Volume 2 — CHAPTER XXIII. 1-8.

CHAPTER XXIII. 1-8.

These verses form a portion only of a greater whole, to which, besides the whole of chap. xxii., chap. xxiii. 9-40 also belongs. For these verses contain a prophecy against the false prophets, and by the way also, against the degenerated priesthood (comp. ver. 11); and this prophecy easily unites itself with the preceding prophecy against the kings, so as to form one prophecy against the corrupt leaders of the people of God. But, for the exposition of the verses before us, it is only the connection with chap. xxii. which is of importance, and that so much so that, without carefully attending to it, they cannot at all be thoroughly understood. For this reason, we shall confine ourselves to bring it out more clearly.

The Prophet reproves and warns the kings of Judah, first, in general, announcing to them the judgments of the Lord upon them and their people,--the fulfilment of the threatenings, Deut. xxix. 22 ff.--if they are to continue in their hitherto ungodly course, chap. xxii. 1–9. In order to make a stronger impression, he then particularizes the general threatening, showing how God's recompensing justice manifests itself in the fate of the individual apostate kings. First, Jehoahaz is brought forward, the son and the immediate successor of Josiah, whom Pharaoh-Necho dethroned and carried with him to Egypt, vers. 10-12. The declaration concerning him forms a commentary on the name Shallum, i.e., the recompensed one, he whom the Lord recompenses according to his deeds,--which name the Prophet gives to him instead of the meaningless name Jehoahaz, i.e., God holds. His father, who met his death in the battle against the Egyptians, may be called happy when compared with him; for he never returns to his native land; he lives and dies in a foreign land. The next whom he brings forward is Jehoiakim, vers. 13–19. He is a despot who does every thing to ruin the people committed to him. There is, therefore, the most glaring contrast between his beautiful name and his miserable fate. The Lord, instead of raising him up, will cast him down to the lowest depth; not even an honourable burial is to be bestowed upon him. No one weeps or laments over him; like a trodden down carcass, he lies outside the gates of Jerusalem, the city of the great King, which he attempted to wrest from him, and make his own. Then follows a parenthetical digression, vers. 20–23. Apostate Judah is addressed. The judgment upon her kings is not one with which she has nothing to do, as little as their guilt belongs to them as individuals only. It is, at the same time a judgment upon the people which, by the Lord's anger which they have called forth by their wickedness, is thrown down into the depth, from the height on which the Lord's mercy had raised them.--Next follows Jehoiachin, vers. 24-30. In his name "The Lord will establish," the word will has no foundation; the Lord will reject him, cast him away, and break him in pieces like a worthless vessel. With his mother, he shall be carried away from his native land, and die in exile and captivity. Irrevocable is the Lord's decree, that none of his sons shall ascend the throne of David, so that he, having begotten children in vain, is to be esteemed as one who is childless.

At the commencement of the section under consideration (vers. 1 and 2), the contents of chap. xxii. are comprehended into one sentence. "Woe to the shepherds that destroy and scatter the flock of the Lord." Woe, then, to those shepherds who have done so. With this is then, in vers. 3–8, connected the announcement of salvation for the poor scattered flock. For the same reason, that the Lord visits upon those who have hitherto been their shepherds, the wickedness of their doings--viz., because of His being the chief Shepherd, or because of His covenant-faithfulness, He will in mercy remember them also, gather them from their dispersion, give, instead of the bad shepherds, a good one, viz., the long promised and longed for great descendant of David, who, being a righteous King, shall diffuse justice and righteousness in the land, and thus acquire for it righteousness and salvation from the Lord. So great shall the mercy of the Future be, that thereby the greatest mercy in the people's past history--their deliverance out of Egypt--shall be altogether cast into the shade.

There cannot be any doubt that the whole prophecy belongs to the reign of Jehoiakim; for the end of Jehoiakim and the fate of Jehoiachin are announced as future events.

Eichhorn asserts that this section was composed under Zedekiah; but he could do so only by proceeding from his erroneous fundamental view, that the prophecies are veiled descriptions of historical events. "When Jeremiah"--so he says--"delivered this discourse, Jehoiakim had not only already met his ignominious end (xxii. 19), but Jeconiah also was, with his mother, already carried away captive to Babylon." It is matter of astonishment that Dahler, without holding the same fundamental view, could yet adopt its result. He specially refers to the circumstance that, in ver. 24, Jehoiachin is addressed as king,--a circumstance by which Berthold also supports his view, who, cutting the knot, advances the position that vers. 1–19 belong to the reign of Jehoiakim, but vers. 20--xxxii. 8 to the time when Jehoiachin was carried away to Babylon. (Maurer and Hitzig too suppose that vers. 20 ff. were added at a later period, under the reign of Jehoiachin). But what difficulty is there in supposing that the Prophet transfers himself into the time, when he who is now a hereditary prince will be king,--of which the address is then a simple consequence? It is undeniable that a connection with chap. xxi. takes place, in which chapter Jeremiah announces to Zedekiah, threatened by the Chaldeans, the fall of the Davidic house, and the capture and destruction of the city. And this connection is to be accounted for by the fact that Jeremiah here connects with this announcement a former prophecy, in which, under the reign of Jehoiakim, he had foretold the fall of the Davidic house. The fate of the house of David is the subject common to both the discourses. Küper (Jeremias, libror. Sacror. interpres, p. 58), supposes that, in the message to Zedekiah, Jeremiah had, at that time, repeated his former announcement; but this supposition is opposed by the circumstance that, in chaps. xxii., xxiii., there is no trace of a reference to Zedekiah and his embassy. Ewald asserts that Jeremiah here only puts together what "perhaps" he had formerly spoken regarding the three kings; but the words in chap. xxii. 1: "Go down into the house of the king of Judah and speak there this word," is conclusive against this assertion. For, according to these words, we have here not something put together, but a discourse which was delivered at a distinct, definite time; although nothing prevents us from supposing that the going down was done in the Spirit only.

We have here still to make an investigation concerning the names of the three kings occurring in chap. xxii., the result of which is of importance for the exposition of ver. 5.--It cannot but appear strange that the same king who, in the Book of the Kings, is called Jehoahaz, is here called Shallum only; that the same who is there called Jehoiachin, has here the name of Jeconias, which is abbreviated into Conias. The current supposition is, that the two kings had two names each. But this supposition is unsatisfactory, because, by the context in which they stand, the names employed by Jeremiah too clearly appear as nomina realia, as new names given to them by which the contrast between the name and thing was to be removed, and hence are evidently of the same nature with the nomen reale of the good Shepherd in chap. xxiii. 6, which, with quite the same right, could have been changed into a nomen proprium in the proper sense, as has, indeed, been done by the LXX. The numerous passages in the prophets, where the name occurs as a designation of the nature and character, e.g., Is. ix. 5, lxii. 4; Jer. xxxiii. 16; Ezek. xlviii. 35, plainly show that a name which has merely a prophetical warrant (and such an one alone takes place here, although the name Shallum occurs also in 1 Chron. iii. 15 [in the historical representation itself, however, Jehoahaz is used in the Book of Kings, and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 1], and the name Jeconias likewise in 1 Chron. iii. 16, while Jehoiakim is found not only in the Book of Kings, but also in Ezek. i. 2; for it is quite possible that those later writers may have drawn from Jeremiah), cannot simply be considered as a nomen proprium; but, on the contrary, that there is a strong probability that it is not so. And this probability becomes certainty when that name occurs, either alone, as e.g., Shallum, or first, as Jeconiah, (which occurs again in chap. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20; the abbreviated Coniah in xxxvii. 1, while, which is well to be observed, we have in the historical account, chap. lii. 31, Jehoiachin) in a context, such as that under consideration; especially when this phenomenon occurs in a prophet such as Jeremiah, in whom, elsewhere also, many traces of holy wit, and even punning, can be pointed out.--With reference to the calamity which more and more threatened Judah, pious Josiah had given to his sons names, which announced salvation. According to his wish, these names should be as many actual prophecies, and would, indeed, have proved themselves to be such, unless they who bore them had made them of no avail by their apostacy from the Lord, and had thus brought about the most glaring contrast between idea and reality. That comes out first in the case of Jehoahaz. He whom the Lord should hold, was violently and irresistibly carried away to Egypt. The Prophet, therefore, calls him Shallum, i.e., the recompensed,--not retribution, as Hiller, Simonis, and Roediger think, nor retributor according to Fürst (comp. Ewald § 154d); the same who, in 1 Chron. v. 38, is called Shallum, is in 1 Chron. ix. 11, called Meshullam--he upon whom the Lord has visited the wickedness of his deeds.--As regards the name Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, we must, above all things, keep in view the relation of these names to the promise given to David. In 2 Sam. vii. 12 it is said: "And I cause to rise up (והקימתי) thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish (והכינתי) his kingdom." This passage contains the ground of both names; and this is the more easily explained, since both of them have one author, Jehoiakim. Even his former name Eliakim had probably been given to him by his father Josiah with a view to the promise. When Pharaoh, however, desired him to change his name--as the name itself shows, we cannot but supply, in 2 Kings xxiii. 31, such a request to a proposal which was afterwards approved of by Pharaoh--he performed that change in such a manner as to bring it into a still nearer relation to the promise, in which, not El, but Jehovah, is expressly mentioned as He who promised; and indeed the matter proceeded from Jehovah, the God of Israel. As, however, from the whole character of Jehoiakim, we cannot suppose that the twofold naming proceeded from true piety, nothing is more natural than to account for it from an opposition to the prophets. The centre of their announcements was formed by the impending calamity from the North, and the decline of the Davidic family. The promise given to David shall indeed be fulfilled in the Messiah; but not till after a previous deep abasement. Jehoiakim mocking at these threatenings, means to transfer the salvation from the future into the present. In his own name, and that of his son, he presented a standing protest to the prophetic announcement; and this protest could not but call forth a counter-protest, which we find expressed in the prophecy under consideration. The Prophet first overthrows the false interpretation: Jehoiakim is not Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin is not Jehoiachin, chap. xxii.; he then restores the right interpretation: the true Jehoiakim is, and remains, the Messiah, chap. xxiii. 5. As regards the first point, he. in the case of Jehoiakim, contents himself with the actual contrast, and omits to substitute a truly significant name for the usurped one, which may most easily be accounted for from the circumstance, that he thought it to be unsuitable to exercise any kind of wit, even holy wit, against the then reigning king. But the case is different with regard to Jehoiachin. The first change of the name into Jeconiah has its cause not in itself; the two names have quite the same meaning; it had respect to the second change into Coniah only. In Jeconiah we have the Future; and this is put first, in order that, by cutting off the י, the sign of the Future, he might cut off hope; a Jeconiah without the י says only God establishes, but not that He will establish. In reference to these names, Grotius came near the truth; but he erred in the nearer determination, because he did not see the true state of the matter; so that, according to him, it amounts to a mere play: "The Jod," he says, "with which the name begins, is taken away, to intimate that his head shall be diminished; and a Vav is added at the end as a sign of contempt, q.d. that Coniah!" Lightfoot comes nearer to the truth; yet even he was not able to gain assent to it (compare against him Hiller and Simonis who thought his views scarcely worth refuting), because he took an one-sided view. He remarks (Harmon. p. 275): "By taking away the first syllable, God intimated that He would not establish to the progeny of Solomon the uninterrupted government and royal dignity, as Jehoiakim, by giving that name to his son, seems to have expected." Besides these two, compare farther, Alting, de Cabbala sacra § 73.

In conclusion, we must still direct attention to chap. xx. 3. Who, indeed, could infer from that passage, that, by way of change, Pashur was called also Magor-Missabib?

Chap. xxiii. 1. "Woe to shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord."

It must be well observed that רֹעִים is here without the article, but, in ver. 2, with it. Venema remarks on this: "A general woe upon bad shepherds is premised, which is soon applied to the shepherds of Judah, q.d., since Jehovah has denounced a woe upon all bad shepherds, therefore ye bad shepherds," &c. By the "shepherds," several interpreters would understand only the false prophets and priests. Others would at least have them thought of, along with the kings. This view has exercised an injurious influence upon the understanding of the subsequent Messianic announcement, inasmuch as it occasioned the introduction into it of features which are altogether foreign to it. It is only when it is perceived, that the bad shepherds refer to the kings exclusively, that it is seen that, in the description of the good Shepherd, that only is applicable which has reference to Him as a King. But the very circumstance that, according to a correct interpretation, nothing else is found in this description, is a sufficient proof that, by the bad shepherds, the kings only can be understood. But all doubt is removed when we consider the close connection of the verses under consideration with chap. xxii. In commenting upon chap. iii. 15, we saw that, ordinarily, rulers only are designated by the shepherds; compare, farther, chap. xxv. 34-36, and the imitation and first interpretation of the passage under review by Ezekiel, in chap. xxxiv. Ps. lxxviii. 70, 71: "He chose David his servant, and took him from the sheep-folds. He took him from behind the ewes to feed Jacob, His people, and Israel, His inheritance," shows that a typical interpretation of the former circumstances of David lies at the foundation of this usus loquendi; compare Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24: "And I raise over them one Shepherd, and he feedeth them, my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd."--What is to be understood by the destroying and scattering, must be determined partly from ver. 3 and vers. 13 ff. of the preceding chapter; partly from ver. 3 of the chapter before us. The former passages show that the acts of violence of the kings, their oppressions and extortions, come here into consideration (compare Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 3: "Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed, &c., and with force and with cruelty ye rule them"), while the latter passage shows that it is chiefly the heaviest guilt of the kings which comes into consideration, viz., all that by which they became the cause of the people's being carried away into captivity. To this belonged, besides their foolish political counsels, which were based upon ungodliness (comp. chap. x. 21), the negative (Venema: "It was their duty to take care that the true religion, the spiritual food of the people, was rightly and properly exercised"), and positive promotion of ungodliness, and of immorality proceeding from it, by which the divine judgments were forcibly drawn down. It is in this contrast of idea and reality (Calvin: "It is a contradiction that the shepherd should be a destroyer"), that the woe has its foundation, and that the more, that it is pointed out that the flock, which they destroy and scatter, is God's flock. (Calvin: "God intimates that, by the unworthy scattering of the flock, an atrocious injury had been committed against himself") צאן מרעיתי must not be explained by: "the flock of my feeding," i.e., which I feed. For, wherever מרעית occurs by itself, it always has the signification "pasture," but never the signification pastio, pastus commonly assigned to it. This signification, which is quite in agreement with the form of the word, must therefore be retained in those passages also where it occurs in connection with צאן, when it always denotes the relation of Israel to God. Israel is called the flock of God's pasture, because He has given to them the fertile Canaan as their possession, compare my remarks on Ps. lxxiv. 1. It is, at first sight, strange that a guilt of the rulers only is spoken of, and not a guilt of the people; for every more searching consideration shows that both are inseparable from one another; that bad rulers proceed from the development of the nation, and are, at the same time, a punishment of its wickedness sent by God. But the fact is easily accounted for, if only we keep in mind that the Prophet had here to do with the kings only, and not with the people. To them it could not serve for an excuse that their wickedness was naturally connected with that of the people. This natural connection was not by any means a necessary one, as appears from the example of a Josiah, in whose case it was broken through by divine grace. Nor were they justified by the circumstance, that they were rods of chastisement in the hand of God. To this the Prophet himself alludes, by substituting, in ver. 3: "I have driven away," for "you have driven away," in ver. 2. All which they had to do, was to attend to their vocation and duty; the carrying out of God's counsels belonged to Him alone. From what we have remarked, it plainly follows that we would altogether misunderstand the expression "flock of my pasture," if we were to infer from it a contrast of the innocent people with the guilty kings. Calvin remarks: "In short, when God calls the Jews the flock of His pasture, He has no respect to their condition, or to what they have deserved, but rather commends His grace which He has bestowed upon the seed of Abraham." The kings have nothing to do with the moral condition of the people; they have to look only to God's covenant with them, which is for them a source of obligations so much the greater and more binding than the obligations of heathen kings, as Jehovah is more glorious than Elohim. The moral condition of the people does, to a certain degree, not even concern God; how bad soever it is, He looks to His covenant; and when more deeply viewed, even the outward scattering of the flock is a gathering.

Ver. 2. "Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel, against the shepherds that feed my people: Ye have scattered my flock and driven them away, and have not visited them; behold, I visit upon you the wickedness of your doings, saith the Lord."

In the designation of God as Jehovah the God of Israel, there is already implied that which afterwards is expressly said. Because God is Jehovah, the God of Israel, the crime of the kings is, at the same time, a sacrilegium; they have desecrated God. It was just here that it was necessary prominently to point out the fact, that the people still continued to be God's people. In another very important aspect, they were indeed called Lo-Ammi (Hos. i. 9); but that aspect did not here come into consideration. Calvin: "They had estranged themselves from God; and He too had, in His decree, already renounced them. But, in one respect, God might consider them as aliens, while, in respect to His covenant, He still acknowledged them as His, and hence He calls them His people."--The words "that feed my people," render the idea still more prominent and emphatic than the simple "the shepherds" would have done, and hence serve to make more glaring the contrast presented by the reality. The words "you have not visited them," seem, at first sight, since graver charges have been mentioned before, to be feeble. But that which they did, appears in its whole heinousness only by that which they did not, but which, according to their vocation, they ought to have done. This reference to their destination imparts the greatest severity to the apparently mild reproof Similar is Ezek. xxxiv. 3: "Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed, and ye feed not the flock." The visiting forms the general foundation of every single activity of the shepherd, so that the לא פקדתם comprehends within itself all that which Ezekiel particularly mentions in chap. xxxiv. 4: "The weak ye strengthen not, and the sick ye heal not, and the wounded ye bind not up, and the scattered ye bring not back, and the perishing ye seek not."--The words: "the wickedness of your doings," look back to Deut. xxviii. 20: "The Lord shall send upon thee curse, terror, and ruin in all thy undertakings, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly, because of the wickedness of thy doings, that thou hast forsaken me." The gentle allusion to that fearful threatening in that portion of the Pentateuch, which was the best known of all, was sufficient to make every one supplement from it that, which was there actually and expressly uttered. Such an allusion to that passage of Deuteronomy can be traced out, wherever the phrase רע מעללים occurs, which, in later times, had become obsolete; compare chap. iv. 4 and xxi. 12 (in both of these passages מפני, too, is introduced); Is. i. 16; Ps. xxviii. 4; Hos. ix. 15.

Ver. 3. "And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries whither I have driven them away, and I bring them back again to their folds, and they are fruitful and increase."

Compare chap. xxix. 14, xxxi. 8, 10; Ezek. xxxiv. 12, 13: "As a shepherd looketh after his flock in the day that he is in the midst of his flock, the scattered, so will I look after my flock, and I deliver them out of all the places, where they have been scattered in the day of clouds and of darkness. And I bring them out from the nations, and gather them from the countries, and bring them to their land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel, in the valleys, and in all the dwelling places of the land."--A spiritless clinging to the letter has, here too, led several interpreters to suppose, that the Prophet had here in view merely the return from the Babylonish captivity, and perhaps, also, the blessings of the times of the Maccabees, besides and in addition to it. Altogether apart from the consideration that, in that case, the fulfilment would very little correspond to the promise,--for, to the returning ones, Canaan was too little the land of God to allow of our seeing, in this return, the whole fulfilment of God's promise--we can, from the context, easily demonstrate the opposite. With the gathering and bringing back appears, in ver. 4, closely connected the raising of the good shepherds; and according to ver. 5, that promise is to find, if not its sole fulfilment, at all events its substance and centre, in the raising of David's righteous Branch, the Messiah. And from vers. 7, 8, it appears that it is here altogether inadmissible to suppose that these events will take place, one after the other. The particle לכן with which these verses begin, and which refers to the whole sum and substance of the preceding promises, shows that the bringing back from the captivity, and the raising of the Messiah, cannot, by any means, be separated from one another; and to the same result we are led by the contents of the two verses also. How indeed could it be said of the bodily bringing back from the captivity, that it would far outshine the former deliverance from Egypt, and would cause it to be altogether forgotten? The correct view was stated as early as by Calvin, who says: "There is no doubt that the Prophet has in view, in the first instance, the free return of the people; but Christ must not be separated from this blessing of the deliverance, for, otherwise, it would be difficult to show the fulfilment of this prophecy." The right of thus assuming a concurrent reference to Christ is afforded to us by the circumstance, that Canaan had such a high value for Israel, not because it was its fatherland in the lower sense, but because it was the land of God, the place where His glory dwelt. From this it follows that a bodily return was to the covenant-people of value, in so far only as God manifested himself as the God of the land. And since, before Christ, this was done in a manner very imperfect, as compared with what was implied in the idea, the value of such a return could not be otherwise than very subordinate. And in like manner, it follows from it, that the gathering and bringing back by Christ is included in the promise. For wherever God is, there is Canaan. Whether it be the old fold, or a new one, is surely of very little consequence, if only the good Shepherd be in the midst of His sheep. As a rule, such externalities lie without the compass of prophecy, which, having in view the substance, refers, as to the way of its manifestation, to history. Into what ridiculous assertions a false clinging to the letter may lead, appears from remarks such as those of Grotius on the second hemistich of the following verse: "They shall live in security under the powerful protection of the Persian kings."remnant only that the gathering is promised (compare Is. x. 22; Rom. ix. 27), points to the truth, that the divine mercy will be accompanied with justice. Calvin remarks on this point: "The Prophet again confirms what I formerly said, viz., mercy shall not be exercised until He has cleansed His Church of filthiness, so great and so horrid, in which she at that time abounded." One must beware of exchanging the Scriptural hope of a conversion of Israel on a large scale, in contrast to the small ἐκλογή at the time of Christ and the Apostles, for the hope of a general conversion in the strict sense. When considering the relation of God to the free human nature, the latter is absolutely impossible. When consistently carried out, it necessarily leads to the doctrine of universal restoration. It is beyond doubt, that God wills that all men should be saved; and it would necessarily follow that all men could be saved, if all the members of one nation could be saved. There is no word of Scripture in favour of it, except the πᾶς in Paul, which must just be interpreted and qualified by the contrast to the small ἐκλογή, while there are opposed to it a number of declarations of Scripture,--especially all those passages of the prophets where, to the remnant, to the escaped ones of Israel only, salvation is promised. And, besides the Word of God, there are opposed to it His deeds also,--especially the great typical prefiguration of things spiritual by things external at the deliverance of the people from Egypt, when the remnant only came to Canaan, while the bodies of thousands fell in the wilderness; and no less at the deliverance from Babylon, when by far the greatest number preferred the temporary delight in sin to delight in the Lord in His land.

Ver. 4. "And I raise shepherds over them, and they feed them; and they shall fear no more, nor be terrified, neither be lost, saith the Lord."

Even here, the reference to 2 Sam. vii. 12, and to the name of Jehoiakim, is manifest, although, in the subsequent verse, it appears still more distinctly, compare p. 401. This reference also is a proof in favour of this prophecy's having been written under Jehoiakim. The reference was, at that time, easily understood by every one; even the slightest allusion was sufficient. This reference farther shows that Venema, and several others who preceded him in this view, are wrong in here thinking of the Maccabees. These are here quite out of the question, inasmuch as they were not descended from David. Besides the contrast between the people's apostacy and God's covenant-faithfulness, the Prophet evidently has still another in view, viz., that between the apostacy of the Davidic house, and God's faithfulness in the fulfilment of the promise given to David. The single apostate members of this family are destroyed, although, appropriating to themselves the promise, they, in their names, promise deliverance and salvation to themselves. But from the family itself, God's grace cannot depart; just because Jehovah is God, a true Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin must rise out of it. It thus appears that the Maccabees are here as little referred to as Ezra and Nehemiah, of whom Grotius thinks. Much stronger ground is there for thinking of Zerubbabel, for his appearance had really some reference to the promise to David, although as a weak type and prelude only of the true fulfilment, to which he occupies the same relation, as does the gathering from the Babylonish captivity to the gathering by Christ. If, after all, we wish to urge the Plural, we must not, by any means, sever our verse from ver. 5, and declare this to be the sense: first will I raise up to you shepherds; then, the Messiah. We must, in that case, following C. B. Michaelis, rather supplement: specially one, the Messiah. In none of Jeremiah's prophecies are there different stages and degrees in the salvation; everywhere he has in his view the whole in its completion. Where this is overlooked, the whole interpretation must necessarily take a wrong direction, as is most clearly seen in the case of Venema. But there is no reason at all for laying so much stress on the Plural. Every Plural may be used for designating the idea of the whole species; and this kind of designation was here so much the more obvious, that the bad species, with which the good is here contrasted, consisted of a series of individuals. With the bad pastoral office, the Prophet here first contrasts the good one; then he gives, in ver. 5, a more detailed description of the individual who is to represent the species, in whom the idea of the species is to be completely realised. The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the comparison of the parallel passage in chap. xxxiii. 15, which, almost verbatim, agrees with that under consideration, and in which only one descendant of David, viz., the Messiah, is spoken of And that is quite natural; for, in that passage, there is no antithesis to the bad shepherds, which was the cause that here, at first, the species was made prominent. And another confirmation is afforded by Ezek. xxxiv. With him, too, one good shepherd is mentioned in contrast with the bad shepherds.--The words: "And they feed them" stand in contrast to "Who feed my people," in ver. 2. The shepherds mentioned in ver. 2 ought to feed the flock; but, instead of doing that, they feed themselves (compare Ezek. xxxiv. 2); the shepherds, however, mentioned in our verse, really feed. The former are shepherds in name only, but, in reality, wolves; the latter are shepherds, both in name and reality. פקד must be taken in the signification "to be missing," "lacking." (Compare the Remarks on chap. iii. 16.) There is an allusion to לא פקדתם in ver. 2. Because the bad shepherd does not visit, the sheep are not sought, q.d., they are lost; but those who did not visit, are now, in a very disagreeable manner, visited by God (פקד עליכם); the good shepherd visits, and, therefore, the sheep need not be sought. The clause: "They shall fear no more, nor be terrified," receives its explanation from Ezek. xxxiv. 8: "Because my flock are a prey, and meat to every beast of the field, because they have no shepherd, and because my shepherds do not concern themselves with the flock."

Ver. 5. "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I raise unto David a righteous Branch, and He ruleth as a King, and acteth wisely, and worketh justice and righteousness in the land."

The expression: "Behold the days come," according to the constant usus loquendi of Jeremiah, does not designate a progress in time, in reference to what precedes, but only directs attention to the greatness of that which is to be announced. It contains, at the same time, an allusion to the contrast presented by the visible state of things, which affords no ground for such a thing. How dark soever the present state of things may be, the time is still coming; although the heart may loudly say. No, the word of God must be more certain. Concerning צמח, compare Isa. iv. 2, and the passages of Zechariah there quoted, צדיק stands here in the same signification as in Zech. ix. 9,--different from that which it has in Isa. liii. 11. In the latter passage, where the Servant of God is described as the High Priest and sin-offering. His righteousness comes into consideration as the fundamental condition of justification; here, where He appears as King only,--as the cause of the diffusion of justice and righteousness in the land. That there is implied in this a contrast to the former kings, was pointed out as early as by Abarbanel: "He shall not be an unrighteous seed, such as Jehoiakim and his son, but a righteous one." Calvin also points out "the obvious antithesis between Christ and so many false, and, as it were, adulterous sons. For we know for certain that He alone was the righteous seed of David; for although Hezekiah and Josiah were legitimate successors, yet, when we look to others, they were, as it were, monsters. Except three or four, all the rest were degenerate and covenant-breakers." The words: "I raise unto David a righteous Branch" are here, as well as in chap. xxxiii. 15, not by any means equivalent to: a righteous Branch of David. On the contrary, David is designated as he to whom the act of raising belongs, for whose sake it is undertaken. God has promised to him the eternal dominion of his house. How much soever, therefore, the members of this family may sin against the Lord,--how unworthy soever the people may be to be governed by a righteous Branch of David, God, as surely as He is God, must raise Him for the sake of David. The word מֶלֶךְ must not be overlooked. It shows that מָלַךְ, which, standing by itself, may designate also another government than by a king, such as, e.g., that of Zerubbabel, is to be taken in its full sense. And this qualification was so much the more necessary, that the deepest abasement of the house of David, announced by the Prophet in chap. xxii., compare especially ver. 30, was approaching, and that thereby every hope of its rising to complete prosperity seemed to be set aside. Since, therefore, the faith in this event rested merely on the word, it was necessary that the word should be as distinct as possible, in order that no one might pervert, or explain it away. Calvin remarks: "He shall rule as a King, i.e., He shall rule gloriously; so that there do not merely appear some relics of former glory, but that He flourish and be powerful as a King, and attain to a perfection, such as existed under David and Solomon; and even much more excellent."--As regards השכיל, we have already, in our remarks on chap. iii. 15, proved that it never and nowhere means "to prosper," "to be prosperous," but always "to act wisely." It has been shown by Calvin that even the context here requires the latter signification. He says: "The Prophet seems here rather to speak of right judgment than of prosperity and success; for we must read this in connexion with one another: He shall act wisely, and then work justice and righteousness. He shall be endowed with the spirit of wisdom, as well as of justice and righteousness; so that he shall perform all the offices and duties of a king." Yet Calvin has not exhausted the arguments which may be derived from the context. The whole verse before us treats of the endowments of the King; the whole succeeding one, of the prosperity which, by these endowments, is imparted to the people. To this may still be added the evident contrast to the folly of the former shepherds, which was the consequence of their wickedness, and which, in the preceding chapter, had been described as the cause of their own, and the people's destruction; compare chap. x. 21: "For the shepherds are become brutish, and do not seek the Lord; therefore they do not act wisely, and their whole flock is scattered." But if here the signification "to act wisely" be established, then it is also in all those passages where השכיל is used of David; compare remarks on chap. iii. For the fact, that the Prophet has in view these passages, and that, according to him, the reign of David is, in a more glorious manner, to be revived in his righteous Branch, appears from the circumstance that every thing else has its foundation in the description of David's reign, in the books of Samuel. Thus the words: "And he ruleth as a king, and worketh justice and righteousness in the land," refer back to 2 Sam. viii. 15: "And David reigned over all Israel, and David wrought justice and righteousness unto all his people." The foundation of the announcement of ver. 6 is formed by 2 Sam. viii. 14 (compare ver. 6): "And the Lord gave prosperity (ויושע) to David in all his ways." But if השכיל, wherever it occurs of David, must be taken in this sense, then the LXX. are right also in translating Is. lii. 13 by συνήσει: for, in that passage, just as in the verse under consideration, David is referred to as the type of the Messiah. The phrase עשה משפט וצדקה is by De Wette commonly translated: "to exercise justice and righteousness." But the circumstance that, in Ps. cxlvi. 7, he is obliged to give up this translation, proves that it is wrong. עשה must rather be explained by "to work," "to establish." משפט is here, as everywhere else, the objective right and justice; צדקה, the subjective righteousness. The working of justice is the means by which righteousness is wrought. The forced dominion of justice is necessarily followed by the voluntary, just as the judgments of God, by means of which He is sanctified upon mankind, are, at the same time, the means by which He is sanctified in them. The high vocation of the King to work justice and righteousness rests upon His dignity, as the bearer of God's image; comp. Ps. cxlvi. 7; chap. ix. 23: "For I the Lord work love, justice, and righteousness in the land." Chap. xxii. 15 is, moreover, to be compared, where it is said of Josiah, the true descendant of David, "he wrought justice and righteousness," and chap. xxii. 3, where his spurious descendants are admonished: "Work justice and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, and do not oppress the stranger; the fatherless and the widow do not wrong, neither shed innocent blood in this place." Farther, still, is the progress to be observed: the King is righteous, his righteousness passeth over from him to the subjects; then follows salvation and righteousness from the Lord.--To explanations, such as that of Grotius, who, by the righteous Branch, understands Zerubbabel, we here need the less to pay any attention, that the fact of his being in this without predecessors or followers palpably proves it to be erroneous. If, indeed, we could rely on Theodoret's statement ("The blinded Jews endeavour, with great impudence, to refer this to Zerubbabel"--then follows the refutation), the older Jews must have led the way to this perverted interpretation. But we cannot implicitly rely on Theodoret's statements of this kind. In the Jewish writings themselves, not the slightest trace of such an interpretation is to be found. The Chaldean Paraphrast is decidedly in favour of the Messianic interpretation: אתן אמר יי ואקים הא יומיא לדוד משיח דצדקה "Behold the days shall come, and I will raise up to David the righteous Messiah, (not דצדקיא 'the Messiah of the righteous,' as many absurdly read), saith the Lord." Eusebius (compare Le Moyne, de Jehova justitia nostra, p. 23), it is true, refutes the interpretation which refers it to Joshua, the son of Josedech; but we are not entitled to infer from this circumstance, that this view found supporters in his time. His intention is merely to guard against the erroneous interpretation of Ἰωσεδέκ of the following verse in the Alexandrian version (καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, ὃ καλέσει αὐτὸν κύριος, Ἰωσεδέκ). It can scarcely be imagined that the translators themselves proceeded from this erroneous view. For Josedech, the father of Joshua the high-priest, is a person altogether obscure. All which they intended, by their retaining the Hebrew form, was certainly only the wish, to express that it was a nomen proprium which occurred here; and they were specially induced to act thus by the circumstance, that this name was, in their time, generally current, as one of the proper names of the Messiah.

Ver. 6. "And in His days Judah is endowed with salvation, and Israel dwelleth safely; and this is the name whereby they shall call him: The Lord our righteousness."

It has already been pointed out that the first words here look back to David. That which Jeremiah here expresses by several words, Zechariah expresses more briefly, by calling the Sprout of David צדיק ונושע "righteous, and protected by God." It makes no difference that, in that passage, the salvation, the inseparable concomitant of righteousness, is ascribed to the King, its possessor; while, here, it is ascribed to the people. For, in that passage, too, it is for his subjects that salvation is attributed to the King who comes for Zion, just as he is righteous for Zion also. Israel must here be taken either in the restricted sense, or in the widest, either as the ten tribes alone, or as the ten tribes along with Judah. It is a favourite thought of Jeremiah, which recurs in all his Messianic prophecies, that the ten tribes are to partake in the future prosperity and salvation. He has a true tenderness for Israel; his bowels roar when he remembers them, who were already, for so long a time, forsaken and rejected. His lively hope for Israel is a great testimony of his lively faith. For, in the case of Israel, the visible state of things afforded still less ground for hope than in the case of Judah. There is here an allusion to Deut. xxxiii. 28: ("And He thrusteth out thine enemy from before thee, and saith: Destroy") "And Israel dwelleth in safety (וישכן ישראל בטח), alone, Jacob looketh upon a land of corn and wine, and his heavens drop dew." There can be the less doubt of the existence of this allusion, that this expression occurs, besides in Deuteronomy, and in the verse under consideration, only once more in chap. xxxiii. 16,--that a reference to the majestic close of the blessing of Moses, which certainly was in the hearts and mouths of all the pious, was very natural, and that the word תושע has there its analogy in ver. 29: "Happy art thou, O Israel, who is like unto thee, a people saved (נֹושַׁע) by the Lord, the shield of thy help, thy proud sword; and thine enemies flatter thee, and thou treadest upon their high places." This glorious destination of the covenant-people, which, hitherto, had been so imperfectly only realized (most perfectly under David, compare 2 Sam. viii. 6, 14), shall, under the reign of the Messiah, be carried out in such a manner that idea and reality shall fully coincide. The covenant-people is to appear in its full dignity.--In the second hemistich of the verse, the reading requires first to be established. Instead of the reading יִקְרְאוֹ which is found in the text, and which is the third pers. Sing. with the Suffix, several MSS. (compare De Rossi), have the third pers. Plur. יִקְרְאוּ. Several controversial writers, such as Raim. Martini, Pug. Fid. p. 517, and Galatinus, iii. 9, p. 126, (The Jews of our time assert that here Jeremiah did not say "they shall call," יִקְרְאוּ, as we read it, but "he shall call him," יִקְרְאוֹ; and they declare this to be the sense: "This is the name of Him who shall call him, viz., the Messiah: Our righteous God,") declare the latter to be unconditionally correct, and assert that the other had originated from an intentional Jewish corruption, got up for the purpose of setting aside the divinity of the Messiah, which, to them, was so offensive. This allegation, however, is certainly unfounded. It is true, that some Jewish interpreters availed themselves of the reading יִקְרְאוֹ for the purpose stated. Thus Rabbi Saadias Haggaon, according to Abenezra and Manasseh Ben Israel, who explain: "And this is the name by which the Lord will call him: Our righteousness." But it by no means follows from this, that they invented the reading; it may have existed, and they only connected their perversion with it. That the latter was indeed the case, appears from the circumstance that by far the greater number of Jewish interpreters and controversialists rejected this perversion, because it was in opposition to the accents (compare especially Abenezra and Norzi on the passage), and acknowledged יהוה צדקנו to be the name of the Messiah. The reading יִקְרְאוּ must be unconditionally rejected, because it has by far the smallest external authority in its favour. It is true, that its supporters (comp. especially Schulze, vollst. Critik der gewöhnlichen Bibelausgaben, S. 321) have endeavoured to make up for its deficiency in manuscript authority, by appealing to the authority of the ancient translators, all of whom, with the sole exception of the Alexandrian version, according to them, express it. But this assertion is entirely without foundation. The vocabunt eum of Jonathan and the Vulgate is the correct translation of יִקְרְאוֹ. And when Jerome, in opposition to the Alex., remarks that, according to the Hebrew, the translation ought to be: Nomen ejus vocabunt, he does not contend against their use of the Singular per se, but only against their arbitrarily supplying "Jehovah" as the subject; against their explaining "The Lord shall call," instead of "one" shall call. The manner in which the false reading יִקְרְאוּ first arose, is clearly seen from the reasons by which its later defenders endeavour to support it; compare especially Schulze l. c. The chief argument is the erroneous supposition that the third Plur. only could be used impersonally. To this was farther added the use of the rarer Suffix וֹ instead of the common ־ֵהוּ--But from internal reasons, too, the reading יִקְרְאוּ is objectionable; the designation of the object of calling cannot be omitted.--There cannot be any doubt that we are not allowed to refer the Suffix in יִקְרְאוֹ to Israel, (Ewald: "And this is their name by which they call them,") but to the Messiah. For it is only in this case, that those who call, viz., Judah or Israel, the Members of the Church, are indirectly mentioned in the preceding words; and the Messiah is, in both verses, the chief person to whom all the other clauses refer. At all events, the then could not, in that case, have been omitted, as in this context every thing depends upon the connection of the salvation with the person of the King; and this connection must be clearly and distinctly expressed. We now come to יהוה צדקנו. Great difference of opinion prevails as to the explanation of these words. The better portion of the Jewish interpreters, indeed, likewise consider them as names of the Messiah, but not in such a manner that He is called "Jehovah," and then, in apposition to it, "Our righteousness," but rather in such a manner that יהוה צדקנו is an abbreviation of the whole sentence. Thus the Chaldean, who thus paraphrases: "And this is the name by which they shall call him: Righteousness will be bestowed upon us from the face of the Lord;" Kimchi, "Israel shall call the Messiah by this name: The Lord our righteousness, because at His time, the righteousness of the Lord will be to us firm, continuous, everlasting;" the ספר עקרים (in Le Moyne, p. 20): "Scripture calls the name of the Messiah: The Lord our righteousness, because He is the Mediator of God, and we obtain the righteousness of God by His ministry." Besides to chap. xxxiii. 16, they refer to passages such as Exod. xvii. 15, where Moses calls the altar "Jehovah my banner;" to Gen. xxxiii. 20, where Jacob calls it אל אלהי ישראל. Grotius follows these expositors, only that he dilutes the sense still more. The other Christian expositors, (the Vulgate excludes every other interpretation, even by its translation: Dominus justus noster) on the contrary, contend with all their might for the opinion, that the Messiah is here called Jehovah, and hence must be truly God. That which Dassov i. h. 1. remarks: "Since then the Messiah is called Jehovah, we have firm ground for inferring, that He is truly God, inasmuch as that name is peculiar and essential to the true God," is the argument common to all of them. Le Moyne wrote in defence of this explanation a whole book, which we have already quoted, but from which little is to be learned. Even Calvin, who elsewhere sometimes erred from an exaggerated dread of doctrinal prejudice, decidedly adopts it. He remarks: "Those who judge without prejudice and bitterness, easily see that that name belongs to Christ, in so far as He is God, just as the name of the Son of David is assigned to Him in reference to His human nature. To all those who are just and unprejudiced, it will be clear that Christ is here distinguished by a twofold attribute; so that the Prophet commends Him to us, both as regards the glory of His deity, and his true human nature." By righteousness he, too, understands justification through the merits of Christ, "for Christ is not righteous for himself, but received righteousness in order to communicate it to us" (1 Cor. i. 30). We have the following observations to make in reference to this exposition. 1. The principal mistake in it is this, that it has been overlooked that the Prophet here expresses the nature of the Messiah and of His time in the form of a nomen proprium. If the words were thus: "And this is Jehovah our righteousness," we should be fully entitled to take Jehovah as a personal designation of the Messiah. But in reference to a name, it is as common, as it is natural, to take from a whole sentence the principal words only, and to leave it to the reader or hearer to supply the rest. In the case of all naming, brevity is unavoidable, as is proved by the usual abbreviation of even those proper names which consist of one word only. The two cases mentioned by Kimchi will serve as instances. "Jehovah my Banner" is a concise expression for: "This altar is consecrated to Jehovah my Banner;" אל אלהי ישראל for: "This altar belongs to the Almighty, the God of Israel." A number of other instances might easily be quoted; one need only compare, in Hiller's and Simonis' Onomastica, the names which are compounded with Jehovah. Thus, e.g., Jehoshua, i.e., Jehovah salvation, is a concise expression for: Jehovah will grant me salvation; Jehoram, i.e., Jehovah altus, for: I am consecrated to the exalted God of Israel. Most perfectly analogous, however, is the name Zedekiah, i.e., the righteousness of the Lord, for: He under whose reign the Lord will grant righteousness to His people. This name, moreover, seems to refer directly to the prophecy before us. Just as Eliakim, by changing his name into Jehoiakim, intended to represent himself as he in whom the prophecy in 2 Sam. vii. would be fulfilled; so he who was formerly called Mattaniah changed, at the instance of Nebuchadnezzar (who had, indeed, no other object in view than that, as a sign of his supremacy, his name should be different from that by which he was formerly called, and who left the choice of the name to Mattaniah himself), his name into Zedekiah, imagining that in a manner so easy, he would become the Jehovah Zidkenu announced by Jeremiah, and longed for by the people. 2. The preceding argument only showed that there is nothing opposed to the exposition: He by whom and under whom Jehovah will be our righteousness. A positive proof, however, in favour of it is offered by the parallel passage, chap. xxxiii. 15, 16: "In those days and at that time will I cause a righteous Branch to grow up unto David; and He worketh justice and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely, and this is the name which they shall give to her: Jehovah our righteousness." Here Jehovah Zidkenu by no means appears as the name of the Messiah, but as that of Jerusalem in the Messianic time. In vain are all the attempts which have been made to set aside this troublesome argument. They only serve to show, that it cannot be invalidated. Le Moyne, "in order that no way of escape may be left to the enemies," brings forward, p. 298 ff., five different expedients among which the reader may choose. But their very difference is a plain sign of arbitrariness; and that appears still more clearly, when we begin to examine them individually. Several interpreters assume an enallage generis לה = לו, "and thus shall they call him." Le Moyne thinks that we need have no difficulty in assuming such an enallage. Others explain: "And he who shall call, i.e., invite her, is Jehovah our righteousness." A simple reference to the passage before us is decisive against it; the parallelism of the two passages is too close to admit of יקרא in the second passage being understood in a sense altogether different. By the same argument, the explanations by Hottinger (Thesaur. Philolog. p. 17l), and Dassov: "This shall come to pass when the Lord, the Lord our righteousness, shall call her," are also refuted, quite apart from the consideration, that אשר cannot by any means signify when. The most recent defender of the old orthodox view, Schmieder, cuts the knot by simply severing our passage from chap. xxxiii. 16–3. The ancient explanation, which refers צדקנו, "our righteousness," to the remission of sins, does not even correctly understand this word. It is true that the remission of sins is often represented as one of the chief blessings of the Messianic time; but here it is out of place. According to the context, it is actual justification, i.e., salvation according to another mode of viewing it, which is here spoken of (compare remarks on Mal. iii. 20). Righteousness in this sense implies, of course, the forgiveness of sins; but, besides, the righteousness of life is comprehended in it. 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 God, 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 which Jeremiah comprehends in the name Jehovah Zidkenu, Ezekiel, in the parallel passage, chap. xxxiv. 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 צדיק 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 וּמָלַךְ מֶלֶךְ וְהִשְׂכִּיל) 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 grass," 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 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 outshine 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 repetitions, which are any thing but vain repetitions; 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.--חי־יהוה "living (is) Jehovah," for: "As Jehovah liveth." It is quite natural that, when God 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 God 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 God, they said that the same God, who, in former times, had been the deliverer of His people, was still living, and His power undiminished."

CHAP. XXXI. 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 Rosenmüller, who assume 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 assert that a whole number of strange interpolations had been introduced into the text; compare Küper, Jerem. S. 170 ff.

With respect to the time of the composition, we must not allow ourselves to be deceived by the circumstance 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. xxxii. and xxxiii., 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. xxx. 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. xxx., 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 and I will be your God."^[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,--analogous 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 godly, and for those who are willing to become godly, the אחרית הימים. 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 repetition, 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 God is Jehovah, so surely His words will revive, as often as the circumstances again exist, to which they originally referred.

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. xxxi. 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 God," follow in an inverted order, the words: "At that time, saith the Lord, I will (specially) be the God 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 principal portion, belonged to the kingdom of the ten tribes; compare my commentary on Ps. lxxx. 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, the description returns, in vers. 27–40, to the whole from which it had proceeded, and is thus completely rounded off, especially by the circumstance 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 God, 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 assumes 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 principal portion, chap. xxxi. 31–40.

It is chap. xxxi. 22 only which we shall briefly explain, because that passage 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 compass 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 God." 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 גבר and נקבה are a designation of the sex; the fact that the woman brings forth the man (since גבר is asserted 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 God. But certainly not a whit better than this explanation is that which modern interpreters (Schnurrer, Gesenius, Rosenmüller, Maurer), have advanced in its stead: "The woman shall protect the man, shall perform for him the munus excubitoris circumeuntis." This, surely, is a "ridiculus 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 furnishing 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 God'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 God. 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 sexus 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 compass about (Ps. xxxii. 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 תסובב to תתחמקין, and to השובבה, 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.

The contents of the section, vers. 31–40, are as follows:--The Lord is far from punishing 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 God, and God will be truly their God, vers. 31–34. To the people conscious of their guilt, and still groaning under the judgments of God, such a manifestation of God's continuous grace appears incredible; but God most emphatically assures them, that this election is still in force, and must continue for ever, as truly as He is God, vers. 31–37. The city of God 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 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 Passover, we must, here also, take יום, "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 ברית "does not only signify a covenant entered upon by two or several parties, but also πρόθεσιν, propositum Dei, ἐπαγγελίας, His gratuitous and unconditional promises, as well as His constant ordinances?" That might after all be objectionable. כרת ברית 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 passages, 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 God and man. By every benefit from God, an obligation is imposed upon him who receives it, whether it may, in express words, have been stated by God, 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 God is founded upon the fact, that God 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 God, 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 passages commonly quoted in proof, that כרת ברית 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 God 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, circumcision. Exod. xxxiv. 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 in the mercies by which God will manifest himself to His people as their God. 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 God; for that is common to both the dispensations. No jot or tittle of it can be lost under the New Testament, and as little can a jot or tittle be added. God'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; λέγω δε--so the Apostle writes in Rom. xv. 8--Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων· τὰ δε ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν. The sending of Christ with His gifts and blessings, the making of the New Covenant, is thus the consequence of the covenant-faithfulness of God. If then the Old and New Covenants are here contrasted, the former cannot designate the relation of God 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 God 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: ἐν τῷ λέγειν· Καινὴν, πεπαλαίωκε τὴν πρώτην· τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον, ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ), is, in substance, the realization of the Old. These remarks are in perfect harmony with that which was formerly said concerning the meaning of כרת ברית. We saw that this expression does not designate an act only once done, by which a covenant is solemnly sanctioned, but rather that it is used of every action, by which a covenant-relation is instituted 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 circumstance, 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. xxxii. 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. The erroneous interpretation of אשר by "quia," which is found with most expositors, is of less consequence. אשר 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, אשר 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 בעלתי. By far the greater number of interpreters understand this sensu malo; the ancient interpreters in doing so refer to the words κᾳγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, (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 circumstance that, in determining the sense, these interpreters greatly vary. Some, referring to the Arabic, explain בעל 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 chastisement 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, ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, 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 געלתי, and Grotius, who would read ^[3] בהלתי. The signification "to betroth onesself," "to take in marriage," which in that passage we vindicated for בעל with ב, is, here too, quite applicable; comp. Jer. ii. 1. This signification the Chaldee Paraphrast too seems to have had in view; for he translates אתרעיתי "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: εἰ γὰρ ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη ἦν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος (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: μεμφόμενος γὰρ αὐτοῖς λέγει, in Heb. viii. 8, which by De Wette and Bleek are erroneously translated: "For reprovingly He says to them." The Dative αὐτοῖς belongs to μεμφόμενος (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 ἥτις ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται, 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 God, the greatness of His covenant-faithfulness which are pointed out; and this thought is, from among all others, best suited to the context. המה and אנכי form an emphatic contrast. They, in wicked ingratitude, have broken the former covenant, have shaken off the obligations which God's former mercies imposed upon them. God 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. xxxiv. 15, for instance, it is said: "And they go a whoring after their gods,"--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 God, and they shall be my people."

כי 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. ההם 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 באחרית הימים "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 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 כי, in ver. 34: "For I will forgive their sin," proves the correctness of this division, which is also pointed out by the Athnach.--תורה is, by many interpreters, here understood to signify "doctrine." Thus Buddeus: "By the word תורה, the whole New Testament doctrine is to be understood." This interpretation, however, is objectionable, and destructive of the sense, תורה never means "doctrine," but always "law;" and the fact that it is only the law of God, 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 constitution 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 God places it to man, ("lex cum homine conciliatur quasi," Michaelis.) One might easily infer from the passage 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, God 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 God was rare and dark; but that, under the Gospel, the gifts of the Spirit were poured out, and that God dealt much more liberally with His Church." The idea of a purely outward giving of the Law is indeed one which is quite inconceivable. God 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 of ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν. Every outward manifestation of God must, according to the constitution 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 God 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 God, 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, circumcision is designated as the pledge and seal of the bestowal, not merely of outward blessings, but of the circumcision of the heart, of the removal of sin attaching to every one by birth; so that man can love God with all his heart, all his sold, and all his powers, Deut. xxx. 6. This circumcision of the heart which, in the outward circumcision, was at the same time required and promised by God (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 God, and thy Law is in the midst of my bowels," 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 passage 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 passage, is applicable here also. But, in that passage, 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 God;" xxxii. 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, xxxvi. 26, 27.--The remarks of Jewish interpreters on the passage under consideration, in which they cannot avoid seeing that, in it, a purely moral revelation is prophesied, 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 passage Massechet 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 analogous 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,Grotius, who here explains: "I will cause that all of them keep my Law in memory,--in the first instance, by the multitude 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 God," &c., follow upon: "And I give my Law in their inward parts," &c. The Law is the expression of God's nature; it is only by the Law being written in the heart that man can become a partaker of God's nature; that His name can be sanctified in him. And it is this participation in the nature of God, this sanctification of God's name, which forms the foundation of: "I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Without this, the relation cannot exist at all, as truly as God 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 God, with His blessings and gifts, should 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, God had promised that He would be a God 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 God." In the consciousness that this promise was fulfilled in the time then present, David exclaims in Ps. xxxiii. 12: "Blessed is the nation whose God 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 God under the Old Testament dispensation would be changed into a mere semblance and illusion. But the small measure of the condition--with which even God 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 God, the personal Law--was necessarily accompanied by the small measure of the consequence, The perfect fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham and Israel, to which the prophet here alludes, could, therefore, be expected from the future only.