\&* ***** W«3*3 j- W- %*>4J. ,; %i^'^; Jig • •^c"v^.l' j3£i* s*. sd&ft £ ¦iMT r^. | /»>- M* fouhdmg of a: CoHegt m.ltfyjColony? DIVINITY SCHOOL TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBEAEY NEW SERIES. VOL. XIX. 3ft?cnfi»t Calvin remarks : " it ought not properly to be rendered as an imperative, but the words should be understood thus : as they depart to a distance from the sanctuary, the land will remain as our inheritance." But the sense is weakened by this explanation. The imperative must be rendered with strict literality. The hypocrites look upon departure from the country of the Lord, as a positive declaration of departure from the Lord himself, and on the other hand consider their own residence in the land, as a practical demonstration that they are near to Him. From this point of view it is that they call out to their brethren, " away with you from the Lord, to us the land is given for a possession." They are excited with a kind of holy jealousy at the thought, that such unholy men might possibly lay claim to have a portion and inheritance in the Lord, and consequently in his country also. But in the position, which they thus assume towards their brethren, that is, towards the house of Israel, they bear their own testimony, that they are not brethren in the true sense of the word, and do not belong to the house of Israel. Ver. 16. " Therefore say : thus saith the Lord Jehovah : I EZEKIEL, CHAP. XI. 16. 11 have indeed removed them to a distance among the heathen and scattered them in the lands, but I will be to them for a short time a sanctuary in the countries whither they have come." The word " therefore" refers to the contemptuous language of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The " therefore" in ver. 17 is co-ordinate with it. In the present case the antithesis has reference to their assertion, as to the distance of the others from the Lord himself ; in ver. 17, to their declaration that they were excluded from the land of the Lord. The very opposite to the former is actually the case now, and the opposite to the latter will be witnessed very soon. 13, which must necessarily be an explanatory particle, supposes a clause to be introduced to this effect : " they are right in a certain sense, they do not speak entirely without a reason, for I have certainly, &c." In sub stance it is equivalent to our word " indeed," (I have indeed, &c.) But whilst the fact is admitted, the conclusion drawn from it is denied. They say : " therefore the Lord is far from them." The Lord* says : " therefore I am, or become, unto them a sanctuary." The outward removal, so far as everything essential is concerned, is really the means of approximation. They have indeed lost the temple of the Lord, but the Lord himself has become their temple. By these words the prophet puts an end to the triumph of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who imagine that the^possession of the temple is equivalent to the possession of God, and alleviates the pain of the captives, who fancy that the loss of the temple involves the loss of God. What mads the temple a sanctuary was the presence of God. Wherever this may be, there is the sanctuary ; where it is not, there can be no temple but only a heap of wood and stones. This announcement is afterwards completed, by the prophet seeing the glory of the Lord depart from the temple at Jerusalem. We have here the germ, which we find afterwards expanded into a tree, with all its branches, twigs, leaves and flowers, in the description of the kingdom of God in its new form and glorious manifestation, contained in chap. xl. — xlviii. In Isaiah viii. 14, the Lord is referred to in the same terms, as the sanctuary of Israel. And according to Kev. xxi. 22, in the New Jerusalem the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. " If the union of God with his people formed the essence of the 12 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. sanctuary, the coming of Christ must have borne the same relation to the sanctuary as the body to the shadow." The cap tivity, during which, even under the Old Testament, the union was maintained independently of its outward representation in the temple, prepared the way for the coming of Christ, by which the temple was permanently set aside, ^q ^s *° ^e taken as a particle of time, paulisper, for a little while. If the Lord was really the sanctuary of the people in their captivity, the proof of this would necessarily appear in the fact, that they were soon brought back from their exile. Canaan was still the land of the covenant ; and the presence of the Lord among his people at a distance from that land could only be a temporary thing. It was necessary, there fore, to add " for a little while," if what had been declared to be even then the case, was to be relied upon as true. The expression, " in the countries whither they have come," points to the fact that the day will come when the Lord will again be the sanc tuary of the people on their native soil, in the land of promise ; and therefore prepares the way for the contents of ver. 17 sqq. But in what way did the Lord prove himself to be the sanctuary of the people in their captivity ? First of all by sending the prophet himself. By giving them a preacher of repentance and salvation, and especially one so richly endowed, he furnished them at once with a token, that his favour had not been with drawn from the nation. The prophet was in an inferior sense what the Saviour was in the highest of all senses, a temple of God. For that which made the temple itself into a temple, the presence of God, dwelt in him. Again he proved this in many other and divers ways ; for example, by the outward protection which he afforded them, — by the alleviation of their sufferings (they did not lose their national independence altogether, but retained their elders even in their captivity), — by inward conso lations, — by the spirit of grace and supplication, which he poured out upon those who could receive it, and which changed the stony heart into a heart of flesh, — and by the preparations which he began to make even then, for their subsequent return. During the whole period of the captivity his providence was engaged in bringing about the requisite circumstances ; every event that transpired, such as the elevation of Daniel, the down fall of the Babylonian power and the rise of that of Persia EZEKIEL, CHAP. XI. 17, 18. 13 pointed to this end. How different was the Babylonian exile from that of the present day 1 In the latter there are no signs of the presence of God. The nation can do nothing but cele brate memorial festivals and dream of the future. Between the remote past and the remote future there lies an enormous barren waste, a whole Sahara. In the former the thoughtful observer may discern traces on every hand of the loving care of God, even in their deepest depression, and find pledges innumerable of their continued election and future glory. Ver. 17. " Therefore say : thus saith the Lord Jehovah, and I gather you from the nations, and assemble you out of the countries, whither ye have been scattered, and I give you the land of Israel." The Lord Jehovah : a proof that the promise is made by the Almighty and True. The words " and I will gather you" are intended to show, that this blessing is a continuation and conse quence of the former one. That the promise of restoration was not entirely accomplished under Zerubbabel, — since the Canaan into which the people entered at that time was not the country of the Lord in the full sense of the word, — in other words, that the promise contains a Messianic element, is a fact that hardly needs to be mentioned after our previous discussions. If the prophet apparently promises return to none, but those who were then in captivity, and threatens those, who were still in Judaea, with destruction, we naturally suppose the contrast to be drawn between the two distinct bodies of men, and not to refer to every individual. Otherwise, when we find the exiles described in ver. 15 as the whole of Israel, we should be forced to the conclu sion that Jeremiah was not " an Israelite indeed." The sense of the passage must be completed from ver. 9, where it is stated that even in Jerusalem there were some, who were the objects of the protecting care of the Lord, although they could not ward off the destruction of the polluted city. Ver. 18. "And they come thither, and take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence." V enema says : " They began immediately after their return, but did not finish for a long time afterwards, namely, in the time of the Maccabees, when they destroyed idolatry on every 14 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. hand throughout the whole land, and propagated the true reli gion even among the Samaritans and Idumeans." But the finish ing was of a peculiar kind. The external removal of the things, by which the land of the Lord had been defiled, was only thought of by the prophet, so far as it was the result of the unconditional surrender of the heart to the Lord. This is evident from the close connexion between the conduct of the people and the gift of the Lord, mentioned in the following verse, from which that conduct sprang. That Satan should drive out Satan, or a refined system of idolatry (even Jehovah can become an idol) make war upon one of a grosser kind, is a matter of no religious importance, and therefore does not come within the range of the prophecy, any more than a change of fashion in articles of dress. It is also evi dent, therefore, that the outward removal of idols in the period immediately following the restoration and in the time of the Mac cabees, is included in the prophecy, only so far as God himself was the principium movens on those occasions. But this can only be regarded as a very small beginning. The prophecy, in all that is essential, is Messianic. How little ground there is, for apply ing the term " finished" to the periods referred to, may be seen at once from the outward condition of the people between the resto ration and the coming of Christ. Their conduct may be gathered from their condition. If the idols had all been banished from the country along with the idolatrous images, the people would have had some ground for charging God with unfaithfulness, in not performing his promises. Ver. 19. ' And I give them a heart and a new spirit into their inward parts, and I take away the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh." The promise of the prophet is founded entirely upon Deut. xxx. 1 sqq. This is a pure renovation. The circumstances foreseen by Moses have now arrived. The people of the Lord are in exile, and therefore the words of consolation, which were also spoken by his servant, recover their force. Compare espe cially vers. 5, 6 : " and the Lord thy God bringeth thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou possessest it, and he doeth thee good, and multiplieth thee above thy fathers. And the Lord thy God cifcumciseth thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, that thou love the Lord thy God with all the heart and with EZEKIEL, CHAP. XI. 19, 20. 15 all the soul." The circumcision of the heart, and the removal of all its impurities — of wliich outward circumcision was both the type and pledge — are here represented as the substitution of a heart of flesh for one of stone. The words, " I will give you a heart, show that the people will seek the Lord with one accord, in direct contrast to the present state of affairs, in which only a few scattered individuals have turned to the Lord. The whole nation approaches the Lord like one man. There is a parallel passage in Jer. xxxii. 39 : " And I give them one heart and one way to fear me continually." Zephaniah also says (iii. 9) " they serve the Lord with one shoulder." And in Acts iv. 32 we find tov Se irXijOovs t&v iriaTevaavruiv r)v f> icap&ia, ical ft ip-v^rj fila. The opinion expressed by several commentators, and among the last by Schmieder, that the oneness of the heart represents its upright ness and undivided state, cannot be sustained ; on the contrary the standing expression for this is Q^\y ^h, The opposite to the one heart is described in Is. liii. 6 : "we turned every one to his own way." In the natural state there are as many diffe rent dispositions as hearts ; God makes all hearts and dispositions one. There can only be " one heart," where there is a " new spirit." The old spirit always produces distraction. The heart of flesh in contradistinction to the heart of stone (the expressions are peculiar to Ezekiel) denotes a tender heart susceptible of im pression from the mercy of God. The fact, that the heart of man is only rendered so by the mercy of God, is a proof of its natural condition. So far as divine things are concerned, it is by nature as hard and unimpressible as a stone ; the word of God and the outward dealings of his providence pass over it and leave no trace behind. The latter, indeed, may crush it, but not break it ; not only do the fragments continue hard, but the hardness even increases. The spirit of God alone can produce a soft and broken heart. For a parallel in words see chap, xxxvi. 26 ; for one in sense see Jer. xxxi. 33 (compare the remarks on this passage). Ver. 20. " That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them ; and they become my people and 1 become their God." This passage is founded upon Lev. xxvi. 3 : " if ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments and do them (ver. 4), 16 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. I will give you rain in due season, &c. — (and after a long list of blessings the whole is summed up in ver. 12), I will be your God and ye shall be my people ;" see Jer. xxxi. 33. It is through the operation of God alone, that the covenant nation becomes a covenant nation in its conduct, that the name of God is sancti fied in it, and his will accomplished therein ; and where this has once taken place, where the vocation of the covenant-people has been fulfilled in this respect, the rest necessarily follows : the nation becomes bis nation in its condition, God is sanctified in it and becomes its portion with the whole fulness of his bless ings. Ver. 21. " But as for those, whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recom pense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord Jehovah.'' In conclusion, those who through their own fault do not receive the prerequisite of mercy, the new heart, and therefore do not walk in the commandments of God, are expressly excluded from the mercy itself. Even in the people of the new covenant there is still a corrupt sitbstratum ; even among them a new object presents itself for the exercise of the justice of God. " Walking according to the heart of the idols " is opposed to walking accord ing to the heart of God. Whether the idols have any outward existence, or not, does not affect the question. It is enough that their essential characteristic, sin, is really there. The idols are merely the personification, or objective expression of sin. THE SECTION.-CHAP. XVI. 53-63 Jerusalem has acted even worse than Samaria and Sodom. Called to be the ruling power over the heathen world, she has fallen into heathenism herself, and thus has shown base ingrati tude towards the Lord, who had compassion on her misery in the time of her youth and so richly adorned her with his gifts; As she has inwardly placed herself on a level with Sodom and EZEKIEL, CHAP. XVI. 53 — 63. 17 Samaria, she is also to become their companion in misery, ver. 1 —52. But this is not the end of the ways of God. Jerusalem is not left in misery, because of the covenant made with her in the time of her youth; and Samaria and Sodom are not left in misery, because they are even less guilty than Jerusalem, and may therefore share with her in the saving mercy of God, which must work all in all. Salvation goes forth from Jerusalem, and Samaria and Sodom are received into its fellowship. All boast ing ceases. There remain to Judah only shame and confusion, because, notwithstanding the depth of its fall, the Lord still raises it to the height of its destination. We have here a picture ofthe world's history, to which a New Testament parallel may be found in Bom. xi. 29 sqq. In this passage as in the former the fundamental thought is : awe- ic\eiae 6 debs tovs iravTas ei? drreiOetav iva toi;? iravTas iXerja^. (Angl. God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all) Bom. xi. 32. Ver. 53. " And I return to their captivity, to the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and to the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, and to the captivity of thy captivity in the midst of them." That ]-|"Qty y$} always means to return to captivity,1 and that the term captivity in this particular phrase is a figurative expres sion, denoting misery, I have already proved both in my commen tary on Ps. xiv. 7 and in my Beitrage, vol. ii. p. 104 sqq. Captivity or imprisonment, in the strict sense of the word, is not applicable here, since the inhabitants of Sodom were not carried away captive, but exterminated. We have here a sacred parody, so to i We might appeal in favour of the transitive meaning of 21W ^n Kai (reducere, restituere) to the Samaritan name of the Messiah, Hashab or Hathab, if Gesenius were right in rendering this name converse? (carm. Sa marit p. 75). But de Sacy (in his notices et extraits, vol. xii. p. 29 and 209) has shown that the name more probably denotes the returning one ; and Juynholl (chron. Samarit. p. 52) supposes that the Messiah was called by this name, because he was regarded as the returning Moses, an opinion which is favoured by the fact, that the Samaritans, who only recognised the autho rity of the Pentateuch, based their expectation of a Messiah upon Deut. xviii. 18, where the Lord says to Moses : "A prophet will I raise up unto them like unto thee;" cf. Barges les Samaritains de Naplouse Par. 55 p. 90. Shiloh, they did not regard as a name of the Messiah, but applied it to Solo mon, who was hated by them. (Part 1. p. 96. Barges p. 91). VOL. III. B 18 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. speak, on the original passage in Deut. xxx. 3 (cf. Zeph. ii. 7), which speaks of the return of the Lord to the captivity of Israel alone. In the present case the most notorious sinners in the heathen world are placed on a par with Israel. The daughters of Sodom are the cities of minor importance, which were punished along with her. Many commentators have been greatly per plexed by this announcement of the return of the Lord to the captivity of Sodom, " because," as the Berleburger Bible cor rectly observes, " the rest of their maxims prevented them from giving anything but a forced interpretation to the passage." It also says : " if we admit, what some affirm, that there is a peculiar restoration even after death, the whole becomes easy, and may be interpreted with strict literality, as meaning that tbfe inhabitants of Sodom, by virtue of this visitation, will even- ¦j ually find mercy ;" but if we adopt this as correct, we must Substitute for restoration, which is unscriptural, the continua tion of the institutions of salvation even after death in the case of1 those who have not enjoyed the means of grace in the entire fulness upon earth. We cannot for a moment think of the physical restoration of the soil, on which these cities formerly stood. For, apart from other difficulties, this would not be a genuine return of the Lord to the captivity of Sodom, seeing that the substance of Sodom is to be found in its inhabitants, who have perished and left no trace behind, and who cannot obtain mercy even in their descendants. The mercy of the Lord, which is celebrated here, could only be manifested by the extension of grace to the same daring sinners, who formerly lived in Sodom, either per sonally, or in their descendants. We are just as little able to subscribe to the opinion expressed by Origen and Jerome among the ancients, and last of all, by Haver nick among the modern expositors, that Sodom is used here in a typical sense to repre sent heathenism in general. Undoubtedly, if even Sodom finds mercy, it follows that the same mercy will be extended to the whole heathen world. From the part we may confidently draw conclusions as to the whole, and the correctness of this conclu sion is substantiated by chap, xlvii., where the waters of theDead Sea of the world are represented as being healed by the stream from the sanctuary. At the same time the direct and primary reference can only be to Sodom itself. We are sustained in this EZEKIEL, CHAP. XVI. 53. 19 assertion by the relation in which it stands to Samaria and Jerusalem, and still more decidedly by the special reference to Sodom itself, to its sins and destruction, in ver. 48 — 50. If Sodom is interpreted as meaning the world, the allusion to its captivity becomes unintelligible, for nothing has hitherto been said about the misery of the world. The attempt, which several commentators have made, to show that the Ammonites and Moabites are intended, is also a mere loophole to escape from the difficulty. For there was no internal connexion whatever between these nations and Sodom and Gomorrha. Lot, their forefather, sojourned in Sodom merely as a foreigner (Gen. xix. 9, xiii. 12,.) In the captivity of Sodom and its daughters the Moabites had no share. If it be admitted, that the passage can only relate to the forgiveness of the inhabitants of Sodom and the other cities in the valley of the Jordan in a future state, it is evident that we have here the Old Testament parallel to 1 Pet. iii. 19, iv. 6 ; especially as it is clear from ver. 61 that the salva tion promised to Sodom was to consist in its reception into the kingdom of God, and the consequent enjoyment of all the bless ings of that kingdom. One thought is common to all these passages, viz. that all judgments, inflicted before the time of Christ, were merely provisional in their character, and could not be regarded as a final decision. In the first : "by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient,"1 &c, the primary reference is merely to the daring sinners before the flood, just as in this passage it is only to the notorious sinners in Sodom. But the second shows that the particular species represent the whole genus, since the dead generally are spoken of there : "for this cause was the gospel preached to them that are dead; that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."2 This passage serves so far to complete the first, that it 1 The explanation of /. Gerhard, which has been improved by Besser, that the preaching referred to was the preaching of Noah in the spirit of Christ, is completely refuted by the word nopevBels ', (of. ver. 22, where iTopevBeis is applied to the ascension of Christ, just as here it is applied to the descent to hell.) 2 Roos : Caro est humanitas terrestris, mortalis et infirma horum hominum, quae judicium dei experta est : spiritus vero eadem humanitas coelestem in- dolem nacta, quae exantlato judicio vitae secundum deum compos fit. B2 20 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. is expressly stated that the preaching is to salvation, and the second again requires to be completed by the first (cf. Glider, die Lehre von der Erscheinung Christi unter den Todten (Bern 53 p. 46 sqq.). We are led indirectly to the same result by the words of Christ in Matt. xii. 41, "the men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold a greater than Jonah is here." For if, notwithstanding the deep guilt and corruption of the heathen world, it is still declared capable of salvation ; the opportunity of attaining it must be put within its reach by Him, who desireth not the death of the sinner, but rather that he should return and live. Still more to the point, however, is Matt. xi. 22 and 24, " it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the judgment than for thee." By the land of Sodom we are to understand the same as by Sodom and her daugh ters in the passage before us, namely, the former inhabitants. Their condition is first of all regarded as already made known, without going beyond what is recorded of them in the Book of Genesis. If we merely look at this, Sodom must be in a better position than Capernaum at the judgment. For Sodom did not cast away from her the full revelation of grace and salvation, (ver. 23.) If this be the case, however, it cannot remain so, but before the last decisive judgment, the same light of salvation must be offered to Sodom as to Capernaum. From the declaration, " if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have continued to this day," the assurance, " I will return to the captivity of Sodom and her daughters," immediately follows. That even then the words " ye would not," (Matt, xxiii. 37), will still hold good of individuals, is evident from the whole tenor of Scripture. The express declaration of the prophet him self in chap, xlvii. 11 is sufficient proof that an absolute, and, so to speak, a forcible restoration is not for a moment to be thought of. — It is worthy of notice that Sodom is placed at the head. This is evidently to be taken as an intimation that the covenant people would be put to the greater shame by the fact that the heathen world (represented by Sodom), would be the first to attain to salvation, and also as a preparation for Bom. xi. 25, " I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, that blindness (TrcopmerK) in part is happened EZEKIEL, CHAP. XVI. 54, 55. 21 to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in," — a pre paration which we need not hesitate to admit in the present instance, since the same truth is clearly expressed in the Song of Solomon and Isaiah. At the sametime, the announcement with reference to the precedence of the heathen world in the enjoyment of salvation, is both completed and limited by the declaration in ver. 61, that salvation would always come from the Jews. — And to the captivity of thy captivity : that is which consists in thy captivity, in other words, to thine own captivity. ]~pniZ? nas already occurred twice with a noun immediately following it ; and on this occasion we must imagine something like an interruption to the train of thought. Judah would not conceive it possible that, with regard to captivity, it was to be placed on a level with Samaria and Sodom. Jeremiah had constantly to contend against the obstinate illusion, that judg ment would be arrested in the midst of its course (compare, for example, chap. vii. 4, where they trust in lies, saying, " the temple of the Lord are we"). — The expression " in the midst of them," denotes fellowship with them in their captivity. Ver 54. " That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and be ashamed of all that thou hast done, in that thou comfortest them." These words are connected with the notice of Judah's cap tivity or misery in the foregoing verse : "I turn to the captivity, which thou wilt endure no less than Sodom and Samaria, in order that, &c." For " I will give thee nothing, but the sentence which my justice has pronounced shall surely come upon thee" (Berle- burger Bible). To bear is the same as to suffer (cf. ver. 52, xxxii. 24, 25, 30). She comforts her sisters by the fact that she suffers as much as they (cf. chap. xiv. 22, 23). Ver. 55. "And thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, and thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate." The former estate was in general one of prosperity. But the new prosperity will be essentially different in its character, namely much more exalted and spiritual, than their former condition had been. We find a reference to this passage (LXX. diroKaTaaTa- 0ij<; rjaav air dp-ytji) in Acts iii. 21, ov Set ovpavbv 22 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. fiev Be^acrdat «%pi y^pbvwv diroica'raaTdcrews •trdvrwv, wv eXaXr/crev 6 6eov avTov TTpotytyT&v, on which Bengel observes diroicaTdaTao-is is the restoration of things to their former condition. Ver. 56. " And was not Sodom thy sister as a saying in thy mouth in the day of thy pride f" As a saying : lit. as a rumour (see the note on Is. liii. 1), so that the mouth overflowed with tales of Sodom's fearful sin and equally fearful punishment. But when Judah is made like Sodom in misery, and Sodom like Judah in its deliverance, the disposition to such proud contemptuous treatment of its poorer sister will thoroughly pass away. Ver. 57. " Before thy wickedness was laid bare, as was the case in the time of the daughters of Aram, and all that were round about her, as the daughters of the Philistines, who despised thee round about." The wickedness of Judah was laid bare by the judgments, of which the powers of the world, beginning with Babylon, were the instruments. Aram in the east and the Philistines in the west (Is. ix. 11) are not quoted as the agents, employed inlaying the nakedness of Judah bare, the ministers of divine justice, — in that case other names would have been selected, — but they stand in the same relation to Judah in its misery, as that in which Judah itself had formerly stood to Sodom : they " despise thee." Ver. 58. " Thy crimes and thine abominations, thou hearest them, saith the Lord." They press heavily upon thee in their consequences, thou sufferest the punishment thereof, quite as much as Sodom, whom thou didst formerly despise, in suffering the punishment of its sins. Ver. 59. " For thus saith the Lord Jehovah, and I do with thee, as thou hast done, who hast despised the oath breaking the covenant." Ver. 60. " But I remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and establish unto thee an everlasting covenant." A similar promise is contained in Lev. xxvi. 42 that after visiting them with just punishment, the Lord would remember his covenant. Ver. 61. " And thou rememberest thy ways and art ashamed, EZEKIEL, CHAP. XVI. 56 62. 23 when thou receivest thy sisters, who are greater than thou, to those who are less than thou art, and I give them to thee for daughters, and not out of this covenant." The greater and lesser sisters are the greater and lesser con temporaneous nations (cf. ver. 46). The figure is based upon the idea, that the human race is a large family, which originated in the important doctrine, that the whole race has sprung from a single pair. The fact, that sisters generally are spoken of here, shows that Sodom and Samaria, in v. 55, are selected as repre sentatives of a numerous class. The heathen nations are first spoken of, as daughters of Jerusalem, in the Song of Solomon ; see the note on chap. i. 5. The salvation is a common one, but it originates with the Jews, and the rest become partakers of it only through their mediation. Starck says : " Not only did Christ the Saviour of the world spring from the Jewish race, but all the apostles and disciples of Christ were Jews ; when there fore they converted Gentiles to the Christian faith, they became their spiritual fathers, as Paul says in 1 Cor. iv. 51 : ' I have begotten you in Christ.' " The highest honour is conferred upon Judah by the fact that she receives all her sisters as daughters ; and she is covered with shame at the thought that she has been honoured in a way so entirely different from what she really deserved. Not out of this covenant, i.e., not because the ful filment of thy covenant duties gave thee any claim to such an honour. Villalpandus says : Sed potius ex vi pacti mei et pro- missionis factse Abrahamo ; Piscator : " Not because thou art worthy of such an assemblage of nations, on account of thine observance of the covenant, but of pure favour." Ver. 62. And I establish my covenant with thee, and thou learnest that I am the Lord (ver. 63), that thou mayest remem ber and be ashamed and not open thy mouth any more on account of thy shame, when I forgive thee all that thou hast done." The greater the favour shown to the ungrateful, the greater is their shame on account of their disgraceful apostasy. 24 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. THE SECTION-CHAP. XVII. 22-24. This prophecy belongs to the period immediately following the last ; for the collection is chronologically arranged, and it stands midway between the section chap. viii. — xi., which is dated the sixth month of the sixth year, and chap, xx., which was written in the fifth month of the seventh year subsequent to the captivity of Jehoiachin. It was delivered, therefore, four or five years before the destruction of the city. The representation of powerful kings and their dominions as lofty trees, full of branches and twigs, was a figure peculiarly Babylonian. This is evident from Dan. iv. 11, 12, where we find in the account of Nebuchadnezzar's dream : " Great was the tree and strong, and its height reached to heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth. The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all ; the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed from it." The interpretation follows in ver. 22, " thou art the tree, 0 king." There is a re markable agreement between Daniel and Ezekiel xxxi. 3 sqq., where Asshur is introduced as a cedar in Lebanon richly covered with foliage, whose top reached to the clouds, in whose boughs all the fowls of the heaven made their nests, and under whose branches the beasts of the field brought forth their young, whilst many nations dwelt under its shadow. The prophet makes use of the same figure in the passage before us. The family of David is a lofty cedar in Lebanon. Nebuchadnezzar breaks off the highest branch and takes it to Babylon (the captivity of Jehoiachin and the rest of the royal family). He sets an in ferior plant in Jerusalem, a vine — (the investiture of Zedekiah) — but no sooner has it taken root than it is pulled up again. The Lord now takes a slender twig from the crown of that great cedar, and plants it on his holy hill of Zion. It grows to a stately cedar, beneath whose shadow all kinds of birds take up their abode. The rest of the trees perceive its marvellous growth, and acknow ledge that it is the Lord, by whom all trees are exalted and cast down. Matt. xiii. 32 is to be regarded as an explanation of EZEKIEL, CHAP. XVII. 22 24. 25 this, though the figure is somewhat modified by the Lord, who substitutes for the slender twig of the lofty cedar the grain of mustard seed, " which indeed is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof." The reason of this modification is to be discovered in the fact, that the purpose of the Lord was merely to depict the progress of the new kingdom of God, which began with his appearance in the flesh, and from small beginnings attained to a glorious con summation. The mission of the prophet, on the other hand, was to console for the loss of former glory, and hence to symbolize not merely the low estate, but the course which led to it, and at the same time to set this forth as only a transition state, leading from their former exaltation to a condition infinitely higher. V. 22. " Thus saith the Lord Jehovah ; and I take from the top of the lofty cedar, and set, I break off from its crown a tender twig and plant on a mountain high and exalted." "W (J) sf an(ls in direct antithesis to Nebuchadnezzar, who had also broken off and planted (vers. 3, 4). He had done it for evil, the Lord would do it for good. The former, a weak man, could only effect a temporary degradation, by permission of the Lord ; but the Lord, the Almighty, would effect a permanent exaltation. rn?3S onty occurs m Ezekiel. That it is a rare and figurative expression (probably the wool of the tree, the curly top) is evi dent, partly from the fact that it is met with no where else, and partly also because both here and in ver. 4 it is explained more precisely by the top of his twigs. The rendering, top, is de manded by the other passages, e.g. xxxi. 3, " between the clouds was his Zammereth," ver. 10, " he sent his Zammereth even to the clouds," ver. 14, " they shall not send their Zammereth to the clouds," especially if we render dij-qj? rv^, not " between twigs," which gives no proper sense, but " between clouds." jyfay, clouds, was one of those words, which had gradually lost their plural signification. And Ezekiel formed the new plural QTQy , which is only used by him in this sense ; compare chap. xix. 11, "high became his growth, higher than the clouds." As the tender shoot is taken from the lofty cedar (mentioned in the previous verse), the emblem of the stock of David, it cannot de- 26 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. note the kingdom of God in its humble commencement, but must refer to an offshoot of the stock of David ; especially as the prophet evidently had before his mind the similar representations of earlier prophets, particularly of Jeremiah (see the note on chap, xxiii. 5.) Hence the cedar in this passage, as well as in Daniel, is not the kingdom, but the king ; and this is also appa rent from the contrast presented to the conduct of Nebuchad nezzar in ver. 3, and from the contents of the rest of the chapter, which is occupied throughout with the royal family. That the tender twig from the lofty cedar, which afterwards grows into a tall cedar itself, is no other than the Messiah, who sprang from the deeply degraded family of David, cannot for a moment be doubted, when we consider the parallel passages in both Ezekiel and the other prophets. So much, however, may perhaps be admitted, that the prophet was not thinking of the Messiah as an individual, but as the person in whom the idea of the stem of David was fully realised, and therefore that the prophecy may be regarded, as including both the very small step towards its resto ration, which was taken under Zerubbabel in accordance with the promise to David, and also in a certain sense everything that was done by God, for the re-establishment and maintenance of the civil government in Israel (compare the note on Jer. xxxiii). The difference is substantially of but little importance. For even if the prophet had in view the whole family of David, and depicted its progress from a humble commencement to a glorious end, he was conscious, when writing, that it was in and through the Messiah alone, that this promise was to be literally and per fectly fulfilled for the family of David itself, and through that family for the nation at large. The low condition of the nation was closely connected with that of its head, and therefore -Tp must be referred to both. Hitzig would restrict the tenderness to youthful age, in total disregard of the fundamental and parallel passages, such as Is. xi. 1, liii. 2. It is hardly an acci dental coincidence that in 2 Sam. iii 39 *-p is applied to David himself, who was at first tender and feeble in his royal capacity. Ezekiel appears to have had this passage before his mind. Even in 1 Chr. xxii. 5, xxix. 1, where Solomon is described as -r* (tender), the reference is not merely to his age (-^3 occurs just before), but to the weakness, which in his case arose undoubt- EZEKIEL, CHAP. XVII. 23. 27 edly from his youth (cf. 2 Chr. xiii. 7.) The original lowliness of the Messiah is seen in the very fact, that the twig is first planted upon the high mountain. — We have here simply a ge neral announcement that the spot, in which the twig was planted, was a high mountain, and in this announcement an indication of its destiny, when once it had grown to be a tree, to rule over all the trees of the plain, niton ^J? m ver- 24. — In ver. 23 this high mountain is more particularly described. Ver. 23. " On the high mountain of Israel will I plant it, and it puts forth branches and bears fruit, and becomes a splendid cedar, and all fowls of every wing dwell under it, in the shadow of its branches will they dwell." The high mountain of Israel is evidently Mount Zion in the more comprehensive sense, including Mount Moriah, as we may see from chap. xx. 40 : " for on my holy mountain, on the high mountain of Israel, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me." The temple hill is evidently intended here, for the offering of sacrifices is expressly mentioned. The corresponding term holy in the parallel passage shows how we are to understand the word high both there and in the verse before us. It is a height that is hidden from the natural eye, for elsewhere the prophet him self speaks simply of a hill of the Lord (chap, xxxiv. 26.) But the spiritual eye beholds it, although thus hidden, towering high above all the mountains of the earth, and even reaching to the heavens. In fact the description itself shows, that the holy moun tain is not introduced here merely as a mountain, but as the seat and centre of the kingdom of God, and therefore denotes the kingdom itself (see the notes on Is. ii. 2, and Ps. xlviii. 3.) The twig is planted in a lofty place, and grows to a tall cedar. The glory of the future king is founded upon that of the king dom, over which he rules ; and, on the other hand, so greatly does the former increase, that it heightens the glory of the king dom, in return. The fruits denote the blessings enjoyed by all the subjects of this king (see Is. xi. 1.) The shadow is the usual figure employed to represent protection (Ps. xxxvi. 8). " All fowls of every wing" are all the nations of the whole earth, as we may see from chap. xxxi. 6 and 12. It is evident from chap, xxxix. 4, 17 that this is the proper way to connect the 28 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. words. The expression is taken from Gen. vii. 14, where birds of every kind of wing take refuge in Noah's ark. — The prophet has but one design, namely, to remove the difficulty, which would necessarily arise from both the existing, and future degradation of the family of David, and consequently of the Kingdom of God. He holds up, therefore, but one single point, their ulti mate exaltation, and thereby administers consolation to us as well, whenever we are filled with trouble at seeing the King dom of God and of Christ in a similar condition. Calvin says : " We are taught by this that better hopes are to be cherished with regard to the Kingdom of Christ, than our senses would lead us to entertain . . . when we see the gospel creeping, as it were, upon the ground, let us call to mind this passage. . . . . God has so firmly founded the one Kingdom of Christ, that it is to last as long as the sun and moon endure ; but the other kingdoms of the world will vanish with the glory thereof, and their pride will be brought down, even though now they may overtop the clouds." We have here the essence of Daniel's prophecy of the kingdoms of the world. It was not within the scope of the prophet, to describe the nature of the kingdom more minutely, to show, that is, that it is a spiritual kingdom (not indeed in contrast to a real kingdom, but to an earthly one). Still this may be inferred from the description which he has given. — A kingdom, which is not etc tov koo-^ov, and which, by the miraculous power of God alone, without earthly force, or earthly arms, has been brought along with its ruler from weak beginnings to a glorious issue, cannot be a worldly and carnal one. God's government of the world, not the rule of earthly kings, is the model and type of such a kingdom as this. Ver. 24. "And all the trees of the field learn, that I, the Lord, bring down the high tree, and exalt the loio tree, make the green tree barren, and make the barren tree green. I, the Lord, speak and do it." The trees of the field, in contradistinction to the cedar on the high mountain, on the kingdoms of the world along with their kings, whose fall is coincident with the rise of the kingdom of God. This mighty change furnishes them with a positive proof, that the Lord, whom they have hitherto been accustomed to despise in their proud boast of the stability of their fancied EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXI. 25 — 27. 29 greatness, is the king over all the earth, by whom alone kings and nations are exalted and cast down. (The preterites are to be taken as aorists, and the sentence is quite a general one). At the same time they are not simply left to infer from this remarkable exaltation, that it also belongs to the Lord to cast down ; but the reference to " the trees ofthe field" shows that they themselves will have a striking illustration of the latter in the fate which awaits themselves. The elevation of the king dom of God to world-wide supremacy cannot possibly be con ceived of, without the fall of the kingdoms of the world. Their kings are thereby deprived of what they value most, their fancied self-sufficiency. They become vassals of God and of his king, — though this is in reality the highest honour, that can pos sibly be conferred upon them. The closing words show that what, outwardly considered, appeared to be nothing more than the most glorious dream that ever had been dreamed, attained to. the most complete reality through the person of the promised Messiah. It was God who gave the promise, it is by God also that the promise is fulfilled. CHAP. XXI. 25-27. The twenty-first chapter, which forms part of an address delivered by the prophet in the fifth month of the seventh year from the captivity, that is about five years before the destruction of Jerusalem, may properly be described as the prophecy of the sword of the Lord. The sword, which is put into the hands of the king of Babylon for the punishment of evil-doers, falls first upon Jerusalem ; it then reaches the Ammonites, the bitter enemies of the Lord and of his people, who are made to learn, from their own destruction, that the fate of Jerusalem is not, as they imagined, a proof of the weakness, but rather of the omni potence of its God. Ver. 25. " And thou pierced wicked prince of Israel, whose day comes at the time of the final transgression !" The reigning king, Zedekiah, is addressed ; and the epithet em- 30 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. ployed shows that the words, which follow in ver. 31, apply pecu- liarlyto him. We must therefore supplythe usual appeal, "hearthe word of theLord,"w"hichhas been left outin the intensity of the pro phet's feelings. The rendering " unholy, cursed" (LXX. fteftwXe) , instead oi pierced, owes its origin no doubt to the fact, that the translator cast a side glance at the history, to see whether Zede- kiah was actually pierced through. The result was not satis factory ; Zedekiah remained alive, but his sons were slain before his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out. But as we find the vengeance of God set forth throughout the entire chapter under the image of a drawn sword, it is evident that full justice is done to ^n> if it can be shown that the king was in anyway the object of divine wrath. On the outward form of the punishment the word chalal says nothing, any more than there was an actual sword in the hands of God : — There is just as little force in an other objection, namely that Zedekiah was not yet pierced. The prophet's intention is to strike and terrify by the immediate jux taposition of guilt and punishment. The ungodly man is already judged ; the few years' respite allowed him are not taken into consideration. To the eye of faith punishment appears as the inseparable attendant upon sin. In its view the sinner, who is still actually sitting in high places, lies weltering in his blood. — The following are our reasons for rejecting the meaning accursed, and adopting the rendering " pierced " instead. 1. ^n never means anything but " pierced through." It is not even used in the general sense of "perished ;" for ^j^ *hhi7> pierced through with hunger (Lam. iv. 9) , may be explained on the assumption that we have here an example of poetical personification, hunger being represented as armed with a sword, and in Is. xxii. 2 it is very evident that reference is made to such as fall by the sword of pestilence. Least of all can it be rendered profanatus' The only passage adduced in support of this meaning, Lev. xxi. 7, 14, proves nothing. The word is used there in its ordinary sig nification. Tlhhtl is opposed to " a wife in her virginity" (ver. 13), and includes as species the widow, the divorced woman, and the prostitute. 2. Even if the meaning "profane" were met with elsewhere, it would not be admissible here. A sword and piercing form the key note of the whole chapter, and recur in nearly every verse. Compare, e.g., vers. 3, 9, 10, 11, and espe- EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXI. 25. 31 cially ver. 12 : "a sword goeth over my people, over all the princes of Israel ; they are given to the sword along with my people." See also ver. .14 : " the sword wilr come tripled, the sword of the pierced, Qi^pj *> ^ is the sword of a pierced one, ofthe great one" (Michaelis : "by which not the people only, but the King himself, the princes and great men fall"). 3. Those who adopt the rendering " profane," overlook the connec tion between this verse and ver. 29. According to ver. 19 sqq. the sword of the King of Babylon is to cut two ways. First of all it turns towards Jerusalem, where the king is slain before any of the rest. It then pasess over to the Ammonites, ver. 28 sqq., and we read in ver. 29: "the sword lays thee upon the necks of the wicked, who are pierced through, whose day cometh at the time of the final transgression." This agree ment is the more important, as it is certainly not acciden tal, but the prophet evidently intends that the unity of ex pression shall indicate a unity in the fate which awaits the two nations. The fact that the kingdom of God does not fall when Israel is overthrown, but that it is rather avenged there by, and thus the degradation of Israel becomes a proof of its supremacy, is still further shown in the fate of the Ammo nites, who are severely punished for the crimes they have com mitted against Israel, so far as it is the kingdom of God. — The general term j^iED) prince, instead of the more special term •tt^q, king, is a peculiar favourite with Ezekiel. This cannot be merely accidental ; there must be some reason for it. The day of the prince is shown by the context to denote the day of his fall, the day in which judgment overtakes him. »p r^ is also found not only in ver. 29, but in chap. xxxv. 5 in the pro phecy against Edom : " because thou dost cherish perpetual enmity, and hast given up the children of Israel to the power of the sword, in the time of their calamity, in the time of the final transgression." It is very certain that rtj; cannot be rendered " punishment," as it has been by de Wette and Eioald. It never means anything but " transgression." The only question that can possibly arise is how to interpret yp. The final transgres sion may be the full transgression, the culminating point, when the vengeance of God can no longer be delayed. We may 32 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. compare Gen. xv. 16, " the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full," which evidently implies that the day will come when it will be full, and the people will therefore be ripe for judgment. The final transgression, however, may also be the transgression, which brings in its train the end of all, the overthrow of the nation, just as fiSeXwyfia iprj^coaewi is the abomination which is followed by desolation (see the remarks on Dan. ix. 27.) And this explanation is favoured by the use of t>p in other con nexions ; compare especially chap. vii. 2 : " thus saith the Lord God unto the land of Israel : an end ! the end comes upon the four borders of the land," and ver. 3, " now is the end upon thee, and I send my wrath upon thee, and judge thee according to thy ways, and recompense to thee all thine abominations." But even this explanation involves the idea, that the measure of sin may be filled, that there is a culminating point at wliich it forces the avenging justice of God into action, because he could not be God if his long-suffering were still further extended ; see the remarks on Zech. v. 5 — 11. Ver. 26. " Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, removed is the dia dem, the crown taken off ; this is not this ; the low is made high, and the high brought loiv." In the opinion of many (including Ewald and Schmieder) nQ22£ft ^s use(l nere I°r the royal diadem. But the following reasons may be adduced in favour of a different view, namely, that it is rather the diadem of the high priest which is intended : 1. Wherever the word Miznepheth occurs, it always refers to the latter. Although originally it may have had a general meaning, after the institution of the high-priesthood, it was restricted to the head-dress of the high priest, or, what is still more probable, the word was coined by Moses with express reference to the ornaments worn by the high priest about his head. An appeal is made to the term rtD^TD *p2J> the royal diadem, in Is. lxii. 3. But all that this passage proves is, that the king also wore a diadem, — a fact which no one disputes. The pecu liar form of the expression determines the meaning in this case. p^pS or tpyz is the general term, and may be applied to diadems of every description ; when any particular kind is referred to this is indicated by a second word (vid. Is. lxii. 3, and Zech. iii. EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXI. 26. 33 5). But jiQ^'D needed no such addition. The meaning is sufficiently restricted by the word itself. It is used in the Pen tateuch not less than eleven times to denote the head dress of the high priest, and Ezekiel, the priest, who took such evident delight in adopting the phraseology of the Pentateuch, was the last person who was likely to make use of the word in a different sense, from that in which it is there employed. — 2. If the diadem belonged to the king, we should have two kinds of royal head dress, the diadem and the crown. This will present no difficulty indeed to those who agree with John (Archaologie ii. 2, p. 225). In his opinion it is fully proved, that the kings were in the habit of wearing a diadem, as well as a crown. But the fact really was, that the diadem and crown were identical. It is no proof to the contrary, that the crown is described as golden in Ps. xxi. 4. There was a golden plate even in the diadem of the high priest. Their identity, on the other hand, may be inferred from the fact that we never read of more than one royal head-dress, a diadem or a crown ; diadem and crown we never find together. Compare 2 Sam. i. 10 : " and I took the diadem, «m, which was on his head ;" 2 Kings ii. 12, " and he brought forth the King's son, and put the diadem upon him" (see also Esther viii.15.) Moreover it is evident from Job xxxi. 36,"Iwould&wic£ it as a crown to me," that the form ofthe crown resembled that of a diadem, and not that of a modern crown. This conclusion is favoured by the use ofthe plural nilta^ m cases in which only one crown is referred to ; cf. Job xxxi. 36, and our remarks on Zech. vi. 11. — 3. The appropriateness of such a combination of the head band and the crown, of the abolition of the high-priestly glory along with that of the king, — involving, as it did, the complete abrogation of the prerogatives of the covenant-people, — is appa rent from the contrast presented by later prophecies, in which the sorrowing people are assured that both these offices will be restored together; see Zech. iv. and vi., and Jer. xxxiii. If sal vation was not complete till both were restored ; the end, yp ver. 25, can only have been reached when both were taken away. The glory of the high-priestly office was concentrated in the head-dress which was worn by the high-priest himself, whose golden head-band bore the inscription " holy to the Lord," and in it the people received a pledge, that they possessed a recon- VOL. III. Qrf 34 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. ciled and gracious God (Ex. xxviii. 36 — 38.) — The only argu ment, that can be adduced infavowr of referring the word to the head-dress of the king, is this : the words addressed to the king in ver. 25 require, that what follows should apply exclusively to him. But there is no force in this argument. It is very clear from the connexion with ver. 24, and still more so from the parallel passage in ver. 29, where " their day" takes the place of " his day," that the king is placed in the fore-ground merely as the representative of the nation, and that the whole nation is threatened in him. If, however, the king is regarded as the representative of the nation, the removal of the head-band affects him, quite as much as that of the crown. The two are intimately connected. The crown without the head band is an empty show. The forgiveness of sins, which was obtained through the mediation of the high-priest, lay at the foundation of all the royal blessings of God. — The infinitives stand alone without any other verb, for the sake of emphatic brevity, whenever the intention is simply to give prominence to the main point ; compare chap, xxiii. 30. Nothing is said here to indicate who is to take the things away ; the prophet does nothing more than mention the fact of their removal. Ql^n to raise, lift up, then to take away ; Is. lvii. 14 ; Dan. viii. 11. The words p^f ^ j-)NT (this n°t this), of which many erro neous explanations have been given, are explained by the clause which follows : " The low is made high and the high made low," in other words, every thing from the least to the greatest, is turned upside down. j-)NT is used for the neuter, and the expres sion denotes a complete inversion of the existing state of things, a total revolution, in which nothing remains what it is. The conduct of the people had been such as to make the last first ; and according to the divine jus talionis a similar inversion would ap pear in their subsequent fate. The correctness of this explanation is confirmed by the parallel passage, Is. xxiv. 1 sqq., which the prophet evidently had in his mind at the time, as ver. 27 very clearly shows. In ver. 2 of that passage in Isaiah, the same idea, the overturning of all existing relations, is individualised thus : " And it shall be, as the people, so the priest, as the servant, so the master, as the maid, so the mistress ; as the buyer, so the seller, as the borrower, so the lender, as the creditor, so the debtor." — n^Bffi i8 masculine, with an unaccentuated rt, which T T T I I' EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXI. 27. 35 merely serves to give greater fulness and euphony to the word. Ewald, Maurer, and Hitzig suppose, that the pointers were at fault and mistook the feminine for a masculine. But there are too many analogous cases in existence to admit of such a suppo sition, and the question is set at rest by the masculine which immediately follows. A change of genders we should never look for in such a connection as this. Ver. 27. " Invert, invert, invert? the land will I, this also abides not, until he comes, to whom is the right, to him I give it." j-pm is a noun derived from the Piel, like j-jD*?P> ridicule (chap. xxii. 4), from jyjn ; and n!£N2 contempt (chap. xxxv. "'¦ T T V 12), from y^^, The prophet has selected this word of his own forming, as these analogous derivations show, for the express purpose of pointing out the connexion between inversion as a punishment, and inversion as a crime. The reference to Wy in ver. 24, 26, is very conspicuous. They were the first to turn things upside down ; now it is God's turn. The triple reitera tion adds force to the declaration. The suffix in nSCtoN may be referred either to j-|NT this, the existing condition of things, or to w>-^ the land. The latter is favoured by the parallel pas sage in Is. xxiv. 1, "he inverteth the face thereof" (namely of the land), of which Vitringa has given an excellent exposition, and one thoroughly applicable to the passage before us. He says : " These metaphorical expressions indicate a complete in version of the condition of the state, and a change of such a kind, that the lowest becomes highest, and the highest lowest, and perfect equality is produced in the circumstances of all, whether nobles or paupers, strong or weak, rich or poor, the republic itself being overturned and the inhabitants being strip ped of all they possessed." In the phrase nTt ikh nSt~Qi T T — the word also should be particularly observed. It shows that flNt (this) refers to the condition consequent upon the inversion mentioned immediately before. This also is not to be perma- 1 The word verkehren would undoubtedly be more correctly and forcibly rendered "turn-upside down," but so complex an expression hardly admits of being repeated three times as the text requires ; " overturn," on the other hand, does not convey the correct idea. — Tr. c2 36 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. nent ; the declaration " this is not this" applies just as much to the new condition as to the one which preceded it, and thus overthrow succeeds to overthrow ; nowhere is there rest, nowhere security, everything is fleeting, until the appearance of the great restorer and prince of peace. — •QE0Q very frequently denotes the right to a thing. If we adopt this meanmg here, we can only explain it as referring to the right to the head-band and crown, which their former possessors had forfeited through their un godliness. We have already proved, however, (vol. i., p. 85 seq.), from the reference to Gen. xlix. 10 and Ps. lxxii., that the word is used here to denote justice in an absolute sense, in contradistinction to the wickedness and unrighteousness of those who had previously possessed the throne. — There is no ground whatever for rendering the suffix in Vfinj as a dative. The person was so clearly pointed out already, that there was no necessity to describe him further. The fundamental passage (Ps. lxxii. 1) requires that the suffix should be referred to the right. THE SECTION-CHAP. XXXIV. 23-31. The prophecy against the wicked shepherds, in chap, xxxiv., belongs to the series of revelations, which the prophet continued to receive from the evening of the day before the arrival of the fugi tive, who brought the news of the capture of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, till his arrival on the following morning (chap, xxxiii. 22) . By the spirit of prophecy Ezekiel foresaw his coming, and by means of the word of the Lord, which interpreted the act of the Lord, he sought to ensure its producing the desired effect upon the exiles generally, whose elders had gathered round the pro phet, with a large company besides, as they usually did when the hand of the Lord was upon him (cf. chap, xxxiii. 11). The word of the Lord by the prophet was for the most part consola tory, indicating his mercy and grace towards Israel, and his cove nant fidelity ; for his justice was so loudly proclaimed by the EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXIV. 23 — 31. 37 event, that a hint was all that was required. In this respect we see here a perfect resemblance between Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Before the destruction falls, threats predominate in the ad dresses of both these prophets ; but no sooner has it actually occurred, than promises take their place. Evil and good were equally hidden from the natural man before they actually came. From the same want of living faith sprang pride and haughtiness before the destruction, and after it despair, — both equally pernicious, and both in their turn alike the object of pro phecy, the design of which was everywhere to bring out the idea in contradistinction to the existing reality. — We have already 6hown in our notes on Jer. xxiii., that we have there the ground work of the prophecy in chap, xxxiv. It is the prophecy of the shepherds of Israel. The wicked shepherds are to be destroyed, and the sheep of Israel to be saved by the Lord, who will him self undertake the office of shepherd, and lead them by means of his servant David. The tidings of the fulfilment of the first part, the punishment of the wicked shepherds, which were brought in immediately afterwards, could not but serve as a pledge of the fulfilment of the second part, which rested upon the same foundation, the covenant faithfulness of the Lord. Ver. 23. " And I raise up one shepherd over them, and he feeds them, even my servant David, he will feed them and he will be their shepherd." The word ¦y-iB'WT' ^s a sufficient disproof of the assertion of Hitzig, that Ezekiel expected the bodily resurrection of David, inasmuch as he is speaking of the appointment of a new prophet (cf. ver. 29, Deut. xviii. 15), not ofthe bringing back of an old one, which would have been something so thoroughly abnormal, that it would surely have been more definitely explained. Still more decisive is the evident allusion in ver. 12, to the original promise in 2 Sam. vii. , "When thy days are full and thou liest with thy fathers, I will raise up (ifiCpm) thy seed after thee, which cometh forth from thy body, and will establish thy kingdom." Those, who ascribe such singular opinions to particular prophets, have no conception of the manner in which all prophecy is linked together, as its divine mission necessarily requires. The last 38 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. link in the prophetic chain, with which Ezekiel throughout is closely connected, contains no hint of a bodily resurrection of David, it only speaks of a " Son reigning upon his throne." Again the fact that Ezekiel's reference to the Messiah consists of mere allusions, shows that he has no thought of bringing for ward anything new with regard to his person, and is equivalent to an express rehearsal of former and fuller prophecies. The peculiar feature in this prophecy is the more distinct announce ment of the Messiah as the good shepherd (cf. Jer. iii. 15, xxiii. 4). The words of the Lord in John x. 11, "I am the good shepherd," allude particularly to the passage before us. With regard to the article, Lampe says, ' ' he pointed to those prophecies, with which the Pharisees were well acquainted, and in which he had been promised under this designation." Compare also 1 Pet. ii. 25, and Heb. xiii. 25, where allusion is made not only to Ezekiel, but to Jer. xxiii. and Zech. xi., between which pro phecies this prediction of Ezekiel forms the connecting link. It is very evident from chap, xxxvii. 24, and from the parallel passage, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, where Judah and Israel are classed together, that "jnN (one) refers to the former separation of Israel and Judah ; and it is altogether in vain that Jahn makes every exertion to defend the rendering " unicus, singularis," — a meaning which the word never has. In substance, no doubt, he is right. There was to rise up a most distinguished descendant of David (Venema : " one in whom David, God's own king and representative, would, so to speak, live again"), in the strictest sense " one after God's own heart," who would receive back in its fullest extent the kingdom of his father. For the loss of dominion was threatened as a punishment to the family of David, because it was no longer after God's own heart, and even the most faithful of David's successors had not been so truly " after God's heart," that the promise of a future reunion {cf 1 Kings xi. 39), could be fulfilled in them. Hence the announce ment of one shepherd involved a declaration of the highest ex cellence, and also of the fact that the grace of God in its richest measure would be bestowed upon the nation through him. There is a direct reference to this passage in John x. 16 " one fold," " one shepherd," where our prophecy is still further ex tended, and Christ is declared to be a shepherd not for Judah EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXIV. 23 — 25. 39 and Israel alone, but for the Gentiles also, and the one shepherd is just on this account " the good shepherd," (ver. 11.) Hitzig's assertion, that "inN Is used " m contradistinction to several in succession," founders on both the parallel passage and the original promise, the latter of which takes away all force from his argument, that previous to this there is no allusion to the two fold division of Israel. In the relation in which Ezekiel stood to Jeremiah, the 23d chapter of the prophecies of the latter must be regarded as the context to this passage. — The title given to David, " servant of God," relates not merely to his willing obedience (Havernick) , but also and still more to his election ; see our remarks on Is. xiii. 1. — The rule of David, the type, is described as a feeding, with particular reference to his former vocation, 2 Sam. vii. 8 ; Ps. lxxviii. 70, 71 (see the note on this passage). fi3^*1 indicates the design, njn Its fulfilment. The T X contrast between the two, which was so conspicuous in the conduct of previous shepherds, and plunged the nation into such inde scribable misery, is now to cease (compare, in addition to the parallel passages already quoted, Jer. xxx. 9 ; xxxiii. 15, 16). Our remarks on Jer. xxxiii. 18, with reference to the prelimi nary fulfilment of the prophecy under Zerubbabel and the other leaders of the people, are equally applicable here. We may very properly interpret the name David as denoting the race of David which merely culminated in Christ, so that the fulfilment in Christ was not the only one, but was the highest and truest fulfilment (see the remarks on Is. Iv. 3 and Hos. iii. 5). Ver. 24. " And I, the Lord, will be God to them, and my servant David prince in the midst of them, I, the Lord, have spoken it." The promise to David is to flourish again, his descendant is to be the servant of God in so complete a sense, that the former painful difference between the direct and indirect government of God will altogether cease. Ver. 25. "And I conclude with them a covenant of peace, and exterminate the wild beasts out of the land, and they dwell safely in the desert and sleep in the woods." The meaning of this covenant has already been discussed in Jer. xxxi. 32. Peace with God, which was to be secured by the servant of God, the Prince of Peace (Is. ix. 5), the true Solo- 40 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. mon (see the note on Gen. xlix. 10), would be followed by peace with the creatures of God, which he had hitherto enlisted against his rebellious people. The description given by the prophet in this and the following passages rests entirely upon Lev. xxvi. Compare for example ver. 6 : " And ye dwell safely in your land, and ye lie down, and there is none to make you afraid ; and I exterminate the evil beasts out of the land, and no terror shall penetrate into your land." From this classical passage the prophet intentionally borrows the form of his representation, the substance of which is, that wherever God is, his gifts and bless ings will be found in all their fulness. He does not announce anything new, he merely repeats what the law of God had already declared to be necessarily involved in the idea of a cove nant-nation. And whilst it was certain, that his prophecy had hitherto been but partially fulfilled in the history of Israel, it was just as certain that the complete fulfilment had yet to come ; see Hosea ii. 20. Ver. 26. " And I make them and the environs of my hill a blessing, and cause the rain to descend in its season ; they will be blessed rains." The hill is Zion, the holy mountain. It is evident, however, from the pronoun " them" that the hill denotes Israel, the people of God, of whom it was the spiritual dwelling place. Hence the environs of the hill must necessarily be the heathen, who are allied with Israel. Compare chap. xvii. 23, where all the fowls of the earth are said to gather together under the tree of the kingdom of God ; — chap. xvi. 61 , where Zion receives its sisters, the rest of the nations, as daughters ; — chap, xlvii. 8, where the water of salvation, which issues from the new temple, is described as flowing through the desert and healing the waters ofthe Dead Sea (the emblem of the world), and John iv. 18. Hdvernick thinks the introduction of the heathen is out of place in such a passage as this, where the glory of Israel alone is referred to. But as far back as Gen. xii. salvation for the heathen is inseparably connected with salvation for Israel, and Israel cannot possibly enjoy complete salvation, without the heathen sharing in it. Moreover, the environs of the hill could never stand for Israel itself, for, according to the Old Testament idea, Israel dwells on Zion (Is. x. 24), not round about it. The EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXIV. 26 — 29. 41 word rprVQ'QD (those " round about her") is used in chap. xvi. 57, to denote the heathen nations around Jerusalem ; compare chap. v. 5, 6 ; Dan. ix. 16 ; Micah v. 6. — A blessing is a stronger expression than blessed ; cf. Gen. xii. 2. Israel is to be a living blessing. The representation of the blessing as rain, founded, as it is, upon the natural peculiarity of Canaan/which made all the rest of the natural blessings of vGod [dependent upon the rain, is also taken from Lev. xxvi. 4 (compare Deut. xi. 13, 14 ; Joel ii. 23.) Ver. 27. "And the tree of the field^yields its fruit, and tlie land yields its produce, and they dwell safely in their land, and they learn that I am the Lord, since I break their yoke and deliver them out of the hand of those who enslave them." The clause from " and" to " produce" is taken from^Lev. xxvi. 3 ; the next clause from ver. 5 of the same chapter. And in the third clause there is a casual allusion to ver. 13 : " I, the Lord your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, out of bondage, and I brake your yoke." As Israel had then a positive proof that God was Jehovah, so shall it receive a fresh proof, and personal experience of the fact in the still greater repetition of that event, viz., their redemption from the dominion of the world, and entire subjection to God and his anointed. In this allusion we find an intimation that, to redeem Israel, God does not need to become different from what he is, but that He, Jehovah, the sole perfect Being, needs only to continue un changeably the same. The construction of -Q}* 'with ^, to serve in a person, to perform service by means of a person, then to enslave him, is taken from Ex. i. 14. Ver. 28. " And they shall no more be for a prey to the heathen, neither shall the beasts of the earth devour them, and there is none who makes them afraid." The heathen can only exercise dominion over the nation of the Lord, when through its own fault it has ceased to be a nation at all. Now, therefore, their power over Israel is brought to an end. The wild beasts, in both a literal and figurative sense, are the heathen conquerors ; cf. Is. xxxv. 9, lvi. 9 ; Ez. xviii. 10. Ver. 29. " And I raise up to them a plantation for a name, 42 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. and they shall no longer be swept away by hunger in the land, and they shall not bear any more the reproach of the hea then." ytSft is to be taken in the sense of plantation. There is an x — allusion to Gen. ii. 8, 9 : " and God planted a garden " eastward in Eden, and there he placed the man whom he had formed ; and out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food." (Observe the hunger in the verse before us.) With this passage compare also the words of God after the fall (iii. 18, 19) : " thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." The his tory of the fall is constantly recurring ; the first sin shows both the genesis and consequence of every sin. Moses himself directs attention to its significance in this respect, when he observes that before the destruction of the cities of the plain of Jordan, it was well watered everywhere, as the garden of God, i.e., para dise (Gen. xiii. 10). But the prediction contained in the history of the fall was more especially realised in Israel. God had planted for it a garden in Eden, full of trees pleasant to the sight and good for food. He had given it the land flowing with milk and honey, together with all the blessings attached to its possession. But Israel had listened to the voice of the tempter, and its paradise had vanished, though not for ever. Once more would God plant it a garden in Eden filled with pleasant trees. The existence of such an allusion in the passage under review is confirmed by chap, xxxvi. 35: "this land becomes like the garden of Eden ;" and by chap, xlvii. 12 : " and on the brook (compare the words of Gen. ii. 10, ' and a stream went out of Eden to water the garden ' with ver. 1 of the chap ter, ' behold waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward') there grow on both sides, on its banks, all kinds of fruit trees ; their leaves do not wither, and their fruits do not cease." There is also a similar allusion in Is. Ix. 21 ; and lxi. 3 : " and they shall be called terebinths of righteousness, the plant ing of the Lord for glory ;" but here the righteous themselves are described as the trees of the new paradise, whereas in the passage before us the plantation is formed for them. Vitringa : " it is EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXIV. 29 — 31. 43 to be converted into a paradise of God, to be planted, as it were, with cuttings from the plantations of God, which will grow into strong and lofty oaks ;" compare Joel ii. 3, where the land, previous to the judgment, is described as resembling the garden of Eden, and then again, after the restoration, a fountain like a fountain of paradise issues from the house of Jehovah and waters the valley of the thorn trees (chap. iii. 18 ; cf. Zech. xiv. 8.) If, then, this allusion is clearly established, it is also certain, that the meanmg of this passage goes beyond that of the parallel passage in chap, xxxvi. 30 : " and I multiply the fruit of the tree, and extend the produce of the field, that ye may no longer receive the reproach of famine among the heathen " (a passage which is sufficient in itself to set aside such explanations as those of John, Bosenmuller, and Ewald), and that, in order to com plete the whole, we must necessarily include the other parallel passage in chap, xlvii. 12. The new paradise which the Lord would plant for his people, denotes the blessings of divine grace in their fullest extent. The blessing of the fruit trees, which formed one portion thereof, was also symbohcal. The outward plantation was a type and shadow of the spiritual fountain, whose waters issued from the sanctuary ; just as hunger had previously represented a state of general destitution and want. The clause " they shall no more bear the reproach of the heathen," shows that the correct explanation of Qftj^ is n°t that given by De Wette " for my glory," but " for a name to them." They become the nation of the blessed of the Lord, and thus are delivered from the reproach, which rested on them on account of their misery, — the heathen regarding this as a positive proof of the absurdity of their boast, that they alone were the people of the Most High God. There is also an allusion here to Deut. xxvi. 19, as well as in Zeph. iii. 19, and Jer. xiii. 11. Ver. 30. " And they find, from experience, that I, the Lord their God, am with them, and they, my people, the house of Israel saith the Lord Jehovah." " The house of Israel" is emphatical here : Israel, the people of God and covenant people in the strict and literal sense of the word (compare the note on chap. xi. 15). Ver. 31. " And ye are my flock, the flock of my pasture are 44 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. ye men, lam your God, saith the Lord Jehovah ;" see our remarks on the similar expression in Jer. xxiii. 1. The expression " ye men" directs attention to the depth and greatness of the divine condescension, and anticipates the objec tion, which incredulity would offer, to the effect that man, who has been taken from the earth (adamah), and returns to it again, is incapable of so intimate a union with God. THE SECTION -CHAP. XXXVI. 22-32. The whole section, chap, xxxvi. 16 — 38, is included in the series of discourses delivered on the day before the intelligence arrived of the destruction of Jerusalem. This section is well and briefly described by Venema as follows : " He unfolds the cause and reason of the rejection and destruction, and also ofthe deliverance and restoration, the former of which may be traced to the corruption of the people, whilst the ground of the latter is solely the sanctification of the divine name." The former we find in the introduction (ver. 17 — 21), the latter in the leading portion of the discourse, ver. 22 — 38, of which we omit ver. 33 — 38, as simply containing a recapitulation. Ver. 22. " Therefore say to the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord Jehovah, not for your sake do I this, you ofthe house of Israel, but for my holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye have come." The holiness of the name of God denotes his incomparable and absolute glory (see the note on Ps. xxii. 4 and Bev. iv. 8). The fact that both here and in Is. xlviii. 11, the redemption of Israel is based upon the honour of God alone, in contradistinction to merit of every kind, was on the one hand very humiliating (com pare Deut. ix. 6, " And thou knowest that the Lord does not give thee the good land for thy righteousness' sake"), since it EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXVI. 22 — 32. 45 thoroughly annihilated all human claims ; but on the other hand it was also very consolatory, for the broken and contrite hearts discovered that their salvation did not Test on any human founda tion at all, and could not therefore be disturbed by the sins of their nation. At first sight the reason assigned by God for the redemption of Israel appears to be a very outward one. He seems to have been induced to change his former purpose of des troying Israel, by a cause entirely apart from himself, namely, the contemptuous speeches ofthe heathen, whose conclusions resulted entirely from their inability to discern the deeper grounds of what had occurred. But the thought must be distinguished from the form in which it is expressed. The latter is popular in its character, adapted to render the thought accessible to per sons, whose minds are less disciplined than those of others. The conclusion drawn by the heathen was thoroughly well founded. That Israel was the people of Jehovah they never for a moment doubted ; they were well acquainted with past events, which bore witness to the fact, and the tidings of the glorious promises and solemn oaths, which they had received fromHim, had also reached their ears. If, then, all at once he cast this nation entirely off, how could they do otherwise than conclude, that there was not much ground for the boasted holiness and glory of this God, seeing that he had either promised what he could not perform, or was unwilling to perform what he had promised — in fact that he was exactly like their own deities, who merely reflected the sinful nature of their worshippers ? If the heathen were correct in their supposition, that God had cast off his people for ever (we must imagine this as implied in the words, " the people of Jehovah are they, and they have gone forth out of their land," ver. 20), their conclusion was unanswerable, and the only possible way in which God could be justified was by a practical refutation of the words "for ever." — This view, — viz., that the words ofthe heathen are noticed only so far as they were founded upon facts, whilst the true foundation of the latter was the nature of God himself, — is confirmed by a comparison of such passages of the Pentateuch as the prophet had before his eyes, e.g., Ex. xxxii. ; Num. xiv. ; and Deut. ix.1 The profanation of the name of God refers not 1 At first sight, indeed, it appears as if even in these passages the deliver ance of Israel was represented as a matter of caprice, and by no means 46 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. to their actions but to their condition. This is evident from what precedes. But the prophet intentionally attributes to Israel, as an act of its own, all that had resulted from its condition and fate, which were so directly at variance with the idea of a covenant nation. For the guilt of these reproaches attached to them ; their condition was the inevitable and natural consequence of their actions, and hence they were justly called upon to hum ble themselves on account of such reproaches. It was not the heathen, but they, who had brought down the high and holy God into the sphere of sin, impotence, and vanity. Ver. 23. " And I sanctify my name, the great one, which has been profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them, and the heathen learn, that I am Jehovah, saith the Lord Jehovah, when I sanctify myself on you before your eyes." dependent upon the divine nature. God speaks as if he was firmly resolved to destroy the nation, and afterwards appears to be induced entirely by the entreaties of Moses and such external grounds as the probable ridicule of the heathen, to limit his judgments to the actual sinners, and continue to the nation the blessings of its election. But on closer consideration it is evident, that, for a particular purpose, God brings forward first of all only one side of the whole question, namely, what he would do from the very necessity of his nature, if there were no covenant or promise in existence. This design is very conspicuous in all these passages ; compare Bx. xxxii. 10 : " and now let me alone, and my anger shall burn against them, and I will consume them, and make of thee a great nation." There are similar expres sions in Num. xiv. 12, and Deut. ix. 14. The temptation of Israel, as the servant of God, is accompanied by the temptation of Moses, the servant of God also, as we may perceive from the outward circumstance that he fasts forty days — the standing sign of temptation in the Scriptures ; cf. Deut. ix. 9. The temptation reaches its culminating point from the simple fact that Israel succumbs. This would give to Moses a very plausible pretext, for sacrificing the people to his own selfish interests, and establishing himself in their place. The leader of the people is to be tempted in all things like the people them selves. For this reason God only manifests one side of his nature, appears (without misrepresenting himself) as though he takes the side of his servant's self-interest. He leaves it to him, to bring the other side of his nature out to view. The fact that he does this constitutes his credentials, and the out ward manifestation thereof is the seal which God sets upon them, the light of his countenance. In the manner, in which this is done by Moses, we may see clearly that he only cares for the reproaches of the heathen, so far as they are borne out by the facts of the case. For he distinctly mentions the facts in his appeals. Thus, for example, in Ex. xxxii. 13, he says : " Remember Abraham and Isaac and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou hast sworn by thyself, and hast said to them : I will multiply your seed," &c. ; Deut. ix. 27 : " Remember thy servants Abraham, &c, look not unto the stubbornness of his people ; nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin ;" Num. xiv. 17. " Now, I beseech thee, let the power of my Lord be great as thou hast spoken : Jehovah, long-suffering," &c. EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXVI. 23 — 25. 47 To sanctify is the same as to glorify. The expression " the great one," which is appended to " my name," assigns the reason. God takes care that his name shall receive due honour. The manner, in which God is sanctified or glorified on the Israelites, is explained in what follows. Many prefer the reading " in their eyes " to Q^i^y^ in your eyes. The fact, that the former read ing is found in several critical authorities, proves nothing more than that there have been critics before now, who judged accord ing to first appearances. If it is certain that the reproach of the heathen rested upon facts, it is not less certain that it was abso lutely necessary that God should vindicate his honour in the fate of the Israelites, as well as in that of the heathen. The two are classed together in chap. xx. 41, 42, just as they are here. " And I will be sanctified in you," says Jehovah in that passage, "before the heathen, and ye shall learn that I am Jehovah, when I bring you into the land of Israel, into the land, wliich I lifted up my hand to give to your fathers ;" compare ver. 44, " and ye shall know that I am Jehovah, when I have wrought with you for my name's sake." — " Before your seeing eyes :" thus speaks the prophet with reference to the pusillanimity of his nation, which looked only at what was visible, and which it was the object of all these discourses to point out and condemn. Ver. 24. " And I take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all lands, and bring you into your land. Ver. 25. And I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye become clean from all your impurities ; and from all your filth (the idols) will I cleanse you." We have here first of all the groundwork pointed out of the sanctification of God in his people, namely, the forgive ness of sins, the taking away, which must precede all giving, (compare the notes on Jer. xxxi. 34). It is very evident that there is an allusion in this passage to the Mosaic rites of purification, especially to the holy water, in which the ashes of the red heifer were mixed, and which served as an antidote, first to the greatest of all defilements, contact with a corpse, and then to defilements in general (vide Num. xix. 17 — 19 : " and for an unclean person they take of the ashes of the burnt sin-offering, and pour riving water upon it in a vessel, and they take hyssop, and a clean man dips it in the water, and sprinkles the tent and 48 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. all the vessels, and the souls (persons) which are there ; and the clean man sprinkles upon the unclean man and absolves him ;" see also Ps. Ii. 91). A plausible explanation of these allusions is sometimes given, namely, that the prophet changes the material into the spiritual ; but it is more correct to say that what was a symbol in the law is employed as a figure by the prophet. He does not interpolate, he expounds. A proof of this opinion may be found in the fact, that those, who have attempted to explain the meaning and design of the laws of purification on other grounds, have fallen into great absurdities. Look, for example, at the section in Michaelis Mosaisches Becht relating to this subject (Pt. 4, § 207 sqq.). That he did not shrink from the most far-fetched explanations is evident from §. 217, where Moses is said to have ordered unclean earthen vessels to be broken, be cause he did not approve of earthenware for cooking utensils, on account of its being so brittle and thus involving greater loss. The rest is of a piece with this, and yet in spite of his inventive faculty Michaelis is obliged to confess that there are many laws of uncleanness, for which he can see no object at all, no " social advantages." He devotes an entire section (§ 213), to the question, " why were there no laws relating to pestilence ? 1 According to Htivernick the prophet does not allude to Num. xix., but to Num. viii. 7, where the Levites, on the occasion of their consecration, are ordered to be sprinkled with the water of sin or of the sin-offering >-.wjv,j-. i»* But the fact, that nothing is said here about the manner in which the water was to be prepared, points to some subsequent passage, in which the proper directions are given, and such a passage we find in Num. xix. In ver. 9 it is expressly stated, that the water containing the ashes of the red heifer was not merely intended for defilements through contact with a corpse. It is spoken of there as an antidote for uncleanness and sins of every kind. It was quite in order, that the directions for the preparation of this water should be postponed till an account had been given of the ceremony, to be performed in connexion with the worst of all defilements, that of contact with a corpse, although it had been actually made use of before, and thus Bohr's objection (Symbolik Part 2, p. 166), falls to the ground. There is also a reference to Num. xix. in Ps. Ii. 9, as the mention of hyssop clearly shows (compare Num. xix. 18.) There was no other water of sprinkling than that prepared with the ashes of the red heifer, the colour of which represented sin. Compare Egypt and the Books of Moses (p. 173, transla tion), see also Heb. ix. 13, where the ashes of a heifer are mentioned along with the blood of bulls and goats. — Schmieder 's remark, that the means of purification denoted the Holy Ghost (ver. 27), is by no means correct. Sprinkling with water is never referred to in the Scriptures as a symbol of renewal, but always denotes the forgiveness of sins ; compare Zech. xiii. 1 in which there is also an allusion to Num. xix. EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXV1. 24, 25. 49 Ought not such diseases to have been pre-eminently pointed out in the law, as cases of Levitical impurity, in order to guard against infection ?" If Moses had looked merely at " social advantages," he ought certainly to have given greater prominence to pestilence and many other infectious diseases, than to diseases, which are either not infectious at all, — and which Michaelis has been under the necessity of changing for the first time, into diseases that were not heard of for thousands of years after Moses died, — or which have so little of an infectious character about them, that, as in the case of leprosy, ordinary intercourse is attended with no danger whatever. Any one may see, that the reasons, assigned by him for the omission of pestilence, are quite inadmissible. — The support, thus obtained to the symbohcal meaning of the laws relating to impurities and purifications, is strengthened on closer examination. We find outward defile ments universally placed on a par with such as are spiritual, and the means of outward purification with those of a more inward character. See, for example, Num. xix. 20, "a man who defiles himself, and does not absolve himself, that soul is exterminated fromthe congregation; for he has defiled the sanctuary of theLord. ' The unclean man is treated in precisely the same manner as the sinner. The sacrifices offered for him are sin-offerings j-|NE)"I > the priest makes expiation for him before the Lord (see, for ex ample, Lev. xv. 15). Those, who assume that the object contem plated was simply political, can find no other explanation, than that Moses made religion subservient to his own purposes. Michaelis asserts this without hesitation (§ 212) : " God, who con descended to become the civil legislator of the Israelites, made use of the all-powerful instrumentality of religion.'' If this assertion were correct, nothing else would be needed to prove, that Moses was not a divine messenger, — a view which this work of Michaelis has done more to propagate, than all that has been written by those, who openly avow it as their belief. There is no foundation, however, for such an assertion. There is no indica tion whatever of political motives. On the other hand, the symbolical character of the whole of the law supports the con clusion, that this part is symbolical also. To excite a living con sciousness of sin and holiness, and of the consequent necessity for substitution and expiation, was an object which Moses always VOL. III. D 50 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. kept before him, and to this object the laws of purification were also subservient. The consequences of sin, so far as they are visible, are intended to produce this consciousness. All the ceremonies relating to outward impurities had reference to sin, which the people of the Old Testament, to whose care the language of symbols had been entrusted, would the more readily discern in the typical rite, from the fact that otherwise the action performed would have been unnecessary and absurd. We have already' spoken of this in connection with one of the most promi nent examples of Levitical uncleanness, namely leprosy, in our notes on Jer. xxxi. 39. With reference to another, uncleanness through contact with corpses, Deyling has correctly observed (Obss. iii. p. 70) : " from this they could judge, how great was the corruption of such as were unregenerate and sinners in the sight of God." Those who were physically dead were the most appropriate symbol of such as were " dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. ii. 1, 5 ; Col. ii. 13) ; compare in Heb. ix. 14, where sins are described as " dead works." — These remarks will serve to show the full meaning of the allusions to legal impurities and purifications. There is no arbitrary transfer of the physical to the spiritual in this case, but an exposition of a ceremony which originally referred to spiritual things. Ezekiel does not promise something new, but takes a promise already existing in the law and announces its complete fulfilment.1 Ver. 26. " And I give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I take away the heart of stone from within you, and give you a heart of flesh (see the note on chap. xi. 19). Ver. 27. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my commandments, and keep my righteous judgments and do them {cf chap. xi. 20). Ver. 28. And ye dwell in the land, which I gave to your fathers, and become to me a people, and I become to you a God" (compare chap. xi. 20). The words " ye become &c." refer exclusively to their condi tion : they are to be treated as the people of God. i In my Dissertations on the Pentateuch, vol. ii., p. 506 transl., I havealready given elaborate proofs, that the ceremonial law is an allegory, intentionally clothing in drapery doctrines, which had been held without a symbol previous to their being thus clothed. Compare especially p. 509, where the laws of purification are treated of, and also my Commentary on Rev. xiv. 4. EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXVII. 22 28. 51 Ver. 29. " And I redeem you from all your uncleannesses, and call the corn and increase it, and suspend no more hunger over you. The uncleannesses referred to here are the same, as those spoken of in ver. 25 ; but according to the parallel passage the redemption has reference to their consequences. Ver. 30. " And I increase the fruit of the tree and the pro duce of the field, that the reproach of hunger may no more rest upon you among the heathen (cf. chap, xxxiv. 27, 29). Ver. 31. And ye remember your ways, the evil ways, and your deeds, which are not good, and become disgusted with yourselves on account of your sins and your abominations. Ver. 32. Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord Jehovah, let this be known to you, be ashamed of yourselves and blush for your ways, ye house of Israel." THE SEOTION.-CHAP. XXXVII. 22-28. The thirty-seventh chapter also belongs to the series of revela tions, which the prophet received during the night, before the arrival of the messenger with tidings ofthe destruction of Jerusa lem, and which had all one common object, namely to counter act the faintheartedness and despondency of the people. The chapter contains a twofold, yet closely connected, message from God. In the first part (ver. 1 — 14) the restoration of the Israelites as a covenant nation is announced, in the second the re-establishment of their common brotherhood. With reference to the first part, the question arises in what relation it stands to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. There can hardly be any doubt, that the prophet borrowed his imagery from this doctrine, and therefore that it was not only well known to him, but was regarded by the nation generally as indisputably certain. " Moreover," says Pareau, in his Comment. de immortal, p. 109, "it must be borne in mind that their dis courses (viz., those of Isaiah and Ezekiel) were intended for public use ; from which it follows that this doctrine of the resurrection was d2 52 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. so generally known in that age, that they were able to draw from it a very simple, clear, and, in a certain sense, popular imagery." The doctrine of the resurrection was current among the people of God in the time of Ezekiel. This is evident from Is. xxv. 8 and xxvi. 19 (to which passages Ezekiel apparently refers, cf. Kiiper Jeremiasp. 96), and, as is generally admitted, from Dan. xii. 2. Hence it cannot possibly be supposed, that there is no connexion between the description contained in this chapter and the doctrine of the resurrection.1 But the supposition, that there is any direct reference to it in this passage, is pre cluded by the exposition of the symbol in vers. 11 — 14. 2 The only explanation left, therefore, is that the prophet borrowed his imagery from it. Still we must not stop here. It must also he added, that the idea, expressed by the imagery, can only be fully realised when the event itself occurs, from which the imagery is borrowed ; and therefore that the latter is not only taken from the event, but points to the event in return. As truly as God is God, — this is the idea, — so truly must all death be the pathway to life in his kingdom ; and it is on this idea alone that the cer tainty of a glorious resurrection rests, a certainty which the idea itself would render indisputable, even if there were no express statements to this effect in the Word of God. i Haverniek denied, that there was any distinct allusion to the doctrine of the resurrection, and Oehler has adopted his views (see his V.T. sententia de rebus post mortem, p. 45). According to Haverniek, the prophet does no thing more in vers. 1 — 10 than treat of a locus communis, the creative power of God, which would even suffice to awake the dead. But this view cannot be sustained without first denying that an explanation of the symbol in vers. 1 — 10 is afterwards given in vers. 11 — 14. Yet Haverniek himself, in his notes on chap, xvii., has explicitly shown that it is a very customary thing with Ezekiel, as well as DanM, to give a symbol first and the explanation afterwards. Moreover it is expressly stated in ver. 11 that the description given in vers. 1 — 10 related to particular bones, and that we have, therefore, not the general followed by the particular, but the symbol followed by the explanation : " these bones are the whole house of Israel." * This opinion has lately been revived by Hitzig. According to his theory we have here an announcement of the corporeal resurrection, not of tho dead generally, as many of the early expositors imagined, but of the slain of Israel. But ver. 11 is sufficient of itself to refute such a theory: "these bones are the whole house of Israel " (not merely one particular portion thereof ; compare the expression " my people " in vers 12 13), " behold they say our bones are dried, and our hope is lost, we are cast off." The words " they say," point to such as were still alive in the ordinary sense ofthe word, and the drying of the bones is explained as indicative of the hopelessness of their condition. EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXVII. 22-^28. 53 Grotius, in his usual shallow style, gives it as his opinion, that the prophet is merely speaking of a mors civilis and vita civilis. This is a priori inconceivable. The essence and heart of the suffering would then be altogether disregarded in the consolation administered. The fact, that Israel was no longer a nation, was the cause of sorrow to those, who were everywhere the sole objects of the prophet's consolation, simply because they saw in this a positive proof, that Israel was no longer a covenant-nation, and God no longer in the midst of it. And we should hardly ex pect that a prophet, who always lays such emphasis upon the inward and spiritual restoration, — the transformation of the heart of stone into a heart of flesh, — and merely regards the out ward restoration as an accident and reflection of the inwaxd, would so far forget his vocation in this instance, as to assume the character of an ordinary patriot. Moreover the very opposite may be proved from the section itself. In the explanation of the vision in vers. 12 — 14 a twofold distinction is made, so far as the restoration is concerned. We have, first, the restoration to Canaan, and, in general, the re-establishment of civil order, the outward restitutio in integrum, which is represented by the open ing of the graves, the coming together of the dry bones, and their being clothed with flesh and skin. Thus what were bones before are changed into corpses, in which as yet there is no living spirit. There is, secondly, the quickening of these spiritual corpses by the Spirit of God, for which all that had occurred before had merely served as a preparation ; whilst, in themselves considered, these preliminary acts had been of little moment, and were not proper objects of prophetical announcement. This second feature is symbolically represented by the impartation of life in its ordinary sense ; and, as the nature of the vision required that everything should be brought within reach of the senses, the medium, by which this is effected, is the breathing of the wind,1 the natural symbol of both the l The author adheres to his opinion that j-»«»-«j— j in ver. 9 means the wind and not the spirit. He cannot make up his mind to translate the passage, " come thou spirit," instead of " come from the four winds thou wind and blow upon the slain." The fact that the word means " spirit," both before and afterwards, cannot decide the question, because the spirit is really referred to in this passage as well. Hitzig 's objection, that such a wind as this could never put life into a dead man, has no force whatever, since there is no real difference between the wind spoken of and the spirit. 54 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. lower and higher spirit of life, as was universally admitted among all nations and in every language of the ancient world. The Saviour breathes upon the disciples, as a sign of the gift of the Spirit ; and on the day of Pentecost " suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind," Acts ii. 2. There is evidently an allusion here to the passage before us, which is essentially connected with the event referred to ; see also John iii. 8. Ewald is quite correct in his remark that " there is the less room to understand the words ' I put my spirit within you and ye live,' as meaning something different from renewal by the Holy Spirit, from the fact that the prophet has so clearly and emphatically spoken of the latter but a short time before (chap, xxxvi. 26, 27)." Again, it is evident from ver. 14 that the order, in which the outward restoration and the quickening by the Spirit are mentioned, merely belongs to the form of representation, and serves to indicate their relative importance ; for in the passage referred to the order is reversed. Hence, from the nature of the life imparted, we may draw our conclusions as to the nature of the death. The captivity of the people, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, did not constitute death ; they were merely the signs of death, the decom position of the corpse. The body had already become a corpse. The vital principle of Israel, as the people of God, was the Spirit of God. This spirit still dwelt in individuals ; but the attention of the prophet is not directed to individuals now. He fixes his eye upon the congregation of the Lord, as a whole. In this nothing but spiritual death presented itself to the view of the prophet and his fellow mourners ; and the question put to him by the Lord in ver. 3, " Son of man, can these bones live," coupled with the prophet's answer, " 0 Lord God, thou knowest," indicate the fact, that it was altogether beyond the bounds of human probability, that his death should give place to life, be cause that human means would be of no avail, and it was impossible for a heart of stone to change itself by its own strength into a heart of flesh. Before God promises life, therefore, through the mouth of the prophet, the latter has first of all to declare, that he knows nothing of this life, that it is beyond the natural order of events. From what we have said it is evident, that the whole section is Messianic ; that the fulfilment of the promise it EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXVII. 22, 23. 55 contains is only to be looked for in Christ, and in the gift of the Holy Ghost bestowed through him ; and that this fulfilment is still going on, being seen wherever death gives place to life in his church, and will go on till its final completion, when death is swallowed up in victory. The second part commences with a symbolical action. — It matters not whether it occurred outwardly, or merely inwardly. Most likely, however, the latter, judging from analogy and the fact that, with Ezekiel, the inward greatly predominates. The prophet, representing the Lord, takes two pieces of wood, — sticks not tables, as we may see from Num. xvii. 17 — 18, from which the form of this symbohcal transaction was derived. On the one he writes the name of Judah and his companions, that is, of those sections of Israel which had consorted with him, viz. part of Benjamin, Levi, Simeon, and the pious, who had come over at different times from the kingdom of the ten tribes to the kingdom of Judah. On the other he wrote the name of Ephraim, with the rest of those who had associated with this ruling tribe, so as to form one kingdom. These two sticks he then presses firmly together in his hand, as a symbol of the grace of God, which would at some future period effect a union of the kingdoms, that had long ago been divided on account of the sins of the people. The explanation in ver. 21 — 28 goes in some respects beyond the symbol. It is not restricted to the fact of the future union ; but describes the attendant circumstances and blessed results, and points to the person of the great king, who is to bring this union to pass, and to bestow blessings upon both. This is quite natural ; for the fact itself first attains its full significance in this connexion. The union of the two into one national brotherhood could only be set forth, as the result, or as necessary part of a renewal of their whole condition.. Ver. 22. " And I make them one nation on the mountains of Israel, and a king will be king to them all, and they will be no more two nations, neither will they be divided into two king doms any more (cf. xxxiv. 23). Ver. 23. And they will no more defile themselves by their abominations and their detestable things, and by all their transgressions, and I save them out of all their dwelling-places, wherein they have sinned, and cleanse them, and they become my people and I become their God." 56 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. Deliverance from the dwelling-place is not effected locally but spiritually, by the removal of every trace of sin, first from their liearts, and then from their immediate neighbourhood. Thus the land is changed by the power of the Lord into another land, from a sinful land into a holy one ; just as it had previously been changed by the guilt of the people from a holy into a sinful one. Ver. 24. " And my servant David. is king over them, and there will be one shepherd to them all, and they shall walk in my righteous judgments, and keep my righteous judgments and do them." The promise of one king, contained in ver. 22, is here more closely defined. It is the great king of the tribe of David ; and therefore all the glorious promises, made to David and in him to the kingdom of God, are revived again. Ver. 25. " And they dwell in the land, which I gave to my servant Jacob, wherein your fathers dwelt, and there dwell therein they and their sons and their sons' sons for ever, and David, my servant, is prince to them for ever." That the first q^i^S (for ever) is to be taken in the strict sense of the word is evident from the second ; compare the note on Jer. xxiii. 3. Ver. 26. " And I make with them a covenant of peace, an everlasting covenant will exist with them, and I give them and multiply them, and place my sanctuary in the midst of them for ever." The expression " I give them and multiply them" is correctly explained by Venema to mean : dabo eos multiplicatos. There is an allusion to the promise made to Abraham, Gen. xvii. 6. That the prophet does not employ the term "sanctuary" with reference to an outward building, as such, but that the presence of the Lord in the midst of his people is regarded by him, as involving all that is essential to the idea of a sanctuary, is evi dent from chap. xi. 16. Ver. 27. " And my tabernacle is over them (see the remarks on Ps. lxviii. 30), and I become their God and they become my people." There is an allusion here to Ex. xxv. 8 : " And they make make me a sanctuary (mikdash) and I dwell among them ;" compare Lev. xxvi. 11. This promise, according to the pro- EZEKIEL, CHAP. XXXIII. 24 — 28. 57 phet's explanation, still points to the future for its complete ful filment ; not till then will God be truly in the midst of his people, and the difference between heaven and earth come to an end. In the destruction of the temple, therefore, there is no ground for hopeless lamentation. The true fulfilment, of which the rebuilding of the outward temple was merely the prelude, is correctly explained by Vitringa (Obserw. i. 4, p. 161), as consist ing in the " dwelling of God in the midst of the people through the Son and Holy Spirit." Compare John i. 14, where the ex pression io-tajvcoaev iv i)/j,iv represents the A070S made flesh as the true pQJQ of God, with evident reference to the same pas sage of Exodus, which the prophet had before his eyes. Compare also Bev. xxi. 3 and 1 Cor. iii. 16, vi. 19, where believers are called the temple of God because the spirit of Christ dwells in them ; and my remarks on the temple as the symbol of the kingdom of God in the dissertations on the Pentateuch (vol. ii. p. 514, sqq. transl.). Ver. 28. " And the heathen perceive, that I Jehovah sanctify Israel, since my sanctuary is among them for ever." To sanctify means to put an end to the connexion, not only with sin, but also with the evils to which it leads. In the present instance the latter are referred to, as these alone would be likely to attract the attention of the heathen. At the same time the former is presupposed as an indispensable prerequisite. There is an allusion to the promises contained in the Pentateuch, with reference to the sanctification of Israel ; compare, for example, Lev. xx. 8, xxi. 23, xxii. 31 — 33. Hitherto these had been but partially fulfilled, because Israel through its sin had failed to sanctify God, and therefore could not be treated as a sanctified people. We may see how closely these two were con nected together by referring to Lev. xxii. 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." In future, however, God himself will take care, that the required conditions shall not be wanting, through the richer bestowment of the for giveness of sins, and a more abundant outpouring of the Spirit ; and therefore the consequences will fully and surely ensue. 58 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. THE NEW TEMPLE. (Chap. xl. — xlviii.) Fourteen years after the conquest of Jerusalem and the de struction of the temple, Ezekiel beheld, in a vision, the restora tion and glory of the kingdom of God, set forth under the image of the rebuilding of the temple. According to Bottcher (Proben alt-testamenlicher Schrifterklarung p. 232) the temple of Eze kiel was intended " as an ideal representation of a temple, based upon historical grounds, and drawn up partly from memory and partly from imagination, which was to serve as a design for the rebuilding of the sanctuary, when the people returned from their exile." The same view is adopted by Hitzig and Thenius in the appendix to the commentary on the books of Kings. But very weighty objections may be offered to so literal an interpretation. Bottcher himself unconsciously argues against his own theory, when he says : " It is not a Phoenician architect, nor a histo rian following historical records, but a priest's son and a pro phet — who represents his design for the temple as seen in a vision, and that not for builders or for an architect, but for " the whole house of Israel," (chap. xl. 4, xliii. 10 sqq.). To give directions for building the temple formed no part of a prophet's vocation. The duties of a prophet had no connexion whatever with legislation. So far as the time being was con cerned, they adhered strictly to the law of Moses. Their task was to bridge over the space, which separated that law from the hearts of the people. And with reference to the future, their work was simply to prophesy ; whilst there is not a single example in the whole range of prophecy of anything analogous to this vision of Ezeldel, as it is interpreted by Bottcher. Moreover such an interpretation removes this vision entirely away from any connexion with the general series of Ezekiel's prophecies, subse quent to the destruction of Jerusalem. These prophecies are strictly confined to prophetic ground. There is nothing legislative or hortatory in their character. Everything from chap, xxxiii. EZEKIEL, CHAP. XL. XLVIII. 59 onwards, centres in one object, namely, to ward off despair from the people of God, by pointing to a future period, richly- laden with mercy and salvation. And we naturally expect that this design, which runs through the whole of the second part, will be brought to a climax at the end of the book. " The symbolical interpretation is favoured, as Haverniek justly observes, by the form employed, — that of a vision, — the essential characteristic of which is to set forth ideas in a con crete and tangible shape." In the whole of the Old Testa ment there is not a single vision to be found, in which the form and the idea conveyed coincide so completely, as would be the case here, if the literal interpretation were correct, and none in which there would be so little room for theological exposition. Yet the book of Ezeldel is the last book, in which we should expect to find a vision of such a description ; so impenetrable, in general, is the covering of drapery under which the thought is concealed. It is of especial importance here to compare the vision in chap. viii. — xi., in which the destruction ofthe city is set forth ; since the prophet himself, in chap, xliii. 3, describes the present vision as the counterpart of the other. In the latter, however, as we have already shown, a literal exposition is inad missible, and a distinction must always be made between the thought itself, and the drapery in which it is clothed. The preconceived antipathy to a literal exposition, with which we approach this section, is confirmed on further investigation. The whole section exhibits a series of phenomena, which are absolutely irreconcileable with such an interpretation. The very commencement should suffice to put us on our guard against it. It takes us altogether away from the sphere of ordi nary actions. " He set me" — we read in chap. xl. 2 — " upon a mountain very high, upon which there was as the building of a city towards mid-day." It is very evident, that we have here a representation of the future glory of the kingdom of God, under the figure of an exaltation of the insignificant temple-hill, similar to that which we have already found in Isaiah. {Michaelis says, " such as Isaiah had predicted that Mount Zion would become, not physically, but by eminence derived from dignity and the glory of the gospel"). In chap. xvii. 22, 23, reference has already been made to a high and lofty mountain, in connexion with tha 60 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. future glory of the kingdom of God. Zion, which looked very high even in Old Testament times, when contemplated with the eye of the spirit (Ps. xlviii. 3, 4, Ixviii. 17) , will rise in the future to an immeasurable height. If any doubt could possibly remain, with reference to the ideal character of this particular feature, and consequently of the whole picture, it would be removed by Bev. xxi. 10, " And he brought me in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God." The ideal character ofthe whole is also confirmed by the dimen sions of the new temple, given in chap. xiii. 15 sqq., where it has been found necessary to alter the rods, so expressly mentioned, into cubits (Bottcher, Eivald, Hitzig, Thenius), for the purpose of getting rid of the ideal interpretation and carrying out the literal one. The description of the entrance of the glory of the Lord into the new temple in chap, xliii. 1 sqq. shows how inadequate the literal explanation really is. It is all the less allowable to abide by the letter in the present instance, since in that case we should be obliged to assume, even on the ground of chap. xi. '22, 23, that on the occasion of the Chaldean destruction the Shechinah departed from the temple in a visible shape ; especially as there is an express allusion to this in ver. 4. The simple thought is evidently the following, the presence of the Lord in the midst of his people will be manifested at a future period with a glory unknown before ; and this was perfectly fulfilled in Christ This passage, again, completely refutes the assertion made by Dathe, " that the prophet is not giving promises, but directions as to the plan on which the new temple is to be built." We have here an occurrence, which the Israelites could not in any way help to promote, and therefore may use it as a clue, with which to discover in all the rest the simple promise, that lies hidden in the labyrinth of measurements, which distinguishes the vision. The section, chap, xlvii. 1 — 12 is a transparent allegory, and the attempts at a literal exposition are so evidently without force, that they are utterly unworthy of any close investigation. The literal explanation founders on the new division of the land among the tribes, which is described as being perfectly equal EZEKIEL, CHAP. XL. — XLVIII. 61 and altogether regardless of the circumstances of actual hfe ; and also on chap, xlvii. 22, 23, where foreigners are said to be placed on the same footing as the children of Israel in relation to this division. The thought may easily be discerned through the transparent covering : " The difference between Jew and Gentile, which existed under the Old Testament, is completely done away." (Michaelis.) Thus then the literal exposition is inadmissible. At the same time it must be confessed that there are serious difficulties in the way of the allegorical or symbolical interpretation, which was a very favourite one in ancient times. It cannot be denied that there is a certain amount of truth in Hitzig 's words, that " sym bolical exposition can, in certain cases, only be carried out in a forced manner and without any proof whatever, in other cases not at all ; and Haverniek ought to have given examples to prove the statement made in his commentary, that it is pos sible to carry it out in a manner at once perfect and beautiful." Vitringa1 has fully proved, that the author goes far too minutely into architectural details, for an allegorical interpretation to be maintained throughout, however clear it may be, that in particular passages it is absolutely necessary. The measurements, for example, which extend to the breadth of the doors and the thick ness of the walls, present an insuperable barrier to such an in terpretation ; — if we admit, that is, that in the department of biblical symbols it is never allowable to have recourse to fancies and guesses, but that the means of sober interpretation are always fully provided. We will endeavour, then, to avoid the difficulties to which the two methods are exposed. The tabernacle and Solomon's temple had both of them a symbohcal character. They were symbols of the kingdom of God in Israel, as I have already shown in my dissertations on the Pentateuch, vol. ii. p. 516 sqq. This is evident from the name given to the tabernacle : tent of meeting, the place where God meets with his people, where he holds communion ; and also from Lev. xvi. 16, where all the children of Israel are represented as dwelling in spirit with the Lord in his tent, which is regarded 1 Aanleydinge tot het rechte verstant van den Tempel Bzech. Th. 2, p. 291 sqq., 302 sqq. 62 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. therefore as nothing less than an embodiment of the church.1 In a whole series of passages in the Psalms, the tabernacle and temple are referred to, as the places where believers dwell in spirit with the Lord, and therefore as the representation and type of the church. Thus, eg., in Ps. xxiii. 6, " I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for ever ;" xxvii. 4 : " one thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my Hfe ;" and Ps. lxxxiw 5, " blessed are they that dwell in thy house."2 The Lord expresses the same idea when he says in Matth. xxiii. 38 : " your house is left unto you empty." They are left alone in the temple, which is deprived of the presence of God. And Paul makes a similar comparison when he says in Eph. ii. 19 that befievers are " the household of God," and in 1 Tim. iii. 15, "the house of God, which is the church of the living God," the church of the New Testament being here represented as the antitype of the 1 " And he absolves the sanctuary from the impurities of the children of Israel and from their transgressions, all their sins, and this he does to the tent of meeting, which dwells with them, in the midst of their impurities." Because, spiritually considered, all the children of Israel dwell in the sanc tuary, it is defiled by every sin Bohr, who denies that this passage has any bearing upon the question in hand, has only attended to the latter half: " God (he observes in his work on Solomon's temple, p. 85) dwelt in a tent in the midst of the people, but as every Israelite might be more or less Levi- tically impure and yet come into contact with the tent, and therefore as this might possibly (?) be defiled, it was to be cleansed once a year from their (the people's) uncleanness." The fact, however, that transgressions are mentioned, and that the expression "all their sins" follows immediately afterwards, is sufficient to show that such a view is untenable. 2 It is hardly conceivable that in the face of these and other similar pas sages, Bdhr (p. 86), should say : " there is just as little force in the other passages ; for they say literally nothing about the main point, viz., that the nation, as such, dwelt with Jehovah, and like him dwelt in the temple." They do say this most clearly and the more emphatically because the house of the Lord generally denotes merely the true temple, namely, the holiest of all (the dwelling-place of the Lord), and the holy place (the dwelling-place of the people). When Bdhr afterwards adds : " no Israelite would ever have thought of a pious man or the whole nation, as inhabiting the temple along with Jehovah, and living, as it were, under the same roof with him ; such an expression would have been looked upon as a species of blasphemy ;" this is only so far true, that the Israelites would certainly never have entertained the idea of living on an equality with God, the Holy one, who is absolutely exalted above all created objects. The members of the congregation dwelt with God, not by right, but through grace. He was the householder ; they the dependents or guests. Their dwelling with God was but a visit. This is expressly stated in Ps. xv. 1, for -j>y never means to dwell in the ordinary sense of the word, but to stay as a guest or Btranger. EZEKIEL, CHAP. XL. — XLVIII. 63 temple under the Old. Compare 2 Cor. vi. 16, and 1 Cor. iii. 17 : "if any man defile the temple of God, &c, which temple ye are," with Jer. vii. 4, where the unbelieving covenant-nation is blamed for assuming to itself the prerogative of the believer, to be the temple of the Lord. Israel, then, with the Lord dwelling in the midst of it, is the true temple of the Lord. (Ex. xxv. 8). The outward temple was only a symbol and shadow of this spiritual temple. If, then, it is absolutely certain, that the temple was the symbol of the kingdom of God in Israel, and a type ofthe church, it must be evident at once, that in a vision, the essential charac teristic of which is to embody ideas in a concrete form, the re storation ofthe kingdom of God could not possibly be represented in a more appropriate manner, than under the image of a restored and glorified temple. But it is not merely with reference to the leading idea, that the description of the new temple is transparent in its character. In a considerable number of details, which we have already noticed, such, for example, as the raising of the temple hill, and the fountain which issued from the sanctuary, the symbohcal mean ing is unmistakeable. The analogy of the material temple, in connexion with which the attempt to spiritualise every minute^ detail has invariably failed, would lead us to expect in this case other particulars, which can only be regarded as the filling up of the picture. Even Bdhr has gone too far in this respect. In the case of Ezekiel, the reason, for describing so minutely the details of the building, was to give a forcible proof of the prophets firm belief in the continued existence of the kingdom of God. So long as the church lay prostrate and the sanctuary was in ruins, this ideal temple of Ezekiel was to serve as a support to the weak faith of the nation, and take the place of the fallen sanc tuary. It was very natural that Ezeldel's temple should correspond in many respects to the temple of Solomon, since the latter furnished the most appropriate substratum for the purely ideal picture drawn by the prophet. The temple of Zerubbabel was so far related to that of Ezekiel, that the leading idea contained in the description of the latter, 64 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. viz., the indestructible nature of the kingdom of God, was re alized in the former, so far as it was possible that it should be, until the time arrived when the foreshadowing of spiritual things by means of the temple, which was an essential characteristic of the Old Testament, was rendered obsolete by Christ and his church. It is very evident, however, that the connection between the temple of Ezekiel and that of Zerubbabel is entirely of a spiritual character, and is not to be looked for in material details, from the simple fact, as Haverniek has already observed, '¦' that the second temple was not erected according to Ezekiel's design, and that the other directions given by him were not carried out in any respect whatever." As Ezekiel was invested with the authority of a messenger from God, we may infer from this, that the ideal character of his vision was fully understood, and that the Israelites perceived that it was not with an architect that they had to do, but with a prophet, whose mission concerned not the hands, but the heart, which he was sent to stir up to faith and hope. The ideal character of Ezekiel's description being thus firmly established, we must acquire the habit of distinguishing gene rally between the prophet's leading thoughts, and the drapery in which they are clothed. It has often been brought as a charge against the first principles of Christology, that they foster an excessive habit of spiritualising. Those who are disposed to bring such a charge as this, had better first try their own method of literal interpretation on these nine chapters of Ezekiel. They will never be able to carry it out, unless they come to the extremely doubtful conclusion, that the Christian Church is eventually to return to the beggarly elements of Judaism ; and this they cannot do if they act conscientiously as expositors, since such passages as chap, xlvii. 1 — 12 are decidedly at variance with any literal interpretation. It must be conceded here, that we have no right to appeal to the letter of the Old Testament in support of such theories as the return of the Jews to Canaan, a practice which is the more indefensible, as the New Testament is altogether silent on the subject of any such return. EZEKIEL, CHAP. XLVII. 1 12. 65 THE SECTION.-CHAP. XLVII. 1-12. The whole account of the new temple in its leading features is of a Messianic character. Its fulfilment under the New Tes tament is constantly going on, and the future alone will witness its completion. In the passage before us," which contains one of the most remarkable prophecies in the Bible, the Messianic elements are brought to a climax. The arrangement is very simple. We have first the descrip tion of the water issuing from the sanctuary (vers. 1 — 6), and the trees growing upon the banks (ver. 7), and secondly, the account of the end to be subserved by the water (vers. 8 — 11) and by the trees (ver. 12). Ver. 1. " And he led me back to the door ofthe house ; and behold waters issued out under the threshold of the house tmvards the east, for the front of the house was towards the east, and the waters flowed down under the right side of the house to the south of the altar." Water, which renders barren ground fertile, and yields a refreshing draught to the thirsty, is used in the Scriptures to represent divine blessings, especially salvation, which had already been set forth in paradise in the form of water ; cf. Gen. xiii. 10. The figure is explained in Is. xii. 3 : " with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation." Also in Is. xliv. 3, " I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground, I will pour out my spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine offspring," where the blessing corresponds to the water, and the spirit is mentioned as the chief form in which the blessing is conveyed, the groundwork of all salvation to the people of God. The root of evil is sin. This must first of all be set aside by the Spirit of God. In the book of Eevelation (chap. xxii. 1), where the idea contained in this passage is resumed in the words, '" and he showed me a pure river ofthe water of life," i.e., of salvation or blessedness, the nature ofthe water is expressly pointed out. This is not the writer's own explanation, however, but is obtained from a combination of ver. 1 and ver. 9 of the chapter before us, in the latter of which the VOL. III. , E Q6 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. effect of the water is plainly described as life. Here the water appears first as a fountain, it is not till ver. 5 that it assumes the form of a stream. In the Eevelation, on the other hand, it appears at once as a stream. The difference may be explained from the fact that John had only to do with the church of the last days. The fulness of life or of salvation, which will be possessed by the glorified church, is shown by the fact, that from the very first it issues forth as a river. Ezekiel carries out the intimation given by Joel (iii. 18), " and a fountain issues forth from the house of the Lord, and waters the valley of Acacias " (the symbol of human want ; and Zechariah again alludes to Ezekiel in chap. xiv. 8). It is a question of compara tively trifling importance, whether the figure employed by the prophets was occasioned by the fact that there was a stream of water constantly flowing in the first temple. (See the remarks of Thenius on this subject in the appendix to his commentary on the Books of Kings, p. 19). _The connexion is certainly not a very close one. There was no actual fountain in Solomon's temple, but the water was conveyed thither by subterraneous channels. Thus the natural water was brought to the spot for the service of the temple, and was not even conducted within the precincts of the actual temple, but only into the fore court. The spiritual water, on the other hand, springs up in the temple itself, and flows on till it reaches the desert and the Dead Sea.1 — In Ezekiel the water issues forth under the threshold of the house towards the east ; according to the Ee velation, the river of water proceeded out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. John has here completed the account in Ez. xlvii. 1, from chap, xliii. 7. The house in Ezekiel means the true temple, the holy place, and holy of holies. With reference to this we find in chap, xliii. 1 — 7 : " and behold the glory of God came from the east, and his voice like the voice of many waters, and the earth shone with his glory. . . . And the glory of the Lord came into the house through the gate towards the east. . . . And behold the house was full of the glory of the Lord. And I heard one speak to me out of the house, 1 Steudel is wrong when he says (Theol. des A. T. p. 491), " according to Ez. xlvii. 1 sqq a fountain sprang up on the eastern side of the temple, which furnished it with the requisite supply of water." EZEKIEL, CHAP. XLVII. 1. 67 . . . and he said to me : Son of man, (thou seest) the place of my throne and the place ofthe soles of my feet, where d will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever." The fact, that the Lord enters with his glory into the sanctuary, explains the reason why henceforth the streams of salvation issue from it. From the temple now lying in ruins they never could issue, because it was never truly the place of God's throne. The sanctuary, that is the church, was first made the " habita tion of the throne" of God by Him, in whom " dwelt all the ful ness of the godhead bodily." Henceforth its name became. " Jehovah is there," chap, xlviii. 35. And John points to the manner in which the announcement of the indwelling of the glory of God (in chap, xliii.) was fulfilled in Christ, when he speaks of the throne of God and of the Lamb. — The expression " for the front of the house was towards the east," presup poses that the water would necessarily flow from tlur front of the house. — The words " and the waters flowed down below the right side of the house, to the south of the altar," have been variously misinterpreted. The fact that the water is de scribed as flowing down may be explained on the ground that the moral elevation of the sanctuary, the place, in which the Lord was enthroned, was necessarily represented as an outward fact for the purposes of the vision.! The right side always means the south. The water issued forth from the eastern gate of the house, in the strict sense of the term, and flowed below the house, not straight out, but downwards,, and therefore through that part of the forecourt, which was under the southern side of the house, or through the south-eastern portion of the forecourt. The words " to the south of the altar" express the reason, why the water could not flow on in a straight line from the gate of the house to the outward eastern gate, but necessarily turned towards the south. The reason is purely a local one. Immediately in front of the eastern gate of the sanctuary stood the altar of burnt-offering, and thus prevented the water from taking a direct course; compare chap. xl. 47: " and the altar was before the house," " in the middle of the court, and in front ofthe steps leading to the temple." {Sturm). i According to Thenius, p. 35, the actual building was raised above the inner court even in Solomon's temple. E 2 68 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. Ver. 2. " And he led me out by the way at the gate toioards the north, and led me outside round to the outer gate, which looks to the east, and behold waters issued forth from the right side of the house." The prophet, having seen the water at its source, was now to trace its onward course. For this purpose he had to leave the temple. As the direction taken by the water was towards the east, the proper gate to go out at would have been the eastern gate of the forecourt ; but according to chap. xliv. 1 , 2, the outer gate of the sanctuary was kept constantly shut, because the Lord had gone in by it, when he made his entrance into the temple. The prophet was therefore obliged to take a circuitous route, going out at the north gate, and then coming round to the east gate, when he was outside the temple wall. And behold waters issued forth : pqq has no connexion with j-j^ to weep, wliich might suggest the meaning to trickle. Moreover, such a meaning is quite unsuitable here, as the water must necessarily have been characterised by fulness and hfe, when it first issued from the spring. On the contrary it is allied to *tq an oil-bottle ; Fuller says ;-j32 denotes the copiousness of the stream which issued forth like water flowing from a bottle." It is rendered in the Septuagint KaTecfrepero ; in the Vulgate, redundantes. From the right side of the house. The prophet was on the eastern side at the east gate. He saw the water flowing away towards the east. The southern (? the right) side, therefore, can only be the south-eastern, in contrast with the south-western, and also with the gate which stood due east ; compare 1 Kings vii. 39, where the brazen sea is said to have stood on the right side of the house eastward towards the south, in other words, "at the eastern end of the temple, but on the south side" (Michaelis). Ver. 3. "And the man ivent out towards the east and had the measure in his hand, and he measured a thousand cubits, and led me through the water, when it reached up to my ancles. Ver. 4. And he measured again a second time a thousand cubits, and led me through the water, when it went up to my knees. And he measured a thousand cubits more, and made me go through, and it reached up to my loins. Ver. 5. And he measured a thousand more, when it was a river, which I could not wade, EZEKIEL, CHAP. XLVII. 2 8. 69 through, for the water was too deep, so that one was obliged to swim, a river, which could not be forded." We have here a representation of the Messianic salvation, which, though at first comparatively insignificant, will continue to expand with ever increasing fulness and glory. Compare chap. xvii. 22, 23, where the Messiah appears as a tender twig, which afterwards grows to a large cedar ; and the parables of the mustard seed in Matt. xiii. 31, 32, and the leaven in ver. 33, where Bengel correctly explains the three measures of meal as referring to the threefold division of the human race, alluded to in Gen. x. 1. I could not cross it (ver. 5) ; judging from the analogy of ver. 3, 4, the prophet learned this by actual experi ment, that is, by going in up to his neck (Is. viii. 8). If this had not been the case, the farther remark " which cannot be forded" would be superfluous. In ver. 6 the prophet is led back to the brink of the river. Ver. 6. " And he said to me, Son of man, seest thou f And he bade me go, and brought me back to the brink of the stream." The words " seest thou " contain an allusion to the great importance of the fact just mentioned, and intimates that it was well worth seeing. Compare chap. xl. 4. The Berleburgher -Bible says : " hast thou seen to what a blessed state the earth will be brought by the outflowing of the spirit and the plenteous rivers of grace." These words form a conclusion, and also a connecting link with what follows. Ver. 7. " When I returned, behold on the bank of the river there were very many trees on the one side and on the other." The need of salvation is represented as hungering as well as thirsting ; and, accordingly, hfe or salvation is represented here under the image of fruit, just as it had been before under that of water. Compare Is. Iv. 1 , 2, where bread for the hungry is mentioned, as well as water for the thirsty. The trees them selves have no particular meaning. Their importance is derived exclusively from the fruit they bear. Ver. 8. "And he said to me: these waters go forth to the east country, and flow down to the heath, and come to the sea ; to the sea (come) those that are brought out, and thus the waters are healed." 70 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. As nV^Sa frequently occurs in the sense of circle, or district, there is no reason whatever for following the Septuagint, in which it is rendered Galilee (a district much too far to the north), and thus connecting it with Is. viii. 23, where Galilee is men tioned as partaking in an especial manner of the Messianic salva tion. The fact that the heath, that is, the Arabah or Valley of the Jordan, is mentioned before the sea, must possess some theological importance. For nothing else could possibly have induced the prophet to pass by the valley of the Kedron, which was so admirably adapted to his purpose and opens immediately into the Dead Sea, and to conduct the waters by a physically impossible course, viz., over the heights wliich separate Jerusalem from the low-ground' on the banks of the Jordan. What this theological meanmg is we may gather from the primary passage in Joel, where the valley of Acacias (Shit- lira) corresponds to ihe Arabah here, and from Is. xxxv. 6,#" in the desert shall waters break out and streams in the heath,'' where the Arabah is parallel to the desert. As the water has already been described as taking its course to the east country, the portion of the Arabah referred to here can only be the southern extremity immediately above the point at which the Jordan flows into the Dead Sea. But just at that point the Ara bah assumes the character of a cheerless desert, cf v. Raumer p. 52 : "At the northern extremity of the Dead Sea there is a desert, which stretches upwards along the western side of the plain of the Jordan to a point above Jericho. — Monro says that the plain along the lower Jordan and Dead Sea from the moun tains of Judah till you go down to Jericho bears the aspect of extreme desolation." — Ritter again (Erdk. 15, 1, p. 552) says: " Farther south (from the ford of Helu) to the northern ex tremity of the Dead Sea every trace of vegetation disappears, with the exception of a few marine plants ; the undulating ground and clayey soil give place to a perfectly horizontal plain intersected by rocky masses of sand and clay." In the Bible the desert represents a lost condition, and therefore is an appropriate emblem of a world estranged from God and shut out of his king dom. There can hardly be any necessity to prove, that the sea re ferred to is the Dead Sea, and not the Mediterranean. All that precedes points to the east, viz. : ver. 1 and 2, in which the water EZEKIEL, CHAP. XLVII. 8. 71 is described as issuing from the eastern side of the temple ; ver. 3, where the man, who follows the course of the stream, is said to go towards the east ; then the east country, and lastly the Arabah in the verse before us. The Dead Sea is also called the eastern sea in chap, xlvii. 18 ijftTp (compare !"OT2"Tp m the present verse). The connexion between the sea and the Arabah also favours the supposition that the Dead Sea is intended, as the sea referred to must have been in the neighbourhood of the Arabah (the Dead Sea is expressly called the Sea of the Arabah in Deut. iii. 17 and iv. 49 ; see the history of Balaam, p. 520 translation) ; its nature must also have corresponded to that of the Arabah, or it could not have had the same symbohcal importance. Lastly, what is said about the healing ofthe waters leads to precisely the- came conclusion. This presupposes that the water of the sea was naturally in a diseased state, a description which is applicable to the Dead Sea alone ; compare Pliny hist, nat., v. 15, where he says with reference to the Jordan : velut invitus Asphaltiten lacum dirum natura petit, a quo postremo ebibitur aquasque laudatas amittit pestilentialibus mixtas. There can be no doubt as to the sym bolical significance of the Dead Sea in this passage of Ezekiel. The description given by Tacitus hist. v. c. 6, " lacus immenso ambitu, specie maris, sapore corruptior, gravitate odoris accolis pestifer, neque vento impellitur neque pisces aut suetas aquis volucres pascitur,"1 was quoted by earlier commentators in con nexion with the words of John, " the whole world lieth in 1 Compare with this the description given by Bitter, in the first edition of his Brdkunde (the second does not enter so much into details) : " This lake is unlike any other lake in the world. The outward appearance of this body of water and its mathematical dimensions constitute the only reason why it is classed along with the rest ; for in its nature it is entirely different It has none of the charms, which render the Alpine lakes, for example, and so many others, points of attraction ; it lacks the constant motion, the solvent power, and all the other qualities which give such variety to the atmosphere of other lakes, and thus impart increased activity not only to the animal and vegetable world, but also to man, facilitating reciprocal action in a manner unknown elsewhere, and promoting alike the life of nature and the intercourse of mankind. The water of this lake is unfit for both man and beast, it nourishes neither plants nor animals ; its banks are entirely destitute of verdure, and not even a reed is to be found in the lake itself. The atmosphere of the lake has nothing of the sweetness and coolness, which is generally imparted by water, and throughout the whole of the surrounding plain there is not a single spot cultivated, or inhabited by peaceable men, whore onco the whole was a garden, like the land of Egypt." 2 72 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. wickedness," 1 John v. 19. The Dead Sea was all the better fitted to be used as a symbol of the corrupt world, since it was in a judgment on the corrupt world that it originated, and with the eye of the mind the image of Sodom and Gomorrha could still be seen beneath the waves. The words, " to the sea," which are repeated, serve to introduce the explanation, that follows, of the meaning and design. Hitherto the whole account has been purely geographical. The way is prepared for this explanation of the pur port ofthe symbol by the words "those that are brought out," which point to the higher power, that carries out the whole counsel of salvation according to His predetermined plan.1 The spiri tual waters effect in the Dead Sea of the world, what the natural waters are incapable of effecting in the so-called Dead Sea, (compare Pliny ut supra). In the case of the latter, the healthy waters are corrupted by the diseased ; in that of the former, the diseased ara cured by the healthy ; (cf 2 Kings ii. 21, 22). The diseased water of the sea of the world indicates the corrupt state, into which it has fallen through its apostasy from God, of whom it is said in Ps. xxxvi. : " with thee is the fountain of hfe, and in thy light we see light." Ver. 9. " And it cometh to pass, every living thing, with which every place will swarm, whither the double river shall come, will live, and there will be very many fishes for these waters come thither and they are healed, and everything liveth, whithersoever the brook cometh." The words " and it cometh to pass" direct attention to the remarkable change which takes place. The first visible effect produced by the fountain from the sanctuary is new life. There is an allusion here to the natural character of the Dead Sea, which is inimical to Hfe of every kind. " According to the testimony of all antiquity," says Robinson, 2 p. 461, and of most modern travellers, " there is not a single living thing in the waters of the Dead Sea — not even a trace of animal or vegetable hfe. Our own experience, so far as we had an opportunity of observ ing, goes to confirm the truth of this testimony. We perceived 1 Neumann (die Wasser des Lebens, p. 34) says : " It is not by following its natural course, that the brook flows to the sea, it is conducted thither from the temple by a superior hand, and under this guidance the waters of the sea are healed." EZEKIEL, CHAP. XLVII. 9, 10. 73 no sign of Hfe in the water." It is just the same in the anti type of the Dead Sea, the world. All that bears the name of Hfe is reaUy dead, destitute of happiness and salvation. " Living- beings," which are anything more than walking corpses, are only to be found there, after the water from the sanctuary has over come the elements which are destructive of life. The expres sion " wiH five" shows that the reference here is to " living beings," not in the lowest sense, but in the fuUest sense of the word. The double river means the strong river, just as in Jer. 1. 21 Merathaim " the double fall," and Judg. iii. 8, Kushan- Rishathaim " ofthe double wickedness," for " ofthe great wicked ness," Kushan alone being the proper name, and Bishathaim a prefix Hke Evil in Evil-merodach. In a certain sense a double water has aHeady been spoken of, viz., the fountain as it first issued from the sanctuary, and the addition which it afterwards received. It was not till after it had received this increase, that it effected the remarkable change in the Dead Sea, which is here described. — "And there will be very many fishes." The sea in the Scriptures is the symbol of the world. Accordingly men are represented by the Hving creatures in the sea, and especially by the fishes ; see my commentary on Bev. viii. 9. In the Dead Sea of the world there had hitherto been only dead fishes, which are not reckoned as fishes at aH, i.e., only carnal and godless men. This verse and the foUowing form the basis of Peter's miraculous draught of fishes before the resurrection (Luke v.), which the Lord explained in the words, " from henceforth thou shalt catch men" (ver. 10). The same may be said of Peter's miraculous draught after the resurrection (John xxi.), and of the parable of the net cast into the sea, in which fish of every kind were caught. And they are healed ; viz., the waters spoken of in ver. 8. And everything lives, &c. : "it will not perish like those fishes, which are cast into the Dead Sea" (Grotius). Ver. 10. " And it comes to pass, fishermen will stand by it from Engedi to Eneglaim, they will spread their nets there ; their fish will be of every kind, like the fish of the great sea, very many of them." The meaning of the fish being once established, there can be no doubt as to that of the fishermen. If the fishes represent men, who are made alive by means of the Messianic salvation, 74 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. the fishermen must be the heralds of this salvation, who gather those that are made afive into the kingdom of God, and intro duce them to the feUowship of the church. The Saviour alludes to this passage, when he says in Matt. iv. 18, 19, to Peter and Andrew : "I will make you fishers of men ;" and in John xxi. 1 — 14 the apostles appear as fishermen. — The two places named are probably classed together, because each of them derived its name from a fountain. Engedi was some distance towards the south. As the intention is evidently to include a long strip of coast, the opinion of Jerome is a very plausible one, that Eneglaim was situated at the northern extremity of the sea, near the point at which the Jordan enters it. Neumann is wrong in supposing that the nominative to iprP (tneY WH1 De) is the fishermen. He explains the clause thus : " they will be a spread ing of nets, they wiU devote themselves entirely to this, will do nothing else and have nothing else to do, than to spread nets." The verb, however, is governed by the places between Engedi and Eneglaim, where hitherto no nets had been spread, and which are regarded as symbols of the abundance of fish. For ntSWD D^J2"in m chap. xxvi. 5, 14, is decisive in favour of the meaning, " place of spreading," and proves that aUusion is made to the practice of spreading out the nets after the fish has been caught, — spreading as distinguished from throwing. r\Tt^7 points back to Gen. i. 21, (which had akeady been alluded to in ver. 9, " aH the Hving things, with which it swarmed") :' " and God created the great dragons and aU the living things, which move, wherewith the waters swarm according to their kinds." In the Dead Sea ofthe world there comes forth a joyful swarm of those who have been made partakers of Hfe from God, just like the swarms of ordinary fishes, which filled the natural sea at the first creation. Ver. 11. " Its sloughs and its pools, they are not healed, they are given up to salt." Here also we find an aUusion to the natural constitution ofthe Dead Sea. The water-mark varies at different seasons ofthe year. As the water falls, pools and salt-marshes appear here and there, which have no longer any connexion with the lake itself. Robinson observes (Part 2, p. 459), that the Dead Sea must sometimes stand ten or fifteen feet higher than EZEKIEL, CHAP. XLVII. 11, 12. 75 it did when he saw it (viz., in May), and that when it is fuU it overflows a salt marsh at its southern extremity of five miles broad. Of the pools left by the Dead Sea, Robinson says (p. 434) : " The largest and most important of these is situated to the south of the spot which bears the name of Birket el-Kulil. This is a smaU bay, a cleft in the western rocks, where the water, when it is high, flows into the shaHow basin, and then evaporates, leaving only salt behind." In the Dead Sea of the world the pools and marshes were also originaUy exactly Hke the sea itself, the only difference is that they have shut themselves off from the heaHng waters, which flow from the sanctuary and thus confirm them selves in their original corruption. In substance, the same thought 'is expressed in the words, " there is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked," in which Isaiah declares that the wicked are excluded from participating in the glorious promises, which he has just before described, chap, xlviii. 22, and lvii. 21 ; compare chap. lxvi. 24, and the threat in Jer. xxx. 23, 24. In Bev. xx. 10, the "lake of fire'' corresponds to the sloughs and pools mentioned here. The salt is not introduced in this passage, as it frequently is, as an antiseptic, but as a foe to aU fertility, life, and prosperity ; thus Pliny says (h. n. L. 31, C. 7) : omnis locus, in quo reperitur sal, sterilis est, nihilque gignit, compare Deut. xxix. 21 ; Jer. xvn. 6 ; Zeph. ii. 9 ; Ps. cvii. 34. We must not imagine the water graduafiy evaporating and leaving salt behind ; but the continued power of the salt is contrasted with that deHverance from its corrosive influence, which would have been effected by the waters from the sanctuary, if they had been aUowed to reach the pools : the waters remain given up to the salt. We may see how far a false habit of Hteral interpretation may go astray in deafing with such passages as this, from the remark of Hitzig : " The sloughs are of some use therefore ; for the new theocracy also stood in need of salt, material salt." Ver. 12. " And by the river there will grow, on the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, all fruitful trees, their leaves will not wither and their fruits will not rot, every month they ripen, for their water cometh from the sanctuary, and their fruit serves for food and their leaves for medicine." The fact that the trees produce fresh fruit every month, is an indication of the uninterrupted enjoyment of the blessings of 76 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. salvation. On the words " for their water " &c. Hitzig observes : " the reason is evident, namely, because this stream flows directly and immediately from the dwelling place of Him, who is the author of aU Hfe and fruitfulness." For the heathen world, so grievously diseased, it was especially necessary that salvation should be manifested in the form of gratia medicinalis. Hence not only are there nutritious fruits but healing leaves. It is very evident that nDIIH (Sept. vyleia, Bev. xxii. 2, " and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations") is derived from jrp"^ = ND"l> to heal ; and the certainty of this is increased by the fact that nD~l? which is closely alHed to wp, is frequently used in the place of ND"V ( 77 ) DANIEL. It is not a mere accident, that in the Hebrew canon Daniel is not placed among the prophets. He did not fill the office of a prophet among his own people like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, but from his youth upwards tiU he was very old he held the highest posts in a heathen state. Daniel passed through several poHtical catastrophes. At the establishment of the Chaldean empire he was torn from his native land. He not only outfived the fall of that empire, but was commissioned to announce it as the herald of God ; cf. chap. v. And in the new Medo-Persian empire he witnessed the transfer of the government from the Medes to the Persians. The peculiar circumstances, in which Daniel was placed, are stamped upon his prophecies. He might be caHed the pofitician among the prophets. ' ' AH the eariier prophets" — says G. Menken, das Monarchieenbild Ed. 2, Bremen 41 — "had foretold the uni versal prevalence and dominion of the theocracy at the time of the final consummation, but to none of them had it ever been revealed so distinctly as to Daniel, through what long intervening periods the promise would be drawn out, before the time of ful filment arrived, or how the nation and kingdom of God would come into contact with three successive empires like the Chaldaeo- Babylonian, before it subdued aU the kingdoms of the world and filled the earth as the universal theocracy.'' The fulness and distinctness of Daniel's political prophecies, and the extensive periods which they embrace, are in themselves a proof that the course of Old Testament prophecy is drawing to a close. His predictions, Hke those of Zechariah from another point of view, have all the marks of a conclusion about them. 78 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. In this respect they are essentiaUy different from those of a Je remiah, for example, which only cover a short space of time, and have throughout the character of a connecting Hnk. Danier, on the contrary, had to conduct the church through long ages of endurance, in which the voice of Hving prophets would no more be heard. The especial object of Daniel's prophetic mission was twofold. First of aU, he was to afford support and comfort to the covenant people during a fierce religious persecution, to which they would be exposed from a heathen tyrant, Antiochus Epiphanes ; — a persecution whose severity would be increased by the fact that it occurred at a time, when the extraordinary communications from God had altogether ceased. This object is effected by the pro phecies in chap. viii. and chaps, x. — xii., — the most minute and literal of aU the prophecies in the sacred Scriptures, — in which everything shows, that they were intended to take the place of that direct interposition on the part of God, which was withheld from the age referred to. Secondly, Daniel had to revive the failih of his nation in Christ and his kingdom, and to warn the people against impatience, by impressing deeply upon their minds the words of Habakkuk (ii. 3,) "though it [the prophecy] tarry, wait for it, it wfil surely come, it wiU not tarry." For century after century the changes in the kingdoms of the world would bring nothing but a change of masters to Israel, — the nation which, at its very first commencement, had been designated " a kingdom of priests," called to universal supremacy on account of its inward connexion with God. To counteract the offence, which this was sure to cause, was one important design of prophecy.. Let empire foUow upon empire, and the world continue for ages to triumph and exalt itself; in the end comes Christ, and with him the world-wide dominion of the people of God. But let not the hope be abused so as to give support to false security. This is strongly urged by Daniel, after the example of Isaiah and Jere miah, and in harmony with his immediate successors Zechariah and Malachi. The anointed one confirms the covenant with many, comes with forgiveness, righteousness, salvation, and brings the whole world into subjection to the kingdom of God ; but bis appearance brings with it at the same time a judgment upon those, who do not place themselves in the right attitude DANIEL. 79 towards -it. It is followed by a fresh destruction of the city and the temple. This announcement is made in chaps ii., vii., and ix. Chap. ii. and chap. vii. treat of the four monarchies. That the announcement contained in these chapters refers to the four successive empires, the Chaldean, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Eoman, has already been proved in part 1 of the Beitrage p. 199 sqq., (Dissertation on Daniel p. 161 sqq. translation), and also by Haverniek in his commentary, by Reichel in his treatise on " die vier Weltreiche Daniels" in the Studien und Kritiken p. 48, and by Auberlen, der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis, p. 171 sqq. We hope to be able on a future occasion to enter once more upon an investigation of this subject. The fourth kingdom is said to be eventuaUy subdi vided into ten kingdoms, — the ten toes of the image in chap. ii. and the ten horns in chap. vii. There is a pecufiarity in the latter prophecy, namely the description of the little horn, which rises up after the ten horns, and, growing up in the midst of the horns, throws three of the large ones down. This Httle horn is explained by many commentators, and last of aU by Auberlen, p. 40, as referring to an individual, " a king, in whom aU the world's proud scorn and hatred of God, of the people of God, and of the worship of God are concentrated. We must, however, adhere to our opinion, that the Httle horn denotes a new phase of the world's enmity against the kingdom of God, and conse quently that, if the ten horns in Daniel are to be understood as referring exclusively to kingdoms and not to persons,1 the eleventh must be understood as denoting not an individual but a power. We must also persist in maintaining that, in other parts of the Bible, the antichrist is always introduced as simply an ideal person (see the commentary on Bev. ii. 1, p. 109) ; and lastly we stiU adhere to the paraUelism of Bev. xx. 7 — 9 (see the exposition of that passage). The four empires are foUowed by the kingdom of Christ. In chap. ii. the image is described as broken in pieces by the stone, which grows to a mountain, and wliich denotes this kingdom. 1 Auberlen, p. 197, " The kings represent their kingdoms, as a comparison of chap. vii. with ver. 23 clearly shows." 80 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. In chap, vii., after the overthrow ofthe little horn, the Son of man appears in the clouds of heaven, and dominion over all nations is given to him. In the vision of the ten horns we see very clearly the fragmen tary character of the prophetic insight into the future, the " prophesyingin part" of which the Apostle speaks in 1 Cor. xiu. 9. Daniel does not mention, as the book of Eevelation expressly does, the conversion to Christianity of the kingdoms, denoted by the ten horns, which proceed out of the fourth imperial monarchy. In this case the Eevelation has filled up an impor tant gap, in a manner quite in harmony with the age in which it was written, as compared with the period when Daniel wrote. Daniel sees nothing but the final victory ; John describes the steps by which it is attained. Still there are not wanting, even in Daniel, sHght aUusions to the prefiminaries of the final victory. In the passage contained in chap. ii. 35, " and the stone, that smote the image, became a great mountain and filled the whole earth," there is an intima tion of the fact that the kingdom of God and Christ would not be established suddenly and in a perfect form, as chap. vu. 13, 14, might lead us to suppose, but that it would reach the height of its glory by slow degrees and from very smaU beginnings. C. B. Michaelis observes : " The kingdom of Christ appears at first under the name of a stone, but in its further progress and ultimate completion it attains to that of a mountain." He also points out the resemblance to the parables of the grain of mus tard seed and leaven. Another slight aUusion may also be seen in chap. ii. 44 : " and in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a king dom." The establishment of the kingdom of heaven is men tioned here as occurring during the period of the fourth monarchy, not after it ; and it is certainly not an accidental circumstance that kings are spoken of in the plural number. C. B. Michaelis says : " in the days, or period of these kings, viz., of the fourth monarchy, of whom he had spoken just before, ver. 40 — 43. He speaks of kings in the plural, to show that the kingdom of Christ, which he is now about to describe, will not rise up in such a manner as to abolish aU the kingdoms of the world at DANIEL. 81 once, but that it will be first estabHshed during the existence of certain kingdoms, and its onward progress continue during the existence of others." If, on the other hand, we find in these hints, which are cer tainly very sHght, the germs of truths, by which the gap is afterwards filled up both in the Book of Eevelation and in history ; on the other hand, both history and the Apocalypse fuHy explain how such a gap could possibly occur. They show us that the victory of Christ over the ten kings would evidently be foUowed by a reappearance of heathenism, a fact which would be impossible unless an evil root had stiU been left in the midst of the ten kingdoms. Whilst chap. ii. and vii. are mainly devoted to the second coming of Christ, his appearance on the clouds of heaven ; the ninth chapter is confined to the first coming, his appearance in the flesh, and the events immediately connected with it. His anointing with the Holy Ghost, his death, the forgiveness of sins procured by him, and the destruction of Jerusalem by a foreign prince, are the leading topics referred to here. The marked distinction made in chap. vii. 13, 14, between the earthly and heavenly, the human and divine in the nature of the Messiah, is a matter of great importance. In chap. xn. 2, 3, Daniel gives a very decided testimony to the fact of a resurrection. At the same time this hope is not distinctly connected with the expectation of a Messiah. On the contrary, it is placed in immediate association with the defiver- ance effected in the Maccabean period, as C. B. Michaelis observes, " because the contemplation of this would tend greatly to strengthen the minds of the people in the midst of tribulation." Whether the period, which intervened between the conflicts of the Maccabean times and the resurrection, should be long or short, the comfort to be derived from the resurrection itself would be just the same ; and therefore it is as closely connected with the earthly defiverance, as if the one foUowed immedia.tp.ly upon the other. The relation, in which the two stand to each other in this passage, is just the same as that in which the refer ence to the glory beyond (in Bev. vii. 9 — 17), stands to the pre vious verses, in which the elect are assured of protection in the midst of the judgments that were to come upon the earth. — See VOL. III. F 82 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. also Bev. xiv. 1 — 5 ; xx. 1—6, when the earthly prospects are first of aU described (in ver. 1 — 3), and immediately afterwards (in vers. 4 — 6) the heavenly. CHAP. VII. 13-14. Ver. 13. "I saw in visions ofthe night, and behold with the clouds of heaven came one like a Son of Man, and he came to the ancient of days, and they brought him before him. Ver. 14. And to him was given dominion, and glory, and royalty, and all people, nations, and languages serve him ; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which passeth not away, and his royalty one which will not le destroyed." " The introductory words in ver. 13 are very properly fuller than those in vers. 11 and 9, which are parallel to those in ver. 7, since the fifth monarchy is here contrasted wit a the fourth referred to there." Hitzig. We have akeady observed, that we have here a formal statement of what will take place at the end of the world, and that the period referred to embraces merely the final consummation. We showed, that in the Book of Daniel itself there are hints, and even notices of distinct facts (chap, ix.), which clearly show that we have not to do with the opening perio 1 of the Messianic work and kingdom. It is a matter of great importance, so far as the interpretation of this passage is concerned, that, although the prediction HteraUyrelates to events which will take place at the end of the world, the period immediately foUowing the destruction of the fourth kingdom, and especially of the Httle horn, yet in Matt, xxvhi. 18, "all power is given unto me," in which there is a verbal allusion to ver. 14 of this chapter, the Lord himself speaks of the prophecy as aheadj fulfilled. We are led to the same result by Matt. xxvi. 64, where the Lord, with evident reference to this passage, says to the High Priest, " but I say to you, from this time forth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven." Hence the coming in the clouds of heaven commenced immediately, and DANIEL, CHAP. VII. 13, 14. 83 had respect primarily not to the kingdoms of the world, but to Jerusalem. That we have here merely an allusion to the ter mination of a lengthened period is evident from Bev. xiv. 14 — 20. The Lord appears in this passage, as in the description given by Daniel, seated upon a white cloud, " and I looked and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat Hke unto the Son of Man." The account which foUows, however, does not refer exclusively to the final judgment ; but " aU that is effected during the entire course of history in a series of judicial acts, which are eventually brought to a conclusion by the last judg ment, is here represented as one great harvest, one great vintage and winepressing." At the same time we have in this very pas sage a proof, that it does not contain the entire Christology of the prophets — (" not that we should expect to find this when we consider the attitude which the prophet himself assumes in rela tion to earlier prophecies) — but merely one particular christolo- gical element. The Messiah appears here in the clouds of heaven as a Son of Man. This character cannot have been acquired in heaven, but must have distinguished him first of all, when he was on earth. The appearance of Christ in the flesh, which is expressly foretold in chap, ix., is here presupposed. The Messiah appears in the clouds of heaven. In the symbo lical language of the Bible the clouds represent judgment ; see our commentary on Bev. i. 7. In other passages it is always the Lord who appears with, or upon the clouds of heaven. It is the Lord alone "who maketh the clouds his chariot," Ps. civ. 3. j " Behold the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud, and cometh to Egypt, and the idols of Egypt tremble at his presence, and the heart of Egypt melts within it," Is. xix. 1 ; compare Ps. xcvfi. 2, xviii. 10 ; Nahum. i. 3. None but the Lord of nature can appear upon the clouds of heaven. Michaelis is quite correct in saying, " the clouds are characteristic of divine majesty." Even the Talmudists1 saw, that coming upon the clouds of heaven presents the most striking contrast to the Messiah's riding upon an ass, of which Zechariah speaks (ix. 9) ; but they were unable to explain the contrast, and changed into a conditional alternative what are really successive events. Even 1 Sanhedrin, foi. 98 : Si boni sunt Israelitae, tunc veniet in nubibus coeli, si vero non boni, tunc inequitans asino. - F2 84 MESSIANTC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. Zechariah, after referring to the state of humiliation, proce.eds in the very next verse to describe the exaltation which ensues, the absolute world-wide dominion of the Messiah. — The Messiah appears upon the clouds of heaven : he is, therefore, an almighty judge, even before the dominion is given to him. From this it foUows, that his coming thus must have a demonstrative signi fication ; it can only be the recognition of an already existing fact.1 " Like a Son of Man." The question arises, how are we to un derstand the particle of comparison, y According to some the fact, that the Messiah is said to have been like a man, necessarily leads to the conclusion that, in the opinion of the prophets, he would not be possessed of true humanity. They refer to chap. viii. 15, and x, 16, where angels are represented as resembling the children of men. The Messiah is a purely heavenly being, and only becomes " like a Son of Man," because, when the invi sible becomes visible, the incorporeal corporeal, it must assume the noblest form. This is the view expressed by Bertholdt and von Lengerke. But these expositors have no conception what ever of the Hnk of connexion, which runs through prophecy. At the time when Daniel prophesied, it had long been received as an estabHshed fact, that the Messiah would . appear as a true Son of Man. The Messiah a son of David was one of the first principles of Messianic expectation. Compare, for example, Is. xi. 1, and Micah v. 1. Moreover in chap, ix., it is expressly shown that Daniel was aware of the true humanity of Christ, for he speaks of him there in ver. 25 as the Anointed, the Prince, and in ver. 26 foretels that he wHl be cut off. According to others, the particle of comparison points out the difference between the vision and reaHty. Thus Calvin says : " he ' Calvin say : " It must be maintained, that reference is here made to the manifestation of Christ, for he has been from the beginning the life of men, the world was created by him, and hence has been sustained by his energy, but to him was given power, that we might know that God reigns by his hand." From what has been said it follows that the distinction which Gass has pointed out between Matt. xxvi. 64 and Dan. vii. 13 is founded upon a false interpretation of the latter passage. He says : Danielis Barnasch advenit ut imperia magna per deum obtineat, Christus vero h. 1. cernitur ut coelesti jam potestate omni ornatus, ille ad senem judicem nubibus advehi- tur (?), hic ipse judex est majestatis ad dextram sedens (de utroque Jesu Christi nomine, Breslau 1840 p. 113). DANIEL, CHAP. VII. 13, 14. 85 appeared to Daniel as a son of man, who was afterwards really and truly a son of man." And Carpzov (de fil. horn. Leipzig 1679) • " The prefiguration of a thing is different from the thing pre figured. It was not a real man that appeared to Daniel in this vision, but a certain (pavrao-fia with the likeness of a man, just as the beasts which he saw, foreshadowing the four monarchies, were not real beasts, but a resemblance of them presented to the imagination. He who was actually to exist at a future time, was here beheld by the prophet in a vision." Hitzig again says : " It was a priori impossible that Daniel should know who it was that reaUy came to him, he could only tell in what manner he appeared to him." But we cannot see why the character of the person seen should be so particularly noticed here, since this was always taken for granted, when utterance was given to the expectation of the coming one. The particle of comparison 3 is used, Hke j-plTDT and other similar terms, in connexion with visions (for example in Ezek. i.), when it is required to show that what is seen bears an ideal character, as in the case of the cherubs, and that a symbohcal drapery is employed. Where the simple reafity is witnessed, it is never used. In every other case in wliich there is said to have been a likeness to the children of men, the illusion is not to the distinction between the vision and reahty, but rather to the fact that there was a difference as weU as a resemblance. Thus in chap. viii. 15, where it is said with reference to the angel Gabriel : " then, behold there stood before me, one like the appearance of a man ;" chap. x. 16 : " and be hold one Hke the children of men touched my lips," and Ezek. i. 26, where the prophet says of Jehovah, who manifested himself in human form : " one to look at Hke a man." By comparing these passages we may arrive at a correct con clusion. The fact that, notwithstanding his true humanity, the Messiah is here said to have been Hke a Son of Man,1 shows, both here and in Bev. i. 13, and xiv. 14, that there is also another point of view in which he is far superior to everything human. He is a man and yet not a man, just as the Lord him self in Matt. xxii. 43 denies that the Messiah is the son of David. The context favours this view in the present case, and ;jn the 1 V. Lengerke says it must be admitted that the word includes the subor dinate idea of weakness. 86 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. passages referred to in the Book of Eevelation, where Christ is described as " like unto a Son of Man," the context expressly refers to his superhuman exaltation. In the case before us the 5 is evidently associated with his coming on the clouds of heaven. And in Bev. xiv. 14, " and I looked and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sitting, who was Hke the Son of a Man." Every one feels that the words could not run thus: " I saw a Son of Man sitting upon the cloud." For the phrase " aU people, nations, and languages serve him," compare Ps. lxxfi. 8, and Zech. ix. 10. Carpzov has abeady pointed out the fact, that in biblical Chaldee j-j^D 1S never used in any other sense than that of divine worship: " that r-£>Q is employed in the sacred Scrip tures to denote not poHtical, but reHgious homage (whether paid erroneously to a false deity, or properly to the true God), is evi dent from Dan. Hi. 12, 14, 17, 18, 28, and Ezra vii. 19." The occurrence of the word in chap. vii. 27, where aUusion is made to the service to be rendered to " the people of the saints of the Most High," cannot be adduced as an objection to this explanation. For Christ is the head of the people ofthe saints of the Most High. Compare Is. xiv. 14, where the congregation of the Lord is worshipped by the heathen world, because the Lord is in the midst of it. This verse furnishes an answer to v. Lengerke's opinion, that Daniel differs from the earfier prophets, inasmuch as he assigns to the heathen nothing but pure external service, whereas they describe them as inwardly associated with the kingdom of the Messiah. According to Daniel they are to be subjugated by the Jews. There is a sirmlar intimation in the expression " without hands," in chap. ii. 34, 35. A kingdom, however, which is not of this world, whose origin is entirely from above, and which is estabHshed without weapons of war, cannot lead to a purely outward service. " His dominion is an everlasting dominion." The everlasting duration of his dominion is a common feature in the announcement of the Messiah ; com pare Ps. lxxii. 5, 7, 17, lxxxix. 37, 38 ; Is. ix. 6. We have started with the assumption, that the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven was Christ. The history of biblical interpretation proves, that there must be good ground for DANIEL, CHAP. VII. 13, 14. 87 this explanation. It was supported by the whole of the early Christian Church with very few exceptions.1 The Jews were certainly interested in opposing it, as Christ had so expressly declared himself to be the Son of Man. Tet, with the exception of Abenezra, they are unanimous in supporting this exposition. It is even found in the SibylHne books and in the Book of Enoch ; compare the references in Gass p. 92 sqq. On the ground of this passage the Messiah was called by the Jews 13337, the man of the clouds. The Talmud also gives this explana tion in a series of passages. Abarbanel bears witness that the Jewish expositors generaUy adopted it : " The expositors explain these words, Hke a Son of Man, as referring to the King Mes siah." (See the careful discussion of the Jewish writings in question in Carpzov's treatise, Beck's remarks on the Chaldee paraphrase of 1 Chr. Hi. 24, and Schottgen 's h. Hebr. ii. p. 263). So far as the rationaHstic commentators were concerned, besides their general inclination to Hmit the number of Messianic pro phecies as far as possible, there were special reasons why they should reject a Messianic explanation in the present case, if they could find any possible excuse for doing so. They assign its composition to as late a date as the period of the Maccabees. But according to the current theory, which I have shewn to be erroneous in my work "fur Beibehaltung der Apocryphen," there is not a single trace of the expectation of a personal Messiah to be found in the Apocryphal books. This befief is said to have been altogether extinct in the days of the writers of the Apo crypha. If therefore there is any Messianic prophecy in the book of Daniel, according to this theory it must be altogether erroneous to assign it to a Maccabean origin. Haverniek has already directed attention to the gross contradictions in which De Wette has involved himself by saying in § 188 of the BibHsche Dogmatik, " The Messiah appeared as a divine being in the clouds of heaven," Dan. vii. 13, 14, and then laying it down in the next 1 Theodoret (on ver. 28) expresses his surprise that in opposition to the most transparent facts it should be so commonly maintained by pious teachers (t£j/ rijs evo-exSelas diSacrKoKav), that the fourth kingdom is the Macedonian. He probably alludes to Ephraim Syrus, who explained tho title Son of Man as referring in a lower sense to the Maccabean age, in a higher sense to Christ. But this was quite an isolated exception. OO MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. section as a characteristic of the doctrines held by the Apocry phal writers that they contain " nothing about a Messiah or a kingdom of the Messiah or of God," and then again at § 255 of his Introduction to the Old Testament describing the Christo logy of chap. vii. 13, 14, ofthe book of Daniel, as indicating the late pofitico-reHgious spirit of the book. But notwithstanding this, so strongly is the Messianic character impressed upon the passage, that nearly all the rationahstic commentators have sup ported the Messianic interpretation ; not only De Wette, but Ber- tholdt, Gesenius, v. Lengerke, and Maurer. The testimony, which we have thus obtained at the outset in favour of the Messianic exposition of this passage from the history of the biblical exegesis, is confirmed on closer investiga tion. The arguments adduced by the opponents of such an exposition (Paulus, commentary on the New Testament, Weg- scheider in his Dogmatik, Hofmann, Weissagung und Erf iil- lung 1 p. 290, and Schriftbeweis H. 2 p. 541 , and Hitzig) are thoroughly inconclusive. 1 . "In the second part," it is argued, ' ' in which an explanation of the chapter is given, the Messiah is never mentioned, and the constancy, with which aU that is said of the Son of Man in ver. 14 is afterwards appHed to the saints of the Most High in ver. 18, 22, and 27, renders it exceedingly probable that by the Son of Man we are to understand the people of Israel." The error committed in the statement of this argument is, that the passage under review is severed from the entire course of pro phecy, and no attention is paid to the relation in which Daniel himself declares that he stood to the prophets who preceded him ; compare, for example, chap. ix. 6, " thy servants the pro phets, which speaks in thy name," and ver. 10. It was a funda mental idea of prophecy, that the future salvation was to be bestowed upon the people of the saints of the Most High, through the medium of the Messiah ; that it did not belong to the people as a body, but to the people as united under Christ, their head ; compare Eph. v. 23, " Christ, the head of the church ;" ver. 30, " we are members of his body ;" and Col. i. 18. If Daniel could assume that this was already known, he had no reason to fear that he would be misunderstood, when he after- DANIEL, CHAP. VII. 13, 14. 89 wards attributed to the people of the saints of the Most High, what he had previously written of the Messiah. No true IsraeHte would have misunderstood him, even if he had not expressly mentioned the Messiah before, and thus guarded against any misapprehension. Compare O. B. Michaelis on ver. 18 : " they wiU receive the kingdom in and with Christ their head ; see vers. 13, 14." Moreover such a transition from the person of the Messiah to the whole body of the church is very common even among the earlier prophets. Look, for example, at Is. Hi. 13 — 53, in conjunction with chap. Hv. 2. — 2. It is said that " as the four beasts undoubtedly represent four kingdoms, it is natural to suppose that by the fifth figure, that of the Son of Man, we are to understand not an individual, but a nation." On the contrary the analogy favours the Messianic interpretation. The four beasts do not represent kingdoms without heads, but " four kings," chap. vfi. 17. " Thou art the head of gold," says Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar. Hence, according to the analogy, we are not to look in this instance for a kingdom (ver. 27) without a king, a sovereign people. — 3. " On the supposition that the book of Daniel was composed in the Maccabean age, a personal Messiah is from the very outset precluded." This argument, which Hitzig adduces, is of no worth except so far as it serves to throw Hght upon the genesis of the anti-Messianic exposition. — 4. " The divine nature of the Messiah is an idea altogether foreign to the Old Testament." On the contrary, compare what we have akeady said on Is. ix. 5, and Micah v. 1. The positive arguments in favour of the Messianic explanation are the foUowing : — 1. The ideal personafity of the nation would have been more particularly pointed out at the very outset; other wise every one would understand the passage as referring to the actual person of the Messiah. The elevation of the people had hitherto been inseparably connected with the royal house of David ; and eariier prophets had invariably pointed to the Son of David as the author of its future glory. If, therefore, Daniel ascribed this future exaltation first to the Son of Man, and then to the nation, he could only intend that the former of these should be understood as referring to the Messiah. — 2. His coming in the clouds of heaven is decisive. The anti-Messianic expositors have not only to explain, how Israel could be in heaven, how 90 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. it could come from heaven (Hitzig), or ascend from the earth to heaven (Hofmann)? but how it could become possessed of omnipotent judicial power. For it is this that is indicated by his coming with the clouds. — 3. Israel could not appropriately be compared to a son of man. Such- a comparison presupposes that there was a difference as weU as a resemblance. — 4. In the other passages of this book, in which any one is described as being Hke the chfldren of men, it is not an ideal person, but a real person, who is spoken of. The same remark appHes to Ezek. i. 26. There can be no doubt that the Lord applied this prophecy to himself. We have already shown in the Dissertation on Daniel, p. 220, translation, that it forms the basis of the Saviour's declarations as to his future coming to judgment, in Matt. x. 23, xvi. 27, 28, xix. 28, xxiv. 30, xxv. 31, xxvi. 64; just as his declarations, respecting the kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven, are founded upon chap. ii. 44, both of these expressions, so far as they relate to the Messianic kingdom, being taken from that passage. And if this may be regarded as established, there can be no doubt, that in other places, in which Jesus speaks of himself in a different connection as the Son of Man, there is also an aUusion to the passage before us. The very frequency, with wliich this expression is em ployed (we find it no less than fifty-five times in the mouth of Jesus, after making deductions for paraUel passages), is an indication of the existence of some passage in the Old Testament, upon which it is founded, and which gives a deeper signification to this unassuming expression. A closer examination of the usage itself leads to the same conclusion. With the exception of those passages which treat of Christ's second coming to judgment, the expression is generaUy employed by the Saviour, when he is speaking of his humiliation, his ignominy and his sufferings. Compare, for example, Matt. xx. 28 : "as the Son of Man came not to be ministered, unto, but to minister ;" Luke xxiv. 7: "the Son of Man must be delivered 1 There is nothing in the text about coming from heaven, or going to heaven. Aud Carpzov has correctly observed : "the Messiah is said to have come not to men on the earth, but to the Ancient of Days in heaven' and to have been brought not into the presence of the men, who were about to be judged, but into the presence of the Father." DANIEL, CHAP. VII. 13, 14. 91 into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified," &c. ; John xii. 34 : " the Son of Man must be Hffced up." In such passages as these its appropriateness and significance can only be seen, as it is explained by the Book of Daniel, where heavenly majesty is associated with appearing as a Son of Man. It then acquires an argumentative force. It grants what is evident to the eyes of aU, but proclaims at the same time the bidden majesty behind. It is as much as to say : do not stumble at my lowly humanity, this is not at variance with prophecy ; on the contrary, it is attested by it ; it does not prevent my being a Son of God, but even according to prophecy the two go hand in hand. — The numerous passages in which this expression occurs presuppose the humanity of Christ ; and it is in connection with this that their argumentative force is seen. On the same ground, in part at least, we may explain the fact that the apostles do not speak of Jesus as the Son of Man. When Jesus had ascended to the right hand of the Father, his lowly humanity was no longer the stumbling-block which had to be taken out of the way. During the Hfe of Christ on earth it was but right that both the apostles and the Lord himself should acknowledge, that appearances spoke powerfuUy against him, and such an admission was con tained in the use of the expression " the Son of Man." — A second explanation may be found in the fact, that the words of the Lord were always primarily addressed to persons, who were acquainted with the prophecies of the Old Testament, and to whom shght and significant aUusions were both intelligible and impressive. The case was different with the apostles, who had also to address themselves to Gentile Christians.1 Those who attempt to explain the use of the expression " Son of Man" by Christ, without reference to the Book of Daniel, are unable to do justice to the fact that it is never employed by the Apostles. " The ideal man" would be constantly echoed in the writings of the apostles, if it had been from preference that the Lord made use of so peculiar an expression. Let us look minutely at a few more of these passages. " Whom do men say that I the Son of 1 This argument, however, can only be regarded as of subordinate impor tance, since Jesus was not called the Son of Man by his disciples even during his life on earth. "No one was so called (viz., the Son of Man) but Christ himself, and no one, whilst he walked on earth, so called him except him self." Bengel, Gnomon, vol. i., p. 320, Eng sh translation. 92 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. Man am ?" the Lord enquires of his disciples in Matt. xvi. 13. The words in apposition, " the Son of Man," indicate the possi bility of various opinions prevailing respecting Christ, some of them very derogatory, and at the same time furnish the ground work of a correct reply, and contain the germ of Peter's answer, " thou art the Son of the living God." He says to his disciples, Be not ye offended, Hke the ignorant multitude, at my lowly humanity. Bemember that in Daniel the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven. — The scribes looked upon it as blas phemy when Christ forgave sins, because he was a man. And it would reaUy have been so, even if Jesus had been the ideal man. When Jesus says to them, in Matt. ix. 6, " that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins," he refutes the argument drawn from his humanity, by his allusion to the passage in Daniel, in which divinity is associated with humanity, — " For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" (Matt. xii. 8) : I am so, notwithstanding my human lowHness, which Daniel has shown to be attended by divinity. — In John v. 27 he says, " he hath given him power to execute judgment also because he is the Son of Man." To Christ is committed the execution of judgment not because of his humanity alone — even an " ideal man " would have no right to act as a judge ; and we must not imagine that an ideal man is referred to merely because the article is omitted — it is upon his combined divinity and humanity that this appointment rests. But there is no intima tion of this in the expression Son of Man, except as it is com pared with the prediction in Daniel. THE SEVENTY WEEKS.-CHAP. IX. 24-27. GENERAL SURVEY. In the first year of Darius the Mede, Daniel is engaged in the study of Jeremiah, and his mind is deeply affected, when he peruses again the well known prophecies, which foretel the misery THE SEVENTY WEEKS1 — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24 — 27. 93 of the covenant nation, its captivity for seventy years, its re turn after this to its own land, and the consequent commence ment of the rebuUding of the city and temple. The sixty-ninth year had now arrived (see Dissertation on Daniel, 143 sqq., translation). The faU of Babylon, the one leading topic of Jeremiah's prophecies (chap. xxv. and xxix.), had aHeady oc curred, — ("according to ver. 1, Daniel saw the vision in the first year of Darius " who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans") — and his faith in the truth of the divine predictions with reference to the other event, which was now drawing near with rapid steps, and the very germs of which lay hidden in existing circumstances, was firmly supported by what he aHeady saw. Daniel was far from distrusting the promises of God. But the less he doubted, the more firmly he trusted in the grace of God, and the more thoroughly he recognised the justice of God (for this also required the fulfilment of the promise, when once it had been given in mercy), — the more did he feel himself impeUed to intercede on behalf of the nation, the temple, and the city ofthe Lord. True boldness in prayer to the Lord springs from the conviction, that we are praying according to his will. In form, the prayer of Daniel is restricted to the fact of forgiveness ; but there Hes hidden in the background a prayer for further dis closures, as to the manner in which it wiU be granted. From the whole character of Daniel it is a priori impossible, that he should ask for nothing more than a simple confirmation of the prophecies of Jeremiah. We have now before us the one pro phet, who was distinguished above all the others for his wide range of vision, and in whose predictions we find on every hand the most minute revelations with regard to the future. And we may see stiU more clearly from the answer, that a prayer for such revelations lay hidden behind. The answer is not restricted to a fresh confirmation of the fact of defiverance ; but more pre cise disclosures are made as to the manner in which it wiU be effected. There were two respects, in which such disclosures were especiaUy necessary. First of aU the question arose, whether, when the seventy years of Jeremiah were passed, the glorious condition of the kingdom of God, predicted by the eariier prophets, would be reaHsed aU at once, and especially whether the Messianic salvation would immediately foUow. The pro- 94 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. phecies of Jeremiah furnished no material for answering this important question, which must have occupied the minds of the people more and more as the seventy years were drawing to a close. In chap. xxv. 11 there is merely a reference to the ter mination of the Chaldean captivity, and in chap. xxix. 10 to the return to Canaan, with which the commencement of the rebuild ing of Jerusalem is naturally associated. — A second important question was, whether the future would bring salvation alone, or whether, in connexion with the revelation of mercy, there would also be a fresh manifestation of the justice of God. How much these questions were agitated in the days of the prophet, and how great the need of a revelation to decide them, may be seen very clearly from the prophecies of Zechariah, who lived so nearly about the same time. They are the two poles around which these prophecies revolve. To those who are unable to explain the contrast between the actual condition of the nation and the glorious promises it had received, the pro phet points out the successive steps by which complete salvation will be attained, and the certain fulfilment in the future of what ever part of prophecy has not yet been accomphshed. At the same time he shows them that judgment wiU accompany mercy, that Jerusalem wiU again be destroyed, and the people wiU be scattered once more. In the case of Daniel, there was a pre paration for such an announcement as this, in his knowledge of the depth of the people's guilt, to which he gives utterance in his prayer. The prayer is heard, and Gabriel, the medium of aU revela tions, is commissioned to make known to the faithful prophet the counsel determined in heaven. The speed with which he arrives shows that on the whole his message is a good one. It is the foUowing. In return for the seventy years, during which the nation, the city and the temple, have been entirely prostrate, they shaU receive from the Lord seventy weeks of years, seven times seventy years f f renewed exist nee ; and at the end of that period, not only wiU the mercy of God be stiU unexhausted, but then first wiU the people of God become partakers of that mercy in all its richest abundance. Then shaU the forgiveness of sins be fully imparted, eternal righteo isi-ess brought in, the Most Holy be anointed, and the blessings of salvation, promised THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24 — 27. 95 by the prophets, actually enjoyed. This general summary in ver. 24 is foUowed by more minute details in vers. 25 — 27, viz., the point from which the time is calculated ; the subdivision of the whole period into several shorter ones, and a notice of the characteristics of each, i.e., of the peculiar blessings by which each wiU be distinguished ; the announcement of Him, through whom the last and greatest act of grace wiU be accomphshed ; a description of those who wiU enjoy the benefits thereof, as weU as of those for whom it is not designed, and who wiU therefore be excluded. — 1. The point of time, from which the seventy weeks are reckoned, is the issue of the divine command to restore the city in its ancient extent and glory. This is different from the point of time, at which the prophecies of Jeremiah terminate, since they merely speak of the restoration of the people to Canaan and the first attempts to rebvuld the city, which necessarUy foUow. — 2. The entire period is subdivided into three shorter ones of seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week. The termination of the first is indicated by the completion of the work of rebvuld- ingthe city ; that ofthe second by the appearance of an anointed one, a prince ; and that of the third by the completion of the covenant with the many, for whom the blessings of salvation pointed out in ver. 24, as connected with the termination of the entire period, are ultimately destined. The last period is again' subdivided into two halves. WhUst the confirmation of the covenant occupies t he whole from beginning to end ; the cessation of the sacrifice and meat-offering, and the death of the anointed one, on which it rests, both take place in the middle of this period. — 3. As the author of the blessings of salvation, which are per fected at the end of the seventy weeks, there appears an anointed one, a prince, who enters upon his office at the end of the sixty- ninth week, and having confirmed the covenant with many, during the first half of the seventieth week, meets with a violent death. The sacrifice and meat-offering cease in consequence ; but the confirmation of the covenant still goes on after his death. — 4. The blessings of salvation, to be bestowed by the anointed one, are not intended for the- whole nation. On the contrary, the greater part of the nation, after cutting itself off by the murder of the anointed one from his kingdom and its blessings, will 96 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. become a prey to the army of a foreign prince, which, acting as an instrument in the hand of the avenging God, wiU thoroughly exterminate the ruined city and poUuted temple. The announcement is essentiaUy of a cheering character. This is true in a certain sense, even of that part of it, which relates to the destruction of the city and temple. For even this is necessary to complete the whole, on account of the constancy with which the prophets represent the most brilHant manifesta tions of the mercy of God as inseparably connected with the most striking manifestation of His justice towards such as despise his mercy. The sifting judgments of God are a blessing to his church ; in one Hght they are a cause of joy to befievers, though in another they are undoubtedly the cause of bitter sorrow. Compare Is. i. 24 sqq., lxv. 13, 14, lxvi. 24 ; Mal. iii. 21 ; Luke xxi. 28 ; 2 Mace. vi. 13, " for it is a token of his great goodness, when wicked doers are not suffered any long time, but forthwith punished, &c." Daniel had not prayed for the stiffnecked and ungodly, but for those who heartily joined with him in the peni tential confession of their sins. These were the object of aU the promises, and of the tender care ofthe prophets. Daniel mourned over the Chaldean destruction of the city and temple, chiefly because it had caused a partial suspension ofthe theocracy, which was stiU only manifested in an outward form. In this respect the overthrow of the city and temple formed the subject of his lamentation, in wliich he prayed for their restoration, compare vers. 15 — 19. But this wiU not be the case with the destruction depicted here. The overthrow of the outward temple is accom panied by the anointing of a Most Holy one. The termination of the dominion of the anointed one over the covenant people is attended by the confirmation of the covenant for the many, in whom the prophet is especiaUy interested. The cessation of the sacrifices could be easily borne, since that which they foreshadowed, the forgiveness of sins and eternal righteousness, would.be first truly and perfectly secured by the very event, which led to their cessation. Wieseler is quite wrong when he lays it down as a fundamental principle that " every exposition of these verses is false which does not point out,~ in addition to certain predictions relating to THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 97 a distant future, the announcement of defiverance from exist ing misery ; since this was the immediate object of Daniel's prayer" (die 70 Wochen Daniels, Gottingen 39, p. 13). This prophecy must be completed from those of Jeremiah. At the end of the seventy years there foUow, as a matter of course, the return ofthe people and the commencement of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Instead of a repetition of what was already well known, further revelations are given at once. The mind of the prophet was directed exclusively to the seventy years,1 but now by these revelations it is turned abruptly away from them and directed to a new cycle of events. Even Steudel felt at a loss how to explain this prophecy, and, in order to satisfy the sup posed necessity of the case, by a forced exposition interpolated a reference to the fulfilment of the prophecies of Jeremiah. That the answer must refer particularly to the time fixed by Jeremiah for the termination of the captivity, can only be asserted by those who start with the false assumption, that Daniel doubted whether God would adhere to the period predicted. For if this was regarded by him as certain (and it could not be otherwise), he needed no further instruction on this head ; but he did need further Hght on those greater and more important topics, to which the answer refers. EXPOSITION. Ver. 24. " Seventy weeks are cut off upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to shut in transgression, and to seal up sins, and to cover iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness ; and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint a Holy of Holies." " Seventy weeks." The word weeks is mascufine here, both in form and construc tion, whereas in other cases it is generally feminine. This has 1 Ewald says : " Jeremiah certainly thought that the complete Messianic salvation would follow immediately upon the seventy years of exile." VOL. III. G 98 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. not only furnished a welcome pretext to such as wish to alter the text, but has given rise to many an erroneous theory, on the part of those who retain it as it is. Thus Bertholdt and v. Lengerke maintain that the masculine form, which is not used anywhere else, is chosen here because of its similarity in sound to Qijfttf ; overlooking the fact that yyy$ occurs as a masculine both in form and construction, without any reference whatever to Qiy^, not only in ver. 27 of this chapter, where it might be attributed to the influence of the mascufine in the verse before us, but also in chap. x. 2, 3. Ewald says that we have here an arbitrary change in the gender, such as we frequently meet with in the later writers. But we have no right to resort to such an explana tion, unless a thorough examination ofthe question confirms the assumption, on"which it is based, that in every other instance the gender of the word is feminine. This, however, is by no means the case. On the contrary it is evident from Gen. xxix. 27, HSt 2>3t£) i^hl2) " nu UP the week of this one," i.e., first keep with her the seven days' marriage-festival, that the word was originaUy mascufine ; for the fact that we find the masculine form employed here, in the case of a word in which the meaning could have no influence upon the gender, is a proof that it was originally regarded as masculine. In such words as these, where the feminine is only an ideal form, and more or less an arbitrary one, we nearly always find some traces of the early mascufine gender. The co-existence of the two genders in the case of this word must be aU the more readily admitted, since it is reaUy a par ticiple, " sevened," just as in the song "aUe Menschen miissen sterben " the " gezwolfte Zahl " is used for the Zwolfzahl. But in both adjectives and participles the gender, as a rule, is shown in the form ; and therefore the existence of the masculine form jjSQttj is at the same time a proof of the existence of the masculine gender. wqbJ, with the plural Q"m;ittJ> Is a " sevened" period ; {-jysQQj> of which the plural is nilGttJ> a " sevened" time. In both cases jyy must be understood, and there is the less reason to suppose the gender to be definitely fixed, since even in the case of the word j^y itself it is very variable. The extent, to which THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 99 the words j?>|^ and nyijttj still retained their force as adjectives may be seen from Ezek. xiv. 21, where the feast of passover is caUed qi^i n;0!3tp 3)1> "the feast of the ' sevened (periods) of days," i.e. the feast, in wliich the days were divided into sevens, unleavened bread being eaten for seven days. The position of the numeral after the noun has also been adduced as an argument against the correctness of our text ; but numerous examples may be found of this in the case of the tens from twenty to ninety, as Gesenius has shown in his Lehrge- bdude, p. 698. In the present instance, it has no doubt ori ginated in the wish to render the contrast more striking between the "weeks of years," and the " years" of Jeremiah. The usual order of the words is changed, whenever prominence is given to any particular word, for the sake of rendering it more em phatic. But what right have we to interpret the weeks as weeks of years, or periods of seven years each ? One argument, frequently adduced by commentators (among the latest by Haverniek and Blomstrand, de LXX. hebdomad, Lund. 53), is this : that when the prophet afterwards describes the ordinary weeks as weeks of days (chap. x. 2), he intends thereby to intimate that he has previously been speaking of weeks of a different kind. But this argument wiU not bear examination, as Sostmann has aHeady shown (de LXX. hebdomad, Lugd. 1710). In the passage referred to, Daniel says : " I, Daniel, was mourning j-myi^tt) Qifti O^JOttJ-" That this must not be rendered " three weeks of days," but " three weeks long," — q^i being added in apposition, as it frequently is when periods of time are referred to, to show that the time is accurately given even to a single day, — is evident from the word Qijnttj in the absolute state. The most forcible argument is founded upon the seventy years of Jere miah. A reference to these is sufficient to show that seventy ordinary weeks cannot for a moment be thought of. For what comfort would it have afforded to Daniel, if he had been told, that, as a compensation for the seventy years of desolation, the city would stand for seventy ordinary weeks, and then be destroyed again? Moreover Daniel himself must have been able to perceive, from the magnitude of the events, which were G 2 100 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. to take place during this period, that something more was intended than ordinary weeks. But if they were not ordinary weeks, he would be led aU the more naturally to think of weeks of years, both from the important position assigned to them in the law of Moses, and because the captivity had again so forci bly recalled them to mind, the seventy years' desolation being generaUy regarded as a punishment for neglecting to keep the Sabbatical years (2 Chr. xxxvi. 21). It is true, these periods of seven years' duration are not caUed QiiQ'tt? or n^ltW m the law itself; but it is evident, notwithstanding, that they were looked upon as weeks, from the frequency with which the seventh year is spoken of as " the great Sabbath," or simply " the Sabbath" (Lev. xxv. 2, 4, 5 ; xxvi. 34, 35, 43 ; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 21). Whatever obscurity might still remain, was removed by the fulfilment. It must be borne in mind, that an indefinite phrase, which comprehended more than the words expressed, was intentionaUy chosen, that the boundary line between pro phecy and history might still be preserved, and the Hght thrown by the latter upon the former might not be superfluous. The desire to avoid the two extremes, namely, a vague indefiniteness on the one hand, wliich might be pleaded as an argument against the divine origin of the prophecy and thus frustrate its design, and the disturbance of its proper relation to history on the other, is apparent throughout the entire section, and is secured in a most remarkable manner. A perfectly analogous example of a statement of time, which is indefinite in itself, but perfectly definite when the help of history is caUed in, we find in chap. iv. 20 of this same book; see Dissertation on Daniel, p. 82 sqq. But what led the prophet to make use of this particular measure of time ? First of aU, the desire to render the state ment both definite and obscure. Now such a desire could not have been reafised, if he had employed the ordinary reckoning, and mentioned the number of years that wbuld elapse between the time at which he wrote, and the terminus ad quem. Nor would he have effected his purpose, so far as definiteness was concerned, if he had chosen a measure of time, which was alto gether arbitrary and entirely unknown, such for example as Bengel's prophetic years. It might then have been objected, THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 101 that it was very easy to define periods in this manner, if they were only to be determined by their fulfilment. Another reason may be found in the connexion between this prophecy, and the seventy years of Jeremiah. It served to point out very clearly the relation in which the mercy of God stood to the wrath of God, that to the seventy years, spoken of in ver. 2 as having been accomphshed on the desolations of Jerusalem, a seventy of another kind was opposed, as the period during which the city was to stand when rebuilt, namely, seven times seventy years. Moreover seven and seventy were perfect and sacred numbers, which were all the better adapted to the divine chrono logy, from their connexion with the creation of the world and other events in sacred history. — Lastly, the aUusion to the year of jubilee is unmistakeable. Seven weeks of years constituted the cycle, in the last year of which the civil restitutio in integrum took place, when aU debts were canceUed, aU slaves set free, and lands, which had been diverted from their original owners, were restored. The last of seventy weeks of years was the greatest of aU Sabbaths, the period of spiritual restitutio in integrum, ofthe expiation and cancelling of every kind of guilt.1 " Are cut off." We must first of aU examine the apparent anomaly in the use of the singular number. It may be explained from the fact that the seventy hebdomads were not considered individuaUy but as whole ; a period of seventy hebdomads is determined. An analo gous example may be found in Gen. xlvi. 22, " these are the sons of Bachel npJpV "J*?'1 "ItUSt-" We ^ave ^ere> n°t certain sons opposed to other sons, but the entire posterity of Jacob by Bachel 1 Even among heathen writers there are traces to be found of a similar mode of reckoning. Marcus Varro, after having traced the importance of the number seven in natural objects, in the first of his books called Hebdo- mades (see the extract in Gellius 3, 10), adds, se quoque jam duodecimam annorum Jiebdomadam ingressum esse, et ad eum diem septuaginta hebdomadas librorum conscripsisse. In his case, as in that of Daniel, there were peculiar reasons for selecting this mode of reckoning ; partly, the prominence already given to the importance of the number seven, and partly, the intention to institute a comparison between the seven years and seven books. 102 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. contrasted with his chUdren by his other wives. Compare chap. xxxv. 26, and Jer. xliv. 9 : " have ye forgotten the iniquities of the Kings of Judah, yi^ j-yijn J"IN>" Tne reference in this XT T •• : case is not to particular monarchs, but to the whole line of kings. So also in Eccl. ii. 7, " Man-servants and maid-servants *h rrn rvu ^yi" -^s a riue we nn<^ m sucn a case as ^s ^ne feminine singular. But wherever the singular mascufine is employed, as in the passages quoted and the one before us, a reason may always be discovered. In the examples cited from Genesis, Ecclesiastes, and Jeremiah, a sufficient reason may be found in the incongruity of combining together mascufine nouns, relating to persons, and a feminine verb. In the instance before us the reason evidently was, that the author did not regard the seventy weeks as an abstract notion, in wliich case the feminine is usuaUy employed, but had a particular noun in his mind, for example, time or period ; compare j-^y, which occurs as a mas cufine in chap. xi. 14. We have an exact paraUel in Eccl. i. 10 : li^B^E PITT "MtfN Cftbtyh > — that is, according to the correct •¦ t : • t t v -: ¦ t : interpretation (Vulgate, quae fuerunt) , which Ewald has not given. The meaning of the dird% Xeyo/j,evov TynH is f^Hy estabHshed by a comparison of the Chaldee and Babbinical Tjr\n> to cut off. J. D. Michaelis, however, maintains (in his work fiber die 70 Wochen, p. 42), that the Chaldee and Babbinical word may have been taken from this passage ; but such an assumption could only be regarded as probable, if the word was merely used, as in the Targum of Esther iv. 5, with the figurative meaning to decide, determine. In that case it might have been obtained by conjecture from the context of our passage. But as Tmn is sometimes used with the meaning " to cut off" in a literal sense, which could not have been obtained from the passage before us, the conjecture falls to the ground. We find, for example, QipVlin, Par^s, portiones, pars secta et abscissa, and "ita b'tf rOTin> according to the Miklal Jophi, incisio carnis. There are many who suppose, that cutting off is merely another expression for determining ; and in support of this opinion they appeal to the fact that verbs signifying to cut off are frequently THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 103 used in this sense in the Semitic dialects. (See the examples quoted by Gesenius, Thesaurus s. v. ¦^3) . The Septuagint trans lators have so rendered it, ex38o/jL,iJKovT.a efiSofidSes ItcpLdnaav iirl tov Xaov crov. But in the very fact that, although Daniel might easfiy have found other, and much more common words, if he had merely wished to express the notion of determination, — words which he actually does employ on other occasions and even in this section, — he employs a word not used elsewhere, we have an apparent proof, that the word is used here with some reference to its primary meaning, and is intended to represent the seventy weeks as a period accurately defined and sharply " cut off," in distinction from a mere determination of time hv TrXdret. The idea of " determining" must therefore by aU means be maintained (a comparison of this passage with Esther iv. 5, leads to this conclusion), but the verse before us lays special emphasis upon the precise determination. — Many take the word in the sense of shortening. Theodotion regarded this as the meaning, and rendered it trvveT[iij9ri That such an assumption is not generally inadmissible, the foUowing re marks wiU sufficiently show. Whenever the difference between the received reading and the conjectural emendation was restricted to the vowel points, the Masoretes did not write in the margin the consonants of the latter, inasmuch as they were precisely the same as those of the former. They adopted other methods of indicating the existence of a double reading, and these methods differed according to circumstances. 1. Where there was nothing distinctive in the word itself, or in the context, to show that the vowel points written in the text were only the vowels of the marginal reading, and where, there fore, if they simply inserted the points of the marginal reading, without explanation, they would violate thefi own principles and make it appear as though no other reading existed, they gave the word a mixed punctuation compounded from the two read ings. Examples of this may be seen in niyyi, Ps. vii. 6 ; ininri> I*s- l^i- 4 (compare my commentary on these two pas- THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 105 sages). In the MSS. this combination of the two pointings is much more frequent than in the printed editions (see Michaelis Or. Bibl. 3. 236). 2. Where it could easUy be seen from the context, or from the word itself, that the vowels did not belong to the reading in the text, the Masoretes placed them under the word without further explanation. We have an example of this in Ps. fix. 11. The reading in the text is i3fttjpi 'npn TT^ty " my ^°cl wiU overtake me with his kindness." The Masoretes wished to substitute "vjft^pi "Hpl! ^ri^N' "my gracious God wiU overtake me." They did this at once by merely writing under ipj^N the vowels of the marginal reading, because every one could see from the next word y^Dj-ij that they did not harmonise with the read ing in the text. — We have another example of this second class in the word before us. ^3) is never met with in the Piel ; hence, by giving the word the vowel pointing of a Piel, it was. rendered sufficiently evident, that besides the ordinary reading, which the form itself sufficed to indicate, there was also another, in wliich the word was pointed as a derivative from vhi = rfcy Let us proceed now to examine the different meanings to be obtained from the two readings. The various significations of the verb ^^53 aU contain the idea of hindering, fettering, circum scribing freedom of movement. From this general notion, the more limited one of imprisoning, shutting in {icXeia>, clavis, claudo) easily follows. We find this, for example, in Ps. lxxxviii. 9 : " I am shut in, ^^3), and cannot go out.'' In Jer. xxxii. 2, 3, ^3) ryQ and nV?3!1 jyQ both mean a prison. In the passage before us, commentators have mostly adopted the general idea of preventing iniquity. But the more special meaning " to shut in" harmonizes better with the verbs which foUow, to seal up and cover. " Seafing up " presupposes a " shutting in." There is no foundation for Hitzig' s objection, that the expres sion would be ambiguous, since according to Hosea xfii. 12 to shut up sin might also mean to reserve it for punishment. ^35 can only denote such a shutting up of sin, as is burdensome to it, and subjects it to restraint. 106 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. The marginal reading "to complete transgression," admits of a twofold explanation. It may either mean "to fiH up the measure of sin (compare Gen. xv. 16 ; Matt, xxiii. 32, "fiU ye up then the measure of your fathers,") or to put an end to sin. Assuming the correctness of the marginal reading, the latter would be in aU respects preferable to the other. For, as we shaU presently see, the whole verse treats of acts of mercy, and makes no aUusion to punishment. To the question, which of the two readings is to be preferred, we must declare ourselves unconditionaUy in favour of the read ing in the text. The general relation, in which the marginal readings stand to those in the text, is an important argument in its favour. For on closer investigation, we find that the Keris without exception are nothing more than the conjectures of narrow-minded Jewish critics, and therefore have no more ex ternal authority than those of Houbigant and Michaelis} And in this case, there is aU the less reason to suppose that the Keri is founded upon any external authority, from the fact that the difference is confined to the vowel points. The Masoretes did not venture to substitute pj^ for ^^3), but contented them selves with expressing thefi opinion that the latter stood for the former in this passage — a mere exegetical opinion, which is not increased in value by the support wliich it apparently receives from the early translators, (viz., Aquila, Theodotion, and the Seventy, the two former rendering it tov avvTeXeaai, the latter o-wTeXeo-6rjvai ttjv a/iapTtav), especiaUy as it is so easy to dis cover its source. The expression " to fetter or shut in sin," which occurs no where else, was one to which the translators could not reconcfie themselves ; whUst the meaning to finish seemed to harmonise beautifully with what foUowed, whichever was adopted, the marginal reading or the text. For even those, who supported the latter, explained the expression " to seal up" as meaning " to finish, put an end to." But what especially i This was also the opinion of Danz, (Litter. Hebr. Chald. p. 67) : non datur 3Vy\3, quod exercitatis ac omnia accurate perpendentibus non pariat sensum commodum ; quidquid huic sub nomine v^p quocunque praetextu superadditur, inventum est mere humanum et aliam penes me notam non invenit, quam interpretationis ut plurimum satis feliciter institute, subinde tamen temere et in ignominiam sacri scriptoris suscepte. THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 107 favoured the marginal reading, was the desire of the Jews, as ,seen in their commentators almost without exception, to change the promises contained in this verse into threats, — a very natural desire, seeing that they were well acquainted with the punish ments, which marked the termination of the seventy weeks of years, but not with the blessings, and therefore could not but be anxious to wipe out every reference to the latter. Aquila even substitutes for the rendering "upon thy people, &o," kcitci (contra) tov Xaov aov naX tjjs 7roAe«u? t^s dytas o~ov, and in per fect consistency with this, translates the foUowing clause : tov awreXkaai T^y ddeaiav teal tov TeXetaxrai dfiapTiav. Nothing but the strongest proofs could justify our assum ing that the prophet used the verb ^^3 in the sense of j-j^3, since he frequently makes use of 5^35, and always with pj (compare ver. 27, chap. xi. 36 ; xii. 7). Moreover, as a general rule, verbs with ^ much more frequently borrow from those with -j, than the reverse, so that there is no possibifity of appealing to the frequency with which j-j^ borrows forms from tihy n^2 itself is never written with ^. The proofs must therefore be limited to some internal reasons for preferring the marginal reading. But these are just as Httle to be found as the external ones. The expression to " shut in," to " seal up," and to " cover," harmonise so perfectly, that there is in this fact alone a decisive argument in favour of the text. The sin, which has hitherto lain naked and open before the eyes of the righteous God, will now be shut in, sealed up and hidden by the God of mercy, so that it may be regarded as no longer existing ; a bib- blical mode of describing the forgiveness of sins, analogous to the phrases, " hiding the face from sin" " putting away sin." " And to seal up sins." " To seal up" is regarded by many commentaries as a figura tive expression for " finishing, or putting an end to." Thus Theo doret : eafypdyure Be Ta? dpapTias, iravaa<; /ih> ttjv Kara vo/jlov iroXiTeiav, ttjv Be tov Trvevfi,aTO<> Scopijo-dfievo^ ^dpiv. Several of the early translators drop the figure, and express this idea in literal terms ; but Theodotion retains the figure. Thus in the 108 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. Septuagint we find: Kai to? dBiKiai airaviaai ; and in Aquila, Kai tov TeXei&aai apapTiav, ut consummetur praevaricatio. That these renderings are traceable to the cause we have indicated, and not, as is commonly supposed, to any difference in the read^ ing, is as clear as possible from the fact that, even in the case of the next verb Q]-in> where there is not the slightest trace of a various reading, the Septuagint and Vulgate also drop the figure {Kai avvTeXeadrjvai, to, opdfiaTa Kai 7rpo(ptJTrjv, et impleatur visio et propheta), whfist Theodotion gives the same literal version as before {koI tov afypayiaai, opaaiv koI 7rpoiJTr]v), which Theodoret explains, again without the figure, {tovt€o-ti tov Bovvai TeXos dirdcrai,^ rat? irpo^yrjTeiati). Tfie idea, however, that " sealing up " is equivalent to " put- ing an end to " cannot be sustained. The verb is no doubt frequently so used in Arabic, where the meaning has arisen from the very common custom of affixing a seal at the end of a letter or other written documents. (A large coUection of examples may be seen in Franc. Tspregi's dissert, de authentia selectiorum Kthibim, in Oelrich's coUect. opusc. phfi. theol. ii. p. 153 sqq.). But it is never used in this sense in Hebrew. In the only passage, which is ever cited as an example (Ez. xxviii. 12), the rendering given to fyi^Jl ?HilT perficiens, absolvens •It " pulchritudinem, rests upon a misapprehension of the meaning of the second word. According to chap, xfifi. 10 n^SH means a sketch, or model ; and therefore ]-p33)n DDln> " one wno ^^ up the sketch," is one who has a right to lay aside the idea of its existence, because that idea is perfectly represented in his own person, in other words, he is himself a personified idea, an ideal. Quite in harmony with this are the words that follow, in which the king of Tyre is caUed " fuU of wisdom and finished in beauty." The figurative use of the word Qj-^n m the Hebrew is derived entirely from the custom of sealing up, for the sake of greater security, any thing that had been shut up or laid aside. Thus in Job xxxvii. 7, God " sealeth up the hand of every man," he shuts it up so that it cannot move. In Job ix. 7 he is said to " seal up the stars," that is to shut them up so that they can not shine. In Jer. xxxii. 11 and 14, a sealed book andan open- book are contrasted ; and in the same manner, a sealed fountain THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 109 is contrasted with an open one in Is. xxix. 11 ; vid. Song of Solomon iv. 12. In the book of Daniel the outward act, from which the figure is derived, is found in chap. vi. 18, where the king seals up the den, into which Daniel has been thrown ; and the figure itself occurs in chap. viii. 26 and xii. 4, where the prophecies bf Daniel are described as sealed up \ until the time of their fulfilment; — a figurative representation of their obscurity. The opposite of this may be seen in B,ev. xxii. 10 (see Disser tation on Daniel p. 175, 176 translation). Just as ajin ig Pre~ ceded in the present case by ^35, " to shut in," so is it pre ceded in chap. xfi. 4 by qj-\D (" snut up the words and seal the book") and in Deut. xxxfi. 34 by 5733) (" is it not hidden with me, sealed up in my treasures ?"). Sin is described in this pas sage as sealed up, because it is to be entirely removed out of God's sight, taken completely away. The marginal reading in the place of Qj-in^ 1S OrillS ("to he completed," the Inf. Hiphil of Qftj-|), the vowel pointing of wliich is inserted in the text. It probably owes its origin simply to the ancient versions, in wliich the figure is dropped, and which were so thoroughly misunderstood, as to give rise to the notion that they contained the traces of a various reading. There was aU the greater readiness to adopt this reading, because the form Q]-\)-| is actually employed in chap. vfii. 23, to denote the termina tion of sin, apostasy ; and, for reasons aHeady assigned, there was a strong desire to assign this meaning to the words in the text. It maintained itself in its usurped position by the help ofthe equally iUegitimate ^V^V> whose pretended legitimacy it served to strengthen in return. Hitzig and Ewald indeed adduced, as an argument in its favour, the fact that rjj-|nb foUows, which, they say, is sufficient of itself to render the Kethib suspicious. But this is turned into an argument on the other side, when we observe that the frequent repetition of the same words is one of the distinguishing characteristics of Daniel's style. Proofs of this may be obtained in great abundance from the eleventh chapter. In fact they may even be found in this short section. For example, the roots t^-^j-j and oryQf occur no less than three times. But even if this marginal reading, which is so thoroughly destitute of authority, were adopted, there would be no absolute necessity for attributing to the words a threatening meaning. 110 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS, To finish sins may mean, to force them to a head, to fiU up their measure ; but it may also mean to put an end to them by for giveness, and thus answer to the phrase to wipe away sin, nHD, DJ2n is used in this sense with reference to sin, e.g., in Lam. iv. 22 : " Thine iniquity is wiped away, Tpijj-Dfi; thou daughter of Zion But he wiU visit thine iniquity, thou daughter of Edom." Instead of the plural niNtan there are not a few MSS. in Kennicott and De Rossi in which the singular j-\^jgn 1S found. T ~ But there is no reason for giving the preference to this reading, which probably owes its origin simply to an attempt to make the word more Hke jj^jg and py. The singular y^jQ is met with in other passages along with the plural j-HNEin f*-e-> Micah i. T — 5), which may be explained from the fact that j?$q, apostasy, rebellion, has more of the nature of a collective noun, whereas Detail relates more to some particular manifestation of sin. T — On the other hand, even if the reading in the text be pro nounced correct in both cases, as it should be, there is nothing in the words themselves to prevent our interpreting them in an evil sense. The punishment and extermination of the sinner might be described as the shutting in and sealing up of sin, just as weU as the forgiveness of sin. Thus in Is. iv. 4, the " filth of the daughters of Zion is washed away and the blood of Jerusalem purged from the midst thereof," by means of the destructive judgments of God. StiU, the foUowing reasons are sufficient to show that this view is inadmissible, and that the expression must denote an act of divine grace, viz., the shutting in and sealing up of sin by means of forgiveness. 1. In the second part of the verse there is a triple blessing mentioned, which the Lord will bestow upon bis church at the end of the seventy years. If, now, we interpret the first two clauses of the verse in a good sense, we find the removal of a triple evfi answer ing to this communication of a triple good. There is aU the more reason to believe that the two halves of three clauses each, are thus related to each other, because otherwise the use of the word Q^n in the one case would not correspond to its use in the other, whereas the two are evidently closely connected, nor would it occur in each case in the second clause. The prophecies THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24! Ill are sealed up along with the sins, because the wiping away of sin, which is predicted in the former as the leading characteristic of the Messianic age, wiU now have taken' place. This exact correspondence between the double use of the word onn also serves to defend it in the first instance against the unfounded pretensions of the marginal reading.1 2. There can be no doubt that, if it is not aUowable to separate the three terms descriptive of sin which are found finked together in other passages (Ex. xxxiv. 7 and ver. 5), it is equaUy unallowable to separate those employed to denote what wfil be done to sin, the " shutting in, sealing up, and covering over." In the latter case, in fact, it is even less aUowable, since the three expressions are aU figurative, and represent the same idea of removing a thing out of one's sight. Hence if it can be proved of any one of these, that it must necessarily be used in a good sense, the argument wiU be equaUy appHcable to both the others. Now this is indisputably the case with »ty ^p)3), which is a very common phrase, and never means anything but the forgiveness of sins, the covering of sin with the vefi of mercy, so that the eye of an angry judge cannot observe it. As every one must admit, there is nothing in the verbs themselves, to show that any contrast is intended ; and therefore, if this were the case, it would surely have been distinctly expressed in some other way. For ex ample, when Hofmann gives the following as the meaning of the third clause : " It is different with the transgression of befievers, this is expiated," he shews by the turn which he here gives to the text, the form which it would reaUy have assumed, if such a view had been admissible. — 3. The declara tion, contained in the first three clauses, is closely related to the various confessions of sin in ver. 5, and the prayer for forgive ness connected with them. It foUows from this that, even if the last of the three were as ambiguous as the other two, it would stiU be better to interpret them in a good sense, since the angel 1 Instead of dividing the verse into two halves of three clauses each, there are many who divide it into three parts of two clauses each. But the accents are decisive against this. The Sakeph Katon divides the three first clauses from the other three. Hitzig indeed argues that, if such a triple division really existed, the Sakeph Katon ought rather to be connected with fYlNtOrT But,' apart from the accents, it is evidently not allowable to separate in this manner the clauses which relate to sin. 112 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. would not have been likely to come so very swiftly (ver. 21), for the purpose of announcing to Daniel exactly the opposite of that for which he had prayed. It was the previous announcement of salvation, which alone served to divest of its terrors the pre diction, that followed immediately afterwards, ofthe destruction of the city and temple. It now appeared as running parallel to the highest manifestations of mercy towards the faithful among the people of God, and so far as their connexion with the ungodly was thereby brought to an end, it also assumed the form of a manifestation of grace. " And to cover iniquity." We retain the primary meaning of ^gQ, because, even when it is employed to denote the forgiveness of sins, the ordinary construction with ^57 and "yy^. is stiU preserved, and the literal signification is thus clearly established ; and also on account of the evident connection between the figure employed in this clause, and that contained in the two previous ones. Some commentators imagine that there is a gradation in the expressions used in the three clauses, to denote the forgiveness of sins. But it is much more correct to adopt Geier's conclusion,1 that we have here merely an accumulation of epithets, such as we find in Ex. xxxiv. 7, and Lev. xvi. 21. A gradation would require that the strongest term should stand last. But if we look closely into the meaning of the words, the strongest y^rj is the one which actuaUy stands first. It is applied to sin in its worst form, namely as apostasy and rebellion against God ; and in Job xxxiv. 37 (" he adds iniquity to sin") it is contrasted with ;-jNtfln> as being the heavier of the two forms. The T T — announcement of the forgiveness of sins differs, therefore, in this respect from the confession of sin in ver. 5, where there reaUy is a gradation. The word ^"TTO, which answers exactly to yfljg, the first word here, is there placed after !)3NEn — *•' T T 1 "Tot hic accumulantur vocabula, ut tota peccatorum humani generis colluvies eo melius comprehenderetur." THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 113 W1JJY Nor can we even admit that there is a descent a majore ad minus, for in that case nifct3rT> which is appfied to sin in its Hghtest form, viz. regarded as sHpping, would be the third, not the second word. " And to bring everlasting righteousness."1 Eighteousness, whenever it is referred to, not as a subjective attribute, but as a gift of God, always denotes the same thing from a positive side, as the forgiveness of sins from a negative. The latter impfies that God, through his free grace, treats man no longer as a sinner ; the former, that he regards him as actuaUy righteous, from which it necessarily foUows, that he treats him as a righteous man. Hence righteousness and salvation are frequently associated together, without the peculiar notion con veyed by the former being necessarUy lost. — Eighteousness, as a gift of God, is a thoroughly characteristic mark of the Messianic age. (Compare Ps. lxxxv. 11 — 14, where righteousness is said to look down from heaven, on the point of descending with blessings upon the people of God, and to go before God, when he accepts his people). In Jer. xxxiii. 16 it is predicted that in the days of the Messiah, Jerusalem wiU be caUed " the Lord our righteousness ;" and in chap, xxiii. 6 it is stated that the Messiah himself wiU bear that name. According to Mal. iii. 20 the sun of righteousness, i.e. righteousness, which shines like a sun, rises upon those who fear God. Isaiah (chap. lxi. 3) speaks of the members of the kingdom of God as the terebinths of righteousness. The determining cause of this righteousness is pointed out in Is. lfii. 11, where it is foretold that the servant of God, the righteous one, wiU make many righteous. — This righteousness is caUed an eternal righteousness, both on account of its origin in the eternal counsel of the eternal God, and also 1 Athnaeh is placed under Olamim, to separate the first of the three posi tive clauses from the other two, and to link it more closely to the three negative ones, with which it is most intimately connected. One test of the correctness of the different expositions given of this verse, is to be found in the justice which they do to the Sakeph Katon in the previous clause, and to the Athnaeh here. VOL. III. H 114 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. because of its eternal duration, in contradistinction to the transi tory gifts of righteousness and grace under the Old Testament, and to every thing that is created and subject to decay. The same contrast is also found in several passages of Isaiah, where the eternal character of the righteousness and salvation of the Messianic age is expressly pointed out. For example, in Is. H. 5 — 8 : " the heavens shall pass away Hke smoke, the earth shaU get old as doth a garment, and the inhabitants thereof shall die Hke moths ; but my salvation shaU be for ever, and my righteous ness shall not be abofished, — my righteousness shaU be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation ;* and again in chap. xiv. 17, " Israel is endowed by the Lord with an everlast ing salvation, ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded, world without end." Our interpretation of these words is supported by nearly all the early expositors without exception, as weU as by the ancient versions (Sept. Kai Sodrjvai BiKaioo-vvriv almviov. Theo dotion, Kai tov dryayelv BiKaiocrvvr}v almviov. Vulgate : et addu- catur justitia sempiterna. Syriac, qua, ab wterno est). Some, however, like R. Bacharias (in Breschit Eabbah on Gen. xiv. 1 8) , understand by the eternal righteousness the person of the Mes siah. The same error occurs in connexion with the son of right eousness in Malachi. But the error is one which relates to the letter more than the spirit, since the treasures of righteousness under the New Testament are contained exclusively in Christ. There is another explanation, however, essentiaUy different from this, which several of the modern commentators have adopted from J. D. Michaelis, namely, " the old righteousness, the innocence of former, better days." But in the first place the whole tenor of the passage, — the extermination and expiation of sin announced just before ; the sealing up of the visions and prophets, which, as we have already shown, relates especiaUy to the forgiveness of sin predicted therein ; the fact that the expression is associated exclusively with blessings to be sent down from God ; the verb employed fc^Qn^ > an<^ a^so a comparison of the paraUel pas- sages in Isaiah, — everything in fact favours the conclusion that the righteousness mentioned here is not a subjective quafity, morwm, probitas, as even Scholl supposes (comment, de LXX. hebdomad. Dan. Frankfort 1829), but a gift of God like the p-^ mentioned THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 115 in the passages aHeady cited, and also in Ps. cxxxii. 9, " let thy priests be clothed with righteousness" (may they receive from thee,'0 God, the garment of righteousness), " and let thy saints shout for joy" (compare ver. 16). And again, just as in the passage before us, so in Ps. lxix. 27 the communication of divine righteousness is associated with the forgiveness of sins. 2. Par ticular prominence is given to the eternal character of the Mes sianic kingdom, and the blessings associated with it, in aU the paraUel passages of Daniel, in which that kingdom is described (compare ii. 44 and vii. 18, 27). " To seal up vision and prophet." X Commentators are for the most part agreed in the opinion that sealing up is equivalent to fulfilling, or confirming, and that aUusion is made to the custom of affixing a seal for the purpose of adding validity to the contents of a document. It is evident from 1 Kings xxi. 8 and Jer. xxxii. 10, 11, 44, that such a cus tom existed. They also adduce as paraUel passages Acts iii. 18, (" those things which God before had showed by the mouth of aU his prophets, he hath so fulfilled, 6TrXijpa>o-ev"), and Matt. v. 17. The expression " to seal" is certainly used in this sense in Syriac (see, for example, Ephraem Syrus hymn. 80, adv. scrutat. opp. iii. p. 149), as weU as in the New Testament, e.g., John vi. 27 and other passages (see our comm. on Bev. vii. 3). But it is never so employed in the Old Testament. We have aHeady seen that the sole metaphorical use of the word DDn ig one which was founded upon the custom of sealing up any thing that was laid aside, or deposited in a place of conceal ment. Of course, this would not be decisive in itself, unless there were something else to confirm it. But there is aU the more reason for retaining the established meaning in the present instance, from the fact that, as a general rule, it would lead to great difficulties to take the verb Qj-\n in two different senses in the same verse ; and this would be even more than usuaUy the ease in the verse before us, where it is evident from the arrange ment, that the seafing of vision and prophet is closely connected with the seafing of the prophecy (see p. 110). The seafing H 2 116 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. of the sins ie accompanied by the sealing of the prophecies ; and the latter is described in the prophecies themselves, as an act to be performed in the future. When once the fulfilment has taken place, although in other respects the prophecy still retains its great importance, yet in this respect it has answered its purpose, that the eyes of befievers, in need of strength and consolation, are no longer directed to its announcements of a coming salvation, but to a salvation that has aHeady appeared ; that thty now holdfast, not so much to the word ofthe Lord, as to the works of the Lord, and exclaim with Philip in John i. 46, " we have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph." According to this interpretation, there is a perfect paraUel to our passage in the words of Christ, in Luke xxii. 37, " the things concerning me have an end" (the prophecies relating to my sufferings are now coming to an end) ; and in Matt. xi. 13, " for aU the prophets and the law prophecied untU John," on which Bengel says, " Now was every thing completed, that had ever been predicted up to the time of John;" and also in 2 Pet. i. 19, "we have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do weU that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts." In the last passage we have the sense of two different interpretations combined, the current one and our own. The " word of prophecy " has derived greater certainty on the one hand from its fulfilments, but on the other hand it has lost its force, in consequence, as a ground of hope and consolation ; just as the Hght of a candle, wliich serves but feebly and imperfectly to dispel the surrounding dark ness, is only employed tfil the full daylight has dawned.1 The use of the singular (compare fijif, Is. i. 1 ; 2 Chr. xxxii. 32 ; Nahum i. 1 ; and Kleinert, fiber die Aechtheit des Jes. p. 11), and the absence ofthe article serve to show, that the words are used in their widest sense. This generafity of expression i In the objections, which have been brought against our explanations by Steudel (disquis. in locum Dan. ix. 24 — 27, Tubingen p. 29), Lengerke, ana others, the fact is overlooked, that what prophecy loses in importance, from the one point of view, it recovers again from the other. The so-called heterogeneous idea, that the prophets are to be " abrogated," is undeniably expressed in Luke xxii. 37. The law and prophecy find alike in Christ, their end (Rom. x. 4) and their fullest interpretation. THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24 117 may answer a double purpose. It may either indicate, that what is predicated of any object, applies to that object without excep tions, as in Ps. xxxvi. 7, " thou preservest man and beast" (see also Ps. lxv. 2 and lxxiii. 5) ; or it may simply be intended to represent indefinitely that which has reaUy a limited application. An example ofthe latter we find in chap. xi. 14, " the sons of the wicked of thy people wiU exalt themselves, ^fpj *royn^> to the fulfilment of prophecy," where the prophet speaks quite gene- raUy, — (vyjn being employed in this passage also as a coUective noun), — although he had reaUy something definite before his mind, namely, his own prophecy. The point of importance in this case was not, that the event would contribute to the fulfil ment of one particular prophecy, but that it would be subservient to the accomplishment of prophecy generally. The last-men tioned argument, in favour of the general character of the expression, is confirmed by the rest of the section, in which the article is omitted several times, in cases where it must necessarily have been inserted, if the expression had been as definite as the object referred to (compare for example pptW2> vers- ^> ^0- — Bertholdt, Wieseler, Hitzig, and others explain the clause as meaning, " tfil the predictions of the prophet Jeremiah are ful filled." But this explanation is untenable. 1. It rests upon the assumption that sealing is equivalent to confirming. For if this term be correctly understood, the only circumstances, under wliich such an explanation would be defensible, would be if rftpj (the vision) stood alone. The addition of ^13131 renders it alto- gether inadmissible ; for how could a prophet be described as of no further use, simply because one single prediction of his had been fulfiUed ? But even if it stood by itself, the indefinite character of the expression would extend far beyond the limits assigned elsewhere, if the prophet had merely one particular pro phecy of Jeremiah before bis eyes. That we have here a viola tion ofthe rule, "the article is most indispensable, where refe rence is made to a person or thing, that has been mentioned just before," is a conclusion to wliich we should be justified in coining, only if the prophecy of Jeremiah had been mentioned so immediately before, that it would occur at once to the mind of any reader, and the indefinite character of the expres- 118 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. sion be thus removed ; — unless there were other circumstances connected with the passage, such as some striking resem blance between the prophecy of Jeremiah and the promises here given, which might serve as an indirect clue to the predic tion referred to. — 2. The KaTapyelv of the vypj-j and the ^133 could not take place in any other way, than through the fulfil ment of that which is here described, as about to be accom plished at the end of the seventy weeks, more especiaUy the sealing up of sins, with which the seafing up of the vision and prophet was closely connected. This same prediction ought, therefore, to be contained in the prophecy or two prophecies of Jeremiah, to which the prophet is said to refer. But there is no trace of this in either of them. The twenty-fifth chapter contains nothing but a promise of the termination of the Baby lonian captivity, and the twenty-ninth is restricted to an assurance of the return of the Jews and the gracious protection of God. There can be no doubt, therefore, that we have here an aUusion to the forgiveness of sins to be imparted in the days of the Messiah, the announcement of which runs through all the writ ings of the prophets (compare Is. Hii. ; Zech. xiii. 1). And when this, the essential element in the work of Christ, had been accomphshed, the prophecies, in this respect at least, could justly be regarded as abofished. " And to anoint a most holy (or holy oflwlies)." Those who explain the entire verse, as referring to the times immediately succeeding the return from captivity (for example, Michaelis, John, and SteudeT), regard these words as aUuding to the dedication of the temple which was bmlt by Zerubbabel and Joshua ; and several of those, who connect it with the period immediately foUowing the oppressions of Antiochus Epiphanes, refer this particular prophecy to the fresh consecration of the temple, after it had been desecrated by the Syrians. In. both cases nttJtt is taken to mean nothing more than dedication. For neither in the account of the building of the first temple, nor in the history of the second, — either when it was first built or after its desecration, — do we find the least intimation that the sane- THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 119 tuary was anointed, as the tabernacle is said to have been (Ex. xxx. 22 sqq.). On the contrary, according to the unanimous tradition ofthe Jews (see Lund i. 29), the holy oU was entirely wanting in the second temple. In the case of the first temple, the anointing may have been omitted, because the sacred vessels, which had already been anointed, were transferred from the tabernacle to the temple. But there is one objection, which applies equally to both of these explanations. In both of them it is taken for granted, that QHUfp Qj"1p generally denotes the Most Holy place in the earthly temple ; whereas this is invariably caUed O^tZTTSn t£Hi> The former expression, on the other hand, is always applied, not to the Holy of Hofies, but to other objects, which were most holy in a sense of their own, as compared with the forecourt, &c, e.g., the altar of burnt-offering and other vessels in the sanctuary. A glance at the Concordance will suffice to show that this distinction has been constantly observed. It is most marked, however, in Ez. xii. 4, as compared with chap. xliii. 12 and xiv. 3. The first passage treats of that portion of the new temple, which wiU correspond to the Holy of Holies in the first temple ; and here ?icj-jpn Qj-)h is used. In the other two the prophet speaks of the entire hiU upon which the new temple is to stand, and describes it as a most holy place ; and in this case ?iflj-jp ^p is employed. The only passage in which • t't vl at first sight the latter expression, without the article, appears to refer to the Holy of Holies in the temple, is 1 Chr. xxiii. 13, " Aaron and his sons were set apart ony-jp ©-|p 'Itt^TpnS-'' Vulg. ut ministraret in sancto sanctorum. But a more correct explanation would be, " and Aaron was set apart to sanctify him as a most holy one, he and his sons for ever, to offer incense before the Lord, to serve him and to bless in his name for ever."1 Another reason why the passage should not be explained as referring to the Holy of Hofies, is that it is difficult to under stand, why the prophet should speak of this in particular, and not rather of the whole temple. 1 The explanation given by Clericus, " that they might consecrate the most holy things, the sacrifices and sacred vessels," is open to this objection, that the function, referred to, was of too subordinate a charaeter to be men tioned here, especially to be mentioned first. 120 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. To overcome this difficulty some have assumed, that the whole temple is described as a Holy of Hofies, in the same sense in which the author of the second Book of the Maccabees caUs it " the most holy temple of aU the earth," (v. 15), and " the great and holy temple," (xiv. 31). In support of the appHcation of this expression to the entire temple, Steudel refers to Num. xviii. 10, "in the most holy place, rji'ttHp ttHpl> sna^ *nou ea* **" (compare Lev. vi. 16, "in the holy place shaU it be eaten, in the forecourts ofthe sanctuary"), and to Ez. xiv. 3. But although it cannot be denied, that QV£Hp HHp is appfied in both these pas sages to the whole temple ; it is by no means employed, as a name peculiar to the temple. Any such use of the term was scrupu lously avoided, that there might be no ambiguity. Immediately afterwards the temple is caUed tlHpiT as it is alg0 m chap. viii. 14. In chap. ix. 17 it is caUed ^"IpD. ^-n this case, however, not only would the unusual term " holy of hofies " have been, Hable to be confounded with the " holy of hofies," ordinarily so caUed, but there would have been nothing to distinguish it from the other things, which are also caUed most holy. It would be only by a mere guess, and without any foundation whatever, that the expression could be understood, as referring to the temple itself. The latter argument may also be adduced, as a decisive reply to those who refer the term " holy of holies," to jfoe altar of burnt-offering, whether that which was erected on the re turn from captivity (as Wieseler supposes) , or that which was consecrated afresh in the time of the Maccabees (1 Mace. iv. 54 sqq.), as Hitzig assumes. The fact, that this altar is reckoned in Ex. xxix. 37 among the most holy things, is far from being a proof, that it could be designated here DH£Hp XiHS without any further explanation. Every interpretation, which is based upon a mere conjecture, must for that very reason be rejected. As the ground covered by the term " most holy," is very extensive, and therefore the word itself is not sufficient to enable us to deter mine the precise object referred to, the only explanation, that can possibly be correct, is the one in which the exact meaning has been gathered from the context ; and this is the more apparent in the present instance, since the sketch contained in these words THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 121 is more fuUy elaborated in the verses that foUow. But there is no reference in these verses to the dedication of the temple and altar. It is unnecessary for us to spend any more time in discussing the opinion, that the words refer to the period immediately suc ceeding the return from captivity, seeing that the supporters of this theory, by the forced manner in which, for the most part, they alter the text, bear their own testimony to the fact that it is untenable. The seventy weeks of years may be demonstrated with mathematical certainty to form part of the original text. For aU that is necessary, in order to convince one's self of the correctness of the number, is to add together the smaUer periods into which the whole is divided, 62 + 7+1. But if this is assuredly correct, how could the fresh consecration of the earthly temple be announced as an event which would not take place for 490 years? — We may proceed at once, then, to a con sideration of the objections, which can be brought against the second interpretation, in addition to those aHeady mentioned. 1. The outward dedication of the outward temple and altar is not in harmony with the other communications of divine grace, promised in the context. They are aU of a spiritual nature ; they relate to the wiping away of sin, and bear a Messianic character. Hence, even if we should determine to refer the section generaUy to the Maccabean era, we could not understand it as relating to a fresh dedication of the outward temple, a merely external work of man. On the contrary, we must assume that the prophet, by linking together the termination of religious oppression and the commencement of the Messianic kingdom, referred to something of far greater consequence than this. 2. It cannot be a fresh dedication of the old temple (or altar) at the end of the seventy weeks, that is here referred to ; for in ver. 27 the very same period is indicated, as that in which the temple will be com pletely destroyed. 3. Such an assumption is exposed to insuper able chronological difficulties, since the 490 years stretch far beyond the period, in which the fresh dedication of the temple occurred. By a very large number of expositors the words are interpreted, as referring to the anointing of the Messiah. There are three ways, in which this conclusion is arrived at. Many translate ^y-jp 122 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. qiqH<2 " the most holy one," or, what would be more correct, "a' most holy one." This rendering was probably the one intended by the translators of the Septuagint («ai einppdvai dyiov dyiav) and by Theodotion {ko,1 tov xplcrat aytov dytav). It is very evident, that they could not have thought of the " Holy of Holies" in the temple ; for the Greek translators invariably call this dyiov t&v dyioov, Ta ayia t&v dyicov, or else to aytov tov dyiov (compare Tromm concordance s.v.). Moreover, the word elxppdvat employed in the Septuagint favours the idea that the noun is to be taken as a masculine. There is no absolute necessity for supposing, that this word originated in a various reading, noto 5 on the contrary, it is probably nothing more than an explanation of the figurative expression, in accordance with Ps. xiv. 8, where the great king is represented as anointed with the oil of joy. There is aU the more reason for coming to this conclusion, because, throughout the whole of the verse, the disposition of the Septuagint translators, to introduce such ex planations, is everywhere apparent. Theodoret takes for granted that this interpretation is indisputably correct, and represents it as not even rejected by the Jews themselves : "to these again, he adds : ' and to anoint a holy of holies.' Who is this, the holy of holies ? Let the Jews teU us ; and if they cannot, let them learn of us, that this is the Lord Christ, who said through Isaiah, ' the spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me,' to whom David bore witness, &o, (Ps. xiv. 8)". There is the less difficulty connected with the view, held by the translators of the Septuagint and by Theodotion, from the fact that it can be proved from other sources, that the reference to a person, and the Messianic interpretation generaUy, were current among the Jews from the very earfiest times, (compare the quota tions in Raim. Martini, p. 285, Carpzov, Schottgen, p. 264, and Edzard ad Abodah Sarah, p. 246, 247). In the Christian church this explanation was very widely adopted, especially through the influence ofthe Vulgate, " et ungatur sanctus sanc torum." In the Syriac version it is even introduced into the text (" until Messiah, the most holy"). It is warmly defended by Scholl. At the same time, doubts were expressed at a very early period, as to its correctness. Eusebius (demonstr. viii. c. 2) observes, that he cannot find any passage in the Sacred THE BEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 123 Scriptures in which the high priest is caUed sanctus sanctorum. And this argument in another form, viz., the fact that in the whole Bible QHJj-jp ffi-rp is never applied to a person, but only to things, is quite sufficient, without any thing farther, to over throw this interpretation. Others regard Qianp unp as a neuter, and understand it as • t't vl # referring primarily to the Holy of Holies m the temple. At the same time, they look upon it as a type which is mentioned here in the place ofthe antitype, and appeal to those passages in the Old Testament, in which Jehovah describes himself as a sanctuary (Is. viii. 14; Ezek. xi. 16), and to others in the New, in which Christ compares himself to a temple. This explanation is adopted by C. B. Michaelis, Haverniek, and others. But it is open to the same objections, as we have aHeady brought against the inter pretation, wliich restricts the reference to the outward temple, or Holy of Hofies. Qi\£Hp grrp 'without the article, and without any previous allusion to the temple, cannot mean the Holy of Holies ; it can only have the general meaning, a most holy thing.1 According to the third modification of the Messianic interpre tation, Christ is here represented as a most holy thing. No objection can be offered to this explanation, founded upon the usages of the language. It is a matter of frequent occurrence for persons to be treated as things, in cases where the intention is to place them in the same category with impersonal objects (remember for example the res sacra miser) ; and the passage aHeady referred to (1 Chr. xxiii. 13), where Aaron and his sons are represented as set apart as a holy of hofies, shows that this expression in particular, rjityip \tr\b, was appfied to persons, •t't VI though without losing its neuter signification. The word "£Hp, when it stands alone, is used quite as much in a neuter sense as Qiflj-jp Ej-jp ; and yet the High Priest wore upon his forehead the inscription nin^ t£Hp- With perfect justice, too, have the advocates of this interpretation referred to Luke i. 35, where Christ is described as aytov (" that holy thing"). There can be no doubt that, as a question oifact, Christ may 1 This remark may also be adduced, as an argument against the explana tion given in our first edition, in which the words are referred to the church of the New Testament. 124 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. quite appropriately be designated a Holy of Holies. He is frequently caUed " the holy one" even in the New Testament; compare Acts iii. 14, iv. 30 ; 1 John ii. 20 ; Bev. iii. 7. But it is the context, which most decisively points to Christ, as Blomstrand has correctly observed. We have aHeady laid stress upon the fact, that the expression " a holy of holies" is in itself an indefinite one. The more precise meaning can only be learned from the context. Now in the first five clauses there is nothing mentioned, which is not on other occasions associated with the Messiah j1 and we have aU the more reason to expect that at last the true centre, the person of the Messiah himself, wiU be introduced, on account of the^completeness of the verse in itself. Again, the allusion to anointing also points to the Messiah. He had alreadybeen exhibited to'the people of God in Ps. H. as the anointed one. Bmvwhat reaUy decides the question is, that, in the foUowing verses, in which the sketch given here is carried out into more minute detaU, the person of the Messiah occupies so prominent a position, that it could not possibly be altogether wanting here. Moreover, in the notice of the anointed one in ver. 25, there is an unmistakeable aUusion to the anointing of a most holy one in the verse before us. The prophet there explains himself. We have aHeady shown, that the anointing cannot be under stood HteraUy. Let us enquire, therefore, into the meaning of the figurative expression. In this enqtury we shall examine, first of all, the passages relating to the outward act from which the figure is derived, and afterwards those in which the figure itself occurs. The first class embraces such passages as Ex. xxx. 22 sqq., and xl. 9 sqq., where the Lord commands Moses to prepare holy anointing oU, and anoint therewith the tabernacle and its furniture, and the priests who performed service therein. The meaning of this symbohcal action is most clearly explained in Zech. iv. The oU was a symbol of the Spirit of God ; the anointing of the temple was a visible repre sentation of the communication of this spirit to the church, which is thereby set apart, from everything that Hes beyond the limits of the operations of divine grace, and sanctified. As Calvin i Blomstrand : " In Uh solo omnis prophetia impleta est, ille justitiam aeternam introduxit, et culpam expiavit, ilium cruci affigendo populi peccatum obsignatvm est, scelus absolulum." THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 125 gays : " the Spirit of God sanctifies us and aU our works, because apart from Him we are unholy, and all that belongs to us cor rupt." The outward holiness, which every one received, accord ing to Ex. xxx. 29, by merely touching the vessels 'of the temple which had been sanctified by the oU of anointing, was a symbol of the inward holiness, of which every one is made a partaker, who enters into an inward and vital union with Christ and his church. The correctness of this explanation wUl be at once apparent, if we compare the other passages, in which the design ofthe symbolical act is clearly shown. In 1 Sam. x. 1 sqq., after Samuel has anointed Saul, he says to him, " truly the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance. And the Spkit of the Lord comes upon thee . . . and thou art changed into another man. Then thou doest what thy hand shaU find ; for the Lord is with thee." What can be more plain here, where the anointing is placed in causal connexion with the communication ofthe Spfiit, than that the former typified,, what the latter secured ; — that it was a seal and pledge of the blessings, which the Lord bestowed upon the rulers of the nation for his people's good? The same idea is expressed in 1 Sam. xvi. 12 — 14, where the anointing of David is recorded : " And the Lord said, anoint him, and Samuel took the horn of oU and anointed him in the midst of his brethren, and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward. And the Spfiit ofthe Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him." Sinfilar passages may be quoted from the New Testament. In Mark vi. 13, we read that the apostles " cast out many devils, and anointed with oU many that were sick, and healed them in the name of the Lord ;" and James says (v. 14) : " Is any sick among you ? let him send for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oU in the name of the Lord." On the latter passage Bengel observes : " Whitaker says, ' let those use ofi, who can procure health for the sick by means of their prayers ; let those, who cannot, refrain from using a vain symbol.' The design of this anointing at first was to procure a miraculous restoration to health, and when this cannot be procured, it is nothing but a vain symbol." Even in this case, therefore, the oU was a symbol of the Spirit of God. — Let us pass on now to examine the pas- 126 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. sages, in which the anointing is merely figurative. On Is. lxi.l , " the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me," &c, Vitringa remarks : " unctio inferebat partici- pationem spHitus sancti." In 1 Kings xix. 15 sqq., where Ehjah is directed to anoint Hazael to be king over Syria, and Jehu to be king over Israel, and EHsha to be a prophet, the symbolical action and the figure are mixed up together in a remarkable manner ; an evident proof of the Httle importance attached to the material form, even in the case of the former. Jehu and Hazael were actuaUy anointed ; the latter merely as a symbol of the divine power, which was to be imparted to him, as an instrument of divine justice, for the punishment of Israel. There is no account of any other prophet being anointed ; and therefore, in the case of EHsha, the anointing must be regarded as a figurative term ex pressive of the communication of the gifts of the Spirit. In the New Testament the gifts of the Spirit bestowed upon the true members ofthe church, the " holy and royal priesthood " (1 Pet. ii. 5, 9), are caUed a %pt'o-/ia (1 John ii. 20, 27) ; and the word anoint is used in Acts iv. 27, x. 38, and 2 Cor. i. 21, both alone and with the addition of the words "with the Holy Ghost," to denote the communication of the gifts ofthe Spfiit to Christ and to befievers.1 From what has been stated above, it foUows, that the anoint ing of a Holy of Hofies can only denote the communication of the Spirit to Christ, to which prominence is given in other pro phecies of the Old Testament, as a distinguishing characteristic ofthe Messiah. (See the remarks on Is. xi. 1, xiii. 1, lxi. 1). This gift of the Spirit, which is described in Acts x. 38 as an anointing, " how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power," foUowed immediately upon the baptism of Jesus. We must not restrict it to this, however. The baptism must be regarded as merely the commencement of the anointing ; for the baptism occurred at the end of the sixty-ninth week, or the beginning of the seventieth. But the blessings, referred to here, were such as would not exist in thefi full perfection till the 1 With reference to the harmony between the figure and the fact, compare Vitringa on Is. x. 27, and my work on " Sacrifice," in which the point of resemblance is shown to be their softness and smoothness (gentleness), in contrast with the harshness of nature. THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 127 end of the seventy weeks of years ; whereas the anointing of the Messiah at his baptism, if regarded as a single event and not Hke the others, as a progressive action, would be entirely sepa rated from that particular point of time. It cannot be objected to this, that the seafing of sins, &o, so far as it was effected by the death of the Messiah, was also separated from this point of time. For although, objectively considered, the " finishing" cer tainly took place in the middle of the seventieth week of years ; yet the subjective completion, the communication of the treasures of grace and blessings of forgiveness, which had been procured by the Messiah, did extend to the terminal point referred to ; and thus, in ver. 27, the confirmation ofthe covenant to many is described as continuing throughout the whole of the seventieth week. The sealing of the visions was also not finished tiU then. For the prophets speak continuaUy, not merely of reconciliation as an objective fact, but also of the personal appropriation of it by the people of the covenant. Hence the anointing must be regarded as continuing through the entire period of Christ's work on earth ; and even the first Pentecost, and the outpouring of the Spirit generally, in the opening period of the Christian church, must be included within the scope of this prophecy. The church is anointed along with Christ its Head ; compare 1 John ii. 20 : " and ye have an anointing from the Holy One," and ver. 27 : " but the anointing, which ye have received from him, abideth in you." The anointing of a Holy of Holies is contrasted with the de solation of the sanctuary and the destruction of the wing of abominations, mentioned in ver. 26 and 27. The former sanc tuary was destroyed, because it had become a mere sheU without a kernel ; for that, which made it a sanctuary, viz., the presence of the Lord, had departed from it in consequence of the guilt of the nation. But a new Holy of Hofies was to be anointed in its place. What was said in Ex. xxx. 29, after the anointing ofthe tabernacle and its vessels had been commanded, " and thou shalt sanctify them and they shaU become most holy, Qit£Hp tZHpi every one who touches them shall become holy," was now to receive in this Most Holy One a complete fulfilment. 128 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. Ver. 25. And thou shalt know and understand: from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto an anointed one, a prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks: the street is restored and built, and firmly determined ; but in narrow times. " And thou shalt know and understand." We have aHeady shown in the Dissertation on Daniel (p. 211, transl.), that ^3)torfl SHD! cannot mean "mark weU," as most commentators suppose, but must be regarded as an intima tion, that the announcement about to be made would not be easy to understand, but would require a weU-skiUed spiritual mind. (Compare the analogous expressions used by Christ, " whoso readeth let him understand," " he that hath ears to hear, let him hear," " whoso is able to receive it, let him receive it"). The words are evidently connected with the explanation given by the angel in ver. 22, with reference to the design of his coming. " From the going forth ofthe word." There can be no doubt that ¦yj-j ^jjfo signifies the issue of T T x the decree ; just as, in chap. ii. 13, the command to slay the magicians is said to have gone forth. The only question, about which there can be any controversy, is : who is to be understood as issuing the command ? A very large majority of commentators are of opinion, that reference is made to the decree of a Persian king ; but we maintain on the contrary that the word which goes forth can only be a decree from God, or from the heavenly councfi. The foUowing are our reasons. 1. The idea, that the term -q-| is used here to denote the word of an earthly potentate, without any reference being made to such a word, (firectly or indirectly, either before or after, is exposed to great difficulties. Nothing is gained by referring to Dan. ii. 13, and Esther iv. 3. For in the first of these two passages, the author of the decree is mentioned in the preceding verse, and the decree has also been THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 129 aHeady noticed ; and in the second (" in every province, whither soever the king's commandment and his decree came"), the verse itself shows, to what it is that aUusion is made. In this case, however, the word must have gone forth from Him, by whom everything predicted in the entire prophecy, as about to happen to the covenant people, had been determined, — who had cut oft the seventy weeks upon his nation, — and from whom the decree had gone forth respecting the ruins in ver. 26, and the final sentence in ver. 27. This is the more apparent, since He is expressly mentioned at the end of the verse (wpi|Tl)> as tne author of the decree to rebufid the city. 2. -q-j ^3"" is applied T T TT in ver. 23 to a divine decree ; namely, the decree that seventy weeks of years should be determined upon the nation. And in the case before us, where the expression occurs again with the same indefiniteness as to the agent referred to, simply because the whole narrative treats of Daniel's intercourse with the heavenly world, it is impossible, without an inward feefing of constraint, to come to the conclusion, that another agent is abruptly introduced as the author of a decree. The " going forth of the word" is in itseff an invisible event. But the effects come within the limits of the visible, and to this we necessarUy turn, to see whether it is possible, by chronological calculations, made after the -fulfilment, to convince ourselves of the truth of the prophecy. We must look to the effects, to learn when the " going forth of the word" took place. If the com mand of God was reaUy issued, that which was commanded must actuaUy have occurred. Hence the going forth of the word, with reference to the rebuuding of Jerusalem, must be assigned to that period of history, at which the work was first taken in hand with vigour and success. As the covenant people were then subject to the Persian king, we naturally expect to find an echo of the word of God in the edict of a Persian monarch. And thus we come very near to the exposition we have rejected, in which the passage is regarded as containing a direct allusion to such an edict. VOL. III. 130 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PR0PHETST. " To restore and to build Jerusalem." The preposition lamed points out the object, to which the word refers. l There are various ways,in which a,iQJn nas Deen incorrectly explained. 1. Several commentators suppose it to relate to the restoration ofthe people. But apart from the forced eUipsis, which this explanation demands, the connexion between inyn1? (to re store) and Jerusalem is sufficiently evident from the word y\\$r), which is closely related to it, and which, like nn333> can omy refer to 3tfrn> the street. — 2. Others, such as Scaliger, Bertholdt, and Hofmann, render the passage "to rebuild" (Vulg. ut iterm aedificetur) , and maintain that, even in the Hiphfl, yftf is used to express the repetition of a thing. But we need only look at the one passage, which is brought forward as a proof of this, to convince ourselves that it affords no support whatever to this assumption, which is a priori inadmissible. The passage referred to is 2 Sam. xv. 25, " and the king said to Zadok, bring back the ark ofthe covenant into the city, if I shaUfind favour in the eyes ofthe Lord, i33,i$rTl> ne wul ^W^ff me betck, and show me both it and his habitation." ai^jn in ^s Passage is transitive, as it always is, " to cause to return, to bring back." But what cao we understand by causing a city to return, or bringing a city back ? It denotes a perfect restitutio in integrum.3 This is evident from Ezek. xvi. 55 and other passages, " and thy sisters, Sodom and 1 This definite announcement of the object constitutes a fatal objection to the opinion, expressed by Lengerke and others, that " the word" here is the same as " the word" mentioned in ver. 2. The prediction of Jeremiah con tained in chap, xxv., which is there referred to, does not announce the per fect restoration of the city, but threatens its destruction. The same may be said of Hitzig' s opinion, that reference is made to the prediction in Jer. xxx. and xxxi. This song of Israel's deliverance does not relate exclusively or even especially to the complete restoration of Jerusalem. Moreover there ia no precise period of time mentioned in the passage, and therefore it is not adapted for chronological purposes. If the Scriptures generally spoke, as Hitzig imagines that they do in this instance, if they left the expositor to mere conjectures, his vocation would really be a very unworthy one. 2 Bodiger (in Gesenius thes.) says nothing about an adverbial use of yCfil' but gives the meaning, restituit in integrum. He cites as examples, not only this passage, but Ps. lxxxiv. 4 (in this he is wrong), and Is. l. 26, " I will restore thy judges as at the beginning," in which he is clearly correct. THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 131 her daughters, shaU return to their former estate, niltlJn t : t inmp^> and Samaria and her daughters shaU return to their former estate, and thou and thy daughters shaU return to your former estate." (LXX. diroKaTaaradijaovTat , KaOios %\aav air dpxf)?).1 In ver. 53 there is an announcement to this effect, " I return to the captivity, ]-)rQ$ j-in VQIB> °f Sodom and her daughters," &c, a phrase, which is never employed to denote the return of captives, but always without exception a restitutio in integrum, — (ryQtt)> captivity, being used figuratively of affliction) — and in this case the context shows that it can have no other meaning. (See the remarks on the passage itself). — In the passage before us the addition of fiyj;^ restricts the restitutio in integrum to one particular department. " To bring back and build," &c. ; "bringing back to bufid;" or ''building to bring back," to build the city again in its ancient dimensions : equivalent to the expression used by Jeremiah xxxiii. 7, "to bufid up as at the beginmng." We may discover the essential importance of the idea contained in yttJj-j, which is added to the verb "to bufid," from the fact that yafir\ occurs again before the verb t nrona- t : : • The result wliich we obtain from such an explanation of the meaning of the word aittjrfa is this : we must reckon the seventy years, not from the period, when the first miserable attempts were made to rebuild the city, but from the time when, ac cording to the testimony of history, the rebuilding was com menced in such a manner, as promised to restore the city, and eventually did restore it, to very nearly its ancient dimensions and beauty. What foUows is also in harmony with this. In the announcement of the destruction, not only is the temple men tioned along with the city in ver. 26, but in ver. 27 also. The fact that it is not mentioned here in connexion with the bmld- ing of the city, but that only the streets of the city are referred to, presupposes that the temple had already been erected, and formed the commencement of the building here foretold. For it 1 Hofmann renders this " to their former place," contrary to the usage of the language, and without giving the true sense. . ' i2 132 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. is very improbable, that the angel should have omitted just the most important thing, the one which caused Daniel the greatest grief, and for which he had most earnestly prayed {cf, for ex ample, ver. 17, 20). At the same time, the existence of the temple was a proof, that the rebuilding of the city had aHeady been commenced. By many <^yy is supposed to mean fortify ; and certainly j-q^ ,T T TT ¦yy is frequently used to denote the fortification of a city. (For proof see Gesenius Thesaurus, and Winer s.v., but more espe cially Michaelis, Suppl. p. 190, and his commentary on Josh. vi. 5, where he shows that the same idiom is also met with in the Syriac). Not that the verb receives a new meaning; but partly because, in the case of a city aHeady in existence, the building must necessarUy have been restricted to the fortification of it {e.g., in 2 Chr. xi. 5, -lyjft^ n3i, and then in ver. vi. T I T T PI331 alone), and partly because the term city, in its fullest extent, T T involves the idea of fortifications. But, that this meaning cannot be applied fiere is evident from what follows : streets are built ; and therefore it must be the interior of the city to which aUu sion is made. This explanation itself has arisen entirely from the desire to fix upon the time of Nehemiah, as the starting point ; whilst a false interpretation of ^©j-jS an(^ llffiD rendered it impossible to gratify this wish in a legitimate way. " Until an anointed one, a prince." Several of the more recent commentators, such as Bertholdt, and before him Hitzig, explain this as meaning tfil an, or till the, anointed prince. But, as the earfier expositors unanimously affirmed, rnijft cannot properly be regarded as an adjective agreeing with -7133 ; for the adjective in Hebrew is placed after - T the substantive. (See, for example, Vitringa's exceUent treatise : de LXX. hebdom. Dan. observ. sacr. t. 2 p. 290). There, are but few exceptions to this rule, and even in these the deviation is very slight ; see Ewald § 293 b. Of those who correctly regard ppfiJD as a noun, and -J133 as in THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 133 apposition, the greater number are of opinion, that the former is used here as a kind of proper name, with express reference to the Messiah. In support of this, they appeal to the absence of the article, on which they found an argument against the non- Messianic exposition. If we look merely at the word |-pt£flD> the notion is a very plausible one. It is weU known that, when appeUative nouns are changed into proper names, they graduaUy lose the article ; for the simple reason, that the individual referred to, being the only one of its kind, does not need to be distin guished from others. Thus rti'py is used as a name of God, frequently without the article ; e.g., Num. xxiv. 16 ; Num. xxxii. 8. And as the word ry^ is applied to the Messiah by Isaiah and Jeremiah in an appeUative sense, with a more precise definition subjoined, whereas it is afterwards found in Zechariah as a proper name, without any such definition ; so may ;-pt2>b> which occurs in the second Psalm as an appella tive description of Christ, have been so commonly applied to the Messiah, as to acqufie the character of a proper name. There would be the less difficulty connected with such an assump tion, since we know that at a later period this was indisputably the case ; compare, for example, John iv. 25, where the Samari tan woman says, " I know that Messias cometh (not the Messias), which is caUed Christ." But, however admissible this expla nation would be, if j-pl^D stood alone, the addition of -7133 renders it clearly untenable. For this word cannot be regarded as a proper name, seeing that it is appfied to a heathen prince in ver. 26. Hence it ought in such a case to have the article, " Messiah the prince," just as you find Ti^n Tn> never -jy^ Tpft (see Gesenius Lehrgebaude § 172). We must, therefore, render it "an Anointed one, a Prince ;" and, in accordance with the usual character of Daniel's prophecies, so expressly indicated in the words "thou shalt know and understand" at the commencement of the verse, we must assume that he pur posely selected the more indefinite expression, and instead of speaking of the anointed one, the prince (/cot efjo-xfiv), merely spoke of an anointed one, a prince. He evidently left his readers to obtain a deeper insight into his meaning from the general expec- 134 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. tation of the advent of a great king, to which earlier prophecies had given rise, as weU as from the other statements in the con text, and from the fulfilment itself, whose accordance with the pro phecy would of necessity be aU the more apparent in this instance, on account of the period being so definitely fixed. That the connexion between these words and Christ is too close, for even the most prejudicial to deny it, is evident from Bertholdt s confession, that "it is very natural, though not absolutely necessary, to associate the idea of Jesus the Messiah with the expression -7133 rPtiflD (an anointed one, a prince), and that of his death on the cross with the words in ver. 26, "\h TNI JTI^O my" -^or tne present, we wiU keep out of sight the confirmation afforded to our opinion by the exact agreement in point of time, and confine ourselves to the evidence, which a careful enquiry would bring within the reach of Daniel himself and his contemporaries. 1. As we have aHeady remarked, the blessings promised in the previous verse, viz. the forgiveness of sins, the introduction of eternal righteousness, and so forth, were among the characteristics commonly held up by the pro phets, as those which would distinguish the Messianic era. If, then, in a description like the present, which is clearly an expan sion of ver. 24, an exalted king is announced, who is to appear at the end of sixty-nine weeks of years, that is, shortly before the period fixed for the complete fulfilment of the promises made to the covenant people ; how was it possible to come to any other conclusion, than that this king would be the author of those blessings, the Messiah, whom all the prophets had exhibited in that capacity ? — 2. The connexion between the two verses, 24 and 25, is more particularly indicated by the relation, in which the announcement of "an anointed one" in the latter stands to the words, " to anoint a holy of holies or most holy," in the former. For the express purpose of giving greater prominence to this connexion, Qi$*rp \y-jp nUfoS 1S placed at the end and |-pttJO • t 't •;) — : ¦ — • t before -7133. Every explanation that has been thought of, ex cept the Messianic, is precluded by the fact that the term " Holy of Hofies," or " Most Holy," is altogether inapplicable.— 3. Whilst "7133 does not hinder our referring the passage to the Messiah, since this term is expressly applied to the Messiah him- THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 135 self in Is. Iv. 4 (see the remarks on that passage), and also to David the type of the Messiah in 2 Sam. vii. 8, and elsewhere ;' like the corresponding terms -ft}, Is. ix. 5, ^Qjft, Micah v. 1, and Wto2> ^z- xxxiv. 24, the word r"Pt^D> which stands to -7133 in • T the relation of the particular to the general, most decidedly refers to him in the passage before us, notwithstanding the omission of the definite article. It serves to point out the -7133 more dis tinctly as a theocratic ruler ; just as in 1 Sam. x. 1, (" and Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his (Saul's) head, and kissed him, and said : truly the Lord hath anointed thee as prince over his inheritance"), the anointing did not constitute Saul merely a ruler in general, but a theocratic ruler, who was furnished by God with the requisite gifts for the discharge of his duties as His representative. It is not true that any heathen monarch might have been caUed jyittflD' an anointed one. Such an assertion is opposed to the meaning of the symbol and the figura tive use of the term, as aHeady explained, and also to the usages of the language. In aU the books of the Old Testament there is only one heathen king to whom the expression is applied, namely Cyrus, who is called ' ' anointed" in Is. xiv. 1 , not as a king merely, but on account of the remarkable relation which he sustained to the church (a relation unparaUeled in history), — on account of the gifts, with wliich he was endowed by God for the good of the church, — on account of his possessing the first elements of the true knowledge of God, as his edict in the Book of Ezra clearly shows (cf. Kleinert on Isaiah, p. 138 sqq.) , — and lastly on account of the typical relation in which he stood to the author of a stiU higher defiverance, namely the Messiah himself. There was a certain sense, in which Cyrus might be regarded as a theocratic ruler ; and this is the light in which Isaiah represents him (see the exceUent remarks made by Vitringa on Isaiah, I.e.). It is 1 The numerous passages, in which "7133 is used with reference to the king of Israel (1 Sam. xiii. 14, xxv. 30), prove that Hofmann is wrong in saying, that Christ is called ry\£ft3 as king of Israel, and "7133 as king of the heathen. There is all the less reason, to give such a limitation to the meaning of -JI33 on the ground of Is. Iv. 4, since it is much more natural to refer to the numerous passages in the books of Samuel. The true explanation of the addition of -7133 to (-pi^E is found jn the relation in which the pas sage stands to ver. 26. 136 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. only iii connexion with the whole description, given by Isaiah, that Cyrus is called an anointed of God ; and it by no means follows from this passage, that the term could have been applied to him, apart from that connexion. Still less can it be inferred, that any otiier heathen king might have been caUed by the same name ; when the only points, in which they resembled Cyrus, were such as did not constitute the reason of his being so desig nated.1 — 4. Apart from any evidence contained in the word itself, the context furnishes a proof that the anointed one was to be a theocratic, not a heathen, king. This proof is found in the evident antithesis between -^133 j-pttJtOi and fc^n 1133 in ver. 26. The general term " prince" is common to both. But to pyil^fi (anointed), the specific term for a theocratic ruler, there is opposed j^jj-f, " the coming one," advena, a term descriptive of a heathen prince. If then it is certain, for the reasons assigned, that the expression -J133 rftittD could only apply to a theocratic king ; who else could possibly be thought of but the Messiah himself, seeing that the whole period, from Daniel downwards, does not furnish a single person to answer to the description, and he was the only theocratic king who had been announced by the prophets, either at the time of, or after the captivity, as one who was yet to come ?— 5. The opinion expressed by Wieseler, that " an anointed one, a prince " means a High Priest (of the ordi nary stamp), is quite inadmissible. No doubt, the High Priest is called the anointed priest in Lev. iv. 3, cf. v. 16, Ex. xl. 13, Lev. xvi. 32 ; but it does not foUow from this, in the most remote degree, that rytiftS Dy itself could ever denote the priestly office. Kings were also anointed, and the addition of the word "7133 shows that it is to these, that reference is made ; for this word always denotes civil rank, where there is nothing added to define it more precisely. That the expression " an anointed, a prince" does not indicate a double office is very obvious from such passages as 1 Sam. ix. 16, "and thou anointedst him prince over 1 The case of Hazael has also been quoted. According to 1 Kings xix. 15, 16, he was anointed by Elijah as king over Syria. But it does not follow from this, that a heathen king could be called pi'jyn witnout further explanation. The anointing had a purely theocratic signification, as we may clearly perceive from the fact that Hazael was to be anointed in conjunction with Jehu and filisha. All three were to be the instruments of God, in bringing about a reaction against the prevalence of idolatry in Israel. THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 137 thy people Israel," and chap. x. 1, " the Lord hath anointed thee prince over his inheritance."1 Assuming, then, that the words " an anointed one, a prince" must certainly be understood as referring to Christ ; the only question that still remains to be asked is, whether the point of time, alluded to in the prophecy, was his birth, or the period of his consecration as Messiah by the anointing from above. The latter is the opinion most commonly entertained by Messianic expositors.2 And we must also decide in its favour. After the lapse of seventy weeks, the whole ofthe work of salvation to be per formed by the Messiah, was to be completed. At the end of sixty- nine weeks, or rather, as we find from the more exact announce ment in ver. 27, in the middle of the seventieth week, he was to be cut off. Since, then, according to this passage, sixty-nine weeks were to elapse, before the time of the Messiah, there only re mained a period of seven years to intervene between his coming, and the completion of the work of salvation, and three years and a half between his corning and his violent death ; a convincing proof that j-pU^Q -jj? referred, not to the birth of Jesus, but to the public appearance of the Messiah, who was in fact not reaUy the Messiah until his baptism, not Christ but only Jesus (com pare Peter's address in Acts i. 21, and Luke iii. 23). " Are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." The prophet divides the period, which is to elapse between the going forth of the word and the coming of the anointed one, into two parts. Sixty-nine weeks in aU are to intervene. At the end of seven the city wiU be completely restored ; and sixty-two more will pass before the anointed one, the prince, appears. i " Onias combined the two in his own person, the high-priestly and regal dignity, As an anointed one, i e. as priest, he is called Messias, and as a secular prince hs bears the title of "{133. Messias "7133, therefore, means a priest-prince, or an anointed one, who is made a prince." 2 Compare, for example, Petavius (doctr. temp. 1. 12. c. 33 t. 2 p. 264 : " 69 hebdomades desinunt in Christum ducem, non nascentem, sed in lucem apertumque prodeuntem, seque ad olKovoxiiav et Krfpvt-iv accingentem, h. e. in baptismum ipsius, qui anno primo septuagesimae hebdomadis inourrit." 138 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. This was the explanation given by Theodotion, em XpiaTov riyov/xevov e^Bo/j,dBe<; kind, Kai ex3Bo/j,dSe<; egrJKOvTa Bvo ; and the Vulgate renders it in the same manner, usque ad Christum ducem hebdomades septem et hebdomades 62 erunt ; but the text of the Septuagint is in such utter confusion, that it is impossible to make any use of it. The Athnaeh under njDttJ nas Deen " T I ' appealed to in opposition to this rendering. According to Mar- sham, the accent shows that the two numbers are to be kept distinct, and the second of the two to be connected in the follow ing manner with the succeeding clause, " from the going forth of the word to Messiah, the leader, are seven weeks ; and in sixty-two weeks the street and waU shall be built again." But the theory, on which this assertion is based, that Athnaeh always stands where we should place one of the leading stops, is incor rect ; and none have less right to lay any emphasis upon an accent, than men who so often set aU accentuation at nought on the most trivial grounds. When the leading divisions of a sen tence are self-evident, Athnaeh is not infrequently used, where we should place one of the smaUer stops, merely to show that certain words are not to be connected. Thus, for example, in ver. 2 it stands under Qi">P)Dn> whereas, according to the ordinary usages of the language, it should have been placed under Qi3$n ! . T - and so again in Ps. xxxvi. 8 we find it under q-j^ instead of 5 T T DTT7M (compare Prov. vi. 26). In the present instance, how ever, the separation of the two periods was of great importance, namely to show that the seven and sixty-two were not a merely arbitrary division of a continuous period, but that each of the two periods had its own distinguishing characteristics. Marsham's views have been adopted by the more modern anti- Messianic expositors. But the foUowing reasons wfil suffice to show their faUacy. 1. His explanation takes for granted that the anointed one, the prince, was Cyrus ; an assumption aHeady disproved by the positive arguments, adduced to show that the Messiah is referred to. We shaU notice it again more particu larly by and by. 2. If the second number be connected with the words that follow, the only interpretation that can possibly be given is " for sixty-two years," or, " during sixty-two years (Ewald), the streets will return and be built." But this is a THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 139 most awkward rendering. For how could the restoration of the streets, which was accomphshed according to the testimony of history in a much shorter time — (and this testimony is of the more importance to our opponents, on account of their assuming that we have here a vaticinium post eventum), — how, we say, could the building of the streets be described as occupying the whole period of 434 years ? This difficulty is tacitly acknow ledged by many of our opponents, in the attempts which they make to get rid of it, attempts altogether at variance with the usages of the language. They maintain that the words Qv^ttM D^tBI D^lftlJ are in the accusative, wliich very frequently denotes the period during, or within which anything has been accom plished ; and hence they adopt the rendering " within sixty- two weeks." But Ewald has laid down this rule, " the accusa tive is employed to denote a period of time, when the entire period is occupied by the transaction referred to ; but if the in tention be to show, that an action was performed at some parti cular point within a longer period, 31 must be used, like the ablative in Latin ;" and the rule is so thoroughly without excep tion, when a lengthened period of time is referred to, that it is observed, notwithstanding Ewald's assertion to the contrary, even when the writer omits to mention the particular point intended. The passage in Genesis (xiii. 3), which is generaUy ¦rendered " in the thirteenth year," has been set aside by Ewald himself, who says that it ought rather to be rendered " during the whole of the thirteenth year." The most plausible quotation is Jer. xxviii. 16, " this year thou shalt die." But it may very soon be perceived, that n^UJil m this passage is one of the com- T T — paratively few nouns of measure, time, &c, which have acquired an adverbial signification through constant use, and corresponds exactly to yjg, -,j-jj, nriQ> rP3> D^rfc an " street" and " public place," the former is the one intended here. Other explanations, indeed, have been suggested, but they are based so entirely upon arbitrary conjecture, as not even to deserve to be mentioned. Hassencamp (fiber die 70 Wochen p. 64 sqq.) supposes that n22 is used figuratively, with the meaning, " to restore ;" but the evident allusion to the previous j-ftyjy, wliich can only be taken in a literal sense, shows that this cannot be the case. The explanation to which Cocceius is stiU so much attached, " aediji- cabitur quoad forum," must also be rejected. For although the construction is not infrequently met with ; in the present instance it is not admissible. y\rn is feminine, and therefore would naturally be regarded as the subject ; and, if this is not the case, Jerusalem ought to be expressly named, particularly as it is not mentioned immediately before. The description is said to be THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 25. 143 enigmatical, but it is nowhere ambiguous ; on the contrary, it always furnishes the clue to a safe interpretation. Wieseler thinks that the street is not the most important thing connected with the building of a city, and therefore that ;vim cannot be the subject. But we may see from the names Bechoboth Ir and Eechoboth Nahar, in Gen. x. 11 and xxxvi. 37, that the street was reaUy regarded as the leading characteristic ofthe city (com pare Kirjath Chuzot, city of streets, equivalent to Strassburg, in Num. xxii. 39). ^rp is used in the singular and without the artiele, to show that the word is employed in its widest sense. Modern expositors generaUy link together wom. an to wliich they attribute the meaning " a trench." But Michaelis has aHeady shown (Suppl. p. 951) that ^nn does not mean " trench" at all, but "aque duct ;" and, as he says, there was not much need of trenches at Jerusalem on account of its situation. However, the question is sufficiently decided by the fact that you cannot speak of building trenches ; and there is no ground for calling in the help of the Chaldee, unless it can be shown that ««-^j-j is not to be met with in the Hebrew with a suitable signification. Hassencamp, who sought to prove that yy^pj meant " a place of judgment," gained nothing by confining his attention to Hebrew usages (1. c. p. 66 sqq.) ; for neither the form of the word, nor its ordinary signi fication, aUows of such a reference, and the idea of building at once precludes it. StiU he deserves credit for having recaUed attention to the usages of the Hebrew language. According to these, p-ifrt. cannot mean any thing else than "it is cut off, 144 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. firmly determined."1 The meaning of the root w^n has been admirably traced out by Schultens (on Proverbs xxii. 5). The radical signification is "to cut," "to cut off;" and from this comes the secondary meaning of careful and precise " appoint ment" and " determination." It occurs in the latter sense in 1 Kings xx. 40 : "so is thy judgment, pr^^n HUN tu decidisti, t : - T T — secante velut acie." The passive participle wnn is use(l in Job xiv. 5, with the meaning " firmly determined :" yfti Qiayvi QN> t t • -: . ¦ "when his (man's) days are cut off;" and in Is. x. 22, iMy^ wnn> " completion is cut off (determined upon) by an irrevocable decree." In Joel iii. 14 wnnn pO)} is appUed twice to the place, where the multitudes of people are to assemble, and where the day of the Lord will be held ; and if we compare ver. 2 and 12, where the same place is caUed " the valley of Jehoshaphat of the Lord's judgment," we shaU see that it does not mean, as Credner supposes, " vaUey of the threshing machine," but, as the Septuagint renders it, t?}? BtKrjs, vaUey of judgment, of the sententia praecisa and absoluta. AU doubt, as to the word being used in a similar sense in the passage before us, is com pletely removed by the fact, that w-^j-j occurs twice in this pro phecy, in the sense of cutting off, firmly and irrevocably deter mining, (compare the word "mfyj in ver- ^4)- ynffl is very properly separated by the accents from the words that foUow, and more closely connected with the preced ing clause : " and determined, (viz., what has just been stated, that the street shaU be built) ; and (= but it will be built) in narrow times." vyynl is by no means parenthetical. Those, who explain it thus, overlook the fact, that the expansion of the more concise term serves to connect pij-13313 with the last clause. The two expressions " determined" and " narrow times," served to anticipate two objections, which might have disquieted the minds of pious Israelites. According to appearances there was no prospect whatever of a return, much less of the rebuilding of 1 Steudel thinks that, in this case, we should be sure to'find NliTV ^° doubt we should, if clearness of expression were aimed at ; but not where the greatest brevity is sought for, as in the case before us. THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 145 the city in its former dimensions. And when the return of the Jews had really taken place, a whole series of years had passed by, with nothing in the circumstances, inwhich they were placed, to afford the least hope of the restoration of the city. On the contrary, the Jews were obliged to content themselves with an open space, of comparatively small extent. What could be more natural than the idea, that the promise of the Lord had only been a conditional one, and that the sins of the nation had caused it to be revoked ? The prophet guards against any such idea, by the forcible word wnm (determined). — Another diffi culty would be sure to arise from the fact, that, even when the promise had been fulfiUed, the cficumstances of the people were anything but glorious. This might easily give rise to doubts as to the omnipotence of God, of which we have so glaring an example in the words of the wicked, as quoted by Malachi. But this difficulty could be met by the proof, contained in the expression ?i.nyn M2Q1 (an(i m narrow times), that the augustia temporum did not exist without the knowledge and will of God, that his plans had not been frustrated, but that all had been foreseen and predetermined. A historical exposition of the words "in narrow times" is found in Neh. ix. 36, 37, "we are servants this day" and so forth. Even the bufiding of the waUs was not effected without great opposition. Every one who took part in the work, had his sword " girded by his side," Neh. iv. 18. Ver. 26. " And after the sixty-two weeks an anointed one will be cut off ; and there is not to him ; and the city and the sanc tuary the people of a prince, the coming one, will destroy ; and it will end in the flood, and to the end there is war, decree of ruins." "And after the sixty-two weeks an anointed one ivill be cut off." The distinguishing characteristic of the seven weeks having been aHeady given, the prophet now proceeds to a further ex planation of the circumstances connected with the coming of the VOL. III. ie 146 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. anointed one, the prince, whose appearance he had aHeady described in ver. 25, as occurring at the end of the sixty-two weeks,, which would follow the seven weeks. m52 denotes a violent death, when used without any further explanation, such as we find, for example, in the frequently recurring phrases "iftyft rn32 (cut on? from his people) and /Hito1 mV3 (from the congregation of Israel), which have no connection with this passage. It is a standing expression for the fate ofthe ungodly (cf. Ps. xxxvii. 9, Prov. ii. 22), which is constantly pictured as violent and sudden ; to show, as conspicu ously as possible, that it is attributable to a supernatural cause. In the passage improperly quoted by Steudel and Hofmann from the first Book of Kings (viii. 25), there is a more precise explanation given, to what the expression "cut off" applies; but where this is not the case, we must conclude that it refers to the one thing, wliich most naturally occurs to the mind, namely life. The word j-ytoO is intentionally left indefinite, without any article to show its identity with the -J1331 pPtoft ahove, in per- • t : — • 1 feet accordance with the character of the whole prophecy. It was the more natural to leave it so, because an attentive and unprejudiced reader could easily gather from the context, that such an allusion was intended. As fytoTD (anointed) was suffi- "~ ' T cient in itself to show that a king of Israel was referred to, and as this is confirmed by the foUowing clause, in which he is con trasted with a prince, the coming one, it was impossible to think of any other than the Messiah, since he is the only king of Israel mentioned in prophecy, as coming after the period of the captivity. The " anointed," the " prince," was to appear at the end of the sixty-nine weeks. Of whom, then, but of Him, was it possible to think, when it was announced, in this more expanded account, that the violent death of an anointed one would take place at the expiration of the seven and the sjxty- two weeks ? A causal connexion is traced in this verse between the death of the anointed one, and the demolition of the city and temple ; just as a similar connexion was pointed out in ver. 25 between his appearance, and the communication of aU the bless ings promised in ver. 24. How could it fail to be perceived THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 147 that, as both blessings and curses belonged to the same period, they had also the same author, and that the cause of the latter was to be found in the violent death, which is here announced, of the very same anointed one, who was to bring the fulness of blessing, and who actually did bring it to those who received him, and aUowed him to confirm the covenant with them ? The reference, too, is aU the more apparent, because the violent death of the Messiah was predicted by Isaiah, before the time of Daniel, in chap, fiii., where the perfectly analogous expression is found in ver. 8, " he has been cut off from the land of the living." It was also declared at a later period by Zechariah (chap. xii. 10). When once the prophecy had been fulfilled, aU uncer tainty was changed into a crime, since this statement with reference to the years was always at command, to secure its removal. According to Steudel and Hofmann the anointed one men tioned here is an ideal person ; and the meaning of the announce ment is "the dignity of the anointed will come to an end." But the fallacy of this is shown not merely by the expression " cut off," but also by the fact that that there was no office in Israel, to which the name of" the anointed" was applied, and the practice of anointing was not restricted to one particular office. The word |-ptW3 is unintelfigible when taken by itself; its meanmg can only be learned from its connexion with jtv^W) "7133 in ver. 25. At aU events, on account of the relation in which it stands to the latter, it must necessarfiy refer to one particular person. Moreover the " prince the coming one," contrasted with him, is an Individual. And lastly, such an interpretation is fireconcileable with the words which foUow, -h pM- " And there is not to him." The different explanations, that have been given of these words, may be divided into two classes ; the first embracing those in which an attempt is made to obtain a meaning, without assuming an ellipsis ; the second, those in which the existence of k2 148 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. an eUipsis is taken for granted. We shall first examine the former of these. In opposition to the whole of them we main tain the thesis : >i^ never has any other meaning than " nonentity" or "it is not ;" >i^ always means the latter. It is impossible, therefore, to put any meaning into the words, which they will really bear, without assuming an ellipsis. 1. The rendering " et non sibi" was very generally adopted in the ancient church. Vitringa says : " not for his own sake, so much as for the sake of others, namely the elect and believers, who wiU enjoy the fruit of his death." But this rendering must be rejected, for the simple reason that v^ was never interchangeable with $j, either in the earlier or later period of the language; on the contrary, there is always this marked distinction between them, that whilst ^ js a simple negative, »i^ is the negation of exis tence. This will be at once apparent, if we look closely at aU the passages, which Gesenius has quoted in his Lehrgebaude (p. 830) and in the Thesaurus (s. v.), as proofs that p^ and ^ are in terchangeable. In Ex. iii. 2, ^3^ ^I^N rODITV the suffix at once prevents us from thinking of an interchange of ji^ and %fo. For how could a simple negative take a suffix ? ^3^ is T '*, not a preterite, but a Pual participle, with the ^3 wanting ; a form, of which the greatest number of examples occur in this conjugation. In Jer. xxxviii. 5 -yn D?n« SoV ^SPt pN^3 is not to be rendered " for the king cannot do anything against you ;" but, as the accents show, and as Kimchi, Cocceius and Michaelis have rendered it, non est rex is, quipossit apud vos, vel contra vos quidquam, wliich is a much more forcible expres sion, and holds up more prominently the impotence of the king. It is also favoured by the order ofthe words, " for not is the king he," in which there is a contrast impfied between the case as it reaUy stood, and as it would naturally have been expected to stand. In Job. xxxv. 15, *\q# -jpg vi^ 13 ;-jry^ is not to be rendered " but now, when his anger had not visited ;" espe ciaUy as the absolute vi^ is used. The true rendering is, " and now, because it is not, his anger punishes, and he turns not much to the proud." " Because it is not " means there is none THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 149 of that fervent waiting upon him, which the speaker had urged upon Job in the previous verse, and had held up before him as " his duty.1 In Ps. cxxxv. 17 and 1 Sam. xxi. 9 the notion of existence, which is aHeady contained in v^, is still further strengthened by qji, in a manner perfectly analogous to the cus tom of rendering the verbal notion more emphatic, by placing the infinitive before the finite tense ; Q;-pE!3, nVV:ttJv~PM P)M is equivalent to rynn i$h HTl &a, " there is no breath at all in their mouth." ]"p3p| ^Hi-flUn nQ~tI^ ^Nl means, " hast thou then no spear at all f" This grammatical proof, which is decisive in itself, is confirmed by the fact, that the rendering is unsuitable. For who is cut off for his own good? It would be very different if y^ could be made to bear the meaning " on his own account." In that case a merited death, brought upon a man by himself, would be opposed to death, submitted to for the sake of others ; and we might then refer to Is. liii. where such pro minence is given to this idea. — 2. Others render the words, " andnothing is to him." On this Cocceius says : " his disciples will be scattered ... a crowd of wicked men will surround him ;" and Gousset, " he is in want of everything." But the mean ing nothing, so commonly assigned to v^ and vij^ in lexicons and commentaries, is a pure invention. It expresses the nega tion, not of quiddity but of entity. If any one is desHous of obtaining further information as to this distinction, which is expressed in every language, he may find it in Aristotle's Metaphysics. We wiU also examine the passages, which are ordinarily adduced in support of this second rendering. Is. xii. 24, fi^ft 3.FIN ^oes not mean, " ye are less than nothing," but, "ye are of nonentity," ye belong to the sphere of non existence ; and so also the meaning of the first clause in chap. xl. 17 is not "all nations are as nothing," but they are "as nonentity," as though they did not exist before him. Psalm xxxix. 5 : " my life is as non-existence before thee." — In Haggai ii. 3, where the insignificance of the new temple, 1 Cocceius says : homo in examen venit, ut probetur ejus spes et patientia. Quando ilia non exstat, invadit ira ejus, qua octit et amolitur peccatum, etiam in iis quos salvos vult. 150 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. when compared with the former one, is referred to, ynfo3 N^ft M^SD TN3> is much more correctly rendered, as it has been by the more modern expositors, and was first of aU by Jerome, " non talis est ista, quae cernitur, ut quodam modo non esse videatur ?" " is it not as if it did not exist ?" Ex. xxii. 3 : "he (the thief) shall make compensation for it (that which he has stolen) ; vi^ q^ i^, he shaU be sold as a compensation for what he had stolen." In this case we can see at once, from the context, what has to be supplied; viz., "if there be not to him the means of making compensation." — 2 Chr. v. 10, nimVn ^Q) p~\ f'HNS, pN- If vyi^S vi^ stood alone here, it could no more mean there was nothing in the ark, than j-ppj tffo. The eUipsis, " any thing T T else," is apparent from the antithesis. The. same may be said of 2 Kings xvii. 18 : yyj^ pny-p lOltD pi INljS? tih- We should have justras much right to infer from this passage, that tffo means itothing, as to attribute this meaning to »i^, on the ground ~sfib\3 passage mentioned before. — In Ps. xix. 7, vi^ inD2 cvidenjtly means, " there exists no hidden thing," and not " there is naming hidden," as Gesenius renders it. — Ex. viii. 10, ^TT'^N iirT^ fN is translated by Gesenius " nihil est sicut Jehova /deus pioster" (there is nothing Hke Jehovah our God) ; but the^ontr^st impfied shows clearly enough, what has to be suprJEeo1 to the words " there is not as the Lord our God." Thae rendering nothing is quite unsuitable, for the God of Israel hs expressly contrasted with the gods of other nations (compare &hap. ix. 14). Hence 11^ is never used in the sense oi nothing, j any more than yji in that of something. Who would think of maintaining, that the Arabic (jmaT might also be used in the sense of " there is nothing ?" Or who would venture to affirm, that we not infrequently used the words existence and non existence for something and nothing ? — 3. Others again, like L Empereur (ad Jacchiad. p. 191), and before him Hitzig, adopt the rendering, " and there is no one to him." But vi^ is only used in the sense of nemo, nullus, when the person alluded to is mentioned afterwards ; e.g., "there is no one making afraid," TnriE pN- It does not follow from this, however, that THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 151 vi^ means no one ; the one is implied in "yy-jft- -^n<^ ^a remark is applicable to aU the examples quoted by Gesenius. For instance, 1 Sam. ix. 4 : " They went through the land of Shaalim vi^l and they were not ;" not " there was not one.'' The subject (the asses) is omitted, to give conciseness to the style ; just as we find the object omitted in both instances after «IN!J>3 & (they found not). But, of course, such an omission was "only possible, when the subject or object had been pre viously mentioned (what they did not find must of necessity be what the author had just said that they were looking for, viz., the she-asses) ; and therefore it has no bearing upon the passage before us. If the prophet had intended to use the word in the sense referred to, he would have written -jj-j^ after vi^, as he has in chap. x. 21, i^y ptnrw IHN Fb¥V — *• G"h. B. Michaelis, Sostmann, and Haverniek, explain the words thus : non erit sibi, non amplius inter viventes reperietur. But vtfr$ never includes the idea of a person. It does not mean " he is not," but " it is not." If this had been the meaning intended, the word em ployed must necessarfiy have been, not ji^, but ^331^, which we find in the passages quoted as paraUel ; e.g., Gen. v. 24. Besides, the dative of the pronoun could only be properly employed (to show that the thing mentioned, whether an action or a passion, related to the subject) in cases where the whole passage was of a peculiarly subjective character (compare, for example, Ez. xxxvii. 11) ; but not in such a passage as the present, where everything is so rigidly objective. — 5. Hitzig supposes that y^j vi^ stands simply for "he is not." What wiU not men do, to get rid of a difficulty ! It is clearly demonstrated then, that the words are not com plete in themselves, and therefore that something must be sup plied. AU the early translators, without exception, were convinced of this. There was not one of them, who adopted any of the erro neous views as to the meaning of r^,to which we have just aUuded. . The only point in which they differ is, that they either copy the in definite phraseology of the original, as Aquila {i^oXoOpevOrjo-erat r)Xet/j,fj,ivo<; ko.1 ovk eartv avTT&), and the Syriac have done; or express 152 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. what has to be suppfied, in the translation itself, as is the case with the Septuagint and Vulgate. Of course, we can only learn from the words immediately pre ceding our clause, what it is that we have to supply ; and there fore every exposition, in which this is not done, is so purely arbitrary that it must be at once rejected. Bertholdt has wandered farthest away from the mark in his explanation : "he will have no successor belonging to his family." There would really be something pitiable in the condition of men employed in the interpretation of writings, containing such examples of mere caprice, as this would be. Their occupation would be per petual conjecture, without the possibility of ever being certain that theH conclusions were correct.1 There is something much more plausible in the explanation, suggested by many expositors : " there is to him no helper ;" inasmuch as the word suppfied is much less limited in its meaning, and would, therefore, more readily occur to any one occupied in guessing. The same may be said, though for a different reason, of the interpretation which many have adopted from the Septuagint : judicium non erit ei, i.e. crimen quod judicium promeruit. There is something in the expression cut off, which might suggest what is here supplied, since it is not unfrequently used with reference to the punish ment of evil-doers. If we endeavour to supply what is wanting, from the words that precede,2 it must necessarily be that which belongs to the 1 Ewald' s explanation is not much better, viz. : " and there is not to him, sc. a son and heir ;" nor is that of Bosch, " and he will not be in existence or present, who (will be) to him, that is related to him." 2 This has been attempted in a very unjustifiable manner by Lengerke, who endeavours to arrive at Bertholdt' s rendering by a different road : " and there does not exist (an anointed one), who is connected with him." But we have no right to take FP2J!D from the context, unless the same anointed one is in tended. According to Lengerke, however, the meaning would be : and there is not another anointed one. Again it cannot be regarded as allowable to supply -it^N before y}. Tt£?N is only omitted in cases, in which the meaning is evident. But, in this case, every one would naturally connect yj immediately with ^w*. Moreover ^ "^Ofii could not be used in the sense referred to. It would be much too vague, to express the meaning "belonging to his family." Maurer agrees with Lengerke, with this single exception, that he does not supply "\t£^- In his opinion, " and there is not to him (an anointed- one)" means "neque habebit imperii successorem et THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 153 anointed one as such. Just as "he is cut off" refers to the destruction of his personal existence, so must the words, " and there is not to him" indicate the destruction of what belongs to him, not of some accidental possession merely, but of that which constitutes his distinguishing characteristic. Now, there cannot be two opinions as to what this would be, in the case of "an anointed one, a prince." In 1 Sam. x. 1, Samuel says to Saul: " the Lord hath anointed thee to be prince over his inheritance." Hence the distinguishing characteristic of an anointed one was, that he was prince over God's inheritance, Israel. This ceased to be the case, the rule of the anointed one over his nation was overthrown, when through the guilt of that nation he was vio lently put to death.1 Hence the rendering adopted in the Vulgate, " et non erit ejus populus, qui eum negaturus est,'' is perfectly correct so far as the sense is concerned. And John was wrong, only so far as he wished to introduce the word rjy, a people, which is of course not allowable. The correctness of the interpretation we have given is confirmed by what fofiows. The negative consequence of the cutting off of the Messiah, namely the termination of his rule over the covenant-people, is most appropriately foUowed by its positive effects, the destruction of the city and sanctuary by the people of a prince, the coming one. In this, there is a close resemblance to the description in Zechariah chap, xi., where the Messiah has no sooner resigned his office as shepherd, on account of the obstinacy with which the people resist its exercise, and broken his pastoral staff, than the poor flock becomes a helpless prey to aU kinds of misery, and the whole land is overrun by enemies, who have hitherto been restrained by the invisible power of the good shepherd and king alone. — The expression, " and there is not to him," bears the same relation to the previous clause, " an anointed one is cut off," as the words in John viii. 21, " ye shall die in your sins," haeredem legitimum." Steudel also completes the passage from the context in an indefensible manner, thus : — "and there is not (an anointed one) to it," namely the nation. The sufiix is supposed to refer to Qy in ver. 24 1 2 Hofmann thinks that what is meant is " everything belonging to the n^O> a nation, temple, and the worship of the people whom he serves." But, as we have shown, the reference here is to the "7133 ("pl!?^ 'he princely anointed one, and his inheritance can only be the people of Israel. 2 154 MESSIANTC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. to the announcement which precedes them, " I go away" (com pare chap. vii. 34). — Wieseler objects to this explanation, on the ground that " it is not even true ; for if an earthly dominion is intended, Jesus, the carpenter's son, never exercised it at all ; but if a spiritual one, then, according to the testimony of the New Testament, it was by his death, that he actuaUy acquired it." It is very clear, however, that the truth of the prophecies of the Old Testament is entirely gone, if Jesus is not to be regarded as the rightful king of the Jews. According to Wiese ler 's view Nathanael was completely in error, when he said to Christ, " thou art the King of Israel " (John i. 50). Why then does John lay such peculiar stress upon the fact, that in the superscription on the cross, Jesus was described as " the King of the Jews ?" Why is he so careful to mention, that PUate could not be persuaded to alter what he had written ? Lampe cer tainly enters into the spfiit of John, when he writes : " Assur edly we have here an interposition of the providence of God, which guided the hand of Pilate, as it had formerly controlled the Hps of Balaam and Caiaphas. We sincerely believe, that Pilate wrote this title under some remarkable impulse from God." And so Bengel bixjs (on chap. xix. 22), " PUate thought that he was acting upon his own authority, but was reaUy obeying the authority of God." Moreover, in Christ's own actions we have his positive testimony, which admits of no exceptions, to the fact that he is the King of the Jews, or rather that he was so until his crucifixion, when the children of the king dom were rejected in consequence of that event ; in other words, to the fact that Pilate was right in asking the Jews, " shall I crucify your King," and that it was not without reason that the soldiers plaited for Christ a crown of thorns, and having put on him a purple robe, exclaimed, " hail King of the Jews" (chap. xix. 3). The same declaration, in deeds if not in words, is to be found in his entrance into Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 1 — 11), in which there was a direct reference to the prophecy, " say to the daughter of Zion, behold thy King cometh to thee." — The announcement, " and there is not to him," came into operation when the Jews uttered the fatal words, " away with him, away with him, crucify him," and, " we have no king but Ca3sar." THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 155 Then it was, that they were given up by their king, whom they had solemnly renounced, and were delivered over to Caesar, to whom they had professed aUegiance. " And the city and sanctuary will the people of a prince, the coming one, destroy." There are many, who, like J. D. Michaelis, John, and Blom strand, imagine tfiat, by the -J133 here we are to understand the same person, as by the -5133 rytljft aQd VWft mentioned before. ¦ T — • T In confirmation of this opinion they appeal to the fact, that in the New Testament the destruction of Jerusalem is frequently attributed to Christ. However, the foUowing reasons are suffi cient to show, that this opinion cannot be maintained, but that ¦7133 refers to a heathen prince, and, as the issue proved, a Eo man one, whilst the "people" (not " the people") are his army. 1. The use of the word -J133 alone, whereas the Messiah is caUed -P33 pp'tyiD and rPto!0> leads to the conclusion that a contrast is • T ¦ ¦ T — . T intended, and makes it impossible to think of any other than a non-theocratic ruler. — 2. This contrast again is expressed as clearly as possible in the NST? (the coming one), attached to T "* ¦7133, which serves to point out this prince as a non-theocratic ruler, coming from without; just as the term " anointed" de scribed more precisely the prince mentioned before. The gram matical relation of N2H t° TCD is sufficient in itself to show that the former word is introduced, both as a more precise defini tion, and also to point out a contrast. The grammatical con nexion of the two nouns rPt£fl!3 an(I TOS) and the fact that the former is placed first, whereas it is afterwards written alone, indicate a similar intention. N2.n "IVI3 niust not be ren dered " of a coming prince," but " of a prince, the coming one." The article prevents us from taking ^3^ as an adjective, agree ing with "7133. Just as the rule, that " a noun with the definite article cannot be joined to an adjective without it," is one that admits of no exceptions ; so is also the rule, that " an adjec tive with the article cannot be connected with a noun without it." Hence the expression, " a prince, the coming one," in other words, 3 156 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. " the one who is coming" (Ewald § 325 a), implies the previous existence of another prince, a native king ; and the Messiah has already been announced as answering this description. ^3 is the standing expression in Daniel, to denote generaUy departure from one's own country into a foreign land, but more particularly the invasion of a country by a foreign king ; and in this sense it occurs again and again in chap. xi. (Compare vers. 13, 16, 2], 40, 41). In the very first verse of the Book of Daniel it is used in connexion with the attack made upon Jerusalem by a foreign foe. But there is a passage of peculiar importance in Jer. xxxvi. 29, " the king of Babylon shaU certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast." We have here a paraUel passage, which strikingly accords with the announcement in Daniel, if we adopt the explanation given above. In both, ^13 is connected with j-yint£>n ; an$3n (^e T — coming one) ; for in the whole course of the prophecy there is no reference whatever to any native army. The absence of the article from the word qjj proves that it means men, and from the context we obtain the meaning soldiers. " And it will end in the flood." These words are intended to show the immense power of " the prince, the coming one," and to ward off every attempt to weaken the force of the word "destroy." The invasion of the foreign prince resembles a flood, and the destruction is such, that it com pletely puts an end to both city and temple. It is evident from chap. xi. 45, that yjp can only mean, the end to wliich a person is brought. The question is, to what does the suffix refer ? Anti-Messianic expositors say, " to the heathen prince." But the whole context is opposed to such an assump tion, for the account ofthe desolations is continued after this ; and these desolations proceed from the very same prince, whose death is supposed to be predicted here. Moreover, the foUowing w-p, in which there is evidently an aUusion to yjjp, relates to the covenant nation and the holy land. There is not the least indication of the conqueror being defeated, in anything that foUows ; so that if it is to him that reference is made here, the words must have been dropped into the text at random. The Messianic expositors aU agree in this, that the suffix must refer to that which is described, both in the preceding and foUowing clause, as destroyed and made desolate. But they differ from one another in their grammatical explanations. Some, like Geier, suppose that the suffix relates to the city and temple ; but, in this case, we should rather expect to find a plural. Others, like Sostmann, refer it merely to the temple ; but it is difficult to see, why peculiar prominence should be given to this ; seeing that both city and temple are spoken of in the 158 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. preceding clause, and in the words which immediately foUow. Vitringa and C. B. Michaelis have given the correct version, et finis ejus rei. ' The foUowing remarks furnish a certain clue to the meaning of hi3$3- 1. The verb and noun are only used in Daniel, ia connexion with a hostfie invasion ; in the same manner as in Is. viii. 8. Thus in chap. xi. 22, " and the arms of the flood — the Egyptian armies which had previously inflicted so much injury upon others — wiU be overflowed by him and broken ;" then, again, in chap. xi. 10, 26, 40. — 2. There is the less ground for giving up this meaning, which is the only estabHshed one, inas much as the flood, mentioned here, evidently answers to the coming spoken of before, namely, the hostile invasion of the holy land. — 3. The article in F|t2ty3 (with the flood) points back most distinctly to ^3n (the coming one). This is, at all events, the simplest explanation, and the one which most naturaUy suggests itself. It would be only in a different connexion, that the article could be used generically. These remarks suffice at the outset to do away with a number of incorrect explanations ; for example that of Hofmann and Wieseler, who suppose that tm)$ denotes " the execution of the judicial wrath of God," in support of which view not a single parallel passage can be adduced ; — that of Rosenmuller, Rddiger, and others, who take " with a flood " to be equivalent to " suddenly ;" — and that of Steudel and Maurer : " vi quadam ineluctabili oppressus," &c. It wiU now be stiU more apparent, how unsuitable it is to refer these words to the heathen prince, and especially to 1 Examples are by no means rare, of this use of the suffix, and also of the separate pronoun, with reference, not to some particular noun that goes before, but to the whole matter in hand — (compare the fc^n m Zech. **• -^i and Jer. xxxii. 6 — 8, where it relates to the whole of the preceding sentence) — for example, Ezek. xviii. 26, " when the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity and dieth tjn>17J'> on ^a* account," namely, because he has forsaken righteousness and committed un righteousness ; — Is. Ixiv. 5, " behold thou art wroth, for we have sinned ; nn!l D")^, in them (sin and wrath) we are now already an eternity;" — Prov-. xiv. 13, rTTYHrtN fi™* e3us rei, namely, if one laughs ; Ps. lxxxi. 6, "for a testimony in Joseph he has ordained this, "ift^," the keeping of the feasts of praise and thanksgiving, recommended in the previous verse. THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 26. 159 Antiochus Ephiphanes, as modern commentators have done. Did he find his end in the same expedition, in which he destroyed the city and temple ? We have here the very opposite of the oppression by Antiochus Epiphanes. Of this the prophet never speaks, without at the same time announcing its termination. In chap. xi. 36 he says, with reference to him, " and fie shaU prosper until the indignation be accomplished." The oppression referred to here, on the contrary, is not j^y-*iy (chap. xi. 25) ; its end coincides with that of its object. This is expressly stated, and hence it is evident that the prophecy closes with the threat of the utter destruction of city and temple. The ex pression itself precludes a merely partial destruction, and there is not the least intimation of their being restored again. " And to the end is war; decree of ruins." Many connect these words together, so as to form one sentence : " and to the end of the war is decree of desolations." But we prefer to take them in the manner indicated above ; first, because the evident connection between wp and ^p leads us rather to think of the termination of the whole affair ; — again, because j-lftnSs nas no article, which we should expect it to have, if it t t : • referred to a certain definite war already mentioned, just as in the case of hjo© the article is prefixed, the particular flood, referred to, aHeady predicted ; — and also because the decree of ruins has its starting point, rather than its goal, in the end of the war, — a difficulty, which these expositors avoid only by giving to /TiJ3»3ty the inadmissible rendering devastations. The mean ing is, that the war and the decree of ruins will only terminate, when the object itself ceases to exist. It is no passing hostile invasion, that is here referred to, Hke that which occurred in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes ; but one in which the city and the temple would be completely destroyed. nJSITO might, from the form of the word, be in the absolute state, Hke fnrtti m Zech. xi. 9. But, as nsnHi is found in every other case, in which the absolute state occurs (cf. Is. x. 23, xxviii. 22), and as the form, used here, is met with, not only in 160 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. chap. xi. 36, but even in the present prophecy, and, again, as this participle in the Niphal always has the force of a substantive, meaning " something cut off," viz., a sentence, sententia perem- toria (an expression taken probably from judicial language and used to denote a fixed, irrevocable, final sentence ; see below at ver. 27) — it is best to follow the Syriac, and render it as a noun in the construct state. If we look to the derivation of ]-fl?2?2CJ from the intransitive verb Qfttij, of which it is a participle (on this point see ver. 27), it can have no other meaning than : devastated places, ruins, certainly not " devastations" in an active sense. This is con firmed by the usage of the language. We find it at ver. 18 of this chapter : " look upon our desolations, yji]-lfofttD- ^n Ezek. xxxvi. 4, it is construed as an adjective, and joined to j-yfo-in, T Ti and in Is. lxi. 4 it occurs twice as a paraUel to it. It never even assumes the appearance of an abstract. The decree of the ruins is the decree, to which the ruins belong, inasmuch as it has caUed them into existence. There is something remarkable in the relation, in which these last words stand to the closing words of ver. 25 ; a relation which is indicated in both places by the introduction of the verb w-^pj. By the irrevocable decree of God, the city now lying in ruins will be rebuilt ; by an equaUy irrevocable decree, it will be laid in ruins again. Ver. 27. "And one week will confirm the covenant to the many (or ' he will confirm the covenant to the many one week') and the middle of the week will cause sacrifice and meat offering to cease, and the destroyer comes over the summit of abominations, and indeed until that which is completed and determined shall pour down upon the desolate places. "And one week will confirm the covenant to the many (or ' he will confirm the covenant to the many one week ')." Many suppose that the subject of -yQjn (will confirm) is the THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 161 heathen prince. But, apart from the substance of the clause itself, it is a sufficient objection to this opinion, that the " com ing prince " is not mentioned immediately before ; that he only occupies a subordinate position in ver. 26 ; "and that even there he is not the subject of a sentence," (Hitzig). According to others, "the week" is the subject, (Theodotion: Kai Bwaficoaet, Bta- 6iJkt]v iroXXolx; l/SSo/ttas /*t'a), so that we have here an example of the idiom, frequently met with, in which a place, or a period of time, is described as performing, whatever takes place within it. We have a specimen of the former in Ps. lxv. 12, 13, " the hills rejoice ; the valleys shout for joy ;" and of the latter in Mal. iv. 1, " the day cometh that shaU burn as an oven ;" — in Job iii. 3, " the night which said there is a man chfid conceived ;" — in ver. 10, where the night is cursed, because it did not shut up the doors of the womb ; — and again in Prov. xxvii. 10. Nu merous examples are cited by Schultens (p. 41) from Arabic authors ; and by Gronovius (obserw. i. 1, c. 2) from writers in other languages. — Lastly, there are others who regard "the anointed one " as the subject. From what has already been stated, there can be no doubt, that the action referred to here reaUy belongs to him. The fact that he is not mentioned in the context immediately before, is not of great importance. What Maurer has erroneously asserted with reference to Antio chus, namely, that " it would not have been of any consequence, if the distance had been greater, seeing that Antiochus is the leading character of the whole epoch," is really applicable to " the anointed one." In the whole section he is the leading person, and even the coming prince, in ver. 26, is his agent. In ver. 24 the anointed one appears, as the centre of all the divine operations, the dispenser of every blessing. In ver. 26, again, it is he, whose death is described as causing the rejection of the whole nation (see the clause immediately foUowing). But of ver. 26 we have a further expansion in the verse before us. First of aU, it contains a fuller explanation with reference to the anointed one, and then returns to the " prince, the coming one." Again, the passage in Isaiah, upon which this is based, and to which allusion is made in chap. xi. 33, and xii. 3 (Is. liii. 11) : " by his knowledge wiU the righteous one, my servant, justify many," favours the supposition that the anointed one is the sub- VOL. III. L 162 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. ject (compare vol. ii., p. 305). With this we may also compare Is. xiii. 6, where Christ is described as the personal and living covenant of the nation. Some commentators maintain, that the one week is not to be connected with the previous sixty-nine, as necessarily following immediately upon them ; but that the reference is merely to some week or other, which must not be too far removed from the other sixty-nine. This one week, they say, is the one which was followed by the destruction of Jerusalem. But we can see at once, that this opinion has not been formed from an impartial examination of the text, but from the attempt to escape from a difficulty, caused by comparing the prophecy with its fulfilment. Vitringa (in his hypotyposis historiae et chronologiae sacrae) has laid it down, as one of the fundamental rules to be observed in the interpretation of this prophecy, " that the period of seventy hebdomads, or 490 years, is here predicted, as one that will con tinue uninterruptedly from its commencement to its close or com pletion, both with regard to the entire period of seventy hedomads; and also as to the several parts (7, 62, and 1), into which the seventy are divided. What can be more evident than this ? Exactly seventy weeks in aU are to elapse ; and how can any one imagine, that there is an interval between the sixty-nine and the one, when these together make up the seventy ? But the most fatal objection to this theory lies in tfie impossibfiity of discover ing, in the week supposed to be aUuded to, that which was really its distinguishing characteristic, namely the confirmation of the covenant. For where do we find, in tfie whole period of the Eoman war, manifestations of mercy of so striking a character, and so strongly confirmatory of the covenant of the Lord with his people, that it was a fitting tiling to pass over the seventieth week in perfect silence, with aU the proofs of mercy which were really given then, merely for the purpose of giving prominence to this particular week ? Some would gladly get rid of this argument, by leaving the one week, to which the conffiming of the covenant belonged, the actual seventieth week, and simply assigning to the hah0 week, which foUows, a position outside the cycle of the seventy, embracing the period of the Jewish war. But a difficulty arises here, namely, the article in jjyj^Hi which prevents us from understanding thereby a half week ^generaUy, THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 163 and compels us to explain it, as referring to the particular week mentioned just before. The one thing, which has given occasion to this false interpre tation, is the notion, that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Eomans must necessarily faU within the limits, embraced by the chronological data given in the prophecy ; a notion which led even the acute-minded Scaliger, to resort to the most forced and far fetched assumptions. Vitringa, on the other hand, has laid down the sound canon : " These hebdomads terminated in the three years, which immediately foUowed the death of Jesus Christ ; for his death was undoubedtly to happen in the middle of the last hebdomad, after the seven and sixty-two years had already come to an end." That there is no ground for the former opinion, we shaU see when we come to explain the words, " the middle of the week wiU cause sacrifice and meat-offering to cease." "yoapj means " to make strong," "to confirm ;" and we have no right to attribute other meanings to the word, as Bertholdt and Hitzig have done. This is evident from the derivation, from the use of the Piel {e.g., Zech. x. 6, 12), and also from the meaning of the Hiphil in the only other passage in which it occurs, namely, Ps. xii. 5. By the covenant, many understand the covenant aHeady in existence ; others, again, the new covenant to be estabHshed by the anointed one {cf. Jer. xxxi. 31). The absence of the article must not be refied upon, as a proof the correctness of the latter view. For there are other passages in this book, in which, the word ry>-Q is used without the article, though the Old Testa ment covenant is intended (xi. 28, 30, 32) ; just as ^-^ with out the article is employed to denote the sanctuary in chap. viii. 13. (The absence of the article may be explained on the ground, that the words covenant and sanctuary had grown into proper names). At aU events, whether it be the confirmation of the covenant already in existence, or the establishment of a new one, that is here referred to, — (in the latter case " making the cove nant strong" would be equivalent to " concluding a strong covenant"), — a contrast is evidently intended to the quality of the previous covenant, which had not been fortified by such glorious manifestations of the grace of God, as were witnessed now, and, therefore, could only be regarded as weak in com- l2 1 64 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. parison with that which was now about to be concluded, and which would be based upon the forgiveness of sins, the impartation of eternal righteousness, and the anointing of the Holy of Hofies. Again, the word *yq3 is never used in the book of Daniel, except in chap. xi. 22,1 to denote any other kind of covenant than that of God with Israel ; and this fact alone is sufficient to show that the expression can hardly refer to an alliance, into which Antiochus Epiphanes entered with some rebellious members of the covenant people, — an explanation which we should be obliged to reject on many other grounds. The comprehensive phrase, " to strengthen the covenant," embraces the communication of aU the blessings, aHeady pro mised by the prophet in ver. 24. The article in ?13-1*? may be generic, " the many" in contra- • *" T distinction to the few ; compare Matt. xxiv. 12. The many are few, when looked at from another point of view. This declaration is both preceded and foUowed by the announcement, that the mass of the people wiU be destroyed. But it is a consolation to know, that salvation is still to be imparted to the many ; though not to the nation as a whole. There can be but little doubt, that there is an aUusion to Is. liii. 11 in the expression "to the many;" the strengthening of the covenant corresponding to the justifying announced in Isaiah. And this supposition is confirmed by a comparison of chap. xi. 33 and xii. 3. The occasion of the prophecy is sufficient to explain the fact, that, both here and in ver. 24, we only read of what the Messiah would do for the faithful among the Jews. Daniel was impelled to make intercession by his fear, that the Lord had rejected Israel on account of its sins. What could be more natural, therefore, than that the answer from God should embrace only what was requisite to dissipate this fear ? We simply add the excellent paraphrase, which Vitringa has given of these words (in the Obserw. T. ii. p. 258) : " in the 1 The covenant-prince in this passage can only be the covenanted prince, compare J-p"^ ~JJ?3j Gen. xiv- 13- In chap. xi. 32, on the other hand> Hitzig has correctly maintained in opposition to Haverniek, that the covenant of God with Israel is intended : " In the whole book, not excepting chap. xi. 32, the word ]~p"Q is applied to the covenant of God with Israel." THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 165 meantime God will have regard to very many elect, who are to be preserved *ot eKXoynv x^™^ and to whom the covenant of divine grace wiU be made known by Christ and his apostles ;— a covenant to be confirmed and attested by iUustrious miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit, wliich are to be displayed among them, especially for seven years, reckoning from the time when the Lord shaU have first entered upon his public ministry in the midst of the Jews." "And the middle ofthe week will (in the middle ofthe week will he) cause sacrifice and burnt-offering to cease." irjpj means the half and the middle. No one can dispute the latter meaning; compare, for example, n^i^H *2P1> the middle ofthe night, Ex. xii. 29 ;— - rfiftSfn '•Sn. tne midst of tlie neavens, Josh. x. 13. And it is also evident that this must be the mean ing here ; for if the half of the week had been intended, it would certainly have been stated which half was referred to. If " the anointed one" is the subject, the accusative must be used in the same sense as in nV1^ m$n (Job. xxxiv. 20), and miD'CN tWl> at the beginning of the night, in Judg. vii. 19 ; (compare Ewald § 279). Sacrifice and meat-offering are individual examples, selected for sacrifices of every kind ; compare Ps. xl. 7, where the list is more comprehensive. The fact that the strengthening of the covenant is to go on during the whole of the week, in the middle of which the sacrifice and meat-offering cease, is a proof that it is not to be a sorrow ful event for befievers, but rather a cause of joy ; whilst on the other hand its connexion with the destruction of the temple, which is announced immediately afterwards, shows that, so far as the unbelieving portion of the nation is concerned, it is to be regarded as a judgment. If we enquire now in what way this cessation of sacrificial worship is to be brought about ; the death of the Messiah at once suggests itself as the cause. That the expression " after sixty-two weeks" (sixty-nine if we reckon from the going forth of the word) cannot be understood to mean, that the Messiah was to be cut off at the very beginning of the 166 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. seventieth week is evident from the simple fact, that if this were the case, the point of time fixed for his appearance and that for his death would coincide (compare ver. 25, "from the going forth of the word . . unto the Messiah are sixty-nine weeks") ; and the words themselves, " after sixty-nine weeks," clearly show that we must not go beyond the middle of the seventieth week, the period fixed for the cessation of the sacrificial worship. But in what respect did the death of Christ put an end to the sacrificial ceremonies ? So far as tfie abolition was a benefit, the question may easily be answered. The Levitical ritual was abolished as weak and unprofitable (Heb. vii. 18), when the true forgiveness of sins had been procured by the death of Christ, and eternal righteousness was brought in. The shadow vanished in the presence of the substance, the type before the antitype. But, with reference to the abrogation as a punishment, as Frischmuth says : " the question has respect, not to the bare fact of the abolition, but to its having taken place in a legal point of view." The sacrificial rites had been established by God himself, as an attestation of his covenant with Israel (see the remarks on Zech. ix. 11). When, therefore, this covenant ceased to exist, in con sequence of the murder of his son, the sacrificial rites ceased at the same time, so far as everything essential was concerned ; since this depended entirely upon thefi being appointed and ap proved of God. The question, therefore, as to thefi being out wardly maintained for some time longer, did not come into consideration at aU. Tfieir actual cessation was merely an outward proclamation of a decree, which had already been carried into effect at the very moment of the Saviour's death. The only end, which it answered, was to take away from Israel a merely imaginary possession. And in the same way, the destruction of the city and temple by the Bomans was nothing but an outward manifestation of a state of things, which existed already. When Christ was put to death, Jerusalem ceased to be the holy city, and the temple was no longer the house of God, but an abomination. Hence, in connexion with all the three things mentioned in this prophecy, the only point to which pro minence is given, and which is placed in its chronological position, is one which involves all the rest, and of wliich the others were but the development. We have just the same kind of represen- THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 167 tation in Zech. xi., where the raging of civil strife, and the devastation of the city and land by foreign foes, are placed in immediate connexion with the rejection of the Messiah, and his abdication of the office of shepherd. The supernatural agency, by which the former had been hitherto warded off, ceased at once with the occurrence of the latter ; and it was of little consequence, whether the natural causes, by which they were brought about, required a longer or shorter period for their fuU development. When once Jesus had been condemned to death, " immediately the fig-tree (of the Jewish nation) withered away." From that time forth {dirdpTi, Matt. xxvi. 64), the Son of Man was engaged in coming to judgment. In the prospect of his death the Saviour wept over the city ; so distinctly did he foresee its destruction (Luk. xix. 41 — 44), the root of wliich was to be seen in the fact, that it knew not the time of its visitation. With reference to the close connexion between the death of Christ, and the destruc tion of the city, see also Luke xx. 14 — 18, and xxiii. 48. Theodoret points out the fact, that what is here announced, as the effect of Christ's death, was symbolised at the moment of his death by the rending of the veil of the temple (Matt, xxvii. 51 ; Mark xv. 18) ; and Calvin, in his exceUent remarks on the meaning of this symbolical event (harmonia Evang. p. 368), from which we can only make a short extract, has shown that there is a real foundation for this statement in two respects, in both of which the abolition of the sacrificial worship is here predicted. " The rending of the veil," he says, " was not only an abrogation of the ceremonies, which had been maintained under the law, but as it were an opening of the heavens, that God might now invite the members of his Son to approach him with familiarity. In the meantime the Jews were admonished, that an end was put to outward sacrifices ; that henceforth the ancient priesthood could no longer be required, and that, although the walls of the temple might continue to stand, God was not to be worshipped there any more, with the rites they had hitherto performed. The substance and truth of the shadows were now perfectly realized, and therefore the letter of the law was changed into spirit." 168 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. " And over (the) summit of abominations {comes the) destroyer." We take ^33, wing, to be a figurative term denoting the summit. It is' not difficult to find philological proofs of the cor rectness of this view, for it is generaUy admitted that such a figurative use of the word does occur in Hebrew. The wings of a garment are the two ends of it ; the wings ofthe earth (Is. xi. 12), extrema terrarum. In Babbinical Hebrew, "the wings of the lungs " are extremitates pulmonis. In the New Testament, " the wing ofthe temple," in Matt. iv. 5, and Luke iv. 9, is the summit, not of some adjoining building, but of the temple itself (see Fritzsche's reply to Kuhnoel and others). The idea is so closely connected with the nature ofthe object, that we find it in nearly every language. We will merely cite a few examples from the Greek. The direct meaning of Trrepvytov, as given by Suidas and Hesychius, is aKpanrjptov. The latter mentions some examples of this use of tfie word : itTepvyta, jxepoi ti tov pv/iov, Kai tov irvevp,ovo<; tov Xo/3ov Ta a.Kpa, Kai tov cLto? to avw, Kai %l(J)ovs Ta eKaTepcodev, r\ Ta dapa twv tfjtaTiwv. Accord ing to Pollux the outer side of an oar was caUed irTepd (i. 62). — In the Qijpl&ttJ> abominations, there is doubtless, among other things, a special reference to idols ; for not only is this the sense, which the word almost invariably bears (even Nahum iii. 6 is not an exception, compare i. 14), 1 but there are several passages in the earlier writings, which we shaU quote presently, that appear to have formed the basis on which this clause is founded, and in which this use of QijftpQJ generally prevaUs. — In our opinion, the wing of abominations is the summit of the temple, which has been so desecrated by abominations, that it no longer deserves to be caUed the temple of the Lord, but a temple of idolatry. In this expression we may perceive the reason, why the temple is laid in ruins, in the manner predicted here. rjftfeJQ we render destroyer ; and in defence of this rendering, we appeal to the 1 In Hos. ix. 6 the word is applied to idolatrous worshippers, but only to low the close con: and they becami without exception. show the close connexion between the worshippers and the idols themselves, "and they became abominations like their idols." The rule therefore is THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 169 ordinary meaning ofthe Poel ;— to chap. xi. 31, where the par ticiple is indisputably used in this sense ; — and to the evident antithesis in the words ?$©£, and QftittJ' tne latter °i"wnicn can have no other meaning than " the destroyer." That the destroyer is said to be, or come, over the summit of the temple, we regard as a sign of its utter ruin ; inasmuch as the capture of the highest part presupposes the possession of aU the rest. A fortress, for example, is completely taken, when the enemy has surmounted its loftiest battlements. The phfiological correctness of this explanation no ODe wiU be able to call in question, after what we have aHeady written.1 Its distinguishing characteristic is this, that it shows the destruction of the temple to have been occasioned by the desecration, which it had received from the covenant nation itself. In support of this explanation the foUowing arguments, of a positive nature, may be adduced. 1. It is in harmony with all the rest of the prophecy. The ancient temple is described in the prophecy as changed, on account of the unbefief of the people and the murder of the Messiah, from a house of God into a house of abominations, which must be destroyed. In this respect it is contrasted with a Holy of Hofies, which is to be anointed, according to ver. 24, at the end of the seventy weeks. The destruction of the temple, which is no longer a temple, or dweUing place of the true God, corresponds to the cessation of the sacrifices, which are not sacri fices now. 2. The destruction of the second temple is most closely related to that of the first. That there was nothing accidental in either of these, but that both were effected by the avenging justice of God, who was inflicting punishment for the apostasy of his people and the desecration of his temple, was demonstrated by 1 Gesenius says in the thesaurus : " if we follow the Masoretic points and the rules of syntax, this ought to be rendered ' above the top of the abomina tions will be the destroyer ;' but with the parallel passages, xi. 31 and xii. 11, against such a rendering, it is better to interpret the passage, as if the reading had been QQ^Q "Wpli!* H3D bj?1 : " the abomi nation." They give this as a destroying thing, because their actions bring destruction in its train as a righteous punishment, THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 173 ^ in perfect keeping with the clause, " they desecrate the sanctuary, the stronghold." Because they have desecrated that, which hitherto has afforded them a sure protection, namely, the tem ple ; they are now given helplessly over to their enemies by a righteous retribution. The antithesis to " the giving of the abomination" as a destructive thing, which constitutes the starting point of the evil to be inflicted, is formed by " the giving of the abomination" as a thing destroyed, i.e. the anni hilation thereof to be effected by God, which constitutes the close. With this explanation, the passage harmonises perfectly with that in Daniel, according to the interpretation we have given above. In both of them, the abomination is represented as something " which brings in its train a fearful tragedy of devastation, as sin is followed by punishment. The abomina tions are regarded as the antecedent, that is as the sin, which is punished by the coming destroyer through the just judg ment of God " (Lampe in his valuable treatise on the /3BiXvy/ia ttjs epnp,a>a-ewi, in the Bibl. Brem. cl. 3, p. 990 sqq.). Ber tholdt gives a different explanation, and Hitzig, Maurer, and Wieseler are substantiaUy of his opinion. He says : " and his troops (those of Antiochus) will desecrate the fortified sanctuary, and wiU abolish the daily sacrifice, and set up the abomination of, desolation." If this be correct, the scandal is represented as proceeding, not from the midst of the cove nant nation itseff, but from the heathen. But, apart from the fact that "pftjyn and QftffiTp WStiJn are incorrectly ren dered, the foUowing objections may be offered to this expla nation. (1.) It is at variance with the context. Vers. 30, 32 are occupied with the members of the covenant nation itself, who had treacherously forsaken the covenant of the Lord. What could lead, then, to the abrupt introduction of an account of the foreign troops between the two ? — (2.) If we examine the 8th chapter, we find the abomination described there, as some thing proceeding from the covenant-nation itself (see also chap. xi. 14). — (3.) rjiy'i'f can hardly be understood as meaning armies. For if it were used in this sense, the feminine would be employed, as in vers. 15, 22. — (4.) ytyftni the fortress, points to a desecration on the part of the covenant nation itself. As a 174 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. contrast to ^^n> it shows the guilt and foUy of the deed. They rob themselves of thefi own stronghold. — The second passage is chap. viii. 12 : y^D! -panrr1?^ \T\1T\ N22TV We render this : " and the army is given up for the constant (thing) on account of the wickedness ;" equivalent to "on account ofthe wickedness, which has been committed, in connexion with the constant thing. " There is no grammatical difficulty in the way of De Wette's rendering, " and the army is given up along with the continual offering, on account of the wickedness." But there is nothing to show what the wickedness is. That ^32, army, (a feminine T -r in this case, as it is in Is. xl. 2, and always is in the plural), can only be understood, as referring to the army of the Lord, namely, the people of the covenant, is evident from the fact that it is used in this sense in vers. 10, 11. Even if there were nothing in the word itself, to prevent its being employed in a different sense, it could not be differently interpreted here. If it were used in any other sense in this passage, it would only cause confusion. Israel had just before been compared to the army of heaven, the stars, because it was a " kingdom" (Ex. xix. 6), a royal nation, the stars being a symbol of kings.1 It is evident from ver. 13, that ^53 must refer to wickedness, proceeding from tfie midst of the covenant people ; for they are expressly described in this verse as yaJQj-j. The correct render ing is : " how long wiU the vision last, the constant thing and the wickedness laid waste, the giving of the sanctuary and also of the army to destruction ?" qq^, as a thing destroyed, corres ponds to Ofy\Q ]-|£i, to give for a treading down ; gj-jp (the sanctuary) to *yftfin (the constant thing) ; and ^3^ (the army) to yiygn (wickedness). The explanation we have given is con- 1 Wieseler and Hitzig rely upon the absence of the article, as a proof that Israel is not referred to. But we must be very careful how we deal with arguments based upon the mere introduction, or omission of the article. It was not required here, because the particular allusion was sufficiently clear, on account of the relation in which the words stood to vers. 10 and 11. " The artistical brevity of the later writers is seen most strikingly," says Ewald, " in the omission of the article ;" and he cites as an example ^"fp, the Banctuary, Daniel viii. 13 sqq., and x. 1. Another example might be quoted from Daniel, viz , the use of ry-yj without the article, to denote the Old .testament covenant. THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 175 firmed by ver. 23, where the oppression of the covenant nation is described as occurring n^tpsn Dnrr5> "when the trans gressors are finished," that is, when the measure of iniquity is fuU, and punishment is thereby brought down with violence.1 The historical fulfilment favours the explanation, which we have given, of both these passages. In aU three sources ofthe history ofthe sufferings endured under Antiochus Epiphanes, they are repre sented as the result of the abominations, which existed in the midst ofthe covenant nation itself, and as a just retribution. This is particularly the case with regard to the desecration of the temple. It is to Jews, not to heathen, that that desecration is ascribed. — We are the more inclined to quote some of the passages, because they serve at the same time to set before us the course, which God generaUy pursues in such circumstances, both as regards prophecy and its fulfilment, and thus furnish an additional proof of the correctness of our interpretation, altogether apart from the passages in the book of Daniel. The rebefiious mem bers of the covenant nation were the cause of its sufferings, not only because they first induced Antiochus to interfere in the affairs of that nation (see 1 Mace. i. 11), but also, from a higher point of view, because their wickedness called down the vengeance of God, see 2 Mace. iv. 15 sqq. " Setting at nought the honours of their fathers, and liking the glory ofthe Grecians best of all ; by reason whereof sore calamity came upon them ; for they had them to be their enemies and avengers, whose custom they followed so earnestly, and unto whom they desired to be like in all things. For it is not a light thing to do wickedly against the laws of God, but the time following will declare these things." By this the city lost that salvation, which the Lord had formerly bestowed upon it, when a better state of mind prevailed ; see chap. iii. 1, 2, " now when the holy city was i Hitzig, perceiving that QiyiJJQ in this verse could not be separated from yfljg in vers. 12, 13, observes that the transgressors here are no doubt the same as those, who were guilty of the transgression mentioned in ver. 12 namely the heathen." This is certainly consistent. Maurer, on the other hand, says : " but Alexander and his successors are nowhere so described." And Michaelis observes, more profoundly still, " The term ' transgressors ' when the word is used absolutely, is applied to such of the Jews as trans gressed against God and his law, rather than to Gentiles (inasmuch as the latter had not yet received a revelation of the law, or the covenant of Godl cf. Is. i. 2, xlvi. 8, xlviii. 8, and Ez. xx. 38. ;' 176 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. inhabited with all peace, and the laws were kept very well, because of the godliness of Onias the high priest, and his hatred of wickedness, it came to pass that even the kings themselves did honour the place, and magnified the temple with their best gifts." The rebels were indirectly the sole cause of the desecra tion of the temple, and also assisted directly in that desecration : see 1 Mace. i. 33 sqq. The Syrians prepared a stronghold, " and they put therein a sinful nation, transgressors of the law, and fortified themselves therein." — That we are to understand, by the sinful nation and the transgressors of the law, apostate members of the covenant nation, is evident both from the words them selves and also from Josephus (Antiquities xii. 5, 4 ; compare J. D. Michaelis in loo). — Ver. 36. " For it was a place to lie in wait against the sanctuary, and an evil adversary to Israel, thus they shed innocent blood on every side of the sanctuary and defiled it." Even the setting up of the fiBeXvyfia t»)s epi)p,ajo-ea)<;, the abomination which brought desolation in its train, namely, the heathen altar, was effected' with the co-opera tion of these apostates ; compare ver. 52 sqq., " then many of the people were gathered unto them, to ivit, every one that for sook the law ; and so they committed evils in the land, &c, and they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Judah on every side." And on account of aU this wickedness tfie wrath of God feU upon Israel ; ver. 64, " and there was very great wrath upon Israel." As the gates of Jerusalem had been opened to Antio chus by the apostates (cf. Josephus xii. 5, 3), so was Menelaus his guide, when he laid his impious hands upon the temple and denied it — " Menelaus, that traitor to the laws and to his own country being his guide " (2 Mace. v. 15 sqq.). The reason why the Lord permitted this desecration is given in ver. 17 : " the Lord was angry for a while for the sins of them that dwelt in the city, and therefore his eye was not upon the place." The connexion, between the fate of the temple and the conduct of the people, is traced in a most striking manner in ver. 19 sqq. — " nevertheless God did not choose the people for the place's sake, but the place for the people's sake. And therefore the place itself, that was partaker with them of the adversity that hap pened to the nation, did afterward communicate in the blessings THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 177 sent from the Lord ; and as it was forsaken in the wrath ofthe Almighty, so again, the great Lord being reconciled, it lias set up with all glory." 4. This explanation is supported by the testimony of tradi tion. We may see this very clearly from the passage in Jose phus (Wars of the Jews iv. 6, 3, p. 292), where it is said of the zealots, " they occasioned the fulfilment of the prophecies against their own country ; for there was a certain ancient say ing, that the city would be taken at that time, and that the sanctuary would be burned by an enemy, for sedition would arise, and their own hands would pollute the temple of God ; the zealots did not disbelieve these sayings, and yet they made themselves the instruments of their accomplishment." There can be no doubt whatever that, by the " certain ancient saying" (t« iraXatos Xoyos avBpcov), we are to understand the prophecy before us (see Dissertation on Daniel, p. 215). The Qi^iptij were understood as referring to abominations, with wliich the wicked members of the covenant-nation itself would desecrate the temple ; and we may see how widely this particular view was spread, in addition to the general idea that the prophecy related to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Eoman s, from the fact that Josephus expressly affirms, that even the zealots shared in it. Hofmann objects to our conclusion, that " the prophecy" referred to is the passage before us, on the ground that this passage does not contain the slightest allusion to civU commo tions, or the desecration of the temple by the Jews themselves. That the latter is actuaUy predicted here, is what we are at present occupied in proving. It is certainly true, that the words oTaats edv KaTaa-Kijyjrrj are not to be found in our prophecy. But there were two things, that would inevitably lead Josephus to assume the existence of sedition ; first, the cutting off of the anointed one, and secondly, the fact that the temple is described as the place of abominations. Both these facts showed clearly, that the whole force of the ungodly party must have been put forth; and at the same time they were evidently altogether inconceivable, without powerful opposition on the part of those who were faithful. That this is the way, in wliich we are to explain the origin of the words arao-is edv Karao-K^y, is confirmed by another passage of Josephus, viz. Bk. vi. chap, ii. VOL. III. M 1 78 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. § 1 ; and this passage also serves to prove, that our explanation is supported by the testimony of tradition, and that, from the very earliest times the Jews regarded the prophecy as referring to native abominations. The words of Josephus are as foUows : " who does not know the writings of the ancient prophets, and the prediction which hangs over the miserable city, and is now about to be fulfilled ; for they foretold its capture, whenever any one should begin the murder of his own countrymen. And now, are not the city and temple fuU of those of our own people who have fallen ? God, therefore, God himself brings fire upon it to purify it by means of the Bomans, and destroys the city which is filled with such poUutions" {fjnao-fjuaToiv). p,iao-p,a is adopted in the Septuagint, at Jer. xxxii. 34, as the rendering of wffty. Josephus connected the abomination with the cutting off of the anointed one. From the one fact he inferred the rest (he had already been speaking of the murder of the High Priest Ana nias). There is not a single passage in Daniel beside' this, in which Josephus could have found any announcement of mur derous abominations in the temple, which were to proceed from the members of the covenant nation itself. The prediction of the destruction of the city and temple, on which Josephus lays stress in both passages, is altogether restricted to the prophecy before us ; as Wieseler has said, the words of the iraXaw Xoyos, " that the city should be taken and the sanctuary burned by an enemy," exactly correspond to the words of Daniel in ver. 26 : and the people of the prince " shall destroy the city and sanctuary." As aU the things which Josephus men tions in the two passages are to be found in the 9th chap ter, and as the most distinctive features are not met with in any other part of Daniel, and, moreover, since Josephus refers to chap. ix. 27, as containing a prediction of the Eoman invasion (see Book vi. 5, § 4 ; and compare the proofs which Wieseler gives that the Terpdycovov is the same as the P133, p. 158 sqq.), it must be regarded as demonstrated that he alludes to this passage, and this alone. There is the less ground for supposing that there is also an allusion to chap. xi. 12, since the arguments adduced by Wieseler, to prove that certain references to the Eoman age have been discovered in this chapter also, and that Josephus only referred the 8th chapter to THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 179 Antiochus Epiphanes, evidently break down. The "three years," in Antiquities xii. 7. 6, point to the twelfth chapter quite as much as to the eighth.1 5. This explanation is supported by the weightiest of aU authorities, that of the Lord himself. But with the numerous false interpretations of the words in question, this requires to be more closely examined. The passages we refer to are Matt. xxiv. 15, 16, " when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, — whoso readeth let him understand, — then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains ;" — and Mark xiii. 14, " when ye shall see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not (let him that readeth understand), then let them, &c." We have already proved (in the Dissertation on Daniel, p. 213 sqq.), that the Lord referred to the words of Dan. ix. 27, and not to chap. xi..31, xii. 11, as Bertholdt, Hofmann, and others suppose. We showed there, that the predictions in chap. xi. and 1 Even the proofs offered by Wieseler, who follows Haverniek, that the Septuagint rendering of Dan. ix. 24 — 27 is traceable to the opinion that the prophecy refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, cannot be regarded as satisfactory. The arguments adduced in support of such an assumption ought to be more direct. For, according to Wieseler's own confession, this is not what we should most naturally expect. At p. 132 he acknowledges that, in the time of Christ, this passage in Daniel was universally supposed to refer to the second destruction of Jerusalem. At p. 162 he says, " these anticipations do not represent the consciousness of an individual, but the general consciousness ofthe Jewish nation. For they were not hatched in the brain of any one man, but, as we are expressly told, they gave life to the actions of a whole people." If this was the national belief, the Alexandrian translators would hardly have ventured to set themselves against it. And if the Septuagint version was opposed to such a belief, it could hardly have arisen at any sub sequent period. But all the proof that is offered rests upon a forced inter pretation of the chronological notices in ver. 26. There is nothing there about 139 years, but seventy-seven times and sixty-two years. It seems very far-fetched to suppose that the author took as his starting-point the commencement of the era of the Seleucidae ; and even if it were so, the years would not agree. According to 1 Mace. i. 21, the persecution commenced in the 143d year. Moreover, there are several things which do not suit the time of the Maccabees ; for example the expressions olicobojir]o-eis 'lepovo-aKfip, iro\iv KvpLax (ver. 25), dn-oa-ra^crerat xpiV/ia (ver. 26), fVi ro Upbv xSS^Xvypa tbxv eprjuaia-eav 'icrm, " on the temple there will be an abomination of deso lation," — (there is nothing to answer to this in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes), — and also (Tiv. The deviations from the original text are not to be attributed to the desire of the translator to force the passage into harmony with the circumstances of the Maccabean era, but to the fact that ho was a bungler, and possibly here and there to corruptions in the text, which he certainly exaggerated far more than was necessary. M2 180 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. xii. were at that time commonly believed to have been fulfilled in the time of the Maccabees ; whilst the fulfilment of that con tained in chap. ix. was regarded as still reserved for the future. The words "let him that readeth understand," which are quoted from chap, ix., were adduced as a stiU further proof. And lastly, we pointed to the fact, that the expression tV t6w

corres ponds exactly to eirl to lepbv (BBeXvyp,a tcov ipwp.d>crecov. With regard to the objection that in the first passage the Septuagint has the plural toiv ipw/tojo-ewv, and in the other two the sin gular T-^5 epi)/j,d>o-eo)x;, Wieseler has justly observed that, "the question, why the Evangelists have written the singular instead of the plural tow ipr)/j,a>aeo}v, is easily decided, if we consider that the plural itself is entirely arbitrary and has no foundation in the text." The Evangelists have done just the same thing in the case of the eirl to iepbv of the Septuagint. Many com mentators (for example Schott, comment, in serm. de reditu, p. 47 sqq.) have explained @BeXvyp,a Tr)<; iprj/j,d>aem, abominatio devastationis, as meaning abominatio devastanda ; and this, according to Kiihnol, is an abstract in the place of the concrete, and means detestabilis desolator. The reference is said to be to " the army of the Eomans, which was about to destroy Jerusalem, the heathen soldiers, who were worshippers of idols, and hence, or for that very reason, were to be held in abomination." For our part, on the contrary, we foUow the steps of such excellent predecessors as Olearius (observv. in Matt., p. 682), Lampe (1. a), Reland, and Eisner, and understand by " the abomination of desolation," the abomination with which desolation was con nected, as the effect with the cause. The genitive is exactly like that which we find in the expression alpeo-et<; dira>Xeut<;, in 2 Pet. ii. 1, and resembles avdo-Tao-is £i»7}?. The word ear©? (standing) may be accounted for on the ground that the abomi nations, with which the temple was defiled, were figuratively represented as idols set up in tfie temple. The figure is employed by Daniel, and was evidently borrowed from an earlier period, when this actually was the form in which the abomination was displayed ; (compare the passages quoted from authors who wrote before the captivity). The leading arguments adduced in support of the current interpretation, — namely, the fact that, in the parallel passage, THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 181 Luke xxi. 20, (" when ye shaU see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh"), the com passing of the city by the Bomans is given as a sign of the coming destruction, and a proof that it is time to fly, — proves nothing at all, as we have aHeady sfoown in the Dissertation on Daniel, p. 217. For what hinders us from assuming, that the Lord directed attention to other signs of the coming destruction, which are given in the prophecy of Daniel, either at the same time or on a different occasion ; that Luke recorded the outward sign, which was taken from Dan. ix. 26 {ko,1 fiacrtXeta eOvwv ) B6%a tov Atfidvov 7rpo? ae ij^et — Bo^dcrat tov tottov tov aytov p,ov. — Again the words /3BeXvy/j,a ty)? epr]p,d>aeci)<; (abomination of desola tion) show, as is generaUy admitted, that Christ had the Septua gint translation in his mind ; though, on the other hand, his substitution of iv Toirm dyia> for iirl to iepbv proves that he adhered to that version, which was the one current among the people, only so far as it rendered the original text with general fidelity. If, then, allusion is made to the temple, both in the Septuagint and the Hebrew text, how could two? dyto<; be sup posed to mean anything else ; especiaUy when the reference to Daniel foUows immediately upon the words " standing in the holy place ?" Lastly, it is evident from the connexion with what goes before, that the temple must be intended. The out ward circumstance, by which the Lord was led to deliver this discourse, was the disciples' showing him the buildings of the temple. In verse 2 he had foretold their destruction, and the disciples had asked him, when this would take place. If, then, he speaks here of an abomination of desolation, which would stand in " the holy place," in close connexion with what he had already been £aying, how could any one imagine that by the holy place he meant something different, in this connexion, from that which he had so designated immediately before ?^ THE SEVENTY WEEKS DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 183 We adduce the foUowing proofs in support of our explanation, according to which the desolation is pointed out in its relation to the inward sign, just as in Luke its relation to the outivard sign is made prominent. 1. Christ does not enter into any further explanation of the meaning to be attached to the phrase " abomination of desolation," but assumes that it is either aHeady known, or may be learned from the book of Daniel, to which he expressly refers. Now, as we have already proved from Josephus, D^&tt) an<^ fiBeXvyfia were at that time universaUy regarded, as referring to some defilement of the temple on the part of the covenant-people themselves. If the Lord, then, had not approved of this interpretation, as being the correct one, would he have contented himself with this simple allusion, and not rather have given some clue to the meaning of @8eXvyp,a t?j? ipij/Awaeox; ? — 2. There is a remarkable parallel to this passage, as we inter pret it, in the 28th verse of the same chapter of Matthew, " wheresoever the carcase is, there wiU the eagles be gathered together," in other words, where the sin is, the punishment is sure to foUow. The drapery is taken from Job xxxix. 30. — 3. Our explanation is in perfect harmony with history. Even Titus saw, that the destruction ofthe sanctuary had been brought about by the fearful abominations, with which it had been poUuted, as several passages of Josephus clearly show. And Josephus himself is thoroughly imbued with this idea. He says, for example (in the Wars of the Jews, B. iv. 5, 2), after having narrated the death of the true friends of their country : " but I think that God, having condemned the city to destruc tion on account of its poUutions, and having decreed that the sanctuary should be purified with fire, cut off these its protectors and friends." The difference between the words of Daniel, and those of the Lord, is simply this. The language of Daniel is more general in its character. The temple, both in the time of Christ, and after his death, is represented 'as a place, desecrated by idolatrous abominations, and therefore devoted to destruction. Christ, on the other hand, who wished to furnish his disciples with an out ward and visible sign of the coming destruction (compare the expression orav iBrjTe), singles out one particular period in this desecration ; namely the point of time when that, which had j^S 184 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. hitherto been concealed, though already there, was brought to light by the just judgment of God, — according to the plan which he usuafiy adopts in things great and smaU, and whether the apostasy be that of a nation, or of a single individual. In this instance the form, in which the existing state of things was brought under the cognisance of the senses, was of so frightful a character, that many even of those, who had taken part in the secret desecration, were seized with horror ; in fact the history of the zealots given by Josephus can only be explained from the fact that, vfchen crime reaches its height, it passes over into a species of frejjz/. Wieseler starts the objection, that we should expect to find j-p3 before Qi^p©, " over the summit ofthe house of the abomina tions." But to this we reply, that ^33 was probably used as a proper name, and applied to the roof of the temple. The reasons for such an assumption may be found in Matt. iv. 5, Luke iv. 9, and the Septuagint version, in which ^33 ^y is rendered ini to lepov. The Greeks appear to have had a similar idiom. The Scholiast to Aristophanes says, Ta? yap tosv lepwv aTeyas irrepct Kai deToi<; KaXovcrtv. But, apart from this peculiar use of the word, the context shows very clearly that " the summit" could only mean the roof of the temple. For the prophet had just been speaking of the temple and things connected with it, — Wieseler himself cannot help observing, that, " when we look at the general connexion, there cannot well be any doubt that the words refer to the destruction of the temple." Having thus sustained our own explanation, let us now take a glance at those which differ from it. The first which presents itself is that of Lampe. In every thing essential, it is the same as our own ; but he takes a different view of the meaning of ^33. In his opinion, this applies to the temple generaUy and not merely to the summit: " the wing, not as the extreme point, but as that which covers and defends." He appeals to such passages as Ex. xix. 14 ; Deut. xxxii. 11, 12, where the care, which God takes of his people, is represented under the image of the pro tection, afforded to its young by an eagle or any other bird. If this explanation be adopted, we have a parallel in chap. xi. 31 : " and they defile the sanctuary, the stronghold ;" 033 being merely THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 24. 185 a figurative term for ttyft. But a fatal objection to this is found at once in the fact that h33 is in the singular, whereas in every other instance, in which the term " wing" is figuratively employed to denote protection (not only in the passages quoted from the Old Testament, but in those cited by Lampe from both Greek and Latin authors), the plural is used, as being from the very nature of the case the more appropriate. Lampe appeals to Ps. xci. 4 ; but the cofiective noun miN> feathers, is not inter- t : v changeable with ^333. To this we may add the harshness of the expression, " wing of abominations," if taken to mean the temple, which, if kept holy, would have been a protection, but is now changed into a place of abominations, and cannot therefore justify the false confidence which the people continue to repose in it. The explanation, given by Jahn, contains a somewhat similar idea to our own. He supposes " over the wing of abominations" to mean " over the abominable army of seditious men and thieves." But it is a sufficient objection to this, that the singu lar 033 cannot be used for an army. And this is perfectly natural ; for the figure is based upon the resemblance supposed to be borne by a hostile army to a bird of prey, which stretches out its wings above its victim. In Is. viii. 8, to which Jahn refers, the Dual qi^ is used. Q*iQ3fy aloe, is also employed by Ezekiel in the same sense, but only in the plural. We find the plural again in the analogous passages quoted by Gesenius from Arabic authors, both in the Thesaurus s. v. ^23, and in his commentary on Isaiah, vol. i, p. 335. We need scarcely caU attention, therefore, to the fact, that the verb qq^j itself points to a buildingj^as that which is to be destroyed, especiaUy if we compare ver. 26, where the word ntotttW ™ applied to the ruins of the city and temple. To this word, ?ftfe and ?q^j in the verse before us correspond ; the former being regarded as the agent employed in inflicting ruin, the latter as that upon which it falls. Nor need we say that the connexion, which exists between the desolation and the interruption of the sacrificial worship, leads to the conclusion, that the temple is intended. 186 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. Among the explanations, which are fundamentaUy different from our own, we select first of all that of Bertholdt : "on the wing roof of the sanctuary wiU the abomination of desolation stand: this refers to the statue of Jupiter Olympius, which Antiochus Epiphanes set up on the pinnacle of the temple.'' There are so many points here, wliich are open to attack, that we need not stop to mention the fact, that there is no historical foundation whatever for the statement, that such a statue was set up. (1). It contains its own refutation ; for it cannot be sustained without changing the construct state ^33 into the abso lute state £133. — (2). Even granting that this pretended emenda- 't t tion is admissible, the meaning aUeged cannot be obtained from the words. How could rjftftjft Q^piy mean abomination of desolation ? Bertholdt maintains that 073^)3 is a participial noun, desolation, like ;-fB3J3, a cover, 3}>jy3, an abomination. But 3y]-)ft never occurs in tfie sense attributed to it ; it is only ¦* t : used as a participle Piel, witfi a transitive signification (compare the notes on Is. xlix. 7). HKDft ^s no^ an abstract noun at all. And even if this view were not altogether inadmissible, it would be so fiere, on account of the evident antithesis in the words Oftiyft an(l DOTtt^> as affens ftb-dxpatiens ; especially as the same antithesis is found in other passages of Daniel (compare xi. 31 with xii. 11). And what do we gain by aU this forcing ? The absolute state Q'wfl&tP cannot be used for the construct. It is undoubtedly correct that in Hebrew the want of composite nouns was supplied, not only by connecting two nouns together in the construct state, but also by placing them side by side in the absolute state ; for example, n^JHn T^ Taumelwein, "wine of reefing," Ps. Ix. 5, and p-^-rpoy Mildegerechtigkeit, meek ness — righteousness, Ps. xiv. 4. In this case the pronunciation suppfied the want of the ordinary grammatical signs of close relationship. But this very rare and therefore a priori impro bable construction, of the existence of which we ought to have the most convincing proofs, is restricted to nouns whose mean ings are intended to coalesce so as to form one idea. The use of the construct state, on the other hand, is far less limited, and serves to point out any relation in which one noun can stand to THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 187 another. Now we cannot suppose that the two words abomi nation and desolation coalesce in this manner in the present passage. The connexion would necessarily be of the slightest description possible, a mere juxtaposition, since the idols could not be regarded as the cause of the desolation. Rosenmuller suggests this explanation, " and over the wing of abominations there will be a devastating (one), i.e., a de vastating general will command a detestable army." But we have already shown that ^33 cannot mean an army, because it is in the singular. Is. viii. 8 and xviii. 1 can hardly be adduced as having any bearing upon the question. In both passages reference is made to the wings of a bird of prey, which are figu ratively employed to denote a victorious army.- We have also proved that ?^"IpW ^oes not mean any abominable thing, but idol deities in particular. V. Lengerke and Maurer agree with us in rendering the pas sage, " over the summit of abominations comes the destroyer ;" but they suppose the temple to have been first made into a place of abominations by the destroyer : " et cum templo a se profanato ad arbitrium aget vastator." Wieseler, on the other hand, has aHeady observed, that it is very harsh to assume the existence of such a prolepsis as this, " the prince destroys that summit in such a manner that it becomes a summit of abominations." The most natural supposition is, that the summit of abominations and the destroyer bear the same relation to each other, as the cutting off of the anointed one to the destruction of the city and sanc tuary by the foreign prince, referred to in the previous verses. Wieseler understands by ^33, the point or surface of the altar, and by the abominations, the unholy, heathenish spirit, the unbelief, in which the people offered their sacrifices upon the altar of the Lord. But the word inepvyiov in the New Testa ment and lepbv in the Septuagint both show, that 033 is the roof of the temple, and not the point of the altar. Again, we do not see why the point of the altar should be particularly mentioned. Lastly, n^sipcj can only refer to the idols themselves. Ewald renders the passage, " and indeed on account of the frightful climax of abominations." But he is obliged to confess that " ^33 is very rarely used in the purely figurative sense of 188 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. the extremity." And to this we may add, that Qft^ft cannot he shown to have ever been used in the sense oi frightful. Whilst Ewald lets the words slip, others, in direct opposition to the true character of the whole prophecy, connect them with what follows, so as to make a long straggling sentence, which is peculiarly inappropriate as a conclusion. A uberlen renders it thus : " And for the devastating climax of abominations and until the completion, and indeed that which is determined, it wiU drip over that wliich is laid desolate." We have here a false rendering of ^33, in which Auberlen follows ¦Ewald,1 and also of QijjIS^- -"-t is the more natural to under stand by ?)2'$fl3 the destroyer, in the literal sense ofthe word, as such a destroyer had aHeady been mentioned. Auberlen ought to have hesitated all the more, therefore, before he set aside any distinct reference to the temple, seeing that he actually does speak of the words as containing such an aUusion. Hitzig s first translation of tfie words was this : " And over the summit of the abomination of desolation and unto . it will be poured out." In defence of the rendering abomination of desolation, for Qj3^j)3 D^ptt^ ne quoted Is. xix. 4, q^n Hffip) where we also find a plural noun coupled with a singular adjective. But who would draw the conclusion from such an example as this, that every plural might stand for a singular. This is really the case with but a small and weU defined class of nouns, in which the plural form is merely used to show that the word is employed as an abstract, not that the thing itself may also be regarded as an abstract ; for example, a^'-jN and also ?"1^3 and Q-ipj '^N, when used directly to signify domi nion. Now, if the same rule were applied to Q^pttj, which is never used in any other sense than as an actual plural, it could only be rendered : destructive abomination, or idolatry. But what would this mean ? Could the lifeless idols of Antiochus Epiphanes be regarded as the authors of desolation ? And what could we understand by " over the wing, or over the point of the destructive abomination ?" We need scarcely say that 1 Auberlen must certainly have found it difficult to make up his mind to spcnk of an " accidental analogy in the nTepvywv of Matt. iv. 5." THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 189 with this explanation there is inseparably connected a false ren dering of rynroi rh^> as weu as 0I> Tjnn ancl tfc>v- Hitzig' s present rendering is " abomination of horror," or "horrible abomination" (Entsetzens-grduel). QfotWD ^s sa^ to be a neuter noun, pointing out the object of amazement and fiorror. Q^iy1! which occurs afterwards, is an abbreviation of DOI^O- ^ne object referred to is the heathen altar of sacrifice. But we can find no reaUy analogous example of a " neuter sub stantive " in such a form as this. Is. xlix. 7, where 3^,nft Is used for an object of abhorrence, is said to present the closest analogy ; but both this and liii. 3 can only be made to bear upon the question by being falsely rendered. It is evident that QtoWtS ^s a participle, both from the form, and also from Ezra ix. 3, 4. As a Poel participle it can only be rendered in one of two ways ; either in an active sense, which most naturally sug gests itself in this " most emphatic active root," or as marking a gradation, which is the case in Ezra ix. Again, if qj3^q were a substantive, the q could not be dropped. Moreover, if this explanation is correct, we cannot see why wpQ} should stand in the plural. — Wieseler justly observes: "one argument against the supposed combination of the two words may be found in the fact, that, in the only passage in which it reaUy occurs (Dan, xi. 31), the singular yip©n *s employed. We are forced to the conclusion, therefore, that the plural Qi^lptlf Is purposly intro duced here, especially as this is the only place in which it occurs in the Book of Daniel ; and that the object has been to prevent its being connected with tyy^r^, which would otherwise have been an admissible construction." Lastly, any aUusion to the point of the altar would be altogether out of place. " And indeed until that which is completed and determined shall pour down upon the ruins." We will first enquire into the meaning of 5-^3. Commenta tors and Lexicographers generaUy assume thatTfhe word means completion, and that it is used here for the complete destruction. The form of the word is sufficient in itself to excite suspicion aa 1 90 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. to the correctness of this explanation. It is the feminine of the adjective 5-^3 as ppji is of j-jqi. The masculine occurs in Deut. ... T T T V T xxviii. 32 in the "Sense of deficiens, tabescens. The form n^3> from a verb ;-y%, answers to such forms as 3713, in derivations " T from the regular verbs, which are always adjectives with an intransitive signification, never abstract nouns, and least of all abstracts with a transitive meaning. The inference, which we draw from the form, is confirmed by the usages of the language. j-1^3 Is never used in any other sense than as a feminine, or T T neuter, that (which is) completed. A very obvious example of this we find in Zeph. i. 18, where pj^3 is connected with another T X participle, " for the Lord does a completed (work), a fearful thing only, (^ni In the Niphal never means directly to make haste) , with all the inhabitants of the land." This is also clearly the case in the passage before us, and in Is. x. 23, xxviii. 22, where ;-j^3 is connected in precisely the same manner with another participle. From this meaning of nTO we may explain the adverbial use of the word in Gen. xviii. 21 ; Ex. xi. 1 ; and 2 Chr. xii. 11 ; completely, entirely and very. It suits the con nexion in Dan. xi. 16 "a completed (work) is in his hand," in contrast with the imperfect execution of his decree. And it is equally applicable to tfie frequently recurring expression ntyy pl^3t This means, sometimes, " to do a complete thing, to carry a tiling perfectly out, to put the finishing stroke," Jer. iv. 27, v. 10, 17, (with persons) Nahum i. 9 ; at other times, with an accusative, to make a thing or a person into something finished, completely to destroy, Neh. ix. 31 ; Jer. xxx. 11 ; Ezek. xi. 13, xx. 17 ; Nahum i. 8. The meaning given by Haverniek to the expression in Ezek. xi. 13, " to execute a final sentence," does not suit the last two passages. With such a rendering, it is im possible to explain the use of the accusative. The completion may refer to the determination itself, or to the execution of it. The verb p[^3 is not infrequently used to T T denote the completeness of a determination. For example, 1 Sam. xx. 7, " if he, Saul, be wroth, know that evfi is completed on his part," that he has formed a fixed and unalterable deter mination to do evil; and again at ver. 9; — 1 Sam. xxv. 17: THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 191 " now therefore consider, and look what thou doest, ni"H3-,,3 t : t nSH!l> TOr evu *s nrmly determined for om master, and for all his household ;" — Esther vii. 7, " for Haman saw, nn^-^D t : t iiyin vSn> that evil was firmly determined against him by the T T T T " A king." These passages show that the completiomiot only refers to a determination generally, but that it was especially restricted by usage to the completion of a determination to do any one an injury. It never occurs in a good sense (compare Prov. xxii. 8, and Schultens on the passage). Our adjective ^^3 is also T T used in 1 Sam. xx. 33 to indicate such, a fixed determination: " and Jonathan knew ^ipj nS^_,,3> that it was a fixed determi- T T nation on the part of his father, to slay David." Now it is evi dent that, in this passage also, -^3 refers to something completed, not in the performance, but only so far as the determination was concerned ; first, from its being connected with another word, wliich denotes the firm and unalterable character of a determi nation ; secondly, from the word "ri^p,, which is always used to denote the cause of destruction, whether it be the wrath of God, or the sentence of God, but never the destruction itself; and thirdly, from Is. xxviii. 22, where the ;-j2$*"in31 !~I^3 (the same combination as we have here) is described as an object of hear ing, "I heard from the Lord, the Almighty, a completed and determined thing." There is thus a perfect similarity between the relation, in which the two words stand to each other in the passage before us, and that which we find in these two passages of Isaiah -,1 and this similarity renders it extremely probable, that when thus asso ciated they had become current as a legal term, expressive of the last fixed and irrevocable sentence, particularly in cases of capital crime. We do not regard this clause as a perfectly independent one, as many expositors do, who render it " until the completion it wiU drip," &c. ; but we connect it with the preceding clause, thus : " over the wing of abominations comes the destroyer, and indeed," &c. That this is correct, is proved in part by the words 1 Vitringa has given a correct interpretation, founded upon Rom. ix. 27 but the explanation given by Gesenius and others is incorrect. ? 192 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. rETlPO n^3> when rightly understood. For, if this must necessarily mean the determination, the final sentence, in con tradistinction to the smaller amount of chastisement resolved upon before, ^ cannot denote the termination of the dripping. The punishma|t inflicted by God does not terminate with the final sentence, Dut this is rather the first commencement of its fearful manifestation. Moreover, according to our interpretation the verb tj^ji receives the subject which naturaUy belongs to it, viz., the final sentence, wliich is regarded as dripping down, because with God decree and execution coincide. Thus, in ver. xi. it is said : " Then the curse was poured upon us, and the oath, that is written in the law of Moses ;" and in Mal. ii. 2 : " I seni.ipm.1 ihft curge " and in Zech. v. 4, the roll inscribed with the curse comes jj5^0 tfle nouse of tne tnief anii PerJure(l man and destroys it. BufP if tne clause lbe reSarded as independent, ^p must be rendered'aN1 an impersonal verb, which it never is else where, and certainh) iF cannot be here> seeinS that {t occurs in ver- 11 with a definite i *UDJect- We need not say, that the Vav in •ryi does not furn#isn a yalid g^nnd of objection to our explana tion for Vav j^s frequently used in the less restricted sense of et qui'dem)^-y in ver" 25> P^SII- compre Jer. xv. 13. Kai occurs in thell-'' saine sense in John i. 16.1 mv ne expression " it wiU pour down over " is founded upon the j instruction of Sodom and Gomorrha, as the type of aU the .¦^subsequent judgments of God. In its primary signification wjyj is applied to the falling of natural rain (2 Sam. xxi. 10 ; Ex. ix. 1 See Gesenius Lehrgebdude, p. 845, and Ewald § 330 b. Wieseler is of opinion that " the meaning assigned to Vav only applies to cases, in which it stands before a singular noun, or a clause governed by a preposition, but not when it stands before so long and independent a sentence as this is, consisting of conjunction, subject, and verb." But the point in question cannot really be, whether Vav has any peculiar meanmg; it is simply used on several occasions, when we should write "and indeed," or "and that." Again, the distinction drawn between ly as a preposition and as a conjunction, can hardly be regarded as well- founded. Where it appears to stand as a conjunction, the whole clause is treated as a noun, a thing of frequent occurrence in Hebrew. But even if we were obliged to admit the force of Wieseler 's objection, it would be easy to evade it by a slight modification of our rendering. Nothing more would be necessary than to supply the relative before "Tn]"\ as Blomstrand and others have done. ! THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 193 33). But the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha was caused by a supernatural rain, (" God rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrha," Gen. xix. 24). This passage of Genesis is taken as the basis of many others, in which the fate of the ungodly is depicted. The passages, in which the aUusion is most distinct, are Ps. xi. 6, and Ezek. xxxviii. 22 : " fire and brim stone wiU I rain upon him." But the reference is also apparent in the foUowing passages, which are more closely related to our own : 2 Chr. xxxiv. 21, " great is the wrath (fiteraUy the heat) of the Lord, that has poured down upon us (1)33 niD2)> because our fathers have not observed the word of the Lord, to do ac cording to all that is written in this book ;" 2 Chr. xii. 7, " and my wrath wiU not pour down ^^3 upon Jerusalem ;" Jer. vii. 20 : " behold mine anger and my fury are poured out JH3D3 npon this place, over (as in the passage before us) man and beast, and over tree of the field, and over fruit of the earth, and it burns and is not quenched ;" — Jer. xiii. 18 : "as my anger and my fury hath poured down (^^3) over the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so wiU my fury pour down ('tjij-i) over you, when ye come to Egypt ;" — Jer. xliv. 6 : " my fury and mine anger pour down (see Is. xiii. 25, where ^^ H!2n are nsed as a compound word, my wrath-fury), and burn in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, and they become a ruin and a desolation ;'' see also Nahum i. 6 ; Lamentations ii. 4 ; and Is. xiii. 25. It is very evident from these paraUel passages, that the fiery rain of the wrath of God was a standing expression for the judgments, which issued in the destruction of the covenant nation, an ex pression so current, that we even meet with it in plain historical prose. Daniel, wfio had witnessed one such fiery rain (compare ver. 11), and who had just been interceding on behalf of tfie awful ruins, received for answer, that when they had been rebuilt, and after that, had excited the wrath of God to a more fearful extent than before, another fiery rain would lay them in ashes and ruins again. The expression always implies utter destruc tion, and for this reason we cannot think of the era of the Maccabees. To get rid of this unwelcome conclusion, most of the modern Maccabean expositors take c!3t2J as an active verb, and thus divert the burning wrath from the covenant people to VOL. III. N 194 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. the foe (" over the destroyer"), and, as we may readily suppose, there are not wanting Jewish commentators to bear them out in this, although with one accord they refer the prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Bomans. Abarbanel says: " besides this he remembers the desolation which will come upon the heathen themselves, and which will extend evento their utter destruction." The adoption of so ungrammatical an explanation is a proof, that no other resource could be thought of. The verb QOtiJ is always intransitive, and never means to devastate. To show this we will look through aU the passages, that are quoted as examples of this meaning. In Ez. xxxvi. 3 jTiQltf 'rm is usuaUy rendered propterea quod devastant vos. But it ought rather to be translated, " because ye are desolate, and because they earnestly strive after you, to make you a possession of the heathen." This is evident from ver. 4, where the desolation caused by the Chaldeans, and, after this, the misery which the sufferers had to endure from their haughty neighbours, are repre sented as the cause of the active display of the divine compas sion. (We find the two invariably associated in the complaints that were uttered at the time). For " the desolate ruins" rtoftffi rnmri) an(I " the forsaken cities," exactly correspond : tt: to j-fifttj}. Throughout the whole of the prophecy the surround ing nations are never charged with the desolation of the land of Israel, but only with cruel insults and rapine. The desolation is always described as Chaldean. — Appeal is also made to Dan. viii. 13, where Qftfaj JJttJSH is supposed to mean " abomination of the destroyer." But the grammatical obstacles in the way of such a rendering are so conspicuous, that Gesenius and Winer have been induced in consequence to substitute Qft^'n JftB0» an(^ thus to bear their testimony to the fact, that they could not venture to apply their own principles of interpretation to what is actually in the text. We have aHeady shown that the explanation, which must be given, is this, "how long does the vision last, the continual thing (the sacred worship) and the wickedness (the covenant people as a living sin ; for a similar personification see Zech. v. 8, where the Israelitish nation is spoken of as ungodliness, personified under the THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 195 image of a woman, and again Mal. i. 4), as laid waste." -pftfin requires that ry^tf should be rendered as a passive. For what could we understand by " how long does the constant thing last," when it is evident from the context, that reference must be made to the length of the period of suspension ? The meaning there fore must be, how long does the continual thing last as a thing destroyed. Thus in the parallel and explanatory clause Dft"1T3 belongs equaUy to both m-fh an(I N32 (army). In connection with the former, it corresponds to -pj3fin> an(I W1th the latter to VttJQIT Lastly, appeal is also made to Dan. xii. 11, " and from the time that the constant thing is taken away, W\p\jj r\rh"\ QlDfa?-" ^he rendering given here is "and the devastating abomination given," which makes the clause a part of the de scription of the starting point. But the difficulty in this case is, that the terminus ad quem is entirely wanting, and in addition to this it is impossible to shut one's eyes to the evident antithesis in the words, " they give the abomination as a destroying one," in chap. xi. 31. The words must be taken, therefore, as deter mining the final point ; from the time when the continual thing has been taken away, and up to the time when the abomination is given as a thing destroyed, that is, up to the time, when the abomination, which has been already represented as the author of desolation, in other words, as bringing desolation in its train by the law of retribution, is itself laid waste, and the sanctuary justified, as we find it expressed in Dan. viii. 14. This expla nation is confirmed by ver. 7, where ^ is used, in the same manner as here, to point out the terminus ad quem. — There is aU the less room to translate q^ by destroyer in this passage, on account of the evident antithesis of Qftftjn and qq^; as agens and patiens, which prohibits the identification of the two, and also because the participle ryffi} is used once more in this section (ver. 26), as well as in the other portion of the chapter, in an in transitive sense. To this it must be added, that in the passages of Isaiah, to which there is an aUusion here, as there is in chap. xi. 36 to Is. x. 25, the finished thing and the firmly determined, thing refer to the judgment upon Judah, not to the heathen n2 196 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. destroyer ; and also that ooittJ is never appfied to a single indi vidual in the other passages in whicli it occurs. As QQgjQ is masculine and has the force of a substantive, it is most natural to construe ?aitB' in the same way : not " over the ruined (temple)," but simply " over the ruined one." The ruined one is an ideal person, Hke the Sabbath in Is. lviii. 13. Taking it in connection with what precedes, we may either think of the city and temple, or, what really comes to the same thing, of Israel itself; compare Lam. iii. 11, "he hath made me Shomem," and chap. i. 13. Wieseler objects to the explanation we have given, as a whole, on the ground that " it makes the prophecy conclude with the most terrible of afi the calamities, whiph could possibly befal the Jewish nation. Daniel would thus have prayed in vain for the preservation of the city and sanctuary. Passing calamities might befal the nation and the sanctuary. But the deliverance pro mised at the end would certainly afford them consolation and peace." — Seventy weeks of years, during which the city and temple would continue to stand, had been announced to Daniel in answer to his prayer, whilst the fresh destruction, predicted here, was not to take place, till the true covenant-people had re ceived a rich compensation. And what is not irregular in history, cannot be so in prophecy. Another of Wieseler s objections is this: "the clause com mencing with -jyi would then contain the culminating point of the divine judgments, slighter punishments having gone before. But, as the destruction of the temple is threatened in the fore going QJ3^J3, what other calamity of a more grievous kind could still befal the temple and the Jewish nation ?" The climax, however, consists in this, that prominence is given here to the final and lasting character of this catastrophe, which distin guished it from earlier chastisements, the Chaldean, for example, in which the destroyer also came over the temple. Let us take a glance now at a few of the other explanations which differ from our own. V. Lengerke renders the passage, " and indeed until the com pletion and (until) the decree shaU pour down over the destroyer." We have already shown that this is a. false rendering of both rp3 THE SEVENTY WEEKS — DANIEL, CHAP. IX. 27. 197 and 0131©. Again j-j^ and nSHPU are separated, contrary to the passage in Isaiah upon which this is based. The same objection applies to Wieseler's rendering: " and until it is finished, that which is determined will pour down over the wasted one." The subject to pj^3 is also said to be " the half week referred to immediately before." But it is the middle of the week, not the half week, that is spoken of in the previous clause. Moreover, until ought in that case to be when. Wieseler admits that q^qj never can by any possibifity mean destroyer, but only destroyed (desolate). But his assumption cannot be sustained, that " the wasted one" is used here in the sense of " that which is to be laid waste," or, to quote his own words, that " it ought properly to be read, over him, so that he is laid waste." The destroyer, according to the previous clause, comes over the temple, or Israel. It must be the latter, therefore, which is here represented as the wasted one. If any other had been intended it must have been stated more clearly. Ewald translates it : " still untfi destruction and determina tion pour down upon the terrible thing." Hitzig explains it thus : " and over the summit of the horri fying abomination, and unto the extermination and decree, it (the extermination) wiU pour down upon the horrible thing." According to this, the object of the pouring would be mentioned twice. Auberlen's exposition is the foUowing : " and until the com pletion (till the determined end of tfie desolation arrives, and the promised kingdom of God comes) it wiU pour down over that which is desolate." This is opposed to the meaning of y-^3 and also to the primary passage in Isaiah. Moreover, the sub ject of "inn is lost in this case; and Auberlen tries to recover it from ver. 11 ! PRECISION OF THE DATES. The prevalent opinion among both Jews and Christians has always been, that the seventy weeks, and also the shorter periods 198 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. into which they are divided, are fixed with precision, and clearly defined. It is enough to excite suspicion, as to the correctness of the opposite view, that it has only been entertained by persons, whose hypotheses clash with chronology, (such as" Bleek, for example, who has the chronology against him in aU his three periods), or by those who have no taste for chronological re searches. Although this rarely happens, we must make a careful distinction between what is subjectively indefinite, and what is objectively so. To establish the former it would be necessary to prove, that the chronology of the different periods was altogether uncertain, from the outset to the close. But, as no such proof can be adduced, and the divine wisdom is shown in the fact, that the time fixed for tfie coming of tfie Messiah falls at a period, when chronology rests upon the surest foundations, both because we have at command several distinct eras, which we can compare together, and also because we have the testimony of many contemporaneous authors of different nations, -the assumption is one, which must be unhesitatingly rejected. In support of the latter, namely, that the chronological data are only given in the gross, the foUowing arguments have heen adduced. 1. We are told, that " it is very clear, that the rjijEjtJ) (the weeks) are chosen as the measure of time, principaUy because of their similarity to the numeral Qij;3ty (seventy) in the two prophecies of Jeremiah." — 2. That " it is evident, that the num ber of these is fixed at seventy, for no other reason, than because the absolute necessity of making them correspond to the seventy years of Jeremiah required it, and precluded the selection of any other number." This is Bertholdts opinion. It is certainly correct, that the seventy weeks of restoration are closely related to the seventy years of desolation. But what foUows from this ? The starting point was so chosen, that this reference was accu rately borne out by the result. And the fact, that there exists this difference between the starting point of the seventy weeks and the terminus ad quem of Jeremiah, is a proof of the inten tion to mark the time with precision. — 3. Cocceius says, " it is incredible that God should have desired to make faith dependent upon chronology." But if the idea, which lies at the basis of this PRECISION OF THE DATES IN DAN. IX. 199 argument, be correct, we might prove that every translation of the sacred Scriptures must be inspired. For otherwise, faith would depend upon philology. And it might also be proved, that afi historical researches, as to the canonicity of the biblical books, are useless. The argument does not affect our prophecy, any more than any of the others, wliich have a determinate chronology. And if the existence of one such prophecy can be demonstrated, it foUows at once, that the argument must be founded upon erroneous premises. Do those, who have no taste for chronological researches, or cannot engage in them, receive any less, because provision is made for those who possess both the talent and the taste ? Is not the declaration itself still there, as much as in the case of the other Messianic prophecies ? And is it not true of all the external evidences of the divinity of Christianity, that no man can find them out for himself, unless he possesses the requisite knowledge for submitting them to a test ? Can any one of these prophecies be properly tested, with out any knowledge at all ? Is it not indispensably necessary, even to discern an approximation to fulfilment ? And wiU any one venture to draw the line, beyond which God must not go ? Are aU the evidences of Christianity intended for every man ? Is it not, rather, true, that God in his wisdom and love has taken care, that every one, who is open to conviction, shaU find some of these evidences within his reach ? ShaU any man, who is not at home in some one of tfie departments, in which God has deposited marks of his truth, look with an evil eye upon this manifestation of tfie benevolence of God ? Shall the Christian historian, for example, be envied, because the evidence afforded by the wondrous effects of Christianity, unfolds itsefi to him with greater clearness and perfection, than to a man who is more or less unfitted for the study of history ? And lastly, do not the gifts in the church exist for the good of the whole ? Does not the research, which has been directed by the Spirit of God, and the results of which have been handed down as a traditional inheritance within the church, confer a benefit even upon those, who have not been actively engaged themselves, but who receive the results with confidence P1 1 With this reply to the objection offered by Cocceius, compare the reply given by Sack in his Apologetik, Ed. 2 p. 336 : " As chronology could not be 200 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. The arguments in favour of the definite character of the chronological data, are just as strong, as those on the opposite side are weak and slender. 1. The seventy weeks are very closely related to the seventy years of Jeremiah. The chronological precision of the former rests upon precisely the same proofs as that of the latter. And the evidence is easily produced. That Daniel looked upon the seventy years as' a definite period is apparent, as even Lengerke acknowledges, from the prayer which he offered in the sixty- ninth year, and whicli was founded upon the assumption, that the period was close at hand, when this prophecy of Jeremiah was to be fulfilled. But, even if any doubts had been entertained on this point previous to the fulfilment, tfiey would aU cease when the prediction was actuaUy accompfished. We have proved, in the Dissertation on Daniel (p. 147 trans lation), that the first year of Cyrus was exactly seventy years from the period from which Jeremiah reckons, viz., the fourth year of Jehoiakim ; see also Kiiper Jeremias, p. 64, Kleinert Jesaias xciv. 137. I have also shown, in my treatise de rebus Tyriorum, that the Tyrian chronology leads to the same result. Steudel objects (p. 14 sqq.), that " seventy years are afiotted by Jeremiah to the Babylonian captivity, whereas it only lasted sixty-eight years." But the two years of Darius the Mede are regarded as a continuation of the tyranny of Babylon over Judah ; for it stiU existed in substance, and did not actuaUy terminate till the first year of Cyrus. With reference to Steudels objec tion, founded upon Zech. i. 12, where the affliction is described, as having lasted seventy years in the second year of Darius, see our remarks on the passage itself. Again Steudel observes, that " in 2 Chr. xxxvi. 21, the seventy years of Jeremiah are spoken of, as relating to the devastation of the land, which really lasted determined with precision by every reader of the Scriptures in Israel ; all that was left for those, who could only fix upon the starting point, as falling some where within the period ofthe commandments and permissions issued by the Persian kings, was a general calculation as to the time when the Messiah was to be expected ; though the space, over which it would extend, would not be very large. But this was amply sufficient to strengthen faith and heighten expectation ; and in this sense we may also say of modern readers of the Scriptures, that, even if the methods and results of learned chronological researches are beyond their reach, the simplest historical knowledge is suffi cient to produce a conviction in the mind, that the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ." PRECISION OF THE DATES IN DAN. IX. 201 but fifty-two years." The author of the Chronicles, he argues, must therefore have taken the seventy years to be a round num ber. But the desolation of the land had existed in the germ, and in its earfiest stages, from the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and merely reached its, height in the destruction ofthe temple. As a general rule, captivity and desolation go hand in hand. Len gerke (p. 430) renews the assertion, that in Jer. xxv. 11, 12, and xxix. 10, the number seventy is used in connection with two distinct events, which differed in the period of their commence ment. But we have shown, on the contrary, in our Dissertation, p. 146, that the second passage points back to the first, that there is but one starting point, and that this is to be found in the earlier of the two passages. 2. AU the other chronological statements made by Daniel, with reference to the future, are definite in their character. It is universaUy admitted, that those contained in chap. viii. and xii., in connection with the Maccabean era, are not only true to the year, but to the day. It is evident too, from chap. iv. 34, that the period fixed for Nebuchadnezzar's madness was chrono logically exact, "at the end ofthe (appointed) days ;" although the measure of time, actuaUy adopted, had to be determined by the fulfilment. 3. The prophecy itself bears aU the marks of chronological precision. We have already shown in the explanation, that this is clearly indicated by the expression Tyr-ipO- Tne terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem are not left indefinite, but are fixed by very distinct events. Not only is the entire period of seventy weeks divided into three parts of seven, sixty-two, and one, but the latter is divided again into two equal portions. How could this be done, if haff a century more or less made no difference ? God himself would have given occasion to doubt bis own word, if a propheey containing all the marks of chronological exactness was proved by the fulfilment to have been quite indefinite. 4. If these reasons were insufficient to decide ' the question, , which they are not, the solution must be sought in the fulfilment ; and whichever explanation coincided with this, would be the correct one. Of course, the exactness, which we maintain to exist, cannot be greater than the circumstances themselves admit of. It can 202 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. only exist in its fuUest extent, in connection with announcements, such as the greater part of those contained in our prophecy, which have respect to one particular and sharply bounded point of time. In the case of events, which from their nature cannot have such precise limits, — the completion of the building of the city, for example, and the subjective appropriation ofthe bless ings of salvation procured by Christ, — the precision of prophecy could not surpass the precision of history. COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. We have aHeady shown in our exposition, that we are not to look for this at the commencement of the rebuilding of the city generaUy ; but rather at the time when the work of restoring the city in its former extent and grandeur was first taken in hand. We have now to determine, by the light of history, in what year this actuaUy occurred. If the reference were simply to the commencement of the rebuilding, it would unquestionably be correct to fix upon the first year of Cyrus as the starting point, as some have actually done. Isaiah celebrates Kores as the builder of the city (chap. xiv. 13), and aU the sacred writings, which treat of the period between Cyrus and Nehemiah, evidently assume the existence of a Jerusalem, during that period of time. But clearly defined as the starting point is in this prophecy, it can neither be assigned to the first year of Cyrus, as it is by one ; nor to the second year of Darius Hystaspes, as it is by another ; nor to the seventh year of Artaxerxes, as it is by a third. Up to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, what had once been the city of Jerusalem was an open village, thinly populated, and exposed to injury of every kind from those who dwelt around. It bore the same relation to both the earlier and the later city, as the huts, which are run up after a city has been destroyed by fire, as a sfielter from rain and wind, bear to the city itself, both before the fire and after its restoration. In the broad space, single dwellings rose up amidst the rubbish, which COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 203 lay heaped up around the city to such an extent, that it was im possible to complete the road aU round it. We wiU first of all dispose of the arguments, which have been brought against this view of the state of Jerusalem. " In Hag gai i. 4," it is argued, ' ' we find these words, ' is it a time for you to dwell in your cieled houses, and my house is waste.' " But this passage merely proves the existence of certain " cieled houses," and is by no means at variance with the view we have given of the state of Jerusalem. Stress is laid again upon Ezra iv. 12, where the enemies of the Jews are said to have written to Artachshasta, " be it known unto the king, that the Jews, which came up from thee to us, are come unto Jerusalem, to build the rebeUious and the bad city, and to finish the waUs and restore the ruins," com pared with ver. 16, "we make known to the king, that if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof completed, there will be no portion for thee on this side of the river." Artach shasta is not Smerdis, but Artaxerxes, in this as in every other passage of the Bible. Vers. 6 — 23 form a parenthesis, relating to the city and walls ; and the design is to show, that the hostility of the enemies of the Jews was brought to bear upon them even- here. These results have lately been thoroughly demonstrated by Schultz (Cyrus der Grosse, Studien und Kritiken, 1853). But the passage proves the very opposite of what it is said to prove. We learn from it, that, in the time of Artaxerxes, Jeru salem was completely in ruins, and that the attempt to put an end to this mournful condition entirely failed. The attempt was probably made after the arrival of Ezra, which had put fresh spirits into the people. They hoped indeed for the connivance of the government ; but they deceived themselves, when they cherished such hopes as these. " The authority of Ezra," says Auberlen, p. 119, " was so ex tensive, that the rebuilding of the city was essentially involved in that authority. This is very clearly and simply expressed by Ezra himself, when he says in his penitential prayer (chap. ix. 9) : our God hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, so that they cause us to revive, to raise up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and so that they give us walls in Judah and Jerusalem (^33, a walling round ; not merely building, but, as it were, fortifying the city.)" 204 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. — To this we reply, that it is stated in Ezra vii. 11, " now these are the contents of the letter, which the king, Artachshasta, gave to Ezra, the priest, the scribe, who was learned in the command ments of the Lord and his laws for Israel." In this description of Ezra, the whole extent of his royal authority is contained. It refers solely and exclusively to the sphere of religious worship^ and it is with great truth that Schultz has said : " the hands of Ezra the priest were only loosed in matters connected with the temple ; in -every other respect they were stiU firmly bound. And Nehemiafi was tfie first to receive permission to build the city and its walls, which Artachshasta, in his unfavourable edict, had not incited represented as impossible, but which he had hitherto withheld." And if we look at the edict, which was issued by Ezpanfimself, we shall see that the meaning, given hy Auberlen to chap. ix. 9, is f priori inadmissible. The literal rendering of the passage is this : " and has inclined favour to us before the kings of Persia, to give us life, to raise the house of our God, and to set up its ruins, and to give us a fence, in Judah and Jerusalem." Tfie blessing, conferred by God, is the restoration of the temple alone. In connexion with this, both fife and the fence are given. The fence ("133 is an enclosure, a fence, a waU, and is principally applied to the defences of a, vine yard, but never to city-waUs, see the remarks in Ps. 1-snrri-sr. 41 and Micah vii. 11) is taken from Is. v. 5, wfiere it is used to denote tfie divine protection. And the pledge of the renewal of that protection was just the sanctuary. The same idea is expressed in .ver. 8 : " and that he may give us a peg — a sure existence — in his holy place." Lastly, appeal is made to Nehem. i. 3 : " and they (those who had come from Jerusalem to the Persian palace) said to me : the remnant, that are left of the captivity there in the city, are in great misery and reproach, and the waU of Jerusalem is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire." From this Michaelis and others, who foUow him, say that " it neces sarily foUows, that the waUs of Jerusalem had been first of all rebuilt by those who had returned, and then destroyed a second time by the surrounding tribes. For Nehemiah cannot have been ignorant that the waUs had been demolished by Nebuchad nezzar, and therefore this cannot have furnished a fresh occasion COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 205 for his grief." But what is there to force us to the conclusion, that the visitors brought some intelligence, that was quite new to Nehemiah ? He was not ignorant of the fact that the walls and gates had never been rebuilt ; but the excitement of a court fife had absorbed bis attention. Now, however, the contrast between the promise, and that which was actuaUy to be wit nessed, stood out with peculiar vividness before his mind ; and he was impeUed to offer an earnest intercessory prayer, which prepared the way for its removal. The inference is no better and no worse, than that which has been drawn from the impres sion made upon Josiah by the reading of tfie law, namely, that he was entirely ignorant of it before. Are we justified in con cluding that, because the people wept when Ezra read the law to them (Neh. viii. 9), they had never known anything of it before ? Moreover, the relation, in which the words, " they are in great misery and reproach," stand to the clause, " the waUs are destroyed," &c, is that of effect and cause. Nehemiah had never thought before of the things which were told him now, namely, that the destruction of the walls exerted a most perni cious influence, and completely hindered the rebuilding of the city, by exposing its inhabitants to afi the insult and injury that would be heaped upon them by their enemies round about. The ruined condition of the waUs, therefore, appeared to him now in a very different fight ; and whilst it pained him, it also led him to offer prayer, and to form plans for bringing active assistance. The foUowing positive proofs may be adduced, that the Chaldean destruction of the waUs and gates is referred to here, and that they continued in this state of ruin until tfie time of Nehemiah : 1. The description ofthe Chaldean destruction, which we find in Lam. ii. 8, 9, is precisely the same, so far as the walls and gates are concerned, as that which is given here (compare also 2 Kings xxv. 10). — 2. The enemies of the Jews only know of one destruction, and that one of distant date ; com pare Nehemiah iv. 2, where SanbaUat says: "what do the withered (feeble) Jews ? wiU they give life to the stones out of the heaps of rubbish which have been burned up ?" — 3. The Book of Ezra does not say a single word about the walls being restored. And yet we can hardly imagine, that such an event would be passed over in silence ; an event, the importance of 206 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. which may be seen from the fact that, when it was in actual progress, the enemies of tfie Jews tried to prevent it, both by stratagem and force, and that nothing 'excited their anger so much as this. Moreover, in Ezra iv. , we may find positive proofs that the waUs were not rebuilt. And the second portion of Zechariah (chap. xiv. 10 sqq.), which was written after the sixth year of Darius, when compared with several passages of Nehe miah, which are quoted there, clearly shows that, at the time of both these writers, the waUs and gates were in the same state, as that in which the Chaldeans left them, with the very same fragments standing as they had spared, and no others. See also Neh. iii. 8 : " and they finished Jerusalem, as far as- the broad wall ;" from which it is evident, that they did not require to rebuild the broad waU, to the west of the Ephraim's gate, which was still standing, according to the passages aHeady quoted (compare 2 Chr. xxvi. 9), the strength given to this wall by Uzziah having kept it from falling down. There is no notice of permission to rebuild the city and waUs, in the edicts of any of the Persian kings. And who would venture to maintain, that this was self-evident ? It is one thing to let a defenceless people return home, and quite a different thing to furnish them with means of defence, which might be turned against the giver himself, in the event of a general revolution. The latter pre supposes an amount of confidence, sucfi as we never meet with in the monarchs of Asia, who were well aware, that their power was based upon the weakness of their subjects ; and nothing but the close relation, in wliich Nehemiah stood to Artaxerxes, could account for the exception in this instance ; especiaUy when we consider that the Jews, as we learn from Ezra iv., had heen accused of a disposition to rebel. This refutation of the arguments, adduced in opposition to the view we have given of the condition of Jerusalem up to the time of Nehemiah, contains, in part, tfie positive evidence of the correctness of that view ; and hence we only need to make the evidence complete. In Zechariah the condition of Jerusalem is represented, throughout, as merely temporary. According to chap. i. 16 the measuring line is not to be drawn over Jerusalem, tiU a later period. In ver. 12 the time then present is spoken of, as belong- COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 207 ing to the period of affliction, not to that of restoration ; it is merely a supplement to the Chaldean captivity. According to chap, ii., the future alone wiU witness the completion of the destruction of Babylon, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem ; in fact everything, that has yet been done in connexion with the latter, is so insignificant, that it is hardly taken into considera tion ; and the prophet speaks as if the building would be altogether new.' Compare, particularly, ver. 1, " And behold a man with a measuring fine in his hand. Then said I, whither goest thou ? And he said to me, to measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what is the length thereof." In chap. vii. 7, the time past, when Jerusalem was seated and contented, is contrasted with the present. Jerusalem, therefore, was still a city ; though (3©]-\ nV) it was not seated, but prostrate. In chap. viii. 5, the prophet predicts, that the streets of the city wiU one day be fuU of boys and girls, playing in the streets thereof; and. we may see how little there was at that time, to bear out the prediction, from the fact that, in ver. 6, he feels it necessary to remind those, to whom such a change in the state of things appeared strange and incredible, of the omnipotence of God. Under Ezra, and notwithstanding his commission, the degraded and sorrowful condition of the people stiU continued. He says this himself, as plainly as possible, in chap. ix. 7 : " Since the days of our fathers have we been in a great trespass unto this day ; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to a spoil and to confusion of face, as it is this day." There was only a smaU beginning of grace, in the preservation of a remnant and the restoration of the sanctuary, ver. 8, 9, 15.1 1 In order to be able to transpose the point, from which the seventy weeks of years are reckoned, to the seventh year of Artaxerxes, the year in which Ezra came to Jerusalem, Auberlen was obliged to given an incorrect descrip tion of the nature of Ezra's mission, and the character of his times. He thinks (p. 113) that, " so far as the historical matter is concerned, the flrst part of the Book of Ezra forms a complete work ; whilst the second part is closely connected with the Book of Nehemiah, and the two together make up a perfect historical picture." " The first period after the captivity," he says, " we may call the period of the building of the temple ; the second, represented by Ezra and Nehemiah, that of the restoration of the people, and the building of the city ; the first, the period of religious 208 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. The same picture, of the state of things in existence previous to the arrival of Nehemiah, is given in tfie book of which he was the author. That the number of inhabitants was very smaU, is evident from the expression, " the remnant, that are left of the captivity there in the city." From this it seems to foUow, that the smaU number of inhabitants in Jerusalem had diminished in the interval between Zechariah and Nehemiah. The people may have been wearied out by the constant annoy ances, to which they were exposed from enemies, who made Jeru salem their pecufiar mark ; and they may therefore have scattered themselves over the rest of the land. But it is from chap. ii. 3 and 5, more especially, that we see how Httle there is to warrant the idea, that the city was restored before the time of Nehemiah. In that passage, Nehemiah is represented as saying to Artaxerxes, " the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, Heth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire. Send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it." From this it is evident, that there was so little difference between the condition of Jerusalem, as it was then, and as it had been during the captivity, that there was no necessity to make the sligfitest aUusion to any change in this respect, and its existing state could be described in precisely the same terms, which are appfied to its earlier condition in tfie chapter before us. That there was no exaggeration in the account, which Nehemiah gave to the king of Persia, is apparent from his description of what he saw, when he arrived at Jerusalem, "ye see the distress that restoration ; the second, that of the religious and political combined." But it is not an accidental circumstance, that in Neh. xii. 47, the contrast lies between Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, whilst Ezra is not even named; nor is it a mere accident that the mission of Ezra is recorded in the same book, which describes the work performed by Zerubbabel and Joshua. The whole of the book of Ezra centres in the temple. The mission of Ezra had reference to this quite as much as that of Zerubbabel and Joshua. No political changes were introduced by him. Ezra himself published the edict, in which Artachshasta prohibited the erection of the walls, and therefore of Jerusalem. There was, no doubt, an essential connection between the mission of Ezra and that of Nehemiah. Ezra's religious reformation was to secure the conditions, without which Nehemiah's political reform could not be carried into effect. But this connection, which is never expressly mentioned in the Scriptures, was too spiritual and refined, to come into consideration here. What is required here is a massive starting point. If it is certain, that Ezra had nothing directly to do with the restoration of the city, it is no less so, that his mission cannot have been the point from which the seventy years are reckoned. COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 209 we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire" (ver. 17). Very striking too is the statement in Neh. vii. 4, " the city was broad and large, but the people were few therein, and there were no houses built." The reference here is to the period immediately following the erection of the city walls. Belying upon the promises of God, the people had built the waUs upon their former plan ; but the disproportion was most startling. The few houses in existence seemed almost lost, in the broad space within the walls. Thus far, we have proved that the actual restoration of the city was not commenced before the time of Nehemiah. We shall now proceed to show, that it was by him, that the com mencement was actuaUy made. We may see from Ecclus. . xlix. 13, that in later times he was regarded as the restorer, not only ofthe walls and gates, but also of the city itself: " among the elect was Neemias, whose renown is great, who raised up for us the waUs that were fallen, and set up the gates and the bars, and raised up our ruins again." On the other hand, Joshua and Zerubbabel are celebrated in ver. 12, as the builders of the temple. But we can adduce a stiU stronger proof from the book of Nehemiah itself. From chap. xii. 43 we perceive, that the completion of the city waUs was regarded as a great and glorious favour, conferred by the Lord upon his people, through the instrumentality of Nehemiah : " Also that day they offered great sacrifices and rejoiced, for God had made them rejoice with great joy, the wives also and the children rejoiced, so that the joy of Jerusalem was heard even afar off." The effect pro duced among the heathen round about, by the completion of the waU, is thus described in chap. vi. 15, 16 : " so the waU was finished .... and it came to pass, that, when all our enemies heard thereof, and aU the heathen that were about us saw these things, they were much cast down in their own eyes : for they perceived, that this work was wrought of our God." In close connexion with chap. vii. 4, wfiere the course of the narrative is interrupted, merely for the purpose of relating certain things, which occurred between the determination and its com plete execution, Nehemiah describes in chap. xi. 1, 2 the measures, which he adopted, to increase the number of inhabi- VOL. III. n 210 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. tants in Jerusalem. At his instigation, first of all, the rulers of the people all came from the country into the city ; after this, the tenib~of the rest of the people were ordered to do the same ; and lots were cast, to determine who should go. Lastly, a con siderable number of families went, of their own accord, from the country into the city. This was at first regarded as a sacrifice, dictated by love to the theocracy, on account of the sudden rupture of every tie which necessarily attended it, but the same /course was afterwards frequently adopted from necessity, by those who had no such motive to influence them. Jerusalem, being the only fortified city in the land, possessed so great an advantage in this respect, that every one, whose circumstances permitted it, was led to select it as a dwelling place. The erection of the walls of Jerusalem, and there being " no more a reproach," are represented in Neh. ii. 17 as inseparably con nected. Partly for this reason, and partly, also, because the sanctuary was situated in Jerusalem, the Jews, who still con tinued to return from their dispersion, would not be likely to take up their abode anywhere else. Many were certainly induced to return by the inteUigence, which they received, of the restora tion of Jerusalem. How gloriously, and how quickly the city continued henceforward to grow, — whereas it had made no pro gress at aU in the long interval between the first year of Cyrus and the time of Nehemiah, — wiU appear from the passages, which we shall presently quote from heathen writers. The examination of the four Psalms, cxlvii. — cl., is also of interest in connexion with this question ; for there is solid ground for believing, that they were sung at the dedication of the walls under Nehemiah. In these Psalms, " the plaintive tone, wliich runs through aU the earlier Psalms composed after the captivity, even when combined with exultation, vanishes at once. Here, for the first time, the people appear again to rejoice in their existence." The security against danger from without, which had been obtained through the restoration of the waUs, is repre sented in Ps. cxlvii. 13, 14 as the foundation of every other blessing: "he hath strengthened the bars of thy gates, and blessed thy children within thee. He maketh peace in thy borders, blesseth thee with the fat of the wheat." And again in COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 21 1 Ps. cxlvifi. 14, we read : " He also exalted the horn of his people, the fame of all his saints, of the children of Israel, the nation that draws near to him." If we endeavour now to determine the point of commence ment still more precisely ; the period which at once suggests itself, is that of Nehemiah's prayer for the restoration of the city (chap. i.). In answer to this prayer, the divine decree went forth to rebuild the city ; and this is actuaUy. mentioned in ver. 25, as the point from which the seventy weeks are reckoned. To the hearing of this prayer Nehemiah traces all the rest ; especiaUy the readiness, with which Artaxerxes hearkened to his request (chap. ii. 8, 18).1 Now this prayer was offered in the month Kislev, the third month of the civil year, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes ; and therefore, in our chronological reckoning of the seventy weeks, we have only to subtract nineteen whole years from Artaxerxes' reign. We must now examine certain objections, that have been offered to the point of time, from which we date the commence ment of the seventy years, in common with Julius Africanus, as quoted by Jerome, who is very correct, on the whole, in his exposition of our prophecy, except that he reckons by lunar years,2 and also in common with the majority of commentators and certainly with the best. (1.) We are told, that " it was indispensable, that Daniel should survive the period of the issuing of the edict, referred to here ; otherwise it would afford him no consolation, and he would not even have known when he was to begin to reckon ; his own prophecy, therefore, would have been uninteUigible to himself." This is Hassencamp's objection (fiber die 70 Wochen, p. 9 sqq.) But his argument is based upon the erroneous assumption, that the communication was made to Daniel simply for his own sake ; whereas, according to the correct view, he was merely an instrument, through whom God revealed things, which could not be understood in their fuU extent for hundreds of years. We say according to the 1-B^eZ, _ordo temp. p. 346. "Mandata regum (e'£eXftWa 86yuara, ut habet phrasis Luc. ii. 1), illi verbo subserviebant." 2 A mode of reckoning, which was never adopted by the Hebrews, and therefore is so thoroughly destitute of foundation, that we need not stop to chZoiVlTf'wT % ^V0^™' Yii±9« Lo. p. 260; Frank syst. cnronol. i. 1, g 8 ; Ideler, Chronologie i., p. 490 sqq. O 2 212 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. correct view ; for it is the view which we find in the book of Daniel itself. The vision in chap. viii. is represented in ver. 26, as sfiut up till a far distant time. According to ver. 27, Daniel himself was astonished, and no one comprehended it. In chap. xii. 4, tfie whole of the previous prophecy is said to be shut up, until the time of the end, when many wiU run through it, and great wiU be the knowledge of its meaning. In chap. xii. 7, the angel fixes the time. Daniel hears, but does not understand ; he therefore asks the angel for a further explanation (ver. 8). The angel replies (ver. 9) that he cannot give it, because the prophecy is shut up and sealed, until the last time (see the Dissertation on Daniel, p. 175). With special reference to the passage last quoted, Peter says (1 Pet. i. 10 — 12), "the prophets enquired and searched diligently" as to the future sal vation. It was revealed to them, however, that the prophecy, ministered by them, was not for themselves, but for those who should be living at the time of its fulfilment. Daniel did not want to know when he was to begin to reckon ; it was enough for him to be able to gather from the prophecy itself that he was not to begin to reckon yet, because the time had not yet come. A more exact calculation was reserved for the men of a later age ; and even for them, there was so much obscurity previous to the fulfilment, — first, on account of the method, in which the point of commencement itself was determined (a method which evi dently aimed, in this as in every other prophecy, at avoiding the two extremes, of objective uncertainty on the one hand, and such distinctness on the other, for those who Hved before the fulfil ment, as would do away with the difference between prophecy and history), and secondly, from the want of any careful chrono logical investigation of the whole period, which is so apparent in the case of Josephus — that it was impossible to do anything more than obtain from prophecy an approximation to the time when Christ would appear. At the same time, it may be proved from history that it did answer this end, so far as the more thoughtful were concerned. Subjective certainty, corresponding to the objective, was reserved tiU the prophecy had been fulfilled. It is not true, however, that, if we suppose this to have been the point of commencement, the prediction can have afforded no consolation to Daniel. Was not the fact itself a rich source of COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 213 consolation ? Moreover, Daniel was not left in utter uncertainty as to the time. The period of the return from captivity was accurately known to him. He knew that this would take place in two years more. Cyrus, who was to effect it, had aHeady appeared upon the stage, and, from the very nature of the case, it seemed impossible that the return could be separated by a very long interval from, the complete restoration of the city. More over, the announcement may have been aU the more consolatory to Daniel, from the very fact, that he thought the two would be much more nearly connected, than they reaUy were. That he actuaUy did think so, may perhaps be inferred from the deep sorrow, to which he gives utterance in chap, x., when an un expected obstacle presents itself to the resumption of the theocracy, in the third year of Cyrus (see Beitrage i. 146 sqq.). A more precise statement, as to the length of time that would intervene between the point at which Jeremiah's prophecies would terminate, and that at which tfie fulfilment of the present announcement was to commence, would only have tended to dispirit those who were about to return, if not to deter them from returning altogether ; a step which, even apart from this, comparatively few resolved to take. 2. It is argued that " the blessing desired and promised was proportioned to the calamity endured. The Chaldeans had destroyed, at the same time, both the temple and the city. Both temple and city were stiU lying in ruins, at tfie time when Daniel prayed. And therefore, as Jeremiah's prediction of the desolation of the city involved that of the temple as well (Jer. xxi. 10, &c), so is the latter included in Daniel's description of the desolation and re-building, though the city alone is mentioned. Hence Daniel embraces the whole in his prayers, people and sanctuary, city and sacred hiU. And the answer, brought by the angel, equaUy embraces them all" {Bengel, ordo tempor. p. 343). But this proves nothing more than that the message from God must have referred to the temple, as well as the city. Indirectly, this certainly is the case ; inasmuch as, at the com mencement of the seventy weeks, or of the restoration of the city, it is taken for granted that the temple is already finished. For how could the city be caUed the holy city, apart from the temple ? Moreover, the announcement of the destruction of the temple, at 214 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. the end of the seventy weeks, presupposes its restoration. But to maintain that the re-building of the temple must necessarily have taken place at the same time as that of the city, is to maintain that the history must have been different from what it reaUy was. If the two events were actuaUy separated from each other, why should not one of them be selected in the prophecy as the point from which to reckon ? And why should it not be the one, from which if we begin to reckon, we find the seventy weeks of years terminate precisely at the point intended. 3. Wieseler s objection is this (p. 80), " Tfie starting point is said to be eighty years from the time when Daniel received his prophecy. But who could have blamed Daniel, if he had taken, as the basis of his calculation of the seventy weeks, a prophecy with which he was well acquainted, and the import of which was the same as that of his own, I mean Jeremiah's prophecy in the year 606 ? Why was it not at least pointed out to him, that the ~^3"7, from which he was to begin his reckoning, was some thing belonging to the future, and not to the past?" The impossibility of its referring to Jeremiah's prophecy,' we have already shown in our remarks on ver. 25. That the point of commencement was in tfie future, was a fact about which Daniel could have had no doubt. It was to be seen in the existing condition of Jerusalem, which was still in ruins, and therefore far removed from complete restoration. We have aHeady shown, that the divine command coincided exactly with its fulfilment by man, in other words, with the commencement of the perfect restoration, and that the issue of such a command could only be known from its execution. 4. Wieseler says again, " what right have we to fix upon the edict of Artaxerxes, in the twentieth year of his reign, as the consequence of this divine decree ? God had already caused similar edicts to be issued before ; e.g. that of Darius Hys- taspes (Ezra vi. 12), and that of Artaxerxes himself in the seventh year of his reign (Ezra vii. 8)." But the edict of Darius simply related to the building of the temple, and had nothing to do with the city. The edict of Artaxerxes informed Ezra the priest of the conditions, on which he was to enter upon his work, as a reformer of religious worship. 5. Hofmann objects that, "it appears very strange that the COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 215 seventy weeks of years should have no chronological connection with the seventy years of Jeremiah, seeing that any one, who read the passage along with the context, would at once imagine that the seventy weeks, at the end of which Daniel was led by Jeremiah's prophecy to expect the final restoration and the glory of Jerusalem, were replaced by, and expanded in the seventy weeks of years." Jeremiah predicts that, at the end of seventy years, the Chaldean captivity wiU come to an end, and the people will return." The complete restoration and glory of Jeru salem, Jeremiah does not assign to the same point of time. Whether they belonged to the same, or to a later period, had not been revealed to Daniel. But even if the seventy weeks of years did not follow immediately upon the seventy years, they were nevertheless essentiaUy connected with them ; they were a rich compensation, provided by the mercy of God, for the sufferings of seventy years. But no one, who would avoid the most forced and untenable assumptions, can possibly bring the seventy weeks of years into direct chronological con nexion with the seventy years of Jeremiah. 6. Hofmann says again, " the rebuilding of Jerusalem as a whole, cannot possibly be assigned to this period." But we have aHeady shown, that the term building is more closely defined by the restoration mentioned before. And, even apart from this, the rebuilding of Jerusalem was reaUy the work of Nehemiah. AU that had been done before his time hardly deserved the name. .According to Neh. ii. 5, Nehemiah says to the king of the Persians : " send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it." " There were no houses built," it is stated in Neh. vii. 4. Build is the watch word, throughout the whole of the book of Nehemiah. There is no other book in the Bible, in which the word occurs with the same relative frequency. According to Ezra iv. 12, previous to the arrival of Nehemiah, the Samaritans accused the Jews to Artaxerxes of building Jerusalem and setting up the waUs, and restoring its foundations. But as the attempt was merely an experiment, and was prohibited at the outset ; at the time when the book of Ezra was composed, Jerusalem was still not built For, in the whole of the book, there is no account of any revoca tion of the edict in which the Jews were forbidden to build. 216 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. " If this city be built, and the walls thereof restored," is what the enemies of the Jews say (chap. iv. 13, 16). The city, therefore, had not been built up to that time. If it be built, the accusers maintain, the most disastrous consequences wiU ensue. The antithesis to the building in ver. 15 is the state of desolation, in which the city had lain up to the time of Artaxerxes. " This city is not to be built," says the edict of Artaxerxes, " until com mandment shall be given from me " (chap. iv. 21) ; and on the strength of this edict, the enemies prevented the Jews, by main force, from attempting to build. " Until commandment shaU be given from me ;" — the words stood like a brazen waU in the way of any bufiding, until the mission of Nehemiah ensued, which was founded solely and exclusively upon the personal relation in which, by the providence of God, Nehemiah stood to the Persian monarch. " The Lord doth build up Jerusalem," is the joyful exclamation of the congregation in ver. 2 of the 147th Psalm, wfiicfi was composed under Nehemiah. Thus Nehemiah is always referred to in the Scriptures, as the sole builder of the city. If the building of the city is attributed to Kores in Is. xliv. 28 and xiv. 13, this may be explained from the fact that the central point of the city, the temple, was to be erected by him, and this, of course, could not be accomplished without houses being built as weU. This was the interpretation given to the prophecy by Cyrus himself. He says, in Ezra i. 2 : " fie hath commanded me to build him a house in Jerusalem." Of the restoration of the city, as a city, there is not a single word in the edict of Cyrus. With this enquiry as to the point of commencement, we now connect an examination of the historical, confirmation of the account, here given, of the peculiar characteristics of the first period, that is, the first seven weeks, dating from that point. The restoration of the city is said to occupy the whole seven weeks, and to be completed when they close. Now, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes' reign, as we shaU prove by and by, was the year 455 B.C. ; and therefore the seven weeks must have expired in the year 406, two years before the close of the nineteen years' reign of Darius II. , the successor of Artaxerxes. So far as this particular point is concerned, but very modest claims can be put forth to a demonstration of the agreement between prophecy and COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 217 its fulfilment ; partly from the natme of the period itself, which is not detached, and sharply defined ; and partly from the fact, that Josephus passes over this period altogether, and our histo rical information, therefore, is as good as none at aU. But, notwithstanding this, we are almost in a condition to outbid these modest claims. The most remarkable testimony is given by Herodotus, whose history cannot have been written before the year 408, since he records events, which occurred in this and the previous year {cf Clinton, fasti HeUenici p. 85, but especiaUy Dahlmann, Forschungen i. 95 sqq.), and cannot have been written much later, for this would make the historian himself too old. Hence, his remarks as to the size of Jerusalem may be regarded, as pretty nearly descriptive of what it was at the end of the seven weeks. We must claim permission, it is true, to make one assumption, namely, that the Kadytis of Herodotus is Jerusa lem ; but we may do this without hesitation. It is a thing which speaks for itself. The arguments aHeady adduced in support of this assumption, — for example, by Lightfoot (opp. t. ii. p. 408), Prideaux (i. p. 106 sqq. French ed.), Cellarius (3.13, ed. Schwarz 2. p. 456), Heine (obserw. sacrae 1. 1. c. 5. p. 63), the acute editor of the observatio de Cadyti, magna Syriae urbe (in the nova var. script. coU. fasc. 1. HaUe 1716), Zorn (on Hecateus Abder. p. 94), and Dahlmann (Forschungen 2 p. 75), — are not shaken in the least by Hitzig' s treatise ; and, since this treatise was written, Niebuhr (in the first volume of tfie hist. phil. Schriften, Abhandlung uber die Armen. Chronik des Eusebius), Bdhr and Stein (in their editions of Herodotus) have joined the ranks of its defenders. Herodotus refers to Kadytis in two passages. The former of the two (2. 159, " after the battle he took Kadytis, which is a large city of Syria") relates, it is true, to the times anterior to the captivity; namely, to the taking of Jerusalem by Pharaoh Necho, after Josiah had been slain in the battle at Megiddo. But Herodotus speaks of Jerusalem in this passage, as being still a large city, even in his own day. Of greater importance, however, is the second passage 3. 5 : coto yap 0oivlkt]<; ^XP1 °vpf>>v to>v KaBvrio'i iroXtos, r\ io-Tt Svpoov t&v UaXataTiv&v KaXeofjtevmv dirb Be KoBvtios, iovarji ir6Xio<; (a>? e//,ol BoKeet) 'SapBCwv ob iroXXm eXdaaovoi k. t. X. It is evident from 2 218 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. the comparison, drawn between Kadytis and Sardes in this pas sage, that the predicate "large," in the former one, is to be taken in itsfifilest sense. This city of the earfiest antiquity was rfSts-fccrge, aiki aa populous, under the Persian dominion, and even later, as i{ had formerly been, when it was the capital of the kings of Lyclia. Tfiis is apparent from Pausanias (Lacon. p. 175 ed. Weab.) and other authorities. Pausanias says : " rjp yap Br) 7779 'Aaiis rijs Kara pteyiaTOV fiipo? TvvtKavTa 17 AvBia, Kai al SapBeic'irXovTO) Te Kai irapacrKevrj irpoelxov tu> Te aaTpaitev- ovti iir\ \dsari tovto olKijT'ijpiov aireBeBetKTO, Kaddirep ye airm /3ar v , p $ovo-a." Pliny describes this city, as the ornament 0$ j o /dia (" celebratur maxime Sardibus," h. n. 5. 29) ; £\\. ^2 rpeaks of it, as very ancient and large ; and the latter -Unv1 _•_ i- j j.. -j_ __ j._„i.n„ j.T__j. -a i» 1 ffoib° • e is applied to it so constantly, tfiat it appears to have fCe^0* vending epithet (compare Ovid, Metam. xi. 137, Vade, ^e^ *i rfn0ianis vicinum Sardibus amnem). rtiv --^--emarkable testimony is that of Hecataeus Abderita, "a writer of the time of Alexander and Ptolemy Lagus. (For further information respecting him see the Dissertation onDaniel, p. 228). It belongs indeed to a later age, but it is not less remarkable on that account. It is contained in a fragment quoted by Josephus (contra Apion Book i. § 22), and Eusebius (praep. Evang. 1. ix. 0 4) : eon yap twv 'IovBaicov Ta p,ev iroXXd 6xvpd>/j,aTa KaTa ttjv ^tupai/ Kai Kcofiaf p,la Be 7roAt? oxvpa, irev- TrjKOvra fidXuTTa OTaSicov ttjv irepifjieTpov' rjv olKOvat, fJtev dv0pa>- ircov irepl Ba>8eKa p,> >idBes, KaXovat B aiirr/v IepoaoXvfia, on which Scaliger obse>—;"i~ ' you see, how large a city Jerusalem must have been,3, jfen! it could truly be caUed the ornament of the East in the time of Hecataeus." It is mentioned in the prophecy, as a peculiar characteristic of the rebuilding to take place in the seven weeks, that it would occur in troublous times. This is also in perfect keeping with the actual circumstances. We cannot sufficiently wonder, how the hidden blessing of God was able to work so powerfuUy in the midst of crosses, that, in a comparatively brief space of time, there rose up, in the place of a desolate heap of rubbish, a city of such magnitude, that there were few in Asia to surpass it. We may see from Nehemiah (chap, iv.), how thoroughly appli cable to this period the epithet " troublous times" really was. COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 219 The bufiders, hard pressed by the enemies round about, were obliged to carry their weapons in one hand, and work with the other ; and during the night their powers, wliich had been ex hausted by the labours of the day, were again caUed into requi sition, for the duties of the watch. And, even when the building was finished, their misery and anxieties were not at an end. This is apparent from the graphic account given in Neh. ix. 36, 37 : " behold we are servants this day, and for the land, that thou gavest unto our fathers, to eat the fruit thereof, and the good thereof, behold we are servants in it. And it yieldeth its increase for the kings, whom thou hast set over us because of our sins ; also they have dominion over our bodies, and over our cattle, at their pleasure, and we are in great distress." Of this, the pro- ¦ phecies of Malachi, which were written in the midst of the same period, also contain an evident proof. He is constantly reprov ing those, who murmured against God on account of the oppressed condition of the new colony, and who even suffered themselves to be led away thereby to tot?" -ihefief. We append the additional observation here, that the position, assigned to the Book of Daniel in the Canon, appears to rest upon the connexion, which exists. between the prophecy before us, and the history recorded in the Book of Nehemiah. In the arrangement in the Canon, plan and intention are conspicuous everywhere, even in the most minute particulars. The coUection of the Nebiim, especiaUy, is most carefully arranged. Hence, we should expect, at the very outset, to find the same evidence of a weU considered plan in tfie third coUection. It contains such, of the sacred books, as were neither composed by Moses, nor by the prophets in their prophetic capacity. (The idea of the Nabi included not only the prophetic gift, but the prophetic office also, which Daniel did not fill). The Psalms of David, and others that were added to them, form the commencement. Then follow the three books from the age of Solomon ; the first and third places being assigned to those, of which Solomon is expressly named in the heading as the author, and Job being placed in the middle. As an appendix to the writings of David and Solomon, we find the Book of Euth, which is occupied with 220 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. the origines of the royal family of David. Tfien foUow the Lamentations of Jeremiah, which belong to the period of the deso lation. Next to these comes Ecclesiastes, composed in the days of the new colony, by a contemporary of Malachi. In the position assigned to this book, we have the testimony of the compilers, that Solomon was not the author. Next come the Books which are occupied with both history and prophecy, relating to the state of things after the captivity ; first of aU the Book of Esther, which is occupied with events, that occurred in the reign of Xerxes ; — then Daniel, on account of his predicting in chap. ix. the restoration of the city under Artaxerxes, a prophecy, which would have the greater prominence in the estimation of the compilers of the Canon, from the fact that they were eye witnesses of the fulfilment ; — tfien Ezra and Nehemiah, who give a historical account of the mercy, shown by God to his people in the reign of Artaxerxes (strictly speaking, Daniel ought to have been placed between Ezra and Nehemiah, but it was thought unadvisable to obscure the connection, which exists between these two books, by a local separation) ; — lastly, the Chronicles, the closing book of tfie Canon, Paraleipomena. The fact that this latest work is placed last in the Canon, is a proof, that the other books do not owe their position to mere accident. Tfie arrangement of the subject matter is closely con nected with the chronological order. This may be seen in the position assigned to the Books of Euth and Daniel. It is also apparent from the fact, that Ecclesiastes stands before Esther. With the exception of the Book of Buth, which forms a kind of parenthesis, we have none but poetical books from the Psalms to the Preacher. The Preacher could not properly be separated from the other kindred writings. The author has been led into this investigation by a remark made by Auberlen in his " der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis," p. 131. TERMINATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. The extreme point to which this prophecy extends, namely, the period, which was to commence with the complete forgive- TERMINATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 221 ness of sins, the bringing in of eternal righteousness, &c, falls precisely at the close of the seventy weeks. But it is a mistake, to make this the basis of chronological calculations ; for the simple reason, that it is not marked by any distinct and clearly denned event. Sucfi an event, however, we do find at the end of the sixty-ninth week, namely, Christ's public appearance, and bis anointing with the gifts of the Spirit ; and we are the more inclined to take this as the basis of our calculation, just because of the very remarkable fact, that the chronological data, connected with this event, are as carefully recorded in the history of the fulfilment, as they are here in the prophecy itself, and more carefuUy than in tfie case of his birth, his resurrection, his ascension, or any other event connected with his life. We read in Luke iii. 1, "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, . . . the word of God came unto John." According to this, the public appearance of John the Baptist and of Christ occurred in the year of Bome 782. Attempts have, indeed, been made, — partly, for the purpose of upholding the authority of several of the church-fathers, whose notices differ from the statement given here, and partly, to shake the solid historical foundation of the sacred narrative, — to rob this account of its credibility. But they have not been successful. For whilst Paulus and Kuhnol, for example, affirm that it is uncertain, which mode of reckoning has been adopted in this statement, as to the year of the reign of Tiberias ; Ideler (Chronologie i. p. 418), and Wieseler (chron. Syn. p. 172), have proved that the reckoning, adopted in history, invariably dates from the death of Augustus, when his actual government commenced. And when the two former critics argue that Luke merely mentions the year, in which John made his first public appearance, and not that in which Christ appeared; they overlook the fact, that this precise announcement of the time of John's appearance, foUowed, as it immediately is, by the appear ance of Christ, without any fresh aUusion to chronology, is in itself a proof that they both occurred in tfie same year.1 We are also 1 Bengel has very forcibly observed : — " Certainly it was not the object of Luke to mark exactly the entrance of the Forerunner, and to touch only in cidentally upon the beginning that was made by our Lord Himself, but what he chiefly cared for recording was the latter. However the joining of John 222 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. led to conclude that both John and Christ made their public appearance in the same year, from the expression in Luke (ver. 23) : xal a\)To<; tfv 6 Tijcroi)? mael ir&v rpiaKovTa ap^o/^ew?. If we render this " Jesus also himself," it foUows that when John entered upon his office fie also was {dpxbfievos) about thirty years old, and, consequently, that as John was only six months older than Christ, he entered upon his public ministry just six months before him. If we adopt tfie rendering " and Jesus himself," tfie words would then imply that the historical data, connected with the account of John's appearance, were equally applicable to that of Christ, and that the only new matter, to be introduced here, was the notice of Christ's age. This notice again equaUy applies to John, seeing that it was not an accidental circumstance, that Christ first appeared at the end of his thirtieth year, but a compliance with the legal injunctions of the Old Testament. There is no force in the objection offered to the conclusion to which we have come, namely, that the year of Christ's appear ance coincided with that of John's, on the ground of ver. 21, when taken in connection with Matt. Hi. 5. For, even if Judea had been ten times as large as it reaUy was, at such a time as this, when aU minds were raised to the highest pitcfi of expecta tion, and religious intercourse was so constant and Hvely, through the medium of the capital, half-a-year would amply suffice to attract the attention of the whole land. HARMONY BETWEEN THE PROPHECY AND ITS FULFILMENT WITH REGARD TO THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEES. According to tfie prophecy, the point of commencement, namely the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, was removed from the closing event, viz., the pubfic appearance of Christ, by a period of 69 weeks of years, or 483 years. Now, if we turn to history, with Him is appropriate and seasonable, that he may not be supposed to have preceded Jesus by a longer interval." (English translation, vol. ii. p. 45.) DURATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 223 it must strike the most prejudiced mind as a very remarkable fact, that, of all the current chronological calculations, in rela tion to this period of time, there is not a single one, whose results differ more than ten years from the statements of the prophecy. But, on a closer examination of these calculations, we find that the one, which has the greatest probabilities in its favour, fuUy establishes the agreement of prophecy and history, even to a single year. In order to arrive at this result, there is no necessity to thread our way through a labyrinth of chronological researches. Chronological authorities are all agreed in this, that Xerxes began to reign in the year 485 B.C., and that the death of Artaxerxes occurred in the year 423. The only point in which they differ has respect to the commencement of Artaxerxes' reign. Our task, therefore, wiU be accompHshed, if we can prove that he began to reign in the year 474 B.C. For, in this case, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes would be the year 455 B.C. according to the ordinary reckoning, or 299 from the foun dation of Bome. Add to this 483 years, and we are brought to the year 782 u.c. We should probably have been spared the trouble of this enquiry altogether, had not the error of an acute writer, and the want of independence on the part of those who succeeded him, involved the question in obscurity. According to Thucydides, Artaxerxes began to reign a short time before the flight of Themistocles into Asia. Dodwell was led astray by certain specious arguments, and set down the year 465 b.c. as the date of both these events (AnnaU. Thuo). The thorough refutation of these arguments by Vitringa was, strange to say, entirely overlooked by both linguists and historians, and apparently even by such writers as Wesseling and others, of HoUand itself. The view expressed by Dodwell was adopted by Corsini in his Fastis Atticis, and currently received. Even Clinton (fasti HeUenici lat. vert. Kriiger Leipz. 1830), strongly as he expresses his con viction, that Dodwell has thrown the whole chronology of this period into confusion (compare e.g. p. 248, 53), could not shake off his influence in the most important points ; although in several particulars he has successfuUy opposed him. Hence, he has only increased the confusion ; for he has neither given us the 224 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. actual chronology, nor left us the events in the chronological order, in which they were so skilfuUy arranged by Dodwell. The credit of having once more discovered the right road is due to Kriiger, who, after an interval of more than a hundred years, by an entirely independent enquiry, arrived at the same result as Vitringa, and to a great extent adopted the very same fine of argument. In his admirable article, fiber den Cimonischen Frieden (in the Archiv. fur Philologie und Padagogik von Seebode i. 2 p. 205 sqq., with which his hist, philol. Studien Berlin 36 should be compared), he places the death of Xerxes in the year 474 or 473, and the flight of Themistocles a year later. Let us, first of all, examine the arguments which appear to favour the conclusion that the reign of Artaxerxes commenced in the year 465. (1.) " The flight of Themistocles must have taken place several years after the supremacy in Greece had passed from the hands of Athens to those of Sparta ; for the transfer was made at the siege of Byzantium, where the treacherous proceedings of Pausanias first commenced. The flight of Themistocles was occasioned by the charge brought against him, in consequence of some papers that were discovered after the death of Pausanias. Now Isocrates says, in the Panathenaikos, that the supremacy of the Lacedaemonians lasted ten years. And dating from the time of Xerxes' expe dition, the transfer must have taken place in the year 470." We may spare ourselves the trouble, which Vitringa has taken, to invalidate this supposed testimony of Isocrates ; for aU modern scholars, and to some extent independently, have come to the conclusion, that Isocrates is speaking of a ten years' supremacy, not previous to, but after that of the Athenians (see Coray zu Pan. c. 19 ; Dahlmann, Forschungen i., p. 45 ; Kriiger Abhandl. p. 221 ; Clinton p. 250 sqq. ; Kleinert Dorp. Beitrage ii., p. 136). — (2.) From Aelian 1. 9, c. 5, Corsini concludes that Themistocles was stiU in Athens in the year 472 (fasti. Att. iii. p. 180). It is stated there, that Themistocles thrust back Hiero, when he came to the Olympian games, on the ground that no one, who had failed to share in the greatest danger, had any right to participate in the pleasure (the tale is also told by Plutarch). Now, as Hiero began to reign in the third year of DURATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 225 the 75th Olympiad (478), the only Olympiad that can possibly he thought of is the 77th (472)." This is Corsini 's argument ; but it is much more probable that the Olympian games of the 76th (476) are referred to here, seeing that such an occmrence presupposes, that the memory of the p,iyto-To iwl tov ' EWrjviKov noXepov, "professedly to join the Greek expedition there," and in the statement in chap, cxxxi., to the effect that the Athenians compelled him to leave Byzantium. 2 Kleinert (p. 151) has been led astray into a series of historical fictions, through misunderstanding the words Kai ex tov Bvfrvriov |3io, eKwdXiopKrj- 8eis. If his assumptions were well founded, the historical credibility of Thucydides would be placed in a very disadvantageous light. The true explanation of the words is given in Heilmann's translation of Thucydides (Ed. 2, by Bredow, p 148) : " as the Athenians were not at war with the Lacedaemonians, and Pausanias had no warriors under his command, it cannot be an actual siege, which is intended here, as has been assumed by the majority of translators, by the most modern historians, and even by the Scholiast ; but must be understood as meaning {per synecdochem), to bring any one into a certain condition by the employment of forcible measures ; just as Thucydides himself, when describing in chap, cxxxv. how this same Pausanias was starved to death in the temple, uses the expression e^eiroXxop- Krjaav avTov Xxpa." DURATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 235 treacherous plans an absolute impossibility ; that, according to Thucydides (chap, cxxx.), he went about in Median clothes, took a journey through Thrace accompanied by Median and Egyptian Trabantes, kept a Persian table, rendered approach to his person difficult, and gave free vent to his passion ;— a man, of whom Thucydides very significantly remarks : " Kai Karixeiv ttjv Bidvoiav ovk i)BvvaTO, aXX' epyov; x3paxio~i irpoiBrjXov, a Ty yvcbpy p,e$vm heirena e/j,eXXe vpd^eiv," and of whose foolish, hauteur he gives an example (in chap, cxxxii.), from the period imme diately foUowing the battle of Platea. The agent in the disco very was the man, who was employed to carry to Artabazus the last letters to the king. With what haste the negotiations were carried on, and therefore that they did not occupy many years, may be seen from the fact, that the king sent Artabazus to Asia Minor expressly for the purpose of expediting them. The dis covery was foUowed at once by the death of Pausanias. (See Thuc. cxxxiii.) . We certainly do not aUow too short a time, if we set down three years, as the period occupied in these transactions. That we must not aUow more is apparent also from Diodorus, by whom aU these events are assigned to the year 477 (01. Ixxv. 4), though it must be admitted that he is not very trustworthy. How could this have occurred to him, or how could such a mistake by any possibifity have arisen, if the beginning and end had been separated by an interval of eight or nine years ? How impossible his sources rendered it for him, to place the death of Pausanias at any great distance from this period, is evident from his fictitious account of Themistocles being twice accused, of which no other explanation can be given.1 — Now, if we must place the death of Pausanias in the year 474, or thereabout, certainly as early as this, the flight of Themistocles cannot have been later than the year 473. For Themistocles had been in the Peloponnesus for some time, when Pausanias died. The accusation of the former foUowed immediately afterwards (see Thuc. i. 135) ; and the com bined interests ofthe Lacedaemonians, and ofthe enemies of The mistocles at Athens, the former of whom would enjoy nothing more 1 As we attach but very little importance to the argument founded upon Diodorus, we do not think it worth while to follow Kleinert (p. 155) in his elaborate objections, which only prove, what every one knows, that in making use of Diodorus we have anything but a safe foundation. 236 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. than to make the Athenians participants in their disgrace,1 may make us sure, that the decision would be expedited as much as possible. Themistocles, being now prosecuted by the Lacedae monians and Athenians combined, fled from the Peloponnesus to Corcyra. But even there he was not allowed to remain, and therefore took refuge on the opposite continent. As he was stiU in danger of being overtaken by bis pursuers (Thuc. chap. cxxxvi., Kai BiwKOfievos iiirb tcov irpocrTeTayfievwv KaTa ttvcttw § XCDpoir}), he found it necessary to betake himself to Admetus, the king of the Molossians. But here he cannot have remained long ; for, according to Thucydides, he was sent away as soon as his pursuers arrived. How can it possibly be imagined, that the latter were years behind him ?2 How could they long remain 1 Plut. Them. c. 23 : Karefiouxv pev avrov Kaicebmpovioi, Kanryipovv h'oi ). If we could place confidence in a statement of Stesimbrotus, quoted by Plutarch, we must certainly admit, that Themistocles stayed some months with Admetus. For he relates, that the friends of Themistocles brought his wife and children to join him there ; having privately conveyed them away from Athens. But the unfounded character of this statement is apparent from the lame, fictitious story, which Stesimbrotus teUs immediately afterwards, of Themistocles being shipped off by Admetus to SicUy, and of his having asked the daughter of Hiero in marriage, in return for his promise to bring the Greeks under his sway, — seeing that he inserts this, without observing that the one tale canceUed the other; a fact, which did not escape the observation oi Plutarch {elr oxjk 01B OTTto? iiriXa66p:evo<; tovtwv, r\ rov Qepio-TOKkea ttoi&v eiri- Xa86p,evov, irXevcrai (pno-iv k. t. X.). Plutarch himself pronounces one of the tales oi Stesimbrotus, " an impudent, wicked He" (Peri cles, chap. xiii.). From a story, told by Suidas, it is very clear, that the sons of Themistocles remained in Athens. It is also related by Thucydides (chapNcxxxvfi.) and by Plutarch (The mistocles, chap, xxv.) — who begins to write independently at this point, and does not continue merely to quote from Tfiucy- dides, as Kleinert assumes, — that it was not till after his arrival in Asia,1 that money was sent to him by his friends, to enable him to pay the boatman, who had brought him thither ; a fact which both establishes the incorrectness of Stesimbrotus, and clem a. 01. 77. 3, vel certe non postea, ad Naxon appulsum esse, venisse ad Persas A.rtaxerxe recens rege facto, Artaxerxen a. 01. 78. 4 regnare coepisse." There is only one method, he continues, of reconciling these apparently con tradictory facts : " Themistoclem cum Pydnae navem conscendisset non con- festim ad Persarum regem venisse, sed quinquennio fere praetermisso." And during this time Themistocles remained in concealment in Asia I Six or seven years are said to have intervened, between his flight to Corcyra and his arrival at the court of Artaxerxes. We need only read the 137th chapter of Thucydides impartially, to see that this is impossible. To such forced hypotheses are they driven, who are determined to abide by the authority of the Canon. J 1 It is in vain for Kleinert to maintain that vo-repov cannot be understood in this sense; compare the expression just before, So-Tepov a? irepl Ta Tpia eTi) Kai ryiiav Knpv%a<; o Kvpio<; Kai tov? dyiov; avTov fm0rjTa<; ttj BiBao-KaXia Kai tois 6avp,aa-i /3ej3ata>cra<;, Tore to 7ra#o? vire/j,eive. It is on the gospel of John particularly that the decision of this question depends. Three feasts ofthe passover are expressly mentioned by him, during the pubfic Hfe of Christ (see chap. ii. 13, vi. 4, and xiii. 1). It is a disputed point whether there is a fourth or not ; and the decision of the question, whether the death of Christ is to be placed in the third or fourth year of his THE LAST WEEK ; AND THE HALF WEEK. 241 public ministry, rests entirely upon the interpretation to be given to John v. 1, " after this there was a (the) feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." The question what feast is intended here is considerably sim- pfified, by the fact that of late it has almost universally been admitted that, if the apostle refers to any particular feast at all, the choice must He between the feast ofPurim and the Passover. But, so far as the opinion that the apostle does not refer to any particular feast is concerned, we must at the very outset pro nounce it untenable ; though we do not feel caUed upon to enter more minutely into the reasons for rejecting it. It is a sufficient objection that, in every other case, John speaks of particular feasts ; that, throughout his gospel, the arrangement is regulated by the feasts, — in this instance, for example, the feast mentioned introduces the third group (see the Commentary on the Eevelation ii. 2, p. 187) — and that the references to the feasts have a chrono logical significance, for which reason the passover is mentioned in chap. vi. 4, even when Christ did not take part in it. But the opinion, that the feast of Purim is intended here, requires to be investigated the more thoroughly, because, though it met with comparatively Httle acceptance formerly, it has found many champions in modern times. The principal argument adduced in support of this opinion, and in opposition to the passover, is the foUowing. ' ' As the Lord remained at home tiU after the passover, of which mention is made a few days after his return, he did not appear in Jerusalem between the former (supposed) passover and this one, or rather not tiU six months later, namely, at the feast of tabernacles, and therefore neglected the obligation to take part in divine worship for more than a year and a half. Such an assumption is alto gether opposed to the determination of Christ, to fulfil even out ward righteousness ; moreover, by acting thus, he would have exposed himself to pubfic reproach." A rare argument ! For the matter would be made neither better nor worse by his visiting the feast of Purim. The ob servance of this feast could not be reckoned as belonging to the fulfilment of righteousness. For it is not prescribed in the law ; and it was under the law alone, not under the ordinances of men, that the Son of God had placed himself. Prudential considera- VOL. III. o 242 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. tions would contribute just as little, to induce him to take this step. For there was no ordinance of man which required the feast of Purim to be celebrated in Jerusalem. Hence, if the difficulty were a real one, it would affect tfie supporters of this view quite as much as it does ourselves. A man who spent aU the rest of the year at Jerusalem, but was absent from the three festivals which were commanded to be celebrated at Jerusalem, was just as gufity of a violation of the law, as a man who had never set foot in Jerusalem at aU. But the difficulty is alto gether imaginary. The reason why Jesus remained away from Jerusalem for so long a period is stated clearly enough in chap. vii. 1, "he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kiH him." By heafing the sick man on the Sabbath-day, which occurred during the feast mentioned in chap. v. 1, Jesus came into decided conflict witfi the Sanhedrim, which henceforth thought only of killing him. As early as chap. v. 18, it is stated that, "for this reason the Jews sought the more to kiU him." The natural consequence was, that Jesus avoided Jerusalem for a considerable time. This reason was quite sufficient for the Lord, on account of the attitude which he always assumed towards the ceremonial law. He only considered himseff bound to observe it, so long as it did not clash with more important considerations. The latter were never sacrificed to its demands. Matt. xii. 3 is decisive on this point. In this passage the Lord refers those, who accused his disciples of breaking the ceremonial law, to the example of David, who ate the show-bread contrary to the law, and yet was not blamed by the Scriptures for so doing ; a proof that the ceremonial law is not binding under aU circumstances. He tfien points to his own absolute authority, which warranted him in breaking the law whenever his higher purposes required it. He caHs himself the Lord ofthe Sabbath, and represents himself as greater than the temple. Christ's hour was not yet come ; his presence in Jerusalem would neces sarily have given occasion to his enemies to try and hasten it prematurely ; and it would have been nothing less than tempting God, to refrain from employing human means to guard against the danger. Even for those who were not Lords of the Sabbath and the feasts, as the Son of God was, but who were uncondi tionally subject to the law, the obligation to observe the outward THE LAST WEEK ; AND THE HALF WEEK. 243 religious injunctions of the law was getting weaker and weaker every day. If the temple had already been made a den of thieves, Luke xix. 46 ; if that ungodfiness, which was soon to turn it into a house of abominations, was aHeady fully developed ; how could the laws, which related to it as the house of God, be any longer carried out in thefi full extent ? The temple did not consist of stone and mortar. In its essential characteristics, it was no less destroyed at the time of Christ, than it had been during the Babylonish captivity ; and hence, it was no more reprehensible to neglect to visit it in the one case, than it had previously been in the other, whenever circumstances directed attention to the evil side, namely to those respects, in which the temple was no longer reaUy the house of God. "It is not less improbable," in Wieseler s opinion (chronol. Synopse p. 217), " that John should not have had a single record to make of the instructions of Jesus, during almost an entire year. For if the feast mentioned in chap. v. 1 was a passover, everything related in the fifth chapter belongs to this one pass- over." — But if Jesus was obliged to hurry away from Jerusalem . and Judea, in consequence of the plots of the Sanhedrim, John lost thereby the requisite material for a fuller account. From chap. ii. 12 tfil the commencement of the history of the Passion, John supplies tfie omissions of the first three Evangelists, who confine their accounts to Galilee, by narrating what occurred on the triumphal journey to Jerusalem. The narrative of John only touches upon Gafilean ground, by way of exception, in chap. vi., where Jesus addresses the crowd, which is on its way to Jerusalem to the feast of the Passover, and preaches to them, so to speak, an Easter sermon on the true Paschal lamb : " my flesh is meat indeed." In the second group (chap. ii. 12 — iv. 54), every thing is very different from what we find here in the third. For, in the former case, Jesus spent some months in Judea, after the feast was over (see John iii. 22, iv. 1 — 3). When Wieseler asserts (p. 217), that the ¦ expression pteTd Tama, in chap. vi. 1, cannot possibly cover an interval of an entire year ; he attaches far too much importance to these con necting formulae. We simply remind him of Matt. iii. 1 : ev Be Tali i)p,epav; ereeiVat? irapayiveTai Ia>dvvrj<; 6 fiainMTTijx;, which Q 2 244 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. immediately foUows the account of Joseph's settlement in Naza reth ; and also of Gen. xxii. 1. We now proceed to the arguments in favour of our opinion. 1. The dispute is decided at once in favour of the Passover, if the article is to be regarded as genuine. That we cannot deal so summarily with it as Wieseler does, who says, " both exegeti- cally and critically the conclusion is indisputable that the article is a later correction," is evident from the fact, that Tischendorf has restored it to the text. It is enough to excite suspicion, that even Wieseler places the exegetical before the critical. The omission of the article might very easUy have originated with those, who did not know what to make of it. The feast must either be the feast par excellence, or the feast mentioned before. In the former case, it must be the Passover, which was shown to be the one fundamental festival of the nation by the fact, that it was instituted before any of the others, before the Sabbath itself, and even before the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai, of which it lay at the foundation (for proofs of the superior worth attached to the Passover see Lund jfid. Heifigthfimer p. 974). And in the latter case, we are still brought to the feast of the Passover, as being the only festival mentioned before. Not only is it noticed at the commencement of the second group, which answers to that of the third, and comes very near to it, in spite of the distance between the two, in consequence of the striking simi larity of the words employed (chap. ii. 13, " and the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem ;" chap. v. 1, " after this was the feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem") ; but it also occurs a very short time before, in chap. iv. 45 : " then when he was come into Galilee, the Gafileans re ceived him, having seen aU the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast ; for they also went unto the feast." — But, even if the article is not genuine, we can only refer it to the Passover. For, as it is a priori impossible that there should be any uncer tainty as to what feast it was, we must complete the passage (" there was feast (not even a feast) of the Jews ") from the con text. According to Winer, the definite article may be omitted, " when the omission does not introduce any ambiguity into the discourse, or leave the reader in any uncertainty whether he is THE LAST WEEK ; AND THE HALF- WEEK. 245 to understand the word definitely, or indefinitely." This is the case here. Every unbiassed reader tliinks at once of the Passover. The decision of this point rests upon what goes be- .fore ; especiaUy as the expression, " and Jesus went up to Jeru salem," precludes the possibifity of any other being intended than one of the three leading festivals ; and among these it is most natural to fix upon the Passover, inasmuch as this was the only one, at which it was a universal custom to make a pUgri- mage to Jerusalem. The words xad' eopTrjv in Matt, xxvii. 15 and Mark xv. 6 are perfectly analogous ; so perfectly so, that every other analogy is rendered superfluous in consequence. On the latter passage, Fritzsche observes : " quanquam f) eopTij de quibusvis feriis in genere dicitur, tamen h. 1. quum de Paschate agatur (Marc. xiv. 1), Kaff eopTrp ad Paschatis ferias referri debet : singufis Paschatis feriis ;" and Lucke (on John ii. p. 8) says : " the formula KaTa Be ioprr/v is certainly used to denote the Passover, but only in connection with the history of the Passion,. In itself, it leaves the feast undetermined." The appficabifity of these words to the passage before us is at once apparent. 2. The standing expression, twv 'lovBaimv, which was based upon Lev. xxiii. 2, is never used by John in connection with any but the three leading festivals appointed in the law, twice (? aU three times) of the Passover, and once of the feast of Tabernacles. What proof can possibly be adduced that, even in later times, the idea has been entertained of placing the feast of Purim on a, par with the rest, and above aU with the feast of the Passover ? The passage, quoted by Hug, Einl. 2, p. 200, relates not to the feast, but to the Book of Esther. The festival was always regarded as popular, rather than refigious. The account of the opposition, which was raised to its first introduction, was not forgotten (see Lightfoot on John x. 22). Besides, even if this could be estabHshed, what right has any one to draw conclusions from the later, as to the earlier period ? It was very natural that this festival should gain in estimation, in proportion as the carnal dispositions of the Jews increased in force ; and, on the other hand, that the three leading festivals should continue to be distinguished above aU the rest, so long as the temple remained standing, and the whole body of the people went to Jerusalem 246 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. to attend them. The Enkaenia (feast of Dedication), which stand on the same footing as the feast of Purim, seeing that the latter is not among the feasts prescribed to Israel in Lev. xxiii., are not caUed eoprr) twv 'IovBaioov in Jofin x. 22. 3. The words " Jesus went up to Jerusalem," when taken in connexion with ver. 13, from which it appears that the city was filled with persons, who had also come to the festival, render it impossible to refer the expression to the celebration of the feast of Purim. From the very nature of the case, the people did not travel to Jerusalem to keep this feast. It was not con nected in any way with the temple ; and even in Jerusalem, there was no divine worship associated with it. The whole festival was restricted to reading the Book of Esther, wliich took place in the synagogues ; doing no work ; and eating and drinking. It was kept by the Jews of the Diaspora, before it began to be observed in Palestine. — Moreover we can bring forward positive testimony to tfie fact, that the people did not think of going to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Purim. Josephus (Antiqui ties xi. 6) says " the Purim is celebrated by the Jews in every part of the earth ; and banquets are prepared on the occasion." In the Talmud Megilla (chap. i. § 1 — 3) , there are rules laid down, as to the proper time for keeping the feast, in such cities as were waUed round in tfie days of Joshua ; in such as were not enclosed so early as that ; and lastly in vfilages (on the reason for this distinction see Vitringa de decern otiosis c. 18 in Ugofini tfies. t. 21 p. 431 sqq.). It cannot be objected to this, that, " according to chap. x. 22, Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of the Enkaenia, which could also be celebrated out of Jerusalem." There is no force in this objection, unless it can be shown that Jesus went to Jerusalem, for the express purpose of being present at the feast. But the object of bis journey reaUy was, to attend the feast of Tabernacles. He then remained in Jerusalem for some time ; and it was during his stay there that the feast of Dedication took place. And even if this had not been the case, the Enkaenia, as a festival in commemoration of the dedication of the temple, was so closely connected with the temple itsefi, that there were probably many who did more than the law required. 4. It is extremely improbable, that Jesus should have visited THE LAST WEEK ; AND THE HALF-WEEK. 247 the feast of Purim, and not fiave taken part in the Passover, which was kept a month later. Was there anything in the nature ofthe feast of Purim, which was likely to have attractions for Jesus ? We are very far from wishing to detract from the authority of the Book of Esther, but when judged by the true standard, reference to Christ, it undoubtedly occupies the lowest place among aU the books of the Old Testament. Is it likely that the Saviour, who never mentions this book, and whose apostles never refer to it in any way, should have attended the feast, which was instituted to commemorate the events there narrated ; with the deliberate intention, as Hug supposes, of showing the estimation in which that book was held by him ? Or was such a festival as this, in which it was meritorious to get intoxicated, and customary to drink on, tiU it was impossible to distinguish between " blessed be Mordecai," and " cursed be Haman,"1 adapted to promote the object, for which aU the Lord's journeys to Jerusalem were made. Even a human teacher would not select time and place, in such a manner as this. Wieseler s conjecture (p. 222), that possibly Jesus attended this festival, to show his approval of recreation (!), is certainly a very hopeless one. Not less so is another one, namely, that Jesus intended thereby to furnish a practical proof, that he did not despise the Jewish nationality. The enjoyment connected with this festival was of an unholy kind ; and the nationality of the Jews is generaUy held up by Jesus, for the purpose of condemn ing, rather than approving. — The twofold motive, which led Jesus to attend the festivals at Jerusalem, was to observe the pre cepts of the law, and to make an impression upon the crowds of people, who were assembled in such numbers, and in a state of mind suited to tfie occasion. Neither of these motives could have led him to the feast of Purim. 5. According to ver. 9, the healing of the sick man took place on the Sabbath, and the manner in which the first and second verses are connected, as weU as ver. 13, lead to the conclusion that this Sabbath formed part of the feast. But, if so, it could not have been the feast of Purim ; for that was never 1 He who will not get drunk must sleep, "for after this he will be unable to distinguish between the two words," Bodenschatz Kirchl. Verf. der Juden p. 256. 248 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. celebrated on a Sabbath since the two festivals were thoroughly opposed to each other, and the ordinance of God could not give place to the appointment of man. If it happened to faU upon a Sabbath, it was postponed ; (for the proofs of this see Reland, antiqq. sacr. iv. 9, and Schickard de festo Purim, in the crit. Sacr. vi. p. 491 sqq. Frankfort).1 But we are not restricted to the proof derived from John v. 1. By the side of this we may place another from the parable in Luke xiii. 6 sqq., from wliich, in addition to its own independent significance, we may obtain a guarantee for the correctness of the result, to which we have been brought by John v. 1. At the time when Jesus related this parable, three years of his ministry had aHeady passed. According to ver. 7, the owner of the vine yard (God) says to the husbandman (Christ), "behold these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none." Wieseler observes (p. 202), — after having proved, what is per fectly evident, that the three years in the parable contain a chronological datum, — " on this supposition, of course we have not to understand the Tpla err} as meaning exactly three years, neither more nor less ; for it would not have suited the character of the parable to enter into a calculation of months and days. But, if we are to regard it as actuaUy containing a chronological datum, it must mean at least from two years and a haff to three years, and at the most three years and a half ; for otherwise it 1 In opposition to this, Wieseler maintains (p. 219), that it was only an arrangement of modern date, which prohibited Purim from being kept on a Sabbath. " At the time of the Mishna, the 14th, Adar might still fall on a Saturday ; but in this case the reading of the Megilla was postponed till another day." To this we reply, that of course the 14th Adar might fall upon a Sabbath, but not the feast of Purim. It was the reading of the Me gilla, which constituted the very essence of this festival. That section of the Mishna, which treats of the feast of Purim, actually bears the name of Me- filla. There was nothing beside this, but feasting; and Bartenora (in urenhus. Mischna 2, p. 388) says of the Purim banquet, "juxta omnium consensum non faciunt illud die Sabbati." The leading passage of the Mishna, on which Wieseler relies (Megilla c. 1 § 2), " if it falls upon the Sabbath, the reading takes place in villages and large towns on the previous day of assembly, and in walled cities on the day following," shows, that, at the time of the Mishna, and therefore in the time of Christ also, it was regarded as a settled thing, that the Purim was incompatible with the Sabbath. It is simply from a misunderstanding ofthe passage itself, that Wieseler interprets the second passage, which he quotes from the Mishna, as relating to the con nexion between the feast of Purim and the Sabbath. The remarks of Vitringa (p. 238 sqq.) contribute to a correct interpretation of this passage. MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 249 would have been called either two or four years." At this time, at least two years and a half had gone by. But according to ver 8, the fig-tree was to receive a respite of another year: " Lord, let it alone this year also, tiU I shaU dig about it and dung it." From this we obtain, in all, at least three years and a half ; answering to the four passovers of John. Those, who . aUot a shorter space of time to the pubfic teaching of Christ, are obliged to resort to forcible expedients. Thus for example, Bengel remarks on tovto to eVos (this year), " the third year ;" whereas according to ver. 7 three years had aHeady passed. Kat tovto to 6To? must therefore mean, in addition to the three, the fourth also. Hence when Bengel observes, "it foUows from this parable, that there were in aU three passovers between the bap tism and the resurrection of Christ," we must substitute four for three. StiU more constrained is Olshausen's notion, that touto to eVo? is to be taken in a general sense ; as denoting the period between the ascension of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem. — If it is clearly decided, that the parable of the fig-tree was defivered by Christ a year before bis death, we should be in clined to look upon Luke xiii. 1 and 4 as referring to intelli gence, which had been brought to Christ by some Galileans, who were on their way back from the feast (namely the last passover but one), at which we find from John vi. 4 that Jesus was not present. — The parable of the fig-tree in the vineyard is intimately connected with the symbolical action, performed by Christ, when he afterwards cursed the fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 18 sqq.). The year of grace had now expired ; and the sentence, which had been delayed before, now actuaUy took effect upon Jerusa lem, which did not know the time of its visitation. Compare the words, " immediately the fig-tree withered away," with Luke, " if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." MODEEN KON-ME881AMC EXPOSITORS. We shall confine ourselves to such points as have not already been fully demonstrated in the exposition. 250 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. These expositors are for the most part agreed, that, as the- time fixed by Jeremiah, had long passed by without his prophecy being fulfilled, the supposed Pseudo-Daniel attempted a kind of mystic interpretation, or paraphrase of the seventy years. For seventy years' he substituted seventy weeks of years. They also agree in the foUowing respect ; like most of tfie Jewish exposi tors, they fix upon tfie year of tfie destruction of Jerusalem, or the commencement of the Babylonish captivity, as the starting point, and thus include the whole period, during which the city was lying desolate, in the seventy weeks ; they look upon the anointed one, in ver. 25, as a different person from the anointed one in ver. 26, and suppose tfie former to be Cyrus ; lastly, by the coming prince they understand Antiochus Epiphanes ; they regard the last week, as the period of oppression, to which he subjected the covenant people, and fix upon his death and the consequent deliverance of tfie people, as tfie terminal point of the whole prophecy. In aH these points they have been preceded by Marsham, to whom we do no injustice when we pronounce him a rationafist in disguise, and who has at least the merit of having caUed forth the admirable treatise of Vitringa, to which we have aHeady frequently aUuded. They differ from one another as to the anointed one, who is spoken of in ver. 26 as being cut off. According to Bertholdt and Rosenmiiller, this is Alexander ; Bleek and Ewald say that it is Seleucus IV. Phi- lopator, the brother of Antiochus Epiphanes and his immediate predecessor, who was poisoned. According to Eichhorn, Wieseler, Hitzig, and Hofmann, he is Onias III., the High Priest. There is a hint at the genesis of these views in the words of Hitzig : " after the death of Jesus the Son of man (vii. 13), it was inevit able, that those, who regarded him as the Messiah, should inter pret the words ' the anointed one shall be cut off' as pointing to Ifim." It was necessary at any price to set aside tfie exposition, wliich owed its origin to faith ; for the simple reason that they had got rid of faith itseff. In what we have aHeady written, these views have been sufficiently refuted. We add, however, the foUowing remarks.1 1 If any one desires more, especially if he wishes for details ofthe different Anti-Messianic expositions, he will find them in Steudel (de recentioribus quibusdam loci Dan. ix, 24—27, interpret, quae circa Ant. Epiph. aevum MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 251 1. We cannot see, how the supposed Pseudo-Daniel could possibly regard the prophecies of Jeremiah as unfulfiUed, and so be induced to make them the subject of a parody. These pro phecies contain no Messianic elements whatever. AU that Jeremiah announced, as about to take place at the end of the seventy years, — the termination of the Chaldean captivity, and the return of the covenant people to their father-land, — was fully accompHshed as soon as the seventy years had expired (see Dissertation on Daniel, p. 147). The author of the Book of Daniel evidently looked upon this as actuaUy the case, when he mentioned in chap. i. 21, that Daniel continued tiU tfie first year of Cyrus, the time of deliverance for which he longed (see Dissertation on Daniel, p. 54 and 254), and the same view is also to be met with in other passages of the Scriptures; e.g., Ezra i. 1, and 2 Chr. xxxvi. 21. Wieseler, who acknowledges the force of this argument, says (p. 13) : " Every interpretation of the seventy weeks is false, which proceeds upon the supposi tion, that the author intended nothing more, tfian to give a mystic paraphrase of the prophecy respecting the seventy years, on account of their not having been fulfilled in their natural sense ; for we have proved from Dan. i., that the author believed this prophecy to have received the most Hteral fulfilment.'' 2. A mystic interpretation like this, " for seventy years write quickly 490," is so evidently a mere caprice,1 that no author could have adopted it, unless he intended to make fun of Jeremiah. For how could he have expected any one else to look upon it as a serious exposition; not to mention the impossibility of his regarding it in this fight himseff. But can we imagine it possible, that the same writer, who confesses in ver. 6, that the greatest sin which the people committed against God had been their refusal to fiearken to the voice of his servants, the pro phets, who spoke in his name, should have cherished the design of undermining the authority of the earlier prophets, in such a Oraculum hoc editum sumunt : Tubing. Pfingstprogramm, 1835), in Blom strand, and in Auberlen. — The Anti-Messianic expositors themselves take care, that the untenable character of their whole method shall be more and more exposed to the light, by means of their mutual recriminations. Wieseler and Hitzig are particularly deserving of praise, for what they have done in this respect. 1 Ewald himself calls it " a leap in thought." 252 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. way as this ? How could the supposed Pseudo-Daniel expect, that any great importance would be attached to his own an nouncements as to times and seasons ; when he had set aside, in so absurd a manner, the earlier predictions of a prophet, who was universaUy esteemed. 3. Even if the author intended merely to give a paraphrase of the prophecies of Jeremiah, it was indispensably necessary, that he should adopt the same starting point for his seventy weeks of years, as Jeremiah had previously adopted for the seventy years. Now, in both the prophecies in question, the starting point is the fourth year of Jehoiakim (see the Dissertation on Daniel ut supra). And many of the Anti-Messianic expositors fix upon this year, as being also the starting point of our prophecy. But, in the first place, they cannot point to any divine command to rebuild Jerusalem, (we have aHeady shown at ver. 25, that there is no such command in Jer. xxv.) ; and secondly, from the fourth year of Jehoiakim to the anointed the prince, — if we are to understand this term as applying to Cyrus, — there are not forty-nine years, but, according to the constant biblical chronology, which is also adopted in ver. 2 of this chapter, seventy years. Hitzig takes refuge in the assumption, that the seventy weeks and the seven weeks are reckoned from different starting points ; the former from the year 606, the latter from the destruction of the city in 588. But this is clearly inad missible ; for the seven weeks form the commencement of the seventy. 'Moreover, Hitzig cannot point to any command to rebufid Jerusalem in 588. The prophecy in Jer. xxx. 31, to which he has recourse now, as formerly to chap, xxix., does not relate to so special an occurrence as this, but to the deliverance of Israel and Judah generaUy, and mentions no particular period of time, such as would certainly be required in this case ; and in addition to this, it was written before the destruction (see vol. ii., p. 423). But even with these great sacrifices (see the remarks on ver. 25, in disproof of any reference to Jer. xxx. 31), Hitzig does not succeed in making the numbers square. From the destruction of Jerusalem to the first year of Cyrus (b.c 536), there were not forty-nine, but fifty-two years. To say " that Cyrus first came under the notice of the Jews in the year 539," is a mere attempt to get rid of the difficulty. We MODERN NON-MESS1ANI0 EXPOSITORS. 253 find nothing to this effect in history. Cyrus could not have been described as " the anointed, the prince," before the year 536. And there is the less ground for fixing a chronological error upon the author, from the fact, that he shows such an accurate acquaintance with this period, even in its minutest details, and also, because such unanimity has prevailed among the Jews from the very earfiest times, with reference to the chronological data, which He so conspicuously upon the surface. We may surely count upon general support, if we substitute another name for that of Daniel in Hitzig's remark, " if the calculation does not suit, Daniel has made a mistake." 4. The fact that, in ver. 24, there is an evident antithesis to ver. 2, where it is said that seventy years are to be accomplished upon the ruins of Jerusalem, mifitates against the assumption, that the destruction is taken as the point of commencement. How can the years, which are to be accompfished upon the ruins, be included in those, which are to be accompfished upon the city ? Again, according to the notion of the *' more modern scientific expositors," the rebuilding of the city was to commence with the sixty-two weeks ; and yet, the author is supposed to have calcu lated these sixty-two weeks from the year 606, the first year of the Chaldean captivity. Hitzig says, without hesitation : "the sixty-two weeks reach to the year 606 ; but the events, which are said to occur during these weeks, did not commence till the year 536." It is very clear that, instead of charging the author with such thoughtless capriciousness as this, one would rather caU in question the confident assertions of " the more modern scientific expositors," which have but little ground to rest upon. Steudel has justly observed, with reference to such assumptions "we must first enquire, whether the author, who had it in his power to adopt any method of computation that he pleased, would have created such difficulties as these." 5- "111. without the article, cannot properly be referred to the definite announcement made by Jeremiah, which is mentioned in the previous verse. Moreover, the expression -q-, njj\ which is used in ver. 23, where the command is said to go Srth, that seventy weeks shaU pass over Jerusalem, is a proof that, i this case also, the reference is not to a prophetic announcement, but to a divine command. But what passage is there in the book 254 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. of Jeremiah, in which we can find the least trace of any such divine command, that Jerusalem is to be rebuilt ? 6. If the prophet had no further design, than to extend the period fixed by Jeremiah, we] should necessarily find the longer period terminated by the same event, which Jeremiah had aHeady described as marking tfie end of tfie period referred to by him. But there is no sign of this. Of the blessings, which are spoken of in ver. 24, as belonging to the close of the seventy weeks, not one is mentioned by Jeremiah. On the other hand, the termination of the Babylonian captivity, and the return to their own country, which Jeremiah actuaUy does place at the end of the seventy years, are here supposed to have taken place at the commencement of the weeks, which are determined upon the city and nation. 7. If the seventy weeks reached no further than the time of the Maccabees, Daniel would have laid himself so thoroughly open to the charge of a gross violation of chronology, that we should be greatly perplexed by the fact, which has been adduced, as the leading argument against the genuineness of his book, viz., the accurate acquaintance with history, which the book itself proves him to have possessed. In this case, the interval between the days of Cyrus, and the death of Antiochus Epiphanes would be set down at sixty-three weeks, that is 441 years, whereas it was not more that 372. We should have to assume, there fore, that there was an error of sixty-nine years. This error increases in importance, if we take into consideration another assertion, which has been made by several commentators. They affirm, for example, that the author does not mention more than four Persian kings in all, subsequent to the time of Cyrus, and that he makes Xerxes the last of these, and represents him as being conquered by Alexander (see, e.g., Bertholdt, p. 716). If so, he would have shortened the Persian period by about 147 years, which would have to be added to that of the Seleucidae, in addi tion to the sixty-nine years, of which there is an excess in any case. This would give 380 years to the Seleucidae, which would have to be divided among eight kings, including Antiochus Epiphanes ; an error, to which it would be impossible to find the slightest analogy, even in the calculations of the most igno rant Jews, who have attempted to determine the chronology of MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 255 the period referred to ! In the Seder Olam (chap, xxx.) its duration is fixed at 180 years. The errors of Josephus, in re lation to this question (for an examination of which see Brink, examen chronol. Jos. in Havercamp ii. p. 298), would not be worth noticing by the side of it. And what makes the matter worse, is that Daniel shews such an accurate acquaintance with this period, even in its most minute particulars ! We see, then, what ground Bertholdt had, for describing the seventy weeks as a round number, which gives but an indefinite idea of the actual chronology. We have aHeady cut off this last retreat, but is it not in itself a proof, that in secret the difficulty is regarded as insuperable ? The fact, that we have only forced hypotheses to deal with, is apparent from the different methods to which the Anti-Messianic expositors have had recourse. Ewald says, " the difficulty certainly arises here, that, reckoning from the year 607, which is to be taken as the starting point according to Jer. xxv. 1, more than forty-nine of the seven times seventy years have passed, before we reach the time of Cyrus, and less than 434 between the reign of Cyrus and 176 B.C. ; in fact the whole period does not fit in weU." — (About half a century too much !) — But, in Ewald's opinion, tfie author did not know any better. Now, this is certainly not a very probable assumption. A person, who was so thoroughly uninformed on such a subject, would not be likely to meddle with, it aU. The whole point of the matter rests on the chronological data. The supposed Pseudo-Daniel would have found it necessary to make any sacrifice rather than lay himseff open here. "How would he have dared," says Steudel, " to lay bis interpretation open to the gravest charges, when he knew that it was founded upon the shaUowest acquain tance with history." Tfie untenable character of this assump tion, then, has not been bidden from most of the " modern scientific expositors." But they attempt to get out of the diffi culty, by stiU less scientific means than these. Whilst Ewald could not make up his mind, to . dispute the evident fact, that the seventy weeks of years, like tfie seventy years of Jeremiafi, form a continuous whole, which is subdivided into the three periods of seven, sixty-two, and one ; the commentators referred to (Lengerke, Wieseler, Hofmann, Hitzig and others) are ready to sacrifice everything, in order to get rid of the seven weeks, that 256 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. they may have only sixty-three to dispose of. But the simple fact, that they cannot agree as to the method, by wliich this end is to be attained, is a clear proof, that we are in the midst of a region of inclination and caprice. In the text, the seven weeks stand before the sixty-three ; but Hitzig places them in the middle, Wieseler at the end (in a review of his in the Gottingen gel. Anzeiger 1846 p. 113 sqq., in which he revokes the most impor tant of the views he formerly expressed) ; whilst, according to Hofmann, they are entirely distinct, and refer to a period, which is separated from the sixty-three weeks by thousands of years. These worthless and marveUous hypotheses of the " modern scientific expositors " are all knocked on the head by the simple sentences of Blomstrand : " The seventy hebdomads in ver. 24 are the same as the seven, sixty-two, and one, in the verses which foUow. The different parts of the seventy hebdomads do not coincide ; nor are they separated by intervals. Of the seven, sixty-two, and one, the seven are the first, and the one is the last." (Compare what we have already written at p. 97) . The acknowledgment made by Hitzig, " the seventy weeks extend as far as 116 B.C., that is forty-nine years later than the year 166," is fatal to the whole system of Anti-Messianic exposition ; and Hitzicfs assertion, that " the irpwTov ^eSSos in the calculation is the seven weeks, which the author was obfiged to dispose of," is much more appficable to tfie torturing process, to which these expositors are obfiged to have recourse, in order that these seven weeks may be disposed of by themselves. It is certainly a priori improbable, that the author, who was under no constraint, should have created such difficulties of his own accord. It is an edify ing spectacle, to observe how those, who have once departed from the simple truth, exert themselves to find the door, and how one searches here, and another there, but alike without success. 8. If the prophecy relates to the Maccabean era, how is it that it contains no aUusion whatever to an event, which is men tioned in aU the other prophecies of Daniel connected with this period, the restoration of the state and temple ? Why does it finish with the mournful announcement of complete and per manent desolation, which has nothing to do with this period at aU ? A poor comfort for a prophet in want of consolation I MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 257 Everything that serves to divest of its terrors the predicted deso lation of the city and temple, when the prophecy is understood as referring to the Messianic era, is entirely wanting in such a case as this. In the Maccabean age, the theocracy itself was suspended, when the city and temple were destroyed, for its very existence was inseparably connected with both of these. 9. As we have aHeady observed, Bertholdt supposes the anointed one, mentioned in ver. 26, to be Alexander. This gives rise to a whole host of difficulties. The anointed one dies sixty-two weeks of years after Cyrus ; and yet there are said to be only four kings between them, each of whom, therefore, must have reigned more than a hundred years. He is described as being cut off in the same week of years, at the end of which Antiochus Epiphanes is said to have perished, i.e., the seventieth. And yet, according to the actual history, there were seven kings between him and Antiochus, and, according to Bertholdt's imaginary history, ten! Bertholdt tries to get rid of these difficulties, by assuming that i-inN does not mean after, but before the expiration ! And as Alexander did not suffer a violent deatfi, although this is the ordinary meaning of j-n^n? ^e arnrms that it also is appfied to mortem placidam. Another dilemma arises in connexion with Seleucus Philopator: It is predicted that the anointed wiU not die tiU after the end of the sixty-two weeks, that is, till the seventieth ; and the termination of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes is said to occur in the same week. But how is this possible, seeing that the latter reigned eleven full years ? Our opponents have the less ground for pretending, that there is any error here ; since the author, according to their own account, was contemporaneous with the events. We shaU content ourselves with merely referring to the impossible suppo sition, aHeady noticed, that the j-pffiD 1S a heathen ruler, having no connexion whatever with the theocracy. 10. The notion, that the prophecy expires in the Maccabean era, is opposed to the unanimous testimony of Jewish tradition. In the first book of the Maccabees,reference is constantly made to the prophecies in chap. viii. and xi., relating to that period, but never to the passage before us (see Dissertation on Daniel, VOL. III. R 258 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. p. 214). J We have also shown in this dissertation (p. 215), that, in the times immediately after Clirist, the prophecy was universally referred to a destruction that had yet to take place, namely, that by the Eomans (see tho remarks on ver. 27). To the passages quoted at ver. 27, we have still to add Josephus, de bell. Jud. 6. 5. 4, " having it written in the prophecies, that the city and temple would be destroyed, as soon as the temple became quadrangular." This, as Reland has already observed, can only be founded upon a false rendering of the n^ in the passage before us. On the other hand, the words which imme diately foUow, " but what chiefly incited tfiem to the war was an ambiguous oracle, which is also found in the sacred writings," &c, cannot be connected with this passage (as they have been by Less, fiber Beligion ii. 708, and many others) ; seeing that the Xpv°~/*o<} dficpifioXos is distinguished clearly enough from the prophecy quoted immediately before. And there is just as little ground for the assertion of the same writer, that it was this predic tion alone, that gave rise to the expectation, which was so general among the Jews, at the time when Christ came, and which had spread so widely throughout the whole of the East, namely, that the Messiah was about to appear, — an expectation, of which so many false Christs availed themselves, for the accompfishment of their own purposes. It was certainly founded, to a much greater extent, upon the announcement in chap. ii. The fourth kingdom was generally and correctly supposed to be the Eoman empire ; and the fifth, whicli was to destroy it, the kingdom of the Messiah (see Josephus x. 10, 4). What was more natural, therefore, than that the expectation of the Messiah should be con fidently entertained, from the time when the Eoman empire first came into hostfie collision witfi the Jews ? The unanimity, with whicli this prophecy was understood as referring to the destruc tion of Jerusalem by the Eomans, is also apparent from the fact, that none of the later Jewish expositors have ventured to adopt 1 Hitzig 's assertion, that 1 Mace. i. 54 contains an allusion to this pro phecy, and furnishes a proof that it was at that time supposed to refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, is refuted by what we have stated there. We have already proved in our notes on ver. 27, that there is no ground for the asser tion, that the Septuagint version of this passage is based upon the supposi tion, that the prophecy refers to Antiochus Epiphanes. MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 259 a different interpretation, notwithstanding the disadvantage, at which it places them in their controversy with Christians (for proofs, see Sostmann p. 18 sqq.). — Moreover, the universal pre valence of the term Messiah at the time of Christ, as the name by which the expected one was known, seems to show, that pre vious to the time, when unbelief in Him who had appeared rendered a correct interpretation impossible, the anointed one was generally understood to mean the Messiah. And this, again, presupposes that the prophecy, from which the name was derived, was one held in high estimation. Now this we know to have been the case, in a very eminent degree, with the prophecy before us at the period referred to. 11. The theory, which connects this prophecy with the Mac cabean era, and the entire non-Messianic interpretation, will continue false, so long as the word of Christ is true, — that is, to aU eternity. We have aHeady proved, in the Dissertation on Daniel, p. 213 (compare p. 179 sqq. of this volume), that Matt. xxiv. 15 (Mark xiii. 14), contains an allusion to this prophecy ; and we have also shown at p. 216, that it is quoted by the Lord as an actual prophecy, which had stiU to be fulfiUed, so far as the destruction of the city and temple was concerned. — Hitzig, who does not trouble himself about the authority of the Lord, admits without hesitation, that " the abomination of desolation" in Mark xiii. 14, is taken from Daniel, as is expressly stated in the paraUel passage (Matt. xxiv. 15), and in fact from chap. ix. 27. Wieseler, who hesitates to attack the authority of Christ, acknowledges at p. 77, that Christ himself appears to give his sanction to the Messianic interpretation ; but thinks that, if it appears, to us impossible, that there should be any reference to the Messiah, we shall also be disinclined to attribute such a doc trine to Christ himseH. With these words before us, we shall not set out with the expectation of finding his attempt, to prove that Jesus only applied these words of Daniel to his own fate by way of accommodation, altogether free from partiality. He finds himself in a false position, and the more so because he admits, (1) that, at the time of Christ, it was a thoroughly national con viction, that the passage referred to calamity, which was to come upon the nation, and (2) that even the immediate disciples of Jesus expected the future destruction of Jerusalem and the r2 260 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. temple, in consequence of this prophecy of Daniel. The words ofthe Lord, " whoso readeth let him understand," which refer to the obscurity and depth of Daniel's prediction (see Disserta tion, p. 210 sqq.), are interpreted by Wieseler as an injunction to the disciples not to content themselves with the current exposi tion of Daniel's prophecy. Let us now examine the arguments, which are brought against the Messianic interpretation. T. Assuming the genuineness of these prophecies, it is affirmed that " we cannot possibly understand them, as fixing the time with exact precision, when the kingdom of heaven was to be set up or completed. For if the Eedeemer declares, that such a know ledge of the future, with reference to the day and hour, is not possessed by either the angels of heaven or himself (Matt. xxiv. 36 ; Mark xiii. 32), and if he even repeats this after his resurrec tion, we cannot possibly suppose, that it was so clearly revealed to another prophet, and even to one of a much earlier period, that he was able to make such an announcement to his people with chronological accuracy, either in ordinary terms or accord ing to a so-called mystical standard, that is, if the latter is to be regarded as definite in its character" {Bleek p. 234). In other words: "because Christ did not think it advisable, to give his disciples — who were eager for the reward before they had endured the conflict ; who, without any right to do so, were asking after things, which were not suited to their present condition, and f< n-got to strive after the one thing needful, the birth from above ; who were still carnal, and to whom the Lord had stiU many things to say, which they could not hear then ; — because to these disciples the Lord refused to make known the time, when the kingdom of glory should be established, a revelation, which could only have operated injuriously, so far as existing circumstances were concerned, especially considering the distance at which the ultimate completion of salvation still lay, and the necessity, which at present existed, for the foundation of this kingdom to be kept prominently before the minds of the disciples : — therefore, God could not possibly have made any disclosures to a prophet ofthe Old Testament, as to the time when the kingdom of grace was MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 261 to be established ; and even if there be a prophecy, which, when tested by aU the laws of a sound exegesis, is found to fix the precise period, to the very year, and if no error can be pointed out, either in the exposition, or the chronology, it is nevertheless a priori certain, that it must be false." What right have we to take what is said of the kingdom of glory, and apply it, without reserve, to the kingdom of grace ? And what right have we to interpret a refusal, which, even in connexion with the former, had respect simply to one particular period, as if it had been an unreserved and absolute refusal P1 It is very apparent from Acts i. 7 and 8, that the reason why the disciples received such an answer, is to be found purely in their condition at the time. " It is not for you," says Christ, "to knowthe times and the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power ; but ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you." This is not what you stand in need of now, but something very different ; and though God withholds the former, you will receive from Him the latter. The only turn that could be given to this argument, so as to make it plausible, would be the following : "If the Lord, who even in his state of humiliation was superior to all the prophets, speaks of definite revelations, as to the times and seasons at which future events would transpire, as beyond his own reach, whilst in this state ; can God have communicated such revela tions to any prophet whatever ?" But, in this case, the argument would be equally directed against every other prophecy, in which definite chronological announcements are contained, and not only against those of the Old Testament, but against those of Christ himself, who foretold that he would rise again in three days, and, in fact, against aU the prophecies, in which casual events are predicted. For what real difference is there, between fixing a time before hand, or making any other definite announcement ? We are involved at once in further difficulties of the most serious kind. For how can we imagine one whole department of divine 1 Bengel has given an admirable reply to those, who argue from these pas sages against the existence of any definite statements of time in the Book of Revelation, in both the Gnomon and the Ord. temp. p. 301. He writes among other things : " He does not say, no one will know but no one knows. He himself will know one day, and when he has learned the day and hour, it will be for him to communicate the knowledge, whenever and to whom soever he please." 262 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. knowledge, as absolutely inacessible, even when this knowledge would assist his cause, to one who knew that the Father heard him always (John xi. 42), and to whom the Father showed aU things that himseff did (John v. 20). This passage and a num ber of others show that the following is the correct view of the Saviour's limited knowledge. In that state of humiliation, in which the divine nature of Christ was quiescent, if he required anything for the fulfilment of his vocation, which was beyond the reach of the powers and gifts of his human nature, he received it by direct communication from above, and asked for it in prayer. In himseff, he neither possessed the power to work miracles, nor the power to foresee the future ; but this power was never refused in answer to his petition, for such was the harmony of his wfil with that of God, that he could not ask anything, which it was not the design of God to give. From this it is evident that Christ's not knowing was simply the result of bis not willing, and that the reason of his not willing was the want of fitness on the part of his disciples. Just in the same way might the Lord have replied to Satan, wfien he told him to turn the stones into bread, that he could not do it, without thereby prejudicing his miraculous power. But, if the want of knowledge on the part of Christ resulted from the unsuitableness of the knowledge asked for, both as concerned the persons and the time ; what right have we to infer from this, that the Lord might not at some other time fiave communicated suitable revelations containing distinct chronological announcements of future events, first of aU to his servants the prophets, and through them to his people ? But the worthlessness of the argument is firmly established at the very outset, and without further inquiry. The things, which Bleek affirms that the passage cannot possibly contain, were found in it by the Lord of the church himself (Matt. xxiv. 15). l 1 Compare Sack's remarks, with reference to this argument, in his Apolo- getik ed. 2, p. 333 sqq. He says : " Must then the divine in thought and word"be always poetical, ideal, figurative, hyperbolical, and perhaps indistinct and vague ? Is there something ungodly and profane in numbers ? Do they not occupy a very important place in the divine economy, in the govern ment of the world, in the perfect knowledge of him, with whom everything has its time and hour, and who, therefore, when he reveals himself, must communicate this to his servants the prophets in definite measure and with a distinct object ? Even Abraham was told the number of the years, that his posterity would remain in Egypt." MODERN NON-MESSIANIC EXPOSITORS. 263 2. Eeference is also made to the " great resemblance between this prophecy, and those which are acknowledged to relate to Antiochus Epiphanes ;" and from this it is argued, that the sub ject of the prophecy before us must be the same. Hofmann (p. 97) and Wieseler (p. 74) rely chiefly upon this. But the resemblance is, for the most part, caused by a misinterpretation. If we look, first of aU, to the substance of the prophecies ; the similarity is nothing more than this, that in both cases a foreign prince brings destruction upon the covenant-nation in conse quence of its sins, and the sacrificial worship is suspended. This is reaUy aU. In the one case, the city and temple are ir remediably destroyed ; in the other, they are merely subjected to a severe visitation. According^ to one announcement the nation as such entirely perishes ; according to the other, it is restored after a brief interval. The announcement, as to the anointed one the prince, and the glorious blessings to be brought by him, is peculiar to this prophecy. The most important point is supposed to be the perfect similarity in the chronological statements. The two thousand three hundred days, in chap. viii. 14, are said to correspond to the last week of years men tioned here ; and the twelve hundred and ninety, and thirteen hundred and fifty-five days, to the half- week in chap. xii. 11, 12. But it is stiU a disputed point, whether the 2300 evening- mornings are to be understood as so many half-days (as Hitzig supposes), or whole days. If we suppose the latter, we shaU then have six years and a quarter, not seven years ; and whereas the one week mentioned here is described as the period, in which the covenant is to be confirmed, the two thousand three hundred evening-mornings represent the length of time, during which the visitation of the covenant-nation by the heathen tyrant continued. There is nothing about a half-week here, but only about the middle of the week. — So far as the expressions are concerned, the only point, which merits any attention, is the agreement be tween DEttftt Q-wnpty rp bv in ver- 2^> an(i oaty in chap. viii. 13, dei^e \pp&ri in chap. xi. 31, and q^ pp^ in chap. xii. 11. This agreement can hardly be accidental. In fact as a rule, the recurrence of such rare, characteristic expres sions points to a deeper connection, and is almost equivalent to 264 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. a distinct reference. And, according to our view, such a refe rence is very appropriate here. There was an intimate connection between the Syrian destruction and the Eoman, both in the guilt (wnyp), and the judgment (QJDty)- (F°r the correct ex position of chap. vifi. 13, xi. 31, xii. 11 see p. 108 sqq. and 133.) 3. " There is no other prophecy in the Book of Daniel, which goes beyond the death of Antiochus Epiphanes." This is an assertion without foundation. If the fourth universal monarchy in chap. ii. and vii. is the Eoman, we have here the link of con nection with, the prophecy before us. The announcement of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, in chap. vii. 13, leads us at once to expect, that we shaU find, somewhere else, a prediction of the first coming of Clirist ; especiaUy when we consider the great prominence given to this announcement in the prophecies of Zechariah, who was nearly contemporaneous, and in whom we discover so many points of resemblance. 4. Wieseler says (p. 83), "the Messianic interpretation is evidently impossible, from the simple fact that there would in that case be no reference whatever in this passage to the oppres sion by Antiochus Epiphanes, which happened at this very time, and which is so prominent throughout the rest of the book." But enough has been said on this subject elsewhere ; and there was no necessity to aUude to it here. The point, from which this prophecy starts, is the aspect of the ruins of Jerusalem. Its leading subject is the rebuilding of the city ; and after that its destruction again, along with the circumstances, which occa sioned the latter. ( 265 ) THE PROPHET HAGGAI. Haggai means the festal one. This is a good name for a pro phet. The distinguishing characteristic of the festivals was an elevation of the religious consciousness. A festal man was one who was always in this state of mental elevation. The circum- . stances, under which Haggai first appeared, were the same as those which attended the appearance of Zechariah, and wiU be discussed more fully in connection with that prophet. His pro phecies have all one design, viz., to expedite the building of the temple. It was not without a purpose, that the first discourse (chap, i.) was delivered on the first day of tfie month, that is, the feast of the new moon {cf Num. xxviii. 11 ; 2 Kings iv. 23) ; inasmuch as the prophet was more likely to attract atten tion on a feast-day. And as the circumstances of the times were such as to caU for repentance, he commences with reproof1 He contends against the prevailing indifference and selfishness, which had banished the thought of God from the mind, and points out how these bring their own punishment, inasmuch as those who • 1 The prophet's rebuke presupposes that, notwithstanding the obstacles which were thrown in the way by the Samaritans (Ezra iv. 1 — 5), no insu perable difficulty had presented itself to the erection of the temple between the first year of Cyrus and the second of Darius Hystaspes. If the erection had been prohibited by edicts of the Persian king, the leaders of the people would have been able to meet the charges brought by the prophet. The issue of any such edicts (which may be shown to be impossible, not only on the ground here stated, but also from the third address) would never have been assumed, had not the fact been overlooked that the paragraph in Ezra iv. 6 — 23 has no connection whatever with the building of the temple but is an intercalated section, having reference to the building of the city walls. 266 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. take away from God what reaUy belongs to Him wiU have their own taken from them as a just retribution. This address answered its purpose. Four and twenty days after its delivery, on the twenty-foiVth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius, the works connected with the temple were re-com menced with zeal, under the superintendence of Zerubbabel and Joshua the High Priest. But there soon arose a fresh occasion for Haggai's pubfic ap pearance. When the work had sufficiently advanced for the people to be able to contrast the new temple with the former one, they were plunged in deep distress. The shout of joy, which was raised when the foundation was laid, was mingled witfi audible weeping, especiaUy on the part of the old men, who had seen the glory of the first temple (see Ezra iii. 12). There appeared to be a glaring contrast between the promise and the reality. How glorious the former ; how miserable the latter ! According to Isaiafi (see especiaUy chap. Ix.), Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, the new temple was to be infinitely superior in its glory to the old. And how did it look now ? It was a nonentity in their eyes (chap. ii. 3). Gloomy thoughts now arose among the believers. Can this temple be the one wliich God promised ? Are not the miserable circumstances in which we are placed an intimation from him that we are to abstain from the fruitless undertaking ? Is it a right thing to build him a hut, instead of a temple? Whether he has entirely cast off his people on account of their sins, and altogether withdrawn his conditional promise, or intends to fulfil his promise, at some time or other in the remote future, for a worthier generation than we are, who still groan beneath his wrath, and are reaUy in Babylon, though outwardly in Canaan, — he has at aU events declared us unworthy of so great and holy a work, by the very circumstances in which we are placed. In such a state of mind, comfort was the thing they needed ; and Haggai was called by God to impart it. He discharged his commission, by addressing to them the discourse contained in chap. ii. 1 — 9, which was delivered on the 21st of the 7th month. He urges the people and their leaders to be of good courage ; assuring them of the fact that the Lord is with them, and that HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6 — 9. 267 the word, which he spoke to them at the very first, " fear not," continues stiU in force.1 Having thus re-opened the fountain of consolation for every kind of trouble, the prophet addresses himself especiaUy to the immediate cause of the despondency of the nation on this occa sion, its want of faith in God and his grace. They were not to allow the small beginnings of the new temple to trouble them. God would remove the obstacles which, so far as an eye of flesh could see, rendered it impossible that the glorious promises of the earlier prophets, respecting the flocking of the Gentiles with aU their gifts and possessions, should be fulfilled. He, the Almighty, wiU shake the strong kingdoms of the earth, and deprive them of the power which has made them, in their proud self-conceit, entirely forgetful of Him (vers. 6 and 7). Thus humbled, the Gentiles wiU come with their possessions, to do homage to the Lord, whose temple will now rise to lofty glory (ver. 7). It cannot be otherwise, for God is the possessor of aU earthly things (ver. 8). And this glory wiU be so great, that it wiU far surpass that of the former temple, whilst it will also be accompanied with peace to the people of the Lord (ver. 9). CHAP. II., VEE. 6-9. Ver. 6. " For thus saith the Lord of Hosts, there is yet a little, and I shake the heaven and the earth and the dry (land)." 13 shows that we have here the reason for the exhortation "fear not." It is not without a reason that the expression, " thus saith the Lord of Hosts," is repeated five times in these four 1 Ver. 5. "The word, which I concluded with you when ye came out of Egypt and my spirit dwelt in the midst of you : fear not." (Lay this to heart, bear it in mind.) That this explanation (which is the one given by Ewald) is correct, is evident from the fact that the words " fear not" are taken from Ex. xx. 17. This, therefore, must be the word which the Lord pledged to them at the time of their exodus from Egypt. The Spirit of God in this passage (as in Is. Ixiii. 11) is the miraculous power of God, which was displayed in the Mosaic age in the midst, and for the good of the nation. By this power the exhortation "fear not" was seconded then; and the samo power will give effect to it now. See Zech. iv. 6. ~5ftS~«*, HIESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. verses. The greate^ the impossibility of discovering even the smaUest human prospect, the greater the necessity for laying emphasis upon the ^impotence of God.1 In our explanation of the words wriTvyQ Jin« Tty. we have foll°we Just as in ^s- xvl- ^ WO anc* "1VTJD are connected, so as to express the shortest possible time. We cannot exactly foUow Verschuir (adhuc una haec temporis particula), and take gyfi as a noun, according to its primary signification. It is only known in tfie language as an adverb ; and there is the less necessity to render it otherwise, on account of the ]-\nN> fr°m the fact that even adverbs, which are proved by their form to have been always adverbs, are not infrequently construed as nouns, e.g. ?ft'iv}, Qjn "'ET There is quite as little difficulty, connected with 12V72 nilN' as with D^O tHV\K)> tOJftS Tfl3- It corresponds exactly to our expression ein wenig, a little, where the word little is still an adverb. Most of the earlier expositors take ]-\nN T^ an which stands for the substantive verb, belongs to the whole of the foregoing clause, and not merely to a parenthesis.2 The question arises, how ever, how far the notion of brevity is suitable here. The earlier commentators, who, for the most part, understood by the shaking of the heaven and the earth, the establish ment of a new economy, the conclusion of a new cove nant, were not a little perplexed with this question. They either referred to Ps. xc. 4 and 2 Pet. iii. 8, and spoke of the measure of time adopted here, as being not the human standard, but the divine, according to which a thousand years are as one day ; or they maintained that the brevity was merely relative : " in comparison with another, much longer period, the time that 1 The same objection may be brought against the rendering adopted by Hitzig and Hofmann, "one more, little is it," one more, only one period, which will not be subdivided into several. It would be altogether unpa ralleled, that one should stand for "a time," and that a time should be used without further explanation for a continued period. 2 If we have given a correct exposition of ver. 5, there is certainly a refer ence to the Sinaitic legislation, as these commentators maintain (" as once, when the law was proclaimed from Mount Sinai with terrible thunders and lightnings, and all nature was shaken," Michaelis). The Lord will shake anew, but even in this case Israel need not fear. On the contrary, this shaking will contribute to the glory of the kingdom of God, by breaking the power of the heathen. Hence en anal) is correct, as far as the sense is con cerned ; but it is not necessary,, that the reference to what transpired in olden times, which is so slightly indicated, should be made prominent in such a way as this : " there is yet a little; and I shake (anew)." 270 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. would elapse, previous to the foundation of the new economy, is described as short." But these can hardly be sustained. The former certainly cannot. For he who speaks to men, must speak according to human conceptions, or else state that he has not done so. The prophet lays stress upon the brevity of the time in this case, for the purpose of administering consolation. But only what is short in human estimation would be fitted to accomplish this. The second, also, is untenable. Eor he who speaks of time relatively, must mention with what the compari son is instituted. But there is no trace of anything of the kind in this passage, as the various conjectures of these commentators sufficiently prove. Moreover, what space of time could there be, of such a length, that another one of five hundred years could be described as " a little" in comparison ? We are thus brought to the conclusion, that the explanation given to the words, " I shake the heavens and the earth," cannot be the correct one. There is no difficulty whatever connected with the correct expo sition, namely, that reference is made to the great political con vulsions, by which the power of the Gentiles was to be broken and their pride humbled, and thus they were to be made capable of receiving salvation. This shaking commenced immediately. The axe was aHeady laid at the root of the Persian empire, whose subsequent and visible fall was but the manifestation of a far earlier one, which had been hidden from view. We have aHeady noticed, in a general way, the idea wliich the earlier commentators usually associated with the shaking of the heaven, the earth, the sea and the dry land. They very properly sup posed, as we have just observed, that aUusion was made to the phenomena connected with the giving of the law, when Mount Sinai trembled violently. Compare the historical account in Ex. xix. 16 — 19, and the poetical description in Judges v. 4 sqq., " Lord, when thou wentest out of Seir, when thou marchedst out of the field of Edom, the earth trembled (nffijnV &c. With this smaller shaking, the establishment of the Old Testament economy, the prophet is stiU further supposed to contrast the greater shaking, the establishment of the new Testament economy, when the heaven would be shaken as well as the earth. To the arguments aHeady adduced in opposi tion to this explanation, and in support of the one aHeady HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6. 271 mentioned, wliich we regard as the correct one, and which Verschuir was the first to demonstrate thoroughly, we may add the foUowing. .1. The same words occur again in chap. ii. 21 ; and, with the evident connection between the two passages, we may find in the latter a test ofthe correctness of any exposition of the former. In ver. 22, " and I overthrow the throne of the kingdoms, and destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen, and overthrow the war chariots and their warriors, and horses and their riders faU, man by the sword of his brother," we have an explanation of ver. 21. It shows that the shaking of the heavens and the earth, mentioned in ver. 21 , refers to great changes, to be brought about by the omnipotence of God in the state of the nations, to bloody wars, by which he would throw down from the summit of their power those who proudly exalted themselves against him, and generaUy to the coming of the day ofthe Lord upon everything high and exalted, of which we have a description in Is. ii. In ver. 23, " in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, will I take thee, 0 Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, and wfil make thee as a signet-ring, for I have chosen thee, saith the Lord of Hosts," we have a confirmation of the re sult, which we have aHeady obtained from the words," there is yet a little," namely, that the shaking ofthe heaven and the earth can not be regarded as something connected with a far distant future alone. The leading idea is God's affectionate care of his people amidst aU the great changes, which he was about to bring to pass in the world, and which, just because they were not acciden tal, but overruled by him, would have for their object the elevation of his people and kingdom, and could not possibly injure them ; so that they might look in peace and comfort upon the destruction and dissolution, which were taking place on the earth, convinced that they were only the throes of a better world. And, although Zerubbabel is introduced here, on account of his office, rather than his person ; although the promise is made through him to the people ;x and although it extends far beyond the fife of Zerubbabel, and has no actual limits in time ; yet the very 1 " God addresses Zerubbabel, that he may show, in his person, that he is about to bless the people, whom he has determined to gather together under that sacred head For, although Zerubbabel did not obtain pos session of the kingdom ; yet God determined that a spark, as it were, of that 272 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. fact, that Zerubbabel is selected as the representative of the nation, — with especial reference to the fears, which agitated both Zerubbabel himself, and the rest of that generation, from their consciousness of weakness, wliich seemed sure to succumb to even the slightest opposition, — this fact, we say, is a proof that the reference in this passage cannot be to something absolutely remote, but only to something, which actually commenced in the age in which the promise was given, though it might also extend through aU ages, and be merely continued in the bless ings promised by Christ, that " he would be with his people always even to the end of the world," and that " the gates of hell should not prevail against his church." — 2. The opening words ofthe next verse, " and I shake all the heathen," are at variance with the supposed reference to the establishment of a new economy. The commentators, aHeady referred to, maintain that the shaking in this case is different from that mentioned in the previous verse, and denotes the agitation of mind, which would be excited among the heathen by the Spirit of God after the founding of the new economy.1 To Verschuir belongs the honour of having been the first to caU attention to the fact, that these words are not connected with a description of salvation itself, but merely of events which prepared the way.2 There kingdom should appear, which he had set up in the family of David. . In fine, God showed that it had pleased him, that the nation should be gathered together under one head, because Christ would at length spring from the seed of Zerubbabel" (Calvin). See Zech., chap. iv. The announce ment points back to Jer. xxii. 24, " though Ooniah, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence," and shows, that this prophecy is only temporary in its character, that it cannot annihilate the promise, which was given to the family of David, and through that family to the nation, but that in future this pro mise will recover its force again. The signet ring, which, is greatly prized and carefully preserved, and with which a man does not part, is a character istic emblem of the family of David in its relation to God. 1 This was the explanation given by the Jewish expositors, e.g., Kimchi (inelinabo corda eorum, ut loco suo se moveant ad veniendum et viden- dum gloriam hanc et suismet manibus aft'erant aurum et argentum), Jarchi and Abenezra. Calvin also explains the shaking as " the inward movement, by which God impels the elect to enter the fold of Christ." Michaelis para phrases the passage thus, " I will move them by the sound of the gospel to repentance and faith." 2 " The section before us is divisible into two leading parts, of which the one describes the events, which would precede the state of perfect happiness and glory, and be instrumental in bringing it about (ver. 6 and 7) ; whilst the other embraces the state of perfect prosperity itself." HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6. 273 can be no doubt whatever, that this is the correct view. The word iflffiJHn itself indicates, not gentle internal emotions, but violent agitations ; and there is the greater reason for believing this to be the meaning, because the word occurs in this sense immediately before, and it cannot be supposed that the same word, which is evidently chosen with intention, is used here in an entirely different sense. But if we compaie ver. 22, no further doubt can possibly remain. The words, " I wiU over throw the throne of kingdoms and wiU destroy the strength ofthe kingdoms of the heathen," stand in precisely the same relation to the shaking of the heavens and the earth, as the words " and I shake aU the heathen," in the verse before us. We are fully warranted in explaining the latter clause from the former. But if there can be no doubt that, by the shaking of the heathen, we are to understand the breaking up of tfie foundations of their kingdoms, the dissolution of their power ; the shaking of the heaven and the earth must mean the same thing. 3. In addition to this, the image itself is a natural one, only when it is understood as referring to violent political convulsions. Storms and earthquakes do not represent the omnipotence of God in general ; they are the natural symbols of his omnipo tence to destroy, and they were regarded in this fight, even by the nations of antiquity. Earthquakes were looked upon, as the omens of approaching destruction.1 Just as the mani festation of the destructive power of God in inanimate nature excites a foreboding, even in the rudest minds, that the same destructive power wiU also be put forth in tfie affairs of men ; and just as we see in every earthquake, to some extent, a real pro phecy of the judgments of God on men ; so, on the other hand, where these judgments have been inflicted, where grievous con fusion and calamity prevail on every side, to the alarmed and ^Compare, for example, the remarkable passage in Herodotus (vi. 98), from which it is evident that he shared the opinion of the people in this respect : arjKos eKtvrjdrj, ©ffeAeyov olArjXioi, KanrpSxra Kai varcxra pe'xpt epev o~eia6eio~a. K tov Aapeiov Kai 'ApTa^e^j x;ea, toO 3ep£ea>, rpiatv Tovreaxv e7tel-fjs yeveeav, eyevero ir\ea> koko. ttj 'EXXaJe, 7 em eiKoai, SKXas ¦yevtas ras vpb Aapelov yevopevas. . . . ovra oi8ev rjv aeiKes Kivr)6r)vai ArjXov, to np\v eovaav aKivrirov ; see also chap. iv. 28, Thucy dides ii. 8, and Justin xl. 2. VOL. III. S 274 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. anxious man even external nature appears to be dissolving ; he feels as if heaven and earth were breaking up. This wiU explain how it is, that the manifestations of God's destructive power in the natural world, as for example in storms and earthquakes, are so often employed in Scripture, to represent the manifesta tions of the same destructive power in history. An example of this we have in the 18th Psalm, where the description of a storm is introduced, to show the fearful destruction, which is sus pended by God over the Psalmist's foes. And again in Is. xiii. 13, where the vision of the destruction overhanging Babylon is widened into the vision of a judgment on the whole earth, of which the former was a type and offshoot, and, at the same time, an actual prediction. " Therefore," says the Lord, " I will shake the heavens, and the earth shaU remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger." And, again, in Ps. Ix. 2, where great misfortunes, which had befallen the covenant-people, are represented under the image of an earthquake, by which great clefts had been made in the earth : " thou hast made the earth to tremble, thou hast broken it : heal the breaches, for it shaketh." Even in the poetic prose of the first Book of Maccabees, we find in chap. i. 28 the fearful sufferings, with which the covenant-people had been visited, represented as a literal earthquake, " the earth was shaken for the inhabitants thereof." (See the Commentary on Bev. vi. 12). Having thus determined the general meaning, we must look into the subject somewhat more closely to ascertain, if possible, the thought which lies at the foundation of this announcement. Had the prophet simply predicted, without further explana tion, the glorification of the kingdom of God by the flocking of the heathen into it, with aU their possessions and gifts, his pro phecy would have met with Httle acceptance. The contrasts were too glaring ; on the one side poor, miserable, despised Israel, which was at that very time engaged in building a wretched hut for its God, instead of a splendid temple, and even for that had obtained permission with difficulty from its Iieathen rulers ; on the other side, heathenism in the bloom of its strength, fuU of pride, on account of its own power, and the power of its deities, and scarcely deigning to look at Israel and its God. These contrasts could only be softened down, in a supernatural way, by the God HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6. 275 of heaven, who bringeth down the mighty, and raiseth the humble and miserable out of the dust. The prophet directs the attention of the people to his preparatory movements. He is about to shake the might of the heathen, and bring down aU their pride. If we fix our attention exclusively upon this shaking, our prophecy is parallel to that of Daniel, concerning the four king doms, which were to be destroyed by the omnipotence of God, and in whose place a fifth kingdom was to arise, the kingdom of the people of the Lord. Both were equally consolatory to the covenant nation. However the power of this world might exalt itself, they knew that there was a worm, gnawing secretly at the root. The transference of power from one nation to another invariably revived their hopes. They saw in this, the positive proof of the nothingness and perishable nature of all earthly things ; from it they learned, that the things of earth did not stand in their way like an indestructible wall of brass ; and they might indulge the hope, that, when these changes had run their course, the power of man, so far as it presented a contrast to the Kingdom of God, would ultimately cease to exist. But there is one peculiarity which distinguishes the prophecy before us from that of Daniel. Not only is the forcible destruc tion of the power of man, by the interposition of God, presented to our notice here, but a moral effect is mentioned, which this destruction wiU produce, even upon those who are thus destroyed. The heathen, who have been " shaken," come of their own accord, and consecrate themselves, and aU they have, to the Lord. To effect this is the design of the shaking ; the highest object, which God sets before him, in his superintendence of the events of the world. How far were the means adapted to promote the end ? This question must be answered from the whole biblical view of the economy of sufferings. The Bible teaches that, in consequence of the corruption of human nature, the possession of the good things of this world brings with it the danger of their being abused, of the heart being set upon them and trusting in them, and of a high-minded contempt of God ; and, in many cases, this danger can only be averted by God himself taking the pos sessions away. This view has stamped itself even upon the language oi Scripture. Just as each individual must enter the s 2 276 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. Kingdom of God through tribulation, and only he who sows in tears can reap with joy, so is it, also, with whole nations. The historians and prophets describe, on every page, how constantly Israel was shaken, that its beauty might come to the Lord. " In their affliction they wfll seek me early" (Hos. v. 15) ; this is a key note, which runs through them aU. And it is always after God has smitten Israel that it turns to him and seeks to be healed (vid. Is. xxvi. 16, vol. i. p. 516). The appfication of this fundamental view, of the effect of suffering upon the nature of man, to the treatment of the heathen on the part of God, is hinted at on every hand. But it occurs with the greatest frequency and distinctness in Isaiah, from whom we quote some passages, which are in aU respects to be regarded as paraUel to our own. The fact that in Isaiah one or more nations are singled out, whereas here all the heathen are referred to, makes no real difference ; for the special announcement in Isaiah is evidently an emanation from the generalidea, which the prophet merely applies to some one nation in particular, because it is with that alone that he has to do. In chap. xix. 1 — 15 the prophet describes the judgment of the Lord on Egypt ; and in ver. 16 sqq. the manner in which this judgment wfil issue in its humi liation and salvation. The congregation of the Lord, which it formerly despised, becomes an object of its veneration. Altars are erected in the land of Egypt, and the three nations of Egypt, Israel, and Assyria, the last of which had arrived at the same knowledge through the same humiliation, unite together to form one covenant-nation and brotherhood, and serve the Lord to gether ; — just as in Amos ix. 12, the remnant of Edom, the portion which had been spared amidst the judgments of God, unites with the covenant-nation, and is admitted into it by the Lord. We find the same idea at the close of the prophecy against the Egyptians and Cushites in chap, xviii ; and also at the end of the prophecy against Tyre, chap, xxiii. 17, 18. After a period of suffering Tyre flourishes again through the grace of God ; but this time her acquisitions are devoted to the Lord. In what relation does the idea stand to history, when presented in the general form in which it is expressed in this passage ? So much is evident, that no shaking can come into consideration here, except so far as the coming of the heathen is either asso- HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6. 277 ciated with it, or a consequence of it. For this reason we must reject such explanations as that of Verschuir, who places the principal fulfilment in tfie time of the Maccabees, and also the manifestly insipid notion of Drusius, who talks about an earth quake during the reign of Herod. We cannot even assume that the prophecy reached no farther than the first coming of Christ. On the contrary its fulfilment must go on as long as the oppo sition lasts between the earthly power and the Kingdom of the Lord on the earth ; that is, till the entrance of the kingdom of glory. All the deafings of God with the nations have for their ultimate object, the establishment and advance of the kingdom of God. With a firm hand he guides the affairs of the world, century after century, towards this final issue. Where the eye of flesh sees only chance, and where that of faith discerns only the puni tive justice of God, to which exclusive reference is made in so many of the other prophecies, and wliich is certainly not to be excluded here ; there, does the prophecy before us openaU at once a view of the secret operations of the mercy of God, which smites only to heal, in the case of the heathen as much as of the covenant-people, and which, even where absolute annihilation appears to have taken place, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrha, causes life to come forth from death (see Ezek. xvi. 55), and only casts entirely away when every method of severity and love has been resorted to in vain. We now proceed to examine in what way the idea was realised previous to the first coming of Christ. Here the shakings of the heathen foUowed closely one upon another. How thoroughly the power of Persia had been undermined was soon brought to hght, in the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, the successor cf Darius. It could easily be foreseen then that its days were numbered ; and in the rapid conquests of Alexander these anti cipations were fulfilled. And his power also, which seemed destined to be eternal, succumbed to the fate of everything temporal. Livy says : " inde morte Alexandri distractum in multa regna, dum ad se quisque opes rapiunt lacerantes viribus, a summo culmine fortunae ad ultimum finem centum quinqua- ginta annos stetit." The two most powerful of the kingdoms, which arose out of the empire of Alexander, the Syrian and 278 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. Egyptian, destroyed each other. The Eomans now attained to universal dominion, but at the very time when they seemed to have reached the summit of their greatness, the " shaking" had proceeded to a very considerable extent. Let us imagine Clirist appearing at the time, when any one of these empires was in the vigour of its youth. Would he have been likely to find an entrance ? Quite as Httle, we may be sure, among the Persians, when intoxicated with their victories, as among the victorious Greeks or the old iron Eomans. But now, a sense of the nothingness and perishable character of everything earthly, and a longing for imperishable, heavenly possessions, and for a fixed and immoveable heavenly kingdom, had spread far and wide through the countries ofthe earth; and the strength of this feeling may be gathered from the fact, that there were many who sought this kingdom, even in the imperfect form, in which it then existed, — a small beginning ofthe promised accession of the heathen, — and that whilst some merely sought in it external support, others were received into it altogether. AU that remains to be done, is to look at the one passage in the New Testament, in which this prophecy is quoted, viz., Heb. xii. 26 sqq. In the 25th verse of this chapter, the author urges those whom he is addressing, not to reject the perfect revelation of God in Christ, and so expose themselves to a much severer punishment than was inflicted upon those, who hardened themselves agamst a less perfect revelation of God under the Old Testament. The superior dignity of the former he demonstrates in ver. 26, from the fact that only a comparatively small shaking took place at the founding of the Old Covenant (as a sign of the dominion of God over creation, and of the destructive power, which he exerted over it, Mount Sinai had been shaken then), whereas an infinitely greater shaking had been predicted in connection with the New Testament times, a shaking, which should embrace not only the whole earth, but the heavens also. The meaning of the shaking referred to in the prophecy of Haggai, — the words of which he represents as having been spoken by God, at the commencement of the period aUuded to in the prophecy (see a similar case in chap. x. 5), — is explained in ver. 27 as foUows : " and this once more signifieth the removing- of those things that are shaken, as HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 6. 279 I of things that are made, that the things which are not shaken may remain." Many mistakes have been made here, in conse quence of its being generaUy supposed (although Calvin gave the correct explanation),1 that the emphasis rested exclusively upon the words " once more,2 whereas the author takes no further notice of these words, to which we might add, "and so forth," but merely explains the rest of the sentence, " I shake not the earth only," &c. The word "va has also been incorrectly rendered ecbatically, " so that that which is not moveable remains," instead of "in order that that which is not moveable may re main." That the things which are not moveable should remain, is the design of the removal of those things which are ; and their continuance, therefore, must necessarily present an irreconcile- able contradiction to the establishment of the immoveable. From these remarks it wiU be evident, that what the author describes as the fundamental idea of this expression, and what we have already discovered to be so, perfectly agree. Every created thing, so far as it is opposed to the kingdom of God, must be shaken and laid in ruins, that this kingdom may continue to stand. " How great and glorious then," is the writer's inference in ver. 28, "must be this kingdom which cannot be moved !" How earnestly should those, whom God has admitted into it, strive to lay fast hold of grace and serve God acceptably ! How should their walk be marked by fear ! For, just as the grace, bestowed upon them, infinitely surpasses that which preceded it ; so is their God, infinitely more than the God of the Old Testament (Deut. iv. 24), a consuming fire. — It is the same divine energy, which shakes the kingdoms of this world for tfie good of tfie kingdom of God, and which at the end of time will destroy this world itself, the fashion of which passes away (see 1 Cor. vii. 31), — destroy it, that is, so far as it is impregnated with sin and evil, 1 " The apostle lays no stress upon the word amah-. He merely infers, from the shaking of the heaven and the earth, that the condition of the whole world was to be changed by the coming of Christ." 2 This is the opinion of Tholuck and Bleek. The expression " once more" in the Septuagint is supposed to have been used by the author in the sense of "only once more," i.e. for the last time; and thus, he is made to intro duce into the text, without any warrant, the very word, upon which the whole argument depends. The correct plan, on the contrary, is to assume that the emphasis cannot rest upon en anal;, seeing that it does not answer the evident purpose of the author, when explained in a simple manner. 280 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. and therefore unfit to be the scene of God's glorified kingdom. Hence, the prophecy and its application are closely allied to those passages, in which the creation of a new heaven and new earth is predicted (Is. Ixv. 17 ; Lxvi. 22) ; and of the fulfilment of which both the prelude and commencement were, and still are to be found, in the shaking of the heathen and their kingdoms. For this renewal contains the germ and beginning of the events, which will take place at the end of days. — These remarks will serve to explain the striking agreement between the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is founded upon Haggai, and that in 2 Pet. iii. 10 sqq., which rests upon Isaiah. Ver. 7. " And I shake all the heathen, and the beauty of all the heathen cometh, and I fill this house ivith glory, saith the Lord of Hosts." The Vulgate rendering of qv^ fVTOn (e^ veniet desideratus gentibus) has been so generally foUowed, and the beHef, that the expression refers to the Messiah, has become so prevalent in consequence, that Chladenius (dissert, ad hunc locum) was able to describe it as " communis fere omnium interpretum ac fir- missima sententia." "Tfie desire of the nations" has taken so deep a root, through the practical application that has heen made of it, in sermons, hymns, &c, that commentators for the most part have shrunk from the thought of giving up an expla nation, which had become endeared to them, before they brought their learning to bear upon the passage at all. Of the earfier commentators, Calvin has pointed out with the greatest distinct ness the untenable character of this rendering ; and the foUow ing reasons suffice to prove, that it cannot be sustained. 1. The plural *i^2 leaves no room for it.' — 2. mon is taken in a sense 1 F. Ribera says, " I have a strong suspicion, that this passage has been corrupted by the later Jews, who were hard pressed by its weight and force." Raimund Martini supposes the plural to refer to the two natures of Christ. Chladenius says : " when that comes, which is desired by many, in fact by all, — without doubt it is equivalent to the advent of many." But by far the greater number, from Frischmuth down to Scheibel, appeal to the rule laid down by Glassius, " when two substantives stand together, of which the one is governed by the other, the verb sometimes agrees in number with the latter of the two, even when it really belongs to the former." But the rule is ex pressed too vaguely ; and when we introduce the necessary limitation, it is apparent at once, that it has nothing to do with the case before us. It can only apply to ii const ruciio ad sensum; and in the only circumstances in HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 7. 281 in which it never occurs ; although the lexicons give this as the leading and primary meaning. Neither the masculine -(on> nor the feminine rnon>ls ever use(I with the meaning "wish, desire," although, from their derivation, they would certainly bear such a sense ; but they invariably mean " beauty," to kuXXos, and the word occurs so frequently, that we are fuUy warranted in drawings conclusion, as to the general usage of the language, from the examples which we have before us.1 The only admis- which this occurs, the word, which occupies the leading place in the gram matical construction, is merely a subordinate term, so far as the sense is concerned. All the examples, which are given, do really come under this category. But it is very evident, that the passage before us does not. Coc ceius, and those who follow him, have been most successful, in their attempt to get rid of the cufficulty, caused by the plural verb. They render »-.-.£.«. as an accusative, — a construction which is frequently adopted with verbs of motion, — " and they will come to the desire of all nations, namely, to Christ ; that is, they will draw near to him, who is given to the nations, and will love him." 1 In a whole series of passages the meaning " beauty" is indisputable and uncontested ; for example, in all those, in which the «-.-«»»- ^L« the " vessels of beauty," or "beautiful, costly vessels" are mentioned. ' And again in Jer. iii. 19, where j-j-jj^pf V-^, "tne land of beauty," occurs as a parallel to "02 n^PPi " tbe inheritance of ornament." In Is. ii. 16, the day of the Lord is said to come upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all " the sights of beauty," -.-p.,.-,— , r»VHwi, l-e- upon everything, which is beautiful to look at ; — in the Septuagint, where the word is never rendered " desire," the passage is translated kirt nao-av deav irXoiav (this word is a false exegetical emendation) kclWovs, in the Vulgate, " Super omne, quod visu pulchrum est." In Ezek. xxvi. 12, we find, " they will destroy ^.-.-.j.-. irn, thy beautiful houses," just as in Jer. xii. 10, «,«.-.»-..» -.^L,— " my beautiful inherit ance ;" Is. xxxii. 12, wn l^ir?, " beautiful fields ;" Amos v. 11, -t»2|-[ "iry^ "beautiful vineyards ;" and Ezek. xxiii. 6, -ivsj-i "rsarn " beautiful youths." There are only two passages left, which, according to the current exposition, support the rendering " wish, desire," but in which the ordinary meaning can, and must be retained. The first of these is 2 Chr. xxi. 20, " and he departed (died) j— — «.j-. sjU^ and they buried him in the city of JDavid, and not in the sepulchres ofthe kings." In this case the commentators for the most part adopt the rendering " nee uUum sui desiderium reliquit." But even if mon oould have the meaning " desire, ""this rendering would have to be re jected, on account of its harshness. " Without desire," for " without any one wishing for him " might do very well in poetry, but not in plain prose. The meaning is rather " without loveliness" (Schone, beauty ; LXX. ovk ev iiriuva) ; and what follows, namely, that he was not buried in the sepul chres ofthe kings, is to be regarded as an illustration of this want of beauty ; 282 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. sible%{jPndermg> therefore, is " the beauty of aU the heathen." Bnt^in^feil sense this expression could be applied to the Mes siah, it wouldjKLgljj&^fiicult to show. — 3. The context does not fay^iBT?#the^concmsF^; that the Messiah is referred to. The " shalang of the heattfty*" had been promised immediately before, as the means by whiq'n God would remove the hi Ranees, which had hitherto prevented their approach to his kinga>_m. And we naturaUy expect to find this followed by an announcement of their coming, with all their gifts and possessions ; especiaUy as this was the ipain point of the whole prophecy, and the antici pation of such an issue was to soothe the trouble ofthe people, on account of the miserable condition in which the house of God then was. But, instead of this, the announcement of the Messiah is said to be in^to_" >?d without any preparation, and in a thoroughly unconnected manner. In this case, then, the words, " and I fill this house with glory," can also not be referred to the gifts and possessions of the heathen ; for the question, which constitutes the glory, of which there may be many kinds, can only be answered by a reference to what goes before. And if so, it is impossible to understand the 8th verse, " the silver and the gold are mine."1 to which has also to be added the fact, that there was no mourning on the part of the people, no solemn funeral rites, or honourable memorial. The worst form of death m.»|_ si^n, ig tnat threatened by Jeremiah, " an ass's burial," or that predicted by Isaiah respecting the king of Babylon to be " cast out, as a carcase trodden under foot." — The second passage is Dan. xi. 37 : " neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor n^ttjl rnon> • t tx : v nor regard any god, for he shall magnify himself above all." In this pas sage, according to Gesenius, Hixvernick, and others, we are to understand, by the wish or desire of women, the Anaitis or Mylitta, But there is no ground whatever, for having recourse to so far-fetched an explanation. The older rendering, " the beauty of women," suits the passage admirably. What better description could be given of that cold avarice, which follows its one object with a fixed eye, unaffected by any of the softer and warmer emotions of religion or of love, which makes itself into a god, and whose heart is only to be found where its treasure already is ? How closely these two are asso ciated, reverence for God, and esteem for the beauty of women, however dis tinct they may appear, is apparent from the connexion, which may be traced throughout all history between religion and love, between the impure forms of the two on the one hand, and the pure manifestations of the two on the other. i In this case, we should be compelled to resort to such evidently hetero geneous expositions, as that of Frischmuth and most of the earlier commen tators : " if I wished to adorn the temple with costly furniture, I could easily supply you with it, for all the silver and gold are mine," where God is repre sented as quieting the minds of those, who were pained by the contrast HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 7. 283 Look, too, at the connexion between the words, " and I fill this house with glory," and the third verse, " who is left among you that 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 aUu- sio^. it is evident that the glory referred to in this passage must be the same as that which distinguished the magnificent temple of Solomon, and whose absence was now the cause of the nation's lamentations. And if this be .the case, as we have already said, the words, which stand immediately before, cannot but justify us in thinking of this particular kind of glory. There are differences of opinion, again, among those who do not admit the reference to the person ofthe Messiah. If we set aside such explanations, as are evidently philologically incorrect, for example that of Kimchi, who would supply the preposition 3 before jVflDni " they, the heathen, come with the possessions of aU the heathen;" that of others (Verschuir for instance), who give to pnon the meaning, wliich we have already proved to be false, " they come to the desire of all the heathen, in other words, to Jerusalem ;" and that of Ewald, " there come the longing, that is the nations most longed for,1" — there remain only two, between which to choose. The beauty of the heathen nations may mean either " the beautiful ones among them," the most eminent and exceUent — (this is Riickert's explanation, " and they come, the elite of all nations ;" he takes no notice of the accents, and with out any grammatical necessity separates ^^ from ryion) — or> " whatever the heathen have, that is beautiful, aU their valuable possessions." The latter is the earliest of all existing explana tions. It is to be found in the Septuagint : Kai rjt;ei ra iKXeKrd wdvTcov tosv iOv&v. The Syriac also has it : et excitaturus sum omnes gentes, ut afferant optatissimam quamque rem cunctamm gentium. between the promise and what they actually saw, by simply recalling what he had formerly predicted, namely in Is. Ix., and declaring the very thing to be no good at all, which he himself had promised as a good before. Calvin's sound mind could not be brought to assent to this, fie observes : " as it is immediately added, the silver and the gold are mine ; the sense which I have already given, will on that account be the more simple, viz , that the Gentiles would come, furnished with wealth of every kind, that they might offer themselves and all their possessions as a sacrifice to God." 1 This is the explanation which he gives, when commenting upon the pro phecy. In his Grammar, £ S07 b. he gives the rendering " desire, that is, valuables." 284 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. The following reasons induce us to give the preference to the latter of the two. 1. What we have aHeady said under No. 3, against referring the expression to the Messiah, is also to some extent applicable here. In other places, the fact that the heathen themselves shall come, is promised to the congregation of the Lord, as its greatest glory. But, in this case, where the promise is made with direct reference to circumstances of a peculiar nature, this could not be so appropriate, as it is elsewhere. It might, indeed, be said that, if it was certain that the heathen would come, since gifts are the usual tokens of homage, their possessions would be sure to follow. But the one point of special importance is not left for the reader to gather by inference merely, but is expressed as distinctly as possible. And thus in the case before us, it is more appropriate that the coming ofthe heathen themselves should be inferred from the coming of their possessions, seeing that what is the principle point in other cases is subordinate here ; than that the coming of their possessions should be deduced from the fact that they would come themselves. There was all the greater reason for this, on account of the stress laid upon the coming of the possessions, in that passage of Isaiah (chap. Ix.) which presented to the view of the people a scene, so different from that which actually met their eye, as to have given rise to aU their despondency. Compare, for example, verse 9 : " surely the isles shall wait for me and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee." — 2. In the very passage, which the prophet had in his mind at the time, we find something, wliich answers exactly to the mon Qv^n-^' as we understand it ; and may therefore justly assume, that it was to this that Haggai especiaUy referred. In Is. Ix. 5 it is said, " the riches ofthe sea shall come unto thee, ?i«|j ^n TjS INiT'j the force of the heathen shall come to thee," and in ver. 11, "therefore thy gates shaU be open continually, they shall not be shut day nor night, to bring to thee the force of the heathen, ryi<\% ^in> and their kings shall be brought." It is true that we find just the same differences in the expositions of these passages. Some explain the force of the heathen as meaning HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 7. 285 " the army, the hosts of the heathen ;" in which case both pas sages would refer to persons. But it is evident from the parallel passages that by the force in this case we are to understand the possessions ; thus in chap. x. 14 we find, " My hand hath found as a nest the force of the nations ;" chap. lxi. 6, " ye shaU eat the force of the heathen ;" Micah iv. 13, "and thou consecratest to the Lord their gain, and their strength to the Lord of the whole earth ;" see also Zech. xiv. 14. Just as Isaiah lays stress upon the possessions, whilst the persons are implied,1 sois it with Haggai, whose prophecy is based upon his. By bringing forward these references, we do away with the objection to our exposition, which might be founded upon Ewald! s remark in § 307 b., to the effect that it is only a common thing for a noun in the singular to be connected with one in the plural, when the nouns relate to distinct self-acting objects, especially to persons, whilst it is a rare thing, in cases where there is an abstract noun, referring to objects without Hfe. To this the general answer may be given, that in the Scriptures the distinction between things with life and things without life is by no means so marked, as it is with us, — particularly in the case of the sacred psalmist and propfiets, who attribute motion even to the most immoveable objects. The same references also overthrow Scheibel's thoroughly trivial objection : " quis sanus possit vertere, pretiosa venient ?" If Isaiah describes the strength oi the heathen as coming, why should not Haggai the beauty ? — 3. It is very questionable, whether the beauty of the heathen could stand for the most beautiful, or most eminent among them ? At any rate there is no paraUel passage with any such meaning as this ? A comparison of Ezek. xxiii. 6, and other passages, wiU show, that the proper expression would rather be m^nn-^-^- Besides, what could we understand by the beautiful heathen ? Would it mean the richest, or most Dowerful; just as we find, in other descriptions of a similar character, particular nations singled out, e.g. Ps. lxxii. 10, " the kings of Tarshish and the isles shaU bring presents, the kings of Sheba and Seba shaU offer gifts ?" But in this case, the kind of beauty would be more particularly pointed out. On 1 Vitringa: propheta opes facultatesque hic spectari non vult absque hominibus eas apportaturis, ut ex seq. contextu liquet, qui proin synecdo- chice hic intelliguntur " 286 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. the other hand, there is a passage in 1 Sam. ix. 20, in which mton occurs in a sense perfectly analogous to that in which it is used here, according to our interpretation. Samuel says to Saul : " as for thine asses, that were lost three days ago, trouble not about them, for they are found ; and to whom is aU the beauty of Israel, ^fcoiLfl mon-^ ^s it n°t to thee and to all thy father's house ?" The same connexion between glory and beauty, we find in Nahum ii. 10, "take ye the spoil of silver, take the spoil of gold, and there is no end to the store ; glory comes through aU the vessels of beauty mon "^3 Silft "TQ3-" The concluding words of the verse, " and I fiU this house with glory," are supposed by most commentators to denote the glorifi cation of the temple by the appearance of the Messiah; Abar banel and Hasdus (Schulz. praes. Has. de glor. tempfi secundi Bremen 1724) refer it to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and appeal to Ex. xl. 34 and 35, 2 Chr. v. 13, 14, 1 Kings viii. 10, 11, and Ezek. xliii. 4, where almost the same words are used, in connection with the residence of God in the tabernacle, the temple of Solomon, and the new spiritual temple. It can hardly be imagined that this agreement is purely acci dental. Still less, however, can the conclusion be drawn from it, which these writers suppose. The essential difference between the passages is sufficient proof of this. In the other cases a particular kind of glory is referred to, the glory of God, and the manifestation of that glory ; but here it is glory in general, that is mentioned, tq^ without either article or suffix. We are compeHed, therefore, to look to what goes before, to ascertain what this glory reaUy is. It consists in the coming of the beauty of all the heathen, to glorify and adorn the temple of the Lord, just it is said in Is. Ix. 13 : " the glory of Lebanon shaU come to thee ... to beautify the place of my sanctuary, and I wiU make tfie place of my feet glorious." This is confirmed by the words, " the silver is mine, and the gold is mine," in the next verse, and also by ver. 9, where the predicted superiority of the glory of the second temple to that of the first can only relate, as ver. 3 shows, to the particular thing which distinguished the first temple, and was so painfuUy missed in the second. But it does not follow, from what we have said, that there is not a very important connexion between this passage, and the others HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 7. 287 that have been named. The same God, who formerly conde scended to give to the temple its greatest ornament, by commu nicating his own glory, wfil also fill this one with glory by the coming of the beauty of the heathen. At the same time, the communication of this fresh glory presupposes the restoration of the former in a much higher degree. For why do the heathen come with their beauty? For no' other reason than because they perceive that God dweUs in the midst of Lis people. We must now turn to another objection, which has been brought by Chladenius and most of the earlier commentators, against the whole of the interpretation which we have adopted as our own, viz. that " silver and gold are too mean and insignifi cant to be mentioned in such a connexion as this."1 The answer wliich first suggests itself is this, if it was proper for Isaiafi to prophecy of such things, as he undoubtedly has done, and in a very lofty strain, why not for Haggai ? By this answer so much - at least is gained, that those, who have brought forward the pro blem as one which we alone had to solve, must now take part with us in seeking a solution. Nor is it difficult to find one. It presents itself at once, if we know fiow to distinguish between form and substance, sheU and kernel. What was it that caused the faithful to be so cast down, when they looked at the outlines of the second temple ? Certainly not that it failed to gratify their taste for beautiful buildings. But rather, because they saw, in the contrast between the new temple and the former one, a type of the relation in which they themselves stood to God ; a positive declaration that his favour had been withdrawn from them ; and a positive prediction that it would not return. They argued from the temple, which was then the seat of the kingdom of God, to the nature of the kingdom itseff. Hence their grief arose from the outward, only so far as they looked upon it as a type of the inward. And the shape, which their grief assumed, determined the shape, which was given to the consolation offered. But for this, it would fiave been no consolation at aU. The 1 " The shaking of the heavens, the earth, the dry land, and all the nations ; of what is it a pledge, and why will it take place ? for this, forsooth, that the temple at Jerusalem may be filled with the gold of the nations ! He must be mightily fascinated with the glitter of gold and silver, who can associate together in his mind the gold and silver ornaments of the second temple, and the shaking of the heavens, the earth, and all the nations." 288 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.. standpoint of the people was still that of the Old Testament, under which they lived. To them, as their grief clearly showed, the kingdom of God was inseparably connected with the temple, And therefore, under the form of a prediction of the glorification of the temple, which they were to be urged to build, God gives them an assurance, that he has not cast off his people ; that his promises are still all yea and amen ; and that, however despised his kingdom may be now, yet, when its time is come, it wfll out shine all the kingdoms of the world in its glory. We have here, what cannot be overlooked, a truly divine accommodation ; which differs in this respect from a practice of evil notoriety, that the latter affects the very essence of the truth, whereas the other has respect to the form alone. This true accommodation runs through aU the words and works of God, from paradise tiU the time of Christ. What else do we find in the promise of Christ, that his disciples should receive a hundred fold more of earthly good, than they had lost for his sake ? What else, in the decla ration, with which he cheered their minds, that they should sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel ? What else, in the manner in which he treats their notion, that there was a seat at his right and left hand, when he passes it by without remark, and, instead of rectifying the form, in which the idea necessarily clothed itself from their training and their spiritual condition at the time, contents himself with merely chiding their views, as to the conditions of this glory, whicli affected the essence and had their roots in sin ? A similar accommodation we may find in all the revelations, that were made by him either personaUy or through his apostles, as to the state after death and the kingdom of glory. Like the description of the state in para dise, he sets it before us in a form, in which we can comprehend it. Was he to withhold the truth altogether, because, in its own peculiar form, it would be incomprehensible ? The last example, to which we have referred, throws aU the more Hght upon our passage, from the fact that believers under the Old Testament stood in the same relation to the kingdom of grace, as that in which we stand to the kingdom of glory. What is true of the law, is equaUy appficable to prophecy in this respect ; heaven and earth will pass away, before one jot or one tittle wiU fail (compare Matt. v. 18 with xxiv. 35). But in prophecy, as HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 7. 289 well as in the law, that which is founded in the nature of God, and therefore eternal even to its minutest parts, is not the letter, but the spirit ; and this is to be sought for in the letter, and not outside. This land of accommodation is set before us for our imitation. Or should we, perhaps, say nothing at aU about heaven to children, because we can only teU them of it in a childish way ? On the contrary, the childish form of truth is just the true one for the child. For there is no other, in which it could comprehend it at aU ; and any other form would only give rise to erroneous conceptions, as to the reality itseff. We shaU not have much difficulty, now, in determining in what the fulfilment of this prophecy consisted. In the slight prelude to its complete fulfilment, it appears in tfie very form in wliich it is depicted here. Every gift, which was brought by proselytes, during the still remaining period of the Old Testa ment, and dedicated to the temple out of pure love to the God of Israel, belonged to this fulfilment ; just as all the outward help, which the Lord affords to his people, is a realisation of the promise in Matt. xix. 29. But the beautifying of the temple, which took place in the time of the Maccabees, and again in that of Herod, and which is regarded by several commentators, who adhere to the letter, as the sole fulfilment, had no connexion with it at aU. The former had none ; for the reference here was to a glorification of tfie temple, which would proceed from Gentiles, who had been brought to repentance and faith by the outward and inward leadings of God. The latter had none ; for, although Herod was a Geniile, what he did for the temple was not the result of faith and love.1 There were many, indeed, who were 1 Calvin has truly observed in reference to this, " conatus est diabolus larvam ipsis objicere, ut desinerent sperare in Christum." But we must go further still. Not only Satan himself was consciously acting with this design, but his agent Herod also. It was not a matter of accident, that the second temple was so inferior in glory to the first ; that the literal fulfilments of this prophecy were so trifling and rare ; or that the condition of the people, from the captivity till the time of Christ, was altogether so low and miserable. So also, it is not without purpose, but the result of wise and holy designs on the part of God, that the literal fulfilment of Matt. xix. 29 so seldom occurs. "If," as Calvin says, " the temple had been as richly endowed, and even if the appearance ofthe kingdom had been just the same, as it was before, the Jews would have rested satisfied with these outward splendours ; and thus Christ would have been despised, and the spiritual grace of God would have been rejected as worthless." The inferior realisation was withheld from the people, that they might not cling to what was merely accidental, the silver VOL. III. T 290 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. to yield to this temptation, and therefore who suffered themselves to be so infatuated as to regard the very man, whose power was the greatest proof of the loss of the divine favour, and who was a hammer by which God designed to break the hard heart of Israel, as the instrument of divine mercy. But befievers waited, both before and afterwards, for the consolation of Israel. For the seeming fulfilment they still substituted the real one, which wiU only be perfectly accomplished, when the whole fulness of the Gentiles shall have entered the kingdom of God, and that kingdom shaU have been raised to its highest pitch of glory. In the controversy with the Jews, great importance was attached to this prophecy ; not so much, however, in the time of the church Fathers, when the house of God was supposed to mean the church,1 as afterwards. The desire of the Gentiles, the and the gold ; and thus, from their satisfaction with the present, lose their longing for the principal fulfilment. But this longing was too strong for Herod ; the heavenly kingdom, he feared, might interfere with his earthly rule. He built the temple on the same principle as that on which he ordered the murder of the children at Bethlehem. He wanted to prevent the coming of the kingdom of God ; and to change the " latter days," for which men were longing, into the present time. This intention is made very prominent in the account given by Josephus (B. 15, chap, xi.), and even the special refer ence to the prophecy before us. Prom our prophecy, for example, we may explain the notion, which appears in Herod's address, that the second temple must necessarily be equal in height to the first, — Haggai had predicted that the glory of the second temple would be greater than that of the first. Com pare Josephus xv. 11, g 1, " for our fathers built this temple to the supreme God, after the return from Babylon. But as to its size, it still wants sixty cubits of its proper height. For by so much did the first one, which Solo mon built, exceed it ;" and also, " but since I now rule by the will of God, and have enjoyed a long peace, and have become possessed of wealth and great resources, and, most of all, as the Romans, who, so to speak, are the rulers of the whole world, are friendly and well disposed towards me," &c. The allusion to our prophecy is unmistakeable here. Herod endeavours to prove the existence of all the conditions, which are described in the prophecy as essential to the glorification of the temple. "All the Gentiles," who were to promote the building of the temple, were in his estimation embraced in the " Romans, who were the rulers of the whole world." Of gold and silver there was enough in the hands of him, who had been called by God to the throne; and the announcement "in this place will I give peace" was ful filled. We may see from j! 3, how he made every exertion to ensure the accomplishment of the prediction, " the glory shall be greater," &c. " He sur passed his predecessors in the money which he expended, so that no one else appeared to have adorned the temple at all." Pretended miracles were also at hand, to prove that the work was under the especial superintendence of 1 Augustine, for example, says, " this house, the church of Christ, is more glorious than that flrst one was, which was constructed of wood, stones, and other metallic substanoes" (de civ. dei B. 18, c. 45, 48). Cyril writes to the same effect. s ' ' ' " HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 7. 291 Messiah, was to appear while- the second temple was still stand ing. How vain, therefore, must be the hope of Israel, which still looks for a Messiah, seeing that the temple has been long since destroyed ! There seemed to be only one difficulty in the way of this argument, namely, the rebuilding of the second temple by Herod. Some attempted to get rid of this difficulty in an unwarrantable manner, by assuming, in direct opposi tion to the clear statement of Josephus, that the rebuilding was only a partial one. The proper method of removing the difficulty, however, was that adopted hjJ.A. Ernesti and several others before him. In his treatise, de templo Herodis M. (re printed in his opuscufis philol. crit., p. 350 sqq.), he undertakes to prove and actually does prove, first, " that Herod rebuilt the whole temple from the very foundations, the old one being taken down piece by piece ;" and secondly, " that, notwithstanding this, according to botfi the historical style of writing and the popular mode of speech, it was justly called the second temple." To the arguments brought forward by him we may add, that the object, which Herod is proved to have had in view, necessarily required that the identity of his temple with that of Zerubbabel should be preserved ; and this was no doubt one of the main reasons, why he had the other destroyed piece by piece and rebuilt in tfie same way ; and also that the very name of a new temple, in a religious, not an architectural sense, could only be properly given to one, the erection of which so completely coincided with some new and important epoch, in the history of the theocracy, that the new period was outwardly represented by the new temple. Now, according to our interpretation, this earlier method of proof seems entirely to lose its force. The aUusion to the person of the Messiah disappears. The temple does not come into consideration any longer as a bufiding ; but as the seat of the kingdom of God, as the representative of that kingdom. On closer consideration, however, it is evident, that the argument only requires a new turn, in order to recover its force again. Let the destruction of the second temple be regarded, not as an outward event, but as being, what it reaUy was, a positive declaration on the part of God, that the kingdom of God had been taken away from the Jews ; and let it be also considered t2 292 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. that this declaration has been perpetuated for eighteen hundred years in the fate of the Jews ; and it wiU be difficult to avoid the conclusion, that, if the fulfilment of tfiese prophecies and the continued existence of the kingdom of God cannot be found elsewhere, Haggai must be looked upon as a visionary enthu- thusiast. And if this be the case, then all who regard him as a true prophet of the true God, must seek the fulfilment elsewhere. If such glory was to be given to the second temple, in other words, to the kingdom of God, of which it was the representa tive, during its second period; we cannot imagine this glory interrupted, and aU the manifestations of God, as the covenant God, suspended for so long a time, that the previous inter ruption and suspension wiU bear no comparison with them; especiaUy when we consider that, in the former case, justice and severity were attended by manifestations of love and mercy, in a great variety of forms. If the second temple was to be glorified, the only kind of destruction, at aU reconcileable with the credibility of the prophet, is one which is strictly speaking a glorious elevation ; a destruction, namely, Hke that of the seed, wliich dies in the earth, that it may bring fortfi much fruit. In this case, however, we have a destruction, which is nothing but a destruction. If, then, there is any ground for hoping that the prophecy will be eventuaUy fulfiUed, there must not be an intervening period, without any preliminary fulfilments at aU. The prophet himseff represents his announcement, as separated from the fulfilment by "but a Httle" time. But here are eighteen centuries, during which God continues not God, that when a fitting opportunity arrives, he may become God once more ! How foolish, to hope for anything absolutely future ! It is feeding on wind and ashes. Either the Lord is always with us, or he wiU not come again. He wlio does not taste now, how great are the goodness and friendship of the Lord, wiU never do this in the future. In the time to come, there is no new beginning, there is only completion, as surely as God is God now, and not merely will be God by and by. The believers in Israel, who were waiting for the consolation of Israel before the appearance of Christ, would have been as foofisfi as the modern Jews, if they had not aHeady been comforted by this consolation both in the present and the past. The modern unbelief, which HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 8, 9. 293 prevails among the Jews, is but a manifestation of what existed unconsciously before. As for hoping for something absolutely future, or believing in a God, who wiU not manifest himself as such, tiU some future time ; a man may conceive of this, and even hold to it so firmly as to become a martyr in consequence ; and yet this is not hope and faith. For true hope and true faith are a viroo-Tao-vi twv iXiri£o/J,eva)v (Heb. xi. 1) ; and of this the neces sary ground-work is the relative presence of the things to come. Now, the longer God delays to become God, the more generaUy must the conception vanish. Atheism is the goal, to which modern Judaism is rapidly hurrying. The impartation of new Hfe to the ancient worship, which, with all the abhorrence of idolatry that attends it, is stiU identical with it in the main thing, namely, in the worship of a God, who gives no sign of his power and goodness at the present time, is hardly conceivable. The Church of Christ and Atheism wiU divide the spoil. Ver. 8. " The silver is mine and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts." The declaration " wiU be mine," in both the foregoing and foUowing verses, is founded upon the fact, " is mine," mentioned here. Ver. 9. " Great will be glory of this latter house above the former, the Lord of hosts hath spoken it, and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord cf hosts." Hitzig, Maurer, and Ewald have revived the Septuagint rendering {Bioti fjieydXrj I'o-rai i) Bo^a tov o'Ikov tovtov 17 ecryar?; virep ttiv irpcoTrjv), " the last glory of this house wiU be greater than the first." The idea involved in this would be that, through all ages, there would only be one house of God in Jerusalem, though under different forms. No doubt verse 2 favours such an idea. But there is in fact no difference between the two inter pretations. The first glory would then be, as ver. 3 shows, the glory of Solomon's temple, and the second that of Zerubbabel's. The want of glory, on the part of the latter, formed the starting point of the whole prophecy. And the declaration, that in due time it would possess it in full and superabundant measure, was the prophet's consolation. The place is Jerusalem. Whatever is promised to it, belongs to it only so far, as it is the seat and centre of the kingdom of God. To understand by peace merely 294 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. spiritual peace, as most Christian commentators have done, is just as arbitrary, as to substitute for the silver and gold, spoken of here and in Isaiah, a spiritual good, which is only figuratively described as silver and gold, as Vitringa does. That outward peace is primarily intended, is evident from the parallel passage in Is. Ix. 18, " violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders, and thou shaU caU thy walls salvation and thy gates praise." But when we trace back this promise to its fundamental idea, we see that the mean ing which commentators have erroneously put into the word itself, — whether spiritual peace, as some suppose, or every kind of blessing and prosperity, as others imagine, — is undoubtedly included in it. If it is certain that God is the widows' God, the orphans need no special promise ; if he punishes murder, he will also punish anger ; if he leaves the ungodly no outward rest, he wiU also send him inward trouble ; if he gives outward peace, he wiU give inward peace as well ; there are even circum stances, in which he can fulfil his assurance in the most glorious manner, when he takes away that which he has expressly promised. At the same time, it must be observed that this prophecy, like every other in which peace is announced as a characteristic of the Messianic era, wiU receive a Hteral fulfil ment at last in the kingdom of glory, on " the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness." The last two predictions form a pair. They were delivered on the same day, about two months later than the second one, and after it had become manifest, that the improvement in the disposition of the nation was something more than a mere ebullition of feeling. The new era might now be dis tinctly marked off from the earlier one. The prophet leads them on to a serious contemplation of all that has taken place since their return from captivity, — the negligence that has been shown with regard to the building of the temple, and the way in which it has been punished, — in order that the evil, that has hitherto befaUen them, may serve for their edification, and not prove a stumbling block ; and having done this, he finishes with the declaration, " from this day wiU I bless you." Whilst this promise is introduced in contradistinction to the failure of the crops and other evils, from which they have hitherto suffered, HAGGAI, CHAP. II. 9. 295 and therefore relates to the ordinary blessings of nature ; the second prophecy, vers. 20 — 23, contains a promise that in the fearful storms, with which, the world is threatened, — storms, with which the prophecy of Daniel is so particularly concerned, — God will maintain the government in Judah, of which Zerub babel is the representative, yea more than this, will preserve it with the most anxious care ; so that the events, which bring destruction to the world, wiU contribute to its establishment. " I make thee a signet-ring," says the Lord to Zerubbabel. The simile of the signet-ring is introduced to denote inseparable union, and the most scrupulous care (compare the fundamental passages, Jer. xxii. 24 ; Song of Solomon viii. 6). We fiave fiere, there fore, not merely a parallel to Zech. ix. 1 — 8, where the preser vation of Judah is set forth in the midst of the catastrophe which befals the land of Hadrach ; but also a paraUel to Dan. ii. and vii., where the exaltation of the kingdom of God goes hand in hand with the destruction of the kingdoms of the world. What was here promised to Zerubbabel found its complete fulfilment in Christ. ( 296 ) THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH. The Messianic prophecies of Zechariah are only second to those of Isaiah in distinctness and importance. In this, the last prophet but one, the prophetic gift once more unfolded aU its glory, as a proof that it did not sink from the exhaustion of age, but was withdrawn according to the deliberate counsel of the Lord. Zechariah, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, was of priestly descent. Berechiah is mentioned in chap. i. 1 as his father, and Iddo as his grandfather. The latter filled the honourable post of head of a priestly class, among the exiles who returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 4). That Berechiah died young is evident from the fact, that in Neh. xii. 16 Zechariah is named as the immediate successor of Iddo in this office under Joiakim, who succeeded Joshua. Hence Zechariah was priest as well as prophet, at least in his later years. As in tfie case of Ezekiel, so also with this prophet, his priestly vocation may in many instances be gathered from the prophecies themselves (see, for example, chap, iii., vi. 9 — 15, ix. 8, 15, xiv. 16, £0, 21). Zechariah has this in common with his contemporary Haggai, that his prophecies are completed in four addresses. The one with which the collection opens was defivered, according to chap. i. 1, in tfie eighth month of the second year of Darius, no doubt Darius Hystaspes. We may be sure that this was the com mencement of Zechariah's prophetic labours. The character of the address itself favours this view. It is general in its bearing, as befits an introductory or preparatory address. The headings of the second and third prophecies (chap. i. 7, and chap. vii. THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH. 297 1), also lead to the same result, since they clearly indicate the chronological arrangement of the collection, and we may safely infer from them, that the two which are without dates, in chap. ix. and xiv., belong to a subsequent period. The prophet must have been very young, when he entered upon the duties of his office. For his grandfather Iddo was in the fuU discharge of his official duties at the time, as the fact, aHeady referred to, that Zechariah was his immediate successor, plainly shows. Moreover, the prophet is expressly called a young man in chap. ii. 4. Now as we learn from Neh. xii. 4 (compared with ver. 1), that the prophet's family returned to Judea witfi the first company of exiles in the first year of the reign of Cyrus, and eighteen years had intervened between that time and the second year of Darius Hystaspes, Zechariah can only have spent the earfiest years of bis childhood in Babylon ; and the Babylonian colouring of his prophecy, therefore, must be accounted for, not as De Wette and others suppose, from his having been educated in Babylon, but partly from the fact that the Babylonian influence still continued to operate upon the whole body of exfies, and, to a stiU greater extent, from His resting so much, as he evidently does, upon earlier prophets who came into immediate contact with the Babylonians, and especiaUy upon Ezekiel. Let us look now at the historical circumstances, under which Zechariah commenced his labours, and which furnished the immediate occasion of his prophetic discourses. The privileges granted to the exiles by the edict of Cyrus, with reference to the building of the temple, were soon taken from them through the machinations of their enemies, the Samaritans, at the Fersian court. They wanted both the means and the zeal, which were requisite for carrying on tfie work of building tfie temple with out foreign aid. Their zeal had been considerably damped, a short time after their return, by the obstacles which were thrown in their way ; for they thought themselves warranted, on account of previous promises, to expect nothing but deliverance and prosperity. At the time referred to, every one was selfishly concerned about the improvement of his own affairs alone. It was under these circumstances, and to offer a powerful resistance to this state of mind, that Haggai and Zechariah were called by 298 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. God ; the former, whose reproofs led to the immediate renewal ofthe attempt to rebuild the temple, commencing his pubfic labours two months before the latter. The principal object which Zechariah had in view was, as beseemed a true prophet of God, not to urge forward the outward work, in itself con sidered, but, throughout, to produce a complete spiritual change in the people themselves, one fruit of which would necessarily be increased zeal in the work of building the temple. — Those among whom the prophet was called to labour, consisted of two classes. There were first the honourably disposed and true befievers. They had sunk into great weakness and perplexity, in consequence of the apparent contrast between the promises of God and what they actually beheld. They had begun to doubt both the power and willingness of God to help them. So far as the latter was concerned, it seemed to them that their own sins and those of their fathers were too great for God to have com passion on them again. In such cases as these, when the pro phet had to deal with troubled minds, his task was to bring consolation. He does this, by pointing from the mournful cir cumstances of the present to a better future, and by recalling the unfulfilled portions of former prophecies, the accomplishment of which he represents as stiU to come. This feature in the pro phet's announcements was of the greater importance, from the strength of the assaults which threatened the faith, even of such as were right-minded, in time to come, when there would no longer be messengers sent from God, and from their consequent need of a sure word of prophecy, as a fight upon tfie darkness of their road. — The second class consisted of the hypocrites. They had left Babylon in considerable numbers along with the rest, induced, not by the proper motive, love to God and his sanctuary, but by selfishness, by the hope of sharing in all tfie blessings promised by God to those who returned, which they fancied were about to be poured out at once, and to the enjoyment of which, in spite of the most emphatic declarations on the part ofthe earlier propfiets,they believed, with infatuated self-delusion, that they had a rightful claim, just because they had abstained from the grosser kinds of idolatry, and had exchanged them for its more refined form, namely the outward righteousness of works. So far as many of these were concerned, the disappointment of their hopes could not THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH. 299 fail to take off the hypocrites' mask from this species of unbelief. And that would be sure to be the case to a stiU greater extent in the time that was coming. The prophet pictures the future blessings of God as intended even for this class also, that he may thereby hold out an inducement to true conversion. But he states at the same time most emphaticaUy, that nothing but conversion can secure for them a share in the blessings ; he reminds them of the judgments, whicli feU upon those who treated the warnings of earlier prophets with contempt, and threatens them with new ones, of quite as fearful a character, namely, another destruction of Jerusalem and another dispersion of the nation, if they despise the last and greatest manifestation of the grace of God, the sending of the Messiah. The scattered notices may be combined together so as to form the foUowing picture of the future. The triumph of the people of God is stiU in the distance ; the four monarchies of Daniel must first finish their course (chap. ii. 1 — 4). The worldly power, at present existing, viz., the Fersian empire, is to be overthrown (chap. ix. 1 sqq.), and that by the Greeks, as appears from chap. ix. 13. In the midst of this catastrophe, which falls heavily upon the nations round about, particularly upon Tyre and Phifistia, Judea is carefully protected by God (chap. ix. 8). The people of the covenant, however, — not Judah merely, but Ephraim also, which has now returned from captivity (chap. x. 8 — 10), — are subsequently drawn into a fierce conflict with the Greeks, wliich terminates in the victory and liberation of the covenant people (chap. ix. 11 — x. 12). But their liberty is of short duration. Previous to the coming of the Messiah, Judah sinks very low again, and loses all its worldly power (chap. ix. 10). But, amidst aU these, circumstances, Judah may stiU com fort itself witfi the mercy of its God ; the civU and ecclesiastical authorities being still the instruments of his blessing (chap. iii. 4). At length, however, the Lord wiU interpose in the most glorious manner on behalf of his people, by sending the Messiah. The Messiah himself is to spring from the family of David (see at chap. xii. 8) ; at the same time he will be connected with the Lord by a mysterious unity of nature, and the angel of the Lord will manifest himseff in him (chap, xi., xii. 8, 10, xiii. 7). He 300 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. appears in a poor and lowly form, riding upon an ass ; still he is rich in salvation, and able to overcome the whole world (chap. ix. 9, 10). He combines in his own person both the High Priest and the King (chap. vi. 9 — 15). As King he procures peace for his nation and raises it to a universal domi nion (chap. ix. 9, 10) ; as High Priest he expiates in one day the sin of the whole land (chap. iii. 9), and provides an open fountain for sin and uncleanness (chap. xiii. 1), by means of his death and the shedding of his blood (chap. xii. 10), But the appearance of Christ does not at once secure salvation for all the covenant-nation ; on the contrary, it is the cause of fearful judgments. As early as chap. v. there is an announce ment of another severe judgment which wiU fall upon Judah, and of a fresh expulsion from the Lord's own land. This is still further unfolded in chap. xi. The Lord by his angel undertakes the Office of shepherd over the wretched nation, which is on the road to destruction in consequence of its sins. But the good shepherd comes into sharp collision witfi the wicked, depraved authorities of the nation. He is forced to relinquish his office of shepherd. He receives the wretched pay of thirty pieces of silver. He is torn away from his flock by a violent death (chap. xiii. 7), and pierced by his own nation (chap. xii. 10). As a punishment for this, the worst of aU its crimes, the nation is given into the hands of wicked shepherds, and destroyed by strife within and enemies without (chap. xi.). Two-thirds utterly perish (chap. xiii. 8). But this is not the end of the ways of God with the children of the kingdom. At length, in conse quence of the outpouring of the Spirit upon them, they wiU return and look with penitence upon him whom they have pierced (chap. xii. 10 — xiii. 6). Still the whole nation does not at first despise salvation. There is a smaU flock within it, by which it is welcomed with joy (chap. ix. 9). To this select body, the poor of the flock, who hold to the good shepherd (chap. xi. 11), the kingdom is given. Tfiey have to sustain a fierce conflict with the whole of the heathen world, which is arrayed against them ; but, by the miraculous assistance of their God, they obtain the victory (chap. vi. 1 — 8, xii. 1 — 9, xiii. 9, and xiv.). The Gentile world, how- 2 THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH. 301 ever, is not merely judged, it is also converted and presses into the kingdom of God, the limits of which are co-extensive with those ofthe whole earth (chap. vifi. 20 — 23, ix. 10, xiv. 16). With regard to the arrangement of the prophecies themselves, the coUection consist of four parts, which differ in the date of their composition. Of these, the second and fourth contain various subdivisions, arising either from difference of subject, or from some new turn being given to tfie discourse ; though at the same time these subdivisions are linked together, not only by the fact that they are assigned to the same date, but by a simfiarity in the mode of description adopted and also by the relation in which they stand to one another. (1). Chap. i. 1 — 6 contains the prophet's opening address, defivered in the eighth month of the second year of Darius. (2). The second, or emblematical portion of the collection (chap. i. 7 — chap, vi.) consists of a series of visions, partly comforting and encouraging, and partly (chap. v.) threatening in their nature, which were aU seen by the prophet in the same night, viz., in the twenty-fourth of the eleventh month of the second year of Darius. (3). The third part consists of an address, which is both prophetic and didactic in its character (chap. vii. and viii.). This was defivered in the fourth year of Darius ; and the occasion of it was the earnest enquiry of the people, whether they were still to continue to observe the day on which the temple was destroyed, as a day of fasting and mourning, or wfiether they were soon to expect their affairs to take so favourable a turn, that their former calamities would be buried in oblivion. (4). The last division contains a prophetic picture of the future fate of the covenant-nation. Its contents are essentiaUy the same as those of the second address, inasmuch as there is no main-point introduced here which does not also occur there. But it differs from it, partly in the mode of representation adopted, the ordinary prophetic discourse being introduced here and a series of visions in the former case, and partly in the omission of any distinct aUusion to the building of the temple, either by way of exhortation or of prophecy. Taking this in connection with the position occupied by the prophecy, at the end of the coUection, we are warranted in concluding that it was not composed till after the building of the temple had been completed, at all events not till after the sixth year of 302 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. Darius. This serves to explain the fact that no date is given. In the case of all the others it was of importance that the date should be mentioned ; in the first, because it served to point out the commencement of the prophet's labours ; in the second, because it contained the prophecy, which was fulfilled a few years afterwards, that the building of the temple should be success fully completed by Zerubbabel ; and in the third, because the question put by the people was occasioned by particular circum stances connected with the fourth year of Darius. In connection with the fourth address, on the other hand, wliich only related to circumstances in the remote future, inasmuch as the event predicted in the second as belonging to the immediate future had already become a thing of the past, it was quite sufficient to have a general knowledge of the period when the prophet wrote, and this could be learned from the dates already given. Very loud complaints have been uttered as to the obscurity of the prophet Zechariah, especiaUy by Jewish expositors. Thus, for example, Abarbanel says (on Dan. xi.), " the prophecies of Zechariah are so obscure, that no expositors, however skilled, have ' found their hands ' (Ps. lxxvi. 5) in their explanations." And Jarchi, " the prophecy of Zechariah is very abstruse ; for it ¦Contains visions resembling dreams, which want interpreting. And we shall never be able to discover the true interpretation until the teacher of righteousness arrives " {i.e. the Messiah ; the expression being taken from Joel ii. 23). But these assertions, as the concluding words of Jarchi clearly show, rest for the most part upon a subjective basis. The more marked the reference to Christ in the case of Zechariah, the more impenetrable must his obscurity be to those who deprive themselves of the fight of ful filment, and who, because they have pictured to themselves a Messiah after the desires of their own hearts, must necessarily misunderstand and distort what is said here respecting the true Messiah, his lowliness, and death, his rejection by the greater . part of the covenant nation, and their consequent punishment. So thoroughly is aU this opposed to their cherished fancies. The charge of obscurity may also be traced, in the case of the ration alists, to the same subjective foundation as in that of the Jews, inasmuch as they also must necessarily make strenuous efforts, to avoid finding any very close correspondence between the pro- THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH. 303 phecy and its fulfilments, anything, in fact, that cannot be set down to a merely human foresight, such, for example, as the prediction of a lowly Messiah, rejected by the covenant people, and put to death. There is also a personal reason in their case, seeing that their view of prophecy would dispose them to do anything, rather than seek to overcome the actually existing difficulties by strenuous effort, or an appeal to the help of God. How thoroughly different must the efforts, and therefore the results of a De Wette be, who starts with the assertion that the last part contains prophecies of a visionary character, which defy all attempts at a historical explanation, from those of a Vitringa, who says (proll. p. 60), "but obscurity does not frighten away any one, who is eager for the truth, from investigating the genuine meaning of the prophecy ; for it is indisputably certain, that there is a hidden sense in it relating to the most important things, which every one, who is not altogether indifferent to the truth, is anxious to find out, unless it be actually impossible." At the same time it must not be overlooked, that, although the obscurities are much greater in Zechariah than in the other pro phets, on account of the predominance of symbolical and figura tive language, yet there are two circumstances, which facilitate the interpretation of his prophecies. In the first place, there is no prophetic book, in the study of which we can obtain such decisive results from a careful comparison of paraUel passages, as we can in that of Zechariah, who rested so much upon the prophets who had written before him. And, secondly, since he lived after the captivity, his prophecy does not move over nearly so extensive a field, as that of his predecessors. The chiaro- oscuro, which we find for example in tfie second part of Isaiafi and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and which arises from the fact that the whole range of blessings to be poured out in the future, espe cially the deliverance from captivity, and the Messianic era, are embraced in one view, disappears for the most part from the prophecies of Zechariah, just because the prophet stood between these two events. 304 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. I.-CHAP. I. 1—6. The first revelation was made to the prophet in the eighth month of the second year of Darius Hystaspes. This prophecy, in which the prophet warns the people not to fall into their fathers' sins, and so incur their fathers' punishments, and urges them to return to the Lord with uprightness of heart, may be regarded as a kind of introduction, both to the prophet's labours generaUy, and also to the present coUection of his prophecies. There were aHeady serious indications, among those who had returned, of inward rebellion against the Lord. In the pro phecies, which foUowed, the prophet was to introduce a series of consolations for such as were in trouble and despair. In order that these consolations might not be usurped by any to whom they did not belong, and abused to the increase of their carnal security, it was necessary that the indispensable condition of sal vation, true repentance, should be placed at the head. The denunciation of fresh punishments against those who would not fulfil this condition, contains the germ of aU that the prophet afterwards declares with greater distinctness in chap. v. and xi., as to a new and utter devastation and destruction which awaited the land, when once ungodliness should have become supreme again and the good shepherd had been rejected. The simple difference is this, that the threat is merely conditional here, whereas in the other case it is expressed absolutely, the Lord having then revealed to the prophet that the full development of the germ of ungodliness, existing in his own age, on which the infliction of the divine judgments depended, would assuredly take place, and the majority of the people would betray an utter want ofthe sole condition of salvation, true repentance. II.-CHAP. I. 7— VI. 15. The second revelation consists of a series of visions, aU belong ing to the same night, which contain a complete picture of the future fate of the people of God. ZECHARIAH, CHAP. I. 7 — VI. 15. 305 1. THE VISION OF THE RIDER UNDER THE MYRTLE TREES. (Chap. i. 7—17.) In the dead of night, when the mind is set free from the ties which bind it to outward things, and its susceptibility for divine things is thereby increased, the prophet sees, not in a dream, but in an ecstasy, a proud rider seated upon a red horse, who stops by a pool of water in the midst of the myrtle-bushes, and is sur rounded by red, brown, and white horses. In the rider at the head he recognises the angel of the Lord ; and in his attendants the angels that wait upon him. He enquires of an angel, who approaches him, and who introduces himself as an interpreter, what the meaning of the vision may be. Through his mediation he learns from the angel of the Lord, that the riders are the servants of the Lord, who have just ridden through the whole earth at his bidding. For what purpose, he gathers from the report which they bring to the angel of the Lord, not only in his presence, but in words which he can understand, the interpreter having opened his ears. They have found the whole earth quiet and at peace. This report, which sets the mournful condition of the people of the Lord in a still more distressing light, when it is contrasted with the prosperous nations of heathenism, induces the angel of the Lord to intercede with the supreme God on behalf of the former, and to enquire earnestly whether there is stiH no hope of deliverance, although the seventy years of misery appointed for the people, according to the words of the prophet Jeremiah, have long since passed away.1 He receives a consola- 1 Vitringa says (1. c p. 17) "est pulcherrimum Petavii aliorumque observa- tum, periodum LXX. annorum, decretorum punitioni Judaeae gentis ad perfectum implementum prophetiae bis repraesentatam esse. A quarto Jehojachimi usque ad initia Babylonica Cyri, quando dimissi sunt Judaei ex exilio, effluxerunt LXX. anni. Rursus totidem anni effluxerunt ab excidio templi et urbis, quod accidit octodecim post annis, usque ad secundum Darii Hystaspis : intersunt enim rursus inter initia Cyri Baby lonica et Darii secundum anni octodecim." In the statement made here, "against which thou hast hadindignation these threescore and ten years," (ver. 12 cf. vii. 5), the seventy years mentioned by Jeremiah, which came to an end in the first year of Cyrus, are regarded as the main period, the rest being looked upon as so much added. It was possible to acquiesce in this addition with the greater readiness, when the loss of the temple, the crowning point of the calamity, had not lasted so long as seventy years. But when the second year of Darius had arrived, the questions became mora anxious and the prayers more earnest. VOL. III. U 306 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. tory answer from the Lord. This reply is communicated to the prophet by the interpreter, who charges him to make its contents pubficly lmown. Its purport is as follows. The vengeance of the Lord wiU be poured out in due time upon the nations, by whom his com mission to punisfi the covenant people has been executed, not as a command from Him, but to gratify their own desires, and at the same time with an amount of wicked cruelty which has far exceeded his commands ; even though they may be found at present in a state of peace and prosperity. And so also will the promises, which have been made to the covenant- nation, be all fulfilled, though they may be apparently delayed. Ample proofs wiU be given to it of the continuance of the divine election ; the building of the temple wiU be completed ; and Jerusalem wiU rise from its ruins. The foUowing remarks may serve to give us a closer insight into the meanmg and design of this vision. But first of all, a question of great importance presents itself, and one which bears upon the correct explanation, not of this vision only, but also of those which foUow ; namely, whether the interpreter is the same person as the angel of the Lord, or a different person altogether. The majority of commentators (including Marck, C. B. Michae lis, Rosenmiiller, and Maurer) maintain the former ; Vitringa, with whom we agree, the latter. The foUowing reasons have been adduced for befieving that they were the same. (1). "In ver. 9, where the prophet addresses the interpreter as ' my Lord,' these words must necessarily be addressed to the angel of the Lord ; for no other person has been mentioned at aU." — But the fact is overlooked, that in the prophecies generaUy, and especi aUy in the visions, on account of their dramatic character, per sons are very frequently introduced, either as speaking or as addressed by others, without having been previously mentioned. — (2). " In ver. 9, the interpreter promises to explain to the prophet the meaning of the vision. The explanation is then given in ver. 10 by the angel of the Lord, who must, therefore, be the same person as the interpreter." — But the actual words of ver. 9 are, " I wiU make thee see, what these are." This refers to tfie opening of the spiritual eyes and ears of the prophet. And it is not tiU after this has been done by the interpreter, that the prophet is able to understand the words of the angel of the ZECHARIAH, CHAP. I. 7 — 17. 307 Lord and the report which the attendant angels bring to him. Compare chap. iv. 1, where the interpreter is said to wake the prophet, as a man that is wakened out of his sleep. — (3). " Ac cording to ver. 12 the angel of the Lord presents a supplication to the supreme God on behaff of the covenant people. And in ver. 13 the Lord is said to have answered the interpreter with comfortable words. Now it can hardly be supposed that the question was asked by one person, and the answer given to another." — But we may either imagine, as Vitringa suggests, that the prophet has omitted to mention the circumstance, that the answer was first of all directed to the angel of the Lord, and reached the interpreter through him, or, what is more probable, that the Lord addressed the answer at once to the interpreter, because the angel of the Lord had asked the question, not for his own sake, but simply in order tfiat consolation and hope might be communicated through the interpreter to the prophet, and again through him to tfie nation at large. On the other hand, the foUowing reasons may be offered, for believing that the interpreter was not the same person as the angel of the Lord. 1. The title which is given to the interpreter throughout, " the angel, that talked with me," serves at the outset to point him out as a different person from the angel of the Lord. This would not be the case if it only occurred immediately after the angel had spoken to the prophet. But the fact that it is intro duced on other occasions (see for example ver. 9, 13) is a proof, that it does not relate to any particular act on the part of the angel, but to his office, and is equivalent to angelus collocutor, or interpres. And, as if to make it plain that the expression is used as an official title, the prophet never employs any other, and uses this without the slightest variation, never even substituting the construction with q^ or j-^, which usuaUy occurs in other cases, for the expression ^ *QT ^ne explanation of this is to be found in the fact that the words were put into the mind of the hearer, in order tfiat tfiey might continue there (see vol. i. p. 192). 2. The occurrence described in chap. ii. 1 — 4 is quite decisive. The prophet sees a figure occupied in measuring tfie future dimensions of Jerusalem. The interpreter leaves the u2 308 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. prophet, for the purpose of making inquiry on his behalf as to the meaning of this vision. But, before he reaches his destina tion, another angel comes to meet him with the command, " run, say to this young man," &c. Assuming that the interpreter and the angel of the Lord were the same, directions would have been given to the latter in a tone of authority by an inferior angel, — a procedure altogether irreconcileable with the superior dignity, which is ascribed to him everywhere else, and especially in Zechariah. Moreover it was, in all probability, the Angel of the Lord himself, who was measuring Jerusalem. And if this sup position be correct, there is the less possibility of his being the same person as the interpreter, since the latter was with the pro phet at the time, and it was not till afterwards that he left him, to make inquiry concerning the vision. 3. It is a striking fact, that no divine work is ever ascribed to the interpreter, nor any divine name given to him, as to the Angel of the Lord, and that he never does anything more than communicate to the prophet the commands of a higher authority, and explain to him visions, which are invariably manifested to the prophet's inward sight by the Lord himself, and never by the interpreter {cf chap. ii. 3, iii. 1). 4. The conclusion at which we have arrived is confirmed, on comparing it with what we find in other passages of the Old Testament. In Ex. xxxii. 34 the chief revealer of God, the Angel of the Lord, is represented as having another angel sub ordinate to him, who stands to him in the very same relation in which he himself stands to the supreme God. But what we find in the Book of Daniel in connexion with this subject, is of especial importance for the interpretation of Zechariah. The Angel of the Lord, the great prince, who represents his people (chap. xii. 1, cf. Zech. i. 12), is called there by the symbofical name of Michael. He generaUy appears in silent majesty, and only occasionally, as in the case before us, speaks a few words. But, as a mediator between him and Daniel, Gabriel is introduced, whose duty it is to unfold and explain the visions (compare chap. viii. 16, ix. 21, and see Dissertation on Daniel p. 135 sqq.). The Angel of the Lord is seated upon a red horse in the midst of a thicket of myrtles. The latter is a striking image of the kingdom of God, — not a proud cedar or a lofty mountain, ZECHARIAH, CHAP. I. 7 — 17. 309 but a modest myrtle in the hoUow, yet lovely for aU that, as Esther was originaUy caUed Hadassa, myrtle, on account of her -loveliness. The comparison of the kingdom of God to the quiet waters of Siloah, in contrast with the roaring waters of the Euphrates, is of a similar character (see Is. viii). Whilst the kingdoms of the world were surrounded by outward splendour, the kingdom of God was always lowly and unpretending ; and at this time especiaUy it appeared to be approaching its end. The fact that the Angel of the Lord stopped in the midst of the thicket of myrtles, was an indication of the distinguished protec tion enjoyed by the Church of God, notwithstanding its feeble condition. In the same way is Christ represented in Bev. i. 13, ii. 1, as walking in the midst of the seven candlesticks, the pro tector and judge of the Church. The thicket of myrtles was iT^JSQl, This must be a different form of n^SJQ. The latter means the depth (Vulg. in profundo), and in other cases is only appfied to the sea or the deep places of a river. In the symbo lical language of Scripture it represents the world. n^lSQ itself is used for the sea of the world in Ps. cvii. 24 ; and also in Zech. x. 11, " and all the n^E) 0I" the Nile are put to shame, and the pride of Assyria is cast down, and the rod of Egypt wiU depart." The cognate word pj^rj is also employed to denote the powers of the world in Is. xliv. 27. The true explanation is given in the Chaldee version, "in Babele." And this has been revived by Baumgarten (Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharia i. p. 73), who finds an allusion in this passage to the " abyss-like power of the kingdoms of the world." The expression in chap. ii. 7, " thou that dwell est with the daughter of Babylon," cor responds to the words "in or at the depth," in the passage before us. Whether there is any reference to the fact that the myrtles of nature flourish best by the water's side (Virgil Geor- gics 2. 212, fitora myrtetis lsetissima ; 4. 124, amantes litora myrti), we shall not stop to enquire. We cannot better express what we are to understand by the fact, that the Angel of the Lord appears seated upon a horse and that a red horse, than in the words of Theodoret, " he sees him mounted on a horse, to show the rapidity with which everything is accomplished ; and the red colour of the horse sets forth his indignation against his heathen foes, for wrath is bloody and therefore red." Bed is the^ 310 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. colour of blood. It is in red garments that the Angel ofthe Lord is described in Is. Ixiii. as coming from Bozrah, after having slain the enemies of his kingdom. And in Eev. vi. 4 it is on a red fiorse tfiat he is seated, to whom power is given to take peace from the earth, and that they should kiU one another, and to whom is given a great sword. (With reference to red, as the colour of blood, see the notes on Bev. xii. 3). Hence the colour of the horse is the symbol of what the angel of the Lord says of him- seff in ver. 15: "I burn with great wrath against the nations that are in safety and at ease." The inferior angels, who sur round the angel of the Lord, are a symbofical representation of the idea, that all the requisite means are at his command for the salvation of his people and the destruction of his foes. The colour of their horses represents the judgments which await the latter, and which are about to be executed with irresistible force ; just as in Bev. vi. 2 sqq., the colour of the horses is a symbol of the work to be accompfished by the riders. The red and brown colours both relate to the blood ; — the Arabic word, which answers to ?ip-^, is used de sanguine concreto, see the thesaurus of Gesenius. White is the colour of brilliant lights, the symbolical representation of glory, and in this connexion refers to the glorious victories to be obtained over the enemies of the kingdom of God. The riders have just returned from a mission, and give in their report in the hearing of the prophet. As Satan goes to and fro in the earth, to see how he can get at the righteous (see Job, chap, i.) ; so do they go to and fro in the earth in the interests of the church of the Lord. In the present case the immediate object was not to perform any active service, but merely to reconnoitre, and the result of their enquiry furnished the occasion for the prayer for compassion on Jeru salem. In the second year of Darius there was universal peace ; aU the nations, that had constituted the former Chaldean empire, were in the enjoyment of uninterrupted prosperity. Even the Babylonians — to whom it is evident from ver. 15, that the expression "the whole earth sitteth" (as contrasted with the prostrate condition ofthe people of God) " and is quiet," chiefly refers — had quickly recovered from all that they had suffered in consequence of the capture of the city by Cyrus. The city had continued rich and flourishing. Judea alone, the seat of the ZECHARIAH, CHAP. I. 7 — 17. 311 kingdom of God, presented a momnful aspect. The capital was still for the most part in ruins. There were no waUs round about to protect it. The building of the temple had hitherto been exposed to difficulties, which the disheartened nation stiU despaired of overcoming, though the work had been resumed some months before at the instigation of Haggai. The number of inhabitants was but smaU ; and the greater part of the land was stfil a waste (see Nehemiah, chap. i.). Such a state of things necessarily exposed the faithful to great temptation, and furnished the ungodly with an excuse for their ungodliness. Compare Mal. ii. 17, where the latter say, " every one that doeth evil is good in the sight ofthe Lord, and he defigfiteth in them," or, " Where is the God that punishes ?" and chap. iii. 15, " therefore we caU the scorners happy, for the ungodly increase, tfiey tempt God, and everything prospers with them." It required a large amount of faith, under such circumstances as tfiese, to fiave no doubts as to either the truthfulness or omnipotence of God. The return of the covenant nation had been but a smaU step towards the fulfilment of his promises. The predicted judg ments on Babylon embraced far more than the mere capture of the city ; and yet even this, the opening judgment, had been concealed from view, by the fact that the city was graduaUy recovering. The prophecy before us was intended to ward off the temptations, to which such a state of things were sure to give rise, and which crippled every effort in connection with the theocracy. The appearance of the angel of the Lord, as the protector of his people, was in itself a rich source of consolation. And his interceding for his people showed still more clearly, that the time of commiseration was drawing nigh. For his inter cession could not be in vain ; nor could the will of God be unknown to him. The answer, which he received from the Lord, was enough to quiet any fear and trembling that might yet remain. It showed that his promises and threats would cer tainly be fulfilled, however gradually, at the time determined in his wise and holy counsel. We must add a few words here as to the fulfilment itself. A commencement was made immediately afterwards. The revolt of the Babylonians, in the reign of Darius Hystaspes, brought the city a great deal nearer to the complete destruc- 312 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. tion, which had been predicted. Apart from the fact that it may be regarded as a continuation of the conquest of the city by Cyrus, it inflicted deeper wounds than this had done. A fearful massacre took place in the city, and its waUs were destroyed. Again, the building of the temple at Jerusalem was successfully accomplished in the sixth year of Darius. The arrival of Ezra, and shortly afterwards that of Nehemiah, who restored the walls of the city and greatly added to the population, were proofs that the favour of God stiU rested upon the nation, and signs of its continued election. But we must not look to the immediate future for the complete fulfilment. The prophecies of Zechariah, like those of his predecessors, embrace the whole range of the judgments and salvation of God ; with the exception only of that portion which had already taken place, such for example as the conquest of Babylon and the return of the covenant people. Hence, whatever is said here concerning tfie wrath of God on Babylon and the other enemies of the kingdom of God, could only be finally accomplished in their complete extermination ; and what is said respecting the renewal of the favour of God towards his people, in the sending of the Messiah. In the fact that the fulfilment commenced at once, the people received a pledge, that at some future period the whole of the prophecy would assuredly be fulfiUed, 2. THE FOUR HORNS AND THE FOUR SMITHS. (Chap. i. 18—21). This vision is also consolatory in its tendency. The prophet sees four horns, and the interpreter explains to him that they represent the enemies of the kingdom of God. He then sees four smiths, who break these horns in pieces. The meaning is obvious. The enemies of the Lord are to be punished for their sins ; the Lord will defend his feeble church against every attack. So far expositors are all agreed. But there is a difference of opinion as to what we are to understand by the four horns or hostile powers. (On the horns, as -the symbol of power, see the Commentary on Ps. cxlvifi. 14, and Eev. v. 6). According to ZECHARIAH, CHAP. I. 18 — 21. 313 some, the four were contemporaneous (Hitzig says they repre sent " the Gentile foes of Judah in all quarters of the world"), whilst according to others they followed in succession. The for mer assert, without any ground, that the preterites, ^-ft in ver. 2, and ^t^ m ver- 4, prove that the kingdoms referred to had already shown hostifity to Judah, and still continued to do so. (Judah only is mentioned ; the name Israel is applied to Judah in ver. 2 as a title of honour). The fact is entirely overlooked, that it is with an inward perception that we have to do, and that to this everything appears to be present. It is a fatal objection, however, to this exposition, that there were not four independent powers in a state of hostility to Judah in the time of Zechariah. All the nations, with which Judah came in contact, were sub ject to the Persian empire. Hitzig supposes that " in the time of Zechariah these hostile kingdoms had already been for the most part (?) subdued by Cyrus and Cambyses ; although the author speaks of four smiths as breaking off the horns, to make the num bers correspond." But how could the prophet say anything unsuitable, for the mere purpose of " making the numbers cor respond?" The paraUel passages, however, afford positive evidence of the correctness of the opinion, that a succession is intended. A slight aUusion to the rise of four worldly powers in succession may be found even in Joel i. 4 (see vol. i. p. 318). In Daniel chap. ii. and vii. the four parts of the image and the four beasts represent four successive phases of the imperial power. This is ofthe greater importance, since the prophecy of Daniel was just that Hnk in the prophetic chain, to which Zechariah was caUed to attach his own prophecies, and the symbol itself points back to Daniel, as weU as the number four (compare Dan. vii. 7, 8, viii. 3 — 9). If we enquire more par ticularly what four empires are referred to, the first must be the Babylonian, which was not yet completely humbled, as the third vision shows, although it had already received a fatal wound from the Persian smith. The second is the Persian. That the Grecian must have been recognised by the prophet as the third, is evident from the expression in chap. ix. 13, " I stir up thy sons, 0 Zion, against thy sons, 0 Javan." The fourth is not named. The connexion with Daniel is apparent here also, for, in his prophecy, the approaching dominion of Greece is expressly 314 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. and amply referred to ; whilst the fourth monarchy on the other hand is left without a name. Zechariah was at aU events informed by this vision, that the triumph of the people of God was still remote. But the final victory was certain notwithstanding ; and though it would have to suffer from one imperial power after another, it would still survive them aU. 3. THE ANGEL WITH THE MEASURING LINE. (Chap, ii.) The symbolical apparatus is but smaU in this case. The prophet sees, as Ezekiel had done before him (xl. 3), a figure engaged in measuring the future dimensions of Jerusalem, because the present area wfil not suffice for tfie enlargement, which is to be effected by the mercy of the Lord. The figure is in all probabifity no otfier than the Angel of the Lord. No proof need be offered that such an occupation was a very suitable one for the person by whom, as guardian of the covenant nation, the enlargement itself would be brought about. The fact that he gives instructions to another angel, whom he sends to the inter preter, is a proof that he must have been of a higher rank than that of an inferior angel. We have also the further advantage of an exact correspondence between this passage and the twelfth chapter of Daniel, where precisely the same persons are intro duced, viz., Michael, the angel of the Lord, accompanied by Gabriel, the interpreter, and another angel (see the Dissertation on Daniel, p. 134 sqq.). The interpreter has hitherto remained with the prophet, who is looking on from a distance ; but now he leaves him, to ascertain from the Angel of the Lord the mean ing of what he is doing. He has only just set out, when another angel is despatched by the Angel of the Lord, to give him the required explanation, and order fiim to communicate it to Zechariah. From the fact that the angel speaks of him as " this young man," the conclusion has been quite correctly drawn, that the prophet was but a youth at this time. Still it i« probable that there is also an allusion to his inexperience and ZECHARIAH, CHAP. II. 315 short sightedness as a man.1 There is only one thing in which the commentators have erred, namely, that they have selected one of these to the exclusion of the other. The prophet's youth is distinctly noticed, because youth is a type of the nature of man in relation to God and his holy angels (vid. 1 Sam. iii. 1 sqq. ; Jer. i. 6, 7). — The message, which the other angel brings to the interpreter for Zechariah, is the foUowing. The city is to extend far beyond its present boundaries, and wiU be de fended and glorified by the Lord (ver. 4, 5). The infliction of judgment upon Babylon, and the ungodly powers of the world in general, goes hand in hand with the mercy bestowed upon Jerusalem. The thought is expressed in tfie form of an appeal to the Zionites, who are still dwelling in Babylon, to escape ; an appeal, which was not intended to be put in practice, any more than the similar appeal in Jer. Ii. 6. The highest possible glory is conferred upon Jerusalem, from the fact that the Lord himself takes up his abode tfiere, the result of wliich will be, that many nations wiU attach themselves to the congregation, which is rendered glorious by his presence (vers. 10 — 13). All this is explanatory of the symbol. The great extent of Jerusalem, which this symbol indicates, has its ultimate ground in the appearance of the Lord in the midst of his people, and its neces sary condition in the defeat of the whole worldly power, by which the kingdom of God is opposed, and which is represented here by the daughter of Babylon. On the other hand, the especial cause of Jerusalem becoming too small for its inhabi tants, and breaking forth on the right hand and on the left (Is. xlix. 19), is tfiat " many nations are joined to the Lord in that day" (ver. 11). — Vers. 6 and 7 are placed in a false relation to what goes before by those who understand them to mean, " this may lead all the Jews, who are still left in Babylon, to decide upon a speedy return to their own land, that they may share 1 Jerome was also of this opinion, and says : " human nature is always childhood, when contrasted with the dignity of angels ; because angels do not grow up into men, but men into angels." And Vitringa says to the same effect : " he calls him ^], not from any contempt of short-lived man, who is unskilled in many things, and chiefly ignorant of things celestial, but by way of contrast ; and the expression is equivalent to inexperience, needing to be taught many things, just as Ezekiel is always called ' Son of Man,' in exactly the same sense." 316 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. with their brethren in the promised blessings." That the in junction to leave Babylon was based exclusively upon the judg ment which threatened it, is evident from the exclamations " up, up and flee"1 (ver. 6), " up, Zion, and save thyseff" (ver. 7).— The whole announcement is essentiaUy Messianic ; and in such events, as the increase in the population of Jerusalem, par ticularly from the days of Nehemiah onwards, the calamity which fell upon Babylon under Darius Hystaspes, and the victories gained by the Maccabees (" and they shaU be a spofi to them that serve them," ver. 9), we see nothing more than a slight pre lude of the fulfilment. The essentiaUy Messianic character is especiaUy apparent from what is said in ver. 10, 11, of the Lord dwelling at Jerusalem, and the heathen nations flocking thither in consequence, as a splendid demonstration of the mercy of God, which, according to ver, 13, was to fill aU nations with overpowering amazement. On this Baumgarten has correctly observed, that " the great choice is laid before them, either to humble themselves before the Lord, who is coming in his king dom, or to destroy themselves ; since the time is gone by, when the flesh can exalt itself." It is evident from ver. 11, " and I wiU dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee," that the person, who announces here that he will glorify the church with his presence, is the angel of the Lord, who was afterwards to appear, as the prophets had predicted, in the Messiah himself. Conse quently, He who was to dweU in the midst of the covenant nation, just as He had formerly been present in the pillar of cloud and of fire, was the very same person, who was now sent by the supreme God to convey this glorious inteUigence through the prophet to the nation, who is called Jehovah in ver. 10, and who is here designated the messenger, to distinguish him from 1 From the fact that flight is referred to, it is evident that ver. 6 must be explained thus, " for I have scattered you to the four winds of heaven" (and especially to the north) ; cf. Ezek xvii. 21. With reference to the connexion between ver. 8 and ver. 6, 7, Michaelis says, " it is stated in ver. 9, why the Jewish exiles were to fly, viz., that they might not be involved in the de struction, which the Angel was about to bring upon the hostile land." That "1132 ~^TM$ m ver- 8 must mean " after glory," that is, after ye have been brought to glory, is evident from the allusion to the close of ver. 9. Michaelis says, "it is not enough for me to manifest my glory in Israel, I will also make my name illustrious in the Gentiles themselves." ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 317 the sender. That the person, who is described in ver. 8, as executing judgment upon the heathen, was identical with the Messiah, may be clearly seen from chap. ix. 9, where the arrival of the latter is announced to the nation in almost the same words : " Sing and rejoice, 0 daughter of Zion, for lo, I come ;" "Bejoice greatly, 0 daughter of Zion, sing, 0 daughter of Jerusalem, behold thy king cometh unto thee." Still further explanation may be obtained from chap, xi., where the Angel of the Lord is described as coming in the Messiah ; appearing to the people, among whom he had hitherto been invisibly present, and whom he had represented before God ; and entering upon the office of sfiepherd over them. In this and the ninth chapter, the bright side only is shown ; but in the chapter just referred to, as weU as in chap, v., the dark side is also displayed, viz., the unbelief of the greater part of the nation in Him who had appeared, and their rejection of Him. Even in the earfier Jewish commentators, quoted by Jerome, and also in Kimchi and Abarbanel, we find an admission that the prophecy refers to the Messianic times. 4. JOSHUA, THE HIGH PRIEST, BEFORE THE ANGEL OF THE LORD. (Chap, iii.) The ten verses are divided into two fives. The thesis is, " say not, I have acted too wickedly." In the first fialf the forgive ness of past sins is promised to tfie High Priest, and through him to the people of God. In the second half an assurance is given, first, that the protection of God shall be immediately extended to the high-priestly office (ver. 6, 7), and secondly, that in the more remote future the true High Priest will appear, who will take away the sin of the land in one day, and pour out upon it the whole fulness of salvation. Ver. 1. "And (the Lord) showed me Joshua, the high priest, standing before the angel of tlie- Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand, to oppose him." The future with Vav conversive connects this vision closely with the one which precedes it, and shows that it constitutes one 318 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. link in the series of visions, which were all seen by the prophet in the same night. The subject of the verb " showed" is undoubtedly the Lord, as the Septuagint translators and Jerome perceived. This is the most natural construction ; for the Lord is mentioned immediately before, in tfie very sentence with which the Vav conversive connects this verse. To this we may add the analogous explsssion in chap. ii. 3, " the Lord showed me four smiths." According to the usual explanation, the angelus collocutor is the subject, but his task is invariably to interpret, not to show the pictures, 'ynapj tn3i"T> the High Priest, is introduced here with peculiar emphasis, as also in ver. 8 and chap. vi. 11? It proves that it is not the person, but the office of Joshua, which is the point in consideration here, not his private but his pubfic character. The expression, " standing before the Angel of the Lord," has been misunderstood by the greater number of commentators. They imagine it to be a judicial phrase ; the Angel of the Lord being represented as a judge, Satan as the plaintiff, and Joshua as the defendant. But such an idea is very prejudicial to a correct interpretation of the whole vision. The expression, " to stand before a person," is never used of the appearance of a defendant before a judge, but always of a servant standing before bis Lord, to offer his services and await his commands. Compare, for example, Gen. xfi. 46, " Joseph, was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh;" 1 Sam. xvi. 21, " and David came to Saul and stood before him, and he loved him greatly, and he became his armour-bearer ;" 1 Kings i. 28, x. 8, and Deut i. 38. But in connection with the service of the Lord this phrase is stiU more frequently employed. Thus in ver. 4 {cf Is. vi. 2) it is applied to angels ; in 1 Kings xvii. 1 to tfie propfiets, " Elijah said, as the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand" (see also in Jer. xviii. 20) ; and in 2 Chr. xx. 13 to the whole nation. But it was most frequently used in connection with the priests, for whose service it became the standing technical phrase ; vid. Deut. x. 8, " at that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi, . . . . to stand be fore the Lord, to minister to him, and to bless in his name ;" 2 Chr. xxix. 11, "my sons, be not now negligent ; for the Lord hath chosen you to stand before him, to serve him, and offer incense to him ;" Ps. cxxxv. 2, "ye servants of the Lord, that ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 1. 319 stand in the house of the Lord ;" Judg. xx. 28, " Phinehas stood before the Lord in those days ;" and Deut. xvii. 12. And tfius the prophet sees Joshua the High Priest on the present occasion, engaged as a priest in the service of the angel of the Lord, who is introduced in ver. 2 under the name of Jehovah, which belongs to God alone, and who attributes to himself in ver. 4 an exclu sively divine work, the forgiveness of sins. As a priest he also entreats favour for himself and the nation, and offers prayer and intercession. Theodoret describes him as ra? virep tov Xdov 7rpeo-/3eta? irpoacpepcov tw 6eoj. The correctness of this explana tion is confirmed by ver. 4, where i^q^ "TOJ7 occurs again in connection with the service of the Lord. — The words that follow, viz., " Satan stood at (lit. over) his right hand," are also gene raUy rendered incorrectly. Starting with the supposition, which we have aHeady shown to be false, that a judicial process is aUuded to here, the majority have traced this description to a custom, said to have been prevalent among the ancient Jews, for the plaintiff to stand at the right hand of the defendant — a custom, of the existence of which not the sfightest trace can be found. The right hand is mentioned rather as being the most appropriate place for one, who wished to hinder or support another with success. Thus in Ps. cix. 6, we read, " set thou a wicked man over him and let the enemy {Angl. Satan) stand at his right hand." — The prophet uses the very words of this pas sage in the Psalms. The enemy aUuded to in this Psalm, in which the word \W}, Satan, occurs more frequently than any where else, is the fitting representative and type of the enemy generaUy. — Again, in ver. 31 tfie Lord is spoken of as " stand ing at the right hand of the poor." In Ps. cxxi. 5 the Psalmist writes, "the Lord is thy shade upon thy right hand;" and in Es. cxfii. 4, " look to the right hand and see, no one wiU know me." Job again (chap. xxx. 12) says, " at the right hand riseth up the brood, they trip me up, and prepare against me their ways of destruction." — ^fe)^ *s weu explained by Tarnov thus, "that he who is called Satan, from the oppo sition he offers, might thus fill up the measure of his name ;" and by Riickert, " tfie enemy stood at bis right hand to act the part of an enemy towards him." — The scene, then, is the following, the high priest is in the sanctuary, the building 320 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. of which has already commenced, and is engaged in prayer for the mercy ofthe Angel of the Lord : the latter comes down, con descends to appear in the temple, as a proof of his favour, attended by a company of angels {vid. ver. 7). Satan, the sworn enemy of the church of God, looks with jealous eyes at the restoration of the church to the favour of the Lord ; and prepares to inter rupt it again by his accusations. — We need not stop to show the faUacy of the opinion, advocated by some of the earlier commen tators (Kimchi and Drusius) , and revived for the most part by Ewald, that Satan is a figurative term, and refers to Sanballat and his confederates, who tried to hinder the building of the temple. It is disproved by the prologue to Job, which Zechariah, who always rests upon earlier writings, had undoubtedly before" his eyes (compare Job i. 10 with Zech. vi. 5). It is also of importance to refer to that passage, inasmuch as it wiU show us how much is drapery and how much belongs to the subject- matter. In both passages, and also in Bev. xii. 10, where Satan is called " the accuser of our brethren, wliich accused them before our God day and night," the doctrinal idea is simply this, that Satan leaves no stone unturned, to turn away the favour of God from the individual believer and the whole church of God. That to this end he appears before God in heaven, or the temple at Jerusalem, as an accuser, belongs to the poetical or prophetico- symbolical representation, the very essence of which required that spiritual things should be set forth in an outward and visible form. — The only question that remains is, what means did Satan employ, to effect a rupture between the High Priest and the Angel of the Lord ? There is no ground for the assumption of the Jewish commentators and several modern ones, that the accusation, which Satan brought, was false, and the High Priest was perfectly innocent. This is evident from vers. 3 — 5, where the Lord forgives the High Priest his sin, and has his filthy gar ments taken off and clean clothes put on instead, the symbol ofthe righteousness which is imparted through grace. The true exposi tion is this. The High Priest, as we have aHeady shown, is introduced here as discharging the duties of his office. But, when so engaged, he took the place, in a certain sense, of the whole nation (Cyril : 6 Be ye iepev<; vovOeiri civ dvrl iravTopias fite&pa ri\v \6ya, ¦navaai hr) oiv eyKaXtov tois rp\er>pevois- 8ebs yap 6 SiKaiav, ns d KaraKpivcov. x2 324 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. the filthy garments are understood to represent sin (compare, for example, Is. Ixiv. 5, " we are all as an unclean thing, and aU our righteousnesses are as a filthy garment ;" Is. iv. 4 ; Prov. xxx. 12 ; Bev. iii. 4, vii. 14), and with reference to the command that the High Priest was to wear clean clothes, when he came before the Lord. The High Priest, who was here engaged in the worship of the Lord, did not come before him in the cleanly manner required by the law, but covered with his own sins and those of the nation. Satan thought this a safe handle for his accusation ; but he was mistaken. The Lord, who had refined his people though not as sfiver (Is. xlviii. 10), who was content that the furnace of affliction should have removed only the worst dross of sin, and should have produced in his people the first beginning of true penitence, a fiunger and thirst after righteous ness, which required to be kept alive by kindly treatment, and not stifled by severity, imparted to them of his own free grace that which they did not possess. He bestowed the gift of justi fication upon the High Priest, and in him upon the nation at large ; vid. Ps. cxxx. 7, 8. Ver. 4. " And he answered and spake unto those, who stood before him, take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, behold I take away from thee thine iniquity, and they will clothe thee with festal attire." Just as the dirty clothes represented sin, so are forgiveness and justification represented by the putting on of clean and gay clothing 'at the command of the Lord. We must reject the explanation given by Marck, who maintains that it is not jus tification, but sanctification, wliich is set forth in the whole symbofical action and in the explanation contained in the address to Joshua. The expression, "to cause sin to pass away," is only used with reference to the former {vid. 2 Sam. xii. 13). The ninth verse also helps to show, that it is the forgiveness of sins that is here referred to. The typical justification, granted to the High Priest and through him to the nation, is there con trasted with the true and perfect justification to be secured by the Messiah, " I remove the iniquity of this land in one day." n^y is frequently used, where an address, enquiry, or entreaty, is tacitly assumed to have gone before ; but the commentators, by whom this has been overlooked, have erroneously interpreted it, as ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 5. 325 meaning to commence a discourse. 1 In this instance, the meaning, " to commence " a discourse is aU the more inappropriate, because the expression, " he stood before the Lord," which immediately precedes, evidently implies some silent prayer or address on the part of Joshua. Whenever the High Priest appeared before the Lord, the simple fact of his appearing involved a prayer for the forgiveness of sins. Those who stand before the Lord, or before bis Angel, the prince of the Lord's army (Josh. v. 14), are his higher servants, the angels {cf Is. vi.). They are ordered to adorn his inferior servant with the signs of the forgiveness of sins, which He alone is able to impart. The infinitive ^^n simply denotes the act itself. This was the only point of impor tance here ; the persons, by whom it was to be performed, had aHeady been pointed out in the address delivered to them. In the words addressed to Joshua, there was the more reason for omitting this, since it belonged to tfie drapery, and formed no essential part of tfie transaction, and also because his attention was to be directed exclusively to the author of the pardon, and not to the agents employed in the symbolical representation. Ver. 5. " And I said : let them set a clean turban upon his head, and they set a clean turban upon his head, and clothed him with garments, and the angel of the Lord stood by." The prophet, who has hitherto been merely a sfient spectator and reporter, comes suddenly forward as one of the actors, being emboldened by love to bis nation. The idea, which the prophet intends to express is this : " may the Lord bestow perfect purity upon the High Priest, and in him upon the nation." In symbol he represents it thus. The Lord merely issues the command to put clean clothes upon Joshua. And before the instructions are carried out, the prophet prays, that that portion of Joshua's unclean apparel, which has not been included in the command, may also be taken away. His prayer is heard, and Joshua is now clothed afresh from head to foot (hence the turban is put 1 Vitringa (on Zech. i. 11), has correctly explained the use of the word: "I would have it borne in mind that, in every case, in which f-jjj? or <"ro* ttpiveo-dai is placed at the opening of a speech or narrative without any question preceding it, there is always a question tacitly assumed ; just as in the sacred books, where they commence with the copula, some antecedent is always supposed to exist, with which the narrative or speech is tacitly con nected, even though nothing at all has gone before." 326 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. on first). The expression, "and the angel of the Lord stood by," is well explained by Michaelis thus : "he stood by like a master pretnETrj^over the ceremony, approving what was done, and adorning it with his own presence."1 By remaining present during the whole process, instead of contenting himself with giving his orders, and leaving the execution of them to his ser vants, the angel of the Lord furnishes a proof of his tender care and esteem for his nation.2 Ver. 6. " And the Angel of the Lord testified to Joshua and said, ; Ver. 7, Thus saith the Lord, if thou wilt walk in my ways and observe me, thou shall judge my house, and keep my courts, and I give thee guides among these, who stand by." The reconciliation of tfie Higfi Priest, and in him of the nation at large, is followed here by his being confirmed in his office, in which there is also included a promise for the nation ; for the High Priest was the mediator between God and the nation, and the latter could not be rejected, so long as the High Priest was accepted of God. The very opposite of what is pro mised here had taken place in the time of the Babylonian capti vity, compare Is. xliii. 27, 28 : " tfiy first father (the High Priest, as the paraUelism and ver. 28 both show) hath sinned, and tfiy mediators have transgressed against me. Therefore I profane the princes of the sanctuary, and give Jacob to the curse." With reference to the phrase, " to heed anyone's heed" in the sense of observing him, compare Mal. iii. 14. — That " the house of God " in this passage is the temple, is evident from its connexion with the courts. The High Priest and temple are represented as essentially connected even in the Mosaic law. 1 Baumgarten has justly observed that " the prophet might have waited quietly till the command was executed, and we may be sure that the clean turban would not have been forgotten, among the festal garments which Joshua was to put on." But his prayer was not superfluous on that account. The importunate prayer of the church is always the condition of the grant ing of mercy. According to Baumgarten, the turban is introduced here as the supporter ofthe golden plate, on which there was the inscription, "holy to the Lord." But this would certainly have been alluded to in more pre cise terms. In this connexion the turban can only be referred to as an article of dress, and in fact the one which would be the first to strike the eye. 2 The angel of the Lord had been standing all the time. There is nothing at all to show that he was sitting down at first, but afterwards stood up. The point upon which emphasis is laid is, that he remained standing, and did not go away and simply leave his servants to carry out the instructions. ZECHARIAH, CHAP. HI. 8. 327 Hence the people cannot be directly alluded to. But in the Old Testament the temple is represented as the spiritual dwelling place of all Israel (see the note on Ezek. xl. sqq.), and the allu sion to judging shows that it is in this point of view that it comes into consideration here. The " keeping of the courts of the Lord " refers to the obligation, which rested upon the High Priest, to keep away every kind of idolatry and ungodliness, first of all from the outward temple (cf. 2 Chr. xix. 11, xxiii. 18, Jer. xxix. 26), and then from the Church of God, of which the temple was the central point. It is represented fiere, not as a duty, but as a reward ; inasmuch as activity in connexion with the kingdom of God is the highest honour and greatest favour, which God can confer upon any mortal. — In the words, " i" give thee guides among these, who stand by," the Lord promises his inferior servant a renewal of that assistance from his higher ones, which he had received but a short time before (ver. 4). Q'O^ilft *s the Chaldee form of the Hiphil participle, in the place of the ordinary ai^^iE- The Hiphil is used in the sense of "to lead ;" e.g. Is. xiii. 16 : "I lead tfie blind by the way, which they know not."1 Ver. 8. " Hear now, 0 Joshua, the High Priest, thou and thy companions, who sit before thee ; for they are people of wonder ; for behold I bring my servant Zemach."3 We wiU first of aU enquire into the meaning of ]-\rfij> It is commonly supposed, that the primary meaning of this word is proof, but the foUowing reasons suffice to show, that amazement is really the original signification. (1). The Arabic word d«!, ' HON, indicates it. The original meaning of this word is " some- 1 The idea, which several commentators would force upon the text, by altering the punctuation and inventing a form "H^rTO, a walk (a word, the meaning of which could not be brought in here without constraint), namely, the reception of the earthly servants of God into the chorus of the heavenly ones, is altogether foreign to the Old Testament. On the other hand, accord ing to the established rendering, the angels appear in their ordinary character as "ministering spirits." Baumgarten very properly calls to mind the ascending and descending of the heavenly messengers between heaven and earth, of which Jacob had a vision at Bethel (House of God). 2 The connexion with the preceding verses is correctly pointed out by Kimchi thus : " he says, although I bring you this salvation now, I will bring you hereafter a greater salvation than this, at the time when I bring my Bervant Zemach." 328 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. thing which excites surprise," and a secondary meaning, "a cala mity, the greatness of which produces surprise and astonishment " (compare Is. Hi. 14, Schultens on Job, p. 413) ; neither of these meanings can be obtained if the primary signification is supposed to be " proof."1 (2.) The use of the word in Hebrew requires that amazement should be adopted as the primary meaning. For this is the only one, from which all the different senses in which the word is used can possibly be derived, especially the sense which it bears in Ps. lxxi. 7. The frequent associa tion of j-^ft and j-fi^ is so far from proving the two words to have the same meaning, tfiat it proves the very opposite. It shows that they must be both descriptive of the same thing, but from different points of view, and in this case hardly any other explanation is possible, than that the one represents the subjec tive sensation caused by a thing, the other its objective import. In this we are borne out by similar words in other languages, e.g. reoas and o-r)p.eiov, prodigium and signum. The occurrence of the word j^^ in the Books of Kings, and of j-iQift in the Chro nicles, in the account of the miracle performed on behalf of Heze- kiah, from which the erroneous conclusion has been drawn that the two words are perfectly symbolical, may be accounted for on tfie ground that one writer gave greater promise to the former view, and the other to the latter. — But ]-\fj*)J3 is more parti cularly appfied to any person or thing, attracting attention and exciting astonishment from the fact that it typifies and fore shadows a future event. There are four passages, besides the one before us, in which the word occurs with this special meaning. In Is. vifi. 18, Isaiah calls his sons " signs and wonders " (fnmN an(l ?TlDi's) m Israel, on account of the prophetic names, which they had received from the Lord, by Gesenius is wrong when he asserts (thes. s. v. 'ngss) that the . ¦• , in si\ forms no part of the root. He brings forward as a proof of this the 5 Xj § } combination of . ** .i\ and %£] calamitas, pernicies noxa from the root <__3jS. But the two words have nothing in common. . •• .;< by itself does not mean misfortune any more than figj^Q Ps. lxxi. 7. For, assuming this to be the primary meaning, how could it afterwards come to mean wonder ? l 1^3 1 ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 8. 329 whom they had been constituted types of the coming deliver ance. In Is. xx. 3, the prophet is said to have walked naked and barefoot three years, as a type of the Egyptian nation, " for a sign and wonder upon Egypt." According to Ez. xii. 6, after the Lord had given the prophet instructions to set forth in his actions the future fate of the Israelites, he said to him, " I have made thee a wonder for the house of Israel," (compare ver. 11, " say, I am your wonder, like as I have done, so shaU it be done unto you ; they shall go into captivity." In Ez. xxiv. the death of the prophet's wife is recorded. The prophet is forbidden to mourn for her, and thus the attention of the people is most strongly attracted. They surmise that there must be some weighty reason for the prophet's conduct. An explanation comes to them from the Lord : " Ezekiel is to be a wonder to you ; ac cording to afi that he hath done shaU ye do." — (ver. 24 ; compare ver. 27). In aU these passages j-\D"ltt answers exactly to two? t&v (MeXXovTwv ; with this single exception, that in the latter the objective side alone is made prominent, and there is no aUu sion to the subjective emotion of which it is the cause.1 We now proceed to the details of this passage. By the com panions of Joshua, who are directed to listen as weU as he, we must understand his coUeagues, the priests of a lower grade. First, this is apparent from the design of the whole prophecy. Joshua is spoken of throughout, not as a private person, but as High Priest. He is introduced as engaged in the perform ance of the duties of his office ; and even in this verse he is expressly appealed to as High Priest. Hence, if his companions are spoken of here, they must be his coUeagues in tfie priest hood, and not such as are associated with him in any other capa city. — Secondly, the expression, " who sit before thee," leads to the same conclusion. This does not refer to the connexion be tween a teacher and his pupfis, but to that between a president at a board, and the rest of the members, or, generally, between a chief and his subordinates {vid. Ez. viii. 1 ; Num. iii. 4 ; and 1 Sam. iii. 1). yy, is the term ordinarily appfied to the meet ings of pubfic officials {vid. Ex. xviii. 13 ; Ps. cxxii. v.). It was by no means an infrequent thing for priests to meet in this way 1 Cocceius saw this : " men of wonder (or prophetic sign, portenti) are those to whom something wonderful or unusual happens, that men may be stirred up to think of my promises." 330 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PXROPHETS. under the presidency of the High Priest (see LiLhtfoot on Matt. xxvi. 3. Lund. p. 517). The expression, whicfc. was first used in connexion with these meetings, was then traVsferred to the general relation in which the High Priest stood vt0 the priests as his subordinates. Just as the priests are ca/led the com panions of the High Priest in the passage before usf ; so in Ezra iii. 2 they are called his brethren, "then stood up/joshua and his brethren, the priests, and Zerubbabel and_Jdis brethren." — 13, of which many a false interpretation .teSsoeen giren, explains the reason why Joshua and his companions are ordered to pay atten tion. They are to listen witfi peculiar attention to the pro mise of the Messiah, because they stand in a closer relation to him, as being types of) him, and because their order will be glorified by him, in whom alone the idea of the order will be fully reafised. — Commentators have found great difficulty in the word niDH; which appears to refer exclusively to the companions of Joshua, whereas Joshua himseff, as tfie chief, was the most perfect type of the Messiah. But this difficulty faUs away, when we observe that the (prophet passes abruptly from the second person to the third ; and evidently means that " Joshua and his companions are to hear ; for they are," &c. This is obvious from ver. 9, where Joshua is spoken of in the third person. Such changes in the construction are very frequent ; e.g. Zeph. ii. 12, " ye Cushites also, dead men of the sword are they" (on) ; Ez. xxviii. 22 ; Jer. vii. 4. — Tfie second 13 (for) explains the reason, why Joshua and his associates are prj'ift 1UJ3N (men of wonder) . The reason is to be found in the appearance of the anti type. For if there is no reafity in this, the type itseff faUs away. The antitype, the Messiah, is caUed by two names. First, he is described as my servant, (as in Is. xiii. 1, xlix. 3, 5, 1. 10, Iii. 13, Hii. 11 ; Ez. xxxiv. 23, 24). Of these passages, it was evi dently Isaiah Hi. and liii., which the prophet had in his mind, as we may see from ver. 9, where the removal of iniquity is men tioned as the especial work of the Messiah. And, secondly, he is called r-\ry% a sprout. The latter expression contains an aUusion to the original lowfiness of the Messiah ; at first he wfll resemble, not a proud tree, but a sprout, which grows but gra dually into a tree. This is confirmed by the parallel passages, which will be collected at vol. ii. p. 13. Of these passages, ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 8. 331 judging from the relation in which Zechariah ordinarily stood to the prophets from whom they are cited, the quotations from Jeremiah (xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15) and Ezekiel were probably those which he had more particularly in his mind at the time. There is no necessity for assuming, as several commentators have done, that the sprout means the sprout of David. The expression denotes the original lowliness of the Messiah as a general fact, and not merely, as in Is. xi. 1, his descent from the family of David, which had fallen into obscurity ; though the one was a necessary consequence of the other.1 The only question that 1 Quenstedt's assertion is incorrect, that " a sprout is a term denoting des cent and affiliation . . . and always has reference to the root from which it springs." In Is. liii. 2 the Messiah is also described as a tender sprout, P2V> m opposition to a proud tree, without any regard to his descent, but simply as an indication of his original lowliness. Calvin says : " he compares Christ to a sprout, because he appeared to spring, as it were, from nothing— because his origin was contemptible. For what pre-eminence did Christ obtain in the world when he was born ? How did he found his kingdom ? And how was his priesthood inaugurated ?" In the Septuagint |~|?32J 's ren" dered avarokfi, but as Jerome has correctly stated (on chap. vi. 12), the word is used in the sense of sprout, and not of ¦' a rising light," as many expositors have falsely assumed. The word dvaroXfj is used in the same sense in Ezek. xvi. 7 [avaToXfi roi! aypov) and xvii. 10. The verb rTO2 1S sometimes ren dered avareXkeiv, egavareXkeiv and at other times (pveiv, dvacpietv and fiXao-Taveiv, the words being used interchangeably. In Jer. xxxiii. 15 HID2J is translated 0Xaords (as it is also by Symmachus in the same passage), and in Jer. xxiii. 5 by {3\ao-Ttipa {vid. Marck exercitt. misc. p. 160 sqq.). It was generally admitted by the earlier Jews that " the servant ofthe Lord, Zemach" meant the Messiah. In the Chaldee the passage is paraphrased thus : " behold I bring my servant, the Messiah, who will be made manifest." In Echa P.abbati, Zemach is introduced under the name of the Messiah. And in the Christian Church, also, this view was the prevailing one from the very earliest times. There were some of the Church Fathers, however, {Theodoret in loco, and, so far as we can gather from his obscure expressions, probably Eusebius demonstr. 1. 4 c. 17), who were misled by the expression in the parallel pas sage, chap. vi. 13, "he will build the temple of the Lord," and imagined that Zerubbabel was intended. On another ground, namely, the wish to do away with all references to the Messiah as far as possible, the same opinion is advocated by some of the later Jewish expositors, and also by Grotius. The objection generally offered is this, that J-R22 is a standing term for the Messiah, and is more particularly used by Jeremiah, the forerunner of Zechariah, in this sense ; and that some person is promised here, who is yet to come, whereas Zerubbabel had already been actively employed for a long time in the new colony ; but there is a stronger objection still, namely, that such an interpretation is altogether opposed to the design of the prophecy. What had Zerubbabel to do with a prophecy which was occupied throughout with the priesthood? How could his appearance be specially announced as peculiarly honourable and delightful to the priests, or how could it be repre sented as a higher good, in contrast with the lower good which had already been 332 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. remains to be answered is in what sense the priests are described as types of the Messiah. That which constituted them types cannot possibly have been anything else than the distinguishfiig characteristic of their office ; for the fact that the coUeagues of Joshua are associated with him is a sufficient proof that the reference is to his office, and not to his person. Now the pecu liar distinction of the priestly office was its mediatorial character ; and from the circumstances of the nation, for which it interceded with God, it was occupied chiefly with obtaining the forgiveness of sins, by means of sacrifice and prayer. Tfie Messiah there fore could be represented as the antitype of the priesthood, only so far as he was to effect in the most perfect manner that media tion and expiation which had been but partiaHy effected by the latter. And this is stfil further confirmed by the foUowing considerations : — (1.) We have aHeady seen that the nation was in trouble about the forgiveness of its sins, and was comforted by the assurance that, notwithstanding the sins, the Lord would not cast away the priesthood. If then the priesthood comes into consideration throughout, solely in connection with the pardon of the nation, and if Joshua is introduced as occupied in securing this, what other conclusion can we come to, than that the High Priest, who is promised here as the antitype, is contrasted with the typical High Priest merely in reference to the complete atonement to be effected by him? (2.) The Lord expressly promises in ver. 9 that he wiU wipe away the sins of the whole land through his servant. (3.) The forgiveness of sins is re ferred to throughout as a distinguishing characteristic of the Messianic times (Acts x. 43). In Zech. xiii. 1 the prophet describes it as the chief blessing to be conferred upon such as shall look upon him whom they have pierced, that they will possess an open fountain for aU sin and uncleanness. But the greatest light is thrown upon this passage by Is. fifi., where the Messiah is represented as being at the same time both the true sacrifice and tfie true High Priest. As the latter, he sprinkles many nations (chap. Iii. 15) ; presents a sin-offering (liii. 10) ; bestowed upon them, the confirmation of their office on the part of God ? In what respect were the priests types of Zerubbabel ? And in what sense could the removal of the sin of the land in one day (ver. 9) be attributed to him ? 2 ZECHARIAH, CHAP. III. 9. 333 - and represents transgressors (ver. 12). The difference between this passage and our own is merely that in the former the means are described by which the High Priest is to effect reconciliation, but not in the latter. And finally, even as early as Ps. ex., tfie Messiah is represented as a High Priest. Ver. 9. "For behold, the stone, that I have laid before Joshua, upon this one stone are seven eyes, I will hew it out, saith the Lord of Sabaoth, and wipe out the iniquity of this land in one day." 13 shows that this verse assigns the reason for the statement contained in the clause immediately preceding : " for I bring my servant Zemach ;" just as the first 13 in ver. 8 introduces the reason for the command to "hear," and the second the reason for the assertion, " they are types." So far as appearances were concerned, there was nothing that indicated the coming of the Messiah. The deplorable condition of the new colony seemed to preclude the least prospect of the fulfilment of such splendid promises {cf. chap. iv. 10). Hence the Lord, the Almighty (Jehovah Sabaoth) turns the attention away from what is seen, by pointing to his loving care for the good of his kingdom, as the foundation of the promised blessings. — The eyes are the symbol of the powers of God, which are at work both above and within the sphere of creation. In Ezek. i. 18, the felloes of the wheels, which were attached to the cherubs, are described as full of eyes; and according to chap. x. 12, "their whole flesh, and their backs, and their hands and their wings, were full of eyes." In Eev. iv. 8, the four beasts, the representatives of the living creation, which is entirely pervaded with spirits, are said to have been " fuU of eyes within and round about." Accord ing to Eev. v. 6, the lamb had " seven eyes, wliich are tfie seven spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth." And in Zech. iv. 10 the operations of the Spirit of the Lord (compare chap. iv. 6, " by my spirit ") are represented under the figure of the seven eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth. It is a matter of comparative indifference, whether the seven eyes, the fulness of the creative power of God, and the whole energy of bis Providence, are to be understood as being upon the stone, which the original passages in Ezekiel, and the paraUel passage in the Eevelations, would lead us to suppose, or as directed towards the stone, which we might infer from ehap. iv. 334 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. 10, where the seven eyes of the Lord are represented as looking upon the plummet in Zechariah's hand, and where in fact " these seven eyes " are introduced as the same as those aHeady referred to. — The question also arises, what are we to understand by the stone, upon which the seven eyes are described ? Early exposi tors were almost unanimous in referring it to the Messiah. But this cannot be the meaning, as we may see from tfie expression " which I have laid before Joshua," where the stone is repre sented as something already in existence, and simply to be orna mented in the future, and also from the words, ' ' I will hew it out.'' Others speak of the foundation stone of the temple ; but we can not see how this was to be carved. The correct explanation is, that the unhewn stone, which is to be polished and carved by the Lord, is a figurative representation of the nation and king dom of God, descriptive of its present lowly condition, and the glory, which it is afterwards to receive from the Lord. In this case, the stone is very appropriately described as lying before Joshua, since he had at that time the chief oversight over the church of the Lord {vid. ver. 7). On the employment of the figure of a stone to represent the kingdom and people of God, see the notes on Is. xxviii. 16 (vol. 2 p. 155) and the commen tary on Ps. cxvifi. 22. The antithesis to the insignificant stone referred to here, on which, however, there are seven eyes, is found in the large mountain mentioned in chap. iv. 7, which represents the power of the world. This stone has nothing to do with the precious stones on the shoulders and breast of the High Priest. It is treated rather as an incipient mountain, as in Dan. ii. 35 (compare Jer. Ii. 63, 64), where the stone also represents the mountain. On the polishing and carving of the rough stone compare Ex. xxviii. 9, 11, and 21, and Michaelis, " I wfil make it into a highly ornamented stone." It consists chiefly in the sending of the Messiah, but without excluding the earlier manifestations of the mercy of God. Through him, according to Haggai's contemporaneous prophecy, (chap. ii. 7 — 10), the second temple was to be fiUed with glory, and to be made more glorious than the first. — Q^ninQ nflD > to open openings, to carve. — gj^Q is transitive in this case, in other cases it is intransitive, recedere. This land ; viz. the land of Judah, which is the only place mentioned here, because, although the reconciliation to be effected by the Messiah was to extend farther ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IV. 835 than this, and even over the whole Gentile world, the prophet's design throughout this prophecy was simply to comfort the troubled minds of his own people. The expression " in one day," where the day is mentioned as the shortest portion of time, im plies that the atonement to be made by the Messiah will not be constantly repeated, like that made by the typical priesthood, but completed in one single action. Ver. 10. " On this day, saith the Lord of Hosts, ye will invite one another under the vine, and under the fig-tree." These words contain a figurative description of the repose, the peace, and the prosperity, which are to follow upon the forgive ness of sins obtained by the Messiah. The original passage is in Micah iv. 4. 5. THE CANDLESTICK AND THE TWO OLIVE TREES. (Chapter iv.) We must imagine a pause between this vision and the one before it. The interpreter had left the prophet for a short time, and the latter had come back from his ecstacy into the condition of ordinary consciousness. The weakness of human nature, and its inability to bear a vision of supersensual objects for any length of time, had been made manifest in his case ; as they afterwards were in that of Peter and his companions, who could not help falling asleep during tfie transfiguration of Clirist (Luke ix. 32). " And the angel that talked with me," the prophet says in ver. 1, " came again and waked me as a man that is wakened out of his sleep." We have here the deepest insight into the state in whicli the prophets were, during their prophecies, as compared with their ordinary condition. The two bear the same relation to each other as sleep and waking. A man's ordinary state, in which he is under the control of the senses, and unable to raise his spiritual eye to tfie contemplation of divine objects, is one of spiritual sleep ; but an ecstatic condition, in which the senses with the whole lower fife were quiescent, and only pictures of divine objects were reflected in the soul, as in a pure and un tarnished mirror, was one of spiritual waking. This explanation, 336 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS l.N TH122 means a talent, the largest weight in use among the Hebrews. The sense in which the word fc$tM occurs in ver. 9 shows that the proper rendering is, " a talent of lead was lifted up." ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 1 — 8. 345 infer that the prophet is describing a past event, namely, the captivity of the Jews in Babylon, and not predicting a future one. But such a supposition is thoroughly untenable. All the rest of Zechariah's visions relate to the future. Why should this be the sole exception ? In the vision immediately preced ing this, a coming judgment is foretold. Why should this relate to times gone by ? Moreover, the sojourn in Shinar, mentioned in ver. 11, is represented as of long duration and final in its character, in contrast with the other which was but short. Forced explanations, such as these and others like them, only betray a want of acquaintance with the essential character of the prophetic visions, and the custom, which the prophets adopted in consequence, of representing future events by images drawn from the past, and at the same time transferring to the former the names which belonged to the latter. We have a striking example of this custom in the case before us, an example, not only which cannot be set aside by any objections, but which serves to rebut many of the attacks upon the genuineness of the second part, to which the ignorance referred to has given rise. The future dwelling place ofthe Jews, who were to be banished from their country, is caUed by the name of the land in which they were captives before, just as in chap. x. 11, their future oppressors are caUed by tfie names of Assyria and Egypt. ' 8. THE FOUR CHARIOTS. (Chap. vi. 1—8). This vision is closely connected with the preceding one, so far as the actual substance is concerned. As the Lord has judged his unfaithful nation, so wiU he also judge the heathen world, which raises itseH in hostifity to his kingdom. Compare the more detailed remarks in chaps, xii. — xiv. In these we find the parallels to this vision. In fact there is a remarkable parallelism, throughout, between the visions of the first part and the prophe cies of the second, which we shall aUude to more fully by and by. Let us now look more particularly at the form, in which this revelation is communicated to the prophet. 346 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. He sees four chariots (verse 1). He is instructed as to their meamng by the interpreter, who teUs him, " these are the four winds of heaven, which go forth, after they have stood serving before the Lord of the whole earth." The less intelfigible sym bol of tfie four chariots is explained by the weU understood, and clearly defined symbol of the winds, the meaning of which could be easily discovered, especially from Zechariah's immediate pre decessors. Tfie four, winds of heaven serve as symbols of the divine judgments. The judgments of God which break forth on aU sides are represented in Jeremiah also (chap. xlix. 36) under the image of the four winds : " and upon Elam wiU I bring the four winds from the four quarters of heaven, and will scatter them towards aU those winds." In Dan. vii. 2, the four winds of heaven are described as being " let loose upon the Great Sea," — a representation of the judgments to be executed by the great conquerors ofthe world. In Eev. vii. 1, four angels are said to " stand at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth," indicating that the tempests of the divine judgments wiU break forth on every side. And, lastly, in Ezek. i. 4, the violent storm from the north denotes the judg ment, which issues from Babylon and faUs upon Judah. — According to ver. 5, the four winds come from " the Lord of the whole earth." We must therefore imagine the mountains as surrounding the dweUing place of God. The fact that the mountains are said to be of brass is a clear proof of their ideal character, and therefore of the error into which many have faUen, who suppose that the allusion is to Zion and Moriah, whereas in reality these mountains never occur in the Scriptures in such a connexion. The article shows, that the mountains have aHeady been mentioned elsewhere. And it can hardly refer to any thing else than the words of the 125th Psalm, which was sung at the very time when the building of the temple was interrupted, " round about Jerusalem are mountains, and the Lord is round about his people." By these words the mountains round Jeru salem were constituted a symbol of tfie divine protection, which is extended over his Church. Hence, the mountains are the spiritual mountains of the divine protection, which are said in Ps. cxxv. to be round about his people. The fact that there are two mountains shows that they are protected on both sides. They are said to be of brass, to indicate that the Lord surrounds his ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 1 — 8. 347 kingdom with a protecting waU of impregnable strength. And finaUy, that the description is figurative throughout, and cannot be understood as announcing that the temple wiU be still standing, at the time when the judgments faU upon the nations of the earth, is evident partly from this description of the mountains, and partly from the previous chapter, where we find the predic tion that Jerusalem wiU be completely destroyed, and the people led away into captivity before the destruction of the nations commences. The colour of the horses is just as significant in this passage as in chap. i. It indicates tfiat tfie chariots are destined to exe cute judgment upon the enemies of God. Tfie meaning of three of the colours is evident enough. As we have shown at chap, i., red is the colour of blood, black of mourning, and white indicates a glorious victory over tfie enemies of the kingdom of God. From these analogies it necessarily foUows, that the colour ofthe speckled horses must also have a meamng. The word literally means hail-like (Gousset : xaXa&vp.evoi, grandinati h. e.punctis notati quasi grandineis globulis). Hail in the Scriptures is frequently employed as a figurative representation of the divine judgments, which faU upon the ungodly. Compare Bev. viii. 7 (where the seer beholds the devastations of war, which overtake the ungodly world, concentrated into a great hail-storm) ; Ezek. xiii. 11 ; Is. xxxii. 19 ; and Eev. xvi. 21. After the description of the colour of the horses belonging to the fourth chariot, there follows a second predicate, o^ftft. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of this word ; it can only signify powerful. Now from the position in which the horses of the fourth chariot stand, this predicate cannot apply to them in contrast with those of the other three chariots, but must in fact belong equaUy to the whole ; although only formally connected with the fourth. This is confirmed by ver. 7, wfiere the same predicate is appfied in a peculiar manner to the horses of the first chariot, in accordance with the position in which they stand. After obtaining from the interpreter an answer to his question, as to the meaning of the four chariots (vers. 4, 5), the prophet proceeds to describe the direction which, by his inward sight, he saw them take. " The chariot with the black horses went to the 348 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. north country, and the white followed them, and the speckled went to the south country. And when the strong ones went forth, fney desired ti 170 through the ivhole earth, and the Lord said, depujfiTand go through the earth, and they went through the earth." The difficulty, by which commentators have been induced to resort to the moat forced interpretations, arises from the fact that the black horses of the second chariot are men tioned first, and the red horses of the first chariot appear to be entirely overlooked. But on closer examination the difficulty vanishes. The red horses of the first chariot are ihe strong ones1 mentioned here (the principal cause of the mistakes into wliich the commentators have faUen is their having overlooked the article) ; the strong ones, that is those in comparison with which the others were to be regarded as weak, although in themselves they were really strong and this epithet had aHeady been appfied to some of them, in other words, the strongest among them. They are mentioned last, because in the consciousness of their strength they were not content, like the rest, with one particular portion of the earth, but asked permission of the Lord to go through the whole earth. The idea intended to be expressed is, that the judgment was to be a universal one, and not a single portion of the earth was to be spared. The chariot with the black horses and the one with- the white both go to the north country. There must be a reason for this quarter being expressly mentioned, and for the two chariots going thither. The inhabitants of the north country, — an expression applied throughout to the Babylonians and Assyrians {vid. chap. ii. 10, 11), — had been in past times the most dangerous enemies of the covenant-nation. Hence the prophet uses them as a type of the future enemies of the Church. Shinar is employed in the same way in the previous chapter, as a type and figure. Pretty nearly the same may be said of the south country. To the south of Palestine dwelt the Egyptians (Dan. xi. 5), the first 1 To Hofmann' s question, " how do we know that the red horses were the strongest?" it is a sufficient reply, that the red alone remained, and that it was all the more impossible that they could be overlooked, since they took the lead in the whole series. They must, therefore, of necessity be tacitly implied in the strong ones, and this is confirmed by the fact that if the horses of all the four chariots were strong, it might be presupposed, that those of the first chariot would be the strong among the strong. ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 9 — 15. 349 oppressors of the people of God, who are classed by Zechariah on other occasions with the enemies from the north, as a type of the future enemies of the nation (compare chap. x. 10, 11). The fact that only one chariot goes to .them represents "them as com paratively less steeped in guilt, their oppression appearing in a less glaring light on account of the distance of time. The vision concludes with an explanation, given by the Lord to the prophet, of the reason why the chariots are sent away. " Behold, those that go to the north country quiet my spirit in the north country." We have no right to substitute wrath for spirit, on the ground of such passages as Ezek. v. 13, xvi. 42. The Spirit of God is introduced in chap. iv. 6, 7, and Eev. i. 4, as the power which sustains the weakness of the Church and removes all the hindrances that the world places in its way. According to Is. iv. 4 it is by the Spirit that the Lord executes his judg ments on the earth. This Spirit of God is quieted in tfie north country, with regard to its operations and the manifestations of its power, namely, the judgments which it executes there. The necessity for this closing explanation arose from the fact that the symbol of the chariots had been explained in ver. 5, not in a literal manner, but by a figure, wliich was less obscure, no doubt, than the symbol, but stfil required a further elucidation, the design throughout being to furnish the means of obtaining such a clue to the meaning of the symbol, as should be unexcep- tionaUy certain. The explanation applies, it is true, directly to only one quarter, and that the quarter which, as we have aHeady observed, was the principal mark of the judgments of God. But the prophet could easily infer from this, what must be the desti nation of the others, which were sent out under similar circum stances. 9. THE CROWN ON JOSHUA'S HEAD. (Chap. vi. 9—15). The future history of the kingdom of God, which the prophet had just described, and the judgment upon both the former people of the covenant and the other nations of the earth, had 350 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. their origin and source in the promised " Anointed of the Lord," whose appearance is presupposed. That the attention of the prophet, and consequently that of the nation, maybe directed to Him, He is presented once more to tfie prophet's inward sight towards the close of bis ecstatic condition ; and, as the last words show, with this pleasant and at the same time terrible image, the whole series of visions, the contents of which in some way or other all referred to Him, are brought to a close. The section consists of seven verses, divided into three and four, the first portion containing tfie symbolical action, the second the interpretation. There is a close connexion with the previous visions, as the absence of any reference to a difference of time sufficiently shows. And the opening words, " it came to pass," lead to the same conclusion. But it does not stand on a perfect equality with the previous sections, as we may see from the double number four, which serves to show that they are complete in themselves, an arrangement which there is less reason for regarding as pos sibly accidental, on account of the new commencement being clearly pointed out in the case of the second section in chap. iv. 1, and also from the fact that there is no vision in this case, and therefore no interpreter, but a direct message from the Lord, containing instructions to perform a symbolical action. Ver. 9. " And the word of the Lord came to me : (Ver. 10) Take from the captives from Cheldai, from Tobiah, from Jedaiah, going on that day into the house of Josiah, the son of Zephaniah, whither they are come from Babylon ; (Ver. 11) take silver and gold and make crowns, and place them on the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the High Priest." Tfie Jews, who had remained behind in Babylon in great numbers, when they heard of the recommencement of the build ing of the temple, which had taken place five months before, sent messengers to Jerusalem with contributions. This is not necessarily implied, it is true, in the expression " of the captives," or of the exiles, in ver. 10 ; for n^n Is sometimes applied in the Book of Ezra, not to those who were still in exile, but to those who had already returned, and who are commonly caUed " the sons of the captives." But it clearly foUows from the close of ver. 10, where it is expressly stated that the persons men- ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 9 — 11. 351 tioned had come from Babylon, and where the name of their host in Jerusalem is given.1 It is also implied in ver. 15. The representatives of the " captives" are there exhibited, as a type of the distant heathen nations, who would one day be actively engaged in promoting the erection of the temple, or church of God. But this type vanishes, if we understand the captivity as meaning the exiles who had long since returned. In ver. 10 we have, first of aU, tfie simple infinitive'j-pp^, a sign that further details are to foUow. As the verb is separated from its object by a particular account of those, from whom the things referred to were to be taken, it is repeated for the sake of greater perspi cuity. n^l^H nN)D 1S placed before the names of the different individuals, to show that they had not come on their own account, but as representatives and messengers of a whole body, namely, of the Jews who were still in exile ; just as Sherezer and Eegem- melech are introduced in chap. vii. 2 as the messengers of the Jews of Palestine, and say in the name of the whole nation, " shall I weep," &c. (ver. 3). The representative character of the individuals referred to had an important bearing upon the object, which the prophet had in view. It was only in this character, that they could fitly be used as a type of the heathen nations. From ver. 14, where the crowns are said to be placed upon the heads of the persons named for a memorial, Maurer and others would infer that the gifts were presented by those who brought them. But all that can be gathered from this verse is, that they were the spiritual centre of the whole trans action, and had probably contributed the largest proportion of the collection that had been made. Moreover, as the j-j^"U was not an organised body, the deputation must not be regarded as having been formally appointed. The " wise men from the East" were delegates from the heathen world, though they had not received any formal appointment. — In the prophet's estima tion the names of the messengers are just as typical as their persons. He regards them as indicative of the distinguishing 1 It is a decisive objection to the rendering " and of Josiah, the son of Zephaniah, who are come from Babylon, going into the house ofthe latter," which makes Josiah one of the messengers, that in this case he could not have had a house in Jerusalem. It will subsequently appear, however, that the host was a party concerned. 352 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. characteristics of those, whom the individuals themselves repre sented, and of the blessings they were destined to receive. This is apparent from ver. 14. Two of the representatives are caUed there by different names from those mentioned here ; though they have precisely the same signification, i-p^n (Cheldai) the robust (from -p?n = «>J^ perennavit, sempiternus fuit, vegeta viridique senectute fuit),1 is caUed there Q^jn the strong, from O^pj to be strong. Josiah (" God founds or supports"), from pj^j^ _*_ tiJUJN t° foun(^i from which pptl)N> a support (Jer. 1. 15), is derived, is caUed there fn favour (cf. chap. iv. 7, xii. 10 ; Zechariah uses the word *pj exclusively with reference to the grace of God). The change, which is intentionally made in the first and last names, is designed to show that the names are not used as current coin, but are to be taken in their primary signi fication. No further proof need be given that the other names, Tobiah (goodness of God),2 Jedaiah (God knows), and Zepha- niah (God conceals, Ps. cxxvii. 5), were also adapted to the prophet's design. — On ^nr~T D^ Michaelis justly observes : " On that day, namely the day on which thou art to perform what I now command. Perhaps God had fixed a particular day in the vision, which the prophet did not think it so neces sary to mention in his account of the vision itself." — Take silver and gold and make crowns. The prophet is to ask for as much of the silver and gold, which they had brought with them, as would be required to carry out the instructions given by the Lord. Commentators differ as to the number of crowns to be made. The majority are in favour of two, on the ground that otherwise the type would not correspond to the fact, or to the prophecy which follows, in which the combination of the royal and high-priestly dignity in the person of the Messiah is announced. But Marck has said with perfect justice in reply to this argument: "ad sacerdotium cogitandum non ducit heic corona, sed persona et munus Josuae." We cannot see why 1 That the primary meaning of -]^jpj is that of duration has been already shown at Ps. xvii. 14. Jeuhari days : de homine dicitur "^pj quando per- sistit et viget. 2 Jod in proper names is usually a connecting vowel and not a suffix. ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 9 — 11. 353 another type should be introduced of the very same thing, of which Joshua himself was a type already, as chap. iii. expressly shows. Moreover, there is not the slightest intimation of there being two crowns ; — certainly not in the fact that there were two metals, which might just as weU be made into one crown, or even into several, as into two. — Lastly, it is very questionable whether the head-dress of the high priest could be called n~!tC57> t t — ; (a crown) , a name which is never applied to it. The choice, there fore, lies between two opinions ; the first, that only one crown was to be made ; the other, that there were several. The plural j-yi^I2J7 cannot be adduced in support of the latter. For the plural may properly serve to show the glory of the crown ; or may be explained from the fact that kings of kings had a dif ferent crown from ordinary monarchs, namely one composed of several crowns or diadems. The plural is undoubtedly used for one crown in Job xxxi. 36 : "I wiU bind it on me as a crown," where a composite crown must necessarily be alluded to, just as in Bev. xix. 12 {Kai eirl ttjv KecpaXr/v axnov BtaBijpiaTa iroXXd) Christ is said to wear, not many separate diadems, but many diadems joined together as a sign of his royal dignity. The use . of the word A taroth, as the name of a city, is also a proof that the plural was appfied to one crown. The description of Sama ria, in Is. xxviii. 1, as a crown of glory, corresponds to this. We are also led to the conclusion that there was but one crown, partly by the fact that a plurality would be both unmeaning and unsuitable, partly by the command to place it on the head of one man, Joshua, and partly also by the singular verb which fol lows the plural ]-p,-^y in ver. 14, though the latter alone would not be decisive. — Thus far we have simply a prophecy embodied in a symbohcal action.1 Let us inquire how much of this would be intelligible to Joshua and his enfigfitened contemporaries, apart from the verbal prophecy, which follows. It must fiave been perfectly clear, that the crowning denoted the conferring of royal dignity. But with this the idea, that the acted prophecy 1 Why was the crown not placed upon Zerubbabel'shead ? In that case the leading idea, namely, the union of the royal and high-priestly dignity, would not have been expressed. But could not the priestly diadem have been placed upon Zerubbabel? Certainly, but Zerubbabel was not a king. He could not, therefore, have represented the royal dignity of the Messiah in his own person, as Joshua represented his high-priestly character. VOL. III. Z 354 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. related to him as an individual, completely vanished. The royal government could never be diverted from the family of David, without setting at nought the promises of God, which had been given to him. Joshua, therefore, could have no doubt that the crown was placed upon his head as the type of another. Who this was, could not possibly be to him a matter of doubt, since he had shortly before been greeted as the type of the Messiah (chap. iii.), and the Melchizedek-priesthood ofthe Messiah, that is, the union in his person of the two characters of high-priest and king, had been already announced to David (Ps. ex.). But if any uncertainty remained, it was removed by the verbal prophecy which followed. The object of this was to explain the previous symbolical action in two respects, first, as to tfie meaning of Joshua's coronation, and, secondly, as to the reason, why the material, of which this crown was composed, was to be obtained from the messengers and representatives of the brethren at a distance. The explanation of the first is contained in ver. 12, 13, that of the second in ver. 14, 15. Ver. 12. "And say to him: thus saith the Lord of hosts : behold there is a man, whose name is The Sprout, and from his place he will sprout up and build the temple of the Lord." The prophecy is placed by the side of the symbolical action as if it was independent of it, though the meaning is precisely the same. p^pj points to the Messiah as if he were present, and caUs to Joshua, who represented him in name as weU as office, to fix his mental eye upon him. The manner in which the word pjj^ is introduced here, viz., as a proper name of the Messiah, though with a direct allusion to its Hteral meaning as is apparent from what foUows, points back to earfier pro phecies, in which the Messiah is represented as a Sprout of David to be raised up by the Lord, and particularly to that of Jeremiah (see the remarks on chap. iii.). fyfflp "ppiHfVD *s explanatory of pi£2. The great promised One wiU rightfully bear the name of Sprout ; for he himself wiU sprout up joyfully, and for that very reason it will ' also sprout forth under him. There is only one other passage in which vnnno °ccurs> ™-> Ex. x. 23 : " And they did not rise up, every one from under him," that is, from that whicli he had under him. The mean- ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 12. 355 ing in this passage, therefore, is "from under him" equivalent to " from his place." Alting understands it as referring " both to the nation (from the house of David, Judah, and Abraham, to whom the promises were made), and also to the country." The expression, " he will sprout up from his soil" denotes the prosperity of Christ. At the same time, it presupposes the low liness, from which he will first rise by degrees to glory. There are some who do not take the Messiah to be the subject of TOS"1' e.g., Luther, " it will grow under him ;" Calov, "under him and his kingdom everything wiU spring up and flourish." But this is incorrect. The introduction of a different subject from the noun immediately preceding is in itself objectionable ; and the paraUel passage in Jeremiah, which the prophet had before his mind (chap, xxxiii. 15), " behold I cause a righteous Sprout to sprout up unto David," is a proof that, as it is the Messiah, whom the Lord there causes to sprout up, it is also the Messiah, who is described as sprouting up in the passage before us. Moreover, in the rendering referred to, the ^ m "Pnnn?D> which cannot mean "under him," is overlooked. — He builds the temph of the Lord. That there can be no reference here to the building of the outward temple, as Jewish commentators have dreamt, has been very clearly shown by Reuss (in the learned dissertation, qua orac. Zach. vi. 12, 13, expl, in his coUected works, vol. i. p. 1 — 156). The building of an outward temple is never ascribed to the Messiah. In chap. iv. 10, the prophet promises in the name of God, that the temple, which had been begun by Zerubbabel, should also be completed by him, and according to his predecessor Haggai (chap. ii. 7 — 9) and fiis successor Malachi (chap. Hi. 1), this same temple was to be glorified by the presence of the Messiah. StiU the building of the temple, and the high-priesthood of the Messiah, must stand in a certain relation to each other. If, then, the purification to be effected by the latter was not of an outward, but an inward character, and if this was to be accompfished not by the blood of animals, but by the blood of the High Priest himself, a fact of which the prophet could not have been ignorant after his diligent study of the earfier prophecies {cf. Is. liii.), and with which chap. xii. and xiii. actuaUy prove him to have been weU z 2 356 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. acquainted, — so also here, when the prophet is led by the build ing of the temple, which was in progress at the time, to speak of the M£ssiah^s__£grtorming a similar work, his words must be underst'ood figuratively, especially as it was a common custom witfi him to start from the shadow of the good things to come, and then rise to the good things themselves, to set forth the future under the figure of the present, and apply to things, that had yet to come, the names which reaUy belonged to those already in existence. — :Moreover it is to be observed, that it is not stated here that the Messiah will build a temple to the Lord, but the temple of the Lord. Thus the temple is repre sented as still in existence, and always the same, but destined to be elevated by the Messiah to a state of glory, surpassing any that had ever been thought of before. Let us examine now, in what sense the building of a temple is ascribed to the Messiah. Under the Old Testament, the temple was the seat of the king dom of God ; it was in this, and not in the waUs, or any other outward thing connected with it, that the very idea of the temple consisted. And for that reason, it was admirably adapted to be the type and figurative representation of the kingdom of God itseff, that is of the Church, which did not commence with the coming of Christ, but was essentiaUy the same under both the Old and New Testaments.1 Solomon and Zerubbabel had helped to build this temple ; inasmuch as their outward efforts pro ceeded from faith, and were directed not to the outward edifice, to the shell merely, but to the kernel, which continued to exist, when the sheU had long been destroyed. For proofs that the tabernacle and temple bore a symbolical character, and were symbols of the kingdom of God in Israel, see the remarks in the present volume on Zech. xl. — xlviii. With Ezekiel, who had depicted the restoration of the kingdom of God under the form of the restoration and glorification of the temple, Zechariah is closely connected ; and in chap. vii. 2, fie calls the congregation the house of God. Ver. 13. " And he will build the temple of the Lord, and he 1 " The temple of God is one, namely the Church of the saved, originating in the promise given in paradise, and lasting to the end of the world." Cocceius. ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 13. 357 will wear majesty ; and he sits and rules upon his throne, and is prince upon his throne, and the counsel of peace ivill be be tween them both." The repetition of the expression, "and he wiU build the temple," is not uncaUed for. In this instance the words refer to the clause which follows, " and he wiU wear majesty ;" as the word Nipfli wmch ^ repeated in the two clauses, clearly shows. They caU attention to the fact that the Messiah, who will be clothed with majesty, may be expected to build a far nobler temple, to glorify the kingdom of God in a far higher degree, than the poor and lowly Zerubbabel, and his companion in lowfi- ness, Joshua. They opened, therefore, a plenteous source of consolation for those who mourned over the weak and insignifi cant origin of the new colony ; they turned their attention away from the miserable present and directed it to a glorious future. — The words, " he will wear majesty," are explanatory of tfie symbolical act of placing the crown upon Joshua's head, -ppj is used to denote royal majesty in particular ; vide 1 Chr. xxix. 25, "and the Lord magnified Solomon, and bestowed upon him royal majesty and glory (fy^E Tin)' which had not been on any king before him ;" Dan. xi. 21, "to whom they shall not give royal majesty" (pfi^ft Tin) i also ^eT- xx^- 18 ; Ps. xxi. 6, and viii. 6, where man is represented as appointed by God to be an under-king. And in the passage before us the reference to the symbolical action, as weU as what follows, show that it is in this special sense that the word has been employed. Many render the clause, " he wiU receive majesty," and Reuss has taken great pains to defend this rendering. But there are many other passages, in which majesty and glory are represented as some thing worn by rulers, something existing upon their heads, with special reference to the insignia oi royalty, namely the crown. See, for example, in addition to tfie passages just cited from the Chronicles, Daniel, and the Psalms, Num. xxvii. 20, "thou be- stowest on him of thy glory Tnpjft-" Such a description was all the more natural here, since the prophet had Joshua before him at the time, wearing on fiis head the crown, the insignia oi royalty. In what follows, the expression, "he will wear majesty," is more fuUy carried out. There is first the royal supremacy. 358 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. Then the kingly glory is heightened, by the fact that the dignity of High Priest is associated with that of King. The expressions "he sits" and "he rules" differ in this respect: the former denotes the possession of the honour and dignity of a king, the latter the actual exercise of royal authority. — The suffix in ^p2 is supposed by many, particularly Vitringa (obss. s. 1. p. 317) and Reuss to refer to Jefiovah. But the close connection between the first and second INDS-1^ *s thereby overlooked. This con nection shows that the emphasis is not to be laid upon the suffix, but that the prophet's intention was to give especial prominence to the idea that the Messiah would be both King and High Priest, upon one and the same throne. This truth was a very consola tory one to the covenant nation. It furnished a guarantee that its future head would have both the power and will to assist. As a true High Priest the Messiah was to appear before God as the representative of his people, and procure for them the for giveness of sins. This the prophet himself has already more fully announced in chap. iii. As a true king, of whose glory all that preceded him had been but a very imperfect type, he was to protect them when forgiven, and in general to bestow upon them all the blessings, which God had appointed for them. In the primary passage also (Ps. ex.), the glorious kingdom of the Messiah is mentioned first, and then his fiigfi-priesthood. Ac cording to the irrevocable decree of God he is not only a King, he is also a High Priest for ever, and as such he cleanses his people from their sins. — Hitzig and others render the words, " and there is a priest upon his throne ;" and regard it as an announcement of the fact, that a glorious High Priest wiU arise by the side of the Messiah. But it is a sufficient reply to this, that the mere mention of a priest would convey no meaning what ever. The reference in this case would not be to a High Priest at all, — moreover, he could not even be the subject of prophecy, for he was then in existence, — still less to a glorious High Priest. — Different explanations have been given of the words "between them both" in the last clause of the verse. It is a very ancient and widely spread idea that the true meaning is, " between the sprout and Jehovah." (Jerome mentions it, and Cocceius, Vitringa, Reuss, and others have adopted it). On the other hand, in the opinion of a very considerable num- ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 13. 359 ber (Jerome, Marck, Michaelis, &c), the reference is to the two offices or persons of the High Priest and the King, which were to be united in the Messiah. The latter is to be preferred. The objection offered to this, namely, that the King has not been expressly mentioned before, has no force ; for the Messiah has been pointed out clearly .enough as King. There is nothing surprising in the fact, that a distinction should be made between the Messiah as King, and the Messiah as High Priest ; for it is evidently based upon the previous state of tilings, in which the two offices, associated together in the Messiah, were administered by two persons. But what decides the question is, that this is the only explanation, which places the words in their proper connexion with the main object of the prophecy ; namely, the union of the offices of Higfi Priest and King in the person of the Messiah ; to which we must add, the two referred to must necessarily be the two last named. Hence it could only be by mistaking the reference intended in the suffix of ifc$D3' that Jehovah could be regarded as one of them. — There are different views again as to tfie meamng of ?i'?^ r&y- Jerome) and several after him (e.g., Michaelis and Maurer), explain the words as referring to the harmony between the two offices, as united in the Messiah, in contradistinction to the discord which often prevailed between them to the great disadvantage of the kingdom of God, when they were administered by different individuals. The Berleburger Bible says, " And there will be a counsel of peace and pleasant harmony, as when on consulta tion counsellors are of one mind and opinion." Others again regard \y}y$} as a gen. objecti, " consultation concerning peace," i.e., concerning the acquisition, impartation, or reception of it. There is a similar expression in Is. liii. 5, " the chastisement of our peace," equivalent to the chastisement, which has for its ob ject our peace, and also in Zech. viii. 16. It is difficult to decide between these two explanations. Peace frequently occurs in Zechariah as an interchangeable term with salvation, e.g., chap. viii. 10, 12, and also as an equivalent1 to peaceableness, e.g., chap. vifi. 19. The former gives a more emphatic meaning, and 1 " Et consilium pacificum erit inter utrumque, ut nee regale fastigium sacerdotalem deprimat dignitatem, nee sacerdotii dignitas regale fastigium, sed in unius gloria domini Jesu utrumque consentiat." 360 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. is favoured by the fact that injurious contentions between the King and High Priest are hardly heard of in early times. The prophet, then, represents the Messiah as King, and the Messiah as High Priest, as consulting together respecting the best means of securing peace and salvation for the covenant nation. If com bined efforts to promote the good of the nation, such as had been already seen as an imperfect type in the case of Joshua and Zerub babel, had been followed by such beneficial results, what might be expected, when the true High Priest and true King, the Messiah, should strive earnestly to attain this end, and shoidd devote to that purpose all the means, afforded by the two offices, which were concentrated in his person. Ver. 14. " And the crown shall be to Chelem, and Tobiah, and Chen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the Lord." The prophet now passes on to an explanation of another feature in the symbolical action, namely, the circumstance, that the materials for the crown were to be obtained from the mes sengers and representatives of the Jews who lived at a distance from their native land. The crowns were to serve as a memorial of them, and, as may be seen from what foUows, principaUy on account of the typical significance of the whole transaction. The sight of the crown (or, if the whole was purely ideal, their mental perception of it) brought before the minds of aU the fact, that those who had dedicated it were types, both in their names and condition, of the heathen, who would one day come with haste from distant lands, as they had done, and with the greatest readiness do aU they could, to ornament the temple and advance the kingdom of God. Thus the crown was for a memorial " to Chelem and the rest," in a much higher sense than was ordinarily tfie case with presents to the temple. — There were only three delegates from Babylon, but the crown served quite as much for a memorial to Josiah, who had given them a hospitable reception in Jerusalem. For he formed quite as essential a part of the typical representation as any of the others. The host represents the elect of Israel, the guests are types of " those that are far off"-* 1 There is room to doubt, whether the act enjoined upon the prophet in this vision was afterwards really performed by him. The account given by ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 15. 361 Ver. 15. " And those that are far off will come and build at the temple of the Lord, and ye learn that the Lord of Sabaoth hath sent me unto you ; and it cometh to pass, if ye will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God." . . . After what has been said as to the temple-building on the part of the Messiah, no special explanation need be given, of what is meant by the participation of those that are far off, viz., the heathen in distant lands {vide chap. ii. 15, viii. 20, 22, ix. 10 ; Is. Ix. 10, &o), in the building of the temple (1 Pet. ii. 5). — " And ye learn, &c :" the result, the active participation of the heathen in the setting up of the kingdom of God, would furnish a proof of the divine origin of what had here been predicted in word and deed. — The last clause has frequently been misinter preted. Jerome says: "fient autem omnia, quae promissa sunt, si dominum audire voluerint, et acta poznitentia in bonis operibus manserint." Theodoret : Tama Be} (prjcrlv, earai, Kai to Ttpoar\KOV BefjeTai trepan, idv -v/j,ei<; tois Oeioi<; viraKOvcrr)Te Xoyots. And Maurer expresses himself to the same effect. But if this were correct, we should have, what never occurs and in fact would be absurd, the coming of the Messiah, and parti cularly the participation ofthe heathen in his kingdom, made to depend upon the faithfulness of the covenant-nation. To escape this difficulty, others, such as Marck for example, connect ppm with the clause immediately preceding: " this (your discerning the Divine character of my mission) wiU take place, if ye are obedient to the Lord." But it is only in appearance, that this removes the difficulty. For tfie words, " ye will learn," are equi valent to ye wiU have an opportunity of learning ; and this con tinued true, even in the case of those who wilfully closed their the Talmudists (Middoth, iii. 8), of the place in the temple, where the crown had been suspended, certainly does very little to prove the affirmative. On the other hand, ver. 11 tends rather to prove that this was not the case, for the prophet can hardly have been a goldsmith, and yet he is ordered to make the crown. This might, however, be understood as meaning that he was to have it made. A still stronger proof may be found in the prevailing character of Zechariah's prophecies, in which there is so little that is external. And, as in the case of Ezekiel, this creates so strong a presumption that the trans action was not an outward one, that it can only be set aside by the most cogent arguments. And lastly, we may adduce, as still 'more specific, the analogy of the whole symbolical transaction in chap, xi., which must have passed within that sphere of spiritual perception, to which all the visions in this section belong. 362 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. eyes. But the absence of the pronoun ought to have led the commentators to adopt another explanation, viz., that we have here an example of aposiopesis, which gives a pecuHarly emphatic sense. In aacfition to the perfectly analogous passage in chap. vii. 7 of this same book, we may find similar examples in 2 Sam. ii. 27, v. 8, Ps. lxxxi. 9 (compare my commentary), and in the New Testament, e.g. Luke xiii. 9 : Kav p,ev ¦n-oitjay Kapirov, el Be p,ijye, et? to p,eXXov iKKoyfrets aiiTijv. There is the more reason for adopting such a conclusion, since it is one of the peculiarities by which Zechariah is distinguished from all the other prophets, that he so frequently uses ppm to introduce a sentence. "If ye wiU hearken to the voice of the Lord, then ... ye shaU participate in aU these blessings, and the Messiah wiU make atonement for you as your High Priest, and promote your prosperity as your King." With these words of earnest admonition, the exposition of which is contained in chap. v. and xi., the prophet closes this particular prophecy, and at the same time the whole connected series of revelations, which he received during this remarkable night. We have now to add an outline of the history of the interpre tation of this prophecy. In the earfier writings of the Jews we may stiU find proofs, that the Messianic interpretation was the one generally adopted by them. In the Chaldee paraphrase it is introduced into the translation, "behold there the man, Messiah is his name, he will be revealed and glorified." In Breschit Babba (quoted by Raim. Martini p. 155, 759) these words occur, " E. Barachias adduces this: God says to the Israelites, ye say to me, we are orphans and have no father. The God, whom I raise up to you, has also no father, as we read in Zech. vi. 12, ' behold there is a man by name Zerhach, he will shoot forth under himself ;' and as it is also stated in Is. liii. 3, ' he springeth up before him as a plant.' " In Echa Eabbati, an old commentary, or a kind of catena, on the Lamentations, in the summary of the names of the.Messiah in Raim. Martini p. 880, we read, " Joshua ben Levi said, he is caUed sprout, as it is said in Zech. vi. 12 ;" for other passages see Schottgen, hor. hebr. ii. p. 219 sqq. 104, 422, also his " Jesus der wahre Messias," ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 9 15. 363 p. 402. At the same time it must not be overlooked, that, even before the period when efforts were intentionally made to distort and pervert all the Messianic prophecies, the whole of this prophecy was sometimes explained as referring to Joshua and Zerubbabel. We may learn from Jerome, in what way this meaning was introduced into the text. The sprout was supposed to be Zerubbabel ; but, as it could not be shown that in his case there was any combination of the royal and high-priestly dignity, to get rid of the difficulty it was assumed that in ver. 13 there was a change in the subject at the verb ppm : be, Zerubbabel, t t : will sit and rule upon his throne, and there wiU also be a priest, Joshua, upon his throne, " but the High Priest Jesus (Joshua), the son of Jozedech, wiU also sit on his priestly throne, and with one mind and united counsels they will govern the people of God. And there will be peace between these two, i.e., between the one who is of the royal tribe and the one who is descended from the Levitical race, that the people of God may be equaUy governed by the priest and king." The innocent occasion of this exposi tion, which was so welcome to most of the modern Jewish expositors from their doctrinal prejudices, is to be found in tfie words, " he wfil build the temple of the Lord." As the com mentators failed to perceive that the prophet leaves the shadow here, the building of the outward temple which was then going on, and which he regarded as the type of the erection of another and more glorious one, just as the leaders Joshua and Zerub babel were types of the spiritual architect who was afterwards to come, and passes to the substance, they imagined that these words precluded any reference to the Messiah, and were sufficient to prove that Zerubbabel was intended, seeing that he had already been mentioned in chap. iv. 9 as the builder of the temple. The pernicious effect of this misunderstanding, for which there was aU the less ground in the case of Zechariah, since it is so common a custom with him to ascend from the shadow to the substance, may be seen in some of the commentators of the Christian Church. Theodoret, for example, says, Taina Be airavTa irepl tov ZopoftdfieX irpoayopevei, ovx <*>? p.nBeiroi rex6evTo<;, dXX' &>? firjBeiro) tt)v r)yepLoviav irapeiXrjcjiOTO'i ; and Eusebius writes to the same effect (demonstr. 4, 17). This 364 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. mistake was the more pardonable in their case, as the misinter pretation of ver. 13, which is connected with this exposition, was favoured by the Septuagint version, to the use of which they were restricted. The translators, for example, probably sharing this mistake, render the clause, "and he is priest upon his throne," by koX eaTai 6 iepei><; e'« Be^twv avTov, thus making the king, who is high priest as weU, into a king with a high priest standing at his side. We should expect, at the outset, that Grotius would lay hold with both hands of the plausible pretext, afforded him by such predecessors, for rejecting the Messianic exposition. In his opinion, the meaning of the prophecy may be paraphrased thus : " as the house of David has been restored in Zerubbabel, so will the temple (p|Q2P Vnnn!D1 ^e supposes to mean " the temple will spring up under him, under his feet"), of which he wfil lay the first stone, be restored by him. He will also also wear the crown of a prince, and sitting on a throne wiU make laws with senators. A priest also will have a throne in that same senate, and there wfil be the best agreement between the two." Clericus foUowed in the footsteps of Grotius, and in opposition to his own exposition of Jer. xxiii. 5, where he cites this passage as well as chap, iii., as referring to the Messiah, in his translation of Zechariah makes Joshua and Zerubbabel the subject of this prophecy. The same opinion is expressed by the somewhat superficial Calmet. Becently Eichhom and Ewald fiave endeavoured to revive this exposition, without taking the least notice of the complete refutation which it has received from Marck and Reuss (1. a, p. 68 sqq.). There is something peculiar in the manner, in which they get rid of the difficulty that in the symbolical representation the crown is placed upon the head of only one man, Joshua, whereas, according to their interpretation, the prophecy, in which the symbol is explained, refers to two persons, Joshua and Zerubbabel. Eichhom asserts that in ver. 11, after the clause, " and set them upon the head of Joshua, the son of Jozedech, the high priest," the words, "and of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the prince " have faUen out ; and therefore he restores them in his translation. Ewald contents himseff with interpolating " and upon that of Zerubbabel." But the fact, that they are compelled to resort to such an assumption as this, may be regarded as a confession on their own part of the ZECHARIAH, CHAP. VI. 9 — 15. 365 untenable character of the entire exposition, to sustain which it is also necessary to alter "p^N (to him) in the 12th verse into arhx (t° them)- From the whole mass of arguments, wliich might be brought against this explanation, and in defence of the Messianic inter pretation, we simply select a few. (1). The paraUel passages are decisive in favour of the latter ; first oi all chap. iii. 8, where the Messiah is called a sprout, as he is in this passage, and Joshua is expressly referred to as a type of him ; secondly, the prophecies of Jeremiah, already quoted, respecting the Zemach, which the prophet evidently had before his eyes ; and lastly, Ps. ex., the announcement contained in which, respecting the union of the offices of High Priest and King in the person of the Messiah, is simply expanded here. — (2). If the prophecy refers to Joshua and Zerubbabel, it is difficult to see why the crown, the insignia oi government, should be placed upon the head of Joshua, or even granting, though it cannot be proved, that it might also be an emblem of the high-priesthood, why it should not have been placed upon the head of Zerubbabel as well. Surely Joshua could not be a type of Zerubbabel. For what reason can the prophet possibly have had for making a man the representative of his contemporary ? — (3). The rendering, " and there wfil also he a priest upon his throne," for v^i'^ ^T\"\ iND3-,23?> 1S m Itself a very forced one ; moreover the want of harmony to which it gives rise, between the prophecy in symbol and the same prophecy in words, is a sufficient proof that it is not correct. — (4). The sprout cannot refer to Zerubbabel, for the former is represented as something future, and Zerubbabel had already been occupied for eighteen years in connexion with the new colony, and had long ago commenced the building of the temple, which is also announced as belonging to the future. Theodorets reply, that the prophecy relates to his exaltation to new honours, has no force whatever ; for Zerubbabel remained exactly the same after the prophecy as he had been before. The royalty, attributed to the subject of this prophecy, was never conferred upon him. — (5). If the explanation referred to be correct, it is difficult to imagine anything more unmeaning than this solemn propfiecy, with its magnificent promises. Joshua and Zerubbabel (this would be the substance of it) will 366 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. continue as they are ! — (6). The prediction contained in ver. 15, of the admission of the heathen nations into the kingdom of God, a mark of the Messianic era, is completely isolated in this case, and it is impossible to tell how it found its way into the prophecy at aU. Nor can any reason be assigned, why the silver and gold for the crown should be taken from the " captivity ;" and yet it cannot have been without design that this was introduced into a symbolical transaction, in whicli there is nothing else without a meaning. — (7). If we adopt Ewald 's explanation: " two crowns are to be made for the two worthy presidents, not merely to be placed as crowns of honour around the heads of these deserving men, but also as tokens of their Messianic glori fication," we make the prophet himself into a false prophet and miserable dreamer. Even Hitzig has declared himseff opposed to the views advo cated by Eichhorn and Ewald. He observes, in reply to them, that there is not a single example on record of a prophet regard ing a contemporary aHeady in existence as the future Messiah ; and, moreover, that in chap. iii. 8 it is not Zerubbabel's assump tion of the character of Messiah, but the appearance of the Messiah himself, which is represented as a future event. But Hitzig s own explanation is no better than the one which he re jects. In his opinion the coming of two distinct persons is here announced, the Messiah and a glorious High Priest. He cannot obtain this meaning, however, without making the sacrifice of a double alteration in the text, in which he foUows Eichhom and Ewald, and adopting a false rendering of ver. 13, which he trans lates, " and there is a priest," instead of " and he is priest." As Hitzig also regards the building of the temple as an outward event, his exposition is involved in stiU greater difficulties than that of Ewald. Zerubbabel was actuaUy to finish the erection of the outward temple. How then could this be attributed to the coming Messiah ? ZECHARIAH, CHAPS. VII. AND VIII. 367 CHAPTERS VII. AND VIII. This prophecy is separated from the preceding one by a space of nearly two years. It belongs to the ninth month of the fourth year of Darius. The chronological data given by the prophet are important, as throwing light upon the event which occa sioned the prophecy. The congregation (the house of God, ver. 2, compare chap. iii. 7 and Hosea vifi. I),1 sent delegates to the temple, to enquire whether they were to continue to observe the fast, which had hitherto been kept on the day on which the temple was destroyed by the Chaldeans, and which had embraced a penitential acknowledgment of guilt, and a prayer for forgive ness and for the restoration of former prosperity, or whether they were now to relinquish the custom. The question involved sprayer, that God would speedily change the days of mourning into days of rejoicing. It is stated, therefore, in ver. 2, that the delegates had come to intreat the Lord. The question and the prayer both presuppose, that the existing circumstances fur nished a ground of hope that a happy future awaited the nation. Now it is precisely in the fourth year of Darius that this fact can be weU established. Up to that time the building of the temple had been carried on without intermission, and great pro gress had been made. The fresh schemes, to which the Samari tans at the Persian court resorted, in the hope of preventing this, had just been completely thwarted (vide Prideaux). The faint-heartedness of those who had returned was thus put to shame, and the brightest hopes were cherished with reference to the future. The enquiry was directed, to the priests and prophets, who were assembled in the temple, in the hope that God might reveal his will through one of them. And this He did through Zechariah. The reply maybe divided into two distinct parts. The first part, chap. vii. 5 — 14, contains a reproof of the wrong motive, which led to such a question being asked, at least on the part of some of the 1 That the whole nation is intended, and is called here by the name of its ideal dwelling place, is evident from the singular in ver. 3, and also from ver. 5, where the answer is addressed to the " people of the land." 368 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. petitioners. It contained in the germ that dead pharisaical reliance upon works, which subsequently increased more and more, until it became just as pernicious to the new colony, as outward idolatry, which sprang from precisely the same principle, had formerly been to the nation at large. This also exerted an injurious influence upon tfie estimate which they formed of the value of fasting. A custom which had no meanmg, except as the outward manifestation of a penitent state of heart, was re garded as having worth in itself, as an opus operatum. It was supposed that merit was thereby acquired, and surprise and dis content were expressed, that God had not yet acknowledged and rewarded the service of so many years. The prophet points out how preposterous such a notion is, declares that the Lord requires something very different from this, namely the fulfilment of the moral precepts of his law, without which all outward service is pure hypocrisy, and caHs attention to the fact that it was their failing to satisfy this demand, to which earfier prophets had loudly and repeatedly given utterance, which had brought upon the people that indescribable calamity, from which they had not yet recovered, and also that in future the same cause would necessarily be foUowed by the same effect. — In the second part oi his address (chap, vifi.) tfie prophet proceeds to meet the question with a direct reply, the substance of which could no longer confirm the hypocrites in their carnal security, but might serve to comfort and strengthen such as were weak in faith, both in his own and subsequent times, until the appearance of Christ himself. The following is a summary of his reply. Such abundant deliverance was in reserve for the covenant nation, that not only the day on which Jerusalem was destroyed, but the other days also, which had been set apart as fast-days, in com memoration of peculiarly mournful events in connexion with their past history, such, for example, as the capture of Jerusalem in the fourth month, the murder of Gedaliah in the seventh, and the commencement of the siege in the tenth, would aU be altered into days of rejoicing ; for the blessings, which they were about to receive, would be far greater than those which they had lost on the days referred to. In this reply the prophet embraced the whole of the blessings of salvation intended for the covenant nation, and the full meaning of his declaration was first realised ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1 — 10. 369 in Christ. The conclusion (ver. 20 — 23) relates exclusively to the manner in which .the kingdom of God would be glorified by Him, and, as a still further expansion of Micah iv. 2, Is. ii. 3, and Jer xxxi. 6, it contains a description of the eagerness with which heathen nations would strive for admission into the king dom of God. CHAP. IX. 1-10. A hostile army sweeps victoriously over the Persian empire, and casts it down from the summit of its glory. The prophet more especially describes its marcfi through those provinces of the empire, which bordered immediately upon Judea, that the contrast with their gloomy fate may place the better lot of the covenant nation in a stiU more brfiliant figfit. Whilst Damas cus and Hamath are overtaken by the judgment of God and fall into the hands of the conqueror ; ' whilst aU the wealth of Tyre, its bulwarks and its insular position, fail to secure its safety, and it is taken and given up to the flames ; whilst the neighbouring Philistia is despoiled of its ancient splendour, and its leading cities, Askelon, Gaza, Ekron, and Ashdod, faU into the deepest obscurity ; Jerusalem is still saved from destruction by the pro tecting hand of the Lord (ver. 1 — 8). There can be no doubt, that we have here as graphic an account of the expedition of Alexander the Great, as is consistent with the permanent distinc tion between prophecy and history.1 In the main points the exact agreement between prophecy and history may be proved 1 Compare, for example, the historical account given by Stark (Gaza und die philistiiische Kuste, Jena 52 p. 237) with the prophetic description in the passage before us. He writes, " The plan laid down by Alexander after the battle of Issus, to commence by destroying the power of Persia along the coast, had led him to Phoenicia. All the other cities, and even Cyprus, sub mitted to him. Tyre, the heart and centre of the maritime strength of Persia, was the only one which defied him. After seven months of great exertion, including works upon the water, and naval engagements, it was captured in July 332. All resistance to the mighty progress of Alexander now seemed in vain. The whole of Coele-Syria and Palestine fell into his power. Gaza was the only city which offered any resistance," &c. VOL. III. 2 A 370 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. by express historical testimony. The taking of Damascus is described by Arrian (ii. 15), Curtius (iii. 25) and Plutarch (Alexander, chap. xxiv.). The fate of both Tyre and Gaza is too well known for any farther evidence to be required. According to Arrian (ii. 27), Alexander first of aU depopulated the latter, which had formerly been a flourishing city, and having settled a colony there, which he had gathered together from the surround ing tribes (the fate denounced against Ashdodinver. 6), turned it into a mere garrison. There is nothing to astonish us in the fact, that the conquest of Hamath is not expressly narrated ; for the historians follow the course taken by Alexander himseff, who kept to the sea-coast, whereas the land of Hamath must have been skirted by Parmenio on his march to Damascus. There is just as little reason for surprise, that we have not an express account of the fate of the other cities of Philistia ; for the bio graphers of Alexander are without exception extremely brief in their narratives of his march through Syria and Palestine, on account of their restricting themselves to a simple record of the most important events, and chiefly to such as throw some fight upon Alexander's character, which was the principal object they had in view, as Arrian s history most strikingly shows. — We have already shown, in our Dissertation on Daniel, p. 225, how completely history confirms the prediction, contained in this passage, of the preservation ofthe covenant nation in the midst of an expedition, which was so destructive to the surrounding coun tries. — Zechariah's prophecy, respecting the latter, is throughout simply a resumption of earlier predictions. His announcement of the fate, which awaited Tyre and Sidon, is finked on to Ezekiel, and that concerning Damascus, Hamath, and the four cities of Phifistia, to Jeremiah. In vers. 9 and 10, the prophet places by the side of these in ferior manifestations of the divine mercy, his greater gifts, the mission of the Messiah, at which he had aHeady cast a passing glance in the seventh verse. We shaU preface our exposition with some remarks on the land of Hadrach, which is introduced in ver. 1 as the leading subject of the prophecy. ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1 — 10. 371 ON THE LAND OP HADRACH. The opinion, expressed by many of the Jewish expositors on the authority of R. Jose, and also by Bochart and many Chris tian writers, particularly since his time, namely that the land of Hadrach "win V"^ (Zech. ix. 1) was a district in the neighbour hood of Damascus, has been for some time past very generaUy adopted on the strength of the arguments adduced by Michaelis (Supplem., p. 676). But all the historical evidence, which is brought to prove the existence of a province of Hadrach, rests upon a confusion of names, Hadrach being confounded with the Arabian city of Draa or Adraa, the ancient Edrei, ijpyro, which is mentioned in Deut. i. 5 as the second capital of Og the king of Bashan. According to Abulfeda (tabula Syriae, p. 97), this city is about thirty-two miles from Damascus. In the Middle Ages it was stiU a considerable city, the residence of the suffra gan of Bozrah. It is frequently mentioned in the history of the Crusades ; and, according to the testimony of Seetzen and others, it is now uninhabited and in ruins, (vide Bitter, Erdkunde xv. 2, p. 834 sqq.). It is very clear that many of the earlier writers have confounded the two names ; although, as written in Hebrew and Arabic, there is scarcely any resemblance between them. Thus, for example, Adrichomius {theatr. terrae sanctae, p. 75) says: " Adrach, or Hadrach, alias Adra, Adraon and Adratum, is a city of Coelesyria, about twenty-five miles from Bostra, and from it the adjacent region takes the name of ' land of Hadrach.' This was the land, which formed the subject of Zechariah's pro phecy. After the coming of Christ the city was set apart as an episcopal see, and recognised the supremacy of the Archbishop of Bozrah. When the Christians of the west took possession of Palestine, it was also called the city Bernardi de Scampis." Calmet, in his Commentary on Zechariah, says : '" nous connais- sons une ville d'Atra dans l'Arabie deserte, celebre autrefois, et qui soutint des sieges contre l'armee de Trajan commandee par lui-meine (Xiphilin. ex Dione et Dion) et contre ceUe de Tem pereur Severe (Herodian 1. 3. 9, Zonaras p. 216) cf. Cellarius 1. 3, c. 15." In the case of others, however, where this confusion of names is not so distinctly expressed, it is necessary to prove 2 a 2 372 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. that it reaUy exists. We commence with what is generally accepted as the most demonstrative evidence. " To this I may add," says J. D. Michaelis, " what I learned in the year 1768 from Joseph Abbassi, a noble Arab of the country beyond the Jordan. . . . I enquired, among other things . . . whether he was acquainted with a certain city ^J,,Xs», for thus I wrote it in Arabic characters. ... He repfied that there was a city of that name ; that he had heard about it ; but that he had never been there. That it was a small place now, but was reported to have been at one time larger than even Damascus. ... He added, that it was said to have been the capital of a large region, which was caUed the land of Hadrach ; that noble families were said to have sprung from this land of Hadrach ; that the Arabs related many things about its chiefs and kings ; and that it was even reported to have "been formerly the abode of giants. There was also a tale told about Mahomet having been born in this region. ... I pressed him to teU me where it was situated. He said that he could not do this very accurately ; that he merely remembered to have heard it said, that it was somewhere near the tenth milliarium, on the road from Damascus towards the desert. I forgot to ask him what kind of milliarium he meant, but I fancy that those of the Arabs are somewhat larger than others, namely about the nineteenth or twentieth part of a degree." Now the easiest way to get rid of this testimony would be, to appeal to the fact that, according to the incontrovertible evidence adduced by Steph. Schulz in the Leitungen des Hochsten, the informant of Michaelis was an impostor. But this would not settle the question, since the impostor was really a native of the country, to which he pretended to belong, and may therefore have been in a position to give correct information as to its his tory and geography. Moreover, a closer examination wfil show, that his replies were not altogether fictitious, but that, apart from his confounding Hadrach and Adraa, his statement was generally correct and trustworthy ; and this may be aU the more easily explained, from the fact that he had never been at the spot himseff, and acknowledged that he had only obtained bis infor mation from fiearsay, and also from the fact that he would be all the more disposed, to overlook a little difference in the pro nunciation, from his eagerness to be ready with an answer to the ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1 — 10. 373 questions wliich were addressed to him. The foUowing proofs may be offered, however, that the two names have really been confounded. (1). Not only is the direction from Damascus towards the desert, that is towards Arabia, the same, but the distance also corresponds, since the ten Arabian miles are about seven or eight German (between thirty-five and forty Engfish). — (2). Abbassi said, that there were many traditions respecting the ancient kings of this region, which was said to have been at one time inhabited by giants. Who can help thinking of the account given in the Pentateuch of Og, the gigantic king of Bashan, whose iron bedstead was nine cubits . long, and four cubits broad, and wfio reigned over the Eephaim, a people great, and taU, and strong (videNwn. xxi. 33 ; Deut. i. 4, iii. 1 — 11) ? These accounts were probably received from the Christians, who were very numerous in Adraa in the Middle Ages, and according to their usual custom the Arabs embellished them stiU further, in which they were greatly assisted by the character of the country itself, which, according to Seetzen is fuU of caves. — At any rate his statement as to the former grandeur and present decline of the city is perfectly applicable to Adraa. Having thus disposed of tfie leading witness, the two others need not cause us any difficulty. The first of tfiese is Theodoret, who says, ABpdx woA-i? ecrrt t% Apaf3ia<;. The two names could be the more readily confounded in this case, on account of Theo doret writing d for tfie Hebrew p| ; and tfie fact that he calls Eadrach a city in Arabia removes all doubt wfiatever, as to this confusion having reaUy taken place. — The second is R. Jose, as quoted by Jarchi (in loc), "sed dicebat illi Babbi Jose, filius IJamascenae mufieris, in disputatione : coelum et terram super me invoco : natus sum Damasci, estque locus afiquis, cujus nomen est Hadrach." As we have met with so many instances in which the two names are confounded, we may quietly lay aside the testimony of R. Jose, without impugning his veracity, seeing that he is not very likely to fiave enquired particularly whether the Hebrew and Arabic characters exactly corresponded, and had probably never seen the name of the place in writing at all. The conclusion to which we are thus brought, that hitherto no evidence has been given of the existence of a city and region of 374 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. Hadrach, involves something more than is here expressed. It shows that Hadrach cannot be a proper name at all. If the word occurred in a historical book, such as the Pentateuch for example, or some other of the earfier books, and was given as the supposed name of a comparatively insignificant place, in a district but little known either in ancient or modern times (say for example in the interior of Africa), nothing would be more absurd than such a conclusion. But the very opposite is really the case. We find the name in a prophetical book, where the general character of the prophetic writings would lead us to look for symbolical names, and in one of the very latest of the books of Scripture ; and this fact precludes the reply, that the name may be the only memorial of the city that has been handed down. Moreover it does not belong to a single city merely, but to a whole province, or a whole country ; and its connexion with Damascus, and the other places named, shows that we must look for it in a cultivated part of tfie globe, and in one weU known both in ancient and modern times. How can we imagine it possible, then, that such a land should have eluded aU research, both ancient and modern, if it really existed under the geogra phical name of Hadrach f It is very apparent that the transla tors of the Septuagint were not aware ofthe existence of any such land ; for they have twisted the name into SeBpdx, and this is not a corruption, as Michaelis maintains (p. 679), but the origi nal reading, which is found in every MS., and was corrected by Jerome, not from Greek codices, but from the Hebrew text. The ancient Jews had evidently no historical accounts whatever of any land of Hadrach, as we may gather from the fact, that the name is universally regarded as symboHcal. In the Chaldee version it is rendered pflDiTI fcWlfcti; ^n terra australi, probably X T T *r ; - — with a tacit allusion to the two passages in Job (ix. 9, and xxxvii. 9), in which jftpi "n"Tn (the chambers ofthe south) is a term applied to the most remote and inaccessible southern regions. But the idea of the south is expressed in the word ^p\ alone, a fact which must certainly have been overlooked. Jarchi expressly affirms, that the figurative explanation of the word prevailed among the Jews, until Babbi Jose succeeded in introducing his supposed emendation. Jerome, who also drew from Jewish ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1^-10. 375 sources on this occasion, as the exact agreement between his explanation and that of the Jews clearly shows, says nothing about the existence of a literal interpretation. Under these cir cumstances, we need have no hesitation in pronouncing Hadrach a* figurative appellation, especially as it is a very usual thing for the prophets to employ such names as these. It is weU known, that Isaiah caUs Jerusalem by the symbolical name of Ariel (lion of God,) and also " the valley of vision," on account of its being the seat of the prophets. Babylon, again, he names " the desert of the sea," and Edom he caUs Dumah. Ezekiel refers to Jerusalem under the name of Oholibah, and Jere miah speaks of Babylon as Sesach. Even if we could not dis cover any outward occasion for the selection of this figurative appeUation on tfie part of Zechariah, it would be no proof that our conclusion was unfounded ; for this is the case with most of the names mentioned above. If, then, the name must clearly be symbolical, our next task is to determine its meaning.1 We cannot hesitate long as to this. Nor have we even to search out the true meaning. So far as the mere rendering (not the appHcation) of the word is concerned, the meaning to be given fiere is the oldest in exis tence ; and, though from its very nature it needs no such support, yet the authority of tradition may possibly be appealed to in its 1 Since the opinion, which generally prevailed when the first edition ofthe Christology was published, namely, that Hadrach was the name of some region near Damascus, has been given up in consequence of the arguments which were there adduced, i Bleek (Studien und Kritiken 1852 ii. p. 258) and Gesenius have given expression to the conjecture, that Hadrach was the name of a king of Damascus ; whilst others, e.g. Movers (Phonizier i. p. 478), have suggested that it was the name of one of the gods of Damascus. But there is no trace of the existence of any such god or king. In the Scriptures, . there is certainly not the slightest allusion to either. Now it is not the custom in the Bible to introduce a name of this description without fur ther remark, when it has never occurred before. Moreover, according to the usual construction (and there are very few exceptions) the proper name which follows W-^ is the name of the land itself or of the nation, and the analogy presented by all the other names in the section is a sufficient proof that this must be the case here. We have nothing afterwards but the names of coun tries and cities. The transparency of the meaning is also fatal to such a hypothesis, for it clearly shows that it is with an ideal name, -not a common name, that we have to do. The meaning itself would not be applicable to either a king or a god. 1 Gesemus (in thy thesaurus) admits that we have proved, (1) that all the statements, which nave usually been app lied to Hadrach, belong to Adraa, and (2) that Hadi ach cannot possibly be the name of any city or province in Syria. 376 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. favour. Jarchi and Kimchi say : " B. Juda the son of Elai (a pupil of Akiba of the time of Hadrian ; cf. Wolff bibl. Hebr. i. p. 411) interpreted it as an aUegorical expression relating to the Messiah, who is harsh (-jpj) to the heathen, and gentle (•sp) to Israel. Jerome says, " assumptio verbi domini, acuti in peccsf- tores, mollis in justos : Adrach quippe hoc resonat, ex duobus integris nomen compositum : Ad acutum, Bach moUe tenerum- que significans." We are quite willing to leave them their Messianic interpretation, and merely borrow their derivation of the word. According to the latter, the land of Chadrach is the land of Harsh-gentle, or Strong-weak, a land, which is now strong and mighty, but when the impending judgment shall fall, will at once be weakened and laid low. Little evidence is required, that this explanation is perfectly admissible, so far as tfie rules of tfie language are concerned, and in fact that it is the only one, which can be sustained. That such combinations are customary not merely in the case of proper names, in the strict sense of the term, but also in symbolical appeUations, is apparent from sucfi examples as Ariel, Jehosha phat, Abiad, &c. -jpj literally means sharp and pointed, and is applied to a sword in Es. lvii. 5 and Is. xlix. 2 ; then, in a secondary sense, acris, brave, strong, energetic. In Arabic the verb jy~. signifies vehemens fuit, durus in ira, pugna; and the Hebrew -pjpj is used in the same sense in Hab. i. 8, where it is — T said of the horses of the Chaldeans yyy "QN-tft ^TlT on which Bochart (opp. ii. c. 826) lias very correctly observed : " I would refer >pjpj to the disposition, and understand the terms o£as and acres as being applied to both wolves and horses, because of the speed and eagerness with which they execute whatever they determine to perform." No further evidence is required so far as *p is concerned, for it is universaUy admitted that it means soft, tender, and then exhausted, weak. It is very descriptive, as applied to the empires of the East at the period of their decfine ; compare %& *p m Deut. Xx. 8 and 2 Chr. xiii. 7, where it is used to denote effeminacy and want of vigour. According to this explanation, the symbolical name given to he land contains in itself a prediction of its impending fate, the zechariah, chap. ix. 1 — 10. 377 substance of aU that the prophet is about to declare respecting it. This conclusion recommends itself aU the more in the case of a writer Hke Zechariah, whose prophecies are based upon those of earfier prophets, from whom many analogous passages might be quoted. The first, which we shaU adduce, is Is. xxi. 1, where Babylon, whose overthrow is predicted, is caUed -yyyQ qi, " the desert of the sea." From the etymology of the word and the general usage of the language, -ftlS cannot possibly denote a cultivated plain, such as that which surrounded Baby lon. It was applied first of aU to land adapted for pasturage alone, and afterwards used to denote a desert. THere can be no doubt, that Babylon is caUed " a desert," on account of the utter desolation which awaited it, and " a desert of the sea," because the waves of the sea of nations were to flow over it, and change it into a desert. For it is evident from Jer. H. 42, 43, and xlix. 23, that " the sea" referred to, is the sea of the nations which cause the desolation. — Another analogous example we find in tfie superscription " burden of Dumah," in Isaiah's prophecy against Edom (chap. xxi. 11). ryr$\-\ means silence. The stillness of T death was to reign in the desolate land. This figurative title is the more appropriate here, since the calamity is represented in the prophecy itself under the image of a cheerless and solitary night. — But the most striking analogy is in the name Sesach, which is appfied to Babylon in Jer. xxv. 26, and li. 41. The Jewish expositors are unanimously of opinion that TlUJiy is the same as Babel according to the so-caUed A tbash alphabet. This opinion has been adopted by some of the Christian commenta tors, and particularly by Jerome, with very great confidence ; but many reject it as a Jewish absurdity, and others again regard it as very questionable. But there can be no doubt as to its cor rectness. The disinclination to adopt it can hardly be accounted for on any other grounds than these, that, although the meaning of the word Sesach did not immediately appear, such a transpo sition was regarded as a useless amusement, foreign to the age of Jeremiah and unworthy of a prophet, and that the very name of the Atbash alphabet suggested the idea of something extremely complicated and artificial. But so far as the latter objection is concerned, nothing can be more simple than the construction of 378 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. this alphabet, in which the last letter of the ordinary alphabet (pi) is substituted for the first (n), the last but one (iy) for the second (2), and so on {vide Buxtorf lex. Chald. s. v. t^p\N and his de abbreviaturis Hebr. p. 41). The reasons for supposing that Jeremiah has reaUy foUowed this plan are the following : (1). It cannot be purely an accidental circumstance that the name 1|EJtlJ> according to the Atbash alphabet, corresponds exactly to the word for which it is substituted. (2). There is another in stance, in which Jeremiah has undoubtedly made use of this Atbash alphabet. In chap. Ii. 1 tfie prophet says, " thus saith the Lord, behold I wfil raise up against Babylon, and against those that dwell in the heart of my foes, a destroying wind." The strange expression, " the heart of my foes," excites surprise. But the difficulty is removed by the remark made by Jarchi and Abenezra, that, when the two words are read together, according to the Atbash alphabet, they form the word ?i^i- There can be the less doubt as to the correctness of the explanation in this instance, on account of the number of the letters, which renders it less likely to be an accidental circumstance, than in the case of Babel. To this we may add the fact, that in other passages Jeremiah not merely uses the word Q«HjrQ (Chaldeans) for the land ofthe Chaldeans (as in chap. 1. 10), but connects together Babel and Joshbe Kasdim, as in the verse before us. See, for example, chap. Ii. 35. The suitableness of this play upon the word, — the Chaldeans being called the heart of the foes of God, as being the bitterest enemies of his people, is at once apparent. The key to the interpretation of this passage appears to have been handed down by tradition, and not first discovered by the Jews of later times. The rendering given in the Septuagint Kai iirl tov? KaTOLKovvTa<; XaXSaiovi shows that the translators had it already, or rather still, in their possession. The Chaldee version itself, "^"ItWl NJHN> proves the same thing. And HSymmachus had not been looking for something else in the expression, he would not have retained the Hebrew word {AeB Kappa) in his translation. But the question stiU remains, what does the word Sesach mean ? For if no meaning can be discovered, the name is still open to the charge of being merely a, jeu d'esprit. But we may infer from the analogy of 1^ ^h, that such a meaning does ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1 10. 379 exist ; nor can we be long in doubt as to what it really is. If we observe the formation of ^^ itself, which is derived from hh>2> "to confound," and means " confusion," as the Book of Genesis expressly affirms, which Jeremiah certainly had in his mind at the time — the word •?0fi must be a derivation of the verb ^3$, the irregularity in the form of the word being thus sufficiently explained. This is confirmed by the fact, that the infinitive ^ occurs in Jer. v. 26 ; although it is otherwise very rarely employed. And we may still farther add the appropriate ness of the meaning itseH. Tt^fi is appfied in Gen. vifi. 1 to the decreasing waters of the flood ; and in Jer. v. 26 to the stooping posture of bird-catchers. Hence the word Sesach must mean a sinking down, and in this case we have a commentary on the name in Jer. Ii. 64 : " tfius shall Babylon sink and not rise, through the evil that I wiU bring upon her."1 — It wiU be obvious by this time tfiat there is an analogy between Sesach and Hadrach. It only remains to enquire wfiat kingdom Zechariah refers to. Everything points to tfie Fersian empire. (1). The name itself shows that the kingdom must have been one, whicli was then at the summit of its glory and power. But, of all the kingdoms which were in any way related to the covenant nation, the Per sian was the only one, of which this could be said. AU the rest were subject to it ; and there was no other, to which the pre dicate -jpf could be applied. — (2). This explanation is most in accordance with the whole of the contents of vers. 1 — 8. If the expedition of Alexander is referred to in these verses, nothing could be more suitable, than for the prophet to speak of the empire itseH, the leading object of tfie expedition, before pro- i That the reason why Sesach and Lebkamai are used in the place of the proper names, is not to be sought in the prudence of the prophet, is evident from the fact that the ordinary names are given as well. When Nagelsbach expresses the opinion, as others had done before him, that " the use of such amusing inventions is unworthy of a prophet" (der Prophet Jeremias und Babylon, p. 134), he shows that he has not sufficiently considered the feel ings of those for whom the names were written. Babel and Kasdim were at that time the names, which sounded the most terrible in an Israelitish ear. The prophet deprives them of all that is terrible, by means of a slight altera tion, by which he indicates that the ruin of Babylon is concealed beneath its greatness, and that the Chaldeans are regarded by the Almighty as the heart of his enemies. 380 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. ceeding to describe the fate of the various places, which were dependent upon it. — (3). This at once explains, why Zechariah employs a symbolical name in this case alone, and caUs aU the other places by their proper names. Zechariah Hved during the supremacy of Persia ; and the propriety of mentioning the Persians by name would be aU the more questionable, since the enemies of the Jews did everything in their power to convince the former of their disposition to rebel ; (see Ezra iv. 12, 13). Zechariah prophesied at the very time, when Judah was con strained to pray, " defiver my soul, 0 Lord, from lying lips, and from the deceitful tongue" (Ps. cxx. 2), and when the Samari tans were watching every movement, to find materials on which to found an accusation at the Persian court. The introduction of the names of the other places, which were subject to the Per sians, could not so easily be employed as the ground of a charge, since it might be assumed that in the event of a rebellion, the Persians themselves would be the conquerors. — (4). The con struction shows that Hadrach does not stand upon the same footing as the rest, but is rather the imperial power of which aU the others were but so many different portions. — (5). In chap. ix. 13 the next phase of the imperial power is very clearly pointed out as the Grecian. Greece could not possibly oppress Judah, without first taking the place of the imperial power, which was in existence then. And if Hadrach denotes the latter, it must mean the Persian empire. Daniel had aHeady announced the overthrow of Persia by Greece (chap. viii. 5 — 7, xx. 21), and with his announcement the prophecy of Zechariah is immediately connected. Ver. 1. " The burden ofthe word ofthe Lord on the land of Hadrach, and Damascus is its rest ; for the Lord has an eye upon men and upon all the tribes of Israel." From the very earliest times two different renderings have been given of the word n&D> which occurs in the superscriptions of the prophecies. By some it is rendered burden, namely by Jonathan, Aquila, in the Syriac version, and particularly by Jerome, who says in his note on Nahum. i. 1, " Massa autem nunquam praefertur in titulo, nisi cum grave et ponderis laboris- que plenum est, quod videtur." (See the the remarks on Hab. i. 1 and Is. xiii. 1). For a long time this rendering, if not the ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1. 381 only one, Was at least the one commonly received. — By others, again, it is rendered utterance, prophecy. It is in this sense that the word has been taken by the Septuagint translators, who have sometimes rendered it opapa, opao-is, pryjta, and very fre quently Xr)p,pa, acceptio. In consequence of the adoption of the latter by Cocceius (lex. s. v.), Vitringa (on Is. xiii. 1), Aurivil- lius (dissertt. p. 560) and Michaelis (supplem. p. 1685), it has forced the other to a great extent into the shade. Latterly it has met with almost universal acceptance. But there are strong reasons for rejecting it. (1). It would be a strange coincidence tfiat Nfofls, although quite T — as suitable for the superscription of predictions, which are fuU of promises, as of those which consist entirely of threatenings, should be found exclusively in the latter. Not only is this the case, but it occurs so frequently, that it cannot for a moment be regarded as accidental. It is unanimously admitted that Isaiah never uses the word except in connection with such pro phecies (vide chap. xiii. 1, xiv. 28, xv. 1, xvii. 1, xix. 1, xxi. 1, 11, 13, xxii. 1, xxiii. 1). Now if this was peculiar to Isaiah, there would be something plausible in Gesenius' otherwise un founded conjecture, that the prophecies against foreign nations originaUy formed a separate coUection, the author of which was very fond of the expression, and always employed it in his super scriptions. But when we find tfiat the same rule prevails throughout, that in Nahum, Habakkuk, Zechariah, and Malachi, the word is still restricted to prophecies of a denunciatory cha racter, it is at once apparent that, in Isaiah and the other pro-- phets, the practice must rest upon a common basis, which cannot be any other, than that the meaning of tfie word was such as to render it suitable for the superscription of threatening prophecies alone. The only passage, adduced by Vitringa, Michaelis, and others in support of their statement, that it is also used in con nexion with prophecies of a cheerful character, is Zech. xii. 1. But, as we shaU afterwards see when we come to expound it, only because they have misinterpreted the passage. Gesenius has most inconceivably added Mal. i. 1. The fact that it is connected in this instance with a prophecy of a threatening character is so conspicuous as to need no proof whatever. Those who contend for the meaning utterance, are perfectly unable to 382 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. explain the acknowledged fact that the word is used almost without exception in connection with prophecies containing threats. Delitzsch (on Hab. i. 1) thinks that "the reason why this word is more ^specially used in connexion with prophecies of a threatening nature, is to be found in custom alone, and not in the etymology or meaning of the word itsefi." But what gave rise to this custom ? (2). It is impossible to bring forward an instance of the use of Nfcift as a noun, derived from j^j in the sense of " to utter." T — t T T In fact the verb itself has no such meamng (see my commentary on Ps. xv. 3). It is always used as a derivative from ^3, in T T the sense of "to lift." The most plausible passages are Prov. xxx. 1 and xxxi. 1. But on closer examination, it is evident that even here the rendering " utterance," or " divine oracle," is unsuitable, especiaUy in the first passage, where such an assump tion gives rise to pure tautology (" the words of Agur, the son of Jakeh, the utterance"). We naturaUy expect the character of Agur's words to be more particularly described. In both these passages the meaning " burden" is the only appropriate one. The words of Agur in chap. xxx. 1 are a heavy burden, laid upon natural reason, which is so prone to exalt itsefi. Their purport is reproof. They condemn the grovelling prudence of man in the strongest possible terms : he who does not cherish simple faith in divine revelation is a mere animal and not a man. In Prov. xxxi, 1, "tfie burden, wherewith his mother corrected him," is the burdensome word, the severe lecture. In 1 Chr. xv. 27, Ntoftpt "^ ig explained by Gesenius and Winer to mean the leader of the singing. But if we carefully examine the parallel passages (2 Chr. xxxv. 3 ; Num. iv. 19, 24, 27, 31, 32, 47, 49), we cannot fail to be convinced that NtZ?Q refers to the carrying of the sacred things. The clause in 2 Eings ix. 25 should be rendered, " the Lord hath raised this burden upon him." Nothing but ignorance of the connexion between the word and the result, in the utterances of the prophets, could have led any one to pronounce the meaning burden " indefensible" in this instance, as Delitzsch has done. Even the meanings of the cognate word pi^toft (bearing, the burden) are derived from Nto3> in the sense of " to lift," not "to utter!' It is true that ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1. 383 Winer and Gesenius bring forward, as a proof of the opposite, Lam. fi. 14, where the predictions of the false prophets are caUed Nlffl rPNtoft> which they render " vain prophecies." But the proper rendering is rather, " they see for thee vain burdens and captivities." The word Qipft'TO (captivities, dispersions), which foUows, is a sufficient proof that niNto must also relate to the enemy. The false prophets endeavoured to render them selves acceptable to the nation by predicting great calamities, which were to befal their powerful oppressors, burdens against the imperial powers, ?ippnft cannot be rendered in any other way (Gesenius, seductiones), for the simple reason that Jeremiah, who uses m} very frequently, always employs it in the sense of — T driving away, dispersing. Others (e.g. Thenius) refer the expulsions to Judah, which is, as it were, preached out of the land by the prophets. But the plural is a decisive proof that this is incorrect, for it clearly denotes a plurality of nations. (3). Jer. xxiii. 33 sqq., the very passage which is commonly adduced to prove that &$©£ means prophecy, is rather a proof of the opposite. According to the ordinary opinion, Jeremiah is represented here as being angry with the scoffers, because they take the word fc$toft> which means prophecy, and use it in T — the sense of burden, on the assumption that he is sure to give utterance to none but evil predictions. But this assumption could hardly give such great offence to Jeremiah, or appear to him as so very ungodly, for, as a rule, his prophecies, previous to the destruction of Jerusalem, were of a mournful character, and he reaUy had nothing but evil to announce to the scoffers. Their wickedness consisted rather in the fact that they used the word burden in a different sense from that in which the prophets used it, who always employed it to denote a prophecy announc ing severe judgments from the Lord. They asked Jeremiah what the burden of the Lord was, what fresh burdensome prophecy he had to defiver. This wicked play upon the word, which afforded so deep an insight into the hearts of the scoffers, would have had no meaning, if xtoD na(^ n0* Deen U8e(* Dy *ne Pr°pbets in the T — sense of burden. (4). If NU9ft means utterance, it is a very strange thing that 384 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. it is never foUowed by the genitive of the speaker, whether Jehovah or one of the prophets, but, with the exception of the passage before us, chap. xii. 1, and Mal. iii. 1, where the Massa of the word of the Lord is spoken of, is always connected with the genitive of the object, e.g., "the Massa of Babylon," "the Massa of Dumah." In other passages, where the word occurs in the sense of burden, it is also connected with the genitive of the person who carries it, or upon whom it is laid. Moreover, if the word means simply an utterance, we cannot see why it should not be used of utterances generaUy. (5). Various proofs might be given that the rendering utter ance is unsuitable. The frequency with which it occurs in the prophecies of Isaiah, in the superscriptions of chap. xiii. 1, &c, (vide vol. ii., p. 134), hardly befits so common a word, and indicates some deeper meaning. Again tfie rendering burden is required by the 13 (for) in Is. xv. 1 : " the burden of Moab, for in the night Ar of Moab is laid waste." In Is. xxi. 1, the clause which follows is without a subject, if the rendering burden is rejected (Michaelis, " quod onus sicut turbines"). That Is. xxx. 6 must be translated, " the burden of the beasts of the south," is evident from the word i^ti^ " they carry," in which there is an aUusion to ^ffi?2- (The expression is applied to the Jews, who went in their brute-like foUy to the south, and sought help from Egypt). In the passage before us and in Mal. iii. 1 we have pure tautology, if we adopt the rendering " utter ance ;" and nothing could be more at variance with the con ciseness of the superscriptions. (How tame Hitzig 's translation sounds : " utterance, word of Jehovah !") (6). The rendering burden, in the passage before us, is more in harmony with the paraUefism of the verse. NtDO corresponds T — to pjpp|2?3- The burden of the word of the Lord affects or faUs upon Hadrach ; his rest is Damascus. According to Mal. iii. 1 and chap. xii. 1 of this book, the opening words must be regarded as a heading : " the burden of the word of the Lord on the land of Hadrach." The further details are connected with the superscription by " and," as if preceded by the expression " it is burdensome." This formal isolation of Hadrach is intended to direct attention to the fact, ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 1. 385 that it stands on a different footing from the rest. The further particulars merely relate to the various portions, which stood in the closest relation to Judah. In the case of both Hadrach and Damascus the prophecy restricts itself to a general announcement of threatening calamity ; and we may also observe that, as it is merely in the heading that the announcement respecting Hadrach is made at all, the relation, in which the others stand to this, must be that of parts to the whole. In the case of Tyre, Sidon, and Philistia, which were nearer to Judah, the prophecy enters more into details. — The announcement respecting Damascus resumes the prophecy against this city in Jer. xlix. 23 sqq. , which was also defivered at a time when Damascus had long since lost its independent government. In that case also Hamath is associated with Damascus. Persia, the supreme empire, and Damascus, tfie Iieathen city, which surpassed Jerusalem in glory and contemptuously looked down upon its pretensions, were stones of stumbling, which the course of history was to take out of the way. In the second part of the verse the reason is assigned for the divine judgments on Hadrach and Damascus, as weU as on the nations mentioned afterwards. The providence of God rules over the whole earth, which lies open to his view. He must therefore eventuaUy remove the existing disproportion between the fate of the covenant nation, and that of the heathen nations which he now appears to favour. Compare Mal. ii. 17, iii. 13 sqq., where the prophet represents the people as speaking, and complaining tfiat the Lord sends them nothing but misfortune, whilst the heathen are blessed with glorious prosperity. Malachi had there to do with the ungodly portion of the nation, which failed to fulfil its covenant-obligations, and yet Haughtily de manded the fulfilment of tfie promises associated with them. His reply is therefore a severe one. He threatens stiU greater judicial punishments. Zechariah, on the other hand, has the true members of the kingdom of God in his mind. And to them he promises, tfiat the Lord will abolish the existing dispropor tion, and bring down the pride of the heathen nations. When God punishes the heathen for their sins, his " eye" is at the same time fixed upon the " tribes of Israel." According to vers, 7 and 10, the ultimate result of the judgments of God is the VOL. III. 2 B 386 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. conversion of the heathen, by which the tribes of Israel are de livered from the state of oppression in which they have hitherto lived in the midst of the heathen world. The hmnbfing of the nations of the world breaks their heart, and prepares them for the coming of the kingdom of God. py , followed by a genitive, is used here to denote the eye, which belongs to a person so far as it is directed towards him ; compare ver 8, "for now I see with mine eyes." q-tn (man) is contrasted with " aU the tribes of Israel," and is therefore restricted to the rest of mankind, to the exclusion of the Israelites. The prophet appears to have taken the antithesis from Jer. xxxii. 19, in which we also find a complete parallel to the second half of the verse before us. Ver. 2. " Hamath also, which borders thereon, Tyre and Sidon, because it is very wise." We must supply " wiU be the rest (Ruhe) of the word of God." The suffix in pft refers to Damascus alone, since Hamath stood in a very different relation to Hadrach ; and the expres sion, " which borders thereon," appears at first sight to be almost superfluous, for the situation of Hamath was generaUy known. It is this idea, which has given occasion to the rendering, " Hamath wfil border thereon ;" in other words, " just as Hamath is closely connected with Damascus by proximity of situation, so will it also be by community of suffering" — a mean ing which the prophet would certainly have expressed more clearly. But the expression is not superfluous at aU. It con nects Hamath with Damascus, — the two together representing Syria, — and severs it from Tyre and Sidon, the representatives of Phoenicia ; the close connexion between these two being also indicated by the singular pjMfT — "O cann°t be rendered quamvis (although) ; it is a causative particle, even in this pas sage. In fact, even if it were fully proved that it had some times a different meaning, tfie parallel passages, which are of especial importance in the case of Zechariah, would necessitate the adoption of this rendering here (vide Dissertation on Daniel, &c, p. 298). " Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God," says Ezekiel to the king of Tyre, who is regarded by him as the representative of the whole nation, " therefore I wfil bring strangers upon thee" (chap, xxviii. 6). The mental blindness of the Tyrians, who detracted from the glory of God, and attri- ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 2. 387 buted everything to themselves, is represented throughout as the cause of the judgment which impended over them. Again, the expression " because it is very wise," must not be altered, with out further explanation, into " because it thinks itself very wise." That the prophet referred to a real, and not merely to an imagi nary wisdom, is evident from ver. 3, where the wisdom of Tyre is represented as leading her to fortify herself strongly, and accumulate treasures. But her wisdom is the wisdom of this world (1 Cor. i. 20), that " earthly, sensual wisdom" (James iii. 15), which is inseparably connected with blindness and exagge ration {vide Ezek. xxviii. 3, 4). Such wisdom as this, the opposite of " the wisdom that is from above," is sinful in itself, and not only fosters, but also springs from pride. — It is not the hostility of Tyre to Israel, which is represented here as. the cause of the divine judgments, — as is the case in the prophecies of Amos and Zephaniah, which have been erroneously described as completely resembling the prophecy before us, and also in part at least in that of Ezekiel (chap. xxvi. 2), — but simply its pride of wisdom. The precise direction taken by the wisdom of the Tyrians may be seen, partly from the next verse, and partly from Ezek. xxviii. 4, 5 : "by thy wisdom and by thine understand ing thou hast acquired power, and filled thy treasures with gold and silver ; by thy great wisdom in thy commerce hast thou obtained great power, and thy heart has exalted itself, because of thy power." — The singular pjft^n (wise) shows that t'-p^ *& is to be understood as meaning Tyre with Sidon; in other words, that Sidon is to be regarded as an appendage of Tyre, the two together forming an ideal unity. In perfect harmony with the use of the singular here, is the fact that Ezekiel, whom Zechariah had before bis mind, speaks of tfie wisdom of the Tyrians- alone, and that in the third verse, where the particular manifestations of this wisdom are described, Zechariah also merely mentions Tyre. The reason why Sidon is thus appended to Tyre, can only be learned from history. Although Tyre was founded by Sidon, the latter had afterwards to relinquish her precedence, and in fact became in a certain sense dependent upon the former. This is presupposed in the account of the time of Shalmanezer, given in the extract from Menander, which is quoted by Josephus (Antiquities. 9. 14. 2), where Sidon is 388 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. said to have "revolted from Tyre" " {dirio-Ti] Te Tvplwv SiBqjv Kai 'Aktj Kai r\ traXai Tvpo<; Kai iroXXal dXXai iroXeK, ai raj t£>v ' Aaavpiosv eavTas BaaiXel irapeBoaav). The expression em ployed in Is. xxiii. 2, wfiere Tyre is said to be "filled with the merchants of Sidon," points to the same subordinate relation ; unless, indeed, Gesenius is right in understanding Sidon in this passage as standing for Phoenicia in general, a custom which might naturaUy arise in the earfier times, when Sidon was still the capital of the Phoenicians, but of which no satisfactory proof can be found in any later portion of its history. At any rate the inferiority of Sidon is apparent enough in Ezek. xxvii. 8, " the inhabitants of Sidon and Arvad were thy mariners," which Theodoret paraphrases thus: " the Sidonians, who were once thy rulers, now fill tfiy fleet, along with the inhabitants of Arad, and row thy vessels ; and those who were wise in thy esteem, act as thy pilots." Just as in the case before us, we find, both in Isaiah and Ezekiel, the prophecy concerning Sidon simply appended to that respecting Tyre, and the fate of the former represented as interwoven with that of the latter {vide Is. xxiii. 4, 12, and Ezek. xxviii. 21 sqq.). Ver. 3. " And Tyre Tuis built herself strongholds and heaped up silver as dust, and gold as dirt in the streets." The sinful confidence, which she reposed in her fortresses and wealth, is shown in the emphatic pj^. The same may be said T of Ezek. xxviii. 2, wfiere the king of Tyre boasts that he sits " in the midst of the seas," and is therefore beyond the reach of any assault. According to Diodorus Siculus (17. 40) the Tyrians resolved to offer resistance to Alexander, " from their confidence in their defences, and the preparations they had made upon the island." -p^ft was no doubt selected by the prophet, partly with reference to its secondary meaning " want, -distress,"1 and partly also because of its resemblance to the. name ¦>&; Tyre. Ver. 4. " Behold the Lord will deliver her up, and smite her bulwarks in the sea ; and she herself will be destroyed by fire." On this view Theodoret observes : " Since they have cut them- i Notatur munitionem fore in contritionem." Cocceius. ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 4. 389 selves off from the protection of God, they shall have a taste of his strength ;" and Cyril, " nothing will ever avail those who resist God." By the exclamation " behold" the prophet, who sees by means of his inward vision the approach of the threaten ing storm, caUs upon his hearers and readers to witness the manner in which the proud hopes of the Tyrians are destroyed. gpp, in the Hiphil, means " to cause to possess," or "to cause — T anything to be possessed," hence " to defiver up." Calvin has correctly observed, that this clause relates more especially to the accumulation of gold and silver mentioned in the previous verse, just as the second clause refers to the fortifications. Tyre, whose confidence in Iter own possessions is now so great, passes at length, along with aU her treasures, into the possession of her enemies. On account of this very allusion to the preceding verse, we can not render the clause, " the Lord wfil take her in possession," as the Septuagint and Vulgate have done {Bid tovto Kvpw<; KXrjpovofirjo-ei avrijv ; ecce dominus possidebit earn) ; nor can we adopt the rendering given by Jahn, " he will drive them out," since the next clause sufficiently proves tfiat it is a mistake to suppose, that the city stands for its inhabitants ; nor, lastly, can we translate it, " he will make her poor," as others have done, for the verb never has" this meaning, not excepting even 1 Sam. h. 7. — That the proper rendering is "in the sea," not " into the sea," is evident from the parallel passage, chap. x. 11, "he smites the waves in the sea." " Into the sea" would have no meaning here. And ^ipj, in the verse before us, just as " the waves" in the passage just referred to, must denote something which is aHeady in the sea, and which is smitten there. Moreover, the former rendering gives a much more suitable meaning. If the city was taken, it would follow as a matter of course, that the bulwarks of Tyre would be smitten into the sea. As the forti fications of Tyre were washed by the sea, they must of necessity to some extent fall into it, when the city was captured. On the other hand, the announcement that the walls were to be smitten in the sea introduces a new element of a most essential charac ter. There were three things on which the Tyrians rested their confidence in their invincibility, their treasures, their fortifica tions, and their insular position. The last, and in fact the most 390 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. important, of the three, on which Ezekiel lays peculiar emphasis in the original passage (chap, xxviii. 2, 8), and upon which the Tyrians themselves placed the greatest refiance, at the time when the prophecy was fulfilled,1 is introduced here by Zechariah for the first time. Ver. 5. "Ashkelon sees it and is afraid ; Gaza also, and trembles exceedingly ; and Ekron, because her hope is put to shame ; Gaza loses her king, and Ashkelon shall not sit." The prophet foUows the march of the conqueror along the Mediterranean Sea, commencing with Phoenicia and ending with Philistia. Or, looked at in another light, the four places in the north, consisting of two pairs, the Syrian and Phoenician, are here followed by the four in the west, that is, in Philistia. The omission of Gath, one of the five leading cities of Philistia, not only in the passage before us, but also in the other passages, on which this is based (viz. Amos i. 6 — 8 ; Zeph. ii. 4 ; Jer. xxv. 20), may no doubt be explained from the fact that the prophet's plan required that the number mentioned should be limited to four. Zechariah attaches himself immediately to Jeremiah, the last of his predecessors in that prophetic chain, of which he is to form a link. The order is precisely the same, and we may be sure that this is not accidental. The meaning of this arrangement is admirably explained by Cyril: "for they thought that the strength of Tyre would avail as a bulwark for themselves ; when therefore they saw her prostrate, they would at length be deprived of all their hope." Zechariah seems also to have had certain passages of earfier prophets in view, particularly Jer-. xxiii., where the alarm which would seize upon the neighbouring nations and cities, in consequence of the faU of this insular for tress, is depicted in various ways. Thus in ver. 5 the prophet says, "when the report reaches to Egypt, they will tremble at the report concerning Tyre ;" and ver. 4, "be thou ashamed, 0 Sidon ;" but more emphaticaUy stiU in ver. 11, "he stretches out his hand over the sea and shakes the kingdoms. And he says : thou shalt no more rejoice, thou disgraced daughter Sidon," &c. — tOUto an(^ ttSID • the object at which one looks, the thing hoped for. There is almost a verbal parallel in Is. xx. 5, " they are Kareye/Xcov rov (Hao~i\ea)s, el tov Hoo'eibcovos eavrov boKel nepieo'eo'Oai. Diodorus Siculus 17. 41. ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 6. 391 ashamed of Cushaea, towards which they looked." It is not said that the king, but a king perishes from Gaza, which is equivalent to " Gaza will no more possess a king." Hence there is no allusion to the personal overthrow of one particular king of Gaza, as many commentators suppose. Compare the parallel passage Amos i. 8, "I cut off the inhabitant from Ashdod, and him that holdeth the sceptre from Ashkelon," and Jer. xlix. 38. These paraUel passages show, that the disappear ance of the king from tfie city denotes tfie utter ruin and extinction of the city itseH ; so that it corresponds exactly to the last clause, " Ashkelon wiU not sit" which most commentators have erroneously rendered, "it will not be inhabited," {cf chap. xii. 6). We need not be surprised to find a king of Gaza men tioned among the subjects of Persia. It is a weU known fact, that the Philistines were governed by kings from tfie very earliest times. And, as a rule, tfie sovereigns of the great empires of the East aUowed the regal dignity to remain in all the conquered countries in which they found it, and contented them selves with making the kings tributary, whilst they distinguished themselves from all tfie rest by the title of " king of kings," cf. Ezek. xxvi. 7.i It was nothing but repeated insurrections, wliich led the Chaldeans to deprive the Jews and Tyrians of their kings ; and in the case of the latter the regal dignity was restored, even during their subjection to the empire. The kings of Tyre and Sidon are expressly referred to in connexion with Alexander's expedition, a clear proof that the Persians also had aUowed the regal dignity to continue in these regions. The commander of the Persian garrison in Gaza, a man named Betis, is called fiaaiXevs by Hegesias, who lived under the first Ptole mies, and was one of the earliest writers of the history of Alexander. But even if this title is incorrect, and Betis was merely a Persian officer, there is no reason why there should not have been a native king in existence at the same time. Ver. 6. "And a rabble dwells at Ashdod, and I exterminate the pride of the Philistines." 1 " It was a part of the Persian system generally, either to maintain the ' existing ruling families, or to appoint fresh rulers from among the natives, as, for example, in the Greek cities and islands of Asia Minor and elsewhere" (Stark -p. 230). Herodotus, again, speaks of "Kings of Syria," who were subject to Persia, Book 8. chap. 37. 392 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS The only other passage in which Ttftft occurs is Deut. xxiii. 2, and the meaning " foreigner" is quite unsuitable there. Maurer is quite wrong in adducing Is. lvi. 3 sqq., in connexion with Deut. xxiii. 2, to support this rendering. In the expres sion, " son of the stranger," which occurs in Isaiah, there is much more probably an aUusion to Deut. xxiii. 3. Tfiere can be no doubt that -tfftft is correctly explained, by those who understand it as denoting a person, to whose birth some considerable blemish attaches. In the present instance it stands for rabble, such as generally coUect together in colonies. There are some who erroneously assume that the expression, " I exterminate the pride of the Philistines" is equivalent to " I exterminate the proud Philistines." But the prophet cannot mean this, for in the very next verse he predicts the conversion, at some future time, of the remnant of the Philistines. Tfie pride of the Philistines is rather the objects of their pride, tfieir fortified cities, their warlike power, and their wealth. These were to be all taken away from them ; and they themselves were to sink into obscurity. These words embrace the whole substance of the prophecy against the Philistines, and apply to the entire nation, what had previously been said of the various cities. The extermination of their pride, referred to here, is the foundation of the conversion pre- • dieted in ver. 7. Even with the people of the covenant, the Lord adopts the same method as with the heathen nations. The extermination of the pride, mentioned in this verse, is equivalent to the extermination from Israel of horse and chariot and battle- bow, which is spoken of in ver. 10, as "the necessary condition of the universal dominion to be afterwards obtained in Christ. Ver. 7. " And I take away his blood out of his mouth, and his abominations from between his teeth ; and even he remains to our God, and he becomes like a prince in Judah, and Ekron like the Jebusite." Beneath the whole of this verse there lies a personification of the Philistine nation ; and this serves to explain, not only the singular suffix, and the ^pj, but also the clause, which is so frequently misunderstood, " and he becomes like a prince in Judah." By the blood we are to understand, not the blood of the enemies slain by the PhilistineSj the Israelites for example, but the blood of the sacrificial animals, which it was a custom ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 7. 393 with idolatrous nations to drink at their sacrifices, either quite pure, or mixed with wine (for proofs see J. D. Michaelis, " die drei wichtigsten Psalmen von Christo," p. 107 sqq.). The abo lition of one particular abomination of idolatry is selected here, to indicate the abolition of idolatry generally. — Q^j*|St£f> aD0~ ruinations, is a term invariably appfied to idolatry ; see the remarks on Dan ix. 27. Hence it cannot be understood to mean the meat offered to idols. The expression, " from their teeth," is rather employed to show that they held their idols so firmly mordicus, that it required such, desperate means, as the overwhelming judgments referred to here, to eradicate their tendency to ido latry. — 03 is understood by many expositors as referring to the Israelites, a remnant of whom, according to the frequent declara tion of the prophets, would repent and be preserved amidst the heavy judgments, which were to be poured out upon them by the Lord. But such an aUusion would be too remote, for the prophet, who has said nothing as yet about the Israefites at all, to have any reason to expect that he would be understood. The actual aUusion is rather to the places already mentioned, Had rach, Syria, and Phoenicia. By this one Httle word, the prophet opens up the grand prospect of their future conversion. He points to the fact that what is here said with immediate refe rence to the Philistines, is but a particular application of a general truth, which is afterwards expressly announced in ver. 10 in its more general form ; viz., that the entrance to the kingdom of God will be one day thrown open to the whole heathen world. See also chap. xiv. 9, " then wiU the Lord be king over all the earth." In the words, " and he will be as a tribe-prince in Judah," the representative, or ideal head of the nation, is intro duced as enjoying the dignity of a prince on the same footing as the native princes themselves ; the idea being, that the nation of Phifistia would be received at some future time as part of the covenant nation, and enjoy precisely the same privileges as all the rest. (For n^N see the remarks on chap. xii. 6). A similar mode of representation is adopted in Matt. ii. 6, where Bethlehem is said to be " not the least among the princes of Judah," an expression which it is also impossible to explain, except on the supposition that the city is personified. Even- Micah (chap. v. 2) 394 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. represents Bethlehem under the figure of its ideal representative. Nearly the same idea is expressed in the last clause, "Ekron will be like the Jebusite." The Jebusites, the ancient possessors of Jerusalem, had dwelt there in common with the inhabitants of the city, who were unable to drive them out, tfil the time of David. They were conquered by David ; and all that remained were incorporated with the nation ofthe Lord, on their adoption of the Israelitish religion. Tfiis is apparent from 2 Sam. xxiv. and 1 Chr. xxi., where Araunah, the Jebusite, is represented as a man of property and distinction, who lived in the midst of the covenant nation, and whose estate was selected by David under divine direction, as the site of the future temple. Many similar instances may be found, in which a transition is made from an account of the judgments, impending over the heathen nations, to an announcement of their eventual reception into the kingdom of God, for which all tfieir humiliations were intended to prepare them, and which alone, as being tfie ultimate objects of all the leadings of God, placed in its proper figfit whatever had gone before; compare, for example, Is. xix., vol. 2, p. 143, 144, and the remarks on Haggai ii. 7. Ver. 8. "And I fix for my house an encampment against an army, him that passeth through and him that returneth, and no oppression shall come over them any more, for now I see with mine eyes." The meaning of the promise is not exhausted by the gracious protection, to be enjoyed by the covenant nation in the catas trophe immediately impending. The prophet sees in this rather the commencement and pledge of a more extensive salvation. This remark diminishes the apparent abruptness in the transi tion to the Messianic prophecy in ver. 9. The house of the Lord, in the opinion of many, is intended to represent his people (over them). But the people are never called " the house of God " in this manner, without further explanation. The ex pression refers to the temple in this case, as in every other. But the temple is regarded as the spiritual dwelling place of all Israel (compare chap. iii. 7, vii. 2) ; and, therefore, the house of the Lord includes the people of the Lord. pQjj is simply a diffe- T T rent method of writing ^rj, army, -q^q and yfi^ are regarded ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9. 395 by many as relating especiaUy to the expeditions of different nations, bent on the conquest of other states, particularly of the neighbouring land of Egypt, wliich had formerly been the occasion of great sufferings to the Israefites. But a compari son of Ezek. xxxv. 7 and Zech. vii. 14 will show, that the phrase admits of a much wider application, and refers to inter course in general. Tfie more immediate reference may be gathered in the present instance from what precedes, against an army ; literally from the army, i.e., so that there shaU no more be an army; compare ^ in chap. vii. 14. " Therefore, although the whole world conspires, and hostile forces gather in great numbers from every quarter, he exhorts them to be of a calm mind, and still hope on, for one God is able to scatter every army." (Calvin.) — The words, " and there shall no more come an oppressor over them" show that at that time they were suffering from an oppression (the Persian supremacy) , as they had formerly done in Egypt (Ex. iii. 7). — T\T\V> now, refers not to the time, when the prophecy was delivered, so much as to the period of fulfilment, when the Lord would encamp around his house. This may be explained from the general character of prophecy, in which the future is regarded as present ; so that where definite announcements are made, it is not the actual, but the ideal present, wliich is intended. In the estimation of timid, despairing men, men of little faith, God only sees, when in his providence he actively interferes. And such is the condescension ofthe word of God, that it accommodates itself to this idea. An important iUustration of this may be found in Jer. vii. 11 : " is this house, then, on which my name is caUed, become a den of criminals in your eyes ? Behold, I also see, saith the Lord," sc. "your evil doings, to fix their proper punishment," (Michaelis). The declaration "I see" was verified by the result. And the Lord not only sees, when anything unseemly is done in his house, but also when it is done to his house. Ver. 9. " Rejoice greatly, 0 daughter of Zion, rejoice, daughter of Jerusalem. Behold, thy king will come to thee, just and pro tected is he, distressed, and riding upon an ass, and upon a young ass, the she-asses' foal." The opening summons to shout with joy indicates the import- 396 MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS. ance of the subject, and also the greatness of the want, which this act of divine mercy is designed to satisfy. Cocceius justly observes that the summons itself contains a prophecy. The pro phet has in his mind only the better portion of the covenant nation, the true members of the people of God, not aU -Israel according to the flesh. He therefore gives prominence simply to the joy and salvation, which are to foUow the arrival of the Messiah. The peculiar cause of rejoicing is undoubtedly that deliverance from the power of the oppressor (ver. 8), which can only be truly and permanently enjoyed in Christ (Ver. 10). — The evangelists have given a literal version of this summons to rejoice. Matthew has substituted, from Is. lxii. 11, " say ye to the daughter of Zion," and thus, in a most expressive manner, has pointed out the intimate connexion between the two passages : " Say ye to the daughter of Zion, behold, thy salvation cometh, behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him." — PI3H shows that the prophet has his eyes fixed upon the coming king, and sees him about to make his entry into Jerusalem. " The enthusiasm of the seer, which has been continuaUy increas ing (ver. 7 and 8), reaches its cfimax here ; and transports him to the very moment, in wliich the new epoch (ver. 10) is about to commence." (Hitzig.) " Thy king," with peculiar emphasis ; he who alone is thy king, in the full and highest sense of the word, and in comparison with whom no other deserves the name ; (compare Ps. xiv. 72). The expression also shows, that the pro phet is speaking of a king, who is universally known from previous prophecies, and is looked for with longing expectation. — >rt^, not only " to thee," but/or thy good, for thy salvation, compare Is. ix. 5, " unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." The pro phet merely lays stress upon the blessings, which the Messiah is to bestow upon the befieving portion of the covenant-nation, since it is for them that his prophecy is peculiarly and immedi ately intended. But it is evident from ver. 7 and 10 that the heathen nations, who are to be received into the kingdom of God, will participate in their blessings. — ^qi (he will come) does not T refer to the coming of tfie Messiah in his glory and to judgment, as in Mal. iii. 1 , but to his first appearance in his humiliation, as the epithets, which follow, clearly show, — pvrj^, just, indi- ZECHARIAH, CHAP. IX. 9. 397 cates the leading virtue required in a king ; and therefore par ticular stress is laid upon this in those prophecies, in which the Messiah is represented as a king, e.g. Ps. xiv. 72 ; Jer. xxiii. 5 ; Is. xi. 3 — 5. The passage in Isaiah (chap. liii. 11), in which the righteousness of the Messiah, as a High Priest, and also as a sacrifice for sins, is spoken of (" fie, the righteous one, my ser vant, will make many rigfiteous"), cannot be compared with this, as it has been by many commentators. — The word ygyfa has from time immemorial afforded considerable occupation to the expositors. (1). It has been very commonly supposed that the Niphal participle is used directly for the Hiphil jyigftQ, (The Kai of y^i is nowhere met with). In the Septuagint it — T is rendered o-a>%