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

9), maintain that it had simply become a name of G.o.d.--The manifestations of G.o.d's omnipotence are, after the general intimations of it are given, just such as might now be expected; compare viii. 8.

The _Fut. with Vav Conv._ ????? does not here denote the Past, "And it melted," but only the consequence of the preceding action, as continuous as that: "Who toucheth the earth, and it melteth." A dissolution of the earth is to be thought of,--similar to that condition in which it was before the days of creation, and similar to its condition during the great flood. Such a condition of dissolution takes place also when the earth is visited by mighty kings desirous of making conquests. "Who toucheth the earth, and it melteth,"--the truth of these words Israel had _first_ to learn by sad experience when the wild hosts of a.s.shur were poured out over the West of Asia. The pa.s.sage in Ps. xlvi. 7 is parallel, where it is said: "The heathen rage, kingdoms are shaken; He uttereth His voice (which corresponds with, 'Who toucheth the earth,' in the verse before us), and the earth _melteth_." The ???, "to melt," "to dissolve," signifies, in that pa.s.sage, the dissolving effect of the divine judgments, the instruments of which are the conquerors. _Further_,--Ps. lxx. 4: "The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are melted,"--by the success of the conqueror of the world, the earth is, as it were, dissolved, and sunk back into the chaotic state of primitive time.--The words, "And it riseth up,"

are to be explained from the fact that the earth, changed into a great stream, cannot be distinguished from the water which covers it. The earth rises up, it is overflowed,--the earth sinks down, the water subsides. The last clause of the verse must not be translated--as is done by _Rosenmuller_, _Gesenius_, _Maurer_--"It is overflowed as by the stream of Egypt." This explanation is unphilological, and contrary, at the same time, to the parallelism, which requires that ???? be, both the times, understood in the same way. The verb ??? means only "to sink," "to sink down," and is used of the subsiding water, Ezek. x.x.xii.

14; of the subsiding flame, [Pg 382] Num. xi. 2; and of a sinking town, Jer. li. 64. The last words thus rather contain the opposite of the clause immediately preceding. But the sinking does not, by any means, signify a freedom from the waters, nor is it to be conceived of as remaining. All which is expressed is the change only,--the ebb takes the place of the flood, and _vice versa_. This, however, is, on the dry land, a very sad condition. The inundation is here an emblem of hostile overflowing. Water is frequently an emblem of enemies; compare Ps.

xviii. 17, cxliv. 7. Overflowing streams are emblematical of the crowds of nations, who, with a view to conquest, overflow the whole earth. Is.

viii. 7, 8, xvii. 12; Jer. xlvii. 2, xlvi. 7, 8, where Egypt rises as the Nile, just as, in the case before us, the earth; with this difference, however, that there the rising is an active, while here it is a pa.s.sive one: "Who is this who riseth like the Nile, whose waters are moved as the rivers? Egypt riseth up like the Nile, and his waters are moved like rivers, and he saith, I will go up and cover the earth, I will destroy the city and the inhabitants thereof;" Ezek. x.x.xii. 14: "Then will I make sink their waters, and cause their rivers to run like oil," equivalent to: The conquering power of Egypt shall cease. Amos viii. 8 is a parallel pa.s.sage, in which, after the description of the prevailing sin, it is said: "Shall not the earth tremble for this, and every one mourn that dwelleth therein? And it riseth up wholly like the Nile, and is agitated, and sinketh down like the Nile of Egypt." The earthquake is the symbol of great revolutions, by which that which is highest is turned upside down; compare Haggai ii. 21, 22: "I shake the heavens and the earth, and overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and destroy the strength of the kingdom of the heathen;" while the overflowing is emblematical of hostile inundation, of visitation by war, in which the ebb succeeds the flood, and _vice versa_.--In his negligent mode of writing--which frequently occurs in this book--the prophet wrote ???? instead of ?????, corresponding to the ???? in the verse under consideration, just as in the same verse he wrote ???

instead of ????. The Mazorets, who everywhere disregarded the peculiarities of the individual writers, have introduced the common form.

Ver. 6. "_Who buildeth His upper chambers in the heaven, and His vault--over the earth He foundeth it: who calleth the waters_ [Pg 383]

_of the sea, and poureth them out over the earth--Jehovah His name._"

That ????? is here equivalent to ????, "upper chambers" (compare 1 Chron. xvii. 17, where ???? occurs with the signification "high place"), is put almost beyond any doubt by the parallel pa.s.sage, Ps.

civ. 3: "Who frameth with the waters His upper chambers." The fundamental pa.s.sage is Gen. i. 7: "G.o.d made the vault, and divided between the waters which are under the vault, and the waters which are above the vault." "The waters, viz., the upper ones"--thus we have remarked in our commentary on that pa.s.sage from the Psalms--"are the material out of which the structure is reared. To construct, out of the moveable waters, a firm palace, the cloudy sky, firm as a molten looking-gla.s.s (Job x.x.xvii. 18), is a magnificent work of divine omnipotence. The palace of clouds, as the upper part of the fabric of the universe, gets the name _upper chambers_ of G.o.d; the lower part is the earth." As all the other manifestations of divine omnipotence in vers. 5, 6, are such as are to be called into existence now, the upper chambers and the vault will here come into consideration, in so far as from thence the torrents of rain are poured forth; compare Ps. civ. 13, according to which the rain cometh from the upper chambers of G.o.d; and Gen. vii. 11: "The same day broke forth all the fountains of the great flood (the last member of our verse), and _the windows of heaven were opened_." From the upper chambers of G.o.d, whence once, at the time of the deluge, the natural rain came down, the rain of affliction will now descend.--?????--??? already occurred, _verbatim_, in v. 8. ?????

stands in the same relation to ??????, as in ver. 5 ???? does to ?????

and is equivalent to: "Upon whose mere word the waters of the sea cover the surface of the earth;" compare Gen. vi. 17: "And, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth." The sea is the common emblem of the heathen world; compare remarks on Ps. xciii., civ. 6-9. In chap.

vii. 4, the "great flood" is contrasted with the "lot" in Deut. x.x.xiii.

9,--the heathen world, with the people of G.o.d. The fire of war, which the Lord kindles, devours both in the same way. Here, in contrast with the deluge, the conquering inundation of the earth proceeds from the midst of the heathen world, stirred up by the Lord, and destroys first of all unfaithful Israel, who, had they been [Pg 384] faithful to the Covenant, would have been able to say, as in Ps. xlvi. 2-4, "G.o.d is our refuge and strength, a help in trouble He is found very much. Therefore will we not fear when the earth is overturned, and the mountains shake in the midst of the sea; its waters roar and foam, mountains tremble by its swelling."

Ver. 7. "_Are you not as the sons of the Cus.h.i.+tes unto Me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?_"

The prophet here deprives the people of another prop of false security.

They boasted of their election, by which G.o.d Himself, as they imagined, had bound His hands. They considered the pledge of it--the deliverance from Egypt--as a charter of security against every calamity, as an obligation to further help in every distress, which G.o.d could not retract even if He would. A great truth lay at the foundation of this error,--a truth which has been disregarded by the greater number of interpreter's, who have, in consequence, forced upon the prophet a sense which is altogether false.[4] The election of the people, and their deliverance from Egypt, were actually what they considered them to be. G.o.d Himself had in reality thereby bound His hands; He _was obliged_ to deliver the people. He _could_ not cast them off. The election was an act of free grace; the manifestation of it in deeds was an act of His righteousness. The people had a right to remind Him of His duty, when He seemed not to perform it. Their election was then a firm anchorage of hope, a rich source of consolation, the foundation of all their prayers. But the error consisted in this, that the election was usurped by those to whom it did not belong,--an error which is continually repeating itself, and which shows itself in a fearful form, especially in the case of those who believe in the doctrine of Predestination. We need, for example, refer only to _Cromwell_, who, in the hour of death, silenced, by this false consolation, all the accusations of his [Pg 385] conscience. ?e??t?? ?? ??? ?fe?e?, says the Apostle, in Rom. ii. 25, ??? ???? p??ss??? ??? d? pa?a?t?? ????

??, ? pe??t?? s?? ?????st?a ?????e?. The deliverance from Egypt stands on the same footing as circ.u.mcision. The former also was profitable; to those who showed themselves to be children of Israel, it afforded the certainty that G.o.d would prove Himself to be their G.o.d.

For those, however, who had become degenerate, it entered altogether into the circle of ordinary events. For them, it became something that had altogether pa.s.sed away--that did not carry within itself any pledge of renovation. This error is here laid open by the prophet, as he had already done in v. 14: "Seek good and not evil, that ye may live, and _thus_ the Lord, the G.o.d of hosts, be with you." He directs their attention to the fact, that, in the Covenant-relation, which rests on reciprocity, the party who broke the Covenant had nothing to ask, nothing to hope for. "_Be not_," etc.; the _tertium comparationis_ is evidently the alienation from G.o.d. The "children of Israel" (the appellation expressive of their dignity is intentionally chosen in order to make more striking the contradiction between the appearance and the reality) have become so degenerate, that they are no more any nearer to G.o.d than the sons of the Cus.h.i.+tes. Those interpreters who regard sin alone as the _tertium comparationis_ (_Cocceius_ says: "Ye are so alienated from Him, and so unfaithful, that every one of you may be called a Cus.h.i.+te"), give too limited a sense to the expression. "You are to Me," is rather equivalent to, "I have not any more concern in you, you stand not to Me in any other relation." But why are the Cus.h.i.+tes alone mentioned as an example of a people alienated from G.o.d?

Their colour, perhaps, is more to be considered in this, than their descent from Ham; the physical blackness is viewed as an emblem of the spiritual. Thus they appear in Jer. xiii. 23: "Will indeed the Cus.h.i.+te change his skin, and the leopard his spots? will you indeed be able to do good, who have been taught to do evil?" But the fundamental pa.s.sage is the inscription of Ps. vii., where Saul, on account of his black wickedness, appears under the symbolical name of Cush.--The right explanation of these first words furnishes, at the same time, the key to the sound interpretation of the words which [Pg 386] follow: It is only for the Covenant-people that the deliverance from Egypt is a pledge of grace. But you are no longer the Covenant-people; your being brought up out of Egypt, therefore, stands on the same line with the bringing up of the Philistines from their former dwelling-places in Caphtor to their present abodes, and with the bringing up of the Syrians from Kir, in which no one will see a pledge of divine grace, a preservative against every danger, and, especially, an a.s.surance of the impossibility of a new captivity. The geographical inquiries regarding Caphtor and Kir would lead us too far away from the subject which we are here discussing. The view which is now prevalent, and according to which Crete is to be understood by the former, is in contradiction to the old translations, which have Cappadocia, and with Gen. x. 14,--as long as, in that pa.s.sage, the Colchians are to be understood by the Casluhim. But that point would require a minute investigation, which may be more suitably carried on at some other place.

Ver. 8. "_Behold, the eyes of the Lord Jehovah are upon the sinful kingdom, and I destroy them from off the face of the earth, saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord._"

_The_ sinful kingdom, whether its name be Israel or Judah, or whether it be called Egypt or Edom. The holy G.o.d has not by any means, as you in your blindness imagine, given you a privilege to sin. A difference exists between Israel and the others in this respect only, that utter ruin does not take place in the case of the former, as it does in that of the latter. For the distinction between the people of G.o.d and other nations consists in this, that in the former, there always remains a holy seed, an ??????, which the Lord must protect, and make the nursery of His kingdom, according to the same necessity of His nature as that by which He extirpates the sinners of His people. The "sinful kingdom"

forms the contrast with the righteous kingdom; the article being here used in a generic sense. Similar are Is. x. 6: "_I send him against impious people, and against the people of My wrath_ (wheresoever there are such) _I give him command_;" and Ps. x.x.xiii. 12: "Blessed is the nation whose G.o.d is the Lord, the people whom He hath chosen for His inheritance;" on which latter pa.s.sage _Michaelis_ remarks, "Blessed is the nation, whichsoever it may be." The eyes of [Pg 387] the Lord are open upon _the_ sinful kingdom, and hence also upon the house of Jacob; it must be destroyed as all others are, but it cannot be _destroyed like them_,--an idea which is prominently brought out by the prefixed Infinit. ?????. That is an erroneous interpretation which understands by the sinful nation, Ephraim, and, after the example of _Grotius_ ("I will destroy the kingdom, not the people"), a.s.sumes that, by the house, in contrast with the kingdom, the people are intended. Such a contrast betwixt the house and the kingdom would have required a more distinct intimation. The house of Jacob, when referred to the ten tribes, is identical with the kingdom. They were a house only in so far as they were a kingdom. But it is both against the words (in Obad. ver. 17, "house of Jacob" is likewise used of the whole of the nation), and against the connection, to refer it to the ten tribes. When, however, it is referred to the whole, a contrast betwixt people and kingdom can the less have place, as, according to ver. 11, the kingdom also shall be restored.--The first part of the verse is almost literally identical with Deut. vi. 15: "For a jealous G.o.d is Jehovah, thy G.o.d, in thy midst; lest the anger of Jehovah thy G.o.d be kindled against thee, and He destroy thee from off the face of the earth," ??????? ??? ??? ?????.

The prophet says nothing new; he only resumes the threatening of the revered lawgiver.--The construction of ???? ???? with ? is explained by the circ.u.mstance that, according to the context, the eyes of the Lord can mean only His angry eyes--equivalent to the anger of the Lord in the pa.s.sage quoted from Deuteronomy; and the verbs and nouns expressive of anger are connected by ? with the object on which the anger rests; compare Ps. x.x.xiv. 17.

Ver. 9. "_For behold I command and shake the house of Israel among all the nations, as one shaketh in a sieve, and not shall anything firm fall to the ground._"

The figure in this verse is, upon the whole, plain; but some of the particulars require to be explained, and to be more accurately determined. The signification "sieve," commonly a.s.signed to ????, must be conceded to it. We must, however, here understand it of such a sieve as serves similar purposes as a winnowing shovel, in which the corn is violently shaken, and thus purified; and not of a sieve in which, by mere sifting, the corn is freed from the dust which has remained after the first [Pg 388] and proper cleansing. The latter is a.s.sumed by _Paulsen_ (_vom Ackerbau der Morgenlander_, S. 144), and, along with him, by the greater number of interpreters. Such a sieve--a kind of fan--is mentioned in Is. x.x.x. 24, in addition to the winnowing shovel.

It occurs likewise in Luke xxii. 31, where s?????e?? is _vanno agitare_. The LXX. also have here adopted the explanation, not of an ordinary sieve, but of an instrument which serves the same purposes as the winnowing shovel: d??t? ?d?? ??? ??t????a? ?a? ????? (?. ????s?) ?? p?s? t??? ???es? t?? ????? t?? ?s?a??, ?? t??p?? ????ta? ?? t?

????. _Hesych._ ????, pt??. To this we are likewise led by the verb ???????, which is indicative of a violent procedure, and by the occurrence of the same figure in so many pa.s.sages of Scripture; compare, _e.g._, Jer. li. 2; "I will send against Babylon fanners that shall fan her, and shall empty her land;" Jer. xv. 7, and Matt. iii.

12; while the use of the ordinary sieve for such a purpose is never mentioned, nor is it ever employed for a figure.--????????? is not to be translated, "_by_ all nations," but, as the corresponding ?????

shows, "in," or "among all nations." The many people are the spiritual sieve,--the means of purging. The Lord, whose instruments they are, employs them for the destruction of the unG.o.dly. They are taken away by His secret judgments, for the execution of which He employs the heathen; compare ver. 10. Even the G.o.dly are violently shaken; but the hand of the Lord secretly upholds them that they may not sink, but that the temptation may serve for their spiritual growth; compare Luke xxii. 31, 32, where the Lord distinctly alludes to the pa.s.sage under consideration. The corn is shaken; dust and impurity fall to the ground, the chaff flies into the air. Many interpreters ascribe to ???? the signification, "corn;" others, "little stone." But these significations have been both a.s.sumed merely for the sake of the context. ????, from ???, _colligavit_, _constrinxit_, means, primarily, "that which is tightly bound together;" then, "bundle," "bag;" but here, as in 2 Sam. xvii. 13, "that which is compact, firm, and solid,"

as opposed to that which is loose, dissolved, and thin. That which is here meant is the solid, firm corn, as opposed to the loose chaff, and the dust which falls to the ground through the sieve.

Ver. 10. "_By the sword, shall die all the sinners of My people who say, The evil will not come near, nor advance to us._"

[Pg 389]

In order that the preceding mitigation of the threatening of punishment might not be appropriated by those to whom it did not belong, the prophet, before pa.s.sing on to the further detail of the promise, once more presents the threatening in all its severity. "The sinners who speak," etc., are they who usurped the promises of the Covenant without having truly fulfilled its conditions,--who boasted of, and trusted in, their belonging outwardly to the people of G.o.d (compare iii. 2), and their zeal in the external performance of the duties of wors.h.i.+p (compare v. 21-23); and who therefore imagined that the judgments of the Lord could not reach them, while, by their sins, they did all in their power to draw them down upon them, v. 18, vi. 3.

Ver. 11. "_In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and wall up its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and build it as the days of eternity._"

The words, "In that day," are to be understood quite generally, viz., as referring to a time after the divine judgments have broken in and have completed their work upon Israel. et? ta?ta, by which James renders it in Acts xv. 16, completely expresses the sense. The a.s.sertion of _Baur_, "That the prophet must have conceived of the restoration of the tabernacle of David as being near at hand, because he recognised the instruments of judgment in the invading a.s.syrians,"

falls to the ground along with the supposition on which it rests. The prophet has nothing at all special to do with the invasion of the a.s.syrians.--The Partic. ????, according to the usual signification of the Partic., expresses a permanent condition. The very expression, "tabernacle," suggests the idea of a sunken condition of the house of David. The prophet sees the proud palace of David changed into a humble tabernacle, everywhere in ruins, and perforated. The same idea is expressed by a different image in Is. xi. 1. There the house of David is called the cut off trunk of Jesse, which puts forth a new shoot.

_Hofmann_ and others are of opinion that the prophet designates the house of David as a fallen tabernacle, on account of its abas.e.m.e.nt at the time then present. "At present," he says, "the lofty house of David is a ??? ???? when compared with the power of Jeroboam; but the latter shall fall, and the former shall raise itself again from its decay."

But this designation is certainly not applicable to [Pg 390] the house of David under a king like Uzziah, nor, in general, to the whole time of the existing Davidic kingdom. The fact that Amos foresees the deep fall of Judah, is placed beyond all doubt even by ii. 5. It is impossible that the announcement of the restoration which is to _follow_ only after this fall, should altogether ignore the latter.

This is, moreover, proved by the parallel pa.s.sages. The predictions of all the prophets are pervaded by the foresight of the Messiah's appearing at the time of the deepest debas.e.m.e.nt of the Davidic dynasty, and after the total loss of the royal dignity; compare the remarks on Mic. iv. 8, vi. (2); Is. xi. 1, liii. 2; Ezek. xvii. 22-24.--It might now appear as though the prophet here only supposed the ruin of the house of David, without having, in the preceding context, expressly mentioned it; but such is not the case. The whole of the preceding threatening of punishment relates to the ruin of the house of David; for when the kingdom suffers, the reigning family cannot but suffer also. This close connection of the two is pointed out by the prophet himself in the subsequent words. The change of the suffixes is there certainly not without a reason. The suffix in ?????? refers to the two kingdoms; that in ??????? to David; and that in ?????? to the tabernacle, while the subject of ????? (ver. 12) is the people. By this it is intimated that David, his tabernacle, the kingdoms, and the people, are in substance one--that one stands and falls with the other.

They who overlook the co-reference to Judah, in the preceding verses, do not know what to make of the suffix in ?????? (compare the expression "these kingdoms," used of Judah and Israel in vi. 2), and, in their uncertainty, conjecture sometimes one thing and sometimes another.--??? is Nominat., not Accusat. The comparison is merely intimated; compare remarks on Hos. ii. 17. The circ.u.mstance that the happy days of the times of David and Solomon are here spoken of as "days of eternity"--of the remotest past (compare Mic. vii.

14)--implies that the prophet sees a long interval between the present and the predicted event.--The foundation of this prophecy is the promise to David in 2 Sam. vii.; compare especially ver. 16: "And thine house and thy kingdom shall be sure in eternity before thee, and thy throne shall be firm in eternity." This reference has also been pointed out by _Calvin_, who remarks: "When the prophet says, 'as in the days of old,' he confirms [Pg 391] the doctrine that the dignity of the house would not always flow in an equal current, but that, nevertheless, there would always be such a restoration as would make it easily perceptible that G.o.d's promise of an eternal dominion to David had not been in vain." The dominion of David had already suffered a considerable shock by the separation of the two kingdoms, existing at the prophet's time; but it was in future to sink even far more deeply, and the people along with it. But, with all these things, G.o.d's promise remains true. The judgments do not shut up the way for His mercy, but rather prepare it. That it was only through the family of David that the promised salvation could be imparted to the people, the prophet plainly declares. If it were not so, how could he have identified the tabernacle of David with the two kingdoms, and with the people? As to the person of the restorer, he does not more particularly designate it.

The main thing with him, as with Hosea (compare the remarks on Hos. ii.

2, and iii. 5), is to impress upon the people of Israel the conviction, that salvation could come to them only from a reunion with Judah--from their joining again the house of David; compare Ezek. x.x.xvii. 22: "And I make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and they shall be no more two nations, and they shall be no more divided into two kingdoms." But if this was sure and established, there could then be no more any doubt as to the person. It was at that time generally known that the promise given to David would be finally fulfilled in the Messiah; and it was generally acknowledged by the ancient Jews, that the pa.s.sages under consideration refer to the Messiah. _Jerome_ remarks: "The Jews refer everything which, in this and the other prophets, is foretold concerning the building up of Jerusalem and the temple, and the happy condition of all things, to themselves, and foolishly expect that all shall be fulfilled in a carnal sense." It is from the pa.s.sage under review that the Messiah received the name ?? ?????, _filius cadentium_--He who springs forth from the fallen family of David; compare _Sanhedrin_, fol. 96, 2: R. Nachman said to R. Isaac, Hast thou heard when ?? ?????? is to come? The latter answered: Who is he? R.

Nachman said: The Messiah. R. Isaac: But is the Messiah thus named? R.

Nachman: Certainly, in Amos ix. 11: [Pg 392] "In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen." In _Bres.h.i.+th Rabbah_, sec.

88, we read: "Who would have expected that G.o.d should raise up again the fallen tabernacle of David? And yet we read in Amos ix. 11, 'In that day,' etc. And who could have hoped that the whole world could yet become one flock? And yet, such is declared in Zeph. iii. 9: 'Then will I turn to the people in pure lips, that they all may call upon the name of the Lord, and serve Him with one lip.' But all that is prophesied only in reference to the Messiah." See _Schottgen_, p. 70, and other pa.s.sages, especially from the _Sohar_, ibid. p. 111, 566.

Ver. 12. "_In order that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen upon whom My name is called, saith the Lord that doeth this._"

_Calvin_ remarks on this verse: "This main point is plainly declared to us, that there is here promised an extension of the kingdom under Christ; and it is just as if the prophet had said that the Jews were enclosed within narrow limits, even when the kingdom of David did most flourish, inasmuch as, under Christ, G.o.d is to extend their territory, so that they shall rule far and wide." There is here an evident allusion to the times of David, which, in the last words of the preceding verse, formed the subject of discourse. This is quite plain also from the mention of the Edomites. These had been made subject by David; but afterwards, availing themselves of the commencing fall of David's tabernacle, they had again freed themselves. Not only they, however, but all the other heathen nations, shall be again subjected to the raised up tabernacle of David. That former event served as a type and prelude to the latter, and formed moreover a prophecy of it in deeds, inasmuch as both rested on the same foundation, viz., G.o.d's protection of His Church, and His care for His kingdom. It is for this reason too, that, with an allusion to the former event, the verb ?????

is chosen. By this verb, expression is given only to the fact of their agreement, and to points in which those events agree; but it gives no indication of _how far_ they agree, or in what respects they differ; this is to be declared in the subsequent words. The prophet, however, in speaking only of the _remnant_ of Edom, looks back to the threatening in chap. i. They only who have been preserved in the judgment which is there announced, are to come [Pg 393] under the blissful dominion of the kingdom of David. As Israel, so also the Gentiles, must be prepared for the coming of the kingdom of Christ by crus.h.i.+ng judgments. The judgment upon Israel is only a single portion of a great judgment upon all nations. Into this connection it is brought by the very opening chapters of this book. In chap. v. 8, vii.

7, there is likewise an intimation of great calamities and shakings, which are to come upon the heathen world. The submission of the remnant of the heathen world, however, will not be an abas.e.m.e.nt, but, on the contrary, an exalting of them; this is shown by the words, "Upon whom My name is called." These words do not allow us to think of such a relation of Edom and the other nations to Israel, as existed at the time of David in the case of the conquered nations. They are never used to designate a form of allegiance to the Lord so low and false, but always denote the relation of close and cordial allegiance. The heathen are in future to be considered and treated as those who are consecrated to the Lord, and who belong to His holy people,--just as Israel is now considered and treated. Compare, as to the use of these words with reference to Israel, Deut. xxviii. 9, 10: "The Lord shall raise thee _an Holy people unto Him_, as He hath sworn unto thee ... and all people of the earth see that the name of the Lord is called upon thee, and are afraid of thee." In this verse, the expression, "The name of the Lord is called upon thee," corresponds with "holy people." Jer.

xiv. 9: "And Thou, O Lord, art in the midst of us, and Thy name is called upon us." Is. lxiii. 19: "We are those over whom Thou hast not reigned from eternity, and upon whom Thy name has not been called." As regards the use of these words in reference to the temple, compare, further, Jer. vii. 10, 11: "And ye come and stand before Me in this house, upon which My name is called. Is, perhaps, this house upon which My name is called, a den of robbers in your eyes?" The exceeding greatness of their wickedness is denounced in these words; and the ground why it is so great, is not by any means the fact, that the temple, as was indeed the case with that at Bethel, bore the name of the house of G.o.d only by the caprice of the people, but that it really was the house of G.o.d, and that G.o.d, in His gracious condescension, was there _really_ present, as a type of His dwelling in Christ; compare Deut. xii. 5: "The place which [Pg 394] the Lord your G.o.d shall choose out of all your tribes, to put His name there." _Finally_, These words are used in reference to single individuals, whom G.o.d, in a special sense, has made His own, His representatives, the bearers of His word, the mediators of His revelations, in Jer. xv. 16: "I found Thy words and I did eat them, and Thy words became unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart: for Thy name was called upon me, Jehovah, G.o.d of hosts,"

etc., equivalent to, "For I was the messenger and representative of Thee, the Almighty G.o.d."--_Hitzig_, _Hofmann_, and _Baur_ explain the expression, "Upon whom My name is called," by, "Upon all the nations who once, at the time of David, were in subjection to the people of G.o.d." The use of the Preterite has been urged in favour of this explanation; but it is certainly very rash to a.s.sert, on the ground of this, that "this view alone is admissible according to the rules of grammar." The statement of _Ewald_, -- 135 _a_, is exactly applicable to this case: "The _Perfectum_, when used with reference to some future event, either mentioned or conceived of, may as well indicate the past which _then_ has taken place." The sense might thus be: "All the heathen upon whom then My name will be called." In the same sense, the Preterite is used in another pa.s.sage, quoted by _Hofmann_ for a different purpose--viz., 2 Sam. xii. 28: "In order that I may not take (????) the city, and my name be called (????) upon it." It militates, however, against their view, that the name of the Lord being called upon any one, has, according to all the parallel pa.s.sages, a sense too profound to admit of a relation to the Lord so loose and external being thereby designated. It is used only of such as are received into the condition of the people and sons of Jehovah, Hos. ii. 1 (i. 10).

_Further_, The mere restoration of the Davidic dominion over the heathen is a very meagre thought, which is far from coming up to what Jacob had foretold in Gen. xlix. 10, and to what David and Solomon expected of the future; compare, _e.g._, Ps. lxxii. 11: "And all kings wors.h.i.+p Him, all the heathen serve Him."--The closing words, "Thus saith the Lord that doeth this," are intended to strengthen faith in a promise which appears to be incredible, by calling attention to the fact, that the person who promises is also the person who carries it out to its fulfilment; compare Jer. x.x.xiii. 2: "Thus saith the Lord that makes it, the Lord that forms it, [Pg 395] to carry it out, the Lord is His name." This closing formula is also very ill suited for so meagre a prediction as that of the restoration of the old borders, of which Israel, under the reign of Uzziah and Jeroboam, was not so very far short. It was, probably, solely from a false interpretation of the pa.s.sage under review, that an important historical event had its rise.

Hyrca.n.u.s compelled the Idumeans, who were conquered by him, to be circ.u.mcised, and in that way to be incorporated into the Theocracy; so that they lost entirely their national existence and name (_Jos. Arch._ xiii. 9, 1; _Prideaux Hist. des Juifs_, vol. v. p. 16). This proceeding differed so materially from that which was ordinarily followed--for David did not think it at all necessary to adopt a similar proceeding against the Idumeans, and the other nations which were conquered by him--that it necessarily requires some special reason to account for it; and such a reason is furnished by the pa.s.sage under consideration.

Hyrca.n.u.s washed to be instrumental in the fulfilment of the prophecy contained in it; but in this he failed. He did not consider, 1. That the reception of Edom into the kingdom of G.o.d is here brought into connection with the restoration of the tabernacle of David, and hence could be brought about only by a king of the house of David. He did not consider, 2. That the matter here in question is not such a reception into the kingdom of G.o.d as depends upon the will of man, but a spiritual reception, which carries along with it the full enjoyment of divine blessings. That it was, however, easy for Hyrca.n.u.s to fall into such a mistake, is shown by the example of _Grotius_, who confined himself to this merely apparent fulfilment, although he had the real fulfilment before his eyes. By a similar misunderstanding of Old Testament prophecies, other important events also were brought about; _e.g._, according to the express testimony of Josephus, the building of the Egyptian temple, and, as we shall afterwards see, the building of the temple by Herod.

It now only remains to consider the quotation of this pa.s.sage in the New Testament, in Acts xv. 16, 17. _Olshausen_ has directed attention to a difficulty regarding it, which has been overlooked by the greater number of interpreters. He says that one cannot well see how the quotation bears upon the point at issue. Both parties were at one as to the duty of admitting the Gentiles into the kingdom of G.o.d. The only question was [Pg 396] about the manner of their reception--whether with, or without, circ.u.mcision--and as to this, the prophecy, which confines itself to the fact only, does not contain any express declaration. But this difficulty has its sole foundation on the erroneous view that James was stating two reasons altogether independent of each other;--the first in ver. 14, G.o.d's declaration by facts, in His having given His Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, without their having been circ.u.mcised; and then, in vers. 16, 17, the testimony of the Old Testament. But the sound view rather is, that both together form only one reason. Apart from that testimony which G.o.d, the Searcher of hearts, had given to the Gentiles by the gift of the Holy Spirit, and by making no difference betwixt them and Israel, the prophetic declaration would have been without any significance; but it acquires this significance when combined with the testimony of G.o.d. It is now also that the silence of James, in reference to that condition which was demanded by those of a pharisaic tendency, gains significance.

Simeon has declared how G.o.d at first was pleased to take a people for His name out of the Gentiles; and after the _fact_ of their reception has been so expressively declared, the Old Testament pa.s.sage, where this reception is spoken of, is not cognizant of any other _mode_. The Apostle does not content himself with quoting ver. 12; he first cites ver. 11, because it furnished the proof that the declaration contained in ver. 12 referred to that time. That event, with which the conversion of the Gentiles is here immediately connected, had already taken place in Christ, at least as to the germ, which contained within itself the whole substance which afterwards displayed itself. But it was the main thought only which came into consideration in ver. 11, and therefore it is somewhat abbreviated. In the quotation, the translation of the LXX.

evidently forms the foundation.

The quotation of ver. 12 agrees, almost _verbatim_, with the LXX. It follows them in their important deviation from the Hebrew text. Instead of, "In order that they may occupy the remnant of Edom," the LXX. read, ?p?? ?? ????t?s?s?? s? ?ata???p?? t?? ?????p?? e (instead of e Luke has t?? ??????, which is found in the _Cod. Alex._ also, but has very likely come in from Luke). It is of very little consequence to determine in what manner the translation of the LXX. arose; whether they had a different reading, ???? ????? ????? ???, [Pg 397] before them; or whether they merely read erroneously; or whether, according to _Lightfoot_ (in his remarks on Acts xv. 16, 17), they intentionally thus altered the words; or whether it was their object to express the sense only generally and approximately (in the last two cases we should be obliged to suppose that, by a kind of play, and in order to represent, in an outward manner, the substantial agreement of the thought, they chose words exactly corresponding to the Hebrew text, with the exception of a change of a few letters,--a thing which frequently occurs in the Talmud, and even in Jeremiah when compared with the older prophets); only, we must set aside the idea of a really different reading,--a reading resting on the authority of good Ma.n.u.scripts, inasmuch as such an idea would be irreconcilable with the deviations of the LXX. elsewhere, and with the unanimity of the Hebrew Ma.n.u.scripts in the pa.s.sage before us. The a.s.sertion of _Olshausen_, however, that, in the Hebrew form, the pa.s.sage would not have been suitable for the purpose, and that therefore it is probable that, on this occasion, Greek must have been spoken in the a.s.sembly, does indeed deserve our attention.

Whether or not the latter was the case, we leave undecided. That it was probable, may be proved from other grounds, but it by no means follows from the reason stated by _Olshausen_. The pa.s.sage was suited for the proof, as well according to the Hebrew text, as according to the Alexandrian version; for the latter is quite correct and faithful in so far as the sense is concerned. The _occupying_, in the sense in which it is used by Amos, has the _seeking_ for its necessary supposition.

For how, indeed, can spiritual possession, spiritual dominion by the people of the Lord exist, unless the Lord has been sought by those who are to be ruled over? Compare the declaration: "The isles shall wait for His law," Is. xlii. 4. The words, "And of all the heathen,"

following immediately after Edom, evidently prove that Amos mentions Edom, only by way of individualizing; and the Idumeans, especially, as a people, only because their former, specially violent hatred to the Covenant-people (compare i. 11) made their future humble submission more evidently a work of the omnipotence of G.o.d, and of His love watching over His people; and at the same time there may be a reference also to the former subjection by David. The LXX. [Pg 398] have done nothing more, than at once to subst.i.tute for the particular, the general which comprehends this particular,--a particular which is, by Amos too, designated as a part of the general.[5]

Ver. 13. "_Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and the ploughman reacheth to the reaper, and the treader of the wine-press to him that soweth seed. And the mountains drop must, and all the hills melt._"

The fundamental thought in this pa.s.sage is this:--Wheresoever the Lord is, there also is the fulness of His gifts.--The imagery in the first hemistich is taken from Lev. xxvi. 3-5: "If ye shall walk in My laws, and keep My commandments and do them; then I will give your rains in their seasons, and the land gives its produce, and the tree of the field gives its fruit. And your thres.h.i.+ng _reaches_ to the vintage, and the vintage _reaches to the sowing_ time." After the Lord has purified His congregation by His judgments, then the joyful time of blessing, prophesied by His servant Moses, shall likewise come. _Cocceius_ says: "One shall reap, the other shall immediately plough; one shall scatter the seeds in the ploughed field, while another shall, at the same time, tread the grapes,--a work is wont to be done at the last time of the year. There shall be continual work, and continual fruit, and a fruitfulness such as that in the land of the Troglodytes which _Scaliger_ (_Exercit._ 249, 2) thus describes: 'Throughout the whole year there is sowing and reaping at the same time; at one place the seed is committed to the fields, and at another the wheat shoots up, at another it gets ears, at another it is reaped, at another it is collected, and [Pg 399] brought to the thres.h.i.+ng-places, and thence to the barn.'"--The second hemistich agrees with Joel iv. (iii.) 18 (which is certainly not accidental; compare the introduction to Joel): "At that time the mountains shall drop must, and the hills go with milk."

From a comparison of this pa.s.sage it appears that the melting of the hills can mean only their dissolving into rivers of milk, must, and honey, with an allusion to the description of the promised land in the Pentateuch (Exod. iii. 8) as a land flowing with milk and honey.

Ver. 14. "_And I turn Myself to the captivity of My people Israel, and they build waste cities, and dwell, and plant vineyards, and drink their wine; and they make gardens and eat their fruit._"

The captivity is a figure of misery. With reference to ???? ??? compare the remarks on Joel.

Ver. 15. "_And I plant them in their land, and they shall no more he plucked up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy G.o.d._" Compare p. 227 seqq.

Footnote 1: _Hofmann_, _Schriftbeweis_ I. S. 312, objects: "If this were correct, Paul ought to have delivered that fornicator at Corinth (1 Cor. v. 5), or Hymeneus and Alexander (1 Tim. i. 20), not to Satan, but to the good angels." But the individuals mentioned were members of the Church of Christ, and they were delivered to Satan, not for their absolute destruction, but for their salvation: ??a t? p?e?a, (which of course was still in existence; and it is just the p?e?a that separates between the world and the Church, compare Ps. li. 13) s??? ?? t? ????

t?? ??????, ??a pa?de???s? ? ?asf?e??. It is, as in the case of Job, a punishment with a view to purification, for which power is given to Satan, Heb. xii. 6. These pa.s.sages, then, serve only to confirm the view which we have expressed.

Footnote 2: The same is probably the case in vi. 14: "For behold I raise up against you, O house of Israel, saith the Lord G.o.d of Hosts, heathen people; and they shall afflict you from Hamath unto the river of the wilderness." The river of the wilderness can here be none other than the river of Egypt, which commonly appears as the boundary of the whole. Compare 1 Kings viii. 65; 2 Chron. vii. 8, where Solomon a.s.sembles the whole people from Hamath unto the river of Egypt; Josh.

xv. 4, 47; 2 Kings xxiv. 7; Is. xxvii. 12. They who think of the boundary of the kingdom of the ten tribes only, are at a loss, and have recourse to uncertain conjectures.