannot be historically pointed out in the whole time of Josiah, but can only be supposed on unsafe and unfounded conjectures. In both of the passages something future is spoken of, as is evident from vers. 16 and 19. The thought is this:—that Asshur, i.e., the power on the Euphrates (compare 2 Kings xxiii. 29), which had. for a long time opened its mouth to swallow up Judah, just as it had already swallowed up the kingdom of the ten tribes, would not be conciliated, and that Egypt could not grant help against him. This thought refers to historical circumstances which had already existed, and continued to exist for some centuries, and which, in reference to Israel, is given utterance to as early as by Hosea, compare Vol. i. p. 164, f. Our view is this: We have here before us, not so much a series of prophecies, each of which had literally been so uttered at some particular [Pg 374] period in the reign of Josiah, as rather a resume of the whole prophetic ministry of Jeremiah under Josiah; a collection of all which, being independent of particular circumstances of that time, had, in general, the destiny to give an inward support to the outward reforming activity of Josiah, a specimen of the manner in which the Prophet discharged the divine commission which he had received a year after the first reformation of Josiah. Even the manner in which chap ii. is connected with chap. i. places this relation to his call beyond any doubt. We have thus before us here the same phenomenon which we have already perceived in several of the minor prophets; comp. e.g., the introduction to Micah.

In the section before us, the Prophet is engaged with a two-fold object,—first, with the proclamation of salvation for Israel, chap. iii. 6-iv. 2; secondly, with the threatening for Judah, chap. iv. 3, to the end of chap. vi. It is only incidentally, in chap. iii. 18, that it is intimated that Judah also, after the threatening has been fulfilled upon them, shall partake in the salvation. It is self-evident that these two objects must not be considered as lying beside one another. According to the whole context, the announcement of salvation for Israel cannot have any other object than that of wounding Judah. This object even comes out distinctly in ver. 6-11, and the import of the discourse may, therefore, be thus stated: Israel does not continue to be rejected as pharisaical Judah imagined; Judah does not continue to be spared.—When the Prophet entered upon his ministry, ninety-four years had already elapsed since the divine judgment had broken in upon Israel; every hope of restoration seemed to have vanished. Judah, instead of being thereby warned; instead of beholding, in the sin of others, the image of its own; instead of perceiving, in the destruction of the kingdom of its brethren, a prophecy of its own destruction, was, on the contrary, strengthened in its obduracy. The fact that it still existed, after Israel had, long ago, hopelessly perished, as they imagined, appeared to them as a seal which God impressed upon their ways. They rejoiced at Israel's calamity, because, in it, they thought that they saw a proof of their own excellency, just as, at the time of Christ, the blindness of the Jews was increased by the circumstance that they still considered themselves as the sole members of [Pg 375] the Kingdom of God, and imagined the Gentiles to be excluded from it. The Saviour's announcement of the calling of the Gentiles stands in the same relation as the Prophet's announcement of the restoration of Israel.

* * * * * * * * * *

Ver. 14. "Turn, O apostate children, saith the Lord, for I marry myself unto you, and I take one of a city, and two of a family, and bring you to Zion."

The question here is:—To whom is the discourse here addressed,—to the members of Israel, i.e., the kingdom of the ten tribes, as most of the interpreters suppose (Abarbanel, Calvin, Schmid, and others), or, as others assume, to the inhabitants of Judea? The decision has considerable influence upon the exposition of the whole passage; but it must unhesitatingly and unconditionally be given in favour of the first view. There is not one word to indicate a transition; the very same phrase, "turn, O apostate children," occurs, in ver. 22, of Israel. Apostate Israel is, in the preceding verses (6, 8, 11,) the standing expression, while Judah is designated as treacherous, ver. 8-11. The measure of guilt is determined by the measure of grace. The relation of the Lord to Judah was closer, and hence, her apostacy was so much the more culpable. Farther—A detailed announcement of salvation for Judah would here not be suitable, inasmuch as no threatening preceded; and ver. 18 ("In those days, the house of Judah shall come by the side of [literally, 'over'] the house of Israel," according to which the return of Judah is, in the meantime, a subordinate point which has here been mentioned incidentally) clearly shows that that announcement of salvation, contained in vers. 14-17, refers to Israel. To Israel the Prophet immediately returns in ver. 19; for, from the contrast to the house of Judah in ver. 18, and to Judah and Jerusalem in chap. iv. 3, it is evident that by the house of Israel in ver. 20, and by the sons of Israel in ver. 21, Israel, in the stricter sense, is to be understood. Finally—It will be seen from the exposition, that it is only on the supposition that Israel is addressed, that the contents of ver. 16, 17, become intelligible.—In our explanation of the words [Hebrew: ki anki belti atkM], we follow the precedent of the Vulgate (quia ego vir vester), of Luther ("I will [Pg 376] marry you to me"), of Calvin, Schimd, and others. On the other hand, others, especially Pococke, ad P.M. p. 2, Schultens on Prov. xxx. 22, Venema, Schnurrer, Gesenius, Winer, Bleek, have made every endeavour to prove that [Hebrew: bel] is used sensu malo here, as well as in chap. xxxi. 32, where it occurs in a connection altogether similar; so that the decision must be valid for both of the passages at the same time. This signification they seek to make out in a twofold way. Some altogether give up the derivation from the Hebrew usus loquendi, and refer solely to the Arabic, where [Hebrew: bel] means fastidire. Others derive from the Hebrew signification, "to rule," that of a tyrannical dominion, and support their right in so doing, by referring, with Gesenius, to other verbs in which the signification, to subdue, to be distinguished, to rule, has been changed into that of looking down, despising, and contemning. As regards the first derivation, even if the Arabic usus loquendi were proved, we could not from it make any certain inference as regards the Hebrew usus loquendi. But with respect to this Arabic usus loquendi, it is far from being proved and established. It is true that such would not be the case if there indeed occurred in Arabic the expression [Arabic: **] fastidivit vir mulierem eamque expulit, s. repudiavit; but it is only by a strange quid pro quo that interpreters, even Schultens among them, following the example of Kimchi, have saddled this expression upon the Arabic. The error lies in a hasty view of Adul Walid, who, instead of it, has [Arabic: **] any one is embarrassed in his affair. The signification fastidire, rejicere, is, in general, quite foreign to the Arabic. The verb [Arabic: **] denotes only: mente turbatus, attonitus fuit, i.e., to be possessed, deprived of the use of one's strength, to be embarrassed, not to know how to help one's self: compare the Camus in Schultens and Freytag. As soon as the plain connection of this signification with the ordinary one is perceived, it is seen at once, that it is here out of the question. As regards the second derivation, we must bring this objection against it, that the fundamental signification of ruling, from which that of ruling tyrannically is said to have arisen, is entirely foreign to the Hebrew. More clearly than by modern Lexicographers it was seen by Cocceius, that the fundamental, yea the only signification of [Hebrew: bel], is that of possessing, [Pg 377] occupying. It may, indeed, be used also of rulers, as, e.g. Isa. xxvi. 13, and 1 Chron. iv. 22; but not in so far as they rule, but in so far as they possess. On the former passage: "Jehovah our God, [Hebrew: belvnv advniM zvltiM], Lords beside thee have dominion over us," Schultens, it is true, remarks: "Every one here easily recognizes a severe and tyrannical dominion;" but it is rather the circumstance that the land of the Lord has at all foreign possessors, which is the real sting of the grief of those lamenting, and which so much occupies them, that they scarcely think of the way and manner of the possessing.—Passages such as Is. liv. 1,[1] lxii. 4, compare Job i. 8, where a relation is spoken of, founded on most cordial love, show that the signification "to marry," does not by any means proceed from that of ruling, and is not to be explained from the absolute, slavish dependence of the wife in the East, but rather from the signification "to possess." And this is farther proved by passages such as Deut. xxi. 10-13, xxvi. 1, where the copula carnalis is pointed out as that by which the [Hebrew: bel] is completed. And, finally, it is seen from the Arabic, where the wife is also called, [Hebrew: belh], [Arabic: **], just as the husband is called [Hebrew: bel], [Arabic: **].—It is farther obvious that, in the frequent compositions of [Hebrew: bel] with other nouns, in order, by way of paraphrasis, to form adjectives, the signification "lord" is far less suitable than that of "possessor," e.g., [Hebrew: bel Hlmvt], the dreamer, [Hebrew: bel aP], the angry one, [Hebrew: bel npw], the covetous one, [Hebrew: bel mzmzt], the deceitful one, [Hebrew: beli eir] oppidani, [Hebrew: beli brit], the members of the covenant, etc. We arrive at the same conclusion, if we look to the dialects. Here, too, the signification "to possess" appears as the proper and original signification. In the Ethiopic, the verb signifies multum possedit, dives fuit. In Arabic, the significations are more varied; but they may all be traced back to one root. Thus, e.g. [Arabic: **], [Hebrew: bel], according to the Camus, "a high and elevated land which requires only one annual rain; farther, a palm-tree, or any other tree or plant which is not watered, or which the sky alone irrigates;" i.e., a land, a tree, a plant which themselves possess, which do not require to borrow from others. This reason of the appellation clearly appears in Dsheuhari (compare [Pg 378] Schultens l. c.): "It is used of the palm-tree, which, by its roots, provides for itself drink and sap, so that there is no need for watering it." In favour of the signification "to rule" in this verb, the following gloss from the Camus only can be quoted: "Both (the 1st and 10th conjugations) when construed with [Hebrew: elih] super illum, denote: he has taken possession of a thing, and behaved himself proudly towards it." But the latter clause must be struck out; for it has flowed only from the false reading [Arabic: **] in Schultens, for which (compare Freytag) [Arabic: **] noluit must be read, [Hebrew: bel] with [Hebrew: el] accordingly signifies "to be the possessor of a thing, and, as such, not to be willing to give it up to another." And thus every ground has been taken from those who, from the Hebrew usus loquendi, would interpret [Hebrew: bel] in a bad sense,—The same result, however, which we have reached upon philological grounds, we shall obtain also, when we look to the context. From it, they are most easily refuted, who, like Schultens, understand the whole verse as a threatening. That which precedes, as well as that which follows, breathes nothing but pure love to poor Israel. She is not terrified by threatenings, like Judah who has not yet drunk of the cup of God's wrath, but allured by the call: "Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden, for I will give you rest." But they also labour under great difficulties who, after the example of Kimchi ("ego fastidivi vos, eo scil. quod praeteriit tempore, ac jam colligam vos"), refer the [Hebrew: ki] not so much to [Hebrew: belti], as rather to [Hebrew: lqhti]: "For I have, it is true, rejected you formerly, but now I take," &c. This is the only shape in which this interpretation can still appear; for it is altogether arbitrary to explain [Hebrew: ki] by "although," an interpretation still found in De Wette. If it had been the intention of the Prophet to express this sense, nothing surely was less admissible, than to omit just those words, upon which everything depended—the words formerly and now. [Hebrew: lqHti] and [Hebrew: belti] evidently stand here in the same relation; both together form the ground for the return to the Lord. To these reasons we may still add the circumstance that, according to our explanation, we obtain the beautiful parallelism with ver. 12: "Return thou, apostate Israel, saith the Lord; I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you; for I am merciful; I do not keep anger for ever,"—a circumstance which has already been [Pg 379] pointed out by Calvin. Israel's haughtiness is broken; but despondency now keeps them from returning to the Lord. He, therefore, ever anew repeats His invitation, ever anew founds it upon the fact, that He delights in showing mercy and love to those who have forsaken Him. The rejection of Israel had, in ver. 8, been represented under the image of divorce: "Because apostate Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away, and given her the bill of divorce." What, therefore, is more natural, than that her being received again, which was offered to her out of pure mercy, should appear under the image of a new marriage; and that so much the more, that the apostacy had, even in the preceding verse, been represented as adultery and whoredom? ("Thou hast scattered thy ways, i.e., thou hast been running about to various places after the manner of an impudent whore seeking lovers"—Schmid; compare ver. 6.) Farther to be compared is ver. 22: "Return ye apostate children, (for) I will heal your apostacy. Behold we come unto thee, for thou art the Lord our God." The objection that [Hebrew: bel], in the signification "to take in marriage" is construed with the Accusative only, is of no weight. In a manner altogether similar, [Hebrew: zkr], which else is connected with the simple Accusative, is, in ver. 16, followed by the Preposition [Hebrew: b]. [Hebrew: bel] with [Hebrew: b] altogether corresponds to our "to join onesself in marriage;" and the construction has perhaps a certain emphasis, and indicates the close and indissoluble connection. Of still less weight is another objection, viz., that, in that case, the Suffix Plur. is inadmissible. It is just the Israelites who are the wife; and this is so much the more evident that, in the preceding verses, and even still in ver. 13, they had been treated as such. Hence nothing remains but to determine the sense of our passage, as was done by Calvin: "Because despair might take hold of them, in such a manner that they might be afraid of approaching Him.... He saith that He would marry himself to them, and that He had not yet forgotten that union which He once had bestowed upon them." This is the only correct view; and by thus determining the sense, we at the same time obtain the sure foundation for the exposition of chap. xxxi. 32; just as, vice versa, the sense which will result from an independent consideration of that passage, [Pg 380] will serve to confirm that which was here established.[2] In the right determination of the sense of the subsequent words, too, Calvin distinguishes himself advantageously from the earlier, and most of the later interpreters: "God shows that there was no reason why some should wait for others; and farther, although the very body of the people might be utterly corrupted in their sins, yet, if even a few were to return. He would show himself merciful to them. The covenant had been entered into with the whole people. The single individual might, therefore, have been disposed to imagine that his repentance was in vain. But in opposition to such fears, the Prophet says: 'Although only one of a town should come to me, he shall find an open door; although only two of one tribe come to me, I will admit even them.'" After him Loscanus too (in his Dissertation on this passage, Frankf. 1720) has thus correctly stated the sense: "The small number shall not prevent God from carrying out His counsel." Thus it is seen—and this is alone suitable in this context—that the apparent limitation of the promise is, in truth, an extension of it. How great must God's love and mercy be to Israel, in how wide an extent must the declaration be true: [Greek: ametameleta ta charismata kai he klesis tou Theo], Rom. xi. 29, if even a single righteous Lot is by God delivered from the Sodom of Israel; if Joshua and Caleb, untouched by the pefunishment of the sins of the thousands, reach the Holy Land; if every penitent heart at once finds a gracious God! Thus it appears that this passage is not by any means in contradiction to other passages by which a complete restoration of Israel is promised. On the contrary, the [Greek: epitunchanein] of the [Greek: ekloge] (Rom. xi. 7) announced here, is a pledge and guarantee for the more comprehensive and general mercy.—Expositors are at variance as to the historical reference of the prophecy. Some, e.g. Theodoret, Grotius, think exclusively of the return from the Babylonish captivity. Others (after the example of Jerome and the Jewish interpreters) think of the Messianic time. It need [Pg 381] scarcely be remarked, that here, as in so many other passages, this alternative is out of place. The prophecy has just the very same extent as the matter itself, and, hence, refers to all eternity. It was a commencement, that, at the time of Cyrus, many from among the ten tribes, induced by true love to the God of Israel, joined themselves to the returning Judeans, and were hence again engrafted by God into the olive-tree. It was a continuation of the fulfilment that, in later times, especially those of the Maccabees, this took place more and more frequently. It was a preparation and prelude of the complete fulfilment, although not the complete fulfilment itself, that, at the time of Christ, the blessings of God were poured upon the whole [Greek: dodekaphulon], Acts xxvi. 7. The words: "I bring you to Zion," in the verse under consideration, and: "They shall come out of the land of the North to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto their fathers," in ver. 18, do not at all oblige us to limit ourselves to those feeble beginnings; the idea appears here only in that form, in which it must be realised, in so far as its realisation belonged to the time of the Old Testament. Zion and the Holy Land were, at that time, the seat of the Kingdom of God; so that the return to the latter was inseparable from the return to the former. Those from among Israel who were converted to the true God, either returned altogether to Judea, or, at least, there offered up their sacrifices. But Zion and the Holy Land likewise come into consideration, as the seat of the Kingdom of God only; and, for that very reason, the course of the fulfilment goes on incessantly, even in those times when even the North has become Zion and Holy Land.—The circumstance that two are assigned to a family, while only one is assigned to a town, shows that we must here think of a larger family which occupied several towns; and the circumstance that the town is put together with the family, shows that it is cities of the land of Israel which are here spoken of, and not those which the exiled ones inhabited.

Ver. 15. "And I give you shepherds according to mine heart, and they feed you with knowledge and understanding."

The question is:—Who are here to be understood by the shepherds? Calvin thinks that it is especially the prophets and priests, inasmuch as it was just the bad condition of these [Pg 382] which had been the principal cause of the ruin of the people; and that it is the greatest blessing for the Church, when God raises up true and sincere teachers. Similar is the opinion of Vitringa (obs. lib. vi., p. 417), who, in a lower sense, refers it to Ezra and the learned men of that time, and, in a higher sense, to Christ. Among the Fathers of the Church, Jerome remarked: "These are the apostolical men who did not feed the multitude of the believers with Jewish ceremonies, but with knowledge and doctrine." Others refer it to leaders of every kind; thus Venema: Pastores sunt rectores, ductores. Others, finally, limit themselves to rulers; thus Kimchi (gubernatores Israelis cum rege Messia), Grotius, and Clericus. The latter interpretation is, for the following reasons, to be unconditionally preferred. 1. The image of the shepherd and of feeding occurs sometimes, indeed, in a wider sense, but ordinarily of the ruler specially. Thus, in the fundamental passage, 2 Sam. v. 2, it occurs of David, compare Micah v. 3. Thus also in Jeremiah ii. 8: "The priests said not. Where is the Lord, and they that handle the law knew me not, and the shepherds transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied in the name of Baal;" comp. ver. 26: "They, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets." 2. The word [Hebrew: klbi] contains an evident allusion to 1 Sam. xiii. 14, where it is said of David: "The Lord hath sought him, a man after His own heart, and the Lord hath appointed him to be a prince over His people." 3. All doubt is removed by the parallel passage, chap. xxiii. 4: "And I raise shepherds over them, and they feed them, and they fear no more, nor are dismayed." That, by the shepherds, in this verse, only the rulers can be understood, is evident from the contrast to the bad rulers of the present, who were spoken of in chap. xxii., no less than from the connection with ver. 5, where that which, in ver. 4, was expressed in general, is circumscribed within narrow limits, and the concentration of the fulfilment of the preceding promise is placed in the Messiah: "Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and I raise unto David a righteous Branch, and He reigneth as a king and acteth wisely, and setteth up judgment and justice in the land." This parallel passage is, in so far also, of importance, as it shews that the prophecy under consideration likewise had its final reference to the [Pg 383] Messiah. The kingdom of the ten tribes was punished by bad kings for its apostacy from the Lord, and from His visible representative. In the whole long series of Israelitish kings, we do not find any one like Jehoshaphat, or Hezekiah, or Josiah. And that is very natural, for the foundation of the Israelitish throne was rebellion. But, with the cessation of sin, punishment too shall cease. Israel again turns to that family which is the medium and channel through which all the divine mercies flow upon the Church of the Lord; and so they receive again a share in them, and particularly in their richest fulness in the exalted scion of David, the Messiah. The passage under consideration is thus completely parallel to Hosea iii. 5: "And they seek Jehovah their God, and David their king;" and that which we remarked on that passage is here more particularly applicable; compare also Ezek. xxxiv. 23: "And I raise over them one Shepherd, and He feedeth them, my servant David, he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd." The antithesis to the words: "According to mine heart," is formed by the words in Hos. viii. 4: "They have set up kings not by me, princes whom I knew not,"—words which refer to the past history of Israel. Formerly, the rebellious chose for themselves kings according to the desires of their own hearts. Now, they choose Him whom God hath chosen, and who, according to the same necessity, must be an instrument of blessing, as the former were of cursing.—[Hebrew: deh] and [Hebrew: hwkil] stand adverbially. [Hebrew: hwkil] "to act wisely" is, in appearance only, intransitive in Hiphil. The foundation of wisdom and knowledge is the living communion with the Lord, being according to His heart, walking after Him. The foolish counsels of the former rulers of Israel, by which they brought ruin upon their people, were a consequence of their apostacy from the Lord. The two fundamental passages are, Deut. iv. 6: "And ye shall keep and do (the law); for this is your wisdom and understanding;" xxix. 8 (9): "Ye shall keep the words of this covenant and do them, that ye may act wisely." Besides the passage under consideration, the passages Josh. i. 7; 1 Sam. xviii. 14, 15; 1 Kings ii. 3; Is. lii. 13; Jer. x. 21, xxiii. 5, are founded upon these two passages. If all these passages are compared with one another, and with the fundamental passages, one cannot but wonder at the arbitrariness [Pg 384] of interpreters and lexicographers who, severing several of these passages from the others, have forced upon the verb [Hebrew: hwkil] the signification "to prosper,"—a signification altogether fanciful God's servants act wisely, because they look up to God; and he who acts wisely finds prosperity for himself and his people. Hence, it is a proof of the greatest mercy of God towards His people, when He gives them His servants for kings.

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's exposition; Arca f[oe]deris Jehovae sc. est, and that of De Wette: "They shall no more speak of the Ark of the Covenant of Jehovah," are both feeble and un philological. How were it possible that [Hebrew: amr] with the Accusative should mean "to speak of something?"—[Hebrew: elh el-lb] is, in a similar context, just as it is here, connected with [Hebrew: zkr] in Is. lxv. 17: "For behold I create a new heaven and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered nor come into the heart," comp. also Jer. li. 50, vii. 31; 1 Cor. ii. 9. [Hebrew: zkr] with [Hebrew: b] does not simply stand instead of the usual connection with the Accusative; it signifies a remembering connected with affection, a recollection joined with ardent longings. [Hebrew: pqd] is, by many interpreters, understood in the sense of "to visit," but the signification "to miss" (Is. xxxiv. 16; 1 Sam. xx. 6-18, xxv. 15; 1 Kings [Pg 385] xx. 39) is recommended by the connection with the following clause: "Nor shall it be made again." This supposes that there shall come a time when the Ark of the Covenant shall no more exist, the time of the destruction of the temple, which was so frequently and emphatically announced by the prophets.[3] God, however, will grant so rich a compensation for that which is lost, that men will neither long for it, nor, urged on by this longing, make any attempt at again procuring it for themselves by their own efforts. The main question now arises:—In what respect does the Ark of the Covenant here come into consideration? The answer is suggested by ver. 17. The Ark of the Covenant is no more remembered, because Jerusalem has now, in a perfect sense, become the throne of God. The Ark of the Covenant comes into consideration, therefore, as the throne of God, in an imperfect sense. It can easily be proved that it was so, although there have been disputes as to the manner in which it was so. The current view was this, that God, as the Covenant God, had constantly manifested himself above the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, in a visible symbol, in a cloud. The first important opposition to this view proceeded from Vitringa who, in the Obs. sac. t. i. p. 169, advances, among other arguments, the following: "It is not by any means necessary to maintain that, in the holy of holies, in the tabernacle or the temple of Solomon, there was constantly a cloud over the Ark; but it may be sufficient to say, that the Ark was the symbol of the divine habitation, and it was for this reason said that God was present in the place between the Cherubim, because from thence proceeded the revelation of His will, and He thus proved to the Jews that He was present." But this view of Vitringa, that it was [Pg 386] merely in an invisible manner that God was present over the Ark of the Covenant, met with strong opposition; and a note to the second edition shows, that he himself afterwards entertained doubts regarding it. By Thalemann, a pupil of Ernesti, it was afterwards advanced far more decidedly, and evidently with the intention of carrying it through, whether it was true or not, in the Dissertatio de nube super arcam foederis (Leipzig, 1756). He, too, declared, however, that he did not deny the matter, but only disputed the sign. He found a learned opponent in John Eberhard Rau, Professor at Herborn (Ravius, de nube super arcam foederis, Utrecht, 1760; it is a whole book, in which Thalemann's Treatise is reprinted). The matter is, indeed, very simple; both parties are right and wrong, and the truth lies between the two. From the principal passage, in Lev. xvi. 2, it is evident that, at the annual entry of the High Priest into the holy of holies, the invisible presence of God embodied itself in a cloud, as formerly it also did, on extraordinary occasions, during the journey through the wilderness, and at the dedication of the tabernacle and temple. In that passage, Aaron is exhorted not to enter the holy of holies at all times, for that would prove a want of reverence, but only once a year, "for in the cloud I shall appear over the lid of expiation," (this is the right explanation of [Hebrew: kprt] compare Genuineness of the Pentateuch, p. 525 f.) The place where God manifests himself in so visible a manner when the High Priest enters into it, cannot fail to be a most holy place to him. It is true that Vitringa (S. 171), and still more Thalemann (S. 39 in Rau), have endeavoured to remove this objection by their interpretation; but with so plain a violation of all the laws of interpretation, that it is scarcely worth while to enter farther upon this exposition, (compare the refutation in Rau, S. 40 ff.), although J. D. Michaelis, Vater, Rosenmueller, and Baehr, (Symbol. des Mos. Cultus, i. S. 395), have approved of it.[4] On the other hand, [Pg 387] there is nothing to favour the supposition of an ordinary and constant presence of the cloud in the holy of holies. With such a view, questions at once arise, such as: Whether it came also to the Philistines? All that Rau advances in favour of it, merely proves the invisible presence of God, which surely cannot be considered and called a merely imaginary thing, as is done by him, p. 35. For what, in that case, would be the Lord's presence in the hearts of believers, and in the Lord's supper? It is true that Ezekiel, in chap. xi. 22, beholds the glory of the Lord over the cherubim as being lifted up, and forsaking the temple before its destruction; but how can we draw any reference, as to the actual state of things, from visions which, according to their nature, surround with a body all that is invisible? Still, as we already remarked, this whole controversy has reference to the manner only, and not to the fact of God's presence over the Ark of the Covenant; and the Ark of the Covenant stands here in a wider sense, and comprehends the cherubim, and "the glory of the Lord dwelling over them." From a vast number of passages, it can be proved that this glory of the Lord was constantly and really present over the Ark of the Covenant, although it was in extraordinary cases only that it manifested itself in an outward, visible form; compare, besides Lev. xvi. 2, Lev. ix. 24, where, after Aaron's consecration to the priesthood, the glory of the Lord appeared to the whole people in confirmation of his office. To these passages belong all those in which God is designated as dwelling over the cherubim, such as 1 Chron. xiii. 6; Ps. lxxx. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 4. To it refers the designation of the ark of the covenant, in a narrower sense, as the footstool of God; comp. 1 Chron. xxviii. 2, where David says: "I had in mine heart to build an house of rest for the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God;" Ps. xcix. 5, cxxxii. 7; Lam. ii. 1. From this circumstance the fact is explained, that the prayer in distress, as well as the thanks for deliverance, were offered up before, or towards [Pg 388] the Ark of the Covenant. After the defeat before Ai (Josh. vii. 5 ff.), Joshua "rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face, before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, until the eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads, and Joshua said: Alas, O Lord God, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over Jordan?" After the Lord had appeared to Solomon at Gibeah, and had given him the promise, he went before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and offered burnt-offerings, and thank-offerings, 1 Kings iii. 15. In 2 Sam. xv. 32, we are told that David went up the Mount of Olives very sorrowfully, and when he was come to the place, where people were accustomed to worship God, Hushai met him. According to that passage, it was the custom of the people, when on the top of the Mount of Olives, they gained, for the first or last time, a view of the sanctuary, to prostrate themselves before the God of Israel who dwelt there. To the Ark of the Covenant, all those passages refer in which it is said that God dwelleth in the midst of Israel; that He dwelleth in the temple; that He dwelleth at Zion or Jerusalem, compare e.g., the promise in Exodus xxix. 45: "I dwell in the midst of the children of Israel," and farther, Ps. ix. 12, cxxxii. 13, 14; 1 Kings vi. 12, 13, where God promises to Solomon that if he should only walk in His commandments, and execute His judgments, then would He dwell among the children of Israel; and afterwards fulfils this promise by solemnly entering into his temple. Indissolubly connected with this, was the deep reverence in which the Ark of the Covenant was held in Israel. It was considered as the most precious jewel of the people, as the centre of their whole existence. Being the place where the glory of God dwelt (Ps. xxvi. 8), where He manifested himself in His most glorious revelation, it was called the glory of Israel, compare 1 Sam. iv. 21, 22; Ps. lxxviii. 61. The High Priest Eli patiently and quietly heard all the other melancholy tidings—the defeat of Israel, and the death of his sons. But when he who had escaped added: "And the Ark of God is taken," he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate; and his neck brake, and he died. When his daughter-in-law heard the tidings that the Ark of the Covenant was taken, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her. And about the time of [Pg 389] her death, the women that stood by her said unto her: Fear not, for thou hast borne a son. But she answered not, neither did she take it to heart, and she named the child Ichabod, and said. The glory is departed from Israel, because the Ark of the Covenant was taken, and said again: "The glory is departed from Israel, for the Ark of God is taken." But in what manner may this dwelling of God over the Ark of the Covenant be conceived of? Should the Most High God, whom all the heavens, and the heaven of heavens cannot contain (1 Kings viii. 27), whose throne is the heaven, and whose footstool is the earth (Is. lxvi. 1), dwell in a temple made by the hands of men? (Acts vii. 48, ff.) Evidently not in the manner in which men dwell in a place, who are in it only, not out of it. Nor in such a manner as the carnally minded suppose, who, to the warnings of the prophets, opposed their word: "Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us" (Micah iii. 11), or: "Here is the temple of the Lord, here is the temple of the Lord, here is the temple of the Lord" (Jer. vii. 4), imagining that God could not forsake the place which he had chosen, could not take away the free gift of His grace. The matter rather stands thus: That which constitutes the substance and centre of the whole relation of Israel to God, is, that the God of the heavens and the earth became the God of Israel; that the Creator of heaven and earth became the Covenant-God, that His general providence in blessing and punishing became a special one. In order to make the relation familiar to the people, and thus to make it the object of their love and fear, God gave them a praesens numen in His sanctuary, as a prefiguration, and, at the same time, a prelude of the condescension with which He whom the whole universe cannot contain, rested in the womb of Mary. And in so doing, He gave them not a symbolical representation merely, but an embodiment of the idea, so that they who wished to seek Him as the God of Israel, could find Him in the temple, and over the Ark of the Covenant only. The circumstance that it was just there that He took His seat, shows the difference between this truly praesens numen, and that merely imaginery one of the Gentiles. There was in this no partial favour for Israel, nothing from which careless sinners could derive any comfort, God's dwelling among Israel rested on [Pg 390] His holy Law. According as the Covenant is kept or not, and the Law is observed or not, it manifests itself by increased blessing, or by severer punishment. If the Covenant be entirely broken, the consequence is that God leaves His dwelling, and it is only the curse which remains, and which is greater than the curse inflicted upon those among whom He never dwelt, and which, by its greatness, indicates the greatness of the former grace.—Now, if this be the case with the Ark of the Covenant; if it be the substance and centre of the whole former dispensation, what, and how much would not fall along with it, if it fell; and how infinitely great must the compensation be which was to be granted for it, if, in consequence of it, no desire and longing after it was to rise at all, if it was to be regarded as belonging to the [Greek: ptocha stoicheia], and was to be forgotten as a mere image and shadow! The fact that the Ark of the Covenant was made before any thing else, sufficiently shows that every thing sacred under the Old Testament dispensation depended upon it. Witsius Misc. t. i. p. 439, very pertinently remarks: "The Ark of the Covenant being, as it were, the heart of the whole Israelitish religion, was made first of all." Without Ark of the Covenant—no temple; for it became a sanctuary by the Ark of the Covenant only; for holy, so Solomon says in 2 Chron. viii. 11, is the place whereunto the Ark of the Covenant hath come. Without Ark of the Covenant, no priesthood; for what is the use of servants when there is no Lord present? Without temple and priesthood, no sacrifice. We have thus before us the announcement of the entire destruction of the previous form of the Kingdom of God, but such a destruction of the form as brings about, at the same time, the highest completion of the substance,—a perishing like that of the seed-corn, which dies only, in order to bring forth much fruit; like that of the body, which is sown in corruption, in order to be raised in incorruption. Dahler remarks: "Because a more sublime religion, a more glorious state of things will take the place of the Mosaic dispensation, there will be no cause for regretting the loss of the symbol of the preceding dispensation, and people will no more remember it."—It is quite natural that the prophecy should give great offence, and prove a stumbling-block to Jewish interpreters. Its subject, its high dignity, just [Pg 391] consists in the announcement that, at some future period, the shadow should give way to the substance; but it is just the confounding of the shadow with the substance, the rigid adherence to the former, which characterises Judaism, which considers even the Messiah as a minister of the old dispensation only, and views the great changes to be effected by Him, mainly as external ones. The embarrassment arising from this, is very clearly expressed in the following words of Abarbanel: "This promise is, then, bad, and uproots the whole Law. How is it then that Scripture mentions it as good?" Rabbi Arama, in his commentary on the Pentateuch, fol. 101, says, in reference to this prophecy, [Hebrew: nbvkv kl hmprwiM] "all interpreters have been perplexed by it." The interpretations by means of which they endeavour to rid themselves of this embarrassment (see the collection of them in Frischmuth's dissertation on this passage, Jena; reprinted in the Thes. Ant.) are only calculated plainly to manifest it. Kimchi gives this explanation: "Although ye shall increase and be multiplied on the earth, yet the nations shall not envy you, nor wage war against you; and it shall no more be necessary for you to go to war with the Ark of the Covenant, as was usual in former times, when they took the Ark of the Covenant out to war. In that time, there will be no necessity for so doing, as they shall not have any war." The weak points of this explanation are at once obvious. That which, in the verse under consideration, is, in a general way, said of the Ark of the Covenant, is, by it, referred to an altogether special use of it, a regard to which is excluded by the evident antithesis in ver. 17. Abarbanel rejects this explanation. He says: "For there is, in the text, no mention at all of war; and therefore I cannot approve of this exposition, although Jonathan, too, inclines towards it." He himself brings out this sense: The Ark of the Covenant would then, indeed, still continue to exist, and be the seat of the Lord; but no more the exclusive one, no longer the sole sanctuary. "The whole of Jerusalem shall, as regards holiness and glory, equal the Ark of the Covenant. For there shall cease with them every evil thing, and every evil imagination; and there shall be such holiness in the land, that in the same manner as formerly the Ark was the holiest of all things, so at that time, Jerusalem shall be [Pg 392] the throne of the Lord." But, by this explanation, justice is not done to the text. For it is an entire doing away with the Ark of the Covenant which is spoken of in it, not a mere diminution of its dignity, produced by the circumstance, that that which formerly was low shall be exalted. This is particularly evident from the words: "They will not miss it, neither shall it be made again." To this argument we may still add that, by this exposition, not even the object is gained for the sake of which it was advanced. The nature and substance of the Ark of the Covenant is destroyed, as soon as it is put on a level with anything else. It is then no more the throne of the Lord; and for this reason, the previous form can no longer continue to exist, and, along with it, the temple and priesthood too must fall. If every place in Jerusalem, if every inhabitant of it, be equally holy, how then can institutions still continue, which are based on the difference between holy and unholy?—Here a question still arises. There was no Ark of the Covenant in the second temple. In what relation to the prophecy under consideration stands this absence of the Ark of the Covenant, the restoration of which the Jews expect at the end of the days? There cannot be any doubt that it was really wanting. Every proof of its existence is wanting. Josephus, in enumerating the catalogue of the spolia Judaica, borne before in the triumph, does not mention it. He says expressly (de Bell. Jud. v. 5, Sec. 5), that the holy of holies had been altogether empty. Some of the Jewish writers assert that it had been carried away to Babylon; while most of them, following the account given in 2 Maccabees, tell us that Josiah or Jeremiah had concealed it; compare the Treatise by Calmet, Th. 6, S. 224-258, Mosh. In asking why such was the case, other analogous phenomena, the absence of the Urim and Thummim, the cessation of prophetism soon after the return from the captivity, must not be lost sight of. Every thing was intended to impress upon the people the conviction that their condition was provisional only. It was necessary that the Theocracy should sink beneath its former glory, in order that the future glory, which was far to outshine it, should so much the more be longed for. After having thus determined why it was that the Ark of the Covenant was wanting, at the second temple, it is easy to [Pg 393] determine the relation of this absence to the prophecy under consideration. It was the beginning of its fulfilment. In the Kingdom of God, nothing perishes, without something new arising out of this decay. The extinction of the old was the guarantee, that something new was approaching. On the other hand, the absence of the Ark of the Covenant was, it is true, at the same time, a matter-of-fact prophecy of a sad character. To those who clung to the form, without having in a living manner laid hold of the substance, and who, therefore, were not able to partake in the more glorious display of the substance,—to these it announced that the time was approaching when the form, to which they had attached themselves with their whole existence, was to be broken. Since already one of the great privileges of the covenant-people, the [Greek: doxa] (Rom. ix. 4), had disappeared, surely all that might and would soon share the same fate, which existed only for the sake of it, and in it only had its significance. In this respect, the non-restoration of the Ark of the Covenant showed that the Chaldean destruction and that by the Romans were connected as commencement and completion; while, in the other aspect, it declared that, with the return from the captivity, the realization of God's great plan of salvation was being prepared. Inasmuch as the most complete fuga vacui is peculiar to the Covenant-God, the emptiness in that place where formerly the glory of God dwelt, proclaimed aloud the future fulness.—Finally, we have still to determine the special reference of our verse to Israel, i.e., the former kingdom of the ten tribes. This reference is, by most interpreters, entirely lost sight of, and is very superficially and erroneously determined by those who, like Calvin, pay attention to it. In the preceding verse, it had been promised to Israel, that those blessings should again be bestowed upon them, which they had forfeited by their rebellion against the Davidic house, and that they should be restored to them with abundant interest. For David's house is to attain to its completion in its righteous Sprout. This Shepherd, who is, in the fullest sense, what His ancestor had only imperfectly been—a man according to the heart of God—shall feed them with knowledge and understanding. Here, a compensation is promised for the second, infinitely greater loss, which [Pg 394] had, at all times, been acknowledged as such by the faithful in the kingdom of the ten tribes. The revelation of the Lord over the Ark of the Covenant was the magnet which constantly drew them to Jerusalem. Many sacrificed all their earthly possessions, and took up their abode in Judea. Others went on a pilgrimage from their natural to their spiritual home, to the "throne of the glory exalted from the beginning," Jer. xvii. 12. In vain was every thing which the kings of Israel did in order to stifle their indestructible longing. Every new event by which "the glory of Israel" manifested itself as such, kindled their ardour anew. But here also the great blessing and privilege, which the believers missed with sorrow, the unbelievers without it, is to the returning ones given back, not in its previous form, but in a glorious completion. The whole people have now received eyes to recognise the value of the matter in its previous form; and yet this previous form is now looked upon by them as nothing, because the new, infinitely more glorious form of the same matter occupied their attention.

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

Many interpreters, proceeding upon the supposition that the emphasis rests upon Jerusalem, have been led to give an altogether erroneous explanation. It is no more the Ark of the Covenant which will then be the throne of the Lord, but all Jerusalem. Thus, e.g., after the example of Jarchi and Abarbanel, Manasseh ben Israel, Conciliator, p. 196: "If we keep in mind that, in the tabernacle or temple, the Ark was the place where the Lord dwelt (hence Ex. xxv. 22: 'I will speak with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim'), we shall find that the Lord here says, that the Ark indeed had formerly been the dwelling-place of the Godhead, but that, at the time of Messiah, not some one part of the temple only would be filled with the Godhead, but that this glory should be given to all Jerusalem; so that whosoever would be in her would have the prophetic spirit." If it had been the intention of the Prophet to convey this meaning, the word all could not have been omitted. The throne of the [Pg 395] Lord, Jerusalem had been even formerly, in so far as she possessed in her midst the Ark of the Covenant, and hence was the residence of Jehovah, the city of the great King, Ps. xlviii. 3. The words in the parallel member: "Because the name of the Lord is at Jerusalem," show that Jerusalem is called the throne of the Lord, because there is now in her the true throne of the Lord, just as, formerly, the Ark of the Covenant. The antithesis to what precedes leads us to expect a gradation, not in point of quantity, but of quality. The emphasis rests rather on: "The throne of the Lord;" and these words receive from the antithesis the more definite qualification: the true throne of the Lord. Quite similarly, those who boasted that over the Cherubim was the throne of God, and that the Ark of the Covenant was His footstool, are told in Is. lxvi. 1: "The heaven is my (true) throne, and the earth my (true) footstool;" comp. the passages according to which the Ark of the Covenant is designated as the footstool of God, and, hence, the place over the Cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant as the throne of the Lord, p. 387; and farther, Is. lx. 13; Ezra i. 26.—The highest prerogative of the covenant-people, their highest privilege over the world, is to have God in the midst of them; and this prerogative, this privilege, is now to be bestowed upon them in the most perfect manner; so that idea and reality shall coincide. Perfectly parallel in substance are such passages as Ezek. xliii., in which the Shechinah which, at the destruction of the temple had withdrawn, returns to the new temple, the Kingdom of God in its new and more glorious form. Ver. 2. "And behold the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the East; and its voice was like the voice of great waters, and the earth shone with its splendour." Ver. 7. "And He said unto me, son of man, behold the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and the house of Israel shall no more defile my holy place." Zech. ii. 14 (10): "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come and dwell in the midst of thee," with an allusion to Exod. xxix. 45: "And I dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God." The Prophet declares that the full realization of this promise is reserved for the future; but it could not be so, unless it had already been realised, throughout all past history, in God's [Pg 396] dwelling over the Ark of the Covenant; compare Zech. viii. 3: "Thus saith the Lord, I return unto Zion, and dwell in the midst of Jerusalem."—If we enquire after the fulfilment, we are at once met by the words in John i. 14: [Greek: kai ho logos sarx egeneto kai eskenosen en hemin, kai etheasametha ten doxan autou, doxan hos monogenous para patros]; and that so much the more that these words contain an evident allusion to the former dwelling of God in the temple, of which the incarnation of the Logos is looked upon as the highest consummation. It is true that the dwelling of God among His people by means of the [Greek: pneuma Christou] must not be separated from the personal manifestation of God in Christ, in whom dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily, [Greek: somatikos]. The former stands to the latter in the same relation, as does the river to the fountain; it is the river of living water flowing forth from the body of Christ. Both together form the true tabernacle of God among men, the new true Ark of the Covenant; for the old things are the [Greek: skia ton mellonton, to de soma Christou], Col. ii. 17; comp. Rev. xxi. 22: [Greek: kai naon ouk eidon en aute. ho gar Kurios, ho Theos ho pantokrator naos autes esti, kai to arnion]. The typical import of the Ark of the Covenant is expressly declared in Heb. ix. 4, 5, and that which was typified thereby is intimated in chap. iv. 16: [Greek: proserchomtha de meta parhresias to throno tes charitos], where Christ is designated as the true mercy-seat, as the true Ark of the Covenant. Just as, formerly, God could be found over the Ark of the Covenant only, by those from among his people who sought Him; so we have now, through Christ, boldness and access with confidence in God (Eph. iii. 12); and it is only when offered in His name, in living union with Him, that our prayers are acceptable, John xvi. 23. A consequence of that highest realization of the idea of the kingdom of God, and, at the same time, a sign that it has taken place, and a measure of the blessings which Israel has to expect from its re-union with the Church of God, is the gathering of the Gentiles into it, such as, by way of type and prelude, took place even at the lower manifestations of the presence of God among the people; compare, e.g., Josh. ix. 9: "And they (the Gibeonites) said unto him: From a very far country thy servants are come, because of the name ([Hebrew: lwM]) of Jehovah thy God, for we have heard the fame of Him, and all that He did in Egypt, [Pg 397] and all that He did to the two kings of the Amorites," &c. In a manner quite similar it is, in Zech. ii. 15 (11) also, connected with the Lord's dwelling in Jerusalem: "And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day; and they shall be my people; and I dwell in the midst of thee."—[Hebrew: lwM ihvh lirvwliM] must be literally translated: "On account of the name of the Lord (belonging) to Jerusalem," for: because the name of the Lord belongs to Jerusalem—is there at home The name of the Lord is the Lord himself, in so far as He reveals His invisible nature, manifests himself In the name, His deeds are comprehended; and hence it forms a bridge betwixt existing and knowing. A God without a name is a [Greek: theos agnostos], Acts xviii. 23. There is an allusion to Deut. xii. 5: "But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there, to dwell in it, unto it ye shall seek, and thither ye shall come." Formerly, when God put His name in an imperfect manner only, Israel only assembled themselves; but now, all the Gentiles.—The last words: "Neither shall they walk any more," &c., are not by any means to refer to the Gentiles, but to the members of the kingdom of Israel, or also to the whole of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to all the members of the Kingdom of God, including the subjects of the kingdom of Israel. This appears from a comparison of the fundamental passage of the Pentateuch, as well as of the parallel passages in Jeremiah. Wherever [Hebrew: wrirvt] occurs, the covenant-people are spoken of; everywhere the walking after [Hebrew: wrirvt] of the heart is opposed to the walking after the revealed law of Jehovah, which Israel alone possessed. [Hebrew: wrirvt], which properly means "firmness," is then used of hardness in sin, of wickedness.[5]



[Footnote 1: Vitringa very correctly remarks on this passage: "[Hebrew: bel], properly [Greek: ho echon], he who has any thing in his possession is, by an ellipsis, applied to the husband who, in Exod. xxi. 3, is rightly called [Hebrew: bel awh] one who has a wife."]

[Footnote 2: Against the explanation of Maurer: "For I am your Lord;" and that of Ewald: "I take you under my protection," it is decisive that [Hebrew: bel] never means "to be Lord," far less "to take under protection." [Hebrew: bel], which properly means "to possess," is very commonly used of marriage;—as early as in the Decalogue, the wife appears as the noblest possession of the husband—so that a priori this signification is suggested and demanded.]

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

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

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



[Pg 398]



CHAPTER XXIII. 1-8.

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

The Prophet reproves and warns the kings of Judah, first, in general, announcing to them the judgments of the Lord upon them and their people,—the fulfilment of the threatenings, Deut. xxix. 22 ff.—if they are to continue in their hitherto ungodly course, chap. xxii. 1-9. In order to make a stronger impression, he then particularizes the general threatening, showing how God's recompensing justice manifests itself in the fate of the individual apostate kings. First, Jehoahaz is brought forward, the son and the immediate successor of Josiah, whom Pharaoh-Necho dethroned and carried with him to Egypt, vers. 10-12. The declaration concerning him forms a commentary on the name Shallum, i.e., the recompensed one, he whom the Lord recompenses according to his deeds,—which name the Prophet gives to him instead of the meaningless name Jehoahaz, i.e., God holds. His father, who met his death in the battle against the Egyptians, may be called happy when compared with him; for he never returns to his native [Pg 399] land; he lives and dies in a foreign land. The next whom he brings forward is Jehoiakim, vers. 13-19. He is a despot who does every thing to ruin the people committed to him. There is, therefore, the most glaring contrast between his beautiful name and his miserable fate. The Lord, instead of raising him up, will cast him down to the lowest depth; not even an honourable burial is to be bestowed upon him. No one weeps or laments over him; like a trodden down carcass, he lies outside the gates of Jerusalem, the city of the great King, which he attempted to wrest from him, and make his own. Then follows a parenthetical digression, vers. 20-23. Apostate Judah is addressed. The judgment upon her kings is not one with which she has nothing to do, as little as their guilt belongs to them as individuals only. It is, at the same time a judgment upon the people which, by the Lord's anger which they have called forth by their wickedness, is thrown down into the depth, from the height on which the Lord's mercy had raised them.—Next follows Jehoiachin, vers. 24-30. In his name "The Lord will establish," the word will has no foundation; the Lord will reject him, cast him away, and break him in pieces like a worthless vessel. With his mother, he shall be carried away from his native land, and die in exile and captivity. Irrevocable is the Lord's decree, that none of his sons shall ascend the throne of David, so that he, having begotten children in vain, is to be esteemed as one who is childless.

At the commencement of the section under consideration (vers. 1 and 2), the contents of chap. xxii. are comprehended into one sentence. "Woe to the shepherds that destroy and scatter the flock of the Lord." Woe, then, to those shepherds who have done so. With this is then, in vers. 3-8, connected the announcement of salvation for the poor scattered flock. For the same reason, that the Lord visits upon those who have hitherto been their shepherds, the wickedness of their doings—viz., because of His being the chief Shepherd, or because of His covenant-faithfulness, He will in mercy remember them also, gather them from their dispersion, give, instead of the bad shepherds, a good one, viz., the long promised and longed for great descendant of David, who, being a righteous King, shall diffuse justice and righteousness in the land, and thus [Pg 400] acquire for it righteousness and salvation from the Lord. So great shall the mercy of the Future be, that thereby the greatest mercy in the people's past history—their deliverance out of Egypt—shall be altogether cast into the shade.

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

Eichhorn asserts that this section was composed under Zedekiah; but he could do so only by proceeding from his erroneous fundamental view, that the prophecies are veiled descriptions of historical events. "When Jeremiah"—so he says—"delivered this discourse, Jehoiakim had not only already met his ignominious end (xxii. 19), but Jeconiah also was, with his mother, already carried away captive to Babylon." It is matter of astonishment that Dahler, without holding the same fundamental view, could yet adopt its result. He specially refers to the circumstance that, in ver. 24, Jehoiachin is addressed as king,—a circumstance by which Berthold also supports his view, who, cutting the knot, advances the position that vers. 1-19 belong to the reign of Jehoiakim, but vers. 20—xxxii. 8 to the time when Jehoiachin was carried away to Babylon. (Maurer and Hitzig too suppose that vers. 20 ff. were added at a later period, under the reign of Jehoiachin). But what difficulty is there in supposing that the Prophet transfers himself into the time, when he who is now a hereditary prince will be king,—of which the address is then a simple consequence? It is undeniable that a connection with chap. xxi. takes place, in which chapter Jeremiah announces to Zedekiah, threatened by the Chaldeans, the fall of the Davidic house, and the capture and destruction of the city. And this connection is to be accounted for by the fact that Jeremiah here connects with this announcement a former prophecy, in which, under the reign of Jehoiakim, he had foretold the fall of the Davidic house. The fate of the house of David is the subject common to both the discourses. Kueper (Jeremias, libror. Sacror. interpres, p. 58), supposes that, in the message to Zedekiah, Jeremiah had, at that time, repeated his former announcement; but this supposition is opposed by the circumstance that, in chaps. xxii., xxiii., there is no trace of a reference to Zedekiah and his embassy. Ewald asserts that Jeremiah [Pg 401] here only puts together what "perhaps" he had formerly spoken regarding the three kings; but the words in chap. xxii. 1: "Go down into the house of the king of Judah and speak there this word," is conclusive against this assertion. For, according to these words, we have here not something put together, but a discourse which was delivered at a distinct, definite time; although nothing prevents us from supposing that the going down was done in the Spirit only.

We have here still to make an investigation concerning the names of the three kings occurring in chap. xxii., the result of which is of importance for the exposition of ver. 5.—It cannot but appear strange that the same king who, in the Book of the Kings, is called Jehoahaz, is here called Shallum only; that the same who is there called Jehoiachin, has here the name of Jeconias, which is abbreviated into Conias. The current supposition is, that the two kings had two names each. But this supposition is unsatisfactory, because, by the context in which they stand, the names employed by Jeremiah too clearly appear as nomina realia, as new names given to them by which the contrast between the name and thing was to be removed, and hence are evidently of the same nature with the nomen reale of the good Shepherd in chap. xxiii. 6, which, with quite the same right, could have been changed into a nomen proprium in the proper sense, as has, indeed, been done by the LXX. The numerous passages in the prophets, where the name occurs as a designation of the nature and character, e.g., Is. ix. 5, lxii. 4; Jer. xxxiii. 16; Ezek. xlviii. 35, plainly show that a name which has merely a prophetical warrant (and such an one alone takes place here, although the name Shallum occurs also in 1 Chron. iii. 15 [in the historical representation itself, however, Jehoahaz is used in the Book of Kings, and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 1], and the name Jeconias likewise in 1 Chron. iii. 16, while Jehoiakim is found not only in the Book of Kings, but also in Ezek. i. 2; for it is quite possible that those later writers may have drawn from Jeremiah), cannot simply be considered as a nomen proprium; but, on the contrary, that there is a strong probability that it is not so. And this probability becomes certainty when that name occurs, either alone, as e.g., Shallum, or first, as Jeconiah, (which occurs again in chap. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20; the abbreviated [Pg 402] Coniah in xxxvii. 1, while, which is well to be observed, we have in the historical account, chap. lii. 31, Jehoiachin) in a context, such as that under consideration; especially when this phenomenon occurs in a prophet such as Jeremiah, in whom, elsewhere also, many traces of holy wit, and even punning, can be pointed out.—With reference to the calamity which more and more threatened Judah, pious Josiah had given to his sons names, which announced salvation. According to his wish, these names should be as many actual prophecies, and would, indeed, have proved themselves to be such, unless they who bore them had made them of no avail by their apostacy from the Lord, and had thus brought about the most glaring contrast between idea and reality. That comes out first in the case of Jehoahaz. He whom the Lord should hold, was violently and irresistibly carried away to Egypt. The Prophet, therefore, calls him Shallum, i.e., the recompensed,—not retribution, as Hiller, Simonis, and Roediger think, nor retributor according to Fuerst (comp. Ewald Sec. 154d); the same who, in 1 Chron. v. 38, is called Shallum, is in 1 Chron. ix. 11, called Meshullam—he upon whom the Lord has visited the wickedness of his deeds.—As regards the name Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, we must, above all things, keep in view the relation of these names to the promise given to David. In 2 Sam. vii. 12 it is said: "And I cause to rise up ([Hebrew: vhqimti]) thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish ([Hebrew: vhkinti]) his kingdom." This passage contains the ground of both names; and this is the more easily explained, since both of them have one author, Jehoiakim. Even his former name Eliakim had probably been given to him by his father Josiah with a view to the promise. When Pharaoh, however, desired him to change his name—as the name itself shows, we cannot but supply, in 2 Kings xxiii. 31, such a request to a proposal which was afterwards approved of by Pharaoh—he performed that change in such a manner as to bring it into a still nearer relation to the promise, in which, not El, but Jehovah, is expressly mentioned as He who promised; and indeed the matter proceeded from Jehovah, the God of Israel. As, however, from the whole character of Jehoiakim, we cannot suppose that the twofold naming proceeded from true piety, nothing is more natural [Pg 403] than to account for it from an opposition to the prophets. The centre of their announcements was formed by the impending calamity from the North, and the decline of the Davidic family. The promise given to David shall indeed be fulfilled in the Messiah; but not till after a previous deep abasement. Jehoiakim mocking at these threatenings, means to transfer the salvation from the future into the present. In his own name, and that of his son, he presented a standing protest to the prophetic announcement; and this protest could not but call forth a counter-protest, which we find expressed in the prophecy under consideration. The Prophet first overthrows the false interpretation: Jehoiakim is not Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin is not Jehoiachin, chap. xxii.; he then restores the right interpretation: the true Jehoiakim is, and remains, the Messiah, chap. xxiii. 5. As regards the first point, he. in the case of Jehoiakim, contents himself with the actual contrast, and omits to substitute a truly significant name for the usurped one, which may most easily be accounted for from the circumstance, that he thought it to be unsuitable to exercise any kind of wit, even holy wit, against the then reigning king. But the case is different with regard to Jehoiachin. The first change of the name into Jeconiah has its cause not in itself; the two names have quite the same meaning; it had respect to the second change into Coniah only. In Jeconiah we have the Future; and this is put first, in order that, by cutting off the [Hebrew: i], the sign of the Future, he might cut off hope; a Jeconiah without the [Hebrew: i] says only God establishes, but not that He will establish. In reference to these names, Grotius came near the truth; but he erred in the nearer determination, because he did not see the true state of the matter; so that, according to him, it amounts to a mere play: "The Jod," he says, "with which the name begins, is taken away, to intimate that his head shall be diminished; and a Vav is added at the end as a sign of contempt, q.d. that Coniah!" Lightfoot comes nearer to the truth; yet even he was not able to gain assent to it (compare against him Hiller and Simonis who thought his views scarcely worth refuting), because he took an one-sided view. He remarks (Harmon. p. 275): "By taking away the first syllable, God intimated that He would not establish to the progeny of Solomon the [Pg 404] uninterrupted government and royal dignity, as Jehoiakim, by giving that name to his son, seems to have expected." Besides these two, compare farther, Alting, de Cabbala sacra Sec. 73.

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

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

It must be well observed that [Hebrew: reiM] is here without the article, but, in ver. 2, with it. Venema remarks on this: "A general woe upon bad shepherds is premised, which is soon applied to the shepherds of Judah, q.d., since Jehovah has denounced a woe upon all bad shepherds, therefore ye bad shepherds," &c. By the "shepherds," several interpreters would understand only the false prophets and priests. Others would at least have them thought of, along with the kings. This view has exercised an injurious influence upon the understanding of the subsequent Messianic announcement, inasmuch as it occasioned the introduction into it of features which are altogether foreign to it. It is only when it is perceived, that the bad shepherds refer to the kings exclusively, that it is seen that, in the description of the good Shepherd, that only is applicable which has reference to Him as a King. But the very circumstance that, according to a correct interpretation, nothing else is found in this description, is a sufficient proof that, by the bad shepherds, the kings only can be understood. But all doubt is removed when we consider the close connection of the verses under consideration with chap. xxii. In commenting upon chap. iii. 15, we saw that, ordinarily, rulers only are designated by the shepherds; compare, farther, chap. xxv. 34-36, and the imitation and first interpretation of the passage under review by Ezekiel, in chap. xxxiv. Ps. lxxviii. 70, 71: "He chose David his servant, and took him from the sheep-folds. He took him from behind the ewes to feed Jacob, His people, and Israel, His inheritance," shows that a typical interpretation of the former circumstances of David lies at the foundation of this usus loquendi; compare Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24: "And I raise over them one Shepherd, and he feedeth them, my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be [Pg 405] their shepherd."—What is to be understood by the destroying and scattering, must be determined partly from ver. 3 and vers. 13 ff. of the preceding chapter; partly from ver. 3 of the chapter before us. The former passages show that the acts of violence of the kings, their oppressions and extortions, come here into consideration (compare Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 3: "Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed, &c., and with force and with cruelty ye rule them"), while the latter passage shows that it is chiefly the heaviest guilt of the kings which comes into consideration, viz., all that by which they became the cause of the people's being carried away into captivity. To this belonged, besides their foolish political counsels, which were based upon ungodliness (comp. chap. x. 21), the negative (Venema: "It was their duty to take care that the true religion, the spiritual food of the people, was rightly and properly exercised"), and positive promotion of ungodliness, and of immorality proceeding from it, by which the divine judgments were forcibly drawn down. It is in this contrast of idea and reality (Calvin: "It is a contradiction that the shepherd should be a destroyer"), that the woe has its foundation, and that the more, that it is pointed out that the flock, which they destroy and scatter, is God's flock. (Calvin: "God intimates that, by the unworthy scattering of the flock, an atrocious injury had been committed against himself") [Hebrew: caN mreiti] must not be explained by: "the flock of my feeding," i.e., which I feed. For, wherever [Hebrew: mreit] occurs by itself, it always has the signification "pasture," but never the signification pastio, pastus commonly assigned to it. This signification, which is quite in agreement with the form of the word, must therefore be retained in those passages also where it occurs in connection with [Hebrew: caN], when it always denotes the relation of Israel to God. Israel is called the flock of God's pasture, because He has given to them the fertile Canaan as their possession, compare my remarks on Ps. lxxiv. 1. It is, at first sight, strange that a guilt of the rulers only is spoken of, and not a guilt of the people; for every more searching consideration shows that both are inseparable from one another; that bad rulers proceed from the development of the nation, and are, at the same time, a punishment [Pg 406] of its wickedness sent by God. But the fact is easily accounted for, if only we keep in mind that the Prophet had here to do with the kings only, and not with the people. To them it could not serve for an excuse that their wickedness was naturally connected with that of the people. This natural connection was not by any means a necessary one, as appears from the example of a Josiah, in whose case it was broken through by divine grace. Nor were they justified by the circumstance, that they were rods of chastisement in the hand of God. To this the Prophet himself alludes, by substituting, in ver. 3: "I have driven away," for "you have driven away," in ver. 2. All which they had to do, was to attend to their vocation and duty; the carrying out of God's counsels belonged to Him alone. From what we have remarked, it plainly follows that we would altogether misunderstand the expression "flock of my pasture," if we were to infer from it a contrast of the innocent people with the guilty kings. Calvin remarks: "In short, when God calls the Jews the flock of His pasture, He has no respect to their condition, or to what they have deserved, but rather commends His grace which He has bestowed upon the seed of Abraham." The kings have nothing to do with the moral condition of the people; they have to look only to God's covenant with them, which is for them a source of obligations so much the greater and more binding than the obligations of heathen kings, as Jehovah is more glorious than Elohim. The moral condition of the people does, to a certain degree, not even concern God; how bad soever it is, He looks to His covenant; and when more deeply viewed, even the outward scattering of the flock is a gathering.

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

In the designation of God as Jehovah the God of Israel, there is already implied that which afterwards is expressly said. Because God is Jehovah, the God of Israel, the crime of the kings is, at the same time, a sacrilegium; they have desecrated God. It was just here that it was necessary prominently to point out the fact, that the people still continued to [Pg 407] be God's people. In another very important aspect, they were indeed called Lo-Ammi (Hos. i. 9); but that aspect did not here come into consideration. Calvin: "They had estranged themselves from God; and He too had, in His decree, already renounced them. But, in one respect, God might consider them as aliens, while, in respect to His covenant, He still acknowledged them as His, and hence He calls them His people."—The words "that feed my people," render the idea still more prominent and emphatic than the simple "the shepherds" would have done, and hence serve to make more glaring the contrast presented by the reality. The words "you have not visited them," seem, at first sight, since graver charges have been mentioned before, to be feeble. But that which they did, appears in its whole heinousness only by that which they did not, but which, according to their vocation, they ought to have done. This reference to their destination imparts the greatest severity to the apparently mild reproof Similar is Ezek. xxxiv. 3: "Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed, and ye feed not the flock." The visiting forms the general foundation of every single activity of the shepherd, so that the [Hebrew: la pqdtM] comprehends within itself all that which Ezekiel particularly mentions in chap. xxxiv. 4: "The weak ye strengthen not, and the sick ye heal not, and the wounded ye bind not up, and the scattered ye bring not back, and the perishing ye seek not."—The words: "the wickedness of your doings," look back to Deut. xxviii. 20: "The Lord shall send upon thee curse, terror, and ruin in all thy undertakings, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly, because of the wickedness of thy doings, that thou hast forsaken me." The gentle allusion to that fearful threatening in that portion of the Pentateuch, which was the best known of all, was sufficient to make every one supplement from it that, which was there actually and expressly uttered. Such an allusion to that passage of Deuteronomy can be traced out, wherever the phrase [Hebrew: re melliM] occurs, which, in later times, had become obsolete; compare chap. iv. 4 and xxi. 12 (in both of these passages [Hebrew: mpni], too, is introduced); Is. i. 16; Ps. xxviii. 4; Hos. ix. 15.