Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume Ii Part 25

But, just because this is the case, the teaching by means of those whom G.o.d has given, in His Church, as apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers (Eph. iv. 11), to whom He has communicated His ?a??sata, is quite in its place. The apostle writes just _because_ they know the truth. If it were otherwise, his efforts would be altogether in vain.

Of what use is it to give instruction about colours to him who is blind? In things divine, the truth becomes truth to the single individual, only because his knowledge of G.o.d is founded on his being in G.o.d; and that can be accomplished only by his being connected to G.o.d through G.o.d. Being, life, and hence, also, real living knowledge, can proceed only from the fountain of all being and life. But in the case of those who are in G.o.d, who possess the fundamental knowledge, this knowledge must be developed, carried on, and brought to full consciousness through the instrumentality of those to whom G.o.d has granted the gifts for it. A glance into the deep meaning of our pa.s.sage was obtained by the author of the book _Jelammedenu_, which is quoted by _Abarbanel_ (in _Frischmuth_, S. 863); he says: "Under the present dispensation, Israel learns the Law from mortal men, and therefore forgets it; for as flesh and blood pa.s.s away (comp. [Pg 444] Matt. xvi.

17, where the ant.i.thesis existing between a knowledge of divine things which rests on human ground, and that which rests on divine ground, is brought before us in its strictest form), so also its instruction pa.s.ses away. But a time shall come when a man shall not learn from the mouth of a man, but from the mouth of the blessed G.o.d, for it is written: 'All thy children shall be taught by G.o.d.' In these words, it is implied that hitherto the knowledge of the Law was an artificial one obtained by mortal men. But for that reason, it cannot stand long, for the effect stands in proportion to its cause. At the time of the deliverance, however, the knowledge of the Law will be obtained in a miraculous manner." It is, however, quite obvious that this promise, too, must be understood relatively only. All the pious men of the Old Covenant were ?e?d?da?t??; and under the New Covenant, the number of those is infinitely great who, through their own guilt, stand to truth in a relation which is entirely or preeminently mediate.--Instead of the "small," by way of individualization, servants and handmaids are mentioned in Joel iii. 2 (ii. 29); compare remarks on Rev. xi. 18.--We have already seen that in the last words of the verse, the fundamental blessing is promised. But whether ?? be referred only to that which immediately precedes, or to every thing which goes before (_Venema_: _vocala_ ?? _non ad proxime praecedentia referenda, sed ad totam pericopam, qua bona foederis recensita sunt, extenda_), amounts to nearly the same thing; for that which immediately precedes includes all the rest. We have before us nothing but designations of the same thing from various aspects; everything depends upon the richer bestowal of the gifts of the Spirit. This has the forgiveness of sins for its necessary foundation; for, before G.o.d can give, He must first take. The sins which separate the people and their G.o.d from one another, must first be taken away; it is then only that the inward means can be bestowed, so that the people may become truly G.o.d's people, and G.o.d's name may be sanctified in them. It is obvious that, here too, a relative difference only between the Old and New Covenant can be spoken of A covenant-people without forgiveness of sins is no covenant-people; a G.o.d with whom there is not forgiveness, in order that He may be feared, who does not heal the bones [Pg 445] which He has broken, who in this respect gives promises for the Future only, is no G.o.d, and no blessing. For if He does not grant this, He cannot grant any thing else, inasmuch as every thing else implies this, and is of no value without it. Forgiveness of sins is the essence of the Pa.s.sover as the feast of the covenant. On the Ark of the Covenant, it was represented by the _Capporeth_ (see _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, Vol. ii., p.

525 f.). Without it the sin-offerings appointed by G.o.d are a lie; without it, all that is untrue which G.o.d says of himself as the covenant-G.o.d, that He is gracious and merciful, Exod. x.x.xiv. 6. The holy Psalmists often acknowledge with praise and thanks that G.o.d _has_ forgiven sins; comp. _e.g._ Ps. lx.x.xv. 3: "Thou hast taken away the iniquities of thy people, thou hast covered all their sins." In the same manner they are loud in praising the high blessing bestowed upon the individual by the forgiveness of sins; comp. Ps. x.x.xii. 51. The consciousness that their sins are forgiven, forms the foundation of the disposition of heart which we perceive in the Psalmists; see Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. iii. p. lxv. f. "What a p????f???a"--so _Buddeus_ remarks, p. 109--"what a confidence, what a joy of a tranquil and quiet conscience s.h.i.+nes forth in the psalms and prayers of David!" We have thus before us merely a difference in degree. To the believers of that time, the sin of the covenant-people appeared to be too great to admit of its being forgiven. Driven away from the face of the Lord, so they imagined, it would close its miserable existence in the land of Nod; never would the ?a???? ??a???e?? return. But, in opposition to such fears, the Prophet declares, in the name of the Lord, that they would not only return, but come, for the first time, in the true and full sense; that where they imagined to behold the end to the forgiveness of sins, there would be its real beginning; that where sin abounded, the grace of G.o.d should there so much the more abound. Only, they should not despair, and thus place a barrier in the way of G.o.d's mercy. Your G.o.d is not a mere hard task-master; He himself will sow and then reap, as surely as He is G.o.d, the gracious and merciful One.

Ver. 35. "_Thus saith the Lord, giving the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for_ [Pg 446] _a light by night, agitating the sea, and the waves thereof roar, the Lord of hosts is His name._"

Ver. 36. "_If these ordinances will cease before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever._"

Interpreters commonly a.s.sume that, already in ver. 35, the discourse is of the firm and immutable divine laws which every thing must obey. But opposed to this view are the words: "Agitating the sea, and the waves thereof roar," in which no definite perceptible rule, no uninterrupted return takes place. To this argument may be added the comparison of the fundamental pa.s.sage, Isa. li. 15, in which the omnipotence only of G.o.d is to be brought out: "And I am the Lord thy G.o.d, who agitates the sea, and its waves roar, the Lord of hosts is His name;" comp. also Amos.

ix. 5, 6. It thus appears that, in ver. 35, G.o.d's omnipotence only is spoken of, which establishes that He is G.o.d and not man; and this forms the foundation for the declaration set forth in ver. 36, which is so full of comfort for the despairing covenant-people,--the proposition, namely, that, while all men are liars, He does not lie; that He can never repent of His covenant and promises. The "ordinances" (moon and stars are, in their regular return, themselves, as it were, embodied ordinances), are mentioned already in ver. 35, because just the circ.u.mstance that, according to eternal and inviolable laws, sun and moon must appear every day at a fixed time, and have done so for thousands and thousands of years, testifies more strongly for His omnipotence and absolute power, never liable to any foreign influence or interference, than if they at one time appeared, and, at another, failed to appear. G.o.d's omnipotence, as it is testified by a look to nature (_Calvin_: "The Prophet contents himself with pointing out what even boys knew, viz., that the sun makes his daily circuit round the whole earth, that the moon does the same, and that the stars in their turn succeed, so that, as it were, the moon with the stars exercises dominion by night, and, afterwards, the sun reigns by day"), results from the fact that He is the pure, absolute, being (Jehovah His name, comp. remarks on Mal. iii. 6); and it is just because He is this, that His counsels, which He declared without any condition attached to them, must be [Pg 447] unchangeable. To believe that He has for ever rejected Israel, is to degrade Him, to make Him an idol, a creature.--In ver.

36, the immutability of G.o.d's counsel of grace is put on a level with the immutability of G.o.d's order of nature; but this is done with a view to the weakness of the people, who receive, for a pledge of their election, that which is most firm among visible things; so that every rising of the sun and moon is to them a guarantee of it; compare Ps.

lx.x.xix. 37, 38. But considered in itself, the counsels of G.o.d's grace are _much firmer_ than the order of nature. The heavens wax old as a garment, and as a vesture He changes them and they are changed (Ps.

cii. 27-29); heaven and earth shall pa.s.s away, but the word of G.o.d shall not pa.s.s away.--From chap. x.x.xiii. 24: "They despise my people (???) that they should be still a nation (???) before them" it appears why it is that ??? is here used, and not ??. The covenant-people in their despair imagined that their national existence, which, in the Present, was destroyed, was gone for ever. If only their national existence was sure, then also was their existence as a covenant-people.

For, just as their national existence had ceased, because they had ceased to be the covenant-people, so they could again obtain a national existence as the covenant-people only.

Ver. 37. "_Thus saith the Lord: If the heavens above be measured, and the foundations of the earth beneath be searched out, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel, for all that they have done, saith the Lord._"

It is not without meaning that the Prophet so frequently repeats: Thus saith the Lord. This formed the ? and O; His word was the _sole_ ground of hope for Israel. Apart from it, despair was as reasonable, as now it was unreasonable. The measuring of heaven, and the searching out of the innermost parts of the earth, come here into consideration as things impossible. The words: "All the seed of Israel," take from the hypocrites that consolation which they might be disposed to draw from these promises. It is as much in opposition to the nature of G.o.d that He should permit all the seed of Israel, the faithful with the unbelievers, to perish, as that He should save all the seed of Israel, unbelievers as well as believers. The promise, as well as the threatening, always leaves a remnant. All that the covenant grants is, that the whole cannot [Pg 448] perish (the discourse is here, of course, of definite rejection); but it gives no security to the individual sinner. The words: "For all that they have done," are added intentionally, because the greatness of the sins of the people was the _punctum saliens_ in the believers' despair of the mercy of G.o.d.

_Calvin_ says: "The Prophet here intentionally brings forward the sins of the people, in order that we may know that the grace of G.o.d is greater still, and that the mult.i.tude of so many wicked men would not be an obstacle to G.o.d's granting pardon."

Ver. 38. "_Behold, days, saith the Lord, and the city is built to the Lord from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner._ Ver. 39.

_And the measuring line goeth yet farther over against it, over the hill Gareb_ (the leper), _and turneth towards Goah_ (place of execution). Ver. 40. _And the whole valley of the carca.s.ses and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, and from thence unto the horsegate, towards the East,_ (all this is) _holiness unto the Lord. No more shall it be destroyed, nor shall it be laid waste for ever._"

This prophecy embraces two features: _first_, the restoration of the Kingdom of G.o.d, represented under the figure of a restoration of Jerusalem, which, under the Old Covenant, was its seat and centre (it is this aspect only which Zechariah, in resuming this prophecy, has brought forward in chap. xiv. 10); and, _secondly_, the glorification of the Kingdom of G.o.d, which now is so strengthened and increased, that it can undertake to attack and a.s.sail the dark kingdom of evil, and subject it to itself, while formerly it was attacked and a.s.sailed by it, and often could not prevent the enemy from penetrating into the innermost heart of its territory. This thought the Prophet graphically clothes in a perceptible form, and in such a manner that he describes how the unholy places, by which Jerusalem, the holy city, was surrounded on all sides, are included in its circ.u.mference, and become holiness unto the Lord. In former times, the victory of the world over the Kingdom of G.o.d had been embodied in the fact, that the abominations of sin and idolatry had penetrated into the very temple; compare chap.

vii. 11: "Is then this house, which is called by the name of the Lord, a den of robbers, saith the Lord?" Other pa.s.sages will be mentioned when we come to comment upon Dan. ix. 27. This inward victory must, according to divine necessity, [Pg 449] be followed by the outward one.

The covenant-people which, inwardly, had submitted to the world, which, by its own guilt, had profaned itself, was, outwardly also, given up to the world, and was profaned in punishment. And this profanation, inflicted upon it as a punishment, again manifested itself just at that place, where the profanation by the guilt had chiefly manifested itself, viz., in the holy city, and in the holy temple. It is with a view to the former manifestation of the victory of the world over the Kingdom of G.o.d, that here the victory of the Kingdom of G.o.d over the world is described; and the imagery is just simple imagery. To the outward holiness of the city and of the temple, the outward unholiness of the places around Jerusalem is opposed. While the victory of the world over the Kingdom of G.o.d had been manifested by the profanation of these places, the victory of the Kingdom of G.o.d now appears under the image of the sanctification of these formerly unholy places. By what means that great change had been brought about; by what means the Kingdom of G.o.d, which now lay so powerlessly prostrate, should again obtain powers which it had never before possessed; by what means the servant was to be changed into a lord, it was unnecessary for the Prophet here to point out; it had been already mentioned in vers.

32-34. The difference consists in this, that the New Covenant is not like the Old, but that it first furnishes the right weapons by which sin and the world can be overcome, viz., an infinitely richer measure of the forgiveness of sins, of the graces of the Spirit.--We must still premise a general remark concerning the determination of the boundaries of the New Jerusalem here given, because this must guide us in determining the single doubtful places which are here mentioned. The correct view has been already given by _Vitringa_ in his Commentary on Isaiah x.x.x. 33: "The Prophet promises to the returning ones the restoration of the city of Jerusalem in its whole circ.u.mference; and he describes it in this way, that he begins from the Eastern wall, pa.s.ses on thence, through the North side, to the West side, and thence, by the South side, returns to the East." For the Prophet begins with the tower of Hananeel which was situated at the East side of the town, near the sheep-gate; compare remarks on Zech. xiv. 10. Thence he proceeds to [Pg 450] the corner-gate, which was situated in that corner where the North and East met (compare l. c.), and hence comprehends the whole North side. He closes with the horse-gate, of which he expressly states that it was situated towards the East, and hence points out that he had again arrived at the place from which he set out. We have thus gained a firm foundation for determining those among the places mentioned, the situation of which is, in itself, doubtful.--Let us now proceed to the consideration of particulars. After ????, the _Keri_ inserts ????. It is true that this fuller expression is commonly used by the Prophet; but, for that very reason, the more concise one is to be preferred, which alone has the authority of the MSS. in its favour, while the _Keri_ is nothing but a conjecture, perhaps not even that. The full expression having already occurred so frequently in the pa.s.sage under consideration, the Prophet here, at the close, and for a change, contents himself with the mere intimation. The Prophet says intentionally: "The city is built to the Lord," so that "to the Lord"

must be connected with "is built;" not "the city of the Lord." The latter expression had become so much a _nomen proprium_ of Jerusalem, that the full depth of its meaning was no more thought of. This new city is no more to be called simply the city of the Lord; it is truly to be built to the Lord, so that it belongs to Him.--In the first two points of the boundary, the tower of Hananeel and the Corner-gate, the second main idea of the pa.s.sage does not yet come out so prominently.

This is to be accounted for simply by the circ.u.mstance, that on the whole North side of the town there was not any unholy places. The Suffix in ???? refers to the Corner-gate; the measuring line, ?????

according to the _Kethibh_, ?? ??????????, which is the common form, according to the _Keri_, goes yet farther over against it, &c. By the words "over against," it is intimated that it now goes beyond the former dimensions of the town. ?? "over" (_Hitzig_ erroneously translates it "towards," or "by the side of it"), shows that the hill Gareb is included within the circ.u.mference of the new city. From the remarks formerly made, it appears that the hill Gareb, and Goah, places which are nowhere else mentioned, must have been situated on the West side; and, moreover, Gareb on the North-west [Pg 451] side[5] and Goah on the South-west side, ??? has no other signification than "the leper;" and "the hill of the leper" can be the hill only, where the lepers had their abode. For, as early as in the second year after the Exodus from Egypt, these lepers were obliged to remain without the camp (comp. Numb. v. 3: "Without the camp shall ye send them, and not shall they defile their camp in the midst whereof I dwell"); and this law was so strictly enforced, that even Moses' sister was removed out of the camp. When they had come to Canaan, the provisions of the law in reference to the camp were transferred to the towns; comp. farther Lev.

xiii. 46: "All the days that he has the leprosy, he shall be defiled; he shall dwell alone, without the camp shall his habitation be;" Luke xvii. 12. Even Uzziah could not be released from it; he lived without the city in Beth Chofs.h.i.+th, 2 Kings xv. 5, which is commonly translated "house of the sick," instead of "house of emanc.i.p.ation," viz., place where they lived, whom the Lord had manumitted, who no more belonged to His servants; compare remarks on Psa. lx.x.xviii. 6. Even in the kingdom of Israel they were so strict in the execution of this Mosaic ordinance (one from among the numberless proofs which are opposed to the current views of the religious condition of this kingdom, and of its relation to the Law of Moses), that, even during the siege of Samaria, the lepers were not allowed to leave the place before the gate a.s.signed to them, 2 Kings vii. 3.--In order more fully to understand the meaning of our pa.s.sage, it is indispensable that we should inquire into the causes of that regulation. _J. D. Michaelis_ (Mos. Recht. iv. -- 210) has his answer at once in readiness, and is so fully convinced of its being right and to the point, that he does not think it worth while to mention any other view. Because _to him_ the temporal objects and aims are the highest, he at once supposes them everywhere in the Law of the Holy G.o.d also. The ordinance is to him nothing but a sanitary measure intended to prevent contagion. But that would surely be a degree of severity against the sick which could the less be excused by a regard to the healthy, that leprosy, [Pg 452] if contagious at all, is so, at all events, very slightly only, and is never propagated by a single touch. (_Michaelis_ himself remarks: "Except in the case of cohabitation, one may be quite safe.") But this severity against the sick must appear in a still more glaring light, and the concern for the healthy becomes even ridiculous, when we take into consideration the other regulations concerning the lepers. They were obliged to go about in torn clothes, bare-headed, and with covered chin, and to cry out to every that came near them, that they were unclean. Even _Michaelis_ grants that those regulations could not be designed to guard against infection. He remarks: "But the leper should not cause disgust to any one by his really shocking appearance, or terror by an accidental, unexpected touch." But such a sentimental, unmerciful regard to the tender nerves is surely elsewhere not to be perceived in the Law, which regulates all the relations of man to his neighbour, by the principle: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. _Farther_--From mere sanitary or police considerations, the law in reference to the leprosy of the clothes and houses, which is closely connected with the law about the leprosy of men, cannot be accounted for. The reason which _Michaelis_ advances for the law in reference to the clothes, is of such a nature, that not even the most refined politicians have ever yet thought of a similar one. The leprosy of the houses is, according to him, the dry-rot, which, although not contagious, was so hateful to Moses, that, out of concern for the health of the possessor, and for the goods kept in them, he ordered them to be altogether pulled down. If Moses had entertained the views on the power of the magistrates which lie at the foundation of this, he could not have been an amba.s.sador of G.o.d,--even apart altogether from the absurdity of the measure. But the shallowness and untenableness of _Michaelis'_ view will appear still more strongly, when we state the positive argument for our view. It is this: Leprosy is the outward image of sin; that, therefore, which is done upon the leper, is, in reality, done upon the sinner. Every leper, therefore, was a living sermon, a loud admonition to keep unspotted from the world. The exclusion of the lepers from the camp, from the holy city, conveyed figuratively quite the same lesson, as is done in Words by John, in Revel. xxi. 27: ?a? ?? ? e?s???? e?? a?t?? [Pg 453] p??

?????? ?a? p????? d????a ?a? ?e?d??, and by Paul, in Ephes. v. 5: t??t? ??? ?ste ????s???te?, ?t? p?? p?????, ? ????a?t??, ? p?e????t??

... ??? ??e? ????????a? ?? t? as??e?? t?? ???st?? ?a? Te??; comp.

Gal. v. 19, 21. Now it is clearly seen what is the Prophet's meaning in including the hill of the lepers in the holy city. That which hitherto was unclean becomes clean; the Kingdom of G.o.d now does violence to the sinners, while, hitherto, the sinners had done violence to the Kingdom of G.o.d. It is only when we take this view of leprosy, that we account for the fact, that just this disease so frequently occurs as the theocratic punishment of sin. The image of sin is best suited for reflecting it; he who is a sinner before G.o.d, is represented as a sinner in the eyes of man also, by the circ.u.mstance that he must exhibit before men the image of sin. G.o.d took care that ordinarily the image and the thing itself were perfectly coincident; although, no doubt, there were exceptions,--cases where G.o.d, according to His wise and holy purposes, allowed that one relatively innocent (in the case of a perfectly innocent man, if such an one existed, that would not be possible, except in the case of Christ who bore _our_ disease), had to bear the image of sin, _e.g._, in the case of such as were in danger of self-righteousness. As a theocratic punishment, leprosy is found especially with such as had secretly sinned, or had surrounded their sin with a good appearance, which, in the eyes of men, prevents them from appearing as sinners, _e.g._, in the case of Miriam, Uzziah, Gehazi, 2 Kings v. 27. In the Law, there are many warnings against it, _e.g._, Deut. xxiv. 8; and David wishes, 2 Sam. iii. 29, that the threatening of the Law might be fulfilled upon the house of wicked Joab. The leprosy of houses, too, comes into consideration only as an image of spiritual leprosy, as is seen from the command in Lev. xiv.

49: "And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; ver. 53: and make an atonement for the house, and it shall be clean." The procedure here is quite the same as that which was applied in the case of sin and sinners; and since the house cannot sin, it follows that a symbolical action only can here be spoken of.--Goah, in this context, in the midst of unclean places, can hardly be anything else than some unclean place; and it is a very obvious supposition that this nature is expressed in the very [Pg 454] name.

This signification interpreters usually endeavour to obtain by deriving the word from ??? "to roar," of which it is properly the Partic. Fem., hence "the roaring one;" but it is more easily obtained by adopting the derivation from ?????, just as ?????? is derived from ??????, a derivation which was first proposed by _Hiller_, S. 127. ??? is used of a violent death, no less than of a natural death; thus Numb. xvii. 27, 28, of a death like that of the company of Korah, Datham, and Abiram; comp.

Zech. xiii. 8. This derivation being a.s.sumed, Goah would denote "expiring," "hill[6] of expiring," which would be a very suitable name of the place for the execution of criminals. _Vitringa_, in commenting upon Is. x.x.x. 33, already expressed the conjecture that Goah, ?? ?????

might perhaps be identical with Golgotha, but retracted it, because the Evangelists explain Golgotha by ??a???? t?p??. But this is no sufficient and conclusive reason. When the Aramean became the prevailing language, the name of the place may have received a new etymology, just as the Fathers of the Church derive p?s?a, from p?s?e??, and many similar instances. It has already been observed that the appellation, "place of skulls," is rather strange, inasmuch as the skulls did not remain in the place of execution.[7] The use of "skull"

for "the place of skulls," as well as the omission of the _L_, have been found strange. But all that is easily accounted for, if the new signification, which substantially agreed with the former, was merely transferred to the word. The ident.i.ty of Goah and Golgotha cannot be disputed,--at least, not from the situation. From Heb. xiii. 12, it is certain that Golgotha, as an unclean place, was situated outside the city; that it was situated on the West side is, it is [Pg 455] true, testified by tradition only; comp. _Krafft_, S. 168 ff.; _Ritter_, _Erdk._ xvi. 1, S. 422 ff.--We now come to the valley of carca.s.ses and of ashes. Even from the position, it becomes probable that this is the valley of Hinnom. The North and West sides are already done, and hence the South and East sides only remain. But the valley of Hinnom was situated towards the South, or South-east of Jerusalem, comp. _Krafft_, S 2; v. _Raumer_, S. 269. The valley of the carca.s.ses is here brought into immediate connection with _all_ the fields (_q.d._, all the other fields), unto the brook Kidron, and is hence designated as a portion of the valley of Kidron. But the valley of Hinnom was the Southern, or South-eastern continuation of the valley of Kidron, which extended on the East side. To this it may be added that, in this context, we must necessarily expect the mention of the valley of Hinnom, but that otherwise it would be wanting. Among all the unclean places around Jerusalem, this was the most unclean. There could be no greater victory of the Kingdom of G.o.d over the world, than if this strictest ant.i.thesis to the holy city, this image of h.e.l.l, was included within the Holy City. It is only with respect to the cause of the appellation, that some doubt may exist, ???, ????? is a common designation of dead bodies, of carca.s.ses. There is not one among the twenty-two pa.s.sages in which it occurs, where it refers to deceased righteous ones. It is used of the dead bodies of animals, of idols, Lev. xxvi. 30; of the dead bodies of those whom the Lord has smitten in His anger and wrath, Jer.

x.x.xiii. 5; 1 Sam. xvii. 46; Amos viii. 3; Neh. iii. 3; Is. lxvi. 24; of such as are, after death, treated like beasts, Jer. i. 49. Hence, opinions such as that of _Venema_ fall to the ground, who supposes that the valley had that name, because it was the public burying-ground. But there is, nevertheless, scope for difference of opinion. One may understand by ????? the carca.s.ses of animals;--the valley of Hinnom would, in that case, be the public flaying-ground. It is in itself probable, and it is generally held[8] that, after the defilement by Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 10), it received this designation. But there are not wanting evident traces that, [Pg 456] even in former times, the valley served this purpose. In Is. x.x.x. 33, it is said in reference to the a.s.syrians: "For Tophet (_Gesenius_ arbitrarily changes the _nomen proprium_ into an _appellativum_, and translates: the place for burning) is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared, made deep and large; the pile thereof has fire and wood in abundance." This pa.s.sage supposes that, even at that time, the valley of Hinnom, or Tophet (which properly is only a part of it, but is sometimes, however, used for the whole), had that destination; that piles were constantly burning in it, on which the carca.s.ses of animals were burned. Such a place of execution and burial is already prepared for the carca.s.ses of the a.s.syrians rebelling against G.o.d. Even the existence of the name Tophet, _i.e._, _horror_, _abomination_, bears witness to the impure destination. The second pa.s.sage is Is. lxvi. 24. Outside the Holy City, the place where formerly the carca.s.ses of the beasts were lying, there now lie the dead bodies of the transgressors. As the former were, in times past, food both for the worms and fire, so they are now. It is true, that _Vitringa's_ objection, that it can scarcely be imagined that the idolators should have chosen a place so unclean, is very plausible. But how plausible soever such an argument may appear, it cannot invalidate distinct historical testimonies; and it might very well be set aside, although it would lead us too far away from our purpose, to do so here. But it may also be supposed that the Prophet looks back to his own declarations, chap. vii. 31, and xix. 4 ff.; and that by ????? here the corpses of transgressors are to be understood, who are destined to destruction, and therefore are to be buried in the flaying-ground. But this reference is, after all, too far-fetched; and it is more natural to say, that the nature of Tophet, as the flaying-ground, forms the foundation, which is common to those pa.s.sages and that before us.--But, besides the arguments already advanced, there is still a grammatical reason, which shows that it is really the valley of Hinnom which is meant. The article in ???? forbids us to view it as being in the _Stat. construct._ and connected with the following words.

We must translate: "And the whole valley, (viz. the valley of) the carca.s.ses and ashes." The place is, hence, first designated as "the valley," without any further qualification, and receives this qualification only afterwards. But it is just the valley of Hinnom which, in Jer. ii. 23, is [Pg 457] designated as the valley ?at'

??????, and the gate leading to it, as the gate of the valley, in Neh.

ii. 13, 15; comp. remarks on Zech. xi. 13.--In reference to ?????, _Gousset_ Lex. p. 368, remarks: "The words ???????, and ??????? are used only of the ashes of the sacrificial animals, and their removal." This observation is confirmed by every careful examination of the pa.s.sages in question. Never are ??????? and ??????? used otherwise than of the ashes of sacrificial animals; comp. Lev. i. 16; vi. 3, 4; 1 Kings xiii. 5; Numb.

iv. 13; Exod. xxvii. 3. The derivation of the signification "ashes,"

from the fundamental signification "fat," as advanced by _Winer_ and others (_cinis_ = _pinguefactio agrorum_), is therefore wrong. On the contrary, even the burnt fat was still considered as fat; the ashes of the fat are the ?????, the residuum of the fat. By this determination of the word, the explanation is very much facilitated. In Lev. vi. 3, 11, it is said: "And he (the priest, after having offered up the burnt-offering) shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp into a clean place."

According to this regulation, the ashes of the sacrificial animals were considered as relatively unclean. The priest had to put off his holy garments, and to put on common garments, and to carry the ashes without the camp,--afterwards without the Holy City. Hence, in contrast to the sacrifices themselves, the ashes were considered as the impure residuum which is found in everything which men do in relation to G.o.d, as the image of sinful contamination attaching to all, even the best works, and to the holiest elevation of the heart. If, then, the place where the ashes are deposited is to be included within the boundaries of the Holy City; is, in holiness, to be equal to the place where the sacrifices themselves are offered,--what else can be signified thereby, than that the unholy is to be overpowered by the holy, the earthly by the divine, by means of a more glorious communication of the Holy Spirit? It is quite a.n.a.logous, when Zechariah represents the horses as being in future adorned by the Lord with the symbol of holiness, which formerly the High-priest only wore; compare remarks on Zech. xiv. 20.

This one argument might be brought forward against the explanation which we have given, viz., that we cannot well imagine that this was the destination of [Pg 458] the valley of Hinnom, because, according to the Law, the ashes of the sacrifices were to be carried to a _clean_ place; because that which once stood in connection with that which is most holy and pure, although, in itself, it may be unclean, must not be mingled with that which is absolutely and constantly unclean. But in opposition to this we remark, that it was not this whole valley that was unclean, but only the place Tophet in it; and that if sometimes the whole is designated as unclean, it is only because it included this most unclean among all unclean places; comp. chap. vii. 31, x.x.xii. 35; 2 Kings xxiii. 10.--There cannot be any doubt that "the ???????? unto the brook Kidron" are identical with the fields of Kidron, ????????? ????????, mentioned in 2 Kings xxiii.; but much to be doubted is the correctness of the common supposition (after the example of _Kuypers_, _ad varia V.

T. loca_, in the _Syll. Dissert. sub praes. Schultens, et Schroederi_, t. 1. p. 537), that ???????? is identical with ?????????. If that were the case, we could not see why Jeremiah should have exchanged the common word for an uncommon one, which elsewhere does not occur. Jeremiah is fond of exchanging words of similar sounds, and especially words differing from one another merely by one letter, and especially by ?

and ?; but these exchanges are always significant. (Compare _Kuper_.

Jerem. p. xiv. and 43, and _History of Balaam_, p. 447 f.) Although we cannot, with certainty, fix the meaning of ?????, yet so much seems to be sure, that this word was one which more accurately designated the nature of those places than the current _nomen proprium_, inasmuch as it would be absurd to subst.i.tute for it another name, if there had not been deeper reasons. One need only compare the ?? ?????? itself which, in the simple historical prose, is used of the Mount of Olives, 2 Kings xxiii. 13. The most simple and natural supposition is the following.

All the significations of the verbs [Arabic: **] in Arabic run together in that of _cutting off_. ????????? the Plural of the Feminine of the Adjective ?????? are, accordingly, _loca abscissa_, places which are cut off and excluded [from the Holy City] outwardly (_Aq._: p???spe?a), and, at the same time, inwardly. Thus we obtain a striking contrast between their present nature and future destination. What is now distinctly separated from the holy, [Pg 459] then become holiness, ???.

From 2 Kings xxiii. it appears, moreover, that the fields of Kidron were unclean. It was thither as to an unclean place, that Josiah caused all the abominations of idolatry to be carried, and to be burnt; comp.

ver. 4 (Josiah commanded all the vessels which had been made to Baal and Ashera to be brought forth out of the temple): "And he burned them _without Jerusalem_ in the fields of Kidron." Ver. 6: "And he brought out the Ashera out of the house of the Lord, _without Jerusalem_, unto the brook Kidron, and he burned them in the valley of Kidron.... And cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people."

These last words (the children of the people = the mob, high and low, who had polluted themselves by idolatry, comp. 2 Chron. x.x.xiv. 4: "And he strewed the dust upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto them") enable us perhaps to conjecture the cause of the uncleanness of these fields. They served as a burying ground to the adherents of the wors.h.i.+p of Moloch, who were anxious to rest in the neighbourhood of their idol, which dwelt in the neighbouring Tophet; and this is the more easily accounted for, that it is very probable that the sacrifices offered up to the idol were, in a great measure, sacrifices offered for the dead.--??? ????? refers to every thing mentioned in the verse before us. As regards the last words, comp. Remarks on Zech. xiv. 11.

[Footnote 1: The person of the Messiah meets us as the living centre of the salvation in ver. 9: "And they serve the Lord their G.o.d, and David their King, whom I will raise up unto them;" on which words _Jonathan_ remarks: "And the Messiah the Son of David;" and _Abarbanel_: "This is King Messiah, who is of the house of David, and is therefore called by his name." From the parallel pa.s.sages, Hos. iii. 5; Is. lv. 3, our pa.s.sage differs in this, that David here does not, as in those pa.s.sages, designate the family of David which centres in Christ, but the person of the Messiah. The commentary is furnished by chap. xxiii.

5: "I raise unto David a righteous Sprout." The circ.u.mstance, that it is not the Sprout of David, but David, that is spoken of here, is explained from a reference to the words which the ten tribes spoke at their rebellion, 1 Kings xii. 16: "We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the Son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel." To the person of the Messiah the Prophet reverts once more towards the close also: "And their glorious one shall be out of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them (compare Mic. v. 1, 2, [2, 3]), and I cause him to draw near, and he approacheth unto me; for who is surety for his heart to approach unto me, saith the Lord?"

G.o.d himself receives the King of the Future into the closest communion with Him,--"I and the Father are one"--a communion which no one can usurp by his own power, and which, in the case of the former kings, even in that of David, was frequently disturbed by their sinful weakness.]

[Footnote 2: _Hofmann_ (_Weiss. u. Erf._ 1 S. 138) a.s.signs to the phrase the meaning: "to make an arrangement." But decisive against this is not only the derivation, (comp. _Gesenius Thesaurus_), but the circ.u.mstance also, that it is almost exclusively and quite manifestly used of a relation resting on reciprocity, of the making of a covenant in the ordinary sense; and that the few instances where there is apparently a reference to one party, form an exception only to the rule.]

[Footnote 3: Even the most recent interpreters, who take ??? _sensu malo_, still greatly differ,--a proof that this interpretation has a very insufficient foundation on which to rest. _Gesenius_, _De Wette_, _Bleek_ (on Heb. viii. 9), retain the explanation by _fastidire_, _rejicere_; _Maurer_ translates: _dominarer_, _domini partes sustinerem_, contrasting tyrannical dominion with a relation of love; _Ewald_: "Seeing that I am her master and protector;" _Hitzig_: "And I got possession of her." All these interpretations are opposed by the _usus loquendi_, according to which ??? has only the two significations: "to possess," and "to take for a wife," the latter being the ordinary and prevailing one.]

[Footnote 4: Not less than these, _Hitzig_ too has allowed himself to be carried away by the appearance. He says: "Then, indeed, the office of religious instructors must cease."]

[Footnote 5: According to _Krafft_ (_sur Topographie Jerus._ S. 158), it is only the hill Bezetha which, by the third wall of Agrippa, was added to the town, that can correspond to the situation of Gareb.]

[Footnote 6: _Thenius_, in the appendix to the Commentary on the Books of Kings, S. 24, remarks: "?? does not, in any of the dialects, denote the natural hill of rocks, but merely stones heaped up." Hence, the hill would be an artificial hill for the execution of criminals.

(Compare the German word _Rabenstein_, lit. "raven-stone," for: place of execution.)]

[Footnote 7: This objection would be removed if, following _Thenius_ and _Krafft_, S. 158, we were to explain the name from the form of the hill, which is that of a skull. But _none_ of the Evangelists at least have advanced this explanation. The fact that three of them add the Greek explanation to the name (Matt. xxvii. 33; Mark xv. 22; John xix.

17), and one translated it into Greek (Luke xxiii. 33) shows that it stood in connection with the event in question. But this circ.u.mstance is quite decisive, that three Evangelists explain it by ??a???? t?p??, "place of a skull."]

[Footnote 8: Compare the Book _Kosri_, p. 72. _Buxtorff_ says: "Gehenna was a well-known place near Jerusalem, viz., a valley in which the fire was never extinguished, and where unclean bones, carca.s.ses, and other unclean things, were burned."]

CHAPTER x.x.xIII. 14-26.

Still before the destruction, but in the view of it, the Prophet, while in the outer court of the prison, was favoured with the revelation contained in chap. x.x.xii., and with that revelation of which our section forms a portion. It may appear strange that, in the introduction, the revelation of great things. .h.i.therto unknown to him is promised to the Prophet, and which he is told to seek by calling unto the Lord; while, after all, the subsequent prophecy contains scarcely any prominent, peculiar feature. But this is easily explained, when we take into consideration that, throughout Scripture, dead [Pg 460]

knowledge is not regarded as knowledge; that the hope of restoration had, in the natural man, in the Prophet as well as in all believers, an enemy that strove to darken and extinguish it; that, therefore, the promise of restoration was ever new, and the word of G.o.d always great and exalted. In the first part of the revelation, after the destruction had been represented as unavoidable, and all human hope had been cut oft, the restoration is described more in general terms. In the second part, the Lord meets a two-fold special grief of the believers. The time was approaching when the house of David was to be most deeply humbled, when every trace of its former glory was to be done away with.

With it, the hopes of the people seem to be buried. G.o.d himself had declared this house to be the medium, through which all the mercies were to come, which He, as the King, had promised to bestow upon His people. But what was to become of the mercies, if the channel was destroyed, through which they were to be bestowed upon the people? The temple which, through the guilt of the people, had been changed into a den of robbers, was to be destroyed. But, with the existence of the temple, the existence of the Levitical priesthood was bound up, and if the latter was done away with, how was to be obtained forgiveness of sins, which, in the Law, had been connected with the mediation of the Levitical priesthood? These fears and cares the Lord now meets by declaring that, in both respects, the peris.h.i.+ng would be an arising, that life should arise from death.

The genuineness of this section has been a.s.sailed by _Jahn_ (_Vaticinia Mess._ iii. p. 112, ff.[1]), after the example of _J. D.

Michaelis_, who, in the German translation of the Bible, inclosed it within brackets. For the present, we mention only the internal reason--deferring the refutation till we come to the exposition of particulars--because we require it in order to set aside the external reason. Jahn, p. 121, sums it up in these words: "The matter stands in opposition to all the prophecies of Jeremiah and all the other Prophets. For all of them limit themselves to the one David who was to come [Pg 461] after the captivity, and do not mention any successor to him, far less such a mult.i.tude of descendants of David and of Levites, which is promised to the people under the name of a blessing, but which would, in reality, have been a very heavy burden to the people, at whose expense they were to be splendidly maintained." The external reason is the omission of the section in the Alexandrian version.

Proceeding upon the altogether gratuitous a.s.sumption of a double recension of the prophecies of Jeremiah, people imagine that, by the omission in the Alexandrian version, they are ent.i.tled to suppose that, in that recension which the LXX. followed, this section was not contained. But the arguments are most unsatisfactory, by which the attempt is made to establish that many portions, not translated by the LXX., were not found by them in their ma.n.u.scripts. Where there notoriously prevail negligence, ignorance, arbitrariness, entire want of a clear conception of the task of a translator, those inferences are out of place which suppose just the opposite of all these (comp.

_e.g._, the inferences in _Jahn_, S. 116 ff.) Although we cannot sometimes discover and state the reason which induced the LXX. to make any omission, in case that that which was omitted was really in the text, what is it that is thereby proved? Could we, _a priori_, expect anything else, since we are on the territory of accident and whim? It is quite sufficient that in a mult.i.tude of pa.s.sages we can point out the most insufficient reasons which induced them to make omissions, alterations, transpositions; for it is just these which show that we are in the territory of accident and whim, where it is unreasonable every where to expect reasons. Now, to these pa.s.sages, that before us likewise belongs; so that, even supposing that the ground of the deviation sometimes lies in a different recension, our pa.s.sage cannot be regarded as belonging to this cla.s.s; and, hence, from its omission, nothing can be inferred against its genuineness. A twofold reason here presents itself, which may have induced them to the omission: 1.

Important elements of the prophecy under consideration have already occurred, vers. 15, 16, almost _verbatim_, in chap. xxiii. 3, 6; vers.

20-25, as regards the thought, altogether, and as regards the words, partly agree with chap. x.x.xi. 35-37; and it is certain that the LXX.

often omitted [Pg 462] that which had occurred previously, because they were unable to perceive the deeper meaning of the repet.i.tion, and transferred their own ignorance to the Prophet. 2. In that which was peculiar to the pa.s.sage before us, it was just the princ.i.p.al thought--the same which _J. D. Michaelis_ and _Jahn_ advance against the genuineness--which must have been most objectionable to the LXX., who were incapable of perceiving the deeper meaning. An increase of the Levites and of the family of David as the stare of the heavens and the sand of the sea, is a thought of which the Prophet must be freed, whether he entertained it or not. The omission in the Alexandrian version, therefore, does not prove any thing, except that even 2000 years before _J. D. Michaelis_, _Jahn_, _Hitzig_, and _Movers_, there were men who were as little able to understand the text as these expositors.

Ver. 14. "_Behold days come, saith the Lord, and I perform the good word which I leave spoken unto the house of Israel, and concerning the house of Judah._"

The "good word" may, in a more general way, be understood of all the gracious promises of G.o.d to Israel, in contrast to the evil word, the threatenings which hitherto had been fulfilled upon Israel; comp. 1 Kings viii. 56, where Solomon, in the prayer at the consecration of the temple, says: "Blessed be the Lord, that has given rest unto His people Israel, according to all which He spoke; there has not failed (the opposite of ???) one word of all His good word which He spoke through Moses His servant." In Deut. xxviii. the _good_ word and the _evil_ word are placed beside one another; and the former is blessed, from vers. 1-14; afterwards, the curse is declared. The centre and substance of this good word was the promise to David, through whose righteous Sprout all the promises to Israel should find their final fulfilment.

But we may also suppose that, by the "good word," the Prophet specially denotes this promise to David, which he had repeated in chap. xxiii. 5, 6. This latter supposition is preferable, since, in vers. 15, 16, that repet.i.tion of it is quoted, and ver. 17 contains an allusion to the fundamental promise. The change of ?? and ?? is significant; Judah is considered as the object of the proclamation of salvation, because salvation cometh from the Jews. The correctness of this view is proved by [Pg 463] vers. 15, 16, where that only is spoken of, which, in the first instance, belongs to Judah; so that Israel is only received into the communion of the salvation, in the first instance, destined for Judah.