Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume Ii Part 22

THE SECTION, CHAP. III, 14-17.

The whole Section, from chap. iii. 6, to the end of chap. vi., forms one connected discourse, separated from the preceding context by the inscription in chap. iii. 6, and from the subsequent context, by the inscription in chap. vii. 1. This separation, however, is more external than internal. The contents and tone remain the same through the whole series of chapters which open the collection of the prophecies of Jeremiah, and that to such a degree, that we are compelled to doubt the correctness of the proceeding of those interpreters, who would determine the chronological order of the single portions, and fix the exact period in the reign of Josiah to which every single portion belongs. If such a proceeding were admissible, why should the Prophet have expressed himself, in the inscription of the Section before us, in terms so general as: "And the Lord said unto me in the days of Josiah the king?" Every thing on which these interpreters endeavour to found more accurate determinations in regard to the single Sections, disappears upon a closer consideration. Thus, _e.g._, the twofold reference to the seeking of help from Egypt, in chap. ii. 16 ff., x.x.xvi., x.x.xvii., on which _Eichhorn_ and _Dahler_ lay so much stress.

We are not ent.i.tled here to suppose a reference to a definite historical event, which, moreover, cannot be historically pointed out in the whole time of Josiah, but can only be supposed on unsafe and unfounded conjectures. In both of the pa.s.sages something future is spoken of, as is evident from vers. 16 and 19. The thought is this:--that a.s.shur, _i.e._, the power on the Euphrates (compare 2 Kings xxiii. 29), which had. for a long time opened its mouth to swallow up Judah, just as it had already swallowed up the kingdom of the ten tribes, would not be conciliated, and that Egypt could not grant help against him. This thought refers to historical circ.u.mstances which had already existed, and continued to exist for some centuries, and which, in reference to Israel, is given utterance to as early as by Hosea, compare Vol. i. p. 164, f. Our view is this: We have here before us, not so much a series of prophecies, each of which had literally been so uttered at some particular [Pg 374] period in the reign of Josiah, as rather a _resume_ of the whole prophetic ministry of Jeremiah under Josiah; a collection of all which, being independent of particular circ.u.mstances of that time, had, in general, the destiny to give an inward support to the outward reforming activity of Josiah, a specimen of the manner in which the Prophet discharged the divine commission which he had received a year after the first reformation of Josiah.

Even the manner in which chap ii. is connected with chap. i. places this relation to his call beyond any doubt. We have thus before us here the same phenomenon which we have already perceived in several of the minor prophets; comp. _e.g._, the introduction to Micah.

In the section before us, the Prophet is engaged with a two-fold object,--first, with the proclamation of salvation for Israel, chap.

iii. 6-iv. 2; secondly, with the threatening for Judah, chap. iv. 3, to the end of chap. vi. It is only incidentally, in chap. iii. 18, that it is intimated that Judah also, after the threatening has been fulfilled upon them, shall partake in the salvation. It is self-evident that these two objects must not be considered as lying beside one another.

According to the whole context, the announcement of salvation for Israel cannot have any other object than that of wounding Judah. This object even comes out distinctly in ver. 6-11, and the import of the discourse may, therefore, be thus stated: Israel does not continue to be rejected as pharisaical Judah imagined; Judah does not continue to be spared.--When the Prophet entered upon his ministry, ninety-four years had already elapsed since the divine judgment had broken in upon Israel; every hope of restoration seemed to have vanished. Judah, instead of being thereby warned; instead of beholding, in the sin of others, the image of its own; instead of perceiving, in the destruction of the kingdom of its brethren, a prophecy of its own destruction, was, on the contrary, strengthened in its obduracy. The fact that it still existed, after Israel had, long ago, hopelessly perished, as they imagined, appeared to them as a seal which G.o.d impressed upon their ways. They rejoiced at Israel's calamity, because, in it, they thought that they saw a proof of their own excellency, just as, at the time of Christ, the blindness of the Jews was increased by the circ.u.mstance that they still considered themselves as the sole members of [Pg 375]

the Kingdom of G.o.d, and imagined the Gentiles to be excluded from it.

The Saviour's announcement of the calling of the Gentiles stands in the same relation as the Prophet's announcement of the restoration of Israel.

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

The question here is:--To whom is the discourse here addressed,--to the members of Israel, _i.e._, the kingdom of the ten tribes, as most of the interpreters suppose (_Abarbanel_, _Calvin_, _Schmid_, and others), or, as others a.s.sume, to the inhabitants of Judea? The decision has considerable influence upon the exposition of the whole pa.s.sage; but it must unhesitatingly and unconditionally be given in favour of the first view. There is not one word to indicate a transition; the very same phrase, "turn, O apostate children," occurs, in ver. 22, of Israel.

Apostate Israel is, in the preceding verses (6, 8, 11,) the standing expression, while Judah is designated as treacherous, ver. 8-11. The measure of guilt is determined by the measure of grace. The relation of the Lord to Judah was closer, and hence, her apostacy was so much the more culpable. _Farther_--A detailed announcement of salvation for Judah would here not be suitable, inasmuch as no threatening preceded; and ver. 18 ("In those days, the house of Judah shall come by the side of [literally, 'over'] the house of Israel," according to which the return of Judah is, in the meantime, a subordinate point which has here been mentioned incidentally) clearly shows that that announcement of salvation, contained in vers. 14-17, refers to Israel. To Israel the Prophet immediately returns in ver. 19; for, from the contrast to the house of Judah in ver. 18, and to Judah and Jerusalem in chap. iv. 3, it is evident that by the house of Israel in ver. 20, and by the sons of Israel in ver. 21, Israel, in the stricter sense, is to be understood. _Finally_--It will be seen from the exposition, that it is only on the supposition that Israel is addressed, that the contents of ver. 16, 17, become intelligible.--In our explanation of the words ??

???? ????? ????, we follow the precedent of the Vulgate (_quia ego vir vester_), of _Luther_ ("I will [Pg 376] marry you to me"), of _Calvin_, _Schimd_, and others. On the other hand, others, especially _Poc.o.c.ke_, _ad P.M._ p. 2, _Schultens_ on Prov. x.x.x. 22, _Venema_, _Schnurrer_, _Gesenius_, _Winer_, _Bleek_, have made every endeavour to prove that ??? is used _sensu malo_ here, as well as in chap. x.x.xi. 32, where it occurs in a connection altogether similar; so that the decision must be valid for both of the pa.s.sages at the same time. This signification they seek to make out in a twofold way. Some altogether give up the derivation from the Hebrew _usus loquendi_, and refer solely to the Arabic, where ??? means _fastidire_. Others derive from the Hebrew signification, "to rule," that of a tyrannical dominion, and support their right in so doing, by referring, with _Gesenius_, to other verbs in which the signification, _to subdue_, _to be distinguished_, _to rule_, has been changed into that of _looking down_, _despising_, and _contemning_. As regards the _first_ derivation, even if the Arabic _usus loquendi_ were proved, we could not from it make any certain inference as regards the Hebrew _usus loquendi_. But with respect to this Arabic _usus loquendi_, it is far from being proved and established. It is true that such would not be the case if there indeed occurred in Arabic the expression [Arabic: **] _fastidivit vir mulierem eamque expulit, s. repudiavit_; but it is only by a strange _quid pro quo_ that interpreters, even _Schultens_ among them, following the example of _Kimchi_, have saddled this expression upon the Arabic. The error lies in a hasty view of _Adul Walid_, who, instead of it, has [Arabic: **] _any one is embarra.s.sed in his affair_. The signification _fastidire_, _rejicere_, is, in general, quite foreign to the Arabic.

The verb [Arabic: **] denotes only: _mente turbatus_, _attonitus fuit_, _i.e._, _to be possessed_, _deprived of the use of one's strength_, _to be embarra.s.sed_, _not to know how to help one's self_: compare the _Camus_ in _Schultens_ and _Freytag_. As soon as the plain connection of this signification with the ordinary one is perceived, it is seen at once, that it is here out of the question. As regards the second derivation, we must bring this objection against it, that the fundamental signification of _ruling_, from which that of _ruling tyrannically_ is said to have arisen, is entirely foreign to the Hebrew. More clearly than by modern Lexicographers it was seen by _Cocceius_, that the fundamental, yea the only signification of ???, is that of _possessing_, [Pg 377] _occupying_. It may, indeed, be used also of rulers, as, _e.g._ Isa. xxvi. 13, and 1 Chron. iv. 22; but not in so far as they rule, but in so far as they possess. On the former pa.s.sage: "Jehovah our G.o.d, ?????? ?????? ??????, Lords beside thee have dominion over us," _Schultens_, it is true, remarks: "Every one here easily recognizes a severe and tyrannical dominion;" but it is rather the circ.u.mstance that the land of the Lord has at all foreign possessors, which is the real sting of the grief of those lamenting, and which so much occupies them, that they scarcely think of the way and manner of the possessing.--Pa.s.sages such as Is. liv. 1,[1] lxii. 4, compare Job i. 8, where a relation is spoken of, founded on most cordial love, show that the signification "_to marry_," does not by any means proceed from that of ruling, and is not to be explained from the absolute, slavish dependence of the wife in the East, but rather from the signification "to possess." And this is farther proved by pa.s.sages such as Deut. xxi. 10-13, xxvi. 1, where the _copula carnalis_ is pointed out as that by which the ??? is completed. And, finally, it is seen from the Arabic, where the wife is also called, ????, [Arabic: **], just as the husband is called ???, [Arabic: **].--It is farther obvious that, in the frequent compositions of ?????? with other nouns, in order, by way of paraphrasis, to form adjectives, the signification "lord" is far less suitable than that of "possessor," _e.g._, ???

?????, _the dreamer_, ??? ??, _the angry one_, ??? ???, _the covetous one_, ??? ?????, _the deceitful one_, ???? ??? _oppidani_, ???? ????, _the members of the covenant_, etc. We arrive at the same conclusion, if we look to the dialects. Here, too, the signification "to possess"

appears as the proper and original signification. In the Ethiopic, the verb signifies _multum possedit, dives fuit._ In Arabic, the significations are more varied; but they may all be traced back to one root. Thus, _e.g._ [Arabic: **], ???, according to the _Camus_, "a high and elevated land which requires only one annual rain; farther, a palm-tree, or any other tree or plant which is not watered, or which the sky alone irrigates;" _i.e._, a land, a tree, a plant which themselves _possess_, which do not require to _borrow_ from others.

This reason of the appellation clearly appears in _Dsheuhari_ (compare [Pg 378] _Schultens_ l. c.): "It is used of the palm-tree, which, by its roots, provides for itself drink and sap, so that there is no need for watering it." In favour of the signification "to rule" in this verb, the following gloss from the _Camus_ only can be quoted: "Both (the 1st and 10th conjugations) when construed with ???? _super illum_, denote: he has taken possession of a thing, and behaved himself proudly towards it." But the latter clause must be struck out; for it has flowed only from the false reading [Arabic: **] in _Schultens_, for which (compare _Freytag_) [Arabic: **] _noluit_ must be read, ??? with ?? accordingly signifies "to be the possessor of a thing, and, as such, not to be willing to give it up to another." And thus every ground has been taken from those who, from the Hebrew _usus loquendi_, would interpret ??? in a bad sense,--The same result, however, which we have reached upon philological grounds, we shall obtain also, when we look to the context. From it, they are most easily refuted, who, like _Schultens_, understand the whole verse as a threatening. That which precedes, as well as that which follows, breathes nothing but pure love to poor Israel. She is not terrified by threatenings, like Judah who has not yet drunk of the cup of G.o.d's wrath, but allured by the call: "Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden, _for_ I will give you rest." But they also labour under great difficulties who, after the example of _Kimchi_ ("_ego fastidivi vos, eo scil. quod praeteriit tempore, ac jam colligam vos_"), refer the ?? not so much to ?????, as rather to ?????: "For I have, it is true, rejected you formerly, but now I take," &c. This is the only shape in which this interpretation can still appear; for it is altogether arbitrary to explain ?? by "although," an interpretation still found in _De Wette_. If it had been the intention of the Prophet to express this sense, nothing surely was less admissible, than to omit just those words, upon which everything depended--the words _formerly_ and _now_. ????? and ????? evidently stand here in the same relation; both together form the ground for the return to the Lord. To these reasons we may still add the circ.u.mstance that, according to our explanation, we obtain the beautiful parallelism with ver. 12: "Return thou, apostate Israel, saith the Lord; I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you; _for_ I am merciful; I do not keep anger for ever,"--a circ.u.mstance which has already been [Pg 379]

pointed out by _Calvin_. Israel's haughtiness is broken; but despondency now keeps them from returning to the Lord. He, therefore, ever anew repeats His invitation, ever anew founds it upon the fact, that He delights in showing mercy and love to those who have forsaken Him. The rejection of Israel had, in ver. 8, been represented under the image of divorce: "Because apostate Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away, and given her the bill of divorce." What, therefore, is more natural, than that her being received again, which was offered to her out of pure mercy, should appear under the image of a new marriage; and that so much the more, that the apostacy had, even in the preceding verse, been represented as adultery and wh.o.r.edom?

("_Thou hast scattered thy ways_, _i.e._, thou hast been running about to various places after the manner of an impudent wh.o.r.e seeking lovers"--_Schmid_; compare ver. 6.) Farther to be compared is ver. 22: "Return ye apostate children, (for) I will heal your apostacy. Behold we come unto thee, _for_ thou art the Lord our G.o.d." The objection that ???, in the signification "to take in marriage" is construed with the Accusative only, is of no weight. In a manner altogether similar, ???, which else is connected with the simple Accusative, is, in ver. 16, followed by the Preposition ?. ??? with ? altogether corresponds to our "to join onesself in marriage;" and the construction has perhaps a certain emphasis, and indicates the close and indissoluble connection.

Of still less weight is another objection, viz., that, in that case, the _Suffix Plur._ is inadmissible. It is just the Israelites who are the wife; and this is so much the more evident that, in the preceding verses, and even still in ver. 13, they had been treated as such. Hence nothing remains but to determine the sense of our pa.s.sage, as was done by _Calvin_: "Because despair might take hold of them, in such a manner that they might be afraid of approaching Him.... He saith that He would marry himself to them, and that He had not yet forgotten that union which He once had bestowed upon them." This is the only correct view; and by thus determining the sense, we at the same time obtain the sure foundation for the exposition of chap. x.x.xi. 32; just as, _vice versa_, the sense which will result from an independent consideration of that pa.s.sage, [Pg 380] will serve to confirm that which was here established.[2] In the right determination of the sense of the subsequent words, too, _Calvin_ distinguishes himself advantageously from the earlier, and most of the later interpreters: "G.o.d shows that there was no reason why some should wait for others; and farther, although the very body of the people might be utterly corrupted in their sins, yet, if even a few were to return. He would show himself merciful to them. The covenant had been entered into with the _whole_ people. The single individual might, therefore, have been disposed to imagine that his repentance was in vain. But in opposition to such fears, the Prophet says: 'Although only one of a town should come to me, he shall find an open door; although only two of one tribe come to me, I will admit even them.'" After him _Losca.n.u.s_ too (in his Dissertation on this pa.s.sage, Frankf. 1720) has thus correctly stated the sense: "The small number shall not prevent G.o.d from carrying out His counsel." Thus it is seen--and this is alone suitable in this context--that the apparent limitation of the promise is, in truth, an extension of it. How great must G.o.d's love and mercy be to Israel, in how wide an extent must the declaration be true: ?eta???ta t?

?a??sata ?a? ? ???s?? t?? ?e??, Rom. xi. 29, if even a single righteous Lot is by G.o.d delivered from the Sodom of Israel; if Joshua and Caleb, untouched by the punishment of the sins of the thousands, reach the Holy Land; if every penitent heart at once finds a gracious G.o.d! Thus it appears that this pa.s.sage is not by any means in contradiction to other pa.s.sages by which a complete restoration of Israel is promised. On the contrary, the ?p?t?????e?? of the ??????

(Rom. xi. 7) announced here, is a pledge and guarantee for the more comprehensive and general mercy.--Expositors are at variance as to the historical reference of the prophecy. Some, _e.g._ _Theodoret_, _Grotius_, think exclusively of the return from the Babylonish captivity. Others (after the example of _Jerome_ and the Jewish interpreters) think of the Messianic time. It need [Pg 381] scarcely be remarked, that here, as in so many other pa.s.sages, this alternative is out of place. The prophecy has just the very same extent as the matter itself, and, hence, refers to all eternity. It was a commencement, that, at the time of Cyrus, many from among the ten tribes, induced by true love to the G.o.d of Israel, joined themselves to the returning Judeans, and were hence again engrafted by G.o.d into the olive-tree. It was a continuation of the fulfilment that, in later times, especially those of the Maccabees, this took place more and more frequently. It was a preparation and prelude of the complete fulfilment, although not the complete fulfilment itself, that, at the time of Christ, the blessings of G.o.d were poured upon the whole d?de??f????, Acts xxvi. 7.

The words: "I bring you to Zion," in the verse under consideration, and: "They shall come out of the land of the North to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto their fathers," in ver. 18, do not at all oblige us to limit ourselves to those feeble beginnings; the idea appears here only in that form, in which it must be realised, in so far as its realisation belonged to the time of the Old Testament.

Zion and the Holy Land were, at that time, the seat of the Kingdom of G.o.d; so that the return to the latter was inseparable from the return to the former. Those from among Israel who were converted to the true G.o.d, either returned altogether to Judea, or, at least, there offered up their sacrifices. But Zion and the Holy Land likewise come into consideration, as the seat of the Kingdom of G.o.d _only_; and, for that very reason, the course of the fulfilment goes on incessantly, even in those times when even the North has become Zion and Holy Land.--The circ.u.mstance that two are a.s.signed to a family, while only one is a.s.signed to a town, shows that we must here think of a larger family which occupied several towns; and the circ.u.mstance that the town is put together with the family, shows that it is cities of the land of Israel which are here spoken of, and not those which the exiled ones inhabited.

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

The question is:--Who are here to be understood by the shepherds?

_Calvin_ thinks that it is especially the prophets and priests, inasmuch as it was just the bad condition of these [Pg 382] which had been the princ.i.p.al cause of the ruin of the people; and that it is the greatest blessing for the Church, when G.o.d raises up true and sincere teachers. Similar is the opinion of _Vitringa_ (_obs._ lib. vi., p.

417), who, in a lower sense, refers it to Ezra and the learned men of that time, and, in a higher sense, to Christ. Among the Fathers of the Church, _Jerome_ remarked: "These are the apostolical men who did not feed the mult.i.tude of the believers with Jewish ceremonies, but with knowledge and doctrine." Others refer it to leaders of every kind; thus _Venema_: _Pastores sunt rectores, ductores._ Others, finally, limit themselves to rulers; thus _Kimchi_ (_gubernatores Israelis c.u.m rege Messia_), _Grotius_, and _Clericus_. The latter interpretation is, for the following reasons, to be unconditionally preferred. 1. The image of the shepherd and of feeding occurs sometimes, indeed, in a wider sense, but ordinarily of the ruler specially. Thus, in the fundamental pa.s.sage, 2 Sam. v. 2, it occurs of David, compare Micah v. 3. Thus also in Jeremiah ii. 8: "The _priests_ said not. Where is the Lord, and they that handle the law knew me not, and the shepherds transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied in the name of Baal;" comp. ver. 26: "They, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets." 2. The word ???? contains an evident allusion to 1 Sam.

xiii. 14, where it is said of David: "The Lord hath sought him, a man after His own heart, and the Lord hath appointed him to be a prince over His people." 3. All doubt is removed by the parallel pa.s.sage, chap. xxiii. 4: "And I raise shepherds over them, and they feed them, and they fear no more, nor are dismayed." That, by the shepherds, in this verse, only the rulers can be understood, is evident from the contrast to the bad rulers of the present, who were spoken of in chap.

xxii., no less than from the connection with ver. 5, where that which, in ver. 4, was expressed in general, is circ.u.mscribed within narrow limits, and the concentration of the fulfilment of the preceding promise is placed in the Messiah: "Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and I raise unto David a righteous _Branch_, and He reigneth as a king and acteth wisely, and setteth up judgment and justice in the land."

This parallel pa.s.sage is, in so far also, of importance, as it shews that the prophecy under consideration likewise had its final reference to the [Pg 383] Messiah. The kingdom of the ten tribes was punished by bad kings for its apostacy from the Lord, and from His visible representative. In the whole long series of Israelitish kings, we do not find any one like Jehoshaphat, or Hezekiah, or Josiah. And that is very natural, for the foundation of the Israelitish throne was rebellion. But, with the cessation of sin, punishment too shall cease.

Israel again turns to that family which is the medium and channel through which all the divine mercies flow upon the Church of the Lord; and so they receive again a share in them, and particularly in their richest fulness in the exalted scion of David, the Messiah. The pa.s.sage under consideration is thus completely parallel to Hosea iii. 5: "And they seek Jehovah their G.o.d, and David their king;" and that which we remarked on that pa.s.sage is here more particularly applicable; compare also Ezek. x.x.xiv. 23: "And I raise over them one Shepherd, and He feedeth them, my servant David, he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd." The ant.i.thesis to the words: "According to mine heart," is formed by the words in Hos. viii. 4: "They have set up kings not by me, princes whom I knew not,"--words which refer to the past history of Israel. Formerly, the rebellious chose for themselves kings according to the desires of their own hearts. Now, they choose Him whom G.o.d hath chosen, and who, according to the same necessity, must be an instrument of blessing, as the former were of cursing.--?????? and ??????????

stand adverbially. ????????? "to act wisely" is, in appearance only, intransitive in _Hiphil_. The foundation of wisdom and knowledge is the living communion with the Lord, being according to His heart, walking after Him. The foolish counsels of the former rulers of Israel, by which they brought ruin upon their people, were a consequence of their apostacy from the Lord. The two fundamental pa.s.sages are, Deut. iv. 6: "And ye shall keep and do (the law); for this is your wisdom and understanding;" xxix. 8 (9): "Ye shall keep the words of this covenant and do them, that ye may act wisely." Besides the pa.s.sage under consideration, the pa.s.sages Josh. i. 7; 1 Sam. xviii. 14, 15; 1 Kings ii. 3; Is. lii. 13; Jer. x. 21, xxiii. 5, are founded upon these two pa.s.sages. If all these pa.s.sages are compared with one another, and with the fundamental pa.s.sages, one cannot but wonder at the arbitrariness [Pg 384] of interpreters and lexicographers who, severing several of these pa.s.sages from the others, have forced upon the verb ????? the signification "to prosper,"--a signification altogether fanciful _G.o.d's_ servants act wisely, because they look up to G.o.d; and he who acts wisely finds prosperity for himself and his people. Hence, it is a proof of the greatest mercy of G.o.d towards His people, when He gives them His _servants_ for kings.

Ver. 16. "_And it cometh to pa.s.s, when ye be multiplied and fruitful in the land, in those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more: The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord! And it will not come into the heart, neither shall they remember it, nor miss it, nor shall it be made again._"

First, we shall explain some particulars. The words: "When ye be," &c.

refer to Gen. i. 28, As it is G.o.d's general providence which brings about the fruitfulness of all creatures, so it is His special providence which brings about the increase of His Church whose ranks have been thinned by His judgments; and it is thus that His promise to the patriarchs is carried on towards its fulfilment; compare remarks on Hos, ii. 1. G.o.d's future activity in this respect, has an a.n.a.logy in His former activity in Egypt, Exod. i. 12. The words: "The Ark of the Covenant" must be viewed as an exclamation, in which an ellipsis, in consequence of the emotion, must be supposed, _q.d._ it is the aim of all our desires, the object of all our longings. The mere mention of the object with which the whole heart is filled, is sufficient for the lively emotion. _Venema's_ exposition; _Arca fderis Jehovae_ sc.

_est_, and that of _De Wette_: "They shall no more speak of the Ark of the Covenant of Jehovah," are both feeble and un philological. How were it possible that ??? with the Accusative should mean "to speak of something?"--??? ????? is, in a similar context, just as it is here, connected with ??? in Is. lxv. 17: "For behold I create a new heaven and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered nor come into the heart," comp. also Jer. li. 50, vii. 31; 1 Cor. ii. 9. ??? with ?

does not simply stand instead of the usual connection with the Accusative; it signifies a remembering connected with affection, a recollection joined with ardent longings. ??? is, by many interpreters, understood in the sense of "to visit," but the signification "to miss"

(Is. x.x.xiv. 16; 1 Sam. xx. 6-18, xxv. 15; 1 Kings [Pg 385] xx. 39) is recommended by the connection with the following clause: "Nor shall it be made again." This supposes that there shall come a time when the Ark of the Covenant shall no more exist, the time of the destruction of the temple, which was so frequently and emphatically announced by the prophets.[3] G.o.d, however, will grant so rich a compensation for that which is lost, that men will neither long for it, nor, urged on by this longing, make any attempt at again procuring it for themselves by their own efforts. The main question now arises:--In what respect does the Ark of the Covenant here come into consideration? The answer is suggested by ver. 17. The Ark of the Covenant is no more remembered, because Jerusalem has now, in a perfect sense, become the throne of G.o.d. The Ark of the Covenant comes into consideration, therefore, as the throne of G.o.d, in an imperfect sense. It can easily be proved that it was so, although there have been disputes as to the manner in which it was so. The current view was this, that G.o.d, as the Covenant G.o.d, had _constantly_ manifested himself above the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, in a visible symbol, in a cloud. The first important opposition to this view proceeded from _Vitringa_ who, in the _Obs.

sac._ t. i. p. 169, advances, among other arguments, the following: "It is not by any means necessary to maintain that, in the holy of holies, in the tabernacle or the temple of Solomon, there was constantly a cloud over the Ark; but it may be sufficient to say, that the Ark was the symbol of the divine habitation, and it was for this reason said that G.o.d was present in the place between the Cherubim, because from thence proceeded the revelation of His will, and He thus proved to the Jews that He was present." But this view of _Vitringa_, that it was [Pg 386] merely in an invisible manner that G.o.d was present over the Ark of the Covenant, met with strong opposition; and a note to the second edition shows, that he himself afterwards entertained doubts regarding it. By _Thalemann_, a pupil of _Ernesti_, it was afterwards advanced far more decidedly, and evidently with the intention of carrying it through, whether it was true or not, in the _Dissertatio de nube super arcam foederis_ (Leipzig, 1756). He, too, declared, however, that he did not deny the matter, but only disputed the sign. He found a learned opponent in _John Eberhard Rau_, Professor at Herborn (_Ravius_, _de nube super arcam foederis_, Utrecht, 1760; it is a whole book, in which _Thalemann's_ Treatise is reprinted). The matter is, indeed, very simple; both parties are right and wrong, and the truth lies between the two. From the princ.i.p.al pa.s.sage, in Lev. xvi. 2, it is evident that, at the annual entry of the High Priest into the holy of holies, the invisible presence of G.o.d embodied itself in a cloud, as formerly it also did, on extraordinary occasions, during the journey through the wilderness, and at the dedication of the tabernacle and temple. In that pa.s.sage, Aaron is exhorted not to enter the holy of holies at all times, for that would prove a want of reverence, but only once a year, "for in the cloud I shall appear over the lid of expiation," (this is the right explanation of ???????? compare _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, p. 525 f.) The place where G.o.d manifests himself in so visible a manner when the High Priest enters into it, cannot fail to be a most holy place to him. It is true that _Vitringa_ (S. 171), and still more _Thalemann_ (S. 39 in _Rau_), have endeavoured to remove this objection by their interpretation; but with so plain a violation of all the laws of interpretation, that it is scarcely worth while to enter farther upon this exposition, (compare the refutation in _Rau_, S. 40 ff.), although _J. D. Michaelis_, _Vater_, _Rosenmuller_, and _Bahr_, (_Symbol. des Mos. Cultus_, i. S. 395), have approved of it.[4] On the other hand, [Pg 387] there is nothing to favour the supposition of an ordinary and constant presence of the cloud in the holy of holies. With such a view, questions at once arise, such as: Whether it came also to the Philistines? All that _Rau_ advances in favour of it, merely proves the invisible presence of G.o.d, which surely cannot be considered and called a merely imaginary thing, as is done by him, p. 35. For what, in that case, would be the Lord's presence in the hearts of believers, and in the Lord's supper? It is true that Ezekiel, in chap. xi. 22, beholds the glory of the Lord over the cherubim as being lifted up, and forsaking the temple before its destruction; but how can we draw any reference, as to the actual state of things, from visions which, according to their nature, surround with a body all that is invisible?

Still, as we already remarked, this whole controversy has reference to the _manner_ only, and not to the _fact_ of G.o.d's presence over the Ark of the Covenant; and the Ark of the Covenant stands here in a wider sense, and comprehends the cherubim, and "the glory of the Lord dwelling over them." From a vast number of pa.s.sages, it can be proved that this glory of the Lord was constantly and really present over the Ark of the Covenant, although it was in extraordinary cases only that it manifested itself in an outward, visible form; compare, besides Lev.

xvi. 2, Lev. ix. 24, where, after Aaron's consecration to the priesthood, the glory of the Lord appeared to the whole people in confirmation of his office. To these pa.s.sages belong all those in which G.o.d is designated as dwelling over the cherubim, such as 1 Chron. xiii.

6; Ps. lx.x.x. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 4. To it refers the designation of the ark of the covenant, in a narrower sense, as the footstool of G.o.d; comp. 1 Chron. xxviii. 2, where David says: "I had in mine heart to build an house of rest for the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our G.o.d;" Ps. xcix. 5, cx.x.xii. 7; Lam. ii. 1. From this circ.u.mstance the fact is explained, that the prayer in distress, as well as the thanks for deliverance, were offered up before, or towards [Pg 388] the Ark of the Covenant. After the defeat before Ai (Josh.

vii. 5 ff.), Joshua "rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face, before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, until the eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads, and Joshua said: Alas, O Lord G.o.d, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over Jordan?" After the Lord had appeared to Solomon at Gibeah, and had given him the promise, he went before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and offered burnt-offerings, and thank-offerings, 1 Kings iii.

15. In 2 Sam. xv. 32, we are told that David went up the Mount of Olives very sorrowfully, and when he was come to the place, _where people were accustomed to wors.h.i.+p G.o.d_, Hushai met him. According to that pa.s.sage, it was the custom of the people, when on the top of the Mount of Olives, they gained, for the first or last time, a view of the sanctuary, to prostrate themselves before the G.o.d of Israel who dwelt there. To the Ark of the Covenant, all those pa.s.sages refer in which it is said that G.o.d dwelleth in the midst of Israel; that He dwelleth in the temple; that He dwelleth at Zion or Jerusalem, compare _e.g._, the promise in Exodus xxix. 45: "I dwell in the midst of the children of Israel," and farther, Ps. ix. 12, cx.x.xii. 13, 14; 1 Kings vi. 12, 13, where G.o.d promises to Solomon that if he should only walk in His commandments, and execute His judgments, then would He dwell among the children of Israel; and afterwards fulfils this promise by solemnly entering into his temple. Indissolubly connected with this, was the deep reverence in which the Ark of the Covenant was held in Israel. It was considered as the most precious jewel of the people, as the centre of their whole existence. Being the place where the glory of G.o.d dwelt (Ps. xxvi. 8), where He manifested himself in His most glorious revelation, it was called _the glory of Israel_, compare 1 Sam. iv. 21, 22; Ps. lxxviii. 61. The High Priest Eli patiently and quietly heard all the other melancholy tidings--the defeat of Israel, and the death of his sons. But when he who had escaped added: "And the Ark of G.o.d is taken," he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate; and his neck brake, and he died. When his daughter-in-law heard the tidings that the Ark of the Covenant was taken, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her. And about the time of [Pg 389]

her death, the women that stood by her said unto her: Fear not, for thou hast borne a son. But she answered not, neither did she take it to heart, and she named the child Ichabod, and said. The glory is departed from Israel, because the Ark of the Covenant was taken, and said again: "The glory is departed from Israel, for the Ark of G.o.d is taken." But in what manner may this dwelling of G.o.d over the Ark of the Covenant be conceived of? Should the Most High G.o.d, whom all the heavens, and the heaven of heavens cannot contain (1 Kings viii. 27), whose throne is the heaven, and whose footstool is the earth (Is. lxvi. 1), dwell in a temple made by the hands of men? (Acts vii. 48, ff.) Evidently not in the manner in which men dwell in a place, who are _in_ it only, not _out_ of it. Nor in such a manner as the carnally minded suppose, who, to the warnings of the prophets, opposed their word: "Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us" (Micah iii. 11), or: "Here is the temple of the Lord, here is the temple of the Lord, here is the temple of the Lord" (Jer. vii. 4), imagining that G.o.d could not forsake the place which he had chosen, could not take away the free gift of His grace. The matter rather stands thus: That which const.i.tutes the substance and centre of the whole relation of Israel to G.o.d, is, that the G.o.d of the heavens and the earth became the G.o.d of Israel; that the Creator of heaven and earth became the Covenant-G.o.d, that His general providence in blessing and punis.h.i.+ng became a special one. In order to make the relation familiar to the people, and thus to make it the object of their love and fear, G.o.d gave them a _praesens numen_ in His sanctuary, as a prefiguration, and, at the same time, a prelude of the condescension with which He whom the whole universe cannot contain, rested in the womb of Mary. And in so doing, He gave them not a symbolical representation merely, but an embodiment of the idea, so that they who wished to seek Him as the G.o.d of Israel, could find Him in the temple, and over the Ark of the Covenant only. The circ.u.mstance that it was just there that He took His seat, shows the difference between this truly _praesens numen_, and that merely imaginery one of the Gentiles. There was in this no partial favour for Israel, nothing from which careless sinners could derive any comfort, G.o.d's dwelling among Israel rested on [Pg 390] His holy Law. According as the Covenant is kept or not, and the Law is observed or not, it manifests itself by increased blessing, or by severer punishment. If the Covenant be entirely broken, the consequence is that G.o.d leaves His dwelling, and it is only the curse which remains, and which is greater than the curse inflicted upon those among whom He never dwelt, and which, by its greatness, indicates the greatness of the former grace.--Now, if this be the case with the Ark of the Covenant; if it be the substance and centre of the whole former dispensation, what, and how much would not fall along with it, if it fell; and how infinitely great must the compensation be which was to be granted for it, if, in consequence of it, no desire and longing after it was to rise at all, if it was to be regarded as belonging to the pt??? st???e?a, and was to be forgotten as a mere image and shadow! The fact that the Ark of the Covenant was made before any thing else, sufficiently shows that every thing sacred under the Old Testament dispensation depended upon it. _Witsius Misc. t._ i.

p. 439, very pertinently remarks: "The Ark of the Covenant being, as it were, the heart of the whole Israelitish religion, was made first of all." Without Ark of the Covenant--no temple; for it became a sanctuary by the Ark of the Covenant only; for holy, so Solomon says in 2 Chron.

viii. 11, is the place whereunto the Ark of the Covenant hath come.

Without Ark of the Covenant, no priesthood; for what is the use of servants when there is no Lord present? Without temple and priesthood, no sacrifice. We have thus before us the announcement of the entire destruction of the previous form of the Kingdom of G.o.d, but such a destruction of the form as brings about, at the same time, the highest completion of the substance,--a peris.h.i.+ng like that of the seed-corn, which dies only, in order to bring forth much fruit; like that of the body, which is sown in corruption, in order to be raised in incorruption. _Dahler_ remarks: "Because a more sublime religion, a more glorious state of things will take the place of the Mosaic dispensation, there will be no cause for regretting the loss of the symbol of the preceding dispensation, and people will no more remember it."--It is quite natural that the prophecy should give great offence, and prove a stumbling-block to Jewish interpreters. Its subject, its high dignity, just [Pg 391] consists in the announcement that, at some future period, the shadow should give way to the substance; but it is just the confounding of the shadow with the substance, the rigid adherence to the former, which characterises Judaism, which considers even the Messiah as a minister of the old dispensation only, and views the great changes to be effected by Him, mainly as external ones. The embarra.s.sment arising from this, is very clearly expressed in the following words of _Abarbanel_: "This promise is, then, bad, and uproots the whole Law. How is it then that Scripture mentions it as good?" Rabbi _Arama_, in his commentary on the Pentateuch, fol. 101, says, in reference to this prophecy, ????? ?? ??????? "all interpreters have been perplexed by it." The interpretations by means of which they endeavour to rid themselves of this embarra.s.sment (see the collection of them in _Frischmuth's_ dissertation on this pa.s.sage, Jena; reprinted in the _Thes. Ant._) are only calculated plainly to manifest it.

_Kimchi_ gives this explanation: "Although ye shall increase and be multiplied on the earth, yet the nations shall not envy you, nor wage war against you; and it shall no more be necessary for you to go to war with the Ark of the Covenant, as was usual in former times, when they took the Ark of the Covenant out to war. In that time, there will be no necessity for so doing, as they shall not have any war." The weak points of this explanation are at once obvious. That which, in the verse under consideration, is, in a general way, said of the Ark of the Covenant, is, by it, referred to an altogether special use of it, a regard to which is excluded by the evident ant.i.thesis in ver. 17.

_Abarbanel_ rejects this explanation. He says: "For there is, in the text, no mention at all of war; and therefore I cannot approve of this exposition, although _Jonathan_, too, inclines towards it." He himself brings out this sense: The Ark of the Covenant would then, indeed, still continue to exist, and be the seat of the Lord; but no more the exclusive one, no longer the sole sanctuary. "The whole of Jerusalem shall, as regards holiness and glory, equal the Ark of the Covenant.

For there shall cease with them every evil thing, and every evil imagination; and there shall be such holiness in the land, that in the same manner as formerly the Ark was the holiest of all things, so at that time, Jerusalem shall be [Pg 392] the throne of the Lord." But, by this explanation, justice is not done to the text. For it is an entire doing away with the Ark of the Covenant which is spoken of in it, not a mere diminution of its dignity, produced by the circ.u.mstance, that that which formerly was low shall be exalted. This is particularly evident from the words: "They will not miss it, neither shall it be made again." To this argument we may still add that, by this exposition, not even the object is gained for the sake of which it was advanced. The nature and substance of the Ark of the Covenant is destroyed, as soon as it is put on a level with anything else. It is then no more _the_ throne of the Lord; and for this reason, the previous form can no longer continue to exist, and, along with it, the temple and priesthood too must fall. If every place in Jerusalem, if every inhabitant of it, be equally holy, how then can inst.i.tutions still continue, which are based on the difference between holy and unholy?--Here a question still arises. There was no Ark of the Covenant in the second temple. In what relation to the prophecy under consideration stands this absence of the Ark of the Covenant, the restoration of which the Jews expect at the end of the days? There cannot be any doubt that it was really wanting.

Every proof of its existence is wanting. _Josephus_, in enumerating the catalogue of the _spolia Judaica_, borne before in the triumph, does not mention it. He says expressly (de Bell. Jud. v. 5, -- 5), that the holy of holies had been altogether empty. Some of the Jewish writers a.s.sert that it had been carried away to Babylon; while most of them, following the account given in 2 Maccabees, tell us that Josiah or Jeremiah had concealed it; compare the Treatise by _Calmet_, Th. 6, S.

224-258, _Mosh._ In asking _why_ such was the case, other a.n.a.logous phenomena, the absence of the _Urim and Thummim_, the cessation of prophetism soon after the return from the captivity, must not be lost sight of. Every thing was intended to impress upon the people the conviction that their condition was provisional only. It was necessary that the Theocracy should sink beneath its former glory, in order that the future glory, which was far to outs.h.i.+ne it, should so much the more be longed for. After having thus determined _why_ it was that the Ark of the Covenant was wanting, at the second temple, it is easy to [Pg 393] determine the relation of this absence to the prophecy under consideration. It was the beginning of its fulfilment. In the Kingdom of G.o.d, nothing perishes, without something new arising out of this decay. The extinction of the old was the guarantee, that something new was approaching. On the other hand, the absence of the Ark of the Covenant was, it is true, at the same time, a matter-of-fact prophecy of a sad character. To those who clung to the form, without having in a living manner laid hold of the substance, and who, therefore, were not able to partake in the more glorious display of the substance,--to these it announced that the time was approaching when the form, to which they had attached themselves with their whole existence, was to be broken. Since already one of the great privileges of the covenant-people, the d??a (Rom. ix. 4), had disappeared, surely all that might and would soon share the same fate, which existed only for the sake of it, and in it only had its significance. In this respect, the non-restoration of the Ark of the Covenant showed that the Chaldean destruction and that by the Romans were connected as commencement and completion; while, in the other aspect, it declared that, with the return from the captivity, the realization of G.o.d's great plan of salvation was being prepared. Inasmuch as the most complete _fuga vacui_ is peculiar to the Covenant-G.o.d, the emptiness in that place where formerly the glory of G.o.d dwelt, proclaimed aloud the future fulness.--_Finally_, we have still to determine the special reference of our verse to Israel, _i.e._, the former kingdom of the ten tribes.

This reference is, by most interpreters, entirely lost sight of, and is very superficially and erroneously determined by those who, like _Calvin_, pay attention to it. In the preceding verse, it had been promised to Israel, that those blessings should again be bestowed upon them, which they had forfeited by their rebellion against the Davidic house, and that they should be restored to them with abundant interest.

For David's house is to attain to its completion in its righteous Sprout. This Shepherd, who is, in the fullest sense, what His ancestor had only imperfectly been--a man according to the heart of G.o.d--shall feed them with knowledge and understanding. _Here_, a compensation is promised for the second, infinitely greater loss, which [Pg 394] had, at all times, been acknowledged as such by the faithful in the kingdom of the ten tribes. The revelation of the Lord over the Ark of the Covenant was the magnet which constantly drew them to Jerusalem. Many sacrificed all their earthly possessions, and took up their abode in Judea. Others went on a pilgrimage from their natural to their spiritual home, to the "throne of the glory exalted from the beginning," Jer. xvii. 12. In vain was every thing which the kings of Israel did in order to stifle their indestructible longing. Every new event by which "the glory of Israel" manifested itself as such, kindled their ardour anew. But here also the great blessing and privilege, which the believers missed with sorrow, the unbelievers without it, is to the returning ones given back, not in its previous form, but in a glorious completion. The whole people have now received eyes to recognise the value of the matter in its previous form; and yet this previous form is now looked upon by them as nothing, because the new, infinitely more glorious form of the same matter occupied their attention.

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

Many interpreters, proceeding upon the supposition that the emphasis rests upon Jerusalem, have been led to give an altogether erroneous explanation. It is no more the Ark of the Covenant which will then be the throne of the Lord, but _all_ Jerusalem. Thus, _e.g._, after the example of _Jarchi_ and _Abarbanel_, _Mana.s.seh ben Israel_, _Conciliator_, p. 196: "If we keep in mind that, in the tabernacle or temple, the Ark was the place where the Lord dwelt (hence Ex. xxv. 22: 'I will speak with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim'), we shall find that the Lord here says, that the Ark indeed had formerly been the dwelling-place of the G.o.dhead, but that, at the time of Messiah, not some one part of the temple only would be filled with the G.o.dhead, but that this glory should be given to all Jerusalem; so that whosoever would be in her would have the prophetic spirit." If it had been the intention of the Prophet to convey this meaning, the word _all_ could not have been omitted. The throne of the [Pg 395]

Lord, Jerusalem had been even formerly, in so far as she possessed in her midst the Ark of the Covenant, and hence was the residence of Jehovah, the city of the great King, Ps. xlviii. 3. The words in the parallel member: "Because the name of the Lord is at Jerusalem," show that Jerusalem is called the throne of the Lord, because there is now in her the true throne of the Lord, just as, formerly, the Ark of the Covenant. The ant.i.thesis to what precedes leads us to expect a gradation, not in point of quant.i.ty, but of quality. The emphasis rests rather on: "The throne of the Lord;" and these words receive from the ant.i.thesis the more definite qualification: the true throne of the Lord. Quite similarly, those who boasted that over the Cherubim was the throne of G.o.d, and that the Ark of the Covenant was His footstool, are told in Is. lxvi. 1: "The heaven is my (true) throne, and the earth my (true) footstool;" comp. the pa.s.sages according to which the Ark of the Covenant is designated as the footstool of G.o.d, and, hence, the place over the Cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant as the throne of the Lord, p. 387; and farther, Is. lx. 13; Ezra i. 26.--The highest prerogative of the covenant-people, their highest privilege over the world, is to have G.o.d in the midst of them; and this prerogative, this privilege, is now to be bestowed upon them in the most perfect manner; so that idea and reality shall coincide. Perfectly parallel in substance are such pa.s.sages as Ezek. xliii., in which the Shechinah which, at the destruction of the temple had withdrawn, returns to the new temple, the Kingdom of G.o.d in its new and more glorious form. Ver. 2. "And behold the glory of the G.o.d of Israel came from the way of the East; and its voice was like the voice of great waters, and the earth shone with its splendour." Ver. 7. "And He said unto me, son of man, behold the place of _my throne_, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and the house of Israel shall no more defile my holy place." Zech. ii. 14 (10): "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come and dwell in the midst of thee," with an allusion to Exod. xxix. 45: "And I dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their G.o.d." The Prophet declares that the full realization of this promise is reserved for the future; but it could not be so, unless it had already been realised, throughout all past history, in G.o.d's [Pg 396] dwelling over the Ark of the Covenant; compare Zech. viii. 3: "Thus saith the Lord, I return unto Zion, and dwell in the midst of Jerusalem."--If we enquire after the fulfilment, we are at once met by the words in John i. 14: ?a? ? ????? s??? ????et?

?a? ?s????se? ?? ???, ?a? ??eas?e?a t?? d??a? a?t??, d??a? ??

????e???? pa?? pat???; and that so much the more that these words contain an evident allusion to the former dwelling of G.o.d in the temple, of which the incarnation of the Logos is looked upon as the highest consummation. It is true that the dwelling of G.o.d among His people by means of the p?e?a ???st?? must not be separated from the personal manifestation of G.o.d in Christ, in whom dwelt the fulness of the G.o.dhead bodily, s?at????. The former stands to the latter in the same relation, as does the river to the fountain; it is the river of living water flowing forth from the body of Christ. Both together form the true tabernacle of G.o.d among men, the new true Ark of the Covenant; for the old things are the s??? t?? e????t??, t? d? s?a ???st??, Col.

ii. 17; comp. Rev. xxi. 22: ?a? ?a?? ??? e?d?? ?? a?t?? ? ??? ??????, ?

Te?? ? pa?t????t?? ?a?? a?t?? ?st?, ?a? t? ??????. The typical import of the Ark of the Covenant is expressly declared in Heb. ix. 4, 5, and that which was typified thereby is intimated in chap. iv. 16: p??se???e?a d? et? pa???s?a? t? ????? t?? ????t??, where Christ is designated as the true mercy-seat, as the true Ark of the Covenant.

Just as, formerly, G.o.d could be found over the Ark of the Covenant only, by those from among his people who sought Him; so we have now, through Christ, boldness and access with confidence in G.o.d (Eph. iii.

12); and it is only when offered in His name, in living union with Him, that our prayers are acceptable, John xvi. 23. A consequence of that highest realization of the idea of the kingdom of G.o.d, and, at the same time, a sign that it has taken place, and a measure of the blessings which Israel has to expect from its re-union with the Church of G.o.d, is the gathering of the Gentiles into it, such as, by way of type and prelude, took place even at the lower manifestations of the presence of G.o.d among the people; compare, _e.g._, Josh. ix. 9: "And they (the Gibeonites) said unto him: From a very far country thy servants are come, because of the name (???) of Jehovah thy G.o.d, for we have heard the fame of Him, and all that He did in Egypt, [Pg 397] and all that He did to the two kings of the Amorites," &c. In a manner quite similar it is, in Zech. ii. 15 (11) also, connected with the Lord's dwelling in Jerusalem: "And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day; and they shall be my people; and I dwell in the midst of thee."--???

???? ???????? must be literally translated: "On account of the name of the Lord (belonging) to Jerusalem," for: because the name of the Lord belongs to Jerusalem--is there at home The name of the Lord is the Lord himself, in so far as He reveals His invisible nature, manifests himself In the name, His deeds are comprehended; and hence it forms a bridge betwixt existing and knowing. A G.o.d without a name is a ?e??

????st??, Acts xviii. 23. There is an allusion to Deut. xii. 5: "But unto the place which the Lord your G.o.d shall choose out of all your tribes _to put His name there_, to dwell in it, unto it ye shall seek, and thither ye shall come." Formerly, when G.o.d put His name in an imperfect manner only, Israel only a.s.sembled themselves; but now, all the Gentiles.--The last words: "Neither shall they walk any more," &c., are not by any means to refer to the Gentiles, but to the members of the kingdom of Israel, or also to the whole of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to all the members of the Kingdom of G.o.d, including the subjects of the kingdom of Israel. This appears from a comparison of the fundamental pa.s.sage of the Pentateuch, as well as of the parallel pa.s.sages in Jeremiah. Wherever ?????? occurs, the covenant-people are spoken of; everywhere the walking after ?????? of the heart is opposed to the walking after the revealed law of Jehovah, which Israel alone possessed. ??????, which properly means "firmness," is then used of hardness in sin, of wickedness.[5]

[Footnote 1: _Vitringa_ very correctly remarks on this pa.s.sage: "???, properly ? ????, he who has any thing in his possession is, by an ellipsis, applied to the husband who, in Exod. xxi. 3, is rightly called ??? ??? _one who has a wife_."]

[Footnote 2: Against the explanation of _Maurer_: "For I am your Lord;"

and that of _Ewald_: "I take you under my protection," it is decisive that ??? never means "to be Lord," far less "to take under protection."

???, which properly means "to possess," is very commonly used of marriage;--as early as in the Decalogue, the wife appears as the n.o.blest _possession_ of the husband--so that _a priori_ this signification is suggested and demanded.]

[Footnote 3: It is from the circ.u.mstance that modern Exegesis is unable to comprehend the prophetic antic.i.p.ation of the Future, that the a.s.sertion has proceeded (_Movers_, _Hitzig_) that, even before the Chaldean destruction, the Ark "must have disappeared in a mysterious manner." In the view of the Chaldean destruction the Lord is, in Ps.

xcix. 1 (comp. Ps. lx.x.x. 2), designated as He who sitteth over the Cherubim. In 2 Chron. x.x.xv. 3, we have a distinct historical witness for the existence of the Ark, so late as the 18th year of Josiah. The fable in 2 Maccab. ii. 4, ff., supposes that the Ark was at its ordinary place, down to the time of the breaking in of the Chaldean catastrophe. One might as well infer from chap. iii. 18, that, at the time when these words were spoken, Judah must already, "in a mysterious manner," have come into the land of the North.]

[Footnote 4: _Bahr_ advances the a.s.sertion, "In a (the) cloud" is equivalent to: "in darkness." But the parallel pa.s.sages, Exod. xl. 34 ff., Numb. ix. 15, 16, quoted by _J. H. Michaelis_, are quite sufficient to overthrow this a.s.sertion. And these parallel pa.s.sages are so much the more to the point, that by the article the cloud is designated as being already known; compare _Hofmann_, _Schriftbeweis_ ii. 1, S. 36. The cloud in ver. 13 is not identical with that in ver.

2, but is its necessary parallel. The cloud in ver. 2 symbolises the truth that the Lord is a consuming fire (compare my remarks on Rev. i.

7); that in ver. 13 is an embodied _Kyrie eleison_, compare remarks on Rev. v. 8. Cloud with cloud,--that is a n.o.ble advice for the Church when she is threatened by the judgments of G.o.d. A thorough refutation of _Bahr_ has been given by _W. Neumann_: _Beitrage zur Symbolik des Mos. Cultus_, _Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol._, 1851, i.]

[Footnote 5: In a certain sense, one may say that ?????? ?? is a ?pa?