Ver. 35. "Thus saith the Lord, giving the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for [Pg 446] a light by night, agitating the sea, and the waves thereof roar, the Lord of hosts is His name."

Ver. 36. "If these ordinances will cease before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever."

Interpreters commonly assume that, already in ver. 35, the discourse is of the firm and immutable divine laws which every thing must obey. But opposed to this view are the words: "Agitating the sea, and the waves thereof roar," in which no definite perceptible rule, no uninterrupted return takes place. To this argument may be added the comparison of the fundamental passage, Isa. li. 15, in which the omnipotence only of God is to be brought out: "And I am the Lord thy God, who agitates the sea, and its waves roar, the Lord of hosts is His name;" comp. also Amos. ix. 5, 6. It thus appears that, in ver. 35, God's omnipotence only is spoken of, which establishes that He is God and not man; and this forms the foundation for the declaration set forth in ver. 36, which is so full of comfort for the despairing covenant-people,—the proposition, namely, that, while all men are liars, He does not lie; that He can never repent of His covenant and promises. The "ordinances" (moon and stars are, in their regular return, themselves, as it were, embodied ordinances), are mentioned already in ver. 35, because just the circumstance that, according to eternal and inviolable laws, sun and moon must appear every day at a fixed time, and have done so for thousands and thousands of years, testifies more strongly for His omnipotence and absolute power, never liable to any foreign influence or interference, than if they at one time appeared, and, at another, failed to appear. God's omnipotence, as it is testified by a look to nature (Calvin: "The Prophet contents himself with pointing out what even boys knew, viz., that the sun makes his daily circuit round the whole earth, that the moon does the same, and that the stars in their turn succeed, so that, as it were, the moon with the stars exercises dominion by night, and, afterwards, the sun reigns by day"), results from the fact that He is the pure, absolute, being (Jehovah His name, comp. remarks on Mal. iii. 6); and it is just because He is this, that His counsels, which He declared without any condition attached to them, must be [Pg 447] unchangeable. To believe that He has for ever rejected Israel, is to degrade Him, to make Him an idol, a creature.—In ver. 36, the immutability of God's counsel of grace is put on a level with the immutability of God's order of nature; but this is done with a view to the weakness of the people, who receive, for a pledge of their election, that which is most firm among visible things; so that every rising of the sun and moon is to them a guarantee of it; compare Ps. lxxxix. 37, 38. But considered in itself, the counsels of God's grace are much firmer than the order of nature. The heavens wax old as a garment, and as a vesture He changes them and they are changed (Ps. cii. 27-29); heaven and earth shall pass away, but the word of God shall not pass away.—From chap. xxxiii. 24: "They despise my people ([Hebrew: emi]) that they should be still a nation ([Hebrew: gvi]) before them" it appears why it is that [Hebrew: gvi] is here used, and not [Hebrew: eM]. The covenant-people in their despair imagined that their national existence, which, in the Present, was destroyed, was gone for ever. If only their national existence was sure, then also was their existence as a covenant-people. For, just as their national existence had ceased, because they had ceased to be the covenant-people, so they could again obtain a national existence as the covenant-people only.

Ver. 37. "Thus saith the Lord: If the heavens above be measured, and the foundations of the earth beneath be searched out, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel, for all that they have done, saith the Lord."

It is not without meaning that the Prophet so frequently repeats: Thus saith the Lord. This formed the [Greek: A] and [Greek: O]; His word was the sole ground of hope for Israel. Apart from it, despair was as reasonable, as now it was unreasonable. The measuring of heaven, and the searching out of the innermost parts of the earth, come here into consideration as things impossible. The words: "All the seed of Israel," take from the hypocrites that consolation which they might be disposed to draw from these promises. It is as much in opposition to the nature of God that He should permit all the seed of Israel, the faithful with the unbelievers, to perish, as that He should save all the seed of Israel, unbelievers as well as believers. The promise, as well as the threatening, always leaves a remnant. All that the covenant grants is, that the whole cannot [Pg 448] perish (the discourse is here, of course, of definite rejection); but it gives no security to the individual sinner. The words: "For all that they have done," are added intentionally, because the greatness of the sins of the people was the punctum saliens in the believers'despair of the mercy of God. Calvin says: "The Prophet here intentionally brings forward the sins of the people, in order that we may know that the grace of God is greater still, and that the multitude of so many wicked men would not be an obstacle to God's granting pardon."

Ver. 38. "Behold, days, saith the Lord, and the city is built to the Lord from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner. Ver. 39. And the measuring line goeth yet farther over against it, over the hill Gareb (the leper), and turneth towards Goah (place of execution). Ver. 40. And the whole valley of the carcasses and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, and from thence unto the horsegate, towards the East, (all this is) holiness unto the Lord. No more shall it be destroyed, nor shall it be laid waste for ever."

This prophecy embraces two features: first, the restoration of the Kingdom of God, represented under the figure of a restoration of Jerusalem, which, under the Old Covenant, was its seat and centre (it is this aspect only which Zechariah, in resuming this prophecy, has brought forward in chap. xiv. 10); and, secondly, the glorification of the Kingdom of God, which now is so strengthened and increased, that it can undertake to attack and assail the dark kingdom of evil, and subject it to itself, while formerly it was attacked and assailed by it, and often could not prevent the enemy from penetrating into the innermost heart of its territory. This thought the Prophet graphically clothes in a perceptible form, and in such a manner that he describes how the unholy places, by which Jerusalem, the holy city, was surrounded on all sides, are included in its circumference, and become holiness unto the Lord. In former times, the victory of the world over the Kingdom of God had been embodied in the fact, that the abominations of sin and idolatry had penetrated into the very temple; compare chap. vii. 11: "Is then this house, which is called by the name of the Lord, a den of robbers, saith the Lord?" Other passages will be mentioned when we come to comment upon Dan. ix. 27. This inward victory must, according to divine necessity, [Pg 449] be followed by the outward one. The covenant-people which, inwardly, had submitted to the world, which, by its own guilt, had profaned itself, was, outwardly also, given up to the world, and was profaned in punishment. And this profanation, inflicted upon it as a punishment, again manifested itself just at that place, where the profanation by the guilt had chiefly manifested itself, viz., in the holy city, and in the holy temple. It is with a view to the former manifestation of the victory of the world over the Kingdom of God, that here the victory of the Kingdom of God over the world is described; and the imagery is just simple imagery. To the outward holiness of the city and of the temple, the outward unholiness of the places around Jerusalem is opposed. While the victory of the world over the Kingdom of God had been manifested by the profanation of these places, the victory of the Kingdom of God now appears under the image of the sanctification of these formerly unholy places. By what means that great change had been brought about; by what means the Kingdom of God, which now lay so powerlessly prostrate, should again obtain powers which it had never before possessed; by what means the servant was to be changed into a lord, it was unnecessary for the Prophet here to point out; it had been already mentioned in vers. 32-34. The difference consists in this, that the New Covenant is not like the Old, but that it first furnishes the right weapons by which sin and the world can be overcome, viz., an infinitely richer measure of the forgiveness of sins, of the graces of the Spirit.—We must still premise a general remark concerning the determination of the boundaries of the New Jerusalem here given, because this must guide us in determining the single doubtful places which are here mentioned. The correct view has been already given by Vitringa in his Commentary on Isaiah xxx. 33: "The Prophet promises to the returning ones the restoration of the city of Jerusalem in its whole circumference; and he describes it in this way, that he begins from the Eastern wall, passes on thence, through the North side, to the West side, and thence, by the South side, returns to the East." For the Prophet begins with the tower of Hananeel which was situated at the East side of the town, near the sheep-gate; compare remarks on Zech. xiv. 10. Thence he proceeds to [Pg 450] the corner-gate, which was situated in that corner where the North and East met (compare l. c.), and hence comprehends the whole North side. He closes with the horse-gate, of which he expressly states that it was situated towards the East, and hence points out that he had again arrived at the place from which he set out. We have thus gained a firm foundation for determining those among the places mentioned, the situation of which is, in itself, doubtful.—Let us now proceed to the consideration of particulars. After [Hebrew: imiM], the Keri inserts [Hebrew: baiM]. It is true that this fuller expression is commonly used by the Prophet; but, for that very reason, the more concise one is to be preferred, which alone has the authority of the MSS. in its favour, while the Keri is nothing but a conjecture, perhaps not even that. The full expression having already occurred so frequently in the passage under consideration, the Prophet here, at the close, and for a change, contents himself with the mere intimation. The Prophet says intentionally: "The city is built to the Lord," so that "to the Lord" must be connected with "is built;" not "the city of the Lord." The latter expression had become so much a nomen proprium of Jerusalem, that the full depth of its meaning was no more thought of. This new city is no more to be called simply the city of the Lord; it is truly to be built to the Lord, so that it belongs to Him.—In the first two points of the boundary, the tower of Hananeel and the Corner-gate, the second main idea of the passage does not yet come out so prominently. This is to be accounted for simply by the circumstance, that on the whole North side of the town there was not any unholy places. The Suffix in [Hebrew: ngdv] refers to the Corner-gate; the measuring line, [Hebrew: qvh] according to the Kethibh, [Hebrew: qv hmdh], which is the common form, according to the Keri, goes yet farther over against it, &c. By the words "over against," it is intimated that it now goes beyond the former dimensions of the town. [Hebrew: el] "over" (Hitzig erroneously translates it "towards," or "by the side of it"), shows that the hill Gareb is included within the circumference of the new city. From the remarks formerly made, it appears that the hill Gareb, and Goah, places which are nowhere else mentioned, must have been situated on the West side; and, moreover, Gareb on the North-west [Pg 451] side[5] and Goah on the South-west side, [Hebrew: grb] has no other signification than "the leper;" and "the hill of the leper" can be the hill only, where the lepers had their abode. For, as early as in the second year after the Exodus from Egypt, these lepers were obliged to remain without the camp (comp. Numb. v. 3: "Without the camp shall ye send them, and not shall they defile their camp in the midst whereof I dwell"); and this law was so strictly enforced, that even Moses' sister was removed out of the camp. When they had come to Canaan, the provisions of the law in reference to the camp were transferred to the towns; comp. farther Lev. xiii. 46: "All the days that he has the leprosy, he shall be defiled; he shall dwell alone, without the camp shall his habitation be;" Luke xvii. 12. Even Uzziah could not be released from it; he lived without the city in Beth Chofshith, 2 Kings xv. 5, which is commonly translated "house of the sick," instead of "house of emancipation," viz., place where they lived, whom the Lord had manumitted, who no more belonged to His servants; compare remarks on Psa. lxxxviii. 6. Even in the kingdom of Israel they were so strict in the execution of this Mosaic ordinance (one from among the numberless proofs which are opposed to the current views of the religious condition of this kingdom, and of its relation to the Law of Moses), that, even during the siege of Samaria, the lepers were not allowed to leave the place before the gate assigned to them, 2 Kings vii. 3.—In order more fully to understand the meaning of our passage, it is indispensable that we should inquire into the causes of that regulation. J. D. Michaelis (Mos. Recht. iv. Sec. 210) has his answer at once in readiness, and is so fully convinced of its being right and to the point, that he does not think it worth while to mention any other view. Because to him the temporal objects and aims are the highest, he at once supposes them everywhere in the Law of the Holy God also. The ordinance is to him nothing but a sanitary measure intended to prevent contagion. But that would surely be a degree of severity against the sick which could the less be excused by a regard to the healthy, that leprosy, [Pg 452] if contagious at all, is so, at all events, very slightly only, and is never propagated by a single touch. (Michaelis himself remarks: "Except in the case of cohabitation, one may be quite safe.") But this severity against the sick must appear in a still more glaring light, and the concern for the healthy becomes even ridiculous, when we take into consideration the other regulations concerning the lepers. They were obliged to go about in torn clothes, bare-headed, and with covered chin, and to cry out to every that came near them, that they were unclean. Even Michaelis grants that those regulations could not be designed to guard against infection. He remarks: "But the leper should not cause disgust to any one by his really shocking appearance, or terror by an accidental, unexpected touch." But such a sentimental, unmerciful regard to the tender nerves is surely elsewhere not to be perceived in the Law, which regulates all the relations of man to his neighbour, by the principle: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Farther—From mere sanitary or police considerations, the law in reference to the leprosy of the clothes and houses, which is closely connected with the law about the leprosy of men, cannot be accounted for. The reason which Michaelis advances for the law in reference to the clothes, is of such a nature, that not even the most refined politicians have ever yet thought of a similar one. The leprosy of the houses is, according to him, the dry-rot, which, although not contagious, was so hateful to Moses, that, out of concern for the health of the possessor, and for the goods kept in them, he ordered them to be altogether pulled down. If Moses had entertained the views on the power of the magistrates which lie at the foundation of this, he could not have been an ambassador of God,—even apart altogether from the absurdity of the measure. But the shallowness and untenableness of Michaelis' view will appear still more strongly, when we state the positive argument for our view. It is this: Leprosy is the outward image of sin; that, therefore, which is done upon the leper, is, in reality, done upon the sinner. Every leper, therefore, was a living sermon, a loud admonition to keep unspotted from the world. The exclusion of the lepers from the camp, from the holy city, conveyed figuratively quite the same lesson, as is done in Words by John, in Revel. xxi. 27: [Greek: Kai ou me eiselthe eis auten] [Pg 453] [Greek: pan koinon kai poioun bdelugma kai pseudos], and by Paul, in Ephes. v. 5: [Greek: touto gar iste ginoskontes, hoti pas pornos, e akathartos, e pleonektes ... ouk echei kleronomian en te basileia tou Christou kai Theou]; comp. Gal. v. 19, 21. Now it is clearly seen what is the Prophet's meaning in including the hill of the lepers in the holy city. That which hitherto was unclean becomes clean; the Kingdom of God now does violence to the sinners, while, hitherto, the sinners had done violence to the Kingdom of God. It is only when we take this view of leprosy, that we account for the fact, that just this disease so frequently occurs as the theocratic punishment of sin. The image of sin is best suited for reflecting it; he who is a sinner before God, is represented as a sinner in the eyes of man also, by the circumstance that he must exhibit before men the image of sin. God took care that ordinarily the image and the thing itself were perfectly coincident; although, no doubt, there were exceptions,—cases where God, according to His wise and holy purposes, allowed that one relatively innocent (in the case of a perfectly innocent man, if such an one existed, that would not be possible, except in the case of Christ who bore our disease), had to bear the image of sin, e.g., in the case of such as were in danger of self-righteousness. As a theocratic punishment, leprosy is found especially with such as had secretly sinned, or had surrounded their sin with a good appearance, which, in the eyes of men, prevents them from appearing as sinners, e.g., in the case of Miriam, Uzziah, Gehazi, 2 Kings v. 27. In the Law, there are many warnings against it, e.g., Deut. xxiv. 8; and David wishes, 2 Sam. iii. 29, that the threatening of the Law might be fulfilled upon the house of wicked Joab. The leprosy of houses, too, comes into consideration only as an image of spiritual leprosy, as is seen from the command in Lev. xiv. 49: "And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; ver. 53: and make an atonement for the house, and it shall be clean." The procedure here is quite the same as that which was applied in the case of sin and sinners; and since the house cannot sin, it follows that a symbolical action only can here be spoken of.—Goah, in this context, in the midst of unclean places, can hardly be anything else than some unclean place; and it is a very obvious supposition that this nature is expressed in the very [Pg 454] name. This signification interpreters usually endeavour to obtain by deriving the word from [Hebrew: geh] "to roar," of which it is properly the Partic. Fem., hence "the roaring one;" but it is more easily obtained by adopting the derivation from [Hebrew: gve], just as [Hebrew: wve] is derived from [Hebrew: wve], a derivation which was first proposed by Hiller, S. 127. [Hebrew: gve] is used of a violent death, no less than of a natural death; thus Numb. xvii. 27, 28, of a death like that of the company of Korah, Datham, and Abiram; comp. Zech. xiii. 8. This derivation being assumed, Goah would denote "expiring," "hill[6] of expiring," which would be a very suitable name of the place for the execution of criminals. Vitringa, in commenting upon Is. xxx. 33, already expressed the conjecture that Goah, [Hebrew: gl gveth] might perhaps be identical with Golgotha, but retracted it, because the Evangelists explain Golgotha by [Greek: kraniou topos]. But this is no sufficient and conclusive reason. When the Aramean became the prevailing language, the name of the place may have received a new etymology, just as the Fathers of the Church derive [Greek: pascha], from [Greek: paschein], and many similar instances. It has already been observed that the appellation, "place of skulls," is rather strange, inasmuch as the skulls did not remain in the place of execution.[7] The use of "skull" for "the place of skulls," as well as the omission of the L, have been found strange. But all that is easily accounted for, if the new signification, which substantially agreed with the former, was merely transferred to the word. The identity of Goah and Golgotha cannot be disputed,—at least, not from the situation. From Heb. xiii. 12, it is certain that Golgotha, as an unclean place, was situated outside the city; that it was situated on the West side is, it is [Pg 455] true, testified by tradition only; comp. Krafft, S. 168 ff.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. 1, S. 422 ff.—We now come to the valley of carcasses and of ashes. Even from the position, it becomes probable that this is the valley of Hinnom. The North and West sides are already done, and hence the South and East sides only remain. But the valley of Hinnom was situated towards the South, or South-east of Jerusalem, comp. Krafft, S 2; v. Raumer, S. 269. The valley of the carcasses is here brought into immediate connection with all the fields (q.d., all the other fields), unto the brook Kidron, and is hence designated as a portion of the valley of Kidron. But the valley of Hinnom was the Southern, or South-eastern continuation of the valley of Kidron, which extended on the East side. To this it may be added that, in this context, we must necessarily expect the mention of the valley of Hinnom, but that otherwise it would be wanting. Among all the unclean places around Jerusalem, this was the most unclean. There could be no greater victory of the Kingdom of God over the world, than if this strictest antithesis to the holy city, this image of hell, was included within the Holy City. It is only with respect to the cause of the appellation, that some doubt may exist, [Hebrew: pgr], [Hebrew: pgriM] is a common designation of dead bodies, of carcasses. There is not one among the twenty-two passages in which it occurs, where it refers to deceased righteous ones. It is used of the dead bodies of animals, of idols, Lev. xxvi. 30; of the dead bodies of those whom the Lord has smitten in His anger and wrath, Jer. xxxiii. 5; 1 Sam. xvii. 46; Amos viii. 3; Neh. iii. 3; Is. lxvi. 24; of such as are, after death, treated like beasts, Jer. i. 49. Hence, opinions such as that of Venema fall to the ground, who supposes that the valley had that name, because it was the public burying-ground. But there is, nevertheless, scope for difference of opinion. One may understand by [Hebrew: pgriM] the carcasses of animals;—the valley of Hinnom would, in that case, be the public flaying-ground. It is in itself probable, and it is generally held[8] that, after the defilement by Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 10), it received this designation. But there are not wanting evident traces that, [Pg 456] even in former times, the valley served this purpose. In Is. xxx. 33, it is said in reference to the Assyrians: "For Tophet (Gesenius arbitrarily changes the nomen proprium into an appellativum, and translates: the place for burning) is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared, made deep and large; the pile thereof has fire and wood in abundance." This passage supposes that, even at that time, the valley of Hinnom, or Tophet (which properly is only a part of it, but is sometimes, however, used for the whole), had that destination; that piles were constantly burning in it, on which the carcasses of animals were burned. Such a place of execution and burial is already prepared for the carcasses of the Assyrians rebelling against God. Even the existence of the name Tophet, i.e., horror, abomination, bears witness to the impure destination. The second passage is Is. lxvi. 24. Outside the Holy City, the place where formerly the carcasses of the beasts were lying, there now lie the dead bodies of the transgressors. As the former were, in times past, food both for the worms and fire, so they are now. It is true, that Vitringa's objection, that it can scarcely be imagined that the idolators should have chosen a place so unclean, is very plausible. But how plausible soever such an argument may appear, it cannot invalidate distinct historical testimonies; and it might very well be set aside, although it would lead us too far away from our purpose, to do so here. But it may also be supposed that the Prophet looks back to his own declarations, chap. vii. 31, and xix. 4 ff.; and that by [Hebrew: pgriM] here the corpses of transgressors are to be understood, who are destined to destruction, and therefore are to be buried in the flaying-ground. But this reference is, after all, too far-fetched; and it is more natural to say, that the nature of Tophet, as the flaying-ground, forms the foundation, which is common to those passages and that before us.—But, besides the arguments already advanced, there is still a grammatical reason, which shows that it is really the valley of Hinnom which is meant. The article in [Hebrew: hemq] forbids us to view it as being in the Stat. construct. and connected with the following words. We must translate: "And the whole valley, (viz. the valley of) the carcasses and ashes." The place is, hence, first designated as "the valley," without any further qualification, and receives this qualification only afterwards. But it is just the valley of Hinnom which, in Jer. ii. 23, is [Pg 457] designated as the valley [Greek: kat' exochen], and the gate leading to it, as the gate of the valley, in Neh. ii. 13, 15; comp. remarks on Zech. xi. 13.—In reference to [Hebrew: dwN], Gousset Lex. p. 368, remarks: "The words [Hebrew: dwN], and [Hebrew: dwN] are used only of the ashes of the sacrificial animals, and their removal." This observation is confirmed by every careful examination of the passages in question. Never are [Hebrew: dwN] and [Hebrew: dwN] used otherwise than of the ashes of sacrificial animals; comp. Lev. i. 16; vi. 3, 4; 1 Kings xiii. 5; Numb. iv. 13; Exod. xxvii. 3. The derivation of the signification "ashes," from the fundamental signification "fat," as advanced by Winer and others (cinis = pinguefactio agrorum), is therefore wrong. On the contrary, even the burnt fat was still considered as fat; the ashes of the fat are the [Hebrew: warit], the residuum of the fat. By this determination of the word, the explanation is very much facilitated. In Lev. vi. 3, 11, it is said: "And he (the priest, after having offered up the burnt-offering) shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp into a clean place." According to this regulation, the ashes of the sacrificial animals were considered as relatively unclean. The priest had to put off his holy garments, and to put on common garments, and to carry the ashes without the camp,—afterwards without the Holy City. Hence, in contrast to the sacrifices themselves, the ashes were considered as the impure residuum which is found in everything which men do in relation to God, as the image of sinful contamination attaching to all, even the best works, and to the holiest elevation of the heart. If, then, the place where the ashes are deposited is to be included within the boundaries of the Holy City; is, in holiness, to be equal to the place where the sacrifices themselves are offered,—what else can be signified thereby, than that the unholy is to be overpowered by the holy, the earthly by the divine, by means of a more glorious communication of the Holy Spirit? It is quite analogous, when Zechariah represents the horses as being in future adorned by the Lord with the symbol of holiness, which formerly the High-priest only wore; compare remarks on Zech. xiv. 20. This one argument might be brought forward against the explanation which we have given, viz., that we cannot well imagine that this was the destination of [Pg 458] the valley of Hinnom, because, according to the Law, the ashes of the sacrifices were to be carried to a clean place; because that which once stood in connection with that which is most holy and pure, although, in itself, it may be unclean, must not be mingled with that which is absolutely and constantly unclean. But in opposition to this we remark, that it was not this whole valley that was unclean, but only the place Tophet in it; and that if sometimes the whole is designated as unclean, it is only because it included this most unclean among all unclean places; comp. chap. vii. 31, xxxii. 35; 2 Kings xxiii. 10.—There cannot be any doubt that "the [Hebrew: wrmvt] unto the brook Kidron" are identical with the fields of Kidron, [Hebrew: wdmvt qdrvN], mentioned in 2 Kings xxiii.; but much to be doubted is the correctness of the common supposition (after the example of Kuypers, ad varia V. T. loca, in the Syll. Dissert. sub praes. Schultens, et Schroederi, t. 1. p. 537), that [Hebrew: wrmvt] is identical with [Hebrew: wdmvt]. If that were the case, we could not see why Jeremiah should have exchanged the common word for an uncommon one, which elsewhere does not occur. Jeremiah is fond of exchanging words of similar sounds, and especially words differing from one another merely by one letter, and especially by [Hebrew: d] and [Hebrew: r]; but these exchanges are always significant. (Compare Kueper. Jerem. p. xiv. and 43, and History of Balaam, p. 447 f.) Although we cannot, with certainty, fix the meaning of [Hebrew: wrmvt], yet so much seems to be sure, that this word was one which more accurately designated the nature of those places than the current nomen proprium, inasmuch as it would be absurd to substitute for it another name, if there had not been deeper reasons. One need only compare the [Hebrew: hr hmwHit] itself which, in the simple historical prose, is used of the Mount of Olives, 2 Kings xxiii. 13. The most simple and natural supposition is the following. All the significations of the verbs [Arabic: **], [Arabic: **], [Arabic: **] in Arabic run together in that of cutting off. [Hebrew: wdmvt] the Plural of the Feminine of the Adjective [Hebrew: wrm] are, accordingly, loca abscissa, places which are cut off and excluded [from the Holy City] outwardly (Aq.: [Greek: proasteia]), and, at the same time, inwardly. Thus we obtain a striking contrast between their present nature and future destination. What is now distinctly separated from the holy, [Pg 459] then become holiness, [Hebrew: qdw]. From 2 Kings xxiii. it appears, moreover, that the fields of Kidron were unclean. It was thither as to an unclean place, that Josiah caused all the abominations of idolatry to be carried, and to be burnt; comp. ver. 4 (Josiah commanded all the vessels which had been made to Baal and Ashera to be brought forth out of the temple): "And he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron." Ver. 6: "And he brought out the Ashera out of the house of the Lord, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and he burned them in the valley of Kidron.... And cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people." These last words (the children of the people = the mob, high and low, who had polluted themselves by idolatry, comp. 2 Chron. xxxiv. 4: "And he strewed the dust upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto them") enable us perhaps to conjecture the cause of the uncleanness of these fields. They served as a burying ground to the adherents of the worship of Moloch, who were anxious to rest in the neighbourhood of their idol, which dwelt in the neighbouring Tophet; and this is the more easily accounted for, that it is very probable that the sacrifices offered up to the idol were, in a great measure, sacrifices offered for the dead.—[Hebrew: qdw lihvh] refers to every thing mentioned in the verse before us. As regards the last words, comp. Remarks on Zech. xiv. 11.



[Footnote 1: The person of the Messiah meets us as the living centre of the salvation in ver. 9: "And they serve the Lord their God, and David their King, whom I will raise up unto them;" on which words Jonathan remarks: "And the Messiah the Son of David;" and Abarbanel: "This is King Messiah, who is of the house of David, and is therefore called by his name." From the parallel passages, Hos. iii. 5; Is. lv. 3, our passage differs in this, that David here does not, as in those passages, designate the family of David which centres in Christ, but the person of the Messiah. The commentary is furnished by chap. xxiii. 5: "I raise unto David a righteous Sprout." The circumstance, that it is not the Sprout of David, but David, that is spoken of here, is explained from a reference to the words which the ten tribes spoke at their rebellion, 1 Kings xii. 16: "We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the Son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel." To the person of the Messiah the Prophet reverts once more towards the close also: "And their glorious one shall be out of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them (compare Mic. v. 1, 2, [2, 3]), and I cause him to draw near, and he approacheth unto me; for who is surety for his heart to approach unto me, saith the Lord?" God himself receives the King of the Future into the closest communion with Him,—"I and the Father are one"—a communion which no one can usurp by his own power, and which, in the case of the former kings, even in that of David, was frequently disturbed by their sinful weakness.]

[Footnote 2: Hofmann (Weiss. u. Erf. 1 S. 138) assigns to the phrase the meaning: "to make an arrangement." But decisive against this is not only the derivation, (comp. Gesenius Thesaurus), but the circumstance also, that it is almost exclusively and quite manifestly used of a relation resting on reciprocity, of the making of a covenant in the ordinary sense; and that the few instances where there is apparently a reference to one party, form an exception only to the rule.]

[Footnote 3: Even the most recent interpreters, who take [Hebrew: bel] sensu malo, still greatly differ,—a proof that this interpretation has a very insufficient foundation on which to rest. Gesenius, De Wette, Bleek (on Heb. viii. 9), retain the explanation by fastidire, rejicere; Maurer translates: dominarer, domini partes sustinerem, contrasting tyrannical dominion with a relation of love; Ewald: "Seeing that I am her master and protector;" Hitzig: "And I got possession of her." All these interpretations are opposed by the usus loquendi, according to which [Hebrew: bel] has only the two significations: "to possess," and "to take for a wife," the latter being the ordinary and prevailing one.]

[Footnote 4: Not less than these, Hitzig too has allowed himself to be carried away by the appearance. He says: "Then, indeed, the office of religious instructors must cease."]

[Footnote 5: According to Krafft (sur Topographie Jerus. S. 158), it is only the hill Bezetha which, by the third wall of Agrippa, was added to the town, that can correspond to the situation of Gareb.]

[Footnote 6: Thenius, in the appendix to the Commentary on the Books of Kings, S. 24, remarks: "[Hebrew: gl] does not, in any of the dialects, denote the natural hill of rocks, but merely stones heaped up." Hence, the hill would be an artificial hill for the execution of criminals. (Compare the German word Rabenstein, lit. "raven-stone," for: place of execution.)]

[Footnote 7: This objection would be removed if, following Thenius and Krafft, S. 158, we were to explain the name from the form of the hill, which is that of a skull. But none of the Evangelists at least have advanced this explanation. The fact that three of them add the Greek explanation to the name (Matt. xxvii. 33; Mark xv. 22; John xix. 17), and one translated it into Greek (Luke xxiii. 33) shows that it stood in connection with the event in question. But this circumstance is quite decisive, that three Evangelists explain it by [Greek: kraniou topos], "place of a skull."]

[Footnote 8: Compare the Book Kosri, p. 72. Buxtorff says: "Gehenna was a well-known place near Jerusalem, viz., a valley in which the fire was never extinguished, and where unclean bones, carcasses, and other unclean things, were burned."]



CHAPTER XXXIII. 14-26.

Still before the destruction, but in the view of it, the Prophet, while in the outer court of the prison, was favoured with the revelation contained in chap. xxxii., and with that revelation of which our section forms a portion. It may appear strange that, in the introduction, the revelation of great things hitherto unknown to him is promised to the Prophet, and which he is told to seek by calling unto the Lord; while, after all, the subsequent prophecy contains scarcely any prominent, peculiar feature. But this is easily explained, when we take into consideration that, throughout Scripture, dead [Pg 460] knowledge is not regarded as knowledge; that the hope of restoration had, in the natural man, in the Prophet as well as in all believers, an enemy that strove to darken and extinguish it; that, therefore, the promise of restoration was ever new, and the word of God always great and exalted. In the first part of the revelation, after the destruction had been represented as unavoidable, and all human hope had been cut oft, the restoration is described more in general terms. In the second part, the Lord meets a two-fold special grief of the believers. The time was approaching when the house of David was to be most deeply humbled, when every trace of its former glory was to be done away with. With it, the hopes of the people seem to be buried. God himself had declared this house to be the medium, through which all the mercies were to come, which He, as the King, had promised to bestow upon His people. But what was to become of the mercies, if the channel was destroyed, through which they were to be bestowed upon the people? The temple which, through the guilt of the people, had been changed into a den of robbers, was to be destroyed. But, with the existence of the temple, the existence of the Levitical priesthood was bound up, and if the latter was done away with, how was to be obtained forgiveness of sins, which, in the Law, had been connected with the mediation of the Levitical priesthood? These fears and cares the Lord now meets by declaring that, in both respects, the perishing would be an arising, that life should arise from death.

The genuineness of this section has been assailed by Jahn (Vaticinia Mess. iii. p. 112, ff.[1]), after the example of J. D. Michaelis, who, in the German translation of the Bible, inclosed it within brackets. For the present, we mention only the internal reason—deferring the refutation till we come to the exposition of particulars—because we require it in order to set aside the external reason. Jahn, p. 121, sums it up in these words: "The matter stands in opposition to all the prophecies of Jeremiah and all the other Prophets. For all of them limit themselves to the one David who was to come [Pg 461] after the captivity, and do not mention any successor to him, far less such a multitude of descendants of David and of Levites, which is promised to the people under the name of a blessing, but which would, in reality, have been a very heavy burden to the people, at whose expense they were to be splendidly maintained." The external reason is the omission of the section in the Alexandrian version. Proceeding upon the altogether gratuitous assumption of a double recension of the prophecies of Jeremiah, people imagine that, by the omission in the Alexandrian version, they are entitled to suppose that, in that recension which the LXX. followed, this section was not contained. But the arguments are most unsatisfactory, by which the attempt is made to establish that many portions, not translated by the LXX., were not found by them in their manuscripts. Where there notoriously prevail negligence, ignorance, arbitrariness, entire want of a clear conception of the task of a translator, those inferences are out of place which suppose just the opposite of all these (comp. e.g., the inferences in Jahn, S. 116 ff.) Although we cannot sometimes discover and state the reason which induced the LXX. to make any omission, in case that that which was omitted was really in the text, what is it that is thereby proved? Could we, a priori, expect anything else, since we are on the territory of accident and whim? It is quite sufficient that in a multitude of passages we can point out the most insufficient reasons which induced them to make omissions, alterations, transpositions; for it is just these which show that we are in the territory of accident and whim, where it is unreasonable every where to expect reasons. Now, to these passages, that before us likewise belongs; so that, even supposing that the ground of the deviation sometimes lies in a different recension, our passage cannot be regarded as belonging to this class; and, hence, from its omission, nothing can be inferred against its genuineness. A twofold reason here presents itself, which may have induced them to the omission: 1. Important elements of the prophecy under consideration have already occurred, vers. 15, 16, almost verbatim, in chap. xxiii. 3, 6; vers. 20-25, as regards the thought, altogether, and as regards the words, partly agree with chap. xxxi. 35-37; and it is certain that the LXX. often omitted [Pg 462] that which had occurred previously, because they were unable to perceive the deeper meaning of the repetition, and transferred their own ignorance to the Prophet. 2. In that which was peculiar to the passage before us, it was just the principal thought—the same which J. D. Michaelis and Jahn advance against the genuineness—which must have been most objectionable to the LXX., who were incapable of perceiving the deeper meaning. An increase of the Levites and of the family of David as the stare of the heavens and the sand of the sea, is a thought of which the Prophet must be freed, whether he entertained it or not. The omission in the Alexandrian version, therefore, does not prove any thing, except that even 2000 years before J. D. Michaelis, Jahn, Hitzig, and Movers, there were men who were as little able to understand the text as these expositors.

Ver. 14. "Behold days come, saith the Lord, and I perform the good word which I leave spoken unto the house of Israel, and concerning the house of Judah."

The "good word" may, in a more general way, be understood of all the gracious promises of God to Israel, in contrast to the evil word, the threatenings which hitherto had been fulfilled upon Israel; comp. 1 Kings viii. 56, where Solomon, in the prayer at the consecration of the temple, says: "Blessed be the Lord, that has given rest unto His people Israel, according to all which He spoke; there has not failed (the opposite of [Hebrew: qvM]) one word of all His good word which He spoke through Moses His servant." In Deut. xxviii. the good word and the evil word are placed beside one another; and the former is blessed, from vers. 1-14; afterwards, the curse is declared. The centre and substance of this good word was the promise to David, through whose righteous Sprout all the promises to Israel should find their final fulfilment. But we may also suppose that, by the "good word," the Prophet specially denotes this promise to David, which he had repeated in chap. xxiii. 5, 6. This latter supposition is preferable, since, in vers. 15, 16, that repetition of it is quoted, and ver. 17 contains an allusion to the fundamental promise. The change of [Hebrew: al] and [Hebrew: el] is significant; Judah is considered as the object of the proclamation of salvation, because salvation cometh from the Jews. The correctness of this view is proved by [Pg 463] vers. 15, 16, where that only is spoken of, which, in the first instance, belongs to Judah; so that Israel is only received into the communion of the salvation, in the first instance, destined for Judah.

Ver. 15, 16. "In those days and at that time will I cause a righteous Sprout to grow up unto David, and he worketh justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah is endowed with salvation, and Jerusalem dwelleth safely; and this is the name by which she shall be called: The Lord our righteousness."

It is intentionally that the promise is here repeated in the former shape, in order to show that it still existed; that the glaring contrast presented by the present state of things was not able to annul it; that even in the view of the destruction, of the deepest abasement of the house of David, it still retained its right and power. Instead of [Hebrew: hqimvti], the more suitable [Hebrew: acmiH] is here used, because the reference to Jehoiakim does not take place in this passage, as it did in the previous one. Instead of Israel, which is found there, we have here Jerusalem, because it was just the restoration of Jerusalem, which it was so difficult for the faithful to believe, after its destruction had been described in ver. 4 ff. For the same reason, the Prophet here assigns the same name to Jerusalem which he did there to the Sprout of David. The same city, which as yet is groaning under the wrath of God, shall, in future, be endowed with righteousness by the Lord.

Ver. 17. "For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut of from David a man sitting upon the throne of the house of Israel."

The connection with what precedes is pertinently brought out by Calvin: "The Prophet had spoken of the restoration of the Church; that doctrine he now confirms by promising, that both the kingly and priestly office should be perpetual; and it was just these two things which constituted the salvation of the people. For, without a king, they were just like a cut-off tree, or a mutilated body; without a priest they were in a state of dispersion. For the priest was the mediator between God and the people, but the king represented the person of God." The expression [Hebrew: la ikrt], "there shall not be cut off," &c., is a simple repetition of the promise to David, in [Pg 464] that form in which it had been quoted by David himself, shortly before his death, in his address to Solomon, 1 Kings ii. 4, and afterwards twice by Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 25, ix. 5. It does not designate an uninterrupted succession, but forms the contrast only to a breaking off for ever. This appears even from the circumstance that, in the fundamental promise, God reserves to himself the punishment of the apostate members of the Davidic house, and that in Jeremiah the announcement of its utter abasement is so frequently repeated.

Ver. 18, "And to the Levitical priests there shall not be cut off before me a man, offering burnt-offerings, and kindling meat-offerings, and doing sacrifice all days."

In order rightly to understand these words, it is necessary to go back to their cause; for it is from the grief only that the comfort receives its explanation. The Prophet has here not by any means to do with members of the tribe of Levi mourning over the loss of the prerogatives of their tribe. If such were the case, it would be necessary to hold fast by the letter, inasmuch as it is only when the letter is adhered to, that the promise can afford consolation for such grief. The Prophet's consolations, on the contrary, are destined for all the believers, who were mourning over the destruction of the relation to God, which hitherto had existed through the mediation of the tribe of Levi. If only the relation remained, it was of little importance whether it was realised by the tribe of Levi, as heretofore, or in some other way. Just as the grief has respect to the substance only, so has the consolation also. Israel, in future too, shall retain free access to his reconciled God,—that is the fundamental thought; and every thing by which this thought was manifested and realised in history, in what form soever it might be, must be viewed as comprehended in it. We thus obtain a threefold fulfilment: 1. In the time after the return from the captivity, the consolation was realised in the form in which it is here expressed. The fact, that God admitted and promoted the rebuilding of the temple, was an actual declaration that the Levitical priesthood was reinstated in its mediatorial office. 2. In the highest degree the idea of the Levitical priesthood was realised through Christ, who, as a High-Priest and Mediator, bore the sins of His people, and made intercession for the transgressors, and [Pg 465] in whom the Levitical priesthood ceased, just as the seed-corn disappears in the stalk. 3. Through Christ, the believers themselves became priests, and obtained free access to the Father.—The following reasons show that we have a right to maintain this independence of the thought upon the form: 1. The Prophet is so penetrated with the thought of the glory of the New Dispensation far outshining that of the Old, that, even a priori, we could not suppose that, as regards the priesthood, he expected an eternal duration of its form, hitherto so poor. It is the substance only which, in his view, is permanent. One need only compare the section, chap. xxxi. 31 ff. How intentionally does he here bring forward the idea that the New Covenant would not be like the Old; how does he point from the shadow to the substance! But it is especially chap. iii. 16 which, in this respect, is to be regarded. In that passage, the ceasing of the former dignity of the Ark of the Covenant is announced repeatedly, and in the strongest terms; and we have already seen that, along with the Ark of the Covenant, the temple, the Levitical priesthood, the whole sacrificial service stands in the closest and most indissoluble connection; so that all this must fall along with it. 2. A very important proof is furnished by ver. 22, which must be regarded as a declaration, by the Prophet himself, as to the manner in which he wishes to be understood. Now, in that verse, it is promised that all the descendants of Abraham shall be changed into Levites; and this is declared to form a part of the eternal acceptance of the tribe of Levi, promised in the verse under consideration. This shows then, that, in the verse under review, the Levites cannot come into consideration as descendants of Levi after the flesh, but only as regards their destination and vocation. 3. As the most ancient and authentic interpreter of Jeremiah, Zechariah must be considered. He was most anxious to obviate the same fears which Jeremiah here meets; and, in him, the first two of the three features which Jeremiah comprehends in the unity of the idea, appear separated, but in such a manner that the connecting unity of the idea is not lost sight of In Zech. iii., God assures the people that, notwithstanding the greatness of their sins, He would not only allow the office of High-priest to continue as heretofore, and accept his mediation, but that, at some future period, [Pg 466] He would also send the true High-priest, who should make a complete and everlasting atonement. In ver. 8, the High-priest and his colleagues in the priestly office are designated as types of Christ who, putting most completely to shame the people's despair in God's mercy, should fully accomplish the expiation and atonement which the former had effected only imperfectly. In chap. iv. the priestly is, along with the royal order, designated as one of the two sons of the oil, the two anointed ones of the Lord, whose anointing remaineth for ever; and from chap. vi. 13, where the Messiah appears as the true High-priest and King at the same time, it appears that, here too, the shadow only belongs to the Levitical priesthood, but the substance to Christ. 4. Elsewhere, too, plain examples are not wanting, in which the idea of the priesthood only is regarded, while the peculiar form of its manifestation under the Old Testament is lost sight of. Among those is Is. lxi. 6, where, in reference to all Israel, it is said: "And ye shall be named priests of Jehovah, ministers of our God shall they call you." Here the change of all Israel into the tribe of Levi is announced; and the objection which, perhaps, might be brought forward, that here only priests in general are spoken of, while Jeremiah speaks of Levitical priests, is met by the second passage, chap. lxvi. 21: "And from them also will I take for Levitical priests saith the Lord." It makes no difference for our purpose whether "from them" be referred to the Gentiles (which is the correct view, compare p. 360), as is done by Vitringa and Gesenius, or to the Israelites living in exile. For, although the latter interpretation be received, yet so much is certain, that such shall be taken for Levitical priests as were not descendants of Levi: for, otherwise, no taking, no special divine mercy would have taken place. Even the Law already knows an ideal priesthood by the side of the ordinary one; and such an one meets us also in Ps. xcix. 6; compare my Commentary on that passage.—After having thus fixed the sense of the promise referring to the Levitical priesthood, it will not be difficult to discover the right view in reference to the family of David. Here, too, a threefold fulfilment takes place. 1. It was realized in the times immediately after the captivity, when Zerubbabel, a scion of the Davidic house, became the mediator of the mercies which God [Pg 467] as King, vouchsafed to His people. To a certain degree, that mercy too comes in here which, at a later period, God, in His capacity as King, bestowed upon the people by means of civil rulers, who were not from the house of David. For, since the dominion had been for ever transferred to the house of David, these rulers can be considered only as being engrafted into it, as representatives and vice-regents,—much in the same way as the blessing, which was bestowed upon the people by the priestly office of the non-priest Samuel, must be considered as being included in the promise in reference to the Aaronic priesthood. For all that God vouchsafed through those rulers, was for the sake of the Davidic house only, which for ever had been destined to be the channel of His regal blessings. If the kingdom of David had really been at an end, He would not have given to the people even those rulers, and the deliverance and prosperity granted to them,—as is clearly seen from a comparison of the times, after the great Hero of David's race ascended the throne, when every trace of the regal grace of God in raising other rulers ceased; for now, that the race of David itself rules again, and for ever, no representation of it can any more take place. But, in the passage under consideration, it would the less be suitable to separate everything which does not, in the strictest sense, belong to it, that here the promise to David is not viewed with reference to him and his house, but solely with reference to the people. Hence, the manifestation of the regal grace of God forms the centre; and the house of David comes into consideration, only in so far as it was destined to be the mediator of this grace. 2. It was fulfilled in Christ; and from vers. 15, 16, it appears that the Prophet had this fulfilment chiefly in view. These two fulfilments are connected with one another by Zechariah also, in chap. iv.—3. It was realized by the raising of the whole true posterity of Abraham to the royal dignity, through Christ. This most striking antithesis to the despair—the despair saying: there is no king in Israel; the consolation: all Israel are kings—is expressly brought forward in ver. 22.—We still remark that we must not, by any means, as is commonly done, translate: "To the priests and Levites," but, as also in Is. lxvi. 21: To the Levitical priests; compare the arguments in proof in Genuineness of the Pentateuch, p. 329 ff. The epithet, [Pg 468] "Levitical," is added in order to prevent the thought that, perhaps, priests in another than the literal sense are spoken of, compare p. 360. It serves therefore the same purpose as the expression: "He ruleth as a king," in chap. xxxiii. 5.—As regards the sacrifices, we must not by any means suppose, as is done by the ancient interpreters, that spiritual sacrifices are here simply spoken of. The correct view rather is, that the Prophet represents the substance under its present form, in and with which it would now soon be lost for a season; and as he has to do with the substance only, he does not say anything as to whether this substance would, in future, rise again in the same form, and whether it was to continue for ever in that form. History has answered the first in the affirmative, and the second in the negative; and from chap. iii. 16, it appears that the Prophet, too, would, upon inquiry, have answered in the negative as regards the last point. Moreover, how well they knew, even under the Old Testament dispensation, to distinguish, in reference to the sacrifices, between the substance and the form, considering the latter as a thing merely accidental, is seen from passages such as Hosea xiv. 3 (2): "Take with you words, and turn to the Lord and say unto Him: Take all iniquity, and give good, and we will recompense to thee bulls, our lips." Here the thanks are represented as the substance of the thank-offering, and, indeed, so perfectly, that the thank-offering, the bullocks, is entirely where only thanks, the lips, are. The outward sacrifice is the vessel only in which the gift is presented to God. Farther—Ps. iv. 14, where, in contrast to the merely external sacrifices, it is said: "Offer unto God thanksgivings;" Mal. i. 11, and many other passages.

Vers. 19, 20. "And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying: Thus saith the Lord, If ye will make void my covenant, the day, and my covenant, the night, so that there shall be no more day and night in their season; Ver. 21. Then also shall be void my covenant with David, my servant, that he shall not have one who reigns on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, my servants."

The word [Hebrew: tprv] is very significant. Calvin says: "The Prophet indirectly reproves the wickedness of the people, because, as much as lay with them, they destroyed the covenant [Pg 469] of God by their obstreperous cries.... This incredulity, therefore, the Prophet blames, and it is as if he were saying: To what are these complaints to lead? It is just as if you were trying to draw down sun and moon from heaven, and to do away with the difference between day and night, and overturn all the laws of nature, because it is I, the same God, whose will it was that the night should follow the day, who have also promised, &c."—[Hebrew: hivM] and [Hebrew: hlilh] are appositions to: My covenant. The day and night in their regular succession are the covenant which is here spoken of The phrase [Hebrew: ivmM vlilh], which signifies "by day and night," "daily and nightly," stands here for: tempus diurnum et nocturnum. "The covenant," [Hebrew: brit], does not by any means stand here in the signification stabilis ordinatio; nor is it be considered as being entered into with the day and night; these, on the contrary, are the covenant-blessings. God, who vouchsafed them, and all that is connected with them, that the sun shines by day, and the moon by night, enters thereby, according to the explanation given on chap. xxxi. 32, into a covenant with man. By the inviolable maintenance of the course of nature, He binds himself to the inviolable maintenance of the moral order. This clearly appears when we consider that, after the great flood, the covenant with nature is anew entered into, and its inviolability anew established; comp. Gen. ix. 9: "Behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;" viii. 22: "All the days of the earth, seed time and harvest, and heat and cold, and summer and autumn, and day and night shall not cease any more." With these covenant-promises, covenant-laws and obligations are connected, which the covenant imposes. With this covenant of nature, which is common to all men, and which, at Noah's time, was not made for the first time, but only renewed, the covenant of grace, which is peculiar to Israel only, stands on a level. To assert that the latter has become void, is nothing else than to attempt to pull sun and moon down from heaven. For it is one and the same God who has made both covenants.

Ver. 22. "As the host of heaven is not numbered, and as the sand of the sea is not measured, so will I increase the seed of David, my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me."

Even considered in itself, the literal fulfilment of this verse [Pg 470] involves an absurdity. Such an increase of the bodily descendants of David lies beyond the bounds of possibility; and even if this were not the case, yet this increase, just as the similar increase of the Levites, would not have the nature of a promise, but that of a threatening. At all events, the consolation would have no relation to, or connection with, the grief For the latter did not refer to the number of the descendants of David, and that of the Levites, but to their acceptance with God, and, in them, to the acceptance of the people; but that acceptance has nothing to do with number. To this, another reason is still to be added. It cannot be denied that there is a verbal reference to the promise to Abraham in Gen. xv. 5, xxii. 17. Since, then, these words, which originally referred to all Israel, are here transferred to the family of David, and to the Levites, it is thereby sufficiently intimated that all Israel shall be changed into the family of David, and into the tribe of Levi. This idea need not at all surprise us. It has its foundation in the Law itself All that is announced here is, that the vocation and destination of the covenant-people, which is already expressed in the Law, but which hitherto was realised only very imperfectly, is, at some future period, to be perfectly realised. In Exod. xix. 6, God says of Israel: "Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, [Hebrew: mmlkt khniM]."[2] Hence, first a kingdom. The nature of a kingdom is, not to have any power over it other than the Divine power, and to have everything else under its authority. By this declaration, the dominion of the world was secured to the people of God. This high prerogative always remained with the covenant-people so long as they had not, by their guilt, spontaneously got under a moral servitude to the world. The outward servitude was always a reflection of the inward only. It never was inflicted upon the covenant-people as such, but always upon that covenant-people which had become like the world. And even when this unnatural condition took place, this high dignity was not forfeited by the single individuals who, knowing that they were purchased at a high price, had kept themselves inwardly free from the bondage of the world. Although in fetters and bonds, they yet remained inwardly free. World, [Pg 471] sin, death, and hell, could do them no harm. Yea, notwithstanding all outward appearance of victory, those enemies were, in reality, ruled by them; and even their outward servitude was, when more deeply considered, a sign of their dominion. For the Law of the Lord of Hosts was in their inward parts; it was the living principle of their existence. It was according to this Law that the whole world was governed; and it was according to it that the servitude of their people also took place. They were thus co-regents with God, and, as such, ruled over their rulers.—All the single members of this kingdom, which consists entirely of kings, were, at the same time, to be priests. In these words it was already implied and declared, that the Levitical priesthood, which was instituted at a later period, could not have that importance which the priesthood had with other nations of antiquity, where priests and people stood in an absolute antithesis, which admitted of no mediation, and where it was the priests only who stood in an immediate relation to God. It was thereby implied and declared, that the priests, in one aspect, (in other respects, they were types and foreshadowings of Christ) possessed rights that were only transferred to them; that they were representatives of Christ, and that, hence, their mediation would, at some future period, disappear altogether. And in order that the people might always remain fully conscious of this; in order that they might know that they themselves were the real bearers of the priestly dignity, they retained, even after the institution of the Levitical priesthood, that priestly function which formed the root and foundation of all others, viz., the slaying of the covenant-sacrifice, of the paschal lamb, which formed the centre of all other sacrifices, inasmuch as the latter served only as a supplement to it. That, even under the Old Testament dispensation, this importance of the paschal rite was duly recognized, is seen from Philo, de vita Mos. (p. 686, Francf.): "In offering up the paschal lamb, the office of the laymen is by no means simply to bring the sacrificial animals to the altar, that they may be slain and offered up by the priests; but, according to the regulations of the Law, the whole people exercise priestly functions, inasmuch as every one in his own behalf offers up the prescribed sacrifice."—We have thus here before [Pg 472] us the highest completion of the comfort for the mourning covenant-people. They are not merely to receive back their king, their priests; nay, they are altogether to be changed into a kingly and priestly generation. It must not be overlooked that, in substance, this was already contained in the promise to Abraham. We have already proved in Vol. i. p. 211, ff., that this promise to Abraham does not refer to a great number of bodily descendants, tales quales, but that, on the contrary, it refers only to such sons of Abraham as are, at the same time, sons of God; hence, to a royal and priestly generation.—If now we look to the fulfilment, the passage which, above all, presents itself, is 1 Pet. ii. 9: [Greek: humeis de genos eklekton, basileion hierateuma k.t.l.] Here that passage of Exodus is represented as a prophecy which, in the present only, was fulfilled. Israel has now become that which, according to its destiny, it ought always to have been, a host of royal priests,—priests who at the same time have a royal nature and character. That which now already exists perfectly in the germ, shall, at some future period, come forth in full development, according to Rev. v. 10: [Greek: kai epoiesas autous to theo hemon basileis kai hiereis, kai basileusousin epi tes ges.] Believers, when sin has been extirpated in them, shall have the freest access to God. When His will shall have become theirs, and when, at the same time, His dominion over the whole world appears more visibly, they shall unconditionally rule with Him. How this dignity of theirs has its foundation in Christ, is seen from Rev. i. 5, 6, where the words: [Greek: kai epoiesen hemas basileian, hiereis to theo kai patri hautou], stand in close connection to [Greek: ho archon ton basileon tes ges], and to [Greek: kai lusanti hemas apo ton hamartion hemon en to haimati hautou.]

Ver. 23. "And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying: Ver. 24. Dost thou not see what this people are speaking, and say: The two families which the Lord hath chosen, He hath now rejected them, and my people they despise, that they should still be a people before them."

It is scarcely conceivable how modern interpreters can assert that by "this people," not the Israelites, but Gentiles, the Egyptians or Chaldeans, or the "neighbours of the Jews on the Chaboras," (Hitzig), or the Samaritans (Movers), are to be understood. In advancing such assertions, it is overlooked [Pg 473] that the Prophet has here quite the same persons in view as in the whole remaining section, and as in these chapter's throughout, viz., those among Israel—and to them more or less all belonged, even those most faithful—who, because they saw Israel prostrate, for ever despaired of its deliverance and salvation; and, indeed, for the most part, in such a manner as to give to this despair a good aspect, viz., that of humility. They imagined, and said that the people had sinned in such a manner against God, that He was free from all his obligations, and could not at all receive them again. To those the Prophet shows that such a thought is, notwithstanding the fair appearance, blasphemy. All despair abases God into an idol, into a creature. Faith holds fast by the word, by the promise. It says: Although sin abounds with us, the grace of God does much more abound. As truly as God always remains God, so surely His people will always remain His people. He indeed chastises them, but He does not give them over to death. One need only consider the [Hebrew: tprv] in ver. 20.—The expression "this people," is contemptuous, comp. Is. viii. 11. The Prophet thereby intimates that those who use such language, cease thereby to be members of the people of God. The "two families" are Judah and Israel. These had, in the preceding verses, likewise been, in substance, the subject of discourse; for the election and rejection of the tribe of Levi, and of the house of David, had been treated of in so far only, as they stood in relation to the election or rejection of the people; so that here only the same thing is repeated in a different form, in consideration of the fact, that weak faith and despair are so slow to hear. The words: "He hath now rejected them," were, in a certain sense, true; but not in the sense of the speakers. They, on the contrary, maintained, in opposition to the election, a rejection for ever, which was tantamount to: Jehovah, the eternal and unchangeable One, is no more Jehovah; He is a man that He lieth, and a son of man that He repenteth. As surely as God is Jehovah, so surely also [Greek: ametameleta ta charismata kai he klesis tou theou], Rom. xi. 29. The expression "my people," directs attention to how God is now despised in Israel. On the contrast between "my people" and "a people," compare remarks on chap. xxxi. 36.

Ver. 25. "Thus saith the Lord: If not my covenant daily [Pg 474] and nightly, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;"—

Compare ver. 20. The covenant daily and nightly, i.e., the covenant which refers to the constant and regular alternation of day and night. The ordinances of heaven and earth denote the whole course of nature,—especially the relations of sun, moon, and stars, to the earth, comp. chap. xxxi. 35—in so far as it is regulated by God's ordinance, and is, therefore, a lasting one.

Ver. 26. "So will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David, my servant, that I do not take farther from his seed rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will turn to their captivity, and have mercy upon them."

The casting away of the seed of Jacob, and that of the seed of David, are inseparably connected. For since, by the promise to David, the kingdom had been for ever bound together with his race, Israel was no more the people of God, and no more a people at all, if David was no more the servant of God. The Plural [Hebrew: mwliM] is easily accounted for, from the circumstance that it was not the number, but only the fact that was here concerned (comp. remarks on chap. xxiii. 4, and, at the same time, those on ver. 18); but it is beyond any doubt, that the Prophet has here in view the revival of the dominion of David in the Messiah,—has it, at least, chiefly in view. The enumeration of the three Patriarchs recalls to mind the whole series of the promises granted to them. The words: "I will turn to their captivity" (not: "I will turn their captivity," compare remarks on Ps. xiv. 7; captivity is an image of misery), rest on Deut. xxx. 3.



[Footnote 1: They have been joined by Movers (de utriusque recens. Jerem. indole), who declares ver. 18 and 21-24 to be a later interpolation (comp. against this view Kueper, S. 173, and Wichelhaus, de Jerem. Vers. Alex., p. 170), and Hitzig, according to whom the whole portion, vers. 14-26, consists of "a series of single additions from a later period."]

[Footnote 2: Compare the discussions on this passage in my Commentary on Rev. i. 6.]



END OF VOLUME SECOND.