Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume I Part 21

If severe punishment be inflicted, even upon those who have trespa.s.sed against the living G.o.d, with whom they came into contact only distantly, what will become of those to whom He manifested Himself so plainly and distinctly,--among whom He had, as it were, gained a form,--before whose eyes He had been so evidently set forth? The declaration, "You only do I know of all the families of the earth; therefore I shall visit upon you all your iniquities" (iii. 2), forms the centre of the whole threatening announcement to Israel. And could it indeed be introduced in any better way than by pointing out, how even the lowest degree of knowledge was followed by such a visitation?

But now, that which under the Old Testament was the highest degree, becomes, under the New Testament, only a preparatory step. The revelation of G.o.d in Christ stands in the same relation to that made to Israel under the Old Testament, as the latter stands to the manifestation of His character and nature to the heathen, who came into connection with the Covenant-people. Thus the fulfilment becomes to us a new prophecy. If the rejection of G.o.d, in His inferior revelation, was followed by such awful consequences to the temporal welfare of the people of the Old Covenant, what must be the consequences of the rejection of the highest and fullest revelation of G.o.d to the temporal and spiritual welfare of the people of the New Covenant? This is a thought which is further expanded in Heb. xii. 17 ff., and it forms the essential feature of [Pg 361] the description of the judgment of the world in the New Testament. This judgment has been but too often thus misunderstood, as if it concerned the world as the world,--a misunderstanding similar to that of the section before us. The Gospel shall first be preached to every creature, and according as every one has conducted himself towards the _living_ G.o.d, so he shall be judged.--But it is not to the heathen nations only, but to Judah also that, by way of introduction, destruction is announced. The circ.u.mstance that not even the possession of so many precious privileges, as the temple and the Davidic throne, could ward off the well-merited punishment of sin, could not but powerfully affect the hearts of the ten tribes. If G.o.d's justice be so energetic, what have _they_ to expect?

If we continue the examination of _Ruckert's_ view, it will soon appear that the phrase, "Hear this word," in iii. 1, iv. 1, and v. 1, can alone be considered as the foundation on which it rests. But these words do not at all prove a new commencement, but only a new starting-point. This appears sufficiently from the absence of these words at the alleged fourth threatening discourse in chap. vi.; and likewise from a comparison of Hosea iv. 1 and v. 1: "Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel," and "Hear this, ye priests, and hearken, ye house of Israel, and give ear, house of the king;" while nothing similar occurs in the following chapters. That such an exhortation was appropriate, even in the middle, is clearly seen from Amos iii. 13. It cannot then, _per se_, prove anything in favour of a new beginning. If it is to be regarded as such, the discourse must be proved, by other reasons, to have been completed. But no such reasons here exist. We might as reasonably a.s.sume the existence of ten threatening discourses, as of four. The circ.u.mstance that we can nowhere discover a sure commencement and a clearly defined termination, shows that we are fully justified in considering the whole first part, chap. i. to vi., as a connected discourse.

The second part, which contains the visions of the destruction, is composed, indeed, of various portions,--as might have been expected from the nature of the subject. Each new vision, with the discourse connected with it, must form a new section. Chap. vii., viii., and ix., form each a whole. From the account which is added to the first vision; and which relates [Pg 362] to the transactions between Amos and the high priest Amaziah, which were caused by the public announcement of this vision (chap. vii. 12-14), we are led to suppose that these visions were formerly delivered singly, in the form in which we now possess them. But that, even here, we have not before us pieces loosely connected with each other in a chronological arrangement, is evident from the fact, that the promises stand just at the end of the whole collection. The prophet had rather to reprove and to threaten than to comfort; but yet he cannot refrain, at least at the close, from causing the sun to break through the clouds. Without this close there would be wanting in Amos a main element of the prophetic discourse, which is wanting in no other prophet, and by which alone the other elements are placed in a proper light.

It also militates against the supposition of a mere collection, that in the last vision the prevailing regard to the kingdom of the ten tribes disappears almost entirely, and that, like the third chapter of Hosea, it relates to the whole of the Covenant-people,--in agreement with the reference to the earthquake mentioned in the inscription, which the prophet had experienced in Judah, and which brought into view, not a particular, but a general, judgment.

The symbolical clothing, however, forms the sole difference betwixt the second part and the first. As the "real centre and essence of the book"

the second part cannot be regarded; the threatening is as clear and impressive in the first part.

That which is common to Amos with the contemporary prophets, is the absolute clearness with which he foresees that, before salvation comes, all that is glorious, not only in Israel, but in Judah also, must be given over to destruction. Judah and Israel shall be overflowed by the heathen world, the Temple at Jerusalem destroyed, the Davidic dynasty dethroned, and the inhabitants of both kingdoms carried away into captivity. But afterwards, the restoration of David's tabernacle (ix.

11), and the extension of the kingdom of G.o.d far beyond the borders of the heathen world (ver. 12), take place. The most characteristic point is the emanation of salvation from the family of David, at the time of its deepest abas.e.m.e.nt.

Footnote 1: _Bochart_ remains unrefuted by the a.s.sertions of _Hitzig_, _Baur_, and others, who make Amos the owner of a plantation of sycamores, which, according to them, made him a wealthy man. ??? can be understood only of the plucking, or gathering of the fruits of the sycamores. The "cutting of the bark" is by no means obvious, and is too much the language of natural history. That the prophet's real vocation is designated by ????, and that ???? ????? is not, by any means, something independent of, and co-ordinate with that, appears from ver.

15, where the ???? is resumed. The fruits of the sycamores may, occasionally, not have a disagreeable taste, for him who eats them only as a dainty; but they are at all events very poor ordinary food; compare _Warnekros_ in _Eichhorn's Repert._ 11. 256.

Footnote 2: The groundlessness of such a mode of viewing things is shown by the prophecy of events such as that mentioned in i. 15: "The people of Aram are carried away to Kir, saith the Lord;" compare the fulfilment in 2 Kings xvi. 9. They had originally come from Kir, Amos ix. 7. This circ.u.mstance furnished the natural foundation for the prophecy, and it was certainly this circ.u.mstance also which induced the conqueror to adopt his measures. But the supernatural character of the definite prophecy remains, nevertheless, unshaken.

Footnote 3: _Caspari_ in his commentary on Micah, S. 69, is wrong in remarking: "Joel beholds the instruments of punitive justice upon Israel, as numberless hosts only; Amos, already, as a single nation."

In Amos vi. 14 the ??? as little means a single nation, as it does in the fundamental pa.s.sage, Deut. xxviii. 49 ff., beyond the definiteness of which Amos does not go.

Footnote 4: Scarcely any doubt can, however, be entertained that we have here before us a _consequence_ of the war mentioned in 2 Kings iii., viz., the vengeance which the Moabites took for what they suffered on that occasion.

[Pg 363]

CHAPTER IX.

The chapter opens with a vision. The temple, shaken by the Angel of the Lord in its very foundations, falls down, and buries Judah and Israel under its ruins. Without a figure,--the breach of the Covenant by the Covenant-people brings destruction upon them. The prophet endeavours to strengthen the impression of this threatening upon their mind, by breaking down the supports of false security by which they sought to evade it. There is no deliverance, no escape, vers. 2-4, for the Almighty G.o.d is the enemy and pursuer, vers. 5, 6. There is no mercy on account of the Covenant, for Israel is no more the Covenant-people.

They shall not, however, be altogether destroyed; but the destruction of the sinful ma.s.s shall be accompanied by the preservation of a small number of the G.o.dly, vers. 7-10. This great sifting is followed, however, by the restoration; the tabernacle of David which is fallen, the kingdom of G.o.d among Israel, connected with the family of David, shall be raised up again, ver. 11; rendered glorious by its extension over the heathen, ver. 12; and blessed with the abundance of the divine gifts, vers. 12-15.

Ver. 1. "_I saw the Lord standing over the altar; and He said, Smite the chapiter, and make the thresholds tremble, and break them upon the heads of all; and I will kill their remnant by the sword: he that fleeth away of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered._"

The princ.i.p.al question which here arises is:--Who is here addressed,--to whom is the commission of destruction given by the Lord?

As, in accordance with the dramatic character of the prophetical discourse, the person is not more definitely marked out, we can think of Him only who, throughout, executes G.o.d's judgments upon the enemies of His kingdom. But He is the same to whom the preservation and protection of the true members of His kingdom are committed, viz., the Angel of the Lord. It was He, who, as ??????, the destroying Angel, smote the first-born of Egypt, Exod. xii. 2, 3, compared with 12, 13.

It was from Him that the destruction of the [Pg 364] a.s.syrians proceeded, 2 Kings xix. 34, 35; Is. x.x.xvii. 35, 36. After the numbering of Israel, when the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, it was He who inflicted the punishment, 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, 15, 16. As He encampeth round about them who fear the Lord, so He is, in regard to the unG.o.dly, like the wind which carries away the chaff, Ps. x.x.xiv. 8, x.x.xv. 5, 6.--In opposition to the objection raised by _Baur_,--"That, with the exception of the pa.s.sage in Is. vi., nowhere, in the books composed before the Chaldee period, do angels appear to act as mediators in the execution of the divine commands,"--it is sufficient to refer to Joel iv. (iii.) 9-11, and, as regards _the_ Angel of the Lord, to Hosea xii. 5 (4). But we have, in addition, a special reason for thinking here of the Angel of the Lord. This is afforded to us by the ninth chapter of Ezekiel, which must be considered, throughout, as a further expansion of the verse under consideration, and as the oldest and most trustworthy commentary upon it. In that chapter, there appear (at the command of the Lord who is about to avenge the apostasy of His people) the servants of His justice--six in number--and in the midst of them, "a man clothed with linen;"--the former, with instruments of destruction; the latter, with writing materials. They step (the scene is in the temple) by the side of the brazen altar. Thither there comes to them out of the holy of holies, to the threshold of the temple, the glory of the Lord, and gives to Him who is clothed with linen the commission to preserve the faithful, while the others receive a commission to destroy the unG.o.dly, without mercy. But now, Who is the man clothed in linen? None other than the Angel of the Lord. This appears from Daniel x. 5, xii. 6, 7, where Michael = the Angel of the Lord (compare _Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_, p. 135 ff.) is designated in the same way,--a remarkable coincidence in these two contemporary prophets, to which we omitted to direct attention in our work on Daniel. It is _further_ evident from the subject itself. The dress is that of the earthly high priest (_Theodoret_ remarks: "The dress of the seventh is that of the high priest, for he was not one of the destroyers, but the redeemer of those who were worthy of salvation"); compare Lev. xvi. 4, 23. It is especially from the former of these pa.s.sages that the plural ???? is to be accounted for.

According to it, the various parts [Pg 365] of the high priest's dress are of linen. But the heavenly Mediator, High Priest, and Intercessor, is the Angel of the Lord; compare, _e.g._, Zech. i. 12, where He makes intercession for the Covenant-people, and the Lord answers Him with good and comfortable words. Concerning the earthly high priest as a type of Christ, and hence a type of the Angel of the Lord, compare the remarks on Zech. iii. But we must not imagine that He who is clothed with linen is commissioned solely for the work of delivering the G.o.dly, and hence stands contrasted with the six ministers of justice. On the contrary, these are rather to be considered as being subordinate to Him, as carrying out the work of destruction only by His command and authority. From Him, punishment no less than salvation proceeds.

This is sufficiently evident for general reasons. The punishment and deliverance have both the same root, the same aim, viz., the advancement of the kingdom of G.o.d. We cannot by any means think of evil angels in the case of the six; such could be a.s.sumed only in opposition to the whole doctrine of Scripture on the point, which is always consistent in ascribing the punishment of the wicked to the good angels, and the temptation of the G.o.dly, with the permission of G.o.d, to the evil angels. In proof of this, we have only to think of Job's trial, of Christ's temptation, and of the angel of Satan by whom Paul was buffeted. This subject has already been very well treated by _Ode_, who, in his work _De Angelis_, p. 741 ff., says: "G.o.d sends good angels to punish wicked men, and He employs evil angels to chasten the G.o.dly."[1] But if this be established, it is then established at the same time, that the judgment here belongs to the Angel of the Lord. For to Him, as the Prince of the heavenly host, all inferior angels are subordinate, so that everything [Pg 366] which they do belongs to Him.--To these general reasons, we may, however, add special reasons which are altogether decisive. That He who is clothed with linen is closely connected with the six, is indicated by the number seven. He also appears at the side of the altar, and comes in the midst of the others, who follow after Him, ver. 2. But of conclusive significance are the words in chap. x. 2 and 7: "And the Lord spake unto the man clothed with linen, and said, Go in between the wheels under the cherubim, and fill Thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubim, and scatter them over the city. And He went in, in my sight.

And a cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubim, unto the fire that was between the cherubim, and took, and put it into the hands of Him who was clothed with linen. And He took it and went out."

The _fire_ here is not the symbolical designation of wrath, but natural fire; for it is the setting on fire and burning of the city which is here to be prefigured. The wheels denote the natural powers,--in the first instance, the wind, chap. x. 13, but the fire also; while the cherubim denote the living creation. The Angel of the Lord is here expressly designated as He who executeth the judgments of divine justice.

The importance of the preceding investigation extends beyond the mere clearing up of the pa.s.sage under consideration. We have here obtained the Old Testament foundation for the New Testament doctrine, that all judgment has been committed to the Son, while the harmony of the two Testaments is exhibited in a remarkable instance. Compare with the already cited Old Testament declarations, such pa.s.sages as Matt. xiii.

41: ?p?ste?e? ? ???? t?? ?????p?? t??? ???????? a?t??, ?a? s???????s??

?? t?? as??e?a? a?t?? p??ta t? s???da?a, ?a? t??? p?????ta? t??

????a?? and xxv. 31: ?ta? d? ???? ? ???? t?? ?????p?? ?? t? d???

a?t??, ?a? p??te? ?? ???e??? et' a?t??, t?te ?a??se? ?p? ?????? d????

a?t??. In order to be convinced of the ident.i.ty of the Angel of the Lord and Christ (compare above, p. 107 sqq. and _Commentary on Rev._ i.

p. 466), we may further direct attention to the fact that the Angel of the Lord, who meets us throughout the whole of the Old Testament, suddenly disappears in the New Testament, and that to Christ all is ascribed which was in the Old Testament attributed to the Angel of the Lord.

[Pg 367]

A second important question is:--What is to be understood by _the_ altar, ?????? Several interpreters adopt the opinion of _Cyril_, and think of the altar at Bethel, or some other idolatrous altar in the kingdom of Israel. Others (_e.g._, _Marckius_) are of opinion that the article stands here without meaning, and that it is the intention of the prophet only to represent G.o.d as appearing on some altar, leaving it undetermined on which, in order thereby to indicate that He required the blood of many men. But against such expositions the article is conclusive. _The_ altar can be that altar only, of which every one would think, if an altar ?at? ??????, and without a more definite designation, were spoken of. Such was the brazen altar, or altar of burnt-offering in the outer court of the temple at Jerusalem. That it was this altar, and not the altar of incense before the holy of holies, which received, in the common language of the people, the name of _the_ altar, is easily explained from the circ.u.mstance that it stood in a much closer relation to the people than did the other which was withdrawn from their view. On this altar all the sacrifices were offered, and it must, throughout, be understood, when _the_ altar of the Lord is spoken of; compare remarks on Rev. vi. 9. But that which removes all doubt is the comparison with the parallel pa.s.sage in Ezekiel. There, the scene is the temple at Jerusalem. The ministers of justice step beside the brazen altar. At the threshold of the temple-building proper, the glory of the Lord moves toward them. This parallel pa.s.sage, moreover, does not leave any doubt as to the reason why the Lord appears here beside the altar. _Jerome_ remarks on this: "They are introduced standing beside the altar, ready for the order of their commander; so that they know every one whose sins are not forgiven, and who is liable, therefore, to the sentence of the Lord, and to destruction." The Lord's appearing beside the altar is a visible representation of the truth, that wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. The altar is the place of transgression; it is there that there lies acc.u.mulated the unexpiated guilt of the whole nation, instead of the rich treasure of love and faith, which alone should be there, embodied in the sacrifice. The Lord appears at the place of transgression, in order that He may be glorified in the destruction of those who would not glorify Him in their lives. [Pg 368]--Now several interpreters (_e.g._, _Michaelis_), who have correctly defined the meaning of the altar, would infer from the mention of the temple at Jerusalem, that the whole prophecy refers to the kingdom of Judah. But such an a.s.sumption is altogether inadmissible. Even the general reason, that a prophecy which refers exclusively to Judah cannot be at all expected from a prophet who had received his special mission to Israel, militates against it.

_Further_,--The close of this prophecy, the proclamation of salvation, belongs, as we have already proved, to the whole collection. If this be referred to Judah alone, there is then an essential element awanting in that portion which is addressed to Israel; we should then have judgment without mercy, threatening without consolation,--a thing which could not well be conceived of, and would be without a.n.a.logy in any of the prophets. To this we must _further_ add the express references, or co-references to Israel throughout the whole chapter,--such as the mention of Carmel in ver. 3; of the children of Israel, in ver. 7; of the house of Jacob, in ver. 8; of the house of Israel, in ver. 9; of ??????, in ver. 11; of My people Israel, in ver. 14. The whole a.s.sumption of an exclusive reference to Judah owes its origin to the circ.u.mstance, that features which are only symbolical have been erroneously interpreted as actual. But if they be viewed and explained as symbols, every reason for denying the reference to Israel is then at once removed. The temple symbolizes the kingdom of G.o.d; its falling down upon the people is symbolical of the punishment which is inflicted upon them, in consequence of this kingdom. The destruction of the temple in the literal sense is not, primarily, spoken of; although the latter, it is true, be inseparable from the former. If the Covenant-people in general were outwardly desecrated, because they had desecrated themselves inwardly, then also the outward sanctuary which they had, by their wickedness, converted into a den of thieves, was taken from them; compare the remarks on Dan. ix. 27. If Israel then, at that time, still belonged to the kingdom of G.o.d (and this can certainly not be doubted, and is sufficiently proved by the very mission of our prophet to Israel), there exists no reason at all for excluding it. For Israel also, the temple at Jerusalem formed the seat and centre from which it was governed,--the place from which blessings and punishments [Pg 369] proceeded. The prophet indeed, at the very opening of his prophecies, describes the Lord as roaring from Zion, and uttering His voice from Jerusalem. On the altar at Jerusalem the crimes of Israel were deposited, no less than those of Judah; for there was the place where the people of both kingdoms were to deposit the embodied expression of their G.o.dly disposition. It was there, then, that, in reality, the fruits of the opposite were lying, although, as regards the place, they were offered elsewhere.--So much indeed is certain, that the co-reference to Judah is necessarily required by the symbolical representation. The rejection of Israel alone could not be symbolized by the destruction of the temple. And no less does this appear from the announcement of salvation. For this does not by any means promise the re-establishment of the Davidic dominion among the people of Israel, but the restoration of the entire fallen Davidic government. The tabernacle of David that is fallen refers to the destroyed temple. Both signify, substantially, the same thing. With the destruction of the temple, the Davidic tabernacle also fell; and its fall included the overthrow of the kingdom of Israel; for, in this also, the Davidic race had still the dominion _de jure_, although it was suspended _de facto_.

The pa.s.sage under consideration is remarkable also, inasmuch as it furnishes a proof for the custom of designating the kingdom of G.o.d from its existing seat and centre, and thus furnishes us, for other pa.s.sages also, with the right of freeing the thought from the figurative clothing.

A _further_ reason against referring _the_ altar to the altar at Bethel, is, that the latter enjoyed no such pre-eminence in the kingdom of Israel. The temple at Bethel was, to the ten tribes, by no means what the temple at Jerusalem was to Judah. The law regarding the unity of the place of wors.h.i.+p was, among the ten tribes, regarded as non-existing. Even in the verse immediately preceding, in viii. 14, Dan and Beersheba had been mentioned as the chief seats of the Israelitish wors.h.i.+p; and in chap. iv. 4, Gilgal appears beside Bethel as possessing the same importance. In chap. v. 5, Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba are mentioned together. Hosea, in chap. viii. 11, reproves Israel for having made many altars to sin. Hence, there did not exist in Israel an altar ?at? ??????. Such an altar existed only in [Pg 370] Judah. Nor had the sanctuary at Bethel such importance, as that it could be considered as the spiritual abode of the whole people.--_Hofmann_ (_Weissagung u. Erfullung_, S. 203) raises the following objection against the reference to the altar at Jerusalem:--"The prophet, it is true, reproves the sins in Judah as well as those in Israel; but it is only to the kingdom of Jeroboam that he announces destruction, while to the house of David he promises that Jehovah would raise it up from its fallen condition." But in opposition to this objection, we need only refer to ii. 5: "And I send fire in Judah, and it devours the palaces of Jerusalem." Pa.s.sages such as i. 14, 15, ii. 3, absolutely forbid us to make an exception of the palace of the king; and, by chap. vii. 9, where destruction is announced to all the sanctuaries of Isaac, we have as little warrant for excepting the temple. To a.s.sume any such exceptions, would be contrary to the a.n.a.logy of all other threatenings.

_Hofmann_ further objects (l. c. S. 204), "As the threatening announcement of the prophet had last remained suspended over Israel, we are at liberty to think of the altar at Bethel only." But already, in the third chapter, all Israel is addressed, according to ver. 1; and we may further refer to v. 25, where likewise Israel can mean only the whole people,[2] while in vi. 1, Judah is expressly mentioned beside Israel. The prophet employs, throughout, the name of Israel with a certain ambiguity; so that it would be vain to attempt to determine whether it be used in the wider, or in the more limited sense. Wherever he wishes to be distinctly understood as speaking of the ten tribes, he speaks of Joseph and Samaria. Still less would the prophet have employed the names of Jacob (iii. 13, vi. 8, vii. 2, 6) and of Isaac (vii. 9, 16), which were quite uncommon as a designation of the ten tribes,[3] [Pg 371] if it had been of importance, and intentional on his part strictly to separate the boundaries of Judah from those of Israel, and, if there were not everywhere here, only a special application to the ten tribes of that which concerned the whole who were connected by a common fate. But it is especially suitable, that just the close of the whole should, in a remarkably distinct manner, bring into view the two kingdoms, the destinies of which were so intimately connected.--_Hitzig_, further, with a view to favour the reference to the temple in Bethel, adduces the consideration that this vision is connected with the close of viii. 14, and forms a kind of explanation of it. But we have here an entirely new beginning, just as in chap. viii. in its relation to chap. vii. The three visions are altogether independent of, and co-ordinate with each other.--??? with ?? is commonly used of a prominent position _at the side of_: Gen.

xviii. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 20; compare ??? with ?? 1 Kings xiii. 1. In Ezek.

ix. 1 also, the angels stand at the side of the brazen altar, ??? can, of course, never signify "_to be suspended_."--?????? is a species of ornament at the top of the pillars; and ?????, "the thresholds," are contrasted with each other, in order to give expression to the thought that the building was to be shaken, and destroyed from the highest part of it to the lowest,--from the top to the bottom. The shaking of the thresholds occurs also in Is. vi. to denote that the shaking extended to the deepest foundations. The greater number of interpreters translate: "Strike the knop _so that_ ... tremble," etc.; but the ?????? must be viewed rather as co-ordinate with ??: "And they may tremble," equivalent to "Make to tremble."--The suffix in ???? refers to the knops and threshold, or to the entire building, which is marked out by the contrast of the highest and lowest portions. According to _Ewald_ and _Umbreit_, it is intended to refer to the dashed pieces of the altar; but nothing has been said about the destruction of the altar. In Ezek. ix. 2 likewise, the altar is mentioned, not because it was to be destroyed, but only because there the guilt is heaped up. The casting down does not, in itself, imply the _breaking_, _das.h.i.+ng into pieces_; it does so only by its being connected with the following ????. The pa.s.sage in Jer. xlix. 20 is a.n.a.logous: "He shall make their habitation desolate over them;" instead of: "He shall thus make it desolate that they are buried beneath its ruins;" [Pg 372] compare Jer.

l. 45. ????, properly understood, does not mean "_upon_ the head;" the head is rather represented as the receptacle of the tumbling ruins; they fall into their heads and crush them; compare Ps. vii. 17. In what precedes, there is no definite noun to which ??? refers. This is to be explained by the dramatic character of the whole representation which arises necessarily from the opening phrase: "I saw." The same reason accounts for the peculiarity of ?? being employed without any designation of person. In his inward vision, the prophet sees the whole people a.s.sembled before the Lord at the threshold of the temple.

The Lord appears before him as the judge, at the place of the transgressions, at the side of the altar. At His command, the whole a.s.sembled mult.i.tude are buried under the ruins of the temple. From this also it is evident that a destruction of the temple in a literal sense cannot be entertained; for how could a whole people be buried under its ruins? The same appears also from ????? at the commencement. This, then, shows that we have here before us a symbolical representation, corresponding altogether to that which we have in vii. 1, 4, 7, viii.

1. Hitherto, the Lord speaking to some one, had given him the commission of destruction. He now continues with: "I will kill." This also shows that the one who is addressed is the Angel of the Lord. The same occurrence takes place in the greater number of the pa.s.sages in which the Angel of the Lord is spoken of. In the action there is constant alternation; it is ascribed, at one time to Him, at another, to Jehovah.--Several interpreters (_Marckius_, _De Wette_, _Ruckert_, and others) explain ????? by "posterity;" others, after the example of the Chaldee (??????), by "remnant;" and others, by "lowest of the people." We must here enter into a closer examination of the significations of this word. It is commonly supposed (compare _Gesenius_ and _Winer_) that, primarily and properly, it signifies "the last and extreme part," and then "the end." But that which is supposed to be the derived signification is rather the original and proper one.

The form of the word cannot furnish any reason why this should not be the case, as is evident from what has been remarked by _Ewald_: "As the feminine termination, in general, forms abstract nouns, so also, not unfrequently, abstract nouns are derived from other nouns, by means of the termination ????; very frequently there is no [Pg 373] masculine in ??? at all at the foundation, but ???? serves, in general, only as the sign of derivation." The following reasons prove that the signification "end" is the primary and proper one. 1. If the contrary were the case, the masculine ??? would also occur, and the feminine would be met with as an adjective also. 2. ????? forms the constant ant.i.thesis to ?????; but it is universally admitted that the former is, originally and properly, an abstract noun, and signifies "beginning." The signification "end" must then be retained here also. The word never has another signification (compare my work on Balaam, p. 465 ff.); it means only "end" in Its various relations. But the posterity cannot here be thought of as the end; for the whole action is concentrated in one point of time. Nor is the word ever used in the sense of "posterity."

With as little propriety can "end" mean "the lowest of the people;" for one cannot see why just these should be given up to the sword. "End,"

here, rather denotes "remnant,"--all those who, at the overthrow of the temple, might escape. These, the Lord will pursue with the sword. They who were buried under the temple are the beginning, ?????; the latter are the ?????, end. Corresponding to the shaking of the temple from the knops to the thresholds, the thought is expressed in this manner, that from the first to the last, ??? ???? they should be subjected to the divine punishment. An implied ant.i.thesis of quite the same kind, of ????? to ????? occurs also In iv. 2 (where _De Wette_ and _Ruckert_ have likewise mistaken the sense), and in viii. 10.--On the last words of the verse, which are to be considered as a further explanation of, "Their end, or remnant, I will kill by the sword," _Cocceius_ remarks: "This slaughter becomes the more thorough, inasmuch as even they who flee, or seemed to have fled, are not excluded from it." The second member seems to contradict the first; for if none be allowed to flee away, how can any have escaped? Several Interpreters have been thereby induced to give to the verb ??? the first time, the signification "to escape,"--the second time, "to flee." But the contradiction is quite similar to that which occurs in the preceding context also, when all are dashed to pieces by the ruins, and yet a remnant is spoken of. It soon disappears when we consider that it Is the intention of the prophet to cut off every possible way of escape, by which carnal security endeavoured to save [Pg 374] and preserve itself against the impression of his discourse--that it is equivalent to: "_All_ shall be buried under the ruins, and although some should succeed in escaping from this kind of destruction, yet the sword of divine vengeance would be behind them, and slay them; flight shall not be possible to any man; and even although it might be to some, it would be of no avail to them, for G.o.d would be their persecutor." But another apparent contradiction must not be overlooked. Even here, the destruction is most emphatically described as being quite general; as such, it is minutely represented ins vers. 2-4. One cannot fail to see how anxious the prophet is to cut off, from every individual, the idea of the possibility of an escape.

On the other hand, it is announced in ver. 8, that the house of Jacob shall not be utterly destroyed; according to ver. 9, all the G.o.dly shall be preserved; according to ver. 10, the judgment is to be limited to the sinners from among the people,--a limitation which is also presupposed by the description in the 11th and subsequent verses. In iii. 12, the preservation of a small remnant amidst the general destruction had been promised. The greater number of interpreters, in order to reconcile this apparent contradiction, a.s.sume an hyperbole in vers. 1-4. But this a.s.sumption is certainly erroneous. The ground of this great copiousness,--the reason why the prophet represents the same thought in aspects so various,--is evidently to prevent every idea of an hyperbole,--to show that the words are to be taken in all their strictness of meaning. But the limitation may be arrived at, and effected in a different, and legitimate way. There is, in the nature of unG.o.dliness, a levity which flatters every individual with the hope of escape, even although a threatened general calamity should take place.

All the possibilities of deliverance are sought after in such a disposition of mind, and are, by imagination, easily changed into probabilities and realities, because just that is wanting which proves them to be improbable and unreal, viz., the consciousness of a living, omnipotent G.o.d. Thus men free themselves from fear, and with it, from the troublesome obligation of escaping from it in another and a legitimate way, viz., by true conversion. Now, it is this levity which the prophet opposes. He shows that whatever possibility of deliverance such levity may dream of, it never would become a reality, and this [Pg 375] for the simple reason, that they had not to deal with human antagonists; from them an escape by human means would be possible, how powerful and wise soever they might be. But they have to deal with an omnipotent G.o.d, who, being also omnipresent, can arm all His creatures against His despisers, so that they cannot retreat to any place where He, who reigneth absolutely in heaven and on earth, has not ministers of His vengeance. Every thought, then, of an escape by _human means_ is here cut off. But with this, every thought of deliverance in any way is taken from the _unG.o.dly_, who are told by their own consciences that G.o.d will not deliver them. But, on the other hand, the same consideration could not but administer consolation to the G.o.dly. If no one, should he even hide himself in heaven, can escape from G.o.d the Avenger, then no one, were he even in the midst of his enemies, and were the sword even already lifted up against him, can be lost from G.o.d the Deliverer.--Another question has been asked, which relates to the historical reference of the threatened punishment. It goes just as far as the thought which lies at its foundation: "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I shall visit upon you all your transgressions." Those interpreters who think exclusively of either the a.s.syrian, or the Chaldean, or the Roman destruction, are, in the same way, partly right and partly wrong, at the same time. All these events, and others besides, belong essentially to one whole. The difference as to time and circ.u.mstances is that which is unessential.

That a prophet had exclusively in view any single one from among those divine manifestations of punishment, can be a.s.serted, only where he himself has given express declarations to such an effect; and even then, the prophecy is limited to that single event, as to its _form_ only: its _idea_ is not lost by the single fulfilment.

Ver. 2. "_If they break through into h.e.l.l, from thence My hand shall take them; if they ascend up into heaven, from thence I will take them down._"

The Future must not, either here, or in what follows, be understood as _potentialis_: "Though they should conceal themselves;" but as the real Future: "If they are to conceal themselves." That ?? with the Future is used only _de re dubia_, as _Winer_ a.s.serts, is as erroneous as to a.s.sert that, with the Preterite, [Pg 376] it supposes the condition as existing. The correct view has been already given by _Gesenius_ in the _Thesaurus_. By supposing the possibility of a condition, impossible in reality, the denial of the consequence becomes so much the more emphatic and expressive. That such a supposition is made here, is evident from ver. 4, where the prophet pa.s.ses over to the territory of actual possibility, and where, therefore, we cannot translate: "Though they should go." Such a supposition is, in general, very frequent. It occurs, _e.g._, Matt. v. 29, where _Tholuch_ (_Comment. on the Sermon on the Mount_) has been led very far astray from the right understanding of e? d? ? ?f?a??? s?? ? de???? s?a?da???e? se, ?.t.?., by overlooking this _usus loquendi_. We are not indeed at liberty to translate, "Though thy right eye should offend thee;" but it must be decided by other arguments, whether the condition here _supposed_ be one really possible; and these arguments show that it is only for the sake of greater emphasis that there has here been supposed as possible, what is impossible.--Heaven and Sheol form a constant contrast between the highest height and the lowest depth. From a merely imagined possibility, the prophet descends to the real one. If, then, even the former be not able to afford protection, because G.o.d's hand reaches even where one has escaped far from any human power, how much less the latter!--??? with the Accus. signifies "to break through," Job xxiv.

16; with ?, "to make a hole in anything;" thus Ezek. viii. 8, xii. 7, 12 (??? ????, "to make a hole in the wall"). These parallel pa.s.sages show that the Sheol must be conceived of as being surrounded with strong walls,--by which is expressed its inaccessibility to all that is living. The fundamental pa.s.sage is in Ps. cx.x.xix. 7, 8: "Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit, and whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven. Thou art there; if I make my bed in h.e.l.l, behold, Thou art there." David does not here speak in his own person, but in that of his whole race. The Psalm is an indirect exhortation to his successors on the throne, and at the same time to the people. "If you are wicked," so he here addresses them, "you can never hope to escape from the punis.h.i.+ng hand of the Almighty." And since they have become wicked, the words of David have acquired new emphasis.

Ver. 3. "_And if they hide themselves on the top of Carmel,_ [Pg 377]

_from thence I will search and take them out; and if they hide themselves from My sight in the bottom, of the sea, from thence I will command the serpent, and he bites them._"

The question here is:--Why is Carmel specially mentioned? Interpreters remind us of the numerous caves of this mountain, which make it peculiarly suitable for concealment. _O. F. von Richter_, in the _Wallfahrten im Morgenlande_, S. 65, remarks on this point: "The caves are extremely numerous in Carmel, especially on the west side. It is said that there are more than a thousand, and that they were inhabited in ancient times by monks, to whom, however, their origin cannot be ascribed. In one part of the mountain, called 'the caves of the members of the orders,' 400 are found beside each other. Farther down in the hard limestone mountain, there is one which is distinguished by its size, about 20 paces long, and more than 15 broad and high." Details still more accurate are given by _Schulz_ in the _Leitungen des Hochsten_, Th. 5, S. 186, 303. According to him, the road is pure rock, and very smooth, and so crooked, that those going before cannot see those who follow them. "When we were only ten paces distant from each other, we heard each other's voices, indeed, but were invisible to each other, on account of the winding ways made in consequence of the intervening by-hills.... Everywhere there are caves, and their mouths are often so small that only one man can creep through at a time; the approaches to them are so serpentine, that he who is pursued may escape from his pursuer, and step into such a small opening, of which there are frequently three or four beside each other, before his pursuer is aware of it. Hence, if any one should hide himself there, it is exceedingly difficult, yea, even impossible for the eyes of man to discover him who is pursued." But this circ.u.mstance alone does not exhaust the case, even if we still further add that the mountain was then, as it is now (_Richter_, S. 66), covered with trees and shrubberies up to the summit. The expression, "In the top," must not be overlooked, and the less so, since it stands in evident ant.i.thesis to the "_bottom_ of the sea,"--like the contrast of height and depth in the preceding verse. Heaven and h.e.l.l are represented on earth by the top of Carmel, and the bottom of the sea. The height of Carmel must, therefore, come also into consideration. This, it is true, is not very great; _Buckingham_ [Pg 378] estimated it at 1500 feet (_v. Raumer_, S.

40); but the prophet chose Carmel in preference to other higher mountains, partly on account of the peculiarity already stated; partly, and especially, on account of its position in the immediate neighbourhood of the sea, over which its summit hangs, and which can be seen to a great distance from it; compare 1 Kings xviii. 43, 44. Of corporeal things it holds true, as it does of spiritual things, that opposites, placed beside each other, become thereby more distinct. A lower elevation, placed by the side of a depth, appears to the unscientific eye to be much higher than another which is really so.

Moreover, the position of Carmel at the extreme western border of the kingdom of Israel must also be considered. He who hides himself there, must certainly be ignorant of any safer place in the whole country; and if even then there be no more security, the sea alone is left.--???

occurs frequently with the signification "to bid," to "command." The word is chosen on purpose to show, how even the irrational creatures stand in the service of the omnipotent G.o.d; so that it requires only a word from Him to make them the instruments of His vengeance. That the prophet had a knowledge of a very dangerous kind of sea-serpents (of which _Pliny_ xix. 4 speaks), need not be supposed on account of the ???. That was not of the slightest consequence here. In v. 19 the serpent occurs in a particularizing representation of the thought that G.o.d is able to arm all nature against His enemies: "As if a man flees from the lion, and a bear meets him; and he comes home, and leans his hand on the wall, and a serpent bites him"--just the opposite of the a.s.surance that "to those who love G.o.d, all things shall work together for good." So early as in Deut. x.x.xii. 24, apostates are threatened with the poison of the serpents of the dust, besides the teeth of wild beasts; and what this threatening implied, might have been well known to Israel from their former history; compare Num. xxi. 6: "And the Lord sent against the people serpents, and they bit the people, and much people of Israel died,"--a pa.s.sage to which Jeremiah alludes in chap.

viii. 17, where he says; "For behold I send against you serpents, basilisks, against which there is no charm, and they bite you, saith the Lord." It is very probable that to this the prophet also alludes in the pa.s.sage before us.

[Pg 379]

Ver. 4. "_And if they go into captivity before their enemies, from thence will I command the sword, and it slayeth them; and I set Mine eyes upon them for evil and not for good._"

???? means the state of exile. The circ.u.mstance of their being carried into captivity might awaken the hope that mercy will be granted to them; for, according to the natural course of things, he who is carried away into captivity may be sure of his life; but nothing can give security before G.o.d. The last words are strikingly ill.u.s.trated by _Calvin_, who says: "There is an ant.i.thesis in this sentence, inasmuch as G.o.d had promised that He would be the protector of His people. But as hypocrites are always apt to appropriate to themselves the promises of G.o.d, without having either repentance or faith, the prophet here declares, that the eye of G.o.d would be upon them, not to protect them, as was His custom, but rather to add punishments to punishments. And this sentence is worthy of notice, inasmuch as we are thereby reminded, that although the Lord does by no means spare infidels. He yet observes us more closely in order to punish us the more severely, when He sees that we are utterly hardened and incurable." Under any circ.u.mstances, the people of the Lord continue to be the objects of special attention.

They are more richly blessed; but they are also more severely punished.

Ver. 5. "_And the Lord, Jehovah, of hosts, who toucheth the earth, and it melteth, and all that dwell therein mourn; and it riseth up wholly like the stream, and it sinketh down as the stream of Egypt._"

The prophet continues to cut off every false hope with which levity flatters itself. How can you think to escape, since you have the Almighty G.o.d for your enemy! "The prophet," remarks _Jerome_, "speaks thus, in order to impress them with the greatness of divine power, that they might not imagine that He would perhaps not do what He had threatened, or that His power was not equal to His will." Similar descriptions of the divine omnipotence, as opposed to unbelief and weak faith, are very numerous; _e.g._, iv. 13, v. 8, 27; Is. xl. 22, xlv.

12. We are not at liberty to translate: "And the Lord Jehovah of hosts is He who toucheth." It is rather an abrupt mode of speech; and there must be supplied, either at the beginning, "And who is your enemy?" or at the end, "He is your opponent." [Pg 380] This abruptness of language is quite in accordance with the subject, and belongs, moreover, to the characteristic peculiarities of Amos. Altogether similar is v. 7, 8, where Israel and their G.o.d are simply placed beside each other, and every one is left to conclude for himself how such a G.o.d would act towards such a people: "They who turn judgment to wormwood, and cast righteousness to the earth. Making the Pleiades and Orion, and turning the shadow of death into the morning, and making the day dark with night, calling," etc. The acc.u.mulated appellations. Lord, Jehovah, of hosts, likewise serve to point out the omnipotence of G.o.d. The believer acc.u.mulates these appellations in his prayer in order to awaken his confidence and hope; compare, _e.g._, Is. x.x.xvii. 16, where Hezekiah begins his prayer to the Lord thus: "Jehovah, of hosts, G.o.d of Israel, Thou who art enthroned on Cherubim, Thou art G.o.d alone for all the kingdoms of the earth." But these appellations are held up to the unbelievers, to cast down all their hopes. We have separated, of hosts, from the preceding appellation of G.o.d by a comma. Ever since _Gesenius_, in his Commentary on Is. i. 9, has a.s.serted that ????? when connected with Jehovah, must be considered as a Genitive depending upon it, his view has been pretty generally adopted. But it is certainly erroneous. The instances by which _Gesenius_ endeavours to prove the possibility of such a connection of proper names with appellative names are not to the point. In "Bethlehem Jehudah" it is only by a false interpretation that Jehudah is considered as standing in the _status constr._ with Bethlehem (compare the remarks on Mic. v. 1 [2]); and with regard to ??? ????? it is to be remarked that, in consequence of its many divisions, ??? loses the nature of a proper name. The two words, Jehovah Zebaoth, can no more be immediately connected with each other than Jehovah (which is as perfect a proper name as ever existed) ever has, or ever can have, the article. Let us only consider the phrase ????? ????? in Ps. lx.x.x. 15, and elsewhere, where a _status constr._ is out of the question; and, _further_, the fact that wherever, as in the case under review, Adonai precedes, the Mazorets have always given to ???? the points of ???????? but never of ???????; and let us, _finally_, consider the far more frequent, full expression, ???? ???? ?????? (_e.g._, iii. 13, iv. 13, v. 14), and we shall be convinced, that even where the [Pg 381] simple ???? ?????? occurs, not indeed ???? is simply to be supplied (if such were the case, why is it that ?????? never occurs alone?), but that the notion of the Lord is to be taken from the preceding designations of the sovereignty of G.o.d.

Compare on ????? the remarks in my Commentary on Ps. xxiv. 10, where those also are refuted who, like _Maurer_ (in his Comment. on Is. i.