Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume Ii Part 24

Righteousness stands here in parallelism with salvation, and the order and progress is this: righteousness of the king, righteousness of the subjects, then salvation and righteousness as a reward from G.o.d, To this argument may still be added the contrast to the former time.

Connected with the unrighteousness of the kings was that of the people; and hence it was that the country was deprived of salvation, and smitten by the divine judgments. That [Pg 422] which Jeremiah comprehends in the name _Jehovah Zidkenu_, Ezekiel, in the parallel pa.s.sage, chap. x.x.xiv. 25-31, farther carries out and expands. The Lord enters into a covenant of peace with them; rich blessing is bestowed upon them; He breaks their yoke and delivers them from servitude; they do not become a prey to the Gentiles.--_Schmieder_ has objected, that the name would be without meaning for the promised King, unless the name Jehovah belonged to him. But the King, by being called _Jehovah Zidkenu_, is designated as the channel, through which the divine blessings flow upon the Church, as the Mediator of Salvation, as the Saviour. We must not, however, omit to remark that this ancient explanation was wrong only in endeavouring to draw out from the word that which, no doubt, is contained in the matter itself No one born of a woman is _righteous_, in the full sense of the word; and if there be anything wanting in the personal righteousness of the King, the working of justice and righteousness, too, will at once be deficient; and salvation and righteousness are not granted in their full extent from above. To no one among all the former kings did the attribute ????

belong in a higher degree than to David; and yet in how imperfect a degree did even he possess it! The calamity which, by this imperfection, was inflicted upon the people, is, _e.g._, seen in the numbering of the people. And it was not only the _will_ to work justice and righteousness which was imperfect, but the power also was imperfect, and the knowledge limited. He only who truly rules as a king, and is truly wise (compare the words ???????? ?????? ????????????) can come up to, and realize the idea, after which David was striving in vain. All the three offices of Christ, the royal no less than the prophetic and priestly, imply His divinity; and the conviction that, in the way hitherto pursued, nothing was to be effected; that it was only by the divine entering into the earthly, that such splendid promises could be fulfilled,--this conviction surely must have been plain to a Jeremiah, whose fundamental sentiment is, "all flesh is gra.s.s," and who lived at a time which, more than any other, was fitted to cure that Pelagianism which always seeks to gather grapes from thorns. If then, farther, we keep in mind that Jeremiah had before him the clear announcements of the former prophets, as regards the divinity of the Messiah (compare [Pg 423] remarks on Mic. v. 1; Is. ix. 5), we can account for the fact, that he does not expressly speak of it, only because it was not suitable in this context, in which only the fact itself comes into consideration, but not the particular way.

Ver. 7. "_Wherefore, behold days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say: As the Lord liveth who brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt_; ver. 8, but: _As the Lord liveth, who brought up, and who led the seed of the house of Israel out of the North country, and from all the countries whither I have driven them; and they dwell in their land._"

The sense is this: The future prosperity and salvation shall by far outs.h.i.+ne the greatest deliverance and salvation of the Past. _Calvin_ remarks: "If the first deliverance be valued by itself, it will be worthy of everlasting remembrance; but if it be compared with the second deliverance, it will almost vanish;" compare, besides chap. xvi.

14, 15, where the verses now under consideration already occurred almost _verbatim_ (Jeremiah is fond of such repet.i.tions, which are any thing but vain repet.i.tions; and this fondness forms one of his peculiarities); chap. iii. 16, where, in the same sense, it is said of the Ark of the Covenant that it shall be forgotten in future; Is.

xliii. 18, 19, lxv. 17.--??????? "living (is) Jehovah," for: "As Jehovah liveth." It is quite natural that, when G.o.d is invoked as a witness and judge, He should be designated as the _living one_; and it is as natural that, on such an occasion, the greatest sign of life which He gave should be pointed to. But that, under the Old Testament dispensation, was the deliverance from Egypt, the strongest and most impressive of all those deeds by which the delusion was dissipated, that G.o.d was walking upon the vault of heaven, and did not judge through the clouds. In future, a still stronger manifestation of life is to take place. Hence the formula of the oath is altogether general; the deliverance from Egypt comes into consideration as a manifestation of life, and not as an act of grace. This was overlooked by _Calvin_ when he remarked: "Whensoever they saw themselves so oppressed, that they did not see any other end to their evils than in the grace of G.o.d, they said that the same G.o.d, who, in former times, had been the deliverer of His people, was still living, and His power undiminished."

[Pg 424]

CHAP. x.x.xI. 31-40.

The 30th and 31st chapters may rightly be called the grand hymn of Israel's deliverance. They are connected into one whole, not only a material, but also by a formal unity; so that we must indeed wonder at views such as those of _Venema_ and _Rosenmuller_, who a.s.sume that the section is composed of fragments loosely connected, and written at different times; but still more at the views of _Movers_ and _Hitzig_, who a.s.sert that a whole number of strange interpolations had been introduced into the text; compare _Kuper_, Jerem. S. 170 ff.

With respect to the time of the composition, we must not allow ourselves to be deceived by the circ.u.mstance that, as a rule, Judah appears no less that Israel, already far away from the land of the Lord, in captivity. The Prophet, taking his stand in the time when the catastrophe has already taken place, speaks from an ideal Present. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem was indeed imminent, and immediately in view, but had not yet taken place, becomes probable even from the inscriptions in chap. x.x.xii. and x.x.xiii., according to which these two chapters, which are so closely related to the two before us, belong to the tenth year of Zedekiah, when Jerusalem was besieged by the Chaldeans. This is rendered certain by chap. x.x.x. 5-7, where the final catastrophe upon the covenant-people, which belongs to the time of Jeremiah, is represented as still impending. Hitherto the threatening had prevailed in the predictions of the Prophet; but now, in the view of their fulfilment, when the thunders of the judgment were already heard from the heavens, the promise flows in full streams. The false prophets had prophesied prosperity and salvation, at a time when, to the human eye, there was no. cause for fear; but Jeremiah just steps forth to announce salvation, at a time when all human hope had vanished.

The Prophet begins, in chap. x.x.x., with the promise of salvation for _all_ Israel; and after a detailed description, he comprehends and sums it up, in ver. 22, in the words, brief but infinitely rich and comprehensive: "And ye shall be my people [Pg 425] and I will be your G.o.d."[1] The majestic close of the promise for the true Israel is, in vers. 23, 24, formed by the threatening against those who are Israel in appearance only,--a.n.a.logous to the words of Isaiah: "There is no peace to the wicked." Let them not, in their foolish delusion, seize the promise for themselves. The time of the highest blessing for the G.o.dly, and for those who are willing to become G.o.dly, the ????? ?????. will be for them, at the same time, a time of the highest curse. The climax of the manifestation of grace has the climax of the manifestation of justice as its inseparable companion. "Behold the storm of the Lord, glowing fire, goeth forth, a _continuing_ storm, on the head of the wicked it shall remain. The fierce anger of the Lord shall not return, until He have done, and until He have performed the intents of His heart; at the end of days ye shall consider it." Formerly, in chap.

xxiii. 19, 20, in a threatening prophecy which referred to the exile, the Prophet had uttered the same words. By their verbal repet.i.tion, he intimates that the matter was not by any means settled with the exile; that the latter must not be considered as the absolute and final punishment for the sins of the whole nation, but that, as truly as G.o.d is Jehovah, so surely His words will revive, as often as the circ.u.mstances again exist, to which they originally referred.

[Pg 426]

The more specific the consolation is, the more impressive is it, and the more does it reach the heart. After having announced salvation, therefore, to _all_ Israel, the Prophet now proceeds to the consolation for the two divisions of Israel. He begins with Israel in the restricted sense--the ten tribes (chap. x.x.xi. 1-22), and with them he continues longest, because, when looking to the outward appearance, they seemed to be lost beyond all hope of recovery, to be for ever rejected by the Lord. The thought, that we have here an original and independent announcement of salvation for Israel, is set aside even by the relation of ver. 1 to ver. 22 of the preceding chapter. For it is to this verse that the Prophet immediately connects his discourse; vers. 23 and 24 are only a parenthetical remark, an _Odi profanum vulgus et arceo_, addressed to those to whom the promise did not belong. Upon the words: "You shall be my people, and I will be your G.o.d," follow in an inverted order, the words: "At that time, saith the Lord, I will (specially) be the G.o.d of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people." Rachel, the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, weeping over her sons, vers. 15-17, is so much the more suited to represent Israel, that the tribe of Benjamin also, as to its princ.i.p.al portion, belonged to the kingdom of the ten tribes; compare my commentary on Ps. lx.x.x. Upon Israel there follows, in vers. 23-26, Judah. The announcement closes in ver. 26 with the words so often misunderstood: "Upon this I awaked, and I beheld, and my sleep was sweet unto me." The Prophet has lost sight of the Present; like a sleeping man, he is not susceptible of its impressions, compare remarks on Zech. iv. 1. Then he awakes for a moment from his sweet dream (an allusion to Prov. iii. 24), which, however, is not, like ordinary dreams, without foundation. He looks around; every thing is dark, dreary, and cold; nowhere is there consolation for the weary soul.

"Ah," he exclaims, "I have sweetly dreamed,"--and immediately the hand of the Lord again seizes him, and carries him away from the scenes of the Present.

There is not by any means a different salvation destined for Israel and Judah; it is one salvation to be partaken of by both, who are in future to be re-united into one covenant-people, into a nation of brethren.

From the parts, therefore, [Pg 427] the description returns, in vers.

27-40, to the whole from which it had proceeded, and is thus completely rounded off, especially by the circ.u.mstance that, just in this close, there is contained the crown of the promises, the substance and centre of the declaration recurring here in ver. 33: "And I will be their G.o.d, and they shall be my people."

The whole description in both chapters is Messianic; and after what we have already had frequent occasion to remark, no farther proof is necessary to show how inadmissible is a proceeding like that of _Venema_, who cuts it all up into small pieces, and here a.s.sumes an exclusive reference to the return from the captivity; there, to the Maccabees, whom he almost raises to Saviours; in another place, to Christ and His Kingdom. We ought therefore, indeed, to give an exposition of the whole section; but, for external reasons, we are obliged to limit ourselves to an exposition of the princ.i.p.al portion, chap. x.x.xi. 31-40.

It is chap. x.x.xi. 22 only which we shall briefly explain, because that pa.s.sage was, in former times, understood by many interpreters to contain a personal Messianic prophecy. "_How long wilt thou turn aside, O thou apostate daughter? for the Lord createth a new thing in the land, woman shall compa.s.s about man._" The last words of the verse are, by the ancient interpreters, commonly explained as referring to Christ's birth by a virgin. Thus, _e.g._, _Cocceius_: "It could not be said more distinctly, at least not without ceasing to be enigmatical, unless he had said that a virgin has born Christ the Son of G.o.d." But quite apart from other arguments, this explanation is opposed by the obvious consideration, in that case, just that would here be stated which, in the birth of Christ by a virgin, is _not_ peculiar. For ???

and ???? are a designation of the s.e.x; the fact that the woman brings forth the man (since ??? is a.s.serted to designate _proles mascula_), is something altogether common; but the important feature is wanting, that the woman is to be a virgin, and the man, the Son of G.o.d. But certainly not a whit better than this explanation is that which modern interpreters (_Schnurrer_, _Gesenius_, _Rosenmuller_, _Maurer_), have advanced in its stead: "The woman shall protect the man, shall perform for him the _munus excubitoris circ.u.meuntis_." This, surely, is a "_ridiculus_ [Pg 428] _mus_"--an argument quite unique. We must fully agree with _Schnurrer_, who remarks: "This, surely, is something new, uncommon, unheard of;" but not every thing _new_ is, for that reason, suitable for furnis.h.i.+ng an effectual motive for conversion. The sense at which _Ewald_ arrives: "A woman transforming herself into a man," is surely not worthy of being entertained at the expense of a change in the reading. The correct view is the following:--The Prophet founds his exhortation to return to the Lord upon the most effectual argument possible, viz., upon the fact that the Lord was to return to them, that the time of wrath was now over, that they might hasten back into the open arms of G.o.d's love. Without hope of mercy, there cannot be a conversion. The perverse and desponding heart of man must, by His preventing love, be allured to come to G.o.d. How important and valuable the "new thing" is which the Lord is to create, the Prophet shows by the terms which he has selected. It is just the _nomina s.e.xus_ which here are suitable; the omission of the article also is intentional. The relation is represented in its general aspect; and thereby the look is more steadily directed to its fundamental nature and substance. "Woman shall compa.s.s about (Ps. x.x.xii. 7, 10) man;" the strong will again take the weak and tender into His intimate communion, under His protection and loving care. The woman art thou, O Israel, who hitherto hast sufficiently experienced, what a woman is without the man, how she is a reed exposed to, and a sport of, all winds. The man is the Lord. How foolish would it be on thy part, if thou wert to persevere any longer in thine independence and dissoluteness, and if thou didst refuse to return into the sweet relation of dependence and unconditional surrefender, which alone, being the only natural relation, can be productive of happiness! In favour of this explanation is also the clear reference of ????? to ???????, and to ??????, which, in the case of the latter word, is even outwardly expressed by the alliteration.

How foolish would it be still farther to _depart_, as now the time is at hand when the Lord is approaching.--It is obvious that, even according to our interpretation, the prophecy retains its Messianic character.

[Pg 429]

The contents of the section, vers. 31-40, are as follows:--The Lord is far from punis.h.i.+ng with entire rejection the contempt of His former gifts and blessings. On the contrary, by increased grace, He will renew the bond between Him and the people, and render it for ever indissoluble. The foundation of this is formed by the remission of sins, of which the richer outpouring of the Spirit is a consequence; and it is now, when the Law no more comes to Israel as an outward letter, but is written in their hearts, that Israel attain their destination; they will truly be the people of G.o.d, and G.o.d will be truly their G.o.d, vers. 31-34. To the people conscious of their guilt, and still groaning under the judgments of G.o.d, such a manifestation of G.o.d's continuous grace appears incredible; but G.o.d most emphatically a.s.sures them, that this election is still in force, and must continue for ever, as truly as He is G.o.d, vers. 31-37. The city of G.o.d shall gloriously arise out of its ashes. While formerly the unholy abomination entered into her, the holy one, even into her innermost parts, she _now_ shall extend her boundaries beyond the territory of the unholy; and the Lord, who is sanctified _within_ her, will sanctify himself _upon_ her also. There shall be no more destruction.

Ver. 31. "_Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and I make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah._"

Ver. 32. "_Not as the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant they brake; but I marry them to me, saith the Lord._"

The first question which we have here to examine is: What is to be understood by the making of a covenant? We cannot here think of a formal transaction, of a mutual contract, such as the covenant made on Sinai. This appears from ver. 32, according to which the old covenant was concluded on the day when the Lord took Israel by the hand, in order to bring them out of Egypt; but at that time a covenant-transaction proper was not yet mentioned. Most interpreters erroneously suppose that by the words: "In the day," &c., the abode at Sinai is [Pg 430] designated. But since the _day_ of the deliverance from Egypt is commonly thus spoken of (comp. Exod. xii. 51 ff.); since this _day_ was, as such, marked out by the annually returning feast of the Pa.s.sover, we must, here also, take ???, "day," in its proper sense.

And there is the less reason for abandoning this most obvious sense that, in Exod. vi. 4; Ezek. xvi. 8; Hag. ii. 5, a covenant with Israel is spoken of, which was not first concluded on Sinai, but was already concluded when they went out from Egypt. _Farther_--No obligation is spoken of in reference to the new covenant; blessing and gifts are mentioned, and nothing but these. But are we to adopt the opinion of _Frischmuth_ (_de foedere nov._ in the _Thes. Ant._ i. p. 857), and of many other interpreters and lexicographers, and say that ???? "does not only signify a covenant entered upon by two or several parties, but also p???es??, _propositum Dei_, ?pa??e??a?, His gratuitous and unconditional promises, as well as His constant ordinances?" That might after all be objectionable. ??? ???? cannot _signify_ any thing but to make a covenant.[2] But the question is, whether the making of a covenant cannot be spoken of in pa.s.sages, where there is no mention of transactions of a mutual agreement between two parties. The substance of the covenant evidently precedes the outward conclusion of the covenant, and forms the foundation of it. The conclusion of the covenant does not first form the relation, but is merely a solemn acknowledgment of the relation already existing. Thus it is ever in human relations; the contract, as a rule, only fixes and settles outwardly, a relation already existing. And that is still more the case in the relation between G.o.d and man. By every benefit from G.o.d, an obligation is imposed upon him who receives it, whether it may, in express words, have been stated by G.o.d, and have been outwardly acknowledged by the recipient or not. This is clearly seen in the case under consideration. At the giving of the Law on Sinai, the obligatory power of the commandments of [Pg 431] G.o.d is founded upon the fact, that G.o.d brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage.

Hence, it appears that the Sinaitic covenant existed, in substance, from the moment that the Lord led Israel out of Egypt. By apostatizing from the Lord, the people would have broken the covenant, even if it had not been solemnly confirmed on Sinai; just as their apostacy, in the time between their going out and the transactions on Sinai, was treated as a violation of the covenant. It would have been a breach of the covenant, if the people had answered, in the negative, the solemn questions of G.o.d, whether they would enter into a covenant with Him.

This appears so much the more clearly, when we keep in mind, that the New Covenant was not at all sanctioned by such an external solemn act.

But if, nevertheless, it is a covenant in the strictest sense; if, here, the relation is independent upon its acknowledgment,--then, under the Old Testament too, this acknowledgment must be a secondary element.

The same is the case with all the other pa.s.sages commonly quoted in proof, that ??? ???? may also be used of mere blessings and promises.

Thus, _e.g._, Gen. ix. 9: "Behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you." That which is here designated as a covenant is not the promise _per se_, that in future the course of nature should, on the whole, remain undisturbed, but in so far only, as it imposes upon them who receive it, the obligation to glorify, by their walk, the Lord of the order of nature. In part, this obligation is afterwards outwardly fixed in the commandments concerning murder, eating of blood, &c. Gen. xv. 18: "In the same day G.o.d made a covenant with Abraham, saying: Unto thy seed I give this land." In what precedes, a promise only is contained; but this promise itself is, at the same time, an obligation; and this obligation existed even then, although it was at a later period only, solemnly undertaken by receiving the sign of the covenant, circ.u.mcision. Exod. x.x.xiv. 10: "And He said: Behold I make a covenant; before all thy people I will do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation; and all the people among whom thou art, shall see the work of the Lord; for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee." The covenant on Sinai is here already made; the making of the new covenant here spoken of consists [Pg 432] in the mercies by which G.o.d will manifest himself to His people as their G.o.d. Every one of these mercies involves a new obligation for the people; every one is a question in deeds: This I do to thee, what doest thou to me?--It will now be possible to determine in what sense the Old Covenant is here contrasted with the New, The point in question cannot be a new and more perfect revelation of the Law of G.o.d; for that is common to both the dispensations. No jot or t.i.ttle of it can be lost under the New Testament, and as little can a jot or t.i.ttle be added. G.o.d's law is based on His nature, and that is eternal and unchangeable, compare Mal. iii. 22 (iv. 4). The revelation of the Law does not belong to the going out from Egypt, to which the making of the former covenant is here attributed, but to Sinai. As little can the discourse be of the introduction of an entirely new relation, which is not founded at all upon the former one. On this subject, _David Kimchi's_ remark is quite pertinent: "It will not be the newness of the covenant, but its stability." The covenant with Israel is an everlasting covenant. Jehovah would not be Jehovah, if an entirely new commencement could take place; ???? de--so the Apostle writes in Rom. xv. 8--??s??? ???st?? d??????? ?e?e??s?a? pe??t??? ?p??

????e?a? ?e?? e?? t? ea??sa? t?? ?pa??e??a? t?? pat????? t? de ????

?p?? ?????? d???sa? t?? ?e??. The sending of Christ with His gifts and blessings, the making of the New Covenant, is thus the consequence of the covenant-faithfulness of G.o.d. If then the Old and New Covenants are here contrasted, the former cannot designate the relation of G.o.d to Israel _per se_, and in its whole extent, but it must rather designate the former mode only, in which this relation was manifested,--that whereby the Lord had, up to the time of the Prophet, manifested himself as the G.o.d of Israel. With this former imperfect form, the future more perfect form is here contrasted, under the name of the New Covenant.

The New Covenant which is to take the place of the Old, when looking to the form (comp. Heb. viii. 13: ?? t? ???e??? ?a????, pepa?a???e t??

p??t?? t? d? pa?a???e??? ?a? ????s???, ????? ?fa??s??), is, in substance, the realization of the Old. These remarks are in perfect harmony with that which was formerly said concerning the meaning of ???

????. We saw that this expression does not designate an act only once done, [Pg 433] by which a covenant is solemnly sanctioned, but rather that it is used of every action, by which a covenant-relation is inst.i.tuted or confirmed.--If, then, the Old Covenant is the former form of the covenant with Israel; and the New Covenant the future form of it, another question is:--Which among the manifold differences of those two forms are here specially regarded by the Prophet? The answer to this question is supplied by that which the Prophet declares concerning the New Covenant. For since it is _not_ to be like the former covenant, the excellences of the New must be as many defects of the Old. These excellences, however, are all of a spiritual nature,--first, the forgiveness of sins, and then the writing of the Law in the heart. It follows from this, that the blessings of the Old Covenant were _pre-eminently_ (for we shall afterwards see that an entire absence of these spiritual blessings cannot be spoken of, and that the difference between the Old and the New Covenant is, in this respect, a relative one only, not an absolute one) of an external nature; and this is also suggested by the circ.u.mstance, that it is represented as being concluded when the people were led out of Egypt; in which fact, all the later similar deliverances and blessings are comprehended. The Prophet, if any one, had learned that, in the way hitherto pursued, they could not successfully continue. The sinfulness of the people had, at his time, manifested itself in such fearful outbreaks, that, even when looking at the matter from a human point of view, he could not but feel most deeply that, with outward blessings and gifts, with an outward deliverance from servitude, the people were very little benefited. What is the use of a mercy which, according to divine necessity, must be immediately followed by a punishment so much the more severe? The necessary condition for the true and lasting bestowal of outward salvation, is the bestowal of the internal salvation; without the latter the former is only a mockery. It is this internal salvation, therefore, which is the highest aim of the Prophet's longings; to it he here points as the highest blessing of the Future; compare also chap.

x.x.xii. 40: "And I make an everlasting covenant with them, and I will no more turn away from them to do them good, and I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me."--The closing words of ver. 32 are frequently misunderstood. [Pg 434] The erroneous interpretation of ??? by "_quia_," which is found with most expositors, is of less consequence. ??? indicates, in general, the connection with what precedes. We may explain it either by: "which my covenant they brake," as is done by _Ewald_; or, "since (Deut. iii. 24) they brake my covenant," in which latter case, ??? refers at the same time to "I marry them unto me." We have here farther carried out and detailed that which previously was said of the making of a new covenant; and the sense is: Although they have broken my former covenant, yet I marry them unto me, or make a new covenant with them. Of greater importance is the difference in the interpretation of ?????. By far the greater number of interpreters understand this _sensu malo_; the ancient interpreters in doing so refer to the words ???? ????sa a?t??, (Heb.

viii. 9); but these can scarcely prove anything. For the author of that epistle, whose sole object it is to show that the new covenant stands higher than the old--the insufficiency of the latter was, as the Prophet's expressions show, sufficiently felt even by those who lived under it--has, in these words, which do not stand in any relation to the object which he has in view, followed the LXX. But it is a rather doubtful and suspicious circ.u.mstance that, in determining the sense, these interpreters greatly vary. Some, referring to the Arabic, explain ??? by "_fastidire_;" others, as they allege, from the Hebrew _usus loquendi_, by "to tyrannize." Thus, _e.g._ _Buddeus_ (_de praerogat.

fidelium N. T._ in the Miscell. p. 106): "We may readily understand thereby every severe chastis.e.m.e.nt by the neighbouring nations, such as frequently happened: they did not remain in my covenant, therefore I made them to bear the yoke of others, ????sa a?t??, _neglexi eos_."

But we have already seen (comp. remarks on chap. iii. 14), that for neither of these significations is there any foundation; and this has been felt by those also who, in order to bring out a bad signification, such as, according to their view, the text requires, undertook to change the reading, as _e.g._ _Cappellus_, who would read ?????, and _Grotius_, who would read ?????.[3] The signification "to betroth onesself," "to [Pg 435] take in marriage," which in that pa.s.sage we vindicated for ??? with ?, is, here too, quite applicable; comp. Jer.

ii. 1. This signification the Chaldee Paraphrast too seems to have had in view; for he translates ??????? "_cupio vos_," "_delector vobis_."

And is there anything to indicate, that here the reason is to be stated, why the old covenant is abolished? That reason can be brought in only by very forced explanations (comp. _e.g._ _Maurer_ and _Hitzig_); and it is, moreover, sufficiently expressed, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has shown. Even in the announcement of a _new_ covenant, the declaration is implied that the old covenant was insufficient: e? ??? ? p??t? ??e??? ?? ?ept??, ??? ?? de?t??a?

???te?t? t?p?? (Heb. viii. 7), as well as the reason why it was so, viz., on account of human sinfulness and hardness of heart, which are not helped and remedied by pre-eminently outward blessings and benefits, be they never so great. This their former greatness is indicated by the words: "When I took them by the hand,"--words which imply the most tender love. To this subjective cause of the insufficiency of the old covenant there is a reference in the words: ef?e??? ??? a?t??? ???e?, in Heb. viii. 8, which by _De Wette_ and _Bleek_ are erroneously translated: "For reprovingly He says to them."

The Dative a?t??? belongs to ef?e??? (comp. _Mathiae_, S. 705); if it were otherwise it would be redundant, and would the less be in its place, that the discourse is not addressed to the children of Israel.

The reason why a better covenant was required, such a one ?t?? ?p?

??e?tt?s?? ?pa??e??a?? ?e?????t?ta?, Heb. viii. 6, appears sufficiently from that which, in vers. 33, 34, is said of this new covenant in contrast to the old. Here, however, it is rather the infinite love of G.o.d, the greatness of His covenant-faithfulness which are pointed out; and this thought is, from among all others, best suited to the context. ??? and ???? form an emphatic contrast. _They_, in wicked ingrat.i.tude, have broken the former covenant, have shaken off the obligations [Pg 436] which G.o.d's former mercies imposed upon them.

G.o.d too--so it might be expected--ought now to annul the old covenant, and for ever withdraw from them the old mercies. But, instead of doing so, He grants the new covenant, the greater mercy. He anew takes in marriage apostate Israel, and in such a manner that now the bond of love becomes firm and indestructible. _Bleek_ objects to our interpretation: "The object is not the city of Jerusalem, or even the Congregation of Israel, but the single Israelites, who may indeed be designated as the children of Jehovah, but not as His spouse." But, in such personifications, it is quite a common thing that the real plurality should take the place of the ideal unity. In Exod. x.x.xiv.

15, for instance, it is said: "And they go a whoring after their G.o.ds,"--instead of the congregation, to which the _whoring_ properly belongs, (comp. Is. lvii. 7), the individual members are mentioned; comp. Hos. ii. 1, 2 (i. 10, ii. 19).

Ver. 33. "_For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after these days, saith the Lord: I give my law in their inward parts, and will write it in their hearts; and I will be their G.o.d, and they shall be my people._"

?? is, by some interpreters, here supposed to mean "but;" so much, only, however, is correct that "but" might _also_ have been put; _for_ is here quite in its place. The words: "Not as the covenant," &c., in the preceding verse, are here vindicated, and expanded by a positive definition of the nature and substance of the New Covenant. It is just because it is of such a nature, that it is not like the former covenant. ??? does not, by any means, as is erroneously supposed by _Venema_ and _Hitzig_, refer to the days mentioned in ver. 31, in which the New Covenant was to be made. "These days," on the contrary, are a designation of the Present; "after these days," equivalent to ??????

????? "at the end of days." The Prophet so repeatedly and emphatically points to the Future, because unbelief and weak faith imagined that, with the Present, the history of the covenant-people was finished, and that no Future was in store for them. _Calvin_ pertinently remarks: "It is just as if the Prophet had said, that the grace of which he was prophesying could not be apprehended, unless they, believers, kept their minds composed, and patiently waited until the [Pg 437]

time of the promised salvation had come." As regards the following enumeration of the blessings, in and by the bestowal of which the new covenant-relation is to be established, _Venema_ very correctly remarks: "The blessings are distinguished into radical or causal ones, and subsequent or derived ones." The second ??, in ver. 34: "_For_ I will forgive their sin," proves the correctness of this division, which is also pointed out by the _Athnach_.--???? is, by many interpreters, here understood to signify "doctrine." Thus _Buddeus_: "By the word ????, the whole New Testament doctrine is to be understood." This interpretation, however, is objectionable, and destructive of the sense, ???? never means "doctrine," but always "law;" and the fact that it is only _the_ law of G.o.d, the eternal expression of His nature, and common, therefore, to both the Old and New Covenants, which can be here spoken of, and not a new const.i.tution for the latter, is seen from the reference in which the giving in the inward parts and the writing on the heart (the tables of the heart, 2 Cor. iii. 3), stands to the outward communication and the writing on the tables of stone on Sinai.

The law is the same; the relation only is different in which G.o.d places it to man, ("_lex c.u.m homine conciliatur quasi_," _Michaelis_.) One might easily infer from the pa.s.sage before us a confirmation of the error, that the law under the Old Covenant was _only_ an outward dead letter. Against this error _Buddeus_ already contended, who, S. 117, acknowledges that it is a relative difference and contrast only, which are here spoken of He says: "This, of course, was the case with the Old Testament believers also; here, however, G.o.d promises a richer fulness and higher degree of this blessing." _Calvin_ declares the opinion that, under the Old Testament dispensation, there did not exist any regeneration, to be absurd, and says: "we know that, under the Law, the grace of G.o.d was rare and dark; but that, under the Gospel, the gifts of the Spirit were _poured_ out, and that G.o.d dealt much more liberally with His Church." The idea of a purely outward giving of the Law is indeed one which is quite inconceivable. G.o.d would, in that case, have done nothing else towards Israel than He did to the traitor Judas, in whose conscience He proclaimed His holy Law, without communicating to him strength for repentance. But such a proceeding can be conceived of, only where there is a subjective impossibility [Pg 438] of ??a?a????e??

e?? et????a?. Every outward manifestation of G.o.d _must_, according to the const.i.tution of human nature, be accompanied by the inward manifestation, since it is inconceivable that He who knows our nature, should mock us by the semblance of a blessing. As soon as we know the outward fact of the deliverance from Egypt, we know, at the same time, that G.o.d has then powerfully touched the heart of Israel. As soon as it is established that the Law on Sinai was written on tables of stone by the finger of G.o.d, it is also established that He, at the same time, wrote it on the tables of Israel's heart. But that which is thus implied in the matter itself, is confirmed by the testimony of history.

In the Law itself, circ.u.mcision is designated as the pledge and seal of the bestowal, not merely of outward blessings, but of the circ.u.mcision of the heart, of the removal of sin attaching to every one by birth; so that man can love G.o.d with all his heart, all his sold, and all his powers, Deut. x.x.x. 6. This circ.u.mcision of the heart which, in the outward circ.u.mcision, was at the same time _required_ and promised by G.o.d (comp. Deut. l. c. with x. 16), is not substantially different from the writing of the Law on the heart. _Farther_--If the Law of the Lord had, for Israel, been a mere outward letter, how could the animated praise of it in the Holy Scriptures, _e.g._, in Ps. xix., be accounted for? Surely, a bridge must already have been formed between the Law and him who can speak of it as rejoicing the heart, as enlightening the eyes, as converting the soul, as sweeter than honey and the honeycomb.

That is no more the Law in its isolation which worketh wrath, but it is the Law in its connection with the Spirit, whose commandments are not grievous; comp. my commentary on Ps. xix. 8 ff. A _new_ heart was created under the Old Testament also, Ps. li. 12; and not to know the nature of this creation was, for a teacher in Israel, the highest disgrace, John iii. 10. Yea, that which is here promised for the Future, a pious member of the Old Covenant expresses, in Ps. xl. 9, _in the same form_, as being already granted to him as his present spiritual condition: "I delight to do thy will, O my G.o.d, and thy Law is in the midst of my bowels,"--words which imply the same contrast to the Law as outward letter, as being written on tables of stone, comp.

Prov. iii. 1-3: "My son, [Pg 439] forget not my law, and let thine heart keep my commandments ... bind them about thy neck, write them upon the table of thine heart;" compare my commentary on Psalms, Vol.

iii. p. lxvii.--But how is it to be explained that the contrariety which, in itself, is relative, appears here under the form of the absolute contrariety,--the difference in degree, as a difference in kind? Evidently in the same manner as the same phenomenon must be explained elsewhere also, _e.g._ John i. 17, where it is said that the Law was given by Moses, but mercy and truth by Christ. By overlooking this fact, so many errors have been called forth. The blessings of the Old Covenant which, when considered in themselves, are so important and rich, appear, when compared with the much fuller and more important blessings of the New Covenant, to be so trifling that they vanish entirely out of sight. It is quite similar when, in chap. iii. 16, the Prophet represents the highest sanctuary of the Old Covenant, the Ark of the Covenant, as sinking into entire oblivion in future; when, in chap. xxiii. 7, 8, he describes the deliverance from Egypt as no longer worthy of being mentioned. Parallel to the pa.s.sage under consideration is the promise of Joel of the pouring out of the Spirit, chap. iii. 1, 2 (ii. 28, 29); so that that which we remarked on that pa.s.sage, is applicable here also. But, in that pa.s.sage, the relative nature of the promise appears more clearly than it does here, just because, in general, under the New Covenant, in its relation to the Old, there is nowhere an absolutely new beginning, but always a completion only (just in the same manner as, on the other hand, under the New Covenant itself, it is in the relation of the _regnum gloriae_ to the _regnum gratiae_). Joel, in reference to the communication of the Spirit, puts the abundance in the place of the scarcity; the many in the place of the few. Compare, moreover, chap. xxiv. 7: "And I give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be their G.o.d;" x.x.xii. 39: "And I give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them and of their children after them;" but especially Ezek. xi. 19, 20, x.x.xvi. 26, 27.--The remarks of Jewish interpreters on the pa.s.sage under consideration, in which they cannot avoid seeing that, in it, a purely moral revelation is prophesied, [Pg 440] in contrast to a mere external one, clearly show how strongly the Old Testament is opposed to that carnal Jewish delusion of the condition of the Messianic Kingdom (as it is most glaringly expressed in the Talmudic pa.s.sage _Ma.s.sechet Sanhedrim_, fol.

119: "There is no other difference between the days of the Messiah and the present state of things, excepting only that the kingdoms shall be our slaves),"--a delusion which is quite a.n.a.logous to the expectations which are entertained by revolutionists concerning the Future, and which flow from the same source. Thus Rabbi _Bechai_ (see _Frischmuth_) remarks: "This means that every evil concupiscence shall be taken away, and every desire to covet any thing;" _Moses Nachmanides_ (_ibid._ S.

861): "And this is nothing else than that every evil concupiscence shall be taken away, so that the heart, by an internal impulse, does what is right.--In the days of Messiah there will not exist any evil desire, but, from the impulse of his nature, man will do what is right. And there will, therefore, not be innocence and guilt, inasmuch as these depend upon concupiscence." But if once bent upon it, pre-conceived opinions will overcome every, even the strongest, contradiction offered by the matter itself This may be seen from the example of _Grotius_, who here explains: "I will cause that all of them keep my Law in memory,--in the first instance, by the mult.i.tude of synagogues which, at that time, were built, and in which the Law was taught thrice a-week." Thrice a-week! Surely that will produce first-rate men, viz., such as are described in Isa. lviii. 2. It is not without meaning, that the words: "And I will be their G.o.d," &c., follow upon: "And I give my Law in their inward parts," &c. The Law is the expression of G.o.d's nature; it is only by the Law being written in the heart that man can become a partaker of G.o.d's nature; that His name can be sanctified in him. And it is this partic.i.p.ation in the nature of G.o.d, this sanctification of G.o.d's name, which forms the foundation of: "I will be their G.o.d, and they shall be my people." Without this, the relation cannot exist at all, as truly as G.o.d is not an idol, but the True and Holy One. These words express, as _Buddeus_, S. 94, rightly remarks: "That He will impart himself altogether to them." But how were it possible that G.o.d, with His blessings and gifts, should [Pg 441]

impart himself entirely and unconditionally to them who are not of His nature? Of all unnatural things, this would be the most unnatural.

Here, however, likewise the relative character of the promise most clearly appears. As early as to Abraham, G.o.d had promised that He would be a G.o.d to _him_, and to his seed after him; and this promise he had afterwards repeated to the whole people, Lev. xxvi. 12, comp. Exod.

xxix. 45: "And I dwell in the midst of the children of Israel and will be their G.o.d." In the consciousness that this promise was fulfilled in the time then present, David exclaims in Ps. x.x.xiii. 12: "Blessed is the nation whose G.o.d is Jehovah, the generation whom He hath chosen for His inheritance." Hence, here too, there is nothing absolutely new. If such were the subject of discourse, then the whole Kingdom of G.o.d under the Old Testament dispensation would be changed into a mere semblance and illusion. But the small measure of the condition--with which even G.o.d himself cannot dispense, but of which He may vouchsafe a larger measure, viz., the writing of the Law in the heart, whereby man becomes a copy of G.o.d, the personal Law--was necessarily accompanied by the small measure of the consequence, The perfect fulfilment of G.o.d's promise to Abraham and Israel, to which the prophet here alludes, could, therefore, be expected from the future only.

Ver. 34. "_And they shall teach no more a man his neighbour, and a man his brother, saying: Know the Lord; for they all shall know me, small and great, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more._"

Even from ancient times, the first hemistich of the verse has created great embarra.s.sment to interpreters, from which very few of them, not excepting even _Calvin_, manage to extricate themselves skilfully. The declaration that, because all will be taught by G.o.d, human instruction in things divine is to cease, has, at first sight, something fanatical in it, and, indeed, was made use of by Anabaptists and other enthusiasts in vindication of their delusion.[4] Many interpreters attempt an evasion, [Pg 442] by referring the words to the future life; thus _Theodoret_, _Augustine_, (_de Spirit. et lit._ c. 24) and _Este_, who, in a manner almost _nave_, remarks: "This difficulty, it seems, is very simply avoided by those who refer this promise to the future world, where, no doubt, all care about teaching will cease." But the matter is, indeed, not at all difficult. All that is necessary is to keep in mind that human instruction is here excluded, in so far only as it is opposed to divine instruction concerning G.o.d himself; that hence, that which is here spoken of, is _mere_ human instruction, by which men are trained and drilled in religion, just as in every other branch of common knowledge,--a result of which is, that they may learn for ever without ever coming to the knowledge of the truth. Such an instruction may be productive of historical faith, of belief in human authority; but it is just by this, that the nature of religion will be altogether destroyed. Even the true G.o.d becomes an idol when He is not known through himself, when He himself does not prepare the heart as a place to dwell in. He is, and remains a mere idea that can impart no strength in the struggle against sin which is a real power, and no comfort in affliction. Now, such a condition was very frequent under the Old Testament dispensation. The ma.s.s of the people possessed only a knowledge of G.o.d, which was chiefly, although not exclusively, obtained through human instrumentality. By the New Covenant, richer gifts of the Spirit were to be bestowed, and along with them, the number of those was to be increased who were to partake in them, just as Isaiah, in chap. vii. 16, represents believers under the Old Testament as being taught by the Lord, while in chap. liv. 13, in reference to the Messianic time, he announces: "And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord." Under the New Covenant, the ant.i.thesis of teaching by G.o.d, and teaching by man, is to cease. The teachers do not teach in their own strength, but as servants and instruments of the Lord. It is not they who speak, Init the Holy Spirit in them. Those who are taught by them hear the word that comes to them through men, not as man's word, but as G.o.d's word; and they receive it, not because it satisfies their limited human reason, but because the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is truth. How this ant.i.thesis is done away with, and reconciled in a higher unity, is, among other pa.s.sages, [Pg 443] shown by 2 Cor. iii.

3: "You are an epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living G.o.d." They are ?e?d?da?t??, but through the ministry of the Apostle who, in so far as he performs this service, is not different from G.o.d, but only a conductor of His power, a channel through which the oil of the Holy Spirit flows to the Church of G.o.d; compare remarks on Zech. iv. The same is taught in 1 John ii.

20: ?a? ?e?? ???sa ??ete ?p? t?? ?????, ?a? ??date p??ta. ??? ???a?a ???, ?t? ??? ??date t?? ????e?a?, ???' ?t? ??date a?t??. Ver. 27: ?a?

?e?? t? ???sa, ? ???ate ?p' a?t??, ?? ???, ??e? ?a? ?? ??e?a?

??ete, ??a t?? d?d?s?? ???, ???' ?? t? a?t? ???sa d?d?s?e? ??? pe??

p??t?? ?. t. ?. The d?d?s?e?? here signifies the human teaching in contrast to that which is divine, such an one as undertakes by its own power to work knowledge in him who is taught. Such a teaching cannot take place under the new covenant. A fundamental knowledge is already imparted to all its members; the pa?????t??, the Holy Ghost, alone teaches them, John xiv. 26; He leads them into all truth, John xvi. 13.