1

1

III

HI
in
1
pf"p
^ f i-'^ff*'^ '•^j jAk'?> j?^ «y*»Ni»-j*
'|i!l
f/UULCteJj ,lrul

S/rC-<e^<

d

/t6J.

CHRISTOLOGY

OLD TESTAMENT,

COMMENTARY

PREDICTIONS OF THE MESSIAH BY THE PROPHETS.

E. W. HENGSTENBERG,
m^- » - . .
Doctor of Phil, and Theol. and Professor of the latter in the University of Berlin.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN,
BY REUEL KEITH, D. D.
Professor in the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary of Virginia.

VOL. III.

WASHINGTON, D. C. :
PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM M. MORRISON.
BOSTON : CROCKER AND :BREWSTER. NEW YORK : GOULD, NEWMAN,
AND SAXTON. PHILADELPHIA: WILLIAM MARSHALL, AND CO.
1839.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1839,
By Reuel Keith,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

CAMBRIDGE:
FOISOM, wells, and THDRSTON,
PRINTERS TO THE UNIVERSITY.

CONTENTS.

Page

The Prophet Hosea, 

1

General Preliminary Observations,

r

The Portion Chap. 1 — 3, 

11

Chap: 1 — 2:3,

22

Verses 4-25, .

47

Chap. 3,,. . . . .

85

The Peophet Joel, . . . . .,

100

Preliminary Observations, , . ...

100

The Portion Chap. 1 — 2:18,

106

On Chap. 2:23, 

121

Interpretation of Chap. 3, ....

125

The Prophet Amos, 

142

General Preliminary" Observations,

142

Chap. 9, . . 

148

The Prophet Micah, 

174

Preliminary Observations, .....

174

Chap. 1 and 2, 

182

Chap. 3 — 5, 

195

Chap. 4. Verses 9-14, ....

206

Chap. 5. Verse 1, 

214

History of the Interpretation,

. 221

1. Among the Jews,

221

2. Among the Christians,

. 228

The Citation Matt. 2:6,.

233

iv CONTENTS. Page
The Prophet Haggai,  245
Chap. 2. Verses 6-9,  247
The Prophet Malachi,  272
Preliminary Observations, ..... 272
Chap. 2:17 — 3:6,  283
The Portiorl*r;hap. 3. Verses 13-24, . . 309
The New Testament in relation to the Prophecies of
Malachi, . .  336
The Prophet Jeremiah,  365
Preliminary Observations, ..... 365
The Portion Chap. 3 : 14- 17, .... 373
. Chap. 23:1-8,  395
. Chap. 31. Verses 31-40, .... 416
Chap. 33. Verses 14-26,  444
The Prophet Ezekiel, . . ¦ . . . 458
Prelimiriary Observations, ..... 458
^The Portion Chap. 11 : 14-21, .... 460
_. The Portion Chap. 17 : 22-24, .... 469
Chap. 21 : 30-32,  473
^ The Portion Chap. 34: 23-31, . . . .479
The Portion Chap. 36 : 22 - 32, . ; . . . 484
-The Portion Chap. 37 : 22-28, . . . .492

THE PROPHET HOSEA.

GENERAL PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
That the efforts of the prophet were directed to the kingdom of
Israel, is so obvious as to admit of no question. But different opin
ions are entertained, as to whether he originated among those to
whom he preached, or was called by God out of the kingdom of
Judah. The latter has been asserted with great confidence by
Maurer, among others, Observv. in Has. in the Commentati. Thcoll.
II. 1. p. 293. But the grounds on which he relies, will not bear ex
amination. He appeals 1. to the superscription. He supposes, that
the fact of its mentioning all the kings of Judah among whom Hosea
labored, while only one of the kings of Israel is spoken of, shows,
especially on a comparison of the superscription of Amos, that the
prophet acknowledged the kings of Judah as his sovereigns. But
the relation is here entirely overlooked, in which the pious in Israel
generally, and particularly the prophets, stood to the kingdom of Ju
dah. They considered the whole separation, not merely the reli
gious, but also the civil, as an apostasy from God. How could they
well do otherwise, since the everlasting dominion over the Theocracy
had been imparted by God to the tribe of David 1 How closely the
religious and the civil affairs were connected is evident from the
fact, that Jeroboam and all his successors despaired of maintaining
their power, unless they made the schism, in a religious respect, as
great as possible. The chief of tlie prophets in the kingdom of Is
rael, Elias, by taking twelve stones, according to the number of the
tribes of Israel, (1 Kings 18 : 31,) plainly declared, that he held the
separation as one not existing in theory, and therefore to be hereafter
done away in reality, the government in the kingdom of Israel only
as such de facto, not de jure. We find this view, however, most
definitely expressed in Hosea, " They have made kings, and not by
me," — saith the Lord by him, chap. 8:4, — " princes, and I knew
VOL. ni. 1

2 HOSEA.
not." Ungodliness is therefore with him the basis of the whole
government in Israel ; because they have chosen a king and prince
without and against God, so shall they be taken from them through
God, chap. 3: 4. Salvation cannot come to the people until Israel
and Judah establish for themselves one head, chap. 2: 2, until the
¦ children of Israel seek Jehovah, their Lord, and David, their king,
chap. 3 : 5. Both, in his view, are most, intimately connected ; there
is no true return to the invisible head of the Theocracy, except at
the same time to the visible, the tribe of David'. That which the
whole people should hereafter do when converted, the converted must
already perform. He acknowledged, even now, the rulers out of the
tribe of Judah for his true sovereigns, although he rendered to the
kings of Israel civil obedience, until God abolished the government,
which he had given to the people in anger, and, in anger at the apos
tasy of the tribe of David, had erected in opposition to it. Hence it
clearly appears, that the nature of the superscription is such, as not
to require for its explanation, that Hosea should be a Jew by birth.
With the same right could it be asserted, that all the prophets in the
kingdom of Israel, who rejected the worship of the calves, — there
fore all, without exception, — were from the kingdom of Judah. For
the worship of the calves entirely coincided with the apostasy from
the anointed of God. Hosea mentions first, and completely, the
rulers springing from the legitimate family. He then subjoins the
name of one of the princes out of the kingdom of Israel, under
whom his agency began, because it was important accurately to de
termine the time of its commencement. Uzziah, the first in the
series of Jewish kings mentioned by him, survived Jeroboam twenty-
six years (comp. Maurer, p. 284). Had the latter, therefore, not
been mentioned along with him, it might easily have been supposed,
that the prophet did not enter upon his office until the time of Uzziah.
Then, however, what he says concerning the overthrow of the family
of Jeroboam, must appear as vaticinium post eventum, for this en
sued soon after Jeroboam's death. In like manner also, what he
predicts concerning the total ruin of the kingdom, so flourishing
under Jeroboam. For after his death, it hastened with rapid strides
to its overthrow. If, therefore, it were to be perceived, that the
future is unveiled to God, and his servants, " before it springs forth,"
(Is. 42 : 9,) then must the commencement of the agency of the
prophet be more accurately determined, than as falling in the period
of fourteen years, during which Uzziah and Jeroboam reigned

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 3
together. Without this special reason, Hosea, in order to manifest
his disposition at the very beginning, would have mentioned no king
of Israel. 2. Equally unimportant is the internal reason which
Maurer (p. 294) advances. The " morum magistri," he supposes,
are accustomed slightly to censure in strangers, what they severely
condemn in their own people. Hosea, however, when he comes to
the Jews, chastises them as severely as the Israelites. But certain
conclusions can never be derived from such loci communes. In this
way, it might even be said, that Isaiah, and the author of the book of
Kings, were of the kingdom of Israel, because they rebuke the sins
of the Israelites, not less sharply than those of the Jews. To this
locus comm., we can very easily oppose another, equally true, viz. the
" morum magistri " are wont, from partiality to their own people, to
condemn their faults less severely than those of strangers. Even
within the limits to which they belong, such maxims are to be very
cautiously applied, because the one regard can be so easily out
weighed by the other. Here, however, they are entirely out of place.
The prophets, as organs of the Spirit, speak, without any personal
view, the plain and naked truth. Whether Hosea were a Jew or an
Israelite, he would always express himself iu the same way concern
ing the Jews, sharply rebuke their sins, and at the same time, as he
does, feelingly acknowledge their advantages, — " for salvation conies
of the Jews."
If such then is the state of the argument for the Jewish origin of
Hosea, it is manifest, that the probability of this, compared with that
of his being an Israelite, is not as one to one hundred. The
prophets in the kingdom of Israel were, if any thing, more numerous
than in the kingdom of Judah, and yet the whole history gives but
two examples of their being sent from the kingdom of Judah to the
kingdom of Israel, viz. the prophet, of whom 1 Kings 13 speaks,
who properly is not an exception" since he only received a particular
mission to the kingdom of Israel, at a time when the prophetical
order was not yet organized there, and Amos. With respect to him,
also, it is evident, not only from the mention of his Jewish birthplace
in the superscription, but still more from the transactions related in
chap. 7, with the priest Amaziah, comp. especially v. 12, that he
was only an exception to the rule.
In respect to the time of the prophet, his agency is placed in the
superscription in the reign of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.
A long period is no doubt thus assigned to it : during the reign of

4 HOSEA.
Uzziah, at least twenty-six years, and to these must be added sixteen
years of Jotham, and the sixteen of Ahaz, and at least one or two
of Hezekiah. We have, therefore, at the lowest calculation, sixty
years. This long duration of the agency of the prophet might awaken
suspicion against the genuineness and authenticity of the superscrip
tion. But this is at once put to rest by the fact, that the dates con
tained in the book itself lead us to an equally extended period. The
hegiiining of the agency of the prophet cannot be placed later.
For, chap. 1 : 4, the overthrow of the house of Jeroboam, which
happened soon after his death, is predicted as an event of the future.
Also, throughout the whole of the first discourse, the condition of
the kingdom appears as still flourishing. The end cannot be as
signed to an earlier time. For, in chap. 10 : 14, one expedition of
Salman, or Salmanazar, (Vitringa, Proll. z. Jes. p. 6; Gesen., Thes,
s. V.) against the kingdom of Israel, is described as already past,
and a second is threatened. The first expedition of Salmanazar,
however, related in 2 Kings 17 : I sq., nearly coincides with the
beginning of the reign of Hezekiah. For it was directed against
Hosea, king of Israel, who commenced his reign in the twelfth year
of the sixteen years' reign of Ahaz.
But if we were not able thus to confirm from other sources the
testimony of the superscription, still, this would of itself be entirely
sufficient, and the more so, since so long a duration of the propheti
cal office, often entered upon in early youth, has other analogies in
its favor. The superscription is of equal anthority as every other
part of the book, and it is difficult to conceive of the levity, with
which, in recent times, it has been pretty generally designated as
spurious, or at least suspicious. (De Wette, Einl. § 226, 229,
Rosenra., p. 25, Maurer, among others.) It can by no means be
separated from the book. That (v. 2) it is expressly remarked, that
what follows belongs to the beginning of the agency of Hosea, must
surely have an object. This, however, can be shown, only in case
it had been in the preceding context particularly determined, at what
time this beginning happened, viz. under the reign of Jeroboam,
when the visible appearance presented no occasion for such views
into the future, as those contained in the first three chapters.
V. 1, therefore, cannot be regarded as a later addition, unless, at
the same time, the words in v. 2 also, .J^g''i"n?-n-7DJ?. These again,
however, are most closely connected, by the future with vav. conv.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 5
which can never begin a sentence, with what follows, so that we
must regard the whole as written later, or the superscription as be
longing to Hosea.
More fruitful, certainly, than such vain doubts, are the reflections
of Calvin on the long duration of the prophet's labors : " Si deus
tantum per annos XX aut XXX nostra opera utatur, hoc nobis est
molestissimum ; prasertim si bellandum est cum impiis hominibus, et
qui non libenter suscipiant jtiguin, into qui contumaciter nobis resist
ant, cupimus statim liberari et vellemus esse emeriti milites. Quum
ergo videmus hunc prophetam durasse ad tarn longum tempus, sit
nobis exemplum tolerantim, ut scil. non despondeamus animos, etiamsi
dominus non statim nos ab onere liberet."
Interpreters have zealously sought to determine to what particular
portions of this long period the particular parts of the book belong ;
and upon this point Maurer and Stuck have recently labored much.
Here, however, as well as in the case of Micah, and in general of
most of the smaller prophets, this is an entirely useless undertaking.
Particularly false is the supposition on which it rests, viz. that the
collection consists of a number of single and separate portions.
We do not possess the whole of the prophecies of Hosea, but only the
substance of their most important contents, a review given by him
self, towards the end of his course. This is evident, first, from the
njn.'"'l3T, in the superscription, which is not, of itself, indeed, de
cisive, since the prophet might give an ideal unity to discourses
distinct in themselves, but still, so long as there is no reason
for the contrary, more naturally indicates a discourse which is but
one in reality. 2. By the entire absence of all chronological deter
minations, with the exception of that in v. 2, which only serves to
strengthen the argument. 3. By the absence of all certain indica
tions from the beginning and end of separate portions ; only new
subjects occur, precisely as in the second part of Isaiah, otherwise
the discourse always proceeds in the same manner. 4. By the in-
definiteness of the historical references, which must necessarily be
the case, if the prophecy referred, in like manner, to the whole of
the long period. — The existence of the facts, on which the two last
arguments rest, sufficiently appears from the total diversity of opin
ion respecting the number and compass of the particular portions,
and the time of their composition. No two respectable interpreters
here coincide, even in the chief points. Such a diversity is found
in respect to no collection, which actually consists of individual

6 HOSEA.
prophecies. 6. The style and language are so much the same
throughout the whole, that so long a period could not have elapsed
between the individual prophecies. This is, indeed, only a secon
dary reason, which, however, in connexion with the foundation of
the argument, in three and four, has its importance.
It now only remains to give a survey of the historical relations at
the time of the prophet, which is the more necessary, since we must
have respect to them also in the interpretation of the Messianic
prophecy of his contemporary, Amos.
The kingdom of Israel, from its very commencement,'contained with
in itself a twofold germ of destruction, the institution of the worship
of the calves, and the apostasy from the dynasty of David. As to the
former, the consequence of this apparently isolated violation of a
Mosaic ordinance, extended much farther than would appear on a
superficial view. It was shown here also, that a little leaven leavens
the whole lump. Still more important than the low conceptions of
God, which were caused by this symbolical representation of him,
was another aspect of the transaction. The prohibition of the wor
ship of images in the Pentateuch, was as definite and clear as
possible. The kings of Israel were far from rejecting it ; but
still, however difficult this may have been, they found out an inter
pretation, by which they evaded the application of it to their institu
tion. Such a proceeding, when once entered upon, must lead still
farther. As they had allowed themselves, in a case of so much
importance, to pervert and explain away the law against their better
conscience, probably asserting that it was given only in reference to
the rude and sensual conception of the first generations, so were
they prepared to do this in other instances also, as often as they were
incited by their corrupt heart. Every action of conscious unfaith
fulness, which is nevertheless cherished and both internally and
outwardly excused, must draw after it a total apostasy in the case of
a community, no less than that of an individual. As a ground of
this apostasy, it is very appositely said, 2 Kings 17 : 9, " they con
cealed (this is the only established interpretation of NSn) words to
which it was not so, concerning the Lord their God ; " i. e. they ven
tured, by a multitude of perversions and false expositions of his word,
to conceal its true form. Moreover, this first change in the nature
of religion, proceeded from political power, which secured to itself
for the future also, unlimited influence in the affairs of religion, by
bringing into subjection the ecclesiastical power, which was inde-

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 7
pendent and opposed to it. The Levites, who declared against the
worship of the calves, without resorting to the miserable sophistry
which the king invented to excuse it, were exiled; and, in their
place, creatures of the king were made ministers of the sanctuary.
This now would subject (comp. the remarkable passage, Amos 7 :
13) the sanctuary of the king, and the whole substance of religion,
to his caprice, in direct contradiction to the Mosaic constitution;
the consequence of this would necessarily be the more disastrous,
the more corrupt the kings were, and, according to the base founda
tion on which the regal power rested, necessarily must be.
With the worship of images, idolatry was soon connected. But
neither are we to regard this as an open opposition to the true God.
Such opposition is found only during one reign, that of Ahaz, in
which the apostasy was carried to the utmost extremity. That it
has been supposed to be practised at other times, is wholly owing to
the circumstance, that the Scripture, disregarding the multitude of
wretched excuses, designates as direct apostasy from God, what was
so as to its essence, though not its outward form. Men rendered
outward obedience to Jehovah ; they celebrated his feasts ; they
brought the sacrifices prescribed in the Pentateuch : they regulated,
in general, the whole of religion, according to his ordinances, as can
be shown from the books of Kings, and still more from Amos and
Hosea; but they thought in all this, as if light and darkness could
be identified, that the service of idols could be combined with the
service of the Lord. As the eye was not single, this was not very
difficult. They had the example of heathen people before them,
who were entirely prepared to render reciprocal acknowledgment to
their deities, in whom they perceived only different manifestations of
one and the same divine being, and who also readily extended this
acknowledgment to the God of Israel, so long as they did not meet
with intolerance on the part of his worshippers, and were thus led to
be intolerant themselves. Among the nations in the midst of whom
the Israelites lived, this mutual acknowledgment of their religions,
manifested itself in the fact, that they all designated their highest
deity by the same name, Baal, and "the form of revelation peculiar to
each one, by one epithet. The Israelites now thought at the same
time to satisfy the requirements of their God, and to conciliate
towards themselves the idols of the surrounding and powerful
nations, particularly the Phcenicians, if they removed the wall of
partition between both. In their view, Jehovah and Baal were in

8 HOSEA.
their nature identical. The former, as the form of revelation belong
ing especially to them, was the chief object of their reverence,
according to the method prescribed by himself in his revelation ; the
latter, however, was not to be neglected, because they might thereby
become partakers of the blessings which this particular manifestation
of the Deity brought with itself And thus they named Jehovah
Baal, also, Hos. 2: 16; they celebrated the days of Jehovah, v. 13,
but also the days of Baal, v. 15. And thus is explained the at first
sight striking phenomenon, that we find, in Hosea and Amos, every
thing full of the worship of Baal, while, at the same time, the books
of Kings would lead us to believe, that, with the reign of Ahab, the
dominion of this worship had ceased. It was only their hostile oppo
sition to the worship of Jehovah which had disappeared. A far
more dangerous amalgamation of religion took its place. It is not
to be mistaken on which side the advantage would lie in this divis
ion. Plainly on that which always prevails when the heart is divided
between truth and falsehood. Outwardly, the worship of Jehovah
would predominate, but inwardly idolatry would be exalted to an
almost sole dominion. Were only the limits between both religions
removed, that would become the most popular, which most accorded
with the spirit of the people. This, however, in accordance with
the corrupt state of human nature, was not the strict religion of Je
hovah, which, being the gift of God, did not bring him down to a
level with man, but required that man should rise to God, which
made the holiness of God the centre, and thereupon founded the
requisition, that its professors should be holy; but the accommo
dating and sensual doctrine of idolatry, which flattered human cor
ruption because it had proceeded from it. And then the Jehovah of
the Israelites, also, became in their estimation, as they called him
by way of alternation, a Baal. And the case was the more danger
ous, than if they had outwardly rejected him, since they still con
tinued to rely on his covenant and his promises, and their outward
service, and thus were strengthened in their false security.
The natural consequence of this apostasy from the Lord was a
frightful corruption of manners. The first result of this spiritual
adultery was that which is corporeal. Licentiousness constituted a
fundamental principle, as of the Asiatic religions in general, so
especially of those with whom the Israelites came into contact. But
the deadly influence spread still wider over the whole region of
morals. Where there is no holy God, there there are no efforts of man

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 9
after holiness. All divine and human rights were trampled under
foot ; all the bands of love, of law, and of order were dissolved.
Thus is the condition of the laud, in a moral respect, uniformly
described by its two prophets; comp., e. g., Hos. 4: 1, 2, "There is
no faithfulness, and no love, and no knowledge of God in the land.
To curse, and lie, and murder, and steal, and commit adultery ; —
they break through, and blood touches blood." From this moral
corruption, then, again followed the internal dissolution of the state,
and its external weakness.
The supernatural consequence of the apostasy from the Lord, was
a severe punishment which he inflicted upon the people. God will
be sanctified upon him with whom he enters into a near and gracious
relation, when, by the person's own fault, he is not sanctified in him.
Because Israel was the people of the Lord, he could not always con
tinue outwardly to appear, what inwardly he no longer was.
As the second germ of corruption, we designated the apostasy
from the house of David. His dominion rested on a divine right.
The new Israelitish kingdom was built on the sandy foundation of
human caprice. The first king had raised himself to the throne by
his own power and cunning, and the favor of the people. Every one,
who had the same means in his possession, believed that they gave
him a right to do the like. And thus dynasty succeeded dynasty,
regicide followed regicide ; in the bloody conflict thus occasioned,
the people became continually more lawless ; sometimes interregna
occurred, times of total anarchy ; by these internal struggles, the
power of the state to resist invaders was continually more and more
weakened. No king could stop this fountain of adversity. For he
must then have given up his existence as a king. And just as little
could he apply a remedy to other sources of evil ; for if once the re
ligious wall of partition between the kingdom of Israel and Judah
was removed, the civil also threatened to fall.
Such, in general, were the circumstances under which Hosea, like
the other prophets of the kingdom of Israel, came forward. That
they were far more difficult than those in the kingdom of Judah, is
obvious. There, also, was the corruption great, though it was not so
closely interwoven with the foundation of the whole state. Thorough
reforms, as those under Hezekiah and Josiah, were possible ; the
interest of a whole tribe was involved in the outward preservation of
the true religion.
The reign of Jeroboam II., which was outwardly highly prosper-
VOL. HI. 2

10 HOSEA.
ous, and in which Hosea entered upon his prophetical office, had still
more increased the apostasy from the Lord, and the corruption of
manners, and therefore laid the foundation of the series of misfor
tunes, which, beginning soon after his death, conducted the people
with rapid steps to their total ruin. They were still more confirmed
in their security by prosperity ; then, instead of being led by the
unmerited mercy of God to repentance, (comp. 2 Kings 14 : 26, 27,)
they regarded this prosperity as a reward of their apostasy, as a seal
whereby Jehovah-Baal confirmed the correctness of their course.
The false prophets endeavoured to strengthen them in their delusion ;
the true preached to deaf ears.
Immediately after the death of Jeroboam, it began to appear,
which of the two had the truth on their side. A ten years' interreg
num followed. After its termination, Jeroboam's son, Zachariah,
began to reign ; but in the short space of six months, he was mur
dered by Shallum, 2 Kings 15 : 10. This king was slain by Mena-
hem, after he had reigned only a month, v. 14. Menahem reigned
ten years in Samaria. Already, under him, the catastrophe was
preparing, which brought the kingdom to total ruin. He became
tributary to the Assyrian king Phul, v. 19-21. He was followed by
his son Pekabiah, in the fiftieth year of Uzziah. After a two years'
reign, he was slain by Pekah, the son of Remaliah, who held the
throne twenty years (v. 27), and by the alliance with the king of
Assyria against Judah, (comp. Is. 7,) hastened the ruin of Israel.
The Assyrians, under Tiglath-pileser, who had been summoned by
Ahaz, carried away into exile, even at that time, a portion of the
citizens, the tribes beyond the Jordan. Pekah was slain by Hosea,
in the fourth year of Ahaz, who began to reign in the twelfth year
of Ahaz, (chap. 17 : 1,) after an interregnum of eight years. He
became tributary to Salmanassar, and the end of his nine years'
reign was also the end of the kingdom of the ten tribes. By an
attempted alliance with Egypt, he brought the vengeance of the
king of Assyria upon himself and his people.
The position which Hosea assumed under these circumstances,
can now be very well understood from the portion chap. 1-3, whose
explanation we intend to give. This portion is to be considered as
a sort of sketch, of which all the following prophecies were an en
largement, just as in Isaiah the sixth, and Ezekiel the two first chap
ters. Before, however, we proceed to it, we have still a few words
to say respecting the particular commentaries on Hosea. (Those on
the smaller prophets collectively, have been already characterized.)

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 3. 11
We Bind here, however, only one truly distinguished work, the Com-
mentarius in Hoseam, by Jo. Heinr. Manger. Campen, 1782. 4to.
In this work, the interpretation of Hosea has reached its highest
point, i. e. relatively, for absolutely it is still very far from it. Since
that time, it has greatly declined. We can scarcely conceive how
such a predecessor should have been followed by such commentators
as Kuehnol [Deutsche Bearb. 1789. Latein. 1792), Bokel, and
Stuck, whose prolix Latin Commentary, Leipzig, 1828, has scarcely,
in any particulars, advanced the interpretation.

THE PORTION CHAP. 1—3.
The first question here to be answered is, whether what is related
in these chapters actually and outwardly took place or not. The
history of the treatises on this question may be found most fully in
Mark, in the Diatribe de Uxore Fornicationum, qua exponitur fere
integrum Cap. I. Hosea. Leyden, 1696, 4to., reprinted in the
Tiibingen edition of his Comm.. uber die kl. Propheten, pp. 114
sq. Three chief views may be distinguished. 1. A great
many interpreters affirm, that all the actions here related, actually
and outwardly happened. Thus, among the Fathers, with great
decision, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustin ; most in
terpreters of the Lutheran church ; of the Reformed, e. g. Manger ;
in recent times. Stuck. 2. Others assume a parabolic representa
tion. Thus Calvin, who expressly controverts the supposition not
only of an outward, but also of an inward actual proceeding. "As
the prophet began to teach, thus did he commence : The Lord has
placed me here as upon a stage, that I should relate to you, I have
taken a wife,'' &c. Altogether similar is the Chaldee paraphrast,
who paraphrases Go, &c., " Go, prophesy against the inhabitants of
the adulterous city." In like manner, among the recent interpreters,
Bauer, Rosenmiiller, and others. Properly, the strange opinion of
Luther is only a modification of this view, whom only a few later
Lutheran theologians, (Osiander, Gerhard, Tarnov,) out of too great
respect, followed. He supposes, that the prophet has given to his
own chaste wife only the name and works of an adulteress, and
therefore performs with her before the people, a sort of play. (Comp,

12 HOSEA.
in opposition, Buddeus De Peccatis Typicis, in the Misc. s., t. I, p.
261.) 3. Others still suppose, that the prophet related actions, which
happened indeed actually, but not outwardly. This view is, for that
time, very well refuted by Jerome in the Epist. ad Pammachium,
and on chap. 1 ; 8. According to Rufinus, it was believed in Pales
tine and Egypt by all those who laid peculiar stress on the authority
of Origen, that the prophet's marriage was performed only in spirit.
The difficulties of the first interpretation were made especially obvi
ous by the ridicule of this relation by the Manichees (Faustus and
Secundinus in Augustin, t. VI. p. 575). The most considerable
Jewish scholars also (Maimonides in Mor. Neb. P. II. c. 46, Aben-
ezra, Kimchi) exhibit this view. Some new arguments in its favor
have been advanced by Mark.
Of these three views, the second, which supposes the transactions
to be neither outward, nor actual, must at once be rejected. There
are, in general, no examples where any one has made himself the
subject of a parable. Even our Lord never does this ; compare
Hasert uber die Versuchuiigsgesckichte, gegen UUmann und U^teri,
in the Stud, und Crit. 1830, Hft. I. p. 75. And this is entirely
natural, since the limits would thus be removed, which must always
remain between a parable and an actual event, and here this would
be done in such a degree, that henceforth, there could be no certain
decision whether any thing was to be regarded as a parable, or as a
history. The expression, " God has required that I should relate to
you," is entirely wanting, and can be supposed by these interpreters
with no more right, than in the case of every other relation. We
have an action, and only an action before us, without any intimation
whatever, that it is merely feigned. We believe, however, that we
shall be able to decide, which of the two remaining views is the cor
rect one, on grounds so certain, that henceforth this controversy will
be considered as settled. We decide without hesitation for the latter,
for the following reasons :
1. The defenders of an outward proceeding rely on the supposi
tion, and this is almost their only argument, that their interpretation
is the most obvious and natural ; that they are already in possession,
from which they can be driven only by forcible reasons ; that the
proceeding, had it been internal, would have been e.\pressly desig
nated as such by the prophet. This supposition, however, is entirely
false. Precisely the reverse is true ; the most obvious view is, that
the symbolic action took place in vision. If certain actions of the

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 3. 13
prophet, viz. seeing, hearing, speaking with the Lord, &c., when
nothing is said expressly to the contrary, are to be understood as in
ternal, why not the rest also? For the former presuppose, that the
world in which the prophets exist, is entirely peculiar, not the out
ward, but the spiritual v^'orld. There is a manifest inconsistency,
when, with Lith, De Conjug. Hos. Altdorf, 1697, p. 12, one remarks,
" Notum est, nxi, quando de sac. vatibus usurpatur, plerumque idem
esse, ac videre aliquid per revelationem propheticam," and then still
asserts, that, without forcible reasons, we are not here justified in
assuming an inward proceeding. It is surely not accidental, that
seeing, with the prophet, is to be taken inwardly, and if there is a
reason for this, it must be equally applicable to the case of going,
dtc. With what right can a distinction be made between the
actions of others which the prophet describes, and his own 1 The
vision, and the symbolic action, are not opposed to each other ; the
former is only the genus, which the latter comprehends in itself as a
species. ¦ By this, we do not wish to assert that all symbolic actions
of the prophets were performed merely in internal contemplation.
An inward process always lay at the foundation, but sometimes, when
it was suitable, they embodied it by an outward representation also.
(Compare a remarkably similar example in recent times, Croesi,
Hist. Quakeriana, p. 13.) For this very reason,- this argument
cannot be decisive. It furnishes, however, an important presump
tion. If the proceeding in such cases is regularly and naturally
internal, the contrary must here be shown. Had this been per
ceived, an attempt would not have been made elsewhere also, e. g.
in Is. chap. 20, (comp. Gesen.,) by fal.se and forced inlerpretations,
to set aside the supposition of a mere inward proceeding.
2. That such a proceeding would have been without an object, no
one will venture to assert, since there is a large number of symbolic
actions, which undeniably and confessedly were merely internal.
The inward proceeding was indeed related and committed to writ
ing. It had the advantage over the naked representation of the
same truth, in being more an object of sense, and more impressive.
Sometimes in the case of actions, which are concentrated in a single
moment, this advantage may be increased by an outward representa
tion also of the inward proceeding. Here, however, precisely the
opposite was the case. We have before us a symbolic action, which,
outwardly performed, would have continued during several years.
Thus extended, it could not have been taken in at a single view, and

14 HOSEA.
its impressiveness would of course have been lessened. What, how
ever, is still more important, the natural ground-work would here
have so occupied the attention in contrast with the idea, that the
latter would thus have been entirely overlooked, the domestic rela
tions of the prophet would have become the object of a multitude of
city tales, and the idea would have been called to mind only to give
point to ridicule.
3. The command of God, considered as relating to an outward
act, can in no way be justified. This becomes most strikingly obvi
ous, when, with several, we understand, that the prophet was to beget
children with an unchaste woman without a lawful marriage. Every
one must share in the repugnance, which Buddeus (I. c. p. 260) ex
presses against Thomas Aquinas, who, following this interpretation,
asserts, that the law of God, in this special instance, was set aside by
his command. God himself cannot set us free from his laws. They
are an expression of his being, a copy of his holiness. To ascribe
caprice to God in this respect, is, at the same time, to annihilate the
idea of God and of goodness. — This view, then, is so decidedly
erroneous, as to require no farther proof But the interpretation of
Buddeus and others is also liable to an invincible difficulty. These
suppose the prophet to have married a wife who had before been
unchaste. Against this, Calvin justly remarks : " Non videtur hoc
rationi consentaneum, quod dominus ultra reddiderit prophetam suum
contemtibilem. Nam quomodo exccptus fuisset prodiens in publicum,
post inflictam sibi talem ignominiam.. Si ipse uxorem duxisset,
qualis hie describitur, debebat potius tola vita latere, quam suscipere
munus propheticum." The law forbids (Lev. 21 : 7) the priests to
marry a whore, or an unchaste woman. What relates only to the
priests as to the letter, applies in its spirit to the prophets, nay, still
more, as is evident, when the ordinance is referred back to the idta.
This is easily inferred from the reason given, viz. that the priests
are holy to their God. That the servants of God must represent his
holiness ; they must not, therefore, by so near a contact with sin,
inwardly and outwardly defile and desecrate themselves. If, now,
the internal pollution in a particular case can be hindered by the
special assistance of the divine grace, still, the outward defilement
always remains. It is inconceivable, that God, at the very com
mencement of his office, would have commanded the prophet to do
any thing which must hinder its successful execution. Several,
particularly Manger, who felt the difficulty of this interpretation.

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 3. 15
opposed to it another, which, in their opinion, removes all doubt.
The prophet, they say, married a person, who, chaste before, fell
after her marriage. This view is, without all doubt, the true one.
This appears from the relation of the figure to the reality. Accord
ing to V. 2, it was to be typified how the people went a whoring from
Jehovah. The spiritual adultery presupposes that the spiritual mar
riage has already been concluded. Accordingly, the wife can be
called an adulteress, only on account of the infidelity which she has
practised after marriage. This is also confirmed by chap. 3 : 1,
where the more limited expression to commit adultery, is substituted
for the more comprehensive one to whore. The former unchastity
of the wife would be entirely without meaning, indeed it would di
rectly contradict the fact to be represented. For, before the marriage
concluded at Sinai, Israel was given to the Lord in true love ; comp,
Jer. 2:2, "I remind thee of the tenderness of thy youth, the love
of thine espousals, thy walking after me in the wilderness, in the
land that was not sown." Comp. also Ezek. chap. 16, where Israel,
before his espousals, appears as a virgo intacta. But, however cor
rect this view may be, — every other perverts the whole point of view,
— the opinion is false, that it removes all doubt. It is liable to
the same objection which has been urged against the preceding.
The prophet might better have married one previously unchaste, in
the hope that her subsequent better conduct would wipe out her
former shame, than one previously chaste, who must become un
chaste, and for a long time remain so, because otherwise the sym
bolic action would have lost its whole import. It can scarcely be
intended in earnest, when it is said, that what is absurd as an out
ward action, would be also as a mere internal one. Here every one
knew that the prophet was a mere type ; and this was so evident in
respect to his wife, that there could be no ground for ridicule. — But
a nuptial union outwardly entered into, is never purely typical ; it
has always a separate import, and must be justifiable independent of
its typical character. In the case supposed, the ridicule would not
only have been too easy, but in a measure well grounded.
4. Were the transaction an outward one, it would be impossible to
explain the transition from the symbolic action to the mere figure
and naked representation, which we here find. In the first chapter,
the symbolic action is pretty well maintained. But in the promise,
chap. 2 : 1-3, belonging to the same portion, it almost entirely dis
appears. As the corporeal adultery should be the type of the

1 6 HOSEA.
spiritual, and the consequent rejection, so should the reception again
of the wife, rejected on account of her infidelity, but now reformed,
typify the mercy of the Lord towards his people. Of this, however,
there is no trace. And yet it cannot be said, that the ground of a
difference of the type from the thing signified, lay in the fact, that
the wife of the prophet had not reformed. For if such a difference
existed, the type would by no means have been chosen. The con
trary appears also from chap. 2 : 9. In the whole second portion,
chap. 2 : 4 - 25, regard is indeed had to the symbolic action, but in
so free a manner, that it becomes a mere figure, behind which, the
matter of fact continually shov/s itself In chap. 3, the symbolic
action becomes again more uniform. These appearances can be
explained only on the supposition, that the proceeding was an inter
nal one. In the case of an outward action, the transition from the
symbolic action to the figure, and from the figure to the substance,
is not so easy. The substratum of the idea is then far more ma
terial, the idea is more inseparably connected with it.
5. An insurmountable difficulty in the way of understanding the
transaction as an outward one, is found in chap. 3. This is, indeed,
of itself, sufficient to decide the question. " Then the Lord said to
me again, Go, love a wife, beloved of her friend, and unfaithful." The
interpreters, who adopt this view, here find themselves in no small
embarrassment. Several suppose, that the wife whom the prophet is
exhorted to love is his former spouse, Gomer. With her he is again
to become reconciled. This is altogether inadmissible. In opposi
tion to it is the entirely indefinite designation by n'm ; then, v. 2, the
purchase of the wife, which presupposes that she was before not in
the husband's possession ; then again the fact, that " beloved of her
friend, and adulteress," according to the true interpretation can mean
only, " who, although she is beloved by her true husband, will yet be
unfaithful ; " So that, consequently, if the reunion with Gomer is re
ferred to, it must be assumed, that she became again unfaithful, after
being received back, to which nothing corresponding in the subject
can be pointed out. Lastly, "love," cannot mean "love again,"
reslitue amoris signa. For the love of the prophet to his wife must
correspond to the love of God to his people Israel. That this, how
ever, cannot be limited to the love which God will cherish towards
the church after her conversion, is evident from the addition, " And
they turn themselves to other gods, and love grape-cakes.'' Hence
it appears, that the love of God continues even afler unfaithfulness.

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 3. 17
and consequently also the love of the prophet, which typifies it.
Equally erroneous also, is the other opinion, that the prophet is here
required a second time to typify the relation of the Lord to the
covenant people, by forming a new marriage. It is then assumed,
either that Gomer had been rejected because she would not return,
or had died. In either case, she would not have been chosen by
God as a type of Israel. The ground of this choice can be no other
than the coincidence with the antitype. This would then fail in
precisely the most important point. It was of the highest importance,
in order that all hope might not be cut off from the ungodly, all con
solation from the pious, to show that the rejected church would also
be the object of mercy, the Lo Ruhamah the Ruhamah. But, ac
cording to this supposition, exactly the opposite would be typified,
two different wives would very naturally lead to the idea of two
different people. And, moreover, the supposition that Gomer did
not return is directly contradictory to the prophet's own assertions.
That her relation to him lies at the foundation also of the representa
tion, chap. 2: 4 sq., cannot be doubted, for it is her three children,
whose former unpropitious names, v. 25, are changed into those
which promise salvation ; also, v. 4-6, the whole relation described
in the foregoing portion is presupposed. But now she, who, v. 9,
says, " I will go and return to my first husband, for then was it better
with me than now," is the same who had said, v. 7, " I will go after
my lovers who give my bread, and my water, my wool, and my flax.''
We are led to the same result also by the showing of mercy to her
children, as predicted in the first portion, chap. 2: 1-3, where
the prophet plays upon their names, and still more clearly in the
second, comp. v. 25. But the showing of mercy to the children,
implies the conversion of the mother, and, as a consequence, her
reception of mercy. As they were to be rejected on account of the
infidelity of the mother (comp. chap. 2 : 6, and especially the O at
the beginning of v. 7), the ground of their restoration can be only the
fidelity of the mother. As begotten in adultery, they stand related
to the prophet only through the mother ; as soon as he had rejected
the mother, he had nothing more to do with them. The supposition
that Gomer was dead, is plainly the result of an embarrassment,
which sees itself compelled to invent such fictions. — Finally, several,
after the example of Augustin, suppose, that the subject of discourse
here, is not a marriage, but only a certain good pleasure, that the
prophet was to show towards a wife, to encourage her return. But
VOL. III. 3

18 HOSEA.
this is contradicted by the circumstance, that the love of the prophet
to his wife must be of the same extent, and the same nature, as the
love of God to Israel, since nns and ngnxp, accurately correspond ;
and also by the circumstance, that only wedded love is suited to the
image, and that this view, when ^i is referred, as it must be, to the
prophet, is evidently erroneous, and that the purchase of the wife
cannot then be satisfactorily explained, &c. There is still, against
all these suppositions, the common objection, that, according to them,
the omission of very important circumstances, cannot be explained,
which the prophet leaves his hearers and readers to supply out of the
preceding symbolic action. Only two points are rendered prominent,
the appropriation of his wife by the prophet, v. 2, and the course
which he pursues in order to her reformation, v. 3. The interven
ing, criminal, long-continued infidelity of his wife is passed over in
silence. If we assume an outward action, this cannot be explained.
For then we cannot draw a conclusion from the first case to the
second. This, again, requires to be fully related. On the supposi
tion of an internal proceeding, all is plain; the question then no
longer exists, whether she was Gomer or another. If Gomer was
only an ideal person, what was true of her, is also true of the other
ideal spouse of the prophet, since both typified the same thing, and,
without having any independent existence, were considered only as
types. And thus the second representation is very naturally supplied
out of the first, and the prophet needed only to give prominency to
those particular points, which were here especially important.
6. If the whole is taken as an outward proceeding, no small diffi
culty arises in respect to the children mentioned, chap. 1. These
were begotten in adultery. Even when the mother had reformed,
they could never be regarded by the prophet as his own in the fullest
sense. And here is a great want of resemblance between figure and
reality. On the supposition, however, of an internal proceedincr
this difficulty vanishes. The physical impossibility then no longer
comes into consideration. That which is possible in point of fact,
that those, who were formerly not children of God, become children
of God, is also transferred to the figure. In reality, the mother has
no existence apart from the children. She stands related to them, as
the whole to the parts. Therefore, also, in chap. 2 : 25, the mother
and children, unobserved by the prophet, coalesce in one.
7. The symbolic names of the first wife, and her father, lead to a
mere inward proceeding; as, on the other hand, when such a sym-

THE PORTION Chap. 1—3. 19
bolic import cannot be pointed out, this becomes a valid argument
for a literal interpretation, though, indeed, but one argument, which
must give way to the stronger proofs on the other side. For it is
easy to suppose, that the prophet, in order the more to give to the
inward proceeding the appearance of an outward one, has mentioned
names usual at the time ; in like manner as poetry is not satisfied
with the Caius, &c. of Logic, but chooses uaimes which every one
does not at once see to be fictitious. — ipj can mean only completion,
in the passive sense. For such segolate forms serve for passive and
intransitive forms, oomp. Ew. p. 228. The verb in J, occurs in the
sense, to be completed, Ps. 7 : 10, 12 : 2. Now, in what sense the
wife, the image of the Israelitish people, is named completion, as she
who had proceeded to the utmost extremity in her whoredom, is so evi
dent from the connexion, as to render nugatory the objection which
Maurer (p. 360) deduces from the omission of an express intimation
of this reference, in order thereby to recommend his utterly unphilo-
logical interpretation. A significant proper name can never give
any thing more than an intimation, and this is here entirely sufficient,
since the mention of the wife of whoredom had preceded. As for
the rest, comp. Zech. 5:5- 11, where the thought, that the Israelit
ish people have filled up the measure of their sins, is typified by a
woman sitting in an Ephah (comp. Voh II. p. 46). DlS?"! "03, can
mean only, a daughter of the two fig-cakes ^Jilia deliciarum = de-
liciis dedita. " Daughter " serves to designate the relation of one
who is dependent, and looks to another for instruction. Gesen.
Thes. p. 220. The fig-cakes are regarded as one of the greatest
dainties, comp. Faber on Harmar, I. p. 390 sq. Sensualhy was the
ground of the apostasy of the Israelites from the severe and strict
religion of Jehovah to idolatry, which was soft, sensual, and licen
tious. The cause which gave rise to it among their neighbours,
recommended it to them. The masc. form can present no difficulty
to the derivation from nSnn, fig-caJces, for this form of the plural
occurs also, 1 Sam. 25 : 18, 1 Chron. 12 : 40. Just as little can the
Dual. This is explained by the circumstance, that fig-cakes usually
consisted of a double layer of frgs, or of one double cake. (Hesych.
nald&ri, — which is a corruption of 71721, -^ ziav avxav indllrjlog
¦&iais.) The Dual, however, is used of objects, which are commonly
conceived of as a whole consisting of two parts, when the discourse
relates to a plurality of them. Ew. p. 329. The correctness of this
explanation of the Dual is shown by its occurrence, as the name of

20 HOSEA.
a Moabitish city, Beth Diblathajim, Jer. 48 : 22, and Diblathajim,
Num. 33 : 46, which was probably celebrated on account of its fig-
cakes. The prophet had perhaps still a special ground for choosing
the Dual, and indeed in the masc. form, that Diblajim was favored
by the analogy of other proper names of men, as Ephraim, &c.
Such an analogy must have existed, otherwise the name would not
have been, as it should be, a riddle. — Our whole interpretation,
however, which, in substance, though without being sufficiently
established and justified, occurs even in Jerome, is raised above the
condition of a mere hypothesis, by a comparison of chap. 3:1; the
language there, " they betake themselves to other gods, and love
grape-cakes," is a mere periphrasis of Gomer Bath Diblaim. That
the difference between grape and fig-cakes did not here come into
consideration, since both belong to the dainties that were sought
after, needs scarcely to be remarked ; and it is equally evident, that
to be the beloved, and the daughter, here expresses the same idea. —
If, however, the symbolic import of this name is established, so also
at the same time is the correctness of the supposition of a mere
internal proceeding. The symbolic names of these children could
not sufficiently establish this supposition ; an appeal might justly be
made in opposition, to Shear-Jashub and Mahershalalhashbaz,
who cannot have been mere ideal beings. The prophet gave to
them these names. But the case is entirely different with the wife,
who already had her name when the prophet took her. — Were the
name not symbolic, did it belong to the actual spouse of the prophet,
it would be difficult to explain why he did not afterwards mention
also the name of his second spouse, but contented himself with (the
general expression, " a wife."
8. A chief argument against the literal understanding is furnished
by chap. 3 : 2, according to the true interpretation, which we must
here first give. The common translation is : " And then I purchased
her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and an homer of barley, and a
letheck of barley." Hos, 3 : 2. The verse is explained from the
custom prevalent in the East of purchasing wives from their parents.
But this is liable to a very important philological objection. We can
just as well give to rrj^ every other meaning, as that of purchas
ing. This is not once found in the dialects, still less in the Hebrew.
In the only passage to which an appeal is still made, Deut. 2 : 7, the
usual meaning, to dig, is entirely appropriate : " And also shall ye
dig water for them for gold and drink." This difficulty was per-

THE PORTION Chap. ]_3. 21
ceived by Manger ; he sought, however, because he was not aware
that the whole explanation of the verse could be false, to remove it
by an arbitrary change of the text. He would read rnDtsfx, appeal
ing to the Seventy, who have fiiad-oojxai, without perceiving, that
this translation presupposes an entirely different understanding of
the whole verse; since, indeed, the expression to hire, cannot be
referred to the purchase of the wife from her parents. To this phi
lological objection, we must still add, that the sum is entirely too
small for the proposed object ; and, besides, that the circumstance
would be wholly without import, while every thing else in the whole
description, is full of meaning. — We lay, as the foundation of our
interpretation, the fact already established by J. D. Michaelis, that
the whole price amounted to thirty shekels. This the prophet paid,
half in gold and half in the value of gold. The homer, according
to Ezek. 45 : 11, contained ten ephahs, and a letheck was the half of
an ephah ; we have, therefore, fifteen pieces of silver, and also fifteen
ephahs, and it seems evident, that the ephah of barley was at that time
equal to a shekel. We are as yet unable to say why half was in gold,
half in natural productions ; but there must certainly have been a
reason, since no other trait is without meaning. Perhaps it was de
termined by the custom of paying in this manner the sum by which
servants were purchased. We are necessarily led to the idea of ser
vants or slaves, by the mention of the sum. It is precisely the same
which was usually given for a man-servant, or for a maid, — as is
expressly mentioned, Exod. 21 : 32, comp. on Zech. 11 : 12, in Vol.
II. This reference is confirmed by O???!' (comp. on the Dagesh,
Ew., pp. 87, 88,) since it cannot be otherwise explained. When a
servant was bound to render perpetual service to his lord to whom he
belonged, his ears were bored ; comp. Deut. 15 : 17, Vol, I. p. 150.
Hence the phrase, Cj;:tx ^^^, "to bore the ears," for "to appropri
ate," Ps. 40 : 7. Here, according to the custom of omitting the
names of members of the body in phrases of frequent occurrence
(comp. Ewald, p. 190), we have, merely, " to bore." Therefore, i. q,,
" I made her my slave," It was not a free woman which the prophet
desired in marriage, but a slave, whom he must first redeem from
¦ bondage, who was, therefore, doubly bound to him, over whom he
had a double right. The reference to the fact represented, is self-
evident. It was not a free, independent people, whom the Lord
chose, but one which he was obliged to redeem from disgraceful
bondage, before they could sustain a near relation to him. This re-

22 HOSEA.
demption appears, throughout, as a ransom from the house of bondage,
the wonderful manifestations of the Lord, as the price which he paid,
comp., e. g., Deut. 7:8: "for because the Lord loved you, and
because he regarded his oath, which he sware to your fathers, he
hath brought you forth with a strong hand, and ransomed thee from
the house of servants (?'"ijj;, n'5p), from the hand of Pharaoh, king
of Egypt," 9 : 26. On this redemption is grounded the exhortation
to the people, that henceforth, as a servant of the Lord, they should
serve him alone ; comp., e. g., the introduction to the Decalogue.
Thus we have here also a trait, which is so manifestly figurative,
has so manifestly passed over from the subject to the type, that an
external proceeding is no longer to be thought of.

Chap. 1 — 2:3.

The portion chap. 1 — 3, distinguished from the remaining prophe
cy, by the circumstance, that the relation of the Lord to the people
of Israel, is represented throughout under the figure and symbol of
a marriage, while the same representation, when it elsewhere occurs
in the prophecy, is soon relinquished again, — by which close resem
blance, the objections of Bockel and Stuck (p. 45) against the usual
division of the collection into two parts, are set aside, — may be
divided into three parts, which, although intimately connected, as
appears from the/M«. with vav. convers. in chap. 3 : 1, and also from
the fact, that this chapter must be completed out of what precedes,
still, in another respect, may also be regarded as a whole, complete
in itself They are not so distinguished as to their contents, that
the first would represent the apostasy, the second the punishment,
the third the return and restoration ; but each contains all the three ;
and, indeed, in such a manner, that here the one, and there the
other, is more fully carried out, so that the description receives its
full completion, only when all are embraced together. In the portion
before us, the covenant relation into which the Lord entered with
Israel, is typified by the marriage of the prophet, concluded at the
command of the Lord ; the apostasy of the people, especially the ten
tribes, — for only to these was the prophet sent, — by the infidelity
of the wife; the divine punishment by the unpropitious names.

THE PORTION Chap. 1—2: 3. V. 2. 23
which he gave to the children, which sprung from this infidelity.
Then follows chap. 2 : 1-3, more directly, and with a bare allusion
to the symbol, the prediction of prosperity.

V. 1. " The word of the Lord, which was to Hosea, the son of
Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, and in
the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel.
y. 2. " At the first, as the Lord spake to Hosea, then said the
Lord to Hosea, Go take to thee a zoife of ivhoredoms, and children of
whoredoms, for the land has gone away a whoring from the Lord."
Without wasting our time with the different unphilological inter
pretations of the first words, we give at once their true import. IST
is never a noun, ^- not even Jer. 5: 13, as Winer and Gesenius
assert, — but always Zprmt. Pi. The stat. constr. nbrin, is explained
by the fact, that the whole following proposition is treated as one
substantive idea : the beginning of the Lord hath spoken, for the
beginning of the speaking. Thus, Is. 29 : 1, T\irv_ laT dl', " the
day God spake," for " in which he spake." Jer. 48 : 36, nw;; nio?
"the remnant of that he has made," for, "of that procured by
him." Ewald, p. 577. The /?<<. with ?;«t). confers, "ipx'l, " and then
he spake," carries forward the discourse, as though there had pre^
ceded, " The Lord began to speak to Hosea." There is here a
constructio ad scnsum. The prophet has intentionally placed the
nominative nbnn, instead of the verb, in order to give prominence
to the idea of the beginning. The construction of "I3T with 3, in
the sense to speak to any one, has already been explained, Vol. II.
p. 18. Erroneously, several, through; others, after Jerome, in ; so that
thereby the discourse is designated as internal. The difference
between an inward and outward speaking, vanishes in the vision,
and it cannot therefore be supposed, that it is here particularly
noticed. Every thing, which takes place in this way, is internal as
to the substance, and outward as to the form. Besides, IST, with 2,
several times occurs in other places,, where the interpretation of
speaking to any one, is alone admissible ; and lastly, there is the
analogy which this interpretation finds in the combination of verbs
oi hearing and seeing, with a, Ewald, p. 605. A wife of whoredoms,
and children of whoredoms. The wife sustains this character, in

24 HOSEA,
so far as she is devoted to this vice, the children, in so far as they are
the product of it. It cannot be assumed of the children, that they
are themselves designated as given to whoredom. This were here
an entirely foreign thought. The whoredom is here the more gene
ral designation of nuptial infidelity, as in the application to the sub
stance, it is immediately subjoined, yj-oro /e/jowoA.. The relation of
the wife and children to the prophet, the type of the Lord, is there
fore alone considered, and, in this respect, only the illegitimate origin
of the children can be of importance. That this only is regarded,
is evident also from chap. 2 : 6, compared with v. 7, That the chil- _
dren, as children of whoredom, deserve no compassion, is here
grounded on the guilt of the mother. CJIJT n»N is stronger than
njlT. It expresses that the wife, in body and soul, is given up to
whoredom. The same emphasis is also found in the analogous
designations, man of blood, of deceit, Sfc. Calvin : " vacatur mulier
scortationum, qua: diu assuevit scortationibus, quae passim omnibus,
et ad omnium libidines fuit exposita, qum non semel, nee bis, nee
paucis hominibus, sed omnibus se prostituit ad flagitia." It is not
without reason, that take is also connected with the children. The
prophet shall as it were take, along with her, those, who, without his
agency, have been born of the wife. That they are not children
which the wife had previously borne to the prophet, but rather, those
whose birth is related, v, 4 sq., is self-evident, and has already been
abundantly proved. And that the children are not to be considered,
as they are by several, as children of the prophet, (Drus. : accipe
uxorem et suscipe ex ea liberos,) appears from their designation, by
" children of whoredoms," from the word take itself, which e.x-
presses the passive conduct of the prophet, and from the fact, that, in
the following context, the subject of discourse is always merely the
conception and bearing of the wife, never, as Is. 8 : 3, of the beo-et-
ting of the prophet, and, lastly, from the relation of the figure to the
reality. This necessarily requires, that the children and mother
should be in the same state of alienation from the lawful husband
and father. Nor is this contradicted by " and she bare to him a
son," V, 3. Thereby are designated only the bringing forth of the
wife, who presents to the man the children begotten in adultery as his
own ; and the patience and forbearance of the husband, who receives
and educates them as his own, though he well knows to the contrary ;
just as the Lord for centuries treated the apostate Israelites as
though they were his children, gave them the inheritance destined

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 2: 3. V. 3. 25
only for his children, and so many of his blessings, until at last he
declared them to be bastards, by the carrying away into exile, — In
the last words, the design of the symbolic action is given. The
causal O is explained by the circumstance, that the ground of a
symbolic action is its import. The preceding infin. absol. gives em
phasis to the verbal idea. Ew. p. 500, The prophet thereby shows,
that he uses the expres.sion, "to whore," in its full sense, as ac
curately corresponding to the thing, and would have it understood in
its whole strength and compass. He silences beforehand every
attempt at palliation by giving to the thing its true name. In such
attempts, the Israelites were very fertile. They did not perceive
that they had been wholly unfaithful to the Lord ; they considered
their intercourse with idols, as only trivial and allowable gallantries,
which they manifested towards them. — That we are not to under
stand by whoredom, with Manger, reliance also on human help, is
shown by what follows, where idolatry is always the subject of dis
course. If we trace this back to its idea, it is indeed true that trust
in man is comprehended under it, the idea is the apostasy from God
to that which is not God. From this dependence of that which is
more special oil the general idea, it follows, that the representation is
eternally true, and does not become antiquated, where the folly of
gross idolatry has long been perceived. — fil^O. tbe definite land,
the land of the prophet, that of Israel. — In respect to the last words,
Ps. 73 : 27 is to be compared, where ]P nji. occurs in the like
sense. There is an allusion to the common phrase, " to walk with
God," or " after God," comp. 2 Kings 23 : 3 ; Calvin : " spirituaUs
castitas populi dei est sequi dominum."
V. 3. " And he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, and
she became pregnant, and bare to him a son." — Many interpreters
assume, that by the three children, three different generations, the
perpetually increasing degeneration of the people is designated.
But this supposition is certainly to be rejected. There is no climax
to be found here. On the contrary, the prediction of the entire
cessation of the kingdom of Israel is at once connected with the
name of the first child, v. 4. Nor can it be said, that their children
are a designation of the "condition'' (Riickert) in which the Isra
elites were placed, in consequence pf their apostasy from the Lord.
For how could condition obtain mercy ? The correct view is rather
" wife and children are both the people of Israel, only considered
according to different relations." According to the first, as a unity,
VOL. III. 4

26 HOSEA.
to the second, as a plurality, dependent upon it. That the prophet
causes in general children to be born, and that the number should
be precisely three, has its ground in their names. The children
exist only in order to receive a name. The three names must not
be considered separately, but taken together. Then do they present
an image corresponding to the destinies which the people of Israel
had to expect.
V. 4. " And the Lord said to him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet
a little while and I visit the blood of Jezreel on the house of Jehu,
and make an end of the kingdom of the house of Israel." — Most in
terpreters, and lastly Riickert, explain Jezreel here, by God dis
perses. They regard this as' the proper etymology ; the rest only as
aUusion. But this interpretation, as Manger has rightly perceived,
is false. For, first, there is no example of this meaning of the verb
yxi. When transferred to men, it always stands in a good sense,
comp. 2 : 24, Ezek. 36 : 9. The idea of dispersion is not the funda
mental idea, so that the sense to scatter is farther from the etymo
logical one, than might at first sight appear. Zech. 10 : 9. We
cannot now permit the dispersion among the nations to be regarded
as a subordinate reference, since we have already expressed ourselves
in opposition to those who wOuld thus limit the sense, 2. What
follows, is to be considered as an explanation of the name Jezreel,
compare the corresponding explanations of the names Lo Ruhamah, in
V. 6, and Lo Ammi, in v. 9, which accurately agree with this name.
In this explanation, however, there is not a word of the dispersion
of the people of Israel. That Jezreel, in the explanation, without
respect to its appellative import, which is first alluded to in the pre
diction of prosperity, occurs as a proper name, evinces that it should
be so considered here aLso. The correct view is as follows : Jezreel
was the place where the last great judgment of God upon the king
dom of Israel was executed. There had Jehu, the founder of the
reigning dynasty, in the time of the prophet, avenged on Jezebel,
and the whole house of Ahab, their apostasy from the Lord, and the
innocent blood of his servants, which had been shed by them.
2 Kings 9, Jehu, at the command of God, is anointed as king by
one of the sons of the prophets sent by Elisha. V. 6-9, through him
the Lord speaks to Jehu : " And I anoint thee king over the people
of the Lord, over Israel. And thou smitest the house of Ahab thy
Lord, and I avenge the blood of my servants, the prophets, and the
blood of all the servants of the Lord, by the hand of Jezebel, and

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 2: 3. V. 4. 27
the whole house of Ahab ceases  And I make the house of
Ahab, as the house of Jeroboam, son of Nebat, and as the house of
Baasha, son of Abijah." The execution corresponded to the com
mand. As Jehu drew near to Jezreel, Joram, son of Ahab, came
forth against him, and they met in the portion of Naboth the Jez-
reelite (v. 21). There, at the command of Jehu, his corpse was
thrown, with an appeal to the declaration of the Lord (v. 26) :
" Surely I have seen the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons,
and / requite thee in this estate." At Jezreel also, Jezebel found
her shameful death. There, as to the central point of vengeance,
were the seventy king's sons, who had been slain, sent, chap. 10 :
1 - 10. There did Jehu slay all the rest of the house of the king,
all his nobles, and all his friends, and his priests, v. 11. — -Now
should the royal house, and with it all Israel, anew become a Jezreel,
1. e., the same divine vengeance shall be executed upou it anew,
which was then manifested at Jezreel. The reason is given in the
explanation. The house of Jehu, and all Israel, becomes as to pun
ishment, a Jezreel, because it has become a Jezreel in guilt, because,
as once in Jezreel, the blood which has been shed cries again to the
Lord for vengeance. Where, anew, the carcass exists, there also
must the eagles again collect (compare the execution. Vol. II. p.
359). — From this, it already appears how we understand the ex
pression, "I visit the blood of Jezreel," in the explanation. The new
blood-guiltines.s, (murder, as the climax of all crime, presupposes the
rest ; the house of Jehu, and all Israel, a band of murderers, comp.
Is. 1 : 21,) is called by the name of the old, according to the custom
of the prophet, to designate the new, similar in substance, by the
name of the past, as we have already seen in so many examples,
(comp. Vol. II. pp. 47, 144) ; in like manner the punishment. We
must not overlook, what a deep impression this mode of representation
must have made. The sins before committed at Jezreel were ac
knowledged as such by the whole people, and particularly by the
royal house, whose whole authority ^lepended on this acknowledg
ment. The remembrance of the fearful punishment, was still in the
minds of all. But they did not reflect, that they were involved in
like guilt, and exposed to like punishment. With one single word,
the prophet recalled to the present, that which was regarded as passed
away for ever. With one single word of fearful sound, he terrified
them out of their self-deception and carnal security, where they re
fused to perceive their own sins in the image of the sins of others.

28 HOSEA.
— The explanation which has been given, justifies itself in opposi
tion to the current false interpretation. Many understand by the
blood of Jezreel, the murder of the family of Ahab there committed
by Jehu. It is indeed true, that an objectively good deed is not of
course subjectively good'. What God has willed and commanded,
can, if performed without love and obedience to him, but with crimi
nal selfishness, become of itself an object of the divine punishment.
And that Jehu was led by such base motives, is sufficiently evident,
sinr^ he did that himself, which he had punished in the house of
Ahab. Calvin justly remarks, "Fuit cades ilia respectu Jehu la-
troeinium, respectu dei fuit justa ultio." But still, this deed cannot
be regarded as the chief crime of Jehu, and his tribe. The guilty
blood which he shed cannot be cited with a total disregard of the
innocent, as a ground of the punishment. That the former guilt
really existed, only it was the inferior, is very evident from 2 Kings
15: 7, where, to Baasha, who had destroyed the house of Jeroboam
I., ruin is predicted, " on account of all the evil which he did in the
eyes of the Lord, to provoke him to anger by the work of his hands,
in that he became as the house of Jeroboam, and because he slew
him." That Baasha had become as the house of Jeroboam, is the
chief guilt; what he did against the house, is the inferior, which
becomes guilt, only by means of the former. We must observe, that
the expression, " in that he has become as the house of Jeroboam,"
according to our interpretation, accurately corresponds to the blood
of Jezreel. It is still to be observed, that every better feeling is not
to be excluded in the deed of Jehu. Had the command of God been
a mere pretext, the praise and the promise, which were given to him
for what he did (comp. 2 Kings 10 : 30), could not be explained.
To be sure, the limitation of the latter shows, that the pure motives
were not alone predominant with him. — In addition to this, if this
explanation be adopted, the extension of the punishment to all Israel
is inconceivable. The deed belonged alone to Jehu and his asso
ciates. How, on their account, could not merely the house of Jehu
be punished, but also the kingdom of the house of Israel be made
to cease, and his bow be broken in the valley of Jezreel ? Still
more prevalent is another interpretation, according to which, by " the
blood of Jezreel," omnia male facta a regibus Israeliticis in urbe
Jezreel commissa is designated. But this is refuted by the single
objection, that the residence of the family of Jehu, which here alone
comes into consideration, was from the beginning, not Jezreel, but

THE PORTION Chap, 1—2; 3, V, 5, 29
Samaria, comp, 2 Kings 10 : 36, 13 : 10, 14 : 23, —The threatening
of punishment contains two points. First shall the house of Jehu,
then shall all Israel, become a Jezreel in respect to punishment, as
they are already in guilt; whereby the significant paronomasia
between Israel, the honorable name of the people, and TczrceZ, the
base, in deed and condition, (the former need not be alone rendered
prominent, as it is by Calvin ; " Estis populus degener ; nihil differtis
arege vestro Achab,") \& tohe ohs,ex\ed.. That the expression, "I
make to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel," cannot, as several
suppose, be the same as, " I will put an end to the reign of the
family of Jehu over Israel." That rather, in these words, the cessa-
' tion of every domestic sregal government, and consequently of the
entire national independence of the people, is predicted, is so obvious
as to need no further proof Both points, in the fulfilment, are sepa
rated by a considerable period of time, (compare the Introduction,)
and yet they are closely connected. At the same time with the ruin
of the house of Jehu, the power also of the kingdom of Israel was
broken. As for the rest, Hosea, in respect to the former event, had
before him an older prophecy. It had been predicted to Jehu
(2 Kings 10 : 30), that his children should sit on the throne until the
fourth generation. As now Jeroboam was the great-grandson of
Jehu, the glory of this tribe must come to an end with his son. In
his time, therefore, the house of Jehu and the kingdom of Israel
seem to be as far from ruin, as under the reign of Jeroboam, It was
time, therefore, that the forgotten prophecy should be again called to
their remembrance, and at the same time farther carried out.
V. 5. " And it comes to pass in that day, that I break the bow of
Israel in the valley of Jezreel." — Calvin : " Vos estis, inquit, inflati
superhia, vos opponitis vestram ferociam deo, quia polletis armis et
viribus ; quia vos estis viri militarcs, putatis deum nihil posse.
Atqui arcus vestri non impedient ejus manum, quominus vos deleat."
In the valley of Jezreel should Israel become, as to punishment,
what he already was in guilt, a Jezreel. The verse is a further ex
tension of the last words of the foregoing to which the expression,
" in this day," referred. He, whose bow is broken, is disarmed and
helpless, comp. Gen: 49 : 24, Jer. 49 : 35. That the subjection of
Israel by the Assyrians, the consequence of which was the ruin of
the kingdom of Israel, is here alone intended, is manifest. — Where
this took place, the historical books do not relate. Jerome on the
passage says, that it happened in the valley of Jezreel ; this is prob-

30 HOSEA.
ably nothing more than an historical conjecture. It is, however,
altogether probable, apart from the passage before us. The valley of
Jezreel, or Esdrelon, the broad, elevated plain of Galilee, formerly
very fruitful, but now entirely desolate, according to Burckhardt (II.
p. 579), about eight stadia long, and four broad, was the natural
field of battle in all the wars which were carried on within the limits
of the ten tribes, especially when the enemies came from the north,
" It was the station of a Legion (fttya ntdlov Uyewvog) in the first
centuries. It is the place where the armies of Nebuchadnezzar,
Vespasian, Justinian, the sultan Saladin, and many conquering hosts
encamped, until the unsuccessful expedition of Bonaparte, whose suc
cess in Syria here terminated. Clark found here the tents of the
troops of the pasha of Damascus, — In later times it was the field
of the skirmishes betweeen the parties of hostile hordes of the Arab
and Turkish pachas. To this locality, in connexion with the politi
cal relations of hither Asia, must the complete desolation and de
population of Galilee be ascribed, which was once so flourishing,
full of towns and thickly iijhabited." Ritter, Erdk. II. p. 387. We
add, that in the same plain also, the battle was fought, in which Saul
and Jonathan perished, for the plain Esdrelon is bounded on the
^southeast by the mountains of Gilboa ; also the battle between Ahab
and the Syrians ; to it likewise belonged the plain near the city of
Megiddo, where Josiah was mortally wounded in the fight with
Pharaoh Necho. Rosenm. Alt. II. 1. p. 149.
V. 6. "And she again became pregnant, and hare a daughter. And
he said to him, call her name Lo Ruhamah, (one who has not found
mercy,) for I will no longer have mercy on the house of Israel, for
I will take caoay from them." — Interpreters ask why the second
birth is a female, nor is this an idle question, since the prophet else
where closely adheres to the subject matter, and draws no line merely
for the sake of filling up the picture. That the female birth desig
nates a more degenerate race, cannot, with Jerome and others, be
assumed. For why then should the third again be a male. This
supposition proceeds on the erroneous idea, that the three births
designate different generations. The ground is rather to be sought
in the name. Schmidt : " Videtur respici ad sextis miserabililatem.
Sexus enim mulicbris prcs virili misericordiam conseqiii solct." The
verb oni designates, not every kind of love, but only that of the
high to the low, and of the strong to the weak. Hence the Seventy
here, whom Peter follows, 1 Pet. 2: 10, [oix vtfWfVT?,) render the

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 2: 3. V. R. 31
word more accurately than Paul, Rom. 9 : 25 [ovx ojyanrnxh'rj). It
never occurs, therefore, of the love of man to God, but always only of
the love of God to man, of his mercy. The only apparently contradic
tory passage, Ps. 18 : 2, is not to the purpose ; lor there Kal is used.
The female sex, however, as ,the weaker, needs the compassion of
man more than the male. The female birth presents the helpless
ness of the people in a more striking contrast with the denial of help
from him who alone can grant it. — Respecting the participle in Pii.
without D, comp. Ew. p. 254. The phrase, " I will not continue,"
refers back to the former great manifestations of the divine mercy,
especially to the last under Jeroboam, which the people still enjoyed,
comp. 2 Kings 13 : 23. " And the Lord showed them mercy, and
pitied and turned to them on account of his covenant with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them nor cast them out of
his sight." On this antithesis, also, rests the apparently mild expres--
sion, "I will not pity," which is thus rendered more severe than any
other. Several interpreters, and lastly Stuck, lay a peculiar^ stress
on the circumstance, that the discourse is here concerning the house
of Israel. The kingdom of Israel, as an independent state, is for
ever devoted to destruction; only the individuals, who should, at a
later period, join themselves to the house of David, shall experience
compassion. But that the house of Israel is used in this sense, is
an arbitrary assumption ; the house is the same as the families ; con
cerning a house of Israel the prophets speak after the destruction
of the kingdom, no less than before. A reference to the state is also
contradicted, by " I will not pity her children," chap. 2 : 6. And
also by the fact, that she, who is here called Lo Ruhamah, is after
wards called Ruhamah. The correct view is rather, that the denial
of compassion is here not to be understood absolutely, but relatively.
Not for ever is mercy withdrawn from him, but only until the penal
justice of God shall have been satisfied. Just as Israel will not
always remain Jezreel, and Lo Ammi at a future period will become
again Ammi. — The recent interpreters unanimously explain the last
words, " that I should give them up." But then we can see no
reason for prefixing the injin. absol. Why should the verbal idea
here be rendered emphatic ? In addition to this, is the extreme
feebleness of the sense; nothing would then be said, which was not
already implied in the phrase, " I will no longer pity." On the con
trary, the sense becomes in the highest degree suitable, when we
explain, " for I will take away from them." The object is not men-

32 HOSEA.
tioned, because even all is to be understood. The prominence given
to the verbal idea, is explained by the antithesis with the compassion,
which includes also the giving. At the same time, there is a very
striking antithesis with the standing phrase, 7 |U^ N^J, or barely
S Sfc'J, " I will take away from them," not, however, as heretofore,
guilt, but " all that they possess." How the explanation by tollere, is
favored by the foregoing verse, [servare et tollere inter se opponit
proph.,) has been remarked by Calvin. Comp. still, chap. 5 : 14,
where likewise x^i stands without any mention of the object : " I
will tear in pieces, and go, I will take, and there is no deliverer."
V. 7. " And upon the house of Judah will I show mercy, and I de
liver them by the Lord their God, and I deliver them not by bow, and
by sword, and by war, and by horses, and by horsemen." — Several
interpreters assume, that mercy is here promised to Judah as a con
solation for Israel, in so far as the latter should have part in it. —
But this view is false ; mercy, as the antithesis to v. 6 shows, is here
promised to Judah, for the time when Israel will find no mercy, and
we must not anticipate the time described in chap. 2 : 1-3, where
both become partakers of mercy, as is evident from the circumstance,
that, in v. 8, 9, the threatening of punishment against Israel is still
carried forward. The object of the prophet, therefore, in predicting
the mercy which Judah would experience, can only be to sharpen
the goad, in order the more effectually to disturb Israel in his false
security, and rouse his attention to the bad foundation of his civil
and religious constitutions, whereby that was legalized there, which
in Judah was only abuse. — As the showing of mercy to Judah runs
parallel with the withholding of mercy from Israel, we must suppose
that the prophet referred directly and chiefly to the different fate of
both during the dominion of the Assyrians. Judah's wonderful de
liverance on this occasion, is predicted in a manner entirely similar,
in Is. 31:8; " And Ashur falls under the sword, not of a man, and
the sword, not of a man, consumes him." — We must not, however,
look at this event alone. A preference of Judah to Israel, a residue
of the divine mercy, appears also in respect to the carrying away of
Judah into exile. They were not, during its continuance, so entirely
bereft of signs of the continued divine election ; prophets still ap
peared among them, as immediate ambassadors of God. Wonderful
events manifested in the mean time among the heathen, the su
premacy of their God, and prepared the way for their deliverance ;
they maintained, far more than the Israelitish nation, their national

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 2 : 3. V. 7. 33
independence. And, lastly, their affliction endured only for a much
shorter period. Contrary to all human expectation, their affairs soon
took a favorable turn, in which only a comparatively small number
of their Israelitish brethren participated, while mercy continued
to be withheld from the rest. — By this antithesis of the lot of Judah,
the prediction of the lot of Israel now first appears in its true light.
Without this it might he supposed, that the prediction of the prophet
did not extend beyond his natural powers ; that a kingdom, — in
comparison with the great kingdoms of Asia, and which were con
stantly seeking their enlargement, — so feeble as that of the Israel
ites, — moreover, placed in the centre between these kingdoms and
their natural enemy and rival, Egypt, — could not be lasting, was
highly probable. But this probability was still greater in respect to
the far smaller and feebler kingdom of Judah, which had been great
ly injured by Joash, the father of Jeroboam, 2 Kings 14 : 3, under
the latter of whom, the splendor and the power of the kingdom of
Israel first became distinguished. That which prevented this proba
bility from becoming truth, in respect to the kingdom of Judah, lay
entirely beyond the circle of human calculation ; as Hosea himself
so expressly says. By such help would the kingdom of Israel have
been delivered, no less than the kingdom of Judah. — To be sure,
this prophecy of Hosea is no prediction. of one contingent event. It
rests on the idea. The lot of Israel and Judah cottld not be other
wise than diverse, when their different position in reference to the
covenant God was once assumed. It is not a prophecy which
ceased in its first and proper fulfilment, but is continually realized
anew. God's proceeding towards the different churches and states
is constantly regulated according to theif different relation to him.
The history of the world is a judgment of the world. But the
possession of this idea is itself a supernatural gift, and it can be
handled with certainty, only by those, who, like the prophet, have
received from God an insight into the mysteries of his goverenment
of the world. This becomes very manifest, when we observe how
often the predictions of those, who were merely in possession of the
idea, down to Bengel and his followers, have been disappointed by
the result. God's ways are not our ways. No one knows them but
he, and he to whom he will reveal them. — The resting of the
prophecy on the idea, manifests itself, moreover, very clearly in the
words " And I deliver them through Jehovah their God." We have
here the ground of the deliverance. Jehovah is Judah's God, and
VOL. III. 5

34 HOSEA.
therefore the source of his prosperity, which ceases not to flow,
though all human fountains be dried up. The ground, that Israel
finds no mercy, no pity, must therefore be, that Jehovah is not his
God. That such an antithesis here occurs, is confirmed by chap.
3:5; " Afterwards will the children of Israel return and seek the
Lord their God, and David their king." What they shall seek at a
future time, and thereby attain to prosperity, that must they now
have lost, and this loss must be the source of their misfortune. Ap
propriately, therefore, Calvin : " Hie tenenda est antithesis inter
falsos deos et Jehovam., qui deus erat domus Jehudah. Perinde enim
est, ac si diceret propheta, Nos quidem obtenditis nomen dei, sed vos
colitis diabolum et non deum. Nihil enim vobis cum Jehovah. Hie
enim residet in templo suo. Hie fidem suam devinxit Davidi, quum
jussit templum sibi exstrui in monte Sion : exulat autem a vobis verus
deus. — In contrast with him who alone could give help, and whom
Israel did not possess, though Judah did, the prophet mentions in
the following context the aids, which could furnish no real help, in
which Israel was at that time far richer than Judah, and on which
they placed a false confidence ; comp. chap. 10 : 13, " Thou trustest
in thy way, and the multitude of thy heroes." Ps. 20 : 8, Mic. 5 : 9
sq., Deuti 33: 29, where the Lord is designated, as the only true
bulwark and armour. " Prosperity to thee, O Israel, who is like
unto thee, a people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, thy
proud sword ; thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee, and thou
shalt tread upon their high places." Calvin : " Deum opus non ha
bere alienis subsidiis, quoniam sua virtute contentus sit. — Summa
igitur est, quamvis inopia regni Juda cotitemtui sit omnibus, tamen
hoc non fore obstaculo, quominus per dei gratiam servetur, etiamsi
nihil auxilii ab hominum parte suppetat." — The prophet has in view,
at the same time, the great events of their former history, where, in
the absence of all human aids, the divine power had shown itself, as
alone sufficient for their help. That war, here, means precisely
" tveapons of war," cannot, with Gesenius, be asserted. It rather
comprehends all that belongs to war, the skill of the commanders,
the bravery of the heroes, the strength of the host, &c. The horses
and the riders are still especially mentioned, because in them, in an
cient times, lay the chief strength of the army. Mahommed even
held himself authorized to declare a victory, which he had gained
without cavalry, as a miracle wrought immediately by God ; comp.
Abulf Vit. Moh. pp. 72, 91.

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 2: 3. C. 2:1. 35
V. 8. " And she weaned Lo Ruhamah, and became pregnant, and
bare a son.
V. 9. " And he said. Call his name Lo Ammi, not my people ;
for ye are not my people, and I, I will not be yours." — The mention
of the weaning, is scarcely to be considered as a mere finishing of
the description, since the prophet elsewhere closely adheres to the
subject, though he causes the image to retire behind it, but never the
reverse. The truth was perceived by Calvin : " Non dubito, quin
propheta hie commendet diuturnam dei clementiam erga populum
ilium." The infidelity of the wife, the patience of the prophet,
endures for years. Literally, " and I will not be to you," i. q. " no
more belong to you." We cannot,'with Manger, assume that D'HbxS
has been dropped from the text, nor, with others, that it is to be sup
plied. As God speaks, so is the to you, or yours, sufficiently definite.
Similar, Ezek. 16 : 8, " And I entered into a covenant with thee,
and thou becamest mine," ''S ".rij?!. Ps. 118: 6, "The Lord is
mine, '"? n|n% I will not fear." — Too limited is the explanation of
several, non adero vobis. It is the highest prosperity to possess God
himself, with all his benefits and blessings ; the highest misfortune to
lose him. The fulfilment is related, 2 Kings 17: 18, " And the
Lord was greatly enraged against Israel, and removed them from his
sight, and there remained only the tribe of Judah." Comp. also
Is. 7 : 8.
The first three verses of the following chapter should have been
connected with this ; for they contain the prediction of prosperity,
which is necessary to complete the first prophecy.
Chap. 2:1. " And the number of the children of Israel will be as
ithe sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered. And it
comes to pass in the place, where it was said to them. Not my people
ye, it is said to them. Sons of the living God." — The subject of the
verse must first be determined. Every other reference is here arbi
trary, except that to the people of the ten tribes. The same, who, ac
cording to the foregoing verse, are called Lo Ammi, shall now be
called children of the living God. The sudden transition to the
'Christian Church, assumed by several older interpreters, would be a
saltus mortalis. We cannot understand by the children of Israel,
all the descendants of Jacob. For the children of Judah are dis
tinguished from them in v. 2. As to the fact, they also are indeed
comprehended, as appears even from this verse, for both will then
constitute one fraternal people. The prophet, however, here has in

36 HOSEA.
view only one portion, because to this only was the threatening di
rected, to it alone his agency referred. Hence, it is explained, how
the prophet can apply to the part, the promises of Genesis, which
there related to the whole. The reference to these promises in the
first half of the verse, is not to be mistaken. Compare particularly,
as most literally corresponding, the passage chap. 22 : 17: "I will
multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand, which is
on the sea-shore," and, particularly, chap. 32: 13, "I make thy
seed as the sand of the sea, which is not numbered for multitude."
A similar verbal allusion occurs, Jer. 33 : 22 : " As the host of
heaven is not numbered, and the sand of the sea not measured, thus
will I multiply the seed of David my servant." Now this allusion
cannot here be accidental. It presupposes, that those promises were
then generally known in the kingdom of Israel. They served to
confirm the ungodly in their false security. Relying thereupon, they
objected to the prophets, that they made God himself a liar, when they
predicted the impending overthrow of the state. For the promise
had not yet been fulfilled in its whole extent. The prophet now,
while he almost literally repeats the promise, shows that the threaten-
ings are not excluded by it. Calvin : " Docet talem fore vindictam,
de qua locutus est, ut tamen deus non obliviscatur verbi sui, docet
talem fare abdicationem populi, ut tamen firma et rata maneat
dei eleciio, denique docet non fore irritam adoptionem, qua sibi
deus progeniem Abr. delegerat in populum." The case is analo
gous when corrupt Christian Churches persist in their confi
dence in the promise of the Lord, that he will be with his
people always, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against
his Church. The Lord knows how to execute his judgments in
such a manner, that his promises shall not suffer thereby. Nay,
that their fulfilment shall thus be rendered possible. — The relation
of the passage to that of Is. 10 : 22 is still to be observed : " For
although the people Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, still only
the remnant will return." Here, also, the reference to the promises
of Genesis is not to be mistaken. The difference, however, is,
that in Isaiah, the people, considering the partial fulfilment of the
promises of God in their flourishing condition at this time, as a
pledge of the divine mercy, grounded thereon their future security ;
to which the prophet opposes the consideration, that even the co7n-
plete fulfilment would not justify this ; while in Hosea, they rely on
the complete fulfilment which had not yet taken place. — The latter,

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 2: 3. C. 2: 1. 37
however, has the pious, no less than the ungodly, in view. To the
former he shows, that the declaration. Num. 23 : 19, " God is not a
man that he should lie, or the son of man that he should repent.
Should he speak and not do, promise and not fulfil ? " would here
also be verified.— Finally, it is not to be mistaken, that in the
words there is an allusion to the name of the first child, Jezreel, as
also in v, 2, and as, in the second member of the verse, to Lo Ammi,
in V. 3 to Lo Ruhamah. The name Jezreel, is now taken in a good
sense, and, indeed, probably in the same, in which it was given to
the city by its builders. It means God sows. The builders thereby
express the hope, that God would give a glorious harvest from a small
sowing, a glorious end from a small beginning. So will God now
sow the small seed of Israel, and an immensely rich harvest will be
reaped from this sowing ; compare on v. 25. If we inquire after the
historical reference of this declaration, we must necessarily go back
to the sense of those declarations of Genesis. These are by many
referred merely to the natural descendants of the Patriarch ; by
others, at the same time, to his spiritual seed, his successors in the
faith. Both are equally false. The latter is entirely arbitrary, and
the former would then only be justified, if the theocracy had been
destined for the natural descendants of the Patriarch alone, if ad
mittance into it had been denied to all the heathen. Such, however,
is not the case. This is evident, from the command to circumcise
every bond man. By circumcision, however, a man was received
among the people of God. It is also evident, from the ordinance,
Exod. 12 : 44, that every stranger, who would be partaker of the
passover, must be previously circumcised ; which implies, that the
foreigners could participate in the sign, and feast of the covenant,
if they pleased, comp. Mich. JIos. R. Th. 4, § 184 ; also, from
Deut. 23 : 1-8, where the Edomites and Egyptians are expressly
declared capable of being received into the church of God ; from the
grounding of the interdiction of this privilege to the Ammonites and
Moabites on especial reasons, in the same place ; and, lastly, from
the Jewish practice at all times. The heathen, however, who had
been received among the people of God, were regarded as belonging
to the posterity of the patriarchs, as their adopted sons. How could
it be otherwise, since, through intermarriages, every distinction must
soon vanish ? They were, not less than others, called " children of
Israel " and " children of Jacob." Hence we see how far the promise
to the patriarchs refers also to the heathen, viz. so far as they

38 HOSEA.
became believers in the God of Israel, and joined themselves to the
Israelites, comp. Is. 44 : 5 ; " One shall say, I am Jehovah's, and
another shall appeal to the name of Jacob, and another shall write
with his hand To the Lord ! and glory in the name of Israel." Such
an accession of the heathen to the theocracy always took place,
when either the God of Israel made himself known by particular
extraordinary manifestations of his omnipotence and glory, as, e. g.,
in the deliverance from the Egyptian and Babylonish captivity,
where, in both instances, we find, in the train of the Israelites, a
multitude of former heathen, ai^., or the feeling of the nothingness
of the idols of the heathen world was especially awakened, as in the
times after Alexander the Great, in which Greek and Roman
heathenism was becoming continually more obsolete, and rapidly
hastening to its end. Both these causes most powerfully cooperated
in the time of Christ. Were the view, now quite prevalent, the cor
rect one, which makes the Church of the New Testament so inde
pendent of the community of Israel, originating out of a free and
equal union of believers from both Jews and Gentiles, the promise
before us would indeed no longer refer to the New Testament times.
The New Testament Church would then be an entirely new genera
tion, who no longer acknowledged in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
their fathers. But this view rests entirely on caprice. According to
the constant doctrine of the Old and New Testament, there is only
one Church of God from Abraham to the end of time, only one
house under two economies. Even John the Baptist proceeds on the
supposition, that children of Abraham must necessarily be also mem
bers of the new covenant, otherwise God's covenant and promise
would cease. But as the corporeal descent from Abraham did
not secure from the danger of being excluded from his posterity, of
which Ishmael gave the first example ; and as it is said even in the
Pentateuch, in reference to every greater transgression, " this soul is
cut off from its people ; " so, on the other hand, God, of his un
limited freedom, can give to Abraham, in the place of his degenerate
natural sons, adopted sons without number, who shall sit down with
him and with Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God, while the
sons of the kingdom shall be cast out. — After these remarks respect
ing the promise to the patriarchs, it can no longer be difficult to give
the historical reference of the declaration of the prophet. It cannot
refer to the increase of the natural descendants of Abraham as such,
any more than the promise of a sou to Abraham was fulfilled by the

THE PORTION Chap, 1 — 2: 3. C. 2 : 1, 39
birth of Ishmael, or than the Arabians stand in any relation to the
promise of the countless number of his descendants, which was
repeated to Isaac and Jacob in precisely the same extent, although
they were not ancestors of the Arabians. Reprobate sons are no
blessing, no objects of the promise, no sons in the complete sense.
A son of Abraham is any one only as far as he is the son of God.
Hence, " sons of Israel," and " sons of the living God," are here
joined together. Not as though the corporeal descent were some
thing entirely indifferent ; the natural descendants of the patriarchs
had the nearest claim to be their sons in the full sense. They emi
nently enjoyed, in the first place, the means of becoming such.
Theirs was the covenant, and the promise, and the adoption, Rom.
9 : 4. But all these outward advantages availed them nothing, if
they suffered them to lie useless. Then the promise to Abraham,
then also the declaration of the prophet, had no reference to them.
Both would be unfulfilled, although the children of Israel, if uncon
verted, should increase to be the most numerous nation on the whole
earth. Hence it appears, that this declaration was first fulfilled in
the Messianic time, and in part is still to be fulfilled when the family
of the patriarch receives, and will yet more receive an immeasurable
increase, partly by the reception of an innumerable multitude of
adopted sons, and partly by the exaltation of sons in an inferior, to
sons in the highest relation. That can be considered only as a faint
prelude, which took place subsequent to the Babylonish exile, when
the Lord roused a company of Israelites to participate in the return
to Palestine. For this multitude was too small to correspond in any
measure to the vast extent of the promise, and among them there
were certainly only a few who deserved the name of the children of
Israel in the fullest sense. That the higher name, Israel, indicative
of the relation to God, is here emphatic, appears especially from a
comparison of v. 4, where it is taken away from the degenerate
children, and interchanged with the name Jezreel. — In the second
half of the verse, the false interpretation of "yf.^. Dl'ppa by " instead
of" is to be set aside (Grotius and others), which, originating from an
unseasonable remembrance of the Latin, has no ground in the
Hebrew usage. The words could only mean (comp. Levit. 4 :
10-24 Jer. 22: 12), in the place where, properly, in the place
that the wider designation instead of the narrower, comp. Ew.
p. 649. The stat. constr. is explained by the circumstance, that the
whole following proposition expresses only one substantial idea, i. q..

40 HOSEA.
in the place of its being said to them. Ew. p. 577. The place here
can only be either that where the people first received the name of
Lo Ammi, Palestine, or the place of the exile, where they first ex
perienced its full import ; the affliction, a sermo realis of God. In
favor of the latter (Jonath. in loco, quo abducti sunt inter gentes},
the following verse is decisive, where ^^^nh corresponds to OipD, the
land of the exile. In both cases the second mode, ips;., to be under
stood as present, is intentionally used. The antithesis becomes the
more clear by the disregarding of the difference of time. — By the
people and children of God, the same thing is designated, according
to different relations. The Israelites were a people of God, in so far
as he was their king; children of God, in so far as he was their
father ; father, not in the first instance, as in the New Testament, in
reference to the spiritual begetting of the individuals, but in refer
ence to the spiritual begetting of the whole, and to the love and
guardianship founded upon it. In this relation, all Israel is often
personified as the son of God ; thus, e. g., Ex. 4 : 22, " Speak thus
to Pharaoh : My son, my first-born, is Israel." Sometimes also are
the Israelites called children or sons of God, e. g. Deut. 14 : 1,
" Ye are sons to the Lord your God," compare also Deut. 32 : 19 ;
though each individual could not on this account bear the name son
of God, which, therefore, never occurs, plainly because the adoption
under the Old Testament did not, as under the New, rest so much
on the personal relation of the individual to God, but he rather par
ticipated in it only as a member of the whole. This whole, as a
people of God, was, as it were, begotten, or born anew of God ;
comp. Deut. 32: 6, "Is he not thy father? He has made and pre
pared thee ; " V. 18, " The Rock, which bare thee, forsaliest thou, for-
gettest thou God, who encircles thee." Nevertheless, there was
an easy transition from the adoption of sons in the Old Testament,
to that in the New Testament sense. The former cannot exist in
its highest perfection, without the latter. The whole Church can
then only be considered and treated in the full sense, as a child of
God, can then only realize her destination, when her individual
members have been born of God. For this is the only way to attain
resemblance to God, the condition of admission to the rights of chil
dren. Hence it appears, that the vlod-sala, under the Old Testament,
looked forward to the times of the New Testament ; and also, that
the decljiration before us refers, in the end, to the same times.
Former fulfilments, particularly at the return from the Babylonish

THE PORTION Chap. 1—2: 3. C. 2:1. 41
exile, are not to be excluded (the idea comprehends, indeed, all
wherein it is realized, even in the smallest degree) ; they are, how
ever, to be considered only as a prelude to the proper fulfilment, to
take place when the reality entirely coincides with the idea, so that
we must not stop short at the commencemeht of the Messianic time,
but include this with its last completion. The inquiry still arises,
why God is here designated as the living. Plainly, to kwaken attention
to the antithesis between the true God and dead idols, who, because
they do not live, cannot love, and thus to show the importance of
being the child of such a God. Entirely the same antithesis is
found, Deut. 32 : 37 sq., " Where are their gods, their rock in whom
they trusted, which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drink the
wine of their drink-offerings'? Let them rise up and help you, and be
your protection. See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god
with me ; I kill, and I make alive ; I wound, and I heal." This
antithesis still continues, the world has only changed its idols. It
still seeks life from the dead, from the gross idols of sin, to the re
fined idol of an abstract, god of their own creation, whether he is
formed from conceptions or feelings. However much they may
strive to impart life to these idols, though they may give an appear
ance of vitality, they still remain dead. The true God, on the con
trary, continues to live, however much they riiay sedk to slay him ;
he shows himself as the living God, either in that he smites and
kills them, if they persevere in their impenitence, or in that he heals
and makes them alive, if they become his children. — Finally, the
two citations of the passage in the New Testament are to be con
sidered. The one, 1 Pet. 2 : 10, ol noti ov Aaos, rOv ds labg .dsov,
ol oix ^lErj/ievoi, vvv Ss ilsij&ivTeg, must appear remarkable, since this
epistle, on conclusive grounds, (comp. Steiger, p. 14 sq.,) must be
considered as not directed exclusively to Jewish Christians. Still
more striking, however, is the second, Rom. 9 : 25, 26, mg xixl iv tm
'Slarjs Xsysi ' xaXiaoo rov ov laov jiov, Xotor pov, xal ttjv ovx riyamjjiivrjv,
riyaiirjfthrjv. Ktxl itirai iv rw totico oil iQQij&tj avxoig' ov laog (lov
vfiiig, ixel xXTj&'^aovTai. vio] .&£ov ^wvTog. Here the calling of the
heathen is proved in opposition to the Jews, from the passage, which
is not merely alluded to, but directly cited. But how can a decla
ration, which, according to the whole connexion, belongs only to
Israel, be referred directly to the heathen ? The answer is easy, as
soon as the prophecy is referred back to its idea. This is no other
than that of the divine mercy, which can be hindered by apostasy
VOL. in. 6

42 HOSEA.
and unfaithfulness in its manifestation, but never extinguished,
because it is founded in the nature of God ; comp. Jer. 31 : 20, " Is
Ephraim a dear son to me ? a child of joy ? For as oft as I speak
of him, must I remember him still. My bowels are moved for him,
I will pity him, saith the Lord." Now as this idea is realized in
the restoration of the children of Israel to be the children of God,
so is it also in the reception of the heathen. The discourse here is
by no means concerning a mere application, but a proper proof
Because God has promised to restore the children of Israel, so must
he also receive the heathen. Otherwise must th^ former divine pur
pose rest on caprice, which is inconceivable in God. If the heathen
are not so near as Israel, still, even because he acknowledges the
nearer claim, must he satisfy the more distant. This necessity
of referring back to the idea, is not less manifest in respect to the
commands, than the promises. We cite only one example, which is
particularly suited to serve as parallel to the case before us. It is
indisputable, and only prejudice could have denied, that, in the Pen
tateuch, by the nearest (friend) and brother, the Israelite is throughout
to be understood. In the New Testament, the command of Chris
tian brotherly love is given. Paul, after recommending truth, sub
joins, " because ye are members one of another," which can refer
only to those who have Christ as their common head. Now, from
this limitation, can any thing be inferred to the prejudice of univer
sal philanthropy, of the obligation to love all without distinction 1
Exactly the contrary. Because the Israelite should love the Israelites
and the Christian the Christians, so also should he embrace all men
with love. If the special relation to God, as the common Redeemer,
is the foundation of peculiar love, so also must the general relation
to God as the Creator, and Preserver, be the ground of universal
love; just as, from the command, that a man should honor his father
and mother, it necessarily follows, that he must honor also his uncle
and aunt, and his king and superiors. This, which alone is the cor
rect view of the law and prophecies, when applied throughout brings
water out of the rock, and makes streams in the desert. It is owing
to the opposite method that the rich treasures of the Old Testament
are now used by so few. Here, alas ! psTavoiljs, is to be urged upon
many Christian theologians, and the author himself openly confesses,
that he now perceives how his tendency in the first volume was not
always sufficiently spiritual.
V. 2. " And the children of Judah, and the children of Israel

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 2 : 3. C. 2 ; 2. 43
assemble themselves together, and appoint for themselves a head, and
march out of the land, for great is the day of Jezreel." — At first
view, the expression, " they place for themselves a head," appears
strange. It is not, in general, the union of Judah and Israel, which
the prophet expected from the better future, — a perverse union of
both, one in which the house of Judah also forsook Jehovah their
God, and David their king, merely to live with Israel on brotherly
terms, would have been any thing else than an improvement and
blessing, — but a union founded in a return of Israel to the true
God, and to the royal line of David. This plainly appears from chap.
3 ; 5. The difficulty is removed by a comparison of the passage of
the Pentateuch, to which the prophet seems to allude : " Thou shalt
place over thee a king, whom the Lord will choose," Deut. 17 : 15.
The prophet has these words in view elsewhere, as it appears, where
he represents the hitherto opposite conduct of the Israelites, oomp.
on 3 : 4. From them it appears, that the choice of a king by God,
who had promised an eternal dominion to the royal line of David,
and his election by the people, do not exclude one another. On the
contrary, because God has chosen the king, do the people now also
choose him. Calvin : " Videtur quidem ad homines transferri, quod
proprium est dei unius, nempe regem constituere, sed propheta hac
voce fidei obsequium notavit, quia non satis est, Christum regem
dari et prajici homiiiibus, nisi eum amplectantur pro rege et r eve-
renter excipiant. TJnde colligimus, dum credimus evangelio, quasi
volunturiis suffragiis nos Christum in regem eligere." That the
prophet takes the placing of a head in this sense, appears also
from the reference manifestly lying at the foundation throughout
the whole verse, to the Exodus from Egypt, which was now to be
repeated. To this does the expression, "they gather themselves
together," refer. The assembling of the whole people preceded
the departure from Egypt. The mention of the heads refers back
to Moses. In his case, however, the choice of the people was only
an acknowledgment of his divine call  It is farther to be asked,
how the words, " they go forth out of the land," are to be understood ?
There can here be no doubt that by " the land," the land of their cap-
tivity is intended. The words are borrowed from Exod. 1 : 10, where
Pharaoh says : " If war comes upon us, they join themselves to our
enemies, and fight against us, and go forth out of the land," Ji? nhjl]
y?.*??- And the prophet explains himself chap. 2 : 17, where he com
pares this new entrance into the promised land, expressly with the

44 HOSEA.
former Exodus from Egypt ; " As in the day when he came up out of
the land of Egypt ; " just as he elsewhere describes the carrying
away, under the image of a carrying away to Egypt, t — Assyria, a
second Egypt, — comp. 8 : 13, " Now will he remember their sins,
and punish their misdeeds ; they will return to Egypt." Chap. 9 : 3,
" They will not dwell in the land of the Lord, and Ephraim returns
back to Egypt," comp. Vol. II. p. 142. To this it must be added,
that, in the other prophets also, the deliverance out of Egypt tmi-
formly lies at the foundation of the descriptions of the second great
restoration. Altogether naturally, since both events stand in the
closest connexion with one another, both proceed from the same
divine being, and the former was a matter-of-fact prophecy and
a pledge of the latter. The deliverance of the people of God out of
Egypt sealed their election, and this was necessarily followed by the
new deliverance, a connexion, which is repeated also in the case of
individuals. Hence, we can explain how, in the Psalms, the singers
so uniformly, from the former mercies of God, prove to him, and to
themselves, that he must now also afford his aid. It is, therefore,
by no means a mere outward resemblance, which gives occasion to
the prophet always to go back to the deliverance from Egypt, (comp.,
e. g., the passages entirely similar to the one before us, Mich. 2 : 12,
13, Jer. 23 : 7, 8,) just as little as the passover is a mere memorial,
which, in the true religion, that has a living God, and therefore
knows nothing absolutely past, can by no means occur. — The
article in ftlNn, the (definite) land, is explained by the circumstance,
that a carrying away into a foreign land had been at least indirectly
spoken of before. Were Israel no more a people of God, did he no
longer enjoy his mercy, then it was implied, that he could not re
main in the land, which he had received only as a people of God,
and had hitherto retained only by his compassion. The article,
however, refers, in the first instance, to the " place, where it has been
said to them," in the foregoing verse. — That the children of Ju
dah also assemble and go forth with the children of Israel, implies
what the prophet, as not relating immediately to his purpose, had not
expressly said, that the Jews also should be carried away into exile
and completes, therefore, chap. 1 : 7, since it shows, that the mercy
there promised to the Jews is to be only relatively understood. Such
anticipations plainly show, with what clearness the future was un
veiled to the eyes of the prophet. — In respect to the historical
reference, it must first be remarked, that wht here made out con-

THE PORTION Chap. 1— 2: 3. C. 2: 2. 45
cerning it, must likewise serve for all parallel passages, in which, as
here, a future reunion of Israel and Judah, and their common return
to the promised land, are predicted ; comp., e. g., Jer. 3 : 18, " In
that day the house of Judah shall go up with the house of Israel,
and they come together out of the north country, to the land that I
gave to their fathers." Chap. 50 : 4, " In those days the children
of Israel will come, they and the children of Judah together, weep
ing will they come, and seek the Lord their God." Is. 11, Ezek.
37 : 19, 20. Here, several interpreters, as Theodoret of old, refer to
the return from Babylon. The one head is to be Zerubbabel. And
it is not to be mistaken, that there is in this event a feeble com
mencement of the fulfilment. But, had it been the completion,
Hosea would be far more like a fanatic, than a true prophet of the
living God. The objection which at once presents itself, that the
greatest part of the ten tribes, and a very considerable portion of the
Jews, remained in exile, is by no means the strongest. Even if both
Jews and Israelites had all returned, still, the prophecy and its final
fulfilment, could not be sought in that event. It is not the renewed
possession of the land as such, which the prophet promised, but
rather a certain kind of possession, whereby the land becomes com
pletely the "land of God, partakes in the entire fulness of his bles
sings, and therefore becomes a suitable residence for the people of
God, and his children. A man can be in Canaan and at the same
time in Babylonia and Assyria. Or, was not, indeed, the threatened
punishment of God executed as well upon those, who, during the
Assyrian and Babylonish exile, still, perhaps, wandered about in the
land in affliction and distress, as upon those who were carried away?
Are the Jews who stdl dwell in Jerusalem, in the deepest wretched
ness, a proof, that the loss of the promised land, with which the
people were threatened, has not been completely fulfilled ? It is
true, indeed, that, in the times of the Old Testament, the higher
possession, and the lovrer, stood in a certain connexion. As soon as
the people were no more a people of God, along with the former,
having been often warned by its being taken from them, they finally
lost also the latter ; as soon as they recovered the inferior possession,
which could happen only in case of their conversion, they recovered
also in a certain degree in proportion as their conversion was earnest,
and thorough, the higher possession. A commencement of the
fulfilment must therefore also be assumed in the return from the
Babylonish exile. But only a feeble beginning. As their conver-

46 HOSEA.
sion was only very superficial, so the degree of the higher possession
was very small, the manifestations of the mercy of God were very
few, the condition of the new colony, on the whole, was poor ; they
did not possess the land as their own inheritance, but only under
foreign masters. What in one respect was the end, in another was
far more a continuation of the exile. It was not the true Canaan
which they possessed, any more than any one still possesses a beloved
object who embraces his corpse. Where the Lord is not, with his
gifts and blessings, there Canaan cannot be ; as a land of the pres
ence of. the Lord, was it so valuable and dear to all the pious. —
From what has been said, it also appears, that, in respect to the his
torical reference, we ought by no means to stop at the times of the Old
Testament, and just as little to dream of a still future return of Israel
to Canaan. Luther explains : " Ascendent ad ccdestem patriam ex hac
peregrinationis terra," is perfectly just, not indeed as to the letter, but
the reality. It is not the form of the divine inheritance, but the sub
stance, which the prophet has in view. The form, under the New
Testament, where the whole earth has become a Canaan, is changed,
the substance remains. To stick to the form here, is just as absurd
as when any one who has left all for Christ, would complain, that he
has not, according to the letter of the promise, received in return
precisely an hundred fold, brothers, sisters, mothers, &c., Mark" 10 :
30. The words of God are spirit and life, and with spirit and life
must they be understood. Granting that the children of Israel
should hereafter return to Canaan, this would have nothing to do
with our prophecy. In a religious point of view, it were a matter of
perfect indifference, and could not serve in the least to confirm
the covenant faithfulness of God. Under the new covenant, it
means : " And Canaan must even in the north joyfully bloom for
the beloved." The three stations, Egypt, the wilderness, and
Canaan, for ever remain, but we go from one to another only
with the feet of the spirit, not as under the old covenant, at the
same time with the feet of the body. The crude and literal inter
pretation, which knows not how to separate the idea from the dra
pery, the essential from the accidental, coincides with the allegori
cal, precisely in the chief point, that it inserts instead of interpret
ing. — The fulfilment of the prophecy, is therefore progressive, and
does not terminate, until the whole of God's saving plan is completed.
It commenced at Babylon, was carried forward at the appearance of
Christ, whom many out of Judah and Israel placed as their head, as

THE PORTION Chap. 2: 4-25. 47
the common leader to Canaan ; it is still daily realized in our sight
in every Israelite who follows their example ; it will hereafter reach
the final fulfilment in the last and greatest proof of the covenant
faithfulness of God towards Israel, which, happily, is just as much
secured by the New Testament, as by the Old. — The last words of
the verse, as to the substance, have already been explained on v. 1.
The name Jezreel, stands here in reference to its appellative mean
ing. Israel appears here (comp. v. 25) as a seed, which, sown by
the Lord in a fruitful land, will produce a rich harvest. Somewhat
differently apphed is the figure, Jer. 31 : 27, Ez. .36-: 9, where the
house of Israel, and the house of Judah, appear as the field, which
is sown by God ; analogous also is Ps. 72 : 16, " If there be a hand
ful of corn in the land on the summit of the mountains, its fruit
will rustle like Lebanon, and they shall bloom out of the city as the
grass of the earth." The '3 is explained by the circumstance, that the
sowing, which can take place only in the land of the Lord (comp.
V. 25), presupposes the going forth out of the land of the captivity.
If, now, the day of the sowing is great, if it is regarded by God as
high and important, then also must the condition of the sowing, the
leading forth, necessarily follow.
V. 3. "Say to your brothers, My people ! and to your sisters. Ye
who have found mercy." — The phrase, " my people," is concisely
said, for " Ye, whom the Lord has named My people." The mention
of the brothers and sisters, is explained by the reference to the male
and female portion of the family of the prophet. The expression
" say," is, in substance, i. q., " then will ye be able to say." The
prophet sees the pardoned people of the Lord before him, and calls
upon his contemporaries joyfully to greet one another with the new
name which had been given to them by God. This is the simple
sense of the verse, which has been darkened by a multitude of
forced interpretations.

Verses 4 - 25.

" The significant pair," remarks Riickert, " vanishes in that
which is signified. Israel himself appears as the ' incontinent
wife.' " This is the only essential distinction between this portion

48 HOSEA.
and the foregoing, which is not so great, since there also, in the
last part, the symbolic action passes over into a mere figure. Else
where also this portion alternates between punishment and threaten
ing on the one hand, and promises on the other, the latter of which
begins with v. 16. Features of the image, which, little regarded iu
the preceding verses, are here particularly finished, are the rejection
of the unfaithful spouse, and her gradual reception again. Calvin :
" Deus postqiiam dstendit hominibus peccata, adjungit aliquam con-
solationem et temperat asperitatem, ne scil. despondeant animos.
Postea rursum revertitur ad minas, et hoc facit necessario, quia
etiamsi homines territi fuerint metu pwna, non tamen in solidum
resipiscunt." Manger : " Novo veluti cum impetu ad idem argument
turn uberius exponendum a tristioribus initio iterum ducio repente
revertitur."

V. 4. " Contend with your mother, contend, for she is not my
wife, and I am not her husband, and let her put away her whoredom
from her sight, and her adultery from her breasts." Because by 3
the hostile disposition resting upon any object, and fixing upon it, is
frequently expressed, so T"^ also becomes modified by it, " to con
tend against any one," comp. Ew. p. 606. Calvin supposes, that
there is here an antithesis with the striving with God, to whom the
Israelites attributed the blame of their misfortune ; " Strive not
against me, but rather against your mother, who, by her unfaithful
ness, has broughjt a righteous punishment upon herself and upon
you." But this interpretation is inadmissible, since it proceeds on
the false supposition, that the divorce is to be considered as outward
ly already effected, while the striving here is manifestly one whereby
it was to be averted. " Strive with your mother,'' is rather, i. q.,
" It is high time to call her to account, if you would not go to de
struction with her." We cannot infer from this, that the moral con
dition of the children was better than that of the mother ; the
prophet only designed to say, without regard to their moral character,
that their interest would require them to do this. He could, if he
did not directly desire to carry out the image of unfaithfulness, have
exhorted the mother also to strive against the children, as it is said.
Is. 50 : 1 : " Behold, ye are sold for your misdeeds, and for your

THE PORTION Chap. 2: 4-25. V. 4. 49
crime is your mother dismissed." In point of fact, the mother has
no existence apart from the children. Vitringa : " Unus idemque
populus appellatur mater, quando complexe sumitur, et liberi, respectu
singulorum, qui ex populo nascuntur. Populus enim ex populo nasci-
tur. Ita enim est, in omni populo censetur quid esse radicale, quod
substantiam et hypostasin ejus facit, cujus respectu populus civium
suorum mater dicitur." Just as little can it be inferred from this
exhortation, that a reformation and a turning away of the threatened
punishment is still to be hoped. This is contradicted by what fol
lows, where the wife appears as irreclaimable, and her rejection as
inevitable. Rather the fundamental thought is only the necessity
of reformation, if the threatened judgments are still to be averted.
That this reformation would not actually take place, the prophet
foresaw. He therefore afterwards speaks unconditionally. It does
not, however, follow, that his exhortations and threatenings would
then be entirely in vain. Were no reformation to be expected from
the people, still, individuals might be converted. At the same time,
it was of great importance in reference to the future, that the true
view of their misdeeds should be opened to the people before their
calamity broke in upon them. It is of much importance, that any
one when he is chastised shbuld know wherefore. The instruction
in the doctrine of Christ, which an evil doer received in his youth,
often seems, for a long series of years, to have been entirely in vain ;
often, however, when punishment has softened his heart, it brings
forth its fruit. — In the words, " for she is not my wife, and I am
not her husband," the ground of the exhortation is given. But this
is not sufficient reason for referring the words to the outward dissolu
tion of the marriage, to the punishment of the wife. They desig
nate rather its moral dissolution, the guilt of the wife, i. q., "our
marriage is de facto dissolved." This actual divorce, however, in the
spiritual marriage, is always, sooner or later, followed by the legal,
according to the greater or stnaller measure of the lOng-suffering of
God. Without a figure,(where sin is, there al^o punishment always
comes. God bears with much weakness in his people ; but, where
the relation to him in its essence is dissolved by them, there he also
abolishes it. The nagixrog loyov noQvdag serves also for the spiritual
marriage. The devotion of the soul to something that is not God,
is here put upon a level with corporeal adultery. And thus we
clearly see the connexion between strive and for. — The last words
of the verse many interpreters prefer to connect with I2'''i, since they
VOL. III. 7

50 HOSEA.
consider the sentence beginning with '3 as a parenthesis, " strive
with your mother that she put away." Thus lastly Riickert. But
this is ungrammatical. The shorter form of the fut. can stand only
in the sense of the optat., thus, " and let her put away," Ew. p. 527.
The words are rather to be considered as parallel to the first mem
ber. " Strive," &c. is, i. q., " seek to reform your mother," or " lead
your mother to repent." The transgression is first designated as
whoredom, then as adultery. How they are related to one another
is evident from chap. 1 : 2, where the idea of adultery is paraphrased
by " to go a whoring from Jehovah." Whoredom designates the
genus, adultery the species, where the sacred rites of another are at
the same time violated. Transferred to spiritual things, the worldli-
ness of those, to whom pod has entered into no near relation, chiefly
constitutes the idea of whoredom ; while such conduct, on the part
of individuals and communities with whom God has formed a spirit
ual marriage, and who apostatize therefrom, as more aggravated, is
designated as adultery. The prophet speaks also in the first instance
of the whoredom of the children of Israel, since he leaves out of
view the aggravating circumstances. — The question, why whoredom
is here attributed to the countenance, adultery to the breast, is well
answered by Manger : "Nee morari quenquam debet, quod ipsi vultui
et uberibus adulteria tribui videat ; dignitatem enimvero habet hac
brevitas, ad octdum quasi demonstrans, mulierem toto habitu libidini
addictam atque ad cam excitandam et exercendam unice compositam.
SoluicB nimirum lascivim feminis solet suus vultus esse, qualis ille ap.
Horat. L. 1, Orf. 19.
' Urit grata protenitas,
Et vultus nimium lubricus aspid. '
Ubera Israelis pressa in JEgypto, Ezek. 22 : 3." That precisely the
face and breasts are mentioned, may be explained better than by the
reason given by Schmid, (" Non pergit scriptura ad pejores et cras-
siores fornicationum actus, ut pudori par cat,") which little agrees
with the custom of Scripture in this respect, — comp. only Ezek. 16
and 23, and here, immediately below, v. 12, — by the supposition,
that here those parts are mentioned in which impure desire is openly
manifested, so that the highest degree of impudence is designated.
This shows, that there is no longer any struggle within, any conflict
of the better principle with the evil. One resembles such an impu
dent whore, who openly manifests, without shame or concern, his
devotedness to the world. Thus Calvin : " Non dubium autem est,

THE PORTION Chap. 2: 4-25. V. 5. 61
qinn propheta hie exprimat impudentiam populi, quia jam sic ob-
duruerant ad dei contemtum, ad impias super stitiones, ad omne genus
scelerum, ut similes essent meretricibus, qua non occultant suam tur-
pitudinem, sed palam se prostituunt, imo volunt extare signa foedita-
tis sua tarn in oculis suis, quam in toto corpore."
V. 5. " That I do not strip her naked, and expose her as in the
day of her birth, and make her like the wilderness, and make her like
a dry land, and slay her by thirst." Connected with the marriage
here spoken of, was the special circumstance, that the husband re
deemed the wife out of the most deplorable and wretched condition,
before he united himself with her, and therefore he became her
benefactor before he was her husband ; comp. chap. 3 : 2, where the
Lord redeems the wife from slavery, Ezek. 16 : 4, where the people
appear as a child exposed naked, and covered with filth, whom the
Lord takes care of, supplies with costly clothing and splendid orna
ments, and destines for his spouse. During the marriage state, the
husband continues to manifest his liberality towards the wife. Now
the gifts, which had all been imparted to her, only in reference to her
marriage, to be concluded, or already concluded, were to cease, be
cause the marriage covenant had been broken by her guilt. She is
now reduced to the condition of the deepest misery, in which she
was involved before her union with the Lord. — There is an allusion
to the clothing and nourishment, which, in the case of an actual
marriage, the husband was bound to give to the wife, comp. Is, 4 : 1.
If God withdraws his gifts, the consequence is immeasurably more
terrible, because, unlike an earthly husband, he has all in his pos
session ; if he does not give to drink, he kills by thirst. If this ag
gravation of the punishment, grounded only in the person of the
husband, is considered, it easily appears, that only a reference to
the withdrawal of the nuptial gifts, in consequence of the divorce,
lies at the foundation, and we need not, with several, e. g., Manger,
assume an allusion to a punishment of adultery alleged to have been
common at that time, " Ut vestibus spoliata, ludibrioque publico ex
posita fame et siti enecarentur." — The eternal and universal truth,
which, in the verse before us, is expressed in the special reference to
Israel, is, that all the gifts of God are imparted to individuals, and to
vvhole nations, only to bring them to a state of communion with him,
or as a consequence of such a state already existing ; as the Lord says,
that, to him who seeks first the kingdom of God, all else shall be added.
If this design of the gifts of God is disregarded, if they are not received

52 HOSEA.
and enjoyed as gifts of God, if a man declines the spiritual marriage,
or breaks it when concluded, then, sooner or later, the gifts are with
drawn. The word naked, properly includes the whole sentence in it
self, exspoliabo earn, ut nuda fiat. J'Xn, to put away, has the secon
dary idea of public exposure, comp. Job 17 : 6. DT is not an accus.
This stands in determinations of time only when the action extends
through a whole period. Nor need we assume an omission of the 5.
This occurs, indeed, in the case of some very frequent determina
tions of time, or, more correctly, the time is barely mentioned, with
out expressing in what relation the action stands to it, as ipp, morn
ing, for in the morning ; nS;S, night, for in the night, — as we also
say, this day eight days, without thinking of a grammatical ellipsis.
But this brevity is found in Hebrew, only when such a word stands
alone, never when it is connected with one that [follows in the stat.
constr., unless this connexion has become a standing one, which is
here not the case. We must rather translate : " as the day of her
birth," and then we have here one of the frequent cases where the
comparison is merely intimated, and not carried out, comp., e. g.,
" As the day of Midian," Is. 9 : 3, " Let your heart rejoice as
wine," Zech. 10 : 7, &c,, Ew. p, 614. The tertium compar. be
tween the birthday, and the future condition, is, indeed, only the
entire nakedness. To think at the same time of the ornament, &c,,
is unnatural. The prophet must have in some way pointed out this.
The two parts of the first half verses correspond to one another
exactly, as the three of the second. In the first, the stripping off of
the clothing answers to the nakedness ; in the second, the withdraw
al of the nourishment, to hunger and thirst. The question arises,
whether the mention of the birthday, here, belongs only to the
figure, is a mere designation of entire nakedness, because man is
never more naked than when he comes into the world, or whether it
is so far to be taken literally, that we must understand by the birth
day, the condition of the people in Egypt, to which they were now
to be reduced. This latter reference is favored, not merely by the
parallel passages of Ezekiel, but still more by the purely matter-of-
fact character of the whole description. Israel in this portion is not
compared to the wife, so that figure and reality stand by the side of
each Other, but he appears as the wife herself — The words, " I
make her as the wilderness," &c., are well explained by Manger :
" Statum dipingit horridum et desperatum, ubi omnia desint ad vitam
sustentandam nccessaria, ct siti sit pereundum, qualis est deserti

THE PORTION Chap. 2: 4-25, V, 7, 53
prorsus inculti et solis ardore exusti." The comparison appears the
more suitable, when we remark, that the wilderness and desert are
here personified, and represented as hungry and thirsty. This was
too figurative for several prosaic interpreters. They would, there
fore, in both instances, after the 5, Supply a 5, " as in the desert,''
&c., i. q,, " I will place her in the condition in which she formerly
found herself in the desert," But that such a supplying of the D is
inadmissible, is self-evident. If we would follow this interpretation,
we must rather assume, that here also a mere intimated comparison
occurs, as " the desert," for, " as she was in the desert." But then,
also, the explanation remains unsatisfactory, on another ground. The
impending condition of the people by no means corresponded to that
in the desert. This had its antitype rather in such an one as did not
exist until after the punishment, comp, v. 16. That by " the desert,"
the desert of Arabia, the desert jtaT" Hoxrjv, is especially intended, is
evident from the article. That this, however, is regarded only as
being peculiarly desolate, and not as the former residence of the
Israelites, appears from what follows, " in a dry land," without the
article, not, as we should otherwise expect, " in the dry land,"
Parallel, finally, is the threatening, Deut. 28 : 48, " And thou servest
thine enemy, whom the Lord will send upon thee in hunger and
thirst, and in nakedness, and in great want."
V. 6. " And her children will I not pity, for they are children of
whoredom." That these children were to be rejected on account of their
origin, and not their manners, (Mich. : " Qui matris adultera ani-
mum et mores sequuntur, ut viperaviperam parit et mali corvi malum est
ovum,") appears from v. 7. That the children are children of whore
dom, constitutes the reason of their rejection, and that they are such
is proved by the fact, that their mother practised this crime ; comp.
also chap. 5 : 7, " They have been faithless to the Lord, for strange
children have they borne." In point of fact, the sinful origin and
sinful nature coincide.
V. 7. " For your mother has played the whore, she, who bore you,
has been disgraced, for she has said, I will go after my lov£rs, the
givers of my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and
my drink." — na^'jin is explained in two ways. The usual interpre
tation is, " She has practised what is disgraceful, acted shamefully."
Thus, e. g., Winer, Gesenius, Riickert. Others, on the contrary,
" She has been put to shame ; " so Manger, who remarks, " This
word is stronger than HJI, not merely an accusation of shameful

.54 HOSEA.
whoredom, sed cam criminis hujus etiam convictam et quasi in
flagranti delicto deprehensam esse, ut quamvis frons ei dudum per-
ierit, negare illud amplius non possit, sed confusa et perplexa harere
debeat." This latter interpretation is unquestionably to be preferred.
For, 1. ty'ain never occurs in the first-mentioned sense. Winer con
tents himself with citing this passage ; Gesenius appeals, besides, to
Prov. 10 : 5. But ty'ap j3 is there plainly " a son, who disgraces
his parents," — Chap. 29 : 15, IBX is subjoined, — or, "who makes
them ashamed, disappoints their hopes." On the contrary, the
meaning " to be put to shame,'' de re pudenda^ convinci, is fully es
tablished, comp., e. g., Jer. 2 : 26 : "As the disgrace of the thief
when he is discovered, so is the house of Israel put to shame." Jer.
6 : 15, " They were put to shame, for they have committed an abomi
nation, they shamed not themselves, felt no shame." 8:9. In all
these passages, tv^ain signifies the disgrace which is forced upon
those who have no sense of shame. 2. The meaning, to act shame
fully, admits of no regular derivation. Gesenius appeals to analo
gies, as a'yn, ]fXi, but these would be to the purpose, only when
B'l'a Kal, signified to be infamous, while it only means to be ashamed.
Derived from I£'13, the verb can only mean, to shame, to put to shame,
as it occurs, e. g., 2 Sam. 19 : 6. The sense, however, to put to
shame, can be well justified. As Hiph. cannot be intransitive, Ew.
p. 188, in this sense, it must be regarded as derived from r\W2, pu-
dorem, ignominiam contraxit, which is favored also by Jer. 2 : 26. In
respect to D'SlIX!?, the lovers, comp. Vol. II. p. 239. The '3 confirms
the proposition, that the mother has played the whore and been dis
graced, by a further exposition of the crime and its origin. The
same delusion, which here appears as the cause of the spiritual
adultery, we also find as such, Jer. 44 : 17, 18. The people (the
exiles in Egypt) there answer Jeremiah, who warns them not to sin
by idolatry, because that had been the cause of all their present
misery, and greater still threatened them, that they will continue to
burn incense, and bring drink-offerings to the queen of heaven, as
they and their forefathers had formerly done in their native land :
" for, since we have ceased to do this, we have been destitute
of all things, and destroyed by hunger and the sword." To this delu
sion, also, he refers the antithesis of the fountain of living water, and
the broken cisterns which have no water, Jer. 2 : 13. That, how
ever, which is the cause of gross whoredom, is a consequence of
spiritual. The inward apostasy must already have taken place,

THE PORTION Chap. 2: 4-25. V. 8. 55
when a man speaks as the wife in the verse before us. So long as
he faithfully perseveres in communion with God, he beholds with the
eye of faith his hand in the clouds, from which he receives all, by
which he is led, on which every thing, even what is apparently most
independent and powerfiil, depends. As soon as he breaks off com
munion with God by unbelief, and heaven is shut against him, he
looks around upon the visible world, and seeks for all which seems
to manifest itself as an independent and superior power, and makes
this the object of his proofs of love, and efforts to obtain its favor, in
a wferd, his God. In such an effort as this, the Israelites would
chiefly look to the idols. For they savv the surrounding nations rich
and powerful, and they themselves attributed their power and wealth
to the idols. To them, therefore, the Israelites now attributed the
gifts, which they had hitherto received, and the more readily, since
they could more easily satisfy their requisitions, than those of the true
God, who requires precisely that, and nothing else, which it is most
difficult to give, the heart ; and as they had first determined not to
give this, they deeply felt that they had no good to expect from him,
since that which he still left to them could be considered only as a
gift of unmerited mercy, destined to lead them to repentance, from
which the natural man revolts, who always dreams of merit in his
relation to God. What we here perceive in them is still daily re
peated. If we only put in place of idols, the abstract god of the
Rationalists and Deists, or human power, either that of their own, or
of others, &c., it will be manifest, that " I will go after my lovers,
who give my bread," &c., is still the motto of the world, — bread
and water, to express the necessaries of life, oil and (strong) drink,
to express that which serves rather for luxury.
V. 8. " Therefore, behold I stop up thy way with thorns, and
wall up her wall; and lier path she will not find." The faithless
wife is first addressed, thy way; then, however, there is a transition
to the third person, her wall, her path. The wife should be shut up
in her way, first, by a hedge of thorns, then by a stone wall, precise
ly as. Is. 5 : 5, the vineyard is first surrounded with a thorn hedge,
noi^p, then with a wall, IIJ. The enclosure by a wall, as the
strongest, is also found Lam. 3 : 19, " he hath walled up my way
with square stones," and Job 19 : 8. Stuck would read TTr^i for
'^y}i, because the use of the suff.. here cannot be perceived. But it
is altogether in its place, " a wall, which is one for her, which she
cannot break through or scale," therefore, i. q., " I make for her a

56 HOSEA.
, wall." The alleged emendation, however, is entirely unphilologi
cal. Ewald, p. 594, indeed admits some cases, where ns is supposed
to stand before indefinite nouns. But on a nearer examination, the
rule, that it can stand only with those which are definite, appears as
entirely without exception. The two most plausible instances, are
Exod, 21 : 28, 2 Sam. 4:11. But, in the first passage, we are not
to translate, " when an ox assaults a man or a woman," but " man
or woman." ty'X and r\m are of equal validity, as a noun with the
article, because they express the idea of the whole kind. In the
second passage, it is not a, but the righteous man. The article tore
also is not necessary, because the personified generic idea is placed
in antithesis with the ungodly, — The words of the man, in the
verse before us, stand in plain contrast with those of the wife, v. 7.
Schmid : " Poena quceddm talionis est, ilia dixit, Ibo ad amasios
rneos ; at deus minatur contra, se obsepturum viam, ut abire nequeat."
'J^n designates the unexpectedness of the result, the wife thought
she should be able to accomplish her purpose with security and
ease. The thought of her husband, who has heretofore, from weak
ness, as she supposed, suffered her to go quietly her own way,
does not occur to her, when she sees herself suddenly fast enclosed
and walled around, — The chief point still remains, viz. to deter
mine what is to be understood by the enclosure with a wall. The
interpreters have chiefly failed to make this clear. Manger refers it
to an inextricable embarrassment by inward disquiet, and hostile
oppression. This, however, is entirely erroneous. The reference
to v. 7, and the connexion with v. 9, plainly show, that the wall was
intended to cut her off from her lovers ; that it cannot, therefore, be
an image of distress ; not the way, or way of escape in general, but
the way to her lovers. Others think of the manifold suffering and
oppression, especially the carrying away into exile, whereby God laid
a hindrance in the way of the further idolatry of the Israelites. But
the question now arises, in how far ? An outward hindrance cannot
be thought of Outwardly, the Israelites, even in the exile, in the
midst of idolatrous nations, had still more opportunity for idolatry,
than in their native land. It can, therefore, refer only to an internal
hindrance. Of what sort this was, we learn from v. 7. The re
moval by God of that,, which is there given by the people, as a reason
of their return to their idols, must be the hindrance of further idola
try. The people reasoned from the gift, to the supposed giver. The
bread, (&c., was a temptation which the idols presented to them, by

THE PORTION Chap. 2: 4-25, V, 9. 57
which they felt bound to make returns, and endeavour after further
favor. All depended, therefore, on interrupting this communication
with the idols ; the worship of them would then cease of itself
Now this was done, when God removed the gifts in which the people
beheld their idols, instead of him. It is this removal, which is here
represented under the image of a wall of enclosure. — What God
here threatened the Israelites with, he still daily executes. Whoever
does not acknowledge his gifts as such, but suffers himself to be led
by them to idolatry, from him he takes them away, in order that he
may thus acknowledge the former giver. Thus he establishes a gulf
between him and the object of his idolatrous lOve, and drives him to
seek the living God, instead of a god of his own making, who cannot
help. This, his righteousness on the one hand requires, which must
punish the adultery, and change the sweetness of sin into bitterness ;
on the other, his mercy, which betimes employs the means, which, if
not the only, are still well suited to deliver the sinner. Both attri
butes demand this proceeding, the more strongly, the nearer the re
lation is to God ; righteousness, in so far as the sin is greater, mercy
in so far as the love. To the heathen, God often leaves their ways
open for a long time ; to Israel they were soon hedged up. He still
proceeds in the same way with nations and individuals.
V. 9. " And she pursues her lovers, and will ndt overtake them,
and seeks, and will not find them. Then she says, I will go and
return to my first husband, for it was better with me then than now."
t]^T in Pi. has not a transitive, but an intensive, sense. Ew. p,
195. Calvin : " In persequendi verbo notatur vesanus fervor, quem-
admodum videmus, idololatras similes esse phreneticis. Ostendit tarn
penitus harere pervicaciam in cordibus ipsorum, ut non statim redi-
turi sint ad sanam mentem." The separation from the object of
idolatrous love at first heightens the desire for it, the efforts to ap
proach it. But if these fail of their object by the care of God, if it
is impossible to fill the inward void, by enjoying the object of an
impure love, those who yield to the operation of the Holy Spirit
(Calvin : " Verum est dictum illud vulgar e, improbos facilius frangi,
quam corrigi ; sed quum post multas admonitiones homines tandem
sapere incipiunt, hac mutatio a spiritu dei contingit,) gradually come
to themselves ; they perceive the vanity of their idols, and return to
the true God, This apostasy, and this return, are pathetically rep
resented by our prophet also, chap. 14 : 2-4, " Turn back, O Israel,
to the Lord thy God, for thou art fallen by thine iniquity. Take
VOL. III. 8

58 HOSEA.
with you words, and turn back to the Lord ; say to him. Forgive all
our guilt, and receive us graciously, and we will offer bullocks, our
lips. Asshur will hot help us, we will not ride upon horses, nor say
any more, Our god ! to the work of our hands, for with thee the
orphans find mercy," — To pursue, and to seek, are expressed in the
prat., the not overtaking, and not finding, in the fut., because the
former precedes the latter. What is to be understood by the " not
overtaking," and " not finding " of the idols, the failing of all which
formerly appeared as the proofs of their power and their love, is
evident, from what has been already remarked. " I will go and re
turn to my first husband," forms a beautiful antithesis with " I will
go after my lovers," in v. 7. ' This giving of the result, shows, that
God's mercy is most efficacious precisely where it seems to have
entirely vanished, and where his penal justice, which also is not to
be excluded, — there is no suffering, which does not at the same
time proceed from it, no punishment, which is inflicted merely for
the sake of improvement,- — appears alone to act. Calvin : " Pro
pheta nunc ostendit, utilem nobis fore rigorem dei, qui tandem adiget
nos ad resipiscentiam ; deinde commendat dei gratiam in ipso quoque
rigore, ut sciamus deum consulere suorum saluti, etiam dum inclemen-
tius videtur ipsos tractare." The false interpretation of Manger,
and several others, is still to be noticed. They explained, contrary
to philology, " in order that she might say." It is not said what
actually happened, but what should happen, according to the design
of God. The 1 at the beginning of the following verse is, i. q.,
nihilosecius. This erroneous interpretation has originated from the
opinion, that " and she says," would be in contradiction with what
follows, according to which, the wife perseveres in her infidelity. But
this apparent contradiction is obviated by the remark, that the
prophet, in v. 10 sq., commences a new paragraph, returning to a
description of the guilt and punishment, and he does not pursue,
until V. 16, what, in reference to the conversion and obtaining of
mercy, he had here barely intimated. " She says," belongs there
fore to a later time, than " she knows not."
V. 10. "And she, she knows not that I have given her the corn
and the must, and the oil, and I have increased her silver and gold
that they have spent upon Baal." The blessings here recounted
were a gift of God to Israel in an entirely peculiar sense. He con
ferred them upon the Church, as her covenant God, as her husband.
Thus were they already predicted in the Pentateuch, comp., e. g..

THE PORTION Chap, 2: 4-25. V. 10. . 59
Deut. 7 : 13. " And he loved thee, and increased thee, and blessed
the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, thy must,
and thine oil." 11 : 14, " And I give the rain of the land in its
time, and thou gatherest thy corn, and thy wine, and thy oil." That
Hosea mentioned the three objects in precisely the same succession,
as they occur in the two passages, is by no means accidental. The
acknowledgment, that they derived these gifts of God from his special
providence, from the covenant relation, the Israelites were to express
by the celebrating of the feast, and by presenting the firstlings. —
The relative proposition V^a'l , ?i5']^, is, as it often happens, added
without a sign of the relation, without a pron. suff., which is mani
fest from the preceding substantive. Ew. p. 646. Several, from the
Chaldee to Rosenmiiller, explain, " which they have made for a
Baal, whereof they have made images of him,"' appealing to 8 : 4,
" their silver and their gold they have made into idols for them
selves." But this is contradicted, 1. by the circumstance, that HE';?
with 7, in the sense to make to any one, to make one's own, was
a religious terminus technicus, as appe^ars from the frequent repe
tition in Exod. 10 : 25 sq., and also from the frequent omission
of niYr'S. The phrase occurs, 2 Kings 17 : 32, of the worship of
idols. 2. It cannat be proved, that Sj;3n in the sing., and with the
article, could stand for a statue of Baal. 3. According to this inter
pretation, there is not so striking an antithesis of that which the Is
raelites did, with that which they should do. What the Lord gave
to them, that they consecrated to Baal, instead of him to whom this
manifestation of gratitude alone belonged. Not satisfied to with
draw from the true God the honor and gratitude which were his due,
they transferred both to his enemy and unworthy rival, a proceeding,
which, bearing testimony to the deep corruption of human nature,
has been constantly repeated until the present day, and must here
after be repeated, because this corruption constantly remains the
same. It is in substance entirely the same, when the Israelites con
secrated their gold to Baal, and when our great poets consecrate
their rich spiritual gifts, received from God, to the world and its
prince. " And she knew not," is, in both cases, equally blamable,
and deserving of punishment. The giver has not concealed him
self; the objects of his bounty have shut their eyes, in order not to
see him, whom they are unwilling to thank. They would be glad if
their bountiful benefactor were annihilated, in order that they might
not be disturbed in the enjoyment of his gifts by the unpleasant

60 HOSEA.
thought of him, and might use them at pleasure, without fearing
their loss, and devote themselves undisturbed to a god like them
selves. Parallel to the passage before us, perhaps an imitation of it,
is, finally, Ezek, 16 : 17, 18, " And thou takest thy ornament from my
gold and my silver, that I have given thee, and makest to thee the
image of a man, and whorest whh them ; and thou takest thy em
broidered garments and clothest them, and my fat and my incense,
givest thou before them."
V. 11. "Therefore I return and take my corn in its time, and my
must in its season, and withdraw my wool and my flax to cover her
nakedness." jpj? is very emphatic. It points to the eternal law of
God's government, according to which he will be sanctified upon
those in whom he has not been sanctified, and the more so, the
nearer his relation to them, and the greater his gifts. Whoever is
not moved by them to give himself, from him shall they be taken,
and nothing remains to him, who was before richly endowed, but his
natural .poverty and nakedness. Happy when they are taken away
in time for him still to perceive the giver in him who has taken
away, and to betake himself to him, as it is said (chap. 3:5) of
the Israelites, with deep repentance for his ingratitude. When this
is done, it appears that he is not an object of the divine righteous
ness alone, that the mercy of God is still extended to him. The
longer God continues his gifts to the unthankful, the more gloomy is
their prospect in the future. What he has given in mercy he con
tinues only in anger. -^ Most interpreters explain 'j^t'p'^i 3V.£'X, "I
will og'am take," — two verbs frequently joined together, of which
the one indicates only an accessory idea of the action, Ew. p. 631.
But the mode of expression is in general far less frequent than is
commonly supposed, and here the interpretation, " I will return and
take," is clearly to be preferred. The Scripture says, that God ap
pears when he merely makes himself known in the operations of
his omnipotence, righteousness, and love, a mode of expression
originating in a lively sense of the presence of God, which, by the
eye of faith, perceives the invisible author in the visible effect ; comp.,
e. g.. Gen. 18 : 10, where the Lord says, " he will return to Abra^
ham at the same time in the following year," — since he did not, as
at that time, appear again in a visible form, but only in the fulfilment
of his promise. As God, therefore, formerly appeared to Israel as a
giver, he now, as they do not acknowledge himas such, returns as
one who takes away. " She knew not that I gave, therefore will I

THE PORTION Chap. 2: 4-25. V, 11. 61
return and take." It appears that the prophet would intimate, that
the word should be so understood by the very change of the tenses.
It is entirely natural, that a verb used adverbially should conform, as
nearly as possible, to that which contains the principal idea ; and
there is scarcely one example, certainly not many, where, in such a
case, there is a diversity of tenses. Entirely analogous is Jer. 12 : 15,
"And it comes to pass, after I have destroyed them, D'Opnil 31B'X,
I will return, and have compassion upon them ; " where, by the
explanation, " I will again have compassion upon them," the sense
is very much weakened. With the same design the tense appears to
be changed also below, chap. 3 : 5. What is there said of Israel,
forms a remarkable parallel with that which is here said of God.
God had formerly come giving, Israel taking, God returns back
taking, Israel giving ; a relation, which gives an insight into the
whole economy of affliction. — " My corn," &lc in the antithesis
with V. 7, where Israel calls all this his. What God gives remains
always his, because he gives it only as a loan, and under conditions.
If any one regards himself as its absolute lord, he causes him, by
taking it away, to learn his error. " At its time," and " at its ap
pointed season," because God then commonly appeared as a giver,
and his gifts were then confidently expected. That he appears at
once as taking away, in so far as they were so certain of the ex
pected gifts, that they had them, as it were, already in hand ; as if
parents should withdraw their accustomed gifts from their bad chil
dren on holidays, corresponding to the harvest, as the customary time
of God's presents, and should make use of the rod in their place.
We thus understand, " at its time," &c., far better than Jerome,
who remarks, " that it is a heavy punishment, when, at the time of
harvest, the expected fruits are wrested from us ; for if at that time
there is a deficiency in every thing, how then will it be during the
rest of the year ! " " To cover," &c,, concisely, but without a
grammatical ellipsis, for " which hitherto served to cover her naked
ness," Correctly, as to the sense, the Seventy, toj/ /u^ xaXvnTCiv rrjv
aaxniioavvriv avTijg. For the hitherto was only mentioned by the
prophet, in order to draw attention to the future not. That the Lord
must cover her nakedness, refers back to the natural poverty of man,
who, in the whole world, has not a single patch or shred, not even
something to cover his shame, which is especially to be understood
by his nakedness. The same thought, which is well suited to hum
ble pride, — what have we that we have not received, and which the

62 HOSEA.
giver cannot at any moment take away ? — we find also, Ezek. 16 : 8,
" I spread out my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness."
V. 12. " And nmo I will uncover her shame before the eyes of her
lovers, no man shall deliver her out of my hand." 1. As to particu
lars, the an. Uy. niSDJ is best explained by decay, corpus multa stu-
pra passum. As fern, of a segholate form, comp. Ew. p. 349, its
sense can be derived only from that of Kal; Sn: however, always
means to be faded, weak, feeble, in Pi., to make weak, and to declare
as weak, to disgrace and despise. As the idea of disgrace does not
belong to Kal, we cannot, with several interpreters, explain the noun
by turpitudo, ignominia. The axa&agaia of the Seventy is proba
bly a free translation of the words, according to our interpretation.
— ''J'J?.'?, as a standing term for coram, or inspectante aliquo, properly
belonging to the eyes of any one, and cannot, therefore, here be ex
plained by "the eyes," so that the stripping naked would be desig
nated as belonging alone to the lovers. These are rather mentioned
only as associate witnesses. But in what respect do they here come
under consideration ? Several interpreters suppose, that their fee
bleness, and the folly of trusting in them, are here brought into view.
So Calvin : " Alludit ad mulieres impudicas, qua audent etiam
terrore compescere maritos, ne jure suo utantur. Dicit igitur, hoc
me non impediet, quominus te castigem, ut digna es." So also Stuck,
who subjoins to the phrase, " her lovers," " qui, si viribus valerent,
ipsi auxilio esse possent." But this whole understanding of the
verse is erroneous. " Before the eyes of her lovers," rather means,
the Lord will make her an object of dislike and abhorrence, even to
those who formerly sought after her. The idea is this, God will
rnake him who leaves God for the world, disgraced even in the eyes of
the world, and indeed the more so, the nearer the relation in which he
formerly stood to himself. Now this idea is here expressed in a
manner suited to the figurative representation, which runs through
the whole portion. Jerome : " Hac autem omnia sub metaphora
mulieris adaltera, qua cum fuerit deprehensa, producitur in medium
et ante oculos omnium depompatur." The making naked as a crime
is followed by the same thing as a punishment, and all the world,
and chiefly the lovers, turn away with disgust from the hateful spec
tacle. They now see at once her who had heretofore made a show
with the apparel and gifts of her lawful husband, in her true charac
ter, as a withered object of abhorrence. That this is the only cor
rect explanation, appears from the parallel passages ; comp., e. g..

THE PORTION Chap, 2: 4-25. V. 13. 63
Nah. 3:5, " Behold, I come upon thee, saith the Lord of hosts,
and uncover thy skirts upon thy face, and make the heathen see
thy nakedness, and the kingdom thy shame. And it comes to pass,
that all who see thee will flee before thee." Lam. 1:8, " Jerusalem
has sinned, therefore she has become a reproach, all who honored
her despise her, for they saw her nakedness, she sighs and turns
away.'' Jer. 13 : 26, " And I also (as thou hast before uncovered)
uncover thy skirts upon thy face, and thy shame shall be seen."
Ezek, 16 : 41, Is. 47 : 3. It might now appear, that, according to
this explanation, not the idols, but only the nations who serve them,
could have been understood by " the lovers." But this is only in
appearance. In order to make the scene more lively, the prophet
imparts to the D'S'Sn, life and feeling. Had they these, they would
so act, as is here said, and as their worshippers Eifterwards actually
did. — The second member, " and no man," &-c., is so far parallel
with the first, that both describe the fearfulness of the divine judg
ments. Parallel is 5 : 14, " For I will be as one who roars to Ephra
im, as a lion to the house of Judah ; I will tear in pieces, and go ;
take away, and there is no deliverer."
V. 13. " And I will make all her pleasures to cease, her feasts,
and her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her times of assem
bling." The feasts were designed for a twofold purpose, they were
days of sacred devotion, and days of joy, comp. Num. 10 : 10.
Israel had abolished the former, — as now, throughout a great part
of Christendom, the sacred days bear this name, only by way of
Catachresis, — as a deserved punishment, God makes the second to
cease. They, had desecrated the festival days, by God they are ren
dered joyless. In order to show that he predicts the cessation of
the feasts in this respect as days of joy, he premises " all her joy,"
to which the following relates, as the. species to the genus. JVW'D
designates here, not a time of joy, a sense which, according to the
form, it well might bear, but in which it never occurs, but the joy
itself; comp. the parallel passages, Jer. 7 : 34, Lam. 1 : 4, (" The
ways of Zion mourn, because none come to her feasts,") Amos
1 : 10, (" And I change your feasts into mourning, and all your
songs into lamentation,") Lam. 5 : 15, Is. 24 : 8, 11. The following
three nouns are rightly distinguished by Jerome. Jn, a feast, is a
designation of the three principal yearly feasts. In addition to
which were the feasts of the new moon, in each month ; and in every
week, the sabbath. The combination is a standing one, which also

64 HOSEA.
occurs in the New Testament, comp. Col. 2 : 16. By n;?.iD, the in
terpreters understand all festival times, in the widest extent. So,
e. g,, Manger : " Ad dies quoscunque festos referendum, etiam ad
eos, quos Israelita prater illos ex suo arbitrio novaque superstitione
celebrabant." That this is too wide an extension, is obvious. At
any rale, only the feasts ordained of God can be intended, for other
wise, the jus talionis would not be applicable ; God here takes from
the Israelites, only what they have taken from him. The days of
the Baalim are still (v, 15) particularly mentioned. The days of
God are taken from them ; for the days of the Baalim are they
punished. But we are not to suppose, that all the feast days appointed
by God are intended. The common assertion is erroneous, that
Dnjna may signify feasts in general. It signifies Only a certain
class of them. This most clearly appears from Lev. 23 : 3 sq.,
where, after the superscription, " these are my Moadeem," are
mentioned the Sabbath, the Passover, the Pentecost, the New Year,
the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. That this
numeration of the Moadeem was intended to be complete, appears
also from the close, v. 37. Comp. still, v. 44. The New Moon" is
often distinguished from the Moadeem, as not belonging to them,
comp. Numb. 10 : 10, Is. 1 : 14, Ezra 3 : 5. That all extraordinary
festivals did not belong to the ?n;?in, appears from Num. 15 : 3.
The determination of what class of feasts the Moadeem constitute,
must be taken from Lev, 1, c. The Moadeem, v. 2, are explained
by ty^.p 'S'^pP, sacred festivals, assemblies, and in respect to each
individual feast, the calling of the holy assembly is expressly men
tioned. The whole of that description refers to them only in so far
as they are t-\^ 'N-Jjpn ; their nature in other respects is determined
in other passages. Therewith coincides, then, the original mean
ing of ni^ia. It signifies properly assembly, comp. respecting the
use of the form with D, besides the nouns of place and time, Ew.
p. 244. In this sense, e. g., Ex. 33^ 7, Hos. 9 : 5. Altogether cor
rectly, therefore, the Seventy, in the passage translated xal ndaag
TKS nanriyvgsig aviijg. But why does the prophet still mention
especially the feasts, in part already cited, wherewith holy assem
blies were connected ? Plainly, because the loss of these feasts, or
rather the loss of the feasts in this respect, was the most painful for
the people. It was only by the assembling of the people, that the
feast became such in reality. A common spirit of joy was created
which carried the individuals along with it. — Finally, it is evident

THE PORTION Chap. 2: 4-25. V. 14. 65
from the passage, and placed by our prophet, in several other pas
sages, and by Amos, beyond a doubt, that outwardly the service,
regulated according to the prescriptions of the Pentateuch, still
continued. V. 14. " And I lay waste her vine and her fig-tree, of which she
said, A reward of prostitution ^re they to me, which my lovers gave
to me ; and I make them for a icood, and the beasts of the fi,eld de-.
vour them." The vine and the fig-tree, as the two noblest products
of Palestine, — Ispahan., in the Excerpt, ex vit. Saladini, p. 10,
calls them a.mbos Francorum oculos, — as usual in the promises and
threatenings, are here also conjoined, as the representation of the
rich gifT;s of God, wherewith he has blessed this land; compare the
introduction to Joel. Itys is often prefixed to a complete sentence,
in order to designate it in general as relative. Ew. p. 648. It is the
looser instead of the closer connexion, <' concerning which.'' njnsj.
reward of whoredom, which, below, chap. 9:1, and elsewhere^
occurs in the form | ji?N, needs a new investigation. It is commonly
derived from njn, in the alleged seiise of largitcr donavif, dona
distrihuit. But a root of this meaning does not occur, either in
Hebrew or in any one of the dialects, and is therefore arbitrarily as
sumed, njn, as a root, has in Hebr., Arab., Syr., the sense to.
praise, extol, recount. " Another njn, besides, occurs belovv, 8 : 9, 10,
not in the general sense to give, but in the special one, to give as a
reumrd of whoredom. This cannot be primitive. It can be derived
only from njns = nans jDJ, in this passage, and Ezek. 16 : 34. The
supposition of an original verb njn, in the sense to give, is contra
dicted also by the fact, that the noun pretended to be derived from it
never occurs in the general sense, gift, but always in the special one,
reward of whoredom. The correct interpVetation is rather the follow
ing : nJOX is derived from the 1 fut. of the verb ]nj, / will give.
The whore asks, ''S ]nn"np. Gen 38: 16; her employer answers,
^'?"tD*?j V. 18. Thus, in the language of the brothel, for such base
conduct, a base word is formed. The sacred writers are not asham-;
ed to employ it. They speak throughout of common things in com
mon language. For the usual word is the most suitable. The
morality of a people, and an age, can be measured by their speaking
of common subjects in common language or not. Where, in the
language, a woman of pleasure has come in the place of a whore,
there also the like change has taken place in the thing. The people
Israel certainly designated what they believed that they received from
VOL. in. 9

66 HOSEA.
their idols, not as the wages of prostitution, but of true love. The
prophet, however, at once annihilates the whole of the pleasing im
agination, by putting into the mouth suitable expressions, which,
(the tongue and ear are tender in proportion as the heart is gross,)
to tender ears, would doubtless sound harsh and coarse. She who
would be thought delicate sees herself at once greeted as a common
whore ; the sweet proofs of inward love, which her beloved gave to
her, must be called wages of prostitution. A good corrective for our
language, for our whole method of viewing thing.s', for our own easily
befooled heart. All love of the world, all striving for her favor, all
yielding to the spirit of the times, is whoredom ; all that she gives us
in return, therefore, is the wages of prostitution, which must not be
brought into the temple of the Lord, " for an abomination is it to the
Lord thy God," Deut. 23 : 19. As wages of prostitution will it melt
.away, " of wages of prostitution has she collected, and to wages of
prostitution will it return." — This derivation from the fut. has a
, great number of analogies in its favor ; besides those cited by Ewald,
p. 261, the whole class of nouns with the prefix n, whose origin,
though strangely mistaken by Ewald, p. 260, from the fut. is very ob
vious. If the n in these, forms comes from Hiph., how can it be
explained, that they still more frequently conform to Kal? Even
the very usual occurrence of the formation of proper names from the
future, leads us to expect, that they would be more frequent in the
appellatives, than is commonly supposed. This derivation is also
favored by the occurrence of the phrase nJOg: ]nj, in the cited pas
sages. It easily explains the alternation pf the two forms n:os ]nj.'
In the latter, the Nun, which prevails in ]r)J, which had been dropped
at the beginning, reappears. A variation of form, in general entirely
natural, in a word originating' from common life, which has no, en
tirely accurate analogies, therefore no mode, as it were. For the
other nouns of the kind are formed from the 3 fut. — As to the sub
stance itself, egotism, and the selfishness arising from it, are the
ground of the love of every thing which is not God, especially in the
case of those who have already known the true God ; for where this
is not the case, there may be at the same time a better element in
idolatry, which only seeks a false gratification, because it is ignorant
of the true. Hence, it appears, that the idolatry of the Israelites
(only a species of that of all those who have had opportunity to know
the true God, to all of whom the proverb applies, " The last is worst
than the first,") was much baser than that of the heathen, whose

THE PORTION Chap. 2: 4-25. V. 15. 67
poets and philosophers in part zealously opposed the disposition here
expressed (comp. St. b. Manger). Egotism is here, as always, folly.
For it betakes itself to him who has in himself only a borrowed and
stolen good, which the rightful Lord can at any moment take from
him again. And in order that this folly might strikingly appear as
such, he actually manifests himself here, and takes away what the
idols were supposed to have given as a reward, but which, in reality,
he had conferred from compassion, — The suff. in cripiJ', refers to the
vine and fig-tree. The vine and fig-gardens, carefully tended, en
closed and hedged around, should now be deprived of their enclos
ure and hedge, and all culture [xad-vXo[idvu ydg firj xXaSsvofisvrj fi
Kpntlog, Clem. Al. Pad., lib. 1. p. 115. Sylb.), he converted into a
vvood, and given up to the ravages of wild beasts (" and they de
vour it," is not to be referred merely to the fruits). The same image
of a totally desolated land, occurs in Is. 7 : 23 sq. " And it comes
to pass in that day, that every place where a thousand vines are
for a thousand shekels, it shall be for thistles and thorns. — And all
mountains which are hoed with the hoe, men shall not come there
from fear of thistles and thorns, and they shall be for a pasture of
cattle, for the trampling of flocks of sheep." Comp! 5 : 6, Mic.
3 : 12.
V. 15. -" And I visit upon her the days of the Baalim to whom
she burnt incense, and put on her ring and her ornament, and went
after her lovers, and forgot me, saith the Lord." The days of the
Baalin], are the days which were devoted to their worship, whether
especially selected for that purpose, or originally consecrated to the
worship of the Lord, whom they sought to confound with Baal.
Manger, and with him most interpreters, erroneously understand by
" the days of- the Baalim," tempus omne, profecto longissimum,
qua cultus ille vetitus in hac gente viguit. This were too in
definite. Every one would think, when the discourse related
to "the days of the Baalim," of days consecrated especially to
them, their festive days. In addition to this, is the reference
to "the day of the Lord," in v. 13, In v. 11, the discourse
is only of a Baal, '7Ji3n, here of several. This is explained by
the circumstance, that one and the same Baal was hofiored ac
cording to his different modes of manifestation expressed by the
epithets. — In the words, " and she pUt on hei* ornament," &c., the
figurative mode of expression has been overlooked by most interpret
ers, led astray by T^pn, which refers directly to he spiritual adulter-

68 HOSEA.
ers ; they suppose the Wearing of nose-rings, and other ornaments in
honor of idols, to be here spoken of More correctly the Chaldee,
who paraphrases, " The church of Israel was like a wife who for
sook her husband, and adorned herself and ran after her lovers, so
it pleased the house of Israel to worship idols, and forsake my wor
ship." A whole multitude of false explanations has arisen from dis
regarding "the freedom of the sacred writers ; they now speak simply
of the spiritual antitype, and now they transfer to it the peculiarities
of the corporeal type. Had this been regarded, it would never, e. g.,
have been asserted, that David, Ps. 23 : 5, 6, has relinquished the
image of the good shepherd, because he does not speak of a -trough,
which the corporeal good shepherd sets before his sheep, but only of
a table which the spiritual good shepherd places before his people.
Now here, by TBpn, an action is designated, which only the spiritual
adiilteress performs ; in the phrase, " she puts on," &c., her conduct
is described under the figure of that of her corporeal type. The
corresponding matter of fact, is the making herself agreeable, em
ploying every means to gain her spiritual lovers. The putting on of
costly ornament in honor of her idols comes into consideration only
so far as it makes one of these efforts, and, indeed, a very subordi
nate one. The burning of incense, the offering of sacrifice, &c.,
are far more important. Our interpretation is also confirmed by the
parallel passages, in which the same figurative mode of representa
tion is found. That, e. g., Is. 57 : 9, " Thou lookest upon the king
(this is the only correct interpretation. The usual one, " thou goest
to the king," is unphilological) in oil, (smelling of ointment,) and
multipliest thy incense," — plainly a figurative designation, borrowed
from a coquetish woman, of the application of all means to gain
favor ; Jer. 4 : 30, " And thou, O desolate, what wilt thou do ? for
thou puttest on purple, for thou adornest thyself \vith a golden orna
ment, for thou markest thine eyes with paint. In vain dost 'thou
make thyself fair ; thy lovers despise thee ; they seek thy life." In
Ezek. 23 : 40 -42, Jerusalem washes and paints herself, expecting her
lovers, and puts on her ornaments, then places herself ou a splendid
couch, a table is prepared before her, upon which she places the in
cense of the Lord and his oil. In this last trait in Ezekiel, the sign
disappears behind that which is signified, though not so completely
as here in the expression, " she burns incense to them." — From
what has been said, it appears that in substance, chap. 4 : 13 is en
tirely parallel. " On the summits of the mountains they sacrifice.

THE PORTION Chap. 2: 4-25. V. 16. 69
and upon the hills they burn incense." " She went after her lovers,"
and " she forgot me," both serve to represent the transgression as
the more detestable. Sin must already have poisoned the whole
heart, when the opportunity for the practice of it is involuntarily
sought. In reference to the latter, Calvin remarks, " Quemadmo-
dum si mulier ad tempus vixerit cum marito et liberaliter ab ipso
tractata fuerit, si postea se prostituit adulteris et nullum amplius
amorem mariti fovet v. retinet, hac pravitas est quasi belluina."
V. 16. " Therefore, behold, I allure her, and lead her into the
desert, and speak to her heart." The consolation and promise begin
here at once, just as abruptly as in the former portion. It is related,
how the Lord gradually brings back his apostate wife to reformation,
and -a reunion with himself, her lawful husband, p'j, at the begin
ning, has given much difficulty to interpreters. Those proceed the
most easily, but at the same time the most thoughtlessly, who give to
it the meaning 4iti.qus profecto. But to proceed in this way, is not
to interpret. It must be considered as settled, that p7 can only
have here the meaning which it always has, comp. Vol. 11. p. 168,
and the more so, since it occurs in this sense, v. 8 and v. 15. This
being assumed, the therefore might be referred to the words of the
wife in v. 9, " I will go and return to my first husband," and all
that follows, be considered only as a sort of parenthesis. That the
Lord again shows himself friendly to his wife, is owing to her mani
festing the first movements of a change of character. But still, this
supposition is unnatural ; those words are too far distant for the
prophet to have hoped to be understood by such an obscure allusion
to them. Several iiiterpreters follow the explanation of Tarnov :
" Idcirco, quia calamitatibus tantis non corrigitur, alia et miiiori
via ex mera benignitate rem aggrediar." So Manger: "Cum ad
edomandam populi .perthiaciam non sufliciebat veteris oeconomia
scveritas., alia propterea tentanda erat via." But the prophet
could not expect, that his hearers and readers would themselves
supply the thoughts which no word intimates : because the former
method has not succeeded, or rather because it has not alone sufficed,
for it was not in vain, — the wife says, as her Lord hedges up
her way with thorns : " I will go and return ; '' where tribulation
effects nothing, that through which we must enter into the kingdom
of God, there nothing else is efficacious, the severity of God must
precede his love. — But, even if this train of thought had occurred
to them, they would still have had no pledge of its correctness. It

70 HOSEA,
is most natural to take ph here, as simply corresponding to pS, v, 8
and 11. The because, corresponding to the therefore, is, in all three
places, the infidelity of the wife. Because she has forgotten God, he
recalls himself to her remembrance, first, by the punishment, then,
after this has accomplished its purpose, after she has said, " I will go
and return,'' by the manifestations of his love. The leading back
to Egypt, in the desert, in the land of Canaan, all rest on her infi
delity as their ground. Without it, the church would have remained
in quiet possession of the promised land. Through it, God was
moved, both according to righteousness and mercy, to take it from
her, and conduct her back to Egypt ; according to his mercy alone,
to lead her into the desert, and thence to Canaan. — nns, in Pi., is a
Verbum amatorium. It signifies to allure by tender discourse. The
conduct of God, whereby he formerly allured the people to himself
in Egypt, and moved them to follow him out of the spiritual and
corporeal bondage into the wilderness, should be repeated. The
alluring always follows the affliction. God first takes away the ob
jects of sinful love, he then comes alluring and persuading, that we
should make him, who alone is justly worthy of it, the object of our
love. He is not satisfied with the strict prosecution of his rights,
but seeks to make duty sweet to us, to cause by his love, that we
should perform it from love. If he has thus allured us, he leads us
out of Egypt into the wilderness, — The words, " I lead her into the
wilderness," have been, for the most part, greatly misunderstood by
interpreters. — According to Manger, the desert is here that through
which the exiles passed on their return from Babylon. But that is suffi
ciently refuted by the objection, that on account of the foregoing
verse, by the desert, (the article is not to be overlooked,) only the
desert can be understood, which separates Egypt from Canaan.
Others, after Grotius, understand by " the desert," the Assyrian exile.
Kuinol has rendered service to this interpretation, by showing from
the passage of Herodotus, that at that time, there were uncultivated
regions in Assyria. This interpretation, also, is contradicted by the
objection against the foregoing. In addition to this, we know not
what to do with the alluring. The Israelites were not allured into
their exile by friendly love, but they were driven there by the anger
of God. Moreover, how can we dispose of DBfp, in v. 17? Were
the vineyards of Canaan at all inferior to those of Assyria, or does
not this also refer to the Arabian desert ? That this was intended
is therefore established, and, at the same time, that it can here be

THE PORTION Chap, 2: 4-25, V, 16. 71
only a figure and type, that the prophet represents the proceeding of
God, similar in nature, as a repetition of the former in an individual
application. For the march of those who returned from the Assyrian
exile could not be through the literal Arabian desert, and the com
parison expressed in the foregoing verse, " as in the day when she
came up out of the land of Egypt," shows, that here also there is an
implied comparison. It was only of importance to determine the
substance, the essential character of that first leading through the
wilderness, which that here predicted must have in common with it.
The principal passage which must guide us in the investigation, as
is evident from the fact, that the Lord appeals to it when he is
spiritually led through the wilderness, which, for a sign, took place
also outwardly in the wilderness, is that, Deut. 8 : 2-5, "Thou
shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these
forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to
know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his com
mandments or no. And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hun
ger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did
thy fathers know, that he might make thee know that man doth not
live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of the Lord doth man live. Thy raiment waxed not old upon
thee, neither did thy foot swell these forty years. Thou shalt also
consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the
Lord thy God chasteneth thee." The essence of the leading through
the desert, is, accordingly, the temptation. Through the wonderful
manifestations of the omnipotence of the Lord, and his mercy in
their deliverance from Egypt, a hearty love was awakened towards
him in Israel, compare its expression in the ode, Ex. 15, and
likewise the passage, Jer, 2:2, " Thus saith the Lord, I remember
thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when
thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not
sown," the reference of which, to the earliest abode in the wilder
ness, before the giving of the law on Sinai, is manifest, from the
mention of youth and espousals, which were succeeded by the mar
riage at Sinai, This love was also manifest in the whole conduct of
the people at the giving of the law, the great readiness with which
they promised to do all that the Lord should command. Thus,
therefore, the first station was reached. The people now hoped to
be put in immediate possession of the inheritance promised to them
by the Lord. But as he better knew the constitution of human

72 HOSEA,
nature, he pursued another course ; a state of temptation and trial
succeeded to that of an entire alienation from God, The first love
is too often, indeed it is always, more or less only a fire of straw ;
sin is not entirely destroyed, but only temporarily subdued. It only
waits for a favorable opportunity to resume its former dominion. It
would never be thoroughly rooted out, if God suffered this condition
always to continue, if he kept this fire always burning by a constant
supply of new materials, by uninterrupted proofs of love. If this
love of impulse and fancy is to become heartfelt, established, and
dutiful, it must be prpved, in order that it may in that way perceive
its own weakness, and how necessary it is that it should strike its
roots deeper. The means of this trial are, that God afflicts us, arrays
himself against us, leads us in a different path from that which we
had expected, seems to forsake us. But because he, who is so mcrci-,
ful, will not suffer us to be tempted above our power, he, who has
himself commanded us to pray to him not to lead us into temptation,
i, e. into such an one as would surpass our strength, he bestows also
his gifts, together with his chastisements. He, who suffered Israel
to hunger and to thirst, gave them also to eat and to drink ; he, who
led them over the burning sand, suffered not their shoes to wax old.
This counterpoise against affliction, however, becomes, on the other
hand, itself a temptation. As Satan seeks our fall by pleasure, as
well as by pain, so God proves us by what he gives, no less than by
what he takes aioay. In the latter case it appears whether we love
God without his gifts, in the former, in his gifts. This second sta
tion, is now, for many, the last. Many bodies fall in the wilderness.
But, while a multitude of individuals perish there, the church of God
always goes forward to the third, the passage of Canaan. The
station of trial is for her, also, at the same time, a station of purifi
cation. That which is a calamity to individuals, is for her a bles
sing, — That we have thus rightly determined the nature of the
leading through the wilderness, is also confirmed by the temptation
of Christ, which immediately succeeded the gift of the Spirit cor
responding to the first love. That the temptation corresponds to the
leading through the wilderness, in so far as it could correspond in
the case of one who was tempted in all things, yet without sin, while
in respect to us, no temptation, even that which is victoriously resist
ed, takes place without sin, is evident from the two outward charac
teristics, the abode in the desert, and the forty days ; still more, how
ever, from the internal characteristic, the fact, that the Saviour, as a

THE PORTION Chap, 2 : 4 - 25, V. 16, 73
sign that he recognised how the residence in the wilderness was
repeated in himself, opposed to the tempter a passage in relation to
it from the locus classicus, already cited, — We now proceed to cit^
the parallel passages, v/hich serve to explain the one before us, and
confirm the explanation we have given. The most important is that
in Ezek, 20 : 34-38 : " And I vvill bring you out from the people, ani^
will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, vvith a
mighty hand, and a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out.
And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there
will I plead with you face to face. Like as I pleaded with your
fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, .so will I plead with
you, saith the Lord God. And I will cause you to pass under the
rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant : apd I will
purge out from among you the rebels, and them that trapsgress
against me : I will bring them forth out of the country where they
sojourn (the standing designation of Egypt in the Pentateuch), and
they shall not enter into the land of Israel : and ye shall know that
I am the Lord." Here also the abode in the wilderness appears as a
state of trial between the residence among the people (corresponding
to the not merely corporeal, but at the same time also spiritual, bond
age in Egypt) and the possession of Canaan, which resulted various
ly, according to the different characters of the individuals. Some
were entirely cut off: even the appearance of communion with the
Lord, which those who came out with them from the land of their
pilgrimage maintained, was laid aside ; others, by the same means
which brought destruction to these, were confirmed in their fellow
ship with the Lord, and, more cordially united with him, Hosea,
who, in accordance with the personification of the church of Israel,
had the whole more in view, regards chiefly the latter side. A very
remarkable circumstance in Ezekiel must still be explained, because
it essentially promotes an insight into the passage before us. What
is meant by " to the wilderness of the nations " 1 Several interpre
ters think of the desert between Babylon and Judea. Thus, e. g..
Manger : " Ipsum hoc Arabia desertum did putem desertum populo-
rum, a diversis familiis nomadum, qui per illud solent oberrare."
Rosenmiiller : " Vastas illas solitudines videtur appellare, qua
Babylonia Judaam proficiscentibus sunt peragranda." But even
the putem and the videtur of these interpreters show, that they
are not themselves satisfied with their explanation. That No-
mades, traverse that desert, does not at all belong to the matter of
VOL. III. 10

74 HOSEA.
fact, and cannot therefore be mentioned here where this only is con
cerned, where all relates to the essential substance of the leading
through the desert. Why the desert between Babylon and Judea
should be called especially the desert of the nations, we can by no
means perceive; it was not more traversed by Noraades, than every
other. What, however, is entirely decisive, is this : " I bring you
to the desert of the nations," stands in direct reference to, "I lead
you forth from among the nations." Hence it appears, that the peo
ple to whom the Israelites were brought, could be no other than those
out of the midst of whom they were led forth. In the first leading
of the Israelites, the two spiritual conditions also corporeally existed,
the first belonged to Egypt, the second to the desert. But it is not
to be so in the above predicted repetition of this leading. Only
spiritually are the Israelites at the commencement of the second
condition led forth out of the midst of the people, among whom they
corporeally still remain. The desert is in the second Egypt itself
The residence in the desert is repeated only as to its essential, not
its accidental outward form, just as, in Zech, 10 : 11, that which
apparently implies a repetition of the outward form, " And he goes
through the sea," is limited merely to the essence, by the subjoined
" the distress," Hence, we acquire for the passage before us the
important result, that the here predicted leading of God is not limited
to one definite place, and just as little to one definite time. And
what is true of the leading through the wilderness, must of necessity
be extended also to the introduction into Canaan. Just as Egypt
might begin, and actually did begin, even in Palestine, since Israel
found himself there in a condition of sore spiritual and corporeal
bondage, and just as, though outwardly, still under Ashur, he might
find himself spiritually in the wilderness, so would the residence in
the wilderness relatively have still continued, even in Canaan, al
though, which was not the case, the whole people had returned there
with Ezra. Whereby does Canaan become Canaan, the promised
land, the land of the Lord ? By 'the fact, that the Lord is there
present, with all his gifts and blessings. This, however, was by no
means the case in the new colony.' Because the inward condition
of those who had returned was more in accordance with the second,
in part also with the first station, than the last, so also was their out
ward. The Baptist symbolized the continuance of this state, by
coming forward in the wilderness with the preaching of repentance,
and the annunciation, that now the introduction into the true Canaan

THE PORTION Chap, 2 : 4 - 25. V. 17. 75
was at hand. By giving himself out, as the voice of one crying in
the desert, promised by Isaiah, he sufficiently showed the erroneous-
ness of the carnal interpretation, which, incapable of distinguishing
the idea from the drapery, understood, and still understands in this
prophet, by the desert, a limited and definite portion of the land, and
then murmurs, that the supposed boundary does not correspond with
the actual. — As in the case of Israel, so also in our own case,
these states are not absolutely, but only relatively distinguished.
Even he, who in one respect has already been led through to
Canaan, remains in another still in the desert Canaan, in the full
sense for individuals, as well as for the whole church, belongs, not to
this side, but the other side of Jordan. Another parallel passage
is that of Jer. 31:1,2: "At this time, saith the Lord, I will be a
God to all the families of Israel, and they shall be a people to me.
Thus saith the Lord, The people who have escaped from the sword
find mercy in the wilderness ; I go to give rest to Israel." — 13T
37 "4^, properly "to speak over the heart,'' because the words
" falling down upon the heart,'' designate an affectionate and con
solatory address, comp. Gen 34 : 3, (" and he loved the virgin, and
discoursed over the heart of the virgin,") 50: 21, Is. 40: 2, here
that whereby the wife is comforted, who had been deeply cast down
by the consciousness of her former infidelity, and by the experience
of its bitter consequences. Much too limited is the interpretation of
those, who understand by it, only the consoling discourses of the
prophet, though they, indeed, are included. It chiefly expresses the
sermo realis of the Lord, all the proofs of tender and cordial love,
whereby he animates the weary and heavy-laden, and causes that
they who were formerly unfaithful, but who now suffer themselves to
be led by him out of the spiritual bondage into the spiritual wilder
ness, should be able heartily to embrace him, as he formerly spake
to Israel, " in the desert, in the waste and desolate land, in the land
of drought and shadow of death," Jer. 2 : 6, and afterwards provided
for all his necessities, in order that he might know that he was the
Lord his God, Deut. 29 : 4, 5.
V. 17. " And I give to her her vineyards from there, and the
valley of Achor (of trouble) for the door of hope; and she answers
thither, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day she came out
of Egypt." The same true love which has led into the wilderness,
now conducts into Canaan, and the entrance into the promised land
was immediately followed by the possession of all its blessings and

76 HOSEA.
gifts, which now rightly belong to the faithful spouse {her vineyards),
which have previously been wrested from the unfaithful by the giver,
V. 14. DB*p "from there," rightly, Manger: " quum. primum ex isto
deserto egressa fuerit." Unphilologically, Stuck and others : inde
ab hoc tempore. 0^> is never adv. temp. — " The valley of Achor,"
according to the opinion of many interpreters, (Calvin, Manger, and
others,) is here considered merely in reference to its fruitfulness
(comp. Is. 65 : 9), and its position at the entrance of the land, and
not the event which had previously happened there, as related in
Jos. chaip. 7. But we are compelled to think of this, by the con
sideration that the prophet here, as in what precedes, has in view, at
almost every word, the former dealings of God with Israel. And
there is a still more decisive argument. It is not to be mistaken,
that what the valley of Achor is made by the Lord,'stands in con
trast with what it is by nature. The hope is too plainly opposed to
the trouble. But if regard is had to the import of the nanJe Achor,
so also to the history to which the origin of the name was owing.
In order correctly to understand this reference, we must consider
what was the nature of the event whose repetition is here announced.
At the very entrance into Canaan, the people were deprived of the
enjoyment of the divine mercy by the crime of one individual, Ach'an,
which, however, was only a particular fruit on the tree of sin, com
mon to all. God himself in mercy made known the means whereby
that which was lost should be recovered, and sO the place which
seemed to be the door of destruction, became the door of hope
(comp. Schultens on Hariri, III. p. 180). The remembrance of
this event was rendered perpetual by the name of the place, comp.
V. 25 : "And Joshua said. Why hast thou troubled us? may the
Lord trduble thee in this day, — therefore they called the name of
the place the valley of Achor until this day." This particular pro
ceeding of God rests on his nature, and must, therefore, when Israel
comes into like circumstances, and, in general, when like circum
stances occui-, be repeated. Even those who have already entered
the promised land, who have already come to the full enjoyment of
salvation, (full, so far as this is considered as a whole, as the last
station, which, however, has still different degrees, therefore relative
ly full ; were it absolutely full, and did nothing of the wilderness re
main, the base here mentioned could no more occur, for an absolutely
full salvation presupposes perfect righteousness,) and to the degree
of righteousness, which corresponds to this salvation, still need the

THE PORTION Chap. 2; 4-25. V. 17. 77
mercy of God. Without this they would soon lose their salvation.
This mercy, however, is vouchsafed to them in rich measure. God's
whole conduct towards the objects of his mercy is a conversion of
the valley of trouble into a door of hope. He so leads them on, that
by their sins the bond of communion between him and them for
whom all things must work- together for good, instead of being
broken, as it would be, if only righteousness were considered, is only
more closely connected. The same thought returns, v. 21. The
new marriage covenant is there grounded, not on righteousness alone,
but on mercy also. — The words nnB* nna;;!, are commonly explain
ed " she sings there," or, " she joins there in responsive songs."
Both interpretations, however, are unphilological. For, 1. nraB' does
not mean there, but thither. The passages which have been brought
for proof, that it sometimes means by way of alternation there, also
(comp. even Ew, p, 172), all belong to the same class. We find in
them the reverse of the construction of verbs of motion with 3. As
there, for the sake of brevity, the idea of rest is omitted, so here is
that of motion. Thus, e. g., Jer. 18:2: "Go into the house of
the potter, and thither will I cause thee to hear my voice,'' concisely
for " I will send thee thither, and there cause thee to hear."
1 Chron. 4 : 41, " who were found thither," for " were found there,
when One went thither." That the writer, to whom we might most
easily concede the use of npK^, against which we are contending, as
a sort of philological mistake, well knew to distinguish between DBE^
and DK', appears from the close of the verse, where he certainly
would not have placed nrw instead of Ut. These are the examples
of Winer. Gesenius cites Is. 34 ; 15, " thither she nestles," the
nestling includes the nidum ponere. Ewald appeals to Ps. 122 : 5,
"thither sit the seats for judgment." 3W1., never means, indeed,
" to seat one's self," but it often includes this. Next, to Song of
Sol. 8:5, " thither has thy mother borne thee," i, q. " there borne,
and thither laid," n^K' can, however, the less signify there, since
even the examples, which are adduced in other cases for the sinking
of the n local, will not bear examination, Ewald appeals (p, 513)
to Ps, 68 : 7, " God makes the solitary to dwell," nn^5, not, as he
translates, " in the house there," but " into the house," for, " he
leads her thither, and makes her dwell there." The idea of motion,
because sufficiently indicated by n itself, needs no more special
designation in poetry, which delights in brevity. Further, Hab. 3 :
11, "Sun and moon stand nhj?," '"towards dwelling, go to their

78 HOSEA,
dwelling-place, and stand there," 2. The verb njj?, means neither " to
begin the discourse," nor " to sing," nor " to sing responsively,"
but nowhere any thing else than " to answer," Conjecture, from
the connexion superficially understood, which is so widely diffused
by means of our lexicons, has seldom been so generally adopted, as
in the case of this word, Winer has already removed some errors,
and Claus far more, though even he has not made thorough work in
the Beitrdgen zur Critik und Exegese der Psalmen, Berl, 1831, § 98
ff., a book that surely ought not to be so lightly esteemed. Notwith
standing several manifest weaknesses and errors, which give a
plausible pretext to prejudiced judges, it has done more for the
illustration of the Psalms, than the extolled running commentaries
of modern times, whose authors enjoyed far greater outward advan
tages. — Those arbitrary interpretations will lose all plausibility, as
soon as we only consider, that a question need not always be ex
pressed in words, but may also lie in the subject itself, especially for
the lively orientals, with whom the dumbest things have language.
We cite as examples, only 1 Sam. 21 : 12, " Answered they not him
in dances, and said, Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten
thousands?" Likewise, 29 : 5. That the sense "to answer" is
here also to be retained, appears from chap. 18 : 7, comp. with v. 6.
The coming of David and Saul occasioned the silent question
rig aga fjsl^onv. Ps. 147 : 7, " answer the Lord with praise."
The real address of the Lord was his blessings, comp. v. 8 sq.
God asks, by all that he gives, " this do I to thee, what doest thou to
me ? " T\i})^ is often spoken of God, when no verbal question or sup
plication had preceded. The necessity itself, however, is the sup
plication and question. In this sense, it is said, that even the ravens
cry to God ; and that God answers his people before they call upon
him. Whoever is entirely destitute, thereby already prays even
without a word or a gesture, and the position of a suppliant. We
may pass over other instances still less to the purpose, since we have
refuted what was most plausible. But the passage, Ex. 15 : 21, still
remains to be examined, since the meaning, " to sing responsively,"
is there considered as entirely certain, and many interpreters have
assumed, that the prophet verbally referred to it. " And then Miriam
answered them (DD'?) the men sing to the Lord." Moses first sings
with the children of Israel, v. 1, " and then Miriam the prophetess
took, &c., and then answered." The sense " to answer," is here
entirely clear. From this, it is evident, that the passage has no rela-

THE PORTION Chap. 2: 4-25. V. 18, 79
tion to the one before us, since, in the latter, there is not, as in the
former, any mention of a first choir, to whom the second answers.
From what has been said, it is established, that the translation, " and
she answers thhher," is the only admissible one. As now no verbal
question or address had preceded, the question arises, what real ad
dress calls forth the answer ? The reply is furnished by the relation
of n;jw to DE?a. Whither the answer is sent, there must the address
lie. This, accordingly, can consist only in the giving of the vine
yards, and, in general, of the blessings of the promised land. At
her entrance into it, she is welcomed by this friendly address from
the Lord, her husband, and there she answers. Wherein the an
swer consists, appears from what follows : " as in the days," &c.
If Israel then answered the Lord by a song of praise, full of grati
tude for the deliverance from Egypt, so will she now answer him in
the same way, for being led into Canaan. If history speaks of a
song of praise, that Israel sung at the entrance into Canaan, so
would the prophet refer to it. He could, however, remind them only
of that ode sung on an occasion not entirely corresponding. Finally,
that the essential fundamental thought, is only that of the heartfelt
gratitude of the redeemed, that the form only is borrowed from the
earlier manifestation of this thankfulness, is self-evident. Entirely
the same drapery is found, arising from the same cause, Is, chap, 12,
where even the words of the thanksgiving song of Moses are era-
ployed, and chap, 26, — ''p; and Di' are nominative, not accusative,
which cannot stand here, because the discourse is not of an action
extended through a whole period, but of one happening at a particu
lar point of this period. The comparison is here also merely inti
mated, because the tert. compar. is sufficiently evident from the fore
going : " As the days of her youth," for, " as she formerly answered
in the days of her youth."
V. 18. " And it happens in this day, saith the Lord, thou unit
call, 3Iy husband, and will not call to mc any more. My Baal." The
full performance of her duty corresponds to the full admission to her
rights. The prophet individualizes these thoughts, by predicting the
abolition of the two forms, in which the apostasy of the people from
the true God, the breach of the marriage covenant, which was entire
ly exclusive, manifested itself in his time, — the amalgamation of
the religion of Jehovah and heathenism, according to which they
gave the name and worship of Baal to the true God, and the more
gross and proper idolatry. The former here, comp, p. 8, the

80 HOSEA.
second, in the foregoing verse. Both, in like manner, are joined
together, Zech, 14 : 9, " at that time will the Lord be one, and his
name one," The first, the abolition of polytheism, the second, that
of the amalgamation of religion, of that concealed apos^sy, which
endeavoured to reconcile and identify with the world, the true God,
whom it did not venture entirely and openly to forsake. In reference
to the fundamental thought, are parallel, Deut, 30 : 5 sq,, " And the
Lord brings thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, — And
the Lord circumcises thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and that thou
mayest live," A passage which shows, that our verse also, no less
than the foregoing, contains a promise, that the mention, and the
mentioning no more, is an effect of the divine grace, which " I will
extirpate," in v, 19, also implies ; and in like manner, the other par
allel passage, Jer, 24 : 7. " And 1 give to them a heart to know me,
that I am the Lord ; and they become my people, and I become their
God, for they will return to me with their whole heart" Ezek. 11:9,
" And / give to them a heart, and a new spirit put I within them,
and remove the heart of stone from within them ; " comp, still, Zech.
13 : 2. — Another interpretation of the verse is recommended by its
apparent depth, according to which, S;;5 is understood as an appella
tive, Marriage-Lord, in contrast with t''^, husband. The people
shall henceforth be ruled entirely by love. But it is liable to a multi
tude of objections, as the relation of this verse to the following,
which does not allow that SjO, occurring there as a proper name,
should be taken appellatively, capriciousness in determining the rela
tion between K'^X and S;^3, the former of which, just as little ex
presses the relation of love, as the second excludes it ; compare in
opposition. Is, 54 : 4, 5, 62 : 6, then the unsuitableness of the
thought, which has no analogy in its favor in Scripture, — the rela
tion of love to God even in its highest exercise, cannot suppress
reverence before him, &c.
V. 19. " And I remove the names of Baal out of her mouth, and
they shall no more be remembered by their name." The people shall
conceive such an abhorrence of idolatry, as to fear to be defiled even
by the utterance of the name of the idols, The words are borrowed
from Exod, 23 : 13, " the names of other gods ye shall not mention,
and it shall not be heard in your mouth," That the special utter
ance of the idea must be referred back to this itself, the abhorrence
of the former sin, that therefore such a mentioning is not here spoken

THE PORTION Chap. 2:4-25. V. 21. 81
of, which, like that in the passage before us, has nothing to do with
the sin, is self-evident.
V. 20. " And I conclude a covenant for them in that day with the
wild beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and the ivorm of
the earth ; and bow, and sword, and tear will I break out of the land,
and I make them to dwell securely." " I conclude,'' &c. Manger ;
" Fcedus pangendum, causa pro effect^,, sive ipsa securitate poniiur.'-'
For the benefit of Israel, God., concludes a covenant with the wild
beasts, that is, he commands them not to injure him. nn? n^D is
not seldom spoken of a transaction between two parties, where an
obligation is laid upon only one of them, without the assumption of
any obligation by the other. The image is differently presented,
Job 5 : 23, where, through the mediation of God, the beasts them
selves entered into covenant with Job, after his restoration. The
expression, "I break," &c.. Manger has well explained, " Prag-
nans et nervosa brevitas, qua frangere quavis belli instrumenta, ip-
sumque adeo bellum e regione valet, fracta ex ea abolere." That war
as little means " weapons of war " here, as anywhere else, is self'
evident. The prophet, as it appears, had in view the passage. Lev.
26 : 3 sq, " If yen walk in my laws, and keep my commandn«ehts,
so give I your rain in its time, and the land yields its produce, and
the tree of the field its fruit, — And I give peace in the land, and
ye dwell, and there is not who makes you afraid ; and I destroy the
evil beasts out of the land, and a sword shall not come into your
land." The supposition of a reference to this passage, is the more
easy, since Ezek, 34 : 25 sq.. almost verbally imitates it. On account
of the fatal if, the promise has hitherto been only very imperfectly
fulfilled, and often exactly the contrary has taken place. Now, how
ever, since the condition is complied with, the promi.se also will be
fully realized.- Here, however, it is to be observed,, that in the
present state of the world, the hope remains always more or less
ideal, because the condition is never perfectly fulfilled. The idea'is,'
" as evil, as a punishment, is the inseparable companion of sin, so
prosperity is the inseparable companion of righteousness." It is
realized even during the present course of things, so far as every
thing must serve to promote the salvation of the righteous. The full
realization belongs to the naUyyiViala, where, along with sin, evil -
also, which is here necessary for the purification of the righteous,
shall be extirpated. Parallel are Is. 2-: 4 ; II ; 35 : 9; Zech. 9 : 10.
V. 21. " And I betroth thee to me for eternity; and I betroth
VOL. III. 11

82 HOSEA.
thee to me in righteousness, in justice, and in grace, and in mercy,
V. 22. And I betroth thee to me in faithfulness, and thou knowest
the Lord." The word iJ''iN, to woo (comp. Deut 20 : 7, where it is
opposed to npS), which points to an entirely new marriage to a wife
of youth, is not employed without design. Calvin : " Perinde acsi
populus non violassct fidem conjugii, promittit ilium deus sibi fore
loco sponsa, quemadmodum si qiiis ducat puellam virginem et intac-
tam." It was already a great mercjjj^ when the unfaithful wife was
again received ; she might justly have been for ever rejected ; the
only valid ground for a divorce existed ; for years she had lived in
adultery. But God's grace extends still further. Old offences are
not only to be forgiven, but forgotten ; an entirely new relation
commences, in which there is to be no suspicion and bitterness on
the one side, and no painful retrospect on the other, as is usual under
similar circumstances among men, where the consequences of sin do
not entirely disappear, where a bitter relish always remains behind
them. The same proceeding of God is still daily repeated. Each
believer can joyfully exclaim, " Old things are passed away, behold
all things are become new." The greatness of this promise, brings
forward the direct address, while the Lord had hitherto spoken of
the wife in the third person, " She shall hear, face to face, the joyful
word out of his mouth, that she may certainly know that she is the
object of it.'' The threefold repetition of this word expresses its
greatness, its joyfulness, and the difficulty of believing it. Calvin :
" Quia difficile fuit revocare populum a metu et desperatione, quia
scil. satis tenebat, quam graviler et quidem variis modis se a deo
alienasset, oportuit adhibere multa solatia, qua valerent ad fidei con-
firmationem." The account of great and unexpected prosperity,
which one can hardly realize, is gladly repeated. But what is more
incredible to a man, despairing on account of his sins, than the
greatest of all wonders, that his sins should be at once and completely
done away ? The repetition is here, however, the more consoling,
since it is each time accompanied by the promise of a new benefit,
and each time a new and charming prospect is opened to fresh bles
sings from the new relation. First, the eternal duration, then, as a
pledge of that, the attributes which God unfolds in bestowing it, and
lastly, those blessings which he will impart to his betrothed. d'71>'?
refers back to the painful dissolution of the former marriage cove
nant. This new one shall not be subject to such a fate, Is. 54 : 10,
" for the mountains shall remove and the hills depart, but my love

THE PORTION Chap. 2: 4-25. V. 22. 83
shall not depart from thee, and my covenant of peace not remove.''
The attributes which God will unfold towards the wife, and the con
duct, which, by his grace, she shall observe towards him, are joined
by 5 with " I betroth thee to me." This frequently stands as a
designation of the circumstances in which an action consists, Ew.
p. 606. Thus, the betrothing here consists in that which God im
parts along with it. For thereby does it first become a true betroth
ing. That the accompanyinff gifts, therefore, must be divided as we
have divided them, — first, the faithful fulfilment of all the duties of
a husband on his part, then the internal communication of power
for the fulfilment of her duties, — that we must not assume either,
with some, that all relates to one of the two parties, nor with others,
that all applies equally to both, is evident, not only from the interven
ing repetition of " and I betroth thee to me," but also the internal
nature of the gifts mentioned. D'pn^, compassion, cannot be men
tioned in the relation of the wife to God, nor knowledge of God in
that of God to the wife. The four relations of God here mentioned,
are joined in two pairs, righteousness and right, and love and com
passion. We frequently find both combined in the same manner,
e. g. Is. 1 : 27, " Zion shall be redeemed in right, and her inhabi
tants in righteousness." The distinction between them is, that the
former, plX, to be righteous, denotes the subjective attribute, the dis
position and action following from it ; the second, the objective right.
A man can render to any one his right, and still not be righteous.
Now God's righteousness and his right doing, in relation to the
Church, consists in the faithful fulfilment of the obligations which he
assumes, by entering into the covenant with her, in his bestowing all
which he promises. ' This, however, is not sufficient. The assumed
obligations are mutual. If, now, the covenant is broken on the part
of the Church, what hope remains for her ? Therefore, God, for
the fuller satisfaction of the spouse, who well knew from former ex
perience, what might be expected from righteousness alone, subjoins
a second pair of attributes, love and compassion. The former is the
root of the latter. Compassion, the form in which love manifests
itself in the relation of the Almighty and holy God, to weak and
sinful man. Love, ^i?.^!, can also be exercised by man towards God,
although, since God's love so immensely outweighs that of man, the
word seldom occurs of human love ; compassion is exercised only
by God towards man. — Still, a distressing doubt might, and must,
be felt by the spouse. God's mercy and love have their limits. They

84 HOSEA.
extend only to the orte case whereby also marriage amongst men, the
type of the heavenly, the great mystery which the apostle refers to
Christ and the Church, is dissolved. What, now, if this case should
happen again ? True, her heart is now full of pure love, but who
knows whether this love will not cool; whether she will not again
yield to temptation. For this new necessity, a new consolation is
provided. God himself will give, what human power cannot indeed
supply,  faithfulness towards himself, — and cause her to know
him. The e.xpression, " thou knowest God," is, i. q, " in my knowl-
edwe." The knowledge of God is here genuine. Whoever knows
God in this manner, cannot fail to love him, and be true to him.
All idolatry, and all sin, are owing to ignorance of God.
V. 23. " And it comes to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the
Lord, hear the heaVen, and it will hear the earth. V. 24. And the
earth will hear the corn, and the tnust, and the oil, and they will hear
Jezreel (God sows.") The promise here constitutes the antithesis
to the threatening, Deut. 28 : 23, 24, " And the heaven which is
over thy head becomes brass, and the earth which is under thee
iron. The Lord will give for the rain of thy land, dust, and dust
shall come down from heaven upon thee." The second njKji^. is re
garded by most interpreters as a resumption of the first. But the
sense becomes far more emphatic if we isolate the first njij^, " I
will hear, namely, all prayers which are presented to me by you, and
for you," Parallel, amongst other passages, is Is, 58 : 9, where it is
promised to the people after their reformation, " then wilt thou call,
and the Lord will answer ; thou wilt cry, and he will say. Here am
I." — By a bold prOsopopteia the prophet makes the heaven pray that
it may give to the earth that which is necessary to her fruitfulness,
&,c. Hitherto they have been hindered from fulfilling their destina
tion ; since God has been obliged to withdraw his gifts from an un
worthy people, chap, 2 : 11, Now, since this hindrance is removed,
they pray for permission to resume their office. The prophet thus
renders visible the thought, that, in the whole world, there is no good
independent of God, nothing which would not be ours, as to its desti
nation, and in reality, if we stood in the right relation to Him ;
nothing which is not his, and which will not be taken from us, when
we choose to have the benefit without the giver. Calvin : " Propheta
ostendit, unde im:ipiaf hominum felicitas, nempe ubi deus ipsos adop-
tat, ubi peccatis abolitis, eos sibi desponsat. — Ita etiam docet his
verbis, coslos non arcano aliquo instinctu siccos, sed ubi deus arcet

THE PORTION Chap, 3. V. 1. 85
suam gratiam, tunc nullum esse pluviam, qua cceli terras irrigent.
Deus ergo hie palam ostendit, totum natura ordinem [ut loquuniur)
ita in manu sua esse, ut nulla pluvia gutta e ccelo cadat, nisi suo
nutu, terra nullum germen producat, denique totam naturam fore
sterilem, ni^i earn fcecundet sua benedictione."
V, 25, " And I soio her to me in the land, and I have mercy upon
her who had not attained mercy, and I say to them who are not my
people. Ye are my people, and they say to me. My God." The three
symbolic names of the prophet's children here occur once more,
The/e?». suff. in n^rijni, referring to '^VpiV:, need not appear strange.
For, throughout the whole portion, the sign passes over into the thing
signified. In point of fact, however, Jezreel, = that which is now
to be sowed anew (not indeed that which is lo be planted anew ; this
is a totally diSerent image;, the sowing always refers to the increas
ing), is Israel.

Chap, 3.
¦" The significant pair returns to a new relation." Riickert In
the first place (v. 1-3), the symbolic action is related. The prophet,
at the command of the Lord, takes to himself a wife, who, notwith
standing his true love, lives in continued infidelity. He does not
entirely reject her, but, in order that she may come to a better dis
position and conduct, places her in a condition where she is inac
cessible to her lovers. The meaning of the symbol is given, v, 4.
Israel, forsaken of the world, will pass a long period in sad seclusion.
The close consists, without a symbolic representation, of a view into
the wider future. The punishment will finally produce conversion.
Israel returns to the Lord his God, and to David his king.

V. I. " Then said the Lord to me. Go again, love a wife beloved
of her friend, and unfaithful, as the Lord loves the sons of Israel,
and they go after other gods and love grape-cakes." The true
point of view in which this sense is to be regarded, has already, in

86 HOSEA,
many important respects, been established. (Comp. p. 16.) We
here take for granted the result there obtained. Of greater impor
tance, in respect to an insight into the whole portion, is the remark,
that this symbolic action, just as that chap, 1, embraces the whole
of the relation of the Lord to the people Israel, and not, as most
interpreters suppose, merely one fact, the time subsequent to the com
mencement of the exile. This error, which was first clearly seen by
Manger, has been occasioned by the circumstance, that the prophet,
in relating the execution of Jhe Divine command, omits very impor
tant points, expecting that each one would supply them ; partly from
the command itself, partly from the preceding portions where they
had already bfeen treated at large ; and immediately makes a transi
tion from the first conclusion of the marriage, to that point which
was of chief importance in this portion, the disciplinary punishment
which he inflicts upon his wife, the Lord upon Israel. To give to
the people the right view of the impending exile, to cause them to
regard it neither as an accidental event, having no connexion with
their sins, nor as a pure operation of the Divine anger, aiming at
their total destruction, but rather as a worji at the same time of
penal justice, and sanctifying love, was his object. Between the
2d verse, " and I purchase her to me," &c., and the 3d, " then said
I to her," &c., must be supplied, " and I took her in marriage, and
loved her, but she proved unfaithful." That this is the right view, '
appears from v. 2, According to the only well-grounded interpreta
tion (comp. p, 20), this sense can be referred only to the very com
mencement of the relation between the Lord and the people Israel ;
only to that whereby at their deliverance from Egypt he gained over
this people the right of possession. This is also confirmed by the
second half of the verse itself, " as the Lord loves," &.c. Here the
discourse is of the love of the Lord to Israel, in its widest extent ;
any limitation of it to one particular manifestation, to a renewal of
love after the apostasy, or to disciplinary affliction, sent in love, is
arbitrary, and" the more so, since by the addition, " and they turned
themselves," &c., the love of God is represented as running parallel
with the apostasy of the people. This is evident also from the first
half How can we be justified in explaining " love," by " love
again," or even by restitue amoris signa, as is done by the defenders
of the assertion already refuted, that the wife is Gomer ? Love ac
curately corresponds to " as the Lord loves." If this must be under
stood of the Lord's love in its whole extent, and designates not

THE PORTION Chap. 3. V. 1. 87
merely the expression of love, but love itself, how then can a more
limited meaning be given to love ? How can we, with the defenders
of the reference to a new marriage, make " beloved of her friend,
and unfaithful," refer to a former marriage of the wife, i. q. " who
Iiad been beloved by her former husband, and nevertheless broke her
nuptial vow." Then, there would be the greatest dissimilitude
between figure and reality. Who, then, should be the type of the
Lord, the former husband, or the prophet ? If the figure is to cor
respond to the reality, the first member to the second, the ;2"\ can be
no other than the prophet himself We now proceed to particulars.
3nx, love, is stronger than np, take, in chap. 1 : 2. There, it is
merely marriage, here, marriage from love, and in love. This be
comes still more prominent, and is placed in contrast with the con
duct of the wife, expressed by ngsjp by the following ;;i n^nx, i. q.
" take in love a wife, who, although she is loved by thee, her tender
friend, nevertheless breaks her covenant ; with whom thou, I tell
thee beforehand, wilt find thyself in a perpetual contest between
love and ingratitude, the grossest violation of love." The participles
stand here entirely in accordance with the general rule, according
to which, they express the action with the idea of its continuation,
Ewald, p. 533. — Love designates that which precedes and effects
the marriage ; ieloved, the love which continued uninterrupted during
the marriage, and notwithstanding the constant unfaithfulness ; unless,
which is also admissible, we choose at the same time to include in
love " take, from love," and " love henceforward." That " beloved
of her friend," is placed instead of " beloved by thee," which so
many have misunderstood, is not without a cause. The antithesis
thereby becomes more emphatic. ;>! has only one meaning, friend.
It never by itself means " fellow-man," nor " fellow-Jew," never
" one with whom we have intercourse." The Pharisees understood
it correctly, as the antithesis of enemy. In their gloss, Matt. 5 : 43,
xtti jxioriaBig lov l^&gov aov, there was only one thing, though indeed
the greatest to object to, viz. that they understood hy friend, only him
whom their selfish heart actually loved, not him whom they should
love, because God had connected him with them by the sacred bond
of friendship and love. And thus precisely what ought to awaken
love, was made by them an excuse for hatred. The only established
meaning, is admirably appropriate in the present instance. He,
whom the wife criminally forsakes, is not a severe husband, but her
loving friend, whom she herself formerly acknowledged as such, and

88 HOSEA.
who always remains the same. Completely parallel is Jer. 3 : 20,
" as a wife is faithless towards her friend, so have ye been faithless
to me; " comp. v. 4, "Hast thou not long ago called to me. My
father, friend of my youth art thou." Song of Sol. 5 : 16. The
truth was seen by Calvin ; " Amplificatio in hac voce subest. Sape
enim mulieres, dum se prostituunt, queruntur hoc fieri nimio rigore,
quia non satis amice foveniur a suis maritis. Verum si maritus
comiter uxorem suam apud se habeat, et prastet officium maritale,
mulier minus est excusabilis. — Ergo hie notatur turpissima ingrati-
tudo populi et opponitur immensa dei misericardia et bonitas." In
order to a fuller insight into the first half of the verse, we subjoin
still the paraphrase of Manger ; " Uxorem tibi quare, a te in delitiis
habendam, tantoque amore prosequendum, ut si perfidia sua sancta
matrimonii jura violet, eaque de causa vivere cum ea diutius haud
possis, tibi tamen cara maneat, et a te simulatque vitam suam emen-
daverit, lubenter in gratiam recipiatur." — In the second half of
.the verse, we find an agreement with the passages of the Pentateuch,
so verbal, that it cannot well be accidental, comp. on nfri] n3r]«^
^Wp\ 'W'nx, Deut. 7 : 8. D^ns nin^ ngnxp, an agreement which
the more deserves attention, since we have already pointed out the
relationship of this passage with v. 2. Also on ?'invVt D'nbs^^bsi ?''J3,
comp. Deut. 31 : 18, " I will conceal my face in that day, on account
of all the evil which they do ; for they betake themselves to other
gods," Dnns D'ni^.S-'7S n]3. The view of the Pentateuch now
current can be proved erroneous, even out of Amos and Hosea ;
compare the proofs in reference to the former, in the essay Dtr
Samarit. Pent, im Verhdltniss zu den Unters. Uber die Echtheit des
Pent., in Tholuck's Anz. Jahrg. 33. — The phrase, D'nJJl. ¦'ii-'rs,
grape-cakes, has, in substance, been already explained, p. 19. It is
a total misunderstanding, when some here think of love for feasting
and banqueting, and others, as Rosenm. and Gesen., take pains to
show that this kind of cakes was used in sacrifices to idols. The
grape-cakes are rather idolatry itself; " they love grape-cakes," adds,
however, an essential idea to " they betake themselves to other
gods." It points to the sinful origin of idolatry. The earnest and
strict religion of Jehovah, is substantial and wholesome diet. Idola
try is luxurious food, which is sought only by the dainty and squeam
ish. That which is true of idolatry, is equally so of the service of
sin and the world in. general; which appears also in Job 20: 12,
under the image of a diet, which, in the mouth, is sweet as honey

THE PORTION Chap. 3. V. 1. 89
from the comb, but in the stomach is changed into the gall of ser
pents. Only the derivation of D''K''WS, whose meaning is sufficiently
established by parallel passages, still requires an investigation. We
do not hesitate to derive it from IJ'S, fire, T^)^^vM., properly, " that
which has been subjected to fire ; " comp. ntvN, i. q,, " what has
been baked, cakes." The derivation from t^K^N, to ground, lately
become current, is liable to the objection, partly, that the transhion
from to ground to cakes, is by no means easy ; partly, and chiefly,
that, elsewhere in Hebrew, there is not the smallest trace of this root.
It has, indeed, been said, that D''K'''!Z/'K, even in Is. 16 : 7, occurs in
a sense which renders necessary the derivation from the verb K/a'X.
But the meaning, cakes, must there also be retained. In favor of it,
and against that oi fragments, assumed by Gesen., Winer, and Ilit-
zig, are the following arguments. 1. The meaning, cakes, deserves,
ceteris paribus, a decided preference, for the very reason, that it is
entirely confirmed by the other passages. The occurrence of one
and the same word in two senses, which have not the least connex
ion with each other, should be assumed only for the strongest reasons.
But here is one of the many foul stains of our Lexicons. Wherever
there is any apparent reason in the context, the senses of the words
are multiplied. This is, indeed, easier than thoroughly to examine
whether the established meaning does not suit the context. 2, The
transition from the sense, foundation, which can be derived only
from the verb tff^S, to that o^ fragments, is not so easy as these
critics would make it In reference to a rebuilding, to which frag^
ments made the foundation, they might, perhaps, be called founda
tions, comp. Is, 58 : 12 ; not, however, where merely destruction is
imphed. Who would say, " to howl over foundations," for " to howl
over fragments " ? 3. But the connexion is entirely decisive. The
following O is entirely inexplicable, if we translate /rag'raera^s. This
little word, on which so much depends, performs here also the office
of an index, " Therefore Moab howls for Moab, entirely does he
howl, for the grapes of Kirharesch does she sigh, wholly troubled ;
for the vineyards of Heshbon are withered ; the vine of Sibmah,
whose grapes intoxicated the rulers of the nations," &c. Then,
V. 9, " therefore do I weep with Jazer for the vine of Sibmah." If
the grapes have ceased, so also have the grape-cakes. The laying
waste of the vineyards, therefore, is the cause for the howling for
the cakes. Finahy, that such cakes were abundant in Moab, appears
from the name of the place, Diblathaim, " city of cakes." It is still
VOL, III, 12

90 HOSEA.
to be remarked, that we are not justified in assuming a sing. ty'K/N,
as given in the Lexicons, along with nK''K'N,. Also nSg-^ forms the
plur. D'^aT.
V. 2, " And I purchased her to me for fifteen pieces of silver,
and a homer of barley, and letheck of barley." Compare the ex
planation of this verse, p. 20,
V. 3. " And I said to her, Many days shalt thou sit for me, thou
wilt not whore, and not hearken to a man, and so also I to thee."
The sitting has the accessory idea of being forsaken and left alone,
to be explained by the circumstance, that he who is not invited to go
with us, is left to sit. Thus, e. g.. Gen. 38 : 11, "Sit as a widow in
the house of thy father, until Selah, my son, becomes great." Is.
47 : 8, where Babylon says, " not as a widow will I sit," &c. We
cannot take the future here, and in the following member, as the im
perative, " thou shalt not sit, thou shalt not whore." It is contra
dicted by the explanation, v. 4, likewise the parallel passage, chap.
2 : 8, 9. It is not a mora! probation to which the husband will sub
ject the wife, but he will lock her up, so that she must sit alone, and
cannot whore. In reference to the ''7, Manger well remarks, " Leni-
tatis indicium in ipsa ilia accrbitate, mihi, indigne utique a te habito,
sed marito tamen tui amantissimo, nee tui, quamvis a te remoto, pe
nitus oblituro." The '7 shows, that the sitting of the wife will have
respect to the prophet. Entirely similar is Exod. 24 : 14, " and he
said to the elders. Sit for us, uS ?3iy, here, until we return to you."
The phrase itself, which cannot be explained by " to sit in ex
pectation of any one,'' expresses nothing as to the manner in which
the sitting relates to the prophet ; that it is not, however, to be con
sidered merely as a deserved punishment inflicted by him, a conse
quence of his righteous anger, but rather chiefly as an effect of his
compassionate love, which avails, itself of this means to render the
reunion possible, is shown by the close of the verse, where the re
union is not obscurely designated as the aim of this measure, by the
circumstance, that the prophet promises the wife, during its continu
ance, to enter into no new connexion. — The distinction between
" to whore," and " to be for one man," is obvious. The first im
ports vagos et promiscuos amores, the other, the marriage union with
an individual ; comp. e. g. Ezek. 16 : 8, Lev. 21 : 3. The question,
however, arises, who is to be understood by the man. Several sup
pose the prophet exclusively. Thus Jerome : " Nee aliis umatoribus
lurpiter te prostitues, nee mihi viro, a quo conducta es, legitime con-

THE PORTION Chap. 3. V. 3. 91
jungeris." The current interpretation assumes at least a concurrent
reference to the prophet = the Lord. By " thou wilt not whore,"
the intercourse with the lovers is excluded ; by " thou wilt not be for
a man," likewise that with the man, i. q., " thou shalt have marriage
intercourse neither with me, nor with any other man." We, on the
contrary, maintain, that both refer to the intercourse with the lovers,
and, indeed, the first to a promiscuous connexion, the second, to a
permanent union with one individual ; just as, as a matter of fact, the
former relation of the Israelites to their idols, was one of whoredom,
— they made, according to their pleasure, now this and now that
god of the neighbouring nations, as an object of their worship, —
but a marriage relation would be established, when they should enter
into a simple, permanent, and exclusive union with one of them, as
that which they had heretofore formed with the Lord. In favor of
this, are the following grounds. 1. the phrase itself t£'''S7 n^n signi
fies, not "to have nuptial intercourse," but "to enter into a marriage."
It can, therefore, relate only to a new marriage with one of the lovers,
and not to a continuation of the previous marriage relation to the
Lord. 2. The parallel passage, chap. 2 : 8, 9, which it is necessary
to compare. There it is the lovers alone, from every kind of inter
course with whom, the Lord cuts off his unfaithful wife, Israel ;
" she runs after her lovers, and overtakes them not, she seeks them,
and finds them not'' 3. The expression, " and I also to thee," at
the end of the verse. This shows, that the discourse is here of
measures, which both parties could take independent of one another,
while, if "thou wilt not be for a man," referred to the prophet, " I
will have no communion with thee," was already included in " thou
wilt have no communion with me," and needed not to be mentioned
anew. — The only plausible argument in favor of the false interpre
tation in V. 4, where the dissolution of the relation, not merely to
idols, but also to the Lord, seems to be predicted, disappears,^ on a
nearer examination ; comp. on the passage. — The question now
arises, by what means should the matter of fact, corresponding to the
figure, be effected ; the adulterous Israel be hindered from whoring,
and be for one man ; by what means should idolatry be extirpated
from among the people ? The answer has already been given, on
chap. 2 : 8, 9, and its correctness is here confirmed by v. 4. The
idols appear to Israel in their supposed gifts. Were these taken
from him, were he entirely stripped and reduced to want and misery,
he must perceive the vanity of all his previous efforts, as well as of

92 HOSEA.
their object, and his love to it must vanish ; he must take himself
again entirely to him, who, by now taking away, at the same time
proves that he formerly gave. — The last words, " and I also to thee,"
are mostly explained by interpreters, ego quoque tuus ero. Manger :
" Vinculum nostri amoris non penitus disrumpam, neque aliam mihi
assumam in uxorem, sed tuus manebo, in gratiam te tandem recep-
tnrus, et conjugis mca loco iterum habiturus." But " and I also to
thee," is rather, i. q. " and I also will conduct myself in like manner
towards thee." The wife has lost all claim upon the prophet ; she
has broken the marriage covenant, she cannot therefore demand that
he should observe it But what she cannot demand of him, he per
forms from a necessity of his nature. He promises her, that during
the proceeding, which has been commenced against her, he will
enter into no new relation, and by the prospect of a return hereafter
to her former relation to him, he makes more easy, the breaking off
of those sinful connexions, which have destroyed it Without a
figure, " the Lord waits with longsuffering and compassion, for the
reformation of those who have hitherto been his people, and does not
drive them to despair by taking another in their place, and thus
putting an insuperable obstacle in the way of their return to him.
God's proceeding in this respect leads us to a right understanding of
the nagsxTog Xoyov nogvdag, in regard to earthly marriages. It re
leases him who divorces his wife, only from the crime of adultery,
which a divorce for any other cause incurs. He can, however, in
another respect, always grievously sin, and does this in every instance
where he separates himself without having employed all means to
bring the offender to repentance and reformation, a truth which lies
at the foundation of the Catholic practice of divorce, which is never
theless contrary to Scripture, and imlike the heavenly type. (God
finally withdraws all communion from the obdurate.) — In favor of
the interpretation we have given, and against the one first cited, the
Ui clearly decides. " And also I will be thine," or " I will ad
here to thee," would require in the preceding context, " thou wilt be
mine," or " thou wilt adhere to me." But of this there is no trace.
Of the reformation of the wife, there is nothing as yet said. The
abstaining from whoredom, and from being for a man, is not volun
tary, but by compulsion. The moral consequence of the outward
proceeding is fully related in v. 5, with an after. — In favor of this
false interpretation, it is said, with some plausibility, that the explana
tion would otherwise be broader than the symbol. The latter would

THE PORTION Chap. 3. V. 4. 93
contain only the oiitward proceeding, the former, at the same time,
in v. 5, its wholesome operation. But, according to this interpreta
tion, the word would not correspond to v. 5. Here, which, apart
from the DJ, is entirely unsuitable, and is, besides, contradicted by
the analogy of 2:9, the showing mercy would be predicted,
without reformation being at all mentioned ; on the contrary, in v. 5,
the discourse is by no means of the showing of mercy, but only of
the reformation. It must then read, not " they will return to the
Lord," but " the Lord will return to them." The plausible argu
ment, however, falls to the ground, at the same time with the sup
position, which, although common to all interpretations, is yet false,
that the two last verses contain the explanation. The truth is, that
it is limited to v. 4, V. 5 is to be considered as an appendix, in
which, without a figurative covering, the effect of the outward pro
ceeding upon the people is related. The symbol and its explana
tion extend only so far as the prophet's chief point of vision in this
portion, which was, to cause the impending exile to appear in its
true light, and thus to guard, at its coming, against levity and
despair. V. 4. " For many days will the children of Israel sit toithout a
sacrifice, and without a pillar, without an ephod, and without tera-
phim." — ''3 is used because the ground of the choice of the sym
bolic action is its meaning. On TiOi, see v. 3, comp. still. Lam.
1:1, " How does the city sit solitary, that was full of people, she
has become as a widow." The question arises, whether, under the
religious objects here mentioned, only such are to be understood, as
belong to the worship of the idols, or such also as belong to that of
Jehovah. The answer is as follows, only the nnSD can be consider
ed as belonging exclusively to the idolatrous worship. Such pillars
always occur as consecrated only to the idols, especially to Baal, and
it cannot be proved, that, in the kingdom of Israel, against the ex
press ordinance, Levit. 26: 1, Deut. 16:22, they were also con
secrated to the Lord, comp. 2 Kings 3:2, 17 : 10, 10 : 26-28. On
the contrary, there is also one among those mentioned, T13N, the
mantle of the high priest, on which the Urim and Thummim were
placed, which must be regarded as belonging exclusively to the wor
ship of Jehovah, At least, there is not the smallest trace of its
having been part of any idolatrous worship. It is true, that Gesen.
(TAes. p. 135) gives at Ephod, under 2, the sense statua, simulacrum
idoli, with an appeal to Judges 8 : 27, 17 : 5, 18 : 14, 17, as also to

94 HOSEA.
the passage before us. But it is only necessary more closely (o ex
amine these passages, to be convinced, that the change of Jehovah
into an idol, is as arbitrary and inconsiderate, as the changing of the
garment into a statue. Judges 8 : 27, on account of the personal
character of Gideon, who was zealous for the Lord against idols,
we can by no means think of idolatry proper, but only of image-
worship. Because the high priest received the Divine answer, only
when clothed with the ephod, it was thought, that the presence of
Jehovah was enveloped in it in a magical manner, first, indeed, only
in that of the high priests, but afterwards in others also, made after
its image. In order the more to enjoy this presence, and prepare a
worthy dwelHng for the Lord, Gideon made his ephod as splendid as
possible, entirely out of gold. On chap, 17:5, we need only observe
what follows, " And Micah had a house of God, and he made for
himself an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons,
and he became his priest," Afterwards Micah took a Levite for a
priest. But why was he better suited than any other for the pur
pose ? The answer is given in v, 13, " And then Micah said. Now
I know that Jehovah will do me good, will be favorable to me, for
the Levite has become my priest," The ignorant man knew at least
that the only legitimate ministers of Jehovah were the Levites, He
rejoiced, therefore, that he had now remedied this former anomaly.
Chap, 18 : 14, needs no special illustration ; for the subject of dis
course is still the same ephod. We must, however, show the appli
cation of V. 5 and 6 of that chapter, " Then they said (the Dan-
ites) to him, the Levite, Ask God, that we may know whether our
way will prosper in which we go. And the priest said to them, Go
in peace, for Jehovah is your way, which ye walk." We have here
an alleged revelation imparted to the priest, by ephod and teraphim,
only this is referred, not to the idols, but to the Lord, whom the
¦Levite alone wished to serve. From which it appears, that also the
carved and molten images, which, v. 14, are mentioned as being
found in the house of Micah along with the ephod and teraphim,
which must, therefore, have been different from both, must be re
garded as representations of Jehovah, like the calves in the kingdom
of the ten tribes. In the case of the two others, the sacrifice and
the teraphim at least, the exclusive reference to an idolatrous object
can by no means be maintained. If sacrifices in the most general
sense were spoken of, without any limitation in the preceding con
text, how should we be justified in excluding sacrifices which were

THE PORTION Chap, 3, V. 4, 95
offered to Jehovah? The teraphim, as has been shown, Vol, II, p.
131, are intermediate deities, who aid in penetrating the future,
which might be placed in connexion with any religious system, but
are, however, found only once in connexion with any other than that
of Jehovah, and, indeed, when the discourse is not concerning an
Israelite. But how can this remarkable amalgamation of what
belong^ to the idols and to Jehovah, which cannot be otherv.'ise than
intended, be explained ? How can the reference to Jehovah be
reconciled with v, 3, where the discourse is only of the cutting off
of all conne.xion with the lovers, and likewise with chap, 2 : 8, 9 ?
The answer is, that we must distinguish between Jehovah the true
God, and the Jehovah of the Israelites. This latter was only a God
in appearance, in reality an idol, comp, 2 Kings 17 : 8. As he was
called Baal by way of alternation, so did he stand on the same
level with Baal, Here we have the true solution of the problem,
which, at first sight, is very difficult. But in what respect shall
the Israelites have no sacrifice, &c. any more ? All this can in no
way be outwardly taken from them. How could the exile have hin
dered them from sacrifices ? how from the erecting of statues, &.c. ?
The true view is, that these things should so far be taken from them,
as that every thing should cease, which hitherto nourished the erro
neous opinion, that the self-made gods could afford them aid. What
was the cause why the Israelites hitherto brought sacrifices to Baal,
and their Jehovah 1 They believed themselves indebted to him for
all the blessings they enjoyed, and then expected others from them
for the future. If these blessings ceased, so also would the sacrifices.
If they supposed themselves entirely forsaken by them, they could
no longer think of dedicating statues to them, and inquiring of them
by ephod and teraphim. Now also we see the reason of the colloca
tion of king and prince with the sacrifice. The preservation hitherto
of the civil goveirnment, with all its blessings, of political freedom
and independence, had been considered by the Israelites as a seal
upon their ways, as a token of favor from their lovers, Baal and their
Jehovah. Therefore, this supposed sign of their power and love,
vvith all others, must be taken from them, which would then serve to
bring about the fulfilment of " thou wilt not whorfe." And so it ap
pears how the explanation corresponds entirely with the symbol.
God's first proceeding, when he would draw any one from the world
to himself, is a taking away ; for those who thus learn the nothing
ness of the former supposed giver, and recognise the previous giver

96 HOSEA,
in him who takes away, there follows then the conferring of bles
sings. — As to the historical reference, the interpreters hesitate
between the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Roman exile. The most
refer exclusively to the last. Thus the Jewish interpreters, e. g.
Kimchi : "Hi sunt dies exilii, in quo nos sumus hodie ; nee rex, nee
princeps nobis est ex Israele, sed sumus sub dominatu gentium, earum-
que regum." The chief defenders of the most direct reference to
the Assyrian exile, are Venema, Dissert, p. 232, and Manger, The
decision depends chiefly on the question, who are to be understood
by the " children of Israel." If they are the whole people, it is
arbitrary to set narrower limits to the word oi God than his deed;
the prophet must then comprehend all those in whom its idea is real
ized, and the more so, since the spiritual eye of the prophet, directed
only to the idea, does not generally regard the intermediate periods,
which, in fact, lie between the different realizations of the idea.
But V. 5 appears to us to imply, that the prophet has in view, first,
the children of Israel, in the strictest sense. " They will return and
seek David their king," includes a reference to the existing apostasy
of the Israelites from the tribe of David. In point of fact, however,
there is no difference. If the prophet announces the realization of
the idea only in reference to the Israelites, still, because the idea is
grounded in the nature of God, and does not depend on caprice and
accident, it must also manifest itself in the fate of the Jews, and that
the prophet was himself aware of this, that he mentioned the Israel
ites alone, because he had been directed to do so, appears from chap.
2 : 2. There, it plainly appears in what a close connexion the con
dition of the Jews, from the destruction of Jerusalem to the present
day, stands to this prophecy. They have forsaken Jehovah their
God, and David their king. Their Jehovah has degenerated into an
idol, no less than the Jehovah of the children of Israel. That they
may now know him as he is, and return to the true living God, all
has been taken from them, in which they believed they saw the man
ifestations of his power, his mercy, and love. We must, however
by no means suppose, that the idea is exhausted, when its realization
is acknowledged also in the fate of the Jews. It gives also ihe key
to the dealings of God with the Christian church, nations, and indi
viduals. V, 5, " Afterwards will the children of Israel return, and seek
the Lord their God, and David their king, and tremble to the Lord
and to his goodness in fiUurc days." — n!»; must not be re^^arded

THE PORTION Chap, 3, V. 5. 97
as constituting, with Itffp3, only one verbal idea, "they will again re
turn." This is contradicted, not only by the grounds already cited
on chap. 2: 11, but most decidedly by the parallel passage, chap.
2:9, "I will go and return to my first man;" comp. also chap.
6:1, " Up, let us return to the Lord ; " 5 : 15, where the Lord
says, " I will go and return to my place, until they feel their guilt,
and seek my face. In their distress they will seek me." Jer.
50 : 4, " At that time, saith the Lord, the children of Israel will come
together with the children of Judah, weeping will they come and
seek the Lord their God." Is. 10 : 21. What is to be regarded as
the object of their return to the Lord their God, and David their
king, from whom they had shamefully turned away, appears from
the context and the parallel passages, so plainly, that those who
think of a return to Canaan deserve no refutation. The expression
" Jehovah, their God," exposes the delusion of the Israelites, who
fancied, that, in the idols which they named Jehovah, they still pos
sessed the true God, and at the same time rebukes their ingratitude.
Calvin : " Deus se illis obtulerat, imo familiariter versatus fuerat
cum ipsis, quasi educaverat eos in sinu suo, ut pater filios ; propheta
ergo ingentem illis malitiam oblique exprobrat." The God of the
Israelites sustains to the God of Israel the same relation, as the God
of the Deists and Rationalists to the God of the Christians. The
question here arises, who is to be understood by " David, their king " ?
Some, after the example of Theodoret, (t. II. P. 2. p. 1326,) think
of Zerubbabel, but by far the greater number of interpreters, after
the Chaldee (et obedient Messia, filio Davidis, regi ipsorum), refer
the prophecy to the Messiah. The latter interpretation is in sub
stance perfectly correct, but not in the form in which it has, for the
most part, been delivered. That the Messiah is not here, as else
where, (comp. on Jer. 30 : 9,) as an individual named David, is
evident from " they will return and seek." The return presupposes
a former departure ; the seeking, a former neglect. The expression
also, " their king," is to be well observed. It shows, in the antithe
sis with the king in v. 4 (comp. chap, 8:5, " They have made a
king, and not by me ; a prince, and I knew it not), that it is not a
king to be newly chosen, which is here spoken of, but one whom the
Israelites were bound to obey, as already given to them of God.
The correct view is, that, by the king David, the vvhole royal house
of David is designated, and here considered as a unit, just as, in the
promise 2 Sam. 7, and in a whole series of Psalms which celebrate
VOL, III, 13

98 HOSEA,
the mercies of David, those which have been and were to be vouch
safed to him and his race. These mercies are most completely con
centrated in Christ, in whose manifestation and eternal dominion,
the promises made to David first receive their fuU accomplishment.
That the prophet, when he calls the whole " the stock of David," be
cause the antithesis of the apostasy and the restoration could thus
only be rendered prominent, has him especially in view, that he
expected a return of the children of Israel to David in Christ, is
shown by cp^jn nnriN?, which, in the prophets, never occurs, except
of the times of the Messiah (comp., in a philological point of view,
on Amos 9:1). This argument is altogether sufficient to refute the
reference to Zerubbabel, though it must at least be conceded, that
the adherence of a part of the citizens of the kingdom of the ten
tribes to him, the sprout of the house of David, can be considered as
a prelude to the general return. -~ The close connexion between the
seeking of Jehovah their God, and David their king, is to be well
considered. David and his race had been chosen of God as a medi
ator between him and the people, the channel through which all his
blessings should flow to them, the visible image of the invisible ruler,
which, in the last days, should most perfectly in Christ reflect his
glory. When, therefore, the Israelites departed from David their
king, they departed at the same time from Jehovah their God, as was
too soon evinced by the other signs of apostasy from him, the intro
duction of the worship of the calves, &c. He, who will not acknowl
edge God in what he himself has declared to be his visible image
(from Christ down to every relation that in any respect represents
God, e. g,, that of the Father to his Son, of the king to his subjects),
knows him not even in himself As, however, the Israelites aposta
tized from God in David, so did they exclude themselves, by their
apostasy from him, from the participation in the mercies of the
people of God, which could be derived to them only through him.
Not until they return to David in Christ, do they forsake the god of
their own invention for ihe true God, and come within the sphere of
his blessings. How this is repeated among us, in the case of those
who have forsaken Christ their king, and still think to possess God,
how they can attain to true communion with the Lord their God,
and to a participation in his blessings, only by returning to the
brightness of his glory, is so evident, that it need only be suggested.
— The true interpretation is found in Calvin : " David erat quasi
angelus dei ; ergo ilia populi, v. deeem tribuum defectio quasi dei

THE PORTION Chap, 3, V, 5. 99
vivi abnegatio fuit. Dicehat dominus Samueli (1 Sam, 8 : 7), non
te spreverunt, sed me potius, debebat hoc multo magis valere in Da-
vide, quem Samuel divinitus unxerat, et quern dominus tot praclaris
elogiis ornaverat, ut non possent ejus jugum abjicere, quin ipsum
quodammodo palam respuerent. — Verum quidem est tunc , Davidem
fuisse mortuum, sed hie in unius hominis persona Hoseas aternum
illud regnum proponit, quod sciebant Judai fore stabile cum sole et
luna." The expression, "they tremble to the Lord," paints the state
of his heart, who, shuddering with terror and anxiety on account of
the danger and distress with which he is threatened, flees to him
Who alone can afford him help and deliverance. That we must thus
explain, and not think of a trembling arising from the inconceivable
greatness of the blessing, a state of mind which Claudian so graphi
cally describes, " Horret adhue animus manifestaque gaudia differt
Dum stQpet et tanto ounctatur credere voto,"
and just as little of a fearing or trembling arising , from the deep
knowledge of sin and unworthiness, is shown by the parallel passage,
chap, 10 : 11, " they tremble as a fowl out of Egypt, and as a dove
out of the land of Ashur." The fowl and the dove are here an im
age of helplessness. Parallel in substance is also chap. 5 : 15, " in
their distress they will seek iae."_ Their terror is not voluntary,
it is forced upon them by the Lord, but that they tremble to the
Lord, suffer themselves to be led to the Lord by their fear, is their
own free act, though possible only by the assistance of grace, . —
How the expression, " and to his goodness," is to be understood, is
most clearly shown by " I will return to my Lord, for better was it
for me then than now," chap. 2 : 9. Along with the Lord they have
also at the same time lost his goodness, the gifts proceeding from it ;
now necessity again drives them to seek the Lord and his goodness,
which is inseparable from himself This interpretation is also con
firmed by other parallel passages, as Jer. 31 : 12, " and they come
and exult on the height of Zion, and stream together to the good
ness of the Lord (nfri'. 31£3), to corn, and must, and oil, and lambs,
and cattle." V. 14, "my people will be satisfied with my good
ness," -comp. Ps. 31 : 20, Zach. 9 : 17 (Vol. II. p. 127). To be
rejected, therefore, is the supposition of several interpreters (Vol. I.
p. 184), that T\ip\ 31B is here as much as niri; ni'3:?, his revelation
in the angel of the Lord, the i.6yog, through whom his glory and his
goodness are made known.

THE PROPHET JOEL,

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
For the determination of the age of Joel, we have an external
argument in the position which has been assigned to him in the col
lection of the Minor prophets. There can be no doubt, that the col
lectors were governed by a regard to chronology. When, therefore,
they placed the prophecies of Joel between those of two prophets,
who, according to superscription and contents, belong to the age of
Jeroboam and Uzziah, this is like an express testimony, that he also
lived and acted at that time.
This testimony gives us a firm vantage-ground. It must continue
valid until overthrown by other evident facts, and the collectors have
been convicted of an historical error. In attempting to do this, we'
must be the more cautious, since all their other assumptions are veri
fied by a careful examination, and no one of the other minor prophets
has been assigned a place which (lid not belong to him. Such facts
however, are not to be found. On the contrary, every thing serves
to confirm this testimony.
It will not do to assign the prophecies of Joel to a later period.
For Amos places in the front of his prophecies one of the declara
tions of Joel, for the text, as it were, on which he comments. Comp.
Amos 1 : 2, with JoelS4 : 10. — The contemporaneousness of the
two prophets would not be inconsistent with this, as is evident from
the entirely similar case of Isaiah and Micah. Isaiah also borrows
(chap. 13 : 6) from Joel (chap. 1 : 15) a sentence, the peculiarity of
which proves that the coincidence is not accidental. Such verbal
repetitions are not to be regarded as perhaps reminiscences without
any object They served to exhibit the mutual recognition of the
prophets as organs of the Spirit of God, to testify the dxgi^ij diadoxijv,
the absence of which, in the times after Ezra and Nehemiah, Jo-
sephus (comp. Beitriige, p. 245) cites as one reason why none of the

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 101
writings of those times could be acknowledged as sacred. Further,
the description of the threatening judgment, in chap. 1 and 2, is
of that general character which we find in the most ancient prophe
cies extant, in Amos, in the first chapters of Isaiah, and of Hosea,
while in later times the idea is almost uniformly individualized by
the express mention of the instruments whereby it should in the first
instance be realized, the Assyrians and the Babylonians. What
Judea had to suffer from the former, was so severe, that Joel, in
chap. 4 : 4 sq., where he mentious nations, though, indeed, only by
way of example, with whom Judea had heretofore come in hostile
contact, would scarcely have passed them over, merely in order to
mention the far inferior calamity inflicted by other nations.
With just as little propriety can the prophecy be assigned to an
earlier period. It is certainly not accidental, that among all the
prophets whose writings we possess, no one came forward in an
earlier age ; and just as little so, that no prophecies are extant of
those earlier distinguished men of God, mentioned in the historical
books, particularly of Elias and Elisha. Until the greater divine
judgments were approaching, the time had not come to awaken, by
announcing them, those who had forgotten God, from the sleep of
security, and at the Same time to open to believers the treasures of
consolation and of hope. Comp. VoL I. p. 152. Hitherto the
living oral word of the prophets was the principal thing ; now, how
ever, since their God opened to them a wider prospect, and their
calling embraced the future as well as the present, the written word
was exalted to an equal dignity. Nothing, therefore, but the most
cogent f easons, should cause us to make an exception from so estab
lished a rule in the case of Joel alone.
Such, however, is not the character of what Credner ( The Prophet
Joel, Halle, 1831, p. 41 ff.) has alleged, who makes Joel to have
composed his prophecies even under the reign of Joaz, about 870 —
865 B. C, 70 — 80 years before any other prophecies extant If we
do not suffer ourselves to be .stunned by a multitude of words, we
shall perceive, that the only plausible argument of the author, who
seems to have little perception of the difference between conjecture
and thorough examination, and who had rather advance a new error
than an old truth, is the silence of Joel respecting the Damascene
Syrians mentioned by Amos, among the enemies of the covenant
people. Hence he infers, that'Joel must have prophesied before the
first irruption of the Syrians into Judea under Joaz. (2 Kings 12 1

1 02 JOEL.
17 sq., 2 Chron. 24 : 23 sq.) But we need only look at the passage
to be convinced, that the mention of this event by Joel was not to be
expected. The expedition of the Syrians vi'as not directed against
Judah, but against the Philistines, only a single rambling corps
(Chron.) incidentally made an irruption into Judea on their return;
Jerusalem was not taken. This single instance of hostility, must,
in the progress of time, soon have been forgotten. It was of a totally
different kind from those of the Phcenicians and Philistines, mentioned
by Joel, which were only particular outbreaks of the hatted and envy
which they always cherished against the covenant people, and, as
such, were preeminently an object of the penal justice of God. But
on what ground does the supposition rest, that Joel must mention all
those nations with whom the covenant people ever came in hostile col
lision ? It certainly is not favored by the connexion. The mention of
the former hostilities, chap. 4:4-8, is, throughout, only in passing,
as Vitringa perceives, Typus Doctr. Proph. p. 189 ff. : " Propheta
dum erat in describendis gravissimis judiciis, quibus deus post
effusionem spiritus gratia hostes ecclesia successive et maxime extremo
tempore prosternet ob injurias ecclesia illatas, obversantur animo gus
injuria, quibus populus Judaus, pars ecclesia universalis, suo et
proximo tempore afficiebatur a vicinis gentibus, Tyriis, Sidoniis,
Philistais, ad quos proinde in transitu orationem suam vertit, denun-
tians illis nomine dei, ipsos quoque non abiluros impunitos." The
correctness of this is proved by the DJl, as well as by the circum
stance, that V. 9 sq. simply connect themselves with v. 3, so that v. 4
sq. form a proper parenthesis. How entirely unsuitable here would
have been the mention of the Syrians ! Something was necessarily
required which was directly in view, and which was still in fresh
remembrance. The case was entirely different with Amos. Joel
had to do only with the enemies of the kingdom of Judah. Amos,
at the same time, with the enemies of the kingdom of Israel, among
whom the Syrians were the most dangerous. He therefore begins at
once with them. The crime which he charges upon them, chap.
1 : 3, that they had broken to pieces the inhabitants of Gilead with
iron sledges, is one that concerned only the kingdom of Israel. The
same is true also of the Ammonites and the Moabites, who are likewise
mentioned only by Amos, The Ammonites, chap. 1 : 13, are charged
with having ripped up the women with child of Gilead, in order to
enlarge their territory, and the crime of the Moabites complained of,
chap. 2:1, probably happened during, or after, the expedition

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 103
against them, related 2 Kings 3, the proper author of which was the
king of Israel. Peculiar to Joel is only the mention of Egypt.
The way in which this is done, clearly shows, that the prophet does
not refer, as Credner supposes, to the invasion of the Egyptian king,
under Rehoboam. It is not in the portion, v, 4 sq., which is occu
pied with the more recent injustice done to the covenant people, but
at the close, chap. 4 : 19, in a connexion where the mention of the
Egyptians as well as the Edomites can be only an individualization
of the enemies of the people of God in general. That the prophet
has in view the oppression whioh Israel had to endure in the begin
ning of their history in the land of Egypt, is incontestably proved,
apart from the parallel passages, (compare Vol. II. p. 146,) by the re
proach, that they had shed innocent blood in their land. The men
tion of the Philistines, and the Tyrians, and Sidonians, is common
to Amos and Joel, and the description of their crime in both proph
ets is so similar and individual, that we are compelled to think of
an event, which, because it belonged to the present, or had but
recently taken place, was equally fresh in the memory of them both.
In few prophets is the resting of the prophecy on the idea, so con
spicuous as in Joel. Nowhere, therefore, can that false method,
which, leaving the idea out of view, regards only isolated facts of
history, a method, the evil consequences of which extend to the in
terpretation of the New Testament also, — it is owing to it, that the
declarations of Christ, respecting his coming to judgment, are usually
so entirely misunderstood, and that even diligently labored writings,
as those of Schott, must entirely fail of their chief object, — operate
more injuriously than here. The book contains a connected repre
sentation. It commences with a lively description of the ruin which
God, by means of outward enemies, will bring upon his apostate
church. These present themselves to the inward contemplation of
the prophet, as an all-devouring swarm of locusts. — The ground
idea is, " where the carcass is, there the eagles collect," — where
corruption manifests itself in the church of the Lord, there punish
ment comes. Because God has sanctified himself in ihe Church,
and graciously imparted to her his holiness, so must he sanctify him
self upon her, manifest his holiness in her punishment, when she has
become like the profane world. He cannot endure, that when the
Spirit has departed, the dead mass should continue to appear as his
kingdom. He strips off the mask of hypocrisy from his degenerate
Church, by exhibiting her outwardly, as she has inwardly become

104 JOEL.
by her guilt This idea usually appears in a special application,
with a mention of the particular people whom God would employ, in
the nearest future, for its realization. Here, on the contrary, its
inherent dignity and power are sufficient. The enemy are designat
ed only as north-countries. From the north, however, from Syria,
all the principal invasions of Palestine proceeded. We have, there
fore, no reason to think exclusively of any one of them. Nor ought
we to limit the prophecy to the people of the Old Covenant.
Throughout all centuries, there is but one Church of God existing in
unbroken connexion. That this church, during the first period of
its existence, was concentrated in a land into which hostile irruptions
were made from the north, was purely accidental. To make this
circumstance the boundary stone of the fulfilment of the prophecy,
were just as absurd, as if one were to assert, that the threatening of
Amos, " by the sword shall all sinners of my people die," — has not
been fulfilled in those who perished in another manner.
The threat of punishment, joined with exhortations to repentance,
to which the people willingly hearken, and humble themselves before
the Lord, continues until chap. 2 : 18. Then succeeds, until chap.
3 : 2, the prediction of prosperity. The showing of mercy begins
with the fact, that God sends a teacher of righteousness. This
teacher directs the attention of the people to the design of their suf
fering, and invites the weary and heavy laden to come to the Lord,
that he m^y refresh them. His voice is obeyed by those who are of
a broken heart, and now a rich divine blessing follows, and, as its
highest degree, the outpouring of the Spirit Here, again, we have
only the everlasting way of the unchangeable God in his Church,
his proceeding through hundreds and thousands of years.
The prediction of prosperity to the covenant people, is followed in
the third and last part by its opposite, that of judgments upon the
enemies of the Church of God, whose hatred Of it, proceeding from
hatred towards God, ceases not to be an object of his penal justice.
since he employs it as a means for the chastisement and purification
of his Church. The ground idea of this part is given in the words,
1 Pet. 4 : 17, " For the time is come that judgment must begin at
the house of God ; and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be
of them that obey not the Gospel of God ? and if the righteous are
scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? " It
might seem as though this part, unlike the two preceding, refers to
one single event, — the last judgment, and that every reference to

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 105
an inferior one, is excluded by the repeated mention of all nations.
But still, it only appears so. The idea is presented in order that its
full force may be seen, in the form of its last and most complete
realization ; but just because the final judgment is only a realization
of the idea, so must this manifest itself also previously in smaller de
grees. There could be no final judgment, if the whole history of
the world did not already consist of judgments of God. But,
because it does consist of these, there must be a final judgment. If
the Scripture contained not expressly one word upon the subject, still
It would be entirely certain. The prophecy was verified in the de
struction of the Assyrians, in the time of Hezekiah, in the ruin of
Babylon, in the destruction of Jerusalem, after the kingdom of God
had been taken from Israel, and given to another people, who brought
forth its fruit in their time, (Matt. 21 : 43,) in the whole history of
Christianity. Whoever understands this prophecy, has also the key
to Matt 24 and 2-5, where, also, the assertion is yet erroneous, that
the representation refers, at the same time, to the destruction of Je
rusalem, and the judgment of the world, as though the whole inter
vening period were to be regarded as empty, as though God, during
its continuance in this relation, were not God. We must here only
avoid confounding the substance with the form ; the idea, with the.
temporary clothing which the prophet prepares for it, in accordance
with the nature of a prophetic vision, in which every thing spiritual
must necessarily be represented in outward sketches and forms.
This clothing is as follows. In the nearest place to the temple ca
pable of containing a great multitude of men, in the valley of Je-
hoshaphat, which probably received this name from the passage
before us as a proper name, which the prophet here attributes to it,
only to designate its destination, — " the Lord judges," or " valley of
judgment" (comp. Vol. II. p. 49), all the heathen are assembled.
The Lord, enthroned in the temple, exercises judgment upon them.
Thus the idea is revealed in outward forms, that the judgment upon
the heathen is a result of the Theocracy, that they are not punished
on account of their violation of the law of nature, but on account of
the hostile attitude which they have assumed against the bearers of
God's revealed truth, against the Lord, who dwells in his church.
Every violation of the law of nature can be forgiven to those who
stand in no nearer relation to God, even though they have proceeded
to the most fearful extent in depravity. Those who were once diso
bedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in. the days of Noah,
VOL. III. 14

106 JOEL.
were not yet given up to final damnation, but kept in prison (the
middle condition of Sheol) until Christ came and preached to them.
This was the iniquity of Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abun
dance of idleness was in her, and in her daughters ; neither did she
strengthen the hand of the poor and needy, but was haughty, and
committed abomination before the Lord, therefore he took them away
as he saw good. Nevertheless the Lord will hereafter turn away the
captivity (the affliction) of this Sodom and her daughters, and they
shall be restored as they were before, — not corporeally, for the last
trace of her seed is blotted from the earth, and even her site is
destroyed, — but spiritually. Comp. Ezek. 16 : 49 sq. On the con
trary, far heavier punishment overtakes those who have rejected not
the abstract, but the concrete God ; not him who is shut up in heaven,
but him who has powerfully manifested himself on earth, in his
Church. True, so long as this revelation is still imperfect, as under
the Old Testament, and therefore the guilt of rejecting God is the
less, there is room for compassion. The outward destruction does
not involve in it the spiritual also. Moab is destroyed, that he is no
more a people, because he hath exalted himself against the Lord.
" But in a future time I will turn away the captivity of Moab, saith
the Lord," Jer. 48 : 47 ; but when the revelation of the mercy of
God has been completed, so also will his righteousness be completely
revealed against those who despise this revelation, and rise up in
hostility against those who bear it Their worm shall not die, and
their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abomination to
all flesh. Is. 66 : 24. In these remarks lies the key to all the Lord
declares in respect to the future judgment, which is only future in
its completion. Its object is not the world, as such, but the world
to which the Gospel is preached, in the midst of which the Church
has been established ; comp. Matt 24 : 14.

THE PORTION CHAP. 1 — 2: 18.
We will not here dwell long on the history of the interpretations
of this portion ; it has been sufficiently given by Pococke and Mark
among the older writers, and by Credner among the more modern.
We only remark, that the figurative understanding is the oldest, — it

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 2: 18. 107
was adopted by the Chaldee paraphrast, and the Jews, mentioned by
Jerome, — and that we cannot, with Credner, derive it solely from a
doctrinal interest ; since many who were actuated by such ah interest
as Bochart, Pococke, and J. H. Michaelis, do not approve of it ; on the
other hand, we find among its defenders, not a few who are in
fluenced by a directly opposite motive, as Grotius, Eckermann, Ber-
tholdt (Einl. p, 1607 ff.), Theiner. There are two previous questions
to be answered, before we proceed to the chief investigation,
1. Does Joel here describe a present, or a future calamity ? The
former has been asserted in former times by Luther and Calvin,
(comp. especially on chap. 1 : 4,) recently, with peculiar confidence,
by Credner. But this view has nothing in its favor. The frequent
use of the praters would afford proof only, in case we did not stand
on prophetic ground. Besides, these occur in precisely the same
way in chapter 4, — in the portion which interpreters unanimously
refer to the future. But if this view is to be considered as valid, it
must be sustained by clear arguments, for it has the analogy of
prophecy decidedly against it. So long and full a description of the
present, or past, is nowhere to be found in the prophets. Besides,
the latter only can be supposed, if once the reference to the future is
rejected. For the description of the prosperity following the calamity
is connected, chap. 2 : 18, 19, by fut. with the vav. relat. If, there
fore, all is supposed actually to have taken place, instead of being
represented to the prophet in vision, the calamity previously described
must be regarded as already entirely past, the prosperity as still
future. That the reference to the future is the only correct one, can,
however, be shown by special, incontrovertible arguments drawn from
the contents. The day of the Lord is often designated as near,
which is explained by the circumstance, that God's judgment upon
his Church is a necessary result of his righteousness, which never
rests, but is always active, so that as soon as its object, the sinful
apostasy of the people, exists, its necessary manifestation must be
expected, if not the last and highest, yet such an one as serves as its
prelude, so that the day of the Lord is perpetually coming, never ab
solutely distant, its designation as near, a necessary result of the
declaration founded in the Divine nature, and therefore eternally
true, " where the carcass is, there the eagles collect" This desig
nation occurs'first, chap. 1 : 15, " Woe for the day, for near is the
day of the Lord, and as a desolation does it come from the Al
mighty." Here two methods of evasion have been attempted. Justi

108 JOEL.
asserts, that " the day is near " is, i. q., " the day is there," which
deserves no further refutation ; Holzhausen and Credner suppose,
that by " the day of the Lord," is' to be understood, not the devasta
tion by locusts, but another more heavy judgment of which that was
the prelude. This supposition is opposed by the verbally parallel
passage. Is. 13 : 6, " Howl, for near is the day of the Lord, and as
a devastation does it come from the Almighty ; " here, the day of the
Lord is no other than that which had before been described ; but
still stronger is the objection, that in the following context there is
not the smallest trace of any other judgment besides the devastation
by the locusts ; on the contrary, with that terminates the whole period
of suffering for the covenant people ; and now the time of blessing
for them, and of judgment upon their enemies succeeds. The ne
cessity of understanding by the neaf day of the Lord, the devastation
by locusts, and thus of considering this as future, is still more clearly
manifest from the second passage, chap. 2 : 1,2, " Blow ye the trumpet
in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain ; let all the inhab
itants of the land tremble ; for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is
nigh at hand ; a day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds
and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains ;
a great people and a strong ; there hath not been ever the like, neither
shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations."
That by " the day of the Lord " here, which the prophet designates
as already come in inward vision, and in reality as near, must be
understood the day which is fully described in the preceding and
following contexts, the devastation by locusts, appears from the
verbally parallel passage, Ezek. 30 : 2, which, in like manner, speaks
only of one day ; " Son of man, prophesy, and say, Thus saith the
Lord God ; Howl ye. Woe worth the day ! For the day is near, even the
day of the Lord is near, a cloudy day ; a time of the heathen shall
it be." But what excludes all doubt, the expression, " a people
numerous and strong," whereby only the locusts could be understood,
forms an explanatory apposition to " the day of the Lord, the day of
darkness," &,c. And, in addition to this, by the last words, this
judgment is designated as the most fearful, and the last which should
overtake Judea, and thus the idea of a later day of the Lojrd is
entirely excluded.
2. Does the prophet describe only one simple devastation of the
locusts, or a twofold proceeding from two different swarms ? Cred
ner has lately attempted, with great effort, to prove the latter, and

THE PORTION Chap. 1—2: 18. 109
seems to regard this discovery as the chief merit of his whole work.
" Joel's description is occupied," he asserts, (comp. p. 33,) " with
two generations of locusts ; the first generation belongs to the end
of the one, the second to the beginning of the ensuing year. The
latter is the offspring of the former." In accordance with this hy
pothesis, he explains the different names of the locusts. According
to him, DU is the migratory locust, which visits Palestine chiefly in
time of harvest ; ng^X, elsewhere the general name of the locusts,
here the young brood ; pi?;., the young locust in the last stage of their
transformation, or between the third and fourth casting of the skin ;
''Qri, the perfect locust resulting from the last transformation, there
fore, as the brood proceeded from DJJ, '^'pn =DIJ.
This hypothesis, in general, is liable to the objection, that it attrib
utes to the prophet such a deep knowledge of the natural history of
tlie locusts, that a professor of natural history might learn from him.
For this, there is no analogy in the Scripture, in general, and par
ticularly in the prophets. The difiiculty increases as soon as it is
assumed, as we have already proved, that the description refers to
the future. By such a minute detail in the description of a future
natural event, particularly such an one as a devastation by locusts, the
religious impression, which the prophet had solely in view, would
rather lose than gain.
This whole view of the names of the locusts, on which the hy
pothesis is built, appears, on a closer examination, entirely untenable.
It appears that the prophet knew only of one kind of locusts, which,
in order to increase the terror, he divides into four different armies ;
and that the names, except nj"!X, are not scientific, but poetical,
taken from the qualities of the locusts.
Let us first show the error in the interpretation of pS;;., on which
the author grounds the rest. This interpretation he affirms (p. 295)
is placed beyond all doubt, by the passage in Nah. 3 : 16, " the
Jelek casts its skin and flies away." The merchants, who made
the principal part of the inhabitants of Nineveh, are compared with
the ps.'., which, after casting its skin for the third and last time, flies
away. But, rightly understood and explained, the passage of Nahum
serves only to refute this interpretation of pS.% It is there said of
Nineveh (v. 15), " there will fire devour thee, sword destroy thee ;
will devour thee as the beetle (p"?.',?). Be increased as the beetles,
numerous as the locusts (v. 16). Thou hast multiplied thy mer
chants as the stars of heaven. Beetles robbed and flew away."

110 JOEL.
(v. 17.) " Thy princes are as the locusts, and thy chief men as a
host of grasshoppers, — the sun arises, they flee away, and one knows
not their place, where are they ? " This passage proves precisely
that sh] must be winged locusts. Numberless as the locusts,, are the
Ninevites ; numberless their rich merchants ; but suddenly a count
less host of locusts comes upon them, plunders all, and flies away.
Those who rob and fly away in v. 16, are not the merchants, but the
enemies. This is manifest from a comparison with v. 15, where entirely
the same antithesis is found between " the sword will devour thee as
the beetles" (nom.), and " be numerous as the beetles." HE'S, in its
usual meaning, to rob, is here, in respect to the merchants, very sig
nificant. Decisive against the interpretation of Credner, is the
want of proof of the meaning to strip one's self, as well as the
entire unsuitableness of the sense. The discourse is here not of mer
cenaries, or foreign traders, but of the Ninevite merchants, in Uke
manner as afterwards, of her great men. — How then could the
image be suitable, which must designate a safe transition into a better
condition ? — Credner appeals besides to Jer. 51 : 27, where pS^ has
the adjunct, IDD, horridus. He supposes this to refer to the rough,
horny covering of the wings of the young locusts. But, according
to the context and analogy of the parallel passage, 51 : 14, we
should rather expect that the staring here is a designation of the
multitude, like our " to stare before filth, before vermin " (Seventy,
b)g dxglSav 7TX7]&og). At any rate, from a passage of such doubtful
interpretation, nothing else doubtful can be decided. — But that by
ps.'., not a young brood, but winged locusts are to be understood, is
evident from Ps. 105 : 34, compared with Exod. 10 : 12 sq. In Exodus
a single army of _^^in^ locusts overspread the land of Egypt ; the
Psalmist, in recalling this event to memory, says, " he spake and
there came locusts, and OX. without number." In this passage,
especially compared with Psalm 78 : 46, where, instead of pS.'., S'pn
is interchanged with njTiX, occurring in Exodus alone, it is very
evident, that pS;;., he who licks, is nothing more than a poetical epi
thet of the locusts, especially as it never occurs in prose, which can
the less be accidental, since this is true also of DtJ, one who gnaws,
and S'On is found in prose but once, as what it originally was, a
mere adjunct of ngix, in the prayer of Solomon, 1 Kings 8 : 37.
And in addition to this, we may urge, that the meaning of na'ix is
entirely fictitious, and contradicted by all the passages ; that in chap.
2 ; 25, the prophet, reversing the order, places DU last, which clearly

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 2: 18. HI
shows, that the succession in chap. 1 : 3 is not chronological ; that
Credner, since he must confess that OU and S'prj signify no peculiar
kind of locust, renders suspicious also his explaining the two other
names of different kinds, and that, if this interpretation were correct,
DU and S'Dn must designate the locusts as fully grown. This,
however, is by no means the case; the origin of the name DIJ, is
evident from Amos 4:9, " your vineyards, your fig-trees, and your
olive-trees DUn consumes." In reference to the grain, other divine
methods of destruction had been already mentioned immediately
before. Only the trees therefore remain for the locusts, which re
ceive a name corresponding to this special destination Dun, the
gnawer. — The verb Sgn occurs of the devouring of the locusts,
Deut 28 : 30 ; and S'pn, is found only where the locusts are men
tioned in reference to this quality ; comp., besides the cited passages.
Is. 34 : 5.
Consider, moreover, what follows. The description of the devas
tations of the second brood begins, according to Credner, chap.
2 : 4. But the suff., v. 4, refers directly to the winged locusts spoken
of in V. 1-3, and in ps^T. they are the subject. '
And now we can judge what is to be thought of an hypothesis,
which has every thing against it, and nothing in its favor, and whose
essential assumptions, the departure of the swarm, their eggs left
behind, their death iu the Red Sea, according to the confession of
the inventor himself (p. 174), are passed over in silence by the
author. We stiU only remark, that if the fourfold division of the locusts,
serves only for poetical effect, those also among the defenders of the
figurative interpretation, are convicted of error, who, as, e. g,, Gro
tius (" Quos reliquerit Phul, eos Tiglathphalesar occidet aut ab-
ducet, quos reliquerit Salmanassar, eos occidet vel avehet Sannacheri-
bus"), think of four different enemies in succession.
We may now proceed to the solution of our problem; there are no
general arguments against either the figurative or the literal under
standing ; neither of the two has any unfavorable prejudice against
it A devastation by proper locusts, is threatened in the Pentateuch
against the transgressors of the law, Deut. 28 : 38, 39 ; against the
Egyptians, God actually employed this, among other methods of pun
ishment ; a devastation by locusts, in Israel, is represented by Amos,
chap. 4 : 9, as an effect of the divine anger. — On the other hand,
figurative representations of this sort are something very common ;

112 -JOEL.
in Isaiah, e. g., the invading Assyrians and Egyptians appear in a
continued description, as swarms of flies and bees. The comparison
of hostile armies with locusts, is altogether common, not merely on
account of their multitude, but also on account of their devastations ;
comp. Nah. 1, c, Is. 34 : 5, And what is most completely analogous,
in Amos, chap, 7 : 1 - 3, the prophet beholds the approaching divine
judgment under the image of a swarm of locusts, just as, in v, 4,
under that of a fire, and v. 7, of a leaden plumb-line. In substance,
all three are entirely ahke. This is given, v. 9, with the words,
" destroyed are the high, places of Isaac, the sanctuaries of Israel
are laid waste, and I rise up over the house of Jeroboam with the
sword," To represent the divine punishment under the symbol of a
devastation by locusts, was the more natural, since it had actually
thus manifested itself at a former period in Egypt. The figurative
representation had, therefore, in the history of the past, a significant
substratum. That it is, however, a constant practice of the prophets,
to represent the future under the image of the analogous past, which,
as it were, lives in it again, we have already often seen.
The decision, therefore, depends on the internal nature of the
description. An allegory must make itself known as such, by signifi
cant hints. Where these are wanting, its assumption is arbitrary.
Following the order of the text, we will combine every thing of the
sort which we find in it.
Even the " has such a thing happened, in your days, and in the
days of your fathers ? whereof ye shall relate to your sons, and your
sons to their sons, and their sons to the following generation," of
the introduction, scarcely allows us to think of the devastation of
locusts, in the proper sense. Only by the greatest exaggeration, which,
if any prophet, certainly the simple and mild Joel, Would be far from
employing, could he represent a devastation by locusts, always a very
temporary evil, as the greatest calamity which ever had happened, or
ever would happen to the nation. For this latter is implied in the
admonition to relate it to the most distant posterity. No later suffer
ing should be so great as to cause this to be forgotten.
Not to be overlooked is the expression, " a people ('IJ) has gone
over my land." V. 6. People, according to most interpreters, signi
fies only the multitude ; but then, doubtless, as Prov. 30 : 25, 26,
concerning the ants, DJI would stand. In 'I'J lies not merely, which
Credner also acknowledges, the idea of what is hostile, but also
what is profane ; indeed, this is the principal idea on which account

THE PORTION Chap, 1 — 2: 18. 113
the degenerate covenant people often receive the name 'fJ (comp.
Vol. II. p. 289 sq.). That this principal idea has place here also, is
evident from the antithesis, " over my land." We cannot, indeed,
with J. H. Michaelis and others, refer the suff. to Jehovah, in which
case this antithesis would be the most striking ; just as little however,
with the recent critics, to the prophet as an individual, where it
entirely disappears. The comparison of v. 7 and 19 clearly shows,
that the prophet, according to a frequent custom (compare the intro
duction to Micah, and the whole prophecy of Habakkuk), speaks in
the name of the people of God. A strange, unheard of event I A heath
en host has invaded the land of the people of God ! The antithesis
appears chap. 2 : 18, " Then was the Lord zealous for his land, and
spared his people." We do not suppose that the prophet departs
from the image ; he designates the locusts as a heathen host; but he
would not have chosen this designation, which, literally understood,
is very strange, if the reality had not given him an occasion.
It is remarkable, that, in the description of the locusts in this
verse, and in the whole of the following representation, n'o mention
is made of their flight. Only in chap. 2:2, "A day of darkness,
and of thick darkness, a day of clouds and of blackne,ss," does Credner
find this mentioned. He supposes the darkness to be a consequence
of the rising of the swarm of locusts into the heavens. But the
incorrectness of this supposition immediately appears, on a compari
son of chap. 2 : 10. There, " before the host, before it arises, the
earth quakes, the heavens tremble, the sun and moon veil themselves
in blackness, the stars withdraw their splendor." Not till after this
has happened, does the Lord dravv near at the head of his host
From this host, therefore, the darkness cannot proceed. Rather,
for which also the numerous and almost verbally coincident parallel
passages (comp. Vol. II. p. 267) decide, the darknening of the heavens
is the symbol of the anger of God, the sign that he draws near as a
judge and an avenger. But how can the omission of every reference
to the flying of the locusts, in so full a description, be well explained,
otherwise than by supposing that the reality presented nothing cor
responding to this ? In V. ¦7, " They make my vineyard for devasta
tion, and my fig-tree for destruction," it is remarkable, that, in the
description of the destruction, precisely the vineyard and the fig-
tree are first mentioned : both in the singular, and with the suff. of
the pronoun of the first person, whereby they are represented in a
peculiar sense, as a possession pf the people of God, their devastation
VOL. III. 15 .^ ,>.-

114 JOEL.
as a sign of the rejection of this people. Also, in the description of
the restoration, they are again, chap. 2 : 22, first mentioned, and,
indeed, in the singular. Credner himself remarks (p. Ill), It is
untrue, that vineyard and fig-tree were chiefly visited by the locusts ;
the ground of this phenomenon lies rather in an intentional refer
ence to the phrase, " to sit under his vine and fig-tree," or to eat of
it. The vine and the fig-tree, however, the sitting under them, and
the eating of their fruits, are everywhere placed in contrast with
the hostile oppression, (comp. Mich. 4 : 4,) " and they sit every one
under his vine and fig-tree, and there is no one to make them afraid."
Is. 36 : 16; 65 : 21, 22; 1 Kings 5:5; Hos. 2 : 14; Jer. 5 : 17 ;
8: 13.
The words, " woe for the day, for near is the day of the Lord,
and as a devastation does it come from the Almighty," point, as the
comparison vvith Is. 13 : 6, shows, where, almost verbally borrowed
from Joel, they occur of the judgment of the Lord over the whole
earth, to something infinitely higher than a mere swarm of locusts
in the proper sense. This, Credner himself confesses when he
makes the vain attempt (comp. p, 147) to refer them to a judgment
different from a devastation by locusts. How is it even conceivable,
that the prophet should regard a transient calamity, and one com
paratively so small as a literal visitation of locusts, as the day of the
Lord, xax" iloxriv, as the close and completion of all judgments upon
the covenant people ? This would presuppose such low views of
God's righteousness, such a total misapprehension of the greatness
of human sin, as we find in no prophet of the Old Testament, and,
in general, in no author of any sacred writing. A total expulsion of
the people out of the land, which they have polluted by their sins, is
what the men of God under the Old Testament, from Moses, the
first, down to the last, predict.
In V. 19, 20, " To thee, O Lord, do I cry ; for a fire consumes the
pastures of the wilderness, and flame burns all trees of the field "
the image suddenly changes. The divine anger appears under the
image of an all-consuming flame. If, now, a fire in the literal sense
cannot be understood here, it is certain, that in what precedes, also
a figurative character prevails. Holzhausen and Credner (p. 163)
seek to evade this troublesome consequence, by the assertion, that
glowing fire is spoken of the all-consuming heat of the sun. This
is, at all events, a groundless assertion ; fire and flame are never
predicated of the heat of the sun. We must rather, according to

THE PORTION Chap, 1—2: 18. 115
this view, say, that the prophet represents the devouring heat under
the image of a fire poured out from heaven. But this is inadmissi
ble, if we compare the numerous parallel passages (see them collect
ed, Vol, II, p. 375), where the glowing anger of God appears under
the image of a consuming and desolating fire, with reference to the
destrnction of Sodom and Gomorrah, when the divine anger actually
manifested itself in this manner. Especially remarkable here is the
passage, Amos chap. 7. The divine anger presents itself to the
prophet, first, v. 1-3, under the image of a great army of locusts
which lays waste the land, scarcely recovering from the former ca
lamities under Jeroboam II. by the Syrians ; then, in v, 4, under
the image of a great fire, which swallows up the sea, and consumes
the holy land. This analogy is the more important, the more obvi
ous elsewhere arc the traces of intercourse between Joel and Amos ;
comp. still. Is. 9 : 17, 18 ; Mai. 3 : 18.
Chap. 2 : 2, is to be regarded as pointing to the occasion by which
Joel was led to the choice of this figurative representation. The
words, " there was nothing like it from eternity," and "there shall
not be such after it from generation to generation," are borrowed
literally from Ex. 10 : 14. The prophet thus intimates, that he trans
fers the past, in its individual definiteness, to the future, which re
sembles it in substance. What is there especially said of the plague
of locusts, is here applied to the calamity thereby typified. This, of
all judgments upon the covenant people, (and they only are spoken
of,) is the highest and the last, which the prophet could say only
when the whole extent of the divine judgments to their highest com
pletion presented itself to him in inward vision, under the image of
a devastation by locusts. To what absurdities the hypothesis of the
later origin of the Pentateuch leads, we have here a remarkable
example in the assertion of Credner, that the passage in Exodus is
an imitation of that of Joel. The very next verse, " as ihe garden
of Eden (Paradise) is the land before him," stands in a manifest
reference to Genesis; not only to 2 : 8, but also to 13: 10, where
the valley of Siddim, before the divine judgment, is compared with
the garden of Jehovah (Paradise).
In chap. 2:11, every feature is against the literal interpretation.
" And the Lord gives his voice before his host, for very numerous is
his camp, for strong is he who does his word, for great is the day of
the Lord, and very terrible, who can comprehend it ? That an in
vasion of locusts should be represented as God's host and camp, at

116 JOEL.
whose head he himself marches as a general, before which he causes
his thunder to resound like trumpets, has not even the most distant
analogy in its favor. It is, indeed, cited in an Arabic writer, as a
Mosaic command ; " Ye shall not kill the locusts, for they are the
host of God the Most High," (Bochart, II. p. 4S2, ed. Rosenm. III. p.
318). But who does not see that this expression owes its origin to
the passage before us?
In V. 17, " Give not thine inheritance to reproach, that heathen
reign over it" (D^U U^'hf-ch), the prophet drops the allegory, and
the reality, the devastation of the land by heathen enemies, (observe
how what was said in v. 6 concerning 'IJ, receives confirmation by
d;ij,) is clearly exhibited. The defenders of the literal interpretation
have here attempted to escape from their embarrassment in two ways.
Michaelis explains ; " Parce populo tuo, auferendo ab eo locustarnm
istam plagam, qua si amplius desavierit et grassata fuerit, extremam
inducet famem, atque ita cogetur populus tuus, ad levandam famis
necessitatem, in regiones gentium transfugere et apud eas pro pane
servire, et imperia eorum nee non opprobria sustinere." But every
one sees how far-fetched this is. All history affords no example
where a people by one visitation of locusts, affecting the produce of
only one year, and this not completely and throughout the whole
land, are brought to give themselves up to the dominion of foreign
nations. The recent interpreters, particularly Credner, resort to
another explanation, "give thine inheritance not a prey to the mock
ery of the heathen over it ; " the meaning to mock, they assert, is
required by the parallelism. But one sees not how. The reproach
of Israel consisted precisely in their haying subjected the inheritance
of the Lord to the rule of the heathen. The sense to reign, is, on
the contrary, required by the parallelism. For the inheritance of the
Lord, and the dominion of the heathen, not their mockery, constitute
a suitable antithesis. This same antithesis lies at the foundation, in
V. 18, in the words " then was the Lord zealous for his land," in
which the prophet relates how the Lord abolished this crying contra
diction. Not natural locusts, only heathen foes could be the object
of the jealousy of the Lord. His land, his people, he cannot give
up as a prey to the heathen. But what is of itself decisive, this in
terpretation is entirely unphilological. The verb Se'd, has never the
sense to mock; the phrase hfn hm, to make a proverb, is entirely
peculiar to Ezek., where it several times occurs. In the remain
ing books, there is nothing in the least degree to the purpose, except

THE PORTION Chap, 1 — 2: 18, 117
O^hfn once in the ancient dialect of the Pentateuch, Numb. 21 :
27, in the sense j5oe<s. Sb^IJ with 3 means, without exception, to reign
over, properly to reign by encroaching upon any one. Thus, par
ticularly in the passage which the prophet had in view, Deut. 15 : 6,
" If thou wilt hearken to the voice of Jehovah thy God, so shalt thou
reign over many heathen, and they shall not reign over thee,"
iSit'p'. xS '151 D'35 D.'ua rh^m ; comp. also the very similar pas
sage Psalm 106 : 41, " Then gave he them into the hand of the
heathen, and those who hated them ruled over them " (03 iS^^^l).
Lam. 5 : 8. That the choice of the sense to mock is owing entirely
to prejudice, is evident also from the fact, that all ancient translators
(the Seventy, Jon., Syr., Vulg.), have to rule.
More than one proof is afforded by v. 20, " And I will remove
from you the northmen, and drive them into a land dry and waste,
their front into the anterior sea, and their rear into the hinder sea,
and their foulness arises, and their smell will come up; for he has
done great things."
1. If the reference is made to literal locusts, their designation by
the northmen, UiD^n, is entirely inexplicable. The usual assertion
is indeed, erroneous, that the locusts march only from south to north
(comp. Credner, p. 284) ; but all history gives no example of locusts
which came from the north from Syria to Palestine ; but even if
sometimes particular swarms, after having come from their native
region, the hot and dry lands of the south, to Syria, may have been
driven away from these, towards Palestine, this is not conceivable of
so enormous a swarm as is here described, which, with youthful vigor,
devastated all Palestine from one end to the other. And shall the
prophet, who, as we have already seen, predicts what was future, be
supposed to mention, so accidental a circumstance, as the transient
abode of a swarm of locusts in Syria ? Nor would such a residence
by any means justify his language. The ' in common names shows
the derivation. No person, e. g., can be called 'J'l?, a villager, who
resides only for a short time in a village. Finally, the native land
of the proper locusts is plainly enough indicated in the words, " and
I drive him into the land dry and waste." Who does not see, that by
these words are designated the hot and dry regions of the south, that
the prophet expresses, therefore, the thought that the enemies will be
driven back whence they came, by naming the land from which the
real locusts usually came ? The opponents are here involved in
great embarrassment. Some explain, " the locusts who were march-

118 JOEL.
ing northward ; " Hezel and Justi, without any justification in the
usage of the language, " the dark and fearful host" ; V. Colin (De
Joelis jEtate, Marb. 1811, p. 10,) prefers to change the text We
may join to the arguments again.st the reference of the expression to
locusts in the proper sense, the fact, that the north is constantly men
tioned as the home of the most dangerous enemies of Israel, the
Assyrians and the Chaldeans, a designation whose geographical in
accuracy is outweighed by the circumstance, that these enemies
always came from Syria, when they had made this land a part of
their dominion. Comp. Zeph. 2 : 13, " And the Lord stretches out
his hand over the north, and destroys Ashur, and makes Nineveh a
wilderness, a dry desert." Jer. I : 14, " And the Lord said to me.
From the north will this evil break in over all the inhabitants of the
land." 4:6, 6 : 1, 22, 10 : 22, 25 : 29. Zach. 2 : 10. — Jerome
has remarked, " Aquilonem interposuit, ut non veram locustam,
qua ab austro venire consuevit, sed sub locusta intelligamus Assyrios
atque Chaldaos.
2. That we have here to do with a poetical, and not with a scientific
description, is evident from the designation of the places whither the
locusts should be driven. Among these, the dry and hot regions of
the south, the Arabian desert is first mentioned, then the anterior,
or Dead Sea; lying eastward of Jerusalem, and lastly, the hinder sea,
the Mediterranean. That according to the intention of the prophet,
the dispersion into these different directions should take place at
the same time, is evident from the fact, that he causes the advance
of the same army to be driven into the one, the rear into the other sea.
That this is physically impossible, since the wind cannot blow in
opposite directions at the same time, every one easily perceives. The
explanation of Credner, that the D'ja of the locusts is the swarm
which first invaded Palestine, and 131D their brood, deserves to be
cited, only as a proof to what absurdities a false hypothesis once
adopted can lead.
3. The words, " for he has done great things," give the ground
of the destruction of the locusts. They will be punished, because
they have sinned through proud arrogance. Because they have done
great things, so now does the Lord great things against them ; he
glorifies himself in their destruction, since, in the time of their
power, they glorified themselves, and trampled God under foot Sin
and punishment, however, necessarily presuppose moral responsibility.
That this would be attributed by any prophet to irrational creatures

THE PORTION Chap. 1 — 2: 18. 119
by a poetic figure, it would be difficult to prove. The thought, how
ever, which is here expressed is one which constantly occurs in refer
ence to the heathen enemies of the Israelites.
In v. 25, " and I restore to you the years (D'.wn) which the lo
custs have devoured," &c., the discourse relates to several years of
affliction. But a devastation of the land by literal locusts, for such
a period, cannot be thought of. Even 1p.', in chap. 1 : 4, forbids
this. Bochart justly remarks, " Proventus novi anni non possunt
vocari residuum prioris, quod nomen rectius competit tum frugibus
quorundam agrorum pratermissorum, tum frugibus in eodem etiam
agro relictis eodem anno adhue depascendis." Accordingly the
prophet here also passes from the figure to the reality, to the hostile
invasion extending through, a longer duration which he describes
under the figure of a transient visitation of locusts.
Very important arguments for the figurative understanding are
still furnished by chap. 4. The whole prediction of the penal judg
ment upon the heathen has sense and meaning, only if the crime
had been previously mentioned which they have committed against
the Lord and his people. We have then the three chief objects of
the prophecy before us, God's judgment upon his people by heathen
foes, his compassion for them, and the punishment of their enemies.
At the very beginning, the affliction of Israel, which had been de
scribed in chapters 1 and 2, and the judgment upon the heathen, are
placed in the closest connexion. The assembling of the heathen,
according to v. 1 and 2, shall take place when the Lord shall turn
the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, i. e., according to the constant
usage, free them from their affliction. That this affliction could be
no other than that described chap. 1 and 2, is evident, simply from
its being represented as the last of all God's judgments. — Further,
the article, v. 2, is to be well observed ; not " I assemble all," but
"I assemble all the nations (D;un~S3"n^)." How can this be
otherwise explained than " all the nations who had been spoken of
before under the image of the locusts." — Particularly important,
however, is the second part of the verse, " and I there reckon with
them concerning my people, mine inheritance, Israel, which they have
scattered among the heathen, and divided my land." Here the dis
course can by no means relate to any thing which had happened
before the time of Joel. However his age may be determined, he
belongs, in any event, to a time, in which, as yet, no dispersion of
Israel among the heathen, and no division of the land, had taken

120 JOEL.
place. Credner, indeed, believes, that the calamities under Joram
may suffice. " The Edomites then revolted from Judah ; Libnah,
which belonged to Judah in the stricter sense, revolted-; the Ara
bians and Philistines invaded the kingdom, and plundered Us capital.
These events ended, therefore, not without a diminution of the
kingdom of Judah." But all this is nothing to the purpose. The
discourse is here of a division of the land of the Lord ; it has noth
ing to do, therefore, with the revolt of a heathen tributary people ;
just as little can we see what Libnah has to do here ; it belonged,
indeed, to the kingdom of Judah, but the heathen nations had noth
ing to do with its defection, which, according to 2 Kings 8 : 22,
2 Chron. 21 : 10, proceeded from the inhabitants dissatisfied with the
bad reign of a king, and speedily terminated. It is not possible,
therefore, to show the loss of even some small part of a province at
that time, to say nothing of a division of the whole land. It is the
same with the dispersion among the beathen. The invasion of the
Philistines does not here come into consideration, because these
enemies, in v. 4, are expressly distinguished from those who have
effected the dispersion of the people, and the partition of the land.
" And also ye, what will ye to me. Tyre and Sidon and all ye bor
ders of Philistia ? " — The prophet, therefore, cannot speak of any
thing already existing in his time ; and just as little of any thing
yet future, but not included in the threatening of punishment against
the covenant people. For the devastation by locusts appears as the
highest and last calamity of the future. Nothing, therefore, remains
but to suppose, that, under the image of the devastation by locusts
itself, the desolation of the land by heathen foes, and the dispersion
of its inhabitants are described, which is also confirmed by the great
resemblance of this passage to chap. 2 : 18, 19.
We may still remark, that this passage, at the same time, consid
erably strengthens the proof already adduced, that Joel, in chap.
1 : 2, predicts what is future. That which the figure of the devas
tation by locusts, as here given, represents, does not belono- to the
time of Joel.
Finally, in v. 17, " and Jerusalem will be a sanctuary, and
strangers will no more pass through her," is still to be considered.
This promise stands in manifest contrast with the former threatenino-
and by it only is rendered intelligible. In the threatening, therefore,
under the figure of the locusts, must the strangers be intended.
And now, after all these particular proofs have been cited, which

ON Chap. 2 : 23. 121
if it were necessary,, could be easily strengthened and increased,
let us look back to the exhibition of the contents. Let us see how,
according to our view only, the prophecy of Joel forms a complete,
finished, harmonious whole, and observe how, according to it, the
prophet carefully adheres to the ground-sketch already given by
Moses, with the completion of which, all other prophets are employed.
Finally, let us observe, that the figurative interpretation has the
testimony of exegetical tradition in its favor.
With the arguments which Credner (p, 27 ff.) has brought against ,.
this interpretation, we need not long delay. They all rest upon an
almost' unaccountable ignorance of the nature, of poetry, metaphor,
and allegory. Thus, e, g., when he says, " Who, with a sound mind,
could ever say of horses, knights, armies, that they are like horses
and knights ? Who ever saw horses and knights mount over the
walls ? What shall we say to chap. 2 : 20 ? do armies ever perish in
the sea? and, moreover, in two different seas? What can mean, in
V. 22, 23, the allusion to the ceasing of the drought, if the. prophet
had actual enemies in view ? " we nee4 only reflect, that the
prophet by no means contemplates the enemies as such, and merely
compares them incidentally v/ith locusts, but that they present them
selves before him in vision as locusts. It is the very nature of alle
gory, that the figure is converted into reality. But for this very
reason many a trait must be introduced which belongs not to the
real, but only to the ideal object ; and thus it becomes possible, that
the image exalted to an ideal matter of fact, can, in its turn, be com
pared to the actual object.

ON CHAP, 2 ; 23.

" And ye sons of Sion exult and rejoice in Jehovah your God ;
for he gives you th^ teacher of righteousness, and then he pours down
upon you former and latter rain first."
There is a considerable difference in the interpretation of this
verse. The words npisS rriisriTiS, have been explained by the
larger portion of interpreters, by " the Teacher of righteousness " ;
so Jon., Vulg., Jarchi, Abarb., Grotius, and nearly all early interpreters
of the Lutheran church. Others take n:jia, in the sense to rain,
VOL. III. 16

122 JOEL.
and npn^S, as a nearer designation of its nature. This interpreta
tion was not unusual, even in ancient times. Among the Rabbins,
it is found in Kimchi, Abenezra, S. B. Melech, who think of a
timely rain. Calvin, who tran.slates np-iyS by justa mensura, de-
feiid's it with great decision, and declares the other to be forced, and
uhsuited to the connexion. " The rain," is found in the English
and Genevan translation, and in many reformed interpreters, who
hesitate as to the translation of np^'iyS : " Justo tempore, justa men
sura, justo loco, pro justitia sua, secundum justitiam vestram."
Mark supposes that the rain is necessarily required by the connexion ;
this, however, on account of the righteousness, is to be spiritually
understood, the Messiah, with his wholesome doctrine and his
spirit Among the interpreters of the Lutheran church, Seb. Schmid
thinks of a pluviam tempestivam. Among recent interpreters, the
explanation by rain has become so entirely prevalent, that it is
thought scarcely worth while to mention the others. npTiS is ex
plained by Eckermann, " for a proof of his good pleasure " ; Justi,
" for fruitfulness" ; the rest (Rosenm., Holzhausen, Credner, Riick
ert), by justa mensura. We regard this explanation as decidedly
wrong, and the other as the. correct one. Oar reasons are the
following. 1. The great indecision of the defenders of the current interpre
tation in explaining npnyS, shows that this addition places a con
siderable hindrance in the way, which, on a nearer examination,
appears to be entirely insurmountable. Passing over those interpre
tations of this word which plainly originated in mere caprice, it is
sufficient to examine that hy justa mensura. The very circumstance
awakens suspicion, that np^T.V stands here, and not pli'; comp., on
the difference between them, Ewald, p. 312, 313. But what is en
tirely decisive is, that both words, though they occur so extremely
often, are never used in a physical, but always in a moral sense.
The only passage, where, according to Winer, pi>; signifies rectitude
in a physical sense, is that of Ps. 23 : 3 ; piS 'Sj;:a are straight,
right ways. It is there said, " He restores my soul ; he leads me in
the paths of righteousness for his name's sake," — the way is a
spiritual one, it is the righteousness itself This is that imputed by
God, and conferred through gr.ice. To lead in its path is to treat
one as righteous. This is shown by the whole mass of parallel
passages; comp., e. g., Ps. 5 : 9, "O Lord, lead me in thy righteous
ness on account of mine enemies." In reference to np^iy, Holzh.

ON Chap. 2 ; 23. 123
asserts (p. 130), that it occurs of the measure that has its proper
size, Lev. 19 : 35, 36. The words are as follows, " Ye shall do no
unrighteousness in judgment, in measure, in division. Balances of
righteousness, weights of righteousness, an ephah of righteousness
shall ye have ; L am the Lord your God, who have brought you out
of the land of Egypt." Even the manifest antithesis with un
righteousness here plainly shows, that balances, weights of irighteous-
ness, are such as belong to righteousness, correspond with it. The
root pis itself, never occurs in a physical, but always in a moral
sense. To all this must be added, that the explanation, " the Teach
er of righteousness," is recommended by the parallel passage, Hos.
10 : 12, where, in like manner, teaching occurs in connexion with
righteousness, " the Lord will come and teach you righteousness,"
ngS p-i.K niri, comp. also Is. 63 : 1.
2. That the giving of the. nnin, in the first half of the verse, must
designate a different divine benefit from' nii'D, in the second, is evi
dent from the fact, that otherwise an idle tautology would ensue.
But it is rendered completely certain by the use oT the fut. with
vav. convers. T^.Vi By this form an action is always designated,
which arises out of what precedes. According to the current expla
nation, however, we have here merely one and the same action ex
pressed with different words. It is true, that Hirzel, (Stud, und Crit.
Jahrg. 1833, 1, p. 165,) has asserted, in opposition to Evvald, that the
fut. with vav. conv. is sometimes used to express merely a connexion.
But the tirnes are happily passed by, when a rule, deeply grounded
in the nature of the language, could be invalidated by a few scattered
examples. These examples are, moreover, only two ; viz., besides
the passage before us, the citation of which is a confession, that the
current interpretation is irreconcilable with the right understanding
of the fut. with vav. conv.. Lam. 3 : 33 ; where a succession neither
of time nor of sense between noj? and TW is to be found. The
words are IV'X 'J? r^,^l laSp n|y xS O. The fut. with vav. conv.
has respect to isSn. It is so placed, as if in what precedes only the
decree of the punishment had been spoken of — Consider, moreover,
that even the subjoining of ?K'A to the second nilD clearly distin
guishes this from the preceding as to the sense, and that it belongs
to the peculiarities of Joel to use the same words and phrases shortly
after one another in a different sense (comp. Credner on 2 : 20,
3 : 5).
3. The explanation by Teacher is the more obvious, because

124 ' JOEL.
niI'D, with the sole exception of the passage of very doubtful inter
pretation (Ps. 84 : 7), always occurs in the sense Teacher, never in
that of ram, or early rain. The latter is rather r^¦^y, and, besides, the
verb never occurs in Hiph. as in Kal, in the sense conspersit, inigavit.
And this establishes the conjecture, that Joel placed the otherwise
unusual form n^.lD in the sense early rain, in the second passage,
only on account of the resemblance of the sound with the immedi
ately preceding nilD in its usual sense, and at the same time, to
avoid all ambiguity, subjoined Dg'A.
4. A similar causal connexion, like that before us, between the
sending of the Teacher of righteousness, and the effusion of rain, is
found in the passage of the Pentateuch, which the prophet, as it ap
pears, had in view. Deut. 11 : 13, 14, " And it happens, if ye
will hearken to my commands, which I this day command you, that
ye love the Lord your God, and serve him with all" your heart, and
all your soul ; then I give the rain of your land at its time, early rain
and latter rain (tS'ipSni rr;)!"'), and thou gatherest thy barley, thy
must, and thine oil," Here, as there, the righteousness of the people
is the antecedent, the divine benefit the consequent. Because the
former is wanted, the Lord commences the course of his mercy by
sending him who produces it. At the same time, the objection falls
to the ground, that the mention of the teacher of righteousness is
unsuitable in a connexion where the prophet speaks only of temporal
blessings, in order afterwards, in chap. 3, t6 rise to those which are
spiritual. There were no purely outward blessings for the covenant
people ; they were always, at the same tinie, signs and pledges of
the good pleasure of God, which depended on the righteousness of
the people, and this, again, on the Divine mission of a Teacher of
righteousness. 5. Our interpretation is clearly favored by |i"tyx'i3. It stands in a
close relation to [3 "'ins, chap. 3 : 1. The sending of the Teacher
of righteousness has a twofold consequence, first, the outpouring of
the natural rain, an individualizing designation of every sort of out
ward blessing, chosen with reference to the cited passage of the
Pentateuch, but especially to the representation of the calamity under
the image of the devastation by the locusts ; then, the outpouring of
the spiritual rain, the sending of the Holy Ghost. It is only neces
sary to point out this reference, overlooked by the interpreters, in
order to set aside the many different interpretations of [ItJXl^, which
are all unphilological.

INTERPRETATION OV Chap. 3. V. 1, 125
It still only remains to inquire, who is to be understood by the
Teacher of righteousness. The Messiah is regarded as such, not
only by nearly all Christian interpreters who follow this explana
tion, with the exception of Grotius, who conjectures him to be Isaiah,
or another prophet, but also after the example of Jonathan, by several
Jewish commentators, e. g., Abarbanel : "Is autem est rex Messias,
qui viam monstrabit, in qua debeant mnbulare, et opera, qua facere
deceat." We are forbidden by the article to think of any particular
human teacher, which must also be subjoined to the arguments
against the explanation of the early rain. The choice can be only
between the Messiah as the long promised Teacher, xai" Hoxnv, and
the ideal Teacher, the collective body of all divine messengers which
presented themselves to the prophet, because their individuality was
unimportant for his object in a personal unity. Even with the latter
explanation, the passage deserves the name of Messianic. For in
Christ was this promise first completely realized. We are induced
to prefer it to the direct and exclusive reference to the Messiah, by
the comparison of the passage, Deut 18 : 18, 19, — what has been
remarked upon it concerning the N'^J, can be transferred to the
niia, — by the absence of every individual reference to the Messiah,
and the bare mention of the instruction in righteousness, common to
him with all former servants of God ; finally, by the nature of the
whole remaining description of Joel, which always adheres closely
to the idea, and is never occupied with one particular historical fact
in itself considered.

INTERPRETATION OF CHAP, 3,
V. 1. " And it comes to pass afterwards, I will pour out my Spirit
upon all flesh ; and your sons and your daughters prophesy, your old
men will dreata dreams, and your young men have visions." The im
parting of the Spirit of God ever constituted the prerogative of the
covenant people, 'which, indeed, the idea of such a people necessarily
requires. For the Spirit of God is the only inward bond between
him and the creature. But there can be no covenant people without
such an internal union. As a constant possession of the covenant
people, the Spirit of God appears in Is. 63 : 11, where the people, in

126 JOEL.
the deepest destitution, remembering the divine mercy, say, " where
is he who put his Holy Spirit within him ? " But it lay in the nature of
the Old Testament economy, that the outpouring of the Spirit of God
was less rich, its effects less powerful, and the participation in them
less general. It was not til] after the relation of God to the world
had been changed by the death of Christ; that the Spirit of Christ
could be imparted ; a heightening of the power of the Spirit of God
standing to him in the same relation as the angel of the Lord to the
word become flesh ; the conditions of the imparting of the Spirit
under the Old Testament, were far more difficult; the view of Christ,
in his historical personality, in his lile, suffering, and dying, was
wanting ; God, though infinitely nearer than among the heathens,
still continued, relatively, God afar off; since the procuring cause of
the mercy of God, the merit of Christ, was not yet so clearly revealed ;
it was far more difficult to apprehend it ; the error of self-righteous
ness was, therefore, far easier to be committed. And thus the direct
possession of the Spirit of God, was enjoyed only by a few, especially
the prophets ; the most, even aimong the righteous, possessed a spiritu
al life by means of their connexion with them, and therefore less
powerful. That a richer and more powerful effusion of the Spirit of
God must take place at a future time, lay in the nature of the case.
And for this reason the wish of Moses, that this might happen, that
the whole people might prophecy. Num. 11 : 29, was, at the same
time, a prophecy. He wished only that the people of God might
attain to that degree of improvement where the idea of such a people
should be realized, and this must hereafter happen, because the Al
mighty and faithful God could not leave his work incomplete. What
Moses, as to the words, expresses only as a wish, Joel, with whom
particularly Is., e. g., 11 : 9, 54 : 13, Jer. 31 : 33, Ezek. 36 : 27,
Zach. 12 : 10, agree, utters directly as a promise. In its final refer
ence, it belongs to the Messianic time ; but we must not, on that ac
count, exclude the reference to the preparatory events. The predic
tion of the outpouring of the Spirit rests on the thorough knowledge
of the nature of the relation of God to his kingdom. It is entirely
without reference to time. God's judgments, in which he draws
near to the people, becomes, instead of an abstract', a concrete God,
awaken in the people an earnest desire for communion with him ; a
teacher sent of God, gives this desire the right direction, and now an
outpouring of the Spirit follows. This course is, and must be, per
petually repeated in the history of the covenant people. The com-

INTERPRETATION OF Chap. 3. V, 1, 127
plete fulfilment of the prophecy in the time of Christ, could not have
taken place, if the imperfect fulfilment had not extended through the
whole previous history ; and that no regard was paid to this in the
prophecy before us, could be asserted only in case there was an inti
mation in the text, that the prophet intended to speak only of the
last realization of the idea. But it is equally . arbitrary, as the ex
clusion of the previous steps, to separate only one particular portion,
— the occurrence on the first pentecost, — from the chief fulfilment
in the time of the Messiah, Only so far can it be said, that the
prophecy then found its final fulfilment, as a pledge was given that
this should take place, and the whole subsequent developement till
the end of the world was already contained in the event of that day ;
only so far as Joel's verbal prophecy was now converted into an in
finitely more powerful prophecy by matter of fact, — From ignorance
of the relation of the prophecy to the idea, and the error thence
arising, that the fulfilment must necessarily fall in one particular and
definite point of time, the contrast of different interpretations has
arisen (comp. the full representation of them in Dresde, Comparatio
Jcelis de Effusione Spir. s. vatic, c. Petrina Interpret. Wittemb.
1782, spec. 2), all of which contain a portion of the truth, and are
false only in consequence of their partiality and exclusiveness.
1. Several refer the prophecy to an event in the time of Joel. Thus
R. Moses Hakkohen, in Abenezra, Teller, on Turretin de Interpret.
p. .59, Cramer in the Scythischen Denkmdlern, pp. 221. 2. Others
require the exclusive reference to the first Whitsuntide, as nearly all
the fathers, among whom, however, Jerome (on 3:1) felt the great
difficulties which arise out of the connexion against this view ; and
the most of later Christian interpreters, 3. Others prefer the refer
ence to the events of the time of Joel, together with those of the
first Whitsuntide. Thus Ephr, Syr,, Grot, Turret. 4. Others
place the fulfilment entirely in the future ; thus the Jews, in the
time of Jerome, and later, Jarchi, Kimchi, Abarb, 5. Others,
lastly, find only the commencement of the fulfilment in the first
Whitsuntide, and consider it as extending through the whole Chris
tian period. Thus, e. g., Calov, Bibl. Illustr. ad h. I. : " Quam-
quam in festo illo pentecostes vaticinium adimpleri illustri ratione
cceperit, non tamen ad ilium actum solennem tantum pertinet, sed
universum statum novissimorum terjipotum, vel N. T. concernit, more
aliarum promissionum generalium." , The last words show that
Calovius was very near the truth. If the promise is a general one,

128 JOEL,
how can we be justified in placing the commencement of its fulfil
ment in the times of the New Covenant, and excluding that which
God, from the very same goodness, imparted in the times of tho'Old
Testament? How little ground there is in the text for any such limi
tation, appears from the following naive confession of Dresdes (1, c.
p. 8), who believes that he must defend such a limitation on account
of the authority of the Apostle Peter, and to whom, according to the
abovementioned dead understanding of the prophecy, which, by de
parting from the idea, converts it into a conjecture, it did not occur,
that another reference than to one particular event, was even possi
ble : " Apparet itoque propositum vaticinium in se consideratum, ita
comparatum esse, Ut quo revera spectet ad omnium persuasionem a
nemine definiri possit, nisi ab ipso vaticinii primo auctore." That
the testimony of the New Testament, here alluded to, by no means
requires such a limitation, we shall hereafter see. — From the refer
ence already proved of I5"'!inx to p"tyN"!3, in chap. 2: 23, it appears,
that it is not so much a determination of the succession of time, as
that of rank. Of the two consequences of the sending of a new
Teacher of righteousness, first the inferior presents itself to the
prophet, then the higher. The determination of time is not the es
sential thing ; it serves only to make clear the relation of the facts,
the gradation of the divine blessings. — The expression, " I vvill
pour out,'' refers back to the rain in v. 23. The idea of abundance,
in contrast with the former scarcity, is, indeed, implied ; still, this
must not be exclusively regarded ; the attributes of the rain indicated
in V. 24 sq,, the quickening of that which was dead before, the fruc
tifying power, must not be overlooked, — The expression, " upon all
flesh," is mostly referred by the Jewish interpreters (e. g., Kimchi
and Abenezra, comp, Lightfoot and Schottgen on Acts 2 : 16, 17)
merely to the members of the covenant people ; by the Christian in
terpreters, on the contrary, with whom even Abarbanel agrees, to
all men. Thus also Steudel, Tiibinger Pfingstprogramm 1820,
p. 11, But in this last interpretation, regard has not been paid to
what, among the older writers, Calvin, (" Quid hac universitas
valeat, ex sequentibus patet. Nam primum in genere ponitur omnis
caro, deinde partitio additur, qua propheta significat, nullum fore
alatis V. sexus discrimen, quin deus promiscue omnes in gratia sua
communionem adducat,") among the later, Tychsen, Progr. ad 1. c.
p. 5,, have very well shown, that the following, " your sons, your
daughters, your old, your young, the servants, and the handmaidens,"

INTERPRETATION OF Chap, 3. V. 1. 129
contains a specification of lij'a, that, therefore, the all does not do
away the limitation to one particular people, but only among this
people themselves, the limitations of sex, of age, and of rank. The
participation of the heathen in the outpouring of the Spirit of God
did not here come immediately under consideration, since the threat
ening of punishment, with v^hich that of prosperity is connected,
had concerned only the covenant people, Credner has been led into
a strange error, by arguing from "lifJ'Sp without respect to the con
nexion. He attributes to the prophet the monstrous idea, that upon
all animals likewise, even upon the locusts, the Spirit of God, " the
source of every thing good and great, of what is divine and well
pleasing to God," sbould be poured out. Between 1^3 and nn
there is here the same antithesis as Gen, 6 : 3, Is. 31 : 3, " The
Egyptians are men, not God, their horses are flesh, and not spirit ; "
comp. other passages in Gesen,, TAes, s, v. p. 249. The flesh in
this antithesis designates the human nature in respect to its feeble
ness and helplessness ; the spirit is the principle of life and power.
— As " your sons," &c. is a specification of " all flesh," so is
" they prophecy," " they see visions," " they dream dreams," that
of " I pour out my Spirit." Hence, it is evident, that the particular
gifts are not here considered according to their individuality, but
according to their common essential nature, as operations of the
Spirit of God ; and also that we need not inquire why the gift of
prophecy, &c. should be imparted precisely to the sons and daugh
ters. The prophet, as it is his object to individualize and expand
the fundamental thought, the universality of the operations of the
Spirit, chooses for this purpose his extraordinary operations, because
these are more visible than the ordinary ; and, indeed, from among
them, he selects those which were common under the Old Testa
ment, without thereby excluding the rest, or, so far as the reality was
cohcierned, subjoining any thing to, — "I will pour out my Spirit."
This appears also from v. 2, where the expression, in reference to
the servants and handmaidens, again becomes general. In the
distribution of the gifts of the Spirit, among the particular classes,
a regard to what is internal just as little prevails, as in the case, e. g., in
Zech. 9 : 17, in the words " corn shall make the young men cheer
ful, and new wine the maidens,'' What Credner; after Tychsen
remarks, that visions are attributed to vigorous youth, dreams to
feeble age, appears at once, from an examination of the historical
examples, as unfounded. " Your sons and your daughters prophe-
VOL. III. 17

130 JOEL.
sy," &c. is, i. q., " your sons and your daughters, your old men and
your young men prophesy, have divine dreams (the limitation to this
is occasioned by dependence on the outpouring of the Spirit), and
see visions," and this, i. q., " they will enjoy the Spirit of God, with
all his gifts and blessings." In this way only has the passage always
been understood by the Jews ; how otherwise could Peter with such
confidence have explained the occurrences on the day of Pentecost,
where there were neither dreams nor visions, as a fulfilment of the
prophecy of Joel ? Here, to stick to the letter is to misunderstand
the nature, not only of the prophetic representation, but even of poetry
in general, in such a manner as would, in any other case, be ridicu
lous. — As for the rest, it belongs to the nature of the case, that, in
the principal fulfilments of the prophecy of Joel, the extraordinary
gifts of the Spirit, the witnesses and means of the ordinary, — at
the same time, however, the basis on which they rest, so that times,
like those described 1 Sam. 3 : 1, where the word of God is scarce
in the land, and there is no prophecy, must necessarily be poor also
in the ordinary gifts of grace, — accompany the latter, from which
they differ not in essence, but only in the form of manifestation, in
like manner as the outward miracles of Christ, from those which
were internal. As now, however, Joel, in accordance with the
strict adherence of the prophecy to the idea, here had the substance
only in view, what can be historically shown to have been extraordi
nary, as, e. g., in the time of the Appstles, the gift of prophecy and
of tongues, comes under consideration no farther than that which
was ordinary.
V. 2. " And also upon the servants, and upon the handmaidens,
in those days will I pour out my Spirit." Credner thinks of the
Hebrew prisoners of war, who, far from the Holy Land, lived among
the heathen nations as servants and handmaids. But had the
prophet intended these, he would necessarily have expressed himself
more definitely. The relation to the foregoing verse also requires,
that, as there the distinctions of sex and age, so here that of rank
should be done away. The DJ shows, that the extension of the
gifts of the Spirit even to the servants and the handmaids, who
appeal- to the carnal mind as unworthy of such a distinction, is to
be considered as something unexpected and extraordinary. How
erroneous is the assertion of Credner, " of the participation of the
Hebrew slaves, there could scarcely have been any doubt," appears
from the fact, that the Jewish interpreters seek in various ways to

INTERPRETATION' OF Chap. 3. V. 3. 131
lessen the good here promised to the servants and handmaids.
We may, perhaps, regard as such an attempt the translation of the
Seventy by inl Tovg Soiilovg jiov xal inl tk; dovkag (lov. They place,
instead of the servants of men, who appear unworthy of such an
honor, the servants of God. Abarbanel asserts, that the Spirit of
God here designates something inferior to the gift of prophecy, which
is imparted only to the free. Instead of regarding the Spirit of God
as the root and source of the particular gifts mentioned before, he
sees in it only one isolated gift, that of an unlimited knowledge of
God, which is contradicted even by the relation of " I will pour out
my Spirit," in this verse, to " I will pour out my Spirit," in the pre
ceding, and also in Is, 11 : 2, where the Spirit of God is in like man
ner the general blessing, including all that follows. It is, not without
design, made so prominent in the New Testatlnent, that the Gospel
is preached to the poor, — that God has chosen the mean and
despised in the view of the world. The natural man is always dis
posed to assume, that what is esteemed by the world, must be
especially important also in his relation to God. This is evident,
even from the deep contempt of the Pharisees towards the oxi-oi,,
comp,, e. g., John 7 : 49.
V. 3. " And I give wonders in heaven and on earth, blood, and
fire, and vapor of smoke." Every manife.station of mercy towards
the Church of God is accompanied by a judgment on her enemies.
Here, and in v. 4, its precursors are described ; in the whole 4th
chap, the judgment itself There is here a manifest allusion to an
event of former times, which should now be repeated in a still higher
degree, to the plagues of Egypt, which were governed by the same
law. The prophet had especially in view the passage in Deut 6 :
22, " And the Lord gave signs and wonders, great and evil upon
-Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and his whole house, before our eyes," — The
miracles (comp. on D''p3fn, Vol, 11, p, 35) are divided into those in
heaven and those on earth, then the latter are here individually
designated, and the former in v, 4, With respect to those on earth,
many interpreters, and lastly Credner, understand by blood, bloody
overthrows of the enemies of Israel ; by fire and smoke, their cities
and dwellings consuming in flames. But this is altogether erroneous.
Even the designation by ?'0913 shows, that extraordinary natural
phenomena are here intended, whose symbolic language a guilty
conscience interprets, and perceives in them the precursors of the
coming judgment. This is also confirmed by the more particular

132

JOEL.

mention of the signs in heaven, v, 4, for the signs on earth must be
of the same kind. In like manner, by a comparison with the desig
nated type of former times. From this, the blood is directly taken.
The first plague, Exod, 7 : 17, is thus announced : " Behold, I smite
with the rod in my hand upon the waters in the Nile, and they
become blood." (Jalkut Simeoni, in Schottgen, p, 210, " In
.(Egypto deus intulit hostibus sanguinem, etiam future tempore sic
erit, q. d. et daho prodigia, sanguinem et ignem)." In like manner
also the fire, comp, 9 : 24, " And there came hail, and fire mingled
with the hail." This supposition is the more obvious, since, in the
former description of the judgment upon Israel, the plague of locusts
lies at the foundation, and since also the contents of the following
verse has its type in those events ; comp. Exod. 10 : 21, " And the
Lord said to Moses, Stretch out thy hand over the heavens, and there
shall be darkness over the land of Egypt." — nnp'n needs a new in
vestigation. Interpreters explain it uniformly by pillars, but there is
nothing to justify this. For the Chaldee nipn, which is appealed
to, never occurs in the sense pillar. This sense is by no means
suitable, in the only passage cited by Buxtorf The sense smoke, or
cloud of smoke, is there necessarily required. Just as little to the
purpose is the appeal to "inn, a palm. With this word, n'lD'n has
nothing in common. The ', which would be entirely without analo
gy if "ron were the root (comp. Ewald on Cant. 3 : 6), requires the
derivation from ID'. niD'H is a noun formed from the third fern.
fut. of this verb, with a suff. n, (comp., concerning these nouns, on
Hos. 2 : 14,) in form exactly corresponding to H'liDn, derived from
the third fern. fut. of the verb IID. Concerning the meaning of the
verb "ip;, there can be no doubt Is. 61 : 6, and especially Jer. 2 :
11, where Tpn and Tp'n occur in the same verse, show that it en
tirely corresponds with IIP, and is therefore arbitrarily identified by
Ewald, I. c, with nPN, the alleged meaning of which is to be high.
But in the Hebrew I-IP and np^ occur only in the derived sense to
transform, to change, to exchange. The ground meaning, however,
is furnished by the Arabic. It there means, hue illuc latus, agitatus
fuit, fluctuavit, comp. the thorough demonstration by Scheid, Ad
Cant. Hisk. p. 159 sq. According to this, nnp'n can mean only
clouds or vortices (in Arab. Iin, pulvis vento agitatus). It is easy
to show the connexion of this meaning with that of palpebra in the
Talmud and Rabbinical writings, so called from their continual motion
back and forth, a connexion which is the more easily proved, since

INTERPRETATION OP Chap. 3. V. 4. 133
this usage can have been derived from no other source than that of
an ancient Hebrew one. Also the dtplg of the Seventy leads rather
to our interpretation, than the current one ; the former, in the only
passage where nnp'n occurs besides, and indeed in connexion also
with \}0i>^. Cant. 3 : 6, is at least equally suitable as the latter. We
must call to mind appearances like those described Exod. 19 : 18,
" And the mount Zion was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord
descended upon it in a fire, and its smoke went up like the smoke of
a furnace." Here, as well as there, the fire and the accompanying
smoke rendered visible the truth, that God is a nvg xajavaXiaxov,
comp, Heb, 12 : 29. Remarkable is the belief running through all
antiquity, that the angry Deity announces by natural signs the com
ing of his judgments. This belief cannot be a mere illusion. It
must have a deep root in the mind. Nature is the echo and reflec
tion of the disposition of man. If there reigns in him, because he
feels his own sin and that of others, a fearful expectation of things
which are to come, every thing outward harmonizes with this expec
tation, and chiefly that which is the natural type and symbol of the
Divine penal justice, but which, without this interpreter within,
would not be perceived as such. Having regard to this relation of
the mind to nature, before great catastrophes God often causes these
precursors of them to appear more frequently and strikingly than in
the ordinary course of nature. This happened in a very remarkable
manner, before the destruction of Jerusalem, comp, Joseph, De Bell.
Jud. 4 : 4, "^ 5 : ^id ydg Trig vvxrog ajirixavog ixgriyvvrai ;f£j^w)', avsjiol,
TE ^iaioi avv ofi^goig la^gotdxoi-g, xal avvsxilg aarganal, Pgovxal is
(fgixiiSsig, xal pvxi^fiara auopivrig Trig yrjg Haiaia. JJgodrjlov d ¦ijv, in
dv&gdnmv ols&ga to xaTaax'rifj.a jiay oicav avyx£XV[.ievor, xal ovxt fiLxgov
Tig dv uxdaai avfiiiTapaTog xd Tigaxa. — Many other forerunners are
mentioned 6 : 5, § 3. These will never be wanting, as surely as
punishment never comes without sin, and sin is never present without
consciousness, without expectation of the judgment,
V. 4. " The sun is changed into darkness, and the moon into
blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes." Of all
interpreters, Calvin has most admirably explained this verse : " Quod
dicit solem conversum iri in tenebras et lunam in sanguinem, meta-
phorica sunt locutiones, quibus significat, dominum signa per totam
orbis machinam daturum ira sua, qua homines terrore exaniment,
acsi horrenda fieret totius natura conversio. Sicut enim sol et luna
paterni erga nos favoris dei testes sunt, dum lucem vicibus suis terra

134 JOEL.
ministrant, ita exadverso dicit propheta, irati et offensi dei fore nun-
tios. — Per caliginem solis, per sanguinolentum luna defluxum, per
atrum vaporem fumi exprimere voluit propheta, quocunque homines
vertant oculbs, ubique sursum et deorsum multa apparitura, qua ter-
rorem incutiant. Perinde ergo hoc valet, acsi dixisset, nunquam tam
misere habuisse res in rnundo, nunquam tot et tam atrocia ira dei
signa exiitisse." — That the prophet here also has the type in Egypt
in view, we have already seen. The darkness over the vvhole land
of Egypt, while light was in the dwellings of the Israelites, repre
sented in a very impressive manner the anger of God in contrast
with his mercy, the symbol of which is the light of his heavenly
luminaries. Its extinction is in the Scripture a standing precursor
of the approaching Divine judgments ; comp. the passages Vol. II.
p. 267. As such had it already here occurred in the description of
the former judgment, comp. 2:2, "a day of darkness and ob
scurity, a day of clouds and mist," v. 10, "before him the earth
quakes and the hills tremble. The sun and moon mourn, and the
stars withdraw their splendor." As such does it recur again, chap.
4 : 14, " near is the day of the Lord in the valley of judgment.
The sun and the moon mourn, and the stars withdraw their splen
dor." Such passages are not to be limited to one particular natural
phenomenon. All whereby the splendor of the heavenly lights is
obscured or disturbed, darknesses of the sun and moon, earthquakes,
storms, &c., fill those with fear in whose hearts the sun of grace
has gone down,
V. 5. "And it comes to pass, every one who calls on the name of
the Lord is delivered ; for on Mount Zion and at Jerusalem shall be
that which is delivered, as the Lord hath spoken, and amongst the
spared is whomsoever the Lord calls." We must first determine the
meaning of nB'S?. The interpreters, for the most part, explain it
by deliverance. But it rather means that which is delivered. This
appears, first, from the form. It is fem. of the adj. H'Ss, whose 't
has arisen from the lengthening — , comp, Ew. p. 2-34. Hence
riMSi) occurs three times also without '. It is therefore an adj. of an
intransitive meaning. Now adjectives are often changed by the fem.
ending into abstract nouns, comp. Ew. p, 313, who thus forms nu'Ss,
but never into those which designate an action, always only into
those for which we might also place the neiit. of the adj., which
would here be inadmissible. 2. To this must be added the constant
usage. Is. 37 : 31, " And that which is delivered (nu'Sa) of the

INTERPRETATION OF Chap. 3. V. 5. 135
house of Judah, that which is left, strikes its roots beneath, and bears
fruit above." V. 32, " For from Jerusalem shall go forth a rem
nant ("i")!"!^), and that which is delivered from Mount Zion," — a
passage exactly parallel to the one before us ; comp. also the follow
ing, "the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this," with "as
the Lord saith," here. Is. 4:2, " To the escaped of Israel." Sy
nonymous with which, in v. 3, is " that which remains in Zion, and
that which is left in Jerusalem," 10:20, "the remnant (is?') of
Israel, and the rescued of the house of Jacob." Obad. v, 17, " and
on Mount Zion will be that which is delivered," in contrast with
V. 9, " rooted out shall man be from the mountain of Esau ; "
lastly. Gen. 32 : 9, " and the camp remains to him that is escaped."
There is, therefore, not a single passage in which the sense deliver
ance, is even probable. — The phrase niD'. oy/p X^D, has already
(Vol. II. p. 253) been explained. We have there seen, that it neither
does nor can occur of a mere outward calling, but always of such
an one as is an outward expression of the faith of the heart. The
prophet therefore could not have intended a deliverance of the pro
miscuous multitude of Israel, in contrast with the heathen. For the
condition is one of a purely inward nature. It furnishes a hint for
the right understanding of what follows. The '3, by which it con
nects itself, is inexplicable if Mount Zion and Jerusalem are to be
regarded as bringing deliverance to all found there. This is evident
also from HD'Sij. Not, indeed, all the inhabitants of Zion and Je
rusalem, all the members of the outward Theocracy will be delivered,
but there will be those who are delivered, viz, those who call on the
name of the Lord, while the rest vvill be consunied by the Divine
judgment, — -Purely inward also is the second condition mentioned,
the calling by the Lord. N^lp '^)p^. "'!?'*! stands in so manifest a re
lation to ni.n; ?K'3 S"ip; "yv)^, that we need by no means assume,
with Credner, its reference to other subjects; rather those who call
on the Lord, are at the same time those whom he calls, out of the
general distress, to come under his protection ; and the prophet has
sought to exhibit the close connexion of the two by the choice of the
words. — The expression, " as the Lord hath spoken," awakens
attention to the ground on which believers can surely rely upon this
promise, since it is the word of God and not of man. — The relation
of the whole verse to the foregoing and the following, is this : The
prophet, in v. 3 and 4, had given the precursors of the great and
terrible day of the Lord. He now points to the only means of abid-

136 JOEL.
ing in this day. Then he describes, in chap. 4, connected by '3, the
judgment itself
If, now, we inquire for the historical reference of v. 3-5, we
meet with a great diversity of views. The destruction of Jeru
salem by the Chaldeans is assumed by Grotius, Cramer, Turretin,
De Script, s. Interpret, p. 331, ed. Teller; the Socinians in the
Catechism, p. 228, CEder, and among the Arminians, Episcopius,
in Institutt. Theoll. p. 198. Others (Jerome), think of the
resurrection of the Lord. Others (Luther), of the outpouring of
the Spirit. And others (Miinster, Cappell, Lightfoot, Dresde, I. c. p.
22), of the destruction by the Romans. The verses are referred to
the judgment on the enemies of the covenant people soon after the
return from the Babylonish exile by Ephraim Cyrus ; to the impend
ing overthrow of Gog in the time of the Messiah, by the Jewish
interpreters ; to the general judgment, by Tertullian, Theodoret,
Crusius, Theol. Proph. I. p. 621 ; to the destruction of Jerusalem
and the final judgment likewise, by Chrysostom and others.
This diversity of references has arisen solely from omitting to re
fer back the prophecy to its idea. This is the manifestation of
God's penal justice against all that is hostile to his kingdom, running
parallel with the manifestation of his mercy towards the subjects of
this kingdom. This idea is here presented in its entire universality,
without being limited to any particular realization of it in time.
Neither of the above interpretations, therefore, can be absolutely
correct. They differ from each other only, that the one class are
entirely false, inasmuch as they assume a reference to events which
do not fall under the idea, the others are only contracted and partial
views of the truth.
To the former class plainly belong the references to the resurrec
tion and the outpouring of the Spirit, This could have been occa
sioned only by the separation of the verse from the following chapter.
These events stand in no relation whatever to the idea. The de
struction by the Chaldeans, does, indeed, sustain a certain relation
to it, in so far as that event was actually a manifestation of the
Divine penal justice. It would, however, have belonged here, only
in case the prophet was describing, in an entirely general way, such
manifestations. That this, however, is not so, that the object of the
prophecy is rather the manifestation of the Divine justice in relation
to what is hostile to God's kingdom, is evident, even from a compari
son of chap. 1 : 2. The defenders of this view have entirely mis-

INTERPRETATION OF Chap. 3. V. 5. 137
taken the economy of the prophecy of Joel. Otherwise, they would
have seen, that the destruction by the Chaldeans belongs to the
threatening in chap. 1 and 2, where the judgment upon the house of
God is described, while here, that upon those who are without is
the subject of discourse.
This appears also at first view equally applicable to the destruction
by the Romans. But, on a nearer examination, we perceive a differ
ence between the two events, which brings the latter far more within
the scqpe of the prophecy. It was, far more than the former, con
nected with a total rejection of the people. The former covenant
people had already, at the death of Christ, become, in a great
measure, numbered with the heathen. They were no longer apos
tate children, who were to be reformed by punishment, but they were
strangers, who were to be judged on account of their hostility to the
kingdom of God.
That such a time should come, when that which they considered
as belonging only to the heathen according to the flesh, should be
realized by the carnal Israelites themselves, is foretold by Malachi,"
chap, 3 : 23, where the verbal repetition of " before the great and
terrible day of the Lord cometh," in reference to the judgment upon
Israel, can be explained only from the design to oppose the prevail
ing carnal interpretation of the prophecy before us.
It now also appears, how the phenomena at the death of Christ,
the darkening of the sun, the quaking of the earth, the bursting of
the rocks (comp. Matt 27 : 45, 51, Luke 23 : 44), stand related to
the passage. Like the D'n|]ia here, they were manifestations of the
Divine anger, precursors of the approaching judgment, and were
recognised as such by the guilty, whose consciences interpreted this
language of signs, comp, Luke v, 48, xal ndnsg ol avixnagaysvofisvoi
ox^oi inl xrjv &sbigiav xavTrjV, &£cogovj'xsg xa ysvojjsva, xvnxovTsg iavxav
xd axrj&ri vneaxgeqiov.
We have still some remarks to offer concerning the citation, Acts
2 : 16 sq. That Peter found in the miracle of Pentecost, a proper
fulfilment of the promise in v. 1 and 2, oiily prejudice could have
denied. That this citation was owing to the fact, that the reference
of the prophecy to the Messianic time was the prevailing one among
the Jews, is probable, comp. the passages in Schottgen, p, 413 ; it is
also favored by the rendering of t3"'?,nx by ivxcug iaxdxaig rmigaig,
which, in the New Testament, always designates the Messianic time.
To this must be added the express declaration in v. 39, that the
VOL. III. 18

1 38 JOEL.
promise concerns the present generation. How could Peter have
made this declaration, had he supposed that the prophecy had long
ago been fulfilled ? It is, however, equally certain, that Peter was
so far from regarding the whole treasure of the promise as com
pletely exhausted by that miracle, that he rather held it only as a
beginning of the fulfilment,. though, indeed, such an one as included
the completion in itself, as the germ the tree. This appears even
from V. 38 (psTavorjaaxs xal §anxia&rixia 'ixaaxog Vfiwv — xal l^ifje-
a&s TTiv diogsdv roij dylov nvsvfiaxog). How could Peter, relying upon
the prophecy, promise the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who should
repent, if the prophecy were already entirely fulfilled ? Still more,
however, from v. 39, vpiv ydg iaxiv fj htayysUa xal xolg xixvoig vfiwv
xal ndai xotg tig fxaxgdv, oaovg av Tigoaxalsarjxai xvgwg c iS-tos rfiiav.
The inquiry here arises, who are meant by those who are ug jiaxgdvl
That they are the heathen, no one would ever have doubted, if two
entirely distinct things had not been confounded, the uncertainty of
Peter concerning the fact of the reception of the heathen into the
kingdom of God, and concerning the mode. The latter is easily
explicable from the nature of the Old Testament prophecy. The
former cannot possibly be allowed. To select only one from the
mass of proofs, the way in which the promise to Abraham is cited
by Peter in chap. 3 : 25, clearly proves, that through his seed he
supposed the nations should be blessed ; and it is rendered still more
incontrovertible by the ngaxov, in v, 26, that he regarded the
heathen as partakers in the kingdom of Christ To understand by
those ug fiaxgdv, foreign Jews, is inadmissible, because such were
present in large numbers, and therefore already included in the term
vfuf. Peter addresses, throughout, all who are present. How should
he here now, all at once, confine himself merely to a part ? Finally,
there is a manifest allusion to the close of v, 5; the Seventy oSj xv
gwg TigoaxixhiTai. At the same time, this allusion contains a proof
of the concnrrent reference to the heathen, which is not found in
express words in the prophecy, if we do not give an arbitrary inter
pretation to lifj. It awakens attention to the fact, that, in that pas
sage, the deliverance, which requires as its condition a participation
in the outpouring of the Spirit, is not connected with any human
cause, but solely with the calling of God, with his free mercy. In a
manner entirely similar, Paul proves, Rom, 10 : 12, 13, from the be
ginning of V. 5, the participation of the heathen in the kingdom of
the Messiah; Ov ydg iaxi dtaaroXij 'lovdaiov ts «ai "jEXXrjVog- 6 ydg

INTERPRETATION OF Chap, 3. V. 5. 139
avxog xvgiog navxtav, TtAovxav sig navxag xovg eTiixalovfisvovg avxov.
Hug ydg o? dv inixaXiar]Xai xo ovopa xvgiov aa&ijasTai. If the calling
upon God were the condition of salvation, it was equally accessible
to the heathen as to the Jews. — If, now, however, the prophecy
properly concerns the still unconverted Jews, their children, and the
heathen, it is evident, that, according to the view of the Apostle, it
did not terminate in that one instance of the fulfilment, that it rather
extended as far as the fact, the outpouring of the Spirit itself This
appears also from the allusions to this passage in the account of later
effusions of the Spirit; comp., e. g,, Acts 10 : 45, 11 : 15, 15 : 8.
How could Peter possibly have limited the prophecy, in which the
idea of universality is so intentionally rendered prominent, to the
few, who, at that time, had already received the Spirit of God. But,
if this limitation did not exist, he surely would not have thought of
it. For such perversion of the prophecies was far from him, as well
as all the Apostles.
The question is still to be answered, for what purpose does the
Apostle cite also v. 3-5, since, as it appears, only v. 1 and 2 properly
belong to his design, and what sense does he attribute to those verses ?
The answer is furnished by v, 40 : 'ETigoig xs loyoig nlsloai Sicfiagxv-
gsxo xdl Tiagixdisi, liymv ' am&rjxs anb x^jg ysvedg xijg axoUag xavxrig.
Even in the few words of the brief summary of what Peter said in
this respect, imparted to us by Luke, a reference to the passage
before us is contained. Peter employed the threatening, which
should, in the first instance, be realized on the covenant people, to
terrify his hearers into a participation of the promise which alone
could free from the threatened judgment ; and that he succeeded in
this, appears from the iyivcxo Ss ndaj] tfivxji (f6§og, in v. 43. — To an
entirely erroneous conception of the sense in which Peter cites v.
3-5, several interpreters have been led by v. 22, The xigaai xal
arjpdoig, are surely not there employed without any reference to the
passage of Joel, Peter awakens attention to the fact, that those,
who, through obduracy, do not recognise the xigaia and aripita, with
which God accompanies the manifestation of his mercy, shall be
visited by those of a totally different sort, from the terrible impression
of which they should not be able to escape.
We come now tO particulars. The citation coincides essentially
with the Seventy, In particulars, however, there are deviations.
At the very beginning, the Seventy, adhering more closely to the
Hebrew text, have xal saxai jxsxd xavra ; Peter, xal 'iaxai iv xalg iaxa-.

140 JOEL.
xaig Tifiigaig. The ground of this deviation is the design so to deter
mine the expression, in itself indefinite, by. the subject, that the
point of time to which the prophecy chiefly refers, and of course its
application to the case in hand, should be rendered more obvious.
Jeremiah uses for a perfectly similar case, chap. 49 : 6, the more com
prehensive i5~'tin.x, chap. 48 : 47, the more definite D'P'ti n'^rjX^.
By the latter, Kimchi also explains the JS"'!".!? in the passage, and
Jarchi (comp. Schottgen, p. 210) employs the synonymous snS Tnyh.
The Uyn 0 &.£og is wanting in the Seventy, as well as in the original
text. It is borrowed from v. 5, and in the antithesis with the xo
ugri^ivov 8id tov ngocfrixov 'laril, awakens attention to the divine
source of the prophecy, and thereby to the necessity of its fulfilment.
The two members, xsti ol jigsa^vtsgoi, vpwv ivvnvia ivvnviaa&riaovxai,
xal ol vsavlaxoi vpwv ogdaug oipovxat, Peter reverses, probably in
order to place the youth with the sons and daughters, and to assign
to the aged a place of honor. In dovXovg fiov, and dovlag pov,
Peter follows the Seventy, and, indeed, in a sense, — whether it was
that intended by the translators or not, — which gives prominency
only to one point actually contained in the passage itself That the
servants of men were at the same time servants of God, constituted
the very ground of their participation in the promise. The same
antithesis is found, e. g., 1 Cor, 7 : 22, 23, 'O ydg iv xvgiio xlTj&slg
SoiiXog anslsv&sgog xvgiov ioxlv ' ojioiaig xal o iXsv&sgog xXtj&ilg, doii-
l6g ioTi Xgiaxoii. Tifxrig riyogda&Tjxs ' fiij yivsa&s Sovloi av&gianiov,
comp. Gal, 3 : 28, Philem, 10. — Therefore, i. q., " upon servants
and handmaidens of men, who are, at the same time, my servants
and handmaidens, and therefore, in spiritual things, as well born as
the free." To render prominent this perfect equality of birth, is also
the design of the addition xal ngocprjxevaovat after ixxs^ dno xoi
nvevfiaxog fiov. That Peter held it necessary to make this addition,
which, as we have already shown, is entirely suitable to the design
of the prophet, seems to show, that, even at that time, interpretations
were current which tended to deprive servants and handmaidens of
their part in those blessings, similar to those of Abarbanel, and even
of a Grotius : " Etiam iis, qui villissinii videbuntur, impartiar si
non prophetiam et somnia, certe motus quosdam extraordinarios et
ccelestes." The antiquity of this false interpretation is attested also
by Jerome, depending probably on his Jewish teachers, who, though
he interprets the servants and handmaidens spiritually, explains the
passage of those who have not yet received the spirit of freedom :

INTERPRETATION OF Chap. 3, V. 5, 141
" Non habebunt prophetiam, non somnia, non visiones, sed spiritus
s. effusione contenti, fidei tantum et salutis gratiam possidebunt. —
In V, 3, Peter subjoins to iv xw ovgavw, dvia, to inl x'^s yijg, xdxca, in
order to make the contrast more obvious and striking. All de
viations from the original text, as well as from the Seventy, are
therefore of the same kind, designed farther to unfold that which
lies in the passage itself Not one of them originated in the Apos
tle's citing from memory.

THE PROPHET AMOS,

GENERAL PKELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
These can be the more brief since, in the phief point, in respect
to the circumstances under which Amos came forward as a prophet,
the introduction to the prophecies of Hosea can be considered as
entirely applicable to his. They fall, according to the superscription,
in the time in which the prophetic agency of Hosea also began, in
the latter part of the reign of Jeroboam II. after Uzziah had as
cended the throne in Judah.
The relations of the prophet we learn in general from the words
of chap. 1:1," who was among the herdsmen of Tekoah." Were
this the only information, the remark of many interpreters might
appear just, that we cannot infer poverty and an inferior condition
from the office of herdsmen. But another statement, chap. 7 : 14,
shows, that by the herdsmen, is not meant one who was at the same
time a possessor of herds, or such an one as the father of David,
but a poor servant herdsman. To the command of the priest at
Bethel, Amaziah, to avoid the land that did not concern him, and
return to his own country, the prophet there replies, " I am not a
prophet, nor a son of a prophet, but I am a herdsman, and such an
one as gathers sycamores. And then the Lord took me a<vay from
the herd, and the Lord said to me. Go, prophecy to ray people Is
rael." The fruit of the sycamore, called by Dioscorides dxgo(fog and
xaxooTOfiaxog, served as food only for the poorest and lowest of the
people. Bochart (Hieroz. t. I. p. 407. (385.) Rosenm.) : "Idem est,
acsi dicat, se infima sortis homuncionem et in re tenui natum, ita ut
miseram vitam parco et frugali victu agre sustinuerit, — ne cogitasse
quidem de prophetico munere inter Israelitas obeundo, donee ad id
suscipiendum vis major ilium impulerit, h. e. divina inspiratio."
But this passage deserves attention, for another reason. In what
sense does Amos here deny himself to be a prophet ? Plainly in

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 143
one entirely special. He cannot deny, that he possesses either the
prophetic gift, or the prophetic office. Otherwise he would put
weapons into the hand of his enemy", before whom he wishes to jus
tify himself
The truth will be found in the following remarks. The prevailing
idea is certainly erroneous, that there was no sort of organization in
the prophetic order, that each prophet sustained to all the rest no
other relation, than that he, as well as they, had been called by the
Lord. This is contradicted by the institution of the schools of the
prophets, which were continued without interruption from the time
of SamUel. We must not consider them of such a character, as
that, after a training of some years, the sons or scholars of the
prophets attain to complete independence. For the most part, they
remain sons through their whole life. The schools of the prophets
were a sort of cloisters ; even those, who, for special reasons, ceased
to remain there, and were scattered through the land, still always
acknowledged their authority. Let any one attentively read the
history of Elias and Elisha, which affords the most information upon
this subject, and he will soon be convinced of the correctness of the
view here presented, the establishment of which we must reserve
for another time.
How then could Amos urge, as a proof of the divine authority of
his mission, that he was neither a prophet, nor a son of a prophet, in
this sense, i. e. " neither a higher nor an inferior member of the
Jewish prophetic order?" The answer is this. It resulted from
the organization of the prophetic order, that the relation to the Lord
was one more or less mediate. It was the more easy for those who
desired it, to deny the immediate divine call. Their education, their
principles, the form of their prophecies, aU this allowed of a natural
explanation. The spirit which animated them, indeed, forbids this.
Whoever, therefore, without standing in that connexion, still came
forward as a prophet, and, indeed, in full possession of all pro
phetic gifts, in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, presented a
case far more difficult to be explained, especially when, like Amos,
he had likewise been cut off by his outward condition from all the
usual human sources of education. Whether, however, Amos, on
this account, was an uneducated man, is a question to be affirmed or
denied, according to what is understood by the term education. So
much is certain, that he was in possession of the chief part of the
true Israelitish education, the knowledge of the law. The most

144 AMOS.
intimate acquaintance with the Pentateuch everywhere appears.
Compare the proofs in the passage cited at p. 88. We have so
many examples, even in our day, how vital piety breaks the ice in
this respect, that we need not be surprised at this, or invent various
means and ways by which Amos may have obtained this education.
In the case of Amos, also, much pains have been taken to assign
a time and occasion for the individual portions. But vi'ith as little
success as in the case of Hosea and Micah. It is evident, even
from the superscription, that we have before us a whole, composed at
the same time, the substance of what had been before separately de
livered. The whole is here placed in one definite point of time,
two years before the earthquake ; and therefore, in a manner intelligi
ble to the contemporaries of the prophet, who knew when the earth
quake happened, the point in the more extended period given before,
the days of Uzziah and of Jeroboam, is fixed.
The book may be easily divided into two halves, naked prophecies
chap. 1 : 6, and those which are connected with a symbol, which is
always very simple, and briefly described, chap. 7 — 9.
In the first half the prophet begins with the prediction of the
anger of the Lord, v. 2. He then proceeds in order, through the
kingdoms upon which it should be discharged, Damascus, Philistia,
Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, Judah, until, finally, the storm reaches
Israel, and, according to Riickert's appropriate expression, remains
standing over him.
This standing over Israel, in the opinion of Riickert, is described
only in chap. 2 : 4- 16. Then, in chap. 3 — 6, follow four mina
tory discourses, independent of the foregoing, and of each other.
But the truth is, rather, that this standing is described in the whole
first half.
This is evident from the consideration, that, besides the handling
of the subject proper, what concerns the compass of the description
would be greatly disproportioned to the introduction. — As such,
chap. 1 — 2 : 5, is throughout to be regarded. But the ground, on
which this assertion rests, needs a more particular determination, in
opposition to an erroneous view which generally prevails. It is as
sumed, that Amos reproves among the nations, besides Israel, " some
haughty excesses, but plainly merely as examples of immorality,"
(Jahn, Einl II. p. 404). This view, according to which the prophet,
instead of the crimes mentioned, might have placed any others,
e. g. unchastity, idolatry, &c., is certainly erroneous. It is rather

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 145
a theocratic judgment of which he speaks throughout ; they are
crimes against the Theocracy, whose punishment he predicts. These
he considers as more aggravated than the rest, whose guilt was dimin
ished by the circumstance, that they had been committed only against
the concealed God; here, on the contrary, God, become manifest and
living among his people, is the object of their hatred. For it is ob
vious, that the chief root of the hatred of all surrounding nations
against Israel, was, that they were the people of God. Where do we
find between any two of them an example of such inextinguishable
and lasting hatred ? How entirely different, e. g., is the attitude
of Edom towards Moab, and towards Israel. The correctness of
our assertion of the pure Theocratic nature of the judgment, ap
pears from a threefold ground. 1. From the general annunciation
of the judgment. " The Lord roars out of Zion, and gives his
voice out of Jerusalem." Even the use of the name Jehovah here
deserves consideration. A judgment of a general nature against
the heathen would belong to God as Elohim. This is the God of
the heathen, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of the world, from
whom blessings and punishments are sent upon them. It may, per
haps, be said, that Jehovah, for the sake of uniformity, stands here
in connexion with the heathen also, because the judgment upon
Judah and Israel proceeded from him. But the incorrectness of this
appears from " out of Zion, and out of Jerusalem." Every general
judgment proceeds from heaven. Only as a Theocratic God, is God
enthroned in Zion and Jerusalem. This admits of no exception.
All that God does out of Zion is Theocratic help, Theocratic punish
ment. 2. The nature of the crimes themselves, cited by way of
example. It certainly cannot be accidental, that they are all such as
had been committed against the covenant people. There is only one
apparent exception, that of the Moabites, who are charged, chap.
2:1, with having burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime. On
this Jerome, with the approbation of most interpreters, remarks:
" Ut ostendat se deus omnium dominum et cunctas animas ad suum,
qui earum conditor est, imperium pertinere, regis quoque Idumaorum
injuriam vindicat." But the relation is thereby left entirely out of
view in which Idumea stood to the covenant people. The king of
Edom comes under consideration here, only as a vassal of their
kings, as sufficiently appears from 2 Kings 3, although the event
there related is different from that mentioned here, and one of which
history has preserved no memorial. The hatred against the covenant
VOL. III. 19

146 AMOS.
people, which the Moabites were too feeble to exercise against them,
impelled them to this crime against their dependents. — 3. We
must consider how the prophet, when he comes to Judah, places at
once in the centre of Theocratic transgression, the forsaking of the
living God, the service of dead and vain idols. — It now easily ap
pears how the portion chap. 1 — 2:5, forms the introduction to
what follows. The prophecies against foreign nations do not serve,
as elsewhere, for consolation, for a proof of the love of God towards
his people, and of his omnipotence, nor for the rooting out of confi
dence in human greatness, and human help. They tend rather to
awaken Israel at once to the question, " If this happens in the green
tree, what shall be in the dry ? " A question which the prophet then
answers at large. If a heavy punishment overtakes even those
who have sinned against the living God, with whom they sustained
only a distant relation, what shall be the doom of those to whom he
has so clearly revealed himself, before whose eyes he has been so
plainly described ? " You only have I known of all the inhabitants of
the earth ; therefore will I visit upon you all your transgressions; "
this declaration (chap, 3 : 2) forms the central point of the whole
threatening against Israel, How could it be better introduced than
by pointing out how such a visitation follows even the lowest grade
of knowledge ? — What was the highest under the Old Testament,
that again becomes subordinate under the New. The revelation of
God in Christ stands related to that under the Old Testament in
Israel, as the latter to the knowledge of himself, with which the
heathen were favored. So also for us the completion becomes again
introductory. Had the contempt of God in his inferior revelation
such an effect upon the temporal prosperity of the people of the old
covenant, what then must be the consequences of the contempt of
the highest and most complete revelation of God for the temporal
and spiritual prosperity of the people of the new covenant ? A
thought, which, Heb. 12 : 17 sq,, is carried out, and which forms the
most essential part of the description of the judgment of the world
in the New Testament. This has been but too frequently misunder
stood, in precisely the same way as the portion before us, as though
it concerned the world as such, without reference to its having re
ceived the offers of the Gospel. The Gospel shall first be preached
to every creature. According as every one has conducted himself
towards the living God, shall he be judged.
If, now, we proceed to examine the view of Riickert, it soon ap-

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 147
pears, that the only ground on which it can rest is, " Hear this
word," in chap. 3:1, 4:1, and 5 : 1. This, however, proves noth
ing in favor of an absolute new beginning, but only for a new addi
tion. This appears even from the absence of these words in the
case of the alleged fourth minatory discourse in chap 6. It is also
evident from the comparison of Hosea 4 : 1, and 5:1, " Hear the
word of the Lord, ye children of Israel," and " Hear this, ye priests,
and consider, O house of Israel, and understand, O house of the
king," while, in the following chapters, nothing similar occurs. That
such an admonition was in place, even in the middle of the discourse,
is evident from Amos, chap. 2 : 13. The words, therefore, of them
selves, afford no proof of a new beginning. Before this can be the
case, the discourse must be shown by other grounds to have been
completed. Such, however, are not to be found here. We might
assume ten threatening discourses with the same right as four. The
fact, therefore, that we can discover no certain beginning, and no
plainly marked end, sufficiently justifies us in regarding the whole
first part, chap. I — 6, as one connected discourse.
The second part, the visions of the destruction, falls, indeed, into
different portions, as the nature of the subject indispensably requires.
Every new vision, with the discourse therewith connected, must form
a new portion. Chap. 7, 8, and 9, form each a whole. That we
have not, however, here disconnected pieces, arranged in chronologi
cal order, is sufficiently evident from the fact, that the promises stand
precisely at the end of the whole collection. This cannot possibly
be accidental. The prophet had rather to chastise and threaten,
than to console ; but he cannot refrain, at least at the close, from
causing the sun to break through the clouds. Without this close, a
chief point of the prophetic discourse in Amos would be wanting,
one which is wanting in no other prophet, and which is necessary to
place the rest in their true light.
So much for introduction. Among the especial commentaries
upon Amos, no one deserves notice.

148 AMOS.

Chap, 9.

This chapter commences with a vision. The foundations of the
temple being vehemently shaken by the angel of the Lord, it falls,
and brings Judah and Israel under its ruins ; without a figure, the
unfaithfulness of the covenant people brings destruction upon them.
The prophet endeavours to strengthen the impression of this threat
ening upon their minds, by removing the supports of false security
by which they sought to evade it. There will be no deliverance, no
escape, v, 2 - 4, For the Almighty God is an enemy, and pursuer,
V. 5, 6. No mercy on account of the covenant, for Israel is no
longer the covenant people ; only they shall not be entirely destroyed ;
amidst the destruction of the sinful mass, a pious remnant shall be
preserved, v, 7 - 10, The restoration follows this great sifting.
The fallen tabernacle of David, the kingdom of God among Israel,
connected with the tribe of David, will be again erected, v. 11,
glorified by extension over the heathen, v. 12, blessed with the abun
dance of the divine gifts, v, 12 - 15.

V. 1. " / saw the Lord stand upon the altar, and he said. Strike
the capital, and make the thresholds tremble, and dash them upon
the head of all; and the remnant of them will I slay by the sword;
he that fleeth of them shall not flee away ; and he that escapeth of
them shall not be delivered." The inquiry arises, in the first place
who is here addressed, to whom is the commission to destroy impart
ed by the Lord. As in accordance with the dramatic character of
the prophetic discourse, the person is not designated, so can he be
no other than the constant executioner of the judgments of God
upon the enemies of his kingdom. He, however, is the same who
is the preserver and protector of the true members pf this kingdom,
the angel of the Lord, It was he, who, as n'na'S'n, the destroying
angel, smote the first-born of Egypt, Exod, 13 : 23, comp. with
V. 12, 13; from him proceed the overthrow of the Assyrians, 2 Kings
19 : 34, 35, Is. 37 : 35, 36. When the anger of the Lord was
kindled against Israel, after the numbering of the people, he inflicted
the punishment, 2 Sam. 24 : 1, 15, 16. As he encamps round

CHAP. 9. V, 1. 149
about those who fear the Lord, so, in reference to the ungodly, he is
like the storm which scatters the chaff, Ps. 34 : 8, 35 : 5, 6. — W^e
have still a special reason for referring here to the angel of the Lord.
This is furnished by Ezek. chap. 9, which is to be considered
throughout as a farther extension of the verse as the oldest and surest
commentary upon it There, at the command of the Lord, who
will avenge the apostasy of his people, six ministers of his righteous
ness appear, in the midst of whom is '' a man clothed in linen."
The former vvith implements of destruction, the latter with an ink
stand. They tread (the scene is in the temple) near the brazen
altar ; from there the glory of the Lord appears to them out of the
holy of holies, in the threshold of the temple. It imparts to him
who is clothed in linen the commission to preserve the pious, to the
others to destroy the ungodly without mercy. Who now is the one
, clothed in linen ? No other than the angel of the Lord. This ap
pears from Dan 10 : 5, 12 : 6, 7, where Michael = the angel of the
Lord (6omp. Beitrage, I, p. 106) is designated in the same way ; a
remarkable agreement of two contemporary prophets, which was left
unnoticed in the Beitragen. It is also evident from the subject itself.
The clothing is that of the earthly high priest (Theod. : Toij e^dofiov
xo axrjfia Isgaxixov ' ov ydg 'ijv xwv xoXa'^ovxav, aXXa xcov Xvxgovfidvav
Toiig aioxfjgiag d^lovg). The heavenly mediator, high priest and inter
cessor, is, however, the angel of the Lord, comp., e, g,, Zach. 1 :
12, where he makes intercession for the covenant people (Vol. II.
p. 17), and the Lord answers him good consoling words. Concern
ing the earthly high priest, as a type of Christ, and therefore as an
image of the angel of the Lord, comp. Vol. II. p. 38. He who was
clothed in linen, is not, however, to be regarded as solely engaged in
the work of delivering the pious, not as standing in contrast with the
six ministers of righteousness. These are rather to be considered as
subordinate to him, as accomplishing the work of destruction only
by his command, under his authority. The punishment proceeds
from him no less than the prosperity. This appears even from gen
eral grounds. Both have the same root, the same object, the pros
perity of the kingdom of God. The six cannot be regariled as evil
angels. This would be in contradiction to the whole doctrine of
Scripture on the subject It uniformly attributes the punishment of
the ungodly to the good angels, — the trial of the pious, under God's
permission, to the evil, — see, e. g., the trial of Job, the temptation
of Christ, the messenger of Satan by whom Paul was buffeted.

150 AMOS.
This subject has been very well handled by Jac. Ode (De Angelis,
p. 741 ff., " Deum ad puniendos males homines mittere bones angeles,
et ad castigdndos pies usurpare males"). If, now, this is established,
it is equally so that the judgment here belongs to the angel of the
Lord. For all inferior angels are subordinate to him, the prince of
the heavenly host, so that all they do is done by his command.
But in addition to these general grounds, there are especial reasons,
which are entirely decisive. It deserves consideration, that he who
was clothed in linen appears in the midst of the six. They surround
him as his followers, his servants. Still more weighty, however, and
of itself sufficient, is chap. 10 : 2, 7, " And the Lord spake to
the man clothed in linen, and said, Go between the wheels under
the cherubs, and fill thy hand with coals of fire which are between
the cherubs, and scatter them over the city, and he went before mine
eyes. — And a cherub stretched out his hand between the cherubs,
to the fire that was between the cherubs, and took, and gave it into
the hands of him who was clothed in linen. And he took it and
went forth," The fire is an image of the Divine anger. The angel
of the Lord is here, therefore, expressly designated as the one who
executes the judgments of the Divine justice. — The importance of
this transaction extends beyond the explanation of the passage before
us. We have here the Old Testament foundation of the doctrine
of the New, that all judgment has been committed to the Son, and
a remarkable example of the harmony of the two Testaments, which,
in recent times has been but too much overlooked. Compare vvith
the cited declarations of the Old Testament, only such passages as
Matt. 13 : 41 : anoaxAzi o vlog xov av&gtanov xovg dyyi'kovg avxov, xal
ovXli^ovaiv ix Trig ^"aildag avxov ndvxa xd axdvdaka, xal rois ^roiotiyra;
T^v ttvofiiav. 25, 31 : oxav 8s tX&ij 6 vlog rov dv&gmnov — xal ndvxig
ol ayyiloi p8x avxov, tots xad-lau inl &g6vov So^rjg avxoti. It should
still be observed, if we will be convinced of the identity of the angel
of the Lord and of Christ (comp. Vol. I. p. 183), that the angel of
the Lord who is met with throughout the whole Old Testament,
suddenly disappears in the New, and that every thing is attributed to
Christ, which had been before appropriated to him. — A second
important question is, what is to be understood by the ahar, naian.
Several, with Cyril, suppose it to be the altar at Bethel, or some
other idolatrous altar in the kingdom of Israel. Others suppose that
the article is here without force, that God is represented as appearing
merely on an altar, thereby to show that he requires the blood of

CHAP. 9. V. 1, 151
many men. Thus, e. g., Mark : " Puto deum Mc reprasentari apud
altare aliquod, mactationis et perditionis locum, ut monstraret, se non
destructurum altare, sed se hominum velle cmdem severam." But the
article alone is decisive against these interpretations. The altar can
be only that of which every one would think when the subject of
discourse was an altar xax' Hoxriv, without a more particular designa
tion. This was the brazen altar, or altar of burnt offering in the
outer court of the temple at Jerusalem, That this, and not the altar
of incense before the holy of holies, received in common language
the name of the altar, is easily explained from the circumstance,
that it stood in a much nearer relation to the people, than the other,
which was withdrawn from their sight. Upon it were all the sacri
fices of the people presented. It is everywhere to be understood,
where the subject of discourse is the altar of the Lord, — But what
ever doubt may remain, is removed by the parallel passage of Ezekiel.
There the scene is in the temple at Jerusalem. Near the brazen
altar tread the ministers of the Divine justice. In the threshold of
the temple proper, the glory of the Lord moves towards them. This
parallel passage leaves no doubt why the Lord here appears upon the
altar. Jerome remarks upon it, " Juxta altare autem stare dicuntur
parati ad jubentis imperium, ut cvjuscunque viderint ibi non esse
peccata dimissa, sententia domini et interfectieni eum subjacere
cognoscant." The appearing of the Lord upon the altar, is a sensi
ble representation of the truth, " where the carcass is there the
eagles collect" The altar is the place of transgression ; there lies
accumulated the unexpiated guilt of the whole people, instead of
the rich treasure of love and faith which should be presented there,
embodied in the sacrifices. In the place of transgression, the Lord
appears in order to glorify himself in the destruction of those who
would not glorify him by their life. — Several, who, like Michaelis,
have hit upon the right understanding of the altar, have inferred from
the circumstance, that the discourse here relates to the temple at
Jerusalem, that the whole prophecy concerns the kingdom of Judah.
This supposition is, however, entirely untenable. It is contradicted
even by the general reason, that a prophecy relating.^ exclusively to
Judah is by no means to be expected from a prophet whose mission
is especially to Israel, comp. 7 : 15. Further, the close of this
prophecy, the prediction of prosperity, belongs, as has been already
shown, to the whole collection. If it be referred merely to Judah,
an essential element is wanting in that which is directed to Israel ;

152 AMOS.
we have then judgment without mercy, threatening without consola
tion, wliich is inconceivable and without analogy in all the prophets.
To this must be added the express references, or joint references to
Israel through the whole chapter; comp. the mention of Carmel in
V. 3, the children of Israel in v. 7, the house of Jacob, v. 8, the
house of Israel, v. 9, the |n';{'ii3, in v. 11, my people Israel, in v. 14.
The supposition of an exclusive reference to Judah, arises from
understanding as real, that which is only symbolical. When this
error is avoided, every reason at the same time ceases for denying
the reference to Israel. The temple symbolizes the kingdom of
God ; its falling down upon the people, the punishment, which over
takes them in consequence of this kingdom. The immediate sub
ject of discourse is by no means a destruction of the temple in the
proper sense. The latter to be sure was inseparable from the former.
Were the covenant people in general outwardly desecrated, because
they had inwardly desecrated themselves, so also, at the same time,
was the outward sanctuary taken from them, which they had con
verted into a den of thieves by their crimes. Comp. Vol. II. p. 360.
If, now, as was certainly the case, and is proved even by the mission
of this prophet, Israel at that time still belonged to the kingdom of
God, there can be no ground for its exclusion ; for Israel also was
the temple at Jerusalem, the seat and central point of their govern
ment, the place from which blessings and punishments proceeded, —
and thus the prophet, in the very commencement, m.akes the Lord to
roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem. Upon the
altar of Jerusalem all the crimes of Israel, no less than of Judah,
were laid down. For there was the place where the people of both
kingdoms ought to present the embodied expression of their pious
disposition. ¦ Hence there also in fact lay the fruits of their impiety,
although in point of space, they were elsewhere exhibited. — It is,
indeed, true, that the joint reference to Judah is necessarily required
by the symbolic representation. The rejection of Israel alone, could
not be symbolized by the destruction of the temple. This reference
appears also from the prediction of prosperity. This promises, not,
indeed, the restoration of the dynasty of David among the people of
Israel, but that of the entire government of David, which had been
prostrated. The fallen tabernacle of David, refers back to the
destroyed temple. Both designate essentially the same thing ; with
the destruction of the temple, fell also the tabernacle of David, to
the ruin of which belonged also the overthrow of the kingdom of

CHAP. 9. V. 1. 153
Israel. For in this also the family of David still had the dominion
de jure, although it was de facto suspended, — The passage is like
wise remarkable, as furnishing an irrefragable proof of the custom
of designating the kingdom of God according to its existing seat and
central point, and therefore justifies us in other passages in separat
ing the kernel from the shell. — liniiari, a sort of ornament on the
summit of the pillars, and D'SDH, the thresholds, stand in antithesis,
to express the thought, that the building should, be shaken and de
stroyed from the summit to the foundation. The shaking ¦ of the
thresholds occurs also Is. 6, to designate, that the concussion ex
tended to the lowest foundations. Most interpreters, " strike the
capital that it tremble," But we must rather take wyy\ as co
ordinate with ^n, " and it may shake," i. q. " and make it shake."
— The suff. in DJiX? refers to the capitals and the thresholds or to
the whole building, designated by the antithesis of the highest and
lowest portions. The smiting, dashing in pieces, does not include
the throwing down in itself, but only by means of the connexion
with the following tyxi?. Analogous is Jer. 49 : 20, " He will lay
waste over them their dwelling," for " he will lay them waste, so
that they shall be buried under their ruins," comp. 50 : 45. li'S'13,
accurately taken, is not upon the head. The head is rather repre
sented as the receptacle of the falling ruins. Comp. Ps. 7 : 17.
obp has no definite noun in what precedes, to which it refers. This
is explained in the same way as ^n without a nearer designation of
the person, from the dramatic character of the whole representation,
which necessarily arises from the expression, I saw. The prophet
beholds, in inward contemplation, the whole people collected before
the Lord in the threshold of the temple. The Lord appears before
them as a judge, in the place of transgression, upon the altar. At
his command, the whole assembled multitude are buried under the
ruins of the temple. Hence, also, it appears that a destruction of
the temple in the literal sense, is not to be thought of How could
the whole people be buried under its ruins ? The same thing is also
evident from 'O'ST at the beginning. This shows that we have here
before us a sensible representation entirely corresponding to that in
chap. 7:1, 4, 7, 8:1. — Hitherto the Lord, addressing himself to
another, had given to him the commission to destroy; he now pro
ceeds with an " / vvill slay," This shows, that the one addressed is
the angel of the Lord, Entirely the same appearance is found in
most of the passages which speak of the angel of the Lord. The
VOL. III. 20

154 AMOS.
action, in constant alternation, is attributed now to him, now to Je
hovah. Vol. I. p. 164 sq. — n'"}nx is here explained by several in
terpreters, by posterity (Mark, De Wette, Riickert, &c.) ; others
translate a remnant, after the example of the Chaldee (pmsty), others
still infima plebs. We must here enter into a stricter examination of
the senses of the word. It is commonly supposed (comp, Gesen.
and Winer), to designate originally and properly the last and extreme
part ; then the sequence and the end. But the alleged derivative
sense is rather the original and proper. That such it might well be,
according to the form, appears from the remarks of Ewald, p. 348,
" As the fem. ending in general forms abstract nouns, so also are
abstract nouns frequently formed from others by the addition of n' ;
very frequently a masc. 't does not lie at the foundation, but n'
serves only generally as a sign of derivation,'' That such it actually
is, is shown by the following reasons, 1. Were it otherwise, the
masc. 't would also occur ; so also would the fem. as adject, be
met with. 2. n'"inN forms the standing antithesis to n'!?NT. That
this, however, is originally and properly an abstract beginning, is
generally confessed. — The sense of the result, or of the end, must
here also be retained ; the word never has any other, it designates
only result and end, in manifold relations. But here posterity as a
result cannot be thought of; for the whole action is concentrated in
one point of time. Just as little can it mean the end, in the sense
of the lowest of the people. For one does not see why precisely
these should be devoted to the sword. The result, or the end, rather
designates the remnant, all those who may perhaps have escaped
from the overthrow of the temple. After these, the Lord will
pursue with the sword: Those buried under the temple are the
beginning, n'KJNT ; these, the end. In this manner, corresponding to
the shaking of the temple from the capitals to the thresholds, the
thought is expressed, that from the first to the last, T\)iym D^p, they
should be subjected to the Divine punishment. Entirely the same
silent antithesis with n'K/N^ is also found where Acharith occurs,
chap. 4 : 2 (here, likewise, De Wette and Ruckert have mistaken
the sense), and chap. 8:10. — On the last words, Cocc. : " Hac
cades exaggeratur exclusione fugientium et eorum., qui videbantur
effugisse." The second member seems to contradict the first. For
if there is no one who escapes, how can there be any one who is
delivered ? Several interpreters have been hereby induced to give
to the verb Oli, in the first place, the sense to escape; in the second,

CHAP. 9. V. 1. 155
to flee. But the contradiction is entirely similar to that which oc
curs also in what precedes, where all are dashed in pieces by the
ruins, and yet still a remnant is spoken of It vanishes as soon as
we consider, that it was the design of the prophet to cut off all even
barely possible ways of escape, whereby carnal security sought de
liverance, and evaded the impression of his discourse ; as if he had
said all will be buried under the ruins, and though some should
escape this method of destruction, still God's avenging sword shall
pursue and destroy them ; flight will be possible to no man, and even
if it were to some, still it would avail them nothing, for God would
be their pursuer. — Not to be overlooked, however, is another ap
parent contradiction ; the destruction is here described with great
emphasis, as one entirely general ; as such is it fully represented in
v. 2 - 4. We plainly perceive, that the prophet earnestly desires to
prevent every one from thinking of the possibility of deliverance.
On the other hand, in v. 8, it is announced, that the house of Jacob
should not he entirely destroyed ; according to v. 9, all the piotis
should be preserved ; according to v, 10, the judgment should be
limited to the sinners of the people, which is also presupposed
throughout the whole description, v, 11, &c. Already, in chap. 3 :
12, the preservation of a small remnant, amidst the general destruc
tion, had been promised. The explanation of this apparent contra
diction by most of the interpreters who assume an hyperbole in
V, 1-4, is certainly erroneousj To prevent all thought of this, to
show that the words are to be taken in all their strictness, is plainly
the reason of the great copiousness of the prophet, of the representa
tion of the same thought under such various aspects. The limita
tion may, however, be fairly explained in another manner. There is,
in the nature of ungodliness, that levity whioh flatters each indi
vidual with the hope of deliverance, although a threatened general
calamity is about to ensue. Then all the possibilities Of deliverance
are sought after, and easily converted by the imagination into proba
bilities and realities, because that is wanting which proves them to
be improbable and unreal, the consciousness of a living, almighty
God. And thus the sinner frees himself from fear, and at the same
time from the burdensome obligation to escape from it in another
and lawful way, by a true conversion. Now this levity the prophet
sets himself to oppose. He shows how every possibility of deliver
ance of which the sinner dreams, must fail of being realized, and,
indeed, because he has not to do with human enemies, from whom,

156 AMOS.
though they were never so powerful and artful, he might yet escape
by human means, but with the Almighty God, who is everywhere
present, and can arm all his creatures against his despisers, so that
they can retreat to no place where he who reigns without control
in heaven and on earth has not ministers of his vengeance. Every
thought of the possibility of deliverance hy'human means is therefore
here cut off, and, at the same time, with respect to the ungodly,
every thought of deliverance in general ; for that God would not de
liver them they were told by their own conscience. For the pious,
the same thought must be a fountain of consolation. Can no man,
though he hide himself in heaven, escape from God the avenger, so
also can no man, though in the midst of enemies, with the sword
already suspended over him, be lost to God the deliverer. The in
quiry has still been made for the historical reference of the threaten
ing. It extends just as far as the idea lying at its foundation, "you
only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I
visit upon you all your transgressions." Those interpreters who re
fer the prophecy exclusively to the Assyrian, the Chaldean, or the
Roman desolation, have all, in an equal degree, truth and falsehood
on their side. All this, and more, is essential ; the difference in
time and circumstances only, is unessential. That a prophet has
exclusively in view one of these manifestations of the Divine penal
justice, can be asserted only where he distinctly declares this, and
even there, the prophecy is limited to this single event, only as to
the form, its idea is not yet completely realized.
V. 2. " When they break into the world below, from there will my
hand take them ; when they ascend to heaven, from there will I bring
them down." The 2 mod. is not to be taken here and in what
follows as potential, " if they should conceal themselves,'' but as
fut. "when they shall conceal themselves." That, as Winer as
serts, DN, with the 2 mod., is used only de re dubia, is equally errone
ous as that, with the prat., it supposes the condition as already per
formed. The truth is found in Gesen. in the Thes., and in Ewald,
who, p, 661, remarks, the fut. can stand with DX not only as poten
tial, but in its other senses. By placing the condition, in reality im
possible, as possible, the denial of the result becomes the more em
phatic and impressive. That this has been done here, is evident
from v, 4, where the prophet assumes the actual possibility ; so that
vve can by no means translate, " if they should also go." This mode
of expression is, in general, very frequent It is found, e. g., in the

CHAP. 9. V, 3. 157
parallel description of the Divine omnipresence and omniscience
Ps. 139 : 7, 8, " Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, and whither shall
I fly from thy presence. When I ascend to heaven thou art there,
and make hell for my bed, behold thou art there." VPhat we must
not here translate, " should I ascend," " should I make," appears
from V, 9, " I will take the wings of the morning and dwell in the
end of the sea." In the New Testament, e. g., Matt 5 : 29, where
Tholuck (Comm. zur Bergpredigt, p. 226) has been led astray from
the only right understanding of tl 8k o 0(p&aXp6g aov b dt^iog axavSa-
Xl^u as X. X. I., by overlooking this usage. We need not, indeed,
translate, " when it should offend thee ; " but whether the coiidition
here supposed as possible, is possible in reality, must be decided from
other grounds ; and these show, that here, that which is impossible
is assumed as possible, only for the sake of greater emphasis. —
Heaven and Sheol, form a standing antithesis, as the loftiest height,
and the lowest depth. The prophet descends from a mere supposed
probability, to one that is actual. And if the former cannot afford
protection, because God's band reaches even where one has escaped
from every human power, how much less then the latter 1 inn with
the accus. te break through. Job 24 : 16, with :? te, make a hole in
any thing; thus, Ezek, 8 : 8, 12 : 7, 12 ("i'P5 inn, to make a hole
in the toall). These parallel passages show, that we must conceive
of Sheol as surrounded with a strong wall, whereby is designated its
inaccessibleness to all the living,
V. 3. " And when they conceal themselves on the summit of Car
mel, I will seek and take them from there ; and when they hide them
selves from mine eyes in the abyss of the seq, I will there command
the serpent, and he shall bile them." The question arises, why Car
mel especially is mentioned here ? The interpreters remind us of
the great multitude of its caverns, which make it peculiarly suited
for concealment. O. F. von Richter, in the Wallfahrten im Morgen-
lande, p, 6.5, remarks, in this respect, " The caves are extremely
numerous in Carmel, especially on the west side ; it is said there are
more than a thousand, and in ancient times they were inhabited by
monks, who, nevertheless, do not seem to have been the makers of
them. In one region, called the caves of the people of orders, four
hundred are found near each other. Farther below, in the hard
limestone hill, there is one distinguished for its magnitude, about
twenty paces long, and more than fifteen broad and high." Still
more accurate details are given by Schulz in the Leitungen des

158 AMOS.
Hochsten, Vol, V. pp. 186, 383. According to him, the way is of
pure rock, and very smooth ; and so crooked, that those who precede,
cannot see those who follow ; " when we were only ten paces apart,
we could very Ivell hear each others' voices, but were invisible to one
another." The mouths of these caves are often so small, that only
one man can enter at a time ; the passage to them so serpentine,
that the pursued can escape his pursuer, and hide himself in one of
these small openings, of which there are often three or four together,
before he has been seen. " Consequently, when any one hides him
self, it is, for human eyes at least, very difficult, nay, almost impossi
ble, to find him,'' But the case is not yet fully made out, although
it were to be assumed, moreover, that the mountain, as at present
(Richter, p, 66), was covered with shrubbery to the summit. The
expression, " on the summit," must not be overlooked, and the less
so, since it stands in plain contrast with the bottom of the sea,
similar to the antithesis of the height and the depth in the preceding
verse, — heaven and hell, the summit of Carmel, and the bottom of
the sea. The elevation of Carmel, must, therefore, at all events,
come into consideration ; this is, to be sure, not very great. It rises
only some hundred feet above the level of the sea (comp. Richter,
Th. II, p, 382) ; but the prophet chose it in preference to other
higher mountains, partly for the reason already mentioned, but
especially on account of its position immediately on the sea, which
is overhung by its summit, and can be seen to a great distance from
it, comp. 1 Kings 18 : 40-44. It is as true in natural, as in spiritual
things, opposita juxta seposita magis elucescunt. An inferior eleva
tion appears higher than one greater in reality, by the force of con
trast Besides, the position of Carmel on the extreme west of the
kingdom of Israel, is to be considered. He who there hides himself,
must be ignorant of any place of greater security in all the rest of
the land. And if security cannot be found there, nothing further
remains but the sea. — niv frequently stands in the sense to bid, to
command. The word is intentionally chosen, to show, that even ir
rational creatures are the servants of the Almighty God, so that it
only needs a word from him to make them the instruments of his
vengeance. That the prophet had a knowledge of a very dangerous
kind of water-serpent, of which Pliny speaks, 19, 4, we are not
obliged to assume on account of the DEfp. This was here of no im
portance. The serpent occurs also, chap. 5 : 19, in an individual
ization of the thought, that God is able to arm all nature against his

CHAP. 9. V. 4, 5. 169
foes ; " as when a man flees before the lion, and the bear meets him,
and he comes to his house, and puts his hand on the wall, and the
serpent bites him," — the antithesis of " all things must work to
gether for good to those who love God." The apostates are threaten
ed with the poison of creeping things, Deut, 32 : 24, together with
the teeth of the wild beasts ; and the import of this threatening,
Israel might know from their former history, comp. Num. 21 : 6,
" And the Lord sent against the people serpents, and they bit the
people ; and much people of Israel died," to which there is an
allusion, Jer. 8:17, ("For, behold I send against you serpents,
basilisks, against which there is no conjuration, and they bite you,
saith the Lord,") and probably here also.
V. 4. " And when they go into captivity before their enemies, I
will there command the sword, and it slays them, and I fix my eye
upon them for evil and not for good." '52'3, in statu captivitatis.
The carrying away into captivity, presupposes that they have found
compassion ; according to the natural course of things, he who is
carried away is secure of his life. But before God nothing can give
security. — The last words are well explained by Calvin : " Subest
antithesis in hac sententia, quia dominus pollicitus fuerat, se fore
custodem populi sui. Hypocrita semper arripiunt sine poinitentia et
fide dei promissiones ; idee propheta hie dicit, oculum dei fore super
eos, non autem ut suo more illos tueatur, sed potius ut accumulet
pcenas pcenis. Et hac notatu digna est sententia, quoniam monemur,
etsi dominus ne incredulis quidem parcat, tamen acrius nos observare,
ut durius puniat, si ad extremum perspexerit nos esse obstinates et
incur abiles.'' ^
V. 5. " And the Lord, Jehovah, Sabaoth, who touches the earth
and it dissolves, and all its inhabitants mourn, and it rises up wholly
as the stream, and sinks down as the stream of Egypt." The
prophet proceeds to cut off every false hope with which levity flatters
itself How dare you dream of escape, since you have the Almighty
God for your enemy ! Jerome : " Qua loquitur, ut ostendat magni-
tudinem divina potentia, ne forsitan velit quidem facere quod mina
tur, sed vires non impleant voluntatem." Similar representations of
the Divine omnipotence, in opposition to unbelief and a weak faith,
are very frequent, e. g., 5 : 8, 27, Is. 40 : 22, 45 : 12. We cannot
interpret, " the Lord is he who touches,'' rather the discourse is ab
rupt We have to supply either at the beginning, " and who is your
enemy ? " or at the end, " he is your opponent" This abruptness

160 AMOS.
of the language is entirely suitable to the subject. Altogether simi
lar is chap, 5 : 7, 8, where Israel and his God are simply placed in
contrast, and it is left to every one to think for himself how such a
God will conduct himself towards such a people : — " they who
change justice to wormwood, and cast righteousness to the earth. —
Creating the Pleiades, and Orion, and changing the darkness of
death into mourning, and he darkens day into night, who calls,"
&c. The accumulated appellations, the Lord, Jehovah, Sabaoth,
serve to exalt the omnipotence of God. The believer, in his
prayer, accumulates these appellations, in order to awaken his confi
dence and his hope, comp,, e, g,. Is, 37 : 16, where Hezekiah begins
his prayer thus : " Jehovah, Sabaoth, the God of Israel, thou who
art enthroned upon the cherubim, thou art God alone for all the
kingdoms of the earth ; " they are exhibited to the ungodly in order
to cast down all his hopes. We have separated the epithet,
" Sabaoth," as a special appellation of God, by a comma, from
what precedes. Since Gesenius has asserted, on Is. I : 9, that Sab
aoth, in connexion with Jehovah, is to be regarded as a genitive,
dependent upon it, this view has become pretty general. It is, how
ever, certainly false. The examples by which Gesenius would prove
the possibility of such a connexion of proper names with appellatives,
are not to the purpose. In " Bethlehem Jehuda," it is only according
to a false interpretation that Jehuda is considered as standing in the
stat. constr. with Bethlehem, comp. on Mic. 5:1; and in reference
to D^in: D^X it is to be remarked, that ?'^N, by being so diversely
employed, loses its quality as a proper name. Jehovah and Sabaoth
can just as Httle be immediately connected vvith one another ; as Je
hovah, so completely a proper name that there is only one to whom
it belongs, neither has, nor can have, the article. We may consider
still niNjV C'riS^. in Ps. 80 : 15, and elsewhere, where a stat. constr.
is out of the question. Also the fact, that where Adonai, as here,
precedes, the Massorites have always given to ni^n: the points of
D'Tlb^., never of 'ri''^. Finally, if we consider the full expression,
which is far more frequent, nixnxn 'riSx ni'n:, here, e. g., 3: 13,
4 : 13, 5 : 14, we shall be convinced, that also, where the bare
ni'xayn njn; occurs, not precisely 'ribN is to be supplied, — were
it so, how then could it happen that nisnsn never occurs alone ?
— but the notion of the Lord is to be taken from the preceding
designations of the sovereignty of God. — The fut. with vav. conv.
aiDJJl does not here designate the past, " and it dissolved," but only

CHAP. 9. V. 5. 161
the result of the preceding action, equally progressive, " who touches
the earth and it dissolves." That is attributed to God as a continued
action, for which he constantly possesses the power, what he could
do at each moment if he would. Parallel is, e, g,, Ps. 97 : 5,
" Mountains flow down like wax before Jehovah, before the Lord of
the whole earth." Nah. 1 : 4, 5, " Rebuking the sea, so does he
make it sink away," (an entirely similar connexion of the part, with
the fut. with vav. conv., " when he only rebukes," = when he only
touches,) " and all streams he dries up ; Basan and Carmel wither,
and the flowers of Lebanon wither. Mountains tremble before him
and the hills dissolve, the earth rises up before his face, the round
world and all its inhabitants." — We must here suppose a dissolution
of the earth similar to its condition before the days of the creation,
and also at the time of the flood, which the prophet, as appears from
" all its inhabitants mourn," and especially from " it rises up," &c.,
had particularly in view. " It rises up," &c., is explained by the
circumstance, that the earth changed into a great stream, cannot be
distinguished from the water> which covers it ; the earth rises up, it
is overflowed, the earth sinks down, the water subsides. The last
member can by no means be translated with Rosenmiiller and Ge
senius : " as by the stream of Egypt is it overflowed." This explana
tion is in all respects unphilological, and at the same time contrary
to the parallelism which requires, a similar understanding of IX^?.
The verb pow means only to sink, to sink itself of the subsiding
water, Ezek. 32 : 14 ; of the subsiding flame, Deut. 11: 2 ; of
the sinking city, Jer. 51 : 64. The last words contain, therefore,
rather the antithesis of the last member but one. This would have
been found entirely suitable, if it had been perceived, that here only
God's omnipotence came into consideration, to which the sinking of
the water belongs, no less than its rising. The case is otherwise in
the parallel passage, chap. 8 : 7, 8, " The Lord hath sworn by the
pride of Jacob, I will never forget their works. For such shall not
the earth tremble, and every inhabitant mourn, and it shall rise up
wholly as the stream, and roll its floods like the stream of Egypt?"
^Here, where the Massorites, according to an unsuitable comparison
' of the passage before us, would read T\miOl (Niph. nowhere else
occurring), this is entirely unsuitable. Here, all refers to omnipo
tence ; not the will of God, but only his power to punish was to be
exhibited. In the other place, on the contrary, the penal justice of
God, his overwhelming judgments are represented. — To be compared
VOL. III. ' 21

162 AMOS.
still is Jer. 46 : 7, 8, where, as here the earth, Egypt rises up as the
Nile, to'be sure in another sense ; " Who is he who rises up as the
Nile, whose waters flow as the streams ? Egypt rises up as the
Nile, and as the streams, flow its waters, and it says, I will go up,
cover the earth, destroy the city and its inhabitants."
V. 6. " Who builds in the heavens his steps, and his vault, upon
the earth he founds it ; he calls the waters of ihe sea, and pours them
out over the earth, Jehovah his name." ni'7j?P can only arbitrarily
be taken as synonymous with ni'bj-', the upper apartments. The
usual meaning, steps, is here entirely suitable. We need only think
of the steps to God's heavenly throne, as the word, 1 Kings 10 : 19,
20, occurs of the steps of the earthly throne. That God has estab
lished his throne in the heaven, is given as a proof of his omnipo
tence also in Ps. 103 : 19, " The Lord has prepared his throne in
the heaven, and his kingdom ruleth over all." Comp. Is. 66: 1.
That such passages are not to be materialized, that they only give, in
a symbolic dress, the idea of God's power over the earth, and his
glory, is evident from Others, as 1 Kings 8 : 21, " Behold the heaven
and the heaven of heavens contain thee not," comp, Tholuck zu
Bergpredigt, p, 395, Opposed to the steps of the throne is the
vault, the foundation on which they arise, the side of God's heavenly
dwelling next to the earth. It is here, indeed, to be observed, that
the meaning of rr^jN is not perfectly certain. X'iij:)n"iD'i£', verbally
already, chap. 5 : 8. x'?.ipn stands to ?D3l!''l in entirely the same
relation as in v. 5. JlJl^n to JlPnj, i. q., " at his bare word the
waters of the sea cover the surface of the earth," comp. Gen. 6:17,
" And behold, I bring the flood of waters upon the earth." We
need pot, with Rosenmiiller and others, refer the words to the origin
of the rain : " Who draws the waters of the sea as vapors on high,
and then again sends them down as rain upon the earth." It is
contradicted by the comparison of v. 5, which does not allow the
calling to be thus separated from the outpouring. Besides, this
proof of the Divine omnipotence is not sufficiently obvious. — The
name of God designates here, as always, his being, so far as it is
manifested and made known. The name is distinguished from the
being, just as the being known from existence. Therefore, Jehovah
is his name, i. q., " he is, according to his relation to the world
wholly God." After the example of Exod. 15 : 3, these words are
often used to exclude all that is earthly from the conception of
God.

CHAP. 9. V. 7. 163
V. 7. " Are ye not as the sons of the Cushife te me, O children of
Israel, saith the Lord ? Have I not brought Israel out of the land
of Egypt, and the Philistines out of Caphfor, and Aram out of
J^ir ? " — The prophet here wrests from the people another prop of
false security. They boasted of their election, by which God him
self had bound his hands ; they considered its pledge, the Exodus
out of Egypt, as a charter of security against every calamity, as an
obligation to further help in every distress, which God, even if he
would, could not retract A great truth lay at the foundation of this
error, which the interpreters have mostly overlooked, and therefore
have forced upon the prophet an entirely false sense. The election
of the people, and their rescue out of Egypt, were actually that for
which they were held. God had thereby really bound his hands ;
he must deliver the people, he could not cast them off. The election
was a work of his free grace, the preservation of it by deed, a work
of his righteousness. The people had the right to remind him of his
obligation, when he seemed not to discharge it Their election was
to them a firm anchorage of hope, a rich source of consolation, the
foundation of all their prayers. But the error lay in this, that the
election was appropriated to themselves by those to whom it did not
belong, an error, whioh is constantly repeated, which, particularly by
the believers in the doctrine of predestination, often appears in a
frightful form. One need only think of Cromwell, e. g., who, in the
hour of death, silenced all the accusations of his conscience, by this
false trust. Iltgixoufi fjiv ydg dcpsXet, — says the Apostle, Rom.
2 : 25, — idv vofiov Ttgdaarjg, idv 8s naga^dxrjg vofiov, jig, rj nsgno/i'^
aov ttxgo^vaxla ysyove. The deliverance from Egypt stands on the
same ground with circumcision. That also profited ; that secured
to those who showed themselves to be the children of Israel, that
God would manifest himself as their God ; for those, however, who
had degenerated, it became merely an ordinary event For them it
was something that had entirely passed away, that contained in itself
no assurance of a renovation. Now the prophet here detects this
error, as he had already done, chap. 5 : 14, '^ Seek good and not
evil, and so the Lord of Hosts is with you." He reminds them how,
according to the covenant relation, which was mutual, the party
who violated the covenant had nothing to demand, nothing to hope.
— " Are ye not," &c. The tertium compar. is plainly their aliena
tion from God. " The sons of Israel," — the nom. dign. intention
ally chosen in order to render more striking the contradiction

164 AMOS.
between appearance and idea, — are so degenerate, that they no
longer stand any nearer to God than the sons of the Cushite. The
views of those interpreters are somewhat too contracted, who regard
their sins alone as tert. compar. (Cocc. : " Tam aversi ab ipso et tam
infideles, quam quivis Cushaus esse possit). "Ye are to me," is
rather, i. q., "ye stand to me in no other relation." But why were
the Cushites chosen as an example of a people particularly estranged
from God ? The color comes still more perhaps into consideration,
than the descent from Ham, the corporeal blackness as an image of
the spiritual. Thus does it appear, Jer. 13 : 23, "Will the Cushite
change his skin, and the leopard his spots ? will ye be able to do
good, who have been accustomed to do evil ? " — The right interpre
tation of these first words furnishes the key to the following, " only
for the covenant people is the deliverance out of Egypt a gracious
pledge, but ye are no longer the covenant people, consequently the
deliverance out of Egypt stands to you on the same ground with the
leading of the Philistines out of their former dvveUing-places in
Caphtor, to their present, and also with that of the Syrians out of
Kir, wherein no man beholds a pledge of the Divine favor, a pre
servative against every danger, especially an assurance of the im
possibility of a new exile." The geographical inquiries respecting
Caphtor and Kir, would here lead us too far aside ; the view now
current, according to which Crete is to be understood by the former,
in contradiction to the old translators, who have Cappadocia, and
Gen. 10 : 14, so long as by the Kasluchim, the Colchians are under
stood, demands a thorough investigation, which is more suitably re-
Served for another place.
V. 8. " Behold the eyes of the Lord, of Jehovah, are against
the sinful kingdom, and I exterminate it from the earth, only that I
will not destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord." The sinful
kingdom, the kingdom of the ten tribes, or the kingdom of Judah
and Israel considered as one. This sinful kingdom is not less an
object of penal justice than all others ; " the holy God has by no
means, as ye imagine in your blindness, given you a license to sin."
Only in this respect there is a difference between Israel and other
nations, that the people do not in the former case, as in the latter,
perish with the kingdom. Though not among other nations, yet
among the people of God, there always remains a holy seed, an
iiiloyrj, which the Lord must protect, and make the nursery of his
kingdom, from the same necessity of his nature, according to which

CHAP. 9. V. 9. 165
he extirpates the sinners of his people. The first part of the verse
almost verbally resembles Deut. 6 : 15, " For Jehovah thy God is a
jealous God in the midst of thee ; lest the anger of Jehovah thy God
be kindled against thee, and he destroy thee from the earth,"
^91>!\) 'P.9 ^;2!? 'ITP^Dl. The prophet says nothing new, he only
resumes the threatening of the holy lawgiver. The construction of
n|n^ 'JS with 5 is explained by the fact, that by the face of the Lord
in this connexion, only his angry face, = the anger of Jehovah, in
the cited passage, can be understood, but verbs and nouns of anger are
connected by 3 with the object on which the anger rests, comp. Psv
34 : 17. — In the last words, the giving intensity to the verbal idea,
by prefixing the infin., is owing to a silent antithesis, " I will not
destroy the house of Jacob like the kingdom, but only sift it, only
root out the sinners from it, an antithesis which is expressed in v. 9:
V. 9. " For, behold, I command, and shake among all nations
the house of Israel, as a man shakes a sieve, and nothing that is
bound up shall fall to the earth." — ^ The image is, on the whole,
plain. The particulars, however, need illustration, and a more
accurate determination. The usually received meaning, sieve, must
be allowed to rrij? ; still, a sieve is here to be supposed which per
forms a similar service to the winnowing shovel, in which the grain is
violently shaken and thus cleansed ; not perhaps freed by a bare sifting
from the dust still remaining, after it has been properly cleansed, as
Paulsen, vom Ackerbau der Morgenlander, p. 144, and with him most
interpreters, assume. Such a sieve, a sort of fan, is mentioned Is,
30 : 24, together with the winnowing shovel ; it occurs also Luke
22 : 31, 32, where aivid^uv means to agitate with a fan. Even the
Seventy have not here understood an ordinary sieve, but an instru"-
ment answering a similar purpose as the winnowing shovel : Jioxi
ISoii iya ivxiXXojiai xal Xixjiia (A. itXjUr/ffw) iv ndiii xdlg 'i&vcai xov
olxov tot) 'lagarji., .ov xgonov Xixpdiai iv tw Xix/iio. " Hesyc. Xixfito;
nxvm. And this is suggested by 'nf;''jn., indicating a violent pro
cedure, and the occurrence of the same image in so many passages
of Scripture, comp., e. g., Jer. 51 : 2, "I will send winnowers
against Babel, and they shall winnow it, and cleanse its land," 15 : 7,
Matt 3 : 12, while the use of the common sieve for such a purpose
never occurs, and an image is never taken therefrom. D'.un"Sj3
not perhaps by nations, but, as the corresponding n^npa shows, i/i, or
among all nations. The many nations are the spiritual sieve, the
means of purification. The Lord, whose instruments they are,

166 AMOS.
employs them to extirpate the ungodly. By his secret judgments,
for the accomplishing of which he employs the heathen, they shall
be taken away, comp, v, 10, — inV, according to many interpreters,
signifies corn, according to others, a small stone. Both senses,
however, are entirely arbitrary, and assumed merely for the sake of
the context. The word always means something bound together, a
bundle. This sense is entirely suitable in the only passage besides
the one before us, which, in the opinion of the interpreters, requires
the sense a small stone, 2 Sam. 17 : 13, "And should he retire into
a city, let all Israel bring ropes into that ciiy, and we will draw it
into the brook, until that which is bound together is no more found
in it" That which is bound together, comp. JJ!* "iiY' ° bundle
stone, Prov. 26 : 8, is opposed to separate fragments. " There shall
remain in the city no stone upon another." This sense is suitable
here also, indeed, more so than the other. To the ungodly, as loose
chaff, exposed to the play of the wind, the pious are placed in oppo
sition, who are bound together in one bundle by the Lord, and there
fore do not fall through the sieve. The binding together in one
bundle, as an image of careful preservation, is found also 1 Sam.
25 ; 29, " And men rise up to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul,
and the soul of my Lord is bound to the bundle of the living by the
Lord thy God, and the souls of thine enemies will he sling away
with the sling," comp. Hos. 13 : 12, Job 14 : 17. The error here,
as in innumerable passages, arises from an illiberal interpretation of
the images of Scripture, and from supposing that every one is to be
strictly carried through, a requisition which no modern poet ever
fulfils. On this arbitrary assumption, the corn must necessarily be
contrasted with the chaff.
V. 10, " By the sword shall all sinners of my people die, who say,
The evil will not draw near and come upon us." In order that the
preceding amelioration of the threatening might not be appropriated
to themselves by those to whom it did not belong, the prophet once
more presents it in all its severity, before he proceeds farther to un
fold the promise. On the only apparent intransitive use of B^Jn and
O'lDO, comp. Ew. p. 139.
V. 11. "In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David,
which is fallen down, and wall up its breaches, and restore its ruins,
and build it as the days of eternity." " In that day," an expression
altogether general, then, when the Divine judgments have broken in,
and completed their work upon Israel, the pnd zavxa, by whioh

CHAP. 9. V. 11. 167
James, Acts 15 : 15, renders it, fully expresses the sense. The part.
Ji^SJ, according to the usual sense of the partic. Ew. p. 533, ex
presses a permanent condition. The word tabernacle of itself
suggests a sunken condition of the house of David. The prophet
sees the proud palace of the house of David changed into a mean
tabernacle, everywhere in ruins, and perforated. The same thought
Isaiah, chap. U: 1, expresses under another image. There, the
house of David is called the stem of Jesse, which has been cut down,
and which puts up a new shoot. — It might now appear as though the
prophet merely presupposed the ruin of the house of David, without
having expressly mentioned it in what precedes. But it is not so.
The whole preceding threatening relates to the ruin of the house of
David. For if the kingdom suffers, so also does the reigning family.
The close connexion of the two, the prophet himself points out in
what follows. Certainly the change of the suff. is not without
reason ; that in jp'S'?? refers to the two kingdoms, that in l'nD"}n
to David, that in n'n'J? to the tabernacle, the suhj. of WT'. is the
people. Thereby it is intimated, that David, his tabernacle, the
kingdom, the people, are essentially one. One stands and falls with
the other, 'p^ is nom , not ace. The comparison is merely intimated,
comp. on Hos. 2 : 17. Concerning dSi';?, Vol. II. p. 31 1. The founda
tion is the promise in David, 2 Sam. chap. 7, especially v. 10, " And
established is thy house and thy kingdom to eternity before thee ;
thy throne will be firm to eternity." This has already been re
marked by Calvin : " Quum dicit propheta, sicut diebus antiquis,
confirmat doctrinam illam, quod scil. non fluet aquabili cursu regni
dignitas, sed tamen talem fore instaurationem, ut facile constet,
deum non frustra pollicitum fuisse Davidi regnum aternum." The
dominion of David had already suffered a considerable shock by the
separation of the two kingdoms existing in the time of the prophet
Still it should sink, and with it thepeople, far lower in the future.
But, notwithstanding, all the promise of God remains true. God's
judgments do not close, but open the way for his mercy. That the
promised salvation can be imparted to the people only through ihe
tribe of David, the prophet plainly declares. Otherwise, how could
he identify the tabernacle of David with the two kingdoms, and with
the people ? The person of the restorer he does not more particu
larly designate. The chief object -with him as well as Hosea,
comp. on 2 ; 2, and 3 : 5, is to remind the house of Israel, that the
salvation could come to them only from a reunion with Judah,

168 AMOS,
from being again incorporated in the stock of David, comp. Ezek.
37 : 22, " And I make them one people in the land upon the moun
tains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all, and they shall
no more he two people, and no more divided into two kingdoms."
When this is first established, no doubt can remain respecting the
person. That the promise imparted to David would find its com
plete fulfilment in the Messiah, was at that time generally known.
The Messianic reference of the passage was unanimously acknowl
edged by the older Jews. Jerome remarks : " Et in hoc propheta et
in cateris, quacunque de adificatione Hierusalem et templi et rerum
omnium beatitudine pradicantur, Judai in ultimo tempore vana sibi
exspectatione promittunt, et carnaliter implenda commemorant." From
this passage, the Messiah received the name D'Ssj '\2,fi.lius cadenlium,
he who springs forth from the fallen family of David, comp. Sanhedrim,
fol, 96, 2 : R. Nachman dixit ad R. Isaacum, An audisti, quando
D'Saj ^3 venturus sit ? Hie re.spondit, Quisnam est ille ? R. Nach
man ait, Messias. R. Isaacus, An vera Messias ita vocatur 7
Ille, Utique, Am. 9 : 11: eo die erigam tabernaculum Davidis lap-
sum." In Breschit Rabbah, sect. 88, it is said, "Quis exspectasset, ut
deus tabernaculum Davidis lapsum erigeret ? Et tamen legitur
Am. 9:11: illo die etc. Et quis sperasset fore, ut lotus mundus
fiat fasciculus unus ? q. d. Zeph. 3:9: Tunc convertam ad popu-
los labium purum, ut invocent omnes nomen domini ipsique serviant
labio una. Non est autem dictum hoc, nisi rex Messias." Schottgen,
p. 70. Other passages, particularly out of the Sohar, in the same
work, pp. Ill, 566.
V. 12. " That it may receive the remnant of Edom, and of all
the heathen over whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who does
this.'' Calvin : " Constat nobis hoc pracipuum caput, nempe pro-
mitti hie regni propagationem sub Christo : acsi diceret Judaos
angustis finibus fuisse incljttsos etiam quum maxime floreret regnum
Davidis, quia sub Christo dilatabit deus eorum fines, ut longe late-
que dominentur." There is here a manifest allusion to the times of
David, to which the discourse had related in the last words of the
foregoing verse. This appears from the mention of the Edomites.
They had been subjected to the Theocracy by David. Afterward
they had regained their freedom by availing themselves of the ruins
of the tabernacle of David, To the restored tabernacle of David,
the glorified Theocracy, not only they, but also the remaining heathen
nations, should be subject. With reference to that former event,

CHAP. 9, V, 12. 169
which served as a type and prelude to the later, resting on the same
ground, the protection of God over his Church,, his care for his king
dom, the verb wy] is here chosen. This designates only the fact
wherein both events coincide ; respecting the mode wherein they
differ, it gives no disclosure ; this is reserved for what follows. When
the prophet speaks only of the remnant of Edom, he refers back to
the threatening in chap, 1, Only those who have been preserved
during the judgment there predicted, are to come under the domin
ion of the kingdom of David, which is to be rich in blessings.
The nature of this dominion, that it was not to debase, but exalt,
is shown by the words, "over which my name is called." This
phrase by no means allows us to think of such a relation of the
Idumeans, and the remaining nations, to the Theocracy, as that sus
tained by the conquered nations in the time of David. It always
necessarily designates the relation of near and cordial dependence.
For the name of God is never a mere empty title, its mention is not a
matter of caprice ; rather, the mention of it over any one is the out
ward manifestation of his presence in him and with him. — As conse
crated to God, belonging to his holy people, like Israel at present, shall
they be considered and treated in the future, — non spectentur am
plius in persona sua, sed in persona dei. One need only consider
the inferior use of the phrase, Gen. 48 : 5, where " over the name of
their brothers shall they be called in mine inheritance," is the same
as " they shall be incorporated with their brothers, no one shall have
an existence separate from the rest." Its higher import, in respect
to the people of Israel, may be seen, Deut 28 : 9, 10, "The Lord
will exalt thee to him for a holy people, as he has sworn to thee : —
and all people of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is
named over thee, and fear before thee." Here the mention of the
name of God over Israel, corresponds to " to be a holy people of the
Lord, separated from the profane world by the imparting of his holi
ness." It is the same which is elsewhere expressed by " I am in
the midst of thee, or in thee," only that this being of God in the
people, and of the people in him, is here at the same time designated
according to its outward appearance. Jer, 14 : 9, " And thou art in
the midst of us, O Lord, and thy name is called over us.'' Is. 63 :
19, " We are those over whom thou hast not reigned since eternity,
and over whom thy name has not been named." — Further concern
ing the temple, Jer. 7 : 10, 11, " And ye' come and stand before me
in this house, over which ray name is called. Is, indeed, this house
VOL. III. 22

170 AMOS.
over which my name is called, a den of robbers in your eyes ? "„ It
is by no means the ground of the greatness of the crime, that the
temple, like that at Bethel, merely bore the name of the house of
God by the caprice of the people, but that it truly was the house of
God; that God was there really present out of gracious condescen
sion, as a prelude to his dwelling in Christ, comp. Deut. 12 : 5, " the
place which the Lord will choose out of all the tribes to place his
name there." Finally, of particular persons, whom God, in a special
sense, has made his own, his representatives, the bearers of his
word, the mediators of his revelation. Jer. 15 : 16, " I found
thy words and ate them, and thy words became to me for joy and
delight of heart, for thy name was called over me, Jehovah, God of
hosts," i. q. " for I was a messenger and representative of thee, the
Almighty God." — "Thus saith the Lord, who does this,'' should
strengthen faith in the promise, which appears incredible, by calling
attention to the fact, that he who promises, and he who executes, is
the same ; comp. Jer. 33 : 2, " Thus saith the Lord, who performs
it, the Lord, who builds it to the completion, the Lord is his name."
— In all probability, a false understanding of this verse has been
the sole cause of an important historical event. Hyrcanus compelled
the Idumeans conquered by him to circumcise themselves, and thus
to be incorporated into the Theocracy, so that they entirely lost their
national existence, and their name. Josh. 13 : 9, 1. Prideaux,
Vol. V. p. 16. This proceeding was so extraordinary, — David
never thought of doing any thing like this towards the Idumeans,
and other nations conquered by him, — that it necessarily requires a
special ground of explanation, and this is furnished by the passage
before us. Hyrcanus wished to make the prophecy contained in
it true. But in this he did not succeed. He did not consider,
1. that the reception of the Idumeans into the kingdom of God, is
here placed in connexion with the restoration of the tabernacle of
David, and hence could proceed only from a king of the line of
David, 2, That the discourse here is not of a reception into the
kingdom of God depending on human caprice, but of an internal
nature, bringing with it the full enjoyment of the Divine blessings,
and one, of which God alone could be the author. How easily Hyr
canus might fall into such an error, is evident from the example of
Grotius, who stopped short at this apparent fulfilment, although he
had the real one before his eyes. By a similar misunderstanding of
Old Testament prophecies, other important events also have been

CHAP. 9, V. 12, 171
^\
brought to pass, e. g., according to the express testimony of Josephus,
the building of the Egyptian temple, and, as we shall afterwards see,
that of the temple of Herod.
It still remains for us to consider the New Testament citation of
the passage. Acts 15 : 16, 17. Olshausen has directed our attention
to a difficulty here, which has been overlooked by most interpreters.
One does not see how the citation refers to the question at issue.
That the heathen should be received into the kingdom of God, was
the doctrine of both parties ; the only question respected the manner,
whether with or without circumcision, and this is not expressly de
termined by the prophecy, which is limited entirely to the fact.
This difficulty, however, rests only on the view, which, although very
prevalent, is yet false, that James cites two entirely independent
grounds, first, in v. 14, God's declaration, by giving his Holy Spirit
to the heathen without circumcision, and then, v. 16 and 17, the.,
testimony of the Old Testament The truth is rather, that both
together constitute but one ground. Without that testimony, which
God, who knoweth the hearts, gives to the heathen, when he imparts
to them the Holy Ghost, and makes no distinction between them and
Israel, the prophetic declaration would have no meaning ; but, taken
with it, it becomes intelligible. Now also, even his silence in refer
ence to the condition required by those of a pharisaic temper, be
comes significant, Simeon has related how God at first was pleased
to take a people to his name from out of the heathen, and even the
Old Testament passage knows nothing of another method, where the
fact is so strongly declared.
The Apostle does not content himself with the citation of v. 12.
He places before it v. 11, because this furnished the proof, that the
declaration contained in v. 12 referred to that time. Through
Christ, that had already taken place, — at least as to the germ, which
included the whole substance in itself, which was afterwards devel
oped, — wherewith the conversion of the heathen is here immed
iately connected. Because, however, in respect to v. 11, only the
leading idea was important, it is somewhat abbreviated. The transla
tion of the Seventy plainly lies at the foundation.
The citation of v. 12, as good as verbally corresponds with the
Seventy. It' follows them in their important deviation from the
Hebrew text. Instead of " that they may possess the remnant of
Edom," they have, ojitog av ix^riTrjacuaiv ol xaidXomoi, xdv dv^gwnav
fis (for which Luke has xov xvgiov, which is also found in the Codd.

172 AMOS,
Alex., but probably taken from him). How this translation arose, —
whether the Seventy used another reading, ms" n'lSty IB^IT IITdS,
or whether they merely selected for themselves, or whether, accord
ing to Lightfoot's opinion (on Acts, 1, c), they intentionally thus dis
torted the words, or whether they wished merely to give about the
sense, in which two latter cases we must suppose, that, as it so fre
quently happens in the Talmud, and as Jeremiah so often does in
respect to the older prophets, they chose words which accurately
corresponded to the Hebrew text, changed in certain characters, —
to determine this is of little importance, only that the supposition of
a properly different reading, one which rested on the authority of
good manuscripts, must be set aside as irreconcilable with the char
acter of the deviations of the Seventy elsewhere, and whh the uni
formity of our Hebrew manuscripts in the passage before us.
But the assertion of Olshausen, perhaps, deserves our attention,
that the passages in the Hebrew form could not appear to James at
all suited to his purpose ; he must, therefore, on this occasion, have
spoken Greek in the assembly.
Whether this were so, we leave undecided ; it can be made proba
ble from other grounds. But it by no means follows from that ad
vanced by Olshausen. The passage was just as well suited for
proof according to the Hebrew text, as the Alexandrine version.
For as to the idea, it is perfectly true and just The reception in
the sense of Amos, has the seeking as its necessary ground. How,
indeed, can a spiritual possession, a spiritual dominion by the people
of the Lord exist, unless the Lord is sought by those who are to be
reigned over ? Comp, " and the isles shall wait for thy law,'' Is,
42 : 4. That the mention of Edom by Amos, is only an individuali
zation, that the Idumeans are particularly named only as a people,
whose former peculiarly violent hatred against the covenant people,
comp, chap. 1:11, would cause their later humble subjection the
more to appear as a work of the Almighty God, and of his love
reigning over his people, and at the same time also, with respect to
the former conquest under David, appears very evident from what
follows, " and of all the heathen," The Alex, have done nothing
further than to substitute the general for the special, alreafly included
in it, and which is designated even by Amos as a part.
Whether, however, James or Luke may have cited the words
according to the Alex, version, this passage is one of the many
which show the extravagance of the effort to improve the vernacular

CHAP. 9. V. 13, 14, 15. 173
version of the Scriptures, as made, e. g., by Meyer and Stier. The
Saviour and his Apostles, without hesitation, adopted the version
current in their times, where its deviations concerned only the words,
not the idea. If we proceed upon this principle, how will the moun
tain of complaints melt away which has been raised against Luther's
translation !
V. 13. " Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and the ploughman
reaches to the reaper, and the treader of the wine-press to the sower.
And the mountains drop must, and all hills flow down." The ground
thought is, " where the Lord is, there also is the fulness of his gifts."
The drapery in the first half is taken out of Lev. 26 : 3 - 5, " If ye
will walk in my laws, and keep my commandments, and do them, so
give I your rain in its time, and the land gives its increase, and the
tree of the field gives its fruit. And your threshing-time reaches to
the vintage, and the vintage reaches to the seed-time." When the
Lord has purified his Church by his judgments, then will come the
joyful time of blessing promised by him through his servant Moses.
Cocc. : " Unus metct, alter statim arabit, unus sparget semina in
agro arato, simul alius calcabit uvas,ut ultimo anni tempore fieri
solet, continuum opus erit, continuus fructus. Qualem fertilitatem
tif'ogledytica cujusdam regionis, exercit. 249, 2, describit Scaliger :
toto anno seritur et metitur, eodem tempore mandatur semen arvis, et
aliud triticum adolescit, aliud spicatur, aliud metitur, aliud ledum
avehitur ad trituram, atque inde ad horreum." — The second half
corresponds, which is not accidental (comp, the introduction to Joel),
with Joel 4 : 18, " At that time, the mountains will drop must, and
the hills give milk," According to a comparison of the passage,
the flowing down of the hills can signify only their being dissolved
into a stream of milk ; must and honey, in allusion to the designation
of the promised land in the Pentateuch (Exod. 3 : 8), as one that
flows with milk and honey.
V. 14, " And I turn the captivity of my people Israel, and they
build wasted cities, and dwell, and plant vineyards, and drink
their wine, and make gardens, and eat their fruit." The phrase,
" to turn the captivity," designates here, as always, the restitutio in
integrum. The captivity, an image of affliction.
V. 15. "And I plant them in their land, and they shall no more
be torn away from their land that I have given them, saith the Lord
thy God." Comp. p. 45 sq. *

THE PROPHET MICAH.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
MicAH prophesied, according to the superscription, under Jotham,
Ahaz, and Hezekiah, But we need not, on this account, undertake
to separate his prophecies, and assign particular discourses to the
reign of each of these kings. The entire collection sather forms
only one whole. At the end of his prophetic course under Hezekiah,
the prophet committed to writing what had been revealed to him by
God, during its whole continuance, as important for all times. Com
bining into one collection all the separate revelations which had been
granted to him at different times, he gave us the essence, nothing of
which, in the case of any inspired man, has been lost ; with the ex
clusion of what was accidental, or purely local and temporary.
This, which alone is the correct view, and contributes so much to
the understanding of the prophet, has already been presented by
several learned men. Thus, says Lightfoot (Ordo Temporum, Opp. I.
p. 99) : " Facilius concipilur materiam totius libri illius exhibere
argumentum prophetia, quod tenuit sub unoquoque horum regum,
quam ut statuatur, qua libri illius capita edita sint singulis horum
regum temporibus." And Majus remarks (OEconomia Temporum,
p.' 898) : " Diversis temporibus ei sub diversis regibus eadem subinde
repetiit." In recent times, however, it has generally been dropped,
only that De Wette (Einl. p. 344) doubts whether an accurate sepa
ration of the particular prophecies could be made. Justi, Hartmann,
Eichhorn, and Bertholdt, seek to make this separation without en
deavouring to justify it.
We bring forward the proof that it does not exist, but rather its
opposite. In the first place, from the prophecies themselves. If we
were justified in general in separating them according to time and
circumstance, only one division, making three discourses, could be
assumed ; chap. 1, 2, chap. 3 — ^5, and chap. 6, 7, as is done by

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 175
Eichhorn in the older editions of the Einl, and Justi, in the Bear-
beitung des Micha, p. 27 ff. That every other section which one
might choose to add to these, is arbitrarily assumed, may be easily
shown. For, 1. Each of these discourses forms a vvhole, complete
in itself, in which the various elements of the prophetic discourse,
admonition, threatening, promise, are repeated. If we separate
these discourses from each other, we then have only lacera membra
of a prophetic discourse. If we separate, e. g., with Eichhorn
(Aufl. 4. Th. IV. p. 370), and with Bertholdt (p. 1638), chap. 1 and
chap. 2, the first discourse contains only a threatening. If, with '
Eichhorn (p. 376), we divide the second discourse, chap. 3 — 5, into
two, chap. 3 : 1 — 4:4 and 4:5 — 5 : 14, the second, against all
analogy, begins with the promise, and the admonition, as well as the
proper threatening also, is entirely wanting. 2. Each of the three
discourses, constituting one harmonious whole, begins with 'J'ptf',
hear. That this is not accidental, is evident from the beginning of
the first discourse, cbp D'ipJJ ^VQP, Hear, all ye people. These words
are literally the same vvith which an older namesake of the prophet,
according to 1 Kings 22 : 28, calls upon the whole world to attend to
the remarkable conflict between true and false prophecy. The
prophet begins, plainly by design, with the same words with which
Micah had closed his discourse to Ahab, and probably his vvhole
prophetic agency. He thus announced what was to be expected of
him ; showed that his agency was to be considered as a continuation
of that of his predecessor, who was so zealous for God ; that he had
more in common with hjm than the bare name. True, Rosenmiiller
(Proll. ad Mich. p. 8) has asserted, that these words are only put
into the mouth of the older Micah, and have been taken from the
beginning of this prophecy. But the ground which he cites in favor
of this, that we cannot perceive how it could occur to the older
Micah to invoke all nations as witnesses of a prediction which con
cerned Ahab alone, needs no labored refutation. Why then, Deut
32 : 1, Is. 1 : 2, are heaven and earth invoked as witnesses of a pre
diction which concerned merely the Jewish people ? Who does not
perceive, that Israel alone appears to the prophet as too small an
audience for the announcement of the great decision which he has
foretold, just as the Psalmist (comp., e. g., Ps. 96: 3) exhorts to
make known to the heathen the mighty deeds of the Lord, because
Palestine is too narrow for them. — If, now, it is established, that
the prophet used the word Aearwith a definite object ; if it occurs

176 MICAH.
at the head of the three discourses complete in themselves, three
times, where,, even according to the assumption of our opponents, a
new discourse begins, it may with good reason be supposed, that it
was the intention of the prophet, not, indeed, to limit the call " to
hear," to the beginning of a new discourse (comp., on the contrary,
3 : 9), but yet to begin no new discourse without it, so that its very
omission is decisive against the supposition of a new portion. 3. We
find, as soon as we divide into small portions one of those three dis
courses, on an attentive examination, many particulars, which dem
onstrate the close connexion of the parts. Thus, chap. 1 and 2 can
not be separated from one another, even for the reason, that the
promise, chap. 2:12, 13, refers back to the threatening, chap. 1 : 5.
It relates to all Israel, precisely as the threatening in chap. 1, while
in the admonition and threatening, chap. 2, the eye of the prophet
was directed only to Judah, the chief object of his agency, which
allowed him sometimes to cast a look upon Israel, only in order that
he might guard against the thought, that he was a member cut off
for ever from the love of God, and rather show by the extension of
the threatening and promise to him also, that he still belonged, in
respect to the curse and the blessing, to the Theocracy ; a demon
stration which was of the greatest importance even for Judah, the
nearest object of the prophet's influence. The close connexion of
chap. 3; 1 — 4:4, and chap. 4:5 — 5:14 could be denied only
by a critic who seemed to have adopted as his motto the minima non
curat. The alleged new discourse even begins with '3. In v. 6,
the expression, " in that day,'' refers back to the preceding descrip
tion of the Messianic time. To this we must add, that v. 5 is proved
by the comparison of the parallel passage. Is. 2 : 5, as belonging to
the same discourse with what precedes.
But even these three sections, which we have hitherto shown to be
the only ones that exist, should be regarded as such, only so far as
the discourse in them, receives a new addition, begins a new subject.
"They must not be considered as complete in themselves, and sepa-
• rated from one another by the time of the composition. For in them
also we find traces of a close connexion. As such, vve must regard
the uniform commencement with hear. The second discourse, chap.
3: 1, begins with 1PSJ. But the fut. with vav. conv. always, and
without exception, connedts a new action with the preceding, and
can never stand at the beginning of an absolutely new paragraph,
comp. Ewald, p. 547. Its meaning here, where it indicates the

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 177
transition from the promise to a new admonition and threatening, is
well developed by Ch. Bened. Michaelis : " Dum vero ab exoptatis
illis temporibus, qua mode promissa sunt, nimium absumus, dixi inte
rim sc. ad continuandum elenchum contra males principcs ac doctores
c. 2, cmptum." The words of chap. 3 : 1, " Hear still, ye heads of
Jacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel," stand in manifest rela
tion to chap. 2 : 12, " I will collect Jacob entirely to thee, assemble
the remnant of Israel." The prophet chooses in the new threaten
ing, entirely the same designation as in the preceding promise, in
order to provide, that the former should not encourage a false security.
Not, perhaps, Samaria alone, but all Israel is the object of the
Divine punishment ; only the remnant of Israel shall be collected.
Still more clearly appears the reference to the preceding discourse in
V. 4, " Then will they cry to the Lord, and he will not answer, may *
he conceal his face before them at that time, as they have sinned
against him.'' As, in v. 1-3, the Divine judgments had not yet
been spoken of, then and at that time can relate only to the threat
enings, chap. 2 : 3 sq., which specially belong to the ungodly mul
titude. Thus we have confirmed the result, presented at the beginning,
by purely internal arguments. The superscription, whose authority
has been assailed only to favor arbitrary, and manifestly false
hypotheses, after the example of Hartmann, by Eichhorn and Ber
tholdt, announces Divine oracles which were imparted to Micah
under the reign of three kings. The examination of its contents
proves, that the collection forms a connected and consistent whole.
How otherwise can these two things be reconciled, than by the sup-
poshion, that we have here a complete picture of the prophetic agen
cy of Micah, the particular constituent parts of which are at once
different and similar as to time ? A supposition in which we have
the advantage of being able to suffer all historical references to stand
in their full truth, and have no need to be led by the observance of
some, to the, disregard of others, since, according to it, nothing is
more natural, than that the prophet should combine together that
which was different, and belonged to different times.
* Not " he -will," to which is opposed the fut. apoc. The prophet, in order
to express his complacency in the proceedings of the Divine righteousness,
changes the prediction into a wish, precisely as Is. 2 : 9, where the interpreters,
with entu:e disregard of philology, mostly assume that Sx stands for S7,
VOL. III. 23

178 MICAH.
To these internal arguments, however, we may add external ones
equally important. When Jeremiah is called to answer for his prophe
cies concerning the ruin of the city, the ciders appeal for his justifi
cation to the entirely corresponding oracle of Micah 3 : 12, " There
fore shall Zion far your sake be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem
shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places
of the forest." It is said, Jer. 26 : 18, 19, " Micah prophesied in
the days of Hezekiah the king of Judah, and spake to the whole
people of Judah, &c. Did Hezekiah, the king of Judah, and all
Judah, put him to death ? Did he not fear the Lord, and supplicate
him, and the Lord repented of the evil which he had spoken against
them ? " That this passage proves the composition of the discourse
chap. 3 — 5, under Hezekiah, all confess. We need not, however,
limit it to these chapters, but must extend it to the whole collection.
For, apart from the grounds whereby we have proved the intimate
connexion of the whole book, it is in the highest degree improbable,
that the elders were aware, from oral tradition, of the exact time of
the composition of one particular discourse which bears no special
date ; far more natura! is the supposition, that they considered the
collection as one whole, whose individual parts had, indeed, been de
livered earlier by the prophet, but had been repeated under Heze
kiah, and combined in one description, and that they mentioned
Hezekiah, partly because they could not with certainty determine
whether this particular oracle had been uttered under one of his pre
decessors, and if so, under which ; partly because, among the three
kings mentioned in the superscription, Hezekiah only constituted an
authority in a Theocratic point of view.
As now, in the abovementioned citation by Jeremiah, we have a
proof, that the prophecies of Micah collectively were committed to
writing under Hezekiah, so can we show from Is. chap. 2, that they
had been spoken before, at least in part. The problem of the rela
tion of Is. 2:2- 4, to Micah 4 : 1-3, can be explained only by the
supposition, that Micah uttered, even under Jotham, this portion of a
prophecy, which is placed by Jeremiah under Hezekiah, and that
Isaiah soon after expressed that which had also been imparted to him
in inward vision, with words which Micah had placed in the front of
his prophecy, because, being already known to the people, they could
not fail of their impression. Every other solution can be easily shown to
be untenable. 1 . Least of all does the supposition, now generally given
up, that the passage in Isaiah is original, need a refutation; comp..

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 179
on the contrary, Kleinert, Aechtheit des Jes. p. 356. 2. To be re
jected also is the supposition, that both prophets may have used an
older prophecy, as Hitzig has asserted one uttered by Joel (Ueber
den Verf, von Mich. 1 : 4, vgl mit Jes. 2 : 2 - 4, in the Studien und
Crit. II. 2). The connexion in which the verses stand in Micah
is much too close for this. If it showed itself merely in the fact
which is commonly appealed to, comp., e. g., Kleinert, 1. c, that
the threatening discourse in chap. 3, is followed, in chap. 4 : 1 sq.,
by the consoling promise of a glorious future, and that the 1 in v. 1
plainly connects with what immediately precedes, this could not,
indeed, be so confidently asserted, although even then a third person,
who would claim these verses as his property, must bring very strong
proof in favor of his claims, entirely different from those of Hitzig,
which by no means deserve the name of proofs (comp. against the
alleged diversity of the Messianic idea, Vol. I. p. 155). But the
relation is far closer. The promise in chap. 4 : 1, 2, consists through
out of antitheses against the threatening, chap. 3 : 12, " The moun
tain of the house becomes as the high places of the forest," equally
lonesome and desolate. On the contrary, " Established vvill be the
mountain of the house of the Lord on the summit of the mountains,
exalted before all hills, and nations flow together unto it." " Zion is
ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem becomes heaps of rubbish." In
antithesis, " From Zion will go forth a law, and the word of the
Lord from Jerusalem." The desolate and despised place becomes
now the residence of the Lord, from which he sends out his com
mands over the whole earth, the splendid capital of which is hence
forth Jerusalem. In order to make this contrast the more evident,
the prophet in the promise begins precisely with the temple-mountain,
which belonged to the last member in the threatening, so that the
opposing terms are immediately joined together. It is certainly not
accidental, that, in the threatening, he speaks merely of the mountain
of the house, in the promise, of the mountain of the house of the
Lord. The temple, before it can be destroyed, must have ceased to
be the house of the Lord ; on which account, in Ezekiel, the Shecki-
nah is removed from it before the Babylonish destruction, comp.
Vol. II. p. 360. That v. 5 must not be separated from the prophecy
which Isaiah had in view, is shown by the comparison of Is. 2 : 5,
" House of Jacob, up, let us walk in the light of the Lord." These
words, according to the true interpretation, which makes the mercy
of the Lord, and the blessings to be imparted by it, according to

180 MICAH.
what precedes, to be designated by the light of the Lord, and to
walk in the light by enjoying a portion in this mercy, stand in close
relation to " for all nations shall walk, each one in the name of his
God, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever,"
i. e., " the fate of the nations of the heathen world, corresponds to
the nature of their gods ; because these are vain, so they also perish ; "
Israel, on the contrary, participates in the greatness of his God. In
Isaiah and in Micah, the same thought occurs in essentially the same
dress, only that Isaiah converts into an exhortation, the pure promise
of Micah, that Israel should not incur the loss of this advantage over
the heathen nations by his own fault, that he should not obstinately
wander from the path of light which the Lord opened before him,
into the dreary wilderness. This change in Isaiah is explained by
the fact, that he intended to prepare the way for the threatening,
which now ensues, after v. 6, while Micah, who had already premised
it, could proceed with the promise. 3. There now only remains the
view of Kleinert, according to which, the prophecy of Micah, chap.
3 — 5, was first uttered under Hezekiah, and that of Isaiah chap.
2 — 4, which has respect to it, under the reign of the same king,
only somewhat later. But this also appears, on a nearer examina
tion, as altogether untenable. The description of the moral condi
tion of the people in Isaiah, the general spread of idolatry and vice,
excludes every other time in the reign of Hezekiah, except its very
commencement, when the influence of the time of Ahaz was still
felt, so that even Kleinert is obliged to assume (p. 364), that not only
the prophecy of Micah, but also that of Isaiah, was composed in the
first months of Hezekiah's reign. But on this supposition, other in
vincible difficulties arise. In the whole portion of Isaiah, the nation
appears as rich, prosperous, and powerful. This is most strongly
expressed in chap. 2:7, " Full is thy land of silver, without end are
thy treasures ; full is thy land of horses, without end are thy chari
ots." In addition to that, the description of the consequence of
wealth, their enormous luxury in chap. 3 : 16 sq., and the threatening
of the withdrawal of all power and all wealth, as a direct antithesis
of the present condition, on which the deluded people grounded the
hope of their security, and therefore believed that they did not need
the help of the Lord, chap. 3 : 1 sq. Now this description is so
little suitable to the commencement of the reign of Hezekiah, that
rather its direct opposite would be expected. The Syrio-Ephraimitish
invasion, the oppression by the Assyrians, and the tribute to be paid

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 181
to them, the internal administration, which was bad beyond example,
the curse of God, which rested on all their efforts and purposes, had
exhausted, under the ungodly Ahaz, the treasures which had been
collected under Uzziah and Jotham, and dried up the sources of
prosperity. He had left the kingdom to his successor in a most de
plorable condition. What Kleinert remarks to the contrary, that
there might still have been many rich individuals, is by no means
satisfactory. The wealth as well as the luxury is described as some
thing altogether general, and therewith the poverty and the wretch
edness of the future placed in contrast; the former, because, accord
ing to the sinful condition of human nature, the possession of the
good things of this world brings with it their abuse, is exhibited as
a concurrent cause of the prevailing corruption. The description
of the people as one powerful in war, is not thereby even apparently
set aside. In addition to these, there are still other grounds for the
composition under Jotham, and against that under Hezekiah, par
ticularly in the undeniably chronological arrangement of the first
twelve chapters, their position at the beginning of the collection ;
still more, however, the indefiniteness and generality in the threaten
ing of the Divine judgments, as common to the prophecy before us,
with those nearly contemporary, chap. 1 and chap. 5, while the
threatenings, out of the first period of the reign of Ahaz, immediately
assume a far more definite character. By these considerations, we
are involuntarily led to a time in which Isaiah still chiefly exercised
the office of admonition and threatening, and had not yet been
favored with so special revelations concerning the events of the
future, at that time tolerably distant, perhaps in the time when Jo
tham administered the government for Uzziah his father, who was
still alive, comp. 2 Kings 15 : 5, on which supposition, chap. 3 : 12
is more satisfactorily explained than any other, and there is no occa
sion to assert, that the chronological order has been interrupted by
chap. 6, which certainly was not the design of the collector. The
solemn call and consecration of the prophet to his office, accom
panied by a larger gift of grace, is well to be distinguished from
those of an ordinary character common to him with all other proph
ets. tBut, if the prophecy of Isaiah had been uttered under Jotham,
so must that of Micah at that time have been already in the mouth
of the people ; and as its composition is placed by Jeremiah under
Hezekiah, it follows, that the prophet, under the reign of this king,
delivered anew the revelations which had been previously imparted
to him.

182 MICAH,
In reference to the general exegetical literature, we refer to Vol.
II. p. 12. Among those of the older writers, who have left special
treatises upon Micah, besides Luther, Comment, in Michdm, only
Ed. Pocoke is to be mentioned (A Commentary on the Prophecy of
Micah, Oxf 1677). With a heavy diffuseness, a tedious enumera
tion and refutation of Jewish absurdities, and a deficiency in deep
penetration, it still exhibits, what is no small recommendation, dili
gence in the coUection of exegetical materials, and a mode of expla
nation in general, natural. Our own time has not done much more
for Micah than for Zechariah. Of the works of Grosschopf, Jena,
1798, of Justi, Leipz., 1799, and of Hartmann, Lemgo, 1800, no
one satisfies even the most reasonable requisitions.

Chap. 1 and 2.

The prophet begins with the words " Hear, all ye people, hearken
O earth, and all that therein is, and let the Lord God be witness
against you, the Lord from his holy temple. For, behold, the Lord
cometh forth out of his place, and comes down and treads upon the
high places of the earth. And the mountains dissolve under him,
and the valleys are cleft, as wax before the fire, and as the icaters
that are poured down a steep place. For the transgression of Jacob
is all this, and for the sin of the house of Israel" (v. 2 - 5).
This majestic exordium has been variously misunderstood. In
the first place, by those who would understand by the nations D'SJ7,
in V. 2, the Israelitish tribes. That this is in general inadmissible
has already been shown. It is here especially to be rejected, partly
on account of the reference to the words of the older Micah, partly
on account of the parallel " thou earth and its fulness," which,
according to constant usage, leads us far beyond the narrow bounds
of Palestine. Those, on the other hand, who justly understand by
D'Pji the nations of the whole earth, err in regarding these as merely
witnesses, which the Lord invokes against his ungrateful pdbple,
instead of those against whom he himself bears witness, as they
must necessarily be, according to the words " let the Lord be a
witness against you" (comp. in reference to 1J.'. followed by 3, e. g.,
Mai. 3 : 5). Then there is commonly an error in the determination

CHAP. 1 AND 2, 183
of the method of the Divine testimony. It is found in the following
admonitory, hortatory, and threatening discourse of the prophet
Thus, e. g., Michaelis : " Nolite aspernari et flocci pendere tantum
testem, qui judicia sua ac voluntatem serio ac palam vobis per me
testatur." On the contrary, it appears from v. 3, that the testimony
here, precisely as Mai. 3:5, " And I draw near to you to judgment,
and am a swift witness against the sorcerers, and adulterers, and the
false swearers," consists, in a matter of fact, in an attestation of the
guilt by the punishment, the Divine judgment described in v. 3 and
4. To the expression, " out of his holy temple," corresponds there
" the Lord goes forth from his place, and comes down,'' from which
it also appears, that by the temple, the heavenly temple is to be
understood. We have, therefore, in v. 2-4, the description of a sublime the-
ophany before us, not for the partial judgment of Judah, but for the
judgment of the whole world, the nations of which are admonished
to assemble themselves before their judge, whom the prophet sees
already to approach, to come down out of his glorious dwelling-place
in heaven, accompanied by the signs of his power, the precursors of
the judgment, and dumb and silent, to wait his judicial and penal
sentence. But how is it then to be explained, that in the words " for the sins
of Jacob is all this," &c., there is a sudden transition to the judg
ment upon Israel, and, indeed, that the prophet proceeds, as though
Israel had been the only subject of discourse ? Only by considering
the relation in which both judgments stand to one another, which,
in the idea, and the essence, completely one, are distinguished only
by space, time, and unessential circumstances, so that it can be said,
that the world is already judged in every partial judgment of Israel ;
every previous judgment of the Theocracy is a prediction by matter
of fact of the last and most general. The limitation to one particular
people is only accidental, and owing to the existence of the condi
tions, on which the Divine penal justice is to be realized only among
this people ; as soon as the carcase is extended over the whole earth,
then the eagles also collect over the whole. Comp. Vol. II. p. 369,
and the essay Die Zukunft des Herrn nach Matt. c. 24, in the Ev.
K. Z. 1832, Sept. In consequence, however, of this essential unity
of the Divine judgments, the prophets, in order to increase the dread
of the Divine majesty, often describe a previous one ; limited to the
covenant people, under the form of the last and general. In order to

184 MICAH.
express the thought, that it is the judge of the world, who will judge
Israel, they made him appear for the judgment of the whole world,
which, indeed, in Israel, a world in itself, was actually judged. A
completely analogous case, we have, e. g., in Is. 2 — 4. That in chap.
2, after the prophet has described in a few strong lines the moral
reprobation of the covenant people, v. 6-9, and designated their
haughtiness as its last source, the subject of discourse is the last
judgment of the whole earth, can be denied only by the most forced
interpretation ; a judgment whereby the vanity of all created things,
and the exaltation of the Creator alone, concealed during the present
course of the world, will be most clearly revealed and acknowledged
by those who now close their eyes against them. The sublimity of
the vvhole description, the express mention of the whole earth, e. g.,
2 : 19, the selection of the high and lofty which should be humbled,
in the individualizing description, v. 12 sq., not out of Judah alone,
but the compass of the whole world, are sufficient evidence. In
chap. 3 : 1 sq., however, the prophet suddenly proceeds to the typi
cal judgment of Judah, and that he regards this object, not as one ab
solutely new, but rather as substantially the same with the preceding,
appears from 'J at the beginning, which calls to mind the mode in
which, in the prophecies of the Lord Jesus, the references to the de
struction of Jerusalem, and those to the judgment of the world are
combined with one another. Nor is it merely in prophecy, that this
close connexion of the judgment of the world with the inferior judg
ment of the covenant people appears. Thus, Ps. 82 : 8, after the
unrighteousness prevailing among the covenant people has been de
scribed, the Lord is summoned to the judgment, not, indeed, of them
alone, but of the whole earth.
The prophet, therefore, in v. 5, makes a transition from the gene
ral manifestation of the Divine justice to the special, among the
covenant people, and mentions here as the most prominent points
which it would strike, Samaria and Jerusalem, the two chief cities,
from which the apostasy from the Lord extended itself over the rest
of the land. That he first mentions Samaria, and then, v. 6, 7, de
scribes its destruction by the Assyrians, before that of Jerusalem, is
owing to the fact, that the apostasy there first took place, and conse
quently the punishment was hastened, which latter, a mere conse
quence of the former, the interpreters, for the most part, after the
example of Jerome, render exclusively prominent At the same
time, the prophet wished first to finish with Samaria, that he might

CHAP. 1 AND 2. 185
then be entirely occupied with Judah and Jerusalem, the chief ob
ject of his prophetic agency.
The transition he makes, v. 8, with the vyords " On that account
I will lament and howl, go naked and bare, set up lamentations like
the jackals, and mourning like the ostriches." It is generally sup
posed, that the prophet here speaks in his own person. So, e. g.,
Rosenm. : " Tot ac tanta, qua Israelitidi genti imminent infortunia
vates acerbo planciu luget." The correct view is, however, rather,
that the prophet, as he sees in inward vision the Divine judg
ment, instead of stopping at Samaria, pour itself, like a desolating
stream, over Judah and Jerusalem, suddenly sinks his own conscious
ness in that of the suffering people ; that, accordingly, we have here
an incomplete symbolic action similar to the finished one which oc
curs, e. g,, Is, 20 : 3, 4, which can be explained only from our view
of the nature of prophecy, according to which the dramatic charac
ter is inseparable from it, and the transition from the mere descrip
tion of what is present in vision, to the prophet's own action, is easy.
In favor of our view, besides the passage before us, are the following
grounds. 1, The predicates Stb' and Dii;^ cannot be explained on
the supposition, that the prophet describes only his own painful sen
sations, in view of the condition of his people. Even if Dii;; stood
alone, the explanation by nudus, i. e, vesiitu solile et decente privatus,
aut contra squalente et pannoso indutus, would be destitute of proof.
In every example, a designation of the outward habit of the mourn
ers, as nakedness, is wanting. Still, greater, however, is the caprice
in respect to ^V^i whether, with several Jewish interpreters, — who
had better, in the explanation of the passage, have followed the Chal
dee, which gives the correct interpretation, when, rejecting the figura
tive representation, it substitutes the third person for the first (ob id
plangent et ululabunt, ibunt nudi, etc.), — it be explained by spoliatus
mente pra ingenti animi dolere, or, with most Christian commenta
tors, by badly clothed. The interpretation, robbed, plundered, is the
only established one. How little need there is in respect to both
words, to depart from the obvious interpretation, is sufficiently evi
dent from the parallel passages, where nakedness appears as a char
acteristic mark of captives taken in war. Thus, immediately, v. 11,
"Go away, thou inhabitant of Saphir, having thy shame naked,"
on which Mich. : " Nudo corpore, ut accidit iis, qui deiractis vestibus
abducuntur in captivitatem." Thus, Is. 20 : 3, 4, " And the Lord
said. As my servant Isaiah goes naked and barefoot three years for a
VOL. III. 24

186 MICAH.
sign and a wonder upon Egypt, and upon Ethiopia, so shall the king
of Assyria lead away the prisoners from Egypt, and the prisoners
from Ethiopia, young and old, naked and barefoot," comp. 47 : 3. —
2. 'niffSsinn in v, 10, favors the supposition, that the prophet here
comes forward as a representative of the future condition of his
people. 'K'bDnn, the imper. fem. of the marginal reading, is mani
festly, as usual, only an offspring of the embarrassment and igno
rance of the Massorites, The reading of the text can be pointed
only as the first person of the prat. ; for the understanding of Rosen
miiller as a second person of the prat, with an optative sense, is
grammatically inadmissible. Correctly Riickert, " In the house of
dust I have strewed dust upon me." If, now, it must here be assum
ed, that the prophet makes a sudden transition from an address to
his unhappy people, to a representation of them himself, why may
not this supposition be the natural one in v. 8 ?
The correctness of the view we have given, is confirmed, when
we compare the similar lamentations of the jwophets in other pas
sages. In all, the result is the same. In Jer. 48 : 31, c. g.,
" Therefore will I howl for Moab, and I will cry out for all Moab,
for the men of Kirharesh will he sigh," the he in the last member,
shows of itself, how the / in the two first is to be understood, es
pecially when Is. 16 : 7 is compared. " Therefore Moab howls for
Moab." If, now, in .Teremiah, this interpretation is the true one, so
must it be also in the passage of Is. 15 : 5, " My heart cries out for
Moab," which he had in view, and .the more so, since in the pas
sage chap. 16: 9-11, where a similar lamentation on account of
Moab occurs, " Therefore do I bewail as for Jazer, for the vine of
Sibmah, I water thee with my tears, O Heshbon and Elealah. —
Wherefore my bowels sound like an harp for Moab, iny inward parts
for Kirharesh ; " the supposition of a lamentation of the prophet, ex
pressing his own distress, is unsuitable, as the Chaldee paraphrast
perceived, who renders " my bowels," by viseere Moabitarum, and
Vitringa has well pointed out : " Etsi affectus commiserationis non
dedeceat prophetam, nemo tamen facile sibi persuadeat, vites Sibma
et Jazera et messem fruciuum astivorum populi hostilis et adversarii
• populi dei usque adeo cura esse prophet<s, ut inde capture velit argu-
mendum fletus." In the prophecy of Isaiah against Babylon, chap.
21, in the lamentations contained in v. 3 and 4, " Therefore are my
loins filled with pain, pangs have taken hold upon me, as the pangs
of a woman that travaileth, &.c. The night of my pleasure hath

CHAP, 1 AND 2, 187
he turned into fear unto me," the last words clearly show how such
complaints are to be understood. By the night of pleasure, can be
understood, especially after a comparison of Jeremiah, only the night
of the capture of Babylon, in which the city was given up to drunk
enness and riot. Of this night, however, the precursor of the long
desired day for Israel, the prophet cannot possibly say, that it had
been turned into feai: for him. The whole lamentation is either ab
surd, or the prophet comes forward in the person of Babylon, and
not, indeed, of the Babylon of the present, but of the future, which,
even those must confess, who assert a later composition of the por
tion, so that on this side its genuineness is unassailable.
In V. 9 sq. the prophet returns from the symbolic action, to which
he had been led by his emotions, to a quiet description. The theme
of which he gives in the words " it comes to Judah to the gate of
my people, to Jerusalem," He endeavours to give a lively view of
these thoughts by individualization. After having commenced with
an allusion to the elegy of David upon Saul and Jonathan, 2 Sam,
1 : 20 (comp. Reland, Pal. p, 534), he designates the stations by
which the hostile army advances towards Jerusalem, and then causes
it to spread from there over the whole land, and carry away the in
habitants into exile. But he always chooses those places whose
names allow of some sort of connexion with that which they now
suffer. So that the whole section forms a chain of paronomasias.
The question still arises, in what event did the threatening con
tained in chap. 1, so far as it related to Judah, find its fulfilment.
It is supposed to be the Assyrian invasion by Theod. and Cyril,
Tarnov, Mark, Jahn, and ,others ; the carrying away by the Chalde
ans, after Jerome (" Et idem peccatutn, imo eadem poena peccati, qua
evertet Samarium, veniet usque ad.Judam, et usque ad portam urbis
mea Hierusulem. Ut enim, Sumaria subversa est ab Assyriis, ita
Juda et Hierusalem subvertentur a Chaldais "), by Michaelis and
others. The former view is favored at first sight by the immediate connex
ion of the judgment upon Judah, with that upon Israel. This argu
ment, however, loses its force by the remark, that the events appear
ed to the prophet in inward vision, therefore without their relations
to time, that the continuity of the judgment upon Israel and upon
Judah, only clearly presents the idea, that both are a result of the
same cause, the relation of the Divine .justice to the sins of the
covenant people. This idea alone is the essence, the animating

188 MtCAH.
principle of the prophetic threatening, behind which, the difference
of time, as being accidental, generally appears entirely in the back
ground. Another reason for the Assyrian invasion, might be taken
from the expression, " to Jerusalem," in v. 9, as the Chaldean in
vasion visited also Jerusalem itself But the preceding, " to Judah,"
as the calamity was by no means to stop at Judah, but overwhelm it,
shows, that n^ (comp. on the word, Beitr. I. p. 66) in both instances,
must be explained by a silent anthhesis, with the expectation, that
the judgment would either stop on the borders of Judah, or if this
were not the case, would at least spare the capital. The prophet here
contents himself with representing this expectation as false. That
Jerusalem itself is still to be considered an object of the Divine
judgment appears not, indeed, from this passage, from which nothing
can be certainly inferred, but from the following grounds. Even
v. 5 does not allow us to expect any thing else. Jerusalem is there
designated as the chief seat, and the source of the corruption in the
kingdom of Judah, precisely as Samaria is in the kingdom of Israel.
The declaration there made, forms the ground work of the fdlowing
threatening. How, then, while the punishment in the kingdom of
Israel is concentrated upori Samaria, should the seducer be entirely
passed over in the kingdom of Judah, and only the seducedhe threat
ened ? That this is not the design of the prophet is clear from the
words V. 12, " for evil cnmes down from the Lord to the gate of Je
rusalem." It is evident from '3, that these words do not mean, that
the calamity should reach only to the gate of Jerusalem, and there
stop. They are shown by this particle to be the ground of the
declaration in v. 11, that the mourning of the people should not reach
its end at Beth-Haezel, the house of standing still (comp. Vol, II.
p. 263). But the words, independent of this connexion, furnish a
proof by themselves. They contain a verbal reference to the de
scription of the judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen. 19 : 24.
Jerusalem is designated by them as a second Sodom (comp. Is. 1 :
10), upon which the Divine judgments would discharge themselves.
To this extension to Jerusalem, is then added, as a second mark,
the carrying away of the people into captivity, comp. v. 11, 15, 16 ;
this is also iu the promise, chap. 2:12, 13, supposed to have already
taken place. Not Israel alone, but the whole covenant people are in
a state of dispersion, and are collected out of it by the Lord.
Now both marks do not suit the Assyrian invasion, and conse
quently, if we admit the divine illumination of the prophet, this

CHAP. 1 AND 2. 189
cannot be regarded as the proper object of his threatening. This is,
indeed, inadmissible, even if we view the subject in a purely human
light The predictions of the prophets in reference to the Assyrians,
are, from the commencement, encouraging. The Assyrians were, in
deed, to be the Lord's rod of correction for bis people, but they were
never to effect their total ruin. By an immediate Divine interposition,
their plan of capturing Jerusalem was frustrated. So, perpetually in
Is., so Hos. 1 : 7, where, after the annunciation of the overthrow of
Israel by the Assyrians, it is said, " and I will have compassion on
the house of Judah, and give them prosperity in Jehovah their God."
We can even bring the proof from our prophet himself, that his
spiritual eye was not chiefly, or, at least, exclusively, directed to the
Assyrians. In the prophecy chap. 3 — 5, where he describes the
judgment upon Judah in entirely the same manner as here, he passes
over the Assyrians in silence. Babylon is mentioned, chap. 4 : 10,
as the place whither Judah should be carried away into exile.
Still, however, we must here, as always in respect to the threaten
ings and promises of the prophets, be on our guard, fost, in referring
to one particular historical event, we lose sight of the idea which
lies at the foundation. If this is rightly understood, it becomes
evident, that a particular historical event can, indeed, be chiefly re
garded, but can never exhaust the prophecy ; that in the case before
us we must by no means, on account of the chief reference to the
Chaldean destruction, exclude that in which before, as in the inva
sion of the Syrians and the Assyrians, or afterwards, in the destruc
tion by the Romans, the same law of retribution was realized. That
dead understanding of the prophecies in former times, whereby,
separated from the idea, they became like the predictions of sooth
sayers, has contributed much to produce the other extreme, the entire
departure from historical grounds. He only who combines both,
can avoid the numberless caprices which each of these extremes
must necessarily bring with it.
The prophet, having hitherto described in general terms the im
pending Divine judgment, proceeds, chap. 2, to chastise particular
vices, which, however, are at the same time to be considered chiefly
as indexes of the depraved condition of the people, and of the pun
ishment to ensue. What he here has especially in view, what, there
fore, must have been, at the time of the composition, a peculiarly
prominent manifestation of depravity, are the unrighteous acts, and
the oppressions of the great, the representation of which presents a

190 MICAH.
striking similarity to that of Is. chap. 5 : 8 sq. The prophet inter
rupts this description, only to refute the false prophets, who charged
him with the severity of his discourses, and asserted, that they were
unworthy of the merciful God. This severity, replies the prophet,
is true mildness, since it only can avert the impending judgment ;
his God does not punish from want of longsuffering, or from unmer-
cifulness, but the guilt lies with the transgressors, who have violently
drawn upon themselves his judgments.
The prophecy closes with the promise in v. 12, 13. It is intro
duced entirely separate, in order to place it in stronger contrast with
the threatening. It is but brief, far briefer than in the following dis
courses, and enters far less into detail. The prophet would first
terrify the sinners out of their security, he therefore causes only a
feeble glimmer of hope to fall on the dark picture. " Collect, yea
collect will I, O Jacob, thee wholly, collect the remnant of Israel.
Together will I bring them us the sheep of Bozruh, as a flock upon
their pasture, they shall make a tumult before men. The breaker
goes forth before them, they break through, pass through the gate,
and go forth, and their king marches before them, und the Lord in
their front."
The whole description receives much light from the remark, that
its lines are nearly all borrowed from the deliverance out of Egypt.
Israel there, under oppression and affliction, constantly increased in
numbers by the Lord's blessing concealed under the cross, comp.
Exod. 1 : 12 ; when the time of redemption came, the Lord, who
had long remained concealed, again made himself known as their
God ; in the first place the people were collected, — then the Lord
marched before them in a pillar of cloud by day, and in a pillar of
fire by night, Exod. 13 : 21. He led them out of Egypt the house
of bondmen, Exod. 20 : 2. Just so here also. The increase and
asseniMing are described v, 12, the deliverance, v. 13; here, as
there, Israel's affliction is exhibited under the image of a residence
in the house of bondage, or prison, whose gates the Lord opens,
whose walls he breaks through. In this leaning to the former de
liverance, which has its deeper ground in the typical import of the
latter, a matter-of-fact prediction of all later deliverances, and which
fully contains in itself their germ, and their pledge, Micah harmon
izes with his contemporaries Hosea and Isaiah; comp. Hos. 2 : 1, 2;
Is. 11 : 11 sq., " The Lord will stretch forth his hand a second time
to redeem the remnant of his people. And he raises a standard for

CHAP. 1 AND 2. 191
the heathen, and unites the dispersed of Israel, and collects the
scattered of Judah from the four borders of the earth. And the
Lord smites with a curse the tongue of the sea of Egypt, and swings
his hand over the Euphrates in the violence of his wind, and smites
it to seven floods, that one can wade through with shoes. And there
shall be a way for the remnant of his people,-^ as there was to Isra
el in the day of his Exodus from Egypt." This reference to the
typical deliverance, clearly shows, that in the description, the idea
and its clothing must be separated from one another. Vol. L p. 236.
V. 12. The eniphasis which lies on collect, in contrast with the
previously announced carrying away and dispersion, which, accord
ing to human view, and apart from God's mercy and omnipotence,
seemed to admit of no favorable turn, is expressed by the infin. ubsol.,
premised in both members. By Jacob and Israel, several interpre
ters understand Judah, others the ten tribes alone, others both to
gether. The last view is the only correct one. This appears from
V. 5, where, by Jacob and Israel, the whole nation is designated.
The promise in the passage before us stands in a close relation to
the threatening which is there found. All Israel is given up by their
sins to destruction, all Israel is delivered by the mercy of God.
This view is confirmed by a comparison of the parallel passages of
Hosea and Isaiah, where the whole is designated by its two parts,
Judah and Israel. Micah leaves this division here unnoticed, be
cause the visible separation was already overbalanced by an invisible
unity, and in the future, when, as there should be one shepherd, so
also would there be one flock, would entirely disappear. — The rem
nant of Israel corresponding in the second member to " Jacob, thee
wholly," shows that the realization of the promise, far from doing
away the threatening, rather rests on its previous accomplishment.
Wholly collected will be the Church of God, purified by the Divine
judgments, the Divine mercy has no limits in itself, and those at
present existing in its object, will then be removed. — The words
" together will I bring," &c., show, at the same time, the faithful
ness of the great shepherd, who collects his scattered flock out of
all regions, and the unexpected and wonderful increase of this flock,
comp. Jer. 23 : 3, " And I will collect the remnant of my flock out
of all lands, whither I have driven them, and I lead them back to
their pasture grounds, and they are fruitful and increase;" 31 : 10,
" He who scatters Israel, will collect them, and they are fruitful and
increase." We take Bozrah as the name of the capital of the Idu-

192 MICAH.
means in Auranitis, four days' journey from Damascus (comp.
Biisching, Th. 11, 1. p. 501 ; Ritter, II. p. 355 sq. ; Gesen. zu Jes.
34 : 6). The great wealth of this city in herds appears from Is.
34 : 6, and may be easily explained by its position. In its neigh
bourhood, particularly, begins the immeasurable Arabian plain,
which extends on the one side without interruption to Dschof in the
heart of Arabia, and reaches northwards under the name of El
Hamad to Bagdad. Its length and breadth are reckoned at eight
days' journey. It contains an abundance of flourishing plants,
comp. Ritter,*l. c. Several (Gesenius, Winer, Riickert) take n'j^a
as appell. in the sense fold, stall But to this it may be objected,
1. That in the words " as the flock," (fee, the idea of multitude
should be expressed, seems to be evident from the last words of the
verse. This idea, however, is, to say the least, more clearly ex
pressed, if Bozrah be taken as nom. propr. 2. For the use of Boz
rah as appell. in the sense ^oc^, there is no argument ; against it is
the probable meaning of the name of the city n^sj, locus munitus
= "ly^p or p'1S3. It is hard to suppose, that the word should have
at the same time the meaning strong-hold and stall 3. According
to this interpretation, n^JfJ I>5S3 could mean nothing else than " as
sheep of the stall." This, however, has something strange. We
cannot perceive why the sheep should be designated as stalled sheep,
unless, indeed, the stall and the narrow pasture are taken as stand
ing in the antithesis with the wandering of the sheep, dispersed over
mountain and hill. In which case the reference to the multitude
would first appear in the last words of the verse. The matter closely
examined has this much in its favor, and we should be almost led to
adopt this interpretation were it not for the reason. No. 2. That the
tertium comparutionis is to be sought in the assembling, in antithesis
with the dispersion, seems to lie already in the words, " together will
I bring them." This supposition is confirmed by the comparison of
the parallel passage, chap. 4 : 6, 7, where, in like manner, the collec
tion and union of the dispersed herd, constitute the central point.
From this, it appears that the first ground has no force. The multi
tude comes under consideration here only as a necessary consequence
of the collection. But on this account, perhaps, the understanding
of Bbzruh as a nom. propr., is not to be rejected. If we think only
of the flocks of Bozrah as being not merely numerous, but at the
same time as crowded together, we gain the same tertium compai-a-
tionis, and also the advantage of an individualization, which is better

CHAP. 1 AND 2. 193
suited to the prophetic character, than the more general expression.
— nj'nn from "i^"', pasture, is, contrary to the general rule, doubly
defined, by the article and by the suff. Ewald (p, 581) explains this
by supposing that the light suff. has gradually lost its force. But it
is, perhaps, easier to assume, that the article sometimes lost its force
and coalesced with the noun, analogous to the frequent use of the
stat. emphat. with indefinite nouns in the Syriac (comp. Hofmann
Gramm. Syr. p. 290). — The last Words graphically describe the
tumult, which a numerous and closely compacted flock occasions.
The plur. of the fem. relates to the sheep. ]p designates the effi
cient cause. They make a tumult, and this tumult proceeds from
(collected in numbers) men. Jerome: " Ac ne forsitun puies, quia
dixi: ponam ilium quasi gregem in ovili et quasi pecus in medio
caularum, de ovibus me loqui, intellige, quod eves ista homines sint ;
sequitur enim : tumultuabuntur a multitudine hominum." > The same
combination of image and reality is found in Ezek. 34 : 31, " And
ye (I'^Ki) are my flock, my pasture-flock are ye men," comp. 36 : 38.
V. 13. The whole verse is to be explained by the figure, lying at
the foundation, of a prison, in which the people of God are shut up,
but are now to be delivered by the powerful hand of God. By the
breaker-through, many interpreters understand, the Lord himself
But if vve observe, that the Lord is regarded, in a double member at
the end of the verse, as the leader of the expedition ; if we look at
the example of the deliverance out of Egypt, where Moses, as the
breaker-through, marches in the front of Israel, at the parallel passage
of Hosea, where the sons of Israel and Judah set up for themselves
one head, with manifest allusion to that example, we shall feel in
clined to understand by the breaker through, the dux et antesignanus
raised up by God. With the raising up and preparing of such a
leader, every divine deliverance begins, and what the typical leader,
a Moses, a Zerubbabel, was in the inferior deliverances, that was
Christ in the highest and last. Already several Jewish interpreters
have regarded him as the breaker-through in this passage (Schottgen,
Hora, II. p. 212), and if we compare chap. 5, where what is here
sketched in general, is further carried out, we shall have in respect
to this interpretation only to object, that it excludes the typical
breakers-through, and in the place of the ideal person of the breaker-
through, which presented itself to the prophet in inward vision,
places the individual in whom this idea was most completely realized.
The words "ygM naj^!! are by most interpreters referred to the
VOL. III. 25

194 MICAH.
forcing of the hostile gates. Thus, Michaelis, whom Rosenmiiller fol
lows : " Nullu erit tum munita porta, qua eos ub ingressu arcere
possit." But this interpretation destroys the whole figure, and vio
lates the type of the deliverance from Egypt, which lies at the foun
dation. The gate which is broken through, is certainly the gate of
the prison. The three verbs, they " break through," they " pass
through," they " go forth," vividly describe the progress which can
be hindered by no human power. — The last words give a view of the
highest leader of the expedition, comp., besides Exod. 13 : 21, Is.
52 : 12, " For ye shall not march out with trembling, and ye shall
not go by flight. For the Lord marches before you, and the God of
Israel closes your rear." 40: 11, Ps. 80: 3. In the Exodus from
Egypt, besides Moses, the breaker-through, a visible symbol of the
presence of God went before the host. On the return from Baby
lon, the angel of the Lord was visible only to the eye of faith, as
formerly, when Abraham's servant journeyed to Mesopotamia, Gen-
24 : 7. In the last and highest deliverance, the breaker-through was
at the same time the king and God of the people.
As the prophecy throughout contains in itself no limitation, we
are fully justified in referring it to the whole compass of the pros
perity destined for the covenant people, and in seeking its fulfilment
in every event of the past or the future, in the same measure in
which the ground idea, God's mercy towards his people, is therein
revealed. Every limitation to any single event is clearly inadmissi
ble. And most of all, its limitation to the deliverance from the exile,
which can be regarded, particularly in reference to Israel, only as a
faint prelude to the fulfilment. Those have come nearest to the
truth, who assume an exclusive reference to Christ, provided they
acknowledge, that the conversion of the first-fruits of Israel, at the
time of his appearance in humiliation, is not the end of his dealings
with this people.
We cite, in conclusion, the following words of Luther on the pas
sage : " Hactenus hortatus est propheta populum ad pceniientiam et
opposuit cogitaiianes dei cogitationibus impiorum et securorum hemi-
num., qui rerum potiebantur et libere faciebant quidquid libebat.
Nunc trdnsitione utitur. Trunsfert enim sermonem a prasenti
periculo et corporali regno ad regnum Christi spirituale. Hie enim
prophetarum mos est. Postquam impios secure peccantes castigarunt,
ac pradixerunt futuram vastitatem, tundem etiam de regno Christi

CHAP. 3 — 5. 195
atei-no concionaniur. Idque propter, pios, nen solum ut hoc mode eos
consolentur, sed etiam ut spem uugeant, ne metu corporulium incom-
modorum de regno Christi desperent."

Chap. 3 — 5.

The discourse begins with a new chastisement and threatening.
It is directed in the first place, v. 1 - 4, against the covetous and
cruel great men ; it then passes over, v. 5-7, to the fal.se prophets.
The prophet, in passing, contrasts their hypocritical, feeble, selfish
character, with that of the true pixiphet, represented by his person,
who, with power constantly renewed, by the Spirit of the Lord, serves
only the truth eMd right, and holds up to the people, led astray by
the false prophets, their sins, v. 8. The prophet proceeds to do this,
V. 9 - 12. The three ordei;^ of the divinely called leaders of the
Theocracy, on which the life or death of the community ,hung, the
princes, the priests, and the prophets (comp. Vol- II. p. 173), are so
degenerated, that God's glory is nothing, their own advantage every
thing, and, in this inward apostasy, the promises, which God gave to
his people, and which, in hypocritical self-deception, and without re
gard to their condition, they appropriate to themselves, serve to
strengthen them in their security. But God, in a terrible manner,
will punish them for their apostasy, and drive them from this security.
The inwardly profaned Theocracy shall be outwardly profaned also
(comp. Vol. IL p. 362). Zion becomes a common ploughed field ;
Jerusalem, the city of God, sinks in rubbish and ruins ; the temple-
mountain becomes again what it had been before it was God's seat, a
thickly wooded hill, which, now appearing in its natural inferiority,
stands entirely in the back ground in comparison with the nearer
mountains. Still, the infidelity of the covenant people cannot make void God's
faithfulness. The prophet, therefore, makes a sudden transition from
the threatening to the promise. The relation of the two to one
another, Calvin thus designates : " Est nunc quod ugam cum paucis.
Ego hactenus disserui de propinquo dei judicio apud regis consiliari-
os, apud sucerdotes et prophetas, denique upud plebem ipsum, quia
omnes sunt sceleruti et impii, contemtus dei et desperata etiam obsti-

196 MICAH.
natio pervasit toium corpus. Hubeant igitur illi, quod meriti sunt.
Sed jam seorsim colligo filios dei. Habeo enim, quod illis dicam in
aurem. The exact relation in which the first part of the promise stands to
the preceding threatening, has already (p. 179) been pointed out.
For the illustration of v. 1 - 3, we refer to Vol. I. p. 290. We only
remark, that the translation of the words there given, " for from
Zion goes forth a law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,"
now appears to us to be rejected, and that by Vitringa, which was
there mentioned, as the true one. tTjin never has, any more than
Viprpn, the sense doctrine, religion, but always that of law. Zion,
the residence of the true God, from which he sends out his com
mands over the whole earth, forms the most suitable antithesis to
" Zion will be ploughed as a field," and at the same time the most
suitable foundation for the flowing of the nations to the mountain of
the Lord. To this we may add the comparison of A 7 and 8, where
Zion in like manner appears as the seat of the dominion.
^From V. 4 - 7 the blessing is described, which that great revolution
of things should diffuse over the covenant people. In reference to
V. 4, comp, Vol. II. p. 41. In reference to v. 6 and 7, above, p. 192.
Explanation is required only of the words, which, as far as we know,
have been uniformly misunderstood by the interpreters. V. 5,- " For
all nations will walk, each one in the name of his God, and we will
walk in the name of the Lord our God, for ever and ever." After
the example of several others, Justi, whom Rosenmiiller follows, ex
plains, " Let them walk, let them worship their idols. Although all
nations still choose to be idolaters, we Jews will still truly reverence
Jehovah.'' But against this explanation he himself bears witness,
when he very candidlly subjoins, " thus this verse does not appear
accurately to correspond with the foregoing." And yet such a cor
respondence is indispensably required by '3. More regard is paid to
its import by another explanation (Tarnov, Michaelis, and others),
" Surely so splendid a lot must be ours, for we are steadfast worship
pers of the true God, while all other nations walk after their idols."
But this explanation is contradicted by the unusual grounding of the
prosperity on the covenant steadfastness of the people, instead of the
grace and faithfulness of God, the double use of the fut., when,
instead, the prat, would rather be expected, at least in the first
member, and especially by " for ever and ever." That the true
interpretation was not perceived, can be explained only by a mistake

CHAP. 3—5. 197
of the deeper import, which the name of God has in the Scripture,
This is more than a mere sound, it is the transcript of bis being,
this being itself, so far as it communicates itself outwardly, and
makes itself known. " To walk in the name of the Lord," accord
ingly, means to enjoy a lot in which the whole excellence of this
name expresses itself; and the sense of the whole verse is, " that the
Theocracy will be exalted from the deepest debasement to the high
est elevation, over all the kingdoms of the world, the people of which
shall joyfully become subject to it, should not awaken your wonder,
it is entirely natural." The lot of every people corresponds to the
nature of their God. Why then should not all other nations be hum
bled, since their gods are idols ; Israel, on the contrary, exalted, and
gifted with eternal prosperity, since his God is the only true God ?
A parallel passage, according to this interpretation, which is also
confirmed by Is. 2:5 (comp. p. 179), we find. Is. . 45 : 16, 17,
" They shall be ashamed, and also confounded all of them, the
makers of idols shall be disgraced ; but Israel shall be saved by the
Lord with an everlasting salvation ; ye shall not be ashamed nor dis
graced to all eternity." Comp. still on Zech. 10 : 12. The last
words of V. 7, " and the Lord reigns over them upon Mount Zion,"
are happily illustrated by Calvin thus : " Mich, hie non pesieres
Duvidis, sed Jehovum ipsum nominal, non ut excludat regnum illud
Davidis, sed ut ostendat deum palam facturum se auctorem illius
regni esse, imo Se ipsum tenere totam potentiam ; nam quamvis per
manum Davidis gubernaverit deus veierem populum, per manum
Josia et Ezechia, tamen fuit quasi interposita umbra, ut deus ob
scure tunc regnaret. Propheta ergo hie exprimit aliquod discrimen
inter umbratile illud regnum, et posterius novum, quod adventu Mes
sia deus palam faciurus erat. — Et hoc vere ac solide impletum fuit
in Christi persona. Tametsi enim Christus fuit verum semen Da
vidis, tamen simul etiam fuit Jehova, nempe deus manifestatus in
came." Only it must be observed, in respect to this promise also,
that it will first be finally fulfilled in the future, by the establishment
of the kingdom of glory (comp. Matt. 19 : 28).
The prophet had hitherto described the new kingdom to be erected
only as a kingdom of God, without mentioning a channel by which
bis mercy should be poured upon the church ; a mediator, who
should represent him in the midst of her. This representation,
therefore, was still defective. It still wanted a connexion with the
promise imparted to David, and so much extolled by him and other

198 MICAH.
holy singers and prophets, of an eternal dominion of his tribe, ac
cording to which every great manifestation of favor must be medi
ated by a sprout of this stock, which must form the constant sub
stratum for the most complete manifestation of the Divine power,
and the Divine Being. This connexion is furnished by v. 8, " And
thou, O tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, unto thee
will it come ; and the former dominion, the kingdom of the daughter
of Jerusalem, attains to thee." 'I'he interpreters all agree, that by
the tower of the flock, and by the hill of the daughter of Zion, the
stock of David is designated ; but they differ very much in reference
to the ground of this designation. Very many of them (Grotius,
and among the moderns, Rosenmiiller, Winer, Gesenius, De Wette)
think of " the tower of the flock," in the vicinity of which Jacob, ac
cording to Gen. 35 : 21, took up his residence for a time. This
"tower of the flock," say they, was situated, according to Jerome, in
the neighbourhood of Bethlehem. Now it stands here hy metahpsis
for Bethlehem, and by Bethlehem again, the stock of David is desig
nated, so that the passage entirely coincides with chap. 5 : 1. But,
more closely examined, thisinterpretation appears untenable. 1. It is
any thing but made out, that the abovementioned " tower of the flock "
was situated in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem. This is by no
means proved by the passage of Genesis, and just as little can it be
shown out of Jerome. He says in the Quastt. ud Genes. Opp. HI.
p. 145, Frcf , after he has cited the opinion of the Jews, who under
stand by the tower of the flock, the place where the temple was
afterwards built, " Sed si sequumur ordinem via, pastorum juxta
Bethlehem locus est, ubi vel angelorum grex in ortu domini cecinit,
vel Jacob pecora sua pavit, loco nomen imponens, vel quod verius est,
quodum vaticinio futurum jam tunc mysterium monstrabatur." Ac
cording to this, Jerome knew nothing at all of a " tower of the
flock" at Bethlehem ; that it lay thereabouts, he surmises only from
the conduct of Jacob ; and because a place, pastorum locus, was
still found in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, he explains this by
mere conjecture, as identical with "the tower of the flock," but is,
however, so cautious, as not directly to reject the only true deriva
tion of this name from the shepherds at the birth of Christ. By
this passage, must the other from the book De Locis Hebr. he judg
ed, where Jerome delivers his conjecture precisely as historic truth,
" Bethlehem civilas David — et mille circiter passibus procul turris
Ader, qua interpretatur turris gregis, quodam vaticinio pastares

CHAP. 3 — 5. 199
dominica nativitatis conscios ante significans." How little tradition
knew of any " tower of the flock " in the neighbourhood of Bethle
hem, appears also from Eusebius, Onom. s. v. Gader, p. 79, ed.
Cleric. : ra8eg nvgyog 'iv&a xaxoixria avxog xov laxa^ Pov§lv xfi BdXa
inaviaxaxQ. Eusebius plainly knows nothing further concerning
"the tower of the flock," than what we also might learn from the
passage of Genesis. He does not once venture a conjecture respect
ing its locality. Similar ignorance is shown by the Hebrews cited
by Jerome, who certainly would not have thought of the reference to
the temple, if such a place as a tower of the flock had existed in
the neighbourhood of Bethlehem. Even assuming its nearness to
Bethlehem, what is it but mere caprice, when one, without any
ground for the substitution, directly asserts, that "the tower of the
flock" stands for Bethlehem? Rosenmiiller has at least felt this.
He makes an effort to give such a reason, " Quod autem pro Beth-
lehemo ignobilem vicum in ejus vicinia substiiuit — indicare voluit
regnum Davidicum prorsus debilitatum et deminutum" But this
ground is by no means sufficient. Bethlehem was already of itself
so small, that it needed no farther diminution, comp. 5 : 1. It had,
moreover, always beeu small, and had not, perhaps, declined from its
greatness in the course of time, so as to give a propriety to such a
designation here, in antithesis with its former glory ; but even
supposing this were so, this mode of designation would always be
inexplicable, unless a nearer relation of " the tower of the flock " to
the family of David could be assumed. The ability to show such a
nearer relation, would be indispensable to establish the interpreta
tion. It must be assumed, that Bethlehem and its district was the i
general, "the tower of ihe flock" the especial, residence of the
family of David. But there is not the smallest ground for this as
sumption. Everywhere Bethlehem itself appears as the residence
of Jesse, David's father ; comp. 1 Sara. 16:1, 18, 19, 17:12,
and likewise of Boaz, Ruth 2 : 4. Still more clearly incorrect is
another interpretation, according to which, by "the tower of the
flock," is understood a tower which is alleged to have stood at Jeru
salem by the sheep-gate. The existence of such a tower, proved by
no evidence, is by no means made probable by the existence of a
sheep-gate ; for " a tower of the flock" is not a tower which stands
in the gate of a flock, but a tower which serves for the protection of
the flocks, as plainly appears from the Migdal Eder, in Genesis,
And, even allowing the existence of such a tower, what could make
it suitable for a designation of the tribe of David ?

200 MICAH.
We proceed now to the establishment of our interpretation,
whereby at the same time, what has been already remarked against
the others, will be considerably strengthened. Respecting the po
sition of Jerusalem, Josephus remarks (De B. J, I. 6. c. 13), as
follows: "Xnig Sio Xorpiav dvxmgoaanog ixxiaxo, fiiay qidgayyi Sirjgrj-
pivcov, elg ^v indXXrjXot xaxslr/yov olxlai. Tcov 8e X6(fix>v 6 fisv xriv Svco
noXiv i'xiov, viprjXoxegog xs noXXoi xal xo fiijxog l&vxsgog ¦^v. /did yoUiv
Tfjv oxvgoTTjxa (pgovgiov fisv /ta^tSov xoil ^aaiXscog ixaXsho x. x. X. These
two hills are Akra and Zion ; the city placed upon the latter Jo
sephus designates elsewhere also, as very high and steep, e. g. 6 : 40 :
Tijv aVft) noXiv oisgixgrjpvov ovaav. The aspect which the towers
situated upon this steep elevation presented, he compares with that
of the light tower at Alexandria from the sea. B. 6. c. 6 : To ph
axrjfia nagsiaxsu xat xaid xrjV rpdgov ixuvgasvovxi TO~ig in' 'jlXs^av-
8gsiag nXiovai. Compare the similar representation of Tacitus, lib. 5,
Histor. c. 11. {Reland, II. p. 848 sq.)
Above, upon this high and steep elevation in the avm nolig, lay the
royal castle. Neb. 3 : 25, called the upper house of the king. Its
position must have insured to it extraordinary security. This is
shown by the ridicule of the Jebusites, when David, who did not
build, but only enlarge it, wished to capture it They suppose that
the lame and blind would be sufficient for its defence, 2 Sam. 5 :
7-9; comp. Faber's Archaology, p. 191.
Far above this royal castle, which David had already chosen for
his residence, (comp. 2 Sam. 5:9, " And David dwelt in the castle,
and called it the city of David, and enclosed it,") rose a tower, and
presented a majestic appearance. It is often mentioned in the
Scripture ; the principal passage is that of Neb. 3 : 25, " Opposite the
tower which advances from the king's upper house (appositely the
Vulg., qua eminet de demo regis excelsa) to the court of the prison ; "
comp. V. 26, where, in like manner, the advance of the tower, elevated
far above the king's castle, is spoken of Respecting " to the court
of the prison," we receive information from Jer. 32 : 2, " Jeremiah
the prophet lay imprisoned in the court of the prison, n-jMsn l^nn,
which is in the house of the king of Judah," comp. 38 : 6, according
to which, the pit, into which the prophet was let down, was in the
court of the prison. Accordingly, the court of the prison, agreeably
to the oriental custom, formed a part of the royal castle upon Zion
and in this court of the prison rose the tower. The other chief pas
sage is that of Song of Sol. 4:8, " Thy neck, like David's tower, is

CHAP. 3 — 5. 201
built for an armory, a thousand shields are hung thereon, all quivers
of heroes." According to this, the majestic appearance which the
tower presented was increased by the splendid arms which covered
it. Dopke and others think of the armour of conquered heroes ; but
that the passage rather refers to that of David's own heroes, appears
from Ezek. 27 : 10, 11, where it is said of the hired troops of the
Syrians, " shield and helmet they hang up in thee," and is confirmed
by the constant designation of David's faithful friends by his heroes ;
comp. Song of Sol. 3:7, " Sixty heroes stand around (the bed of
the king), of the heroes of Israel." 1 Chron. 12 : 1, " These were
among the heroes helping in the vyar." " ^//<juivers of the heroes,"
shows that the armour of all those who were enrolled in the number
of the heroes, was hung up in that tower as an outward sign and
diploma as it were, of this enrolment. The designation of the tower,
which is still manifestly identical vvith that mentioned by Nehemiah,
as David's tower, refutes the supposition of Le Clerc on Nehemiah,
1. c, that the subject of discourse there is not David's castle on
Zion, but another alleged to have been built by Solomon, and its
tower in the lower city ; a supposition which is disproved, even in the
passage itself; by the designation of the castle as the upper, or
the high.
Now Micah considers this tower as the symbol of the race of
David, and how well it was suited to this purpose, and how naturally
it represented the designated subject, scarcely needs a detailed proof
It was, indeed, the highest part, the castle, which, after the elevation
of the race of David to the regal dignity, had been for centuries,
and still ought to be, the seat of this race. Its elevation symbolized
the fastigium regium; its relation to the rest of the city, which it
overlooked, and commanded, and which looked up to it in wonder,
the relation of the subjects to their king.
Micah designates this tower as " the tower of the flock." The
chief ground of this is to be sought in the immediately preceding
V. 6 and 7. As in chap. 2 : 12, 13, so here also, Micah had repre
sented the covenant people under the image of a flock, which should
be collected out of its di.spersion and estrangement, and protected
against every hostile attack. What now was more natural, than
that he should designate the tower which symbolized in his view the
race by which, under the guidance of the Lord, the assembling should
be affected, in continuation of the image already begun by " the
tower of the flock ? " It is precisely this close connexion with what
VOL. III. 26

202 MICAH.
precedes, which gives an important proof of the correctness of our
interpretation, for which the way was prepared by all those interpre
ters, who, as Jerome, Theodoret, Cyril, Coccej,, Paulus (Ueber die
Evang. I. p. 189), understand T7K ''1^ appellatively, and assume, as
a ground of the appellation, protection and refuge. In the east they
observe, from the towers of the flock, whether beasts of prey or
¦hostile bands are approaching; into them they drive together the
herds, if danger appears, in regions where there are no cities and
villages ; comp. the proofs in Faber, I. c, p, 192 sq, Micah had the
more reason to choose this figurative representation, since he had
the type immediately before his eyes. Uzziah and Jotham, accord
ing to 2 Chron, 26 : 1 0, 27 : 4, erected in the woods, and on the
pastures, castles and towers for the protection and refuge of the
flocks. Besides this chief ground of the designation, there appears
to have been another of a subordinate character. Those who ad
here so closely to " the tower of the flock " in Genesis, are not entirely
mistaken. Tn.K Snjp precisely as it stands here, does not elsewhere
occur, except in the passage in Genesis. If, now, we recollect, that
in Micah, plain references to the Pentateuch occur in other places,
and that, indeed, in comparison with the extent of his prophecies,
they are peculiarly numerous, comp, 2 : 12, 13 (see above), 6 : 4, 5,
7 : 14, where the words TJ3^ 'JDii? receive light only from Numbers
23 : 9, and still more if we consider, that, chap, 5 : 1, the appellation
Bethlehem Ephratah, is taken out of the same 35th chap, of Genesis,
V, 19, in which, v, 21, the mention of "the tower of the flock"
occurs, vve shall surely not be guilty of trifling when we assert, that
the interpretation must be suspected of error, which is unable to
place "the tower of the flock " in Micah, in connexion with that in
Genesis, Ours, however, is by no means liable to this charge.
Wherefore should not Jacob and the tower which he built for the
protection of his literal flock, serve the prophet as a type and a sub
stratum for the spiritual relation which he had in view ? It must
not be overlooked, that the chief and the subordinate ground which
we have assumed run into each other, and stand mutually related as
the general and particular. For that the prophet had especially in
view Jacob's tower of the flock, was owing to its having the nature
of all such towers. The tertium comparationis is not thereby
changed, only the image is rendered more specific, and thereby more
lively and impressive. A retrospect of the pastoral life of the patri
archs, is, iU' general, one ground of the frequent use of images bor-

CHAP. 3-5. 203
rowed from that mode of life. — But in the passage before us, the
image of "the tower of the flock" was the more suitable, since the
founder of the royal house, before he was chosen to be a shepherd
of the people, had been for a long time a shepherd of lambs, and
therefore had himself typified his future condition, a circumstance,
which, in the Scripture itself (comp., e. g,, 2 Sam. 5:2, 7:7), is
often intimated.
After the correct determination of " the tower of the flock," no
great difficulty can remain in the explanation of " hill of the daugh
ter of Zion." The "daughter of Zion," is Zion itself, personified as
a virgin; and when her hill is spoken of, what else could well be
understood, than the mountain of Zion in a narrower sense, the
mountain xax' iioxnv, before which Akra and Moriah are changed
into plains ? We have, then, tbe most suitable relation of the two
designations to one another, "the tower of the flock" is the special,
" the hill of the daughter of Zion," the general ; moreover, a friend
ly harmony with the last words of the verse ; the hill which com
mands the daughter of Zion, physically and morally, is the same
which obtains the dominion over the daughter of Jeriisalem ; finally,
the most appropriate antithesis with chap. 3 : 12.
The passages of the Old Testament, and Josephus, where the men
tion of Ophel as a particular place occurs, are only in apparent contra
diction to the explanation vve have given, comp. Bachiene, II, 1, § 76.
Hamelsveld, II. p. 35 sq. The assumption of several, thatt his Ophel
is a particular hill, comp., e. g., Vitringa, De Temple Ezech. lib. I. c.
3, p. 159, and on Is. 32 : 13, has already been refuted by Reland
(p. 855) and Faber, 1. c. p. 347, by the remark, that Josephus, in
the enumeration of the hills of Jerusalem, does not think of Ophel,
and rather speaks only of the place Ophel. All difficulties which
belong to the other assumptions, are removed by the following view.
hsyT}, the hill xax' iSoX-^v, gradually, in the transition to a proper
name without the article (comp. Ew. p. 568), became the name of
Mount Zion. Hence it happened, for which we find analogies every
where, that the foot of the mountain, the place where it met with
the inferior temple-mountain by a deep valley, eminently, and as it
were as a nom. propr., bore this name. The appellation of the
mountain, or the hill, is, indeed relative, and where the parts, stand
ing in this relation most nearly approached each other, there must
the relation itself be the most obvious. At this foot of Zion, there
fore, opposite the temple, and near to it, dwelt the Nethenim, the

204 MICAH.
servants of the temple, Neh. 3 : 26. And Josephus says, the wall
which surrounded Mount Zion extended on the east to the place
which was called Ophel, and terminated at the east porch of the
temple (De B. Jud. VI. 6).
A weighty confirmation of our view, not only concerning Ophel,
but also the whole passage, is furnished by Is. :32 : 13, 14, " Upon
the land of my people rise up thorns and thistles, for they sprout up
in all houses of joy, in the exulting city. For the palace is forsaken,
the tumult of the city ceases, hill and tower become caverns for ever,
a joy of the wild ass, a pasture of flocks," The sense in general
is well given by Vitringa thus : " Loca munitissima urbis usque eo
relinquentur, ut tanquam antra et spelunca solummedo inserviant
pradatoribus vel peregrinatoribus, qui se in iis occultarent, vel f era-
rum aut gregum vagis aut tumultuosis incursienibus exposita jacenf."
Here we find in the threatening, hill, 'isy, and tower, ]n5, properly a
watch-tower, corresponding to '^'iJp, joined with one another pre
cisely in the same way as in the promise in Micah; a certain proof
of the erroneousness of those interpretations which separate them in
this prophet. Perhaps in Isaiah still a third is added, standing in
the middle between the two, the king's castle, which was situated
upon Zion, and whose highest and strongest portion was formed by
the tower ; at least there is more reason to understand this by p'a"ix,
than with Vitringa, the temple, which never bears this name. That
here also Ophel cannot be understood of the lowest part of Mount
Zion, is obvious. For this is distinguished by nothing which can
account for its being mentioned in this connexion ; we must add,
moreover, the connexion with the tower. That this Ophel in the
stricter sense neither had, nor could have, any fortification, Faber,
1, c, has clearly shown.
^'¦^ij, unto thee, appears here to have the emphasis which n^ original
ly asserts, indicating that the object in motion actually reaches its goal,
in comparison vvith Stj, which merely expresses its direction towards
the goal. It points to all the hindrances which seem to make it im
possible for the dominion to reach its goal, and represents them such
as would be removed by God's omnipotence. This is entirely suited
to the object of the whole representation which Calvin appositely
thus designates : " Propheta hie confirmat piorum animos, ut respici-
ant in longum tempus, neque occupentur prasenti elude, quin statuant
in manu dei esse, quod promiserat, nempe ut quasi mottuos excitaret,
sic etiam instauraret regnum Davidis, quod perierat."

CHAP, 3-5, 205
Several interpreters; as Rosenmiiller, connect n.nNn immediately
with the following, " the kingddm will come and attain." But against
this may be objected not only the accents (Michaelis: " Athnuch
lectoris animum aliquandiu suspensum tenet, ut ad id quod sequitur
ultentiorem faciat"), but also the change of the tenses which should
prevent such a connexion, and the feebleness of the sense, since then
the one verb would be entirely pleonastic. We must, therefore,
rather assume, that the subject in nj}Nn is an indefinite one. En
tirely applicable here is the remark in respect to the omission of the
definite subject (Ew. p. 644), of Hiivernick on Daniel, p. 386, though
it is inapplicable there ; " the indefinite subject has a peculiar energy.
By omitting the definite idea, it is left as it were to the reader to
supply every thing possible (there the compass of all that is glorious)
for which the writer has no adequate expression.''
" The first, or the ancient dominion," refers back to the splendid
times of the Theocracy under David and Solomon, but likewise pre
supposes a time when the dominion had been entirely taken away
from the royal line of David. Such a time the prophet had already
predicted in the first discourse, since it was implied in the carrying
away of all Judah into exile ; still more clearly, however, chap. 3 :
12, according to which Zion, the seat of the dominion of David,
should be ploughed as a field. This prediction occurs again in v. 9,
with the express mention of the king, and in contrast with it, that of
the restitution of the dynasty of David, chap. 5 : 1.
The last words of the, verse are translated by many interpreters
(Calvin, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller) by regnum, inquam, erit filia
Hieresolym., so that Jerusalem is here not the object, but the subject,
of the dominion. The sense, according to this interpretation, is best
unfolded by Calvin : " Diserte exprimit filiam Hierusalem, quia
regnum Israel obscuraverat gloriam veri regni. Ergo hie testatur
propheta, deum non esse immemorem sua promissionis, atque ita fac
turum, ut Hier. recuperet dignitutem, quam perdiderat, et totus popu
lus iterum in unum corpus coulescai." But this explanation is to be
rejected, even for a grammatical reason, n^bpp is stat. constr., the
*? serves, therefore, as a circumlocution for the genitive, compare
Ewald, p. 578, and it is inadmissible to supply the substantive verb.
To this, we add the relation to the foregoing. To the hill which
rules the daughter of Zion, not to the daughter of Zion herself,
should the dominion over the daughter of Jerusalem come. That
the prophet here causes the Theocracy to be represented by Jerusalem,

206 MICAH.
arises from a regard to the relation of Zion and the king's castle to
the city, which symbolized the relation of the stock of David to the
Theocracy.

Chap. 4. V. 9 - 14.

The prophet, at the end of the foregoing chapter, had announced
heavy judgments ; in the preceding, he had imparted glorious prom
ises. He now, in that which follows, combines the two together ;
and first, in chap. 5, makes the promise again appear by itself The
interweaving of the judgments in the prediction of prosperity, was
designed to preserve believers from idle hopes, which, when not con
firmed by the result, sink into greater despondency. At the same
time, it imparts by itself indirect consolation ; for the future must be
under the control of him who predicts it. The greatest cause of
our despondency under the cross, is, indeed, . the doubt whether it
actually comes from God. But the prophet gives also direct conso
lation. To every calamity which he announces, he immediately sub
joins the prediction of a divine deliverance. The prediction of suf
fering in this portion, is essentially distinguished from the former ;
it is not like that, threatening, but consoling. Hence, it is evident,
that it must have a different destination. "While the threatening was
destined chiefly for the ungodly, this, like the preceding pure prom
ise, has chiefly in view the truly pious members of the Theocracy,
and aims to strengthen them in the manifold temptations into which
they must fall, and which would come upon them in consequence of
their outward connexion with the ungodly.
It is a threefold affiiction, joined with deliverance from it, whioh
presents itself to the prophet in inward vision, and which he accord
ingly describes. This appears even from the threefold nn;;?, comp.
9, 11, 14, which every time indicates when a new scene presents
itself to the prophet. This is also evident from the different charac
ter which each bears. In that announced in v. 9, 10, the carrying
away to Babylon, it is the hand of the Lord alone which delivers his
people. In the oppression described v. 1 1 - 13, he supplies Israel
with courage in war, and gives victory to his arms ; the plan of the
enemies to destroy Zion is frustrated, while there it succeeded.

CHAP. 4, V. 9-14. 207
V. 14. presents to us Zion sorely pressed anew by enemies, and
captured by them ; the deliverance is accomplished, according to
chap. 5 : 1, which is closely connected with the foregoing by the
Messiah.

V. 9. " Now, wherefore dost thou raise u cry ? is no king in thee 1
is thy counsellor ,gone ? for pungs have seized thee like a woman in
travail." Zion in sorrow at the time of the carrying away into
exile, stands before the spirit of the prophet, and is addressed by
him. This should never have been overlooked. But as it has often
been done, we produce from the mass of analogous examples, at
least one entirely undeniable, Vhere a transition to the time of the
calamity is made, that of Hos. 13 : 9-11, which has, besides, much
resemblance to the one before us ; " Thou hast destroyed thyself, O
Israel, in that thou wast against me, against thy help. Where then
now is thy king ? Let him deliver thee in all thy cities I And
where are thy judges ? Thou saidst. Give me kings and princes.
I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath."
That in this passage the subject of discourse is the actual past and
present, is inconceivable, since Hosea certainly prophesied before the
destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, Micah comes forward
precisely at the moment in which Jerusalem has been taken by the
enemy ; he announces to her, that her suffering shall not end with
this calamity, that she must wander in exile. The course of the
verse is as follows. The prophet sees Zion dissolved in anguish and
lamentation. In sympathy he asks her for the cause of her mourn
ing, whether she has, perhaps, suffered the loss of her king, and
then answers the question himself with Yea, because such anguish
could be produced only by such a cause. In order fully to compre
hend the mourning of Zion over the loss of her king, one must
realize that the visible head was a representative of the invisible, the
medium of his favors ; his removal, therefore, was a sign of the
Divine anger, and the extinction of every hope of prosperity. The
king of Judah was, indeed, in a sense entirely different from that of
any other king, the anointed of the Lord. , In this point of view,
how deeply the loss of the king was felt, when that which was here
present in idea became actually so, appears from Lam. 4 : 20, " The

208 MICAH,
breath of our life, the anointed of the Lord, is imprisoned in their
pits, of whom we' said. In thy shadow shall we live among the
heathen." In Zech. chap. 4 (comp. Vol. II. p. 44), the civil magis-
•trate, next to the spiritual, appears as the greatest gift of God's grace.
Both shall henceforth again, as they had been before the exile, be
the medium through which the Lord imparts his gracious gifts to the
Church. It must still be remembered, that all promises of the
future were connected with the kingdom. With its extinction,
therefore, all seemed to be lost, every prospect into a better future to
have vanished.
V. 10. "Be in pain, and ireak forth, O daughter of Zion, like
her who bears, for note wilt thou go forth out of the city, und then
dwellest upon the field, und comest to Babylon, there thou wilt be de
livered, there the Lord will i-edeem thee out of the hand of thine
enemies." The consolation first begins vvith the words ''7S^n Ut.
The whole verse' besides is of a mournful character. In the phrase,
" be in pain, and break forth," only the one side of the image of a
woman in travail, the anguish, and not the joy which follows it, is
considered (comp. on chap. 5 : 2). The imper., therefore, not, as
several erroneously suppose, an imper. consolutionis , but a declara
tion, that the anguish would be extreme, clothed in an admonition to
submit to it. Better than many later interpreters, Calvin has thus
determined the sense : " Summa est, quamvis deus habiturus sit
curam populi sui, quemadmodum pollicitus est, tamen non esse, cur
fideles sibi fuciant delicias, ucsi exempti essent ab omni molestia ;
quin potius hortatur propheta, ut se comparent ad subcundas omnes
calamitatcs, ut non mode ejecti u patria errent in agris tanquam
homines vagi, sed etiam ut trahantur Babylonem usque, quasi in
sepulchrum. Ubi autem animos fidelium confirmavit ad tohraniiam
crucis adjungit spem salutis, quod deus libcrabit eos, ei illic redimet
e manu hostium." 'S-in connects itself with the preceding, where the
prophet had described the same suffering of the people at the point of
time where he had placed himself, the capture of the city under the
image of the pains of childbirth, i. q,, "thou must not only bear the
sorrows which precede the birth, but also, the severest of all pains,
those of childbirth itself" What these are, in relation to those which
preceded, that, in the view of the prophet, is the carrying away out of
the holy city, and out of the holy land, as an expulsion from the face
of God, similar to that of Cain wiien he was driven from Eden, in
comparison with the mere capture of the city. Hence the connex-

CHAP. 4. V. 9-14. 209
ion with the following by 'J. 'nil (o for u in like manner as v. 13.
'K'n for the sake of euphony, comp. Ewald, p. 415), according to
most interpreters, et educ. But nu never has any other than an in
transitive sense, to break forth. This is here also entirely suitable,
even more so than the transitive. For it designates more emphati
cally the pain of childbirth, which is here alone intended. It is as
it were a dissolution of the whole being, a violent breaking of it to
pieces. The dwelling upon the field, is the middle station between
the going forth and the arrival at Babylon. Under an open heaven,
exposed to all injuries of the weather, were the prisoners collected,
in order afterwards to be carried away, nj? is emphatic, and like
wise the double Ot. The Divine judgment unceasingly advances to
its last goal ; the Divine mercy irresistibly wrests from the enemy
the prey which seemed to be given up to him for ever. How vain
are all attempts to set aside here the definite prediction of the Baby
lonish exile, has been already shown in the Beitrugen, p. 186 sq.
V. 11. " And noiD all nations gather themselves against thee, who
say. She is profaned, and let our eyes look upon Zion." Respecting
the apparent anomaly of the num. in the last member, compare
Ewald, p. 639. nrn with 5, to see, since it here denoted the passion,
according to the context, that of malicious joy, with which one rests
upon the object. Israel, with his claim to be alone the people of the
only true God, was to the heathen a thorn in the eye. They burn
here vvith desire to furnish a proof, by matter of fact, that this claim
was groundless, and by the destruction of the city, to take from it its
imaginary and apparent holiness. Its destruction and profanation
are in their view necessarily connected with one another. The
antithesis with this verse is contained in chap. 7 : 10, " And mine
enemies shall see it, and shame shall cover her who said to me.
Where is the Lord thy God ? mine eyes shall see her, now will she
be to be trodden upon as dirt in the streets." " Where is the Lord
thy God," essentially corresponds to " she is profaned." The historic
reference of the prophecy has already been correctly unfolded by
Calvin, thus : " Pest selutum captivitatem Babylonicam et assertum
Isruelem ex ea, nihilominus non statim venturutn regnum premissum.
Ante enim gentes vicinas se collecturus contra Hierosolymam cum
opiniene contaminationis ejus et jucundi spectaculi. Hoc evenit sub
Antiocho." What the prophet here only intimates, yet so that the
true reference can by no means be mistaken, (for when here a great
hostile oppression is described, which should happen after the people
VOL. III. 27

210 MICAH.
had returned from Babylon, and which is removed by the Theocratic
courage of the people themselves, and when this second oppres
sion is still followed by a third, described v. 14, there remains no
choice, and the times of the Maccabees can alone be thought of,)
that has Zechariah, in whose time the deliverance from the first
calamity had already taken place, chap. 9 — 11 sq., farther carried
out, with a particular mention of the enemies, precisely as here the
authors of the first calamity are expressly named.
V. 12. " And they know not the thoughts of the Lord, and under
stand net his counsel; for he collects them as a sheaf for the thresh
ing floor." And is used where we should employ but. The
thoughts of the Lord are, that the suffering, when it reaches its end
on Zion, should pass over to the enemies, that these, while they so
confidently thought to destroy Zion, should themselves be destroyed
by her. 'P gives the reason, ignorance of the way of the Lord. If
they knew this, they would not express such a wish, and such a hope.
For it is they themselves whom the Lord devotes to destruction.
TPJ? need not be collectively taken ; on the contrary, the force of the
image would be thereby weakened, since it is here designed, not so
much to express, as Joel 4 : 13, ripeness for punishment, as the
facility with which it may be inflicted. Calvin : " Quid est manipu-
lus ? est exigua copia tritici; sunt vel trecenia spica, vel mille si ita
libet ; sunt tamen spica tritici et gestuntur manu unius hominis.
Deinde quis finis manipuli ? nempe ut trituretur in area. Hoc
difficile creditu est, hesies, dum ita undique coacervantur, esse instar
manipuli. — Quoties ergo ct potentia et numero hominum, pravalebunt
hestes nostri, discamus assurgere ad urcanitm illud dei consilium, de
quo nunc concionatur propheta." Perfectly correct ; for the purpose
of God here mentioned is only a result of his general relation to his
Church, and must therefore always be repeated under like circum
stances. He punishes her indeed, but he does not give her up to
destruction. His judgments are always at the same time the fore
runners of his blessings. The same antithesis between the thoughts
of man and the thoughts of God in reference to his position towards
his Church, is found Is. 10 : 5 sq., " Tlie Lord has sent Aser as the
rod of his anger against Israel ; the Lord's thoughts are not his
thoughts." 46:10, 11, Jer. 29:11, "For I know the thoughts
which I think concerning you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace and
not of evil." Zech. 1 : 15.
V. 13. " Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion ; for I make thy

CHAP. 4. V, 9-14, 211
horris iron, and thy claws make I brass, and thou crushest many
nations, and I consecrate thy gain to the Lord, and thy power to the
rultr of the whole earth." The image rests on the oriental mode
of threshing ; comp, Paulsen Vom Ackerbau der Morgenl. § 40-42.
Niebuhr Rcise, I, p. 151, in like manner as Is, 21 : 10, 41 : 15,
Hab, 3 : 12, Strictly taken, only the one attribute of the threshing
oxen, the crushing power of their hoofs, belongs here; the prophet,
however, extends the comparison to that also whereby the bullock is
terrible, besides his work of threshing, to his horns. In this re
spect, 1 Kings 22 : 11, is to be compared, where the Pseudo-prophet
Zedekiah makes for himself iron horns, and explains the import of
this symbolic action ; " thus saith the Lord, With these thou wilt
push Aram, until it is destroyed." In 'np^nn, the first person,
several ancient (Syr., Jerome) and modern interpreters have found a
difficulty. They substitute in its place the second. So last of all
De Wette. But it is entirely in its place. As at the beginning,
where the Lord collects the sheaves on the threshing-floor, so also at
the end, does the prophet show that' the victory is God's work. It is
he himself, the true God, the Lord of the whole earth, who reminds
his rebellious subj£cts of their true relation to him, by claiming for
himself, as happened once in Egypt, a portion of the good things
which he had bestowed upon them. This thought, which contains
the reason why the noun is placed instead of the pronoun of the first
person, i. q,, " to me, the only God, the Lord of the whole earth,"
is entirely destroyed, as soon as the first person is changed into the
second. We have by no means to think merely of consecrated gifts,
which were offered to the temple. This interpretation would be
necessary only in case the subject of discourse were the good things
of the covenant people, or this people themselves, as those who had
made the dedication ; then by that which was dedicated, could be
understood only the special property of the Lord, that which was
exclusively devoted to him, and for ever withdrawn from the use of
his subjects, for them as it were annihilated ; comp. Levit 27 : 28,
" Every thing consecrated, which any one consecrates to the Lord,
of men and of cattle, and of his own field, that shall not be bought
nor redeemed ; every thing consecrated is sacred to the Lord."
Here, however, where the Lord is the one who consecrates, the good
things those of the heathen, only the latter are to be considered as ex
cluded from the possession, as those in reference to whom the conse
cration has been made ; the people of God, on the contrary, are to

212 MICAH.
be regarded as the participants in his inheritance. The community
of goods between God and his people, is elsewhere also, where the
object requires it, rendered prominent Thus, e. g,, Joel 4 : 5,
where it is laid to the charge of the Phoenicians and Philistines, " My
silver and gold have ye taken, and my precious things, and have used
for your palaces,'' That we are here not to think of the treasures
of the temple, appears from a comparison of v, 4, where the efforts
of these people to avenge themselves on Israel, on account of former
injury, are represented as direct attempts against God, as well as
from history, which knows nothing of any plundering of the temple
by the Phoenicians and Philistines. — The ground thought of the
verse which is here expressed only in reference to this particular
case, is that of the victory of the Church of the Lord over the world.
This Calvin perceived, who appositely shows how this declaration is
continually realized anew, and how its complete fulfilment is reserved
for the second coming of Christ ; but he erred in looking only at the
eternal nature of this thought, and failing to perceive that it is here
expressed in relation to one definite event in which it should be real
ized, an error which he elsewhere very often commits ; which can
be easily explained by the opposition which the current dead under
standing of the word of the living God, whereby the prophecies
appeared as essentially abolished with their nearest fulfilment, and
still useful only in the armory of a science which seeks the living
among the dead, must necessarily have produced in the mind of so
intelligent a man.
V. 14. " Nero gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops.
They direct a siege against us ; with the rod they smite the judge of
Israel on the cheek." A new scene presents itself to the prophet ;
Zion, victorious on the preceding occasion, appears to him here
as without strength, and confined within her walls ; she is taken ;
shameful maltreatment overtakes the leaders of the people. We
need not dwell upon the manifold interpretations of 'ninp. Only
one, "thou wilt press thyself together," does not, like the rest,
destroy the import of Hithp., and has especially the use of the
Hithp. of TiJ in its favor ; comp, Jer, 5 : 7, Gesen, Thes. s. v. The
person addressed, the nn.j|-n5, can be no other than the p'!f"r\3 in
V, 13. For she it is whom the prophet addresses in each of the new-
scenes announced by nnj^, in general the only one to which the dis
course throughout the whole portion is directed. The designation
by " daughter of troops," occasioned by the intentional paronomasia,

CHAP. 4. V. 9-14, 213
plainly alludes to ]l"'y"r\3, and refers back to the preceding descrip
tion of Zion, as a brave and victorious hero. That the pressing
together, in antithesis with the former spirited excursions, as they are
designated by in J, is a consequence of anxiety, feebleness, and the
hostile oppression, appears from the words " a siege (not as De
Wette supposes, "a wall") is laid or directed against us,'' It is
appropriately paraphrased by Justi, " But now, why dost thou press
so together, thou who art accustomed to press upon others." — In
the expression, against us, instead of thee, the prophet is hurried
away by his emotions, to show himself as one of the people whom
he sees to suffer so severely. The shameful treatment of the judge
of Israel presupposes the capture of the city, as already taken place
in the inward vision of the prophet This judge of Israel is an
ideal person, formed by the prophet, in order to be able to place in
contrast with him the ruler of Israel in 5 : 1, the representative of
all Theocratic leaders ; comp,, e. g,, Is. 3 : 12, where the corrupt
leaders of the Theocracy present themselves conjointly to the prophet
in the person of a distinguished child. The customary name of a
collective, is, in such a case, very badly introduced. It must also be
observed, that here the discourse is not of a king, but very signifi
cantly only of a judge of Israel, with reference probably to the times
before Saul, when Israel was governed by judges. The regal do
minion now interrupted, shall first be restored through the Messiah,
comp. 5:1, 4 : 8 (he is not Sni^: aaW, but, like his ancestor David,
comp. 2 Sam, 23 : 3, Ssi^:? Win), — Ssntf'., as nomen. dignitai. of
the people, stands here by design. It magnifies the baseness of the
action, the contrast of the reality with the idea in the destinies of
the people, called forth by the preceding similar contrast in respect
to their conduct, — since Israel has inwardly profaned himself by
his own guilt, he shall now also be outwardly profaned by a righteous
punishment. — With respect now to the historic reference of this
prediction of calamity, the fulfilment cannot be sought without the
greatest caprice, in any other event than that of the invasion by the
Romans. Among the calamities of the people here presented in a
general sketch, this is the only one which history knows besides those
already designated ; that still a second judgment, subversive of the
national independence, should pass* over the returned exiles, is
announced also by Isaiah, the contemporary of 'Micah, chap. 6.
With peculiar clearness, however, is this judgment described by the
prophets, who lived after the exile, for whom it had already appeared

214 MICAH.
more in the foreground, comp. Vol. 11^ p. 45 sq,,361 sq. The only plaus
ible ground against this reference is, that the capture of the city by the
Romans was later than the appearing of the Messiah, and yet the
latter constitutes the object of the prediction of prosperity, chap.
5 : 1, relating to the affliction in the verse before us. This ground,
however, is set aside by the following remarks, 1. The prophet, it
is true, designates the affliction which came upon the covenant peo
ple through those enemies, merely according to its greatest extremity,
the siege and capture of the city ; he had, however, no less in view
its whole extent from its first beginnings. These, however, so far
as the Romans are concerned, fall in the time before Christ. The
Jewish people had already been subdued by Pompey, 2, This alone,
however, is not sufficient. If with Verschuir (De Celebri Oruculo
Mich. 4 : 14, in the Disserted. Philol. Exeg. Leuw, 1775), we stop
short at the conquest by Pompey, we cannot avoid the feeling, that
the fulfilment does not exhaust the prophecy. But we are completely
justified in adding also the extremity of the affliction, the destruction
of Jerusalem by the Romans, joined with its still enduring conse
quences, if we only consider, that the prediction of prosperity in
chap. 5, as its contents incontrovertibly show, and as accords with
the anafogy of all Messianic prophecies, does not limit itself to the
brief time of the first appearance of Christ ; that this is rather
considered only as the seed corn, from which a tree arises, under
which all the fowls of heaven should dwell ; that therefore the pros
perity, no less than the punishment, is to continue, until, in the end
of the days, it reaches its most glorious completion.

Chap, 5, V. 1.

"And thou, Bethlehem Ephrutuh, too small art thou to be among the
thousands of Judah, out of thee will come forth (one) te me to be a
ruler in Israel, and his goings forth are of old, the days of eter
nity." The close connexion with the foregoing verse is manifest,
not merely from the connecting 1, and the analogy of the close rela
tion of the prediction of prosperity to that of calamity ; it is still
more strongly designated by the antithesis of Sxiii".? Sb^ip with
Sx'iif': B.aity. It appears also in the prominence given to the natural

CHAP. 5. V. 1. 215
littleness of Bethlehem, in antithesis with the greatness imparted to
it by God. What could have given occasion to the prophet for this,
were it not that he considered Bethlehem as a type of the Jewish
people in their misery, described in the foregoing verse, and its won
derful exaltation by the Divine omnipotence, as a pledge of a like
result for the whole people. — Bethlehem and Ephratah, according
to Bachiene, II. 2, p. 7 sq., are so distinguished from one another,
that the former alone designates the city, the latter at the same time,
its vvhole environs. Bethlehem Ephratah, therefore, is, i. q,, Bethle
hem lying in Ephratah, Although we should approve of this view,
we need not consider both words as standing in ihe stat. constr., any
more than the corresponding nnin^ DnS'irn, Judges 17:9, 19: 1,
2 : 18. For, since a proper name is of equal force as a noun with
the article, it can never stand with another in the stut. constr. We
must then assume, that by a brevity .usual in geographical designa
tions, both appellations were placed together without a designation
of their relation to one another, much as we place on an address,
Berlin, Prussia. But if we compare Gen. 35 : 19, where Ephratah
is e.tplained as perfectly identical with Bethlehem, n'j X'H nnig^,
DD!?, and observe, that the prophet before alludes to the contents of
this chap. (comp. p. 202), and considers the former events, which
happened in the vicinity of Bethlehem, as a type of the future; that,
V. 2, he-parallelizes the new birth, there about to happen, with a
former one, which had taken place in its immediate vicinity, in the
relation of which precisely the same designation occurs ; vve shall
find ourselves obliged here also to regard both as a designation of the
city, without deciding whether the abovementioned distinction be
well grounded or not with reference to other passages. — The ground
of the twofold designation of the place, is commonly sought solely in
an intentional distinction from another ^Bethlehem in. the tribe of
Zebulon, (jomp. Josh. 19 : 15. But then, instead of Bethlehem
Ephratah, we should expect rather the usual Bethlehem Judah.
That the writer, in the choice of his language, was guided by a re
gard to the passage in Genesis, is not to be doubted. But it is
highly probable, that he would at the same time allude to the appella
tive import of those names, bread-house and fruitfield, and give to
them a typical import. The place whose blessing in inferior things
is expressed by its name, shall hereafter, in a higher relation, be
blessed aiid made fruitful. That Bethlehem is addressed as masc.
(comp. nnx, Tjjy and 'Tpp), is explained by the circumstance, that

216 MICAH.
the prophet beholds the city under the image of its ideal representa
tive, without, indeed, afterwards retaining this image, comp. Vol. II.
p. 89. In such personifications, the genus can be disregarded,
comp., e. g.. Gen. 4 : 7, where sin, nxan, on account of the image
of a ravenous beast, appears as masc. Ewald, p. 640. The little
ness of Bethlehem appears even from the circumstance, that it is
omitted in the catalogue of the cities of the tribe of Judah, in the
book of Joshua (comp. Bachiene, § 192). This induced the Alexx.
to insert it. Josh. 15 : 60, together with several other cities which
had been omitted, probably not so much with regard to its outward
importance, as the interest which it received from the recollection of
an event of former times (comp. Gen. 35), its being the birth-place
of David, and still more from the prophecy before us, which directed
the eyes of the whole people to its external insignificance. The
assertion of Jerome, that the Jews have omitted the name in the
Hebrew text, in order that Christ might not appear as sprung from
the tribe of Judah, has been refuted by Reland (p. 643) more
thoroughly than it deserved. Among the cities too, which, after the
Babylonish exile, came into the possession of the tribe of Judah,
Bethlehem is not numbered. In the New Testament it is designated
as a mere village (xoiurj, John 7 : 42), and Josephus honors it, indeed,
a few times with the name of a city, but elsewhere designates it by
Xwglov. Antiq. 5, 2, 8, — nrrjiS TJ/J, properly "small in reference to
being," for " too small in order to be," the looser expression of the
relation of the city to being, where vve place the closer, — Instead of
the thousands of Judah, if the personification were to be strictly
maintained, there must stand the ?'s'lN 'iw. Bethlehem's ideal
head, its representative, is too srhall to be numbered among the heads
of Judah. Several (J. D. Michaelis, Justi) have been led thereby
to point instead of 'bSn^, '3-7N5. But this supposed emendation
is sufficiently set aside by the remark, that ^ibx is only a special
designation of the Edomitish princes, and in a more general sense is
only catachrestically used by Zechariah, who lived after the language
had partially ceased to be vernacular (comp. Vol. II, p, 207). The
transition was here the more easy, since the prophet had not, indeed,
addressed an actual head, but only a mere ideal representative of the
city, in reality identical with it, and it had the more foundation, since
t;?S was not well suited to an individual. Moreover, such personi
fications were never strictly adhered to by the prophets, who were
constantly passing from the image to the subject. This is apparent

CHAP, 5, V. 1. 217
even from the preceding verse. In the first member, Zion appears
personified as a matron ; immediately afterwards follows against us.
And so throughout Whether, however, as a matron or a man, can
make no difference. ']'7.N, a thousund, then stands as a designation
of a family, because this usually consisted of about a thousand
heads, comp. Mich. Mos. R. Th, 1, § 46, Gesen, Thes. s. v. A
place of few inhabitants, like Bethlehem, did not enjoy the honor of
forming an independent family ; it was included among several
others. We must content ourselves with this general remark, since
the effort has not succeeded to make out, from the different passages
where nnirr. 'sSx occurs, any thing more definite respecting the
nature of this division, its origin, and its relation to others, which
elsewhere occur. To the passage before us, however, this is not im
portant. The sense is obvious without : " Bethlehem takes a very
inferior rank among the cities of the covenant people, can scarcely
be numbered among her distinguished sisters, who proudly look down
upon her." — That NS;, to go forth, can be used of being born, of
descent, is self-evident, comp., e. g., 2 Kings 20 : 18, where to go
forth, and to be born, occur as interchangeable terms ; still we must
not on this account attribute this sense to XS^, which it receives
through the connexion, as its proper meaning, which many older
interpreters of the passage have done. A definite subject for NS^ is
wanting. It is best to supply one, which is indirectly implied in what
follows. The construction, which is entirely unusual, was occasioned
by the effort to call attention, even by the very words, and their
position, to the contrast of the divine greatness of Bethlehem, with
its natural inferiority.
" Thou art small to be among the thousands of Judah,
Out of thee will go forth to me to be a ruler in Israel."
Out of the place which is too small to constitute one independent
member of the body, goes forth the head. From this antithesis the
reason also appears, on which Paulus (1. c. p. 197) lays a stress in
opposing the Messianic interpretation. " A ruler in Israel " stands
wherfe we should expect to hear of the ruler in Israel xax" iioxrjv.
Had the prophet adopted the latter, then this antithesis, as well as
the other, likewise intended, with the ruler of Israel, who loses his
dignity, in the foregoing verse, would not have been so promi
nent More depended in the first instance upon the genus, than
upon the individual ; more upon the idea of the dominion in
general, than upon its kind and method. The individual is next so
VOL. III. 28

218 MICAH.
characterized, partly in this verse, and partly in that which follows,
that he cannot be mistaken. If, indeed, nothing further were
contained in the words before us, than that, in future times, a ruler
over all Israel would arise out of Bethlehem, and if they stood
alone, and, in the time after Micah, a ruler over all Israel arising out
of Bethlehem, other than the Messiah, could be pointed out, which,
however, cannot be done, the choice between the two might be diffi
cult, 'b is referred by several to the prophet. Thus, RosenmiiUer,
after Michaelis, " Mihi, i. e. meo bono, inquit propheta nomine totius
populi sui." But the reference to God is required by the antithesis
of the human meanness, and the Divine greatness. Calvin: "Egre-
dietur mihi, Hac voce pronuntiat deus sibi non ita decretum esse
per der e populum, quin velit iterum restituere post aliquod tempus.
Revocat igitur fideles ad se et consilium suum, acsi diceret : sic ad
tempus vos ahjeci, ut tamen aliqua vestri cura me tungut." The
import of 'S, how God is able to exalt that which is low, was seen
by believers in David the type, and there is no doubt, that the prophet
indirectly alluded to this type, with a view thereby to strengthen faith
in the promise, which appeared incredible. He sprung from the
humble Bethlehem, he was the youngest among his brothers, without
power, without a call. In order that 'S might be the more evident,
God so ordered the circumstances of his election, that his human
inferiority must be most strikingly exhibited. It was God who raised
him from a shepherd of lambs to be a shepherd of the people.
The last words magnify the divine greatness of the Messiah in the
antithesis with his human inferior origin, with reference to the similar
antithesis in respect to Bethlehem. Here also has the prophet so
clearly expressed the antithesis in the words, that it has forcibly im
pressed itself upon the homines bona voluntutis, among the interpre
ters of all centuries. Thus, e, g,, Chrysostom, Demonstratio adv.
Judaos et Gentiles, quod Christus sit Deus, Opp. t. V. p, 739 : olxog
xal xrjV &s6xrixa xal Tr]V dv&gamoxrjxa 8sixvvat ' xa fisv ydg slnuv, al
sioSoi, avxoii an dgxfjg, sj rjpsgmv albivog, xrjv ngoaituvtov i8^X(aasv
vnag^iV xw 8s slniiv, iSslsvaiiai rjyovfisvog ooxig notpavst xov Xaov fiov
TOV 'itiga^X, xijv xaxd adgxa yivvrioiv. The closer examination of the
sense must begin with the investigation of vnssin. The interpreters
mostly agree that nxyip, the fem. form of the more usual NSID, here
designates the action of going forth. But this is opposed by the
following grounds. I. The use of the plural. Those who here
think of the eternal going forth of the Son from the Father, can by

CHAP. 5. V. 1. 219
no means justify such an interpretation. Several among them
understand it as plurul. majest. Thus, e. g., Tarnov, and Frishmuth
in the Dissert, de Nativitate Messia, on the passage. Jena, 1661.
But the assumption of a plur. maj. in Hebrew, is without any foun
dation, comp. Ewald, Grumm. p. 641, and Composition der Genesis,
p, 31 ff, ; and were it used at all. still it would be applicable only to
nom. personal. Others suppose the plural here to stand precisely for
the singular. But of the three cases where this apparently happen.s,
the one where only a definite individual out of a multitude is meant,
where it therefore concerns not the number, but only the general
idea; another where- a noun in the plural, because its etymology and
its original sense are uncertain, gradually lo.'^es its plural import;
the third, where the plural stands for the abstract, no one is applica
ble here. M'ost plausibly have those removed the difficulty, who
refer vnstSiD to a repeated act of going forth, vvith an allusion to the
Old Testament doctrine of the nm' 1])<^P. Thus Jerome : " Quia
semper ipse locUtus est per prophetas et sermo dei factus est in manu
eorum." Tremell. and Jun, : "Exortus, i. e. declarationes et demon-
strationes tanquum exorientis solis, q. d. qui inde u principio se ipsum
paiefecit, demonstraoitque rebus creutis omnibus luce verbi sui et
virtute operunif quemadmodum exoriens sol luce et effectis suis inde ab
exortu se ipsum aperit." Cocceius : " Ce/erum quod hie dicitur plu-
ralitative ixnogtvactg id absque emphasi positum ut credam persuaderi
nen possum. Nempe filius non egressus est a patre, ut homo ex
homine, qui incipit esse eum ex homine funditur, et cum egressus est
fundi egredique desinit. Omnibus diebus saculi egrediiur filius a
pivtre et aternum est dnavyaapa xrig So^rjg avxov." But this explana
tion is opposed in general by the circumstance, that the antithesis
with the going forth from Bethlehem, completed in one act, does not
allow the mention of a manifold going forth. Jerome, and Trem.,
and Jun., who, as also Piscator, limit the going forth only to the re
lation to created things, are especially contradicted by oSiy 'P'p,
whioh places the going forth before the beginning of the creation ;
and Cocceius, by the fact that the ni.n: IjsVp in the Old Testament,
Otherwise than the Xoyog in the New, always appears as going forth
from God only in relation to the world. 2. Although the sing, were
used, yet still the explanation of the act of going forth would be in
admissible. It is contrary to the idea of the nom. with P, to stand,
as nom. actionis ; only by writers in the time when the language had
greatly declined, do we find some few examples of this erroneous

220 MICAH.
usage, n designates the place where, -the instrument wherewith, the
time wherein, the method by which any thing happens, or is ; then
also the thing itself which happens, or is ; the action itself never, in
a writer of the language while it was living and pure, comp. Ewald,
p. 243. We hence gain the advantage, that the import of the going
forth, as an action which has been attributed to NSip here, and also
in other places, will rest on a false interpretation, and if this is shown
to be perfectly well grounded in other instances, only caprice can
longer retain the above meaning in the passage before us. The pas
sages which Winer cites for the meaning egressus, are the following,
1. Hos. 6 : 3, where it is said of the Lord, " ixsip p"3J inB'?, as
the morning-red is his going forth established." But the XSID is
there not the action, but the place and the time of the going forth,
as appears from the word established 2. Ezek. 12 : 4, " and thou
shalt go forth in the evening before their eyes, nSiJ 'SSOD." xsia
signifies there the kind and manner of the going forth. " Vatabl.
hubitum demigruntis signiflcut. Tu egredieris mcesius et indigna-
bundus." Likewise also the time. 3. Num. 33 : 2, " And Moses
wrote, D^1'i<S1P-n^^?, their place of egress." 4. Ps. 19: 7, of the
sun, " IXVIP D.'DE'n nsBP, from the end of the heaven is its going
forth," for " the end of the heaven is the place from which it goes
forth." 5. 1 Kings 10 : 28, Dnvpp n'riStt'S ib'X D'Qisn xxipi. De
Wette, " and the conducting of the horses which Solomon had,
(was) out of Egypt." More correctly, " the place of going forth
was Egypt," verbally from Egypt, concisely for the place from which
the horses of Solomon went forth was Egypt, precisely as in the
foregoing example. — For the ucius exeundi, Ch. B. Michaelis still
appeals to 2 Sam. 3 : 25, where De Wette, " Thou knowest Abner
the son of Ner ; he has come to deceive you, and to see yom: going
out and coming in, and all that you do." But rather, " the place
where thou goest out, and where thou comest in." In all other
passages, and these are not less numerous, the meaning place of
egress, or that lohich goes forth, is entirely obvious. — To this we
must add, that the sense place of egress, is here recommended even
by the antithesis with what precedes, where Bethlehem is mentioned
as a place from which the ruler in Israel goes forth. To this place
of egress, another of higher import is here opposed. This antithesis
shows us also how the [p in Djpp and D'jiy 'P'p must be under
stood, viz. in like manner as the [p in 'ipp. For that it must cor
respond to this, is shown by the manifest reference of I'nxxip to

CHAP. 5. V. 1. 221
'7 XY'.. According to this, we must translate, " and his places of
egress are from ancient times, from the days of eternity," for " the
places from which he goes forth, are the ancient times, the days of
eternity," precisely as in the two passages, Ps. 19 : 7, and 1 Kings
10 : 28, the insertion of IP, which might be omitted, is here especial
ly occasioned by the effort to make (he reference to the correspond
ing member more obvious. This relation shows also the untenable-
ness of the interpretation advanced by Pococke, Hackspan, Tarnov,
Glass, and others, of [P by pra, which, at the same time, involves
an absurdity, since nothing can precede eternity. It alone gives a
satisfactory explanation of the plural. The words " from ancient
times, from the days of eternity," contain, according to it, a climax.
The existence of the Messiah in general, before his temporal birth
at Bethlehem, is asserted ; and then his eternity in contra.st with all
time is mentioned here. This must afford great consolation to Israel.
He who should hereafter deliver them by a visible manifestation out
of their misery, exists already during its continuance before it, and
through all eternity.

HISTORY OP THE INTERPRETATION.
1. Among ihe Jews.
As to its essential features, this might, with tolerable certainty, be
sketched a, priori. A total mistake as to the subject of the prophecy,
could not be expected from them. The Messiah is not here pre
sented in his humiliation, but in his glory, rich in gifts and blessings.
The question, whether one were called also to participate in them, is
already answered in the affirmative by Pelagian self-delusion. On
the other hand, the prophecy contains a twofold ground of offence,
which must, at any price, be removed by interpretation. The one,
that of the eternity of the Messiah, opposed to the conceptions of
the people, and only conceivable by a knowledge of his Deity, must
have existed at all times. The other, that of his birth at Bethlehem,
could not have become important, till after the birth of Christ. A
twofold interest demanded that it should be set aside. First, the
wish to wrest from the Christians the proof for the proposition, that
he who had appeared, was the one promised, which they derived
from the birth of Christ in Bethlehem. Then the difficulty any

222 MICAH.
longer to trace back the descent of their Messiah to Bethlehem, after
an ordinance of Adrian (comp. Reland, p. 647), had driven all Jews
from it and the neighbourhood; a difficulty which the Christian
controversialist strongly urged against them, comp. Tertullian, C.
Jud. c. 13, " Quomodo igitur nascetur dux de Judah et quatenus
procedet de Bethlehem sicut divina prophetarum volumina nuntiant,
cum nullus omnino sit illic in hodiernum derelictus ex Israel, cujus ex
stirpe possit nusci Christus ? " The actual history of the interpre
tation serves only to fill up this sketch.
1. The reference to the Messiah was at all times not by any means
the private opinion of particular learned men, but openly received,
and universally acknowledged. This is made incontrovertible in
reference to the times of Christ, by Matt. 2 : 5. The whole Sanhe
drim being officially interrogated respecting the birthplace of the
Messiah, there presupposed this interpretation to be the only correct
one. Did this proof need confirmation, it might be derived from
John 7 : 41, 42, where some, proceeding on the erroneous supposi
tion, that Christ was to come out of Galilee, opposed his Messiahship,
because the Scripture said, "On ix xoi onigfiaxog Ja^lS xal dno Brj&-
Xtsfi T^s xcofirjg, onov i]v Ja^iS, b Xgiaxbg sgxsxai. But even after the
coming of Christ, the desire to put an end at once to the argument
of the Christians, founded on this passage, was not so strong as to
lead the Jews, blind to the manifest evidences contained in it, to
deprive themselves of the sweet hopes secured to them by this refer
ence. True, this must nevertheless be supposed, were we obliged to
rely on the , assertion of Chrysostom (Hom. 7 in Mat. c. 2 in N. T.
t. I. p. 80. Fcf Tbvhg Ss aviMV uvawxwxovrxsg ifaal nsgl xov Zogo^d^iX
xavxa slgija&ai), Theodoret (iCal xovio lovSaloi slg xov Zogo^dfiiX
Xa^siv xtxoXfii\xatSL, ngocpavag xfj dXrj&sia fiaxofisvoi), Theophylact (on
Malt. 2), and the Euthymius Zigabenus (in IV. Evang. 1. 1, p. 61,
ed. Mat.). But the suspicion here forces itself upon us, which we
have already seen to be well grounded in another place, (comp. Vol.
II. p. 105,) that the fathers, having once taken up Zerubbabel, pressed
him upon the Jews, where they themselves rejected him ; and this
suspicion is the more allowable, since the apparent fourfold testimony
easily reduces itself simply to that of Chrysostom. Were the infor
mation true, we should find at least some traces of this interpretation
among the .Tews themselves. This, however, is not the case. All
Jewish interpreters, with the Chaldee at their head, who paraphrases
»<¥:. ''? 1?P by xn'K/P p3' 'Pnp pp, " from thee will the Messiah
go forth to me, before me," maintain the Messianic interpretation.

CHAP. 5. V. 1. 223
2. To remove the first ground of offence, a twofold way has been
invented. In more ancient times, the full sense was given to " the
days of eternity," but the name of the Messiah was substituted for
his person. Thus of old, the xaSj' 'pvp ppnpba tdx rrntyi,
" whose name is spoken or mentioned from ancient times, from the
day of eternity." Thus the Pirke R. Elieser, chap. 3, where, with
the seven things which were created before the world, after the law.
Hell, Paradise, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, repentance, the
name of the Messiah is reckoned, with an appeal to the passage
before us, comp. Schottgen, II. p. 213. The same is found, accord
ing to Eisenmenger, I. p. 317, with some change, also in the Talmud,
Tract. Pesachim, fol. 54, col. 1, and Nedarim, f 39, c. 2, That
the name is here not perhaps to be taken in an emphatic sense, as it
frequently occurs in Scripture to designate the substance, appears
from the Tax, spoken or named, of the Chaldee, which, in the crea
tion of a substance, is inconceivable, as well as from tbe fact, that if
this meaning of the name be assumed, the manifest design of its
substitution for the person, would not be accomplished. The name
of the Messiuh expresses his being, the idea of his existence. The
creation, or the utterance of this name, designates accordingly the
rise of this idea in God, the forming of the decree of redemption by
the Messiah. Thus, therefore, by this interpretation, which we shall
hereafter find in Calvin, and there examine, in the place of the real
existence of the Messiah, we should have a mere existence in thought,
in the place of his preexistence, bare predestination. — Afterwards
they went still farther. Their capriciousness of supplying the nume,
did not allow them to be satisfied with this explanation. It was now
almost unanimously assumed, that the words designated the descent
of the Messiah from the ancient royal stock of David. Thus Aben
ezra: " Omnia hac propter Davidem dicta sunt et verba: egressio-
nes ejus ab antique, Davidem respiciunt." Abarbanel (Prac. Sal.
p. 62) : " Egressiones fumilia, ex qua oriundus ille dominator, sunt
ab antique et a diebus saculi, h. e. ex semine Davidis et surculo Jesse,
qui est ex Bethlehem Juda,'' comp. the similar explanations of Kim
chi, and others, in Frischmuth, 1. c, and in Wichmannshausen,
Dissert, in loco. Wittenb. 1722. p, 6 sq. We will not urge against
this explanation, the erroneous understanding of niNSl'D either by
going forth, or by family, in the latter of which, the usage of the
language, as well as the manifest reference to XX'. is disregarded.
This can be conceded without essentially destroying the interpreta-

224 MICAH.
tion. We can then translate, " his goings forth (in the sense of
places of going forth) are the ancient times, the days of eternity,"
i. e. the very ancient times. That is attributed to the time which
belongs to what existed in it, the family of David. On the other
hand, the following objection is decisive. Every one will confess,
that the eternal origin of the Messiah affords a more suhable antithe
sis with this temporal origin from Bethlehem, than his derivation
from the very ancient family of David. This comes under con
sideration here, solely on account of its antiquity, a reference to its
dignity is intimated by no word ; it is not, indeed, itself mentioned,
only the attribute of antiquity is separated from it, and predicated of
the Messiah. It is impossible to see what preeminence the family of
David enjoyed in this respect, and how, therefore, it could have been
for the honor of the Messiah to have descended from it How
strange, were this interpretation adopted, would be the addition of
" from the days of eternity,'' by way of climax to " from ancient
times." That ohij! never has of itself the meaning of an indefinite
long period of time, has already. Vol. II. p. 311, been fully shown.
What possible reason could the prophet have had here to exalt a
limited time, by a hyperbolical expression, to eternity ? As to his
human origin, the Messiah, in reference to the antiquity of the
family, would not have the smallest advantage over all other mortals.
Wherefore, then, such a hyperbole, in a matter indifferent in this
connexion, and by no means serving for exaltation, which, neverthe
less, is demanded by the antithesis? What sort of consolation would
thereby be given to the people? That the ancestors of the Messiah
would extend back to the most ancient times, no one could doubt.
But what was gained by this, since it was common to him with the
lowest and humblest individual among the people ? How does this
empty and unmeaning, yet so pretending antithesis in reference to
the Messiah, suit the other, which is so splendid and so exalted, in
reference to Bethlehem ? What reason can there be for preferring
this, so unnatural an interpretation, to one which is so natural, so
obvious, presenting so admirable a contrast, and opening so rich a
fountain of consolation for the covenant people? Is it, perhaps, that
the eternity of the Messiah is nowhere else mentionened in the Old
Testament ? But not to insist that this is implied even in the passages
in which his Divine nature is contrasted with the human (comp.
Vol. I. p. 261), is not the Messiah designated by MiCah's contempo
rary, Isaiah, chap. 9 : 5, as Father of eternity, as the eternal in the

CHAP. 5. V. 1. 225
fullest sense of the word ? (See on the passage.) And has not this
parallel passage the more weight, the more numerous and clear are
the other instances of connexion between Isaiah and Micah ? Or
will, perhaps, , any one conclude, from the subjoined " from the
days," that oSij; is here to be taken in a limited sense 1 But who
does not know, that, where eternity is predicated, in contrast with a
limited duration, precisely in order to make this contrast evident, the
measure of time, which properly belongs only to the latter, is trans
ferred also to the former, because, before a comparison can be made,
it is necessary that a certain resemblance should exist between the
things compared. Thus God is called in Daniel, " the Ancient of
Days," chap. 7 : 9. Thus it is said of him, Ps. 102 : 28, " Thy
years cease not." 'Thus the New, Testament often speaks of eternal
times. 3. That Bethlehem was designated in the prophecy as the birth
place of the Messiah, was held as an undoubted truth by the ancient
Jews. This is shown by the confident reply of the Sanhedrim to
the question of Herod, as to the place where Christ should be born.
And also by the passage, John 7 : 42. That this interpretation was
not given up immediately after the birth of Christ, is rendered proba
ble by the circumstance, that after the rise of Barkokab, Bethlehem
also, as v/e\l as Jerusalem, as a place of residence, was interdicted
to the Jews by the Emperor Adrian. Even after his death had hap
pened, and the difficulty, therefore, in all its extent had occurred,
they did not venture to assert, that the prophecy knew nothing of
Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah. This assertion first
occurs in the later Rabbinic interpreters, who are practised in the
arts of perversion. The older Jews availed themselves of the fable,
which was dressed up in various ways, that the Messiah had, indeed,
been born at Bethlehem, on the day of the destruction of the temple,
but afterwards, on account of the sins of the people, had been carried
away by a storm, and hitherto kept himself uiiknown and concealed
in different places. Thus the Talmud, a very old commentary of
Echa Rabbati on the Lamentations, the equally ancient commentary
of Breschit Rabba upon Genesis (comp, the passages in Raim. Mar
tini, p. 348. 50, Carpz,, and in Frischm,, 1. c). Indeed, we can
trace this fiction still further back. Closely connected with it, is
the explanation of [I'ynn hi)j) by caligo filia Zidn (isy confounded
with Sax) := occultatus propter Zionem, and this is found even in
Jonathan. The concealment of the Messiah, only an isolated portion
VOL. III. 29

226 MICAH,
of this fiction, which, indeed, has its root, not merely in the passage
before us, but at the same time in the effort to do away the contradic
tion between the destruction of the temple, and the firm expectation,
grounded on passages of the Old Testament, of the manifestation of
the Messiah during its continuance, is mentioned even in the Diulo-
gus cum Tryphone (No. 8, Bened. Ven , comp. also p. 114): Xgt-
axog si xal ysysvrixai xal I'uxi nov, dyvaaxog sari xal ovSs avxog nag sav-
xov sniaxaxai ovSs i'xsi, Svva/xlv xiva, fisxgig uv iX&iiiv 'HXlag x. t. X. In
order to be convinced, that at the time of the composition of this
writing, therefore, in the second century after Christ, the fiction had
already been completed, we may compare also the relation in Bres
chit Rabba. After Elias, at the time of the birth of the Messiah,
had sought his mother in Bethlehem Judah, and consoled her, when
troubled on account of the destruction of the temple, contemporary
with his birth, he departed : " Post quinque annos dixit, Vadam et
videbo salvatorem Israel utrum sit in forma regum nutritio ejus, vel
in formu angelorum ministerii. Ivit et invenit mulierem stantem in
astio domus sua, et ait, Filia mea, in quo statu est puer ille ? Qua
ait illi. Rabbi, nonne dixi, quod malum est nuirire ipsum, quia in
die, qua natus est, destructa est domus sunctuurii, nee solum hoc, sed
pedes habet et non ambulat, oculos et non videt,
aures et nen audit, os hubet et minime loquitur,
et ecce jucet ut lapis."
The Rabbinic interpreters felt that this fiction, which was destitute
of all external support, — and there was their view chiefly directed,
— was of no avail. They sought, therefore, to relieve the difficulty
by explanation, and a like interest caused their perversion to be as
generally received as their former correct interpretation had been.
Kimchi, Abenezra, Abendana, Abarbanel, generally all later Rabbis,
(comp. the passages in Wichmannsh., 1. c, p. 9,) assert, that Bethle
hem is here called the birthplace of the Messiah only indirectly, only
so far as he was to be the descendant of David, the Bethlehemite.
There can be no prepossession in favor of this interpretation ; that
formerly no one thought any other understanding of the passage even
possible, than that, according to which it designates Bethlehem as
the birthplace of the Messiah, and that the above interpretation was
only introduced, when the other could be no longer maintained,
renders it at first sight extremely suspicious. Now this suspicion,
on a nearer examination, is fully confirmed. Cateris paribus the
explanation, which finds Bethlehem mentioned here as the birth-

CHAP, 5, V, 1, 227
place of the Messiah, would deserve the preference, because the
passage so understood, supplies a chasm in the Messianic prophecy,
which the general analogy would lead us not to expect Would the
family, from which Christ was to descend, the time, at which he was
to appear, the province, which was chiefly to' enjoy his blessings,
would, so many other things concerning him be accurately deter
mined, and not the place of his birth ? How strongly we should
expect beforehand such a determination is shown by the question of
Herod : jroil o Xgiaxog ysvvdxai,. That the birthplace of the Messiah
must have been determined in the Old Testament, he regards as self-
evident, and only inquires concerning the where. But the state of
the case is not such as leaves any room for choice between two inter
pretations. If we assume, that here merely the derivation of the
Messiah from the stock of David is predicted, the antithesis of tbe
human littleness of Bethlehem, and his Divine greatness, is little to
the purpose. After the family of David had dwelt and reigned for
centuries at Jerusalem, the natural littleness of Bethlehem ceased to
come under consideration. It was not this which could make the
manifestation of the Messiah improbable, only the downfall of Jeru
salem, and the destruction of the king's castle, stood opposed to faith
in the appearance of him who had been promised. In like manner
did the glorification resulting from his coming, belong not to Bethle
hem, but Zion. Therefore also the prophet, chap. 4 : 8, where he
would designate the derivation of the Messiah from the family of
David, opposes the glorification of ZiOn, and especially of the king's
castle, to their previous degradation. — Farther, there is not an ex
ample to be found, where the place inhabited by the ancestors of any
one for centuries before, is designated as the place of his birth.
Where, indeed, do we find Bethlehem mentioned as the native city
of any one of the kings of David's line, born at Jerusalem, where,
as the native city of Zerubbabel, born at Babylon ? compare the far
ther consideration of this argument in Huet, Dem. Evang. p. 579,
ed. Amstel. 1680. — Then the relation of this passage to the parallel
passage of Is, 8 : 23, is not to be overlooked, "For darkness shall
not be upon the land upon- which there is distress ; as the former
time has dishonored the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali,
so shall the time to come honor it, the region on the border of the
sea, by the side of the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles." As there
the province is given, which should be exalted by the appearance of
the Messiah, from the lowest degradation to the highest honor, so here

228 MICAH.
the place. — Finally, if any doubt whatever still remained, it would
be removed by the fulfilment, by the fact, that Christ actually was
born at Bethlehem, and the more so, since this cannot be considered
as accidental, for Bethlehem was by no means the residence of the
parents of Jesus, But the Jews employed still another means to
wrest from the Christians the advantage which this passage gave
them. They denied that Christ was born at Bethlehem. Thus Abr.
Peritsol, in Eisenmenger, 1. c. p. 259, " because they called him
Jesus the Nazarene, and not Jesus the Bethlehemite, it is to be in
ferred that he was born at Nazareth, as it stands written in the Tar-
gum of Jerusalem." Still no unanimity existed among them in this
respect, David Gans in the B, Zemach David, mentions, without
any remark, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the MesSiah (p. 105, der
Uebersetzung von Vorst). 2. Among the Christians.
The conviction, that Christ is the object of our prophecy, was so
very prevalent in the Christian Church, that it is entirely superfluous
to mention its particular defenders. It is, however, of some interest
to learn who dissented from it. The assertion of Huet, 1. c, that
Chrysost,, Theophylact, and Euthym, Zig. sought to make Zerub
babel the subject of the prophecy, rests on a mere failure of memory.
Huet ascribes to them the very view which they most decidedly op
pose, as that alleged to be held by the Jews. But this interpreta
tion was actually advanced by Theodore of Mopsueste, to whose
•exegetical tendency, it was admirably suited (comp. Vol, I, p. 260).
It was condemned with several others, by the council at Rome under
Pope Vigilius, comp. H. Prado on Ezech. Procem. Sec. 3, and Hippol.
a Lapide in Proph. Min., Procem., and on the passage before us.
The immediate successor of Theodore was Grotius, True, one
might conclude out of his book De Veritate Religionis Christ.,
where he, lib, 5, § 17, (p. 266, ed, Oxon. 1820), demonstrates the
Messiahship of Christ against the Jews, from his being born at Beth
lehem, in accordance with this passage, that he was not established
in this opinion. But he believed, perhaps, that it was not necessary
to be so careful in a popular treatise, and, moreover, that, according
to his view, he had a sort of right to this use of the passage, since
he regarded Zerubbabel as a type of Christ, and the birth of the
latter in Bethlehem, as an outward representation of his descent from

CHAP. 5, V, 1. 229
the family of David. After the introduction of Rationalism, the
reference to Zerubbabel was seized upon, only at the outset, when
no easier method of evading the reference to Christ had yet been
invented. It is found in Dathe and Kuiniil (Mess. Weissagungen,
p. 88), the latter of whom, however, as soon as this means had been
found out, in the reference of the prophecy to the ideal Messiah,
changed his opinion (comp. Comment on Matt. 2), The reference
to the ideal Messiah can be regarded as the prevailing one in recent
times. It is found in all Rationalist interpreters, with the exception
of Paulus, (whose interpretation may be read by him who chooses,)
particularly by Eckermann, Beitr. I, p, 33 ff,, Bauer, Scholl. %. p.
378, Konynenburg, Ueber die Mess. Weiss., p, 169, Ammon, 1, c, p.
113, Justi and Hartmann on the passage, Eichhorn, and others.
With respect to the general arguments against this interpretation,
we refer to Vol. I. p, 266, How clearly the marks here given, the
temporal birth in Bethlehem, and the eternity of the origin, lead to
the historical Christ, and how difficult they are to be interpretpd, if
referred to the ideal Messiah, is shown by the effort of all these in
terpreters, without exception, to set them aside. Who would not
perceive in this effort, a confession of their force, admitting that they
could be proved to exist, which, indeed, has already been done ?
God himself has given a matter-of-fact testimony against this expla
nation, by so ordering the circumstances, that the prophecy was ful
filled by the birth of Christ in Bethlehem. But how can a fulfil
ment be spoken of, where there isAinly human conjecture; but no
prophecy, the very idea of vvhich implies Divine inspiration ? How
could God impress his own stamp upon this by effecting an apparent
fulfilment ? He would thereby become himself the author of a de
ception. Finally, that in' the New Testament the passage is explain
ed in the strictest sense of the historical Christ, we shall hereafter
see, and the efforts of our opponents to deprive this Jact of its force,
will furnish the proof that they are here not so much concerned
about the truth, as striving to set aside, at any price, what is ir
reconcilable with their system. What is advanced by them against
the reference to the historical Christ (comp,, e, g,, Justi and Am
mon, 1, c), rests on a misapprehension of His regal office, which is
by no means a poetic image, but the most real of all dominions, nay,
that which imparts to all others their reality, an ignorance of the
final history of the Messianic kingdom, — a mere individual frag
ment of the history of Christ is considered, his first appearing in

230 MICAH.
humiliation, and even this, of course very imperfectly ; his invisible
dominion, which is even now exercised, is unknown, because it is
contemplated only with the eye of faith, and its future visible mani
festation is not believed, because the invisible power of Christ, on
which this depends, has not been experienced in the heart, — finally,
on a misapprehension of the prophetic vision, which necessarily
required, that the Theocracy of the Old Testament should serve as
the substratum of the description of the kingdom of Christ, How
little this passage, where the Messiah appears in glory, contradicts
others, where he is represented in his deepest humiliation, can be
mtftle clear from the indications contained in itself Through hu
miliation to exaltation, this is the proposition which lies at the foun
dation of the predictions of the prophet, concerning the destinies of
the covenant people, which, in reference to Bethlehem, he distinctly
expresses. That it is of no less force in reference to the head, than
to the members, to him who was to be born, than to the place of his
birth, appears from the fact, that he should be born at a time of the
deepest humiliation of the royal line of David (4 : 8), not at Jerusa
lem, where his regal ancestors dwelt, but at Bethlehem.
2. In reference to the last words of this verse, we find, in interpre
ters belonging to the Christian Church, the same twofold misunder
standing which we have perceived among the Jews ; the first, which
changes the eternal origin of Christ into an eternal predestination,
as it occurs in Jarchi (" Et egressus ejus, etc. Sicut dictum est
Ps. 72 : 17, ante solem filiu^ur nomen ejus. Et sic trunstulit
Jonathan), as well as in the others already mentioned, is maintained
by Calvin : " Significat non fore hoc i-epentinum, quod surget prin
ceps, qui populum gubernet, quia jam olim hoc divinitus fuit decre
tum. — Scio quosdam insist ere pertinacius, quod hic loquatur propheta
de aterna essentia Christi et quantum ad me spectut libenter agnosco
hie proburi nobis Christi divinitutem : sed quiu hoc nunquum extor-
quebimus a Judais, malo simpliciter necipere quod sonant propheta
verba, Christum non ita repente proditurum ex Bethlehem, quasi de
eo nihil olim deus stutuisset." That he is not so very earnest in his li
benter, &c., appears from alii etium novum ufferunt argutiam, in what
follows. That Calvin should have put forth so arbitrary an interpre
tation, can be conceived of, only from his relation to the earlier
interpreters. These had advanced ad majorem dei gloriam, a multi
tude of false interpretations. Calvin, to whom such were justly ex
tremely hateful (ego autem explicationes contorfas non amo, on Joel

CHAP. 5. V. 1. 231
2), ever regarded them with a jealous eye, and where any interested
motive might possibly have guided in the choice of an interpretation,
he fell himself into the most forced explanations, rather than concur
with them, and the more so, since he was naturally prone to ex
tremes ; so that if he lived in our day, he would probably err on the
other side, unless, indeed, the equal extent to which both extremes
are carried, might have preserved him in the correct and middle
course. The best refutation of his view, is found in Pococke. It is
absurd to suppose, that to the actual going forth of Christ out of
Bethlehem, one merely conceived in the Divine mind, is here op
posed ; to the action, a bare decree. It is without analogy for any
one to be designated as actually existing, or going forth, who exists
merely in the Divine foreknowledge or predestination. — The expla
nation of the origin from the ancient family of David, is found among
all the rest, who were prevented by any reason whatever from em
bracing the truth. Thus with the Socinians, comp., e, g,, Volkel,
De vera Religiene, lib, 5, c. 2, some of whom, in order the more
surely to set aside a passage destructive of their system, assumed,
that, according to its proper sense, it did not refer to Christ, as Jo.
Crell, who, Matt 2, asserts, that it refers indefinitely to one of the
line of David, who should rule the people after the Babylonish exile.
Thus Grotius : "Origo ipsi (Zorobabeli) ub olim, u temporibus longis
i. e. originem trahit a dome illustri untiquitus et per quingentos unnos
regnatrice.'' Thus all Rationalist interpreters. Among the recent
ones who believe in revelation, even 3a.hn (Vaticc. Mess. II, p, 147)
has been induced to follow this interpretation. That he felt, how
ever, at least orec of the difficulties attending it, viz, that the reference
to the family of David being assumed, its mere antiquity, apart from
all regard to its dignity, is here cited, in honor- of the Messiah, is
manifest from the strange exegetical operation which he employs to
set it aside. He supplies at the end Celebris est, "his origin, or his
family (as he erroneously explains rnsvin), has been renowned from
ancient times." One sees here how an individual still remains de
pendent in particulars on the mass, even when, on the whole, he acts
independently. How otherwise, than from such a dependence, can
it be explained, that this interpreter rejected the interpretation which
has every thing in its favor, and which must have been most agreea
ble to himself, and chose another, the nakedness of which he was
compelled to cover, as well as he was able, at the expense of violating
his exegetical conscience.

232 MICAH.
3. The Jewish assertion, that the prophecy knew nothing of the
birth of him who was to come in Bethlehem, must necessarily be
repeated by Grotius and his followers, since Zerubbabel was not
born at Bethlehem : " Natus ex Bethlehemo Znrobabel rede dicitur^
quod ex Davidis familia essei, qua orta Bethlehemo." Likewise by
the Rationalist interpreters, in order to avoid too close a coincidence
between the prophecy and the actual history of Christ. It is re
markable, that, in order more surely to reach this goal, after the ex
ample of several Jews (comp. p. 311), and the infamous Bodinus
(De abditis Rerum sublimium Arcanis, lib. V., comp. the refutation
in Huet, 1. c. p. 701), they even designated the evangelical ac
count of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, as unworthy of credit
(comp. Ammon, 1. c). THE CITATION MATT. 2 : 6.
Several, particularly Paulus (1. c. p. 188), have asserted, that the
interpretation of Micah here given, is that of the Sanhedrim, not of
the evangelist, who merely records what was said and done. But
this assertion is refuted the moment we look at the design which
Matthew pursued in his whole description of the early life of Jesus.
He did not aim, like Luke, to impart to his readers historical infor
mation. That which was historical, he could regard as already
known to his readers, and it was of importance to him, only so far
as it served to confirm Old Testament prophecies. He therefore
touched upon an historical circumstance, precisely when the mention
of it would serve to promote his design. Thus the design of the
genealogy is to show how Christ, according to the prophecies of the
Old Testament, derived his origin from Abraham, through David.
Thus, all which is related, chap. 1 :'18-21, only serves to prepare
the way for the citation of the prophecy of Isaiah, concerning the
birth of the Messiah of a virgin, which, v. 22, is closed vvith the
words, Tovio 8s oXov yiyovsv, Xva nXrjgoi&jj. Even the oXov shows, that
all which preceded had been cited in reference to the prophecy.
The strange nagsgfirivsla of Olshausen, which relers tile oAoj/ to the
totality, in contrast with that which is individual, can be explained
only from the embarrassment in which this distinguished commenta
tor must have been here involved by his view of the prophecy of
Isaiah, according to which, even after the greatest effort, only an
appearance of agreement can be made out between it and the event

CHAP. 5, V, 1. 233
in which Matthew finds its fulfilment — But besides, all the features
of the narration belong too plainly to the prophecy afterwards to be
cited. In respect to it, he most sedulously renders prominent, how
Christ was born of a pure and unspotted virgin, and still subjoins,
V. 25, emphatically, that Mary had not lived in marriage intercourse
with Joseph before the birth of Jesus, because a virgin should not
only conceive, but also should bear the Emanuel. To xaXsasig xo
ovofia avxov 'iriaovv accurately corresponds xal xaXiaovai xb ovoij.a
aixoij " EfifiavovriX. This latter name the evangelist explains, which
cannot be without an object, by psd-' rifiav b S-sog. With him, the
name Jesus has the same sense, " salvation of God," We first pass
over the portion chap, 2 : 1 - 12, In v. 13 follows the account of
the flight to Egypt, vvith reference to the passage Hos. 11:1. This
passage refers, iiideed, in the first instance, to Israel. He, however,
comes under consideration here, as even his designation as Son of
God shows, not according to his natural condition, but only accord
ing to his divine destination and election. Israel was called to pre
serve the divine truth in the midst of error, to proclaim God's mighty
deeds among the heathen, to be his messenger and ambassador. In
this relation, Israel was a type of the Messiah : He, a concentrated
and spiritualized Israel ; a relation, from vvhich only, many appearan
ces in the second part of Isaiah can be explained, and on account of
which the Messiah, chap. 49 : 3, is called directly Israel. If, now,
between Israel and the Messiah, there existed such a relation, not
accidental, but designed of God, of the type and the antitype, it
must appear to us beforehand, as highly probable, that the residence
of the children of Israel in Egypt, and that of Christ in the same
place, stand in relation to one another. This supposition rests on
the perception of the remarkable coincidence, which, through Divine
Providence, generally exists between the fortunes of the typical
persons and the antitype, so that the former are to be regarded as a
matter-of-fact prophecy of the latter. But this coincidence here
must not be sought solely in the residence in the same land ; this
circumstance rather serves only to call attention to the deeper inter
nal resemblance, and outwardly to represent it. Not of his own
choice, but led by a series of the most remarkable providences, at
the express command of God, Israel journeyed to Egypt. He thus
escaped the ruin which threatened him in the land of his proper
destination. He was there prepared for it, and when this prepara
tion was completed, in accordance with the divine promise, previously
VOL. III. 30

234 MICAH,
given, he was conducted into the land in which it should be realized.
The same providence of God, which there took this method for the
preservation of his kingdom, at that time connected with the exist
ence of the typical Israel, even now employs the same means where
its hopes are concentrated in the person of hs future head. Egypt
must afford him a place of refuge until the danger is over. — Then
follows, V. 16 - 19, the relation of the murder of the children of
Bethlehem, with a sOle reference to the passage Jer. 31 : 15, and on
its account Here also we are not to suppose a bare simile (contrary
to Vol. I. p. 252). In Jeremiah, the mother of Israel laments for
the destruction of her children. The Lord appears and consoles
her ; her sorrow shall, hereafter, be turned into joy ; she shall behold
the prosperity which the Lord will still impart to her sons. Accord
ingly the essence of the passage is the antithesis of the deserved pun
ishment, vvhich Israel has drawn upon himself by his sins, and ""the
undeserved prosperity which the mercy of God wdl impart to him.
Now we perceive entirely the same antithesis also in the event before
us. As was the tyranny of the Chaldeans, so also was that of Herod,
a deserved punishment of the sins of the covenant people. He, born
in a foreign land, was, like Nebuchadnezzar, a rod of correction in
the hand of the Lord. The cruel deed which he performed under
Divine permission, precisely in the place where the Saviour was
born, was designed to bring into remembrance what the covenant
people had deserved for their sins, by means of a fact, which was, at
the same time, a prophecy of the more comprehensive impending
judgment, to make the sending of the Messiah the more to appear
as a pure work of the Divine mercy, destined only for those who
acknowledge it as such. Hence it appears, that the Old Testament
event, to which the prophet in the first instance appeals, the carrying
away into exile, and the deliverance from it, was a prophecy by
matter of fact, of those New Testament events, — in which the
indicated typical relation of the murder of the children of Bethle
hem must not be overlooked, — that both were governed by the same
laws, were a necessary result of the same Divine being, a declara
tion, therefore, which referred directly to the first, could at the same
time be regarded as a prediction of the second, — V, 19, 20, have,
for their central point, the passage Exod. 4 : 19, where the Lord,
after he admonishes Moses to return, subjoins, xt&v^xaai ydg nurxeg
ol ^Tjtoijviig aov xijv ifivx^iv. What the Lord there says to Moses, and
here to Joshua, arises from the same ground. Moses, like all the

CHAP. 5. V. 1. 235
servants of God, under the Old Testament, is a type of Christ
There is the same rule of the Divine providence, the same direction
of all events for the good of the kingdom of God. Moses is with
drawn from the threatening danger only by fliglit into distant regions ;
as soon as it is time for him to enter upon his vocation, the door of
return to the scene of his agency is opened to him. Just so in rela
tion to Christ. V. 21 - 23 have for their only central point, the pro
phetic declaration, on Naio)gttlog xXi^&ijasxai (comp Vol. II. p. 1).
Tbe circumstances particularly mentioned, that Joseph had purposed
to settle down in Judea, but was warned of God to retire into Gali
lee, were designed to make it plain, that God purposely fulfilled this
declaration. From this representation, it sufficiently appears, that the aim of
Matthew, in chap. 1 and 2, was by no means an historical, but a
doctrinal one. And thus, we observe in passing, that the grounds
which Sieffert has recently produced, solely from a disregard of this
aim, out of chap. 1 and 2, against the genuineness of Matthew, are as
completely set aside, as those adduced with equal confidence from
the history of the last Paschal supper, by the excellent treatise of
Ranch, in the Stud, and Crit. From this it follows, when we pro
ceed to apply our investigation, that the pcwtion chap, 2 : 1-12 also
must have an Old Testament central point. Now that this must be
sought, in the first instance, in the prophecy of Micah, appears from
the mention of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Christ, in v. 1. That the
evangelist does not mention this, which was known to all his readers
as a mere historical circumstance, as such, appears from the fact, that
he passes over in entire silence the earlier residence of the parents of
Jesus at Nazareth, because it stood in no relation to the prophecy
of the Old Testament, and, merely by the fact that Bethlehem
is first designated in the account of the birth of Jesus, as the
residence of his parents, intimates, that what had previously been
related, happened in another place ; that, on the contrary, he
mentions the abode of the Holy Family in Nazareth after the return
from Egypt, only for the manifest purpose of connecting' it with the
prophecy. To this we must add, that the relation, v. 1-6, particu
larly the imparting of the answer of the Sanhedrim to the question
of Herod, according to the demonstrated aim of Matthew, would be
altogether without a purpose, if he had not considered the answer
of the lawyers as perfectly corresponding with the truth, and there
fore omitted his usual IVa itXrjgwSrj. In order to show how much

236 MICAH.
Matthew is governed by a regard to the Old Testament, and at the
same time, also, how he often contents himself with giving his
reader, intimate with the Old Testament, a mere intimation, as is
manifest even from v. 20 and v. 23, we must yet present the second
Old Testament reference, which he has in view in v. 1 - 12. The
passages to which he refers, are Ps. 72: 10, " The kings of Saba
and Sheba will bring offerings," and Is. 60 : 6, " All they from
Saba will come, bring gold and incense, and declare the praise of
the Lord," The representation in these and other similar passages,
is figurative. Gifts, in the East, are signs of reverence. The
thought, lying at the foundation, is this ; the farthest, richest, and
mightiest nations of the earth will reverence the Messiah, and con
secrate to him their all. But what is there predicted in a figurative
representation, began to be fulfilled by the symbolic action of the
Magi, in .which the image was embodied. The gold, the incense,
the myrrh, which they consecrated to the newborn child Jesus, sym
bolized the reverence which they offered him. As for the rest, these
gifts were certainly mentioned expressly by Matthew, because they
occur in the Old Testament passages. As this event constituted
on the one side the beginning of the fulfilment, so did it on the other
a prophecy by matter of fact, a type of a future, greater, and more
proper fulfilment. The Apostle considers these Magi as the types
and representatives of the whole mass of the heathen nations, who
should afterwards reverence the Messiah. They came, as it were,
the ambassadors of the heathen world, in order to greet the new-born
king ; as the shepherds, selected by God himself were the deputies
of the Jewish people.
But if it is established, that, in general, the view of the prophecy
which the Evangelist gives, as that of the Sanhedrim, is, at the same
time, to be considered as his own, so must it also be assumed, that
the citation, even in its particulars, is also approved by him, and that
the view advanced by Jerome (" Arbitror Matthaum volenlem argu-
ere seribarum et sacerdotum negligentium, sic etiam posuisse, uli ab
iis dictum est"), and recently by Paulus, cannot be made use of to
justify deviations, if such should actually be found. In order to
ascertain whether this is the case, we must more closely compare the
citation with the original text of the passage. Kal aii Bs&Xsifi, yrj
"lovSa, ovSafiwg iXaxliixfj si iv xo~ig riysfioatv 'lovSa' ix aov ydg i^sXsv-
asxai, riyovpsvog, ooxig noifiavsl xbv AaoV pov, xbr 'lagariX. rij 'lovSa,
for the Ephratah of the original, first demands attention. This de-

CHAP. 5, V. 1, 237
viation is plainly Owing to the circumstance, that the name Ephra
tah had become unknown at the time of the Evangelist ; he therefore
substitutes another, which occurs in other passages of the Old Testa
ment With respect to the grammatical interpretation of yri 'lov8a,
it stands, by a laconic mode of expression usual in geographical and
other similar designations, and which is found even in the Old
Testament ma; Dn'^-n'3, comp, p. 160, for Bethlehem, situated
in the land of Judah, and the assertion of several interpreters, that
yij stands here in the sense ciiy, is as objectionable as the effort of
Fritzsche, who advances nothing on the whole verse that can bear
examination, to change the text The Evangelist here no more
follows the Hebrew text, than the Alexandrine version. This has
Kal oil Bs&Xssp olxog ^Eq>ga&d. (Thus without an article, the Cod.
Vatic.) Fritzsche supposes, that oixog has found its way into the
text from the margin. But this experiment of his criticism of the
Seventy, has awakened just as little desire for more, as that presented
in his first controversial piece against Tholuck, p. 16. The translator
plainly regarded Ephratah as the nom. propr. of the wife of Caleb,
1 Chron. 2 : 19, 50, 4 : 4, from which others also, as Adrichomius
(comp. Bachiene, II. 2. § 190), derived the name of the place, and
did nothing farther than more definitely to designate, by the subjoined
olxog, the relation of dependence, expressed by the supposed genitive.
The apparent contradiction, that the prophet calls Bethlehem small,
the evangelist by no means small, has already been so satisfactorily
explained by ancient and modern interpreters (comp., e. g., Euthym.
Zigab., 1. c. p. 59 : "Oxi si xal xb cpaivofisvov cvxsXi]g ei, dXXd ys to
voovfisvov ovx sXaxlaxrj xig vnagxsig iv oXaig xaig rjyifiovlaig x^g tov
%vSa cpvXilg. Michaelis : " Parvum vocut Mich, respiciens statum
externum, minime parvum Mat. respiciens nativitatem Messia, qua
mirum in modum condeeorutum illud oppidum ac illustratum fuit),
that we need not dwell upon it. We only remark, that the assump
tion of Paulus (1. c. p. 197), that the members of the Sanhedrim
understood the proposition interrogatively, "art thou perhaps too
small to be &.C.," receives no confirmation from the passage cited in
its favor, from the Pirke Elieser, c. 3, but which is found only in
the Latin translation of Wetstein. For in the ground-text the verse
is there cited in literal agreement with the Hebrew original (comp.
Eisenmenger, I. p. 316). That the deviation has its ground solely
in the effort to express the sense more clearly and definitely, is con
firmed by a comparison of the Chaldee, which, with similar freedom,

238 MICAH.
paraphrases, "thou Bethlehem Ephratah will soon be able to be
numbered." Calvin justly remarks, in reference to such deviations,
" Semper attendant lectores, quorsum adducant Euangelista scriptura
locos, ne scrupulose in singulis verbis insistant, sed contenti sint hoc
uno, quod scriptura nunquam ab illis torquetur in alienum sensum."
Only from overlooking this truth, is the origin of such absurd ex
planations conceivable, as that, according to which TJ^X, elsewhere
smull, would here mean great. — The representation of Bethlehem,
in the person of his representative, which occurs in Micah, Matthew
has done away at the beginning ; instead of the masc. t'i'X, he places
the fem. sXnxiaxT]. On the other hand, he renders 'sHx? by iv toTj
iiysfioai, which seems again to lead to this representation. Fritzsche
announces himself as the one who would remedy this fcedum soloe-
cismum, hitherto observed by no one. He first resolves to read,
Kal ail Bs&Xssfi xrig ' lovSaiag ovSafiag iXaxlaxr], si iv T015 ifyspoaiv
'luvSa, et Iu Bethlehemum, tractus Judaici nequaquam minima pars.
But, even apart from the capricious change of yjj 'lovSa, which, sure
ly, it could have occurred to no one to place, instead of the easier
xi^g 'lovSalag, still the personification would, even then, not be pre
served, and the fcedus soloecismus would remain. Even if iXnxlatri
be understood according to the " elegantissimus Gracorum usus,"
it is nevertheless true, that Bethlehem is treated as a thing, as a
city. Nor can we view with more favor the aid which Fritzsche
immediately afterwards would bring to the text, Kal av Bs&Xssfi, yij
lovStt, ovSafiag sXaxiaxf] si iv Tate fiysfioaiv 'lovSa, in primariis fa-
miliurum in Judaa sedibus. Not to insist that such emendations,
after the manner of the Massorites, and the Samaritan Pentateuch,
are no longer suited to the age, where can a single example be found
of giving to al riysfiovsg the sense urbes primarias ? And, moreover,
the relation o( ¦^ysfibaiv to- the following riyovfisvog, which requires the
muse., has been entirely overlooked. — The correct view is rather as
follows : in both, the figurative representation is not consistently
carried through. Micah personifies, in the first place, Bethlehem,
and, had he been consistent, instead of D'sSx, he must have placed
D'?"??? ?'IB' ; Matthew introduces Bethlehem as a city, but afterwards
by placing the riyspovsg, instead of the tribes, he proceeds to a per
sonification. For this, he had a special reason, a regard to the fol
lowing iiyovpsvog. Bethlehem, although outwardly small, yet con
sidered from a higher point of view, is already by no means small
among the leaders of Judah, for in the future shall go forth from it

CHAP. 5. V. 1. 239
the great leader of the whole nation. This, so obvious reference,
must the more be assumed, since an antithesis, entirely similar in
sense, is found also in Micah (comp. p. 217). It serves, at the same
time, as a proof against the unfortunate assumption, that Matthew
was composed originally in the Aramean dialect, which is opposed in
general also by the free handling of the Old Testament text in the
whole citation. The inconsi-stency in the use of the personification,
is finally the more easily explained, since this is throughout an ideal
one, and person and city are not in reality different from each other,
comp. on Zech. 9 : 7, 8, — The last words in Micah, " and his
goings forth," &c,, are omitted by Matthew, because they do not
serve his purpose, — the demonstration, that, according to the prophe
cies of the Old Testament, the Messiah should be born in Bethle
hem, On the other hand, the ''X'liJ';? of Micah is paraphrased by
oaxig noifiavsl xbv Xaov fiov, tov lagariX. . These words have refer
ence to 2 Sam. 5 : 2, where it is said of David, " The Lord says to
thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be for a prince
over Israel." They point to the typical relation of the first David,
born at Bethlehem, to the second, the Messiah.
In reference to the relation between prophecy and fulfilment, we
have here still one general remark to make. That the fulfilment of
the prophecies of the Old Testament was a concurrent aim of the
events of the New; that in no case, however, is this aim the only
one ; that rather, each event, even apart from the prophecy, had its
meaning, and that prophecy and history were equally governed by
this meaning, we have already seen (on Zech. 9 : 9), This is con
firmed by the case before us. The birth of Christ at Bethlehem
testified, on the one side, the divine origin of the prophecy of the
Old Testament ; on the other, the fact, that Jesus was the Christ.
But its main object, vvhich was independent of this, was outwardly
to exhibit the descent of Christ from David. This the Jews already
knew at the time of Christ, as appears from the addition Kwfiri, onov
rjv Ja^iS, John 7 : 42. Of the two seats of the family of David,
Bethlehem and Jerusalem, the former was chosen, because, in gen
eral, on account of its outward inferiority, it was well suited to rep
resent the lowliness of the Messiah at the outset ; a circumstance,
which is expressly mentioned by the prophet, partly because it was
appropriated to the family of David during its obscurity, while Jeru
salem, on the contrary, belonged to their regal condition ; but the
Messiah was to be born in the fallen tabernacle of David, to be a

240 MICAH.
sprout from the stem of Jesse, after it had been cut off. That this
reference also was before the prophet's mind, seems to be evident
from a comparison of 3 : 12, and 4 : 10. In any event, he con
sidered the family of David, at the time of the appearing of the
Messiah, as utterly fallen.

V. 2. " Therefore will he give them up until the time when she
who bears brings forth, and then will his remaining brothers return
to the sons of Israel." Here begins the description of what the
Messiah should impart to the covenant people, and this is carried
forward through the whole chapter. [37 shows the close connexion
of chap. 4: 14, vvith 5: 1. Michaelis: " Quia hoc est consilium
dei, Sienem propter peccata prius affiigere ac turn demum in Christo
Belhlthemi nuseiture reficere." ]nJ occurs in like manner, 2 Chron.
30 : 7, " And be ye not as your fathers and your brothers, who
transgressed against the God of your fathers, therefore he gave them
up to desolation (n^E'V D.30,'l) as ye see," With respect to the
words "until the time when she who bears brings forth," there is an
essential difference in the interpretation. The one class, to which
belongs, after the example of Eusebius and Cyril, by far the greatest
number of older Christian interpreters, and, among the moderns,
Hartmann and Rosenmiiller, understand by " she who bears," the
mother of the Messiah ; the other, the church of Israel. These,
again, differ from one another with respect to the import of the
figure of the birth. Some, as Abendana, Calvin, Justi, take as
tertium comparationis, the joy which follows the pain ; others, as
TheoAoret,T?irno\ (Donee Israel facunda matris instar copiesam
sobolem enitatur), Vitringa (on Apec. p. 534), the great increase.
If we decide, 1. between these two modifications of the explanation
of the Church of Israel, the former appears, even for this reason, to
be inadmissible, viz. among the so very numerous passages of the
Old Testament where this figure occurs, there is not one, where, as
is the case in the New Testament, the joy which follows the pain
was regarded. In all passages apparently of this sort, it is rather
only the pain accompanying the birth, wliieh is kept in view. Thus,
chap. 4 : 10, Is. 26 : 17, Jer. 4 : 31, " For a voice as of one in travail
do I hear, anguish as of one first bringing forth, and a voice of the

CHAP, 5, V, 2, 241
daughter of Zion, she sighs, spreadeth out her hands, woe to me ! for
my soul is weary through those that are to be slain," 30 : 6, 49 : 24,
Hos, 13 : 13. It will not do, however, to take the pain alone, as the
tert. compar,, because we then have the absurd sense, " the suffer
ing will endure until the suffering comes." To understand " the
bringing forth" as the highest grade of the suffering, i. q. "the
Lord will give them up, until the distress has reached its highest
point," is inadmissible, because this meaning could only then have
place, when the mention of the inferior grade of the pains before
the birth had preceded. The defenders of this interpretation, ac
cording to the second modification, can, indeed, cite a large number
of parallel passages, nearly all from the second part of Isaiah, where
the figure occurs in a similar import. Thus, 54 : 1, "Rejoice thou
unfruitful, who did not bear, break forth in a jubilee and exult,
who did not travail, for more numerous are the sons of the desolate
than the sons of the married woman, saith the Lord." 49 : 21, 22,
66: 7-9. But still we must, for the following reasons, prefer, to
this explanation, that of the mother of the Messiah. 1. If the
reference were to the Church of Israel, we should expect the article.
She was, indeed, in point of fact, mentioned in what immediately
preceded. She is only a personification of those who should be
given up. 2. The personification is, indeed, frequently not carried
consistently through ; but that here, in the same sentence, the chil
dren of Israel should be spoken of in the plural (he vvill give them
up), and that in what follows also, there should be no trace of a per
sonification, but rather the sons of Israel are expressly mentioned,
causes the alleged personification to appear as extremely broken, and
its assumption admissible only in case of necessity. 3. In the refer
ence to the Church of Israel, the relation of the Messiah to that
great change of things, is intimated by no word. He is treated of
in V. 1, and in v. 3 - 5. How then should v. 2 at once have passed
over to the general Messianic representation. 4. The suff. in vn^?
referring to the Messiah, requires a preceding indirect mention of
him, which only then has place when the rriSi' is, " she who will bear
the ruler" predicted in v. 1. 5. That the prophet had in view one
who was to bring forth in Bethlehem, appears from the reference to
Gen. chap. 35, already pointed out. Bethlehem, which had already
been distinguished in ancient times by a birth, shall, in future times,
be honored by one infinitely more important 6. To this must be
subjoined the comparison of Is. 7:14, where, in like manner, men-
VOL. III. 31

242 MICAH.
tion is made of the mother of the Messiah (comp. on the passage).
— By the brothers of the Messiah, only the members of the Old
Covenant people, his brothers according to the flesh, can be under
stood. The reference to the heathen has no Old Testament analogy
in its favor. The construction which here occurs of aiiy with h^, is
explained by the remark of Ewald, p. 609, " In the first local mean
ing, '^JL stands also with verbs, when the thing moves itself upon
another, and remains upon it." Of a material return, therefore, Dl'iy
with hil occurs, Prov. 26 : 11, Eccles. 1:5; of a spiritual, 2 Chron.
30 : 9, nin^ - ^;; DSJitJ'?, "when ye return to the Lord," properly
"upon the Lord." In this latter sense 2W is to be taken here also.
The antithesis with vnx 10?. shows, that Israel is here to be taken
as a name of dignity, the children of Israel are the true members of
the Theocracy. To these should others, likewise brothers of the
Messiah, and, therefore, descendants of Jacob, return, which im
plies a previous turning away, or alienation from the true Church of
the Lord, and her head. The Messiah, accordingly, appears here as
one, who, by uniting all under himself as the head, should abolish
all discord and alienation among the members of the covenant people ;
a thought which constantly returns in the Messianic descriptions,
and is individualized, in Hos. 1:11, and Is. 11, by the predicted
removal of the enmity between Judah and Israel. We pass over
other interpretations, because they refute themselves.
V. 3. "And he stands and feeds in the strength of ihe Lord, in the
glory of the name of ihe Lord his God, and they dwell, for now will
he be great to the ends of the earth." The standing has here not the
import of remaining, but meiiely belongs to the graphic description
of the habit of the shepherd, comp. Is. 61 : 5, " And strangers stand
and feed your flocks." The shepherd stands leaning upon his staff,
and overlooks his flock. The connexion of " he feeds," with " in
the power of the Lord," we cannot better explain than in the words
of Calvin : " Verbut'n pascendi exprimit qualis Christus sit erga
sues h. e. erga gregem sibi commissum. Non dominatur in ecclesiam
tanquam formidabilis tyrannus, qui sues metu opprimat, sed pastor
est et traciut oves suas quu optandum mansuetudine. Sed quoniam
cingimur undique hostibus addit propheta, pascet in virtute etc. h. e.
quantum est potentia in deo tantum erit prasidii in Christo, ubi
necesse erit ecclesiam defendere et fueri contra hastes. Discamus ergo
non minus spcrandum esse salutis a Christo, quam est in deo virtutis.''
The great king is so closely united with God, that the whole fulness

CHAP. 5. V. 4,5. 243
of the Divine power and majesty belongs to him. Such things never
occur of an earthly king. Such a king has strength in the Lord,
Is. .45 : 24, " the Lord gives strength to his king, and exalts the horn
of his anointed," 1 Sam. 2 : 10 ; but the whole strength and majesty
of God are not his possession. The name also of God is here em
phatic. The dieelling stands in the antithesis with the disquietude
and dispersion, and we need not sUpply after it, securely, comp. Vol.
II. p. 209. The last words are deprived of their force, by explana
tions like that of Dathe. The ground of the present rest and security
of the Church of the Lord, is rather, that her head has now extended
his dominion beyond the narrow bounds of Palestine over the whole
earth (comp. chap. 4 : 3).
V. 4. " And this (man) is peace. Wiien Ashur comes into our
land, and when he treads our palaces, we oppose against him seven
shepherds, and eight principal men. V. 5. And they feed the land
of Ashur with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in his gates, und
he protects before Ashur, when he comes into our land, and when he
treads eur palaces." — And this (he whose glory had just been
described) is peace, supplies what we have so painfully felt the want
of in the troublous times before his appearing. In like manner, and
with reference to this passage, Ephes. 2 : 14, amog saxiv x) slgrjvr)
rjpav, comp. also Judges 6 : 24, " And Gideon built there an altar to
the Lord and called it Jehovah peace," DiS'^ •^P]- Leaving this so
natural interpretation, Jonath,, Grot, Rosenm,, Winer explain,
" and then shall we have peace," which is altogether unphilological.
ni. never stands either as udv. loci, here, nor as adv. temp., there.
With respect to the latter, it is self-evident, that passages like Gen.
31 : 41, " this are to me twenty years," for " twenty years have now
already flown," are not to the purpose. Of the same kind are nearly
all the examples in Noldius. Est. 2 : 13, stands n.1.5. The under
standing of n;. personally, is favored still by Vsn in v. 5 ; comp.
also Zech, 9 : 10, " And he will speak peace to the nations." —
What follows now till the end of v. 5, is a carrying out by examples
of the words " and he is peace," That Ashur, the most dangerous
enemy of the covenant people at the time of the prophet, here stands
as a type of their enemies, is agreed by all the interpreters. Even
Bauer translates, " and when another Ashur," with reference to the
passage of Virgil, already compared by Castalio : " Alter erit turn
Tiphys et altera qua vehat Argo Delectos heroas." This, however,
is not sufficient. The sense can by no means be " the covenant

244 MICAH,
people will meet every hostile attack with the most powerful resist
ance, oppose to it brave leaders with their hosts, even carry the war
into the enemy's land," This sense would directly conflict vvith the
perpetual description of the Messianic kingdom, as a kingdom of
peace, comp, 4-: 3, according to which, at that time, all war and
strife will cease ; it would stand in the grossest contradiction with
V. 9 sq,, according to which, God will, at that time, deprive the
covenant people of all means of self-defence, and then the more
powerfully protect them by his immediate help. We must, therefore,
separate the fundamental idea, the complete security of the kingdom
of God through the power and the protection of the Messiah, from
the drapery borrowed from the existing relations of the Theocracy.
The Messiah accomplishes for his people the same as a large number
of brave leaders with their hosts, — the usual means under the Old
Testament whereby God delivered his people.
As for the rest of the chapter, we content ourselves with a bare in
dication of its contents. The Church of the Lord will, at that time,
be richly blessed (v, 6), and terrible to all her foes (v, 7, 8) ; not, in
deed, by her warlike energy, but solely by the immediate agency
of the Lord ; who, after he has rendered her outwardly defenceless,
and thus rescued her from the temptation to a sinful confidence in
her own strength, to which she so often yielded in former times
(comp. Is. 30 : 16, 31 : 1, Hos. 1:7, 14 : 4), after he at the same
time has removed from the midst of her every thing else which
formerly presented a wall of partition between her and God, and
caused her outward profanation, when she had become inwardly pro
faned by her guilt, will powerfully defend her, and, since every dis
tinction between her cause and his own has disappeared, severely
punish her enemies.

THE PROPHET HAGGAL

The circumstances under which this prophet came forward, are
entirely the same as those of Zechariah, and we may therefore con
tent ourselves with a simple reference to Vol. II, p, 7, His prophe
cies have altogether for their object, the promotion of the building of
the temple. In the first discourse, chap. 1, he comes forward to
chastise. He zealously rebukes the prevailing indifference, the
selfish forgetfulness, of God, and shows how this would punish itself,
since God, in righteous retribution, would now take from those who
had deprived him of his own, what belonged to them. This dis
course accomplished its purpose. Four and twenty days after it was
delivered, on the 24th of the 6th month of the 2d year of Darius,
the work on the temple was zealously recommenced, under the direc
tion of Zerubbabel, and the high priest Joshua.
But soon, a new occasion for appearing in public was presented to
the prophet. As the work had so far advanced, that the relation of
the new temple to the former could be judged of a great lamenta
tion seized the people. "With the cry of joy at the laying of the
foundation, loud weeping was mingled, especially that of the aged,
who had seen the glory of the first temple, comp. Ezra 3 : 12.
Promise and appearance seemed to stand in striking contradiction.
How splended the former, how wretched the latter 1 The new
temple, according to Isaiah (comp. especially chap. 60), Jeremiah,
and Ezekiel, ought immensely to surpass the old in glory. And
what did they see it now ? It was as a nonentity in their eyes
(chap. 2 : 3). Troubled thoughts now arose even among believers.
Will this temple, indeed, be that which God has promised ? Has
not He Himself, by the miserable circumstances in which we are
placed, given us an intimation to desist from the fruitless undertak
ing ? Is it becoming to build him a hut instead of a temple ? He
may have entirely rejected his people on account of their sins, and
retracted his conditional promise, or He may, perhaps, choose to

246 HAGGAI.
fulfil it hereafter, to another generation more worthy than we, who
still sigh under his anger, who are outwardly, indeed, in Canaan,
but in reality still in Babylon, — at any rat?, by the circumstances
in which vve find ourselves, he declares us unworthy of so great and
holy a work.
In such a state of mind, consolation was required, and Haggai
was called of God, in order to impart it. He executed his commis
sion by the discourse, chap, 2 : 1-9, held in the 21st of the 7th
month. He exhorts the people and their leaders to be of good courage,
pointing to the covenant of the Lord, which, being perpetual, was
a pledge of all prosperity, so that to despair was to make God a liar;
and to the Spirit of God, which for ever dwelt in his Church, as a
never-ceasing fountain of strength for the feeble, of salvation for the
wretched, whose existence made despondency folly ; since, though its
effusions might be for a time restrained, it must, in the future, be
more abundantly poured forth, " The word that I concluded with
you at your exodus from Egypt ! (Remember it, hold it fast!) and
my Spirit remains in the midst of you, fear not"
After the prophet has again opened the closed fountain of consola
tion under every discouragement, he directs their attention especially
to that which had, in the present instance, dispirited the people, and
filled them with distrust of God and his favor. The incipient mean
ness of the new temple ought not to distress them. God would re
move the hindrances, which, viewed with the eye of sense, rendered
impossible the fulfilment of the splendid promises of the older proph
ets concerning the accession of the heathen with all their riches and
gifts. He, the Almighty, would shake the mighty kingdoms of the
earth, and deprive them of that power, which caused them, in proud
self-exultation, to forget his own (v. 6, 7). The heathen, therefore,
would humbly come, with their treasures, to reverence the Lord,
whose temple now rises to higher glory, v. 7 ; which cannot, indeed,
be otherwise, since God is the possessor of all earthly goods, v. 8,
a glory so great, that it far surpasses that of the former tenaple,
accompanied also with peace for the people of the Lord, v. 9.

CHAP. 2, V, 6-9, 247
V. 6. " For thus saith the Lord, Sabaoth, it is yet a little, und
I shuke the heavens and ihe earth, and the seu, and the dry land."
The '3 shows, that we have here a ground of the " fear not." The
" saith the Lord, Sabaoth," is not in vain repeated five times in
these four verses. In proportion as all prospect of human aid was
absent, it was necessary the more emphatically to point to the om
nipotence of God. Verschuir remarks, in his Comm. in loc, re
printed in the older collection of his Dissert, p. 121 sq,, — notwith
standing the erroneousness of the chief result, viz., that the prophecy
refers to the time of the Maccabees ; and to that of the Messiah
only so far as the former was its type, and many other mistaken
views, still the best which has been written on the passage, — "Deus
a vate nostra loquens introducitur tunquum summus orbis terrarum
dominus, rex regum ac imperantium imperator, tanquum foriissimus
heros, numerosissimo instructus exercitu, qui quusi fax et tuba belle-
rum esset, ilia suu providentia excituturus, sed et in pepuli sui com-
moduiii ucfeliciiutem direciurus." — In the explanation of the words
X'n BJ7P nnx ni;;, we have Luther ("it is still a little there") and
Calvin (" udhuc unum hoc modicum ") for our predecessors. That it is
thoroughly philological, there can be no doubt. It has been objected,
that the numeral does not stand in the Hebrew as in the German,
for. the indefinite article. But, 1. we find, in favor of such a usage,
not a few examples, if not so many as with us, especially in the
latter usage, comp. Ges. Thes. p. 61 ; and in Chaldee, in is very
frequently thus used, p, 63 ; and, 2. nnx by no means stands here for
the indef. urticle. We must not explain " u little," but " one little,"
The idea of the brevity of the time is still heightened by the sub
joined nnx, as, in Is, 16 : 14, in order to express the shortest portion
of time, !3J1P and ¦i;?T.p are joined with one another. We must not,
with Verschuir (adhue una hac temporis pariicula), take t3;JP, going
back to its original meaning, as a noun. The language knows it
only as an advei'b, and the nnx connected with it the less obliges us
to understand it otherwise, since even adverbs, originally such, as
their form testifies, are not seldom treated as nouns, without losing
their nature as adverbs ; comp., e. g., Djn 'P^, Dni'5, Ewald, p. 628,
632. a^V nnx makes just as little difficulty as D'.p ayja, tajip 'np.
It entirely corresponds to our " a little," where also " the little" re
mains an adverb. — Most older interpreters, separating nnx Tiy and
X'n HJIP from one another, explain adhue semel idque brevi abhinc,
appealing to the Seventy (txi dnai), and to the Syriac (still one time).

248 HAGGAI.
who rightly explain nnx, but are supposed to have entirely omitted
Uyj;i, while it would certainly have been more correct to assume, that
they employed, translating according to the sense, " only still once,"
or " only still a time," in order to express the idea of the shortness
of the time. Should heaven and earth only once more be shaken,
so must the shaking here mentioned be near, since such shakings
are very frequent Frischmuth, De Gleriu Templi sec, reprinted in
the Thes. Ant. I. p. 994 sq., and Mieg, De Desiderio Gentium, in
the Thes. Nov. p. 1077 sq., have labored the most to establish this
interpretation. But it has probably been called forth, not by an un
prejudiced consideration of the passage, but by a regard to the cita
tion of the Epistle to the Hebrews, nnx occurs, it is true, sometimes
(Exod. 30 : 10, Job 30 : 35, 40 : 5, Ps. 62 : 12, 2 Kings 6 : 10) in
the sense once. But the standing connexion of llj? with aj'P (comp.,
e. g., Ps, 37 : 10, Is, 29 : 17, Jer, 51 : 33) forbids us here also to
separate them from one another : the alleged reference to the former
shaking at the giving of the law (adhue semel, post motum in legisla-
tione Sinaitica), can by no means be admitted, since it has nothing in
common with the present ; if it was intended to say " only yet once,''
the only would hardly be omitted, since it would be chiefly impor
tant ; the connexion of what follows by 1, requires that ii^Tt, standing
for the verb, subst., should belong to the whole preceding proposition,
and not be a mere parenthesis, — But the question now arises, how
the idea of shortness of time suits here. The older interpreters,
who mostly understand by the " shaking of the heaven and the
earth," the grounding of a new economy, the establishment of a new
covenant, found themselves here not a little pressed. They either
remarked, with reference to Ps. 90 : 4, 2 Pet. 3 : 2, that the measure
of time here was not the human, but the divine, where a thousand
years are as one day, or they asserted, that the shortness of the time
was relative. In respect to another far longer period, that before
the establishment of the new economy is designated as short. Both
views are equally erroneous. As to the first, whoever speaks to men,
must speak according to the human mode of considering things, or
give notice if he does not do this. The prophet brings forward the
shortness of the time, in order to console. But to this purpose, that
only is suited, vvhich is so before men. Only in mockery or decep
tion could the prophet substitute, in hs place, that which is short
before God. The other view is also incorrect, since whoever will
give a relative determination of time, must designate the time com-

CHAP. 2, V, 6-9, 249
pared. But of such a designation there is here no trace, as is evi
dent from the vague conjectures of these interpreters. And then
what period could well be so long, that another of five hundred years
in relation to it could be designated as a little ? We have, there
fore, already gained the result, that the above explanation of the
shaking of the heavens and earth cannot be correct With the true
interpretation, which makes it refer to the great political concussions
whereby the power of the heathen should be broken, their pride
humbled, and they should thus become qualified to receive the salva
tion, every difficulty vanishes. This shaking began even in the
nearest future. The axe already I'ay at the root of the Persian
kingdom, whose later manifest fall was only the revelation of the far
earlier, which was hidden. — How the older interpreters commonly
understand the shaking of the heavens and the earth, the sea and
the dry land, we have already, in general, remarked. They assume
a reference to the appearances at the giving of the law, when Mount
Sinai greatly trembled ; comp. the historical description, Ex. 19 :
16-19, and the poetical. Judges .5 : 4 sq,, "O Lord, when thou
wentest forth from Seir, when thou marchedst from the field of
Edom, then trembled (nti'j;i) the earth," &c. To this lesser shak
ing, the establishment of the economy of the Old Covenant, the
prophet here opposes the greater, the establishment of the new
economy, at which, together with the earth, heaven also is moved.
Against this interpretation, and in favor of our own already men
tioned, which Verschuir first thoroughly vindicated, we offer the
following grounds, besides that already advanced. 1. The same
'words occur again, chap, 2 : 21, and on account of the plain refer
ence of both passages to one another, the latter affords a touchstone
for the correctness of the interpretation of the former. In the latter,
however, v. 22, " and I throw down the thrones of the kingdoms,
and bring to nothing the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen,
and abolish weapons of war, and their warriors, and their horses,
and their riders suddenly fall, man by the sword of his brother," is
contained the explanation of v. 21. It shows that in it, the shaking
of heaven and earth designates great changes which God's omnipo
tence produces in the condition of the nations, bloody wars, whereby
he casts down from the height of their power, those who proudly
rise up against him ; in general, the coming of the day of the Lord
upon all that is high and lifted up, as it is described by Isaiah, chap.
2. V. 23, " In that day, saith the Lord, Sabaoth, will I take thee,
VOL. III. 32

260 HAGGAI.
Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, and make thee as a signet ; for thee
have I chosen, saith tlie Lord, Sabaoth," confirms the result which
we have already gained from " yet one little is it," that the shaking
of the heaven and the earth cannot be regarded as perhaps belong
ing alone to a distant future. For although Zerubbabel comes under
consideration here, not so much as regards his personality as his
office, although the promise is made through him to the people
(Calvin : " Compellat deus Sorobabel, ut in ejus persona testetur se
bcnedicturum esse populo, quem voluit collectum esse sub sacro illo
capite. — Tametsi enim regno non potiebatur Sorobabel, tamen vole-
bat deus scintillam aliquam exstare illius regni, quod erexerat in
familia Davidis. — Deus in summa placere sibi ostendit populum
ilium collectum sub uno capite, quia tandem oriturus erat Christus e
semine Sorobabel), comp. Zech. chap. 4 (Vol. II. p. 44), although it
extends itself far beyond the death of Zerubbabel, and, in general,
knows no temporal boundary, — the ground idea is God's affection
ate guardianship of his people under all the great changes which are
to be accomplished in the world through him, which, just because
they are not accidental, but are designed under his guidance, to ex
alt his people and kingdom, cannot be injurious to them, so that they
can, with peace and comfort, look upon the destruction and dissolu
tion that take place on earth, convinced that they are only the har
bingers of a better world, — it is still evident, that Zerubbabel is
chosen as a representative of the people, with respect to the fears
which he and his generation cherished, conscious of their weakness,
which seemed obliged to yield to every, even the smallest obstacle ;
that here the discourse cannot be of any thing absolutely future, but
rather only of that which, although extending through all times, and
only resumed in the promise of Christ, that he will be with his
people always unto the end of the world, and that the gates of hell
shall not prevail against his Church, had its commencement already
in the present. 2, We may object to the reference to the founding
of a new economy, the words " and I shake all the heathen," at the
beginning of the following verse. The abovementioned interpreters
maintain, that this shaking is entirely different from the preceding.
The spiritual movement is thereby designated, which, after the
establishment of the new economy, should be called forth among the
heathen by the Spirit of God. Thus of old, the Jewish interpreters,
e. g. Kimchi (" Inclinubo cerdu eorum, ut loco suo se meveant cui
veniendum et videndum gloriam hanc et suismet manibus ufferunt

CHAP, 2. V. 6-9, 251
aurum et argentum), Jarchi, Abenezra. Thus Calvin explains the
shaking, " De interiori motu, quo electos deus impellit ut se in ovile
Christi inferant." Michaelis paraphrases, " Commovebo voce evan-
gelii ad posnitentiam et fi.dem." To Verschuir belongs the merit of
having first called attention to (he fact, that the words do not belong
to the description of the salvation, but only to that of the prepara
tion for it (" Sectio nostra duas continet partes majores, quorum
prima exhibet, qua summum hanc felicitatem ct gloriam antecederent
eique producenda instrumentorum instar inservirent, v. 6, et in v. 7.
Altera ipsum ilium fortunatissimum statum complectitur). That this
is the correct view, there can be no doubt. The word 'nw^n of
itself does not suggest mild internal emotions, but violent movements
and concussions, and such mu.st the more be supposed, since the
word occurs of them immediately before, and it is inconceivable,
that the same word, plainly chosen by design, should here be used
in another sense. All doubt, however, is done away by a comparison
of V, 22. The " I cast down the thrones of the kingdoms, and
annihilate the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen," stands there
to the shaking of the heavens and the earth, in entirely the same
relation as the " and I shake all the heathen " does here. We are
fully justified in explaining the latter words by the former. But if it
is established, that the " shaking of the heathen " imports the break
ing up of the foundations of their kingdoms, the dissolution of their
power, so also can the " shaking of the heavens and the earth " be
referred only to the same event, 3, To this must be added, that the
image is natural, only when it is referred to violent political revolu
tions. Storm and earthquake do not, perhaps, represent God's om
nipotence in general ; they are the natural symbol of the desolating
omnipotence of God, and were regarded as such by the nations of
antiquity. The earthquake was regarded as a precursor of approach
ing ruin, comp,, e, g, the remarkable passage of Herod, 6. 98,
from which it appears, that he himself, in common with the people,
regarded it as such ; zirjXog ixiv^S-ij, wj 'dXsyov ol JijXioi, xal ngaxa
xal vaxaxa fxixgi' ifisv asia&s7aa. Kal xovxo fisv xov xsgag av&gwnoiat
xa,v fisXXovxiov saso&ai xaxav l'(prjvs o Ssog. Enl ydg /tagsluv xov
'Xaxdansog xal Ssg^so) xov Jagslov xal Agxaiigisa, xoi Ssghto, xgiiSv
xovxsiav snsi^g ysvssaiv, iysvsxo nXsco xaxa xrj EXXdSi, rj inl sXxoai
ofA^as ysvsdg xdg ngb Jagslov ysvopsvag. — Ovxoj ovSsv rjv asixsg xt-
vrj&ijvat JijXov, xb nglv sovaav axivrjxov, comp. chap. 4 : 28, Thuc.
2 : 8, Justin. 40 : 2. As the revelation of the destroying power of

252 HAGGAI.
God in inanimate nature calls forth, even in the rudest minds, the
anticipation, that the same destroying power would also manifest
itself in the relations of men ; as in every storm, in every earth
quake, we behold an actual prophecy of God's judgments upon men ;
so, on the contrary, where these judgments are experienced, where
mournful disorder and distress on all sides prevail, external nature
seems, to the troubled and anxious mind, to be dissolved ; it feels as
if heaven and earth had come into collision. And this explains how
the manifestations of the destroying power of God in nature, how
the storm and earthquake are so frequently employed in Scripture,
as images of the manifestation of the same power in the affairs of
men. Hence, e. g., the description of the storm in the 18th Psalm,
as a designation of the fearful ruin which God brings upon the ene
mies of the Psalmist. Of the same character is Is. 13 : 13, where
the contemplation of the destruction impending over Babylon, is ex
tended so as to embrace a judgment over the whole earth, of which
the former is a prelude, and, at the same time, a prophecy by matter
of fact. " Therefore will I make the heaven to tremble, and the
earth shall quake from its place, through the anger of the Lord,
Sabaoth, and in the day when his anger burns." So also Ps. 60 : 4,
where great calamities of the covenant people appear under the im
age of an earthquake, by which great breaches of the earth had
been occasioned. " Thou hast shaken the earth, broken it to pieces,
heal the breaches thereof, for it shakes." Even in the poetical prose
of t'ne first book of the Maccabees, chap. 1 : 28, the terrible suffering
with whioh the covenant people had been visited, appears directly as
an earthquake (xal sasia&r] ij yr} inl xoiig xaxoixovvxag avxrjv).
The sense, in general, having been thus established, we must now
more closely examine the subject, since w;e seek to determine the
idea which lies at the foundation.
Had the prophet barely announced the glorification of the The
ocracy by the flowing into it of the heathen, vvith all their riches and
gifts, his prediction would have met with little success. The con-
tnasts were too striking ; on the one side, the poor, miserable, despised
Israel, who were even then, under a permission with difficulty ob
tained of their heathen masters, employed in building for their God
a mean tabernacle, instead of a splendid temple ; on the other side,
heathenism, in the bloom of its power, full of pride in its own might,
and the might of its idols, scarcely deigning to cast a look at Israel
and their God. These contrasts could be reconciled only in a super-

CHAP. 2. V. 6-9. 253
natural way, by the God of heaven, who delivers up the powerful to
ruin, and exalts the lowly and the miserable from the dust To this
preparatory agency the prophet points the people. He would shake
the might of the heathen, and humble their pride.
If now, we consider this shaking without connexion with other
events, the prophecy is parallel to that of Daniel, concerning the
four kingdoms which should be destroyed by the omnipotence of
God, and in whose place there should then succeed the fifth, the
kingdom of the people of the Lord. Both are equally consoling for
the covenant people. They knew, that however high the world
ly power might be advanced, a secret worm was gnawing at its
root. Every transfer of this power from one people to another,
gave new life to their hope. They beheld therein the actual proof
of the vanity and transitoriness of all that is earthly ; they saw that
this did not stand opposed to them, as an indestructible brazen wall;
they dared to hope, that, when this alternation had once completed
its course, all human power in opposition to the kingdom of God
would cease.
But this prophecy is distinguished from that of Daniel by a special
trait. The prophet does not speak merely of the violent destruction
of human power by God, but also of a moral result, which should
thereby be produced among the destroyed themselves. F-eely do the
shaken heathen come and consecrate themselves and their all to
the Lord. To effect this, is the direct aim of the shaking, the
highest goal which God pursues in the government of the world.
Now, in how far was this means suited to the accomplishment of
this object ? This question must be answered from a comprehensive
scriptural view of the economy of suffering. From this we learn,
that, on account of the corruption of human nature, the possession of
the good things of this world brings with it the danger of their
abuse, of the devotion of the heart to them, of confidence in them,
of proud contempt of God, and this danger can be avoided only by
God's withdrawing these good things, a view which is stamped even
on the language of Scripture. As now the individual must neces
sarily enter the kingdom of God through tribulation, as only he can
reap with joy, who has sown in tears, so is it also with whole nations.
How Israel was continually shaken, in order that his beauty might
come to the Lord, is shown by his historians and prophets on
every page. " In their distress they will ' seek me," Hos. 5 : 15 ;
this is the ground tone which runs through them all. Never, until

254 HAGGAI.
God has smitten Israel, does he turn himself to him, and seek to be
healed. The application of this fundamental view of the nature of
human suffering to the dealings of God with the heathen, we find,
although notices of it everyvvhere occur, the most clearly and com
pletely in Isaiah, passages from whom, soon to be cited, are in every
respect to be considered as parallel to that before us. For that there
the discourse is of individual heathen nations, here of all the heathen,
makes no difference, since the special prediction in Isaiah is plainly
an issue of the general idea, which the prophet expresses only in refer
ence to the individual nation, because he only has to do directly vvith
them. Chap. 19 : 1 - 15, the prophet describes the judgment of the
Lord upon Egypt, v. 16 sq., how this judgment tends to its humilia
tion and prosperity. Him, whom they did not perceive in his gifts,
they perceive with terror, as the one who takes away. " In this day
will Egypt be as the women, and they tremble and fear before the
swinging of the hand of the Lord, Sabaoth, which he swings over
them." The Church of the Lord, despised before, becomes now an
object of their reverence. Altars are erected to the Lord in the
land of Egypt ; and Egypt, Ashur, who, by a like humiliation, has
attained to a like experience, and Israel, united in one covenant and
paternal people, together serve the Lord, — precisely as in Amos
9 : 1, the remnant of Edom, the portion spared amidst the Divine
judgments, now join themselves to the covenant people, and are re
ceived among them by the Lord. The same idea is also found in
the close of the prophecy against the Egyptians and Cushites, chap.
18. Vitringa : " Notabile aliquod consequens divini judicii, in quo
jEgyptii aque ac Cuschai magnum acciperent beneficium. Esse
enim futurum, ut ipsi per exemplum tremendi hujus judicii divini
veniunt in notitiam dei Israelis, et ud sunierem, perducti fidem deum
Isruelis publice profiteanlur, honorent, colant, celebrent." So also
at the close of the prophecy against Tyre, chap. 23 : 17, 18. After
the time of suffering. Tyre again becomes flourishing through the
mercy of the Lord ; now, however, her gain is consecrated to him.
Now, in what relation does the idea in the general form in which
it is expressed in the passage before us, stand to history ? It is plain,
that every shaking here comes under consideration, only so far as
the accession of the heathen stands in connexion with it, is a conse
quence of it. For this reason alone, explanations like those of
Verschuir, who places the chief fulfilment in the time of the Macca
bees, are no less to be rejected, than the manifestly absurd one of

CHAP. 2. V. G-9. 265
Drusius, who thinks of an earthquake under Herod. Nor can we
by any means suppose that the prophecy reached its completion
with the first manifestation of Christ Its fulfilment must rather
be progressive, so long as the antithesis of earthly power, in opposi
tion to the kingdom of God on earth continues, therefore until the
establishment of the kingdom of glory.
What a rich prospect is opened to us by this idea, over the region
of history ! How do vve gain light where before there was only dark
ness ; order and design, instead of confusion and chance. This idea
is the key to all believing consideration of history, the principle of
all its true philosophy. All God's dispensations towards the nations
have for their object the establishment and promotion of his king
dom. With a firm hand he conducts events through hundreds and
thousands of years, towards this object. Where to the carnal eye,
chance, and to the eye of faith, only his penal justice, seems to ope
rate, which in so many other prophecies is alone rendered promi
nent, and which is, indeed, not to be excluded, there a prospect is
at once laid open before us, of the secret operations of the Divine
mercy, which, among the heathen, no less than the covenant people,
only smites in order to heal, which, even there, where only absolute
destruction appears, as at Sodom and Gomorrah, brings life oiit of
death (comp. Ezek. 16 : 55), and only there, where all means of
severity and love have been employed in vain, suffers a total ruin to
ensue. We proceed now to examine how the idea was realized in the time
before the first appearing of Christ. Here, one shaking of the
heathen followed upon another. How the Persian power was under
mined, was manifest, even in the war which Darius, the successor
of Xer.xes, waged against the Greeks. That its time would now
soon be fulfilled, might even then have been anticipated, and this
anticipation was realized by the . rapid conquests of Alexander.
Even his power, apparently destined to be eternal, soon yielded to
the lot of all that is temporal. " Inde," says Livy, " morte Alexan-
dri disiractum in multa regna, dum ad se quisque opes rapiunt lu-
cerantes viribus, a summo culmine fortuna ud ullimum finem centum
quinquagintu annos stetit." The two most powerful kingdoms which
arose out of the monarchy of Alexander, that of Syria and Egypt,
destroyed each other. The Romans now attained to the dominion
of the world, but, at the very time when they appeared to have reach
ed the summit of their greatness, their overthrow had already far ad
vanced.

256 HAGGAI.
Let us suppose that Christ had appeared when one of these king
doms was in the freshness and vigor of its youth. Would he have
found admission ? Under tlie Persians, intoxicated whh victory,
just as little as under the triumphant Greeks, and in the ancient iron
Rome. But thus a feeling of the vanity and perishable nature of
all that is earthly, a longing after indestructible heavenly blessings,
a firm and uninovable heavenly kingdom, had been extensively
awakened among the nations, the strength of which may be learned
even from the fact, that, — a feeble commencement of the promised
coming of the heathen, — they sought this kingdom itself in its
then imperfect form, and either suffered themselves to be received
into it, or leaned upon it.
It yet only remains for us to consider the New Testament citation
of the passage, Heb. 12 : 26 sq., which presented to those who had
not rightly understood the sense of the original, such invincible diffi
culties, that several among them (Zacharia, J. D. Michaelis, Storr)
determined upon the desperate assumption, that the passage, not
withstanding its verbal agreement (according to the Seventy), stood
in no relation whatever to Haggai.
The author, in v. 25, exhorts his readers not to expose themselves,
by a rejection of the far more complete revelation of God in Christ,
to a far sorer punishment than they experienced, who hardened
themselves against the revelation of God under the Old Testament.
The higher dignity of the former, he demonstrates, v. 26, from the
fact, that while, at the establishment of the old covenant, only a com
paratively small shaking took place (as a sign of the sovereignty of
God over created things, of the destroying power which he exerts
over them, their Mount Sinai had been moved), in reference to the
time of the New Testament, an immensely greater shaking is
predicted, such an one as concerns not merely the whole earth, but
also the heaven. What this shaking in the prophecy of Haggai,
whose words he represents as spoken by God at the beginning of
the period of time to which the prophecy refers (comp. the similar
case, chap. 10 : 5) may import, he declares, v. 27, 7'o 8s sxt anal
SrjXot x(ov aaXtvopsvav xrjV fisxd&saiv, ag nsnoiijfisvaiv, tva psLvy xd fir)
aaXsvoftsva. Although the truth was seen by Calvin (" In voce anal
non insistit apostolus. Tantum ex cencussione cceli et terra infert,
totius mundi statum deberc Christi adventu mutari"), yet many errors
have here been occasioned by the circumstance, that the whole em
phasis was almost universally assumed to rest on the m anaS, while.

CHAP. 2. V. 6-9, 257
nevertheless, the author has no further respect to these words, after
which a x. x. X. is to be supplied, but he explains only the following
aslca ov fiovov, &c. In like manner, the 'iva also has been mostly
erroneously taken as ekbatick, " so that the immo.vable remains,"
instead of " in order that the immovable may remain," That the
immovable may remain, is the design of the displacing of that which
is movable, whose remaining, therefore, must stand in an unavoidable
contradiction with that of the immovable. After these remarks, it
at once appears, that what the author advances as the ground idea
of this oracle, and what we have discovered to be such, perfectly
coincide. Every thing created, so far as it stands in opposition to
the kingdom of God, must be shaken and broken to pieces, in order
that this may endure and remain. How great and glorious, then, the
author hence infers, in v, 28, must this ^aaiXsla dadXsvTog he. How
earnestly must those to whom God grants admission into it, strive,
by continuing in his favor, to walk in a manner well pleasing to him !
How must they govern their conduct with fear ! For their God, —
as the mercy shown to them so far surpasses that which had been
before vouchsafed, — infinitely more than the God of the Old Testa
ment (Deut 4 : 24), is a consuming fire, — The author has well per
ceived, that what is a mere image in respect to the inferior realization
of the idea, the shaking of the heaven and the earth, will be literally
true in its highest and last realization. It is the same Divine agency
which shakes the kingdoms of this world for the benefit of the king
dom of God, and which, in the last day, will so far annihilate the
world itself the fashion of which passes away, comp. 1 Cor. 7 : 31,
as, pervaded by sin and evil, it is not suited for the seat of the glori
ous kingdom of God ; so that the prophecy and its citation are closely
connected with those passages where the creation of a new heavens
and new earth is predicted. Is. 65 : 17, 66 : 22, which passages have
found, and still find, the prelude and the commencement of their
fulfilment, in the shaking of the heathen and their kingdoms. For
this renovation contains the germ, and the commencement of that
which is to take place at the end of time. From these remarks,
also, we may explain the near coincidence of the passage which rests
upon Haggai, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that which rests
upon Isaiah, 2 Pet. 3 : 10 sq., the close connexion of which, has not
been sufficiently perceived and made use of, by the interpreters of
the Epistle to the Hebrews.
V. 7. " And I shake all the heathen, and the beauty, of all the
VOL, III, 33

258 HAGGAI.
heathen comes, and I fill this house with glory, saith the Lord, Sab-
uoth." After the example of the Vulg, (et veniet desideratus genti
bus) the explanation of U]U nipD of the Messiah, has become so
current, that Chladenius, Dissert, ad h. I. p. 8, could designate it
as communis fere omnium interpretum ac firmissima sententia.
" The consolation of the heathen," had struck so deep root, by its
frequent use in hymns, sermons, &c,, that most interpreters shudder
ed at the thought of relinquishing an explanation which had become
dear to them in another than a learned way. The authors of the
peculiarly numerous individual treatises upon this passage, sought as
much as possible to strengthen it, and to stifle the feeling of its
erroneousness, which manifestly always remained with them and
their leaders, by triumphantly exposing the weak points of the ab
surd interpretation of the Jewish writers. The erroneousness of
this explanation, among the older critics, most definitely expressed
by Calvin, concerning which it must be remarked beforehand, that
it is false only in respect to the form, and not in respect to the sub
stance, the Messianic character of the passage, is evident from the
following reasons. 1. The plur. ?X3, according to this interpretation,
can by no means be justified. Most of the expedients which have
been here adopted, de.serve, perhaps, to be cited as a confession of
embarrassment, though they are unworthy of a refutation. F. Ri-
bera very candidly remarks : " Magna mihi suspicie est, locum hunc
corruptum esse a recentioribus Judais, cujus pondere ei vi vehementer
urgebuntur." Raimund Martini refers the plural to the two natures
of Christ. Chladenius remarks ; " Cum id venit, quod u pluribus,
imo quod ab omnibus dcside.ruiur, huud dubie plurium adventui id
aquivalet." By far the most, however, from Frischmuth down to
Scheibel, appeal to the Can. 54, lib. iii. tr. 3, of Glassius : " Quando
duo substantiva, quorum unum regit ulterum, ceijunguntur , tunc
verbum numero respondet quundnque posteriori, cum deberet priori."
But if this rule, which is too vaguely expressed, receives the neces
sary limitation, it appears at once not to be applicable here. How
could it well be so generally understood ? It gives a license for
every error of thought and language. This, however, cannot be in
tended, but only a constructio ad sensum, and this can take place
only in one particular kind of cases, where what is grammatically
the leading word, is, in respect to the sense, only a subordinate one.
Under this category all the examples which occur actually fall,
comp. Ewald, p. 641. But that the one before us does not belong

CHAP, 2, V. 6-9, 259
among them, is obvious. The difficulty arising from the plur. has
been most happily set aside by those, who, with Cocceius, take
nTPD as accus., as it frequently stands with verbs of motion : " Et
venient ud desiderium omnium gentium, — nempe ad Christum, i. e.
accedent ad eum, qui gentibus dabitur, ut eum ament. 2, In this ex
planation nnpt! is taken in a sense in which it never occurs, although
given as the chief and ground meaning in all the lexicons, even
down to the latest. Neither the wmsc. npn, nor the fem. nnp^, have
ever the sense wish, desire, vvhich, according to etymology, they
could, perhaps, have, but always the sense beuuty; xb xdXXog ; and
the word occurs so often, that we are fully justified in drawing a
general conclusion from the instances before us. In a great number
of passages, the meaning beauty, is incontestable, as in those where
the n'ipp 'S^, vessels of beauty, beautiful, costly vessels, are men
tioned, 2 Chron. 32 : 27, " And Hezekiah had riches and honor
very great, and he made for himself treasures in silver and gold, and
costly stones, and perfumes, and shields," Tvtqt\ 'Sp SdS-i. Jer.
25 : 34, Hos. 13 : 15, Nah. 2 : 10. So also Jer. 3 : 19, where
HTpn '(''^,X, land of beauty, stands in the parallelism with 'px nSnj,
inheritance of ornament. Is, 2 : 16, " The day of the Lord comes
upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all prospects of beauty,"
ITJPDi!' ni'piy, i. e, " upon all which is beautiful to the sight " ; the
Seventy, who never translate TrmT) by wish, have inl ndaav &sdv
TiXolwv (this word is a false exegetical addition) xdXXovg, Vulg, :
"Super omne, quod visu pulchrum est." Ezek. 26: 12, "They
will destroy '^JO'inn 'r)3, thy beautiful houses ; " just as, Jer. 12 : 10,
'0"ipn npSlJ, my beautiful inheritance ; Is, 32 : 12, TDTJ 'TK', beauti
ful fields ; Amos 5 : 11, 'ipo 'Q")3, beautiful vineyards ; Ezek, 23 : 6,
Tn?? 'tJTia, beautiful youths. There, are only two passages remain
ing, which, according to the current interpretation, sustain the mean
ing wish, desire ; in these, however, the usual sense can, and must
be retained, 2 Chron. 21 : 10, " And then he departed (died) xS?
niPO, and they buried him in the city of David, and not in the
sepulchres of the kings ; " the interpreters, for the most part, nee
ullum sui desiderium reliquii. But this interpretation, even if mpn
could have the sense wish, ought still to be rejected for its harshness ;
without wish, for "without any. one having a desire after him,"
would, perhaps, be admissible in poetry, but not in simple prose.
We must rather explain "without beauty" (Seventy ovx iv inalva),
and what follows, that he was not committed to the tombs of the

260 HAGGAI,
kings," must be considered as a part of the want of beauty, to which,
moreover, the absence of lamentation among the people, of a funeral
solemnity, and a reverential remembrance, belongs. The extremity of
a death, nnplri xS?, is the sepultura asinina, threatened by Jeremiah,
or the being thrown away as a carcass, trodden under foot, pre
dicted by Isaiah to the king of Babylon. The second passage, is
Dan. 11 : 37, "And the God of his fathers he will not regard, and
the D'K'J nipo, and every God will he not regard, for he exalts him
self above all," Here, according to Gesenius, Havernick, and Others,
Anaitis or Mylitta is designated by the wish or the desire of women.
But there is no occasion to resort to so far-fetched an interpretation.
The older explanation by " the beauty of women," gives an excel
lent sense. How could the essence of that cold selfishness be better
described, which, untouched by every softer and tender sentiment of
religion and of love, pursues its own goal with a steadfast eye, which
makes a god of itself, and whose heart is only there where its sole
treasure lies. How closely the two, apparently separate, are con
nected, viz. the regard for God, and the regard for the beauty of
women, plainly appears from the connexion demonstrable from all
history of religion and love, of the impure with the impure, of the
pure with the pure. — We have, therefore, as it appears to us, incon
trovertibly shown, that D;un~'7J n^prj can be translated only by
" the beauty of all the heathen," But in what sense the Messiah
could be thus called, it would be difficult to show. 3, The explana
tion of the Messiah is not favored by the cqnnexion. Immediately
before, the shaking of the heathen had been promised, as the means
whereby God would remove the obstacles which had hitherto ob
structed their access to his kingdom. We should now very naturally
expect the prediction of their coming, with all their gifts and treas
ures, and the more so, since every thing turned upon these, and by
pointing to them, the distress of the people on account of the poverty
of the house of God at present, was to be relieved. But, instead of
this, we have at once, abruptly, and without preparation, the coming
of the Messiah, Now also the words " and I fill this house with
glory," can no longer be referred to the gifts and treasures of the
heathen. For wherein the glory, which may be very manifold, con
sists, must be determined by the preceding context And we know
not what to do with v. 8, " Mine is the silver and mine is the gold,"
and are forced upon such manifestly erroneous interpretations as that
of Frischmuth, and most of the older critics : " Si templum pretiosa

CHAP, 2. V. 6-9. 261
vellem supellectili ornare, facile earn vobis suppeditare possem, cum
omne argentum et aurum meum sit;" whereby, in order to pacify
minds which were trqubled by the contrast between the promise and
the appearance, we make God take back precisely that which he had
formerly promised, particularly in Is. chap. 60, and interpret as no
good," that vvhich he had formerly promised as such. The sound
sense of Calvin could not subscribe to such views. He remarks :
" Quia stutim subjungitur : meum argentum et meum aurum, idea
simplicior erit sensus ille, quem jam retuli, scil, Venturas gentes et
quidem instructus omnibus divitiis, ut se et sua omnia offerant deo in
sacrificium. — We must still observe the reference of the words
" and I fill this house with glory," to v. 3, " Who is there remaining
among you, who saw this house in its first glory, and how do you
see it now ? Is it not as a nonentity in your eyes ? " From this
reference it appears, that by glory, in the passage before us, that only
can be understood for whose absence the people mourned, and which
had belonged to the splendid first temple. But, if this is so, then,
according to what has been already remarked, we are justified in
thinking of this special sort of glory, by what was said immediately
before. Among those who reject the interpretation of the person of the
Messiah, there is again a diversity of views. After setting aside
plainly unphilological interpretations, as that of Kimchi, who would
supply the preposition 3 before nipi^, " they, the heathen, come with
the good things of all the heathen," or of those who take nTPD in
the sense already proved to be false, as Verschuir, " they come to the
desire of all the heathen," whereby Jerusalem is designated, and of
Ewald (p. 641), "there comes the desire," i.e., " the most lovely
nations," the choice lies between two only. The beauty of the
heathen nations, can mean either the beautiful among them, the
most honorable and distinguished, — thus Riickert, " and they come,
the choice of all nations," who, contrary to the accents, and without
grammatical necessity, separates 1X3 from nnpo, — or "' the beauty
of the heathen, only what is always beautiful among them, all their
costly good things." The latter explanation is the oldest of all ex
tant. It is found in the Seventy : xal ¦^'let xd ixXsxxd ndvxav xav i&vav.
The Syriac also has it : et excituturus sum omnes gentes, ut afferant
optutissimum quumque rem cunctarum gentium.
We are led to give it the preference to the other, for the following
grounds. 1. What we have said against the interpretation of the

262 HAGGAI.
Messiah under 3, is in part applicable here. Elsewhere the coming
of the heathen themselves is promised to the Theocracy as its highest
glorification. Here, however, where the pronjise stands in relation
to one entirely special occasion, this would not be suitable. To be
sure, it can be said, if the coming of the heathen be first established,
so also is the coming of their good things, since gifts are the usual
sign of reverence. But that on which every thing especially depends,
the reader is not left to infer, but is told as expressly as possible. It
is, therefore, more suitable here to infer their own coming from the
coming of the good things of the heathen (which in another rela
tion is the principal, but here only a subordinate matter), than from
the coming of the heathen, the coming of their good things. And
the more so, since, in those passages, by a comparison of which
with the appearance, the discouragement of the people was chiefly
occasioned ; Is. chap, 60, the coming of the good things is so espe
cially rendered prominent, comp., e. g., v, 9, " For the islands shall
wait upon me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from
far, and their silver and their gold with them for the name of the
Lord thy God, and for the holy one of Israel, because he adorns
thee," 2, Precisely in the prediction which the prophet has so
especially in view, do vve find something completely corresponding
with D'.l'Jn'Sp nnpp according to our interpretation, so that we are
obliged to suppose, that Haggai had direct regard to it We refer
to the two passages of Is, 60 : 5, " The wealth of the sea directs
itself to thee, f) 1X3; d;u S'n, the strength of the heathen comes to
thee," and v, 11, "And they open thy gates continually, day and
night shall they not be shut, to bring to thee the strength of the
heathen, D'.1"J S'n, and introduce their kings." To be sure, there is
here also an altogether similar difference of interpretation. Several,
" the host, the army of the heathen," so that both passages would
refer to the personal coming of the heathen. But that the strength
here, is rather a designation of the good things, is rendered incon
trovertible by the parallel passages 10 : 14, " As a nest found my hand
the strength of the nations," 61 : 6, " The strength of the heathen
will ye eat," Mic. 4 : 13, "And thou consecratest to the Lord your
gain, and your strength, to the Lord of the whole earth," Zech, 14 :
14, " As now, Isaiah here exhibits the good things, and leaves the
persons to be supplied (Vitr, : " Propheta opes facultuiesque hic
speciari non vult ubsque hominibus eas apportaturis, ut ex seq. con-
textu liquet, qui proin synecdochice hic intelliguntur"), so also his

CHAP. 2. V. 6-9. 263
imitator, Haggai. By the establishment of this reference, the objec
tion also disappears, which might be drawn against our interpreta
tion, from the assertion of Ewald, p. 640, tiiat the connexion of
nouns in the sing, with the plur., is frequent only when the object
consists of individual self-active members, particularly persons ; very
seldom, when the noun is an abstract for an inanimate thing, against
which, it is to be remarked in general, that the distinction between
the animate and the inanimate in Scripture, particularly in the
Psalms and Prophets, where life is imparted to the most lifeless, and
motion to the most inert, is by no means so striking as with us. In
like manner, also, the objection of Scheibel, which, in itself, is of no
importance, disappears : " Qnis sanus vertere possit : pretiosa veni
ent ? " If Isaiah speaks of the coming of the strength of the
heathen, why may not Haggai of the beauty ? 3. It is very
much to be questioned, whether the beauty of the heathen could
stand for " the most beautiful, the most excellent among them," At
least, no corresponding parallel passage can be found, A compari
son of Ezek, 23 : 6, and other passages, shows, th.at this would
rather be expressed by nnpnn'.'.iJ^Sj. And what is to be under
stood by the beautiful heathen ? Perhaps the mightiest, richest. As
elsewhere, in similar descriptions, some such nations are mentioned
by way of individualization, e. g,, Ps. 72 : 10, " The kings of Tar
shish and the isles will bring an offering, the kings of Seba and
Sheba present a gift." But then this kind of the beautiful would
be more particularly designated. On the contrary, we have for our
understanding of H'lpri, an exactly corresponding parallel, that of
1 Sam, 9 : 20, where Samuel says to Saul, " And for the she asses
which have strayed from thee three days ago, trouble not thyself for
they are found, and to whom is all the beauty of Israel, nipn-^D
'^'yP'., is it not to thee, and the whole house of thy fathers ? " Entire
ly the same connexion of honor with beauty as here, we find in
Nah, 2 : 10, "Make a spoil of silver and gold, and there is no end
to the furniture, honor is by all vessels of beauty, nnpn 'S^ Sip T133."
With respect to the last words of the verse, " and I fill this house
with glory," they are referred by most of the older interpreters to
the glorification of the temple by the appearing of the Messiah, by
Abarbanel and Hasceus (Schulz, Pras. Has., de Glor. Tempi Sec.
Brem. 1724), to the inhabitation of the Holy Spirit, with an appeal
to E.'c. 40:34, 35, 2 Chron, 5: 13, 14, 1 Kings 8 : 10, 11, and
Ezek. 43 : 4, where nearly the same words occur of the dwelling of

264 HAGGAI,
God in the tabernacle, in the temple of Solomon, and in the new
spiritual tqmple.
Now we can hardly suppose that this coincidence is entirely acci
dental. Still, far less is to be inferred from it, than has been by
those interpreters. Against this is the very essential difference
between those passages and the one before us, that there the dis
course relates to a definite glory, the glory of God, the manifestation
of his majesty, here of glory in general T135 without the artic. and
without a suff. This compels us to look, for the nearer determina
tion of the glory, to what precedes. It consists in the coming of the
beauty of all the heathen, which serves the temple of the Lord for
glory and for ornament, precisely as, Is. 60 : 13, " The glory of Leba
non comes to thee," &c, " to adorn the place of my sanctuary, and
the place of my feet will I honor." The same reference requires
also the " mine is the silver, and mine is the gold," of the follow
ing verse ; and in like manner v. 9, where the predicted greater
glory of the second temple than that of the first should be referred,
according to a comparison of v. 3, only to that which according to
V. 3 was painfully missed in the present, and which the first temple
enjoyed. These remarks, however, do not preclude a very significant
reference to those passages. The same God, who condescended at
that time to lend to the temple the highest ornament, the sharing of
his honor, will even yet fill it with glory by the coming of the beauty
of the heathen. And the conferring of this new glory presupposes
the reimpartation of the former, and, indeed, in a far larger measure.
For wherefore do the heathen come with their beauty ? Even for no
other reason than because they perceive, that God dwells in the
midst of his people.
We must still notice an objection, which, with most older interpre
ters, Chladenius (I. c. p. 15) raises against the whole interpretation
favored by us : " Commotio cceli, terra, aridi, omnium gentium maxi
mum quid spondet, et ecce quid tandem eveniet ? scil. templum Hieros.
aure gentium complebitur. Vehementer auri argentive splendore
fascinatum esse oportet, qui cum commotione cceli etc. ornamenta
aurea et urgenteu templi sec. conjungere cogiiande queat." The
most obvious answer is this, " was it becoming for Isaiah, who has
undeniably prophesied such things, and, indeed, in very lofty words,
to do this, why not also for Haggai ? " We thus, at least, accom
plish so much as to bring those who offered the problem, as belong
ing exclusively to us, to join in seeking its solution. This, however,

CHAP, 2, V, 6-9, 265
is not difficult. It presents itself at once, when we understand only
how to separate form and substance, kernel and shell, from one
another. What was the. deepest ground of the distress of the be
lievers, On beholding the plan of the new temple ? Certainly, not
that the taste was not satisfied by a beautiful edifice. They beheld
rather in the relation of the new temple to the former, a copy of the
present relation of God to themselves, a matter-of-fact declaration,
that his favor had departed from them, a matter-of?fact prophecy,
that it would not return. From the temple, the existing seat of the
kingdom of God, they argued to the nature of the kingdom of God
itself The distress, therefore, related to what was external, only so
far as they regarded it as a copy of what was internal. This form
of the distress determined also the form of the consolation. Like
the distress, it had also a shell. Without this, it would not have
been consolation for them. They stood on the point of view belong
ing to the Old Testament, under which they lived. To them, as
their distress showed, the kingdom of God was inseparable from the
temple. God, therefore, caused the assurance to be imparted to
them, in the form of a prediction of the glorification of the temple,
to the building of which they were to be encouraged, that he had
not rejected his people, that all his promises were ever yea and amen,
that his now despised kingdom should, hereafter, when his time
arrived, surpass all the kingdoms of the world in glory. There is,
undeniably, a true Divine accommodation, which distinguishes itself
from the unjustly praised art, by having to do only with the form of
the truth, while that perverts its very essence. This true accommo
dation runs through all God's deeds, and discourses, from Paradise
to Christ What else was it, when he promised to his disciples a
hundred fold more of earthly goods than they should lose on his ac
count ? What else, when he encouraged them by the prediction,
that they should sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Isra
el ? When he allowed their supposition, that there was such a thing
as sitting on his right hand and on his left, and did not correct this
form, in which the idea must necessarily be represented, in accord
ance with their education and spiritual state, but only their view,
which related to the essence, and had its root in sin, of the condi
tions of this honor ? When, without meeting the erroneous physical
conceptions, which might, in the minds of his disciples, be .so easily
connected therewith, he taught them to pray to a God in the heavens ?
Such an accommodation is found in all that he reveals, either per-
voL. III. 34

266 HAGGAI.
sonally, or by his apostles, concerning the state after death, and the
kingdom of glory. He gives it to us precisely as the description of
the paradisiacal condition, in the form in which we can comprehend
it. Should he entirely withhold from us the idea, because it is in
conceivable by us in its own proper form ? This latter example, is,
however, the more illustrative, since the pious of the Old Testament
stood in the same relation to the kingdom of grace, as we to the
kingdom of glory. The same is here true of prophecy, as of the
law. It may be said of it also, that heaven and earth shall sooner
pass away, than one jot or tittle of it fail ; comp. Matt 5 : 18,
24 : 35. But as in the law, so also in the prophecy, that which is
eternal, even in its smallest elements, because grounded in the
nature of God, is not the letter, but the spirit, which is not to be
sought apart from the letter, but is involved in it. Such an accom
modation is set before us also for imitation. Or ought we not, per
haps, to speak with children at all of heaven, because we can only
speak with them concerning it in a childish manner ? Rather the
childish form of the idea is exactly the true one for the chUd. For
only in this form is the idea comprehensible by him. Every other
would lead him into error in respect to the very essence.
It will now also easily appear, what should be held in respect to the
fulfilment of this prophecy. Even in the form and drapery in which
it is here presented, there was a feeble prelude of the fulfilment
To this belonged every gift, which, in the tinie when the Old Tes
tament still continued, was consecrated to the temple by proselytes
out of heathenism from true love to the God of Israel, just as in
every outward assistance which the Lord vouchsafes fo his people,
his promise. Matt 19 : 29, is realized. But we must not regard as
belonging to the fulfilment, that which several interpreters, adhering
to the letter, take as its completion, the adorning of the temple at
the time of the Maccabees, and that at the time of Herod. Not the
former, for here the discourse is of a glorification of the temple,
which should proceed from the heathen awakened to repentance and
faith by God's outward and inward dealings. Not the latter, for al
though Herod was a heathen by descent, still his zeal for the temple
did not spring from faith and love. In reference to that event, the
remark of Calvin is entirely just : " Conutus est diabelus larvam
ipsis objicere, ut desinerent sperure in Christum." Only we must go
still further ; not merely had Satan this conscious purpose, but also
his instrument, Herod himself It was not accidental, that the

CHAP. 2. V, 6-9. 267
second temple was so very far behind the first in glory, that the
literal fulfilments of the prophecy were so seldom and so small, and
in general, the whole condition of the people, from the exile until the
time of Christ, was so poor and mean, — precisely, as God has his
own wise and holy purposes in being so sparing in the literal fulfil
ment of Matt, 19 : 29. " Si aque opulentum fuisset templum," re
marks Calvin, " et si regni etiam species fuisset, qualis antea
fuerat, Judaa ucquieviSsent in illis externis pompis ; ita contemtus
fuisset Christus, imo pre nihilo fuisset spirituaUs dei grutiu." The
inferior realizations were withdrawn from the people, in order that
they might not cleave to the accidental, " the gold and silver," and,
satisfied with the present, cease to long after the complete fulfilment.
This was too strong in the view of Herod ; he feared that the
heavenly kingdom might infringe upon his earthly dominion. His
building of the temple proceeded on the same principle as his murder
of the children in Bethlehem. He wished to hinder the coming of
the kingdom of God. He wished to transfer the longed for n'nnx
D'p;n into the present. This purpose, even the special reference to
our prophecy, clearly appears in the account of Josephus, B. 15. c.
11. It explains, e. g., the assumption in the discourse of Herod,
that the second temple must necessarily equal the first in height —
Haggai had, indeed, prophesied, that the glory of the second temple
would be greater than that of the first, comp. Joseph, 15, 11. § 1 :
Tbv ydg vabv xovtov o^xoSoprjaav fisv tm psylaxca ¦dsm naxsgsg xjphsgoi
fisxa xrjv ix Ba^vXavog avaaxaaiv ' ivSst Ss avxa ngbg xo psys&og slg
vipog iSijxovxa nrixsig ' xoaovxov ydg vnsgsixsv o n g ax o g sxslvog, ov
SoXoficbv avaxoSbfiijas. Thence the words : EnsiSrj Ss vvv sym psv dgxco
&SOV ^ovXtjasi, nsglsaxi 8s xal ptjxog si grjvtjg xal xxrjaig jf^iijiuarcoj'
xal fisys&og ngoaoSav, xb 8s fisyiaxov, cplXoi xal 8i sivoiag ol ndvxcav,
(a? snog slnslv, xgaxoiJvxsg "Pmpatoi x. x. X. Here, the reference to our
prophecy is not tor be mistaken. Herod seeks to show, that* all the
conditions of the glorification of the temple contained in it, were
actually present. With him the ndvxutv xgaxovvrsg "PcopaHoi equal
" all the heathen," who should promote the building of the temple ;
called by God to the dominion, he has gold and silver enough ; the
words " I give peace in this place," are now fulfilled. How he em
ployed every means in order to fulfil "greater will be the glory," &c,,
appears from the words in § 3, xdg Sandvag xav nglv vnsg^aXXo-
psv og , ag ovx aXlog xig iSoxsL inixsxoafi'rjxsvai xbv vaov. Fictitious
miracles must serve to announce the work as under the special

268 HAGGAI,
guidance of God, Many, such namely, on whom nothing was lost,
and who were obliged to yield to this temptation, actually suffered
themselves to be so far befooled, as to hold the very man whose
dominion was the greatest proof of God's displeasure, a hammer by
which God designed to break in pieces the hard heart of Israel, as an
instrument of the Divine mercy. The believers, however, continued
to wait, as before, for the consolation Of Israel. They put in the
place of the apparent fulfilment, the true, whose highest completion
will then first take place, when the whole fulness of the heathen
shall have come into the kingdom of God, and this shall have been
exalted to full glory.
In the controversy with the Jews, great stress was laid upon our
prophecy, not so much, however, in the time of the fathers, when
by the " house of God," the Church was understood (e. g. Augustin,
De Civ. Dei, lib. 18, c. 45, 48 : "Hac domus, Christi ecclesia, ma-
joris est gloria, quam fuerat ilia prima lignis et lapidibus cateris-
que rebus metallicis constructa." Even so Cyril), as at a later
period. During the existence of the second temple, should the
desire of the heathen, the Messiah, make his appearance. How
vain, therefore, is the hope of Israel, who expect a Messiah, since
the temple has long been destroyed. Against this argument, only
one doubt seemed to arise, the rebuilding of the second temple by
Herod, Some sought to remove this doubt by a wrong method, by
the supposition, opposed to the plain letter of Josephus, that this re
building was not total. On the other hand, the correct course for
removing the difficulty was taken by J. A, Ernesti, when, in the
Abh. de Temple Herodis M. (reprinted in his Opusculis Philol. Crit.
p, 350 sq,), he undertook to prove, and actually did prove, " 1. Hero-
dem templum totum a fundamentis readificusse, destructo per puries
vetere. 2. Ex consuetudine loquendi historica, omninoque populuri tem
plum illud nihilominus secundum et fuisse et recte hppellutum esse." *
We still subjoin to the grounds brought forward by him, that, even
the design of Herod, already pointed out, necessarily required the
identity of his temple with that of Zerubbabel, was certainly a chief
reason why he only caused it to be torn down by piecemeal, and re
built ; further, that the name of a new temple, not in an architectural,
* Solieibel, on Haggai, p. 10, by a strange misunderstanding of the plain
words of Ernesti, attributes to him a monstrous opinion, of which he had never
dreamed, and then refutes it at length, wondering that others had not done it
before.

CHAP. 2, V, 6-9, 269
but a religious sense, can, with right, be given only to one whose
erection coincides with a new era in the history of the Theocracy,
so that the new period is outwardly represented by the new temple.
Now this older method of arguing seems entirely to lose its force,
according to our exposition. The reference to the person of the
Messiah vanishes. The temple comes no further under consideration
as an edifice, but as a seat of the kingdom of God, as designating
this itself On a closer examination, however, it appears, that the
argument only needs a new application, in order completely to regain
its power. We need only understand the destruction of the second
temple, not outwardly, but as what it was, a declaration on the part
of God, that his kingdom had been removed from the Jews ; and
consider, moreover, that this declaration has been continually made
in the destinies of the Jews for eighteen centuries past ; we shall be
convinced, that if a continuation of the kingdom of God, and a ful
filment of the promises of Haggai, cannot be elsewhere pointed out,
he must necessarily appear as a fanatic, and that all those who regard
him as a prophet of the true God, must be compelled to seek the
fulfilment elsewhere. Should the glorification be imparted to the
second temple = the kingdom of God represented by it in its second
period, we can by no means think of an interruption of this glorifi
cation, a cessation of all manifestations of God as the covenant God,
during a period, in comparison with which, the former, designating
the cessation of the first period, comes the less into consideration,
since, during that, love and mercy in the most manifold expressions,
accompanied earnestness and severity. Should the glorification be
imparted to the second temple, only such a destruction of it can con
sist with the credibility of the prophet, which, according to the idea,
would be a glorious improvement, a decay, like that of the seed
corn which perishes in the earth in order to bring forth much fruit.
Here, however, a destruction, which is only destruction ! Should
a final fulfilment of the promise of the prophet be expected with
reason, no period must intervene, entirely without current fulfilments.
Even he himself designates his promise as one which wanted only
yet " a little " of the fulfilment. Here, however, eighteen centuries,
in which God is not God, in order, on occasion, once more to become
God again ! He is a fool who rests his hopes upon what is absolutely
future ! He feeds upon wind and ashes. Either the Lord is with us
every day, or he comes not again. He who does not taste in the
present how good and friendly the Lord is, will not do it in the future.

270 HAGGAI.
For such expectations from the future as those of the modern Jews,
and those of the Deists and Rationalists, which are altogether similar,
in respect to immortality, Schiller's " Resignation " is thrilling truth.
There is in the future no pure commencement, there is only com
pletion, as certainly as God does not first become God in the future,
but is God already in the present The believers in Israel, who,
before the appearing of Christ, waited for the consolation of Israel,
would have been just as foolish as the modern Jews, if they had not
already experienced this consolation in the present and the past.
The modern unbelief of the Jews is only a manifestation of that
which already existed before unconsciously. A man may, perhaps,
fancy himself to hope in the absolute future, to believe in a God,
who will show himself such, for the first time, hereafter, so firmly, as
to become a martyr therefor, but still he does not yet hope and be
lieve. For the true hope and the true faith is an vnoaxaaig xav
iXm^ofiivav, Heb. 11 : 1, and this has the relative present, as a
necessary foundation of the future. Now the longer God delays to
become God, ithe more generally must this imagination vanish.
Atheism is the goal to which modern Judaism rapidly advances. A
renovation of the more ancient, which, with all its abhorrence of
idolatry, is still, in precisely the principal point, identical with it,
since it reverences a God" who gives no evidence of his power and
goodness in the present, is entirely inconceivable. Christianity and
atheism will divide the spoil between them.
V. 8. " Mine is the silver, mine is the gold, saith the Lord, Saba
oth." The phrase " mine is," forms the ground of " mine will be,"
in what precedes and follows.
V, 9, " Great will be the glory of this last house, above the first,
hath spoken the Lord, Sabaoth, and in this place will I give peace,
saith the Lord, Subuoth." The place is Jerusalem, The promise
belongs to it, so far as it is a seat and central point of the kingdom
of God. To understand with most Christian interpreters, by this
peace, spiritual peace, is equally arbitrary, as when, with Vitringa
and others, for the gold and silver here, as in Isaiah, a spiritual good
is substituted, vvhich can be called so only figuratively. That out
ward peace is intended in the first instance, is evident, even from the
parallel passage, Is. 60 : 18, " There is no more violence in thy
land, wasting and destruction in thy borders, and thou callest thy
walls salvation, and thy gates praise.'' If, however, the promise is
carried back to its idea, it appears, that what the interpreters errone-

CHAP. 2, V, 6-9. 271
ously add to the meaning of the word, some, pax spirituaUs, others,
quavis bencdictio et prosperitas, is, indeed, comprehended under it.
If it is certain, that God is the God of the widow, the orphans need
no further promise ; if he punishes murder, he punishes anger also ;
if he allows the ungodly no outward rest, he inflicts upon them like
wise inward torment ; if he gives outward peace, so does he give
inward also ; nay, in certain circumstances, he can fulfil his promise
most splendidly and gloriously, precisely when he takes away that
which is expressly mentioned in it Still, it is to be remarked, that
this prophecy, like all wherein peace is given as a sign of the
Messianic time, awaits a literal complete fulfilment in the kingdom
of glory, upon the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.

THE PROPHET MALACHI.

i>RELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
The previous differences respecting his age have almost entirely
ceased, since the treatise of Vitringa, De Mai. Proph. in the Obss.
t. II. p. 353 sq. The grounds which he advances for his thesis
(p. 360), " Editam hanc prophetiam esse circa illud tempus, quo
Nehemias altera vice ex Persia rediit in Cununaam, quod accidit
post a. 32. Artuxerxis " (comp. the more accurate determinations.
Vol. II. p. 394,) have met with general acceptance. Not to mention
those which forbid us to place the composition earlier or later, we
notice only the one which demands uniformity of time, viz., that, in
Malachi, and in the 13th chap, of Nehemiah, which is occupied
with the time after his second return, the same transgressions are
designated as being in vogue, and nearly with the same words ; comp.
in respect to the transgression, particularly of the priests by mar
riages with heathen women, Mai. 2 : 8, with Neh. 13 : 30 ; in refer
ence to the negligent payment of the tithes, Mai. 3 : 10, with Neh.
13 : 10 - 12. The only room for doubt, is, whether the coming
forward of Malachi is to be placed shortly before, or shortly after, or
entirely coincides with the reformation, which marked the second
coming of Nehemiah. Most probable is the last. The time before
cannot so well be thought of, since the power of the abuses then
existing, appears as wholly unbroken, which presupposes, that God
for a time had left the people more to themselves ; and, moreover,
because, chap. 1 : 8, a leader of the civil affairs is mentioned as
being present among the people. Nor the time afterwards, because
the reforming agency of Nehemiah, from the nature of the case, and
his own official account, cannot be considered as without effect.
Probably, therefore, the contemporary activity of Malachi stood to
that of Nehemiah in the same relation as that of Haggai and Zecha
riah to that of Joshua and Zerubbabel, By the side of the reform-

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS, 273
ing labors of Nehemiah, which were chiefly outward, proceeded
those of Malachi, which were internal, Nehemiah cast all the furni
ture of the house of Tobias out of the chamber, v, 8, " If ye do it
not," — thus does he threaten the sabbath-breakers, v. 21, — "so
will I lay hand on you." The men who have taken strange wives
he smites, and plucks off their hair, v. 25. Malachi, on the contrary,
smites merely with the Divine word. He points emphatically to
God's punishment already commenced among the people, and which
would constantly become more manifest and severe, in proportion as
the germ of corruption, already present, should the more develope
itself Such a parallel of internal and external reforming agency,
runs through the whole history of Israel, — think, e. g,, only of
Isaiah and Hezekiah, Jeremiah and Josiah ; a merely external
reformation is without example.
Far less success than that respecting his age, has attended Vi-
tringa's view concerning the person of Malachi, which, p. 367, he
expresses in the words : " Dicam sine ambugibus sapius nolenti
cum in Malaehiam inciderem, surrepsisse cogitutionem, 31alachia
nomen esse non verum, sed fictitium, sive potius non persona, sed
officii uppellationem," and then seeks to establish. And yet this view
has not less in its favor than the other, only it has not been so happily
sustained by its author. The chief grounds for it are the following :
1. It must awaken surprise, that the superscription contains no
further personal designation, neither the name of the father nor of
the birthplace. The same case occurs, besides, only in two of the
lesser prophets, Obadiah and Habbakuk, though these are, indeed,
sufficient to prevent any certain conclusion from being drawn. 2. It
is further remarkable, that even, in very ancient times, the historical
personality of Malachi was doubted. The Seventy certainly held
the name as a mere name of office. They translate '^xSp Ta by
iv x^tgl dyysXov avxov. Also the Chaldee, which, after the name of
Malachi, subjoins qui ulias Ezra scriba .vocatur. Jerome also
certainly followed the Jewish tradition, when he expressed this same
view. It is undeniably evident from these testimonies, that tradition
knew nothing of a historical person by the name of Malachi. Now
this ignorance is the more remarkable, the later the age of the
prophet. We can, however, with some certainty, go still further.
Why has it happened, that precisely in the case of Malachi, and
not in that of other prophets, whose lives were equally unknown,
similar conjectures have been expressed ? This seems even to suggest,
VOL. III. 35

274 MALACHI.
that tradition is not merely silent concerning a Malachi, but rather
expressly denies his existence. 3. The chief argument, however, is
furnished by the name itself This would not be the case if it were
compounded out of '^nSd and nin^, as Vitringa, Hiller (Onem. p.
541, comp., on the contrary, Simonis, Onom. p. 298), Michaelis, and
others, suppose. Cases of a similar coincidence of the name and
the calling, often with a manifest agency of the Divine providence,
very frequently occur in Scripture. Nor would the name of itself
prove any thing, if it were to be explained, with Gesenius and
Winer, by angelicus. Both explanations, however, are philologically
inadmissible. The first, because for such an abbreviation of ~l^],
not even a single example can be brought ; the latter, because the
forms with an appended '—, derived from common nouns, serve only
as a designation of origin and employment, comp. Evvald, p. 250.
Still more, however, because 'nN'?p is by no means a proper name,
angel, so that an adjective, angelic, could be formed from it, and
least of all by our prophet, who uses the word only once of a
heavenly, and twice of an earthly messenger of God. But, — which
is a common objection against both derivations, — how can any one
suppose, that 'P^tV? in the superscription, should be otherwise ex
plained than the same word in chap. 3:1? That both stand in a
relation to one another, of whatever sort it may be, is self-evident.
Now, chap. 3 : 1, the explanation " my messenger," is liable to no
doubt. If this, however, is also assumed for the superscription, it
would be difficult to cite any analogy for such a nom. propr. Where
can a proper name be found, vvhich, in respect to its form, can be
explained only on the supposition, that it was given by God himself?
The case would be different, if Malachi was considered only as a
name of the prophet assumed for this prophecy. He might then
expect, that each one would derive his meaning out of itself,
out of chap. 3:1. We can suppose a note of citation to precede
a burden of the word of the Lord by " my messenger." In conse
quence of the dependence of the name on the designated passage, its
more exact import will differently appear, according as the passage is
explained. If by "my messenger," John the Baptist, according to
his historical personality, is to be understood, then, with Cocceius
(" In hoc nomine est fivtjpoavvov potissima prophetia hujus libri, qua
exstat c. 3 : 1,") the name is to be explained by " he, who has prophe
sied concerning the messenger of the Lord, he, in whom the expres
sion, ' my messenger,' constitutes the very essence of the prophecy."

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 275
If " my messenger," is understood ideally, so that John only so far
comes chiefly under consideration, as the idea is most completely
realized in him, and that the agency of the prophet himself, as com
prehended in the idea, is designated, the sense of the name is " he
whom the Lord himself has designated as ' his messenger.' " He
then awakens attention to the high responsibility to which those sub
jected themselves, who refused to give him a hearing. He says pre
cisely the same which. Hag. 1 : 13, is expressed by the words " And
spake Haggai, the messenger of the Lord, in a message of the Lord
to the people." This latter supposition is plainly the most natural.
Only in this way have we a sort of analogy with other proper names.
The name of the prophet himself also serves to prove the correct
ness of the latter explanation of chap. 3 : 1, which will hereafter be
confirmed by other grounds also.
The book of Malachi makes itself known even by the superscrip
tion, as containing only one prophetic discourse of a like tenor, not
consoling and promising, but warning and threatening, " u burden
(comp. on NKfp Vol. II. p. 77) of the word of the Lord upon Israel."
In the prophecy itself this unity is even stamped on the expression.
Following the charge, everywhere stands the question of the accused.
Whereby have they deserved it ? Then the further exposition of the
prophet, comp. chap. 1 : 2, 6, 7, 2 : 14, 17, 3 : 7, 8, 13. Eichhorn
and De Wette would perceive in this uniformity, a sign of the feeble
and superannuated spirit. But if we take a right view of the economy
of the prophecy, and perceive, that in the midst of all its apparent
abruptness, it forms one close connected whole, that everywhere it is
only manifestations of one and the same disposition which the
prophet contends against, then it appears in a totally different light.
To take the chastisements in this way, is the proper character of this
disposition, of Pelagian blindness, which knows neither itself nor
God. How this remains constantly like itself, could not be more
strikingly shown, than by the application continuing perpetually the
same throughout the whole. Self-righteousness is thereby in a lively
manner presented to view.
If we regard merely the fact, we are everywhere met by its image.
The exile forms a great era in Israel's mode of thought. Already,
in the times before, the absence of a living knowledge of God, un
godliness, showed itself under a twofold form, as open unbelief which
either scoffed at all religion, or gave itself up to idolatry, and as dead
self-righteousness, which thought to deserve the Divine favor by a

276 MALACHI.
partial and defective outward obedience, while within, there was
only wickedness and alienation from God. The latter tendency we
find, e. g., in Ps. 50, and Is. 1, pointed out and opposed,. and in an
especially lively manner in the second part, particularly in chap. 58.
Now, before the exile, the first-mentioned form of ungodliness was by
far the most prevalent. That event made a deep impression upon
the people. At first a better spirit prevailed among those who had
returned. Haggai and Zechariah found more occasion to console
the troubled minds, than to chastise the hardened, and terrify them
by severe threatenings. But it soon appeared, that, among the mass,
the repentance was only a hypocritical one, that corruption was still
glowing beneath the ashes, in order, on a suitable occasion, again to
burst forth in a flame. Even Zechariah found occasion to predict a
new severe judgment upon Judea, after the ungodliness already
existing in the germ, in his own time, should have struck its roots,
and sent forth its branches, comp. chap. 5 and 11. The developement
of the germs made great advances in the time between him and
Malachi. Only upon the form in which ungodliness exhibited itself
did the exile exert henceforward a great influence. The second of
those mentioned, now attained to a general dominion. Before open
ungodliness, men still, for a long time, shrunk back. Sadducism
could not arise until far later, and by a strong excitement from
without ; and, eyen after this had taken place, Pharisaism retained
its unrestrained influence on the mass of the people. This, in its
fundamental traits, stands already prepared in the time of Malachi.
We need only consider the predominance of the priestly order, ihe
entire want of a deep knowledge of sin and of righteousness, the
boasting in the outward fulfilment of the law, the thirst for judgments
upon the heathen, who alone were considered as the object of the
Divine penal justice, the murmuring against God, vvhich Calvin so
strikingly exhibits as a proper characteristic of hypocrisy : " Itu
solent hypocrita, nisi deus statim ipsis opituletur non tantum oblique
obstrepere, sed etiam erumpere in apertas blasphemias. Puiant enim
deum sibi ebsirictum, et idee Uberius, imo mqjore licentia et petulantia
in ipsum insurgunt. Et hac est etiam prebutio vera pietatis, ubi
patientur nos subjicimus judiciis dei, et quemudmodum Jeremius nos
suo exemplo admonet, iram ejus susiinemus, quiu scimus nos peccusse
(8 : 14). Hypocrita vere, quia nullius culpa sibi censcii sunt (sibi
enim indulgent et suas conscientias obstupefaciunt), quoniam erge
non examinant se ipsos, ideo existimant deum sibi injuriam fucere,
nisi statim ipsis succurrui."

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 277
Not, indeed, the rise, but the manifestation, of ungodliness was
promoted by God's dealings with the people. An inexhaustible
fulness of blessings had been promised to the returning exiles by
the prophets before the captivity. With these promises the reality
seemed to stand in strong contrast. No Messiah, the people of God
servants in their own land (Neh. 9 : 36, 37), heathen reigning over
them, everywhere poverty and wretchedness. Even for the truly
pious, many a temptation arose out of this condition of things, but
their doubts, which they overcome in faith, concern not God's justice,
the demonstration of which they beheld, but only his mercy, which
they believed themselves to have trifled away by the greatness of their
sins. We may compare, e. g,, the prayer Neh. chap. 9, which has
been very unsuitably paralleled with the burden of Malachi, since it
has been overlooked, that it contains, indeed, also painful complaints,
not, however, against God, but on account of their own sins, v. 31,
" And by thy great mercy hast thou not entirely destroyed them, and
not forsaken them ; for a God gracious and merciful art thou,"
V. 33, " And thou, O God, art righteous in all that is come upon us,
for thou hast shown faithfulness, but we have been ungodly," The
outwardly pious, on the contrary, must murmur against God, and
charge him with unrighteousness. For, according to their view of
the relation to God, they actually suffered injustice. Because they
could not perceive that the cause of the so very imperfect realization*
of the promise lay in themselves, and therefore, did not adopt as
their motto " let us become better, so will it be better," which, for
the Theocracy, contains so great a truth, they must necessarily err
in their thoughts of God. A Theodicea, in reference to sufferino's,
is only possible from the scriptural view of human sinfulness.
We will now go through the little book from beginning to end in
order to show, that it is everywhere only one and the same disposi
tion under different manifestations, against which the prophet
contends. In the first place, chap. 1 : 2 - 5, " I have loved you, saith the
Lord," begins the prophet. "Wherein hast thou loved us?" an
swer the hypocrites, disclosing beforehand their character. A want
of apprehension of the favor of God, and of gratitude for it, is one
of its essential features. Even the greatest mercy, they considered
only as a deserved reward, and in the bestowment of a smaller favor,
which the humble believer rejoices in as an undeserved gift, they
behold a sort of offence. As a proof of the love of God, the

278 MALACHI.
prophet urges against them, that the Lord has brought back Israel
into his land, while the dwelling-place of his brother Edom, hated of
the Lord, still lies waste. The commencement of the mercy already
experienced, was a pledge of its continuance, if hindrances were
not thrown in its way by their own fault.
The second portion chap. 1:6 — 2:9. Here, the reference to the
priests is throughout predominant. Instead of deeply humbling
themselves for the affliction which comes upon the whole people, and
especially upon their order, which the service of the Lord scarcely
supplies with necessary nourishment, and rousing themselves to re
newed zeal in the service of the Lord, in Pharisaic blindness
seeking the cause, not in themselves, but in God, they do exactly
the opposite, God, who does not give to them their due, they sup
pose, in their delusion inseparable from self-righteousness, may not
also himself make any great claims. Far, therefore, from reahzing
the higher requisitions of their calling, which the prophet at the
close emphatically holds up to their view, to be the mediators between
God and the people in living piety, and to bring many back from
their evil deeds, they do not any more even satisfy its inferior claims.
The worst offerings they suppose to be good enough for the Lord.
Even by the presenting of such, — so far does their blindness pro
ceed, — they believe themselves even to merit the favor of the Lord.
He can, — they dream, — by no means dispense with the temple
and its sacrifices. The prophet shows how the outward condition of
the priestly order is only the reflex of its moral nature ; how, accord
ing to the same law, wretchedness now becomes the portion of the
covenant breakers, according to which, formerly, prosperity and
peace attended the faithful. With still greater severity does be
threaten in the name of the Lord. According to the Divine jus
talionis, profanation must overtake those who have profaned him.
In contrast to the delusion, that God needs the temple and its service,
he points to the future, where the Lord will prepare for himself a
new and immensely greater Church, out of the heathen, who shall
serve him with true reverence, and when the whole earth shall
become his temple, where, instead of the present offering, which is
unclean, because presented without faith, without love, and without
reverence, a pure offering should be brought ; comp, the remarkable
passage, chap, 1 : 11, " For from the rising of the sun unto the
going down of the same, great is my name among the heathen, and
in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering ;

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS, 279
for great is my name among the heathen, saith the Lord, Sabaoth."
"Great is ray name among the heathen," refers back to v, 6, "Ye
despise my name," " In every place," forms the antithesis to the
temple, mentioned in the preceding verse. The wish there expressed,
that some one may shut up this, vvhich is, indeed, no more a house
of God, includes, at the same time, a prophecy in itself The pure
oflering of those among whom the name of God is great, stands
opposed to the impure offering of the despisers of God, which,
according to the close of the foregoing verse, he rejects, because he
has no pleasure in the givers. What a remarkable view into the
future was enjoyed by the prophet, whose prediction forms the key
stone of the Old Testament? Whoever has rightly understood it,
cannot read with surprise " the kingdom of God shall be taken from
you and given to a people which bring forth the fruits thereof" He
must wonder only at the Divine longsuffering which so many years
spared the barren tree. This passage furnishes the necessary supple
ment to the following threatenings of judgment upon Israel. It
shows that the kingdom of God does not, indeed, go to destruction,
when the Lord comes and smites the land with the curse (chap. 3 :
24), but that this apparent death is the transition to a true life.
The third portion is formed by chap. 2:10- 16. At first sight, an
entirely special transgression, not immediately connected with the pre
vailing corruption, severity and unfaithfulness towards their wives ap
pears to be rebuked. But this appearance vanishes on a nearer coh-
sideration. The prophet traces back this transgression fo its source, to
erroneous views of God, which must always prevail, where a deficiency
in the knowledge of sin concurs with the punishment of sin, — whoever
does not murmur against his sins, must necessarily murmur against
God, comp. Lam. 3 : 39, " Whe^fore then do the people, who are
alive, thus complain ? Let each one complain against his sin." This
appears immediately in v. 10, which settles the genus to which each
particular transgression belonged. '"Have we not all one father?
Has not one God made us? Wherefore then is brother faithless
towards brother, to profane the covenant of our father ? " Children
of God are the Israelites, spiritual sisters. Every violation of sisterly
duties, such as the men were here guilty of against the Israelitish
wives, was, therefore, at the same time, an injury done to God, a
profanation of his covenant, " For he who loveth not his brother
whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen,"
Whoever abolishes the distinction between the Israelite and the

280 MALACHI.
heathen, shows thereby, that the distinction between the God of
Israel and the idols of the heathen has already ceased vvith him,
that he has no longer a Theocratic sense of God. This is immedi
ately, in the first words of the following verse, "faithless is Judah,"
expressly declared. The infidelity in the earthly marriage appears
here as a consequence and symptom of that in the heavenly. This,
the profanation of the sanctuary of the Lord, whioh he loves, of his
kingdom in Israel, appears as the chief cause. The unrighteous
ness towards neighbours, v. 14, is designated only as the second,
and, indeed, so that even this comes under consideration, only ou
account of its connexion with the first, — the first, the direct offence
against God, the second, the indirect. This appears from the desig
nation of the wife as the covenant wife in v. 14. Michaelis is cer
tainly wrong, " Qua pacto matrimoniali tibi faederata fuit." A
heathenish wife would not have been thus named. According to the
uniform usage of n''7p in the preceding context, and especially,
according to v. 10, "the covenant wife " can be only a member of
the covenant. In a remarkable manner does the close connexion of
this crime with the prevailing corruption, still appear at the end ;
they hold up to the prophet the example of Abraham, who, together
with his covenant wife Sarah, took Hagar, and still did not lose the
Spirit of God. The prophet answers, the example of Abraham
would not serve to justify them. What they do from contempt of
God, he did from a higher motive, a desire for the seed promised to
him by God, supposing that God himself admonished him by the
circumstances, to contribute in this way to the realization of the
promise. They must guard against the loss of what remained with
him, the Spirit of God (comp. the slg xb prj iyxomsa&ai xdg ngoasv/dg
vfiav, 1 Pet. 3:7). That, finally, in this portion also, the prophet
had the priests expressly, if not exclusively In view, appears from
V. 12.
In the fourth portion, chap.. 2 : 17 — 3:6, the prevailing tone
which the prophet contends against, appears especially obvious.
They say, " Every one who does evil is good in the eyes of Jehovah,
and in them hath he pleasure, or where is the God of right ? "
According to their point of view they had right entirely on their side
against God. But that this point of view was false, the prophet
shows them in his answer. God is, and remains the righteous, and
will show himself as such, but not on those whom they hold as the
only object of his penal righteousness, but upon those who are this

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 281
object, before all others, even upon themselves, who, in foolish blind
ness, desire the approach of God to judgment. First, he sends his
messengers, in order to warn them and lead them to repentance ;
then, for the punishment of the covenant-breakers, suddenly appears
the divine angel of the covenant, whom they so eagerly expect as
the supposed destroyer of the heathen. His manifestation, since it
is destructive to the ungodly members of the Theocracy, will be
salutary to the Theocracy itself a realization of the Divine promises
imparted to it.
In the fifth portion, chap. 3 : 7-12, the prophet charges the people
with their negligence in bringing the tithes and offerings, a negli
gence, which testified of their inward apostasy from God. He shows
how foolish this their conduct is. Thinking to cheat God, they cheat
themselves. Already a curse, the consequence of sin, rests upon
them, and still they persevere. Would that they might do their duty,
then would the curse soon be changed into a blessing !
This portion closely connects itself with the preceding. What,
indeed, could better serve to shame those who impatiently murmured
against God, affirming that the continued suffering of the covenant
people was a practical refutation of his righteousness, than the
charge, " From the days of your fathers onward, ye have gone away
from my laws, and have not kept them. Turn back to me, so will I
turn back to you, saith the Lord, Sabaoth," which forms the theme
of the section. Exactly what seems to overthrow the Divine righ
teousness, is a striking proof of it. We have here the second part of
the answer to the boastful question, " Where is the God of righ
teousness ? " The first answer is given in the foregoing portion, " Soon
will he show himself, but to your own destruction; " the second here,
" Already does he exhibit himself in your present destiny. You have
already learned his righteousness on the one side as penal ; it depends
only upon yourselves to learn it on the other, as remunerative."
As this portion is closely connected with the foregoing, so is it
also with the following and last. The words of those who murmur
against God, whom the prophet, v. 13, 15, introduces as speaking
stand in so close a relation, partly, indeed, verbal, to the words of
the prophet in the foregoing portion, that they can be regarded only
as a refutation of them, " Prove me still thereby (by a true dis
charge of your duties towards me) so saith the Lord, Sabaoth," 
as we read, v, 10, " Whether I will not open to you the windows of
heaven, and pour down blessings without measure," " They " (the
VOL. Ill, 36

282 MALACHI,
heathen), — the opposers, v. 15, answer, — "prove God and are de
livered." What need of this proving to vvhich thou dost invite us?
The trial, which the heathen have already made, is sufficient If,
in this trial, he has not shown himself as the God of righteousness,
what then can be expected from a new one ? " And all the heathen
extol you as happy, for your land will be delight, saith the Lord,
Sabaoth," it is said, v, 12. " And now we praise the transgressors
as happy," answer the murmurers, v. 15. Not the heathen us, the
true servants of God, but rather we them, those who forget God.
" Ye are gone away from my laws, and have not kept them," it is
said, V, 7, " We huve kept them, and walked mournfully before the
Lord, Sabaoth," answer the murmurers, in v, 14, " Thou promisest
rich gain if we do it. We have done it, what gain have we there
from ? Our question still remains in force. Where is the God of
righteousness 1 "
The prophet now, after reciting this contradiction, which manifests
deep blindness, remarks, in the first place, how the truly pious de
mean themselves on the occasion, giving them in the form of a his
torical relation, an admonition not to participate in expressions which
proceed from dispositions entirely opposed to their own. The truly
pious, as they hear these words of those who have the appearance of
godliness, but deny its power, express to one another their abhorrence
of them. The Lord will richly bless them, when his judgment over
takes the transgressors, which is on the point of breaking forth.
The prophecy is closed with the exhortution to be faithful in adher
ing to the law of God, vvith the promise, that God would send Elias
the prophet before the day of the Lord come, the great and the terri
ble, in order that he may revive the spirit of the law among the
people, with the threatening, that he would smite the land with a
curse, if it did not hear the voice of the Divine messenger.
Thus far the Introduction ; we now proceed to the interpretation
of the two portions chap, 2 : 17 — 3:6, and chap, 3 : 13 - 24, after
we have yet remarked, that, among the older especial commentators
on Malachi, only that of Sal. v. Til (MalacMus Illustr. Lugd, Bat
1701, 4to,), and of Venema (Commentarius ad Librum Elenchtico
Propheticum Mai. Leovardiae, 1759, 4to.), deserve consideration, in
which, with a tedious diffuseness, among much chaff, still no little
good corn is found, and that, in recent times, besides the treatise of
Jahn, concerning these two portions, in the Vaticinia Messiana,
almost nothing has been done for the interpretation of the prophet.

CHAP. 2: 17 — 3: 6. V, 17, 283

Chap, 2 : 17 — 3 : 6,

V. 17. " Ye weary- the Lord by your discourses, and ye say.
Whereby do we weary him ? With your saying. Every one who dees
evil is good in the eyes of the Lord, and in them hath he pleasure,
or. Where is ihe God of righteousness ? " In the explanation, all
depends on determining, who they are, who, here as weU as in the
second portion, are introduced as speaking. The data for this are
found chiefly in the introduction. 1. Several, as Theodoret, Dathe,
suppose, that the pious Israelites, oppressed by many sufferings, and
excited by the prosperity of their ungodly fellow-citizeqs, suffer them
selves to be led to these discouraging complaints and doubts of the
Divine providence. This view is occasioned by the indefinite desig
nation of those whose prosperity is complained of as ungodly, evil
doers, proud, vvhich certainly can be most easily explained by sup
posing, that the prophet intentionally avoids any more definite ex
pressions, since the Persians were lords of the land. But this is
contradicted by many reasons. Even the superscription, placed
before the whole prophecy, bwden (comp. Vol, II, p, 77) sufficiently
shows, with what sort of people the prophet has throughout to do,
not with the tempted, who must be sustained by consolation and
mild correction, but with those, who, with all outward appearance of
piety, are inwardly ungodly, and must be terrified by threatenings.
How the prophet, in all his discourses has ever the same class of men
in view, we have already shown. Even the perpetually recurring
characteristic application (comp, p. 275) shows this. It is, therefore,
the same class which here comes forward, complaining and murmur
ing, and which is charged, chap, 1 : 6 sq,, with their contempt of
God, chap. 2 : 8, with their apostasy from him, v, 10 sq,, their viola
tion of the marriage vow. But if we do not choose to overlook the
undeniable connexion of the whole, we must still of necessity con
ceive the already demonstrated connexion of chap. 3:7- 12, with
this portion, as well as with the last In chap. 3 : 7-12, however,
the truly pious can by no means be thought of They are those,
who, like their fathers, had gone away from the laws of the Lord,
V. 7, who, with as great folly as profligacy, rob the Lord of his own,
V. 8, 9, through whose conversion, the land can first become a land
of delight, ygn Y"}^, while it is now, through their guilt, in a great
measure, what the land of the Idumeans, transgressors against God

284 MALACHI,
and his Church, is, completely a border of ungodliness nvy} '''•13^,
chap. 1:4; if however, we confine ourselves barely to our two por
tions themselves, the apothesis must appear as altogether to be re
jected. Even the nature of the complaints shows, that they do not
proceed from the truly pious. They are in spirit and tone entirely
different from the apparently similar, which are found, e. g,, Ps.
37 49 73. The same is also to be inferred from the strong ex
pression, " ye weary me," chap, 2 : 17, and " ye overpower me,"
chap, 3:13, The pride of fancied righteousness, which sees its sup
posed claims unsatisfied, plainly shows itself Further, the truly
pious are clearly distinguished from the speakers, and opposed to
them, chap, 3 :,16. That the speakers, not those concerning whom
they complain, are designated in the answer as the object of the
Divine punishment, is perfectly clear. So, e. g., must those, who,
according to chap. 3 : 2, cannot endure the day of the coming of
the angel of the covenant, be the same, who, according to v, 1, seek
him. So stands " I draw near to you to judgment," in manifest
antithesis with the judgment upon strangers, which the speakers had
expected. " That I am the God of righteousness wiU soon appear,
but not in those whom ye call evil-doers, but in you, who are such
above all others." Finally, this hypothesis presupposes a condition
of the people which did not at that time exist. The state of the
colony was, on the whole, so poor and mean, that we cannot suppose
the ungodly themselves to have enjoyed a prosperity which the pious
could have been led so bitterly to complain of How can the ex
pression "they prove God, and are delivered," chap, 3 : 15, suit the
ungodly in Israel, even apart from the consideration, that the refer
ence to the heathen is already indicated by D'riSs., not np;, and
required in v. 12, by the antithesis already pointed out, with " all the
heathen praise you as happy,'' 2, Far nearer the truth is the opin
ion of those who assume, that the complaints belong to the whole
people, distressed by their affliction, and the prosperity of the heathen.
This view was held by Jerome, who was more correct than his pre
decessors and most of his followers, although he failed in not dis
tinguishing between weakness of faith, and proud murmuring against
God, and therefore placed these complaints on a level with those con
tained in Ps. 73. He remarks on our passage : " Reversus populus
de Babylone et videns cunctus in circuitu nutiones, ipsosque Babylo-
nios idolis servientes, abundure divitiis, vigere corporibus, omnia,
qua bona putantur in seculo possidere, se vero qui habeat notitiam

CHAP. 2: 17-3: 6. V. 17. 285
dei, squalore, inedia, servitute eoopertum, scandalizatur et dicit : nen
est in rebus humunis providentiu, omnia casu feruntur incerto, nee
dei judicio gubernantur, quin potius mala ei placent et bona displi-
cent, aut certe, si deus cuncta dijudicut, ubi est illius aquum justum-
que judicium ? Istiusmodi quastionem mens ir^credulu futurorum-
quotidie suscitut deo, etc." 3. But against this view there still lie in
part, the arguments which have been cited against the first. Par
ticularly is it impossible, if we adopt it, to explain the antithesis in
chap. 3 : 16 sq. It must, therefore, with Jahn and others, be limited.
so as to understand by the complainants, the great mass of the peo
ple, with the exclusion of the truly pious. This view, indeed, ap
proaches very near to the preceding, when we remark, that the un
godly mass far outweighed in number, the small remnant of the pious.
This appears from chap. 3 : 9, where God charges the whole people
with defrauding him. — Still to be set aside is the erroneous under
standing of several interpreters, who attribute an Epicurean, or a
Sadducean view to those with whom the prophet contended. It is
true, this must have been the result of their own, if carried out to its
consequences. But still, that this had not yet been done by them,
appears from the fact, that they yet manifested, though with an unwil
ling heart, their reverence for the Lord by sacrifice, fasted, longed
for the appearance of the covenant angel, &c. All this shows that
they expressed themselves here, and in chap. 3 : 13 sq., only partially,
that there was still another element in their character, which
counteracted this, and hindered its developement. — The expression,
ye weary, shows the greatness of the transgression. How ungodly
must discourses be, whereby the longsuffering God, who has patience
with the weakness of his people, is, as it were, overcome, and com
pelled to manifest his penal justice. On the phrase, " Whereby do
we weary?" Calvin appropriately remarks: " Ostendit propheta in
hac contumucia eos sic obduruisse, ut audacter rejicerent omnes ad
monitiones ; neque enim hoc quarunt quasi de re dubia, neque his
verbis colligi potest, ipsos fuisse dociles, sed perinde est, acsi armati
ad ceriamen descenderent, armuti impudentia dico et obstinutione
neque enim dubium est, quin contemserint utque etiam deriserint
propheta objurgationem." — The words " every one who does evil is
good in the eyes of the Lord," are explained by what has been al
ready remarked. By the " evil-doers," the heathen were understood.
Agreeably to the nature of hypocrisy, the murmurers take cognizance
of sin only when not committed by themselves, and especially does

286 MALACHI.
that appear to them as such, as deserving the most fearful punish
ment, whereby they themselves are injured. On this ground, hu
miliation under the mighty hand of God (1 Pet 5: 6), which is
difficult enough even for him who knows why the suffering comes
upon him, is entirely impossible, the more so, when, as was the case
here, the justice of the particular cas^ confirms him in the delusion,
that he has claims upon God. As for the rest, the difference here is
manifest between the enemies whom Malachi opposes, and the open
despisers of God, which we often find mentioned in the former
prophets, comp., e. g., Is. 5 : 19, " Who say there. Let him quicken
and accelerate his work, that we may behold, and let the counsel of
the holy One of Israel draw near and come, that we may know."
Jer, 17 : 15, " Behold, they say to me, Where is the word of the
Lord ? let it come ! " The latter deny the existence of God, or, at
least, his omnipotence ; they ridicule and mock : the former believe,
for the very reason that they fully acknowledge his omnipotence,
that they must deny his righteousness. For, if nothing external can
hinder him, and they have fulfilled their duties towards him, they
must then be perplexed with regard to his righteousness. They
murmur. The nature of their unsatisfied expectation, we learn more
clearly from the following verse, according to which, they expected
the angel of the covenant. They hope, that as he had once led their
fathers out of Egypt, and punished the Egyptians, so he would ap
pear, immediately after the return from the exile, for judgment upon
all the heathen, and blessing upon all Israel. — The words, " and in
them has he pleasure, — ysn adject, verb., as appears from Nin, and
then also from D'San, in 3 : 1, — seemed to refer back to chap. 1 :
10. " No pleasure have I in you," had the Lord there declared to
them. "True, indeed," they answer, "thou hast not pleasure in
us, the righteous, but in the evil-doers." — The phrase, "or where is
the God of right," i. q., "or, if it is not so, if God has no good
pleasure in the ungodly, then point out to me the deeds in vvhich the
righteous God reveals himself Are not the prosperity of the heathen,
and the affliction of Israel, directly the opposite of such a revelation ? "
The IN, or, shows, that one of the two must necessarily exist, the
good pleasure of God in ungodliness, or the actual manifestation of
his righteousness. As now the latter does not take place, the former
must The dilemma is entirely just ; there can be no place for a
tertium. A righteous God, who makes no manifestation of his
righteousness in this life, who gives here only plenipotentiary letters.

CHAP. S : 17 — 3 : 6. C. 3 : 1. (IS. 40 : 3-5.) 287
which are to be realized there, is a nonentity, is, in any event, not
the God of the Scripture, who, in no relation, first becomes for the
next life what he is not already in this. Against such a view, pro
ceeding from spiritual death, according to which, God first becomes
for us in the next life, the living God, we cannot declare ourselves
sufficiently strong ; comp. p. 269. The retribution in another life is
a delusion, if it has not its basis in the retribution in this. The error
consisted only in assuming with confidence, that the question,
" Where is the God of righteousness ? " could be answered only with
Nowhere. Although nowhere else, — the answer was near at hand,
— still he shows himself even in your present affliction, which so
corresponds with your moral condition ; and if this is not sufficiently
obvious to you, he will hereafter manifest himself in such a manner,
as will make you cease to ask, " Where is the God of righteous
ness? " — Venema affirms, that the artic. in BS^BH shows, that the
subject of discourse is here a known and particular judgment which
God had promised to his people. But the artic. refers to the com
pound name, " the righteous God." It Beaer-belongs, as yet Ewald
supposes, p. 580, in some cases to the second noun. Thus, e. g.,
¦^'j?0 ^hf, 2 Sam. 12 : 30, is the city-prey, not prey of the city ;
comp., moreover, Is. 30 : 18, " The God of righteousness, toa|5'p 'riSs,
is the Lord ; salvation to all who wait for him."

To the illustration of chap. 3 : 1, we must necessarily premise the
passage which we have merely touched before, Is. 40 : 3 - 5, for
upon it rests what Malachi answers to those who venture to call in
question God's righteousness. The investigation of this passage is,
however, the more in our way, since it stands, as even the express
New Testament citations show (Vol. I. p. 424), in a direct relation
to our object
"A voice crying in the desert. Prepare the way of the Lord .^
Make level in the wilderness a course for our God. Let every valley
rise up, und every mountuin and hill subside, und the steep place
becomes u plain, und the rugged pluce u valley. And unveiled is the
glory of the Lord, and all flesh beholds it together ; for the mouth of
the Lord hath spoken."
The relation of v. 3 and 4, to v. 5, Vitringa well expresses thus :

288 MALACHI.
" Pericopa complectitur untecedens, praparutionem via in deserto
ante fuciem Jehova solenniter manifestandi." V. 3, 4. " Ipsam
Jehova (puvsgaaiv cum gloria sua et salute, populo suo procuran-
da," V. 5.
Is lanpa in v. 3 to be connected with the preceding (Seventy,
whom the Evangelists follow : q}ii)v^ ^oavxog iv xjj igrjfioi ' sxoifidaaxs
xrjv bSbv xvgiov), or the following, as the recent interpreters suppose?
The decision on this point is of little importance. For, although we
refer t^Taa to the following, still the voice must be regarded as re
sounding there, where the command to be imparted by it was to be
executed. Each view has its difficulty. The connexion with the
following is favored by the parallel n5"ij;3 ; that with the preceding,
by the position of l^ipa at the beginning before the verb. Such a
position of a subordinate word is, in general, unusual. And here it
can the less be accidental, since the following na'jya stands after the
verb. If tjipg is intended to stand in the relation of equality with
n3'ij;3, the position of the words is plainly faulty. The grounds for
both combinations appear, when we place in accordance with the
accents, 15'7P3, as it were, independent of the preceding and the
following, so that it belongs alike to both : " a voice crying in the
desert, Prepare,'' i. q, " a voice cries in the desert. Prepare in the
desert" Thus Vitringa and Riickert, who has not followed the
recent interpreters in their retrograde course. Finally, X'llp Sip is
not a complete sentence in itself but is to be explained from the
prophet's emotion, which loves abrupt expression, as the Seventy
rightly perceived. We have to supply a " Hark ! what do I hear ? "
To whom does the voice crying in the desert belong, and to whom
is it directed ? The speaker is God, assert the recent interpreters,
and the prophets are addressed. But suspicion is excited against
this, even by "the way of Jehovah," instead of "my way." StiU,
njn^ in V. 2 can be cited in its favor, although there the transition to
the third person is less hard, since 'Pi^ had preceded. Entirely de
cisive, however, is irrlS^S, our God ; this shows, that the crying
voice must proceed from the covenant people themselves, Gesenius,
in order to prove that the voice must be that of God, appeals to v, 6.
But there also this supposition is to be rejected, as is evident from
" the word of our God endures to eternity," v, 8 ; comp. also ni^n^ nn
in v. 7. If God comes forth as speaking, in v, 3 - 8, how should it
well be, that the discourse is always, and without exception, of God
in the third person ? There remains, therefore, only the supposition,

CHAP, 2 : 17 — 3 : 6, C, 3 : 1, (IS, 40 : 3-5,) 289
that, in v. 6, one servant of God addresses the rest, in accordance
with the dramatic character of the whole representation.
The voice must therefore proceed from the covenant people. The
question arises, whether he who utters it can be more nearly defined ?
Gesenius is in such a case ready with the answer, that he can be no
other than the prophets ; to these shall the address in v. 1 be direct
ed ; in V. 6, at ipx we must think of a prophet to whom the Divine
commission is given ; the " messengers of salvation, Zion and Jeru
salem," in V. 9, must be changed into "messengers of salvation for
Zion and Jerusalem," and these, again, must be the prophets. Still
more strongly does the gross realism in the interpretation appear,
chap, 52 : 7, 8, where both the "1K^3P and the n'gis, the messengers,
who hasten over the mountains, who bring glad tidings, and the
watchmen, standing upon the walls, perceive their approach with joy,
must be the prophets. With such a method of interpretation, what
shall be done with the words in v. 9, " Break forth and exult together,
ye ruins of Jerusalem," But the confusion reaches its climax at
chap. 62 : 6, " Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, have I placed watch
men, they shall not keep silent day nor night," where it is remarked :
" the prophet, who, according to v. 1, offered intercessions himself,
has afterwards placed upon the walls of Jerusalem other watchmen
who should weary Jehovah with incessant prayers for the city."
It is the whole choir of the divine servants and heralds, in v. 1, to
whom God's commission is given ; it is the same who here com
mences its execution. In point of fact, the prophets, indeed, take a
very important position in this choir. But this the prophet does not
yet take into view. He has, in v, 1, 3, and 6, exactly as in v. 9, to.
do only with an ideal person, the messenger of the Lord (comp.
Mai. 3 : 1), and in his declaration, the actual persons have part, only
so far as the idea is realized in them.
If, now, it is determined to whom the voice crying in the desert
belongs, then there can no longer be any doubt as to those to whom
it is directed. Members of the covenant people, vvho, endowed by
God with the gifts of his Spirit, are appointed his heralds, speak to
the covenant people. The expression, " our God," in a connexion
where the discourse is of the God of Israel, shows this clearly.
After these determinations, neither can it any longer be'^doubtful
what is to be understood by the " preparing of a way," In itself
the expression is general. It designates the removal of every thing
which can hinder the revelation of the Lord. But it is rendered
VOL. HI. 37

290 MALACHI.
more definite by the circumstance, that the people themselves are
exhorted to engage in the work. All outward preparations for the
manifestation of the salvation, belong to the Lord ; the people can
only remove its internal obstacles, by turning themselves, with his
assistance, to the Lord, in true repentance. Of this alone, not of
any thing outward, does Malachi think ; this was found here by the
Saviour, John the Baptist, the Evangelists,
Now also the meaning of the desert is evident. The people find
themselves in the condition of spiritual and corporeal wretchedness,
the latter of which is to be considered only as a reflex of the former.
Out of this condition, which is represented under the image of the
desert, because they formerly found themselves in a like condition,
in an actual desert, not accidentally, but so that the outward resi
dence was chosen by God as a true emblem of the condition, will
the Lord deliver them ; but, in order that this may happen, they
must first perform their own part. The Lord can prepare no way
through the desert, unless the people themselves have first prepared
such an one, and to do this, he causes them to be exhorted by his
servants. Now also is the relation of v. 3-5, to v. 1, 2, clear. In v. 1 and
2, it is announced to the people, that the Lord has determined to
show them mercy, and impart to them the fulness of his salvation.
With this promise is connected the exhortation to the people, to cast
away every thing which can restrain the course of the salvation.
John says : ISlsiavoslxs ' iiyyixs ydg rj ^aaiXsla xav ovgavwv ; the proph
et changes the order, — but still with entirely the same sense : rjyytxs
^ §aaiXsla xav ovgavav, fisxavosixs ovv. Every exhortation to repent
ance necessarily presupposes God's mercy ; out of every promise of
salvation arises the exhortation to repentance. For there is no
purely external salvation for the covenant people. Entirely analogous,
e. g,, is Jer, 31 : 22, The apostate Israel is exhorted to return to
her rightful Lord. For he prepares now a new condition of things ;
he chooses again to receive into his communion, her, who had been
rejected on account of infidelity.
In V, 5, a diversity of interpretation is found in reference to the
last words. The Seventy, and, following them, Luke, separate these
from what precedes, and supply at l.'^l an object : Kal oipsxai ndaa
adgl xb aaixijgiov xov &sov. Gesenius, and others, on the contrary,
explain, that Jehovah's mouth had spoken, that it came from God
when the prophets predicted the deliverance from the exile. The

<5HAP, 2: 17 — 3: 6. C. 3 : 1. (IS. 40:3-5,) 291
former view is the correct one. The expression, " for the mouth of
the Lord hath spoken," is the constant one with the prophet, to con
firm a prediction which appears incredible; it will surely be fulfilled,
for it has not a shortsighted, feeble man, but the allwise and almighty
God for its author ; comp. 1 : 20, 34 : 16, 58 : 14 (ov ydg ^sX'^paxi
dv&gwnov rivsxd-rj noxs ngoif-i]xsla, 2 Pet. 1 ; 21). The word "to see,"
frequently occurs in his writings in the way in which the Seventy
have here understood it, partly with a definite object, as chap. 52 :
10, from which the Seventy take what they supply : " and all the
ends of the earth see the salvation of our God," 35 : 2 ; " They shall
see the glory of the Lord, the excellency of our God," 62 : 2, "And
the heathen see thy righteousness and all kings thy glory," 66 : 18,
" And they come and see my glory," partly with something to be
supplied out of the preceding, as chap. 52 : 14. Had we not, how
ever, these analogies, still the glory of the Lord must be regarded as
the object of the seeing, because IN'^ too plainly refers to nSj3. The
glory of the Lord is unveiled, and now all flesh beholds this splendid
sight. But what is to be understood by the " revealing of the glory of the
Lord " ? The expression plainly rests on Exod. 16 : 10, " And it
came to pass, as Aaron spake to the whole assembly of the children
of Israel, that they turned themselves towards the desert, and behold,
the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud." The glory of the
Lord, his excellent being, making itself known in the symbol of the
fire, usually concealed by the covering of clouds, because Israel was
not yet ripe for its revelation, for an immediate communion with the
divine, — even their leader, Moses, not yet, to whom, on his wish to
see God without a veil, it was explained, that he could not endure
his countenance, — where it was important to convince the doubting
and murmuring people, that God was among them, appeared more
strongly than usual through the covering. This covering, the prophet
announces, will entirely disappear on the renewing of the march ¦
through the desert, when the people have first prepared the way. A
new period arrives, where God reveals himself far more clearly and
gloriously, the people behold God far more plainly, are joined with
him far more inwardly, possess him far more really with the fulness
of his gifts and blessings, than formerly.
It scarcely needs to be remarked, that the prophecy in its essential
reference, is Messianic. The bringing back out of the exile, was
only a prelude and preparation for the proper fulfilment. The meas-

292 MALACHI.

ure of the revealing of the glory of the Lord, stood in an entirely
equal relation to the degree in which the way was prepared. The
complete revelation took place in Christ, but the beholding was
vouchsafed only to those who had prepared the way, for only those
who are pure in heart can see God.
We now return to Malachi from this necessary digression.

Chap. 3:1. "Behold, I send my messenger and he prepares a way
before me, and suddenly the Lord, whom ye seek, will come to his tem
ple, and the covenant angel, whom ye desire, behold, he comes, saith
the Lord, Sabueth." The reference to Isaiah is by no means to be
mistaken. It is especially evident in 'JsS pTTijai, compared with
nin; p.T 133 in Isaiah, where it even extends to the similar omission
of the urtic. in '^'T]., to be explained by the fact, that ip^ njs was
regarded in a measure as one word, to prepare a way. Our atten
tion being awakeUed by this coincidence in the expression, we
then soon find that the coincidence in the substance runs through
the whole verse. Here the messenger of the Lord levels the way
before him. In Isaiah the requisition of the servants of the Lord to
prepare the way, resounds. Both are the same. For, that here the
discourse is of a moral preparation for the appearing of the Lord, is
evident of itself, and also confirmed by the parallel passage v. 24.
But, in this relation, how can the messenger of the Lord otherwise
prepare the way, than by exhorting those, to whom he had been sent,
themselves to prepare it, than by loudly and unceasingly urging
upon them the I)")! 133, the fisxavosixs ? In Isaiah the revelation of
the glory of the Lord follows the preparation of the way, here the
coming of the Lord to his temple. Now this coincidence cannot,
' perhaps, be explained by a designed reminiscence ; against this are the
analogous references to Joel in v. 2 and v. 23. Our view of it is as
follows. The dissatisfaction of the Israelites after the exile was
occasioned, more than by any other prophecies, by those of Isaiah, in
the second part ; comp. what has already been remarked on Haggai,
p. 245. Here the salvation was painted in the most attractive colors,
and the threatening kept more in the background ; the whole was
mainly designed to impart consolation to the believing portion of
Israel. These prophecies were, therefore, those on which the hope

CHAP. 2:17 — 3:6. C. 3:1. 293
of Israel ip affliction chiefly fastened ; and after the exile, when these
hopes were so little realized, they became those which were chiefly
used in complaining of the covenant faithfulness of God and his
righteousness. Now, the injustice of these complaints could not
better be shown, the blame could not better be turned from the ac
cused to the accusers, to whom it properly belonged, than by show
ing that this people was not the one to whom God, by the mouth of
his prophets, had promised such glorious things. For this purpose,
the passage, Is. 40 : 3, 4, was admirably suited. It proceeds, as
Vitringa rightly remarks, on the supposition, that "Animos populi
Judai ad deum tam diu desideratum recipiendum esse imparutos.
Quod ut significaret proph., eos compurut deserto. Populus multis
obsitus fulsis prajudiciis de Messia et regno ejus et affectibus ac
vitiis corruptus." If the preparation of the way precedes the reve
lation of the glory of the Lord, and the people, as is the case, are
not prepared for the kingdom of God, then, instead of murmuring
against him on account of the delay, they must rather thank him,
that he furnishes them beforehand the means for repentance ; then
must what wSs unconditionally to the people an object of desire,
become rather to the greater part of them an object of fear. There
fore, i. q., " ye, who, in inconsiderate zeal, complain of the non-
fulfilment of the promises of the Lord, reflect, that, according to his
own declarations, the bestowing of mercy presupposes repentance.
To this end he now furnishes you, and will furnish you, with theV
means. Suddenly then will he appear, and make himself known as
a-God of justice; not, indeed; barely in blessings upon the pious, but
also in punishment upon you, the ungodly members of the covenant
people." — The question arises, who is to be understood by the
'JsHp. The Jewish interpreters (cornp. their explanations, collected
in Frischmuth De Angela Foederis. Jena, 1660) fluctuate to and fro.
Abenezra thinks of the Messiah Ben Joseph (comp. Vol. I. p. 211).
Kimchi remarks : " Denetai angelum de ccelo, quemadmodum ait
(Exod. 23 : 20) : ecce mitto angelum ante faciem tuam." Jarchi
conjectures the angel of death, for the destruction of the ungodly ;
Abarbanel our prophet The older Christian interpreters unani
mously say, that the messenger of the Lord is John the Baptist
Among the moderns, several, as Eichhorn and Theiner, the collec
tive body of the prophets, or some one individual, without determin
ing which. — We must, in the first place, prove, in opposition to
Kimchi and Jarchi, that the discourse here is not of a heavenly, but

294 MALACHI.
of an earthly messenger of God. This appears especially from the
following reasons. 1. From Isaiah. That there the voice, which
admonishes to prepare the way, proceeds from the covenant people
themselves, we have already seen. 2. From the parallel passage,
V. 23. He who is here named my messenger, is there designated as
Elias the prophet, while, to the preparation of the way here, the
restoration of the disposition of the pious fathers, there corresponds.
3. From the manifest contrast of " my messenger," and " covenant
messenger." If we were to think of a heavenly messenger, it could
be none other than the nin; "llxSp, for that we must not change " my
angel," into " an angel," is self-evident. But now " my messenger,"
must necessarily be different from " the angel of the Lord," who,
after him, comes to his temple. — Still, it must not be overlooked,
that some truth lies at the foundation of the interpretation of Kimchi.
The reference to Exod. 23 : 20, is manifest, and cannot be accidental ;
the less so, since here, as well as there, a journey through the desert,
and a preparation of the way, are treated of It serves to draw at
tention to the essential unity to be found in the subject, notwithstand
ing the diversity of the persons. The one and the other, the send
ing of the heavenly and earthly messenger, flows from the same
covenant faithfulness of God, the same favor towards the chosen
race, so that since God has sent his messenger to lead the people
through the natural desert, he must now also send his messenger to
prepare the way through the spiritual desert. That former proceed
ing of God is accordingly prophetic of the present God, — this is
the idea lying at the foundation in both cases, — not merely imparts
the good, he also supplies the means of attaining to the possession of
it At the same time, however, the reference to that former analo
gous proceeding of God, serves to awaken attention to the responsi
bility which here, as well as there, the abuse of the mercy brings
with itself What (Exod. 23 : 21) immediately follows its annuncia
tion, " Beware before him, and hear his voice, be not disobedient to
him, for he vvill not forgive your sins," here admits of an analogous ap
plication, which is made immediately in what follows, and afterwards
in V. 24. The sending of a divine messenger is never without its
consequences, it either brings a blessing, or a heavier punishment
— If now, it is established, that the messenger of God is an earthly
one, the question first arises concerning the correctness of the most
widely diffused interpretation, that which makes him John the Bap
tist. This question, however, can only relate to the form in which

CHAP. 2; 17 — 3: 6. C. 3 : 1. 295
this explanation is commonly delivered, and, according to which,
" my angel," is John, according to his historical personality, to the
exclusion of all other individuals. In essence, this interpretation
remains perfectly correct, even when we find ground to understand
by " my messenger," an ideal person, the whole choir of the Divine
messengers, who should prepare the way for the appearing of the
salvation, open the door to the coming mercy. For as the idea of
the messenger chiefly concentrates itself in John, since God must
send him, because he had given the prophecy, and gave the prophecy
because he must send him, he is surely in the most proper sense its
object. But, that the usual form of the explanation concerning John
is faulty, that not the whole fulfilment, but only its highest point, is
to be sought in his appearance, that the prophecy rather embraces
all, whereby, from the coming forward of our prophet himself God
sought to lead the people to repentance, is manifest for the following
reasons. 1. The comparison of Isaiah favors' it. That there the
voice eying in the desert belongs to the whole choir of the servants
of God, we have already seen. V. 1, where the address of God is
directed to them in the plural, shows this clearly. 2. The expres
sions behold, and suddenly, scarcely, allow us to think of an entirely
vacant period of about five hundred years. Every hearer and reader
would naturally suppose, that the discourse here was of something,
which, at least in its commencement, was to be realized in the near
est future, or even in the present. 3. The prophet has indicated, by
taking from this passage the name of Malachi, that he considered
.his own agency as an efflux of the idea here presented, although he
was very far from the thought of regarding it as solely and completely
realized in himself as appears particularly from v. 23. How could
he well imagine, that in him as an individual, Elias, the greatest of
all the prophets, had revived. 4. We are not justified in separating
the judgment upon the covenant people, predicted in this portion,
from that which is threatened in all the rest of the book. The latter,
however, belongs, as to its commencement, to the nearest future, nay,
even to the present This is shown, e. g., by chap. 2 : 1, 2, "And
now this command is to you, ye priests, saith the Lord, if ye will
not hear, and not lay to heart, that ye give glory to my name, saith
the Lord, Sabaoth, then send I upon you the curse, and curse your
blessings, yea, already have I cursed them (as to the beginning), for
ye do not lay it to heart." (WeU to be observed is " if ye do
not hear ; " the preparation by his messenger, here also, precedes the

296 MALACHI.
manifestation of the Lord.) Further, chap. 3:9, " With the curse
are ye cursed, and still ye defraud me, the whole people," and v. 10,
according to which the windows of heaven are already shut, the
blessing already withheld. If, now, according to the view of the
prophet, elsewhere expressed, the appearing of the Lord for judg
ment, and therefore also for blessing, commencing in the present,
extends through all times, we certainly cannot, without definite
grounds to justify us, assert, that he has in view exclusively the last
and most complete appearing, to the exclusion of ail the preceding,
without which the last could, indeed, have no reality. But if now
the predicted appearing of God belongs only, as to its completion, to
the Messianic time, the same also is true of the sending of the mes
senger, for this, indeed, precedes the appearing. 5. Not to be over
looked is the reference of the words to chap. 2 : 7, 8, " For the lips
of the priest should keep knowledge, and the people should seek the
law from his mouth ; for the messenger of the Lord Sabueth is he.
And ye have departed from the way, ye make many stumble in the
law, ye have destroyed the Levitical covenant." Because the priestly
order, the usual messenger of the Lord, have not performed their
duty, therefore, the Lord sends his extraordinary messenger ; he
does what they should do ; he brings back many from evil doing ;
comp. 2 : 0 with this verse, and v. 24 ; then appears the heavenly
messenger of God to bless or to punish, according to the relation to
the covenant, and according to the regard paid to the call to repentance
by the earthly messenger. If now, the priestly order, as a messenger
of God, is an ideal person, then also the same is to be expected from .
the extraordinary messenger of God, who should discharge the duty
they had neglected. In contrast with the priest, stands the prophet,
comp. V. 23. Now the promise, thus understood, rests on the same
idea as that of Joel, concerning the sending of the teacher of
righteousness, comp. p. 121. In the Messianic time it found its
fulfilment, not merely in the coming forward of John, but also in the
incipient action of Christ, and the apostles themselves, so far as this
was a supplement and carrying forward of that of John, one which
pointed to the approach of the kingdom of God, and prepared the
way for it. John, however, may vvith justice be regarded as its
proper goal, since in him the idea presented itself not relatively, but
absolutely ; he was the forerunner of the Lord, and nothing further,
so that whatever of the agency of Christ was of this character, can
properly be reckoned with his own, while the peculiar work of Christ

CHAP. 2 : 17— 3 : 6. C. 3 : 1. 297
belongs to the second promise of the Lord coming to his temple, and
of the covenant angel. — njS in Kal is never transitive. The pas
sages vvhich are cited for the transitive meaning, Jos. 7 : 12, 'X'iy
I3f :, Jer, 2 : 27, D'33 xS) t^^.ir 'Ss ?3a, and 32 : 33 also, are to be
explained out of. the rule in Ewald, p, 586, " Every intransitive and
passive conception can have an immediate supplement when its con
ception is relative, i. e. can be extended to several cases." This
plainly appears from the comparison of passages, Jer. 18 : 17, "As
an east wind will I scatter them before the enemy, back and not face
(D'33 sS) >1^i>) will I see them in the day of their calamity," To
turn the back is «];:ir njpn, Jer, 48 : 39, The transitive meaning
to turn, to clear away, first appears in Piel. The phrase ^'Jl Pii?,
is entirely peculiar to Isaiah, comp, besides 40 : 3, 57 : 14, 62 :
10  That by [nxn God is to be understood, admits of no doubt.
Grounds : the constant use of ]ns with the artic, of God, the pre
ceding '337, — he who here comes must be the same who sends his
forerunner before him, — the manifest reference to the question
" Where is the God of right ? " finally, the temple of Jehovah is
called His temple. For a doctrinal reason, in order to set aside the
ground for the Deity of Christ, which the older interpreters derive
from the fact, that the temple was here attributed to the Lord, identi
fied with the covenant messenger as his possession, Faustus Socinus
would understand by the S^'H the royal palace. That this is errone
ous, can be easily shown. Even v. 3 is sufficient Frischmuth :
" Ex sensu constat ejusmodi locum intelligi, in que sunt sucerdotes et
levita.'' Still there lies something true at the bottom of this false
interpretation, and for this reason we cite it That God in this pas
sage is considered as a king, the temple as his palace, as the kind's
castle, admits of no doubt The king has long been absent on a
journey (dnsSi^firiasv, Matt 21 : 33, comp. 25 : 14) ; without a figure,
God's presence among his people has not clearly manifested itself in
blessings and punishments ; now he comes back and inquires how
his servants and all his subjects have conducted themselves durino-
the time of his absence, in order to dispense rewards and punish
ments accordingly. — With respect to n'"03n '^!i'?5, the grammatically
false understanding, " the messenger of the covenant," instead of
" the covenant messenger," must first be corrected. Who this cove
nant messenger is, — the same, who is elsewhere called nfn;~l|N'7P
— is very obvious. That we must not, with Kuehnol, Konynenburg,
and Theiner, identify " the covenant messenger " with the messen-
voL. III. ' 38

298 MALACHI.
ger, whom the Lord sends before himself and with Elias, is evident
from the order in the passage, first the mes.senger of the Lord, then
suddenly the Lord himself and the covenant messenger, comp.
" before comes," in v. 24 ; further, " in whom ye have pleasure,"
parallel with " whom ye seek," Both refer back to ." Where is the
God of right ? " chap. 2 : 17, wherein the desire and the good plea
sure had expressed themselves ; and, even apart from this special
reference, the desire after the sending of a preacher of repentance
proceeds from a disposition vvhich is the direct opposite of that of
these " righteous vvho need no repentance" ; then the unsuitableness
of such a connexion of God and his earthly servant; the sing. X3,
suggesting the essential unity of the Lord and the covenant messen
ger ; finally, the comparison of the parallel passage of Isaiah, where
the voice first resounds, then the glory of the Lord appears. More
difficult is the determination of what this name of the angel of the
Lord imports. Bauer and others, vvho, against usage, explain, lega-
tus promissus, have been already sufficiently refuted by Jahn, p. 16 ff.
He explains the legatus fcederis by legutus, quocum fcedus pactum
est. The covenant he regards as that of Sinai, The older inter
preters, on the contrary, assert, almost unanimously, the covenant
is the new one, the covenant messenger = Sia&i^xrjg xaivijg fisalxrjg,
Heb, 9 : 15, — The correct view is probably as follows. The ground
why the prophet speaks, not merely of the coming of the Lord, but
also of the Divine messenger identical with him in essence, we have
already, p. 296, pointed out. It lies in the preceding mention of the
ordinary and extraordinary earthly .messenger of God, The Divine
messenger is designated as a covenant messenger, because he is a
messenger on account of the covenant, his manifestations, as well
for blessing as for punishment, a consequence of the covenant. The
two earthly messengers also might have been thus named. But the
prophet had a special reason for thus naming the heavenly, because
his appearing had been desired by the murmurers with an appeal to
the covenant, Calvin: "Deus hic magnifice insultut Judais et
contra impias eorum blasphemias asserit fcedus suum, quia non im
pedient impii eorum susurri, quominus satisfaciat ipse promissis suis,
et prastet suo tempore, quod illi putahant nunquam futurum." The
covenant designates not one individual act, but the covenant relation
of God to Israel, enduring through all times. Violation of this cove
nant on the part of the people, especially the priests, was the chief
theme of the preceding discourses, comp. 2: 10, 11, 14; violation

CHAP. 2: 17 — 3: 6, C, 3 : 2, 299
of this covenant on the part of God, was the chief object of the
complaints of the people. The appearing of the covenant angel should
demonstrate the injustice of these complaints, and show the reality
of the covenant in the punishment of its despisers. The question
still arises, whether, as' Jahn and others suppose, the punishment is
to be regarded as the sole aim of the predicted appearing of the
covenant angel. Certainly not. How otherwise should the messen
ger of the Lord be sent before him ? How also could the Divine
messenger be justly called the covenant messenger, when he satisfied
the covenant merely in one respect ? Mere punishment, is not con
ceivable among the covenant people ; the blessing must always ac
company it, nay, the punishment itself according to another mode
of conception, must be a blessing, since, by excluding the ungodly,
it opens again a free course for the manifestation of the mercy of
God towards his purified people. This destination of the covenant
messenger to bestow blessings, clearly appears also in v. 4 and 6,
In like manner, afterwards, in v. 17, 18, 20, according to which,
God's mercy and his righteousness should be equally visible in his
appearing. The appearance of the exclusive destination to punish
ment, is occasioned only by the circumstance, that it must bring
punishment to those with whom the prophet had immediately to do.
— We now briefly sum up the result. To the complaint of the
people, that the appearance annihilated the idea of a righteous God,
the prophet answers, that God would soon remove this apparent con
tradiction of the appearance and the idea. He, who now appeared
to be absent, would soon appear in the person of his heavenly mes
senger, after he had before made known his covenant faithfulness by
the sending of an earthly messenger. That this prediction received
its final fulfilment in the appearing of Christ, in whom the nirr. '^nSp,
the Ao'/os, became flesh, scarcely needs to be remarked. In like
manner, it is self-evident, that this final fulfilment must be sought,
neither in the state of humiliation, nor in that of exaltation alone,
that both rather belong together as an inseparable whole. The ap
pearing of Christ in humiliation contains in itself the germ of all
which he accomplished and accomplishes, either of blessing or pun
ishment in his state of exaltation. — It is still to be remarked, that
the emphatic repetition, " behold, he comes, saith the Lord, Saba
oth," is to be explained out of the antithesis of the doubt of his
coming, and the open denial of it, as expressed in chap. 2 : 17.
V. 2. " And who endures the day of his coming, and who stands

300 MALACHI.
at his appearing ? For he is as the refiner's fire, and the washer's
lye." The answer to the question "Who?" is not, perhaps, "only
a few," but " no man," precisely as Is, 53 : 1. The prophet speaks,
indeed, to the ungodly. Appealing to their conscience, he seeks to
disclose to them the gross contradiction between their moral condi
tion, and their longing after the coming of the Lord, which must be
their destruction. Parallel is Amos 5 : 18, only that there the dis
course is of those, vvho, openly ungodly, desire the day of the Lord
in mockery ; " Woe to those who desire the day of the Lord. Where
fore then the day of the Lord for you? It is darkness and not light."
The coincidence of " And who endures the day of his coming,"
with Joel 2:11, "Great is the day of the Lord, and very terrible,
and who will abide it ? " ?3'7'3.' 'pi, can the less be regarded as
accidental, since a similar verbal reference to Joel is found also in
V, 23, The prophet, in entire accordance with his conduct in v. 1,
sustains himself on the authority of a zealous predecessor, who had
already, centuries before, designated the day of the Lord as destruc
tive for the covenant people themselves, while those hypocrites re
garded only the heathen as the object of the penal justice of God.
The standing is in antithesis with the sinking down of the guilty,
from anguish and fearful expectation of the things which will then
come. There is an allusion to the passage in Eph, 6 : 13, "Tva 8vvr]~
¦&^xs dvxiaxfivai iv xy r,ftsga xjj novtjgd, xal dnavxa xaxsgyaaufisvoi,
axijvai. Luke 21 : 36, 'Aygvnvslxs ovv iv navxl xaiga, Ssofiivoi, 'iva
xaxa^ia&Tjxs ixcpvyslv xavxa ndvxa, xd fisXXovxa ylvsa&ai,, xal axa&n-
V a I sftngoa&sv xov vlov xoi dv&ganov. Before, v, 34, Kal alcpviSiog
i(f> vpdg sniaxji rj rjpiga ixsivtj, with reference to xn'^ DNnB in V. 1.
Apoc. 6 : 16, 17, Kal Xiyovat xolg ogsai xal xatg nixgaig • nsasxs i<p'
f,fidg, xal xgiiipaxs fjfidg dnb ngoaoinov xoH xa&ijfiivov inl xoi &g6vov,
xal dnb xJjg ogyijg xov dgvlov ¦ oxi, rjX&sv Xj fjfiiga rj fisydXrj xijg ogyijg
avxov, xal xig Svvaxai axa&ijvai. The case is the same
with these passages in reference to Malachi, as with Malachi in
reference to Joel. They do not contain an involuntary reminiscence,
but stand like a citation, and show how the Lord and his apostles
understood our prophecy. — In the second half of the verse, Gesen
ius, in the Thes., s. v. n'li:, after the example of J. D. Michaelis,
would change the double image of the fire, whereby metal, and of
the lye, whereby clothes are purified, into a single one, appealing to
the fact, that potash is used also in the purification of metals. But
that we cannot here refer to this usage, is evident ftom the epithet

CHAP. 2: 17 — 3: 6. C. 3 : 3. 301
D'p|3P. And, indeed, what ground is there for expunging the
second image, since it is elsewhere so frequent; comp., e. g., Is. 4 : 4,
" When the Lord washes the filth of the daughters of Zion, and
removes the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst of her." The
image of fire and of lye has now a double reference ; they are, in re
lation to the dross and the filth, burning and destroying; in reference
to the metals and clothes, purifying. The former reference, as that
belonging to those addressed, — Calvin : " Nam quamvis jactarent
ore pietatem, scimus tamen inquinamenta fuisse ecclesia dei," — is
here the prevailing one, as the '3 shows ; that the prophet, however,
has the other in view, is shown from the following verse, comp. Is.
1 : 25, where the purifying appears as a promise, not as a threaten
ing, " and I will purify as the lye thy dross, and remove all thy
lead." V. 3. "And he sits, refining and purifying silver, und purifies the
children of Levi und refines them, as gold und as silver, and they become
of the Lord, bringing sacrificial gifts in righteousness." The figure
of the foregoing verse appears here somewhat changed. There, the
Lord as the fire ; here, as the refiner himself The covenant people
had this advantage over the heathen, that amidst all the mixture of
dross, they still always retained a portion of noble metal, and, there
fore, could he an object of purification. Passages like those of Ezek.
22 : 18, " All Israel has become dross," are to be understood rela
tively, as even the connexion there shows, where the image of the
refiner occurs most fully carried out, — and then that the Lord must
purify them, even on account of the covenant , That which is true
of the covenant people as, a whole, — a multitude of its outward
members are mere dross, — is, also true of the individual believer.
DK'.; can be taken either as a designation of constancy, — so the
most interpreters, best of all Calvin : " In verbo 3ty' notatur diuturna
mora, ucsi diceret prophetu, sordes ultius infixus esse levitii, quam ut
uno die aut leviter abstergi queant," — or as serving merely for de
scription, as Tnj; Mic. 5 : 3. That especially the children of Levi
are mentioned, as the object of the refining, is explained by the fact
that has been already pointed out, that they are the chief mark of
the prophet throughout his whole prophecy. Those who, according
to chap. 2 : 8, had caused many to stumble in the law, he had repre
sented as the chief authors of the prevailing corruption ; they had
also certainly been the leaders of the murmurers, to whose discourse
cited in chap. 2 : 17, the prophet here answers, comp. 1 : 13. vn?

302 MALACHI.
nj'n'S must, according to the accents, be separated from what follows,
" they are to, or of, the Lord," " they now truly belong to him
again, whom they had so shamefully forsaken, and by whom they
had been rejected," 1 : 10, 2:8. The explanation of Jahn, " Ut
sint Jehova offerentes dona in justitiu,'' not the priests, but who, he
does not determine, has arisen only out of the effort to do away the
reference to the priests. His error, even if the times of the chief
fulfilment are regarded, is shown by passages like Acts 6 : 7 (noXvg
xs oxXog xav Isgsciiv vxijxovov xji nlaxti), and it is refuted even by the
circumstance, that the action of the Lord, in reference to the children
of Levi in what precedes, is described as purifying and not destruc
tive. In consequence of it, they now come forth from the furnace
as (purified) silver and gold, or, without a figure, they become the
servants of the Lord, bringing offerings in righteousness. The latter
words refer back to ''Xjp uvfi 'ni?.Tp~Sj^ !:'K?'3p, presenting upon
mine altur polluted breud, chap. 1 : 7. To the polluted bread of the
priests of that time, the prophet had already, v. 11, opposed the pure
meat-offering which the heathen should thereafter present ; here he
contrasts with it the righteous meat-offering of the purified priest
hood itself Several would explain np'iy? by legully, and refer it to
the outward perfection of the offering, but this explanation is entirely
inadmissible, np"!? never designates what is merely outwardly con
formable to the command of God, it never stands for mere legality.
The prophet had, it is true, before censured the outward badness of
the offerings, but only as a manifestation of what was internal, as a
sign of the want of reverence and love. How little worth the
prophets attributed to the outward service as such ; how far, therefore,
from the prophet the thought of the ridiculus mus of the outward
legality of the offerings certainly lay ; how he expected, from that
exalted manifestation of the Lord, something entirely different, is
shown, among a multitude of passages, e. g., by Jer. 6 : 20, " Where
fore then should incense come to me from Seba, and sweet cane, the
good out of distant lands ? Your burnt-offerings are not pleasing,
and your offerings are not acceptable to me.'' That which in the
present was the antithesis of the HDnv of the future, is given at large
in V. 5, where the unrighteousness is described according to its par
ticular manifestations. Two parallel passages still serve for the ex
planation of npnp, Ps. 4:6, " Offer sacrifices of righteousness,
and trust in the Lord." Legal sacrifices cannot here be supposed,
with De Wette, even aside from his caprice in the understanding of

CHAP. 2 : 17 — 3 : 6. C. 3 : 3. 303
p"3S. For the Psalmist had by no means to do with those who were
negligent in this respect, — what would it have aided him if they
ceased to be so ? — but with hypocrites, who thought to satisfy God
by outward service, and to be able to deserve his grace. Moreover,
the parallel, " and trust in the Lord," cannot then be explained.
The Psalmist rather exhorts them to present righteous offerings,
instead of those hitherto presented in unrighteousness ; to put their
trust in God, instead of trusting, as heretofore, to themselves. Ps.
51 : 18-21, "For thou hast not pleasure in sacrifices, else would I
give them ; burnt-offering thou wiliest not. The sacrifices of God are
a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not
despise. — -Then wilt thou find pleasure in the sacrifices' of righteous
ness." The mere outward sacrifices are not pleasant to God; they
are to him like a corpse, an abomination. The animating spirit, the
thing designated, must first be present; then also will the body,
the symbol, be well pleasing to God. — By offerings, here, the older
interpreters, with the exception of several Catholics, who avail them
selves of the passage to prove the necessity of the sacrifice of the
mass, for the most part understand precisely the spiritual sacrifices of
the New Testament, concerning which, 1 Pet. 2 : 5, 'Avsviyxai nvsv-
pdxixdg d-valag, svngoaSsxxovg xm &sa 8id Irjaov Xgiaxov, comp. Rom.
12 : 1, Heb. 13 : 15, 16. But it would be more correct to say, that
the prophet, as he would represent the substance, which remains
perpetually tbe same in the Old Testament form, which embodies
the idea, leaves it undecided, because this decision did not belong to
his object, whether the substance, devotion to the Lord, would always
manifest itself in this form or not; this must be decided out of other
passages. This view seems the more to be well founded, when we
reflect, that the prophecy is Messianic, only according to' its final
reference ; that preliminary fulfilments of it happen even in the times
of the Old Testament, where the substance could not appear without
the form. That, finally, the prophet did not transfer the perpetuity
of the substance to the Old Testament form, is evident from chap.
1 : ll. The prediction there given, that in all places of the earth,
a pure offering should be presented to the Lord, presupposes a total
change of the form, the cessation of the strict ordinances concerning
the unity of divine service, the cessation of the whole Levitical
worship. V. 24 also suggests a great revolution. If the land is
smitten with the curse, so also must the temple be profaned and
destroyed, and thus the possibility of the bringing of offerings done

304 MALACHI.
away. ' It is hardly accidental, that, as well here as also chap. 1 :
11, in respect to the converted heathen, and converted Israel, only
unbloody sacrifices nnjp are spoken of while the chastisement refers
especially to the bloody sacrifices. In the case of the nnjP, the
thought of an opus operatum, is far less obvious. That which is
external, is far more easily known as a mere form, as a covering of
the idea.
V. 4. " And pleasant to the Lord is the offering of Judah und
Jerusalem, as in the days of the ancient time, and as in the years of
the past." — We have here the opposite of chap. 1 : 10, 13, 2 : 13,
comp. Is. 1 : 11, Hos. 9 : 4. The efficient cause of the great revo
lution, therefore also the tert. compar. between these offerings and
the former, is, according to v. 3, the npn:f. This is shown also by
chap. 2 : 6, where, of the priestly order in the former and better
time, it is said, "the law of truth was in their mouth, and injustice
was not found upon their lips, in peace and in rectitude did they
walk with me, and converted many from evil doing," If the priestly
order, and with it the people, have returned to this their former recti
tude, so also does the former mercy of the Lord return. It is not
without reason, that the prophet magnifies the former mercy. The
future brings to the covenant people nothing absolutely new. The
revolution is an dnoxaxdaxaaig, the promise has, in what had already
existed, the pledge of its reality. If the former has proceeded from
the nature of God, so must it, when the conditions are again present
in the future, manifest itself in a like manner, comp. Is. 1 : 26, Lam.
5 : 21. 'p; and D^i^ are nomin. The expression, " as the days,"
&c., is concisely for " as it was in the days," &c. On qSij; comp.
Vol, II. p, 311. The prophet had, perhaps, especially the times of
David, and it is probable also those of the patriarchs, and the first
years of the residence in the wilderness (comp. Jer, 2 : 2) in his eye.
The feeling of the wretchedness of the present, caused these times
to appear as far more distant than they really were, as lying as it
were beyond all time. That, however, which appears to them in
their distress as the most absolute past, shall hereafter again become
the present.
V. 5. " And I draw near to you for judgment, and I am a swift
witness uguinst the conjurors, and the adulterers, and these who swear
falsely, und oppress the hireling in his wages, and the widow, and
the orphan, and bow down the stranger, und feur not me, suith the
Lord." The means in the hand of God for the introduction of that

CHAP, 2: 17 — 3: 6, C, 3:5, 305
better time, is the judgment upon those, who, in the imagination that
it would not fall upon them, so earnestly desired it, and murmured
at Its delay. Calvin : " Consilium propheta minime ambiguum est ;
vult enim ostendere, quam perverse expostulent cum deo, quia centies
perire debuerant, quum essent apostata, quum essent obscanis libidini-
bus dediti, quum essent crudeles, avari, perfidi." That the discourse
cannot here be of a judgment, which belongs purely to the distant
future, but only of such an one as commences even in the present,
and then, keeping pace with sin, constantly advances until it reaches
Its highest point, is so clear, that several among those, who, as Abar
banel, Venema, believed they must refer v. 1-4, to an absolute
future, knew of no other resource than the violent one of isolating
the verse, and making it treat of a totally different judgment from
that of V. 2 and 3, though at the same time the prophet knows only
of one judgment, both present and future. What Venema here
affirms : "Minus plenq, vidcri pesset responsio refutatoria, nisi deum
intermedio tempore hinc usque ad Messiam, quin hoc ipso tempore
adesse tanquam deum judicii inculcaretiir," he should properly have
thought of at V. 1 - 4. How the drawing near to judgment com
mences already in the present, is showii especially by the words
" ye are cursed with the curse," in the following section, which is
closely conected vvith this, v. 9, comp. also v. 11, according to which
the devourer is already present. Besides, inpp, hasty, quick, then
stands in manifest antithesis with the procrastination of which the
murmurers had accused God, If the judgment did not commence
until after a period of five hundred years, this antithesis would be
unsuitable, the accusation one that could not be disproved, — The
address, as the manifest reference to chap, 2 : 17 shows, is directed
to all murmurers, to the whole ungodly mass. In their own punish
ment will God so manifest himself as the God of right, that the
charge, that he has pleasure in the ungodly, and the question,
" Where is the God of right ? " shall henceforth no more be heard.
The testimony of God against the soothsayers, &.c, is not, as several
erroneously suppose, verbal, by his messenger, but actual, by matter
of fact. The punishment suspended over them testifies of their
guilt, which they so carefully concealed, while they even proceed
so far in their wickedness as to challenge God to the judgment
The crimes particularly mentioned, which, at the end, in the words
" and fear not me," are referred back to one source, are altogether
such as are severely threatened in the law, and intentionally desig-
voL. III. 39

306 MALACHI,
nated by the prophet almost throughout, with the words of the law.
— Magic was forbidden in the law under penalty of death, comp.
Exod, 22 : 17, Deut 18 : 13, How greatly it prevailed among the
Jews after the exile, is evident from passages like Acts 8:9, 13 : 6,
" At Salonis they found xivd fidyov, ifjsvSongocp-ijxrjv 'Iov8a~iov, a ovopa
Bagiijooiig." Jos. Arch. 20, 6. B. Jud. 2, 12, 23, — As belonging to
the category of adultery, the prophet had already, chap, 2 : 10 - 16,
characterized those connexions with heathen women, to the preju
dice of Jewish wives, as also the levity with which divorce was prac
tised. Where these more refined sorts of adultery are prevalent,
there also the more gross are always common, — "And who swear,"
&c., refers to Levit, 19 : 12, "And ye shall not swear in my name
IpE'S, to a lie," so that your oath belongs to a lie, is false. To swear
in the name of God, is, so to swear, that a man thereby finds him
self in the name of God, incorporated with it Whoever now breaks
such an oath, as much as in him lies, makes God a liar. As it is
said in the decalogue, he carries God's name to -that which is noth
ing, does all in his power to bring together the greatest of all ex
tremes, God, and that which is nothing. According to this mode of
consideration prevailing in the Scripture, though usually mistaken
because the emphatic meaning of the name of God is not regarded,
perjury is the extreme of hypocrisy, the fundamental characteristic
of which is the transferring of the name of God to that which is
nothing, in opposition to the command to sanctify the name of God,
to transfer that which is nothing to it, in order that, as it is holy in
itself, it may become more and more holy also in the world  The
words " and they oppress," &c. allude to Deut. 24 : 14, T3B'ptt'J2.n sS
p'?**] '3:i; (the opposite v. 1,5, " In his day shalt thou give his wages "),
comp, Levit, 19 : 13, 'l^'niN; pifi'p xS, where, in the expression,
" thy friend," him Whom God has joined with thee as a partaker of
the covenant by a holy bond of friendship (comp, p, 87), the ground
of the prohibition is given, 5 : 21. The verb is combined as here,
with the accus. of the thing, elsewhere only in Mich. 2 : 2, ipK'^J
imr}}) v/'ii) I'n'.ai 1.3J, otherwise always with the accws. of the person.
This requires a meaning, which, perhaps, in poetic discourse, can
also be referred to the thing, but properly belongs to the person
which here immediately follows, and in Micah precedes. For that
interpretations like those of Jahn : " Zeugma est : contra fraudan-
tes mercedem ntercenariorum et contra opprimentes viduas et pupillos,"
are inadmissible, is self-evident Our press or pinch, best corre-

CHAP, 2: 17 — 3: 6. C, 3 : 6, 307
sponds, which can be referred to the reward of the work no less than
to the laborer himself -^ " And turn aside the stranger," refers back
to Deut 27 : 19, njpSx) Din; iJ. aaifp n@p nns. 24 : 17, i<h
Din; 13 I33K/P nan, " And thou shalt not receive in pledge the gar
ment of the widow (the same three also combined v. 19), We need
not, however, on this account, with several interpreters, assume, that
U3m is here to be supplied, nan to bend, can as well be used of
the person, as of his right, comp, Amos 5 : 12, " the poor they bend
in his right," Prov, 18:5, "to accept the person of the ungodly "
(to look at his mien, commanding reverence, and promising reward,
instead of the case itself which is the commonly misapprehended
meaning of D'J3 NKfJ) " is not good, to bend the just in his right,"
Is. 10 : 2. The law breathes the tenderest love towards the Q''?J,,
the strangers sojourning in Israel, — the expression is entirely gen
eral, comprehending, as well those who had been incorporated with
the covenant people by circumcision, as those who had not ; of the
former, e, g,, Exod. 12 : 19, of the latter, Deut. 14 : 21, — affording
a certain proof that the charge against the religion of the Old Tes
tament, of the odium humani generis is groundless, and that the
special love commanded towards their own nation did not exclude
universal philanthropy, but laid the foundation for it (comp. p. 87).
Thus it is said, Exod. 23 : 9, " And the stranger thou shalt not op
press, and ye know the heart of the stranger, for ye were strangers
in the land of Egypt ; " comp. other passages in Gesen. Thes. s. v. —
" And ye fear not me," properly stands in the front, as the source of
all other transgressions ; but the prophet places it last, because he
has to do with hypocrites, to whom the badness of the tree must first
be proved from the badness of the fruit. This, connexion was per
ceived by Calvin : " Nam ubi regnant libidines rapina et fraudes, et
corruptela, qua viiiant cultum dei, satis patet j nullum esse dei time-
rem, sed homines quasi furere excusso jugo, etiamsi millies praiendant
nomen dei."
V. 6. " For I am Jehovah, I change not, and ye children of Jacob
do not come te an end." The '^l must here also be taken as a part.
rat. The attempts to give it another meaning, have originated solely
from overlooking how every judgment upon the people of God is, at
the same time, a mercy for them, comp. Vol. II. p. 248. That this
fact is here rendered prominent, need appear the less strange, since
it had- already been brought forward in v. 3 and 4- That in the
expression, " I am Jehovah," stress is laid upon the import of the

308 MALACHI.
name, is evident from what follows, " I change not." The name
Jehovah, — properly Juhvah, fut. of the verb nin, the older form for
H'H, he is, or he who exists, — designates God as the pure existence,
in antithesis with all that is created, the existence of which is always
relatively a non-existence. Out of the purity of the existence, arises
the immutability of the being ; because God is, so is he also he who
is perpetually the same. And out of the immutability of the being,
necessarily results the immutability of the will resting upon the being.
If, now, God had concluded a covenant with Israel, and sealed to
him his election, so must God cease to be Jehovah, and therefore a
true God, if he suffered Israel to go to ruin ; and because he is, and
remains Jehovah, the existing, the immutable, so does he now exer
cise judgment upon the covenant people, to preserve them from de
struction. — This is the simple sense of the passage. Those who
think of the unchangeable holiness and righteousness of God, which
demand the punishment of sinners, overlook the close connexion in
which Jehovah stands to the children of Jacob, and 'n'3i£? xS with
DO'Sd xS ; and also the dependence of this passage on Exod. 3 : 13
sq., and 6 : .3, where God, before he becomes Jehovah, instead of
Q'^l'^'^?, solemnly proves himself such, by the fulfilment of his promises.
— After Venema, Eichhorn explains (Th. III. p. 409), " For I am
Jehovah, I change not, therefore the Israelites have not long since
been consumed." But, not to insist that 'J would then have no
suitable meaning, this interpretation is to be rejected, because it
understands DJ!)''?? differently from 'O'^E', to which it accurately cor
responds. — Finally, Dp'Sp xS is, in like manner, an explanation of
the sons of Jacob, and a conclusion from the same, as the 'n'3.W xb
from Jehovah, so that the sense would be the same if it read merely
3pi';_ \35 Dnx] nin; '3>? '3. The sons of Jacob are at the same time
sons of Israel. Israel, however, imports, according to the meaning
given by God himself at the solemn imparting of this name to the
father of the tribe, and in him to his descendants. Gen. 32 : 29,
God's wrestler, him, who, by prayer and supplication, has overcome
God, has not let him go until he was blessed, has forced his way
through all hindrances and temptations to his favor, comp. also Hos.
12 : 4. In the struggle with God, the struggle with men also is im
plied, who could injure and destroy only as God's instruments,
comp. Gen. 1. c, and where once a whole church has gained this
victory, and made her election sure, there must Israel so surely re
main Israel, as God is Jehovah. The individuals who merely bear

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 13-24. V. 13. 309
the name and appearance of the sons of Israel, the faithless sons,
Deut. 32 : 10, the souls which have been cut off from among their
people, because they have destroyed the covenant (comp. p. 39), not
only cun, but must be destroyed by the judgment of God ; but the
whole can never perish. Parallel passages which concern Jehovah's
immutability in general, are Num. 23 : 19, " God is no man, that he
should lie, and no son of man, that he should repent Should he say
and not do, speak and not accomplish ? " 1 Sam. 15 : 29, " Also the
eternity of Israel (this the only established meaning of Sx-t^'. nS3.)
lies not, and repents not; for no man is he that he should repent," —
in which declaration of Samuel to Saul, is a manifest reference to
that before cited out of the prophecies of Balaam. James 1 : 17,
Hag o5 ovx IVt nagaXXayrj, ij xgonijg dnoaxianpa. Parallel passages
in reference to Israel's indestructibility, grounded on the unchange-
ableness of Jehovah, are Jer. 30 : 11, "For I am with thee, saith
the Lord, to deliver thee ; for I will bring to nothing all the heathen
among whom I have scattered thee, only thee vvill I not bring to
, nothing." Lam. 3 : 22, 23, " Mercy of the Lord ! for we are not
come to nothing, his mercy has not vanished away. It is new every
morning, great is thy faithfulness."

THE PORTION CHAP. 3. V. 13-24.
V. 13. " Ye do violence to me with your discourses, saith the Lord,
and ye say, What do we speak against thee ? " — Very significantly
Calvin: "Significat talem fuisse prnterviam, qua nullis rationibus
posset compesci: quemadmodum videmus homines, ubi semel abrepti
sunt sua amentia et rabie, vociferuri, itu ut locum non relinquant v.
monitionibus, v. sunis consiliis. Initio obmurmurunt, et tunlum uudi-
untur susurri, sed ubi acquisierunt sibi licentiam, tunc emittunt furi-
osos sues clameres in coditm." pin with !')_, to be strong over any
one, always, i. q,, to de violence, to overpower. So, e. g., Ezek. 3 :
14, " The hand of the Lord was strong upon me," overpowered me.
Exod. 12: 33, "And Misraim was strong upon the people, that she
dismissed them in haste out of the land," — she did violence to them,
comp. 6:1," With a strong hand, with violence, will he let you go,
yea, with a. strong hand will he drive you out" 2 Chron. 27 : 5,

310 MALACHI,
2 Sam, 24 : 4, Dan, 11:5, The meaning gravis, durus, molestus
fuit, which the interpreters commonly here assume, is not established
by the usage, and the meaning to do violence is to be preferred, even
on account of the accurately corresponding K'Ji^, in chap. 2 : 17.
God bridles his anger. Is. 48 : 9, but they go so far in their wicked
ness, as at last to exhaust his patience. — ¦I3'73 is explained, Ezek.
33 : 30, by " to speak one with the other, and a man with his broth
er.'' That we are to think of sermones mutuos is evident, not only
from the form, which cannot mean simply to speak, but from the
discourse itself here, v. 14, 15, and chap. 2 : 17; they speak not
indeed to God, but with one another of God ; in like manner, the
contrasted discourse of the pious, which, also, as the inj>.l"Ss« Kf'X
shows, is a conversation. The reciprocal meaning of Niph. (exam
ples in Ewald, p. 192) is explained as easily as the reflexive. In
both only the action is expressed ; the actor or actors must be sup
plied out of the connexion.
V. 14. " Ye say, Vain is it to serve God, and what gain, that we
heep his guard, and walk mournfully before the Lord, Sabaoth."
The phrase n^iD'^P ipK' followed by a gen., which occurs very often
in the Pentateuch, and frequently also in some later books (Ezek.
and Chron.) borrowed from it, but seldom in the writings of the
middle period, has been almost uniformly misunderstood. The diffi
culty attending it, is evident from its having been differently inter
preted in different places, since, in. so peculiar a phrase, a diversity
of meaning should not be assumed without the most forcible reasons.
Gesenius and De Wette explain in most passages n'lpa^P, by law,
command, usage. The whole phrase by " to observe what is to be
observed towards any one," But against this, Josh. 22 : 3 alone is
sufficient, " And ye should keep the guard of the command of the
Lord your God." Besides, there are other passages which by no
means allow of this meaning, as 1 Chron, 12 : 29, Num. 3 : 6, Ezek.
40 : 45. 16, Lev. 1 : 53, 18:3-5. The correct interpretation is,
without doubt, the following. n'lpE'p (comp. on the fem. in the
nouns with D, whereby the abstract is more definitely expressed,
Ewald, p. 315), has the meaning attention, observation, care, comp.,
e. g.. Num. 18 : 8, "Behold, I give to thee the care of my heave-
offerings;'' other passages in Gesenius. "The attention of any one,"
or "to attend to a thing," is to observe him or it This meaning is,
without a single exception, applicable to all the passages where the
phrase occurs. This we will show by examples out of the different

THE PORTION CHAP, 3; 13-24. V, 14. 311
classes : Gen. 26 : 5, " As a reward to Abraham, because he has
hearkened to my voice, and my charge, my commandments, my ordi
nances, and my laws," comp. Levit 8 : 35, 18 : 30, 22 : 9, Num.
9 : 19, 23, 2 Chron. 23 : 6, 1 Kings 2 : 3, (" All the people should
observe the Lord," from regard to him, not break into Ihe holy
places,) 1 Chron. 12 : 29, " And until then the greater part of them
observed the house of Saul," (comp. xaravoitv, Heb, .3 : 1,) Num.
3:6-8," Bring hither the tribe of Levi, and let them appear before
Aaron the priest, that they serve him, and they shall keep his charge,
and the charge of the whole congregation, before the tabernacle of
the congregation, to do the service of the tabernacle, and they shall
keep the charge of all the vessels of the tabernacle of the congrega
tion, and the charge of the children of Israel." Ezek. 44 : 8,
" And ye have not kept the charge of my sanctuaries, but ye have
placed for yourselves those who kept my holy things," V. 14, 15,
40 : 45, 46, 1 Chron. 23 : 32, Levit. 1 : 53, 18 : 4, 5, Num. 18 :
3-5. — n'3Vip, atrate, signifies the outward habit in fasts. Black
is the color of mourning, comp. Ps. 35 : 14, 39 : 7, 42 : 10, Eccl.
9 : 8, but at the same time the mourning and penitential garments
were of very coarse stuff, and the wearing of them immediately upon
the body was a sort of pepitence. When a man treated himself
harshly (the term. tech. in the Pentateuch for fasting is t£'3J n|j.', to
afflict the soul ; it is remarkable, that D-IS with its derivatives, does
not occur in all the Pentateuch), he declared by his action, that he
felt himself to be a sinner, and deserving of every punishment.
Here the discourse is especially of voluntary fasts, where the notion
of merit was especially easy, partly of the whole people, comp. Josh.
2 : 15, Judges 20 : 26, 1 Sam. 7 : 6, 31 : 13, partly of individuals. To
the voluntary chastisements of the latter, even the law has regard,
comp. Num. 30 : 14, vvhich expressly commands fasting, only in
reference to the feast of atonement, comp, Levit. 16 : 29, 31, indi
rectly, however, voluntary fasts also. For since it demands repent
ance for every sin, and fasting at that time was the usual embodying
of repentance, so that the thing signified could scarcely be thought
of without the sign, the former was properly commanded together
with the latter. — '3.aP, — it is for the most part asserted, — stands
here according to later usage, for '337. But here, as well as in the
other cited passages, there is not even the smallest ground for this
assumption. The fasting is designated as proceeding from the face
of the Lord, because it is undertaken for his sake, and for this very

312 MALACHL
reason do the people find themselves so unrighteous, that they
have no gain therefrom. In like manner. Hag, 1 : 12, " And the
people feared, nin: '.33p, before the Lord," i, q. out ftom the Lord.
1 Kings 22 : 19, " Because thy heart has become soft, and thou
humblest thyself ni.n: 'J3p," Winer still cites for the meaning coram,
Levit, 19:32: D-ipn np'ty '.33p, which, however, as is shown by
what follows, " And thou shalt honor the countenance of the aged,"
is to be explained by " out of regard before age, shalt thou arise."
Jer. 1 : 13, it is even made to mean versus! The truth was there
seen even by C. B. Michaelis. — In reference now to the sense of
the whole verse, the expression of a reprobate mind must not be
sought in the expression yv.5"na. The demand for that resignation,
vvhich is far beyond the reach of joy and suffering, may, perhaps,
suit modern philosophers, for whom God is one absolutely afar off;
but does not suit the Scripture, which expects the manifestation of
the omnipotence, righteousness, and love of God in the future, only
because they already manifest themselves in the present, 'll tvai^sia,
¦ — says the Apostle, 1 Tim, 4:8, — ngbg ndvxa oicpsXifiog iaxiv,
inayysXlav i'xovaa ^a^g xr^g viiv xal xijg fiiXXovarjg. And where this
promise is not fulfilled, where it seems to be contradicted by the
appearance, there do we frequently hear from the true believer a
complaint which is outwardly entirely similar to that here expressed,
and still is not sinful like it; comp,, e. g,, Ps, 73 : 13, "Only in vain
have I cleansed my heart, and washed my hands in innocency."
The sinfulness here lies rather in the opinion, that their merely out
ward service, whioh, according to the foregoing accusations, must
still, even as such, have been poor enough, was a real service of
God, their fasting, a body without a soul, a corpse without a spirit,
an empty form, was a true fast. This Calvin perceived : " Puiant
vitam suam conformem esse omnibus praceptis et tamen vix millesimam
partem uttigerant. — Est hoc non vulgare in culiu dei, fastu omni
deposito et confidcntiu etiam subacla, timide ambulare coram ipso.
Sed hypocrita simiarutn mere imitantur, quod
deus exigit vel prob at. Inicrea de corde mutando nulla
mentio." — The correctness of these remarks will be evident from a
comparison of Is, chap, 58, a passage which the prophet, we infer
from other points of connexion with it, certainly had in view. If
this reference is perceived, the opinion of Venema and others, which
is also liable to so many other objections, that the prophet here has
to do with the truly pious, falls of itself to the ground, Isaiah,

THE PORTION CHAP, 3: 13-24, V, 15, 313
whose complaints are commonly directed against the one chief
tendency of the apostasy, prevalent in his time, viz, idolatry, here
contends against the other, that which afterwards was formally organ
ized in Pharisaism, and became predominant, Ruckert: "com
plaints of the merely external character of the worship of God,
insisting upon something internal as a condition of the help of God,"
Even at that time, fasting was that outward work on vvhich most
dependence was placed, and whereby the consciousness of the inward
fuga pleni was chiefly stifled. And very naturally, for among all
outward works, fasting was the most difficult, and best suited to en
courage the notion of merit, the absence of a knowledge .of sin, and
closely connected therewith, ignorance of the holiness of God being
presupposed. Now while Malachi leaves the self-righteous more to
his own conscience, which he endeavours to awaken by the predic
tion of the Divine judgment, Isaiah fully exposes the folly of this
delusion, " Cry aloud, spare not, show my people their transgression,
and the house of Jacob their sins. And they inquire of me every
day, and they desire the knowledge of my ways (of my dispensations,
which appear to them inconceivable) as a people that work righteous
ness, and forsake not the right of their God ; they require of me
judgments of righteousness (pii.v 'n^tJ'P, comp. the aS'^Jjn 'rtS.^ n.'.x,
chap. 2 : 17), the drawing near of God (D'rib*« ng'ip, comp. the
" and I draw near to you to judgment," chap. 3 : 5) they wish
(iiyan.;, comp. the D'V3n. Diis— IK'S, chap. 3 : 1). Wherefore do we
fast and thou seest not, afflict our souls and thou knowest not ?
Behold, in the day of your fast, ye find your pleasure (contrast of the
reality with the idea, ty3.5 n:;;, to afflict his soul; the explanation of
recent interpreters, ye carry en your business, is not only unphilo
logical, but a perversion of the sense), and ye oppress all who are
subject to you. — Is this the fast that I choose, and a day when a
man afflicts his soul ? to bow down as a rush his head, and to put on
sackcloth and ashes, that callest thou a fast, and a day of good
pleasure to the Lord ? Is not this a fast that I choose, to loose the
bands of ungodliness, &c,, — Then vvill thy light break forth as the
morning dawn, and thy healing vvill quickly spring up, and thy
righteousness goes before thee, and the glory of the Lord will be
thy reward,"
V, 15, " And now we call the proud happy , the workers of iniqui
ty ure built up, yea, they tempt God and escape." The reference to
V, 12 has already, p. 282, been pointed out Even this reference
VOL. III. 40

314 MALACHI,
shows, that here by the D'lT the heathen must be understood. The
being built up, is, i, q , incrcmcnta capere, comp. Jer, 12 : 16, 17,
Exod. 1 : 21, which latter passage, "And it came to pass, because
the midwives feared God, that he built them houses," the murmurers
perhaps had especially in view. "How, indeed, could God still be
God ! once, as a God of justice, he built bouses for those who feared
God, now for the haughty despisers. The D'"}.i., direct antithesis of
the nin] 'X'^;. Compare respecting the intentional repetition of D'TT.
and n;'t?"i ^'lay in the answer of the prophet, v. 19. — What sense is
here to be attributed to D'riSx ]n3, experimentum justitia dei peccan-
do sumere, appears especially from the comparison of v. 10. The
prophet had there exhorted the people to prove God by true righ
teousness whether he would manifest himself by blessings as the God
of right What need of this trial on our part? answer the murmur
ers. The heathen have already made it. They have, as it were,
diligently endeavoured to call forth, by their crimes, God's righteous
ness. Now if God does not stand this trial, if he does not show his
righteousness in their punishment, how dare we hope that he will
manifest himself by the imparting of blessings to us as the God of
right V. 16. " Then those who feared God spake often to one another,
and the Lord attended and heard, and a book of reme?nbrance was
written before him for those who feared God, and who thought of his
name." To the accusations against God of the ungodly mass (comp.
the whole people in v. 9), who thought themselves pious, the dis
courses of the truly pious remnant, who justified God, are here op
posed. The iX, then, shows that the latter were occasioned by the
former, and were opposed to them. And thus the contents of their
discourses are sufficiently designated, and there was less need of a
verbal citation of their Theodicee, since it must be essentially iden
tical with that given by the prophet himself. They held the same
language as Peter, in an entirely similar case in the last times of the
Jewish state, when the spirit of murmuring against God, having
reached its highest point, passed over from the Jews to the weaker
portion of the Jewish Christians, — a fact, the knowledge of which
alone furnishes the key to the Second Epistle of Peter, as also the
Epistle to the Hebrews, necessarily implies an influence of the Jew
ish spirit of the times upon the converted Jews, analogous to that,
which, in our time, the revolutionary spirit exercises upon many
Christians ; we need only, as the counterpart of the seducers, with

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 13-24. V. 17. 315
whom the Apostle contends, think of such a person as the Abbe
Lamennais, — comp. 2 Pet. 3 : 9, Oi; ^gaSvvti b xvgtog xi,g innyysXlug,
wg xtvsg ^gadvtSjxa rjyovnai' aXXd fiaxgodvfisT. slg ijfiuc, firj (iovkofisrog
Tivag anoXia&ai, aXXd ndvxag slg psxdvoiav xfxgvaai. V, 1,'S. Kal xrjV
xov xvgiov rjfiOJv (laxgodvjxiav aanrjgiav fiyila&s. V. 17. Tfiilg ovv,
ayanrjTol, ngoyiraaxovxsg (fvXdaasaSs, 'iva fixj xjj xSiv aOsafiav nXdvrj
avranaxd^ivxsg, sxnsarjxs xov ISiov axrjgiyfioii. — As, therefore, the sub
stance of the speeches of the pious is sufficiently determined, there
can be no ground with Til, J. D. Michaelis, Bauer, Theiner, and
others, to force upon the prophet a verbal citation by an interpreta
tion contrary to the usage of the language. 'I'hey translate, on the
contrary, " the worshippers of Jehovah speak among themselves,"
&c., against which, it is sufficient to remark, that the fut. with vav.
conv. can never be the commencement of an entirely new discourse.
It is, moreover, self-evident, that we here have before us an admoni
tion to the pious, in the form of history. The prophet, while he
describes what they did, shows to them what they should do, and,
indeed, more emphatically than if he had addressed them in the
form of a requisition. He thereby shows, that a proper admonition
was unnecessary, that it was the nature of faith thus to express itself
and that whoever failed to do it, could not be a believer. Like the
admonition, the promise also is clothed in a historic dress. Calvin :
" Voluit hac congerie verborum fideles magis hortari, quoniam indu-
biu sit eorum merces, simuluc sese deo uddixerint, quoniam deus non
cacutiet ad ipsorum pietatem." — The image of the writing down in
a book of remembrance lying before the Lord, was probably bor
rowed from the custom of the Persians, among whom the names of
those who had rendered service to the king, with the mention of
what they had done, were entered in a book, in order that they might
be rewarded at the proper time, comp. Esth. 6:1, " The king com
manded to bring D'p;n ''7.51 ni3"i;pTn l9D"n}<, and they were read
before the king." Dan. 7 : 10, Jabn's Archael I. 1. p. 472.
V. 17. " And they are mine, suith the Lord, Sabaoth, in ihe day
when I make a possession, und I will spure them us a man spares his
son who serves him." We have here the ground of the entry in the
book of remembrance. Many interpreters connect n-7.3? with 'S rni,
" And they shall be to me a possession, in the day when I make."
But a guide of such approved fidelity as the accents, should not be
forsaken at the first appearance and suspicion. On a nearer investi
gation, however, every occasion for this in the present instance

316 MALACHI.
vanishes. The explanation which rests on the accents, then appears
to give even a better and more expressive sense. Particularly is it
then, in entire harmony with v. 18, rendered especially prominent
(which was here so important), that the design of that great impend
ing day was to make a n'73D, to erect among Israel themselves the
wall of partition, which, in the opinion of those hypocrites, should
exist only between the whole of the n itural Israel and the heathen ;
to exterminate outwardly also those who had already in reality been
cut off from their people, to strip the mask of the nin'. 'X")'., from the
hypocritical ?'"i.t, and to draw the former from the concealment in
which they were hid' on account of that fellowship with the ungodly,
which restrained the course of the Divine mercy, and brought down
the judgments of God upon the whole people. THiD is not a pos
session in general, but one of peculiar worth and preciousness, dis
tinguished from every other possession, comp. Eccl. 2 : 8, " I collect
ed for myself also silver and gold, and a nb.3p, an elite of kings and
provinces." (The nsgiovatog also corresponding to it in the Seventy,
and often in the New Testament, does not mean, as Schleusner,
Wahl, and others assert, proprius alicui, peculiuris, but, according
to Gloss, in Oct. nsgtovaiov, i^aigsxov.) There is here a plain refer
ence to those passages in the Pentateuch, where n^3D occurs of the
people of Israel in contrast with the heathen, comp. E.xod. 19 : 5,
" And now, if ye will hearken to my voice, and keep my covenant,
so shall ye be nb^i? out of all nations." Deut, 7:6, " For a holy
people art thou to the Lord thy God, thee hath the Lord thy God
chosen, that thou shouldest be to him nb3p U]/i out of all the nations
which are upon the earth," 26 : 18 (Ps, 135 : 4), As then, at
Sinai, God made Israel for a nbjD to himself out of all nations, so
now does he make out of the whole of carnal Israel the true Israel
for a n-73ip to himself or rather he causes those alone to appear as
his n-73i?, who only were always so. For that this predicted new
making of a n-7;p is to be considered only as a continuation of the
first, as a more complete realization of the idea, out of which it
sprung, that the ungodly had properly no part in the n^^O, is evident
from the condition " if ye will hearken to my voice, and keep my
covenant." In this if, the prophecy is already implied, which is
here expressly uttered. According to it, God can as little suffer
those who fulfil the required condition to be continually deprived of
the blessings of the promise on account of their fellowship with those
who have not fulfilled the condition, as he can suffer the latter to be

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 13-24. V. 18, 317
treated as a nSjp on account of the former. After the preparatory
siftings, vvhich occur throughout the whole history, a great sifting
must at last come, whereby the uncircumcised in heart will be placed
on an equal footing with the uncircumcised in the flesh, comp, Jer,
9 : 24, 25. This great separation first took place at the appearing of
Christ — According to the explanaticn which we favor, the reference
also to the complaint of the murmurers is obvious. That God made
no nS.JC), was their objection ; " God will hereafter make a n-jJD," an
swers the prophet, " but to your own injury, and the benefit of those
who truly fear God, not of those, who, hi foolish blindness, think
themselves such." Entirely analogous is the reference to the com
plaint in v. 5, " Ye ask, ' Where is the God of right ? ' He approaches
already, but to show himself as such in your punishment" — The
expression to spare, to manifest tender love, is explained out of the
contrast with the not sparing of those who were not sons. An
entirely similar silent antithesis is 1 Sam. 23 : 21, where Saul, in view
of the unsparing conduct of others towards them, says to the Siph-
ites, " Blessed be ye of the Lord, 'Sj? DJjS.pn '3. The overlooking
of this antithesis has called forth remarks like those of Jerome :
" Parcel eis, quia omnis homo sub peccuto,'' and Calvin : " Hic
proph. remissionem peccutorum designut, quu opus habemus in bonis
operibus. — Sine ejus indulgentia, quidquid ufferimus, repulsa potius,
quum fuvere dignum. — The expression, " who serves him," is es
pecially emphatic, If paternal love is to manifest itself in all its
strength, there must be something more on the part of the son, than
the mere natural descent, which forms only the first ground of the
relation between father and son ; he must, by the free act of his will,
have become a son. So is it with Israel in relation to God, the
reception into the family of God by circumcision, is equal to the cor
poreal descent Relying upon it, many imagine, that nothing further
was required to give them a claim to God's fatherly treatment. The
prophet, however, reminds them, that the reception, if it remained
merely an outward one, far from giving them this claim, only served
to increase their responsibility, and subject them to unsparing
treatment. V. 18. "And ye shall see agnin the difference between the righteous
and the wicked, between him who serves God, und him who serves him
not." The clear reference to the complaint of the murmurers, that
God makes no difference between the righteous and the wicked, an
objection which was common to them with the purely outward Israel

318 MALACHI.
and the heathen, shows that the address was here directed to the
hypocrites. "Ye will experience that your complaint is groundless,
but to your own injury." " Ye return," refers to former separations,
e. g., that in Egypt (comp. Exod. 11:7," Thereby ye know that the
Lord separates between Egypt, and between Israel"), to vvhich the
hypocrites appeal, and from which they sought to show, that now,
when no traces of such a distinction were to be found, God could no
more be God. p3 is taken by most interpreters, after the example
of De Dieu (" Videbitis interstitium s. discrimen justi ud impro-
hum"), as a noun. But this is entirely untenable, since, among the
mass of passages where ['5 occurs, there is not one where it is to be
taken as a noun. The uncertainty of the conclusion in such a case,
from the etymology, we have already seen in another entirely similar
example, that of nnn, comp. Vol. II. p. 57, and the same thing is
sufficiently shown by the living languages. The meaning between,
is here entirely suitable. " We do not see,'' say the murmurers, " what
we ought to see, between the righteous and the ungodly ; " " the time
will come," says the prophet, " when ye will again see the difference
between the righteous and the ungodly." In a similar way is a great
separation among the covenant people themselves announced by
Isaiah 65 : 13, 14, " Behold, my servants will eat and ye vvill hun
ger ; behold, my servants will dr.nk and ye will thirst ; behold, my
servants will rejoice, and ye vvill be ashamed ; behold, my servants
will exult for joy of heart, and ye vvill howl for sorrowing of heart,"
comp. Dan. 12 : 2. In its completion, this separation is still future,
comp. the representation, which rests on the same idea, and therefore
in substance identical, Matt 25 : 31 sq. But as surely as God not
perhaps will be, but from eternity, and through all times, is the
God of right, so surely also must the cleansing of the floor, the
burning of the chaff, and the gathering of the wheat into the garner,
extend through aU times.
V. 19. " For, behold, the day comes, burning as the oven; und ull
the proud, and a>ll the evil doers, are chaff; and the day that comes
burns them up, saith the Lord, Sabaoth, who will not leave them root
or branch." In the foregoing verse a great separation had been
predicted between the righteous and the ungodly. Here, now, the
destruction is represented, which this separation should bring upon
the ungodly ; and in the two following verses, the blessings which it
should confer upon the pious. Interpreters are divided with respect
to the day here predicted. Venema : " Alii ultimum et universale

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 13-24. V. 19. 319
judicium in fine mundi, alii particulare in Judaos per Romanes,
pauci utrumque.'' But even, if vvith the latter, vve embrace the two
first references, we have not yet the whole truth, any more than we
have by the same method in the case of the prediction of Christ in
Matt 24 : 25. How can we justly exclude the striking realizations
of the idea here expressed, from the time of the utterance of the
prophecy, to the destruction by the Romans, as that in the time of
the Maccabees, when the avofioi, nagdvopoi, igy.a^ofisvoi xtjv aSixlav,
das^slg, dvSgsg Xoifiol, as they are called in the books of the Macca
bees, with reference to this and similar prophecies, learned by experi
ence the truth ridiculed by them, that God is the God of right ; and
the invisible realizations to be perceived only by the eye of faith,
which extend through this whole period, including the revelation of
the Divine righteousness in the destinies of particular individuals.
With what right can we exclude the whole period from the destruc
tion of Jerusalem until the last judgment, as if in the great book of
history, only the first and last leaf were written with the finger of
God, and the rest left vacant ? God's judgment upon the false seed,
the dead members of his church, is here described, which, through
all centuries is one and the same, so that the prophecy can by no
means be regarded as finished with the times of the New Testament,
but its fulfilment begins precisely where its object begins, the judg
ment, which is never far off, and runs parallel with it through all
times. Not solely, but only most manifestly, do they Coincide in the
end of the two economies (of the latter so far as it is a kingdom of
grace). — In reference to n^n, Calvin remarks : " Quasi in rem
praseniem vocat Judaos, ut intelligant non procul distare, sed jum
imminere suis capitibus dei vindictam." To the consuming fire,
the reviving sun is opposed in the following verse. 1'l3n3, as the
(consuming) oven, serves to give intensity. In the glowing oven, the
fire burns fiercer than in the open air. Fire, which consumes chaff
and stubble, occurs as an image of the ruin of the ungodly. Is. 5 :
24, " Therefore, as the tongue of fire consumes chaff, and as grass
sinks down in the flame, so shall your root be as devoured by worms,
and your blossom go up as dust, for they have cast away the law of
the Lord, Sabaoth, and despised the word of him vvho is holy in
Israel." ID'!?, and r\VJPl'"^V!V stand in plain reference tov. 15, to
you, who are such above all, not those whom ye so name, Calvin :
" Detracta larva videbitis, ubinam sit impietas ; nempe quia in vobis
residet, ideo etiam sustinebitis pcenam, quam meriti estis, et hoc est

320 MALACHI.
illud reverti, cujus antea meminit." The "^f^, is not to be referred
to the Lord, but to the coming day. The same antithesis of root
and branch. Job 18 : 16, " Below his roots dry up, and his branch
above," comp. Schultens on the passage, and Vitr. on Is. 5 : 24.
V. 20. " And upon you who fear my name, arises the Sun of
Righteousness, and hca'ing is under his wings, and ye go forth, and
leap as the calves of the stall." The phrase npJV ^^^, is a sort of
compound noun. The sun is the righteousness itself It is com
pared with the natural sun, because, though now obscured, it vvill
then brightly shine, but especially, because it will afford rich conso
lation to the miserable. Explanations of nplY, as those by prosperi
ty, or goodness, or generosity, are at once to be rejected, comp. Vol.
II, p, 310, The righteousness, however, is not the subjective, but
that imparted by God on the ground of it, which has prosperity for
its inseparable companion, or properly it is the prosperity itself only
according to another mode of consideration, as an actual justifica
tion, and declaring as righteous, comp., e. g., Ps. 132 : 9, " May thy
priests be clothed with righteousness, and thy saints rejoice." Of
justification = forgiveness of sins, we cannot here think. This
would be against the whole context, since it treats of the judgment,
of the great separation between those who are already righteous, or
still ungodly, comp, v, 18, Here the mention of the forgiveness of
sin, is just as little in its place as Matt 25 : 31 sq. The dnoXyxgaaig,
Luke 21 : 28, rather corresponds to righteousness here, with which the
dominion of mere semblance ceases, harmony between the external
and internal is established, and all that is concealed, whether it be
good or bad, is brought to light. The Fathers, from Justin onward,
understand by the " Sun of Righteousness,'' Christ, comp. Suicer,
p. 1320, and they are followed by far the greater number of later
interpreters, comp. the proofs in Job. Heinr. Majus, De Christo sole
Justitia, Giessen, 1710. This interpretation is in the main point
well grounded ; he through whom righteousness should be imparted
to the pious, at whose appearance the Sun of Righteousness arises
upon them, is, according to 3 : 1, the nin; '\^'^, the heavenly medi
ator of the covenant, who realizes its promises, and its threatenings,
the Xoyog. But there are two things in the interpretation to be set
aside. 1. It finds here a definite mention of the person of Christ,
he himself should be tbe Sun of Righteousness, while, nevertheless,
the righteousness is designated as the Sun. This difference, how
ever, concerns merely the form. For he who causes the Sun of

THE PORTION CHAP. 13-24. V. 21. 321
Righteousness to arise, can also himself be regarded as this Sun,
just as the author of peace, Mic. 3:5, is himself called peace.
2. It understands by righteousness, at least chiefly, the forgiveness
of sin. Thus, e. g., Luther, on the passage, explains the Sun of
Righteousness by " which makes righteous, which gives such a
splendor, that the people are justified by it, and delivered from sin.''
This difference is essential. The murmurers had desired the judg
ments of righteousness, and, accordingly, that God should give to
every one, the righteous and the unrighteous, according to his works ;
to the judgment, the reward of the pious and the punishment of the
ungodly, the prediction of the prophet is limited. It was, therefore,
not to his purpose, to speak here of the forgiveness of sin ; it is in
cluded in 'the more incidental annunciation, that God would send
his messenger to prepare his way before him. Whoever suffers him
to exercise this his office on himself receives the forgiveness of sins ;
whoever does it not, upon him abides the wrath of God. After the
Lord himself has already come, there can be no more change of the
relation to him, but only a revelation of it. The passage, therefore,
is parallel to such as Ps. 102 : 4. "A light arises to the upright in
darkness." Wings are attributed to the morning dawn, as here to
the sun, Ps. 139 : 9, to the wind, Ps. 104 : 3, in both cases, as a
symbol of swiftness; comp. Macrob. Sat I. 19, "Hoc argumentum
JElgyptii lucidius absolvunt, ipsius solis simulacra pennuta fingentes."
Eurip. Ion. v. 122, "Aft' rjsXlov nxigvyi -d-oij. Virgil. JEn. lib. 8. v.
396, " Nox ruit et fuscis tellurem amplectitur alis." Upon the
Antonine pillars Jupiter himself is represented, under the image of a
winged sun. Now the wings are here to be considered, either as the
means whereby the sun hastens to bring the healing, or as that which
it spreads out over its object for protection and warmth, comp. Ps.
91 : 4. In the term healing, regard is paid to the healing, animating,
and enlivening power of the natural sun. The winter, and the night
of affliction, had made the righteous feeble and miserable. By the
term go forth, the former condition is designated as one of confine
ment and imprisonment. Now they are led, forth from their damp
prisons to the free plain, irradiated by the clear sunshine.
V. 21. "And ye trample down the ungodly ; for they shall be
ashes under the soles of your feet in the day which I create, saith the
Lord Sabaoth." The image of the ashes refers back to that of fire,
V. 19. The temptation, arising from the prosperity of the ungodly, is
met by pointing to the day determined by the Lord, which will
VOL. III. 41

322 MALACHI.
change all. Parallel is fiaxdgioi, ol ngaslg 'bxi avxol xXijgovofiTJaovai
TTjV yrjv.
V. 22. " Remember ihe law of Moses, my servant, which I have
commanded him upon Horeb for ull Israel, luws and statutes." This
declaration, to the great importance of which the Seventy would
call our attention by placing it at the end of the whole book, the
Massorites by the littera mujuscula I, has been usually misunderstood
by the older interpreters, vvho supply a provisionally. So, e. g,,
V. Til. : " Hoc studium commendat, quamdiu forent in exspectatione
Christi, destituti prephetis. — Usque dum mittatur Elias ille."
Michaelis : " Totius Pentateuchi doctrinam interim rectius, quam
udhuc fuctum est, vobis ebservate, donee melioru per adventum meum
uffulserint." For the insertion of this provisionally, there is no
sufficient reason. For Elias brings nothing new ; he only makes the
old alive again ; the covenant angel appears, not as teaching and
giving laws, but as judging. But just as little occasion is there for
this. The law, — which has also been overlooked, — comes under
consideration here, according to its nature, as a copy of the holiness
of God, precisely as Matt. 5 : 17. In this attribute, it is equally
eternal with God, not one jot or tittle of it can fail. It is only from
this point of view, that we can rightly perceive the connexion of this
declaration with what precedes and follows. The prophet had pre
dicted a judgment ; here he refers it back to its ground, and thus,
at the same time, shows how the whole people and each individual
might escape it. God's law, and his people, are inseparable. If the
law is not fulfilled in the people, which amounts to the same
thing as the sanctification of the name of God, — for the law has
this dignity only because God's being is made known by it ; but a
people of God must necessarily represent God, and love bis name,
his being, so far as it is manifested in themselves, or else upon them
selves, — then must it be fulfilled upon the people. But before God
proceeds to effect this, before he smites the land with the curse, he
does, not perhaps accidentally, but according to the same necessity
of the relation which requires the in and the upon, — the prayer,
" hallowed be thy name," is, at the same time, a promise ; God re
quires nothing which he does not also give ; not merely are the
people his people, but he is also their God, — all, in order to produce
the in. He sends Elias the prophet. — The expressions, " of my
servant," and " which I commanded him," both serve to separate
every thing human from the law, and thereby to enhance the obliga-

tHE PORTION CHAP, 3; 13-24, V, 23. 323
tion to observe it, Moses is only an instrument ; God is the law
giver. Hence it follows, which is still expressly urged in " for all
Israel," that it does not concern merely the generation to which it
was at first given at Horeb, but that its requisitions extend to all
generations, comp. Deut. 29 : 13, 14, " And not with you alone do
I conclude this covenant, — but with him who stands here with us
before the Lord our God, and with him who is not here with us this
day." The prophet seems to have Deut, chap, 4, especially in view.
The whole chapter contains a lively inculcation of fidelity towards
the law. O^pn and D'QSE'P are joined with one another, v. 1 and 8,
Horeb is mentioned v. 15, comp. especially v. 5, " Behold, I teach
you a law, and statutes, as the Lord my God commanded me.''
V. 14, " And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you
laws and ordinances, that ye should do them, in the land whither ye
go to possess it," comp. also Levit. 26 : 46, " These are the ordi
nances, the statutes, and the laws, which the Lord gave between him
and the children of Israel by the hand of Moses." — The laws after
wards given in the plains of Moab, are included in the expression,
'•' at Horeb." For they were only further extensions and develope-
ments, the groundwork was completely given at Sinai. — The charge,
" remember," refers back to v. 7, " from the days of your fathers ye
have gone away back from my commandments." The prophet does
not exhort without cause ; he does not warn them against a future
apostasy ; the axe already lies at the root. Let Israel of his own
accord remember the law, before the Lord awakens him out of the
sleep of forgetfulness by the thunder of his righteousness.
V. 23. " Behold, I send to you Elias the prophet, before the day
of the Lord comes, the great und the terrible.'' That Elias the
prophet is identical with the messenger whom the Lord will send
before himself v. 1, there can be no doubt. If now, we have there
shown, that this messenger is ideal, a personified preacher of repent
ance, this must be equally true here. In both cases the idea is the
same ; God, before he manifests himself in punishment and blessing
as the covenant God, shows himself as such, by supplying the chil
dren of the curse with the means of becoming children of the bles
sing. It is self-evident, that the power of the Spirit of God must
not be separated from the outward sending of his servants, and thus
the gift turned into ridicule. It was unnecessary to point to it,
especially because it always accompanies the outward preaching,
and, indeed, always in proportion to it, so that, out of the measure

324 MALACHL
of the outward mercy imparted to any period, the measure of the
inward grace may always with certainty be inferred. — We have only
here to inquire respecting what is peculiar to the passage, the desig
nation of the messenger by the name of Elias. The ground of this
designation must be sought in that which the prophet himself gives,
as the office and the destination of the messenger, and of Elias, the
preparing of the way before the Lord, and the bringing back of the
heart of the fathers to the children, and of the children to the fathers.
Therefore, as a reformer raised up by God is the messenger desig
nated by the name of him who was preeminent among his predeces
sors in nvsvfia and Svvapig, who lived in an exceedingly corrupt age,
and whose rejection was followed by a peculiarly terrible day of the
Lord, first the judgment by the Assyrians, then the carrying away
of Israel into captivity, then the curse wherewith the land was smit
ten, because it was no longer, according to its destination, a holy
land. All these relations revived with the name of Elias. The
people were roused from the dream of their self-righteousness, when
they, heard this name, and saw themselves placed on a level with the
corrupt generation in the time of Elias, and the future coming of the
Lord received a firm support in this former coming. Why precisely
Elias is mentioned, the more clearly appears, when we follow in the
historical books the proofs of the view, that he was the head of the
prophetic order in the kingdom of Israel, nay, in a measure, the only
prophet, since his successors possessed the spirit only mediately, a
view to which we are led even by the great similarity of the deeds
of Elias with theirs, to be explained by this relation, analogous to
that to be derived from the same principle between Isaac and Abra
ham, Joshua and Moses. 1 Chron. 21 : 12, " There comes to the king
a writing from Elias the prophet," when Elias, as an individual, had
long since ceased to be upon earth. 1 Kings 19 : 15, 16, " And the
Lord says unto Elias, Thou shalt go and anoint Hazael, king over
Damascus, and Jehu the son of Nimshi thou shalt anoint king over
Israel." Neither of which was done by Elias as an individual ; the
former by Elisha, comp. 2 Kings 8 : 13, the latter by a pupil of Eli
sha, 2 Kings 9 : 13. — Elisha modestly confessing, that his relation
to God could not be equal originally to that of his master, desires the
portion of the first-born in his spiritual inheritance, innn, 2 Kings
2 : 9, comp. Vol. II. p. 250. He considers, therefore, the other
prophets also as spiritual sons, and heirs of Elias, standing to him in
the same relation as the Seventy elders, to whom was given of his

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 13-24. V. 23 325
spirit to Moses. The scholars of the prophet of Jericho said, ac
cording to v. 5, " The spirit of Elias (the Spirit of God in the
definite form, which it had assumed in the case of Elias) upon Elisha."
As an outward sign that his agency was a mere continuation of that
of Elias, Elisha receives his mantle. It would be easy to point out
this relation beyond the bounds of Scripture, — one need only think,
e. g, of Ln.ther, in relation to Jonas and Bugenbagen ; of the reform
ers generally, in relation to the churches founded by them, — easy
also to show that the so often abused " be ye not servants of men,"
is not applicable to this relation in itself as one ordained of God,
although sin cleaves to it, as to every thing human. But this does
not belong to our purpose. We only call 'attention to the circum
stance, that, if, according to these views, we must not regard the
Elias of former times as an individual historical person, if all that
must be attributed to Elias, whereby the idea is realized, until the
coming of the terrible day for Israel, the less ground is there to seek
the Elias of the future, in one particular individual, in any other
manner, than so far as the same can be regarded as the personified
idea, as the reality coinciding with it. — That the prophet has inten
tionally borrowed from Joel (3 : 4) the words " before the day of the
Lord comes, the great and the terrible," has already been remarked.
That day of Joel, the judgment upon the enemies of the kingdom of
God, was earnestly desired. The prophet shows by the announcing
of the preacher of repentance, how unjust it would be for them to
identify themselves with the kingdom of God, and then, in the
following verse, expressly declares, that, if the preaching should
make no impression, the great day must be terrible precisely to those
who long for it, and who, in their own imagination, were the support
ers, but in reality the enemies, of the kingdom of God. Finally, in
reference to the day of the Lord, what has already been remarked
on V. 19, is perfectly just.

We now take a view of the history of the interpretation of the
verse. 1. Among the Jews. It is known, that, relying upon this passage,
they expected a personal reappearing of Elias before ,the coming of
the Messiah. The oldest traces of this view are found in Jes. Sir.

326 MALACHI,
48, 10,* and in the Seventy, who translate X'33n n;Sx nx, not by
'llXlav Tbv ngocprjTrjV, but by 'liXiav Tbv Osapixrjv. The prophet inten
tionally subjoins N'33n, to indicate that importance is not attached to
the personality, but to the office, and the nvsvpa and the Svvafug of
Elias ; Jesus Sir,, and the Seventy, change the official designation
into the personal. If this fact stood alone, we could not, indeed,
draw from it any certain conclusion, any more than we could infer,
if 'JB'nD actually stood in the text, that the prophet expected a re
appearance of Elias as an individual, since nothing is more frequent
than the representation of the revival of the idea, under the image of
a revival of the previous form of its manifestation. Since, however,
we afterwards find the view of the personal reappearance of Elias
predominant, we are fully justified in regarding this indication as
proof Several Codd. of the Seventy, it is true, and the ed. Complui.
have xbv ngo(frixr,v. But this is plainly to be regarded as an inten
tional change. The passages of the New Testament, from vvhich it
appears, that the expectation of Elias was at that time generally
diffused among the people, are known ; we shall also meet with it at
a later period. In the Dial. c. Tryph. c. 40 (ed. Ven. p. 152),
Trypho says : ndvxsg Tjfxsig xbv Xgiaxbv av&ganov ej av&gdnmv ngoaSo-
xwfisv ysvriasa&ai, xal xbv HXlav xglaai, avxbv iX&ovxa. From the fact
that Elias has not yet come, it follows, that Jesus is not the Christ.
The passages of the later Jews are found collected in Frischmuth,
De Elia adventu, Jena, 1659 (reprinted in the Thes. Antiq.), and in
Eisenmenger, B. 2. c. 13. R. Isaac, in the B. Chissuk Emunah,
p. 1. c. 39, in Wagenseil, Tela II. p. 318, says : "Res nota erut in
nutionibus Israelis, quod non manifestubitur 31essias nisi donee
venerit Elias propheta, ut notum est ex hoc (3Ial.) loco." According
to the Schulchan Aruch (in Frischmuth), the Jews were accustomed
to think of Elias on each sabbath, and to pray that he would finally
come, and announce the redemption, to which they mostly confined
his destination, still more grievously erring in respect to his calling,
than his person ; and Abenezra closes his Comm. on Mul. with the
words : " Deus propter misericordium suam vaticinium suum impleat,
finemque adventus illius acceleret." — This view originated vvith the
Jews, solely from the crude and literal mode of interpretation which
prevails among them. The older Christian interpreters justly oppose
* 'The invalidity of the internal arguments whereby Bretsohneider has con
tested the genuineness of this passage, confirmed by all outward authorities,
is obvious.

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 13-94. V. 23. 327
to them, passages, as those 2 Kings 9 : 31, where Jezebel addresses
Jehu as Zimri, the murderer of his Lord, a new Zimri ; in like
manner, Is. 1 : 19, " Princes of Sodom, and people of Gomorrah,"
not to mention the alter erit tum Tiphys, the Homerus aut Mure pre
Optimo poeta, Macenus pro benefico in dodos, Cato pro homine severe,
&c. They appealed also to a passage in Jalkut Chudusch, where
the current expression, Pinchas est Elias, which many understood
literally, is referred only to an ideal identity : " Hoc est, quod dix-
erunt Rubbini b. m. : Pinchus est Elius. Non est res secundum
litterum intelligenda, etc., sed quiu Pinchus venit, ui in ordinem
redigeret Nudub et Abihu, ita etiam EUas, quod ille reliquii in ordi- '
nem redigendum, id ipse perfecit." — Reflecting minds, however,
were not entirely wanting, who perceived the erroneousness of the
current interpretation, and who were somewhat impressed by the
argument, that not a single instance exists in the Scripture besides,
where one who had already joined the church triumphant, returned
to the church militant, for the purpose of discharging in it an ordi
nary office, arid who especially might like to be exempt from the
troublesome question, as to what was to be held concerning the body
of Elias (the different opinions thereupon in Pococke, Not. Misc.
p. 218). Very striking is the remark of the Rabbi Tanchum on the
passage (in Pococke, p. 219) : " Est hoc sine dubio premissum de
propheta in Israele manifestande paule ante tempus manifest ationis
Messia, quem quidam e dectis puiant ipsum Elium Thisbiien futu
rum : qua sententia in plerisque scriptis homilelicis reperitur, at alii
censent prophetam magnum fore purilis cum ipso grudus, eodemque
loco constitutum quod cognitionem dei etnominis ejus promulgutienem,
ideoque Elium appellari, ut vult magnus ille doctor Maimonides."
Probably Maimonides is the first among the Jews who relinquished
the prevailing view. The way, indeed, in which he speaks of this
view, — " sunt e supientibus, D'DDnn [D W^, qui ipsum Elium esse
putent unte Messiam mittendum" (Poc. 1. c), seems to imply the
existence of former opponents, so that it might be considered as only
held by one party. But much reliance cannot be placed upon this.
It is probably only a small stratagem, whereby he would escape
proscription. 2. Among the Christians. Among them also the reference to the
person of Elias is very ancient, and at certain times widely diffused.
In John the Baptist, and the judgment upon Israel, the prophecy had
been only improperly and imperfectly fulfilled ; it looks for its proper

328 MALACHL
and complete fulfilment, in the personal appearance of Elias, before
the judgment upon the world. Thus the author of the Dial. c.
Tryph. against the Tr. (comp. p. 326), urges the jiglv iX&slv ijfisgav
xvgiov xrjV psydXrjv xal intcpavrj. This is the Ssvxsga nagovala xov
Xgiaxov. Elias would precede it. This Christ himself has said,
since he designates (comp. Matt 17: 11) the coming of Elias as
future. As a justification of the supposition of a beginning of the
fulfilment in John, he declares : "Oxi xb iv 'HXla xov -d-sov ysvopsvov
ngofpTjxixbv nvsvpa, xal iv 'ladvvrj ysyovs. Chrysostom remarks in the
Hem. 57 in Mutt. : "Slansg 'ladvvrjg ngoSgofiog xjV xrjg ngoxsgag nagov-
aiag, ovxag 'HXlag saxat ngoSgofiog t^s SsvTsgag nagOvalug. In the same
place : 'imdvvrjV 'nXlav ixdXsasv o XgiOTog 8id ttjv xoiviovlav T^e Siaxo-
vlag. Theophylact on Matt. 17 : 11, 12, 'Ev tm slnslv oti 'HXlag fisv
I'gxsxai, Ssixvvsi, oxi ovna rjX&sv ' sXsvasxao 8s ngoSgofiog xrjg Ssvxsgag
sXsvasag, xal anoxaxaaxxjasi ngog xxjv niaTiv tov XgioTOV navTug tovj
svgs&rjaofisvovg nsi&rjviovg " E^gaiovg, oiansg slg TtaTgioov xXijgov ano-
iiu&iaTwv avxovg ixnsaovxag. He also seeks on Matt. 11 : 14, to as
cribe to the Redeemer himself, an interpretation which makes John
the Elias promised by Malachi only in the improper sense : El ^sXexs,
(prjal, Ss^aa&ai, xovxiaxiv idv svyvtapovatg xglvrjxs xal fixj qi&ovsgwg (if ye
will not receive it so accurately) avxog saxiv, ov sinsv b ngoq>ijX7jg Ma-
Xaxlag 'HXlav fisXXovxa. Kal ydg o ngoSgofiog xal o HXlag xrjV avxrjv
'i/ovai Siaxovlav, comp. other passages of Chrysost. and Theoph.
in Suicer s. v. 'HXlag, c. 1317 sq. Among the Latin doctors the
same view is found in Tertuflian, e. g., De Anima c. 50 : "Trans-
lutus est Enoch et Elias, nee mors eorum reperta est, diluia scilicet.
Ceterum morituri reservuntur, ut Antichristum sunguine sue extin-
guant. Jerome remarks on Matt. 17 : 11, " Ipse Elius, qui venturus
est in secundo salvatoris adventu juxta corporis fidem, nunc per
.Tohannem venit in virtute et spiritu." From another assertion of his
("non quod eadem unimu, ut hareiici suspicantur, et in Elia et in
Johanne fuerit, sed quod eundem habuerit spiriti sancti gruiiam")
it appears, that there were those, probably Jewish Christians, who, in
order the better to satisfy the express declarations of Christ, that
John was Elias, assumed that the soul of Elias had passed into John.
— Augustin says, De Civ. Dei, 20. c. 29 : " Per hunc Elium mag
num mirabilemque exposita sibi lege ultimo tempore ante judicium
Judaos in Christum verum, id est, in Christum nostrum, crediiuros,
celeberrimum est in sermonibus cordibusque fidelium. Ipse quippe
ante adventum judicis salvatoris nen immerito speratur esse venturus :
quia etiam nunc vivere non immerito creditur. Curru namque igneo

THE PORTION CHAP. 3 : 13-24. V. 23. 329
raptus est de rebus humunis, quod evideniissime sancta scriptura tes
tatur  In general, however, although in the time of .the Fathers
some doubts were indeed expressed against the prevailing view
(comp. Grotius on Matt 17 : 11), yet we find no opponent of any
importance. (Besides those 'already mentioned, it was expressly
adopted by Origen, Cyril, Theodorus.) The expectation of Elias
before the last judgment, even passed over to the Mahommedans,
comp. Herbelot, 5. v. Ilia, and certainly more out of the Christian
Church, than from among the Jews. That the interpreters of the
Catholic Church would adhere to the view of the Fathers, might
naturally have been expected. Bellarmine says, the opposite one is
"Vel haresis vel haresi proximus error" (De Rom. Pontif, lib. 3. c.
6). The interpreters of the evangelical Church, on the contrary,
unanimously rejected this view, and maintained the exclusive refer
ence to John the Baptist. Nevertheless Olshausen has recently
endeavoured to vindicate the abovementioned older interpretation.
It is unsatisfactory and superficial when Grotius and others attrib
ute its origin to dependence on the Jews, Frischmuth and others
merely to the use of the Seventy. So weak grounds could not have
produced so general an agreement. The chief reason was certainly
the fear of departing from the letter, resting on the inability to justify
the ideal interpretation, and strengthened by a reference to the Jews,
who, as the Dial. c. Tryph. shows, at that early period defended
the letter, and to whom, if it was departed from without a good
reason, the liberty which had been assumed could not, in another
case, be consistently denied. The conversion of xbv ngocpi^xxjv into
xbv Osa^lxrjv, in the Seventy, (the Latin version has also Thesbiten,)
only served to confirm the opinion of the necessity of the literal
understanding. In addition to this, as a second principal reason,
there was the prevailing interpretation of the great and terrible day
of the judgment of the world ; this, and that of the future appearing
of Elias, supported each other. That the latter is not, perhaps, the
only source of the former, appears from the fact, that many also
among those who find John in Elias, understand by the judgment,
the final one. That a truth lies at the foundation of this view, we
have already seen. The representation has the judgment in its whole
completion, so clearly in view,* that with every exclusive reference
* Aug. De Civ. D. 20, 27 : " Hfec distantia praemiorum atque poenarum, justos
dirimens ab injustis, qusB sub isto sole in hujus vitse vanitate non cernitur,
VOL. III. 42

330 MALACHI.
to an inferior judgment, eyen to one so terrible as the destruction of
Jerusalem, a lively feeling of dissatisfaction always remains, and the
more so, when we contemplate the blessing, which runs parallel with
the punishment. A third chief ground was (comp. August 1. c.)
the connexion in which the reappearance of Elias was placed with
his ascension to heaven.
It must be confessed, that the reference to the future Elias, has as
much truth as that to John. Both err in their way, and both pro
ceed on the same false principle, that the prophecy must necessarily
refer to a definite point of time, and to a particular individual. Only
in reference to the declarations of the New Testament on the sub
ject, is the former very prejudicial to the latter. How little the sup
position of a proper reference to Elias as an individual, of one merely
figurative to John, is reconcilable with these passages, is evident from
the highly forced expositions, which all these interpreters allow, even
down to Olshausen.

V. 24. " And the heart of the fathers returns to ihe sons, and the
heart of the sons to their fathers, lest I come und smite tlie land to
a curse.'' The first words have been very differently interpreted,
which is very surprising, since only one interpretation so clearly pre
sents itself as correct. Many, after the example of the Seventy
{og anoxaxaaxtjosi xagSlav naxgbg ngog vlbv, xal xagSlav dv&giinov
ngbg xbv nXrjolov avxoii), and of Jesus, son of Sirach, 48 : 10, who
regards as the substance, the restoration of love among the covenant
people, explain the words of the removal of controversies among
them expressed in the way of individualization, by the restoration of
peace between parents and children. But then we have no worthy
conclusion for the last prophecy of the last prophet ; it was not this
sin which directly and chiefly called down the D'^.n ; it was something
entirely different which had been charged upon the people, chap.
3:5; badly then does the leading back correspond to the preparing
of the way, chap. 3:1; Isaiah had something far higher in view in
the parallel passage. — Passing over a multitude of absurd Jewish
quando sub illo sole justitifE in illius vitns manifestatione clarebil, tunc profecto
erit judicium, quale nunqUam fuit."

THE PORTION CHAP, 3: 13-24, V, 24, 331
explanations, which may be found in Frischmuth, I, c, we mention
only that of Kimchi, which is approved by many Christian interpre
ters also : " Ille putres et filios simul adhortabitur, ut tote corde ad
deum se convertunt, et qui i-esipiscent, liberabuntur a die judicii."
In like manner Abenezra, Michaelis : " Ut omnes Judai, mqjores
et minores, parentes et liberi, — concordi sententia in Christum crede-
rent." It is against this interpretation, that such a use of 3'K'n,
without the mention of the whence and the whithei', is without analo
gy ; that it would require before the first D'35, and before Dnnx the
repetition of 3S, while the omission of it clearly shows, that the
fathers and the children are that whither the heart is to be brought
back ; and finally, that the expression, " the fathers with the sons,''
and " the sons with the fathers," would make an empty tautology. —
The true interpretation meets us already in the New Testament,
vvhich certainly is very remarkable ; and among the Fathers, in
Augustin, De Civ. 20, 29, who expressly remarks, that the Seventy
have erroneously translated ; its most skilful defender is Conr.
Iken, Dissertnt. de Anathem., etc., on Ma!, 4:6. (3 : 24,) Bremen,
1749 (reprinted in the Summl), p, 18, — The fathers are the pious
forefathers, the patriarchs, especially David, and the pious generation
living in his time. Iken : " Quundo de integro populo Judaico sermo
est, purentum nomine solent ejus mqjores, liberorum autem posteri
intelligi." Ezek. 18 : 2. " Putres comederunt," etc. Ps. 22 : 5 ;
Mai. 3 : 6, 7. The hearts of the pious fathers and the ungodly sons
are estranged from each other. The bond of union, the common
love for God, is wanting. The fathers are ashamed of their children,
comp. Is. 29 : 22, and the children of their fathers. The great
chasm between the two, is filled up by Elias the prophet. He brings
back the sons to God, in whom the fathers and the sons are united.
The construction of 3ity with hp_, is not unusual, even where the re
turn is physical, comp,, e, g,. Job 34 : 15, "The man returns to the
dust," i3j,»~Sy. Prov, 26 : 11, " as a dog, who returns to his vomit"
Eccl, 12 : 7. Here, however, it is the more suitable, since the incli
nation, in a manner altogether usual, is regarded as resting upon its
object, hovering over it as the Spirit of God over the waters, so that
the hy_ here is more significant than the hii, comp, on the h}f with
verbs of inclination and love, Ewald, p, 610, Here again the dis
course (comp, p. 304) is of an dnoxaxdaxaaig, a restitutio. Were
there no pious fathers, had not God in times past shown himself as a
covenant God, by giving them a heart that feared him, then would

332 MALACHI,
the hope of a reformation of the sons, to be effected by him at a
future period, be a mere fantasy. The hopes of the kingdom of God
are grounded perpetually upon that which has been. This is a
pledge, not merely of the possibility, but also of the necessity, of the
repetition. Every word that the prophet directs to the corrupt priest
hood would be lost, if there were not (chap. 2 : 5, 6) in the former
purity, the pledge, that the idea could and must again become a reality.
The meat-offering of Judah and Jerusalem should not now by any
means, for the first time after many centuries, become pleasant to the
Lord, but it should aguin become what it was in the days of eternity,
and in the former years, chap. 3 : 4, Isaiah complains, chap, 1 : 21,
that the formerly faithful city, has become a harlot. Righteousness
dwelt in it, and now murderers, comp, v. 26, " And I restore to thee
thy judges us at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning.
It is still to be remarked here, that the outward agency of Elias,
must not be separated from the inward agency of the Spirit of God,
which necessarily accompanied it, and then that 3'tyn designates,
not so much the result, as the Divine appointment, vvhich, indeed,
can never be without effect. That the prophet well knew how the
great mass of the people would despise the gift of God, offered to all
(comp. Luke 7 : 30), and therefore bring upon themselves the threat
ened judgment, appears from what precedes, where this judgment
is unconditionally announced.
In the second member, W^T\ is not to be translated by " with the
curse," It is accus., the second object of 'n'sn, " I smite the land
harem," as harem, so that it becomes harem, comp, Ewald, p. 587.
Every thing terrible, which can be conceived, is contained in this
one word. Vitringa : " Non est dubium, id velle dicere deum, se ob-
stinutos legum suurum trunsgressores et eorum rempublicam certe
truditurum excidio, ubsque ullu spe grutia et venia, ut tunquum capi
ta deo sac rata posnam penderent ejus justitia finalem." The
meaning of the harem, the author has already unfolded in another
place, in the essay entitled "The Rites of the Israelites in Palestine,"
(Ev. K. Z. 1833. Jan. u. Febr.) He considers it proper here to pre
sent the passage relating to this subject : " The conduct, which
the Israelites should, and actually did pursue, towards the Canaan-
ites, is designated throughout, as a subjecting to the harem. This
designation shows, that the highest aim of the war of extermination
against the Canaanites, was the vindication of the honor of God,
which had been violated by them. The idea of the harem, is always

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 13-24. V. 24. 333
that of the forced consecration of those to God, who have obstinately
refused to serve him freely, of the manifestation of the Divine glory
in the destruction of those, who, during their existence, would not
reflect it, and therefore would not realize the destination of man in
general, the design of the creation of the world. God sanctifies
himself upon all those in whom he is not sanctified. The temporal
destruction of every thing that does not serve him, declares his praise ;
in the torments of the damned, which are represented by this tem
poral destruction, his glory is displayed." This idea of the harem,
which J. D. Michaelis, M. R. p. 145, in a manner highly character
istic explains as " a curious piece of legislative skill," is manifest in
the command, Deut. 13 : 16 - 18, to curse every Israelitish city,
which should introduce idolatry, comp. especially v. 17, " And thou
cursest the city, and its spoil, entirely to the Lord thy God, and it
becomes an everlasting heap of rubbish ; it shall never be rebuilt.''
In like manner, in the relation Num. 21 : 1-3, the Canaanitish king
of Arad marches forth against the Israelites, "And Israel vowed a
vow to the Lord, and said. If thou wilt give this people into my
hands, I will curse their cities. And the Lord heard the voice of
Israel, and gave the Canaanites ; Israel cursed them and their cities."
Here the harem clearly appears, not as something proceeding from
human caprice, serving a human purpose, but as a service com
manded by God, which Israel regarded as a sacrifice rendered for
God's sake. Precisely so also in the relation 1 Kings 20, where the
king of Israel is devoted to destruction, because, being himself un
godly, he did not execute the hurem pronounced by God upon Ben-
hadad, king of Syria, the bold contemner of God. The harem
against the Canaanites was directed in general only against the
persons, who alone constituted its proper object. Their cities and
their goods were imparted to tbe Israelites. But in order to show
that their former possessors were not extirpated by human caprice,
but by the vengeance of God, that their land and their goods were
not bestowed upon the Israelites as spoil, but as a fief that had come
into God's possession, which he would now bestow upon another
vassal, to see, whether, perhaps, he would faithfully perform the
service to which he was bound ; the curse in the case of the^rsf city
that was captured, Jericho, extended itself to the city also, and to all
its goods. We have here still the following remarks to subjoin.
] . To curse is the ground meaning of oyn and D'"inn. This is
shown by the Hebrew, where only they occur. The derived mean-

334 MALACHI.
ing in Arabic, occurring along with the ground meaning, has been
erroneously taken for the latter. ^^ r^ npin, there means, first,
devetatio, then, omne sacrum et sanctum, quod violare nefas,
uxor, familia, necessitudo emnis, venerunda dignitus ; p* .=&.), D'inn,
first, anathematizavit, then prohibuit uliquem ab aliqua re, comp.
Schultens on Hariri, p. 239, Blonum. Vetust. p. 4. That the ground
meaning is not once, that of what is consecrated in general, but
rather of what is devoted to God by destruction, by way of distinc
tion from a'Tlp, is evident from the connexion of m fC^ with p« .=>,
resecuit, succidit, exscidit, ubscidit, from which in Hebrew comes
Diin, mutilus, and the name of Mount Hermon. Accordingly the
remark of Vitringa on Is. 11 : 5, is false: "Vox O'lnn significat rem
V. personam usu communi eximere, quod fit vel consecrande, vel per
modum unathematis cum diris devovendo ad cxterminium, utque udee
exscindere, destruere, exterminare cum malediciione. The meaning
per modum anath. &c,, is the ground meaning, and in Hebrew the
only one. That of censecruyit never occurs, and the word in Hebrew
is never filed down to the bare idea of destruction. In Is. 1. c, the
use of the word is explained from a personification of the tongue of
the Egyptian sea. If it knowingly opposes itself to God and his
people, as Pharaoh, then must it, like him, return what it has robbed,
become a D-i.n. The same weakening of the sense, which vve there
find in many of the interpreters, is met with also in this passage even
in the old translations. The Seventy : xal naxd^co xijv yijv SgSrjv,
Chald. NTP3 n3nnxi, percutiam earn penitus. Is. 37 : 11, where the
ambassadors of the king of Assyria say : "Behold, thou hast heard
what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands Dp'-innS, to curse
them,'' is explained by the circumstance, that the Assyrians wished
themselves to be considered as servants of God, for the punishment
of the evil-doers, and not as common robbers and destroyers, comp.
Jer. 39 : 12. 2. J. D, Michaelis says, p. 146 : " Moses has yet
another passage concerning the harem, which presupposes, that a
man sometimes devoted his own field, and such a field of the harem,
could not, like that devoted in a common way, be redeemed again,
Levit 27 : 28." If the explanation of this passage were correct, it
would be necessary to change the whole idea of the D'l.in, But this
is of itself sufficient proof that it is erroneous ; the things which
were devoted to the D^n always appear only as the property of the
persons. No case occurs where the persons were spared, and only

THE PORTION CHAP, 3: 13-24, V, 24, 335
the goods were cursed, comp., e, g,, Deut 2 : 34, 1 Sara, 15 : 2,
Ezra 10 : 8, " And whoever does not come in three days, all his
possessions shall be cursed, and he separated from the company of
those who had been carried away." A voluntary consecration of the
persons or possessions to the harem, cannot be thought of, because the
ground meaning of the Dntn is precisely that of an extorted consecra
tion in opposition to a voluntary one. God takes that which belongs
to him, from him who would not willingly give it ; the giving volun
tarily, and the D"|in, therefore, exclude, each other. But how then is
the above passage to be interpreted ? This is shown by the verse
immediately following v. 29, " All that is cursed, which is cursed of
men, shall be slain." In the preceding verse of the possessions, here
of the men. If by the men, such are to be understood upon whom
God had pronounced the curse, then, by the cattle and the field can
be understood only such as were formerly in the hands of the ac
cursed, but have now fallen to the conquerors. Were they once
cursed, they could in no way again be redeemed. Whether the
substance should be cursed with the men, a distinct command of
God in many instances decided, comp. 1 Sam. 15 : 3, Josh. 6 : 18,
and whoever then took of that which was cursed, became himself
a curse. Josh. 7 : 12 ; in other cases it was left to the decision of the
covenant people themselves, what they should curse, and what they
should reserve for their own use. In a certain sense the latter also
was a Din, comp. Mich. 4 : 13. — A want of insight into the nature
of the harem, is shown also by the remark of Michaelis, that the
vow of Jeptha was an abuse of the Dili. How could a a'^.in be pre
sented as a burnt-offering ? Sacrifice and harem stand in entirely
the same antithesis, as dvd&spa and dvd&xjpa. 3. There can be no
doubt that the prophet refers back to those passages of the Penta
teuch which relate to the cursing of the Canaanites. As a matter-
of-fact prophecy of the future fate of Israel, is this represented even
in the Pentateuch itself As a holy people of the holy God, Israel
received Canaan for a possession. He had only the choice between
holy and harem, if he has become a Canaan in disposition, so is he
also a Canaan in his lot ; comp. Levit 16 : 24 - 28, Deut. 12 : 29,
28 : 63, 64.

336 MALACHI.

THE NEW TESTAMENT IN RELATION TO THE PROPHECIES OP
MALACHI.
We propose here, in a single example, to prove by matter of fact,
that the connexion of the Old Testament and the New, is far closer
thaii is commonly supposed, and that neither the literal nor the
spiritual understanding of the latter can be attained, without the
most accurate and careful investigation of the former. We here
join to the prophecy of Malachi, that of Isaiah, which is wholly
inseparable from it. Matt. 3 : 1-12.
Matthew cites expressly only the prophecy of Isaiah. It is, how
ever, easy to show, that he, and the Baptist himself considered that
of Malachi as its necessary supplement and completion, and that they
had the latter constantly in view. To this we are led even by the
fisxavosixs. As a promoter of jisxdvoia, is Elias the prophet expressly
designated by Mai. 3 : 24. This is also true of the mention of
John's mode of life in v. 4 : Avxbg Ss o ladvvijg slxs xb 'svSvfia av
xov dnb xgixav xaprjXov, xal t,(m>rjv SsgfiaxlvxjV nsgl xrjv oacpvv avxov '
rj 8s xgocprj avxov ^v axglSsg xal psXi dygiov. We cannot here fail
to perceive the effort of John to point to the prophet, by the external
and internal conformity with Elijah. Of the latter it is said, 2 Kings
1 : 8, Seventy : Avrjg Saaiig, xal ^covtjv Ssgfiaxivxjv nsgis^aapsvog xtjv
baq>vv avxoi. The epithet Saavg, does not refer to the condition of
the body, but to the clothing, the rough garment made of camel's
hair. On v. 7, Lightfoot has remarked : " Respiciunt hac verba
novissima verba V. T. : ne percutium terrum anuthemate, denetant-
que excidium gentis miserrimum, jamque fere impendens." To these,
we may add the reference to the coming day, Mai. 3 : 19, comp. the
xondaai bgyrjv ngb d-vfiov of Jes. Sir. 48 : 10. John explains, that
now the great day of decision and of separation, foretold by the
prophet, has arrived. Happy for the man who suffers himself to be
led by him, the revived Elijah, to repentance, the only means of
escaping the coming wrath. V. 8 : Hoirjoaxs ovv xagnbv u^tov t^i,-
fisxavolag, refers back to Mai. 3 : 19, " who will not leave to them
root or branch," comp. v. 10: "hStj Ss xal rj dUvrj ngbg xijv gl^av
Toiv SsvSgcov xsnai' (Bengel: "Non mode ramis intentata est secu-

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 337
ris ") ndv ovv SivSgov prj noiovv xagnbv xaXbv ixxonxsxai xal slg nvg
^dXXsxai. The bad trees must become good by repentance, and accord
ingly bear good fruit ; otherwise, according to God's threatening by
the prophet, neither root nor branch shall be left to them. In v. 11 :
Eya fisv (Sa.Ti/^u) vfidg iv vSaxi slg psxdv 0 lav (comp. Mai. 3 : 24),
o Ss onlati) fiov igxbfisvog laxvgoxsgog pov iaxlv, ov ovx slfil Ixavbg
xd vnoSrjfiaxa ^aaxdaai, the reference to Mai, 3:1, is not to be mis
taken, John is only the human messenger of the Lord, sent to effect
the fisxdvoia = the preparation of the way, embodied in baptism.
According to him, the heavenly messenger, the covenant angel, the
Lord himself comes to his temple. This reference is the more im
portant, since it gives us a deep view into John's sentiments respect
ing Christ, He was not to him, as to the mass of the people, a man
endowed with great gifts, but the revelation of the glory of the Lord,
predicted by Isaiah (ni^n; Ti3J), the Lord, before whom the way
should be prepared, the covenant angel, and the Lord of Malachi.
Finally, v. 12 : Ov xb nxvov iv xtj x^iqI <*vxov, xal Siaxa&agisH xrjV
aXcava avxov ' xal avvdisi xbv alxov avxoii slg xrjV ano&rjXijV, xb 8s uxvgov
Kaxaxavast nvgl daijsarcij, refers back to Mai. 3 : 19, "Behold, the day
comes, burning as an oven, and all the proud, and all the wicked,
will be as chaff, and the coming day shall burn them up," Thus,
the prophecy'of Malachi is, throughout, the text on which John com
ments, altogether in the same way as the former on Isaiah, The
close connexion of prophecy and fulfilment, the Evangelist indicates
by the ydg, in v, 3. Bengel : " Causa, cur Johannes ita exeriri tum
debuerit, uti v. 1 et 2, describitur, quia sic pradictum erat."
We will still show by some examples, how important the knowledge
of this close connexion is for the interpretation of the portion before
us. The import of John's abode in the wilderness is thus given by
Olshausen, p. 148 : "But in the fact that John preached in the
sgrjpog, and not in cities, the peculiar character of this witness of the
truth is always to be sought. It is essential to John, that he flees
from men, and preaches to those who seek him, while the Redeemer
himself seeks men." The erroneousness of this interpretation ap
pears at once, when vve consider the reference to the prophecy.
The desert symbolizes, in Isaiah, the condition of spiritual and
temporal wretchedness in which the people are involved, as formerly
after the exodus from Egypt When now John comes forward in a
desert (entire conformity with the prophecy would have required his
coming forward in the desert, the Arabian) ; but this outward con-
voL. Ill, 43

338 MALACHI,
formity would only have been prejudicial ; therefore, as in the case
of the temptation of Christ, only that which was essential was out
wardly exhibited. He thus declares by his conduct, what he after
wards expresses in words, that the people are a spiritual desert, he,
the preparer of the way, sent by the Lord before him, = a preacher
of repentance, and, according to their reception of his preaching,
the bodies of the one should fall in the desert, the others should be
introduced by the Lord to appear after him for punishment, and for
blessing, into the land of promise.
In reference to the import of the outward appearance of John,
opinions are divided. Most consider him as an ascetic. Thus Gro
tius on 3 . 4 . " Habitus haud dubie severior, victus pursimonia
cengruens." The true view can be obtained only by seeking the
ground of the same outward appearance in the case of Elias, from
whom it was borrowed by John (Grotius : " Illud observatu haud
indignum, factum divina providentia, ut, qui veniebat in spiritu
Elia, Elius propterea a prephetis nominatus, etiam habitu Elium
referret), but not as something purely outward, — this would have
been puerile, and unworthy of him, — but as something of deep im
port, as a symbol of an idea common to him with Elias, Now in
the case of Elias, there can be no doubt that this appearance was a
sermo propheticus realis. The preacher of repentance comes forward
as repentance personified. In that which he does, he shows the peo
ple what they should do. We need only compare 1 Kings 21 : 27,
where Ahab copies the repentance which the prophet represents to
him : " And it came to pass, when Ahab heard these words, that he
rent his clothes, and put a hairy garment upon his body, and fasted."
The " and fasted,'' shows also how " his food was locusts and wild
honey," is to be understood. Fasting, together vvith the hairy gar
ment, under the Old Testament, is the standing expression of repent
ance. Now the eating of John was a sort of continued fasting, as
the Saviour designates it. Matt. 11 : 18 : Mtjxs ia&imv, firjxs nlvav, a
perpetual tvgj niy. He would have wholly fasted if this had been
possible. According to this view,* John's mode of life stands in
the closest connexion with his abode in the desert Both together
serve to designate the condition of the people, as extremely degraded,
* It is found in Bengel : " Habitus quoque et victus Johannis preedicabat con-
gruens cum doctrina et officio ; qualis prenitentium esse debet, talem hic minister
posnitentitE semper habuit."

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 339
the fisxdvoia as in the highest degree necessary, as the requisition of
the time, the punishment as near. The latter points at once to the
essential identity of the present time with that of Elias, There
equal degradation, comp. e. g. 1 Kings 19 : 10, "I have been zeal
ous for the Lord, the God of hosts ; for they have forsaken the cove
nant," the same destination of the prophet to work repentance, comp.
1 Kings 18 : 37, where, entirely corresponding with Mai, v, 24,
Elijah says to God: "and thou turnest their heart backward," equal
nearness of the punishment, — the sending of Elijah, as appertain
ing to which, that of Elisha and his disciples is to be regarded the
last great effort of God for the deliverance of Israel, who, after this
effort has entirely failed, rapidly hastens to his destruction, the ?'^.n.
If we compare the fulfilment with the prophecy, a view of the
office of John appears entirely false, which, after the example of
several others, Olshausen has presented. " The psxdvoia," he remarks,
" is something merely negative, which needs for its completion a posi
tive, viz. the spirit which Christ brought, and which man receives
by the nlaxig." The psxdvoia corresponds to the bringing back of
the heart of the fathers to the children, and of the children to the
fathers, in Malachi. This, however, is more than something merely
negative. It presupposes an inward reformation, a change of the
whole course of life. This appears also from the fact, that upon the
sending of Elijah, the appearance of the covenant angel for the bles
sing and the curse, directly ensues. Were the repentance of John
something purely negative, he would stand lower than all the proph
ets of the Old Testament, and thus the splendid promise of Malachi
could not be regarded as fulfilled in him. Even a Josephus judged
otherwise, who says the baptism of John, the embodying of the re
pentance preached by him, served sq)' dyvsla xov aafiaxog, dxs 8rj xal
xrjg V"*/f^s ngoxsxa&agpsvrjg. How, indeed, could a psxdvoia he re
garded as something purely negative ? It would then cease to be
fisxdvoia. The psxdvoia and the nlaxig can designate only the same
thing, according to different relations ; thou shalt cease from thy
doings, fisxdvoia, that God may have- :his work in thee, nlaxig. As
much repentance as there is, precisely So much faith is there. The
baptism of John is distinguished from that of Christ, not because it
brings with it only fisxdvoia, and no nlaxig, but only by its being ac
companied with both in a feebler degree. Both are a work of the
nvsvpa, and the antithesis expressed absolutely, as to the form in the
discourse of John, v. 11, can be only a relative one as to the sub-

340 MALACHL
stance. Otherwise were the whole office of John mere illusion and
mockery. But, were it so, then Christ could not be he who com
pletely realizes the idea which is personally represented in him, so
that, between his agency in this relation, (it is otherwise in reference
to him as Lord and covenant angel,) and that of John, there is only
a difference of degree, comp. on Mai. 3 : 1. — The view, to which
we have objected, of John's office, is not less opposed to the words
of the Evangelist, than to those of the prophet. In Matt, v. 6, the
penitent are baptized i^opoloyovpsvoi xdg dfiagxlag avxwv. And that
we are not here to suppose a reservation of their acknowledged sins
for a future time ; that rather with the confession, as always, comp,,
e, g,, Ps, 32 : 5, the forgiveness is connected, — naturally in an equal
degree with the confession, — is shown by the parallel passages of
Luke (3 : 3), and of Mark (1 : 4), which designate the baptism of
John as fidnxiafia fisxavolag stg aipiaiv dpagxi&v. Olshausen indeed
remarks, after the example of Tertullian (in Grot, on Mark), who
explains the slg dipsaiv, by in futuram remissionem, and in general
so far shares in this whole view of the office of John, that by fisxdvoia
he understands not vita emendationem, but only ritus quosdam exter-
nos, " the preaching of John should not itself work the aqisaig, but
prepare the way for that to be completed by Christ." But Bengel
has already refuted this interpretation, by appealing to Acts 2 : 38,
where Peter says : Msxavorjaaxs xal ^anxia&rjxta sxaaxog vfiwv — slg
acpsaiv dfiagxiav. How Otherwise could the baptism of John in
Matt V. 7, well be designated as a protection from the coming wrath,
in the same manner as that of Christ, essentially identical with it, in
1 Pet 3: 20,21.
If we regard the reference to the prophecy, we shall find no occa
sion, with Olshausen, to understand rjyyixs as present, " it is already
there," viz. in the person of the Messiah. In Isaiah the Ixoifiduaxs is
first heard, and then the glory of the Lord is revealed ; in Malachi,
first the messenger prepares the way, and then the liOrd suddenly
comes, &-C. According to a comparison of the prophecies, the /5a-
aiXsla xmv ovgavav is first presept, when the Lord appears as dis
pensing blessings, and inflicting punishment, according as the preach
ing of the psxdvoia had been received.
Finally, only the comparison of the prophecy gives a sure basis for
the interpretation of the xui nvgl, in v. 11 (Luke 3 : 16). Remarks
like those of Bengel : "Spiritus s., quo Christus baptizat, igneam
vim habet," and of Olshausen, " the baptism of fire expresses the

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 341
illustration of the new-born higher life in its proper nature," then
disappear of themselves. The fire can be no other than that which
Malachi often places in connexion vvith the coming of the Lord, the
covenant angel (that he identified him with the Messiah, appears,
not only from v. 11, but also from v. 12, where that is directly
attributed to the Messiah, which, in Malachi, is attributed to the
covenant angel), and this is exclusively destructive, belongs not to
the pious (these enjoy the Sun), but to the ungodly. That John, in
this reference also, closely adheres to the prophecy, is shown by the
immediately preceding slg nvg ^dXXsxai, and the immediately follow
ing xaxaxavasi nvgl aa^saxio.
In the parallel passage, Mark 1 : 1-8, our attention is drawn to
the mode of the citation. Mark premises the wg ysyganxai iv 'Haa'i'a
Tw ngoffxjxrj. Then follows immediately the passage, Mai. 3:1, and
afterwards that of Isaiah. The only key to the explanation of this,
is furnished by the relation of Malachi to Isaiah, already pointed out.
We have already seen, that the sentiment of Malachi is not inde
pendent, that Malachi is merely the uuctor secundarius, and the
Evangelist shows him to be such, by attributing both commentary
and text to the uuctor primurius, placing the former first, because he
serves for the right understanding of the latter. Thus it appears,
that between Mark 1 : 2, 3, and Matt. 27 : 9, there is a complete anal
ogy, though formerly (Vol. II. p. 190) we were able to point out only
a partial one. From the former demonstration, that Matthew also,
although expressly citing only the passage of Isaiah, yet has that of
Malachi constandy in view, it is likewise evident, that only the form
is peculiar to Mark, while in substance, he entirely coincides with
Matthew. And thus all attempts are obviously useless to remove by
outward means the difficulty vvhich was raised by Porphyry against
the credibility of the evangelists, from Beza, who thought the passage
of Malachi was a gloss taken into the text from the margin, to Ols
hausen, who asserts that Mark had adopted the form of citation out
of Matthew and Luke, and then, without changing it, inserted in
the text the passage of Malachi accidentally occurring to him. We
may hence learn, in reference to the use of the Old Testament in
the New, not to be so hasty with the charge of negligence and error,
and as in the case of a res altioris indaginis, sometimes rather to
mistrust our insight. That the Evangelist from the beginning had
in view the passage of Malachi, we are led to believe from the dgx'^
TOV svayysXlov, which seems to refer back to the conclusion of the

342 MALACHI.
Old Testament. Bengel: " Initium appellat Marcus nen libri
sui, sed rci gesta. Cum illo principio concinne congruit principium
libri : respondetque simul clausula prophetica V. T. per Malaehiam
scripia.'' Because the close of the Old Testament is so, the begin
ning of the New Testament must be so ; comp. the mg ysyganxai
in V. 2.
As to the parallel passage of Luke, it is evident from the remarks
already m.ado (on Mai. 3:1), with what right Olshausen says, in the
concluding formula : "Oipsxai ndaa adgi xb acoxrjgiov xov &sov, that
the Evangelist follows the Seventy, in opposition to the Hebrew text
Matt. 4 : 12 - 17.
Axovaag 8s o Irjaovg, oxi Imdvvrjg nagsSo&rj, avsxiagrjasv slg xxjv
VaXiXalav. — Anb xoxs rjgiaxo b Irjooig xrjgvaasiv xal Xsysiv' psxavoslxs'
ijyyixs ydg fj ^aaiXsla xojv ovgavwv, comp. Mark 1 : 14, 15 : Jljfia Ss
xb nagaSod^rjvat xbv IwavvrjV, ¦^X&sv o Irjaovg slg xrjV EaXiXaiav, xrj-
gvaaiav xb svuyysXiov x^s ^aaiXsiag xoi ¦&sov xal Xsyiav : 'oxi nsnXrj-
gatxai o xaigbg, xal ijyyixsv rj ^aaiXsla xov &sov " fisxavosixs xal niaxsv-^
EIS iv xa svayysXici).
It is remarkable here, that the beginning of the preaching of
Christ appears as depending on the cessation of that of John ; that
this fact should have an Old Testament ground we should the more
naturally expect, since not only is the whole previous representation
of Matthew governed by Old Testament relations, but also the choice
of the scene of the agency of Christ is placed by him in connexion
with the prophecy, comp. v. 13- 16. If the place where, depends on
the Old Testament, so certainly also the time when. It is further
remarkable, that the text of the preaching of Christ is verbally like
that of John, the quintessence out of Isaiah and Malachi. This
cannot possibly be accidental, especially since the Saviour prescribed
the same text to his apostles also, on sending them forth, comp. Mark
6 : 12, Matt. 10 : 7 sq., where also the iv rjfisgn xgiasag, — the xglaig
approaches with the ^aaiXsla xav ovgavav, — refers back to Malachi,
comp. especially 3:2, 19 : 24. The correct explanation of this
fact, can be furnished only from the previously established interpreta
tion of the prophecy of Malachi. We have shown that the messen
ger and Elias the prophet, is an ideal person, John, only so far as he
was a personified idea. As now the idea was no more manifested in
him, then must it, not being yet realized in its whole compass, be

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 343
represented in another manner, and so the Saviour, partly in person,
partly in his Apostles, carrying forward the office of John, undertook
to be his own forerunner, showing by the identity of his text with
that of John, that this was not on account of his own proper work,
but only for the continuation of that of another, and at the same
time, that this his agency still fell in the province which was govern
ed by the prophecy of Isaiah and Malachi. The result we have
gained is important, in more than one respect. It shows us in what
sense the express declarations of Christ are to be taken, that John
was Elias. It gives us a disclosure concerning the fact, that the
Saviour, in the first period of his ministry, kept his Messianic dignity,
and his Godhead, more in the back ground.
Luke relates the imprisonment of John out of the chronological
order, immediately after the account of the preaching of John, and
before the baptism and temptation of Christ This also has probably
an Old Testament ground. With a view to Malachi, Luke designs to
show how John in every relation exhibited the image of Elijah, and
therefore, immediately after attributing to him the work of Elias,
makes him suffer the fate of Elias. The similarity between Ahab
and Jezebel on the one side, and Herod and Herodias on the other,
is certainly not accidental. We need only change the names, and
what is said of the former, is true also of the latter, comp., e. g.,
1 Kings 21 : 25, "Ahab was sold to do evil in the eyes of the Lord,
for Jezebel his wife led him astray." 1 Kings 19 : 2, " And Jezebel
sent a message to Elijah, saying, So may God do to me and more
also, if I do not to-morrow make thy soul as the soul of one of the
dead." Matt Chap. 11 : 1 sq.
The foundation of what follows, is the question which John in the
prison proposed to Christ by two of his disciples : 2v si b igxbfisvog,
rj sxsgov ngoaSoxwfisv ; v. 3, comp. Luke 7 : 19,20. What, there
fore, throvVs light upon this question, must, at the same time, con
tribute to the understanding of the whole portion. That the o igxb
fisvog is doctrinal, and one of the proper names of the Messiah,
derived from the Old Testanrient, and at that time current, is generally
acknowledged by the interpreters, but whence derived, they are not
agreed. Grotius : " Ille, de que verbum illud veniendi usurpavit
Jucobus, Gen. 49 : 10, et Jes. 35 : 4." Bengel supposes a reference
to Ps. 40, Olshausen to Ps. 1 IS : 26. We, on the contrary, decide

344 MALACHL
without hesitation, for Mai. 3 : 1, and, indeed, for the following
reasons, 1,. Since, as we have already shown, the prophecy of
Malachi forms the text of the preaching of John, the centre of his
thoughts, nay, his whole spiritual existence ; the reference to it cet.
pur., is the most obvious, 2, In no prophecy is the idea of the ad
vent so emphatically brought forward, as here, 1, "Suddenly will
come," &c,, and then still at the end, the very emphatic "behold he
comes, saith Jehovah, Sabaoth." Out of no passage, therefore, could
the standing designation, " he who comes," be more easily formed,
3, Not to be overlooked is the avrog iaxiv 'llXlag, b fisXXuv 'sgxsa&ai
of the Saviour, in v, 14, This Suggests to us, that the ground of the
appellation lies in a prophecy where the two who were to come, Elias
and the Messiah, occur in connexion, and the more so, since the
immediately preceding ndvxsg ydg ol ngoiprjxai xal b vofiog t'o)? 'ladv-
vov ngosqjTjxsvaav, — this the Elias o fiiXXav sgxsa&ai (Bengel in refer
ence to the fisXXav : " Sermo est tanquam e prospectu V. T. in N.)
— points to a prophecy, where the two who were to come are con
nected, and the coming of the one is represented as a prediction of
the coming of the other, precisely as we find to be the case in Mala
chi, If the whole transaction refers to these, so in the avxog saxiv
'HXlag b fxsXXwv tgxsa&ai, is the answer at the same time given to the
ail si b igxbpsvog. Since both were inseparably joined together,
John could not doubt whether Christ was o igxbfisvog, without, at the
same time, doubting whether he himself was 'HXlag b fisXXav sgxsad-ai.
4. We are led to Malachi by a comparison of the b bnlaa pov igxb
fisvog, chap, 3: 11, and other passages, 5, The whole occurrence
can be rightly understood only by the reference to Malachi, That
John sent to Christ on account of his own doubts, and not those of
others, can now, especially after the remarks of Olshausen, be re
garded as settled. The origin of these doubts, however, demands
yet another explanation than has hitherto been given. The tempta
tion into which John fell through his gloomy detention in prison,
could be dangerous to him only when the word of God itself by
which he should overcome his doubts, presented to him a plausible
reason in their favor. Now no declaration was more suited to do
this, than precisely that whioh was the centre of the whole spiritual
life of the prophet. According to it, it appeared, upon the coming
of the forerunner, with the preaching of repentance, the manifesta
tion of the Lord, and of the covenant angel for blessing and for pun
ishment, shoald immediately ensue. Seventy: Kal Haiqivijg rjisi

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT, 345
sig xov vabv avxov xvgiog x. x. X. ISoii 'sgxsxai. John now saw with
surprise, that the agency of the Saviour vyas mainly that of Elias, a
pure continuation of his own ; at the same time he overlooked the
fact, that an absolutely new beginning accompanied this continua
tion, the mani.'estation of the Lord, and of the covenant angel, to
which the Lord refers him in the answer, v, 4 and 5, So he doubted,
therefore, in respect to his own calling, and that of Christ, yet in
such a manner that the doubt was merely superficial. For other
wise how would he have desired it to be resolved by Christ ? That
this view is correct, appears also from the comparison of two other
passages, where doubts are met, which, in like manner, had been
raised by those who were incapable of perceiving the concealed com
ing of the Lord for blessing and for punishment, wherein the clear
eye beheld the seed-corn of his manifestation (comp, the declarations
of Christ and his apostles, in which, at its time, all appears as com
pleted, e. g, 1 Cor. 10 : 11 : 'EygdcfXj Ss ngbg vov&satav rjfiav, slg
ovg xd xsXrj xav aldvav xaxrjvxrjasv)y\{eh. 10 : 36, 37 : 'Tnofiovijg ydg
dxsxs XQSiav, 'iva xb diXxjfia xov ¦Osoij noirjoavxsg, xofiiarjd&s xrjV inay
ysXlav. "Exi ydg fiixgbv oaov oaov (comp. Dxn3 in Malachi) o
igxb fisvog rj^si xal ov xgovisZ. Here the reference to Malachi is
plainly undeniable. In no other place where the coming is referred
to, does it stand in so iinmediate a connexion with blessing and pun
ishment. 2 Pet. 3:9: Ov ^gaSvvsi b xvgiog x^? inayysXlag, tag xivsg
^gaSvxrjxa rjyovvxai. The doubters here plainly exhibit a contrast
between prophecy and alleged fulfilment There sieift, here slow.
If, now, it is established, that the o igxbfisvog refers back to
Malachi, it is also evident, as we have already pointed out, that John
possessed a far deeper insight into the person and work of Christ,
than that commonly attributed to him. That the Messiah was " the
Lord," and " the covenant angel," he by no means dOubted. Is,
however, the o igxbfisvog a designation of the Messiah, at that time
widely diffused (if it, were not so, it would seem that he must have
expressed himself more clearly), it follows, at the same time, that the
knowledge of the Deity' of the Messiah was then common to the
enlightened. In V. 10 : Ovxog ydg iaxi, nsgl ov ysyganxai ' ISov iya anoaxsXXa
xbv ayysXbv fiov ngb ngoaanov aov, og xaxaaxsvaasi xxjv oSov aov sfi-
Tigoa&sv aov, the dbuble aov instead of pov, is remarkable. It the
moire appears to be intentional,- since it occurs also in Luke 7 : 27,
and in Mark 1 : 2, even where the passage is cited in an entirely
VOL. III. 44

346 MALACHI.
different connexion. The Seventy give not the least occasion for
this change; the citation is, in general, entirely independent. (The
Seventy : 'iSoii iya HanoaxsXXa xbv dyysXbv fiov xal ini^Xiipsxai oSov
ngb ngoaanov pov, erroneously substituting for the Pi. T\i-i, the Kal.
nj3.) The ground of the deviation is plainly the following. The
more definite designation of the Lord as the covenant angel, in
Malachi, points to a difference between the sender and the sent.
This difference, however, is in a measure concealed by the unity of
being. Before Jehovah himself his messenger prepares the way,
the Lord comes to his temple. The Saviour now, suitably to the
time, when, by the incarnation of the Xoyog, a clearer view had been
disclosed of the relation of the sender and the sent, of the Father
and the Son, causes the difference to be more fully revealed, and,
indeed, in such a manner, as to make the sender address the dis
course to himself the sent An example of a similar deviation from
the form, for the sake of a more accurate representation of the sub
stance, vve have already (Vol. II. p. 249) pointed out in the dis
courses of the Saviour. As for the rest, this deviation bears testi
mony to the most lively consciousness in Christ of his essential unity
with the Father, How otherwise could he attribute directly to him
self what is spoken of God in Malachi ?
In V. 11, the comparison of Malachi serves to rid us of an error,
as strange as widely diffused, the supposition, that, in the words o Ss
fuxgoxsgog iv xjj ^aaiXsia xav ovgavav psi'^av avxoij iaxiv, the compara
tive stands for the superlative. Were the least in the kingdom of
heaven greater than John, then he could not have belonged to it,
then he must have been without true repentance and faith, the only
conditions of admission into this kingdom. Olshausen does not seek
to avoid this consequence. He represents the Baptist as a Slxaiog, in
the legal sense, as a true representative of the law, to whom the
higher life of faith, as it was possessed by Abraham and Israel, and
consequently the whole province of the new birth, was inaccessible.
If now, we refer to Malachi, in connexion with Isaiah, the sending
of such a preacher, who, in reality would be nothing more than a
sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal, certainly could not be cited as
the highest proof of God's mercy or covenant faithfulness, unless,
indeed, one should choose to carry to the utmost extreme the doc
trine of the efficacia muneris irregeniforum. If this be not done,
how can we fail to conclude, that he who should prepare the way
before the Lord for others, had first made a way in his own desert;

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 347
that he who should turn the heart of the sons to the fathers, had first
been truly and thoroughly converted himself The case, however,
even without the aid of Malachi, is entirely simple. Such an under
standing of the comparative and superlative is, as Lightfoot perceiv
ed, directly contrary to philology ; the examples of a similar usage,
to which, e. g., Grotius appeals, Luke 9 : 48, Matt. 18 : 1, are by no
means conclusive ; if the fisi^mv must here be taken comparatively,
so also must the fiixgbxsgog ; the designation of John, as the greatest
under the Old Covenant, and as less than the least under the New,
would contain a complete internal contradiction. For, although the
former refers, in the first instance, to the dignity (Luke 7 : 28 : fisl-
^av iv ysvvTjiolg yvvaixav ngocprjxrjg, ». t. X.), Still the imparting of the
dignity presupposes the maturity of the inward life. Were this not
so, there would, indeed, be no comparison. The correct view is
certainly this : " John is the greatest under the Old Testament, but
under the New Testament, he who is comparatively small, is yet
greater than he, — the spiritual quality of him, who, among the
members of the Old Testament, holds the highest place, equals that
of him who holds a comparatively lower place among the members
of the New Testament, who have the Spirit of Christ, a more power
ful influence than that of the Spirit of God, the former standing in
relation to the latter, as Elohim to Jehovah." According to the true
interpretation, therefore, his position is expressly assigned to John
within the kingdom of God, and, indeed, above all, the pixgol in it
(for only the fiixgbxsgoi are greater than he). Hence it follows, that
he was a partaker of the new birth, and that this, in general, belong
ed to the Old Testament, no less than to the New. For the new
birth is the indispensable condition of sharing, in the kingdom of
God. V. 13. Havxsg ydg ol ngoiprjxai xal o vofiog tag 'laavvov ngoscprj-
xsvaav receives again its light from a comparison of the prophecy.
According to it, there is, in Elias the prophet, at the same time, the
highest concentration of the preaching of repentance for Israel, and
the conclusion of this preaching. In him the prophets and the law
live once more. Then the Lord himself appears for a blessing upon
the penitent, for xglaig (comp. v. 22) on the impenitent. Now has
that important time of decision arrived. This, experience also shows.
The contrast is very striking. On the one side, a striving for en
trance into the kingdom of God, more earnest than ever, oomp. v. 12,
as a harbinger of the blessing ; on the other si4e, heartless indiffer-

348 MALAPHI.
ence, v. 16, 24, as a precursor of the judgment. Here also to the
preaching of John, must be joined that of Christ and the apostles,
as hs continuation and completion. This is shown also by the jux
taposition of both in v. 16 sq.
In v. 14, the si &sXsxs SiSua&ai has been frequently employed for
the establishment of the view of the still future reappearance of
Elias. Still Olshausen remarks: "The si d-sX. 8sl plainly shows,
that the Redeemer gave him this name only in a certain relation, —
Elias, — this zealous preacher of repentance, has, as it were, his
counterpart in John." But that this understanding is erroneous, is
probable, even from a comparison of v. 10, where, with the words
ovxog ydg saxi, nsgl oi ysyganxai, the prophecy concerning the fore-
runnea- of the Lord, Mai. 3 : 1, is referred simply to John. But since
the forerunner and Elias are plainly identical, what is true of the
one, is true of the other also. Still more certainty is derived from
the 0 sxav axa dxovsiv, dxovixa, in v. 15. This stands always in
reference to things whose import lies not on the surface, and for the
understanding pf which more is requisite than the mere fleshly ear,
comp. the proof in the Beitr. zur Einl, I. p. 261. Accordingly the
si &iX. 8s^., designates the truth to be delivered as one which could
not be forced upon any man, and for the reception of which the bona
voluntus was required. The carnal, yi'ho did not possess it, always
exclaimed in opposition : " Elias is Elias," in order to avoid the terror
of knowing that now the time of de.cision has come, and to prevent
being awakened from the sweet sleep of security. Entirely analo
gous is the 0 Svvafisvog xf^igilv xag^l'^"', Matt 19 : 12 (comp. Beitr.
p. 262), for the can and the will are most intimately connected.
The truth is independent of both. The correct view is found in
Lightfoot (" Suspicionem aliquam verba innuunt, eos hanc doctrinam
non recepturps, qued et testatur periinax gentis istius exspeclutio
Elia personaliter venturi in hunc usque diem.), Heumann, and others.
It follows, therefore, that the si .d^sX. SsS-, far from weakening the
avxbg iaxiv, rather strengthens it, since it shows, that the inability to
perceive Elias in John, arose from the want of a spiritual disposition
(comp. examples of a similar use of the si &sX. 8si. in the Class, in
Wetst. on the passage).

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 349

Chap. 14 : 2, 16 : 14.
In the first passage, Herod, in the other, a portion of the people,
express the opinion that Christ is John the Baptist, risen from the
dead. The ground of this opinion is to be sought in the prophecy
of Malachi. There we have, first, Elias the prophet, then the Lord
himself for blessing and for punishment. Now if one believed, that
only an individual could be understood by Elias the prophet, and
supposed that Elias had reappeared in John, he would not know how
to explain the existence of a second preacher of repentance, unde
niably sent of God, otherwise than by assuming a resurrection of
John, or a second incarnation of Elias in him, a twofold appearance
of him in John and in Christ, the latter more illustrious than the
former. The truth lying at the foundation of the error, was, that the
agency of phrist, according to one view of it, in like manner as that
of John, was actually included in the prophecy of Malachi. It was
the purpose of Christ, that those who were not yet able to know him
inwardly, according to the other view of his character, should not be
able to do this outwardly. Until then, they should behold in him
only a second John. Hence is explained, chap. 16 : 20 : Toxe
Sisaxii^axo xoUg fia&rjjalg avxov, 'iva prjSsvl sinaai, oxi avxog iaxiv
0 Xgiaxbg. Chap. 17.
That along with Moses, Elias appears as a representative of the
prophetic order, is surely not without a connexion with the prophecy
before us, the only one where both, the first as a founder, the second
as a restorer, are so immediately joined together, — Moses, my ser
vant, v. 22, Elias, the prophet, v. 23. The ideal understanding con
cerning Elias receives by this occurrence an actual confirmation.
That the Elias who appears here without manifest reference to Mala
chi, was John the Baptist, no man will assert, and yet the Saviour,
in V. 11 says, that John the Baptist is Ehas. Further, Moses and
Elias here = 0 vbfiog xal ol ngocprjxai, in chap. 11: 13. If Elias
here appears, not as an individual, but as a representative of the
latter, it is evident, that the same interpretation is correct in the case
of the passage in the Old Testament, lying at the foundation. Our
interpretation brings all into the most complete harmony. Elias

350 MALACHI,
appears as a representative of the prophetic order, because, among
all the prophets of the Old Testament, the idea of this order is most
completely realized in him. Because the personified idea is John,
Elias. The question of the disciples in v. 10, Tl ovv ol ygafifiaxs~ig Xiyov-
aiv, '6x1 'HXlav Ss~i iX&£~iv ngaxov, is correctly understood by the inter
preters, as occasioned by the disappearance of Elias ; the appearing
of Elias itself, causes the disciples to doubt the former instructions
of Christ, that John was Elias ; his sudden disappearance they were
unable to reconcile with the opinion of the scribes, resting upon
Malachi, that Elias should appear before the Messiah, to perform a
permanent and important work.
In the answer of Christ, the former proposition, that John was
Elias, is confirmed. The disciples ought to separate between the
idea and its form of manifestation, and then the apparent contradic
tion between this proposition and the personal appearing of Elias
would vanish. The Saviour then brings forward a contradiction
between the fulfilment and the prophecy, which still appeared to
remain even after this separation, according to the iniyvaaig of the
Elias, who had appeared in John, v. 12. The Elias of the prophecy
should, as it seems, effect, far more than the Elias of the fulfilment
had accomplished, the bringing back of the heart of the fathers to
the children, 'and of the children to the fathers, a universal dnoxa
xdaxaaig, — in this expression, the contents of v. 24, according to our
interpretation, are well summed up. The method by which the
Saviour sets aside this objection, relating to the idea itself appears
most clearly in the form in which, Mark 9 : 12, 13, he imparts his
answer : '0 Ss anoxgi&slg sinsv aixdig ' 'HXlag fisv iX&dv ngaxov anoxa-
/d-iaxd navxa, xal nag ysyganxai inl xbv vlbv tov dv&gdnov, 'iva noXXd
nd&tj xal i^ov8sva&jj ; dXXd Xiya Vfiiv, 'oxi xal 'uXiag iXrjXv&s, xal
inolrjoav avxm, 'baa rj&sXrjoav, xa&dg ysyganxai in' avxbv. The pras.
dnoxa&iaxd here, and the fut. dnoxaxaaxrjasi in Matthew, clearly show
with what right a future appearing of Elias has been inferred from
the 0 fisXXav 'sgxsa&ai, Matt. 11 : 14. Here, as well as there, the
Saviour establishes the sense of the prophecy out of itself indepen
dent of the fulfilment. The answer to the doubt : in the prophecy
the discourse is only of God's gift and grace, of the destination of
Elias, whose complete realization was made impossible by sin (comp.
Luke 7 : 30 : Ol 8s il>agiaa1oi xal ol vofilxol xijv §uvXrjv xo\i .&sov
rj&ixrjoav slg suvxovg, fiij ^anxia.&svTsg in' avxov), is only indirectly

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 351
given by pointing to the prophecies of the Scripture concerning the
severe suffering of the Messiah, which arose from the same source,
sin, which excludes the greater part af the people from the salvation
destined for all. The Saviour goes still further ; he shows how John
could net he Elias, if he did not experience contradiction from
sinners, rejection and suffering. Grotius : " Cum baptistam Elium
vocet propheta, hoc ipso intelligi datur, non defuturos ipsi Achabos
et Jezabeles." Hatred and persecution, in this world of sin, is the
necessary consequence of the preaching of repentance, and the
greatness of the hatred is always in proportion to the earnestness and
the power of the preaching. Thus, therefore, all the opposition
which Elias experienced,* is the more to be regarded as prophetic of
the fate of John, the nearer the appearing of both comes to the idea.
Is John like Elias in his earnestness in preaching repentance, so also
must he be like him in suffering and persecution. The Divine
Providence, therefore, so ordered it, that the essential similarity that
existed of itself should here also be exhibited in the form, that Ahabt
should revive in Herod, Jezebel in Herodias, and thus the rnututo
nomine be the more obvious. — Olshausen supposes, that the history
of Elias cannot be typically referred to^John, because the former did
not die in persecution. But this objection is entirely analogous to
that vvhich the disciples derived from the dnoxaxdaxaaig, which cannot
be proved. As there, regard must be paid only to the will of God,
so here, only to the vvill of men. This, however, is the same in the
case of Jezebel, as in that of Herodias. She wished, indeed, to kill
Elias ; that God rescued him out of her hands, makes no difference.
The hatred wa^the same, on which every thing here depends ; the
suffering also was not less ; Elias would certainly have preferred to
die once for all, — indeed, he prayed to God for death as the greatest
mercy, — than daily.
* Jesus the son of Sirach, after a description of the whole agency of Elijah
and Elisha, says, chap, 48 : 15 : .'Ev naai rovroiq ov fiercvorjaiv 6 iloos, xal ovx
aniartjOav ano nHv uuu^rtojv avroiv, 'stag inqovo^uvdrjaav anb xrjg yijg avrtov^ xal
dieaxoQnia&ijaav Iv nuaii rij yij. This description can be referred to the second
Elias without the slightest chan'ge, which is easily explained, as soon as it is
recollected that God remains always the same, and man likewise.
t Tlie words Mark 6 : 20 : 'O yoQ 'HQmSijg lipo^uro xov 'loiuvvrjv, sldaig avxov
avSQa dixatov xal ayiov ' xal (Ivv,Eri'jQai avxbv, xal axovaag avxov nolVa inoiu xal
ySiag avxov i'jxovs, suit Ahab, without the alteration of a syllable.

352 MALACHI.

Matt 21 : 12, comp. with John 2:13- 22.
In both passages, an expulsion of the buyers and sellers out of the
temple, &c,, is related, in Matthew, as also in Mark and Luke, one
which occurred at the beginning, in John at the end, of the ministry
of Christ.
That these transactions are to be considered as symbolical, is
evident at first sight. They would otherwise admit of no justifica
tion ; hence Origen, because he did not sufficiently consider them in
this light, denied their historic truth, and even Lamne, for a like
reason, presents a large number of difficulties, which he explains in
an entirely unsatisfactory manner. Only a superficial mode of con
sideration can regard abuses as they occurred in the outward temple,
as the most important object of the counteraction. Considered in
themselves, they were, indeed, the smallest among the prevailing sins
of the time ; if we take into view the whole condition of things, it
was rather a matter of indifference whether a few buyers and sellers,
more or less, carried on their occupation in the temple ; the deeper
knowledge of human nature shows, that every outward purification,
without being preceded by an inward one, is wholly in vain ; what
avails it to restrain for a time the water of a brook, if the fountain is
left unobstructed ? It will soon carry away with it the feeble mounds,
or overthrow them. The misapprehension of the symbolical mean
ing, is, therefore, a degrading of Christ ; the more so, since, by this
outward mode of prooeediiig, he would have given to the disciples a
temptation to a similar outward effort, to which they were by nature,
— for every one is born a Pelagian, and the outward mode of con
sidering sin is a necessary consequence of Pelagianism, — but too
much inclined. Thus a John the Baptist did not proceed. The
fisxdvoia is with him always a change of the original tendency of the
whole being. How much less the Saviour, whose " make first the
tree good," impresses the stamp of vanity on all outward attempts at
reformation, even down to the tendencies of the latest time, to the
establishment of a free church constitution. If we understand the
action as symbolical, it immediately appears in another light. The
abuses in the temple then come under consideration as representa
tive of the sins of the covenant people in general, and to this repre
sentation the gross sin was far better suited than the refined, though
worse in itself

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 353
But what is the meaning of the twofold symbolical action. Here is
a new difficulty, on which all those have struck who rightly perceive
the symbolic meaning. They aU proceed on the supposition, that
the meaning in both is the same, and thus put weapons into the
hands of those, who, as Liicke, to the undeniable and great preju
dice of the credibility of the Evangelists, change both occurrences
into one, whose chronological determination has entirely escaped
the tradition ! (Liicke, 439.)
We first present our view, and then proceed to its justification.
Both transactions stand related to Malachi, and are only an embody
ing of a twofold image in him. Under the image of a twofold puri
fication of the temple, he predicts a twofold purification of the
Theocracy. First appears the messenger of the Lord, and cleanses
the way before him, — the way to the temple, and in the temple,
since afterwards the Lord comes to the temple, — then suddenly
appears the Lord himself and the covenant angel, purifies and
cleanses the children of Levi, and draws near to the sinners for
judgment. The real character of both representations, is clearly
presented in v. 23 and 24. First comes Elias the prophet, and seeks
to set every thing right (reformation), then appears the Lord himself
and smites the land with the curse (revolution). The messenger
makes the last effort to sanctify the Lord in his people, then the Lord
sanctifies himself upon those in whom this effort had been fruitless.
— The Saviour now announced, by the first transaction, that the idea
formerly represented by John, God's mercy, which calls the sinners
to repentance, would appear in its highest reality ; by the second,
that he would now unfold the other view of his character, and no
longer act as a prophet, but as Lord and covenant angel, and destroy
the obstinate sinners. In both cases the transaction, certainly not
without a cause, happens in the time immediately before the festival
of the covenant, the Passover. The first threatens the despisers of
the covenant conditionally (comp. the NnN"]^ of Mai.) with the
destroying angel, — if they did not restore the covenant, the only
pledge of his passing over ; the other absolutely.
That the first transaction has the meaning attributed to it, most
plainly appears from the whole connexion in which it stands. That
during that period the agency of Christ was mainly like that of John,
the substance of which was fisxavosixs, rjyyixs ydg fj paaiXsla xav ov
gavav, we have already pointed out With this agency, the annunci
ation by matter of fact of the unconditional decree of destruction at
VOL. III. 45

354 MALACHI.
the very beginning of his office, would have stood in irreconcilable
contradiction, since the symbolic action at the commencement of his
office must necessarily be an actual prophecy of his subsequent
official agency. To be considered also is the citation John v. 17,
from Ps. 69 : 10. This shows, that the first action was not peculiar
to Christ alone. The passage could not, indeed, have been cited in
respect to the second. For this did not constitute the main point of
the agency common to all true servants of God in the Theocracy
(comp. the " I have been zeuleus for the Lord," of Elias), but it
belongs solely to Christ, the covenant angel. Our attention is still
to be directed to the milder form of expression in the first, the harder
in the second action, — in John the temple is oixog ifinogiov, in
Matthew amjXaiov Xijaxdv. This latter expresses more strongly the
contrast between the reality and the idea, which rendered the con
tinuance of the former impossible.
As in respect to the first, so also in respect to the second action,
the meaning must be determined by the connexion. It took place
immediately after the first entrance of Christ into Jerusalem as a
king, an actual declaration, that now his prophetic office had ceased.
As this entrance typified the fulfilment, then taking place, of the
prophecy of Isaiah, whioh announced salvation, whose object was
solely the relation of the Saviour to his people, so the going into the
temple typified the now approaching fulfilment of the threatening
prophecy of Malachi.* It is the Lord and the covenant angel, who
comes to his temple. Closely connected with this (Matt. v. 18-20)
is another symbolic action, the cursing of the fig-tree, of the same
import, — which the interpreters have overlooked, an embodying of
the image Mic. 7 : 1, by which the ov ydg ijv xaigbg avxdv of Mark,
which has been often put upon the rack, is explained. There the
prophet also seeks for the harvest, and finds nothing. In the case of
the spiritual fig-tree, it is its own fault, when it is not xaigbg avxdv.
Of the same kind is all that follows. The purification of the temple
forms the commencement of a whole series of discourses, symbolic
* That the symbolic representation of the judgment was in its place on the
near approach of the crucifixion of Christ, may be seen from the following re
markable passage of Josephus, who only errs in regard to the person (B. Jud.
4. 5, 2) ; " I cannot be wrong in the assertion, that the death of Ananias opened
Jerusalem to her conquerors ; that the walls of the city were overthrown, the
Jewish state brought to the ground, from the day on which they saw the hi'gh
priest, the guardian of their welfare, murdered within the city."

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 355
actions, and parables, all relating to the same object. Nowhere do
tbe Pharisees appear as an object of reforming agency, but the call
ing to an account is throughout represented as decreed, the judg
ment as pronounced. The same which the Saviour here expresses
by the action, he expresses in words, chap. 23 : 38, 'iSov, dcplsxai
Vfiiv b olxog vfidv 'sgrjfiog. The temple appears here as the seat of
the whole nation, whose inhabitants are driven out, comp. also Luke
19 : 27. — That John does not mention the second, action, admits of
the simple explanation, that, in relating the last actions of Christ, he
divides the task with the first evangelists, in such a manner that the
outward side falls chiefly to them all, that to which the purification
of the temple was the introduction ; the inward side, on the contrary,
to himself, to which the entrance into Jerusalem, forms, as it were,
the inscription.
It must still be observed, that it was by no means accidental, that
in the last times of the Jewish state, the corruption of the people
was concentrated in the temple, and in like manner also, the ven
geance of God, that this dispensation of the Divine Providence
rather rested on the same ground, which, with Malachi, and in the
action of the Lord, caused the kingdom of God to appear in the
form of the temple. The abomination of desolation upon the holy
place, becomes the more striking, when the holy place, — this is the
whole covenant people, — appears as being concentrated in the seat
and centre of the kingdom of God. Consider the remarkable coin
cidence between Malachi (3 : 1-6, especially v. 6) and Matthew on
the one, and Josephus, De B. Jud. 5. 9, 4, on the other side : Ov xd
xgvnxa fisv xav dfiagxrjfidxotv rjSoi-^xaxs, xXonag Xiya xal iviSgag xal
poixsiag, agnayalg 8 igl^sxs xal tpovoig, xal isvag xaivoxofislxs xaxlag
o8ovg' ixSox^lov 8s ndvxav xb Isgbv ysyovs. We have
here again the anrjXaiov Xijaxdv, a designation which, of itself ex
hibits the symbolic character of the action. It shows, that those
whom the Saviour expelled, did not come under consideration of
themselves, but only as representatives of far greater and more
grievous sinners.
Finally, it is scarcely necessary to remark, how those two purifica
tions of the temple afford an actual proof of the correctness of our
interpretation of the prophecy of Malachi as to its chief points,
particularly in respect to the identity of" my messenger," and Elias,*
* In the investigation concerning Elias as a. type of Christ, and Christ as
the second EUas, especially must the forty days' temptation of Elias in the

356 MALACHI.
and also an explanation of Christ by matter of fact, concerning his
divine nature, since, in the latter, he accomplishes what is attributed
in Malachi to the Lord and the covenant angel, as his appropriate
work. Matt. 21 : 24.
Olshausen and others, here take the igaxrjoa vpdg xayd Xbyov
sva X. X. X. as a mere counter question, and assert, that the Lord
dismissed the Pharisees with their question. If we compare the
prophecy of Malachi, it appears, that the counter question contained
in itself the answer to the question, or at least furnished the basis
for it. For had John his Hovala for baptism = for the preaching of
fisxdvoia, and for imparting the forgiveness of sin from God ; was he
the messenger sent from God (comp. the f| ovgavov), the Elias, who
should bring back, the hearts, so also, along with his forerunner, must
his immensely greater successor, who should follow in his footsteps
(i^alipvrjg), already have come ; and were this the case, who else
should he be than Christ, who had proved himself as such, by his
own words and deeds, and to whom John had borne testimony ? The
evasive answer is now very naturally followed by ovSs iya Xiya vfiiv.
They showed thereby, that their heart was not brought back ; without
faith in the divine mission of John, they could not believe in Christ,
for the same reason, that with this faith, they must believe in him.
As they had not said A, so also they could not say B, and all effort
to bring them to this would have been in vain.
Matt. 23 : 34.
^la xovxo, ISov, iyd anoaxsXXa ngog vfidg ngoq>i]xag xal aoipovg xal
ygafifiaxiig ' xal H avxdv unoxxsvslxs xal axavgaasxs, x. x. X.
This passage belongs here, so far as it explains how Christ, without
a contradiction, could represent himself now as the messenger prom
ised by Malachi and Elias, now as the Lord and covenant angel.
Here also does he appear, according to the same twofold relation,
first as the sender, then, as appears from the axavgaasxs, as included
among the sent (comp. Olshausen on the passage).
desert, beginning with a wonderful supply of food, and ending with the appear
ing of God (comp, 1 Kings chap, 19), be considered in tlieir relation to the
temptation of Christ. But this would here lead us too far ftom our purpose.

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT, 357

Luke 1 : 16, 17.
The angel to Zacharias : Kal ;ioiioie xav vldv 'lagafjX sniaxgsf si
sni xvgiov xov S^sbv avxdv ' xal avxbg ngosXsvasxai ivaniov avxoii iv
nvsvfiaxi xal Svvdfisi 'liXiov, iniaxgi)f/ai xagSiag naisgav inl xsxva,
xai ansid-sig iv ipgovijast, Sixalav, sxoifidaai xvglat Xabv xaxsaxsva-
afisvov. The two chief passages which belong together, Mai. 3:1, and
V. 23 and 24, are here combined. To the former belongs, first, the
xal avxbg ngosXsvasxai ivaniov avxov, where the avxox) refers to the
preceding xvgiog b S^sbg, affording a new proof of the Deity
of Christ, and his identity with the Lord and covenant an
gel. Further, the sxoifidaai, &-c,, which is to be regarded as a
paraphrase of the 1|^1 nj3, xaxaaxsvdasi xijv bSbv aov. Grotius :
" Populum, qui parutus sit ad uccipiendum regnum coelorum."
Bengel : " Parandus populus, ne dojninus populum imparatum in-
veniens majestate sua obterat." The rest belongs to the .second pas
sage. The care with which " and he brings back the heart of the
fathers to their children, and of the children to their fathers," is ex
plained, seems to presuppose obvious, and, at that time, current
misapprehensions, such as, indeed, we find were entertained from the
son of Sirach, and the Seventy, down to all Jewish, and most Christian
interpreters. 1. Prominence is given to the substance alone in the
words intaxgsifisi inl xvgiov xbv &sbv avxdv. The renewed union with
God, by true conversion, is, indeed, the foundation of the renewed
union between the pious fathers, and the ungodly sons. Then the
thought is more clearly explained in its proper form. This is done
when the second half of the proposition of Malachi is omitted : " and
the heart of the children to their fathers, which, since the relation is
mutual, is already contained in the first, and instead of it the ex
planatory xal ansiS-stg iv (fgovrjosi Sixalav is placed. The dnsi&s'ig
are the present apostate generation, the Slxaioi the pious fathers.
The qjgbvrjaig, in the sense disposition ; in the disposition, i. e, " so
that they have the disposition ; " entirely corresponding is the usual
connexion of the verbs of motion with 3, when the thing moved re
mains in the place. Bengel : " In prudentia, inquit angelus, non. in
prudentiam. Sensus eorum, qui justi sunt, in conversiene protinus
induitur.'' The hearts of the fathers were so brought back to the
children, = the afieetionate relation between them renewed, that the

358 MALACHI.
pious disposition of the former is again produced in the latter.
Thereby they then become a Xabg xaxsaxsvaa fisvog. Well to be ob
served is still the noXXovg. The misapprehension is here already
guarded against, which the Saviour afterwards expressly oppo.ses,
that a general dnoxaxdaxaaig is to be expected from the forerunner of
the Lord, occasioned by overlooking the fact, that Malachi speaks
only of the divine gift and destination, — We pass over the different
explanations, partly because they are only a simple result of the
misapprehension of the prophecy of Malachi, partly because their
refutation is already given in the positive establishment of our own.
— Not less than the rest does the iv nvsvfiaxi v.al Svvdfisi 'hXIov rise
above the understanding at that time current. It illustrates the
doctrine, that the flesh profiteth nothing, to which so many later
interpreters also have adhered, as well the defenders of the reference
to the person of John, as of that to the person of Elias, Where the
purs melior of Elias is, his spirit and his power, there is Elias,
Ver. 43.
if at no&sv fioi xovxo, 'iva 'sX&tj xj fixjxrjg xov xvgiov fiov
ngog fis ;
Elisabeth here acknowledges, by an immediate illumination of the
Holy Ghost (comp, v, 41), in the yet unborn child of Mary, the Lord,
who, even because he is the Lord, is also her Lord, the covenant
angel of Malachi, whose manifestation had been announced by the
angel; a knowledge which belongs to the same province with its ob
ject, and which, with it, surpasses the bounds of nature.
Ver. 76.
Zacharias : Kal av, naiSiov, ngocpxjxrjg viplaxov xXrj&ijarj " ngonogsvajj
yag ngo ngoaanov xvgiov, 'sxoifidaai bSovg avxov.
Ignorance of the reference to Malachi, has here also prevented the
import of ydg from being perceived, and even suggested a change of
the text. — Er. Schmidt would change the ngoq>ijxrjg into ngo^ijxrjg.
Zacharias lays at the foundation the correct proposition, that he who
is promised, Mai, 3:1, and v. 23, is the same. Is the child, as the
angel explains, forerunner, so is he also prophet (not, perhaps, a
prophet, this would not correspond to X'DJn ; comp. v. d. Boon Mesch,
Comment, in Hymn. Zacharia on the passage, who nevertheless fails

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 359
in the grammatical explanation ; in respect to the ideas, there is only
one prophet, and the art. is therefore unnecessary) of ihe Lord, —
Eckermann (Erkl. aller dunkeln St. des N. T. Th. I, pp, 284, 291)
and Paulus prefer to understand ngb ngoaanov xvgiov, not of God,
but of the Messiah. This, however, is not to be named an illiiminu-
tion, and just as litde a skilful obscuration. For the light im
mediately returns, as soon as we cast a look at Malachi ; even apart
from the inconvenient proximity of the drnxoXi) e| tii//ove. In Mala
chi, whom Zacharias verbally cites, no man will be able to find the
Messiah in antithesis with God. If we compare him, it appears, ^
which is also favored by the dvaxoXrj iS vifiovg, that the viplaxov is not
to be referred to the concealed God, but to the God who was to be
manifested in the Messiah, John is prophet of the highest, because
he is forerunner of the Lord = of the highest. The appellation
" the highest," instead of " the Lord," Zacharias chose, only to
awaken attention to the greatness of the mercy destined for his Son.
What higher calling, for one born of a woman, than to prepare the
way, not, perhaps, for one of inferior rank among the heavenly hosts,
but for the Highest, to be His prophet !
John 1 : 6.
The dnsaxaXfisvog nagd &sov plainly refers back to "Behold, I
send my messenger before me," of Malachi. The whole following
representation forms only a commentary upon our prophecy. The
verbal reference appears again in
Ver. 9.
Why John, instead of the rjv — igxbfisvov did not here say the
shorter and easier rjX&sv slg xbv xbofiov, no reason, according to Liicke,
can be given, except the caprice of the writer. But rjv vvith the
purt. pras. in the New Testament, never stands simply for the prat.
Winer also, p, 294, agrees with us. But the reason for the apostle's
language, is here obvious. The 9;)/ — igxbiisvov gives greater promi
nence to the reference to the prophecy. The great igxbfisvog of
Malachi was in every mouth; comp. the av si b igxbfisvog. Matt. 11 :
3, and the o bnlaa fiov sgxopsvog in the chapter before us, v. 15, 27,
30. The Evangelist now retains the form of the prophecy, but
designates by the -^v prefix, that it was already fulfilled ; he was, even

360 MALACHL
now, one who comes. — The so great particularity in determining
the relation of John to Christ, which is found in what follows, has
certainly its chief reference to Malachi, and would represent Christ
as the Lord and covenant angel promised by Malachi ; a purpose,
which was more natural to John the Divine, than the other evange
lists, and which coincides more vvith the whole tendency of his Gos
pel, than the far-fetched hypothesis of Storr and others. The
heavenly and the earthly messenger (comp. the dv&ganog in v. 6,
which, in this connexion, certainly is not = xig) were placed in as
striking contrast as possible. Ver. 15, comp. v. 30.
Ovxog TjV, ov sinov ' o oniaa fiov igxofisvog 'sfingoad'sv pov yiyovsv,
0X1 ngdxbg fiov rjv. Disregard of the reference to Malachi, has led
Liicke to an unphilological explanation. He supposes the 'ifingoa&sv
fiov yiyovsv to designate the precedence of the Messiah in dignity,
i. q. " he is before me, he is exalted higher than I," It is obvious,
that the only passage. Gen. 48 : 20, s3-rjxs xbv 'EifgaCfi 'ifingoa&sv toxi
Mavaaarj, cited in favor of this meaning of sfingoa&sv, vvhich can
never signify any other than a mediate precedence, founded on pri
ority of time, or superiority of place, is not conclusive. Lampe,
from whom the passage with the explanation also is borrowed, cites
it more correctly only as a proof that 'ifingoa&sv designates not mere
ly prior time, but place also. By the reference to Malachi, the ap
parent tautology which has led to this interpretation, disappears.
" My successor is ray predecessor, for he is (according to the prophe
cy, which forms the central point of my being) infinitely earlier than
I." John has in view, Mai. 3:1, where the sacred riddle which he
expresses, is already found. The same who follows after thee, " my
messenger" (b bnlaa fiov igxbfisvog), is he who sends thee, "my
messenger,'' vvho was, therefore, his predecessor, infinitely earlier
than he, yea, than al! (comp, with the ngaTbg fiov the iv dgxfj »;'>¦). —
If the reference to Malachi is rightly perceived, the futility of the
remark plainly appears (p. 313), that the Baptist did not intend by
the ngdxbg fiov xjv, the Xoyog \ that only a sort of knowledge of the
preexistence of the v'lbg xov &sov, " generally, and in a popular sense,"
may be conceded to him, and men of his stamp. If the Baptist
everywhere expresses the firmest conviction, that the Messiah is the
Lord, and the covenant angel of Malachi, we can by no means

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 361
perceive with what right the clear and definite knowledge of his
Deity is denied to him ; this concession and denial stand in irrecon
cilable contradiction. And if the Baptist perceived the Deity of the
Messiah, and therefore expressed the ngdxbg fiov xjv, then in the sen
tence, " the Baptist certainly did not intend by the ngdxbg fiov xjv the
Xoyog" the not must be striken out before it can be correct. A time
will come, when the edifice of the doctrine concerning the Xoyog, so
artfully prepared in modern times, vvill be pulled down, and its
materials regarded as useful only for a small addition to the chief
edifice, to be erected entirely out of stones from the Old Testament
If they should entirely perish, the substance would sustain no loss,
though the mere interpretation of words might. That in the Lord
^ the covenant angel of Malachi, more nearly defined by all that
the Old Testament contains concerning the TsSjV IJnSd, the being of
his Xbyog is completely contained, the Evangelist shows plainly
enough, by making the passage of Malachi the foundation of his
treatise concerning the Xbyog. Ver. 21-23.
The proof that the Baptist answers the question, whether he were
Elias, with no, only on the supposition of the false idea of the in
quirers, concerning a personal reappearance of Elias, is abundantly
contained in what precedes. We only call attention to the fact, that
the relative affirmation is immediately opposed, in v. 23, to the rela
tive denial. For, as John here declares himself to be the voice
crying in the wilderness of Isaiah, he at the same time declares him
self as the "my messenger" and the Elias of Malachi, according
to the true interpretation. The proof lies, in like manner, in what
precedes. We have shown, that the prophecy of Malachi is only a
resumption of that of Isaiah, and that it is constantly regarded as
such by the Baptist, by Christ, and by the Apostles. That the
xvgiog of Isaiah is Christ, in view of John, and he, therefore, truly
God, is beyond all doubt. Ver. 27.
'O bnlaio fiov igxbpsvog, ov ovx slfil dhog, Iva Xvaa avxov xbv Ifidvxa
Tofi vnoSxjfiaxog. " It was the office of a slave to bear the sandals of
his master, and to loose the thongs, when they were taken off." He,
VOL. III. 46

362 MALACHL
who, in Malachi, sends the " my messenger," before himself and
comes after him, is pi«n, the Lord ; for him, therefore, the service is
too small which is rendered to a Lord by his servant

Ver. 31.
"iva (pavsga&fj xd lagarjX, Sia xovxo fjX&ov iya iv xqj vSaxi ^anxl^av.
The reference to Is. 40 : 5, is here not to be mistaken, a new proof
of John's knowledge of the Deity of the Messiah, His baptism,
= to the prepared way of Isaiah, the latter image, the former embody
ing of the fisxdvoia, has reference to the revealing of the now con
cealed glory of the Lord. This reference appears the more certain
by a comparison of chap. 2 : 11, xal icpavigaas xxjv Sb^av avxov. John
beholds, in the action of Christ there recorded, a fulfilment of what
Isaiah predicted concerning the revealing of the glory of the Lord.
Because Christ is Jehovah, so in the revelation of his glory, is the
glory of Jehovah revealed. By this establishment of the Old Testa
ment reference, the remark of Liicke, made independently of it, is
rendered still more certain, " The proper idea of the Sola, T13D, is
so to be conceived, that it shall designate, eminently, the Divine
majesty or glory."

Comp. 1 : 6.

Chap. 3 : 28.

1 Cor. 16 : 22.

El xig ov (piXsX xov xvgiov Itjoovv Xgiaxbv, Xjxa ava&sfia, fiagdv a&d.
The fiagdv d&d, here so striking in a Greek epistle written to
Greeks, suggests an Old Testament groundwork. The retaining of
the Arimean form, is explained only by the fact, that the dictum in
it was a sort of watchword for all believers in Israel, and a declara
tion could have such an import, only when it hxid been taken from
the Scripture. Its derivation from Mai. 3 : 1, can admit of no doubt.
We have already shown, that this passage is considered throughout,
as the loc. class, of the com.ing of the Lord. In addition to this,
the ijxa dvd&sfia appears in like manner to be borrowed from Mai.
3 : 24, where the coming also is again mentioned. Then the con
nexion with V. 23, fj xdgig xov xvgiov 'irjaov Xgiaxov fis&' vfidv. The

MALACHI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 363
apostle here, precisely like the prophet, places in immediate conriex-
ion, blessing and cursing, both proceeding from the b xvgiog. He
invokes the curse no less than the blessing. For the believer must
find pleasure in all which has its ground in the nature of God; and
when he does it not, whether it is that he is envious because God is
so good, or wishes that God's righteousness may. not manifest itself,
he shows thereby, that in this respect he is still carnal, and not
spiritually minded, ov cpgovsl xd xoij &soiJ. Only that the when may in
the case of no one become the there, or, if this has already happened,
it may disappear, is with the apostle so fervent a desire, that he would
himself become an dvd&sfia for his brethren. — In the place of the
" preparation of the way," and the " bringing back of the hearts,"
in Malachi, we find in the Apostle, love towards the Lord Jesus.
This is altogether natural. For both are only a designation of the
same thing, according to different relations ; one cannot be conceived
without the other ; Jesus alone, the Lord and the covenant angel, is
the gvbpsvog fjfidg anb xfjg ogyrjg xfjg sgxofisvrjg, 1 Thes, 1 : 10, a pas
sage, which, in like manner, receives its light from Malachi, As
soon as the reference to the passage to Malachi is perceived, the ab
surd explanation of the rjxa dvd&sfia hy Mosheim, vanishes of itself;
let him be excluded from your communion, which he thus endeav
ours to justify: "An apostle, a servant of God, who calls himself
love, a messenger of peace, can wish nothing evil, even to the most
ruthless and wicked despisers." If the servant cannot wish, how
then can God do ? But that He does, is shown, even apart from the
word, comp., e. g., Matt. 10 : 13, 15, by the fact itself by history.
And its testimony, therefore, can be destroyed, only by denying
Providence. A single fact, as the destruction of Jerusalem by the
Romans, is sufficient, a belief in Providence being presupposed,* to
annihilate the rationalist view of God's holiness and righteousness.
— Lightfoot perceives the reference to Malachi, but infers from it,
that Paul had only the Jews in view. He would have done better,
had he inferred from the fact, that Paul plainly had the Christians in
view ; that the lifeless method of interpretation, which separates the

* The result, however, is the same ; how could such a union of the highest
guilt and the highest punishment be accidental .' Jos. B. Jud, 5, tO, 5 : " To
speak briefly, as no other city ever experienced similar sufferings, so has there
been no race of men, since the world began, more fruitful in wickedness,"

364 MALACHI,
prophecy from the idea, and consequently suffers it to evaporate in
individual fulfilments, is erroneous.
And thus we believe we have solved our problem, and shown by
example, that the exegesis of the New Testament can be perfected
only in connexion with the deep and fundamental study of the Old,
only when man does not separate what God has joined. The newly
awakened zeal on this subject, encourages the htJpe that such demon
strations will not be fruitless.

THE PROPHET JEREMIAH.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
In Malachi, chap. 3:1, the Lord promises he will send his mes
senger, that he may prepare the way before him, who will come to
his temple to judge and punish ; v. 23 : 24; he will, before the com
ing of his day, the great and terrible, before he smites the laud with
the curse, send a second Elias, that he may bring back the heart of
the fathers to their children, and of the children to their fathers.
Before this prophecy was spoken in words, it had been actually given
in the existence of Jeremiah, who, during the long period of forty-
one years before the destruction, announced the judgments of the
Lord ; with glowing zeal and burning love, preached repentance to
his people, and, even after the destruction, pursued the small remnant
that was left, and sought to secure them before the new day of the
Lord, which they were bringing upon themselves by their obstinate
impenitence. This typical relation of Jeremiah to John the Baptist,
and to Christ, anticipated, though understood in a gross and crude
manner in the Jewish tradition, that Jeremiah, in the end of the
days, would again appear on earth, gives to the consideration of his
agency, the study of his prophecies, a peculiar charm ; and the more
so, when we further regard the preaching of repentance by John and
Christ, not as a dead fact, but perceive how the past lives again in
the present and future.
Jeremiah, while still a youth, was called to his office in the
thirteenth year of Josiah, one year, therefore, after the first refor
mation of this king, who, while yet in early youth, in the sixteenth
year of his life, in the eighth of his reign of thirty-one years, began
to seek the Lord. Such a king, unlike any of his predecessors,
who turned himself to the Lord with his whole heart, his whole soul,
and all his powers, 2 Kings 23 : 25, in the midst of an evil and adul
terous generation, is a remarkable phenomenon, as little conceivable

366 JEREMIAH.
from natural causes, as the existence of Melchizedek, without father,
without descent, — apart from all natural developement, — in the
midst of the Canaanites, who, with bold and unceasing steps,
hastened to the completion of their sin. His existence has the same
root with that of Jeremiah, which becomes the more evident, when
we take into view the connexion of the regal and the prophetic office
in Christ, for the salvation of the people, hastening anew to their
destruction ; God's covenant faithfulness, his long-suffering, which
makes every effort to lead the apostate sons to repentance. The zeal
of both, although sustained by manifold assistance from other sources,
as by the prophetess Huldah, and the prophet Zephaniah, was unable
to restrain the stream of the prevailing corruption, and, therefore,
also that of the Divine judgments. The corruption had become so
deeply seated, that only individuals Could be rescued, as a brand out
of the fire. Under the long reign of Manasseh, whose disposition
must be regarded as a product of the prevailing spirit of the time,
and he, not as its author, but only as its representative, it had made
frightful progress (2 Kings 23 : 26, 27, 24 : 3, 4). The few fruits
of his late conversion had been entirely consumed under the short
reign of his ungodly son, Ammon. It had so little influence that
was extensive and durable, that the author of the books of Kings
passes it entirely over. It was difficult to set bounds, even to the
outward idolatry ; how imperfectly this was done, appears from the
prophecies of Jeremiah, uttered after the reformation ; and even
where it was effected, where an emotion, a wish, showed itself to
return to the living fountain, which had been forsaken, there the
corruption soon broke forth again, only in another form. With grief
does Jeremiah charge this upon the people, whose righteousness was
as a morning dew, chap. 3 : 4, 5, " Hast thou not but lately called
me My father, friend of my youth art thou? Will he reserve (his
anger) for ever, will he keep it to the end ? Behold, so spakest
thou, and soon didst thou evil, thou didst accomplish it" The fool
ish inclination to idolatry, because the disease was not cured, but
only driven out of one part of the system, was followed by an equally
foolish confidence in the miserable righteousness of works, and the
divine election, the only condition of the validity of which, was held
to be the offering of sacrifices, &c. " Trust ye not in lying words,
— must the prophet cry out to them (chap. 7 : 4), saying, The tem
ple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are
they (the people, in their opinion, could not be destroyed, because

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 367
the Lord had established his perpetual dwelling among them)." —
" Thou sayest, I am innocent, his anger has entirely departed from
me ; behold, I reckon vvith thee, because thou sayest, I have not
sinned," 2 : 35, — " Wherefore should incense come to me out of
Saba, and sweet cane, that which is good, out of a distant land 1
your burnt-offerings are not acceptable, and your sacrifices are not
pleasant to me." — Towards the end of the reign of Josiah, the
judgment of God approached nearer to Judea ; the former Asiatic
•dominion of the Assyrians passed entirely over to the Chaldeans,
whose rude and youthful strength threatened destruction to Judea,
so much the more, because, along with the inheritance of the
Assyrians, they had also received the enmity towards Egypt,
which must give a great importance to Judea in their eyes. , To the
people, involved in the conflict of these two hostile powers, the death
blow was to come from the Chaldeans, according to the prediction
of the prophets in general, and especially of Jeremiah, to whom the
prediction of the calamity out of the north was assigned, as his chief
object immediately on his call; the first severe wound, however,
was given them by the Egyptians ; Josiah fell in the battle with Pha
raoh Necho. His death filled the people, conscious of their guilt,
with anxious expectation of the things that should come. They
surmised, that they now stood on the limit where grace and anger
separate (comp. Vol. II. on Zech. 12 : 11), and this surmise was
soon raised to more bitter certainty by their experience. Jehoiakim,
who, after Jehoiachin, or Schallum, after a short reign, had been
carried away by the Egyptians, ascended the throne, sustained the
same relation to his father Josiah as the people to God, in reference
to the mercy which he had granted to them in Josiah. A more
striking contrast (see its exhibition in chap. 22) can scarcely be con
ceived. Jehoiakim exhibits throughout an entire want, not, indeed,
merely of love for God, but even of fear of God ; he furnishes the
complete image of a king, whom God has given in anger. He is a
bloodthirsty tyrant, an exasperated enemy of the truth. In the com
mencement of his reign, some influence of that of Josiah is still
seen. The priests and the false prophets, rightly perceiving the
signs of the time, come forward with the manifestation of their long
restrained rage against Jeremiah, in whom they hate their own
conscience. They accuse him of deserving death, because he pre
dicted the ruin of the city and the temple. But the leaders of the
people release him (comp. chap. 26). But soon this reflex influence

368 JEREMIAH.
ceased. The king became the central point, around which all that
was ungodly collected ; which, under Josiah, had kept itself more
concealed. It soon became a power, a stream, vvhich overflowed the
whole land ; the more easily, the weaker were the dams which had
been raised in the time of Josiah. As one of the first sacrifices to
the truth, fell the prophet Urijah ; the king thought that he might
destroy the truth itself in its messengers ; the thought, therefore,
was insupportable to him, that he lived then in distant Egypt ; he
caused him to be brought from there (comp. the same place). That
Jeremiah, under the eleven years' reign of this king, escaped every
mortal danger, although he constantly threatened anew death to the
king, destruction to the people, was a perpetual miracle, an illustrious
fulfilment of the Divine promise, imparted to him at his call.
(1:21) " They will contend against thee, and not overpower thee,
for I am with thee saith the Lord, to help thee." Under Jehoiakim
the divine threatening of punishment advanced several steps towards
its complete fulfilment In his fourth year, Jerusalem, for the first
time, was taken by the Chaldeans (comp. Beitr. I. p. 52 ff), after
the power of the kingdom of Egypt had been for ever broken in the
battle at Carcheinish, on the Euphrates. Still, the victor for this
time acted with tolerable mildness ; the sin of the people was to
appear in its true light, by the fact, that God gave them a time for
repentance, and did not at once proceed to the utmost severity, but
gradually inflicted his judgments. But here also it became evident,
that crime in its highest degree becomes insanity ; the nearer the
people and king approached the abyss, with so much the greater haste
did they rush towards it. They did not, indeed, continue entirely
insensible, as the threatenings of the prophets began to be fulfilled,
as appears from the day of fasting and repentance, which was ap
pointed in remembrance of the first capture by the Chaldeans (comp.
Beitr. p 59). But transient emotions could not restrain the course
of sin. They soon became more wicked than they had been before,
and so also the Divine judgments soon reached a new station. Po
litical wisdom already counselled the king, that he should quietly
submit to the comparatively light dependence on the Chaldeans.
That he alone could effect nothing against the Chaldean power was
obvious, and to the unprejudiced observer it was equally clear, that
the Egyptians could not help him, and had this even been possible,
he would still only have changed his master. But these political
grounds, although they were so obvious, were to have no influence

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 369
upon him, according to the counsel of God, who takes away the
understanding of the prudent, because his obdurate heart hindered
him from regarding the religious motives which Jeremiah urged.
Melancthon (Opp. II. p. 407 sq.) considers it as remarkable, that
while other prophets, as Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, under a promise of
Divine aid, exhort to powerful resistance against the foe, and even
themselves cooperate as instruments of the deliverance, Jeremiah,
on the contrary, perpetually preaches unconditional submission.
That this difference was not, indeed, grounded in the persons, but in
the thing, is shown by the event, which is as different as the counsel.
The seventy years of Chaldee servitude had been irrevocably deter
mined upon Judah ; how firm and definite was the decree, is shown,
even by the exact mention of the years, elsewhere so unusual, in
reference to the fate of the covenant people. They had given them
selves up entirely, more fully than at any other period, to the inward
power of heathenism ; they must, therefore, according to a divine
necessity, be given up also into the outward power of the heathen
for punishment and for reformation. God himself could not change
the decree, since it rested on his nature. It would be in vain, there
fore, if even the greatest intercessors, Moses and Samuel, stood
before him (Jer. 15 : 1 sq.). Intercession can be efficacious, only
when it is offered in the name of God. Now such being his condi
tion, how foolish was it for him to rebel against the Chaldeans, —
to wish to prevent the effect, while the cause was suffered quietly to
remain, to stop the brook, while the fountain continued to bubble !
It would have been foolish, even if the relation of the Jews and
Chaldeans, as to power, had been exactly the reverse. For, when
the Lord sells a people, then one can chase a thousand, and two put
ten thousand to flight (Deut 32 : 30). But the shepherd of the peo
ple had become a fool, and asked nothing according to the Lord ;
therefore he could not act wisely, and the whole flock was scattered
(Jer. 10 : 21). Jehoiakim rebelled against the Chaldeans, and re
mained some years in the delusion that he had acted prudently,
since Nebuchadnezzar had to bring a more important affair to a close.
Then, however, he marched against Jerusalem, and put an end both
to his reign and to his life. Jer. 22 : 12, 2 Kings 24 : 2, comp.
Beitr. p. 59. Still God's long-suffering, and therefore also the
patience of the Chaldeans, were not exhausted. Jehoiachin was
raised to the throne of his father. The short reign of three months
gave to the young king sufficient opportunity to manifest the wicked-
voL. III. 47

370 JEREMIAH.
ness of his heart, and his apostasy from God. His fidelity became
suspected ; a Chaldean host broke anew into the city, and carried
away the king, and with him a multitude of people. This was the
first great deportation. By the providence of God, it happened, that
among those who were carried away, was found precisely the flower
of the nation. The apparent calamity was for them a blessing.
They were sent away from the place upon which the storm of God's
anger was soon to fall, into the land of the Chaldeans, for their good,
and there they constituted the nursery of the kingdom of God in the
new form it was about to assume, comp. Jer. chap. 24. There now
appeared nothing more to restrain the course of the Divine judg
ments upon the ungodly mass that remained, like the bad figs, which
could not be eaten for badness ; those, whom the Lord threatened,
that he would make them for an abuse, for a calamity in all the
kingdoms of the earth, for a reproach, and for a by-word, and for a
mockery, and for a curse, in all the places whither he would drive
them, Jer. 24 : 9. And yet the Lord waited still before he executed
this threatening, and smote the laud to a curse. Mattaniah or Zede
kiah, son of .To.siah, uncle of Jehoiachin, who was given to them for
a king, might, at least partially, have averted the evil. But he also
must experience, that the fear of God is the foundation of prudence.
In recent times, he has often been exculpated ; his fault, it is said,
was only weakness, which made him an instrument of a corrupt
party. But the Scripture judges otherwise concerning him, and he
who looks deeper into his character, will find its decision correct.
We can only concede to him the preference over Jehoiakim, which Ch.
B. Michaelis attributes to him : " Jeiakimo durius utrociusque inge-
nium fuit ; aliquo dei timnre, quamquum scrvili et hypocritico afficie
batur Tsedekias, sed Joiakimus nulla penitus." And this preference,
on a nearer examination, amounts to nothing ; for it belongs to
nature and not to grace. Whether corruption manifests itself as
weakness, or as a carnal and strong opposition to the Divine truth, is
accidental, and depends on the diversity of the physical and mental
organization, especially the strength or weakness of the nervous
system. That Zedekiah did not entirely put away from him the
Divine truth and its messengers (Dahler : " II respectoit le prophetk,
sans avoir la force, de stiivre ses cunseils. II pretegeuit mime sa
vie centre ses pcrsecuteurs, mais il n'osoit pas le mettre a I'abri de
leur vexations), is not lo be attributed to himself; it was forced upon
him, who was unable to resist a powerful impression of any sort

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 371
whatever. In such a character as Jehoiakim, the same amount of
the fear of God would require a softening of the decision, since it
could not exist without some ground within. — Trusting to the aid
of the neighbouring nations, especially of the Egyptians, persuaded
by the false prophets and the great men, himself seized by that spirit
of giddiness and intoxication, which was hurrying forward the whole
people vvith irresistible .violence to the abyss, Zedekiah broke the
sacred oath which he had sworn to the Chaldeans, and, after an ob
stinate resistance, Jerusalem was taken and destroyed. Still the
long-suffering of God, and therefore of men also, was not wholly at
an end. The conquerors left a comparatively small portion of the
inhabitants in the land ; God's mercy gave to them Gedaliah, an
excellent man, for their civil, Jeremiah for their spiritual, head,
who preferred to remain on the smoking ruins, than to follow the
splendid promises of the Chaldeans ; and who, in the fulfilment of
his calling, although now at an advanced age, and oppressed by
grief chose to remain to the last But it was as if the people had
resolved to drain the cup of the Divine anger to the last drop. Geda
liah was murdered ; those who had not taken part in the deed,
yet fled to Egypt, regardless of the word of the Lord by the prophet,
who announced to them a curse if they fled, and a blessing, if they
remained. What the prophet would have to suffer under such circumstances,
might readily be conceived, without inquiring of history. Had he
even been free from all personal assaults, what a distress must it not
have been to dwell with such a generation, to see their corruption
constantly increasing, and themselves approaching nearer to the
abyss, in spite of all his faithful warnings; his whole agency, at least
with respect to the mass of the people, in vain. " Oh that I had in
the wilderness a lodging-place of wayfaring men," — so does he
speak even under Josiah, chap. 9:2, — " that I might leave my
people, and go from them, for they are all adulterers, a band of faith
less men." But from these personal assaults, he neither was nor
could be exempted. Mockery, hatred, calumny, insult, plots, curs
ing, imprisonment, bonds, were his portion. To bear such a burden,
must be hard for every tempera,ment, but especially for such an one
as his. " The more tender the heart, the deeper the anguish." He
was no second Elias, he had a soft disposition, a lively sensibility ;
his eyes easily overflowed. And he who would so gladly have Jived
in peace and love with all, when he came forth in the service of the

372 JEREMIAH.
truth, must become a second Ishmael, his hand against all, and the
hand of all against him ; he, who so warmly loved his people, must
see this love misapprehended, and himself branded as a betrayer of
the people, by those who were themselves their betrayers. All this
produced in him a violent conflict, which he has repeatedly, particu
larly in chap. 12 and chap. 20, disclosed to us, because the Lord was
glorified by the victory, which he alone could give.
That which, together with his inward consolations, the wonderful
deliverances, the remarkable fulfilments of his prophecies which he
himself lived to witness, sustained him, was, that the Lord caused
him to behold his future salvation vvith equal clearness as his judg
ments, so that he could regard the latter only as transient, and
even during the most striking contrast between the appearance and
the idea, did not lose the firm hope of the final triumph of the former.
This hope constituted the central point of his whole life. For a long
series of years, he is somewhat restrained from the expression of it ;
for he 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 some beams of the sun constantly break through the thick
cloud. Finally, when the entire destruction is already at the door,
and his commission to break down and to destroy draws to an end,
because now God himself will speak by deed, he can, in accordance
with the desire of his heart, execute the second part of his calling,
to build and to plant, comp. chap. 1, and how his whole heart is
constantly full of this, appears froni the language of his lips. The
whole calling of a prophet, Calvin well comprehends in the following
words : " Dico simpliciter, Jeremiam fuisse a deo missum, ut populo
ultimam cladem pradiceret ; deinde lit concionaretur de futura re-
demtiene : sic tumen, ut interponeret semper exiliiim septuaginta
annorum." How this redemption, in his view, was destined, not
merely for Israel, how the heathen also were to share in it, appears,
not merely incidentally in the prophecies to his own countrymen, but
is rendered prominent even in those against foreign nations; as in
the prophecy against Egypt, 46 : 26, against Moab, 48 : 47, against
Ammon, 49 : 6.
In reference to the style of Jeremiah, Cunaeus well observes,
De Rep. Hebr. lib. 3, c. 7 : " Jcrcmia omnis majtstas posita in ver
borum neglectu est ; adeo ilium dccct rustica dictio." Jerome cer
tainly seeks very superficially the ground of this humilitas diciionis
of the prophet, which he at the same time names in majestate sen-

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 14 — 17. 373
suum profundissimum, in his origin out of the viculus Anathoth,
The contrary would be unnatural. The style of Jeremiah stands on
the same ground as the hairy garment and leathern girdle of Elijah ;
whoever is sorrowful and troubled in heart, whose eyes dissolve in
tears. Lam. 2:11, adorns not himself with dress or discourse.
Among the older aids in the interpretation of Jeremiah, is the
commentary of Calvin, out of the sixteenth century, that of Seb.
.Schmidt, Ff 1685, 2 Bde. 4to., out of the seventeenth, — even
now, in many respects, the best that we have, an extract from which
are the Anm. of C. B. Michaelis, in the Bibel of J. H. Michaelis,
— that of Venema, out of the eighteenth (Leuwarden, 1765, 2 Bde.
4to.), which, together with a mass of forced and arbitrary interpreta
tions, has still the merit of independence, and many very good re
marks. The more recent time has done little ; Rosenmiiller has built
throughout on the Anmm. in the Bibl. Hal, and has supplied what
was deficient out of the Observv. of J. D. Michaelis. and Schnurrer.
Dahler (Jeremie, truduit, accompagne de Notes. 2 Bde. Strasb.,
1825, 1830) has something more appropriate, but is rather superficial.
A new and thorough work is greatly needed. The problem is, how
ever, a far more difficult one, than, according to the current judgment,
one would suppose.

THE PORTION CHAP. 3:14-17.
The whole portion chap. 3 : 5, to the end of the 6th chap., forms
one connected discourse, distinguished from the foregoing by the
superscription in chap. 3 : 5, from the following by that in chap. 7:1.
But this distinction 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 thus in such
a degree, that we are compelled to doubt the correctness of the pro
ceeding of those interpreters who would determine the chronological
order of the individual portions, and the point of time in the reign of
Josiah, to which each belongs. If this proceeding were in accord
ance with the subject, why then would the prophet in the superscrip
tion of this portion, have expressed himself in so general a way :
" And the Lord spake further to me in the days of Josiah the king."

374 JEREMIAH,
Every thing on which we can ground more accurate determinations
in regard to the individual portions, vanishes on a closer examination.
Thus, e. g., the twofold reference to the seeking of help from
Egypt, chap. 2:16 sq., 36 sq., on which Eichhorn and Dahler lay
so great stress. We are by no means justified in supposing a refer
ence here to a definite historical event, which, moreover, cannot be
pointed out, in the whole time of Josiah, but must be assumed on
entirely uncertain and groundless conjecture. It resulted from the
position of Judea, in the midst of her two natural and sworn ene
mies, the Egyptians and the Assyrians, that, during the whole reign
of Josiah, the minds of those who were without confidence in the
God of Israel, perpetually fluctuated ; when their eye was directed
to the Assyrians, they expected help from the Egyptians, and when to
the Egyptians, from the Assyrians; and this fear of man, and this
confidence in man, is what the prophet reproves, without regarding,
which was a matter of indifference in a moral point of view, whether
their expectations were realized or not Our view is this : we have
here, not so much a series of prophecies before us, every one of which
was verbally thus expressed, at some particular period in the reign of
Josiah, as rather a resume of the whole prophetic agency of Jere
miah under Josiah ; a collection of whatever, independent of special
relations of time, v/as destined, in general, to give an inward support
to the external efforts of Josiah to promote a reformation, an example
of the manner in which Jeremiah discharged the Divine commission
intrusted to him a year after the first reformation of Josiah, which
relation to his call is placed beyond a doubt by the mode in which
chap, 2 is joined to chap. 1. We have here, therefore, before us,
the same phenomenon which we have already perceived in the case
of several of the minor prophets, comp., e. g., the introduction to
Micah, In the portion before us, the prophet employs himself with a two
fold object, first with the prediction of prosperity for Israel, chap,
3 : 6 — 4 : 2, then with the threatening against Judah, chap. 4 : 3, fo
the end of chap. 5. Only in passing is it intimated, in chap. 3 : 18,
that Judah also, after the threatening has been fulfilled upon him,
shall participate in the salvation. It is self-evident, that both objects
may be considered as lying near each other ; according to the whole
connexion, the prediction of the healing of Israel can have no other
object, than to .inflict a wound upon Judah. This object plainly
appears in v. 6-11. 1. Israel does not continue rejected, as the

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 14 — 17. V. 14. 375
Pharisaical Judah supposes. 2, Judah does not continue to be
spared, — Ninety-four years had already passed, when the prophet
entered upon his office, since the Divine judgment had fallen upon
Israel, Every hope of restoration seemed to have vanished. Judah,
instead of beholding in the sin of others the image of his own, in
the destruction of his brethren the prediction of his own, was rather
confirmed in his obduracy. His existence, after Israel had long
since, and, as he supposed, hopelessly perished, appeared to him as
a seal which God impressed upon his ways ; he fed on the calamity
of Israel, because he believed that he beheld therein the proof of his
own excellency, just as, in the time of Christ, the blindness of the
Jews was increased by the circumstance, that they always beheld
themselves as the sole inheritors of the kingdom of God, and the
heathen as excluded from it. The Saviour's prediction of the call
ing of the heathen, stands with the prophet's prediction of the resto
ration of Israel, in a like relation.

V. 14, " Return, ye apostate sons, saith ihe Lord, fer I marry
you te myself, and take you one cut of a city, and two out of a
family, and. bring you to Zion." The question arises, to whom is
the address here directed, whether to Israel, as most interpreters
(Abarb,, Calv., Vatabl., Schmid, Stc) suppose, or, as others, especially
Zickler, Dissert, on the passage, Jena, 1747 (" Peccatis entirraiis,
quid in statu isto corruptu faciendum sit primum docet. Admonet
Israelitas, v. 13, his peructis, jam ad alteram sermonis sui oljectum,
Judaos nimirum se convertit), to the Jews. The decision has an im
portant influence on the interpretation, of the whole passage It
must, however, be given unconditionally in favor of the former view.
A transition is not even intimated by a single word ; precisely the
same, "Return, ye apostate sons," occurs in v. 22, of Israel ; the
apostate Israel is, in what precedes, the standing expression, v. 6, 8,
11, while Judah is designated as an adulteress, v. 8 and 11, — a dis
tinction to which Jarchi directs our attention : " Israelem iibiqve hic
vocat uversam, Judam vere perfidam, quod est gravius quiddam."
The measure of transgression is proportioned to the measure of
grace. The relation of the Lord to Judah Was closer, the apostasy,
therefore, the more deserving of punishment. Further, an extensive

376 JEREMIAH.
prediction of prosperity for Judah here, where the threatening had
not yet preceded, would be by no means suitable, and the reference
of that in v, 14- 17, to Israel, clearly appears in v, 18, "In those
days the house of Judah will come near (properly upon) the house
of liirael." According to which, the return of Judah is now first
mentioned here incidentally, as a secondary matter. To Israel the
prophet immediately returns, in v. 19, For that by "the house of
Israel," in v. 20, and "the sons of Israel," in v, 21, Israel in the
stricter sense is to be understood, is evident from the antithesis of
"the house of Judah," in v, 18, and Judah and Jerusalem, in chap.
4 : 3, Finally, only on the supposition, that the address is to Israel,
are the contents of v. 16 and 17 intelligible, as the interpretation
will show, — In the explanation of the words DJJ 'nSiO ¦'pjx ¦'D, we
have for predeces.sors the Vulg, (quia ego vir vester), Luther : "I
will betroth you to me," Calvin, Schmid, and others. Others, on
the contrary, especially Pococke, ad p. M. p. 2, Schultens, on Prov.
30 : 22, Venema, Schnurrer, Gesenius, Winer, made every effort to
prove that Sj?^ here, as well as in chap. 31 : 32, where it occurs in
an entirely similar connexion, so that the decision must serve at the
same time for both passages, is used in a bad sense. They endeav
our to establish this sense by two methods.- The one class entirely
disregard the derivation from the Hebrew usage, and appeal solely
to the Arab., where hv'2 is supposed to mean fastidire, the others
deduce from the Hebrew sense of reigning that of a tyrannical do
minion, appealing with Gesenius to other verbs : " In quibus subjii-
gandi, eminendi, dominandive vis ad deorsum spectandi, despiciendi
contemnendique significationem trunslata est." With respect now to
the first derivation, even if the Arabic usage were proved, still we
could not argue from it with certainty to that of the Hebrew. But
this Arabic usage is very poorly made out. To be sure, if the
phrase !Sl-/o a o V^z-JI \.X.i, fastidivit vir mulierem eamque ex-
pulit s. repudiavit, actually occurred in Arabic, this would not be the
case ; but it is only by a strange quid pro quo, that the interpreters,
even a Schultens, have forced this phrase upon the Arab., after the
example of Kimchi. The error rests upon a hasty view of Abul
Walid, who has instead : 8 ,/oVj Vr^r^^ V^^j aiiy one is embar
rassed in his affair. The meaning fastidire, rcjicere, is, in general,
entirely foreign to the Arabic, The VO, signifies only mente tur-

THE PORTION CHAP, 3: 14 — 17, V. 14. 377
batus, attonitus fuit, possessed, i. e. deprived of the use of his
powers, embarrassed, not knowing how te help himself, comp. the
Camus, in Schultens and Freytag. As soon as the plain connexion of
this sense with the usual one is perceived, it appears, at once, that it
IS not applicable here. As to the second derivation, it is liable to the
objection, that the ground meaning of ruling, in which that of tyr
annizing is supposed to be included, is entirely unknown to the
Hebrew. Better than the recent lexicographers, even Cocceius saw,
that the ground meaning, properly, indeed, the only meaning, of
')_'5) is that of occupation, possession. It can, indeed, be used also
of rulers, as Is. 26 : 13, 1 Chron. 4 : 22, but not inasmuch as they
rule, but only inasmuch as they possess. On the former passage :
"Jehovah our God," ^oSii D\nx OiS.!;?, Schultens indeed remarks :
" Quivis hic facile ugnoscut dominium grave et imperiosius." But
rather, that in general the land of the Lord is possessed by foreign
ers, is so entirely the proper point of the grief of those who com
plained, that the thought of the method of the possession scarcely
occurs to them. — That the sense to marry, does not arise out of
that of ruling, and is not to be explained by the unconditional and
slavish dependence of the wife in the East, but rather from the sense
of possession, is shown by passages like Is. 54 : 1,* 62 : 4, comp.
Joel 1 : 8, where the discourse is of a relation, founded on the most
cordial love ; then also in another way, by passages like Deut. 21 :
10—13, 24 : 1, where the copula carnalis is designated as that
whereby the SjJJ fully takes place ; and, finally, from the Arabic,
where the wife is no less called nS;;3, sXsLi, than the man IJ^J, Vxi.
— That, in the frequent combination of ^il'2 with other nouns, instead
of the adjective, the meaning Lord is far less suitable than that of
possessor, is obvious, comp,, e, g,, niD^n h}^^, the dreamer, f|X h^^,
the angry, K'Si Sjn, the covetous, niaiD SjJa, the urtful, Tir 'S;?3,
oppidani, n'l^ w^^^, the members of the covenant, S^c. — If we look
to the dialects, we gain the same result. Here also the sense of
possession appears as the original, and properly the only one. In the
Ethiopic, the verb means multum possedit, dives fuit. In Arabic,
the senses are numerous, but they can all be referred to one root.
Thus, e. g., [V*S, '^V'^, means, according to the Camus, " Terrum
* Vitringa on the passage, altogether correctly : " hyu proprie o 'ixo>v, habens
quamcunque rem in sua potestate, quare ad maritum refertur per ellipsin, qui
integre dicitur ntVX h]!'2, habens mulierem, Exod. 21 : 3."
VOL. III. 48

378 JEREMIAH,
tumidiorem et elatum, qua una tantum vice quotannis complui necesse
habet : item palmam, arborem, sementem, qua non rigatur, aut quam
solum ccelum irrigat," a land, a tree, a crop, which itself possesses,
and is not obliged to borrow from another source. This ground of
the appellation plainly appears in Dscheuhari (comp. Schultens, I, c.) :
" Adhibetur in palma, qua suis sibi radicibus potum succumve pra-
stut, sic ut necesse non sit cam irrigare." For the meaning to rule,
in the case of the verb, only the following gloss, out of the Camus,
could be cited : "Utrumque (the i. and 10, conj ) si cum rfi;?, super
ilium, construatur, notat : potitus est rei, in eamque superbius se
gessit." But this in eamque, Sfc. must be struck out. It has origi
nated entirely out of the false reading ^3) in Schultens, for which
(comp. Freytag) (_j^l, neluit, must be read. S;73 with hy accord
ingly means: "to be a possessor of a thing, and, as such, not to
wish to relinquish it to another. — And thus is cut off the root of
the interpretation of Si!D, in, a bad sense, grounded on the Hebrew
usage. — The same result, however, which we have gained from
philological grounds, is furnished also by the context By this, those,
who, as Schultens, regard the whole verse as a threatening, are most
easily refuted. What precedes and follows, breathes warm love for
poor Israel. They are not, like Judah, vvho had not yet drunk of
the cup of God's wrath, terrified by threatenings, but allured by the
call, " Come unto me, ye who are weary and heavy laden, for I
will refresh you," But even those have a difficult task, who, after
the example of Kimchi (" Ego fastidivi vos, eo scil. quod praleriit
tempore, aejam collignm vos), refer the ''?, not so much to the ^i)h^^,
as to the ''nOpT : "for I have, indeed, formerly rejected you, but
now I take," &,c. (This is the only form in which the interpretation
can still appear ; for the interpretation of the '3 by although, as found
even in De Wette, is altogether arbitrary,) If the prophet wished
to express this sense, nothing, surely, was further from his purpose,
than the omission of precisely that on which it depended, the for
merly and the noio. The 'i})p^ and the 'nnpS, plainly stand here
in the same relation ; both together form the ground for the return
to the Lord, To this must be added, according to our interpretation,
the beautiful parallelism of this verse with v, 12 (Calvin : " Aliis
verbis eandem sententiam repetit Jerem.) : "Return, thou apostate
Israel, saith the Lord, I will not be angry with you ; for I am rich
in love ; I do not retain anger for ever," Israel's haughtiness is

THE PORTION CHAP, 3: 14-17, V. 14. 379
broken, but now despair prevents his return to the Lord. He there
fore constantly repeats his invitation, grounds it continually anew on
the fact, that he delights to show mercy and love to those who have
forsaken him. Entirely parallel also, according to our interpretation,
is chap, 3:1, " When a man dismisses his wife, and she goes away
from him, and becomes another man's, will he then, indeed, return
to her ? But thou hast whored with many lovers, and nevertheless
return again to me," Under the image of a divorce was Israel's
rejection represented also in v, 8, " Because apostate Israel had
broken the marriage, therefore I dismissed her, and gave her a bill
of divorce." What, therefore, is more natural, than that the receiv
ing again, offered out of pure compassion, should appear under the
image of a new marriage, and the more so, since the apostasy had
been designated in the preceding verse, as adultery and whoredom
(" Qued disperseris vias tuas, i. e. discursaveris in loca varia, instar
impudentis scorti, quarentis amasios," Schmid, comp, v. 6), To be
compared still is v, 22, " Return, ye apostate children, (for) I will
heal your apostasy." " Behold, we come to thee, /or thou art the
Lord our God." — The objection raised against our interpretation,
that i^'2 in the sense to take in marriage, is construed only with the
accus., is without force. In an entirely similar way in v. 16, "IJT,
which elsewhere occurs with the accus., has the preposition 3. p'inp
with ? occurs 1 Sam. 15 : 27, without 5 Ps, 35 : 2. Vj with 3
entirely corresponds to our " to join to one's self in marriage," and
the idiom has, perhaps, a certain emphasis, indicates that the union
is close and inseparable. Still weaker is another objection, that
then the suff. plur. could not stand. The Israehtes, are, mdeed, the
wife, and this is the more evident, since, in what precedes through
out, and even in v. 13, they had been treated as such. And thus
the determination of the sense of the passage, as it was given by
Calvin : " Quoniam peterat desperatio ita consiringere Israelitas,
ut horrerent accessum ilium — dicit, se illis fore maritum, et se non-
dum oblitum esse illius conjunctionis, qua ipsos semel dignutus
fuerut," remains the only correct one, and we thus gain, at the same
time, a sure foundation for the interpretation of chap. 31 : 32 ; and
so, on the other hand, that which is independently supplied by the
above passage, would serve to confirm what is here established. —
In the correct determination of the sense of the following words
also, " and I take you," &c., Calvin advantageously distinguishes
himself from the earlier and most of the later interpreters : " Osten-

380 JEREMIAH,
dit deus, non esse cur alii alios exspectent ; deinde etiamsi corpus ip
sum populi puirescat in suis peccatis, tamen si pauci ad ipsum rede-
ant, se illis etiam fore placabilem." The covenant had been con
cluded with the whole people : the individual, therefore, might suppose
his repentance to be in vain. The prophet, on the contrary,
" Etiamsi unus tantum ex urbe una ad me veniat, reperiet upertum
junuum ; si duo tantum ex una tribu ud me veniani, etium ipses ad-
mittam." According to him, Loscanus also [Dissert, on the passage,
Frcf 1720) has correctly determined the sense thus : " Non pauci-
tus deum detinebit, quominus consilium suum exsequatur." And thus
it appears, which is alone suitable in this connexion, that the ap
parent limitation of the promise is in truth an extension of it How
great must not the love and compassion of God towards Israel be ;
in what a wide extent must not the proposition be true, Rom. 11 : 29,
AfisxafisXrjxa xd .;fag/ffftaT« xal fj xXrjaig xoii &sov, even if a single
righteous Lot is delivered by God out of the Sodom of Israel, if
Joshua and Caleb, unhurt by the punishment of the sins of the
thousands, reach the promised land, if every penitent heart at once
finds a gracious God I Thus it appears, that this passage by no
means stands in contradiction with others, where a general restora
tion of Israel is promised. On the contrary, the here predicted
inixvyxdvsiv of the sxXoyfj (Rom. 11 : 7), is a pledge of the more
comprehensive and general mercy. — The interpreters here contend
about the historic reference of the prophecy. The one class, as
Theodoret, Grotius, think exclusively of the return from the Baby
lonish exile ; the other, after Jerome, and the Jewish interpreters, of
the Messianic time. It scarcely needs to be remarked, that this
either — or, is here, as in many other passages, badly applied. The
prophecy, so far as the substance is concerned, belongs to all times.
There was a commencement of its fulfilment, when, in the time of
Cyrus, many out of the ten tribes, from true love to the God of Isra
el, joined themselves to the returning Jews, and were engrafted again
by God into the olive tree ; a continuation, when this, in later times,
particularly in those of the Maccabees, frequently happened ; a
preparation for the completion, but not the completion itself when,
in the time of Christ, the blessings of God were poured out upon the
whole SaSsxdtfvXov (Acts 26 : 7). We are by no means compelled to
stop short at these feeble beginnings, by, " I bring you to Zion," here,
and " they will come out of the land of the north, to the land that I
gave to their fathers," v. 18. The idea appears here only in the

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 14-17, V. 15, 381
form in which it must be realized, so far as this was to be done in
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, who,
among the Israelites, were converted to the true God, either returned
wholly to Judea, or, at least, they presented there their sacrifices.
But Zion and the Holy Land come into consideration, only as the
seat of the kingdom of God, and for this very reason, the course of
the fulfilment advances without cessation, even in like times, when
the north also has become a Zion, and a Holy Land. — That two
were assigned to a family, and only one to a city, shows that we
must here think of a larger family, which was in possession of several
cities ; the connexion of the city with the family, implies that the
discourse is here of the cities of the land of Israel, not of those
which the exiles inhabited. — The false explanations of the Jewish
interpreters on the one hand, as in the Gemarah (in Frisch. on the
passage) : " Unus dignum urbem reddidit et duo omnem familiam,"
and in Dav. Kimchi : " Ob dignitatem illorum paucorum omnes ex
captivitute egredientur,'' and of several Christian expositors on the
other, as Frischm. and Ven. : "Non totum populum, sed puucos tun-
tum restituendos esse ex Israele,'' vanish, of themselves, when the
correct view has been presented.
V. 15. " And I give to you shepherds after my own heart, and
they feed you with understanding and insight." The question
arises, who is here to be understood by the shepherds ? Calvin sup
poses, that they are particularly the prophets, and the priests. The
wickedness of these have been the chief cause of the ruin of the
people. It would be the greatest blessing for the Church, si deus
excitet veros et sinceros doctores. In like manner Vitringa, Obss.
lib. 6, p. 417, who thinks of Ezra and the learned men of that time
in the lower, and of Christ in the higher sense. Among the fathers,
Jerome also : " Atque hi sunt apostoli et apostelici viri, qui paverunt
credentium multitudinem non in Judaicis ceremoniis, sed in scientiu et
doctrina." Others refer to the leaders of every kind ; thus Venema :
" Pustores sunt rectores, ductores et doctores." Others, finally, stop
short barely at the rulers ; thus Kimchi (" Gubernutores Israelis cum
rege Messia), Grot, Cler, This last interpretation is uncondi
tionally to be preferred, for the following reasons. 1. The image of
the shepherd, and of feeding, occurs, indeed, sometimes in the wider
sense, usually, however, especially of the rulers. Thus, in the

382 JEREMIAH.
ground passage, 2 Sam. 5 : 2, of David, comp. Mic. 5 : 3, thus in
our prophet, in chap. 2 : 8, " the priests spake not, Where is the
Lord, and those who administered the law knew me not, and the
shepherds sinned against me, and the prophets prophesied in the
name of Baal," comp. v. 26, " they, their kings, and princes, and
their priests, and their prophets." 2. '375 contains a plain allusion
to 1 Sam. 13 : 14, where it is said of David, " The Lord has
sought for himself a man after his own heart, and placed him for a
ruler over his people." 3. All doubt is removed by the parallel pas
sage, chap, 23 : 4, " And I raise up over them shepherds, and they
feed them, and they fear no more, neither are dismayed." That
here only the rulers could be understood by the shepherds, is shown
by the antithesis with the evil rulers of the present, mentioned in
chap. 22, and also by the connexion with v. 5, where the general
expression is made more definite, the concentration of the fulfilment
of the preceding promise is placed in the Messiah, "Behold, the
days come, saith the Lord, and I raise up to David a righteous
Branch, and he reigns as king, and acts wisely, and judges the land
in justice and righteousness." — This parallel passage is also of great
importance, inasmuch as it shows, that our prophecy also has its
final reference to the Messiah. The kingdom of the ten tribes was
punished with wicked kings, for its apostasy from the Lord, and his
visible representative. In the whole long series of Israelitish kings,
we find no Jehoshaphat, no Hezekiah, no Josiah. Very naturally ;
for the foundation of the Israelitish throne was rebellion. Now with
the cessation of the sin, the punishment also should cease. Israel
betakes himself again to the family by which all divine blessings
were conferred upon the Theocracy, and thus he again receives a
share in them, particularly in their richest abundance in the exalted
descendant of David, the Messiah. And thus this passage is per
fectly parallel to that of Hos. 3:5, " And they seek Jehovah their
God, and David their king,'' and the copious remarks there made,
are applicable here also, comp. also Ezek. 34 : 23, " And I raise up
for them a shepherd, and he feeds them, my servant David, he will
feed them, and he will be their shepherd." — The antithesis of " after
my own heart," is formed by " they have made kings, and not by
me, princes which I knew not," referring to the first history of the
people of Israel, Hos. 8 : 4. Formerly the rebels chose kings ac
cording to their own heart's lust, now they choose whom God
chooses, and he must be an instrument of the blessing, according to

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 14-17. V. 16. 383
the same necessity whereby the former were instruments of the
curse. — njn. and Soi^'H stand adverbially; comp., on the transition
of nouns into adverbs, Ewald, p. 499, 631. S'Olvn, to act wisely, is
in Hiph. only apparently intransitive, comp. Ew. p. 189. The
foundation of insight and wisdom, is the living communion with the
Lord; to be according to his heart, is to walk according to his will.
A consequence of apostasy from him, in the case of the former rulers
of Israel, was their foolish counsels, whereby they brought their
people to ruin. The two ground passages are those, Deut. 4 : 6,
"And ye shall observe and do (the law) ; for this is your wisdom
and your insight.'' And 29 : 8, " And ye shall observe the words of
this covenant and do them, that ye may act wisely." Whereupon
rests, besides that under consideration, the others which follow, Josh.
1:7, " Deviate not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou
mayest act wisely in all thy conduct." 1 Sam. 18 : 14, 15, " And
David acted wisely in all his ways, '^''Dfc'a, and the Lord was with
him. And Saul saw that he acted very wisely, and feared before
him." 1 Kings 2 : 3, " And thou shalt observe ihe Lord thy God,
Spc, that thou mayest act wisely in all that thou doest, and in all to
which thou appliest thyself" Is, 52: 13, Jer. 10:21, "For the
shepherds became foolish (-ill^^J), and the Lord they sought not ;
therefore they acted not wisely, and their whole flock was scattered."
23 : 5. If we compare these passages with the ground passages,
and with one another, we cannot sufficiently wonder at the caprice
with vvhich the interpreters and lexicographers, separating several of
them from the rest, have forced upon the word TDifH the purely fic
titious meaning, te be prosperous, — (Umbright, on Prov. 17:8, calls
it a genuine Hebrew sense!). The servants of God act wisely,
because with a view to God ; and, whoever acts wisely, finds pros
perity for himself and his people. It is,, therefore, a proof of the
greatest mercy of God towards his people, when he gives his servants
to them for kings,
V. 16, " And it comes to pass, when ye increase and become fruit
ful in the land in those days, saith the Lord, it shall no more be said,
the ark of the covenant of the Lord! and it will not come into the
heart, neither will it be remembered, nor missed, und another will not
be made." Let us first explain some particulars, " When," (fee,
alludes to Gen, 1 : 28, As God's general providence causes the
fruitfulness of all creatures, so does his special providence the in
crease of 'his Church, whose ranks had been thinned by his judg-

384 JEREMIAH,
ments, and thus the promise to the patriarchs meets its fulfilment ;
comp. the full investigation on Hos. 2 : 1. God's future agency, in this
respect, has an analogy in his former, in Egypt, Comp, Exod. 1 : 12.
"The ark of the covenant" is to be understood as an exclamation,
i. q , "it is the goal of all our wishes, the object of all our longing."
The bare mention of the object, of which the whole heart is full, is
sufficient for the lively sensibility. Feebly, and at the same time
unphilologically, Ven, : " Area foederis Jehova, scil. est," and De
Wette : " They will no more speak of the ark of the covenant of
Jehovah," IIow can Tax with the accus. mean " to speak of any
thing " ! — The phrase, 3^ " S^ nSj^, is connected vvith IDI. precisely as
here. Is, 65 : 17, " For behold, I create a new heaven and a new
earth, and the former shall not be remembered, and they shall not
come into the heart," comp, also J?r. 51 : 50, 7 : 31, 1 Cor. 2 : 9.
13^ with 3, does not stand in this way, without any thing further,
instead of the usual connexion with the accus. It designates a re
membering, joined with passion, with earnest desire, comp, Ewald,
p, 605, Tp3 is here taken by many in the sense to visit, but the
meaning to miss (comp. Is. 34 : 16, 1 Sam, 20 : 6, 18, 25 : 15,
1 Kings 20 : 39) is recommended by the connexion with the follow
ing : " it will not again be made." This presupposes that a time
will come, when the ark of the covenant will no longer exist, the
time of the destruction of the temple, so repeatedly and emphatically
predicted by the prophet, God will supply so rich a compensation
for that vvhich is lost, that men will no longer desire it, nor, driven
by this desire, make an effort to produce it again by their own hands.
— The principal question now arises, in what relation is the ark of
the covenant here regarded ? The answer is supplied by v. 17.
The ark of the covenant is no more remembered, because Jerusalem
has now become in the complete sense, the throne of God ; the ark
of the covenant, therefore, comes into consideration as the throne of
God, in the imperfect sense. That it was so, can easily be shown,
but respecting the how, there has been a diversity of opinion. The
current view was, that God, as covenant God, had made himself
known constantly, above the cherubim, upon the ark of the cove
nant in a visible symbol, that of a cloud. The first considerable
opposition to this, proceeded from Vitringa, who, in the Obss. s. t.
I. p. 169, &c., remarks as follows : " Foi-te enim ojms non fuerit
statuere, in. suncto sanctorum super arcam ordinariam nubem fuisse
in tabernaculo, aut temple Salomonis, sed sufficiut dicere, arcam

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 14-17. V. IG. 385
habitationis divina avft^oXov fuisse ; et locum inter Cherubinos ideo
did prasens habuisse numen, quia voluntatis sua revelaiione inde
profecta prascntem se Isrueliiis testubutur deus." This view of Vi
tringa, however, of the mere invisible presence of God over the ark of
the covenant, experienced warm opposition ; a note to the second
edition shows, that he himself afterwards hesitated respecting it.
Far more decidedly, and with a manifest design to carry it through,
whether true or false, Thalemann, a pupil of Ernesti, presented it at
a later period in the Dissertutio de Nube super Arcam Foederis,
Leipz. 1756. He nevertheless explains, that the thing is not to be
denied, but only the sign to be contested. He found a learned
opponent in Joh. Eberh. Rau, Prof at Herborn, Ruinus de Nube super
Arcum Foederis, Utrecht, 1760, a whole book, in which the treatise
of Thalemann is reprinted. The matter is properly very simple, both
sides are partly right, and partly wrong, and the truth lies between
them. That, at the annual entrance of the high priest into the holy
of holies, the invisible presence of God embodied itself in the sym
bol of a cloud, as it did elsewhere also on extraordinary occasions,
as the journey through the wilderness, and the dedication of the
tabernacle and the temple, is shown beyond contradiction, by the
chief passage, Levit. 16 : 2. Aaron is there admonished not to
enter the holy of holies on every occasion, which would evince want
of reverence, but only once in the year, " For I will appear in the
cloud over the lid of expiation " (this is the only correct explanation
of nViiD, which can never mean any thing but Ud). The place
where God makes himself known in so visible a manner when the
high priest enters it, must be, for him, one of extraordinary holiness.
True, Vitringa (p. 171), and stiU more Thalemann (p. 39 in Rau),
labored to remove this objection by explanation, but with so manifest
violation of all the laws of interpretation, that it is not worth while
to follow them further (comp. the refutation in Rau, p. 40 ff.), al
though J. D. Michaelis, Vater, Rosenmiiller, Hoffmann (Archaologie
p. 29), have concurred with them. On the other hand, the supposi
tion of an ordinary and constant presence of the cloud in the holy of
holies, in respect to which such questions might arise as whether it
was also visible to the Philistines, is entirely without proof; what
Rau cites in its favor, relates only to the invisible presence of God,
which surely cannot be placed on a level with one merely imaginary,
as has been done by him (p. 35) ; how otherwise would it stand with
the presence of God in the hearts of believers (Is. 66 : 2), and in
VOL. III. 49

386 JEREMIAH.
the Lord's Supper ? Ezekiel, to be sure, sees the glory of the Lord
over the cherubim raise itself out of the temple before the destruc
tion, 11:22; but how can we conclude from the vision, which,
according to its nature, must clothe every thing invisible vvith a body,
to the reality ? — Still, as already remarked, this whole dispute con
cerns the hoia, not the fact of the presence of God over the ark of
the covenant, which here, in the wider sense, comprehends the cher
ubs, and "the glory of the Lord" enthroned above them. That
this glory of the Lord was constantly really present over the ark of
the covenant, although it made itself outwardly visible only in extra
ordinary cases, comp., besides Levit. 16 : 2, yet 9 : 24, where, after
Aaron's consecration, for a solemn confirmation of his office, the
glory of the Lord appears to the whole people, can be shown from a
multitude of passages. To this purpose are all those where God is
designated as sitting above the cherubim, as 1 Chron. 14 : 6, "Who
sits above the cherubim, where his name is invoked." Ps. 80 : 2,
" Thou Shepherd of Israel show thyself thou who sittest above the
cherubim." 1 Sam. 4 : 4, 2 Sam. 6 : 2, Ps. 99 : 1, 2 Kings 19 : 15.
To this refers the designation of the ark of the covenant in the
stricter sense, as God's footstool, 1 Chron. 29 : 2, David : " I had
purposed to build a house, where the ark of the covenant of the
Lord might rest, — and the footstool of our God." Ps, 99 : 5, " Exalt
the Lord your God, worship at his footstool," Ps. 132 : 7, " We will
go into the dwelling of the Lord, and pray before his footstool." Lara.
2:1, " God has cast the glory of the Lord from heaven to earth, he
has not remembered his footstool in the day of his anger." Hence it
is explained, why supplication in distress, and thanksgiving for pros
perity, was always presented before the ark of the covenant, or
towards it Joshua, after the defeat before Ai (7 : 5 sq.), tore his
garments, and fell upon his face to the earth before the ark of the
Lord until evening, together with the elders of Israel, and they cast
dust upon their heads, and Joshua said, " Ah, Lord, Lord, where
fore hast thou brought this people over the Jordan ? " Solomon,
after the appearance and promise at Gibeah, went before the ark of
the covenant of the Lord, and offered burnt-offerings and thank-
offerings, 1 Kings 3 : 15. 2 Sam. 15 : 32, it is related, that David,
very sorrowful, had ascended the Mount of Olives,, and when he had
come to the place whc7-e men were accustomed to worship God, Hushai
met him. It was accordingly the custom, when one had gained, on
the summit of the Mount of Olives, for the first or for the last time,

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 14-17. V, 16. 387
the view of the sanctuary, to cast himself down before the God of
Israel, who dwelt there. — To the ark of the covenant, all the pas
sages refer, where it is said, that God would dwell among Israel,
in the temple, at Zion or Jerusalem ; from the promise, Exod. 29 :
45, "I dwell in the midst of the children of Israel," onwards, comp.,
e. g., Ps. 9 : 12, Ps. 132 : 13, 14, 1 Kings 6 : 12, 13, where God
promises Solomon, that, should he only walk in his commandments,
and do according to his judgments, then would he dwell among the
children of Israel, and afterwards fulfils this promise by a solemn
entrance into his sanctuary. Inseparably connected therewitb, was
the high esteem in which the ark of the covenant was held in Israel ;
it was the most costly jewel of the people, the central point of their
whole existence. So the place, where God's glory dwelt, Ps. 26 : 8,
where he made himself known in his most glorious manifestations,
was named the glory of Israel, comp. 1 Sam. 4 : 21, 22, Ps. 78 : 61.
The high priest, Eli, heard all the rest of the melancholy news, —
Israel's overthrow, — the death of his sons, — with patience. But,
when he who had escaped, added, " Besides, the ark of God is taken,
he fell back from his seat in the door, and broke his neck, and died.
His daughter-in-law, when she heard that the ark of the covenant
had been taken, bowed herself in violent anguish, and brought forth;
for her pains came upon her ; and as she was now dying, the women,
who stood near her, said. Fear not, for thou hast a young son, but
she answered nothing, and laid it not to heart, and she called the
child Ichabod, and said, The glory has departed from Israel, because
the ark of God was taken, and said once more. The glory has de
parted from Israel, for the ark of God is taken." — But how can this
dwelling of God upon the ark of the covenant be conceived, should
the Most High, whom all heaven and the heaven Of all heavens com
prehends not, 1 Kings 8 : 27, whose throne is heaven, and whose
footstool the earth. Is. 66 : 1, dwell in a temple made by the hands
of men ? Acts 7 : 48 sq., plainly, not as men dwell in a place, who
are only in, and not, at the same time, out of it Plainly, also, not,
as the carnally-minded suppose, who oppose to the warnings of the
prophets their " Is not the Lord among us ? There can no ca
lamity happen to us," Mic. 3; 11, or their "Here is the temple of
the Lord, here is the temple of the Lord, here is the temple of the
Lord" (Jer. 7 : 4), supposing that God could not forsake the place
which he chose, could not withdraw the free gift of his grace. The
correct view is rather as follows. The substance and central point

388 JEREMIAH.
in the whole relation of Israel to God, is, that the God of heaven and
of earth became Israel's God, the creator of heaven and earth the
covenant God, his general providence in blessing and in cursing, a
special one. In order to bring this relation near to the people, and
therefore to make it the object of their love and fear, God gave to
them as a type, and, at the same time, a prelude, of the condescen
sion with which he, whom the universe did not enclose, dwelt in the
womb of Mary, a prasens numen, in his sanctuary, not as a mere
symbolic representation, but as an embodying of the idea, so that
whoever would seek him as the God of Israel, could find him only in
the temple, and over the ark of the covenant That he held his seat
precisely there, showed the difference between this real presence of
the Deity, and that fancied by the heathen. There was no partiality
and prejudice in favor of Israel. God's dwelling among Israel,
rested on his covenant, his holy law. According as his covenant
was observed, the law fulfilled or not, it manifested itself by a richer
blessing. Or a severer punishment. If the covenant be entirely
broken, God relinquishes his dwelling, and only the curse remaining
behind, greater than that vvhich overtakes those among whom he
never dwells, indicates by its greatness the greatness of the former
mercy. — If now, this was the case with the ark of the covenant, if
it was the main point of the whole former economy, what was there
which would not fall when it fell, and how immensely great must be
the compensation for it, if it were to cause the desire after it to cease,
and itself to be forgotten, as belonging to the nxaxd axoixHa, to the
image and the shadow. How every thing sacred under the Old Tes
tament depended on the ark of the covenant, is shown by the very
fact, that it was made before any thing else. Witsius, 31isc. t. I,
p. 439, says, very appositely : " Area foederis, veluti cor totius re
ligionis Israeliiica primum omnium formata est." Without an ark
of the covenant, no temple, — it first becomes a sanctuary by the
ark of the covenant ; for holy, says Solomon, is the place whither
the ark of the Lord comes (2 Chron. 8 : 11), — without an ark of
the covenant, no priesthood ; for whom are they to serve, when no
Lord is present? Without a temple and priesthood, no sacrifice.
We have, therefore, here, the prediction of an entire annihilation of
the previous form of the kingdom of God, but such an one as is, at
the same time, the highest completion of the substance, a dissolution
like that of the seed-corn, which dies only in order to bring forth
much fruit, of the body, which is sowed in corruption, in order to

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 14-17. V. 16, 389
be raised in incorruption. — Dahler : " Puisqu^une religion plus
auguste, un ordre de chases plus eleve remplacera la constitution
Mosdique, on n'aura pus lieu de regretter Iu perte du symbole de la
constitution pricedente, en ne s'en souviendru plus." It is entirely
natural, that this prophecy should prove a great stumblingblock to
the Jewish interpreters. That the shadow should hereafter give way
to the substance, forms its contents, its high dignity ; the confound
ing of the shadow with the substance, the rigid adherence to the
former, is the characteristic of Judaism, which regards even the
Messiah only as a minister of the old economy, the changes to be
effected by him, as, in the main, only external. The embarrassment
hence arising, plainly appears in the following words of Abarbanel :
" Ecce hac promissio mala est et legem convellit. Ecquomodo igitur
in bonum scriptura ejus faciut meniionem ? " R. Arama says, in the
Comment, on the Pentat. fol. 101 of our prophecy : " D'tyiann h2 1313J
omnes interpretes sunt perplexi." The interpretations, whereby
they seek to escape from this embarrassment (see the collection of
them in Frischmuth, Dj'sseri. on the passage, Jena, reprinted in the
Thes. Ant.), are only suited to render it plainly manifest Kimchi
thus explains : " Etiamsi futurum est, ut crescatis et multiplicemini
in terru, gentes tamen vobis non invidebunt, nee bellum vobis inferent,
neque necesse vobis erit cum urea fcederis in bellum egredi, quemad
modum olim fieri solebut, ubi urcum educebant in bellum. Sed illo
tempore hac minime opus habebunt, cum eis bellum sit futurum
nullum." The unsoundness of this interpretation is at once obvious ;
what is said in an entirely general manner of the ark of the cove
nant, is referred to an altogether special use of it, the regard to
which, by the prophet, is excluded by the obvious antithesis in v. 17.
Abarbanel rejects this interpretation : " In textu enim nulla fit belli
mentio ; gt ideo hac expositie mihi non probutur, etiamsi Jonuthun
quoque eo inclinet." He thus gives the sense himself : " True, the
ark of the covenant will even then exist, and be the seat of the Lord,
but no longer the only one, the sole sanctuary." " Tola Hierosoly-
mu tunc urcum rutione sanctitatis et gloria aquubit. — Ecce enim
cessubit ub eis figmentum malum, et tanta erit sunctitas in terru, ut,
quemudmodum olim omnium rerum sanctissima area erat, itu id tem
poris Hierosolyma sit futura thronus dei." The text, however,
cannot be satisfied by this. That it speaks of an entire absence of
the ark of the covenant, and not, perhaps, of a mere diminution of
its dignity, resulting from the exaltation of that which was inferior

390 JEREMIAH.
before, clearly appears, especially from " it will not be missed, and
not be made again." But besides, this interpretation by no means
accomplishes the purpose for which it was brought forward. The
essence of the ark of the covenant, is, indeed, destroyed, as soo < as
it is placed on an equal footing with any thing else. It is then no
longer the throne of the Lord, and for this very reason the previous
form can no longer subsist, and, at the same time also, must the
temple and the priesthood fall with it Is every place in Jerusalem,
every inhabitant of it, equally holy, how then can institutions still
continue, which rest on the contrast between what is holy and un
holy ? — The question still arises, in what relation to our prophecy
does the absence of the ark of the covenant under the second tem
ple stand, whose restitution the Jews expected in the end of the
days ? That it has actually disappeared, there can be no doubt.
Every proof of its existence is wanting. Josephus does not mention
it in the catalogue of the spolia Juduicu borne before in the triumph ;
he says expressly, that the holy of holies had become entirely empty,
De B. Jud. V. 5, § 5. The Jewish writers assert, partly, that it was
carried to Babylon, partly, — thus the most, after the example of the
second book of the Maccabees, • — that Josiah, or Jeremiah, concealed
it, comp. the article by Calmet, Th. 6, p. 224 - 258, Mosh. As to
the question concerning the wherefore, other analogous phenomena,
the loss of the Urim and Thummim, and the cessation of the pro
phetic order, soon after the return from the exile, must not be over
looked. Every thing should make the people sensible, that their
condition was only provisional ; the Theocracy, under its former
glory, must sink down, in order that the future, and infinitely sur
passing, may the more be desired. After this determination of the
wherefore, it is now easy to determine the relation of the absence of
the ark of the covenant to our prophecy. It was the beginning of
its fulfilment. In the kingdom of God, there is no decay without a
renewal. The extinction of the old, is a pledge that the new is soon
to be supplied. On the other side, the absence of the ark of the
covenant, was, indeed, also a matter-of-fact prophecy of a mournful
character. It announced to those who held fast to the form, without
having embraced the substance, and who, therefore, were not capa
ble of participating in its glorious developement, that the time Was
approaching, when the form to which they had fastened themselves,
with their whole existence, sbopld be broken. Had the one great
privilege of the covenant people, the 5o|« (Rom. 9 : 4), vanished,

THE PORTION CHAP. 3i 14-17. V. 17. 391
how should not that soon follow, which existed only on its account,
and without it had no significancy ? In this relation, the non
renewal of the ark of the covenant showed, that the Chaldean de
struction and the Roman belonged together, as beginning and com
pletion ; just as, in the other, that, with the return out of the exile, the
realization of God's great plan of salvation was already near at hand.
The emptiness iu the place where formerly the glory of God dwelt,
plainly predicted (since the most complete fugu vacui belongs to the
covenant God,) the future fulness. — Finally, it still remains for us to
determine the especial reference of the verse to Israel, which is
entirely left out of view by most interpreters, and very superficially
and erroneously explained by those, who, as Calvin, consider it. In
the preceding verse; the imparting anew of the blessings had been
promised to Israel, which he had lost by his separation from the stock
of David, and, indeed, with interest and increase. For David's line
should reach its completion in his righteous sprout This shepherd
in the fullest sense after the heart of God, which his ancestor had
been only imperfectly, should feed them with wisdom and insight.
Here, a compensation is promised for the s^econd, yet immensely
greater loss, which has been acknowledged as such, by the believers
in Israel at all times. The revelation of the Lord upon the ark of
the covenant was the magnet, which perpetually attracted them to
wards Jerusalem. Many sacrificed their whole earthly possessions,
and took up their residence in Judea, others travelled out of their
natural home to their spiritual, to the " throne of the glory exalted
from the beginning," Jer. 17 : 12. In vain was all that the kings of
Israel did to stifle this inextinguishable longing. Every new event,
whereby "the glory of Israel" manifested itself as such, kindled its
ardor anew. But here also is the great blessing vvhich the believers
were deprived of with pain, and the unbelievers regarded with in
difference, restored to those who return, not in its former aspect, but
in glorious completion. The whole people have now received eyes,
and perceive the worth of the blessing in its previous form, and yet
this previous form is now regarded by them as nothing, because its
new and infinitely more glorious form occupies their attention.
V. 17. "At that time they will call Jerusalem the throne of the
Lord, und ull the heuthen gather themselves to her, because the name
of the Lord is at Jerusalem, and they will tvalk no more after the
lust of their evil heart." Many interpreters have here been led to
an entirely false view, by proceeding on the supposition, that the

392 JEREMIAH.
emphasis rests on Jerusalem. The ark of the covenant will then no
more be the throne of the Lord, but all Jerusalem, Thus, e. g.,
after the example of Jarchi and Abarbanel, Menasseh Ben Israel,
Conciliaior, p. 196 : " Si uttendamus, in tabernaculo aut templo
locum, in quo divinitus considebut, fuisse arcam (unde Ex. 15 : 22 :
Et loquar tecum a superiore parte operculi e medio Cherubinorum),
comperiemus, hie dicere dominum, antea quidem arcam receptaculum
divinitatis fuisse, at temporibus Messia non unum aliquem templi
locum fore divinitate repletum, sed hanc gloriam toti nrbi Hieros.
datum iri, ut quicunque in ea sint, propheticum spiritum habeunt."
Had the prophet wished to express this sense, the whole could not
have been omitted ; throne of the Lord, Jerusalem had indeed
been before, inasmuch as she possessed the ark of the covenant in
the midst of her, and was, therefore, the residence of Jehovah, the
city of the great king, Ps. 48 : 3 ; the parallel, " because the name
of the Lord is at Jerusalem," shows that Jerusalem is named the
throne of the Lord, because, as formerly, the ark of the covenant, so
now the true throne of the Lord, is found in her ; the antithesis with
what precedes, leads us to expect a climax, not of quantity, but
of quality. The emphasis rests rather upon the "throne of the
Lord." This receives from the antithesis the nearer determination,
" the true throne of the Lord." In the same way. Is. 66 : 1, against
those who boasted that over the cherubim was God's throne, and the
ark of the covenant his footstool, it is said, " The heaven is my (true)
throne and the earth my (true) footstool," comp. the passages, accord
ing to which the ark of the covenant was designated as the foot
stool, and so the place over the cherubs of the ark of the covenant
as the throne, of the Lord ; comp. still, Is. 60 : 13, Ezek. 1 : 26. —
The highest prerogative of the covenant people, their highest advan
tage over the world, is, to have God among themselves, and this they
shaft now experience in the fullest manner, so that the idea and the
reality shall coincide. In substance, completely parallel are passages,
as Ezek. 43, where the Shechinah, which disappeared at the destruc
tion, returns to the new temple, to the kingdom of God in its new
and more glorious form, v, 2, " And, behold, the glory of the God
of Israel came from the east, and its voice was as the voice of great
waters, and the earth was lighted by its glory." V. 7, " And he
said to me. Thou, Son of man, behold there the place of my throne,
and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell among the
children of Israel for ever, and the house of Israel will no more

THE PORTION CHAP. 3: 14-17. V, 17, 893
profane my holy name." Zech. 2 : 14 (Vol. II, p, 25), " Exult and
rejoice. Oh daughter of Zion, For behold, I come and dwell in the
midst of thee," with allusion to Exod. 29 : 45, " And I dwell among
the child.ren of Israel, and will be their God." The full realization
of this promise the prophet designates as reserved for the future;
This, however, could not be, had it not been already realized
throughout the whole, past, in the dwelling of God over the ark of
the covenant 8 :-3, "I return to Zion, and dwell in the midst of
Jerusalem,'' — If we inquire after the fulfilment, the Kal b Xbyo^
aag^ sysvsxo, xal iaxxjvaasv iv rjfilv, xal i&sciadps&a xfjv Sbiav avxovi
SbSav dg fiovoysvovg ,nagd naxgbg, John 1 : 14, immediately occurs to
ns, and the more so, as the former dwelling of God in the temple is
here plainly alluded to, and the incarnation of the ^o^o? is regarded
as its highest realization. From the personal appearing of God in
Christ, in whom the fulness of the Godhead bodily, aafiaxixdg, dwelt,
his dwelling among his people by the nvsvfia Xgiaxoi, must not,
indeed, be separated, which relates to the former, as the brook to the
fountain; it is the stream of living water, which flows out of the
body of Christ Both together constitute the true tabernacle of God
with men, the new and real ark of the covenant ; for the old is axia
xdv fisXXbvxav, to. Ss adfia Xgtaxovy Col. 2 : 17, comp. Apoc. 21 : 22:
Kal vabv ovx siSov iv avx^ ' o ydg xvgiog, o Ssbg o navxoxgdxag vabg
avxrjg iaxi, xal xb dgviov. 11 : 19 : Kal rfVolyij o vabg xov &so\i iv xa
ovgava, xal dcp&r] fj xi^axbg xijg Sia&rjxrjg iv xi^ vad avxov. The typi
cal import of the ark of the covenant is expressly asserted, Heb.
9 : 4, 5, and to what it referred is indicated, chap. 4 ; 16 : Hgoasgxd-'
psd-a fisxd naggrjalag xd &gbva x^? ;(faptTo?, where Christ is designated
as the true mercy-seat, as the true ark of the covenant. As God
was formerly found of those among his people who sought him only
over the ark of the covenant, so have we now,, through Christ, joy-
fulness and access in all confidence to God, Eph. 3 : 12, and only in
his name, presented in living union with him, are our prayers accep
table, John 16 : 23. — The consequence of this highest realization of
the idea of the Theocracy, and at the same time a sign that it has
been attained, a measure for tbe blessings which Israel has to expect
from his reunion with the Church of the Lord, is the gathering of
the heathen to it, as had been the case already by way of type and
prelude, at the inferior manifestations of the presence of God among
his people, comp., e. g.. Josh; 9 : 9, "And they (the Gibeonites)
said to him. Thy servants come out of a distant land, on account of
VOL. III. 50

394 JEREMIAH.
the name D^h Jehovah, thy God ; for we have heard his fame, and
all that he did in Egypt, and all that he did to. the two kings of the
Amorites, &c." In an entirely similar manner also, in Zech. 2 : 15,
with the dwelling of the Lord in Jerusalem is joined, " And many
heathen join themselves to the Lord in that day, and they shall be to
me for a people, and I will dwell in the midst of them." The DB''^
DiSe'IT'S nin; is verbally to be translated, "on .account of the name
of the Lord of Jerusalem (belonging)," for, "because the name of the
Lord belongs to Jerusalem, is native there." The name of the Lord
is the Lord himself so far as he makes known his invisible being,
manifests himself The name is the bridge between existing and
being known. A God without a name =: .d-sbg dyvaaxog, Acts 17 :
23. There is an allusion to Deut, 12 : 5, " But the place which
the Lord your God will choose out of all your tribes, that he muy
place his name there, to inhabit it, that shall ye seek, and thither
shall ye come." Formerly, since God placed his name only in an
incomplete manner, only Israel assembled themselves, but now all
the heathen. — The last words : "and they will not walk any more,"
&c., are not to be referred to the heathen, but to the Israelites, or
even to the collective inhabitants of Jerusalem, the collective mem
bers of the Theocracy, including the Israelites. This appears from
the comparison of the ground passage of the Pentateuch, as well as
the parallel passages of Jeremiah, Everywhere, where the Scheri-
rut occurs, the discourse is of the covenant people ; everywhere,
the walking according to the Scherirut of the heart, stands opposed
to that, according to the revealed law of Jehovah, which only Israel
posse,ssed. We may say, in a certain sense, that the jS rnT''iK' is
dnai Xsybfisvov. It occurs independently only in a single passage,
Deut. 29 : 18 ; in the rest, eight times in Jeremiah, and besides, in
Ps, 81 : 13, it is plainly derived, not from the living language, from
which it had disappeared, but from the written. This will appear
probable beforehand, if we consider, that Jeremiah, among all the
books of the Pentateuch, has Deuteronomy most in view, and among
aU its chapters, none more than the 29th, and that Ps. 81 is inter
woven throughout with verbal allusions to the Pentateuch. But it is
placed beyond all doubt, by the closer comparison of the passage of
Deuteronomy with the parallel passages. We must begin with Jer.
23 : 17, where the verbal agreement is the most manifest ; and then
the derivation in the other passages also (7:24, 9:13, 11:8,
16 : 12, 18 : 12, and here) will be perceived. From the comparison

CHAP, 23 : 1 - 8. 395
of the ground passage, it appears, that here the eternal duration of
the blessing again obtained is promised, and the thought of the
possible recurrence of the former fall from grace, obviated. Of him,
who walks according to the Scherirut of his heart, it is said, Deut
V, 19, "The Lord will not forgive him; for then will the anger of
the Lord, and his jealousy, smoke against that man, and there rests
upon him all the curse which is written in this book, and the Lord
blots out his name under heaven," — The import of nnn.t?, cannot,
with certainty, be accurately determined. So much seems to be cer
tain, that it cannot be explained either with Jerome, from a com
parison of the Arabic, by wickedness, nor with others by obduracy ;
that rather the expression aS niT'lff is of itself indifferent, and
acquires a bad meaning, only by the evil nature of the subject, the
human heart. This appears from the standing connexion of the
Scherirut of the heart with the in like manner in themselves indif
ferent designs (Jer. 7 : 24, " But they hearken not, and incline not
their ear, and walk in their designs, in the Scherirut of their evil
heart. 18: 12, Ps. 81 : 13), from the frequent addition of "the
evil," to "their heart" (7 : 24, 11 : 8, 16 : 12, 18 : 12, and here),
and finally, from the parallel passage. Num. 15 : 39, " And ye re
member all the commands of the Lord, and keep them, and ye shall
no more search after your hearts, and your eyes, after which ye go a
whoring." Most probably aS niT'ltt' is to be taken, as about synon
ymous with aS IS''., the imagination of the heart, — properly the
firmness, or the foundation of the heart, which sense has also in its
favor the analogy of the masc. Job 40 : 11.

Chap. 23 : 1-8.

These verses form only a part of a greater whole, to which, besides
the whole 22d chapter, chap. 23 : 9 - 40, also belongs. For the
prophecy contained in these verses against the false prophets, and
incidentally also against the degenerate priesthood, comp. v. 11, is
plainly combined with the preceding against the kings, so as to make
one prophecy against the corrupt leaders of the Theocracy. For the
interpretation of our verses, however, only the connexion with chap.
22 is of importance, and, indeed, so much so, that without an

396 JEREMIAH,
accurate consideration of it, they cannot be thoroughly understood.
We therefore here confine ourselves to the explanation of this point.
The prophet threatens and warns the kings of Judah, first, in
general, announcing the judgments of the Lord upon them and their
people, the fulfilment of the threatenings, Deut, 29 : 23 sq., should
they continue in their hitherto ungodly course, 22 : 1-9. He then,
in order to make a stronger impression, exemplifies the general
threatening, shows how God's avenging justice would manifest itself
in the lot of the individual apostate kings. First, Jehoahaz, the son
and immediate successor of Josiah, whom Pharaoh-Necho dethroned,
and carried with him to Egypt, v. 10 - 12. The declaration con
cerning him, forms a commentary on the name Shallum, the recom
pensed, he whom the Lord recompenses according to his deeds,
which the prophet gives to him instead of his proper name, Jehoahaz.
Happy, in comparison with him, is his father Josiah, who found his
death in the fight against the Egyptians. For he never more returns
to his home, he lives and dies in a foreign land. Then Jehoiakim,
v. 13 - 19. He is a despot, who does all in his power to destroy the
people intrusted to him. Therefore, the grossest contrast will ensue
between his splendid name and his miserable lot. The Lord, far
from raising him up, will east him down into the lowest depth. Not
even an honorable burial is given to him. Unwept, unlamented, like
a trodden-down carcass, he lies without the gate of Jerusalem, the
city of the great King, which he wished to wrest from him, and to
make his own possession. Then there is a digression, v, 20 - 23,
The apostate Judah is addressed. The judgment upon her kings is
not foreign to herself any more than their guilt belongs to them as
individuals only. It is, at the same time, a judgment upon the
people, who sink down from the height on which the mercy of the
Lord had placed them, in consequence of his anger, which they have
provoked by their wickedness. Then Jehoiachin, v. 24 - 30. In
his name " the Lord will establish." The xoill is too much. The
Lord will reject, and cast him away as a worthless vessel. With his
mother, he will be carried away out of his sweet native land, and
there die. Irrevocable is the decree of the Lord, that no one of his
sons will ascend the throne of David, so that he vvho has begotten
sons in vain, is to be esteemed as one who is childless.
At the beginning of our portion (v. 1 and 2), the substance of
chap. 22 is embraced in one sentence : " Woe to the shepherds who
ruin and scatter the flock of the Lord ! Woe, therefore, to ihese

CHAP. 23: 1-8. 397
shepherds who have done thus!" With this is connected, in v.
3-8, the prediction of prosperity for the poor scattered flock. For
the same reason, why the Lord visits on those who have hitherto
been their shepherds the wickedness of their doings, viz. because
he is the Chief Shepherd, or on account of his covenant faithfulness,
he will also receive them in love, collect them out of their dispersion,
instead of the evil shepherds, give them a good one, David's long-
promised and desired great descendant, who, as a righteous king,
will diffuse justice and righteousness in the land, and therefore pro
cure for it righteousness and prossperity from the Lord. So great
will the mercy of the future be, that it will totally obscure the great
est mercy of the past, the deliverance out of Egypt.
That the whole prophecy belongs to the reign of Jehoiakim, can
not be doubted. Jehoiakim's end, Jehoiachin's fate, are predicted as
events of the future. Only in consequence of his false ground view
concerning the prophecies, as veiled descriptions of historical events,
could Eichhorn (Proph. I, p, 201 ff.) assert the composition of the
portion under Zedekiah, He very characteristically remarks, " When
Jeremiah held this discourse, not only had Jehoiakim already found
his disgraceful end (22 : 19), but also Jeconias with his mother was
already carried away to Babylon." It is surprising, that Dahler,
without sharing in the ground view, could, nevertheless, incline to
its result. He appeals especially to the fact, that, v. 24, Jehoiachin
is addressed as king, on which Bertholdt also relies, when (p, 1426),
cutting in two the unsewed garment, he places v, 1-19 under
Jehoiakim, V. 20 — 23:8 in the time when Jehoiachin had been
carried to Babylon, But the weakness of this reason needs scarcely
to be shown. What difficulty is there in assuming, that the prophet
places himself in the time when the now crowiied prince was king,
and then the address is a simple result.
We have here still to make an investigation concerning the names
of the three kings, occurring in chap. 22, the result of which is im
portant to us in the interpretation of v, 5, — It must appear singular,
that the same king, who, in the books of Kings is named Jehoahaz,
is here called only Shallum ; the same who is there Jehoiachin, is here
Jeconias, and briefly Conias, The usual supposition, that the two
kings had each two names, is unsatisfactory, because the names
employed by Jeremiah too plainly appear, by the connexion in which
they stand, as nomina realia, which should remove the antithesis
between name and thing, and therefore plainly are of a like natUre

398 JEREMIAH.
with the expressive name of the Good Shepherd, chap. 23 : 6, which,
with entirely the same right, could be changed into a nomen propri
um, in the proper sense, as has been actually done by the Seventy.
The numerous passages in the prophets, where the name occurs as an
expression of the being, e. g., Is. 9:5, 62 : 4, Jer. 33 : 16, Ezek.
48 : 35, clearly show, that a name, which has only prophetic au
thority (and such alone is found here, although the name Shallum
occurs also 1 Chron. 3 : 15, — in the historical representation itself,
on the contrary, Jehoahuz, as in the books of kings, 2 Chron. 36 : 1,
— the name Jeconias also in the same place, v. 16, and Esth. 2 : 7,
while, besides the author of the books of kings, Ezekiel also, 1 : 2,
has Jehoiachin. For those later writers might have drawn from
Jeremiah), cannot, at once, be regarded as a nom. prop. ; rather, in
all probability, it is not, and this probability becomes a certainty
when the name either alone, as Shallum, or first, as Jeconias, —
which also, 24 : 1, 27 : 20, occurs again, the abbreviated Coniah,
37 : 1, while, which is well to be observed in the historical represen
tation, chap. 52 : 31, it is Jehoiachin, — occurs in a connexion, like
that in the passage before us, especially when the phenomenon is
found in a prophet, in whom, as is the case with Jeremiah (comp.
Vol. II. p. 74), elsewhere also manifold traces of sacred wit, and
even of verbal wit, can be pointed out. The pious Josiah had
given his sons names prophetic of prosperity, with reference to the
calamity with which Judah was more and more threatened. They
should, according to his wish, be so many actual prophecies, and
would have proved themselves to be such, if those who bore them
had not rendered them void by their apostasy from the Lord, and
occasioned the most striking contrast between the idea and the
reality. This was first done by Jehoahaz. He, whom the Lord
should hold, was carried by violence to Egypt. The prophet, there
fore, names him Shallum, the recompensed, — not as Hiller, p. 24,
and Simonis, p. 267, retributio, comp. Ew. p. 240 ; the same, who,
1 Chron. 5 : 38, is called Shallum, is called, 1 Chron. 9:11, Me-
shallum, — he, on whom the Lord visits the wickedness of his
actions. — As to the names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, in the first
place, their relation must be considered to the promise to David.
It is there said, 2 Sam. 7 : 12, "And I set up ('rib'pni) thy seed
after thee, who shaft come forth out of thy loins, and I establish
('DJ'^ull) his kingdom." This passage plainly contains the ground
of both names, and this is the more easily explained, since they both

CHAP. 23: 1-8. 399
have one author, Jehoiakim, His former name, Eliakim, had prob
ably been given to him by his father Josiah, in reference to the
promise. When, however, Pharaoh desired him to change his name,
— such an incentive to a purpose, vvhich was afterwards approved
by Pharaoh, is, as the name itself shows, to be supplied, 2 Kings
23 : 31, — he determined this change, so that he might place it in
still closer connexion with the promise, in which, not El, but Jeho
vah, is expressly mentioned as the promisor, as, indeed, the thing
proceeded from Jehovah, the God of Israel. As, from the whole char
acter of Jehoiakim, we cannot suppose that the twofold paining
proceeded from true piety, nothing is more natural, than to attribute
it to opposition to the prophets. The central point of their annun
ciation, was the impending calamity from the north, the decline of
the family of David ; the promise to David, should, indeed, be ful
filled, but not till after a previous deep degradation, in the Messiah.
Jehoiakim, reviling these threatenings, vvill transfer the prosperity
out of the future into the present In his name, and in that of his
son, he presented a standing protest against the prophetic prediction,
and this must call forth a counter protest, which we find expressed in
our prophecy. The prophet first overthrows the false interpretation,
Jehoiakim is not Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin is not Jehoiachin,
chap. 22, and then he restores the right interpretation, the true Je
hoiakim is, and remains, the Messiah, chap. 23 : 5. With respect to
the former, he satisfies himself with regard to Jehoiakim with the
actual antithesis, and neglects to substitute a truly significant name
for the one assumed, which may most easily be explained by sup
posing, that he holds it as unsuitable to exercise any kind of wit,
even that which is sacred, on the then reigning king. It was other
wise, however, in respect to Jehoiachin. The first change of the
name into Jeconias, had its aim not in itself; both names signify
entirely the same. It had respect only to the second change into
Coniah. The future precedes, in order that he might be able by the
removal of the ', to cut off hope, a Jeconias without J, a God will
establish without will. In reference to these names, Grotius antici
pated the truth, yet erred in the nearer determination, because he
did not perceive the whole connexion of the subject, so that, accord
ing to him, it amounts to a mere play upon words : " Aufertur Jed,
quod initium facit nominis, ut significetur eventura ipsi capitis
diminutio; additur ad finem Vav, ut contemtus notu, q. d. Coniah
ille." Lightfoot came nearer the truth ; yet he could gain for it no

400 JEREMIAH.
success (comp. against him Hiller and Simonis, who consider his
view as scarcely worth refuting), because he did not embrace it on
all sides. He remarks (Htirni. p. 275) : " Demta prima nominis
syllaba, subiiinuit deus, se nolle deinceps regnum utque imperundi
dignitutem Salomonis prosapia centinuata seriejtabilire, uti videtur
Jehoiakimus sibi spopondisse, cum ejusmodi nomen indiderit filio."
Comp. besides these two, still Alting, De Kabbala Sacra, § 73.
Finally, we yet refer to chap. 20 ; 3. Who could infer from this
passage, that Paschhur had been called also, by way of permutation,
Magor Misabib ?

V. 1. " Woe to the shepherds, who destroy and scatter my pasture
flock, saith the Lord." Well to be observed is D'';?1 without the
article here, with it in v. 2. Ven. ; " Generale va pasioribus malis
pramittitur, quod mox ad pustores Juda applicutur. — Cum va Je
hova in omnes pustores improbos denuntiatum sit, propterea vos
mali pustores etc." By the shepherds, several interpreters would
understand only the false prophets and priests ; others, those at least
after the kings. This interpretation has had the most unfavorable
influence on the understanding of the following Messianic prediction.
It has caused entirely foreign traits to be introduced into it; only
when it is perceived, that the bad shepherds are exclusively the
kings, does it appear, that, in the description of the Good Shepherd,
only that is suitable, vvhich concerns him as a king. But the very
circumstance, that in this, according to a correct interpretation, only
such is found, is a sufficient proof that, by the wicked shepherds,
only the kings can be intended ; all doubt, however, vanishes, when
the close connexion of our verse with chap. 22, is considered. That
by the shepherds usually, only the rulers are designated, we saw
already, on chap. 3 : 15, comp. still 25 : 34 — 36, and the imitation,
and first interpretation of our passage, in Ezek. 34. That this
usage has for its foundation a typical understanding of the former
relations of David, appears from Ps. 78: 70, 71, "He chose David
his servant, and took him from the sheep-folds, from following the
ewes great with young, he brought him to feed Jacob his people,
and Israel his inheritance," comp. Ezpk. 34 : 23, 24, " And I raise
up for them one shepherd, and he feeds them, my servant David, he

CHAP. 23: 1-8. V. 1. 401
will feed them, and he will be their shepherd." — What is to be
understood by destroying and scattering, must be determined, partly
out of the foregoing chap, v, 3 and v, 13 sq., partly here out of v. 3.
The former passages show, that the violent acts of the kings, their
oppressions and extortions, belong here (comp. Ezek. 34 : 2, 3,
" Woe to the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves. Should not
the shepherds feed the flocks ? The fat ye eat, and with the wool
ye clothe yourselves, the fattened ye slay, &,c., and vvith severity ye
rule over them, and with violence "). The latter shows, that chiefly
the heaviest guilt of the kings comes under consideration, all that,
whereby they became the occasion of the carrying away of the peo
ple into exile, besides their foolish political plans, resting on ungod
liness, comp. 10:21; the negative (Ven.: "Quorum etium erat
curare, ut veru religie, pabulum populi spirituale, rede et rite exerce-
retur") and the positive promotion of impiety, and the consequent
immorality, whereby the Divine judgments were powerfully called
forth. The contrast of the idea and the reality (Calvin : " Hac inter
se contraria sunt, pastorem esse et perditorem") contains the ground
of the woe, further strengthened by the prominence give« to the fact,
that the flock vvhich they destroy and scatter is God's flock (Calvin :
" Deus significat, illatam sibi esse atrecem injuiiam, cum ita in
digne dissipatus fuit populus). The 'O^J^IQ [NS cannot be explained
by "the flock of my feeding," i. q. "which I feed." For n'^nn,
where it occurs alone, never has the sense usually attributed to it
by the lexicographers, jiasij'o, pastus, but always rather that of pas-
cuum, comp. 10 : 21, 25 : 36, Is. 49 : 9, Hos. 13 : 6. This sense,
agreeing very well with the form, must, therefore, be retained, even
where the word occurs in connexion with JXS, as a designation of
Israel in relation to God. Ps. 74:1, 79:13, 100:3, 95:7.
n'yin ]XS is to be regarded as nem. compos., pasture flock, = u flock
at pasture, and the suff. belongs to the whole. ri''j;"iD is not to be
regarded as an idle addition. Only when the flock is upon the pas
ture, can the virtues and the faults of the shepherds plainly show
themselves. — It is remarkable, that the discourse here is only of the
guilt of the rulers, and not of that of the people, while yet every
deeper consideration of the subject shows the two to be inseparable,
evil rulers, as arising from the condition of the people, and at the
same time as a punishment sent from God, of their ungodliness.
The case, however, is easily explained, as soon as we only consider,
that the prophet here had to do merely with the kings, not with the
VOL. III. 51

402 JEREMIAH.
people. That their wickedness stood in a natural connexion with
that of the people, was not sufficient to exculpate thcin. For that
this natural connexion was not a necessary one, appears from the
example of a Josiah, by whom, through the grace of God, it was
broken through. Just as little were they justified by the fact, that
they were rods of correction in the hand of God, to which the
prophet himself refers, when he substitutes, for the "ye have driven
away," in v. 2, the " / have driven away," in v. 3. They had only
to look to their caU and their duty. The execution of the purposes
of God belong to him alone. From what has been said, it is evi
dent, that my "pasture flock" would be entirely misunderstood, if
we should infer from it an antithesis of the innocent people, and the
guilty kings. Calvin : " In summu, cum deus Judaos nominut gre
gem pascuorum suorum, tion respicit, quid meriti sint, vel quales sint,
sed potius commendat gratiam suam, qua semen Abraha dignatus
fuerat." The moral condition of the people does not extend to the
kings ; they have only to look at God's covenant with the people,
which is for themselves a source of obligation, so much the greater
than that of l^athen kings, as Jehovah is more glorious than Elohim.
The moral condition of the people, is, in a certain respect, not re
garded even by God. However bad it may be, he looks at his cove
nant, and even the outward dispersion of the flock, is, when more
deeply considered, a collecting of it.
V. 2. " Therefore, thus saith the Lord the God of Israel uguinst
the shepherds who feed my people. Ye have scattered my flock, and
driven them away, and ye have not visited them ; behold, I visit upon
you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord." In the designation of
God as " Jehovah God of Israel," that is already implied, which is
afterwards expressed. Because God is this, the crime of the kincs
is at the same time sacrilege. They have profaned God. That the
people were still a people of God, must, precisely here, be rendered
prominent. In another very important relation, they are called Lo
Ammi (Hos, 1 ; 9), but this belongs not here, Calvin: " Aliena-
verunl se illi a deo, et jam ipsos suo decreto abdicaverat : sed potuit
deus uno respectu censere ipsos extraneos, interea autem respectu
fcederis sui agnovit sues : et ideo vocut populum suum.'' The ex
pression " who feed my people," renders the idea more prominent
and emphatic, than the bare mention of the shepherds, and thus
serves to render the contrast vvith the reality, the more striking.
The "driving away," is designated by the fut. with vuv conv., as a

CHAP, 23: 1-8, V. 3. 403
consequence of the dispersion. The flock without a shepherd first
disperse, and then the individual sheep lose themselves in the wilder
ness. " Ye have not sought them," appears at first sight, as a
stronger complaint had already preceded, to be feeble. But what
they had done, first appears in all its odiousness, by considering
what they have not, but, according to their destination, should have
done. This reference to their office, gives the greatest sharpness to
the apparently mild reproof Just so in Ezek. 34 : 3, " The fat ye
eat, and with the wool ye clothe yourselves, the fattened ye slay, and
the sheep ye feed not" The visiting constitutes the general ground
of every individual act of the shepherds, so that on-)p3 «S includes
in itself all that which Ezekiel, in v. 4, particularizes: "The weak
ye strengthen not, and the sick ye heal not, and the wounded ye
bind not up, and the dispersed ye bring not back, and the perishing
ye seek not" — The expression, "the evil of your doings,'' refers
back to Deut. 28 : 20, " The Lord will send upon thee the curse, the
terror and the ruin, in all thy undertakings; until thou art destroyed,
and perish miserably, on account of the evil of thy doings, that thou
hast forsaken me." The faint allusion to a former fearful threaten
ing in that part of the Pentateuch which was the most known of all,
suffices to effect the completion of what is expressly uttered out of it.
Such an allusion to the passage in Deuteronomy is demonstrable,
wherever the combination D''77i!D jri, probably become obsolete in
later times, occurs, comp. 4 : 4, and 21 : 12, in.which two passages
also, t'ne 'J?:? is introduced. Is. 1 : 16, Ps.£8 : 4, Hos. 9 : 15.
V. 3. " And I will collect thg remnant of my flock out of all the
lands whither I have driven them, und I bring them back to their
folds, and they are fruitful, and increase." Comp. the parallel pas
sages, 29: 14, 31: 8, 10, Ezek. 11 : 17 sq., Mic. 2: 12, but es
pecially Ezek. 34 : 12, 13, " As a shepherd looks after his flock in
the day, when he is in the midst of his flock, which is scattered, so
will I look after my flock, and I deliver them out of al| the' places
whither they had been scattered in the cloudy and dark day. And
I bring them forth out of the nations, and gather them out of the
lands, and bring them into their land, and feed them upon the moun
tains of Israel, in the grounds, and in all the dwelling-places of the
land." A spiritless adhering to the letter has here also led several
interpreters to the supposition, that the prophet has in view merely
the literal return from the exile, perhaps also the blessings of the
times of the Maccabees. The opposite, — even aside from the fact,

404 JEREMIAH.
that then the fulfilment would little correspond with the promise ;
Canaan was for those who returned, too little Canaan, too little God's
land, to allow this return to be regarded as a realization of the
promise of God, — can be easily shown out of the context. Closely
connected with the collection and the bringing back, appears, in v. 4,
the raising up of the Good Shepherd ; and this promise, according to
V. 5, was to find, if not its sole fulfilment, still, in any event, its sub
stance and central point, in the raising up of David's righteous
sprout, — the Messiah. And that we can by no means here resort
to the supposition of the one after another, appears from the com
parison of V. 7, 8. The pS, with which these verses begin, referring
to the whole compass of the preceding promises, shows that we must
by no means separate from one another, the bringing back from ban
ishment and the raising up of the Messiah ; and the contents of
both verses lead to the same result. How could it well be said of
the literal bringing back from the exile, that it would far surpass the
former deliverance out of Egypt, and cause it to be forgotten ? The
correct view was seen by Calvin : " Non dubium est, quin propheta
initium faciat a libera populi reditu, sed non eM seyurundus Christus
ub hoc redemtionis beneficio ; alioqui non constaret nobis effecius
hujus prophetia." We justify this concurrent reference to Christ,
by the fact, that the ground of Canaan's worth to Israel did not lie
in its being his native land in the inferior sense, but in its being the
land of God, the place where his honor dwelt; hence it follows, that
the literal return was of ^alue to the covenant people, only so far as
God showed himself as God of the land, and therefore, because
before Christ this happened only in a very imperfect manner in com
parison with the idea, was of very inferior importance. And, in like
manner, it follows, that the bringing back and the collecting by
Christ, were comprehended under the promise. For where God is,
there also is Canaan. Whether it is the old stall or a new one is of
very little consequence, if only the Good Shepherd is among the
sheep. As a general rule, such external considerations lie without
the province of prophecy, which, aiming at the substance, in regard
to its form of manifestation, points simply to history. To what ridicu
lous notions this false cleaving to the letter leads, appears from such
remarks as those of Grotius on the second half of the following
verse : " Viveni securi sub prasidio poientissime regum Persarum."
Worldly protection and worldly oppression were for the covenant
people but little different. That, in general, heathen reigned over

CHAP. 23: 1-8. V. 4. 405
them, was their distress, and this distress must therefore remain
(comp. Neh. 9 : 36, 37), although, by God's favor, the true value of
which consisted only in its being a prophecy and pledge of a future
and greater, in the place of the former severe dominion, a mild one
had succeeded. — That only to the remnant the collection is prom
ised, comp. Is. iO : 22, Rom, 9 : 27, indicates that righteousness
goes by the side of compassion. Calvin: "Iterum confirmat, quod
dixi, nempe non ante fore misericordia locum, quam purgaverit eccle
siam suum tot et tam fcedis inquinamentis, quibus tum seatebat."
We must be very careful not to confound the scriptural hope of a
conversion of Israel in the main, in contrast with the small ixXoyfj at
the time of Christ and the apostles, with the hope of a general con
version in the strict sense. The latter, according to the relation
of God to the freedom of man's nature, is simply impossible; it leads,
by a necessary consequence, to the doctrine of a general bringing
lack. For it is established, that God wills, that all men should be
aided, and the ability in the case of all would necessarily follow, if
all the members of one people were actually converted. It has no
Scripture expression in its favor, except the ndg in Paul, which must
be explained by the antithesis with the small ixXoyfj ; but it has many
against it, viz. all the passages of the prophets, where salvation is
promised only to the remnant, the escaped of Israel : and, besides
the words of God, his deeds also, the great types of spiritual things,
in the deliverance out of Egypt, where only the remnant had reached
Canaan, while the bodies of thousands fell in the wilderness, in the
return from Babylon, where by far the greater number preferred the
temporal pleasures of sin to the enjoyment of the Lord in their
own land.
V. 4. " And I raise up ever them shepherds, und they feed them,
and they shall no mere fear, nor be terrified, neither be lost, saith the
Lord." Tbe reference here to 2 Sam. 7 : 12, and to the name of
Jehoiakim, vvhich still more distinctly appears in the following verse,
is manifest, comp. p. 398. This reference also shows, that the
prophecy was composed under Jehoiakim. It was, at that time,
easily understood by every one ; even the slightest allusion was suffi
cient. This reference shows further, that Venema, with several of
his predecessors, here erroneously thinks of his favorite Maccabees.
These are by no means alluded to, because they did not originate
from David. The prophet had plainly in view, along with the an
tithesis of the apostasy of the people, and God's covenant faithfulness,

406 JEREMIAH.
still another, that of the apostasy of David's family, and God's faith
fulness in the fulfilment of his promises made to David. The indi
vidual apostate members of this race, although, appropriating the
promise to themselves, they expected prosperity in its name, were
destroyed, but God's mercy cannot depart from the stock ; out of it,
because God is Jehovah, a true Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin must
arise. And thus it appears, that the Maccabees are as little referred
to here, as Ezra and Nehemiah, who were conjectured to be by Gro
tius. We might sooner think of Zerubbabel ; for his coming for
ward actually stood in a relation to the promise in David, although
only as a feeble type and prelude of the true fulfilment, like the as
sembling out of the Babylonish exile, in comparison with that to be
effected through Christ. If any one would argue from the plural,
still, the verse must in no case be separated from v. 5, '' First will I
raise up to you shepherds, then the Messiah." We must rather,
with C. B. Michaelis, subjoin, imprimis unum, Messiam. Progressive
degrees in the prosperity are found in no prediction of Jeremiah.
Everywhere the whole in its completion, the idea in its full compass,
lies before him. Where this is not perceived, the whole interpreta
tion must necessarily take a wrong course, vvhich is most clearly
seen in Venema. But there is no ground whatever to lay so much
stress on the plur. Every plur. can be employed for designating the
generic idea, Ewald, p. 639. And this was the more natural here,
since the bad genus, to which the good is opposed, consisted of a
series of individuals. To the evil pastoral care, the prophet now, for
the first time, here opposes the good ; then, in v. 5, he describes
more particularly the individual, vvhich should represent the genus,
who should completely realize the generic idea. This explanation
is confirmed by a comparison of the otherwise almost verbally coin
cident parallel passage, 33 : 15, where the discourse is only of one
descendant of David, the Messiah ; very naturally ; for there, the
antithesis with the bad shepherds, which here caused the genus to
be rendered prominent at the beginning, was wanting. In like
manner, by a comparison of the imitation in Ezekiel, chap. 34. In
him also only one good shepherd occurs, in antithesis with the evil
shepherds. — The expression, "and they feed themselves," stands in
antithesis whh " vvho feed my people," in v. 2. The former should
feed the flock, instead of which they feed themselves (comp. Ezek.
v. 2), the latter actually feed. The former are shepherds in name,
but in fact wolves, the latter are shepherds in name and reality.

CHAP. 23: 1-8. V. 5. 407
¦'jja is to be taken in the sense te miss, comp. on chap. 3 : 16.
There is an allusion to DDi:^3 X^ in v. 2. Because the evil shep
herd does not visit, the sheep are not sought, i, q. they are lost, but
now a grievous visitation is made by God for those vvho are not
sought (Q^'S]^. np3) ; the Good Shepherd visits, and so the sheep are
not sought. " They fear not, and are not terrified," is explained by
Ezek. v. 8, " For this reason ; that my sheep are for a prey, and for
a spoil to all the beasts of the field, because they have no shepherds,
and because my shepherds do not concern themselves about the
flock." V. 5. " Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and I raise up to
David u righteous sprout, and he reigns as a ki?ig, and acts wisely,
aud causes justice and righteousness in the land." The expressbn,
"Behold, days come," designates, according to the constant usage of
Jeremiah, not, indeed^ an advance in tlse time in relation to the fore
going, but awakens attention to the greatness of the act vvhich is to
be announced. There is, at the same time, an allusion to the con
trast between the hope and the appearance, by which the former by
no means seemed to be justified. May the present be ever so dis
couraging, still, the time comes ; although the heart plainly says no,
God's word must be more certain. Concerning the nn.V, comp. Vol.
U. p. 4. p''^S stands here in the same relation as Zech. 9:9,
in another than Is. 53: 11. There, where the servant of God is
described as a high priest and sin-offering, his righteousness occurs
as an essential condition of justification ; here, where he appears
solely as a king, as the cause of the diffusion of justice and righteous
ness in the land. To the antithesis with the former kings, Abar
banel directs attention : "Nun erit germen improbum, ceu Joiakim
et filius ejus, sed justum." Calvin also points to the " obliqua an
tithesis inter Christum et tot quasi adulterinus filios. Certe scimus
eum solum fuisse justum semen Duvidis, quia etsi Ezechias et Josias
fuerunt legitimi successores, si respicimus alios, fuerunt quasi mon-
stra. Certe prater ires vel quatuor omnes fuerunt degeneres et
fcedifragi." — The expression, " I raise up to David a righteous
sprout," is here, as in chap. 33 : 15, by no means, i. q. as a righteous
sprout of David. Rather, David is designated as the person to
whom the action of raising up belongs, on whose account it is per
formed. God had promised to him the eternal dominion of his
race. Although, therefore, tlie members of this race offend never
so much against God, although the people be never so unworthy to

408 JEREMIAH.
be ruled by a righteous sprout of David, yet must God, as' surely as
he is God, raise him up for David's sake. The word ^'7.9 is not to
be overlooked. It shows, that ^S?, which, standing alone, might
well designate another government than a regal, as, e. g., that of
Zerubbabel, must be taken in its full sense. And this nearer deter
mination was the more necessary, since the lowest humiliation of the
race of David, predicted by the prophet in chap. 22, comp. especially
V. 30, was drawing near, which seemed to blast every hope of its
rising to complete prosperity. As faith in this event, therefore, rested
solely on the word, this must be as definite as possible, so that no
one could pervert or misinterpret it Calvin : " Regnabit rex, h. e.
magnifice regnabit, ut non tantum appareant aliqua reliquia pris-
tina dignitatis, sed ut rex floreat et vigeut, et obtineut perfeclionem,
quulis fuit sub Davide et Salomone, ac multo prastantior." — In
reference to S';3tyci, it has already been shown, on chap. 3 : 15, that
it never means to be prosperous, but rather always to act wisely.
How the connexion here demands the latter signification, has been
shown by Calvin : " Videtur hic potius loqui proph. de redo judicio,
quam de felici successu, quia hac conjunetim legenda sunt, prudenfer
aget, deinde facii t judicium et justitiam. — Fore praditum tam
prudentia, quam rectitudinis et aquitatis spiritu, ut omnes numeros
boni ac perfeeti regis impleat." Still, Calvin has not exhausted the
argument derived from the connexion. The whole verse treats of
the gifts of the king ; all that follows of the prosperity that is to be
imparted by these gifts to the people. Besides, there is a manifest
antithesis with the folly of the former shepherds, owing to ungodli
ness, as it had been represented in the foregoing chapter as a ground
of their destruction, and that of the people, comp. 10:21, "The
people had become foolish, and they seek not the Lord, therefore
they act unwisely, and their whole flock is scattered," But if the
sense to act wisely, is established here, so is it also in those passages
where Vj^'H occurs of David, comp, on chap. 3, For that the
prophet had these passages in view, that, according to him, David's
reign should revive in a more illustrious form in his righteous sprout,
is evident from the fact, that the remainder also has for its founda
tion the description of David's reign in the books of Samuel.
Thus : " And he reigns as a king, — and causes justice and righ
teousness in the laud," refers back to 2 Sam. 8 : 15, " And David
reigned over all Israel, and David provided justice and righteousness
for his whole people." The groundwork of the commencement of

CHAP. 23: 1-8, V. 5. 409
V. 6, is formed by v. 14 (comp. v. 6) in the same place : " And the
Lord gave prosperity (;/B'l''i) to David in all his ways." But if
l^yfn, where it occurs of David, is thus to be taken, the Seventy
also. Is. 52 : 13, are right in their translation avv-^ast, for there, as
here, regard is had to David as a type of the Messiah  The
phrase np^-jy-i as^p rtm^l is commonly translated by De Wette, " to
practise justice and righteousness." But that this interpretation is
false, appears from the fact, that, on Ps, 146 : 7, he felt compelled to
relinquish it riK'.i? is rather to be explained by to provide, to cause.
OSfi? and npny are, indeed, to be distinguished, but not in the
arbitrary manner of Schindler and Dassov [Diss, in loco,, Witt.
1674), who assert, that DSK'D stands de sontium coercitione, npns de
justorum defensione. BSK'p is here, as always, the objective right,
npT.X the subjective righteousness. The providing of the right is
the means whereby righteousness is provided. The forced dominion
of justice is necessarily followed by the voluntary, as God's judg
ments, whereby he sanctifies himself upon men, are at the same tinie
the means whereby he sanctifies himself in them. The high calling
of the king, to provide justice and righteousness, rests on his dignity
as a bearer of God's image, comp. Ps. 103 : 6, " The Lord provides
righteousness (properly righteousness, i. q. everywhere righteous
ness) and justice to all that are oppressed," Ps. 146 : 7. Chap.
9 : 23, "For I, the Lord, create love, justice, and righteousness in
the land." To be compared, finally, is chap, 22:15, vyhere it is
said of Josiah, the true descendant of David, " He created justice
and righteousness," and chap, 22 : 3, where his spurious descendant
is admonished : " Create justice and righteousness, and deliver the
oppressed out of the hand of the oppressor ; and the stranger, the
orphan, and the widow, oppress not, do not injustice, and shed not
innocent blood in this place." To be observed still is the order:
" the king is righteous, his righteousness extends from him to his
subjects ; " now follow the salvation and righteousness of the Lord.
With interpretations like that of Grotius, who, by the righteous
sprout, understands Zerubbabel, we need here the less delay, since
we have already sufficiently examined them on the parallel passages,
and since their obvious erroneousness appears from the circumstance,
that he is without a predecessor, and a respectable follower. Indeed,
if we could rely on the declaration of Theodoret (Tavxa ol ifi^gbv-
xrjTOi 'lovSaioi slg Tbv Zogo^d^sX sXxsiv dvaiSdg inixslgovaiv, then the
refutation), the older Jews would have broken the way to this
VOL. III. 52

410 JEREMIAH.
perversion. But we have already frequently seen, that we cannot
confidently rely upon such assertions of Theodoret. And in the
Jewish writings themselves, there is no trace of such an interpreta
tion. The Chaldee is decided in favor of the reference to the
Messiah, NpnxT n'iJ'n TnS D'psi " ids |nx x'dv sn (not N'pnifn,
justorum, as several absurdly read ; comp. 33 :,15, "Ecce dies veni^'
unt et suscitabo Davidi Messiam justum." Eusebius, comp. Le
Moyne, De Jehovah Justitia Nostra, p. 23), and refutes, indeed,
that to Joshua, the son of Jehosedeck. But we cannot thence infer,
that this interpretation found defenders in his time. He designs only
to guard against the false understanding of the 'laatSix of the fore
going verse in the Alex, Version (KuItovxo xb bvofia avxov, o xaXiasi,
avxbv xvgiog, 'laasSsx). That the translators themselves proceeded
on this false understanding is not to be supposed. Jehosedeck is,
indeed, the father of Joshua, the high priest, and an entirely undis
tinguished person. Certainly they only designed, by retaining the
Hebrew form, to express that here a nom. propr. occurred, to which
they were led, especially by the circumstance, that, in their time,
this name was generally current, as one of the proper names of the
Messiah. V. 6. "In his days will Judah be provided with salvation, and
Isruel dwell securely, und this is the name lohich shull be given to
him. The Lord our righteousness." How the first words refer back
to Davidhas been already shown. What Jeremiah here says in
several words, is more briefly expressed by Zechariah, when he
calls the sprout of David, ;'B'U1 p''^S, " righteous, and protected by
God," comp. Vol, II. p. 90. The correctness of the interpretation of
JJB'lJ there given, is placed beyond all doubt by the comparison of
this ground passage. That their prosperity, the inseparable com
panion of righteousness, is attributed to the king, its possessor, and
here to the people, makes, indeed, no difference. For there also is
the prosperity attributed to the king, who comes for Zion, for the
benefit of his subjects, as he is also righteous for Ziou's sake. —
Israel is here to be taken in a narrower sense, or in the widest ;
either the ten tribes alone, or these loith Judah. The participation
of the ten tribes in the prosperity of the future is a favorite thought
of Jeremiah, which returns in all his Messianic prophecies. He has
a true tenderness for Israel ; his bowels resound, when he thinks of
his long forsaken and rejected people. The liveliness of his hope
for Israel, is a great testimony for the liveliness of his faith. For,

CHAP. 23: 1-8. V. 6. 411
in respect to Israel, in what appeared, there was still less ground for
hope than in the case of Judah. There is an allusion to Deut.
33 : 28 (And he drives out from thee thy enemy, and says, Destroy),
"And Israel dwells securely, non '^S'lif: PT--> alone, Jacob looks
upon a land of corn and must, and his heaven drops down dew."
This allusion can the less be questioned, since, besides Deuteronomy
and here, the phrase occurs only 33 : 16, since a reference to the
majestic close of the blessing of Moses, which was certainly in the
heart and mouth of all the pious, was peculiarly natural, and since
also y^^n has there its analogy in v. 29, " Prosperity to thee, O Is
rael, who is like thee, a people prospered, i>^^\ by the Lord, thy
blessing-shield, thy proud sword, and thine enemies flatter thee, and
thou treadest upon their high places.'' This glorious destination of
the covenant people, hitherto only very incompletely realized, but the
most manifest under David (comp. 2 Sam. 8 : 6, 14), should become
so apparent under the reign of the Messiah, that idea and reality
would entirely coincide. The covenant people should appear in their
whole dignity. — In the second half of the verse, the reading must
first be established. For i'-Op', standing in the text the 3 sing.
with the suff., several manuscripts (comp. De Rossi) have the
3 plur. 5N"3P'.. The latter reading is declared by several polemics,
as Raim. Martini, p. 517, and Galatinus, 3. 9, p. 126 (" Judai nostri
temporis aiunt Jeremium hic non vocubunt, ui nos habemus, sed voca-
bit dixisse. Quare sensum verborum hunc esse asserunt : hoc est
7iomen ejus, qui vocabit eum: scil Messiam, deus Justus nosier") as
unconditionally correct, who assert, that the other has originated
from intentional Jewish corruption, from the effort to set aside the
disagreeable doctrine of the Deity of the Messiah. This allegation,
however, is certainly unfounded. It is true, that some Jewish inter
preters use the reading ixip' for the alleged purpose; thus, R. Saadias
Haggaon, in Abenezra, and Manasseh Ben Israel, who explain,
" And this is the name which the Lord will name him, Our Righ
teousness." But it does not follow from this, that they invented the
reading ; they might have connected their perversion with the reading
that already existed ; and that this was actually the case, appears
from the fact, that by far the greater portion of the Jewish interpre
ters and polemics reject this perversion, as inconsistent with the
accents (comp, particularly Abenezra and Norzi, in loco), and ac
knowledge Jehovah Zidkenu, as a name of the Messiah. The read
ing iSIp', is decidedly to be rejected, even because it has by far the

412 JEREMIAH.
least external authority in its favor. It is true, that its defenders
(comp. especially Schulze, Vollst. Critik der gewohnl. Bibelausga-
ben, p. 321) have sought to supply what was deficient in manuscript
authority, by an appeal to the ancient translators, who are supposed
to have employed it with the single exception of the Seventy. But
this supposition is entirely groundless. The vocubunt eum of Jona
than and the Vulgate is the correct translation of iN'?p'., one culls him.
Jerome, when he remarks in opposition to the Seventy, according to
the Hebrew it means nomen ejus vocubunt, does not contend against
their use of the singular in itself considered, but only their arbitrarily
supplying Jehovah as the subject : " the Lord will call," instead of
"one will call." How the false reading iNip' first arose, is manifest
from the grounds which its later defenders deduce in its favor, comp.
especially Schulze, 1. c. The chief ground is the supposition, that
only the 3 plur. can stand impersonally ; comp. on the contrary, Ew.
p. 644, " Where the more definite subject is not mentioned, because
it can be easily inferred from the sense, the plur. commonly stands,
the sing, much more seldom ; this, however, is especially frequent in
the phrase 00 Nip." To this must be added, the more seldom 1 of
the suff., instead of the more usual in, comp. Ew. p. 181. On in
ternal grounds also, the reading INIp' is unconditionally to be reject
ed. The designation of the object of the naming, can by no means
be omitted. — We come now to the phrase Jehovah Zidkenu. There
is a great diversity in the explanation of these words. The better
Jewish interpreters take the words, indeed, as a name of the Messiah,
but not so that he would be named Jehovuh, and then in apposition,
" our righteousness," but rather so that Jehovah Zidkenu is an ab
breviation of a whole sentence. Thus the Chaldee, which para
phrases " Et hoc nomen ejus, quo vocubunt eum : fient nobis justitia
a facie domini." Kimchi : " Isruel vocabit Messiam hoc nomine :
dominus justitia nostra, quia ejus temporibus erit domini justitiu
nobis firmu, jugis, et non rccedei." The Dnpj; tan in Le Moyne,
p. 20, " Vocat scriptura nomen Messia : dominus justitia nostra,
quia est mediator dei et consequimur justitiam dei per ejus minisieri-
um." They appeal, besides to 33 : 16, to passages, as Exod. 17 : 15,
where Moses calls the altar, Jehovah my banner, to Gen. 33 : 20,
where Jacob attributes to it the name El Elohe Israel. Grotius
joins these interpreters, only that he more dilutes the sense. The
other older Christian interpreters (the Vulgate excludes every other
meaning by its translation, dominus Justus nosier), on the contrary.

CHAP. 23: 1-8. V. 6. 413
earnestly contend, that the Messiah is here called Jehovah, and,
therefore, must be truly God. What Dassov in loco says : " Quia
itaque Meksias appellatur Jehovah, hinc firmiter concluditur eum
verum esse deum, cum nomen hoc vero deo proprium sit ei essen-
tiale," belongs to them all. Le Moyne wrote a whole book, that
already cited, out of which but little is to be learned, in defence of
this interpretation. Even a Calvin, who elsewhere often erred from
an excessive dread of doctrinal prejudice, decidedly adopts it.
" Quicunque," he remarks, " sine contentione et amarnlentia judi-
cunt, fucile vident, idem nomen competere in Christum, quatenus est
deus, sicuti nomen filii Davidis respectu humana natura ei tribuitur.
— Omnibus aquis et moderatis hoc censtabit, Christum hic insigniri
duplici elogio, ui in eo nobis commendet propheta turn deitatis gloriam,
quam verituiem humuna natura." By righteousness, he understands
also justification by the merit of Christ : " Est nostra, quia Christus
non sibi Justus est, vel in se, sed justitiam accepit, quam communicet
nobiscum" (1 Cor. 1 : 30). — In reference to this interpretation, we
make the following remarks. 1. Its chief fault is, that it is not con
sidered how the prophet here expresses the nature of the Messiah
and of his time in the form of the nom. prop. If it read, "And
this is Jehovah, our righteousness," it would then be perfectly correct
to take Jehovah as a personal designation of the Messiah. In a
name, on the contrary, it is as usual as natural, that only the chief
words should be selected from a whole sentence, and that it should
be left to the hearer or reader to supply the rest. Brevity is insepa
rably connected with every instance of naming, as it appears in the
usual abbreviation of the name, even when consisting of one word.
A whole proposition as nom. propr. is not to be found ; as an exam
ple, the two cases already cited by Kimchi may serve. " Jehovah,
my banner,'' stands concisely for " this altar is dedicated to Jehovah,
my banner; " El Elohe Israel, for " this altar belongs to the Almighty,
the God of Israel.',' A multitude of other examples might easily be
cited. One needs only look at the combinations with Jehovah, inthe
Onomusticis of Hiller and Simonis. Thus, Jehoshua, "salvation of
Jehovah," stands concisely for " Jehovah will provide salvation for
me ; " Jehoram, Jehovah alius, for " I am consecrated to the high
God of Israel." Most completely analogous, however, is the name
of Zedekiah, " the righteousness of God," for " he, under whose
reign the Lord will impart righteousness to his people." This name
seems, moreover, to stand in direct reference to our prophecy. As

414 JEREMIAH.
the former Eliakim, by causing his name to be changed into Jehoia
kim, would represent him.self as the person in whom the prophecy,
2 Sam. 7, would be fulfilled, so the former Mattaniah caused his
name to be changed into Zedekiah by Nebuchadnezzar (who had,
indeed, no other interest, than that, as a sign of his dominion, the
new name should be different from the former, and who left it to be
determined by him who was to be named), thinking at so cheap a
rate to become the Jehovah Zidkenu predicted by Jeremiah, and
desired by the people. 2. The preceding argument only shows, that
the explanation of Jehovah Zidkenu by "he by whom and under
whom Jehovah will be our righteousness," is liable to no objection.
A positive argument in its favor, is furnished by the parallel passage,
chap. 33 : 15, 16, " In those days, and at that time, I will cause a
righteous sprout to spring forth to David, and he provides justice and
righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be delivered,
and Jerusalem dwell securely, and this is the name which shall be
given to her, The Lord our righteousness.'' Here Jehovah Zidkenu
appears as a name, not, indeed, of the Messiah, but of Jerusalem in
the Messianic time. The efforts vvhich have been made to set aside
this troublesome argument are in vain. They only show the im
possibility of the task. Le Moyne, p. 298 ff., " Ut nulla elabendi
rima hostibus relinquatur," brings forward five different expedients.
But even their diversity is a manifest sign of capriciousness, and this
appears still more evident, as one proceeds to examine them in detail.
Several resort to Enallage generis xh = "b, " and thus will they
nartie him; " Le Moyne supposes (p. 305) the assumption of such an
analogy to be entirely indubhable. Others explain, " Et ille, qui
vocabit, = invitabit ilium, est Jehovuh justitiu nostru," which is
sufficiently refuted by the passage before us ; the parallelism is too
close to allow Nip', to be taken in an entirely different meaning in
the second passage. The same reason also refutes the interpretations
of Hettinger (Thes. Philol p. 171) and Dassov : " Hoc erit, accidet,
quundo dominus vocubit eum, dominus justitiu nostru," not to men
tion that 1!?'S? cannot possibly mean when, ^c. 3. Besides, 'Jp.iy is
not altogether correctly understood in the older interpretation, when
it is referred to the forgiveness of sin. This is, indeed, often extolled,
as the chief blessing of the Messianic time, but it is not intended
here. According to the connexion, the discourse here is of personal
righteousness, prosperity according to another mode of considering
the subject, comp. on Mai. 3 : 20, p. 320. Forgiveness of sin pre-

CHAP. 23: 1-8. V, 6, 415
supposes, indeed, righteousness in the former sense, but also righteous
ness of life. Righteousness stands here in the parallel with pros
perity ; the order is as follows : " righteousness of the king, righteous
ness of the subjects, now prosperity and righteousness as a reward
from God." In addition to this is the antithesis with the former
time. In connexion with the unrighteousness of the kings, stood
the unrighteousness of the people, and therefore was the land de
prived of its prosperity, and smitten by the judgments of God.
What Jeremiah compresses in the name Jehovuh Zidkenu, Ezekiel
exhibits at large in the parallel passage, chap. 34:25-31. The
Lord concludes with them a covenant of peace ; a rich blessing is
imparted to them ; he breaks their yoke ; he frees them from servi
tude ; they become not a prey to the heathen. — We must not,
however, omit to remark, that the chief error in the older interpreta
tion, consisted in attempting to force out of the word what it did not
contain, but what lay, indeed, in the subject. Only a sprout of
David, who was at the same time a sprout of the Lord (comp. Is.
4 : 2, from which passage Jeremiah has derived the nny, and to
which he alludes), could realize in all its extent the promise here
given. Righteous, in the full sense, is no one born of a woman, and
if there is a defect in the personal righteousness of the king, then
the procuring of justice and righteousness is equally defective, and
prosperity and righteousness are not imparted from above in all their
fulness. Of all the former kings, the predicate p'''7X was more suita
ble to none, than to David, and yet in what an incomplete sense was
it applicable to him 1 What suffering this imperfection brought upon
the nation, is shown, e. g., by the numbering of the people. To
this imperfection of the will to provide justice and righteousness,
was added the imperfection of the power, and the limitation of the
knowledge. Only he who truly reigns as a king, and is truly wise
(comp. h'''JtpT\) ¦^Sn ¦^'251), can satisfy the idea which he strove after
in vain. All the three offices of Christ, the regal, not loss than the
prophetic and sacerdotal, presuppose his Deity ; and that, in the way
hitherto pursued, nothing had been effected, that only by the entrance
of the divine into the earthly such splendid promises could be fulfill
ed, must have been plain to a Jeremiah, whose deep feeling is, that
" all flesh is grass," and who lived in a time which was more suited
than many others to remedy Pelagianism, vvhich always seeks to
gather grapes from thorns. If now, we still consider, that Jeremiah
had before him the clear declarations of older prophets, in reference

416 JEREMIAH.
to the Deity of the Messiah (comp. Vol. I. p. 162), we can explain
his not expressly mentioning it, only from the fact, that it was not
suitable in this connexion, in which only the thut, and not the whence,
came under consideration.
V. 7. " Therefore, behold; days come, saith the Lord, when it shall
no mor€ be said, So truly as the Lord lives, who brought the chil
dren of Israel out of the land of Egypt ; V. 8. But so truly as the
Lord lives, who led and who brought the seed of the house of Israel out
of ihe land towards ihe north, and out of all lands whither I have
driven them, and they dwell in tlieir land." The sense is : the pros
perity of the future vvill far exceed the greatest prosperity of the
past. Calvin : " Si per se astimetur, erit dignum aternu memoria ;
sed si incipiat conferri cum secunda liberatione, propemodum evunes-
cet," comp., besides chap. 16 : 14, 15, where the verse almost
verbally occurs, chap- 3 : 16, where, in the same sense, the ark of
the covenant is designated as to be forgotten in future times. Is.
43: 18, 19, 65: 17.^ — Theniri'.-'n, living Jehovah, is an abrupt
expression of passion, as is natural to the solemnity of an oath, for
" so surely as Jehovah lives." It is entirely natural to designate
God as the living, when one appeals to him as a witness and judge ;
and equally so, to refer to the greatest sign of life which he has given
respecting himself Now, under the Old Testament, this was the
deliverance out of Egypt, which, among all the matter-of-fact refuta
tions of the notion that God walked upon the vault of heaven, and
judged not through the obscurity, was the strongest In the future,
one still stronger shall succeed to its place. Accordingly the form of
the oath is altogether general ; the deliverance out of Egypt comes
under consideration as a manifestation of life, and not as a showing
of mercy. This Calvin overlooks, when he remarks : " Quoties
videbant se itu premi, ut non esset alius exitus mulerum, quam in dei
grutiu, dieebant eundem deum, qui olim fuerut populi sui redemtor,
adhue vivere et nihil diminulum esse ex ejus potentia."

Chap. 31. V. 31 - 40.

The thirtieth and thirty-first chapters might justly be regarded as
the hymn of Israel's deliverance. They are joined in one whole, not

CHAP. 31 : 31-40. 417
merely by a material, but also by a formal unity ; so that we cannot
sufficiently wonder at those, who, like Venema and RosenmiiUer,
assume a compilation out of loose fragments, composed at different
times. The prophet begins, in chap. 30, with the promise of pros
perity for all Israel. True, although he even now finds himself as
to both parts into vvhich he had been divided, far from the land of the
Lord, in a state of banishment, still the end of his oppression has
not yet arrived ; the distress will rise still higher ; but even this, as
formerly in Egypt, is a prelude of the prosperity ; it is the prepara
tion for a better future, whose glory, the prophet, after a full descrip
tion in V. 22, comprehends in the brief but immensely rich and all-
comprehensive words, " and ye shall be my people, and I will be
your God." The threatening for the apparent Israel in v. 23, 24,
forms the majestic close of the promise for the true Israel, analogous
to the " there is no peace to the wicked," in Isaiah. Let them not,
in foolish delusion, seize the promise for themselves. That time of
the highest blessing for the pious, and for those who desire it, the
Acharith Hajjamim, will be at the same time for the wicked a time
of the heaviest curse. By the side of the climax of the manifesta
tion of mercy, proceeds that of the manifestation of righteousness,
as its inseparable attendant. " Behold the tempest of the Lord,
glowing fire goes forth, a constant storm ; on the head of the ungod
ly will it rest ; the glowing anger of the Lord will not return until
he has executed the thoughts of his heart ; in future days ye shall
consider it I " The prophet had already, chap. 23 : 19, 20, uttered
the same words in a threatening prophecy before the exile. By its
verbal repetition he points out, that the case was not finished with
the exile, that this must not be considered as the absolute and last
penitence for the sins of the whole nation, that, as surely as God is
Jehovah, so surely do his words also revive, as often as the thing
again exists to which they refer.
The more specific the consolation, the more impressive is it, the
more does it reach the heart. The prophet, therefore, causes the
prediction of prosperity for aU Israel, to be followed by that for the
two divisions. He commences with Israel in the narrower sense,
the ten tribes (chap. 31:1- 22), and with these he delays the
longest, because, in appearance, they are the most irrecoverably lost,
and seem to be for ever rejected by the Lord. The thought of an
originaUy independent prediction of prosperity for Israel, is set aside
by the relation of v, 1 to v. 22 of the foregoing chapter, which are
VOL. III. 53

418 JEREMIAH.
closely connected, since v. 23 and 24 contain only an intervening
remark, an odi profanum vulgus et orceo, for those to whom the
promise did not belong. The "ye shall be rny people, and I will be
your God," is followed, the order being reversed, by the "at that
time, saith the Lord, will I (particularly) be the God of all the
families of Israel, and they shall be my people." After Israel,
V. 23-26, follows Judah. The prediction is closed in v, 26, with
the variously misunderstood words, "therefore, 1 awoke, and saw,
and my sleep was sweet to me," The present has vanished from
the prophet ; he is not susceptible of its impressions, like one asleep.
Vol. II. p, 41, Then he awakes for a moment out of his sweet
dreams, vvhich are not, as dreams usually are, entirely groundless.
He looks around ; all is troubled, desolate, and cold ; nowhere is
there consolation for the weary soul, " Ah," he exclaims, " I have
sweetly dreamed ; " and immediately the hand of the Lord seizes him
again, and removes him from the present
A peculiar prosperity is by no means destined separately for Israel
and Judah ; it was one prosperity, in which both should participate,
having been reunited as one covenant and fraternal people. The
description, therefore, in v, 27 - 40, returns from the parts to the
whole, with whioh it commenced and is completed, in such a manner,
as to close with the crown of the promises, the substance of the
declaration, repeated here in v. 33, " and I will be their God, and
they shall be my people."
The whole description, in both chapters, is Messianic, and a pro
cedure like that of Venema, who divides the whole into small sec
tions, and assumes here an exclusive reference to a return out of the
exile, there to the Maccabees, whom he exalts to a sort of Saviours,
there to Christ and his kingdom, is utterly to be rejected, as is suffi
ciently evident from what has been already often remarked. The
interpretation of the whole portion, therefore, would properly belong
here. Still, we are compelled by external grounds to limit ourselves
to the interpretation of the chief portion, chap, 31 : 31 - 40.
Only vve will first briefly explain chap. 31 : 22, because this pas
sage, in former times, has been interpreted by very many commen
tators, as personally Messianic, " IIow long wilt thou ramble about,
thou inconstant daughter? For the Lord creates a new thing in the
land, woman will encompass man." The older interpreters explain
the last words, commonly, of the birth of Christ by a virgin. Thus,
e. g., Cocceius : " Non poterat apertius diet, non sine anigmate, 7iisi

CHAP. 31. 31-40. 419
diceretur virgo peperit Christum Jilium dei." But in opposition to
this, not to mention other grounds, is the obvious remark, that here
precisely that would be given which is not peculiar to the birth of
Christ by a virgin ; IJ.J and nnp.J are a designation of the sex ; that
the wife bears the man, if 1.5J designates proles mascula, is some
thing altogether usual ; precisely that which is important, that the
woman is a virgin, the man. Son of God, is wanting. But certainly
no better than this interpretation is that which recent interpreters
(Schnurrer, Rosenmiiller) have placed in its stead: "the woman
will protect the man, perform for him the munus excubitoris circume-
untis. This is, indeed, a ridiculus mus. Schnurrer must, indeed,
be allowed to be right, when he remarks, " Sane novum quid hoc est,
insolitum, inauditum;" only not every thing new is suited to furnish
an efficacious motive for conversion. The correct view is as follows :
the prophet grounds his exhortation to return to the Lord, on the
most efficacious of all motives, viz. that the Lord would return to
her, that the time of anger was now over, that she need only hasten
to his open arms of love. Without hope of mercy there is no con
version ; the perverse and desponding heart of man must be allured
by the preventing love of God to dravv near to him. The im
portance of the new state of things, the prophet designates by
the choice of the expression. The nominu sexus are here exactly
suitable ; even the omission of the article is intentional. The rela
tion is presented in its universality, and thereby the view is steadily
directed to its substance : " Woman will encompass man ; the strong
will again take the feeble and tender into intimate fellowship, under its
protection, its affectionate care. The woman art thou, O Israel, who
hast hitherto sufficiently experienced what the woman is without a
man, a reed, the sport of all the winds ; the man is the Lord. How
foolish if thou dost still persist in thy independence and alienation,
and wilt not return to the sweet relation of dependence and uncon
ditional surrender, which, because it is alone natural, is alone the
source of prosperity !" This interpretation is favored by the mani
fest reference of ^ni'op to ppjnpn, and to nj.^i'B'n, which, in refer
ence to the latter, is outwardly expressed even by the alienation.
" How foolish would it be still further to depurt, since now the great
time dawns when the Lord draws near." That, even according to
our interpretation, the Messianic character of the prophecy remains,
is obvious.

420 JEREMIAH.
The contents of the portion v. 31 - 40, is as follows. The Lord,
far from punishing the contempt of his former gifts by a total rejec
tion, will rather renew, and render for ever indissoluble by a twofold
mercy, the bond between him and the people. The foundation of
this is the forgiveness of sin ; a consequence of which is a richer
imparting of the Spirit, and now Israel, since the law no longer
comes as an outward letter, but is written in his heart, reaches his
destination ; he becomes truly a people of God, and God truly his
God. V. 31 - 34. Such a proof of the enduring election, is in
credible to the people, conscious of their guilt, and sighing under
the judgments of God. That this election still continues, and must
perpetually endure, so surely as he is God, God most emphatically
assures them. V. 35 - 37. Gloriously will the city of God arise
out of its ashes. While formerly the unholy abomination forced its
way into her, the holy, she will now extend her boundaries beyond
the limit of the unholy. And the Lord, sanctified in her, will also
sanctify himself upon her ; there will be no more destruction.

V. 31. "Behold, duys come, saith the Lord, and I make with the
house of Israel, und with the house of Judah, a new covenant.
V. 32. Not as ihe covenant which I made with your fathers in the
day when I took them by the hand to bring them forth out of the
land of Egypt, which my covenant they have broken, but I marry
them to me, suith the Lord." We must here first inquire, what is to
be understood by the making of the covenant ? A formal transaction,
a mutual contract, like the covenant concluded on Sinai, is not here
to be thought of This appears from v. 32, according to which the
old covenant was made in the day when the Lord took Israel by the
hand, in order to bring him up out of the land of Egypt. But at
that time, there was as yet no proper covenant transaction. Most
interpreters arbitrarily assume, that by the "In the day," «fcc., the
abode at Sinai is designated. Since it is commonly thus spoken
concerning the day of the deliverance out of Egypt, comp. Exod.
12: 51 sq., since this day, as such, was marked by the yearly re
turning passover, so also must the HV here be taken in its proper
sense. 2. In reference also to the new covenant, the discourse is
by no means concerning the assuming an obligation. Gifts are

CHAP. 31: 31-40. V. 31, 32. 421
mentioned, and nothing but gifts. But shall we now with Frisch
muth (De Foedere Nov. in the Thes. Ant. I. p. 857), and many
other interpreters and lexicographers, say, that n'"!? designates not
merely " Fcedus, quod duo uut plures paciscuntur, sed etiam ngb&saiv,
propositum dei, inayysXlag, promissiones gratuitas et ab omni condi-
tione liberas, stabiles item ejus ordinationes ? " This would still be
arbitrary ; ff"!? n'^^ can meun nothing else than to conclude a cove
nant. But the question arises, whether the concluding of a cove
nant may not also be spoken of where no transaction between two
parties, no mutual agreement, exists. Plainly, the substance of the
covenant precedes its outward conclusion, and forms its ground
work. This does not first make the relation, but is only a solemn
acknowledgment of that vvhich already exists. Thus, even in human
relations, every contract, the substance of which does not already
exist before it is concluded, is unnatural. Thus, still more in the
things of God. Every one of his benefits imposes an obligation upon
hirn who receives it, whether this may have been expressed by God,
and the receiver may have outwardly acknowledged it, or not. This
is very manifest in the present instance. At the giving of the law
on Sinai, the binding power of the commands of God rested on the
fact, that God had brought Israel out of Egypt, out of the house of
servants ; and thus it appears, that the covenant of Sinai, in sub
stance, existed simultaneously with the deliverance out of Egypt.
Apostasy from God would have been a breach of the covenant, even
without the solemn confirmation of it at Sinai, as, indeed, it actually
was in the time between the Exodus and the giving of the law ; it
would have been a breach of the covenant, if the people had answer
ed the solemn demand of God, whether they would conclude a
covenant with him, vvith no. This appears the more evident, when
we reflect, that the new covenant was not, indeed, sanctioned by any
such solemn and outward transaction. Is this nevertheless a cove
nant in the strictest sense, is the relation here independent of its
acknowledgment, then also must this acknowledgment under the
Old Testament have been a secondary matter. This is equally true
of all other passages which are commonly cited as proof that
n'''?a n^D can stand even for a bare gift and promise. Thus, e. g..
Gen. 9:9, " And behold, I establish my covenant with you, and
with your seed after you." The promise, that henceforth the course
of nature should, on the whole, remain undisturbed, is not here
designated as a covenant, in itself considered, but only so far as it

422 JEREMIAH.
laid upon those who received it the obligation to honor the Lord of
nature by their conduct. This obligation is afterwards in part out
wardly established in the ordinances concerning murder, eating of
blood, &,c. Gen. 15 : 18, " In that day, God made with Abraham a
covenant, saying, I give this land to thy seed." In what precedes,
there is only a promise, but this itself is at the same time an obliga
tion, and what was afterwards first solemnly undertaken by receiving
the sign of the covenant, circumcision, already existed. Exod.
34 : 10, " And he said, Behold, I make a covenant ; before thy
whole people will I do wonders, which have not been done upon the
whole earth and among all nations, and the whole people, in the
midst of whom thou art, shall see the work of the Lord ; for fearful
is that which I will do with thee." The concluding of the covenant
on Sinai was here already passed ; the new concluding of a covenant
here spoken of consists in the favors whereby God will show himself
to the people as their God. Each of these favors includes a new
obligation for the people in itself each one is iu fact a question,
" This do I to thee, what dost thou to me ? " — We can now deter
mine in what sense an antithesis of the old and the new covenant is
here presented. The discourse cannot be of a new and more com
plete revelation of the law of God, for this is common to both econo
mies ; no jot or tittle of it can be lost under the New Testament,
nor can a jot or tittle be added to it ; God's law rests on his nature,
and this is eternally immutable, comp. Mai. 3 : 22 ; the revelation of
the law belongs not to the Exodus out of Egypt, to which the former
concluding of the covenant is here attributed, but to Sinai. Just as
little can the discourse be of the introduction of an entirely new re
lation, which by no means has the former as its groundwork. In
this relation Dav, Kimchi rightly remarks : " Non erit fcederis novi-
tus, sed stubilimehtum ejus." The covenant with Israel is eternal,
Jehovah would not be Jehovah, if an absolute new beginning could
take place. Asya Ss, says the Apostle, Rom, 15 : 8, 'itjaovv Xgiaxbv
Sidxovov ysysv^a&ai nsgiTOfirjg in sg aXrj & slag &sov, stg xb jSf^aid-
aai T«? inayysXlag xdv naxsgav, xd Ss 'id^vrj vnig iXsovg So^daai xov &sov.
The sending of Christ with his gifts and blessings, the concluding of
the new covenant, is, therefore, a consequence of the covenant faith
fulness of God, When, therefore, the subject of discourse is here
the antithesis of an old and a new covenant, the former must desig
nate, not the relation of God to Israel in itself and in all its extent,
but rather only the former manifestation of this relation, that, whereby

CHAP. 31: 31-40, V, 31, 32, 423
the Lord, until the time of the prophet, had made himself known as
the God of Israel, To this earlier, more imperfect form, the more
complete future form, under the name of the new, is here opposed.
The new, which should displace the old, so far as the form is con
cerned (comp, Heb, 8 : 13, Ev xd) Xiysiv xaivijv nsnuXaiaxs xrjV nga-
xrjv • xo ds naXaiovfisvov xal yrjgdaxov, iyyvg difiaviafiov), is, in respect
to the substance, the highest realization of the old, — Theise remarks
entirely harmonize with what has already been said respecting the
import of nn|i niD. We saw that this does not designate barely one
specific act whereby a covenant is solemnly sanctioned, but rather
stands for every action whereby a covenant relation is institiUed or
confirmed. If, now, the old covenant is the former, the new cove
nant the future, form of the covenant vvith Israel, it may be further
asked, which, among the manifold differences between these two
forms, was here in the contemplation of the prophet The answer is
supplied by what the prophet says concerning the new covenant.
For, as this should not be as the former, so must the advantages of
the new be just so many deficiencies of the old. Now all these ad
vantages are purely internal, first, the forgiveness of sins, then the
inscribing of the law on the heart Hence it follows, that the bles
sings of the old covenant were chiefly outward (for that there was by
no means a total absence of these inward blessings, that the antithe
sis of the old and new covenant in this respect was only relative, not
absolute, we shall hereafter see), and this also is evident from the
more particular designation of the old covenant, as concluded at the
bringing forth out of Egypt, which comprehended in itself all similar
later deliverances and blessings, the earnest of which was the pass-
over, founded upon it The prophet, if any one, had experienced,
that, in the way hitherto pursued, the end could not be accomplished ;
the sinfulness of the people had exhibited itself in his time in so
fearful an outbreak, that, considering Ihe subject in a human point of
view, he must already have most deeply fijit, that little could be
done for the people by outward blessings, by an outward deliverance
from bondage. What availed the manifestation of mercy, which
must, by divine necessity, be immediately followed by so much the
severer punishment The condition of the true and lasting gift of
outward prosperity, is the imparting of that which is internal ; with
out the latter the former is only a mockery. It is, therefore, the
highest object of the prophet's desire ; he points to it here, as the
highest good of the future, comp. also 32 : 40, " And I make with

424 JEREMIAH,
them an everlasting covenant, that I will no more turn away from
them to do them good, and I will put my fear in their heart, that
they shall not depart from me." The last words of v, 32 are vari
ously misunderstood. Of less importance is the false interpretation
of ig'S by quia, which is found in most interpreters. In this sense
IK'S never occurs. The correct view is given by Ewald, p. 649,
who connects "ig'X with ''n'''n?"nx, — " I, whose covenant,'' — unless
we choose to take "iii'N as a mere general sign of the relation, as a
mere indication, that the proposition stands related to the foregoing,
without a more particular description of the nature of this relation,
comp. Ewald, p, 647, More important is the diversity in the inter
pretation of 'nSj?^. By far the most interpreters take this sensu
malo, the more ancient, with an appeal to the xayd fjjisXrjoa avxdv,
Heb, 8 : 9, which, however, can prove nothing. For the author,
whose sole purpose it was to show the superiority of the New Testa
ment to the Old Testament, — the insufficiency of the latter, as the
declaration of the prophet shows, was perceived even by those who
lived under it, — has, in these words, standing in no relation to his
purpose, simply followed the Seventy. It is, however, a suspicious
sign of capriciousness, that these interpreters greatly differ in the
nearer determination of the sense. The one class explain h^'^ by a
comparison of the Arabic, by fastidire, the other, as they allege out
of the Hebrew usage, by tyrannize. Thus, e. g., Buddeus, De
Prarogat. Fidelium N. T. in the MiscelL p. 106 : " Durior quavis
castigaiio per gentes vicinas haud rare facta commode intelligi pote-
r%t : illi in testamenio meo non munserunt, ideoque jugum aliorum eos
subire passus sum, fjfisXrjaa avxdv, neglexi eos." But we have already
seen, on chap. 3 : 14, that both meanings are altogether groundless,
and this has also been felt by those, who, in order to extort a bad
meaning, which the context is supposed to require, would change the
reading, as Cappellus, who would read TiSj^J, and Grotius, who pre
fers 'n^na. The meaning of '~i)l'^ vvith ?, to marry to one's self,
there vindicated, which the Chaldee seems to have had in view,
which translated ¦'n'.j;inN, cupio vos, delector vobis, is here also per
fectly suitable. Who then affirms, that the ground of the abolition
of the old covenant must be given here 1 This has already been suffi
ciently expressed, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has
shown. In the very announcement of a new covenant the declara
tion of the insufficiency of the old is included : El ydg fj ngdxrj
ixslvrj fjv dfisfinxog, ovx dv Ssvxsgag i^rjxsixo xonog (v. 7), and wherein

CHAP. 31. 31-40. V. 33. 425
this insufficiency, — grounded in human sinfulness and hardness of
heart, which is not relieved by blessings which are chiefly of an out
ward nature, be they never so great, and to their future greatness,
the expression indicating the most tender love, " when I took them
by the hand," points (to this subjective ground of the insufficiency,
the fisficpb fisvog ydg avxoig Xsysi, Heb. v. 8, refers, De Wette
erroneously : " for finding fault he says to them ; " the dative belongs
to ftsfiipbfisvog ; comp. Matthia, p, 705), — consisted, why a better
covenant, such an one rjxig inl xgslxxoaiv inayysXlaig vsvofio&ixijxai,
V. 6, was required, sufficiently appears from what is predicated, in
V. 33, 34, of this new covenant in opposition to the old. The refer
ence is rather here, and this thought is surely in the connexion the
most appropriate of all, to God's infinite love, and the greatness of
his covenant faithfulness, nan and ois stand in the most emphatic
antithesis. They, in wicked ingratitude, have broken the former
covenant, have violated the obligations which the former mercies
imposed upon them. God might now be expected, on his part, to
annul the old covenant, and withdraw for ever the former favors.
But, instead of this, he provides the new covenant, the greater favor.
He marries the apostate Israel to himself anew, and, indeed, in such
a manner, that the bond of love now becomes firm and indissoluble.
V. 33. " For this is ihe covenant which I will conclude with the
house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I put my law within
them, and I will write it upon their heart, and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people." The '3 is here supposed to mean but ;
this, however, is correct, only so far as but also might stand. The
for is here entirely in its place. The expression, "not as the cove
nant," is founded on the positive definition of the substance of the
new covenant. Because it is so, it is not as the former. Dnn does
not, indeed, refer, according to Venema's erroneous supposition, to
the days mentioned in v. 31, in which the new covenant is supposed
to have been concluded. The expression, these days, designates
rather the present, after these days, = D'P'H nn.n.xj, in the sequence
of these days in the future. The prophet points so repeatedly and
emphatically to the future, because, to unbelief and to weak faith,
the history of the covenant people appeared to be finished with the
present, and the future to be cut off from them, Calvin : " Perinde
est, acsi diceret, non posse apprehendi gratiam, de qua vaticinatur,
nisi fideles ipsi teneunt mentes suus suspensus et patienter exspectent,
donee tempus promissa salutis advenerit." With respect to the
VOL, III. 54

426 JEREMIAH.
following enumeration of the blessings, in and through the imparting
of which, the new covenant relation should be established, Venema
thus correctly remarks : " Bona distinguuntur in radicale seu causale,
et consequentiu seu derivata." The second ^2 in v. 34 gives the
ground of this imparting, "fer I will forgive their sins," — Many
interpreters take ni^in here in the sense doctrine. Thus Buddeus :
" Legis nomine totam doctrinam N. T. intelligit." This interpreta
tion is, however, to be entirely rejected, as destructive of the sense,
rriin never means doctrine, but always law, and that here the dis
course can be only of the law of God, the eternal expression of his
eternal being, and therefore common to the Old and the New Testa
ment, and by no means of a new constitution, for the latter is evident
from the reference of the giving in the inward parts, and of the
writing upon the heart (the tables of the heart), to the outward giv
ing, and the writing on the stone tables on Sinai. The law is the
same, only the relation different, in which God exhibits it to man
{^' Lex cum homine conciliatur quasi," C. B. Michaelis). One might
easily deduce from the passage before us, a confirmation of the error,
that the law, under the Old Testament, was only an outward, dead
letter. Against this, Buddeus contends, who, p. 117, decides, that
the discourse is here only of a relative difference and antithesis :
" Quod licet et fidelibus V. T. centigerit, hic tamen ubcrinrem cnpi-
um et gradum hujus beneficii deus promittit." Calvin declares the
opinion, that, under the Old Testament, no regeneration took place
(comp. p. 472), as absurd : " Schnus raram et obscuram fuisse gra
tiam dei sub lege, in evangelio autem effusa fuisse dona spir., et deum
multo liberalius egisse cum ecclesia sua." The idea of a purely out
ward giving of the law, is, indeed, inconceivable. God would then
have done for Israel nothing further than he did for the betrayer
Judas, in whose conscience he proclaimed his holy law, without
giving him any power to repent. Such a proceeding is conceivable,
only where there is a subjective impossibility of the dvaxaivi;siv slg
psxdvoiav. Besides, every outward revelation of God must be ac
companied by an internal, in accordance with the constitution of
human nature, since we cannot suppose that he who knows it, would
mock us with the semblance of a blessing. So soon as we know
the outward fact of the deliverance out of Egypt, we know also that
God, at that time, powerfully touched the heart of Israel ; as soon as
it is established, that the law was written on Sinai by the finger of
God on tables of stone, so also is it, that it was written on the table

CHAP. 31 . 31-40. V. 33. 427
of Israel's heart But what lies in the case itself is confirmed also
by history. Even in the law, circumcision is designated as the
pledge and seal of the imparting, not, indeed, of mere outward gifts,
but of the circumcision of the heart, the removal of the sin which
cleaves to every one from his birth, so that man can love God with
all his heart, all his soul, and all his powers, Deut 30 : 6. This
circumcision of the heart, at the same time required and promised
by God in the outward circumcision, comp. Deut. I c, with 10 : 16,
is not different in substance from the inscribing of the law on the
heart. Further, had the law of the Lord for Israel been a mere out
ward letter, how can the animated praise of it in the holy Scriptures
be explained, e. g, Ps, 19? Truly, a bridge must already have been
formed between the law and him who can designate it, as rejoicing
the heart, as enlightening the eyes, as bringing back the soul, as
sweeter than honey and the honey-comb. This is no longer the law,
in itself considered, vvhich worketh wrath, it is the law in its con
nexion vvith the Spirit, whose commands are not grievous. A new
heart was created also under the Old Testament, comp. Ps. 51 : 12,
and not to know the nature of this crejation, was, for a teacher in
Israel, the highest shame, John 3 : 10. Indeed, what is here promis
ed for the future, a pious member of the old covenant in Ps. 40 : 9,
expresses, in the same form, as already vouchsafed to him, as his
present spiritual condition, " I delight to do thy will, O Lord, and
thy law is within my heart," with entirely the same contrast with
the law as an outward letter, as written on the stone tables ; comp.
Prov. 3:1-3," My son, forget not my law, and let thine heart keep
my commandments, — bind them upon thy neck, write them upon
the table of thy heart." 7:3, " Bind them upon thy finger, write
them upon the table of thine heart" But how is it to be explained,
that the antithesis, in itself relative, here appears under the form of
the absolute ; the distinction of degrees, under the form of the specific
difference ? Plainly, in like manner as the same appearance, the
misapprehension of which has occasioned so many errors, elsewhere
also, e. g. John 1 17, where it is said, that the law was given by
Moses, grace and truth by Christ. The gift of the Old Testament,
highly important and valuable in itself considered, appears, in com
parison with the infinitely more important and richer blessing of the
New Testament, as so small, that it vanishes entirely out of sight
The case is entirely similar, when the prophet, in chap. 3 : 16,
describes the highest sanctuary of the Old Testament, the ark of the

428 JEREMIAH.
covenant, as sinking into entire forgetfulness in the future, and in
chap. 23 : 7, 8, the deliverance out of Egypt, as no longer worth
mentioning. — Parallel vvith our passage, finally, is the promise of
Joel concerning the outpouring of the Spirit, chap. 3 : 1, 2, so that
what has there been remarked, is also applicable here. There the
relative nature of the promise is made more prominent than here; as
under the New Testament in general, in relation to the Old, there is
nowhere an absolutely new beginning, but only completion, — pre
cisely as under the New Testament itself in the relation of the regnum
gloria to the regnum gratia, — so also, in reference to the imparting of
the Spirit, Joel only causes the abundance to take the place of the
scarcity, the much of the little, comp. besides, chap. 24 : 7, " And I
give to them a heart, that they know me, that I am the Lord, and they
become to me for a people, and I become God to them." 32 : 39,
" And I give to them a heart, and a way, that they fear me henceforth
for their good, for themselves, and for their sons after them ; " but es
pecially Ezek. 11 : 19, 20, 36 : 26, 27, comp. on the passage. — How
strong, finally, the Old Testament contradicts the carnal Jewish notion
concerning the nature of the Messianic kingdom, analogous to the ex
pectations of the revolutionists concerning the future, arising from the
same fountain of the heart, an opinion, which is most crudely exhibited
in the passage of the Talmud, Massechet Sunhedrin f 191: "Non
est inter dies Messia et hunc mundum discrimen, nisi tuntum servitus
regnorum," appears from the remarks of the Jewish interpreters on
the passage before us, wherein they are obliged to perceive the purely
moral revolution, in opposition to one merely external, is foretold.
Thus R. Bechai remarks (in Frischmuth) : " Significat ublutionem
concupiscentia mala et instincius omnia appetendi ; " Moses Nach-
manides in the same place (p. 861): "Atque hoc nihil aliud est,
quam ablatio prava concupiscentia et cum cor operutur nuiura sua,
quod decet. — Messia diebus nullum desiderium locum obtinebit, sed
operabitur home natura sua, ui aquum est. Atque idcirco non erit
innocentia vel peccatum, quippe qua a concupiscentia dependent."
But that a preconceived opinion, when it has once determined upon
it, can overcome every, even the strongest contradiction in the sub
ject, is shown here by the example of a Grotius : " Efficiam ut om
nes legem meam memoriter teneunt, nempe in sensu prime per multitu
dinem synagogarum, qua strucia illo tempore, ubi ter in hebdomade
docebatur." Three times in a week ! That still must all the people
give, viz. such as are described Is. 58:2. — "And I will be to

CHAP. 31: 31-40. V. 34. 429
them God," &c., follows, not without i-eason, upon " and I put my
law in their inward parts," &c. The law is the copy of God's being ;
only by the inscription of the law on his heart can man be a partak
er of the nature of God, can his name be sanctified in him ; but this
participation in the nature of God, this sanctification of his name,
forms the foundation of " I, their God," and " they, ray people."
The relation cannot exist without this, so surely as God is not an
idol, but the holy and righteous one. It declares, as Buddeus, p. 94,
rightly remarks : " Quod se totum illis impertiturus sit," But how
could God, with his gifts and blessings, bestow himself wholly and
unconditional^ upon those who are not of his family ? Of all un
natural things this would be the most so. Finally, the relative
nature of the promise is here manifest. God had already promised
to Abraham, that he would be to him a God, and to his seed after
him, and this promise he had afterwards repeated to the whole
people Israel, Lev. 26: 12, comp. Exod. 29 : 45, "And I dwell in
the midst of the children of Israel, and be to them as God.'' In the
consciousness that this promise was fulfilled in the present, David,
Ps. 33 : 12, exclaims: "Happy the people, whose God is Jehovah,
the family, that he chooses for an inheritance." Therefore, here
also is nothing absolutely new. Were that the subject of discourse,
the whole kingdom of God under the Old Testament would at once
be changed into a mere appearance and delusion. But the small
measure of the condition, from which even God himself cannot de
part, though he can vouchsafe a richer measure, the writing of the
law in the heart, whereby man becomes a transcript of God, of the
personal law, has the small measure of the consequence, as a neces
sary attendant. So, therefore, the complete fulfilment of the declara
tion of God to Abraham and Israel, to which the prophet here
alludes, must be desired first from the future.
V. 34. " And they shall no more teach one his neighbour, and one
his brother, for they will ull know me, small and great, saith the
Lord, for I loill forgive their iniquity, and remember their sins no
more." The first half of the verse has created embarrassment to
the interpreters, even from ancient times, from which, but few, not
excepting even a Calvin, have skilfully extricated themselves. The
proposition, that because all are to be taught of God, human instruc
tion in divine things should cease, has, at first sight, something fanati
cal, and was used by the Anabaptists, and other enthusiasts, in vindi
cation of their delusion. Many betook themselves even to another

430 JEREMIAH.
life ; thus Theodoret, Augustin, De Spir. et Lit. c. 24, and Este,
who remarks : " Difficultatem hanc compendie videntur effugere, qui
promissionem hanc 'in futurum seculum rejiciunt, ubi procul dubie
emnis cura docendi cessabit." The case, however, is properly by no
means difficult. One needs only consider, that here, human instruc
tion is excluded only so far as it stands opposed to the divine instruc
tion concerning God himself; that here, therefore, the discourse is
of a mere human instruction, of a teaching and institution in religion,
as in any other matter of common knowledge, whose result is a
learning perpetually, and yet without ever coming to the knowledge
of the truth. By such a reliance on human authority^the nature of
religion is entirely destroyed. Even the true God becomes an idol,
when he is not known through God, when he does not make himself
a dwelling in the heart. He is, and remains, a mere thought, vvhich,
in the conflict vvith sin, which is an actual power, can supply no
strength, in affliction, no consolation. Under the Old Testament,
now, such a condition was very frequent ; the mass possessed only a
knowledge of God, vvhich, if not exclusively, was chiefly mediate.
The new covenant was to bring richer gifts of the Spirit, in which,
likewise, a larger number were to participate; under it the antithesis
of the teaching of God, and the teaching of men, was to cease.
Teachers teach not on their own authority, but they teach as servants
and instruments of God ; it is not they who. teach, but the Holy
Ghost in them ; the disciples hear the word through men, not as the
word of men, but as the word of God, not because it satisfies their
limited human reason, but because the Spirit testifies, that the Spirit
is truth. How this antithesis was done away in a higher unity, is
shown, among other passages, by 2 Cor. 3:3, " Ye are an epistle of
Christ, by our ministry, written by us, not vvith ink, but with the
Spirit of the living God." They are &soSi8axxoi, but by the ministry
of the apostle, who, so far as he executes this ministry, is not differ
ent from God, but only a conductor of his power, a tube by which
the oil of the Holy Ghost flows to the Church of God, comp. Vol. II,
p. 43. In like manner, 1 John 2 : 20 : Kal vfisig xglafia i'xsxs
anb xov ayiov, xal oiSaxs ndvxa. Ovx tygaipa vfCir, oxi ovx otSaxs xfjv
dXfj&siav, aXX bxi oiSaxs avxrjv. V, 27 : Jial Vfisig xb XQicfia, o
iXd^sxs an avxov, iv vfiiv fiivsi, xal ov xg^i""' i'x^^> '^'''^ ^'? SiSdaxrj
Vfidg, uXX cos fo avio xglafia SiSdaxst Vfidg nsgl ndvxav, x. x. X. The
SiSdaxsiv designates here the human teaching, in opposition to the
divine, such an one as makes the knowledge in that which is taught.

CHAP, 31: 31-40, V, 34, 431
independent. Such a teaching cannot exist under the New Testa
ment. The ground knowledge dwells already in its members; the
Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, teaches them alone, John 14:26; he
guides them into all truth, John 16 : 13. But even just because it is
so, the instruction by those whom God places in his Church for
apostles, for prophets, for evangelists, for teachers, Eph, 4 : 11, to
whom he imparts his xaglofiaxa, is in its place. The apostle writes
precisely, because they know the truth ; without this, his labor would
be entirely in vain. What avails it to impart instruction in colors to
the blind. In divine things, the truth first becomes truth, for the
individual, orriy by its existing in him, and this can be effected only
by his being united with God by God's Spirit, Being, life, and,
therefore, also real, living knowledge, can proceed only from the
fountain of all being and life. But where knowledge is imparted by
the Spirit, consequently exists in its elements, there it can and must
be carried on to perfection by those to whom God has imparted his
gifts, for its developement and completion, A view into the depths
of our passage, was enjoyed by the author of the book Jelammedenu,
cited by Abarbanel, in- Frischmuth, p. 863: "Hoc seculo Israel
discit legem ab homine mortali, ideo ejus obliviscitur ; ut enim caro
et sanguis praterit (comp. Matt, 16 : 17, where the most striking
antithesis is exhibited between the knowledge of divine things, which
rests on human, and that which rests on divine authority), ita ejus
informutio praterit. — Sed faturum est, ut aliquando non discat,
nisi ex ore dei benedicti, quia dicitur : omnes filii tui docti a dee
erunt (Jes. 54 : 13), Quo ipso signifi-carunt, hactenus legis cogni
tionem artificialcm fuisse et per homines mortales peractam. .Ideo
haud ita diu earn duraturam ; effecius enim refertur ad suam causam.
Sed tempore liberationis fict legis cognitio miraculose mode  That,
finally, this promise also is to be understood relatively, is obvious.
All the pious of the Old Testament were dsoSiSaxxoi, and under the
New Testament the number of those is immensely great, who,
through their own fault, stand in a connexion with the truth, which is
entirely, or chiefly mediate. — That in the last words of the verse,
the fundamental blessing is promised, we have already seen. But
whether the '3 refers to the immediate context, or to all that precedes
(Venema : " Vocula ''J non ad proxime pracedentia referenda, sed
ad totum pericopam, qua bona foederis recensita sunt, extendendu"),
amounts to the same thing. For that which immediately precedes,
includes the rest We have before us only designations of the same

432 JEREMIAH.
thing, according to different relations ; all teaches the richer impart
ing of the gifts of the Spirit. This has the forgiveness of sin as its
necessary groundwork. Before God can give, he must take. The
sins, which separate the people and their God from one another,
must be taken away ; not till then can the inward means be vouch
safed to the people, whereby they become truly a people of God, and
his name is sanctified in them. That here also the discourse can be
only of a relative difference between the Old and New Testaments,
is obvious. A covenant people without forgiveness of sins, is an ab
surdity ; a God vvith whom there is not forgiveness, that he should be
feared, who heals not the bones which he has broken, who, in this
respect only, gives a bond for the future, is no God and no good.
For if he bestows not this, then can he bestow nothing else, since all
the rest presupposes this, and, without it, is of no value. Forgive
ness of sins is the essence of the passover, as the feast of the cove
nant ; without it, the sin-offerings appointed of God are a lie ; without
it, that which God says of himself as the covenant God, that he is
gracious and merciful, is untrue. That God has forgiven the sins
of his people, the holy psalmists often confess with praise and grati
tude, comp., e. g., Ps. 85 : 3, " Thou hast taken away the iniquity
of thy people, and hast covered all their sins." In like manner they
loudly praise the gr.eat blessing of forgiveness for individuals, comp.
Ps. 32 : 51. The consciousness of the forgiveness of sins, is the
ground of that state of the heart which we perceive in the writers of
the Psalms. "Quanta qumso nXrjgocpogla," remarks Buddeus, p. 109,
" quanta fiducia, quantum gaudium tranquilla latissimaque con-
scientia in Psalmis precationibusque Davidicis elucescit." We have,
therefore, here, only a difference in degree. The sin of the covenant
people appeared at that time to believers to be too great ever to be
forgiven ; driven away from the presence of the Lord, this people,
they supposed, would terminate its sorrowful existence in the land of
Nod, never would the xaigol dvatpvisag return. Not merely vvill they
return, explains the prophet, on the contrary, in the name of the
Lord, they will first come in the full and complete sense. Where you
believe that you behold the end of the forgiveness of sin, there is its
proper commencement. Where sin has abounded, there will grace
much more abound. Only do not despair, and thus place a barrier
in the way of the mercy of God ! Your God exists, not merely in
the future, ,he will first sow and then afterwards reap, as surely as he
is God, the gracious and merciful.

CHAP. 31 .31-40. V. 35, 36. 433
V. 35. " Thus saith the Lord, Giving the sun for light by day,
and the laws of the moon and of the stars for light by night, who
raises up ihe sea, and its waves roar, the Lord Sabaoth his name.
V. 36, When ihese laws shall cease before me, saith the Lord, so
also shull ihe seed of Israel cease to be a people before me, always."
The interpreters usually assume, that already, in v. 35, the discourse
is of the firm and unchangeable divine laws, which every thing
must obey. But this is decidedly contradicted by "who raiseth up
the sea, so that its waves roar," where no definite, perceptible rule,
no uninterrupted repetition, occurs. In addition to this, is a com
parison of the ground passage. Is. 51 : 15, where only the omnipo
tence of God is to be exalted. "And I am the Lord thy God, vvho
moves the sea, that its waves roar, Jehovah Sabaoth is his name.''
It appears, therefore, that in v. 35, the discourse is only of God's
omnipotence, which establishes, that he is God, and not man, and
thus forms the basis of the proposition set forth in v. 36, so full of
consolation for the despairing covenant people, that while all men
are liars, he lies not, that he can never repent of his covenant and
his promises. The laws are mentioned even in v. 3-5, because, just
the fact, that sun and moon, according to eternal and inviolable laws,
must daily appear at an appointed time, and this through hundreds
and thousands of years, testifies more strongly for God's omnipo
tence, for his universal rule, subject to no foreign influence or inter
ference, than if they now appeared, and now failed to appear. God's
omnipotence, as a look at nature testifies (Calvin : " Contentus est
proporiere, qued pueri etiam ipsi cognoscunt, nempe solem quotidie
circuire totum mundum, idem fucere lunum, et stellus vicissim
succedere, ita ut luna quasi principutum nociu teneat cum stellis,
deinde sol regnet interdiu"), results from the fact, that he is the
pure being (Jehovah his name, comp. on Mai. 3 : 6), and just
because he is this, must his counsels, unconditionally, expressed, be
immutable. To believe that he has for ever rejected Israel, is to
degrade him, to make him an idol, a creature. — When in v. 36 the
unchangeableness of God's dispensation of mercy is placed on a
level with the unchangeableness of his ordering of nature, this is
done in respect to the weakness of the people, before whom, that
which is most settled among visible things is placed, as a pledge of
the constancy of their election, so that every rising of the sun and the
moon gave them an assurance of it. But, in itself considered, the
constancy of the reign of grace is far greater than that of the course
VOL. III. 55

434 JEREMIAH.
of nature. " The heavens wax old as a garment, and as a vesture
he changes them, and they are changed " (Ps. 102 : 27 - 29).
." Heaven and earth shall pass away, but God's word shall not pass
away." — Why 'iJ stands here, and not DJJ, appears from chap. 33 :
24, " They despise my people ('T.I!), that it should be no more a
people (''iJ) before them." The covenant people supposed, in their
despair, that their national existence, annihilated for the present, had
ceased for ever, but if this was secure, so also their existence as a
covenant people. For as they had become not a people, in conse
quence of being not a covenant people, so could they become again
a people, only as a covenant people.
V. 37. " Thus saith ihe Lord, if the heavens are meusurtfl above,
and the foundations of the earth seurched out beneath, so will I also
cast away the whole seed of Israel, on account of all that which they
have done, saith the Lord." Not without reason does the prophet so
frequently repeat " saith the Lord." This forms the Alpha and the
Omega ; his word was the sole ground of hope for Israel ; aside
from it despair would be as reasonable as it was now unreasonable.
The measuring of the heavens and the exploring of the depths of
the earth, are here considered as an impossibility. The expression,
"The whole seed of Israel," takes*»from the hypocrites the consola
tion which they could draw from these promises. It is just as con
trary to the nature of God, that he should suffer the whole seed of
Israel, the believers with the unbelievers, to go to destruction, as that
he should deliver the whole seed of Israel, the unbelieving with the
believing. Both the promise and the threatening always leave a
remnant. The covenant provides only that the whole should not go
to ruin ; for individuals, it gives no security. The expression, " on
account of all that which they have done," is added by design,
because the greatness of the sins of the people wag the main point in
the despair of the believers in the mercy of God. Calvin : " Con-
sulto proph. hic proponit scelera populi, ut sciumus superiorem fore
dei clementium, nee congeriem tot mulerum fore obstaculo, quominus
deus ignoscat."
V. 38. "Behold, days, saith ihe Lord, and ihe ciiy is built
to the Lord, from the gate of Hananeel to the corner gate. V. 39.
And the measuring line goes opposite to it still further over the hill
Gareb (of the leprous), and turns towards Goah (place of execution).
V. 40. And the whole valley of carcusses, and ashes, and ull ihe
plains, to the brook Kedron, and from tliere to the horse-gate east-

CHAP. 31 : 31-40, V. 38-40. 435
ward, (all this is) a holy place to ihe Lord. No more shall it be
destroyed, und it shall not be laid waste to eternity." This prophecy
embraces two events ; first, the restoration of the kingdom of God,
presented under the image of a restoration of Jerusalem, its seat and
central point under the old covenant. Zechariah in his resumption,
chap. 14 : 10 (comp. Vol, II, p, 274), has given prominence to this
alone. And, secondly, the glorification of the kingdom of God,
which is now made so powerful, that it can undertake to assail the
kingdom of darkness, and make it tributary to itself while heretofore
it has been compelled to act on the defensive, and often could not
prevent the enemy from penetrating to the very heart of its dominion.
The prophet clothes these thoughts in a sensible form, by causing
the unholy places by which Jerusalem the holy city was surrounded,
to be included in its circumference, to become a sanctuary of the
Lord. In the former time, the victory of the world over the kingdom
of God had been embodied in the fact, that the abominations of sin
and idolatry were brought even into the temple, comp. 7 : 11, "Is
then this house a den of robbers, over which my name is called, saith
the Lord ? " Other passages. Vol. II, p. 361. By a divine necessity,
this inward triumph must be followed by that which is outward, the
covenant people, which had inwardly subjected themselves to the
world, and profaned themselves by their guilt, were also outwardly
given up as a prey to the world, and profaned by punishment, and
this profanation by punishment, embodied itself again precisely where
the profanation as guih had chiefly been exhibited, in the holy city
and in the holy temple. With reference to this former embodying
of the victory of the world over the kingdom of God, the victory of
the latter over the former is now here described, though, at the same
time, the covering does not become any thing more than a covering.
To the outward holiness of the city and the temple, the outward
unholiness of the places round about Jerusalem stands opposed.
Had the victory of the world over the kingdom of God manifested
itself in the desecration of these holy places, so now the victory of
the kingdom of God appears under the image of the sanctification
of these formerly unholy places. Now the means whereby this great
change should be effected, the kingdom of God, which now lay so
entirely helpless, should obtain energies which it had never possessed
before and from a servant become a lord, it was unnecessary that
the prophet should here point out ; this had already been done in
V. 32-34. The difference consists in the fact, that the new

436 JEREMIAH,
covenant is not like the old, that it brings with itself the proper
weapons whereby sin and the world may be overcome, an immensely
richer measure of the forgiveness of sins, of the gifts of the Spirit
— There is still one general remark to be premised concerning the
determination of the boundaries of the New Jerusalem here given,
because this must be our guide in the determination of the particu
lar doubtful places. The correct view is unquestionably found in
Vitringa, on Is. 30 : 33 : " Proph. reducibus promittit instaurationem
urbis Hieros. in omni ejus umbitu, quem itu describit, ut incipiendo a
mure orientali per climu septentrionale transiens ad occiduum, et inde
per meridionale redeat ad eoum." The prophet begins with the
tower of Hananeel, vvhich lay on the east side of the city, near the
sheep-gate, comp. Vol. II. p. 274. From there he proceeds to the
corner gate, which lay in the angle where the north and west met
(comp. the same place), and therefore embraces the whole north side.
He finishes with the horse-gate, which he expressly designates as
lying towards the east, and so informs us, that he has returned to the
place from which he set out. And thus we have gained a sure
foundation for determining those of the places mentioned, whose
position is in itself doubtful. — We now come to particulars. After
D'p^ the Keri inserts O'^n, It is true, that this fuller expression is
the usual one with the prophet, but, on this very account, the more
concise one, which alone has the authority of the manuscripts in its
favor (the Keri is mere conjecture, and perhaps not even that), is to
be preferred. Because the full phrase had already occurred too often
in the passage before us, the prophet, for the sake of variety, satisfies
himself here at the end, with the bare intimation. The prophet says
intentionally, "the city will be built to the Lord," where the phrase,
" is built," is to be referred to the Lord, not " the city of the Lord."
The latter had become so entirely a proper name of Jerusalem, that
the full depth of its meaning is no more thought of This new city
should no more be called the city of the Lord, it should be really
built to the Lord, so as to belong to him. In the two first points of
the boundary, the tower of Hananeel, and the corner gate, the
second chief thought of the passage does not yet appear. This is
explained simply by the fact, that on the whole north side of the city,
there lay no unholy places. The suff. in inJJ refers to the corner
gate ; the measuring line T^m, according to the Kethib, rrn-pn in, the
usual form according to the Keri, goes opposite to the corner gate,
further forward, &c. From what has been before remarked, it

CHAP, 31: 31-40. V. 38-40. 437
certainly appears, that the places, elsewhere never occnrring, the
hills Gareb and Goah, must have lain on the west side, and, indeed,
Gareb on the northwest, and Goah on the southwest side. a^iJ means
the leprous, and nothing else, and the hill of the leprous, can be
only the hill where the leprous abode. These, even in the second
year of the Exodus, were compelled to remain without the camp
(Num. 5:3, " Ye shall send them out of the camp, and they shall
not pollute your camp, wherein I dwell among you "), and this law
was so rigidly executed, that even Moses' sister was removed out of
the camp. After the entrance into Canaan, the provisions of the law
in reference to the camp, were transferred to the city, comp. stilf
Levit 13 : 46, " All the days that he has the leprosy, shall he be
unclean, alone shall he dwell, let his abode be without the camp."'
Even Uzziah could not evade it, he dwelt without the city in Beth
Chofschit, 2 Kings 15 : 5, which is explained in an entirely arbitrary
way by "house of the sick," instead of "house of emancipation," a
place where those dwelt whom the Lord had manumitted, who are
no longer his servants. Even in the kingdom of Israel they were so
rigid — a proof, among innumerable others, against the current view
of the religious condition of this kingdom, and of its relation to
the Mosaic law — in the execution of this Mosaic ordinance, that,.
even during the siege of Samaria, the lepers must not leave the place
assigned to them before the gate, 2 Kings 7:3. — In order to a
deeper investigation of the passage before us, it is indispensable, that
we should search out the ground of this ordinance. J. D. Michaelis
(Mos. R. 4. § 210, where we meet with little that is true concerning
the leprosy, as is the case even in the Concordance of Biichner), is
so certain of the answer, that he considers every other view as not
worth mentioning. Because the temporal objects are in his view the
highest, he everywhere attributes them to the law of the holy God ;
he regards the ordinance as a sanative measure, intended to guard
against infection. But this were a degree of severity towards the
sick, which would be the less excused by love towards the well, since
the leprosy, if in general, it is infectious, is only so with difficulty,
and never by a single touch. In a still stronger light must this se
verity towards the sick appear, and the concern for the whole even
becomes ridiculous, when we take into view the other regulations
concerning the lepers. They must go about with torn clothes,
naked head, and covered chin, and cry out to every one that comes
near to them, that they were unclean. That these regulations could

438 JEREMIAH.
not be designed to guard against infection, Michaelis himself con
fesses, " but,'' he remarks, " the leper ought not to occasion disgust
to any one by his really hateful appearance, or terrify by an acciden-
tal contact." Precisely as though a leper was a wild beast ! But
such sentimental, unmerciful regard for tender nerves, is nowhere
else to be seen in the law. This is not the morality of him who
orders all the .relations of a man to his neighbour according to the
fundamental principle, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
Further, the law concerning the leprosy of clothes, and of houses,
which is closely connected with that under consideration, cannot be
explained on medical or political grounds. The reason which Micha
elis advances for the law in reference to clothes, is such, that the
most refined politicians have never thought of any thing of the kind.
The leprosy in houses, according to him, the uninfectious injury
done to the walls by saltpetre, was so hateful to Moses, that, out of
concern for the health of the possessor, and the goods within, he
requires them to be entirely pulled down. With us, however, he
remarks, the Mosaic law would not be suitable, because we use
much saltpetre for gunpowder ! Truly, if Moses had the view of
the authority of the magistracy here lying at the foundation, — even
apart from the absurdity of the measure in itself — he could not be
an ambassador of God. In accordance with it, it might also be
ordered, that every one who had the toothache should suffer his
head to be cut off. Still more strongly will the untenableness of the
view of Michaelis appear, by the positive establishment of our own.
This is as follows : the leprosy is the bodily copy of sin, what, there
fore, is done to the leper, happens properly to the sinner ; every leper
was a warning sermon, a loud admonition to keep unspotted from
the world. The exclusion of the lepers from the camp, and the holy
city, taught in a figure, the same as John in proper words, in the
Apoc. 21 : 27, Kal ov fifj sigsX&rj slg avxfjV ndv xoivbv xal noiovv
§SsXvyfitt xal ijisvSog, and Paul, Eph. 5 : 5, Tovxo ydg I'axs yivdaxovxsg,
0X1 ndg nogvog, rj axa&agxog, fj nXsovixxrjg — ovx 'sxsi xXrjgovofilav iv xjj
^aaiXsla xov Xgiaxov xal &sov, comp. Gal. 5 : 19, 21. It now plainly
appears what the prophet designs when he includes the hill of the
lepers within the holy city. The hitherto impure becomes pure, the
kingdom of God now does violence to the sinners, while, hitherto,
they have done it to the kingdom of God. — Only from this view of
the leprosy, can we explain how precisely this disease so usually
occurs as a Theocratic punishment of sin. The sinner before God,

CHAP. 31: 31-40. V. 38-40. 439
is designated also as a sinner before the eyes of men, by being com
pelled to bear the image of sin, God provided, that, usually, figure
and reality should perfectly coincide. Although therfe were certainly
exceptions, where God, for wise and holy reasons, caused the relatively
innocent (with one perfectly innocent, if such an one could be found,
this could not be possible except with Christ, who bore our sickness)
to bear the image of sin, e, g, , those who stood in danger of self-
righteousness. As a Theocratic punishment, the leprosy occurs,
especially in those who had secretly sinned, or invested their sin with
a good appearance, which prevented it from appearing as such before
the eyes of men ; e. g. as in the case of Miraim, Uzziah, Gehazi,
2 Kings 5 : 27. In the law there are matiy warnings against it,
e. g. Deut. 24 : 8, and David wishes, 2 Sam. 3 : 29, that the threaten
ing of the law may be fulfilled in the house of the ungodly Joab.
Moreover, that the house-leprosy comes under consideration only as
an-image of the spiritual leprosy, sufficiently appears from the ordi
nance, Levit 14 : 49, " And he took, in order to purify the house
from sin, two fowls, and cedar-wood, and crimson, and hyssop, v. 53,
and so made atonement for the house, that it might be pure." The
proceeding here is entirely the same as in the case of sin and the
sinner; and, as the house cannot sin, it follows simply, that here the
discourse can relate only to a symbolic action, — Goah in this con
nexion, in the middle between impure places, cannot possibly be any
thing else, than, in like manner, an unclean place ; and the supposi
tion is very natural, that, even in the name, this idea is expressed.
We arrive at this meaning much easier, than by the usual derivation
of niu, to bellow, properly part, fem., the bellower, by that suggested
by Hiller, p, 127, from Wi, as Hit from VW. The word ;?U stands
of a violent death, no less than of a natural ; thus Num. 17 : 27, 28,
of a dying like that of the company of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram,
comp. Zech. 13 : 8. This derivation being assumed, therefore,
Goah, te expire, the hill of expiring, would be a very suitable name
of the place where malefactors were executed. Even Vitringa
throws out, on Is. 30 : 33, the conjecture, that Goah, rtnyu hi, is,
perhaps, identical with Golgotha, but retracts it again, because the
evangelists explain Golgotha by xgavlov xbnog. But this ground is
still not decisive ; the name of the place might well receive, as the
Arimean dialect became predominant, a new etymology, perhaps as
the fathers derive ndaxa from ndaxsw, &c. It has already been ob
served, that the appellation, place of a skull, sounds somewhat

440 JEREMIAH.
Strange, since the skulls did not remain on the place of execution ;
the expression, " the skull," for " the place of a skull," has also
appeared strange, and the omission of the L remarkable, all which is
easily explained, if the new meaning, coinciding in substance with
the former, was only suited to the word. The identity of Goah and
Golgotha, cannot be contested, at least from the position. That
Golgotha, as an unclean place, lay without the holy city, is certain,
even from Heb. 13 : 12; that it was, as Goah, precisely on the west
side, is, indeed, testified only by tradition, comp. Bachiene II. 1.
§ 134, Hamelsveld II. p. 155. — We now come to the valley of
carcasses, and of ashes. That this is the valley of Hinnom, is proba
ble, even from its position. The north and the west side are already
finished ; there remain, therefore, only the south and the east side.
The valley of Hinnom, however, lay toward the south, or southeast
of Jerusalem, comp. Hamelsveld II. p. 172, Bachiene II. 1. p. 313.
"The valley of carcasses," is here immediately connected with " all
the plain (i. q. all the rest) to the brook Kedron," and, therefore, is
designated as a part of the valley of Kedron. But the valley of
Hinnom was the south, or the southeast continuation of the valley of
Kedron, extending on the east side. To this must be added, that in
this connexion we must naturally expect the mention of the valley of
Hinnom, which otherwise would be wanting. Among all unclean
places around Jerusalem, this was the most unclean. Therefore, the
prophet, chap. 7 : 32, and 19 : 4, can threaten nothing more severe
to the impure, than that they should be buried in this most impure
of all places. There can be no greater triumph of the kingdom of
God over the world, than when this most complete contrast to the
holy city, this image of hell, is included within the holy city. Only
concerning the ground of the appellation, is there room for doubt.
"ijg, Dnjp never designates any thing else than carcass. It stands
in a proper sense, only for carcasses of animals, but is then transferr
ed to the corpses of those, who, by their crimes, have fallen under the
divine judgment, have been destroyed by the same. They had
become like the beast by their sins, comp. Ps. 49 : 21, so were they
also like it in their death. Thus, e. g., even Levit. 26 : 30, " And I
make your carcasses, and the carcasses of your idols." Num. 14 :
29, " In this wilderness your carcasses will fall," v. 32, 33. 1 Sam.
17 : 46, " And I give the carcass of the camp of the Philistines this
day to the fowls of heaven, and the beasts of the earth." 2 Kings
19 : 35, of the Assyrians, " And behold, they were all carcasses."

CftAP. 31 : 31-40. V. 38-40. 441
Is. 66 : 24, " And they go forth, and behold the carcasses of the
men who sinned against me," 14 : 19, 34 : 3, Amos 8 : 3, " many
carcasses in every place." In a manner entirely similar is nS^J also,
which, in like manner, originally designates only the carcass of a
beast, transferred also to the corpses of those who are accursed of
God, and therefore still, in death, pollute God's earth; comp. Deut.
21 : 23, 28 : 26, Jer. 16 : 4, 19 : 7, 34 : 20. According to this
determination of the meaning of the word, views are evidently erro
neous like that of Venema, vvho supposes that ihe valley bears the
name, as the public burying-place of the city. But still there re
mains room for a diversity of interpretation. By D'''?J9, may be
understood the carcasses of animals, — by the valley of Hinnom,
the places where carcasses from the city were deposited. That it
received this designation after its pollution by Josiah, 2 Kings 23 :
10, is in itself probable, and the usual supposition, comp. the
B. Kosri, p. 72. Buxtorf: " Gehenna locus erat noius prope Hieros.,
vallis scil, in qua ignis nunquam extinctus fuit, et ossa immunda,
morticina et reliquus res immundus comburebunt." But there are not
wanting evident signs, that the valley, even at an earlier period,
served this purpose. Is. 30 : 33, it is said, in reference to the Assyr
ians, " For Tophet has long been prepared (Gesenius arbitrarily
changes the nom. propr. into an appell., the hearth), even for the
king has it been appointed, made deep and broad ; its wood-pile has
fire and wood in abundance." Now this passage, in a prophecy the
genuineness of which no one denies, presupposes, that at that time
the valley of Hinnom, or Tophet (properly only a part, which, how
ever, is sometimes placed for the whole), had this destination, that
piles of wood constantly smoked in it, upon which the carcasses of
animals were burnt Such a place of carcasses, and ravens, was
already prepared for the carcasses of the Assyrians, who rebelled
against God. The very existence of the name Tophet, abhorrence,
abomination, testifies in favor of its impure destination. The second
passage is that of Is. 66 : 24, " Without the holy city, in the place
where formerly lay the carcasses of beasts, now lie the corpses of
transgressors ; as the former, so now also are the latter, food at the
same time of worms and of fire." True, the objection of Vitringa
is very plausible, that it is inconceivable, that the idolaters should
have chosen so impure a place. But such a probable ground is not
sufficient to invalidate positive testimony, and, moreover, it might,
though this would lead us too far from our purpose, easily be set
VOL. III. 56

442 ' JEREMIAH.
aside. It can, however, be supposed, that the prophet refers back to
his own declaration, 7 : 31, arid 19 : 4 sq., and that by D'l.jg here,
are to be understood the corpses of the transgressors devoted to
destruction, who should be buried even in the place destined for car
casses. But still, this reference is too remote, and it is certainly
more correct to say, that the quality of Tophet, as the place of car
casses, forms the common basis of those passages and of ours. —
That, finally, the valley of Hinnom is actually meant, appears, not
only from the grounds already cited, but from a grammatical reason.
The article in pD.j7n forbids that we should regard it as standing with
the following word in stat. constr. We must translate, " and the
whole valley " (viz. the valley of carcasses and ashes, comp. Ewald,
p. 581). The place is, therefore, first designated simply as " the
valley," and afterwards is more particularly designated. But pre
cisely the valley of Hinnom in Jer. 2 : 23, is called the valley xax' it,
and the gate leading to the valley of Hinnom, the valley-gate, Neh.
2 : 13, 15 (comp. Vol. II. p. 184). In reference to 1^1, Gousset has
already remarked, p. 363 : " Observa de solis dneribus ulteris et
eorum remotione usurpuri vocubula ]K''i et [B'"T." This remark is
confirmed by every examination of the passages concerned ; \w'y and
taS'T never occur except of the ashes of the sacrificial animals, comp.
Levit, 1 : 16, 6 : 3, 4, 1 Kings 13 : 5, Num. 4 : 13, Exod. 27 : 3.
Erroneous, therefore, is the derivation of the meaning, ushes, from
the ground meaning, fat, which Winer and others give, cinis, =
pinguefadio agrorum. Rather the burnt fat was still also con
sidered as fat ; the ashes of the fat is the residuum, rctSB', of the
fat. By this determination of the word, the explanation is very
much facilitated. It is said, Levit. 6 : 3, 4, " And he (the priest,
after the burnt-offering had been presented,) changes his garments,
and brings forth the ashes without the camp into a clean place.
According to this determination, the ashes of the sacrificial animals
were relatively unclean. The priests must take off the holy gar
ments, and put on the common, and carry the ashes without the
camp, and afterwards without the holy city. They were, therefore,
considered in contrast with the sacrifice itself as an impure residu
um, which is found in every thing that man does in relation to God,
as an image of the sinful defilement which adheres to all, even the
best works, the noblest elevation of the heart, as the heaviness from
which no spirit on earth is free. When, now, the place where the
ashes were thrown should be received within the circumference of

CHAP. 31 . 81 - 40. V. 38-40. 443
the holy city, and become equally sacred as the place where the
sacrifice was offered, what else can well be intended, than an over
powering of that which is unholy by the holy, of the earthly by the
divine, eflected by a richer measure of the Spirit ? It is entirely
analogous, when Zechariah makes the horses in the future to be
adorned by the Lord with the symbol of holiness, formerly borne
only by the high-priest ; so that the more full investigations given in
Vol. II. pp. 288, 289, are equally applicable here. Against th^ in
terpretation given, only oru thing can be objected ; since, according
to the law, the sacrificial ashes were to be brought into a clean place,
because even that which is in itself impure, vvhich has once stood in
connexion with that which is most pure and holy, must not be mingled
with that which is simply and commonly impure, it is not to be sup
posed, that the valley of Hinnom served this purpose. But in an
swer to this, it is to be remarked, that properly, this whole valley
was not impure, but only the place Tophet in it, and that the whole
is sometimes designated as impure, only because it included this
most unplean of all unclean places, comp. 7 : 31, 32 : 35, 2 Kings
23 : 10. — That the mnity, unte the brook Kedron, are identical
with the fields of Kedron mentioned 2 Kings 23, pilp nin'iB', is not
to be doubted. Very questionable, however, is the correctness of the
usual supposition (after the example of Kuypers, Ad varia V. T. Loca,
in the Syll. Dissertt. sub Pras. Schultens. et Schrodeii, t. I. p. 537),
that niDltff is synonymous with nia'iti'. Were this the case, we cannot
conceive why Jeremiah should have exchanged the usual word, for
one which nowhere else occurs. The exchanges of words similar
in sound, so usual with Jeremiah, particularly those differing from
one another only in one letter, and more especially in T and 1, are
always significant. Now, if we could not discover with certainty
the import of niD^^, it is still true, that this word is one which more
accurately designates the nature of the place, than the current nom.
propr., to substitute another in the place of which, without a more
important reason, would be absurd. One need only compare the
nTllVDn in itself in the simple historic prose concerning the Mount
qf Olives, 2 Kings 23 : 13. The easiest supposition, however, is the
following. ' All the meanings of the verbs r, ^^ ^ u*. and p ao
in the Arabic, run together into that of cutting off. Accordingly
niDlE^, pfur. of the fem. of the ac^. DIE;, loca abscissa, are places
which are cut off, and excluded (from the holy city) outwardly
{Aq. ngodaxsia) and also inwardly. And thus we have a very strik-

444 JEREMIAH.
ing antithesis between the present nature and the future destination.
That which is now wholly cut off from the holy, will then become a
holy place, Wlb. As for the rest, it appears from 2 Kings 23, that
the fields of Kedron were impure. Thither, as unto an unclean
place, Josiah brought all the abominations of idolatry, and burnt
them there, comp. v. 4 (Josiah caused all the vessels which had been
made to Baal and the Asherah, to be brought out of the temple).
" And he burnt them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kedron."
V. 6, " And he brought forth the Asherah out of the house of the
Lord, without Jerusalem, to the brook Kedron, and he burnt her in
the valley of Kedron, and threw her ashes upon the grave of the
sons of the people,'' The last words (the people, = the high and
low, who had defiled themselves by idolatry, comp, 2 Chron, 34 : 4,
"And he strewed the dust upon the graves of those who offered to
them"), enable us, perhaps, to conjecture the caiise of the impurity
of these fields. They served the adherents of the Moloch worship
as a burying-place, who would gladly rest in the vicinity of their idol,
dwelling in the neighbouring Tophet, which is the more easily ex
plained, since the sacrifices presented to the idol, as may be rendered
very probable, were, in a great measure, sacrifices of the dead. —
niTT'S f\b refers to all mentioned in this verse, taken together. In
reference to the last words of this verse, we may simply point to
Vol. II. p. 276.

Chap. 33. V, 14-26.

Still, before the destruction, but in view of it, while the prophet
found himself in the outer court of the prison, the revelation also,
besides that contained in chap. 32, was imparted to him, of which
our section forms a constituent part. It may appear surprising, that
in the outset, the revelation of greater and unknown things is prom
ised to the prophet, which he must obtain by calling upon God, while
yet the following prediction contains scarcely an important point
peculiar to itself But this is easily explained, when it is only ob
served, that the Scripture throughout regards not a dead knowledge
as knowledge, that the hope of the restoration had an enemy in the
natural man, in the prophet, as well as in aft believers, which strove

CHAP, 33: 14-20, 445
to darken and extinguish it ; that, therefore, the promise of it was
always new, the word of God perpetually great and exalted. Now in
the first part of the revelation, after the destruction had been repre
sented as unavoidable, and, therefore, all human hope had been cut
off, the restoration was described more in general expressions. In
the second part, the Lord meets particularly, a twofold special dis
tress of the believers. The time was drawing near, when David's
race would be most deeply humbled, when every trace of its former
glory would be extinguished. With it, the hopes of the people seem
to be borne to the grave. God himself had appointed this race, as
the medium of all his mercies, vvhich he, as a king, had promised to
show to his people. Where now were the mercies, when the channel
had been destroyed through which they flowed to the people? The
temple, converted into a den of thieves by the guilt of the people,
should be destroyed. But with the existence of the temple the ex
istence of the Levitical priesthood was connected. And if this
ceased, where then was the forgiveness of sins, which, in the law,
was connected with the mediation of the Levitical priesthood ? Now
the Lord meets these cares and anxieties, by explaining, that, in this
respect, the extinction would be a new existence, life would arise
from death.
The genuineness of this portion has been assailed, after the exam
ple of J. D. Michaelis, who enclosed it in brackets in the German
translation by Jahn, Vaticc. Mess. P. II. p. 112 sq. We now barely
cite the internal ground, — deferring the refutation till we enter
upon the interpretation, — because we need it in the refutation of
the external ground. Jahn embraces it, p, 121, in the following
words : " Argumentum repugnat omnibus Jeremia et omnium aliorum
prophetururn vuticiniis ; qua omnia in unico post exilium venture
Davide subsistunt, nee ullum ejusdem successorem, multo minus tan
tum posterorum Duvidis et Levitarum multitudinem memorant, qua
sub specie beneficii promittifur, reapse autem populo, cujus sumtibus
laute ulendu fuisset, gravissimam creasset molestiam." The exter
nal ground is the omission of the portion in the Alex, version.
Assuming the hypotheses, which is entirely gratuitous, of a double
recension of the prophecies of Jeremiah, it was believed, that the
omission in the Alexandrian version was owing to its not being con
tained in the recension, which the Seventy followed. But in fact,
the proofs, that the Seventy did not find in their manuscripts much
which they have left untranslated, are in the highest degree unsatis-

446 JEREMIAH,
factory. Where notorious negligence, ignorance, caprice, or entire
deficiency in clearness concerning the duty of a translator prevails,
there conclusions are badly drawn, which presuppose the opposite of-
all this (comp., e, g,, the conclusions in Jahn, p, 116 sq,). Were we
often unable to discover the ground which induced the Seventy to
make the omission, allowing that what is left out was really in the
text, what would this prove ? Could we beforehand expect any
thing else, since we find ourselves on the ground of accident and
conjecture ? It is completely sufficient, that we can point out in a
multitude of places, the insufficient grounds which moved them to
omit to change, to transpose, because these of themselves show, that
we are within the province of accident and conjecture, where it is
irrational to demand in every case a reason. Now to these passages,
the one before us also belon*, so that, even assuming, that the
ground of the deviation sometimes lay in a different recension, this
passage could not be regarded as an instance of the kind, and, there
fore, nothing could be inferred against its genuineness from its
omission. A twofold ground here presents itself 1. Important
portions of our prophecy have occurred before, v. 15, 16, almost
verbally, chap. 23 : 5, 6, v. 20, 25, entirely coinciding, as to the
thought, and chap. 31 : 35 - 37, in part as to the words. That the
Seventy, unable to perceive the deeper reason of the repetition, and
transferring their own ignorance to the prophet, omitted that which
had occurred before, merely on this account, is certain. 2. In that
which is peculiar to our passage, precisely the chief thought, that
which is urged by J, D, Michaelis and Jahn against the genuine
ness, must have been highly offensive to the Seventy, incapable of a
deeper view. An increase of the Levites, and of the family of
David, as the stars of heaven, and the sand on the sea, is a thought
from which the prophet must be freed, whether he may have had it
or not. The omission in the Septuagint, therefore, proves nothing
further, than that already, two thousand years before J. D. Michaelis
and Jahn, there were people who knew as little how to understand
the text as they.

V. 14. " Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and I fulfil the good
word that I have spoken to the house of Israel, and concerning the

CHAP. 33: 14-26. V. 15-17. 447
house of Judah." The good word may be understood generally of
all God's manifestations of mercy towards Israel, in antithesis with
the evil word, the threatenings, which, until now, had been fulfilled
against Israel, comp. 1 Kings 8 : 56, where Solomon, in the prayer
of dedication says, " Praised be the Lord, vvho has given rest to his
people Israel, according to all which he spake ; not one word has
failed (the opposite of Dip) of all his good word, that he spake by
Moses his servant" In Deut 28, the words the good, and the words
the evil, are placed together, the first from v. 1 - 14, blessed, then
afterwards accursed. Tbe central point and substance of this good
word was then the promise to David, through whose righteous sprout
all the promises to Israel should receive their final fulfilment But it
may be also assumed, that the prophet would especially designate
by the "good word," this promise to David, as it had been repeated
by him chap. 23 : 5, 6. This latter supposition, is, perhaps, to be
preferred, since, in v. 15, 16, that repetition is cited, and v. 17 points
to the ground promise.
V. 15, 16. " In those days, und at thut time, I will cause to spring
forth to David, a righteous sprout, and he provides justice and
righteousness in the land. In those duys, Juduh is endowed with
salvation, and Jerusalem dwells securely, and this is the name which
shull be given to her. The Lord our righteousness." The promise
is here intentionally repeated in the previous form, in order to show
that it still lived, that the total contrariety of the visible state of
things was not able to annul it ; that it retained its power even in
the face of the destruction, of the deepest humiliation, of the family
of David. For 'OD'pn the more suitable n''OSS is here substituted,
because the reference there found to Jehoiakim ceases. For Israel
there, we have here Jerusalem, because precisely the restoration of
Jerusalerii out of the destruction, described in v.- 4 sq., was so hard
to be credited by the believers. For the like reason, the prophet
gives to Jerusalem the same name here as to the sprout of David
there. The same city, which now still sighs under the anger of
God, shall yet, at a future period, be endowed with righteousness by
the Lord.
V. 17. " For thus saith the Lord, Duvid shull not want u man
sitting upon the throne of the house of Isruel." The connexion
with the preceding, is well given by Calvin, thus : " Locutus est
proph. de restitutione ecclesia ; eum doctrinam nunc confirmat, quia
promittit regnum una cum sacerdotio perpetuum fore. Continebatur

448 JEREMIAH.
autem solus populi dudbus istis partibus. Nam sine rege erant veluti
corpus iruncum aut mutilum ; sine sucerdote mera erut dissipatio.
Nam sacerdos erat quasi medius inter deum et populum, rex autem
reprasentabat dei personam." The expression, "shall not be cut
off," &,c., is a simple repetition of the promise to David, in the form
in which it was cited by David himself in the address to Solomon,
shortly before his death, 1 Kings 2:4, and afterwards twice by
Solomon, 1 Kings 8 : 25, 9 : 5. That T\'\3\ sS does not designate
a complete uninterrupted succession, that it only forms an antithesis
with an entire cessation, appears in the ground promise, from the
fact, that God reserves to himself the punishment of the individual
apostate members of the stock of David, and in Jeremiah, from the
frequently repeated prediction of its total humiliation.
V. 18. " And to the Levitical priests a man shall not be be cut off
before me presenting a burnt-offering, and setting on fire a meat
offering, and presenting a sacrificial victim always." In order to
a correct understanding of these words, it is necessary to go back to
their occasion. The consolation is explained only by the distress.
The prophet here had to do, not, indeed, with members of the tribe
of Levi, who mourned over the loss of the prerogative of their tribe ;
had this been the case, the letter must have been held fast, for only
when this is retained, can the promise afford consolation for such
a state of mind. Its consolations are rather designed for all
believers, who bewailed the extinction of the relation to God that
had hitherto existed, through the mediation of the tribe of Levi. If
the relation only continued, it was of little consequence to them
whether it were realized as hitherto through the tribe of Levi. As
the distress so also the consolation, regarded solely the substance.
Israel, even henceforth, enjoys free access to his reconciled God, is
the fundamental thought Now all whereby this thought is histori
cally realized, in whatever form this may be, is to be considered as
included under it. And thus we gain a threefold fulfilment
1. In the times after the return from the exile, the consolation was
enjoyed in the form in which it is here expressed. That God per
mitted and promoted the rebuilding of the temple, was a matter-of-
fact declaration of the reinstating of the Levitical priesthood in its
mediatorial office 2. The idea of the Levitical priesthood was
most fully realized in Christ, who, as a high-priest and mediator,
bore the sins of his people, made intercession for the transgressors,
in whom the Levitical priesthood ceased, as the seed-corn disappears

CHAP. 33:14-26. V. 18. 449
in the plant 3. Through Christ the believers became priests them
selves, and obtained free access to the Father. — That we justly
maintain this independence of the thought on the form, appears
from the following grounds : 1. The prophet is so penetrated by the
thought of the glory of the new, far surpassing that of the old
covenant, that it might have been expected beforehand, that he
would not anticipate, in respect to the priesthood, an eternal dura
tion of the mean form it had hitherto borne. Only the substance is,
in his view, permanent. We need only compare the portion chap.
31 : 31 sq. How carefully does he here give prominence to the
thought, that the new covenant would not be as the old ; how does he
point from the shadow to the substance ! But especially in this
respect is chap. 3 : 16 to be considered. There, the cessation of the
former dignity of the ark of the covenant is announced in the
strongest and most impressive terms. How the temple, the Levitical
priesthood, the whole sacrificial service, stood in the closest and most
inseparable connexion with the ark of the covenant, so that they
must all fall with it, we have already seen. 2. V. 22 here furnishes
an incontrovertible proof which must be regarded as an explanation
of the prophet himself how he wished to be understood. Now the
changing of all the descendants of Abraham into Levites, is here
promised as a constituent part of the perpetual acceptance of the
tribe of Levi, promised in the verse before us. This plainly shows,
that, in this verse also, the Levites could not come under considera
tion as natural descendants of Levi, but only in reference to their
calling, and their destination. 3. Zechariah is to be regarded as the
oldest and most authentic interpreter of Jeremiah. Now in him,
who earnestly endeavours to obviate the same anxiety which Jere
miah here meets, two of the three points embraced by Jeremiah in
the unity of the idea, separately appear, yet so that the binding unity
of the idea is not thereby placed in the background. Chap. 3, God
assures the people, that, notwithstanding the greatness of their sins,
he would not only, as heretofore, suffer the office of the high priest
to continue, and accept his mediation, but also, at a future period,
send the true high priest, who should make a complete and perpetual
atonement (comp. Vol. II. p. 25). In v. 8 the high priest, and his
colleagues in the priestly office, are designated as types of Christ,
inasmuch as he, putting to shame the despair of the people in God's
mercy, should completely accomplish the atonement and reconcilia
tion, which had been only imperfectly effected by them. In chap. 4
VOL. III. 57

450 JEREMIAH.
the priestly order, together with the regal, is designated as one of the
two children of oil, of the two anointed of the Lord, whose anointing
should always remain, comp. Vol, II, p, 44 ; and that here also only the
shadow belongs to the Levitical high-priesthood, the body to Christ,
is evident from chap, 6 : 13 (comp. Vol, II, p. 58), where the Messiah
appears at the same time as the true high-priest and king. 4. There
are not wanting elsewhere plain examples, in which only the
idea of the priesthood is considered apart from the peculiar form of
its manifestation under the Old Testament Among these is Is.
61 : 6, where it is said, in reference to all Israel, " And ye shall be
called priests of Jehovah ; ministers of our God, shall men say to
you." Here the conversion of all Israel into the tribe of Levi is
announced ; for that it cannot be established, that the discourse here
is only in general of priests, but in Jeremiah of Levitical priests, ap
pears from the second passage, chap. 66 : 21, " And I also will take
of them for Levitical priests, saith the Lord." Whether by " the
brethren," to which the expression, " from them " refers, the heathen
are here to be understood, as Vitringa and Gesenius suppose, or the
Israelites in the exile, makes no difference in respect to our purpose.
For although the latter reference be assumed, it is still certain, that
those should be received as Levitical priests, who had not descended
from Levi. Otherwise there would be no taking, no special divine
favor. — After we have thus determined the sense of the promise
relating to the Levitical priesthood, it will not be difficult to arrive at
the truth also in the case of the promise relating to the tribe of
David. Here also we find a threefold fulfilment. 1. In the times
immediately after the exile, where Zerubbabel, a sprout of the stock
of David, was a mediator of the favors which God, as king, vouch
safed to his people. In a certain sense also may be included the
favor which God, at a later period, in his relation as king, bestowed
upon the people through civil leaders, who were not of David's race.
For since the dominion had been for ever transferred to the stock of
David, these could be regarded only as ingrafted into it, as substi
tutes and vicegerents, — much in the same way as the blessing which
was imparted to the people by the priesthood of Samuel, who was
not a priest, is to be regarded as included in the promise in reference
to the tribe of Levi. What God bestowed through those leaders,
was only for the sake of the tribe of David, which had been destined
as the perpetual channel of his regal blessings. Had the kingdom
of Ddvid come to an end, he would not have bestowed either these

CHAP. 33: 14-26. V. 18. 451
rulers or the prosperity granted to them upon the people, as appears
from a comparison of the times after the reign of the great hero out
of David's stock ; where, because no representation of the tribe of
David, now again to reign to all eternity, can any more have place,
so also has every trace of the regal favor of God, in raising up other
rulers, now ceased. But in the passage before us, the separation of
what, in the strictest sense, does not belong there, would be the less
suitable, since here the promise to David is not considered in refer
ence to him and to his family, but solely in reference to the people ;
and since, therefore, the manifestation of the regal mercy of God
constitutes the central point, while the tribe of David comes under
consideration only so far as it was destined to be the medium of this
regal mercy. 2. It was fulfilled in Christ, and that the prophet had
this chiefly in view, appears from v. 15 and 16. Both were joined
with one another also, by Zechariah in chap. 4. 3. It was fulfilled
in the exaltation of the whole of the genuine posterity of Abraham
to the regal dignity through Christ. This most striking antithesis
with the despondency, — the despondency, there is no king in Isra
el ; the consolation, all Israel merely kings, — is expressly brought
forward in v. 22. — We still remark, that we must not, as is com
monly done, translate "priests and Levites,'' but, as also Is. 66 : 21,
" Levitical priests." The epithet Levitical, is subjoined, in order to
obviate the thought, that the discourse might here perhaps be of
priests in the improper sense ; it serves, therefore, the same purpose
as "he reigns as a king," in chap. 23 : 5. — In reference to the
sacrifices, we cannot assume, with the older interpreters, that pre
cisely spiritual sacrifices are here meant ; the correct view is rather,
that the prophet presents the substance in the form it had hitherto
borne, and in which it should now soon for a time be lost, without,
since he had to do only with the substance, expressing any opinion
whether this substance in the future, should arise again in the same
form, and whether it should endure for ever. History affirms the
former and denies the latter, and that the prophet also vvould have
denied it upon inquiry, evidently appears from chap. 3 : 16. Finally,
how well they knew, even under the Old Testament, in the sacrifices,
to distinguish the substance and the form from one another, and
regard the latter as merely accidental, is shown by such passages as
Hos. 14 : 3, " Take with you words, and return to the Lord, and say
to him Take away all guilt, and give good, and we will recompense
to thee bullocks, our lips." Here, thanks are represented as the

452 JEREMIAH.
substance of the thank-offering, and, indeed, so completely, that the
thank-offering, the bullock, is entirely present, where there are only
the thanks, the lips. The outward sacrifice is only the vessel where
in the gift of God is presented. Also Ps. 50 : 14, in antithesis with
the mere outward sacrifices, "Offer to God thanksgiving," Mai.
1: 11, &c.
V. 19. " And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiuh, und suid,
Thus suith the Lord, when ye shull make void my covenant the day,
und my cevenunt ihe night, so that there shall be no more day and
night in its time, V. 21. Then also shall my covenant with David
my servant be made void, that he shall not huve one who reigns upon
his throne, and with the Levitical priests, my servants." The
thought has been already explained on chap. 31 : 35 sq. The word
nsn is very significant. Calvin : " Oblique perstringit pepuli ma
litiam, quia quuntum in Judais erat obstreperis suis vocibus pessum-
dabunt fadus dei. — Hac igitur incredulitas notatur cum dicit
proph. : quorsum ista vestra qucrimonia 1 — Perinde est ac si velle-
tis solem ei lunam detrahere de cade et tollere discrimen inter dies et
nodes, et evertere totius natura legem, quiu ego idem deus, qui volui
nociem diei succedere et diem nodi, etium promisi etc.'' Dl'n and
¦^'i^'.^JD are in apposition to "my covenant" ; the day and the night,
in their regular and perpetual alternation, are the covenant which
is here the subject of discourse. nS^Sl Dar, of day and night,
daily and nightly, for tempus diurnum et nodurnum. The cove
nant, n'"!5, stands here, not, indeed, in the sense stubilis ordinatio,
nor is it to be regarded as concluded vvith the day and the night ;
these are rather the covenant blessings ; God, who bestows them,
and all connected with them, who causes the sun to shine by day,
and the moon by night, thereby concludes, according to the investi
gation already made (on 31 : 32), a covenant vvith men; he binds
them, by the uninterrupted preservation of the course of nature, to
an uninterrupted observance of moral order. This is manifest, when,
after the flood, the covenant of nature is concluded, and its inviola
bility established anew, comp. Gen, 9 : 9, "Behold, I set up my
covenant with you, and vvith your seed after you.'' 8 : 22, " Sum
mer and winter, seedtime and harvest, heat and cold, day and night,
shall not fail." Then, with these covenant promises, covenant
laws are connected, obligations which the covenant imposes. Now
the covenant of grace, peculiar to Israel alone, is entirely like this
natural covenant, common to all men, and not first concluded, but

CHAP, 33: 14-26. V, 22. 453
only renewed, in the time of Noah. To assert that the former could
cease, is nothing else than to wish to tear the sun and moon from the
heavens. It is, indeed, one and the same God, who is the author of
both the covenants.
V. 22. " As the host of heaven is net numbered, and the sand of
the sea not measured, so will I increase the seed of David my ser
vant, and the Levites, who serve me." The literal understanding of
the verse involves in itself an absurdity. Such an increase of the
natural family of David lies beyond the bounds of possibility ; and
even were this not so, still it would have, as well as the like increase
of the Levites, not the nature of a promise, but of a threatening. In
any event, the consolation would stand in no relation to the afl3iction.
For this referred, not to the number of the posterity of David, and
of the Levites, but to the merciful reception of the latter by God,
and vvith them that of the people, and this has nothing whatever to
do with numbers. But, in addition to this, there is still another
ground. The verbal relation to the promises in Abraham, Gen.
15 : 5, 22 : 17, is manifest. Now if these belong to all Israel, and
they are here, on the contrary, transferred to the family of David, and
to the Levites, then is it thereby sufficiently indicated, that all Israel
should be converted into the family of David and the tribe of Levi.
This thought need not here surprise us. It has its foundation in the
law itself It is here only announced, that the destination of the
covenant people lying already in the law, and hitherto only very im
perfectly, should, at a future period, be perfectly realized. God
says, Exod. 19 : 6, of Israel, " Ye shall be to me a kingdom of
priests, a'jnb j"ij|7pn," therefore, first a kingdom. The nature of a
kingdom is to have no other power over itself than the divine. This
was always the case with the covenant people, so long as they were
not brought by their own wilful fault into a voluntary moral bondage
to the world ; the outward bondage was always only a reflection of
the inward, and never overtook the covenant people, as such, but
always only so far as they had become like the world. And, even
when this unnuiurul condition occurred; the individuals, who, con
scious how dearly they had been redeemed, kept themselves in
wardly free from the bondage of the world, did not lose this high
dignity. Although in chains and bonds, they still, in this higher
relation, remained free. The world, sin, death, and hell, could gain
no advantage over them, nay, with all external appearance of victory,
these enemies were in reality subdued by them, and even their

454 JEREMIAH.
outward bondage, more deeply considered, was a sign of their do
minion. For the law of the Lord of hosts was in their inward
parts ; it was the living principle of their being, and, according to
this law, the whole world was ruled ; according to this law also, the
bondage of their people ensued. They were, therefore, coregents
with God, and, as such, reigned over their rulers. — All the individu
al members of this kingdom, that consists purely of kings, should,
at the same time, be priests. And thus it was already declared,
that the Levitical priesthood, introduced at a later period, could not
have the same meaning as the priesthood among other people of an
tiquity, where priests and people stood in an absolute and direct an
tithesis, where the priests only stood in an immediate relation to
God. It was thus declared, that the priests, — according to one view,
in another they were types and shadows of Christ, — possessed only
transferred rights, that they were the representatives of the people,
that, therefore, their mediation at a future period might entirely dis
appear. And, in order that this might be perpetually held by the
people in lively remembrance, that they might know that they were
the proper bearers of the priestly dignity, even after the establish
ment of the Levitical priesthood, they retained that sacerdotal func
tion, which formed the root and groundwork of all the rest, the slay
ing of the covenant sacrifice, of the Paschal Lamb, which formed
the central point of all other sacrifices, which served only for its
completion. That, even under the old covenant, this import of the
Paschal service was rightly perceived, is shown by Philo, De Vita
Mos. p. 686, Frfr. : "At the passover, the laity do not merely bring
the sacrificial animals to the altar, and the priests offer them, but,
according to the prescription of the law, the whole people exercise
priestly functions, since each one, for his own part, presents the ap
propriate sacrifices.'' — Thus, therefore, we have here the highest
completion of the consolation designed for the sorrowing covenant
people. Not merely shall they receive back their king, their
priests, but they shall be entirely changed into a royal and priestly
race. In substance, this was already contained (whioh should not
be overlooked) in the promise to Abraham ; that this did not refer to
a great multitude of corporeal descendants, iules quales, that it rather
refers only to such sons of Abraham as were, at the same time, sons
of God, and therefore a royal and priestly race, we have already
pointed out, p. 37 sq. — If now, vve look at the fulfilment, the pas
sage which chiefly presents itself is, 1 Pet 2 : 9, 'Tfisig Ss ysvog

CHAP. 33: 14-26. V. 23, 24. 455
ixXsxxbv't'f ^aalXsiov lsgdxsvfia„^&c. Here the passage of Exodus ap'-
pears as a prophecy, which is now first fulfilled in the present., Is
rael has now become, what, according to his destination, he always
should be, a royal priesthood, priests who possess at the same time
the kingly nature and being. What now perfectly exists in the
germ shall hereafter be completely developed, according to Apoc.
5 : 10,' Kal inoixjaag fjfidg xd &sd fjfidv §aaiXs~ig xal lsgs~ig, xal §aaiXsv-
aovaiv inl x^g yfjg. Believers, when their sin has been extirpated,
will have the freest access to God ; when his will has become theirs,
and when, at the same time, his dominion over the whole world
becomes visible, they will unconditionally reign with him. How
this, their dignity, is rooted in Christ, appears from the Apoc. 1 : 5,
6, where the xal snolrjasv fjfiag §aaiXsiav (A. ^aaiXstg xal) Isgstg xd
¦&sq) xal naxgl avxov Stands in a close connexion to the o dgxav xdv
^aaiXsiirv T^s yrjg, and to the xal Xovaavxi. fjfidg dnb xdv dfiagxidv fjpdv
iv xd a'ifiaxi avxov. — "ITO cannot mean as, it designates rather mere
ly in general, the relation of this sentence to the preceding, in
reference hereto ; and the thing to be compared is then subjoined,
and designated as to be compared by the bare ]D : "is not to be
numbered — so."
V. 23. "And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, and said,
V. 24. Seest thou not what this people speak und say : the two
families which the Lord hus chosen, those hus he now rejected, und
they despise my people, thut it is no longer a people before them.".
It is scarcely to be conceived, how the recent interpreters could as
sert, that by this people, are to be understood, not the Israelites, but
the heathen, the Egyptians, or the Chaldeans. It is left out of view,
that the prophet here, as in the whole of the rest of the portion, and
as throughout these chapters, refers entirely to those in Israel, —
and to this class belong more or less all, even the most believing, —
who, because they saw Israel prostrate, despaired of his future pros
perity, and, indeed, for the most part, so as to give a good pretext,
that of humility, for their despair. The people have so sinned
against God, that he is free from all his obligations, and can by no
means receive them again into favor. The prophet shows them, that
such a thought, however good in appearance, is still a reproach to
God. Every instance of despair degrades God to an idol, to a crea
ture. Faith sustains itself on the word, on the promise ; it says,
although there is much sin with us, there is much more mercy with

456 JEREMIAH.
God. So truly as God remains constantly God, so truly do his people
remain constantly his people. He chastises them, indeed, but he does
not give them over to death. One need only consider the li3n in
V. 20. The expression, " this people," is contemptuous. The
prophet indicates, that those who use such language thus cease to
be numbered among the people of God. The two families are Ju
dah and Israel. Of these, in substance, the prophet had spoken also
in what preceded ; for he had treated of the election or rejection of
the tribe of Levi, and the race of David, only so far as these stood
related to the election or rejection of the people, so that here the
same thing is only repeated in a different form, from regard to the
indocility of those who are weak in faith, and prone to despond.
The expression, "those has he rejected," was correct in a certain
sense, but not in that of the speakers. They maintained, in antithe
sis with the election, a rejection for ever, which was as much as to
assert, that Jehovah, the existing, the unchangeable, was no more
Jehovah, but a man, that he might lie, and a son of man, that he
might repent. As surely as God was Jehovah, so surely also dfisxa-
fisXrjxa xd x^gl^fiaxa xal fj xXfjOig xov dsov, Rom, 11:29. The
expression, "my people," directs attention to the fact, that they
despised God in despising Israel. With respect to the antithesis of
" my people," and " a people," comp, on chap, 31 : 36.
V. 25, " Thus saith the Lord, if I have not esiublished my cove
nant duily und nightly, und the ordinunces of the heaven and the
earth," comp, v, 20. The covenant daily and nightly, the covenant
which relates to the constant and regular alternation of day and
night. The ordinances of the heaven and the earth, designate the
whole course of nature, — especially the relation of sun, moon, and
stars to the earth, comp. v. 31 - 35, — so far as it is regulated by
God's ordinance, and therefore is lasting.
V. 26. "' So will I also reject the seed of Jacob, and David my
servant, that I no more take out of his seed rulers over the seed of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will turn their imprisonment,
und have mercy upon, them." The rejection of the seed of Jacob
and of the seed of David, are inseparably connected vvith one
another. For since, by the promise to David, the kingdom had been
for ever joined vvith his race, so, when David was no more a servant
of God, Israel also was no more a people of God, and, in general,
no more a people. The plur. D'Stj/D, is explained by the circum-

CHAP. 33: 14^26. V. 26. 457
stance, that the stress was here laid not upon the number, but only
upon the fact, comp. on 23 : 4, and at the same time also on v. 18.
That the prophet, at least chiefly, had in view the revival of the
dominion of David in the Messiah, is beyond a doubt The men
tion of the three patriarchs recalls to mind the whole series of
the promises imparted to them. The turning of the imprisonment
designates here, as always, the restitutio in integrum, — the im
prisonment, an image of misery, not the bringing back out of
captivity.

VOL. III. 58

THE PROPHET EZEKIEL.

P RELIMI N ART OBSERVATIONS.
We must hasten to a close, since we have already far surpassed
our limits, and must, therefore, particularly in the preliminary re
marks to Ezekiel, be brief But this is rendered the more easy, by
the fact, that the temporal relations under which he came forward,
have already been fully presented in the introduction to Jeremiah.
Ezekiel was a younger contemporary of this prophet. He had been
carried away into exile at the first great deportation under Jehoia
chin, received his residence on the Chebar, and there came forward,
as a prophet, in the midst of the exiles, in the seventh year before
the destruction of Jerusalem, To this temporal relation to Jeremiah,
his relation to him in other respects corresponds. He imitates him
throughout, which seems to have given occasion to the later saying
(comp, Bertholdt, IV. p. 1479), that he was the amanuensis of
Jeremiah. But this dependence can have been only a voluntary
one, as is evident from the highly individual and independent charac
ter of Ezekiel, He wished to point to the common foundation of
his agency, and of that of the older servant of God, to the essential
unity of God's word, notwithstanding the individual diversity of the
human instruments who uttered it.
The sphere of Ezekiel's labors was one of great importance, A
better soil, on the whole, was assigned to him than to Jeremiah,
By divine guidance, precisely the better part of the nation had been
carried into exile, which, if the human causes are regarded, may,
perhaps, be thus explained ; the ungodly, who despised the predic
tions of the prophets, made every effort to obtain permission to re
main in their native land, while those who feared God, perceiving
that the ruin of the city was unavoidable, the indispensable condi
tion of its restoration, joyfully obeyed the first admonition, and
cheerfully met death, which was the only gate to life. This relation

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS, 459
of the exiles to those who remained behind, appears especially out
of Jeremiah 24. The former are designated by him as the nursery,
as the hope, of the kingdom of God. Still, however, the distinction
was only a relative one. The forehead of Ezekiel also must God
make as a diamond, harder than a rock, that he might not fear
before them and not tremble before their face, for they were a diso
bedient people (chap. 3:9). Many of the ungodly had been carried
away against their will, and even the pious had dwelt among a people
of unclean lips, and, through the predominance of unrighteousness,
their love had grown cold. Many temptations surrounded the weak,
and threatened to blast the hopes of the kingdom of God, They
were placed at once in the midst of the heathen world, and the
idolatrous spirit of the times assailed them with fearful violence.
The long-predicted judgment upon Judea was delayed ; the kingdom
of Zedekiah seemed to be altogether confirmed ; the alliance with
the Egyptian power encouraged the hope of an entire restoration ;
the deceivers of the people in Jerusalem did not leave the exiles out
of view, and found among them willing assistance ; on all hands,
human hopes were rife ; soon they supposed a return into their native
land would be open to them, and with this thought, that of cooperat
ing for such a purpose was immediately connected. If this disposi
tion became predominant, the purpose of God, who had exiled them
in the land of the Chaldeans for their good, would be defeated ; as
long as they strove to find human ways of deliverance, they could
not with earnestness pursue the Divine way, which led through
repentance. To return to the Lord, was what they had to do; in this
return, the return to their land was included, so surely as this land
was the land of the Lord. Even those who kept themselves pure
from such gross pollutions,, still vacillated, and needed to be
strengthened. There was so much to favor the idea, that God had
entirely forgotten them ; they were cut off from the sanctuary, and
dwelt in a strange land ; their brothers, in possession of the holy
land and the temple, treated them with proud contempt, since they
considered the possession as an actual proof of their right. And
thus they were near despair. — Then the Lord began to fulfil his
good word given to the exiles through Jeremiah, by causing Ezekiel
to appear in the midst of them, who raised his voice like a trumpet,
and showed to Israel his misdeeds ; whose word, like a threshing-
machine, passed over all these sweet hopes and purposes, and ground
them to dust ; whose whole manifestation furnished the strongest

460 EZEKIEL.
proof that the Lord was still among his people, who was himself a
temple of the Lord, before whom the apparent temple, which still
stood at Jerusalem for a short time, sunk back into its own nothing
ness ; a spiritual Samson, who, with a strong arm, seized the pillars
of the temple of idols and dashed it to the ground ; an energetic,
gigantic nature, who was thereby suited effectually to counteract the
Babylonish spirit of the times, which loved to manifest itself in vio
lent, gigantic, grotesque forms ; one who stood alone, but was yet
equal to a hundred of the scholars of the prophets. The extent of
his influence appears from the fact, that the oldest of the people were
accustomed to assemble in his house, in order to hear the word of
the Lord through him, a sign of the public and formal acknowledg
ment of his spiritual dignity in the colony.
Among tbe aids are to be mentioned the Commentary of Calvin,
which extends only over the first twenty chapters ; that of Pradus
and Villalpandus, Rom. 1596 - 1604,' 3 vol. fol., which, for its time,
is excellent, and is even now useful, especially as a collection of the
older interpretations ; the Commentary of Venema, edited after his
death by Verschuir, 2 vol. 1790-1791 (not as Bertholdt and De
Wette cite, merely Vol, I.), which almost surpasses the other works of
the author in capriciousness, but still, since in the case of a book so
greatly neglected even the gold sand must be washed out, is not to
be overlooked ; finally, the Commentary of Rosenmiiller, which is
favorably distinguished above those on other books, and has some
thing peculiar.

THE PORTION CHAP. 11:14-21,
It belongs to the greater whole, chap. 8- 11. In the sixth year
after the carrying away of Jehoiachin, which was also the sixth year
before the destruction, the elders of the colony are collected before
the prophet, expecting that the Lord would send them a message
through him. The occasion of this their wish, and the subject on
which they desired information, we learn from the prophecy itself
especially from chap, 11, That God's righteousness did not manifest
itself so swiftly as they expected in the destruction of Jerusalem,
led them to doubt respecting their own conduct, and the more so.

THE PORTION CHAP, 11: 14-21. 461
since the inhabitants of Jerusalem, elated by the possession of the
sanctuary, triumphed over them. The prophet is now transferred in
spirit to Jerusalem. There, in the first place, he is favored with a
survey of the greatness and aggravation of their sins. These appear
as concentrated in and before the temple (comp. on Amos 9:1), and
as the chief bearers of them, the leaders of the people in corpore,
the seventy elders, and the twenty-five princes, the former standing
in the northern, the latter in the eastern gate of the temple, and
there supplicating, not, indeed, the Lord, but their idols, in striking
antithesis with the leaders of the exiles, who seek the Lord in his
servant. The contrast of the idea and the reality is expressed in
the relation of the name of one among the Seventy, probably the
most distinguished among them, Joazaniah, to his conduct. He,
God hears, speaks vvith his associates (v. 12), " Jehovah sees us not,
Jehovah has forsaken the land." — The representation of the sin is
followed by that of the punishment, from chap. 9 : 1 sq., the certain
ty and greatness of which is already established by the former. It
follows exactly the order of the sin. The prophet beholds how the
avenging angels, with the angel of the Lord at their head, sent by
Jehovah, enthroned over the ark of the covenant, as a sign that the
judgment was a Theocratic one, begin their work on the elders who
are before the north gate, the Seventy ; how they then go forth and
slay in the city ; how, finally, the glory of the Lord removes from the
holy of holies into the gate towards the east, the chief gate towards
the Mount of Olives, in order there to judge the twenty-five, and
then entirely to depart from the desecrated Jerusalem. Already the
axe lies at the root of the heads of the people, and yet the prophet
hears them utter their rash speeches. It is not near, to build houses,
say they (11 : 2), it is the caldron, and we the flesh. They mock,
therefore, the discourses of the prophets, according to which, the
way to build lay through the destruction, — ¦ " What is once destroyed,
that is not so easily rebuilt ; instead of suffering ourselves to be de
ceived by such fanatical hopes, we will rather hold what we have ;
nothing, neither man nor God, shall drive us out of the possession of
Jerusalem. It and we are inseparable." The prophet receives the
command to chastise this impudence with words, and scarcely has he
ended his discourse, when the deed (naturally in the vision, in the
ideal reality) follows the word. The Divine judgment begins, and
Pelatiah the son of Benaiah, first sinks beneath the stroke of the
Lord. As in respect to the sin, so also of the punishment, the

462 EZEKIEL.
prophet causes its nature to appear in the name. " God hears,"
says " God hears not,'' a contrast of the idea and the reality, in
reference to the behaviour ; " God delivers," son of " God builds,"
perishes without deliverance, and falls into ruin ; the contrast of the
idea and reality in reference to the event, necessarily resulting from
the first contrast. The prophet recognises this antithesis, sees that
in Pelatiah the son of Benaiah, this person perishes not as an indi
vidual, but as a type of the whole people. Seized with compassion,
he throws himself upon his face, and cries aloud : " Ah, Lord, wilt
thou destroy the remnant of Israel (11 : 13), shall the name of Pela
tiah henceforth be a lie ? "
Now, herewith is our portion connected. The Lord answers.
He vvill not receive into favor those bold sinners, who now play the
master in Jerusalem ; these, although of Israel, are yet not Israel ;
the souls which have already long been extirpated from Israel, must
now also become outwardly so. The object of his intercession, of
his mediatorial office, must be the exiles, because they only are
children of God, they only are his brethren, the only true Israel,
over whom the apparent Israel in Jerusalem exalts himself with
arrogant disdain. The Lord would, with true love, receive his own
to himself; already, during their short abode in the land of the
heathen, he would be their sanctuary, and truly supply them with
that which the others, for whom merely the shell without a kernel
remained, thought to possess. He would then bring them back into
their native land, impart to them the gifts of his Spirit, and make
them, in the fullest sense, his people. But woe to the hypocrites and
apostates among them I
The prophet now sees the glory of the Lord entirely depart from
Jerusalem, for the Lord has completed his only work, vvhich, as a
covenant God, he had still to perform there, the judgment. The
vision is at an end, and the prophet communicates it to the heads of
the colony.

V. 14. "And the word of the Lord came to me and said, V 15.,
Thou son of man, thy brethren, thy brethren, are the men of thy
redemption, and the whole house of Isruel, the whole, they, to whom
ihe inhabitants of Jerusalem say, be ye far from ihe Lord ! To

THE PORTION CHAP. 11. 14-21. V. 15. 463
us is given the land for a possession." The repetition of ^'DN
gives force to the idea of the brotherhood, and expresses the con
trast with the apparent brethren, in whom the prophet had interested
himself as if they were his real brethren ; the brethren merely ac
cording to the flesh, who had not one father with him, God, nor had
they Abraham as a common father with him in the true sense, any
more than the seed of Abraham was called in Ishmael, and the sons
of Keturah. He alludes to the Mosaic right of nb?«J, which found
place only among natural brothers, or nearest relations. Only the
brother was the natural ally, deliverer, avenger of the brother ; no
one was a Snj of a stranger, comp., e. g., Levit 25 : 25, " When thy
brother becomes poor, and sells of his possession, then comes his
Goel, who is near to him, and redeems (Ssj) what his brother has
sold. V. 48 (a case when an Israelite becomes poor, and is sold to
a stranger in Israel), " After he is sold, there shall be to him a re
demption ; n-7j<j, one of his brothers shall redeem him, i-iSnj;"
(comp. Mich. 1. § 15). The prophet, by undertaking the cause of
those who were not his real brethren, would have engaged in some
thing as unheard of as if any one should take upon himself to be
SxJ of a stranger. This reference is so obvious, that for this reason
alone T\hiii must here be taken in the special meaning, even though
it might elsewhere occur in the general sense, relationship, which is
here assumed by nearly all interpreters. But this is by no means
the case, and the Goel never designates the relation, as such, but
only so far as he is Goel Thus, e. g., 1 Kings 16 : 11, " And he
smote the whole house of Baasha, — and his Goalim." Michaelis :
" Vindices, ne scil. eadem cognutorum vindicurent. Levit. 5 : 8
(a case where one has injured another in his possession, and no
satisfaction can any more be rendered to him personally) : " And
when the man has no Goel to whom the compensation would be
given." The Goel has not merely duties, but also rights ; as an
avenger of his brother, he has the right hareditatem ejus sibi vindi-
candi. Finally, the suff. belongs to the compound idea, thy redemp
tion men, i. q., the men whom thou hast a right, and art bound, to
redeem. — That only the brethren are the whole house of Israel,
the Lord affirms in the antithesis with v. 13, where the prophet had
spoken of the inhabitants of Jerusalem as of Israel. Tl^? serves
the same object as the repeated -"I'DX. It shows that the preceding
S5 is to be taken in all its strictness. On ipqi, be far, Calvin re
marks : " Non debet proprie sumi in mode imper at., sed ita resolvi

464 EZEKIEL.
debet orutio : utcunque procul discedant illi a sanctuurie, nobis mane-
bit terra in hareditatem." But by this interpretation the sense is
weakened. The imper. is to be taken in its full sense. The re
moval out of the land of the Lord was regarded by the hypocrites
as an actual declaration of distance from the Lord, in like manner
as a residence in this land was supposed to be a proof of nearness
to him. From this point of view, they exclaim to their brethren,
" Away with you from the Lord, to us is the land given as a posses
sion," They fell into a sort of holy zeal at the thought, that such
profane people could still lay claim to a part and an inheritance in
the Lord, and hereafter even in his land. In this attitude, which
they assumed against their brethren, against the house of Israel,
they bore testimony against themselves, that they were not, in the
true sense, brethren belonging to the house of Israel.
V. 16. " Therefore say, Thus suith the Lord God, I huve, indeed,
removed them among ihe heathen, und scuitered them in the lands, but
I will be to them for a short time u sanctuary in the lands whither
they come.'' pS refers to the contemptuous language of the inhab
itants of Jerusalem. j^S in v. 17, corresponds with it. Here, the
antithesis with their assertion is expressed, so far as it related to the
distance from the Lord, there, so far as it related to exclusion from
the land of the Lord. The opposite of the former already exists,
that of the latter wiU soon appear. The ''3, which must necessarily
be a purt. rut., presupposes an intervening thought to be supplied ;
they are, in a certain respect, right ; they do not speak so entirely
without cause ; "for, indeed," &c. As to the substance, our yea
would fully correspond. While the fact is conceded, the conclusion
grounded thereon is contested. They infer, " And, therefore, is the
Lord far from them." The Lord, " And, therefore, am I, or I be
come to them for a sanctuary.'' The outward distance, viewed as to
its essence, is precisely the means of approach. True, they have
lost the temple of the Lord, but the Lord himself has become their
temple. The prophet by these words, does away the triumph of the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, who thought to possess God in the temple,
and the distress of the exiles, vvho supposed they had lost him by
losing the temple. What makes the temple a sanctuary, is the pres
ence of God ; where this is, there is the sanctuary, where this is not,
there is no temple, but only a mass of wood and stone. The annun
ciation is completed by the circumstance, that the prophet sees the
glory of the Lord depart out of the temple of Jerusalem. We have

THE PORTION CHAE. 11: 14-21. V. 16. 465
here the germ, out of which is afterwards developed the tree of the
representation of the kingdom of God in its new form, in its glorious
completion in chap. 40 — 48, with all its branches, twigs, leaves, and
flowers. As the true sanctuary of Israel, the Lord himself is desig
nated also Is. 8 : 14, and the passages of the Psalms, which show
how general was that spiritual consideration of the temple, in which,
the shell being disregarded, only- the kernel, the merciful presence of
the Lord, was kept in view, have been already cited. Vol. II. p. 325.
a}m isto be taken as a designation of time, paulisper. Thus, e. g.,
Exod. 17 : 4, Ps. 2 : 12, ,37 : 10, Job 10 : 20, Is, 10 : 25, 29 : 17,
Hos, 1 : 4. Was the Lord in the exile actually the; sanctuary of the
people, it must then be evi(lent,that the abode in the exile would endure
only a short time. For Canaan was at that time still the land of the
covenant ; the presence of the Lord with his people, beyond the
limits of this land, could be only a temporary one. The BJiO was,
therefore, necessarily required, if what was .designated as already
existing in the present should be believed to be so. The phrase,
" in the lands," &-C., intimates, that the Lord will, at a future period,
again become the sanctuary of the people, on its natural site, in the
land of promise, and thus prepares the way for the contents of v. 17
sq. — But whereby does the Lord show himself as the sanctuary of
the people in the exile 1 In the first instance by the sending of the
prophet himself That he gave them a preacher of repentance and
salvation, and, indeed, one furnished with so rich gifts, was of itself
a sign, that his mercy had not departed from the people. The
prophet, in the inferior sense, was himself what the Redeemer was
in the highest, a temple of God. For there was in him that which
made the tepiple the temple, the presence of the J^ord. Then,
however, in other manifold ways, by the outward helps, which he
vouchsafed to them by the alleviation of their affliction, — they had
not entirely lost even their national independence ; in the exile also,
they had their elders, — by inward consolations, by the spirit of grace
and of prayer, which he poured out upon those whp were fitted to
receive it, and thereby changed, the hearts of stone into those, of
flesh, by the arrangements which he, even at that, time, made for
their' future return ; during the whole exile, his providence wa,s occu
pied in bringing about the circumstances necessary to insure it ; all
events were directed to this purpose ; Daniel's elevation, the decline
of the Babylonish, and the rise of the Persian power. How differ^
ent was the Babylonian exile from the present ! Here no proof of
VOL. III. ^^

466 EZEKIEL.
the presence of God ; the people can only celebrate festivals in mem
ory of the past, and dream of the future ; between the distant past
and the distant future, a vast and empty space, a whole Zahara.
There, for the more deeply reflecting, in the deepest degradation,
everywhere traces of the loving care of God, pledges of the endurr
ing election, of the future glorification. '
V. 17. " Therefore, say. Thus saith the Lord God, and I collect
you out of the nations, und bring you out of the lands wherein ye
ure dispersed, und, give you the land of Isruel." The expression,
"the Lord Jehovah," shows, that the promisor is the Almighty, and
the faithful. "Andl collect," designates this blessing as connected
with the former, as its continuation and consequence. That the
promise of the return was not completely fulfilled under Zerubbabel,
because the Canaan which they at that time trod was not the land
of the Lord in the full sense, that the promise rather contains a
Messianic element, scarcely needs to be remarked, after the full
investigations, which have already, on several occasions, been given.
When the prophet seems here to promise the return only to those
who were at that time already in the exile, while he thre^atens those
still in Judea with destruction, this antithesis is naturally understood
not to relate to the particular individuals, but to the mass. Other
wise must we conclude, out of v. 15, where the exiles are designated
as the whole Israel, that even Jeremiah himself was no dXrj&dg
'lagarjXlxrjg. V. 18. " And they come thither, and remove therefrom all their
detestable things, and all their abominutions." Venema remarks :
" Inceperunt mox post , reditum, sed non perfecerunt nisi diu post,
temporibus Muccubaicis, quando quaquaversum per totum terrum
idololatriam destruxerunt, et veram religionem propagarunt, etiam
inter Samaritanos et Idumaos.'' But only one particular thing
belongs to the perfecerunt. The outward removal of the things
whereby the land of the Lord had been defiled, was regarded by the
prophet, only so far as it was the result of the unconditional surren
der of the heart to the Lord. This appears even from the connex
ion in which the doing of the people stands, in what follows, with
the gift of the Lord on which it depended. Whether Satan drives
out Satan, whether the finer form of idolatry, — even Jehovah can
be an idol, — makes war upon the grosser, is perfectly indifferent in
a religious point of view, and, therefore, lies beyond the scope of the
prophecy, just as much as the change in the modes of dress. And

THE PORTION CHAP. 11. 14 — 21. V. 19. 467
thus it also appears, that the outward removal of the idols in the
time after the return, and in that of the Maccabees, is referred to
here, only so far as God himself was thereby the moving principle,
^ and therefore only as a very small beginning, and that the prophecy,
in Its essential reference, is Messianic. How little ground there is
for the perfecerunt, is evident, even from the outward condition of
the people, from the return until the time of Christ. From what
happened to them, their conduct appears. If the idols had vanished
out of the land with their images, the people would have been justi
fied, when they charged God with unfaithfulness in the perforraatice
of his promises.
V. 19. " And I give te them one heart, and u new spirit give I in
their inward parts, and I take away the heart of stone out of their
flesh, and give them a heart of flesh.'' Deut. 30 : 1 sq. is the foun
dation of the whole promise of the prophet ; it is a simple renewal ;
the circumstances foreseen by Moses had now occurred ; the people
of the Lord are in exile ; and, therefore, the consoling vyords of his
servant are revived, comp. especially v. 5, 6, " And the Lord thy
God brings thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou
possessest it, and he does well to thee, and increases thee more than
thy fathers. And the Lord thy God circumcises thy heart, and the
heart of thy seed, that thou lovest the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul." By the circumcision of the heart, the
removal of its impurities, prefigured by the outward circumcision,
which is at the same time its pledge, the same is there designated as
here, by the gift of the fleshly heart, instead of the stony heart —
" I give to them one heart," shows, that the people will unanimously
seek the Lord, in antithesis with their previous condition, where only
individuals vvere converted. The whole people draw near to the
Lord as one man. Parallel is Jer. 32 : 39, " And I give tQ them one
heart, and one way, to fear me always." Zeph. 3:9, " They serve
the Lord with one shoulder." Acts 4 : 32, Tov 8s nXfj&ovg xdv niaxsv-
advxav fjv fj xagSla xal fj ipvxfj fila. That the oneness of the heart
designates its uprightness and simplicity, as several here suppose, is
not sufficiently established ; for that, the standing expression is rather
uh^ 2S. To " one heart," in the sense vve have given, stands op
posed " We turned every one to his own way," Is. 53 : 6 ; in the
natural condition, so many hearts, so many minds; God causes that
all hearts become one. The fleshly heart, in contrast with the stony,
here designates one that is soft, susceptible of the impressions of

468 EZEKIEL.
divine grace. That man's heart should first become so by God's
grace, points to its natural condition. It is by nature, in reference
to that which is divine, as hard as stone, insensible, and unsuscepti
ble ; God's word, and his outward dispensations, pass over it and
leave no trace ; the latter can, perhaps, break it in pieces, but not
subdue it ; the fragments still remain hard, nay, the hardness in
creases. God's Spirit alone can create a broken and soft heart,
comp., as substantiaUy parallel, Jer. 31 : 33, as verbally, chap.
36 : 26.
V. 20. " In order that they walk in my commandments, and keep
my statutes, and do them, and they become my people, and I become
their God." The groundwork is Levit. 26 : 3, " If ye will walk in
my laws, and keep my commandments, and do them, v. 4, so will I
give you your rain at its time," &c. Then, after a long narration in
V. 12, the comprehensive " and I wiU be to you for God, and ye shall
be to me for a people," comp. on Jer. 31 : 33. It is God's work
alone, that the covenant people, in their conduct, become the cove
nant people; that God's name is sanctified, his will realized in them ;
and where this has first taken place, where, in this respect, the desti
nation of the covenant people is realized, there the other also neces
sarily follows, there the people also in their lot become his people,
there is God sanctified upon them, there does he impart to them all
the fulness of his gifts and blessings.
V. 21. "But to those whose heart goes after the heurt of their
detesiuble things, and abominations j I give their way upon their head,
saith the Lord Jehovah." In conclusion, those- are emphatically
excluded from the favor of God, who, through their own fault, do not
receive the new heart, the foundation of it, and, therefore, walk not
in God's commandments. Even among the new covenant people,
there is an impure residuum ; even with them does God's righteous
ness find a new object. The walking after the heart of the idols,
stands opposed to the walking after the heart of God. Whether the
idols formally exist or not, is nothing to the purpose. Enough that
their essence, the sin, is actually present. They are, indeed, only
personifications of it.

THE PORTION CHAP. 17-22-24. 469

THE PORTION CHAP. 17:22-24.
Tnis prophecy belongs to the time soon after the preceding, for in
the collection, which is chronologically arranged, it stands in the
middle, between the portion chap. 8 — 11, out of the sixth month of
the sixth year, and chap. 20, out of the fifth month of the seventh
year, since the carrying away of Jehoiachin. It was, therefore,
spoken about five years before the destruction. The representation
of powerful monarchs and their kingdoms, as lofty trees, full of bows
and twigs, was properly a Babylonish image. This appears from
Dan. 4 : 8, 9, where it is said, in the description of Nebuchadnezzar's
dream, " Great was the tree, and strong, and its height reached to
heaven, and the sight of it to the ends of the whole earth. Its foli
age was beautiful, and its fruit much, and thereon was nourishment
for all; under it the- beasts of the field found shade, and in its
branches dwelt the fowls of th4 heaven, and by it all flesh.was
nourished." The interpretation is given in v. 19, " thou art the tree,
O king." This also appears in remarkable coincidence with Daniel
from Ezek. 31 : 3 sq., where Ashur appears as a cedar iipon Leba
non, already clothed' with foliage, its summit reaching to the clouds.
"In whose branches all the, fowls of heaven build their nests, and
under whose boughs all the beasts of the field bring forth, and in
whose shade many nations dwelh" Here also the prophet avails
himself of this image. The tribe of David is a lofty cedar upon
Lebanon. Nebuchadnezzar break;s off its top, and brings it to Baby
lon, — the carrying away of Jehoiachin, and the rest of tBe royal
family. He plants in Jerusalem an inferior growth, a shoot of a
vine, — the setting up of Zedekiah, — but scarcely has it put forth,
when- it is again rooted up. The Lord now takes from the top of
that great cedar a thin twig, and plants it on the top of his holy hill,
Zion. It grows up to a stately cedar, under whose shadow all fowls
dwell. The remaining trees see its wonderful growth, and learn
therefrom that it is the Lord who exalts and brings down all trees.
Matt. 13 : 32, is to be considered as an interpretation, although the
Lord somewhat modifies the image, and puts the mustard seed in
the place of the thin twig of the high cedar, "O fiixgbxsgov fisv iaxi
ndvxav xdv ansgfidTav ' OTav Ss av^d-y psi^ov xray Xaxdvav sotI xal
yivsTai SivSgov, a?is iX&siv tk nsTSiva xoV ovgavoi xal xaxaaxrjvovv iv
xolg xXaSoig avxoiJ. The ground of this modification is to be sought

470 'EZEKIEL.
in the fact, that the Lord, according to his purpose, designs to ex
hibit only the progress of the new kingdom of God, commenced
with his appearing in the flesh, from small beginnings to a glwaous
completion, while the prophet aims to console for the loss of the
former glory, and must, therefore, symbolize, not merely the lowli
ness, but the process, of humiliation, and present this as a mere
transition point from the former elevation to one immensely greater.

V. 22. " Thus saith the Lord, Jehovah^ und I take from the summit
of the high cedar, and place, break from its crown a thin twig, and
plant upon a mountain high und elevated." 'JJJ stands in emphatic
antithesis with Nebuchadnezzar, who likewise has been broken off,
and placed, in v. 3, 4. He for evil, the Lord for good. He, as a
feeble mortal, could work ' Only a transient humiliation, under the
Lord's permission ; the Lord, the Almighty God, makes a permanent
elevation, ni.gs occurs only in Ezekiel. That it is an unusual
figurative iex,pression (probably the wool of the tree, the curly sum
mit), appears partly, even from this ground, and partly from its being
explained here and in v. 3, by the proper topmost twig. The mean
ing suntmit is also required by the remaining passages, (31 : 3) be
tween the clouds was its Zamereth, (v. 10) it gave its Zamereth unto
the clouds, (v. 14) they should not give their Zamereth unto the
clouds ; especially when n''r\:ijr p5 is translated, not with most inter
preters, without any right ?ense, by " between branches," but by " be
tween clouds," iTi^JJ, clouds, belongs to those words which gradu
ally lose their plural meaning, comp. Ew. p. 641. From this,
Ezekiel has formed the new plur. D'ODi'., which occurs only in him
in this sense, comp. 19 : 11, " high became its growth," higher than
the clouds. Since the thin shoot is taken from the (designated in
what precedes) high cedar, the emblem of the house of David, it
cannot designate the kingdom of God in its lowliness at the begin
ning, but must rather mean a sprout of the stock of David, and the
more so, since the prophet plainly had in view the similar represen
tations of older prophets, especially of Jeremiah, comp. on chap.
23 : 5. The cedar, therefore, here imports, precisely as in Daniel,
not the kingdom, but the king, which appears also from the antithe
sis with the deed of Nebuchadnezzar, in v. 3, and from the whole

THE PORTION CHAP. 17: 22-24. V. 23. 471
remaining contents of the chapter, which is occupied throughout
only with the royal family. Now, who is to be understood by the
thin twig from the high cedar, that afterwards becomes itself such a
cedar ? That it can be no other than the Messiah, proceeding from
the deeply fallen family of David, is placed beyond a doubt by the
parallel passages of Ezekiel, and the other prophets. Only it might,
perhaps, be assumed, that he had not in view the Messiah here, as
an individual, but as him in whom the idea of the tribe of David is
completed ; so that also the very small commencement of its renewed
exaltation, such as took place in accordance with the promise to
David in Zerubbabel, must be considered as comprehended under
the prophecy, and in a measure also, all that God did in general for
the new establishment and upholding of the civil government in
Israel, comp. on Jer. 33. As to the substance, the difference is of
small importance. For although the prophet has the whole race of
David in view, and describes its progress from a small beginning to
a glorious completion, still is the Messiah not merely in fact, but also
according to his own conception, the person in whom, and through
whom, this promise is properly and completely fulfilled for the tribe
of David, and in him for the people. The lowliness of the kingdom
is, moreover, closely connected with that of the head, so that p
must be referred to both. — Here it is merely said in general, that
the place where the twig was planted was a high mountain, and thus
its designation hereafter, when it should have grown up to a tree, to
reign over all the trees of the plain, rfiwn ''Sj? in v. 24, was already
indicated. Then, in v. 23, this high mountain is more particularly
described. V. 23. " Upon the high mountuin of Israel will I plant it, und it
puts forth branches, bears fruit, and becotries a glorious cedar, and
ull fowls dwell beneath it, and every winged thing loill dwell in the
shade of its branches." That the high mountain of Israel is Mount
Zion, and, indeed, in the wider sense, so that it comprehends the
hill Moriah, appears from chap. 20 : 40; " For upon my holy moun
tain, upon the high mountain of Israel, there shall the vvhole house
of Israel serve me, entirely in the land." In this passage, the temple
mountain is plainly spoken of for it treats of the offering of Sacrifices.
The parallel holy, in the parallel passage, shows how high is to be
taken in both places. It is an elevation concealed froni the fleshly
eye ; elsewhere (chap. 34 : 26) the prophet himself speaks only of a
hill of the Lord; But the spiritual eye sees it, the invisible mountain

472 EZEKIEL.
far surpassing all mountains of the earth, and rising to heaven.
Even this designation (comp. on Is. 2 : 2) shows, that the holy moun
tain does not here come under consideration as a mountain, but
rather as the seat and central point of the kingdom of God, and
designates this kingdom itself Altogether similar is Ps. 2 : 6,, "I
have anointed my king upon Zion, my holy mountain." High is the
place where the sprout is planted, it grows up itself to a high cedar.
The glory of the future king, has for its groundwork the glory of the
kingdom which he is placed over, raising itself up upon it, it serves
in turn to glorify the kingdom. The fruits, the shadow, designate
the blessing which all his subjects receive from this king. That by
the expression, " all fowls and every winged thing," — the latter in
tensive, every thing that only has a wing, — all the nations of the
whole earth are designated, appears from the comparison of chap.
3l : 6 and 10. — The prophet has here only the one object, to re
move the stumblingblock which must arise out of the partly present,
and partly still impending humiliation of the tribe of David, and of
the kingdom of God through it ; he, therefore, gives prominence
only to the one point, the exaltation, and, therefore, affords us also
consolation when a similar , condition of the kingdom of God and of
Christ fills us with pain. Calvin : " Hinc docemur melius speraridwn
esse de regno Christi, quum possimus astimare ex sensu nostra. —
Ubi videmus quasi humi serpere evangelium, veniat nobis in memoriam
hic locus. — Unum Christi regnum deus ita stabilivit, ut perpetuum
sit futurum cum sole et luna alia autem mundi imperia cum suo splen
dore evanescent, et concidet eorum altitude, etiamsi hodie nubes su-
perent." We have here the germ of the prophecy of Daniel con
cerning the kingdoms of the world. To describe more accurately
the nature of the kingdom, to show that it was a spiritual kingdom,
^- not, indeed, in contrast with a real, but a fleshly one, — did not
lie within the scope of the prophet Still it may be concluded out
of the representation. — A kingdom that is not ix xov xbapov, which,
without earthly might, or earthly weapons, by the wonderful power
of God alone, is advanced with its head, from a feeble beginning to
a glorious completion, can be no worldly, uo fleshly kingdom ; its
type and pattern is not the government of earthly kings, but God's
government of the world.
V. 24. " And ull the trees of the field experience, that I the Lord
bring down ijie high tree, and exalt the low tree, dry up ihe green
tree and make green the dry tree, I the Lord speak and do." The

CHAP. 21: 30-32. 473
trees of the field in antithesis with the cedar upon the high mountain,
are the kingdoms of the world with their kings, who wUI be brought
down at the same time with the exaltation of the kingdom of God.
This great revolution gives them a matter-of-fact proof that the Lord,
whom they had hitherto been accustomed to despise, in the proud
conceit of the independence of their apparent greatness, is the king
over the whole earth, from whom all exakation and degradation pro
ceed. The praeters are to be understood as aorists ; the proposition
is entirely general. Still the ground of the knowledge of the general
truth, as appears from " the trees of the field," is not barely the ex
altation, so that they concluded from this, that the degradation also
would be the work of the Lord, but they likewise have it here before
their eyes, in a great, in th.eir own example. The exaltation of the
kingdom of God to universal dominion, cannot, indeed, be conceived,
without a humiliation of the kingdoms of the world. Their kings
would thereby lose that wherein they placed their highest dignity,
their fancied independence. They become vassals of God and his
king, which, in truth, is, however, the highest honor that can be
imparted to them. — The last words indicate, that what, to all ap
pearance, was a mere dream, and the vainest which was ever enter
tained, becomes the greatest reality through the person who promises.
It is God who gives the promise, God also fulfils it.

Chap. 21 : 30-32.

The twenty-first chapter, part of a discourse which was held
by the prophet in the seventh year, in the fifth month after the
carrying away, therefore about five years before the destruction, can
be aptly designated as the prophecy of the sword of the Lord. De
livered to the king of Babylon for vengeance on the evil doers, it
first aims at Jerusalem, it then proceeds to the Ammonites, the most
bitter enemies of the Lord and his people, who must experience in
their own destruction, that the ruin of Jerusalem is not, as they sup
posed, a proof of the weakness, but rather of the omnipotence, of her
God.

VOL. III.

60

474 EZEKIEL.
V. 30. " And thou, pierced through, ungodly prince of Israel,
whose day comes at a time of the finul crime ! " Zedekiah, at that
time the king, is addressed, and from this it appears, that the decla
ration, which follows in v. 31, chiefly concerns him, so that we must
supply a "hear the word of the Lord," omitted from emotion. The
current explanation of vSn by unholy, abandoned, instead of pierced
through, owes its origin solely to the circumstance, that attention
was turned away from the text to history, in order to learn from it
whether Zedekiah had actually been pierced through. The answer
was not satisfactory ; Zedekiah remained in life, but his sons were
slain before his eyes, which were then put out. But this difficulty is
of no importance. Since God's anger is represented, throughout the
whole chapter, under the image of a swoi;d drawn by him, it is obvi
ous, that 77n is properly employed, if it can only be shown, that the
king became an object of the Divine anger ; and exclamations like
those of Schmid, eris quusi confossus, are to be entirely set aside.
Concerning the outward mode of the punishment, nothing, whatever,
is declared by SSn, any more than it is implied, that God carries an
actual sword. Another objection, that Zedekiah at that time had
not yet been pierced through, has just as little force. The prophet
designs, by placing the guilt and punishment in immediate connex
ion, to alarm and terrify. The ungodly is already judged ; the two
years of delay, which are still allowed him, come not under con
sideration. The eye of faith sees the punishment as the inseparable
attendant of the sin. Before it, the still prosperous sinner lies already
in his blood. The grounds, however, for the meaning pierced through,
and against that of profuned, are as follows, 1. bSn never means
any thing else than pierced through, never occurs in the general
sense perished ; for DJJ'i 'SSn, pierced of hunger. Lam. 4 : 9, is ex
plained by the circumstance, that in poetical personification, a sword
is attributed to hunger, and in Is. 22 : 2, it is obvious, that the dis
course is of such as fall by the sword of the pestilence ; but least of
all does it mean profuned ; the only passage. Lev. 21:6- 14, cited
in favor of this meaning, proves nothing. bSn stands there entirely
in its usual sense. nSSn is the opposite of n'.S-inp? HTO in v. 13, to
which, as the species, the widoio, the divorced, and the whore, belong.
2. But if the meaning profuned ever occurred elsewhere, still it
could not be assumed here. Sword, piercing through, is the ground
tone of the whole chapter, which returns in almost every verse,
comp., e. g., V. 8, 14, 15, 16, but especially v. 17, "The sword goes

CHAP. 21: 30-32. V. 30. 475
over my people, over all princes, 'N^t^J, of Israel ; they are given up
to the sword with my people," and v. 19, "the sword will come
threefold, the sword of the pierced through, D'SSn ; it is a sword of
one pierced through of the great" (Michaelis: "Que non tantum
plebs, sed et rex ipse, principes et magnutes occumbent"). 3. In the
explanation by profuned, the reference of v. 34 to the one before us,
IS overlooked, though it is so manifest According to v. 24 sq., the
sword of the king of Babylon shall take a twofold way. It first
directs its course towards Jerusalem, here, before all others, the king
is pierced through ; it then proceeds to the Ammonites, v. 32 sq.
And here it is said, v. 34, " The sword brings thee upon the necks
of the ungodly, who are pierced through, D'J?k:t 'SSn, whose day
comes at the time of the final iniquity." This coincidence is the
more important, since it is clearly not accidental, for the prophet
would plainly point by the oneness of expression, to the oneness of
the idea, which lies at the foundation of the destinies of both people.
That God's kingdom does not perish in Israel, but is rather avenged
on him, so that Israel's degradation is a proof of its exaltation,
appears from the fact, that, at the same time, the Ammonites are
severely punished for what they have done against Israel, so far as it
is God's kingdom. — The gen. N'iJ'J, prince, instead of the spec. ^Sd,
king, is a favorite usage of Ezekiel, which is certainly not without a
reason. The day of the prince, is, according to the connexion, the
day of the judgment upon him, of his destruction. The ]'p. p'j?
occurs not only in v. 34, but also in chap. 35 : 5, in the prophecy
against Edom, " Because thou dost cherish eternal enmity, and hast
given over the children of Israel into the power of the sword, at a
time of their calamity, at a time of the final sin.'' That p'.j^ must
not be translated as it has been by De Wette, by punishment, is ob
vious ; it never means any thing else than guilt, crime. The only
question is, how I'D is to be understood. The final guilt, can be the
completed guilt, its climax, where the vengeance of God can no
longer be delayed ; and then we may compare " not yet completed,
dSb*, is the guilt of the Amorites,'' Gen. 15 : 16, which implies, that
hereafter, the time of its completion, and of course the ripeness of
the people for judgment, would come. But the final guilt, can also
be the guilt which draws after it the end, the destruction of the
people, precisely as ^SsXvyfia igrjpdasag (comp. Vol. II. p. 366) is the
abomination vvhich has desolation as its result. And this latter in
terpretation, is recommended by the use of Tp elsewhere, comp.

476 EZEKIEL.
especially chap. 7:2, " Thus saith the Lord to the land of Israel,
End ! there comes the end over the four borders of the land ! "
V. 3, " Now the end over thee, and I send my anger upon thee, and
judge thee according to thy ways, and give to thee all thy abomina
tions." According to this interpretation also, the ground thought is,
that there is a fulness of the measure of sin, its climax, where it vio
lently calls down the penal justice of God, where he could not be
God if he manifested his forbearance still longer, comp. Vol. II.
p. 47.
V. 31. " Thus saith the Lord, Jehovah, The headband is re
moved, the crown is taken off; this is not this ; the low is exalted,
und the high is brought down." According to the usual supposition,
na.J.V'? here designates the royal diadem. But against this, and in
favor of the view that rig.^VP is rather the diadem of the high priest,
are the following reasons. 1. Only of the latter does ns.JXp occur;
although originally of a general meaning, still, after the introduction
of the high priesthood, it was restricted to the head ornament of the
high priest, comp. Exod. 28 : 4, 37, 39, 29 : 6, 39 : 31, Levit 8 : 9,
16 : 4. It is true, an appeal has been made to the HJlbrp '^Xi, the
royal diadem. Is. 62 : 3, but thereby nothing further is proved, than
that the king also wore a diadem, which no one doubts. It turns
upon the word in its proper form ; ']''^S or *^UV is the genus, it desig
nates every .sort of diadem, where one of a peculiar kind is intended,
it receives an addition, comp., besides Is. 1. c, Zech, 3:5; ria.JSa
needs none. It is limited of itself 2. If the diadem is referred to
king, we then give him a twofold head ornament, the diadem and
the crown. And if we followed Jahn, Archael. II. 2. p. 225, this
would occasion no difficulty. He considers it as established, that
kings wore a crown besides the diadem. The truth, however, is
rather, that the diadem and the crown were identical. That they
were different, cannot be established by the fact, that the crown is
designated as golden, comp. Ps. 21 : 4. For even in the high priests'
diadem there was a golden plate. It favors their identity, that
alvvays only one ornament of the kings' head is mentioned, the
diadem or the crown, never a diadem and crown, after one another,
comp. 2 Sam. 1 : 10, " And I took the diadem, l.t:," — this the
term, teohn. for the royal t]'JS, as n3.;yn for the high priestly, —
"which was upon his head." 2 Kings 11 : 12, " And he brought
forth the king, and set the diadem upon him," comp. still Est 8:15;
moreover, that the crown had not the present form, but rather that •

CHAP. 21: 30-32, V, 31, 477
of a diadem, appears incontrovertibly from Job 31 : 36, " I would
bind it as a crown to me ;" it is also favored by the occurrence of
the plural nnBy, where the discourse is only of one crown, comp.
Vol. II. p. 54, and, finally, by the rendering of the m^QK. of Zech.
in tbe Apoc, by SiaSfjfiaTa, comp, in loco. 3. How suitably here the
removal of the headband, along with that of the crown, the cessa
tion of the high-priestly dignity along with that of the regal, and,
consequently, of all the prerogatives of the covenant people, would
be announced, appears from the antithesis of the prophecies, where
tbe restitution of both dignities is at the same time announced to the
sorrowing people, comp. Zech. chap. 4 (Vol. II. p. 45), chap, 6 (Vol,
II. p. 52 sq.), an^ Jer. 33 (p. 444). If the prosperity was complete
only when both were present, so would the end, n, v. 30, come only
when both were taken away. — The sole ground vvhich can be
brought for the reference to the regal head ornament, is, that the
address to the king in v. 30, requires, that what follows should relate
exclusively to him. But this proves nothing. That the king chiefly
comes under consideration only as a representative of the people,
that in him the people are threatened, appears from the connexion
with V. 29, and stiU more from the parallel passage in v. 34, where,
in the place of I'nr we have oni'. But if the king is considered as
a representative of the people, the removal of the headband apper
tains to him no less than that of the crown ; both are most intimately
connected. The crown without the headband, is an empty show.
The forgiveness of sins, procured through the mediation of the high
priest, forms the groundwork of all regal blessings of God. — The
infin. alone, without being accompanied by another verb, stands with
emphatic brevity, when only the action itself as the chief thing, is
to be pointed out. Ewald, p. 558, comp. 23 : 30. It is not here
said who should take away ; the prophet has in view the bare fact of
the taking away. The often erroneously interpreted nsi xS nxt is
explained by what follows : the low is made high, and the high low,
i. e. all is changed from the lowest to the highest. riKJ, therefore,
stands for the neuter, and the words designate a change of the
whole present condition, in which nothing remains what it is, a total
revolution. The people in their conduct had converted the lowest to
the hicrhest and thus also according to the divine jus talionis, should
it happen in their fate. The correctness of this interpretation, is
confirmed by the parallel passage, Is. 24 : 1 sq., which the prophet,
as appears from v. 32, had distinctly in view. There, v. 2, the

478 EZEKIEL.
same thought, the inversion of all relations is thus individualized :
and it shall be, as the people so the priest, as the servant so the lord,
as the maid so the mistress, as the buyer so the seller, as the borrow
er so the lender, as the debtor so the creditor. nSsB' is masc. with
n unaccented, which serves to make the form more full. Ewald, p.
322, supposes here a mistake of the pointing, but the analogies are
too numerous against this, and it is contradicted by the following
masc. An interchange of the genders cannot here be expected.
V. 32. " Overturn, overturn, overturn will I the land, even this
remains not, until he comes, to whom is the right, to whom 1 give it."
n;i;2 is a nem. derived from Pi., as nobp, mockery, chap. 22 : 4, from
Dv!p ; nSN.;, contempt, chap, 35 : 12, from "NJ, The prophet, as the
comparison of those analogies shows, has chosen precisely this word,
formed by himself in order to point to the connexion of the over
turning as a punishment, with the overturning as guilt The refer
ence to p'^ in V, 29, 30, is obvious. They have first overturned, now
it is God's turn. The threefold repetition serves only for intensity.
The suff. in n|p''¥'!<, can be referred either to nsT, ihe present condi
tion of things, or to '|''5^, land. The latter reference is recom
mended by the n''J.3 njK, he overturns the plain of it, the land, in
the parallel passage of Is. 24 : 1, which Vitringa, whose words en
tirely suit the passage before us, thus aptly explains : " Significant
metaphorica locutiones inversionem totius reipublica status, et muta-
iionem ejusmodi, qua summa ima, et ima summa ponerentur ; et omni
um nobiliorum inferiorum, potentiorum infirmiorum, diiium et egeno-
rum, subverso reipublica statu et direptis incolarum bonis, aquaretur
conditio." In the n^n xS nsi'DJ, the also is well to be observed.
It shows, that the nNt here designates the condition vvhich had been
produced by the overturn mentioned immediately before. This also
is not permanent ; even of it is it soon said again, as of that in
whose place it has come, n«T xS nxt, and thus, overthrow follows
overthrow ; nowhere is there rest, nowhere security, all things are in
a state of fluctuation, until the appearing of the great restorer and
prince of peace. — 03m very frequently indicates the right to a
thing. Thus, e. g., Deut 18 : 3, " this is the right of the priests on
the part of the people." Likewise, and borrowed therefrom, 1 Sam.
2: 13, Deut 21: 17, rTiT3|n agiffD "the right of the first-born.''
1 Sam. 8 : 9, II, 10 : 25, "the right of a king, of the kingdom."
Jer. 32 : 7, 8, nb^!;n a3fn, "the right of redemption." The object
of the right now is not here more particularly defined, it is supposed

THE PORTION CHAP. 34: 23-31. 479
to be known from what precedes. It can only be referred to the
right to the headband and the crown, the former possessors of which
have lost their right to them by their ungodliness. Thus, therefore,
the prediction is completely parallel to that of Zechariah in chap. 6,
concerning the union of the high-priestly and regal dignity in the
Messiah (comp. p. 450), and there can be the less room for doubt,
that Zechariah only resumes the oracle of Ezekiel, since he coin
cides with him even in the form, and designates the regal and high-
priestly dignity in like manner by their outward sign, the diadem
and the headband. There is not the smallest ground for understand
ing the suff. in Vj^nji as dut. The person, as sufficiently known
from what precedes, needs no further designation.

THE PORTION CHAP. 34:23-31.
The prophecy against the evil shepherds in chap. 34, belongs to
the whole series of revelations, which the prophet, according to chap.
33 : 22, received between the evening of the day before the arrival
of the one who had escaped and brought the news of the capture of
Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, and the morning of the day of his
coming. This Ezekiel knew beforehand, by the spirit of prophecy,
and sought by the word of the Lord, explanatory of the deed of the
Lord, to render certain its intended effect upon the exiles, the elders
of whom, and even a great number of others, were collected before
the prophet (comp. 33: 31), as was usual when the hand of the
Lord came upon him. The word of the Lord by the prophet, is
chiefly consoling, pointing to his favor and mercy towards Israel,
and his covenant faithfulness ; for his righteousness had been so
loudly declared by matter of fact, that a mere allusion to it was suffi
cient. We have in Ezekiel in this respect, entirely the same phe
nomenon as in Jeremiah. Before the destruction, the threatening is
predominant with both, after the destruction, the promise. Both ad
versity and prosperity, before they came, were equally beyond the
limits of mere human knowledge. From the same want of a lively
knowledge of God, arose their confidence before the destruction, and
their despair afterwards, both equally destructive, both, each in its
time, equally an object of the efforts of the prophets, whose aim

480 EZEKIEL.
everywhere is to make the idea certain, in opposition to appearancesL
— How the prophecy in chap. 34, rests on that of Jeremiah chap. 23,
we have already shown on the latter passage. It is the prophecy
concerning the shepherds of Israel. To the evil shepherds destruc
tion is predicted, to the lost sheep of Israel, deliverance through the
Lord, who takes upon himself the office of shepherd over them, and
executes it through his servant David. The account immediately
following, of the fulfilment of the first part, relating to the punish
ment of the evil shepherds, must serve as a pledge for the fulfilment
of the second part, the source of which is the same, the covenant
faithfulness of the Lord.

V. 23. " And I raise up over them a shepherd, and he feeds them,
my servant David, he will feed them, and he will be tlieir shepherd."
That the in^ refers to the former separation of Israel and Judah,
incontrovertibly appears from chap. 37 : 24, and the parallel passage
of Jeremiah, chap. 23 : 5, 6, where Judah and. Israel are mentioned
together, and in vain does Jahn endeavour to vindicate for nnx the
meaning unicus, singularis, which it never has. As to the substance,
he is, indeed, right. He must be a highly distinguished descendant
of David (Venema : " In que David tanquam rex et vicarius dei
revivisceret"), in the fuUest sense after the heart of God, who re
ceives again the kingdom of his father in its whole extent. For the
kingdom was diminished, as a punishment upon the race of David,
because it was no longer after the heart of God ; and even the most
pious among the successors of David, hitherto, had not been after the
heart of God, in such a degree, that the promise, expressed even at
the separation, of the future reunion (comp. 1 Kings 11 : 39), could
have been fulfilled in them. In the prediction of the oneness of the
shepherd, therefore, that of the highest excellency was implied, and
also, that through him the most complete mercy of the Lord should
be imparted to his people. n;;.1 shows the destination, T}}n the reali
zation of it The antithesis which existed between both, in the case
of the former shepherds, and brought such nameless misery upon the
people, should now be done away ; comp., finally, beside the passages
already cited, Jer. 33 : 15, 16, Hos. 3 : 5.
V. 24. " And I, ihe Lord, will be to them God, and my servant

THE PORTION CHAP. 34: 23-31. V. 25, 26. 481
David a prince in the midst of them, I, the Lord, have spoken."
The promise to David shall revive again, his descendant be the ser
vant of God in so full a sense, that the former painful distinction
between the mediate and immediate government of God entirely
ceases. X'E^J was probably chosen vvith respect to 1 Kings 11 : 34.
V. 25. " And I conclude with them a covenant of peace, und de
stroy the evil beusts out of the lund, and they dwell in ihe wilderness
securely, and sleep in the woods." The import of the concluding of
a covenant has already been investigated, on Jer. 31 : 32. The
assertion, that DiSe? may designate every sort of prosperity, is as trite
as it is false. The peace with God, procured by the mediation of
his servant, is followed by peace with the creatures which he has
hitherto armed against his apostate people. The representation of
the prophet here, and in what follows, rests throughout on Levit.
chap. 26, comp. v. 5, " And ye dwell securely in your land, and ye
lie down, and he who terrifies is not, and I destroy the evil beasts
out of the land, and terror shall not invade your land." The prophet
intentionally borrows from this locus classicus, the form of his repre
sentation, the kernel of which is the proposition, where God is, there
also is the fulness of his gifts and blessings. Nothing new does he
announce, he only repeats that which the divine lawgiver had already
exhibited, as necessary to the idea of the covenant people. As
certain as it is that his prophecy has only been imperfectly fulfilled
in Israel, so certain is it also, that its complete fulfilment is hereafter
to take place, comp. still, Hos. 2 : 20.
V. 26. "And I give iliem and the environs of my hill for a bless
ing, und cause to come down the ruin in its time, thut will be u bless
ed ruin." The hill is Zion, the holy mountain. That this here
designates Israel as the people of God, whose spiritual dwelling-
place it was, appears from its position with them. Accordingly the
environs of the hill can be only the heathen, who join themselves to
Israel, comp. 17 : 23, according to which, all the fowls of the earth
collect under the tree of the kingdom of God. Blessing, comp.
Gen. 12 : 2, is stronger than blessed. Israel shall be a real blessing,
comp. on the uccus. n^^?, which is a bare apposition of the preced
ing, Ewald, p. 587. The individualization of the blessing as rain,
in respect to the natural condition of Canaan, where all other natural
blessings of providence depended on the rain, is, in like manner,
taken from Levit. 26, comp. still "Deut. 11 : 13, 14, Joel. 2 : 23
(p. 124).
VOL. III. "1

482 EZEKIEL.
V. 27. " And the tree of ihe field gives its fruit, and the land
gives its increase, and they dwell in their land securely, and they
know that I am the Lord, since I break their yoke, und deliver them
out of the hund of those who make them slaves.'^ The expression,
" and . . . increase," is taken out of Levit 26 : 3, " So I give you
rain in itg time, and the land gives its increase, and the tree of the
field gives its fruit." " And . . . securely,'' out of Levit v. 5 ;
" and . . . yoke," alludes to v. 13, " I the Lord your God, who
brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, out of bondage, and I
brake your yoke," 'Oi^^V. ni'tab. As at that time Israel knew by
matter of fact, that God was Jehovah, so should he know and ex
perience this anew, in the great repetition of this event in his
redemption from the dominion of the world, in order to his sole sub
jection to God and his anointed. It is pointed out by this allusion,
how God, in order to redeem Israel, need not by any means become
another than he is, Jehovah, the sole and perfect existence. ID?
with 3, to serve in any one, to render service by the meuns of any
one, to make him a servant, is taken out of Exod. 1 : 14.
V. 28. " And they will no more be for u prey to the heathen, and
the wild beasts of the earth will not devour them, and there is nothing
which makes them afraid." The D;iJ, the heathen, could gain the
advantage over the people of the Lord, only when these had ceased
to be such by their own guilt. Now, therefore, their power over
Israel ceases, comp. p. 453.
V. 29. " And I raise up to them a plantation for a name, and no
more shall they be taken away by hunger in the land, and no more
shall they beur the reproach of the heathen." V^'Q, is to be taken in
the sense of pluntution. There is an allusion to Gen. 2 : 8, 9, " And
God planted (j^MM) a garden in Eden eastward, and placed therein
the man whom he had formed, and God caused to spring forth out of
the earth all trees pleasant to the sight, and good for food." With
which is to be compared the declaration of God after the commission
of sin, 3 : 18, 19, " Thorns also and thistles shaU it bear to thee,
and thou eatest the grass of the field. In the sweat of thy face shalt
thou eat thy bread." The history of the fall is one which is con
stantly repeated ; the first sin shows the origin and progress of aU
sins, and precisely for this reason is the author so full in its relation.
He himself draws attention to this its import, when he remarks,
before the judgment upon the cities of the plain, that they were
watered like the garden of God, Paradise, Gen. 13 : 10. But

THE PORTION CHAP. 34: 23-31. V. 29. 483
especially is the prophecy contained in the history of the fall realized
in Israel. Even for him also had God planted a garden in Eden,
full of trees, pleasant to the Sight, and good for food. He had given
him the land where milk and honey flowed, with all blessings con
nected with its possession. But Israel had hearkened to the voice
of the tempter, his paradise had vanished, yet not for ever. God, at
a future period, will again plant for him a garden in Eden, with
pleasant trees. That this allusion here exists, is confirmed by chap.
36 : 35, " This land is as the garden of Eden," and by chap. 47 :
12, "And by the brook (comp. with "And, behold, waters went
forth from under the threshold of the temple toward the east,'' v. 1,
" and a stream went forth from Eden to water the garden," Gen.
2 : 10) grow on both sides on its border, all manner of fruit-trees ;
their leaves fade not, and the fruit does not cease." A similar allu
sion is found also. Is. 60 : 21, 61:3, "And they shall be called
terabinths of righteousness, a planting of the Lord for renown,"
where the righteous themselves appear as the trees of the new para
dise, while here the plantation is prepared for them. Vitringa :
" Converiendus in paradisum dei, quippe pluntandus surculis planta-
. iionum dei, qui excrescerent in alias et robusias quercus," comp. also
Joel 2 : 3, where the land is described before the judgment, as like
the garden of Eden, and where, after the restoration, the paradisaical
fountain goes forth out of the house of Jehovah, and waters the valley
of thorns, chap. 4 : 18, comp. Zech. 14 : 8. If, now, this reference is
established, it is also evident, that the sense of the passage goes beyond
that of the parallel, chap. 36 : 30, " And I increase the fruit of the tree,
and enlarge the increase of the field, that ye may no more experi
ence the reproach of hunger among the heathen," (which is of itself
sufficient to set aside explanations like those of Jahn and Rosen
miiller,) and that, in order to its completion, it is necessary to take
into view also the other parallel, chap. 47 : 12. The new paradisai
cal planting, which the Lord will prepare for his people, designates
the divine blessings in their whole extent, and the blessing of the
fruit-trees, which formed a part of these, was itself again symbolic.
The literal planting was a copy or adumbration of the spiritual,
whose water went forth out of the sanctuary, as, before, hunger had
been the symbol of the general poverty and deprivation. — How DB^S^
is to be explained, not, indeed, with De Wette, " to my honor," but
rather " to them for a name," is shown by " and they shall no more
bear the reproach of the heathen." They become the people of the

484 EZEKIEL.
blessed of the Lord, and, therefore, freed from the reproach with
which they were burdened, in consequence of their affliction, which
served as a matter-of-fact proof of the invalidity of their claim to
be the only people of the most high God. There is an allusion, as
Zeph. 3 : 19, and Jer. 13 : 11, to Deut. 26 : 19.
V. 30. " And they experience that I the Lord their God am with
them, and they my people, the house of Israel, saith the Lord Jeho
vah." The house of Israel is emphatic, Israel, the people of God,
and of the covenant, in the true and proper sense, comp. on chap.
11 : 15.
V. 31. " And ye are my fleck, my pasture flock are ye men. I
am your God, suith the Lord, Jehovuh.'' Comp. respecting txy
•'rfyia, on Jer. 23 : 1. The expression, " ye men," calls attention
to the depth and greatness of the divine condescension, and meets
the objection of weak faith, that man, who has been taken from the
earth, nnix, and returns to it again, is incapable of so intimate a
union with God.

THE PORTION CHAP. 36:22-32.
To the discourse held on the day before the account of the
destruction, belongs also the portion chap. 36 : 16 - 38, the contents
of which Venema has briefly and weU determined thus : "Causam
et rutionem pundit cum excidii et exitii in corruptione populi quaren-
dam, tum liberationis et instauruiionis, unice u nominis dei sandifi-
cutione repetendum." The former takes place in the introduction,
V. 17-21, the second in the principal part, v. 22-38, of which we
omit v. 33-38, because they form a mere recapitulation.

V. 22. " Therefore, suy to the house of Isruel, thus saith the Lord,
Jehovah, not on your account de I it, ye of the house of Isruel, but
for the suke of my holy nume which ye huve profuned umong ihe
heuthen, whither ye went." In order to a right understanding of
the whole portion, an insight into the idea of holiness in the writings

THE PORTION CHAP. 36: 23-32. V. 22, 485
of the Old Testament is necessary. In determining this, the greatest
caprice reigns among the modern interpreters and theologians ; those
mostly restrain themselves within limits, who would subjoin to moral
holiness, majesty and exaltation ; while those wander the furthest,
who entirely exclude moral holiness, and put in its place, condescen
sion and love. The correct view is established in opposition to all
these errors, in an article in the Ev. K. Z. Bd, 7, p, 573 ff. The
holiness of God never designates any thing else than the entire free
dom of his nature from -sin, which, at the same time, includes in
itself his highest abhorrence of it, the effort to sanctify himself
through his Holy Spirit in his sinful creatures, and, when they will not
permit this, upon them, and the absolute necessity that one of the two
should take place. Holiness must be a purely moral attribute, for
otherwise, " be ye holy for I am holy," would have no meaning 
But how can the holiness of God here be represented as that attribute
of the Divine being, which necessarily requires the redemption of
Israel, which at first sight appears to be only a work of grace and
mercy ? To these, indeed, the election of Israel alone belonged,
though not the establishment of the kingdom of God in general, in
which the divine holiness had the most essential part. But after the
election had once taken place, the divine holiness stood in so essen
tial a relation to Israel, that the name the holy one of Israel, became
one of the standing designations of God. The decree of election
had been pronounced as an unconditional one. In the moment,
therefore, when God cast off the people for ever, he ceased to be
Jehovah, from whom every change is excluded, the Holy One, with
whom there is no variableness nor shadow of turning, James 1 : 17,
That the divine holiness demands the fulfilment of every promise
granted from grace through grace, because God is not a man that he
should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent, very clearly ap
pears in the passage, Ps, 89 : 36, " God has sworn by his holiness, I
will not lie to David, his seed shall be eternal." It also appears in
the declaration, " To whom I am gracious, to him I am gracious,
and whom I pity, him I pity.'' With God is no dissembling, no
caprice, he must cease to be himself should he will otherwise than
he has once willed. Even Israel's sin, however great it may have
been, did not cancel the claim for his redemption on the holiness of
God. For God, the omniscient, saw these sins before he gave
the unconditional promise ; to him, the God of the spirits of all
flesh, they did not come unexpected. He might destroy the sinners.

486 EZEKIEL.
he must do it, just because he was holy, but never could he give up
all Israel. He must also cause a /T'lKK' to remain. The greatness
of the sin, was only a requisition upon him to employ the most effi
cacious means to purify and sanctify ; he would be unholy if he did
not make holy ; for then he would not have done his own part to
wards the fulfilling of his promise, which, on account of the condi
tion of human nature, would be but poorly satisfied by outward
benefits. And if he did this, he could never want an object of his
mercy. Sodom was destroyed, because there was no ixXoyfj in it, but
in Israel, because Jehovah is infinitely richer than Elohim, this could
never be the case. — Now, that the redemption of Israel is here
in opposition to all merit (comp. in reference to the D32;;dS, Deut.
9:6," And thou knowest, that not for thy righteousness' sake, does
God give thee the good land"), grounded solely upon God's nature,
his holiness, was, on the one hand, very humiliating, it silenced all
human claims ; on the other hand, however, very consoling. The
anxious and broken hearts thereby perceived, that their salvation by
no means rested on any human ground, and could not be disturbed
by the sins of their people. — At first sight, the ground which God
here brings forward for the redemption of Israel, appears to be a very
external one ; it appears as though he had been induced by something
lying without himself the reproachful discourses of the heathen,
who, because they did not perceive the deeper reason of the pro
cedure, drew such a conclusion from it, to relinquish his former de
cree of the destruction of Israel. But we must well distinguish the
thought from its form. This is the popular, that wherein the thought
was accessible even to those whose perceptions had been little exer
cised. The conclusion of the heathen was fully justified by the
fact. That Israel was the people of Jehovah, they doubted not ;
they knew the facts of the past, which testified this ; even to them
had come the knowledge of the splendid promises, the firm oaths
which he imparted to them. When, now, he at once entirely rejects
this people, how should not the thought arise in their minds, that the
celebrated holiness of this God was not a matter of much moment,
who either had promised what he could not perform, or would not
perform what he had promised ; that he was completely like their
idols, in whom only their own sinful nature was exhibited. And
thus the conclusion of the heathen was entirely unobjectionable, if
their premises were correct, that God had for ever (this is to be sup
plied, " the people of Jehovah are they, and out of their land have

THE PORTION CHAP. 36: 22-32. V. 22. 487
they gone," v. 20) rejected his people, and the matter-of-fact refuta
tion of the for ever, is the only possible mode of justifying God. —
This view, that the discourse of the heathen comes under consider
ation only so far as it was grounded in the thing itself that the latter,
the nature of God, contains the proper ground, is confirmed by a
comparison of the passages of the Pentateuch, which the prophet
had in view, Exod. 32, Num. 14, and Deut 9. At first sight, it
appears, indeed, as though in them also, Israel's redemption is repre
sented as a work of caprice, and independent of the divine nature.
God speaks as though he had formed the firm determination to de
stroy the people, and appears afterwards to have been induced only
by the intercession of Moses, and by the consideration of an out
ward ground, that of guarding against the reproaches of the heathen,
to limit his judgment to the sinners, and to confirm to the people the
perpetuity of their election. But on a nearer consideration, it ap
pears that God, for a definite purpose, at first caused only the one
side of the case to appear ; that which he would do according to the
necessity of his nature, if the covenant and promise were not in
existence. This purpose, in all the three passages, clearly appears,
comp. Exod. 32 : 10, "And now let me alone, and mine anger shall
burn against them, and I will consume them, and make of thee a
great people. In like manner, Num. 14 : 12, Deut 9 : 14. The
temptation of Israel, as the servant of God, is accompanied by the
temptation of Moses, the servant of God, as we see even in the out
ward sign, that he fasts forty days, — the standing period of tempta
tion in the Scripture, — comp. Deut. 9 : 9. This temptation reaches
its climax, precisely in the circumstance that Israel is overcome by
it ; Moses is thus furnished with a very plausible reason to sacrifice
the people to his selfish interest, and put himself in their place.
The leader of the people was to be tempted in all things like them.
On this account, God causes one view of his being to appear ; he
represents himself (without dissembling) as though he were on the
side of the selfishness of his servant He leaves it whh him to
bring forward the other view of his being, and that he actually did
this, was his victory over the temptation, the outward manifestation
of which, the seal which God impressed upon it, was the shining of
his face. Now in the method in which Moses does this, it clearly
appears, that he allows the validity of the charge of the heathen,
only so far as it rests on the fact For along with it he causes the
naked fact itself to appear, thus, e. g., Exod, 32 : 13, " Remember

488 EZEKIEL,
still Abraham, and Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou
hast sworn by thyself and said to them, I will multiply your seed,"
&c, Deut 9 : 27, " Remember thy servants, Abraham," &c, ; " have
not respect to the hardness of this people, and their wickedness,
and their sin," Num, 14 : 17, " Now will the power of the Lord
still be great, as thou saidst : Jehovah, long-suffering," &,c, — That
the name of God here also designates his being, so far as it is mani
fested, scarcely needs to be remarked. The profanation refers not
to the deed, but to its result. This is shown by what precedes ;
intentionally, however, does the prophet attribute to Israel as an
action, that which had been occasioned by what had happened to
him, his fate, contrary to the idea of the covenant people. For they
bore the guilt of these reproaches ; their fate was the necessary and
natural consequence of their conduct, and so must these reproaches
serve for their deep humiliation. Not the heathen, but they, had
brought down the holy God, within the province of sin,
V, 23, " And I sanctify my name, the great, ihe profuned, umong
the heuthen, which ye huve profuned in the midst of you, und ihe
heathen shall experience that I am Jehovah, suith the Lord Jehovuh,
when I sunciify myself in you before your eyes." God, holy in him
self becomes holy in his people, when he imparts to them his holi
ness. Passages like this lay the foundation for interpreting the so
usually misunderstood " hallowed be thy name," in the Lord's prayer,
the sense of vvhich is no other than, " may God be holy in the world,
as he is in himself" Wherein the sanctification of God in Israel
consists, is shown by the following relation. Holiness, because it
designates freedom from sin, also designates freedom from its con
sequent evil. Thus Israel is first freed from sin by forgiveness, and
then by the operation of the Spirit, and then follows, as a completion
of their sanctification, the imparting of prosperity. Thus is God's
name hallowed. What God is in his people, loudly testifies of that
which he is in himself and as the heathen now perceive, that God is
holy, so do they also perceive, that he is Jehovah ; for his being a
holy God, is only a particular result of his being Jehovah. — A re
markable example of superficial criticism, is the assertion, that
instead of D3''J''J.'S we must read Dii''.yi;S. That this reading is
found in many critical authorities, proves nothing further, than that
superficial critics existed before. If it is established, that the charge
of the heathen rested on the fact, so is it also that God must vindi
cate his honor before Israel, no less than before them ; the reference

THE PORTION CHAP. 36: 22-32. V. 24, 25. 489
to both is combined precisely as here, chap. 20 : 41, 42, " And I
will be sanctified in you before the eyes of the heathen, and ye shall
know that I am Jehovah, when I bring you into the land of Israel,
into the land that I have lifted up my hand to give to your fathers."
Comp. V. 44, " And ye know that I am Jehovah, when I deal with
you on account of my name."
V. 24. " And I take you out of the nutiens, and collect you out of
the lund, and bring you into your land. V. 25. And I sprinkle
upon you pure water, and ye shall be clean from ull your impurities,
und from ull your pollutions (the idols) will I cleunse you." Here,
in the first place, is the foundation of all sanctification of God in his
people, the forgiveness of sins, the taking away, which must precede
all giving, comp. on Jer. 31 : 3, 4. That there is an allusion to the
Mosaic purifications, and especially to the consecrated water, wherein
the ashes of the red heifer, the remedy for the greatest of all im
purities, that by a corpse, is obvious, comp. Num. 19 : 17-19, " And
they take for the unclean from the ashes of the burnt sin-offering,
and put thereon living water in a vessel, and they take hyssop, and a
clean man dips it in the water, sprinkles the tent and all the vessels,
and the souls which are there, and the clean sprinkles it upon the
unclean, and sanctifies him," comp. Ps. 51 : 9. The now current
understanding of such reference is, the corporeal is changed into the
spiritual ; but the correct view, on the contrary, is, what in the law
is a symbol, is used as a figure. The writer who makes the allusion,
does not introduce something new, but only interprets. A proof of
this view is furnished by the fact, that those, who would determine
the ground and aim of the laws of purification upon different prin
ciples, involve themselves in the grossest absurdities. One need only
read, for example, the portion in reference to them in Michaelis, M. R.
(Th. 4. § 207 ff.) We seldom find such a collection of insipid
things, as in this half volume, and how he did not despise the most
extraordinary grounds of interpretation appears, e, g,, from § 217,
according to which, Moses should have commanded the unclean
earthen vessel to be broken, because he did not exactly approve of
earthen vessels for cooking, since they were less economical, on ac
count of their liability to be broken. Of the same kind is all the
rest, and yet, with all this invention, this boundless confidence in the
good-nature of his reader, must Michaelis still confess, in § 214, that
for a large number of impurities, he can find no object, no "political
use," He devotes a special section (§ 213) to answering the -question,
VOL. III. 62

490 EZEKIEL.
" Why is nothing ordained concerning the plague, did not this
sickness especially deserve to be marked in the law with a Levitical
impurity, in order to hinder the contagion ? " The proposal of this
question is to be regarded as a monition of conscience ; if Moses
had in view political purposes, he must surely have had more regard
to the plague, and many other contagious diseases, than to those
which either are not at all contagious, and which were first con
verted into such by Michaelis, or which, like the leprosy, were at
any rate so little infectious, that ordinary intercourse exposed to no
danger. That the grounds whereby he would explain the disregard
of the plague by Moses, are in the highest degree unsatisfactory,
is self-evident. But the judgment which we have already been led
to form in favor of the symbolic import of the impurities and the
purifications, is fully confirmed by a closer investigation. Through
out do we find the outward impurities placed on a level with the
spiritual, the means of outward purification with those of the internal,
comp., e. g., Num. 19 : 20, " A man who pollutes himself, and does
not purify himself from sin, thut soul is cut off from the congrega
tion ; for he has polluted the sanctuary of the Lord." Entirely the
same thing is done to the impure, as to the sinner ; the sacrifices
which are offered for him are sin-offerings, nxton, the priest makes
atonement for him before the Lord, comp., e. g., Levit. 15 : 15.
Those who assume political purposes, have here no other resort, than
the supposition, that Moses used religion as a means to accomplish
his purposes. Michaelis asserts this also in § 212, without reserve.
" God, who condescended to be a civil ruler of the Israelites, availed
himself of the most powerful of all aids, religion." Now, if this
assertion were correct, it would follow from it alone, that Moses was
not sentof God ; a view, which the work of Michaelis has done more
to propagate, than those who openly declare it. — This assertion,
however, is entirely destitute of proof ; of a political purpose, there
is nowhere even the slightest trace. On the contrary, the symbolic
meaning has in its favor the analogy of the whole symbolic character
of the law. To awaken a living consciousness of sin and holiness,
and of the consequent necessity of substitution and atonement, was
the object which Moses everywhere pursued, and vvhich the laws of
purification also serve to promote ; what was done to outward im
purity, was done to sin, which the people of the Old Testament,
familiar with the language of symbols, the more easily beheld in its
image, since, without that, what was done would have been absurd.

THE PORTION CHAP.. 36: 22-32. V. 26-32, 491
In reference to one of the most prominent kinds of Levitical im
purity, the leprosy, we have already, p. 437, pointed this out. In
reference to another sort, precisely that to which there is here an
allusion, pollution by corpses, Deyling, Obbs. III. p. 70, justly re
marks : " Inde judicure licet, quanta irregenitorum et peccatorum sit
faeditas coram deo." The corporeally dead, are the most suitable
symbol of the vsxgol xolg naganxdfiaai xal xalg dpagxlaig, Eph. 2:1,5,
Col. 2 : 13, comp. the designations of sins as vsxgd 's'gya, Heb. 9 : 14.
— By these remarks, the reference to the legal impurities and puri
fications appear in their full import. We have not an arbitrary
transition from the corporeal to the spiritual, but rather an interpre
tation of that which originally related to the spiritual, Ezekiel here
by no means promises any thing new, but only resumes the promise
ilready lying in the law, and announces its complete realization,
^w'^J, properly filth, then of the idols, yet only so far as they are
considered as filth, unclean, and polluting.
V. 26. " And I give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I give
.71 your inward parts, and I take aiouy the heart of stone from
oithin you, and give you a heart of flesh." Comp. on chap. 11 : 19.
V. 27. " And I will give my Spirit in your inward parts, and
•.ause that ye walk in my commandments, and observe and de my
¦tatutes." Comp. chap. 11 : 20.
V. 28. " And ye dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers,
md shall be to me a people, and I will be to you a God." Comp.
;hap. 11 : 20. "Ye shall be," &c., refers here also solely to the
esult, they shall be treated as a people of God.
V. 29. " And I redeem you from aU your impurities, und I call
o the corn and increase it, and no more do I inflict upon you hunger.
7. 30. And I increase the fruit of the tree, and the produce of the
ield, that the reproach of hunger may no more fall upon you among
he heathen." Comp. chap. 34 : 27, 29.
V. 31. " And ye remember your ways, the evil, and your deeds,
ohich are not good, and abhor yourselves on account of your sins
md your abominations. V. 32. Not for your sakes do I it, saith
he Lord, Jehovah, be that known unto you, be ashamed and blush on
iccount of your ways, O house of Israel."

492 EZEKIEL,

THE PORTION CHAP, 37:22-28,
Chapter thirty-seventh also belongs to the great whole of the reve
lations which were imparted to the prophet the night before the
arrival of a messenger, with an account of the destruction of Jeru
salem, and which all tend to the promotion of one object, the coun
teraction of the pusillanimity, and the despair of the people. The
chapter contains a twofold, but closely connected, word of God ; in
the first part, v, 1 - 14, Israel's restoration, as a covenant, and in the
second, as a fraternal people, is predicted. On the first portion, the
question arises concerning its relation to the doctrine of the resur
rection from the dead. That the prophet borrows his image from
this doctrine, and that it was, therefore, not merely known to him,
but also regarded as certain by the people, may be regarded as a
universal acknowledgment. " Observandum est insuper," remarks
Pareau, Comment, de Immortal, p, 109, "eorum (of Isaiah and
'Eize\iie\) sermones ad usus publicos fuisse desiinutos ; ex quo conse-
quitur hunc resurredionis docirinum ea atute vulge ita notum fuisse,
ut facilis, perspicua et quodammodo pepularis imago inde posset
desumi." But we must not stop short at this ; we must also assume
that the idea which is expressed by the image, is first fully realized
in the occurrence of the thing from which the image is taken ; that
the image, therefore, does not merely proceed from the thing, but
also reverts back to it. So surely as God is God, (this is the idea,)
so surely must every decay be at the same time an origin, every
death a transition to life ; and this idea it is, on which the certainty
of a blessed resurrection alone rests, which would be sure even on
account of this idea, though it had no express word of Scripture in
its favor.
Grotius, after his superficial manner, supposes that the prophet
here speaks of a mors civilis and vita civilis. Now this is before
hand inconceivable, the kernel and central point of the distress
would then be left entirely out of view in the consolation. That
Israel was no more a people, caused the distress of those who were
everywhere the sole object of prophetic consolation, only because
they beheld therein the matter-of-fact proof that Israel was no more
a covenant people, that God was no more in the midst of them.
And then it can by no means be expected of a prophet, who alvvays
so magnifies the inward and spiritual restoration, the conversion of

, THE PORTION CHAP. 37- 22-28, 493
the heart of stone into one of flesh, and considers the outward resto
ration only as an addition, only as a reflection of the inward, that he
should here, forgetful of his calling, come forward as a common
patriot. The contrary can be clearly proved even from the portion
itself In the interpretation of the vision, v. 12-14, a twofold action
in reference to the restoration, is distinguished. 1. The bringing
back to Canaan, symbolized by the opening of the graves, the coming
together of the dry bones, and their investure with flesh and blood
so that the former bones are changed again into corpses, in which
there is as yet no living spirit 2. The quickening of the.se corpses
by the Spirit of God, of which the former served only as a prepara
tion ; in itself considered, it was worthless, and no object of pro
phetic annunciation. This second action is symbolized by the im
parting of the inferior life as the medium, which, in the vision, which'
according to its nature must make every thing an object of sense,
appears as the breathing upon them by the wind, the natural symbol
of the inferior and higher principle of life, and perceived as such by
all nations, and in all languages of the ancient world, — the Saviour
breathed upon the disciples, as a sign of the imparting of the Spirit ;
on the day of Pentecost iysvsxo aipva ix xov ovgavov fjxog dgnsg tps-
gofisvrjg nvofjg §ialag, Acts 2 : 2, with an allusion to the passage before
us, which stands in an essential connexion with this event, comp. also
John 3 : 8. This revivification by the Spirit of God, is then followed
by the true and secure possession of the land of the Lord, — "I
make you to rest upon your land," in v. 14, must be distinguished
from " I bring you to the land of Israel," in v. 12, — the full enjoy
ment of all the blessings and gifts of the Lord, which could be im
parted only to his people animated by his Spirit. From the meaning
of the life, thus with certainty made out, we can infer the import of
the death. The carrying away of, the people into exile, the destruc
tion of Jerusalem and the temple, is not the death, it is only its sign,
the change of the corpse to corruption. The corpse was already
there. The vital principle of Israel as the people of God, was the
Spirit of God. This was still present in some persons, but the
prophet here has not individuals in view ; his eye is directed to the
whole of the Church of the Lord ; here spiritual death everywhere
meets him, and those who mourn with him, and how the transition
from it to life, how the spiritual new birth of the people lay entirely
beyond the bounds of human probability, because human means had
no power to effect it, because it is impossible that a heart of stone

494 EZEKIEL.
should change itself by its own power into a heart of flesh, is shown
by the question of the Lord in v. 3, " Thou Son of Man, will those
bones live again ? " and the answer of the prophet, " O Lord, thou
knowest." Before God promises life by the prophet, the latter must
declare, that he knows nothing of himself of this life, that it lies
above the natural course of things. — From these remarks, it appears
that the whole portion is Messianic, that only in Christ, and the im
parting of the Spirit through his mediation, is the complete fulfilment
of the promise contained in it to be sought, and that this fulfilment
is ever progressive, and takes place wherever in his Church life arises
out of death, until the final completion, when death shaU be entirely
swallowed up in victory.
The second part begins with a symbolic action. It is immaterial
whether it were internal or external, though it was probably the
former, according to the remaining analogy in Ezekiel, with whom
the internal so predominates. The prophet, representing the Lord,
takes two pieces of wood, — staves, and not tables, as appears out of
Num. 17 : 17, 18, from which passage the form of the symbolic
action has been derived. Upon the one he writes the names of Ju
dah and his companions, the portion of Israel which have joined
themselves to him, Benjamin, Levi, Simeon, and the pious, who at
different times had passed over from the kingdoms of the ten tribes to
the kingdom of Judah ; on the other, the name of Ephraim, with the
rest, who were combined with this predominant tribe in one kingdom.
These two staves, he then with a firm hand presses together, sym
bolizing the union of the kingdom separated in the past by the sin
of the people, to be effected in the future by the mercy of God.
The interpretation in v. 21 - 28, extends in a measure beyond the
symbol. It does not limit itself to the fud of the union, but at the
same time gives its attendant circumstances, and blessed results, and
points to the person of the great king, who should be the mediator of
union, the dispenser of the blessing for both. Very naturally, for in
this connexion does the fact first appear in its true import. The
union, so as to form one fraternal people, can come under considera
tion only as a consequence, and part of a renewal of their whole
condition, '

THE PORTION CHAP, 37- 22-28, V. 22-27. 495
V. 22. " And I make thee to be one people on the mountains of
Israel, and one king will be to them all a king, and no more will they
be two people, and will not still be divided into two kingdoms."
Comp. chap. 34 : 23.
V. 23. " And they will no more pollute themselves with their de
testable things, and their abominations, and with all their sins, and I
redeem them from all their dwelling-places, where they have sinned,
and purify them, and they become my people, and I become their
God." The redemption from the dwelling-places is not local, but
spiritual, and is effected by removing all traces of sin, first from the
heart, and then from the surrounding region. And thus is the land,
by the power of the Lord, converted into another land, from a sinful
to a holy, as formerly by the guilt of the people, from a holy to a
sinful. V. 24. " And my servant David is king over them, and one shep
herd is to them all, and they will walk in my statutes, and observe
and do my statutes." The promise of the one king in v. 22, is here
more nearly determined. It is the great king out of David's race,
and thus all the glorious promises which had been given to David,
and in him to the kingdom of God, are revived.
V. 25. " And they dwell in the land which I gave to my servant
Jacob, wherein their fathers had dwelt, and they dwell therein, they
and their sons, and their sons' sens for ever, and Duvid my servant
is the prince for ever." That the first dSi^"? is to be taken in all its
strictness, appears from the second o'jiy'?' comp. p. 403.
V. 26. " And I conclude with them a covenant of peace, an ever
lasting covenant shall subsist with them, and I give them and increase
them, und I give my sanctuary in the midst of them for ever." " I
give them and increase them," Venema rightly explains by dubo eos
multiplicutes. There is an allusion to the promise to Abraham,
" And I give thee for nations, and kings will come out of thee."
That the prophet by ^1t\i? had not in view an outward edifice, as
such, but that with him the presence of the Lord among his people,
is the essential thing in the idea of the sanctuary, appears out of
chap. 11 : 16.
V. 27. " And my dwelling is over them, and I will be their God,
and they shaU be my people." We are not permitted to regard ]2i^D
as an outward dwelling, on account of the expression " over them."
There is an allusion to Exod. 25 : 8, " And they make for me a
sanctuary (a'^pD), and I dweU among them," comp. Levit 26 : 11.
That promise, — the prophet explains, — looks to the future for its

496 EZEKIEL.
complete fulfilment. Then will God for the first time truly be among
his people, and the distinction between heaven and earth be done
away. The destruction of the outward temple, therefore, is no cause
of distress. The fulfilment, Vitringa justly finds, 06ss. I. 4. p. 161,
in the " Inhabituiio dei in medio pepuli per filium et spir. s. ; comp.
John 1 : 14, where, in the iaxrjvaasv iv fjfilv, the word become flesh
is represented as the true |5?''? of Cfod with reference to the same
passage of Exodus, which the prophet has in view, Apoc. 21 : 3,
1 Cor. 3 : 16, 6 : 19, where believers, on account of the indwelling
of the Spirit of Christ, are designated as the temple of God.
V. 28. " And the heathen perceive that I, Jehovah, sunciify Isruel,
since my sanctuary is among them to eternity." " To sanctify,"
means to deliver both from sin and its consequences, evil. Here
regard is had to the latter, because this only was apparent to the
heathen ; but the former is at the same time presupposed as the
necessary groundwork. The antithesis between God and his Church
is done away ; he is most really present in the midst of her ; there
fore no evil can any more reach her ; for just because the difference
between her and God has ceased, would God be profaned in her.
As he is holy in himself so is he now holy in Israel, comp. 39 : 7,
" And my holy name wiU I make known in the midst of my people
Israel (reveal my holy name in the midst of them), and no more will
I profane my holy name, and the heathen shall know, that I the
Lord am holy in Israel." Here is an allusion to the promise of the
sanctification of Israel in the Pentateuch, comp. Levit 20 : 8, 21 : 23,
22 : 31 -33. These had hitherto been only very imperfectly fulfilled,
because Israel, through his own fault, had not sanctified God, and,
therefore, could not be treated as a holy people. And how closely
the two are connected, appears, e. g., from Levit. 22 : 32, " And ye
shall not profane my holy name, and I will be sanctified in the midst
of the children of Israel, I, the Lord, who sanctify you." Now in
the future, God hiipself by the richer imparting of forgiveness, and
the more abundant effusion of the Spirit, will cause the condition to
be completely fulfilled, and consequently the result to be fully attain
ed. It is, therefore, a promise, whose final fulfilment lies beyond the
bounds of this sinful world, even because it comprehends the idea in
its whole extent, and in all its depth, yet in such a manner, that the
germs of the fulfilment, whose complete developement is certain,
because the promise rests upon the idea, are already completely
present.

INDEX TO THE WHOLE WORK.

Vol. Page
GeneraIi Injcroddction, - - - I, 9
THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES OF
ISAIAH.
Introductory Remarks, - - - I. 276
Chap. 2— 4, - 287
Chap. 7, - - ... 307
Chap. 8:23 — 9:6, - - 343
Chap. 11 and 12, - - - - 366
General Preliminary Remarks on Isaiah, Chapters 40 — 66, 395
Genuineness of Isaiah, Chapters 40 — 66, - 399
Contents of Chapters 40—66, - - - 484
Chap. 42 : 1 - 9, - - - - 444
Chap. 49: 1-9, - ... 4^1
Chap. 50:4-11, . - 477
Chap. 52 : 12 — Chap. 53, - - - 484
JEREMIAH.
Preliminary Observations, ... HI. 365
The Portion Chap. 3:14-17,  373
Chap. 23:1-8, - - - - 395
Chap. 31. Verses 31 -40, . . . . 416
Chap. 33. Verses 14-26, - - - 444
EZEKIEL.
Preliminary Observations, - - ' - - HI. 458
The Portion Ghap. 11:14-21, - . . 460
The Portion Chap. 17:22-24, - - 469
Chap. 21:30-33, .... 473
The Portion Chap. 34:23-31, .... 479
The Portion Chap. 36:22-32, ... - 484
The Portion Chap. 37: 22 -28, - - - - 492

498 INDEX TO THE WHOLE WORK.
DANIEL.
General View, - - - -
Interpretation. Verse 34, - - -
Verse 25,
Verse 36,
Verse 27, [ 
The Definiteness of the Dates, . . .
The Terminus a Quo of the Seventy Weeks,
Chronological Determination of the Terminus ad Quem,
The Agreement of Prophecy and Fulfilment with respect to
the Distance of the Terminus a Quo from the Terminus
ad Quem, -------
The Last Week and its Half,
The Non-Messianic Interpreters,
HOSEA.
General Preliminary Observations,
The Portion Chap. 1 — 3,
Chap. 1 — 3:3,
Verses 4-25,
Chap. 3,
JOEL.
Preliminary Observations,
The Portion Ghap. 1 — 3 : 18,
On Ghap. 2:23,
Interpretation of Ghap. 3, - -
AMOS.
General Preliminary Observations,
Chap. 9, - - _ . .
MICAH.
Preliminary Observations,
Ghap. 1 and 3, _ . .
Chap. 3 — 5, _ . .
Chap. 4. Verses 9-14, - -
Ghap. 5. Verse 1, -
History of the Interpretation,
' The Citation Matt. 2:6, - -
HAGGAI.
Chap. 2. Verses 6-9, - - - IIL 247

Vol.

Paga

11.

292

297

328

343

354
378
381
392
394
408
414
III.
1
11
22
47
85
m,
, 100
106
121
125
IIL
. 142
148
in
. 174
182
195
306
214
331
232
INDEX TO THE WHOLE WORK. 499
On Matthew 2: 23, - - - . .
ZECHARIAH.
General Preliminary Observations, ...
L Chap. 1:1-6, - - - -
n. Chap. 1:7 — 6:15, ....
1. The Vision of the Rider among the Myrtle Trees.
Ghap. 1:7-17,
2. The Four Horns and the Four Smiths. Ghap. 3:1-4,
3. The Angel with the Measuring Line. Ghap. 3:5-17,
4. The High Priest Joshua before the Angel of the
Lord. Chap. 3, - -
5. The Candlestick with the Two Olive Trees. Ghap. 4,
6. The Flying Roll. Ghap. 5:1-4,
7. The Epha and the Woman sitting therein. Verses
5-11, ....
8. The Four Chariots. Ghap. 6:1-8,
9. The Crown on the Head of Joshua. Verses 9 - 15,
Chap. 7 and 8,
Chap. 9:1-10, Concerning the Land of Hadrach,
Chap. 9:11 — 10:12, 
Chap. 10, - ...
Chap. 11, - - -
; Chap. 12:1 — 13:6,
History of the Interpretation,
Chap. 13, - - - - -
Chap. 13:7-9, -
Chap. 14, ...
MALACHI.
Preliminary Observations, . . -
Chap.3:I7 — 3:6,
The Portion Chap. 3. .Verses 13-34,
The New Testament in relation to the Prophecies of Malachi,

Vol.

Page

IL

1

11.

7

15

16

16

22
23
25
41
44
46
48
52
66
68
69
114
137
146
196
218
233
242
254
III.
, 272
283
309
336
ERRATA IN VOL. III.
Page 20, at the bottom, for for them read from them
" 21, lines 14 and 18 from the top, " gold " money
" 69, line 4 from the top, " involuntarily " voluntarily

f

*'!i-'ir"

¦ •ff^^^h

"iliiiji!'. Hiliiiij